Robustness in facility location

Facility location concerns the placement of facilities, for various objectives, by use of mathematical models and solution procedures. Almost all facility location models that can be found in literature are based on minimizing costs or maximizing cover, to cover as much demand as possible. These models are quite efficient for finding an optimal location for a new facility for a particular data set, which is considered to be constant and known in advance. In a real world situation, input data like demand and travelling costs are not fixed, nor known in advance. This uncertainty and uncontrollability can lead to unacceptable losses or even bankruptcy. A way of dealing with these factors is robustness modelling. A robust facility location model aims to locate a facility that stays within predefined limits for all expectable circumstances as good as possible. The deviation robustness concept is used as basis to develop a new competitive deviation robustness model. The competition is modelled with a Huff based model, which calculates the market share of the new facility. Robustness in this model is defined as the ability of a facility location to capture a minimum market share, despite variations in demand. A test case is developed by which algorithms can be tested on their ability to solve robust facility location models. Four stochastic optimization algorithms are considered from which Simulated Annealing turned out to be the most appropriate. The test case is slightly modified for a competitive market situation. With the Simulated Annealing algorithm, the developed competitive deviation model is solved, for three considered norms of deviation. At the end, also a grid search is performed to illustrate the landscape of the objective function of the competitive deviation model. The model appears to be multimodal and seems to be challenging for further research.

On multimodality of obnoxious faclity location models

Obnoxious single facility location models are models that have the aim to find the best location for an undesired facility. Undesired is usually expressed in relation to the so-called demand points that represent locations hindered by the facility. Because obnoxious facility location models as a rule are multimodal, the standard techniques of convex analysis used for locating desirable facilities in the plane may be trapped in local optima instead of the desired global optimum. It is assumed that having more optima coincides with being harder to solve. In this thesis the multimodality of obnoxious single facility location models is investigated in order to know which models are challenging problems in facility location problems and which are suitable for site selection. Selected for this are the obnoxious facility models that appear to be most important in literature. These are the maximin model, that maximizes the minimum distance from demand point to the obnoxious facility, the maxisum model, that maximizes the sum of distance from the demand points to the facility and the minisum model, that minimizes the sum of damage of the facility to the demand points. All models are measured with the Euclidean distances and some models also with the rectilinear distance metric. Furthermore a suitable algorithm is selected for testing multimodality. Of the tested algorithms in this thesis, Multistart is most appropriate. A small numerical experiment shows that Maximin models have on average the most optima, of which the model locating an obnoxious linesegment has the most. Maximin models have few optima and are thus not very hard to solve. From the Minisum models, the models that have the most optima are models that take wind into account. In general can be said that the generic models have less optima than the weighted versions. Models that are measured with the rectilinear norm do have more solutions than the same models measured with the Euclidean norm. This can be explained for the maximin models in the numerical example because the shape of the norm coincides with a bound of the feasible area, so not all solutions are different optima. The difference found in number of optima of the Maxisum and Minisum can not be explained by this phenomenon.