Charles S. ReVelle and Ralph W.

Swain

Centrirl Facilities location *

The problem of central facilities location consists of designating m

of n communities (m < n) as centers in such a way that the average
distance or time travelled per person is a minimum. The average
distance (or time) is equal to the sum of the products of population
and miles (or minutes) travelled divided by the sum of the popula-
tions.
Define
a; = the population of the ithcommunity
si = the miles (or minutes) which individuals from the ithcommunity
must travel to a center
S = the average of the distances (or times) travelled by all in-
dividuals.
The average distance is

i=l

Hence, minimizing the sum of population-miles minimizes the average

distance.
Alfred Weber pioneered Location Theory [I]. He considered the
location of an industry between two resources and a single market
where the criterion was minimization of transport cost. However, it
is only in the last decade with the advent of mathematical program-
ming and computer-aided computation that the problem has received
real attention from the standpoint of research.
Wersan, Quon and Charnes [2] presented one of the earliest of the
modern considerations of locational problems. They located solid
waste disposal sites to minimize haul costs in a metropolitan en-

* Charles ReVelle and Ralph Swain are assistant professor and

graduate fellow, respectively, in the Department of Environmental
Systems Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
 ReVelle and Swain 31

vironment. Travel was assumed to be along the rectangular grid which

typifies many American cities. An optimal single disposal site was
determined by linear programming to be at the median of the gener-
ating sites. A number of investigations have considered Euclidean
plant location [S, 4, 6, 61. Both Cooper [S] and Kuhn and Kuenne [4]
have studied the problem of locating a single plant between supply
points. They independently proposed similar procedures for deter-
mining the location which minimized transport costs. Both chose a
descent method to converge on an optimum location. Cooper [6,6]
has gone on to consider multi-plant Euclidean problems and has
recommended heuristic procedures to accomplish iioptimumlocation.
Maranzana [7] considered warehouse location where distances are
not Euclidean but are measured on the road network, but he, also,
utilizes an heuristic procedure to find an optimal location. Kuehn
and Hamburger [a] also presented a heuristic method for warehouse
location; their approach is complicated because they consider (realis-
tically) that the cost to be minimized is not simply transport cost
but the sum of transport and warehousing costs.
The Kuehn and Hamburger procedure involved successively adding
new warehouses to a current list. Warehouse locations which po-
tentially decrease the cost were examined for inclusion one at a time.
When all such locations had been considered and some subset added,
the solution was re-examined and those warehouses which had become
uneconomical were eliminated. A particular warehouse could become
uneconomical if some warehouse added subsequently could service
enough of the customers of the first at lower cost. Branch-and-Bound
has recently been applied to multiple plant location by Efroymson
and Ray [9].
The formulation presented here makes use of linear programming to
optimally locate central facilities on the road network. In the un-
likely event of a non-integer solution, a branch-and-bound scheme
is recommended to resolve the problem with integers.With the linear
programming formulation, one can take any heuristic solution and tell
whether it is optimal. Furthermore, heuristic solutions can be used to
give a good start mechanism. Although the conceptual framework
chosen here is the location of demand points to which the populations
of communities are assigned, the problem could as well be turned
around and with no change in theory be used for the location of
supply points from which goods are to emanate.
Let ai = the population of the ith community, i = 1, 2, * . , n.
The people in the ithcommunity are to be assigned to one and only
one center; that is, the assignment cannot be partial. The center may
be in the community itself or in one of the other (n - 1) communities.
The number of centers is m, and each center has a cluster of com-
munities assigned to it. Figure 1 illustrates the concept.
32 Geographical Analysis

0 Indicates community
0Indicates community which self assigns
+lndicafes asslgnment
FIG.1. An Illustration of Central Facilities Location.

Central facilities location can be neatly structured as a linear

programming problem. The matrix of shortest distances between
cities is given at the beginning of the problem. The shortest path
between cities can be determined by dynamic programming [lo]or by
a variation suggested by Dantaig [ l l ] .The shortest distance from
.
community i to community j is dii Variables are defined as

x., - {
- 0 if community i does not assign to community j
1 if community i does assign to community j

.
The people-miles from node i to node j is ai-dij The objective func-
tion to be minimized is

Three types of constraints are required. The first type demands that
each community be fully assigned.
n
Cxij = 1 i = 1,2, ,n
j-1
 ReVelle and Swain 33

The second type restricts assignment to only those communities

which assign to themselves.

This constraint avoids the situation shown in Figure 2.

If the ithcommunity assigns to the jthcommunity ( x i j = l ) , then
the jthcannot assign away ( x j k _< 0 for all k except k = j) but must
assign to itself. This, of course, presumes zero-one variables.
Constraint ( 3 ) can be simplified by considering that

A X j k = 1 j = 1,2, * - . ,n (4)
k-1

which is the first type of constraint discussed. For any pair of com-
munities i and j , constraint ( 3 ) is added to a corresponding equation
(4). The result is the constraint

xjj 2 xij i = 1,2, ,n

j = 1,2, ... , n (5)
izj

which will now replace constraint ( 3 ) because of its simpler form.'

Finally, the third type of constraint fixes the number of central
facilities and thus the number of communities which may assign to
themselves.

2
i -=I
xii =m

where m = number of central facilities.

The combination of these three types of constraints plus the non-
negativity constraints insures that each community assigns, that the
assignment is only to a community which assigns to itself and that the
number of those which self-assign is m.
Lemma: x i j (for i # j) is zero or one a t the optimum if all x i i are
(0,1).
The proof is by contradiction. Assume the optimal solution has
been reached and that some xik is fractional. Since Xij = 1, Z$-I
1 The authors are grateful to Professor Louis M. Falkson, Department of
Environmental Systems Engineering, Cornell University, for suggesting this
simpler form of constraint.
34 Geographical Analysis

0 Indicates community
0 indicates community which self-assigns
Indicates assignment

FIG.2. A Possible Solution without Constraint (3). [rn = 21

there must be at least one other community r within the set of n

communities for which xir is fractional. Unless both r and k are
equally distant from i, it will be less costly for community i to assign
its population to the closest community, indicating that the optimal
solution is not yet achieved. Thus, at the optimum, xii is zero or one.
If several communities which are designated as centers are equally
distant from community i, then fractional xijs are possible at the
optimum, but such solutions are alternate optima and can obviously
be replaced by solutions with the same cost in which i is assigned to
only one community.
The problem is summarized:
Minimize :

Subject to :

c xij
j-1
= 1 i = 1,2, ... , n
 ReVelle and Swain 35

xjj 2 xij i = 1, 2, .. - , n
j = 1,2, ,n (5)
i # j

5 xii = m
i-1
xij 2 0 i = 1,2, ,n
j = 1,2, ,n

The number of variables is n2.The number of constraints is n2 1. +

I n the unusual event that solutions with fractional assignments
occur, the technique of branch-and-bound is recommended for finding
the optimal integer solution. The bound a t each node would be
established by solving the linear programming formulation with a set
of variables fixed at zero or one. The variable xii on which to branch
might be chosen by the heuristic rule
xii = (0, 1) for that i such that Ci = Max c k
k

where c k = Minj+{akdkj) and xii has not already been branched on.
In larger problems, the number of iterations required to reach a
solution may be favorably compared to the enumeration procedure.
There are (z) possible allocations of centers. The number of itera-
tions required to reach an optimum should be less than 2(n2 l), +
since G a s [ l a ]indicates that as a rough upper limit about twice the

= 20 and m= 6, c)
number of constraints may be needed to find the optimal solution. As
an example, if n is about 37,000, but fewer
than 800 iterations should be required to reach an optimal solution.
It is apparent that the savings in the time to obtain a solution becomes
more pronounced as the problems grow larger.
There is, however, at least one way to cut down constraints. The
suggestion is to add the constraints of the form xjj 2 xij only as
needed. A possible method to achieve this is as follows.
Begin by solving this problem by simple inspection.

cxij= 1 i = 1,2, *..,n

j-1

c xi;
i-1
n
= m
36 Geographical Analysis

The solution is to first assign each community to its nearest neighbor

without allowing any self-assignment.Then, since only m communities
can self-assign, assign to themselves those communities which have
the m largest assignment costs when assigned to their nearest neigh-
bors. This is the solution to the above problem. It has the fault that
communities which do not self-assign may still receive assignments.
For any such community j , add the constraint xjj 1 xij where i
indicates a community assigning to j . Now solve the problem again
using a simplex-type algorithm and check to see if there is a node k
such that Xkk < Xik . If there is none, the process is complete. If there
are any such, add more of the self-assignment constraints and solve
again. The process should terminate with far fewer constraints.
Another way to begin is with a solution obtained by an heuristic
method. Set the xjj 2 xij for those communitiesj which could attract
assignment by virtue of being closer to a particular set of communities
than the nearest center is to those communities. If the solution is
optimal, no community will assign to a community without a center.
Several variations of the problem are possible. The problem can be
adjusted to handle a situation in which one or more communities are
already designated as centers, i.e. assign to themselves. Such a situa-
tion might arise in the location of clinics for chronic disease care
where some communities already have the facilities (building, equip-
ment, staff) required for the center. In this case, simply set zii = 1
for all communities which are to be assigned to themselves.
It is simple also to consider locations for central facilities which
are not at communities but are at points on the roads between them.
Include such nodes in the matrix of distances and assign variables xij
to them. Their populations, however, are zero, so their assignment
does not affect the cost nor the configuration of the optimal solution.
The same constraints apply to these empty nodes as to com-
munities.
One aspect of this formulation which deserves attention is the
specification that m centers are to be established. The number of
centers might frequently be arrived a t in the political arena, rather
than chosen by an analytical method. For instance, the choice might
represent a compromise of the legislative and executive branches of
the government. The analyst then must operate within this bound
and locate the given number of centers most effectively. On the other
hand, given that a pool of funds is allocated for an unknown number of
centers serving a particular region, the decision that there will be m
centers rests on the assumptions that (1)the fixed cost for establishing
a center is the same for each community and (2) the expansion cost is
the same at each community. This is illustrated in the following way.
Let the cost of the jthfacility be given by

Lj = bj -l- c j s j (7)
 ReVelle and Swain 37

where Sj = the size to which thejthfacility is built

n
= C
i-1
aixij

bj = the fixed cost incurred if the facility is built

cj = the cost per unit of expansion.
Since the fixed cost occurs only if j is assigned to itself, equation (7)
can be written
n
Lj = bjxjj + cj C aixij
i-1

The total cost is

n n n

C Lj = cbjxjj + C cj C aixij
?z

TC = (9)
j-1 j-1 j-1 i=l

A generalized constraint on investment, M , takes the form

n

If cj were the same for all j , the constraint becomes

n n n

C bjxjj + c j-1c C aixij 5 M

j-1 i-1

However, c Y 1CLl a;xij = E

- L1 a ; , so that the second term is a
constant. This yields a constraint only on &xed cost.

Now if the b j were the same for all j, the constraint is

n

n M-cXai
C xjj I
j-1 b
i-1

The number of central facilities, m,is then defined

38 Geographical Analysis

Thus, the specification of m centers may rest on the assumption of

equal fixed and equal expansion costs in the system if a limitation on
investment is given.
Once the problem is structured and coded for solution, it is a simple
matter to vary the number of central facilities. Only the value of nt
need be changed in order to assess the effect on the average distance
travelled. The result provides insight concerning the additional cost
to reduce the average distance travelled by a given amount. The dual
variable associated with the constraint on the number of centers is,
of course, an immediate indication of the change in average distance
with a unit change in the number of centers.

Numerical Examples

The matrix in Figure 3 indicates the minimum weighted distances

or weighted times between 10 communities. The elements of the
matrix are the products ai.dijwhere i, j = 1, 2 . . . 10. These ele-
ments were utilized in the criterion function (1). The number of
central facilities was set a t four, and the optimal location of these

TO:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4.43
-
8.360
-
7.320

534
-
4.94

4.89

4.O

4.50

1.20

FIG.3. Matrix of Weighted Distances or Weighted Times.

 ReVelle and Swain 39

0 Community which does not ossign to itself

0 Community which self-assigns
Arrows indicate assignments
Arrows and dashed lines indicate road network
FIG. 4. Optimal Location of Four Central Facilities.

facilities was determined; thirty-four iterations were required.

Figure 4 indicates the selection of sites.
Recent computational experience has illustrated the increasing
eficiency of the method with problem size. A 30-community, 6-center
problem was analyzed for optimal locations. Whereas the total number
of possibilities which could have been enumerated was about 593,000,
only 173 iterations of the linear programming code were required to
find the optimal solution. The time for execution of the code (MPS on
IBM 360/65) was 1.51 minutes.
Although no solutions with fractional variables were observed in
the preceding examples, such solutions may occur.2It is asserted that
such occurrences are unusual, a point supported by the several highly
contrived cost matrices to follow. Consider the six-node, three-center
problem represented by the cost matrix in Figure 5. The optimal
linear programming solution to this problem is

xii = 2 i = 1,2, ,6

2 The first counterexamples are due to Prof. Mandell Bellmore of The Johns
Hopkins University.
40 Geographical Analysis

To j
1 2 3 4 5 6
WEIGHTED 1 0 0.5 5.0 M M M
DISTANCE 2 4.5 0 2.0 M M M
FROM i 3 1.0 6.0 0 M M M
4 M M M O 1.5 7.0
5 M M M 5 . 5 0 2.5
6 M M M 3.0 6.5 0
M = Large Number
FIG.5. Matrix of Weighted Distances Which Yields Fractional Assignments
under the Linear Programming Formulation.

Arrows indicate direction in which cost applies

FIG.6a. Cost Pattern Which Yields Fractional Assignments.

Dark arrows indicate assignments

FIG.6b. The Resulting Fractional Assignmenta.

The solution and the cost matrix are illustrated in Figures 6a and 6b.
The value of the objective was 5.25. Using the rule suggested for
branching, the variable 5 6 6 is fixed equal to one in one solution and to
zero in the other. The solution with x66 at zero has fractional assign-
 ReVelle and Swain 41

2
FIG.6c. The Optimal Integer Solution.

ments and an objective value of 7.25; the solution with 5 8 6 set at one
is integer and its value is 7.00. Since the latter solution provides the
lowest bound and is integer, it is optimal (see Figure 6c).
The feature of this example which seems crucial in inducing solu-
tions with fractional assignments is the presence of what might be
called counter-cycles in each triad. Looking at the left triad, one
observes that there are two cost cycles running in opposite directions.
The same peculiarity is seen in the right triad. So far, the only solu-
tions which have yielded fractional assignments have possessed this
property in the weighted distance matrix.
However, counter-cycles do not seem sufficient. In Figure 7, the
weighted distance matrix again possesses this property. The reader
may verify, though, that the optimal linear programming solution
with three centers is all zero-one.
No general set of conditions which leads to fractional assignments
has been derived to this time. Such cycles may be possible in higher
order systems, but it is argued that their occurrence is unlikely.

To j
1 2 3 4 5 6

FROM i 1 0 1.0 2.0 M M M

2 1.5 0 1.25 M M M
3 1.75 1.75 0 M M M
4 M M M O 1.0 2.25
5 M M M 1.5 0 1.33
6 M M M 2.0 2.0 0

M = Large Number
FIG.7. Matrix of Weighted Distances Which Yields an Optimal Integer
Solution, Even Though It Has Counter Cycles.
 42 Geographical Analysis

Applications

There are numerous possible applications for this formulation.

The location of clinics providing therapy for individuals with chronic
diseases is one such application. The location of warehouses, mail-
sorting facilities, central schools and parks are others. This problem
of locating a given number of central facilities merits further attention
from the standpoint of both applications and extensions.

Acknowledgment

This study was supported under Public Health Service Grant

ES00098 and was conducted under the auspices of the Center for
Environmental Quality Management, Cornell University. The authors
wish to express thanks to Professors Abraham Charnes, Northwestern
University, and Walter Lynn, Cornell University, for their many
helpful comments which were utilized in the preparation of the paper.

LITERATURE CITED

1. WEBER, A. uber den Standort der Industrien, Tubingen, 1909. Translated

as Alfred Webers Theory of the Location of Industries by C. J. Friedrich,
Chicago: 1929.
2. WERSAN, S., J. QUON,and A. CHARNES.Systems Analysis of Refuse
Collection and Disposal Practices, American Public Works Association
Yearbook for 1968.
3. COOPER,L. LLocation-Allocation Problems, Operations Research, 11,
No. 3 (1963), 331.
J 4. KUHN,H. and R. KUENNE.An Efficient Algorithm for the Numerical
Solution of the Generalized Weber Problem in Spatial Economics,
J . Regional Science, 4, No. 2 (1962), 21.
5. COOPER,L. Heuristic Methods for Location-Allocation Problems,
SIAM Review, 6 (1964), 37.
sf6. --. Solutions of Generalized Locational Equilibrium Models, J .
Regional Science, 7 (1967), 1.
7. MARANZANA, F. On the Location of Suppl Points To Minimize Transport
Costs, Operutions Research Quarterly, $01. 15, No. 3 (1964), 261.
8. KUEHN,A. and M. HAMBURGER. A Heuristic Approach for Locating
Warehouses, Management Science, 10 (1963), 643.
9. EFROYMSON, M. and T. RAY.A Branch-Bound Algorithm for Plant Loca-
tion, Operutions Research, 14, No. 3 (1966), 361.
10. BELLMAN, R. and S. DREYFUS. Applied Dynamic Programming, Princeton,
N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1962. P. 229.
11. DANTZIG, G. On the Shortest Route Through a Network, Management
Science, 6 , No. 2 (1960), 187.
12. GASS, S. Linear Programming, First Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1958. P. 63.