Search or ask a question
Pricing
Login
Sign up
Home
Notebook
BETA
Literature Review
Copilot
Citation generator
Paraphraser
AI Detector
Chrome Extension
Talk with us
Use on ChatGPT
All figures (9)
Table 3: Attributes of the chambers.
Table 2: Traffic data.
Figure 8: Comparison of the computation time of different cut generation methods for a large parallel chamber lock under a FCFS policy.
Figure 7: Comparison of the computation time of different cut generation methods for a small parallel chamber lock under a FCFS policy.
Figure 3: Visualization of the thirteen subset cuts for the example in Figure 2.
Figure 2: An example where the MP result puts ships 1 through 7 in a single lockage, and the feasible (after removing the red ships) first-come-first-served based lockages.
Figure 6: Comparison of the computation time of different approaches for single chamber locks without FCFS.
Table 4: Summary of the heuristic experiments. ‘# ships’ denotes the instance size range for the row and ‘Total’ the total number of instances in this range. The number of feasible solutions generated by the heuristic decomposition approach is added under ‘Feasible’. ‘Exact’ shows the number of instances for which the exact solution was matched by the heuristic approach, while ‘Gap’ shows the average gap between the exact and heuristic solutions. ∗The heuristic decomposition outperformed the exact approach for 15 instances.
Table 1: Parameters used throughout the paper.
Journal Article
•
DOI
•
A Combinatorial Benders' decomposition for the lock scheduling problem
[...]
Jannes Verstichel
1
,
Joris Kinable
1
,
P. De Causmaecker
1
,
G. Vanden Berghe
1
•
Institutions (1)
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
1
01 Feb 2015
-
Computers & Operations Research