applied
sciences
Article
A Hybrid Heuristic Algorithm for Maximizing the Resilience
of Underground Logistics Network Planning
Zhaojie Xue 1,2,3 , Yunliang Fang 1,2,3 , Wenxiang Peng 1,2,3, *
Citation: Xue, Z.; Fang, Y.; Peng, W.;
Chen, X. A Hybrid Heuristic
Algorithm for Maximizing the
Resilience of Underground Logistics
Network Planning. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13,
12588. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app132312588
Academic Editor: Arkadiusz Gola
Received: 31 October 2023
Revised: 16 November 2023
Accepted: 20 November 2023
Published: 22 November 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312588
and Xiangsheng Chen 1,2,3
1 College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China;
zjxue@szu.edu.cn (Z.X.); 2070474148@email.szu.edu.cn (Y.F.); xschen@szu.edu.cn (X.C.)
2 Key Laboratory of Coastal Urban Resilient Infrastructures (Shenzhen University), Ministry of Education,
Shenzhen 518060, China
3 Underground Polis Academy, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
* Correspondence: pengwenxiang@126.com
Abstract: In recent times, there has been a sharp increase in the congestion of ground transportation, the
scarcity of land resources, and various disasters. Hence, there is an urgent need to find an effective and
sustainable approach to transportation. The construction of an underground logistics network, where
transportation activities occur beneath the surface of the ground, is anticipated to emerge as a future
trend. This study aims to formulate a resilient-maximizing plan for the underground logistics network,
ensuring optimal meeting of transportation demands in the aftermath of ground disasters. Accordingly,
a two-stage linear programming model is established to determine the layout plan for the most resilient
underground logistics network. The first phase of the model is designed to generate viable layouts for
the underground logistics network, while the second phase is dedicated to evaluating the resilience
of the proposed layout plan. During the evaluation of network resilience, Monte Carlo simulations
are used to simulate disaster scenarios. Given the inherent complexity of the model, the traditional
solver cannot efficiently solve the problem. Thus, a new hybrid heuristic algorithm is designed to obtain
solutions that maximize network resilience. The results show the effectiveness of the designed algorithm
and the significant improvement in network resilience achieved by numerical experiments. Moreover,
sensitivity analyses are conducted to reveal the relationships between resilience and budget, as well as
resilience and the capacity of underground pipelines. It has a significant impact on sustainability when
making decisions regarding network planning.
Keywords: underground logistics network; network layout; network resilience; two-stage linear
programming model; heuristic algorithm
1. Introduction
As demand for logistics in cities has increased sharply in recent years, the traditional
means of transportation cannot fulfill the increasing demand that produces many nega-
tive externalities, such as excessive resource consumption, environmental pollution, and
traffic congestion [1]. These factors significantly affect the quality of life and sustainable
development of the urban economy. According to data released by the China Federation
of Logistics and Purchasing, there was a consistent year-on-year increase in the total cost
of social logistics in China from 2006 to 2016. In 2018, the total cost of social logistics
amounted to 36.22 trillion euros, representing an almost fivefold increase compared to
2006 [2]. As the scarcity of urban land has become increasingly severe, this problem cannot
be alleviated by building new roads on the ground. Hence, a new concept of “utilizing
the underground space of the city” has been proposed—using underground pipelines to
transport goods automatically [3]. This means a transport network consisting of a dedicated
set of underground nodes and tunnels that connects the urban logistics centers of cities.
This network has been put on the development agenda in several regions of the world [4,5].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 2 of 18

Underground logistics networks are recognized as an advanced, intelligent means

of transportation, which can not only improve the service level of the logistics network
and reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution but also alleviate the impact
of natural disasters [6,7]. This means of transportation integrates subterranean transport
pipelines, tunnels, and storage facilities. The primary objective is to optimize the utilization
of underground spaces, striving for more efficient and sustainable cargo transportation
and logistical services. This, in turn, supports the broader goal of fostering sustainable
economic development. Currently, some key technologies, such as automatic transportation
and tunnel construction, are gradually maturing [8]. Additionally, several pilot projects
and engineering practices are underway [9]. In the meantime, there are some studies that
systematically discuss the design of an underground logistics network, especially in terms
of system planning. For example, planning the layout of underground pipelines and nodes
to achieve higher network efficiency and resilience is a significant problem.
Currently, several studies on underground logistics networks only focus on min-
imizing construction costs and maximizing utilization. For example, some layouts of
underground logistics networks or subway systems can be planned to meet the goal of min-
imum construction costs [10,11]. In addition, the layout planning of underground logistics
networks also considers the impact of other factors, such as drainage and track systems [12].
However, studies that focus on this aspect of resilience are scarce. It is necessary to consider
whether the construction of an underground logistics network can improve the resilience
of a system when facing disasters. The resilience of a network typically refers to its ability
to resist and recover from disasters. It is an important indicator of sustainability and can be
divided into two types: structural resilience (network topology) and performance resilience
(network operation level). Current research on network resilience primarily involves the
ground transportation network and has very little to do with the logistics network, es-
pecially with the underground logistics network. Moreover, most studies have focused
on network structural resilience. For example, studies have used the average shortest
circuit length and three node degrees as efficiency indicators, the maximum subgraph
concentration as connectivity indicators, and the number of shortest circuits as resilience
indicators [13]. Few studies have been conducted on performance resilience. The most
typical research uses the average satisfaction rate of origin–destination (OD) pairs as an
index to evaluate network performance resilience [14]. This indicator reflects the ability of
a network to maintain a certain operational level during disasters.
In the current literature, few studies have been conducted on the planning of under-
ground logistics networks, especially on planning that considers network performance
resilience. Hence, in this study, a two-stage model using the average demand satisfaction
rate as a performance resilience index is established. The objective is to obtain the layout of
an underground logistics network that provides the ground–underground network with
the highest resilience. In this study, the Monte Carlo method is used to simulate disaster
scenarios. Different layout plans of the generated underground logistics network are put
into different scenarios for comprehensive evaluation. This study not only fills some gaps
in the research on network resilience but also provides new insights for cities on how to
save energy and reduce emissions to achieve sustainable development.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a comprehen-
sive review of pertinent literature. Section 3 offers a detailed description of the problem,
presenting a mathematical model. In Section 4, we introduce a hybrid heuristic algorithm.
Section 5 is dedicated to the presentation of numerical experiments and analysis. Finally,
Section 6 summarizes the research findings, and Section 7 delves into potential avenues for
future research.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Underground Logistics Network
Important concepts regarding network topology and the operating model of under-
ground logistics networks have been proposed. Its decisions are grouped into three cate-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 3 of 18

gories: determining the location, assigning routes, and optimizing vehicle time [15]. The
Netherlands has planned a series of national network projects to transport palletized goods
between major cities; these projects are considered to be a substantial breakthrough for
the underground logistics network [5]. A hydrodynamic calculation and capsule kinetic
analysis model of pipeline capsule movement were established, which provides a theoret-
ical basis for automatic transportation in pipelines [16]. In recent years, the planning of
underground logistics networks has emerged as an academic topic. It focuses primarily
on the following aspects: network layout and optimization, transport line planning and
scheduling of container operations, and subway freight network layout and operation.
Currently, research on the planning of underground logistics networks is focused on layout
and path planning, aiming at the minimum total cost. For example, a hybrid planning
model was proposed to distribute freight between an underground network and maritime
highways to obtain a layout plan for an underground logistics network with the goal of
cost-minimizing [10,17,18]. In addition, some researchers have developed a weighted set
coverage model for node positioning in underground logistics networks aiming at the
lowest total cost [19], while others have developed a planning method based on the subway
system [11]. The locations of the nodes were allocated considering the service capacity,
cargo flow area, and accessibility. In addition, another study established a three-stage
maximum coverage model based on the minimum distance and an entropy weight model
that was solved by a tabu search and greedy algorithm [20].
Recently, a methodology proposed by Hu et al. [21] revolves around optimizing
crucial decisions and considering uncertainties in crafting an integrated urban surface-
underground logistics network. The findings underscore its effectiveness in achieving
a nuanced equilibrium between conservatism and optimality in the intricate domain of
network design. In the domain of container operations and scheduling, Liang et al. [22]
devised a mathematical model aimed at optimizing the configuration and scheduling
of the underground container logistics system. This comprehensive model encompassed
elements such as underground logistics vehicles, gantry cranes for loading and unloading at
wells, and ground-automated guided vehicles. The primary objective was to maximize the
operational efficiency of the container terminal. In a similar vein, Fan et al. [23] developed
a robust optimization model to ascertain appropriate locations for port connecting stations.
This model facilitated the seamless integration of underground logistics systems with ports,
thereby enhancing port operational efficiency and mitigating traffic congestion. However,
in addition to cost, the planning of an underground logistics network also needs to consider
several other factors, such as robustness, fragility, and resilience [24]. Underground logistics
networks face huge sunk costs once they are put into practice. Planning them with high
resistance to disasters is an important aspect to consider in research and engineering
practice, but no relevant studies have been found.

2.2. Network Resilience

In recent years, research on network resilience has focused on defining, evaluating,
and improving it. Some studies have provided a detailed overview of the concepts of
vulnerability, reliability, and resilience in transportation networks. They defined resilience
as the interaction between managing organizations, infrastructure, and users [25–27]. In the
pursuit of alleviating the detrimental impacts associated with the implementation of intelli-
gent transportation systems on urban transit, Ganin et al. [28] applied a percolation theory
model to statistically analyze delays resulting from damage to roads and nodes. They intro-
duced the concept of resilience within this context. Scholars have classified many aspects
of the assessment methods for network resilience. They proposed five indicators—queue,
length, time, speed, and delay time—to evaluate traffic network elasticity and resilience
under attacks [29–31]. In the domain of evaluating the resilience of transportation networks,
a predominant approach involves employing metrics like delay duration and attack time
as indicators to assess network resilience [32]. Additionally, a model was established to
comprehensively assess the resilience of transportation networks by considering the cost of
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 4 of 18

attack, system stress, and exhaustion level [33]. Regarding resilience improvement, current
research has mostly focused on the network structure. For example, studies have proposed
different recovery strategies based on different statuses—increasing network lines as strate-
gies to improve traffic network resilience and considering network connectivity, road traffic
time, accessibility, and effectiveness as resilience indicators [34–36]. In addition, two meth-
ods were proposed to improve the resilience of the network. The first is to improve the
capacity and reliability of key lines, and the second is to change the topology of the network
by considering driving time, shortest path, and other factors [30]. Apart from structural
resilience, resilience to performance is also essential for the network. The ability to maintain
and recover after attacks needs to be considered when assessing performance resilience [37].
Moreover, a parallel can be drawn between the recovery phase in post-disaster logistics
networks and the emphasis on network resilience in this study. Ransikarbum et al. [38]
addressed gaps in modeling the recovery phases of humanitarian logistics post-disasters by
introducing a hybrid approach named HNSGA-II. This approach highlights the trade-off
between fairness and cost in decision-making processes. However, compared to research
on network structural resilience, there are fewer studies on performance resilience.
To address the identified research gaps, this paper focuses on maximizing the resilience
of underground logistics network planning. The contributions of this paper are articulated
as follows:
• Resilience assessment perspective: This study introduces a distinctive approach to
resilience assessment. In contrast to conventional methods centered on structural
resilience through efficiency assessments, our emphasis lies on appraising the network
service level.
• Resilience improvement strategies: Departing from conventional methods that en-
hance resilience through the allocation of resources for disaster supplies and prepared-
ness, we propose improving the resilience of ground logistics networks by constructing
underground networks.
• Network planning perspective: In the planning phase, we not only account for cost
and capacity constraints but also assess the impact of constructing an underground
logistics network on the resilience of the ground network.

3. Problem Modeling
3.1. Problem Description
The underground logistics network is not only highly resistant to disasters but also pro-
vides more alternative routes than on-ground transportation. If the on-ground network is
damaged by typhoons, rainstorms, and other natural disasters, demand can be transported
through an underground logistics network. Therefore, the resilience of the network can be
enhanced and improved. When disasters occur, the best indication of network resilience in
terms of performance is the service level. For transportation networks, service level refers
to how well demand is met, that is, how much of the demand is met relative to the potential
transportation demand. Therefore, we consider the expected demand satisfaction rate of
the network under different disaster scenarios as an indicator of resilience. The satisfaction
rate is a fraction of the actual demand that can be satisfied after a disaster. The formula for
calculating the expected satisfaction rate is as follows:
1  
α=
M ∑ w ∈ W
E ∑s∈S dw s /Dw

where Dw is the potential demand for the OD pair w. dw s is the post-disaster maximum
demand that can be satisfied for OD pair w; s is the Monte Carlo disaster scenario; M is the
total number of OD pairs; and α is resilience index.
The Monte Carlo simulation approach, rooted in the concept of utilizing random
sampling to derive numerical results, stands as a potent tool for addressing uncertainty in
logistics network planning. This methodology enables a more resilient evaluation of system
performance across diverse conditions, thereby enhancing decision-making processes.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 5 of 18

3.2. Problem Assumption

Assume a known ground logistics network. Each ground-network node has a cor-
responding underground candidate node. Once an arc of the underground network is
constructed, the nodes at both ends of the arc are constructed. To maximize network
resilience, a two-stage mathematical model is formulated to plan an underground logistics
network layout. The following are the model decisions to be taken: (i) the location of
underground logistics nodes and arcs, and (ii) the demand to be satisfied and assigning
routes for all OD pairs. The first stage of the model is the outer layer, which generates
feasible layout solutions to select the one with the highest resilience based on the evaluated
results obtained in the second stage. The second stage of the model is the inner layer, which
evaluates the resilience values of the solutions generated in the first stage.
The model satisfies the following assumptions:
• Any underground node corresponding to a ground logistics node is a feasible candi-
date site.
• The fixed cost of any underground node is the same, and its capacity is the same. The
underground arc capacities are the same.
• Disasters only destroy part of the ground network.

3.3. Notations
• Sets and Parameters:
N, set of ground–underground network nodes, N = {1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . . , n, n + 1, . . . , 2n}.
N1 , set of ground network nodes, N1 = {1, 2, 3, . . . . . . , n}.
N2 , set of underground candidate nodes, N2 = {n + 1, n + 2, . . . . . . , 2n}.
B, budget for underground network construction.
W, set of OD pairs.
M, total number of OD pairs.
A, set of ground–underground network arcs.
S, set of Monte Carlo disaster scenarios.
Dkl , potential demand of the OD pair kl, where k is the origin node and l is the
destination node.
capi , capacity of the node i.
capij , capacity of an arc (i, j).
b1 , fixed cost of the underground arc construction per kilometer.
b2 , fixed cost of underground node construction.
dij , distance of an arc (i, j).
aij , network–arc indicator (1, if arc (i, j) is in the ground network; 0, otherwise).
eij , network–arc indicator (1, if arc (i, j) is the arc between the ground node and the
corresponding underground node; 0, otherwise).
• Decision variables:
Xi , binary variable indicating whether the underground node i is built (1, if the node i
is built; 0, otherwise).
Yij , binary variable indicating whether the underground arc (i, j) is built (1, if the
arc (i, j) is built; 0, otherwise).
Zijkl , binary variable indicating whether the arc (i, j) is used (1, if the arc (i, j) is used;
0, otherwise) between the OD pair kl.
Fijkl , satisfied flow along the arc (i, j) of OD pair kl.

3.4. Mathematical Model

Stage I :
max Es [ Z (s)] (1)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 6 of 18

∑i∈ N2 b1 Xi + ∑i∈ N2 ∑ j ∈ N2
b2 dij Yij ≤ B (2)
i 6= j

Yij ≤ Xi , ∀i, j ∈ N2 , i 6= j (3)

Yij ≤ X j , ∀i, j ∈ N2 , i 6= j (4)

Xi , Yij ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i, j ∈ N2 , i 6= j (5)

Stage II:
1 Fkjkl
maxZ (s) =
M ∑ j∈N ∑ k ∈ N1 ∑l∈ N1 Dkl (6)
j 6= k k 6= l

∑ j∈N
kl
Zkj ≤ 1, ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l (7)
j 6= k

∑ i∈N
Zilkl ≤ 1, ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l (8)
i 6= l

∑ i∈N
Zijkl ≤ 1, ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l, ∀ j ∈ N, j 6= k, l (9)
i 6= j, l, k

∑ i∈N
Zijkl = ∑ i∈N
Zijkl , ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l, ∀ j ∈ N, j 6= k, l (10)
i 6= j, l i 6= j, k

Zijkl ≤ aij , ∀k, l, i, j ∈ N1 , k 6= l, i 6= j, i 6= l, j 6= k (11)

Zijkl ≤ Yij , ∀ i, j ∈ N2 , i 6= j, ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l, i 6= l + n, j 6= k + n (12)

Zijkl ≤ eij X j , ∀i, k, l ∈ N1 , ∀ j ∈ N2 , k 6= l, i = j − n, i 6= l (13)

Zijkl ≤ eij Xi , ∀ j, k, l ∈ N1 , ∀i ∈ N2 , k 6= l, j = i − n, j 6= k (14)

Fijkl ≤ capij Zijkl , ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l (15)

∑ i∈N
Fijkl = ∑ i∈N
Fjikl , ∀k, l ∈ N1 , ∀ j ∈ N, k 6= l, j 6= k, j 6= l (16)
i 6= j, l i 6= j, k

∑ j∈N
Fkjkl ≤ Dkl , ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l (17)
j 6= k

∑ k ∈ N1 ∑ l ∈ N1
Fijkl ≤ capi , ∀i, j ∈ N, i 6= j (18)
k 6= j l 6= k, i

∑ k ∈ N1 ∑ l ∈ N1
Fijkl ≤ cap j , ∀i, j ∈ N, i 6= j (19)
k 6= j l 6= k, i
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 7 of 18

∑ k ∈ N1 ∑ l ∈ N1
Fijkl ≤ capij , ∀i, j ∈ N, i 6= j (20)
k 6= l, j l 6= i

Zijkl ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i, j ∈ N, ∀k, l ∈ N1 (21)

Fijkl ≥ 0, ∀k, l ∈ N1 , k 6= l, i, j ∈ N, i 6= j (22)

In the first stage, the objective Function (1) seeks an underground network layout plan
that maximizes resilience. Constraint (2) specifies that the construction of the underground
nodes and arcs must not exceed the available budget. Constraints (3) and (4) guarantee
that if an arc is constructed, the nodes at its ends are also constructed; however, if nodes
are constructed, it does not imply that the arc between these two nodes is necessarily
constructed. Constraint (5) ensures that the variables Xi , Yij are binary. Constraint (6)
is the objective function of stage I I, which maximizes the average satisfaction rate of
all OD pairs. Constraint (7) guarantees that only one path is selected from the origin
node. Constraint (8) indicates that only one path can be selected for the destination node.
Constraint (9) indicates that only one path can be selected between the two nodes, excluding
the origin and destination nodes. Constraint (10) ensures path conservation. Constraint (11)
specifies that only arcs on the ground network can be used. Constraint (12) ensures the
use of only the underground network arcs that have been built. Constraints (13) and (14)
ensure that the construction of an underground node precedes the construction of its
corresponding arcs, which connect the ground and underground. Constraint (15) ensures
that the traffic flow for each OD pair must not exceed the capacity of the arc. Constraint (16)
specifies the conservation of flow. The demand constraint (17) guarantees that the flows
for each OD pair do not exceed their potential demand. Constraints (18) and (19) specify
that the total flow through an arc must not exceed the capacity of the nodes at the ends of
the arc. Constraint (20) specifies that the total flow through an arc should not exceed its
capacity. Constraints (21) and (22) define the decision variables.

4. Methodology
The model comprises two stages, both of which are binary. Thus, it cannot be solved
directly using linear programming and must be divided into two stages. The first stage is
the outer layer, which is solved by a genetic algorithm (GA) to obtain feasible underground
layout plans, and the best one is selected based on the evaluated results in the second stage.
The second stage is the inner layer, which is solved using a heuristic algorithm to evaluate
the resilience of each plan generated in the first stage for various disaster scenarios. Disaster
scenarios disrupt ground networks, in which the capacities of some arcs are reduced to
different degrees. The arcs that are selected as important arcs of the ground network are
ones that have a significant impact on the network’s resilience if they are disrupted.
The entire solution framework is illustrated in Figure 1. First, all necessary parameters,
such as the arc capacity and node capacity of the underground network, distance, and
budget, are recorded. Second, different underground network layout plans that satisfy
budget constraints are generated by GA. Subsequently, every layout plan combines each
disaster scenario, which is a disrupted ground network, to form a ground–underground
network system. The evaluated results for each layout plan in different disaster scenarios
are obtained by a heuristic resilience evaluation scheme (HRES). The average of these
results is the resilience value of the layout plan. Iteratively, the resilience of the layout plans
is compared so that the most optimal one can be chosen.
Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 8 of 18

• Capacity of underground • Coordinate of nodes

nodes
• Construction budget
• Capacity of underground
• ……
arcs

GA

… …
… …
Underground
network layout plan
Actual Scenarios
• Capacity of arcs in
ground network
reduced by disaster
• Capacity of nodes in
ground network
• Demands HRES Best solution
• ……
…
…

Scenarios Generator

Ground network destroy

Capacity of arcs reduced by various
disasters such as traffic accident,
typhoon, deliberate assault ……

Figure 1. Solution framework.

Figure 1. Solution framework.
4.1. Genetic Algorithm
GA
4.1. Genetic is a type of randomized search method that draws on the evolution of the biological
Algorithm
world. For an optimization problem, a certain number of candidate solutions (called
GA is a type of
chromosomes) actrandomized search
as the population. method
The initial that is
population draws
randomlyon generated
the evolution of the bi
to satisfy
ical world. For an optimization problem, a certain number of candidate solutions (c
budget constraints. Chromosomes from the current population are randomly selected as
parent chromosomes following the roulette wheel selection strategy based on their fitness.
chromosomes) act as the population. The initial population is randomly generated t
They are then replicated to produce the offspring chromosomes through crossover and
isfy budget constraints.
mutation. Chromosomes
The same number fromwith
of chromosomes thegreater
current population
fitness are
are selected as randomly
the new sel
as parent chromosomes
population for the nextfollowing the roulette
round of evolution. Iterate wheel selection
repeatedly to evolvestrategy
towards abased
better on the
solution. The operation process of the GA is described in Figure 2.
ness. They are then replicated to produce the offspring chromosomes through cross
and mutation. The same number of chromosomes with greater fitness are selected a
new population for the next round of evolution. Iterate repeatedly to evolve towa
better solution. The operation process of the GA is described in Figure 2.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 9 of 18

Start

Generate initial population

No Whether the budget is

satisfied?

Yes
Calculate the individual fitness of
the population

Select the best population

Execute crossover and mutation

Gen=Gen+1

Gen<MAXGEN ?
Yes
No
Output result

End

Figure
Figure GAflowchart.
2.2.GA flowchart.

4.1.1. Chromosome Encoding

4.1.1. Chromosome Encoding
A GA is used to solve the first stage of the model, in which two decision variables must
be solved simultaneously. The first variable is the node position variable x, and the second
A GA is used to solve the first stage of the model, in which two decision va
is the arc position variable y. To solve two variables simultaneously, they usually need to be
must be solved
encoded simultaneously.
separately. The first
However, this approach variableincreases
significantly is the node position
the difficulty variable 𝑥, a
of solving
second is the
problems andarc position
affects variable
the efficiency 𝑦. algorithm.
of the To solve Because
two variables
arcs and simultaneously,
nodes are strongly they u
connected,
need once an arcseparately.
to be encoded is constructed, nodes at both
However, thisends of the arc
approach are also constructed.
significantly increases the
Therefore, we encode only in arcs. Both variables can be solved
culty of solving problems and affects the efficiency of the algorithm. Because simultaneously in this ar
manner. The coding approach significantly improved the efficiency of the algorithm. In this
nodes are strongly
algorithm, connected,
each chromosome once an
represents arc is constructed,
a construction plan for annodes at both
underground ends of the
logistics
also constructed.
network. Therefore,
The chromosome we encode only
is one-dimensional withinnarcs.
(n − 1Both
) genes,variables can bethe
where n denotes solved si
neously
numberinofthis manner.
candidate The coding
underground approach
nodes. The genes significantly improved
on the chromosomes arethe efficiency
binary,
having values of 0 and 1. Genes with a value of 1 indicate that
algorithm. In this algorithm, each chromosome represents a construction plan for the arc at that location

derground logistics network. The chromosome is one-dimensional with 𝑛(𝑛 − 1)

where 𝑛 denotes the number of candidate underground nodes. The genes on the
mosomes are binary, having values of 0 and 1. Genes with a value of 1 indicate th
arc at that location is constructed, and those with a value of 0 indicate that the arc
, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 10 of 18

2023,013, x FOR
0 PEER REVIEW
1 0 … 0 1 ... 1 0 Gens

is constructed, and those with a value of 0 indicate that the arc is not constructed. The
relationship between the arc position and the gene position is shown in Figure 3.
1 2 3 4 … n n+1 ... n(n-1)-1 n(n-1) Arcs
0 0 1 0 … 0 1 ... 1 0 Gens
Figure 3. Position of underground network arcs on the chromosome diagram.

4.1.2. Crossover and Mutation

1 2Because 3the underground
4 … logistics n network n+1 has...onlyn(n-1)-1 a few pipelines, n(n-1) Arcs
the gene having
a value of 0 is significantly
Figure 3. Position more abundant
of underground than arcs
network its counterpart
on the chromosome in the chromosome of the
diagram.
GA, which makes
Figure 3. it difficult
Position to cross and mutate to effectively produce better offspring.
of underground
4.1.2. Crossover and Mutation network arcs on the chromosome diagram.
Therefore, adjusted crossover and mutation methods are employed to overcome this dis-
Because the underground logistics network has only a few pipelines, the gene hav-
advantage.
4.1.2. Crossover
ing a value of and0 is Mutation
significantly more abundant than its counterpart in the chromosome
The crossover
of themethod
GA, which is shown
makes itindifficult
Figureto4.cross
Theandgenes of each
mutate offspring
to effectively are obtained
produce better off-
Because
from the two parents. the underground
The procedure
spring. Therefore, adjustedis logistics
as follows:
crossover network
First, two
and mutation has only
positions
methods a few pipelines,
are randomly
are employed to overcome se-the gen
a both
lected for valueparents
of disadvantage.
this 0 is(A significantly
and B in Figure more 4). abundant
Second, thethan geneits counterpart
segment of parent in1the chromoso
in front
The crossover method is shown in Figure 4. The genes of each offspring are obtained
GA,
of position A which
is copied makes
to the it difficultside
posterior to of
cross and mutate
offspring 1, and the to gene
effectively
from the two parents. The procedure is as follows: First, two positions are randomly
segment produce
of parentbetter o
2 behindTherefore,
position Aadjusted
selected is for
copied to the (A
crossover
both parents anterior
andandB inside of 4).
mutation
Figure offspring
methods
Second, 1. Similarly,
the aresegment
gene the
employed of gene toseg-
parent 1overcome
in
ment of advantage.
parent front
1 behind position
of position B is copied
A is copied to the side
to the posterior anterior side of
of offspring offspring
1, and the gene2, and the
segment of
gene segmentThe ofparent
parent 2 behind
crossover
position
2 in front
method of Aposition
is copiedBtois the anteriortoside
copied theof offspring 1.side
posterior Similarly, the gene
of offspring
segment of parent 1 behind is shown
position B is in Figure
copied to the4. The
anterior genes of each
side of offspring 2,offspring
and the are
2. To eliminate
from the the
gene
poor
twosegment
crossover
parents.
of parentTheof chromosomes,
2 inprocedure
front of position
this
is Bas study
follows:
is copied
adjusts
to theFirst,
the
two
posterior
crossover
sidepositions
fre-
of offspringare 2. rand
quency. Every timeTo the algorithm
eliminate the poor runs, the
crossover of chromosomes
chromosomes, this are
study randomly
adjusts the crossed
crossover 30 times
frequency.
lected for both parents (A and B in Figure 4). Second, the gene segment of parent
to enhance the crossover
Every time effect. The adjusted
the algorithm crossover method
runs, the chromosomes are randomly improves
crossed solution
30 times toconver-
enhance
of position A is
the crossover
gence and the final
copied to the posterior side of offspring 1,
result. effect. The adjusted crossover method improves solution convergence and
and the gene segment
2 behind the position
final result. A is copied to the anterior side of offspring 1. Similarly, the
ment of parent 1 behind position B is copied to the anterior side of offspring 2
A B
gene segment of parent 2 in front of position B is copied to the posterior side of
2. To eliminate the poor crossover of chromosomes, this study adjusts the cros
1 Every 0 time...the algorithm
0 ... runs,1the chromosomes1 ... 0 randomly 0
Parent 1 quency. are crossed
to enhance the crossover effect. The adjusted crossover method improves solutio
gence and the final result.
Offspring 1 ... 0 1 ... 1 1 1 0 ... 0
A B

1 ... 1 0 00 ... 1 0 1 ...... 1

0 1 ... 0
Parent
Offspring 2 1 ... 0

1 1 ... 0 ... 0 1 ... 1 1

ParentOffspring
2 1 ... 0 1 ... 1 1 1 0 ...

A B

Figure 4.
Figure 4. GA crossover diagram.
1 ... diagram.
GA crossover
0 0 1 1 ... 0 ...
Offspring 2
The mutation method is described in Figure 5. It changes the value of a randomly
selected gene segment in the chromosomes to ensure the diversity of the population and
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 11 of 18

The mutation method is described in Figure 5. It changes the value of a randomly

selected gene segment in the chromosomes to ensure the diversity of the population and
ER REVIEW 11 of 18
prevent premature convergence. We adjust the mutation method to change the gene
segment rather than a single gene to increase the possibility of mutation. To enhance this
effect, it mutates five times every time the algorithm runs.

0 1 ... 0 0 0 1 ... 0 0 1 1

1 1 ... 1 0 0 1 ... 0 1 1 0

0 0 ... 1 1 0 1 ... 0 0 1 1

1 0 ... 0 1 0 1 ... 0 1 1 0

Figure 5. GA mutation diagram.

Figure 5. GA mutation diagram.
4.1.3. Fitness Function
4.1.3. Fitness Function To select the solution with the best resilience from all feasible solutions, the fitness
function of the GA should be the resilience value, which was previously described as
To select the solution
α = 1/Mwith
∑w∈WtheE(∑best resilience
s from all feasible solutions, the fitness
s∈S dw /Dw ). The following evaluation algorithm is used to find the
function of the GA should be maximum
path with the resilience value,
flow from originwhich was previously
to destination for all OD pairsdescribed as 𝛼 =
in the network.
1/𝑀 ∑ ∈ 𝐸(∑ ∈ 𝑑 4.2.
/𝐷 Heuristic
). TheResilience
following evaluation
Evaluation Scheme algorithm is used to find the path
with maximum flow fromThe
origin
HRES istobased
destination for algorithm
on the Dijkstra all OD pairs in the network.
and is combined with the Edmonds-Karp
algorithm, which finds the maximum flow assignment for all OD demands. A flowchart of
4.2. Heuristic ResiliencetheEvaluation
HRES is shown in Figure 6. First, based on the underground network layout generated
Scheme
by the GA and the actual scenario of the ground network, the ground–underground logistics
The HRES is based on the
network Dijkstra
is initialized, andalgorithm and is combined
all relevant parameters are inputted.with the
Second, theEdmonds-
largest of all
OD demands is selected for subsequent priority flow assignment. Third, we find the path
Karp algorithm, which finds the maximum flow assignment for all OD demands. A
with the maximum flow from the origin to the destination for the selected OD pair. Fourth,
flowchart of the HRES theis shown
satisfied in Figure
demand 6. First,
is assigned, and the based
capacity on the
of the underground
network network
is updated. This process
layout generated by the GA and the actual scenario of the ground network, the ground–
is repeated until all the demands are met.
underground logistics network is initialized, and all relevant parameters are inputted.
Second, the largest of all OD demands is selected for subsequent priority flow assignment.
Third, we find the path with the maximum flow from the origin to the destination for the
selected OD pair. Fourth, the satisfied demand is assigned, and the capacity of the net-
work is updated. This process is repeated until all the demands are met.
Appl. Sci. 2023,
Appl. Sci. 13, x FOR
2023, PEER REVIEW
13, 12588 12 of 12
18 of 18

Initialization Demand sorting

• Network (N, A)
• node capacity capi
• arc capacity capij Start let E = max {Dkl}
• demand Dkl

record the origin and

input parameters destination of E as o and d

Flow assignment and network update Single maximum flow path searching

record the path from o to d, fix node set P = ∅,

satisfied demand E' = L(d)
temporary node set T = N,
Let L(i) = 0, ∀ i ∈ T,
move o from T to P
Update the capacity of the
nodes and acrs of the path:
capi = capi - E' for each node j∈ T connected to
capij = capij - E'
any node i ∈ P, update L(j) =
max{L(j), min{L(i), capij, capj }}

remove E from Dkl

move node with maxj∈T{L(j)} from
T to P
No
all demands be assigned?
No
all nodes in P?

Yes Yes

end

Figure
Figure 6. HRES
6. HRES flowchart.
flowchart.
5. Case Study
5. Case Study
In this section, a series of computational experiments are conducted to demonstrate
theInapplication
this section,
anda effectiveness
series of computational experiments
of the proposed aremodel
method. The conducted to demonstrate
is encoded using
theJava
application and effectiveness
8.0. All experiments of theonproposed
are performed method. with
a laptop equipped The an
model is encoded
Intel (R), 2.80 GHzusing
Java 8.0.and
CPU, All 8experiments
GB of RAM. are performed on a laptop equipped with an Intel (R), 2.80 GHz
CPU, and 8 GB of RAM.
5.1. Background Statement
This section
5.1. Background focuses on numerical experiments and analysis. Six group experiments of
Statement
networks are conducted, with 5, 8, 10, 12, 18, and 24 nodes, respectively. The experimental
This section
analysis focuses
is carried out in on
thenumerical experiments
following aspects: and analysis.
(1) comparing Six group
the efficiency experiments
of the HRES
of networks are conducted,
algorithm with the CPLEX with
solver;5,(2)
8, comparing
10, 12, 18, the
andresilience
24 nodes, respectively.
values before andThe experi-
after
mental
building an underground network to analyze the effectiveness of the underground logisticsof the
analysis is carried out in the following aspects: (1) comparing the efficiency
HRES algorithm
network withthe
to improve theresilience
CPLEX solver; (2) comparing
of the system; the resilience
and (3) analyzing values before
the sensitivity of the and
after building an underground network to analyze the effectiveness of the underground
logistics network to improve the resilience of the system; and (3) analyzing the sensitivity
of the resilience value to budget and underground pipeline capacity. Each scenario is run
10 times, and the average is reported.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 13 of 18

resilience value to budget and underground pipeline capacity. Each scenario is run 10 times,
and the average is reported.
In this experiment, foundational data for ground network node capacity and OD
demand were acquired by referencing statistical data from Beijing and integrating it with
existing Sioux-Falls data. Similarly, fundamental data for underground logistics network
node capacity and transportation pipeline capacity were derived from the parameters of
completed underground logistics systems in Western European countries. These parameters
were further inferred by integrating them with daily traffic flow data from the main roads
of Beijing. Table 1 presents the key parameters of the computational experiment.

Table 1. The key parameters of the computational experiment.

Parameters Values
Population size 60
Maximum number of iterations 400
Fixed construction costs for underground nodes 2
Unit construction costs for underground pipelines 1/km
Crossover rate 0.95
Mutation rate 0.05

5.2. Computational Results

In Table 2, the efficacy of the HRES algorithm in solving both larger and smaller
network cases surpasses that of CPLEX. The HRES algorithm demonstrates efficient conver-
gence, reaching the final solution within a notably brief timeframe. In contrast, the solving
time of CPLEX exhibits a rapid escalation, especially as the network scale increases. This
advantage of the HRES algorithm becomes particularly pronounced for larger network
cases, surpassing 12 nodes. For example, when assessing a network with 24 nodes, CPLEX
requires 203.474 s for a single evaluation, whereas our method completes the same task in
only 0.112 s. Although the results of the HRES algorithm may not be as optimal as those of
CPLEX, the difference is not considered significant. The experimental outcomes affirm the
effectiveness of the developed HRES algorithm.

Table 2. Comparison of HRES and CPLEX on small-sized instances.

Node Number (N) Approach Resilience CPU Time (s)

CPLEX 1.0 0.148
5
HRES 0.9163 0.001
CPLEX 0.9698 6.251
8
HRES 0.9122 0.003
CPLEX 0.9108 31.542
10
HRES 0.8708 0.011
CPLEX 0.9999 61.321
12
HRES 0.8855 0.029
CPLEX 0.9442 68.406
18
HRES 0.8014 0.068
CPLEX 0.9851 203.474
24
HRES 0.9209 0.112

As shown in Table 3, the construction of underground networks significantly improves

the resilience of the original ground network. The network resilience for nearly all nodes
increased by at least 15%. The resilience of the ground network with 24 nodes increased
by 25%. Figure 7 shows the ground–underground logistics system planning diagram
corresponding to the 10-node network. The orange parts of the figure represent the nodes
and arcs that are constructed. The gray parts represent the ones that are not built. The figure
shows an underground logistics network plan with maximum resilience under budget
constraints. Under this layout, the resilience of the ground network is improved by 25.1%.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 14 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18

Table
Table 3.
3. Comparison
Comparison ofoforiginal
original and
and planned
planned network
network resilience
resilience in small-sized
in small-sized instances.
instances.
Table 3. Comparison of original and planned network resilience in small-sized instances.
Node Number (𝑵) Original Network
Original ResiliencePlanned
Network Planned Network Resilience Rate of Increase
Network
Node Number (N) Rate of Increase
Node Number
5 Resilience
(𝑵) Original Network
0.5083 Resilience
Resilience Planned Network Resilience Rate of Increase
0.8917 75.4%
85 5 0.5083
0.5083
0.6205 0.8917
0.8917 0.8625 75.4%
75.4% 39.0%
8 8
10 0.6205
0.6205
0.6915 0.86250.8655
0.8625 39.0% 25.1%
39.0%
10 10 0.6915
0.6915 0.8655
0.8655 25.1%
25.1%
12 0.7758 0.8927 15.0%
12 12 0.7758
0.7758 0.8927
0.8927 15.0%
15.0%
18 18 0.7372
0.7372 0.7837 0.7837 6.3% 6.3%
18 0.7372 0.7837 6.3%
24
24 24 0.6548
0.6548
0.6548 0.8210
0.82100.8210 25.4%
25.4% 25.4%

2 2
77 3 3 4 4
1010
66
9 9 5 5
Ground
Ground
11
8 8

2
7 4
2
7 3 4
6 10 3 5 Underground
9
6 1 10 8 5 Underground
9
1
8
Figure 7. Planned underground logistics network.
Figure 7. Planned underground logistics network.
Figure 7. Planned underground logistics network.
To test the operational effect of the GA-HRES algorithm, the convergence process is
To test the operational effect of the GA-HRES algorithm, the convergence process is
recorded as shown in Figure 8. The convergence process for each case is generally smooth
To test
recorded the operational
as shown in Figure 8.effect of the GA-HRES
The convergence processalgorithm, theis convergence
for each case generally smooth process is
and effective. In particular, for networks with five and eight nodes, not only does the pro-
recorded as shown
and effective. in Figurefor
In particular, 8. networks
The convergence
with fiveprocess
and eightfornodes,
each case is generally
not only does thesmooth
cess converge steadily, but the resilience values also evolve from initial to final results in
process
and converge
effective. steadily, butfor
In particular, thenetworks
resiliencewith
values also evolve from initial toonly
final does
results
a large scope. The results prove that the GA-HRESfive and eight
algorithm nodes,
achieves not
excellent results. the pro-
in a converge
cess large scope. The results
steadily, butprove that the GA-HRES
the resilience algorithm
values also evolveachieves excellent
from initial results.
to final results in
a large scope. The results prove that the GA-HRES algorithm achieves excellent results.

Figure 8.
Figure Convergence of
8. Convergence of algorithm
algorithm results.
results.

To explore
To explore the
thecorrelation
correlationbetween
betweenresilience
resiliencevalues,
values, budget, and
budget, underground
and underground pipeline
pipe-
capacity, a sensitivity analysis is conducted. As shown in Figure 9, within a certain
line capacity, a sensitivity analysis is conducted. As shown in Figure 9, within a certain range,
the resilience
Figure
range, 8.the value increases
Convergence
resilience as the
of algorithm
value increases budget
results.
as grows.
the budget However,
grows. once once
However, a certain threshold
a certain thresh-is
old is exceeded, the resilience value does not increase any further. For example, for a
To explore the correlation between resilience values, budget, and underground pipe-
line capacity, a sensitivity analysis is conducted. As shown in Figure 9, within a certain
range, the resilience value increases as the budget grows. However, once a certain thresh-
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2023,
2023, 13,
13, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 15
15 of
of 18
18
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 15 of 18

network
network of of 10
10 nodes,
nodes, the
the resilience
resilience value
value stays
stays at
at 0.86
0.86 once
once the
the budget
budget reaches
reaches the
the thresh-
thresh-
exceeded,
old the resilience value does not increase any further. For example, for a network
old of
of 250.
250. A
A similar
similar situation
situation is
is observed
observed for
for the
the other
other two
two groups
groups ofof networks.
networks. Hence,
Hence,
of 10 is
there nodes, the resilience value staysmaximizes
at 0.86 once the budget reaches the threshold of 250.
there is an optimal budget level that maximizes the resilience of the optimal layout plan.
an optimal budget level that the resilience of the optimal layout plan.
A similar situation is observed for the other two groups of networks. Hence, there is an
For
For instance,
instance, in
in scenarios
scenarios involving
involving networks with 𝑁
networks with 𝑁= = 10 and 𝑁
10 and 𝑁 == 8,8, the
the appropriate
appropriate
optimal budget level that maximizes the resilience of the optimal layout plan. For instance,
budget
budget allocation
allocation is
is 250.
250. Similarly,
Similarly, for
for the
the network with 𝑁
network with 𝑁= = 12,
12, the
the justified
justified budget
budget isis
in scenarios involving networks with N = 10 and N = 8, the appropriate budget allocation
275.
275.
is 250. Similarly, for the network with N = 12, the justified budget is 275.

Figure
Figure 9. Budget sensitivity analysis.
Figure 9.
9. Budget
Budgetsensitivity
sensitivity analysis.
analysis.

Similarly,
Similarly,within
Similarly, withinaaacertain
within certainrange,
certain range,
range, the
the resilience
the
resilience value
resilience increases
value
value increases
increases with
with an
an increase
with an increase
increase in
in thein
the
pipeline
pipeline capacity.
the pipeline capacity.
capacity. Beyond a
Beyond
Beyond certain limit,
a certain
a certain resilience tends
limit, resilience
limit, resilience to
tends to be
tends stable and
to beand
be stable does
stable
doesandnot change
notdoes not
change
with
with increasing
change capacity.
with increasing
increasing As
As shown
capacity.capacity.
shown Asin Figure
Figurein10,
inshown when
Figure
10, when10,the capacity
thewhen reaches
reaches the
the capacity
capacity limit
reaches
the of
limitthe
of
19,000,
limit ofthe
19,000, the resilience
19,000,
resilience value
value tends
the resilience value
tends to 0.87
0.87 and
to tends remains
to 0.87
and and constant.
remains remains Hence,
Hence, there
constant.constant. Hence,
there is
is an optimal
there
an is an
optimal
value
value for
optimal the
the capacity
forvalue for the of
capacity the
the underground
capacity
of transportation
of the underground
underground pipeline,
pipeline, ensuring
transportation
transportation pipeline, that
ensuring the
the resil-
ensuring
that that
resil-
ience
the of the
resilienceoptimal
of the layout
optimal plan is
layout maximized.
plan is Consequently,
maximized. in practical
Consequently,
ience of the optimal layout plan is maximized. Consequently, in practical planning and in planning
practical and
plan-
construction, it
it is
is imperative
ning and construction,
construction, to
to consider
considertoestablishing
it is imperative
imperative aa reasonable
consider establishing
establishing reasonable underground
a reasonable
underground transpor-
underground
transpor-
tation
tation pipeline
transportation capacity
pipeline to
pipeline capacity to minimize
capacity
minimize unnecessary
to minimize
unnecessary cost expenditures.
unnecessary cost expenditures.
cost expenditures.

Figure
Figure10.
Figure 10.Arc
10. Arccapacity
Arc capacitysensitivity
capacity sensitivityanalysis.
sensitivity analysis.
analysis.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 16 of 18

6. Conclusions
This study introduces a groundbreaking strategy to enhance the resilience of ground
logistics networks by incorporating the construction of an underground logistics network.
This dual-function infrastructure acts proactively against natural disasters like floods
and typhoons while providing a reliable alternative for logistics operations during such
events. Empirical validation through numerical experiments highlights the effectiveness
of implementing an underground logistics network. Resilience exhibits sensitivity to
variations in budget and pipeline capacity within a specific range, stabilizing beyond a
critical threshold. Determining the optimal budget and pipeline capacity becomes crucial
for balancing resilience enhancement and cost-effectiveness in practical planning, avoiding
unnecessary expenditures.
Moreover, this study emphasizes the practical value of the proposed model and al-
gorithm for network planners. The integration of budget constraints and underground
pipeline capacity considerations empowers planners to strategically enhance ground logis-
tics network resilience. The results contribute nuanced insights into how specific decisions
on budget and pipeline capacity impact logistics network resilience, guiding informed
decision-making.
In conclusion, this research not only presents an innovative method for boosting
ground logistics network resilience but also offers practical insights for network planning
under budgetary constraints and infrastructure considerations. Comprehensive numerical
experiments attest to the robustness of our approach, providing actionable insights for
real-world applications.

7. Discussions
While this study provides a novel perspective on enhancing logistics network re-
silience, there are several limitations that warrant attention. For instance, the Monte Carlo
simulation lacks the inclusion of damage scenarios specific to underground pipelines. Ad-
ditionally, the assumption of uniform capacity for underground transportation pipelines
may oversimplify real-world complexities. A more accurate representation would involve
considering capacity in tandem with construction costs.
Furthermore, beyond resilience, there is a need to extend consideration to other
objectives, such as accessibility. Exploring efficient metaheuristic algorithms that deliver
high-quality solutions within shorter timeframes could enhance the outcomes of the study.
Additionally, integrating stochastic and uncertain factors into planning considerations is
essential. This inclusive approach provides planners and decision-makers with valuable
insights into infrastructure planning and management.
Certainly, a more comprehensive exploration of the environmental impact of con-
structing an underground logistics network is crucial. The intricate interplay of geological
conditions in diverse urban settings significantly influences the construction challenges
associated with such networks. Integrating these considerations into the model and al-
gorithm, possibly through the application of multi-objective optimization techniques, is
worth exploring.
The feasibility of underground logistics networks is intricately connected to urban
planning, land use, and seamless integration with existing infrastructure. Cities host
complex underground pipeline networks, including water supply, sewage, natural gas,
and more. Consequently, the implementation of underground logistics networks requires
precise consideration and coordination of different pipelines to avoid conflicts and resource
waste. Additionally, urban traffic flow and land use conditions impose specific requirements
on the design and layout of underground logistics networks, ensuring efficient connectivity
with other parts of the city.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 17 of 18

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.X. and X.C.; methodology, Z.X.; software, Y.F.; valida-
tion, Z.X., Y.F. and W.P.; formal analysis, W.P.; investigation, Y.F.; resources, X.C.; data curation, Z.X.
and Y.F.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.F. and W.P.; writing—review and editing, Z.X. and
X.C.; visualization, W.P.; supervision, Z.X.; project administration, X.C.; funding acquisition, X.C.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant
number 52090084) and Strategic Research and Consulting Project of Chinese Academy of Engineering
(grant number 2022-JB-02).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reason.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
OD Origin–destination
GA Genetic algorithm
HRES Heuristic resilience evaluation scheme

References
1. Holguín-Veras, J.; Amaya Leal, J.; Sánchez-Diaz, I.; Browne, M.; Wojtowicz, J. State of the Art and Practice of Urban Freight
Management: Part I: Infrastructure, Vehicle-Related, and Traffic Operations. Transp. Res. Part. A Policy Pr. 2020, 137, 360–382.
[CrossRef]
2. Lan, S.; Tseng, M.L.; Yang, C.; Huisingh, D. Trends in Sustainable Logistics in Major Cities in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136381.
[CrossRef]
3. Zhang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Liao, Z.; Guo, J.; Xie, H.; Peng, Q. An Intelligent Planning Model for the Development and Utilization of Urban
Underground Space with an Application to the Luohu District in Shenzhen. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2021, 112, 103933.
[CrossRef]
4. Van Binsbergen, A.; Bovy, P. Underground Urban Goods Distribution Networks. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2000, 13, 111–128.
[CrossRef]
5. Visser, J.G.S.N. The Development of Underground Freight Transport: An Overview. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 80, 123–127.
[CrossRef]
6. Zhang, H.; Lv, Y.; Guo, J. New Development Direction of Underground Logistics from the Perspective of Public Transport:
A Systematic Review Based on Scientometrics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3179. [CrossRef]
7. Yu, P.; Liu, H.; Wang, Z.; Fu, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, J.; Yang, Q. Development of Urban Underground Space in Coastal Cities in
China: A Review. Deep. Undergr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 2, 148–172. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, Z.; Dong, J.; Ren, R. Urban Underground Logistics System in China: Opportunities or Challenges? Undergr. Space 2017, 2, 195–208.
[CrossRef]
9. CST (2020). Cargo Sous Terrain. Available online: https://www.cst.ch/en/committee/ (accessed on 20 September 2023).
10. Hu, W.; Dong, J.; Hwang, B.G.; Ren, R.; Chen, Z. Network Planning of Urban Underground Logistics System with Hub-and-Spoke
Layout: Two Phase Cluster-Based Approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 2079–2105. [CrossRef]
11. Dong, J.; Hu, W.; Yan, S.; Ren, R.; Zhao, X. Network Planning Method for Capacitated Metro-Based Underground Logistics
System. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 6958086. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, H.W.; Peng, Z.R.; Wang, D.; Meng, Y.; Wu, T.; Sun, W.; Lu, Q.C. Evaluation and Prediction of Transportation Resilience
under Extreme Weather Events: A Diffusion Graph Convolutional Approach. Transp. Res. Part. C Emerg. Technol. 2020, 115, 102619.
[CrossRef]
13. Gao, Y.; Wang, J.W. A Resilience Assessment Framework for Urban Transportation Systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 2177–2192.
[CrossRef]
14. Miller-Hooks, E.; Zhang, X.; Faturechi, R. Measuring and Maximizing Resilience of Freight Transportation Networks.
Comput. Oper. Res. 2012, 39, 1633–1643. [CrossRef]
15. Govindan, K.; Fattahi, M.; Keyvanshokooh, E. Supply Chain Network Design under Uncertainty: A Comprehensive Review and
Future Research Directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 263, 108–141. [CrossRef]
16. Turkowski, M.; Szudarek, M. Pipeline System for Transporting Consumer Goods, Parcels and Mail in Capsules. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 2019, 93, 103057. [CrossRef]
17. Liang, H.; Yuan, G.; Han, J.; Sun, L. A Multi-Objective Location and Channel Model for ULS Network. Neural Comput. Appl.
2019, 31, 35–46. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12588 18 of 18

18. Magway. 2019. British Company Plans Hyperloop-Inspired Network of Tunnels That Will Transport Millions of Parcels around
London in Magnetic Carriages Travelling at 40 mph by 2022. Available online: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-76
89241/British-company-plans-network-underground-tunnels-transport-millions-parcels.html (accessed on 23 September 2023).
19. Ren, M.; Fan, Z.; Wu, J.; Zhou, L.; Du, Z. Design and Optimization of Underground Logistics Transportation Networks.
IEEE Access 2019, 7, 83384–83395. [CrossRef]
20. Zhao, L.; Zhou, J.; Li, H.; Yang, P.; Zhou, L. Optimizing the Design of an Intra-City Metro Logistics System Based on a
Hub-and-Spoke Network Model. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2021, 116, 104086. [CrossRef]
21. Hu, W.; Dong, J.; Yang, K.; Hwang, B.G.; Ren, R.; Chen, Z. Reliable Design of Urban Surface-Underground Integrated Logistics
System Network with Stochastic Demand and Social-Environmental Concern. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 181, 109331. [CrossRef]
22. Liang, C.; Hu, X.; Shi, L.; Fu, H.; Xu, D. Joint Dispatch of Shipment Equipment Considering Underground Container Logistics.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 165, 107874. [CrossRef]
23. Fan, Y.; Liang, C.; Hu, X.; Li, Y. Planning Connections between Underground Logistics System and Container Ports. Comput. Ind. Eng.
2020, 139, 106199. [CrossRef]
24. Gong, D.; Tian, J.; Hu, W.; Dong, J.; Chen, Y.; Ren, R.; Chen, Z. Sustainable Design and Operations Management of Metro-Based
Underground Logistics Systems: A Thematic Literature Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 1888. [CrossRef]
25. Ta, C.; Goodchild, A.V.; Pitera, K. Structuring a Definition of Resilience for the Freight Transportation System. Transp. Res. Rec.
2009, 2097, 19–25. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, L.; Miller-Hooks, E. Resilience: An Indicator of Recovery Capability in Intermodal Freight Transport. Transp. Sci. 2012, 46, 109–123.
[CrossRef]
27. Gu, Y.; Fu, X.; Liu, Z.; Xu, X.; Chen, A. Performance of Transportation Network under Perturbations: Reliability, Vulnerability,
and Resilience. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 133, 101809. [CrossRef]
28. Ganin, A.A.; Kitsak, M.; Marchese, D.; Keisler, J.M.; Seager, T.; Linkov, I. Resilience and Efficiency in Transportation Networks.
Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1701079. [CrossRef]
29. Alderson, D.L.; Brown, G.G.; Carlyle, W.M. Assessing and Improving Operational Resilience of Critical Infrastructures and Other
Systems. In Bridging Data and Decisions; INFORMS: Orlando, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 180–215.
30. Zhang, W.; Wang, N. Resilience-Based Risk Mitigation for Road Networks. Struct. Saf. 2016, 62, 57–65. [CrossRef]
31. Balal, E.; Valdez, G.; Miramontes, J.; Cheu, R.L. Comparative Evaluation of Measures for Urban Highway Network Resilience
Due to Traffic Incidents. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2019, 8, 304–317. [CrossRef]
32. Ganin, A.A.; Mersky, A.C.; Jin, A.S.; Kitsak, M.; Keisler, J.M.; Linkov, I. Resilience in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
Transp. Res. Part. C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 100, 318–329. [CrossRef]
33. Nogal, M.; O’Connor, A.; Caulfield, B.; Martinez-Pastor, B. Resilience of Traffic Networks: From Perturbation to Recovery via a
Dynamic Restricted Equilibrium Model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2016, 156, 84–96. [CrossRef]
34. Aydin, N.Y.; Duzgun, H.S.; Heinimann, H.R.; Wenzel, F.; Gnyawali, K.R. Framework for Improving the Resilience and Recovery
of Transportation Networks under Geohazard Risks. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 832–843. [CrossRef]
35. Chen, M.; Lu, H. Analysis of Transportation Network Vulnerability and Resilience within an Urban Agglomeration: Case Study
of the Greater Bay Area, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7410. [CrossRef]
36. Ding, Y.; Zhang, M.; Chen, S.; Nie, R. Assessing the Resilience of China’s Natural Gas Importation under Network Disruptions.
Energy 2020, 211, 118459. [CrossRef]
37. Twumasi-Boakye, R.; Sobanjo, J. Civil Infrastructure Resilience: State-of-the-Art on Transportation Network Systems. Transp. A
Transp. Sci. 2019, 15, 455–484. [CrossRef]
38. Ransikarbum, K.; Mason, S.J. A Bi-Objective Optimisation of Post-Disaster Relief Distribution and Short-Term Network Restoration
Using Hybrid NSGA-II Algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 5769–5793. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.