| Literature DB >> 27163361 |
Tingxi Wen1, Zhongnan Zhang1, Kelvin K L Wong2.
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has been widely used in many industries. In the medical environment, especially in some emergency situations, UAVs play an important role such as the supply of medicines and blood with speed and efficiency. In this paper, we study the problem of multi-objective blood supply by UAVs in such emergency situations. This is a complex problem that includes maintenance of the supply blood's temperature model during transportation, the UAVs' scheduling and routes' planning in case of multiple sites requesting blood, and limited carrying capacity. Most importantly, we need to study the blood's temperature change due to the external environment, the heating agent (or refrigerant) and time factor during transportation, and propose an optimal method for calculating the mixing proportion of blood and appendage in different circumstances and delivery conditions. Then, by introducing the idea of transportation appendage into the traditional Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem (CVRP), this new problem is proposed according to the factors of distance and weight. Algorithmically, we use the combination of decomposition-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm and local search method to perform a series of experiments on the CVRP public dataset. By comparing our technique with the traditional ones, our algorithm can obtain better optimization results and time performance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27163361 PMCID: PMC4862655 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155176
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1An example of UAV flight plan for multiple disaster areas.
Notations used in the Heat Conduction Model.
| Notation | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Current temperature of the hot water | |
| Current temperature of the blood | |
| Temperature of the environment | |
| Specific heat capacity of the hot water | |
| Specific heat capacity of the blood | |
| Heat conductance between the hot water and the container | |
| Heat conductance between the blood and the container | |
| Heat conductance between the container and the environment | |
| Initial temperature of the hot water | |
| Initial temperature of the blood | |
| Flight time | |
| Weight of the hot water needed for place | |
| Weight of the blood needed for place |
Fig 2Sketch of multi-objective optimization [26].
Fig 3Example of a solution.
Representation scheme 1: Vehicle-oriented coding.
| Target | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| Route | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Sequence | 1 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 4 |
Representation scheme 2: Destination-oriented coding.
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 0 |
Representation scheme 3.
| Route1 | Route2 | Route3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
Fig 4Example of PMX operation.
Fig 5Mutation operators.
Fig 6Results of nearest neighbor reorganization.
Fig 7MOEA/D-N-UVRP that is based on the framework of the MOEA/D for UCVRP, where the main adjustment is in the dashed box.
Fig 8The temperature of the water (T) and the blood (T) change with time in the given circumstance.
Fig 9Temperature changes with time in the case of different weight of hot water and blood.
Note: Red line represents the blood temperature is beyond the appropriate range.
Fig 10Temperature changes with time.
Green line represents an appropriate time interval of arrival.
Proportions between hot water and blood.
| Distance/Weight | [0, 2] | [2, 3] | [3, 5] | [6, 10] | [10, 15] | [15, 20] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0, 5] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| [5, 10] | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| [10, 15] | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.08 |
| [15, 20] | 2.4 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.15 |
Fig 11Using frequency of each proportion in Table 5 for instance E-n101-k14 according to different MaxY values.
MaxY is set as 150 and 30 for (a) and (b) respectively.
Algorithm parameters setting.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Population size | 100 |
| Crossover rate | 0.95 |
| Mutation rate | 0.2 |
| Iteration number | 15000000 |
| Local search rate, β value, recombination ratio | 0.3, 1~3, 0.5 |
Computational results of numerical experiments.
| Instance | MOEA/D-N-UVRP | NSGAII-CUVRP | MOEA/D-CUVRP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routes | Distance | Routes | Distance | Routes | Distance | ||
| E-n23-k3 | 50 | 5 | 716.0254 | 5 | 796.1452 | 5 | 796.2122 |
| 100 | 5 | 720.3495 | 5 | 729.5467 | 5 | 809.4691 | |
| E-n30-k3 | 50 | 7 | 774.9813 | 7 | 796.4517 | 7 | 821.2371 |
| 100 | 7 | 766.8213 | 7 | 830.3797 | 7 | 803.5596 | |
| E-n22-k4 | 50 | 7 | 562.3227 | 7 | 562.8716 | 7 | 568.0511 |
| 100 | 7 | 552.6351 | 7 | 553.9392 | 7 | 591.9198 | |
| E-n30-k4 | 50 | 7 | 555.9675 | 7 | 555.9675 | 7 | 564.2600 |
| 100 | 7 | 555.8100 | 7 | 559.5431 | 7 | 571.6969 | |
| E-n33-k4 | 50 | 7 | 563.0726 | 7 | 584.1540 | 7 | 564.6380 |
| 100 | 7 | 553.9392 | 7 | 557.3958 | 7 | 570.1265 | |
| E-n51-k5 | 50 | 14 | 929.4797 | 14 | 945.5339 | 14 | 977.78299 |
| 100 | 13 | 931.3218 | 14 | 933.0224 | 13 | 937.06053 | |
| E-n76-k7 | 50 | 19 | 1594.2543 | 20 | 1337.2121 | 20 | 1362.9699 |
| 20 | 1326.8182 | ||||||
| 100 | 19 | 1359.2679 | 19 | 1500.9811 | 19 | 1461.3264 | |
| 20 | 1347.6392 | 20 | 1401.1281 | ||||
| E-n76-k14 | 50 | 26 | 1599.4121 | 26 | 1663.6542 | 26 | 1640.9537 |
| 100 | 26 | 1593.0755 | 26 | 1597.5972 | 26 | 1640.9537 | |
| E-n101-k14 | 50 | 30 | 1942.2819 | 30 | 1942.2819 | 30 | 1992.8213 |
| 100 | 30 | 1929.004 | 30 | 1980.2141 | 30 | 2026.7598 | |
Detailed optimization results of MOEA/D-N-UAV on instance E-n23-k3 and E-n101-k14.
| Instance | Distance | Routes | Optimal solution | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-n23-k3 | 50 | 716.5428 | 5 | Route #1: {0, 11, 13, 9, 7, 0} |
| Route #2: {0, 18, 19, 22, 20, 0} | ||||
| Route #3: {0, 14, 17, 15, 16, 3, 2, 1, 6, 0} | ||||
| Route #4:{0, 12, 8, 5, 4, 21, 0} | ||||
| Route #5:{0, 10, 0} | ||||
| E-n101-k14 | 50 | 1938.8909 | 30 | Route #1: {0, 71, 35, 9, 0} |
| Route #2: {0, 65, 66, 20, 0} | ||||
| Route #3: {0, 68, 80, 12, 0} | ||||
| Route #4: {0, 27, 1, 50, 0} | ||||
| Route #5: {0, 47, 36, 46, 45, 0} | ||||
| Route #6: {0, 48, 19, 11, 0} | ||||
| Route #7: {0, 79, 34, 78, 69, 0} | ||||
| Route #8: {0, 89, 8, 82, 0} | ||||
| Route #9: {0, 26, 97, 95, 6, 0} | ||||
| Route #10: {0, 51, 81, 33, 0} | ||||
| Route #11: {0, 60, 37, 42, 87, 0} | ||||
| Route #12: {0, 18, 83, 85, 0} | ||||
| Route #13: {0, 7, 62, 10, 0} | ||||
| Route #14: {0, 94, 59, 96, 0} | ||||
| Route #15: {0, 53, 28, 0} | ||||
| Route #16: {0, 13, 40, 58, 0} | ||||
| Route #17: {0, 70, 30, 32, 90, 0} | ||||
| Route #18: {0, 93, 91, 100, 98, 0} | ||||
| Route #19: {0, 76, 3, 77, 0} | ||||
| Route #20: {0, 41, 22, 75, 74, 0} | ||||
| Route #21: {0, 14, 38, 44, 0} | ||||
| Route #22: {0, 5, 61, 99, 0} | ||||
| Route #23: {0, 4, 39, 25, 55, 0} | ||||
| Route #24: {0, 29, 24, 54, 0} | ||||
| Route #25: {0, 67, 23, 56, 0} | ||||
| Route #26: {0, 21, 73, 72, 0} | ||||
| Route #27: {0, 49, 64, 63, 0} | ||||
| Route #28: {0, 84, 17, 86, 16, 0} | ||||
| Route #29: {0, 2, 57, 15, 43, 92, 0} | ||||
| Route #30: {0, 52, 88, 31, 0} |
Fig 12Optimization results of MOEA/D-N-UAV on instance E-n23-k3.
Fig 13Optimization results of MOEA/D-N-UAV on instance E-n101-k14.
Fig 14Relations between number of iterations and time cost of MOEA/D-N-UCVRP, NSGAII- UCVRP and MOEA/D- UCVRP.