Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

www.elsevier.com/locate/cor

Lower and upper bounds for the mixed capacitated

arc routing problem
José-Manuel Belenguera , Enrique Benaventa , Philippe Lacommeb , Christian Prinsc,∗
a Dept d’Estadística i Investigació Operativa, Universitat de València, C / Dr. Moliner, 50-46100 Burjassot (València), Spain
b LIMOS, Université Blaise Pascal, BP 10125, 63173 Aubière Cedex, France
c ISTIT, Université de Technologie de Troyes, BP 2060, 10010 Troyes Cedex, France

Available online 30 March 2005

Abstract
This paper presents a linear formulation, valid inequalities, and a lower bounding procedure for the mixed
capacitated arc routing problem (MCARP). Moreover, three constructive heuristics and a memetic algorithm are
described. Lower and upper bounds have been compared on two sets of randomly generated instances. Computational
results show that the average gaps between lower and upper bounds are 0.51% and 0.33%, respectively.
䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Capacitated arc routing problem; Mixed graph; Lower bound; Cutting plane; Heuristic; Memetic algorithm; Waste
collection

1. Introduction and background

The capacitated arc routing problem (CARP), introduced by Golden and Wong [1], considers an
undirected network in which each edge has a traversal cost. A fleet of identical vehicles of limited
capacity is based at a depot node. A subset of required edges with known demands must be serviced by
a vehicle. The CARP consists of determining a set of vehicle trips of minimum total cost, such that each
trip starts and ends at the depot, each required edge is serviced by one single trip and during one traversal,

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 325 71 56 41; fax: +33 325 71 56 49.
E-mail addresses: jose.belenguer@uv.es (J.-M. Belenguer), enrique.benavent@uv.es (E. Benavent), lacomme@sp.isima.fr
(P. Lacomme), prins@utt.fr (C. Prins).

0305-0548/$ - see front matter 䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cor.2005.02.009
3364 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

and the total demand for each trip does not exceed vehicle capacity. Assad and Golden [2] list various
applications for the CARP, like municipal waste collection, winter gritting and inspection of power lines.
The CARP is NP-hard. Exact methods [3] are still limited to 20 required edges, explaining the impor-
tance of heuristics. Path-scanning [4], augment-merge [1] and Ulusoy’s heuristic [5] are good examples of
fast heuristics to compute one acceptable solution. Much better results can be obtained by metaheuristics.
They include tabu search algorithms designed by Eglese and Li [6] and by Hertz et al. [7], memetic al-
gorithms proposed by Lacomme et al. [8,9], Greistorfer’s tabu-scatter search approach [10] and a guided
local search from Beullens et al. [11]. Comparisons with tight lower bounds computed by Belenguer and
Benavent [12] show that a majority of instances with up to 100 required edges can be solved to optimality
by these algorithms.
In fact, the CARP is too simplistic to model real street networks encountered for instance in urban
refuse collection. Indeed, its undirected graph can only model 2-way streets whose both sides are collected
in parallel and in any direction. Even if this practice is common in low-traffic areas, actual networks also
include two-way streets with independent sides and one-way streets. Clearly, such extensions can be
tackled by extending the CARP with a mixed network, leading to a new problem called Mixed CARP or
MCARP.
The MCARP is defined on a mixed network G = (V , E ∪ A) with a set V of n nodes, an edge-set E
and an arc-set A. A fleet of K identical vehicles with limited capacity Q is based at a depot node s. K is
either fixed or left as a decision variable. The m elements of E ∪ A are called links. Each time a link u
is traversed without service by a vehicle, a cost c(u) called deadheading cost is incurred. A subset of

required links must be serviced by the vehicles. It comprises a subset of  required edges ER ⊆ E and a
subset of  required arcs AR ⊆ A. Each required link u has a demand r(u) and a service cost w(u). All
costs and demands are non-negative integers.
The goal is to determine a least-cost set of vehicle trips, such that each trip starts and ends at the depot,
each required link is serviced by one single trip and during one traversal (no split service), and the total
demand processed by a trip fits vehicle capacity. The MCARP is NP-hard, since it includes NP-hard
particular cases: the CARP or UCARP (undirected graph), the Directed CARP or DCARP (directed
graph), the mixed rural postman problem or MRPP (if Q = ∞) and the mixed Chinese postman problem
or MCPP (if Q=∞ and all links are required). To the best of our knowledge, no published paper addresses
the MCARP.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 deals with a linear programming approach leading to a
cutting plane algorithm that computes tight lower bounds for the MCARP. Fast constructive heuristics are
presented in Section 3. Section 4 introduces a memetic algorithm. Section 5 is devoted to a computational
evaluation, in which lower and upper bounds are compared on two sets of randomly generated MCARP
instances.

2. A lower bound for the MCARP

2.1. A linear formulation

This section presents a cutting plane algorithm to obtain a lower bound for the MCARP. The method
is based on the formulations proposed by Belenguer and Benavent [12] for the UCARP, by Nobert and
Picard [13] for the MCPP and by Corberán et al. [14] for the general routing problem on a mixed graph.
Nobert and Picard introduced the so-called balance constraints, that allow formulating the MCPP by
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3365

considering only one variable per edge and arc. This makes the formulation more compact and, probably,
tighter. They used the following characterization of an eulerian mixed graph, due to Ford and Fulkerson
[15]:

• Evenness condition. The degree of each node (number of links incident with it) is even.
• Balanced sets condition. For every proper subset of nodes S, the number of arcs entering S minus the
number of arcs leaving S is less than or equal to the number of edges between S and V \S.

Let us introduce some notation. Given a subset of nodes S ⊆ V \{s}, S = ∅, we denote by + (S) the
set of arcs leaving S, by − (S) the set of arcs entering S, and by (S) the set of edges between S and
V \S. The cutset induced by S is defined as L (S) = + (S) ∪ − (S) ∪ (S). Let L(S) be the set of links
having both extreme nodes in S. A subscript R in any of these sets indicates the corresponding subset
of required edges/arcs/links: for instance +
R (S) denotes the set of required arcs leaving S. r(S) denotes
the total demand of the required links of LR (S) ∪ LR (S) and k(S) = r(S)/Q. Note that at least k(S)
vehicles are needed to service the demands of the required links in LR (S) ∪ LR (S). The unbalance of the
cutset L (S) is defined as b(S) = |−R (S)| − |  +
R (S)| − | R (S)|.
Given an MCARP solution (a set of trips for the vehicles), let xu be the total number of times the link
u ∈ E ∪ A is traversed without service by the vehicles. We may construct an eulerian supergraph that
corresponds to this MCARP solution, by adding to graph GR =(V , ER ∪AR ) xu copies (called
deadheading
links) of every link u ∈ E ∪A. For any subsets E
⊆ E, and A
⊆ A, we denote x(E
∪A
)= u∈E
∪A
xu .
This leads to the following relaxed formulation for the MCARP:
 
Min w(u) + c(u)xu , (2.1)
u∈ER ∪AR u∈E∪A
s.t.: x(+ (S)) − x(− (S)) + x((S))
b(S) ∀S ⊆ V , S  = ∅, (2.2)
x(L (S))
2k(S) − |L
R (S)| ∀S ⊆ V \{s}, S  = ∅, (2.3)
x( (S))
1 ∀S ⊆ V \{s}, S = ∅, |L
L
R (S)| is odd, (2.4)
xu
0 ∀u ∈ E ∪ A, (2.5)
xu integer ∀u ∈ E ∪ A. (2.6)

Constraints (2.2) or balance constraints express the balanced sets condition to be satisfied by an eulerian
mixed graph. Constraints (2.3) are called capacity constraints and are explained as follows: as noted above,
since at least k(S) vehicles are needed to service the total demand of the required links L
R (S)∪LR (S), the
total number of deadheading traversals of the links in the cutset  (S) must be at least 2k(S) − |L
L
R (S)|.
Obviously, these constraints are only interesting when 2k(S) − |R (S)| > 0. Constraints (2.4) are called
L

odd cutset constraints and directly derive from the evenness condition. Note that they can be dominated,
in some cases, by the capacity constraints.
A directed version of the capacity constraints is also possible. Note that any vehicle servicing a link
R (S) ∪ LR (S) has to cross the cutset  (S) twice, once from V \S to S and another time from S to
in L L

V \S. Thus, the total number of times that the cutset has to be crossed from V \S to S is at least k(S), so
we have the following valid constraints:

x(− (S)) + x((S))
k(S) − |−

R (S)| − |R (S)| ∀S ⊆ V \{s}, S  = ∅. (2.7)
3366 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

Nevertheless, these constraints, as well as the corresponding ones in the reverse direction, have not been
used because, as it can be easily shown, they can be generated from constraints (2.2) and (2.3).
The above formulation is not complete for the MCARP because it may contain integer solutions that do
not correspond to any MCARP solution. Furthermore, no complete formulation using the sole variables
xu is known for the MCARP. This can be explained by the fact that variables xu provide information on
the deadheading traversals of the set of routes in the MCARP solution, but nothing about the individual
trips (see Belenguer and Benavent [12] for a more detailed discussion on this topic for the UCARP).
Nevertheless, the formulation can be improved by adding new sets of valid constraints. Namely, the
disjoint path (DP) inequalities, that were introduced by Belenguer and Benavent [12] for the UCARP,
can be easily adapted for the MCARP. In what follows, we show that any valid inequality in the UCARP
formulation of Belenguer and Benavent [12] can be translated into a valid inequality for the MCARP.
The UCARP formulation uses the same variables xu , but they are associated with edges only, obviously.
Consider the MCARP defined on the mixed graph G = (V , A ∪ E), and let GU = (V , E ∪ U ) be the
undirected graph obtained from G by substituting every arc a ∈ A by an edge with the same cost and
demand. Let us denote by f (u) ∈ A the arc that has originated the edge u ∈ U . Note that any feasible
solution for the MCARP is also a feasible solution for the UCARP defined on GU
(as an edge can be
traversed in any direction). Now, let b ∈ RE∪U and a0 ∈ R be such that the

inequality
u∈E∪U bu xu
a0
is a valid inequality for the UCARP defined on GU . Then, the inequality u∈E bu xu + u∈U bu xf (u)
a0
is obviously valid for the MCARP defined on G.

2.2. A cutting plane algorithm for the MCARP

We propose a cutting plane algorithm (CPA) to obtain a lower bound for the MCARP which is based
on the above formulation. This procedure can briefly be described as follows. At each iteration, we solve
a linear program (LP) that contains: the objective function (2.1), the non-negativity constraints (2.5) and
a subset of valid constraints (2.2)–(2.4) and DP inequalities. Note that the optimal cost of this LP is a
lower bound for the MCARP. Then, we look for a set of valid inequalities violated by the optimal LP
solution, we add them to the LP and proceed as before. The algorithm stops when no violated inequality
is found. Note that even if the LP solution is integer, it may not correspond to an optimal solution for the
MCARP because our formulation is not complete.
The set of constraints for the first LP is built as follows. Starting at a node v ∈ V \{s}, we generate a
sequence of node sets (Wi ) such that W0 = {v} and, for i
1, Wi+1 is generated from Wi by adding to
it all the nodes that are incident in G with at least one node of Wi (excluding the depot, if necessary).
The procedure stops when the current node set contains all the nodes except the depot. For each node
set Wi , constraints (2.2) corresponding to Wi and V \Wi are added to the LP if their right-hand sides are
positive; furthermore, constraints (2.3) corresponding to Wi and V \(Wi ∪ {s}) are added to the LP if their
right-hand sides are positive, and otherwise, the constraint that is added is (2.4) in the case that |LR (Wi )|
is odd.
At each iteration of the cutting plane algorithm several identification procedures have been used to
generate violated inequalities. Let x̄ ∈ RE∪A be the optimal LP solution at the current iteration of the
cutting plane algorithm.
Violated balance constraints can be identified as follows. Let ze = x̄e + 1 for each required link
e ∈ ER ∪ AR , ze = x̄e for a non-required link, and consider the weighted graph G
(z) = (V , E ∪ A) with
weights ze . It is easy to see that the balance constraint (2.2), corresponding to set S ⊆ V , is violated by x̄
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3367

iff f (S) = z(+ (S)) − z(− (S)) + z((S)) < 0. A set S for which f (S) < 0 is called an unbalanced set.
Nobert and Picard [13] showed that the most unbalanced set in G
(z) can be found by solving a maximum
flow problem on a graph with |V | + 2 nodes (see also Benavent et al. [16] for a short description of the
maximum flow problem to be solved).
Violated constraints (2.3), (2.4) and DP inequalities can be identified on a graph where the arcs are
considered as (non-directed) edges. The identification procedures described by Belenguer and Benavent
in [12] are briefly recalled below.
Let G

(x̄) be the undirected weighted graph induced by the links e ∈ E ∪ A such that x̄e > 0. The
identification of violated odd cutset constraints (2.4) can be done in polynomial time using the odd
minimum cut algorithm of Padberg and Rao [17].
Unfortunately, no exact polynomial algorithm is known to identify violated capacity constraints (2.3).
We have used two heuristics that generate several node sets S ⊆ V \{s} to see whether (2.3) is violated.
Furthermore, for every node set that is generated, constraints (2.2) and (2.4) are also tested. The first
heuristic consists of finding the connected components of G

(x̄). The second heuristic consists of in-

creasing the edge demands by a given percentage and finding a minimum cut in an auxiliary graph. The
procedure is inspired by an algorithm [12] that identifies a relaxed version of the capacity constraints,
called fractional capacity constraints, and is applied with 10 different values of increasing percentage.
The identification of violated DP constraints is much more complex than the previous ones. One such
constraint may involve one or several cutsets, so we use the strategy of storing in a pool the node sets
generated by the above heuristics and try to combine them to build valid DP inequalities that are violated
by the LP solution.
The preceding identification algorithms were combined using the following strategy: the heuristics
that generate node sets S ⊆ V \{s} are called first; in case that these heuristics do not find any violated
constraint of types (2.2), (2.3) or (2.4), the exact identification procedures for (2.2) and (2.4) are called.
Finally, when all the previous procedures fail, the identification of violated DP inequalities is invoked.

3. Constructive heuristics for the MCARP

3.1. Introduction

In this section, three CARP heuristics cited in introduction are generalized for the MCARP: path-
scanning [4], augment-merge [1] and Ulusoy’s heuristic [5]. Several possible improvements are also
suggested, before their validation in the computational evaluation of Section 5. In fact, the heuristics are
extended for an enriched MCARP with five additional features:

• a mixed multigraph, allowing parallel links between two nodes,

• prohibited turns and turn penalties,
• a common trip cost limit L (also called range constraint),
• windy edges, whose deadheading and/or service costs depend on the direction,
• several dumping sites.

These additional features play a key role in applications. For instance, in solid waste collection, a service
road parallel to a main road is easily tackled with a multigraph. Prohibited turns are widespread and
must be taken into account. Some undesirable turns like U-turns can be allowed, but penalized with an
3368 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

extra-cost (turn penalty). A cost limit on the trips is useful to handle a vehicle range or a maximum
driving time. A sloping street can be handled as a windy edge. Finally, several dumping sites are in
general available to unload a vehicle before its return to the depot.

3.2. Additional notations for heuristics

For all heuristics of Sections 3 and 4, the mixed multigraph G is coded as a fully directed multigraph
G∗ = (V , A∗ ), by replacing each edge by two opposite arcs and by adding one dummy loop for the depot
and for each dumping site (the role of these loops is explained below). A∗ is a set of m∗ arcs, identified
by indexes from 1 to m∗ instead of pairs of nodes, to distinguish between parallel arcs. Each arc u in A∗
has a head h(u), a tail t (u) and a deadheading cost c(u).
The
=  +  required links of G correspond in G∗ to a subset R ⊆ A∗ with  = 2 ·  +  arcs. Each
arc u ∈ R has a demand r(u), a service cost w(u) and a pointer inv(u). Each arc of AR is coded in R as
one arc u with inv(u) = 0. Each edge from ER gives in R two opposite arcs u and v, with inv(u) = v,
inv(v) = u, r(u) = r(v), possibly with distinct costs if the edge is windy.
G∗ can include also a set of  permitted turns (u, v), with associated turn penalties pen(u, v). Following
Benavent and Soler [18] for the RPP with turn penalties, we define a feasible path from arc u to arc v as a
sequence of arcs  = (u = u1 , u2 , . . . , uk = v), such that, for i = 1 to k − 1, h(ui ) = t (ui+1 ) and the turn
(ui , ui+1 ) is allowed. The cost of  is defined by Eq. (3.1). Using an adaptation of Dijkstra’s shortest path
algorithm [19], forbidden turns are made transparent by pre-computing an m∗ × m∗ arc-to-arc distance
matrix D, in which d(u, v) is the cost of shortest feasible paths from u to v. Note that c(u) and c(v) are
not counted in d(u, v), to ease operations like inserting one required arc z between two others u and v in
a trip: the cost variation simply is d(u, z) + w(z) + d(z, v) − d(u, v)


k−1
c() = pen(u, u2 ) + (c(ui ) + pen(ui , ui+1 )). (3.1)
i=2

Let P be the set of allowed dumping nodes. Distances between one arc and the depot s or one dumping
node are simply tackled by including in A∗ one fictitious loop  = (s, s) for the depot and one similar
loop for each dumping node. Note that |A∗ | = m∗ = 2 · |E| + |A| + |P | + 1. The best dumping loop
dump(u) for a trip whose last required arc is u and the minimal cost term(u) to finish the trip after u can
be pre-computed by Eqs. (3.2–3.3), in,in which is the set of dumping loops and
the cost of one dump
operation.

dump(u) = arg min{d(u, v) +

+ d(v, ) : v ∈ }, (3.2)

term(u) = d(u, dump(u)) +

+ d(dump(u), ). (3.3)

Solutions and trips are coded by lists. In the sequel, for any list , || denotes the cardinal and (k) or
k the element at rank k. A trip  is a list of arcs from R representing distinct required links. Implicit
shortest deadheading paths are assumed between these arcs. The load of the trip, load(), is the sum of
its demands and must not exceed Q (Eq. (3.4)). The cost of the trip, cost(), includes the service costs
of its required links, the costs of its connecting paths, and the cheapest cost for completing the trip. It
must not exceed L (Eq. (3.5)). An MCARP solution S simply is a list of trips (S1 , S2 , . . . , S|S| ). Its cost
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3369

6 d
u

3 3 c
a b

6 9

depot

Fig. 1. Path-scanning iteration (with the first criterion).

is the sum of its trip costs.


load() = r(i )  Q, (3.4)
i=1,||

cost() = d(, 1 ) + (w(i ) + d(i , i+1 )) + w(|| ) + term(|| )  L. (3.5)
i=1,||−1

3.3. Path-scanning heuristic

Path-scanning (PS) is a sequential heuristic building one trip at a time, inspired by the nearest-neighbour
heuristic for the TSP. The emerging trip  is extended recursively by adding at the end the closest required
link. However, in arc routing, the distance from the last link serviced u to the nearest link v not yet serviced
is often 0, e.g., when u and v are adjacent streets. This is why PS breaks ties by minimizing one of the
five following criteria:

• F1 (v) = term(v), the cost for completing the trip after v;

• F2 (v) = −term(v), equivalent to maximizing F1 (v);
• F3 (v) = r(v)/w(v), a kind of “productivity” for link v;
• F4 (v) = −r(v)/w(v), equivalent to maximizing F3 (v);
• F5 (v) = if load()  W/2 then F5 (v) := F2 (v) else F5 (v) := F1 (v) endif

In F5 , the trip completion cost is maximized as long as the vehicle is at most half-full. Afterward, it is
minimized. Fig. 1 gives an example, containing required edges only, with one dumping site coinciding
with the depot and rule F1 . The required edges are in boldface. Thin lines indicate shortest deadheading
paths. The current trip ends at required edge u. The minimal distance to the edges not yet serviced is 3,
with a set of two candidates Z = {a, b}. Edge a is chosen to extend the trip, since it minimizes the return
cost to the depot.
For one given criterion F ∈ {F1 , F2 , F3 , F4 , F5 }, a solution can be computed in O(
2 ), i.e., in O(n2 )
for real street networks with
 m∗ ≈ 4n. The PS heuristic consists of constructing five solutions
3370 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

Trip S(i ) : link u S(i ) absorbs S( j ) Concatenation of S(i ) and S( j )

u u v
10
v s(i ) s( j)
Trip S( j):
link v 8 6

Fig. 2. Augment (left) and Merge (right) operations in augment-merge.

(for F = F1 .F5 ) and returning the best one. By randomizing the computation of v, it is possible to
construct more than five solutions and to improve solution costs on average. We suggest two variants
PSRC (random criterion) and PSRL (random link) that are compared with PS in Section 5.4. PSRC ran-
domly draws F in {F1 , F2 , F3 , F4 , F5 } before computing v. PSRL ignores the criteria, it randomly draws
v among the closest links (set Z), instead of choosing the link minimizing F on Z.

3.4. Augment-merge

Fig. 2 illustrates augment-merge (AM) for the UCARP. AM starts with a trivial solution S with one trip
per required link. These
trips are sorted in decreasing cost order. For each trip S(i), i = 1, 2, . . . ,
− 1,
a first phase Augment scans each smaller trip S(j ), j = i + 1, i + 2, . . . ,
. If the unique required link v
of S(j ) is on a deadheading path of S(i) and load(S(i)) + r(v)  Q, then trip S(j ) is absorbed. The cost
of S(i) does not change because deadheading and service costs are equal in the UCARP, but the total cost
decreases by cost(S(j )).
A second phase Merge evaluates the concatenation of any two trips {S(i), S(j )}, subject to Q: e.g.,
concatenating S(i) then S(j ) in Fig. 2 yields a saving 8 + 6 − 10 = 4. Merge concatenates the two trips
with the largest positive saving and repeats this process until no such concatenation is possible. There
are 8 ways of concatenating two trips: S(i) then S(j ) or S(j ) then S(i), with each trip inverted or not.
In fact, only 4 ways need to be tested thanks to symmetries: S(i) then S(j ) gives the same saving as the
inverse of S(j ) then the inverse of S(i).
In the MCARP, cost variations are affected by the multiple dumping sites, the distinction between
service and deadheading costs, and the fact that a trip is no longer equivalent to its inverse, due to the
asymmetry of D. To illustrate these changes, assume that several dumping sites are available in Fig. 2.
The best initial “daisy” is obtained by selecting the best direction for each required edge u, i.e., the
trip for u costs min(d(, u) + w(u) + term(u), d(, inv(u)) + w(inv(u)) + term(inv(u))). The saving
of the Augment operation is now cost(S(j )) + term(u) − d(u, v) − w(v) − term(v). But, since v is on
the path from u to the closest dumping site, term(u) = d(u, v) + c(v) + term(v) and the saving can be
simplified as cost(S(j )) + c(v) − w(v). It is still non-negative, since w(v) is contained in cost(S(j )).
However, in addition to the capacity constraint, the absorption must now satisfy the range constraint
cost(S(i)) + w(v) − c(v)  L.
In Merge, the 8 ways of merging two trips must now be evaluated. Let last() and rev() denote,
respectively, the last required link and the inverse of a trip . Note that all required edges of  are
flipped in rev(), e.g., if  = (u, v), then rev() = (inv(v), inv(u)). The merger in Fig. 2 yields a saving
of term(u) + d(, v) − d(u, v), while merging S(i) and rev(S(j )) would save cost(S(j )) + term(u) −
cost(rev(S(j )))+d(, inv(last(S(j ))))−d(u, inv(last(S(j )))). In practice, hopefully, many mergers can
be discarded because the trips containing required arcs are not invertible. We do not detail the algorithm of
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3371

20 c(5) 5
20 3
b(3) 5 d(1)
5 Trip 5
5 15 5 20 15
10 20 13 9 10 11 13 9
11
11 14
Trip 1
5 5 7
a(4) 12 10 7 e(6) 20 16
20 depot 16
(a) (c)

bcd(80)

bc(56) de(50)
a(37)
Node index: 0 1 b(27) 2 c(40) 3 d(32) 4 e(33) 5
Node label: 0 37 51 91 115 141

ab(51) cd(64)
(b)

Fig. 3. Principle of split: (a) initial giant tour S = (a, b, c, d, e), (b) auxiliary graph and shortest path (labels in each node), (c)
resulting trips.

AM, which is rather tedious because of the eight kinds of mergers. It can be implemented in a non-trivial
way in O(
2 . log
), i.e., O(n2 . log n) for real street networks with
 m∗ ≈ 4n.
Two improvements are proposed. Firstly, the augment phase is disputable. If all links are required,
it works well because the links absorbed by a trip are often contiguous. If not, the internal deadheads
created between absorbed links cannot be recovered during the merge phase, leading to degraded results.
This suggests a version of AM without augment, called M. Secondly, several pairs of trips may give the
same saving in the merge phase. Some testing with M has shown an improvement if ties are broken by
merging the pair {S(i), S(j )} with the largest discrepancy in load, i.e., such that |load(S(i)−load(S(j ))|
is maximal. This version is called IM (Improved M). M and IM can be preceded or not by an Augment
phase, giving four versions AM, M, AIM and IM which are evaluated in Section 5.5.

3.5. Ulusoy’s heuristic

The principle of the original UCARP heuristic is to compute a giant tour  covering the
required links
(by relaxing vehicle capacity) and to split it into capacity feasible trips, using a shortest path procedure
Split described below. Since an optimal giant tour does not necessarily provide an optimal solution after
splitting, the first step may be solved by any heuristic.
Fig. 3 depicts Split on a simple undirected example for a giant tour  = (a, b, c, d, e) of five required
links, with demands in brackets and deadheading costs. Assuming here Q = 9, Split builds an acyclic
auxiliary graph H with
+ 1 nodes indexed from 0 onward. Each sub-list ((i), . . . , (j )) corresponding
to a feasible trip is modeled in H as one arc (i − 1, j ), weighted by the trip cost. The sub-list is feasible if
Q and L are not violated. The load and cost of the corresponding trip are computed using Eqs. (3.4) and
(3.5). A shortest path from node 0 to node
in H (boldface) indicates the best splitting, here 3 trips and a
total cost 141. Note that Split returns an optimal MCARP solution, subject to the sequence fixed by the
giant trip.
The shortest path is computed with Bellman’s algorithm for directed acyclic graphs [19], whose com-
plexity is linear in the number of arcs. For H, this number is at most
· (
− 1)/2. This O(
2 ) becomes
3372 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

O(n2 ) for real street networks with
 m∗ ≈ 4n. It can also be improved when the smallest demand
rmin is large enough: since a trip contains at most = Q/rmin  required links, H contains O(
· ) arcs.
Our implementation runs in O(
) space, without generating H explicitly: for i = 1, 2, . . . ,
, all feasible
sub-lists ((i), . . . , (j )) are scanned and evaluated, and their costs are used to directly update node labels
in Bellman’s algorithm.
Ulusoy’s heuristic can be improved by splitting several giant tours and by returning the best MCARP
solution obtained. We suggest to relax vehicle capacity Q and trip cost limit L and to call path-scanning
or its variants PSRC and PSRL to get giant tours. Recall that PS builds five giant tours (one per criterion)
while PSRC and PSRL generate a specified number of tours (Section 3.3). The resulting heuristics are
called UPS, URC and URL, respectively.
A last kind of improvement can be obtained by playing on the auxiliary graph H. For instance, in
Fig. 3, arc (1, 4) in H corresponds to trip (b, c, d) with a cost 80. Assume a distance of 5 from link d
to link b. Starting the trip by c and scanning the same sublist of links circularly leads to a better trip
(c, d, b) with cost 71. Better results can be achieved by assigning to each arc of H the cost corresponding
to the best rotation. This technique can be applied to UPS, URC and URL, giving improved versions
respectively called IUPS, IURC and IURL. All these variants are compared in Section 5.6.

4. Memetic algorithm

4.1. The existing memetic algorithm

A memetic algorithm (MA) is a genetic algorithm hybridised with a local search, see Moscato [20].
Lacomme et al. [8] proposed an MA for a mixed CARP with forbidden turns. In [9], this algorithm is
extended to tackle turn penalties, parallel links, a range constraint and other objective functions like the
duration of the longest trip. The average deviation to lower bounds is also improved by performing short
restarts based on a partial replacement of the population. Both algorithms were evaluated on classical
UCARP instances only.
The last version [9], which is now one of the most efficient solution methods for the CARP, is briefly
recalled. A chromosome is an ordered list of the
required links, in which each required edge may
appear as one of its two directions. Implicit shortest paths are assumed between successive required links.
The chromosome does not include trip delimiters and can be viewed as a giant tour for a vehicle with
infinite capacity. The fitness (CARP objective) is evaluated with the Split procedure (Section 3.5), which
optimally partitions the giant tour into feasible routes.
The initial population (nc chromosomes) comprises three good solutions computed by the basic versions
of path-scanning, augment-merge and Ulusoy’s heuristic, completed by random permutations. Clones
(identical chromosomes) are forbidden. At each iteration, two parents are selected by binary tournament
and reproduce according to a modified version of the classical order crossover (OX). One child is randomly
selected, the other is discarded.
The mutation is replaced by a local search procedure, called with probability pm , which works on the
individual routes instead of the giant tour. The moves include the removal of one or two consecutive
required links from a route, with reinsertion at another position, the exchange of two required links, and
2-opt moves.
All moves may involve one or two routes and the two traversal directions of a required edge are tested
in the reinsertions. Each iteration scans all these moves in O(
2 ) to find the first improving move. The
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3373

required
arc u y

trip S(i)

v x trip S( j)
required
edge

depot

Fig. 4. Example of 2-opt move on two trips.

whole local search stops when no more improvement can be found. The trips are then concatenated into
a chromosome (giant tour), which is re-evaluated by Split.
The resulting child replaces one of the nc /2 worst chromosomes, randomly chosen in the population
and such that no clone is created. The MA stops after a given number of iterations ni , after a stabilization
period of ns iterations without improving the best solution or when reaching a lower bound. When the
lower bound is not reached, nr short restarts are performed with an intensified local search (rate pmr > pm ).
Each restart begins with a special procedure which replaces ncr chromosomes by new ones (ncr < nc ),
while preserving the best solution. It stops when the lower bound is achieved or after a given number of
iterations nir (nir < ni ).

4.2. Adaptation for the extended MCARP

The standard versions of PS, AM and Ulusoy’s heuristic that provide the initial population with three
good solutions are replaced by better variants described in the previous subsections. The best variants
are selected in the computational testing (Section 5). Multiple dumping sites and windy edges are easily
added, they affect only the Split procedure and the local search. The MA of [9] tests the 2-opt moves
only for the trips equivalent to their inverses (e.g., no required arc), to keep a low complexity in O(
2 ).
The main modification in the new MA is to scan the 2-opt moves in all cases, while keeping the O(
2 )
complexity.
Fig. 4 gives an example for two trips S(i) and S(j ). Required links are in boldface. Arrows indicate
required arcs. Thin lines represent shortest paths. The path between two required links u and v is denoted
u → v. We call 2-opt move the replacement of two deadheading paths by two others, like the replacement
of u → v and x → y by u → inv(x) and inv(v) → y in the figure. Note that two sections are inverted:
the end of S(i), from v onward, and the beginning of S(j ), up to x included. This is possible because
they have no required arc. In general, the inverted sections have different costs, due to the windy edges
and multiple dumping sites accepted in the extended MCARP of Section 3.1.
For any trip  and any required link u in , let rev() denote the inverted trip, arcsto(, u) the number
of required arcs counted from the beginning of  up to u included and arcsfrom(, u) the number of
required arcs counted from u (included) up to the end of the trip. Similarly, let loadto(, u) denote the
total demand up to u, loadfrom(, u) the cumulated demand from u onward, costto(, u) the cost of 
3374 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

up to u, and costfrom(, u) the cost from u onward. The load and cost of u are included in the four last
functions.
Using this notation, the move in Fig. 4 is possible if arcsfrom(S(i), v)=arcsto(S(j ), x)=0 (no required
arc in the sections to be inverted) and if loadto(S(i), u) + loadto(S(j ), x)  Q and loadfrom(S(i), v)
+ loadfrom(S(j ), y)  Q (vehicle capacity is respected). In that case, the cost variation is d(u, inv(x))
+ d(inv(v), y) − d(u, v) − d(x, y) + costto(rev(S(i)), inv(v)) − costfrom(S(i), v) + costfrom(rev(S(j )),
inv(x)) − costto(S(j ), x).
Compared to the UCARP, these computations are much more involved. Nevertheless, it is still possible
to search in O(
2 ) an improving 2-opt move for the incumbent solution. Roughly speaking, our imple-
mentation scans all pairs of trips (S(i), S(j )), each required link u in S(i) and each required link x in
S(j ), giving O(
2 ) pairs (u, x) in total. At the beginning of the search, the values of arcsfrom, arcsto,
loadto, loadfrom, costto and costfrom are initialized for each trip. The complexity of this pre-processing
is O(
) only. During the search, when u (or v) is replaced by its successor in its trip, these values are
incrementally updated, in O(1).

5. Computational evaluation

5.1. General

The heuristics were programmed in the Pascal-like language Delphi 7. The lower bound was imple-
mented in Visual C++ because it calls the linear programming library CPLEX. All algorithms were
benchmarked on a 2 GHz Pentium IV PC with Windows 2000.
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 propose two sets of instances for the basic MCARP, without any extension, to
allow comparisons with the lower bound. Our goal is also to provide the other researchers with standard
MCARP instances to benchmark their own solution methods. The two sets of instances can be downloaded
from the Internet [21] or requested by e-mail.
Sections 5.4–5.6 compare the different MCARP versions of PS, AM and Ulusoy’s heuristic (described
in Section 3) on the two sets of instances. The rankings are confirmed on three sets of classical UCARP
instances, see [22] to get the files: 23 gdb files from Golden et al. [4], 34 val files used by Belenguer and
Benavent [12], and 24 egl instances derived by the same authors from data supplied by Eglese. The goal
is to determine the best variants to provide the MA with three good initial solutions.
Section 5.7 describes the parameters used by the memetic algorithm and by the CPA for the two sets
of MCARP instances. The solution costs and lower bound values are detailed for each instance, together
with the associated running times.

5.2. The mval instances

These instances are derived from 34 CARP instances, called val files, designed by Benavent et al. [23]
and used for instance by Belenguer and Benavent [12], Hertz et al. [7], Beullens et al. [11] and Lacomme
et al. [9]. The original networks contain 24–50 nodes and 34–97 edges, all required. Each of them was
converted into an mval one (“m” like mixed), with the same total demand, as follows. Each edge was kept
with probability 0.4, replaced by two opposite arcs (same cost, but demands halved) with probability 0.4,
and replaced by one single arc (same cost and demand) with probability 0.2, while preserving the strong
connectivity. The resulting instances contain 24–50 nodes and 43–138 links, all required.
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3375

Vertical Horizontal

1st diagonal 2nd diagonal

(a) (b)

1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
1
6 7 8 9 10
6 8 8
9 10
15
11 12 13 11 12 13
14 15
16 17 14 16
17
19 20
20 18
18 19 21
21
(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Random generation of lpr instances: (a) initial grid with basic squares, (b) random modifications of squares, (c) planar
result with node numbers, (d) random distortions.

5.3. The lpr instances

These large, sparse and planar networks are intended to mimic the shape of real street networks met
in municipal waste collection. The costs correspond to deadheading and collecting times. The random
generation starts with a rectangular grid made of basic squares defined by a given side length side, see (a)
in Fig. 5. Four kinds of modifications are then applied with fixed probabilities pv, ph, pd1, pd2 to each
square, see (b): split vertically (V), horizontally (H), along the first diagonal (D1) and along the second
one (D2).
Note that V and H create two new nodes. A square can undergo up to four modifications. As from
two, a central node is created to preserve planarity, like node 7 in the figure. This step gives a planar
network of 2-way streets, see (c), which can be already encoded as a symmetric directed graph G∗ like in
Section 3.2.
Since this graph is still too regular, each node is randomly moved in a small circle specified by a radius
radius, see (d). Provisional lengths in meters can be computed from node coordinates. To simulate curved
streets without drawing them, a second perturbation consists of applying a random growth factor growth
to each length (between 0 and 10% for instance).
Each 2-way street is then converted with a given probability pone into a 1-way street, by deleting at
random one of its two arcs while checking strong connectivity. For each remaining arc u, we compute a
deadheading cost c(u) from the length and a given vehicle speed speed, we draw the status (required or
not) with a probability preq and assign to each required arc a non-zero random demand r(u) drawn in a
given interval [qmin, qmax]. Finally, for each 2-way street, we randomly decide with probability pedge
3376 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

Table 1
Average deviations of path-scanning and its variants to lower bounds in %

Files PS PSRC(20) PSRC(50) Break-even PSRL(20) PSRL(50) Break-even

gdb 10.98 7.49 5.45 5 solns 8.77 7.23 7 solns

val 16.19 13.96 11.78 11 solns 14.65 12.60 10 solns
egl 26.02 22.85 21.66 4 solns 22.26 20.98 4 solns
mval 25.59 23.04 21.09 8 solns 25.29 22.17 16 solns
lpr 3.57 3.57 3.29 21 solns 3.77 3.48 42 solns

if it must be considered as one edge (bilateral waste collection). If yes, the two arcs are linked with the
inv pointer (see Section 3.2) and the edge demand is defined as the total demand of its two arcs.
The service cost w(u) comprises the deadheading time and a duration resulting from bin manipulations.
It is computed as c(u) + r(u)/binload × bintime. The constant binload defines the average amount of
waste per bin, the quotient corresponds to the number of bins in the street, and the constant bintime is the
average time spent by the crew to unload a bin into the truck. The random generation ends by drawing
the vehicle capacity W, the depot-node s and a non-zero dumping time
.
This dumping time (see Section 3.2) is the only extension to the basic MCARP accepted in the lpr
files. The other extensions like forbidden turns, windy edges or parallel links are not included and the
dumping site coincides with the depot. Let rtot denote the total demand. The dumping time is counted in
the lower bound by computing the minimum number of vehicles required k ∗ = rtot /Q and by adding

· k ∗ to the value obtained by the cutting plane algorithm.

Fifteen files were generated with the following parameters: side = 200 m, ph = pv = 0.2.0.7, pd1 =
pd2=0.1.0.2, radius=20 m, growth=0.1, pone=0.0.85, speed =20 km/h, preq=0.6.0.9, qmin=10 kg,
qmax =400 kg, pedge=0.1.0.30, binload =10 kg, bintime=10 s, W =10 tons and
=300 s. The time per
bin seems small: in fact, the two workers behind the truck need 20 s each, giving an apparent throughput
of one bin per 10 s. The resulting graphs contain 28–401 nodes, 52–1056 links and 50–806 required links.
Hence, they include large scale instances, much larger than the mval networks and classical UCARP
instances.
The files are partitioned into three groups of five called a, b and c. In each group, the files are numbered in
increasing order of size. The lpr-a files model modern towns with a majority of large 2-way streets and few
edges: their graphs are rather directed and symmetric (pone=0.0.15, pedge  0.1). Lpr-b files correspond
to old town centres, with narrow 1-way streets: their graphs are rather directed and anti-symmetric
(pone
0.85, pedge  0.3). Low-traffic residential areas with a majority of streets with bilateral service
(edges) are imitated by the lpr-c problems: their graphs are rather undirected (pone  0.25, pedge
0.85).
The features of each instance are listed in the Appendix (Table 6).

5.4. Evaluation of path-scanning and its variants

Table 1 compares the average deviations of PS and its variants PSRC and PSRL to good lower bounds.
Recall (see Section 3.3) that PS builds 5 solutions (one per criterion), while PSRC and PSRL can generate
any specified number of solutions. In each iteration, PSRC randomly selects the criterion while PSRL
randomly takes a required link among the closest neighbours. PSRC and PSRL are tested with 20 and 50
solutions. The bounds are taken from [12] for all UCARP instances. They are computed by the cutting
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3377

Table 2
Average deviations of augment-merge and its variants to lower bounds in %

Files AM M AIM IM

gdb 7.37 6.54 7.11 5.61

val 10.73 12.54 9.95 6.01
egl 23.11 6.77 23.03 5.89
mval 16.04 16.96 14.39 9.93
lpr 2.40 2.20 2.47 1.62

Table 3
Average deviations of splitting heuristics to lower bounds in %

Files UPS URC(20) URL(20) IURL(20)

gdb 8.36 5.28 4.56 3.99

val 14.53 11.56 11.39 9.60
egl 17.43 14.86 14.65 13.35
mval 21.27 17.73 17.34 14.30
lpr 3.14 2.79 2.77 2.46

plane algorithm and listed in Appendices 1 and 2 for the mval and lpr files. The Break-even columns
indicate the average number of solutions that must be examined by these heuristics to outperform PS.
The results show that randomised versions can easily do better than PS, provided they inspect enough
solutions, and that the gain increases with the number of solutions. Of course, the price to pay is a
longer running time, roughly proportional to the number of solutions computed. For the same number of
solutions, PSRC outperforms PSRL, except on egl files.

5.5. Evaluation of augment-merge and its variants

Table 2 indicates the average deviations of AM, M, AIM and IM (in %) to the lower bounds mentioned
in Section 5.4 and reveals two surprising conclusions: (a) the Augment phase is in general useless (except
for the val and mval files, where AM outperforms M) and (b) the improved version of merge without
augment (IM) strongly improves M and gives by far the best results.
The augment phase is disastrous on the egl files, in which some edges are not required, contrary to the
other UCARP benchmarks. As discussed in Section 3.4, this favours the creation of internal deadheads
in the trips during the Augment phase. Moreover, the average demand per required edge in these files
is large compared to vehicle capacity (around 1/7). Therefore, the total number of Augment or Merge
operations is limited, and running the Augment phase lets very few feasible mergers to the Merge phase.

5.6. Evaluation of Ulusoy’s heuristic and its variants

Table 3 compares UPS (5 giant tours) to URC and URL with 20 giant tours. Recall (see Section 2.5) that
these heuristics apply the splitting procedure to giant tours obtained by calling PS, PSRC and PSRL with
an infinite vehicle capacity. In Table 1, PSRC gives better solutions than PSRL, but here, surprisingly,
split produces better results on the giant tours supplied by PSRL (heuristic URL).
3378 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

The best version URL is improved further in the fifth column (IURL), by allowing the rotations of
sub-sequences when building the auxiliary graph, as explained at the end of Section 3.5. Comparisons
with Tables 1 and 2 indicate that IURL is the best heuristic on the gdb files. It is outperformed only by
IM on the other benchmarks, and also by M on the egl and lpr instances.

5.7. The memetic algorithm and the lower bound

The heuristics PSRC(20), IM and IURL(20) are called to include three good solutions in the MA initial
population. The standard setting for the MA parameters of Section 4.1 is as follows: population size
nc = 30, local search rate pm = 0.1, stop after ni = 20, 000 crossovers, ns = 6000 crossovers without
improving the best solution, or when the lower bound is reached. If the bound is not achieved, the MA
performs up to nr = 20 restarts with an augmented local search rate pmr = 0.2. Each restart begins by
replacing ncr = 7 chromosomes in the population and ends after nir = 2000 crossovers or when reaching
the bound (in that case, the sequence of restarts is interrupted). A time limit of 1 h is imposed to the whole
algorithm.
The lower bound is computed with the CPA described in Section 2.2. Nevertheless, the identi-
fication of DP inequalities is inhibited for the largest lpr instances (more than 500 required links) because
it is very time-consuming and it has been observed that it improves the bound on a small number of
instances only.
The detailed results are given in Appendices 1 (mval files) and 2 (lpr files). The first columns respectively
indicate the file name, then the numbers of nodes, links, edges and arcs, then the numbers of required
links, edges and arcs. The numbers of links, edges and arcs are suppressed in the mval table because all
links are required. The next columns provide the cost and the running time for the lower bound LB, for
the three heuristics PSRC(20), IM and IURL(20), and for the MA with the standard setting of parameters.
The last column give the best result found for the MA during the testing, using various settings.
The simple heuristics are very fast in all cases. The Merge heuristic IM is by far the best one on average
(9.93% on the mval and 1.62% on the lpr), but also the slowest one on the largest instances (nearly 9 s
for lpr-c-05), simply because it is implemented in O(
3 ) instead of the better complexity O(
2 . log
)
mentioned in Section 3.4. The average deviation to the lower bound is smaller for the lpr instances.
This can be explained by the relatively small deadheading times, compared to the uncompressible col-
lecting times.
The comparison between the MA and the lower bound LB proves their effectiveness in practice: using
the standard setting of parameters, the average deviation is 0.72% for the mval files, with 19 proven
optima (when the bound is reached), and 0.42% for the lpr files, with 6 proven optima. Using several
settings (MA best column), it was possible to decrease the deviations down to 0.51% (with 23 optima)
and 0.33% (with 6 optima), respectively.
All proven optima are found very quickly. When the bound is not reached, the execution times are
reasonable on the mval files (5 min maximum) but still excessive on the biggest lpr (numbered 4 and 5), for
which the MA reaches its maximum time limit. However, these networks are enormous compared to the
largest graphs used in the arc routing literature (up to 1200 links instead of 190), and our implementations
could be accelerated, using for instance neighbourhood reduction techniques like the lists of neighbours
described in [11]. Similar comments apply to the computation of LB with the cutting plane algorithm:
execution times are negligible on the mval files but too large on the biggest lpr.
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3379

Table 4
Average deviations of the MA to lower bounds for different time limits in %

Files Best initial soln 1 min 5 min

Deviation Optima Deviation Optima Deviation Optima

mval 9.21 0 0.81 16 0.72 19 out of 34

lpr 1.43 0 0.85 6 0.66 6 out of 15

In fact, the MA still provides excellent solution values for small time limits, as shown in Table 4 for
the standard setting of parameters. The best solution in the initial population is always one of the three
heuristic solutions, never a random one. After 1 min, the average deviation to the lower bounds drops
below 1% for the two sets of instances, and the MA has already discovered the six proven optima for the
lpr files, and 16 out of 20 for the mval.

6. Conclusion

This paper proposes a relaxed linear model for the Mixed CARP and a cutting plane algorithm to solve
it. Several simple heuristics, derived from classical UCARP heuristics, and one memetic algorithm are
also described. They are designed to tackle complications like windy edges or forbidden turns. Since it
seems very difficult to include these complications in linear programming models, the lower bounds and
upper bounds are compared on two sets of basic MCARP instances, i.e., without the complications.
The simple heuristics are very fast, even on the largest instances, but the average deviation to the
lower bound may reach 23%. The study also validates the improvements suggested for path-scanning,
augment-merge and Ulusoy’s heuristic, even on standard UCARP instances. In particular, it reveals the
bad influence of the Augment phase in augment-merge and suggests the use of the variants PSRC, M and
IURL as the best heuristics to initialize the MA.
The MA reaches the CPA lower bound on two thirds of mval files and almost one half of lpr. The
average deviation to the bound is at most 0.5% but the lpr instances with more than 500 links require 1 h of
computation time. Nevertheless, 1 min is enough to obtain an average deviation below 1%. Moreover, the
results obtained on the large instances (lpr files) are very encouraging to envisage practical applications.

Acknowledgements
The contribution by J.M. Belenguer has been partially supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnolo-
gia of Spain through project HF2001-0071. The contribution by E. Benavent has been partially supported
by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia of Spain through projects HF2001-0071 and TIC2000-C06-01.
P. Lacomme and C. Prins were partially funded by the France–Spain Integrated Action 04283QB from
the Ministère des Affaires Etrangères of France.

Appendix

Tables 5 and 6.
 3380

Table 5
Computational results for mval instances
File n m=
  LB LB PSRC(20) PSRC(20) IM IM IURL(20) IURL(20) MA MA MA
cost time cost time cost time cost time cost time best

mval1a 24 55 20 35 230 0.11 243 0.016 243 0.004 231 0.004 230∗ 0.10 230∗
mval1b 24 51 13 38 261 0.11 314 0.013 276 0.003 292 0.005 261∗ 0.27 261∗
mval1c 24 53 17 36 309 0.11 427 0.015 352 0.004 357 0.004 315 34.08 315
mval2a 24 44 16 28 324 0.44 409 0.012 360 0.002 374 0.006 324∗ 0.20 324∗
mval2b 24 52 12 40 395 0.05 471 0.014 407 0.003 434 0.004 395∗ 0.31 395∗
mval2c 24 49 14 35 521 0.11 644 0.013 560 0.003 601 0.004 526 31.57 526
mval3a 24 48 15 33 115 0.33 133 0.013 119 0.003 128 0.004 115∗ 0.45 115∗
mval3b 24 45 16 29 141 0.16 162 0.012 163 0.003 150 0.005 142 53.36 142
mval3c 24 43 18 25 166 0.17 191 0.011 174 0.002 192 0.002 166∗ 6.65 166∗
mval4a 41 95 26 69 580 0.87 699 0.031 653 0.018 684 0.012 580∗ 17.82 580∗
mval4b 41 102 19 83 650 0.27 775 0.033 693 0.020 737 0.011 650∗ 2.23 650∗
mval4c 41 103 21 82 630 4.12 828 0.034 702 0.020 740 0.013 631 147.30 630∗
mval4d 41 104 21 83 746 0.82 1015 0.033 810 0.022 905 0.012 776 134.25 770
mval5a 34 96 22 74 597 0.22 733 0.031 686 0.017 683 0.012 597∗ 19.40 597∗
mval5b 34 91 35 56 613 0.39 718 0.030 677 0.017 677 0.011 615 141.14 613∗
mval5c 34 98 17 81 697 0.38 809 0.031 743 0.017 811 0.013 697∗ 81.07 697∗
mval5d 34 92 29 63 719 0.49 883 0.030 821 0.016 855 0.008 757 113.30 739
mval6a 31 69 22 47 326 0.11 392 0.020 370 0.007 367 0.006 326∗ 11.65 326∗
mval6b 31 66 22 44 317 0.22 406 0.019 346 0.007 354 0.004 317∗ 15.95 317∗
mval6c 31 68 23 45 365 0.44 526 0.020 402 0.007 444 0.006 375 58.18 371
mval7a 40 86 36 50 364 0.99 439 0.027 381 0.015 390 0.011 364∗ 0.75 364∗
mval7b 40 91 25 66 412 0.44 507 0.029 470 0.015 491 0.009 412∗ 7.47 412∗
mval7c 40 90 28 62 424 1.53 578 0.028 451 0.015 504 0.006 428 113.40 426
mval8a 30 96 20 76 581 0.16 666 0.031 639 0.017 651 0.011 581∗ 76.78 581∗
J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

mval8b 30 91 27 64 531 0.22 619 0.030 568 0.016 611 0.012 531∗ 6.02 531∗
mval8c 30 83 28 55 617 0.39 842 0.026 718 0.013 762 0.008 638 77.84 638
mval9a 50 132 32 100 458 0.38 529 0.049 500 0.043 514 0.018 458∗ 24.00 458∗
mval9b 50 120 44 76 453 0.71 552 0.044 534 0.037 502 0.016 453∗ 17.95 453∗
mval9c 50 125 42 83 428 24.17 529 0.046 479 0.040 498 0.013 434 246.28 429
mval9d 50 131 38 93 514 9.99 695 0.048 575 0.044 622 0.011 520 253.22 520
mval10a 50 138 32 106 634 3.30 735 0.052 710 0.047 705 0.025 634∗ 128.60 634∗
mval10b 50 134 33 101 661 1.93 753 0.050 717 0.043 714 0.017 662 313.70 661∗
mval10c 50 136 36 100 623 2.74 751 0.051 680 0.047 714 0.018 624 314.05 623∗
mval10d 50 129 42 87 643 2.31 847 0.048 706 0.044 760 0.015 650 267.05 649

Average 1.74s 23.04% 0.029s 9.93% 0.019s 14.30% 0.010s 0.72% 79.89s 0.51%

Worst 24.17s 44.11% 0.052s 17.88% 0.047s 23.50% 0.025s 5.29% 314.05s 3.40%

Optima 0 0 0 19 23

Notes: All links required. Cost columns: average and worst deviations to LB in %. Time columns: seconds on a 2 GHz PC, Windows 2000. Asterisks denote
proven optima.
J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383
3381
 3382

Table 6
Computational results for lpr instances

File n m |E| |A|
  LB LB PSRC PSRC IM IM IURL IURL MA MA MA

cost time (20) (20) cost time (20) (20) cost time best
cost time cost time

lpr-a-01 28 94 0 94 52 0 52 13484 0.11 13600 0.019 13597 0.002 13537 0.010 13484∗ 1.27 13484∗
lpr-a-02 53 169 5 164 104 5 99 28052 0.93 29094 0.044 28377 0.012 28586 0.020 28052∗ 1.48 28052∗
lpr-a-03 146 469 33 436 304 33 271 76108 58.44 79083 0.216 77331 0.308 78151 0.070 76155 1824.25 76155
lpr-a-04 195 651 34 617 503 34 469 126941 339.28 133055 0.424 128566 1.288 131884 0.140 127930 3600.00 127352
lpr-a-05 321 1056 58 998 806 58 748 202735 2424.46 215153 0.966 207597 5.201 212167 0.301 206086 3600.00 205499
lpr-b-01 28 63 5 58 50 5 45 14835 0.11 15047 0.016 14918 0.002 14868 0.000 14835∗ 0.06 14835∗
lpr-b-02 53 117 9 108 101 9 92 28654 0.88 29522 0.038 29285 0.012 28947 0.010 28654∗ 1.14 28654∗
lpr-b-03 163 361 26 335 305 26 279 77837 56.80 80017 0.183 80591 0.296 79910 0.070 77878 1654.17 77878
lpr-b-04 248 582 8 574 501 8 493 126932 412.66 133954 0.382 129449 1.146 132241 0.120 127454 3600.00 127454
lpr-b-05 401 876 37 839 801 37 764 209791 3032.00 223473 0.798 215883 4.910 219702 0.270 212279 3600.00 211771
lpr-c-01 28 52 39 13 50 39 11 18639 0.11 18897 0.018 18744 0.003 18706 0.010 18639∗ 0.31 18639∗
lpr-c-02 53 101 77 24 100 77 23 36339 1.48 36929 0.043 36485 0.021 36763 0.010 36339∗ 10.05 36339∗
lpr-c-03 163 316 241 75 302 241 61 111117 181.59 115763 0.217 112462 0.567 114539 0.060 111632 3600.00 111632
lpr-c-04 277 604 362 242 504 362 142 168441 848.38 174416 0.549 171823 2.595 173161 0.151 169487 3600.00 169254
lpr-c-05 369 841 387 454 803 387 416 257890 3557.80 268368 1.028 262089 8.945 266058 0.311 260538 3600.00 259937

Average 727.67s 3.57% 0.330s 1.62% 1.687s 2.46% 0.104s 0.42% 1912.8s 0.33%

Worst 3557.80s 6.52% 1.028s 3.54% 8.945s 4.72% 0.311s 1.65% 3600.0s 1.36%
J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383

Optima 0 0 0 6 6

Notes: Cost columns: average and worst deviations to LB in %. Time columns: in seconds on a 2 GHz PC with Windows 2000. Asterisks denote proven
optima.
 J.-M. Belenguer et al. / Computers & Operations Research 33 (2006) 3363 – 3383 3383

References

[1] Golden BL, Wong RT. Capacitated arc routing problems. Networks 1981;11:305–15.
[2] Assad AA, Golden BL. Arc routing methods and applications. In: Ball MO., et al., editors. Handbooks in OR and MS, vol.
8. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1995. p. 375–483.
[3] Hirabayashi R, Saruwatari Y, Nishida N. Tour construction algorithm for the capacitated arc routing problem. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Operational Research 1992;9:155–75.
[4] Golden BL, Dearmon JS, Baker EK. Computational experiments with algorithms for a class of routing problems. Computers
and Operations Research 1983;10(1):47–59.
[5] Ulusoy G. The fleet size and mix problem for capacitated arc routing. European Journal of Operational Research
1985;22:329–37.
[6] Eglese RW, Li LYO. A tabu search based heuristic for arc routing with a capacity constraint and time deadline. In: Osman
IH, Kelly JP, editors. Metaheuristics: theory and applications. Kluwer; 1996. p. 633–50.
[7] Hertz A, Laporte G, Mittaz M. A tabu search heuristic for the Capacitated Arc Routing Problem. Operations Research
2000;48(1):129–35.
[8] Lacomme P, Prins C, Ramdane-Chérif W. A genetic algorithm for the capacitated arc routing problem and its extensions.
In: Boers EJW, et al., editors. Applications of evolutionary computing. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 2037.
Berlin: Springer; 2001. p. 473–83.
[9] Lacomme P, Prins C, Ramdane-Chérif W. Competitive memetic algorithms for arc routing problems, Research Report
LOSI-2001-01, University of Technology of Troyes, France, 2001. Annals of Operations Research 2004;131:159–85.
[10] Greistorfer P. A tabu scatter search metaheuristic for the arc routing problem. Computers and Industrial Engineering
2003;44:249–66.
[11] Beullens P, Muyldermans L, Cattrysse D, Van Oudheusden D. A guided local search heuristic for the capacitated arc
routing problem. European Journal of Operational Research 2003;147(3):629–43.
[12] Belenguer JM, Benavent E. A cutting plane algorithm for the capacitated arc routing problem. Computers and Operations
Research 2003;30(5):705–28.
[13] Nobert Y, Picard JC. An optimal algorithm for the mixed Chinese postman problem. Networks 1996;27:95–108.
[14] Corberán A, Romero A, Sanchis JM. The mixed general routing polyhedron. Mathematical Programming 2003;96:
103–37.
[15] Ford LR, Fulkerson DR. Flows in networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1962.
[16] Benavent E, Corberán A, Sanchis JM. Linear programming based methods for solving arc routing problems. In: Dror
M, editor. Arc routing, theory, solutions and applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. p. 231–75.
[17] Padberg MW, Rao MR. Odd minimum cut-sets and b-matchings. Mathematics of Operations Research 1982;7:67–80.
[18] Benavent E, Soler D. The directed Rural Postman Problem with turn penalties. Transportation Science 1999;33(4):
408–18.
[19] Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C. Introduction to algorithms. 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press;
2001.
[20] Moscato P. Memetic algorithms: a short introduction. In: Corne D, Dorigo M, Glover F, editors. New ideas in optimization.
McGraw-Hill; 1999. p. 219–34.
[21] Belenguer JM, Benavent E, Lacomme P, Prins C, Ramdane-Chérif W. Directory of MCARP instances, 2003.
http://www.uv.es/∼belengue/mcarp/index.html.
[22] Belenguer JM, Benavent E. Directory of UCARP instances, 1997. http://www.uv.es/∼belengue/carp.html.
[23] Benavent E, Campos V, Corberán A, Mota E. The Capacitated Arc Routing Problem: lower bounds. Networks 1992;22:
669–90.