Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Routing-Method Effects on Distance, Time, Fuel, and Emissions in Europe-Asia Trade: A Comparison of the Suez, Cape, and Northern Sea Route Corridors

Abdella Mohameda, Christian Hendricksb, Xiangyu Hua

TL;DR

This paper investigates how routing representation—geometric great-circle paths versus physically feasible sea-only routes computed with A* on a coastline-masked grid—alters distance, time, fuel, and CO2 estimates for Europe–Asia shipping across three corridors (Suez, Cape of Good Hope, Northern Sea Route). Using Rotterdam–Yokohama as the representative OD and three waypoint philosophies per corridor, the authors quantify GC→sea-only deltas and propagate distances into voyage times $T = rac{D}{U_{ ext{corridor}}}$ and emissions via a main- and auxiliary-engine model with $P_{ ext{ME}} = P_0 ig( rac{U}{U_0}ig)^3$, $\\dot{m}_{ ext{ME}} = P_{ ext{ME}} \, ext{SFOC}_{ ext{ME}}$, $m_{ ext{FUEL}} = m_{ ext{ME}} + m_{ ext{AUX}}$, and $m_{ ext{CO2}} = m_{ ext{FUEL}} \, EF_{ ext{CO2}}$. The results show that enforcing sea-only feasibility preserves the ordering NSR $<$ SUEZ $<$ CAPE in distance, but the NSR’s advantage shrinks under corridor-specific speeds, making time and emissions less favorable than the pure geometric picture. Moreover, endpoint location and speed policies significantly influence the relative competitiveness of NSR, with equal-speed analyses recovering geometric ordering. The work offers a reproducible, corridor-agnostic baseline for integrating sea ice, metocean, regulatory overlays, and AIS data in future Arctic voyage planning and digital-twin applications.

Abstract

Growing interest in decarbonization and Arctic accessibility has renewed attention on Europe-Asia shipping corridors. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is often portrayed as a 30-40% shortcut relative to Suez, with savings propagated to time, fuel, and CO2. The effect of enforcing sea-only feasibility on these baselines, and its downstream impact on time, fuel, and CO2, remains under-examined. We compare great-circle baselines with sea-only routes computed via A-star search (A*) on a 0.5-degree grid between Northern Europe and Northeast Asia across the Suez, Cape of Good Hope, and NSR corridors under three waypoint philosophies. Distances are mapped to voyage time using corridor-typical speeds and to fuel/CO2 using main- and auxiliary-engine accounting. Sea-only routing preserves the ranking NSR < Suez < Cape but compresses NSR's advantage once realistic speeds are applied. NSR remains shortest (about 8000-10000 nm versus 11000-12000 nm for Suez), yet typical durations differ modestly and fuel/CO2 savings over Suez are small and variant-dependent. Equal-speed tests restore geometric ordering, and endpoint sensitivity shows larger NSR gains for more northern East Asian ports. The framework provides a reproducible, corridor-agnostic benchmark for later integration of sea ice, weather, regulatory overlays, and AIS data in dynamic Arctic voyage planning.

Routing-Method Effects on Distance, Time, Fuel, and Emissions in Europe-Asia Trade: A Comparison of the Suez, Cape, and Northern Sea Route Corridors

TL;DR

This paper investigates how routing representation—geometric great-circle paths versus physically feasible sea-only routes computed with A* on a coastline-masked grid—alters distance, time, fuel, and CO2 estimates for Europe–Asia shipping across three corridors (Suez, Cape of Good Hope, Northern Sea Route). Using Rotterdam–Yokohama as the representative OD and three waypoint philosophies per corridor, the authors quantify GC→sea-only deltas and propagate distances into voyage times and emissions via a main- and auxiliary-engine model with , , , and . The results show that enforcing sea-only feasibility preserves the ordering NSR SUEZ CAPE in distance, but the NSR’s advantage shrinks under corridor-specific speeds, making time and emissions less favorable than the pure geometric picture. Moreover, endpoint location and speed policies significantly influence the relative competitiveness of NSR, with equal-speed analyses recovering geometric ordering. The work offers a reproducible, corridor-agnostic baseline for integrating sea ice, metocean, regulatory overlays, and AIS data in future Arctic voyage planning and digital-twin applications.

Abstract

Growing interest in decarbonization and Arctic accessibility has renewed attention on Europe-Asia shipping corridors. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is often portrayed as a 30-40% shortcut relative to Suez, with savings propagated to time, fuel, and CO2. The effect of enforcing sea-only feasibility on these baselines, and its downstream impact on time, fuel, and CO2, remains under-examined. We compare great-circle baselines with sea-only routes computed via A-star search (A*) on a 0.5-degree grid between Northern Europe and Northeast Asia across the Suez, Cape of Good Hope, and NSR corridors under three waypoint philosophies. Distances are mapped to voyage time using corridor-typical speeds and to fuel/CO2 using main- and auxiliary-engine accounting. Sea-only routing preserves the ranking NSR < Suez < Cape but compresses NSR's advantage once realistic speeds are applied. NSR remains shortest (about 8000-10000 nm versus 11000-12000 nm for Suez), yet typical durations differ modestly and fuel/CO2 savings over Suez are small and variant-dependent. Equal-speed tests restore geometric ordering, and endpoint sensitivity shows larger NSR gains for more northern East Asian ports. The framework provides a reproducible, corridor-agnostic benchmark for later integration of sea ice, weather, regulatory overlays, and AIS data in dynamic Arctic voyage planning.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 16 sections, 4 equations, 13 figures, 4 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Data and Methods
  3. Study scope and corridor design
  4. Routing representations: geometric GC vs. sea-only A*
  5. Great-circle baselines
  6. Sea-only routing with A*
  7. Rationale for comparing GC and A*
  8. From distance to time, fuel, and CO$_2$
  9. Scenario matrix and sensitivity tests
  10. Computational workflow overview
  11. Results and discussion
  12. Case 1: Distance baselines and routing-method effects
  13. Case 2: Downstream propagation to time, fuel, and CO$_2$ under corridor-typical speeds
  14. Case 3: Sensitivity and robustness
  15. Implications and limitations
  16. ...and 1 more sections

Figures (13)

  • Figure 1: Overview of the three Europe–Northeast Asia corridors considered in this study
  • Figure 2: Overview of the methodological pipeline used to compute GC and sea-only routes, derive time/fuel/CO$_2$ metrics, and generate reproducible tables and maps.
  • Figure 3: Geometric GC-chain corridor distances by corridor and waypoint variant for Rotterdam--Yokohama.
  • Figure 4: Sea-only (A*) distance by corridor and waypoint variant. The Northern Sea Route remains shortest, followed by Suez and Cape.
  • Figure 5: Routing-method effect on distance: GC-chain vs sea-only per corridor/variant.
  • ...and 8 more figures