| Literature DB >> 35742614 |
Abstract
The construction industry is developing rapidly along with the acceleration of urbanization but accompanied by an increased amount of construction and demolition waste (CDW). From the perspective of sustainability, the existing research has mainly focused on CDW treatment or landfill disposal, but the challenge of reverse logistics of CDW recycling that provides overall CDW route planning for multiple participants and coordinates the transportation process between multiple participants is still unclear. This paper develops an optimization model for multi-depot vehicle routing problems with time windows (MDVRPTW) for CDW transportation that is capable of coordinating involved CDW participants and suggesting a cost-effective, environment-friendly, and resource-saving transportation plan. Firstly, economic cost, environmental pollution, and social impact are discussed to establish this optimization-oriented decision model for MDVRPTW. Then, a method combined with a large neighborhood search algorithm and a local search algorithm is developed to plan the transportation route for CDW reverse logistics process. With the numerical experiments, the computational results illustrate the better performance of this proposed method than those traditional methods such as adaptive large neighborhood search algorithm or adaptive genetic algorithm. Finally, a sensitivity analysis considering time window, vehicle capacity, and carbon tax rate is conducted respectively, which provides management implications to support the decision-making of resource utilization maximization for enterprises and carbon emission management for the government.Entities:
Keywords: construction and demolition waste; recycling; reverse logistics; route; sustainable
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742614 PMCID: PMC9223688 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19127366
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Collection system for reverse logistics of CDW.
Figure 2An example of MDVRPTW recycling network.
Related notations for pr01 benchmark instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| d: the driver cost per time unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3The flowchart of HALNS.
Figure 4The process of the destroy operation.
Figure 5The process of the repair operation.
Figure 6New solution after local search operators.
The relevant parameters of the model.
| Parameters | Value |
|---|---|
|
| 0.16 L/Km |
|
| 0.2 L/Km |
|
| 5.6 RMB/L |
|
| 80 RMB |
|
| 2.61 kg/L |
|
| 0.5 RMB/kg |
|
| 1 RMB/min |
|
| 1 RMB/min |
|
| 2/3 RMB/min |
|
| 1.3 RMB/person |
The relevant parameters of HALNS.
| Parameters | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|
|
| The maximum number of iterations | 1000 |
|
| The initial temperature | 1000 |
|
| The cooling ratio | 0.99 |
|
| The reaction factor of action weight | 0.1 |
|
| The minimum degree of destruction | 0.1 |
|
| The maximum degree of destruction | 0.4 |
|
| The number of best insertions | 5 |
|
| The operator score when | 15 |
|
| The operator score when | 9 |
|
| The operator score when | 4 |
|
| The operator score when | 1 |
Information for pr01 benchmark instance.
| Node | X | Y | Q | ET | LT | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 4.163 | 13.559 | 0 | 1000 | ||
| T2 | 21.387 | 17.105 | 0 | 1000 | ||
| T3 | −36.118 | 49.097 | 0 | 1000 | ||
| T4 | −31.201 | 0.235 | 0 | 1000 | ||
| 1 | −29.73 | 64.136 | 12 | 399 | 525 | 2 |
| 2 | −30.664 | 5.463 | 8 | 121 | 299 | 7 |
| 3 | 51.642 | 5.469 | 16 | 389 | 483 | 21 |
| 4 | −13.171 | 69.336 | 5 | 204 | 304 | 24 |
| 5 | −67.413 | 68.323 | 12 | 317 | 458 | 1 |
| 6 | 48.907 | 6.274 | 5 | 160 | 257 | 17 |
| 7 | 5.243 | 22.26 | 13 | 170 | 287 | 6 |
| 8 | −65.002 | 77.234 | 20 | 215 | 321 | 5 |
| 9 | −4.175 | −1.569 | 13 | 80 | 233 | 7 |
| 10 | 23.029 | 11.639 | 18 | 90 | 206 | 1 |
| 11 | 25.482 | 6.287 | 7 | 397 | 525 | 4 |
| 12 | −42.615 | −26.392 | 6 | 271 | 420 | 10 |
| 13 | −76.672 | 99.341 | 9 | 108 | 266 | 2 |
| 14 | −20.673 | 57.892 | 9 | 340 | 462 | 16 |
| 15 | −52.039 | 6.567 | 4 | 226 | 377 | 23 |
| 16 | −41.376 | 50.824 | 25 | 446 | 604 | 18 |
| 17 | −91.943 | 27.588 | 5 | 444 | 566 | 3 |
| 18 | −65.118 | 30.212 | 17 | 434 | 557 | 15 |
| 19 | 18.597 | 96.716 | 3 | 319 | 460 | 13 |
| 20 | −40.942 | 83.209 | 16 | 192 | 312 | 10 |
| 21 | −37.756 | −33.325 | 25 | 414 | 572 | 4 |
| 22 | 23.767 | 29.083 | 21 | 371 | 462 | 23 |
| 23 | −43.03 | 20.453 | 14 | 378 | 472 | 20 |
| 24 | −35.297 | −24.896 | 19 | 308 | 477 | 10 |
| 25 | −54.755 | 14.368 | 14 | 329 | 444 | 4 |
| 26 | −49.329 | 33.374 | 6 | 269 | 377 | 2 |
| 27 | 57.404 | 23.822 | 16 | 398 | 494 | 23 |
| 28 | −22.754 | 55.408 | 9 | 257 | 416 | 6 |
| 29 | −56.622 | 73.34 | 20 | 198 | 294 | 8 |
| 30 | −38.562 | −3.705 | 13 | 375 | 467 | 10 |
| 31 | −16.779 | 19.537 | 10 | 200 | 338 | 7 |
| 32 | −11.56 | 11.615 | 16 | 456 | 632 | 1 |
| 33 | −46.545 | 97.974 | 19 | 72 | 179 | 21 |
| 34 | 16.229 | 9.32 | 22 | 182 | 282 | 6 |
| 35 | 1.294 | 7.349 | 14 | 159 | 306 | 4 |
| 36 | −26.404 | 29.529 | 10 | 321 | 500 | 13 |
| 37 | 4.352 | 14.685 | 11 | 322 | 430 | 9 |
| 38 | −50.665 | −23.126 | 15 | 443 | 564 | 22 |
| 39 | −22.833 | −9.814 | 13 | 207 | 348 | 22 |
| 40 | −71.1 | −18.616 | 15 | 457 | 588 | 18 |
| 41 | −7.849 | 32.074 | 8 | 203 | 382 | 10 |
| 42 | 11.877 | −24.933 | 22 | 75 | 167 | 25 |
| 43 | −18.927 | −23.73 | 24 | 459 | 598 | 23 |
| 44 | −11.92 | 11.755 | 3 | 174 | 332 | 4 |
| 45 | 29.84 | 11.633 | 25 | 130 | 225 | 9 |
| 46 | 12.268 | −55.811 | 19 | 169 | 283 | 17 |
| 47 | −37.933 | −21.613 | 21 | 115 | 232 | 10 |
| 48 | 42.883 | −2.966 | 10 | 414 | 531 | 17 |
Comparison results of three algorithms.
| Algorithm | VC | PC | FC | CC | SC | TC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimal | AGA | 720 | 47 | 1468.41 | 342.19 | 310.75 | 2888.34 |
| ALNS | 480 | 77 | 1242.24 | 289.49 | 247.81 | 2336.54 | |
| HALNS |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Average | AGA | 746.67 | 88 | 1585.79 | 369.55 | 295.11 | 3085.12 |
| ALNS | 501.82 | 40.64 | 1275.99 | 297.35 | 272.34 | 2388.13 | |
| HALNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Optimal is the best solution obtained of 10 runs, Average is the average result of 10 runs of the algorithm. The best result of the three algorithms is bold.
Figure 7Convergence curve of AGA.
Figure 8Convergence curve of ALNS.
Figure 9Convergence curve of HALNS.
Figure 10Optimal route of pr01 benchmark.
Comparison results of different benchmarks.
| Dataset | Algorithm | VC | PC | FC | CC | SC | TC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pr01 | AGA | 720 | 47 | 1468.41 | 342.19 | 310.75 | 2888.34 |
| ALNS | 480 | 77 | 1242.24 | 289.49 | 247.81 | 2336.54 | |
| HALNS | 480 | 40 | 1207.49 | 281.39 | 238.11 | 2246.99 | |
| pr02 | AGA | 960 | 173 | 2683.94 | 741.97 | 990.06 | 5548.97 |
| ALNS | 800 | 23 | 2159.89 | 503.33 | 824.36 | 4310.59 | |
| HALNS | 720 | 24 | 2197.14 | 512.01 | 798.70 | 4251.86 | |
| pr07 | AGA | 1520 | 165 | 2113.70 | 492.57 | 661.60 | 4952.87 |
| ALNS | 720 | 24 | 1792.87 | 417.80 | 568.21 | 3522.88 | |
| HALNS | 640 | 47 | 1746.81 | 407.07 | 537.94 | 3378.82 | |
| pr08 | AGA | 2240 | 250 | 4811.90 | 1121.34 | 1399.59 | 9822.83 |
| ALNS | 1360 | 51 | 3190.27 | 743.45 | 1044.25 | 6388.96 | |
| HALNS | 1280 | 65 | 3107.79 | 724.23 | 953.09 | 6130.10 | |
| pr11 | AGA | 640 | 34 | 1367.90 | 318.77 | 273.64 | 2634.32 |
| ALNS | 400 | 5 | 1006.22 | 234.49 | 203.90 | 1849.61 | |
| HALNS | 400 | 11 | 978.24 | 227.96 | 208.70 | 1825.91 | |
| pr12 | AGA | 1200 | 68 | 2469.82 | 575.56 | 728.64 | 5042.02 |
| ALNS | 880 | 73 | 1917.86 | 446.93 | 618.91 | 3936.71 | |
| HALNS | 880 | 5 | 1921.47 | 447.77 | 611.49 | 3865.74 | |
| pr17 | AGA | 880 | 3 | 2044.53 | 476.45 | 596.49 | 4000.47 |
| ALNS | 640 | 7 | 1507.55 | 351.31 | 464.37 | 2970.23 | |
| HALNS | 640 | 0 | 1449.74 | 337.84 | 492.61 | 2920.19 | |
| pr18 | AGA | 1840 | 6 | 3639.82 | 848.21 | 1092.65 | 7426.68 |
| ALNS | 1200 | 7 | 2585.66 | 602.55 | 822.55 | 5217.77 | |
| HALNS | 1200 | 30 | 2561.08 | 596.82 | 765.11 | 5153.01 |
Note: is the number of CDW generation sites, and is the number of transfer stations.
Figure 11Comparison of experimental results with different datasets.
Figure 12The total cost and number of vehicles with different vehicle capacities.
Figure 13The carbon emission cost and total cost with different carbon tax rates.
Figure 14The ratio of carbon emission cost/total cost with different carbon tax rates.