Tmqn. Ret..A. Vol. 23A. No. 5. pp. 377-386, 1989 0191~2615/89 $3.00 + .

LXl
Printed in Great Britain. Q 1989 Pergamon Press pit

‘THE MULTIPLE VEHICLE ROUTING PROBLEM

WITH SIMULTANEOUS DELIVERY
AND PICK-UP POINTS
HOKEY MIN?
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of New Orleans,
New Orleans, LA 70148, U.S.A.

(Received 9 May 1988; in revised form 9 May 1989)

Abstract-Traditionally, the vehicle routing problem is thought of as a pure delivery or pickup problem.
In many practical situations, however, the vehicle is often required to simultaneously drop off and pick
up goods at the same stop. This paper first recognizes the possibility of simultaneous deliveries and
pickups at the same node. Hence, the main objective of this paper is to develop a model and a solution
procedure efficient enough to handle such real-world variants, To illustrate and demonstrate the real-
LorId applicability of the suggested model and solution procedure, we have described and conducted
a case study dealing with a public library distribution system in Franklin County, Ohio. The final result
of the case study indicates that substantial time/distance savings can be achieved by using the proposed
model and solution procedure.

INTRODUCTION pickup problems, there exist relatively few studies

dealing with combined delivery and pickup prob-
The typical multiple vehicle routing problem (M-
lems. The inception of these research efforts dates
VRP) involves minimzing the total travel distance
back to the late 1960s. Schruben and Clifton (1968)
or time for the fleet of capacitated vehicles, given a
first considered the problem of delivering and pick-
set of known customer locations. The M-VRP is usu-
ing up farm products by several carriers, each with
ally confined to a pure delivery or pickup problem
different capacities. They solved small-sized exam-
which ignores the simultaneous presence of deliv-
ple problems with a maximum of up to six customers
eries and pickups. However, many practical situa-
by applying the “lockset” method quite similar to
tions indicate that each customer may require
Clarke and Wright’s savings method (1964). In their
simultaneous delivery,, and pickup services which
study, no mathematical model was developed. A
cannot be separated out. In other words, both de-
more complicated version of combined delivery and
livery and pickup should be made concurrently at
pickup problems was considered by Psaraftis (1980).
the same stop (node). Such situations occur fre-
He took into account both delivery and pickup points
quently in designing optimal routes for public transit
of the various customers with vehicle capacity and
systems, airlines, school buses, library material dis-
special priority constraints. Although Psaraftis’
tributors, and grocery-product distributors, to name
“dial-a-ride” problem incorporated customers’ time
only a few. The extended M-VRP, which considers
preferences into his modelling effort, his work was
such situations, implicitly involves the “mixed load-
limited to a single vehicle routing problem with 14
ing” problem because the task of picking up items
stops. Recently, Bott and Ballou (1983) considered
cannot be performed without enough vehicle space
a pickup and delivery process on the same vehicle
to accommodate pickup loads. Accordingly, the
route and evaluated the benefits of inserting cus-
presence of the above-mentioned loading constraints
tomers’ loads whose origin and destination are not
mainly distinguishes the new M-VRP studied in this
the domicile (depot). Their studies, however, did
paper from the traditional M-VRP.
not present any mathematical model.
In the following section, we will briefly review the
Overall, the previous research neglects an impor-
existing literature concerning combined delivery and
tant aspect of practical vehicle routing: namely, the
pickup problems which may be a stepping stone for
mixed loading problem which deals with utilizing
the present study.
vehicle capacities at the simultaneous delivery and
BACKGROUND pickup point. In fact, there is no published literature
concerning the M-VRP with simultaneous delivery
In contrast with the abundant literature on the and pickup points. The absence of such literature
separate investigation of either pure deliveryor pure may be due to the complexity inherent in this prob-
lem. Even the simplest form of a VRP is known to
tNew Affiliation (After August 1, 1989) Management
Science Group, 314 Hayden Hall, College of Business be NP-hard (e.g., Golden et al., 1981). With the
Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA inclusion of mixed loading constraints, the extended
02115. M-VRP to be studied in this paper becomes much

377
 378 H.
more difficult to formulate and solve than does the
classical VRP.
We will begin by describing the distribution prob-
lem facing the public library of Columbus and Frank-
lin County in Ohio. In an appendix, a mathematical
model along with a sequential solution procedure
will be developed. Then, to illustrate and demon-
strate the practicality of the proposed solution tech-
nique, its performance will be evaluated by com-
paring the resulting route structure with the one
generated by a manual-driven method currently used
in the library system.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Consider the problem that a typical public organi-
zation or private company faces in performing de-

1. Library Administration 13. Whitehall

2. Main Library 14. Driving Park
3. Whetstone 15. Franklinton
4. Dublin 16. Hilltonia
5. Gahanna 17. Linden
6. Hilliard 18. Martin Luther Kin9
7. Hilltop 19. Northside
8. Livingston 20. Parsons
9. Morse Road 21. Shepard
lO.Northern Lights 22. Westerville
ll.Reynoldsburg 23. Worthington
12.South High
Fig. 1. Library locations.
 Table 1. Internodal travel distance matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

1 3 24 17 9 9 5 13 15
2 9 15 6 ; 10 13 10 6 1; 13 6 : 16 10 5 6 2 3 3 4 16 14
3 14 7 - 9 11 10 9 14 3 4 17 14 10 ; 5 6 4 12 6 6
4 23 20 9 - 13 6 12 19 9 12 25 19 18 1: 1: :: 12 14 12 17 15 11
5 3 9 11 13 - 20 1.5 6 8 7 6 12 4 10 6 9 10 6 7 10
6 24 15 10 6 20 - 8 18 12 12 22 15 18 1; 12 10 13 1: 12 1.5 15 15 12 2
C.
/ 7 17 s 1:: 12 15 8 - 12 11 10 17 7 12 9 5 1 10 8 7 7 10 15 13 ‘0
6 ; 3. 12 14 ii;
8 3 19 6 18 12 - 10 8 5 6 3 3 6 10 6 4
9 5 6 3 3 2
9 13 10 3 8 12 11 10 - -! 12 12 9 : 11 3 z
10 10 6 4 12 7 12 10 8 2 11 10 6 7 10 1 3 4 4 5 0,
CD
11 4 12 17 25 6 22 17 10 ; 7 13 16
19 6 2 6 15 15 i;
12 13 6 14 12 15 7 : 12 12 10 11 -8 _ff 4 8 4 11 4 15 9995
6 6 3 10 12 8.
13 1 d 10 18 4 18 12 4 8 : 4 7 1; 5 5
I6 4 2 3 11 12 oz
14 7 9 8 15 9 ‘tl
15 9 ; 7 14 IO 12 5 ; - 3- 3 85 5 523 3 3 5 11 11 z
I6 16 9 14 15 10 1 10 11 10 1.5 6 12 8 5 - 10 7 7 6 9 15 13 g
17 10 6 13 10 6 9 9 5 10 - 3 2 6 3 6 7 B
18 6 4 z : 9 5 5 : 7 3 - 2 3 2 9 10
19 9 3 4 12 : 13 12 87 6 5 10 6 6 4 3 7 2 2 - 5 3 8 8
20 ; 3 12 17 10 15 7 5 9 ;: 9 2 6 2 3 6 6 3 5 - 5 13 13
21 4 6 15 6 15 10 3 6 4 7 6 3 3 5 9 3 2
22 13 16 6 11 7 15 15 12 ( 3 4 13 15 10 I1 11 15 6 9
23 15 14 4 7 10 12 13 14 ’ 3 5 16 15 12 12 11 13 7 10 8 13 10 4 -

NOW The distance itre specified in miles.

380 H. MIN
livery and pickup services for its customers. Our Table 2. The size of delivery and pickup at each branch
problem arises in the context of the library-material
distributor routing. The problem also frequently Node Number Delivery Size Pickup Size
(Pounds) (Pounds)
arises in other transportation systems: routes for
buses, passenger-trains, airlines, grocery-product 2 2700 2500
distributors, bank couriers, etc. 3 1500 1600
Although we can generalize this problem to many 800 900
real-world transportation systems, this case study fo- : 1000 1100
6 900 850
cuses on the example of a library delivery and pickup 7 1600 1500
system to illustrate the practical aspect of the prob- 8 800
lem setting. 9 1250 1g
Everyday, the public library of Columbus and 10 900 800
11 750 800
Franklin County, (Ohio) delivers and collects library 12 950 750
materials such as books, films, video tapes, boxes, 13 600 700
envelopes, etc., at 22 branch libraries scattered 14 850 950
around the Columbus metropolitan area (see 15 450 400
Fig. 1). The internode travel distances between these 16 500 400
17 400 350
libraries are given in Table 1. 18 600 500
Presently, with the exception of the main library, 19 800 900
all the branch libraries get one delivery and pickup 20 650 850
service a day. The main library, whose delivery and 21 550 450
22 900 1150
pickup size is normally twice as large as the ones 23 850 800
required by other libraries, gets two deliveries and Total 20,300 19,950
pickups a day-one in the morning and another in
the afternoon. Since one of the library trucks should
visit the main library twice a day, the total travel
DISAGGREGATE SOLUTION PROCEDURE
distance tranversed by the truck can be unnecessarily
lengthened. However, the human scheduler worries The problem considered in this study can be seg-
that a single visit to the main library may lead to an mented into three decision processes: (i) grouping
“unacceptable” (infeasible) route because the huge customer nodes into a set of clusters in such a way
delivery and pickup size at the main library, when that the total delivery/pickup size of customers
added to a large amount of the materials already within each cluster do not exceed the capacity limit
loaded into the truck, may exceed the physical ca- of the truck which is to be assigned to the cluster,
pacity of the truck. The manual method based simply (ii) assigning trucks/drivers to the clusters, and (iii)
on human intuition and experience may be too in- determining the sequence of simultaneous delivery
efficient to prevent a possibly large number of in- and pickup services over each cluster in such a way
feasible routes under mixed-load restraints. In view that the size of added loads at each stop (branch)
of this, a multiple visit to the main library seems to does not exceed the remaining truck space. Conse-
be inevitable. quently, decisions are made in sequence. Since the
Once the library materials are collected from the disaggregate decision-making process decomposes
branches, these materials will be sent back to the the problem into three smaller subproblems, the
library administration center. Then, the next day computational complexity of solving the problem can
these materials along with newly-purchased mate- be substantially reduced. To link the three decision
rials are redistributed (delivered) to the branches. phases, each phase considers the various constraints
Hence, the library administration center is consid- imposed by the results of the previous phase.
ered to be a depot or a distribution center. Currently, The detailed disaggregation schemes are proposed
two library trucks with the equal capacity of 4.75 and discussed as follows:
tons (approximately 10,500 pounds) are stationed at
the library administration center. Two full-time driv- Phase I: Clustering customer nodes
ers operate the two vehicles Monday through Friday. This phase initially clusters customer nodes
For simplicity, we assume that amounts of deliv- (branches) into groups according to their geograph-
eries and pickups at each branch are constant and ical proximity. To form clusters of customer nodes,
known. In actuality, however, these amounts may we employ a hierarchical clustering method, espe-
vary slightly from day to day. In other words, we cially the average linkage method. (See Anderberg
assume away stochastic demands/supplies. Consid- (1973) for a detailed description of the hierarchical
ering the small fluctuations of these demands/sup clustering method.) Romesburg (1984) indicates that
plies observed in past years, the assumption of the average linkage method produces less distortion
deterministic demands/supplies should not degrade in forming clusters becuase it judges proximity be-
the validity of our model and solution procedure. tween pairs of clusters in a manner less extreme than
The size of delivery and pickup at each branch is other hierarchical clustering methods such as the
given in Table 2. nearest neighbor and the farthest neighbor methods.
 Multiple vehicle routing problem
NAME OF NODES(LIB%iXES)
A W L R G M F D P M S S S H H
D H I E A A R R A A H I O T N
M I V Y H I A I R R E D U O I
2+
I
Fig. 2. The average cluster dendogram (tree) for truck mileages of 23 libraries.
Thus, we chose the average linkage method over
other clustering methods. The actual results of the
cluster analysis, which were obtained from a simple
SAS (1985) program, are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Figure 2 shows which nodes are grouped at each
successive level (tree). Because the actual problem
setting considered in this case study involves two
trucks of equal capacity, we select a level that rep-
resents the specific number of clusters tantamount
to the number of available trucks. Consequently,
two clusters are formed with the restricted size that
does not exceed the truck capacity. Figure 3 rep-
resents two distinctive clusters of customer nodes;
each cluster needs to be assigned to either one of
two trucks.
Phase II: Assigning trucksldrivers to clusters
In our problem setting, assignment of trucks/driv-
ers to clusters is a rather simple procedure due to
homogeneous truck capacity. Herein, each truck/
driver was assigned to each cluster based on the
driver’s preference on any particular cluster.
Phase III: Creating the route structure
Once each truck is assigned to each cluster, it
remains to make single traveling salesman problem
(TSP) types of tours with mixed loading constraints
that should preserve enough truck space to accom-
modate added loads at each stop.
The formulation presented in the Appendix is bas-
ically an extension of the well-known single TSP. In
fact, constraints (2) through (5) constitute a single
TSP. The given formulation, however, includes the
mixed-loading constraints (6) through (10) in an ef-
fort to consider the unique features of the simulta-
neous delivery and pickup problems. Given that
most researchers have very little success in solving
the even moderate size of a single TSP (see, for
TR,A, 13:5-c
381
W M L L W W D H
H O I I E O U A
E R G N S R B R
example, Waters and Brodie (1987)), the given for-
mulation which combines the TSP and the additional
loading problem cannot be efficiently’solved by em-
ploying an exact zero-one integer programming al-
gorithm. Under the given formulation, the number
of constraints and integer variables required for even
small-sized problems can be extremely large. The
serious computational difficulty, however, can be
reduced by further decomposing this subproblem
into two parts: a single TSP and a mixed loading
problem. We suggest the following solution scheme
for these problems.
Initially, we consider eqs (1) through (5) by drop-
ping the mixed loading constraints of (6) through
(10). The resulting problem is a simple TSP where
numerous streamlined solution techniques are avail-
able. This problem, which consists of eqs (1) through
(5), can be solved by using a TSP solution algorithm
such as the Little et al.‘s (1963) branch and bound
algorithm. However, the route generated by a TSP
algorithm may not be feasible because it may not
satisfy the mixed loading constraints. Subsequently,
our next step is to assure that cumulative loads at
every stop (node) do not exceed the vehicle capacity
limit.
In the second step, of particular concern is the
feasibility of the delivery/pickup sequence deter-
mined by a TSP algorithm. From the solution ob-
tained by a TSP algorithm, we are able to set zeroes
and ones for Xii variables of the given formulation.
After setting these, we confirm the feasibility by
satisfying eqs (6) through (10). If the initialTSP tour
does not satisfy those equations, the tour has to be
revamped by switching any sequence of deliveries
and pickups. In an attempt to revamp the initial tour,
we intentionally added a larger number-say, 100
miles-to the arch starting from any node ending at
a node where cumulative loads exceed the vehicle
382 H. MI N
capacity. By doing so, the current infeasible deliv- list of infeasible connections a priori, this approach
ery/pickup sequence could be prevented. As op- seems to be highly realistic.
posed to the first step which solves a symmetric TSP, .
the second step solves a nonsymmetric TSP. For this
APPLICATION AND RESULTS
reason, the -Little et al.‘s algorithm (1963) designed
for both a symmetric and an asymmetric TSP is used The model and solution methodology of the previous
here. section was applied for an actual library distribution
Until we obtain the feasible route, the aforemen- system. To evaluate the effectiveness of our mod-
tioned iterative procedure will continue. Consider- elling effort as well as the solution process, we tested
ing that it is very difficult to eliminate the complete the model and solution method on the VAX-111780

l *W**** Cluster BoundaFy for Libraries in the South Region.

- Cluster Boundary for Libraries in the North Region

Fig. 3. Aggregation of libraries (nodes) with vehicle capacity restrictions.
 Multiple vehicle routing problem
system and then compared the model solutions with
the actual routes of August, 1987.
Figure 4 displays the actual routes created by a
purely manual-driven method.
In the meantime, two separate routes for two li-
brary trucks were generated by the proposed ap-
proach. These routes are illustrated in Fig. 5.
In constructing final routes over the clusters, we
adopted the Little et al.‘s (1963) branch and bound
algorithm coded in FORTRAN 77 by Phillips and
Garcia-Diaz (1981). The algorithm required 18 sec-
onds of CPU time. to find an initial route for the
383
North-bound truck. Fortunately, an initial route for
the North&bound truck turned out to be feasible. On
the other hand, an initial route for the South-bound
truck became infeasible; therefore, the initial route
was rebuilt by penalizing the unacceptable order of
delivery/pickup sequences with a large number.
After rerunning the solution procedure with 19 sec-
onds of CPU time, we were able to find the final
feasible route.
Table 3 summarizes both the above results and the
actual routes with respect to total travel time and
distance.

*a**,******
. South-Bound Route

* North-Bound koute
Fig. 4. Actual routes used in the current system.
384 H. MIN
Table 3. Comparison of the current and proposed method Table 3 shows that the proposed method can save
31 miles of total travel distance as well as an hour
Current Proposed and 54 minutes of driving time per day. Part of these
Method Method
substantial savings may be due to the fact that, unlike
Miles traveled the manual method, the proposed method has a ca-
South-bound 63 58 pability to eliminate large distances of overlapped
North-bound 62 36 routes by utilizing a statistical clustering method
Total 125 miles Gi miles which helps to distinctively isolate the north-bound
cluster from the south-bound cluster. Certainly,
Travel time (in minutes) grouping customers into two distinctively-separated
South-bound 169 127
North-bound 191 119 clusters helps generate good initial tours of the
- -
Total 360 minutes 246 minutes trucks. Another possible reason for the savings is
that the proposed method prevents multiple visits

Sixth-Bound Route

r
North-Bound Route
Fig. 5. Improved routes created by the proposed method.
 Multiple vehicle routing problem
for the main library by systematically preser\iing
enough space of the truck for added loads at every
stop. The practical implications bf the proposed
method seem to be promising.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Prior research involving vehicle routing problems
often ignored the possibility of dropping off and
picking up goods at the same customer node. This
paper made an attempt to solve the simultaneous
delivery and pickup problem confronting an actual
library distribution system. The primary solution ap-
proach suggested in this paper was the three-phase
sequential procedure which was analogous to a
“cluster-first route-second” method. (See, for in-
stance, Bodin (1975) for a cluster-first route-second”
method.) The effectiveness of the proposed ap-
proach was evaluated by comparing it to the manual-
driven decision process currently employed by the
Columbus and Franklin County library system. The
results demonstrated that the proposed approach
was superior to the library’s decision rule in terms
of savings in travel distances and driving time.
In spite of the substantial benefit gained from the
proposed approach, this research is by no means
perfect. For example, this paper did not fully incor-
porate a time-dimension into the solution process;
consequently, customers’ specific time window pref-
erences and delivery/pickup time variance were as-
sumed away. Such an extension is beyond the scope
of this paper, but appears to be an intriguing future
study. In addition, this research has not verified the
accuracy of the proposed solution approach as com-
pared to an exact algorithm. Although the devel-
opment of an exact algorithm for our problem is very
unlikely, the elegant idea for generating a reasonably
tight lower-bound on the optimal solution should be
developed in the future.
38.5
Phillips, 0. T. and Garcia-D& A. (1981) Fundamentals
of Network Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.
Psaraftis, H. N. (1980) A dynamic programming solution
to the single vehicle many-to-many immediate request
dial-a-ride problem. Transportation Science 14, 130-154.
Romesburg, H. C. (1984) Cluster analysis for Researchers.
Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, CA.
SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. (1985) Version 5 Edition, SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Schruben, L. W. and Clifton, R. E. (1968) The lockset
method of sequential programming applied to routing
delivery and pickup trucks. American Journal of Agri-
cultural Economics 50, 854-867.
Waters, C. D. J. and Brodie, G. P. (1987) Realistic sizes
for routing problems, J. Opl. Res. Sot. 38, 565-566.
APPENDIX
To provide a precise specification of this subproblem,
we introduce the following notation and mathematical for-
mulation.
Decision variables
x,, = 1, if a vehicle traverses from node i to node j
‘I
1 0, otherwise.
Yik = 1, if a vehicle arrives at node j as the ktb stop
0, otherwise.
Parameters
N = number of nodes
d, = travel distance (mile) from node i to node j
r, = average vehicle traveling time (minute per mile)
from node i to node j
aii = traffic congestion factor from node i to node j (a
scale of 1 to 2)
Di = detivery size at node j
Pi = pickup size at node j
C = vehicle capacity limit
IQ\ = the cardinality of nonempty subset Q and IQ\ 2 2
Rx = the index set of all the possible connections of nodes
to reach a certain node as the kth stop of a vehicle.
Formulation

Acknowledgment-The author wishes to thank Larry Minimize i 2 djj - T, * ag f xii (1)

i=, j=,

Black, the director of the public library of Columbus and

Franklin County, for supporting this project and permitting subject to:
the usage of real data.
(2)
REFERENCES

Anderberg, M. R. (1973) Cluster Analysis for Application. (3) (

Academic Press Inc., New York.
Bodin L. D. (1975) A Taxonomic structure for vehicle
routing and scheduling problems. Comput. & Urban Sot. iXih-$.;=O. h=l,...,N (4)
1, 11-29.. i=l
Bott K. N. and Ballou, R. (1983) Vehicle routing and
scheduling with intermediate movements. Journal of g;Xiis IQ1 - 1 (5)
Business Logistics 4, 75-94.
Clarke G. and Wright, J. W. (1964) Scheduling of vehicles
from a central depot to a number of delivery. points. & 2 Yi,, j=2 , . . . , N (6)
.
Operations Researih 12, 568-581.
Golden, B. Ball, M., and Bodin L. (1981) Current and 2 -$ X,; + 2 X, = k * r,,
Future Restarch Directions in Network Optimization. m=, ix2 i-2
Computers and Operations Research 8, 71-81. mri.j iE.Q iy
Little. J. D. C.. Murtv. V. G.. Sweenev. D. W.. and Karel
C. (1963) An algorithm for the trave%ng salesman prob- jj = 2, . . . , N
lem. Operations Research 11, 972-989. [k = 2, . . . , N - 1 (7)
386 H. MIN
The objective function (1) minimizes the total travel time
j = 2, . . . , N (8) of the route. Constraint (2) states that a vehicle should
leave its depot. Constraint (3) states that a vehicle should
return to its depot. Constraint (4) represents route conti-
nuity. Constraint (5) prohibits any possible subtour. Con-
straint (6) allows Y,, to equal one only when a vehicle visits
k=l,...,N-1 (9) node j as the first stop after leaving its depot. Constraint
(7) counts the number of stops that a vehicle makes until
it reaches node i. Constraint (8) ensures that each node
should be visited only once by a vehicle. Constraint (9)
ensures that a vehicle stops at every node. Constraint (10)
ensures that a vehicle should preserve enough space for
added loads at every stop.