# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Linear bilevel multiobjective optimization problem: Penalty approach
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
The optimal pricing and ordering policy for temperature sensitive products considering the effects of temperature on demand
July  2019, 15(3): 1185-1211. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018091

## Maritime inventory routing problem with multiple time windows

 1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia 2 School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia

Received  May 2017 Revised  February 2018 Published  July 2018

Fund Project: The first author is supported by Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia through International Research Collaboration and Scientific Publication Research Grant No. 536/PKS/ITS/2017.

This paper considers a maritime inventory routing problem with multiple time windows. The typical time windows considered that certain ports permit ships entering and leaving during the daytime only due to various operational limitations. We have developed an exact algorithm to represent this problem. However, due to the excessive computational time required for solving the model, we have proposed a multi-heuristics based genetic algorithm. The multi-heuristics are composed of a set of strategies that correspond to four decision points: ship selection, ship routing, the product type and the quantity of loading and unloading products. The experimental results show that the multi-heuristics can obtain acceptable solutions within a reasonable computational time. Moreover, the flexibility to add or remove the strategies means that the proposed method would not be difficult to implement for other variants of the maritime inventory routing problem.

Citation: Nurhadi Siswanto, Stefanus Eko Wiratno, Ahmad Rusdiansyah, Ruhul Sarker. Maritime inventory routing problem with multiple time windows. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (3) : 1185-1211. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018091
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Daily multiple time windows at a port
Detailed activities of a ship during its time in a port
Several alternatives of a ship arriving and leaving a port when considering time windows
An Example of Chromosome
Chromosome in one and two steps
Changing states during every assignment in a chromosome
The values of the fitness functions for test problem 1 with the 15 day planning horizon from each of 40 runs
An example of strategies for each decision point
 No Decision point Strategies 1 Ship selection Based on the least ships current time 2 Routing Visit two demand ports with the sequence based on the least CDik 3 Loading Compartment [1] for product[1], compartment[2] for product[2] with loading quantities up to the maximum of compartments capacities 4 Unloading Divide the same quantities for both ports
 No Decision point Strategies 1 Ship selection Based on the least ships current time 2 Routing Visit two demand ports with the sequence based on the least CDik 3 Loading Compartment [1] for product[1], compartment[2] for product[2] with loading quantities up to the maximum of compartments capacities 4 Unloading Divide the same quantities for both ports
Data of port and their storages
 No Description H1 H2 H3 S11 S12 S21 S22 S31 S32 1 Maximum capacity (unit) 160 180 55 41 68 51 2 Minimum level (unit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Initial level (unit) 44 28 19 27 46 25 4 Daily supply/demand rate (unit/day) 8 9 6 4 2 5 5 Fixed setup loading time (day) 0.039 0.059 0.074 0.060 0.067 0.049 6 Variable loading time (day/unit) 0.025 0.010 0.003 0.026 0.028 0.014 7 Fixed setup loading cost (＄) 10 8 6 9 8 10 8 Variable loading cost (＄/unit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Quantity penalty cost (＄/day) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Fixed setup port time (day) 0 0 0 11 Fixed setup port cost (＄) 0 0 0 12 Daily starting time windows 7.12am 7.12am 7.12am 13 Daily ending time windows 4.48pm 4.48am 4.48pm
 No Description H1 H2 H3 S11 S12 S21 S22 S31 S32 1 Maximum capacity (unit) 160 180 55 41 68 51 2 Minimum level (unit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Initial level (unit) 44 28 19 27 46 25 4 Daily supply/demand rate (unit/day) 8 9 6 4 2 5 5 Fixed setup loading time (day) 0.039 0.059 0.074 0.060 0.067 0.049 6 Variable loading time (day/unit) 0.025 0.010 0.003 0.026 0.028 0.014 7 Fixed setup loading cost (＄) 10 8 6 9 8 10 8 Variable loading cost (＄/unit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Quantity penalty cost (＄/day) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Fixed setup port time (day) 0 0 0 11 Fixed setup port cost (＄) 0 0 0 12 Daily starting time windows 7.12am 7.12am 7.12am 13 Daily ending time windows 4.48pm 4.48am 4.48pm
Data of ship and their compartments
 No Description V1 V2 C11 C12 C21 C22 1 Maximum compartment capacity 68 31 44 50 2 Initial level 0 0 40 4 3 Current product in the compartment - - P2 P1
 No Description V1 V2 C11 C12 C21 C22 1 Maximum compartment capacity 68 31 44 50 2 Initial level 0 0 40 4 3 Current product in the compartment - - P2 P1
Data of travelling cost and time between ports
The result of exact algorithm solved using Lingo
 Test Problem (TP) Planning Horizon (PH) Scenario 1 (Mp=3;Mc=2) Scenario 2 (Mp=3;Mc=2) Gap (%) Optimal Solution Run Time (in Second) Optimal Solution Run Time (in Second) 1 10 55.8 1,329 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 15 91.4 21,423 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 2 10 66.8 1,012 66.8 582 0 15 103, 0 25,451 103.0 74,166 0 3 10 99.0 46 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 15 216.0 34,827 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 4 10 137.0 640 137.0 211 0 15 265.0 47,210 265.0 ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(n) 0 (n)the solution did not terminate before the time limit of 8.64E+4 seconds (24 hours)(*)a feasible solution was not obtained before the time limit of 8.64E+4 seconds (24 hours)
 Test Problem (TP) Planning Horizon (PH) Scenario 1 (Mp=3;Mc=2) Scenario 2 (Mp=3;Mc=2) Gap (%) Optimal Solution Run Time (in Second) Optimal Solution Run Time (in Second) 1 10 55.8 1,329 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 15 91.4 21,423 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 2 10 66.8 1,012 66.8 582 0 15 103, 0 25,451 103.0 74,166 0 3 10 99.0 46 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 15 216.0 34,827 - ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(*) - 4 10 137.0 640 137.0 211 0 15 265.0 47,210 265.0 ﹥﹥8.64E + 4(n) 0 (n)the solution did not terminate before the time limit of 8.64E+4 seconds (24 hours)(*)a feasible solution was not obtained before the time limit of 8.64E+4 seconds (24 hours)
The sequence of visiting demand ports
 Gene4 Gene3 The first visiting port The second visiting port 0 0 CDP[0] 1 CDP[0] CDP[1] 1 0 CDP[1] 1 CDP[1] CDP[0]
 Gene4 Gene3 The first visiting port The second visiting port 0 0 CDP[0] 1 CDP[0] CDP[1] 1 0 CDP[1] 1 CDP[1] CDP[0]
An example of one ship's assignment output
The results of the multi-heuristics based GA in comparison to the results of the exact algorithm
 Test Problem (TP) Planning Horizon (PH) Exact Algorithm Solution Multi-Heuristics based GA (40 runs repetition) No. of Individuals in a population Best Solution (Min) Gap (%) Max. Solution Average Standart Deviation No. of infeasible solutions Average Running Time (in 2nd) 1 10 55.8 20 55.8 0 55.8 55.8 0 0 50.3 50 55.8 0 55.8 55.8 0 0 105.6 100 55.8 0 55.8 55.8 0 0 222.7 15 91.4 20 91.4 0 108.7 94.3 5.4 0 166.0 50 91.4 0 102.0 91.9 2.0 0 401.2 100 91.4 0 91.4 91.4 0 0 879.0 20 $(*)$ 20 107.7 - 148.0 126.9 9.3 0 248.5 50 107.7 - 135.0 122.2 7.1 0 626.0 100 107.7 - 122.4 116.0 3.7 0 1,312.0 25 $(*)$ 20 146.3 - 196.9 175.4 14.7 5 234.9 50 140.8 - 195.4 165.3 15.9 2 774.2 100 143.4 - 188.7 154.4 10.5 0 1,824.1 2 10 66.8 20 66.8 0 76.8 68.4 3.6 0 93.08 50 66.8 0 68.6 66.9 0.2 0 212.9 100 66.8 0 66.8 66.8 0 0 497.1 15 103.0 20 109.3 6.12 140.2 125.6 6.4 0 197.3 50 103.0 0 130.5 120.2 6.5 0 535.2 100 105.2 2.14 124.2 116.6 4.4 0 1,207.4 20 $(*)$20 149.7 - 191.8 170.3 9.8 3 208.3 50 142.3 - 184.0 166.2 7.5 5 694.3 100 149.7 - 191.0 163.7 10.4 3 1,520.2 25 $(*)$ 20 177.5 - 231.2 202.8 12.5 12 295.8 50 171.6 - 207.3 190.9 10.4 6 938.4 100 173.6 - 208.7 187.0 8.6 4 1,771.2 3 10 99.0 20 99.0 0 99.0 99.0 0 0 43.9 50 99.0 0 99.0 99.0 0 0 109.0 100 99.0 0 99.0 99.0 0 0 239.9 15 216.0 20 216.0 0 241.0 222.4 5.0 0 147.0 50 216.0 0 241.0 220.1 4.8 0 377.2 100 216.0 0 221.0 217.4 2.3 0 796.1 20 $(*)$ 20 306.0 - 423.0 343.6 25.1 0 184.0 50 304.0 - 344.0 316.5 11.35 0 585.2 100 304.0 - 401.0 312.0 16.0 0 1,222.6 25 $(*)$ 20 401.0 - 508.0 466.8 24.4 1 236.7 50 346.0 - 522.0 422.5 46.2 2 753.3 100 346.0 - 483.0 404.8 41.6 0 1,476.9 4 10 137.0 20 137.0 0 147.0 140.0 4.6 0 84.7 50 137.0 0 137.0 137.0 0 0 180.4 100 137.0 0 137.0 137.0 0 0 406.6 15 265.0 20 277.0 4.53 363.0 291.6 14.6 0 196.3 50 275.0 3.77 294.0 284.6 5.4 0 530.0 100 265.0 0 287.0 281.4 4.8 0 1,294.4 20 $(*)$ 20 354.0 - 479.0 423.7 24.7 1 217.5 50 407.0 - 454.0 423.2 15.2 5 676.3 100 350.0 - 454.0 396.3 29.5 0 1,498.9 25 $(*)$ 20 484.0 - 632.0 543.2 31.9 14 304.6 50 431.0 - 567.0 517.9 34.3 7 894.2 100 431.0 - 558.0 505.3 31.8 6 1,818.1 Note: (*) a feasible solution was not found before the time limit of 8.64E+4 seconds (24 hours)
 Test Problem (TP) Planning Horizon (PH) Exact Algorithm Solution Multi-Heuristics based GA (40 runs repetition) No. of Individuals in a population Best Solution (Min) Gap (%) Max. Solution Average Standart Deviation No. of infeasible solutions Average Running Time (in 2nd) 1 10 55.8 20 55.8 0 55.8 55.8 0 0 50.3 50 55.8 0 55.8 55.8 0 0 105.6 100 55.8 0 55.8 55.8 0 0 222.7 15 91.4 20 91.4 0 108.7 94.3 5.4 0 166.0 50 91.4 0 102.0 91.9 2.0 0 401.2 100 91.4 0 91.4 91.4 0 0 879.0 20 $(*)$ 20 107.7 - 148.0 126.9 9.3 0 248.5 50 107.7 - 135.0 122.2 7.1 0 626.0 100 107.7 - 122.4 116.0 3.7 0 1,312.0 25 $(*)$ 20 146.3 - 196.9 175.4 14.7 5 234.9 50 140.8 - 195.4 165.3 15.9 2 774.2 100 143.4 - 188.7 154.4 10.5 0 1,824.1 2 10 66.8 20 66.8 0 76.8 68.4 3.6 0 93.08 50 66.8 0 68.6 66.9 0.2 0 212.9 100 66.8 0 66.8 66.8 0 0 497.1 15 103.0 20 109.3 6.12 140.2 125.6 6.4 0 197.3 50 103.0 0 130.5 120.2 6.5 0 535.2 100 105.2 2.14 124.2 116.6 4.4 0 1,207.4 20 $(*)$20 149.7 - 191.8 170.3 9.8 3 208.3 50 142.3 - 184.0 166.2 7.5 5 694.3 100 149.7 - 191.0 163.7 10.4 3 1,520.2 25 $(*)$ 20 177.5 - 231.2 202.8 12.5 12 295.8 50 171.6 - 207.3 190.9 10.4 6 938.4 100 173.6 - 208.7 187.0 8.6 4 1,771.2 3 10 99.0 20 99.0 0 99.0 99.0 0 0 43.9 50 99.0 0 99.0 99.0 0 0 109.0 100 99.0 0 99.0 99.0 0 0 239.9 15 216.0 20 216.0 0 241.0 222.4 5.0 0 147.0 50 216.0 0 241.0 220.1 4.8 0 377.2 100 216.0 0 221.0 217.4 2.3 0 796.1 20 $(*)$ 20 306.0 - 423.0 343.6 25.1 0 184.0 50 304.0 - 344.0 316.5 11.35 0 585.2 100 304.0 - 401.0 312.0 16.0 0 1,222.6 25 $(*)$ 20 401.0 - 508.0 466.8 24.4 1 236.7 50 346.0 - 522.0 422.5 46.2 2 753.3 100 346.0 - 483.0 404.8 41.6 0 1,476.9 4 10 137.0 20 137.0 0 147.0 140.0 4.6 0 84.7 50 137.0 0 137.0 137.0 0 0 180.4 100 137.0 0 137.0 137.0 0 0 406.6 15 265.0 20 277.0 4.53 363.0 291.6 14.6 0 196.3 50 275.0 3.77 294.0 284.6 5.4 0 530.0 100 265.0 0 287.0 281.4 4.8 0 1,294.4 20 $(*)$ 20 354.0 - 479.0 423.7 24.7 1 217.5 50 407.0 - 454.0 423.2 15.2 5 676.3 100 350.0 - 454.0 396.3 29.5 0 1,498.9 25 $(*)$ 20 484.0 - 632.0 543.2 31.9 14 304.6 50 431.0 - 567.0 517.9 34.3 7 894.2 100 431.0 - 558.0 505.3 31.8 6 1,818.1 Note: (*) a feasible solution was not found before the time limit of 8.64E+4 seconds (24 hours)
 [1] J. Frédéric Bonnans, Justina Gianatti, Francisco J. Silva. On the convergence of the Sakawa-Shindo algorithm in stochastic control. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2016, 6 (3) : 391-406. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2016008 [2] Demetres D. Kouvatsos, Jumma S. Alanazi, Kevin Smith. A unified ME algorithm for arbitrary open QNMs with mixed blocking mechanisms. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2011, 1 (4) : 781-816. doi: 10.3934/naco.2011.1.781 [3] Cicely K. Macnamara, Mark A. J. Chaplain. Spatio-temporal models of synthetic genetic oscillators. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2017, 14 (1) : 249-262. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017016 [4] Dmitry Treschev. A locally integrable multi-dimensional billiard system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2017, 37 (10) : 5271-5284. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017228 [5] Yuncherl Choi, Taeyoung Ha, Jongmin Han, Sewoong Kim, Doo Seok Lee. Turing instability and dynamic phase transition for the Brusselator model with multiple critical eigenvalues. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2021035 [6] Xu Zhang, Xiang Li. Modeling and identification of dynamical system with Genetic Regulation in batch fermentation of glycerol. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2015, 5 (4) : 393-403. doi: 10.3934/naco.2015.5.393 [7] Alexandr Mikhaylov, Victor Mikhaylov. Dynamic inverse problem for Jacobi matrices. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2019, 13 (3) : 431-447. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019021 [8] Armin Lechleiter, Tobias Rienmüller. Factorization method for the inverse Stokes problem. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (4) : 1271-1293. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1271 [9] Hong Seng Sim, Wah June Leong, Chuei Yee Chen, Siti Nur Iqmal Ibrahim. Multi-step spectral gradient methods with modified weak secant relation for large scale unconstrained optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (3) : 377-387. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018024 [10] Hildeberto E. Cabral, Zhihong Xia. Subharmonic solutions in the restricted three-body problem. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 1995, 1 (4) : 463-474. doi: 10.3934/dcds.1995.1.463 [11] Cécile Carrère, Grégoire Nadin. Influence of mutations in phenotypically-structured populations in time periodic environment. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (9) : 3609-3630. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020075 [12] Paula A. González-Parra, Sunmi Lee, Leticia Velázquez, Carlos Castillo-Chavez. A note on the use of optimal control on a discrete time model of influenza dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2011, 8 (1) : 183-197. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.183 [13] Guillermo Reyes, Juan-Luis Vázquez. Long time behavior for the inhomogeneous PME in a medium with slowly decaying density. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2009, 8 (2) : 493-508. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2009.8.493 [14] Wei-Jian Bo, Guo Lin, Shigui Ruan. Traveling wave solutions for time periodic reaction-diffusion systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2018, 38 (9) : 4329-4351. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2018189 [15] Kin Ming Hui, Soojung Kim. Asymptotic large time behavior of singular solutions of the fast diffusion equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2017, 37 (11) : 5943-5977. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017258 [16] Michel Chipot, Mingmin Zhang. On some model problem for the propagation of interacting species in a special environment. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020401 [17] Fritz Gesztesy, Helge Holden, Johanna Michor, Gerald Teschl. The algebro-geometric initial value problem for the Ablowitz-Ladik hierarchy. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2010, 26 (1) : 151-196. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2010.26.151 [18] Gloria Paoli, Gianpaolo Piscitelli, Rossanno Sannipoli. A stability result for the Steklov Laplacian Eigenvalue Problem with a spherical obstacle. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (1) : 145-158. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020261 [19] Tomáš Roubíček. An energy-conserving time-discretisation scheme for poroelastic media with phase-field fracture emitting waves and heat. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2017, 10 (4) : 867-893. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2017044 [20] Xiaomao Deng, Xiao-Chuan Cai, Jun Zou. A parallel space-time domain decomposition method for unsteady source inversion problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (4) : 1069-1091. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.1069

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366