Computational Comparison of Stand-Centered Versus Cover-Constraint Formulations

Joseph H. Wilck IV., Steven D. Mills, Marc Eric McDill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The area restriction model for harvest scheduling problems can be formulated using mixed integer programs. The three different formulation types are cluster packing, cell aggregation, and the assignment formulation. Within the cell aggregation subgroup there is an exact formulation, the cover constraint (CC) approach; and an inexact formulation, the stand-centered approach. The cover constraint formulation has significantly more constraints than the stand-centered formulation. A computational comparison between these two methods is completed using cutting planes and constraint combinations using the CPLEX solver package. The CC approach as cutting planes was superior based on solution time. If formulation time were included with solution time, then the CC approach remains superior. The maximum harvest area is a significant factor of solution time. In addition, the percentage of total cutting planes used to solve the problem was examined.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)33-45
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Sustainable Forestry
Volume33
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Cell Aggregation
Agglomeration
aggregation
Scheduling
cells
scheduling
comparison
cutting (process)
time
methodology
harvest
method
programme

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Food Science
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Forestry
  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Cite this

@article{9f26d36e74864ede8187339eeb1cbae2,
title = "Computational Comparison of Stand-Centered Versus Cover-Constraint Formulations",
abstract = "The area restriction model for harvest scheduling problems can be formulated using mixed integer programs. The three different formulation types are cluster packing, cell aggregation, and the assignment formulation. Within the cell aggregation subgroup there is an exact formulation, the cover constraint (CC) approach; and an inexact formulation, the stand-centered approach. The cover constraint formulation has significantly more constraints than the stand-centered formulation. A computational comparison between these two methods is completed using cutting planes and constraint combinations using the CPLEX solver package. The CC approach as cutting planes was superior based on solution time. If formulation time were included with solution time, then the CC approach remains superior. The maximum harvest area is a significant factor of solution time. In addition, the percentage of total cutting planes used to solve the problem was examined.",
author = "{Wilck IV.}, {Joseph H.} and Mills, {Steven D.} and McDill, {Marc Eric}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10549811.2013.804796",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "33--45",
journal = "Journal of Sustainable Forestry",
issn = "1054-9811",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Computational Comparison of Stand-Centered Versus Cover-Constraint Formulations. / Wilck IV., Joseph H.; Mills, Steven D.; McDill, Marc Eric.

In: Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 33, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 33-45.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Computational Comparison of Stand-Centered Versus Cover-Constraint Formulations

AU - Wilck IV., Joseph H.

AU - Mills, Steven D.

AU - McDill, Marc Eric

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - The area restriction model for harvest scheduling problems can be formulated using mixed integer programs. The three different formulation types are cluster packing, cell aggregation, and the assignment formulation. Within the cell aggregation subgroup there is an exact formulation, the cover constraint (CC) approach; and an inexact formulation, the stand-centered approach. The cover constraint formulation has significantly more constraints than the stand-centered formulation. A computational comparison between these two methods is completed using cutting planes and constraint combinations using the CPLEX solver package. The CC approach as cutting planes was superior based on solution time. If formulation time were included with solution time, then the CC approach remains superior. The maximum harvest area is a significant factor of solution time. In addition, the percentage of total cutting planes used to solve the problem was examined.

AB - The area restriction model for harvest scheduling problems can be formulated using mixed integer programs. The three different formulation types are cluster packing, cell aggregation, and the assignment formulation. Within the cell aggregation subgroup there is an exact formulation, the cover constraint (CC) approach; and an inexact formulation, the stand-centered approach. The cover constraint formulation has significantly more constraints than the stand-centered formulation. A computational comparison between these two methods is completed using cutting planes and constraint combinations using the CPLEX solver package. The CC approach as cutting planes was superior based on solution time. If formulation time were included with solution time, then the CC approach remains superior. The maximum harvest area is a significant factor of solution time. In addition, the percentage of total cutting planes used to solve the problem was examined.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891527775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891527775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10549811.2013.804796

DO - 10.1080/10549811.2013.804796

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84891527775

VL - 33

SP - 33

EP - 45

JO - Journal of Sustainable Forestry

JF - Journal of Sustainable Forestry

SN - 1054-9811

IS - 1

ER -