4.7 Article

Computing the reliability of a stochastic distribution network subject to budget constraint

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107947

关键词

Distribution network; Reliability; Delivery cost; Minimal path; (d,b)-minimal path

资金

  1. Doctoral Project of Chongqing Federation of Social Science Circles [2019BS064]
  2. Planning Project of Human Social Science of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission [20SKGH069, 20SKGH061, 20SKGH063]
  3. Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission [KJQN201900634, KJQN201900649]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an algorithm for computing the reliability of a distribution network, focusing on improving search efficiency and identifying duplicate paths. Numerical experiments demonstrate the advantages of the developed algorithm compared to existing ones.
Reliability and delivery cost are two crucial indicators to show whether a distribution network is in the stable and high-quality operation. This paper develops a (d, b)-minimal path ((d, b)-MP) based algorithm to compute the reliability R( d,b) of a stochastic distribution network as the probability that a prescribed demand d can be successfully delivered from the source to the destination subject to the constraint that the total delivery cost is not above b. Specifically, this paper focuses two aspects to facilitate the solution of (d, b)-MPs. Firstly, by transforming a large Diophantine system into several small Diophantine systems, a modified model is constructed to promote the efficiency of searching for (d, b)-MP candidates and narrow the scope of duplicate (d, b)-MPs. Secondly, a novel technique is devised to identify all duplicate (d, b)-MPs, and its efficiency advantage is theoretically proven. Finally, it is demonstrated through numerical experiments that the developed algorithm compares favorably with the existing ones in the literature, and a case study is provided to display the application of the algorithm.

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

4.7
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