Sie sind auf Seite 1von 76
Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items Master Thesis

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

tul

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

Fakultät für Ingenieurwissenschaften

Abteilung Maschinenbau

Transportsysteme und -logistik

Lotharstraße 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

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 produc-

tive 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 explo-

rations have been very helpful for this thesis. Mr. Rhoma’s essential assistance in reviewing the

thesis accompanied with detailed review and excellent advices during the preparation have pro-

vided a good basis for the presentation of the thesis.

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

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 op- timal 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.

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

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

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 5.5 Emissions

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

6

Case study - City Duisburg

24

6.1

Mathematical formulation

26

7

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

33

7.4

Scenario 4: Waste transportation by port and transfer

35

7.5

Scenario 5:

37

8

Results and Analysis

38

9

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

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

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

49

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction 1.1 Thesis Objective This thesis will focus on the allocation of waste supply

1

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 the- sis. 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 trans- portation 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 allo- cation 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 today’s trash into tomorrow’s 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. There- fore, 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

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 competi- tive 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 Manage- ment 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 collec- tion, 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 adminis- trative staff. Various universities have Waste Management faculties, and there is a separate vo- cational 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 mil- lion 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, that’s nearly equivalent to the weight of four small cars. These figures provide impressive proof that environmental protection has developed into a key eco- nomic factor, making a significant contribution to an economy’s 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”, treat- ment, recycling and landfill location problem. There is a significant amount of literature on un- desirable 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 col-

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

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 consider- able 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 collec- tion 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 con- servation concerns, the current research in SWM is now guided by the aim of designing com- prehensive models that take into account multi-disciplinary aspects involving economic, techni- cal, 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 program- ming, grey programming, fuzzy programming, quadratic programming, and stochastic pro- gramming, two stage programming, and interval-parameter programming, geographic informa- tion 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 activi- ties.

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 collec- tion 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 uncer- tainty, 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 alloca- tion 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 inte- ger 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 considera- tion 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

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

2 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 sub- stance 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.”

be presum ed to be waste until the contrary is proved.” Figure 1: Waste Flow The

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.

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

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

Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items Figure 2: Hazardous waste flow chart

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 sub- chapters. This sub-division varies: chapter 9, for example, contains only one sub-chapter, chap- ter 10 on the other hand is further divided into 14 sub-chapters.

on the other hand is further divided into 14 sub-chapters. Figure 3 Coding System A six-digit

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 sub-

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

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 accor- dance with No.3 of the introduction to the Commission’s decision 2001/118/EC as fol- lows (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 identi- fied 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

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

Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items Figure 4 Flow diagrams to identify

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.

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 12 Wastes

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 de- scribed 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

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

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

Restmüll

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

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

3 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, distribu- tion 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 se- lecting 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].

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 3.2 The

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 trans- portation-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 chain’s performance because it

is very expensive to shut down a facility or move it to a different location. A good location deci-

sion 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 re-

sponsiveness 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 perform- ance because it affects total production, inventory and transportation costs incurred by the sup- ply chain to satisfy customer demand.

Network design decisions are also very important when two companies merge. Due to the re- dundancies 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 im- prove 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 firm’s 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

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

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 infra- structure at these locations. Key infrastructure elements to be considered during network design include availability of sites, labour availability, proximity to transportation terminals, rail ser- vice, 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, transpor- tation, 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 proc- essing, 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

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

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 firm’s profits while satisfying customer needs in terms of demand and respon- siveness. To design an effective network manager must consider the entire factor. Global net- work design decisions are made in four phases as shown in figure. Each phase is described in greater detail.

Competitive Strategy Phase I Global Competition Supply chain strategy Internal Constraints Capital, growth strategy,
Competitive Strategy
Phase I
Global Competition
Supply chain strategy
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 sig- nificant role in reducing costs given available production technologies. If economies of scale or

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

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 econo- mies of scale or scope are not significant, it may be better for each market to have its own facil- ity. 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 pro- duction, 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 competitor’s 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 facil- ity. 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 manager’s 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 fa- cilities, labour, transportation, material, and inventories. The profits of the firm are also im- pacted 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 cur- rent demand to the availability facilities and identify lanes along which product will be trans- ported. 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

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 5. Transportation

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 ac- count 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 net- work, 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].

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

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

4 Transfer Stations

Waste transfer stations play an important role in a community’s total waste management system, serving as the link between community’s solid waste collection program and a final waste dis- posal facility. While facility ownership, sizes, and services offered vary significantly among transfer stations, they all serve the same basic purpose—consolidating waste from multiple col- lection 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 site—typically 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 sta- tion. 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 pe- riodically 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 sta- tions because they cannot readily handle the large volume of waste that is discharged by a self- unloading collection truck. While these sites are not considered transfer stations within the con- text 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 recyc- lables drop-off accommodations on the same site as their transfer stations. Source reduction and recycling also play an integral role in a community’s total waste management system. These two activities can significantly reduce the weight and volume of waste materials requiring dis- posal, which reduces transportation, landfill, and incinerator costs. Source reduction consists of reducing waste at the source by changing product design, manufacturing processes, and pur- chasing and sales practices to reduce the quantity or toxicity of materials before they reach the waste stream. Recycling—the collection, processing, and manufacture of new products— likewise diverts materials from the landfill or incinerator. These recyclable materials are pre-

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

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].

transfer stations can meet its needs [EPA WTM 2002]. Figure 6: Comparison between Transfer station concept

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 suitabili- ty 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 func- tions 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 community’s 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].

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 4.3 Determining

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 facility’s 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 collec- tion 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 recov- ery 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?

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 4.5 Basic

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 sophisti- cated equipment (e.g., compactor or baler). Its flexibility makes it the preferred option for low- volume operations [EPA WTM 2002].

This section describes transfer station operations issues and suggests operational practices in- tended to minimize the facility’s 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.

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

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

5 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 pecu- liar case for consideration of intermodal due to it geography and the infrastructure. Well net- worked 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 giv- en 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) con- tainer 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 in- creases in freight transport is expected. Strong growth particularly in international traffic is ex- pected. 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].

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 5.2 Energy

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.

which are having a considerably low fuel consumption. Figure 7: Actual calculations of energy consumption (mega

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 trans- port, the results are clear. In all cases, use of energy in the inland shipping per container signifi- cantly 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 ship-

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

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].

by barges have caused no significant noise costs [VVBW]. Figure 8: Comparision for Noise cost (cent

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.

shipping proves advantageo us when comes to emissions. Figure 9: Comparision of emissions (cents per ton-km)

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

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

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].

exert a positive influence on regional development [VVBW]. Figure 10: Transportation Cost (€ per ton) for

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%).

are in all cases lower than the train (on average 30%). Figure 11: Transportation Cost (€

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

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

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

6 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, Germany’s industrial heartland. With its 31 power stations, this area is also Germany’s 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 country’s most densely populated cities. With the total number of residential in the City Duisburg were 78775. While the Federal Republic’s average population density is 222 inhabitants/km2 and Nord-Rhine Westphalia’s 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 indus- tries of primary importance, but the micro-electronics sector is rapidly becoming more impor- tant. 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 di- vided 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

 

post

   

Household waste [Mg/ Week]

Name Regions

code

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

SÜD

47273

73784

35413

385,82697

381,11751

DUISBURG

 

500914

243387

2619,35014

2619,35014

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

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 quanti- ties, 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 rout- ing problem , for transportation purposes the waste generated in each of the 46 districts is con- sidered 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.

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

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 man- agement 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:

transportation and operation costs. Objective function: Subjected to X {0,1} (7) (8) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Subjected to

X {0,1} (7) (8)
X
{0,1}
(7)
(8)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

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={1,2,3,4…N};

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) ansferred to transfer facility j (per 2 week)

= units of waste collected from source i and transferred to treatment facility k (per 2 week) sferred to treatment facility k (per 2 week)

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

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) 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) ansferred to port facility h (per 2 week)

= units of waste collected from port facility h and transferred to treatment facility k (per 2 week) d 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)indicating that waste facility has been located and 0 none. = waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from

=

waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to k)0 none. waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to j) = = waste handling Logistics costs/ton

=

waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from j to k)i to j) = waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to k) = = waste handling

=

waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to h)i to k) = waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from j to k) = = = waste

=

= waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from h to k)j to k) = waste handling Logistics costs/ton (from i to h) = This includes the

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 nodesof 20yrs and interest rate of 10% /no. of weeks in a year), Ts = operation

Ts = operation costs for transfer station €/ ton.

Hs = operation costs for port €/ ton.

w

i = waste generated at source node i(tons per 2week)

q

= capacity of an SWTS (tons per 2week)

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

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

Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items Figure 12: The flow chart of

Figure 12: The flow chart of the mathematical formulation

The objective function is the fixed charge cost function to achieve economic efficiency in locat- ing 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 w i 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 trans- fer 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.

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

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 expres- sion along with MS Excel.

to solve the mathematical expres- sion along with MS Excel. Figure 13: Mathematical calculations using Lingo

Figure 13: Mathematical calculations using Lingo

The data is imported from excel sheets and the mathematical model is run in Lingo. The objec- tive 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.

A
A
B
B

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

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

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

7

Scenarios

For the waste management, models have been created to provide solution to the existing sce- nario. 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

   

Gelbe waste

   

Restmüll

 
 

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

H1

H2

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

TS1

TS2

TS3

TS4

H1

H2

1

                                       

2

x

x

x

x

   

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

   

3

x

x

x

x

   

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

       

x

x

4

x

x

x

x

   

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

   

x

x

x

x

5

                               

x

x

x

x

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

30

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

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 restmüll. The trucks start from garage G1 and G2, then head towards the prescribed 46 waste generation plants across Duisburg. The trucks with 10 ton ca- pacities 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 Duis- burg.

are compared and to find most feasible model for waste collection supply chain of Duis- burg.

Figure 15: Scenario 1

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

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.

30 ton load compared 10 ton load truck for the direct transporta tion to the waste

Figure 16: Scenario 2

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

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 conflu- ence 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 geo- graphical location that the restmüll treatment plant is located on bank of river Ruhr in Ober- hausen. 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.

and transporting it by ship to the incineration waste. Figure 17: Scenario 3 All other three

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 trans- ported to incineration plant by ship

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 3. All

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 trans- ferred 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.

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

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 restmüll is checked. A decision can be made for the restmüll 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.

While for other three waste all other conditions apply same. Figure 18: Scenario 4 So in

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).

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items 3. The

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 trans- ported 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).

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

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 trans- portation. In this case, waste type restmüll is used and following 3 sub model s are created as follows:

1. Transportation of restmüll direct to Incineration plant (existing situation).

2. Transportation of restmüll through transfer-station to Incineration plant.

3. Transportation of restmüll through port to Incineration plant.

of restmüll through port to Incineration plant. Figure 19: Scenario 5 These three sub model are

Figure 19: Scenario 5

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

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

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

8 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 func- tion, 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 util- ised 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 restmüll, the distribution is quite even but still some of the waste directly transported to Incineration plant this is due prox- imity of the waste source point to the plan.

Table 5: Waste allocation for Scenario 2

(Ton)

PAPER

KOMPOST

GELBE

RESTMÜLL

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

0

690.0506345

TS2

0

0

0

770.1969625

TS3

0

425.7138654

126.1979617

1055.635315

TS4

363.6312241

576.6391746

0

1866.408115

WH

362.3715087

293.9516133

307.5208383

722.8249734

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

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 incin- eration 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 trans- porting it by ship to the incineration waste. All other three wastes are sent by transfer station as stated in above model.

are sent by transfer station as stated in above model. Figure 20: Location of the ports

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 restmüll, here transfer stations are replaced by the ports. Port2 transports maxi- mum of the waste amounting to 60% and followed by port 2.

Table 6: Waste allocation for Scenario 3

(Ton)

PAPER

COMPOST

GELBE

 

RESTMÜLL

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

0

H1

1146.739934

TS2

0

293.8679043

0

H2

2904.650912

TS3

0

330

126.1979617

   

TS4

363.6312241

330

0

   

WH

362.3715087

342.4367491

307.5208383

WH

1053.725154

Scenario 4:

In the fourth scenario, model is modified version. Here combined effect of transfer station and port together for the restmüll 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.

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

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 restmüll 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

 

RESTMÜLL

TS1

113.4702671

202.6053466

0

HF1

792.1135449

TS2

0

293.8679043

0

HF2

1671.471173

TS3

0

330

126.1979617

TS3

773.8162146

TS4

363.6312241

330

0

TS4

1233.179739

WH

362.3715087

342.4367491

307.5208383

WH

634.5353281

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.

is tried which is shown by scenario 4 there is rise in cost. Figure 21: Total

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 dis- tribution 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.

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

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 lo- gistic 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.

logistic strategy can also help in cutting down emissions. Figure 22: CO2 emission for various scenarios

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 restmüll, 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 com- pared to scenario 2 and 3.

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

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

Duisburg with the waste location points and its geography Figure 23: Waste source points in Duisburg

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

Direct Oberhausen

2 TS

2 hafen

Total distance

14827,1

10239,2

9546,616

Distance with full load

8982,4

4906,7

4079

Distance with

     

empty load

5844,7

5332,5

5408

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items Figure 24:

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

Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items Figure 24: Total distance travelled (km)

Figure 24: Total distance travelled (km) (including empty trip+full load)

Table 9: Cost for Scenarios

Direct Oberhausen

2 TS

2 Port

Total cost

2325434

1869607

1790679

Total Transportation cost

1559666

961448.3

839679.5

Transportation cost for full load

1442772

854798,3

731455,2

Transportation cost for empty trip

116894

106650

108224,3

Transshipment cost (handling cost)

 

114389,5

145232,5

Fixed cost for TS or Port

 

28000

40000

Incineration cost

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 =

less same with little difference. Load carried per km = Table 10: Waste transported per km

Table 10: Waste transported per km

 

Direct Oberhausen

2 TS

2 port

Ton / km

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 us- ing 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.

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

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

Empty trip travelling =

Design for Multi Level Multi Items Empty trip travelling = Table 11: Empty distance travelled Direct

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)

d(km) betn Ob and source

d (km)

transportation cost

€/ton.km

ton/km

total

S1

131.3989597

16.60

265.6

43624.45461

1.25

0.494724999

S2

53.88664298

16.50

115.5

17782.59218

2.857142857

0.466551021

S3

42.24471526

17.30

86.5

14616.67148

4

0.488378211

S4

148.5300865

13.40

254.6

39806.06317

1.052631579

0.583386043

S5

75.46140713

13.30

119.7

20072.7343

2.222222222

0.630421112

S6

74.39573845

11.50

103.5

17111.01984

2.222222222

0.718799405

S7

128.2220606

11.70

187.2

30003.96217

1.25

0.684946905

S8

171.3715889

9.40

197.4

32217.85871

0.952380952

0.868143814

S9

132.7059118

7.50

127.5

19905.88677

1.176470588

1.040830681

S10

175.0913758

7.50

165

26263.70637

0.909090909

1.061159853

S11

111.3925381

7.50

105

16708.88072

1.428571429

1.060881315

S12

55.03273949

10.70

74.9

11777.00625

2.857142857

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 ob- tained 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.

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

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.

through transfer station to incineration plant. Figure 25: Cost analysis w.r.t distance and cost of

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 sta- tion 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 drastical- ly. 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:

Mathematical Optimisation for Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items No. of

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.

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

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

Supply Chain and Network Design for Multi Level Multi Items Figure 26: Unit waste transported per

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.

A B
A
B

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

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

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.