Balancing doesn't work

[log-konz]

Hello,

I have some problem. I'm trying to calculate some tour with 4 vehicles and many stations with balancing.
I use
"balancingGoal": 0,
"balancingImportance": 100

But it doesn't work for me. driving period for vehicles is very different
35882 for one vehicle and 10251 for other.

I guess it is not balancing result. But I can't understand why it doesn't work.

my xtour version is xtour-x64-1.18.1.4

P.S.: I want to attach my log file (only for this request) but forum doesn't allow it. How I can to provide this information?

[Bernd Welter]

Hello,

as this is a specific problem that should be discussed with support I recommend to get in touch with those colleagues.
But maybe you could just add the XML part of the BalancingParams in this thread: add the code inside your response and use the highlightning feature of the XML...

Best regards
Bernd

[log-konz]

I don't use xml api, I use json fort.
it is my planning params.

Code: Select all

	: planningParams=>{
		: coDriverTransportPointsInSeparateTours=>false,
		: distanceMatrixCalculation=>[{
			: deleteAfterUsage=>true,
			: profileName=>"dimaCar",
			: $type=>"DistanceMatrixByRoad",
			: dimaId=>1,
			: deleteBeforeUsage=>true
		},
		{
			: deleteAfterUsage=>true,
			: profileName=>"dimaTruck",
			: $type=>"DistanceMatrixByRoad",
			: dimaId=>2,
			: deleteBeforeUsage=>true
		}],
		: balancingGoal=>0,
		: balancingImportance=>100,
		: $type=>"BalancingParams",
		: constructionStep=>true,
		: improvementStep=>true,
		: restrictions=>{
			: tourRestrictions=>{
				
			}
		}
	}

[Bernd Welter]

Hello again,

I recently made some experiments with the undocumented BalancingCOnstruction method parameter and for me the results look much better (in some scenarions) if I use cGuidedCMSavings instead of cBalancingCMDefault...

Maybe it's worth trying!

Best regards Bernd

[columbs]

Hello Bernd,

we have also experienced some troubles with balacing params. The issue is the following, we have a planning input with:
- 127 orders (of type AB)
- 5 vehicles

when I use the standard params, I can schedule all 127 orders by using only 4 vehicles. since my gaol ist to use all 5 available vehicles, I tried to use the balancing params (BalancingGoal= TOUR_PERIOD), but I get many unscheduled orders in these way. any Idea?

In the attachment is the request with balancing params.


In the other request is just "BalancingParams" replaced by "StandardParams" and the BalancingGoal removed.

thank you very much in advance!
regards from Berne,
Sebastiano

Update: I tried the balancing construction method "cGuidedCMSavings" as suggested by Bernd in the previous post and I can schedule all Orders!
I will check in the next hours, the result quality.

[Joost]

I took a peek at your request. I believe that you had problems getting everything scheduled because the default algoritme for balancing does not perform well with AB orders. In the end it is likely that you hit the available machine time. Switching to cGuidedCMSavings should solve this issue (like you already found).

[Bernd Welter]

one more comment to this - as Joost already mentioned:
if you compare the processing times of BALANCING versus STANDARD with equal input scenario (same orders, same resources) the BALANCING usually takes longer to terminate - that's my personal experience.
So if you did prove that a proper solution with 4 vehicles was found by STANDARD within AMT this doesn't guarantee that BALANCING will provide a sufficient result within the AMT, too.

[Prakash]

Hello,

I am also facing similar problem while using balancing param and unable to find the reason of such behavior. While analysis I found "INACCESSIBLE_RELATIONS_USED" and VEHICLE_OPERATING_INTERVAL as unscheduled reason. Please help me to understand in what case/scenario these reason could be generated.
Also I want to understand the use of "cGuidedCMSavings" and "cBalancingCMDefault", what is the meaning of these values, in what case we can use them and why we should use them.


(BWE: j728)

[Bernd Welter]

Hello Prakash,
here's the answer from the DEV (teamleader himself):

INACCESSIBLE_RELATIONS_USED means that a necessary relation is missing in the Dima. Please check if all location can be linked to the road network and if they are all accessible for the specified routing profile.
VEHICLE_OPERATING_INTERVAL indicates that this order couldn't be inserted in a trip without violating the vehicle operating intervals.

These violations have to be interpreted like "what if an order is served in a certain trip or by a certain vehicle".
I would like to recommend using cGuidedCMSavings in all cases unless the results aren't sufficient. In that cases try another option.

The violations are documented here:

TourPointViolations
http://xserver.ptvgroup.com/fileadmin/f ... %7C_____11

TourViolation
http://xserver.ptvgroup.com/fileadmin/f ... %7C_____11

Best regards (and thanks to Frank)

Bernd

[Prakash]

Hello Bernd,

Thank you very much.
All location are drive-able, because with standard param it worked as expected, so i think road network isn't an issue, correct?
Your suggestion "cGuidedCMSavings" is also helpful and got my expected result too.
But by using cGuidedCMSavings, outcome has some strange behaviors as below:
1) One unscheduled vehicle and I think this is out of balancing rule. Because as i know with balancing param every vehicle should have at least one tour, right?
2) Every days/tour has equal number of orders except one day/tour has only one order.

Could you advise some suggestion/hints why such cases happened.

Best regards,
Prakash