4.7 Article

Analysis of effective sets of routes for the split-delivery periodic inventory routing problem

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 298, Issue 2, Pages 463-477

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.029

Keywords

Transportation; Inventory routing; Split delivery; Matheuristics; Worst-case analysis

Funding

  1. Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund [MOE2015-T2-2-046]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates an Inventory Routing Problem at the tactical planning level, where inventory levels are decision variables. By designing effective subsets of routes, the periodic problem is solved, and the effectiveness of matheuristics is proven in the worst case.
We study an Inventory Routing Problem at the tactical planning level, where the initial inventory levels at the supplier and at the customers are decision variables and not given data. Since the total inventory level is constant over time, the final inventory levels are equal to the initial ones, making this problem periodic. We propose a class of matheuristics, in which a route-based formulation of the problem is solved to optimality with a given subset of routes. Our goal is to show how to design effective subsets of routes. For some of them, we prove effectiveness in the worst case, i.e., we provide a finite worst-case performance bound for the corresponding matheuristic. Moreover, we show they are also effective on average, in a large set of instances, when some additional routes are added to this subset of routes. These solutions significantly dominate, both in terms of cost and computational time, the best solutions obtained by applying a branch-and-cut algorithm we design to solve a flow-based formulation of the problem. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available