| Literature DB >> 30227626 |
Ling Shen1, Fengming Tao2,3, Songyi Wang4.
Abstract
In order to cut the costs of third-party logistics companies and respond to the Chinese government's low-carbon economy plans, this paper studies the more practical and complex open vehicle routing problem, which considers low-carbon trading policies. A low-carbon multi-depot open vehicle routing problem with time windows (MDOVRPTW) model is constructed with minimum total costs, which include the driver's salary, penalty costs, fuel costs and carbon emissions trading costs. Then, a two-phase algorithm is proposed to handle the model. In the first phase, the initial local solution is obtained with particle swarm optimization (PSO); in the second phase, we can obtain a global optimal solution through a further tabu search (TS). Experiments proved that the proposed algorithm is more suitable for small-scale cases. Furthermore, a series of experiments with different values of carbon prices and carbon quotas are conducted. The results of the study indicate that, as carbon trading prices and carbon quotas change, total costs, carbon emission trading costs and carbon emissions are affected accordingly. Based on these academic results, this paper presents some effective proposals for the government's carbon trading policy-making and also for logistics companies to have better route planning under carbon emission constraints.Entities:
Keywords: carbon quotas; carbon trading prices; open vehicle routing problem; particle swarm optimization algorithm; tabu search algorithm
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30227626 PMCID: PMC6164748 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15092025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1A simplified diagram of the multi-depot open vehicle routing problem time window (MDOVRPTW).
Description of symbols.
| Symbols | Description |
|---|---|
|
| Set of customers ( |
|
| Set of vehicles ( |
|
| Number of vehicles actually used. |
|
| Weight of vehicle itself. |
|
| Maximum load capacity of vehicle. |
|
| Longest length of each route. |
| Fuel consumption rate in per unit distance while vehicle is at full load. | |
|
| Fuel consumption rate in per unit distance while vehicle is empty. |
|
| Conversion factor value of fuel consumption and carbon dioxide. |
|
| Driver salary costs of per unit vehicle. |
|
| Waiting time costs of per unit time while vehicle reaches the customer ahead of |
| the required time. | |
|
| Punishing time costs of per unit time while vehicle is behind the required time |
| for the customer. | |
|
| Costs of per unit fuel consumption. |
|
| Carbon trading price, which can be the income price for the excess carbon emissions |
| quotas or the subsidy price for the inadequate carbon emissions quota. | |
|
| Service time of customer |
|
| Time or distance between node |
|
| Actual time while vehicle reaches the customer |
|
| Time window which the customer |
|
| Demand of customer |
|
| Weight of goods when vehicle visited customer |
|
| Total amount of fuel consumption. |
|
| Amount of carbon emissions quotas which are controlled by the government. |
|
| If the vehicle |
Coefficients related to carbon dioxide emissions [37].
| Fuel Consumption | Average Fuel | |
|---|---|---|
|
| Value of fuel heating | 35.4 MJ/kg |
| Factor of conversion | 1 TJ = 106 MJ | |
|
| Coefficient of carbon emission | 74,100 kg CO2/TJ |
| Type of fuel | Diesel |
Figure 2Allocation of depots and customers.
The information about the customers’ demand and time.
| Customer | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand | 10 | 5 | 9 | 15 | 17 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 10 | 4 |
| Time | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Figure 3Detailed solution routing in each depot.
Figure 4Particle swarm optimization-tabu search (PSO-TS) flowchart.
Data about the test instances.
| Case |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pro01 | 48 | 4 | 8 | 200 | 500 |
| pro02 | 96 | 4 | 12 | 195 | 480 |
| pro03 | 144 | 4 | 16 | 150 | 460 |
| pro04 | 192 | 4 | 20 | 185 | 440 |
| pro05 | 240 | 4 | 24 | 180 | 420 |
| pro06 | 288 | 4 | 28 | 175 | 400 |
| pro07 | 72 | 6 | 12 | 200 | 500 |
| pro08 | 144 | 6 | 18 | 190 | 475 |
| pro09 | 216 | 6 | 24 | 180 | 450 |
| Pro10 | 288 | 6 | 30 | 170 | 425 |
Parameters related to the objective function.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
|
| 800 CNY/day |
|
| 12 CNY /h |
|
| 120 CNY /h |
|
| 0.165 L/km |
|
| 0.377 L/km |
|
| 7 CNY /L |
Parameters related to PSO-TS algorithm.
| Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.5 |
| 1.5 |
|
| 0 |
| 1 |
|
| 0.7 |
| 20 |
| Rand ( |
| 2000 |
The computational process of the PSO and PSO-TS.
| Case | PSO | PSO-TS | Optimization Rate (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Costs | Length of Route | Carbon Emissions | Total Costs | Length of Route | Carbon Emissions | ||
| pro01 | 3594.84 | 2123.20 | 1183.22 | 1762.68 | 1100.06 | 615.50 | 50.97% |
| pro02 | 8711.70 | 4280.86 | 2369.38 | 4462.85 | 2907.05 | 1411.18 | 48.77% |
| pro03 | 19,829.61 | 8151.34 | 4457.84 | 15,869.19 | 6748.95 | 3673.09 | 19.97% |
| pro04 | 26,828.33 | 10,415.19 | 5740.98 | 20,745.65 | 8801.75 | 4786.78 | 22.67% |
| pro05 | 29,219.09 | 11,477.84 | 6445.99 | 21,812.08 | 9318.71 | 5231.30 | 25.35% |
| pro06 | 43,105.48 | 15,244.03 | 8331.37 | 28,002.73 | 11,457.53 | 6262.51 | 35.04% |
| pro07 | 6264.59 | 3789.37 | 2091.83 | 3426.20 | 2166.45 | 1208.70 | 45.31% |
| pro08 | 14,701.26 | 7548.94 | 4276.92 | 9635.77 | 5695.13 | 3108.81 | 34.46% |
| pro09 | 28,203.35 | 12,064.30 | 28,203.35 | 17,729.27 | 9012.07 | 4902.94 | 37.14% |
| Pro10 | 42,958.36 | 16,618.96 | 42,958.36 | 29,053.09 | 9012.07 | 6928.65 | 32.37% |
| Average | - | - | - | - | - | - | 35.21% |
“-”: it is not necessary to calculate these averages.
The computational results of pro01-pro10 with the PSO-TS.
| Case | Vehicles’ Number | Drivers’ Salary | Penalty Costs | Fuel Costs | Carbon Costs | Total Costs | Carbon Emissions | Length of Route |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pro01 | 6 | 0 | 134.19 | 1613.35 | 15.39 | 1762.68 | 615.50 | 1100.06 |
| pro02 | 12 | 0 | 209.04 | 3681.82 | 35.28 | 3926.14 | 1411.18 | 2607.05 |
| pro03 | 23 | 5600 | 401.07 | 9776.30 | 91.82 | 15,869.19 | 3673.09 | 6748.95 |
| pro04 | 29 | 7200 | 685.52 | 12,740.47 | 119.66 | 20,745.65 | 4786.78 | 8801.75 |
| pro05 | 33 | 7200 | 557.70 | 13,923.6 | 130.78 | 21,812.08 | 5231.30 | 9318.71 |
| pro06 | 41 | 10,400 | 777.87 | 16,668.30 | 156.56 | 28,002.73 | 6262.51 | 11,457.53 |
| pro07 | 11 | 0 | 333.61 | 3056.96 | 30.22 | 3420.79 | 1208.70 | 2166.45 |
| pro08 | 18 | 800 | 483.65 | 8274.40 | 77.72 | 9635.77 | 3108.81 | 5695.13 |
| pro09 | 29 | 4000 | 557.04 | 13,049.66 | 122.57 | 17,729.27 | 4902.94 | 9012.07 |
| pro10 | 42 | 9600 | 838.60 | 18,441.27 | 173.22 | 29,053.09 | 6928.65 | 9012.07 |
Figure 5The average optimization rate and running time of three scale cases.
The results of the comparative test when carbon trading price is 0 and 0.025.
| Case | Carbon Trading Price (NCY/kg) | Carbon Costs | Fuel Costs | Total Costs | Carbon Emissions (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pro01 | 0 | 0 | 1681.92 | 1803.68 | 631.92 |
| 0.025 | 15.39 | 1613.35 | 1762.68 | 615.50 | |
| pro02 | 0 | 0 | 4085.03 | 4294.67 | 1534.80 |
| 0.025 | 35.28 | 3681.82 | 3926.14 | 1411.18 | |
| Pro07 | 0 | 0 | 3274.79 | 3482.00 | 1230.38 |
| 0.025 | 30.22 | 3056.96 | 3420.79 | 1208.70 |
The results of the comparative test when carbon quotas are different.
| Case |
| Total Costs | Carbon Costs | Carbon Emissions (CE) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pro01 | 600 | 1747.69 | 0.39 | 615.50 | −15.5 |
| 650 | 1746.44 | −0.86 | 615.50 | 34.5 | |
| 700 | 1745.19 | −2.11 | 615.50 | 84.5 | |
| pro02 | 1400 | 3927.14 | 0.28 | 1411.18 | −11.18 |
| 1450 | 3925.89 | −0.97 | 1411.18 | 38.82 | |
| 1500 | 3924.64 | −2.22 | 1411.18 | 88.82 | |
| pro07 | 1200 | 3390.79 | 0.22 | 1208.70 | −8.7 |
| 1250 | 3389.54 | −1.03 | 1208.70 | 41.3 | |
| 1300 | 3388.29 | −2.28 | 1208.70 | 91.3 |
Figure 6Distribution paths when are 600.
Figure 7Distribution paths when are 650.
Figure 8Distribution paths when are 700.
The results of the changing carbon prices and carbon quotas.
| Carbon Trading Price (CNY/kg) |
| Total Costs | Carbon Costs | Carbon Emissions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.015 | 600 | 1868.95 | 0.92 | 661.27 |
| 650 | 1868.20 | 0.17 | 661.27 | |
| 700 | 1867.45 | −0.58 | 661.27 | |
| 0.025 | 600 | 1747.69 | 0.39 | 615.50 |
| 650 | 1746.44 | −0.86 | 615.50 | |
| 700 | 1745.19 | −2.11 | 615.50 | |
| 0.035 | 600 | 1685.03 | −0.16 | 595.42 |
| 650 | 1683.28 | −1.91 | 595.42 | |
| 700 | 1681.53 | −3.66 | 595.42 |
Figure 9The total costs under different carbon trading price and carbon quotas.
Figure 10The carbon costs under different carbon trading price and carbon quotas.