TC (%)), respectively,
when compared with the medium ( M ) stock limit. We see that the gaps are on median slenderly higher for the tight and loose instances compared to the metier ones, but silent very fair. In terms of costs, the metier and free surpass the close armory limits for all instances, showing that reduced fare costs of up to 14.70 % can be achieved with increase inventory limits from the besotted to the culture medium ones. however, it should be noted that inventory costs are not included hera, and these must be expected to increase with higher inventory limits. furthermore, we see from
Table 4
that increasing the inventory limits from medium to loose only gives marginal cost reduction on
average. actually, for instances 3, 4 and 5, the costs increase when going from culture medium to loose armory limits. This should not be potential, as the solutions for the medium instances besides should be feasible in the loose ones. however, the cost increase can be explained by the large gaps for the solutions with the loose limits for these instances. The cost components with different inventory levels are analyzed in
Fig. 8
. The costs are based on the average of
the 16 instances
for each model. The entire costs are the summarize of the three parts : glide costs, ballast sail
costs, and port visit costs. The figure shows that the sail costs is the dominant allele monetary value component in the solutions from both models and all armory limits. however, we see that it can be reduced by utilizing the flexibility because of the reduce detour to visit ports. furthermore, it can besides be noted that the price for ballast sweep is a lot higher for the Base model ’ s solutions than for the Flex model ’ south for all the three inventory limits. This implies that the way of planning results in a wisely use fleet, reducing the ballast resistor sail well even for the compressed inventory limits. In addition, the port travel to costs consist of only a small character of the sum costs. exchangeable to the ballast sailing,
it is obvious that the Flex model saves well in port visit costs compared with the Base model for all stock limits. table 3 psychoanalysis of the monetary value component for medium ( M ) armory terminus ad quem. Inst. Base
Flex TC SC BC
PVC
TC
SC BC PVC 1 1.36 1.08 0.07 0.22 1.09 0.96 0.00 0.14 2 1.80 1.39 0.12 0.29 1.42 1.21 0.04 0.17 3 2.54 1.94 0.24 0.36 2.11 1.67 0.24 0.20 4 3.07 2.33 0.31 0.43 2.55 2.00 0.32 0.23 5 1.74 1.34 0.07 0.32 1.24 1.04 0.05 0.15 6 2.07 1.47 0.16 0.43 1.44 1.22 0.03 0.18 7 2.87 2.01 0.32 0.54 1.74 1.48 0.04 0.22 8 3.06 2.21 0.20 0.65 2.14 1.86 0.01 0.27 9 2.76 2.13 0.20 0.43 2.09 1.78 0.05 0.25 10 3.90 3.05 0.28 0.58 3.09 2.63 0.14 0.32 11 4.45 3.47 0.25 0.72 3.47 3.03 0.04 0.40 12 5.31 4.16 0.28 0.86 4.16 3.64 0.05 0.47 13 4.17 3.21 0.31 0.65 3.26 2.79 0.09 0.38 14 5.28 4.12 0.30 0.86 4.10 3.59 0.03 0.49 15 6.85 5.30 0.47 1.08 5.41 4.59 0.23 0.59 16 8.35 6.45 0.61 1.30 6.44 5.52 0.21 0.70 board 4 Comparison of gaps ( % ) and costs using inventory limits M, T, L. Inst.
Inv = M
Inv = T
Inv = L Gap ( % )
TC
Gap ( % )
TC (%)
Gap (%)
TC (%)
1
0.00 1.09
1.66
14.22
0.00
−1.40 2
1.78 1.42
3.31
0.47
0.21
−1.84 3
0.20 2.11
1.19
4.84
0.89
0.77 4
0.16 2.55
1.23
4.39
2.66
2.72
Read more: What is the Maritime Industry?
5
0.11 1.24
0.33
10.13
2.66
1.43 6
0.15 1.44
0.15
9.51
0.21
−0.72 7
0.01 1.74
0.11
14.00
0.00
−0.94 8
0.02 2.14
0.41
14.70
0.00
−1.49 9
0.00 2.09
0.98
3.36
0.00
−0.12 10
0.00 3.09
0.13
4.74
0.00
−0.32 11
0.04 3.47
0.01
5.82
0.00
−0.11 12
0.00 4.16
0.00
7.63
0.00
−0.06 13
0.12 3.26
0.12
2.93
0.11
−0.26 14
0.01 4.10
0.13
4.64
0.00
−0.12 15
0.00 5.41
0.00
4.28
0.00
−0.09 16
0.00 6.44
0.01
4.77
0.00
−0.16 B. Dong, et aluminum.
Transportation Research Part E 140 (2020) 101988
12
