Advertisement

Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 909–935 | Cite as

An Effective Bilevel Programming Approach for the Evasive Flow Capturing Location Problem

  • F. Hooshmand
  • S. A. MirHassaniEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of locating weigh-in-motion (WIM) sensors on a road transportation network to effectively detect and intercept overloaded trucks assuming that truckers quickly find out the locations of WIM facilities, and make an attempt to avoid them by deviating from their predefined shortest paths. We formulate the problem as a bi-level programming (BLP) model and propose two approaches to find its optimal solution: The first approach utilizes the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions to provide a single-level reformulation of the BLP model. However, the second one is an exact decomposition-based algorithm that is superior to the KKT-based reformulation in terms of the computational time. The algorithm starts with a relaxed version of the BLP model and adds a family of cuts on the fly, the optimum is obtained within a few iterations. The idea behind our cut generation is novel and it is based on the knowledge of the underlying problem structure. Computational experiments on some randomly generated instances confirm the efficiency of the algorithm.

Keywords

Evasive flow capturing problem Weigh-in-motion Vehicle inspection stations Bi-level program KKT-based reformulation Exact decomposition-based algorithm 

References

  1. AlGadhi SAH (2002) Optimizing truck weigh stations’ locations on the highway network of Saudi Arabia. King Saud Univ 22:1–19Google Scholar
  2. Ban X, Liu HX (2009) A link-node discrete-time dynamic second best toll pricing model with a relaxation solution algorithm. Network Spatial Econ 9:243–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bard JF, Moore JT (1990) A branch and bound algorithm for the bilevel programming problem. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 11(2):281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bard JF, Moore JT (1992) An algorithm for the discrete bilevel programming problem. Nav Res Logist 39(3):419–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bisschop J (2012) AIMMS-Optimization modeling. Paragon Decision Technology, Harlem. http://www.aimms.com
  6. Boccia M, Sforza A, Sterle C (2009) Flow intercepting facility location: problems, models and heuristics. J Math Model Algorith 8(1):35–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colson P, Marcotte P, Savard G (2007) An overview of bilevel optimization. Ann Oper Res 153(1):235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cottrell Jr BH (1992) The avoidance of weigh stations in Virginia by overweight trucks. Technical report. Virginia Transportation Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  9. Dempe S (2002) Foundations of bilevel programming. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Farvaresh H, Sepehri MM (2013) A branch and bound algorithm for bi-level discrete network design problem. Network Spatial Econ 13(1):67–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen P, Jaumard B, Savard G (1992) New branch-and-bound rules for linear bilevel programming. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 13(5):1194–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ILOG (2011) ILOG CPLEX 12.4 User's manual. http://www.ilog.com/products/cplex
  13. Israeli E, Wood RK (2002) Shortest-path network interdiction. Networks 40(2):97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacob B, La Beaumelle VF (2010) Improving truck safety: potential of weigh-in-motion technology. IATSS Res 34(1):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeroslow RG (1985) The polynomial hierarchy and a simple model for competitive analysis. Math Program 32(2):146–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin DY, Karoonsoontawong A, Waller ST (2011) A Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition based heuristic scheme for bi-level dynamic network design problem. Network Spatial Econ 11(1):101–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu J, Han J, Hu Y, Zhang G (2016) Multilevel decision-making: a survey. Inf Sci 346–347(10):463–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahmoudabadi A, Seyedhosseini SM (2013) Improving the efficiency of weigh in motion systems through optimized allocating truck checking oriented procedure. IATSS Res 36(2):123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marković N, Ryzhov IO, Schonfeld P (2015) Evasive flow capture: optimal location of weigh-in-motion systems, tollbooths, and security checkpoints. Networks 65(1):22–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marković N, Ryzhov IO, Schonfeld P (2017) Evasive flow capture: a multi-period stochastic facility location problem with independent demand. Eur J Oper Res 257:687–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rahmani A, MirHassani SA (2015) Lagrangean relaxation-based algorithm for bi-level problems. Opt Methods Softw 30:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sadeghi S, Seifi A, Azizi E (2017) Trilevel shortest path network interdiction with partial fortification. Comput Ind Eng 106(C):400–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saharidis GK, Ierapetritou MG (2009) Resolution method for mixed integer bi-level linear problems based on decomposition technique. J Glob Optim 44(1):29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Šelmić M, Bešinović N, Teodorović D (2011) Locating weigh-in-motion checkpoints in traffic networks using genetic algorithm. E-Soc J 2(1):55–66Google Scholar
  25. Shi C, Lu J, Zhang G (2005) An extended Kuhn–Tucker approach for linear bilevel programming. Appl Math Comput 162(1):51–63Google Scholar
  26. Williams HP (2013) Model building in mathematical programming. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Yang J, Zhang M, He B, Yang C (2009) Bi-level programming model and hybrid genetic algorithm for flow interception problem with customer choice. Comput Math Appl 57(11–12)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations