1 / 30

Network Design Problem

Network Design Problem. Manufacturing Automation & Integration Lab. 2002. 02. 21 Eoksu Sim(ses@ultra.snu.ac.kr). Contents. A multi-commodity, multi-plant, capacitated facility location problem: Formulation and efficient heuristic solution(1998)

sunee
Download Presentation

Network Design Problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Network Design Problem Manufacturing Automation & Integration Lab. 2002. 02. 21 Eoksu Sim(ses@ultra.snu.ac.kr)

  2. Contents • A multi-commodity, multi-plant, capacitated facility location problem: Formulation and efficient heuristic solution(1998) • A multiperiod two-echelon multicommodity capacitated plant location problem(2000) • Network design problem in G7 IMS Project(2002) MAI-LAB Seminar

  3. A multi-commodity, multi-plant, capacitated facility location problem: Formulation and efficient heuristic solution Computers & Operational Research, Vol. 25, No. 10, pp. 869-878, 1998 Hasan Pirkul* and Vaidyanathan Jayaraman * * * School of Management, University of Texas, Dallas, Richarddon, TX 830688, USA ** College of Business and Economics, Washington State Unicersity, Vancouver, WA 98686, USA

  4. WC PW Plant Warehouse Demand Throughput limit Plant capacity Model formulation MAI-LAB Seminar

  5. Solution procedure Lagrangian multiplier MAI-LAB Seminar

  6. A multiperiod two-echelon multicommodity capacitated plant location problem EJOR, 123 (2000) 271-291 Y. Hinojosa*, J. Puerto**, F.R. Fernandez** *Dept. Economia Aplicada I. Fac. De Ciencias Econom. Y Empresar., Universidad de Sevilla, 41018, Sevilla, Spain **Dept. Estadistica e IO, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

  7. Introduction(1/2) • A discrete plant location problem • Uncapacitated plant location problems(UPLP) • Capacitated plant location problems(CPLP) • MIP formulation but NP-hard • Focus of this paper • Introducing the dynamic aspect into the problem • Not only the transportation plan but also the time-staged establishment of the facilities • The assumption of a certain structure in thetransportation pattern • The transportation follows a two-step path MAI-LAB Seminar

  8. Introduction(2/2) • A multiperiod two-echelon multi commodity capacitated location problem • Assumption • The capacities of plants and warehouses, as well as demands and transportation costs change over T time periods • We do not consider holding decisions • The formulation permits both the opening of new facilities and the closing of existing ones • A very large MIP • 50 customers, 20 warehouses, 20 plants, 2 products, 4 time period  11,360 variables and 764 constraints • An alternative approach • A Lagrangean relaxation scheme incorporating a dual ascent method together with a heuristic construction phase method MAI-LAB Seminar

  9. The model(1/5) • The objective • Minimizing the total cost for meeting demands of the different products specified over time at various customer locations • Hypotheses • No holding decisions • The set of customers and products, together with the feasible locations • Sites • Once closed they cannot be reopened • If they were open they would not be closed • A minimum number of plants and warehouses must be open at the first and last time period • A minimum coverage of the demand at the beginning and after the time horizon • Sites’ limited capacity which depends on the time period MAI-LAB Seminar

  10. The model(2/5) • Index, parameters MAI-LAB Seminar

  11. The model(3/5) • Decision variables MAI-LAB Seminar

  12. PW WC Warehouse Plant The model(4/5) • Objective function MAI-LAB Seminar

  13. Demand Capacity limit Minimum number The model(5/5) • Constraints MAI-LAB Seminar

  14. Alternative formulation(1/4) MAI-LAB Seminar

  15. Alternative formulation(2/4) MAI-LAB Seminar

  16. Alternative formulation(3/4) 사이트 사용/폐쇄 시점의 용량 MAI-LAB Seminar

  17. Alternative formulation(4/4) • Problem P’ • A MIP problem which includes as a particular instance the UPLP • NP-hard • Cannot expect to solve exactly large sizes of problem P’ in polynomial time • A heuristic method to solve P’ for those instances • (1) using a Lagrangean relaxation • (2) using an “ad hoc” procedure obtaining a feasible solution from the solutions of the relaxed problems MAI-LAB Seminar

  18. Decomposition of the problem: LR(1/3) MAI-LAB Seminar

  19. Decomposition of the problem: LR(2/3) • Analysis of LR • We will leave constraints (5a) aside • LR1 can be separated into m subproblems MAI-LAB Seminar

  20. Decomposition of the problem: LR(3/3) • The subgradient method • To get a lower bound for v(P’) • The selection of the initial set of multipliers is crucial • The quality of the first solution depends very much on this choice • The following set of initial multipliers MAI-LAB Seminar

  21. Heuristic to construct a feasible solution(1/3) • The following scheme that consists of two different steps • The first step looks for capacities each time period t • Both for plants and warehouses • Once these capacities have been established for meeting the demand  second step • The second step looks for the best transportation plan between plants and warehouses and between warehouses and customers MAI-LAB Seminar

  22. Heuristic to construct a feasible solution(2/3) • Compute the total capacity of all the open warehouses as well as the total demand in t. • Ct : the difference b/w the demand and the capacity in this time period • Arrange in nonincreasing sequence with respect to Ct all those time periods • Where the capacity of the warehouses is not enough to cover the demand • Compute I(j,to) MAI-LAB Seminar

  23. Heuristic to construct a feasible solution(3/3) • The greater Ct, the larger the number of warehouses that have to be opened and this affects the remaining time periods • The process consists of opening those warehouses in nondecreasing order of the index I(j,to) • Until the demand in that time period is fulfilled • The same procedure has to be applied to the opening of plants • Step2: • Replace the values of these binary variables in the formulation of P’. • P’ is a continuous linear program that can be easily solved MAI-LAB Seminar

  24. Computational study(1/6) • Experiment • A subcomplex(virtual machine) with six processors and 2Gb of RAM of a machine HP Exemplar SPP-1000 Series • C++, Subroutines of IMSL to solve linear programs • CPLEX 6.0 • The data(randomly) • The transportation cost • Being proportional to the Euclidean distance among the location of final customers and warehouses, and plants and warehouses respectively. • The locations of all the facilities • Uniformly distributed in the square [1,15]×[1,15] • All these costs • An increment b/w 10% and 25% in each time period(inflation rate, etc.) MAI-LAB Seminar

  25. Computational study(2/6) • The minimum number of plants and warehouses open at the first and the last time period • Depends on the difference b/w the total demand requested in each time period and the average of the capacity of warehouses in that time period • Table 1 • The test problems that have been solved MAI-LAB Seminar

  26. Computational study(3/6) • Table 2 • The size of each test problem for the considered planning horizons MAI-LAB Seminar

  27. Computational study(4/6) • The results for the considered planning horizons • At least 10 instances have been solved • The average results are reported MAI-LAB Seminar

  28. Computational study(5/6) • H-Gap : the percentage gap b/w the feasible solution obtained applying the heuristic and the greatest lower bound obtained in each instance b/w the continuous and the Lagrangean relaxation of P’ • Worst-H : the worst result used to compute the average H-Gap. • N : the number of iterations needed by the heuristic algorithm • CPU-H : the average time in seconds used for these iterations • E-Gap : the percentage gap with respect to the exact solution of the problem obtained using CPLEX • Worst-E : the worst result used to compute the average E-Gap • CPU-E : the average time in seconds used by CPLEX to solve the problems MAI-LAB Seminar

  29. Computational study(6/6) • The reason for the missing values • To obtain the exact solutions CPLEX solver needs prohibitive computational times • The heuristic method • Provides solutions whose gap(H-Gap) range b/w 0.24% and 5%. • It is worth noting that these gaps are computed with respect to lower bounds of the optimal values MAI-LAB Seminar

  30. Conclusions • A heuristic method to solve problem • Based on a Lagrangean relaxation which provides solutions(possibly infeasible for the original problem) but verifying the integrality constraints • Computational results • Show the gaps b/w the solutions proposed and lower bounds of the optimal solutions and exact solutions MAI-LAB Seminar

More Related