| Literature DB >> 26226109 |
Yunyue He1, Zhong Liu1, Jianmai Shi1, Yishan Wang2, Jiaming Zhang1, Jinyuan Liu3.
Abstract
Emergency evacuation aims to transport people from dangerous places to safe shelters as quickly as possible. Police play an important role in the evacuation process, as they can handle traffic accidents immediately and help people move smoothly on roads. This paper investigates an evacuation routing problem that involves police resource allocation. We propose a novel k-th-shortest-path-based technique that uses explicit congestion control to optimize evacuation routing and police resource allocation. A nonlinear mixed-integer programming model is presented to formulate the problem. The model's objective is to minimize the overall evacuation clearance time. Two algorithms are given to solve the problem. The first one linearizes the original model and solves the linearized problem with CPLEX. The second one is a heuristic algorithm that uses a police resource utilization efficiency index to directly solve the original model. This police resource utilization efficiency index significantly aids in the evaluation of road links from an evacuation throughput perspective. The proposed algorithms are tested with a number of examples based on real data from cities of different sizes. The computational results show that the police resource utilization efficiency index is very helpful in finding near-optimal solutions. Additionally, comparing the performance of the heuristic algorithm and the linearization method by using randomly generated examples indicates that the efficiency of the heuristic algorithm is superior.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26226109 PMCID: PMC4520475 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The motivation of the heuristic algorithm.
Fig 2Transportation road network of Changsha, China.
Fig 3Transportation road network of Oldenburg, Germany.
The two algorithms comparison on different network scales.
| Objective Value | Solving Time (s) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Heuristic Method (unit time) | Linearization Method (unit time) | Gap | Heuristic Method | Linearization Method (s) |
| 46 | 154 | 1859541 | 1854465 | 0.0027 | 2.806 | 41.871 |
| 204 | 448 | 186076 | 184670 | 0.0076 | 14.529 | 387.226 |
| 395 | 806 | 324137 | - | - | 7.064 | - |
| 735 | 1626 | 514295 | - | - | 24.694 | - |
| 1448 | 3473 | 329669 | - | - | 18.165 | - |
| 1852 | 4400 | 252504 | - | - | 15.718 | - |
| 3118 | 7276 | 386026 | - | - | 22.719 | - |
a Gap = (objective value of heuristic-objective value of linearization)/objective value of heuristic
b The first dataset is of Changsha, China, and others are of Oldenburg, Germany
c “-”stands for out of memory.
Fig 4The computing time of heuristic algorithm and the linearization method.
Fig 5The objective gap difference of the two methods.
The two algorithms comparison on different number of sources and destinations.
| Objective Value | Solving Time (s) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Num. Sources | Num. Destinations | Heuristic Method (unit time) | Linearization Method (unit time) | Gap | Heuristic Method | Linearization Method |
| 1 | 1 | 435332 | 435331 | 0.0000 | 0.313 | 0.812 |
| 2 | 2 | 971449 | 971449 | 0.0000 | 1.177 | 2.013 |
| 2 | 3 | 875706 | 875706 | 0.0000 | 1.391 | 3.105 |
| 4 | 3 | 1859541 | 1854465 | 0.0027 | 2.806 | 41.871 |
Fig 6The line graph of accidents probabilities coefficients and gap.
Fig 7The comparison solving time (s) of two algorithms with coefficient varying.
Fig 8The relationship between objective value and police resource budget.