A Fast-Response Mathematical Programming Approach for Delivering

Disaster Relief Goods: An Earthquake Case Study

Jaber Qezelbash-Chamak *
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida, FL, USA
(qezelbashc.jaber@ufl.edu)
Saeid Badamchizadeh
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
(Sbz94@aut.ac.ir)
Abbas Seifi
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
(aseifi@aut.ac.ir)

Abstract.
This paper tackles a complex logistics challenge of disaster management, encompassing warehouse
location, pre-disaster inventory planning, routing, and post-disaster relief supply delivery. We establish
an iterative process for optimizing relief distribution to shelters. Adaptable warehouse inventory
reallocation responds to fluctuating demands, guided by a two-phase mathematical programming
approach. In the first phase, a two-stage stochastic programming (TSSP) model determines optimal
warehouse and shelter locations and inventory levels. In the subsequent phase, we introduce a mixed-
integer programming (MIP) model to minimize the overall delivery time by making routing decisions.
To streamline the process, we introduce a novel enumeration algorithm that trims down route options
by considering unavailable links, effectively transforming the MIP model into an assignment-based
model. This innovation results in anoticeable 74% reduction in solution time. Further efficiency is
achieved by developing a branch-and-cut algorithm for swift MIP resolution. A real-world case study
confirms the practicality of our approach.

Keywords: Disaster management; Humanitarian logistics; Location; Two-stage stochastic programming; Branch
and cut; Benders decomposition

1. Introduction
According to the Emergency Event Database (EM-DAT), 11,495 natural disasters have occurred
worldwide between 1980 and 2015, with more than 6 billion people affected, near to 135 million left
homeless, almost 2.5 million deaths, and an estimated report of up to US$2.71 trillion monetarily
damage (Noham & Tzur, 2018). In 2006, Bam city was shaken by an earthquake of 6.6 on Richter's
magnitude scale. The city had a population of 90,000 people, and the incident impacted the whole city

1
with the death toll amounting to at least 26.271, 30,000 injured and left over thousands of homeless.
This catastrophe could have been significantly better managed if a pre-determined plan for such a
situation had been already defined. A disaster results from an enormous ecological breakdown in human
relations and the environment (Caunhye et al., 2012). In the case of an earthquake (an example of a
breakdown of relation), the impacts could worsen if no proper response is configured prior to the
disaster. The slow speed of delivering relief items to shelters is an example of this situation which
causes a significant increase in casualties. In this regard, devising a way to respond to the relief demands
rapidly provides us with a much better situation regarding human life protection. Following a
catastrophe, high demand for specific resources occurs. The process of planning, managing, and
controlling these resources in the right place at the right time is called disaster management (Sheu,
2007).

Emergency logistics literature could be classified in terms of whether they consider disaster relief
operations before or after the impact of a disaster. Crisis Management Headquarters (CMH) face the
problem of locating optimal places for setting up warehouses to store relief goods and also shelters to
deliver demands to civilians cost-effectively and in minimum time. Regarding the fact that the damage
occurred in different parts of the city is based on multiple factors, such as the construction cost of
buildings in each neighborhood and the population density in each neighborhood according to the time
of earthquake occurrence, there is no deterministic optimal solution to locating the warehouses and
shelters. Another and more critical challenge is that relief items must be transported to shelters from
warehouses in the minimum possible time following an earthquake. A third challenge lies in the fact
that practitioners in the CMH need a simple, understandable, and practical procedure to reschedule the
fleet to deliver relief items one after another.

To address the first obstacle of locating optimal coordinates for warehouses and shelters, we propose a
scenario-based approach that covers all the scenarios in which an earthquake may affect the city. This
approach determines optimal locations based on average transportation and shortage of relief items. To
resolve the second challenge of fleeting the vehicles in the minimum possible time, we devise an
enumeration algorithm that provides the decision maker with the potential best routes for fleeting the
vehicles. This enumeration algorithm tackles the need to solve a routing problem that is cumbersome
and time-consuming and reduces the planner's problem to an assignment one that aims to allocate each
vehicle to the best possible route obtained from the enumeration algorithm. Finally, the third challenge
is to devise a procedure to rerun the post-disaster optimization model at a chronological pace with the
updated values of demand and available routes to replan the fleet of vehicles several times until the
demand of civilians is fully met. This plan is prepared as a separate optimization model, and the
managerial procedure for using it is provided.

2
To cover pre- and post-disaster operations, we introduce two separate mathematical models. In our first
model, the preparedness activities deal with strategic and tactical decisions in two separate stages. The
initial preparation decisions are taken in the first stage, including shelter and warehouse location, initial
stock positioning, and the optimal level of relief goods in inventory. Then, at the tactical level, allocation
decisions (relief items from warehouses to shelters), as well as the amount of shortage of items
determined for each shelter, are selected. Accordingly, our second model is developed, giving a fast
response after an earthquake to make the optimum decisions on routings and delivery of relief goods.
Finally, a third model is developed to be used by CMH to devise a new plan for chronologically fleeting
the vehicles with the updated values of the demand parameter and the set of available routes. Our
proposed framework and models can be utilized by authorities to face other humanitarian challenges
like those appearing in the classification of geophysical, meteorological, hydrological, climatic events,
and biological catastrophes. For example, storms, floods, volcanos, and wildfires are of similar structure
in general, but the decision maker must note that the nature of scenarios may be totally different. Hence,
obtaining the values needed for the scenario-based parameters may be subject to distinct analysis.

The remainder of this paper is categorized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the literature
pertaining to our specific focus. Section 3 defines the characteristics of the problem, notations, and
formulations. The exact solution methods for the formulations are presented in section 4. Section 5
provides a managerial procedure by which the implementation of proposed real-world models casts into
a structured process. Computational results of Benders Decomposition (BD) and B&C algorithms on
some standard large-scale instances are tabulated and portrayed through figures in section 6. To test the
applicability of the presented models, a real-world case study of Kerman city of Iran is considered and
applied by section 7. Section 8 deals with the concluding remarks and future research. Furthermore, the
appendix section entails our BD implementation on a large scale for the pre-disaster model.

2. Literature review
Disaster management literature has benefited from various research investigations in the last two
decades, and researchers have always sought solutions to help policymakers. Perhaps the early
optimization models in emergency logistics were developed in the late 1970s following several disasters
during the 1960s and 1970s, most notably the Torrey Canyon shipwreck off the coast of England in
1967 (Caunhye et al., 2012). The main concern of the current study is the importance of providing a
fast response to the demands of people's shelters. Therefore, this section investigates the necessity of
this issue in the literature. In general, decision-making issues in operations research are divided into
three basic categories: strategic, tactical, and operational. Disaster response problems, especially post-
earthquake measures, are clearly operational issues. In this category of issues, response time is critical,
and every minute or even second delay in response will negatively affect the defined objective function.
In the case of an earthquake, this objective function is more about the cost of human casualties, which

3
is the most critical dimension. Thus, we review the broad literature on humanitarian logistics with a
more emphasis on response time. We aim to design a model that can prepare a response at the
operational level in the fastest possible time to mitigate a disaster's aftermath by saving more people's
lives.

In a recent study conducted by Balcik and Yanıkoğlu (2020), a robust optimization model was presented
for the assessment planning of requirements after the occurrence of a disaster in terms of time
uncertainty. They used a tractable robust optimization formulation with a coaxial box uncertainty set to
better control the uncertainty in their proposed model. Then, they solved the model by developing a
practical method for evaluating route feasibility using a taboo search heuristic. The approach presented
in their paper is another appropriate solution for a rapid response to humanitarian needs in the aftermath
of an earthquake, the same goal that our study seeks in a different way. As one of the most
comprehensive and recent review papers in this area, we refer readers to Kovacs and Moshtari
(2019).Table (1) shows the most important disaster management studies exclusively related to the
earthquake and our focus. The articles presented in this table are limited to the 2000s onwards.

Stochastic programming is a suitable tool for preparedness modeling due to its capability of
encompassing various scenarios representing disasters and their consequences. This type of
mathematical modeling has been proven effective in many applications related to disaster management
and correctly models the situation (Grass & Fischer, 2016). By location in our paper, we mean the
location of warehouses for relief items as well as emergency shelters for people in earthquake
conditions. Given that we focus on both pre-earthquake and post-earthquake operations, we have
reviewed the literature for each section separately. Location models in this area are usually single-period
because location decisions are frequently incorporated into the preparedness phase of disaster
management. Additionally, these models have often been developed in a single-objective form than the
multi-objective approach. Jia et al. (2007), and Mete and Zabinsky (2010) are two good examples of
articles dealing with deterministic single-level modeling with a single-objective approach. Papers
investigated by Balcik and Beamon (2008); Chang et al. (2007); Duran et al. (2011) include single-
objective and single-level studies but consider uncertain parameters in modeling. There are also
mathematical models in catastrophe logistics management that adopt locating and discharging
decisions, called location-evacuation models. These models are based on large-scale emergencies and
seek to select areas for shelters in places where they can implement a population evacuation plan at the
time when a disaster happens (Caunhye et al., 2012). These evacuation conditions are always uncertain:
traffic flow, the number of relief goods demanded by shelters or hospitals, the population to be
transferred from the affected area to shelters, and in like manner. The study conducted by Zhong et al.
(2020) presented a bi-objective risk-averse optimization model for the disaster relief location-routing
problem (LRP) with stochastic demand. The model considers both cost and time objectives and
incorporates a risk measure. The simultaneous consideration of two vital objectives in the disaster relief

4
logistics—cost and time—results in a bi-objective optimization model that is solved with a proposed
hybrid NSGA-II algorithm (Zhong et al., 2020). Similarly, the current study considers both time and
cost as objectives, however, in two separated models. The aim of our approach is to have a focus on the
reduction of the response time aftermath of an earthquake. Thus, we mostly focus on post-disaster
operations (response time), while keeping an eye on pre-disaster operations (setup cost). Some recent
studies including Basciftci et al. (2021) and Shehadeh and Tucker (2022) focused on pre-disaster
operations by developing stochastic models for network set-up cost reduction. Their approach is similar
to the current study in terms of highlighting the need for representing the dependency between customer
demand and planner’s decisions. They provided insights into uncertainty modeling and facility location
through distributionally robust optimization. The authors conclude that their proposed approach results
in significant increase in profit and decrease in unmet demand (Basciftci et al., 2021; Haghani &
Bliemer, 2023; Shehadeh & Tucker, 2022; Tikani et al., 2021). A similar approach of meeting demands
uncertainty using TSSP modelling is conducted by (Liu et al., 2023). The authors proposed a TSSP
model that optimizes the location of facilities and the allocation of resources in response to demand
uncertainty. However, the concept of time in their modelling does not of significance as it aimed to
address pandemies, such as Covid19, that speard gradually by the time. In the study of Bayram and
Yaman (2018), a two-stage model was developed under uncertainty conditions for location-evacuation
and route assignment. The authors nicely deployed a BD method to solve the models, and their models
are applied to a real-world case study. Their approach is somewhat similar to the current research,
although their main concern was on the preparedness phase with thoroughly different modeling and
some assumptions. Table (1) summarizes publications relating to fast response, considering different
phases of disaster management and their decisions. Based on table (1), our contribution lies in (i) the
development of a novel solution method to accelerate the response time for delivering relief goods for
post-disaster operations and (ii) the design of a managerial procedure which helps to utilize the
optimization models recursively to reallocate goods and determine best route-vehicle-goods assignment
to better plan the fleet within a fast-response paradigm to speed the relief goods delivery operation. The
method for response time acceleration is a route-enumeration algorithm reducing a large number of
routes to the available ones with the consideration of network failure. By doing so, the Branch-and Cut
(B&C) method gives a safe routing program decision to transport relief goods in the shortest possible
time. In a broad picture, We consider the combination of management activities that could take place
before and after an earthquake. The decisions of relief supplier selection and location planning
(including the location of warehouses and shelters) are taken in the preparedness phase. Then, at the
level of tactical decision-making, the optimal amounts of relief goods and the optimal routing of these
reliefs from the warehouses to the shelters are determined. We presented a TSSP model for the
preparedness phase and a deterministic MIP model for the emergency response phase. The first model
is solved by employing the Benders Decomposition method, and the second model is solved using the
B&C method in some large-scale standard instances. After proving the efficiency of the solution

5
 methods mentioned above, a real-world case study has been investigated, and which results attest to the
efficiency of our approach in practice

Table 1. Related studies in earthquake disaster management with their contributions

Disaster phase Case
Reference Year Scope of work Decisions
Preparedness Response study
(Barbarosoǧlu & Transportation planning in disaster
2004  Transport; unused inventory; shortage 
Arda) response

Facility location in humanitarian Locations; pre-positioned items; demand

(Balcik & Beamon) 2008  
relief satisfaction
Algorithms for a capacitated
(Andreas & Smith) 2009  Evacuation tree; evacuation flows
evacuation model
(Liu et al.) 2009 Transportation network protection  Retrofitting bridges; link ow 
The evacuation optimal network
(Ng & Waller) 2009  Capacity expansion; evacuation flows
design
Solving stochastic transportation
(Fan & Liu) 2010  Link protection; link flow
network
Medical supply location and Locations; pre-positioned; transport;
(Mete & Zabinsky) 2010  
distribution shortage items

(Peeta et al.) 2010 Pre-disaster investment decisions  Retrofitting links; transport 

Model for humanitarian relief Supplier selection; transportation;

(Falasca & Zobel) 2011  
supply chains shortage items

Heuristic method for disaster

(Bozorgi-Amiri et al.) 2012  Locations; transport; inventory; shortage
management
Two-echelon model for disaster
(Döyen et al.) 2012  Locations; transport; inventory; shortage 
management
Bi-objective stochastic covering Allocation of villages to relief centers;
(Tricoire et al.) 2012 
tour problem transport
Multi-objective robust stochastic
(Bozorgi-Amiri et al.) 2013  Locations; transport; inventory; shortage 
model
Pre-positioning disaster response
(Verma & Gaukler) 2015  Locations; transport 
facilities
Consideration of network failure Locations; shortage; travel time; delivery
(Ahmadi et al.) 2015  
and relief time time
(Zolfaghari & Consideration of equity in resource Retrofitting buildings; reconstruction
2015  
Peyghaleh) allocation expenditures
Model for designing last mile relief Location; capacity planning;
(Noyan et al.) 2016   
networks transportation
Bi-objective model for depot Location; transportation; vehicle
(Rath et al.) 2016  
location in disaster assignment
Approximation approach for relief Locations; transport; shortage; utility
(Rezaei-Malek et al.) 2016  
pre-positioning level
Humanitarian network design Locations; unused inventory;
(Tofighi et al.) 2016  
under uncertainty transportation time
(Farahani et al.) 2018 Capacitated network-ow approach   Location; evacuation

6
 BD method with acceleration
(Bayram & Yaman) 2018   Location; evacuation; route assignment 
techniques
Incorporating actual post-disaster
(Noham & Tzur) 2018   Locations; transport
decisions
Robust optimization for post- Transport; planning initial helicopter
(Liu et al.) 2018  
disaster decisions deployments
Distribution and redistribution of
(Sakiani et al.) 2019  Transport; routing; inventory 
relief goods
Relief chain, infrastructure
(Vizvári et al.) 2019 rebuilding, fundraising, and debris  Transport; routing; inventory
collection
Robust location-allocation network
(Paul & Wang) 2019  Location; allocation 
design
Humanitarian needs assessment
(Balcik & Yanıkoğlu) 2020 planning under travel time  Vehicle-routing 
uncertainty
Risk-averse optimization of
(Zhong et al.) 2020   Vehicle-routing; Location 
disaster relief facility location
Facility location under decision-
(Basciftci et al.) 2021  Facility location
dependent stochastic demand
Stochastic models for location and
(Shehadeh & Tucker) 2022   Location; inventory 
inventory prepositioning
facility location and dynamic
(Liu et al.) 2023   Location; allocation 
capacity planning for pandemics
Consideration of pre- and post-
This paper   Location; routing; fast-response delivery 
disaster management

3. Problem definition, notations, and models

The network consists of three elements that perform the major roles in network design: Relief suppliers,
warehouse locations, and shelter locations (see Figure 1). The relief supplier delivers humanitarian aid
from other cities (or countries) to help the affected area. At the strategic level, warehouses need to
always be at a reasonable level of goods for an immediate response, which this amount is determined
by the Crisis Management Headquarters (CMH). Relief suppliers recharge warehouses to critical items
based on the expiration date of each item. The reasonable level of goods to be stored in warehouses is
a factor of the predicted demand for each item. This demand has an uncertain nature and can be seen as
a stochastic variable to be estimated based on the topological characteristics of the candidate sites, the
degree of earthquake vulnerability according to the construction cost of the building in the city, and the
time of the occurrence of the earthquake. This information is well-placed in the demand parameter for
each shelter's relief item. To make this clear, suppose a scenario that the earthquake happens at
midnight. At midnight, residential areas are more populated than downtown and commercial
neighborhoods. Therefore, the demand in shelters near the residential areas is far greater than in other
parts of the city. Likewise, if the earthquake happens in the evening, the demand in commercial and
downtown areas definitely faces a massive amount. Another factor affecting the demand is the

7
construction cost of buildings in each area which is inherently considered in scenario-based values of
the demand parameter. Thus, we can conclude that the demand for each item in each shelter is dependent
to the occurred scenario. To consider this, we have modeled the demand parameter in a scenario-based
manner in our optimization model. Note that each scenario represents a certain time interval in a day.
For example if we have 4 scenarios namely {s1,s2,s3,s4}, they are associated with intervals {(00:00
AM, 06:00 AM], (06:00 AM, 12:00 PM], (12:00 PM, 06:00 PM], (06:00 PM, 00:00 AM]}. The probability of
occurrence of the earthquake in each scenario is different and is obtained based on a previous statistical
analysis of Kerman CMH.

Warehouses can be built inside or outside the city (this depends on the significance of the city in terms
of making political and management decisions⸺ for example, Kerman has warehouses both inside and
outside the city). In this study, we set these warehouses near an affected area beforehand to provide
relief at the time of a disaster in the lowest possible time and cost and assumed that the potential
locations for the construction of warehouses are only within the target city; the real-world case study is
also based on the same assumption.

Fig. 1. Schematic of the relief distribution network

Two mathematical models for the proposed network are presented. The first is cast in a TSSP model
(deterministic equivalent), and the second is developed as an MIP model. In the first model, based on
the first stage of the TSSP model, strategic decisions are taken to establish the proposed network and
minimize the total cost of the network. The decisions include the selection of relief suppliers outside
and the location of warehouses and shelters inside the affected city. The results of the first stage are
given to the second stage, based on the logic of TSSP. As a result, the tactical transportation decisions
for relief items are identified as input to the MIP model by fixing the values of the strategic first-stage
variables in the second stage. These decisions involve the number of reliefs through direct-shipment
arcs with the lowest possible cost. In other words, the results of the first model determine the overall
transportation patterns. Afterward, the MIP model selects optimal routes with the aim of the lowest

8
travel time from these designs. CMH utilizes the models developed for the proposed network to assist
the government. Hence, CMH is responsible for handling various necessary coordination between
network segments to run models (e.g., the coordination between relief suppliers and warehouses before
running the models). In our proposed framework and models, we consider fixed costs associated with
setting up facilities, transportation, and penalty costs. In a real-world situation, many other costs and
constraints, such as budget constraints, may be considered in the models. Nevertheless, since our focus
is on devising the framework to address the more critical issue of fast response planning, we only
consider the primary and most crucial costs mentioned above to construct our model. One may develop
more sophisticated models to consider other types, such as financial and deprivation costs.

3.1. Sets and indices

𝒮 Set of relief suppliers indexed by 𝑠.

𝒜 Set of warehouses potential locations indexed by 𝒶.
𝒥 Set of shelters indexed by 𝑗, 𝑖.
ℳ Set of relief goods indexed by 𝑚.
ℛ Set of predefined roads indexed by 𝑟.
𝒱 Set of vehicles indexed by 𝑣.
Ω Set of all possible scenarios indexed by 𝜔.

3.2. Parameters

𝑓𝒶 Fixed cost of locating warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜.

𝑏𝑗 Fixed cost of locating shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥.
𝑑𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) Demand for relief supply 𝑚 ∈ ℳ at shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 under scenario 𝜔 ∈ Ω assuming that
shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 is located.
𝑔𝑠𝑚 Maximum amount available for relief supply type 𝑚 ∈ ℳ in relief supplier 𝑠 ∈ 𝒮.
𝑐𝑠𝒶 Transportation cost between relief supplier 𝑠 ∈ 𝒮 and warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜.
𝑙𝒶𝑚 The storage capacity of each warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜 for each relief supply type 𝑚 ∈ ℳ.
𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) Transportation costs between warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜 and shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 under scenario 𝜔 ∈ Ω.
𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) A cost penalty parameter for each unit of unfulfilled demand at shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 of relief
supply type 𝑚 ∈ ℳ under scenario 𝜔 ∈ Ω.
𝜖𝑖𝑗 Distance between shelter 𝑖 ∈ 𝒥 and 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥
ℎ𝑣 Capacity of vehicle 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱.
𝜏𝑟 Travel time along route 𝑟 ∈ ℛ.
𝑘𝑎𝑗𝑟 1 If nodes 𝑎 and 𝑗 are included in rout 𝑟, zero otherwise.
ℙ The number of shelters we aim to create.
𝑃𝑟(𝜔) Probability of scenario 𝜔 ∈ Ω.

9
Note that 𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) is determined by the experts of CMH, which has the nature of costs in order to unify
the dimension of the objective function of the problem. Also, the 𝑐𝑠𝒶 parameter is based on all
transmission costs, which also includes distances between supplier 𝑠 ∈ 𝒮 and warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜,
however, this type of definition has been used to simplify the model (similar to the same argument for
the 𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) parameter is considered). In addition, scenarios in our model define the interval times in
each day that faults might shake and cause an earthquake with different pertinent probabilities. This
impression is more precisely defined in our case study section. In the first model, we face a decision-
dependent parameter, meaning that the total demand for each relief item is dependent on our decision
to locate the shelters. If shelter 𝑖 ∈ 𝒥 is not located (𝑢𝑖 = 0) then all the demand 𝑑𝑖𝑚 (𝜔) for that shelter
will be transferred to the nearest located shelter. Therefore, we define decision variable 𝛽𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) which
tackles our problem to model decision dependent parameter. The shelters that are not located will have
zero demand for each relief item in the model {𝛽𝑖𝑚 (𝜔) = 0, ∀𝑖, 𝑚| 𝑢𝑖 = 0}.

3.3. Decision variables

𝑧𝑠𝒶 1 if relief supplier 𝑠 ∈ 𝒮 is allocated to located warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 0 otherwise.

𝑥𝒶 1 if warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜 is located, 0 otherwise.
𝑢𝑗 1 if shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 is located, 0 otherwise.
y𝒶𝑚 Inventory level of relief supply 𝑚 ∈ ℳ in warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜.
P𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) Amount of relief supply 𝑚 ∈ ℳ to be delivered from warehouse 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜 to shelter 𝑗 ∈
𝒥 under scenario 𝜔 ∈ Ω.
π𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) Amount of unfulfilled demand 𝑚 ∈ ℳ in shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 under scenario 𝜔 ∈ Ω.
𝒪𝑣𝑟 1 for assignment of vehicle 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 to route 𝑟 ∈ ℛ, 0 otherwise.
𝜓𝑎𝑗𝑣 1 for assignment of vehicle 𝑣 ∈ 𝑉 to transport relief supplies from warehouse 𝑎 ∈ 𝒜
to shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥
𝛽𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) Total demand of shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 after locating the shelters.
𝛿𝑖𝑗 1 If demand of shelter 𝑖 ∈ 𝒥 is transferred to shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 0 otherwise.
σ𝑚𝑣 Transportation amount of relief supply 𝑚 ∈ ℳ by vehicle 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱

Naturally, damaged people near shelter 𝑖 ∈ 𝒥 are going to seek the nearest open shelter 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 if shelter
𝑖 ∈ 𝒥 is not located. To model this behavior, we use the distance function ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗 in the objective
function.

3.4. The TSSP model for pre-disaster decisions

In this part, we develop a TSSP model to design the main network of disaster management. According
to the notations described above, our formulations can be stated as follows:

10
 𝐓𝐒𝐒𝐏: 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 = ∑𝑠∈𝒮 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑐𝑠𝒶 𝑧𝑠𝒶 + ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑓𝒶 𝑥𝒶 + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑏𝑗 𝑢𝑗 + ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗

∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑗∈𝒥[𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)] (1)

+ 𝔼Ω [ ]
+ ∑𝑗∈𝒥 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝜋𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)

Subject to:

∑𝒶∈𝒜 y𝒶𝑚 ≤ ∑𝑠∈𝒮 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑔𝑠𝑚 𝑧𝑠𝒶 ∀𝑚 ∈ ℳ (2)

y𝒶𝑚 ≤ 𝑙𝒶𝑚 𝑥𝒶 ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ (3)

∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑢𝑗 = ℙ (4)

∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝑢𝑗 ≤ y𝒶𝑚 ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝜔 ∈ Ω (5)

∑a∈𝒜 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) ≤ (∑𝑎 y𝒶𝑚 )𝑢𝑗 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝜔 ∈ Ω (6)

∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) = 𝛽𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) − π𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝜔 ∈ Ω (7)

∑𝑖 𝛿𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑢𝑗 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 (8)

𝛽𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) = 𝑑𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝑢𝑗 + ∑𝑖≠𝑗 𝑑𝑖𝑚 (𝜔)𝛿𝑖𝑗 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝜔 ∈ Ω (9)

∑𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗 = 1 − 𝑢𝑖 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝒥 (10)

𝑥𝒶 , 𝑧𝑠𝒶 , 𝑢𝑗 , 𝛿𝑖𝑗 ∈ {0,1}

(11)
𝛽𝑗𝑚 (𝜔), y𝒶𝑚 , 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔), π𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) ≥ 0 ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑠 ∈ 𝒮, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝜔 ∈ Ω

The objective function incorporates the total cost of relief supplier allocations, operating warehouses,
and shelters construction to provide an incentive to execute the disaster preparedness operations at the
lowest possible cost, as well as the total transportation costs and the penalty of unfulfilled demands.
The term ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗 , as mentioned in section 3.3 serves as an auxiliary phrase to force the model to
send the demands associated with unlocated shelters to most adjacent ones. The cost of traveling per
unit of distance is assumed to be equal to 1; therefore, we did not define any auxiliary parameters as the
unit cost of traveling between shelters. In a two-stage procedure, always the objective function of the
second stage is a function of the first stage actions (here, shelter and warehouse locations and inventory
level decisions) and scenarios. Constraints (2) show that the inventory level for each relief supply 𝑚 ∈
ℳ utmost can be equal to the limitation of relief supplier dedications. Constraints (3) guarantee that
the inventory level of each relief supply cannot exceed the available space. Constraints (4) enforce the
construction of ℙ shelter facilities around the disaster area. With the realization of the first stage
decisions, the results are projected to the second stage where we face the recourse variables. Constraints
(5) show that the total amount of relief supplies that should have been shipped from a warehouse is
bounded by the inventory levels of the corresponding warehouse for each supply type. Constraints (6)
indicate that relief items can only be transported to located shelters subject to the restriction of the total
available amount in all the warehouses for each relief item. Constraints (7) are the balance equations to
determine the unsatisfied demand amounts. Constraints (8) indicate that demands can only be

11
transferred to located shelters. Constraints (9) determine the total demand of each shelter after the
shelter location decision has been made. Constraints (10) indicate that the associated demand must be
transferred to another shelter only if one shelter is not located. Eventually, constraints (11) illustrate the
type of decision variables. The second stage of the TSSP model provides the optimal amounts of relief
supplies to be transported from warehouses to shelters under each scenario. In order to dispatch vehicles
based on the TSSP model solution, we propose an MIP model that converts the obtained optimal
amounts of relief supplies to an optimal transportation plan for the loading and routing problem of
vehicles under each scenario.

3.5. MIP model for post-disaster decisions

In this part, we introduce an MIP model for post-disaster operations. Our MIP model is formulated
based on a method that utilizes a set of predetermined routes at the expense of a preprocessing effort.
This approach is different from a classical vehicle routing problem. This idea is a more realistic
approach because there is already a scheduled transportation plan from warehouses to shelters and we
considered a set of safe and available routes that bypass bridges and highways vulnerable to
earthquakes. As a matter of fact, we define a route as an ordered list of a subset of nodes with an initial
warehouse and a final node of type shelter. Besides, a sufficient number of vehicles are supposed to be
available at the warehouses at the onset of a disaster.

𝐌𝐈𝐏(𝜔): 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 = ∑𝑟∈ℛ 𝜏𝑟 [∑𝑣∈𝒱 𝒪𝑣𝑟 ] (12)

Subject to:
∑𝑚∈ℳ σmv ≤ ℎ𝑣 ∑𝑟∈ℛ 𝒪𝑣𝑟 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (13)
∑𝑣∈𝒱 σmv = ∑𝑎 ∑𝑗 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) 𝑚∈ℳ (14)
σmv ≤ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝜓𝒶𝑗𝑣 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (15)
𝜓𝒶𝑗𝑣 ≤ 𝒪𝑣𝑟 𝑘𝑎𝑗𝑟 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱, ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 , 𝑟 ∈ ℛ (16)
∑𝑟∈ℛ 𝒪𝑣𝑟 ≤ 1 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (17)
𝒪𝑣𝑟 , 𝜓𝒶𝑗𝑣 ∈ {0,1}, σmv ≥ 0 ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱, 𝑟 ∈ ℛ (18)

The objective function (12) aims at minimizing the total travel time of all vehicles. Constraints (13)
ensure that the carrying capacity of the vehicles is not exceeded and that a vehicle is admitted to carrying
items only if assigned to a route. Equations (14) guarantee that all the transport amount is met.
Constraints (15) indicate that if a vehicle is assigned to the tuple (𝑎, 𝑗), the transported relief amount of
type 𝑚 cannot exceed the transport amount available at warehouse 𝑎, which is meant to be transported
to shelter 𝑗. Constraints (16) ensure that vehicles can only traverse between one specific set of
warehouses and shelters. Constraints (17) enforce that each vehicle can only travel on one. Finally,
constraints (18) illustrate the type of phase-two model decision variables. One should note that
integrating the TSSP and MIP models is meaningless because the second model is an operational-level
mathematical model based on a set of available routes to deliver relief items. This set is drastically
uncertain because of the numerous factors that may affect which paths are available or not. Therefore,
integrating vehicle-route assignment decisions with strategic and tactical decision-making processes

12
causes a significant depletion in the quality of strategic and tactical decisions and an increase in solution
time.

3.6. The classic routing problem

Compared to the proposed enumeration algorithm, which produces the best local feasible routes, the
classical option is to solve a heterogeneous fleeting vehicle routing problem in which we have multiple
depots as warehouses and multiple common demand points with different vehicle capacities. With
inspiration from the existing flow-based models in Munari et al. (2016), we present the routing-based
approach modeling of the phased two problem as follows. Suppose we have a network of nodes 𝒩 ′ =
{1, … , 𝑛} ∪ 𝒜. The set 𝒩 = {1, … , 𝑛} is the set of intermediate nodes, which also includes the set of
shelter nodes represented as 𝒥. The set of existing arcs in the network is represented by ℋ. The decision
variable 𝑞𝑗𝑚𝑣 represents the number of goods of type 𝑚 ∈ ℳ transported by vehicle of type 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 to
destination 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥. The variable 𝜂𝒶𝑣 means the amount of load on vehicle 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 at point 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜. Define
the parameter 𝒬 as a large number. Utilizing the information about the demands for goods in the shelter
obtained from the phase one model, the Classical Phase-II Heterogeneous Vehicle Routing Problem
(CPH-VRP) can be stated as follows:

CPH-VRP (𝜔): 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 = ∑𝑣∈𝒱 ∑(𝒶,𝑗)∈ℋ 𝜏𝒶𝑗 𝒪𝒶𝑗𝑣 (19)

Subject to:
∑𝑣∈𝒱𝒶 𝑞𝑗𝑚𝑣 ≥ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ (20)

∑𝑗∈𝒩|(𝒶,𝑗)∈ℋ 𝒪𝒶𝑗𝑣 = 1 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱𝒶 , 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜 (21)

∑𝒶∈𝒩|(𝒶,𝑗)∈ℋ 𝒪𝒶𝑗𝑣 = 1 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱𝑗 , 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 (22)

∑𝒶∈𝒩|(𝒶,𝑘)∈ℋ 𝒪𝒶𝑘𝑣 − ∑𝑗∈𝒩|(𝑘,𝑗)∈ℋ 𝒪𝑘𝑗𝑣 = 0 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱, 𝑘 ∈ (𝒩 − 𝒜) (23)

∑𝑘∈𝒩|(𝑘,𝑗)∈ℋ 𝒪𝑘𝑗𝑣 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) ≥ 𝑞𝑗𝑚𝑣 ∀𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱𝐽 , 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 (24)

𝜂𝑗𝑣 ≥ 𝜂𝒶𝑣 + ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝑞𝑗𝑚𝑣 − 𝒬(1 − 𝒪𝒶𝑗𝑣 ) ∀(𝒶, 𝑗) ∈ ℋ, 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (25)

ℎ𝑣 ≥ 𝜂𝑗𝑣 ∀ , 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (26)

𝜂𝑗𝑣 , 𝑞𝑗𝑚𝑣 ≥ 0, 𝒪𝒶𝑗𝑣 ∈ {0,1} ∀ 𝒶, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒩 ′ , 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (27)

Objective function (19) minimizes the total shipment time of the vehicles. Constraints (20) ensure that
the assignment of the goods from warehouses to shelters is satisfied and that goods are delivered
according to the assignment plan from the Phase-I model. Constraints (21) and (22) indicated that each
vehicle starts shipping from the corresponding depot and returns to the depot, respectively. Constraints
(23) represent the vehicles' flow through the existing arcs. Constraints (24) state that delivering the
goods is possible whenever the shelter is visited and that the delivery volume cannot exceed the assigned
value from the Phase-I model. The capacity limit of the vehicles, as well as the subtour elimination

13
feature of the model, are represented by constraints (25) and (26) jointly. Constraints (27) represent the
type of decision variables.

4. Solution methods
In order to cope with the complexity of the problems, we notice that the TSSP model has a two-stage
structure that could be tackled by an efficient BD method. However, this solution method is not
suggested for the second phase, which should be solved in an extremely short period of time due to the
critical situation aftermath of the disaster occurrence. In this regard, to solve the second-phase MIP
model, we propose a B&C algorithm. For an introduction to cutting-plane methods like B&C, we refer
readers to Wolsey (1998). For a set of implementations of B&C on MIP models in the specific field of
disaster management, one may pay attention to Moreno et al. (2019); Na and Banerjee (2015); Noyan
et al. (2016); Noyan and Kahvecioğlu (2018). Based on figure (2), the TSSP model is firstly solved to
acquire the values of the preparedness decision variables (such as 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)) to be interjected as fixed
parameters into the MIP model.

Fig. 2. A schematic of solution procedure

4.1. The feasible routes enumeration algorithm

Algorithm 1. Enumeration algorithm for feasible routes

Data: Graph 𝐺(𝑉, 𝐴)
Result: All feasible routes sourcing nodes 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜 with sink nodes 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥
begin
𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 ∶= ∅, 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑝 ∶= 1, 𝑔 ∶= arbitrary member of 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛

for 𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, do
𝑟(𝑝, 𝒶) = {𝑖}, 𝑔 = 𝒶
while 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 ≠ ∅, do
for 𝑗 ∈ 𝑝𝑟(𝑔), do
𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 = 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛\𝑔
if 𝜉(𝑗, 𝑔) = 1, then
for 𝑝 ∈ 𝑃(𝑗), do

14
 if 𝑆(𝑔) ≠ ∅, then
𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒 = 0
for 𝑠 ∈ 𝑆(𝑔), do
if 𝜉(𝑔, 𝑠) = 1, 𝜚(𝑠) = 1, then
if 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒 = 1, then
𝑝 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑝 + +
𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝑝, 𝒶) = 0
𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟(𝒶) = 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟(𝒶) ∪ {𝑝}
end if
𝑟(𝑝, 𝒶) = 𝑟(𝑝, 𝒶) ∪ {𝑠}
𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘(𝑔, 𝑝, 𝑠) = 1
𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝑝, 𝒶) = 𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝑝, 𝒶)
+ 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝑔, 𝑠) × 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘(𝑔, 𝑝, 𝑠)
for 𝑘 ∈ 𝑟(𝑝, 𝒶), do
𝑝(𝑘) = 𝑝(𝑘) ∪ {𝑝}
end for
if 𝑠 ≠ 𝒟, then
𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 = 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 ∪ {𝑠}
else
𝑟𝑜(𝑝, 𝒶, 𝑠) = 𝑟(𝑝, 𝒶)
𝑡𝑎𝑢𝑜(𝑝, 𝒶, 𝑠) = 𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝑝, 𝒶)
𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒 = 1
end if
end if
end for
end if
end for
end if
end for
end while
end for
end

4.2. B&C approach for MIP model

Due to the existence of subtour elimination constraints in the traditional and well-known formulations
of the routing problems, literature in the area of vehicle routing problems suggests that row generation
methods should be implemented regarding the relaxation of these constraints. Incorporating machine
learning models with branch and cut techniques in logistic optimization problems offers invaluable
advantages by leveraging the predictive power of machine learning to inform the branching decisions,
thereby enhancing the overall solution quality, computational efficiency, and scalability of the
optimization process (Qezelbash-Chamak et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). Regardless of novelty of
artificial intelligence approaches, in most cases, operation research formulations propose an alternative
type of constraints in which the subtour elimination constraints are removed. As represented, our MIP
model is not based on a VRP one, but rather lies on an assignment model. Regarding this fact, our B&C
algorithm mainly focuses on relaxing constraints (13), representing all vehicles' capacity requirements.
The main elements of the proposed B&C algorithm are as follows.

15
4.2.1. Linear programming relaxation

At each node of the B&C tree, a linear programming relaxation constructed by relaxing the capacity
constraints (11) is solved optimally. The literature suggests that many proposed formulations integrate
capacity constraints with subtour elimination constraints. However, in our case, the similarity holds in
a conceptual perception of the modeling. Thus, previously proposed methods can be implemented
regarding the model's alternatives mentioned above.

4.2.2. Separation algorithm

Considering the insights drawn from Lysgaard et al. (2004), the tree's root node is treated differently in
comparison with all the other nodes. After solving the first node, if the results indicate a fractional set
of optimal values, then the separation procedure is implemented to search for the violated cuts. This
mode is repeated until the LP relaxation solution at the tree's root node satisfies all the capacity
constraints. Branching will be done in the nodes other than the root node on the condition that the
optimal solution of the LP relaxation represents fractional values. Reaching an integer solution provides
the necessary condition to call back the relaxed capacity constraints in order to be checked for the
separation algorithm. Note that, despite the literature on the design of separation algorithms for subtour
elimination constraints, the process of determining the violated capacity cuts in the MIP model is
relatively simple regarding the structure of the constraints (11). The values of the variables 𝜎 and 𝒪 are
replaced in each node, and the violated cuts could be easily identified.

4.2.3. Specifications of the algorithm

Here we mention two essential algorithm specifications: branching and node selection strategies.
Although there is no explicit rule on how to set design these two strategies, there are some insights
drawn from the literature. In the MIP model, two variables, 𝒪 and 𝜓, represent a discrete nature. In this
regard, the branching strategy is in the first place based on variable 𝒪, followed by variable 𝜓 as our
second priority. It is noteworthy that the variable 𝒪 and 𝜓 with the smallest gap near to 0.5 is adopted
in order to carry out the branching procedure. Furthermore, the node representing the smallest lower
bound determines the next part of the tree that has to be processed. Note that the best-bound strategy
implicitly is expected to provide a smaller B&C tree.

4.2.4. The B&C Algorithm

Algorithm 2. The B&C algorithm

Data: Parameters
Result: Optimal or approximate solution
begin
Step 0: Initialization
ℒ ∶= {𝐿𝑃0 }, 𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 ∶= +∞, 𝒪 ∗ ∶= ∅, 𝐶 ∶= ∅, go to step 1,
Step 1: Termination
if ℒ = ∅, then

16
 if 𝒪 ∗ = ∅, then
the model either infeasible or unbounded
terminate
else go to step 2
end if
end if
Step 2: Root node
if ℒ = {𝐿𝑃0 }, then
Solve 𝐿𝑃0 : (11), (13)⸺(17) {binary variables relaxed}, and 𝒞
if 𝐿𝑃0 is unbounded or infeasible, then
The model either unbounded or infeasible
terminate
else go to step 5
end if
else go to step 6
end if
Step 3: Other nodes
𝑍𝑃(𝑙) + 𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑙 × 𝑓𝑟𝒶𝑃(𝑙) ∶ 𝐿𝑃𝑙 = 𝐿𝑃𝑃(𝑙) ∪ {𝒪(𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ) = 0}
𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑙 = {
𝑍𝑃(𝑙) + 𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑙 × (1 − 𝑓𝑟𝒶𝑃(𝑙) ) ∶ 𝐿𝑃𝑙 = 𝐿𝑃𝑃(𝑙) ∪ {𝒪(𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ) = 1}:
ℒ = 𝐿𝑃argmin 𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑙
𝑙|ℒ

Solve 𝐿𝑃𝑙 ∈ ℒ, and go to step 4.

Step 4: Prune
if 𝑍𝐿𝑃𝑙 ≥ 𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡, then
ℒ = ℒ\{𝐿𝑃𝑙 } and go to step 2
else if 𝐿𝑃𝑙 is not MILP feasible, then
go to step 6
else ℒ = ℒ\{𝐿𝑃𝑙 }, 𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 𝑍𝐿𝑃𝑙 , (𝒪 ∗ , 𝜓 ∗ ) = (𝒪 𝐿𝑃𝑙 , 𝜓 𝐿𝑃𝑙 ) and go to step 2
end if
Step 5: Separation algorithm
for 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱, 𝑟 ∈ ℛ, do
if ∑𝑚∈ℳ σmv − ℎ𝑣 ∑𝑟∈ℛ 𝒪𝑣𝑟 ≥ 0, then
Add corresponding cut (11) to the cut pool of 𝒞
end if
end for
if 𝒞 ≠ ∅, then
go to step 2
else if 𝒪 𝐿𝑃0 ∉ ℬ, then
ℒ = ℒ\{𝐿𝑃0 }, go to step 6 (Branching)
else if 𝑍𝐿𝑃0 < 𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡, then
ℒ = ℒ\{𝐿𝑃0 }, 𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 𝑍𝐿𝑃0 , (𝒪 ∗ , 𝜓 ∗ ) = (𝒪 𝐿𝑃0 , 𝜓 𝐿𝑃0 ) and go to step 1
end if
Step 6: Branching
if ∃(𝑣, 𝑟)|𝒪𝑣𝑟 ∉ ℬ, then
𝐿𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟+1 = 𝐿𝑃𝑙 ∪ {𝒪argmin|𝒪𝑣𝑟 −0.5| = 0} ;
𝑣,𝑟

𝐿𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟+2 = 𝐿𝑃𝑙 ∪ {𝒪argmin |𝒪𝑣𝑟 −0.5| = 1}

𝑣,𝑟

else

17
 𝐿𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟+1 = 𝐿𝑃𝑙 ∪ {𝜓argmin|𝜓𝑎𝑗𝑣−0.5| = 0} ;
𝑎𝑗𝑣

𝐿𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟+2 = 𝐿𝑃𝑙 ∪ {𝜓argmin |𝜓𝑎𝑗𝑣−0.5| = 1}

𝑎𝑗𝑣

end if
ℒ = ℒ ∪ {𝐿𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟+1 , 𝐿𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟+2 }\{𝐿𝑃𝑙 }
Let 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 2 and go to step 3
end

5. Managerial procedure
Our iterative algorithm deems the continuous nature of the changes in demand for relief goods in each
shelter and the updated feasible routes of the area under disaster exposure. Due to the high-level
uncertainty of the demand distribution in a chronological sense, a multi-stage procedure based on time-
periodic formulation is not advised. Instead, at the end of each period, we update the demand and
available level of relief goods and re-estimate the cost of assignment and unfulfilled demand. By fixing
the first stage variables of the TSSP model, we solve the model for the next period. This results in an
updated level of assignment and unfulfilled demand. In the next step, the feasible routes of the affected
area are updated using the new data obtained by field surveys in the local areas. Using the new feasible
routes, we aim to retackle the MIP model to generate the updated optimal solution for dispatching the
vehicles. Our updatable MIP model is hence as follows:

𝑈𝑀𝐼𝑃(𝜔) = 𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒛𝒆 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑗∈𝒥[𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 ] + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜆𝑗𝑚 𝜋𝑗𝑚 (28)
Subject to:
[pd] ∀𝑚 ∈ ℳ
∑𝒶∈𝒜 y𝒶𝑚 ≤ ∑𝑠∈𝒮 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑔𝑠𝑚 𝑧𝑠𝒶 , (29)
y𝒶𝑚 ≤ 𝑙𝒶𝑚 𝑥𝒶 , ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ (30)
∑𝑟∈ℛ 𝜏𝑟 [∑𝑣∈𝒱 𝒪𝑣𝑟 ] ≤ 𝜁 (31)
∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 𝑢𝑗 ≤ y𝒶𝑚 , ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ (32)
∑a∈𝒜 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 ≤ (∑𝑎 y𝒶𝑚 )𝑢𝑗 , ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ (33)
∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 = 𝛽𝑗𝑚 − π𝑗𝑚 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ (34)
∑𝑖 𝛿𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑢𝑗 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 (35)
[pd] [pd]
𝛽𝑗𝑚 = 𝑑𝑗𝑚 𝑢𝑗 + ∑𝑖≠𝑗 𝑑𝑖𝑚 𝛿𝑖𝑗 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 (36)
∑𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗 = 1 − 𝑢𝑖 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝒥 (37)
∑𝑚∈ℳ σmv ≤ ℎ𝑣 ∑𝑟∈ℛ 𝒪𝑣𝑟 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱, 𝑟 ∈ ℛ (38)
∑𝑣∈𝒱 σmv = ∑𝑎 ∑𝑗 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 𝑚∈ℳ (39)
σmv ≤ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 𝜓𝒶𝑗𝑣 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (40)
∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝜓𝒶𝑗𝑣 ≤ 1 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (41)
∑𝑟∈ℛ 𝒪𝑣𝑟 ≤ 1 ∀𝑣 ∈ 𝒱 (42)
𝒪𝑣𝑟 , 𝜓𝒶𝑗𝑣 ∈ {0,1},
σmv , 𝛽𝑗𝑚 , y𝒶𝑚 , 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 , π𝑗𝑚 ≥ 0 ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝑣 ∈ 𝒱, 𝑟 ∈ ℛ (43)

18
In the UMIP model, the parameter 𝜁 indicates the maximum value of the travel time function that is
tolerable and can be adjusted to obtain a reasonable solution in terms of cost and time. Note that in our
comprehensive iterative algorithm, for the sake of elucidation, we use the time index 𝑡 to distinguish
between the decisions made in distinct periods. See the flowchart in figure (3) for further details.

Fig. 3. Comprehensive iterative algorithm for managerial procedure

6. Computational study
In this section, the test problems are developed to show the potency of the algorithm. Five standard test
problems from the free online OR-Library database are selected and somewhat modified. Tables (2)
and (3) show the related information within instances. All parameters are derived from the online
repository, and some are modified to fit the model.

Table 2. Data used within the test problems

Uniform range
Parameter Modified
(OR-library dataset)
𝑓𝒶 
𝑏𝑗 
𝑔𝑠𝑚 
𝐶𝑠𝒶 
𝑙𝒶𝑚 
𝑑𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) 

19
 𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) 
𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) 
ℎ𝑣𝑡 
𝜏𝑟 
𝜖𝑖𝑗 

Table 3. Size of the test problems

Instances Relief suppliers Warehouses Shelters Reliefs Number of routes
t1 14 20 50 5 800
t2 17 30 60 6 1400
t3 20 40 70 7 2100
t4 36 50 80 10 3000
t5 35 60 90 10 4100

The algorithm was coded using Python 3.8 and solved test problems on a computer system Core-i7
CPU with 8 GB of RAM, operating 64-bit Windows 10. The results of the phase-one model are shown
in table (12) and figures (11)⸺(15) in the appendix section, and the result of the phase-two model are
shown in table (4) and displayed in figures (4)⸺(7).

Table 4. Computational study results of phase-two model

Solver Results of the classic
Results of B&C enumeration-based algorithm
CPH-VRP model
Instance Scenario
Avg. number Avg. number Avg. runtime Avg. gap Avg. runtime Avg. gap
Objective f.
of cuts of nodes (min) (%) (min) (%)
1 12671 22.00 59.00 7.38 0.00 22.70 0.00
4 12649 23.00 50.50 5.61 0.00 11.05 0.00
24 12341 22.38 51.88 8.94 0.00 31.06 0.00
48 13458 27.77 64.96 7.32 0.00 20.90 0.00
t1
96 12895 21.32 49.82 6.01 0.00 12.60 0.00
288 13252 20.45 50.39 6.08 0.00 17.93 0.00
720 13472 19.21 52.49 7.29 0.00 18.76 0.00
1440 13359 20.38 53.84 8.30 0.00 21.79 0.00
1 17315 40.00 87.00 30.50 0.00 80.45 0.00
4 18596 40.05 77.00 33.28 0.00 91.21 0.00
24 17775 48.13 75.83 32.24 0.00 105.56 0.00
48 18565 42.77 73.67 29.12 0.00 106.14 0.00
t2
96 18292 50.60 71.08 34.44 0.00 118.95 0.00
288 18391 48.78 72.86 34.32 0.00 115.65 0.00
720 18658 49.51 85.28 33.74 0.00 116.70 0.00
1440 18793 48.52 81.91 32.52 0.00 107.31 0.00
1 22542 79.00 122.00 50.92 0.00 200.92 0.00
4 23464 73.00 138.25 53.48 0.00 203.75 0.00
24 23525 73.50 119.71 46.38 0.00 178.65 0.00
t3
48 23550 73.40 113.40 50.20 0.00 191.53 0.00
96 23462 75.17 125.48 52.74 0.00 200.52 0.00
288 23065 73.36 158.66 50.28 0.00 195.81 0.00

20
 720 23838 72.01 129.76 52.96 0.00 206.74 0.00
1440 23656 75.16 141.82 50.12 0.00 197.61 0.00
1 27222 176.00 283.00 77.54 0.00 >300 2.35
4 28489 170.25 268.75 79.42 0.00 >300 3.66
24 28250 195.38 240.46 80.30 0.00 >300 2.43
48 28465 168.19 218.67 81.06 0.00 >300 2.19
t4
96 28365 183.97 290.46 81.38 0.00 >300 3.40
288 28946 160.35 247.26 81.66 0.00 >300 3.73
720 29777 193.53 249.60 79.82 0.00 >300 1.99
1440 29403 190.87 237.59 76.04 0.00 >300 1.98
1 31786 312.00 334.00 >100 0.14 >300 8.54
4 33111 309.25 358.75 >100 0.15 >300 9.12
24 32913 301.79 302.04 >100 0.18 >300 9.39
48 33625 308.77 385.13 >100 0.14 >300 9.47
t5
96 34140 299.40 396.22 >100 0.18 >300 11.13
288 33634 295.69 307.70 >100 0.15 >300 8.77
720 35264 306.68 309.28 >100 0.16 >300 8.26
1440 34594 301.19 316.75 >100 0.16 >300 9.25

Fig. 4. B&C enumeration-based algorithm vs. commercial solver

Based on figure (4), we compute the percentage of improvement reported in table (5).

Table 5. Superiority of B&C enumeration-based algorithm over commercial solver

Instance Method Time (min) Improvement
B&C enumeration-based 112.49 32.52
t2 | − 1| ∗ 100 = %71
Commercial solver 32.52 112.49
B&C enumeration-based 196.94 50.89
t3 | − 1| ∗ 100 = %74
Commercial solver 50.89 196.94

For the instance of t4, we don’t have access to the solution time of Commercial solver. Considering the
solution time growing trend we have a more improvement for t4, which is the largest scale of our
instances. However, we argue based on what we are able to calculate; thus, our proposed B&C
enumeration-based algorithm has atleast %72 improvement.

21
Figure (4) represents a comparison of solution time between the proposed B&C algorithm and the
commercial solver. It is conceivable that both methods are nearly acting the same, and they are growing
linearly as long as the size of the instances is growing.

Fig. 5. Average CPU runtimes in scenarios vs. instances

Figure (5) exhibits the linear growth rate of solving the problem using the proposed algorithm after the
realization of the scenario from the TSSP model.

Fig. 6. Average number of generated cuts vs. instances

Figure (6) shows a steep increase in generated cuts regarding the boost in the instance size. No doubt,
it is rooted in the expansion in the scale of the problem, and as a result, the algorithm deal with this
complexity growth using more generated cuts.

22
 Fig. 7. Average number of nodes vs. instances

Figure (7) depicts that we have no explicit relationship between the growth of the size of instances and
the number of nodes generated by the algorithm. While, in the lower-size instances, a semi-exponential
growth can be detected, the growth rate tends to be somehow linear in the larger ones.

7. Case Study
For the real case, we consider the city of Kerman as one of the influential metropolises in Iran and the
capital of Kerman province, the largest province in the country's southeastern part. The population of
this city was reported to be approximately 634,132 individuals, according to the last census statistics in
2021. Kerman is one of the five historic cities and is considered the heart of the country because it is
located on the inter-city exchanges and has valuable monuments of ancient Iranian civilization. After
the earthquake in Bam city in 2003 (Bam is located in Kerman province) and the destruction of the
city's monuments, authorities and the provincial government set out plans to make the provinces away
from such a poor disaster management program. In this paper, due to the large extent of Kerman
province and the existence of independent management plans for each city, our focus is exclusively
restricted to the capital of this province (Kerman) because of its economic and cultural importance. This
study divides relief goods into three main categories in terms of value and cost: medicine, food, and
settlement. In a cost comparison to find out how 𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) parameter is determined, the details of which
are based on the opinion of the CMH experts as follows:

• Food items have the lowest cost because there will be no serious challenge if the system
faces a shortage in its supply.
• Settlement items include mattresses, blankets, etc., which usually impose a modest cost on
the system in case of shortage.
• Medication items are associated with emergencies and therefore impose the highest costs
on the system.

We used the real-data provided by Nazari et al. (2007) as the basis for the data in this case study. Later
on, based on the substantial consultations acquired from Iran Geophysics Organization's experts and

23
using the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) computations, we updated the part of the information
that was outdated and changed over time⸺ for example, information on the discovery of new faults in
Iran, as well as active faults in these years. One of the inputs to the phase-one model is the information
related to the nearby provinces that can immediately respond to the relief efforts in the city of Kerman
at the time of an earthquake. Table (6) shows the coordinates and information of the cities put in the list
of relief suppliers to Kerman.

Table 6. Relief suppliers list for Kerman's case: coordinates and information
No. City Coordinate No. City Coordinate
1 Kerman 30.2839°N 57.0834°E 8 Isfahan 32.6546°N 51.6680°E
2 Sistan 27.5300°N 60.5821°E 9 Qom 34.6399°N 50.8759°E
3 Hormozgan 27.1387°N 55.1376°E 10 Tehran 35.6892°N 51.3890°E
4 Bushehr 28.9234°N 50.8203°E 11 Yazd 31.8974°N 54.3569°E
5 Fars 29.1044°N 53.0459°E 12 Semnan 35.2256°N 54.4342°E
6 Kohgiluyieh 30.7246°N 54.4342°E 13 Khorasan Razavi 35.1020°N 59.1042°E
7 Bakhtiari 31.9970°N 50.6614°E 14 South Khorasan 32.5176°N 59.1042°E

After solving the phase-one model, figure (8) illustrates the decision to select relief suppliers. It
precisely shows that the first-stage model has decided to take all cities for relief supplies⸺ which could
be due to the high capacity of the Kerman's warehouses and the limitation of assistance of each city.

Fig. 8. Kerman’s allocated relief suppliers

Iran has several faults that Kerman also includes a major part of them. This city has four active faults:
Alghadir, Baghin, Seyedi, and Zangiabad. Based on historical statistical data, probability distribution
for the occurrence of earthquakes by each of the Kerman's faults is equal to Alghadir 53.4%, Baghin
12.3%, Seyedi 24.1%, and Zangiabad 10.2%. Table (6) shows the details of these probabilities at
different predefined time intervals throughout the day. Also, we separated the whole interval times for
an earthquake incidence during the day using the code names as; interval code 1: = 12 AM to 6 AM,
interval code 2: = 6 AM to 12 PM, interval code 3: =12 PM to 6 PM, and interval code 4: =6 PM to 12
AM (table 7). According to the feasibility study on establishing shelters and warehouses in multifarious

24
parts of the city, we identified ten shelters and six warehouses for the possible construction. These
locations are marked in figure (9), which is provided by Arc GIS, and also it let us compute the exact
locations and the distances between them. The cost of construction per capacity, the capacity for each
warehouse, and the total fixed cost of construction (parameter 𝑓) are given in table (8).

Table 7. Probability distribution for each fault under scenarios

Scenario
Probability (%)
Fault name Interval
1 14.96
2 7.48
Alghadir
3 5.24
4 9.72
1 10.52
2 5.26
Baghin
3 3.68
4 6.84
1 8.04
2 4.02
Seyedi
3 2.81
4 5.23
1 6.48
2 3.24
Zangiabad
3 2.27
4 4.21

Fig. 9. Kerman's case: possible shelter and warehouse locations

25
 Table 8. Information of warehouses
Warehouse Cost per capacity (103 $ per unit) Capacity (103 units) Total Fixed Cost 𝑓 (106 $)
1 1.5 30 45
2 0.625 40 25
3 0.5 34 17
4 0.75 12 8
5 1.3 10 13
6 3 5 15

For the following input data required in this case, table (9) deals with the shelters’ demand for each
fault under different scenarios. For the sake of simplicity, this table represents an estimate of the sum
of the relief goods quantities of injured people around each shelter. Next, for the MIP model, we need
the transportation time data in each available predefined route provided in the table (10). Note that, to
obtain this data, we have employed Arc GIS tool in a way that we first calculated distances. Then we
took the total average travel time of each vehicle in a single direction by multiplying the average speed
per unit distance in the distance. Using GIS computations, we also considered network failure, which
means a route may be inaccessible following an earthquake's disaster occurrence. Results of vailable
routes and their transportation times in minutes under scenarios and visited shelters and the optimal
amounts of transportation are presented in table 11 and 12.

Table 9. Shelters demand for each fault and scenario

Scenario Shelters demand under scenarios (unit)
Fault name Interval 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 8363 7951 7348 7397 8760 7632 7587 8046 8717 7473
2 10034 10401 9402 10307 10333 10434 10907 9000 10009 9709
Alghadir
3 11004 11404 11971 11861 12176 12991 12598 12435 12082 11992
4 15643 15112 15500 15127 13717 14939 13836 13553 15653 15094
1 4460 5881 5597 4361 5150 5835 5277 4378 4599 5364
2 6641 6323 7970 6211 7966 6256 6901 7396 6425 6317
Baghin
3 9692 8162 9762 8380 9957 8105 9793 10230 8402 8228
4 12767 12908 11381 11676 11019 11282 11152 12082 12436 11879
1 4241 4326 4918 4935 3525 4799 3988 3647 4880 4306
2 5987 5301 5902 6352 6295 6284 5861 5729 6217 6380
Seyedi
3 8967 8880 7467 7661 8940 8136 8550 7841 6650 7444
4 9715 10603 9906 9719 10297 10091 10080 10865 9564 9510
1 2596 4723 3319 3483 2815 4220 3967 4517 3563 5183
2 8453 7800 7919 8895 7797 8052 7557 8798 8456 8798
Zangiabad
3 10538 10806 9189 9646 9139 10232 9507 10806 10880 10001
4 12580 12672 11811 11799 11603 11145 11895 11314 13783 13926

Table 10. Required transportation time under routes and scenarios

Scenario Required transportation time under routes and scenarios (min)
Fault name Interval North routes South routes West routes East routes Central routes
1 17 15 10 17 11
2 11 17 15 10 15
Alghadir
3 6 6 9 7 8
4 4 3 5 3 2

26
 1 11 10 17 10 14
2 16 11 11 12 12
Baghin
3 8 5 7 5 8
4 4 3 2 3 3
1 11 15 11 16 14
2 13 12 17 16 16
Seyedi
3 9 7 7 5 5
4 4 8 2 2 6
1 11 17 16 14 16
2 15 14 13 15 16
Zangiabad
3 7 9 9 6 9
4 5 8 6 7 3

Table 11. Available routes and their transportation times in minutes under scenarios
Alghadir Baghin Seyedi Zangiabad
Warehouse Shelter(s)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 12 21 19 21 18 17 12 14 19 12 10 13 24 21 17 28
2 13 18 17 17 17 20 17 18 16 32 14 13 13 19 16 10
3 10 18 19 18 12 21 20 28 23 10 27 26 10 27 19 30
4 20 32 31 21 14 13 11 24 10 29 19 30 32 17 11 28
5 22 8 11 16 17 8 20 32 17 13 13 16 32 17 10 26
6 18 15 23 12 29 28 15 22 27 29 20 26 18 22 10 22
7 22 21 13 31 13 55 58 197 49 19 98 282 305 22 11 24
1 8 12 24 30 35 18 33 32 20 25 27 31 31 28 11 22 16
9 14 16 29 18 12 29 13 16 28 27 14 17 24 11 18 13
10 11 19 21 19 8 19 23 20 15 13 12 16 21 28 18 20
1-2 48 51 61 51 65 54 76 37 41 58 93 38 86 45 37 48
1-3 34 59 34 45 49 47 55 52 42 38 41 39 58 71 45 61
3-4 37 42 48 44 32 36 34 49 42 47 37 45 55 73 56 43
2-5-9 75 82 64 62 63 58 63 58 59 47 59 63 68 70 55 58
6-7-8 75 65 52 52 59 62 78 63 59 51 59 60 69 73 75 69
1 14 10 17 8 18 10 13 12 19 12 18 16 21 16 14 19
2 15 13 21 18 19 23 24 12 14 15 18 17 21 20 14 20
3 18 20 15 16 18 25 15 27 19 12 23 20 14 17 17 16
4 12 15 17 11 19 16 20 16 20 24 21 19 24 22 12 12
5 16 19 21 23 18 18 15 14 18 14 12 17 17 24 20 19
6 20 23 23 13 16 23 15 23 22 29 16 24 24 30 18 26
7 23 25 25 13 16 22 10 17 20 17 19 17 18 24 20 13
2 8 22 27 12 17 17 19 17 24 29 25 12 19 21 19 21 12
9 24 13 24 19 13 17 18 14 17 22 18 22 13 11 20 25
10 27 21 20 18 22 21 20 24 15 21 22 24 14 25 18 18
2-5 33 41 49 51 56 60 62 70 64 57 59 60 54 56 55 60
3-4 37 43 54 45 34 55 61 54 39 42 50 53 52 49 50 39
5-9-2 65 73 80 72 65 66 76 69 59 70 72 68 65 70 65 71
1-3-4 69 75 81 73 66 67 72 71 63 75 74 70 66 71 68 80
6-7-8 63 64 62 68 59 70 68 64 62 71 62 65 76 65 67 70
1 11 18 20 17 19 12 12 19 18 14 11 10 14 15 18 20
3
2 22 21 15 19 18 19 12 23 17 13 23 22 11 16 14 23

27
 3 18 14 16 19 18 14 20 19 13 20 17 16 26 18 17 24
4 15 15 12 11 21 10 21 19 20 14 16 19 14 22 20 15
5 14 22 14 16 13 18 11 18 13 20 10 13 14 17 11 12
6 28 29 26 20 27 27 21 14 15 20 23 15 21 20 19 12
7 20 17 19 28 15 19 16 23 19 24 20 11 18 12 15 14
8 16 20 19 27 22 13 24 20 19 22 13 11 15 21 16 18
9 19 18 14 23 15 13 16 14 27 17 13 18 19 12 14 17
10 16 22 26 23 14 25 14 19 18 20 19 24 24 23 19 25
6-8 58 69 59 70 77 60 58 57 66 60 71 72 62 62 56 72
6-7 71 68 63 83 53 56 64 60 79 71 55 59 60 61 64 65
1-2 56 55 54 62 39 49 48 53 63 44 42 56 48 49 68 59
4-6 62 74 72 56 83 81 84 73 63 79 64 69 72 74 78 68
3-4 54 56 60 55 49 67 56 69 57 72 62 77 86 57 64 63
1-3-4 81 86 89 95 99 79 84 89 87 77 68 77 86 87 94 93
6-7-8 78 81 85 76 69 70 71 69 65 80 75 71 69 80 76 74
2-5-9 74 65 80 70 76 75 65 64 73 77 70 68 69 74 75 70
3-4-7-6 101 93 126 151 88 123 105 75 110 107 114 98 107 112 108 107

Table 11. Continued.

Alghadir Baghin Seyedi Zangiabad
Warehouse Shelter(s)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 13 18 24 20 15 12 16 23 19 15 17 12 25 19 22 17
2 19 22 12 17 16 20 15 17 19 18 19 26 16 22 16 15
3 20 17 21 23 25 23 19 20 18 18 18 16 18 18 19 17
4 15 11 17 21 20 16 20 18 14 15 23 20 18 15 25 21
5 20 19 12 18 20 26 19 15 25 19 12 23 20 25 21 24
6 19 18 17 12 15 25 11 13 21 10 14 18 17 24 21 23
7 29 23 18 20 21 16 21 21 18 19 20 12 19 26 12 25
8 16 14 13 12 21 23 13 22 25 17 19 20 18 19 14 16
4 9 18 19 15 17 22 20 17 20 19 25 23 27 17 22 20 26
10 25 17 23 21 24 16 10 21 19 21 13 18 16 18 18 27
3-4 53 60 57 52 61 55 69 53 65 63 53 57 54 54 56 52
1-2 48 59 69 58 70 62 59 70 60 61 62 71 63 64 60 60
8-10 54 57 60 55 57 49 60 57 52 59 58 54 53 57 55 53
5-9 62 52 53 65 50 57 58 53 66 50 59 61 59 65 55 59
6-7 55 65 56 57 59 64 63 59 57 62 67 63 69 65 60 52
2-5-9 70 68 80 78 78 80 75 69 75 70 72 78 65 73 72 77
7-6-8 72 69 81 72 71 78 69 65 70 78 75 69 65 77 79 75
1 12 18 16 14 12 12 16 20 23 24 19 14 15 20 18 22
2 18 19 13 18 12 19 14 23 25 23 20 23 19 23 14 20
3 12 11 16 18 18 21 14 25 19 24 20 20 19 17 19 18
4 20 24 29 12 20 15 14 15 21 14 24 22 17 21 16 22
5 14 15 15 19 18 15 19 16 15 26 15 12 17 24 19 25
5
6 19 12 20 17 21 19 16 15 21 20 14 14 22 18 19 17
7 14 12 13 16 16 15 16 13 20 25 20 23 17 18 14 19
8 17 22 20 24 22 23 20 25 16 21 23 24 20 15 23 25
9 20 26 20 16 21 24 19 23 24 21 25 17 19 19 14 19
10 18 19 24 20 21 21 25 20 20 20 22 25 24 19 26 24

28
 1-2 58 49 59 68 60 52 69 60 70 68 66 75 73 64 65 70
5-9 64 67 65 65 57 69 64 56 59 69 68 64 63 67 65 56
3-4 66 58 58 64 58 59 58 58 56 60 69 65 69 68 65 59
2-59 70 66 57 55 57 63 62 57 58 67 65 60 64 70 69 55
8-10 74 65 70 73 75 78 76 79 74 72 70 68 75 70 68 69
8-7-6 82 79 81 82 81 88 79 75 80 88 85 79 75 87 89 85
3-4-6-7-8 126 148 120 130 140 130 150 160 123 135 136 140 137 136 146 140
1 16 17 19 19 20 17 15 21 25 24 20 22 18 24 24 25
2 20 14 20 23 25 21 22 25 24 29 25 18 20 17 22 16
3 17 20 21 23 21 14 15 20 14 18 16 19 22 21 15 21
4 18 14 18 20 27 25 22 19 17 18 24 21 21 24 23 24
5 17 18 22 23 16 21 25 21 18 19 14 18 16 14 26 15
6 25 24 25 24 16 25 16 15 13 15 15 20 15 20 23 22
7 24 23 24 23 22 25 25 19 16 14 19 18 24 25 28 21
6
8 22 26 25 19 17 23 25 23 29 24 24 20 17 23 21 16
9 19 20 23 24 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 29 29 24 20 25
10 17 14 20 22 18 25 18 19 25 16 18 21 28 22 22 24
1-2 65 55 50 54 68 69 48 50 66 50 59 65 79 58 60 69
5-9 60 75 67 56 59 63 65 67 78 67 64 62 64 65 68 65
3-4 64 65 67 70 68 70 73 74 70 68 70 69 71 75 67 70
6-7-8 90 84 88 80 89 94 95 90 88 83 84 89 78 80 83 89

Table 12. Visited shelters and the optimal amounts of transportation

Alghadir Baghin Seyedi Zangiabad
Warehouse Shelter(s)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 3084 2642 5516 2821 2746 3905 4245 3046 5539 4303 4109 4252 5376 4127 3889 5786
1 3 5326 3753 2581 2813 4086 5190 2514 4431 2281 4565 5723 3775 4051 2993 4694 5385
1-2 2639 2131 3837 2461 4310 3452 5601 2607 3538 2225 3451 3785 2831 5774 4099 4431
2 3855 5059 4552 3101 4545 4818 3244 5063 5482 3303 2661 5650 4015 3718 3548 3581
2 5 3396 2570 2670 4406 5778 3246 3820 2229 3212 2503 4824 3848 2189 5034 2833 4234
2-5 4372 5283 4835 3700 2909 3252 2145 3207 4065 5515 2861 3362 4480 4726 4535 3433
3 3750 3144 2430 3759 4578 4873 5656 4950 4913 5051 4100 3532 5083 3606 2529 2292
4 2990 4650 5625 4648 4200 3382 5603 3294 5170 3162 4071 2377 5247 5104 4667 3795
6 4758 4485 4103 5219 5007 4197 3399 5284 2883 4667 2725 4598 4183 2838 3511 4222
7 5361 2838 2802 3913 4826 2246 5539 3313 3446 5521 2529 5035 5677 2713 2934 3375
8 5624 3035 5438 2147 3636 5261 3277 4896 3541 5128 3538 4368 3984 3516 3941 5303
3 3-4-6-7 5661 3559 4709 4926 5131 4363 2606 3531 4294 5026 3534 5164 3749 3131 4324 3974
6-7-8 5509 3661 5596 4660 2938 2175 2800 5414 5524 4837 2702 3785 5015 3612 3096 5400
3-4 2866 2461 2990 2293 3537 2400 4501 3226 5236 2905 4147 3232 4650 3875 5231 5127
4-6 3735 3539 3220 5284 5150 4175 5073 2132 4980 5102 2411 5699 2512 5438 2124 5115
6-7 4849 3889 2505 5416 3544 4214 5029 5164 5763 4850 5371 2465 3288 5226 5152 3905
6-8 3389 2593 5553 3408 2965 5243 2249 4186 2147 4917 3373 4200 2918 5797 4349 3625
6 5256 2816 2834 3695 3239 4751 3292 3057 2371 4531 4620 5213 2709 2896 3456 5856
7 5700 3849 3113 5632 4425 3578 2566 3700 5245 2761 2298 2104 2356 4898 4640 4890
4
8 5514 3198 5103 3875 4492 3332 4500 2604 3794 5110 4349 2616 3921 2552 3708 4461
9 4904 2814 3088 5230 4757 4975 3627 2179 3445 4311 3364 4792 3150 4346 4570 6125

29
 7-6-8 5137 4157 2553 2340 4880 5532 5575 2435 2134 4954 4150 2540 5204 3440 3292 2697
6-7 4420 4250 4070 3284 3822 5529 4611 4448 2994 5282 2441 5684 2514 3218 4813 4200
5 2570 3710 4600 5658 4603 5333 2589 4153 3294 4950 2786 2177 5160 2450 2496 5713
5 9 3994 2861 3139 2842 2775 4020 3131 4629 5312 3920 3583 5599 3899 5035 4132 3334
5-9 4463 5781 3656 4549 5706 2722 4723 3176 5297 3535 2366 2418 4247 4342 5587 3093
6 10 2163 2619 4656 4239 5495 5577 2930 2737 3852 2994 2312 5231 3880 4908 2767 4261

8. Concluding remarks
This paper introduces a fast-response mathematical programming approach to properly manage the
challenges that may arise due to an earthquake disaster. We present two models: a TSSP model for
preparedness operations and an MIP model for post-disaster activities. The first model in the first stage
determines the location decisions of the relief facilities, and in the second stage of the same model,
transportation plans are designated. In the MIP model, a comprehensive routing program is specified to
provide the most readiness for sending relief goods at the time of an earthquake incident. We used the
standard problem instances of the online OR-Library data to solve the models. The first model is
decomposed into two stages based on the logic of the BD method and solved separately; location and
transportation problems. In fact, at the strategic decision-making level, the optimized locations under
stochastic parameters are determined. After that, the optimum general transportation plans (direct
shipments) of relief goods are identified at the tactical level. Later, some results from the first model
were projected as required parameters for the MIP model. We solved this model by using the B&C
method introducing a novel strategy for route enumerations to achieve a fast response time. Due to the
existence of decision-dependent uncertainty for the demand parameter in the first model, we devised
additional constraints to transfer the demand of unlocated shelters to opened ones. The results of the
solution methods through the diagrams revealed that the methods have high potency and reliability that
effectively can help the administration implement large-scale earthquake management programs. In
order to test the designed network in practice, data on the historical city of Kerman is chosen and applied
where the city experienced a tremendous crisis about a decade ago. In this way, we used the GIS-based
data for distance computation and safe route identification. The results of Kerman's case pointed out
that the models could properly map the optimal layout for the location of shelters, the level of goods in
warehouses, and routing plans for delivering relief goods through safe routes at a reasonable response
time.

As some extensions to future works, one can utilize the probability distribution of earthquake's time
occurrence of a specific region through robust optimization modeling. Furthermore, future research can
consider larger dimension networks (say, an entire country) and additional experimental scenarios that
include resource use. Another direction for future research can be the consideration of uncertainty in
both earthquake time events and available routes. Of course, solving the models employing an exact
method within these extensions can be more excitable but challenging.

30
Acknowledgement
The authors are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers, the journal editor-in-chief, and associate
editors, whose constructive comments and insightful critiques resulted in a much-improved paper. We
also thank those who provided comments on earlier versions of this paper. In this study, we have
benefited from the consultations and collaborations of the Geophysics organization in Iran. The authors
very gratefully acknowledge their support for the information provided to us for the real-world case
study.

Appendix
A. BD approach for the TSSP model

In section 4, we presented a TSSP model which can be addressed by the BD method. Regarding the
structure of the model, we introduce the relaxed master problem as follows:

𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 ∑𝑠∈𝒮 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝐶𝑠𝒶 𝑧𝑠𝒶 + ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑓𝒶 𝑥𝒶 + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑏𝑗 𝑢𝑗 + ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗 + 𝜃 (A1)

Subject to:

Constraints (2)⸺(4), (8), (10)

𝜃 ≥ ∑𝜔∈Ω 𝑃𝑟(𝜔) [𝑓 𝑙 (𝜔) + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝜉𝑗𝑙 (𝜔)(𝑢𝑗 − 𝑢𝑗𝑙 ) +

𝑙 (𝜔)(y 𝑙 𝑙 𝑙
∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜗𝒶𝑚 𝒶𝑚 − y𝒶𝑚 ) + ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜍𝑖𝑗 (𝜔)(𝛿𝑖𝑗 − 𝛿𝑖𝑗 )], 𝑙 = 1, … , 𝒯 − 1 (A2)

Constraints (A2) are the Benders Cuts (BC). Although these inequalities are commonly known as the
Benders optimality cut, in the case of facing infeasibility in a subproblem, the procedure we utilize turns
these cuts into feasibility cuts. Parameters 𝜉𝑗𝑙 (𝜔), 𝜗𝒶𝑚
𝑙 ( ) 𝑙
𝜔 , and 𝜍𝑖𝑗 (𝜔) denote the dual variables
associated with constraints (A4) to (A6), respectively, which represents in Benders' subproblem as
follows:

∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑗∈𝒥[𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)] +

𝐦𝐢𝐧 Φ(𝑥, y, 𝑢, Ω) = (A3)
𝑥,y,𝑧
∑𝑗∈𝒥 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝜋𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)
Subject to:
Constraints (5)⸺(7), (9) and
𝑢𝑗 = 𝑢𝑗0 , ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 (A4)
0
y𝒶𝑚 = y𝒶𝑚 , ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ (A5)
𝛿𝑖𝑗 = 𝛿𝑖𝑗0 , ∀𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ 𝒥 (A6)

Where 𝑢𝑗0 , 𝑦𝒶𝑚

0 0
, and 𝛿𝑖𝑗 denote the optimal values of 𝑢𝑗 , 𝑦𝒶𝑚 , and 𝛿𝑖𝑗 as a result of solving the master
problem in each iteration. Although the subproblem is a nonlinear programming problem due to the
existence of constraints (5), fixing the values of the first stage's decision variables 𝑢𝑗 and 𝑦𝒶𝑚

31
consequences to the projection of the subproblem into a lower dimension polytope that reserves the
convexity of the feasibility space and regarding the fact that the objective function of the subproblems
is affine, it is guaranteed that the classic Benders optimality cut can be amenable to the problem. In the
case of facing infeasible subproblem(s), we have utilized some auxiliary variables in the model in order
− ( ) + ( ) − ( )
to tackle the discrepancy. Here we have used 𝐹𝒶𝑚 𝜔 , 𝐺𝑗𝑚 𝜔 , and 𝐺𝑗𝑚 𝜔 to denote the auxiliary
variables to illustrate the second subprogram:

∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑗∈𝒥[𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) ∑𝑚∈ℳ p𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)] +

𝐦𝐢𝐧 Φ(𝑥, y, 𝑢, ω) = ∑𝑗∈𝒥 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)π𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) + (A7)
𝑥,𝒴,𝑧
− (𝜔) + −
𝒬[𝐹𝒶𝑚 + 𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) + 𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)]
Subject to:
Constraints (5)⸺(7), (9), (40)⸺(42), and
− (𝜔)
∑𝑗∈𝒥 p𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝑢𝑗 − 𝐹𝒶𝑚 ≤ y𝒶𝑚 , ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝜔 ∈ Ω (A8)
+ −
∑𝒶∈𝒜 p𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) + 𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) − 𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) = 𝑑𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) − π𝑗𝑚 (𝜔), ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝒥, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝜔 ∈ Ω (A9)
− (𝜔), + (𝜔), − (𝜔)
𝐹𝒶𝑚 𝐺𝑗𝑚 𝐺𝑗𝑚 ≥ 0, ∀𝒶 ∈ 𝒜, 𝑚 ∈ ℳ, 𝜔 ∈ Ω (A10)

Where 𝒬 is a large number representing the cost of subproblems infeasibility, it is ensured that the
subproblems stay feasible from the mathematical point of view. The solution procedure acts in a way
that in the final iteration, the value of all artificial variables tends to be zero and, hence the second stage
will be feasible. Note that, the cuts generated through the aforementioned dual variables, in the case
that auxiliary variables have positive values, serve as the feasibility BC rather than the previously stated
optimality BC. It is noteworthy that in the solution procedure, the second subproblem can also be chosen
instead of the first one, but due to the enhancement in the dimension of the feasibility space, the CPU
runtime, especially in the worst-case performance, tend to increase in an exponential growth rate. Thus,
the second subproblem must be chosen to be solved only in the case of infeasibility. However, in the
case of utilizing the first subproblem, we must add feasibility cuts to the master problem as follows:

χ χ
0 ≥ ∑𝜔∈Ω 𝑃𝑟(𝜔) [𝑓 χ (𝜔) + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝜉𝑗 (𝜔)(𝑢𝑗 − 𝑢𝑗 ) +
χ χ χ χ
∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜗𝒶𝑚 (𝜔)(𝑦𝒶𝑚 − 𝑦𝒶𝑚 ) + ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜍𝑖𝑗 (𝜔)(𝛿𝑖𝑗 − 𝛿𝑖𝑗 )], χ = 1, … , H − 1 (A11)
A simple schema of the steps is depicted in the following flowchart (see figure (10) and the BD
method’s pseudocode manifested in the form of algorithm 3).

32
 Fig. 10. The BD flowchart for the problem

A.1. The proposed BD algorithm

Algorithm 3. The proposed BD algorithm

Data: Parameters and scenarios
Output: Optimal value of decision variables.
begin
𝑛 ∶= iteration number, 𝑢𝑏 ∶= upper bound, 𝑙𝑏 ∶= lower bound;
Solve Master problem without optimality cut set: (2)⸺(4), (8), (10), and (37)
Optimal values: 𝑥̅ (𝑛) ∶= 𝑥 ∗ , y̅(𝑛) ∶= y ∗ , 𝑢̅(𝑛) ∶= 𝑢∗ , 𝑧̅(𝑛) ∶= 𝑧 ∗ , 𝛿̅(n) ∶= 𝛿 ∗ , Θ
̅ (𝑛) ∶= Θ∗
∗
and: 𝑙𝑏 ∶= ∑𝑠∈𝒮 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑐𝑠𝒶 𝑧𝑠𝒶 + ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑓𝒶 𝑥𝒶∗ + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑏𝑗 𝑢𝑗∗ + ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗 + Θ
repeat
for 𝜔𝜖(Ω), do
Solve the first subproblem: (5)⸺(7), (9), and (39)⸺(42)
if infeasible, then
Solve the second subproblem: (5)⸺(7), (9), and (40)⸺(43), and (A1)⸺(A3)
Optimal second-stage values;
′− (𝜔) −∗ (𝜔), ′+ (𝜔) +∗ ′−
(𝜔), 𝐺𝑗𝑚 −∗
(𝜔) = 𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)
𝐹𝒶𝑚 = 𝐹𝒶𝑚 𝐺𝑗𝑚 = 𝐺𝑗𝑚
Obtain dual values and generate cut-set (24);
Set 𝑢𝑏(𝑛) ∶= min{𝑢𝑏(𝑛 − 1), ∑𝑠∈𝒮 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑐𝑠𝒶 𝑧𝑠𝒶 ∗
+ ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑓𝒶 𝑥𝒶∗ + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑏𝑗 𝑢𝑗∗ + ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗∗ +
∗ ∗ −∗ (𝜔)
∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑗∈𝒥[𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)] + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝜋𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) + 𝑄[𝐹𝒶𝑚 +
+∗ −∗
𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) + 𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)]}
else
Obtain dual values of first subproblem (5)⸺(7), (9), and (39)⸺(42) and generate cut-set
(24);

33
 ∗
Set 𝑢𝑏(𝑛) ∶= min{𝑢𝑏(𝑛 − 1), ∑𝑠∈𝒮 ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑐𝑠𝒶 𝑧𝑠𝒶 + ∑𝒶∈𝒜 𝑓𝒶 𝑥𝒶∗ + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 𝑏𝑗 𝑢𝑗∗ + ∑𝑖,𝑗∈𝒥 𝜖𝑖𝑗 𝛿𝑖𝑗∗ +
∗ ∗ −∗ (𝜔)
∑𝒶∈𝒜 ∑𝑗∈𝒥[𝜑𝒶𝑗 (𝜔) ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝑝𝒶𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)] + ∑𝑗∈𝒥 ∑𝑚∈ℳ 𝜆𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)𝜋𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) + 𝑄[𝐹𝒶𝑚 +
+∗ −∗
𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔) + 𝐺𝑗𝑚 (𝜔)]}
end if
end for
if 𝑢𝑏 − 𝑙𝑏 ∈ 𝜀, then
Stop; required accuracy achieved and return:
𝑥̅ (𝑛), y̅(𝑛), 𝑢̅(𝑛), 𝑧̅(𝑛), 𝛿̅(𝑛)
else
solve the master problem with the optimality cut set: (2)⸺(4), (8), (10), (37), and (38)
Set 𝑛 = 𝑛 + 1
end if
until termination criterion is met;
end

The algorithm's procedure to solve the problem is to initially set the upper and lower bounds to positive
and negative infinity, respectively, and set the iteration number equal to one. Then, the master problem
(known as the first-stage problem) is solved without any other constraint, and the optimal values of the
first-stage variables are obtained. By the same iteration, for any 𝜔 ∈ Ω, the subproblem (known as the
second stage problem) is solved in the presence of the value of parameters that resulted from solving
the first stage problem. Results of this step include: (1) optimal second stage variables values, (2)
optimal dual values, (3) optimal dual extreme ray values (if existed), and (4) optimal second-stage
objective function. Through the same iteration and before the next step, the algorithm ensures, for all
scenarios (𝜔 ∈ Ω), the optimal values for the problem whether feasible or not. In case of infeasibility
for the stated condition, the algorithm adds some relations called feasibility cuts. These feasibility cuts
came from those constraints that have been violated because of the registration of the first-stage values
as parameters to the second-stage problem. Then, in the same iteration, the upper bound is updated to
resolve the first-stage problem, but this time, in the presence of feasibility cuts. Otherwise, if the
problem is feasible, in the next step, the algorithm checks the convergence condition for the optimality
gap (𝑢𝑏 − 𝑙𝑏 ∈ 𝜀 and we set the optimality gap equal to 𝜀 = 10 × 10−8 ≈ 0). In the next step, if at least
for one scenario the optimality condition is met, the algorithm stops; otherwise, for the next step a new
optimality cut is added to the first stage problem, and the lower bound is updated. Thereafter, the
iteration number is added, and the first stage problem is resolved again. This procedure continues so
that we can achieve the optimal solution, or the secondary stop condition, as crossing the 10-hours CPU
runtime is met. Note that, for those very large-scale run configurations that the CPU runtime has
exceeded the 10-hours, we report the optimal gap percentage in the results (for example, consider the
instance t4 with 50 relief suppliers and the number of scenarios up to 720, in which the secondary stop
condition is met⸺ see table 13).

A.2. Results of the phase-one model

Table 13. Computational study results of phase-one model

34
 BD results Commercial Solver
Instance Scenario
Objective function CPU time Gap (%) CPU time Gap (%)
1 4362569 0:17:19 0 0:10:20 0
4 4355696 0:21:37 0 0:23:07 0
24 4348823 0:35:21 0 0:46:45 0
48 4341950 0:47:33 0 1:23:25 0
t1
96 4335077 1:44:34 0 3:38:30 0
288 4305496 3:21:45 0 6:14:53 0
720 4265479 6:24:17 0 >10:00:00 8
1440 4103879 9:32:52 0 >10:00:00 19
1 5826985 0:23:03 0 0:15:18 0
4 5810365 0:34:29 0 0:35:01 0
24 5795358 0:46:52 0 1:01:08 0
48 5750654 1:00:03 0 1:34:21 0
t2
96 5742365 2:01:17 0 4:05:15 0
288 5703648 3:54:34 0 7:36:12 0
720 5630489 6:50:07 0 >10:00:00 17
1440 N/A >10:00:00 7 >10:00:00 28
1 7003654 0:36:49 0 0:28:11 0
4 6986565 0:45:25 0 0:45:08 0
24 6975498 0:58:12 0 1:11:05 0
48 6966546 1:15:03 0 1:47:40 0
t3
96 6946854 2:22:50 0 4:58:36 0
288 6938498 4:11:12 0 8:33:20 0
720 6858976 7:24:39 0 >10:00:00 25
1440 N/A >10:00:00 12 >10:00:00 39
1 9578462 0:55:00 0 0:43:21 0
4 9518972 1:06:23 0 1:08:22 0
24 9399854 1:23:14 0 1:32:24 0
48 9256498 1:35:10 0 2:14:58 0
t4
96 9154832 2:50:56 0 5:23:15 0
288 9056465 4:47:20 0 9:54:14 0
720 8949842 8:20:39 0 >10:00:00 39
1440 N/A >10:00:00 23 >10:00:00 52
1 12465982 1:33:06 0 1:13:55 0
4 12354542 1:55:13 0 1:59:02 0
24 12316746 2:17:56 0 2:31:10 0
48 12156468 2:48:47 0 3:31:29 0
t5
96 12064682 3:48:50 0 8:29:01 0
288 11998734 6:05:06 0 >10:00:00 32
720 N/A >10:00:00 24 >10:00:00 51
1440 N/A >10:00:00 41 >10:00:00 79

35
 Fig. 11. The NP-hard behavior of deterministic equivalent model

Figure (11) shows the NP-hard nature of the problem in the deterministic equivalent state, which
convinced us to utilize the BD algorithm to probe the problem space and acheive the exact solution
substantially faster. As an illustration of the algorithm’s performanc, figure. (12) confirms the
convergence and power of the Benders algorithm for the test problem t1 under scenario s1440.
Moreover, figure (13) shows the superiority of the BD method over the commercial solver, solving all
problem instances under scenario s4.

Fig. 12. LB and UB convergence vs. iteration

36
 Fig. 13. BD method vs. commercial solver

Fig. 14. The first complexity factor: time vs. scenarios

The exponential CPU runtime trends seen in Fig 14 reveal that one of the significant factors in the
growth of problem complexity is the rise in the number of scenarios. For example, in the case of a single
earthquake scenario consideration (the possibility of an earthquake occurring once a day), the CPU
runtime is equal to 17 minutes. Even so, this time is increased to 384 minutes during the boost in the
number of possible scenarios (taking 720 different times per day with various probabilities).

Fig. 15. The second complexity factor: time vs. test problems dimensions

37
Figure (15), another interpretation of Figure (13), introduces the second key factor in complexity
enhancement. In this curvilinear figure, the increasing complexity of the problem emanated from an
increase in the potential facilities for locating. As a case in point, under scenario s288, the CPU runtime
for test problem t1 takes almost 202 minutes, while this time for t5 reaches 365 minutes.

Fig. 16. Convergence display for objective function values

Figure (16) shows that for each test problem, in general, by increasing the number of possible scenarios,
the objective function value decreases and converges to a constant value. This behavior can be
interpreted in a way that by increasing the scenarios, the model can obtain more information about
possible occurrences.

References
Ahmadi, M., Seifi, A., & Tootooni, B. (2015). A humanitarian logistics model for disaster relief operation
considering network failure and standard relief time: A case study on San Francisco district.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 75, 145-163.
Andreas, A. K., & Smith, J. C. (2009). Decomposition algorithms for the design of a nonsimultaneous capacitated
evacuation tree network. Networks: An International Journal, 53(2), 91-103.
Balcik, B., & Beamon, B. M. (2008). Facility location in humanitarian relief. International Journal of logistics,
11(2), 101-121.
Balcik, B., & Yanıkoğlu, İ. (2020). A robust optimization approach for humanitarian needs assessment planning
under travel time uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 282(1), 40-57.
Barbarosoǧlu, G., & Arda, Y. (2004). A two-stage stochastic programming framework for transportation planning
in disaster response. Journal of the operational research society, 55(1), 43-53.
Basciftci, B., Ahmed, S., & Shen, S. (2021). Distributionally robust facility location problem under decision-
dependent stochastic demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 292(2), 548-561.
Bayram, V., & Yaman, H. (2018). Shelter location and evacuation route assignment under uncertainty: A benders
decomposition approach. Transportation Science, 52(2), 416-436.
Bozorgi-Amiri, A., Jabalameli, M. S., & Al-e-Hashem, S. M. (2013). A multi-objective robust stochastic
programming model for disaster relief logistics under uncertainty. OR spectrum, 35(4), 905-933.
Bozorgi-Amiri, A., Jabalameli, M. S., Alinaghian, M., & Heydari, M. (2012). A modified particle swarm
optimization for disaster relief logistics under uncertain environment. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 60(1-4), 357-371.
Caunhye, A. M., Nie, X., & Pokharel, S. (2012). Optimization models in emergency logistics: A literature review.
Socio-economic planning sciences, 46(1), 4-13.
Chang, M.-S., Tseng, Y.-L., & Chen, J.-W. (2007). A scenario planning approach for the flood emergency
logistics preparation problem under uncertainty. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 43(6), 737-754.

38
Döyen, A., Aras, N., & Barbarosoğlu, G. (2012). A two-echelon stochastic facility location model for
humanitarian relief logistics. Optimization Letters, 6(6), 1123-1145.
Duran, S., Gutierrez, M. A., & Keskinocak, P. (2011). Pre-positioning of emergency items for CARE
international. Interfaces, 41(3), 223-237.
Falasca, M., & Zobel, C. W. (2011). A two‐stage procurement model for humanitarian relief supply chains.
Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management.
Fan, Y., & Liu, C. (2010). Solving stochastic transportation network protection problems using the progressive
hedging-based method. Networks and Spatial Economics, 10(2), 193-208.
Farahani, M. M., Chaharsooghi, S. K., Van Woensel, T., & Veelenturf, L. P. (2018). Capacitated network-flow
approach to the evacuation-location problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 115, 407-426.
Grass, E., & Fischer, K. (2016). Two-stage stochastic programming in disaster management: A literature survey.
Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science, 21(2), 85-100.
Haghani, M., & Bliemer, M. C. (2023). Emerging trends and influential outsiders of transportation science.
Transportation Letters, 15(5), 386-422.
Jia, H., Ordóñez, F., & Dessouky, M. M. (2007). Solution approaches for facility location of medical supplies for
large-scale emergencies. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 52(2), 257-276.
Kovacs, G., & Moshtari, M. (2019). A roadmap for higher research quality in humanitarian operations: A
methodological perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 276(2), 395-408.
Liu, C., Fan, Y., & Ordóñez, F. (2009). A two-stage stochastic programming model for transportation network
protection. Computers & Operations Research, 36(5), 1582-1590.
Liu, K., Liu, C., Xiang, X., & Tian, Z. (2023). Testing facility location and dynamic capacity planning for
pandemics with demand uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 304(1), 150-168.
Liu, Y., Lei, H., Zhang, D., & Wu, Z. (2018). Robust optimization for relief logistics planning under uncertainties
in demand and transportation time. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 55, 262-280.
Lysgaard, J., Letchford, A. N., & Eglese, R. W. (2004). A new branch-and-cut algorithm for the capacitated
vehicle routing problem. Mathematical Programming, 100(2), 423-445.
Mete, H. O., & Zabinsky, Z. B. (2010). Stochastic optimization of medical supply location and distribution in
disaster management. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(1), 76-84.
Moreno, A., Munari, P., & Alem, D. (2019). A branch-and-Benders-cut algorithm for the Crew Scheduling and
Routing Problem in road restoration. European Journal of Operational Research, 275(1), 16-34.
Munari, P., Dollevoet, T., & Spliet, R. (2016). A generalized formulation for vehicle routing problems. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1606.01935.
Na, H. S., & Banerjee, A. (2015). A disaster evacuation network model for transporting multiple priority evacuees.
IIE Transactions, 47(11), 1287-1299.
Nazari, H., Ritz, J., Salamati, R., Solaymani, S., Balescu, S., Michelot, J., Ghassemi, A., Talebian, M., Lamothe,
M., & Massault, M. (2007). Paleoseismological analysis in central Alborz, Iran. 50th anniversary
earthquake conference commemorating the 1957 Gobi-Altay earthquake,
Ng, M., & Waller, S. (2009). The evacuation optimal network design problem: model formulation and
comparisons. Transportation Letters, 1(2), 111-119.
Noham, R., & Tzur, M. (2018). Designing humanitarian supply chains by incorporating actual post-disaster
decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 265(3), 1064-1077.
Noyan, N., Balcik, B., & Atakan, S. (2016). A stochastic optimization model for designing last mile relief
networks. Transportation Science, 50(3), 1092-1113.
Noyan, N., & Kahvecioğlu, G. (2018). Stochastic last mile relief network design with resource reallocation. OR
spectrum, 40(1), 187-231.
Paul, J. A., & Wang, X. J. (2019). Robust location-allocation network design for earthquake preparedness.
Transportation research part B: methodological, 119, 139-155.
Peeta, S., Salman, F. S., Gunnec, D., & Viswanath, K. (2010). Pre-disaster investment decisions for strengthening
a highway network. Computers & Operations Research, 37(10), 1708-1719.
Qezelbash-Chamak, J., Badamchizadeh, S., Eshghi, K., & Asadi, Y. (2022). A survey of machine learning in
kidney disease diagnosis. Machine Learning with Applications, 10, 100418.
Rath, S., Gendreau, M., & Gutjahr, W. J. (2016). Bi‐objective stochastic programming models for determining
depot locations in disaster relief operations. International Transactions in Operational Research, 23(6),
997-1023.
Rezaei-Malek, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Cheikhrouhou, N., & Taheri-Moghaddam, A. (2016). An
approximation approach to a trade-off among efficiency, efficacy, and balance for relief pre-positioning
in disaster management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 93, 485-
509.
Sakiani, R., Seifi, A., & Khorshiddoust, R. R. (2020). Inventory routing and dynamic redistribution of relief goods
in post-disaster operations. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106219.

39
 Shehadeh, K. S., & Tucker, E. L. (2022). Stochastic optimization models for location and inventory prepositioning
of disaster relief supplies. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 144, 103871.
Sheu, J.-B. (2007). An emergency logistics distribution approach for quick response to urgent relief demand in
disasters. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 43(6), 687-709.
Tikani, H., Setak, M., & Abbasi, D. (2021). Multigraph modeling for urban distribution of emergency
commodities with semisoft time Windows under uncertainty. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2021,
1-17.
Tofighi, S., Torabi, S. A., & Mansouri, S. A. (2016). Humanitarian logistics network design under mixed
uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 250(1), 239-250.
Tricoire, F., Graf, A., & Gutjahr, W. J. (2012). The bi-objective stochastic covering tour problem. Computers &
Operations Research, 39(7), 1582-1592.
Verma, A., & Gaukler, G. M. (2015). Pre-positioning disaster response facilities at safe locations: An evaluation
of deterministic and stochastic modeling approaches. Computers & Operations Research, 62, 197-209.
Vizvári, B., Golabi, M., Nedjati, A., Gümüşbuğa, F., & Izbirak, G. (2019). Top-down approach to design the relief
system in a metropolitan city using UAV technology, part I: the first 48 h. Natural Hazards, 99(1), 571-
597.
Wolsey, L. A. (1998). Integer programming (Vol. 52). John Wiley & Sons.
Zhong, S., Cheng, R., Jiang, Y., Wang, Z., Larsen, A., & Nielsen, O. A. (2020). Risk-averse optimization of
disaster relief facility location and vehicle routing under stochastic demand. Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 141, 102015.
Zhou, D., Gayah, V. V., & Wood, J. S. (2022). Integration of machine learning and statistical models for crash
frequency modeling. Transportation Letters, 1-12.
Zolfaghari, M. R., & Peyghaleh, E. (2015). Implementation of equity in resource allocation for regional
earthquake risk mitigation using two‐stage stochastic programming. Risk analysis, 35(3), 434-458.

40

View publication stats