A Two-Echelon Covering Tour Vehicle Routing Problem with Drones for Post-Disaster Relief
Organizations: Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Akademivej Bygning 358, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark · School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore · School of Computing and Information Systems, Singapore Management University, 80 Stamford Road, 178902, Singapore
Abstract
We introduce the two-echelon covering tour vehicle routing problem (2E-CTVRP) for the distribution of relief supplies after a disaster. In the first echelon, a fleet of trucks transports supplies and drones from a central depot to satellites at the periphery of the affected area. In the second echelon, drones launched in parallel from the satellites deliver the supplies to the centroids of victim clusters, which are obtained by clustering the victim locations, and each truck waits at a satellite until its drones have returned. The problem combines the assignment of satellites to trucks, the sequencing of the truck routes, and the assignment of clusters to satellites, and minimizes the sum of the arrival times of the trucks at the satellites and at the depot. We formulate the 2E-CTVRP as a mixed integer linear program and propose a hybrid metaheuristic, GRASP-ILS-PR, which combines greedy randomized construction, a single-trajectory search, and periodic path relinking on the assignment of clusters to satellites. On a new benchmark set of 110 instances, GRASP-ILS-PR finds all known optimal solutions within 30 seconds, matches or improves on the one-hour solutions of a commercial solver on most larger instances, and improves on them by up to 11% for instances with 50 satellites. It clearly outperforms a conventional GRASP with evolutionary path relinking and yields more consistent results than a simulated annealing algorithm that uses the same search components. An analysis of two fleet configurations shows that few large trucks minimize the cumulative arrival time in most instances, whereas many small trucks deliver supplies to the victims earlier and more equitably in every instance.
Figures & tables
| Study | Two echelons | Trucks | Drones | Delivery | Humanitarian | Uncertainty |
| [ 39 ] | – | S | S | Ind. | – | – |
| [ 29 ] | M | M | Ind. | – | – | |
| [ 70 ] | M | M | Ind. | – | – | |
| [ 48 ] | – | – | M | Ind. | – | |
| [ 11 ] a | – | M | Ind. | – | ||
| [ 64 ] | S | M | Ind. | – |
| Symbol | Description |
| Sets | |
| Directed graph representing the two-echelon network | |
| Set of depot and satellite nodes | |
| Start depot and end-depot copy | |
| Set of satellites | |
| Set of cluster centroids | |
| Operator | Modified component | Scope | Move | Capacity check |
| N1 | intra-route | relocate a satellite | not required | |
| N2 | intra-route | biased swap of two satellites | not required | |
| N3 | intra-route | 2-opt | not required | |
| N4 | inter-route | swap of two satellites | both routes | |
| N5 | inter-route | 2-opt* | both routes | |
| N6 | inter-route | relocate a satellite | receiving route |
| Symbol | Meaning |
| Time limit (primary stopping criterion) | |
| Maximum number of iterations | |
| Number of candidates sampled per operator in a local search sweep | |
| Number of iterations between two calls of the local search | |
| Number of iterations between two calls of path relinking | |
| Number of iterations without improvement of before a restart |
| Set | |||||||||
| M-05-03-1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 460 | 5650 | 12 500 | 1 | 6 |
| M-05-03-2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 460 | 5650 | 3500 | 2 | 6 |
| M-05-04-1 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 520 | 6403 | 12 500 | 1 | 4 |
| M-05-04-2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 520 | 6403 | 3500 | 3 | 4 |
| M-08-05-1 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 730 | 8972 | 12 500 | 1 | 4 |
| M-08-05-2 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 730 | 8972 | 3500 | 4 | 4 |
| Set | |||||||||
| M-20-20-1 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 2050 | 24 065 | 12 500 | 3 | 4 |
| M-20-20-2 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 2050 | 24 065 | 3500 | 11 | 4 |
| M-50-50-1 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 4830 | 58 298 | 12 500 | 6 | 3 |
| M-50-50-2 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 4830 | 58 298 | 3500 | 26 | 3 |
| Symbol | Meaning | Value |
| time limit | 30 s | |
| maximum number of iterations | ||
| candidates sampled per operator in a local search sweep | 5 | |
| iterations between two calls of the local search | 30 | |
| iterations between two calls of path relinking | 10 | |
| iterations without improvement before a restart | 2000 |
| Gurobi | GRASP-EvPR | SA | GRASP-ILS-PR | ||||||||||
| Set | #Opt | CPU (s) | Gap (%) | #BKS | #BKS | #BKS | #BKS | ||||||
| M-05-03-1 | 5 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 |
| M-05-03-2 | 5 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.479 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 |
| M-05-04-1 | 5 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 |
| M-05-04-2 | 5 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 |
| M-08-05-1 | 5 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5 |
| Instance | GRASP-EvPR | SA | GRASP-ILS-PR | ||
| M-05-03-60-1 | 3 | 1 | 41 738 | 756 524 | 365 666 |
| M-08-05-60-1 | 5 | 1 | 17 829 | 415 163 | 295 854 |
| M-10-07-60-2 | 7 | 5 | 7155 | 147 831 | 103 868 |
| M-12-11-60-1 | 11 | 2 | 2073 | 64 603 | 100 399 |
| M-15-13-60-1 | 13 | 3 | 1250 | 54 408 | 86 314 |
| M-17-15-60-2 | 15 | 7 | 3607 | 47 957 | 54 978 |
| Parameter | Value | Avg. objective | (%) | |
| Default configuration | 19.3887 | – | – | |
| (samples per operator) | 3 | 19.3851 | 0.019 | 0.497 |
| 5 | ||||
| 10 | 19.3871 | 0.008 | 0.967 | |
| (local search interval) | 10 | 19.3967 | 0.041 | 0.178 |
| 30 |
| Gurobi | GRASP-EvPR | SA | GRASP-ILS-PR | |||||||||
| Set | Gap (%) | #BKS | #BKS | #BKS | #BKS | |||||||
| M-20-20-1 | 76.10 | 0.06 | 3 | 4.80 | 6.12 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.44 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 4 |
| M-20-20-2 | 48.56 | 0.15 | 1 | 1.66 | 2.14 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 4 | 0.03 | 0.19 | 4 |
| M-50-50-1 | 94.48 | 11.52 | 0 | 17.27 | 19.48 | 0 | 1.46 | 3.08 | 0 | 0.00 | 1.48 | 5 |
| M-50-50-2 | 65.14 | 5.10 | 0 | 4.83 | 5.84 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.44 | 1 | 0.03 | 0.51 | 4 |
| All | 71.07 | 4.21 | 4 | 7.14 | 8.39 | 0 | 0.43 | 1.05 | 6 | 0.02 | 0.57 | 17 |
| Truck | Satellite | Centroid | Waiting | Arrival | Return | Load |
| (a) Large-truck fleet, , , objective 17.73 | ||||||
| 1 | 9 | 8 | 0.33 | 0.51 | 3.50 | 4223 |
| 8 | 5 | 0.25 | 0.93 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 0.30 | 1.57 | |||
| 5 | 1 | 0.57 | 1.94 | |||
| 2 | 7 | 3 | 0.17 | 0.52 | 3.17 | 5364 |
| Util. (%) | ||||||||||||
| L | S | L | S | L | S | L | S | L | S | L | S | |
| 3 | 7.20 | 8.08 | 1.26 | 1.12 | 2.08 | 1.72 | 2761 | 3312 | 1.01 | 0.65 | 45 | 81 |
| 4 | 7.46 | 7.68 | 1.15 | 0.83 | 2.10 | 1.21 | 3117 | 5361 | 1.29 | 0.53 | 51 | 61 |
| 5 | 12.90 | 13.83 | 1.65 | 1.09 | 3.18 | 1.67 | 2909 | 5395 | 2.24 | 0.78 | 72 | 64 |
| 7 | 13.97 | 16.03 | 1.33 | 0.94 | 1.96 | 1.42 | 6312 | 8602 | 1.16 | 0.64 | 49 | 69 |
| 8 | 18.72 | 21.16 | 1.68 | 1.23 | 2.38 | 1.66 | 4923 | 7000 | 1.41 | 0.78 | 46 | 66 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Gurobi | GRASP-EvPR | SA | GRASP-ILS-PR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instance | Obj. | LB | Gap (%) | CPU (s) | Best | Avg. | Best | Avg. | Best | Avg. |
| M-05-03-40-1 | 8.174 | 8.174 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 8.174 | 8.174 | 8.174 | 8.174 | 8.174 | 8.174 |
| M-05-03-50-1 | 7.505 | 7.505 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.505 | 7.505 | 7.505 | 7.505 | 7.505 | 7.505 |
| M-05-03-60-1 | 7.059 | 7.059 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 7.059 | 7.059 | 7.059 | 7.059 | 7.059 | 7.059 |
| M-05-03-70-1 | 6.741 | 6.741 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6.741 | 6.741 | 6.741 | 6.741 | 6.741 | 6.741 |
| M-05-03-80-1 | 6.502 | 6.502 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6.502 | 6.502 | 6.502 | 6.502 | 6.502 | 6.502 |
| Gurobi | GRASP-EvPR | SA | GRASP-ILS-PR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instance | Obj. | LB | Gap (%) | CPU (s) | Best | Avg. | Best | Avg. | Best | Avg. |
| M-05-03-40-2 | 8.760 | 8.760 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 8.760 | 8.760 | 8.760 | 8.812 | 8.760 | 8.760 |
| M-05-03-50-2 | 8.292 | 8.292 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 8.292 | 8.292 | 8.292 | 8.331 | 8.292 | 8.292 |
| M-05-03-60-2 | 7.980 | 7.980 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 7.980 | 7.980 | 7.980 | 8.012 | 7.980 | 7.980 |
| M-05-03-70-2 | 7.757 | 7.757 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 7.757 | 7.757 | 7.757 | 7.796 | 7.757 | 7.757 |
| M-05-03-80-2 | 7.590 | 7.590 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 7.590 | 7.590 | 7.590 | 7.622 | 7.590 | 7.590 |
| Gurobi | GRASP-EvPR | SA | GRASP-ILS-PR | ||||||
| Instance | Obj. | LB | Gap (%) | Best | Avg. | Best | Avg. | Best | Avg. |
| M-20-20-40-1 | 47.896 | 10.177 | 78.75 | 51.069 | 51.535 | 47.966 | 48.105 | 47.896 | 47.995 |
| M-20-20-50-1 | 43.322 | 9.532 | 78.00 | 45.318 | 45.972 | 43.265 | 43.468 | 43.265 | 43.324 |
| M-20-20-60-1 | 40.132 | 9.975 | 75.14 | 42.182 | 42.541 | 40.146 | 40.299 | 40.142 | 40.176 |
| M-20-20-70-1 | 37.877 | 9.510 | 74.89 | 39.303 | 39.838 | 37.844 | 37.977 | 37.815 | 37.848 |
| M-20-20-80-1 | 36.021 | 9.468 | 73.72 | 37.320 | 37.970 | 36.067 | 36.188 | 36.021 | 36.055 |
Vehicle Routing
Vehicle routing studies how to assign and sequence trips for fleets while meeting capacity, time, energy, and service constraints.
See all 135 papers