OR Spectrum

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 113–148 | Cite as

Resource extension functions: properties, inversion, and generalization to segments

Regular Article

Abstract

The unified modeling and solution framework, presented by Desaulniers et al. (Fleet Management and Logistics. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 57–93, 1998), is applicable to nearly all types of vehicle-routing and crew-scheduling problems found in the literature thus far. The framework utilizes resource extension functions (REFs) as its main tool for handling complex side constraints that relate to a single vehicle route or crew schedule. The intention of this paper is to clarify which properties of REFs allow important algorithmic procedures, such as efficient representation of (partial) paths, efficient cost computations, and constant time feasibility checking for partial paths (= segments) and their concatenations. The theoretical results provided by the paper are useful for developing highly efficient solution methods for both exact and heuristic approaches. Acceleration techniques for solving resource-constrained shortest-path subproblems are a key success factor for those exact algorithms which are based on column generation or Lagrangean relaxation. Similarly, those heuristic algorithms which are based on resource-constrained paths can benefit from efficient operations needed to construct or manipulate segments. Fast operations are indispensable for efficient local-search algorithms that explore edge-exchange or node-exchange neighborhoods. Efficiency is crucial, since these operations are repeatedly performed in many types of metaheuristics.

Keywords

Resource-constrained path Resource extension function Column generation Accelerated local search Vehicle routing and scheduling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahn B, Shin J (1991) Vehicle-routeing with time windows and time-varying congestions. J Oper Res Soc 42:393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja R, Magnanti T, Orlin J (1993) Network flows: theory, algorithms, and applications. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  3. Avella P, Boccia M, Sforza A (2004) Resource constrained shortest path problems in path planning for fleet management. J Math Model Algorithms 3(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beasley J, Christofides N (1989) An algorithm for the resource constrained shortest path problem. Networks 19:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borndörfer R, Grötschel M, Löbel A (2001) Scheduling duties by adaptive column generation. Technischer Bericht (ZIB-Report) 01-02, Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik Berlin (ZIB), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Christiansen M (1996) Inventory and time constrained ship routing—a math approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. Christofides N, Eilon S (1969) An algorithm for the vehicle-dispatching problem. Oper Res Q 20(3):309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desaulniers G, Villeneuve D (2000) The shortest path problem with time windows and linear waiting costs. Transport Sci 34(3):312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desaulniers G, Desrosiers J, Ioachim I, Solomon M, Soumis F, Villeneuve D (1998) A unified framework for deterministic time constrained vehicle routing and crew scheduling problems. In: Crainic T, Laporte G (eds) Fleet management and logistics, Chap. 3. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 57–93Google Scholar
  10. Desaulniers G, Desrosiers J, Lasry A, Solomon MM (1999) Crew pairing for a regional carrier. In: Wilson N (eds) Computer-aided transit scheduling, lecture notes in computer science vol. 471. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–41Google Scholar
  11. Desaulniers G, Desrosiers J, Solomon M (eds) (2005) Column generation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Desaulniers G, Lessard F, Hadjar A (2006). Tabu search, generalized k-path inequalities, and partial elementarity for the vehicle routing problem with time windows. Les Cahiers du GERAD G-2006-45, GERAD, École des Hautes Études Commerciales, Montréal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. Desrochers M, Soumis F (1988) A generalized permanent labelling algorithm for the shortest path problem with time windows. Inf Syst Oper Res 26(3):191–212Google Scholar
  14. Dethloff J (2002) Relation between vehicle routing problems: An insertion heuristic for the vehicle routing problem with simultaneous delivery and pick-up applied to the vehicle routing problem with backhauls. J Oper Res Soc 53:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dumas Y, Soumis F, Desrosiers J (1990) Optimizing the schedule for a fixed vehicle path with convex inconvenience costs. Transport Sci 24(2):145–152Google Scholar
  16. Dumas Y, Desrosiers J, Soumis F (1991) The pick-up and delivery problem with time windows. Eur J Oper Res 54:7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elhallaoui I, Villeneuve D, Soumis F, Desaulniers G (2005) Dynamic aggregation of set-partitioning constraints in column generation. Oper Res 53(4):632–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamache M, Soumis F, Villeneuve D, Desrosiers J, Gélinas E (1998) The preferential bidding systems at Air Canada. Transport Sci 32(3):246–255Google Scholar
  19. Gamache M, Soumis F, Marquis G (1999) A column generation approach for large-scale aircrew rostering problems. Oper Res 47(2):247–263Google Scholar
  20. Gendreau M, Dejax P, Feillet D, Gueguen C (2005) Vehicle routing with time windows and split deliveries. Unpublished technical report, Laboratoire d’Informatique d’Avignon, Avignon, France. (Work in progress).Google Scholar
  21. Gietz M (1994) Computergestützte Tourenplanung mit zeitkritischen Restriktionen. Physica, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. Gribkovskaia I, Halskau sr Ø, Laporte G, Vlček M (2006) General solutions to the single vehicle routing problem with pickups and deliveries. Technical report, Molde University College, Molde, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  23. Halse K (1992) Modelling and solving complex vehicle routing problems. Ph.D. dissertation No. 60, IMSOR, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hasle G, Kloster O, Bräysy O, Gendreau M, Kjenstad D, Riise A (2003) A conceptual model for rich VRPs. Presentation at the EURO/INFORMS Joint International Meeting, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  25. Helgason R, Kennington J, Stewart B (1993) The one-to-one shortest-path problem: An empirical analysis with the two-tree Dijkstra algorithm. Comput Optim Appl 1:47–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hempsch C, Irnich S (2007) Vehicle-routing problems with inter-tour resource constraints. Technical report 2007-01, Deutsche post endowed chair of optimization of distribution networks, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. Available at http://www.dpor.rwth-aachen.deGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill A, Benton W (1992) Modelling intra-city time-dependent travel speeds for vehicle scheduling problems. J Oper Res Soc 43:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ibaraki T, Imahori S, Kubo M, Masuda T, Uno T, Yagiura M (2005) Effective local search algorithms for routing and scheduling problems with general time-window constraints. Transport Sci 39(2):206–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ioachim I, Desrosiers J, Soumis F, Bélanger N (1994) Fleet routing with schedule synchronization. Les Cahiers du GERAD G-94-48, École des HEC, Montréal, Canada, H3T 2A7Google Scholar
  30. Ioachim I, Gélinas S, Desrosiers J, Soumis F (1998). A dynamic programming algorithm for the shortest path problem with time windows and linear node costs. Networks 31:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Irnich S (2006) A unified modeling and solution framework for vehicle routing and local search-based metaheuristics. Technical report 2006-02, Deutsche post endowed chair of optimization of distribution networks, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. Available at http://www.dpor.rwth-aachen.deGoogle Scholar
  32. Irnich S (2007) Speeding up column-generation algorithms by using reduced costs of paths to eliminate arcs. Technical report 2007-02, Deutsche post endowed chair of optimization of distribution networks, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. Available at http://www.dpor.rwth-aachen.deGoogle Scholar
  33. Irnich S, Desaulniers G (2005) Shortest path problems with resource constraints. In: Desaulniers et al. (eds) Column generation, Chap. 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Irnich S, Funke B, Grünert T (2006) Sequential search and its application to vehicle-routing problems. Comput Oper Res 33(8):2405–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jepsen M, Spoorendonk S, Petersen B, Pisinger D (2006) A non-robust branch-and-cut-and-price algorithm for the vehicle routing problem with time windows. DIKU Technical Report no. 06/03, Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  36. Malandraki C, Daskin M (1992) Time dependent vehicle routing problems: Formulations, properties and heuristic algorithms. Transport Sci 26(3):185–200Google Scholar
  37. Min H (1989) The multiple vehicle routing problem with simultaneous delivery and pick-up points. Trans Res 23:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salani M (2005) Branch-and-price algorithms for vehicle routing problems. Ph.D. dissertation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Facoltà die Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Naturali, Dipartimento di Tecnologie dell’Informatione, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  39. Sexton T, Bodin L (1985a) Optimizing single vehicle many-to-many operations with desired delivery times: I. Scheduling. Transport Sci 19(4):378–410Google Scholar
  40. Sexton T, Bodin L (1985b) Optimizing single vehicle many-to-many operations with desired delivery times: II. Routing. Transport Sci 19(4):411–435Google Scholar
  41. Sexton T, Choi Y (1986). Pickup and delivery of partial loads with “soft” time windows. Am J Math Manage Sci 6(3,4):369–398Google Scholar
  42. Solomon M (1987) Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problem with time window constraints. Oper Res 35(2):254–265Google Scholar
  43. Taillard D, Laporte G, Gendreau M (1996) Vehicle routeing with multiple use of vehicles. J Oper Res Soc 47(8):1065–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vance P, Barnhart C, Johnson E, Nemhauser G (1997) Airline crew scheduling: A new formulation and decomposition algorithm. Oper Res 45(2):188–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deutsche Post Endowed Chair of Optimization of Distribution NetworksRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations