定期航運業為全球性產業，航商營運收入常隨外部市場景氣榮枯而變動，個別航商無法決定整體市場運價之走向，但對於內部營運而言，如貨櫃運送路徑規劃，一旦航商透過良好管理，將有能力控制成本。貨櫃運送路徑規劃實為航商所關注之議題，其規劃之主要目的為在滿足貨櫃起迄之運送需求與服務時間條件下，安排各貨櫃起迄之最適運送路徑，並達最低運送成本之目標。

本研究將針對貨櫃運送路徑規劃實務之特性，利用網路圖形之概念建構出單一路徑運送模式，此模式主要處理各貨櫃起迄港口對於海上段之路徑選擇，求解問題具備多元商品之流量特性。本研究以國內定航業者航線規模為例，分別利用航商營運之15條與20條航線為分區實證與完整規模背景，並透過C語言撰寫問題產生器，另以CPLEX數學規劃套裝軟體進行求解，求解時間均落於90秒內。研究中之求解結果均為系統均衡解，非單一起迄對之最佳解，故為達整體運送成本最低之目標，個別航段需犧牲其艙位空間提供其餘起迄對使用，致使個別起迄對選擇較不具效率之航線，此結果反映於個別起迄對運送時間拉長或單位運送成本上升之現象上，而經由分區實證結果與整體規模結果顯示，本研究之貨櫃運送路徑規劃模式有助於航商進行運送路徑決策。

另外，本研究進行變動多項參數之敏感度分析測試，以調整運送時間為例，結果顯示航商在進行路徑規劃過程中，若僅最短運送路徑將使運送成本上升，而寬鬆運送時間限制將有助於成本之節省，但需考慮此舉將造成託運人之不便。另於艙位供給變動方面，顯示航商在航段上增加艙位供給將有助於降低貨櫃運送路徑規劃成本。最後本研究考量實務上航商為節省營運成本，將與港埠當局進行折扣費率合約之簽訂，該行為將使貨櫃轉運量於簽約港大幅提昇，經由敏感度分析之測試顯示折扣港埠費率將影響貨櫃運送路徑規劃。

Liner shipping industry is a global industry. The revenue of individual carrier is often affected by the ups and downs of freights in the market, but it can control the own cost through well inner operation. Seaborne transit path planning is a vital issue what the carrier concerns. The purpose of this planning is to arrange all of delivery paths for containers of all origin-destination (OD) port pairs under satisfying transport demands and within qualified service durations and to spend the lowest transit costs.

This research uses the characteristics of transit path planning and the concept of network graph to build a mathematical programming model with considering one path for one OD port pair. This model is a multi-commodity flows problem. This research uses C language to write the problem generator and to call the CPLEX function for solving cases. An example of the shipping lines with short-sea services is tested. No matter the separated cases or its whole scale, the solving results can provide the promising decisions in practice for carrier’s seaborne transit path planning.

Also, this research conducts the sensitivity analysis for many critical parameters. To take transit time as an example, the result reveals that if the carrier only considers in choosing the shortest path as programming, total transit cost may raise. Sometimes, loosing the transit time limitation may be helpful to save the total cost although such practice may make shippers inconvenience. Another example is space supply, it reveals that if the carrier increases the space supply on transit routes, it may be useful to make path planning cost down. Finally, this research takes the discount contracts signed by both shipper liners and port authorities into consideration. Sensitivity analysis shows that discount stevedoring rates applied by the transshipped ports may affect the transit path planning and result in operating cost saving and the increment of transshipment cargoes in such ports.

謝辭 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii

第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的 3
1.3研究範圍與假設 3
1.4研究方法與流程 4

第二章 文獻回顧 8
2.1貨櫃運送服務 8
2.2貨櫃排程 9
2.3貨櫃調度 10
2.4艙位分配與排艙 13
2.5小結 15

第三章 問題剖析與模式建構 16
3.1問題剖析 16
3.2網路圖形建置 21
3.3模式建構 22
3.3.1基本假設 22
3.3.2數學模式 23
3.3.3數學模式之特性 25
3.4範例測試 26
3.4.1測試背景說明 26
3.4.2測試結果 29
3.5敏感度分析 36
3.5.1寬鬆時間限制 36
3.5.2寬鬆艙位限制 39
3.5.3調整港埠裝卸費率 42
3.6小結 45

第四章 實證案例分析 47
4.1航商營運現況與案例內容 47
4.1.1航線與船隊 47
4.1.2參數設定 51
4.1.3測試案例設計 52
4.2分區實證分析 54
4.2.1求解結果分析 54
4.2.2敏感度分析 60
4.3完整規模實證分析 72
4.3.1需求變動前之完整規模實證 73
4.3.2需求變動後之完整規模實證 74
4.4求解效率分析 76
4.5小結 77

第五章 結論與建議 79
5.1結論 79
5.2建議 80
參考文獻 81
附錄A 相關參數設定 84

一、中文部份
1. 余秀梅（1993），「多元商品模式應用在動態貨櫃調度問題之研究」，碩士論文，國立成功大學，台南市。
2. 李啟安（2000），「貨櫃航商收益管理之研究─以艙位分配為例」，碩士論文，國立成功大學，台南市。
3. 車沛俞（2004），「單一定期航線最適艙位分配之研究」，碩士論文，國立海洋大學，基隆市。
4. 邱明琦、陳春益、林佐鼎（2002），「海運貨櫃排程模式之研究」，運輸計畫季刊，第三十一卷，第三期，頁1-15。
5. 馬開平（1994），「隨機性動態貨櫃調度問題之研究」，碩士論文，國立成功大學，台南市。
6. 陳春益、陳昭吟（1993），「動態空櫃調度模式之研究」，運輸計畫季刊，第22二十二，第二期，頁231-258。
7. 陳春益、李宇欣、盧華安（1997），「時空網路應用機門指派問題之研究」，運輸學刊，第十卷，第三期，頁1-20。
8. 陳春益、陳志豪（2000），「動態貨櫃調度模式終端效應之探討」，國立成功大學學報，第三十五卷。
9. 陳春益、溫哲欽（2002），「貨櫃船舶艙位指派問題之研究」，中華民國第七屆運輸網路研討會。
10. 劉家豪（2005），「級距式港埠裝卸費率之航商最佳化貨櫃排程分析」，碩士論文，國立海洋大學，基隆市。
11. 盧華安（2002），「定期航線之貨櫃運送排程規劃」，航運季刊，第十一卷第四期，頁 1-14。
12. 謝東緯（1999），「遠洋航商空櫃調度問題之研究」，碩士論文，國立成功大 學，台南市。
二、英文部分
1. Ang, J. S. K., Cao, C., and Ye, H. Q. (2007), “Model and Algorithms for Multi-Period Sea Cargo Mix Problem,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 180, No. 3, pp. 1381–1393.
2. Cullinane, K. and Khanna, M. (2004), “Economies of Scale in Large Containerships: Optimal Size and Geographical Implications,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 8, pp. 181-195.
3. Erica, L. (2003), “How do Ocean Carriers Organize the Empty Containers Reposition Activity in the USA? ,” Maritime Policy &Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 339-355.
4. Gao, Q. (1994), “An Operational Approach for Container Control in Liner Shipping,” Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 267-282.
5. Hsu, C. I. and Hsieh, Y. P. (2005), “Direct Versus Terminal Routing on a Maritime Hub-and-Spoke Container Network,”Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 209-217.
6. Kim, H. J., Chang, Y. T., Lee, P. T. W., Shin, S. H., and Kim, M. J. (2008), “Optimizing the Transportation of International Container Cargo in Korea,” Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 103-122.
7. Kim, K. H. and Park, K. T. (2003), “A Note on a Dynamic Space-Allocation Method for Outbound Containers,”European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 148, No. 1, pp. 92-101.
8. Lai, K. K., Lam, K., and Chan W. K. (1995), “Shipping Container Logistics and Allocation,” Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 46, pp. 687-697.
9. Notteboom, T. (2004), “A Carrier’s Perspective on Container Network Configuration at Sea and on Land,” Journal of International Logistics and Trade, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 65-87.
10. Notteboom, T. (2006), “The Time Factor in Liner Shipping Service,” Maritime Economic & Logistics, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 19-39.
11. Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J. P. (2008), “Containerisation, Box Logistics and Global Supply Chains : The Integration of Ports and Liner Shipping Networks,” Maritime Economic & Logistics, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 152-174.
12. Olivo, A. and Zuddas, P. (2005), “An Operational Model for Empty Container Management,” Maritime Economic & Logistics, Vol. 7, pp. 199-222.
13. Panayides, P. M. (2006), “Maritime Logistics and Global Supply Chain: Towards a Research Agenda,” Maritime Economic & Logistics, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 3-18.
14. Shintani, K., Imai, A., Nishimura, E., and Papadimitriou, S. (2007), “The Container Shipping Network Design Problem with Empty Container Repositioning,” Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 43, pp. 39-59.
15. Song, D. P. (2007), “Characterizing Optimal Empty Container Reposition Policy in Periodic-Review Shuttle Service Systems,”Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 122-133.
16. Song, D., Zhang J., Carter, J., Field, T., Marshall, J., Polak J., Schumacher, K., Sinharay, P., and Woods J. (2005), “On Cost-Efficiency of the Global Container Shipping Network,” Maritime Policy &Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 15-30.
17. Ting, S. C. and Tzeng, G. H. (2004), “An Optimal Containership Slot Allocation for Liner Shipping Revenue Management,” Maritime Policy &Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 199-211.
18. Wijnolst, N., Waals, F., Bello, F., Gendronneau, Y. and Kempen, D. V. (2000), Malacca-max [2] Container Shipping Network Economy, DPU Satellite, Delft.
19. Wong, T. N., Chow, P. S. and Sculli, D. (2006), “A heuristic for sea-freight container selection, cargo allocation and cargo orientation,”Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, No. 12, pp. 1452-1463.