A Linear Relaxation-Based Heuristic for Iron Ore Stockyard Energy Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning the use of electrical energy in a bulk stockyard is a strategic issue due to its impact on efficiency and responsiveness of these systems. Empirical planning becomes more complex when the energy cost changes over time. The mathematical models currently studied in the literature consider many actors involved, such as equipment, sources, blends, and flows. Each paper presents different combinations of actors, creating their own transportation flows, thus increasing the complexity of this problem. In this work, we propose a new mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model for stockyard planning solved by a linear relaxation-based heuristic (LRBH) to minimize the plan’s energy cost. The proposed algorithm will allow the planner to find a solution that saves energy costs with an efficient process. The numerical results show a comparison between the exact and heuristic solutions for some different instances sizes. The linear relaxation approach can provide feasible solutions with a 3.99% average distance of the objective function in relation to the optimal solution (GAP) in the tested instances and with an affordable computation time in instances where the MILP was not able to provide a solution. The model is feasible for small and medium-sized instances, and the heuristic proposes a solution to larger problems to aid in management decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".