Skip to content

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

3 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

Weather-Routing Benchmark

A multi-basin, multi-vessel, instance-matched benchmark for ship weather-routing and speed-optimization research.

License: CC BY 4.0 DOI Paper


Why this benchmark exists

Reported fuel and CO₂ savings from ship weather routing span an enormous range (≈1–49 %) across the literature, yet no two studies measure them on a common footing — baselines, vessels, routes, weather years, and reporting statistics all differ. Surveys of the field have explicitly called for standardized benchmark instances to facilitate comparison between methods (Zis et al., 2020, Ocean Engineering).

This repository provides exactly that: a fixed, openly documented instance set — 12 routes spanning every major ocean basin, crossed with four seasons and two years (96 voyage instances), run on three standard benchmark hulls under identical real ERA5 weather against a single well-defined weather-blind baseline. Every result is priced from a first-principles naval-architecture model (not a vessel-specific performance curve), so the savings are reproducible from published hull and engine particulars and transfer across vessels.

Use it to place a new router on a shared scale: score your route through the same physics, or compare your savings against the same baseline on the same instances.


At a glance

Routes 12 (coastal → ocean-crossing), every major basin
Seasons × years DJF / MAM / JJA / SON × 2022, 2023
Instances per vessel 96 (12 × 4 × 2)
Vessels S175 containership, KVLCC2 VLCC tanker, JBC capesize bulk carrier (Cᵦ 0.57 → 0.86)
Objectives minimum fuel, minimum voyage cost (ECA fuel-switching)
Weather ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis (10 m wind 0.25°, waves 0.5°, hourly)
Baseline weather-blind (calm-optimal) route scored under the same real weather
Total instances 96 × 3 vessels × 2 objectives = 576 priced voyages

Repository layout

weather-routing-benchmark/
├── routes/
│   ├── campaign_routes.csv      # the 12-route manifest (ports, coords, AOI, mesh params)
│   └── README.md                # human-readable route table
├── vessels/
│   ├── s175_containership.dat   # hull + engine + propeller particulars
│   ├── kvlcc2_tanker.dat
│   ├── jbc_bulkcarrier.dat
│   └── README.md                # particulars table + format notes
├── results/
│   ├── results_<vessel>_minfuel.csv   # 96 instances, minimum-fuel objective
│   ├── results_<vessel>_mincost.csv   # 96 instances, minimum-cost objective (ECA)
│   ├── DATA_DICTIONARY.md             # every column defined
│   └── SUMMARY.md                     # headline numbers (reproducible from the CSVs)
├── tracks/
│   ├── *_tracks.csv             # per-instance route geometry (lon/lat waypoints)
│   ├── *_hs.csv                 # significant-wave-height field along the route
│   ├── *_profile.csv            # speed / power / fuel profile along an exemplar voyage
│   └── README.md
└── scripts/
    └── summarize_campaign.py    # canonical metric definitions; regenerates SUMMARY.md

The instance set

Each instance is a (route × seasonal date × year) triple. The four seasonal dates are mid-season representatives (15 Jan / 15 Apr / 15 Jul / 15 Oct), crossed with 2022 and 2023. The 12 routes (routes/campaign_routes.csv):

# Route Basin Class ~Distance
1 Antwerpen → Zeebrugge North Sea coastal 85 km
2 Santos → Paranaguá S. Atlantic coastal 285 km
3 New York → Boston NW Atlantic coastal 404 km
4 Brisbane → Newcastle Tasman regional 693 km
5 Rotterdam → Algeciras NE Atlantic regional 2 489 km
6 New York → Colón NW Atlantic basin 3 686 km
7 Colombo → Jeddah Indian basin 5 228 km
8 Singapore → Busan W. Pacific basin 4 673 km
9 Rotterdam → New York N. Atlantic ocean 6 247 km
10 Santos → Cape Town S. Atlantic ocean 6 994 km
11 Cape Town → Mumbai Indian ocean ~7 000 km
12 Yokohama → Long Beach N. Pacific ocean 10 065 km

Vessels (full particulars in vessels/):

Vessel Type L_pp Beam Draft Cᵦ MCR
S175 containership 175 m 25.4 m 9.5 m 0.572 14.85 MW
KVLCC2 VLCC tanker 320 m 58.0 m 20.8 m 0.810 30.0 MW
JBC capesize bulk carrier 280 m 45.0 m 16.5 m 0.858 16.5 MW

Baseline and metrics

The benchmark is built around one fixed baseline so that savings are comparable across methods:

  • Weather-blind baseline — the calm-water-optimal (least-fuel-at-service-speed) route, scored under the same real ERA5 weather it would actually meet. This is the route a router that ignores weather would sail.

Two headline savings are reported against it (definitions in scripts/summarize_campaign.py):

  • Route-only saving — fuel saved by deviating the track around weather at the fixed service speed: 100 × (baseline − min(weather-aware, mesh)) / baseline.
  • Joint route + speed saving — additionally optimizing the per-leg speed schedule under a 5 % ETA slack: 100 × (baseline − min(speed-optimized variants)) / baseline.

Instances whose weather-blind baseline is itself physically infeasible (engine MCR or seakeeping limit exceeded in the storm) carry no defined percentage and are held out of the saving statistics — a documented, deliberate part of the design (see results/SUMMARY.md).


Headline results

Weather-routing fuel/CO₂ saving vs. the weather-blind baseline (percentages; status==ok instances). Full breakdown in results/SUMMARY.md.

Vessel metric n mean median p90 max
S175 route-only 91 5.04 1.91 14.58 39.82
S175 joint route+speed 91 11.01 8.82 19.75 45.56
KVLCC2 route-only 67 6.14 3.91 16.07 26.25
KVLCC2 joint route+speed 66 10.95 10.00 20.21 29.69
JBC route-only 66 4.55 1.82 15.09 26.81
JBC joint route+speed 65 9.57 7.82 17.30 30.33

Scale / runtime (S175, min-fuel): the search visits 17–1003 waypoints per instance and solves in a median 183 s per route (mean 335 s, range 39 s – 24 min) on a commodity workstation — provided so methods can be compared on runtime as well as savings.


How to use it

Compare a new router on a common footing:

  1. Take the 12 routes and the (season × year) dates from routes/campaign_routes.csv.
  2. Run your router on the same instances with the same vessels (vessels/).
  3. Either (a) report your savings against the same weather-blind baseline the results CSVs already contain, or (b) export your chosen tracks and score them through an identical physics model for a track-only comparison.
  4. Use the metric definitions in scripts/summarize_campaign.py verbatim so the numbers line up.

Reuse the priced results directly: results/*.csv give per-instance fuel, cost, duration, mean speed, and runtime for the baseline, weather-aware, lateral-mesh, and speed-optimized variants under both objectives — ready for secondary analysis (intensity, abatement, sensitivity, fleet scaling).


Provenance and reproduction

  • Generated by the open-source ShipNetSim maritime simulator (https://github.com/VTTI-CSM/ShipNetSim) using a first-principles vessel model: Holtrop–Mennen calm-water resistance, Lang–Mao spectral added resistance, Fujiwara wind resistance, a Wageningen B-series propeller operating point, and a load-dependent specific-fuel-consumption map, with in-search engine (MCR), IMO MSC.1/Circ.1228 seakeeping, under-keel-clearance, and current-triangle feasibility gates.
  • Metocean inputs: ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis (Copernicus Climate Data Store reanalysis-era5-single-levels; 10 m winds on the 0.25° grid, significant wave height and mean wave period on the 0.5° grid, hourly); bathymetry from GMRT; coastlines from Natural Earth. The min-cost objective additionally uses 2024 Ship & Bunker bunker prices.
  • The raw metocean fields are not redistributed here (they are freely available from the sources above); this repository contains the routing instances, vessel definitions, priced results, and exemplar tracks.

Citation

If you use this benchmark, please cite the accompanying paper and this dataset.

Aredah, A. and Rakha, H. A. (2026). Energy- and emission-optimal ship routing from a first-principles vessel model under real metocean conditions. (Under review.)

A machine-readable citation is in CITATION.cff. This dataset is permanently archived on Zenodo with the concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21052776 (always resolves to the latest version):

Aredah, A. and Rakha, H. A. (2026). Weather-Routing Benchmark: a multi-basin, multi-vessel instance set for ship weather-routing and speed-optimization research (v1.0.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21052776


License

You are free to share and adapt the material for any purpose, including commercially, provided you give appropriate credit.


Contact

Ahmed Aredah · Texas A&M Transportation Institute / Virginia Tech · ahmed.aredah@gmail.com

About

A multi-basin, multi-vessel, instance-matched benchmark for ship weather-routing and speed-optimization research (96 instances x 3 hulls, ERA5 weather, first-principles physics).

Topics

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages