Combinable containers: A container innovation to save container fleet and empty container repositioning costs
可组合集装箱:一项集装箱创新,可节省集装箱船队和空箱重新定位成本

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.09.004 Get rights and content 获取权利和内容

Highlights 突出

  • Examines the viability of combinable containers for saving container related costs.
    检查可组合容器在节省容器相关成本方面的可行性。
  • The problem is modeled as a minimum cost multi-commodity network flow problem.
    该问题被建模为最低成本多商品网络流问题。
  • The model determines the container fleet size and empty container repositioning.
    该模型确定集装箱车队大小和空集装箱重新定位。
  • Mixed use of standard and combinable containers can save container related cost.
    标准集装箱和可组合集装箱的混合使用可以节省集装箱相关成本。

Abstract 抽象

Combinable containers can either be used as a standard 20 ft or in combined state as a 40 ft container by altering the dimensional to match the cargo size. This paper examines the viability of combinable containers for saving the container related costs. We present a model of a minimum cost multi-commodity network flow problem that can be used to simultaneously determine the fleet sizes of standard and combinable containers and their empty container allocation/repositioning. Based on numerical experiments, we discovered that mixed use of both types of containers can save a significant portion of container related cost.
可组合集装箱既可以作为标准的 20 英尺集装箱使用,也可以通过改变尺寸以匹配货物尺寸以组合状态用作 40 英尺集装箱。本文研究了可组合容器在节省容器相关成本方面的可行性。我们提出了一个最低成本多商品网络流问题模型,可用于同时确定标准集装箱和可组合集装箱的船队规模及其空箱分配/重新定位。基于数值实验,我们发现混合使用两种类型的容器可以节省很大一部分集装箱相关成本。

Keywords 关键字

Container transportation
Empty containers
Combinable containers
Container fleet sizing
Container fleet management

集装箱运输
空集装箱
可组合集装箱
集装箱车队规模
集装箱车队管理

1. Introduction 1. 引言

Global container movements have been growing exponentially over the last two decades. Therefore, shipping companies have been increasing investments in equipment assets such as vessels and containers. By doing so, they face unavoidable issue of empty container repositioning mainly due to an imbalance of export and import volume of trade between two regions involved in a specific trade lane. Basically, such unproductive resource utilization occurs not only at a global level, but also at a regional level.
在过去的二十年里,全球集装箱运输量呈指数级增长。因此,航运公司一直在增加对船舶和集装箱等设备资产的投资。这样做,他们不可避免地面临空箱重新定位的问题,这主要是由于涉及特定贸易航线的两个地区之间的进出口贸易量不平衡。基本上,这种非生产性资源利用不仅发生在全球层面,也发生在区域层面。
Such imbalances can have a more or less structural underpinning resulting from the entire world economy. The total annual cost of empty journeys is huge: about US$300 to 500 million for a mid-sized global shipping line, and US$15 to 20 billion for the whole shipping industry (Schlingmeier, 2016). Further, this cost accounts for about 20% of the total cost of a given shipping company (UNCTAD, 2011). Hence, an improvement of empty container management is one of the crucial decisions to be taken by shipping companies. Strategies of handling empty container management are predominantly focused on avoiding or reducing the inefficient empty journeys. Conversely, when a shipping line has a shortage of empty own containers to meet the cargo demands, containers are often leased for short term. However, options that can reduce the entire container capital and operational costs are less prominent.
这种失衡可能或多或少具有整个世界经济的结构性基础。空载旅程的年度总成本是巨大的:一家中型全球航运公司约为 300 至 5 亿美元,整个航运业约为 15 至 200 亿美元 Schlingmeier,2016 年)。此外,该成本约占特定航运公司总成本的 20%(UNCTAD,2011 年)。因此,改进空箱管理是航运公司要做出的关键决策之一。处理空箱管理的策略主要集中在避免或减少低效的空箱旅程。相反,当航运公司缺乏空集装箱来满足货物需求时,集装箱通常是短期租赁的。然而,可以减少整个集装箱资本和运营成本的选择并不那么突出。
With respect to the above insight, some container innovations have emerged over the last two decades such as foldable containers and combinable containers (hereafter referred to as FLDs and CMBs, respectively). These cutting-edge containers, which will be elaborately illustrated in Section 2, may enable the shipping companies to deploy fewer containers with less empty repositioning than in the case of using only standard dry containers (STDs) and subsequent utilization of a given transportation capacity of onboard and land storage spaces in a more cost-effective way. It is worth noting that this study excludes discussions of non-dry containers such as refrigerated and flat-rack containers which cannot be replaced with FLDs and CMBs. The latest container technology, the CMB, has not been extensively studied yet; however, there are several existing studies on FLDs.
就上述见解而言,过去二十年中出现了一些容器创新,例如可折叠容器和可组合容器(以下分别称为 FLD 和 CMB)。这些尖端集装箱将在第 2 节中详细说明,与仅使用标准干货集装箱 (STD) 相比,航运公司可以部署更少的集装箱,减少空箱重新定位,并随后以更具成本效益的方式利用船上和陆地存储空间的给定运输能力。值得注意的是,本研究不包括对非干货集装箱的讨论,例如冷藏集装箱和框架集装箱,这些集装箱不能用 FLD 和 CMB 代替。最新的容器技术 CMB 尚未得到广泛研究;然而,有几项关于 FLD 的现有研究。
In this study, we assume that a liner shipping company tries to ensure that CMBs work economically well in liner shipping networks before they will commit to investing in it. The purpose of this study is to provide managerial insights on how to handle CMBs in the perspective of container fleet sizing and empty container management. Thus, we evaluate the container fleet composition of CMBs and STDs, and the total cost associated with container fleet and empty container management by considering various trade imbalances and different cargo traffic trends. For this evaluation, we address a minimum cost multi-commodity network flow problem referred to as container fleet sizing and empty container management problem (CFSMP). The CFSMP can be used to simultaneously determine fleet sizes of STDs/CMBs and the empty container allocation/repositioning over the planning horizon; given a service route with a fixed schedule, a carrying capacity of a vessel, transportation demands between ports and other input parameters. By taking into consideration the structure of the problem, we applied an exact method (Gurobi solver) to obtain an optimal solution to CFSMP with a relatively small computational burden.
在这项研究中,我们假设一家班轮公司试图确保 CMB 在班轮运输网络中经济地运作良好,然后再承诺对其进行投资。本研究的目的是从集装箱船队规模和空箱管理的角度为如何处理 CMB 提供管理见解。因此,我们通过考虑各种贸易失衡和不同的货物运输趋势,评估 CMB 和 STD 的集装箱船队构成,以及与集装箱船队和空箱管理相关的总成本。在本次评估中,我们解决了一个最低成本的多商品网络流问题,称为集装箱船队规模和空箱管理问题 (CFSMP)。CFSMP 可用于同时确定 STD/CMB 的船队规模和规划期内的空箱分配/重新定位;给定具有固定时间表的服务路线、船舶的运载能力、港口之间的运输需求和其他输入参数。通过考虑问题的结构,我们应用了一种精确的方法(Gurobi 求解器)来获得 CFSMP 的最优解,计算负担相对较小。
For proper understanding of the background, we herein present tactical and operational disciplines of container business. Liner shipping companies currently face a wide variety of decision problems. First, at the strategic planning level, the fleet size and mix problem of container vessels, and the market and trade selection problem need to be solved. The former problem determines a vessel fleet composition associated with each vessel carrying capacity. The latter problem determines the location of liner shipping activities. At the tactical planning level, the shipping service network design, freight rates, and container fleet size have to be determined. Finally, at the operational planning level, shipping companies need to determine the cargo routing through the shipping network and empty container repositioning. This study focuses on related decisions at both tactical and operational planning levels.
为了正确理解背景,我们在此介绍集装箱业务的战术和运营纪律。班轮运输公司目前面临着各种各样的决策问题。首先,在战略规划层面,需要解决集装箱船的船队规模和混合问题,以及市场和贸易选择问题。前一个问题决定了与每艘船舶运载能力相关的船队组成。后一个问题决定了班轮运输活动的地点。在战术规划层面,必须确定航运服务网络设计、运费和集装箱船队规模。最后,在运营规划层面,航运公司需要确定货物通过航运网络的路线和空箱重新定位。本研究侧重于战术和运营规划层面的相关决策。
In general, an effective planning technique, not only tactical but also operational planning is needed. As stated above, for a container related business, the former planning addresses the container fleet sizing problem for tactical planning which determines the number of containers needed to meet cargo demands. However, the operational planning examines empty container management problem that deals with empty container repositioning to allocate own containers to new cargo shipments as well as short-term container leasing in case of empty container shortage. It is worth noting that most shipping companies also deploy a number of long-term lease containers; however, they are regarded as owned containers herein owing to container operational characteristics.
一般来说,需要一种有效的规划技术,不仅需要战术规划,还需要运营规划。如上所述,对于集装箱相关业务,前者规划解决了战术规划的集装箱船队规模问题,战术规划决定了满足货物需求所需的集装箱数量。然而,运营规划研究了空箱管理问题,该问题涉及空箱重新定位,以将自己的集装箱分配给新的货物运输,以及在空箱短缺的情况下进行短期集装箱租赁。值得注意的是,大多数航运公司还部署了一些长期租赁集装箱;但是,由于集装箱的运营特性,它们在本文中被视为自有集装箱。
Having a container fleet size, which a shipping company provides in large scale to surely meet their transportation need, would likely result in a small amount of empty repositioning. Conversely, a small size of container fleet can lead to frequent empty repositioning and/or a large number of short-term lease containers to meet up the empty container shortage. Such an interaction between tactical and operational planning spurs the shipping company to make these decisions in a simultaneous manner, rather than separately.
航运公司大规模提供集装箱船队规模,以肯定满足其运输需求,这可能会导致少量的空箱重新定位。相反,小规模的集装箱船队可能导致频繁的空集装箱重新定位和/或大量短期租赁集装箱来填补空集装箱短缺。战术和运营规划之间的这种互动促使航运公司同时做出这些决策,而不是单独做出这些决策。
Empty containers are supplied to the nearest ports of shippers’ sites to fulfill their transportation needs in the following two ways:
空箱供应给托运人所在地最近的港口,以以下两种方式满足他们的运输需求:
  • The first is to reposition the empty containers by vessels from excess ports to deficit ports with constraints on the carrying capacity of a vessel and the vessel’s voyage itinerary.
    首先是将船舶的空箱从过剩港口重新定位到亏损港口,限制船舶的运载能力和船舶的航程行程。
  • The second approach is to return the empty containers from consignees (importers) to ports after unloading. In addition, the shipping companies store the empty containers at the ports for the next shipments with constraints on the storage capacity of each port.
    第二种方法是将空集装箱卸货后从收货人(进口商)退回港口。此外,航运公司将空集装箱存放在港口,以备下次装运,每个港口的存储容量受到限制。
Further, an empty shortage as an undesired consequence even with these supply sources is to be covered by leasing containers from leasing companies over a short period.
此外,即使有这些供应来源,也要通过短期内从租赁公司租赁集装箱来弥补空缺。
Innovative containers such as the CMB (and the FLD as well) have emerged to reduce repositioning burden onboard and less empty storage space at ports. To elicit the cost saving performance of CMBs, we devote significant attention to variations in trade imbalances between two regions, because an extreme example of a complete balance in the needs for equipment types (i.e., 20 ft or 40 ft containers) in both directions and cargo lot size does not require innovative containers. Further, there are different trade imbalances that can lead to imbalanced needs for 20/40 ft containers in opposite directions between these regions. This paper aims to identify which imbalances in need for 20 ft and 40 ft containers can make the option of CMBs attractive to shipping companies.
CMB(以及 FLD)等创新集装箱已经出现,以减少船上重新定位的负担并减少港口的空存储空间。为了实现中式结算银行的成本节约,我们非常重视两个地区之间贸易不平衡的变化,因为在双向设备类型(即 20 英尺或 40 英尺集装箱)和货物数量之间实现完全平衡的极端例子不需要创新的集装箱。此外,存在不同的贸易不平衡,这可能导致这些地区之间对相反方向的 20/40 英尺集装箱的需求不平衡。本文旨在确定 20 英尺和 40 英尺集装箱所需的哪些不平衡可以使 CMB 的选择对航运公司具有吸引力。
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines the economic features of both FLDs and CMBs to clarify the motivation of this study. In Section 3, we present a review of the relevant literature. Section 4 presents the problem description and formulation. In Section 5, we present the numerical experiments conducted and respective results obtained. Finally, Section 6 presents the major conclusions of this study.
本文的其余部分组织如下:第 2 节概述了 FLD 和 CMB 的经济特征,以阐明本研究的动机。在第 3 节中,我们介绍了相关文献的综述。第 4 节介绍了问题描述和表述。在第 5 节中,我们介绍了进行的数值实验和获得的相应结果。最后,第 6 节介绍了本研究的主要结论。

2. Innovative containers 2. 创新容器

The FLDs were developed to save space for empty container repositioning onboard and storage on the land. They can be folded down when empty to appear like flat-rack containers. Further, folded containers can be piled up to four containers high to physically look like a single STD. This helps to save the repositioning time and storage costs.
FLD 的开发是为了节省空间,以便为空集装箱在船上重新定位和在陆地上存储。空时,它们可以向下折叠,看起来像平板集装箱。此外,折叠的容器可以堆积到四个容器高,在物理上看起来像一个 STD。这有助于节省重新定位时间和存储成本
In contrast, CMBs aim to reduce the amount of empty repositioning efforts. They practically work as an STD of 20 ft size. For a 20 ft size of cargo shipment, a single CMB can simply be used as it is; however, for a 40 ft shipment, two CMBs can be combined into one unit to create a 40 ft space without boundary as shown in Fig. 1. The entire 40 ft space can be physically achieved by lifting up the end wall at the combined side of each CMB and fixing it on the roof-ceiling. Thus, the CMBs can be allocated to shipments that either require 20 ft or 40 ft containers. This means more flexibility in the allocation of shipments. As a result, CMBs usually have to be repositioned at a short distance when allocating them to next shipments.
相比之下,CMB 旨在减少空体位的工作量。它们实际上用作 20 英尺大小的 STD。对于 20 英尺大小的货物,可以简单地按原样使用单个 CMB;但是,对于 40 英尺的货物,可以将两个 CMB 合并为一个单元,以创建 40 英尺的无边界空间,如图 1 所示。整个 40 英尺的空间可以通过抬起每个 CMB 组合侧的端墙并将其固定在屋顶天花板上来实现。因此,CMB 可以分配给需要 20 英尺或 40 英尺集装箱的货物。这意味着在货物分配方面具有更大的灵活性。因此,在将 CMB 分配到下一批货物时,通常必须在短距离内重新定位 CMB。
  1. Download: Download high-res image (47KB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图片 (47KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 1. Lifting connected CMBs as a single 40 ft standard container.
图 1.将连接的 CMB 作为单个 40 英尺的标准集装箱进行吊装。

Source: Containerbasis, 2018, Containerbasis, 2018
来源Containerbasis,2018 年,Containerbasis,2018
In summary, the main difference between FLD and CMB is that: the former reduces the physical amount of empty movement by dimensionally shrinking the capacities of empty containers with folding and bundling processes. However, the latter reduces the chances of the occurrence of empty repositioning owing to dimensional change (the transformation) between 20 and 40 ft to match the cargo size.
综上所述,FLD 和 CMB 之间的主要区别在于:前者通过折叠和捆绑工艺缩小空容器的容量,从而减少空容器的物理移动量。然而,后者减少了由于尺寸变化(转换)在 20 到 40 英尺之间以匹配货物尺寸而发生空重新定位的机会。
Naturally, there are trade imbalances in trade between the regions, however, there are also imbalances resulting from containers having different sizes, i.e., 20 ft and 40 ft. For the potential advantages of CMBs, Malchow (2016) pointed out that maximum cost savings can be achieved when substituting two CMBs for two 20 ft STDs or a single 40 ft STD in a situation where the empty STDs are repositioned between opposite trade directions due to the trade imbalance.
自然,地区之间的贸易存在贸易不平衡,但是,不同尺寸的集装箱(即 20 英尺和 40 英尺)也会导致不平衡。关于 CMB 的潜在优势,Malchow (2016) 指出,在由于贸易不平衡而将空 STD 重新定位在相反的贸易方向之间的情况下,用两个 CMB 代替两个 20 英尺 STD 或单个 40 英尺 STD 可以实现最大的成本节省。
Consider a hypothetical trade situation as shown in Fig. 2(a), where there are two 20 ft demands from ports O to D and one 40 ft shipment moves from D to O. Using 20/40 ft STDs implies repositioning of 20 ft empties from ports D to O and 40 ft empties and vice versa, respectively. In contrast, the use of CMBs does not cause empty movements at all as shown in Fig. 2(b). Further, after two CMBs (in disconnected 20 ft) imported from ports O to D became empty, these two empty CMBs can be combined to create a single 40 ft capacity to carry a 40 ft shipment from ports D to O. Once a connected form of CMBs (in 40 ft) arrive at port O, they would immediately be disconnected to make up two empty 20 ft capacities to transport two 20 ft shipments from ports O to D. Even in more sophisticated trade situations, using CMBs can most likely help to reduce the chances of occurrence of empty repositioning to a considerable extent. However, the viability of such a cyclic operation of CMBs totally depends on the respective trade flow for 20/40 ft between ports O and D.
考虑如图 2(a) 所示的假设贸易情况,其中有两个 20 英尺的需求从 O 到 D,一个 40 英尺的货物从 D 到 O。使用 20/40 英尺 STD 意味着分别从端口 D 到 O 和 40 英尺空箱重新定位 20 英尺空箱,反之亦然。相比之下,使用 CMB 完全不会引起空位,如图 2(b) 所示。此外,在两个从 O 到 D 港口进口的 CMB(断开连接的 20 英尺)为空后,这两个空的 CMB 可以合并成一个 40 英尺的容量,以运载从港口 D 到 O 的 40 英尺货物。一旦连接的 CMB(40 英尺)到达 O 港,它们将立即断开连接,以形成两个 20 英尺的空容量,将两件 20 英尺的货物从 O 港运输到 D。即使在更复杂的交易情况下,使用 CMB 也很有可能在很大程度上帮助减少空仓重新定位的机会。然而,CMB 的这种循环运营的可行性完全取决于 O 和 D 港口之间 20/40 英尺的相应贸易流向。
  1. Download: Download high-res image (94KB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图片 (94KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载:下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 2. How CMBs reduce empty containers.
图 2.CMB 如何减少空集装箱。

Under certain situations in trade imbalances, CMBs may facilitate the reduction of empty movements and the consequent container fleet size as described above. However, CMBs require two kinds of additional costs: the first one is the exploitation cost of a CMB that is higher than an STD owing to its more complex structure. The second one is the cost relating to connection/disconnection (C/D) process at ports, container depots, and customers’ sites.
在某些贸易失衡的情况下,CMB 可能有助于减少上述空箱运输和随之而来的集装箱船队规模。然而,CMB 需要两种额外费用:第一种是 CMB 的开发成本,由于其结构更复杂,它高于 STD。第二个是与港口、集装箱堆场和客户现场的连接/断开 (C/D) 流程相关的成本。
In essence, the use of CMBs mandates a trade-off between a decrease in empty repositioning cost and an increase in container capital and operational costs. Thus, an effective planning technique to find a balance in the trade-off is necessary to determine the viability of the CMB approach. Although Malchow (2016) analyzed the economic characteristics of a single CMB compared with an STD, he did not sufficiently cover the complexity of container transportation chains. Incorporating this complexity in a mathematical model makes it possible to evaluate cost savings by CMBs from the viewpoint of the whole shipping network.
从本质上讲,使用 CMB 需要在降低空箱重置成本与增加集装箱资本和运营成本之间进行权衡。因此,需要一种有效的规划技术来在权衡中找到平衡,以确定 CMB 方法的可行性。尽管 Malchow (2016) 分析了单个 CMB 与 STD 相比的经济特征,但他并没有充分涵盖集装箱运输链的复杂性。将这种复杂性纳入数学模型,可以从整个航运网络的角度评估 CMB 的成本节省。
While the detailed literature review will be presented in the following section, little has been reported on the economic features of CMBs, therefore the effectiveness of CMBs has not been sufficiently clarified yet. Thus, as discussed previously, the use of CMBs can be regarded as the trade-off between the empty repositioning cost reduction and the container capital (and C/D related) cost increase. Proper evaluation of CMBs requires a simultaneous investigation incorporating the container fleet sizing problem for a capital assessment from a tactical point of view and the empty container management problem for an empty repositioning assessment from an operational viewpoint.
虽然详细的文献综述将在下一节中介绍,但关于 CMB 的经济特征的报道很少,因此 CMB 的有效性尚未得到充分阐明。因此,如前所述,使用 CMB 可以被视为空置重置成本降低与集装箱资本(以及 C/D 相关)成本增加之间的权衡。对 CMB 的正确评估需要同时进行调查,从战术角度考虑集装箱船队规模问题以进行资本评估,从运营角度考虑空箱管理问题以进行空箱重新定位评估。

3. Literature review 3. 文献综述

In this section, we present a detailed review of existing studies on container fleet sizing and empty container management problems including empty container allocation/repositioning in shipping networks. In addition, we conduct a literature review on empty container repositioning problems for use in FLDs and CMBs.
在本节中,我们详细回顾了关于集装箱船队规模和空箱管理问题的现有研究,包括航运网络中的空箱分配/重新定位。此外,我们还对用于 FLD 和 CMB 的空容器重新定位问题进行了文献综述。

3.1. Container fleet sizing and empty container management
3.1. 集装箱船队规模和空集装箱管理

First and foremost, we would focus on container fleet sizing problem. Once a given transportation demands for details of the loaded trips (number of laden containers moving between origin-destination (OD) port pairs in the shipping network) and the characteristics of each trip (length, uncertainty, etc.), the container fleet sizing problem helps to determine the optimal number of own containers that is needed to satisfy the transportation demands. Some researchers have manifested a specific interest in container fleet sizing problem. Imai and Rivera (2001) is possibly the first study that aimed to address the problem of determining the appropriate container fleet size considering an extremely imbalanced trade, which is a typical situation for the refrigerated cargo trade in shipping service routes. They built a simulation model for a many-to-many port trade to analyze the trade-off between own container fleet size, short-term leasing, and empty storage at ports for given some transportation demand trends.
首先,我们将重点关注集装箱船队的规模问题。一旦给定的运输需要满载行程的详细信息(航运网络中在起运港-目的地 (OD) 港口对之间移动的满载集装箱数量)和每次行程的特征(长度、不确定性等),集装箱船队选型问题有助于确定满足运输需求所需的自有集装箱的最佳数量。一些研究人员对集装箱船队规模问题表现出了特别的兴趣。Imai 和 Rivera (2001) 可能是第一项旨在解决考虑到极度不平衡的贸易确定适当集装箱船队规模的问题的研究,这是航运服务路线中冷藏货物贸易的典型情况。他们为多对多港口贸易构建了一个仿真模型,以分析给定某些运输需求趋势下,自有集装箱船队规模、短期租赁和港口空箱存储之间的权衡。
Second, we herein present a review of empty container management problems reflecting the characteristics of liner shipping networks, namely, multi-vessel, multi-port, and fixed schedule shipping systems. Song and Dong (2011) addressed the empty container repositioning problem in shipping services based on container flow balancing approach. Two empty container repositioning policies were examined, based on two types of flow balancing treatments, respectively. The former is based on point-to-point balancing approach for each port while the latter is based on coordinated balancing among all ports. Meng and Wang (2011) evaluated medium-term liner shipping service network design problem together with the combined networks of hub-and-spoke and multi-port-calling operations and empty container repositioning issue. Bell et al. (2011) proposed a frequency-based assignment model to allocate laden and empty containers in service routes to minimize the sailing time and container transit time between the origin and transshipment ports. Song and Dong (2012) considered the problem of joint cargo routing and empty container repositioning at the operational planning level for a shipping network with multi-route, multi-vessel, and multi-voyage characteristics.
其次,我们在此对反映班轮航运网络特征的空箱管理问题进行了回顾,即多船、多港口和固定时间表航运系统。Song 和 Dong (2011) 解决了基于集装箱流平衡方法的航运服务中的空箱重新定位问题。分别基于两种类型的流动平衡处理,检查了两种空容器重新定位策略。前者基于每个端口的点对点平衡方法,而后者基于所有端口之间的协调平衡。Meng 和 Wang (2011) 将中期班轮服务网络设计问题与轴辐式和多港停靠操作的组合网络以及空箱重新定位问题进行了评估。Bell 等人(2011 年)提出了一种基于频率的分配模型,在服务路线中分配满载集装箱和空集装箱,以最大限度地减少起运港和转运港之间的航行时间和集装箱运输时间。Song 和 Dong (2012) 在运营规划层面考虑了具有多路线、多船和多航次特征的航运网络的联合货物路线和空集装箱重新定位问题。
Further, the third research is an integrated approach to container fleet sizing and empty container management. Shintani et al. (2005) addressed the problem of liner shipping network construction by explicitly considering empty container repositioning and the container fleet size. Shintani et al. (2007) presented an integrated and simultaneous approach in determining the optimal vessel fleet composition with service routing characteristics and empty container repositioning to design a single route. The results they obtained show that the shipping network design problem with empty container repositioning makes it possible to cruise at a slower speed because of the efficient empty container distribution and thus can save considerable fuel costs. Imai et al. (2009) examined the advantages and disadvantages of different service networks, i.e., multiple-port calling (MPC) and hub-and-spoke. They compared the costs associated with the shipping networks by analyzing empty container management costs including container fleet costs. Dong and Song (2009) examined the problem of joint container fleet sizing and empty container repositioning in a multi-vessel, multi-port, and multi-voyage shipping system with trade imbalances. They considered an optimal control policy that can determine the number of laden and empty containers to be moved by each vessel.
此外,第三项研究是集装箱船队规模调整和空箱管理的综合方法。Shintani et al. (2005) 通过明确考虑空箱重新定位和集装箱船队规模,解决了班轮航运网络建设的问题。Shintani 等人(2007 年)提出了一种综合的同步方法,用于确定具有服务路线特征和空集装箱重新定位的最佳船队组成,以设计一条单一路线。他们获得的结果表明,由于空箱的高效分配,空箱重新定位的航运网络设计问题使得以较慢的速度巡航成为可能,从而可以节省可观的燃料成本。Imai 等人(2009 年)研究了不同服务网络的优缺点,即多端口呼叫 (MPC) 和中心辐射型。他们通过分析包括集装箱船队成本在内的空箱管理成本,比较了与航运网络相关的成本。Dong 和 Song (2009) 研究了在贸易不平衡的多船、多港口和多航次航运系统中联合集装箱船队尺寸和空集装箱重新定位的问题。他们考虑了一种最佳控制策略,可以确定每艘船要移动的满载集装箱和空集装箱的数量。
All of these related studies deal with the container fleet sizing and/or empty container management problem; however, most of them only consider a homogeneous container size of either 20 or 40 ft. In real-world circumstances, both container sizes are present in container shipping networks. As a result, trade imbalances occur for both container sizes. Therefore, it is an important problem to determine how to reposition empty containers of each size at the same time. The CMB could offer a solution regarding an efficient anticipation of the need to reposition empty containers.
所有这些相关研究都涉及集装箱船队的规模和/或空箱管理问题;然而,他们中的大多数只考虑 20 或 40 英尺的均质集装箱尺寸。在实际情况下,这两种集装箱尺寸都存在于集装箱运输网络中。因此,两种集装箱尺寸都会出现贸易不平衡。因此,确定如何同时重新定位每种尺寸的空容器是一个重要的问题。CMB 可以提供一种解决方案,可以有效地预测重新定位空集装箱的需求。

3.2. Empty container management using innovative containers
3.2. 使用创新容器管理空箱

Herein, we present a review of studies on FLDs and CMBs. For FLDs, a number of studies on empty container repositioning using FLDs approach have been reported in the last two decades.
在此,我们回顾了 FLD 和 CMB 的研究。对于 FLD,在过去二十年中已经报道了大量关于使用 FLD 方法重新定位空容器的研究。
Konings and Thijs, 2001, Konings, 2005 are the early works that addressed the economic viability of FLDs. These studies give some indications of the conditions under which such containers could be successfully introduced into the shipping market. Shintani et al. (2010) contended that these previous studies did not sufficiently cover the complexity of container transportation chains, and thus, analyzed multiple hinterland container transportation chains simultaneously using FLDs. They took into consideration the inter-relations between these individual hinterland transportations. Shintani et al. (2012) showed that none of the previous studies covered the complexity of liner shipping network when examining container fleet decision making process. Thus, they addressed the container fleet sizing and empty container management problem, including empty container repositioning to demonstrate the potential role of FLDs in lowering the associated costs. It is the first study that integrated the use of FLDs into the complexity of shipping networks. They pointed out that the mixed container fleet with STDs and FLDs is the most realistic application of FLDs in limiting investment risks of shipping companies. Zazgornik et al. (2012) built models for the timber transportation chain, i.e., a combined problem of vehicle routing and container scheduling. However, they considered an application of FLDs for timber transportation, which is conducted in a much simpler network than maritime containers. Moon et al. (2013) examined empty container repositioning using both FLDs and STDs at sea. Myung and Moon (2014) extended the problem presented by Moon et al. (2013), by treating the multi-port and multi-period container planning problem using both STDs and FLDs. They modeled the problem as a minimum cost flow problem considering the service route. Moon and Hong (2016) simultaneously considered the use of both STDs and FLDs in repositioning empty containers between ports. The model that they built can be used to determine ports to be selected for the installation of facilities for folding and unfolding of containers. Wang et al. (2017) treated the problem of vessel type decision considering container fleet sizing, empty container repositioning, and the use of FLDs in specific shipping service routes. They assumed that the container fleet comprised long-term lease containers. Zhang et al. (2018) examined the possibility of carrying a laden container or multiple folded containers with a truck at a time. Their models can be used to minimize the total working time of trucks, including waiting times at sites. Goh (2019) analyzed the impact of FLDs on freight rates on shippers in the backhaul trades and quantified the carbon abatement capability of FLDs in liner shipping.
Konings 和 Thijs,2001 年,Konings,2005 年是解决 FLD 经济可行性的早期工作。这些研究为此类集装箱成功引入航运市场的条件提供了一些迹象。Shintani 等人(2010 年)认为,这些以前的研究不足以涵盖集装箱运输链的复杂性,因此,使用 FLD 同时分析了多个腹地集装箱运输链。他们考虑了这些单独的腹地运输之间的相互关系。Shintani 等人(2012 年)表明,在检查集装箱船队决策过程时,以前的研究都没有涵盖班轮运输网络的复杂性。因此,他们解决了集装箱船队选型和空箱管理问题,包括空箱重新定位,以展示 FLD 在降低相关成本方面的潜在作用。这是第一项将 FLD 的使用整合到航运网络复杂性中的研究。他们指出,带有 STD 和 FLD 的混合集装箱船队是 FLD 在限制航运公司投资风险方面最现实的应用。Zazgornik 等人(2012 年)为木材运输链构建了模型,即车辆路线和集装箱调度的组合问题。然而,他们考虑了将 FLD 应用于木材运输,这种运输是在比海运集装箱简单得多的网络中进行的。Moon 等人(2013 年)在海上使用 FLD 和 STD 研究了空集装箱的重新定位。 Myung 和 Moon (2014) 通过使用 STD 和 FLD 处理多港口和多周期集装箱规划问题,扩展了 Moon 等人 (2013) 提出的问题。他们将该问题建模为考虑服务路线的最低成本流问题。Moon 和 Hong (2016) 同时考虑了使用 STD 和 FLD 在港口之间重新定位空集装箱。他们构建的模型可用于确定要选择的端口,以安装集装箱折叠和展开设施。Wang 等人(2017 年)考虑了集装箱船队的大小、空集装箱重新定位以及在特定航运服务路线中使用 FLD 的船型决策问题。他们假设集装箱船队由长期租赁集装箱组成。Zhang et al. (2018) 研究了用卡车一次运载一个满载集装箱或多个折叠集装箱的可能性。他们的模型可用于最大限度地减少卡车的总工作时间,包括现场的等待时间。Goh (2019) 分析了 FLD 对回程贸易中托运人运费的影响,并量化了 FLD 在班轮运输中的碳减排能力。
CMBs are a relatively recent innovation independently developed by two companies: German TWORTY BOX (TWORTY BOX, 2019) and Spanish CONNECTAINER (Effective Seaborne Engineering Solutions (ESES), 2019). Their structures are basically similar; however, the latter is more practical than the former because the CONNECTAINER has some electronic displays to recognize the unique identity number and the characteristics of containers such as weight, tare, etc., according to its connected or disconnected states. To the best of our knowledge, Malchow (2016) is the only existing academic study that discussed the economic viability of CMBs from the practical point of view, although he did not sufficiently consider the complexity of container transportation chains. According to these websites of the companies, TWORTY BOX (2019) argues the viability of CMBs using the same approach employed by Malchow (2016) while ESES (2019) contends that if 15 major shipping companies switch 12.5% of their container fleet from STDs to CMBs, they can save the container related cost to around US$1 billion in the whole year. Although ESES (2019) recognizes the effectiveness of the mixed container fleet consisting of both STDs and CMBs, the company does not discuss the key validation of the economics of CMBs, particularly on the mixed container fleet and the trade imbalances between regions in 20/40 ft traffics. Introducing CMBs into the shipping market requires an in-depth evaluation given the sophisticated characteristics of liner shipping networks. Thus, this study is novel in its approach to the viability of CMBs.
CMB 是由两家公司独立开发的相对较新的创新:德国 TWORTY BOX(TWORTY BOX,2019 年)和西班牙 CONNECTAINER(有效的海上工程解决方案 (ESES),2019 年)。它们的结构基本相似;但是,后者比前者更实用,因为 CONNECTAINER 有一些电子显示器,可以根据其连接或断开状态识别容器的唯一标识号和重量、皮重等特性。据我们所知,Malchow (2016) 是现存唯一从实践角度讨论 CMB 经济可行性的学术研究,尽管他没有充分考虑集装箱运输链的复杂性。根据这些公司的网站,TWORTY BOX (2019) 使用与 Malchow (2016) 相同的方法论证了 CMB 的可行性,而 ESES (2019) 认为,如果 15 家主要航运公司将其 12.5% 的集装箱船队从 STD 转向 CMB,他们可以在全年节省约 10 亿美元的集装箱相关成本。尽管 ESES (2019) 认识到由 STD 和 CMB 组成的混合集装箱船队的有效性,但该公司并未讨论对 CMB 经济性的关键验证,特别是关于混合集装箱船队和 20/40 英尺交通地区之间的贸易不平衡。鉴于班轮运输网络的复杂性,将 CMB 引入航运市场需要进行深入评估。因此,这项研究在研究 CMB 的可行性方面是新颖的。
In the above research background, we examine the possibility of saving container related costs using CMBs over the planning horizon in complicated shipping service routes.
在上述研究背景下,我们研究了在复杂的航运服务路线的规划范围内使用 CMB 节省集装箱相关成本的可能性。

4. Problem description 4. 问题描述

The CFSMP requires a representation of the flow conservations of both STDs/CMBs and 20/40 ft incorporating the characteristic property of C/D processes of CMBs and the distinct container size of 20/40 ft. The homologous models of this can be understood from the studies by Imai et al., 2009, Shintani et al., 2012. The model proposed in the former deals with a container flow having a homogeneous STD fleet in its container size whereas the latter model treats the flow of STDs and FLDs for 20 ft. However, their models did not consider the flow conservations of both STDs/CMBs in multiple container sizes of 20/40 ft.
CFSMP 要求表示 STD/CMB 和 20/40 英尺的流量守恒,并结合 CMB 的 C/D 过程的特征特性和 20/40 英尺的不同容器尺寸。这方面的同源模型可以从 Imai 等人(2009 年)、Shintani 等人(2012 年)的研究中了解。前者提出的模型处理集装箱尺寸中具有同质 STD 船队的集装箱流,而后一种模型处理 20 英尺的 STD 和 FLD 流。然而,他们的模型没有考虑 20/40 英尺的多个集装箱尺寸中 STD/CMB 的流量守恒。
The CFSMP, where it assumes a shipping service route as a form of MPC network as shown in Fig. 3, considers a multi-commodity flow that explicitly distinguishes the states of containers such as STD/CMB, 20/40 ft, laden/empty, and own/leasing. The movements of laden and empty containers are related to the voyage itinerary of vessels. As a result, we herein model container flows with a space-time network based on voyage itinerary. Fig. 4 shows such a space-time network representing voyages of five vessels calling at four ports with some calling interval in an MPC network.
如图 3 所示,CFSMP 将航运服务路线作为 MPC 网络的一种形式,考虑了明确区分集装箱状态的多商品流,例如 STD/CMB、20/40 英尺、满载/空载和拥有/租赁。满载集装箱和空箱的移动与船舶的航行行程有关。因此,我们在此基于航行行程对具有时空网络的集装箱流进行建模。图 4 显示了这样一个时空网络,代表了 5 艘船在 4 个港口停靠的航程,在 MPC 网络中有一定的停靠间隔。
  1. Download: Download high-res image (55KB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图片 (55KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载:下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 3. The MPC network.
图 3.MPC 网络。

  1. Download: Download high-res image (207KB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图片 (207KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载:下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 4. Vessels’ voyages in the space-time network.
图 4.船只在时空网络中的航行。

4.1. Tactical and operational planning
4.1. 战术和作战规划

As mentioned in Section 1, the CFSMP harmonizes those two planning decisions to save the entire container related costs owing to the fact that there is a close relation between the container fleet sizing (tactical planning) and the empty container management (operational planning).
第 1 节所述,CFSMP 协调了这两个规划决策,以节省整个集装箱相关成本,因为集装箱船队规模(战术规划)和空箱管理(运营规划)之间存在密切关系。
From a tactical point of view, the CFSMP aims to optimize the container fleet size by examining the number of own STDs/CMBs in a shipping network over the planning horizon. Once a container fleet is deployed, it is usually kept in service for more than 10 years. Because estimating future transportation demands with accuracy is practically impossible in determining the optimal container fleet size, this study proposes a way of determining the fleet size as decision variables of the number of own STDs/CMBs that can be put into the space-time container flow network only at the beginning of the planning horizon.
从战术角度来看,CFSMP 旨在通过检查规划期内航运网络中自有 STD/CMB 的数量来优化集装箱船队规模。集装箱车队部署后,通常会使用超过 10 年。由于在确定最佳集装箱车队规模时,几乎不可能准确估计未来的运输需求,因此本研究提出了一种确定车队规模的方法,作为只有在规划视距开始时才能放入时空集装箱流网络的自有 STD/CMB 数量的决策变量。
From an operational point of view, the CFSMP can be used to determine the number of empty containers to be repositioned from excess ports to deficit ones, to be stored at ports, and to be leased at ports from leasing companies only for an immediate future shipments.
从操作的角度来看,CFSMP 可用于确定空集装箱的数量,这些空集装箱将从多余港口重新定位到短缺港口,储存在港口,以及从租赁公司租赁到港口,仅用于近期的运输。
As a result, analyses using the CFSMP enable investigation of a trade-off of CMBs between the cost reduction on repositioning/handling of empty containers and the cost increase resulting from the expensive initial investment and C/D handling.
因此,使用 CFSMP 进行分析可以研究 CMB 在空集装箱重新定位/处理成本降低与昂贵的初始投资和 C/D 处理导致的成本增加之间的权衡。

4.2. Assumptions 4.2. 假设

The CFSMP modeling is based on the following assumptions:
CFSMP 建模基于以下假设:
  • (i) (一)
    A single shipping company provides the liner service network, in which the company can fully control the overall empty container movements. Thus, any empty containers can be repositioned at any place for any shipments.
    一家船公司提供班轮服务网络,该公司可以完全控制整个空箱的移动。因此,任何空集装箱都可以在任何地方重新定位,用于任何货物。
  • (ii) (二)
    All the transportation demands can be satisfied within the planning horizon using any type of container such as own STDs/CMBs and leased containers.
    在规划范围内,使用任何类型的集装箱(如自有 STD/CMB 和租赁集装箱)都可以满足所有运输需求。
  • (iii) (三)
    The exploitation cost of a container includes the purchase cost (depreciation) and the other cost to keep the container in operation, i.e., maintenance and repair costs.
    集装箱的开采成本包括购买成本(折旧)和保持集装箱运行的其他成本,即维护和维修成本。
  • (iv) (四)
    The leasing cost of a container consists of the hiring cost that is proportional to the round trip time between OD ports for assigned cargo traffic, the transportation cost between the ports for the backhaul operation, and the associated handling (lifting on/off) cost at those ports. The backhaul assumption can be justified by the fact that leased containers are sent back from the destination port to the origin port after use by unplanned vessels under the shipping company's responsibility as soon as their use is complete.
    集装箱的租赁成本包括租赁成本,该成本与指定货物运输的 OD 港口之间的往返时间成正比,回程操作的港口之间的运输成本,以及这些港口的相关处理(吊装开/关)成本。回程假设是合理的,因为租赁的集装箱在使用完成后,由航运公司负责的计划外船舶使用后,会立即从目的港送回起运港。
  • (v) (五)
    The container fleet consists of CMBs (20 ft size only) and STDs (both 20 ft and 40 ft sizes). However, all containers offered for lease are assumed to be STD of 20 and 40 ft. CMBs are assumed not to be leased owing to its less economic advantages. It is worthy to note that long-term lease containers are regarded as own containers of the shipping company in this study.
    集装箱船队由 CMB(仅限 20 英尺尺寸)和 STD(20 英尺和 40 英尺尺寸)组成。然而,所有出租的集装箱都假定为 20 英尺和 40 英尺的 STD。由于 CMB 的经济优势较小,因此假定不出租。值得注意的是,在本研究中,长期租赁集装箱被视为船公司自有集装箱。
  • (vi) (六)
    The containers stay in the hinterlands of ports for loading or unloading at the customers' sites within a certain period of time.
    集装箱在一定时间内留在港口腹地,以便在客户现场装卸。
  • (vii) (七)
    To simplify the structure of the model, the model does not consider elaborate container movements whether laden or empty between ports and customers' sites.
    为了简化模型的结构,该模型没有考虑港口和客户现场之间复杂的集装箱移动,无论是满载还是空载。

4.3. Notations 4.3. 符号

This subsection presents the notations used for the mathematical formulation of the model as follows:
Index and Sets:
I:set of ports in a shipping service network
K:set of container types and states, that is K=1,2,3,4
k:index of container types and states, where k = 1, 2, 3, and 4 if the container type specifies disconnected CMB (20 ft), connected CMB (40 ft), STD (20 ft) and STD (40 ft), respectively
T:set of chronological time (the planning horizon)

Input parameters
V:carrying capacity of a vessel
αi:time spent by a container in the hinterland of port i for import or export
βij:transit time from port i to port j
Hi:storage capacity of the container pool at port i
CFCMB:exploitation cost of an owned CMB over the planning horizon
CFk:exploitation cost of type k owned containers over the planning horizon
CCi:C/D cost of a CMB at port i
CSi20:storage cost of 20 ft container at port i
CSi40:storage cost of 40 ft container at port i
CLij20:leasing cost of 20 ft container from port i to port j
CLij40:leasing cost of 40 ft container from port i to port j
CRij20:repositioning cost of 20 ft container from port i to port j
CRij40:repositioning cost of 40 ft container from port i to port j
Fij20t:number of 20 ft cargo shipments transported from port i to port j at time t
Fij40t:number of 40 ft cargo shipments transported from port i to port j at time t

Decision variables
FSCMB:total number of CMBs to be put into service over the planning horizon
FSk:total number of type k owned containers to be put into service over the planning horizon
CBit:number of connecting/disconnecting processes of CMBs at port i at time t
Eijkt:number of type k empty owned containers to be transferred from port i to port j at time t
Sikt:number of type k empty owned containers to be stored at port i at time t
Lij20t:number of leased 20 ft containers to be used for transportation demands that leave port i at time t for port j
Lij40t:number of leased 40 ft containers to be used for transportation demands that leave port i at time t for port j

Auxiliary variables related to decision variables
Bijkt:number of type k laden owned containers to be transported from port i to port j at time t
Dikt:total number of type k laden owned containers to be imported to port i at time t
Gikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be repositioned from other ports to port i at time t
Nikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be sent to shippers (exporters) in the hinterland from port i at time t, and it is equal to the total cargoes to be exported using type k containers
Oikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be repositioned from port i to other ports at time t
Rikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be returned from consignees (importers) in the hinterland of port i at time t, and it is equal to the total cargoes to be imported using type k containers

本小节介绍用于模型的数学公式的符号,如下所示:
Index and Sets:
I:set of ports in a shipping service network
K:set of container types and states, that is K=1,2,3,4
k:index of container types and states, where k = 1, 2, 3, and 4 if the container type specifies disconnected CMB (20 ft), connected CMB (40 ft), STD (20 ft) and STD (40 ft), respectively
T:set of chronological time (the planning horizon)

Input parameters
V:carrying capacity of a vessel
αi:time spent by a container in the hinterland of port i for import or export
βij:transit time from port i to port j
Hi:storage capacity of the container pool at port i
CFCMB:exploitation cost of an owned CMB over the planning horizon
CFk:exploitation cost of type k owned containers over the planning horizon
CCi:C/D cost of a CMB at port i
CSi20:storage cost of 20 ft container at port i
CSi40:storage cost of 40 ft container at port i
CLij20:leasing cost of 20 ft container from port i to port j
CLij40:leasing cost of 40 ft container from port i to port j
CRij20:repositioning cost of 20 ft container from port i to port j
CRij40:repositioning cost of 40 ft container from port i to port j
Fij20t:number of 20 ft cargo shipments transported from port i to port j at time t
Fij40t:number of 40 ft cargo shipments transported from port i to port j at time t

Decision variables
FSCMB:total number of CMBs to be put into service over the planning horizon
FSk:total number of type k owned containers to be put into service over the planning horizon
CBit:number of connecting/disconnecting processes of CMBs at port i at time t
Eijkt:number of type k empty owned containers to be transferred from port i to port j at time t
Sikt:number of type k empty owned containers to be stored at port i at time t
Lij20t:number of leased 20 ft containers to be used for transportation demands that leave port i at time t for port j
Lij40t:number of leased 40 ft containers to be used for transportation demands that leave port i at time t for port j

Auxiliary variables related to decision variables
Bijkt:number of type k laden owned containers to be transported from port i to port j at time t
Dikt:total number of type k laden owned containers to be imported to port i at time t
Gikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be repositioned from other ports to port i at time t
Nikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be sent to shippers (exporters) in the hinterland from port i at time t, and it is equal to the total cargoes to be exported using type k containers
Oikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be repositioned from port i to other ports at time t
Rikt:total number of type k empty owned containers to be returned from consignees (importers) in the hinterland of port i at time t, and it is equal to the total cargoes to be imported using type k containers

4.4. Mathematical formulation of the model
4.4. 模型的数学公式

  • (1)
    The CFSMP model CFSMP 模型
The mathematical formulation of CFSMP is as follows:(1)MinCFCMBFSCMB+k3,4CFkFSk+tTiICCiCBit+tTk1,3iIjiICRij20Eijkt+tTk2,4iIjiICRij40Eijkt+tTk1,3iICSi20Sikt+tTk2,4iICSi40Sikt+tTiIjiICLij20Lij20t+CLij40Lij40t(2)Subject toSi1t-1+Ri1t+Gi1t+2Si2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2t=Si1t+Ni1t+Oi1t+2Si2t+Ni2t+Oi2ttT,iI,(3)Sikt-1+Rikt+Gikt=Sikt+Nikt+OikttT,k3,4,iI,(4)Ri1t+2Ri2t=hiIBhi1t-αi-βhi+ 2Bhi2t-αi-βhitT,iI,(5)Rikt=hiIBhikt-αi-βhitT,k3,4,iI,(6)Ni1t+2Ni2t=jiIBij1t+αi+2Bij2t+αi,tT,iI,(7)Nikt=jiIBijkt+αitT,k3,4,iI,(8)Gi1t+2Gi2t=hiIEhi1t-βhi+2Ehi2t-βhi,tT,iI,(9)Gikt=hiIEhikt-βhitT,k3,4,iI,(10)Oi1t+2Oi2t=jiIEij1t+αi+2Eij2t+αi,tT,iI,(11)Oikt=jiIEijkt+αitT,k3,4,iI,(12)Lij20t=Fij20t+αi-k1,3Bijkt+αitT,iI,jiI,(13)Lij40t=Fij40t+αi-k2,4Bijkt+αitT,iI,jiI,(14)k1,3Sikt+2k2,4SiktHitT,iI,(15)FSCMB=iISi10+Ri11+Gi11+2Si20+Ri21+Gi21(16)FSk=iISik0+Rik1+Gik1k3,4,(17)CBitSi2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2t-Si2t-Ni2t-Oi2ttT,iI,(18)-CBitSi2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2t-Si2t-Ni2t-Oi2ttT,iI,(19)q=2IF1q20t+k1,3E1qkt+2F1q40t+k2,4E1qkt+p=3Iqp=2p-1Fpq20t-βp1+k1,3Epqkt-βp1+2Fpq40t-βp1+k2,4Epqkt-βp1VtT,(20)qi=1IFiq20t+k1,3Eiqkt+2Fiq40t+k2,4Eiqkt+p=1i-1qp=i+1p-1Fpq20t-βpi+k1,3Epqkt-βpi+2Fpq40t-βpi+k2,4Epqkt-βpi+p=i+2Iqp=i+1p-1Fpq20t-βpi+k1,3Epqkt-βpi+2Fpq40t-βpi+k2,4Epqkt-βpiVtT,iI\1,I,(21)q=1I-1FIq20t+k1,3EIqkt-βIq+2FIq40t+k2,4EIqkt-βIq+p=2I-1qp=1p-1Fpq20t-βpI+k1,3Epqkt-βpI+2Fpq40t-βpI+k2,4Epqkt-βpIVtT,(22)FSCMB0and integer,(23)FSk0and integerk3,4,(24)CBit0and integertT,iI,(25)Lij20t,Lij40t0and integertT,iI,jiI,(26)Dikt,Gikt,Nikt,Oikt,Rikt,Sikt0and integertT,kK,iI,(27)Bijkt,Eijkt0and integertT,kK,iI,jiI.
CFSMP 的数学公式如下: (1)MinCFCMBFSCMB+k3,4CFkFSk+tTiICCiCBit+tTk1,3iIjiICRij20Eijkt+tTk2,4iIjiICRij40Eijkt+tTk1,3iICSi20Sikt+tTk2,4iICSi40Sikt+tTiIjiICLij20Lij20t+CLij40Lij40t (2)Subject toSi1t-1+Ri1t+Gi1t+2Si2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2t=Si1t+Ni1t+Oi1t+2Si2t+Ni2t+Oi2ttT,iI, (3)Sikt-1+Rikt+Gikt=Sikt+Nikt+OikttT,k3,4,iI, (4)Ri1t+2Ri2t=hiIBhi1t-αi-βhi+ 2Bhi2t-αi-βhitT,iI, (5)Rikt=hiIBhikt-αi-βhitT,k3,4,iI, (6)Ni1t+2Ni2t=jiIBij1t+αi+2Bij2t+αi,tT,iI, (7)Nikt=jiIBijkt+αitT,k3,4,iI, (8)Gi1t+2Gi2t=hiIEhi1t-βhi+2Ehi2t-βhi,tT,iI, (9)Gikt=hiIEhikt-βhitT,k3,4,iI, (10)Oi1t+2Oi2t=jiIEij1t+αi+2Eij2t+αi,tT,iI, (11)Oikt=jiIEijkt+αitT,k3,4,iI, (12)Lij20t=Fij20t+αi-k1,3Bijkt+αitT,iI,jiI, (13)Lij40t=Fij40t+αi-k2,4Bijkt+αitT,iI,jiI, (14)k1,3Sikt+2k2,4SiktHitT,iI, (15)FSCMB=iISi10+Ri11+Gi11+2Si20+Ri21+Gi21 (16)FSk=iISik0+Rik1+Gik1k3,4, (17)CBitSi2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2t-Si2t-Ni2t-Oi2ttT,iI, (18)-CBitSi2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2t-Si2t-Ni2t-Oi2ttT,iI, (19)q=2IF1q20t+k1,3E1qkt+2F1q40t+k2,4E1qkt+p=3Iqp=2p-1Fpq20t-βp1+k1,3Epqkt-βp1+2Fpq40t-βp1+k2,4Epqkt-βp1VtT, (20)qi=1IFiq20t+k1,3Eiqkt+2Fiq40t+k2,4Eiqkt+p=1i-1qp=i+1p-1Fpq20t-βpi+k1,3Epqkt-βpi+2Fpq40t-βpi+k2,4Epqkt-βpi+p=i+2Iqp=i+1p-1Fpq20t-βpi+k1,3Epqkt-βpi+2Fpq40t-βpi+k2,4Epqkt-βpiVtT,iI\1,I, (21)q=1I-1FIq20t+k1,3EIqkt-βIq+2FIq40t+k2,4EIqkt-βIq+p=2I-1qp=1p-1Fpq20t-βpI+k1,3Epqkt-βpI+2Fpq40t-βpI+k2,4Epqkt-βpIVtT, (22)FSCMB0and integer, (23)FSk0and integerk3,4, (24)CBit0and integertT,iI, (25)Lij20t,Lij40t0and integertT,iI,jiI, (26)Dikt,Gikt,Nikt,Oikt,Rikt,Sikt0and integertT,kK,iI, (27)Bijkt,Eijkt0and integertT,kK,iI,jiI.
The objective function (1) is to minimize the total cost consisting of the following cost elements: the first two terms present the exploitation costs of CMBs and STDs, respectively. The third term involves the cost of C/D processes of CMBs at the ports. The next four terms present the costs of repositioning between ports and of storage at the ports for empty containers of all types and lengths. The last term relates to the costs of leasing containers for 20/40 ft between ports. Eqs. (2), (3) are the flow conservations of all own container types at the ports. A derivation of these equations will be discussed more elaborately in the subsequent section. Eqs. (4), (5) define the number of containers returning from consignees in the hinterlands while Eqs. (6), (7) are for containers to be sent to the hinterland for the next shipments. Eqs. (8), (9), (10), (11) determine the number of empty containers to be repositioned. Eqs. (12), (13) define the number of containers to be leased. Constraints (14) ensure that the sum of type k empty owned containers for storage at port i is restricted by the port storage capacity. Eqs. (15), (16) define the number of deployed containers of all types. Eq. sets (17), (18) define the number of connected or disconnected CMBs at port i, CBit. The derivation of (17), (18) will be provided afterward. All sets of constraints (19), (20), (21) guarantee that the total number of laden and empty containers cannot exceed the vessel carrying capacity. In other words, these constraint sets determine the unoccupied capacity of a vessel to reposition empty containers from ports having surplus containers to those having a shortage of containers. Interested readers are referred to the derivation (4) for more details.
目标函数 (1) 是最小化由以下成本元素组成的总成本:前两项分别表示 CMB 和 STD 的开采成本。第三个术语涉及 CMB 在港口的 C/D 流程成本。接下来的四个术语介绍了各种类型和长度的空箱在港口之间的重新定位和港口存储的成本。最后一个术语涉及港口之间 20/40 英尺集装箱的租赁成本。方程。(2)(3) 是港口所有自有集装箱类型的流量守恒。这些方程的推导将在下一节中更详细地讨论。方程。(4)(5) 定义从腹地收货人返回的集装箱数量,而 Eqs. (6)、(7) 用于将集装箱送往腹地进行下一次装运。方程。(8)、(9)、(10)、(11) 确定要重新定位的空集装箱的数量。方程。(12)、(13) 定义要租赁的容器数量。约束 (14) 确保在港口 i 存储的空自有集装箱类型 k 之和受港口存储容量的限制。方程。(15)、(16) 定义已部署的所有类型的容器的数量。情 商。 集合 (17)、(18) 定义端口 i CBit 处连接或断开连接的 CMB 的数量 (17)、(18) 的推导将在后面提供。所有约束条件 (19)、(20)、(21) 都保证满载集装箱和空箱的总数不能超过船舶运载能力。换句话说,这些约束集决定了船舶将空集装箱从有剩余集装箱的港口重新定位到集装箱短缺的港口的空载能力。感兴趣的读者可以参考推导 (4) 了解更多详情。
Herein, we present the derivation of Eqs. (2), (3). The proposed model distinguishes flow conservations of empty containers at a port for each type. The concept of flow conservation in this study is as follows: at each node, the total number of incoming containers has to be equal to that of outgoing ones. This flow conservation features a common mathematical structure for any different container type such as CMBs and 20/40 ft STDs.
在此,我们介绍了 Eqs 的推导。(2)、(3)。所提出的模型区分了每种类型的港口空集装箱的流量守恒。本研究中的流量守恒概念如下:在每个节点处,传入容器的总数必须等于传出容器的总数。这种流量守恒的特点是任何不同容器类型(如 CMB 和 20/40 英尺 STD)采用通用的数学结构
Fig. 5 shows a coordinate t,i defining a specific node associated with a vessel calling at port i at time t, where Aikt denotes the total number of type k empty owned containers available at port i at time t.
图 5 显示了一个坐标,该坐标 t,i 定义了与当时在港口 i 停靠的船舶相关的特定节点 t ,其中 Aikt 表示当时 t 港口 i 可用的 k 空集装箱类型总数。
  1. Download: Download high-res image (171KB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图片 (171KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载:下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 5. Flow conservation for empty containers at a port.
图 5.港口空集装箱的流量节约。

Referring to Fig. 5, the empty flow conservations for all types k can be formulated as follows:(28)Ai1t+2Ai2t=Si1t-1+Ri1t+Gi1t+2Si2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2tSi1t+Ni1t+Oi1t+2Si2t+Ni2t+Oi2ttT,iI,(29)Aikt=Sikt-1+Rikt+GiktSikt+Nikt+OikttT,k3,4,iI,
参考图 5,所有类型的空流守恒 k 可以表示如下: (28)Ai1t+2Ai2t=Si1t-1+Ri1t+Gi1t+2Si2t-1+Ri2t+Gi2tSi1t+Ni1t+Oi1t+2Si2t+Ni2t+Oi2ttT,iI, (29)Aikt=Sikt-1+Rikt+GiktSikt+Nikt+OikttT,k3,4,iI,
Eqs. (28), (29), for CMB and STD, respectively, guarantee that the total available empty containers to be used at port i at time t (i.e., the left-hand side of the equations) consists of the empty containers coming from previous sources represented by the upper part of the right-hand side (i.e., the sum of empty containers stored at the port at a previous period of time and those returned from the hinterland/repositioned from other ports), and spreads over to future sources represented by the lower part of the right-hand side (i.e., the sum of empty containers stored at the time of next shipments and those transferred to the hinterland/repositioned to other ports). Notice that as CMBs change their forms as 20/40 ft, Ai1t+2Ai2t in Eq. (28) determines the total number in forms of TEUs. Eliminating variables Ai1t+2Ai2t in Eq. (28) and Aikt in Eq. (29) leads to Eqs. (2), (3), respectively.
方程。(28)(29)分别针对 CMB 和 STD 保证当时(即等式左侧)在港口 i t 使用的可用空箱总数由来自先前来源的空箱组成,由右侧上部表示(即前一段时间储存在港口的空箱与从腹地返回/重新定位的空箱之和其他港口),并扩展到右侧下部表示的未来来源(即,下次装运时储存的空集装箱与转移到腹地/重新定位到其他港口的空集装箱之和)。请注意,当 CMB 将其形式更改为 20/40 英尺时, Ai1t+2Ai2t 方程 (28) 决定了 TEU 形式的总数。消除方程 (28)Aikt 方程 (29) 中的变量 Ai1t+2Ai2t 得到方程。(2)、(3) 分别。
Traffic flows of owned STDs/CMBs and the leased containers are distinguished in the model. Regarding the leased containers, those with cargo shipments appear in the flow network, however, those after cargo transportation do not appear in the flow network owing to the assumption that they return to the original ports by unplanned vessels.
在模型中区分了自有 STD/CMB 和租赁容器的流量。对于租赁的集装箱,那些有货物运输的集装箱出现在流网中,但是,那些货物运输后的集装箱没有出现在流网中,因为它们被假设是计划外的船只返回原来的港口。
Herein, we show how Eqs. (17), (18) can be used to determine the number of C/D processes of CMBs at a port, i.e., CBit, which represents either the number of connecting or disconnecting processes. It is worth noting that the right-hand sides of (17), (18) are the same because they involve counting of number of connecting processes when positive and handling of disconnecting processes when negative.
在本文中,我们展示了 Eqs.(17)、(18) 可用于确定 CMB 在某个端口的 C/D 进程数,即 CBit ,它表示连接或断开连接的进程数。值得注意的是,(17)、(18) 的右侧是相同的,因为它们涉及正时连接进程数的计数和负时断开连接进程的处理。
To better understand this, consider CMB flows in relation to port i at a time t, as shown in Fig. 6, where 30 TEUs are denoted as disconnected CMBs and 60 FEUs as connected ones totaling 150 CMBs in TEUs are flowing into port i along with Sikt-1, Rikt, and Gikt. They are spreading over from that port in a different length composition (i.e., 60 disconnected TEUs and 45 connected FEUs) as demanded, along with Sikt, Nikt, and Oikt via Aikt. As a result, 15 FEUs have to be disconnected to create 30 TEUs for future shipments. Therefore, by putting a total of 60 FEUs along with Si2t-1, Ri2t, and Gi2t, and a total number of 45 FEUs along with Si2t, Ni2t, and Oi2t into the right-hand side 20+10+30-25-5-15, we obtain CBit=15 from Eq. (17). As a result, Eq. (18) is redundant in the case. Conversely, in the case of a connecting process, Eq. (18) can yield a positive value in the right-hand side while (17) becomes redundant.
为了更好地理解这一点,考虑一次与港口 i t 相关的 CMB 流量,如图 6 所示,其中 30 个 TEU 表示为断开连接的 CMB,60 个 FEU 表示为连接的 EU,总计 150 个 CMB 以 TEU 为单位,与 Sikt-1RiktGikt 一起流入港口 i 。它们根据需要以不同的长度组成(即 60 个断开连接的 TEU 和 45 个连接的 FEU)从该港口分布,以及 SiktNiktOikt via Aikt 。因此,必须断开 15 个 FEU 的连接,以创建 30 个 TEU 用于未来的运输。因此,通过将总共 60 个 FEU 与 Si2t-1Ri2t 、 和 Gi2t 、 以及总共 45 个 FEU 与 Si2tNi2tOi2t 放在右侧 20+10+30-25-5-15 ,我们可以得到 CBit=15 方程(17)。因此,方程 (18) 在这种情况下是多余的。相反,在连接过程的情况下,方程 (18) 可以在右侧产生正值,而方程 (17) 变为冗余。
  1. Download: Download high-res image (71KB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图像 (71KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载:下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 6. Counting the number of C/D processes of CMBs at a port.
图 6.统计一个端口的 CMB 的 C/D 进程数。

There are three cases regarding departing port i among the calling port set I. Constraint set (19) relates to port 1 as a departing port of a calling vessel, (21) relates to the last port in the entire one round trip of a voyage where I denotes the cardinality of set I (i.e., the last port to be called), and (20) is dedicated to all the other ports. In all these constraints, the first term denotes the number of containers that are empty or laden that depart from a port of concern, i, while the second term provides information about container traffic through the voyage segment from port i to port j.
在调用端口集中 I ,有三种情况涉及 departing port i 。约束集 (19) 与港口 1 有关,作为停靠船的出发港口,(21) 与整个航程往返航程中的最后一个港口有关,其中 I 表示集合 I 的基数(即,最后一个停靠的港口),以及 (20)专用于所有其他端口。在所有这些约束中,第一个术语表示从相关港口出发的空箱或满载集装箱的数量, i 而第二个术语提供有关通过航段从一个港口 i 到另一个港口 j 的集装箱运输量的信息。
As these three constraint sets are constructed around the same mathematical structure, we derive only constraints (20); constraints (19), (21) can be easily derived in a similar way. The total of all laden and empty traffic through port i and its next calling port along the voyage must not be more than the total vessel carrying capacity. In Fig. 7, the thick solid line denotes the voyage segment of concern. The first term of (20), qi=1IFiq20t+k1,3Eiqkt+2Fiq40t+k2,4Eiqkt denotes the traffic (laden and empty) departing from port i. The traffic through port i consists of two parts. Similarly, the second term of the left-hand side of (20), p=1i-1qp=i+1p-1Fpq20t-βpi+k1,3Epqkt-βpi+2Fpq40t-βpi+k2,4Epqkt-βpi denotes part 1 that originates from a port between port 1 and port i-1 on the voyage and terminates at port i+1 or at a port beyond it, while the third term of (20), p=i+2Iqp=i+1p-1Fpq20t-βpi+k1,3Epqkt-βpi+2Fpq40t-βpi+k2,4Epqkt-βpi denotes part 2 that originates from a port between port i+2 and port I (note that i+2 corresponds to I by coincidence in Fig. 7) and terminates at port i+1 or at a port beyond it. It is noteworthy that for part 2, the traffic departing from p=i+1 is not included because it terminates before or at port i on the voyage.
  1. Download: Download high-res image (86KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 7. Container flow on voyages of a vessel.

5. Numerical experiments

We present the numerical experiments conducted. To obtain an optimal solution to the CFSMP, we can apply an exact method coded in Python 3.5 to be solved using the commercial solver Gurobi Optimizer 8.0.1 on a PC equipped with 3.5 GHz of Intel Xeon CPU E3-1246 v3, 32 GB of RAM, and 64-bit Windows 10 operating system. The Gurobi solver provides optimal solutions within a practical computational time, for instance, average of 180 s and maximum 1200 s to solve the largest problems herein. If we deal with even larger problem size, the model requires a huge computational time and might need some metaheuristic approaches.

5.1. Shipping service routes

To achieve a realistic geographical context in the experiments, we focus on three weekly shipping service routes (trade lanes): Asia-Europe (EU), Asia-North America (NA), and Intra-Asia (AS). The following route itineraries were used for the experiments as follows. Referring to the service routes of Ocean Network Express (2018):
  • EU: Busan – Ningbo – Shanghai – Rotterdam – Hamburg – Antwerp – Southampton – Yantian – Shanghai – Busan (77 days for a round trip covering a distance of 26,038 nm, with 11 vessels deployed).
  • NA: Qingdao – Ningbo – Shanghai – Busan – Los Angeles – Oakland – Tokyo – Qingdao (42 days, 12,417 nm, 6 vessels).
  • AS: Shimizu – Yokohama – Tokyo – Busan – Laem Chabang – Cai Mep – Tokyo – Shimizu (21 days, 8,400 nm, 3 vessels).

5.2. Parameter settings

  • The following parameters are used in the experiments:
  • (i)
    Planning horizon (T): 52 weeks (or 1 year)
  • (ii)
    Container turnaround time spent in a hinterland (αi): one week for all hinterlands ports
  • (iii)
    Transit time between ports (βij): 1 to 11 weeks (EU), 1 to 6 weeks (NA) and 1 to 3 weeks (AS), depending on the distance between ports
  • (iv)
    Carrying capacity of a vessel (V): 15,000 TEUs (EU), 8000 TEUs (NA) and 4000 TEUs (AS)
  • (v)
    Storage capacity at a port (Hi): twice as much as the weekly throughput at each port
  • (vi)
    Exploitation cost of a container for 52 weeks: CFCMB = US$728/TEU, CF3 = US$312/TEU and CF4 = US$520/FEU
  • (vii)
    C/D cost (CCi): US$100/process for all ports
  • (viii)
    Storage cost: CSi20 = US$7/TEU/week and CSi40 = US$11/FEU/week for all ports
  • (ix)
    Repositioning cost: CRij20 = (US$273 to US$1003)/TEU and CRij40 = (US$467 to US$1937)/FEU (EU), CRij20 = (US$281 to US$686)/TEU and CRij40 = (US$482 to US$1292)/FEU (NA), and CRij20 = (US$297 to US$491)/TEU and CRij40 = (US$515 to US$905)/FEU (AS), depending on the port pair
  • (x)
    Leasing cost: CLij20 = US$1652/TEU and CLij40 = US$2888/FEU (EU), CLij20 = US$1103/TEU and CLij40 = US$1923/FEU (NA), CLij20 = US$780/TEU and CLij40 = US$1368/FEU (AS), depending on the port pair. This also includes transportation and handling costs
  • (xi)
    Weekly cargo traffic as the sum of both directions in the trade lane: 7500 TEUs/ 3750 FEUs (EU), 4000 TEUs/2000 FEUs (EU), and 2000 TEUs/1000 FEUs (AS). (This is in the case of balanced trade in different directions for each cargo shipment size between two trade regions)
The turnaround time spent in the hinterland (ii) may, in reality, differ for each port (and even for each container shipment). As such statistics are not readily available, we apply a constant traveling time for all ports. The transit time between ports (iii) and the vessel carrying capacity (iv) are both based on information adopted from Ocean Network Express (2018). Data on cost coefficients (vi)–(viii) are adapted from Malchow, 2016, Shintani et al., 2012. Port-related costs, such as C/D (vii) and storage (viii), are assumed to be the same for all the ports due to lack of detailed data. For vessel operating costs, Meng and Wang, 2012, Wang et al., 2017 presented the costs for various vessel sizes. This study assumes that the repositioning cost (ix) comprises of the operating cost of a vessel and handling cost at ports (CH20=US$100/TEU for 20 ft and CH40 = US$160/FEU for 40 ft, adapted from Malchow (2016)). We consider variable cost such as the repositioning cost (ix) as a product of the weekly operating cost of a vessel (CT20 for 20 ft, CT40 for 40 ft) by transit time (weeks) between a port pair. A regression analysis with the above cost data yields the following linear cost model, using the carrying capacity of a vessel (V) in TEUs as independent variable:(30)CT20=131721.39/V+64.47US$/TEU/week(31)CT40=2CT20US$/FEU/week
This regression model provides a good estimation because its coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.80. The coefficient of transportation cost has a small value for larger vessel sizes owing to the economies of scale on the relation between the vessel carrying capacity and its operating cost.
For the weekly container hiring cost of the container leasing cost (x), we referred to Chapter 11 of Lun et al. (2010) as (HR20=US$48/TEU/week for 20 ft, HR40 = US$67 /FEU/week for 40 ft). We assume that the leasing cost (x) is associated with the container hiring cost, the operating cost of a vessel, and the handling cost at ports for a round trip for a leased container, as mentioned in assumption (iv). We consider the leasing cost (x) as the product of the weekly hiring cost owing to the weekly operating cost of a vessel and transit time (weeks) between ports; and then handling cost at ports.
It is well known that the average load factor is approximately 0.7. The cargo traffic setting (xi) is made, resulting in a load factor = 0.5 for the balanced trade case. The reason for this is that the repositioning of empty containers on board is assumed not to be limited to the vessel carrying capacity even in cases of significant trade imbalances and seasonal demand fluctuations.

5.3. Transportation demands between ports

To define the transportation demands between ports, we first consider two kinds of trade imbalance schemes as follows:
The first imbalance scheme (SB) is related to the imbalance in 20 ft/40 ft shipment sizes, i.e., the 20:40 ft ratio in the total cargo traffic over the planning horizon. The basic setting is a balanced one, i.e., (1: 1) ratio for 20 and 40 ft. Table 1 lists an example for each SB in route EU, the (1:1) ratio shows the total traffic volume of 780,000 TEUs for 52 weeks, the traffic volume for each container size can be derived: 390,000 TEUs and 195,000 FEUs (or 390,000 TEUs equivalently), respectively. The (2:1) ratio implies 520,000 TEUs and 130,000 FEUs, giving a total traffic volume of 780,000 TEUs (for both 20 and 40 ft). This way, we can determine five settings for the 20:40 ft ratios such as (1:1), (1.5:1), (2:1), (1:1.5), and (1:2).

Table 1. Annual transportation demands for each imbalance scheme (SB).

SBEUNAAS
20 ft40 ft20 ft40 ft20 ft40 ft
1:1390,000195,000208,000104,000104,00052,000
1.5:1468,000156,000249,60083,200124,80041,600
2:1520,000130,000277,33369,334138,66734,667
1:1.5312,000234,000166,400124,80083,20062,400
1:2260,000260,000138,667138,66769,33369,334

Total (in TEUs)780,000416,000208,000
The second scheme (DB) arises owing to a directional imbalance in each shipment size in a trade lane. As mentioned before, potential advantages of the CMBs are signified with the directional trade imbalance. The DB scheme is suitable for this kind of analysis. The basic setting is an even balanced traffic (1:1) between two regions where the traffic volume in one direction is the same as the other. In addition, we provide four more realistic settings, so that we totally prepare ratios of (1:1), (1.5:1), (2:1), (1:1.5), and (1:2) between Asia and the other regions (Europe, North America, and other Asian regions) for each 20 and 40 ft demands.
Because practical trade situations encounter a sophisticated traffic imbalance that is incurred for each container size, we generate various trade scenarios by mixing SB and DB. For instance, for ratio (1:1) of SB, and ratio (2:1) for 20 ft and (1:2) for 40 ft of DB (as shown in Table 2), the 20 ft bound for Europe/Asia is 260,000/130,000 TEUs whereas the 40 ft for Europe/Asia accounts for 65,000/130,000 FEUs because the 20/40 ft traffic is totally 390,000 TEUs/195,000 FEUs.

Table 2. The composition of annual transportation demands in balanced SB (1:1) for each imbalance scheme (DB).

DBEUNAAS
20 ft40 ft20 ft40 ft20 ft40 ft
A–E/E–AA–E/E–AA–N/N–AA–N/N–AA1–A2/A2–A1A1–A2/A2–A1
1:1195,000/195,00097,500/97,500104,000/104,00052,000/52,00052,000/52,00026,000/26,000
1.5:1234,000/156,000117,000/78,000124,800/83,20062,400/41,60062,400/41,60031,200/20,800
2:1260,000/130,000130,000/65,000138,667/69,33369,333/34,66769,333/34,66734,667/17,333
1:1.5156,000/234,00078,000/117,00083,200/124,80041,600/62,40041,600/62,40020,800/31,200
1:2130,000/260,00065,000/130,00069,333/138,66734,667/69,33334,667/69,33317,333/34,667

Total (in TEUs)390,000195,000208,000104,000104,00052,000
A: Asia, A1: Asia 1, A2: Asia 2, E: Europe, N: North America.
In addition to the imbalance configurations above, for analyses using seasonal traffic fluctuations (TFs), we consider four different trends of transportation demands for the entire planning horizon, as shown in Fig. 8. All the demand patterns are artificial; the increase-decrease rate of each pattern has a total value of 1 for the entire planning horizon. Patterns (cns) and (cos) may be unrealistic, but we apply these as a benchmark to investigate the impact of TFs. Note that the total volume of cargo traffic for the entire planning horizon is the same for all the different demand patterns.
  1. Download: Download high-res image (113KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 8. Demand trends.

To systematically set up the port-to-port traffic volume instances for each service route, we randomly generate them with a certain range of trade flow following a uniform distribution of random numbers. Furthermore, multiplying the total traffic volume by both SB/DB traffic imbalances and the TF increase-decrease rate creates a weekly cargo traffic per voyage between ports. For example, Table 3 demonstrates the weekly export and import traffic at each port in the three service routes for the balanced 20:40 ft ratio for SB and the balanced directional traffic for 20 and 40 ft for DB. Notably, because a vast set of scenarios were explored in the experiments, we will not elaborate on each range here for practical reasons.

Table 3. Weekly throughput at each port with balanced trade.

EU
RegionPortExportImport
20 ft40 ft20 ft40 ft
AsiaBusan944472991495
Ningbo898449942471
Shanghai937468930465
Yantian971486887444

EuropeRotterdam9054531023512
Hamburg946473954477
Antwerp975487878439
Southampton924462895447

Total7500375075003750

NA
RegionPortExportImport
20 ft40 ft20 ft40 ft
AsiaQingdao390195437218
Ningbo420210356178
Shanghai432216366183
Busan368184427214
Tokyo390195414207

North AmericaLos Angeles9884941071535
Oakland1012506929465

Total4000200040002000

AS
RegionPortExportImport
20 ft40 ft20 ft40 ft
Asia #1Shimizu328164332166
Yokohama338169325162
Tokyo334167343172

Asia #2Busan300150317158
Laem Chabang359180369185
Cai Mep341170314157

Total2000100020001000
For the three service routes, we assumed that there is no cargo traffic between ports within a trade region. In addition, if a vessel calls at the same port twice in a service route, i.e., Shanghai in EU route and Tokyo in AS route, we presumed that at these ports, the vessel unloads imported shipments at the first call and loads export shipments at the last call.

5.4. Experimental scheme

We execute the experiments based on a total of 500 instances for each service route, with a combination of three kinds of factors: SB (5 cases), DB (5/5 cases for 20/40 ft) and TF (4 cases). We correlate the instance ID numbers to experimental designs in the order of SB, DB, and TF. For example, the instance ID “151-21-115-lgp” corresponds to SB-(1.5:1), DB (20 ft)-(2:1) and DB (40 ft)-(1:1.5), and TF-lgp. This study considers three types of container fleet compositions: STU (using STDs only), CMU (CMBs only), and MIX (both STDs and CMBs). Because the CFSMP model was designed to obtain a solution for MIX, we add to the constraint(s) of this model: FSCMB = 0 for STU, and FS3 = 0 and FS4 = 0 for the CMU, respectively.
In addition, sensitivity analyses are performed by varying the CMB exploitation and C/D costs.

5.5. Analyses

To examine the performance of the MIX and CMU on the total cost reduction using CMBs, we employ indicators known as maximum and minimum impacts of CMBs (referred to as XIMP and NIMP, respectively). Considering the total cost of the STU as the standard value for cost comparisons, we define XIMP and NIMP using the MIX and CMU costs as follows:(32)XIMP%=maxSTU-MIX/STU×100,STU-CMU/STU×100(33)NIMP%=minSTU-MIX/STU×100,STU-CMU/STU×100
The effect of CMBs could be classified into three levels such as complete superiority, medium superiority, and inferiority. These levels are represented with XIMP and NIMP indicators in the following way:
  • For complete superiority (CSUP): XIMP = NIMP greater than 0 (because MIX = CMU < STU)
  • For medium superiority (MSUP): XIMP > NIMP (because MIX < CMU and MIX < STU)
  • For inferiority (INFE): NIMP < XIMP = 0 (because STU = MIX < CMU).
Note that the relations MIX = CMU for the CSUP and MIX = STU for the INFE arise from the optimal computation of the CFSMP.
For easy understanding of how the XIMP and NIMP indicators work, suppose the following simple examples: If the CMB has a CSUP with (STU = 10, CMU = 7, MIX = 7), the indicators are [XIMP = max(30, 30) = 30, NIMP = min(30, 30) = 30]. In case of the MSUP with (STU = 10, CMU = 9, MIX = 8) or (STU = 10, CMU = 11, MIX = 9), the indicators are [XIMP = max(20, 10) = 20, NIMP = min(20, 10) = 10] or [XIMP = max(10, −10) = 10, NIMP = min(10, −10) = −10], respectively. For the case of INFE with (STU = 10, CMU = 13, MIX = 10), XIMP = max(0, −30) = 0 and NIMP = min(0, −30) = −30.
These indicators are helpful to recognize the effect of CMBs in various trading scenarios brought by the combination of SB, DB and TF.
  • (1)
    Cost comparisons
Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 illustrate results indicating the superiority of CMB for the three service routes. While we categorized the superiority with three levels, no CSUP instances are found through all the experiments. The upper/lower parts of each table show the best (i.e., MSUP) and the worst (INFE) five instances for each TF scenario with a total of 125 instances.

Table 4. Comparison of the impacts by using CMBs (EU).

(a) MSUP
Instance IDXIMP (%)NIMP (%)Total cost (US$ ×106)
STUMIXCMU
11-21-12-lgp32.510.9195.2131.8173.8
11-12-21-lgp32.110.6194.5132.2173.9
115-21-12-lgp29.87.4191.7134.6177.6
151-12-21-lgp29.08.7199.2141.5182.0
115-12-21-lgp29.06.4189.9134.9177.7

11-12-21-lgm32.111.4195.4132.8173.1
11-21-12-lgm31.611.0194.4133.0173.1
151-12-21-lgm29.69.5200.4141.0181.3
115-21-12-lgm29.67.8191.1134.6176.3
115-12-21-lgm29.57.9190.8134.5175.7

11-21-12-cns43.121.7157.989.8123.6
11-12-21-cns43.121.7157.889.9123.6
115-21-12-cns39.014.9156.595.5133.2
151-12-21-cns38.215.4159.798.6135.1
115-12-21-cns38.113.8155.896.4134.3

11-21-12-cos39.013.6157.395.9136.0
11-12-21-cos39.013.5157.295.9135.9
115-21-12-cos35.68.5156.4100.8143.2
115-12-21-cos35.17.8155.2100.8143.0
151-12-21-cos34.89.1159.8104.1145.2
Bold: The best case by using CMBs

(b) INFE
Instance IDXIMP (%)NIMP (%)Total cost (US$ x106)
STUMIXCMU
12-11-11-lgp0.0−60.0104.0104.0166.4
115-11-11-lgp0.0−58.3105.2105.2166.5
11-11-11-lgp0.0−56.4107.0107.0167.4
151-11-11-lgp0.0−54.7108.9108.9168.4
21-11-11-lgp 21-11-11-导光板0.0−53.6110.2110.2169.2

12-11-11-lgm0.0−54.3108.1108.1166.8
115-11-11-lgm0.0−53.1109.4109.4167.5
151-11-11-lgm 151-11-LGM0.0−49.8113.2113.2169.6
21-11-11-lgm0.0−48.9114.5114.5170.4
12-151-151-lgm0.0−38.4149.3149.3206.5

12-11-11-cns0.0−78.664.464.4115.0
115-11-11-cns0.0−76.965.365.3115.4
11-11-11-cns0.0−74.366.766.7116.3
151-11-11-cns0.0−71.967.967.9116.8
21-11-11-cns0.0−70.468.968.9117.3

12-11-11-cos0.0−78.671.871.8128.3
115-11-11-cos0.0−77.072.872.8128.9
11-11-11-cos0.0−74.674.374.3129.7
151-11-11-cos0.0−72.175.875.8130.5
21-11-11-cos0.0−70.676.876.8131.0
Underline: The worst case by using CMBs
下划线:使用 CMB 的最坏情况

Table 5. Comparison of the impacts by using CMBs (NA).
表 5.使用 CMB 的影响比较 (NA)。

(a) MSUP (a) MSUP
Instance ID 实例 IDXIMP (%) 国际肥料 (%)NIMP (%) 净含量 (%)Total cost (US$ ×106)
总成本(10× 美元 6
STUMIXCMU
11-12-21-lgp 11-12-21-导光板45.521.061.633.648.6
11-21-12-lgp 11-21-12-导光板45.420.961.633.748.8
115-12-151-lgp41.16.149.229.046.2
151-151-12-lgp40.97.849.829.445.9
115-21-12-lgp40.615.761.436.551.8

11-12-21-lgm44.519.959.933.248.0
11-21-12-lgm44.519.860.033.348.1
115-12-151-lgm40.65.347.928.545.4
151-151-12-lgm40.57.148.528.945.1
115-21-12-lgm40.315.159.735.750.7

11-12-21-cns55.335.056.125.036.4
11-21-12-cns55.234.956.125.136.5
115-12-151-cns53.825.244.220.433.1
151-151-12-cns53.425.744.420.733.0
12-21-115-cns51.922.243.821.134.1

11-12-21-cos48.822.358.229.845.2
11-21-12-cos48.722.358.329.945.3
115-12-151-cos45.18.846.425.542.3
115-21-12-cos44.716.557.531.848.1
151-151-12-cos44.69.746.725.942.2
Bold: The best case by using CMBs

(b) INFE
Instance IDXIMP (%)NIMP (%)Total cost (US$ x106)
STUMIXCMU
11-11-11-lgp0.0−94.023.123.144.7
11-151-151-lgp0.0−44.245.545.565.5
11-151-21-lgp0.0−36.455.355.375.5
11-21-151-lgp0.0−36.556.656.677.2
11-21-21-lgp0.0−31.266.566.587.3

11-11-11-lgm0.0−92.022.922.944.0
11-151-151-lgm0.0−43.644.444.463.8
11-151-21-lgm0.0−35.554.154.173.2
11-21-151-lgm0.0−35.855.255.275.0
11-21-21-lgm0.0−30.464.964.984.7

11-11-11-cns0.0−101.516.016.032.3
11-151-151-cns0.0−47.936.436.453.8
11-151-21-cns0.0−39.645.745.763.8
11-21-151-cns0.0−38.546.846.864.7
11-21-21-cns0.0−33.356.156.174.7

11-11-11-cos0.0−96.721.021.041.4
11-151-151-cos0.0−52.739.439.460.2
11-151-21-cos0.0−43.349.049.070.2
11-21-21-cos0.0−36.559.759.781.4
11-115-115-cos0.0−49.841.641.662.4
Underline: The worst case by using CMBs

Table 6. Comparison of the impacts by using CMBs (AS).

(a) MSUP
Instance IDXIMP (%)NIMP (%)Total cost (US$ ×106)
STUMIXCMU
11-12-21-lgp16.2−2.728.123.528.8
115-21-12-lgp16.1−3.427.322.928.2
11-21-12-lgp16.0−2.828.023.628.8
151-12-21-lgp15.9−2.828.323.729.0
12-21-12-lgp15.8−4.926.822.628.1

11-12-21-lgm16.7−2.227.322.727.9
11-21-12-lgm16.7−2.227.322.727.9
115-21-12-lgm16.3−3.226.422.127.2
115-12-21-lgm16.0−3.327.222.928.1
151-12-21-lgm15.9−2.927.323.028.1

115-21-12-cns21.33.925.319.924.3
11-12-21-cns21.35.226.120.624.8
11-21-12-cns21.15.126.120.524.7
151-12-21-cns20.94.626.220.724.9
115-12-21-cns20.73.926.120.725.1

11-12-21-cos19.10.027.622.327.6
11-21-12-cos19.00.127.622.327.5
115-21-12-cos19.0−0.526.821.726.9
115-12-21-cos18.5−1.227.522.427.8
151-12-21-cos18.5−0.327.722.627.8
Bold: The best case by using CMBs

(b) INFE
Instance IDXIMP (%)NIMP (%)Total cost (US$ x106)
STUMIXCMU
12-11-11-lgp0.0−43.218.018.025.8
115-11-11-lgp0.0−42.218.318.326.0
11-11-11-lgp0.0−40.718.718.726.3
151-11-11-lgp0.0−39.419.119.126.6
21-11-11-lgp0.0−38.519.419.426.8

12-11-11-lgm0.0−44.417.317.325.1
115-11-11-lgm0.0−43.417.617.625.2
11-11-11-lgm0.0−41.918.018.025.5
151-11-11-lgm0.0−40.418.418.425.8
21-11-11-lgm0.0−39.518.618.626.0

12-11-11-cns0.0−38.015.615.621.6
115-11-11-cns0.0−37.215.815.821.7
12-115-115-cns0.0−36.816.516.522.6
115-115-115-cns0.0−36.016.716.722.7
11-11-11-cns0.0−36.016.216.222.0

12-11-11-cos0.0−41.517.417.424.7
11-11-11-cos0.0−39.418.118.125.2
151-11-11-cos0.0−38.318.418.425.5
21-11-11-cos0.0−37.518.718.725.7
12-115-115-cos0.0−36.518.318.325.0
Underline: The worst case by using CMBs
With reference to the MSUP results, it can be observed that MIX has the best performance in instances with larger trade imbalances of DB for all three routes. This observation indicates that the directional imbalance affects the drive to exchange between 20 ft and 40 ft CMBs. Examining the INFE results shows that the STU outperforms the other schemes when there is less or no directional imbalances. Note that owing to optimality in the CFSMP, MIX has no use for CMB (this will be shown in Fig. 10 for the discussion of the fleet composition) and its cost is the same as the STU for INFE instances (reverse instances with STD superiority). CMU provides the highest total costs for all INFE instances.
It should be noted that CMU offers better performance than STU for all instances of TF in the MSUP cases for the EU and NA routes, and for (cns) in the MSUP for the AS route. Therefore, if the shipping company is urged to deploy a homogeneous container fleet for some reasons, CMB is the preferred choice for MSUP in all instances of TF over time for the EU and NA routes.
For the EU route, MIX achieves 30–40% lower cost than STU in MSUP instances. This cost reduction is more or less typical in order of (cns), (cos), (lgm), and (lgp) of TF. For the NA and AS routes, the overall trends are the same as those for EU. However, the cost of MIX is surprisingly almost half of the cost of STU for NA while the cost reduction by MIX for AS is not very significant compared to other routes. Once again, these findings should be less evaluated owing to non-practicality of (cns) and (cos). Because instances (lgp) and (lgm) of TF are more realistic than (cns) and (cos), hereafter, we focus on the results of (lgp) and (lgm) to discuss the viability of CMBs.
Fig. 9 portrays the composition of total cost of the most typical instance categorized into MSUP and INFE cases for the three service routes. They are:
  • EU: instance (11-21-12-lgp) with XIMP/NIMP = 32.5/10.9 as the best in MSUP and instance (12-11-11-lgp) with XIMP/NIMP = 0.0/−60.0 as the worst in INFE,
  • NA: instance (11-12-21-lgp) with XIMP/NIMP = 45.5/21.0 as the best in MSUP and instance (11-11-11-lgp) with XIMP/NIMP = 0.0/−94.0 as the worst in INFE,
  • AS: instance (11-12-21-lgm) with XIMP/NIMP = 16.7/−2.2 as the best in MSUP and instance (12-11-11-lgm) with XIMP/NIMP = 0.0/−44.4 as the worst in INFE.
  1. Download: Download high-res image (353KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 9. Composition of total cost.

With reference to MSUP, MIX offers the lowest repositioning cost even though it constitutes an additional cost, i.e., higher exploitation and C/D costs of a CMB while nearly maintaining the same level of container fleet cost as STU. In contrast, STU tends to pay a huge repositioning cost and to prefer the storage of empties. Clearly, due to the exploitation cost, CMU bears the highest fleet cost and consequently the highest total costs. In contrast, for the INFE, STU obtains a large monetary benefit owing to cheaper fleet cost, whereas MIX yields the same cost as STU owing to optimality.
With reference to the leasing cost, the INFE cases for the three service routes offer a lower leasing cost than the MSUP cases owing to the balanced trades in DB. The STU in MSUP cases for the EU and NA routes incurs a higher leasing cost than MIX and CMU. Conversely, MIX and CMU in the MSUP for the AS route incur a higher leasing cost compared to STU. Therefore, MIX and CMU do not always offer cheaper leasing costs compared to STU.
  • (2)
    Sensitivity analyses on discounting container costs
When CMBs are widely employed in the market, economies of scale will bring down the manufacturing costs, thereby lowering the exploitation cost of a CMB. In addition, further development of the handling equipment will result in more cost-efficient C/D processes for CMBs. To observe the impacts of these cost discounts on the total cost, container fleet size and empty container movements, our analyses reflect these scenarios by varying cost elements such as CMB exploitation and C/D costs from the base value (x1) to x0.6 of its value, respectively. Note that to compare the container fleet sizes under the consistent evaluation criteria, we convert and unify the unit of each composition for a container fleet such as TEUs. We also define empty container movements as the number of empty containers regardless of 20/40 ft sizes that are repositioned between all port pairs in the planning horizon.
Fig. 10, Fig. 11 illustrate the results with a gradual discount in these cost elements focusing on the most typical instance of MSUP and INFE, similar to Fig. 9. Each line in Fig. 10, Fig. 11 represents plots of a series of total costs of the CFSMP solutions that are found with a varying respective cost element. The figures also show the total cost of the STU for benchmarking.
  1. Download: Download high-res image (913KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis for container fleet size on discounting the costs of exploitation and C/D of a CMB.

  1. Download: Download high-res image (846KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis for empty container movements on discounting the costs of exploitation and C/D for a CMB.

Explicitly, discounted CMB exploitation and C/D costs lower the total costs. Discounting the CMB exploitation cost has a significant effect on the total costs for MIX and CMU. As the share of CMB in the entire fleet is much larger for CMU (100%) than for MIX, a lower CMB exploitation cost significantly decreases the total costs of the CMU. However, for INFE, even the lowest exploitation cost cannot help introduce the CMU instead of the STU. It is noteworthy that in INFE cases, the MIX with CMB exploitation and changes in C/D cost result in an unchanged cost that is the same as the STU cost because the MIX fleet composition has no CMBs.
The effect of lower C/D cost is quite restrictive for the MIX and CMU in MSUP and for the CMU in INFE. Note that there is hardly any total cost reduction for the CMU in the case of INFE.
Focusing on the impacts to the container fleet size and empty container movements, discounting the cost elements has little effect on the increase or decrease in their volume in most cases, except for the container fleet size at CMU-EXP in MSUP and empty container movements at CMU-C/D in INFE. It should be noted that CMBs offer quite a small amount of empty container movements in the NA route. Transforming the dimension between 20 and 40 ft significantly reduces the occurrence of empty containers. Such results may not always be obtainable, but its possibility could be examined in further experiments.
In summary, the results imply that the container fleet size and empty container movements totally depend on the respective trade flow of 20/40 ft containers between trade regions rather than on discounting relevant costs of CMBs. Therefore, we can conclude that CMB usage is not sensitive to CMB exploitation and C/D costs, and discount in those costs will not significantly drive CMB usage. However, discounting the CMB exploitation cost is still a leading measure toward lowering the total cost using CMBs.
  • (3)
    Influence of container fleet size by varying trade imbalances
To examine the impact of different DB scenarios on the container fleet size and total cost, we enumerated all DB scenarios under a specific set of (SB-TF) that results in the best and worst instances, as shown in Fig. 12, Fig. 13. The chosen (SB-TF) sets are: (11-lgp) as the best and (12-lgp) as the worst for the EU routes, (11-lgp) as the best and (11-lgp) as the worst for the NA routes, and (11-lgm) as the best and (12-lgm) as the worst for the AS routes. The worst case for the NA routes is consolidated in Fig. 12(b) owing to the identity of (SB-TF).
  1. Download: Download high-res image (2MB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 12. Container fleet size for varying trade imbalances in the MSUP.

  1. Download: Download high-res image (1MB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图像 (1MB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载:下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 13. Container fleet size for varying trade imbalances in the INFE.
图 13.INFE 中不同贸易不平衡的集装箱船队规模。

Fig. 12, Fig. 13 describe the container fleet size and CMB impact indicators of XIMP/NIMP associated with different DB instances for each (SB-TF) scenario for MSUP and INFE, respectively. Recall that XIMP and NIMP substantially showed the gaps in total costs between STU and MIX, and between STU and CMU, respectively. We can see at a glance that larger DB imbalances in 20/40 ft incur much larger container fleets for the STU compared to MIX and CMU. CMU offers the smallest container fleet in most cases, whereas MIX takes the middle position between STU and CMU; MIX provides similar fleet sizes as STU in completely or nearly balanced DBs. Moreover, these imbalances create a large gap between XIMP and NIMP, whether in MSUP or INFE, showing the superiority of MIX.
图 12图 13 分别描述了 MSUP 和 INFE 的每种 (SB-TF) 场景下与不同数据库实例关联的 XIMP/NIMP 的容器队列大小和 CMB 影响指标。回想一下,XIMP 和 NIMP 分别大大显示了 STU 和 MIX 之间以及 STU 和 CMU 之间的总成本差距。我们可以一目了然地看到,与 MIX 和 CMU 相比,20/40 英尺的较大数据库不平衡会导致 STU 的集装箱船队大得多。在大多数情况下,CMU 提供最小的集装箱船队,而 MIX 在 STU 和 CMU 之间处于中间位置;MIX 在完全或几乎平衡的数据库中提供与 STU 相似的队列大小。此外,这些不平衡在 XIMP 和 NIMP 之间造成了很大的差距,无论是在 MSUP 还是 INFE 中,都显示了 MIX 的优越性。
  • (4)
    Influence of geographical scale of trade lane
    贸易航线地理规模的影响
Herein, we examine the influence of geographical scale, i.e., the distance of a trade lane on the total cost and the container fleet size under the unified carrying capacity of a vessel. Fig. 14 shows comparisons between the total cost and container fleet size for different distances, varying 1/2 (x0.5) and 1/4 (x0.25) of the base distance (x1) for the EU route as an example, where all the other experimental conditions, such as vessel capacity, remain the same. The trend shows that smaller distances offer less container fleet sizes, which results in lower total costs due to the higher container productivity resulting from quicker container turnarounds between the two trade regions.
在本文中,我们研究了地理尺度(即贸易航线的距离)对船舶统一载重量下总成本和集装箱船队规模的影响。图 14 显示了不同距离下总成本和集装箱船队规模之间的比较,例如欧盟航线的基本距离 (x1) 的 1/2 (x0.5) 和 1/4 (x0.25) 变化,其中所有其他实验条件(例如船舶容量)保持不变。趋势表明,距离越短,集装箱船队规模越小,由于两个贸易区域之间的集装箱周转速度更快,集装箱生产率更高,因此总成本更低。
  1. Download: Download high-res image (268KB)
    下载: 下载高分辨率图像 (268KB)
  2. Download: Download full-size image
    下载:下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 14. Influence of geographical scale between two trade regions.
图 14.地理规模对两个贸易区域的影响。

MIX bears the lowest total costs for all cases. Conversely, in INFE, both MIX and STU offer similar levels of total costs and fleet sizes for any instances. Though CMU achieves the smallest fleet size for any distance scenarios for both MSUP and INFE, it results in much higher total costs compared to the other schemes owing to the higher exploitation cost of a CMB compared to an STD.
MIX 在所有情况下承担最低的总成本。相反,在 INFE 中,MIX 和 STU 为任何实例提供相似水平的总成本和队列大小。尽管 CMU 在 MSUP 和 INFE 的任何距离场景中都实现了最小的机队规模,但由于 CMB 的开发成本高于 STD,因此与其他方案相比,它的总成本要高得多。
In addition, it is interesting to note the marginal economic advantage of MIX for shorter trade distances for instances in MSUP and INFE.
此外,有趣的是,注意到 MIX 在较短贸易距离上的边际经济优势,例如 MSUP 和 INFE。

6. Conclusions 6. 结论

In this work, we examined the possibility of CMBs to reduce container capital and operational costs, which reflects the characteristics of liner shipping networks such as multi-period, multi-vessel, multi-port, and fixed schedule. To date, no studies have focused on container fleet sizing and empty container management problems for container liner service using CMBs, though a few studies have recently been conducted on other newly designed containers, i.e., FLDs. We modeled the entire flow of laden and empty container traffic over the service network as a minimum cost multi-commodity network flow problem. The model determines the container fleet size and empty container allocation/repositioning to meet transportation demands with various trade imbalances and different trends of cargo traffic.
在这项工作中,我们研究了 CMB 降低集装箱资本和运营成本的可能性,这反映了班轮航运网络的特点,如多周期、多船、多港口和固定时间表。迄今为止,还没有研究关注使用 CMB 的集装箱班轮服务的集装箱船队尺寸和空箱管理问题,尽管最近对其他新设计的集装箱(即 FLD)进行了一些研究。我们将服务网络上的整个满载和空箱流量建模为最低成本的多商品网络流问题。该模型确定集装箱船队规模和空箱分配/重新定位,以满足各种贸易不平衡和不同货物运输趋势的运输需求。
Based on numerical experiments, the following conclusions can be drawn. Using CMBs together with STDs can substantially reduce the total costs. Importantly, when there are directional trade imbalances between two different regions with respect to required container sizes of 20/40 ft, CMBs can reduce empty container movements and consequently, offer small container fleets thanks to their flexibility of use. It appears prominently when there are large gaps in the directional imbalance for each container size between trade regions. Contrarily, as CMBs offers less economic advantages with STDs in balanced trade for each container size, they incur the highest total cost due to the high exploitation cost.
根据数值实验,可以得出以下结论。将 CMB 与 STD 一起使用可以大大降低总成本。重要的是,当两个不同地区之间就所需的 20/40 英尺集装箱尺寸存在定向贸易不平衡时,CMB 可以减少空箱运输,因此,由于其使用的灵活性,可以提供小型集装箱船队。当贸易区域之间每个集装箱尺寸的方向不平衡存在较大间隙时,它会突出显示。相反,由于 CMB 在每种集装箱尺寸的平衡贸易中与 STD 提供的经济优势较小,因此由于开采成本高,它们承担的总成本最高。
In addition, if the cost of CMB exploitation decreases, the potential transportation cost savings will increase further. However, this requires CMBs to be mass-produced at a level that gives rise to economies of scale. Moreover, the container fleet size and empty container movements totally depend on the respective trade flow of 20/40 ft between trade regions rather than on discounting relevant costs of CMBs. Thus, a discount in those costs will not significantly drive CMB usage but lowering the CMB exploitation costs is bound to contribute to cheaper container shipping with the CMU fleet.
此外,如果 CMB 开发的成本降低,则潜在的运输成本节省将进一步增加。然而,这需要 CMB 的大规模生产水平能够产生规模经济。此外,集装箱船队规模和空箱运输完全取决于贸易区域之间 20/40 英尺的贸易流向,而不是贴现 CMB 的相关成本。因此,这些成本的折扣不会显著推动 CMB 的使用,但降低 CMB 开采成本必然有助于降低 CMU 船队的集装箱运输成本。
As a practical matter, to limit investment risks, shipping companies will likely introduce a small number of CMBs initially. Nonetheless, if the expectations for CMBs are met, container fleets will develop toward an optimal composition of CMBs and STDs.
实际上,为了限制投资风险,航运公司最初可能会引入少量的 CMB。尽管如此,如果对 CMB 的期望得到满足,集装箱船队将朝着 CMB 和 STD 的最佳组成发展。
To facilitate the development of the model, some assumptions are made with respect to the reality observed in container business environment; this study has successfully provided some insights into the possibility of reducing cost by adopting CMBs in deep-sea shipping.
为了促进模型的开发,对在容器业务环境中观察到的现实进行了一些假设;这项研究成功地为在深海航运中采用 CMB 来降低成本的可能性提供了一些见解。

Acknowledgement 确认

The authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their time and helpful suggestions that have considerably improved this article. The main stage of this study was carried out while the first author of this paper, Koichi Shintani, was at Delft University of Technology as a visiting researcher with a support by Tokai University. This work was financially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP18K04618 and JP17H02039.
作者要感谢三位匿名审稿人抽出时间并提出有用的建议,这些建议大大改进了本文。本研究的主要阶段是在本文的第一作者 Koichi Shintani 在东海大学的支持下在代尔夫特理工大学担任访问研究员时进行的。这项工作得到了 JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP18K04618JP17H02039 的财政支持。

Appendix A. Supplementary material
附录 A. 补充材料

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:Download: Download XML file (249B)

Supplementary data 1.


以下是本文的补充数据: Download: Download XML file (249B)

Supplementary data 1.

Research data for this article
本文的研究数据

Data not available / Data will be made available on request
数据不可用 / 数据将应要求提供
Further information on research data
有关研究数据的更多信息

References

Cited by (28) 被引用次数 (28)

  • Container port drayage operations and management: Past and future
    集装箱港口短驳运营和管理:过去与未来

    2022, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
    2022 年,运输研究 E 部分:物流与运输回顾
    Citation Excerpt : 引文摘录 :

    This can reduce the chances of the occurrence of empty repositioning caused by imbalances resulting from the needs of containers in different sizes. Shintani et al. (2019) present a model of multi-commodity network flow problem that can optimize the fleet sizes of both standard and combinable containers and reposition the empty containers. Numerical experiments show that the adoption of mixed containers can significantly reduce container related cost.
    这可以减少因不同尺寸的集装箱需求而导致的不平衡而导致空重定位的机会。Shintani 等人(2019 年)提出了一个多商品网络流问题模型,该模型可以优化标准集装箱和可组合集装箱的船队规模,并重新定位空集装箱。数值实验表明,采用混合容器可以显著降低容器相关成本。

  • Contracting in ocean transportation with empty container repositioning under asymmetric information
    在信息不对称的情况下,空箱重新定位的海运合同

    2021, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
    2021 年,运输研究 E 部分:物流和运输评论
  • Intelligent logistics integration of internal and external transportation with separation mode
    内外运输智能物流一体化

    2020, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
    2020, 运输研究 E 部分: 物流与运输回顾
    Citation Excerpt : 引文摘录 :

    Results showed the policy they proposed reduced container repositioning costs. Shintani et al. (2019) formulated a model of a minimum cost multi-commodity network flow problem which aimed to simultaneously determine the fleet sizes of standard and combinable containers and their empty container allocation/repositioning of combinable containers. Numerical experiments showed that mixed use of containers save cost significantly.
    结果表明,他们提出的政策降低了集装箱重新定位成本。Shintani 等人(2019 年)制定了一个最低成本多商品网络流动问题的模型,旨在同时确定标准集装箱和可组合集装箱的船队规模及其空集装箱分配/可组合集装箱的重新定位。数值实验表明,容器的混合使用可以显著节省成本。

View all citing articles on Scopus
查看 Scopus 上的所有施引文献
View Abstract 查看摘要