Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 57–87 | Cite as

A combined CLP-MILP approach for scheduling commodities in a pipeline



This paper addresses the problem of developing an optimization model to aid the operational scheduling in a real-world pipeline scenario. The pipeline connects refinery and harbor, conveying different types of commodities (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.). An optimization model was developed to determine pipeline scheduling with improved efficiency. This model combines constraint logic programming (CLP) and mixed integer linear programming (MILP) in a CLP-MILP approach. The proposed model uses decomposition strategies, continuous time representation, intervals that indicate time constraints (time windows), and a series of operational issues, such as the seasonal and hourly cost of electric energy (on-peak demand hours). Real cases were solved in a matter of seconds. The computational results have demonstrated that the model is able to define new operational points to the pipeline, providing significant cost savings. Indeed the CLP-MILP model is an efficient tool to aid operational decision-making within this real-world pipeline scenario.


Constraint logic programming (CLP) Mixed integer linear programming (MILP) Scheduling Pipeline 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buscemi, M. G., & Montanari, U. (2008). A survey of constraint-based programming paradigms. Computer Science Review, 2, 137–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cafaro, D. C., & Cerdá, J. (2004). Optimal scheduling of multiproduct pipeline systems using a non-discrete MILP formulation. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28, 2053–2068. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. COPEL Companhia Paranaense de Energia (Paranaense’s Company of Energy) (2009). Tax and tariffs of energy, on-line information available at in January 2009.
  4. Dantzig, G. B. (1963). Linear programming and extensions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Floudas, C. A. (1995). Nonlinear and mixed integer optimization: fundamentals and applications. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Gomes, C. P., & Shmoys, D. (2002). The promise of LP to boost CSP techniques for combinatorial problems. In Fourth international workshop on integration of AI and OR techniques in constraint programming for combinatorial optimization problems, Le Croisic, France (pp. 291–305). Google Scholar
  7. Heipcke, S. (1999). Combined modelling and problem solving in mathematical programming and constraint programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of Buckingham, UK. Google Scholar
  8. Hooker, J. N. (2000) Wiley–Interscience Series in discrete mathematics and optimization. Logic-based methods for optimization: combining optimization and constraint satisfaction. New York: Wiley–Interscience. Google Scholar
  9. Hooker, J. N. (2006). An integrated method for planning and scheduling to minimize tardiness. Constraints, 11, 139–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hürlimann, T. (1998). An efficient logic-to-IP translation procedure. In International conference, applied mathematical programming and modeling, Lymassol, Cyprus (pp. 1–26). Google Scholar
  11. ILOG (2002a). ILOG OPL studio 3.6.1—user’s manual, ILOG Corporation, France. Google Scholar
  12. ILOG (2002b). ILOG OPL studio 3.6.1—language manual, ILOG Corporation, France. Google Scholar
  13. Kalvelagen, E. (2003). On solving the progressive party problem as a MIP. Computers & Operations Research, 30(11), 1713–1726. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kennedy, J. L. (1993). Oil and gas pipeline fundamentals. Oklahoma: PennWell Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  15. Lee, H., Pinto, J. M., Grossman, I. E., & Park, S. (1996). Mixed-integer linear programming model for refinery short-term scheduling of crude oil unloading with inventory management. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 35, 1630–1641. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Magatão, L. (2005). Constraint logic programming and mixed integer linear programming: towards a unified modeling framework. Ph.D. thesis, Graduate School in Electrical Engineering and Industrial Computer Science (CPGEI), Federal University of Technology—Paraná (UTFPR), Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. Google Scholar
  17. Magatão, L., Arruda, L. V. R., & Neves, F. Jr (2004). A mixed integer programming approach for scheduling commodities in a pipeline. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28(1–2), 171–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitra, G., Lucas, C., Moody, S., & Hadjiconstantinou, E. (1994). Tools for reformulating logical forms into zero-one mixed integer programs. European Journal of Operational Research, 72, 262–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moura, A. V., Souza, C. C., Cire, A. A., & Lopes, T. M. T. (2008). Planning and scheduling the operation of a very large oil pipeline network. In P. J. Stuckey (Ed.), LNCS : Vol. 5202. Proceedings of CP 2008 (pp. 36–51). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  20. Neiro, S. M. S., & Pinto, J. M. (2004). A general modeling framework for the operational planning of petroleum supply chains. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28, 871–896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neves-Jr, F., Arruda, L. V. R., Magatão, L., Stebel, S. L., Boschetto, S. N., Felizari, L. C., Czaikowski, D. I., Rocha, R., & Ribas, P. C. (2007). An efficient approach to the operational scheduling of a real-world pipeline network. In Computer aided chemical engineering : Vol. 24. Proceedings of 17th European symposium on computer aided process engineering (ESCAPE 17) (pp. 697–702). Bucareste, 2007. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pettersson, M. P., Szymanek, R., & Kuchcinski, K. (2007). A CP-LP approach to network management in OSPF routing. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 311–315). Seoul, Korea. Google Scholar
  23. Régin, J. C. (1994). A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in CSPs. In Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’94) (pp. 362–367). Seattle, Washington, United States, 1. Google Scholar
  24. Rejowski, R. Jr., & Pinto, J. M. (2004). Efficient MILP formulations and valid cuts for multiproduct pipeline scheduling. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 28, 1511–1528. Google Scholar
  25. Rejowski, R. Jr., & Pinto, J. M. (2008). A novel continuous time representation for the scheduling of pipeline systems with pumping yield rate constraints. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 32, 1042–1066. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reklaitis, G. V. (1992). Overview of scheduling and planning of batch process operations. In Proceedings of the NATO advanced study institute on batch processing systems (pp. 660–705). Antalya, Turkey. Google Scholar
  27. Relvas, S., Matos, H. A., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P. F. D., Fialho, J., & Pinheiro, A. S. (2006). Pipeline scheduling and inventory management of a multiproduct distribution oil system. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 45, 7841–7855. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Relvas, S., Matos, H. A., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P. F. D., & Fialho, J. (2007). Reactive scheduling framework for a multiproduct pipeline with inventory management. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 46, 5659–5672. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossi, F. (2003). Constraint processing. Constraint logic programming. (pp. 413–440). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 978-1-55-860890-0. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossi, F., Beek, P., & Walsh, T. (2006). Handbook of constraint programming. Foundations of artificial intelligence. New York: Elsevier. ISBN 0444527265. Google Scholar
  31. Schrage, L. (2000). Optimization modeling with LINGO. Chicago: LINDO Systems Inc. Google Scholar
  32. Simonis, H. (2008). Constraint logic programming. Orsay: COSYTEC SA. Google Scholar
  33. Subrahmanyam, S., Bassett, M. H., Pekny, J. F., & Reklaitis, G. V. (1995). Issues in solving large scale planning, design and scheduling problems in batch chemical plants. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 19(suppl.), 577–582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Hentenryck, P., Perron, L., & Puget, J. F. (2000). Search and strategies in OPL. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 1, 285–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallace, M. (2007). Constraint programming—the paradigm to watch. Constraint Programming Letters, 1, 7–13. Google Scholar
  36. Williams, H. P. (1995). Logic applied to integer programming and integer programming applied to logic. European Journal of Operational Research, 81, 605–616. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams, H. P., & Wilson, J. M. (1998). Connections between integer linear programming and constraint logic programming—an overview and introduction to the cluster of articles. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 10(3), 261–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, D., & Ierapetritou, M. G. (2003). Decomposition approaches for the efficient solution of short-term scheduling problems. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 27, 1261–1276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School in Electrical Engineering and Industrial Computer ScienceFederal University of Technology—Paraná (UTFPR)CuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations