A comparative analysis of sequential and integrated optimization models for ship refueling operations

i

This article has been updated. A Correction to this article was published on .

i

The Original Article was published on

i

The Original Article was published on

i

This article has been updated

i

This article was retracted on

i

This article has been updated

Abstract

Maritime transportation underpins global trade and supply chains, with bunker fuel comprising a major share of voyage operating costs. Optimizing ship refueling is thus critical for improving energy efficiency and reducing expenses. A common sequential (two-stage) framework first derives a cost-minimal bunkering plan and then maximizes profit from cargo flows under that plan. Yet, this decoupled approach often yields suboptimal solutions, as refueling and container decisions are optimized separately. We develop an integrated one-stage model that simultaneously optimizes refueling and container flows on fixed liner services, comparing it to the two-stage model on stylized, industry-calibrated networks of 3, 8, and 15 ports. Results reveal consistent profit superiority for the integrated model, with gaps expanding alongside network scale and complexity (1.02% for 3 ports to 12.99% for 15 ports). Sensitivity tests on fuel-tank capacity, revenue levels, and local fuel price shocks affirm robustness, with gains amplifying under high demand or capacity constraints. Although the two-stage model provides modular transparency, the integrated formulation better balances fuel costs and cargo revenues, delivering substantial economic benefits in complex, constrained settings. Both models solve to optimality in seconds to minutes on standard hardware for tested instances, underscoring the integrated model’s viability as a tactical decision tool. Overall, findings illuminate refueling optimization dynamics, quantify the inefficiency of bunker-first sequencing, and advise adopting integrated methods for larger networks.

Keywords

integrated model / two-stage model / ship refueling / liner shipping / bunker management / optimization

CHANGE HISTORY

A Correction to this paper has been published:
https://doi.org

The Retraction Note was updated to reflect reception of statements of disagreement from all authors.

This article has been retracted.Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail:
https://doi.org

References

[1] B. Li, P. Afkhami, R. Khayamim, M. Borowska-Stefańska, S. Wiśniewski, A. M. Fathollahi-Fard, et al., An intelligent hyperheuristic algorithm for the berth allocation and scheduling problem at marine container terminals, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 198 (2025), 104104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2025.104104

[2] M. Mollaoglu, I. G. Yazar Okur, M. Gurturk, B. Doganer Duman, Review on Sustainable Development Goals in maritime transportation: current research trends, applications, and future research opportunities, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 31 (2024), 8312-8329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31622-1

[3] A. Ala, A. Goli, Incorporating machine learning and optimization techniques for assigning patients to operating rooms by considering fairness policies, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 136 (2024), 108980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108980

[4] M. Y. N. Attari, A. Ala, V. Simic, D. Pamucar, N. Aydin, A gravitational meta-heuristic algorithm for solving resource-constrained project scheduling problems, Sadhana - Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci., 50 (2025), 104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-025-02745-7

[5] M. Besbes, S. Savin, Going bunkers: The joint route selection and refueling problem, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag., 11 (2009), 694-711. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1080.0249

[6] K. Fagerholt, G. Laporte, I. Norstad, Reducing fuel emissions by optimizing speed on shipping routes, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 61 (2010), 523-529. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.77

[7] S. Wang, Q. Meng, Robust bunker management for liner shipping networks, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 243 (2015), 789-797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.12.049

[8] T. Wang, P. Cheng, L. Zhen, Green development of the maritime industry: Overview, perspectives, and future research opportunities, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 179 (2023), 103322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103322

[9] Q. Meng, S. Wang, Liner shipping service network design with empty container repositioning, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 47 (2011), 695-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.02.004

[10] Y. Wang, Q. Meng, Y. Du, Y. Zhao, Liner shipping network design with deadlines, Comput. Oper. Res., 41 (2014), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2013.06.010

[11] S. Wang, Q. Meng, Robust schedule design for liner shipping services, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 48 (2012), 1093-1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.04.007

[12] D. Ronen, The effect of oil price on the optimal speed of ships, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 33 (1982), 1035-1040. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1982.215

[13] E. E. Halvorsen-Weare, K. Fagerholt, L. M. Nonås, B. E. Asbjørnslett, Optimal fleet composition and periodic routing of offshore supply vessels, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 223 (2012), 508-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.06.017

[14] Y. Du, Q. Meng, S. Wang, H. Kuang, Two-phase optimal solutions for ship speed and trim optimization over a voyage using voyage report data, Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., 122 (2019), 88-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2019.02.004

[15] H. Psaraftis, C. Kontovas, Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: A taxonomy and survey, Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., 26 (2013), 331-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.09.012

[16] J. E. Korsvik, K. Fagerholt, G. Laporte, A tabu search heuristic for ship routing and scheduling, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 61 (2010), 594-603. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.192

[17] L. Zhen, S. Wang, D. Zhuge, Dynamic programming for optimal ship refueling decision, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 100 (2017), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.12.013

[18] S. Wang, Q. Meng, Z. Liu, Bunker consumption optimization methods in shipping: A critical review and extensions, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 53 (2013), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.02.003

[19] S. Xie, Z. Hu, J. Wang, Scenario-based comprehensive expansion planning model for a coupled transportation and active distribution system, Appl. Energy, 255 (2019), 113782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113782

[20] T. Gerres, J. P. C. Ávila, P. L. Llamas, T. G. San Román, A review of cross-sector decarbonisation potentials in the European energy intensive industry, J. Clean. Prod., 210 (2019), 585-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.036

[21] L. Fan, W. W. Wilson, B. Dahl, Congestion, port expansion and spatial competition for US container imports, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 48 (2012), 1121-1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.04.006

[22] C. E. M. Plum, P. N. Jensen, D. Pisinger, Bunker purchasing with contracts, Marit. Econ. Logist., 16 (2014), 418-435. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2014.15

[23] S. Devarapali, A. Manske, R. Khayamim, E. Jacobs, B. Li, Z. Elmi, et al., Electric tugboat deployment in maritime transportation: detailed analysis of advantages and disadvantages, Marit. Bus. Rev., 9 (2024), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-09-2023-0067