Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Operations Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://pubsonline.informs.org
This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use
or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher
approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.
The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness
for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or
inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or
support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.
© 1987 INFORMS
INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management
science, and analytics.
For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
ALGORITHMS FOR
THE VEHICLE ROUTING AND SCHEDULING PROBLEMS
WITH TIME WINDOW CONSTRAINTS
MARIUS M. SOLOMON
Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts
(Received February '984; revisions received October 1984; March, October 1985; accepted December 1985)
This paper considers the design and analysis of algorithms for vehicle routing and scheduling problems with time window
constraiots. Given the intrinsic difficulty of this problem class, EV}proximation methods seem to offer the most promise
for practical size problems. After describing a variety of heuristics, we conduct an extensive computational study of their
performance. The problem set includes routing and scheduling environments that differ in terms of the type of data used
to generate the problems, the percent^e of customers with time windows, their tightness and positioning, and the
scheduling horizon. We found that several heuristics performed well in different problem environments; in particular an
insertion-type heuristic consistently gave very good results.
Subject classification: 632 heuristic {nngramming, 831 transportation, 483 distance algorithms.
256 / SOLOMON
push forward in the schedule at ipi on one route as opposed to servicing them individ-
ually, directly from the depot.
PF,, = /j™™' - i>;^ > 0 Due to the existence of time windows, we now must
Furthermore, account for route orientation. Two partial routes with
end customers /' and j , respectively, have compatible
PFi^, = max{0, P F i ^ - w ^ ^ . K p ^ r ^ m - 1, orientations if/ is first (last), and 7 is last (finit), i.e.,
Similarly, one can also define a push backward in the admissible links are from the last customer (/) on
the schedule at /Vforr = 0, . . . , ; ) - 1. However, this one route to the first customer (/) on another. Fur-
concept is not appealing, since the current schedule thermore, in addition to taking into account vehicle
can be pushed backward only if there is no waiting capacity constraints, we must check time window
time in the schedule up to /p., and the vehicle leaves constraints for violation at every step in the heuristic
the depot later than eo. Note that by initially assuming process. Lemma 1.1 can be easily adapted to the case
that each vehicle leaves the depot at eo, we can take of links of the form (/,/). As in Lemma LI, we simply
advantage of the maximum possible push forward. use the push forward generated a t / t o efficiently test
If PF,p > 0, some of the customers i,, p '^ r ^ m, time feasibility.
could become infeasible. It is easy to see that we should We implemented the parallel savings method using
examine these customers sequentially for time feasi- list processing and heapsort structures, as proposed by
bility until we fmd some customer, say U with r<m, Golden, M^nanti and Nguyen (1977).
for which PFi, = 0, or i, is time infeasible, or, in the As presented, the savings heuristic could find it
worst case all the customers ir, p ^ r ^ m are exam- profitable to join two customers very close in distance
ined. We have just proved: but far apart in time. Such links introduce extended
periods of waiting time, which can have a high oppor-
Lemma 1.1. The necessary and sufficient conditions tunity cost since the vehicle could be servicing other
for time feasibility when inserting a customer, say u, customers instead of, for example, waiting for a cus-
between ip-^ and ip, 1 ^ p ^ m, on a partially con- tomer to open. To account for both the spatial and
structed feasible route (/'o, ii, /2, . • •, im), io = im = 0 temporal closeness of customers, we propose limiting
are the waiting time when joining two customers: letting
bu =s /„, and /J,, + PF,, ^ li^, p ^ r ^ m. wf^ be the resulting waiting time a t / i f / and/were
to be joined, and Wbe a parameter, i.e., if wf^ > W,
Note that if we assume non-euclidean travel dis- then we do not use the link (/,/).
tances and times, then it is possible that PF,p < 0,
which leaves all the customers time feasible. 1.2. A Time-Oriented, Nearest-Neighbor Heuristic
Note also that since /,„ = 0, the use of Lemma 1.1
will ensure that any customer that does not permit The second heuristic we consider belongs to the class
the vehicle to return to the depot within the scheduled of sequential, tour-building algorithms.
time will not be added to the partial route. The nearest-neighbor heuristic starts every route by
Let us now describe several heuristic methods for finding the unrouted customer "closest" (in terms of
the solution of VRSPTW. a measure to be described later) to the depot. At every
subsequent iteration, the heuristic searches for the
customer "closest" to the last customer added to the
1.1. Savings Heuristics route. This search is performed among all the cus-
Our initial approach to solving VRSPTW is to extend tomers who can feasibly (with respect to time win-
the savings heuristic originally proposed for the rout- dows, vehicle arrival time at the depot, and capacity
ing problem by Clarke and Wright (1964). This pro- constraints) be added to the end of the emerging route.
cedure begins with n distinct routes in which each A new route is started any time the search fails, unless
customer is served by a dedicated vehicle. The parallel there are no more customers to schedule.
version of this tour-building heuristic is characterized The metric used in this approach tries to account
by the addition at every iteration of a link of distinct, for both geographical and temporal closeness of cus-
partially formed routes between two end customers, tomers. Let the last customer on the current partial
guided by a measure of cost savings given by route be customer i, and let j denote any unrouted
customer that could be visited next. Then the metric
dio + doj - f ^ 0. used, Cij, measures the direct distance between the two
For example, when n = I, savy is the savings in customers, dy, the time difference between the com-
distance that results from servicing customers / and j pletion of service at i and the beginning of service at
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
258 / SOLOMON
customers on the route, rather than only at the end of behavior of routing and scheduling heuristics. These
the route. faaors include: geographical data; the number of
In all the approaches presented, the insertion of customers serviced by a vehicle; and time window
uniounted customers is guided by both geographical characteristics such as percentage of time-constrained
and temporal criteria. As a consequence, we expert customers, and tightness and positioning of the time
that the waiting time in the schedules produced by windows.
these heuristics will be significantly lower than that The data used for the customer coordinates and
produced by distance-driven criteria. demands are based on the data for some of the prob-
lems from the standard set of routing test problems
1.4. A Time-Oriented Sweep Heuristic given in Christofides, Mingozzi and Toth (1979). The
geographical data are randomly generated by a ran-
This heuristic can be viewed as a member of a broad dom uniform distribution (denote the corresponding
class of approximation methods that decompose the problem sets by Rl and R2), clustered (denote the
VRSPTW into a clustering stage and a scheduling corresponding problem sets by Cl and C2), and semi-
stage. In the first phase, we assign customers to vehi- clustered (denote the corresponding problem sets by
cles as in the original sweep heuristic (Gillett and RCl and RC2). By a semiclustered problem, we mean
Miller 1974). In the second phase, we create a one- one that contains a mix of randomly generated data
vehicle schedule for the customers in this sector, using and clusters. Problem sets Rl, Cl, and RCl have a
a tour-building heuristic. The insertion heuristic of short scheduling horizon. The length of route-time
type (i) was used in our computer implementation. constraint arts as a capacity constraint which, together
Due to the time window constraints, some customers with the vehicle capacity constraints, allows only a
in this cluster could remain unscheduled. few customers to be serviced by the same vehicle. In
After eliminating scheduled customers from further contrast, the sets R2, C2 and RC2 have a long sched-
consideration, we repeat the clustering-scheduling uhng horizon; this characteristic, coupled with large
process. To preserve geographical cohesiveness, one vehicle capacities, permits many customers to be
might consider different seed selection criteria for the serviced by the same vehicle.
next cluster. We use a simple rule that bisects the
Given certain geographical and demand data, we
sector just considered and, assuming a counterclock-
created the VRSPTW test problems by generating
wise sweep in the more counterclocicwise half-sector
time windows of various widths for different percent-
lets the seed for a new cluster be the unscheduled
ages of customers. In terms of time window density,
customer with the smallest angle formed by the
that is, the percentage of customers with time win-
ray firom the depot through that customer and the
dows, we created problems with 25, 50, 75 and 100%
bisector.
time windows.
The intuition for partitioning the unscheduled cus- We now present a method we designed for the
tomers in the sertor into two subsets is that the cus- random generation of time window constraints. This
tomers in the more clockwise half-sector will be rela- method was used for the development of the problem
tively far away from the new cluster. By inserting these sets R1, R2, RCl, RC2. First, we select the percentage
customers at a later stage, we hope to generate a better of customers to receive time windows, say / 0 <
schedule. / « 1. We then generate « random numbers from
We then repeat the process until all customers have the random uniform distribution over the interval
been scheduled. (0, 1) and sort them. This approach creates a random
In order to evaluate the computational capabilities permutation of customers, (/i, . . . , /„), with ij being
of the heuristics presented, we have developed a set of the position after the sort of the 7 th random number
test problems. This approach is necessary given that generated. Finally, we assign time windows to the
no benchmark problem set is available in the literature customers !,,•••, U,, with n, chosen to be the integer
for vehicle routing and scheduling problems with time that most closely approximates^. The time windows
windows. have a randomly generated center and width. We
choose the center of the time window for customer (j
for 7 = 1, . . . , n^ as being a uniformly distributed,
2. Devetopment of the ProUein Sets
randomly generated number in the interval {eo + tojjy
We generated six sets of problems; the actual data are lo — tijfl — Si). To create the time window's width for
available from the author. The design of these test ij, we generate half the width as a normally distributed
problems highlights several factors that can affect the random number.
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
260 / SOLOMON
(1, 0.4, 0.4, 0.2), and (1, 0, 1, 0). The initialization results is provided by further comparing, on Cl and
criteria (a), (b), and (c) were used with the first set of on C2, this heuristic's values with the best known
parameters. In addition to the previous three criteria, solution (see Section 2). II was consistently close to
we used the actn^ heuristic criterion for initialization the best known total schedule time on both problem
in conjunction with the second set of parameters. For sets; on Cl, its smallest deviation was 0.3%, its largest
the third set of parameters, criteria (a), (b) and the deviation was 8.3%, with an average of 2.8%, while
actual heuristic criterion were used for initialization. on C2, its deviation was within 5% in seven out of the
Sweep. The results for this heuristic are the best of eight problems tested.
eight runs with the parameters used for the insertion The insertion-based sweep strategy was found to be
heuristic with criterion (i). The first seed was always very good for problems with many customers per
chosen as the first customer encountered in the first vehicle. This heuristic obtained the best solution in 13
quadrant in a counterclockwise sweep. out of the 27 cases. This method performed very well
Nearest Neighbor. The parameters used for this on the clustered problem sets C i and C2, where it was
heuristic, (5,, 62, 53), are: (0.4, 0.4, 0.2), (0, 1, 0), superior to the other heuristics in 4 and 7 cases,
{0.5, 0.5, 0), and (0.3, 0.3, 0.4). respectively. When compared to the best known so-
Tables I-VI compare the methods on each problem lution for these problem sets, its largest total schedule
set, for solution quality and running time. time deviation was only 9.7% on Cl, and 3.8% on
With respect to solution quality, heuristic II per- C2. While it did not behave well on Rl and RCl, we
formed the best. Its behavior was very stable across all believe its behavior on these problems could be im-
problem environments, obtaining the best solution for proved by the consideration of each of the customers
27 out of the 56 problems tested; even when it did not as initial seeds.
beat the other methods, its deviation from the best The insertion heuristics 12 and 13 dominated the
solution was quite small. Additional support for these waiting time dimension for problems with a short
Table I
Comparison of the Algorithms on Rl
Average Solution Values^ Percent Deviation No. of Problems on
Algorithm and CPU Time' from Best Average Which Method Found
Solution Value Best Solution
Savings (SAV) 3116.3 16.6 15.6% 22% 0
1498.9 4.3%
617.4 2.4 138.6%
Savings, waiting time limit 2925.2 15.1 8.5% 11% 0
(SWT) 1517.2 5.6%
408.1 4.7 57.7%
Insertion criterion i (11) 2695.5 13.6 0.0% 0% 11
1436.7 0.0%
258.8 24.7 0.0%
Insertion criterion ii (12) 2888.1 14.5 7.1% 6.6% 0
1638.7 14.1%
249.4 25.5 -3.6%
Insertion criterion iii (13) 2855.1 14.1 5.9% 3.7% 1
1651.7 15.0%
203.3 31.7 -21.4%
Nearest Neighbor (NN) 2968.7 14.5 10.1% 6.6% 0
1600.1 11.4%
368.0 8.9 42.2%
Sweep (S) 2817.4 14.6 4.5% 7.3% 0
1499.7 4.4%
317.7 18.2 22.8%
•' Schedule time Number of routes
Distance
Waiting time CPU time.
*CPU time in seconds on the DEC-10.
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
Table III
Comparison of the Algorithms on RCl
Average Solution Values" Percent Deviation No. of Problems on
Algorithm and CPU Time" from Best Average Which Method Found
Solution Value the Best Solution
II 2775.0 13.5 0.0% 0.0%
1596.5 0.0%
178.5 23.8 0.0%
12 3029.5 14.2 9.2% 5.2%
1874.4 17.4%
155.1 24.4 -13.1%
13 3014.0 14.0 8.6% 3.7%
1849.7 15.8%
164.2 30.3 -8.0%
NN 3057.2 14.2 10.2% 5.2%
1800.0 . 12.7%
257.2 8.9 44.1
S 3094.5 14.9 11.5% 10.4%
1804.5 13.0%
290.0 18.4 62.5%
Schedule time Number of routes
Distance
Waiting time CPU time.
CPU time in seconds on the DEC-10.
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
262 / SOLOMON
Table r v
Comparison of the Algorithms on R2
Percent Deviation No. of Problems on
Average Solution Values" from Best Average Whicb Method Found
Algorithm and CPU Time* Solution Value Best Solution
II 2578.1 3.3 -0.5%
1402.4 -3.2%
175.6 62.6 24.2%
12 2645.8 3.3 2.1%
1470.7 1.5%
175.1 71.1 23.8%
13 2676.4 3.4 3.3%
1474.6 1.8%
201.7 81.7 42.6%
NN 2719.6 3.4 5.0%
1472.3 1.6%
247.4 7.7 75.0%
S 2590.1 3.2 0.0%
1448.6 0.0%
141.4 40.5 0.0%
Schedule time Number of routes
Distance
Waiting time CPU time
CPU time in seconds on the DEC-10.
Table V
Comparison of the Algorithms on C2
scheduling horizon. Otherwise, they were rarely able The time-oriented, nearest-neighbor method also
to obtain the best solution. It seems that these heuris- had limited success; this occurred in the long sched-
tics will be successful for problems with idle time as uling horizon problems that permit many customers
the primary objective. to be serviced by the same vehicle.
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
The savings heuristic with waiting-time limit, while We begin by examining the effect of distance inser-
a considerable improvement over the original savings tion (ai = 1, a2 = 0) versus time insertion (ai = 0 ,
method, did not perform well in general. After we a2~ I). For the problem sets involving long scheduling
examined its behavior on Rl and Cl, preliminary horizons, time insertion proved clearly superior to
computational experiments on the rest of the problem distance insertion. It was used in obtaining the best
sets indicated that this heuristic will, in general, re- solution to 21 out of 27 problems. The few exceptions,
quire more vehicles than the number utilized by the two for each problem set, where distance insertion
other heuristics. Therefore, we did not examine its performed best, were problems with less than 100%
behavior any further. Nevertheless, given that it found time window density, or the least tight problems.
the best solutions to 5 problems of Cl, it might For the problem sets with a short scheduling hori-
conceivably be used with success in a sweep-type zon, time insertion proved useful for most of the tight
heuristic. and high density problems of R! and RCl. It was
In terms of computation time, all the heuristics used for 5 problems of RCl, and 4 problems of Ri.
seem to be very efficient. Algorithms SWT and SAV Not surprisingly, time insertion was used for the
were the fastest. Our results indicate that the efficiency less constrained problems of Cl, 4 problems, since it
of the insertion methods incre^ed with the increase was able to provide more intelligence than distance
in the percentage of time window constraints and their insertion in directing the heuristic toward the optimal
tightness. This result is due to a lower number of solution.
feasible insertions possible in such problems. In conclusion, time insertion proved superior to
distance insertion, especially in problems involving
3.2. Parametric Analysis many customers per vehicle, and/or high density and
tight time windows. Distance insertion, by emphasiz-
Most of the heuristics presented are parameterized. It ing the geographical component, can lead to higher
is thus of interest to know whether there are any total schedule time from accumulated waiting time
relationships between the parameter values and the and, possibly, ^ditional vehicles. We should note that
initialization criteria that produced the best solution we observed the same pattern for the insertion-based-
values, and the corresponding problem structures. sweep strategy.
Given our computational results, we will focus on the Examining now the choice of parameters X, we find
heuristic II. that X = 2 was used in obtaining the best solution to
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
264 / SOLOMON
35 problems, while X = 1 was used in only 21 cases. tiveness of the various tour-building VRSPTW heu-
On Rl, X = 2 was utilized for 9 out of 12 problems, ristics suggested. Furthermore, given the wide variety
while on RC2, it was used for 7 out of 8. Five out of of routing and scheduling environments used in our
9 Cl problems used X = 2. This parameter value was study, we consider the relative performance of these
also used for 5 out of 8 RCl problems, 5 out of 11 heuristics on the test problems indicative of their
R2 problems, and 4 out of 8 C2 problems. relative performance in general.
The initialization criterion used for a heuristic can Based on our study, we recommend the use of the
have a significant impact on its behavior. We used insertion heuristic 11, possibly embedded in a hybrid
two initialization criteria for II: the farthest unrouted sweep-insertion approach, to obtain excellent initial
customer and the unrouted customer with the earliest VRSPTW solutions in a reasonable amount of com-
deadline. The former criterion proved successful for puting time. Given its very stable behavior, we believe
the problem sets with short scheduling horizons. It that this heuristic will perform very well on practical
was used in obtaining 23 out of the 29 best solutions problems. Further support for this conclusion is pro-
to these problems: all Rl problems except one, all vided by the recent work of Jaw et al. (1984) that
RCl problems, and 4 Cl problems. In contrast, the showed the effectiveness of an insertion-based proce-
latter criterion was better on the long scheduling ho- dure in a time-window constrained real dial-a-ride
rizon problems in which, given that only a few vehicles environment.
were used, it was of primary importance to service
customers with early due dates at the beginning of the
scheduling horizon so no additional vehicles would be
Acknowledgment
necessary. In these experiments, the earliest deadline
criterion was used in 16 out of the 27 best solutions:
6 problems of R2, 6 problems of C2, and 4 problems The author has benefited from fruitfiil discussions
ofRC2. with Marshall Fisher, Ramchandran Jaikumar,
Note that most of these problems are characterized Monique Guignard-Spielberg, Pradeep Kedia and
by 100% density and/or tight time windows. This Anand Desai. He also wishes to thank the three anon-
initialization method was quite successful on the struc- ymous referees for their useful comments. The
tured problems since it was able to guide the heuristic computer time for this project was provided by the
search toward the optimal solution. Wharton Computer Center of the University of
Pennsylvania.
4. Conclusions
References
We have presented the development of heuristics and
test problem sets and have reported our computational
experiments for VRSPTW. Our results indicate that BAKER, E . 1983. An Exact Algorithm for the Time-
Constrained Traveling Salesman Problem. Opns.
the insertion heuristic I! proved to be very successful. Res. 31, 938-945.
A parametric analysis of this heuristic revealed the BAKER, E., AND S. RUSHINEK. 1982. Large Scale Imple-
importance of time driven insertions for heavily time- mentation of a Time Oriented Vehicle Scheduling
constrained problems, particularly when many cus- Model. U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban
tomers are to be scheduled for each vehicle. In the Mass Transit Administration.
latter case, it seems that a very effective strategy is to BoDiN, L., B. GOLDEN, A. ASSAD AND M . BALL. 1983.
embed this heuristic in a sweep-type approach. Routing and Scheduling of Vehicles and Crews: The
The excellent performance of the insertion heuristic State of the Art. Compul. Opns. Res. 10, 62-212.
II can be explained if we realize that, while routing CHRISTOFIDES, N . , A. MINQOZZI AND P. TOTH. 1979. The
problems seems to be driven by the assignment-of- Vehicle Routing Problem. In Combinatorial Opti-
mizations, N. Christofides, R. Mingozzi, P. Toth,
customers-to-vehides component—as indicated by
and C. Sandi (eds.). John WUey & Sons, New York.
the success of the Fisher and Jaikumar generalized
CHRISTOFIDES, N . , A. MINGOZZI AND P. TOTH. 1981.
asngnment heuristic—the sequencing aspect of the State Space Relaxation Procedures for the Compu-
problem seems to drive routing problems dominated tation of Bounds to Routing Problems. Networks 11,
by time windows. It is this aspect of the problem that 145-164.
the insertion heuristic II captures so well. CLARKE, G . , AND W . WRIGHT. 1964. Scheduling of
We believe that our computational study provides Vehicles from a Central Depot to A Number of
some definite guidelines concerning the relative effec- Delivery Points. Opns. Res. 12, 568-581.
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
COOK T . , AND R . RUSSELL. 1978. A Simulation and LIN, S. 1965. Computer Solutions of the Travehng Sales-
Statistical Analysis of Stochastic Vehicle Routing man Problem. Belt System Tech. J. 44, 2245-2269.
with Timing Constraints. Decision Sci. 9, 673-687. MILLER, C , A. TUCKER AND R . ZEMLIN. 1960. Integer
DESKOSIERS, J . , P . PELLETIER, AND F . SOUMIS. 1982. Programming Formulations and Traveling Sales-
Shortest Path with Time Windows. Working Paper man Problems. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 7,
81-21, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, 326-329.
Montreal. MOLE, R . , AND S. JAMESON. 1976. A Sequential Route-
DESROSIERS, i., F. SOUMIS AND M . DESROCHERS. 1983a. Building Algorithm Employing a Generalized Sav-
Routing With Time Windows by Column Genera- ings Criterion. Opnl. Res. Quart. 27, 503-511.
tion. Working Paper 277, Centre de Reserche sur les ORLOFF, C . 1976. Route Constrained Fleet Scheduling.
Transports, University of Montreal. Trans. Sci. 10, 149-168.
DESROSIERS, J . , F . SOUMIS AND M . DESROCHERS. 1983b. PSARAFTIS, H . 1983. An Exact Algorithm for the Single
Routing with Time Windows: Synthesis. Working Vehicle Many-to-Many Dial-A-Ride Problem with
Paper G-83-05, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commer- Time Windows. Trans. Sci. 17, 351-358.
ciales, Montreal. PULLEN, H., AND M. WEBB. 1967. A Computer Ap-
FEDERGRUEN, A . , AND B . J . LAGEWEG. 1980. Hierarchi- plication to a Transport Scheduling Problem.
cal Distribution Modelling with Routing Costs. Comput. J. 10, 10-13.
Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam. RUSSELL, R . 1977. An Effective Heuristic for the M-Tour
FISHER, M . , AND R . JAIKUMAR. 1981. A Generalized Traveling Salesman Problem with Some Side Con-
Assignment Heuristic for Vehicle Routing. Networks ditions. Opns. Res. 25, 517-524.
11, 109-124. SAVELSBERGH, M . 1984. Private Communication by
FISHER, M . , A. GREENEIELD, R . JAIKUMAR AND P. KEDIA. Alexander Rinnooy Kan.
1982. Real-Time Scheduling of a Bulk Delivery SCHRAGF, L. 1981. Formulation and Structure of More
Fleet: Practical Application of Lagrangian Relaxa- Complex/Realistic Routing and Scheduhng Prob-
tion. Working Paper 82-10-11, Department of lems. Networks 11, 229-232.
Decision Sciences, University of Pennsylvania. SEXTON, T . , AND L . BODIN. 1985a. Optimizing Single
GiLLET, B., AND L. MILLER. 1974. A Heuristic Algorithm Vehicle Many-to-Many Operations with Desired
For the Vehicle Dispatching Problem. Opns. Res. Dehvery Times: I. Scheduling. Trans. Sci. 19,
22, 340-349. 378-410.
GOLDEN, B., T . MAGNANTI AND H . NGUYEN. 1977. SEXTON, T., AND L . BODIN. 1985b. Optimizing Single
Implementing Vehicle Routing Algorithms. Net- Vehicle Many-to-Many Operations with Desired De-
works!, 113-148. livery Times: II. Routing. Trans. Sci. 19, 411-435.
JAW, J . , A . ODONI, H . PSARAFTIS AND N . WILSON. 1984. SOLOMON, M . 1983. Vehicle Routing and Scheduling
A Heuristic Algorithm for the Multi-Vehicle with Time Window Constraints: Models and Algo-
Advance Request Diai-A-Ride Problem with Time rithms. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Decision Sci-
Windows. Working Paper MIT-UMTA-83-L. ences, University of Pennsylvania.
KNIGHT, K . , AND J. HOFER. 1968. Vehicle Scheduling SwERSEY, A., AND W. BALLARD. 1982. Scheduhng School
with Timed and Connected Calls: A Case Study. Buses. Working Paper, Yale School of Organization
Opnl. Res. Quart. 19, 299-310. and Management.
Downloaded from informs.org by [132.236.27.111] on 11 May 2017, at 17:30 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.