1 Introduction
-
High investment costs: First, the investment costs for overhead wiring are huge. In addition to poles and wires, substations, analogously to those applied for tram and train systems (Rufer et al., 2004), are required every 1.5–3 km to convert the high-voltage alternating current of the power main line into the low-voltage direct current suited for ECVs. Kühnel et al. (2018) estimate the investment costs for each electrified (bidirectional) km to range between €1.7 and 3.1 million. Due to these huge infrastructure costs, it seems impossible to electrify a complete highway network. For Germany, Kühnel et al. (2018) estimate that electrifying about 30% of the German autobahn is sufficient to electrify the majority of long-haul transportation. Similar results are obtained by Schwerdfeger et al. (2021) for the largest German highway, the A7, when minimizing the investment costs for charge-while-drive infrastructure while still enabling ECV drives between all major German cities. Thus, it seems safe to assume that on a highway main line, only some segments will be electrified, interspersed with non-electrified segments where the ECV’s battery has to take over. This adds the challenging aspect of gathering enough electric energy for the drives along non-electrified highway segments and roads beyond the highway to the routing problem.
-
Induced traffic: The second challenge that might be associated with charge-while-drive technology that has not yet been publicly discussed is induced traffic. Traditionally, this term has referred to the frequently observed phenomenon that once additional capacity is added to a road network, latent demand materializes and the streets are loaded to capacity just as before (Goodwin, 1996). In the context of charge-while-drive technology, we borrow this term to denominate the additional traffic generated by charging detours that are required to gather enough energy for reaching the next customer without energy shortage. Whereas conventional ECVs charge while parking, charge-while-drive technology may incentivize the oscillation of ECVs between different customer regions to charge their batteries. Such behavior can be even more pronounced in the ramp-up phase when power obtained via overhead wiring is subsidized by public authorities to attract participants. One contribution of this paper is the investigation and quantification of the induction effect of charge-while-drive infrastructure, which we quantify with the help of our routing approach.
2 Literature review
3 Problem description
3.1 Problem characterization
-
Highway: We have a bidirectional highway of given length to be accessed and exited via ramps at given positions. The highway is equipped with overhead wiring in specific parts, so that we have fixed electrified and non-electrified segments along the highway.
-
ECV: Our single ECV is equipped with an electric engine, a movable contact arm to connect to the overhead wires in electrified segments, and a battery to power the engine in non-electrified segments. Driving with a constant velocity along a (non-)electrified segment adds (consumes) a fixed amount of charge to (from) the battery, which has a given maximum charge capacity that cannot be exceeded. Naturally, the ECV’s charge level may not fall below zero. Initially, the ECV is positioned at a given start position along the highway and has a given initial charge level at the start. We require the ECV to return to its initial position, e.g., the depot of the truckload carrier, after conducting all jobs.
-
Jobs: We have a given set of jobs each representing a point-to-point transport that loads our ECV to capacity. Each job has to be picked up and successfully delivered before the next job can be processed. Each job has an actual origin and destination beyond the highway, so that when leaving the highway at the closest ramp toward the origin (destination), our ECV requires a minimum charge level to ensure a successful pickup (delivery) of the associated load at the actual origin (destination) and the return to the closest ramp afterwards without energy shortage.
-
We consider a single highway but not a network of multiple interconnected streets. This may be a simplification once charge-while-drive infrastructure is well established. But since the investment costs for overhead wiring are substantial (see Sect. 1), especially during the ramp-up phase, only the most frequented highway main lines will be candidates for electrification. Moreover, a fast and reliable solution method for the single-highway case could also be applicable for solving this subproblem in a larger algorithmic framework dedicated to the general-network case.
-
A strictly parallel layout of electrified and non-electrified segments in both driving directions is economically advisable, because this policy saves extra substations (Kühnel et al., 2018). However, the terrain does not always allow this. We take the positions of the electrified and non-electrified segments of both driving directions as inputs, so that both cases can be modeled.
-
To isolate the impact of charge-while-drive infrastructure, we assume that for our ECV, neither the alternative charging options (e.g., charge-while-park infrastructure at charging stations along the highway) nor an additional conventional engine is available. Thus, our ECV is powered either via overhead wires in electrified segments or via the additional battery in non-electrified segments. Note that the type of ECV currently applied on the test tracks in Germany actually has a battery without additional plug-in function (to charge while parked), but is equipped with an additional diesel engine (Grüning, 2019). In our case study in Sect. 6, however, we benchmark different vehicle setups.
-
We assume constant charging and consumption rates per length unit on electrified and non-electrified highway segments, respectively. Although an approximation of reality, where these parameters vary with the charge level (Pelletier et al., 2016), this is an assumption frequently made in the electric vehicle routing community. One of the few exceptions is Froger et al. (2019).
-
On the demand side, fixed charging and consumption rates are based on the assumption of a constant average driving speed of our ECV. In the real world, the ECV’s speed is rather a decision variable or can vary over the day depending on the current traffic situation. However, since our main intention is to quantify the additional traffic induced by charge-while-drive infrastructure, constant driving velocities, which are already desired to save costs and energy, seem a pardonable simplification.
-
We assume that the ECV’s energy consumption on drives via exit- and on-ramps when changing the driving direction is negligible compared to the much longer drives along the highway. Thus, changing the direction is assumed to consume no energy. Note, however, that extending our solution approaches by this issue is straightforward.
-
Our (actual) objective is to minimize the makespan of processing the given set of transport jobs. This objective releases our ECV as early as possible and allows the system to start processing subsequent jobs earlier. Since the drives beyond the highway are fixed once the job set is determined, we simplify the problem and only address the driving distance of our ECV along the highway. Naturally, there are many other potential objectives (e.g., related to due dates); we, however, opted for the most basic one.
3.2 Problem definition
-
Two ramps \(r^o_j\in R\) and \(r^d_j\in R\) with \(r^o_j\ne r^d_j\) representing the ramps where our ECV leaves the highway to pick up job j at its actual origin beyond the highway and to deliver job j at its actual destination, respectively, and
-
Numbers \(l^o_j\) and \(l^d_j\) representing the total travel distance beyond the highway when leaving the highway at the closest ramp to pick up job j and to deliver job j, respectively, and returning to the highway.
-
The ECV, passing a part of the highway of length l which lies within an electrified segment, increases the charge of its battery by \(\min \{C-c,l\cdot \delta ^+\}\), where c is the battery’s charge at the beginning of that part, and \(\delta ^+\in \mathbb {N}\) is the constant charging rate. Hence, its battery’s charge is \(\min \{C,c+l\cdot \delta ^+\}\) at the end of the part. When passing a part of the highway of length l within a non-electrified segment or when driving a distance of l beyond the highway, our ECV’s battery charge decreases by \(l\cdot \delta ^-\). Here, \(\delta ^-\in \mathbb {N}\) is the constant consumption rate. Hence, the charge level is \(c-l\cdot \delta ^-\) at the end of the part.
-
The ECV, either picking up j or delivering j beyond the highway, decreases the charge of its battery by \(l^o_j\cdot \delta ^-\) or \(l^d_j\cdot \delta ^-\), respectively. Hence, its battery’s charge is \(c-l^o_j\cdot \delta ^-\) and \(c-l^d_j\cdot \delta ^-\), respectively, when returning to the highway afterwards. If, however, job j is delivered at the same ramp as job \(j'\) is picked up, and both operations are conducted while leaving the highway only once, then the ECV’s battery charge decreases by \(l^{d,o}_{j,j'}\cdot \delta ^-\) and is \(c-l^{d,o}_{j,j'}\cdot \delta ^-\) when returning to the highway afterwards.
-
We have a sequence \(\sigma \) of all jobs in J specifying the order in which they are processed by the ECV. This sequence implies the order in which ramps are headed from where the line is left for picking up or delivering a job. We refer to the kth entry of \(\sigma \) by \(\sigma (k)\).
-
We have a sequence of ramps visited in between picking up or delivering jobs. More formally, this part of a solution is defined as follows:
-
For each job \(\sigma (k)\), with \(k=1,\ldots ,|J|\), of job sequence \(\sigma \), we have a sequence of all ramps passed along the highway after returning to the highway at \(r^o_{\sigma (k)}\in R\) after picking up job \(\sigma (k)\) and before leaving at ramp \(r^d_{\sigma (k)}\in R\) for delivering this job.
-
For each job \(\sigma (k)\), with \(k=2,\ldots ,|J|\), of job sequence \(\sigma \), we have a sequence of all ramps passed along the highway after returning to the highway at \(r^d_{\sigma (k-1)}\in R\) after delivering predecessor job \(\sigma (k-1)\) and before leaving at ramp \(r^o_{\sigma (k)}\in R\) for picking up successor job \(\sigma (k)\).
-
We have a sequence of all ramps passed along the highway before leaving the highway for the first time at \(r^o_{\sigma (1)}\in R\), and we have a sequence of all ramps passed after entering the highway for the last time at \(r^d_{\sigma (|J|)}\in R\).
-
3.3 Computational complexity
4 Solution approaches
4.1 A mixed-integer program
\(R=\{1,\ldots ,|R|\}\) | Set of ramps (numbered according to increasing positions) |
\(J=\{1,\ldots ,|J|\}\) | Set of jobs |
F | Set of ramp pairs with \((r,r')\in F\) among which a direct drive from \(p_r\) to \(p_{r'}\) is possible |
\(\Pi \) | Upper bound on the number of charging detours between any pair of consecutive pickups and deliveries |
M | Length of the sequence, with \(M=2|J|+(2|J|+1)\Pi +1\) |
S | Set of sequence positions, with \(S=\{1,\ldots ,M\}\) |
\(p_r\) | Position of ramp \(r\in R\) |
\(r^o_j (r^d_j)\in R\) | Ramp where the ECV leaves the highway to pick up (deliver) job \(j\in J\) |
\(d_{r,r'}=|p_{r'}-p_r|\) | Travel distance from \(p_r\) to \(p_{r'}\) |
\(c^{\min }_{r,r'}\ge 0\) | Minimum charge level required for driving from \(p_r\) straight to \(p_{r'}\) without leaving the highway |
\(c^{\max }_{r,r'}\le C\) | Maximum charge level achievable after driving from \(p_r\) straight to \(p_{r'}\) without leaving the highway |
\(\delta _{r,r'}\in \mathbb {R}\) | Net change of charge level when driving from \(p_r\) straight to \(p_{r'}\) without leaving the highway |
\(l^o_j\ge 0\) (\(l^d_j\ge 0\)) | Total travel distance beyond the highway for picking up (delivering) job \(j\in J\) |
\(l^{d,o}_{j,j'}\ge 0\) | Total travel distance beyond the highway for delivering job \(j\in J\) and picking up \(j'\in J\) with \(r^d_j=r^o_{j'}\) |
\(\delta ^+,\delta ^-\ge 0\) | Charging and consumption rate |
\(r^0\in R\), \(r^d= r^0\) | Initial and final position |
\(C\ge 0\) | Maximum charge level |
\(0\le c^0\le C\) | Initial charge level |
\(x_{k,r}\in \{0,1\}\) | Binary variables: 1, if \(p_r\) is the kth position in the sequence; 0, otherwise [\(x_{1,r}\) (\(x_{M,r^d}\)) is a parameter reflecting the initial (final) position] |
\(y_{k,j} (z_{k,j})\in \{0,1\}\) | Binary variables: 1, if j is picked up (delivered) at the kth position in the sequence; 0, otherwise |
\(0\le c^a_{k} (c^d_{k})\le C\) | Continuous variables: charge level when arriving at (leaving) the kth position (\(c^a_1=c^0\) is a parameter reflecting the initial charge level) |
\(0\le X_{k,r,r'}\) | Continuous variables with binary value in optimal solution: 1, if the \(k-1\)th position is \(p_r\) and the kth position is \(p_{r'}\); 0, otherwise |
4.2 Dynamic programming for given job sequences
-
\(v'=v\), \(c^{\min }_{r,r'}\le c\), \(c'=\min \{c+\delta _{r,r'},c^{\max }_{r,r'}\}\), and \(\pi '=\pi +1\) (reflecting a charging detour to \(r'\)),
-
\(v'=v+1\) is odd, \(c^{\min }_{r,r'}\le c\), \(r'=r^o_j\) with \(j=\sigma ((v'+1)/2)\), \(c'=\min \{c+\delta _{r,r'},c^{\max }_{r,r'}\}-\delta ^-\cdot l^o_j\), and \(\pi '=0\) (reflecting the pickup of job j via ramp \(r'\)),
-
\(v'=v+1\) is even, \(c^{\min }_{r,r'}\le c\), \(r'=r^d_j\) with \(j=\sigma (v'/2)\), \(c'=\min \{c+\delta _{r,r'},c^{\max }_{r,r'}\}-\delta ^-\cdot l^d_j\), and \(\pi '=0\) (reflecting the delivery of job j via ramp \(r'\)), or
-
\(v'=v+2\) is odd, \(c^{\min }_{r,r'}\le c\), \(r'=r^d_j=r^o_{j'}\) with \(j=\sigma ((v'-1)/2)\) and \(j'=\sigma ((v'+1)/2)\), \(c'=\min \{c+\delta _{r,r'},c^{\max }_{r,r'}\}-\delta ^-\cdot l^{d,v}_{j,j'}\), and \(\pi '=0\) (reflecting both, the delivery of job j and the pickup of \(j'\) via ramp \(r'\) without intermediate return to the highway).
-
Dominance: A state \((r,c,v,\pi )\) dominates another state \((r,c',v,\pi ')\) if \(c\ge c', \pi \le \pi '\) and \(d(r,c,v,\pi )\le d(r,c',v,\pi ')\) holds. In both states, the ECV has reached the same position after conducting the same operations. In the dominated state, however, the current battery charge is lower (or equal), and there is less (or the same) freedom for charging. We then do not need to further consider the dominated state.
-
Fathoming: State \((r,c,v,\pi )\) can be fathomed if \(d(r,c,v,\pi )+\Theta (r,v)\ge UB\) holds. Here, UB denotes a valid upper bound, such as \(d(r^0,c,2|J|,\pi )\), and \(\Theta (r,v)\) reflects the total driving distance from r necessary to conduct the remaining operations \(v+1,\ldots ,2|J|\) and to eventually reach position \(r^0\) while ignoring the need to recharge.
4.3 Decomposition approaches
5 Computational performance
5.1 Test data and setup of study
-
Highway: Each instance considers a highway of length \(L=100\) km, where |R| ramps are randomly spread along the line using a uniform distribution. Recall that we consider a bidirectional highway where the ramps for both driving directions are strictly symmetric.
-
Electrification: According to Kühnel et al. (2018), substations, to supply the overhead wire system with energy, have to be erected every 3 km. Therefore, for each direction, we randomly spread electrified sections of 3-km length until at least \(\overline{l}\)% of the highway is equipped with electrified segments. Note that we randomly draw each starting point of an electrified segment along the highway according to a uniform distribution. If a starting point falls within an already existing electrified segment, we prolong the latter by the overlap. Further note that we do not assume strictly symmetrical electrified and non-electrified segments in both driving directions, so that the overhead wiring is placed for each direction separately.
-
ECV: In line with (Davis & Figliozzi, 2013), we assume a maximum battery capacity of \(C=160\) km for the truck. Thus, the consumption rate in non-electrified sections is \(\delta ^-=1\). Furthermore, Wietschel et al. (2017) report that an ECV charges energy for a driving range between 10 and 30 km when driving 2 or 3 km along an electrified section. Thus, we assume a default charging rate of \(\delta ^+=5\) per km. The origin (and destination) of the truck is randomly drawn among the available ramps along the highway, with \(r^0=r^d\). The initial charge level \(c^0\) is set to a uniformly distributed random integer between 0 and battery capacity C. To reduce the chance of infeasible solutions, we repeat the instance generation until there exists at least one ramp \(r\in R\) with \(c^{\min }_{r^0,r}\le c^0\), \(c^{\min }_{r,r^0}\le \min \{c^{\max }_{r,r^0},c^0+\delta _{r^0,r}\}\), and \(\delta _{r^0,r}+\delta _{r,r^0}>0\), so that there exists a cycle \(r^0-r-r^0\) the ECV can reach without energy shortage and that suffices to charge the battery.
-
Jobs: Analogously to the ECV, jobs are generated by randomly drawing their pickup and drop-off positions among the available ramps along the highway with \(r^o_j\ne r^d_j\) for each \(j\in J\). Furthermore, we have to determine the actual starting point and destination for each job \(j\in J\) beyond the highway. To compute \(l^o_j\), \(l^d_j\), and \(l^{d,o}_{j,j'}\), we determine polar coordinates \((\alpha ^2,\beta )\), where \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) are uniformly distributed random numbers (i.e., \(\alpha \in \mathcal U(0,1)\) and \(\beta \in \mathcal U(0,360)\)). Applying the Euclidean distance, \(\alpha ^2\) reflects the distance between the ramp and the actual starting point and destination. Specifically, we set \(l^o_j\) and \(l^d_j\) to \(2\left\lceil \alpha ^2\cdot C/2\right\rceil \). Thus, each job has its actual start and destination up to 80 km beyond the highway, so that our ECV can travel the way back and forth the highway without intermediate charging. To determine travel distances \(l^{d,o}_{j,j'}\) for jobs \(j,j'\in J\), with \(r^d_j=r^o_{j'}\), we apply the Euclidean distance between the two locations \(d^e_{j,j'}\) and set \(l^{d,o}_{j,j'}=l^o_j/2+l^d_j/2+\left\lceil d^e_{j,j'}\cdot C/2\right\rceil \). To reduce the probability of infeasible solutions, we repeat instance generation until there exists at least one ramp \(r\in R\) satisfying \(c^{\max }_{r,r^o_j}\ge \delta ^-l^o_{j}\) and \(\delta _{r^o_j,r}+\delta _{r,r^o_j}>0\) or one ramp \(r'\in R\) satisfying \(c^{\max }_{r',r^d_j}\ge \delta ^-l^d_{j}\) and \(\delta _{r^d_j,r'}+\delta _{r',r^d_j}>0\).
5.2 Computational results
|J| | |R| | \(\overline{l}\) | \(\Pi \) | EVRP-LFO-MIP | GG | TABU | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gap | Gap\(_b\) | Best | Opt | Inf | Sol | Sec | Gap\(_b\) | Best | Opt | Sol | Sec | Gap\(_b\) | Best | Opt | Sol | Sec | ||||
5 | 10 | 50 | 1 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 10 | 922.6 | 5.5 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 10 | 50 | 3 | 34.1 | 0.6 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1800.6 | 4.5 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 10 | 50 | 5 | 37.7 | 0.5 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1801.2 | 3.9 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 10 | 100 | 1 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 675.1 | 4.4 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 10 | 100 | 3 | 25.1 | 0.0 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 1420.1 | 3.6 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 3 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 10 | 100 | 5 | 31.1 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1800.6 | 3.6 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 20 | 50 | 1 | 19.4 | 0.6 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 1495.1 | 4.6 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 3 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 20 | 50 | 3 | 52.5 | 17.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1800.3 | 2.5 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.3 |
5 | 20 | 50 | 5 | 57.1 | 22.1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1800.5 | 2.3 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.4 |
5 | 20 | 100 | 1 | 25.2 | 0.0 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 1335.2 | 1.7 | 8 | 3 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 20 | 100 | 3 | 58.4 | 4.0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1800.3 | 1.4 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
5 | 20 | 100 | 5 | 60.1 | 1.2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1800.5 | 1.4 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
10 | 10 | 50 | 1 | 48.7 | 12.9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 1625.6 | 6.5 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 0.1 |
10 | 10 | 50 | 3 | 62.4 | 29.7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1680.4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 0.5 |
10 | 10 | 50 | 5 | 63.1 | 29.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1800.3 | 4.7 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 0.7 |
10 | 10 | 100 | 1 | 47.8 | 3.7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1800.2 | 2.9 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
10 | 10 | 100 | 3 | 52.8 | 6.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1800.3 | 1.7 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
10 | 10 | 100 | 5 | 52.4 | 6.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1800.3 | 1.7 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
10 | 20 | 50 | 1 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.3 | 3.0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 0.2 |
10 | 20 | 50 | 3 | 72.7 | 42.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1800.5 | 2.3 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 5.0 |
10 | 20 | 50 | 5 | 70.5 | 26.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1800.6 | 2.3 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 6.2 |
10 | 20 | 100 | 1 | 78.1 | 21.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1800.3 | 1.7 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 |
10 | 20 | 100 | 3 | 82.0 | 21.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1800.4 | 1.4 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.1 |
10 | 20 | 100 | 5 | 81.0 | 35.1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1800.7 | 1.4 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.1 |
20 | 10 | 50 | 1 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.2 | 10.0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 1.2 |
20 | 10 | 50 | 3 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.4 | 7.8 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 10.2 |
20 | 10 | 50 | 5 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.7 | 7.4 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 15.7 |
20 | 10 | 100 | 1 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.2 | 4.8 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.3 |
20 | 10 | 100 | 3 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.4 | 3.8 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.5 |
20 | 10 | 100 | 5 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.7 | 3.9 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.5 |
20 | 20 | 50 | 1 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.5 | 7.1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 6.0 |
20 | 20 | 50 | 3 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1801.1 | 5.1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 70.8 |
20 | 20 | 50 | 5 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1801.8 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 97.0 |
20 | 20 | 100 | 1 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.5 | 3.6 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.6 |
20 | 20 | 100 | 3 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1800.9 | 2.9 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 1.6 |
20 | 20 | 100 | 5 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1801.4 | 2.8 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 1.8 |
Avg | 42.2 | 7.8 | 23.9 | 6.9 | 0.6 | 48.6 | 1704.8 | 3.8 | 30.0 | 2.8 | 96.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 97.5 | 6.9 | 97.5 | 6.1 |
-
Default solver: Obviously, the default solver Gurobi struggles with our MIP formulation. Even for the smallest instances with only \(|J|=5\) jobs, Gurobi is not able to verify optimal solutions or prove infeasibility within the given time frame of 1800 CPU seconds in all cases. For \(|J|=10\) jobs, either feasible solutions cannot be found at all, or the gaps (i.e., both the optimality gap reported by Gurobi and gap\(_b\) to the best solution) are substantial. For larger instances with \(|J|=20\) jobs, Gurobi is not able to obtain a single feasible instance.
-
GG: Straightforward decomposition heuristic GG performs significantly better than the standard solver. Feasible solutions are obtained for 96.9% of all instances within a negligible amount of time. Note that if we report a computational time of 0.0, we actually mean that it is below 0.05 CPU seconds. The overall gap to the best solutions found is just 3.8%. Furthermore, this gap exceeds 10% for no class of instances, and it exceeds 6% for only five classes of instances.
-
Tabu: The best solution quality is obtained by our TABU decomposition approach. In 97.5% of all cases, it finds a feasible solution and always delivers the best solution value. Thus, it also finds all optimal solutions verified by the default solver. Although the computational times are higher than those of GG, they are still fairly small for most instances and never exceed 100 seconds even for the most complex instances.
6 Managerial issues
-
Largest induction effect: First, we can conclude that the induction effect of charge-while-drive infrastructure can be substantial, especially if (to save investment costs) large parts of the highway remain un-electrified (small \(\overline{l}\)) and the charging efficiency of the overhead wiring is low (small \(\delta ^+\)). If both are given, up to 84% and 49% extra traffic for \(\Pi =1\) and \(\Pi =5\), respectively, threatens if full-truckload logistics providers tailor their ECV routes for the usage overhead wiring.
-
Impact of \(\Pi \): If we allow more zigzagging (\(\Pi =5\)), gathering enough energy to make the drives to the customers beyond the highway can be achieved within a shorter total distance. Thus, the induction effect reduces with larger \(\Pi \). However, in particular in areas close to large urban populations with numerous potential customers, additional charging traffic may concentrate on central electrified segments.
-
Average and smallest induction effect: If we assume the most plausible values and presuppose that \(\overline{l}=30\)% of the highway is electrified (see Kühnel et al., 2018) and that the charging efficiency is \(\delta ^+=5\) (see Wietschel et al., 2017), then we still witness an induction effect of about 5 to 6% extra traffic for charging detours. An even higher level of electrification and a more efficient charging reduce the induction effect to a minimum between 2 and 3% in our experiments.
-
Diesel truck: Today’s status quo is certainly still the conventional truck exclusively powered by a diesel-fueled combustion engine. For this vehicle setup, charging is a nonissue, so that its optimal route can be determined by the algorithm of Gilmore and Gomory (1964).
-
ECV-plug-in: This vehicle type exclusively charges its battery while plugged in at a stationary charging station. The route for this case is also determined by the procedure of Gilmore and Gomory (1964), but we have to add charging stops to avoid energy shortages. To specify the efficiency of stationary charging, we redefine parameter \(\delta ^+\), so that stationary charging is as efficient as the charge-while-drive technology. In this interpretation, a value of \(\delta ^+=9\), for instance, means that a range of 12 km is added per minute of charging, which equals the superfast charging times announced for the Tesla Semi (Howard, 2017). We assume that charging stations are available at any ramp, so that the ECV can charge exactly the amount required for reaching the next customer or filling the battery to capacity whenever needed.
-
Vehicle type ECV-overhead: denotes the case where an ECV charges its battery for driving along non-electrified road segments via only overhead wiring. Neither an additional plug-in option for charging stationary nor an additional combustion engine is available. This equals our previous vehicle setup producing the induction effect. To emulate the behavior of this vehicle, we solve each data instance with our decomposition approach GG (see Sect. 4.3) and allow \(\Pi =1\) charging detour between subsequent jobs.
-
ECV-overhead-diesel: In this setup, our previous ECV is additionally equipped with a conventional diesel engine, which automatically steps in if the battery charged via the overhead wires is depleted. This allows the vehicle to strictly follow the shortest route obtained by the procedure of Gilmore and Gomory (1964).
-
ECV-overhead-plug-in: Finally, an ECV charged via overhead wires can also have an additional plug-in option to charge while parking at a charging station. We assume that in this case, charging detours are not accepted, so that the truck follows the shortest route determined by the approach of Gilmore and Gomory (1964). The battery is charged via the overhead wiring whenever the ECV travels along an electrified segment of the given route. But if these gains of energy are not sufficient, we fall back on the stationary charging opportunities also offered in the ECV-plug-in case.
\(\overline{l}\) | \(\delta ^+\) | ECV-plug-in | ECV-overhead | ECV-overhead-diesel | ECV-overhead-plug-in | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Distance | Time | CO\(_2\) | Distance | Time | CO\(_2\) | Distance | Time | CO\(_2\) | Distance | Time | CO\(_2\) | ||
20 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
20 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
20 | 3 | 100.0 | 396.9 | 7.1 | 184.7 | 184.7 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 14.6 | 100.0 | 125.3 | 7.1 |
20 | 4 | 100.0 | 314.8 | 7.1 | 122.4 | 122.4 | 7.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 9.6 | 100.0 | 105.7 | 7.1 |
20 | 5 | 100.0 | 265.0 | 7.1 | 112.2 | 112.2 | 7.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.8 | 100.0 | 102.8 | 7.1 |
20 | 6 | 100.0 | 237.5 | 7.1 | 108.7 | 108.7 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.4 | 100.0 | 101.8 | 7.1 |
20 | 7 | 100.0 | 214.9 | 7.1 | 108.0 | 108.0 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.9 | 100.0 | 101.9 | 7.1 |
20 | 8 | 100.0 | 200.5 | 7.1 | 106.5 | 106.5 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.6 | 100.0 | 101.4 | 7.1 |
20 | 9 | 100.0 | 189.4 | 7.1 | 105.8 | 105.8 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.4 | 100.0 | 101.1 | 7.1 |
30 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
30 | 2 | 100.0 | 526.1 | 7.1 | 178.3 | 178.3 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 12.3 | 100.0 | 126.4 | 7.1 |
30 | 3 | 100.0 | 371.6 | 7.1 | 119.3 | 119.3 | 7.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 9.8 | 100.0 | 107.2 | 7.1 |
30 | 4 | 100.0 | 303.7 | 7.1 | 109.3 | 109.3 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.9 | 100.0 | 103.6 | 7.1 |
30 | 5 | 100.0 | 263.0 | 7.1 | 106.1 | 106.1 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.5 | 100.0 | 102.2 | 7.1 |
30 | 6 | 100.0 | 235.8 | 7.1 | 104.6 | 104.6 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.2 | 100.0 | 101.4 | 7.1 |
30 | 7 | 100.0 | 216.4 | 7.1 | 103.6 | 103.6 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.9 | 100.0 | 100.9 | 7.1 |
30 | 8 | 100.0 | 201.8 | 7.1 | 103.0 | 103.0 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 100.7 | 7.1 |
30 | 9 | 100.0 | 190.5 | 7.1 | 102.7 | 102.7 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 100.5 | 7.1 |
40 | 1 | 100.0 | 930.6 | 7.1 | 157.9 | 157.9 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 11.4 | 100.0 | 136.8 | 7.1 |
40 | 2 | 100.0 | 507.4 | 7.1 | 116.5 | 116.5 | 7.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 9.4 | 100.0 | 109.8 | 7.1 |
40 | 3 | 100.0 | 371.6 | 7.1 | 108.5 | 108.5 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.8 | 100.0 | 104.7 | 7.1 |
40 | 4 | 100.0 | 303.7 | 7.1 | 106.0 | 106.0 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.4 | 100.0 | 102.7 | 7.1 |
40 | 5 | 100.0 | 263.0 | 7.1 | 104.3 | 104.3 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.1 | 100.0 | 101.7 | 7.1 |
40 | 6 | 100.0 | 235.8 | 7.1 | 103.6 | 103.6 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.9 | 100.0 | 101.1 | 7.1 |
40 | 7 | 100.0 | 216.4 | 7.1 | 103.1 | 103.1 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 100.8 | 7.1 |
40 | 8 | 100.0 | 201.8 | 7.1 | 102.7 | 102.7 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 100.6 | 7.1 |
40 | 9 | 100.0 | 190.5 | 7.1 | 102.5 | 102.5 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 100.5 | 7.1 |
50 | 1 | 100.0 | 914.8 | 7.1 | 141.1 | 141.1 | 7.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 10.4 | 100.0 | 128.3 | 7.1 |
50 | 2 | 100.0 | 507.4 | 7.1 | 113.4 | 113.4 | 7.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 9.2 | 100.0 | 108.8 | 7.1 |
50 | 3 | 100.0 | 371.6 | 7.1 | 107.7 | 107.7 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.7 | 100.0 | 104.4 | 7.1 |
50 | 4 | 100.0 | 303.7 | 7.1 | 105.2 | 105.2 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.3 | 100.0 | 102.5 | 7.1 |
50 | 5 | 100.0 | 263.0 | 7.1 | 104.2 | 104.2 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 8.0 | 100.0 | 101.6 | 7.1 |
50 | 6 | 100.0 | 235.8 | 7.1 | 103.4 | 103.4 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.9 | 100.0 | 101.1 | 7.1 |
50 | 7 | 100.0 | 216.4 | 7.1 | 102.9 | 102.9 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 100.8 | 7.1 |
50 | 8 | 100.0 | 201.8 | 7.1 | 102.5 | 102.5 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 100.6 | 7.1 |
50 | 9 | 100.0 | 190.5 | 7.1 | 102.4 | 102.4 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 7.6 | 100.0 | 100.5 | 7.1 |
-
Distance: When comparing the total driving distances, we can conclude that all vehicle types except for our ECV-overhead setup can follow the optimal solution obtained by the approach of Gilmore and Gomory (1964) without charging detours. Naturally, this holds true for the diesel truck and ECV-overhead-diesel, because they have the (additional) diesel engine to realize this solution. Vehicle types ECV-plug-in and ECV-overhead-plug-in can also follow this solution, which is interrupted only by charging stops at stationary charging stations. Only our ECV-overhead vehicle has to make charging detours along electrified segments in order to gather enough energy for the drives toward customers beyond the highway. The induction effect ranges between 84% (for a low share of highway electrification and a low charging efficiency) and 2.4% (for a high electrification share and a high efficiency).
-
Time: Since we neglect the duration of refuel stops, the diesel truck completes all jobs the fastest (i.e., makespans of all approaches are outlined in relation to it). The same delivery time is reached by the ECV-overhead-diesel, because the additional diesel engine allows the vehicle to steadily move onward even if the battery is depleted. The makespan of vehicle type ECV-overhead-plug-in is between 0.5% and 36.4% higher. Although this vehicle recharges its battery while driving along electrified segments, additional recharging stops at charging stations are required from time to time whenever there is not sufficient energy for the drives beyond the highway. ECV-overhead has to make charging detours for gathering enough energy, which increase the makespans even more. Note that performance measures “distance” and “time” are directly equivalent and only rescaled by the fixed driving velocity, so that both percentile outcomes related to the diesel truck are identical. Finally, we have ECV-plug-in. This vehicle type is exclusively dependent on time-consuming charging stops to gather its energy, during which no further movement onward is possible. Consequently, the increase of delivery times is considerable, and ECV-plug-in is clearly outperformed by all alternatives when it comes to timely deliveries.
-
CO\(_{2}\): With regard to the CO\(_2\) emissions, the diesel truck is by far the worst alternative. Compared to this status quo, which again constitutes 100%, all other vehicle types produce only about one-tenth or lower emissions. The lowest level of emissions, i.e., only 7.1% of that of the diesel truck, is produced by ECV-plug-in and ECV-overhead-plug-in. Emissions are only slightly higher for ECV-overhead, which is due to the charging detours. The emissions of ECV-overhead-diesel are even higher, especially if the diesel engine has to step in quite often (i.e., in case of a low share of highway electrification and a low charging efficiency). Obviously, however, for most drives the electric energy received via the overhead wiring is sufficient, since even in the worst case, ECV-overhead-diesel only produces 14.6% of the diesel truck’s CO\(_2\) emissions.