16.11.2012 Views

Wireless Network Design: Optimization Models and Solution ...

Wireless Network Design: Optimization Models and Solution ...

Wireless Network Design: Optimization Models and Solution ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

88 J. Cole Smith <strong>and</strong> Sibel B. Sonuc<br />

(i, j) consumes sk i j units of its total capacity. (For instance, if capacity is given by<br />

the b<strong>and</strong>width of some particular communication link, video communication will<br />

consume b<strong>and</strong>width at a different rate than voice communication.) The objective of<br />

the problem is to satisfy each commodity’s dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> exhaust each commodity’s<br />

supplies at a minimum cost, while obeying capacity limits on the arcs.<br />

Define flow variables xk i j as the flow of commodity k ∈ K over arc (i, j) ∈ A. Then<br />

the multicommodity network flow problem is formulated as follows.<br />

min ∑<br />

∑<br />

k∈K (i, j)∈A<br />

c k i jx k i j<br />

(4.24a)<br />

s.t. ∑ s<br />

k∈K<br />

k i jx k i j ≤ qi j ∀(i, j) ∈ A (4.24b)<br />

∑ x<br />

i∈FS( j)<br />

k ji − ∑ x<br />

i∈RS( j)<br />

k i j = d k j ∀ j ∈ V, k ∈ K (4.24c)<br />

x k i j ≥ 0 ∀(i, j) ∈ A, k ∈ K. (4.24d)<br />

The objective (4.24a) minimizes the commodity flow costs over the network. Constraints<br />

(4.24b) enforce the arc capacity restrictions. Constraints (4.24c) enforce the<br />

flow balance constraints (at each node, <strong>and</strong> for each commodity), <strong>and</strong> (4.24d) enforce<br />

nonnegativity restrictions on the flow variables.<br />

Here, there is no set of complicating variables. However, if the capacity constraints<br />

(4.24b) were removed from the problem, then we could solve (4.24) as |K|<br />

separable network flow problems. Hence, we say that (4.24b) are complicating constraints.<br />

One common way of solving problems like this is via Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition,<br />

which employs the Representation Theorem (Theorem 4.2) as a key<br />

component. An alternative method for solving these problems is via Lagrangian<br />

optimization, which we discuss in Section 4.3.3.<br />

Our generic model for this subsection contains |K| sets of variables, x k for k ∈ K,<br />

which would be separable if the complicating constraints were removed from the<br />

problem.<br />

min ∑ (c<br />

k∈K<br />

k ) T x k<br />

(4.25a)<br />

s.t. ∑ A<br />

k∈K<br />

k x k = b (4.25b)<br />

H k x k = g k<br />

∀k ∈ K (4.25c)<br />

x k ≥ 0 ∀k ∈ K, (4.25d)<br />

where Ak ∈ Rm0 ×nk <strong>and</strong> Hk ∈ Rmk ×nk , ∀k ∈ K, <strong>and</strong> all other vectors have conforming<br />

dimensions.<br />

In the Benders decomposition method, we decomposed the dual feasible region<br />

into its extreme points <strong>and</strong> extreme directions, <strong>and</strong> included a constraint in a relaxed<br />

master problem corresponding to each extreme point <strong>and</strong> extreme direction, added<br />

to the formulation as necessary. In the Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition method, we<br />

will decompose the feasible regions given by X k = {xk ≥ 0 : Hkxk = gk } into its

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!