Minimizing driving times and greenhouse gas emissions in

timber transport with a near-exact solution approach

Authors: Marco Oberscheidera, , Jan Zazgornika , Christian Bugge Henriksenb , Manfred Gronalta ,
Patrick Hirscha
a Institute of Production and Logistics, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences,
Vienna Feistmantelstrae 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria
b Department of Agriculture and Ecology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen
Hjbakkeg
ard Alle 13, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark
* Corresponding author; Mail: marco.oberscheider@boku.ac.at Phone: 00431476544413 Fax:
00431476544417

Abstract

Efficient transport of timber for supplying industrial conversion and biomass power plants is a

crucial factor for competitiveness in the forest industry. Throughout the recent years

minimizing driving times has been the main focus of optimizations in this field. In addition to

this aim the objective of reducing environmental impacts, represented by carbon dioxide

equivalent (CO2 e) emissions, is discussed. The underlying problem is formulated as a multi

depot vehicle routing problem with pick-up and delivery and time windows (MDVRPPDTW)

and a new iterative method is proposed. For the numerical studies, real life instances of

different scale concerning the supply chain of biomass power plants are used. Small ones are

10

taken to validate the optimality of the new approach. Medium and large instances are solved

11

with respect to minimizing driving times and fuel consumptions separately. This paper

12

analyses the trade-offs between these objectives and shows how an additional mitigation of

13

CO2 e emissions is achieved.

14

Keywords: Green Logistics, Timber Transport, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Mixed Integer

15

Programming, Optimization, Log-Truck Scheduling

16

Introduction

17

The forest based sector plays a significant role for several countries. Besides the well known

18

importance for New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Chile and Canada, it also accounts for a

19

prominent share of the economy in other countries like Austria. In Austria more than a

20

hundred thousand people are working in sectors related to forest, timber and paper industry.

21

From this it follows that efficient timber transports are a main interest of freight forwarders.

22

Zazgornik et al. (2012) mention approximately 500,000 log-truck trips per year that originate

23

in Austrian forests, not considering transports due to timber imports. Several publications

24

give estimations of the percentage of transport costs in relation to the total timber price (e.g.

25

von Bodelschwingh (2001), Murphy (2003), Favreau (2006)). In all of them, a value of

26

approximately 30 % of the total price of round timber is attributed to be transportation costs.

27

According to Flisberg et al. (2009) log-truck scheduling is traditionally done manually. This is

28

also the case in companies that the authors have worked with in Austria. Hence, finding

29

efficient ways of planning the transports and thereby reducing the costs is crucial.

30

The tackled problem in this paper is related to the log-truck scheduling problem (LTSP, e.g.

31

Palmgren et al. (2003)) and to the pick-up and delivery problem with time windows (PDPTW,

32

e.g. Ropke & Pisinger (2006)). The pick-up takes place at a wood storage location, where the

33

afore empty log-truck is fully loaded. Afterwards, the delivery location, which is an industrial

34

site, is visited and all transported wood is unloaded. Usually the next transport task follows

35

for the empty log-truck, thus the log-truck visits another wood storage location. Therefore,

36

only one wood storage location and one industrial site is visited within one trip. Due to the

37

specific construction of the used log-trucks, backhauls are unusual and not considered. The

38

given problem is similar to the one described in El Hachemi et al. (2010), but dependencies of

39

the activity of log loaders at wood storage locations and industrial sites as well as

40

consequential waiting times are neglected. Besides this difference, log-trucks have a given

41

home-base or depot, as used in the LTSP, respectively. Each log-truck has to start and end its

42

tour at its depot, whereas it is possible that more than one log-truck is located at one depot.

43

The problem in this paper is referred to as multi depot vehicle routing problem with pick-up

44

and delivery and time windows (MDVRPPDTW), whereas transport tasks are predefined, as

45

used in Gronalt & Hirsch (2007) and Hirsch (2011).

46

For solving the MDVRPPDTW a new method, the so-called near-exact solution

47

approach (NE), is introduced. It is an iterative algorithm that solves the MDVRPPDTW in

48

three stages. As a first stage an extended assignment problem (EAP) is solved to generate a

49

reduced transport network. Afterwards, the given network is checked in terms of maximum

50

tour length and time window requirements. Violations lead to the generation and addition of

51

cuts to the EAP, which is thereafter solved again. If no violations occur the MDVRPPDTW is

52

solved on the given network. In order to validate the NE for small problem instances, it is

53

compared to a mathematical model formulation of the MDVRPPDTW implemented in the

54

solver software Xpress 7.2 using standard settings.

55

Sbihi & Eglese (2007) state that most research in vehicle routing and scheduling is done to

56

minimize costs. Besides the economic factor, also the environmental impact of transports can

57

be reduced by efficient planning and the advice of decision support systems. The objectives of

58

minimum costs and minimum environmental impacts are to a certain degree not in conflict

59

with each other. The European Environment Agency (EEA, 2009) states that emissions due to

60

fuel consumption contain the greenhouse gases (GHGs) carbon dioxide (CO2 ), nitrous oxide

61

(N2 O) and methane (CH4 ), as well as particulate matter (PM ), heavy metals, toxic

62

substances, carcinogenic species, ozone precursors and acidifying substances. In this paper the

63

focus is on the emission of GHGs that are presented as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 e).

64

The direct proportion of CO2 emissions to fuel consumptions (e.g. ICF Consulting (2006),

65

EEA (2009)) is used to estimate emissions. Additionally, a cooperation of government

66

departments in the UK, namely the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and

67

the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), present factors for CH4 and

68

N2 O emissions as CO2 e that are added to the direct CO2 formation in the combustion engine

69

(Defra & DECC, 2011). Furthermore, they give estimations of indirect GHG emissions per

70

liter of diesel. In this paper, direct and indirect emissions are accounted for and converted in

71

kilograms of CO2 e. The aim is to analyze the trade-off for freight forwarders of minimizing

72

CO2 e emissions compared to the objective of minimizing driving times.

73

Eglese & Black (2010) review some possibilities of estimating emissions. The simplest way is

74

to assume an average speed or fuel consumption per kilometer traveled for the whole road

75

network. This approach has flaws, due to the nonlinear speed dependency of fuel consumption.

76

As a more sophisticated approach, they propose different average speeds per road class for the

77

entire road network. This approach is also used in the presented numerical studies of this

78

paper. Based on the computer programme to calculate emissions from road transport

79

(COPERT), developed by Ntziachristos & Samaras (2000), the EEA provides speed dependent

80

formulas for estimating the fuel consumption, depending on the type of truck, its maximum

81

weight limit, its exhaust emission standard, its load factor and the road gradient (EEA, 2009).

82

In a recent comparative study of different vehicle emission models for road freight

83

transportation the COPERT model provided the best estimate for heavy load vehicles with

84

weights of 50 tonnes (Demir et al., 2011). Therefore, this model was used to provide input for

85

calculating the fuel consumptions in this study. An alternative method for calculating CO2

86

emissions is used by Bektas & Laporte (2011) for the pollution-routing problem (PRP). Due to

87

their given problem it is necessary to account for change in vehicle loads during a tour of a

88

truck. This is not the case in the tackled problem of this paper, as there are only two states of

89

a truck - fully loaded or empty. Furthermore, Eglese & Black (2010) mention congestion as an

90

important factor for deviations of the average speed. To account for this factor Sbihi & Eglese

91

(2007) suggest a time dependent vehicle routing and scheduling problem (TDVRSP). However,

92

no data for time dependency are available for the test area used in this paper. Additionally,

93

timber transports are mainly carried out on rural roads, where time dependency is less

94

prominent compared to roads in urban areas. This time dependency is also assumed in the

95

emission minimization vehicle routing problem (EVRP) of Figliozzi (2010). In his study he

96

introduces two different problem formulations to minimize vehicle emissions in congested

97

environments.

98

The numerical studies of this paper are carried out with real life data - concerning the supply

99

of biomass power plants - provided by the Institute of Forest Engineering of the University of

100

Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. The input matrices for solving the

101

MDVRPPDTW contain driving times and fuel consumptions. Both of them have been

102

computed twice to account for shortest paths in terms of driving times and fuel consumptions.

103

Furthermore, all instances, where fuel consumptions and driving times are compared, have

104

been solved for both objectives separately.

105

This paper presents a novel application for a routing problem in timber transport. With the

106

NE it is possible to solve some of the real life problem instances with a size of up to 60

107

transport tasks and 20 available log-trucks with their global optimum. For all other instances

108

solutions close to the global optimum are obtained in a fast manner. Furthermore, a method

109

for calculating and reducing CO2 e emissions is introduced and applied to the presented

110

problem. The objective of this paper is to give the readers an idea of how to implement the

111

minimization of greenhouse gas emissions for transportation in their research or daily business

112

and to introduce a powerful method to optimize the routing of log-trucks. Furthermore, this

113

paper analyses the trade-offs between minimizing driving times and greenhouse gas emissions

114

for real-life data in timber transport.

115

Materials and methods

116

This section presents a detailed problem description and outlines the modelling assumptions

117

and data requirements. Special emphasis is given to the proposed solution approach (NE).

118

Problem description

119

The following features are considered in the presented problem:

120

A fleet of homogeneous log-trucks R that are located at depots H. These depots are

121

typically the homes of the log-truck drivers. However, parts of the fleet can also be

122

situated at a central depot.

123

A set of transport tasks T that start at wood storages W and end at industrial sites S.

124

The tour of a log-truck r R starts with an unloaded log-truck at the corresponding

125

depot of r, hr H. After leaving the depot a wood storage location w W is visited,

126

where the log-truck is fully loaded. In order to fulfill the task t T, the log-truck drives

127

to a predefined industrial site s S to fully unload its goods. Afterwards, either another

128

task is started by driving to a wood storage location or the log-truck returns to its depot

129

hr .

130

131

Wood storage locations and industrial sites can be visited more than once throughout
the planning period.

132

Each transport task t T has to be fulfilled.

133

As full-truck loads are assumed, transports between different wood storage locations are

134

not allowed. The same holds for industrial sites. Additionally, all log-trucks have the

135

same capacity. Therefore, capacity constraints are not needed.

136

137

A feasible tour has to fulfill constraints in terms of a maximum driving time MT and
time windows. Time windows occur at depots [ah ,bh ] and industrial sites [as ,bs ].
5

138

139

For loading at the wood storage and unloading at the industrial site, service times SWw
and SIs occur.

140

With the transport tasks already defined, the objective of the log-trucks is to choose the

141

optimal empty-truck rides. If this optimization is done in terms of fuel consumption, the

142

driving times DT are exchanged by fuel consumptions FC of empty-truck rides. Due to the

143

given problem structure, choices of following tasks occur at depots or industrial sites only,

144

which - depending on the formulation - reduces the number of constraints and variables

145

markedly, compared to a vehicle routing problem (VRP) without predefined transport tasks.

146

Figure 1 shows an illustration of the given problem with two trucks, five wood storage

147

locations and two industrial sites. In this example one log-truck is located at a depot only. At

148

the beginning of the planning period the starting and end points of a transport task t T as

149

well as its duration T Dt and fuel consumption F Ct are already known. The starting point

150

equals a certain wood storage location w W and the end point is a specific industrial site

151

s S. The duration T Dt of a transport task t equals the driving time from the wood storage

152

location w to the industrial site s of t. The same concept applies to the fuel consumption F Ct

153

of a transport task t, which is the fuel consumption if driving fully loaded from the wood

154

storage location w to the industrial site s of t.

Figure 1: An example of the tackled problem

155

Mathematical model

156

The problem is formulated as a standard MDVRPPDTW. The binary decision variable tijr is

157

equal to 1, if log-truck r performs task i T H before task j T H. The first task

158

i = hr , hr H starts at a depot and is followed either by a home ride j = hr , hr H -

159

if log-truck r is not used within the planning period - or by a transport task j T.

160

Afterwards, an arbitrary number of transport tasks may follow. As starting and end points of

161

transport tasks are given, the driving time DTij of task i T to task j T equals the driving

162

time from the industrial site s of i to the wood storage location w of j . If j H, DTij is the

163

driving time of the last industrial site s to the depot hr , which equals a home ride.

164

eir is the completion time of task i by log-truck r. str corresponds to the starting time of the

165

tour of log-truck r and etr marks its end. The overall model formulation is given below:

min

X X

DTij tijr

(1)

iT H jT H rR

X X

i T H

(2)

k T H, r R

(3)

r R

(4)

i T, r R

(5)

i, j T, r R

(6)

str + DThr j + SWj + T Dj M (1 thr jr ) ejr

j T, r R

(7)

eir + SIi + DTihr M (1 tihr r ) etr

i T, r R

(8)

i, j T H, r R

(9)

eir 0

i T H, r R

(10)

str 0

r R

(11)

etr 0

r R

(12)

s.t.

tijr = 1

jT H rR

tikr

iT H

tkjr = 0

jT H

(DTij + T Dj )tijr +

iT H jT

DTij tijr ) M T

jH

ai eir bi
eir + SIi + DTij + SWj + T Dj M (1 tijr ) ejr

tijr {0, 1}

166

The objective (1) seeks to minimize the sum of the driving times DTij of the empty-truck

167

rides. Constraints (2) ensure that each task i T H is fulfilled. A ride from i to j, with

168

i = j, is only allowed, if i, j H. This means that the log-truck does not leave the depot.

169

(3) force a log-truck to leave for another task after completing task i. (4) make sure that the

170

total driving time of a tour does not exceed the maximum tour length MT. Constraints (5)

171

and (6) guarantee that time windows at the depots and industrial sites are met, whereas

172

constant M has a large integer value, which is introduced to linearize the constraints. If j H,

173

the parameters T Dj , SWj and SIj are 0. (7) and (8) connect the start str and end etr of a

174

tour to the end of a task eir . Constraints (9) ensure the binarity of the decision variables tijr .

175

The last constraints of (10), (11) and (12) contain the non-negativity restrictions of the given

176

decision variables.

177

CO2 e calculation

178

For an estimation of the CO2 emissions, the fuel consumption of each arc within a road

179

network has to be known, as the CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the fuel

180

consumption. Different factors for the conversion of liters of diesel to kilograms of CO2 can be

181

found in the literature. For example the EEA (2009) uses 3.14 kg CO2 per liter diesel if an

182

oxidation of 100 % of the fuel carbon is reached - which is called ultimate CO2 . Complete

183

oxidation of all carbon components is not realistic, as also carbon monoxide (CO),

184

hydrocarbons (e.g CH4 ) and P M are formed. Besides incomplete oxidation there are

185

incompustible species present in the combustion chamber e.g. nitrogen gas (N2 ) or nitrogen

186

oxides (N Ox ) out of the air (EEA, 2009). In terms of GHGs, the by-products of N2 O and

187

CH4 are important. Consequently, Defra & DECC (2011) give values for the formation of

188

these gases as CO2 e. In terms of 100 % mineral diesel 0.0012 kg CO2 e of CH4 and

189

0.0184 kg CO2 e N2 O are emitted per liter. Added to the direct formation of 2.6480 kg of CO2

190

this leads to the emission of 2.6676 kg CO2 e per liter diesel. Besides direct CO2 e emissions

191

Defra & DECC (2011) also provide information of indirect GHGs as CO2 e. They originate

192

from required preceding processes like the extraction and transport of primary fuels or the

193

refining, distribution, storage and retail of finished fuels. As a total, indirect emissions of

194

0.5085 kg CO2 e per liter diesel are reported. Overall direct and indirect emissions add up to

195

3.1761 kg CO2 e per liter diesel. The use of a certain percentage of biofuel reduces the total

196

emissions; e.g. a share of 3.6 vol % biofuel leads to emissions of 3.1073 kg CO2 e per liter

197

diesel. Worth mentioning is that the reported 3.14 kg CO2 per liter diesel for exhaust

198

emissions of vehicles in European countries - which are stated in the annex of EEA (2009) -

199

are also in this range.

200

In EEA (2009) many formulas are available to calculate the fuel consumption for different

201

types of vehicles. In this paper only heavy-duty vehicles are focused on, as they are used in

202

timber transport. Different formulas are useable depending on the type of truck, its maximum

203

weight, its exhaust emission standard, its load factor and the road gradient. These formulas

204

provide the fuel consumption in grams per kilometer depending on the speed v. Besides the

205

unknown v, up to five factors (, , , and ) are used within the different formulas. These

206

factors are derived from statistical analyses and are given constants that can be found in the

207

annex of EEA (2009), if the aforementioned specifiers for truck and road are known.
For example the fuel consumption fc of a half loaded truck and trailer with EURO V emission
standard and a maximum weight from 34-40 tonnes on a road with a gradient of +2 % is
calculated with equation (13).

f c = v v

(13)

208

The given parameters , and have values of = 2, 021.18, = 1.0055 and

209

= 0.4261 (EEA, 2009). By inserting v = 55 km/h the formula results in a fuel

210

consumption of 496.05 g/km or 49.605 kg per 100 km, respectively. The consumption of diesel

211

in [g] or [kg] is not as intuitive as an indication in liters. Hence, fuel consumptions are

212

transformed to liters with the mean density of diesel at a temperature of 15 C from the

213

European Standard (EN) 590:2009 of 0.8325 kg/l. So the above calculated use of 49.605 kg per

214

100 km means a consumption of 59.59 l per 100 km.

215

By the use of formula (13), it is possible to establish a network, where the specific fuel

216

consumption of each arc is known. Therefore, only the length of the arc and the average speed

217

on it have to be inserted. The use of a single average speed for all the arcs within a network

218

would lead to a result that only differs from a weighting with driving times by a constant

219

factor (Eglese & Black, 2010). This is not suitable for comparing the results of minimizing

220

driving times on the one hand to the results of minimizing CO2 e emissions on the other hand.

221

Hence, arcs are divided into different segments depending on their road class. Each segment
9

222

has a length and a corresponding average speed and by adding up the fuel consumptions of all

223

the segments of an arc, the total fuel consumption from one node to another node is retrieved.

224

From this information a fuel matrix is obtained by taking the minimum fuel consumption from

225

each node to every other node. This matrix differs from the one with minimum driving times.

226

Fuel consumptions and driving times are speed dependent, but in contrast to driving times,

227

the speed dependency of fuel consumptions is not linear. This leads to different routes within

228

the matrix and thereby different solutions.

To solve the problem in a way that CO2 e emissions are minimized, the objective function of
the MDVRPPDTW has to be altered to (14) accordingly.

min

X X

F Cij tijr

(14)

iT H jT H rR

229

To obtain the total emissions in CO2 e the fuel consumption is multiplied with 3.14 kg CO2 e

230

per liter diesel in our numerical studies.

231

Solution approach

232

The NE takes the structure of the given problem into account and solves the problem either

233

exactly or heuristically, if computing times are unreasonable. By using this approach the

234

MDVRPPDTW becomes solvable for problem sizes that cannot be reached by applying

235

standard model formulations like the one presented before. Both approaches are implemented

236

in the programming language Mosel and are solved with the solver software Xpress 7.2.

237

The iterative approach of NE is displayed in Figure 2. In the first stage an EAP is solved to

238

generate a valid network for the log-trucks. Afterwards, the feasibility of this network is

239

checked by considering maximum tour length and time windows. If violations occur, cuts are

240

generated - which is the second stage - and added to the EAP. Additionally to the initially

241

used constraints of the EAP, the added cuts lead to a further limitation of the solution space.

242

After the addition of cuts, the first stage is repeated and the resulting network gets trimmed in

243

the direction of a feasible one. In the third stage the model formulation of the MDVRPPDTW

244

is solved on the created constrained network. If the MDVRPPDTW still cannot be solved on

245

the given network, a cut is added to the EAP that bans the actual solution. This procedure is

246

repeated until the algorithm finds a network the MDVRPPDTW is solvable on. The solution

10

247

is the global optimum of the problem.

Figure 2: Activity diagram of the NE

248

The main advantages of this approach are the short computing times for solving the EAP and

249

the reduction of the number of variables for the MDVRPPDTW. On the one hand a number

250

of infeasible arcs can be excluded, because parts of the network cannot be reached by all

251

log-trucks. On the other hand the values of the starting and home rides of the log-trucks -

252

because they are already predetermined by the structure of the network - as well as all the arcs

253

that contain the predefined transport tasks can be fixed.

254

The choices for the log-trucks of where to go next occur either at their depots H or at the

255

industrial sites S. Due to that structure, it is possible to solve a standard assignment problem

256

that assigns all transport tasks t T either to an industrial site s or a depot h in a way that

257

either the total empty-truck driving time or the fuel consumption is minimized. Additionally,

258

subcycles have to be avoided and each log-truck r R needs to reach its depot hr . If this can

259

be guaranteed, a valid network is obtained. However, this does not imply that the given

11

260

MDVRPPDTW is feasible on it.

261

The EAP can be formulated by the following system of equalities and inequalities:

min

X X

DTst astr

(15)

sHS tT H rR

s.t.

X X

astr = 1

t T H

(16)

ahtr = 1

h H

(17)

sHS rR

X X
tT H rR

XX

ahr tr LBT

(18)

rR tT

X X

astr = |T Bs |

s S

(19)

S S

(20)

s S, r R

(21)

s H S, t T H, r R

(22)

tT H rR

X
t(T \
sS

X
S

sS

astr 1

T Bs )H rR

iHS:i6=s tT Bs

aitr =

asjr

jH{T \T Bs }

astr {0, 1}

262

The binary decision variable astr is equal to 1, if transport task t T or depot t H is either

263

assigned to a depot s H or an industrial site s S with a log-truck r R. If astr is 1 for

264

s,t H, it follows that log-truck r is not used and stays at its associated depot hr . The starting

265

ride of a log-truck is characterized by a transport task t T assigned to a depot s H,

266

whereas a home ride can be identified by a depot t H assigned to an industrial site s S.

267

The objective function (15) minimizes the driving times DTst for the empty-truck rides. If the

268

objective is to minimize the fuel consumption, DTst is simply replaced by F Cst . This leads to

269

the following objective function (23), whereas the remainder of the problem stays the same:

min

X X

F Cst astr

(23)

sHS tT H rR

270

(16) ensure that all transport tasks t T are assigned to a depot s H or an industrial site

12

271

s S and that all log-trucks finish at their depot t = hr . A log-truck r either leaves its

272

depot hr to start with a task t T or stays at home at the depot t H (17). However, at

273

least a certain number of log-trucks LBT has to leave their depots to fulfill the tasks (18).

274

275

This minimum number of log-trucks equals LBT = dT OT /M T e, whereas TOT is the value of
P
the objective function of the actual iteration plus the sum of all task durations tT T Dt .

276

MT is the maximum tour length of a log-truck r R. Constraints (19) guarantee that as

277

much transport tasks t T or home rides t H have to be started from an industrial site s

278

as belong to the industrial site s. T Bs is a subset of T and contains all transport tasks t that

279

deliver to s. (20) ensure that no subcycles occur. Therefore, it has to hold that there is at

280

(21)
least one task t assigned to s S S that does not deliver to industrial sites within S.

281

assure that each log-truck entering the transport tasks of an industrial site also has to leave

282

again. Finally, (22) are the binarity constraints for the given problem.

283

Solving the system of linear equations and inequations above leads to a valid network on which

284

an implementation of the MDVRPPDTW can be carried out. Before solving it, some

285

feasibility checks are done to avoid later violations concerning maximum tour length and time

286

windows. However, as no tours are constructed yet, there is no guarantee that all violations are

287

eliminated by the introduced cuts. Different types of cuts are used and added to the EAP and

288

then the EAP is solved again. If no cuts need to be added at this stage, the MDVRPPDTW is

289

solved. This problem is either feasible, which leads to a solution that is the global optimum, or

290

infeasible. If the MDVRPPDTW is infeasible, cuts that ban the given solution are added to

291

the problem and the EAP is solved again. A detailed description of the introduced cuts would

292

go beyond the scope of this paper, but can be found in Oberscheider et al. (2011).

293

Numerical studies

294

The proposed solution methods were used to solve different problem sizes based on real-life

295

data. Comparisons are done with respect to driving times and fuel consumptions, whereas

296

from the latter the CO2 e emissions are calculated. From August 2009 to February 2011 daily

297

tours of five log-trucks were tracked and stored in a database. From this given information a

298

road network consisting of 99 wood storage locations, 4 biomass power plants and 14 depots

299

for the log-trucks was modelled. According to the given data, biomass power plants are used as

300

industrial sites in the numerical studies. The biomass power plants are located in Austria and

13

301

all the selected depots and wood storage locations are situated within a distance between 2 and

302

138 km away from the power plants (Figure 3). For further information about the situation
and potential of biomass power plants in the investigated area, see Rauch et al. (2010).

Figure 3: Distribution of depots, wood storage locations and biomass power plants in the test area
303

304

The required matrices are derived from a road network that is implemented in a geographic

305

information system (GIS) according to the road classes 0-7 of Holzleitner et al. (2010). The

306

average speeds per road class originate from Ganz et al. (2005), in which data were collected

307

for another region of Austria. The driving times of the recorded data and the data gained by

308

simulations in GIS were compared and afterwards, the average speeds have been reduced by a

309

factor of 1.452. This factor is used to tackle the gap between observed and simulated values in

310

order to make the scenarios more realistic. Three different matrices are extracted from the GIS

311

data. The first one contains the minimum driving times from each node to every other

312

required node. The second and third have the same structure, but comprise fuel consumptions.

313

The second one is obtained for the fuel consumptions of empty-truck rides and the third one

314

for log-trucks with full loads. The global positioning system (GPS) data for generating the

315

input matrices for the algorithm, cover the rides between two locations only. It is assumed

14

316

that the engine of the log-truck is turned off at the wood storage location. Fuel consumptions,

317

due to reversing the log-trucks at the locations or for unloading at the industrial sites are not

318

considered.

319

To choose the correct formula out of the ones that are given in the annex of EEA (2009), input

320

factors are determined. Besides the load of 0 % and 100 %, the type of truck is set to a truck

321

and trailer with 34-40 tonnes maximum weight. EURO III is chosen as emission standard

322

according to the year of manufacturing of the tracked log-trucks. As no digital elevation model

323

(DEM) is used for the GIS data, an overall road gradient of 0 % is taken. Equation (24) is

324

used for calculating the fuel consumptions for empty-truck rides and full-truck rides in [g/km].

f c =  + ev + ev

(24)

325

The setting of the parameters ( ) for the different loads can be seen in Table 1. The values

326

of the parameters as well as equation (24) are taken from the annex of EEA (2009).
Table 1: Parameter settings for the calculation of fuel consumptions

Load

0%
100 %

547.36
634.79

0.055
0.029

1,836.32
476,141.21

0.43
1.41

174.44
215.04

327

The received matrices for the fuel consumptions are converted from grams of diesel per path to

328

liters of diesel, before used in the algorithms. This is done in the way it is described in the

329

section about CO2 e calculation. Figure 4 gives an overview of how much the emissions per

330

kilometer vary for the valid range of driving speeds of the given formula (6 to 86 km/h)

331

depending on the load of the truck.

332

Three different sizes of daily datasets have been used, whereas in all three cases 20 instances

333

have been generated. The smallest dataset contains scenarios with 15 tasks and 5 log-trucks.

334

It is used to validate the NE approach by a comparison to the solution of the standard model

335

formulation of the MDVRPPDTW. Instances with 30 tasks and 10 log-trucks were generated

336

to simulate a workday of a medium-sized Austrian company in the sector of wood transport.

337

Additionally, 20 instances with 60 tasks per day and 20 log-trucks were taken for the tests of

338

the NE.

15

Figure 4: CO2 e emissions [g/km] on roads with a gradient of 0 % of a Euro III truck and trailer with
34-40 tonnes maximum weight depending on its load and driving speed [km/h]

339

For the large instances the home location of log-truck 5 was taken as central depot, due to its

340

geographical location. 7 log-trucks have their origin there. The wood storage locations were

341

picked randomly out of the given 99, whereas the likelihood of a transport to a certain biomass

342

power plant is in relation to its demand for wooden chips in bulk stacked cubic meter (BCM)

343

per year (Table 2), as found in Rauch & Gronalt (2010). Due to the random choice, more than
one transport task can have its origin at a certain wood storage location.
Table 2: Yearly demand of wooden chips of the power plants

Plant
1
2
3
4

Demand in BCM
150,000
150,000
97,000
600,000

Likelihood in %
15.0
15.0
9.7
60.2

344

345

Besides the already mentioned input, the times for loading and unloading are needed. The

346

measurements resulted in durations of 55 minutes for loading at the wood storage location and

347

37 minutes for unloading at the power plant. Power plants can receive deliveries between 7 am

348

and 7 pm. At the earliest, drivers may start at 5 am. The latest feasible arrival at the depot in

349

the evening is at 9 pm [0, 960]. In between this time window, drivers are allowed to have a

350

maximum operation time of 480 minutes. As operation time, driving times are counted only,

16

351

whereas times for loading and unloading are not considered.

352

Results

353

The following subsections describe the results of the numerical tests. The first one contains the

354

validation of the NE by a comparision to the solution of the standard model formulation that

355

is generated with solver software XPress 7.2 with standard settings. This was done with small

356

problem instances and the objective to minimize the driving time. The following one shows

357

the results for the objective of minimizing the driving time and minimizing the fuel

358

consumption or CO2 e emission, respectively. Additionally, the trade-offs of using one or the

359

other in terms of driving time and CO2 e emissions are given.

360

The NE ran till it either terminated or could not find the global optimal solution after a

361

runtime of 3,600 seconds for the medium sized instances and 7,200 seconds for the large

362

instances. After this duration, the driving time or fuel consumption of the current solution was

363

recorded, respectively. This value serves as lower bound (LB) for the comparison with the

364

actual solution, which can be gained by raising the lower bound of the number of needed

365

log-trucks LBT by one. The deviation from the LB to the solution of the NE equals the

366

maximum deviation from the global optimal solution. The heuristic approach of adding

367

log-trucks in the NE is taken in order to get feasible solutions in reasonable computation times.

368

For all the instances, for which run times are reported, the tests were performed on a single

369

workstation with an Intel Core i7 with 2.8 GHz and 6.00 GB RAM, which runs on

370

MS-Windows 7 as operating system.

371

Comparison of NE and standard solver procedure

372

The problem size for solving the model formulation of the MDVRPPDTW with the MIP

373

solver XPress 7.2 using standard settings is restricted, due to computation time. Therefore,

374

instances with 15 tasks and a maximum of 5 log-trucks have been chosen. 19 out of the 20

375

tested instances have the same solution values for both methods. For one instance, the MIP

376

solver did not finish within the maximum computation time of 43,200 seconds. In this case a

377

gap of 7.64 % from the lower bound of 984.51 minutes of driving time to the best found integer

378

solution of 1,066 minutes was recorded. The solution value of the NE of this instance equals

17

379

the best found integer solution of the MIP solver.

380

The computation times for the NE as well as for the MIP solver vary markedly. The range for

381

the NE goes from 0.1 seconds to 27,072.1 seconds. The latter shows an exceptional higher

382

computation time than the rest of the instances, due to a large number of iterations that had

383

to be performed. However, also the computation times for the instances that were solvable to

384

optimality by the MIP solver vary from 4.1 seconds to 15,322.8 seconds. The median of the

385

computation time required to solve the instances by NE is 7.5 seconds, whereas for the MIP

386

solver it is 20.3 seconds. It follows that for the given instances the NE is the faster method. It

387

provides proven global optimum solutions in 19 out of 20 instances.

388

Minimizing driving time versus minimizing CO2 e emissions

389

In Table 3 a summary of the results, which can be found in detail in the Appendix, is given.

390

The means of the presented fuel consumptions and driving times are given for the empty-truck

391

rides only, as they are minimized by the NE. For medium-sized instances of both objectives

392

the NE found the global optimal solution for 16 out of 20 instances. For the remaining

393

instances one log-truck was added after 3,600 seconds of runtime. They also have similar

394

values in terms of runtimes as well as maximum deviations from the LB.

395

From the large instances with the scenario of minimizing driving times, Instance 1 could be

396

solved in a provable exact way only. Out of the remaining 19 instances, 14 have been solved by

397

adding one log-truck, while for five of them the number of log-trucks had to be increased by

398

two. In terms of minimizing fuel consumption, 4 globally optimal solutions could be obtained.

399

For 12 instances it was sufficient to add one truck, whereas for 4 instances two trucks had to

400

be added to the given problem. Runtimes show higher variations as for medium-sized

401

instances and maximum deviations from the LB are slightly below 3 %.

Table 3: Summary of the results of medium (M) and large (L) instances for the objectives of
minimizing driving time (DT) and minimizing fuel consumption (FC)

402

Scenario

Mean
FC
[l]

Mean
DT
[min]

Global
opt. found
[no.]

Max. DEV
from LB
[%]

Mean
Trucks
[no.]

DT M
FC M
DT L
FC L

310.8
308.7
585.2
581.2

1,791.2
1,830.3
3,365.0
3,445.3

16
16
1
4

3.10
3.57
2.94
2.97

8.3
8.4
16.4
16.5

Trucks
added
1
2

Range of
runtimes [s]
Min
Max

4
4
14
12

2.7
2.2
594.0
149.4

0
0
5
4

3,603.4
3,607.0
15,183.6
16,853.9

Mean
runtime
[s]
924.7
935.7
9,052.6
7,883.6

For a comparison of the objectives of minimizing fuel consumption and minimizing driving
18

403

time, different input matrices for driving times and fuel consumptions have to be computed.

404

This follows the fact that also the shortest paths between two points within the network may

405

change, due to different objectives. Therefore, the fastest way does not have to be the most

406

efficient one in relation to fuel consumption. Hence, the comparison leads to even higher

407

deviations than an optimization that uses the same input matrices for both scenarios. This is

408

not true for empty-truck rides only, but also for transport tasks with fully loaded log-trucks.

409

Therefore, empty-truck rides and full-truck rides have to be aggregated before the solutions of

410

the two scenarios are compared to each other. The main focus of the comparison is on reducing

411

total CO2 e emissions by changing objectives. Additionally, it is important to report the change

412

of total driving times, as this is the main interest of drivers and freight forwarders. A summary

413

of these results is presented in Table 4, whereas detailed results can be found in the Appendix.
Table 4: Total CO2 e emissions versus total driving times of medium (M) and large (L) instances for
the objectives of minimizing driving time (DT) and minimizing fuel consumption (FC)

Scenario
M
L

Mean total CO2 e [kg]

min FC
min DT
2,748.1
5,334.2

2,781.1
5,396.5

CO2 e reduction [kg]

Mean
SD
33.0
62.3

14.4
24.7

Mean total DT [min]

min FC
min DT

DT extension [min]
Mean
SD

3,745.1
7,229.6

81.6
170.2

3,663.6
7,059.4

36.1
50.7

414

For the medium sized instances, the exchange of the objective function leads on the one hand

415

to reduced CO2 e emissions, but on the other hand to higher driving times for all tested

416

instances. The average reduction of CO2 e is 33 kg and the extension of the driving time has a

417

mean value of 81.6 minutes. As stated in Table 3 approximately 8 log-trucks have to be used.

418

Hence, changing the objective to minimizing CO2 e emissions leads to an average increase of

419

approximately 10 minutes per driver and a mean reduction of roughly 4 kg CO2 e per tour.

420

According to the tests with large instances, Instance 9 is an outlier (see Appendix), due to a

421

reduced driving time, when minimizing fuel consumption. The reason for this is that two

422

log-trucks had to be added for Instance 9 to solve it within the maximum computation time

423

regarding the minimization of driving times. The remaining instances showed the expected

424

behavior of reduced total CO2 e emissions and increased total driving time. By using the

425

objective of minimizing CO2 e emissions, a mean reduction of 62.3 kg is obtained. The average

426

extension of driving times is 170.2 minutes, which is shared by 16 to 17 log-trucks. Similar to

427

the medium sized instances the CO2 e emissions decrease by approximately 4 kg CO2 e per

428

driver, whereas the tour duration of a driver rises by around 10 minutes.

19

429

Discussion

430

Based on the comparison of the results of the NE and the MIP solver for small instances it can

431

be concluded that the NE is a promising method for solving problems with the given structure.

432

For the tested instances it was enough to raise the lower bound of trucks by a maximum of 10

433

% of the available log-trucks. In order to save computation time it is possible to raise this

434

lower bound already at the beginning of the computation. This is an option for medium and

435

large instances where a solution could not be found within the given maximum time. Hence, if

436

used in praxis, the algorithm should be started parallel with additional log-trucks on one hand

437

and the attempt to solve the problem exactly on the other hand. Thereby, fast solutions can be

438

obtained. In our test case this would lead to a maximum computation time of 2,453.9 seconds

439

for Instance 20 of the large instances with the objective of minimizing fuel consumption.

440

It is likely that some of the presented solutions, for which the global optimal solution cannot

441

be guaranteed, are solved with their global optimum. This arises from the fact that a rather

442

straight forward approach is used to set the lower bound of log-trucks. For example, for solving

443

Instance 7 of the medium sized instances in terms of minimizing driving time, the lower bound

444

of log-trucks is set to eight. The division of the lower bound of the solution by the maximum

445

tour length leads to a minimum number of log-trucks of 7.98. Thus, in the opinion of the

446

authors, it is unlikely that eight log-trucks are sufficient to solve the given problem, because

447

the average driving time of a log-truck would be 478.9 minutes. As single routes are indivisible,

448

an assignment of 30 tasks to eight log-trucks within the maximum tour length is improbable.

449

By using two different objective functions, the potential savings of CO2 e emissions compared

450

to an optimization in terms of driving times were presented. In general, it is the opinion of the

451

authors that the biggest part of possible savings is achieved by the use of a decision support

452

system per se, even if it optimizes driving times instead of fuel consumptions. If optimized in

453

terms of fuel consumption, the potential reduction of approximately 4 kg CO2e emissions per

454

driver and day is bought by an extension of the driving time of approximately 10 minutes per

455

driver and day. Specifications in terms of road gradients would increase the accuracy of the

456

results, but these data were not available. Additionally, factors as the driving behavior or

457

maintenance of the trucks play a crucial role for actual emissions, but are hard to indicate.

458

In Figure 4 the impact of driving speeds on CO2 e emissions is shown. In the given range the

459

emissions per kilometer are decreasing with increasing driving speeds. Therefore, it can be

20

460

advantageous for the vehicle to choose a road with a road class that has a higher average

461

speed, even if this leads to rising driving times of the truck due to longer distances. Especially

462

at driving speeds below 25 km/h the slope becomes steep, which leads to comparatively high

463

increases of CO2 e emissions per kilometer. Additionally, to the choice of roads with higher

464

average speeds, congested areas need to be avoided. Hence, information on time-dependent

465

travel speeds would be another interesting input factor for increasing the accuracy of the given

466

results even though they are less relevant in timber transport, since it takes place in rural

467

areas mainly (see e.g. Piecyk et al. (2010)).

468

The given problem implies full-truck loads, whereas the model formulation of the LTSP of

469

Palmgren et al. (2003) allows more than one pick-up and/or delivery per route. Therefore, it

470

would be interesting to use the findings of minimizing emissions of Bektas & Laporte (2011) on

471

that problem formulation. By using the objective of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, the

472

sequence of nodes in a route is also depending on how much is loaded or unloaded at the

473

corresponding node, respectively. As shown in Figure 4 a higher load factor leads to higher

474

emissions. Therefore, it could be advantageous in case of multiple delivery locations to

475

perform deliveries with higher weights first, even if this leads to longer driven distances. Vice

476

versa, the same is true for multiple pick-up locations.

477

In conclusion, the selection of the objective of minimizing fuel consumptions leads to a

478

significant reduction of CO2 e emissions compared to the use of the objective of minimizing

479

driving times. Therefore, the used approach gives an idea of how to implement the

480

minimization of greenhouse gas emissions in timber transport in research or daily business and

481

introduces a powerful method to optimize the routing of log-trucks. Further tests will be

482

performed on available instances (e.g. Hirsch (2011) and Zazgornik et al. (2012)) to validate

483

the range of applications of the NE.

484

Acknowledgments

485

Thanks go to Andrea Trautsamwieser for helping with mathematical formulations. For

486

providing very important input in terms of data, the authors want to thank Franz Holzleitner

487

of the Institute of Forest Engineering of the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences,

488

Vienna.

21

489

References

490

Bektas, T. & Laporte, G. (2011). The pollution-routing problem. Transportation Research

491

492

Part B, 45 (8), 1232-1250.

von Bodelschwingh, E. (2001). Rundholztransport - Logistik, Situationsanalyse und

493

Einsparungspotentiale [Round timber transport - logistics, situation analysis and saving

494

potential]. Masters thesis, Unpublished, Technical University Munich, Germany.

495

Defra & DECC (2011). 2011 guidelines to Defra / DECCs GHG conversion factors for

496

company reporting. Tech. Rep. 1.2, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

497

Department of Energy and Climate Change, London, UK.

498

499

500

Demir, E., Bektas, T. & Laporte, G. (2011). A comparative analysis of several vehicle emission
models for road freight transportation. Transportation Research Part D, 16 (5), 347-357.
EEA (2009). EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009 - technical

501

guidance to prepare national emission inventories. Tech. Rep. 9/2009, European

502

Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

503

Eglese, R. & Black, D. (2010). Optimizing the routing of vehicles. In: McKinnon A, Cullinane

504

S, Browne M, Whiteing A (eds) Green Logistics - Improving the environmental

505

sustainability of logistics, London, UK: Kogan Page Limited, 215-228.

506

El Hachemi, N., Gendreau, M. & Rousseau, L. M. (2010). A hybrid constraint programming

507

approach to the log-truck scheduling problem. Annals of Operations Research, 184 (1),

508

163-178.

509

Favreau, J. (2006). Six key elements to reduce forest transportation cost. Paper presented at

510

the FORAC Summer School at the University Laval, Quebec, Canada,

511

http://www.forac.ulaval.ca/fileadmin/docs/EcoleEte/2006/Favreau.pdf, accessed 20

512

December 2011.

513

514

Figliozzi, M. (2010). Vehicle routing problem for emissions minimization. Transportation

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2197, 1-7.

22

515

Flisberg, P., Liden, B. & R

onnqvist, M. (2009). A hybrid method based on linear

516

programming and tabu search for routing logging trucks. Computers and Operations

517

Research, 36 (4), 1122-1144.

518

Ganz, M., Holzleitner, F. & Kanzian, C. (2005). Energieholzlogistik Karnten - Transport von

519

Energieholz [Wood fuel logistics Carinthia - transport of wood fuel]. Tech. rep., Institute of

520

Forest Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria.

521

Gronalt, M. & Hirsch, P. (2007). Log-truck scheduling with a tabu search strategy. In:

522

Doerner KF, Gendreau M, Greistorfer P, Gutjahr WJ, Hartl RF, Reimann M (eds)

523

Metaheuristics - progress in complex systems optimization, New York, USA: Springer, 65-88.

524

Hirsch, P. (2011). Minimizing empty truck loads in round timber transport with tabu search

525

strategies. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management, 4

526

(2), 15-41.

527

Holzleitner, F., Kanzian, C. & Stampfer, K. (2010). Analyzing time and fuel consumption in

528

road transport of round wood with an onboard fleet manager. European Journal of Forest

529

Research, 130, 293-301.

530

ICF Consulting (2006). Assessment of greenhouse gas analysis techniques for transportation

531

projects. Tech. rep., Requested by American Association of State Highway and

532

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Fairfax, USA.

533

534

535

Murphy, G. (2003). Reducing trucks on the road through optimal route scheduling and shared
log transport services. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 27 (3), 198-205.
Ntziachristos, L. & Samaras, Z. (2000). COPERT III computer programme to calculate

536

emissions from road transport - methodology and emission factors (version 2.1). Tech. Rep.

537

49, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

538

Oberscheider, M., Zazgornik, J., Henriksen, C. B., Gronalt, M. & Hirsch, P. (2011). A

539

near-exact solution approach for solving a vehicle routing problem in timber transport,

540

working paper.

541

Palmgren, M., R
onnqvist, M. & V
arbrand, P. (2003). A solution approach for log truck

542

scheduling based on composite pricing and branch and bound. International Transactions in

543

Operational Research, 10 (5), 433-447.

23

544

Piecyk, M., McKinnon, A. & Allen, J. (2010). Evaluating and internalizing the environmental

545

costs of logistics. In: McKinnon A, Cullinane S, Browne M, Whiteing A (eds) Green

546

Logistics - Improving the environmental sustainability of logistics, London, UK: Kogan Page

547

Limited, 69-97.

548

549

Rauch, P. & Gronalt, M. (2010). The terminal location problem in a cooperative forest fuel
supply network. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 21 (2), 32-40.

550

Rauch, P., Gronalt, M. & Hirsch, P. (2010). Co-operative forest fuel procurement strategy and

551

its saving effects on overall transportation costs. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,

552

25 (3), 251-261.

553

Ropke, S. & Pisinger, D. (2006). An adaptive large neighborhood search heuristic for the

554

pickup and delivery problem with time windows. Transportation Science, 40 (4), 455-472.

555

Sbihi, A. & Eglese, R. W. (2007). Combinatorial optimization and green logistics. Computers

556

557

and Operations Research, 5 (2), 99-116.

Zazgornik, J., Gronalt, M. & Hirsch, P. (2012). A comprehensive approach to planning the

558

deployment of transportation assets in distributing forest products. International Journal of

559

Revenue Management, 6 (1/2), 45-61.

24

560

Appendix

561

Notations
H

Set of depots

Set of log-trucks

S
S

Set of industrial sites

Set of transport tasks

Subset of S

T Bs

Set that contains the tasks that end in/belong to industrial site s

Set of wood storage locations

Constant that has a large integer value

MT

Maximum driving time

, , , , 

Parameters derived from statistics to calculate the fuel consumption fc of a

segment of an arc

562

ai

Begin of time window of i

bi

End of time window of j

fc

Fuel consumption of a segment of an arc

DTij

Driving time of an empty-truck ride from node i to node j

F Cij

Fuel consumption from node i to node j

F Ct

Fuel consumption of transport task t: The fuel consumption from the wood
storage location w to the industrial site s of transport task t

hr

The corresponding depot of log-truck r

LBT

Lower bound of the number of log-trucks

SIs

The service time at the industrial site s

SWw

The service time at the wood storage w

T Dt

Task duration of transport task t: The driving time from the wood storage
location w to the industrial site s of transport task t

T OT

Equals the total driving time (empty-truck and full-truck rides) of a solution

Average speed on a segment of an arc

astr

Binary decision variable, equals 1 if transport task or depot t is assigned to

depot or industrial site s with a log-truck r, 0 otherwise

eir

Completion time of task i by log-truck r

etr

End time of the tour of log-truck r

str

Starting time of the tour of log-truck r

tijr

Binary decision variable, equals 1 if log-truck r performs task i before task j,

0 otherwise

25

563

564

List of abbreviations
BCM

Bulk stacked cubic meter

CH4

Methane

CO

Carbon monoxide

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CO2 e

Carbon dioxide equivalent

COPERT

Computer programme to calculate emissions from road transport

DECC

Department of Energy and Climate Change of the UK

Defra

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK

DEM

Digital elevation model

EAP

Extended assignment problem

EEA

European Environment Agency

EN

European standard

EVRP

Emission minimization vehicle routing problem

GHG

Greenhouse gas

GIS

Geographic information system

GPS

Global positioning system

LB

Lower bound

LTSP

Log-truck scheduling problem

MDVRPPDTW

Multi depot vehicle routing problem with pick-up and delivery and time
windows

NE

Near-exact solution approach

N2

Nitrogen gas

N2 O

Nitrous oxide

N Ox

Nitrogen oxides

PDPTW

Pick-up and delivery problem with time windows

PM

Particulate matter

PRP

Pollution-routing problem

TDVRSP

Time dependent vehicle routing and scheduling problem

VRP

Vehicle routing problem

26

27

1,760
1,817
1,533
1,805
1,929
1,895
1,847
1,943
1,588
1,794
1,767
2,003
1,792
1,756
1,668
1,939
1,548
1,690
1,805
1,749

3,225
3,300
3,189
3,195
3,207
3,366
3,451
3,278
3,229
3,322
3,263
3,612
3,229
3,488
3,364
3,234
3,253
3,574
3,238
3,312

L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
L18
L19
L20

[min]

LB

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
M18
M19
M20

Instance

3,225
3,335
3,219
3,236
3,232
3,438
3,523
3,325
3,324
3,370
3,310
3,660
3,276
3,537
3,459
3,264
3,299
3,623
3,285
3,359

1,760
1,817
1,533
1,805
1,929
1,895
1,894
1,943
1,637
1,794
1,767
2,003
1,843
1,756
1,668
1,939
1,596
1,690
1,805
1,749
0.00
1.06
0.94
1.28
0.78
2.14
2.09
1.43
2.94
1.44
1.44
1.33
1.46
1.40
2.82
0.93
1.41
1.37
1.45
1.42

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.54
0.00
3.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
553.0
576.7
557.7
564.9
557.9
601.2
618.3
584.3
566.1
586.1
569.5
643.2
571.8
600.5
608.7
571.5
572.5
634.9
568.3
596.3

298.2
313.1
265.2
317.6
336.7
326.0
331.8
335.7
278.8
313.8
302.8
347.4
323.8
298.8
291.2
342.6
284.3
286.9
310.0
311.6
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
16
17
16
16
17
16
17
17
16
16
17
16
16

8
8
7
8
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
9
9
8
8
9
8
8
8
8

MINIMIZE DRIVING TIME (DT)

DT
DEV
FC
Trucks
used
[min]
[%]
[l]
[no.]

594.0
7,370.3
7,388.0
15,183.6
7,341.5
14,542.4
15,099.1
7,286.3
14,508.7
8,930.9
7,387.3
7,602.4
8,784.8
7,444.0
14,452.0
7,301.1
7,519.2
7,347.7
7,604.4
7,364.4

840.0
2.7
33.8
4.2
14.2
10.6
3,603.4
19.4
3,603.2
5.2
120.7
183.1
3,603.3
4.0
43.4
28.9
3,603.4
680.0
2,085.7
5.0

Runtime
[s]

549.5
568.1
548.2
556.5
550.6
590.3
606.3
570.1
548.7
576.1
563.8
634.9
559.5
588.4
594.2
563.7
556.0
627.3
555.8
582.3

297.6
310.5
261.0
312.7
333.4
324.1
328.3
334.0
269.0
312.1
299.4
344.1
312.6
295.1
289.6
339.9
273.0
283.5
307.3
308.8
556.8
571.8
551.5
559.8
561.0
596.8
612.8
577.4
548.7
593.2
572.2
634.9
566.8
588.4
603.3
568.5
563.3
627.3
572.2
598.0

297.6
310.5
261.0
312.7
333.4
324.1
328.3
334.0
278.6
312.1
308.7
344.1
312.6
295.1
289.6
339.9
282.2
292.8
307.3
308.8
1.33
0.65
0.60
0.59
1.89
1.10
1.07
1.28
0.00
2.97
1.49
0.00
1.30
0.00
1.53
0.85
1.31
0.00
2.95
2.70

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.57
0.00
3.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.37
3.28
0.00
0.00
3,337
3,393
3,302
3,301
3,327
3,529
3,604
3,403
3,270
3,496
3,429
3,776
3,336
3,577
3,549
3,325
3,374
3,691
3,383
3,504

1,791
1,854
1,560
1,851
1,961
1,923
1,938
1,977
1,655
1,830
1,845
2,053
1,846
1,807
1,693
1,987
1,626
1,799
1,828
1,782
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
16
15
17
17
17
16
16
17
16
16
17
17
17

8
8
7
8
9
9
9
9
8
8
9
9
8
8
8
9
8
9
8
8
7,583.3
8,183.1
7,393.6
7,305.2
14,460.1
7,425.6
7,439.5
7,308.2
1,195.6
14,557.7
8,136.2
914.4
7,992.0
1,643.6
7,307.9
9,129.2
7,357.0
149.4
15,336.2
16,853.9

3.5
5.4
1,564.9
2.2
4.2
627.0
10.3
5.6
3,603.1
124.3
3,602.6
389.4
558.0
2.6
2.9
110.0
3,603.1
3,607.0
881.7
6.1

MINIMIZE FUEL CONSUMPTION (FC)

FC
DEV
DT
Trucks
Runused
time
[l]
[l]
[%]
[min]
[no.]
[s]

LB

Results

6,767
6,976
6,825
6,743
6,999
7,268
7,232
6,968
6,862
6,949
7,121
7,712
6,838
7,348
7,218
6,940
6,829
7,585
6,966
7,042

3,670
3,768
3,248
3,754
3,962
3,975
3,972
3,988
3,381
3,610
3,880
4,160
3,767
3,653
3,540
4,069
3,268
3,832
3,824
3,581

DT: Total
CO2 e
[kg]

6,920
7,093
6,997
6,906
7,196
7,485
7,423
7,122
6,858
7,153
7,340
7,915
7,043
7,504
7,344
7,121
7,021
7,746
7,138
7,267

3,628
3,694
3,199
3,653
3,892
3,901
3,878
3,925
3,322
3,537
3,743
4,080
3,709
3,547
3,494
3,951
3,204
3,638
3,763
3,513

FC: Total
CO2 e
[kg]

2.26
1.68
2.52
2.42
2.81
2.99
2.64
2.21
-0.06
2.94
3.08
2.63
3.00
2.12
1.75
2.61
2.81
2.12
2.47
3.20

1.16
2.00
1.53
2.76
1.80
1.90
2.42
1.61
1.78
2.06
3.66
1.96
1.56
2.99
1.32
2.99
2.00
5.33
1.62
1.94

5,080
5,262
5,244
5,140
5,411
5,640
5,548
5,358
5,109
5,309
5,475
5,976
5,205
5,500
5,522
5,354
5,184
5,826
5,313
5,473

2,681
2,730
2,421
2,766
2,881
2,926
2,937
2,934
2,447
2,650
2,806
3,058
2,749
2,598
2,635
3,009
2,463
2,765
2,818
2,688

DT versus FC
DEV
DT: Total
DT
[%]
[min]

5,059
5,192
5,173
5,083
5,376
5,553
5,471
5,294
5,036
5,294
5,423
5,907
5,142
5,411
5,473
5,258
5,097
5,725
5,276
5,440

2,697
2,778
2,450
2,803
2,940
2,967
2,982
2,962
2,463
2,676
2,825
3,084
2,814
2,641
2,657
3,056
2,483
2,786
2,840
2,716

FC: Total
DT
[min]

0.42
1.35
1.39
1.12
0.65
1.57
1.40
1.21
1.47
0.28
0.95
1.17
1.22
1.64
0.89
1.82
1.71
1.77
0.70
0.59

0.60
1.75
1.19
1.34
2.06
1.43
1.54
0.94
0.65
0.98
0.67
0.86
2.36
1.67
0.82
1.54
0.82
0.77
0.81
1.06

[%]

DEV