AMMUNITION TRANSFER SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

H. SİNEM GÜNSEL

IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

FEBRUARY 2012

i
 Approval of the thesis:

AMMUNITION TRANSFER SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

submitted by H. SİNEM GÜNSEL in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Science in Industrial Engineering Department,
Middle East Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen

Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Sinan Kayalıgil

Head of Department, Industrial Engineering

Prof. Dr. Ömer Kırca

Supervisor, Industrial Engineering Dept., METU

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Meral Azizoğlu

Industrial Engineering Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. Ömer Kırca

Industrial Engineering Dept., METU

Assist. Prof. Sedef Meral

Industrial Engineering Dept., METU

Assist. Prof. Seçil Savaşaneril

Industrial Engineering Dept., METU

Özgün Töreyen, M.Sc.

ASELSAN A.>.

Date: 09.02.2012

ii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been
obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical
conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I
have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not
original to this work.

Name, Last name : H. Sinem Günsel

Signature :

iii
 ABSTRACT

AMMUNITION TRANSFER SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

Günsel, H. Sinem

M. Sc., Department of Industrial Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ömer Kırca

February 2012, 72 pages

Ammunition Transfer System (ATS) is the electro-mechanical system of the

Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (ARV) which will be used to meet T-155 mm
Fırtına howitzers’ ammunition demand for tactical requirements of higher
firing rate by off-road mobility and survivability. The transfer of ammunitions
from ARV to Fırtına is to be optimized for an effective improvement of firing
rate.
In this thesis the transferring order of carried ammunitions is being
optimized to minimize the total ammunition transferring time. This transfer
problem is modeled as a modification of Travelling Salesman Problem
(TSP). The given locations of the ammunitions are treated as cities to be
visited and the gripper of ATS is treated as the traveling salesman. By
GAMS; the small-size problems are solved optimally but large-size ones get
only local optimum. A heuristic algorithm that contains nearest neighbor
heuristics as construction method and 2-opt exchange heuristic as
improvement method is developed to obtain same or better solutions
obtained by GAMS with less computational time.
Keywords: Ammunition Transfer System, Travelling Salesman Problem,
Optimization, Nearest Neighbor, 2-opt Exchange.

iv
 ÖZ

MÜHİMMAT TRANSFER SİSTEMİ OPTİMİZASYON PROBLEMİ

Günsel, H.Sinem

Yüksek Lisans, Endüstri Mühendisliği Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ömer Kırca

>ubat 2012, 72 sayfa

Mühimmat Transfer Sistemi (MTS), T-155 mm Fırtına Obüslerinin hareketli

ve dinamik muharebe sahasında taktik yüksek hızlı atış sürati ihtiyaçlarının
karşılanması için geliştirilmekte olan Mühimmat Aracının (MA) elektro-
mekanik sistemlerinden oluşmaktadır. Atış süratinin etkili bir şekilde
iyileştirilmesi amacıyla mühimmatların MA’dan Fırtına obüslerine transfer
süresi optimize edilmelidir.

Bu tezde, toplam mühimmat transfer süresini minimize etmek için taşınan

mühimmatların transfer sıraları optimize edilmiştir. Bu transfer problemi
Gezgin Satıcı Probleminin (GSP) bir türevi olarak modellenmiştir.
Mühimmatların bilinen yerleri gezilmesi gereken şehirler, MTS’nin kıskacı
ise gezgin satıcı olarak ele alınmıştır. GAMS program ile küçük boyutlu
problemler optimal olarak çözülmüş, ancak büyük boyutlu problemlerde
ancak bölgesel optimaller elde edilmiştir. Oluşturma metodu olarak en yakın
komşu, iyileştirme metodu olarak ise ikili yer değiştirme yöntemleri
kullanılarak bir sezgisel yöntem geliştirilmiş, GAMS ile aynı ya da daha iyi
sonuçları daha kısa sürede elde edebilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Mühimmat Transfer Sistemi, Gezgin Satıcı Problemi,

Optimizasyon, En Yakın Komşu, İkili Yer Değiştirme.

v
To my family and my love

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr.

Ömer Kırca for his guidance, advice, criticism and insight throughout the
research.

I am also thankful to my superiors and my special friends in ASELSAN who

never gave up believing in me.

I would also like to express my profound appreciation to my family for their

continuous support throughout my life.

I am indebted to Özgün Töreyen, Cemal Samur, Serkan Özpamukçu, Funda

Özpamukçu, Berk Orbay, Diclehan Tezcaner and Gülşah Karakaya for their
valuable comments, contributions and suggestions.

Finally, I must express my great thanks to Emrah Günsel, for his love,
friendship, patience, support and holding me whenever I fall down. Without
his understanding and care, such a work will not exist.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................iv

ÖZ ................................................................................................................ v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................viii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................xi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................xiv

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

2 AMMUNITION TRANSFER SYSTEM PROBLEM .................................... 4

2.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 4

2.1.1 How is Projectile Loading and Transferring Done? ............... 8
2.2 MOTIVATION .............................................................................. 9

3 LITERATURE SURVEY ...........................................................................11

3.1 TRAVELING SALESMAN PROBLEM ........................................11

3.1.1 Classical Traveling Salesman Problem ................................11
3.1.2 Multiple Traveling Salesman Problem ..................................13
3.1.3 Other Variations of Traveling Salesman Problem ................14
3.2 HEURISTICS ..............................................................................15
3.2.1 Construction Heuristics ........................................................15
3.2.2 Improvement Heuristics .......................................................17

4 AMMUNITION TRANSFER SYSTEM PROBLEM ...................................19

viii
 4.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION .............................................................19
4.1.1 Assumptions ........................................................................20
4.1.2 Formulation ..........................................................................21
4.1.3 Parameters ..........................................................................21
4.1.4 Decision Variables ...............................................................23
4.1.5 Model ...................................................................................24
4.2 SAMPLE PROBLEM ..................................................................26

5 HEURISTIC ALGORITHM .......................................................................30

5.1 NEAREST NEIGHBOR (NN) ......................................................31

5.2 2- OPT ........................................................................................33

6 COMPUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS .......................................................35

6.1 GAMS .........................................................................................35

6.2 HEURISTIC ALGORTIHM ..........................................................37
6.3 TEST ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................38
6.4 TEST SETS ................................................................................38
6.4.1 Test Set 1.............................................................................38
6.4.2 Test Set 2.............................................................................41
6.5 TESTS ANALYSIS .....................................................................43
6.5.1 Test Set 1.............................................................................43
6.5.2 Test Set 2.............................................................................46

7 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................48

REFERENCES ............................................................................................50

APPENDICES

A GLOSSARY ............................................................................................52

B CALCULATION OF Tijm ..........................................................................53

C GAMS FORMULATION ..........................................................................54

D TEST RESULTS OF TEST SET 1 ...........................................................57

ix
D.1 Test1: 2 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 2_D1..............................57
D.2 Test2: 2 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 2_D2..............................58
D.3 Test3: 2 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 2_D1 .....................59
D.4 Test4: 2 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 2_D2 .....................60
D.5 Test5: 2 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 2_D1..............................61
D.6 Test6: 2 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 2_D2..............................62
D.7 Test7: 2 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 2_D1 .....................63
D.8 Test8: 2 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 2_D2 .....................64
D.9 Test9: 4 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 4_D1..............................65
D.10 Test10: 4 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 4_D2..........................66
D.11 Test11: 4 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 4_D1 .................67
D.12 Test12: 4 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 4_D2 .................68
D.13 Test13: 4 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 4_D1..........................69
D.14 Test14: 4 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 4_D2..........................70
D.15 Test15: 4 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 4_D1 .................71
D.16 Test16: 4 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 4_D2 .................72

x
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES
Table 4.2.1: Presence of projectiles in magazine 1 .....................................26
Table 4.2.2: Presence of projectiles in magazine 2 .....................................26
Table 4.2.3: Travel time from node i to node j in magazine 1 ......................28
Table 4.2.4: Travel time from node i to node j in magazine 2 ......................28
Table 4.2.5: Unloading projectile order for sample problem ........................29
Table 6.4.1.1: Test Sets for Test Set1 .........................................................39
Table 6.4.1.2: Demands for projectile types used in Test Sets ...................40
Table 6.4.1.3: N1 Magazine Situation .........................................................40
Table 6.4.1.4: N2 Magazine Situation .........................................................40
Table 6.4.2.1: Test Sets for Test Set 2 ........................................................41
Table 6.4.2.2: Demands for projectile types used in Test Sets ...................42
Table 6.5.1.1: Comparison for Mixed Unloading Scenario ..........................44
Table 6.5.1.2: Comparison for Successive Unloading Scenario..................46
Table 6.5.2.1: Comparison for Test Set 2....................................................47
Table B-1: Calculation of distances between i and j in magazines ..............53
Table D1-1: Test 1 GAMS Solution .............................................................57
Table D1-2: Test 1 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ..........................................57
Table D2-1: Test 2 GAMS Solution .............................................................58
Table D2-2: Test 2 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ..........................................58
Table D3-1: Test 3 GAMS Solution .............................................................59
Table D3-2: Test 3 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..............59
Table D3-3: Test 3 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..................59
Table D4-1: Test 4 GAMS Solution .............................................................60
Table D4-2: Test 4 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..............60
Table D4-3: Test 4 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..................60

xi
Table D5-1: Test 5 GAMS Solution .............................................................61
Table D5-2: Test 5 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ..........................................61
Table D6-1: Test 6 GAMS Solution .............................................................62
Table D6-2: Test 6 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ..........................................62
Table D7-1: Test 7 GAMS Solution .............................................................63
Table D7-2: Test 7 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..............63
Table D7-3: Test 7 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..................63
Table D8-1: Test 8 GAMS Solution .............................................................64
Table D8-2: Test 8 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..............64
Table D8-3: Test 8 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..................64
Table D9-1: Test 9 GAMS Solution .............................................................65
Table D9-2: Test 9 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ..........................................65
Table D10-1: Test 10 GAMS Solution .........................................................66
Table D10-2: Test 10 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ......................................66
Table D11-1: Test 11 GAMS Solution .........................................................67
Table D11-2: Test 11 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..........67
Table D11-3: Test 11 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..............67
Table D12-1: Test 12 GAMS Solution .........................................................68
Table D12-2: Test 12 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..........68
Table D12-3: Test 12 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..............68
Table D13-1: Test 13 GAMS Solution .........................................................69
Table D13-2: Test 13 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ......................................69
Table D14-1: Test 14 GAMS Solution .........................................................70
Table D14-2: Test 14 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed) ......................................70
Table D15-1: Test 15 GAMS Solution .........................................................71
Table D15-2: Test 15 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..........71
Table D15-3: Test 15 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..............71
Table D16-1: Test 16 GAMS Solution .........................................................72
Table D16-2: Test 16 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine) ..........72
Table D16-3: Test 16 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall) ..............72

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES
Figure 1.1 - T-155 mm self-propelled Fırtına (Storm) howitzer..................... 1
Figure 2.1.1 - T-155 mm Self-Propelled Fırtına (Storm) Howitzer ................ 5
Figure 2.1.2 - Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (ARV) ..................................... 5
Figure 2.1.3 - Projectile Magazine Units....................................................... 6
Figure 2.1.4 - Horizontal Projectile Transfer Unit ......................................... 6
Figure 2.1.5 - Vertical Projectile Transfer Unit.............................................. 7
Figure 2.1.6 - External Conveyor Unit .......................................................... 7
Figure 2.2.1 - The snapshot of the screen when a requirement occurs ......10
Figure 2.2.2 - The snapshot of the screen when a plan is done ..................10
Figure 3.1.1 – A Hamiltonian tour................................................................12
Figure 3.2.1.1 – A nearest neighbor tour for 100 nodes ..............................16
Figure 3.2.2.1 - 2-opt exchange ..................................................................18
Figure 4.1.3.1 – Calculation of t12.222 ..........................................................23
Figure 4.2.1 - Presence of projectiles in magazines ....................................27
Figure 6.1.1 - The snapshot of GAMS code user interface .........................36
Figure 6.1.2 - The snapshot of GAMS output user interface .......................36
Figure 6.2.1 – The graphical user interface of the heuristic algorithm .........37

xiii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AATS : Automatic Ammunition Transfer System

ARV : Ammunition Resupply Vehicle
ASP : Ammunition Supply Point
FDC : Fire Direction Center
GAMS : General Algebraic Modeling System
GUI : Graphical User Interface
IDE : Integrated Development Environment
mTSP : Multiple-Traveling Salesman Problem
NN : Nearest Neighbor
PDP : Pick-up and Delivery Problem
SM : Successive-Magazine
SO : Successive-Overall
TSP : Traveling Salesman Problem
VRP : Vehicle Routing Problem

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

As the technology has developed, Turkish Army get advanced in the field of
arms and started to make their own weapons. The first artillery weapon
system produced in Turkey is T-155 mm self-propelled Fırtına (Storm)
howitzer. This howitzer has the capability of rapid movement in rough
terrains and can open fire very quickly. Each howitzer can carry 48
ammunitions with itself and can spend these ammunitions in 6 minutes with
a maximum rate of fire. So supplying ammunitions to these howitzers
becomes very crucial in warfare. To complete this necessity, Ammunition
Resupply Vehicle (ARV) is also being developed in Turkey. The glossary for
the military terminology can be seen in Appendix A.

Figure 1.1 - T-155 mm self-propelled Fırtına (Storm) howitzer

1
Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (ARV) will be used to meet Fırtına howitzers’
ammunition demand for tactical requirements of higher firing rate (firing
frequency) by off-road mobility and survivability. New ARV’s aim is to
improve the current capabilities of Fırtına’s by operating in groups with
howitzers. The transfer of ammunitions from ARV’s to Fırtına is to be
optimized for an effective improvement of firing rate. In this thesis the
transferring order of carried ammunitions is being optimized to minimize the
total ammunition transferring time. By minimizing the total transferring time,
total movement of the mechanisms in ARV’s will also be minimized.
Minimum movement will also make the ARV long-lived.

The mechanisms of ARV are:

• the magazines carrying the ammunitions,
• the horizontal and vertical transfer units which carry the ammunition
from the magazines to the external conveyor and
• the external conveyor that carries the ammunition to the loading parts
of the Fırtına howitzer.

Four magazines, each carrying twenty four ammunitions, are similar to the
ninety six nodes to be visited by the gripper. Similar problems are also
solved in literature. Vehicle routing problem (VRP), multiple travelling
salesman problems (m-TSP) are some of them. For example, in TSP the
aim is to find the cheapest tour that contains all cities starting and returning
the origin. However, in our problem the aim is to find the cheapest tour
starting from the origin of the grippers but not all nodes are necessary. So
the problem is modeled as a variant of TSP in this thesis. For ARV, four
magazines are assumed to be independent from each other. The demand of
Fırtına howitzers from different types and quantities of ammunitions are
given. Here, four salesmen are supposed to visit four magazines’ nodes to
satisfy a total number of demanded ammunitions.

2
In this thesis, the problem is modeled as TSP and solved with GAMS, a
small version of the problem with 2 magazines is solved optimally. On the
other hand, the problem with 4 magazines can only be solved partially and a
local optimum could be found after an out of memory error. The obtained
solutions show the order of ammunitions to be transferred from the ARV.
Not only the mixed ammunition type ordering considered, but also the
successive unloading scenarios are included in this thesis.

Also, a heuristic algorithm that contains nearest neighbor heuristics as

construction method and 2-opt exchange heuristic as improvement method
is developed to obtain same or better solutions obtained by GAMS with less
computational time. This heuristic algorithm is used to in 2 different test
sets. Test set 1 contains 16 tests and compares GAMS and heuristic
algorithm in terms of computational times and solution quality. Test set 2
contains 40 tests and analyzes the behavior of the heuristic algorithm with
different demands.

The organization of the thesis is as follows:

• The Ammunition Transfer System problem with its background and

motivation choosing this problem are described in Chapter 2,

• Literature is summarized in Chapter 3,

• Problem is described in detail and formulated in Chapter 4 with a

sample problem,

• Heuristic algorithm developed for this thesis is explained in Chapter

5,

• Computational experiments are given and results are evaluated in

Chapter 6,

• Concluding remarks and further research directions are given in

Chapter 7.

3
 CHAPTER 2

AMMUNITION TRANSFER SYSTEM PROBLEM

In this chapter; background of the Ammunition Transfer System problem

and the motivation of this thesis are given.

2.1 BACKGROUND

As described earlier, T-155 mm self-propelled Fırtına (Storm) howitzers

which can be seen in Figure 2.1.1 are native artillery systems that are
capable of rapid movements in rough terrains. These systems have high
firing rates, therefore needs more ammunition supply. To satisfy these
frequent and bulk demands, truck type vehicles which do not have off-road
capability are insufficient. On the other hand the howitzers’ leaving their
locations for ammunition supply in the warfare will not always be appropriate
[1].

To meet howitzers’ tactical requirements of higher firing rate by off-road

mobility and survivability, Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (ARV) which can be
seen in Figure 2.1.2 is being developed by 1st Army Maintenance Center
Command of the Turkish Army in Adapazarı. The ARV which is still in
development phase will cover the requirements of substantially increased
amount of ammunitions in the warfare to the howitzers.

4
 Figure 2.1.1 - T-155
T mm Self-Propelled
elled Fırtına (Storm) Howitzer

Figure 2.1.2 - Ammunition

munition Resupply Vehicle (ARV)

The Ammunition Resupply Vehicle has an electrically driven fully automatic

transfer system that gives the opportunity of loading and transferring the

5
ammunitions automatically with a computerized control system. The
Automatic Ammunition Transfer System (AATS) which has been developed
by ASELSAN Inc. consists of four projectile magazine units (each of
capacity is 24 projectiles), a horizontal projectile transfer unit with a gripper
on it, a vertical projectile transfer unit, an external conveyor unit as well as
electronic units, which will not be mentioned in this thesis.

Figure 2.1.3 - Projectile Magazine Units

Figure 2.1.4 - Horizontal Projectile Transfer Unit

6
Figure 2.1.5 - Vertical Projectile Transfer Unit

Figure 2.1.6 - External Conveyor Unit

7
The ARV is capable of transferring 96 projectiles and 96 charges to T-155
Fırtına howitzers. In this thesis only projectiles will be focused since they are
loaded and transferred by the automation system.

In the warfare, T-155 Fırtına howitzers send their demands of projectile

types to the committed Fire Direction Center (FDC). The FDCs that have the
capability of fire control transmit these demands to the appropriate ARV.
The ARV goes to the Ammunition Supply Points and load itself according to
these demands. Since the loading will take time, the assignments of ARVs
to howitzers usually change. Therefore the FDCs assigns ARVs after they
load themselves. This means trying to make an optimization in the loading
part is meaningless. Therefore, in this thesis an optimization in the
transferring part is studied.

2.1.1 How is Projectile Loading and Transferring Done?

The ammunitions are loaded to the ARVs from Ammunition Supply Points
(ASP). The external conveyor unit extends over the ASP and the projectiles
are put on it manually. The conveyor starts to move through the ARV. At the
end of the conveyor, the projectile is given to the Vertical Projectile Transfer
Unit and then to the Horizontal Projectile Transfer Unit. The Horizontal
Projectile Transfer Unit gives it to the planned Projectile Magazine Unit’s
planned node. While new projectiles are being loaded, the previous ones
move to the backsides as Projectile Magazine Unit turns right or left.

The ammunitions are fed to the howitzers on the opposite of loading

scenario. The planned projectile is taken from its node by Horizontal

8
Projectile Transfer Unit when the magazine brings it to the front. The
Horizontal Projectile Transfer Unit gives it to the vertical one and the vertical
one gives it to the External Conveyor Unit. External Conveyor Unit extends
over the front of the ARV and lines up with the rear of the howitzer.

2.2 MOTIVATION

The order of loading and transferring projectiles is decided by the software

which has been developed by ASELSAN Inc. In the current system, the
loading and transferring of the projectiles are done without an artificial
intelligence. While planning of loading; the computerized control system
searches the projectile magazine units starting from the first one. The
system plans the first coming projectile to the first empty node of the first
possible magazine unit. The search for the first possible place always starts
from the first projectile magazine unit. While planning of transferring; the
logic is the same. The first required projectile is transferred from the first
possible node.

With this current system which can be replaced by this thesis algorithm, the
projectile transferring times to howitzer will be more than the howitzer firing
rate. As explained earlier, Fırtına howitzers have really high firing rates by
off-road mobility and survivability. In the warfare, supplying the ammunitions
within the required time and location is very crucial. Since at the transferring
moment the howitzers cannot fire to targets, the transferring should be as
quick as possible. In this thesis, main aim is to speed up this transferring
time to provide capability for rapid deployment without being exposed to
hostile units counter-firing thus to enable higher firing rate.

The snapshots of the commander screen in the current system can be seen
in Figure 2.2.1 and Figure 2.2.2.

9
Figure 2.2.1 - The snapshot of the screen when a requirement occurs

Figure 2.2.2 - The snapshot of the screen when a plan is done

10
 CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE SURVEY

In this chapter; literature review about Traveling Salesman Problem is given.

The classical TSP and the variations of TSP are explained, and then the
heuristics used for TSP are presented.

3.1 TRAVELING SALESMAN PROBLEM

3.1.1 Classical Traveling Salesman Problem

Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) is a widely studied and well known

combinatorial optimization problem in literature [2], [3]. It is one of the oldest
optimization problems in the field of operations research [4]. TSP can be
defined as follows: given n cities and the distances between them, a tour
which visits each city exactly once and returns to the starting point should
be constructed [5]. In other words, a minimum weighted Hamiltonian tour is
tried to be found. Hamiltonian tour is the tour that each city in it is visited
only once.

11
 Figure 3.1.1 – A Hamiltonian tour

The classical formulation of TSP is:

   c . x

 

Subject to:

  = 1, ∀ Є {1, 2, . . . , }


  = 1 , ∀Є {1, 2, . . . , }


   ≤ ││ − 1, ∀ ⊆ Є {2, . . . , }
 

 Є {0, 1}

12
TSP has many applications like;

• Drilling of printed circuit boards: the holes that are drilled are the
nodes to be visited. The distances between nodes are calculated as
the time to move the head from one node to another.

• Gas turbine engines: Positioning of gas valves in a turbine can be

modeled as TSP.

• X-Ray Crystallography: Positioning of the diffractometer that is used

for crystallography can also be modeled as TSP.

• Order-picking problem: Picking and delivering the orders in a

warehouse is a variant of TSP.

• Computer wiring: In a computer board, module location will be done

by TSP.

• Clustering data arrays: Clustering related parts of the data is also a

TSP.

• Vehicle Routing: For every vehicle, routes are determined by TSP.

• Scheduling: Job sequencing with sequence dependent setups is

modeled as TSP [6].

3.1.2 Multiple Traveling Salesman Problem

Multiple-Travelling Salesman Problem (mTSP) is a variant of TSP which has

been studied by several authors like Bellmore and Hong [7] and Hong and
Padberg [8], [9]. For mTSP, a set of routes for m salesmen are to be
determined. All salesmen start from one depot point and after visiting the
cities return to the depot. Different applications can be concerned for mTSP,
for example multiple depot points can be used. For multiple depot points,
any salesman can start from any depot and end the tour at any depot as
well. Also fixed and non-fixed destinations of multiple-depot problems can
be applied according to the requirements of the problem. Another

13
application of mTSP can be applied by changing the number of salesmen.
The number of salesmen can be bounded variable or fixed. Also without a
boundary, each salesman can increase the cost and salesman cost can be
also included in the problem. If the cities to be visited have a time limitation
and if the salesman should obey a time boundary to visit each city, the
problem is called mTSP with time windows in the literature. In fact cargo
distribution for food stuff can be an example. Another application of mTSP
can be applied by bounding the number of cities each salesman should visit.
Minimum or maximum bound for number of cities or minimum or maximum
distance bound to be visited can be applied [10].

mTSP is a problem which can also be considered as a relaxation of the

VRP, with the capacity boundaries of the vehicles removed. So, relaxed
forms of VRP models can also be used for mTSP. On the other hand, mTSP
can also be considered as a relaxation of the PDP. Relaxation is that the
necessary stuff can be delivered in next tour which origin can be applied as
the depot [10].

3.1.3 Other Variations of Traveling Salesman Problem

The Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) like Traveling Salesman Problem

(TSP) is also hard combinatorial problems. VRP can be defined as a
specific application of TSP since vehicle capacity and some other
constraints are also concerned. As it is mentioned in the literature a difficulty
of solving the VRP is its computational complexity. Innumerable studies
have been performed on complexity of combinatorial problems such as the
TSP and VRP. TSP and therefore also the VRP are known to be NP-hard.
The NP-hard property is an important reason that TSP and VRP received
much attention of researchers. Secondly researchers had an inquisitive
attitude towards the VRP, because of the applicability to a wide range of
areas; beverage delivery to bars and restaurants, milk pickup, cargo

14
companies, personnel/school bus routing, etc. Many exact and approximate
algorithms are developed in the literature to solve these problems [11].

Pickup and Delivery Problem (PDP) consists of determining the optimum

routes for each vehicle according to the requirements of the customers.
Customer requests are specified by an origin-destination pair. So, vehicles
are to carry the necessary stuff from the origin to the destination. If also time
limitation is necessary, problem is than called PDP with time windows [10].
PDP and VRP are also similar problems. The VRP is a PDP which all the
origins and destinations are located at the depot [12].

3.2 HEURISTICS

The TSP is known to play an important role for many of the most widely
used clever algorithms, heuristics that run quicker and give better solutions
for the given problems. Since TSP is a basic model, different heuristics are
developed and tested for better tours [13]. The heuristics can be
categorized by two; construction and improvement.

3.2.1 Construction Heuristics

To start a search in the space for optimization, an initial and feasible point is
needed. By adding nodes or arcs to a starting set, a tour is constructed.
Here are some of them:

• Nearest Neighbor Heuristic (Solomon, 1987)

• Insertion Heuristic (Solomon, 1987)

• Sweep Heuristic (Gillet and Miller, 1974)

• Savings Heuristic (Clarke and Wright, 1964)

15
In this thesis, time is the main concern. Due to the structure of the problem,
nearest neighbor heuristic satisfies the requirements.

3.2.1.1 Nearest Neighbor Heuristic (NN):

The general class of local-search algorithms can be considered as the basis

of many TSP papers in literature. An approximate solution is taken as input
and it is iteratively improved to reach better new solutions [13]. So, this
heuristics depend on a random initial position and visiting the nearest city.
So, starting from the first city, next city is selected as the closest unvisited
one, at the end returns to the beginning and finishes [14], [15]. The nearest
neighbor heuristic is fast and may be the simplest one [2]. The node nearest
to the current one is selected and added to tour.

Figure 3.2.1.1 – A nearest neighbor tour for 100 nodes

This heuristic can be improved as k-NN. In k-NN, a list of nearest cities is

formed and these k cities are considered as the next city [16].

16
 Node: k=3 NNs

1 2-7-8

2 1-3-6

3 4-1-5

4 2-1-5

Y Y

List of cities
1-2-3-4-5-Y

3.2.2 Improvement Heuristics

After construction is done, search around this initial/ constructed point is

done in the search space to improve it. The improvement makes local
search. Here are some of them:

• Node Insertion Heuristic

• Edge Insertion Heuristic

• 2-opt Exchange Heuristic

• 3-opt Exchange Heuristic

• Lin-Kernighan Heuristic

After the tour is constructed by Nearest Neighbor, 2-opt exchange heuristic

is used.

3.2.2.1 2-opt Exchange Heuristic

Using a pre-constructed feasible solution/ tour, 2-opt move removes 2 of the

edges and reconstruct them for a smaller cost; if smaller cost cannot be
obtained removal is cancelled. After all the 2-opt moves are done without

17
finding a smaller cost, the tour is said to be 2-optimal [14]. Figure 3.2.2.1
illustrates the 2-opt mechanism [17].

Figure 3.2.2.1 - 2-opt exchange

18
 CHAPTER 4

AMMUNITION TRANSFER SYSTEM PROBLEM

In this chapter; problem definition and a sample problem are given.

4.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION

Given a set of howitzer demand from different projectile types and

positioning of projectiles in the projectile magazine units, the objective is to
minimize the total projectile transferring time of Ammunition Resupply
Vehicle to howitzer by giving the most appropriate transferring order. The
main purpose of this minimization is to improve the transfer speed of ARV
and rate of fire of Fırtına. Minimum time spend for ammunition supply
means getting ready for fire quickly. The transfer order should be decided
when an order is received from FDC until the ARV goes to the howitzer.

According to the transferred place, there are two unloading scenarios;

successive and mixed. The successive unloading scenario is valid when the
ARV transfers the projectiles to howitzers. Since the howitzer has more than
one entrance (ammunition loading point) for specific projectile types, the
same projectile types should be transferred successively. The mixed
unloading scenario is valid when the ARV transfers the projectiles to the
ground or Ammunition Supply Points. In this scenario there is no need to
transfer the projectiles successively.

19
This problem is modeled as a version of TSP. The gripper of the horizontal
projectile transfer unit is seen as the traveling salesman where the nodes of
the projectile magazine units are seen as the cities to be visited. However
there is a few striking difference that everyone can notice at first look.

• In classical TSP; the aim is to find a tour which visits all the cities with
minimum cost. On the other hand, in our problem; the aim is to find a
tour which visits cities until all demands (needed number of
projectiles) are satisfied again with minimum cost.

• In classical TSP; cities are static and the traveling salesman goes to
the cities. However in our problem, cities are not static as expected.
In reality going to a city in our problem means; gripper is going to the
front side of the selected projectile magazine unit and then projectile
which is presented at selected node is coming towards the front side
of its magazine unit.

4.1.1 Assumptions

• The howitzer assignments are done by FDC one by one since during
the transferring time for one howitzer, the rest demanding howitzers
generally change their locations. For every howitzer visit, the problem
is resolved.

• The movements and consequently the corresponding times of the

Vertical Projectile Transfer Unit and the External Conveyor Unit are
same for all projectiles’ loading and transferring. Therefore, these two
mechanisms movements are ignored. However, the same
assumption is not valid for Horizontal Projectile Transfer Unit and
Projectile Magazine Units. According to the plans these two
mechanisms are very important. When an order of projectile transfer

20
 is received, the selection of the Projectile Magazine Units
appropriately will improve the situation.

• In the ammunition transfer system, to keep the projectile magazine

units front node numbers for every state in memory there assumed to
be four grippers. This means the problem is 4-TSP and each gripper
is responsible for one magazine.

• Mechanisms are assumed to wait each other and no parallel

movement can be done. In other words, total time is only additive.

• To be able to imitate the model of TSP, double movements made by

projectile magazine unit and horizontal transfer unit are reduced to
one. Projectiles are assumed to be static in the model and their
turning times are included to the travel times of grippers.

• The projectile magazine units can turn right and left.

4.1.2 Formulation

Indices are;

• i, j are nodes in magazines to be visited. i, j Є {0, 1, 2, Y, 24}

o Node 0 is the starting and returning point of the grippers.

• m denotes gripper numbers i.e. magazine numbers. m Є {1, 2, 3, 4}

• s denotes states (sequence numbers for each magazine). s Є {1, 2,

3,Y}

• p denotes projectile types. p Є {a, b, c, Y}

4.1.3 Parameters

• dp = demand for projectile type p, dp Є {1, 2, Y, 48}

21
• Npjm = binary parameter that shows the presence of projectile p in
node j of magazine m,

• loadm = total number of projectiles in magazine m,

• hm= horizontal movement time of magazine m,

• Ѳ = rotation time of a node in any magazine,

• O = punishment if node i and j do not have same projectile types (the

time lost for changing the type of the projectile so changing the place
of the conveyor at Fırtına side),

• tijm = time between node i and j for magazine m

tijm = 2.hm + Ѳ . min {│j - i│, 24 - │j – i│}. (For all mixed scenario and
successive scenario where i and j have same projectile types.)

tijm = 2.hm + Ѳ . min {│j - i│, 24 - │j – i│} + O. (Just for successive

scenario where i and j do not have same projectile types.)

• t0jm gives us the first movement time of grippers, since we know the
front nodes of magazines, we can easily determine the value of t0jm.

• tijm takes big M value, if i and j are equal nodes.

• Calculations of tijm (for all mixed scenario and successive scenario

where i and j have same projectile types) can be seen in Appendix B.

ex: t12.222 =2 * h2 + 10 * Ѳ (i and j have same projectile type)

Going from node 12 to node 22 in magazine 2 means, previous

projectile taken from magazine 2 was at node 12 in other words at
the front of the projectile magazine unit there is node 12. To reach
node 22, the gripper should move towards to the second projectile
magazine unit and this takes h2 seconds. To bring node 22 front,
magazine 2 should turn by 10 unit which will take 10* Ѳ seconds.
And finally the gripper takes the projectile from node 22 and turns to

22
 the origin in h2 seconds. The time from node 12 to node 22 in
magazine 2 is illustrated in Figure 4.1.3.1.

Gripper

Figure 4.1.3.1 – Calculation of t12.222

4.1.4 Decision Variables

The decision made in this thesis is the order of unloading the projectiles
demanded. Thus, decision variables show the order of these projectiles.
Here is the definition of the binary decision variables:
v

1, if arc i to j is used at state s in magazine m

Xijms =
O, otherwise

23
4.1.5 Model

     X . t 
 (1)
" !  

Subject to:

"'
 %& = 1, ∀( (2)


"!
  %& = 0 , ∀( (3)
 !)*

"!
  %& = 1, ∀( (4)
! 

"!
  % ≤ 1, ∀ , ∀( (5)
! 

"!
  % ≤ 1, ∀ , ∀( (6)
! 

 "! −  
"!/'
= 0, ∀ ≥ 1 , ∀1 ≥ 2, ∀( (7)
 

"!
    % = 78 , ∀9 (8)
" !  6
Є345

"!
   % ≤ ;<=7" , ∀( (9)
!  

"! "
  % ≤  ?8 , ∀ , ∀( (10)
!  8

"!
% Є {0, 1} (11)

24
 • Objective function (1) minimizes the total time.

• Constraint set (2) ensures that for every magazine the grippers leave
their origins (the starting point, node 0), at state 1.

• Constraint set (3) restricts the leaving node 0 at only state 1. After
state 2, the grippers cannot leave the starting point for each
magazine.

• Constraint set (4) returns the grippers to origin exactly once, i.e.
returning node 0 is compulsory.

• Constraint set (5) ensures that departure from node i to any node in
that magazine cannot be greater than 1 for each magazine.

• Constraint set (6) ensures that arrival to node j from any node in that
magazine cannot be greater than 1 for each magazine.

• Constraint set (7) balances the incoming and outgoing nodes. If there
exists a coming arc to a node at state s-1 then there should be a
departuring arc also at state s. This constraint excludes node 0 since
coming to node completes the tour for that magazine.

• Constraint set (8) satisfies the demand of projectile p.

• Constraint set (9) limits the summation of movements in each

magazine with its load of projectiles.

• Constraint set (10) prevents arrival to an empty node for every

magazine.

• Constraint set (11) ensures all variables to be binary.

This model is solved in GAMS. The GAMS formulation of this model can be
seen in Appendix C.

25
4.2 SAMPLE PROBLEM

A sample problem with mixed unloading scenario can be defined as follows:

In this sample problem there assumed to be 2 magazines (each capacity is

6 projectiles). The projectile types are restricted by two, a and b. Maximum
state will be 7 (if each node is used and 1 addition for going to returning
point). The index and parameters for this sample problem is given below:

• i, j Є {0, 1, 2,Y,6}

• m Є {1, 2}

• s Є {1, 2, 3,Y,7}

• p Є {a, b}

• da = 6, db = 5

• Npjm matrices are given in tables 4.2.1 and 4.2.2:

Table 4.2.1: Presence of projectiles in magazine 1

Npj1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

b 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

Table 4.2.2: Presence of projectiles in magazine 2

N pj2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

a 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

b 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

26
• The presence of projectile types can be seen in Figure 4.2.1:
4

Figure 4.2.1
4 - Presence of projectiles in magazines

• Load1 = 6, load2 = 5

• h1 = 1, h2 = 2,
2 Ѳ=1

• Initial positions of the magazines are 3 for both of them.

• tijm matrices are given in Tables 4.2.3 and 4.2.4:

27
 Table 4.2.3: Travel time from node i to node j in magazine 1

tij1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 4 3 2 3 4 5

1 0 100 3 4 5 4 3

2 0 3 100 3 4 5 4

3 0 4 3 100 3 4 5

4 0 5 4 3 100 3 4

5 0 4 5 4 3 100 3

6 0 3 4 5 4 3 100

Table 4.2.4: Travel time from node i to node j in magazine 2

tij2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 6 5 4 5 6 7

1 0 100 5 6 7 6 5

2 0 5 100 5 6 7 6

3 0 6 5 100 5 6 7

4 0 7 6 5 100 5 6

5 0 6 7 6 5 100 5

6 0 5 6 7 6 5 100

The problem is solved in GAMS and obtained 43 sec. as global optimal. In

the problem as explained previously, there assumed to be two grippers one
for each magazine. The following order is obtained for magazines with
mixed unloading scenario:

28
 Table 4.2.5: Unloading projectile order for sample problem

s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
m

Magazine1 0 4 3 2 1 6 5 0

Magazine2 0 4 3 2 1 6 0

The unloading can be done starting from magazine 2 and continuing from
magazine 1 or starting from magazine 1 and continuing from magazine 2.
One projectile from magazine 1 and one projectile from magazine 2 can
also be applicable in the problem.

29
 CHAPTER 5

HEURISTIC ALGORITHM

In this thesis, as well as mathematical model, a heuristic algorithm is also

applied. A heuristic algorithm that gives near-optimal solutions quickly is
proposed. A solution for this problem is constructed by using nearest
neighbor method and by using 2-opt method the constructed solution is tried
to be improved. The algorithm is coded in C# (.NET/Microsoft Visual
Studio). The heuristic algorithm is summarized in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 – The flowchart of the heuristic algorithm

30
In this chapter; nearest neighbor method as construction and 2-opt method
as improvement algorithm is explained in detail.

5.1 NEAREST NEIGHBOR (NN)

The nearest neighbor algorithm is modified according to our problem. As

explained in Chapter 3, nearest neighbor algorithm starts with a random
initial position and visits the nearest city in classical TSP. However in this
problem, instead of a random initial position, the nearest node to origin of
the gripper is chosen.

For the mixed unloading scenario, steps of the algorithm are explained
below:

Step 1: Take the initial positions of the projectile magazine units.

Step 2: Take the situation of projectiles in the projectile magazine units.

Step 3: Take the demand for the projectile types.

Step 4: Construct a list of projectiles. All demanded projectile types with

magazine and position information are added to the list.

Step 5: Choose the projectile with minimum distance to the origin of the
gripper and add it to the ‘unloading order’ list. Add it’s time to the
‘unloading time’.

Step 6: Update the initial position of the magazine by the chosen

projectile’s node.

Step 7: Decrease the demand of chosen projectile type by 1. If demand of

that projectile becomes 0, delete all that types from the list of
projectiles. Otherwise delete only the chosen projectile from the
list.

Step 8: Continue with step 5 until all demands become 0.

31
For the successive unloading scenario, steps of the algorithm are explained
below:

Step 1,2 and 3: are same with mixed scenario,

Step 4: Apply Step 4 for every permutation of the demanded projectile

type and take the minimum unloading time of them. (For example,
if type A, B and C are demanded; order of ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA,
CAB and CBA are tried and minimum of their unloading time is
chosen.)

Step 4.1: Construct lists for each demanded projectile type with the
information of in which magazine and node they present.

Step 4.2: Select the order of the projectile types. (for ex. ABC)

Step 4.3: Choose the necessary projectile from the list with minimum
distance to the origin of the gripper and add it to the ‘unloading
order’ list. Add it’s time to the ‘unloading time’.

Step 4.4: Update the initial position of the magazine by the chosen
projectile’s node.

Step 4.5: Decrease the demand of chosen projectile type by 1. If

demand number of the selected projectile becomes 0, continue
with the next projectile type in Step 4.3. Otherwise delete only
the chosen projectile from the list and continue with Step 4.3.

Step 4.6: If demand of all projectiles becomes 0, continue with Step 4.1
for the next permutation of the demanded projectile types.

To compare the outputs with GAMS results, a penalty should also be added
in successive loading scenario. To be consistent with the GAMS,
successive-magazine method is applied. In this method penalty is added at
Step 4.5 for each projectile type change in the magazine orders. On the

32
other hand, to reflect the real life, successive-overall method which
generates penalty once only for each projectile type changes overall is
applied at Step 4.6.

5.2 2- OPT

The 2-opt algorithm is also modified according to our problem. As explained

in Chapter 3, 2-opt algorithm in classical TSP removes 2 of the edges and
reconstructs them if a smaller cost can be obtained. However in this
problem, instead of reconstructing only the removed edges, new edges that
are not chosen in the primal tour are also added. Since the new edges are
also added, the searching time of the algorithm increased. Therefore pairs
are restricted by one, two and three projectiles.

Steps of the algorithm for both mixed and successive scenarios are like as
follows:

Step 1: Take the constructed tour.

Step 2: Create pairs with two consecutive projectiles, remove their edges,
invert and combine them to the tour again. Check the ‘unloading
time’, if it is better than the best obtained time, add to the solution
set. Repeat Step 2 for all duos.

Step 3: Create pairs with three consecutive projectiles, remove their

edges, invert and combine them to the tour again. Check the
‘unloading time’, if it is better than the best obtained time, add to
the solution set. Repeat Step 3 for all trios.

Step 4: Construct a list that contains the demanded type of projectiles

which are not in the constructed tour.

33
Step 5: From the list that constructed in Step 2, new lists are formed as
List1, List2 and List3. List1 is the same with the list in Step 4 (b, b,
b, c, a, a, Y). List2 contains two projectile pairs and their
combinations from the list in Step 4 (bb, bb, bc, ca, ac, aa, Y). List
3 contains three projectile pairs and their combinations. (bbb, bbc,
bba, bab, caa, Y)

Step 6: Remove pairs from the constructed tour and try all pairs in List1,
List2 and List3. Take their solutions one by one, if it is better than
the best obtained time, add to the solution set.

Step 7: Show the minimum of the solution set as the best solution.

34
 CHAPTER 6

COMPUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS

6.1 GAMS

In this thesis, The General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) (version

23.0.2) is used for optimization. GAMS is high-level modeling system for
mathematical programming and optimization. The system is widely used for
modeling and solving linear and nonlinear problems. It contains an
integrated development environment (IDE) and works with different
optimization solvers as BARON, COIN, CONOPT, CPLEX, DICOPT,
GUROBI, MOSEK, SNOPT AND XPRESS. For this problem CPLEX solver
is chosen [18][19].

35
Figure 6.1.1 - The snapshot of GAMS code user interface

Figure 6.1.2 - The snapshot of GAMS output user interface

36
6.2 HEURISTIC ALGORTIHM

The heuristic algorithm is coded in C# (.NET/Microsoft Visual Studio). To be

user friendly, a graphical user interface (GUI) is also developed.

By GUI, the situation of magazines i.e. presence of projectile types in

magazines and nodes are taken from the user. According to this input,
number of ammunitions loaded is reflected to the screen. The demand and
the initial positions of magazines are also expected from the user. After all
inputs are complete, the feasibility check, which examine whether there is
enough projectile to satisfy the demand, is done. After unloading scenario
(mixed, successive-magazine, successive-overall) is chosen, construction
and improvement can be done. The unloading order, best cost and
evaluation time are the outputs that can be seen again in GUI.

Figure 6.2.1 – The graphical user interface of the heuristic algorithm

37
6.3 TEST ENVIRONMENT

As a test environment, at first step different machines are used for GAMS.
To cope with the GAMS’ high usage of memory, best hardware is chosen
and all the computational experiments are run on it. The machine is an
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5650, 2.67 GHz 2 processors desktop computer
with 4 GB RAM and 64-bit operating system. The algorithm is also run on
the same machine.

6.4 TEST SETS

Two different test sets are constructed in this thesis. In test set 1; the
comparison of GAMS and heuristic for mixed and successive unloading
scenario is done. In test set 2, the behavior of the heuristic for different
demands for mixed and successive unloading scenario is analyzed. For
both of test sets, same magazine situations; N1 and N2 are used. In N1
type, approximately %50 and in N2 type, approximately %85 of the
magazines are full.

6.4.1 Test Set 1

In Test Set 1 the experiments are done using the following data sets:

The number of the magazines used;

• 2 magazines

• 4 magazines

Different magazine situations;

• N1 - less number of ammunitions (23 of 48 in 2 magazines and 45 of

96 in 4 magazines) loaded

• N2 - more number of ammunitions (39 of 48 in 2 magazines and 82

of 96 in 4 magazines) loaded,

38
The output method;

• Mixed unloading scenario

• Successive unloading scenario

Different demands

• 2_D1 & 2_D2 Different demands for 2 magazines

• 4_D1 & 4_D2 Different demands for 4 magazines

Table 6.4.1.1: Test Sets for Test Set1

Test no M N T D
1 2_Demand1
Mixed
2 2_Demand2
N1
3 2_Demand1
Successive
4 2_Demand2
2 magazine
5 2_Demand1
Mixed
6 2_Demand2
N2
7 2_Demand1
Successive
8 2_Demand2
9 4_Demand1
Mixed
10 4_Demand2
N1
11 4_Demand1
Successive
12 4_Demand2
4 magazine
13 4_Demand1
Mixed
14 4_Demand2
N2
15 4_Demand1
Successive
16 4_Demand2

Demands are taken as below:

39
 Table 6.4.1.2: Demands for projectile types used in Test Sets

Demands a b c d
2_Demand1 3 6 5 4
2_Demand2 2 7 4 4
4_Demand1 8 7 3 5
4_Demand2 9 10 8 9

The initial positions are taken for all test sets are; 3, 5, 3, 8 respectively for
magazines 1, 2, 3, 4.

Magazine situations N1 and N2 can be seen in the following tables:

Table 6.4.1.3: N1 Magazine Situation

Table 6.4.1.4: N2 Magazine Situation

To be realistic, horizontal movement to magazine 1 and 4 (h1, h4) is taken

as 5,5 seconds and horizontal movement to magazine 2 and 3 (h2, h3) as
1,5 seconds. Rotation by one node for every magazine is taken 1 second.

These tests are run in GAMS and heuristic for mixed and successive (both
for successive magazine and successive overall) unloading scenarios. The

40
results for Test Set 1 can be seen in tables of Appendix D. The results
analysis is done in part 6.5.1.

6.4.2 Test Set 2

In Test Set 2 the experiments are done using the following data sets:

The number of the magazines used;

• 4 magazines

Different magazine situations;

• N1 - less number of ammunitions (45 of 96) loaded

• N2 - more number of ammunitions (82 of 96) loaded,

The output method;

• Mixed unloading scenario

• Successive unloading scenario

Different demands

• 4N1_Demand 1-10 & 4N2_Demand 1-10 Different demands for 4

magazines

Table 6.4.2.1: Test Sets for Test Set 2

Test no M N T D
1 4N1_Demand 1-5
Mixed
2 4N1_Demand 6-10
N1
3 4N1_Demand 1-5
Successive
4 4N1_Demand 6-10
4 magazine
5 4N2_Demand 1-5
Mixed
6 4N2_Demand 6-10
N2
7 4N2_Demand 1-5
Successive
8 4N2_Demand 6-10

41
Demands are taken as below:

Table 6.4.2.2: Demands for projectile types used in Test Sets

Demands a b c d Total
4N1_Demand 1 5 5 5 5 20
4N1_Demand 2 3 8 8 1 20
4N1_Demand 3 8 2 1 9 20
4N1_Demand 4 7 7 3 3 20
4N1_Demand 5 2 3 3 12 20
4N1_Demand 6 10 10 11 9 40
4N1_Demand 7 5 12 11 12 40
4N1_Demand 8 10 12 8 10 40
4N1_Demand 9 9 9 11 11 40
4N1_Demand 10 8 12 10 10 40
4N2_Demand 1 9 9 9 9 36
4N2_Demand 2 15 15 3 3 36
4N2_Demand 3 4 4 16 12 36
4N2_Demand 4 9 9 16 2 36
4N2_Demand 5 3 3 15 15 36
4N2_Demand 6 18 18 18 18 72
4N2_Demand 7 16 20 20 16 72
4N2_Demand 8 13 21 20 18 72
4N2_Demand 9 18 21 16 17 72
4N2_Demand 10 18 21 21 12 72

The initial positions are taken for all test sets are; 3, 5, 3, 8 respectively for
magazines 1, 2, 3, 4.

Magazine situations and movement times are same with Test Set 1.

The tests in Test Set 2 are run only in heuristic for mixed and successive-
overall unloading scenarios. Successive-magazine is omitted since GAMS
is not used in this set. The results analysis is done in part 6.5.2.

42
6.5 TESTS ANALYSIS

6.5.1 Test Set 1

6.5.1.1 Mixed Unloading Scenario

For the mixed unloading scenarios in Test Set 1, GAMS generally finds
global optimals. For test 13 and 14, since the number of variables increases
to 57.500, GAMS cannot find global optimal. The program gives out of
memory error approximately 1 hour later.

The heuristic also finds very good solutions in a short time when compared
to GAMS. At test 14, GAMS finds a local optimal as 172, on the other hand
the heuristic finds 152 in the construction part and improves it to 149 less
than half minute. In fact, this result is expected at the beginning. Due to the
polyhedral structure of the magazines, the nearest neighbor heuristic should
definitely give good results. Instead of a metaheuristic like Genetic
Algorithms, the heuristic algorithm developed for this thesis gives better
results although its simplicity.

In table 6.5.1.1 the costs and CPU times can be seen for construction
heuristic, improvement heuristic and GAMS one by one. As expected, after
construction, 5 of 8 tests could not be improved. The other 3 tests; test 1,
test 10 and test 14 improves 1,46%, 0,68%, 1,97% respectively. This shows
us that nearest neighbor heuristic works well for this problem type.

Another point that attracts attention about the tests is; for the cases with
same number of demands when the load of the magazines increases, the
costs decreases. To illustrate pair test 1 - test 5, test 9 - test 13 can be
analyzed. Test 1 and test 5, test 9 - test 13 have the same demand with

43
different magazine loads. Test 5 and test 13 give lower best costs than test
1 and test 9.

Final analysis about the tests is about the main reason of the thesis. The
main aim of the thesis is to decrease the transferring time of the current
system. As example, test 9 and test 13 are taken. (Since the software is not
completed the current system’s results are obtained manually.) For test 9
and 13, the current system gives 231 and 233 respectively. This means the
thesis reach its objective by improving the current system for test 9 and 13
by 31% and 57%.

Table 6.5.1.1: Comparison for Mixed Unloading Scenario

6.5.1.2 Successive Unloading Scenario

Contrary to the mixed unloading scenario, the GAMS get difficulty for finding
global optimal (only 3 of 8 tests are global optimal). The program again
gives out of memory error. Although the program finds local optimum, it
generally gives the unloading order except test 12. It gives 589 as cost
however the results are not shown. This test is run on different machines to
see the order, however all machines are unsuccessful to show the results.

44
The heuristic again finds very good solutions in a short time when compared
to GAMS. To compare with GAMS, successive-magazine (SM) column
should be used. To see the gap between GAMS column and successive-
overall (SO) column, results can be examined. Successive-overall results
are really different from SM and GAMS.

From the table 6.5.1.2 it is easily recognized, after construction, again tests
could not be improved. This justifies us that nearest neighbor heuristic
works well for this problem type, also for successive unloading scenario.

Another point that attracts attention about the tests of successive unloading
is; for the cases with same number of demands the successive gives higher
costs than mixed ones. It is obviously normal that some punishments cannot
be inevitable.

Final analysis about the tests is again about the current system. As
example, test 11 and test 15 are taken. (Since the software is not completed
the current system’s results are obtained manually.) For test 11 and 15, the
current system gives 365 and 376 respectively. This justifies the thesis
reach its objective by improving the current system for test 11 and 15 by
28% and 47%.

45
 Table 6.5.1.2: Comparison for Successive Unloading Scenario

6.5.2 Test Set 2

In test set 2, the effect of different demands is put forward. Tests are run in
the heuristic algorithm. The results can be seen in Table 6.5.2.1. In the
table, best values for each test and averages of them are given. For the
mixed and successive overall unloading scenarios, evaluation times do not
differ more than 1 second. For 4N1_Demand1-5 (20 of 45) and
4N2_Demand1-5 (36 of 82) best cost variations are about %20 where
4N1_Demand6-10 (40 of 45) and 4N2_Demand6-10 (72 of 82) best cost
variations are about %0.5. This is because of the demanded / loaded
ammunition quantity ratio. When this ratio gets smaller, the variation
between different demand sets increases as expected.

46
Table 6.5.2.1: Comparison for Test Set 2

47
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

In this thesis, Ammunition Transfer System (ATS), the electro-mechanical

system of the Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (ARV) which will be used to
meet T-155 mm Fırtına howitzers’ ammunition, is considered. The transfer
of ammunitions from ARV to Fırtına is optimized for an effective
improvement of firing rate by determining the unloading order of the
ammunitions specifically projectiles.

Our problem assumes the mechanical parts are distinct from each other and
the total time of transferring all demanded projectiles is evaluated as the
cost of problem. So, the unloading time of the ARV is minimized in this
study. Also the unloading order of the projectiles is studied in two scenarios;
the mixed and the successive unloading scenario.

A modified mTSP model is developed in GAMS; for small versions of the

problem it could find the global optimals but for larger problems, out of
memory error is occurred and global optimals cannot be obtained. Also a
heuristic algorithm is developed. The algorithm consists of construction and
improvement heuristics as nearest neighbor and 2-opt exchange
respectively.

Our experimental results (Test Set 1) show that for small size problems,
GAMS and heuristic algorithm give meaningful results and the heuristic is

48
better for larger problems in terms of computational time and solution
quality. Also it can be said in any way, GAMS or heuristic, the current
system can be improved. Again in tests (Test Set 2), the demanded / loaded
ammunition quantity ratio attracts the attention. It is recognized that when
this ratio gets smaller, the variation between different demand sets
increases as expected.

The aim of this study is to define the mathematical model of ATS and
minimize the unloading time by GAMS and heuristic .The extension of this
study may include the following issues:

• Loading ammunition optimization, which is the reverse operation of

unloading. So not only the unloading but also the loading of the
ammunitions will be minimized to improve the total transfer time,

• Synchronization of the horizontal transfer unit and projectile

magazine units movements, since these mechanisms are assumed
to move serial to make the problem linear, parallel usage of them can
be solved as a nonlinear problem,

• Combining the assignments of ARV’s to FIRTINA's together for the

optimization, so multiple ARV's can be considered and an
assignment of ARV to Fırtına can be done.

49
 REFERENCES

[1] Murat Faik Yaren, “Fırtına Howitzer Fire Control System and Ammunition
Resupply Vehicle”, ASELSAN Magazine, 2009

[2] Cor A.J. Hurkens, Gerhard J. Woeginger, “On the nearest neighbor rule
for the traveling salesman problem”, Operations Research Letters 32, 1-4,
2004

[3] E.L. Lawler, J.K. Lenstra, A.HG. Rinnooy Kan, D.B. Shmoys (Eds.) “The
Traveling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial
Optimization”, Wiley, Chichester, 1985

[4] Charles E. Noon, James C. Bean, “An Efficient Transformation of the

Generalized Traveling Salesman Problem”, Technical Report 89-36, The
University of Michigan, December 1989

[5] A. Schrijver, “On the history of combinatorial optimization”, Handbooks in

OR & MS, Vol. 12, 1-68, 2005

[6] G. Reinelt, “The Traveling Salesman Problem: computational solutions

for TSP applications”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer Verlag,
1996

[7] M. Bellmore, S. Hong, “Transformation of Multisalesmen Problem to the

Standard Traveling Salesman Problem”, J Assoc. Comput. Machinery 21,
500-504, 1974

[8] S. Hong, M.W. Padberg, “A Note on the Symmetric Multiple Traveling

Salesman Problem with Fixed Charges”, Operations Research. 25, 871-
874, 1977

[9] M.R. Rao, “A Note on the Multiple Traveling Salesman Problem”,

Operations Research, Vol.28,No.3,Part I, May-June 1980

50
[10] Tolga Bektaş, “The multiple traveling salesman problem: an overview of
formulations and solution procedures”, Omega 34, 209-219, 2006

[11] Jeroen Wouter Boer, "Approximate models and solution approaches for
the vehicle routing problem with multiple use of vehicles and time windows."
METU M.Sc. thesis, 2008

[12] M.W.P.Savelsbergh, “The General Pickup and Delivery Problem”,

Georgia Institute of Technology M.Sc. thesis, 1995

[13] David L. Applegate, Robert E. Bixby, Vasek Chvatal, William J. Cook,

"The Traveling Salesman Problem, A Computational Study", Princeton
Series in Applied Mathematics, Princeton University Press, 2006

[14] Christian Nilsson, "Heuristics for Travelling Salesman Problem",

Linköping University, 2003

[15] Wayne L. Winston, “Operations Research, Applications and

Algorithms”, Thomson, 534-551, 2004

[16] Reinelt, "The Traveling Salesman Problem", Springer-Verlag, chapter 7,

1994

[17] O. Pehlivanoğlu, “An Algorithm for the capacitated Vehicle Routing

Problem With Time Windows”, METU M.Sc. thesis, 2005

[18] Wikipedia web site, “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Algebraic_

Modeling_System”, last accessed: January 10, 2012

[19] GAMS web site, “http://www.gams.com” , last accessed: January 01,

2012

51
 APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY

Artillery: Artillery is the general name of the weapons and soldiers that
throws a projectile with the help of an explosion of change/powder.

Howitzer: Howitzer is the weapon that can shoot a projectile with both low
angle of elevation (like guns) and high angle of elevation (like mortars).

Self-Propelled Howitzer: Self-propelled howitzer is the weapon vehicle

which can move by itself without any other carrier.

Ammunition: Ammunition is the general name of the material that is used for
each round of weapons shot. So, ammunition can be said to be the
combination of charge/powder (the chemical material which explores to
throw the projectile away), fuse (the mechanical compound that starts the
explosion of the projectile at the target) and projectile (the main part which is
thrown and explores at the target area to harm the target).

Fire Direction Center (FDC): FDC is the commander unit center which is
also an armored vehicle. The decisions of missions and necessary
precautions for the next missions are controlled by FDC. For example,
which Fırtına will shoot to which target and how many projectiles will be shot
is decided by FDC. So, FDC should also decide the demand of each Fırtına
and FDC should order the ARV to transfer the necessary ammunition to
these Fırtına's.

52
 APPENDIX B

CALCULATION OF TIJM

If the fronts of the magazines are 4, 4, 22, 11 respectively for

magazine 1, 2, 3, 4 tijm take these values:

Table B-1: Calculation of distances between i and j in magazines

m
tij 0 1 K 4 K 11 K 22 K 24
1.0 0 2h1 + 3Ѳ Y 2h1 Y 2h1 + 7Ѳ Y 2h1 + 6Ѳ Y 2h1 + 4Ѳ
1.1 0 M Y 2h1 + 3Ѳ Y 2h1 + 10Ѳ Y 2h1 + 3Ѳ Y 2h1 + 1Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
1.4 0 2h1 + 3Ѳ Y M Y 2h1 + 7Ѳ Y 2h1 + 6Ѳ Y 2h1 + 4Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
1.24 0 2h1 + 1Ѳ Y 2h1 + 4Ѳ Y 2h1 + 11Ѳ Y 2h1 + 2Ѳ Y M
2.0 0 2h2 + 3Ѳ Y 2h2 Y 2h2 + 7Ѳ Y 2h2 + 6Ѳ Y 2h2 + 4Ѳ
2.1 0 M Y 2h2 + 3Ѳ Y 2h2 + 10Ѳ Y 2h2 + 3Ѳ Y 2h2 + 1Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2.4 0 2h2 + 3Ѳ Y M Y 2h2 + 7Ѳ Y 2h2 + 6Ѳ Y 2h2 + 4Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2.24 0 2h2 + 1Ѳ Y 2h2 + 4Ѳ Y 2h2 + 11Ѳ Y 2h2 + 2Ѳ Y M
3.0 0 2h3 + 3Ѳ Y 2h3 + 6Ѳ Y 2h3 + 11Ѳ Y 2h3 Y 2h3 + 2Ѳ
3.1 0 M Y 2h3 + 3Ѳ Y 2h3 + 10Ѳ Y 2h3 + 3Ѳ Y 2h3 + 1Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3.22 0 2h3 + 3Ѳ Y 2h3 + 6Ѳ Y 2h3 + 11Ѳ Y M Y 2h3 + 2Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3.24 0 2h3 + 1Ѳ Y 2h3 + 4Ѳ Y 2h3 + 11Ѳ Y 2h3 + 2Ѳ Y M
4.0 0 2h4 + 10Ѳ Y 2h4 + 7Ѳ Y 2h4 Y 2h4 + 11Ѳ Y 2h4 + 11Ѳ
4.1 0 M Y 2h4 + 3Ѳ Y 2h4 + 10Ѳ Y 2h4 + 3Ѳ Y 2h4 + 1Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
4.11 0 2h4 + 10Ѳ Y 2h4 + 7Ѳ Y M Y 2h4 + 11Ѳ Y 2h4 + 11Ѳ
K 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
4.24 0 2h4 + 1Ѳ Y 2h4 + 4Ѳ Y 2h4 + 11Ѳ Y 2h4 + 2Ѳ Y M

53
 APPENDIX C

GAMS FORMULATION

sets i nodes /0*24/

alias (i,j) ;

sets m magazines /1, 2, 3, 4/;

sets p projectiles /a, b, c, d/;

sets s states /1*23/;

table N(m,p,i) if projectile p is in node i in magazines

$include "D:\Sinem\Tez\model\Test_Sets\TEST13\TEST13_N2.txt" ;

parameters

d(p) demand of projectile p

/a8

b7

c3

d 5/

load(m) load of magazines

/ 1 17

2 22

3 21

4 22/;

54
table t(m,i,j) travel time in magazines

$include "D:\Sinem\Tez\model\Test_Sets\TEST13\TEST13_T.txt" ;

binary variables x(i,j,m,s) 1 if arc from node i to node j in magazine m at state s is used
otherwise 0

variable z objective_function

equations

constraint1(m) leaving node 0 at state 1 is compulsory

constraint2(m) leaving node 0 cannot happen after state 2 for each magazine

constraint3(m) returning node 0 is compulsory

constraint4(m,i) departure from i cannot be greater than 1

constraint5(m,j) arrival to j cannot be greater than 1

constraint6(j,m,s) if there exists a coming arc to a node then there should be a departuring
arc also(excluding node 0)

constraint7(p) demand of projectile p should be satisfied

constraint8(m) summation of x cannot be greater than load of that magazine

constraint9(m,j) arrival to an empty node is prevented

objective objective_function ;

objective.. z =e= sum((m,s,i,j),x(i,j,m,s)*t(m,i,j));

constraint1(m).. sum(j,x('0',j,m,'1')) =e= 1 ;

constraint2(m).. sum(j,sum(s$(ord(s) ge 2),x('0',j,m,s))) =e= 0 ;

constraint3(m).. sum(s,sum(i,x(i,'0',m,s))) =e= 1 ;

constraint4(m,i).. sum((s,j),x(i,j,m,s))=l= 1;

constraint5(m,j).. sum((s,i),x(i,j,m,s))=l= 1;

constraint6(j,m,s)$(ord(j) ge 2 and ord(s) ge 2).. sum(i,x(j,i,m,s)) - sum(i,x(i,j,m,s-1))=e= 0 ;

constraint7(p).. sum(m,sum(s,sum(i,sum(j$(N(m,p,j) eq 1),x(i,j,m,s))))) =e= d(p);

constraint8(m).. sum((s,i,j),x(i,j,m,s)) =l= load(m);

55
constraint9(m,j)$(ord(j) ge 2).. sum((s,i),x(i,j,m,s)) =l= sum(p,N(m,p,j));

model tez / all /;

OPTIONS SOLPRINT=ON, ITERLIM=20000000, RESLIM=20000000, optcr=0.0,

BRATIO=0;

tez.WORKSPACE=3500;

file opt Cplex option file / cplex.opt /;

put opt;

put 'Nodefileind 2'/

'Workmem 30000'/ ;

putclose opt;

solve tez minimizing z using mip;

display x.l, x.m ;

56
 APPENDIX D

TEST RESULTS OF TEST SET 1

D.1 Test1: 2 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 2_D1

Table D1-1: Test 1 GAMS Solution

Table D1-2: Test 1 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

57
D.2 Test2: 2 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 2_D2

Table D2-1: Test 2 GAMS Solution

Table D2-2: Test 2 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

58
D.3 Test3: 2 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 2_D1

Table D3-1: Test 3 GAMS Solution

Table D3-2: Test 3 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D3-3: Test 3 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

59
D.4 Test4: 2 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 2_D2

Table D4-1: Test 4 GAMS Solution

Table D4-2: Test 4 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D4-3: Test 4 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

60
D.5 Test5: 2 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 2_D1

Table D5-1: Test 5 GAMS Solution

Table D5-2: Test 5 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

61
D.6 Test6: 2 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 2_D2

Table D6-1: Test 6 GAMS Solution

Table D6-2: Test 6 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

62
D.7 Test7: 2 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 2_D1

Table D7-1: Test 7 GAMS Solution

Table D7-2: Test 7 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D7-3: Test 7 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

63
D.8 Test8: 2 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 2_D2

Table D8-1: Test 8 GAMS Solution

Table D8-2: Test 8 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D8-3: Test 8 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

64
D.9 Test9: 4 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 4_D1

Table D9-1: Test 9 GAMS Solution

Table D9-2: Test 9 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

65
D.10 Test10: 4 Magazines – N1 – Mixed – 4_D2

Table D10-1: Test 10 GAMS Solution

Table D10-2: Test 10 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

66
D.11 Test11: 4 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 4_D1

Table D11-1: Test 11 GAMS Solution

Table D11-2: Test 11 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D11-3: Test 11 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

67
D.12 Test12: 4 Magazines – N1 – Successive – 4_D2

Table D12-1: Test 12 GAMS Solution

Table D12-2: Test 12 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D12-3: Test 12 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

68
D.13 Test13: 4 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 4_D1

Table D13-1: Test 13 GAMS Solution

Table D13-2: Test 13 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

69
D.14 Test14: 4 Magazines – N2 – Mixed – 4_D2

Table D14-1: Test 14 GAMS Solution

Table D14-2: Test 14 Heuristics’ Solution (Mixed)

70
D.15 Test15: 4 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 4_D1

Table D15-1: Test 15 GAMS Solution

Table D15-2: Test 15 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D15-3: Test 15 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

71
D.16 Test16: 4 Magazines – N2 – Successive – 4_D2

Table D16-1: Test 16 GAMS Solution

Table D16-2: Test 16 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Magazine)

Table D16-3: Test 16 Heuristics’ Solution (Successive – Overall)

72