The Connectivity of Multiport Route Network to Container Loading Planning

Hero Budi SantosoNautical Department, Indonesian State Maritime Polytechnic, Semarang, IndonesiaWidar Bayu WantoroNautical Department, Indonesian State Maritime Polytechnic, Semarang, IndonesiaSusantoTechnical Department, Indonesian State Maritime Polytechnic, Semarang, Indonesia

Vol 6 No 12 (2022): Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2022 | Pages: 12-18

International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology

OPEN ACCESS | Research Article | Published Date: 15-12-2022

doi Logo doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2022.612003

Abstract

In determining a container loading plan on board, the goal is to find a container loading plan which considers the structural and operational boundary conditions. In the past, the container loading plan was made by the captain, but now the container terminal has an expert planner to determine the Master Bay Plan. The container loading plan is made in accordance with ship loading instructions with coordinators representing ship owners and cargo owners. The arrangement of containers to be loaded at certain ports into certain slots into the Bay Plan arrangement on the container ships will maximize capacity utilization and minimize operational costs. One important factor in achieving this goal is minimizing overloading – a situation where the containers to be unloaded are blocked by containers destined for the next port. A container loading plan is difficult to make due to several factors: heterogeneity of packages in terms of size, weight, stack ability, position and orientation. The port transshipment pattern plays a unique place in a multiport network design. The transshipment port is the connecting port between the network route section and the feeder. Regular feeder lines connect the hub with several shallow feeder ports located in the same area as the hub port. The containers loaded on feeder vessels at one port are usually transported to more ports of destination. Feeder container route schedules – including the date and time of arrival and departure – must be notified in advance.

Keywords

Connectivity, Containers, Multiport, Loading Plan, Routes


Citation of this Article

Hero Budi Santoso, Widar Bayu Wantoro, Susanto, “The Connectivity of Multiport Route Network to Container Loading Planning” Published in International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology - IRJIET, Volume 6, Issue 12, pp 12-18, December 2022. Article DOI https://doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2022.612003

References
  1. M. Avriel, M. Penn, N. Shpirer, and S. Witteboon, “Stowage planning for container ships to reduce the number of shifts,” Ann. Oper. Res., no. January 2014, 1998, doi: 10.1023/A.
  2. O. Drozhzhyn, “Containership Traffic Optimization on Feeder Shipping Line,” Transp. Telecommun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 314–321, 2016, doi: 10.1515/ttj-2016-0028.
  3. C. Parreño-Torres, R. Alvarez-Valdes, and F. Parreño, “Solution strategies for a multiport container ship stowage problem,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2019, 2019, doi: 10.1155/2019/9029267.
  4. A.Sciomachen and E. Tanfani, “The master bay plan problem: A solution method based on its connection to the three-dimensional bin packing problem,” IMA J. Manag. Math., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 251–269, 2003, doi: 10.1093/imaman/14.3.251.
  5. H. Yu, M. Zhang, J. He, and C. Tan, “Choice of loading clusters in container terminals,” Adv. Eng. Informatics, vol. 46, no. October, p. 101190, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2020.101190.
  6. Zaldy, “Mempercepat Pergerakan Container di Pelabuhan Utama Indonesia,” www.worldbank.org. 2014, [Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/in/news/feature/2014/02/19/moving-cargo-faster-in-indonesia-main-sea-port.
  7. S. Sathyapriya, V. Arundhathi, K. Aiswarya, S. R. Aarthi, and S. Vishnu, “A Study on Greedy Technique in Container Loading Problem and Knapsack Problem,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Technol., pp. 414–420, 2021, doi: 10.32628/ijsrst218389.
  8. D. Song, “A Literature Review, Container Shipping Supply Chain: Planning Problems and Research Opportunities,” logistics, 2021.
  9. A.Korach, B. D. Brouer, and R. M. Jensen, “Matheuristics for slot planning of container vessel bays,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 282, no. 3, pp. 873–885, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.09.042.
  10. Y. Xu and X. Zhuang, “Container Shipping Scheduling Method Based on the Evidence Reasoning Approach in Fluctuating CCFI and BDI Cycle,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2022, 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/3997361.
  11. C. Parreño-Torres, H. Çalık, R. Alvarez-Valdes, and R. Ruiz, “Solving the generalized multi-port container stowage planning problem by a matheuristic algorithm,” Comput. Oper. Res., vol. 133, p. 105383, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2021.105383.
  12. H. Feng, M. Grifoll, Z. Yang, P. Zheng, and A. Martin-Mallofre, “Visualization of container throughput evolution of the Yangtze River Delta multi-port system: the ternary diagram method,” Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., vol. 142, no. July, p. 102039, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.102039.
  13. J. G. Kang and Y. D. Kim, “Stowage planning in maritime container transportation,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 415–426, 2002, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601322.
  14. Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional, Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN) 2015-2019. 2015.
  15. D. Ambrosino, M. Paolucci, and A. Sciomachen, “A MIP heuristic for multi port stowage planning,” Transp. Res. Procedia, vol. 10, no. February 2016, pp. 725–734, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.026.
  16. J. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Ma, and S. Ji, “Multi-Port Stowage Planning for Inland Container Liner Shipping Considering Weight Uncertainties,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 66468–66480, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2878308.