Tehlikeli maddelerin çok modlu taşımacılığı için çok ürünlü iki amaçlı bir model önerisi: Türkiye örneği

Kimyasal veya fiziksel karakteristikleri nedeni ile canlılara ve çevreye zarar verebilen tehlikeli maddelerin son yıllarda birçok sektörde kullanılıyor olması, tehlikeli madde taşımacılığının önemini arttırmaktadır. Demiryolu ve denizyolu taşımacılığı risk ve maliyet açısından üstünlükler arz ediyor olmasına rağmen, ülkemizde tehlikeli madde taşımacılığı için yaygın olarak karayolu kullanılmaktadır. Tehlikeli madde taşımacılığının önemli bir bölümünü oluşturan akaryakıt taşımacılığının ele alındığı bu çalışmada, arz ve talep noktaları arasındaki toplam ulaştırma maliyeti ve toplam ulaştırma riskinin minimizasyonunu hedefleyen; karayolu, demiryolu ve denizyolunun kombinasyonundan oluşan çok modlu çok ürünlü iki amaçlı bir matematiksel model önerilmiştir. Önerilen modelin Türkiye uygulaması için T.C. Ulaştırma Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı bünyesindeki kuruluşlar, akaryakıt dağıtım şirketleri ve lojistik firmalarından gerekli veriler toplanarak, öncelikle GAMS/CPLEX optimizasyon programı ile mevcut durumda yaygın olarak kullanılan tek modlu taşımacılık modeli ve önerilen çok modlu taşımacılık modeli için minimum maliyet ve minimum risk değerleri, ardından maliyet öncelikli ve risk öncelikli hedef programlama modellerine ilişkin değerler elde edilmiş ve ArcGIS yazılımı kullanılarak Türkiye’nin akaryakıt dağıtım ağları oluşturulmuştur.

A bi-objective multi-commodity model for multimodal transportation of hazardous materials: A case study of Turkey

The fact that hazardous materials, which can cause damage to the living creatures and the environment due to their chemical or physical characteristics, have been used in many sectors in recent years so the importance of transportation of hazardous materials is on the rise. Despite the fact that railway and maritime transportation are superior in terms of risk and cost, the highway is widely used for the transportation of hazardous materials in our country. This study, which focuses on the transportation of fuel constitutes a significant part of the transportation of hazardous materials, a bi-objective multi-modal multi-commodity model consisting of a combination of highway, railway and seaway is proposed. The model aims at minimizing the total transportation cost and total transportation risk between supply and demand points. First, the minimum cost and minimum risk values for the unimodal transportation model, which is currently widely used, and for the proposed multimodal transportation model are obtained and then the values related to preemptive goal programming models for cost priority and risk priority are obtained using GAMS/CPLEX optimization software by collecting the necessary data from organizations within Republic of Turkey Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications, fuel distribution companies and logistics companies for application of the proposed models in Turkey. Finally, Turkey’s fuel distribution networks are drawn by using ArcGIS software.

PDF

___

1. Jiang M.W., Ying M., Study on Route Selection for Hazardous Chemicals Transportation, Procedia Engineering, 71, 130-138, 2014.
2. Erkut E., On the credibility of the conditional risk model for routing hazardous materials, Oper. Res. Lett., 18 (1), 49-52, 1995.
3. Karkazis J., Boffey T., Optimal location of routes for vehicles transporting hazardous materials. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 86 (2), 201-215, 1995.
4. Erkut E. and Verter V., Modeling of transport risk for hazardous materials, Operations Research, 46 (5), 625- 642, 1998.
5. Leonelli P., Bonvicini S., Spadoni G., Hazardous materials transportation: a risk-analysis-based routing methodology, J. Hazard. Mater., 71 (1), 283-300., 2000.
6. Fabiano B., Curro F., Palazzi E., Pastorino R., A framework for risk assessment and decision-making strategies in dangerous good transportation, J. Hazard. Mater., 93 (1), 1-15, 2002.
7. Zografos K.G., Androutsopoulos K.N., A heuristic algorithm for solving hazardous materials distribution problems, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 152 (2), 507-519, 2004.
8. Dell'Olmo P., Gentili M., Scozzari A., On finding dissimilar Pareto-optimal paths, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 162 (1), 70-82, 2005.
9. Erkut E., Alp O., Designing a road network for hazardous materials shipments, Comput. Oper. Res., 34 (5), 1389-1405, 2007.
10. Sadjadi S.J., An application of efficient frontier in transportation of hazardous materials, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 53 (2), 357-360, 2007.
11. Carotenuto P., Giordani S., Ricciardelli S., Rismondo S., A tabu search approach for scheduling hazmat shipments, Comput. Oper. Res., 34 (5), 1328-1350, 2007.
12. Brown D.F., Dunn W.E., Application of a quantitative risk assessment method to emergency response planning, Comput. Oper. Res., 34 (5), 1243-1265, 2007.
13. Glickman T.S., Erkut E., Zschocke M.S., The cost and risk impacts of rerouting railroad shipments of hazardous materials, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39 (5), 1015-1025, 2007.
14. Verma M., Verter V., Railroad transportation of dangerous goods: Population exposure to airborne toxins. Comput. Oper. Res., 34 (5), 1287-1303, 2007.
15. Erkut E., Gzara F., Solving the hazmat transport network design problem. Comput. Oper. Res., 35 (7), 2234-2247, 2008.
16. Androutsopoulos K.N., Zografos K.G., Solving the k- shortest path problem with time windows in a time varying network, Operations Research Letters, 36 (6), 692-695, 2008.
17. Dadkar Y., Jones D., Nozick L., Identifying geographically diverse routes for the transportation of hazardous materials, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44 (3), 333-349, 2008.
18. Bonvicini S., Spadoni G., A hazmat multi-commodity routing model satisfying risk criteria: a case study, J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 21 (4), 345-358, 2008.
19. Verma M., A cost and expected consequence approach to planning and managing railroad transportation of hazardous materials, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14 (5), 300-308, 2009.
20. Bianco L., Caramia M., Giordani S., A bilevel flow model for hazmat transportation network design, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 17 (2), 175-196, 2009.
21. Androutsopoulos K.N., Zografos K.G., Solving the bicriterion routing and scheduling problem for hazardous materials distribution, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 18 (5), 713- 726, 2010.
22. Verma M., Railroad transportation of dangerous goods: A conditional exposure approach to minimize transport risk, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19 (5), 790-802, 2011.
23. Ma H., Cheang B., Lim A., Zhang L., Zhu Y., An investigation into the vehicle routing problem with time windows and link capacity constraints, Omega, 40 (3), 336-347, 2012.
24. Samanlioglu F., A multi-objective mathematical model for the industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 226 (2), 332-340, 2013.
25. Pradhananga R., Taniguchi E., Yamada T., and Qureshi A. G., Bi-objective decision support system for routing and scheduling of hazardous materials, Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci., 48 (2), 135-148, 2014.
26. Saat M.R., Werth C.J., Schaeffer D., Yoon H., Barkan C.P., Environmental risk analysis of hazardous material rail transportation, J. Hazard. Mater., 264, 560-569, 2014.
27. Bronfman A., Marianov V., Paredes-Belmar G., Lüer- Villagra A., The maximin HAZMAT routing problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 241 (1), 15-27, 2015.
28. Siddiqui A.W., Verma M., A bi-objective approach to routing and scheduling maritime transportation of crude oil, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 37, 65-78, 2015.
29. Karabulut S., Öcalır Akünal E.V., Geographical information system based environmental risk analysis for road transportation of hazmats, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 30 (3), 351-359, 2015.
30. Romero N., Nozick L.K., Xu N., Hazmat facility location and routing analysis with explicit consideration of equity using the Gini coefficient, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 89, 165-181, 2016.
31. Pamučar D., Ljubojević S., Kostadinović D., Đorović B., Cost and risk aggregation in multi-objective route planning for hazardous materials transportation- A neuro-fuzzy and artificial bee colony approach, Expert Syst. Appl., 65, 1-15, 2016.
32. Landucci G., Antonioni G., Tugnoli A., Bonvicini S., Molag M., Cozzani V., HazMat transportation risk assessment: A revisitation in the perspective of the Viareggio LPG accident, J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 49, 36- 46, 2017.
33. Torretta V., Rada E.C., Schiavon M., Viotti P., Decision support systems for assessing risks involved in transporting hazardous materials: a review, Saf. Sci., 92, 1-9, 2017.
34. Taslimi M., Batt R., Kwon, C., A comprehensive modeling framework for hazmat network design, hazmat response team location, and equity of risk, Comput. Oper. Res., 79, 119-130, 2017.
35. Kumar A., Roy D., Verter V., Sharma D., Integrated fleet mix and routing decision for hazmat transportation: A developing country perspective, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 264, 225-238, 2018.
36. Bubbico R., Di Cave S., Mazzarotta B., Risk analysis for road and rail transport of hazardous materials: a GIS approach, J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 17 (6), 483-488, 2004.
37. Bubbico R., Maschio G., Mazzarotta B., Milazzo M.F., Parisi E., Risk management of road and rail transport of hazardous materials in Sicily, J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 19 (1), 32-38, 2006.
38. Verma M., Verter V., A lead-time based approach for planning rail–truck intermodal transportation of dangerous goods, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 202 (3), 696-706, 2010.
39. Reniers G. L., De Jongh K., Gorrens B., Lauwers D., Van Leest M., Witlox F., Transportation Risk ANalysis tool for hazardous Substances (TRANS)–A user- friendly, semi-quantitative multi-mode hazmat transport route safety risk estimation methodology for Flanders, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15 (8), 489-496, 2010.
40. Elaldı P., Intermodal transportation of hazardous materials with supplier selection: Application in Turkey, Master’s Thesis, The Graduate School of Engineering and Science of Bilkent University, Ankara, 2011.
41. Xie Y., Lu W., Wang W., Quadrifoglio L., A multimodal location and routing model for hazardous materials transportation, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 227, 135-141, 2012.
42. Verma M., Verter V., Zufferey N., A bi-objective model for planning and managing rail-truck intermodal transportation of hazardous materials, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48 (1), 132-149, 2012.
43. Reniers G., Dullaert W., A method to assess multi- modal Hazmat transport security vulnerabilities: Hazmat transport SVA. Transport Policy, 28, 103-113, 2013.
44. Jiang Y., Zhang X., Rong Y., Zhang Z., A multimodal location and routing model for hazardous materials transportation based on multi-commodity flow model, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 138, 791-799, 2014.
45. Küçük Ö., Tehlikeli Maddelerin Taşınmasında Çok Tipli Bir Model Önerisi ve Bir Uygulama, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kara Harp Okulu, Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2015.
46. Assadipour G., Ke G.Y., Verma M., Planning and managing intermodal transportation of hazardous materials with capacity selection and congestion, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 76, 45-57, 2015.
47. Assadipour G., Ke G.Y., Verma M., A toll-based bi- level programming approach to managing hazardous materials shipments over an intermodal transportation network, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 47, 208-221, 2016.
48. Vaezi A., Verma M., Railroad transportation of crude oil in Canada: Developing long-term forecasts, and evaluating the impact of proposed pipeline projects, Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 98-111, 2018.
49. Yavuz S., Akaryakıt lojistiğinde demiryolu bir seçenek değil zorunluluk. http://www.lojistikhatti.com/ haber/ 2019/10/akaryakit-lojistiginde-demiryolu-bir-secenek- degil-zorunluluk. Yayın tarihi Ekim 22, 2019. Erişim tarihi: Mart 15, 2020.
50. TCDD, Lojistik Dairesi Başkanlığı, Ankara, 2017. 51. Siddiqui A., Verma M., An expected consequence approach to route choice in the maritime transportation of crude oil, Risk Analysis, 33 (11), 2041-2055, 2013.
52. T.C. Ulaştırma, Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı, Ankara, 2017.
53. EK, https://personel.omu.edu.tr/tr/asli.calis/dosyalar.