simplex pivot occurs and the algorithm proceeds. If
the most negative reduced cost variable is strictly
non-negative, then a certificate of optimality is
achieved and the algorithm terminates with a
provably-optimal solution.
In Dantzig-Wolfe Decomposition, the inherent
structure of a problem leads to a sub-problem that is
pre-defined. Furthermore, it is itself a linear program
and thus straightforward to solve. In CVM, because
the variable definition is chosen specifically to
overcome challenges of a traditional formulation, the
sub problem reflects these challenges.
Perhaps the most closely related work to our
proposed approach is that of Taillard (Taillard,
2005), who used a heuristic based on column
generation techniques to solve HVRPD.
Specifically, a large set of candidate routes were
generated by solving separate homogeneous VRP
problems for each fleet type. The final routes were
then selected using a set partitioning formulation to
ensure that all demands were met.
A key difference between our proposed approach
and typical network-based routing problems is that
the “cost” of a route cannot be computed simply by
adding the individual arc costs (if so, the sub-
problem would be a simple minimum cost flow
problem). At first glance, it seems possible to
formulate the sub problem as a network flow
problem, where each node represents a customer or
depot, each arc represents the driving from one node
to another, and the cost associated with each arc can
fully capture (based on off-line calculations) the cost
of this driving. This is not quite true, however: The
cost on a given arc is not independent of the other
arcs that are also chosen for an individual vehicle’s
route. This is because the fuel consumption on an
arc depends on the starting conditions of the vehicle
at the first node. If the battery is fully charged, it
may be possible to complete most of the driving
without relying on gasoline, and the resulting cost
will be lower, whereas if the battery is depleted, the
cost of the arc will be much higher.
Therefore, a more sophisticated approach to
solving the sub-problem must be employed. For
example, we could take a multi-label shortest path
approach (Desrochers and Soumis, 1988), which is
similar to Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm, but
with an added layer of complexity. Specifically,
multiple metrics (not just cost) must be checked to
determine whether a partial path can be pruned from
consideration. One partial path dominates another
only if it is less costly and covers the same amount
of demand or more and has the same amount of
remaining battery charge or more. Efficiently
solving this sub-problem is the key to successfully
solving the master problem.
We conclude this section by noting that this
approach has the added advantage of allowing the
user to trade off between time and solution quality.
Specifically, the solution quality continues to
improve as each new candidate route is added to the
master problem for consideration, but high-quality
feasible solutions can nonetheless often be found
early in the process. Furthermore, this approach
naturally lends itself to a parallel implementation. At
the highest level, a separate sub-problem can be
solved, in parallel, for each vehicle. Furthermore,
these individual sub-problems themselves can
leverage a parallel architecture for efficient search.
4 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
This section provides a simplified illustrative
example of VRPMF. We consider a fleet of two
vehicles: the first is a 2009 Ford Taurus front-wheel
drive gasoline engine vehicle and the second is 2010
Ford Escape 4-wheel drive hybrid vehicle. Figure 1
shows estimates of the miles per gallon (MPG)
values and environmental scores as provided by the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at
www.fueleconomy.gov. Note that the Taurus gets 18
MPG in city driving and 28 MPG in highway
driving, while the Escape hybrid gets 27 MPG on
the highway and 30 MPG in the city. The
environmental impact of each vehicle can be
evaluated by its carbon footprint and air pollution
score. The carbon footprint measures greenhouse gas
emissions (primarily CO
2
) that in turn impact
climate change. CO
2
emissions are closely linked to
fuel consumption, since CO
2
is the ultimate end
product of burning gasoline. The Air Pollution score
represents the amount of health-damaging and
smog-forming airborne pollutants (such as carbon
monoxide, CO, and oxides of nitrogen, NOx) that
the vehicle emits on a scale from 0 (worst) to 10
(best). Note that there is little correlation between
fuel consumption and these emissions; emissions
primarily depend on the emission control
technology. Taurus has an Air Pollution score of 6
and Escape Hybrid has a score of 8.
Suppose that we have eight customers distributed
within a given geographical area as shown in Figure
2. The customers are labeled 1 to 8, while 0 is the
depot. The driving distance between the depot and
each of the customer sites is presented in Table 1.
For this example, we assume that the distance data is
symmetrical and shown as X+Y, where X is the
ICINCO 2010 - 7th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics
288