{"title":"电动汽车路径问题紧凑公式的比较","authors":"Zhiguo Wu , Hande Yaman","doi":"10.1016/j.trb.2025.103314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The electric vehicle routing problem is an extension of the capacitated vehicle routing problem, where en-route recharging needs to be addressed due to the limited driving range of electric vehicles. In this study, we compare four compact formulations that differ in the way they model the battery consumption. The first two formulations use Miller–Tucker–Zemlin’s approach, while the last two use single-commodity flows for this purpose. Within each approach, the two formulations have distinct ways of dealing with the fact that recharging stations may be visited more than once. In particular, two formulations make use of arcs that correspond to two-leg paths with a recharging station in the middle, whereas the other two formulations use copies of recharging stations, as suggested in the literature. We compare the linear programming bounds of these four formulations as well as the existing formulations from a theoretical point of view. Then, we analyze the performance of the new and existing formulations using six sets of benchmark instances. The computational results show that our formulations tighten the linear programming bounds and require less computation time to prove optimality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54418,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part B-Methodological","volume":"200 ","pages":"Article 103314"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of compact formulations for the electric vehicle routing problem\",\"authors\":\"Zhiguo Wu , Hande Yaman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.trb.2025.103314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The electric vehicle routing problem is an extension of the capacitated vehicle routing problem, where en-route recharging needs to be addressed due to the limited driving range of electric vehicles. In this study, we compare four compact formulations that differ in the way they model the battery consumption. The first two formulations use Miller–Tucker–Zemlin’s approach, while the last two use single-commodity flows for this purpose. Within each approach, the two formulations have distinct ways of dealing with the fact that recharging stations may be visited more than once. In particular, two formulations make use of arcs that correspond to two-leg paths with a recharging station in the middle, whereas the other two formulations use copies of recharging stations, as suggested in the literature. We compare the linear programming bounds of these four formulations as well as the existing formulations from a theoretical point of view. Then, we analyze the performance of the new and existing formulations using six sets of benchmark instances. The computational results show that our formulations tighten the linear programming bounds and require less computation time to prove optimality.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Part B-Methodological\",\"volume\":\"200 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103314\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Part B-Methodological\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261525001638\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part B-Methodological","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261525001638","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of compact formulations for the electric vehicle routing problem
The electric vehicle routing problem is an extension of the capacitated vehicle routing problem, where en-route recharging needs to be addressed due to the limited driving range of electric vehicles. In this study, we compare four compact formulations that differ in the way they model the battery consumption. The first two formulations use Miller–Tucker–Zemlin’s approach, while the last two use single-commodity flows for this purpose. Within each approach, the two formulations have distinct ways of dealing with the fact that recharging stations may be visited more than once. In particular, two formulations make use of arcs that correspond to two-leg paths with a recharging station in the middle, whereas the other two formulations use copies of recharging stations, as suggested in the literature. We compare the linear programming bounds of these four formulations as well as the existing formulations from a theoretical point of view. Then, we analyze the performance of the new and existing formulations using six sets of benchmark instances. The computational results show that our formulations tighten the linear programming bounds and require less computation time to prove optimality.
期刊介绍:
Transportation Research: Part B publishes papers on all methodological aspects of the subject, particularly those that require mathematical analysis. The general theme of the journal is the development and solution of problems that are adequately motivated to deal with important aspects of the design and/or analysis of transportation systems. Areas covered include: traffic flow; design and analysis of transportation networks; control and scheduling; optimization; queuing theory; logistics; supply chains; development and application of statistical, econometric and mathematical models to address transportation problems; cost models; pricing and/or investment; traveler or shipper behavior; cost-benefit methodologies.