* Part of this work was made during the authors PhD. Thesis at Politecnico di Torino,
Italy
1
Abstract
Multi-echelon distribution systems are quite common in supply-chain
and logistic systems. They are used by public administrations in their
transportation and traffic planning strategies as well as by companies to
5
model their distribution systems. Unfortunately, the literature on combinatorial optimization methods for multi-echelon distribution systems is
very poor.
The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it introduces the family
of Multi-Echelon Vehicle Routing Problems. Second, the Two-Echelon
10
15
20
Introduction
The freight transportation industry is a major source of employment and supports the economic development of the country. However, freight transportation
is also a disturbing activity, due to congestion and environmental nuisances,
5
10
15
20
policy (TL), the routing costs of the higher levels are often underestimated and
decision-makers can not directly use the solutions obtained from the models in
the case of the less-than-truckload (LTL) policy (Ricciardi et al., 2002; Daskin
et al., 2002; Shen et al., 2003; Verrijdt and de Kok, 1995).
3
10
15
tics center. The train is unloaded and the freight goes by road to its final
destination.
Grocery and hypermarkets product distribution. Large companies use hypermarkets as intermediate storage points to replenish smaller stores and
supermarkets of the same brand in urban areas.
20
10
15
ceive the publishing products from the editors and distribute them to the
selling points.
City logistics. In the past decade, researchers have started to view urban
areas as a single system, rather than considering each shipment, firm, and
vehicle individually. All stakeholders and movements are considered to be
20
vehicles. The adopted distribution system is typically a two-echelon system. Currently, a two-echelon distribution system is under study for the
city of Rome (Crainic et al., 2004).
The main contribution of this paper is to introduce the Multi-Echelon Vehicle
5
Routing Problem, a new family of routing problems where routing and freight
management are explicitly considered at the different levels. One of the simplest
type of Multi-Echelon Vehicle Routing Problems, the Two-Echelon Capacitated
Vehicle Routing Problem (2E-CVRP) is introduced and examined in detail. In
2E-CVRP, the freight delivery from the depot to the customers is managed
10
15
the vehicles and the intermediate depots are considered, while the timing of the
deliveries is ignored.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall the literature related
to Multi-Echelon Vehicle Routing Problems. In Section 3 we give a general
description of Multi-Echelon Vehicle Routing Problems. Section 4 is devoted to
20
Literature review
In freight distribution there are different distribution strategies. The most developed strategy is based on the direct shipping: freight starts from a depot
and arrives directly to the customers. In many applications, this strategy is not
5
the best one and the usage of a two-echelon distribution system can optimize
several features such as the number of the vehicles, the transportation costs and
their loading factor.
In the literature the multi-echelon systems, and the two-echelon systems in
particular, refer mainly to supply chain and inventory problems (Ricciardi et al.,
10
2002; Daskin et al., 2002; Shen et al., 2003; Verrijdt and de Kok, 1995). These
problems do not use an explicit routing approach for the different levels, but
focus more on the production and supply chain management issues. In location
problems, some studies deal with the location of intermediary facilities for a
multi-echelon distribution systems (Ricciardi et al., 2002; Crainic et al., 2004).
15
20
study and a generalization of such a system has not yet been formulated.
Vehicle Routing has become a central problem in the fields of logistics and
freight transportation. In some market sectors, transportation costs constitute a
high percentage of the value added of goods. Therefore, the use of computerized
7
The case modelled by the VRP, also known as Capacitated VRP (CVRP),
considers a fleet of identical vehicles. The objective is the minimization of the
transportation costs under the constraint of the maximum freight capacity of
each vehicle. Where an additional constraint on the maximum distance that
each vehicle can cover is combined, the problem is known as Distance Con-
10
strained VRP (DVRP), while when both the groups of constraints are considered, the problem is named Distance Constrained Capacitated VRP (DCVRP).
This variant of VRP is the most commonly studied, and recent studies have
developed good heuristic methods. Exact algorithms can solve relatively small
instances and their computational effort is highly variable (Cordeau et al., 2005).
15
For this reason, exact methods are mainly used to determine optimal solutions
of the test instances, while heuristic methods are used in practical applications.
Cordeau, Laporte and Mercier proposed a Tabu Search algorithm, called
Unified Taboo Search Algorithm (UTSA) (Cordeau et al., 2001), to solve periodic and multi-depot VRPs. It tolerates intermediate unfeasible solutions
20
through the use of a generalized objective function containing self-adjusting coefficients. This feature permits a decrease in the average deviation from the
best known solution without any further computational effort. The Granular
Tabu Search (GTS) by Toth and Vigo is based on the idea that removing the
Mester and Braysy, 2005). For a detailed survey of the exact and heuristic
methods see (Cordeau et al., 2007; Toth and Vigo, 2002; Cordeau et al., 2005).
In real world applications, the problem is often different and many variants
of VRP have been developed. The most wellknown variants are VRP with time
windows (VRP-TW), multi-depot VRP (MDVRP) and VRP with pickups and
10
deliveries (VRP-PD) (for a survey, see Cordeau et al., 2007; Toth and Vigo,
2002). We note only one variant of VRP where satellites facilities are explicitly considered, the VRP with Satellites facilities (VRPSF). In this variant, the
network includes facilities that are used to replenish vehicles during a route.
When possible, satellite replenishment allows the drivers to continue the deliv-
15
eries without necessarily returning to the central depot. This situation arises
primarily in the distribution of fuels and some other retail applications; the
satellites are not used as depots to reduce the transportation costs (Crevier
et al., 2007; Angelelli and Speranza, 2002; Bard et al., 1998).
In the case where a less-than-truckload policy with vehicle trips serving
20
several customers is applied only at the second level, the problem is close to a
multi-depot VRP. However, since the most critical decisions are related to which
satellites will be used and in assigning each customer to a satellite, more pertinent methods will be found in multi-depot Location Routing Problems (LRP).
In these problems, the location of the distribution centers and the routing problem are not solved as two separate problems but are both considered in the
same optimization problem. In (Laporte, 1988), a first classification of LRP is
made, and multi-echelon problems are theoretically described. Detailed surveys
5
on this field (Min et al., 1997; Nagy and Salhi, 2007) show that most variants
deal with single stage multi-depot LRP, but some two-echelon problems have
also been developed.
The first application of a two-echelon LRP can be found in (Jacobsen and
Madsen, 1980). The authors developed and compared three fast heuristics for
10
solving a real case application where two newspaper editors combined their
resources in terms of printing and distribution in order to decrease the overall
costs. Newspapers are delivered from the factory to transfer points, which must
be chosen from a set of possible facilities, and then other vehicles distribute
them from these transfer points to customers. The first method, called Three
15
Tour Heuristic, is based on the observation that if the last arc of each route is
deleted, the problem becomes similar to a Steiner Tree Problem. This tree is
constructed by a greedy one-arc-at-a-time procedure. The other two heuristics,
which are sequential, combine heuristics for both VRP and Location-Allocation
problem. The ALA-SAV heuristic is a three stage procedure composed from the
20
Alternate Location Allocation (ALA) of Rapp and Cooper (Rapp, 1962) and the
Savings algorithm (SAV) of Clarke and Wright (Clarke and Wright, 1964). The
third heuristic (SAV-DROP) is also a three stage procedure composed from the
Clarke and Wright Savings algorithm and the DROP method of Feldman et al.
10
loading). Some of the roads are not accessible by the entire convoy, but only
by the truck. In these cases, the trailer is detached and left at a customers
location (called a root) while the truck visits a subset of customers, returning
to pickup the trailer. In a way, this problem can be represented as a twoechelon distribution system, using the LRP notation. The intermediary facilities
10
become the customers where the trailer is parked while the truck visits a group
of customers. The authors propose an algorithm which uses an initial solution
obtained by a sequential procedure and improved using Tabu Search, where
customers are reallocated. This method do not distinguish between locational
and routing moves. Semet (Semet, 1995) proposed a clustering first routing
15
second solution method, where in a first phase customers are allocated then the
resulting routing problems are solved via Lagrangian Relaxation. Chao (Chao,
2002) developed a two-stage algorithm which an initial solution is obtained by
a clustering first routing second heuristic then improved using a Tabu Search
algorithm with customer reallocation moves.
20
11
a rationalization of the distribution activities. Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies and operations research-based methodologies enable the optimization of the design, planning, management, and operation of City Logistics
systems (Crainic and Gendreau, forthcoming; Taniguchi et al., 2001).
Consolidation activities take place at so-called Distribution Centers (DCs).
10
When such DCs are smaller than a depot and the freight can be stored for only
a short time, they are also called satellite platforms, or simply satellites. Longhaul transportation vehicles dock at a satellite to unload their cargo. Freight is
then consolidated in smaller vehicles, which deliver them to their final destinations. Clearly, a similar system can be defined to address the reverse flows, i.e.,
15
20
while the demand is delivered on time and the total cost of the traffic on the
overall transportation network is minimized. Usually, capacity constraints on
12
10
with a common parking depot, from where they are assigned to each satellite
depending on the satellite demand. If the number of vehicles is not known in
advance, a cost for each available vehicle is considered; this usually depends on
the traveling costs from the parking depot to the satellites. Another strategy
consists in associating to each satellite a number of vehicles which start and
15
end their routes at the considered satellite. In our study we will consider the
first strategy, considering similar costs for the assignment of each vehicle to
a satellite. Thus, each transportation level has its own fleet to perform the
delivery of goods and the vehicles assigned to a level can not be reassigned to
another one.
20
to the depot;
At a satellite, freight is transferred from 1st-level vehicles to 2nd-level
vehicles;
Each 2nd-level vehicle performs a route to serve the designated customers,
and then travels to a satellite for its next cycle of operations. The 2nd-level
10
15
20
capacity and can not be split in multiple routes of the same level. For
the 1st level we can consider two complementary distribution strategies.
In the first case, each satellite is served by just one 1st-level vehicle and
the aggregated demand passing through the satellite can not be split into
different 1st-level vehicles. This strategy is similar to the classical VRP,
10
and the capacity of 1st-level vehicles has to be greater than the demand
of each satellite. In the second case, a satellite can be served by more
15
than one 1st-level vehicle. This strategy has some analogies with the
VRP with split deliveries and allow 1st-level vehicles with capacity which
is lower than each satellite demand. If also the satellites are capacitated,
constraints on the maximum number of 2nd-level vehicles assigned to each
5
10
time at the satellites and/or at the customers are considered. The time
windows can be hard or soft. In the first case the time windows can not
be violated, while in the second, if they are violated a penalty cost is paid.
Two-Echelon VRP with Satellites Synchronization (2E-VRP-SS). In this
problem, time constraints on the arrival and the departure of vehicles at
15
20
through a very small hard time window). In the second case, if 2nd-level
vehicles are not available, the demand is lost and a penalty is paid. If the
satellites are capacitated, constraints on loading/unloading operations are
16
incorporated, such that in each time period the satellite capacity in not
violated.
Other 2E-CVRP variants are:
Multi-depot problem. In this problem the satellites are served by more
than one depot. A constraint forcing to serve each customer by only one
10
2E-CVRP with Taxi Services (2E-VRP-TS). In this variant, direct shipping from the depot to the customers is allowed if it helps to decrease the
cost, or to satisfy time and/or synchronization constraints.
4
15
17
Let us denote the depot by v0 , the set of intermediate depots called satellites
by Vs and the set of customers by Vc . Let ns be the number of satellites and
nc the number of customers. The depot is the starting point of the freight and
the satellites are capacitated. The customers are the destinations of the freight
5
and each customer i has associated a demand di , i.e. the quantity of freight
that has to be delivered to that customer. The demand of each customer can
not be split among different vehicles at the 2nd level. For the first level, we
consider that each satellite can be served by more than one 1st-level vehicle, so
the aggregated freight assigned to each satellite can be split into two or more
10
vehicles. Each 1st level vehicle can deliver the freight of one or more customers,
as well as serve more than one satellite in the same route.
The distribution of the freight can not be managed by direct shipping from
the depot to the customers, but the freight must be consolidated from the depot to a satellite and then delivered from the satellite to the desired customer.
15
This implicitly defines a two-echelon transportation system: the 1st level interconnecting the depot to the satellites and the 2nd one the satellites to the
customers (see Figure 1).
Define the arc (i, j) as the direct route connecting node i to node j. If both
nodes are satellites or one is the depot and the other is a satellite, we define the
20
arc as belonging to the 1st-level network, while if both nodes are customers or
one is a satellite and the other is a customer, the arc belongs to the 2nd-level
network.
We consider only one type of freight, i.e. the volumes of freight belonging
18
to different customers can be stored together and loaded in the same vehicle
for both the 1st and the 2nd-level vehicles. Moreover, the vehicles belonging
to the same level have the same capacity. The satellites are capacitated and
each satellite is supposed to have its own capacity, usually expressed in terms
5
10
4.1
and satellites are determined, the problem reduces to 1 + ns VRP (1 for the
1st-level and ns for the 2nd-level).
The main question when modeling 2E-CVRP is how to connect the two levels
and manage the dependence of the 2nd-level from the 1st one.
The freight must be delivered from the depot v0 to the customers set Vc =
20
{vc1 , vc2 , ..., vcnc }. Let di the demand of the customer ci . The number of 1stlevel vehicles available at the depot is m1 . These vehicles have the same given
capacity K 1 . The total number of 2nd-level vehicles available for the second
19
level is equal to m2 . The total number of active vehicles can not exceed m2 and
each satellite k have a maximum capacity msk . The 2nd-level vehicles have the
same given capacity K 2 .
In our model we will not consider the fixed costs of the vehicles, since we
5
suppose they are available in fixed number. We consider the travel costs cij ,
which are of two types:
costs of the arcs traveled by 1st-level vehicles, i.e. arcs connecting the
depot to the satellites and the satellites between them;
costs of the arcs traveled by 2nd-level vehicles, i.e. arcs connecting the
10
15
The formulation we present derives from the multi-commodity network design and uses the flow of the freight on each arc as main decision variables.
We define five sets of variables, that can be divided in three groups:
The first group represents the arc usage variables. We define two sets of
such variables, one for each level. The variable xij is an integer variable of
20
the 1st-level routing and is equal to the number of 1st-level vehicles using
k
is a binary variable representing the 2nd-level
arc (i, j). The variable yij
V0 = {v0 }
Depot
Set of satellites
Set of customers
ns
number of satellites
nc
number of customers
m1
m2
msk
K1
K2
di
cij
Sk
Q1ij
Q2ijk
flow passing through the 2st-level arc (i, j) and coming from satellite k
xij
k
yij
zkj
21
10
are continuous.
In order to lighten the model formulation, we define the auxiliary quantity
Dk =
dj zkj , k Vs ,
(1)
jVc
min
i,jV0 Vs ,i6=j
cij xij +
k
cij yij
+
Sk Dk
kVs
Subject to
x0i m1
(2)
iVs
22
xki k Vs V0
(3)
iVs V0 ,i6=k
jVs V0 ,j6=k
X X
xjk =
k
ykj
m2
(4)
k
ykj
msk k Vs
(5)
k
ykj
=
kVs jVc
jVc
jVc
k
yjk
k Vs
(6)
jVc
Q1ij
iVs v0 ,i6=j
Q1ji =
iVs v0 ,i6=j
Dj
iVc di
otherwise
Q1ij K 1 xij i, j Vs V0 , i 6= j
iVc k,i6=j
Q2ijk
iVc k,i6=j
Q2jik =
zkj dj
Dj
23
j Vs V0
(7)
(8)
j is not a satellite
j Vc Vs , k Vs
otherwise
(9)
k
Q2ijk K 2 yij
i, j Vs Vc , i 6= j, k Vs
(10)
Q1iv0 = 0
(11)
Q2jkk = 0 k Vs
(12)
iVs
jVc
k
yij
zkj i Vs Vc , j Vc , k Vs
(13)
k
yji
zkj i Vs , j Vc , k Vs
(14)
k
yij
= zkj k Vs , j Vc
(15)
iVs Vc
k
= zkj k Vs , j Vc
yji
(16)
zij = 1 j Vc
(17)
iVs
iVs
k
ykj
xkl k Vs , j Vc
lVs V0
24
(18)
k
yij
{0, 1}, zkj {0, 1}, k Vs V0 , i, j Vc
(19)
xkj Z+ , k, j Vs V0
(20)
Q1ij 0, i, j, Vs V0 , Q2ijk 0, i, j Vs Vc , k Vs .
(21)
The objective function minimizes the sum of the traveling and handling
operations costs. Constraints (3) show, for k = v0 , that each 1st-level route
begins and ends at the depot, while when k is a satellite, impose the balance of
vehicles entering and leaving that satellite. The limit on the satellite capacity is
5
satisfied by constraints (5). They limit the maximum number of 2nd-level routes
starting from every satellite (notice that the constraints also limit at the same
time the freight capacity of the satellites). Constraints (6) force each 2nd-level
route to begin and end to one satellite and the balance of vehicles entering and
leaving each customer. The number of the routes in each level must not exceed
10
the number of vehicles for that level, as imposed by constraints (2) and (4).
Constraints (7) and (9) indicate that the flows balance on each node is equal
to the demand of this node, except for the depot, where the exit flow is equal to
the total demand of the customers, and for the satellites at the 2nd-level, where
the flow is equal to the demand (unknown) assigned to the satellites. Moreover,
15
constraints (7) and (9) forbid the presence of subtours not containing the depot
25
Q1jk and Q1ki satisfying the constraints (7) and (9). The capacity constraints
are formulated in (8) and (10), for the 1st-level and the 2nd-level, respectively.
Constraints (11) and (12) do not allow residual flows in the routes, making
the returning flow of each route to the depot (1st-level) and to each satellite
(2nd-level) equal to 0.
Constraints (13) and (14) indicate that a customer j is served by a satellite
10
k
= 1). Constraint
k (zkj = 1) only if it receives freight from that satellite (yij
(17) assigns each customer to one and only one satellite, while constraints (15)
and (16) indicate that there is only one 2nd-level route passing through each
customer. At the same time, they impose the condition that a 2nd-level route de15
parts from a satellite k to deliver freight to a customer if and only the customers
freight is assigned to the satellite itself. Constraints (18) allow a 2nd-level route
to start from a satellite k only if a 1st-level route has served it.
cuts derived from VRP formulations. In particular, we use two families of cuts,
one applied to the assignment variables derived from the subtour elimination
26
k
yij
|Sc | 1, Sc Vc , 2 |Sc | |Vc | 2
(22)
i,jSc
not containing the depot, already forbidden by Constraints (9). The number
of potential valid inequalities is exponential, so we should need a separation
algorithm to add them. As we will show in Section 6, in practice the inequalities
involving sets Sc with cardinality more than 3 are unuseful and the separation
algorithm can be substituted by a direct inspection of the constraints up to
10
cardinality equal to 3.
The aim of flow cuts is to reduce the splitting of the values of the binary
variables when the continuous relaxation is performed, strengthening the BigM
constraints (10). The idea is to reduce the constant K 2 by considering that
each customer reduces the flow by an amount equal to its demand di . Thus the
15
k
Q2ijk (K 2 di )yij
, i, j Vc k Vs
(23)
k
Q2ijk lV Q2jlk (K 2 di )yij
i, j Vc , k Vs .
s
Constraints (23) are of the same order of magnitude of (10), so they can be
directly introduced into the model.
27
Computational tests
In this section, we analyze the behavior of the model using a commercial solver.
Being 2E-CVRP introduced for the first time in this paper, in Subsection 6.1
we define some benchmark instances, extending the instance sets from the VRP
5
literature. All the tests have been performed on a 3 GhZ Pentium PC wth 1 Gb
of Ram. The models and the routines have been implemented in Mosel language
and tested by means of XPress 2006 solver (Dash Associates, 2006). In Subsection 6.2 we present the results of the models on a set of small-sized instances
highlighting the properties of 2E-CVRP and the cost distribution according to
10
the geographic distribution of the satellites. Section 6.3 is devoted to present the
computational results on a wide set of benchmark instances and the impact of
the valid inequalities of Section 5 on the computational results. Finally, Section
6.4 presents the computational results of the model and the valid inequalities on
the overall sets of instances, including sets especially designed to illustrate the
15
6.1
In this section we introduce different instance sets for 2E-CVRP. The instances
cover up to 51 nodes (1 depot and 50 customers) and are grouped in four sets.
20
The first three sets have been built from the existing instances for VRP by
Christofides and Eilon denoted as E-n13-k4, E-n22-k4, E-n33-k4 and E-n51-k5
(Christofides and Eilon, 1969), while the third set is constituted by randomly
28
customers and 2 satellites. All the instances have the cost matrix of the instance
E-n13-k4 (the costs of the matrix of the original instance is read as an upper
triangular matrix and the corresponding optimal cost of the VRP
is
instance
12
= 66
290). The two satellites are placed over two customers in all the
possible ways (the case where some customers are used as satellites is quite
10
15
the 1st-level is made by trucks and the 2nd-level is made by smaller vehicles
(e.g., vehicles with a maximum weight smaller than 3.5 t). The capacity of the
2nd-level vehicles is equal to the capacity of the vehicles of the VRP instance.
The cost due to loading/unloading operations is set equal to 0, while the arc
costs are the same of the VRP instances.
20
The second set of instances is obtained in a similar way from the instances
E-n13-k4, E-n22-k4, E-n33-k4 and E-n51-k5. The instances are obtained by
considering 6 pairs randomly generated satellites. For the instance E-n51-k5,
which has 50 customers, we build an additional group of 3 instances obtained
29
the depot is in an almost central position in respect to the area covered by the
customers. The third set of instances also considers the instances E-n13-k4,
E-n22-k4, E-n33-k4 and E-n51-k5 by considering six pairs of satellites randomly
chosen between the customers on the external border of the area determined by
the customers distribution. Moreover, the depot is external to the customers ar-
10
eas, being placed at the coordinate (0, 0) (the southeast corner of the customers
area).
Finally, the fourth set includes instances generated in order to simulate different geographical distributions of the customers as well as of the satellites
arising in urban and regional applications. The instances are generated accord-
15
20
erated. This rule is the same used in the Christofides and Eilons
instances.
Centroids. The customers area is a circle of radius 100. In the
30
10
15
20
31
satellites. For each slice a satellite in randomly located. This occurs when the municipalities have freedom in choosing the satellite
location.
Forbidden. Given the external border of the area determined by the
5
10
the sea.
Customer demand. The demand is randomly selected in the range [0, 1000].
Vehicles. The capacity is set to 5000 for the 2nd-level vehicles and to 12500
for the 1st-level vehicles. The number of the 2nd-level vehicles ensures to
have a ratio between the total demand of the customers and the loading
15
20
A summary of the main features of the different sets are reported in Table
2. The first column reports the set of instances, while the number of instances
in shown in Column 2. Columns 3 and 4 contain the number of satellites and
32
customers, respectively. The number of vehicles for the 1st and the 2nd level
can be read in Columns 5 and 6, while Columns 7 and 8 give the capacity of
the vehicles of the two levels. Finally, Column 9 shows the capacity of the
satellites in terms of maximum number of routes starting from each satellite. In
5
the remaining columns the rule used to localize the satellites and the customers
are specified. More in detail, for the satellites the value All pairs indicates
that all the possible pairs have been computed, Random that the satellites
are randomly selected, while Border Random, Sliced and Forbidden have the
meanings specified in the description of the set 4. About the customers, the
10
value From Instance-name instance indicates that we used the same customer
distribution of the instance named Instance-name, while Random, Centroids
and Quadrants have the meanings specified in the description of the set 4.
6.2
In this section, we report the results obtained by solving to optimality all the 66
instances of the first set (12 customers and 2 satellites). The objective function
values are reported in Table 3. The table contains, in the first column, the
customers number of the VRP instance E-n13-k4 where the satellites are placed.
Column 2 reports the value of the optimum. Column 3 contains the percentage
variation of the optimum of the 2E-CVRP compared to the optimum of the VRP
instance. Column 4 shows the mean value of the accessibility index (Hansen,
33
Set N of Instances ns nc
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
66
6
6
6
3
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
21
32
50
50
21
32
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
m1 m2 K1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
15000
15000
20000
400
400
15000
20000
400
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
Sat. capacity
6000
6000
8000
160
160
6000
8000
160
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
34
(24)
iVc
where di is the demand of the customer i, dmax the maximum demand overall the
customers, cki the transportation cost between the satellite k and the customer
i, c2min and c2max the minimum and maximum values of the transportation costs
at the 2nd-level, respectively, and > 0 is a given parameter (we have assumed
= 0.1). Finally, Column 5 reports the mean normalized transportation cost
of the satellites with respect to the depot, where the normalized transportation
cost of each satellite k is given by:
ck = 100
c0k c1min
,
c1max c1min
(25)
where c0k is the transportation cost between the depot and the satellite k and
c1min and c1max are the minimum and maximum values of the transportation costs
of the 1st-level. In the following we discuss advantages and disadvantages of the
proposed two-level distribution system, by considering all the pairs of customers
5
as possible satellite location and comparing the results with the optimal solution
of the original VRP instance with optimum 290.
From the results, it is clear the benefit of using the 2E-CVRP distribution
model instead of the VRP one. Indeed, the former is able to achieve a smaller
cost in 45 instances, while the decreasing/increasing of the costs is, except for
10
satellites 11, 12 with +38%, in the range [25%, +25%] of the corresponding
VRP instance. The mean decrease in the 45 instances with a reduced transportation cost is 11.33%, which can be used to balance the costs due to the
35
respect to the mean transportation cost from the depot to the satellites. These
costs have been categorized in three sets: low (L), medium (M) and high (H)
as:
Low: mean transportation cost of the satellites in the interval [0, 50];
10
Medium: mean transportation cost of the satellites in the interval [50, 67];
High: mean transportation cost of the satellites in the interval [67, 100].
On the X axis the mean transportation cost is reported, while on Y we report
the ratio between the optimum of the 2E-CVRP instance and the optimum of
the VRP instance. Thus, a ratio greater than 1 means that the optimum of the
15
20
gain even with a high mean transportation cost, which means that the mean
transportation cost from the depot to the satellites is not the only parameter
to be taken into account.
36
Low: mean accessibility in the interval [Amin , 33% of [Amin , Amax ]];
Medium: mean accessibility in the interval [33% of [Amin , Amax ], 66% of [Amin , Amax ]];
High: mean accessibility in the interval [66% of [Amin , Amax ], Amax ];
where Amin = mink {Ak } and Amax = maxk {Ak }.
The X axis shows the mean accessibility index, while Y indicates the ratio
10
between the optimum of the 2E-CVRP instance and the optimum of the VRP.
According to the figure, when accessibility increases the number of the instances of the 2E-CVRP with a gain does increase. However, even in the instances with a high accessibility, it is possible to have a deterioration of the
optimum.
15
20
cost of the satellites is less than 50% of the maximum transportation cost (low
transportation cost), with the ratio between gain and loss decreasing while the
accessibility index decreases. When the mean transportation cost is medium,
37
the costs of using the satellites are lower than VRP with a medium accessibility,
which means that the quality of the result is mainly related to the dispersion of
the customers themselves, while with a low accessibility it is difficult to obtain
a gain on the total costs. With a high mean transportation cost, it becomes
5
hard to obtain a lower transportation cost, even in presence of a high accessibility index. This is mainly due to the fact that even if the satellites are placed
in the neighborhood of the customers, they are usually near the border of the
customers area, so the trasportation cost paid in the 1st level to reach the
satellites is not compensated by the gain due to the proximity of the satellites
10
to the customers and the consequent reduction of the 2nd-level fleet routes.
6.3
In this section we present the computational results of the first and the second
set of instances for 2E-CVRP using the valid inequalities introduced in Setion
5 within a computation time limit of 10000 seconds.
15
With respect to the edge cuts, a series of tests was carried out using a simple
procedure testing all the subtours up to cardinality 5. The procedure, coded
in Mosel, has been tested on the instances of the sets 1, 2, and 3. According
to the results, the subtours of cardinality greater than 3 are ineffective for the
quality of both lower bounds and final solution. As the edge cuts of cardinality
20
up to 3 are O(n3 ), we tested the model directly, adding them to the model at
the root node, using a procedure to remove those cuts which are ineffective after
five levels of the search tree.
38
Satellites
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
1,7
1,8
1,9
1,10
1,11
1,12
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
2,10
2,11
2,12
3,4
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,8
3,9
3,10
3,11
3,12
4,5
4,6
4,7
OPT
280
286
284
218
218
230
224
236
244
268
276
290
288
228
228
238
234
246
254
276
286
312
242
242
252
248
260
268
290
300
246
246
258
Variation (%)
-3.45
-1.38
-2.07
-24.83
-24.83
-20.69
-22.76
-18.62
-15.86
-7.59
-4.83
0.00
-0.69
-21.38
-21.38
-17.93
-19.31
-15.17
-12.41
-4.83
-1.38
7.59
-16.55
-16.55
-13.10
-14.48
-10.34
-7.59
0.00
3.45
-15.17
-15.17
-11.03
Satellites
4,8
4,9
4,10
4,11
4,12
5,6
5,7
5,8
5,9
5,10
5,11
5,12
6,7
6,8
6,9
6,10
6,11
6,12
7,8
7,9
7,10
7,11
7,12
8,9
8,10
8,11
8,12
9,10
9,11
9,12
10,11
10,12
11,12
OPT
Variation (%)
252
264
272
296
304
248
254
256
262
262
262
262
280
274
280
280
280
280
292
300
304
310
310
326
326
326
326
338
350
350
358
358
400
-13.10
-8.97
-6.21
2.07
4.83
-14.48
-12.41
-11.72
-9.66
-9.66
-9.66
-9.66
-3.45
-5.52
-3.45
-3.45
-3.45
-3.45
0.69
3.45
4.83
6.90
6.90
12.41
12.41
12.41
12.41
16.55
20.69
20.69
23.45
23.45
37.93
Mean
acc.
117.49
85.40
111.32
68.18
55.02
101.78
113.51
137.30
105.22
131.13
88.00
74.84
136.26
160.06
127.97
153.89
110.75
97.59
171.78
139.70
165.61
122.48
109.32
163.49
189.41
146.27
133.11
157.32
114.19
101.03
140.10
126.94
83.80
Mean transp.
cost
47.67
50.00
54.65
63.95
66.28
33.72
41.86
46.51
48.84
53.49
62.79
65.12
45.35
50.00
52.33
56.98
66.28
68.60
58.14
60.47
65.12
74.42
76.74
65.12
69.77
79.07
81.40
72.09
81.40
83.72
86.05
88.37
97.67
Satellites
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
1,7
1,8
1,9
1,10
1,11
1,12
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
2,10
2,11
2,12
3,4
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,8
3,9
3,10
3,11
3,12
4,5
4,6
4,7
OPT
280
286
284
218
218
230
224
236
244
268
276
290
288
228
228
238
234
246
254
276
286
312
242
242
252
248
260
268
290
300
246
246
258
Satellites
Variation (%)
4,8
4,9
4,10
4,11
4,12
5,6
5,7
5,8
5,9
5,10
5,11
5,12
6,7
6,8
6,9
6,10
6,11
6,12
7,8
7,9
7,10
7,11
7,12
8,9
8,10
8,11
8,12
9,10
9,11
9,12
10,11
10,12
11,12
OPT
252
264
272
296
304
248
254
256
262
262
262
262
280
274
280
280
280
280
292
300
304
310
310
326
326
326
326
338
350
350
358
358
400
Variation (%)
-13.10
-8.97
-6.21
2.07
4.83
-14.48
-12.41
-11.72
-9.66
-9.66
-9.66
-9.66
-3.45
-5.52
-3.45
-3.45
-3.45
-3.45
0.69
3.45
4.83
6.90
6.90
12.41
12.41
12.41
12.41
16.55
20.69
20.69
23.45
23.45
37.93
Mean
acc.
117.49
85.40
111.32
68.18
55.02
101.78
113.51
137.30
105.22
131.13
88.00
74.84
136.26
160.06
127.97
153.89
110.75
97.59
171.78
139.70
165.61
122.48
109.32
163.49
189.41
146.27
133.11
157.32
114.19
101.03
140.10
126.94
83.80
Mean transp.
cost
47.67
50.00
54.65
63.95
66.28
33.72
41.86
46.51
48.84
53.49
62.79
65.12
45.35
50.00
52.33
56.98
66.28
68.60
58.14
60.47
65.12
74.42
76.74
65.12
69.77
79.07
81.40
72.09
81.40
83.72
86.05
88.37
97.67
39
40
Mean Accessibility
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
L
41
Finally, the last column presents the percentage of decreasing/increasing of computational time due to the usage of the valid inequalities.
According to the results most instances are solved in less than one minute,
and only 10 of them need more than 2 minutes to be solved. There are however
seven instances for which the computational times are greater than 10 minutes.
10
This gap is mostly related to the satellite location. In fact, the greatest computational times are related to the situation where choosing which satellite to
use has little or no effect on the final solution. In this situation, the model
finds an optimal solution quickly, but spends a lot of time closing the nodes of
the decision tree due to the poor quality of the lower bound obtained by the
15
continuous relaxation of the model. Better behavior is obtained with the valid
inequalities. As a counter effect, on some instances, the computational time still
increases, but this is mainly due to the fact that the management of the additional inequalities can affect the computational times on small-sized instances,
which show a rather small computational time without the cuts.
20
The results on the second set of instances are presented in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6 presents the behavior of the lower bound computed with a continuous relaxation of the model found without and with the valid inequalities. More
precisely, columns 1 to 4 contain, respectively, the number of customers in the
42
original Christofides and Eilons instances, the position of the satellites given
as customer number, the mean accessibility as defined by (24) and the mean
transportation cost of the satellites computed according to (25). The values and
the gap with the best lower bound of the first lower bound (calculated at the
5
root node) without and with the valid inequalities are reported in columns 5-8,
while the final lower bound (calculated at the end of the optimization process),
increased by letting the solver apply lift-and-project cuts during the optimization, and its gap are presented in columns 9-13. The last column summarizes the
best lower bound obtained for each instance (bold values mean optimal values).
10
From these results it can be seen that the use of the cuts helps the model
to reduce the gap by up to 26%. The behavior is confirmed by considering, in
Table 7, the values of the feasible solutions found by the model without and
with the valid inequalities. More precisely, columns 1 to 6 contain, respectively,
the name of the original Christofides and Eilons instance, the position of the
15
20
solution. For each column, the results without and with the cuts are given.
According to these results, for up to 32 customers the model is able to find
good quality solutions in 5000 seconds at most. When the number of customers
increases to 50, more than 5000 seconds are required to find a good solution.
43
Satellites
OPT
Time
Without cuts
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
1,7
1,8
1,9
1,10
1,11
1,12
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
2,10
2,11
2,12
3,4
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,8
3,9
3,10
3,11
3,12
4,5
4,6
4,7
280
286
284
218
218
230
224
236
244
268
276
290
288
228
228
238
234
246
254
276
286
312
242
242
252
248
260
268
290
300
246
246
258
1312.34
861.94
1445.05
2.06
7.92
19.95
2.50
13.34
14.27
28.70
45.05
849.17
895.19
4.48
4.20
7.09
6.00
11.69
26.25
37.27
226.48
1704.41
4.61
13.13
17.05
7.08
6.17
33.27
17.50
13.39
6.39
10.17
12.16
% Time
Satellites
OPT
With cuts
1032.34
298.03
306.11
1.98
2.27
5.95
2.75
6.44
6.08
8.73
31.33
393.84
658.84
2.92
11.89
3.53
4.17
7.08
8.67
9.70
156.67
873.74
2.78
2.00
1.92
2.23
3.97
10.30
6.33
8.03
3.28
3.61
5.81
Time
Without cuts
-21.34%
-65.42%
-78.82%
-3.83%
-71.40%
-70.16%
10.00%
-51.75%
-57.40%
-69.57%
-30.45%
-53.62%
-26.40%
-34.83%
182.89%
-50.20%
-30.47%
-39.44%
-66.96%
-73.96%
-30.82%
-48.74%
-39.66%
-84.76%
-88.73%
-68.44%
-35.69%
-69.05%
-63.84%
-40.02%
-48.66%
-64.51%
-52.19%
4,8
4,9
4,10
4,11
4,12
5,6
5,7
5,8
5,9
5,10
5,11
5,12
6,7
6,8
6,9
6,10
6,11
6,12
7,8
7,9
7,10
7,11
7,12
8,9
8,10
8,11
8,12
9,10
9,11
9,12
10,11
10,12
11,12
252
264
272
296
304
248
254
256
262
262
262
262
280
274
280
280
280
280
292
300
304
310
310
326
326
326
326
338
350
350
358
358
400
5.25
6.56
15.28
11.11
13.91
3.28
1.97
9.34
6.59
2.08
1.73
1.41
17.70
7.64
15.22
7.73
7.11
14.88
4.42
8.97
12.63
23.88
19.94
40.81
17.86
11.55
6.84
24.27
17.52
16.25
40.98
23.19
40.45
% Time
With cuts
0.64
3.94
4.34
5.89
6.22
3.31
2.56
4.77
4.45
2.70
1.70
1.67
18.77
6.50
12.27
8.38
5.74
4.45
2.06
8.67
13.52
8.03
10.16
18.25
15.33
5.94
5.44
17.47
17.58
13.41
53.23
22.59
37.95
-87.79%
-40.01%
-71.57%
-46.97%
-55.28%
0.98%
30.18%
-48.99%
-32.47%
30.08%
-1.79%
18.92%
6.00%
-14.92%
-19.40%
8.29%
-19.33%
-70.06%
-53.35%
-3.30%
7.06%
-66.36%
-49.06%
-55.28%
-14.17%
-48.58%
-20.53%
-28.01%
0.35%
-17.50%
29.89%
-2.56%
-6.18%
44
First Bound
Without cuts
With cuts
CVRP Instance
E-n13-k4
E-n22-k4
E-n33-k4
E-n51-k5
E-n51-k5
Final Bound
Without cuts
With cuts
Satellites
Mean acc.
Mean transp.
Cost
Bound
Gap
Bound
Gap
Best Bound
Gap
Best Bound
Gap
2,3
2,5
3,6
4,8
5,10
7,9
7,18
9,15
10,20
11,15
12,13
13,17
2,10
3,14
4,18
5,6
8,26
15,23
3,18
5,47
7,13
12,20
28,48
33,38
3,5,18,47
7,13,33,38
12,20,28,48
33.50
34.50
44.00
56.50
61.50
67.50
76.04
35.33
36.29
42.06
50.62
38.21
29.70
20.04
32.05
29.78
31.05
19.59
44.42
51.88
40.62
35.97
42.21
33.86
48.15
37.24
39.09
19.77
20.93
32.56
47.67
52.66
60.47
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.55
17.95
17.98
47.34
15.54
28.35
29.25
23.16
31.44
214.64
180.24
185.04
195.62
202.57
219.61
374.27
338.12
403.89
332.02
354.05
334.34
684.97
641.90
618.86
677.27
668.61
700.31
526.37
480.43
492.32
513.67
487.14
500.23
476.72
478.60
481.97
-25.99%
-20.95%
-23.54%
-22.37%
-22.68%
-26.80%
-10.26%
-12.17%
-14.18%
-10.63%
-17.13%
-14.88%
-3.09%
-5.85%
-5.80%
-6.28%
-9.20%
-7.20%
-3.18%
-6.22%
-4.93%
-6.92%
-3.86%
-4.08%
-5.22%
-3.76%
-3.11%
214.83
181.00
186.41
197.22
203.66
220.13
403.86
360.16
425.95
349.89
387.03
355.73
659.72
665.54
640.41
685.62
701.50
735.79
541.44
501.63
511.50
531.68
499.33
513.80
502.85
487.73
494.54
-25.92%
-20.62%
-22.97%
-21.74%
-22.27%
-26.63%
-3.17%
-6.44%
-9.49%
-5.82%
-9.41%
-9.43%
-6.66%
-2.38%
-2.52%
-5.13%
-4.74%
-2.50%
-0.41%
-2.08%
-1.23%
-3.66%
-1.46%
-1.48%
-0.02%
-1.92%
-0.58%
290
228
242
252
262
300
417.07
384.96
457.07
371.50
417.61
372.66
688.05
656.75
641.59
711.73
707.48
741.57
528.80
499.64
496.98
542.77
489.82
503.56
479.91
480.45
482.01
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-2.88%
0.00%
-2.25%
-5.12%
-2.65%
-3.67%
-2.34%
-1.52%
-3.92%
-1.73%
-2.73%
-2.47%
-4.03%
-1.65%
-3.33%
-3.44%
-4.58%
-3.39%
-3.10%
290
228
242
252
262
300
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
706.80
681.80
656.95
722.68
736.37
754.63
543.66
512.31
517.86
551.87
506.72
521.51
502.95
497.30
497.45
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Best
Bound
Best Sol.
290.00
228.00
242.00
252.00
262.00
300.00
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
706.80
681.80
656.95
722.68
736.37
754.63
543.66
512.31
517.86
551.87
506.72
521.51
502.95
497.30
497.45
Table 6: Lower bounds for the instances E-n13-k4, E-n22-k4, E-n33-k4 and
E-n51-k5
45
Table 7: Solutions for the instances E-n13-k4, E-n22-k4, E-n33-k4 and E-n51-k5
Best Bound
CVRP Instance
E-n13-k4
E-n22-k4
E-n33-k4
E-n51-k5
E-n51-k5
Satellites
Mean acc.
Mean transp.
cost
2,3
2,5
3,6
4,8
5,10
7,9
7,18
9,15
10,20
11,15
12,13
13,17
2,10
3,14
4,18
5,6
8,26
15,23
3.18
5.47
7,13
12,20
28,48
33,38
3,5,18,47
7,13,33,38
12,20,28,48
33.50
34.50
44.00
56.50
61.50
67.50
76.04
35.33
36.29
42.06
50.62
38.21
29.70
20.04
32.05
29.78
31.05
19.59
44.42
51.88
40.62
35.97
42.21
33.86
48.15
37.24
39.09
19.77
20.93
32.56
47.67
52.66
60.47
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.55
17.95
17.98
47.34
15.54
28.35
29.25
23.16
31.44
Satellites
Mean acc.
Mean transp.
cost
2,3
2,5
3,6
4,8
5,10
7,9
7,18
9,15
10,20
11,15
12,13
13,17
2,10
3,14
4,18
5,6
8,26
15,23
3.18
5.47
7,13
12,20
28,48
33,38
3,5,18,47
7,13,33,38
12,20,28,48
33.50
34.50
44.00
56.50
61.50
67.50
76.04
35.33
36.29
42.06
50.62
38.21
29.70
20.04
32.05
29.78
31.05
19.59
44.42
51.88
40.62
35.97
42.21
33.86
48.15
37.24
39.09
19.77
20.93
32.56
47.67
0.00
60.47
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.55
17.95
17.98
47.34
15.54
28.35
29.25
23.16
31.44
290.00
228.00
242.00
252.00
262.00
300.00
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
706.80
681.80
656.95
722.68
736.37
754.63
543.66
512.31
517.86
551.87
506.72
521.51
502.95
497.30
497.45
Best Bound
CVRP Instance
E-n13-k4
E-n22-k4
46
E-n33-k4
E-n51-k5
E-n51-k5
290.00
228.00
242.00
252.00
262.00
300.00
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
706.80
681.80
656.95
722.68
736.37
754.63
543.66
512.31
517.86
551.87
506.72
521.51
502.95
497.30
497.45
First Solution
Without cuts
With cuts
Solution
Gap
292.00
248.00
322.00
284.00
332.00
318.00
466.04
633.02
669.82
754.83
909.98
552.39
1246.67
1009.54
1142.79
1552.21
1166.38
974.45
1109.42
764.99
951.92
11225.00
765.22
1112.62
809.94
1074.84
844.44
0.69%
8.77%
33.06%
12.70%
26.72%
6.00%
11.74%
64.44%
42.33%
103.19%
113.00%
40.63%
76.38%
48.07%
73.95%
114.78%
58.40%
29.13%
104.07%
49.32%
83.82%
1934.00%
51.02%
113.35%
61.04%
116.14%
69.76%
Solution
Gap
Gap
Solution
Gap
344.00
18.62%
290.00
0.00%
290.00
0.00%
324.00
42.11%
228.00
0.00%
228.00
0.00%
314.00
29.75%
242.00
0.00%
242.00
0.00%
286.00
13.49%
252.00
0.00%
252.00
0.00%
296.00
12.98%
262.00
0.00%
262.00
0.00%
344.00
14.67%
300.00
0.00%
300.00
0.00%
435.54
4.43%
422.26
1.24%
417.07
0.00%
429.09
11.46%
399.19
3.70%
410.02
6.51%
903.66
92.02%
496.23
5.45%
472.89
0.49%
631.89
70.09%
378.42
1.86%
403.17
8.53%
782.06
83.06%
451.93
5.78%
482.46
12.93%
603.67
53.69%
408.66
4.04%
431.65
9.89%
974.87
37.93%
1200.16
69.80%
807.88
14.30%
1069.11
56.81%
827.71
21.40%
783.19
14.87%
978.07
48.88%
970.23
47.69%
885.98
34.86%
1448.65 100.45% 1096.09
51.67%
860.47
19.07%
1454.79
97.56%
922.76
25.31%
980.20
33.11%
1329.03
76.12%
974.45
29.13%
1156.21
53.21%
No solution found
No solution found
900.56
65.65%
No solution found
No solution found
676.37
32.02%
No solution found
No solution found
854.26
64.96%
11251.30 1938.77% 11227.00 1934.36% 11251.30 1938.77%
No solution found
No solution found
1177.92 132.46%
No solution found
No solution found
1267.92 143.13%
No solution found
No solution found
727.20
44.59%
No solution found
No solution found
853.41
71.61%
No solution found
No solution found
694.25
39.56%
290.00
290.00
0.00%
0.00%
228.00
228.00
0.00%
0.00%
242.00
242.00
0.00%
0.00%
252.00
252.00
0.00%
0.00%
262.00
262.00
0.00%
0.00%
300.00
300.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
417.07
417.07
384.96
384.96
0.00%
0.00%
470.67
470.60
0.02%
0.00%
371.50
371.50
0.00%
0.00%
433.46
427.22
1.46%
0.00%
392.78
392.78
0.00%
0.00%
6.46%
8.63%
752.45
767.81
751.06
751.06
10.16%
10.16%
846.14
744.21
28.80%
13.28%
860.47
873.03
19.07%
20.80%
830.50
815.18
12.78%
10.70%
806.93
801.15
6.93%
6.16%
No solution found
No solution found
676.37 32.02%
680.89
32.91%
No solution found
951.92
83.82%
11177.20 1925.34% 10900.70 1875.24%
1177.92 132.46%
720.34
42.16%
883.96
708.53
69.50%
35.86%
55.69%
No solution found
783.04
No solution found
1043.64 109.86%
No solution found
No solution found
290.00
0.00%
228.00
0.00%
242.00
0.00%
252.00
0.00%
262.00
0.00%
300.00
0.00%
0.00%
417.07
384.96
0.00%
470.60
0.00%
371.50
0.00%
427.22
0.00%
392.78
0.00%
5.50%
745.64
803.97
17.92%
827.65
25.98%
860.47
19.07%
775.34
5.29%
780.17
3.38%
43.41%
779.64
576.71
12.57%
803.67
55.19%
639.52
15.88%
678.75
33.95%
824.10
58.02%
No solution found
767.06
54.25%
37.81%
685.53
Best solution
Without cuts
With cuts
Solution
Gap
Solution
Gap
290.00
228.00
242.00
252.00
262.00
300.00
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
751.15
742.64
744.21
873.03
779.51
784.42
948.79
663.09
870.24
776.26
570.33
708.53
783.04
1043.64
844.44
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.27%
8.92%
13.28%
20.80%
5.86%
3.95%
74.52%
29.43%
68.05%
40.66%
12.55%
35.86%
55.69%
109.86%
69.76%
290.00
228.00
242.00
252.00
262.00
300.00
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
731.21
751.06
823.42
860.47
766.11
780.17
636.45
570.10
592.78
639.52
578.40
692.77
674.34
763.97
675.68
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.45%
10.16%
25.34%
19.07%
4.04%
3.38%
17.07%
11.28%
14.47%
15.88%
14.15%
32.84%
34.08%
53.63%
35.83%
Moreover, the use of the cuts increases the average model quality in terms of
the initial solutions and the lower bounds. The gaps between the best solutions
and the best bounds are quite small for instances involving up to 32 customers,
but increase for 50-customer instances, with a gap up to 54% for the 4 satellite
5
case.
6.4
In this section we present the results of the tests in the sets 2, 3 and 4. All
the results have been obtained using the model with all the valid inequalities
activated. The results of each set are summarized in Tables 8, 9 and 10 re10
spectively. Each table contains the instance name, the number of satellites the
satellite distribution and the customer distribution in Columns 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The mean accessibility as defined by (24) and the mean transportation cost of
the satellites computed according to (25) are presented in Columns 5 and 6.
Columns 7 and 8 contain the best solution and the lower bound computed by
15
continuous relaxation of the model. Finally, the percentage gap between the
best solution and the lower bound in presented in Column 9.
These results indicate that the gap is quite small up to 32 customers, while
increases in the 50-customer tests. In particular, the gap is quite large in tests
in set 2 involving 4 satellites.
20
The instances generated from the classical VRP instances present a distribution of the customers which is quite different from the distribution in realistic
applications in urban and regional delivery. Moreover, the model is able to find
47
solutions with an average gap of 12%. This is quite large, but understandable
considering that the lower bounds come from the simple continuous relaxation
of the model with cuts, and that the original 50-customer instance is still considered a difficult one for Branch & Cut and Branch & Bound algorithms developed
5
for VRP.
The quality of the solutions diminishes as the number of satellites increases,
even if this is probably due to the poor quality of the lower bound.
A better insight into the performance obtainable with 2E-CVRP and its
model can be seen in the instances of set 4. These instances present different
10
15
11a, number of satellites and customers distribution in Table 11b and number
of satellites and satellites distribution in Table 11c. According to the tables,
the best results are obtained when using the Centroids distribution for the
customers and the Forbidden for the satellites. This result is not surprising,
as it is easier for the model, in the case of the Centroid distribution, to find
20
the optimal assignment of the customers to the satellites. Moreover, this id the
distribution which better represents the case of urban areas. In any case, the
behavior of the model is quite good in the case of the Quadrants distribution.
Indeed, in this case the mean gaps are almost constant independently of the
48
Instance
E-n22-k4-s6-17
E-n22-k4-s8-14
E-n22-k4-s9-19
E-n22-k4-s10-14
E-n22-k4-s11-12
E-n22-k4-s12-16
E-n33-k4-s1-9
E-n33-k4-s2-13
E-n33-k4-s3-17
E-n33-k4-s4-5
E-n33-k4-s7-25
E-n33-k4-s14-22
E-n51-k5-s2-17
E-n51-k5-s4-46
E-n51-k5-s6-12
E-n51-k5-s11-19
E-n51-k5-s27-47
E-n51-k5-s32-37
E-n51-k5-s2-4-17-46
E-n51-k5-s6-12-32-37
E-n51-k5-s11-19-27-47
Satellites
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Satellite
Customer
distribution distribution
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Mean acc.
76.04
35.33
36.29
42.06
50.62
38.21
29.70
20.04
32.05
29.78
31.05
19.59
44.42
51.88
40.62
35.97
42.21
33.86
48.15
37.24
39.09
Mean transp.
Cost
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.96
31.38
30.03
24.91
52.98
64.25
40.55
17.95
17.98
47.34
15.54
28.35
29.25
23.16
31.44
Final
Solution
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
731.21
742.64
744.21
860.47
766.11
780.17
636.45
570.10
592.78
639.52
570.33
692.77
674.34
763.97
675.68
Best
Bound
417.07
384.96
470.60
371.50
427.22
392.78
706.80
681.80
656.95
722.68
736.37
754.63
543.66
512.31
517.86
551.87
506.72
521.51
502.95
497.30
497.45
Gap
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.45%
8.92%
13.28%
19.07%
4.04%
3.38%
17.07%
11.28%
14.47%
15.88%
12.55%
32.84%
34.08%
53.63%
35.83%
the most sensitive to the number of satellites, while the other two distributions
present a better behavior.
Conclusions
MIP formulation and valid inequalities for it. The model and the inequalities
49
Instance
Satellites
E-n22-k4-s14-15
E-n22-k4-s14-17
E-n22-k4-s14-18
E-n22-k4-s15-20
E-n22-k4-s15-20
E-n22-k4-s20-22
E-n33-k4-s17-23
E-n33-k4-s17-25
E-n33-k4-s20-27
E-n33-k4-s23-27
E-n33-k4-s25-29
E-n33-k4-s26-29
E-n51-k5-s14-20
E-n51-k5-s14-43
E-n51-k5-s14-45
E-n51-k5-s41-43
E-n51-k5-s42-43
E-n51-k5-s42-45
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Satellite
Customer
distribution distribution
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n22-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n33-k4
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Random
E-n51-k5
Mean acc.
39.28
42.11
70.71
31.52
62.94
38.97
23.61
25.34
20.52
23.29
28.21
35.91
38.34
39.07
36.66
31.54
29.40
27.00
Mean transp.
Cost
31.47
28.77
24.64
15.71
8.87
0.70
44.26
39.06
38.49
39.16
28.14
24.48
16.50
19.35
25.35
9.02
15.98
21.98
Final
Solution
526.15
521.09
496.38
498.80
512.81
520.42
1401.43
1399.95
1708.41
1716.74
1605.09
1585.87
861.60
795.78
860.43
811.50
851.80
819.59
Best
Bound
526.15
521.09
496.38
480.42
497.68
501.69
1310.16
1329.23
1667.80
1645.54
1544.29
1560.13
652.46
642.75
633.98
651.23
648.27
649.22
Gap
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.83%
3.04%
3.73%
6.97%
5.32%
2.43%
4.33%
3.94%
1.65%
32.05%
23.81%
35.72%
24.61%
31.39%
26.24%
Acknowledgments
della Ricerca (MUR) (Italian Ministry of University and Research), under the
Progetto di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale (PRIN) 2005 - Sistemi di Infomo50
Instance
Satellites
Instance50-1
Instance50-2
Instance50-3
Instance50-4
Instance50-5
Instance50-6
Instance50-7
Instance50-8
Instance50-9
Instance50-10
Instance50-11
Instance50-12
Instance50-13
Instance50-14
Instance50-15
Instance50-16
Instance50-17
Instance50-18
Instance50-19
Instance50-20
Instance50-21
Instance50-22
Instance50-23
Instance50-24
Instance50-25
Instance50-26
Instance50-27
Instance50-28
Instance50-29
Instance50-30
Instance50-31
Instance50-32
Instance50-33
Instance50-34
Instance50-35
Instance50-36
Instance50-37
Instance50-38
Instance50-39
Instance50-40
Instance50-41
Instance50-42
Instance50-43
Instance50-44
Instance50-45
Instance50-46
Instance50-47
Instance50-48
Instance50-49
Instance50-50
Instance50-51
Instance50-52
Instance50-53
Instance50-54
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Satellite
distribution
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Random
Random
Sliced
Sliced
Forbidden
Forbidden
Customers
distribution
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Centroids
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Quadrants
Mean acc.
41.58
16.73
41.75
30.86
58.17
30.04
60.63
56.65
46.33
62.83
86.13
61.74
32.54
53.23
48.24
35.09
40.82
34.29
70.88
35.46
73.99
36.74
71.53
33.38
84.50
41.19
69.69
56.81
42.49
68.21
53.07
45.20
67.47
44.46
49.63
41.98
96.85
95.10
106.74
63.08
99.67
61.19
40.95
45.21
101.69
58.16
80.44
93.72
81.41
78.21
96.07
61.94
84.17
69.05
Mean transp.
cost
49.86
46.83
50.86
73.25
99.46
55.82
48.83
46.79
49.47
75.04
97.60
56.99
50.63
51.44
50.08
75.79
99.48
60.85
49.81
55.16
40.12
56.50
73.41
48.64
48.79
56.24
35.86
57.76
70.61
48.84
49.95
59.19
42.94
60.81
74.10
52.61
47.44
37.92
57.66
54.30
69.42
52.31
46.47
40.44
56.45
57.34
66.47
52.15
47.58
41.52
57.92
57.34
70.21
53.59
Final
Solution
1639
1561
1642
1542
2386
1387
1643
1427
1568
1462
2124
1250
1608
1481
1550
1457
2233
1285
1757
1329
1701
1399
1898
1420
1884
1210
1776
1287
2018
1386
1710
1322
1684
1297
2003
1306
2164
1181
2153
1361
2761
1273
2218
1181
2129
1217
1837
1146
2235
1260
2038
1182
2145
1301
Best
Bound
1528.70
1353.79
1519.42
1358.93
2092.61
1245.03
1401.18
1235.68
1411.62
1290.29
1963.24
1134.10
1433.29
1272.76
1447.92
1311.28
2004.98
1163.96
1525.44
1180.33
1478.39
1236.39
1725.37
1234.92
1439.01
1105.15
1354.17
1126.92
1628.20
1082.39
1361.36
1124.25
1417.86
1156.82
1488.72
1121.60
1407.79
932.09
1415.89
1049.37
1527.51
1116.03
1311.02
932.09
1322.65
937.46
1462.65
1002.98
1340.42
961.93
1279.08
969.35
1439.85
1026.49
Gap
7.22%
15.31%
8.07%
13.47%
14.02%
11.40%
17.26%
15.48%
11.08%
13.31%
8.19%
10.22%
12.19%
16.36%
7.05%
11.11%
11.37%
10.40%
15.18%
12.60%
15.06%
13.15%
10.01%
14.99%
30.92%
9.49%
31.15%
14.21%
23.94%
28.05%
25.61%
17.59%
18.77%
12.12%
34.55%
16.44%
53.72%
26.70%
52.06%
29.70%
80.75%
14.07%
69.18%
26.70%
60.96%
29.82%
25.59%
14.26%
66.74%
30.99%
59.33%
21.94%
48.97%
26.74%
51
Customers
Average (%)
Satellites Centroids Quadrants Random
18.38%
22.79%
24.21%
Forbidden
28.17%
28.25%
21.79%
Random
26.75%
21.72%
21.92%
Sliced
(a)
Satellites
Average (%)
Num Sats
Forbidden Random Sliced
2
10.93%
13.97%
10.68%
3
18.68%
18.56%
17.41%
5
35.06%
45.67%
42.30%
(b)
Table 11: Summary of the mean gap between the best solution and the lower
bound in Set 4
bilit`a e Distribuzione Merci in Aree Metropolitane (Research Project of National Interest (PRIN) 2005 - Infomobility Systems and Freight Distribution in
Metropolitan Areas).
References
5
Ambrosino, D., Scutell`a, M., 2005. Distribution network design: new problems
and related models. European Journal of Operational Research 165, 610624.
Angelelli, E., Speranza, M., 2002. The periodic vehicle routing problem with
intermediate facilities. European Journal of Operational Research 137, 233
247.
10
Bard, J., Huang, L., Dror, M., Jaillet, P., 1998. A branch and cut algorithm for
the vrp with satellite facilities. IIE Transactions 30, 821834.
52
10
Cordeau, J.-F., Gendreau, M., Hertz, A., Laporte, G., Sormany, J.-S., 2005.
New heuristics for the vehicle routing problem. In: Langevin, A., Riopel, D.
(Eds.), Logistics Systems: Design and Optimization. Springer, New York, pp.
279297.
Cordeau, J.-F., Gendreau, M., Mercier, A., 2001. A unified tabu search heuristic
15
for vehicle routing problems with time windows. Journal of the Operational
Research Society 52, 928936.
Cordeau, J.-F., Laporte, G., Savelsbergh, M., Vigo, D., 2007. Vehicle Routing.
In: Barnhart, C., Laporte, G. (Eds.), Transportation. Handbooks on Operations Research and Management Science. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp.
20
367428.
Crainic, T., Gendreau, M., forthcoming. Intelligent freight transportation sys53
137.
Crevier, B., Cordeau, J.-F., Laporte, G., 2007. The multi-depot vehicle routing
problem with inter-depot routes. European Journal of Operational Research
176, 756773.
Dash Associates, 2006. XPRESS-MP User guide and reference manual (Release
10
15
20
378387.
54
scale vehicle routing problems with time windows. Computers & Operations
Research 32 (6), 15931614.
Min, H., Jayaraman, V., Srivastava, R., 1997. Combined location-routing problems: A synthesis and future research directions. European Journal of Operational Research 108, 115.
10
Nagy, G., Salhi, S., 2007. Location outing: Issues, models and methods. European Journal of Operational Research 177, 649672.
Perboli, G., Pezzella, F., Tadei, R., forthcoming. Eve-opt: an hybrid algorithm
for the capability vehicle routing problem. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research.
15
Prins, C., 2004. A simple and effective evolutionary algorithm for the vehicle
routing problem. Computers & Operations Research 31 (12), 19852002.
Rapp, Y., 1962. Planning of exchange locations and boundaries. Ericsson Technics 2, 122.
Ricciardi, N., Tadei, R., Grosso, A., 2002. Optimal facility location with random
20
55
Shen, Z.-J. M., Coullard, C., Daskin, M. S., 2003. A joint location-inventory
model. Transportation Science 37, 4055.
Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R., Yamada, T., van Duin, J., 2001. City Logistics:
Network Modeling and Intelligent Transport Systems. Pergamon, Amsterdam.
10
Toth, P., Vigo, D., 2002. An overview of vehicle routing problem. In: Toth, P.,
Vigo, D. (Eds.), The Vehicle Routing Problem. Vol. 9 of SIAM Monographs
on Discrete Mathematics and Applications. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp. 151.
Toth, P., Vigo, D., 2003. The granular tabu search and its application to the
vehicle routing problem. Journal on Computing 15 (1), 333346.
15
Verrijdt, J., de Kok, A., 1995. Distribution planning for a divergent n-echelon
network without intermediate stocks under service restrictions. International
Journal of Production Economics 38, 225243.
56