Computers & Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Operations Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cor

Planning and design of intermodal hub networks: A literature review

Mario José Basallo-Triana a, Carlos Julio Vidal-Holguín b, *, Juan José Bravo-Bastidas b
a
Universidad del Valle Sede Buga, School of Industrial Engineering, Carrera 13 No. 5-51, Buga, Colombia
b
Universidad del Valle, School of Industrial Engineering, Calle 13 No. 100-00, Cali, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Intermodal transportation plays a key role in modern transportation systems. There is a high interest into design
Intermodal hub networks efficient and low-cost intermodal networks. In this paper, we review more than 100 papers on recent literature
Hub and spoke networks regarding intermodal network design from a hub location perspective. We discuss recent trends and provide
Hub location
more than 20 future research directions focused on the modeling of realistic intermodal transportation systems.
Survey
Findings and research directions are structured in terms of the modeling of internal and external factors and
solution features, and we found that current models lack of realism in the modeling of internal factors of
intermodal hub networks like hubs and vehicles.

1. Introduction
Intermodal transportation refers to freight transportation from an
origin to a destination using at least two modes of transport (Steadieseifi
et al., 2014). Most of the intermodal transportation is devoted to
container transport (Crainic and Kim, 2007). The efficient design of
containers allows to exploit economies of scale advantages of high ca­
pacity transportation modes and handling equipment at terminals. This
concept has gained remarkable success in practice, initially in sea
transportation, and, more recently, in inland transportation (Christian­
sen et al., 2007; Crainic and Kim, 2007; Bontekoning et al., 2004).
In an intermodal hub network transport, requirements are associated
with each pair of origin–destination (OD) nodes. This characteristic is
also referred to as many to many distribution networks (Campbell, 2013).
OD demand may be supplied through a direct transport from the origin
to the destination node using a low-capacity vehicle (see Fig. 1). Alter­
natively, the demand originated in a set of nodes may be collected by
low-capacity vehicles and consolidated into a specialized facility or
origin hub. Then, there is a consolidated transport towards a destination
terminal using a high-capacity transportation mode. The freight is
finally distributed to destination nodes in low-capacity vehicles.
Consolidation at hubs is paramount since it allows to get the benefits of
economies of scale due to transport in high capacity vehicles. The reader
can be referred to surveys considering broad aspects of intermodal
transportation including: (Crainic and Kim, 2007; Woxenius, 2007; Caris
et al., 2013; Steadieseifi et al., 2014; Crainic et al., 2018; Ertem et al.,
2017).
This review is concerned on the planning and design of intermodal
hub networks. This includes the location of hubs, which is perhaps the
most important strategic decision. However, according to Crainic and
Kim (2007) and Christiansen et al. (2007), other strategic decisions of
interest in intermodal transportation include:
1. The location of terminals, customer allocation to terminals, and
direct transport services.
2. The characteristics of the transportation mode, i.e. vehicle capacity,
fleet size, and mix decisions.
3. The hub characteristics i.e. capacity, design, equipment type and
number.
We focus on reviewing papers that have addressed the first kind of
decisions, i.e. location decisions, and analyze how the remaining de­
cisions have been integrated into the first one. Given the characteristics
of the system, we face the review process into the light of hub location
theory. Surveys on hub location include (Alumur and Kara, 2008;
Campbell, 2013; Farahani et al., 2013; Contreras, 2015). More recent
surveys include (Contreras and O’Kelly, 2019; Alumur et al., 2021). We
aim to provide a review of current literature and propose future research
directions with an emphasis on container transportation applications.
Our interest is to review mathematical programming models. The
description of algorithmic developments is briefly summarized. To
structure the review, we follow a somewhat practical model analysis

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mario.basallo@correounivalle.edu.co (M.J. Basallo-Triana), carlos.vidal@correounivalle.edu.co (C.J. Vidal-Holguín), juan.bravo@
correounivalle.edu.co (J.J. Bravo-Bastidas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2021.105469
Received 31 July 2020; Received in revised form 28 May 2021; Accepted 1 July 2021
Available online 10 July 2021
0305-0548/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the transportation process in an intermodal
hub network.
procedure including:
• General model characteristics,
• Objective functions,
• Constraints,
• Transportation data,
• Solution methods.
Further, we have analyzed a sample of over 100 recent contributions
mostly published from 2014 to 2020.
One distinguishing feature of our review, compared to other existing
reviews, is that we focus on aspects that make models more realistic for
practical applications. We found that there is a lack of realism regarding
the modeling of internal factors, which are related to the main ele­
ments of intermodal hub networks like hubs, transportation modes, and
the physical network. Most formulations are rough simplifications of
these elements ignoring key characteristics of transportation modes,
hubs, and routing behaviors. On the other hand, external factors are
exogenous to the system and affect its performance or the decision-
making process. Aspects like data uncertainty, disruptions, the interac­
tion between actors, economic and customer behavior, environment,
among others, are examples of external factors. There seems to be a
tendency in the literature to prioritize the modeling of external factors.
We propose several research topics that are related to the modeling of
internal factors, external factors, and solution algorithms.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 pre­
sents the review methodology. Section 3 describes intermodal hub
network model characteristics. Section 4 discusses objective functions
and multi-objective formulations. Section 5 provides a typology of de­
cisions in intermodal hub network design models. Section 6 describes
model constraints with a priority on the discussion of special network
structures. Section 7 discusses real case studies along with stochastic
formulations. Section 8 briefly describes solution algorithms. Finally,
Section 9 discusses our findings and provides further research directions.
2. Paper selection process
We consider peer-reviewed papers published mostly between 2014
and 2020, but the publication year is not limited to this period. Papers
were searched using Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge and Scopus
databases. Keywords like intermodal hub network design, intermodal
hub location, hub and spoke network design, and others were used.
Priority was given to papers relating to intermodal transportation and
container transport. As paper selection criteria, we considered the dis­
tinguishing features of hub location modeling provided by Campbell
(2013):
1. Demand is associated to each origin-destination node.
2. Terminal or hub location decision is considered.
3. There is a benefit in terms of cost or time of routing flows via hubs or
terminals.
2
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
4. The objective function depends on the location of hubs and the
routing of flows.
The different journals and the number of papers per year are shown
in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively.
3. Intermodal hub network model characteristics
Basic characteristics of models are shown in Fig. 3. Most intermodal
hub network mathematical models are mixed-integer linear formula­
tions. However, the number of non-linear formulations is notable in
recent literature (Fig. 3(a)). We describe non-linear formulations in
SubSections 3.1–3.4. Multi-objective formulations are described in
Section 4.
Regarding the type of formulation (Fig. 3(b)), hub location models
can be classified according to the way transportation variables are
defined. Flow-based formulations use three index continuous variables
to define the amount of flow originated from an origin node, which is
routed through two hubs. On the other hand, path-based formulations
introduce four subscript binary variables for selecting for each OD nodes
the pair of hubs through which the freight will be routed. Finally,
quadratic formulations have a quadratic objective function or con­
straints defined in terms of binary variables (Alumur and Kara, 2008).
According to Alumur and Kara (2008), flow-based formulations have
shown to be superior, in terms of solution time. Recently, some authors
have also confirmed this feature. Lin and Lin (2016) showed that their
new flow-based formulation improves the path-based formulation of Lin
et al. (2014). We found a similar conclusion in the comparative study of
Tanash et al. (2017). In their study related to non-linear congestion
costs, Kian and Kargar (2016) concluded that the flow-based formula­
tion is better than the path-based formulation in terms of computational
effort.
However, the superiority of flow-based formulations does not seem
to hold in all contexts. For example, the path-based formulation of Kartal
et al. (2017) for a hub location-routing problem takes on average 40%
lower processing time than that of the corresponding flow-based
formulation. The selection of one kind of formulation or another is
also dependent on the solution algorithm. By using sophisticated
Benders decomposition approaches, path-based formulations are highly
efficient (see Section 8).
Quadratic formulations are scarce. Rostami et al. (2018) used it
cleverly designing an efficient Benders decomposition algorithm. Other
quadratic formulations are the ones by Rostami and Buchheim (2015)
and Mikic et al. (2019).
We note that many realistic implementations require the use of non-
linear formulations. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of the sources of non-
linearities. Piece-wise linear approximation, including step-wise func­
tions, is an important tool for modeling non-linear functions such as
economies of scale and congestion. In other contexts, the characteristics
of some models allowed the authors to reformulate them directly as
linear programs (Eghbali-Zarch et al., 2019; O’Kelly et al., 2015b). Non-
linearities are mainly found in objective functions, accounting for 48%
of the non-linear models; while 24% of them contain non-linearities in
both objective function and constraints. Bellow we describe in more
detail the nature of non-linear formulations.
3.1. Economies of scale
Economies of scale in transport activities are a core concept in
intermodal hub network design. However, their proper consideration
leads to non-linear formulations. A simple approach to handle them is
through a step-wise cost function of flow, usually taking the form of
modular arc capacities (see Hoff et al., 2017; Tanash et al., 2017; Ros­
tami and Buchheim, 2015; Mikic et al., 2019). According to Tanash et al.
(2017) and Fard et al. (2019), formulations with modular arc capacities
allow to model economies of scale by inducing a step-wise cost function
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al. Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

Fig. 2. (a) Top 10 journals. (b) Publications per year.

Fig. 3. Characteristics of the formulations. (a) Modeling approach frequency: mixed-integer linear program (MILP), mixed-integer non-linear (MINLP), multi-
objective mixed-integer linear (MOMILP), multi-objective mixed-integer non-linear (MOMINLP), and non-linear (NLP). (b) Type of formulation frequency.

Fig. 4. Sources of non-linearities in formulations and the strategies used to tackle them. SOCP stands for second order cone programming.

so that the unit transportation cost is a decreasing function of flow.
A drawback of modular formulations is the introduction of a large
number of integer variables. To avoid this, Fard et al. (2019) propose to
approximate the step-wise cost function using a generalized linear cost
function. This approximation helps to reduce the computational burden
of the model. Given the practical utility of the technique, it would be
interesting to adapt it for approximating general piece-wise cost
functions.
In general, the consideration of economies of scale usually leads to a
concave cost function of flow. Most authors use piece-wise linear ap­
proximations to approximate it (Alkaabneh et al., 2019; Wang and
Meng, 2017; Akgün and Tansel, 2018; Mostert et al., 2018; Ishfaq and
Sox, 2010). For their part, Lüer-Villagra et al. (2019) used this approach
to model more general cost functions with non-concave nor convex
shape and jump discontinuities.
Unfortunately, since the cost function is non-convex, piece-wise
linear reformulations involve the introduction of a large number of bi­
nary variables, which complicate the problem. In most papers, piece-
wise linearization is realized considering special ordered set of type 1
(SOS1) constraints. In these models, flow variables and binary variables
are defined for each linear segment (Najy and Diabat, 2020; Ishfaq and
Sox, 2010). Likewise, Alkaabneh et al. (2019) proposed a special or­
dered set of type 2 (SOS2) as a linearization mechanism. Racunica and
Wynter (2005) used a different mechanism allowing over two consec­
utive binary variables to be greater than zero, including the binary
variable for the first linear segment.

3
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Most papers, except (Alkaabneh et al., 2019), do not seem to exploit
the algorithmic advantages of SOS formulations through specialized
algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, there have not been a sys­
tematic study of different linearization mechanisms.
Few authors have studied economies of scale at terminals for trans­
shipment operations. Groothedde et al. (2005) used a piece-wise linear
approximation to estimate transshipment costs. For their part, Limbourg
and Jourquin (2009) used a logarithmic function of flow. Meng and
Wang (2011) used a trans-log cost function for estimating transportation
and transshipment costs in a context where multiple types of containers
need to be transported. This functional form allowed the authors to get
U-shaped unit cost functions to reflect transitions to diseconomies of
scale. We note that the presence of diseconomies of scale at terminals
caused by the limitation in their technological configuration might have
a strong impact in network efficiency, but this is almost non-existent in
current literature.
3.2. Congestion
From an intermodal transportation point of view, it is interesting to
compute congestion-related costs or waiting times at hubs or links.
Queuing analysis has been the preferred approach for assessing this
topic, mainly through Poisson queues. M/M/1 models were used by
Mohammadi et al. (2019) in contexts where disruptive events deterio­
rate hub service. Mohammadi and Tavakkoli-Moghaddam (2016) used a
fuzzy M/M/1 queue arguing that a fuzzy modeling approach is more
realistic.
Traditional M/M/c models appear in Mohammadi et al. (2014),
Kahag et al. (2019) and Zhalechian et al. (2017a). Moreover Moham­
madi et al. (2017) used a priority-based M/M/c queue model for situa­
tions where hazardous materials need to be manipulated and it is
necessary consider their risk level. Rahimi et al. (2019) used an M/M/c/
k model.
Non-Poisson queues have also been considered. Azizi et al. (2018)
used an M/G/1 queue to account for the congestion cost at hubs. Wang
and Meng (2017) considered an approximate expression for the waiting
time in a G/G/1 queue. Eghbali-Zarch et al. (2019) used a steady-state
approximation for the waiting time of an M/G/c model. They boun­
ded the waiting time in their model. Then, they numerically computed
the maximum arrival rate that satisfies the waiting time-bound. This
allowed the authors to reformulate the non-linear constraints into linear
ones.
Interestingly, Ishfaq and Sox (2012) are the only who proposed a
system of queues for modeling in detail terminal operations considering
GI/G/1 servers. In their model, terminal operations comprise three
stages: the unloading operation, the freight consolidation into batches or
freight deconsolidation, and finally, the loading operation. The average
total handling and waiting time at terminals plus transportation time is
constrained by a specified service time requirement. Authors showed
that waiting time is a convex function of flow providing exponentially
distributed inter-arrival and service times.
An alternative approach to model congestion costs is by considering
a convex power function of flow entering at hubs. Resat and Turkay
(2015) used it to evaluate the impact of congestion on travel times.
Interestingly, Kian and Kargar (2016) showed that, for practical in­
stances, this function can be reformulated in terms of second-order cone
constraints (SOCCs) and existing off-the-shelf solvers can manage it
efficiently.
The third approach to model congestion costs, inspired in queuing
analysis, is through a convex fractional function of flow, which is
asymptotic to the hub capacity (Elhedhli and Wu, 2010; Alkaabneh
et al., 2019). If flow is close to the capacity, the asymptotic behavior of
the cost function implies a much more severe impact of congestion.
Similarly, Özgün-Kibiroglu et al. (2019) defined congestion in terms of a
rational function of flow.
Modeling congestion is attractive since congestion costs or waiting
4
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
times are convex functions of flow. This allows us to produce efficient
piece-wise linear approximations. Despite this, only (Azizi et al., 2016;
Mohammadi et al., 2019; Alkaabneh et al., 2019; Lüer-Villagra et al.,
2019; Najy and Diabat, 2020) have used this technique to further
simplify the problem. Also, the use of second order cone programming
(SOCP) appears to be promising in this direction.
3.3. Choice behavior
The analysis of customer choice behavior generally leads to non-
linear formulations. We can identify two methodological approaches.
First, the analysis of the customer’s willingness to use (or not) the
intermodal transportation option. Second, customer behavior analysis
under competitive environments.
The first approach is attractive for intermodal transport planners and
the government. Teye et al. (2018) used the principle of entropy to
measure terminal usage by customers. They formulated a hub location
model to maximize total entropy (see also Teye et al., 2017b; Teye et al.,
2017a). Bouchery and Fransoo (2015) studied modal shift decisions of
customers in terms of transportation and environmental costs. Notably,
they concluded that the use of high capacity transportation modes might
be attractive for the transportation between terminals, even for short
distances. Wang and Meng (2017)measured customer preferences using
a random route utility function that includes congestion effects and
price. They analyzed the equilibrium principle in which the customer
chose the route with the largest utility. Fotuhi and Huynh (2015)
computed customer preferences using a logit model considering distance
as selection criteria.
On the other hand, the study of competitive environments is of in­
terest for individual companies. In its basic case, there is an existing firm
operating, and an entrant firm wants to locate new terminals. Usually,
authors aim to maximize profit, and model choice behavior through a
logit model (Abbasi and Niknam, 2017; Fotuhi and Huynh, 2015).
Sasaki et al. (2014), Mahmutogullari and Kara (2016), and Andrade
de Araújo et al. (2020) adopted a Stackelberg hub location approach to
model hub competition. Mahmutogullari and Kara (2016) proved that
the problem is NP hard. Later, Andrade de Araújo et al. (2020) proved
∑
that it is p2 -hard. The problem turns out to be highly complex due to its
bi-level structure.
3.4. Price sensitive demands
There are a few contributions addressing demand elasticity. Alibeyg
et al. (2016) used a step-wise linear function to model price sensitive
demands. O’Kelly et al. (2015b) considered a profit-maximizing model
with a concave-shaped profit function subject to linear constraints. Their
formulation takes a quality of service approach in which demand can be
satisfied using direct and indirect transport services through one or two
hubs. Given the characteristics of their model, under equilibrium con­
ditions, it can be reformulated as a mixed-integer linear program. On
their part, Lin and Lee (2018) used a Cobb-Douglas function to model
demand elasticity.
4. Objective functions
Fig. 5 shows different kinds of objective functions in single and
multi-objective formulations. Table 1 shows the cost and time structure
of objective functions. Naturally, most formulations are cost-oriented
because of the interest to exploit economies of scale. However, it is
interesting to consider other kinds of objective functions. For example,
social responsibility and sustainability are aspects that deserve more
attention.
Let us focus on environmental aspects. Including environmental as­
pects has been relaxed in current literature, likely because intermodal
transportation is known to be environmentally sustainable. However,
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al. Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

appear in more conventional hub location models (Alibeyg et al., 2018;

Fig. 5. Distribution of objective functions in single and multi-objective for­
mulations. Wider circles correspond to a higher frequency of occurrence,
including single and multi-objective models. For example, 82% of the papers
have a cost objective function whether if it is a single or a multi-objective
formulation. Thicker lines imply a higher frequency of occurrence in the links
between objectives in multi-objective formulations.
Table 1
The elements of cost and time in objective functions.
Element Frequency (%)
Cost objective function 100
Transportation costs 99
Fixed hub instalation costs 64
Fixed cost of pathways 22
Handling/transshipment costs 20
Fixed costs of modes of transport 11
Environmental costs 3
Time objective function 100
Transportation time 93
Transshipment time 50
Waiting time/delays 43
there are shreds of evidence that partially contradict it. Bouchery and
Fransoo (2015) and Santos et al. (2015) found that the oversized use of
intermodal transportation may harm the environment instead of pro­
tecting it. It appears that a very high modal shift in rail-road trans­
portation systems increases pre- and end-haulage pressures.
Environmental aspects merit more attention, particularly for deter­
mining suitable modal shift limits.
We note that there have been studies exclusively devoted to envi­
ronmental concerns like the work of Dukkanci et al. (2019). Unfortu­
nately, since they did not consider direct transportation decisions, there
is no way to assess the impact of modal shift decisions.
Customer service objectives are mainly oriented to the minimization
of transportation and operating times. The works of Martins-De-Sá et al.
(2015b) and Martins-De-Sá et al. (2015a) are devoted to improving the
efficiency of multi-modal networks. The authors considered the mini­
mization of the total transportation time including travel time, access
and exit times at hubs, and the transfer time from a high capacity
transportation mode to another. In general, most of the time-oriented
formulations also consider time delays because of congestion issues
(see Section 3.2).
Profit maximization models are generally found in competitive and
demand elasticity formulations (see Section 3.4). Nevertheless, they also
Taherkhani and Alumur, 2019). Notoriously, Taherkhani and Alumur
(2019) found that multiple allocations and direct transportation strate­
gies lead to the highest net profit values. Finally, we note that there is
not multi-objective formulation including profits.
Multi-objective formulations account for 18% of the papers and
almost all of them are bi-objective. The most common objective func­
tions are cost and time. Contributions vary from a basic consideration of
transportation cost and time (Gelareh et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2016;
Yang et al., 2017) to more realistic settings including operational time
(Wang et al., 2018; Resat and Turkay, 2015) and waiting times (Ishfaq
and Sox, 2012; Kahag et al., 2019; Mohammadi and Tavakkoli-
Moghaddam, 2016; Mohammadi et al., 2019). Authors also prefer to
minimize the maximum transportation time between OD nodes rather
than the total transportation time.
Some authors propose two conflicting cost functions. Sörensen and
Vanovermeire (2013) considered fixed hub installation costs and
transportation costs as objectives. Parvaresh et al. (2014) proposed a bi-
level model under a leader–follower Stackelberg game. They aimed to
minimize transportation costs under normal conditions, along with
transportation costs in the worst-case scenario caused by deliberate
disruptions of competitors. Similarly, Azizi et al. (2016) and Azizi
(2017) studied transportation costs under normal and disruptive
situations.
Zhalechian et al. (2018) aim to minimize the total investment and
transportation costs and maximize the level of resilience of the network.
For the second objective, the authors propose several metrics for
assessing the network robustness in the face of disruptive events. Mos­
tert et al. (2018) considered the minimization of transportation costs
and CO2 emissions. Karimi and Setak (2018) considered the minimiza­
tion of costs and the maximization of market share. Yahyaei et al. (2019)
minimize both transportation cost and unmet demand under disruptive
scenarios. Soylu and Katip (2019) aimed to minimize transportation
costs along with the number of 2-stop routes in airline networks.
Among the works considering three objective functions, we found
Zhalechian et al. (2017b) aiming at minimizing total investment and
transportation costs, environmental costs, and transportation time.
Mohammadi et al. (2014) analyzed transportation costs, noise pollution
costs, and energy consumption issues. Rahimi et al. (2019) considered
transportation cost, reliability aspects, and transportation time. Finally,
Zhalechian et al. (2017a) are the only considering social responsibility
defined in terms of employment and economic development. They also
considered cost and time objectives.
5. Decisions involved
The fundamental decision in intermodal hub network design is hub
location. Other basic decisions include allocation decisions, which
appear in 49% of the papers. Besides, hub arc selection decisions along
with hub arc installation costs appear in 22% of the papers (see Table 1).
The latter type of decision allows to get networks with sparse backbone
structures, being of interest in practice.
In intermodal hub network design there are many other decisions of
interest as it is shown in Table 2. Fig. 6 shows how these decisions have
been jointly considered by different authors. SubSections 5.1–5.5
describe each element of the typology of decisions of intermodal hub
networks given in Table 2.
5.1. Transportation decisions
Direct transportation. OD demands can be satisfied through the
intermodal transportation option, requiring transshipment operations at
hubs. Alternatively, it is possible to send cargo directly, without trans­
shipment operations. In practice, a combination of both direct and
intermodal transportation is desirable because:

5
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al. Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

Table 2 • It helps to reduce carbon emissions (Bouchery and Fransoo, 2015;

A typology of decisions in intermodal network design models. Santos et al., 2015).
Category Descriptor • It may lead to a more profitable environment (Taherkhani and Alu­
mur, 2019).
Basic hub network design decisions BD
Location BD-LO
Allocation BD-AL Despite the previous issues, about 70% of the papers consider a pure
Hub arc selection BD-AS intermodal transportation, ignoring direct transportation.
Transportation decisions TD Vehicle routing decisions. Another decision of interest in intermodal
Direct transportation TD-DT
Vehicle routing TD-VR
hub location is vehicle routing. It is common, for example, in liner
Transportation mode characteristic TM shipping network design. Usually, in those cases, there is a simultaneous
Mode selection at hubs TM-MS pick-up and delivery process, though some authors consider a non-
Number of vehicles TM-NV simultaneous process (Yang et al., 2019). Hub location routing is also
Vehicle capacity TM-VC
of interest from an environmental point of view. This is because the
Terminal/hub characteristics TC
Terminal capacity TC-TC many vehicles transporting cargo from each node to its corresponding
Equipment type/number TC-TE hub are replaced by a few vehicles transporting cargo in a single tour
Terminal design/layout TC-TD (Kartal et al., 2019). This helps to reduce the pre- and end-haulage
Product related decisions PD pressures discussed in Section 4. Unfortunately, this possesses diffi­
Multi-period model PD-MP
Multi-product PD-MC
culties in container transportation when the container has a single
Stock holding at terminals PD-SH destination node, so there is no need for a tour. Additionally, none of the
existing hub location routing models have an environmental
perspective.
• It is the common practice in many real intermodal networks (Stea­ Most hub location routing models are designed for hub and spoke
dieseifi et al., 2014). routes, they consider a homogeneous fleet of uncapacitated vehicles, and
• It may generate savings in total transportation distance and time a single allocation scheme. Usually, authors adopt a flow-based
(Woxenius, 2007; Crainic and Kim, 2007; Fard et al., 2019).

Fig. 6. Authors scope chart for the different kinds of decision variables. We show the top 30 authors. The decisions are sorted, from left to right, from the most basic
ones to the more complex or understudied.

6
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
formulation (Kartal et al., 2017; Karimi, 2018; Rodríguez-Martín et al.,
2014; Yang et al., 2019), though, there are also path-based formulations
(Kartal et al., 2019; de Camargo et al., 2013; Gelareh et al., 2013). In
their comparative study, Kartal et al. (2017) showed that a path based
formulation might be more efficient.
Alternatively, hub location models can form inter-hub routes. These
models are less common in the literature and lead to incomplete net­
works. Note that some models with special network structures may fall
into this category (see Section 6.1). However, models with special
network structures establish rigid routes, i.e. they are infrastructure-
oriented. A more general approach should allow flexibility in route se­
lection, i.e. they should be vehicle-oriented.
Among models considering inter-hub route formation, we found
Zheng et al. (2014). However, they separated the location problem from
the routing problem. Gelareh et al. (2013) considered a ring-like struc­
ture for the transportation of inter-hub vehicles. Rieck et al. (2014)
studied inter-hub routes comprising only two hubs, that is, each vehicle
visits two hubs along its journey. Interestingly, they considered the same
vehicle for hub-and-spoke and inter-hub transportation and allowed
direct transportation.
Given the complexity of integrated hub location and routing prob­
lems, some authors have addressed it using continuous approximations
models. Ghaffarinasab et al. (2018) used this kind formulations to find
hub and spoke routes. In contrast, Carlsson and Jia (2013) analyzed
inter-hub routes through different network structures.
5.2. Decisions regarding transportation mode characteristics
Mode selection decisions. Traditional hub location models can be
modified to consider transshipment between different transportation
modes. Path-based formulations are extended to include transshipment
or mode selection decisions at hubs by using five-subscript variables.
The first four subscripts dictate the path, and the last subscript repre­
sents the mode selection option (Yang et al., 2016; Mohammadi and
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, 2016; Mohammadi et al., 2019; Zhalechian
et al., 2017b). Zhalechian et al. (2017b), Mohammadi et al. (2019), and
Rahimi et al. (2019) extended the basic formulation by also considering
mode opening decisions at hubs with different capacity levels including
fixed costs. Mohammadi et al. (2019) also considered hub arc selection
with fixed costs for each mode of transport. Mokhtar et al. (2019b) used
decision variables to quantify the fraction of flow transferred from one
mode of transport to another at terminals.
Flow-based formulations are also extended to consider mode selec­
tion at hubs similarly to path-based formulations. Serper and Alumur
(2016), Torkestani et al. (2018), and Ambrosino and Sciomachen (2016)
considered hub capacity decisions for each mode of transport with its
corresponding fixed cost. Ambrosino and Sciomachen (2016) also
considered hub arc selection decisions per mode. Other flow-based
formulations include (Mostert et al., 2018; Resat and Turkay, 2015;
Lee, 2015; Ji et al., 2020).
Mode selection decisions are equivalent to the selection of distinct
types of links or arcs to install, one type corresponds to each mode of
transport. Wang and Meng (2017) built an augmented network
considering an arc for each mode of transport. Then, they used binary
variables to select arcs from established routes. Ghane-Ezabadi and
Vergara (2016) enumerated all hub combinations and routes between
OD nodes, considering different modes of transport. They used binary
variables to select the optimal set of routes.
Number of vehicles. As shown in Table 1, few researchers have
considered fixed costs of modes of transport. This reflects a lack of a
thorough study of transportation mode alternatives and their charac­
teristics. From the hub location routing perspective, only the works by
Yang et al. (2019), Karimi (2018), Gelareh et al. (2013) considered
vehicle capacity constraints, along with fixed costs of vehicles. Gelareh
et al. (2013) took into account a heterogeneous fleet.
Decisions regarding the number of vehicles in other contexts
7
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
different from hub location routing include (Serper and Alumur, 2016;
Rostami and Buchheim, 2015; Zhalechian et al., 2017b; Mostert et al.,
2018). Most of them consider a heterogeneous fleet with fixed cost of
vehicles.
5.3. Decisions regarding terminal characteristics
It is common to use binary variables to select hub capacity from a
certain set of capacity levels (Zhalechian et al., 2017a; Zhalechian et al.,
2017b; Marufuzzaman et al., 2014; Azizi et al., 2018; Alumur et al.,
2016). Serper and Alumur (2016) and Mohammadi et al., 2019 also
defined this capacity for each mode of transport. Fotuhi and Huynh
(2017), Fotuhi and Huynh (2018), and Zhalechian et al. (2018) included
the expansion of existing terminals under disruptive events. Zhalechian
et al. (2018) considered that each hub is established at some fortification
level with a pre-defined capacity. Disrupted hubs may also be resumed
at predefined capacity levels.
Using continuous variables to define capacity is limited to Fotuhi and
Huynh (2015) and Ghaffari-Nasab et al. (2015). Notoriously, Kahag
et al. (2019) used an integer variable for the number of servers installed
in hubs while an M/M/c queue model was considered to account for
congestion.
5.4. Product related and stock holding decisions
Multi-product formulations where included by Zhang et al. (2015),
Akgün and Tansel (2018), Alibeyg et al. (2016, 2018), Mohammadi et al.
(2017), and Rieck et al. (2014). In some works, the nature of the product
considerably affects the network design. That is the case of Mohammadi
et al. (2017) who studied the transportation of hazardous materials.
They analyzed the risk level of the products in terms of its probability of
incidents at hubs and links. To guarantee safe operation, they con­
strained the total transportation and transfer time. Rieck et al. (2014)
analyzed the transportation of highly irregular wooden products. Given
these characteristics of the products, they limit the transportation pro­
cess to at most two hubs allowing direct transportation. The OD demand
for products was sparse, and it was necessary to consider routing de­
cisions with pickups and deliveries.
Multi-period formulations are scarce, and we have not found a
simultaneous multi-period and multi-product model (see Torkestani
et al., 2018; Fotuhi and Huynh, 2018; Alumur et al., 2016; Lee, 2015).
Torkestani et al. (2018) and Fotuhi and Huynh (2018) studied a dynamic
network where disruptive events occur. Subsequently, the network can
be expanded by repairing some terminals or by locating extra ones.
Resat and Turkay (2015) are the only ones who consider stock-holding
decisions at terminals in a multi-period model. Alumur et al. (2016)
concluded that ignoring the multi-period nature of the problem might
considerably affect costs.
5.5. Location decisions under a continuous space
Location decisions might be associated to a discrete or a continuous
domain. The vast majority of literature is concentrated on location
under a discrete domain. Continuous approximation models are an
alternative for traditional mixed integer programming formulations.
These models usually assume that demand is uniformly distributed over
a convex planar service region. Carlsson and Jia (2013) studied the
theoretical properties of seven backbone structures considering fixed
location and transportation costs. They provided optimal network con­
figurations for some values of the cost coefficients. The continuous
approximation model of Ghaffarinasab et al. (2018) considers a fixed
number of hubs and the minimization of transportation costs.
On the other hand, Zhao et al. (2016) reformulated a discrete loca­
tion model into a continuous one by relaxing the binary location vari­
ables. Then, they used the binary entropy function as a constraint to
enforce a 0–1 result in the optimal solution.
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Fig. 7 shows the distribution of contributions to intermodal network
design decisions.
6. Constraints
In most formulations there is a fixed number of hubs to locate,
multiple allocations are allowed, hubs and arcs are uncapacitated, and
the network is fully connected (see Fig. 8). An alternative to models with
a fixed number of hubs is to restrict the number of arcs between OD
paths. This is done by adding the so-called hop constraints, which have
the advantage of increasing the service level of the network and avoid
unnecessary delays. Formulations with hop constraints are scarce, so we
can only refer to the one by de Camargo et al. (2017). To handle the
challenges of the modeling process, they based the analysis on the
Leontief substitution system technique.
This section cover aspects related to constraints. We discuss network
structures here because the establishment of a network structure is made
through the consideration of specific constraints on hub links. We also
discuss allocation strategies since those are related to the setting of
specific constraints on hub-and-spoke links. We discuss service consid­
eration aspects of hub covering and hub center formulations, which are
dependent on specific constraints on time or distance between pair of
nodes.
6.1. Network structure
As discussed before, most formulations assume a fully interconnected
or complete network. However, it is not the best strategy from the
intermodal transportation point of view. Incomplete networks are rele­
vant because:
• Most real intermodal networks cannot be fully interconnected
because of physical constraints.
• They allow to get greater benefits from economies of scale. Econo­
mies of scale are a consequence of the massive transportation of
freight, but the flow-concentration is sparse in a network with a high
number of inter-hub links.
Fig. 7. Network design decisions. The size of the circles is proportional to the
frequency of occurrence. An × symbol implies that authors have not considered
the associated decision.
8
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
• They prevent from overuse of expensive intermodal transportation
infrastructure.
We can categorize strategies to produce incomplete formulations as
exogenous and endogenous. The exogenous type considers that the
network incompleteness is a consequence of the physical characteristics
of the system (O’Kelly et al., 2015a). Here, it is possible to provide in
advance the set of feasible arcs (Mokhtar et al., 2019b). Other authors
enumerate feasible routes between origin and destination nodes. This
strategy acts as a prepossessing stage and may have the advantage to
reduce the computational burden of models (Ghane-Ezabadi and Ver­
gara, 2016).
On the other hand, the formulation itself may endogenously deter­
mine which inter-hub arcs are suitable, and which are not. Under this
strategy, the consideration of hub arc binary variables along with fixed
hub arc installation costs is very common, see for example O’Kelly et al.
(2015a) and Karimi and Setak (2014). Another way to get the same
result is by locating hub arcs rather than hubs, which is known as hub
arc location. These kinds of models are found in Wang and Meng (2017)
and a variant of the multi-commodity flow p-hub median model of
Akgün and Tansel (2018). Also, as discussed before, the consideration of
hop constraints produce incomplete networks (de Camargo et al., 2017).
Alternatively, an interesting way to produce incomplete networks
endogenously is by enforcing a specific network structure. This is done
by adding specific constraints on interhub links. Fig. 9 shows different
network configurations of interest in intermodal transportation.
A general network structure consider arbitrary, but incomplete, inter-
hub links, single or multiple allocations, and direct transportation de­
cisions. This is the most common type of incomplete network found in
the literature. O’Kelly et al. (2015a) studied network models by
analyzing the trade-offs between fixed and variable costs in spoke-spoke,
hub-and-spoke, and inter-hub arcs. They concluded that depending on
fixed and variable cost structure on links, one can get a rich variety of
network configurations. Taherkhani and Alumur (2019) conducted
several experiments with profit maximization models and found that the
most profitable structure is the general network structure.
Hub cycles are obtained when each hub connects two other hubs
(Contreras et al., 2017; Gelareh et al., 2013; Eghbali-Zarch et al., 2019).
Contreras et al. (2017) proposed exact and heuristic algorithms to solve
a flow-based formulation for cycle hub location. Some formulations
allow multiple hub cycles. Dukkanci and Kara (2017) studied a three-
layer ring-star-star network for modeling multi-modal ground and air
transportation systems. In their model, airport hubs form multiple hub
cycles which are linked by a central airport hub. Shang et al. (2020)
extended the previous model to consider uncertainty. Carlsson and Jia
(2013) proposes an structure where smaller hubs connect a central hub
through cycles following a single allocation scheme.
The Hub line or corridor is a design where hubs are connected by a
line. It might be found in inland waterway systems (Woxenius, 2007).
Martins-De-Sá et al. (2015b) proposed the hub line location problem.
Later, Martins-De-Sá et al. (2015a) extended the previous work by
considering the location of multiple hub lines. They considered that lines
intersect each other generating transfer points and suggested that these
networks are suitable to enhance the transportation efficiency of the
system.
In hierarchical networks, there is a series of layers of in­
terconnections. Spoke nodes connect conventional hubs, which connect
central hubs. These networks are of interest in the design of large rail-
road transportation systems. In these systems, there are transshipment
operations from trucks to trains at rail-road terminals. If the train tra­
verse different countries, or if the transportation by train is too long, it
might be necessary an additional transshipment from a train to another
train in a rail-rail terminal (see Boysen et al., 2013). In this context, rail-
rail terminals must guarantee highly efficient operations. Also, there
must be a high synchronization between trains. We found no papers
dealing with the design of these kind of networks and the analysis of
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al. Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

Fig. 8. The characteristics of the reviewed models according to their constraints structure. Vertical axis shows different kind of constraints found in models.
Horizontal axis shows the allocation strategy.

Fig. 9. Some network structures of interest in intermodal transportation.

synchronization aspects.
Bernardes Real et al. (2018) considered a three-layer network for air
transportation. In their model, local hubs allow local transportation, and
these hubs connect central or gateway hubs to facilitate international
connections. Torkestani et al. (2018) studied ground and air trans­
portation distinguishing ground and airport hubs as central and non-
central. The model by Dukkanci and Kara (2017) allows a three layer
ring-star-star structure.
Other network structures have also been studied. Blanco and Marín
(2019) proposed a tree of hubs location model with upgrading decisions
of hubs. Carlsson and Jia (2013) analyzed the star-star and the complete
bipartite graph structures. The first one includes single allocations
between spoke nodes and conventional hubs, then, conventional hubs
are connected to a central hub. In the complete bipartite graph case,
there are multiple central hubs which are fully interconnected.
6.2. Allocation strategy
Multiple allocation is the preferred allocation strategy in general.
However, authors prefer the single allocation strategy in hub location-
routing contexts. The r-allocation strategy allows each demand node
to be allocated to at most, or exactly, r hubs. Mokhtar et al. (2019a)
studied the 2-allocation hub location problem, where each spoke node is
allocated to exactly two hubs. They formulated a mixed-integer linear

9
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al. Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

model, with fixed costs for hub-and-spoke links, and proved that it is NP Table 4
hard, even when the location of hubs is fixed. Similar formulations are The literature on hub center problems.
provided by Peiró et al. (2014) and Taherkhani and Alumur (2019). Reference Objective Elements Centering Uncertainty
Hierarchical allocation implies that there are different layers of al­ type of study* criteria**
locations. This is proper of hierarchical network structures as discussed Kartal et al., 2019 Distance t od
before. In most of the cases, a lower-level node can be allocated only to Mohammadi and Time t, w od ✓
its immediate upper-level node. However, this is not mandatory, for Tavakkoli-
example, Torkestani et al. (2018) allowed demand nodes to be allocated Moghaddam,
2016
to non-central and central hubs through a single allocation scheme. Mohammadi et al., Time t, w, o od ✓
Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of models with special 2019
network structures. Wang et al., 2017 Time t, o od ✓
Wang et al., 2018 Time t, o od ✓
Yang et al., 2016 Time t od ✓
6.3. Service considerations Yang et al., 2017 Time t od ✓
Zhalechian et al., Time t, w, o od ✓
Hub center models aim to minimizing the maximum transportation 2017a
distance, cost, or time between OD nodes, or between hub-and-spoke Zhalechian et al., Time t od ✓
2017b
links. On the other hand, in hub covering formulations, the demand Ghaffarinasab, Time t od
must be served within a certain distance, cost, or time limit. Tables 4 and 2020
5 summarize hub center and hub covering formulations, respectively. *
t: transportation time, cost or distance; o: transshipment time or cost;
Notably, recent literature has developed to consider more realistic set­
w: waiting time or cost
tings including stochastic parameters along with waiting and operating **
od: the whole origin–destination path.
time or cost at hubs.
Interestingly, only the works by Kartal et al. (2019) and Karimi
branch-and-cut algorithm. They found that valid inequalities markedly
(2018) tackle the hub center and hub covering problem, respectively,
reduce computation times.
under a hub location routing scenario.
It is also noted the importance of valid inequalities for improving
linear programming relaxation bounds. Contreras et al. (2017) intro­
6.4. Valid inequalities duced an extension of mixed-dicut inequalities from the multi-
commodity network design problem. They proposed a separation pro­
The consideration of valid inequalities and prepossessing are good cedure for these inequalities embedded into a branch-and-cut frame­
strategies for improving computational time and quality of linear pro­ work and found that the addition of valid inequalities has a strong
gramming bounds of formulations. Karimi and Setak (2018) proposed a impact on the quality of LP bounds. Blanco and Marín (2019) used
set of valid inequalities and fixing rules for variables. They observed several families of valid inequalities and noted that these allowed to
reductions in computation time of about 90% (see also Dukkanci and solve larger problem instances with significantly smaller linear pro­
Kara, 2017). After introducing valid inequalities, Karimi and Setak gramming gaps. In Karimi (2018) and Alumur et al. (2016), there is no
(2014) observed computation time reductions of about 50% along with conclusive result about the effectiveness of valid inequalities in reducing
tighter linear bounds. Rieck et al. (2014) achieved computation time computation time, but they highlight their importance in improving
reductions between 20 and 30% and the linear programming gap linear programming bounds.
improved by more than 1%. Rodríguez-Martín et al. (2014) proposed a Dukkanci et al. (2019) included perspective cuts for quadratic in­
family of valid inequalities and a separation procedure embedded into a equalities and found that their use could reduce the computation time by
35% on average. The use of perspective cuts is also reported by Kian and
Table 3 Kargar (2016).
The literature on special network structures. The use of valid inequalities is also reported in a Benders decom­
Network Reference Allocation Direct position framework for strengthening master problem formulations as in
structure strategy* transportation Bernardes Real et al. (2018) and de Camargo et al. (2017).
General Zhalechian et al., 2018 m ✓
Wang and Meng, 2017 m ✓ 7. Data
Karimi and Setak, 2018 m ✓
de Camargo et al., 2017 m ✓
Most authors test their formulations using the classical CAB, AP, and
O’Kelly et al., 2015a m ✓
Akgün and Tansel, 2018 m ✓ TR data sets. These data sets have symmetric distance matrices and
Taherkhani and Alumur, s, m, r ✓ contain information for a single transportation mode. Also, the under­
2019 lying physical network is assumed to be complete. Although most of the
Rieck et al., 2014 s ✓ classical data sets are widely used in hub location literature, these do not
Hub cycles Contreras et al., 2017 s
Zheng et al., 2014 s
fit exactly into the peculiarities of intermodal transportation, which:
Gelareh et al., 2013 s
Dukkanci and Kara, 2017 s, h • produces non-symmetric cost/demand matrices,
Shang et al., 2020 s, h • requires information regarding different transportation modes,
Carlsson and Jia, 2013 s, h
• in general, considers an incomplete physical network.
Hub lines Martins-De-Sá et al., m ✓
2015b; Martins-De-Sá
et al., 2015a To fill these gaps, recently, Mokhtar et al. (2019b) proposed the
Hierarchical Dukkanci and Kara, 2017 s, h Indonesia Container Distribution (ICD) data set of the Indonesian
Shang et al., 2020 s, h intermodal transportation system. This is an incomplete physical
Torkestani et al., 2018 s, h
Carlsson and Jia, 2013 s, h
network where containers are transported using road, rail, or sea
Bernardes Real et al., m, h ✓ transportation modes. The data set comprises more than 200 demand
2018 nodes with potential rail-road and seaports terminals.
*
m: multiple; s: single, h: hierarchical, r: r-allocation.

10
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al. Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

Table 5
The literature on hub covering problems.
Reference Covering criteria* Covering radius** Elements of study*** Unit of measurement Uncertainty

Mohammadi et al., 2014 s Multiple t Cost ✓

Zhalechian et al., 2018 od Multiple t Time ✓
Fotuhi and Huynh, 2017 od Multiple t, o Time
Fotuhi and Huynh, 2018 od Multiple t, o Time
Karimi and Setak, 2018 od Single t, o Time ✓
Dukkanci and Kara, 2017 od Single t, o Time
Lin and Lee, 2018 od Multiple t, o Time
Karimi, 2018 od Single t Time
Martins de Sá et al., 2018b od Multiple t Time ✓
Mohammadi et al., 2017 od Multiple t, w, o Time ✓
*
od: the whole origin–destination path; s: single link (hub-and-spoke or hub-hub link).
**
Single: single covering radius for all od pairs; Multiple: a covering radius for each od pair.
***
See Table 4.

7.1. Case studies
In this section, we describe real case studies relating to intermodal
transportation, i.e. container transportation. Zheng et al. (2014)
analyzed the impact of maritime cabotage legislation around the Asia-
Europa-Oceania service region. They studied the situation when China
and Japan published strict cabotage legislation and considered as liner
shipping operators to COSCO from China and APL from Singapore. They
concluded that cabotage legislation has a significant impact on the
allocation strategy.
Zheng et al. (2019) studied canal impacts on liner hub location de­
cisions considering aspects such as ship capacity, canal congestion, and
canal toll. They studied Panama and Suez canals and concluded that ship
capacity has a great impact on deciding the location of hub ports around
the canal.
Teye et al. (2017a) conducted a study on dry port location in New
South Wales, Australia, to enhance the use of intermodal transportation
through urban areas. Santos et al. (2015) analyzed the impact of gov­
ernment subsidies on intermodal transportation along with the impact of
external costs. They concluded that subsidizing plays a key role in the
enhancement of the intermodal transportation system. Interestingly,
they found that the consideration of external costs reduces the
competitiveness of intermodal transportation at some point. Fotuhi and
Huynh (2017) and Fotuhi and Huynh (2018) studied a U.S. railroad
network. They analyzed the dry port location along with expansion
decisions under disaster situations.
Mostert et al. (2018) studied the Belgium transportation system
considering the road, rail, and inland waterways (IWW) transport
modes. Their results reveal that, when environmental issues are
considered, the modal shift increases with IWW transportation having
the highest participation. Their results also suggest the viability of using
intermodal transportation even for short distances, i.e. less than 300 km.
Resat and Turkay (2015) analyzed an intermodal transportation
network in the Marmara Region (Turkey). Wang and Meng (2017)
studied an intermodal network including many countries in Southeast
Asia. Zhao et al. (2019) analyzed the impact of river-sea operations in
the container transportation from the Yangtze River in China to Japan.
In river-sea operations, export activities are carried out directly from an
IWW terminal towards a foreign seaport, without transshipment at a
local seaport. The authors found that this is an attractive alternative. In
fact, according to their results, it is plausible to find river ports dedicated
only to river-sea operations.
Table 6 shows a summary of the real case studies discussed before.
7.2. Formulations under uncertainty
There are distinct ways to deal with data uncertainty. Robust opti­
mization models assume that uncertain parameters belong to an un­
certainty set. The stochastic approach assumes a known probability
distribution for the parameter. In contrast, fuzzy programming models
consider uncertain parameters as fuzzy numbers.
Most papers use a robust optimization approach (see Fig. 10). Each
formulation of this kind has an average number of uncertain parameters
of about 1.6. In contrast, the average number of uncertain parameters
per model in fuzzy formulations is 5.3. This quantity becomes 2.4 and
2.9 for stochastic and mixed formulations, respectively. Fuzzy pro­
gramming approaches provide such flexibility because the equivalent
deterministic formulations are more tractable.
On the side of robust programming models, a common approach is to
consider a finite uncertainty set. This set comprises a finite set of sce­
narios and the aim is to minimize the worst-case impact (Abbassi et al.,
2019; Habibi et al., 2018; Fotuhi and Huynh, 2017; Fotuhi and Huynh,
2015). A somewhat different approach was proposed by Ghaderi and
Rahmaniani (2016) and Huo et al. (2019) by formulating a hybrid
robust-stochastic model. The former considers a set of scenarios with
known probability and seeks to minimize the expected transportation

Table 6
A summary of the literature on real case studies.
Reference Region/country Network size Candidate hub locations Modes of transport* Kind of terminals**

Zheng et al., 2014 Europe-Asia-Oceania 45 9 s sp

Zheng et al., 2019 Asia-Europe-N. America 52 4 s sp
Abbassi et al., 2019 Europe-Africa-Asia 40 20 s sp
Teye et al., 2017a NSW, Australia 79 8 r, h dp, sp
Santos et al., 2015 Belgium 84 - r, h dp, sp
Mostert et al., 2018 Belgium 88 44 r, h, w dp, rp
Fotuhi and Huynh, 2017; Fotuhi and Huynh, 2018 U.S. 75 10 r, h dp
Resat and Turkay, 2015 Marmara Region, Turkey 30 - r, h, s dp, sp
Wang and Meng, 2017 Southeast Asia 35 - r, h, s dp, rr, sp
Mokhtar et al., 2019b Indonesia 73 30 r, h, s dp, sp
Zhao et al., 2019 Yangtze River, China 48 - r, h, w, s dp, rp, sp
*
s: sea; r: rail; h: road; w: inland waterway.
**
sp: seaport; dp: dry port or rail-road terminal; rr: rail-rail terminal; rp: river port or IWW terminal.

11
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Fig. 10. Methodological approaches to tackle uncertainty and nature of un­
certain parameters.
costs while bounding the relative regret. The later aims to maximize the
weighted average between the expected and worst-case profits.
Other robust formulations consider an infinite uncertainty set. Zetina
et al. (2017), Ghaffari-Nasab et al. (2015), Martins de Sá et al. (2018a),
Martins de Sá et al. (2018b) included an interval of uncertainty. They
controlled the level of uncertainty by using a parameter associated with
a budget of uncertainty. Alternatively, Merakli and Yaman (2016)
considered polyhedral demand uncertainty. Shahabi and Unnikrishnan
(2014) proposed an ellipsoidal uncertainty set for the demand controlled
by a budget of uncertainty. They reformulated their model into a mixed
integer second order cone program.
Some stochastic models are formulated following a two-stage
approach. The first stage establishes the number of hubs and their lo­
cations. The second stage determines routing decisions in terms of sce­
narios with known probabilities. The aim is to minimize the expected
value of the objective function. These formulations are proposed by
Fotuhi and Huynh (2018), Yang and Chiu (2016), Yang and Huang
(2015), and Li et al. (2017).
Stochastic models are also formulated following a chance-
constrained approach with normally distributed parameters (Moham­
madi et al., 2019; Karimi and Setak, 2018). Shang et al. (2020) used
chance constraints along with the expected value criterion.
Most fuzzy programming models are formulated under the expected
value and chance-constrained approach. Zhalechian et al. (2017a) and
Zhalechian et al. (2017b) presented fuzzy formulations based on the Me
criterion and considering triangular fuzzy numbers. Zhalechian et al.
(2018) followed the same strategy. However, in this case, the authors
complemented their work with a stochastic analysis for the modeling of
disruptive scenarios with known probabilities. Wang et al. (2018) used
the credibility criterion and triangular fuzzy numbers. Mohammadi and
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam (2016) used trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Yang
et al. (2017) used type 2 fuzzy variables with fuzzy membership values.
Finally, some studies follow a mixed approach by integrating fuzzy
random variables. Here again, the expected value and chance-
constrained approach is mostly used. Mohammadi et al. (2014) and
Mohammadi et al. (2017) considered a model with mixed uncertainty
using triangular fuzzy numbers with normally distributed bounds. In
Yang et al. (2016), the central value of a triangular fuzzy variable is
estimated using a normal distribution. Wang et al. (2017) used normal
fuzzy variables to describe travel times. They formulated an equilibrium
chance-constrained model and showed that it reduces to an equivalent
stochastic chance-constrained model. Then, the sample average
approximation method was proposed to handle probability constraint
functions. Eghbali-Zarch et al. (2019) and Rahimi et al. (2019) followed
a robust-possibilistic approach considering trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
8. Solution algorithms
Metaheuristics have been the preferred solution method, accounting
12
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
for 50% of the papers (see Fig. 11). Among metaheuristics, genetic al­
gorithms (GA) are the most popular. Reported GA implementations have
allowed solving problems instances of up to 200 nodes (Mohammadi
et al., 2019; Lüer-Villagra et al., 2019). Simulated annealing (SA) has
also shown popularity among researchers. Kartal et al. (2017) used it to
solve a p-hub location routing problem for networks with up to 400
nodes.
Heuristics are also popular to solve problems. Even though
Lagrangian relaxation is an approximation method, it is a common so­
lution strategy, which can be embedded within exact algorithms to get
optimal solutions. That is the case reported by Alibeyg et al. (2018), who
used Lagrangian relaxation embedded into a branch-and-bound algo­
rithm. They solved problem instances of up to 100 nodes.
Benders decomposition has been successfully applied for solving
large-scale hub location problems and it is the preferred exact solution
method among researchers. This is because of the staircase structure of
hub location models, and because the solution of sub-problems can
usually be obtained efficiently. For example, Ghaffarinasab (2020) used
it to solve a basic hub center formulation. He could solve problems with
200 nodes and 5 hubs in about 70 s.
All models solved using Benders decomposition are uncapacitated on
arcs and links and most of them use path-based variables in their
formulation. Authors usually follow a traditional decomposition
approach that consists of projecting out complicating binary variables
and using constraints linking continuous and binary variables.
Table 7 summarizes the literature on Benders decomposition
algorithms.
9. Findings and further research directions
We have reviewed the recent literature on intermodal hub network
design from the perspective of hub location theory. We emphasize on
aspects that make models more realistic and on the applications on
container transportation. We analyzed the characteristics of models in
terms of objective functions, decisions, constraints, data, and solution
methods. We also provided a typology of strategic decisions of interest in
intermodal transportation. Some of these decisions are not covered or
are very little explored in the literature.
The degree of realism in formulations can be understood in terms of
the modeling of internal and external factors. Internal factors are
related to the principal elements of the intermodal network, i.e. physical
network, terminals, and vehicles. External factors are aspects that
affect the network design but are not directly associated with the prin­
cipal elements of the network. Factors like risks due to uncertainty and
disruptive events, the interaction between actors, the existence of
different decision criteria, economical and customer behaviour, envi­
ronmental concerns, among others are examples of external factors.
Fig. 12 shows a summary of the literature in terms of these factors.
9.1. Modeling of internal factors
Regarding the structure of the physical network, i.e., inter-hub and
hub-and-spoke links, we note that most formulations consider complete
interconnections between hubs, the single allocation between spoke
nodes and hubs, and the option of direct transportation is disregarded.
This implies a structure where pure intermodal transportation is
imposed with a lack of flexibility in transport activities. According to
this practice, the following points are of interest as future research
directions:
• It is desirable to consider formulations with incomplete hub network
structures that resemble the characteristics of the system studied. A
topic of interest, for example, is the modeling of large rail-road
transportation networks. These networks require hierarchical struc­
tures by considering transshipments between rail-road and rail-rail
terminals. These structures are typical in European contexts.
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al. Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469

Fig. 11. A summary of solution methods. We report here the algorithm (or algorithms) that was (were) used to solve the largest instance. LR: Lagrangian relaxation;
BD: Benders decomposition; B&B: branch and bound; B&C: branch and cut; GA: genetic algorithm; SA: simulated annealing; GRASP: greedy randomized adaptive
search process; PSO: particle swarm optimization; VNS: variable neighborhood search; DE: differential evolution; TS: tabu search; MA: memetic algorithm; A/BC:
ant/bee colony; IWO: invasive weeds optimization; Solver: off-the-shelf solver.

Now we discuss the modeling of vehicles and their characteristics. In

Table 7
the vast majority of formulations, little is known about the character­
The literature on Benders decomposition algorithms.
istics of transportation modes, and intermodality is limited to at most
Reference Problem characteristics Number of two alternative transportation modes. A first attempt to improve for­
nodes
mulations, which is noted in current literature, is to consider mode se­
Martins-De-Sá et al., Multiple allocation (MA) multi hub 70 lection decisions at hubs. Most of these formulations are limited since
2015a lines location
they assume that vehicles operate on a single link ignoring routing
Martins-De-Sá et al., MA hub line location 100
2015b possibilities. A small portion of recent literature proposed more elabo­
Martins de Sá et al., Incomplete robust MA hub location 100 rated models integrating routing decisions in hub location models. Most
2018a with direct transportation of the existing hub location routing models consider a homogeneous
Martins de Sá et al., Robust MA hub covering with service 50 fleet of uncapacitated vehicles, a single allocation scheme, and the for­
2018b time constraints
Merakli and Yaman, Robust MA p-hub location 200
mation of hub-and-spoke routes. The following points are of interest as
2016 future research directions:
Mokhtar et al., r-allocation (rA) hub location 200
2019a • Decisions regarding fleet size, fleet composition, and vehicle
de Camargo et al., Single allocation hub location- 100
deployment merit more attention. In this regard, the formulation of
2013 routing
de Camargo et al., Incomplete multiple allocation p-hub 80 hub location routing models is a promising research direction. It is of
2017 location interest to consider hub location routing models with heterogeneous
Rostami et al., 2018 Reliable SA hub location 100 vehicles of limited capacity. In the same way, it is recommended to
O’Kelly et al., 2015b Multiple allocation p-hub location 100 include a multiple-allocation strategy to get more flexible intermodal
with profits
hub networks. The consideration of hub covering and hub center
Bernardes Real et al., Hierarchical hub location 141
2018 problems in the context of hub location routing needs further
Ghaffarinasab, 2020 Multiple allocation hub center 200 development in the literature.
Najy and Diabat, MA hub location with economies of 70 • We noted that most hub location routing models are devoted to the
2020 scale and congestion
formation of hub-and-spoke routes. However, the formation of inter-
hub routes is of special interest by generating incomplete networks,
However, we have not found academic contributions in this area. which are flexible in terms of vehicle deployment and avoid the ri­
This study is important in practice since current rail networks are not gidity of static inter-hub structures. Another interesting idea is to
as profitable as expected and an important mechanism to subsist is consider the situation where a vehicle performs a single route
through subsidies from the government. through spoke-spoke, hub-and-spoke, and hub-hub linkages. This
• A drawback of existing incomplete formulations is setting up rigid idea was developed earlier, but with the limitation of only consid­
physical structures, generating a lack of flexibility in transport ac­ ering two hubs in the route.
tivities. This could be improved by considering the dynamic nature • It is of interest to consider vehicle synchronization in hub location
of transportation systems, allowing a change of hub interconnections models. If vehicles are not synchronized when they arrive at a hub,
in different periods during a planning horizon. Another alternative to containers cannot be transshipped directly from one vehicle to
get flexible incomplete network structures is through an appropriate another, requiring temporary storage. The lack of synchronization
vehicle deployment and routing through hub nodes, as we discuss causes inefficiencies in terminal operations and reduces the perfor­
later. An example of this is the modeling of liner shipping networks. mance of the entire transportation network. Despite its importance,
• It is recommended to integrate direct transportation decisions into vehicle synchronization aspects have not been considered in current
formulations. This practice has shown to be beneficial in practical models.
contexts and theory.

13
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Fig. 12. Summary of the literature review in terms of internal and external factors.
• The selection of vehicle capacity is an important strategic decision in
intermodal transportation. However, none of the reviewed formu­
lations consider vehicle capacity as a decision under the assumption
of economies of scale in transport activities.
The hub or terminal is a costly element of intermodal hub networks
and a key element to achieving competitiveness. According to the cur­
rent literature, the modeling of terminals is mostly limited to set ca­
pacity constraints. The efforts in describing at some level of detail
terminal operations and its resource level are very limited. The
following are possible research directions regarding the modeling of
hubs:
• The analysis of different technological configurations or terminals
designs, considerations regarding the resource level, and a more
elaborated way of modeling terminal operations are aspects that
merit more attention.
• There is no research describing how the lack of synchronized oper­
ations affects terminal performance and congestion. We note that
non-synchronized operations increase the stock level in terminals
and, consequently, handling efforts. There is also a need for models
considering stock holding aspects at terminals.
14
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
9.2. Modeling of external factors
Considering previous reviews on the topic, i.e., literature before
2014, we note that current literature has become more diverse by
integrating aspects that make models more realistic in terms of external
factors. Factors like the inherent uncertainty in data, disruptive events,
congestion, more diverse and conflicting objective functions, have
attracted the attention of researchers.
Regarding the modeling of economies of scale, we note that the only
method considered by researchers is the use of piece-wise linear ap­
proximations. In this respect, we propose the following research
directions:
• There is a need for a systematic study and analysis of different piece-
wise linearization models. It is necessary to guarantee that the piece-
wise linear sub-formulations are highly efficient and have a very
small number of implied binary variables. In the same way, the study
of specialized solution algorithms for piece-wise linear sub-
formulations is of great interest.
• The study of economies of scale functions is limited to only a single
transportation mode. In practice, every transportation mode has its
economies of scale behavior. There is a necessity in modeling econ­
omies of scale for the different transportation modes, especially in
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
multi-mode formulations. These functions may consider flow and
distance thresholds, at which one mode of transport becomes more
attractive than others.
• The modeling of economies of scale at terminals is very limited. It is
widely known in intermodal transportation that economies of scale
play an important role in terminal operations. It is also known that,
at some point, diseconomies of scale might appear due to techno­
logical and capacity limitations. New studies should consider econ­
omies and diseconomies of scale patterns at terminals.
Although multi-objective formulations have increased in recent
literature, the following decision criteria need to be further investigated:
• There is a need for investigating the environmental impact of modal
shift decisions. This implies the evaluation of the benefits and scope
of the intermodal transportation option compared to the direct
transportation service alternative. This may also require the use of
choice behavior models for the selection or not of the intermodal
transportation option or alternative transportation means.
• The consideration of social responsibility and social impact is almost
non-existent in current formulations. In the same way, the develop­
ment of sustainable formulations by integrating social, environ­
mental, and economic criteria is required in further research.
In practice, the behavior of the actors involved in intermodal hub
networks may have a notorious impact on network performance. This is
especially true when considering the customer or shippers’ perspectives.
From the literature review, the customer behavior is studied from two
points of view: the customer willingness to use or not an intermodal
transportation option, and the customer behavior in an environment
where different firms compete together. This kind of formulations tends
to be difficult to solve. Future research directions may consider the
following issues:
• Actors behaviour involves, among other things, social, political, and
even psychological conditions. In practice, it is not easy to change
paradigms and established behaviors. Consider, for example, the
difficulties experienced in the transition from a truck-only transport
to a combined rail-road in European countries. It is not easy include
these aspects into formulations, but it could be interesting to further
analyze or discuss them.
• Cooperation between actors is an under-explored area. It is inter­
esting to consider different forms of collaboration between actors in
future contributions. In the same way, some economic sectors form
clusters to enhance logistic operations. It would be interesting to
consider interactions and cooperation between the intermodal net­
works of different economic sectors.
Most realistic implementations require the use of non-linear formu­
lations, usually arising in the modeling of external factors. We observed
that the main sources of non-linearities in formulations are related to the
modeling of congestion, economies of scale, choice behavior, and price-
sensitive demands. Some of the non-linearities might be reformulated
into linear or mixed-integer linear programs, as is the case of the piece-
wise linear approximation to non-linear functions.
SOCP/quadratic-optimization allows the modeling of a variety of
non-linear functions. Recently, authors have proposed these kinds of
formulations in intermodal hub location literature. We believe that the
use of SOCP is a promising research direction, for example, in the
modeling of congestion, uncertainty, and many other non-linear con­
straints or objectives.
9.3. Solution methods
A significant portion of papers uses metaheuristic algorithms to solve
large instance problems and off-the-shelf solvers have been successfully
15
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
applied in solving small to moderate instances of flow-based formula­
tions. Sophisticated Benders decomposition algorithms have shown to
be successful among researchers in solving problem instances of a
considerable size of path-based formulations. It is important to note the
notorious role that appropriate valid inequalities have played in
improving efficiency and solution quality. Additional to the above cur­
rent practices on solution methodologies, we believe that the following
points are of interest as future research directions:
• There is a challenge in effectively integrating capacity constraints
into specialized solution algorithms. Current decomposition tech­
niques do not consider this type of constraints. Also, on the side of
decomposition algorithms, the use of parallel computation is
attractive to improve solution time.
• There is an opportunity to test new metaheuristic implementations.
For example, we note that the use of metaheuristics based on arti­
ficial intelligence is a trending topic in current optimization practice.
However, this solution strategy has not been covered yet by the hub
location community.
• Given the relative success of Benders decomposition, it is of interest
the implementation of modified Benders decomposition algorithms
with the capability of handling non-linear formulations. In the same
way, it is noted that traditional Benders decomposition works in
situations where sub-problems are linear, but linearity is not a
necessary condition for the master problem.
• We believe that the exploration of non-linear optimization tech­
niques should be further analyzed and implemented in hub location
models, even if those implementations are solved in small problem
instances. That is the case where concave functions are used for the
modeling of economies of scale. The vast majority of existing for­
mulations approximate these functions using traditional piece-wise
linearization methods. We have noted that the number of linear
segments used in these approximations is small, so the approxima­
tion quality is not good enough. It is interesting to test specialized
solution algorithms designed to handle concave functions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mario José Basallo-Triana: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Writing - original draft, Visualization. Carlos Julio Vidal-Holguín:
Writing - review & editing, Validation. Juan José Bravo-Bastidas:
Writing - review & editing, Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Fondo de Ciencia, Tecnología e
Innovación of Sistema General de Regalías (FCTeI-SGR) of Colombia and
Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (MINCIENCIAS) of
Colombia and by the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.
References
Abbasi, M., Niknam, R., 2017. A combined genetic algorithm and simulated annealing
approach for solving competitive hub location and pricing problem. Int. J. Appl.
Manage. Sci. 9, 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAMS.2017.086639.
Abbassi, A., Alaoui, A., Boukachour, J., 2019. Robust optimisation of the intermodal
freight transport problem: Modeling and solving with an efficient hybrid approach.
Journal of Computational Science 30, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jocs.2018.12.001.
Akgün, I., Tansel, B., 2018. p-hub median problem for non-complete networks. Comput.
Oper. Res. 95, 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.02.014.
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Alibeyg, A., Contreras, I., Fernández, E., 2016. Hub network design problems with
profits. Transp. Res. Part E 96, 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.09.008.
Alibeyg, A., Contreras, I., Fernández, E., 2018. Exact solution of hub network design
problems with profits. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 266, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2017.09.024.
Alkaabneh, F., Diabat, A., Elhedhli, S., 2019. A lagrangian heuristic and grasp for the
hub-and-spoke network system with economies-of-scale and congestion. Transp. Res.
Part C 102, 249–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.011.
Alumur, S., Campbell, J., Contreras, I., Kara, B., Marianov, V., O’Kelly, M., 2021.
Perspectives on modeling hub location problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 291, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.09.039.
Alumur, S., Kara, B., 2008. Network hub location problems: the state of the art. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 190, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.06.008.
Alumur, S., Nickel, S., Saldanha-da Gama, F., Seçerdin, Y., 2016. Multi-period hub
network design problems with modular capacities. Ann. Oper. Res. 246, 289–312.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1805-9.
Ambrosino, D., Sciomachen, A., 2016. A capacitated hub location problem in freight
logistics multimodal networks. Optim. Lett. 10, 875–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11590-016-1022-8.
Andrade de Araújo, A., Roboredo, M., Pessoa, A., Pereira, V., 2020. Exact methods for the
discrete multiple allocation (r—p) hub-centroid problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 116
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2019.104870.
Azizi, N., 2017. Managing facility disruption in hub-and-spoke networks: formulations
and efficient solution methods. Ann. Oper. Res. 272, 159–185. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10479-017-2517-0.
Azizi, N., Chauhan, S., Salhi, S., Vidyarthi, N., 2016. The impact of hub failure in hub-
and-spoke networks: mathematical formulations and solution techniques. Comput.
Oper. Res. 65, 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.05.012.
Azizi, N., Vidyarthi, N., Chauhan, S., 2018. Modelling and analysis of hub-and-spoke
networks under stochastic demand and congestion. Ann. Oper. Res. 264 https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10479-017-2656-3.
Bernardes Real, L., O’Kelly, M., de Miranda, G., Saraiva de Camargo, R., 2018. The
gateway hub location problem. J. Air Transport Manage. 73, 95–112. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.08.006.
Blanco, V., Marín, A., 2019. Upgrading nodes in tree-shaped hub location. Comput. Oper.
Res. 102, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.10.007.
Bontekoning, Y., Macharis, C., Trip, J., 2004. Is a new applied transportation research
field emerging? – a review of intermodal rail-truck freight transport literature.
Transp. Res. Part A 38, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2003.06.001.
Bouchery, Y., Fransoo, J., 2015. Cost, carbon emissions and modal shift in intermodal
network design decisions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 164, 388–399. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.11.017.
Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., Jaehn, F., Pesch, E., 2013. A survey on container processing in
railway yards. Transp. Sci. 47, 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1120.0415.
de Camargo, R., de Miranda, G., Løkketangen, A., 2013. A new formulation and an exact
approach for the many-to-many hub location-routing problem. Appl. Math. Model.
37, 7465–7480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.02.035.
de Camargo, R., de Miranda, J., G., O’Kelly, M., Campbell, J., 2017. Formulations and
decomposition methods for the incomplete hub location network design problem
with and without hop-constraints. Appl. Math. Model. 51, 274–301. doi: 10.1016/j.
apm.2017.06.035.
Campbell, J., 2013. Modeling economies of scale in transportation hub networks. In:
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
pp. 1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.411.
Caris, A., Macharis, C., Janssens, G., 2013. Decision support in intermodal transport: a
new research agenda. Comput. Ind. 64, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compind.2012.12.001.
Carlsson, J., Jia, F., 2013. Euclidean hub-and-spoke networks. Oper. Res. 61, 1360–1382.
https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2013.1219.
Christiansen, M., Fagerholt, K., Nygreen, B., Ronen, D., 2007. Chapter 4 maritime
transportation. Handbooks Oper. Res. Manage. Sci. 14, 189–284. doi: 10.1016/
S0927-0507(06)14004-9.
Contreras, I., 2015. In: Laporte, G., Nickel, S., Saldanha da Gama, F. (Eds.), Hub location
problems. chapter 12. Location Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13111-
5_12.
Contreras, I., O’Kelly, M., 2019. Hub location problems. In: Laporte, G., Nickel, S.,
Saldanha da Gama, F. (Eds.), Location Science. Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 327–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32177-2_12.
Contreras, I., Tanash, M., Vidyarthi, N., 2017. Exact and heuristic approaches for the
cycle hub location problem. Ann. Oper. Res. 258, 655–677. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10479-015-2091-2.
Crainic, T., Kim, K., 2007. Chapter 8 intermodal transportation. Handbooks Oper. Res.
Manage. Sci. 14, 467–537. doi: 10.1016/S0927-0507(06)14008-6.
Crainic, T., Perboli, G., Rosano, M., 2018. Simulation of intermodal freight
transportation systems: a taxonomy. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 270, 401–418. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.061.
Dukkanci, O., Kara, B., 2017. Routing and scheduling decisions in the hierarchical hub
location problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 85, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2017.03.013.
Dukkanci, O., Peker, M., Kara, B., 2019. Green hub location problem. Transp. Res. Part E
125, 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.03.005.
Eghbali-Zarch, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Jolai, F., 2019. A robust-possibilistic
programming approach for a hub location problem with a ring-structured hub
network under congestion: an m/g/c queue system. Int. J. Ind. Eng.Theory Appl.
Pract. 26, 273–300.
16
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
Elhedhli, S., Wu, H., 2010. A lagrangean heuristic for hub-and-spoke system design with
capacity selection and congestion. INFORMS J. Comput. 22, 282–296. https://doi.
org/10.1287/ijoc.1090.0335.
Ertem, M., Isbilir, M., Sahin Arslan, A., 2017. Review of intermodal freight transportation
in humanitarian logistics. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-
017-0226-z.
Farahani, R., Hekmatfar, M., Arabani, A., Nikbakhsh, E., 2013. Hub location problems: a
review of models, classification, solution techniques, and applications. Comput. Ind.
Eng. 64, 1096–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.01.012.
Fotuhi, F., Huynh, N., 2015. Intermodal network expansion in a competitive
environment with uncertain demands. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 6, 285–304. https://
doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2014.10.002.
Fotuhi, F., Huynh, N., 2017. Reliable intermodal freight network expansion with demand
uncertainties and network disruptions. Networks Spatial Econ. 17, 405–433. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11067-016-9331-0.
Fotuhi, F., Huynh, N., 2018. A reliable multi-period intermodal freight network
expansion problem. Comput. Ind. Eng. 115, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2017.11.007.
Gelareh, S., Maculan, N., Mahey, P., Monemi, R., 2013. Hub-and-spoke network design
and fleet deployment for string planning of liner shipping. Appl. Math. Model. 37,
3307–3321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.07.017.
Ghaderi, A., Rahmaniani, R., 2016. Meta-heuristic solution approaches for robust single
allocation p-hub median problem with stochastic demands and travel times. Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 82, 1627–1647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7420-8.
Ghaffari-Nasab, N., Ghazanfari, M., Teimoury, E., 2015. Robust optimization approach to
the design of hub-and-spoke networks. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 76, 1091–1110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6330-5.
Ghaffarinasab, N., 2020. A highly efficient exact algorithm for the uncapacitated
multiple allocation p-hub center problem. Decision Sci. Lett. 9, 181–192. https://doi.
org/10.5267/j.dsl.2019.12.001.
Ghaffarinasab, N., Van Woensel, T., Minner, S., 2018. A continuous approximation
approach to the planar hub location-routing problem: modeling and solution
algorithms. Comput. Oper. Res. 100, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2018.07.022.
Ghane-Ezabadi, M., Vergara, H., 2016. Decomposition approach for integrated
intermodal logistics network design. Transp. Res. Part E 89, 53–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2016.02.009.
Groothedde, B., Ruijgrok, C., Tavasszy, L., 2005. Towards collaborative, intermodal hub
networks. a case study in the fast moving consumer goods market. Transp. Res. Part
E 41, 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2005.06.005.
Habibi, M., Allaoui, H., Goncalves, G., 2018. Collaborative hub location problem under
cost uncertainty. Comput. Ind. Eng. 124, 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2018.07.028.
Hoff, A., Peiró, J., Corberán, Ã., Martí, R., 2017. Heuristics for the capacitated modular
hub location problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 86, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2017.05.004.
Huo, J.-Z., Hou, Y.-T., Chu, F., He, J.-K., 2019. A combined average-case and worst-case
analysis for an integrated hub location and revenue management problem. Discrete
Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2019 https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8651728.
Ishfaq, R., Sox, C., 2010. Intermodal logistics: the interplay of financial, operational and
service issues. Transp. Res. Part E 46, 926–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2010.02.003.
Ishfaq, R., Sox, C., 2012. Design of intermodal logistics networks with hub delays. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 220, 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.03.010.
Ji, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Shen, Y., Du, Y., 2020. A multimodal passenger-and-package
sharing network for urban logistics. J. Adv. Transp. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1155/
2020/6039032.
Kahag, M., Niaki, S., Seifbarghy, M., Zabihi, S., 2019. Bi-objective optimization of multi-
server intermodal hub-location-allocation problem in congested systems: modeling
and solution. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 15, 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-018-
0288-0.
Karimi, H., 2018. The capacitated hub covering location-routing problem for
simultaneous pickup and delivery systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 116, 47–58. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.12.020.
Karimi, H., Setak, M., 2014. Proprietor and customer costs in the incomplete hub
location-routing network topology. Appl. Math. Model. 38, 1011–1023. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.07.033.
Karimi, H., Setak, M., 2018. A bi-objective incomplete hub location-routing problem
with flow shipment scheduling. Appl. Math. Model. 57, 406–431. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apm.2018.01.012.
Kartal, Z., Hasgul, S., Ernst, A., 2017. Single allocation p-hub median location and
routing problem with simultaneous pick-up and delivery. Transp. Res. Part E 108,
141–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.10.004.
Kartal, Z., Krishnamoorthy, M., Ernst, A., 2019. Heuristic algorithms for the single
allocation p-hub center problem with routing considerations. OR Spectrum 41,
99–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-018-0526-2.
Keshvari Fard, M., Alfandari, L., 2019. Trade-offs between the stepwise cost function and
its linear approximation for the modular hub location problem. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cor.2018.11.014.
Kian, R., Kargar, K., 2016. Comparison of the formulations for a hub-and-spoke network
design problem under congestion. Comput. Ind. Eng. 101, 504–512. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2016.09.019.
Lee, E., 2015. Spatial analysis for an intermodal terminal to support agricultural logistics:
a case study in the upper great plains. Manage. Res. Rev. 38, 299–319. https://doi.
org/10.1108/MRR-06-2013-0131.
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Li, S.-X., Sun, S.-F., Wang, Y.-Q., Wu, Y.-F., Liu, L.-P., 2017. A two-stage stochastic
programming model for rail-truck intermodal network design with uncertain
customer demand. J. Interdiscip. Math. 20, 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09720502.2016.1258831.
Limbourg, S., Jourquin, B., 2009. Optimal rail-road container terminal locations on the
european network. Transp. Res. Part E 45, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2008.12.003.
Lin, C.-C., Chiang, Y.-I., Lin, S.-W., 2014. Efficient model and heuristic for the intermodal
terminal location problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 51, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cor.2014.05.004.
Lin, C.-C., Lee, S.-C., 2018. Hub network design problem with profit optimization for
time-definite ltl freight transportation. Transp. Res. Part E 114, 104–120. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.03.007.
Lin, C.-C., Lin, S.-W., 2016. Two-stage approach to the intermodal terminal location
problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 67, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2015.09.009.
Lüer-Villagra, A., Eiselt, H., Marianov, V., 2019. A single allocation p-hub median
problem with general piecewise-linear costs in arcs. Comput. Ind. Eng. 128,
477–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.058.
Mahmutogullari, A., Kara, B., 2016. Hub location under competition. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
250, 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.008.
Martins-De-Sá, E., Contreras, I., Cordeau, J.-F., 2015a. Exact and heuristic algorithms for
the design of hub networks with multiple lines. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 246, 186–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.017.
Martins-De-Sá, E., Contreras, I., Cordeau, J.-F., De Camargo, R., De Miranda, G., 2015b.
The hub line location problem. Transp. Sci. 49, 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1287/
trsc.2014.0576.
Marufuzzaman, M., Eksioglu, S., Li, X., Wang, J., 2014. Analyzing the impact of
intermodal-related risk to the design and management of biofuel supply chain.
Transp. Res. Part E 69, 122–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.06.008.
Meng, Q., Wang, X., 2011. Intermodal hub-and-spoke network design: Incorporating
multiple stakeholders and multi-type containers. Transp. Res. Part B 45, 724–742.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2010.11.002.
Merakli, M., Yaman, H., 2016. Robust intermodal hub location under polyhedral demand
uncertainty. Transp. Res. Part B 86, 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trb.2016.01.010.
Mikic, M., Todosijevic, R., Urosevic, D., 2019. Less is more: general variable
neighborhood search for the capacitated modular hub location problem. Comput.
Oper. Res. 110, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2019.05.020.
Mohammadi, M., Jula, P., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2017. Design of a reliable multi-
modal multi-commodity model for hazardous materials transportation under
uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257, 792–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2016.07.054.
Mohammadi, M., Jula, P., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2019. Reliable single-allocation
hub location problem with disruptions. Transp. Res. Part E 123, 90–120. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.01.008.
Mohammadi, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2016. Design of a fuzzy bi-objective
reliable p-hub center problem. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 30, 2563–2580. https://doi.org/
10.3233/IFS-151846.
Mohammadi, M., Torabi, S., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2014. Sustainable hub location
under mixed uncertainty. Transp. Res. Part E 62, 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2013.12.005.
Mokhtar, H., Krishnamoorthy, M., Ernst, A., 2019a. The 2-allocation p-hub median
problem and a modified benders decomposition method for solving hub location
problems. Comput. Oper. Res. 104, 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2018.09.006.
Mokhtar, H., Redi, A., Krishnamoorthy, M., Ernst, A., 2019b. An intermodal hub location
problem for container distribution in indonesia. Comput. Oper. Res. 104, 415–432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.08.012.
Mostert, M., Caris, A., Limbourg, S., 2018. Intermodal network design: a three-mode bi-
objective model applied to the case of belgium. Flexible Services Manufacturing J.
30, 397–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-016-9275-1.
Najy, W., Diabat, A., 2020. Benders decomposition for multiple-allocation hub-and-spoke
network design with economies of scale and node congestion. Transp. Res. Part B
133, 62–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2019.12.003.
O’Kelly, M., Campbell, J., de Camargo, R., de Miranda, J.G., 2015. Multiple allocation
hub location model with fixed arc costs. Geogr. Anal. 47, 73–96. doi: 10.1111/
gean.12051.
O’Kelly, M., Luna, H., de Camargo, R., de Miranda, J.G., 2015. Hub location problems
with price sensitive demands. Networks Spatial Econ. 15, 917–945. doi: 10.1007/
s11067-014-9276-0.
Özgün-Kibiroglu, C., Serarslan, M., Topcu, Y., 2019. Particle swarm optimization for
uncapacitated multiple allocation hub location problem under congestion. Expert
Syst. Appl. 119, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.10.019.
Parvaresh, F., Husseini, S., Golpayegany, S., Karimi, B., 2014. Hub network design
problem in the presence of disruptions. J. Intell. Manuf. 25, 755–774. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10845-012-0717-7.
Peiró, J., Corberán, A., Martí, R., 2014. Grasp for the uncapacitated r-allocation p-hub
median problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 43, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2013.08.026.
Racunica, I., Wynter, L., 2005. Optimal location of intermodal freight hubs. Transp. Res.
Part B 39, 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.001.
Rahimi, Y., Torabi, S., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2019. A new robust-possibilistic
reliable hub protection model with elastic demands and backup hubs under risk.
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 86, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.08.019.
17
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
Resat, H., Turkay, M., 2015. Design and operation of intermodal transportation network
in the marmara region of turkey. Transp. Res. Part E 83, 16–33. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2015.08.006.
Rieck, J., Ehrenberg, C., Zimmermann, J., 2014. Many-to-many location-routing with
inter-hub transport and multi-commodity pickup-and-delivery. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
236, 863–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.12.021.
Rodríguez-Martín, I., Salazar-González, J.-J., Yaman, H., 2014. A branch-and-cut
algorithm for the hub location and routing problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 50,
161–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.04.014.
Rostami, B., Buchheim, C., 2015. The uncapacitated single allocation p-hub median
problem with stepwise cost function. Optimization Online.
Rostami, B., Kämmerling, N., Buchheim, C., Clausen, U., 2018. Reliable single allocation
hub location problem under hub breakdowns. Comput. Oper. Res. 96, 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.04.002.
Martins de Sá, E., Morabito, R., de Camargo, R., 2018a. Benders decomposition applied
to a robust multiple allocation incomplete hub location problem. Comput. Oper. Res.
89, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.08.001.
Martins de Sá, E., Morabito, R., de Camargo, R., 2018b. Efficient benders decomposition
algorithms for the robust multiple allocation incomplete hub location problem with
service time requirements. Expert Syst. Appl. 93, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2017.10.005.
Santos, B., Limbourg, S., Carreira, J., 2015. The impact of transport policies on railroad
intermodal freight competitiveness - the case of belgium. Transp. Res. Part D 34,
230–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.015.
Sasaki, M., Campbell, J., Krishnamoorthy, M., Ernst, A., 2014. A stackelberg hub arc
location model for a competitive environment. Comput. Oper. Res. 47, 27–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.01.009.
Serper, E., Alumur, S., 2016. The design of capacitated intermodal hub networks with
different vehicle types. Transp. Res. Part B 86, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trb.2016.01.011.
Shahabi, M., Unnikrishnan, A., 2014. Robust hub network design problem. Transp. Res.
Part E 70, 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.08.003.
Shang, X., Yang, K., Wang, W., Wang, W., Zhang, H., Celic, S., 2020. Stochastic
hierarchical multimodal hub location problem for cargo delivery systems:
Formulation and algorithm. IEEE Access 8, 55076–55090. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2020.2981669.
Sörensen, K., Vanovermeire, C., 2013. Bi-objective optimization of the intermodal
terminal location problem as a policy-support tool. Comput. Ind. 64, 128–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2012.10.012.
Soylu, B., Katip, H., 2019. A multiobjective hub-airport location problem for an airline
network design. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 277, 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2019.02.056.
Steadieseifi, M., Dellaert, N., Nuijten, W., Van Woensel, T., Raoufi, R., 2014. Multimodal
freight transportation planning: a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.055.
Taherkhani, G., Alumur, S., 2019. Profit maximizing hub location problems. Omega
(United Kingdom) 86, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.05.016.
Tanash, M., Contreras, I., Vidyarthi, N., 2017. An exact algorithm for the modular hub
location problem with single assignments. Comput. Oper. Res. 85, 32–44. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.03.006.
Teye, C., Bell, M., Bliemer, M., 2017a. Entropy maximising facility location model for
port city intermodal terminals. Transp. Res. Part E 100, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2017.01.006.
Teye, C., Bell, M., Bliemer, M., 2017b. Urban intermodal terminals: the entropy
maximising facility location problem. Transp. Res. Part B 100, 64–81. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trb.2017.01.014.
Teye, C., Bell, M., Bliemer, M., 2018. Locating urban and regional container terminals in
a competitive environment: an entropy maximising approach. Transp. Res. Part B
117, 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2017.08.017.
Torkestani, S., Seyedhosseini, S., Makui, A., Shahanaghi, K., 2018. The reliable design of
a hierarchical multi-modes transportation hub location problems (hmmthlp) under
dynamic network disruption (dnd). Comput. Ind. Eng. 122, 39–86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2018.05.027.
Wang, R., Yang, K., Yang, L., 2017. Designing hub-and-spoke network with uncertain
travel times: a new hybrid methodology. J. Uncertain Syst. 11, 243–256.
Wang, R., Yang, K., Yang, L., Gao, Z., 2018. Modeling and optimization of a rail-road
intermodal transport system under uncertain information. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 72,
423–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2018.04.022.
Wang, X., Meng, Q., 2017. Discrete intermodal freight transportation network design
with route choice behavior of intermodal operators. Transp. Res. Part B 95, 76–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2016.11.001.
Woxenius, J., 2007. Generic framework for transport network designs: applications and
treatment in intermodal freight transport literature. Transport Rev. 27, 733–749.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701358796.
Yahyaei, M., Bashiri, M., Randall, M., 2019. A model for a reliable single allocation hub
network design under massive disruption. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 82 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105561.
Yang, K., Yang, L., Gao, Z., 2016. Planning and optimization of intermodal hub-and-
spoke network under mixed uncertainty. Transp. Res. Part E 95, 248–266. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.10.001.
Yang, K., Yang, L., Gao, Z., 2017. Hub-and-spoke network design problem under
uncertainty considering financial and service issues: a two-phase approach. Inf. Sci.
402, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.03.022.
Yang, T.-H., Chiu, T.-Y., 2016. Airline hub-and-spoke system design under stochastic
demand and hub congestion. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 33, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21681015.2015.1107860.
M.J. Basallo-Triana et al.
Yang, T.-H., Huang, Y., 2015. Hub-and-spoke airline network design under competitive
market. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 32, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21681015.2015.1029549.
Yang, X., Bostel, N., Dejax, P., 2019. A milp model and memetic algorithm for the hub
location and routing problem with distinct collection and delivery tours. Comput.
Ind. Eng. 135, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.05.038.
Zetina, C., Contreras, I., Cordeau, J.-F., Nikbakhsh, E., 2017. Robust uncapacitated hub
location. Transp. Res. Part B 106, 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trb.2017.06.008.
Zhalechian, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Rahimi, Y., 2017a. A self-adaptive
evolutionary algorithm for a fuzzy multi-objective hub location problem: An
integration of responsiveness and social responsibility. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 62,
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2017.03.006.
Zhalechian, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Rahimi, Y., Jolai, F., 2017b. An interactive
possibilistic programming approach for a multi-objective hub location problem:
Economic and environmental design. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 52, 699–713. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.10.002.
18
Computers and Operations Research 136 (2021) 105469
Zhalechian, M., Torabi, S., Mohammadi, M., 2018. Hub-and-spoke network design under
operational and disruption risks. Transp. Res. Part E 109, 20–43. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tre.2017.11.001.
Zhang, M., Janic, M., Tavasszy, L., 2015. A freight transport optimization model for
integrated network, service, and policy design. Transp. Res. Part E 77, 61–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.02.013.
Zhao, Y., Yang, Z., Haralambides, H., 2019. Optimizing the transport of export containers
along china’s coronary artery: The yangtze river. J. Transp. Geogr. 77, 11–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.04.005.
Zhao, Y., Zhou, J., Xing, Q., 2016. A continuous hub location model with service
constraints for shipping network design. J. Interdiscip. Math. 19, 681–695. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2016.1179488.
Zheng, J., Meng, Q., Sun, Z., 2014. Impact analysis of maritime cabotage legislations on
liner hub-and-spoke shipping network design. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 234, 874–884.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.045.
Zheng, J., Zhang, W., Qi, J., Wang, S., 2019. Canal effects on a liner hub location
problem. Transp. Res. Part E 130, 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2019.09.002.