Professional Documents
Culture Documents
45
MODELING FRAMEWORK
There are four key stakeholders involved in urban freight transportation: (a) shippers, (b) freight carriers, (c) residents, and (d) administrators. All of these key stakeholders in urban freight transportation
E. Taniguchi, Department of Civil Engineering, Kyoto University, Yoshidahonmachi,
Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. R. G. Thompson, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
46
Penalty (yen/min.)
Cd ,n(i )
Ce,n(i )
1
1 t sn(i )
t en(i )
Arrival time
(min.)
Arrival time
(min.)
The VRPTW-P model is defined where a depot and a number of customers are specified for each freight carrier. A fleet of identical vehicles collects goods from customers and delivers them to the depot or
delivers goods to customers from the depot. A designated time window specifies the desired time period the customer is to be visited.
For example, in the case of collecting goods, vehicles depart from
the depot and visit a subset of customers for picking up goods in
sequence and return to the depot to unload them. A vehicle is allowed
to make multiple trips per day. Each customer must be assigned to
exactly one route of a vehicle, and all the goods from each customer
must be loaded on the vehicle at the same time. The total weight of
the goods in a route must not exceed the capacity of the vehicle. This
problem is used to determine the optimal assignment of vehicles to
customers, the departure time, and the order of visiting customers for
a freight carrier. The VRPTW-P model explicitly incorporates the
distribution of travel times for identifying the optimal routes and
departure times of vehicles.
The VRPTW-P model minimizes the total cost of distributing
goods with truck-capacity and designated-time constraints. The total
cost is composed of three components: (a) fixed cost of vehicles;
(b) vehicle operating cost, that is, proportional to time traveled and
spent waiting at customers; and (c) delay penalty for missing the
designated pickup or delivery time at customers.
Let
C(t0, X) = total cost (yen);
t0 = departure time vector for all vehicles at
the depot, t0 = {tl,0 l = 1, m};
X = assignment and order of visiting customers for all vehicles, X = {xl l = 1, m};
xl = assignment and order of visiting customers for vehicle l, xl = {n(i)i = 1, Nl};
f ,l
l (x l ) +
l =1
E[C
t ,l
l =1
E[C
(tl , 0 , x l )]
(tl , 0 , x l )]
(1)
(2)
p, l
l =1
where
Nl
i=0
Nl
E[Cp, l (tl , 0 , x l )] =
i=0
l, n(i )
(3)
subject to
n0 2
m
( 4)
= N
(5)
l =1
D[n(i)] = W (x )
l
n( i ) xl
(6)
47
Wl ( x l ) Wc , l
( 7)
ts tl , 0
(8)
tl, 0 te
( 9)
where
tl, 0 = tl , 0 +
Nl
{T [t
l,n(i )
i=0
(10)
48
This model adopts the delay penalty that depends on the delay
times at customers. However, if a truck of a freight carrier often
arrives late at customers, it will have difficulty in renewing the contract the next time. The model represents such circumstances in a
mathematical way. Therefore, it is not easy to quantify the delay
penalty. If the delay penalty is increased, freight costs will obviously
increase. The early-arrival penalty can be simply time costs of waiting at nearby customers.
Tc =
(11)
Lf
Vf
Tf =
Lf K
Qmax
if K K0 =
Qmax
Vf
if K > K0 =
Qmax
Vf
(12)
from the current node to the destination using their cognitive map. It
is assumed that all drivers have some experience in driving within
the defined network. The function for estimating the link cost is
Ck = Tkt + k
(14)
where
Ck = estimated cost on link k,
Tkt = travel time on link k at time t, and
k = disturbance term.
In this study, the disturbance term k is assumed to be normally
distributed, with the zero mean and variance 2 represented by
k ~ N (0, 2 )
(15)
VRPTW-P APPLICATIONS
Test Conditions
The model described in the previous section was applied to a test
network with 25 nodes and 40 links, as shown in Figure 2. This road
network is composed of the same type of roads, with free running
speed of 40 km/h. Any node within the network can generate and
attract passenger-car traffic. These nodes are referred to as centroids
and are also candidate nodes to be visited by pickupdelivery trucks.
Ten freight carriers are assumed to operate a maximum of 12 pickup
delivery trucks in this network. Each freight carrier has one depot
that is randomly located on the network. Three different types of
trucks, having capacities of 2, 4, and 10 tons, respectively, can be
used. However, only up to four trucks of each type can be operated
by each carrier. The passenger-car equivalence rates, operating
costs, and fixed costs for each type of pickupdelivery truck are
based on results from recent studies of truck operations in Japan.
The number of customers for each carrier was generated randomly
between 14 and 22. The actual nodes to be visited for each carrier
were also determined randomly from all nodes in the network. The
freight demand at each customer was determined based on the distribution of freight demand at Kobe City.
(13)
@2.67km * 4 = 10.7km
Lf
Vf
K
K0
Qmax
=
=
=
=
=
@2.67km * 4 = 10.7km
where
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FIGURE 2
VRP model
49
Results
Table 1 shows the change in total costs for 10 freight carriers for the
three traffic conditions. The table indicates that the probabilistic
model can reduce the total costs compared with the forecast model
in all cases. The reduction of total costs from the forecast model
increases in Cases A and B, with higher levels of congestion than
Case C. This means that freight carriers can obtain more benefits by
using the probabilistic model when traffic congestion becomes
worse. The value of the stochastic solution (VSS) is defined as the
percentage of the total cost reduction by using the probabilistic
model from the forecast model. The VSS in the three cases is 11%
to 17%, which is a considerable amount of benefit by incorporating
the uncertainty of travel times.
Table 1 also indicates that the delay penalty decreased by 24% to
35% with the probabilistic model, which means that this model provides better service to customers by reducing the risk of delay. However, the early arrival penalty increased by 8% to 11%. The fixed cost
in three cases increased by about 5%, and the operation cost remained
at the same level as for the forecasted model. The small increase in the
fixed cost is due to the slight increase in the number of trucks used by
the 10 freight carriers as shown in Table 2. The table shows that the
number of 2-ton trucks was reduced by one and that two additional
4-ton trucks were used in the optimal routes and schedules of the
VRPTW-P model. As the authors assumed that each freight carrier
has 12 pickupdelivery trucks, the increase in the number of trucks is
within the limitation of owned pickupdelivery trucks.
Here is an examination of why the probabilistic model can
decrease total costs. Figures 4 and 5 show an example of an optimal
diagram of operating trucks given by probabilistic and forecasted
models at the end of 10 days of operation in Figure 3. In Figures 4
and 5, the horizontal lines, which reach both ends of the graph, indicate that the depot and other horizontal lines show the time windows
of customers. These figures demonstrate that trucks tend to arrive at
customers earlier within the time window for the probabilistic model
than for the forecasted model. In this case in Figures 4 and 5, the
total delay time by the probabilistic model was 99 min and by the
forecasted model was 907 min, which is 10 times as large as the time
given by the probabilistic model. The optimal operation of the probabilistic model in this case used two trucks, whereas the forecasted
model used one truck. In this way, the probabilistic model provides
the routing and scheduling planning to avoid delay at customers.
visiting order
Accumulation
of
travel times
BOX model
variation of car generation
4375 veh./day10%
TABLE 1
Model
Forecasted
model
11th day
VRP model
BOX model
Case A
6500 veh./day
(car generation)
BOX model
Case B
5450 veh./day
(car generation)
BOX model
Case C
4375 veh./day
(car generation)
Probabilistic
model
unit: yen/day
Costs
fixed cost
operation
early arrival
delay
total cost
fixed cost
change
operation
change
early arrival
change
delay
change
total cost
change
Case A
238,043
214,207
20,608
789,125
1,261,983
250,671
5.3
212,495
-0.8
22,764
10.5
601,797
-23.7
1,087,742
-13.8
Case B
238,043
197,634
22,496
507,169
965,342
250,671
5.3
195,822
-0.9
24,970
11.0
331,945
-34.5
803,423
-16.8
Case C
238,043
188,051
24,356
363,604
814,054
250,671
5.3
187,991
0.0
26,287
7.9
256,786
-29.4
721,748
-11.3
50
Probabilistic
model
Type of vehicle
2 ton truck
4 ton truck
10 ton truck
total
2 ton truck
4 ton truck
10 ton truck
total
Number of vehicles
1
3
14
18
0
5
14
19
The table below shows the total time to spare after arriving at customers until the end of their time windows. The total time to spare
using the VRPTW-P model is 20.5% longer than that using VRPTWF model. The longer time to spare within the time window using the
probabilistic model allows drivers to avoid delays at customers in
case of increasing travel times due to unexpected traffic congestion.
This leads to the reduction of delay penalty as well as total costs. The
reason why the probabilistic model leads to longer time to spare is
that the delay penalty shown in Figure 1 is set much larger than the
early-arrival penalty. The specific value of the delay penalty for 2-,
4-, and 10-ton trucks was five times as large as the early arrival
penalty of a 4-ton truck. Therefore, trucks need to arrive earlier to
avoid the high delay penalty. On the other hand, when the forecasted
model is used, a single value of travel time is used instead of the
travel time distribution. No penalty is imposed for trucks unless they
arrive after the end of the time window. This can lead to optimal
routes in which trucks arrive very close to the end of time windows.
Total time to spare until the end of the time window (10 freight
carriers) is as follows:
Total time
to spare (min)
Forecasted model
Probabilistic model
Difference, %
19,469
23,452
20.5
Table 3 shows the total travel time. The total travel time using the
probabilistic model is slightly larger than that using the forecasted
model. The actual running time for both passenger cars and trucks
does not increase much, but the waiting time of trucks increases by
12% to 15%. This is due to the tendency of the probabilistic model
TABLE 3
Model
Forecasted
model
Running
time
Waiting
time
Probabilistic
model
Running
time
Waiting
time
Type of vehicle
passenger car
2 ton truck
4 ton truck
10 ton truck
subtotal of trucks
truck
Case A
66,497
65
499
3,398
3,962
957
Case B
49,001
40
447
3,111
3,598
1,049
Case C
36,134
39
417
2,964
3,419
1,139
total
71,416
53,648
40,693
passenger car
change (%)
2 ton truck
4 ton truck
10 ton truck
subtotal of trucks
change (%)
truck
change (%)
total
change (%)
68,198
2.6
0
932
3,125
4,057
2.4
1,093
14.2
73,348
2.7
49,082
0.2
0
813
2,856
3,670
2.0
1,208
15.2
53,960
0.6
36,111
-0.1
0
761
2,716
3,477
1.7
1,271
11.6
40,859
0.4
unit: minute/day
CONCLUSIONS
ITS provides many opportunities for reducing the social, environmental, and financial costs of goods distribution in urban areas. In
particular, automatic vehicle-identification systems, systems monitoring vehicle location, provide us with a very good data set of
variable travel times. Vehicle routing and scheduling procedures
incorporating these systems have good potential for being effective
city logistics initiatives.
This paper described a probabilistic vehicle routing and scheduling
model based on ITS. A reduction in the number of trucks, vehiclekilometers of travel, and operating costs can be achieved by using the
probabilistic vehicle routing and scheduling model. This would result
in substantial social, environmental, and financial benefits. Thus, the
probabilistic model is an effective city logistics initiative.
For putting this type of modeling to practical use, users need to collect historical data of travel times on each link of a network. Until
TABLE 4
CO 2 Emissions
Model
Forecasted
model
Probabilistic
model
Type of vehicle
passenger car
2 ton truck
4 ton truck
10 ton truck
subtotal of trucks
total
passenger car
change (%)
2 ton truck
4 ton truck
10 ton truck
subtotal of trucks
change (%)
total
change (%)
unit: kg-C/day
Case A
1686
2
19
789
809
2495
Case B
1313
1
18
745
764
2077
Case C
988
1
17
721
739
1727
1709
1.4
0
34
723
756
-6.5
2466
-1.2
1314
0.1
0
32
683
715
-6.4
2029
-2.3
987
0.0
0
31
662
693
-6.3
1680
-2.7
51