4.5 Article

Benders decomposition for network design covering problems

期刊

COMPUTERS & OPERATIONS RESEARCH
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2021.105417

关键词

Facility planning and design; Benders decomposition; Network design; Rapid transit network

资金

  1. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique -FNRS [PDR T0098.18]
  2. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain)/FEDER(UE) [MTM2015-67706-P]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia(Spain)/FEDER(UE) [PID2019-106205GB-I00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses two covering variants of the network design problem: the Maximal Covering Network Design problem and the Partial Covering Network Design problem. A Benders decomposition approach is developed to solve these problems, with several stabilization methods considered for determining Benders cuts. Computational experiments demonstrate the efficiency of these different aspects.
We consider two covering variants of the network design problem. We are given a set of origin/destination pairs, called O/D pairs, and each such O/D pair is covered if there exists a path in the network from the origin to the destination whose length is not larger than a given threshold. In the first problem, called the Maximal Covering Network Design problem, one must determine a network that maximizes the total fulfilled demand of the covered O/D pairs subject to a budget constraint on the design costs of the network. In the second problem, called the Partial Covering Network Design problem, the design cost is minimized while a lower bound is set on the total demand covered. After presenting formulations, we develop a Benders decomposition approach to solve the problems. Further, we consider several stabilization methods to determine Benders cuts as well as the addition of cut-set inequalities to the master problem. We also consider the impact of adding an initial solution to our methods. Computational experiments show the efficiency of these different aspects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据