Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

Options

- RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page

🔒 This topic is **solved** and **locked**.
Need further help from the community? Please
sign in and ask a **new** question.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Posted 02-02-2021 08:03 PM
(1459 views)

I'm new to optimization and optmodel. I've worked through some of the samples, and have been able to build out two optimizations around HUB placement and Network Distribution. I am now trying to bring some of those items together and struggling a bit.

This is the basic setup in optmodel:

proc optmodel; set <str,str> ARCS; num distance {ARCS}; read data ARC_DATA into ARCS=[source target] distance; set <str> RDC; num rdc_capacity {RDC}; num rdc_latitude {RDC}; num rdc_longitude {RDC}; read data RDC_DATA into RDC=[name] rdc_latitude rdc_longitude rdc_capacity=capacity; set <str> ADC; num adc_capacity {ADC}; num adc_latitude {ADC}; num adc_longitude {ADC}; read data ADC_DATA into ADC=[name] adc_latitude adc_longitude adc_capacity=capacity; set <str> DDU; num demand {DDU}; num ddu_latitude {DDU}; num ddu_longitude {DDU}; read data DDU_DATA into DDU=[name] ddu_latitude ddu_longitude demand; set NODES = RDC union ADC union DDU; num supply {NODES} init 0; for {i in RDC} supply[i] = rdc_capacity[i]; for {i in DDU} supply[i] = -demand[i]; var Flow {ARCS} >= 0; con ddu_flow_con {i in DDU}: sum {<j,(i)> in ARCS} Flow[j,i] = demand[i]; /* Flow into an ADC must Flow out and be equal*/ con adc_flow_con {i in ADC}: sum {<j,(i)> in ARCS} Flow[j,i] = sum{<(i),j> in ARCS} Flow[i,j]; /* Flow at an ADC must be less than throughput */ con adc_throughput_con {i in ADC}: sum {<j,(i)> in ARCS} Flow[j,i] <= adc_capacity[i]; /* Assign separations to DDUs based on assigned FLOWS */ con rdc_assign_ddu_con {i in RDC, j in DDU}: rdcBINS[i,j] = Flow[i,j]; /* Constrain separations in an RDC */ con rdc_bin_con {i in RDC}: sum {j in DDU} rdcBINS[i,j] = &BinCap; min minTotDist = sum{<i,j> in ARCS} distance[i,j] * Flow[i,j]; save mps minTotDist_data; quit;

This runs and seems to do what I want. The next thing I wanted to do was add a constraint to ensure only an RDC or an ADC (not both) are serving a DDU. I thought I would do that the same way I constrained the BINS in an RDC (assigning FLOW to a binary and the constraining the SUM of that binary). Just adding the constraint definition to get the binary representation of ADC to DDU (without actually constraining anything) makes the problem go infeasible.

var dduASSIGNADC {DDU, ADC} binary; con ddu_assign_adc_con {i in DDU, j in ADC}: dduASSIGNADC[i,j] = Flow [j,i];

Effectively, I want to limit the count of ARCS FLOWING into a DDU to be 1. I sort of accidentally stumbled across the solution for BINS in an RDC (to be honest it seems like I am getting lucky there or taking advantage of an unintended behavior).

Any thoughts, tips, tricks, ideas would be greatly appreciated.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

It sounds like you want to associate a binary variable with each arc to indicate whether Flow is positive along that arc. You can do that by first modifying the variable declarations as follows:

```
/* var Flow {ARCS} >= 0;*/
/* var rdcBINS {RDC, DDU} binary;*/
/* var adcBINS {ADC, DDU} binary;*/
/* var dduASSIGNRDC {DDU, RDC} binary;*/
var Flow {ARCS} >= 0 <= sum {i in DDU} demand[i];
set RDC_DDU_ARCS = {i in RDC, j in DDU: <i,j> in ARCS};
set ADC_DDU_ARCS = {i in ADC, j in DDU: <i,j> in ARCS};
set DDU_RDC_ARCS = {i in DDU, j in RDC: <i,j> in ARCS};
var rdcBINS {RDC_DDU_ARCS} binary;
var adcBINS {ADC_DDU_ARCS} binary;
var dduASSIGNRDC {DDU_RDC_ARCS} binary;
```

And then declaring the constraints as follows:

/* Assign separations to DDUs based on assigned FLOWS */ * con rdc_assign_ddu_con {i in RDC, j in DDU}: rdcBINS[i,j] = Flow[i,j]; con rdc_assign_ddu_con {<i,j> in RDC_DDU_ARCS}: Flow[i,j] <= Flow[i,j].ub * rdcBINS[i,j];

The idea is that Flow[i,j] > 0 implies rdcBINS[i,j] = 1. This is called a "big-M" constraint, and the examples book you referenced uses it in several places. If you know a smaller upper bound than the sum of all demands, I recommend that you use it (in the VAR statement for Flow).

The rdc_bin_con constraint then changes as follows:

```
/* Constrain separations in RDC and ADC*/
/* con rdc_bin_con {i in RDC}:*/
/* sum {j in DDU} rdcBINS[i,j] <= &BinCap;*/
con rdc_bin_con {i in RDC}:
sum {<(i),j> in RDC_DDU_ARCS} rdcBINS[i,j] <= &BinCap;
```

These changes alone do not enforce "A DDU can only be serviced by either an RDC or an ADC, not both." Before I recommend a constraint to do that, can you please clarify whether a DDU can be serviced by more than one RDC or more than one ADC, or must it be exactly one RDC or ADC?

13 REPLIES 13

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

I am confused about the first part of your code:

- You declare supply[i] and populate it but do not use it anywhere.
- You use rdcBINS but have not declared it. That situation should yield an error.
- Why do you save mps instead of calling the solver?

Are you able to share the data?

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Have not built to using the supply portion.

rdcBINS is declared, not sure why it did not paste in.

I call the solver later in a separate step. Allows me to run optmodel and formulate the model without attempting a solve until I am happy with formulation.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Thank you for the clarification. Are you able to share the data?

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Not as is. Let me see if I could build some sort of sample.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Ok. I think I've built a sample set of data (had to adjust capacity in optmodel constraint), but it solves and is very similar to the larger problem.

%let BinCap = 350; proc optmodel; set <str,str> ARCS; num distance {ARCS}; read data ARC_DATA_SAMPLE into ARCS=[source target] distance; set <str> RDC; num rdc_capacity {RDC}; num rdc_latitude {RDC}; num rdc_longitude {RDC}; read data RDC_DATA_SAMPLE into RDC=[name] rdc_latitude rdc_longitude rdc_capacity=capacity; set <str> ADC; num adc_capacity {ADC}; num adc_latitude {ADC}; num adc_longitude {ADC}; read data ADC_DATA_SAMPLE into ADC=[name] adc_latitude adc_longitude adc_capacity=capacity; set <str> DDU; num demand {DDU}; num ddu_latitude {DDU}; num ddu_longitude {DDU}; read data DDU_DATA_SAMPLE into DDU=[name] ddu_latitude ddu_longitude demand; set NODES = RDC union ADC union DDU; num supply {NODES} init 0; for {i in RDC} supply[i] = rdc_capacity[i]; for {i in DDU} supply[i] = -demand[i]; var Flow {ARCS} >= 0; var rdcBINS {RDC, DDU} binary; var adcBINS {ADC, DDU} binary; var dduASSIGNRDC {DDU, RDC} binary; con ddu_flow_con {i in DDU}: sum {j in RDC} Flow[j,i] + sum {k in ADC} Flow[k,i] = demand[i]; /* Flow into an ADC must Flow out and be equal*/ con adc_flow_con {i in ADC}: sum {<j,(i)> in ARCS} Flow[j,i] = sum{<(i),j> in ARCS} Flow[i,j]; /* Flow at an ADC must be less than throughput */ con adc_throughput_con {i in ADC}: sum {<j,(i)> in ARCS} Flow[j,i] <= adc_capacity[i]; /* Assign separations to DDUs based on assigned FLOWS */ con rdc_assign_ddu_con {i in RDC, j in DDU}: rdcBINS[i,j] = Flow[i,j]; /* Constrain separations in RDC and ADC*/ con rdc_bin_con {i in RDC}: sum {j in DDU} rdcBINS[i,j] <= &BinCap; /* Capacity of RDC must be less than out Flow*/ con rdc_capacity_con {i in RDC}: sum {<(i),j> in ARCS} Flow[i,j] <= rdc_capacity[i]*1.25; min minTotDist = sum{<i,j> in ARCS} distance[i,j] * Flow[i,j]; save mps minTotDist_data; quit; proc optlp data=minTotDist_data primalout=minTotDist_sol dualout=minToDist_dual ; performance nthreads=8; run;

dduASSIGNRDC is intended to capture the DDUs directly assigned to an RDC. My thought was to use this to ensure it is the only assignment (to prevent the case where an RDC and ADC are both serving a DDU)

adcBINS is intended to work like rdcBINS so I can limit the number of direct connections out of an ADC.

I load the results into visual analytics to look at.

The couple of things I am struggling to figure out how to represent are:

1. A DDU can only be serviced by either an RDC or an ADC, not both. What seems to happen is the RDC serves the ADC as if they will serve all DDUs and then further flows 1 unit to many of the same DDUs.

2. I am not sure why it is favoring sending most units to the ADC for the ADC to serve the DDUs rather than using as much of it's capacity to serve DDUs directly? I think this may be caused by my minimization function not considering the full path?

I've been primarily working from the Distribution examples for OPTMODEL as I am still learning (it seemed closes to what I am trying to model here):

I've also include a visual of the output relationships if that helps any.

Thanks!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

It sounds like you want to associate a binary variable with each arc to indicate whether Flow is positive along that arc. You can do that by first modifying the variable declarations as follows:

```
/* var Flow {ARCS} >= 0;*/
/* var rdcBINS {RDC, DDU} binary;*/
/* var adcBINS {ADC, DDU} binary;*/
/* var dduASSIGNRDC {DDU, RDC} binary;*/
var Flow {ARCS} >= 0 <= sum {i in DDU} demand[i];
set RDC_DDU_ARCS = {i in RDC, j in DDU: <i,j> in ARCS};
set ADC_DDU_ARCS = {i in ADC, j in DDU: <i,j> in ARCS};
set DDU_RDC_ARCS = {i in DDU, j in RDC: <i,j> in ARCS};
var rdcBINS {RDC_DDU_ARCS} binary;
var adcBINS {ADC_DDU_ARCS} binary;
var dduASSIGNRDC {DDU_RDC_ARCS} binary;
```

And then declaring the constraints as follows:

/* Assign separations to DDUs based on assigned FLOWS */ * con rdc_assign_ddu_con {i in RDC, j in DDU}: rdcBINS[i,j] = Flow[i,j]; con rdc_assign_ddu_con {<i,j> in RDC_DDU_ARCS}: Flow[i,j] <= Flow[i,j].ub * rdcBINS[i,j];

The idea is that Flow[i,j] > 0 implies rdcBINS[i,j] = 1. This is called a "big-M" constraint, and the examples book you referenced uses it in several places. If you know a smaller upper bound than the sum of all demands, I recommend that you use it (in the VAR statement for Flow).

The rdc_bin_con constraint then changes as follows:

```
/* Constrain separations in RDC and ADC*/
/* con rdc_bin_con {i in RDC}:*/
/* sum {j in DDU} rdcBINS[i,j] <= &BinCap;*/
con rdc_bin_con {i in RDC}:
sum {<(i),j> in RDC_DDU_ARCS} rdcBINS[i,j] <= &BinCap;
```

These changes alone do not enforce "A DDU can only be serviced by either an RDC or an ADC, not both." Before I recommend a constraint to do that, can you please clarify whether a DDU can be serviced by more than one RDC or more than one ADC, or must it be exactly one RDC or ADC?

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Thank you for the detailed response!

For the question on what can service a DDU. It should be serviced by one total. Your question has me curious about the options if it was amy number of RDCs or ADCs but never both.

I will be working on your suggestions tonight.

Thanks!

For the question on what can service a DDU. It should be serviced by one total. Your question has me curious about the options if it was amy number of RDCs or ADCs but never both.

I will be working on your suggestions tonight.

Thanks!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

```
con one_inarc_per_ddu {j in DDU}:
sum {<i,(j)> in RDC_DDU_ARCS} rdcBINS[i,j] + sum {<i,(j)> in ADC_DDU_ARCS} adcBINS[i,j] <= 1;
```

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

/* Assign separations to DDUs based on assigned FLOWS */ /* con rdc_assign_ddu_con {i in RDC, j in DDU}: rdcBINS[i,j] = Flow[i,j];*/ con rdc_assign_ddu_con {<i,j> in RDC_DDU_ARCS}: Flow[i,j] <= Flow[i,j].ub * rdcBINS[i,j];

This seems to be producing very small values in rdcBINS rather than a 0. That seems to allow it to meet the constraint of &BinCap, while assigning all of the flow out of the RDC.

If I change back to the constraint I had just assigning it to flow:

/* Assign separations to DDUs based on assigned FLOWS */ con rdc_assign_ddu_con {i in RDC, j in DDU}: rdcBINS[i,j] = Flow[i,j]; /* con rdc_assign_ddu_con {<i,j> in RDC_DDU_ARCS}: Flow[i,j] <= Flow[i,j].ub * rdcBINS[i,j];*/

I seem to get a binary value and that forces things to be assigned to an ADC rather than it all going to the RDC.

I did experiment with INTFUZZ to see if that was causing the rounding issue, but it did not appear to make any difference. I'm pouring through the manual to see why a binary variable can be something other than 0 or 1.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

The behavior you describe is a well-known effect (“trickle flow”) of using too large of a value of big M. Please try setting the upper bound on Flow to a more realistic value (smaller) than the sum of all demands that I had specified. You can also try setting the MILP solver’s INTTOL= option to a smaller value than the default.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

By the way, here are the additional modifications needed to enforce the alternative business rules you were curious about:

```
/* con one_inarc_per_ddu {j in DDU}:*/
/* sum {<i,(j)> in RDC_DDU_ARCS} rdcBINS[i,j] + sum {<i,(j)> in ADC_DDU_ARCS} adcBINS[i,j] <= 1;*/
/* any number of RDCs or ADCs but never both */
var rdcBINSany {DDU} binary;
var adcBINSany {DDU} binary;
con rdcBINS_implies_rdcBINSAny {<i,j> in RDC_DDU_ARCS}:
rdcBINS[i,j] <= rdcBINSany[j];
con adcBINS_implies_adcBINSAny {<i,j> in ADC_DDU_ARCS}:
adcBINS[i,j] <= adcBINSany[j];
con rdc_or_adc_per_ddu {j in DDU}:
rdcBINSany[j] + adcBINSany[j] <= 1;
```

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Are you ready for the spotlight? We're accepting content ideas for **SAS Innovate 2025** to be held May 6-9 in Orlando, FL. The call is **open **until September 16. Read more here about **why** you should contribute and **what is in it** for you!

Multiple Linear Regression in SAS

Learn how to run multiple linear regression models with and without interactions, presented by SAS user Alex Chaplin.

Find more tutorials on the SAS Users YouTube channel.