Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost

in inventory location routing problem
Ahmad Sayed Saif-Eddine ⇑, Mohammed Mostafa El-Beheiry, Amin Kamel El-Kharbotly
Department of Design & Production Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Integrating inventory, location, and routing decisions in supply chains may considerably impact their per-
Received 16 February 2018 formance. In this paper, the Inventory Location Routing Problem (ILRP) is considered while adopting the
Revised 22 June 2018 Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) strategy. A mathematical model is formulated to minimize the total
Accepted 4 September 2018
supply chain cost. Being NP-hard, an Improved Genetic Algorithm (IGA) is designed and used to solve
Available online xxxx
the problem. Two instances (10 and 30 customers) are solved; to study the effect of the total vehicles
capacity (number of available vehicles per depot and vehicle capacity), on the total supply chain cost.
Keywords:
The results show that, the IGA outperforms the GA in reaching lower cost, especially for high number
Inventory location routing problem
Genetic algorithms
of customers. The superiority of the obtained solution performance is basically achieved on the expense
Vehicle capacity of computational time. For the considered problem, the total cost decreases with the increase of vehicle
Supply chain cost capacity due to the usage of fewer depots.
Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Ain Shams University. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
One of the key factors in achieving sustainable competitive
advantage is supply chain network planning. Planning of a supply
chain distribution network reducing cost and/or improving respon-
siveness is a difficult and dynamic task. The decisions considered
for planning distribution networks are either tactical or opera-
tional decisions, such as selecting delivery frequency to the cus-
tomers, setting the inventory levels at different facilities,
quantities to be delivered, vehicle routing, determining dispatch-
ing times of vehicles, . . . etc. One of the operational decisions that
usually faces the supply chain mangers is the Vehicle Routing
Problem (VRP). VRP is originally tackled in 1959 by Dantzig and
Ramser [1] to design the most cost-effective delivery route from
a depot to a set of customers. This is considered one of the most
important problems in distribution management especially in sec-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Ahmad_saif@eng.asu.edu.eg (A.S. Saif-Eddine), Mohamed.m.
mohamed@eng.asu.edu.eg (M.M. El-Beheiry), Amin_elkharbotly@eng.asu.edu.eg
(A.K. El-Kharbotly).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
tors such as: FMCGs distribution, reverse logistics networks, solid
waste management, newspapers, . . . etc. An extension to the prob-
lem, by determining the optimum inventory levels at the depot
and/or customers, is made to the VPR resulting in the Inventory
Routing Problem (IRP). Early tackling of IRP was done by Fisher
et al. in 1982 [2] and Bell et al. in 1983 [3]. Another similar exten-
sion was made by Balakrishnan et al., in 1987 [4], who introduced
an approach to solve the depot location decision integrally with the
routing decisions. This approached was named later by Laporte, in
1988 [5], as the Location Routing Problem (LRP). In 1986, the con-
cept of Supply Chain Management was introduced, introducing the
opportunity of collaboration and coordination between various
supply chain members. The application of supply chain concepts,
such as integrating the decision of supply chain logistical drivers:
Facilities – Inventory – Transportation, resulted in the Inventory
Location Routing Problem (ILRP). Liu and Lee, were one of the early
researchers considered inventory decision in LRP in 2003 [6]. ILRP
is a mix of tactical and operational decisions are considered which
are determining inventory levels in the network, depot(s) location
(s), and vehicles routes. In ILRP these decisions are optimized
simultaneously which improves the efficiency of the whole supply
network. In this paper, Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) strategy
is adopted and integrated in the ILRP. A Heuristic is developed to
determine the delivery quantities to each customer and the deliv-
ery frequency. These values are used as input parameters to a
developed mathematical model; to determine the number and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
2090-4479/Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
2 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
locations of depots, vehicle routing, number of dispatched vehicles,
and vehicle dispatching times that minimize the total cost. One key
factor affecting the resulted total cost is the total vehicles capacity
at each depot. This capacity can be expressed in the number of
vehicles available (of the same capacity) at each depot, or the
capacity of the vehicle for the same number of equal-capacity vehi-
cles available at each depot. The objective of this paper is to opti-
mize the total supply chain cost in ILRP when VMI strategy is
adopted and investigate the effect of changing the total vehicles
capacity at each depot on the total cost and the decision variables.
2. Literature review
Different cases of the ILRP were dealt with in the literature. The
simple ILRP is to select depot(s) location(s), vehicle routes, and
inventory decisions for deterministic demands. Liu & Lee [6] and
Liu & Lin [7] studied a case of depot location and vehicle routing,
taking some inventory control decisions into account. The formers
presented a two-phase heuristic to solve the problem. Their solu-
tion is better than the solution of neglecting the inventory control
decisions. The latter proposed an efficient heuristic which is better
than the heuristics searching for local optima. They dealt with a
simple case of inventory; to determine the economical delivery
quantity, to repeat the routes exactly every certain period.
Ahmadi-Javid and Seddighi [8] dealt with a 3-echelon capacitated
location, routing and inventory problem. They considered the hold-
ing cost at the distribution centre only. A three-phase heuristic was
proposed, integrating Simulated Annealing with hybrid Ant Colony
System. It proved its effectiveness and achieved significant reduc-
tion in the total cost. Guerrero et al. [9] studied a two-echelon sup-
ply chain. The depots’ and customers’ inventory costs were
considered, for the products which are to be consumed in the suc-
ceeding periods, to fulfil deterministic demands. To calculate the
holding cost, they considered the ending inventory of every period.
They presented a hybrid approach for solving the problem. It
showed a robust performance when tested by large benchmark
instances of both the Location Routing Problem and the Inventory
Routing Problem. It was able also to optimize the problem globally,
and achieved significant cost reductions, relative to the classical
approach. Zhang et al. [10] tackled a two-echelon supply chain,
having period-variable deterministic demands for a finite planning
horizon. The customers’ holding cost was considered and deter-
mining the delivery quantities for every customer every period
was one of their aims. The periods’ ending inventory, as well as half
of the demand of the period, was considered when calculating the
holding cost. They developed a hybrid meta-heuristic, which
proved its effectiveness and efficiency.
As FMCGs is one of the main application of the ILRP, many
researchers dealt with perishable products. Hiassat and Diabat
[11] tackled a problem of determining the warehouse location,
vehicle routing, as well as the inventory of products at the cus-
tomers. They sought for determining the delivery quantities to
the customers every period, with deterministic demands that differ
over the periods, for a perishable product. They considered the
ending inventory (of every period) to calculate the inventory hold-
ing cost. The problem was formulated as a Mixed Integer Program-
ming model, and significant savings were obtained, relative to
multi-step optimization models. Hiassat et al. [12] developed a
GA to solve a similar problem efficiently, where high quality solu-
tions were obtained in reasonable time. Rafie-Majd et al. [13] con-
sidered a three-echelon, multi-product, multi-period ILRP for
perishable products, over a finite planning horizon using a hetero-
geneous fleet of vehicles. The customers’ demands are stochastic.
They aimed at optimizing the total cost, which consists of: estab-
lishing cost of the distribution centres, routing cost from the distri-
bution centres to the customers, ordering and shipping costs from
Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
the supplier to the distribution centres, inventory and safety stock
holding costs at the distribution centres, holding inventory cost at
the customers (as the inventory at the end of period), and the
inventory waste cost. They solved the developed model by Lagran-
gian relaxation and introduced a heuristic to get upper bounds.
One of the cases of the ILRP is to deal with stochastic demands.
Shen and Qi [14] considered a three-tiered supply chain under cus-
tomers’ stochastic demands, fulfilling a certain service level. They
sought to select the distribution centres’ locations, assign the cus-
tomers to the distribution centres, determine the ordering fre-
quency from the supplier, and set the safety stock levels at the
distribution centres. They formulated the problem as a Non-
linear Integer Programming model and solved large-size problems
efficiently. Ahmadi-Javid and Azad [15] tackled a stochastic supply
chain, with uncertain customers’ demands. They aimed at optimiz-
ing the depots’ locations, allocation, and capacity levels, as well as
the vehicles’ routing, and the order size, frequency of reordering,
and safety stock level for every distribution centre. They proposed
a heuristic and inspected its effectiveness on different sizes and
structures. The conclusion was that the number of used distribu-
tion centres increases by increasing the routing cost’s weight fac-
tor, while it decreases by increasing the inventory cost’s weight
factor. The inventory at the customers was not considered. Fuzzy
demands were dealt with by Tavakkoli-Moghaddam and Raziei
[16]. A three-tiered, multi-product, multi-period supply chain
was studied. The fuzzy demands differ among the periods between
the products. They sought to determine the distribution centres’
locations, the vehicles’ routing, as well as the quantities to be
shipped directly to the distribution centres, and the delivery quan-
tities for the customers. Their objective was to minimize the sum
of shortages at the customers, besides minimizing the total cost.
The considered holding cost dealt with the stored quantities from
a period to another. They formulated the problem as a Multi-
Objective Possibilistic Mixed-Integer Linear Programming model.
Other researchers considered the closed loop supply chain, like
Wang et al. [17] and Jiang and Ma [18]. They tackled a three-
echelon closed loop supply chain, to reuse end-of-use products,
having the collection and distribution demands following a Poisson
distribution. There are certain probabilities for the collected prod-
ucts to be reused in a following period. New products are to be
ordered and delivered from the plant to any depot, in case that
the total usable collected products by that depot are less than
the total distribution demand in the following period. They aimed
at determining the logistic centres’ locations, vehicles’ routes, and
logistic centres’ inventory levels of both reused and new products.
The formers developed a two-phase heuristic algorithm; to solve
the stochastic dynamic model formulated. On the other hand,
Wang et al. [17] developed a hybrid genetic algorithm, which mod-
ified by Ahmad et al. [19] to consider selecting a customer as tran-
shipment node; to decrease the total transportation cost. It was
shown that the transportation cost can be reduced by considering
a transhipment node. Shariff et al. [20] dealt with the same prob-
lem, aiming at selecting one or more customers to act as the tran-
shipment node(s), and savings could be achieved. But both Ahmed
et al. [19] and Shariff et al. [20] did not consider the inventory at
the transhipment node(s). These researchers [17–20] considered
the inventory at logistics centres only.
Another environment is the ILRP in conjunction of electronic
distribution networks. Li et al. [21] tackled an E-supply chain with
returns. The returned merchandise does not have quality defects
and can be resold after a simple treatment at a merchandise centre.
The considered inventory cost includes the merchandise centres’
inventory cost, of the returned merchandise, and the new products
ordered from the supplier, if the returned merchandise does not
satisfy the demand of the following period. A hybrid GA-SA algo-
rithm was developed to solve the problem that outperformed the
 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

GA with respect to the optimal solution, computing time, and sta-
bility. A B2C E-commerce distribution system utilizing VMI strat-
egy, with fuzzy random demands was tackled by Chen et al. [22].
The inventory cost consists of the ordering costs, distribution cen-
tres’ holding costs, and backorder costs, while determining the
order times and target distribution centres’ inventory levels. A
two-stage hybrid heuristic is developed, and the model’s effective-
ness, and the algorithm’s reliability were shown.
ILRP is solved also under risk and disruptions. Seyedhosseini
et al. [23] dealt with a three-echelon supply chain, having stochas-
tic demands. Random disruptions occur at the distribution centres,
which can cause lost-sales. Customers, who need the product
urgently and there is not enough quantity will source it from
another supplier(s) i.e. it will be lost sales, while backordering is
considered for other customers. They considered the distribution
centres’ holding cost of the order quantities, as well as the safety
stocks. A Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming model was for-
mulated, and a meta-heuristic method was implemented to solve
it, then a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the important
parameters. Multi-objective optimization was dealt with by
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et al. [24]. They considered a three-level
supply chain having retailers’ uncertain demands. The aim was to
determine the distribution centres’ locations and capacities, allo-
cate retailers to the distribution centres, which have to be allocated
also to the suppliers, decide the transportation decisions for both
levels, which include selecting the vehicle type and its routing, as
well as the inventory control decisions, such as ordering quantities
from the supplier to the distribution centres, the distribution cen-
tres’ safety stock levels, and their delivery quantities to their retail-
ers. The objectives were: minimizing the total costs minimizing the
transportation time of the product along the supply chain. The
holding cost at the distribution centres is considered and calcu-
lated for the average ordered quantities, in addition to the safety
stock holding cost. Nekooghadirli et al. [25] considered a bi-
objective two-echelon multi-product ILRP, having probabilistic
travelling times and stochastic demands. Their objectives were:
minimizing the total cost and minimizing the maximum mean
time spent to deliver to the customers. They included the distribu-
tion centres’ holding cost, and the ordering cost, in addition to the
safety stock cost, while considering the inventory cost. They pre-
sented a Multi-Objective Imperialist Competitive Algorithm, then
validated it, and compared it with three other algorithms. The pre-
sented algorithm showed its superiority. Again, no inventory was
considered at the customers in this type of research.
It is obvious from the literature that many efforts were directed
to solve different configurations of the ILRP, yet it seldom tackled
the inventory at the customers. Even when tackled, the holding
cost was roughly estimated, as the holding cost over the whole per-
iod for example. Also, it was rarely tackled to introduce inventory
management strategies to the ILRP such as Quick Response, VMI,
Distribution Integration . . . etc. Dealing with continuous demand
at the customers in conjunction with periodic decision making
for ILRP was not frequently tackled in literature. In this paper,
VMI strategy is adopted to be used at the customers, when having
deterministic continuous demand. A mathematical model is pro-
posed for the ILRP, where the holding cost at the customers is mod-
elled more accurately. The mathematical model is solved with an
Improved Genetic Algorithm (IGA). The remainder of this paper is
organized as follows: the problem is defined, and the model is
developed in Section 3, then Section 4 presents the solution
methodology. Section 5 provides the numerical experiments, while
the reached results and discussion are presented in Section 6, and
finally, conclusions and future work are covered in Section 7.
3. Problem description and model formulation
A Third-Party Logistics (3PL) provider is taking charge of the
logistics activities of a manufacturer (factory) producing a single
product by shipping goods from its facility to one or more depot(s),
keeping inventory at the depot, if needed, then delivering these

Fig. 1. Decisions and costs considered in the developed mathematical model.

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
4 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

goods to customers having constant demand rates. The depots are 3.1.3. Auxiliary sets and variables
already existing and the service is offered by the 3PL provider. A
schematic drawing of the supply chain network is given in Fig. 1.
The 3PL provider adopted the VMI strategy, by keeping more Vkp: Set of customers to be visited k 2 K , p = 1 , 2 , . . ., P.
inventory at the customers’ facilities and incurring a part of their by vehicle ‘k’ in period ‘p’,
holding cost; to be able to make less frequent deliveries to the cus- Skp: Non-empty sub-set of Vkp, k 2 K, p = 1, 2, . . ., P.
tomers. The 3PL provider must take decisions about the frequency stpijk: Start time for traversing arc i, j 2 NC [ ND, i – j,
of deliveries to customers, then based on them, decisions about (i, j) by vehicle ‘k’ in period ‘p’, k 2 Ko, o 2 ND, p = 1, 2,
which depots will be used, inventory levels at the depots, number ... P
of vehicles dispatched, vehicles dispatching times and vehicles ndi: No. of deliveries to be made to i 2 NC
routing are made. The vehicles used from the factory to depot(s) customer ‘i’ within the
are large enough to deliver the quantity needed at each depot in repeated period, indexed by n,
one shipment, and the delivery will be made, such that, the prod- EIni : Inventory level of product at n = 1, 2, . . ., ndi, i 2 NC
ucts can be delivered to customers at the beginning of each period. customer ‘i’ just before the ‘nth’
Also, the depot’s capacity is large enough to accommodate any delivery,
quantity, the number of vehicles available at each depot is limited tdni : Time between delivery ‘n’ at n = 1, 2, . . ., ndi, i 2 NC
and constant, and all vehicles have the same capacity, i.e., homoge- customer ‘i’ and the following
neous fleet. delivery ‘n + 1’,
The following assumptions are considered on modelling the
problem: no transhipment is considered between the depots, no
ending inventory at the depot in each period, i.e., products arrive
and are dispatched to customers in the same period, vehicles’ 3.1.4. Decision variables
routes start and end at the same depot before the end of the period,
deterministic and known travelling times are considered, no wait-
ing is allowed at the customers, the customer has an unlimited ri: Period multiplier, defining the i 2 NC
storage capacity, and no shortage is allowed. number of periods, every
The problem is formulated; to minimize the total cost, aiming at which, customer ‘i’ is visited,
determining the following: the delivery quantities for each cus- qi: Delivery quantity for customer i 2 NC
tomer and the periods in which they should by delivered, the loca- ‘i’,
tions of used depots in each period, and the number and routes of ypi : A binary variable, defining i 2 ND, p = 1, 2, . . ., P
the vehicles dispatched from each depot, as well as their dispatch- whether depot ‘i’ is used in
ing times. period ‘p’,
xpijk: A binary variable, defining i, j 2 NC [ ND, i – j,
3.1. Nomenclature whether vehicle ‘k’ passes k 2 Ko, o 2 ND, p = 1, 2,
through arc (i, j) in period ‘p’, . . ., P
3.1.1. Indices and sets stpijk: Dispatching time for vehicle ‘k’ i 2 ND, j 2 NC, k 2 Ki,
from depot ‘i’ to pass through p = 1, 2, . . ., P
arc (i, j) in period ‘p’,
NC: Set of customers, indexed by i, and j
ND: Set of potential depots, indexed by i, j, and o
Ko: Set of available vehicles at depot ‘o’, indexed by k o 2 ND
P: Total number of periods, making the repeated 3.2. The period multiplier and delivery quantity heuristic
period, indexed by p
The heuristic proposed, to assign customers to periods and
decide the delivery quantity, is presented in this subsection.
The power-of-two rule is used to assign customers to periods,
3.1.2. Parameters where the period multiplier is limited to be a power-of-two inte-
ger. This ensures that every customer is visited in even or odd
periods only.
Di: Demand rate of customer ‘i’ per i 2 NC Since the objective is to minimize the supply chain cost, then it
period, is preferred to visit far customers, having low demand rate, as well
C: Capacity of any vehicle in number as low unit inventory holding costs less often. Based on these con-
of units, siderations, a heuristic is developed to specify the period multiplier
dco: Transportation cost from factory to o 2 ND for every customer. The heuristic extends the heuristic developed
depot ‘o’ per period, by El-Shawarby et al. [26], which was used to determine the peri-
fck: Dispatching cost of vehicle ‘k’, k 2 Ko, o 2 ND odicity of production for every product in a flow-shop scheduling
tc: Transportation cost per unit problem, to be used in ILRP. The heuristic is as follows:
distance,
hdo: Unit inventory holding cost at o 2 ND Step 1: Determine the ratio ‘Ti’ for every customer:
depot ‘o’ per period, min fdij g
hci: Unit inventory holding cost at i 2 NC Ti ¼ j
; i 2 NC; j 2 ND.
h:Di
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
customer ‘i’ per period,
Step 2: Calculate Ri = log2 minTfi T i g and round it to the nearest
dij: Distance of arc (i, j), i, j 2 NC [ ND, i – j i

ttij: Travelling time of arc (i, j), i, j 2 NC [ ND, i – j integer number.

pt: Period time, in time units. Step 3: Specify the period multiplier for each customer: r i ¼ 2Ri .

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Step 4: Determine the delivery quantity for each customer:
qi = ri Di.
The delivery quantity is inspected whether it violates the vehi-
cle capacity. If it violates the vehicle capacity, divide the period
multiplier by 2. The modified delivery quantity is re-inspected.
Step 5: Determine the total number of periods, making the
repeated period: P ¼ max fr i g.
i
Step 6: Determine the number of deliveries made for each cus-
tomer: ndi ¼ rPi
3.3. Assigning customers to periods heuristic
After specifying the periodicity of delivering to each customer,
the first period at which delivering starts to that customer should
be specified. A heuristic is developed to assign customers to peri-
ods. The heuristic is as follows:
Step 1: Start assigning all customers having a period multiplier
r = 1 to every period. Then, for every period ‘p’, update ‘Jp’, which
is the set of customers assigned to period ‘p’, p = 1, 2, 3, . . . P.
Step 2: Consider the next period multiplier r = 2  r.
Step 3: Get all unassigned customers having a period multiplier
ri = r.
Step 4: Assign the unassigned customer that has the maximum
delivery quantity to the first period found to have the least total
delivery quantity ‘fri’. Assign it also to the following periods
spaced apart from that period by the period multiplier ‘ri’ as
well as its multiples (‘fri’, ‘fri + ri’, ‘fri + 2ri’, . . ., ‘fri + (n-1)  ri’,
. . ., ‘fri + (ndi-1)  ri’), where n = 1, 2, 3, . . . ndi. Then update ‘Jp’.
Delivery ‘n’ for customer ‘i’ is done in period ‘p’, where:
p ¼ fri þ ðn  1Þ  ri
Step 5: Repeat steps 3 and 4, till all customers having a period
multiplier of r are assigned. If r = P, then END, if else, GOTO step 2.
3.4. Cost modelling
3.4.1. Modelling of depot related costs
There are two costs related to the depot. First, the transporta-
tion cost to depot is given by Eq. (1), which represents which depot
will be used in period ‘p’, multiplied by the transportation cost to
that depot. The other depot related cost is the inventory holding
cost of products, which is the result of multiplying the holding cost
per unit per unit time, by the quantity of products at the depot, by
the time this quantity stays at the depot. Since the whole quantity
arrives at the beginning of any period, and is dispatched at the
same period, then the quantity dispatched by any vehicle ‘qi’ is
multiplied by the dispatching time of the vehicle ‘stpojk’, which rep-
resents the inventory holding time of this quantity, i.e., the time
this quantity stays at the depot, multiplied by the holding cost
per unit per unit time ‘hdo/pt’, as given by Eq. (2).
X
P X
p
ypi  dco
p¼1 o2ND
00 1 0 11
X
P X X X X X p
@@ hd
xijk  qi A  @ AA
p p o
xojk  st ojk 
p¼1 o2ND k2K o j2J p [fog=fig i2J p j2J
pt
p
3.4.2. Vehicle cost modelling
The vehicle cost includes dispatching cost and routing cost. The
vehicle dispatching cost is a fixed amount paid for every vehicle
Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
5
dispatched from a depot, as given in Eq. (3). On the other hand,
the vehicle’s routing cost is a linear function of the travelled dis-
tance, as given in Eq. (4).
X X XX
xpojk  fck ð3Þ
p2P o2ND k2K o j2J p
X X X X X
xpijk  tc  dij ð4Þ
p2P o2ND k2K o j2J p [fog=fig i2J p [fog
3.4.3. Customers’ vendor managed inventory holding cost modelling
According to the literature surveyed, the holding cost during the
period was never considered. To approach the real case, the hold-
ing cost is considered within every period, taking into considera-
tion the arrival time of the product at every customer. The
holding cost is calculated by multiplying the holding cost per unit
per unit time, by the average inventory level, then, by inventory
holding time between replenishments. Since it is assumed that
there is no opening inventory at the customer before the first deliv-
ery, then the first repeated period is not representing the steady
state and its costs should be discarded. The steady state inventory
levels are considered to calculate opening inventory level for the
first steady state repeated cycle.
To determine the number of periods after which the steady
state is reached, four cases, that may occur at any customer until
reaching the steady state, are discussed and given in Fig. 2, where
P = 8 periods, ri = 2, and qi = 10 units:
a. Deliveries are done exactly at the same times for every visit
(Fig. 2 (a)).
b. Deliveries are done at different times for every visit, where
shortage happens at first period (Fig. 2 (b)).
c. Deliveries are done at different times for every visit, where
surplus inventory remains from the previous delivery at
the arrival of the succeeding delivery (Fig. 2 (c)).
d. Deliveries are done at different times for every visit, where
there are both shortage and excess inventory in the first
repeated period (Fig. 2 (d)).
Since there is no opening inventory, shortage occurs until the
first delivery is done. Hence, the inventory level is zero until the
first delivery.
EI1i ¼ 0 ð5Þ
After the delivery is made, the available inventory is consumed
continuously, with a fixed demand rate, the inventory holding
time, based on which the holding cost is calculated, is considered
from the first delivery, till either the inventory level reaches zero,
after ‘qi/Di’ time, or another delivery is made, after ‘td1i 0 time. The
inventory holding time is given by min. {qi/Di, td1i }
The ending inventory before the following delivery ‘EI2i 0 is either
zero, or the difference between the available quantity after the pre-
vious delivery ‘EI1i + qi’ and the consumed quantity ‘td1i  Di’. That is
represented by:
 þ
ð1Þ 1
EI2i ¼ EI1i þ qi  tdi  Di
Where:
X X X X X X
1
tdi ¼ r i  pt þ
fr þr i fr þr i
 st ijki 
fr fr
xijki  stijki
xijki
ð2Þ
o2ND k2K o j2J p [fog o2ND k2K o j2Jp [fog
The time between the first and second deliveries ‘td1i 0 equals the
number of periods between the two deliveries, multiplied by the
period time, in addition to the difference between the arrival time
of the second delivery minus the arrival time of the first delivery,
6 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Different cases of inventory at a customer.

P fr fr 3.4.4. Developed cost model

within the corresponding periods. j2Jp [fog xijki  st ijki specifies the
arrival time, of vehicle ‘k’, dispatched from depot ‘o’, at customer
‘i’, in period ‘fri’. X
P X
p
As the following delivery is done, the inventory level increases TotalCost ¼ yi  dco
p¼1 o2ND
by the quantity delivered. The process continues in the same 00 1 0 11
way, until n = 2  ndi, which is the end of the second repeated per- X
P X X X X X p hd
þ @@ xpijk  qi A  @ p
xojk  stojk 
o AA
iod. The ending inventory ‘EIni ’ before delivery ‘n’, is given by: pt
p¼1 o2ND k2K o j2Jp [fog=fig i2Jp j2J
 þ XX XX XXX X
p
X
n1
EIni ¼ EIn1
i þ qi  tdi  Di ð6Þ þ xpojk  fck þ xpijk  tc  dij
p2P o2ND k2K o j2Jp p2P o2ND k2K o j2Jp [fog=fig i2Jp [fog
Where:
X XX X 2ndXi 1
hci EIni þ qi þ EInþ1   n
tdi
n1
¼ r i  pt þ
fr þðn1Þr i
xijki
fr þðn1Þri
 stijki þ  i
 min EIni þ qi =Di :  tdi ð8Þ
i2NR n¼nd
pt 2
i
o2ND k2K o j2J p
X XX

fr þðn2Þri
xijki
fr þðn2Þr i
 stijki ð7Þ Subjected to
o2ND k2K o j2J p X
xpojk  18k 2 K o ; o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð9Þ
Then, the opening inventory after delivery ‘n’ is: + qi. EIni j2J p
And the inventory holding time is: min.{(EIni + qi)/Di, tdni }.
X X
Per the VMI definition, the unit inventory holding cost is not xpojk ¼ xpjok 8k 2 K o ; o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð10Þ
taken into consideration for the customers visited every period, j2J p j2J p
as no extra inventory is needed to be stored in their inventories.
X X X
A set ‘NR’ is composed; to contain the customers having ri > 1, xpijk ¼ 18j 2 J p ; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð11Þ
where NR  NC. The total inventory holding cost for all the cus- o2ND k2K o i2J p [fog=fjg
tomers (with ri > 1) through the second repeated period is:
X  
X 2nd
X i 1   xpijk ¼ 08j 2 NC [ ND= fog [ J p ; k 2 K o ; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P
hci EIni þ qi þ EInþ1 n
 i
 min EIni þ qi =Di  tdi i2NC[ND=fjg
pt 2
i2NR n¼nd i ð12Þ

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

X X
xpijk ¼ xpjik 8i 2 ND [ NC; o 2 ND; k 2 K o ; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P customer, i.e., waiting is forbidden, as indicated by constraints
j2ND[NC=fig j2ND[NC=fig (18). Constraints (19) ensure that every vehicle should return to
ð13Þ its dispatching depot before the period’s end. Constraints (20)
X X and (21) are the integrality constraints, while constraints (22) are
xpijk  Skp  18Skp # V kp ; Skp –;; o 2 ND; k 2 K o ; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P the non-negativity constraints.
i2Skp j2Skp

ð14Þ 4. The genetic algorithms

The ILRP is an NP-hard problem, as the classical Vehicle Routing

XX XX
xpojk ¼ yo  xpojk 8o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð15Þ Problem was proven to be NP-hard. Genetic Algorithms (GA)
k2K o j2J p k2K o j2J p proved to be able to solve many NP-hard problems reaching near
optimum solutions. An Improved Genetic Algorithm (IGA) is devel-
XX
yo  xpojk 8o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð16Þ oped to solve the proposed ILRP, where the GA is performed for a
k2K o j2J p specified number of generations, then an improvement stage is
conducted on the whole population. A flow chart illustrating the
X X sequence of applying improvements to the GA is given in Fig. 3.
xpijk  qi  C 8k 2 K o ; o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð17Þ
j2Jp [fog=fig i2Jp
The improved chromosome replaces the old one if the total cost
is reduced or remained. Then, the GA is performed again for the
X X  
same number of generations, on the improved population.
xpijk  stpijk ¼ xpjik  stpjik þ tji 8i 2 J p ; k 2 K o ; o 2 ND;
j2Jp [fog=fig j2J p [fog=fig
4.1. Chromosome encoding
p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð18Þ
X   The chromosome is divided into two sub-chromosomes: a sub-
xpiok  stpiok þ t io  pt 8k 2 K o ; o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P ð19Þ
chromosome for the dispatching time fractions, and the other for
i2J p
the routes. The first sub-chromosome is composed of a 3-
dimensional array (P*|ND|*NK), where ‘NK’ is the maximum num-
ypo 2 f0; 1g8o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; P ð20Þ
ber of available vehicles among the depots, i.e. NK = max{Ko}. Each
entry provides a fraction number between 0 and 1, representing
xpijk 2 f0; 1g8i 2 NC [ fog; j 2 NC [ fog=fig; k 2 K o ; o 2 ND; the dispatching time of vehicle ‘k’ of depot ‘o’ in period ‘p’. That
p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; P ð21Þ fraction specifies the dispatching time of the vehicle, with relative
to the minimum and maximum feasible dispatching times of the
stpijk P 08i 2 NC [ fog; j 2 NC [ fog=fig; k 2 K o ; o 2 ND; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; P vehicle. The second sub-chromosome is composed also of a 3-
dimensional array (P*|ND|*NK). Each entry in this array provides
ð22Þ
of a string defining the route of vehicle ‘k’ of depot ‘o’ in period ‘p’.
Where:
 þ 4.2. Chromosome decoding
n1
EIni ¼ EIn1
i þ qi  tdi  Di ð6Þ
To decode the dispatching time fractions’ sub-chromosome,
EI1i ¼ 0 ð5Þ every vehicle’s route is inspected, to know its maximum possible
X XX dispatching time, that is when the vehicle can be dispatched, visit
n1 fr þðn1Þr i fr þðn1Þr i
tdi ¼ r i  pt þ xijki  stijki its customers, and arrive again at the depot at the period’s end
o2ND k2K o j2J p exactly. The minimum feasible dispatching time of any vehicle is
X XX

fr þðn2Þri
xijki
fr þðn2Þri
 stijki ð7Þ the period’s start. The dispatching time fraction is the fraction
o2ND k2K o j2J p between the minimum and maximum dispatching times.

8 9 Dispatching time ¼ minimum dispatching time

< X = þ dispatching time fraction
V kp ¼ ij xijk ¼ 1 8i 2 J p ; o 2 ND; k 2 K o ; p ¼ 1; 2;    ; P
p
ð23Þ  ðmaximum dispatching time  minimum dispatching timeÞ
: j2J ;
p

The objective function (8) seeks to minimize the total cost. Con- 4.3. Creation of initial population
straints (9) imply that each vehicle is dispatched at most once dur-
ing every period. Constraints (10) dictate ending every vehicle’s Step 1: Generate random fractional numbers for the dispatching
route at the same depot it was dispatched from, if it is used in this times’ sub-chromosome, from a U(0, 1) distribution. Then
period. Constraints (11) ensure that only one vehicle should reach actual dispatching times are calculated as follows:
any customer assigned to the period only once. Constraints (12) Actual Dispatching time = start of period + fractional number * pt.
ensure that every customer, which is not assigned to the period, Step 2: Set p = p + 1, and Select randomly a depot that has at
is not visited, and ensure that any vehicle dispatched from depot least one unused vehicle.
‘o’ cannot reach another depot. Constraints (13) guarantee that, if Step 3: Select randomly an unassigned customer of period ‘p’,
a vehicle reached any node ‘i’, it should leave it, and if it does and assign it to the first unused vehicle, then check if it is fea-
not, it cannot leave it. Constraints (14) are the sub-tour elimination sible to visit the customer and return to the depot before the
constraints. Constraints (15) and (16) ensure that a depot is used if end of the period, then confirm the assignment, otherwise,
and only if at least a single vehicle is dispatched from it during that select another customer. If all customers to be served during
period, and that a vehicle can’t be dispatched from a closed depot. this period are assigned, go to step 8.
Constraints (17) indicate that the vehicles’ capacities are not Step 5: Find the customer(s) that can be inserted in the route of
exceeded. When the vehicle reaches a customer, products are selected vehicle without violating its maximum capacity to
immediately unloaded, then, the vehicle moves directly to the next form set C.

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
8 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. Flow chart for the application of improvement heuristics to the GA.

Step 6: For every customer belong to C find all feasible insertion
(s) in the selected vehicle route, and find the corresponding cost
(dispatching + routing) of each, then select the least possible
insertion. If no feasible insertion found then go to step 3, Other-
wise for other feasible insertion go to step 5.
Step 8: If p < P, go to step 2. Otherwise, proceed to step 9.
Step 9: Convert the dispatching times to fractional numbers by:
Fractional number ¼ ðdispatching time  start of periodÞ=
ðmax: feasible dispatching time for the route  start of periodÞ
4.4. Improvement procedure
Two approaches are applied in the improvement procedure, and
their resulting chromosomes are compared, and the one with the
least total cost is chosen. The chromosome undergoes the three
improvement stages successively in the first approach, while in
the second approach, the cost of both chromosomes (before and
after each improvement stage) will be evaluated, and the one
having the minimum cost will go through the next stage of
improvement.

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
4.4.1. Assign-to-Cheapest-Depot Improvement (ACDI)
Step 1: Set p = 1.
Step 2: Find the used vehicles in each depot in period ‘p’.
Step 3: Construct a cost matrix CDM. The rows represent the
routes of the used vehicles, and the columns represent the
depots. An entry ‘cdmij’ represents the cost of dispatching and
routing of route ‘i’ from depot ‘j’. For any route ‘i’, if it is infea-
sible to be originated from depot ‘j’, then, the corresponding
cost is set to indefinitely large number ‘M’.
Step 4: If the number of columns > 1, proceed to step 5. If the
number of rows = 1, assign the remaining route to the least cost
dispatching depot, and go to step 8. If the number of col-
umns = 1, assign the remaining routes to be originated from this
remaining depot, and go to step 8.
Step 5: Calculate a penalty for each row and column, that is the
difference between the minimum two costs in that row or col-
umn, then find the maximum penalty.
Step 6: Assign the route/depot with the maximum penalty to
the least cost depot/route.
Step 7: Remove the row of the assigned route from the matrix. If
the depot has all its vehicles used, remove its column from the
matrix. Go to step 4.
Step 8: If p < P, set p = p + 1 and go to step 2. Otherwise, stop.
4.4.2. Depot closing improvement (DCI)
Step 1: Set p = 1.
Step 2: Find the used vehicles in each depot in period ‘p’.
Step 3: Close the depot that has the least number of used vehi-
cles, and consider its routes as unassigned routes.
Step 4: Construct a cost matrix DCM. The rows represent the
unassigned routes, and the columns represent the used depots
that have unused vehicles. An entry ‘dcmij’ represents the cost
of dispatching and routing of route ‘i’ from depot ‘j’. If it is
timely infeasible to perform the route from depot ‘j’, the corre-
sponding cost is ‘M’.
Step 5: If the number of columns > 1, proceed to step 5. If the
number of rows = 1, assign the remaining route to the least cost
dispatching depot, and go to step 11.
Step 6: Calculate a penalty for each row (column), that is the
difference between the minimum two costs in that row
(column).
Step 7: Find the max. overall penalty among all rows and col-
umns. Assign the corresponding route to the corresponding
depot, which cause the least cost in the row/column of the
max. overall penalty.
Step 8: Remove the row of the assigned route from the matrix. If
the depot has all its vehicles used, remove its column from the
matrix. If there is any remaining column with feasible dis-
patches, go to step 5. Otherwise, go to step 9.
Step 9: For each closed depot, find the cost of dispatching and
routing all the unassigned routes. Timely infeasible dispatched
are considered as ‘M’.
Step 10: Select the depot that has the least total dispatching and
routing cost of the remaining unassigned routes. Assign the
remaining routes to that depot.
Step 11: If p < P, set p = p + 1 and go to step 2. Otherwise, stop.
4.4.3. Exchange-Depots Improvement (EDI)
Step 1: Set p = 1.
Step 2: Find the used vehicles in each depot in period ‘p’.
Step 3: Construct a cost matrix EDM. The rows represent the
used vehicles, and the columns represent the used depots. An
entry ‘edmij’ represents the cost of dispatching and routing of
Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
9
route ‘i’ from depot ‘j’. If it is timely infeasible to perform the
route from depot ‘j’, the corresponding cost is ‘M’.
Step 4: For each row, subtract the cost of dispatching and rout-
ing the route from the currently dispatching depot from the
whole row. A zero indicates the currently dispatching depot,
or an alternative. A negative value indicates a saving, and a pos-
itive value indicates a cost increase.
Step 5: If there is any negative value in the matrix, proceed to
step 6. Otherwise, go to step 13.
Step 6: Identify the depot ‘dn’ that corresponds to the min. neg-
ative value throughout the matrix, to be the new dispatching
depot. Identify the corresponding route ‘rc’ to be the considered
route.
Step 7: If the depot ‘dn’ has an unused vehicle, assign route ‘rc’
to be dispatched from that depot, subtract the min. negative
value of the row from the whole row, and go to step 5. Other-
wise, proceed to step 8.
Step 8: Identify the candidate routes ‘cr’, that are dispatched
from depot ‘dn’, to have a route moved from depot ‘dn’, to free
a vehicle for route ‘rc’.
Step 9: Identify the candidate depots ‘dd’, which are the unused
depots that has an unused vehicle at least each, in addition to
the depot that currently dispatched route ‘rc’.
Step 10: Find the min. cost of dispatching routes ‘cr’ from
depots ‘dd’. Identify the corresponding candidate route and
depot.
Step 11: If the summation of the min. negative value through-
out the matrix and the min. cost of dispatching routes ‘cr’ from
depots ‘dd’ is negative, proceed to step 12. Otherwise, set the
min. negative value throughout the matrix to be ‘M’, and go to
step 5.
Step 12: Move the candidate route to the candidate depot, and
the considered route ‘rc’ to the new dispatching depot ‘dn’. Sub-
tract the min. negative value throughout the matrix from its
corresponding row in the matrix. Subtract the min. cost of dis-
patching routes ‘cr’ from depots ‘dd’ from the corresponding
row. Go to step 5.
Step 13: If p < P, set p = p + 1 and go to step 2. Otherwise, stop.
4.5. Crossover operator
4.5.1. 2-Point crossover for the dispatching time fractions’ Sub-
Chromosome
The fractional numbers are multiplied by 1024, to be integer
numbers, and then, transformed to the equivalent binary from.
The 2-point crossover is conducted on the binary form. The
resulted binary form of the offspring is transformed back to its
integer form, and then to its fractional number.
4.5.2. Best-Route-Best-Feasible-Insertion (BRBFI) crossover for the
routes’ sub-chromosome
The proposed crossover operator depends on the Best Cost-Best
Route Crossover (BCBRC), which was used by Ghoseiri & Ghannad-
pour [27]. Each period is dealt with separately. The route, having
the cheapest route cost per customer, is chosen in every parent,
separately. The route cost per customer consists of the vehicle dis-
patching, routing, and its share of the transportation cost from
manufacturer to depot(s) (the transportation cost is divided by
the number of dispatched vehicles in that period). The sum is then
divided by the number of its customers to yield the route cost per
customer. The customers of the cheapest route cost of the first par-
ent are omitted from their routes in the second parent, and then re-
inserted in the cheapest routing cost feasible insertion, sequen-
tially, in the descending order of their delivery quantities. The
same happens for the customers of the cheapest route cost of the
second parent when omitted from their routes in the first parent.
10 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

This crossover operator seeks for minimizing the number of dis-
patched vehicles, the number of used depots, besides the total cost.
4.6. Mutation operator
4.6.1. Inversion mutation for the dispatching time fractions’ sub-
chromosome
The fractional numbers are multiplied by 1024, to be integer
numbers, and then, transformed to the equivalent binary from.
The inversion mutation is conducted on the binary form after
selecting two points randomly. The resulted binary form is trans-
formed back to its integer form, and then to its fractional number.
4.6.2. Best/Worst-Insertion-Of-Random-Number-Of-Worst/Best-
Routes (BWIRNWBR) mutation operator for the routes’ sub-
chromosome
A random number of routes ‘nr’ is chosen. The customers of the
‘nr’ cheapest route costs per customer, are omitted and re-inserted
in the largest routing cost feasible insertions, sequentially, in the
descending order of their delivery quantities. In contrast, the cus-
tomers of the ‘nr’ largest route costs per customer, are omitted
and re-inserted in the cheapest routing cost feasible insertions,
sequentially, in the descending order of their delivery quantities.
5. Numerical experiments
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed IGA and to
determine the parameters affecting the decisions related to the
vehicles at each depot, a benchmark instance (as quoted from
Canada Research Chair in Distribution Management web-site
[28]) is modified from the Multi-Depot Vehicle Routing Problem
(MDVRP) literature; to cope with the studied case. The extracted
instance, namely p01, was first solved to test the effectiveness of
the developed GA operators and improvements, as no benchmark
instance was found for the ILRP. The problem was solved for three
times and the best reached solution was found to be higher than
the best-known solution by 7.5%, which is considered acceptable
deviation as the IGA is designed to solve ILRP.
The values in bold are the default values, which are fixed while
other parameter(s) changes. The holding cost at the customers is
be taken as ten times that at the depot, while the holding cost at
the depot is one tenth of the transport cost from the depot to the
customers. The transportation cost from the depot to the cus-
tomers per unit distance is 1/400 from that from the factory to
the depot. The transportation cost from the factory is not related
to the distance as no routing occur and the factory is far enough
than the proposed depot locations, therefore the cost is not chan-
ged with the change of the depot location. The GA parameters used
are: population size: 40, number of generations between
improvements: 25, total number of generations: 250, crossover
fraction: 0.8, number of elite chromosomes: 1. Each of the three
considered instances with default parameters were solved 20
times to stand on the precision and convergence of the IGA. The
maximum deviation is found to be 0.3%, 2.2% and 3.3% for the 10,
30 and 50 customers instances, respectively. This implies that
the proposed IGA has a good precision, therefore, on considering
any other parameter, the instance is solved only 3 times and the
best solution is considered for analysis.
6. Results and discussion
6.1. The developed improvement effect on the solution on the ILRP
The first set of instances are solved; to show how the proposed
improvements to the IGA affect the solution value, convergence
and time. In Figs. 4–6, the best reached solution is plotted at each
generation in case of solving using IGA, and on solving the
instances using GA (no Improvement is made to the GA), for
180 min as a stoppage criterion (which represents 4 times the
1100
1050
1000
Total Cost per Period

Three sizes are abstracted from the benchmark instance, by 950

considering the first 10, last 30 and the first 50 customers to form
the 10, 30 and 50 customers’ instances, respectively. The 50 cus- 900
tomers instance will be used only in the evaluation of the precision
of the algorithm, and impact of the proposed improvements to the 850
IGA. Four candidate locations for the depots are considered, with
their locations and the considered customers’ locations and 800

demands as per the benchmark instance. No service time is consid-

750
ered at the depot or the customers, and the length of each period is
considered 1000 units time. The travelling time per unit distance is
700
considered one unit time per unit distance. To investigate the effect 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
of the available capacity on the decision taken, the available num- Generation
ber of vehicles at each depot is changed by the values given in IGA GA
Table 1. Also, the capacity of each vehicle changes, for a different
dispatching cost at each vehicle capacity, as shown in Table 1. Fig. 4. The best solution reached at each generation for the 10 customers problem.

Table 1
The parameters of the different sizes.

Parameter Value Unit

Problem Size 10 Customers 30 Customers –
Number of Vehicles at Each Depot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 –
Capacity of Each Vehicle 40 60 80 120 200 40 60 80 120 200 Unit
Dispatching Cost of Each Vehicle 80 105 120 150 200 80 105 120 150 200 Unit cost
Transportation cost from factory to depot per period 400 Unit cost/period Unit Inventory Holding Cost 0.1 Unit cost/unit/period
at Each Customer
Transportation Cost from depot to customers 1 Unit cost/unit distance Unit Inventory Holding Cost 0.01 Unit cost/unit/period
Per Unit Travelling Time at Each Depot

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

2500 It is obvious that the IGA may result in a better solution, especially
at larger problems on the expenses of the solution time. In case of
2300
IGA, the solution time is longer than the GA by about 4 min. but
2100 yields to lower cost by 10.18%. The results of these runs, given in
table 2, show that even the run time for the 10, 30, and 50 cus-
Total Cost per Period

1900 tomer instances is increased by 2911%, 583%, and 329%, respec-

1700
tively, yet, the GA failed to yield a better solution than the IGA.
This proves the effectiveness of using IGA in reaching better solu-
1500 tions on the expense of increasing the solution times for few min-
utes, when compared to the same stopping criterion.
1300

1100 6.2. The effect of vehicle capacity on the total cost per period

900
Increasing the vehicle capacity allows decreasing the total cost.
700 This is clear in Fig. 7 for the 10 customers instance, and Fig. 8 for
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 the 30 customers instance. As the number of available vehicles at
Generation each depot increases, the total cost decreases in a stepped manner
IGA GA in both instances. This is due to that, as the number of vehicles per
depot increases, the need to use additional depot demolishes, as
Fig. 5. The best solution reached at each generation for the 30 customers problem.
given in Figs. 9 and 10 for both instances, respectively. The trans-
portation cost from factory to the depot(s) may represent 20%
70% of the total cost, hence, it is the most governing cost parame-
4200 ter, which governs the pattern of the total cost, although the rout-
ing cost increases with the decrease of the number of depots
3700 (driven by increasing the number of vehicles per depot), as given
in Figs. 11 and 12. The routing cost increases because customers
3200 are randomly located with respect to the potential depots loca-
Total Cost per Period

2700
2000

2200 1800

1600
1700
1400
Total Cost/Period

1200
1200

700 1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
800
Generation
IGA GA 600

Fig. 6. The best solution reached at each generation for the 50 customers problem. 400

200

run time of the IGA at the 50 customers instance, as shown in 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Table 2). It is clear that, as the number of customers increases,
No. of Vehicles/Depot
the improvements converge significantly faster, and the total cost
40 60 80 120 200
reached is better, than the GA. Table 2 shows the percent improve-
ment in total cost on using GA and IGA for 250 generations as a Fig. 7. Total cost at different vehicles capacities with the increase of number of
stopping criterion, in addition to the difference in solution time. vehicles per depot (10 customers instance).

Table 2
Comparing the performance of GA and HGA in solution value and time.

GA IGA Saving % on using HGA (250 generations)

10 Customers Instance
Stoppage criteria 250 Generations 3h 250 Generations GA run for 250 Generations GA run for 3 h
Total Cost/Period 819.7 819.7 817.1 0.31% 0.31%
Solution Time (min.) 5.54 180 5.98 7.9% 96.7%
30 Customers Instance
Stoppage criteria 250 Generations 3h 250 Generations GA run for 250 Generations GA run for 3 h
Total Cost/Period 1943.9 1936.5 1889.5 2.80% 2.43%
Solution Time (min) 24.03 180 26.37 9.7% 85.4%
50 Customers Instance
Stoppage criteria 250 Generations 3h 250 Generations GA run for 250 Generations GA run for 3 h
Total Cost/Period 3094.0 2920.9 2779.1 10.18% 4.86%
Solution Time (min) 37.99 180 41.97 10.5% 76.7%

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
12 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

3500 300

3000
250

2500
Total Cost/Period

200

RoutingCost/Period
2000
150
1500

100
1000

50
500

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No. of Vehicles/Depot No. of Vehicles/Depot
40 60 80 120 200 40 60 80 120 200

Fig. 8. Total cost at different vehicles capacities with the increase of number of Fig. 11. Routing cost at different vehicles capacities with the increase of number of
vehicles per depot (30 customers instance). vehicles per depot (10 customers instance).

3.5 700

3 600

2.5 500
No. of Used Depots

Routing Cost/Period

2 400

1.5 300

1 200

0.5 100

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No. of Vehicles/Depot
No. of Vehicles/Depot
40 60 80 120 200
40 60 80 120 200

Fig. 12. Routing cost at different vehicles capacities with the increase of number of
Fig. 9. Number of used depots at different vehicles capacities with the increase of
vehicles per depot (30 customers instance).
number of vehicles per depot (10 customers instance).

4.5 tions, then total travelled distances increase as the number of

depots decrease. The increase in the routing cost did not result in
4 increasing the total cost, as it represents only about 20% of the total
3.5
cost, therefore, this increase is compensated with the decrease in
transportation to depot cost, and leads to the decrease of the total
3 cost. Increasing the vehicle capacity caused the decrease in total
No. of Used Depots

cost, as all cost parameters decreases. The stepped pattern, in

2.5
decreasing the total costs at low vehicle capacity, becomes more
2 stepped as the vehicle capacity increases; because more depots
are needed at lower number of vehicles per depot. The vehicles uti-
1.5 lization did not follow the decrease in total cost with the increase
in vehicle capacity. The dispatched vehicles utilization increases to
1
a maximum value, then starts to decrease as given in Fig. 13. The
0.5 dispatched vehicles utilization depends primarily on the capacity
of vehicles, and the number of dispatched vehicles, as given in
0 Fig. 14. As the vehicle capacity increases, the number of dispatched
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
vehicles decreases. At low capacities, the decrease is steep,
No. of Vehicles/Depot
therefore, the utilization increases (as the demand is constant).
40 60 80 120 200
At higher capacities, the decrease has lower rate, therefore, the
Fig. 10. Number of used depots at different vehicles capacities with the increase of total vehicles capacity increases, which causes the utilization to
number of vehicles per depot (30 customers instance). decrease.

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 13

1.2 For the tested instances under problem configuration, it was

found that increasing the total vehicles capacity, decreases the
1
number of needed depots, which, in turn, decreases the total cost.
The maximum vehicle utilization is not necessarily to take place at
Dispatched Vehicles Utilization

the minimum total cost, as increasing the vehicle capacity will

0.8 result in the declination of the vehicle utilization.
Future work may be directed to multi-echelon supply chain
0.6 with stochastic demand, time-dependent or stochastic travelling
times, time-windowed customers’ delivery, and considering other
tactical or strategic costs.
0.4

References
0.2
[1] Dantzig GB, Ramser JM. The truck dispatching problem. Manage Sci
1959;6:81–91.
0 [2] Fisher ML, Greenfield A, Jaikumar R, Kedia P. Real-time scheduling of a bulk
0 50 100 150 200 250
delivery fleet: Practical application of Lagrangean relaxation. Technical report,
Vehicle Capacity The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; 1982.
10 30 [3] Bell W, Dalberto L, Fisher ML, Greenfield A, Jaikumar R, Kedia P, et al.
Improving the distribution of industrial gases with an on-line computerized
Fig. 13. Vehicle utlization at different vehicles capacities when four vehicles are routing and scheduling optimizer. Interfaces 1983;13(6):4–23.
[4] Balakrishnan A, Ward J, Wong R. Integrated facility location and vehicle
available per depot.
routing models: Recent work and future prospects. Am J Math Manage Sci
1987;7:35–61.
[5] Laporte G. Location-routing problems. In: Golden B, Assad A, editors. Vehicle
16 Routing: Methods and Studies. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1988. p. 163–98.
[6] Liu SC, Lee SB. A two-phase heuristic method for the multi-depot location
14 routing problem taking inventory control decisions into consideration. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 2003;22(11):941–50.
[7] Liu SC, Lin CC. A heuristic method for the combined location routing and
12
inventory problem. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2005;26(4):372–81.
No. Of Dispatched Vehicles

[8] Ahmadi-Javid A, Seddighi AH. A location-routing-inventory model for

10
8 inventory location-routing problem with deterministic demand. Int J Prod
6 location routing problem. Transport Res Part E: Logist Transport Rev 2014;70
4 [11] Hiassat A, Diabat A. A location-inventory-routing-problem with perishable
2
0 2017;42:93–103.
0 50 100 150
Vehicle Capacity
10 30
Fig. 14. Number of used vehicles at different vehicles capacities when four vehicles
are available per depot.
7. Conclusions and future work:
This paper presents a model developed to determine for each
period the following: the depots used, customers served and the
corresponding delivery quantity, and vehicles’ dispatching times
and routes, for optimal total supply chain cost. A real-life mod-
elling of holding cost within the periods is presented. An Improved
GA (IGA) is used to solve the problem. The delivery frequency to
customers and customers served during each period are deter-
mined using certain developed heuristics, after which the opti-
mization of the total supply chain cost is made using IGA. A
special creation and crossover and mutation operators are devel-
oped and used; to ensure the feasibility of the offspring
generations.
Results showed that the IGA solves the problem and converges
to the best reached solution faster than the GA. The IGA proved to
reach a significantly better solution in large size problems, as com-
pared to that reached for small size ones, but on the expense of
computing time. The increase in computational time in the 50 cus-
tomers instance is 10.5% (4 min), and the reduction in cost is
10.18%. Therefore, if the cost reduction is of importance than the
computational time, then the use of the IGA will be beneficial.
designing multisource distribution networks. Eng Optim 2012;44(6):637–56.
[9] Guerrero WJ, Prodhon C, Velasco N, Amaya CA. Hybrid heuristic for the
Econ 2013;146(1):359–70.
[10] Zhang Y, Qi M, Miao L, Liu E. Hybrid metaheuristic solutions to inventory
(1):305–23.
products. In: In: the 41st International Conference on Computers & Industrial
Engineering. Los Angeles, USA: CIE; 2011. p. 293–8.
[12] Hiassat A, Diabat A, Rahwan I. A genetic algorithm approach for location-
inventory-routing problem with perishable products. J Manuf Syst
200 250
[13] Rafie-Majd Z, Pasandideh SHR, Naderi B. Modelling and solving the integrated
inventory-location-routing problem in a multi-period and multi-perishable
product supply chain with uncertainty: Lagrangian relaxation algorithm.
Comput Chem Eng 2018;109:9–22.
[14] Shen ZJM, Qi L. Incorporating inventory and routing costs in strategic location
models. Eur J Oper Res 2007;179(2):372–89.
[15] Ahmadi-Javid A, Azad N. Incorporating location, routing and inventory
decisions in supply chain network design. Transport Res Part E: Logist
Transport Rev 2010;46(5):582–97.
[16] Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Raziei Z. A new bi-objective location-routing-
inventory problem with fuzzy demands. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2016;49
(12):1116–21.
[17] Wang C, Ma Z, Li H. Stochastic dynamic location-routing-inventory problem in
closed-loop logistics system for reusing end-of-use products. In: International
Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, vol.
2. Changsha, Hunan, China: IEEE; 2008. p. 691–5.
[18] Jiang S, Ma Z. A hybrid genetic algorithm for the stochastic dynamic location-
routing-inventory problem in closed-loop logistics system for reusing end-of-
use products. In: 2nd International Conference on Transportation
Engineering. Chengdu, China: ASCE; 2009. p. 4055–60.
[19] Ahmad H, Hamzah P, Md Yasin ZAM, Shariff SSR. Location routing inventory
problem with transshipment (LRIP-T). In: the 2014 International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Bali, Indonesia: IEEE;
2014. p. 1595–605.
[20] Shariff SSR, Omar M, Moin NH. Location routing inventory problem with
transshipment points using p-center. In: 2016 International Conference on
Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Application (ICIMSA). Jeju
Island, South Korea: IEEE; 2016. p. 1–5.
[21] Li Y, Guo H, Wang L, Fu J. A hybrid genetic-simulated annealing algorithm for
the location-inventory-routing problem considering returns under e-supply
chain environment. Sci World J 2013.
[22] Chen D, Chen D, Sun G, Liu G. Combined location routing and inventory
problem of e-commerce distribution system with fuzzy random demand. Int J
Hybrid Inform Technol 2014;7(5):429–42.
[23] Seyedhosseini SM, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Daraei S. An integrated location-routing-
inventory problem by considering supply disruption. iBusiness 2014;6
(2):29–37.

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002
14 A.S. Saif-Eddine et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

[24] Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Forouzanfar F, Ebrahimnejad S. Incorporating Mohamed M. El-Beheiry is an assistant professor the
location, routing, and inventory decisions in a bi-objective supply chain Department of Design and Production Engineering,
design problem with risk-pooling. J Indus Eng Int 2013;9(1):19. Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo,
[25] Nekooghadirli N, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Ghezavati VR, Javanmard S. Solving Egypt. He has a degree in Mechanical Engineering
a new bi-objective location-routing-inventory problem in a distribution (1994) and an MSc in Production Planning and
network by meta-heuristics. Comput Ind Eng 2014;76:204–21. Scheduling (1999) from the Ain Shams University. He
[26] El-Shawarby I, Sarin SC, El-Kharbotly AK. Multi-stage Common Cycle also has a PhD degree in Supply Chain Management
Scheduling Problem Ph.D. Thesis. Cairo, Egypt: Ain Shams University; 2000. (2004). His research areas include production schedul-
[27] Ghoseiri K, Ghannadpour SF. Multi-objective vehicle routing problem with ing, inventory control, supply chain dynamics, and
time windows using goal programming and genetic algorithm. Appl Soft
simulation.
Comput 2010;10(4):1096–107.
[28] Canada Research Chair in Distribution Management web-site, http://neumann.
hec.ca/chairedistributique/data/mdvrp/old/, last accessed: 22 July 2017.

Ahmad S. Saif-Eddine is a lecturer assistant and a Ph.D.
student at the department of Design and Production
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Univer-
sity, Cairo, Egypt. He has a B.Sc. in Mechanical Engi-
neering (2005), and a M.Sc. in Production Planning and
Scheduling (2011) from Ain Shams University.
Amin K. El-Kharbotly is a professor at the Design and
Production Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt since 1993. He has
received his Ph.D. in 1977 from Ain Shams University.

Please cite this article as: A. S. Saif-Eddine, M. M. El-Beheiry and A. K. El-Kharbotly, An improved genetic algorithm for optimizing total supply chain cost in
inventory location routing problem, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.09.002