Int. J. Procurement Management, Vol. 11, No.

4, 2018 399

A cluster first-route second approach for a

capacitated vehicle routing problem: a case study

Serap Ercan Comert*, Harun Resit Yazgan,

Sena Kır and Furkan Yener
Engineering Faculty,
Department of Industrial Engineering,
Sakarya University,
Sakarya, Turkey
Email: serape@sakarya.edu.tr
Email: yazgan@sakarya.edu.tr
Email: senas@sakarya.edu.tr
Email: fyener@sakarya.edu.tr
*Corresponding author

Abstract: In this study, a capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP) which

dealt with minimum distance routes for vehicles that serve customers having
specific demands from a common warehouse under a capacity constraint.
This problem is NP hard. We solved the problem in a hierarchical way
(i.e., cluster-first route-second method). Firstly, customers were clustered using
three different clustering algorithms; K-means, K-medoids and random
clustering with considering a vehicle capacity. Secondly, routing problems for
each cluster were solved using a branch and bound algorithm. The proposed
solution strategy was employed on a case study in a supermarket chain. Results
of numerical investigation were presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the
algorithms using paired sample t tests. The results illustrated that the
K-medoids algorithm provided better solution than the others.

Keywords: capacitated vehicle routing problem; CVRP; k-means clustering

algorithm; K-medoids clustering algorithm; random clustering algorithm;
branch and bound algorithm.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Comert, S.E.,

Yazgan, H.R., Kır, S. and Yener, F. (2018) ‘A cluster first-route second
approach for a capacitated vehicle routing problem: a case study’, Int. J.
Procurement Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.399–419.

Biographical notes: Serap Ercan Comert is a PhD student at the Department of

Industrial Engineering in the Sakarya University, Turkey. She is studying
supply chain management.

Harun Resit Yazgan is an Associate Professor at the Department of Industrial

Engineering of the Sakarya University in Turkey. His interests are in the areas
of modelling and optimisation, supply chain management and multicriteria
decision making.

Sena Kır is a PhD student at the Department of Industrial Engineering in the

Sakarya University, Turkey. She is studying mathematical modelling and
metaheuristic algorithms on transportation science.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

400 S.E. Comert et al.

Furkan Yener is a PhD student at the Department of Industrial Engineering in

the Sakarya University, Turkey. He is studying warehouse operations and
management on the supply chain.

1 Introduction

Vehicle routing problem (VRP) is to determine best routes for distribution/collection of

the vehicles which are assigned to serve from one or multiple warehouses to the
geographically dispersed centres (Laporte et al., 1988). VRP is a generic version of the
travelling salesman problem (TSP). In VRP order point is used instead of customers in
the TSP and vehicle term is used instead of dealer. There are different VRP types based
on constraints; vehicle capacity, the minimum distance a vehicle can travel at once and
travel durations can be mentioned for different type of VRP constraints. In this study, we
studied a capacitated VRP (CVRP).
There are particular capacity limitations for vehicles on the CVRP. CVRP is one of
the most important problems of optimisation of distribution network and the most
common type of VRP. Also, capacities of all vehicles can be assumed as equal
(homogeny fleet) or different (heterogen fleet) in the CVRP problem and vehicles start to
move from one warehouse and finish in same warehouse (one depot) or start from more
than one depot (multi depot). Demands of a customer are delivered at one time and
fragmentation is not concerned. The aim is to minimise the total distance travelled by
vehicles (Lin et al., 2009). If a time is considered as a constraint, the CVRP become
CVRP time windows (CVRPTW) (hard or soft).
There are different solution methods to solve the CVRP in the literature. One of the
methods is to employ an exact algorithm to a MILP model of the CVRP. The well-known
exact algorithms are brand and bound, branch and price, Lagrange relaxation and column
generation etc. These algorithms’ performances heavily depend on the problems size
because of the NP-Hard. Another method is heuristic methods. One of the famous one is
Clarke and Wright (1964) method. There are numerous heuristic methods in the literature
(Akpinar, 2016; Chen et al. 2010; Jepsen et al. 2013; Jin et al., 2014; Nazif and Lee,
2012; Tadei and Perboli, 2011). The last method to solve the CVRP is a hierarchical
method. The problem is systematically divided as different level in the hierarchical
method. Different methods can be employed for each level. Cluster first and route second
and different version of it route first and cluster second can be given an example of the
hierarchical methods. In this article, a cluster first and route second hierarchical method
was employed.
Clusters consist of data division into groups of similar objects. Cluster analysis bases
on a principle of maximising similarity of groups among themselves and minimising
between group similarities. (Han and Kamber, 2001). However, large data sets are not
clustered with classic clustering techniques. Therefore, some algorithms which emphasis
on scalability has been developed (Venkates et al., 1999). Ability to work with noisy data
directly affects the quality of the clustering techniques (Xu et al., 2005). Clustering
method varies according to data type and purpose of the study.
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 401

In this study, a hierarchical approach was proposed to solve CVRP. The approach
consisted of two stages (cluster first and route second). Firstly, cluster was performed
using three different algorithms (i.e., K-means, K-medoids and random) separately at first
stage. Route problem was solved using an exact algorithm (B&B) for each cluster at the
second stage. A case study was given to illustrate effectiveness of the proposed approach.

2 Literature review

In this study, a hierarchical approach consisted of two stages, cluster first and route
second was proposed. First, the cluster problems were solved with using K-means,
K-medoids and random. Second, route problem was solved using an exact algorithm (i.e.,
travelling salesmen problem). Therefore, our literature survey was limited with cluster
first and route second approach, cluster algorithms (K-means, K-medoids and random)
and exact algorithms.
Cluster first and route second method was suggested and employed by Bodin, (1975),
Fisher and Jaikumar (1981), Hiquebran et al. (1993), Sariklis and Powell (2000), Cakir
et al. (2015), Kloimüllner et al. (2015) as shown in Table 1.
Firstly, cluster algorithms are discussed. Cluster algorithms frequently encountered in
the literature in recent years are mostly based on data mining. A number of solution
methods have been proposed for clustering in literature. These are model-based,
centre-based indexer, hierarchical, density based and grid-based clustering methods.
K-means, K-medoids and random cluster algorithms were chosen in this article. We
surveyed studied related with these cluster algorithms.
In the literature, there are different versions of k-means algorithms, Ng and Wong
(2002) proposed a fuzzy K-means algorithm. Tsai et al. (2002) introduced a genetic
K-means algorithm (GKA) and fast self-organising map combined k-means
(FSOM+K-means). Another article was related with assigning one vehicle to all cities
given in the study conducted by Nallusamy et al. (2010) for distribution purposes.
K-means algorithm was utilised to determine to which cities served by which vehicles
(Nallusamy et al., 2010). Elango et al. (2011) used k-means to group robots and claimed
that the cost was less by reducing distances by multiple travelling salesman problems
(MTSP) among robotics. In the study prepared by Hsieh and Huang (2011), two
clustering algorithms were introduced, namely k-means batching (KMB) and
self-organisation map batching (SOMB). They claimed that less total travel distance and
higher performances in terms of vehicle usefulness were achieved using these algorithms.
Besides, it was reported that using the SOMB provided less CPU running time than the
KMB. Niknam et al. (2011) introduced a new algorithm that was a hybrid of modify
imperialist competitive algorithm (MICA) and k-means called as a K-MICA.
Accordingly a their simulation result, they claimed that their proposed algorithm
provided better results than MICA and K-MICA in terms of best, worst, average
solutions and standard deviation. Kargari and Sepehri (2012) developed store similarity
function (OC) for the k-means algorithm. They used this new function in a case study and
achieved comparable results. Ekici and Retharekar (2013) used clustering process using
K-means clustering algorithm in their study. In the study conducted by Fang et al. (2013),
402 S.E. Comert et al.

clustering was performed without needing to determine the number of clusters which was
a prerequisite for the operations of the k-means algorithm. The algorithm proposed by
Luo and Chen (2014) k-means clustering analysis is used in the process of forming the
frog population. They solved the multi-depot vehicle routing problem (MDVRP) more
quickly. Krishnasamy et al. (2014) proposed a hybrid data clustering algorithm named
K-modified cohort intelligence (K-MCI) which was claimed to be very efficient. The
algorithm consisted of cohort intelligence with K-means and tested on several standard
data set with other clustering algorithms commonly used. As a result of these simulations,
solution quality and speed of the K-MCI algorithm was claimed that it was very
promising. Reed et al. (2014) made a clustering using K-means about collection of
household waste for CVRP. They reported that the solution of this algorithm had a
high-quality performance. K-means and hierarchical clustering methods were compared
by Shivshankar and Jamalipour (2014) with a simulation approach. Tu et al. (2014)
developed a graph-based K-means (GBK) algorithm and applied to both synthetic data
sets in real life example. GBK with some algorithms such as classic k-means, kernel
k-means and spectral clustering were compared and it was stated that stunning results
were obtained and an algorithm to recommend potential.
K-medoids algorithm was also used to cluster. Lucasius et al. (1993) suggested
K-medoids algorithm that using a genetic algorithm. In addition, Zhang and Couloigner
(2005) also proposed a K-medoids algorithm. Barioni et al. (2008) proposed a new
algorithm called as PAM-SLIM. Metric access methods were used in the proposed
algorithm that dealt with scale-up K-medoid based algorithms. It was claimed that
experimental results illustrated better solutions. Fei et al. (2009) suggested a two phase
K-medoids algorithm for health sector and claimed that the performance of medical
service was improved. Park and Jun (2009) suggests K-medoids algorithm which runs
like K-means algorithm. The algorithm was tested on some data sets. It was claimed that
the proposed algorithm significantly reduced time than K-means cluster. Lewis et al.
(2012) presented fuzzy K-means and K-medoids algorithms for tracking epileptogenesis
progressions. Qi et al. (2012) also recommended K-medoids algorithm. Peng et al. (2014)
proposed a new algorithm that based on ACO and K-medoids algorithm for balancing
network energy consumption. Brito et al. (2015) used K-medoids and CN2-SD
algorithms for solving marketing and manufacturing problems.
In the literature, there are studies that reported comparison among cluster algorithms.
Harikumar and PV (2015) proposed K-medoids algorithm and then applied on
heterogeneous dataset. They reported that K-medoids provided better results than
K-means algorithm. Nellore and Ward (2015) used K-medoids algorithms for a certain
distributions class. Al-Shammari et al. (2016) used fuzzy c-means, K-means and
K-medoids algorithms for wake effect analysis in wind farm. It is claimed that
K-medoids algorithm were better than other two algorithms. Arora et al. (2016) used
K-means and K-medoids algorithms for big data. They claimed that K-medoids algorithm
provided better performance than K-means algorithm. Cerquitelli et al. (2016) proposed a
multiple-level clustering method that contained K-means, K-medoids and DBSCAN
algorithms for a medical care sector.
Second stage of the hierarchal approach is route problem. Route problem was also
discussed extensively in the literature. There are different types of route problem base on
their constraints. Therefore, exact, heuristics, metaheuristic algorithms have been
developed. We found numerous studies in the literature. However, our route problem was
transformed to a TSP after completing clustering process in each cluster. Therefore, exact
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 403

algorithm may provide a solution in reasonable time period. That is true of course if the
problem size is large enough. That is the reason we focused on only exact algorithm and
TSP problem literature. A large number of exact algorithms have been proposed for the
TSP (Laporte, 1992). Dantzig et al. (1954) presented one of the earliest integer linear
programming (ILP) formulations of TSP. Miller et al. (1960) proposed an alternative
formulation by adding sub-tour elimination constraints. Branch and bound algorithm
(B&B) commonly used solving TSP in literature. An initial lower bound can be obtained
from Carpaneto et al. (1988) by relaxing sub-tour constraint. TSP solved by B&B
algorithm by Eastman (1958), Little et al. (1963), Bellmore and Malone (1971), Garfinkel
(1973), Smith et al. (1977), Miller and Pekny (1991).
The above mentioned studies are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Studies related to clustering problem

Algorithms Studies
Cluster first route Bodin, (1975), Fisher and Jaikumar (1981), Hiquebran et al. (1993),
second method Sariklis and Powell (2000), Cakir et al. (2015), Kloimüllner et. al.
(2015)
Clustering algorithms
K-means Ng and Wong (2002), Tsai et al. (2002), Nallusamy et al. (2010),
Elango et al. (2011), Hsieh and Huang (2011), Niknam et al. (2011),
Kargari and Sepehri (2012), Ekici and Retharekar (2013), Fang et al.
(2013), Luo and Chen (2014), Krishnasamy et al. (2014), Reed et al.
(2014), Shivshankar and Jamalipour (2014), Tu et al. (2014)
K-medoids Lucasius et al. (1993), Zhang and Couloigner (2005), Barioni et al.
(2008), Fei et al. (2009), Park and Jun (2009), Lewis et al. (2012), Qi
et al. (2012), Peng et al. (2014), Brito et al. (2015), Harikumar and
PV (2015), Nellore and Ward (2015), Al-Shammari et al. (2016),
Arora et al. (2016), Cerquitelli et al. (2016)
Random clustering Thangiah (1993, 1995), Ho et al. (2001), Dondo and Cerdá (2007),
algorithm Yassen et al. (2015)
Routing problem Eastman (1958), Little et. al. (1963), Bellmore and Malone (1971),
B&B algorithm Garfinkel (1973), Smith et al. (1977), Miller and Pekny (1991).

The main objective of our study is to solve the distribution planning problem that meets
the weekly demands of a supermarket chain. We proposed a hierarchical approach
consisted of cluster first and route second method. First, we clustered all customers using
three different algorithms (K-means, K-medoids and random) separately. We maintained
each cluster capacity (i.e., between 32–40 pallets) for a single vehicle during clustering
process. Second, we solved route problem to a vehicle of each cluster. We searched
performances of the three algorithms using different days (busy, not busy). We tested the
proposed approach on a real case study and compared by paired sample t tests.

3 Problem description and formulation

In this study, CVRP is discussed. There is no effective algorithm that can find the optimal
solution in a reasonable time for CVRP if a problem belongs to NP-hard class (Lenstra
and Kan, 1981). The use of mathematical methods may achieve a best solution. But,
404 S.E. Comert et al.

solution time will increase exponentially because the exact methods will search the entire
solution space (Toth and Vigo, 2002).
There are several mathematical models developed for CVRP. In the literature,
Christofides et al. (1981) indicate whether xijk variable can go from i customer to j
costumer, N indicates customer number and M indicates vehicle numbers.
Models are as follows:
1 if customer j immediately visited after customer i by the vehicle k
x ijk = 
0 otherwise

i ≠ j, i, j ∈ {0, ……… , N} and ) main depot

Objective function:
N N
 M

min Z =   c  x
i =0 j =0
ij
k =1
ijk 

Constraints:
N M

 x
i =0 j =0
ijk = 1, j = 1, … , N (1)

N N

i =0
xipk − x j =0
pjk = 0, k = 1, … , M , p = 0, … , (2)

N
 N

 x
i =0
 qi
 j =0
ijk  ≤ Q, k = 1, … , M

(3)

x
i =0
0 jk = 1, k = 1, … , M (4)

yi − y j + N x
k =1
ijk ≤ N − 1, i ≠ j = 1, … , N

cij = The distance between the customer i and the customer j (cost)
Q = The total amount of product that can be loaded on a vehicle
qi = The amount of i customer demand
yi = Random variable used to prevent sub-round
The aim of the objective function is to minimise of the total distance. Constraint (1)
guarantees that each customer must be visited only once. If the vehicle continues to move
starting from the visit after visiting a customer if that customer again according to
constraint (2). Constraint (3) impose that each vehicle can carry a total amount of product
has a certain limit. All vehicles must be used only once according to constraint (4).
Constraint (5) eliminates the sub tours.
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 405

In this study, our problem is similar with classical CVRP. There is no any new special
and different constraints a part from classical CVRP given above model. It is a fact that
we cannot solve our real life problem in reasonable computational time. Therefore, we
proposed the hierarchical approach (heuristic) to solve our CVRP.

4 The proposed hierarchical approach

In this study, our CVRP was not able to solve by an exact algorithm in a reasonable time.
Therefore, we proposed the hierarchical approach consisted of two phases called cluster
first and route second.
The cluster first route second method is a sequential two-phase method: clustering
followed by routing and each of these phases consists of stages. An outline of the method
is given below:
Phase 1 Clustering
Stage 1 Forming the clusters
Stage 2 Capacity control of the clusters
Phase 2 Routing
TSP (B&B).
We tested the proposed approach on real life example given in Section 5.

4.1 Capacitated K-means algorithm

K-means algorithm is proposed by MacQueen (1967). After that, it is classified as
technical division or technique for non-hierarchic clustering method (San et al., 2004). K-
means clustering algorithm is one the clustering method for pre-processing data and
identifies hidden patterns in data sets.
Firstly, algorithm specifies the number of the sets. K sets number is determined in two
stages. As a beginning, K number of random point is chosen among the objects. Later, K
sets number is found by taking averages of the all objects. K parameter represents the
mean of the initial set in both cases. Each object in data set is assigned the most similar
set based on the distances between it and mean of the set and again means of sets are
calculated. This iteration continues until function of criteria is combined in a point.
Function of criteria is shown as below (Han and Kamber, 2001).
k

 p − m
2
E= i
i =1 p∈Ci

E Mean of sum for all objects in database

Ci set of data points in ith cluster
p the point represents specified an object
406 S.E. Comert et al.

mi the set of centres.

K-means algorithm divides data sets that consist of k parameter and n data given by the
user into k number clusters. The steps of K-means are given in Table 2 (MacQueen,
1967).
Table 2 K-means algorithm steps

Step Activities
1 Determine first set centre.
2 Calculate the distance between specified point and centre points. All objects are assigned
to set which is the closes to them.
3 New centre points switch with mean values of all objects in that set.
4 Repeat step 2 and 3 until centre points is not changed.

The complexity of K-means algorithm is O(tkn). Here; n: number of objects, k: number

of sets, t: iteration number (Huang, 1998).
First, the initial values of parameters of K-means algorithm are specified. Set number
base value is specified by considering the condition of having 32–40 pallets capacity for
the suitable set according to strategy of the distribution company.
Determining set number base value:
k =d c

k: number of sets, c: capacity of a truck, d: total demand.

If the set number is fractional then it is rounded up to integer number. For instance, if the
rate for the sets number is 3.2, the decimally rate will round up to 4 and the base value is
specified. The reason why we round up is to find a feasible solution for a distribution for
each cluster.
After determining the base value of the set number, K-means algorithm is generated
dealing with all stores for distribution until a cluster consists of 32–40 pallets, then,
related customers are assigned to a cluster. If a cluster capacity is not satisfied with
number pallets (less or more than 32–40 pallets), the base value is rearranged (up and
down) and capacity control is repeated until set having 32–40 pallets.

4.2 Capacitated K-medoids algorithm

K-medoids algorithm is proposed to overcome of sensitivity of k-means algorithm for the
noisy data (Kaufman and Rousseeuw, 1990). The difference between K-Means and K-
medoids algorithms is that centre of sets are specified as the closest object to the centre of
sets, not mean values of the objects in the set. That is why the algorithm is more sensitive
to the noisy data than the K-means method (Treur, 2003).
K-medoids algorithm can be summarised in Table 3 (Liu, 2005).
The complexity of each iteration is O[k(n – k)2]. Here n: number of object, k: number
of set (Ju, 2007). First, the initial values of parameters of K-medoids algorithm are
specified. Set number base value is specified as it is done in Subsection 4.1 by
considering the condition of having 32–40 pallets capacity for the suitable set according
to strategy of a distribution company. Clusters are generated with repeating steps in
Table 3 and each cluster is satisfied to capacity of a vehicle that is between 32–40 pallets.
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 407

Table 3 K-medoids algorithm steps

Step Activities
1 Determine k set number.
2 Choose k objects as initial medoids
3 Assign the rest of the sets to the closest medoids x
4 Calculate objective function
5 Determine the y point coincidence
6 If changing x and y will minimise the objective function, change x and y
7 If there is no change, keep repeating Step 3–6

4.3 Capacitated random clustering algorithm

Random clustering algorithm that is an unsupervised learning method is a grouping
process of the data according to data attributes without any classification information.
The aim of the random clustering algorithm is to provide the maximisation of
similarity inside the set and minimisation of the similarity between sets of the data
obtained by calculating with mean values of the distances between one object specified as
the centre of the gravity of the set and other objects. Random clustering algorithm can be
summarised as follows in Table 4:
Table 4 Random clustering algorithm steps

Step Activities
1 Specify randomly the set centre as many as number of set which are wanted to be in the
first step of the algorithm.
2 Calculate the distance between data and set centre which is chosen.
3 Generate set by determining which set they belong to according to shortest distances
given.

5 Application

5.1 Problem definition

A case study deals with CVRP that meets weekly demand of the firm serving in a retail
sector is discussed. This firm is a supermarket chain that located in Marmara region of
Turkey and dealt with product sales in a retail sector. Distribution operations to the stores
are practiced only weekdays. There are two kinds of trucks in our distribution fleet in this
study. The first kind of trucks carries fresh products that require a cold environment.
Second type of the trucks carries only dry products. The difference between these two
types of trucks is that there is a refrigerator and insulation in the fresh products truck.
There is only one main depot and 78 stores of the supermarket chain. There are two
type of stores demand namely ‘daily’ and ‘not daily’ distributing processes. The daily
stores demand fresh and dry product on each weekday. Whereas the not daily stores
demand fresh and dry product only three days of a week (Monday, Wednesday and
Friday). The number of daily and not daily stores is 66 and 12 respectively. Type of
408 S.E. Comert et al.

stores (daily and not daily) is illustrated in Table 5. Days are also classified as a busy and
a not busy day. Distributed to each day or some days are called as ‘busy day’ and ‘not
busy day’ respectively in a week.
Table 5 Store number and its type

Type of stores # store

Daily 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26,
28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78
Not daily 6, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 71, 74, 77

According to the day and type of products, the distribution problem can be divided as
four sub problems shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Sub problems of distribution

Sub problem Type of product Busy day Not busy day

1 Dry 
2 Fresh 
3 Dry 
4 Fresh 

Location of the main depot and stores on the map are shown in Figure 1. Dots represent
stores and one main store. A vehicle fleet performing distribution consisted of
homogeneous vehicles had 40 pallets capacity. Vehicles must be loaded between 32 and
40 pallets.

Figure 1 Location of the main depot and stores

 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 409

In this study, a comparison was made for each sub problem of K-means, K-medoids and
Random clustering algorithms. Twenty different sets of data were applied using three
methods. In this section; because of page limitations and readability of the manuscript,
only detail solution phases of busy days which is the problem of the distribution of dry
product on busy day (sub problem 1) are explained. The other 2, 3 and 4 sub problems
results are only summarised in Table 15.

5.2 The solution of the problem

There are 20 different data set where store demands are specified in the distribution of
dry product on busy day sub problem. Total 78 stores are distributed in each data sets, the
pallets number which stores demand changed in a range of 6–14 and the total number is
724 pallets. First, we determined clusters and number of vehicle using three clustering
algorithms, which were explained in detail Subsection 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.
Second, we solved route problem and found total distance for each cluster using the B&B
algorithm.
Total number of vehicle and distance are given in Table 7 and Table 8. We reached a
point to test whether there is a significant difference among three algorithms’ results. We
applied paired sample t tests to investigate the question.
Table 7 Total vehicle of each sub problem found according K-Means algorithm (‘1’),
K-medoids algorithm (‘2’) and random clustering algorithm (RCA) (‘3’)

Sub problem 1 Sub problem 2 Sub problem 3 Sub problem 4

Week
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 20 21 21 12 12 12 19 18 18 12 12 11
2 21 20 21 12 12 12 18 18 19 12 11 11
3 20 21 21 12 12 12 18 18 18 11 11 11
4 21 21 21 12 13 12 18 19 18 12 12 11
5 20 20 22 13 13 13 18 19 18 11 12 11
6 20 20 21 12 13 13 18 19 18 11 11 11
7 21 21 21 13 12 12 18 19 19 11 11 11
8 21 21 20 13 13 12 18 19 19 11 12 12
9 20 21 21 13 12 13 18 19 18 11 11 11
10 20 21 21 13 13 12 18 18 19 12 11 11
11 21 21 21 13 13 13 18 18 18 12 12 11
12 21 20 21 12 13 12 18 17 18 11 11 11
13 20 20 21 13 13 12 19 18 19 12 12 12
14 20 21 21 12 12 13 18 19 18 11 12 11
15 21 21 20 12 12 13 19 18 18 12 11 11
16 20 20 21 13 12 12 18 18 19 11 11 12
17 20 20 20 13 12 12 18 18 19 11 12 11
18 20 21 21 13 12 12 19 19 18 11 12 11
19 21 21 21 13 12 12 18 18 18 12 12 12
20 20 21 20 12 12 14 19 18 18 11 11 12
 410

Table 8

Sub problem 1 Sub problem 2 Sub problem 3 Sub problem 4

Week
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2,145.8 1,860 2,224.4 1,469.1 1,150 1,432.3 1,961.4 1,562 1,950 1,233.6 1,196 1,306.8
2 2,202.8 1,715.9 2,239 1,359 1,257.8 1,421.3 2,036.9 1,621.3 1,993.4 1,313.6 1,154.4 1,305.3
3 2,155.4 1,865.9 2,178 1,358.4 1,155.9 1,399.7 1,927.1 1,610 1,917.1 1,333.4 1,160.4 1,172.2
S.E. Comert et al.

4 2,227.2 1,859.3 2,215 1,362 1,249.8 1,400.7 1,886.4 1,711.1 1,923.6 1,203.9 1,152.8 1,176.4
5 2,110.9 1,850.8 2,302.2 1,357.4 1,227.6 1,485.9 1,887.7 1,604.1 1,902.6 1,350.1 1,162.4 1,316.1
6 2,015.3 1,787 2,224.7 1,479.7 1,150 1,516 1,601.3 1,703.8 1,915.6 1,233.7 1,157.8 1,300.5
7 2,179.7 1,902.8 2,231.7 1,326.1 1,345.1 1,413 1,935 1,694.26 2,033.2 1,246.2 1,153 1,325
8 2,230.9 1,875.3 2,143.8 1,430.4 1,169.8 1,422.4 1,933.3 1,715 2,021.1 1,216.5 1,162.3 1,383.1
9 2,131.7 1,889.6 2,227.1 1,437.1 1,167.5 1,498.2 1,911.8 1,677.1 1,926.6 1,207.3 1,159.8 1,238
10 2,120.5 1,915.2 2,257.3 1,409.6 1,169.4 1,420.5 1,917 1,635.4 2,037.4 1,232 1,153.2 1,268.6
11 2,218.1 1,925.8 2,188.6 1,383.2 1,152.4 1,443.7 1,923.1 1,551.4 1,943.2 1,314.7 1,163 1,292.3
12 2,228.4 1,730.7 2,263.9 1,440.2 1,151.3 1,380.2 1,933.5 1,628.3 1,929.2 1,333.5 1,150.4 1,272.1
13 2,156.2 1,829 2,209.4 1,439.4 1,150.4 1,394.9 1,949.4 1,608.7 1,979.8 1,223.6 1,162.8 1,367.4
14 2,138.1 1,873.1 2,238.5 1,439.4 1,163.5 1,494.8 2,010.5 1,669.8 1,934.9 1,318.4 1,163.4 1,281
15 2,230.7 1,845.1 2,143.7 1,297.8 1,168.4 1,480.5 1,912.3 1,624.9 1,797.1 1,233.2 1,165.9 1,301.3
16 2,107.8 1,755.5 2,251.3 1,l357 1,155.6 1,401.8 2,029.3 1,593.4 2,014.6 1,316.6 1,157.4 1,420.6
K-medoids algorithm (‘2’) and random clustering algorithm (‘3’)

17 2,123 1,729 2,167 1,443.5 1,214 1,428.4 1,942.9 1,642.6 1,960.3 1,256.3 1,163.4 1,304.2
18 2,120 1,905.1 2,205.2 1,381.1 1,213.6 1,428 1,932.1 1,688.4 1,933 1,266 1,165.4 1,308.9
19 2,267.6 1,885.9 2,223.1 1,400.5 1,159.6 1,385.7 1,969.4 1,635.6 1,923.5 1,201.9 1,156.8 1,246.1
20 2,093.7 1,874.3 2,064.1 1,426.7 1,235.7 1,542.4 1,931.8 1,601.3 1,951.8 1,303.9 1,157.9 1,374.8
Total distance (kms) of each sub problem found according K-means algorithm (‘1’),
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 411

We performed paired sample t test to compare the solutions illustrated in Table 7 and
Table 8. First of all, we compared the solutions of the K-means and K-medoids algorithm
in terms of total vehicle and distance with paired sample t test. The null hypotheses are
below. The test results are illustrated in Table 9 and Table 10 respectively.
Null hypothesis 1 There is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of
K-means and K-medoids algorithm’s solutions in terms of total
vehicle.
Null hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of
K-means and K-medoids algorithm’s solutions in terms of total
distance.
Table 9 Paired sample t test between the K-means and K-medoids algorithm’s solutions in
terms of total vehicle

Paired T for total vehicle K-means – total vehicle K-medoids

N Mean St. dev. SE mean
Total vehicle K-means 80 15.650 3.829 0.428
Total vehicle K-medoids 80 15.725 3.933 0.440
Difference 80 –0.0750 0.6894 0.0771
95% CI for mean difference: (–0.2284; 0.0784)
T-test of mean difference = 0 (vs. not = 0): T-value = –0.97, P-value = 0.334

Table 10 Paired sample t test between K-means and K-medoids algorithm’s solutions in terms
of total distance

Paired T for total distance K-means - total distance K-medoids

N Mean St. Dev SE mean
Total distance K-means 80 1,688.4 375.1 41.9
Total distance K-medoids 80 1,458.5 297.8 33.3
Difference 80 229.9 118.4 13.2
95% CI for mean difference: (203.6; 25,603)
T-test of mean difference = 0 (vs. not = 0): T-value = 17.37, P-value = 0.000

According to the results in Table 9, Null hypothesis 1 is accepted with %95 confidence
interval. So there is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of the
K-means and K-medoids algorithm’s solutions in terms of total vehicle. But Null
hypothesis 2 is rejected with %95 confidence interval according to the results in Table
10. This means that, there is a significant difference between the solutions’ means of
K-means and K-medoids algorithm’s solutions in terms of total distance. Means of the
K-means algorithms’ solution values are higher than K-medoids algorithms’ solution
values considering positive mean difference interval. This means that K-medoids is better
than K-means in terms of total distance.
Then we compared the solutions of K-means and random clustering algorithm in
terms of total vehicle and total distance with paired sample t test and the null hypotheses
are below. The test results are illustrated in Table 11 and Table 12 respectively.
412 S.E. Comert et al.

Null hypothesis 3 There is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of

K-means and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in terms of
total vehicle.
Null hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of
K-means and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in terms of
total distance.
Table 11 Paired sample t test for the K-means and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in
terms of total vehicle

Paired T for total vehicle K-means – total vehicle RCA

N Mean St. dev. SE mean
Total vehicle K-means 80 15.650 3.829 0.428
Total vehicle RCA 80 15.712 4.063 0.454
Difference 80 –0.0625 0.7850 0.0878
95% CI for mean difference: (–0.2372; –0.1122)
T-test of mean difference = 0 (vs. not = 0): T-value = -0.71, P-value = 0.0479

Table 12 Paired sample t test for the K-means and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in
terms of total distance

Paired T for Total Distance K-Means – Total Distance RCA

N Mean St. dev. SE mean
Total distance K-means 80 1,688.4 375.1 41.9
Total distance RCA 80 1,724.2 376.7 42.1
Difference 80 –35.81 76.78 8.58
95% CI for mean difference: (–52.90; –18.73)
T-test of mean difference = 0 (vs. not = 0): T-value = –4.17, P-value = 0.000

According to the results in Table 11 and Table 12, Null hypothesis 3 and 4 are rejected
with 95% confidence interval. This means that there is a significant difference between
the solutions’ means of K-means and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in terms of
total vehicle and distance. Means of the K-means algorithms’ solution values are lower
than random clustering algorithms’ solution values considering negative mean difference
interval. This means that K-means is better than random clustering in terms of total
vehicle and total distance.
Finally, we compared the solutions of the K-medoids and random clustering
algorithm in terms of total vehicle and total distance with paired sample t test and the null
hypotheses are below. The test results are illustrated in Table 13 and Table 14
respectively.
Null hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of
K-medoids and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in terms of
total vehicle.
Null hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of
K-medoids and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in terms of
total distance.
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 413

Table 13 Paired sample t test for the K-medoids and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in
terms of total vehicle

Paired T for total vehicle K-medoids – total vehicle RCA

N Mean St. dev. SE mean
Total vehicle K-medoids 80 15.725 3.933 0.440
Total vehicle RCA 80 15.712 4.063 0.454
Difference 80 0.0125 0.7546 0.0844
95% CI for mean difference: (–0.1554; 0.1804)
T-test of mean difference = 0 (vs. not = 0): T-value = 0.15, P-value = 0.883

Table 14 Paired sample t test for the K-medoids and random clustering algorithm’s solutions in
terms of total distance

Paired T for total distance K-medoids – total distance RCA

N Mean St. dev. SE mean
Total distance K-medoids 80 1,458.5 297.8 33.3
Total distance RCA 80 1,724.2 376.7 42.1
Difference 80 –265.7 111.8 12.5
95% CI for mean difference: (–290.6; –240.8)
T-test of mean difference = 0 (vs. not = 0): T-value = –21.26, P-Value = 0.000

According to the results in Table 13, Null hypothesis 5 is accepted. This means that there
is no significant difference between the solutions’ means of the K-medoids’ and random
clustering algorithm’s solutions in terms of total vehicle. In addition, according to the
Table 14, Null hypothesis 6 is rejected. This means that there is a significant difference
between the solutions’ means of the K-medoids and random clustering algorithm’s
solutions in terms of total distance. Means of the K-medoids algorithms’ solution values
are lower than random clustering algorithms’ solution values considering negative mean
difference interval. This means that K-medoids is better than random clustering in terms
of total distance.
All the results of the paired sample t test are summed up in Table 15. According to
the Table 15, there is no difference between K-means and K-medoids in terms of total
vehicle. However, both are better than random clustering algorithm. In terms of total
distance, K-medoids is better than K-means and random clustering and K-means is better
than random clustering algorithm.

Table 15 Paired sample t test results (sub problem 1)

Responses
Compared algorithms
Total vehicle Total distance
K-means and K-medoids No difference K-medoids
K-means and random K-means K-means
K-medoids and random No difference K-medoids
 414

Table 16

K-means algorithm K-medoids algorithm Random clustering algorithm

Vehicle Route Distance (km) Vehicle Route Distance (km) Vehicle Route Distance (km)
1 79-60-70-69-38-79 111.3 1 79-4-5-6-2-1-79 83.5 1 79-49-16-74-70-79 109.4
2 79-12-62-59-79 108.5 2 79-69-71-67-70-79 81.1 2 79-11-15-60-79 109.1
3 79-75-6-5-4-79 100.8 3 79-56-30-57-52-79 80.6 3 79-33-19-45-22-79 91.3
4 79-65-61-49-10-79 116.5 4 79-32-37-34-35-79 95.5 4 79-54-21-7-79 127.5
S.E. Comert et al.

5 79-11-14-13-54-79 109.8 5 79-48-27-16-79 94.9 5 7917-41-29-76-79 97.6

6 79-73-46-41-31-79 106.6 6 79-26-29-19-24-79 97.7 6 7953-57-35-72-79 107.7
7 79-16-48-27-1-79 98.1 7 79-15-47-43-40-79 98.9 7 79-46-48-78-79 100.4
8 79-57-74-29-24-77-79 111.5 8 79-78-75-77-79 104.4 8 79-30-4-68-79 95.6
9 79-30-32-34-43-33-79 104.2 9 79-39-38-33-21-79 86.5 9 79-9-26-63-79 126.7
10 79-64-68-66-40-79 116.9 10 79-25-38-44-21-79 92.2 10 79-61-38-12-6-79 117.7
11 79-53-36-20-78-79 102.1 11 79-20-36-46-79 84.5 11 79-8-66-42-14-79 135.7
12 7-71-45-42-21-52-79 99.9 12 79-41-22-42-45-79 87.8 12 79-20-47-73-10-79 113.8
13 79-2-19-26 -35-79 101.1 13 79-17-18-55-79 89.2 13 79-23-27-18-58-79 97.4
14 79-17- 37-47-15-79 98.4 14 79-50-51-53-54-79 78.6 14 79-64-25-2-71-79 94.3
15 79-63-72-55-56-79 105.2 15 79-58-61-59-49-79 73.1 15 79-65-62-51-79 82.8
16 79-7-76-25-79 127.6 16 79-65-3-76-72-79 108.7 16 79-31-34-40-55-79 102.6
17 79-58-22-18-39-79 90.3 17 79-68-11-10-12-79 89.8 17 79-5-1-24-36-79 97.2
18 79-28-51-50-79 94.3 18 79-64-63-60-62-79 66 18 79-39-3-37-32-79 102.2
19 79-3-9-67-79 129.2 19 79-66-7-9-8-79 89.8 19 79-52-44-28-13-75-79 107.4
20 79-8-44-23-79 113.5 20 79-74-14-13-79 94.9 20 79-67-56-50-79 99
- - - 21 79-14-23-73-79 82.3 21 79-69-77-43-59-79 109
Total 2,145.8 Total 1,860 Total 2,224.4
Routes of the problem of the distribution of dry product on busy day for week 1
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 415

As mentioned in the literature section, Harikumar and PV (2015), Al-Shammari et al.

(2016) and Arora et al. (2016) compare K-medoids with any other algorithms. They also
indicated that K-medoids was better than the others. In the light of this knowledge, we
can say that K-medoids was outstanding algorithm for minimising total vehicle as well as
total distance.
Four sub problems of the case study are summarised in Table 16. In addition to this,
first week of sub problem 1’s solution is given in detail with all routes in Table 16. For
example; we employed K-means, K-medoids and random clustering to find total distance
as 2,145.8 km, 1,860 km, 2224.4 km and total vehicle as 20, 21 and 21 respectively.

6 Discussion and conclusions

This paper proposes cluster first route second approach to reduce the solution time of a
large scale CVRP. According to this approach, customers are clustered considering the
distance between them and vehicle capacities. So these processes reduce the scale of
CVRP and convert it to VRP due to control the capacity. After clustering, all clusters get
service from a single vehicle need to a route. Therefore a small scale VRP can be solved
by a best known travelling salesman mathematical model using B&B algorithm.
The major challenge is about determining the clustering algorithm at this point. In this
study we discussed three clustering algorithm; K-means, K-medoids and random
clustering algorithms on a case study in retail sector. The considered firm had 78 stores
and demand data of 20 weeks were obtained using customers' demands. Vehicle fleet of
the firm consisted homogeneous vehicles and all of them should be loaded with 32–40
pallets. And this delivery problem was clustered mentioned three algorithms. The results
were tested statistically and illustrated that K-medoids algorithm is superior to others in
terms of total vehicle and total distance.

References
Akpinar, S. (2016) ‘Hybrid large neighborhood search algorithm for capacitated vehicle routing
problem’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 61, No. C, pp.28–38.
Al-Shammari, E.T., Shamshirband, S., Petkovi, D., Zalnezhad, E., Yee, P. L., Taher, R. S. and
Cojbasic, Z. (2016) ‘Comparative study of clustering methods for wake effect analysis in wind
farm’, Energy, Vol. 95, pp.573–579.
Arora, P., Deepali, D. and Varshney, S. (2016) ‘Analysis of K-means and K-medoids algorithm for
big data’, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 78, pp.507–512.
Barioni, M.C.N., Razente, H.L., Traina, A.J.M. and Jr., C.T. (2008) ‘Accelerating K-medoid-based
algorithms through metric access methods’, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 81,
No. 3, pp.343–355.
Bellmore, M. and Malone, J.C. (1971) ‘Pathology of traveling-salesman subtour-elimination
algorithms’, Operations Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.278–307.
Bodin, L.D. (1975) ‘A taxonomic structure for vehicle routing and scheduling problems’,
Computers &Urban Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.11–29.
Brito, P.Q., Soares, C., Almeida, S., Monte, A. and Byvoet, M. (2015) ‘Customer segmentation in a
large database of an online customized fashion business’, Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 36, No. C, pp.93–100.
416 S.E. Comert et al.

Cakir, F., Street, W.N. and Thomas, B.W. (2015) Revisiting Cluster First, Route Second for the
Vehicle Routing Problem, Department of Management Sciences Tippie College of Business
University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Carpaneto, G., Martello, S. and Toth, P. (1988) ‘Algorithms and codes for the assignment
problem’, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.191–223.
Cerquitelli, T., Chiusano, S. and Xiao, X. (2016) ‘Exploiting clustering algorithms in a
multiple-level fashion: a comparative study in the medical care scenario’, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 55, pp.297–312.
Chen, P., Huang, H. and Dong, X-Y. (2010) ‘Iterated variable neighborhood descent algorithm for
the capacitated vehicle routing problem’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, No. 2,
pp.1620–1627.
Christofides, N., Mingozzi, A. and Toth, P. (1981) ‘Exact algorithms for the vehicle routing
problem, based on spanning tree and shortest path relaxations’, Mathematical Programming,
Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.255–282.
Clarke, G. and Wright, J.W. (1964) ‘Scheduling of vehicles from a central depot to a number of
delivery points’, Operations Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.568–581.
Dantzig, G., Fulkerson, R. and Johnson, S. (1954) ‘Solution of a large-scale traveling-salesman
problem’, Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.393–410.
Dondo, R. and Cerdá, J. (2007) ‘A cluster-based optimization approach for the multi-depot
heterogeneous fleet vehicle routing problem with time Windows’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 176, No. 3, pp.1478–1507.
Eastman, W.L. (1958) Linear Programming with Pattern Constraints, Harvard University,
Cambridge, USA.
Ekici, A. and Retharekar, A. (2013) ‘Multiple agents maximum collection problem with time
dependent rewards’, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp.1009–1018.
Elango, M., Nachiappan, S. and Tiwari, M.K. (2011) ‘Balancing task allocation in multi-robot
systems using K-means clustering and auction based mechanisms’, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.6486–6491.
Fang, C., Jin, W. and Ma, J. (2013) ‘K-Means algorithms for clustering analysis with frequency
sensitive discrepancy metrics’, Pattern Recognition Letters, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.580–586.
Fei, H., Meskens, N. and Moreau, C-H. (2009) ‘Clustering of patient trajectories with an
auto-stopped bisecting K-Medoids algorithm’, in Proceedings of the 13th IFAC Symposium on
Information Control Problems in Manufacturing, Moscow, Russia, pp.355–360.
Fisher, M.L. and Jaikumar, R. (1981) ‘A generalized assignment heuristic for vehicle routing’,
Networks, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.109–124.
Garfinkel, R.S. (1973) ‘On partitioning the feasible set in a branch-and-bound algorithm for the
asymmetric traveling-salesman problem’, Operations Research, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.340–343.
Han, J. and Kamber, M. (2001) Data Mining: Concept and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers, San Francisco.
Harikumar, S. and PV, S. (2015) ‘K-medoid clustering for heterogeneous data sets’, Procedia
Computer Science, Vol. 70, pp.226–237.
Hiquebran, D.T., Alfa, A.S., Shapiro, J.A. and Gittoes, D.H. (1993) ‘A revised simulated annealing
and cluster-first route-second algorithm applied to the vehicle routing problem’, Engineering
Optimization, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.77–107.
Ho, W-K., Ang, J.C. and Lim, A. (2001) ‘A hybrid search algorithm for the vehicle routing
problem with time windows’, International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp.431–449.
Hsieh, L-F. and Huang, Y-C. (2011) ‘New batch construction heuristics to optimise the
performance of order picking systems’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 131, No. 2, pp.618–630.
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 417

Huang, Z. (1998) ‘Extensions to the k-means algorithm for clustering large data sets with
categorical values’, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.283–304.
Jepsen, M., Spoorendonk, S. and Ropke, S. (2013) ‘A branch-and-cut algorithm for the symmetric
two-echelon capacitated vehicle routing problem’, Transportation Science, Vol. 47, No. 1,
pp.23–37.
Jin, J., Crainic, T.G. and Løkketangen, A. (2014) ‘A cooperative parallel metaheuristic for the
capacitated vehicle routing problem’, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 44,
pp.33–41.
Ju, J.W.N. (2007) Data Mining Concept and Techniques [online]
http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~cse634/spring2007/group6_final.ppt (accessed 12 February 2012).
Kargari, M. and Sepehri, M.M. (2012) ‘Stores clustering using a data mining approach for
distributing automotive spare-parts to reduce transportation costs’, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp.4740–4748.
Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P.J. (1990) Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster
Analysis, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
Kloimüllner, C., Papazek, P., Hu, B. and Raidl, G.R. (2015) ‘A cluster-first route-second approach
for balancing bicycle sharing systems’, in International Conference on Computer Aided
Systems Theory, pp.439–446.
Krishnasamy, G., Kulkarni, A.J. and Paramesran, R. (2014) ‘A hybrid approach for data clustering
based on modified cohort intelligence and K-means’, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 41, No. 13, pp.6009–6016.
Laporte, G. (1992) ‘The traveling salesman problem: an overview of exact and approximate
algorithms’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp.231–247.
Laporte, G., Nobert, Y. and Taillefer, S. (1988) ‘Solving a family of multi-depot vehicle routing
and location-routing problems’, Transportation Science, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.161–172.
Lenstra, J.K. and Kan, A.H.G. (1981) ‘Complexity of vehicle routing and scheduling problems’,
Networks, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.221–227.
Lewis, R., Mello, C.A. and White, A.M. (2012) ‘Tracking epileptogenesis progressions with
layered fuzzy k-means and k-medoid clustering’, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 9,
pp.432–438.
Lin, S-W., Lee, Z-J., Ying, K-C. and Lee, C-Y. (2009) ‘Applying hybrid meta-heuristic for
capacitated vehicle routing problem’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 2,
pp.1505–1512.
Little, J.D., Murty, K.G., Sweeney, D.W. and Karel, C. (1963) ‘An algorithm for the traveling
salesman problem’, Operations Research, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp.972–989.
Liu, B. (2005) Data Mining: Process and Techniques [online]
http://www.cs.uic.edu/~liub/teach/cs583-spring-05/cs583.html (accessed 5 April 2010).
Lucasius, C.B., Dane, A.D. and Kateman, G. (1993) ‘On k-medoid clustering of large data sets with
the aid of a genetic algorithm: background, feasibility and comparison’, Analytical Chimica
Acta, Vol. 282, No. 3, pp.647–669.
Luo, J. and Chen, M-R. (2014) ‘Multi-phase modified shuffled frog leaping algorithm with
extremal optimization for the MDVRP and the MDVRPTW’, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 72, pp.84–97.
MacQueen, J. (1967) ‘Some methods for classification and analysis of multi-variate observations’
in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical, Statistics and Probability,
Los Angeles, pp.281–297.
Miller, C.E., Tucker, A.W. and Zemlin, R.A. (1960) ‘Integer programming formulation of traveling
salesman problems’, Journal of the ACM (JACM), Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.326–329.
Miller, D.L. and Pekny, J.F. (1991) ‘Exact solution of large asymmetric traveling salesman
problems’, Science, Vol. 251, No. 4995, p.754.
418 S.E. Comert et al.

Nallusamy, R., Duraiswamy, K., Dhanalaksmi, R. and Parthiban, P. (2010) ‘Optimization of

non-linear multiple traveling salesman problem using k-means clustering, shrink wrap
algorithm and meta-heuristics’, International Journal of Nonlinear Science, Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp.171–177.
Nazif, H. and Lee, L.S. (2012) ‘Optimised crossover genetic algorithm for capacitated vehicle
routing problem’, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp.2110–2117.
Nellore, A. and Ward, R. (2015) ‘Recovery guarantees for exemplar-based clustering’, Information
and Computation, Vol. 245, pp.165–180.
Ng, M.K. and Wong, J.C. (2002) ‘Clustering categorical data sets using tabu search techniques’,
Pattern Recognition, Vol. 35, No. 12, pp.2783–2790.
Niknam, T., Fard, E.T., Pourjafarian, N. and Rousta, A. (2011) ‘An efficient hybrid algorithm
based on modified imperialist competitive algorithm and K-means for data clustering’,
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.306–317.
Park, H-S. and Jun, C-H. (2009) ‘A simple and fast algorithm for K-medoids clustering’, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.3336–3341.
Peng, L., Dong, G-Y., Dai, F.F. and Liu, G-P. (2014) ‘A new clustering algorithm based on ACO
and K-medoids optimization methods’, in Proceedings of the 19th World Congress The
International Federation of Automatic Control, Cape Town, South Africa, pp.9727–9731.
Qi, M., Lin, W-H., Li, N. and Miao, L. (2012) ‘A spatiotemporal partitioning approach for
large-scale vehicle routing problems with time windows’, Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.248–257.
Reed, M., Yiannakou, A. and Evering, R. (2014) ‘An ant colony algorithm for the
multi-compartment vehicle routing problem’, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 15, pp.169–175.
San, O. M., Huynh, V-N. and Nakamori, Y. (2004) ‘An alternative extension of the k-means
algorithm for clustering categorical data’, International Journal Application Mathematics
Computer Science, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.241–247.
Sariklis, D. and Powell, S. (2000) ‘A heuristic method for the open vehicle routing problem’,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp.564–573.
Shivshankar, S. and Jamalipour, A. (2014) ‘Spatio-temporal multicast grouping for content-based
routing in vehicular networks: a distributed approach’, Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, Vol. 39, pp.93–103.
Smith, T.H., Srinivasan, V. and Thompson, G.L. (1977) ‘Computational performance of three
subtour elimination algorithms for solving asymmetric traveling salesman problems’, Annals
of Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 1, pp.495–506.
Tadei, R. and Perboli, G. (2011) ‘The two-echelon capacitated vehicle routing problem: models and
math-based heuristics’, Transportation Science, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.364–380
Thangiah, S.R. (1993) ‘Vehicle routing with time windows using genetic algorithms’, in Chambers,
L. (Eds.): Applications Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, pp.253–277, CRC Press, Florida.
Thangiah, S.R. (1995) ‘An adaptive clustering method using a geometric shape for vehicle routing
problems with time windows’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic
Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp.536–545.
Toth, P. and Vigo, D. (2002) The Vehicle Routing Problem, SIAM Monographs on Discrete
Mathematics and Applications, Philadelphia.
Treur, R. (2003) Spatial Clustering Methods in Data Mining [online]
http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/gdm/ch8.ppt. (Accessed 26 September 2016).
Tsai, C-F., Wu, H-C. and Tsai, C-W. (2002) ‘A new data clustering approach for data mining in
large databases’ in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Parallel Architectures,
Algorithms and Networks, Metro Manila.
Tu, E., Cao, L., Yang, J. and Kasabov, N. (2014) ‘A novel graph-based k-means for nonlinear
manifold clustering and representative selection’, Neurocomputing, Vol. 143, pp.109–122.
 A cluster first-route second approach for a capacitated vehicle 419

Venkates, G., Gehrke, J. and Ramakrishnan, R. (1999) ‘Mining very large databases’, IEEE
Computer, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp.38–45.
Xu, Z., Wang, L., Luo, J. and Zhang, J. (2005) ‘A modified clustering algorithm for data mining’,
in Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International, pp.741–744.
Yassen, E.T., Ayob, M., Nazri, M.Z.A. and Sabar, N.R. (2015) ‘Meta-harmony search algorithm
for the vehicle routing problem with time windows’, Information Sciences, Vol. 325,
pp.140–158.
Zhang, Q. and Couloigner, I. (2005) ‘A new and efficient k-medoid algorithm for spatial
clustering’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3482, pp.181–189.