Journal of the Operational Research Society (2000) 51, 834842 #2000 Operational Research Society Ltd.

d. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/00 $15.00

www.stockton-press.co.uk/jors

A combined ship scheduling and allocation problem

K Fagerholt and M Christiansen*
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

We present a bulk ship scheduling problem that is a combined multi-ship pickup and delivery problem with time
windows (m-PDPTW) and multi-allocation problem. In contrast to other ship scheduling problems found in the literature,
each ship in the eet is equipped with a exible cargo hold that can be partitioned into several smaller holds in a given
number of ways. Therefore, multiple products can be carried simultaneously by the same ship. The scheduling of the
ships constitutes the m-PDPTW, while the partition of the ships' exible cargo holds and the allocation of cargoes to the
smaller holds make the multi-allocation problem. A set partitioning approach consisting of two phases is proposed for the
combined ship scheduling and allocation problem. In the rst phase, a number of candidate schedules (including
allocation of cargoes to the ships' cargo holds) is generated for each ship. In the second phase, we minimise
transportation costs by solving a set partitioning problem where the columns are the candidate schedules generated in
phase one. The computational results show that the proposed approach works, and optimal solutions are obtained on
several cases of a real ship planning problem.

Keywords: scheduling; routing; allocation; ships

Introduction various dry bulk cargoes. Due to the characteristics of the

various products, no two cargoes can be mixed in the same
Vehicle routing and scheduling have been widely discussed
cargo hold during transportation without being separated.
in the literature and have emerged as one of the major
Each ship is therefore equipped with a exible cargo hold
success stories in the eld of MS=OR. There has, however,
that can be partitioned into several smaller holds in a given
been relatively little work done on ship routing and sche-
number of ways. In this way, different cargoes can be lifted
duling. Ronen1 discusses some reasons for the low attention
simultaneously by the same ship. This ship planning
drawn by ship routing and scheduling problems. One of the
problem becomes a combined multi-ship pickup and deliv-
reasons mentioned is that the ocean shipping industry has a
ery problem with time windows (m-PDPTW) 2,3 and multi-
long tradition for manual routing of their eet. Ships have
allocation problem. The routing and scheduling of the ships
been around for thousands of years, and the planning
constitute the m-PDPTW, while the partitioning of the
techniques have not developed much through the years.
ships' exible cargo holds and the allocation of cargoes
The industry has been conservative and not open to new
to the holds make it a multi-allocation problem. The
optimisation based methods. Another reason is that ship
problem is therefore called a combined Ship Scheduling
scheduling involves a much larger variety in problem
and Allocation Problem (SSAP).
structures and operating environments than standard vehi-
A simulation study performed by Fagerholt4 shows that
cle scheduling, so tailor-made systems have often been
exible cargo holds may give a signicant increase in the
necessary as support for the decision makers. Therefore,
utilisation of the ship capacities compared to xed cargo
this low level of attention to ship scheduling should involve
holds in the transportation of various dry bulk products.
a great potential for signicant improvements by introdu-
This explains some of the attention to the SSAP.
cing optimisation based decision support systems for the
There is a relatively high degree of uncertainty in the
planners. A ship may cost thousands of dollars per day,
operation of ships, as they often experience delays due to
therefore a modest improvement of the routing and sche-
differing weather conditions. For many ship planning
duling may result in large monetary savings.
problems, it can be considered as speculative scheduling
A real ship planning problem and a suggested solution
vessels more than a few voyages ahead in time due to the
approach will be described here. The problem involves the
long sea voyages and the high uncertainty. Therefore, ship
design of a set of minimum cost schedules for a hetero-
scheduling problems often consist of less route combina-
geneous eet of ships engaged in pickup and delivery of
tions than vehicle scheduling problems. Ship scheduling
problems are also often relatively well constrained, because
*Correspondence: Dr M Christiansen, Section of Managerial Economics
and Operations Research, Norwegian University of Science and Techno- of incompatibilities between ships, ports and cargo require-
logy, Trondheim, Norway. ments, therefore reducing the solution space. Because of

the relatively small and well constrained problems, ship
scheduling are often approached by rst generating all
feasible schedules for the ships in the eet, and then solving
the problem as a set partitioning problem, where the
columns represent the schedules. A principal advantage
of the set partitioning approach is that intricate schedule
constraints can easily be incorporated in the schedule
generator rather than mathematically in the set partitioning
solver.5 This solution approach is also followed here to
solve the SSAP. Here, the complex allocation constraints
are incorporated in the schedule generator. Most of the
following references have applied a similar solution
approach, but in contrast to the SSAP, none of them
consider combined scheduling and allocation. For a more
complete review on ship scheduling problems, see Ronen.6
Brown et al 7 studied a crude oil tanker scheduling
problem. In contrast to the SSAP, all cargoes are considered
as full shiploads, therefore reducing the complexity of their
problem. All feasible schedules are generated a priori
together with their costs. Then the problem is solved as a
set partitioning problem, where the columns represent the
schedules. Fisher and Rosenwein8 considered a problem that
is conceptually quite similar to the one in Brown et al,7
except that the cargoes can be less than a full shipload.
However, a ship schedule always follows the same pattern,
by rst loading then discharging all cargoes before it again
starts to load. This stands in contrast to the SSAP, where the
ship often discharges only some of the cargoes onboard
before it again starts loading. This (in addition to the
allocation) makes the SSAP more complex than the one in
Fisher and Rosenwein.8
A ship scheduling problem involving multiple products
is studied in Bausch et al.9 Here, the ships are equipped
with multiple compartments, but in contrast to our problem
these compartments are xed. Their problem is solved by
generating all feasible schedules beforehand, and then
solving the set partitioning problem. Brown et al5 consid-
ered a somewhat different problem that is solved by a
similar approach. Their problem consists of deciding
which naval combatants eet units should be used to satisfy
their operational commitments while distributing the work-
load equally between the units.
In Darby-Dowman et al,10 the problem of scheduling
Coast Guard cutters is studied. The commitments to be
fullled can result in the non-existence of feasible
schedules. They therefore introduce a relaxation of the
requirements to obtain schedules for each ship, where an
under- or over-achievement of a commitment is penalised. By
generating a number of schedules for each cutter a priori, the
problem is solved as a mixed-integer programming model.
Christiansen and Nygreen11 presented a combined ship
scheduling problem, but in contrast to the SSAP, their
problem is a combined bulk ship scheduling and a single
product inventory management problem. Due to the
complexity of this combined ship planning problem, they
K Fagerholt and M ChristiansenA combined ship scheduling and allocation problem 835
apply a column generation approach and generate sche-
dules when needed. The schedules consist of ship routes
with arrival time and load quantity information, and port
visit sequences satisfying the inventory constraints. The
ship scheduling and inventory management aspects are
synchronised in the master problem, which results in an
extended set partitioning problem. The overall problem is
solved by branch-and-bound.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the SSAP and
describe the proposed solution method. In the following
section, we give a detailed problem description, while in
the third section we suggest a set partitioning approach.
Computational results on cargo data from a real ship
planning problem are presented in the fourth section.
Finally in the last section we provide conclusions.
Problem description
We have studied a real ship planning problem faced by
Hydro Agri, the world's largest producer of mineral ferti-
lizer. In addition to being the producer, Hydro Agri is
engaged in the waterborne transportation of their products.
The company operates several production units around the
world, each specialising in a number of fertilizer types or
qualities. Here, we concentrate on the seaborne transporta-
tion between production units and discharging ports in
Northern Europe. The number of production units or
loading ports is three in this region, while the number of
discharging ports is approximately twenty. The sailing
times between the ports vary from just a few hours and
up to almost two days, which are typical for short sea
shipping. The ports and the geographical region of the
problem are shown in Figure 1.
The company receives customer requests, called cargoes.
Each cargo consists of a designated quantity of a particular
fertilizer quality to be lifted from one of the production units
(pickup port) to a delivery port. Time windows are intro-
duced for each cargo, both at the pickup and delivery port.
To satisfy the transportation demands a eet of ships
with different capacities and speed is available. Due to
seasonal variations in demand, the eet is not designed to
handle all cargoes throughout the year. Some of the cargoes
may be serviced by spot carriers. There is a xed fee set by
the market for each cargo to be serviced by a spot carrier.
For the ships in the eet, only the variable costs such as
sailing costs and port and channel tolls are considered, as
the xed costs have no inuence on the planning of optimal
schedules. The port and channel tolls depend on the size of
the ship. The sailing costs mainly consist of fuel costs that
depend on the ship size, the speed and the amount of
cargoes onboard the ship. The time spent in a port depends
on the quantity to be loaded or discharged, but is on
average one day.
Due to the characteristics of the various types of fertili-
zer, no two cargoes can be transported in the same cargo
836 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 7
Figure 1 Geographical region of the real SSAP.
hold simultaneously without being separated. Each ship in
the eet is therefore equipped with a limited number of
bulkheads (partitions) that can be placed in a given number
of feasible bulkhead positions in the cargo hold. Let us
dene the space between two neighbouring bulkhead posi-
tions as nominal compartments. By placing bulkheads in
some of the feasible bulkhead positions, the cargo hold of
the ship can be partitioned into several smaller holds with
exible sizes, each consisting of at least one nominal
compartment. Therefore, several cargoes can be lifted
simultaneously by the same ship in the smaller holds. The
above denitions are illustrated in Figure 2.
The maximum number of bulkheads available on a ship
is always less than the number of feasible bulkhead posi-
tions. It should be emphasised that we can disregard the
possibility of shifting=moving a cargo to other nominal
Figure 2
compartments than rst allocated to, due to the time
consumption of the additional loading operation.
Example 1 illustrates the concept of lifting several
cargoes simultaneously when introducing exible cargo
holds.
Example 1
Figure 3 illustrates a situation for a ship with a total cargo
capacity of 2500 tonnes distributed on ve nominal
compartments and, therefore, four possible bulkhead posi-
tions. Suppose the ship is equipped with two bulkheads,
and there are three cargoes with quantities of 670, 450 and
1220 tonnes to be lifted. Then we may place the bulkheads
in position 2 and 3, see Figure 3, and we get three separated
and smaller cargo holds with capacities of 700, 500 and
1300 tonnes. We can then allocate the rst cargo (670
tonnes) to the two leftmost nominal compartments, the
second cargo (450 tonnes) to the middle and the third
cargo (1220 tonnes) to the two rightmost nominal compart-
ments. If the rst cargo (670) had been placed in the
nominal compartment to the right, then it had been impos-
sible to allocate the two other cargoes using only two
bulkheads.
Example 1 illustrates that the positioning of the bulk-
heads at one step in a schedule may give consequences at
subsequent steps, actually until the ship is empty again.
Due to the pickup and delivery nature of the SSAP, the ship
may in principle never get empty. This emphasises the
importance of the allocation part of the SSAP.
Let us dene a schedule to be the sequence of port visits,
including the time for start of service and the allocation of
cargoes to nominal compartments at each port. The chal-
lenge of the SSAP is then to nd a feasible schedule for each
ship in the eet, and to determine which cargoes are to be
serviced by spot carriers, such that total costs are minimised.
The problem would become easier to solve if the
capacities of the nominal compartments were all equal.
Then the problem becomes closer to the m-PDPTW. The
cargo quantities can beforehand be rounded up to the
Technical denitions.

Figure 3 Example of a cargo hold with ve nominal
compartments.
nearest multiple of the size of the nominal compartments.
The ship scheduling then becomes a m-PDPTW with
additional constraint ensuring that the number of cargoes
onboard the ship at the same time cannot exceed the
maximum number of bulkheads available plus one.
However, a simulation study strongly indicates that it is
advantageous to have different capacities of the nominal
compartments.4 This gives greater exibility in combining
various cargoes onboard the ship. For example, if the
nominal compartments of the ship in Figure 3 had equal
capacities (500 tonnes each), it could only lift two of the
three cargoes in Example 1 simultaneously.
We may imagine that some cargo allocations for
partially loaded legs may give unsafe trim conditions.
Safe trim can easily be considered in the schedule genera-
tion of the proposed solution approach. Here, we assume
however that in practice this is not a problem.
Solution procedure
The SSAP cannot be solved directly by general, commer-
cial mixed integer programming software for problems of
real size, due to its complexity. The purpose of this work is
to develop a solution method that can solve real-sized cases
of the problem. We want the solution procedure to be run
on a PC, which is the tool a planner will use in practice.
A crucial matter of success in the implementation of a
decision support tool for many ship scheduling problems, is
that the solution procedure responds quickly. Therefore, we
suggest a set partitioning approach, consisting of two
phases. In the rst phase, a number of feasible candidate
schedules for each ship is generated. These schedules
include the optimal allocation of cargoes to the ships'
nominal compartments. The second phase solves a set
partitioning problem, where the columns represent the
candidate schedules generated in phase one. The solution
of the set partitioning problem gives one schedule to be
sailed by each ship and determines the cargoes to be
serviced by spot carriers such that the transportation costs
are minimised.
In the next subsection, we describe the schedule genera-
tion algorithm. To ensure an optimal visiting sequence,
a Travelling Salesman Problem with Allocation, Time
Window and Precedence Constraints (TSPATWPC) is
solved in the generation of each candidate schedule. A
dynamic programming algorithm for the TSPATWPC is
K Fagerholt and M ChristiansenA combined ship scheduling and allocation problem 837
shortly discussed in second subsection, while the SSAP
is formulated as a set partitioning problem in the third
subsection.
Generation of candidate schedules
If the problem is solved by generating all feasible candidate
schedules, then the solution will be optimal. This may
however in many cases require large computational times.
For large problem instances, the solution method may even
fail, due to an exponential increase in the number of
schedules as a function of problem size. To reduce the
algorithm's response time and to be able to solve larger
problems, the number of schedules that is generated can be
reduced by heuristic rules regarding the capacity utilisation
of the ships. The idea behind the reduction in the number of
candidate schedules is that schedules with poor capacity
utilisation of the ships are not likely to be in an optimal
solution. We use two main measures regarding the capacity
utilisation to control the number of candidate schedules:
 Waiting time=unused time;
 Utilisation of the capacity of the cargo hold.
Let us dene RMAX as a factor to control the allowance level
for both these two measures. By selecting the value of
RMAX , we control the number of schedules that are gener-
ated, and also the response time. For high values of RMAX ,
all feasible schedules are generated.
Figure 4 illustrates the conceptual owchart of the
algorithm for generation of candidate schedules, and this
algorithm is described here.
The generation of candidate schedules for ship k in the
eet is initialised with schedules containing one cargo, i.
These initial schedules consist of a sequence of three nodes,
0 7 i 7 (n i), the initial point for ship k, the pickup node
and the delivery node for the given cargo, respectively. The
initial schedules will constitute the initial schedule list and
will also be considered as candidate schedules for the set
partitioning problem if their capacity utilisation measures
are within the allowance factor.
The rst schedule in the schedule list for ship k is
selected to generate new candidate schedules by adding
one more cargo. Such a selected schedule is denoted by u.
We try to extend schedule u by the available cargoes in turn,
one at a time, given that this new schedule is not considered
before. It may not be possible to extend schedule u by a
given cargo within the time window due to the allowance
factor for waiting time. For instance if the difference
between the end time of schedule u plus the sailing time
to the pickup node i and the start of the time window of node
i is large, the new schedule may give a too high waiting time
according to the allowance factor.
If extension of schedule u with cargo i is feasible, then we
have to nd the best sequence of nodes for the new
schedule. Suppose that schedule u has already the following
838 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 7

Figure 4 Conceptual owchart of the schedule generation algorithm.


node sequence: 0 7 3 7 2 7 (n 2) 7 (n 3). The
pickup and delivery nodes to be included in schedule u
corresponding to cargo i and i and (n i), respectively. It is
generally not optimal to add the nodes for cargo i to the end
of schedule u, it may also give an infeasible solution.
Therefore, we have to solve a Travelling Salesman Problem
with Allocation, Time Window and Precedence Constraints
(TSPATWPC) to nd the new optimal schedule for the
nodes 0, 2, 3, i, (n 2), (n 3) and (n i). This TSP
corresponds to deciding the optimal visiting sequence for
the given nodes while satisfying the allocation, time
windows and precedence constraints. The allocation con-
straints ensure that the allocations of cargoes to the nominal
compartments are feasible, while the precedence constraints
ensure that the pickup nodes are visited before the corre-
sponding delivery nodes. The allocation constraints may
also ensure safe trim for partially loaded legs, even though it
is assumed to be of no relevance here.
The solution of a TSP in the generation of each new
schedule in order to obtain an optimal visiting sequence is
not a focused issue in most other works on ship scheduling.
Due to narrow time windows and long sailing times, the
sequencing of ports of call seems to have been more or less
given for most of these problems, therefore actually
reducing most of these problems to nding an optimal
allocation of cargoes to ships.
Due to the time windows, the size of the TSPATWPC
can be reduced. In the example above, the time windows
for nodes i and (n i) may be such that it is not possible to
insert the nodes before (n 2) in the sequence of the
existing schedule. If so, the TWPATWPC will consist of
only three nodes ((n 3), i and (n i)). Let us denote the
node in the existing schedule from where it will be extended,
by e. In the example above, node e will correspond to
(n 2), and it becomes the starting node of the
TSPATWPC.
A brief description of the solution method for the TSP
ATWPC is given in the next subsection. If the solution of
the TSPATWPC is feasible, the optimal sequence is
merged together with the original schedule u. The new
schedule q is added to the end of the schedule list.
Now, a measure for the total capacity utilisation, both
regarding waiting time and utilisation of the ship's cargo
hold, is calculated for schedule q. In this capacity utilisation
measure, the unused time between the end time of schedule
q and the end of the planning period is also considered. If
this unused time interval is large, it is likely that q can be
further extended by adding more cargoes, therefore giving
a better schedule. If the capacity utilisation measure for
schedule q is within the allowance factor, the schedule is
considered as a candidate schedule for the set partitioning
problem.
Next, the original schedule u is a basis for generating new
schedules with the next cargoes, until there are no cargoes
that can be added to the schedule. Then, schedule u is
K Fagerholt and M ChristiansenA combined ship scheduling and allocation problem 839
deleted from the schedule list. This procedure continues
with the succeeding schedules in the schedule list until the
list is empty.
Solution of the TSPATWPC
Since a Travelling Salesman Problem with Allocation,
Time Windows and Precedence Constraints (TSP
ATWPC) has to be solved in the generation of each new
schedule, the overall solution procedure depends highly on
solving these TSPATWPCs quickly. Dumas et al12 have
developed a dynamic programming algorithm for the TSP
TW which makes use of extensive domination and elimina-
tion tests to reduce the state space and enhance the
performance of the algorithm. Mingozzi et al13 described
a dynamic programming algorithm for the TSPTWPC.
Their algorithm is based on state space relaxation proce-
dures for computing lower bounds to use in the branch-and-
bound scheme, which was introduced by Christodes
et al.14 By introducing capacity constraints to the TSP
TWPC, we get a single vehicle pickup and delivery problem
with time windows (s-PDPTW), given that the precedence
constraints have the pickup and delivery characteristics. The
s-PDPTW has received some attention in the literature, see
for instance.3
The TSPATWPC is similar to the s-PDPTW, except
that the capacity constraints of the s-PDPTW are replaced
by the allocation constraints. We have developed a
dynamic programming algorithm for solving the TSP
ATWPC. There may be many ways of allocating cargoes
to nominal compartments at each step of the schedule,
increasing the complexity compared to the s-PDPTW.
Since we do not know the allocation that turns out to be
optimal until the DP-algorithm is terminated, we may have
to maintain a large number of allocations during the
solution process, even for the same visiting sequence.
This is illustrated in the following.
Dene W {e, 1, . . . ;w} as the set of nodes to be
sequenced, where e is the starting node. Dene the function
F(S, i, t, C ) as the least cost of a path, starting at node e and
passing through every node of SW once and ending at node
i 2 S. The ship is ready to service node i at time t. C is the
accumulated cargo allocation when leaving node i. This
means that C keeps track of the location of the physical
bulkheads and which nominal compartments the cargoes
onboard are allocated to. Suppose there are two alternative
states (S, i, t 1 , C 1 ) and (S, i, t 2 , C 2 ), where F1(S, i, t1,
C1) < F2(S, i, t 2 , C 2 ) and t1 < t 2. Even though state 1
dominates state 2 in cost and time, state 2 may still be
preferable due to a different cargo allocation, which may turn
out to be better when adding the remaining nodes to the path.
Since we consider only partial schedules, the size of each
problem is greatly reduced compared to complete sche-
dules. This, in addition to effective elimination tests, make
fast solutions of these problems possible. We refer to
840 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 7

Table 1 Computational results, cases 1 and 2

Problem Case 1 Case 2

Planning period [weeks] 2 3
Cargoes 25 26
Nodes 50 52
Time window width [days] 3 3
1 1
Allowance factor, RMAX 1 2 3 1 2 3
Schedule generation (phase 1)
No. schedules 1202 2105 3637 5720 14078 15460 16648 20430
CPU-seconds 6.8 11.0 20.8 45.9 135.2 144.2 168.2 264.2
Set partitioning (phase 2)
CPU-seconds 0.6 0.9 2.2 4.1 5.6 6.0 7.5 9.5
Objective value 1004 981 981 981 833 833 833 833

Fagerholt and Christiansen,15 which is a complementary Computational results

contribution to this paper, for details of the TSPATWPC
algorithm.
Formulation of the SSAP as a set partitioning problem
When a set of candidate schedules is generated for each
ship we can solve the SSAP as a set partitioning problem.
Let K be the set of ships in the eet, indexed by k, and N be
the set of cargoes to be lifted, indexed by i. Denote Rk as the
set of feasible candidate schedules for ship k, indexed by r.
Crk is the variable cost for selecting schedule r by ship k,
while CSPOTi is the cost for cargo i to be lifted by a spot
carrier. Akir is a constant that is equal to one if schedule r for
ship k services cargo i and zero otherwise. Let x kr be a binary
variable that is equal to one if ship k selects schedule r and
zero otherwise. si is a binary variable that is equal to one if
cargo i is lifted by a spot carrier and zero otherwise.
The SSAP can now be formulated as the following set
partitioning problem:
P P P number of cargoes per week, while cases 2 and 4 are
min Crk xkr CSPOTi si ;
k2K r2Rk i2N
P P
Akir xkr si 1; 8i 2 N ;
k2K r2Rk
P cases 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1, while the results for
xkr 1; 8k 2 K;
r2Rk
xkr 2 f0; 1g; 8k 2 K; r 2 Rk ;
si 2 f0; 1g; 8i 2 N :
The objective function (1) minimises the sum of the
variable costs of operating the eet and the costs of the spot
shipments. Constraints (2) ensure that all cargoes or custo-
mer requests are serviced, either by ship in the eet or by
spot carrier. Constraints (3) ensure that each ship in the
eet sails one of the candidate schedules. Constraints (4)
and (5) impose binary constraints on the variables.
The solution procedure is tested on cargo data from Hydro
Agri's waterborne transportation of fertilizer in Northern
Europe. The algorithm for generation of candidate sche-
dules is written and compiled in Borland Pascal 7.0, while
the set partitioning model is implemented and run by
GAMS=CPLEX version 5.0. The problems are run on a
PC with a Pentium 166 MHz processor having 64 MB of
RAM.
A typical planning period is 23 weeks, while the
number of cargoes in a planning period varies roughly
from 1535, corresponding to 30 and 70 nodes, respec-
tively. The number of ships in the eet considered is ve.
All ships have two bulkheads available and ve nominal
compartments, therefore having the possibility to carry up
to three cargoes simultaneously. The ships are assumed to
be empty in the beginning of the planning period, and their
initial positions are specied ports.
We give results for four cases of the problem, with
planning periods of 24 weeks. Cases 1 and 3 are gathered
from months with relative high intensity regarding the
1
from months with low cargo intensity. Four instances are
solved for each of the four cases, having different values on
2 the allowance factor RMAX . The computational results for
3 cases 3 and 4 are shown in Table 2.
For all cases, we managed to solve the problem with a
4 value on the allowance factor of ?, namely by generating
all feasible schedules, therefore ensuring optimal solutions.
5 By presenting problems that were optimally solved, we can
evaluate the solutions and computational times for the
problems solved with RMAX < ?. In Table 2, the optimal
solutions were obtained by generating only a subset of all
feasible schedules at reduced computational time. For case
1, the optimal solution was obtained at RMAX 2, and for
case 2, already at RMAX 1. For the larger cases (3 and 4),
the optimal solutions are obtained for RMAX-values of 3 and
2, respectively. This indicates that the algorithm experiences

Table 2 Computational results, cases 3 and 4
Problem Case 3
Planning period [weeks] 3 4
Cargoes 35
Nodes 70
Time window width [days] 2 2
Allowance factor, RMAX 1 2 3 1
Schedule generation (phase 1)
No. schedules 3339 9551 12018
CPU-seconds 8.6 30.4 42.7
Set partitioning (phase 2)
CPU-seconds 6.9 14.7 10.6
Objective value 1688 1640 1615
relatively fast convergence to the optimal solution by
generating more candidate schedules. However, also the
non-optimal solutions obtained by small values on RMAX
at low computational time, are relatively close to the optimal
solutions. Solutions within approximately 2% of the optimal
solutions are achieved at only a fraction of the time required
to obtain solutions that are proven to be optimal.
The generation of the candidate schedules of phase 1
requires more CPU-time than the solution of the set
partitioning problem. The time consumption for solving
the set partitioning problems was low because there was no
gap between the values of the LP-solutions and the IP-
solutions for any of the instances solved. The computa-
tional experience indicates that the width of the time
windows and the number of nodes have the greatest
effect on the computational times of phase 1. Both these
factors heavily inuence the number of schedules generated
that again effects the CPU-time, since a TSPATWPC has
to be solved in the generation of each schedule. However,
also the length of the planning period inuences the
computational time, as extending the planning period also
increases the number of candidate schedules. Consider
cases 1 and 2 that are approximately of the same size
regarding the number of nodes and time window width.
Case 2 has however a planning period of three weeks
compared to only two for case 1. We note that both the
number of candidate schedules and CPU-time are signi-
cantly higher for case 2 than for case 1.
Concluding remarks
In this paper, we have presented a ship scheduling problem
that is a combined multi-ship pickup and delivery problem
with time windows (m-PDPTW) and multi-allocation
problem. The routing and scheduling of the ships constitute
the m-PDPTW, while the partition of the ships' exible
cargo holds and the allocation of cargoes to the holds make
the multi-allocation problem. The problem is therefore
K Fagerholt and M ChristiansenA combined ship scheduling and allocation problem 841
Case 4
33
66
1 1
2 3
26231 9986 13195 19179 22248
160.8 104.9 129.4 216.0 298.5
33.4 5.0 7.7 13.0 13.5
1615 1394 1366 1366 1366
called a combined Ship Scheduling and Allocation Problem
(SSAP).
To have the possibility of obtaining feasible schedules
for each ship quickly, we have developed a set partitioning
procedure. The solution procedure consists of two phases:
In the rst phase, a number of candidate schedules for each
ship in the eet is generated. In the second phase, the
candidate schedules from phase 1 are brought into a set
partitioning model and solved by commercial optimisation
software. If all feasible schedules are generated in phase 1,
the procedure is an optimisation method. To control the
response time, we have however the possibility to apply
heuristic rules based on the capacity utilisation of the ships
to reduce the number of generated schedules. In real life
planning, it is often important to obtain solutions quickly
for instance in order to make decisions regarding whether
to contract a cargo or not.
The solution approach is tested on data from a real ship
planning problem and run on a standard PC. By generating
all feasible candidate schedules, we obtained optimal solu-
tions for all problem cases presented here, which are all of
real size or larger. It was also shown that optimal or near-
optimal solutions could be obtained in less computation
time by heuristically reducing the number of candidate
schedules. The success of the suggested solution approach
can be attributed to the fact that ship scheduling problems
most often are relatively well constrained, giving a
restricted number of feasible candidate schedules.
It is believed that the suggested solution approach can
assist the planners in developing better plans. The company
makes plans with a rolling horizon. The most essential
decisions are the ones concerning the next few days.
Psaraftis16 describes a ship planning system that is devel-
oped for making plans with a rolling horizon. His heuristic
algorithm places highest emphasis on the `front end'
cargoes, and less emphasis on the less reliable information
on future cargo movements. This can easily be incorporated
into the suggested solution approach by discounting the
objective function, which means giving the near time
decisions more emphasis.
842 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 51, No. 7
AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thanks the anonymous
referees for their insightful comments, which improved the presentation
of this paper.
References
1 Ronen D (1983). Cargo ships routing and scheduling: Survey of
models and problems. Eur J Opl Res 12: 119126.
2 Dumas Y, Desrosiers J and Soumis F (1991). The pickup and
delivery problem with time windows. Eur J Opl Res 54: 722.
3 Desrosiers J, Dumas Y, Solomon MM and Soumis F (1995).
Time constrained routing and scheduling. In: Ball MO,
Magnanti TL, Monma CL and Nemhauser GL (eds). Hand-
books in Operations Research and Management Science 8,
Network routing 1995. North-Holland: Amsterdam, pp 35139.
4 Fagerholt K (1999). A simulation study on the design of exible
cargo holds in small-sized bulk ships. Maritime Pol Mmt 26:
105109.
5 Brown GG, Goodman CE and Wood RK (1990). Annual
scheduling of Atlantic Fleet naval combatants. Opns Res 38:
249259.
6 Ronen D (1993). Ship scheduling: The last decade. Eur J Opl
Res 71: 325333.
7 Brown GG, Graves W and Ronen D (1987). Scheduling ocean
transportation of crude oil Mgmt Sci 33: 335346.
8 Fisher ML and Rosenwein MB (1989). An interactive optimiza-
tion system for bulk-cargo ship scheduling. Nav Res Log 36:
2742.
9 Bausch DO, Brown GG and Ronen D (1998). Scheduling short-
term marine transport of bulk products. Maritime Pol Mmt 25:
335348.
10 Darby-Dowman K, Fink RK, Mitra G and Smith JW (1995).
An intelligent system for US Coast Guard cutter scheduling.
Eur J Opl Res 87: 574585.
11 Christiansen M and Nygreen B (1998). A method for solving
ship routing problems with inventory constraints. Annals Opns
Res 81: 357378.
12 Dumas Y, Desrosiers J, Gelinas E and Solomon MM (1995). An
optimal algorithm for the traveling salesman problem with time
windows. Opns Res 43: 367371.
13 Mingozzi A, Bianco L and Ricciardelli A (1997). Dynamic
programming strategies for the traveling salesman problem with
time windows and precedence constraints. Opns Res 45: 365
377.
14 Christodes N, Mingozzi A and Toth P (1981). State-space
relaxation procedures for the computation of bounds to routing
problems. Networks 11: 145164.
15 Fagerholt K and Christiansen M (2000). A travelling salesman
problem with allocation, time window and precedence
constraintsan application to ship scheduling. Int Trans OR
7(3): 231244.
16 Psaraftis HN (1988). Dynamic vehicle routing problems. In:
Golden BL and Assad AA (eds). Vehicle Routing: Methods and
Studies 1988. Elsevier Science Publishers: North-Holland, pp
223248.
Received May 1999;
accepted February 2000 after one revision