Sunteți pe pagina 1din 76

Mathematical Optimisation for

Supply Chain and Network Design for


Multi Level Multi Items

Master Thesis

By
Mandar P. Jawale
University of Duisburg-Essen
Institute for Product Engineering
Transport Systems and Logistics
Prof. Dr.-Ing B. Noche

Supervisor
Prof. Dr.-Ing Bernd Noche
M.Sc. Fathi A. Rhoma
Fakultt fr Ingenieurwissenschaften

tul

Abteilung Maschinenbau
Transportsysteme und -logistik
Lotharstrae 1 - 21
47057 Duisburg

Prof.Dr.-Ing. Bernd Noche


Telefon: 0203 379-2785
Telefax: 0203 379-3048
E-Mail: bernd.noche@uni-due.de

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Acknowledgement

A special thanks to Prof.-Ing Dr. Bernd Noche for his advice and supervision which made me
realize this thesis. It has always been a delight to work under his aegis because of the productive knowledge sharing sessions and his support. His ideas and concepts comments have been
important support throughout this work.
I would also like to thank Mr. Fathi Rhoma for the technical guidance which he gave me during
my entire Master thesis study. His extensive discussions around my work and interesting explorations have been very helpful for this thesis. Mr. Rhomas essential assistance in reviewing the
thesis accompanied with detailed review and excellent advices during the preparation have provided a good basis for the presentation of the thesis.

ii

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Abstract
The management of solid waste has received wide attention from economic, environmental and
academic because of the complex nature of these services. Technical and economic problems
emerge in parts because of rising demand which has been resulted due to income, population
growth, a rising level of urbanization, and decline of suitable disposal sites. These problems
challenge researchers to search for more efficient solid waste management methods.
This thesis deals with the development and application of a Logistic concept model for the optimal operations, capacity expansions and locations of solid waste facilities. To achieve this goal
a mathematical model is presented in this thesis. The economical and environmental aspects are
considered for selecting strategies that minimize the cost of waste collection, transportation,
operation, and disposal, subject to physical constraints.
A mixed integer programming model is proposed for multiple type waste generated across
distributed waste generation points; transported to multi facilities (treatment plants) sharing
similar transfer stations. The proposed model is applied to one of the most densely populated
city in Germany.

iii

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Index
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. vii
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... viii
1

Introduction......................................................................................................................1

1.1

Thesis Objective ................................................................................................................1

1.2

Background ........................................................................................................................1

1.3

From waste to an economic force ......................................................................................2

1.4

Literature survey ................................................................................................................2

Waste Management .........................................................................................................4

2.1

Definition of waste ............................................................................................................4

2.2

Structure of the European Waste list .................................................................................5

2.3

Classification rules.............................................................................................................6

2.4

Waste classification list .....................................................................................................7


2.4.1 Waste Codes for the different Waste......................................................................... 8

Network Design ..............................................................................................................10

3.1

Network design in supply chain.......................................................................................10

3.2

The Role of Network Design for Facilities Location in Logistics System ......................11

3.3

Factor Influencing Network Design Decisions ................................................................11

3.4

A Framework for Network Design Decisions .................................................................13

3.5

Model for Facility Location and Capacity Allocation .....................................................14

Transfer Stations ...........................................................................................................16

4.1

What Are Waste Transfer Stations?.................................................................................16

4.2

Site Selection ...................................................................................................................17

4.3

Determining Transfer Station Size and Capacity.............................................................18

4.4

Transfer Station Design ...................................................................................................18

4.5

Basic Transfer Station Technologies and Operations ......................................................19

Inland waterways transportation .................................................................................20

5.1

Traffic volumes and forecasts ..........................................................................................20

5.2

Energy requirement .........................................................................................................21

5.3

Traffic Safety ...................................................................................................................21

5.4

Traffic Noise ....................................................................................................................21


iv

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

5.5

Emissions .........................................................................................................................22

5.6

Multiple uses of the waterways .......................................................................................22

Case study - City Duisburg ...........................................................................................24

6.1

Mathematical formulation................................................................................................26

Scenarios .........................................................................................................................30

7.1

Scenario 1: Waste transported direct to waste treatment plants.......................................31

7.2

Scenario 2: Waste transported through transfer stations..................................................32

7.3

Scenario 3: Waste transported through ports (waterways). .............................................33

7.4

Scenario 4: Waste transportation by port and transfer station. ........................................35

7.5

Scenario 5: .......................................................................................................................37

Results and Analysis ......................................................................................................38

Conclusion and Future Work .......................................................................................50

Appendix A: Bibliography ........................................................................................................51


Appendix B: Basic Input Data ..................................................................................................53
Appendix C: Output Data .........................................................................................................58

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

List of Figures
Figure 1: Waste Flow .....................................................................................................................4
Figure 2: Hazardous waste flow chart ............................................................................................5
Figure 3 Coding System .................................................................................................................5
Figure 4 Flow diagrams to identify correct waste category ..........................................................7
Figure 5: Global Network Design Decisions ...............................................................................13
Figure 6: Comparison between Transfer station concept and direct transportation .....................17
Figure 7: Actual calculations of energy consumption (mega Joule per ton) for eight selected
bulk transport ..................................................................................................................21
Figure 8: Comparision for Noise cost (cent per ton) with different modes of transport ..............22
Figure 9: Comparision of emissions (cents per ton-km) for different modes of transport. ..........22
Figure 10: Transportation Cost ( per ton) for bulk transportation. .............................................23
Figure 11: Transportation Cost ( per ton) for Container transportation .....................................23
Figure 12: The flow chart of the mathematical formulation ........................................................28
Figure 13: Mathematical calculations using Lingo ......................................................................29
Figure 14: Lingo interface: (A) code for model (B) Solution from the solver .............................29
Figure 15: Scenario 1 ...................................................................................................................31
Figure 16: Scenario 2 ...................................................................................................................32
Figure 17: Scenario 3 ...................................................................................................................33
Figure 18: Scenario 4 ...................................................................................................................35
Figure 19: Scenario 5 ...................................................................................................................37
Figure 21: Total cost and Distance for Scenarios ........................................................................40
Figure 22: CO2 emission for various scenarios ...........................................................................41
Figure 23: Waste source points in Duisburg ................................................................................42
Figure 24: Total distance travelled (km) (including empty trip+full load) ..................................43
Figure 25: Cost analysis w.r.t distance and cost of transportation of waste for direct
transport to Incineration plant and Transportation through transfer station to
incineration plant. ............................................................................................................45
Figure 26: Unit waste transported per km for direct transport to Incineration plant and
Transportation through transfer station to incineration plant. .........................................47
Figure 27: Source point where waste is directly transported to incineration plant ......................47
Figure 28: Cost analysis w.r.t distance and cost of transportation of waste for direct
transport to Incineration plant and Transportation through Port to incineration
plant. ................................................................................................................................48
Figure 29: Unit waste transported per km for direct transport to Incineration plant and
Transportation through transfer station to incineration plant. .........................................49

vi

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

List of Tables
Table 1: Freight transportation by modes in Germany 2004 .......................................................20
Table 2: Forecast for inland shipping...........................................................................................20
Table 3: The mean region in the City with waste quantity per week ...........................................24
Table 4: Scenarios with combinations of waste and transfer stations. .........................................30
Table 5: Waste allocation for Scenario 2 .....................................................................................38
Figure 20: Location of the ports ...................................................................................................39
Table 6: Waste allocation for Scenario 3 .....................................................................................39
Table 7: Waste allocation for Scenario 4 .....................................................................................40
Table 8: Total distance travelled (km) (including empty trip+full load) .....................................42
Table 9: Cost for Scenarios ..........................................................................................................43
Table 10: Waste transported per km ............................................................................................43
Table 11: Empty distance travelled ..............................................................................................44
Table 12: Sample calculations .....................................................................................................44
Table 13: Average distance between Source point and Incineration Plant ..................................46
Table 14: Division of City-Duisburg (region wise) .....................................................................53
Table 15: Location of Garages, Transfer-station and Ports .........................................................53
Table 16: Waste handling treatment plants ..................................................................................54
Table 17: Charges for transportation and other services ..............................................................54
Table 18: CO2 emissions for vehicles .........................................................................................54
Table 19: Waste quantity generated in each area (tons per two weeks).......................................55
Table 20: Distance between waste generation source and Garage, Transfer-stations (km). ........56
Table 21: Distance between waste generation source and ports, waste handling plants (km) .....57
Table 22: Waste allocation for Scenario 1 ...................................................................................58
Table 23: Distance, transportation cost and total cost for Scenario 1 ..........................................59
Table 24: Waste allocation for Scenario 2 ...................................................................................60
Table 25: Waste distribution for Scenario 2 ................................................................................61
Table 26: Distance, transportation cost and Total cost for Scenario 2 .........................................61
Table 27: Waste allocation for Scenario 3 ...................................................................................62
Table 28: Waste distribution for Scenario 3 ................................................................................63
Table 29: Distances, transportation cost and Total cost for Scenario 3 .......................................63
Table 30: Waste Allocation for Scenario 4 ..................................................................................64
Table 31: Waste distribution for Scenario 4 ................................................................................65
Table 32: Distances, transportation cost and Total cost for Scenario 4 .......................................65
Table 33: CO2 emissions .............................................................................................................65
Table 34: Direct transportation to the Incineration plant (quantity, distance and total cost) .......66
Table 35: Transportation to the Incineration plant through Transfer stations (quantity,
distance and total cost) ....................................................................................................67
Table 36: Transportation to the Incineration plant through Port (quantity, distance and total
cost) .................................................................................................................................68

vii

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Abbreviations
G1

Garage 1

HF1

Hafen 1

MRF

Material Recycling Facility

MSW

Municipal Solid Waste management

SWM

Solid Waste Management

TS

Transfer Station

WH

Waste Handling facility

viii

Introduction

1.1

Thesis Objective

This thesis will focus on the allocation of waste supply chain. The location of transfer station,
transfer station capacity and difference size of collection vehicle are also considered in this thesis. This thesis investigates the municipal waste starting from the waste generation point
(household) till the municipal wastes at different waste disposal plants. To design a supply chain
of waste collection system from the logistics point of view, this thesis proposes transfer stations
or transportation through inland waterways in order to reduce the logistics costs including transportation costs, location costs and also minimizing the CO2 emissions.
The objective of this thesis is to minimize total logistics cost by applying mathematical model
for municipal waste collection system with using the advantage of transfer station and inland
port available for waste collection system. This will give the minimum total cost of waste allocation in logistics supply chain without ignoring the environmental aspect by minimizing the
CO2 emission.

1.2

Background

The management of solid waste has become a significant research problem. And so there is a
need to take a leap in terms of efficiently using resources and energy that how waste become
our energy. The waste industry in Germany has a key role to play in that. Since the first law on
waste management came into force in Germany in 1972, waste policy has achieved a great deal.
Whilst in the past, waste was simply dumped in landfills, today there is a very high-tech and
specialized closed substance cycle. Innovative processes and technologies allow us to fully and
efficiently recycle our waste, turning todays trash into tomorrows treasure-trove.
Environmental and social issues emerge as people become increasingly concerned about the
risks associated with living close to solid waste facilities. For example, many suitable sites and
disposal locations have been investigated for disposing and incinerating the solid waste. Some
studies also have shown that landfill disposal decreases neighbouring property values. Therefore, residents oppose to establish new facilities.
The Ordinance on Environmentally Compatible Storage of Waste from Human Settlements and
on Biological Waste Treatment Facilities represents a milestone in that respect. Since 1 June
2005 waste may no longer be dumped in landfills without any pre-treatment, putting an end to
storage that is detrimental to the environment. The closed substance cycle is a good example of
how environmental policy contributes to more environmental protection, efficient use of re-

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

sources, climate protection and thus also to more economic efficiency. That creates competitive advantages for the economy as a whole in other ways too.
Today, the waste industry employs over 250,000 people and generates an annual turnover of 50
billion Euros. Therefore, substance network design of solid waste collection management and
operation is our goal.

1.3

From waste to an economic force

Waste management has evolved substantially since the early 1970s: Before the Waste Management Act of 1972 came into effect, each village and town had its own tip (around 50,000 in the
whole of Germany). In the 1980s and 1990s their number dropped to below 2,000, whilst at the
same time strict regulations were introduced regarding their construction and operation. Today
only 160 landfill sites in Germany handle municipal waste (Class II landfill sites). The number
of incineration plants, municipal waste facilities and plants for industrial waste has, by contrast,
increased significantly. In the mid-1980s the political credo of the so-called waste hierarchy
avoid - reuse - dispose of gained acceptance. In addition to the existing recovery of metal,
textiles and paper, other recoverable materials were to be recycled by means of separate collection, sorting and reuse. This rationale formed the basis for the Closed Substance Cycle and
Waste Management Act which came into force in the mid-1990s. Today, the waste industry in
Germany employs more than 250,000 people from engineers to refuse collectors to administrative staff. Various universities have Waste Management faculties, and there is a separate vocational qualification in waste disposal. The industry generates an annual turnover in excess of
50 billion Euros. Today, much more than half of municipal and production waste is recycled. In
some areas, for example packaging, around 80% is recycled. 87% of construction waste is now
recovered. Figures for the total volumes of waste recovered make impressive reading: 29 million tonnes of municipal waste, 31 million tonnes of production and industrial waste, and 161
million tonnes of construction and demolition waste. Around four tones of waste are recovered
for each resident in Germany, thats nearly equivalent to the weight of four small cars. These
figures provide impressive proof that environmental protection has developed into a key economic factor, making a significant contribution to an economys value added chain.

1.4

Literature survey

Many research centre and experts have investigated the solid waste management problem. In
this section will present the earlier different solid waste management models in the last 20 years.
The waste management model first handles locating intermediate point transfer station, treatment, recycling and landfill location problem. There is a significant amount of literature on undesirable facility locations for more information check Erkut and Neuman [EN 1989].
There are other studies in the literature that are only concerned with the routing aspect of the
Solid waste management problem. These kind of studies attempt to find optimal route for col2

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

lect the solid waste from the generation point for door to door that minimize the distance travel
and the total costs.
The effective application of SWM mathematical integrated models as tools for decision made
by municipal solid waste planners, in developing countries, is still a big challenge. A considerable amount of research has been done in the last two decades on various aspects of SWM, and
a number of economically based optimization models for waste streams allocation and collection vehicle routes, have been developed. Owing to an increasing awareness of environmental
protection and conservation of natural resources, rising prices of raw materials, and energy conservation concerns, the current research in SWM is now guided by the aim of designing comprehensive models that take into account multi-disciplinary aspects involving economic, technical, regulatory, and environmental sustainability issues.
The solid waste models that have been developed in the last two decades have varied in goals
and methodologies. Solid waste generation prediction, facility site selection, facility capacity
expansion, facility operation, vehicle routing, system scheduling, waste flow and overall system
operation, have been some of these goals Badran and El-Haggar [BES 2006].
Some of the techniques that have been used include linear programming, integer programming,
mixed integer programming, non-linear programming, dynamic programming, goal programming, grey programming, fuzzy programming, quadratic programming, and stochastic programming, two stage programming, and interval-parameter programming, geographic information systems. Helms and Clark [HC 1971] used linear programming to select solid waste disposal
facilities among various proposed alternative sites. Esmaili [Es 1973] presented simulation model
approach to compute the cost of different combinations of facilities , including facility sitting
and expansion over time , Kaila [K 1987] used dynamic programming with a heuristic approach
to evaluate waste management systems that include more than one facility option to find out the
least cost alternative concerning the collection , transportation , processing , and disposal activities.
Gottinger [Go 1986] developed a model where potential management facilities are given. The
model minimizes the total cost, which includes fix and variable facility costs, and transportation
costs. To determine the number of facilities needed, facilities location, how to route the collection vehicle and how to process and dispose these facilities; Huang et al. 1995 developed grey
integer programming models to solve the problem of waste management planning under uncertainty, particularly uncertainty related to the environment and the economy. The object of the
model was to identify an optimal facility expansion plan and municipal solid waste flow allocation presented a model to optimize disposal costs by trading off transportation costs against the
capital costs of introducing the transfer stations. Komilis developed two conceptual mixed integer liner optimization models to optimize the haul and transfer to Municipal solid waste. Chang
[CW 1996] extends the facility site model. This model differs from prior work by its consideration of environmental impacts; such as not only determines the location and capacity of solid
waste facilities, but also the level of facilities operation over time.

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Waste Management

2.1

Definition of waste

Waste Management Acts 1996 and 2001[EWC 2002]


Waste is defined in Section 4(1) of the Waste Management Acts 1996 and 2001 as any substance or object belonging to a category of waste specified in the First Schedule [of the Waste
Management Act] or for the time being included in the European Waste Catalogue which the
holder discards or intends or is required to discard, and anything which is discarded or otherwise
dealt with as if it were waste shall be presumed to be waste until the contrary is proved.

Figure 1: Waste Flow

The next step in the waste is the identifying the given waste as hazardous or non hazardous. The
following flow diagram will show the basic step in classifying the waste as hazardous according
to the European waste catalogue.
4

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Figure 2: Hazardous waste flow chart

2.2

Structure of the European Waste list

The European Waste List includes 839 types of waste. Of these, 405 are waste catego-ries for
hazardous waste and are marked with a star *[EWC 2002]. The 839 types of waste are di-vided
into 20 chapters. Each of the 20 chapters represents either an industrial or com-mercial activity
(chapters 1 to 12 and 17 to 19) or an industrial process (chapters 6 and 7) or a specific material
(chapters 13 to 15). Chapter 20 contains municipal waste. Chapter 16 is miscellaneous waste
which has not been allocated to other chapters. The chapters are further divided into subchapters. This sub-division varies: chapter 9, for example, contains only one sub-chapter, chapter 10 on the other hand is further divided into 14 sub-chapters.

Figure 3 Coding System

A six-digit decimal classification system, XX YY ZZ, is used in the European Waste List for
coding. XX stands for 01 to 20 for the 20 chapters. YY is the grouping where YY = 01 to
maximal 14 and under ZZ, the types of waste with 01 ff are listed. In addition, a range of sub5

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

chapters includes a waste code that is identified with the decimal point ZZ = 99 which includes
miscellaneous wastes in that specific sub-chapter.

2.3

Classification rules

i.

If a specific waste is to be identified in a waste category, this must be done in accordance with No.3 of the introduction to the Commissions decision 2001/118/EC as follows (see fig. 3):

ii.

Identify the field of activity to which the waste producer belongs, i.e. chapters 1 to 12 or
17 to 20.

iii.

Identify the sub-chapter within the chapter which best characterises the source of the
waste.

iv.

Within the sub-chapter, identify the waste category which best characterises the waste.
The specific is always to be identified over the general.

v.

If no appropriate waste category can be found in chapters 01 to 12 or 17 to 20, chapters


13, 14 and 15 should be examined as described above in steps 2 and 3 be-fore resorting
to waste categories XX YY 99.

vi.

If only one waste category XX YY 99 comes into question, the waste should be identified with a waste category in chapter 16, in accordance with steps 2 and 3 above.

vii.

If a suitable waste category cannot be found in chapter 16, then XX YY 99 is to be used


in the chapter and sub-chapter corresponding to the most appropriate source producing
the waste.

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Figure 4 Flow diagrams to identify correct waste category

2.4

Waste classification list

The following shows the major classification categories for waste [EWC 2002]:
01

Wastes resulting from exploration, mining, quarrying, physical and chemical


treatment of minerals.

02

Wastes from agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting and fishing,


food preparation and processing.

03

Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, pulp,
paper and cardboard.

04

Wastes from the leather, fur and textile industries.

05

Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of
coal.

06

Wastes from inorganic chemical processes.

07

Wastes from organic chemical processes.

08

Wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings
(paints, varnishes and vitreous enamels), sealants and printing inks

09

Wastes from photographic industry.

10

Wastes from thermal processes.

11

Wastes from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials;
non-ferrous hydro-metallurgy.
7

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

12

Wastes from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and
plastics.

13

Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels (except edible oils, 05 and 12).

14

Waste organic solvents, refrigerants and propellants (except 07 and 08).

15

Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing
not otherwise specified.

16

Wastes not otherwise specified in the list.

17

Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated


sites).

18

Wastes from human or animal health care and/or related research (except kitchen
and restaurant wastes not arising from immediate health care).

19

Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and
the preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial
use.

20

Municipal wastes (household waste and similar commercial, industrial and


institutional wastes) including separately collected fractions.

2.4.1

Waste Codes for the different Waste

The following are the waste codes as defined by the EWC, for the municipal waste that is described in this thesis. The detailed breakdowns of the codes are as follows:
Paper
20 01 01

paper and cardboard

19 12 01

paper and cardboard

15 01 01

paper and cardboard packaging

Bio-waste
02 02

wastes from the preparation and processing of meat, fish and other foods of animal
origin

02 02 01

sludges from washing and cleaning

02 02 02

animal-tissue waste

02 02 03

materials unsuitable for consumption or processing

20 01 08

biodegradable kitchen and canteen waste

20 02

garden and park wastes (including cemetery waste)

20 02 01

biodegradable waste
8

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Plastic and Packaging (Gelbe)


20 01 39

plastics

15 01 02

plastic packaging

15 01 05

composite packaging

15 01 06

mixed packaging

Restmll
20 01 37* wood containing dangerous substances
20 01 38

wood other than that mentioned in 20 01 37

20 01 39

plastics

20 01 40

metals

20 02 03

other non-biodegradable wastes

20 03 07

bulky waste

20 03 99

municipal wastes not otherwise specified

20 01 35* discarded electrical and electronic equipment other than those mentioned in 20 01
21 and
20 01 23

containing hazardous components.

20 01 36

discarded electrical and electronic equipment other than those mentioned in 20 01


21, 20 01 23 and 20 01 35

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Network Design

3.1

Network design in supply chain

Network design refers to the step taken to move and store a product from supplier stage to a
customer stage in the supply chain. Network occurs between every pair of stage in supply chain.
Raw materials and components are moved from supplier to manufacturers, whereas finished
product and moved from the manufacturer to the end consumer. Network design is a key driver
of the overall profitability of a firm because it directly impact both in supply chain cost and the
customer experience. For example, distribution related costs from about 10.5 percent of the U.S.
economy and about 20 percent of the cost of manufacturing. For commodity products, distribution forms an even higher fraction of the product cost. In India, the outbound distribution cost of
cement is about 30 percent of the cost of producing and selling cement.
The choice of the network design can be used to achieve a variety of supply chain objectives
ranging from the low cost to high responsiveness. As a result, companies in the same industry
often select very different network. Next, discuss the example of network design of different
companies to the highlight the variety of distribution choice and the issues that arise when selecting among this options.
In Dell distribution, its PCs directly to end customers, whereas companies like HP distribute
through resellers. Dell customers wait several days to get a PC while customers can walk away
with as HP PC from reseller. Gateway opened Gateway Country stores where customers could
check out the products and have sales people help them to configure a PC that suited their
needs. Gateway, however, chose to sell no products at stores, with all PCs shipped directly from
the factory to the customers. In 2001, Gateway closed several of these stores given the poor
financial performance. Apple computer is planning to open retail stores where computer will be
sold. These PC companies have chosen three different network designs. How can we evaluate
this wide range of network design? Which ones serve the companies and their customer better?
P&G has chosen the network that distribute directly to large supermarket chains while making
the smaller players buy P&G from the retailer. The product moves faster from P&G to the larger
chains while moving through an additional stage then going to the smaller supermarkets. Texas
Instruments, which once used only sales, now sells about 30 percent of its volume to 98 percent
of its customers through retailer, while serving the remaining 2 percent of customers with 70
percent of the volume directly [CPE 2007].

10

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

3.2

The Role of Network Design for Facilities Location in Logistics


System

Supply chain network design decisions include the location of manufacturing storage or transportation-related facilities and the allocation of capacity and roles to each facility. Supply chain
network design decisions are classified as follow:
1. Facility role: What role should each facility play? What processes are performed at each
facility?
2. Facility location: Where should facility be located?
3. Capacity allocation: How much capacity should be allocated to each facility?
4. Market and supply allocation: What markets should each facility serve? Which supply
source should feed each facility?
Facility location decisions have a long-term impact on a supply chains performance because it
is very expensive to shut down a facility or move it to a different location. A good location decision help a supply chain be responsive while keeping its costs low.
In contrast, poorly located facility makes it very difficult for a supply chain to perform close to
the efficient frontier.
Capacity allocation decisions also have a significant impact on supply chain performance.
Whereas capacity allocation can be altered more easily than location, capacity decisions do tend
to stay in place for several years. Allocating too much capacity to a location results in poor responsiveness if demand is not satisfied or high cost of demand is filled from a distance facility.
The allocation of supply sources and markets to facilities has a significant impact or performance because it affects total production, inventory and transportation costs incurred by the supply chain to satisfy customer demand.
Network design decisions are also very important when two companies merge. Due to the redundancies and differences in markets served by either of the two separate firms, consolidating
some facilities and changing the location and role of others can often help reduce cost and improve responsiveness.

3.3

Factor Influencing Network Design Decisions

Strategic, technology, macroeconomic, political, infrastructure, competitive, and operational


factors influence network design decisions in supply chain.
Strategic factors
A firms competitive strategy has a significant impact on network design decisions within the
supply chain. Firms focusing of cost leadership tend to find the lowest cost location for their
manufacturing facilities, even of that means locating very far from the market they serve. Global
11

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

supply chain networks can be best support their strategic objectives with facilities in different
countries playing different roles.
It is important for a firm to identify the mission or strategic role of each facility when designing
its global network. Kasra Ferdows (1997) suggests the follow classification of possible strategic
roles for various facilities in a global supply chain network1.
1. Offshore Facility: Low-cost facility for export production.
2. Source Facility: Low-cost facility for global production.
3. Server Facility: Regional production facility.
4. Contributor Facility: Regional production facility with development skills.
5. Output Facility: Regional production facility built to gain local skills.
6. Lead Facility: Facility that leads in development and process technologies.
Technological Factors
Flexibility of the production technology impacts the degree of consolidation that can be
achieved in the network. If the production technology is very inflexible and product requirement
far from one country to another, a firm has to set up local facilities to serve the market in each
country.
Infrastructure Factors
The availability of good infrastructure is an important prerequisite to locating a facility in a
given area. Poor infrastructure adds to the cost of doing business from a given location.
Global companies have located their facilities in China near Shanghai, Tianjin, or Guangzhou,
even though these locations do not have the lowest labour or land cost because of better infrastructure at these locations. Key infrastructure elements to be considered during network design
include availability of sites, labour availability, proximity to transportation terminals, rail service, proximity to airport and seaport, high way access, congestion, and local utilities.
Logistics and Facilities costs
Logistics and facilities costs incurred within a supply chain change as the number of facilities,
their location, and capacity allocation is changed. Companies must consider inventory, transportation, and facility cost when designing their supply chain networks.
Inventory and facility costs increase as the number of facilities in a supply chain increase.
Transportation costs decrease as the number of facilities is increased. Increasing the number of
facilities to a point where inbound economies of scale are lost increases transportation cost.
The supply chain network design is also influenced by the transformation occurring at each
facility. When there is a significant reduction in material weight or volume as a result of processing, it may be better to locate facilities closer to the supply source rather than the customer.
For example, when iron ore is processed to make steel, the amount of output is small fraction of
12

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

the amount of ore used. Locating the steel factory close to supply source is preferred because it
reduces the distance that the large quantity of ore has to travel.

3.4

A Framework for Network Design Decisions

When faced with a network design decision, the goal of a manager is to design a network that
maximizes the firms profits while satisfying customer needs in terms of demand and responsiveness. To design an effective network manager must consider the entire factor. Global network design decisions are made in four phases as shown in figure. Each phase is described in
greater detail.
Competitive Strategy
Phase I
Supply chain strategy

Global Competition

Internal Constraints
Capital, growth strategy, existing
network
Tariffs and tax incentives
Production Technologies
Cost, scale/scope impact, support
required, flexibility

Phase II
Regional facility configuration

Regional Demand
Size, growth, homogeneity, local
specification

Competitive Environment
Political, Exchange rate, and
Demand Risk

Production Methods
Skill needs, response time

Phase III
Desirable sites
Available Infrastructure

Factor Costs
Labor, materials, site specific

Logistics Costs
Transport, inventory, coordination
Phase IV
Location choices

Figure 5: Global Network Design Decisions

Phase II: Define the Regional Facility Configuration


The objective of the second phase of network design is to identify regions where facilities will
be located their potential roles, and approximate capacity.
An analysis of Phase II is started with a forecast of the demand by country. Such a forecast must
include a measure of the size of the demand as well as determination of whether the customer
requirements are homogenous or variable across different countries. Homogenous requirements
favour large consolidated facilities whereas requirements that vary across countries favour
smaller, localized facilities.
The next step for managers is to identify whether economics of scale or scope can play a significant role in reducing costs given available production technologies. If economies of scale or
13

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

scope are significant, it may be better to have a few facilities serving many markets. If economies of scale or scope are not significant, it may be better for each market to have its own facility. Next manager must identify demand risk, exchange rate risk, and political risk associated
with different regional markets. They must also identify tariffs, any requirements for local production, tax incentives, and any import and export restrictions for each market. The tax and
tariffs information is used to identify the best location to extract a major share of the profits.
Manager must identify competitors in each region and make a case for whether a facility needs
to be located close to or far from a competitors facility. The desired response time for each
market must also be identified [CPE 2007].
Phase IV: Location Choices
The objective of this phase is to select a precise location and capacity allocation for each facility. Attention is restricted to the desirable sites selected in Phase III. The network is designed to
maximize total profits taking into account the expected margin and demand in each market,
various logistics and facility costs, and the taxes and tariffs at each location.

3.5

Model for Facility Location and Capacity Allocation

A managers goal when locating facilities and allocating capacity should be to maximize the
overall profitability of the resulting supply chain network while providing customers with the
appropriate responsiveness. Revenues come from the sale of products and costs arise from facilities, labour, transportation, material, and inventories. The profits of the firm are also impacted by taxes and tariffs. Ideally, profits after tariffs and taxes should be maximized when
designing a supply chain network.
A manager must consider many tradeoffs during network design. For example, building many
facilities to serve local markets reduces transportation cost and provides a fast response time,
but increase the facility and inventory costs incurred by the firm.
Manager use network design models in two different situations. First, these models are used to
decide on location where facilities will be established and the capacity to be assigned to each
facility. Manager must make this decision considering a time horizon over which locations and
capacities will not be altered (typically in years). Second, these models are used to assign current demand to the availability facilities and identify lanes along which product will be transported. Manager considers this decision at least on an annual basis as demand, prices and tariffs
change. In both case, the goal is to maximize the profit while satisfying customer needs. The
following information must be available before the design can be made:
1. Location of supply sources and markets
2. Location of potential facility sites
3. Demand forecast by market
4. Facility, labour, and material costs by site
14

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

5. Transportation costs between each pair of sites


6. Inventory costs by site as well as a function of quantity
7. Sale price of product in different regions
8. Taxes and tariffs as product is moved between locations
9. Desired response time and other service factors
Given this information, either gravity or network optimization models may be used to design the
network. We organize the model according to the phase of the network design framework where
each model is likely to be useful [CPE 2007].
Network Optimization Models
During Phase II of the network design framework, a manager must consider regional demand,
tariffs, economies of scale, and aggregate factor costs to decide the regions in which facilities
are to be located. The disadvantage of this approach is that plants will be sized only to meet
local demand and may not fully exploit economies of scale. During phase IV, a manager must
decide on the location and capacity allocation for each facility. Besides locating the facilities, a
manager must also decide how markets will be allocated to facilities. This allocation must account for customer service constraints in term of response time. The demand allocation decision
can be altered on a regular basis as costs change and markets evolve. When designing the network, both location and allocation decision are made jointly. Network optimization model are
critical tools for both the network design and demand allocation decisions [CPE 2007].

15

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Transfer Stations

Waste transfer stations play an important role in a communitys total waste management system,
serving as the link between communitys solid waste collection program and a final waste disposal facility. While facility ownership, sizes, and services offered vary significantly among
transfer stations, they all serve the same basic purposeconsolidating waste from multiple collection vehicles into larger, high-volume transfer vehicles for more economical shipment to
distant disposal sites [EPA WTM 2002].

4.1

What Are Waste Transfer Stations?

In its simplest form, a transfer station is a facility with a designated receiving area where waste
collection vehicles discharge their loads. The waste is often compacted, then loaded into larger
vehicles (usually transfer trailers, but intermodal containers, railcars, and barges are also used)
for long-haul shipment to a final disposal sitetypically a landfill, wasteto- energy plant, or a
composting facility. No long-term storage of waste occurs at a transfer station; waste is quickly
consolidated and loaded into a larger vehicle and moved off site, usually in a matter of hours.
For purposes of this manual, facilities serving only as citizen drop-off stations or community
convenience centers are not considered waste transfer stations. Only a facility that receives
some portion of its waste directly from collection vehicles, then consolidates and reloads the
waste onto larger vehicles for delivery to a final disposal facility, is considered a transfer station. A convenience center, on the other hand, is a designated area where residents manually
discard waste and recyclables into dumpsters or collection containers. These containers are periodically removed or emptied, and the waste is transported to the appropriate disposal site (or
possibly to a transfer station first). Convenience centers are not suitable for use as transfer stations because they cannot readily handle the large volume of waste that is discharged by a selfunloading collection truck. While these sites are not considered transfer stations within the context of this manual, it is important to note that heavily used convenience centers can face similar
concerns as transfer stations (e.g., litter, road access, vehicle queuing, storm water run on and
run off). Consequently, it may be appropriate to consider implementing
Many communities have installed full-service operations that provide public waste and recyclables drop-off accommodations on the same site as their transfer stations. Source reduction and
recycling also play an integral role in a communitys total waste management system. These
two activities can significantly reduce the weight and volume of waste materials requiring disposal, which reduces transportation, landfill, and incinerator costs. Source reduction consists of
reducing waste at the source by changing product design, manufacturing processes, and purchasing and sales practices to reduce the quantity or toxicity of materials before they reach the
waste stream. Recyclingthe collection, processing, and manufacture of new products
likewise diverts materials from the landfill or incinerator. These recyclable materials are pre16

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

pared for shipment to markets in a special facility called a MRF, which stands for materials
recovery facility. A MRF is simply a special type of transfer station that separates, processes,
and consolidates recyclable materials for shipment to one or more recovery facilities rather than
a landfill or other disposal site. Consequently, the concepts and practices in this manual can be
applied to MRFs as well. Aggressive community source reduction and recycling programs can
substantially reduce the amount of waste destined for long haul transfer and disposal. If these
reductions are significant enough, a community may find that fewer or smaller transfer stations
can meet its needs [EPA WTM 2002].

Figure 6: Comparison between Transfer station concept and direct transportation

4.2

Site Selection

Identifying a suitable site for a waste transfer station can be a challenging process. Site suitability y depends on numerous technical, environmental, economic, social, and political criteria.
When selecting a site, a balance needs to be achieved among the multiple criteria that might
have competing objectives. For example, a site large enough to accommodate all required functions and possibly future expansion might not be centrally located in the area where waste is
generated. Likewise, in densely developed urban areas, ideal sites that include effective natural
buffers simply might not be available. Less than ideal sites may still present the best option due
to transportation, environmental, and economic considerations. Yet another set of issues that
must be addressed relates to public concern or opposition, particularly from people living or
working near the proposed site. The relative weight given to each criterion used in selecting a
suitable site will vary by the communitys needs and concerns. Whether the site is in an urban,
suburban, or rural setting will also play a role in final site selection [EPA WTM 2002].

17

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

4.3

Determining Transfer Station Size and Capacity

The physical size of a planned transfer station is typically determined based on the following
factors:
i.

The amount of waste generated within the service area, including projected changes
such as population growth and recycling programs.

ii.

The types of vehicles delivering waste (such as car or pickup truck versus a specially
designed waste-hauling truck used by a waste collection company).

iii.

The types of materials to be transferred (e.g., compacted versus loose MSW, yard
waste, C&D), including seasonal variations.

iv.

Daily and hourly arrival patterns of customers delivering waste. Hourly arrivals tend to
cluster in the middle of the day, with typical peaks just before and after lunchtime. Peak
hourly arrivals tend to dictate a facilitys design more than average daily arrivals.

v.

The availability of transfer trailers, intermodal containers, barges, or railcars, and how
fast these can be loaded.

vi.

Expected increases in tonnage delivered during the life of the facility. For example, in a
region with annual population growth of 3 to 4 percent, a facility anticipating a 20 year
operating life would typically be designed for about twice the capacity that it uses in its
first year of operation.

vii.

The relationship to other existing and proposed solid waste management facilities such
as landfills, recycling facilities, and waste-to-energy facilities [EPA WTM 2002].

4.4

Transfer Station Design

The most important factors to consider when designing a transfer station are:
i.

Will the transfer station receive waste from the general public or limit access to collection vehicles? If access will not be limited, how will citizen traffic be separated from
commercial traffic to ensure safe and efficient unloading?

ii.

What types of waste will the transfer station accept?

iii.

What additional functions will be carried out at the transfer station (i.e., material recovery programs, vehicle maintenance)?

iv.

What type of transfer technology will be used?

v.

How will waste be shipped? Truck, rail, or barge?

vi.

What volume of material will the transfer station manage?

18

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

4.5

Basic Transfer Station Technologies and Operations

Waste can be unloaded directly into the open top of the trailer, but is most often unloaded on
the tipping floor to allow for materials recovery and waste inspection before being pushed into
the trailer. Large trailers, usually 100 cubic yards or more, are necessary to get a good payload
because the waste is not compacted. This is a simple technology that does not rely on sophisticated equipment (e.g., compactor or baler). Its flexibility makes it the preferred option for lowvolume operations [EPA WTM 2002].
This section describes transfer station operations issues and suggests operational practices intended to minimize the facilitys impact on its host community. Issues covered include:
i.

Operations and maintenance plans.

ii.

Facility operating hours.

iii.

Interacting with the public.

iv.

Waste screening.

v.

Emergency situations.

vi.

Recordkeeping.

19

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Inland waterways transportation

In this chapter, the focus is in on transportation through waterways. Here the comparison of
inland waterway transportation is done with road and rail in Germany. Duisburg makes a peculiar case for consideration of intermodal due to it geography and the infrastructure. Well networked with rail and inland shipping its one of the major transportation center, make an ideal
geographic location for the following case study discussed in this thesis [VVBW].

5.1

Traffic volumes and forecasts

In 2004, a total of over 1.5 billion tons of goods German long-distance were transported. Well
15% of this amount of goods was handled by barges. This share should be valued higher as given that many transport connections are not directly served by barge as these places were not
located on waterways.
Table 1: Freight transportation by modes in Germany 2004

Million (tons)

Share (%)

Waterways

235,7

15,6

Railways

310,3

20,5

Roadways

965,7

63,9

With a rise of more than 130 million tons in 2004, inland waterways have assumed importance.
In addition to the bulk (Here the river dominates with a share of 53% of the total volume) container transport has also profited. Thus, in 2004 nearly 30% of all container shipments to and via
the sea ports were carried (54% trucks, trains 16%). In the future, with further substantial increases in freight transport is expected. Strong growth particularly in international traffic is expected. For inland shipping, the following are the forecasts:
Table 2: Forecast for inland shipping

Transport service

1997

2015

Increase

Inland shipping

16.3

15.6

-4%

Overall traffic

45.6

74

61%

Total

62.2

89.6

44%

In future there are big potentials in the inland shipping of container transport and also in the
imported coal. For persistent oil price increases inland shipping will be seen as an alternative for
transportation. Other markets with good prospects are the transport of new cars, scrap metal and
heavy [VVBW].

20

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

5.2

Energy requirement

The fuel consumption of trucks and tractor-trailers is largely dependent on degree of the traffic
impact. The energy consumption of freight trains is considerably influenced by the gross weight
of train. The present estimates of the diesel consumption for inland shipping are sometimes
overestimated. Modern and motor builders have well-developed ships over smaller waterways
which are having a considerably low fuel consumption.

Figure 7: Actual calculations of energy consumption (mega Joule per ton) for eight selected bulk transport

The energy consumption of trucks is the highest for all transports. In seven of eight from the
inland waterway transport less energy is consumed as by freight trains. On average, it consumes
67% less energy than truck and 35% less than the train. Even with five studied container transport, the results are clear. In all cases, use of energy in the inland shipping per container significantly less energy than trucks (advantage Inland 52%) and freight trains (advantage inland 38%)
[VVBW].

5.3

Traffic Safety

The river compared to truck and rail is by far the safest mode of transport for freight. In the
years 2000 to 2005 were for each Billion ton-kilometers in accidents involving inland shipping
average of 0.04 persons killed, by the rail freight 0.28 persons and in contrast, road freight
transport even 2.48. The accident cost in the inland shipping is 3.3 cents per 100 tones which is
45% below those of the railway (6.0 cents) and by 92% below those of the truck (42.9 cents).

5.4

Traffic Noise

Even when compared for traffic noise, inland shipping is at advantage from trucks and railway.
Based on the same transport volume relate to: the noise from rail and road freight transport only
small differences then inland shipping compared to more than 10 dB (A) quieter. This lower
sound level is perceived by people as a halving of loudness. According to current estimate for
Germany in 2005 about 54 million inhabitants were harassed by road or rail. The inland ship21

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

ping is not considered as noise polluters. The resulting noise costs coming from road transport is
to an average of 0.79 cents and in the rail freight to 0.84 cents per ton. The goods transported by
barges have caused no significant noise costs [VVBW].

Figure 8: Comparision for Noise cost (cent per ton) with different modes of transport

5.5

Emissions

In particular CO2 emissions for the inland shipping are low. The emissions are particularly high
for truck followed by rail. Thus inland shipping proves advantageous when comes to emissions.

Figure 9: Comparision of emissions (cents per ton-km) for different modes of transport.

For the other air pollutants (Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide
and particles), the electric rail freight stands at separate when considered in relations to truck
and barge and has a distinct advantages. Due to the expected further development of emissions
of inland there will be tightening of the guidelines for the pollutants in the future. This is similar
to the truck traffic also [VVBW].

5.6

Multiple uses of the waterways

Unlike roads and rails, which have only limited application to perform, inland shipping can
provide multiple options. Constructing roads and laying out rail tracks these processes are some
complex process. The constructions of these are concern of nature. As waterways are natural
existing do not affect nature. For inland shipping, rivers serve out as waterway. Artificial canals
22

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

can be dug out and connected to rivers or each other for networking. Waterways exert a positive
influence on regional development. This results in part from the multiple-use of infrastructure,
water, tourism and leisure and recreation area around the water. Multiple uses of the waterways
exert a positive influence on regional development [VVBW].

Figure 10: Transportation Cost ( per ton) for bulk transportation.

The costs of the trucks are in the average about 50% above those of the train and more than
100% over the inland. The costs of inland are in all cases lower than the train (on average 30%).

Figure 11: Transportation Cost ( per ton) for Container transportation

23

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Case study - City Duisburg

The city of Duisburg comprises an area of 232.81 km2 in Nord-Rhine Westphalia, the most
densely populated state in the Federal Republic. This is the Ruhr region, Germanys industrial
heartland. With its 31 power stations, this area is also Germanys major source of energy. In
2008, there were 500914 residents in Duisburg, making it the eleventh largest city in Germany.
Aside from its total population, Duisburg is also one of the countrys most densely populated
cities. With the total number of residential in the City Duisburg were 78775. While the Federal
Republics average population density is 222 inhabitants/km2 and Nord-Rhine Westphalias is
489/km2, Duisburg stands at 2,299 inhabitants/km2, the main residential area are distributed
along the west side of Rhine river [CDW] .
Duisburg is an important transportation centre, with its extensive network of highways and its
access to the Rhine and Ruhr waterways. Indeed, the Rhine-Ruhr port is the largest inland port
in the world. The Duisburg economy was based on manufacturing, with the iron and steel industries of primary importance, but the micro-electronics sector is rapidly becoming more important. Other significant factors in the Duisburg economy are large international trade companies;
a substantial middle class; the service sector; and, as indicated above, the transportation sector.
The regional municipality of City Duisburg includes seven main areas, which were further divided into 46 districts figure 1. The municipality of Duisburg generated 132000 ton/a residual
waste, 38500 ton/a waste paper, 11200 ton/a packing, 38600 ton/a compost waste and 222 ton/a
waste of glasses. As municipal service WBD Wirtschaftsbetriebe Duisburg-AoR [WBR] are
responsible to collected the entire waste daily using different collection vehicle located in two
different depot where the starting in the morning and turn back in the end of the working day
and or the working task , the target of WBR is to provide high quality of customers service at
reasonable prices.
Table 3: The mean region in the City with waste quantity per week

Name Regions

post
code

Household waste [Mg/


Week]
Population

Household
Population

Household

WALSUM

47179

51885

23495

271,314

252,85505

HAMBORN

47168

72591

32786

379,5886

352,84552

MEIDERICH-BEECK

47119

75168

35532

393,0641

382,39819

HOM.-RUHRORTBAERL

47199

42152

20629

220,41877

222,01093

MITTE

47053

106186

58515

555,26161

629,74306

RHEINHAUSEN

47213

79148

37017

413,87608

398,37988

SD

47273

73784

35413

385,82697

381,11751

500914

243387

2619,35014

2619,35014

DUISBURG

24

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

The central vehicle depot is located in the southern part of the city with more than 40 collection
vehicle with different capacity and task, the second depot is located in the northern part of the
city with 25 collection vehicle to service the neighbourhood part of the city.
All the necessary data for the model calculation like facilities location, waste generation quantities, data for vehicles, labours data and costs data have been obtained from city Duisburg and
the WBD [Wirtschaftsbetriebe Duisburg] the company which is responsible for waste collection
and disposal in city Duisburg. This study does not consider a detail of the waste collection routing problem , for transportation purposes the waste generated in each of the 46 districts is considered to exist at a single point within the centre Centroid of the district which is determined
manually. The vehicle transportation distances were determined between each district, transfer
station, waste treatment plants and incineration plant using MapPoint as real distance.

25

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

6.1

Mathematical formulation

The objective of this study is to propose a mathematical model for Municipal solid waste management of City Duisburg including different scenarios. The proposal model will be minimizing
the total solid waste system costs using mixed integer programming. The best location of the
transfer station from the candidate location list choosing to minimized the total transportation
and operation costs.
Objective function:

Subjected to

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
X

{0,1}

(7)
(8)

Z= total cost of collection, disposal and building facilities;


A= discrete set of different type of waste, A= {1,2,3,4..N}
I=discrete set of source nodes, I={1,2,3,4N};
J=discrete set of transfer station nodes, J={1,2,3,N};
H=discrete set of port nodes, H={1,2,3,N};
K=discrete set of treatment facility nodes, K={1,2,3,N};
= units of waste collected from source i and transferred to transfer facility j (per 2 week)
= units of waste collected from source i and transferred to treatment facility k (per 2 week)

26

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

= units of waste collected from transfer facility j and transferred to treatment facility k (per 2
week)
= units of waste collected from source i and transferred to port facility h (per 2 week)
= units of waste collected from port facility h and transferred to treatment facility k (per 2
week)
X = {0,1} integer decision variable, 1 indicating that waste facility has been located and 0 none.
= waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to j)
= waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to k)
= waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from j to k)
= waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to h)
= waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from h to k)
This includes the (collection vehicle operation maintenance cost/ton /mile +labor
cost/ton/mil)*(total trip distance from in km from i to j) +operation and maintenance cost/ton at
facility)
f= amortized weekly fixed cost of building a waste management facility at site j, k( total capital
x capital recovery factor for a design of 20yrs and interest rate of 10% /no. of weeks in a year),
= distance between the nodes
Ts = operation costs for transfer station / ton.
Hs = operation costs for port / ton.
wi = waste generated at source node i(tons per 2week)
q = capacity of an SWTS (tons per 2week)

27

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Figure 12: The flow chart of the mathematical formulation

The objective function is the fixed charge cost function to achieve economic efficiency in locating transfer points in the collection system. The first three sets of terms in (1) compute the total
cost of short haul collection, direct haul trips, and long haul transfers. The fourth set adds the
amortized capital costs whenever a facility has been located.
The first constraint set (2) represents the service demand constraints. These constraints ensure
that waste wi generated at each source node i should be shipped out to a transfer facility or port
facility and/or a final waste treatment facility site. Observe that the summation sign for i and j
nodes were defined over full sets I and J. this formulation can be easily modified to define cover
sets on the basis of jurisdictional boundaries or policies. Constraints (3) & (4) represent material
balance equations at each transfer station and ports. This ensures no storage or loss at the transfer site. Constraints set (5) and (6) impose capacity limitations on each transfer station and
ports. The capacity constraints allow various dispersed and site strategies to be analyzed.

28

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

In this thesis Lingo optimization modeling software is used to solve the mathematical expression along with MS Excel.

Figure 13: Mathematical calculations using Lingo

The data is imported from excel sheets and the mathematical model is run in Lingo. The objective values and the waste allocations are obtained which are exported to Excel. The exported
data is further subjected to calculations and used for graphical representation of results.

Figure 14: Lingo interface: (A) code for model (B) Solution from the solver

29

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Scenarios

For the waste management, models have been created to provide solution to the existing scenario. These models are in combination with concept of intermodality and transfer station.
Firstly will start with the basic model, which is current situation. Following combinations of
conditions are applied in the models.

Waste directly send to waste treatment plant.

Waste send through transfer station to the waste treatment plants.

Waste send through port which acts as transfer stations to the waste treatment plants.

Mode of transport and type of vehicle are another factors to be considered. Following are the
combinations:

By truck (10 ton capacity) direct to the waste treatment plant.

By truck (10 ton capacity) first to the transfer station and further transportation by truck
(30 ton capacity) to the waste treatment plant.

By truck (10 ton capacity) first to the transfer station and further transportation by barge
through ports.

The following table will give you the combination of the above stated so as to have clear
idea of the various models that will follow in succeeding chapters.

Scenario

Paper

Bio-waste

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

H1

H2

Gelbe waste

Restmll

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

H1

H2

Table 4: Scenarios with combinations of waste and transfer stations.

30

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

7.1

Scenario 1: Waste transported direct to waste treatment plants.

This is the existing situation for the waste transportation in Duisburg. Here four types of waste
viz. Paper, bio-waste, gelbe and restmll. The trucks start from garage G1 and G2, then head
towards the prescribed 46 waste generation plants across Duisburg. The trucks with 10 ton capacities are used for transportation of waste. This model will be the base model. With help of
this model, other models have been developed. And finally the results from simulation of each
model are compared and to find most feasible model for waste collection supply chain of Duisburg.

Figure 15: Scenario 1

31

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

7.2

Scenario 2: Waste transported through transfer stations.

The concept of transfer station is introduced here to improve the MSW collection system for
each type of waste. Here the model works with following possibility:
1. The waste is directly sent to the waste treatment plant.
2. The waste is first sent first to the transfer station where it is compacted then transferred
and through large capacity trucks (30 tons).
This model is first step in reducing the transportation distance. By introduction of the transfer
station, the long trips are reduced. The load carried by truck from transfer station to waste
treatment plant is more due increased capacity of trucks viz. 30 ton load compared 10 ton load
truck for the direct transportation to the waste treatment.

Figure 16: Scenario 2

32

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

7.3

Scenario 3: Waste transported through ports (waterways).

In this model the concept of waterways in waste transportation is introduced. The geographical
location of Duisburg makes it possible for use waterway. City Duisburg is located on confluence of river Rhine and Ruhr. Duisburg being one of major inland port in Europe, so the basic
infrastructure required for a port are readily available. It is observed from the present geographical location that the restmll treatment plant is located on bank of river Ruhr in Oberhausen. The waste can be sent to the incineration plant by ship due presence of ports on either
side. Considering the expansion of the city; strategically two ports in north at Schwelgern and
south at Logport are selected to as to cover up maximum area; which will also serve the purpose
of collecting waste and transporting it by ship to the incineration waste.

Figure 17: Scenario 3

All other three wastes are sent by transfer station as stated in above model. Now here the model
works with following possibility:
1. The waste is sent direct to incineration plant.
2. The waste is sent direct to the port first and from there it is transferred to ship and transported to incineration plant by ship
33

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

3. All other three wastes viz. Paper, Bio-waste and Gelbe waste are transported through
transfer station with following possibilities:
i) The waste is directly sent to the waste treatment plant.
ii) The waste is first sent first to the transfer station where it is compacted then transferred and through large capacity trucks (30 tons).
For better picture, sub model with transportation of waste through ship are created which are
integrated to the main model which gives a clear idea.

34

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

7.4

Scenario 4: Waste transportation by port and transfer station.

This model is modified version of the model 3 and model 4. Here combined effect of transfer
station and port together for the restmll is checked. A decision can be made for the restmll
waste to be sent it through transfer station or via port or directly to incineration plant. While for
other three waste all other conditions apply same.

Figure 18: Scenario 4

So in this model are the following possibilities:


1. The waste is sent direct to incineration plant.
2. All other three wastes viz. Paper, Bio-waste and Gelbe waste are transported through
transfer station with following possibilities:
i.

The waste is directly sent to the waste treatment plant.

ii.

The waste is first sent first to the transfer station where it is compacted then
transferred and through large capacity trucks (30 tons).
35

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

3. The waste is sent direct to the port first and from there it is transferred to ship and transported to incineration plant by ship.
4. The waste is first sent first to the transfer station where it is compacted then transferred
and through large capacity trucks (30 tons).

36

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

7.5

Scenario 5:

This is a sub model which will evaluate in detail for using of a transfer station or port for transportation. In this case, waste type restmll is used and following 3 sub model s are created as
follows:
1. Transportation of restmll direct to Incineration plant (existing situation).
2. Transportation of restmll through transfer-station to Incineration plant.
3. Transportation of restmll through port to Incineration plant.

Figure 19: Scenario 5

These three sub model are compared with each other and are evaluated for their performances.

37

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Results and Analysis

The proposed models are solved with help of using modelling programming language LINGO
as mathematical software. All the data is needed by the model prepared as data base in external
files. Four scenarios are generated to take into account the different combination of the issues.
The criteria for choosing the optimal combination are the minimum value of the objective function, including the costs and CO2 emission.
In the first scenario, the actual condition of waste transportation in the city is described. Here
the vehicles leave from the garage to source then source to direct waste handling plant without
using transfer station.
Scenario 2:
The transfer station concept is introduced to improve the MSW collection system for each type
of waste. Moreover the model has a possibility to send the waste directly to waste treatment
plant or waste is first send through transfer station, where it is compacted and transported to
waste handling treatment plant in big vehicles.
The table below gives the waste allocation for the scenario 2 (refer Appendix D for detailed
results). From the table a clear distribution of waste is observed. For the case paper waste it is
observed that utilisation of TS1 and TS4 is done and remaining two transfer station are not utilised and similarly for waste type compost its evident that the TS2 is unused. It can be concluded
that while redrawing strategy for waste distribution two TS2 and TS3 for paper and TS2 for
compost can be eliminated. But for waste type gelbe if observed, there is under utilisation of
transfer stations. More than 70% of waste is directly transported and remaining through TS3. In
such case it would be better not to have TS for gelbe. In the case restmll, the distribution is
quite even but still some of the waste directly transported to Incineration plant this is due proximity of the waste source point to the plan.

Table 5: Waste allocation for Scenario 2

(Ton)

PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMLL

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

690.0506345

TS2

770.1969625

TS3

425.7138654

126.1979617

1055.635315

TS4

363.6312241

576.6391746

1866.408115

WH

362.3715087

293.9516133

307.5208383

722.8249734

38

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Scenario 3:
Third scenario, in this model the concept of intermodality in waste transportation is introduced.
It is observed from the present geographical situation that the rest-mull can be sent to the incineration plant by ship due presence of ports on either side of river Rhine. So strategically two
ports in north and south are selected which will serve the purpose of collecting waste and transporting it by ship to the incineration waste. All other three wastes are sent by transfer station as
stated in above model.

Figure 20: Location of the ports

The table below gives the waste allocation for the scenario 3 (refer Appendix D for detailed
results). It is observed the allocation for waste type paper and gelbe remains as same for the
scenario 2 but for waste type shows equal distribution and utilisation of all the transfer stations.
In waste type restmll, here transfer stations are replaced by the ports. Port2 transports maximum of the waste amounting to 60% and followed by port 2.
Table 6: Waste allocation for Scenario 3
(Ton)

PAPER

COMPOST

GELBE

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

H1

1146.739934

TS2

293.8679043

H2

2904.650912

TS3

330

126.1979617

TS4

363.6312241

330

WH

362.3715087

342.4367491

307.5208383

WH

1053.725154

RESTMLL

Scenario 4:
In the fourth scenario, model is modified version. Here combined effect of transfer station and
port together for the restmll are analysed. A decision for the waste to be sent through transfer
station or via port or directly to incineration plant is to be made. While for other three waste all
other conditions apply same.

39

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

The observation for the for the waste type paper, kompost and gelbe remain same. Now it is
quite interesting to see flow of waste for restmll where port 2 and TS4 turn out to be major
carrier for the waste flow. An equal distribution is seen for port 1 and TS3. Even the overall
transportation distance is reduced but utilisation of all facilities increase the cost which due to
operational and facility cost.
Table 7: Waste allocation for Scenario 4
(Ton)

PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

HF1

792.1135449

TS2

293.8679043

HF2

1671.471173

TS3

330

126.1979617

TS3

773.8162146

TS4

363.6312241

330

TS4

1233.179739

WH

362.3715087

342.4367491

307.5208383

WH

634.5353281

RESTMLL

Overall Comparison of Scenarios:


The graph shows the comparison between all the four scenarios with respect to cost and disance.
With scenario2, 3 and 4 the total distance travelled is reduced but when compared to the cost,
scenario 2 and 3 show low values. Its feasible to apply scenario 2 and 3. But when a
combination of scenario 2 and 3 is tried which is shown by scenario 4 there is rise in cost.

Figure 21: Total cost and Distance for Scenarios

Thus inidividual application of scenario2 and 3 is benifical. This result shows total effectiveness
of transportation by water. Scenario 4 which shows rise in cost this due to the almost even distribution of waste through all the port and transfer stations. Thus adding to the operational costs
and the fix cost for the ports and transfer stations.

40

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

CO2 emission
This is a comparison for the CO2 for all scenarios. The emission has been reduced compared to
scenario 1. This is due to the reduced travelling distance. Thus it can be said that change in logistic activity by introduction of transfer station or intermodal transport can help to reduce to
pollutions. A proper logistic strategy can also help in cutting down emissions.

Figure 22: CO2 emission for various scenarios

From the above analysis, following conclusions can be made:


1. For waste type paper waste, TS2 and TS3 can be eliminated, and thus restricting it for
only two transfer stations.
2. For waste type compost show utilisation of all transfer stations.
3. For waste type gelbe, with respect to quantity it would be rather better to send the waste
directly to the waste handling plant using transfer station
4. For waste type restmll, it is observed scenario 2 and 3 turn out to give good results,
while scenario 4 reduces transportation distance but adds to increased cost when compared to scenario 2 and 3.

41

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Scenario 5:
The below is the map of Duisburg with the waste location points and its geography

Figure 23: Waste source points in Duisburg

Total amount of waste collected per two weeks: 5105,116 ton


Capacity of small truck: 10 ton (8 ton filling capacity)
Capacity of large truck: 30 ton
Capacity of barge or ship: 1500 ton
Table 8: Total distance travelled (km) (including empty trip+full load)

Km
Total distance
Distance with full
load
Distance with
empty load

Direct Oberhausen
14827,1

2 TS
10239,2

2 hafen
9546,616

8982,4

4906,7

4079

5844,7

5332,5

5408

42

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Figure 24: Total distance travelled (km) (including empty trip+full load)
Table 9: Cost for Scenarios

Total cost
Total Transportation
cost
Transportation cost
for full load
Transportation cost
for empty trip
Transshipment cost
(handling cost)
Fixed cost for TS or
Port
Incineration cost

Direct Oberhausen
2325434

2 TS
1869607

2 Port
1790679

1559666

961448.3

839679.5

1442772

854798,3

731455,2

116894

106650

108224,3

114389,5

145232,5

28000

40000

765767,4

765767,4

765767,4

It is evident from the above result tables that with introduction of transfer station or waterway
transportation there is a significant chance in the total cost and distance. It s observed that the
total distance travelled and total cost for transfer station and port is moreover less same with
little difference.

Load carried per km =


Table 10: Waste transported per km

Ton / km

Direct Oberhausen

2 TS

2 port

0.56

1.02

1.25

Success of a transfer station or port is shown by waste carried per run. This can be done by using large capacity vehicles. But in small streets such is not possible. So a larger transportation
vehicle from TS to facility or ship for transportation can be used.

43

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Empty trip travelling =


Table 11: Empty distance travelled

Direct Oberhausen

2 TS

2 port

0.394

0.52

0.56

Empty trip is one of the major concern regarding transportation costs. With TS and port the
empty trip distance increase due to empty distance been travelled from garage to source, source
and TS or port and from port to garage.
Here the comparison is made between the unit cost required to transport per ton.km and the
distance travelled from each source point. The data selection for this following graph has been
done as follows:
The following graph is plotted against /ton.km against total km
/ton.km is calculated as follows:
Each source is considered separate and its total distance that it makes and cost during his trip are
calculated.
A example in the table for the calculation.
Table 12: Sample calculations
Source

Q(ton)

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12

131.3989597
53.88664298
42.24471526
148.5300865
75.46140713
74.39573845
128.2220606
171.3715889
132.7059118
175.0913758
111.3925381
55.03273949

d(km) betn Ob and


source
16.60
16.50
17.30
13.40
13.30
11.50
11.70
9.40
7.50
7.50
7.50
10.70

d (km)
total
265.6
115.5
86.5
254.6
119.7
103.5
187.2
197.4
127.5
165
105
74.9

transportation cost

43624.45461
17782.59218
14616.67148
39806.06317
20072.7343
17111.01984
30003.96217
32217.85871
19905.88677
26263.70637
16708.88072
11777.00625

/ton.km

ton/km

1.25
2.857142857
4
1.052631579
2.222222222
2.222222222
1.25
0.952380952
1.176470588
0.909090909
1.428571429
2.857142857

0.494724999
0.466551021
0.488378211
0.583386043
0.630421112
0.718799405
0.684946905
0.868143814
1.040830681
1.061159853
1.060881315
0.734749526

This is table for direct transportation to Oberhausen.


Q is the quantity of waste generated at S1 source.
d is the distance between the Incineration plant and source. d total is the total distance obtained as follows:
d total= d * no. of trips = 16.60 * 16 = 265.6 km
Transportation cost = Cost of collection * Quantity of waste generated* distance between
OB and source
=20/ ton.km *131.398 ton* 16.60 km = 43624.45
To calculate cost per km.ton for source1, this is done as follows:
Unit cost /ton.km= transportation cost / Q*d total = 43624.45/ (131.39*265) =1.25/ton.km
Amount of unit waste transported per km = Quantity Q/ d total= 131.98 / 265= 0.4947 ton/
km.
44

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Same calculation is done for the cases transfer station and transportation through ship.
The graphs are plotted using these two values and are compared for comparison with two cases:
1. Direct transportation v/s transfer station.
2. Direct transportation v/s transportation through ship.
Case 1: Comparison between Direct transport to Incineration plant and Transportation
through transfer station to incineration plant.

Figure 25: Cost analysis w.r.t distance and cost of transportation of waste for direct transport to Incineration plant and
Transportation through transfer station to incineration plant.

This graph clearly represents cost analysis for direct transportation to Oberhausen w.r.t transfer
station. Here the line for graph for direct transportation follows a linear trend. It shows high
cost at initial stage, and then it smooth out further as distance increase. But for the transfer station curve there is high initial cost for a distance 50 to 75 km. but the cost reduces further for the
distance beyond 150km distance. It is observed that at distance 100- 130 km run the cost per
unit of transportation is same for both. But later the cost due to transfer station reduces drastically. There is a break point occurring for the graph at (2.17, 126.5). At this breakpoint, cost of
transportation is same for both the cases. That means when total run from a source point is
126.5km the cost is 2.17/ton.km. From this a relation of minimum average distance for having
a transfer station is obtained.
The total run is 126.5 km from graph. The average waste quantity over region is 110.98 ton
(average is as follows total waste generated is 5105 ton no. of source= 46 therefore average is
5105/46=110.98 ton).
The capacity of truck is 10ton but actually filling assumed is 0.80%. So this gives us:
45

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

No. of trips = Average quantity / truck capacity = 110.98/ 8= 14 trips


Now there is a total run of 126.5 km and 14 trips. This will give an average distance of a Ts and
source: 126.5/14 =9.035 km
This means that for feasibility of a transfer station the average distance between the source and
TS should be equal to or greater than 9.035 km. The average distance for the transfer station the
average distance are 11.85 km and 8.84 km which makes it qualify for having transfer stations.
With the average distance from source and incineration plant is 14.65 km. The following table
shows the average.
Table 13: Average distance between Source point and Incineration Plant
Source

Dist

Source

Dist

Source

Dist

Source

Dist

S1

16.60

S13

10.00

S25

14.00

S37

13.90

S2

16.50

S14

12.30

S26

8.20

S38

14.80

S3

17.30

S15

11.90

S27

10.20

S39

16.70

S4

13.40

S16

9.50

S28

12.70

S40

17.90

S5

13.30

S17

6.10

S29

13.70

S41

19.50

S6

11.50

S18

4.00

S30

14.20

S42

23.90

S7

11.70

S19

11.80

S31

14.90

S43

18.80

S8

9.40

S20

13.80

S32

20.90

S44

20.10

S9

7.50

S21

18.70

S33

17.50

S45

23.70

S10

7.50

S22

16.30

S34

20.10

S46

25.90

S11

7.50

S23

13.30

S35

22.70

S12

10.70

S24

15.10

S36

23.80

Average

14.65

In the graph show amount of waste transported per km against total run. Here the amount of
waste transported per km is high than direct transportation to incineration plant. This is due to
use two separate vehicle one with 10 ton caapacity and second with 30 ton. There effective load
transported increases. Graph also show the high waste is transported at inital phase of 20 -100
km, this is due to short distance and high capacity and more trips. But this flow gradually get
distrubted more evenly ass the total run exceeds more than 200km. So high carrying capacity
effects to reduction in transporatation distance thus leading to fuel saving and reduction in
traffic.

46

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Figure 26: Unit waste transported per km for direct transport to Incineration plant and Transportation through transfer
station to incineration plant.

In the image, it explains even though the transferstation is recomended for the sources. But due
to do the close distance of the source from the incineration plant. Therefore instead of going
through transfer staation ; the waste is directly transported to incineration plant. This is
highlighted in circles with region A and B.

Figure 27: Source point where waste is directly transported to incineration plant

47

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Case 2: Comparison between Direct transport to OB and Transportation through ship


The comparison for this case is same as the above case. The break even for this case occurs at
point (38.7, 2.77). this mean that the unit transportation cost is same at this point for both direct
transportation to OB and transporation through ship which is 2.77/ton.km. in the graph it is
observed that a linearity is maintained during the transportation to incineration.

Figure 28: Cost analysis w.r.t distance and cost of transportation of waste for direct transport to Incineration plant and
Transportation through Port to incineration plant.

But for the transportation through ship a steep rise is seen at the initial 20- 50 km. But as the the
distance increases the per unit cost reduces very much. For the break even point it can be
realised that for average waste quantity of 110.98 ton.
Average quatity at source 110.98 ton
No. of trips = Average quantity / truck capacity = 110.98/ 8= 14 trips
Total run from graph: 38.7 km
This will give us the average distance of a port and source: 38.7/14 =2.76 km. this means that
there is feasibility using port when the distance between and source is more than 2.76 km
The actual average port distances for the given cases are 11.3 km and 12.05 km which make the
port available for the use for waste transportation.

48

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Figure 29: Unit waste transported per km for direct transport to Incineration plant and Transportation through transfer
station to incineration plant.

For the ship transportation case, it clear from there is high rate of unit waste transferred per km
during ship transport. This is due to the use of ship which ah very high capcity compared to
trucks. There is always a high transfer rate of waste volume.
In scenario 5 tries to explain the qualifying distance to decide what should be minimum distance. It also highlights transfer capacities so as to have a transfer station or transportation
through port and tries to show a trend over a range of distance

In this thesis, an attempt is made to demonstrate use of transfer station and intermodal transport
using waterways in waste management. Various scenarios have been created so as to show their
utility and applicability in waste management. It also provides a comparison of the each scenario with another. A sub model is provided so as to validate the use of transfer station or port
with existing scenario. At end it can be said that transfer station or using waterways can be a
solution to the modern waste management system in reducing cost.

49

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Conclusion and Future Work

The mathematical models presented in this thesis can be used as tools for decision makers of
municipality in the day to day planning and management of integrated programs of solid waste
collection, incineration, recycling treatment and disposal, including survey of other models,
results, different scenarios and different techniques. The main focus of the models is to plan the
MSW management, by defining the refuse flow that have to be sent to recycling or to different
treatment plants, suggesting the number type and selection of the plant that have to remain active at minimum total cost. The model presented here demonstrates the use of multi objectives
model for locating transfer station and the allocation of the solid waste quantities to different
location using different stream using different scenarios to come out with different optimization
results and different network of real data and sub model to calculate the detail cost of structure.
It is to be feared and expected that fuel costs will tend to rise in future due to further taxation
increases and price developments on the world markets. Another factor which needs to be considered is the indirect costs caused by delays on overcrowded roads. It has been estimated that
macroeconomic losses due to this cause alone amount to several billion Euros per year. The
implication is that it could make economic sense to regulate truck transport even more strongly
in future. All these developments make this the right time for re-thinking conventional transport
solutions and try to provide alternative solution with help of port. In such case transportation by
rail should be also considered, if there is such an infrastructure available.
This solution is devised keeping in mind the existing infrastructure and availability of waterways; thus making new calculations that will consider the distance, costs and CO2 emission.
This will show that our scenarios which propose ship transportation as alternative mode to solve
the traffic problem and CO2 emission. An economic consideration of the alternative options is
not a simple matter but an effort should be made to come up with solutions.

50

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Appendix A: Bibliography
1.

[CDW] City Duisburg department of waste management [Amt fur Wasser-und Kreislaufwirtschaft].

2.

[RCJN CESD 2010]

Rhoma F.; Chinakupt T.; Jawale M. Noche, B.; Optimization Environmental

&Network Design for Solid Waste Management Supply Chain Modelling Approach and Algorithm Case
Study City Duisburg. CESD 2010 Singapore.
3.

[A 1992] Alidi, A.S., 1992. An Integer Goal Programming Model for Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal. Appl. Math. Modelling Vol. 16, 645-651.

4.

[AMK 2001]Amouzegar, M.A., Moshirvaziri, K., 2001. Strategic management decision support system: An
analysis of the environmental policy issues. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 6, 297-306.

5.

[BES 2006]Badran, M.F. and El-Haggar, S.M., 2006. Optimization of Municipal Solid Waste Management
in Port Said - Egypt. Waste Management 26, 534-545.

6.

[BRSW 1996]Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Salomon, M., Wassenhove, L.N.V., 1996. The Capacitated Distribution and Waste Disposal Problem. European Journal of Operational Research 88, 490-503.

7.

[CCP 1993]Caruso, C., Colorni, A., Paruccini, M., 1993. The regional urban solid waste management system: A modelling approach. European Journal of Operational Research 70, 16-30.

8.

[CC 1998]Chang, Y.H., Chang, N.B., 1998. Optimization Analysis for the Development of Shortterm Solid
Waste Management Strategies using Presorting Process prior to Incinerators. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 24, 7-32.

9.

[CDDB 2005]Chang, N.B., Davila, E., Dyson, B., Brown, B., 2005. Optimal Design for Sustainable Development of Material Recovery Facility in a Fast-Growing Urban Setting. Waste Management. Article in
Press.

10. [EN 1989]Erkut and Neuman , 1989; Analytical models for locating undesirable facilities . E. Journal of
Operational research vol.40; 275-291
11. [Es 1973]Esmaili 1973 facility selection and haul optimization model. J. of the sanitary Engineering Division, 1005-1021
12. [CSS 1996]Chang, N.B., Shoemaker, C.A., Schuler, R.E., 1996. Solid Waste Management System Analysis with Air Pollution and Leachate Impact Limitations. Waste Management & Research 14, 463-481.
13. [CYW 1996]Chang, N.B., Yang, Y.C., Wang, S.F., 1996. Solid-Waste Management System Analysis with
Noise Control and Traffic Congestion Limitations. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 2,
122-131.
14. [CMRS 2004]Costi, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M., Rovatti, M., Sacile, R., 2004. An environmentally sustainable decision model for urban solid waste management .Waste Management 24, 277-295.
15. [K 1987]Kaila , J. 1987 Mathematical Model for Strategy Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste management system Ph,D Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.

51

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

16. [CW 1996]Chang, N.B.,Wang, S.F., 1996. Solid Waste Management System Analysis by Multi objective
Mixed Integer Programming Model. Journal of Environmental Management 48, 17-43.
17. [CW 1997]Chang, N.B., Wang, S.F., 1997. A Fuzzy Goal Programming Approach for the Optimal Planning of Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Systems. European Journal of Operational Research 99,
303-321.
18. [DBP 1998]Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., Probert, S.D., 1998. An Integrated Approach to Solid Waste Management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24, 33-50.
19. [DC 2005]Davila, E and Chang, N.B., 2005. Sustainable pattern analysis of a publicly owned material recovery facility in a fast-growing urban setting under uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Management
75, 337-251.
20. [EM 1996]Everett, J.W., Modak, A.R., 1996. Optimal Regional Scheduling of Solid Waste Systems. I:
Model Development. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 9, 785-792.
21. [FMRS 2003]Fiorucci, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M., Sacile, R., 2003. Solid waste management in urban
areas development and application of a decision support system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
37, 301-328.
22. [Go 1986]Gottinger, H.W., 1986. A Computational Model for Solid Waste Management with Applications.
Appl. Math. Modelling, Vol. 10, 330-338.
23. [Go 1986]Gottinger, H.W., 1988. A Computational Model for Solid Waste Management with Applications.
European Journal of Operational Research 35, 350-364.
24. [HC 1971]Helms and Clark 1971 Location models for solid waste management. Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division, 1-13.
25. [EWC 2002] European Waste Catalogue and Hazard Waste List 2002.
26. [CPE 2007] Supply Chain management Chopra Chapter 3, 2007.
27. [CPE 2007] Supply Chain management Chopra Chapter 3, 2007.
28. [EPA WTS] Environment Protection Agency Waste Transfer station: A manual for decision making.
29. [VVBW] Verkehrswirtschaftlicher und kologischer Vergleich der Verkehrstrger Strae, Bahn und Wasserstrae.

52

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Appendix B: Basic Input Data


Table 14: Division of City-Duisburg (region wise)
Region

Code

WALSUM

Region

Code

Untermeiderich

S16

Region

Code

RHEINHAUSEN

Vierlinden

S1

Mittelmeiderich

S17

Rheinhausen-Mitte

S32

Overbruch

S2

Obermeiderich

S18

Hochemmerich

S33

Alt-Walsum

S3

HOMBERG-RUHRORT-BAERL

Bergheim

S34

Aldenrade

S4

Ruhrort

S19

Friemersheim

S35

Wehofen

S5

Alt-Homberg

S20

Rumeln-Kaldenhausen

S36

Hochheide

S21

Baerl

S22

HAMBORN
Fahrn

S6

Rttgersbach

S7

Marxloh

S8

Altstadt

Obermarxloh

S9

Neumhl
AIt-Hamborn

SD
Bissingheim

S37

Wedau

S38

S23

Buchholz

s39

Neuenkamp

S24

Wanheim-Angerhausen

S40

S10

Kalerfeld

S25

Groenbaum

S41

S11

Duissern

S26

Rahm

S42

MEIDERICH-BEECK

Neudorf-Nord

S27

Huckingen

S43

Bruckhausen

S12

Neudorf-Sd

s28

Httenheim

S44

Beeck

S13

Dellviertel

S29

Ungelsheim

S45

Beeckerwerth

S14

Hochfeld

S30

Mndelheim

S46

Laar

S15

Wanheimerort

S31

MITTE

Table 15: Location of Garages, Transfer-station and Ports


GARAGES
G1

Schlachthofstrae 8, 47167 Duisburg

G2

Zur Kupferhtte 10, 47053 Duisburg

TRANSFER STATIONS
TS1

Kaiserswerther str 210-212 , 47259 Duisburg-Huckingen

TS3

Schlachthofstrae 8, 47167 Duisburg

TS2

Schauenstr. 40 ,47228 Duisburg-Rheinhausen

TS4

Zur Kupferhtte 10, 47053 Duisburg

H2

Logport, Bliersheimer Strae 80, 47229 Duisburg,

PORTS
H1

Hafenstrae 47179 Duisburg, Germany

53

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 16: Waste handling treatment plants


WASTE HANDLING TREATMENT PLANTS
Paper Recycling

Buschhausener str.1, 46049 Oberhausen

Kompst Treatment Plant

Buschhausener str.144, 46049 Oberhausen

Gelbe waste treatment Plant

Zur Kupferhtte 10, 47053 Duisburg

Incineration Plant (restmll)

Buschhausener str.135, 46049 Oberhausen

Table 17: Charges for transportation and other services


Cost for collection Vehicle euro/Km

CT

/km

20

Cost for big collection vehicle in euro/Km

BCT

/km

Cost for using transfer station euro/ton

TS

/ton

25

Cost for dispose waste for paper

CM

/ton

80

Cost for dispose waste for compost bio-tonne

CK

/ton

90

Cost for dispose waste for gelbe

CN

/ton

100

Cost for dispose waste for restmll at incineration plant

CO

/ton

150

Cost for dispose waste for landfill

CL

/ton

150

Cost for transportation by ship

HCT

/km

Cost for using Port as transfer station /ton

HFS

/ton

25

Table 18: CO2 emissions for vehicles


CO2 emissions

Full load

Empty load

Truck (kg/km)

0.83959

0.671672

Ship (kg/ton.km)

0.0334

54

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 19: Waste quantity generated in each area (tons per two weeks)
PAPER

BIO

GELBE

RESTMLL

PAPER

BIO

GELBE

RESTMLL

S1

21.61

38.57

131.40

11.16

S23

13.55

24.19

82.40

7.00

S2

8.86

15.82

53.89

4.58

S24

8.52

15.20

51.80

4.40

S3

6.95

12.40

42.24

3.59

S25

5.80

10.35

35.27

3.00

S4

24.42

43.60

148.53

12.62

S26

25.62

45.74

155.81

13.24

S5

12.41

22.15

75.46

6.41

S27

23.95

42.77

145.67

12.38

s28

22.69

40.51

137.99

11.72

MITTE

AREA

12.23

21.84

74.40

6.32

S29

24.00

42.86

145.98

12.40

S7

21.08

37.64

128.22

10.89

S30

25.68

45.85

156.17

13.27

S8

28.18

50.31

171.37

14.56

S31

32.10

57.32

195.24

16.59

S9

21.82

38.96

132.71

11.27

S10

28.79

51.40

175.09

14.88

S32

15.45

27.59

93.98

7.98

S11

18.32

32.70

111.39

9.46

S33

28.81

51.43

175.19

14.88

S34

35.83

63.97

217.90

18.51

S35

21.44

38.29

130.41

11.08

S36

30.11

53.75

183.09

15.56

RHEINHAUSEN

S6

S12

9.05

16.15

55.03

4.68

S13

18.58

33.17

112.98

9.60

S14

6.12

10.92

37.22

3.16

S15

10.43

18.63

63.46

5.39

S37

5.72

10.21

34.81

2.96

S16

17.27

30.82

105.00

8.92

S38

9.38

16.75

57.06

4.85

S17

30.92

55.21

188.04

15.98

s39

25.23

45.04

153.42

13.03

S18

30.53

54.51

185.69

15.78

S40

19.66

35.10

119.58

10.16

S41

17.70

31.59

107.61

9.14

BAERL

RUHRORT-

HOMBERG-

SD

MEIDERICH-BEECK

HAMBORN

WALSUM

AREA

S19

9.04

16.14

54.97

4.67

S42

10.20

18.21

62.03

5.27

S20

25.92

46.27

157.62

13.39

S43

16.49

29.44

100.27

8.52

S21

26.15

46.69

159.05

13.51

S44

6.01

10.73

36.57

3.11

S22

8.64

15.42

52.54

4.46

S45

5.85

10.44

35.57

3.02

S46

12.33

22.02

75.00

6.37

55

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 20: Distance between waste generation source and Garage, Transfer-stations (km).
Area

G1

G2

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

Area

G1

G2

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

S1

8.9

18.6

23.90

25.00

8.90

18.60

S24

13.4

3.9

11.70

8.30

13.40

3.90

S2

8.7

19

24.30

25.40

8.70

19.00

S25

12.3

10.20

9.60

12.30

3.00

S3

9.7

20.4

25.80

26.90

9.70

20.40

S26

12.8

5.5

10.10

9.40

12.80

5.50

S4

5.2

15.6

21.00

22.10

5.20

15.60

S27

12.8

9.70

7.80

12.80

4.00

S5

4.6

15.3

20.60

21.70

4.60

15.30

s28

11.9

3.1

8.80

7.00

11.90

3.10

S6

4.2

13.8

19.10

20.30

4.20

13.80

S29

11.6

2.4

9.00

10.00

11.60

2.40

S7

2.1

13.7

19.00

20.10

2.10

13.70

S30

13.3

1.7

5.80

4.80

13.30

1.70

S8

2.2

12.4

17.80

18.90

2.20

12.40

S31

13.8

4.3

4.80

8.20

13.80

4.30

S9

1.9

13.1

18.40

19.50

1.90

13.10

S32

18

4.8

10.30

3.60

18.00

4.80

S10

1.4

11.8

17.10

18.30

1.40

11.80

S33

15.9

2.8

8.30

2.10

15.90

2.80

S11

1.8

12.1

17.50

18.60

1.80

12.10

S34

19

5.7

11.10

1.20

19.00

5.70

S12

3.6

10.8

16.10

11.60

3.60

10.80

S35

19.8

6.5

14.40

5.10

19.80

6.50

S13

5.4

8.2

18.00

10.30

5.40

8.20

S36

24.3

8.4

14.30

5.10

24.30

8.40

S14

7.7

10.8

20.30

10.60

7.70

10.80

S37

16.4

6.6

6.60

10.40

16.40

6.60

S15

7.2

6.7

16.70

8.80

7.20

6.70

S38

15.5

5.9

4.60

9.70

15.50

5.90

S16

7.1

8.6

13.90

15.00

7.10

8.60

s39

16.4

7.9

2.10

10.30

16.40

7.90

S17

7.3

7.6

12.90

14.10

7.30

7.60

S40

16.9

1.60

8.70

16.90

5.00

S18

5.6

11.9

17.60

18.40

5.60

11.90

S41

18.9

10.9

4.60

21.00

18.90

10.90

S19

9.4

5.3

15.30

7.20

9.40

5.30

S42

21.7

14.1

6.30

23.80

21.70

14.10

S20

11.4

7.3

17.40

5.20

11.40

7.30

S43

21.9

6.8

1.70

11.30

21.90

6.80

S21

13.1

19.60

5.90

13.10

9.00

S44

19.1

6.9

0.90

10.70

19.10

6.90

S22

13.3

12

23.90

10.20

13.30

12.00

S45

22.7

9.1

2.30

12.80

22.70

9.10

S23

10.3

2.4

9.70

10.00

10.30

2.40

S46

24.9

11.1

5.20

14.90

24.90

11.10

56

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

INCIN-

ERATION

GELBE

BIO

PAPER

PORT 2

Area

PORT 1

INCIN-

ERATION

GELBE

BIO

PAPER

PORT 2

Area

PORT 1

Table 21: Distance between waste generation source and ports, waste handling plants (km)

S1

3.30

23.40

15.40

15.40

18.60

16.60

S24

13.20

7.80

15.70

15.70

4.00

15.10

S2

3.90

23.80

15.80

15.80

19.00

16.50

S25

11.80

6.70

14.60

14.60

3.00

14.00

S3

3.30

19.90

17.30

17.30

20.40

17.30

S26

13.00

8.20

12.20

12.20

5.50

8.20

S4

2.30

17.70

12.50

12.50

15.60

13.40

S27

13.90

7.30

15.00

15.00

4.00

10.20

S5

4.30

19.10

12.10

12.10

15.30

13.30

s28

13.80

6.50

14.10

14.10

3.10

12.70

S6

1.70

16.90

10.70

10.70

13.80

11.50

S29

13.30

6.10

13.90

13.90

2.40

13.70

S7

5.10

17.40

8.01

8.01

13.70

11.70

S30

14.10

4.30

15.50

15.50

1.00

14.20

S8

3.70

15.30

9.30

9.30

12.40

9.40

S31

15.90

7.30

16.10

16.10

4.30

14.90

S9

5.80

15.70

6.40

6.40

11.80

7.50

S32

18.10

1.90

20.20

20.20

4.80

20.90

S10

6.70

14.80

5.20

5.20

11.80

7.50

S33

16.40

2.40

18.20

18.20

2.70

17.50

S11

5.50

14.40

6.50

6.50

12.10

7.50

S34

16.60

4.10

20.60

20.60

5.50

20.10

S12

5.40

13.30

10.20

10.20

10.80

10.70

S35

19.90

2.70

21.40

21.40

6.60

22.70

S13

6.50

12.10

9.40

9.40

8.20

10.00

S36

20.20

6.60

26.00

26.00

10.60

23.80

S14

8.80

12.80

11.70

11.70

10.80

12.30

S37

17.30

9.80

12.90

12.90

6.60

13.90

S15

8.00

10.50

10.90

10.90

6.70

11.90

S38

17.50

9.10

13.80

13.80

5.90

14.80

S16

7.60

11.30

9.30

9.30

8.60

9.50

s39

18.50

9.10

19.20

19.20

6.50

16.70

S17

9.10

11.50

7.60

7.60

7.60

6.10

S40

18.30

8.20

19.70

19.70

5.00

17.90

S18

8.50

13.30

5.00

5.00

11.90

4.00

S41

20.50

11.90

21.70

21.70

10.90

19.50

S19

9.30

9.20

11.60

11.60

5.30

11.80

S42

22.10

13.30

24.50

24.50

13.70

23.90

S20

11.10

7.80

13.60

13.60

7.30

13.80

S43

20.30

10.80

24.60

24.60

7.50

18.80

S21

12.60

8.70

15.20

15.20

9.00

18.70

S44

20.00

10.00

21.90

21.90

6.90

20.10

S22

8.30

13.30

15.30

15.30

12.00

16.30

S45

22.00

12.00

25.50

25.50

9.10

23.70

S23

12.40

6.30

12.60

12.60

2.40

13.30

S46

24.20

12.90

27.70

27.70

11.10

25.90

57

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Appendix C: Output Data


Scenario1
Table 22: Waste allocation for Scenario 1
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46

Paper
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Kompost
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Gelbe
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Restmll
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

58

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 23: Distance, transportation cost and total cost for Scenario 1

paper

kompost

gelbe

restmull

total

Total distance

km

3287.94

5696.57

1007.7

18145.1

28137.31

distance with
full load

km

1549.93

2703.15

467.1

8982.4

13702.58

empty trip
distance

km

1738.01

2993.42

540.6

9162.7

14434.73

Transportation Cost
Transportation
cost

2514723.821

Cost from
model

4112110

Total cost

4431803.2

59

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Scenario 2
Table 24: Waste allocation for Scenario 2
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46

Paper
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TS4
TS4
D
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1

Kompost
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
TS4
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1

Gelbe
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
D
D
D
D
D
TS3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Restmll
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
D
TS3
D
TS3
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
D
D
TS4
TS2
TS2
TS2
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS2
TS4
TS2
TS4
TS4
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1

D: Direct to waste handling

60

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 25: Waste distribution for Scenario 2

PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMULL

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

690.0506345

TS2

770.1969625

TS3

425.7138654

126.1979617

1055.635315

TS4

363.6312241

576.6391746

1866.408115

WH

362.3715087

293.9516133

307.5208383

722.8249734

Table 26: Distance, transportation cost and Total cost for Scenario 2
PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMULL

TOTAL

Total distance

km

1960.53

3353.5

750.1

9882.7

15946.83

Distance with
full load

km

811.42

1531.1

365.2

4545.1

7252.82

km

1149.11

1822.4

384.9

5337.6

8694.01

Empty trip
distance

TRANSPORTATION COST
transportation
cost full load

165086.8178

271157.3453

60155.70326

811132.3067

1307532.173

transportation
cost empty trip

19659.4

29543.7

7022

85095.3

141320.4

184746.2178

300701.0453

67177.70326

896227.6067

1448852.573

total transportation cost


Cost from
Model

3263893

Total cost

3405213.4

61

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Scenario 3
Table 27: Waste allocation for Scenario 3
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46

Paper
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
TS4
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1

Kompost
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
D
D
D
TS3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS2
TS2
TS2
TS2
TS2
D
D
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1

Gelbe
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TS4

Restmll
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
D
D
D
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
D
D
D
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF2
HF1
HF1
HF1
D
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1

D: Direct to waste handling

62

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 28: Waste distribution for Scenario 3


PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMLL

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

H1

1146.739934

TS2

293.8679043

H2

2904.650912

TS3

330

126.1979617

TS4

363.6312241

330

WH

362.3715087

342.4367491

307.5208383

WH

1053.725154

Table 29: Distances, transportation cost and Total cost for Scenario 3
PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMULL

TOTAL

total distance

km

2120.24

3353.5

750.1

9882.7

16106.54

distance

with

km

811.42

1531.1

365.2

4545.1

7252.82

empty trip distance

km

1149.11

1822.4

396

5337.6

8705.11

full load

transportation cost
transportation
cost full load

165086.8178

271157.3453

60155.70326

811132.3067

1307532.173

transportation

19659.4

29543.7

7022

85095.3

141320.4

total transportation cost

184746.2178

300701.0453

67177.70326

896227.6067

1448852.573

Cost
Model

cost empty trip

Total cost

from

3391256
3532576.4

63

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Scenario 4
Table 30: Waste Allocation for Scenario 4
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46

Paper
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
TS4
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1

Kompost
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
TS3
D
D
D
TS3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
D
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS4
TS2
TS2
TS2
TS2
TS2
D
D
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1
TS1

Gelbe
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Restmll
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
TS3
HF1
TS3
TS3
TS3
HF1
HF1
HF1
HF1
D
D
D
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF1
HF2
HF2
HF2
D
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2
HF2

D: Direct to waste handling

64

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 31: Waste distribution for Scenario 4


PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMULL

TOTAL

total distance

km

2165.74

2706.6

750.1

8504.472

14126.912

distance with
full load

km

971.13

905.7

365.2

3832.586

6074.616

empty trip distance

km

1194.61

1800.9

384.9

4671.886

8052.296

transportation cost
transportation
cost full load

165086.8178

266735.4876

60155.70326

846835.7268

1338813.735

transportation
cost empty trip

20569.4

28398.7

7022

84706.986

140697.086

185656.2178

295134.1876

67177.70326

931542.7128

1479510.821

total transportation cost


Cost from
Model

Total cost

3368662
4300204.713

Table 32: Distances, transportation cost and Total cost for Scenario 4
PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMLL

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

HF1

792.1135449

TS2

293.8679043

HF2

1671.471173

TS3

330

126.1979617

TS3

773.8162146

TS4

363.6312241

330

TS4

1233.179739

WH

362.3715087

342.4367491

307.5208383

634.5353281

Table 33: CO2 emissions


CO2 EMISSION
Kg

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

full load

11504.54914

6089.395144

13608.4961

8348.667799

empty load

9695.403969

5839.523085

5709.156923

5383.043642

total

21199.95311

11928.91823

19317.65302

13731.71144

65

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Scenario 5:
Table 34: Direct transportation to the Incineration plant (quantity, distance and total cost)
Source

Q(ton)

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46

131.3989597
53.88664298
42.24471526
148.5300865
75.46140713
74.39573845
128.2220606
171.3715889
132.7059118
175.0913758
111.3925381
55.03273949
112.9809877
37.21797618
63.4575542
104.998526
188.0402557
185.6877418
54.97241862
157.6184307
159.0460246
52.53947691
82.39830707
51.79551952
35.26760141
155.8088047
145.6748987
137.9940413
145.976503
156.1707299
195.238546
93.97991392
175.1919106
217.8990858
130.4137188
183.0939444
34.80514142
57.06354208
153.4160768
119.5760693
107.6124303
62.0299603
100.2733913
36.57455358
35.56920576
74.99894714

d(km)betn Ob and
source
16.60
16.50
17.30
13.40
13.30
11.50
11.70
9.40
7.50
7.50
7.50
10.70
10.00
12.30
11.90
9.50
6.10
4.00
11.80
13.80
18.70
16.30
13.30
15.10
14.00
8.20
10.20
12.70
13.70
14.20
14.90
20.90
17.50
20.10
22.70
23.80
13.90
14.80
16.70
17.90
19.50
23.90
18.80
20.10
23.70
25.90

d (km)
total
265.6
115.5
86.5
254.6
119.7
103.5
187.2
197.4
127.5
165
105
74.9
140
61.5
95.2
123.5
146.4
92
82.6
276
374
114.1
133
90.6
56
155.8
183.6
215.9
246.6
284
357.6
250.8
385
542.7
363.2
547.4
55.6
103.6
317.3
268.5
253.5
191.2
244.4
100.5
94.8
233.1

transportation
cost
43624.45461
17782.59218
14616.67148
39806.06317
20072.7343
17111.01984
30003.96217
32217.85871
19905.88677
26263.70637
16708.88072
11777.00625
22596.19753
9155.62214
15102.8979
19949.71994
22940.91119
14855.01934
12973.4908
43502.68688
59483.21321
17127.86947
21917.94968
15642.2469
9874.928396
25552.64396
29717.67933
35050.4865
39997.56182
44352.48728
58181.08672
39283.60402
61317.1687
87595.4325
59207.82834
87152.71754
9675.829314
16890.80846
51240.96967
42808.23282
41968.84782
29650.32102
37702.79511
14702.97054
16859.80353
38849.45462

/ton.km

ton/km

1.25
2.857142857
4
1.052631579
2.222222222
2.222222222
1.25
0.952380952
1.176470588
0.909090909
1.428571429
2.857142857
1.428571429
4
2.5
1.538461538
0.833333333
0.869565217
2.857142857
1
1
2.857142857
2
3.333333333
5
1.052631579
1.111111111
1.176470588
1.111111111
1
0.833333333
1.666666667
0.909090909
0.740740741
1.25
0.869565217
5
2.857142857
1.052631579
1.333333333
1.538461538
2.5
1.538461538
4
5
2.222222222

0.494724999
0.466551021
0.488378211
0.583386043
0.630421112
0.718799405
0.684946905
0.868143814
1.040830681
1.061159853
1.060881315
0.734749526
0.807007055
0.605170344
0.666570947
0.850190494
1.284427976
2.018345019
0.665525649
0.571081271
0.42525675
0.460468685
0.619536143
0.571694476
0.629778597
1.000056513
0.793436267
0.639157209
0.591956622
0.549896936
0.545969088
0.37472055
0.455043924
0.401509279
0.359068609
0.334479255
0.625991752
0.550806391
0.483504812
0.445348489
0.424506628
0.324424479
0.410283925
0.363925906
0.375202592
0.321745805

66

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 35: Transportation to the Incineration plant through Transfer stations (quantity, distance and total cost)
Source

Q (ton)

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46

131.3989597
53.88664298
42.24471526
148.5300865
75.46140713
74.39573845
128.2220606
171.3715889
132.7059118
175.0913758
111.3925381
55.03273949
112.9809877
37.21797618
63.4575542
104.998526
188.0402557
185.6877418
54.97241862
157.6184307
159.0460246
52.53947691
82.39830707
51.79551952
35.26760141
155.8088047
145.6748987
137.9940413
145.976503
156.1707299
195.238546
93.97991392
175.1919106
217.8990858
130.4137188
183.0939444
34.80514142
57.06354208
153.4160768
119.5760693
107.6124303
62.0299603
100.2733913
36.57455358
35.56920576
74.99894714

totaldistance km
168
73.7
54.9
130.8
60.6
50.6
59.2
84.6
57.9
69.2
50.8
38
101.2
44.9
70.4
111.5
146.4
92
58.9
200.5
234.5
105.9
56.7
45.2
22.9
155.8
126.5
107.2
97.7
88.5
179.5
90.3
127
230.2
147.6
258.6
37.3
63.1
204.6
118.6
185.3
134.6
121.1
45.4
47.3
121.7

total cost
transport
29275.68821
11790.39748
10088.038
22101.27687
10323.1205
9582.171112
11129.67486
15217.79709
10988.0495
12746.65216
9000.517079
6427.823973
17263.49491
7398.933664
11980.78623
19613.72466
22940.91119
14855.01934
10021.47192
35038.57715
40763.49611
16329.26942
10242.10957
7992.048662
4806.974073
25552.64396
22768.98666
19084.57592
18144.87932
17225.6315
31687.21602
16192.73917
23177.88977
41466.19603
26904.35019
44729.85062
7249.910958
11087.44623
35945.38681
21081.26102
31670.33824
22225.33478
21288.04096
7837.926831
9187.525848
22372.18593

/km.ton

ton/km

1.564606742
3.592775041
4.92371134
1.506072874
3.304347826
3.407407407
2.583333333
1.922077922
2.563467492
2.363636364
3.206349206
4.634920635
2.021164021
5.163636364
3.277777778
2.02383532
0.833333333
0.869565217
4.913746631
1.52260274
1.423888889
3.338345865
5.179166667
6.594017094
11.35833333
1.052631579
2.170833333
2.624288425
2.877314815
3.244117647
1.572674419
2.991319444
2.147727273
1.236517219
1.983653846
1.264492754
7.890151515
4.704600484
1.56095936
2.350666667
2.076923077
3.17641844
2.40158371
6.211594203
7.096153846
2.985985986

0.922745503
0.884838144
0.871025057
1.503340956
1.822739303
1.968141229
3.816132755
3.70934175
4.108542162
5.684784928
4.420338814
2.183838869
1.494457509
0.96670068
1.101693649
1.13757883
1.284427976
2.018345019
1.481736351
1.079578293
0.883589026
0.564333801
3.433262795
2.21348374
2.938966785
1.000056513
2.023262481
2.618482758
3.379085718
4.593256761
1.891846376
1.631595728
2.844024522
1.415848511
1.253978065
0.947691224
1.318376569
1.381683828
1.022092451
1.594347591
0.759438464
0.549910996
1.134314381
1.060131988
0.977175982
0.750740212

67

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items

Table 36: Transportation to the Incineration plant through Port (quantity, distance and total cost)
Source

Q (ton)

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46

131.3989597
53.88664298
42.24471526
148.5300865
75.46140713
74.39573845
128.2220606
171.3715889
132.7059118
175.0913758
111.3925381
55.03273949
112.9809877
37.21797618
63.4575542
104.998526
188.0402557
185.6877418
54.97241862
157.6184307
159.0460246
52.53947691
82.39830707
51.79551952
35.26760141
155.8088047
145.6748987
137.9940413
145.976503
156.1707299
195.238546
93.97991392
175.1919106
217.8990858
130.4137188
183.0939444
34.80514142
57.06354208
153.4160768
119.5760693
107.6124303
62.0299603
100.2733913
36.57455358
35.56920576
74.99894714

total-distance
km
52.8
27.3
16.5
43.7
38.7
15.3
81.6
77.7
98.6
165
77
37.8
91
44
64
98.8
146.4
92
64.4
156
174
58.1
63
46.8
26.8
155.8
131.4
110.5
109.8
86
175.2
22.8
52.8
110.7
43.2
151.8
39.2
63.7
172.9
123
154.7
106.4
140.4
50
48
116.1

total cost
transport
11492.15301
5359.565511
3694.722797
10019.83963
8109.08281
4125.987654
15830.2956
16359.13187
18241.75464
26263.70637
14643.66306
7124.538455
17112.10039
7349.061576
11515.00778
18213.04432
22940.91119
14855.01934
11127.51698
27491.80669
30603.63606
9849.050341
11899.96351
9034.174515
5375.487808
25552.64396
23951.86684
20481.07562
20498.02055
16307.34761
32101.12174
5302.346743
11636.2467
21881.4262
9444.561516
27540.99112
7462.918423
11436.6751
30747.65012
21813.06657
27593.97938
17642.56131
23506.08838
7988.613992
9191.794152
20731.20897

/km.ton

ton/km

1.656439394
3.643223443
5.300606061
1.543707094
2.776744186
3.624836601
1.512990196
1.228571429
1.394117647
0.909090909
1.707272727
3.424867725
1.664395604
4.487727273
2.8353125
1.755668016
0.833333333
0.869565217
3.143167702
1.118076923
1.105862069
3.226506024
2.292380952
3.726923077
5.687313433
1.052631579
1.25129376
1.343167421
1.278870674
1.214186047
0.93847032
2.474561404
1.257954545
0.907136405
1.676388889
0.990909091
5.469897959
3.146310832
1.159167149
1.483089431
1.657530705
2.673120301
1.66965812
4.3684
5.38375
2.380878553

2.48861666
1.973869706
2.560285774
3.398857814
1.949907161
4.862466565
1.571348781
2.205554554
1.345901743
1.061159853
1.446656339
1.455892579
1.241549315
0.845863095
0.991524284
1.062738117
1.284427976
2.018345019
0.853608985
1.010374556
0.914057613
0.904293923
1.307909636
1.10674187
1.315955277
1.000056513
1.108636976
1.248814854
1.329476348
1.815938719
1.114375263
4.121926049
3.318028609
1.968374759
3.018836083
1.206152466
0.887886261
0.895816987
0.887311029
0.972163165
0.695620105
0.582988349
0.714197943
0.731491072
0.74102512
0.645985763

68

S-ar putea să vă placă și