Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Hub-and-spoke network design for container shipping in inland waterways

Saiqi Zhou a , Bin Ji a ,∗, Yalong Song a , Samson S. Yu b , Dezhi Zhang a , Tom Van Woensel c
a
School of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410075, Hunan Province, China
b
School of Engineering, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, 3216, Victoria, Australia
c
Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Hub-and-spoke network design
Inland waterway container shipping
Integer linear programming model
Decomposition-based math-heuristic
Enhanced genetic algorithm
The enormous growth in the volume of river transportation and the upgrade of inland waterways make inland
shipping more and more important in transportation and logistics. This work proposes a hub-and-spoke network
design (HSND) for container shipping in inland waterways based on the tree-like structure river. Firstly, the
characteristics of the hub-and-spoke network in the inland waterways are presented in detail. Then, an integer
linear programming model is proposed to simultaneously determine the optimal hub location, feeder port
allocation, and fleet deployment to minimize the total cost of ships, transportation, and transshipment. A
decomposition-based math-heuristic method and an enhanced genetic algorithm are then proposed to solve
the HSND. A case study based on the traffic on the Yangtze River and extensive computational experiments
are conducted to verify the effectiveness of the proposed models and methods. In addition, the impacts of the
number of hub ports and the economies of scale resulting from the hub-and-spoke network are investigated
from the economic and network structure perspectives, which leads to some managerial insights.

1. Introduction and the navigability on diverse segments is restricted by many con-

Inland waterway shipping, as a means of environment-friendly and
economical transportation, plays increasingly important roles in mod-
ern transportation and logistics systems and has thus received extensive
research and industry attention. For example, according to the Statisti-
cal Bulletin of Transportation Industry Development (https://xxgk.mot.
gov.cn), the navigable length of inland waterways in China reached
127,700 kilometers in 2020, which still increases year by year. The
cargo throughput of 300,000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) was
completed in inland river ports, and investment in fixed assets of
inland rivers reached 70.4 billion RMB, with an increase of 14.8% in
2019. Policies and measures for developing inland waterway shipping
have also been established in many countries. For example, the United
States government approved the Louisiana International Gulf Transfer
Terminal in 2013 to support the Mississippi River and its tributaries,
and the European Union developed the Next Generation of European
Inland Waterway Ship and Logistics System in 2013 to support the
full integration of waterborne transport (Tan et al., 2018). All of these
indicate that the inland shipping system has been developed rapidly,
which puts forward higher requirements for shipping technology.
Unlike ocean shipping, a river system usually has a tree-like struc-
ture consisting of a trunk (or mainstem) waterway and numerous
tributaries. There is no horizontal connection among different branches,
ditions (Bu & Nachtmann, 2021). With the upgraded waterways and
the development of the regional economy on tributaries, evidenced
by Jiang et al. (2018), Li et al. (2021), Radojčić et al. (2021) and Tang
et al. (2022), incorporating the tributary system into the design of
the shipping network became an integral part of the comprehensive
development of an inland waterway transportation system. Inland wa-
terway shipping in this study aims to serve a tree-like river structure
consisting of a trunk waterway and several tributaries. In this river
system, low water levels or lock and bridge obstacles limit the access
of large ships on some segments, especially that of tributaries (Ji et al.,
2022). The river streamflow’s direction affects ships’ navigation, lead-
ing to different transportation costs for downstream and countercurrent
navigation. Container OD (origin–destination) flows are distributed in
different regions. Ship routes may pass through several segments with
different ship access restrictions and water flow directions to finish
the transportation task of the OD flows. To achieve this, the hub-and-
spoke network is designed in this study for container shipping in inland
waterways, where the hub location, feeder port allocation, and fleet
deployment are determined simultaneously.
The network design problems in inland waterway shipping have
recently gained increased attention. The modes of point-to-point direct

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhou_saiqi@csu.edu.cn (S. Zhou), cumtjibin@126.com (B. Ji), 214211035@csu.edu.cn (Y. Song), S.yu@ieee.org (S.S. Yu),
dzzhang@csu.edu.cn (D. Zhang), t.v.woensel@tue.nl (T. Van Woensel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119850
Received 22 November 2022; Received in revised form 6 March 2023; Accepted 8 March 2023
Available online 15 March 2023
0957-4174/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Zhou et al.
route (An et al., 2015), calling at multiple ports (An et al., 2015; Yang
et al., 2014), and hub-and-spoke network (Zheng & Yang, 2016) in
inland waterway shipping were studied preliminarily. Some exclusive
impacts of geographical and economic features in inland waterway
shipping network design were investigated. However, the existing stud-
ies are conducted on the trunk waterway with a line structure without
considering the tributaries.
The design of hub-and-spoke networks for tree-like river systems
differs from other classical hub-and-spoke networks problems arising in
maritime transportation or in long-haul road transportation. In other
classical hub-and-spoke network problems in maritime transportation
or in long-haul road transportation, ports/stations are usually dis-
tributed in a clustered manner in areas that are far apart, which usually
has a star-star network structure, and allows simple direct transport
to be used between the stars (Fadda et al., 2020; Roni, 2013). In
the star-star networks, hubs are directly connected to a central hub
with a single allocation for non-hubs (Labbé & Yaman, 2008; Yaman,
2008). Compared to other classical hub-and-spoke networks problems,
decisions of hub locations and feeder allocations in tree-like river
systems are influenced by more complex factors. Specifically, ports are
evenly distributed along the trunk waterway and tributaries, which
makes the spatial distribution of ports more complicated. The decision
of hub ports is affected not only by trunk waterway or tributaries, but
also by the combinatorial ship routes of trunk waterway and tributaries.
Meanwhile, the navigation conditions of different sections of rivers are
different, and the choice of the type of ship can affect the shipping
network. In addition, the specificity of OD flow distribution and river
direction also have impacts on the shipping network. However, the
characteristic tree-like structure of the river system leads to a specified
shipping route. For example, by identifying the ports that ships pass
through, the only fixed shipping route can be identified accordingly.
This feature is employed to construct the model of the network design
problem and develop the solution methods.
The hub-and-spoke network has been studied deeply from the struc-
ture and solution method perspectives (Alumur et al., 2021; Martins de
Sá et al., 2015). The tree-star, star-star, and cycle-star hub networks
have been proposed and investigated. Among them, the cycle-star hub
networks, where the hubs are connected with a cycle with a single
allocation of non-hubs, were proposed by Contreras et al. (2017). This
structure seems more suitable for inland shipping network design since
the hub ports are usually located at the trunk waterway with a line
structure allowing cycle shipping routes to travel to and from the
upstream and downstream hub ports. The star part suitably serves
the feeder ports located on tributaries. However, the cycle-star hub
networks cannot be directly used in the inland waterway shipping
network design. The tree-like structure and flow direction of rivers,
the types and access restrictions of ships, the distribution of hub ports,
and OD flows are needed to be comprehensively considered (Bu &
Nachtmann, 2021; Notteboom et al., 2020).
To our knowledge, there are no published studies research on the
network design problem for container shipping in inland waterways
considering the tributaries. Meanwhile, no published studies design
a cycle-star hub-and-spoke network for container shipping in inland
waterways with complex application constraints. Solution methods
for hub-and-spoke network design (HSND) problems have been abun-
dantly developed. Contreras et al. (2017) presented a branch-and-cut
algorithm and a greedy randomized adaptive search metaheuristic
specifically for solving the cycle hub location problem. However, the
methods of solving the cycle-star HSND for container shipping in inland
waterways need to be studied.
This study addresses the HSND for container shipping in inland
waterways. The main contributions of the paper are fourfold:
1. The network design for container shipping in tree-like inland
waterways is conducted. Considering the low water levels or lock
and bridge obstacles that limit the access of large ships on some
segments, inland waterway container shipping is considered a
cycle-star hub-and-spoke network.
2
Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850
2. An integer linear programming model is proposed to minimize
the cost of transportation, transshipment, and the number of
ships. The hub location, feeder port allocation, and fleet deploy-
ment are determined simultaneously in the model.
3. A decomposition-based math-heuristic method is proposed to
solve the HSND problem. The problem is decomposed into
the main problem of hub-location determination and two sub-
problems of determining the feeder ports allocation and fleet
deployment. Then a cut-based approximate model of the HSND
is proposed to achieve high-quality solutions for the main prob-
lem iteratively, which, as an input of the original HSND model,
can lead to optimal solutions of two sub-problems. Meanwhile,
an enhanced genetic algorithm with sophisticatedly designed
operators and a diversity enhancement strategy is also proposed
in this work to solve the HSND for quick solutions.
4. A real-world case study on the Yangtze River and extensive
computational experiments are conducted to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed models and solution methods. In
addition, the impacts of the number of hub ports and the hub-
to-hub transportation discount factor are investigated from the
economic and network structure perspectives, and managerial
insights are provided based on the obtained results.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the liter-
ature on the network design in inland waterway shipping and the
HSND-related problems and solution methods. Section 3 describes the
characteristics of inland waterway shipping with tributaries, hub-and-
spoke network in inland waterway shipping, and routes of OD flows.
Section 4 formulates the mathematical model of the problem, and
an integer linear programming model is constructed. Section 5 de-
tails the proposed decomposition-based math-heuristic method and
enhanced genetic algorithm. Section 6 presents a real-world case study
on the Yangtze River and extensive computational experiments, with
sensitivity analysis performed. Section 7 concludes the paper.
2. Literature review
There is limited relevant research on the network design in inland
waterway container shipping. Yang et al. (2014) proposed an integer
programming model to determine the optimal container liner network
on the Yangtze River, where the shipping routes, calling ports, calling
sequences, numbers, and types of ships can be determined simultane-
ously. An et al. (2015) studied the construction of a system service
network to determine the optimal routing and fleet deployment simul-
taneously for inland water container transportation. The experimental
study on the Yangtze River shows that the point-to-point direct route
is the most economical mode for large cargo flows between ports, and
routes calling at multiple ports can achieve economies of scale when
the flow of containers is small. Afterward, Zheng and Yang (2016)
explored the economies of scale and studied the design of the hub-and-
spoke network on the Yangtze River for a shipping company, which
discussed the advantages of the hub-and-spoke structure of the network
in inland shipping. Some research investigates the exclusive impacts
of geographical and economic features in inland waterway shipping
network design, such as the impacts of non-identical streamflow speed
and the uncertain dam transit time (Tan et al., 2018), purchasing price
and transportation cost (Li et al., 2019), the profit of the shipping
company (Alfandari et al., 2019), and energy savings and emission
reduction (He et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021). However, all the above
research is conducted on the trunk waterway with a line structure, and
the tributaries are not considered in the network.
The advantages of hub-and-spoke networks are proven not only
for inland shipping (Zheng & Yang, 2016) but also for ocean ship-
ping (Gelareh et al., 2013; Imai et al., 2009; Msakni et al., 2020;
Tu et al., 2018) and intermodal network design (Meng & Wang,
2011), which mainly includes: (i) lower transportation costs owing to
S. Zhou et al.
economies of scale, (ii) lower costs due to building a sparser network
to connect many scattered OD (origin–destination) flows, and (iii)
better service thanks to consolidated flows that allow more frequent
connections (Alumur et al., 2021). Some preliminary research has been
conducted on the structure of hub network (Alumur & Kara, 2008;
Klincewicz, 1998). For example, Contreras et al. (2009) and Con-
treras et al. (2010) examined the tree-star hub networks, where a
tree connects hubs with a single allocation for non-hubs. Labbé and
Yaman (2008) and Yaman (2008) explored the star-star networks,
where hubs are directly connected to a central hub with a single
allocation for non-hubs. Fadda et al. (2020) designed a two-hub-and-
spoke network for the Mediterranean short-sea-shipping market, where
the fleet sizing, the frequency of each service were scheduled. The
two-hub-and-spoke network is a successful application of the star-
star networks. Recently, Contreras et al. (2017) studied cycle-star
hub networks in which the hubs are connected with a cycle with
a single allocation of non-hubs. This structure is useful in modeling
applications in transportation systems where setting requirements make
cycle topology a prominent network architecture.
The class of HSND models is known to be significantly difficult
to handle due to the flow conservation constraints and additional
design variables. The model-based approaches have been developed
to solve complex models from two main streams. One is to use the
complete model to efficiently explore solutions’ neighborhood. For
example, Fischetti and Lodi (2003) introduced the local branching cuts
to improve the heuristics, where local branching cuts can alter high-
level strategic branchings to define the solution neighborhood, and
low-level tactical branchings are used to explore them. This efficient
local branching strategy has been inserted into variable neighborhood
search and other heuristics by Hansen et al. (2006) and Jalal et al.
(2022). The other is to construct models to solve sub-problems or a
relaxed version of the original problems. For example (Gelareh et al.,
2015) proposed an efficient decomposition scheme for solving the
multi-period hub location with budget constraints by decomposing the
complex original problem into simpler subproblems. Martins de Sá
et al. (2015) presented a Benders-branch-and-cut algorithm and several
heuristic algorithms to solve the hub networks design problem with
multiple lines, which can solve instances with up to 100 nodes. Alibeyg
et al. (2018) proposed a branch-and-bound algorithm, which turns out
to be an efficient exact algorithm. Real et al. (2021) developed two
decomposition strategies for solving multimodal hub network design
problems with flexible routes, reducing the problem’s complexity.
For more practical constraints and decision variables involved in
the network design problem, some other meta-heuristics have been
developed, such as ant colony optimization (He et al., 2021), variable
neighborhood search (Zhu et al., 2021), particle swarm optimization
method (Özgün-Kibiroğlu et al., 2019), two-step heuristic method (Ko-
rani & Eydi, 2021), and genetic algorithms (Azizi et al., 2018; Meng
& Wang, 2011; Zheng et al., 2015). Genetic algorithms are favored
because of their superior global optimization ability. For more details
about other state-of-art hub network design-related problems and solu-
tions, interested readers can be referred to Martins de Sá et al. (2015)
and Alumur et al. (2021).
3. Problem statement
Before formulating the mathematical model for the hub-and-spoke
network in inland waterway container shipping, we first introduce its
characteristics in this section.
3.1. Characteristics of inland waterway shipping with tributaries
In inland waterway shipping, container routes on the trunk water-
way can be directly determined according to the visit ports without
3
Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850
needing the visit sequence due to the linear structure. For example,
given the river structure in Fig. 1(a), ships must pass through Ports 2
and 3 from Port 1 to Port 4. This is different from the direct connection
of any two ports in ocean shipping. However, when jointing the ports
on tributaries, inland waterway shipping cannot be regarded as a
complete line structure, which increases the complexity and research
significance of the problem.
Usually, a river can be divided into the lower, middle, and upper
reaches based on the depth of the draft and regional development
plans (Notteboom et al., 2020). This limits the navigability of diverse
trunk waterways and tributary segments, requiring different types of
ships with a specific transportation cost of a unit flow. In addition,
small ships are usually navigable on canals of tributaries, and both
small and large ships are navigable on trunk waterways.
A river’s topography forms a fixed direction of its streamflow. As for
inland waterway shipping, the direction of the shipping route opposite
the river streamflow, or counter-current shipping, costs more than co-
current shipping (shipping routes run downstream) (Tan et al., 2018).
A shipping route on the trunk waterway may consist of segments
with different sailing directions. When jointing the ports on tributaries,
the shipping routes become more complex and may have numerous
segments of different sailing directions.
3.2. Hub-and-spoke network in inland waterway shipping
The application of hub-and-spoke network structure in inland water-
way shipping mainly covers three aspects in this study: the hub location
problem, the feeder ports allocation problem, and the fleet deployment
problem.
Numerous berths and efficient processing ability are required for
hub ports to accommodate huge throughput and frequent handling
work (Jiang et al., 2012; Nam & Song, 2011). Restricted by the natural
geographical conditions and social development level, the chosen hub
ports are usually located on the trunk waterway, which is also the
case in this study. As shown in Fig. 1(b), in inland waterway shipping,
once the hub ports are determined, a circular shipping route connecting
the hub ports (i.e., the main ship route) operated in the form of a
liner (Wang & Zhao, 2021) can also be determined due to the structure
of the trunk waterway.
We assume each spoke port should be allocated to exactly one hub
port, and connections between two ports are not allowed in this study.
In inland waterways with a tree-like structure, the container routes
between the origin and destination ports can be determined as long as
the decision of hub location and feeder port allocation has been made.
Specifically, given the origin and destination ports, the container routes
must begin at the origin port, travel along the arc connected by the hub
ports corresponding to the origin and destination ports, and end at the
destination port. A possible example can be seen in Fig. 1(c).
Ships have different capacities and transportation costs of a unit
flow, and there are strict traffic restrictions for ships in inland wa-
terways, especially on tributaries. After the shipping routes are deter-
mined, the fleet needs to be deployed to meet the transportation needs
at the lowest cost (Tan et al., 2021). We assume that there is an infinite
number of available ships that third-party companies can provide, and
each ship is associated with a fixed cost. Given a circular ship route
connecting the hub ports (i.e., the main ship route), determining the
fleet deployment on the circular main ship route should meet the
demands of all segments. As for each feeder, one type of ship is chosen
to travel back and forth between the corresponding hub port and spoke
port (i.e., the feeder ship route). It should be noted that the hub
location, feeder ports allocation, and fleet deployment problems are
interconnected, which leads to high complexity when trying to achieve
the global optimal solution for the HSND problem.
S. Zhou et al. Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of HSND in a tree-like river.

Table 1
Notations and variables.
Sets and parameters:
N: Set of all ports.
N𝑠 : Set of ports on tributaries, N𝑠 ∈ N.
𝑤𝑜𝑑 : Number of containers transported from origin ports 𝑜 ∈ N to destination ports 𝑑 ∈ N, i.e., the OD
flow,in a given period.
𝑝: Given number of hub ports.
𝑎: Hub-to-hub transportation discount factor.
V: Set of ship types.
𝑞𝑣 : Capacity of ship type 𝑣 ∈ V.
𝑐̄𝑣 : Fixed cost of ship type 𝑣 ∈ V.
𝑐𝑣 : Cost of transporting per container per kilometer of ship type 𝑣 ∈ V.
𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑣 : Whether ship type 𝑣 ∈ V is allowed to travel from port 𝑖 ∈ N to port 𝑗 ∈ N, which equals 1 if it is;
otherwise, 0.
𝑐:
̌ Unit cost of each transshipment of a container.
𝑑𝑖𝑗 : Transportation distance from port 𝑖 ∈ N to port 𝑗 ∈ N.
𝑏𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑙 : Parameter matrix, which equals one if a ship from port 𝑖 ∈ N to port 𝑗 ∈ N must travel through port
𝑚 ∈ N to port 𝑛 ∈ N; otherwise, 0.
𝑀: A large positive constant.
Decision variables:
ℎ
𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 : Binary variable, which equals 1 if OD flow 𝑤𝑜𝑑 (𝑜, 𝑑 ∈ N) is transported from port 𝑖 ∈ N to port 𝑗 ∈ N
on the main ship route; and 0, otherwise.
𝑠
𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 : Binary variable, which equals 1 if OD flow 𝑤𝑜𝑑 (𝑜, 𝑑 ∈ N) is transported from port 𝑖 ∈ N to port 𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
on feeder ship routes; and 0, otherwise.
𝑌𝑖𝑘 : Binary variable, which equals 1 if port 𝑖 ∈ N is allocated to port 𝑘 ∈ N; and 0, otherwise. If 𝑌𝑘𝑘 is 1,
the port 𝑘 ∈ N is a hub port.
𝑇𝑖𝑣 : Binary variable, which equals 1 if ships with type 𝑣 ∈ V are assigned to the feeder ship route
connected by port 𝑖 ∈ N ∪ {𝑛 + 1} and its corresponding hub port; and 0, otherwise. The case 𝑖 = 𝑛 + 1
respects the main ship route. If 𝑖 is a hub port, 𝑇𝑖𝑣 , ∀𝑣 ∈ V is 0, which is explained in the following
formulation.
𝛩𝑖𝑣 : Integer variable, representing the number of ships with type 𝑣 ∈ V assigned to the feeder ship route
connected by port 𝑖 ∈ N ∪ {𝑛 + 1} and its corresponding hub port.

3.3. Container routes of OD flows port that receives containers from other ports (Wang & Slack, 2000). In
other words, container routes can be between any two ports (i.e., OD
In the inland waterway container shipping system, each port can be flows) in a given period. The transshipment may occur on hub ports
an origin port that exports containers to other ports and a destination due to different ships used on hub-to-hub transportation and feeder

4
S. Zhou et al. Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850

transportation. Due to the economies of scale, the transportation cost

( ) ∑
of a unit flow of OD flows on hub-to-hub arcs is usually cheaper than 𝑀 1 − 𝑇𝑖𝑣 + 𝑞𝑣 𝛩𝑖𝑣 ≥ 𝑠
𝑤𝑖𝑑 𝑋𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑘 , ∀𝑣 ∈ V, 𝑖, 𝑘 ∈ N, 𝑘 ≠ 𝑖, (16)
those on the feeders. 𝑑∈N
( ) ∑
𝑠
𝑀 1 − 𝑇𝑖𝑣 + 𝑞𝑣 𝛩𝑖𝑣 ≥ 𝑤𝑜𝑖 𝑋𝑜𝑖𝑘𝑖 , ∀𝑣 ∈ V, 𝑖, 𝑘 ∈ N, 𝑘 ≠ 𝑖. (17)
4. Mathematical model of the Inland waterway container shipping 𝑜∈N
network
The objective function (1) aims to minimize the total cost of ships,
transportation, and transshipment of OD flows. Constraints (2)–(5)
This section proposes an integer programming model for the HSND
model the hub location, wherein constraint (2) limits that ports can
of container shipping in inland waterways with a tree-like structure, only be connected to one hub port, constraint (3) ensures that each port
which is expanded from the classic model of hub location problems is connected to another port, constraint (4) guarantees that there are 𝑝
in Alumur et al. (2021) and Contreras et al. (2010). The HSND problem hub ports in this network and constraint (5) limits that hub ports are
aims to determine the optimal hub location, feeder port allocation, located on trunk waterway. Constraints (6)–(8) model that the OD flows
and fleet deployment scheduling scheme to minimize the total cost of transported on the hub-and-spoke network must begin at the origin
ships, transportation, and transshipment of OD flows. First, we present port, pass the arc connected by two hub ports corresponding to the ori-
a four-index model for the HSND problem with a nonlinear term in the gin and destination port, and finish at the destination port. Constraints
objective function. In light of this, a set of five-dimensional variables (9)–(11) model the fleet deployment on the main ship route, where
is introduced to linearize the objective function, and an integer linear constraints (9)–(10) guarantee that exactly one allowable type of ship
programming model for the HSND problem is formulated. on the main ship route is chosen, and constraint (11) ensures that the
Notations and variables for describing the model are given in Ta- number of the chosen ships can meet the requirements of all OD flows
ble 1. transported on each segment on the main ship route. Constraints (12)–
(17) model the fleet deployment on the feeder ship routes: constraints
4.1. The integer non-linear programming model (M1) (12)–(15) guarantee choosing only one allowable type of ships to travel
back and forth through the feeder, and constraints (16)–(17) ensure
Let 𝑍 denote the objective value of the problem, the integer non- that the number of chosen ships meets the requirements of all OD flows
linear programming model (M1) is represented as follows. transported on the feeder ship routes.
∑
minimize 𝑍 = 𝑐̄𝑣 𝛩𝑖𝑣 4.2. The integer linear programming model (M2)
𝑖∈N∪{|N|+1},
𝑣∈V
∑
+ ℎ
𝑐𝑣 𝑤𝑜𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑗 (𝑎𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 𝑠
𝑇(|N|+1)𝑣 + 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 𝑇𝑖𝑣 )+ There are nonlinear terms in the objective function (1), which
𝑜,𝑑,𝑖,𝑗∈N, (1) makes the model in Section 4.1 difficult to solve. In light of this, a set
𝑣∈V
∑ of five-dimensional variables is introduced to linearize the nonlinear
ℎ
𝑐𝑤
̌ 𝑜𝑑 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 , terms of the model. Let 𝑋̌ 𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑣
ℎ be a binary variable which is one if OD
𝑜,𝑑,𝑖,𝑗∈N,
𝑖≠𝑗∩𝑖≠𝑜∪𝑗≠𝑑 flow 𝑤𝑜𝑑 (𝑜, 𝑑 ∈ N) is transported by ships with type 𝑣 ∈ V on segments
∑ from port 𝑖 ∈ N to port 𝑗 ∈ N on the main ship route; and 0, otherwise.
subject to 𝑌𝑖𝑘 ≤ (|N| − 𝑝 + 1) 𝑌𝑘𝑘 , ∀𝑘 ∈ N, (2) Let 𝑋̌ 𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑣
𝑠 be a binary variable which is one if OD flow 𝑤𝑜𝑑 (𝑜, 𝑑 ∈ N)
𝑖∈N
∑ is transported by ships with type 𝑣 ∈ V on segments from port 𝑖 ∈ N
𝑌𝑖𝑘 = 1, ∀𝑖 ∈ N, (3) to port 𝑗 ∈ N on feeder ship routes; and 0, otherwise. Let 𝑍 ′ denote
𝑘∈N the objective value, the integer linear programming model can then be
∑
𝑌𝑘𝑘 = 𝑝, (4) re-formulated as follows:
∑ ∑
𝑘∈N minimize𝑍 ′ = 𝑐̄𝑣 𝛩𝑖𝑣 + 𝑤𝑜𝑑 𝑐𝑣 𝑑𝑖𝑗 (𝑎𝑋̌ ℎ + 𝑋̌ 𝑠 )+
𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑣 𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑣
𝑖∈N∪{|N|+1}, 𝑜,𝑑,𝑖,𝑗∈N,
𝑌𝑘𝑘 = 0, ∀𝑘 ∈ N𝑠 , (5) 𝑣∈V 𝑣∈V
∑ (18)
ℎ
𝑐𝑤
̌ 𝑜𝑑 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 ,
𝑠
𝑀𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑘 ≥ 𝑤𝑜𝑑 𝑌𝑜𝑘 , ∀𝑜, 𝑑, 𝑘 ∈ N, (6) 𝑜,𝑑,𝑖,𝑗∈N,
𝑖≠𝑗∩𝑖≠𝑜∪𝑗≠𝑑

𝑠 subject to (2)–(17),
𝑀𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑘𝑑 ≥ 𝑤𝑜𝑑 𝑌𝑑𝑘 , ∀𝑜, 𝑑, 𝑘 ∈ N, (7)

ℎ
( ) ℎ ℎ
𝑀𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 ≥ 𝑤𝑜𝑑 𝑌𝑜𝑖 + 𝑌𝑑𝑗 − 1 , ∀𝑜, 𝑑, 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ N, 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗, (8) 𝑋̌ 𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑣 ≥ 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 + 𝑇𝑛𝑣 − 1, ∀𝑜, 𝑑, 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ N, 𝑣 ∈ V, (19)
∑ 𝑠 𝑠
𝑇(|N|+1)𝑣 = 1, (9) 𝑋̌ 𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑣 ≥ 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 + 𝑇𝑖𝑣 − 1, ∀𝑜, 𝑑, 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ N, 𝑣 ∈ V, (20)
𝑣∈V
( ) 𝑠 𝑠
ℎ
𝑇(|N|+1)𝑣 ≤ 𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑣 + 1 − 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 , ∀𝑜, 𝑑, 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ N, 𝑣 ∈ V, (10) 𝑋̌ 𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑣 ≥ 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 + 𝑇𝑗𝑣 − 1, ∀𝑜, 𝑑, 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ N, 𝑣 ∈ V. (21)
Constraints (19)–(21) define the relationship between the five-
∑ index variables and four-index variables. Unlike the former integer
ℎ
𝑀(1 − 𝑇(|N|+1)𝑣 ) + 𝑞𝑣 𝛩(|N|+1)𝑣 ≥ 𝑤𝑜𝑑 𝑏𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑙 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 , ∀𝑣 ∈ V, 𝑚, 𝑙 ∈ N,
𝑜,𝑑,𝑖,𝑗∈N linear programming models of hub-and-spoke networks in shipping
networks (Fontes & Goncalves, 2021; Yang et al., 2014; Zheng & Yang,
(11) 2016), the proposed model uses a special parameter matrix 𝑏𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑙 rather
∑ ∑ than the flow conservation constraints to gather the volume on the
𝑠
𝑀(𝑌𝑖𝑖 + 𝑇𝑖𝑣 ) ≥ 𝑤𝑖𝑑 𝑋𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑘 , ∀𝑖 ∈ N, (12) main ship route. This reduces the number of variables as well as the
𝑣∈V 𝑑,𝑘∈N constraints. Meanwhile, the fleet deployment is considered, and the
∑ ∑
𝑀(𝑌𝑖𝑖 + 𝑇𝑖𝑣 ) ≥ 𝑤𝑑𝑖 𝑋 𝑠𝑑𝑖𝑘𝑖 , ∀𝑖 ∈ N, (13) induced cost of transportation, transshipment, and the number of ships
𝑣∈𝑉 𝑑,𝑘∈𝑁 are jointly optimized. However, this idea is only suitable when dealing
( 𝑠
) with shipping on inland waterways with tree-like structures, and the
𝑇𝑖𝑣 ≤ 𝑒𝑖𝑘𝑣 + 1 − 𝑋𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑘 , ∀𝑖, 𝑘, 𝑑 ∈ N, 𝑖 ≠ 𝑘, 𝑣 ∈ V, (14) hub ports are located on the trunk. Since the line structure can be
( ) regarded as a simplified case of the tree-like structure, the idea can
𝑠
𝑇𝑖𝑣 ≤ 𝑒𝑘𝑖𝑣 + 1 − 𝑋𝑑𝑖𝑘𝑖 , ∀𝑖, 𝑘, 𝑑 ∈ N, 𝑖 ≠ 𝑘, 𝑣 ∈ V, (15) also be applied to inland waterways with a line structure.

5
S. Zhou et al. Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850

5. Solution method

With numerous constraints and high dimensional variables of the in-

teger linear programming model presented in Section 4.2, commercial
solvers such as CPLEX can hardly solve the model optimally reasonably,
especially for large-scale problems. To solve the stiff HSND optimiza-
tion problem, a decomposition-based math-heuristic method and an
enhanced genetic algorithm are developed, which can effectively obtain
high-quality solutions.

5.1. Parameter initialization

To reduce the computational complexity of the model, a complete

set of parameters, including distances 𝑑(𝑖, 𝑗), allowable types of ships
𝑎(𝑖, 𝑗, 𝑣), the parameter set of 𝑏𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑙 and between any two ports are re-
quired in advance. Given an inland waterway with a tree-like structure,
the distances and allowable types of ships between adjacent ports are
easy to capture. Therefore, the required parameters can be cumula-
tively calculated based on the information of the directly connected
adjacent ports.
Fig. 2. The flowchart for the decomposition-based math-heuristic method.
5.2. Decomposition-based math-heuristic method

The set of five-index variables is introduced to linearize the model

M1 presented in Section 4.1, which leads to an integer linear model
M2 in Section 4.2. However, introducing the five-index variables sig-
nificantly increases the number of constraints and variables in the
model, which is still very difficult to solve due to the enormous possible
combinatorial schemes. Since optimal solutions to large-scale complex
problems can hardly be achieved, math-heuristic solutions may be more
realistic. Indeed, for some complex problems, the solution to a simpli-
fied problem by relaxing some non-destructive conditions or constraints
may arguably reach an approximate or even the optimal solution of
the original complicated problem (Ruocco et al., 2017). In light of this,
approximate model-based deterministic methods (Ruocco et al., 2017)
and model-based heuristics (Ömer Nedim Kenger & Ozceylan, 2023;
Perboli et al., 2011; Sel & Bilgen, 2014) have been developed for com-
plex combinatorial optimization problems and obtained satisfactory
results.
Careful examination of model M1 shows that the condition causes
the nonlinear term that different ship types have different transporta-
tion costs per container per kilometer (𝑐𝑣 , 𝑣 ∈ V) In other words, if all
ships have the same unit transport costs (i.e., 𝑐𝑣 is a constant), model
M1 can be converted to an integer linear model (M3) as follows:
∑ ∑
minimize 𝑍 ′′ = 𝑐̄𝑣 𝛩𝑖𝑣 + ℎ
𝑐𝑣 𝑤𝑜𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑗 (𝑎𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 𝑠
+ 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 )+
𝑖∈N∪{|N|+1}, 𝑜,𝑑,𝑖,𝑗∈N
𝑣∈V
∑ (22)
ℎ
𝑐𝑤
̌ 𝑜𝑑 𝑋𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑗 .
𝑜,𝑑,𝑖,𝑗∈N,
𝑖≠𝑗∩𝑖≠𝑜∪𝑗≠𝑑
that another set of hub ports can be taken as parameters of model M2
for generating new optimal solutions of sub-problems. The following
relation holds:
∑
𝑌𝑘𝑘 < 𝑝. (23)
𝑘∈𝑆3
The procedure stops when the pre-specified number of iterations is
reached or no better solution to the original problem can be obtained
in a certain number of consecutive iterations. In the solution approach
above, the reason for choosing hub ports as cut in each iteration is to
expand the solution space as much as possible and force the commercial
solver to find a better solution in a reasonable time. The flowchart of
the decomposition-based math-heuristic approach is described in Fig. 2.
Note that the basic combinatorial benders cut approaches (Codato
& Fischetti, 2006) usually incrementally add the partially relaxed con-
straints in the form of feasible or optimal cuts to the master problems.
However, the proposed decomposition-based math-heuristic method
decomposes the original problem into hub location main problem and
feeder ports allocation and fleet deployment sub-problems. Compared
to the original problem, the main problem is slightly relaxed but has
a similar network structure. The hubs solved by the main problem
are then input into sub-problems as parameters to obtain complete
feasible solutions. In addition, cutting the explored network is used to
iteratively search for better solutions. This means that the proposed
decomposition-based math-heuristic method only obtains feasible so-
lutions approaching the optimal.

subject to (2)–(17). 5.3. Genetic algorithm

The simplified approximate-model M3 can be more efficiently solved by
commercial solvers such as CPLEX and Gurobi, compared with the five-
index model M2. Moreover, since the only difference is the condition
of ships’ unit transportation costs, the solution to model M3 can be
regarded as a high-quality solution to the original model M1. To ensure
that the solution to the simplified model M3 is close enough to the
optimal solution of the original model M1, an extensive search needs
to be implemented. To achieve this, the HSND problem is decomposed
into the main problem of determining the locations of hub ports and
two sub-problems that determine the feeder ports allocation and fleet
deployment. The hub ports interpreted from the solution (𝑆3 ) of M3 are
regarded as parameters of the model M2, and the optimal feeder ports
allocation and fleet deployment results can be obtained by optimally
solving model M2. Afterward, the hub ports obtained by solving M3 are
defined by formula (23) as a cut to add to M3 for the next iteration so
The genetic algorithm searches for the optimal solution to problems
by imitating the evolution process of the population in nature. It has
been successfully applied to many HSND problems in maritime trans-
portation (Azizi et al., 2018; Meng & Wang, 2011; Zheng et al., 2015).
The population characteristics of a genetic algorithm can maintain good
genes along evolution, and the genetic operators can meet the wide
searching need of rigorous and complex gene structure to construct the
hub-and-spoke network. However, it is easy to fall into local optimality.
In this study, an enhanced genetic algorithm is proposed to solve the
HSND problem for inland waterway container shipping. The enhanced
genetic algorithm has a similar solution framework to the classical
genetic algorithms. However, the crossover and mutation operators are
divided into two levels to cater to the characteristics of this problem,
i.e., the hub ports level and the feeder ports level. The use of these

6
S. Zhou et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the encoding.
two level operators is also elaborately designed according to the perfor-
mance of the evolutionary solutions. Meanwhile, the repair procedure
is implemented once the solution is infeasible after the evolution. In
addition, a diversity enhancement strategy is introduced to improve
the convergence rate. The encoding, initialization process, and genetic
operators in the enhanced genetic algorithm are specially designed
according to the characteristics of the HSND problem.
Encoding
The integer encoding (Azizi et al., 2018) is used in the proposed
enhanced genetic algorithm to represent the connection of ports. Specif-
ically, the length of the gene is equal to the number of ports 𝑛, the
sequence of each gene in the chromosome corresponds to the encoding
port, and the value on each gene corresponds to the hub port associated
with the encoding port. As shown in Fig. 3, Port 0 is associated with
hub port 1, and Port 1 is associated with itself, which is a hub port.
A similar case can be seen for Port 3. Given such a chromosome, the
fleet deployment is optimally solved by enumeration according to the
network structure, and the volume of OD flows.
Initialization process
Population initialization is important in leading the enhanced ge-
netic algorithm to search solution space efficiently. Therefore, a ran-
dom initialization process is utilized to diversify the initial population.
Specifically, 𝑝 hub ports are randomly selected from all ports on the
trunk waterway with equal probability. Other ports are regarded as
feeder ports and randomly assigned to one of the selected hub ports
with equal probability.
Selection operator
The roulette selects two parents according to the fitness of each
individual in the population with the size of 𝛺. As in conventional en-
hanced genetic algorithms, the proposed algorithm regards the inverse
of objective value as fitness.
Crossover operator
The chromosomes represent feasible solutions, including informa-
tion on hub ports and feeder port allocation results. Therefore, as
shown in Fig. 4, the crossover operator consists of hub ports crossover
and feeder ports crossover processes with probability 𝑃𝑐 , and a re-
pair procedure is then used to ensure the feasibility of the solution
of chromosomes since crossover procedures may generate infeasible
solutions.
It is believed that a candidate hub port associated with more feeder
ports is deemed to have a stronger radiation capacity and more poten-
tial to become a hub port. In this regard, the hub ports crossover process
can be divided into three steps. Firstly, 𝑝 hub ports are selected by the
roulette according to the number of times the hub ports are associated
with feeder ports in two parents. Then, the selected hub ports are sorted
according to their number of times in descending order (as shown on
the ‘‘Sorting table’’ in Fig. 4). Secondly, the hub ports are sorted for two
parents with the same rule. Therefore, two mapping relations can be
constituted for the selected hub ports in each parent with the hub ports
in two parents, respectively (as shown in ‘‘Mapping relations’’ in Fig. 4).
7
Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850
Thirdly, for each parent, the value of each gene is replaced according
to the corresponding mapping relation to generating two offspring.
The feeder ports crossover is a process that swaps randomly selected
segments of two offspring chromosomes. Specifically, two segments at
the same position in offspring chromosomes are swapped, wherein the
length of each segment is generated randomly.
After the above crossover process, there may be a case where the
hub port is not connected to itself, representing an infeasible solution.
Therefore, the repair procedure is implemented to avoid this issue.
Mutation operator
Similarly, the mutation operator consists of hub ports mutation and
feeder ports mutation processes. The repair procedure mentioned above
is also used to ensure the feasibility of the updated chromosomes.
In the hub ports mutation process, a hub port is randomly selected
from each offspring to be associated with another port that was not
originally associated with this hub port. Then the repair procedure is
used to correct the mutated gene.
The feeder ports mutation process consists of 2 parts, i.e., the point
mutation adapted from Zheng et al. (2015) and the segment reverse
mutation adapted from Meng and Wang (2011), which were success-
fully applied in relative shipping problems. In the point mutation,
a feeder port is randomly selected and associated with a different
hub port. In the segment reverse mutation, a chromosome segment
is randomly selected. Afterward, the sequence of genes is reversed
in this segment and reinserted into the chromosome. Similarly, the
repair procedure is used after the mutations to correct any infeasible
chromosome.
With the two mutation processes, an elaborate framework shown
in Fig. 5 is designed to organize them and enhance their effectiveness.
Specifically, if the offspring generated by crossover is not a new best
solution, the hub ports mutation is performed with a probability of
𝑃 𝑚ℎ . If hub ports mutation does not happen, the feeder ports mutation
is performed with a probability of 𝑃 𝑚𝑠 ; otherwise, if the fitness of
the new offspring generated by the hub ports mutation has not been
increased, the feeder ports mutation is performed. In addition, if the
population falls into the local optimum, i.e., all individuals are the
same, the hub ports mutation is performed on each individual before
the next iteration but leaves one individual. This can also be called
group mutation.
Diversity enhancement strategy
Through repeated tests, it is found that the algorithm converges
quickly but easily falls into local optima, like generic algorithms.
As such, a diversity enhancement strategy is proposed to delay the
converges. Specifically, when the selected parents are the same, one is
randomly initialized with a probability of 𝑃𝑑 to continue the evolution.
6. Numerical experiments
In this section, numerical examples based on the Australia Post (AP)
data set and the traffic and shipping data on the Yangtze River are
implemented to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed models and
solution methods, and managerial insights are provided based on the
obtained results. The parameters of the enhanced genetic algorithm
were tuned for all instances through orthogonal experiments. The
values with the best average results were chosen for the enhanced
genetic algorithm, which was set to 𝛺 = 50, 𝑃𝑐 = 0.45, 𝑃 𝑚ℎ = 0.60,
𝑃 𝑚𝑠 = 0.10, 𝑃𝑑 = 0.75. In addition, CPLEX 12.9.0 is used for solving the
integer linear programming models, and all experiments are conducted
on a Windows PC with Intel(R) Core (TM) i5-8500 CPU and 8.00 GB
RAM, which runs MS Visual C ++ 2019.
S. Zhou et al.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of crossover operator.
Fig. 5. Framework of the mutation process.
6.1. Data description
The AP data set consists of 10 to 200 nodes based on a postal
delivery in Sydney, Australia. Since the proposed enhanced genetic
algorithm can be applied to solve hub location problems by adapting
the objective function and relaxing constraints, we use the instances
for the uncapacitated single allocation 𝑝 hub median problem (US-
ApHMP) with 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 nodes to verify the
performance of the enhanced genetic algorithm, where the USApHMP
defined by O’kelly (1987) is to choose 𝑝 hubs and assign every 𝑖 ∈ N
to them to minimize the overall transport cost with no hub cost and no
capacity constraint involved. This leads to a similar physical solution
structure with the HSND for container shipping in the inland waterway.
As shown in Fig. 6, 22 inland ports along the Yangtze River,
i.e., Luzhou, Chongqing, Yichang, Jingzhou, Chenglingji, Wuhan,
Huangshi, Jiujiang, Anqing, Tongling, Wuhu, Maanshan, Nanjing, Zhen-
jiang, Jiangyin, Nantong, Shanghai, Changsha, Nanchang, Hefei, Jin-
ing, and Hangzhou are selected. The candidate hub ports can only
be on the trunk waterway. All data is collected from the practical
investigation, and data such as the unit transportation costs of ships
have been modified for confidentiality. Since the buffer time and the
passage time of ships from Luzhou port to Shanghai port is about two
weeks, we design the shipping network for two weeks. We consider
three main types of ships, and the bi-weekly fixed costs and transporta-
tion costs of a unit flow of ships are shown in Table 2. The practical
distances and allowable ship types between all adjacent ports are shown
in Table 3. According to the speed of the Yangtze River current and
ships (Tan et al., 2018), we assume that the co-current and counter-
current transportation cost of a unit flow along the Yangtze River is
0.9 and 1.1, respectively. The OD demands of each port are met based
on the data of the throughput of ports and practical investigations as
8
Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850
Table 2
Information of ships.
Type Capacity (TEU) Fixed cost (RMB) Unit rates
(RMB/TEU/km)
0 200 2000 8.5
1 500 3500 7.5
2 1000 4800 7
shown in Table 4, where the throughput of ports from January 2019 to
September 2021 is released by the Ministry of Transport of the People’s
Republic of China (https://www.mot.gov.cn/).
6.2. Results and performance analysis of the solution methods
The results of the enhanced genetic algorithm for solving the AP
instances are depicted in Table 5, where 𝑛 denotes the number of nodes,
and 𝑝 denotes the number of used hubs. 𝑂𝑝𝑡. 𝑂𝑏𝑗. denotes the optimal
objective for each instance summarized by Meier and Clausen (2018).
𝑂𝑏𝑗. denotes the objective of the solution by the enhanced genetic
algorithm, where 𝑎𝑣𝑔 and 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 denote the average value for ten runs
and the best value, and 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 denotes the average computational time
in seconds. 𝐺𝑎𝑝 denotes the relative deviation of objectives between
the 𝑂𝑝𝑡. 𝑂𝑏𝑗 and 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 (i.e., 𝐺𝑎𝑝 = (𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 − 𝑂𝑝𝑡. 𝑂𝑏𝑗.)∕𝑂𝑝𝑡. 𝑂𝑏𝑗. × 100%),
and 𝐴𝑣𝑔 denotes the average value of the corresponding column. The
results show that the proposed enhanced genetic algorithm produces
satisfactory solution performance for solving the hub location-related
problems with up to 200 nodes, where most of the instances can be
solved to optimality, and the objective of all the instances is only 0.03%
lower than the optimal objective.
S. Zhou et al. Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of the ports on Yangtze River.

Table 3
The basic distances and allowable ship types between all adjacent ports.
Starting Ending Distance Allowable Starting Ending Distance Allowable
ports ports (km) ship types ports ports (km) ship types
Luzhou Chongqing 254 0 Chongqing Yichang 660 0, 1
Yichang Jingzhou 167 0, 1 Jingzhou Chenglingji 323 0, 1
Chenglingji Wuhan 232 0, 1 Wuhang Huangshi 143 0, 1
Huangshi Jiujiang 117 0, 1 Jiujiang Anqing 154 0, 1
Anqing Tongling 92 0, 1 Tongling Wuhu 104 0, 1
Wuhu Maanshan 47 0, 1 Maanshan Nanjing 49 0, 1
Nanjing Zhenjiang 87 0, 1, 2 Zhenjiang Jiangyin 117 0, 1, 2
Jiangyin Nantong 60 0, 1, 2 Nantong Shanghai 128 0, 1, 2
Changsha Chenglingji 158 0 Nanchang Jiujiang 164 0
Hefei Wuhu 134 0 Jining Zhenjiang 550 0
Hangzhou Zhenjiang 310 0

Table 4 Table 5
Average OD demands in two weeks. Comparison results of AP instances for USApHMP.
Origin–destination 𝑤/TEU Origin–destination 𝑤/TEU 𝑛 𝑝 𝑂𝑝𝑡. 𝑂𝑏𝑗. 𝑂𝑏𝑗. Time Gap
Luzhou-Wuhan 769 Luzhou-Nanjing 1923 Avg Best (s) (%)
Chongqing-Wuhan 4615 Chongqing-Jiujiang 1153
25 2 175541.98 175541.98 175541.98 27 0.00
Chongqing-Zhenjiang 769 Chongqing-Jiangyin 1153
3 155256.32 155256.32 155256.32 35 0.00
Yichang-Wuhan 384 Yichang-Nanjing 1923
4 139197.17 139197.17 139197.17 42 0.00
Jingzhou-Nanjing 1923 Chenglingji-Chongqing 1153
5 123574.29 123574.29 123574.29 49 0.00
Chenglingji-Nanjing 3461 Chenglingji-Nantong 2307
Wuhan-Yichang 769 Wuhan-Jingzhou 384 50 2 178,484.29 178484.29 178484.29 77 0.00
Wuhan-Anqing 769 Wuhan-Wuhu 4230 3 158,569.93 158569.93 158569.93 104 0.00
Wuhan-Zhenjiang 1923 Wuhan-Jiangyin 2307 4 143,378.05 143378.05 143378.05 131 0.00
Wuhan-Nanchang 769 Wuhan-Hefei 1923 5 132,366.95 132422.22 132422.22 156 0.04
Jiujiang-Chongqing 1153 Jiujiang-Wuhan 2692 75 2 180,118.91 180118.91 180118.91 160 0.00
Jiujiang-Nantong 2307 Anqing-Wuhan 769 3 161,056.74 161056.74 161056.74 219 0.00
Tongling-Nanjing 384 Wuhu-Chongqing 3076 4 145,734.21 145778.81 145772.43 276 0.03
Wuhu-Jiujiang 1153 Wuhu-Nanjing 5769 5 136,011.35 136053.72 136053.72 330 0.03
Wuhu-Nantong 4230 Maanshan-Wuhan 769
100 2 180,223.80 180,223.80 180,223.80 275 0.00
Nanjing-Luzhou 1923 Nanjing-Chongqing 6153
3 160,847.00 160,847.00 160,847.00 381 0.00
Nanjing-Chenglingji 3461 Nanjing-Wuhan 7307
4 145,896.58 145896.58 145896.58 483 0.00
Nanjing-Anqing 1923 Nanjing-Tongling 769
5 136,929.44 137411.58 136948.78 577 0.01
Nanjing-Zhenjiang 3076 Nanjing-Jiangyin 3846
Nanjing-Nanchang 1923 Nanjing-Hefei 3076 150 2 180,898.84 180898.84 180898.84 606 0.00
Zhenjiang-Wuhan 1923 Zhenjiang-Wuhu 384 3 161,490.48 161490.48 161490.48 839 0.00
Jiangyin-Chongqing 1153 Jiangyin-Wuhan 2692 4 146,521.33 146521.33 146521.33 1059 0.00
Jiangyin-Nantong 2307 Nantong-Luzhou 769 5 137,425.91 138178.13 137528.94 1272 0.07
Nantong-Jingzhou 384 Nantong-Chenglingji 2307 200 2 182,459.25 182459.25 182459.25 1070 0.00
Nantong-Anqing 384 Nantong-Wuhu 4230 3 162,887.03 163157.98 162954.83 1484 0.04
Nantong-Zhenjiang 1538 Nantong-Jiangyin 2307 4 147,767.30 147963.31 147910.96 1882 0.10
Nantong-Hefei 1538 Shanghai-Nanjing 384 5 140,062.65 141001.07 140617.16 2270 0.40
Changsha-Nantong 769 Nanchang-Wuhan 769
Hefei-Chongqing 769 Hefei-Wuhan 1923 𝐴𝑣𝑔 3.5 154695.82 154811.74 154738.50 575 0.03
Jining-Nanjing 384 Hangzhou-Wuhan 384

solutions of 20 trials achieved by the enhanced genetic algorithm.

The solution results obtained by different methods for solving the
HSND problem mentioned above are depicted in Table 6, where 𝑝 and
𝑎 denote the number of hub ports and the transportation cost of a unit
flow, respectively. Symbol ‘‘Best’’ denotes the best solutions obtained
by the enhanced genetic algorithm, and ‘‘Avg’’ represents the average
‘‘Gap’’ denotes the relative deviation of solution costs between the
decomposition-based math-heuristic (DM) method and the enhanced
genetic algorithm (EGA) (i.e., 𝐺𝑎𝑝 = (𝐸𝐺𝐴 − 𝐷𝑀)∕𝐷𝑀 × 100%).
The results in Table 6 demonstrate that the proposed DM method
shows significant advantages in solution quality compared with the

9
S. Zhou et al. Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850

Table 6
Solution results and comparison of different methods.
𝑎 𝑝 Math-heuristic Genetic algorithm Gap 𝑎 𝑝 Math-heuristic Genetic algorithm Gap
method (%) method (%)
Cost Time Cost (RMB) Time Cost Time Cost (RMB) Time
(RMB) (s) Best Avg (s) (RMB) (s) Best Avg (s)
3 1.35E+09 5319 1.35E+09 1.35E+09 28 0 3 1.53E+09 6636 1.53E+09 1.56E+09 29 0
4 1.27E+09 8347 1.28E+09 1.28E+10 31 0.27 4 1.46E+09 8484 1.47E+09 1.48E+09 33 0.26
5 1.23E+09 6202 1.24E+09 1.24E+09 34 0.28 5 1.42E+09 8323 1.43E+09 1.43E+09 35 0.28
0.7 6 1.19E+09 5659 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 45 0.32 0.85 6 1.40E+09 7619 1.40E+09 1.41E+09 45 0
7 1.16E+09 5827 1.17E+09 1.17E+09 60 0.43 7 1.38E+09 7820 1.39E+09 1.39E+09 54 0.4
8 1.16E+09 5373 1.16E+09 1.16E+09 65 0 8 1.38E+09 8184 1.38E+09 1.38E+09 70 0
9 1.15E+09 5414 1.16E+09 1.16E+09 97 0.79 9 1.37E+09 8040 1.38E+09 1.38E+09 99 0.69
3 1.41E+09 5925 1.41E+09 1.43E+09 28 0 3 1.59E+09 6415 1.59E+09 1.60E+09 29 0
4 1.34E+09 6976 1.34E+09 1.35E+09 31 0 4 1.53E+09 9345 1.53E+09 1.55E+09 36 0
5 1.30E+09 6473 1.30E+09 1.30E+09 34 0 5 1.49E+09 9855 1.49E+09 1.49E+09 34 0
0.75 6 1.26E+09 6333 1.26E+09 1.27E+09 40 0 0.9 6 1.47E+09 8735 1.47E+09 1.48E+09 41 0
7 1.24E+09 6396 1.24E+09 1.24E+09 51 0 7 1.45E+09 8829 1.46E+09 1.46E+09 59 0.39
8 1.23E+09 5885 1.24E+09 1.24E+09 73 0.54 8 1.45E+09 7862 1.46E+09 1.46E+09 73 0.56
9 1.22E+09 6631 1.23E+09 1.23E+09 87 0.68 9 1.44E+09 8706 1.45E+09 1.46E+09 92 0.73
3 1.47E+09 5929 1.47E+09 1.49E+09 30 0 3 1.63E+09 6441 1.63E+09 1.63E+09 28 0
4 1.40E+09 7700 1.40E+09 1.41E+09 32 0 4 1.59E+09 10482 1.59E+09 1.59E+09 31 0
5 1.36E+09 7838 1.36E+09 1.36E+09 35 0 5 1.55E+09 10796 1.55E+09 1.55E+09 34 0
0.8 6 1.33E+09 7198 1.33E+09 1.34E+09 43 0 0.95 6 1.54E+09 9641 1.54E+09 1.54E+09 40 0
7 1.31E+09 6992 1.31E+09 1.32E+09 56 0 7 1.53E+09 9695 1.53E+09 1.54E+09 50 0
8 1.30E+09 7074 1.31E+09 1.31E+09 65 0.52 8 1.52E+09 9493 1.53E+09 1.53E+09 66 0
9 1.30E+09 5319 1.31E+09 1.31E+09 87 0.62 9 1.52E+09 9298 1.53E+09 1.53E+09 100 0.67
Avg 1.28E+09 6486 1.29E+09 1.84E+09 50 0.4 Avg 1.49E+09 8605 1.49E+09 1.50E+09 51 0.39

Fig. 7. Relative deviation of solutions between M3 and DM method.
enhanced genetic algorithm but costs much more computational time.
The proposed enhanced genetic algorithm also shows good solutions,
and the relative deviation from the solutions of the DM method is
only 0.40%. Moreover, the average computational time of the enhanced
genetic algorithm is only 51 s, which is much shorter than solving the
model with commercial software.
To illustrate that the solution of the approximate model (M3) is
close enough to the solution of the HSND model (M2), Fig. 7 gives
the relative deviation between the best solutions and the solutions after
entering partial optimal solution variables of M3 into M2. It shows that
entering the optimal solution variables of M3 into M2 can obtain 33
out of the 42 best solutions, and the relative deviations of others are
below 1.00%, which proves the effectiveness of solving the original
problem by using the approximate model. Meanwhile, the extensive
search mechanism of the proposed decomposition-based math-heuristic
method is significantly helpful for further improving the solutions.
6.3. Economics assessment
On the one hand, as the number of hub ports increases, the net-
work’s total cost and transportation cost show a declining trend, and
the shipping cost and transshipment cost fluctuate but also display
an overall downward trend. It is not surprising that the more hub
ports, the less the total cost of the designed network. However, when
the number of hub ports reaches 7, increasing the number of hub
ports cannot contribute to a significantly higher economic benefit.
This result denies the subjective consciousness of the linear relation
between the number of hub ports and economic benefit. Administrative
and operational costs must be included for building and maintaining
hub ports, in reality, (Kavirathna et al., 2018). Therefore, the optimal
number of hub ports should be further determined according to other
relative restrictions such as geographical conditions, regional policies,
and knowledge infrastructure capabilities.
Nevertheless, this study can still be used as a supporting technique
for the decision-making of hub port locations. On the other hand, as the
hub-to-hub transportation discount factor increases, the network’s total
cost and transportation cost show a quick downward trend. Still, the
shipping cost and transshipment costs keep fluctuating. This shows that
the hub-to-hub transportation discount factor predominantly affects the
cost of transportation in the shipping network. The higher the discount,
the lower the cost of the whole network. In practice, the hub-to-hub
transportation discount factor may be influenced by the market and
policy (Wetzstein et al., 2021). In addition, the formation of large-scale
batches and innovation of ship capacity can also increase the discount
of the main route transportation proverbially and indirectly (Zhang
& Zhao, 2015). The mathematical model in this study determines
the optimal container flows and fleet deployment on a hub-and-spoke
structure, which makes it conducive to economic benefits in inland
waterway container shipping.
Fig. 8 also shows that the transportation cost contributes to most of
the total cost of the shipping network, followed by the shipping cost.
This infers that fleet deployment should be considered when designing
an inland waterway shipping network. The proportion of transshipment
cost is relatively small, which explains why many studies (Hellsten
et al., 2021) ignored it in inland waterway network design.

The line charts of the total cost, ship cost, transportation cost, and 6.4. Analysis of the structure
transshipment cost under different combinations of the number of hub
ports (𝑝) and the discount of the main route transportation (𝑎) are The selected hub ports under different combinations of the number
shown in Fig. 8. of hub ports (𝑝) and the hub-to-hub transportation discount factor (𝑎)

10
S. Zhou et al. Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850

Fig. 8. The line charts of cost under different combinations of 𝑝 and 𝑎.

Table 7
Hub ports under different combinations of 𝑝 and 𝑎.
𝑝 𝑎
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
3 1,5,12 1,5,12 1,5,12 1,5,12 5,7,12 5,7,12
4 1,5,7,12 1,5,7,12 1,5,7,12 1,5,7,12 1,5,7,12 5,7,10,12
5 1,5,7,12,14 1,5,7,10,12 1,5,7,10,12 1,5,7,10,12 1,5,7,10,12 1,5,7,10,12
6 1,5,7,10,12,14 1,5,7,10,12,14 1,5,7,10,12,14 1,5,7,10,12,14 1,5,7,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,10,12
7 1,4,5,7,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,10,12,14
8 1,3,4,5,7,10,12,14 1,3,4,5,7,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,10,12,13,14 1,4,5,7,8,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,8,10,12,14 1,4,5,7,8,10,12,14
9 1,3,4,5,7,10,12,14,15 1,3,4,5,7,10,12,14,15 1,4,5,7,8,10,12,13,14 1,4,5,7,8,10,12,13,14 1,4,5,7,8,10,12,13,14 1,4,5,7,8,10,12,13,14

are listed in Table 7. The requirement of increasing a hub port will not
reshuffle the existing structure of hub ports. Instead, it will select one
spoke port from the original network and add it to the set of hub ports.
As for the hub-to-hub transportation discount factor, different values
may lead to slight differences in choosing hub ports. Market regulation
regarding input and output (Zolfani et al., 2023) may be needed to
stabilize the hub-to-hub transportation discount factor to maintain the
benefits of existing hub ports. However, careful examination shows that
some hub ports remain unchanged under different hub-to-hub trans-
portation discount factors and the required number of hub ports, such
as the Wuhan port (5) and Nanjing port (12). This can be explained by
the fact that these ports have much more OD flows due to the high level
of regional development. Additionally, these ports are located in the
middle of the nearest tributaries, allowing them to serve both feeders.
This is also a factor contributing to being selected as hub ports.
To investigate the impacts of the tree-like structure of inland water-
ways on the HSND, we select three ports that appear most frequently in
Table 7 (i.e., Chongqing, Wuhan, and Nanjing ports) as hub ports. We
have obtained optimal feeder port allocation and the fleet deployment
results by solving model M2. We have found that the optimal feeder
port allocation results remain the same no matter how the hub-to-
hub transportation discount factor changes, which shows that the main
factor affecting the structure of the hub-and-spoke shipping network is
not the freight charges. The obtained shipping network with these three
specific hub ports is shown in Fig. 9.
It shows that the ports on the trunk waterway are usually associated
with the nearest hub port downstream. For example, 4 out of 6 feeder
ports associated with the Wuhan port are located upstream of the
Wuhan port. The cost of co-current transportation can explain it is
cheaper than that counter-current transportation. This conclusion is
also supported by the observation presented in Zheng and Yang (2016),
which studied HSND for container shipping along the trunk waterway
of the Yangtze River. Ports on tributaries are usually associated with
the nearest hub port downstream, which is usually the same hub port
of the port on the trunk located at the junction of the trunk and
corresponding tributaries. In this case, the ports on tributaries and the
corresponding ports on the junction can be merged as a single port for
HSND. However, when there is no port at the junction of the trunk
and tributary, the port’s allocation on the tributary must be determined
interdependently. In addition, based on the topographical structure of
the Yangtze River waterway system, the navigation capacity of each
segment, port layout, and real-world OD flows, the proposed models
and methods for HSND are of practical significance and match the
current status and trends of the shipping development of the Yangtze
River.
This paper studies from the perspective of optimization rather than
data analysis. The above results and discussions confirm some con-
clusions from the data analysis. However, Fig. 9 shows that not all
ports will assign to their nearest downstream hub port. For example,
Jiujiang and Nanchang port do not assign to their nearest hub (Wuhan

11
S. Zhou et al.
Fig. 9. The designed hub-and-spoke shipping network on Yangtze River with three hub ports.
Port) since more containers need to be shipped downstream; Huangshi
and Anqing ports not assign to their nearest downstream hub port
(Nanjing Port) since more containers need to be shipped upstream. In
other words, a subjective empirical law should not be used directly
to determine the shipping network in the inland waterway. Because
the shortest route may not be selected for some OD flows, which,
however, can reduce the overall costs of the transportation network.
The proposed model and methods can be used more scientifically in
decision-making.
7. Conclusions
In this study, we addressed the HSND problem in an inland water-
way with a tree-like structure. An integer linear programming model
has been proposed to minimize the total operational costs by de-
termining the optimal hub location, feeder port allocation, and fleet
deployment. A decomposition-based math-heuristic approach and an
enhanced genetic algorithm-based approach are proposed to solve the
problem.
Numerical results and a case study on the Yangtze River have
been conducted, which verifies the functionality and effectiveness of
the proposed models and solution methods. Experimental results have
demonstrated that the operational costs of shipping decrease signifi-
cantly with the increase in the number of hub ports until it reaches a
certain value. The hub-to-hub transportation discount factor directly af-
fects transportation costs. Lower total operational costs can be achieved
with a higher discount, which is well-known and further analyzed from
the optimization perspective. The transportation cost contributes most
to the total operational cost of the shipping network, followed by the
shipping cost, with the second highest percentage of the total cost.
Meanwhile, the results show that the existing hub ports do not
change noticeably when the number of hub ports increases, which
is consistent with the practical situation. Careful examinations of the
results demonstrate that the chosen hub ports have larger throughput
due to the high level of regional development. In addition, we can
observe that feeder ports on the trunk and tributaries are usually but
not always associated with the nearest downstream hub port, which is
synthetically influenced by the direction of the river stream, network
structure, and OD flow distribution.
Further extensions could be implemented in the future by con-
sidering the ship speed optimization and carbon emission to obtain
a more reasonable model that can further reduce operational costs
and emissions. Considering uncertainties in models (Khalilpourazari &
Hashemi Doulabi, 2022; Özmen et al., 2011; Savku & Weber, 2020)
or inventory management (Tirkolaee et al., 2022) in ports are other
practical directions. In addition, more sophisticated solution methods
including stochastic programming (Kropat et al., 2020; Savku, 2022)
are worth developing to solve the HSND problem more efficiently.
Other realistic factors that have not been considered in this study but
exist in practice can be included when designing the hub-and-spoke
network, such as speed optimization or time-dependent scheduling.
12
Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Saiqi Zhou: Investigation, Methodology, Software, Data curation,
Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. Bin Ji: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing, Funding acquisition. Yalong Song: Methodology,
Software, Writing – original draft. Samson S. Yu: Writing – review &
editing, Visualization. Dezhi Zhang: Data curation, Writing – review &
editing. Tom Van Woensel: Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China under Grant No. 72001216, Central South University,
China under Grant No. 202045007, National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China under Grant No. 71672193, and National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant No. 62003091.
References
Alfandari, L., Davidović, T., Furini, F., Ljubić, I., Maraš, V., & Martin, S. (2019). Tighter
MIP models for barge container ship routing. Omega, 82, 38–54.
Alibeyg, A., Contreras, I., & Fernández, E. (2018). Exact solution of hub network design
problems with profits. European Journal of Operational Research, 266(1), 57–71.
Alumur, S. A., Campbell, J. F., Contreras, I., Kara, B. Y., Marianov, V., & O’Kelly, M.
E. (2021). Perspectives on modeling hub location problems. European Journal of
Operational Research, 291(1), 1–17.
Alumur, S., & Kara, B. Y. (2008). Network hub location problems: The state of the art.
European Journal of Operational Research, 190(1), 1–21.
An, F., Hu, H., & Xie, C. (2015). Service network design in inland waterway liner
transportation with empty container repositioning. European Transport Research
Review, 7(2), 9.
Azizi, N., Vidyarthi, N., & Chauhan, S. S. (2018). Modelling and analysis of hub-
and-spoke networks under stochastic demand and congestion. Annals of Operations
Research, 264(1), 1–40.
Bu, F., & Nachtmann, H. (2021). Literature review and comparative analysis of inland
waterways transport:‘‘Container on Barge’’. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 1–34.
Codato, G., & Fischetti, M. (2006). Combinatorial Benders’ cuts for mixed-integer linear
programming. Operations Research, 54(4), 756–766.
Contreras, I., Fernández, E., & Marín, A. (2009). Tight bounds from a path based
formulation for the tree of hub location problem. Computers & Operations Research,
36(12), 3117–3127.
Contreras, I., Fernández, E., & Marín, A. (2010). The tree of hubs location problem.
European Journal of Operational Research, 202(2), 390–400.
Contreras, I., Tanash, M., & Vidyarthi, N. (2017). Exact and heuristic approaches for
the cycle hub location problem. Annals of Operations Research, 258(2), 655–677.
S. Zhou et al.
Fadda, P., Fancello, G., Mancini, S., Pani, C., & Serra, P. (2020). Design and
optimisation of an innovative Two-Hub-and-Spoke network for the Mediterranean
Short-Sea-Shipping market. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 149, Article 106847.
Fischetti, M., & Lodi, A. (2003). Local branching. Mathematical Programming, 98(1),
23–47.
Fontes, F. F. d. C., & Goncalves, G. (2021). A variable neighbourhood decomposition
search approach applied to a global liner shipping network using a hub-and-spoke
with sub-hub structure. International Journal of Production Research, 59(1), 30–46.
Gelareh, S., Maculan, N., Mahey, P., & Monemi, R. N. (2013). Hub-and-spoke net-
work design and fleet deployment for string planning of liner shipping. Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 37(5), 3307–3321.
Gelareh, S., Monemi, R. N., & Nickel, S. (2015). Multi-period hub location problems in
transportation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
75, 67–94.
Hansen, P., Mladenović, N., & Urošević, D. (2006). Variable neighborhood search and
local branching. Computers & Operations Research, 33(10), 3034–3045.
He, W., Jin, Z., Huang, Y., & Xu, S. (2021). The inland container transportation problem
with separation mode considering carbon dioxide emissions. Sustainability, 13(3),
1573.
Hellsten, E. O., Sacramento, D., & Pisinger, D. (2021). A branch-and-price algorithm
for solving the single-hub feeder network design problem. European Journal of
Operational Research.
Imai, A., Shintani, K., & Papadimitriou, S. (2009). Multi-port vs. Hub-and-Spoke port
calls by containerships. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 45(5), 740–757.
Jalal, A. M., Toso, E. A., Tautenhain, C. P., & Nascimento, M. C. (2022). An integrated
location–transportation problem under value-added tax issues in pharmaceutical
distribution planning. Expert Systems with Applications, 206, Article 117780.
Ji, B., Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., Samson, S. Y., & Van Woensel, T. (2022). The generalized
serial-lock scheduling problem on inland waterway: A novel decomposition-based
solution framework and efficient heuristic approach. Transportation Research Part
E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 168, Article 102935.
Jiang, X., Lee, L. H., Chew, E. P., Han, Y., & Tan, K. C. (2012). A container yard storage
strategy for improving land utilization and operation efficiency in a transshipment
hub port. European Journal of Operational Research, 221(1), 64–73.
Jiang, Y., Lu, J., Cai, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2018). Analysis of the impacts of different modes
of governance on inland waterway transport development on the Pearl River: The
Yangtze River Mode vs. the Pearl River Mode. Journal of Transport Geography, 71,
235–252.
Kavirathna, C., Kawasaki, T., Hanaoka, S., & Matsuda, T. (2018). Transshipment hub
port selection criteria by shipping lines: the case of hub ports around the bay of
Bengal. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 3(1), 1–25.
Khalilpourazari, S., & Hashemi Doulabi, H. (2022). A flexible robust model for blood
supply chain network design problem. Annals of Operations Research, 1–26.
Klincewicz, J. G. (1998). Hub location in backbone/tributary network design: a review.
Location Science, 6(1–4), 307–335.
Korani, E., & Eydi, A. (2021). Bi-level programming model and KKT penalty function so-
lution approach for reliable hub location problem. Expert Systems with Applications,
184, Article 115505.
Kropat, E., Weber, G.-W., & Tirkolaee, E. B. (2020). Foundations of semialgebraic
gebe-environment networks. Journal of Dynamics & Games, 7, 253.
Labbé, M., & Yaman, H. (2008). Solving the hub location problem in a star–star
network. Networks: An International Journal, 51(1), 19–33.
Li, W., Wang, D., Yang, S., & Yang, W. (2021). Three Gorges Project: benefits and
challenges for shipping development in the upper Yangtze River. International
Journal of Water Resources Development, 37(5), 758–771.
Li, F., Yang, D., Wang, S., & Weng, J. (2019). Ship routing and scheduling problem
for steel plants cluster alongside the Yangtze River. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 122, 198–210.
Martins de Sá, E., Contreras, I., & Cordeau, J.-F. (2015). Exact and heuristic algorithms
for the design of hub networks with multiple lines. European Journal of Operational
Research, 246(1), 186–198.
Meier, J. F., & Clausen, U. (2018). Solving single allocation hub location problems on
euclidean data. Transportation Science, 52(5), 1141–1155.
Meng, Q., & Wang, X. (2011). Intermodal hub-and-spoke network design: incorporating
multiple stakeholders and multi-type containers. Transportation Research, Part B
(Methodological), 45(4), 724–742.
Msakni, M. K., Fagerholt, K., Meisel, F., & Lindstad, E. (2020). Analyzing different
designs of liner shipping feeder networks: A case study. Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 134, Article 101839.
Nam, H.-S., & Song, D.-W. (2011). Defining maritime logistics hub and its implication
for container port. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(3), 269–292.
13
Expert Systems With Applications 223 (2023) 119850
Notteboom, T., Yang, D., & Xu, H. (2020). Container barge network development
in inland rivers: A comparison between the Yangtze River and the Rhine River.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 587–605.
O’kelly, M. E. (1987). A quadratic integer program for the location of interacting hub
facilities. European Journal of Operational Research, 32(3), 393–404.
Ömer Nedim Kenger, & Ozceylan, E. (2023). A hybrid approach based on mathematical
modelling and improved online learning algorithm for data classification. Expert
Systems with Applications, 218, Article 119607.
Özgün-Kibiroğlu, Ç., Serarslan, M. N., & Topcu, Y. İ. (2019). Particle swarm optimiza-
tion for uncapacitated multiple allocation hub location problem under congestion.
Expert Systems with Applications, 119, 1–19.
Özmen, A., Weber, G. W., Batmaz, İ., & Kropat, E. (2011). RCMARS: Robustification of
CMARS with different scenarios under polyhedral uncertainty set. Communications
in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 16(12), 4780–4787.
Perboli, G., Tadei, R., & Vigo, D. (2011). The two-echelon capacitated vehicle routing
problem: Models and math-based heuristics. Transportation Science, 45(3), 364–380.
Radojčić, D., Simić, A., Momčilović, N., Motok, M., & Friedhoff, B. (2021). The Danube
waterway with its tributaries. In Design of contemporary inland waterway vessels (pp.
17–33). Springer.
Real, L. B., Contreras, I., Cordeau, J.-F., de Camargo, R. S., & de Miranda, G. (2021).
Multimodal hub network design with flexible routes. Transportation Research Part
E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 146, Article 102188.
Roni, M. S. (2013). Analyzing the impact of a hub and spoke supply chain design for
long-haul, high-volume transportation of densified biomass. Mississippi State University.
Ruocco, E., Wang, C., Zhang, H., & Challamel, N. (2017). An approximate model for
optimizing Bernoulli columns against buckling. Engineering Structures, 141, 316–327.
Savku, E. (2022). Fundamentals of market making via stochastic optimal control.
Operations Research, 136–154.
Savku, E., & Weber, G.-W. (2020). Stochastic differential games for optimal investment
problems in a Markov regime-switching jump-diffusion market. Annals of Operations
Research, 1–26.
Sel, C., & Bilgen, B. (2014). Hybrid simulation and MIP based heuristic algorithm
for the production and distribution planning in the soft drink industry. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 33(3), 385–399.
Tan, Z., Liu, Q., Song, J., Wang, H., & Meng, Q. (2021). Ship choice and shore-power
service assessment for inland river container shipping networks. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, Article 102805.
Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Meng, Q., & Liu, Z. (2018). Joint ship schedule design and sailing
speed optimization for a single inland shipping service with uncertain dam transit
time. Transportation Science, 52(6), 1570–1588.
Tang, M., Ji, B., Fang, X., & Yu, S. S. (2022). Discretization-strategy-based solution for
berth allocation and quay crane assignment problem. Journal of Marine Science and
Engineering, 10(4), 495.
Tirkolaee, E. B., Goli, A., Ghasemi, P., & Goodarzian, F. (2022). Designing a sustainable
closed-loop supply chain network of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Pareto-based algorithms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, Article 130056.
Tu, N., Adiputranto, D., Fu, X., & Li, Z.-C. (2018). Shipping network design in a
growth market: The case of Indonesia. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 117, 108–125.
Wang, J. J., & Slack, B. (2000). The evolution of a regional container port system: The
Pearl River Delta. Journal of Transport Geography, 8(4), 263–275.
Wang, S., & Zhao, Q. (2021). Probabilistic tabu search algorithm for container
liner shipping problem with speed optimisation. International Journal of Production
Research, 1–18.
Wetzstein, B., Florax, R., Foster, K., & Binkley, J. (2021). Transportation costs:
Mississippi River barge rates. Journal of Commodity Markets, 21, Article 100123.
Yaman, H. (2008). Star p-hub median problem with modular arc capacities. Computers
& Operations Research, 35(9), 3009–3019.
Yang, Z., Shi, H., Chen, K., & Bao, H. (2014). Optimization of container liner network
on the Yangtze River. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(1), 79–96.
Zhang, H., & Zhao, X. (2015). Quantitative analysis of organizational behavior of
container shipping in the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River based
on hub-and-spoke network. Journal of Coastal Research, (73 (10073)), 119–125.
Zheng, J., Meng, Q., & Sun, Z. (2015). Liner hub-and-spoke shipping network design.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 75, 32–48.
Zheng, J., & Yang, D. (2016). Hub-and-spoke network design for container shipping
along the Yangtze River. Journal of Transport Geography, 55, 51–57.
Zhu, S., Gao, J., He, X., Zhang, S., Jin, Y., & Tan, Z. (2021). Green logistics oriented
tug scheduling for inland waterway logistics. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 49,
Article 101323.
Zolfani, S. H., Görçün, Ö. F., Çanakçıoğlu, M., & Tirkolaee, E. B. (2023). Efficiency
analysis technique with input and output satisficing approach based on Type-2
Neutrosophic Fuzzy Sets: A case study of container shipping companies. Expert
Systems with Applications, 218, Article 119596.