European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

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

Discrete Optimization

A mixed-integer linear programming model to optimize the vertical

alignment considering blocks and side-slopes in road construction
Warren Hare a , Yves Lucet b,, Faisal Rahman c
a

ASC 353, Mathematics, Unit 5 Arts & Sciences, UBC Okanagan, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
ASC 350, Computer Science, Unit 5 Arts & Sciences, UBC Okanagan, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
c
ASC 303, Computer Science, Unit 5 Arts & Sciences, UBC Okanagan, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 9 February 2013
Accepted 24 August 2014
Available online 26 October 2014
Keywords:
Combinatorial optimization
Mixed integer linear program
OR in road design (natural resources)
Earthwork optimization
Vertical alignment optimization

a b s t r a c t
In the vertical alignment phase of road design, one minimizes the cost of moving material between different
sections of the road while maintaining safety and building code constraints. Existing vertical alignment
models consider neither the side-slopes of the road nor the natural blocks like rivers, mountains, etc., in
the construction area. The calculated cost without the side-slopes can have signicant errors (more than 20
percent), and the earthwork schedule without considering the blocks is unrealistic. In this study, we present
a novel mixed integer linear programming model for the vertical alignment problem that considers both of
these issues. The numerical results show that the approximation of the side-slopes can generate solutions
within an acceptable error margin specied by the user without increasing the time complexity signicantly.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Road design, the question of how to build a new road from A to
B, is surprisingly complicated. Given the innite number of potential
roads between any two points, it is obvious that enumerating all
potential options and then selecting the best is obviously impossible.
What is less obvious, is that even given just two options, the question
of evaluating each option for comparison is quite hard.
A potential road is often viewed as a xed horizontal alignment,
i.e., a road trajectory from a satellites eye view. In order to evaluate
the cost of the potential road, the road designer is required to look at
the vertical ground prole along the horizontal alignment and select
a vertical road prole. The road prole must respect various grade
constraints and other road specications, while simultaneously minimizing the cost of construction. Finding this vertical road prole is
called the vertical alignment problem in road design (AASHTO, 2004;
Jha, Schonfeld, & Jong, 2006). As the solution to the vertical alignment problem is used to evaluate a potential horizontal alignment,
the ability to create an accurate optimal vertical alignment is a key
step to determining a nal road design. (Note that, the optimal vertical
alignment alone is not sucient to evaluate a horizontal alignment;
other factors such as land acquisition costs and changes to trac ow

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 2508079505.

E-mail addresses: warren.hare@ubc.ca (W. Hare), yves.lucet@ubc.ca (Y. Lucet),
md.faisal.rahman@gmail.com (F. Rahman).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.08.035
0377-2217/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

must be considered Angulo, Castillo, Garca-Rdenas, and SnchezVizcano 2014; Maji and Jha 2011.)
The vertical alignment problem arises in a wide range of design
road scenarios: from highways to mountain roads and from new roads
to lane expansion. As such, it can be viewed as a highly important subproblem in road design. Unlike horizontal alignment, vertical alignment optimization is a well-dened problem, which does not depend
on non-mathematical factors like political issues. As such, it is studied comprehensively and several different modeling techniques can
be found in the literature (see Section 1.1 ). In this study, we propose
a new model to optimize the vertical alignment for a predetermined
horizontal alignment.
This new model advances the current state-of-the-art for vertical
alignment in several ways, all of which are focused on increasing
the accuracy of the vertical alignment problem. Working from Moreb
(2009) and Koch and Lucet (2010), we extend the vertical alignment
model to include blocks and side-slopes.
Blocks are physical challenges, such as bridging a river or tunneling
through a mountain, that must be overcome before earth movement
can occur. It is known that, optimal vertical alignments that do not
properly implement blocks are unrealistic and therefore inaccurate
(Hare, Koch, & Lucet, 2011). To incorporate blocks into vertical alignment we adapt the work of Hare et al. (2011).
Side-slopes are the gradual slopes on the sides of the road required for stability. The existence of side-slopes implies that the
amount of earthwork required is not linear in relation to the change
in road height. Ignoring this within a vertical alignment model

632

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

results in a noticeable error in the solution. To incorporate side-slopes

into vertical alignment, we introduce approximation slabs (details
appear in Section 2). Using real-life test problems, we nd that modeling without side-slopes results in errors ranging from 20 percent to
40 percent.
The overall result is a new model for the vertical alignment problem that is signicantly more accurate than previous models. These
results are applicable to any company working in road design, and
in particular are implemented in our industrial partners road design
software.
Within this work we provide details on how the vertical alignment
model was adapted to incorporate blocks and side-slopes (Sections 2
and 3). After providing some analysis of the new model (Section 4), we
compare the models robustness and accuracy to previous methods
(Section 5.2). Finally, we examine how the model behavior is affected
by several of the design variables (Section 5.3). This provides insight
on how to select appropriate values for these variables in practice.
We end with some concluding remarks.
Before detailing our model and solution techniques for vertical
alignment, we provide a brief historical overview of the vertical alignment problem.
1.1. Historical modeling techniques in vertical alignment
The vertical alignment problem has been approached in several
manners. Numerical search, dynamic programming, and mathematical programming are frequently applied approaches (Jha et al., 2006).
One of the successful attempts using numerical search can be found
in Goh and Teo (1988), in which the vertical alignment problem is
formulated as a calculus of variations problem and then converted
to an optimal control problem. The resulting model becomes a general constrained non-linear optimization problem that can be solved
by known numerical search algorithms. Most dynamic programming
attempts discretize the search space by horizontal and vertical grid
lines, where each of the horizontal grid lines stands for a state, and
each of the vertical grid lines represents a stage in the multi-stage
decision process. The output of this formulation is the elevation along
each vertical grid line. (A mixed-integer linear programming producing the same output can be found in Trypia (1979).) The studies by
Goh, Chew, and Fwa (1988), Fwa (1989), and Goktepe, Lav, and Altun
(2005) are based on a similar concept with different improvements.
A recent approach using dynamic programming (Goktepe, Altun, &
Ahmedzade, 2009) integrated the Weighted Ground Line Method
(WGLM) of earthwork optimization with a dynamic programming
model of vertical alignment. A numerical search cannot guarantee
the global optimality for a complex model, and dynamic programing
can miss a good solution because of the discretization process and the
required post-processing steps.
Mayer and Stark (1981) developed a linear programming model
that minimizes the earth moving cost while balancing the earth quantities in any section. A similar model was developed by Nandgaonkar
(1981). Oglesby and Hicks (1982) used a combination of a graphical
method called the mass haul diagram and linear programming for
earthwork optimization. Easa (1988) extended the model of Mayer
and Stark (1981) and proposed a numerical search algorithm that
looks for a feasible vertical alignment while optimizing earthwork
operations by linear programming as a sub-routine. Easa (1987, 1988)
considered nonconstant unit cost for material movement, and for linear unit costs he proposed a quadratic programming model (Easa,
1988) of the earthwork operation. Moreb and Bafail advanced these
techniques and demonstrated they could be used to solve the landleveling problem (a specic example of earthwork optimization)
(Moreb & Bafail, 1994). Moreb (1996) further modeled the vertical
alignment and earthwork operation in a single linear program. Both
Easas model (Easa, 1988) and Morebs model (Moreb, 1996) give
piecewise linear alignments. ReVelle, Whitlatch, and Wright (1997)

developed a model that approximated the road prole with a fth

order polynomial while using a linear program to nd the optimal coecients of the polynomial. Aljohani and Moreb (2003) gave a more
exible representation using polynomials of any degree. The problem
of using a single polynomial is that the solution is highly dependent
on its degree. Moreb and Aljohani (2004) found a quadratic spline
representation of the road prole that minimizes earthwork cost using linear programming to avoid the shortcomings of the polynomial
approach. Moreb (2009) further improved the model by adding some
additional constraints that ensure smoothness at the connectivity of
two spline pieces and generalized the technique with a piecewise
polynomial of any degree. Koch and Lucet (2010) improved the accuracy of the spline model by changing two constraints and reported
that only a linear or a quadratic spline could be used while maintaining the linear structure of the model. Hare, Hossain, Lucet, and
Rahman (2014) recently examined a variety of techniques to improve
the speed of solving the vertical alignment problem. (For more information on these techniques we refer to Rahman (2012) and references
therein.) The research in this paper focuses on improving the overall
accuracy of the vertical alignment problem.
Among the other recent models on the vertical alignment problem,
Goktepe, Lav, and Altun (2009) proposed a genetic algorithm based
on a constrained curve-tting method, and Garber and Hoel (2009)
used a greedy mass haul diagram based approach. A detailed survey
about the research in this area can be found in Jha et al. (2006).
Hao and Pan (2011) studied the accuracy of earthwork calculation
based on triangulated information. Later, Cheng and Jiang (2013) compared the accuracy resulting from the 2D average-end-area method
vs. 3D models. They conrmed the feasibility of the average-endarea method widely used in the literature when section lengths are
less than 30 meters. Consequently, one does not have to resort to
more computationally expensive models that track movements of
each block of material (Burdett & Kozan, 2010, 2014) (blocks in these
two articles refer to a volume of material while blocks in Koch and
Lucet (2010); Hare et al. (2011) and the present article is to be understood as an obstacle).
2. Problem description
An example of vertical alignment is shown in Fig. 1, where the
s-axis represents the station points, and the h-axis represents the
elevations. Ground and road proles are the states of the construction
area before and after the road is constructed. The construction area
is divided into smaller units called sections. The set S = {1, 2, . . . , n}
holds the indices of all the sections. The road prole is represented by
a quadratic spline. The set G = {1, 2, . . . , m} holds the indices of all the
spline segments. For all g G, the equation for each spline segment is

Pg (x) = ag,1 + ag,2 x + ag,3 x2 .

(2.1)

A spline segment spans one or more sections. If a spline segment g

spans ng sections, then we dene the set Sg = {1, 2, . . . , ng }. Consequently,

n=

ng .

(2.2)

gG

The starting station point of the ith section of the gth spline segment
is denoted by sg,i , and the ending station point is denoted by sg,i+1 .
So, by denition

sg,ng +1 = sg+1,1 ,

for all g G \{m}.

The function

: (G , Sg ) S

(2.3)

maps the section index in a spline segment to the absolute section

index. The spline representing the road prole in Fig. 1 has 5 segments,
and each segment spans 10 sections. An example of the mapping

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

633

320

Road Profile (Segment 1)

Road Profile (Segment 2)
Road Profile (Segment 3)
Road Profile (Segment 4)
Road Profile (Segment 5)
Ground Profile

319

318

Elevation (h)

317

316

315

314

313

312

311
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Station Points (s)

Fig. 1. A vertical alignment represented by a spline with 5 segments (here s2,1 = 200, s3,1 = 400, s4,1 = 600, and s5,1 = 800).

function is (2, 1) = 11. Since the constructed road cannot be too

steep, the slope of the spline segments must be bounded. For a spline
segment g, Lg and Ug represent the lower and upper bounds of its
slope. The set H consists of pairs (s, H) such that the elevation of the


road must be H at station point s, and the set H consists of pairs (s, H )

such that the slope of the road must be H at station point s. Normally,

H and H contain data for the start and end stations of the road.
A section is called a cut (respectively ll), if the volume difference
between the ground prole and the road prole at the section is positive (respectively negative). The net volume of a cut (respectively
ll) is positive (respectively negative). Borrow pits are external sections from which earth can be borrowed, and waste pits are external
sections to which earth can be dumped. Both borrow and waste pits
incur a usage cost. By design, a borrow pit is always a cut, and a waste
pit is always a ll. There are nb borrow pits, which are indexed by the
set B = {n + 1, n + 2, . . . , n + nb }, nw waste pits, which are indexed by
the set W = {n + nb + 1, n + nb + 2, . . . , n + nb + nw }. The function

:BS

:WS

(2.5)

maps the waste pit index to the section index to which it is attached.
The distance from a borrow or waste pit to the associated section is
called the dead haul distance and is denoted by di where i B W.
The capacity of the ith borrow pit (respectively waste pit) is denoted
by Cib (respectively Ciw ). The index set N = S B W is dened to be
the set of all the sections, borrow pits, and waste pits indices.
Moving earth from a borrow pit to a waste pit introduces costs
without any benet and is not permitted.
 2 consists of all pairs of indices (i, j) such that moving
The set N
 2 is
earth from section i to section j is permitted. The denition of N

2 = (i, j) : j S W ,
N
jS

j = i


if i S
.
if i B

(2.6)

A block is an obstacle that needs to be dealt with before any earth

can be moved over the location (Hare et al., 2011). There are nz blocks,
which are indexed by the set I = {1, 2, . . . , nz }. The function

:IS

2 :
Nbk = {(i, j) N

k ,k
Nb 1 2

= iN :

(2.7)

block k is between i and j}

(2.8)


i is between blocks k1 and k2 and there is
no access road between blocks k1 and k2
(2.9)

(2.4)

maps the borrow pit index to the section index to which it is attached
and the function

maps the block index to the section index. The process is discretized
into time-steps to deal with blocks. The set T contains the indices
of the time-steps, and the binary variable ykt represents whether a
block k I is present at time-step t (ykt = 0) or not (ykt = 1). It is
ensured that at each time-step at least one block is removed, i.e., the
number of time-steps is at most nz + 1. An access road is dened as a
road that gives access for earthwork to begin at any section to which
it is attached. We assume that there is a borrow pit and a waste pit
with innite capacity attached with each access road. We need the
following denitions,


Nb,k =

iN :


Nbk, =

iN :


i is before block k and there is
no access road before block k

i is after block k and there is
.
no access road after block k

(2.10)

(2.11)

The cost for cutting earth from a section is called the excavation
cost, the cost for moving earth from a section to another section is
called the hauling cost, and the cost for lling a section with earth is
called the embankment cost. For i N , the per unit volume excavation cost is pi , and the per unit volume embankment cost is qi . For
i, j N , the per unit volume hauling cost from i to j is cij . In order to
retain the logical consistency in the problem, the cost must maintain
strict triangular inequality, i.e., for all i, j, k N , i = j, j = k, and k = i,

pi + cij + qj < (pi + cik + qk ) + (pk + ckj + qj );

(2.12)

see Hare et al. (2011) for the details.

The decision variables are

Vi+ (for all i S): excavated volume for a section,

Vi (for all i S): embanked volume for a section,
xijt (for all (i, j) N 2 , t T ): hauled volume from i to j at time-step
t,

634

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

ag,k (for all g G, k {1, 2, 3}): the coecients of the quadratic

spline,
ui (for all i S): the elevation difference of the ground prole from
the road prole for a section,
ykt (for all t T , k I): the block removal indicators, and
bi (for all i S): stockpiling variables.

It should be noted that the lower and upper bounds for ui are ui and
ui respectively, ui > 0 represents a cut, ui < 0 represents a ll, and
ui = 0 represents a section that is neither cut nor ll. The maximum
excavated volume is Mi+ and the maximum embanked volume is Mi
for a section i. We dene M to be

M = max
iS

Mi+ , Mi

(2.13)

and to be a very small positive number equal to the smallest possible

positive excavated or embanked volume.
The time-steps and blocks introduce an interesting phenomenon
called stockpiling (Hare et al., 2011). Stockpiling is storing earth temporarily in a section until a block is removed and then moving the
stored earth on the other side of the block. If the amount of stockpiling is not checked, then additional temporary blocks may be created.
Stockpiling constraints in Hare et al. (2011) limit the amount of earth
that can be stockpiled. However, the excavation cost of stockpiled
earth is less than the excavation cost of a section, which is not considered in Hare et al. (2011). To avoid this source of error, this model
assumes no stockpiling occurs. In terms of modeling, this assumption
does not allow both Vi+ and Vi to have a positive value for a section
i, and the binary variables bi ensure that.
Moreb (2009) does not consider the side-slopes of the roads when
calculating the volume. Without the side-slopes the volume of a section i is a linear function of ui . But with side-slopes the cross-section
of the road at a section is a trapezoid (see Figs. 2 and 3) and the volume becomes a quadratic function of ui , i.e., the linear structure of
the model is violated. A similar issue was addressed by Easa (1988)
and a quadratic programming model was proposed. However, in this
research we maintain the linear structure of the model by approximating the cut volume of a section i with k+
rectangular bars and
i
rectangular bars. These rectangular bars are
the ll volume with k
i
called slabs. One such approximation is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. For
a cut i, the areas and heights of slabs are Aki and uki respectively,
}, and for a ll, they are Bki and uki , where
where k {1, 2, . . . , k+
i
}
.
k {1, 2, . . . , k
i

3. A mixed-integer linear programming model

The objective of this problem is to nd the vertical alignment while
minimizing the total excavation cost, embankment cost, and hauling
cost. So, the objective function can be written as,

min

 
pi Vi+ + qi Vi +
pi xijt
iB jS tT

iS

 

qi xjit +

 

cij xijt .

(3.1)

2 tT
(i,j)N

iW jS tT

The rst set of constraints are called the balance constraints: for i S,

 

xijt = Vi+

and

tT jS W

 

xjit = Vi .

(3.2)

tT jS B

The pit constraints dene the capacity of the borrow and waste pits:
for all i B W,



xijt Cib (if i B) and

tT jS



xjit Ciw (if i W ).

(3.3)

tT jS

A few constraints are required to handle blocks in the model. From

the denition of blocks, no earth movement is allowed over a block
until it is removed: for all t T \{1}, (i, j) Nbk ,

xijt Myk,t1 .

(3.4a)

At the same time, if there is no access road between two blocks,

before the rst block, or after the last block, earth movement must
be prohibited among those sections: for all t T \{1}, k1 , k2 I, i, j
k ,k
Nb 1 2 ,

xijt Myk1 ,t1 + Myk2 ,t1 ,

for all t T \{1}, k I, i, j

(3.4b)
Nb,k ,

xijt Myk,t1 ,

(3.4c)

and for all t T \{1}, k I, i, j

Nbk, ,

xijt Myk,t1 .

(3.4d)

The next set of block constraints are called the block removal indicator constraints, which set the variables ykt (for all k I, t T )
to the value 1 indicating the block is removed. These constraints
in Hare et al. (2011) have ykt V+(k) and ykt V(k) (for all k I, t T )
terms that are linear for a earthwork optimization problem but
quadratic for the vertical alignment problem. Using linearization
techniques from Bisschop (2009), we introduce additional continu+

+
ous variables Wkt
and Wkt
(for all k I, t T ) to ensure Wkt
= ykt V+(k)

and Wkt
= ykt V(k) by the following equations,
+
0 Wkt
M+(k)ykt

and

+
+
V(
M(
(1 ykt ) Wkt+ V+(k),
k)
k)

(3.4e)

0 Wkt
M(k)ykt

and

V(
M(
(1 ykt ) Wkt V(k).
k)
k)
(3.4f)

Finally, the block removal indicator constraints can be written as, for
all k I, t T ,
u



+
x(k)jt Wku

t=0 jS W

Fig. 2. Approximation of side-slopes (for a cut).

Fig. 3. Approximation of side-slopes (for a ll).

and

u


t=0 jS B

xj (k)t Wku
.

(3.4g)

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

Time-steps are dened such that at least one block is removed at

each time-step, which is ensured by the following constraints: for all
t T \{nz + 1},

ykt t

yk,(t+1) yk,t .

and

(3.4h)

kI

The volume constraints state the calculation of cut and ll volume of

sections using side-slope approximation. Given 0 < A1i < A2i < <
k+

Ai i and 0 < B1i < B2i < < Bi i , these constraints can be written as,
for all ka {1, 2, . . . , k+
}
i

Vi+

k
a 1

k
Aki ui

Aki a

ui

k=1

k
a 1

k
ui ,

and for all kb {1, 2, . . . , k

}
i

Vi

kb 1

(3.5a)

k=1

Bki uki Bi b ui
k

k=1

kb 1

uki .

(3.5b)

k=1

635

4. Model analysis
4.1. Stockpiling constraints
A stockpile-prone section is dened to be a section that is likely
to have stockpiling, if the stockpiling constraints are not enforced. So
the model can be improved by enforcing constraints (3.6) only for the
sections that are stockpile-prone. But there are no known algorithms
to detect the stockpile-prone sections for a given ground prole. For
this reason, the stockpiling constraints are written for all the sections.
However, we will later prove that the binary variable bi will have no
effect on the solution time when i is not a stockpile-prone section.
4.2. Approximation of side-slopes
Constructed roads must have side-slopes for stability reasons. Not
considering side-slopes in the model introduces signicant errors in
the volume calculation. Figs. 2 and 3 show the approximation of sideslopes for a cut and a ll respectively.
slabs having
The cross-section of a cut i is approximated by k+
i
k+

k+

The volume constraints are described in details in Section 4.2. Stockpiling constraints ensure that no stockpiling occurs. In that case, for
any section i S at least one of Vi+ and Vi must be zero, which is
assured by binary variables bi . For all section i S, the stockpiling
constraints can be written as

slabs having elevations u1i , u2i , . . . , ui i and areas

proximated by k
i

Vi+ Mbi ,

0 < A1i < A2i < < Ai i

and

It should be noted that

{1, 2, . . . , ki }.

uki

(3.6a)

Vi+ bi ,

(3.6b)

Vi M(1 bi ),

(3.6c)

Vi (1 bi ).

(3.6d)

The gap constraints are introduced to describe the denition of the

variables ui , which is the height difference between the ground prole and the road prole. Koch and Lucet (2010) demonstrated that
considering area gap gives a better approximation than considering
the height gap in the middle of a section. For all g G, i Sg the gap
constraints can be written as

sg,i+1
sg,i

hg,i dx

sg,i+1
sg,i

Pg (x)dx =

elevations u1i , u2i , . . . , ui i and areas A1i , A2i , . . . , Ai i , and a ll i is apk+

B1i , B2i , . . . , Bi i with the following assumptions

k+

u (g,i)dx.

Lg Pg (sg,i ) Ug .

(3.8)

The smoothness constraints force the spline segments to be continuous at their joining points, as well as, differentiable. So, for all
g G\{1}


are negative numbers for all k

equations where Vi+ is greater

Proof. Notice Eq. (3.5a) consists of k+
i
or equal to the right hand sides of these equations. Since Vi+ is being
minimized in the objective function and it is non-negative, at the
optimal solution,

Vi+

a 1
k

= max 0, max +
ka {1,2,...,ki }

k
Aki ui

Aki a

ui

k=1

k
a 1

Pg1 (sg,1 ) = Pg (sg,1 ) and Pg1 (sg,1 ) = Pg (sg,1 )

(3.9)

The xed point constraints set the elevation and slope of the road at
some predened points. The set H consists of pairs (s, H) such that

the elevation of the road must be H at station point s, and the set H


consists of pairs (s, H ) such that the slope of the road must be H at
station point s.

k
ui

k=1

(3.7)

The slope constraints imply that the slope of a spline segment g must
not go beyond a minimum value Lg or a maximum value Ug for safety
reasons. Since the spline segments are quadratic, checking the slope
bounds at the beginning and end point of the spline segments is
sucient. For all g G, i {1, ng } the slope constraints can be written
as

(4.1)

Theorem 1. If a section i is not a stockpile-prone section, and Assumptions (4.1) hold, then Eqs. (3.5a) and (3.5b) will generate the intended
volume approximations, Vi+ and Vi .

sg,i+1
sg,i

0 < B1i < B2i < < Bi i .

.
(4.2)

Similarly,

Vi = max 0, max
kb {1,2,...,ki }

kb 1

Bki uki Bi b ui
k

k=1

kb 1


k=1

uki
.

(4.3)

{1, 2, . . . , ki },

kb 1

For a cut ui > 0, so for all kb

the terms k=1
kb 1 k
k
u
)
are
negative
numbers.
Therefore,
Vi = 0.
i
k=1

Bki uki Bi b (ui

, then ka = d + 1 gives the maximum term.

If 0 < udi < ui ud+1
i
For all ka < d + 1, the volume for the last d + 1 ka slabs are calcu, the calculated by using area Aki a and since Aki a < Aki a +1 < < Ad+1
i
lated volume cannot be the maximum. For all ka > d + 1, the term
ka 1 k
(ui k=1 ui ) is negative and since Ad+1
< Ad+2
< < Aki a , the cali
i
,
culated volume cannot be the maximum. So, if 0 < udi < ui ud+1
i

Vi+

d

k=1

k
Aki ui

Ad+1
i

ui

d


k
ui

k=1

(3.10)

is the intended volume, since it is the exact volume up to slab d, and

the remaining elevation is multiplied with the area of slab d + 1.
Similar logic can be applied for a ll section.

Finally, the bounds for the decision variables are xijt 0, ykt {0, 1},
ui ui ui , 0 Vi+ Mi+ , 0 Vi Mi , and ag,k R.

Theorem 2. The MILP algorithm will only branch on bi if i is a stockpileprone section.

Pg (s) = H for all (s, H) H

and

Pg (s) = H for all (s, H ) H ,

636

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

Proof. Consider bi to be continuous on 0 bi 1 instead of binary.

If i is not a stockpile-prone section, then either Vi+ or Vi will be zero.
If Vi+ is zero, then bi must be zero by Eq. (3.6b) since > 0. If Vi
is zero, then bi must be 1 by Eq. (3.6d) since > 0. So if i is not a
stockpile-prone section, bi will not take a fractional value.
The branch and bound algorithm for solving mixed integer linear
programs (MILP) make branching decisions based on the linear programming (LP) relaxation of the MILP, and the algorithm will branch
on only those binary variables that have fractional values on the LP
relaxation. So if i is not a stockpile-prone section, the branch and
bound algorithm will never branch on bi . The MILP algorithm will run
as if the binary variable bi never existed. (Most pre-solvers will in fact
remove the variable from the optimization problem.)
4.3. Time complexity
The best known time complexity of a linear program is polynomially dependent on the number of continuous variables (interior point
methods). If the number of constraints is less than the number of
continuous variables, then the dual problem can be solved, in which
case, the time complexity is polynomially dependent on the number
of constraints. If there are integer variables in the problem, then a solution tree is created and at each node of the tree a linear program is
solved. So the time complexity of a MILP is exponentially dependent
on the number of integer variables. The details of the time complexities of the algorithms can be found in Boyd and Vandenberghe (2004).
Proposition 1. The MILP has O(n2 nz ) continuous variables.
Proof. The MILP has n variables for excavation volume, n variables for
embankment volume, (n2 + nb n + nw n)(nz + 1) variables for hauling
+

and Wku
variables, 3m variables
volume, 2nz (nz + 1) number of Wku
for the spline coecients, and n variables for section elevation. So,
the total number of continuous variables is

n + n + (n2 + nb n + nw n)(nz + 1) + 2nz (nz + 1) + 3m + n

= 3n + 3m + (n2 + nb n + nw n + 2nz )(nz + 1)
6n + (n2 + n2 + n2 + 2nz )(nz + nz )
= 6n + 6n2 nz + 4n2z
since n nb , n nw , n m, and n nz . (We assume nz 1.)

Remark 3. The algorithms described in Hare et al. (2011) can be

adapted to the present model to further improve the computation of
a solution.
5. Numerical results
For this model, we seek the answers to the following questions.

Since the impact of blocks in the earthmoving model was investigated in Hare et al. (2011) and blocks do not further complicated the
vertical alignment model, we do not include blocks in our numerical
experiments. The added benet is to simplify the experiments and
focus on the answer to the above two questions. From our numerous
experiments, we have not noticed any additional impact on the solution time or the error caused by the introduction of blocks beyond
those reported in Hare et al. (2011).
5.1. Basic setup
The experiments in this chapter were performed in a workstation
with a Intel(R) CoreTM i7-860 2.80GHz (6 cores) processor and 16GB of
Random Access Memory (RAM). An academic edition of the IBM ILOG
CPLEX Optimizer version 12.2 (http://www.cplex.com) was used to
solve the problems.
For our experiments, we used 7 distinct road samples provided
by our industrial partner Softree Technical Systems Inc (http://www.
softree.com). It is worth noting that these road samples come from
real terrain that our industrial partner has worked with and provided
us for testing. As such they are extremely realistic test problems.
We denote these roads with letters from A to G. We generated our
problem set by changing different parameters for these roads. Table 2
shows the basic information. All the experiments have the following
parameters,

Proposition 2. The MILP has O(n2z + n) binary variables.

Proof. The total number of binary variables is nz (nz + 1) + n 2n2z +

n assuming nz 1.

Proposition 3. The MILP has O(n2 n3z ) constraints.

Proof. The number of constraints are shown in Table 1. The total
number of constraints is O(n2 n3z ).

Table 1
Number of constraints created by different equations in the model.
Equation

Number of constraints (worst case)

(3.2) and (3.3)

(3.4a)
(3.4b)
(3.4c) and (3.4d)
From (3.4e) to (3.4g)
(3.4h)
(3.5)
(3.6)
(3.7)
(3.8)
(3.9)
(3.10)

2n + nb + nw
1 2
n (nz + 1)nz
4
(n 1)2 (nz + 1) nz (n2z 1)
2(n 1)2 (nz + 1)nz
10nz (nz + 1)
nz

+

iS (ki + ki )
4n
n
2m
2(m 1) 

|H| + H 

How does this model of vertical alignment performs in terms of

robustness and accuracy compared to model without side-slopes
for vertical alignment?
Can we numerically analyze the behavior of the design parameters
, k
, and ng , which we believe to be critical to the model, and
k+
i
i
suggest good values for these parameters?

Relative MIP gap tolerance: 1 percent,

LP feasibility tolerance: 106 ,
Maximum run time: 2 hours for each core of the processor totaling
12 hours,
Upper bound for slope change: 0.5,
Lower bound for slope change: 0.5,
Maximum ll height: 10 meters,
Maximum cut height: 10 meters.

Other solver and model parameters remain at their default settings.

5.2. Robustness and accuracy testing
In this test conguration, we compare the described model to a
model that applies rectangular approximations for calculating sideslopes (as was done in Moreb (2009)). Our goal is to determine if
Table 2
The basic problem set showing the roads, their xed length for all test problems,
and their xed section length for most of the test problems.
Road

Length (kilometer)

Section Length (meter)

Number of sections

A
B
C
D
E
F
G

1
5
2
3
15
20
9

20
100
20
20
100
100
20

50
50
100
150
150
200
450

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

there is a notable improvement in robustness and accuracy. A model

that applies rectangular approximations for calculating side-slopes
can be considered a variant of the model in this work with exactly
one slab. Since the height of a section is a variable, the accuracy of
the approximation of the volume is highly dependent on the choice
of area for the section. If the appropriate area is selected, then the
accuracy will be very good. However, as the height changes, so does
the appropriate value of area. In other words, a single slab model
can be very accurate if we can predict the height for each section
before solving the model. However, if the prediction of heights is far
from the actual calculated heights, then a single slab model can have
signicant errors. This behavior makes the model very unstable. We
consider two strategies for elevation prediction.
The rst strategy assumes that the output road prole will be very
close to the input ground prole. Of course, assuming this will bias the
optimizer to choose a solution close to the ground prole. While this
strategy may perform well for some examples, for other examples it
may perform poorly. We call this approach the Near Ground Model
(NGM) approach.
The second approach is to predict the height to be the average
height. The quality of this approach also depends on the initial guess,
but since the initial guess is the average of the extreme guesses, this
approach should not perform too poorly, at the same time, we should
not expect very good solution from it. We call this approach Average
Model (AM) approach.
Unlike a single slab model, our model does not depend on any
initial guess. From Figs. 2 and 3, we see that as the number of entries
(for a cut section i) and k
(for a ll section
in the lookup table, k+
i
i
i) increase, the approximate volume converges to the actual volume.
In addition to comparing with the two single slab variations, we also
show the change in accuracy with respect to the change in the values
and k
.
for k+
i
i
5.2.1. Reference solution
The reference solution for the experiments is taken as a model
and k
for all sections i. For the experiments
with large values for k+
i
i
of this test conguration, we use k+
= k
= 400 for all section i, as
i
i
the reference solution.
5.2.2. Problem set and parameters
For each of the roads of Table 2, we generated 10 problems for 10
different values of k+
and k
, as well as 2 problems for the AM and
i
i
= k
=1
NGM approaches. It should be noted that our model with k+
i
i
is the same as a model generated by the AM approach. Therefore, for
this test conguration, we generated 11 problems for each of the 7
roads totaling 77 problems with the naming convention R-k, where R
and k
is a road from Table 2, and k either represents the value for k+
i
i
for all sections i, or AM or NGM. Table 3 summarizes the problem set.
For this test conguration, the other parameters are,

number of sections per spline segment: ng = 2 for all g G,

number of blocks: nz = 0,
number of access roads: nr = 1.

To ensure feasibility, we add an access road to the rst section for

each of the problems.
Table 3
Problem (R-k, where k is the number of cut and ll entries in the lookup table, AM
or NGM for road R) set summary for Test conguration 1.
Road

Problems

A
B
C
D
E
F
G

A-400, A-200, A-100, A-50, A-40, A-20, A-10, A-5, A-2, A-AM, A-NGM
B-400, B-200, B-100, B-50, B-40, B-20, B-10, B-5, B-2, B-AM, B-NGM
C-400, C-200, C-100, C-50, C-40, C-20, C-10, C-5, C-2, C-AM, C-NGM
D-400, D-200, D-100, D-50, D-40, D-20, D-10, D-5, D-2, D-AM, D-NGM
E-400, E-200, E-100, E-50, E-40, E-20, E-10, E-5, E-2, E-AM, E-NGM
F-400, F-200, F-100, F-50, F-40, F-20, F-10, F-5, F-2, F-AM, F-NGM
G-400, G-200, G-100, G-50, G-40, G-20, G-10, G-5, G-2, G-AM, G-NGM

637

Table 4
Problem (R-ng , where ng is the number of sections per segment
for road R) set summary for Test conguration 2.
Road

Problems

A
B
C
D
E
F
G

A-1, A-2, A-5, A-10, A-25

B-1, B-2, B-5, B-10, B-25
C-1, C-2, C-4, C-5, C-10, C-20, C-25
D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-10, D-15, D-25
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-6, E-10, E-15, E-25
F-1, F-2, F-4, F-5, F-8, F-10, F-20, F-25
G-1, G-2, G-3, G-5, G-6, G-9, G-10, G-15, G-18, G-25

5.2.3. Experiment procedure

We used the following three-steps procedure for each of the problems in Table 3 to calculate the accuracy.

In step 1, we solve the given model and save the output vertical
alignment and the optimal cost. We denote the optimal cost of this
step with CR,k .
In step 2, we generate a model with the same parameters as the
= k
= 400, then we input the vertical
given model except k+
i
i
alignment from step 1 to this model, and solve only for the earthwork operations. The optimal cost of this step is the optimal cost
with the corrected volume for the vertical alignment of step 1. We
400
.
denote this cost with CR,k
In step 3, we use the formulas R,k =

400
CR,k CR,k
400
CR,k

100 percent to get

the percent relative error.

We normalized the solution time with respect to the solution times
= k
= 400 to accommodate all the roads in
with the model with k+
i
i
= k
= k,
the same graph. If tR,k is the required time for Road R with k+
i
i
then the normalized time is dened as

tR,k =

tR,k
.
tR,400

(5.1)

5.2.4. Results
The raw results of the problem conguration are shown in
Tables 5-7. A careful observation of the results reveal that depending
and k
the model can introduce signicant errors.
on the values of k+
i
i
But, we wanted to know how the accuracy of the problems changes
Table 5
Required time in seconds (tR,k s), normalized time (tR,k ), optimal cost (CR,k ), optimal
400
), and percent absolute relative error (|R,k |) for
cost with corrected volume (CR,k
the problems (R-k) of Test conguration 1 (Roads-A,B).
R-k

tR,k

tR,k

CR,k

400
CR,k

|R,k |

A-400
A-200
A-100
A-50
A-40
A-20
A-10
A-5
A-2
A-AM
A-NGM
B-400
B-200
B-100
B-50
B-40
B-20
B-10
B-5
B-2
B-AM
B-NGM

0.61
0.75
0.89
0.55
0.36
0.27
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.23
0.23
0.51
0.47
0.58
0.23
0.27
0.09
0.08
0.23
0.16
0.11
0.08

1.0
1.2
1.5
0.90
0.59
0.44
0.15
0.13
0.10
0.38
0.38
1.0
0.92
1.1
0.45
0.53
0.18
0.16
0.45
0.31
0.22
0.16

12882.6
12707.4
12726.3
12736.5
12747.9
12878.3
13287.7
14126.1
16544.3
20408.7
10396.8
246325
238615
238612
238667
238788
239592
242599
254468
304477
386232
185555

12882.6
12936.3
12943.2
12951.8
12952.2
13015.1
13170.8
13459.7
14144
14867.6
12997.2
246293
246462
246422
246428
246499
246587
247627
253048
271852
292768
255932

0
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.1
0.89
5
17
37.3
20
0.01
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.8
2
0.56
12
31.9
27.5

638

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

Table 6
Required time in seconds (tR,k s), normalized time (tR,k ), optimal cost (CR,k ), optimal
400
), and percent absolute relative error (|R,k |) for the
cost with corrected volume (CR,k
problems (R-k) of Test conguration 1 (Roads-C,D,E).

Table 7
Required time in seconds (tR,k ), optimal cost (CR,k ), optimal cost with corrected vol400
), and percent absolute relative error (|R,k |) for the problems (R-k) of Test
ume (CR,k
conguration 1 (Roads-F,G).

R-k

tR,k

tR,k

CR,k

400
CR,k

|R,k |

R-k

tR,k

tR,k

CR,k

400
CR,k

|R,k |

C-400
C-200
C-100
C-50
C-40
C-20
C-10
C-5
C-2
C-AM
C-NGM
D-400
D-200
D-100
D-50
D-40
D-20
D-10
D-5
D-2
D-AM
D-NGM
E-400
E-200
E-100
E-50
E-40
E-20
E-10
E-5
E-2
E-AM
E-NGM

3.8
3.5
2.7
2.1
2
1.2
1.2
0.9
4.3
3.4
5.3
3
3.2
2.7
2.1
1.8
1.2
1
0.89
0.67
0.73
0.76
4.1
3.9
2.7
1.8
1.6
1.1
0.67
0.59
0.53
0.53
0.61

1.0
0.92
0.71
0.55
0.53
0.32
0.32
0.24
1.1
0.89
1.4
1.0
1.1
0.90
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.33
0.30
0.22
0.24
0.25
1.0
0.95
0.66
0.44
0.39
0.27
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.15

415788
399624
399637
399648
399707
400196
402063
408086
463629
602781
267501
94893
92278.5
92332.2
92357.7
92410.8
92843.4
94529.3
100316
118819
148328
73689.6
1601620
1541690
1541640
1541940
1542320
1545260
1554970
1596920
1824600
2304130
1169080

415765
415766
415766
415766
415766
415767
415767
415811
417949
425284
428078
94836
94869.1
94881.8
94889.2
94888.4
95056
95796.4
97999.2
104210
111462
96142.2
1601610
1602890
1602990
1603070
1603160
1603520
1605780
1618010
1691980
1804020
1708980

0.01
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.3
1.9
10.9
41.7
37.5
0.06
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.3
1.3
2.4
14
33.1
23.4
0
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.2
1.3
7.8
27.7
31.6

F-400
F-200
F-100
F-50
F-40
F-20
F-10
F-5
F-2
F-AM
F-NGM
G-400
G-200
G-100
G-50
G-40
G-20
G-10
G-5
G-2
G-AM
G-NGM

7.4
6.1
4.7
2.9
2.4
1.5
1.2
1
1.1
0.84
0.92
38.8
44.2
39.9
26.8
24.5
21.4
17.8
13
12.5
12.2
13.2

1.0
0.82
0.64
0.39
0.32
0.20
0.16
0.14
0.15
0.11
0.12
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.69
0.63
0.55
0.46
0.34
0.32
0.31
0.34

2078030
2001190
2001270
2001640
2002120
2005920
2018810
2075680
2388580
3008870
1515610
1049830
1009470
1009490
1009660
1009860
1011290
1017120
1039140
1164140
1427720
728216

2078010
2079570
2079670
2079820
2079910
2080570
2083480
2100290
2203500
2349300
2196990
1049760
1050500
1050690
1050880
1050920
1051330
1052750
1057940
1087030
1136960
1132610

0
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.1
1.2
8.4
28.1
31
0.01
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.4
1.8
7.1
25.6
35.7

of cut and ll entries in the lookup table. From the plot, we see that
both single slab models give unacceptable solutions in all cases with
an error ranging from 20 percent to 42 percent. We also see that the
error drops very quickly as we increase the number of entries in the
lookup table and for all the roads the error stays in the acceptable
range if we use more than 5 entries in the lookup table. We conclude that given a reasonable number of entries in the lookup table,
this model is robust and accurate.
Similar to Fig. 4, we plot the timing data in Fig. 5. We see that
both the NGM and AM approaches require almost the same amount
of time, which is expected since both of these approaches have the
same number of variables and constraints. For each additional entries
in the lookup table, 2n additional constraints are required. So, the
timing should increase as we increase the number of entries in the
lookup table. Acceptable approximation is achieved with k+ = k = 5.

as the values of k+
and k
change, at the same time, we wanted to
i
i
and k
in which the solutions will be reasonably
dene a range for k+
i
i
accurate. For this purpose, we dene 3 ranges of accuracies of the
solutions, i.e.,




R,k 2 percent: accurate solution, since the relative MIP gap
tolerance is 1

 percent,

2 percent < 
R,k 5 percent: acceptable solution, since up to 5
percent
error
is
acceptable
to our users, and




R,k > 5 percent: unacceptable solution.

5.3. Design parameter testing

In Fig. 4, we plot the absolute value of the percent relative error for
both NGM and AM approaches and our model with different numbers

In this test conguration, we analyzed the behavior of another

design parameter of the model called the number of sections per

45

Road A
Road B
Road C
Road D
Road E
Road F
Road G

40

|% Relative Error|

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
2
0
NGM

AM

10

20

40

50

100

200

400

Moreb Number of cut and fill entries in the lookup table

Fig. 4. Absolute value of percent relative error for NGM and AM approaches and our model with different numbers of cut and ll entries in the lookup table.

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

639

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3

Normalized Time

1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7

Road A
Road B
Road C
Road D
Road E
Road F
Road G

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
NGM

AM

10

20

40

50

100

200

400

Moreb Number of cut and fill entries in the lookup table

Fig. 5. Normalized time for NGM and AM approaches and our model with different numbers of cut and ll entries in the lookup table.

spline segment (ng for all g G), which we believed to be critical for
the model.
5.3.1. Reference solution
Theoretically, the best value for ng , for all g G, is 1, since it gives
the best objective value. The reason is ng = 1, for all g G, gives the
model the most exibility to move the road prole up and down. We
set it as the reference solution.
5.3.2. Problem set and parameters
For each of the roads of Table 2, we generated problems for different values of ng . When generating these problems, we made sure that
n was divisible by ng so that all the segments have the same number of sections. For this test conguration, we generated 51 problems
with the naming convention R-ng , where R is a road from Table 2, and
ng is the number of sections per segment, that are shown in Table 4.
It should be noted that ng > 10 is rarely used, but we created some
problems with higher ng values for demonstration purpose. The other
parameters for this test conguration are,

number of entries in the lookup table: k+

= k
= 200 for all i,
i
i
number of blocks: nz = 0,
number of access roads: nr = 1.

5.3.3. Experiment procedure

We want to know how the cost and timing changes with respect
to the parameter ng . We normalized the solutions with respect to the
reference solution to accommodate all the roads in the same graph.
If CR,ng is the optimal cost for Road R with ng sections per segment,
then the normalized cost is dened as,

C R,ng =

CR,ng
.
CR,1

(5.2)

If tR,ng is the required time for Road R with ng sections per segment,
then the normalized time is dened as,

tR,ng =

tR,ng
.
tR,1

(5.3)

5.3.4. Results
The raw results of this test conguration, as well as, the calculated
normalized cost and timing are shown in Table 8. In Fig. 6, we plot
the change of normalized cost with respect to the number of sections
per segment for each of the roads. As expected, we see that the cost
continues to increase as the value of ng increases. Fig. 7 shows the
change in normalized time, and we note that there is no reduction
in computation time when the number of sections per segment is
increased.

Table 8
Optimal cost (CR,ng ), normalized cost (C R,ng ), required time (tR,ng ), and normalized
time (tR,ng ) for the problems (R-ng ) of Test conguration 2.
R-ng
A-1
A-2
A-5
A-10
A-25
B-1
B-2
B-5
B-10
B-25
C-1
C-2
C-4
C-5
C-10
C-20
C-25
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-5
D-6
D-10
D-15
D-25
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-5
E-6
E-10
E-15
E-25
F-1
F-2
F-4
F-5
F-8
F-10
F-20
F-25
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-5
G-6
G-9
G-10
G-15
G-18
G-25

CR,ng
8614.45
12707.4
23316.4
93495.4
133842
109555
238615
502577
767983
957011
399592
399624
399592
400201
401230
407700
404997
85844.2
92278.5
99181.4
116551
120897
237660
303055
343509
1363880
1541690
1752290
2144850
2400900
3035850
4207050
5162780
1816420
2001190
2365320
2639150
3289100
3937060
7933540
8356650
1000420
1009470
1019870
1049250
1058990
1123460
1207270
1357230
1340080
1580330

C R,ng
1.0
1.5
2.7
10.9
15.5
1.0
2.2
4.6
7.0
8.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.4
2.8
3.5
4.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
2.2
3.1
3.8
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.2
4.4
4.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.6

tR,ng
1.5
2.3
2.5
5.0
2.4
1.7
2.2
2.7
3.2
2.3
45.3
8.8
34.8
24.0
9.3
8.5
10.5
25.7
22.1
21.0
31.9
27.1
40.3
36.4
69.6
23.3
21.7
21.2
40.6
9.2
10.5
15.2
33.2
36.4
33.5
86.5
57.2
46.6
15.1
90.5
554.6
115.5
42.8
395.7
758.0
804.9
131.0
815.9
113.9
1236.7
637.8

tR,ng
1.0
1.5
1.6
3.3
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.19
0.77
0.53
0.20
0.19
0.23
1.0
0.86
0.82
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.4
2.7
1.0
0.93
0.91
1.7
0.39
0.45
0.65
1.4
1.0
0.92
2.4
1.6
1.3
0.41
2.5
15.2
1.0
0.37
3.4
6.6
7.0
1.1
7.1
0.99
10.7
5.5

640

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

16

Road A
Road B
Road C
Road D
Road E
Road F
Road G

14

Normalized Cost

12

10

2
1
1

10

15

18

20

25

Number of Sections per Segment

Fig. 6. The change of normalized cost with respect to the number of sections per segment for each of the roads.

16

Road A
Road B
Road C
Road D
Road E
Road F
Road G

15
14
13
12

Normalized Time

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

10

15

18

20

25

Number of Sections per Segment

Fig. 7. The change of normalized time with respect to the number of sections per segment for each of the roads.

We conclude that the number of sections per spline segment

should not exceed 2.

6. Conclusion and future work

We combined Morebs vertical alignment model (Moreb, 2009)
and Hare, Koch, and Lucets earthwork model with blocks (Hare et al.,
2011) into a single model. It is the rst model in this research area

that can compute the vertical alignment considering blocks and access
roads.
We have found that the model was generating substantial errors
in the volume approximation from not considering the side-slopes
of the roads. So we have developed a novel way of implementing
side-slopes using lookup tables without signicantly increasing the
time complexity of the model. Our subsequent model reduces the
approximation error from more than 20 percent to less than 5 percent
in our numerical experiments.

W. Hare et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 241 (2015) 631641

The described models assume that no stockpiling will occur. One

possible extension is to change the models to allow roadside stockpiling. When too much roadside stockpiling occurs in a section, a
temporary block may be created that did not previously exist. This
type of block is called a dynamic block. One of the important future
direction is to handle dynamic blocks in the model.
A multi-material model of vertical alignment is dened as a model
where the different types of materials found in the ground, which
vary in cost and quality, are taken into account. Considering multiple
materials provides a more realistic solution, because the cost of manipulating material depends on the types of materials (dirt is easier
to dig than rock), and often some parts of the road require a specic
material type for engineering reasons. Extending the model to handle
multi-materials is the subject of active research.
Other areas of future improvements include nding the optimal
section length, reducing the number of binary variables, considering
the cost of land, and incorporating retaining walls.
Eventually, the next step of the research is to model the horizontal
alignment and simultaneously optimize the horizontal and vertical
alignment of a road. Unlike vertical alignment, the horizontal alignment formulation can have a non-convex or discontinuous objective
function. The modeling also involves considering political, socioeconomic, and environmental issues, and is a much more complex
problem that will be the subject of future research.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express gratitude to Craig Speirs and
David Mills from Softree Technical Systems Inc. for valuable feedback,
numerous productive discussions, and the problem set. They would
also like to thank NSERC for its support through several grants (Engage
and Collaborative Research and Development grants) and MITACS for
its support through several Accelerate grants that partially funded
the research. Finally, they thank Kasra Bigdeli and Jessica Weeres for
their work in the preliminary stages of the project.
The authors also thank an anonymous referee for suggesting several clarication that led to several improvement to the original
manuscript.
References
AASHTO (Ed.). (2004). A policy on geometric design of highways and streets. 5th ed.,
AASHTO, Atlanta, USA
Aljohani, M. S., & Moreb, A. A. (2003). Roadway prole modeled by polynomials to
minimize earthwork cost. WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics, pp. 210213.
Angulo, E., Castillo, E., Garca-Rdenas, R., & Snchez-Vizcano, J. (2014). A continuous
bi-level model for the expansion of highway networks. Computers & Operations
Research, 41(0), 262276.
Bisschop, J. (2009). AIMMS Optimization Modeling. Paragon Decision Technology,
Belleview, USA.
Boyd, S., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, USA.
Burdett, R., & Kozan, E. (2014). An integrated approach for earthwork allocation, sequencing and routing. European Journal of Operational Research, 238(3), 741759.
Burdett, R. L., & Kozan, E. (2010). A disjunctive graph model and framework for constructing new train schedules. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1),
8598.

641

Cheng, J.-C., & Jiang, L.-J. (2013). Accuracy comparison of roadway earthwork computation between 3D and 2D methods. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96(0),
12771285, Intelligent and Integrated Sustainable Multimodal Transportation Systems Proceedings from the 13th {COTA} International Conference of Transportation
Professionals (CICTP2013).
Easa, S. M. (1987). Earthwork allocations with nonconstant unit costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE, 113(March(1)), 3450.
Easa, S. M. (1988). Earthwork allocations with linear unit costs. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 114(4), 641655.
Easa, S. M. (1988). Selection of roadway grades that minimize earthwork cost using
linear programming. Transportation Research Part A: General, 22(2), 121136.
Fwa, T. F. (1989). Highway vertical alignment analysis by dynamic programming. Transportation Research Record, 1239, 19.
Garber, N. J., & Hoel, L. A. (2009). Trac and highway engineering. 4th ed. Cengage
Learning, Ohio.
Goh, C. J., Chew, E. P., & Fwa, T. F. (1988). Discrete and continuous models for computation of optimal vertical highway alignment. Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological, 22(6), 399409.
Goh, C. J., & Teo, K. L. (1988). Control parametrization: a unied approach to optimal
control problems with general constraints. Automatica, 24(January), 318.
Goktepe, A. B., Altun, S., & Ahmedzade, P. (2009). Optimization of vertical alignment
of highways utilizing discrete dynamic programming and weighted ground line.
Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, 33, 105116.
Goktepe, A. B., Lav, A. H., & Altun, S. W. (2005). Dynamic optimization algorithm for
vertical alignment of highways. Mathematical and Computational Applications, 10(3),
341350.
Goktepe, A. B., Lav, A. H., & Altun, S. (2009). Method for optimal vertical alignment of
highways. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)-Transport, Vol. 162,
Institution of Civil Engineers, pp. 177188.
Hao, X., & Pan, Y. (2011). Accuracy analysis of earthwork calculation based on triangulated irregular network (TIN). Intelligent Automation And Soft Computing, 17(6, SI),
793802.
Hare, W., Hossain, S., Lucet, Y., & Rahman, F. (2014). Models and strategies for eciently determining an optimal vertical alignment of roads. Computers & Operations
Research, 44(0), 161173.
Hare, W. L., Koch, V. R., & Lucet, Y. (2011). Models and algorithms to improve earthwork
operations in road design using mixed integer linear programming. European Journal
of Operational Research, 215(2), 470480.
Jha, M. K., Schonfeld, P., & Jong, J.-C. (2006). Intelligent Road Design, Vol. 19. WIT Press.
Koch, V., & Lucet, Y. May (2010). A note on: Spline technique for modeling roadway prole to minimize earthwork cost. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization,
6(2), 393400.
Maji, A., & Jha, M. K. (2011). Highway alignment optimization using cost-benet analysis
under user equilibrium. International Journal of Operations Research and Information
Systems, 2(4), 1933.
Mayer, R., & Stark, R. (1981). Earthmoving logistics. Journal of the Construction Division,
107(June(2)), 297312.
Moreb, A. A. (1996). Linear programming model for nding optimal roadway grades
that minimize earthwork cost. European Journal of Operational Research, 93(1):
148154.
Moreb, A. A. (2009). Spline technique for modeling roadway prole to minimize
earthwork cost. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization (JIMO), 5(2):
275283.
Moreb, A. A., & Aljohani, M. S. (2004). Quadratic representation for roadway prole
that minimizes earthwork cost. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering,
13(April(2)), 245252.
Moreb, A. A., & Bafail, A. O. (1994). A linear programming model combining land levelling and transportation problems. The Journal of the Operational Research Society,
45(12): pp. 14181424.
Nandgaonkar, S. (1981). Earthwork transportation allocations. Journal of Construction
Division, 107, 373392.
Oglesby, C. H., & Hicks, R. G. (1982). 4th ed., Highway Engineering. John Wiley, New
York.
Rahman, F. M. (2012). Optimizing the vertical alignment under earthwork block removal
constraints in road construction. Masters thesis, University of British Columbia
Okanagan, Kelowna BC, Canada.
ReVelle, C., Whitlatch, E. E., & Wright, J. R. (1997). Civil and environmental systems
engineering. Prentice Hall.
Trypia, M. (1979). Minimizing cut and ll costs in roadmaking. Computer-Aided Design,
11(6), 337339.