International Journal of Production Research, 2016

Vol. 54, No. 2, 564–578, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1037024

A new decomposition algorithm for a liquefied natural gas inventory routing problem
Henrik Anderssona∗ , Marielle Christiansena and Guy Desaulniersb
a Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway; b Department of Mathematics and Industrial Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique, and GERAD, Montreal, Canada
(Received 31 October 2014; accepted 29 January 2015)

We consider an inventory routing problem (IRP) in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply chain, called the LNG-IRP. Here, an
actor is responsible for the LNG production and inventory management at the liquefaction plants, the routing and scheduling
of a heterogeneous fleet of LNG ships, as well as the inventories and sales at the regasification terminals. Furthermore, all
ports have a limited number of berths available for loading and unloading. The LNG-IRP is more complicated than many
other maritime inventory routing problems because a constant rate of the cargo evaporates in the tanks each day and is
used as fuel during transportation. In addition, a variable number of tanks are unloaded at the regasification terminals. We
introduce a new path flow formulation for this problem arising from a novel decomposition scheme based on parts of a ship
schedule, called duties. A ship schedule for the entire planning horizon can be divided into duties consisting of a visit to
a liquefaction plant, then one or two visits to a regasification terminal before ending in a liquefaction plant. The solution
method suggested is based on a priori generation of duties, and the formulation is strengthened by valid inequalities. The
same problem was previously solved by a branch-price-and-cut algorithm for a schedule-based formulation. Computational
results show that the new formulation provides tighter bounds than the previous schedule-based formulation. Furthermore,
on a set of 27 benchmark instances, the proposed algorithm clearly outperforms the previous branch-price-and-cut algorithm
both with regard to computational time and the number of problems solved within a 10-h time limit.
Keywords: maritime transportation; inventory routing; branch-and-cut; valid inequalities

1. Introduction
The demand for natural gas worldwide is high, and it is expected to rise by almost half from 2013 to 2035 (IEA 2013). The
market for natural gas has gradually become more global, and technological advances in the maritime industry have made
ships essential for long distance transportation of natural gas. The gas is cooled down until it reaches its liquid state and turns
into liquefied natural gas (LNG). This also reduces the volume of the gas by a factor of 610, which makes transportation and
storage more efficient. To meet the increased demand of natural gas, the capacity of the liquefaction plants and the LNG fleet
has increased considerably in the last decade.
Due to the new and rapid development of the LNG business, the literature on the management and optimisation of the
LNG supply chain has blossomed in the last half decade. The LNG supply chain begins with the natural gas being extracted
and sent through pipelines to a nearby liquefaction plant. The gas is then cooled down to its liquid state and stored in tanks.
Moreover, the LNG is transported by ships to its destination terminals. There, it is again stored until it is regasified and finally
sent through pipelines to the end users. For most of the studies in the literature as well as this one, the focus is on inventory
management at the liquefaction plants and the regasification terminals, as well as on routing and scheduling of the LNG
ships. Figure 1 shows the LNG supply chain and highlights the parts of the chain considered here.
We consider the tactical LNG inventory routing problem, called the LNG-IRP, studied by Grønhaug and Christiansen
(2009) and Grønhaug et al. (2010). LNG is produced and stored at liquefaction plants located at loading ports. At regasification
terminals, located at unloading ports, the LNG is stored, regasified and sold in the market. Inventory storage capacities are
given in all the considered ports. The production and consumption are variable at all terminals and may vary from day to day.
To transport the LNG between the loading and unloading ports, the planners control a heterogeneous fleet of LNG tankers.
Each ship is separated into several cargo tanks. The ship is always fully loaded when it leaves the loading port, but it is
possible to unload a variable number of tanks at each regasification terminal. During a voyage some of the LNG evaporates
and this gas, called boil-off, is used as fuel. Some LNG should always be left in the LNG tanks to keep them cool except
just before loading. The planning problem is to design routes and schedules for the LNG fleet including determining the

∗ Corresponding author. Email: Henrik.Andersson@iot.ntnu.no

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Production Research 565

Figure 1. The LNG supply chain highlighting the parts of the chain included in the study; Grønhaug et al. (2010).

production and consumption at all terminals that maximise the profit without exceeding the capacities of the LNG tankers,
berth capacities at ports and inventory limits at the storages.
Maritime transportation problems, where coordinated routing and inventory management are relevant, have attracted
considerable attention during the last 15 years. These activities have formed the basis of several surveys: Papageorgiou,
Nemhauser et al. (2014), Coelho, Cordeau, and Laporte (2014) (surveying both land-based and maritime inventory routing
problems), Christiansen et al. (2013), Andersson et al. (2010) and Christiansen and Fagerholt (2009). However, the most
general study of the LNG supply chain, including some of its main characteristics, is presented by Andersson, Christiansen,
and Fagerholt (2010). They consider simplified versions of several different LNG problems, give mathematical models of
the problems and discuss solution methods.
The LNG-IRP was first considered by Grønhaug and Christiansen (2009), and as far as we know, this is also the first LNG
routing and scheduling study presented in the literature. Both an arc flow and a path flow model with pregenerated paths are
formulated and solved. The same problem is studied by Grønhaug et al. (2010), but there a branch-price-and-cut algorithm
is used to solve the problem. The paths or columns in their path flow formulation represent possible ship routes for the entire
planning horizon including information about the schedule and quantities loaded and unloaded. In the branch-and-price
algorithm, the master problem handles the inventory management and berth capacity constraints, while the subproblems
generate the ship schedule columns. There exists a subproblem for each ship, and the subproblem corresponds to a resource
constrained shortest-path problem (see Desaulniers et al. 1998). These shortest-path problems are hard to solve due to the
complicating boil-off factor which makes it impossible to determine the unloading quantities before the consecutive loading
port is known. In these existing models, a huge number of potential schedules exist where a certain schedule might differ
from another in just a small part of the schedule. This fact is exploited in our new algorithm.
There also exist a few other studies of planning problems in the LNG supply chain. Fodstad et al. (2010) and Uggen,
Fodstad, and Nørstebø (2013) study a richer version of the LNG-IRP that also includes contract management and trading in
a spot market. In addition, they relax the fully loaded industry policy. An arc-based formulation is presented by Fodstad et al.
(2010), while Uggen, Fodstad, and Nørstebø (2013) provide a heuristic method based on a fix-and-relax time decomposition
for the same formulation.
Another planning problem considered within the LNG business is the Annual Delivery Program (ADP) setup. The ADP
for an actor in the LNG supply chain is the complete sailing schedule of the ships in the fleet for the coming year. Rakke
et al. (2013), Rakke et al. (2011) and Stålhane et al. (2012) study the ADP planning problem for one of the world’s largest
producers of LNG. The producer is responsible for the LNG inventories at the single liquefaction plant, the loading port with
a limited number of berths and the routing and scheduling of a fleet of LNG ships. In addition, the producer has to fulfil a
set of long-term contracts to customers all around the world. The network structure is simple compared to other maritime
inventory routing problems as there is only one liquefaction plant and several regasification terminals. In addition, the ships
are always fully loaded and unloaded. This means that the boil-off does not need to be considered. However, the length
of the planning horizon and the size of the problem make it very difficult to solve. Rakke et al. (2011) formulated a MIP
model which is incorporated in a rolling horizon heuristic (RHH). Stålhane et al. (2012) solve the same problem by use of a
multi-start local search heuristic. The greedy heuristic solution is improved using either a first-descent neighbourhood search,
branch-and-bound or both. A similar matheuristic is also used to improve the ADPs produced by the RHH. In Rakke et al.
(2013), the same problem is solved by a branch-price-and-cut algorithm where the columns generated represent delivery
patterns to customers instead of traditional routes and schedules. This formulation provides much tighter bounds that a route-
and schedule-based formulation and more instances can be solved within limited time. Halvorsen-Weare and Fagerholt
(2013) study a similar problem where cargoes with defined time windows are pregenerated for each contract. The problem
is decomposed into a routing subproblem and a scheduling master problem where berth, inventory and scheduling decisions
are handled. The master problem is solved using branch-and-bound, while the subproblems are solved using either a local
search heuristic or branch-and-bound. In Halvorsen-Weare and Fagerholt (2013), the problem is extended by taking into
566 H. Andersson et al.

account uncertain sailing times and daily LNG production rates. Robustness strategies are added to an improved model. The
resulting solutions are evaluated using a simulation model with a recourse optimisation procedure. Further, Goel et al. (2012)
present a maritime inventory routing model that can be used to developADPs in operational LNG projects. In contrast to Rakke
et al. (2011) and Stålhane et al. (2012), inventory management is considered at both the liquefaction plants and regasification
terminals. However, the structure is similar with one main liquefaction plant and several regasification terminals, or one
regasification terminal and many liquefaction plants. The main motivation behind their model is to provide an approach for
the analysis of key LNG supply chain design decisions such as LNG fleet size and mix, and terminal infrastructure during the
concept and design phases for new LNG projects. They have developed a large neighbourhood search heuristic to solve the
problem. Recently, Papageorgiou, Cheon et al. (2014) present an efficient approximate dynamic programming framework for
long-horizon maritime inventory routing problems and mention that the algorithm is particularly suitable for solving LNG
ADP problems.
The purpose of this paper is to present a new formulation and solution method for the LNG-IRP presented by Grønhaug
et al. (2010). The route and schedule can be split into smaller parts called duties. A duty is a sequence of ports that starts in a
loading port, visits one or two unloading ports and ends up in a loading port. In addition, the starting time of operation in each
of the ports as well as the loaded or unloaded quantity are given. Hence, we propose a novel model with paths consisting of
duties instead of entire schedules. Due to the limited number of duties, the paths are pregenerated and the model is solved by
a branch-and-bound method. The model is strengthened by including problem-specific valid inequalities. Our computational
results show that the proposed algorithm provides tighter bounds than the model by Grønhaug et al. (2010). Furthermore,
the new algorithm turns out to be more effective for computing optimal and near-optimal solution than the existing methods.
The proposed decomposition algorithm can be seen as a two-step process in which duties are generated first and some
of them are selected and assembled to yield entire routes and schedules. Such multiple-step process has already been used
in the literature. In transit systems (see Desaulniers and Hickman 2007), daily driver schedules (called duties) are built
by generating first all legal pieces of work (sequences of consecutive trips from a bus schedule) before determining the
duties (e.g. Freling, Huisman, and Wagelmans 2003). The computed duties are then assigned to driver weekly schedules
in a subsequent step (e.g. Valdes 2010). Similarly, in air transportation, monthly crew member schedules are built in three
steps (see Klabjan 2005). First, working days (sequences of flights and connections also called duties) are enumerated.
Second, crew pairings (sequences of working days and rest periods) are built from the available set of working days (e.g.
Vance et al. 1997). Third, the pairings are assigned to crew members to form their monthly schedules (e.g. Gamache et al.
1998). In these cases, the schedules and their parts are subject to complex safety regulations and labour union rules that
often cannot be modelled with linear constraints. Therefore, assembling the parts into feasible schedules is done in a column
generation subproblem that is solved by dynamic programming. When the rules defining schedule feasibility are not complex
and can be modelled with linear constraints (as in our case), schedule construction based on their parts can be modelled using
a mixed integer linear programme. Examples can be found for an aircraft routing problem (e.g. Barnhart et al. 1998) where
the aircraft routes are computed as a set of consecutive strings (sequences of flights starting and ending at a maintenance
base), and for a personnel scheduling problem (e.g. Rekik, Cordeau, and Soumis 2004) where weekly schedules are built
as sequences of daily shifts. To the best of our knowledge, when the assembly of the parts can be performed using a linear
programme, no works have evaluated the impact on the computational times of using this strategy instead of generating
directly complete schedules. Our computational results allow such an evaluation.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. The LNG-IRP problem including notation is described in Section 2,
while the mathematical model is given in Section 3. Section 4 presents the solution method proposed with foci on the duty
generation and on valid inequalities to strengthen the path flow formulation. Computational results are then reported and
compared with present best results in Section 5. Finally, some concluding remarks are given in Section 6.

2. Problem description and notation

The LNG-IRP considered is the routing and scheduling of LNG ships between liquefaction plants and regasification terminals,
as well as the production planning and inventory management at the plants and sales planning and inventory management at
the terminals. A single type of LNG is considered. The problem is defined on a planning horizon, T , that is partitioned into
days and indexed by t. The set of plants and terminals located at ports, N , is partitioned into liquefaction plants (loading or
pickup ports), N P and regasification terminals (unloading or delivery ports), N D .
Each storage located at a port i has a limited inventory capacity given by an upper, S i , and a lower bound, S i . The
production rate at the liquefaction plant and sales rate at the regasification terminal are variable and can vary between an
upper, Y it , and lower limit, Y it . Furthermore, the number of berths in a port limits the total number of ships that can load or
unload simultaneously. This berth capacity is time and port dependent and denoted B it . The loading and unloading operations
are assumed to take one day.
 International Journal of Production Research 567

Figure 2. An example of a ship schedule consisting of three duties.

To transport the LNG, a heterogeneous fleet of ships, V, with different operating costs, load capacities, initial positions
and other specific characteristics, is used. The cargo hold of an LNG tanker is separated into several tanks, and each of these
tanks has a specified capacity. During a voyage, a fixed amount of LNG evaporates from the tanks each day and this gas is
called boil-off. It is the cargo itself that keeps the tanks cool. In order to avoid costly operations of recooling the tanks of the
ships, the tanks are not allowed to be completely empty. This means that a small fraction of LNG must be left in the tanks
after unloading, so that the ships have time to sail to a liquefaction plant and start loading before the tanks are empty. Due to
business practice, we assume that the ships are always fully loaded at the liquefaction plant. However, partial unloading can
occur at regasification terminals. To avoid sloshing in the tanks during sailing, it is impossible to unload partial tanks. Hence,
a number of full tanks adjusted for the boil-off must be unloaded at each regasification terminal. In practice, the maximum
number of consecutive regasification terminals is set to two.
It is possible to wait outside a port before loading and unloading, and the maximum number of waiting days outside each
port is given. Normal boil-off is assumed during such waiting days.
For each ship v, a set of duties Dv is defined. A duty consists of a geographical route specifying the ports visited, a
schedule specifying when each port is visited and an unloading plan specifying the number of tanks and the amount of LNG
unloaded at each visit at a regasification terminal. All duties start at a liquefaction plant where the ship loads, then one or two
regasification terminals are visited before the ship sails to a liquefaction plant to reload. In the model, Z vdτ it is equal to 1 if
duty d for ship v starting in time period τ at a loading port visits port i in time period t in the same duty, and 0 otherwise.
For each ship v, Z vitO indicates the initial position and the time when the ship is available, and the parameter is 1 if ship v is

first available at loading port i in time period t. The (un)loading quantities corresponding to Z vdτ it is denoted Q vdτ it .
In Figure 2, an entire route and schedule for ship 1 is given. The shaded nodes correspond to liquefaction plants, while
the unfilled nodes represent regasification terminals. Ship 1 starts at sea and visits ports 1 at time period 3. Then it visits
unloading ports 2 and 3, before returning to port 1. It reaches port 1 at time period 15 and can fully load the ship again.
Then the route continues, and the ship visits ports 3, 4, 5, and, finally, 1, before ending its sailing in the planning horizon. In
Grønhaug et al. (2010), this entire route including schedule represents a column in the column generation method. Here, this
route including its schedule is split into three duties; d = 1, 2 and 3. For each of the port visits, we have an associated Z vdτ it
parameter set to 1. The different duties have to be linked in the loading ports to ensure that the same ship is visiting the same
loading port in the same time period. This linking can be done with help of the Z -parameters and variables for the duties.
The unit cost and revenue for producing and selling LNG are location- and time-dependent. The cost of producing one
unit of LNG at liquefaction plant i in time period t is CitP , while the revenue of selling one unit of LNG at regasification
terminal i in time period t is RitD . The operating cost of duty d sailed by ship v is Cvd O.

The LNG-IRP consists of determining feasible routes and schedules (as sequences of feasible duties) for the LNG tankers,
the loading and unloading quantities as well as the production and consumption at all terminals that maximise the profit,
while satisfying the capacities of the ships, berths, production, consumption and inventories.

3. Mathematical model
In this section, a mathematical formulation based on duties is presented. Here, we use the following variables: For port i ∈ N ,
let the continuous variable yit , t ∈ T denote the production in liquefaction plant i ∈ N P and the sales quantity in regasification
terminal i ∈ N D . The inventory (storage) levels at the ports are given by the continuous variables sit , i ∈ N , t ∈ T . Note that
568 H. Andersson et al.

si0 , i ∈ N is a parameter representing the initial inventory at the beginning of the planning horizon. Finally, the continuous
variable xvdt represents the fraction of duty d where ship v start sailing in time period t , v ∈ V, d ∈ Dv , t ∈ T .
Using this notation, the LNG-IRP with duties can be formulated as the following MIP:
      
max RitD yit − CitP yit − O
Cvd xvdt (1)
i∈N D t∈T i∈N P t∈T v∈V d∈Dv t∈T

subject to:
 
sit − yit − si(t−1) + Q vdtit xvdt = 0 i ∈ N P , t ∈ T (2)
v∈V d∈Dv
  
sit + yit − si(t−1) − Q vdτ it xvdτ = 0 i ∈ N D , t ∈ T (3)
v∈V d∈Dv τ ∈T
 
Z vdtit xvdt ≤ B it i ∈ N P, t ∈ T (4)
v∈V d∈Dv
  
Z vdτ it xvdτ ≤ B it i ∈ N D, t ∈ T (5)
v∈V d∈Dv τ ∈T
  
Z vdtit xvdt − Z vdτ it xvdτ = Z vit
O
v ∈ V, i ∈ N P , t ∈ T (6)
d∈Dv d∈Dv τ ∈T |τ <t
S i ≤ sit ≤ S i i ∈ N,t ∈ T (7)
Y it ≤ yit ≤ Y it i ∈ N,t ∈ T (8)
xvdt ∈ {0, 1} v ∈ V, d ∈ Dv , t ∈ T (9)

The objective function (1) maximises the total profit consisting of the revenue from selling, the cost of producing LNG and
the operating costs of the ships. Constraints (2) and (3) are the inventory balance constraints at the liquefaction plants and
regasification terminals, respectively. The number of ships that can load and unload at the same time at a plant or terminal
is restricted by constraints (4) and (5). Constraints (6) are the duty balance constraints. They state that the number of duties
starting at a liquefaction plant a given day is equal to the number of duties ending at the same plant on that day. The right
hand side is 1 for the liquefaction plant and time period where the ship is first available, making sure that the ship starts a
duty from that plant on the given day. The upper and lower bounds on the continuous variables are given in constraints (7)
and (8). Finally, the binary restrictions for the duty variables are given in (9).

4. Solution method
This section presents the solution method developed for the path flow formulation of the LNG-IRP. The method is a branch-
and-bound method, where all duties are generated a priori. The method also includes a number of valid inequalities that are
generated a priori. Section 4.1 presents the duty generation, followed by a description of the valid inequalities in Section 4.2.

4.1 Duty generation

As introduced, a duty consists of a geographical route, a schedule and an unloading plan for a vessel. All the duties are
generated a priori.
We start by generating all geographical routes for each ship. The route in a duty starts at a liquefaction plant, continues
with one or two regasification terminals before ending at a liquefaction plant. The first and last liquefaction plants might be
the same or different.
In addition, the duty contains information about the schedule specifying when each port is visited. For each geographical
route, we define duties starting in each possible time periods. We have to take into account the first possible start of a duty
due to the start position of a ship. All duties are complete, so we allow the duties close to the end of the planning horizon to
finish after the end of the planning horizon. We allow a ship to wait outside a port a specified number of time periods before
loading or unloading. If we have a geographical route consisting of two regasification terminals and allow a maximum of
two waiting periods at the regasification terminals and the final liquefaction plant, we get 33 = 27 different schedules for
that geographical route and start time of the duty.
Given a geographical route and a schedule, different duties can be generated containing different unloading patterns.
An exception is if just one regasification terminal is visited in a duty. Then, all tanks have to be unloaded at this terminal.
 International Journal of Production Research 569

However, if two regasification terminals are visited in a duty and the ship consists of more than two tanks, different unloading
patterns exist. For instance, with four tanks, the ship can unload 1 and 3, 2 and 2 or 3 and 1 tanks in the first and second
regasification terminals, respectively.
When a duty including the geographical route, the schedule and the unloading pattern is generated, the unloading quantities
can be calculated taking into account the boil-off and the fact that the ship should always have some LNG on board except
just before the start of the next duty.

4.2 Valid inequalities

The formulation presented in Section 3 can be tightened by adding several types of valid inequalities. The first two types of
valid inequalities are based on a calculated minimum and maximum number of loadings in the liquefaction plants and are
presented in Section 4.2.1. These valid inequalities are strengthened compared with the ones presented by Grønhaug et al.
(2010). They are also different from the ones presented by Engineer et al. (2012) and Rakke et al. (2013) due to variable
production at the liquefaction plants. Similar valid inequalities can be developed for the minimum and maximum number of
unloadings in the regasification terminals. However, these inequalities can be strengthened by bounding the maximum and
minimum number of tanks that must be unloaded instead. These valid inequalities are presented in Section 4.2.2. Finally, in
Section 4.2.3, we present timing inequalities where we utilise that a sufficient amount of LNG needs to be produced or stored
in the inventories before a ship can be fully loaded for a particular number of times. These valid inequalities are adapted
from the timing cuts given by Engineer et al. (2012) and Rakke et al. (2013).

4.2.1 Loading inequalities


For any given time interval T  = {T  , . . . , T }, the maximum and minimum number  of loading operations at loading port i
can be calculated from the incoming inventory level si(T  −1) , the total production t∈T  yit , the capacities of the ships, the
limits for the inventories, S i , S i and the limits for the production, Y it , Y it .
Start by defining the excess quantity at loading port i that must be loaded during T  :

eiT  = si(T  −1) + yit − S i (10)
t∈T 

From the limits on the storage and the production, we can define the lower and upper limits, E iT  , E iT  , on the excess
quantity:
 
E iT  = S i + Y it − S i ≤ eiT  ≤ S i + Y it − S i = E iT  (11)
t∈T  t∈T 

Relating these bounds to the loading quantities gives two families of valid inequalities. Start by ordering all ships that can
load at port i in T  in a non-decreasing order with respect to capacity. From this order, two sequences of loading quantities
can be created by taking into account the number of times each ship can load within T  . Assuming that there are three ships,
v1 , v2 and v3 , with capacity 8, 11 and 12, respectively. Within T  , assume that v1 can load at most two times, v2 can load
at most one time and v3 at most three times. The minimum quantity that can be loaded given one loading operation is thus
8, i.e. using v1 . Given two loading operations, the minimum loading quantity is 16, i.e. using v1 twice. Given three loading
operations, the minimum loading quantity is 27, i.e. using v1 twice and v2 once and so on. These minimum loading quantities
together with 0 for the case without loading form the sequence Q iV = {Q i0 V , Q V , Q V , . . . , Q V } = {0, 8, 16, 27, 39, 51, 63}.
i1 i2 in
V V V V V
Correspondingly, we can define a sequence of maximum loading quantities Q i = {Q i0 , Q i1 , Q i2 , . . . , Q in } = {0, 12, 24, 36,
47, 55, 63} by reversing the order of the ships.
V V V V V
When eiT  ≤ Q 0 no visits are needed, when Q i0 < eiT  ≤ Q i1 , at least one visit is needed, when Q i1 < eiT  ≤ Q i2 ,
at least two visits are needed and so forth. In Figure 3, the dotted line represents the minimum number of loadings that must
be performed. The line is piecewise linear due to different capacities of the ships inthe fleet. The resulting valid inequalities
ensure a solution not below the line. Note that the first axis represents si(T  −1) + t∈T  yit = eiT  + S i .

Assume that 25 ≤ t∈T  yit ≤ 32, S i = 5, and S i = 28. Then, E iT  = 5 + 25 − 28 = 2 and E iT  = 28 + 32 − 28 = 32.
See the E iT  + S i and E iT  + S i limits in Figure 3(b).
Using the upper and lower bounds, E iT  , E iT  , on eiT  given in (11), the valid inequality can be strengthened. In our
V V
example, we have Q i0 < E iT  ≤ Q i1 (0 < 2 ≤ 12). Then the constraint can be strengthened as shown in Figure 3(c) by
V V V
the dashed line between E iT  + S i = 2 + 28 = 30 and Q i1 + S i = 12 + 28 = 40. Similarly, we have Q i2 ≤ E iT  < Q i3
(24 ≤ 32 < 36). Here, the valid inequality can be further strengthened as shown in Figure 3(c) by the dashed line between
V
Q i2 + S i = 24 + 28 = 52 and E iT  + S i = 32 + 28 = 60.
570 H. Andersson et al.

Figure 3. Loading inequalities at loading port i.

V V V V V V
For Q iki , . . . , Q ili where Q iki is the least Q im greater than E iT  and Q ili is the largest Q im less than E iT  , the following
valid inequalities for time interval T  can be defined:
  
Z vdtit xvdt ≥ ki i ∈ N P (12)
v∈V d∈Dv t∈T 
V V
   eiT  + (m − 1)Q im − m Q i,m−1
Z vdtit xvdt ≥ V V
i ∈ N P , ki < m ≤ li (13)
v∈V d∈Dv t∈T  Q im − Q i,m−1
V
   eiT  + li E iT  − (li + 1)Q ili
Z vdtit xvdt ≥ V
i ∈NP (14)
v∈V d∈Dv t∈T  E iT  − Q ili
Constraints (12) are the valid inequalities referring to the horizontal line in Figure 3(c), when the excess quantity is less
V
than the least Q im greater than E iT  . Furthermore, constraints (13) refer to the dotted line in Figure 3(c), which is between
V V
Q iki + S i and Q ili + S i . If this line consists of several linear pieces, the constraints have to be split up for each piece. Finally,
V
constraints (14) express the final piece of the line where eiT  is greater or equal to Q ili .
To develop valid inequalities for the maximum number of loadings in time interval T  , we define the loadable quantity
at liquefaction plant i during T  as

f iT  = si(T  −1) + yit − S i (15)
t∈T 

From the limits on the storage and the production, we can define the lower and upper limits, F iT  , F iT  , on the loadable
quantity:
 
F iT  = S i + Y it − S i ≤ f iT  ≤ S i + Y it − S i = F iT  (16)
t∈T  t∈T 

When Q i0V ≤ f  < Q V , no visits are allowed, when Q V ≤ f  < Q V , at most one visit is allowed and so forth. The upper
iT i1 i1 iT i2
envelope convex function containing the left hand side extremities of the feasible region is shown as a dotted line in Figure
3(d), and the resulting valid inequality ensures a solution not above the line. Similar to the minimum loading cuts, the line is
piecewise linear due to different capacities of the ships in the fleet. From the example, we get F iT  , = 5 + 25 − 5 = 25 and
F iT  = 28 + 32 − 5 = 55. When 25 ≤ f iT  < 27, at most two visits are allowed and when 27 ≤ f iT  < 39, at most three
 International Journal of Production Research 571

visits are allowed. Furthermore, when 39 ≤ f iT  < 51, at most four visits are allowed, and, finally, when 51 ≤ f iT  ≤ 55,
at most five visits are allowed.
As for the minimum loading cuts, the maximum loading cuts can also be strengthened for the areas in the figures related
to F iT  and F iT  . The strengthened lines are shown with dashed lines in Figure 3(d). For Q ik V , . . . , Q V where Q V is the
i ili iki
V greater than F
least Q im V V
iT  and Q ili is the largest Q im less than F iT  , the following maximum number of visits inequalities
for time interval T  can be defined:
   f iT  − F iT 
Z vdtit xvdt ≤ V + ki − 1 i ∈ N P (17)
v∈V d∈D t∈T 
Q ik
− F iT 
v i

   f iT  + (m − 1)Q im
V − m QV
i,m−1
− F iT 
Z vdtit xvdt ≤ V − QV
i ∈ N P , ki < m ≤ li (18)
v∈V d∈Dv t∈T 
Q im i,m−1
  
Z vdtit xvdt ≤ li i ∈NP (19)
v∈V d∈Dv t∈T 

Constraints (17) are the valid inequalities referring to the first part of the upper line in Figure 3(d). Constraints (18) refer to
the middle part of the function shown in Figure 3(d). Here again, if this line consists of several linear pieces, the constraints
have to be split up for each piece. Finally, constraints (19) express the final piece of the line.
Figure 3(d) also shows the feasible region of the integer programme, marked with bullets and solid horizontal lines.

4.2.2 Unloading inequalities

The same idea can be used to bound the maximum and minimum number of visits at a given regasification terminal. Since
not all tanks must be unloaded at an unloading port, these inequalities are derived for the number of tanks unloaded and not
the number of visits. We will also see that some of the valid inequalities can be strengthened by deriving inequalities with

respect to the number of visits. For any given time interval T  = {T  , . . . , T }, the maximum and minimum number  of tanks
to unload at unloading port i can be calculated from the incoming inventory level si(T  −1) , the total sales t∈T  yit , the
capacities of the ships and the tanks in each ship, the limits for the inventories, S i , S i and the limits for the consumption, Y it ,
Y it . Here, we define Hvdτ it as the number of tanks unloaded from ship v at unloading port i in time period t when sailing
duty d starting in time period τ . Furthermore, H is the number of cargo tanks in the ships.
Start by defining the deficit quantity at unloading port i that must be unloaded during T  :

diT  = yit − si(T  −1) + S i (20)
t∈T 

From the limits on the storage and the consumption, we can define the lower and upper limits, D iT  , D iT  , on the deficit
quantity:
 
D iT  = Y it − S i + S i ≤ diT  ≤ Y it − S i + S i = D iT  (21)
t∈T  t∈T 

Relating these bounds to the unloading quantities gives two families of valid inequalities similar to the inequalities for the
liquefaction plants. We order all the ships that can unload at i in T  in a non-decreasing order with respect to tank capacity and
boil-off. Since an overestimation of the unloading quantities gives a relaxed constraint, we have to use the least boil-off possible
when deriving the sequence of minimum unloading quantities. In contrast, the upper bound on the reduction in quantity due
to boil-off has to be used when deriving the sequence of maximum unloading quantities. These quantities correspond to Q iV
V
and Q i described in Section 4.2.1 except that they describe tanks instead of full ships. If we use the example from Section
4.2.1 and assume H = 2 and no boil-off, the sequences become Q iV = {0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 21.5, 27, 33, 39, 45, 51, 57, 63} and
V
Q i = {0, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 41.5, 47, 51, 55, 59, 63}, respectively.
Using the upper and lower bounds on diT  , the constraints can be strengthened as for the liquefaction plants. By substituting
eiT  with diT  and E iT  with D iT  in inequalities (12)–(14), we get the valid inequalities for the minimum number of tanks
to unload at unloading port i.
572 H. Andersson et al.
  
Hvdτ it xvdτ ≥ ki i ∈ ND (22)
v∈V d∈Dv τ ∈T t∈T 

V V
   diT  + (m − 1)Q im − m Q i,m−1
Hvdτ it xvdτ ≥ V V
i ∈ N D , ki < m ≤ li (23)
v∈V d∈Dv τ ∈T t∈T  Q im − Q i,m−1
V
   diT  + li D iT  − (li + 1)Q ili
Hvdτ it xvdτ ≥ V
i ∈ ND (24)
v∈V d∈Dv τ ∈T t∈T  D iT  − Q ili

Including the fact that each ship has H tanks, the valid inequalities (22) can be expressed in number of visits. The minimum
number of tanks unloaded divided by H is a valid bound on the minimum number of visits, which gives the following
constraints
    
ki
Z vdτ it xvdτ ≥ i ∈ N D, (25)
v∈V d∈D τ ∈T t∈T 
H
v

Assume a situation where each ship has four tanks (H = 4) and ki = 7. ki = 7 states that at least seven tanks must be
unloaded, which means at least two visits since each ship has four tanks. Only including (22) can give a solution with 1.75
visits, each visit unloading four tanks. On the other hand, only including (25) does not guarantee that enough tanks are
unloaded since only one tank can be unloaded per visit. This shows that both (22) and (25) can be useful.
Valid inequalities can also be derived for the maximum number of tanks unloaded. In correspondence with the loadable
quantities at loading ports, we here define the unloadable quantity at unloading port i during T  as

giT  = yit − si(T  −1) + S i (26)
t∈T 

From the limits on the storage and the sales, we can define the lower and upper limits, G iT  , G iT  , on the unloadable quantity:
 
G iT  = S i + Y it − S i ≤ giT  ≤ S i + Y it − S i = G iT  (27)
t∈T  t∈T 

By substituting f iT  with giT  and F iT  with G iT  in inequalities (17)–(19), we get the valid inequalities for the maximum
number of tanks unloaded at unloading port i.
   giT  − G iT 
Hvdτ it xvdτ ≤ V + ki − 1 i ∈ N D (28)
v∈V d∈D τ ∈T t∈T 
Q ik
− G iT 
v i

   giT  + (m − 1)Q im
V − m QV
i,m−1
− G iT 
Hvdτ it xvdτ ≤ V − QV
i ∈ N D , ki < m ≤ li (29)
v∈V d∈Dv τ ∈T t∈T 
Q im i,m−1
  
Hvdτ it xvdτ ≤ li i ∈ ND (30)
v∈V d∈Dv τ ∈T t∈T 

4.2.3 Timing inequalities

 V
Start with a given time interval T  = {T  , . . . , T } and the sequence of maximum 
loadingquantities
 at loading port i, Q i ,
defined in Section 4.2.1. The total quantity loaded at port i during T  is liT  = v∈V d∈Dv t∈T  Q vdtit xvdt . Let K
V V
define the least number of ships needed to load this quantity, i.e. Q i,K −1 < liT  ≤ Q i K . The earliest time for the kth loading,
t k , is such that
t k −1 tk
 V 
si(T  −1) + yit < Q ik ≤ si(T  −1) + yit (31)
t=T  t=T 
K
This means that the least number of days, counting from T  − 1, for the K loadings needed to load liT  is k=1 (t k − T  + 1)
and this can be used to bound the time-weighted sum of loadings:
  
K
(t − T  + 1)xvdt ≥ (t k − T  + 1) (32)
t∈T  v∈V d∈Dv k=1
 International Journal of Production Research 573
V
A lower bound on the quantity that must be produced prior to the kth loading is y ik = liT  − si(T  −1) − Q K −k and we can
use this to estimate t k as
y
t k ≥ ik (33)
Yi
where a production constant Y i is an estimate of the average production over T  . A natural way to estimate Y i is Y i =
maxt∈T  Y it , but a better estimate can be found by using the average production rate over a subinterval of T  starting from
T  . With this, we get the following estimate of Y i
τ
t=T  Y it
Y i = max  (34)
τ ∈T τ − T + 1

Combining (32) and (33) gives the following timing inequalities

⎛ ⎞
V
  K
l iT  − si(T  −1) − Q
−k
(t − T  + 1)xvdt ≥ ⎝ K
− T  + 1⎠ (35)

t∈T v∈V d∈D k=1
Y i
v

5. Computational study
The proposed model and solution method have been tested on two sets of instances; the instances from Grønhaug and
Christiansen (2009) and Grønhaug et al. (2010) and extended versions of the same set. In the extended versions, we test the
model for different number of tanks on the ships and different number of waiting days. Statistics about the instances from
the literature are presented in Table 1.
The number of tanks presented in Table 1 is the number used in Grønhaug and Christiansen (2009) and Grønhaug et al.
(2010). In the extended versions of the instances, we allow for two and four tanks on each ship. The model was implemented
in Mosel version 3.6.0 and solved using Xpress Optimizer version 26.01.04 and default settings have been used unless
otherwise stated. All tests were conducted on a HP dl165 G5 with a 6 core 2 x 2.4 GHz AMD Opteron 2431 and 24 Gb
of RAM. The computational study is divided into three parts. Part one compares the upper bounds after the root node, and
the model has been solved for different combinations of valid inequalities to find the most efficient combination. Part two
analyses different aspects related to the complexity of solving the problem, and part three is a comparison between the work
done here and the work by Grønhaug et al. (2010).

5.1 Bounds
We have tested a large number of combinations of valid inequalities, and aggregated results of these tests are presented in
Tables 2–8. Each column in the table shows the gap between the objective value at the root node and the objective value
of the best found solution for that particular combination of valid inequalities. The gap is presented in relation with the gap
between the objective value at the root node when neither the proposed valid inequalities nor the cut generation of Xpress are
used and the objective value of the best found solution. Six different settings have been tested. The row ‘No cuts’ presents
the results when neither the proposed valid inequalities nor the cut generation of Xpress are used and X means that the cut
generation of Xpress is turned on. All valid inequalities are generated a priori and then included in an iterative process where
the algorithm iterates between solving the linear relaxation of the model and adding the violated cuts until no more cuts are
found. Two different strategies for generating the valid inequalities are tested; either all valid inequalities are generated or the

Table 1. The size of the instances.

Group Ships Tanks Ports (P,D)

A 1
B 2
C 2
D 2
E 2
F 3
G 5
2 4 (1,3)
2 3 (1,2)
2 4 (2,2)
1 5 (2,3)
2 5 (2,3)
1 4 (2,2)
1 6 (3,3)
574 H. Andersson et al.

Table 2. Aggregated relative gaps and solution times for group A.

No cuts L U −T T −U −L 

No cuts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0
OA 100.0 91.3 57.3 36.3 100.0 90.7 38.9 33.7
OA + X 71.0 60.7 35.9 30.2 66.9 60.0 33.7 29.6
O1 100.0 91.5 58.4 40.1 100.0 91.5 58.4 40.1
O1 + X 71.0 59.9 39.3 32.7 71.0 59.9 39.3 32.7
Time A 89.0 763.0 1450.8 2248.8 454.7 1190.5 2091.6 2741.9
Time 1 89.1 131.7 318.6 325.4 89.3 130.6 315.5 327.8

Table 3. Aggregated relative gaps and solution times for group B.

No cuts L U −T T −U −L 

No cuts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8
OA 100.0 93.9 78.5 57.0 99.9 94.5 53.3 47.3
OA + X 56.8 45.5 36.1 28.9 49.9 46.4 35.8 28.4
O1 100.0 94.3 88.2 80.2 100.0 94.3 88.1 80.2
O1 + X 56.8 46.9 47.9 37.8 56.8 46.9 47.8 37.8
Time A 58.2 84.0 179.9 244.7 305.5 361.5 883.4 772.2
Time 1 58.2 71.3 80.3 98.8 58.0 71.1 84.3 99.6

Table 4. Aggregated relative gaps and solution times for group C.

No cuts L U −T T −U −L 

No cuts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1
OA 100.0 96.0 60.8 48.8 99.7 96.3 58.8 48.1
OA + X 52.1 43.4 38.0 30.4 49.8 43.5 36.9 29.6
O1 100.0 96.4 96.5 90.1 100.0 96.4 96.5 90.1
O1 + X 52.1 43.2 51.1 42.6 52.1 43.2 51.1 42.6
Time A 183.6 312.0 327.2 450.2 349.1 472.4 338.7 407.2
Time 1 183.3 307.4 194.5 312.5 184.5 307.8 195.6 313.0

generation is restricted to T  = 1 (first defined in Section 4.2.1). O A means that the proposed valid inequalities are used and
all inequalities are generated, while O A + X means that both the cut generation of Xpress and the proposed valid inequalities
are used. The corresponding notation for the strategy where the generation is restricted to T  = 1 is O1 and O1 + X . The
last rows show the time to solve the root node for the different strategies and settings, O A + X and O1 + X , respectively.
To ease the presentation, we denote the loading inequalities (12)–(14) and (17)–(19) L, the unloading inequalities (22)–
(24), (25) and (28)–(30) are denoted U and the timing inequalities (35) T . We also introduce  to denote all valid inequalities
and  −  to denote the inclusion of all inequalities except .
The general conclusions from these tests are that the timing inequalities are not very effective, while both loading and
unloading inequalities are. We also see that the proposed cuts are better than the cuts generated by Xpress, but also that
the combination of cuts is even stronger. It is also clear that restricting the generation of cuts to T  = 1 is a lot faster than
generating all cuts, but does not produce nearly as good bounds.

5.2 Complexity
In this part, we use the findings from the previous section and use the O1 + X setting. The computational time is bounded
to 4 h (14400 s), and there are seven instances for each combination of planning horizon (T ), number of tanks in the ship
(H ) and number of waiting days allowed before a port visit (W ). The results of the tests are presented in Table 9 where the
 International Journal of Production Research 575

Table 5. Aggregated relative gaps and solution times for group D.

No cuts L U −T T −U −L 

No cuts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X 63.0 63.0 63.1 62.8 63.1 63.1 62.0 62.0
OA 100.0 94.7 69.6 60.1 92.2 90.5 57.8 54.5
OA + X 63.0 55.3 46.8 41.7 58.7 56.1 45.2 41.6
O1 100.0 97.8 93.6 90.4 100.0 97.8 93.6 90.4
O1 + X 63.0 57.4 57.2 51.9 63.0 57.4 57.2 51.9
Time A 249.1 490.5 677.3 1500.6 4351.2 4326.4 3853.7 4259.3
Time 1 247.1 351.1 315.0 445.1 248.5 355.9 312.8 446.5

Table 6. Aggregated relative gaps and solution times for group E.

No cuts L U −T T −U −L 

No cuts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X 61.9 61.9 61.9 61.5 61.9 61.8 60.3 60.3
OA 100.0 94.5 70.5 59.9 91.2 89.4 57.0 54.1
OA + X 61.9 54.4 46.2 41.1 58.1 54.5 44.4 40.8
O1 100.0 97.7 92.6 89.4 100.0 97.7 92.6 89.4
O1 + X 61.9 57.4 55.9 50.1 61.9 57.4 55.9 50.1
Time A 241.4 517.9 750.6 942.7 3375.1 3526.5 2938.8 3472.4
Time 1 240.4 351.0 347.6 528.9 244.1 353.6 351.2 525.1

Table 7. Aggregated relative gaps and solution times for group F.

No cuts L U −T T −U −L 

No cuts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X 47.7 59.8 56.7 69.1 69.1 69.1 68.4 68.8
OA 100.0 83.3 80.4 69.3 84.4 81.3 64.7 60.4
OA + X 47.7 35.3 27.2 42.3 56.5 52.7 48.0 44.3
O1 100.0 90.0 99.1 89.6 100.0 90.0 99.1 89.6
O1 + X 47.7 20.8 46.7 24.0 47.7 20.8 46.7 24.0
Time A 769.8 1664.0 937.5 1791.8 3068.5 5443.9 2660.7 6187.7
Time 1 764.8 1391.1 767.3 1475.8 769.2 1395.7 775.1 1485.5

Table 8. Aggregated relative gaps and solution times for group G.

No cuts L U −T T −U −L 

No cuts 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X 82.8 81.7 80.6 79.0 80.6 79.0 80.1 76.2
OA 100.0 91.0 85.7 73.1 85.8 83.6 68.3 68.0
OA + X 82.8 71.7 65.8 56.3 67.6 65.2 56.9 55.8
O1 100.0 96.3 96.3 92.6 100.0 96.6 96.5 93.1
O1 + X 81.3 78.3 78.3 74.3 81.3 79.9 79.9 76.5
Time A 7866.2 13035.5 9712.1 13477.8 18698.8 19695.1 18490.3 13941
Time 1 7956.7 12074.6 8210.4 11976.2 5379.2 9304.6 6394.2 9903

average solution time of the seven instances (in seconds) is presented together with the number of instances solved to proven
optimality.
It is clear from Table 9 that the length of the planning horizon and the number of waiting days are very crucial to the
solution time while the number of tanks does not influence as much. Analyzing how the number of variables is affected by
576 H. Andersson et al.

Table 9. Average solution time and number of solved instances.

T / H +W 2+1 2+2 4+1 4+2

30 128.7 (7) 2179.7 (6) 3889.2 (6) 8250.5 (3)

45 1054.5 (7) 2927.6 (6) 4815.2 (5) 8667.2 (3)
60 585.3 (7) 2415.5 (6) 4439.5 (5) 8399.4 (3)
75 2109.3 (6) 4286.7 (5) 8381.6 (3) 9608.1 (3)

Table 10. Comparison with best known results.

Grønhaug et al. (2010) This work

Group |T | Time IP Bound Time IP Bound

A 30 0.0 887.0 – 0.1 887.0 –

A 45 3.0 1314.7 – 0.3 1314.7 –
A 60 32.0 1533.0 – 2.8 1533.0 –
A 75 233.0 1853.4 – 17.8 1853.4 –
B 30 1.0 681.0 – 0.2 681.0 –
B 45 26.0 940.8 – 4.1 940.8 –
B 60 1580.0 1191.8 – 52.8 1191.8 –
B 75 26527.0 1403.8 – 303.5 1403.8 –
C 30 10.0 1018.6 – 0.7 1018.6 –
C 45 91.0 1492.6 – 5.2 1492.6 –
C 60 3696.0 1784.2 – 20.9 1784.2 –
C 75 19707.0 2200.9 – 29.3 2200.9 –
D 30 0.0 2170.0 – 0.0 2170.0 –
D 45 9.0 2544.8 – 3.8 2544.8 –
D 60 338.0 2920.3 – 8.1 2920.3 –
D 75 2889.0 3237.9 – 79.2 3237.9 –
E 30 5.0 2170.0 – 0.4 2170.0 –
E 45 95.0 2591.0 – 14.7 2591.0 –
E 60 3107.0 2920.3 – 39.4 2920.3 –
E 75 18315.0 3340.8 – 91.6 3340.8 –
F 30 10.0 1118.0 – 1.2 1118.0 –
F 45 1219.0 1435.4 – 12.4 1435.4 –
F 60 36000.0 1463.4 2229.3 124.2 1581.1 –
F 75 36000.0 917.2 2602.2 443.3 1729.1 –
G 30 14.0 1697.6 – 2.0 1697.6 –
G 45 36000.0 1435.8 2550.9 1074.1 2003.3 –
G 60 36000.0 951.0 3058.9 36000.0 2145.9 2328.2

the factors: length of the time horizon, number of tanks and number of waiting days reveals a correlation between the number
of variables and the changes in solution times that can be seen in Table 9. For a duty consisting of visits to two regasification
terminals, there is one possible schedule when no waiting days are allowed, eight possible schedules when one waiting day
is allowed and 27 possible schedules when two waiting days are allowed. This rapid increase in the number of variables
can explain why the problems with more waiting days are harder to solve. It is probably not the increase in the number of
variables, which scales approximately linear with the length of the planning horizon, but the increase in the actual number
of duties that must be chosen that makes the problems with a longer planning horizon much harder to solve.

5.3 Benchmark
The model has been tested on the instances presented in Grønhaug and Christiansen (2009) and Grønhaug et al. (2010). The
Grønhaug et al. (2010) results presented in Table 10 are from these authors who developed a branch-and-price method to
solve the problem. The formulation in Grønhaug et al. (2010) are based on regular schedules covering the whole planning
 International Journal of Production Research 577

horizon and the objective is to assign exactly one schedule to each vessel. The solution method was programmed in C++,
and relied on the XPRESS Optimizer version 17.1 for solving the reduced master problem. All tests were conducted on a
computer with a 3 GHz processor with 4 cores and 8 GB RAM. Columns IP indicate the value of the best feasible solution
found by the corresponding algorithm. A proven optimal solution is marked with a – in the Bound column. Otherwise, this
column reports the best upper bound upon termination of the solution process.
The results in Table 10 show that, within the time limit, the new algorithm can solve all instances to optimality except
one. Hence, compared with the algorithm of Grønhaug et al. (2010), it can solve three new instances (although on a faster
computer). For the most difficult instances, we observe computational time reductions of factors exceeding 100. In particular,
for the instances with |T | = 75 in group F, the speedup factor is 672. Clearly, our algorithm outperforms that of Grønhaug
et al. (2010).

6. Concluding remarks
The LNG-IRP is a relevant and challenging problem. Combining ship routing and scheduling, inventory management,
variable production and sales, and boil-off is highly complex and demands sophisticated mathematical models and solution
methods to be solved efficiently. In this paper, we propose a new decomposition algorithm based on duties together with
a branch-and-cut method. A duty is a sequence of ports that starts in a loading port, visits one or two unloading ports and
ends up in a loading port. In addition, the starting time of operation in each of the ports as well as the loaded and unloaded
quantity are given for each duty. A duty covers only part of the planning horizon, so multiple duties are combined to form a
route and schedule for the whole planning horizon. Known valid inequalities are generalised and added to the formulation
to strengthen it.
The computational study shows that the valid inequalities are helpful when solving the problem and that the proposed
solution method is clearly superior to earlier methods. Three previously open instances from the literature have been solved
to proven optimality.

Acknowledgements
This work has received financial support through the DOMinantII project, funded by the Research Council of Norway and through grants
from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Andersson, H., M. Christiansen, and K. Fagerholt. 2010. “Transportation Planning and Inventory Management in the LNG Supply Chain.”
In Energy, Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, edited by E. Bjørndal, M. Bjørndal, P. M. Pardalos, and M. Rönnqvist,
429–441. Berlin: Springer.
Andersson, H., A. Hoff, M. Christiansen, G. Hasle, and A. Løkketangen. 2010. “Industrial Aspects and Literature Survey: Combined
Inventory Management and Routing.” Computers and Operations Research 37 (9): 1515–1536.
Barnhart, C., N. Boland, L. W. Clarke, E. L. Johnson, G. L. Nemhauser, and R. G. Shenoi. 1998. “Flight String Models for Aircraft Fleeting
and Routing.” Transportation Science 32 (2): 208–220.
Christiansen, M, and K. Fagerholt. 2009. “Maritime Inventory Routing Problems.” In Encyclopedia of Optimization, 2nd ed., edited by
C. A. Floudas and P. M. Pardalos, 1947–1955. New York: Springer.
Christiansen, M, K. Fagerholt, B. Nygreen, and D. Ronen. 2007. “Maritime Transportation.” In Transportation. Vol. 14, Handbooks in
Operations Research and Management Science, edited by C. Barnhart and G. Laporte, 189–284. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Christiansen, M., K. Fagerholt, B. Nygreen, and D. Ronen. 2013. “Ship Routing and Scheduling in the New Millennium.” European
Journal of Operational Research 228 (3): 467–483.
Coelho, L. C., J.-F. Cordeau, and G. Laporte. 2014. “Thirty Years of Inventory Routing.” Transportation Science 48 (1): 1–19.
Desaulniers, G., J. Desrosiers, I. Ioachim, M. M. Solomon, F. Soumis, and D. Villeneuve. 1998. “A Unified Framework for Deterministic
Time Constrained Vehicle Routing and Crew Scheduling Problems.” In Fleet Management and Logistics, edited by T. G. Crainic and
G. Laporte, 57–93. New York: Kluwer.
Desaulniers, G., and M. Hickman. 2007. “Public Transit.” In Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. Vol. 14, edited
by G. Laporte and C. Barnhart, 69–127. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Engineer, F., K. Furman, G. Nemhauser, M. Savelsbergh, and J.-W. Song. 2012. “Branch-price-and-cut for Maritime Inventory Routing.”
Operations Research 60 (1): 106–122.
578 H. Andersson et al.

Fodstad, M., K. T. Uggen, F. Rømo, A.-G. Lium, G. Stremersch, and S. Hecq. 2010. “LNGScheduler: A Rich Model for Coordinating
Vessel Routing, Inventories and Trade in the Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Chain.” The Journal of Energy Markets 3 (4): 1–34.
Freling, R., D. Huisman, and A. P. M. Wagelmans. 2003. “Models and Algorithms for Integration of Vehicle and Crew Scheduling.” Journal
of Scheduling 6 (1): 63–85.
Gamache, M., F. Soumis, D. Villeneuve, J. Desrosiers, and É. Gélinas. 1998. “The Preferential Bidding System At Air Canada.”
Transportation Science 32 (3): 246–255.
Goel, V., K. C. Furman, J.-H. Song, and A. S. El-Bakry. 2012. “Large Neighborhood Search for LNG Inventory Routing.” Journal of
Heuristics 18 (6): 821–848.
Grønhaug, R, and M. Christiansen. 2009. “Supply Chain Optimization for the Liquefied Natural Gas Business.” In Innovations in
Distribution Logistics. Vol. 619, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, edited by L. Bertazzi, J. V. Nunen, and
M. G. Speranza, 195–218. Berlin: Springer.
Grønhaug, R., M. Christiansen, G. Desaulniers, and J. Desrosiers. 2010. “A Branch-and-price Method for a Liquefied Natural Gas Inventory
Routing Problem.” Transportation Science 44 (3): 400–415.
Halvorsen-Weare, E. E., and K. Fagerholt. 2013. “Routing and Scheduling in a Liquefied Natural Gas Shipping Problem with Inventory
and Berth Constraints.” Annals of Operations Research 203 (1): 167–186.
Halvorsen-Weare, E. E., K. Fagerholt, and M. Rönnqvist. 2013. “Vessel Routing and Scheduling under Uncertainty in the Liquefied Natural
Gas Business.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (1): 290–301.
IEA. 2013. “World Energy Outlook 2013 Factsheet.” Accessed 1 October 2014. http://www.iea.org/media/files/WEO2013_factsheets.pdf
Klabjan, D. 2005. “Large-scale Models in the Airline Industry.” In Column Generation, edited by G. Desaulniers, J. Desrosiers, and
M. M. Solomon, 163–195. New York: Springer.
Papageorgiou, D. J., M. S. Cheon, G. L. Nemhauser, and J. Sokol. 2014. “Approximate Dynamic Programming for a Class of Long-horizon
Maritime Inventory Routing Problems.” Transporation Science. doi:10.1287/trsc.2014.0542.
Papageorgiou, D. J., G. L. Nemhauser, J. Sokol, M.-S. Cheo, and A. B. Keha. 2014. “MIRPLib – A Library of Maritime Inventory Routing
Problem Instances: Survey, Core Model, and Benchmark Results.” European Journal of Operational Research 234 (2): 350–366.
Rakke, J., M. Stålhane, C. Moe, H. Andersson, M. Christiansen, K. Fagerholt, and I. Norstad. 2011. “A Rolling Horizon Heuristic for
Creating a Liquefied Natural Gas Annual Delivery Program.” Transportation Research C 19 (5): 896–911.
Rakke, J., H. Andersson, M. Christiansen, and G. Desaulniers. 2013. “A New Formulation Based on Customer Delivery Patterns for a
Maritime Inventory Routing Problem.” Transportation Science, 24 p. doi:10.1287/trsc.2013.0503.
Rekik, M., J.-F. Cordeau, and F. Soumis. 2004. “Using Benders Decomposition to Implicitly Model Tour Scheduling.” Annals of operations
research 128 (1): 111–133.
Stålhane, M., J. Rakke, C. Moe, H. Andersson, M. Christiansen, and K. Fagerholt. 2012. “A Construction and Improvement Heuristic for
a Liquefied Natural Gas Inventory Routing Problem.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (1): 245–255.
Uggen, K. T., M. Fodstad, and V. S. Nørstebø. 2013. “Using and Extending Fix-and-relax to Solve Maritime Inventory Routing Problems.”
TOP 21 (2): 355–377.
Vance, P. H., C. Barnhart, E. L. Johnson, and G. L. Nemhauser. 1997. “Airline Crew Scheduling: A New Formulation and Decomposition
Algorithm.” Operations Research 45 (20): 188–200.
Vera Valdes, V. A. 2010. “Integrating Crew Scheduling and Rostering Problems.” PhD thesis, University of Bologna.
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.