Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An EOQ Model With Backlogging
An EOQ Model With Backlogging
40]
On: 22 January 2015, At: 03:49
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Department of Mathematics, Midnapore College, Medinipur (W), West Bengal, India; bDepartment of Mathematics, Bhangar
Mahavidyalaya, University of Calcutta, Bhangar, West Bengal, India
(Received 25 August 2014; final version received 2 December 2014)
This paper deals with a new approach of linguistic dichotomous fuzzy variables for a classical backordered EOQ (Economic
Order Quantity) model with PE (Promotional Effort) and selling price dependent demand rate. In practice, we have observed
that the demand rate during a shortage period decreases with time. Based on these assumptions, we have developed a cost
minimization problem (a crisp model) by trading off setup cost, inventory cost, backordering cost and cost for promotional
effort. Then, we have studied a fuzzy model by considering the coefficient vectors as pentagon fuzzy numbers associated
with some co-ordinates. Defuzzification is made with the help of the center-of-gravity method followed by a ranking index
and the Euclidean distance of the objective function. Considering a numerical example, phi- (w-)coefficients have been
computed for each method and a decision is made according to the natural characteristics of the decision variables. Finally,
conclusions are drawn, explaining the justification of the model.
Keywords: backorder inventory; pentagon fuzzy number; center of gravity; ranking index; Euclidean distance; phicoefficient; optimization
JEL Classification: C01; C02; C61; M37
1. Introduction
The appropriate stock of inventory is a major concern in
supply chain management (Cardenas-Barron, 2007; Cardenas-Barron & Porter, 2013; Cardenas-Barron, Taleizadeh, & Trevino-Garza, 2012a; Cardenas-Barron, Teng,
Trevino-Garza, Wee, & Lou, 2012b; Cardenas-Barron &
Trevino-Garza, 2014; Cardenas-Barron, Wee, & Blos,
2011; He, Zhao, Zhao, & He, 2009; Konstantaras, Skouri, &
Papachristos, 2009; Roy, Sana, & Chaudhuri, 2014; Sana,
2014; Sana, Mondal, Sarkar, & Chaudhuri, 2011; Sarkar,
2013; Teng, Cardenas-Barron, & Lou, 2011) which
fluctuates frequently with the uncertain nature of demand
in the market. Quite often, the uncertain nature of demand
and the delivery lead time cause shortages. Customer
demand in stock-out situations is either fully or partially
backlogged, depending on the patience of the customers.
Among others, the work of Ghosh and Chaudhuri (2006),
Ghosh, Khanra, and Chaudhuri (2011), Sana (2013), Sana
and Goyal (2014), Sarkar, Cardenas-Barron, Sarkar, and
Singgih (2014), Sarkar, Sana, and Chaudhuri (2010,
2013b), Sarkar, Saren, and Wee (2013a), Sarkar and Sarkar
(2013), and Skouri, Konstantaras, Papachristos, & Ganas
(2009) should be mentioned.
The demand of the end customers can be increased by
several types of promotional efforts. Many studies have
focused on the effect of promotions on sales (Goyal &
Gunasekaran, 1995; Ramanathan & Muyldermans, 2010;
Sana, 2010, 2011a,b). Generally speaking, customers
purchasing behaviour is predicted from implication of
promotions such as price discounting, advertising, free
gifts, better services, delay-in-payments, stock display, etc
(Goyal & Chang, 2009; Soni & Shah, 2008; Zhou, Min, &
Goyal, 2008).
Owing to advances in modern research, fuzziness of
key parameters and variables is essential for analyzing any
kind of inventory control problem. In many cases,
fuzziness arises owing to the variable meaning of several
cost parameters and demand rates with respect to the
ordering statement in a specific language. Zadeh (1965)
first developed the concept of fuzzy set theory. Later,
Bellman and Zadeh (1970) applied fuzzy set theory to
several decision making problems in operations research.
Thereafter, numerous research articles have reported
studies in this direction. Kaufmann and Gupta (1988)
developed a fuzzy mathematical model in engineering and
management science. Zimmermann (1978) proposed
fuzzy linear programming with several objective functions. Several types of defuzzification methods are
available in the fuzzy literature (Allahviranloo &
Saneifard, 2012; Bass & Kwakernaak, 1977; Cheng,
1998; Chu & Tsao, 2002; Ezatti & Saneifard, 2010).
Vojosevic, Petrovic, and Petrovic (1996) fuzzified
the order cost into a trapezoidal fuzzy number in their
backorder model. Based on this rule, Wu and Yao (2003)
studied fuzzy inventory with backordering for a fuzzy
order quantity and a fuzzy shortage quantity. Lee and Yao
(1999) investigated an economic order quantity model
without backordereing in the fuzzy sense, using the fuzzy
extension principle. Kao and Hsu (2002) developed a lot
size reorder point inventory model for fuzzy demands,
using the a-cut of the fuzzy numbers. They used the
ranking index method to solve the model. Authors like De,
Kundu, and Goswami (2003) suggested an EPQ model
for fuzzy demand rate and fuzzy deterioration rate, using
the a-cut of the membership function for the fuzzy
parameters. De, Kundu, and Goswami (2008) presented an
D:
R:
D0 :
k:
m:
t1:
t2:
T:
Z:
Assumptions
1. Replenishment is instantaneous but its order size is
finite.
2. The time horizon is infinite (months)
3. Shortages are allowed and the demand rate in a
shortage period is dependent on the length of the
period and the rate is constant throughout the
period [0,t2]. Here, the demand rate during a
shortage period is D0 Re2s2rt2 , where r is PE
and 0 , r , s. The parameter s (sigma) is the
decision makers choice; it can be determined
from practical experience of the nature of the
demand function for a particular item. Obviously,
r is less than s, because D0 is a decreasing function
over a shortage period. The notion is that D0 ! 0
when t2 ! 1.
4. The initial demand rate is R Der2tp , where p is
the unit selling price and 0 # t , 1. The notion is
that R ! 0 when p ! 1.
3. Crisp mathematical model
In this model (Figure 1), the inventory starts with
shortages and it continues up to time t2. In this period [0,
t2], the demand rate is D0 . At time t2, the total amount of
shortages (S) during the period [0,t2] is adjusted from the
lot size (q). The remaining amount (q 2 S) meets the
demand with rate R for the period [0,t1]. Hence, the total
cycle length is T (t2 t1). Therefore, the average cost
function by trading off setup cost, inventory cost, shortage
Notation
q:
S:
c 1:
c 2:
c 3:
p:
r:
s:
t:
Inventory level
(qs)
t2
t1
s
T
Time
c1 c2 Rt21 c3 D0 t22
kr m ;
T
2T
2T
where
R Der2tp
D0 Re2s2rt2
9
>
>
>
>
r1t2 2tp2st2 >
=
De
>
>
>
>
>
;
kr m
T
2T
2T
1
2
w
>
2
2
a
a
>
4
3
>
>
>
>
>
a
2x
>
: w2 a55 a4
if x # a1 and x $ a5
if a1 # x # a2
if a2 # x # a3
if a3 # x # a4
if a4 # x # a5
6
2
2t
s
2
r
e2s2rt2 . 0
2
T
T
2
dt22
5
Literal terms
Cheap
High
Cost limit
Membership range
[a1, a2]
[0, w1]
[a2, a3]
[w1, 1]
Table 3.
Preliminaries
Table 1.
q*
Expensive
[a3, a4]
[1, w2]
[a4, a5]
[w2, 0]
Literal terms
4.
Very high
Value limit
Membership range
Low
Average
Moderate
[b1, b2]
[0, u1]
[b2, b3]
[u1, 1]
[b3, b4]
[1, u2]
134.073 12.589
D0
Z*($)
High
[b4, b5]
[u2, 0]
dA
if d $ 0
if d , 0:
If we set w 1 1 w 2, a2 ! a 3 a4 and
a1 ! a3 a5, then we have x0 ! a3 a3 a3 =3 !
a3 ; a crisp value.
8
m m m m m
a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 ; a5
>
>
>
>
m m m m
>
< am
5 ; a4 ; a3 ; a2 ; a1
A m
m1 m2 m3 m4 m5
a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 ; a5
>
>
>
m1 m2 m3 m4 m5
>
>
: a5 ; a4 ; a3 ; a2 ; a1
x dx dy
x0 R
7
R dx dy
if
m.0
if
m,0
for 0 , m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5
for m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 , 0:
4.4.
Ranking index
and
y dx dy
y0 R
:
R dx dy
x dx dy
R1
R2
R3
R4
x0
R1 R2 R3 R4 dx dy
1 w1 2a22 2 a1 a2 2 a21 1 2 w1 2a23 2 a3 a2 2 a22 1 2 w2 2a24 2 a3 a4 2 a23 w2 a4 a5 a25 2 2a24
3
w1 a2 2 a1 1 2 w1 a3 2 a2 1 2 w2 a4 2 a3 w2 a5 2 a4
and
y dx dy
R1
R2
R3
R4
y0
R1 R2 R3 R4 dx dy
dx
q
2
x0 2 dmax 2 y0 2 0 :
10
12
1 2a22 2 a21 a25 2 2a24 a4 a5 2 a1 a2
x0 !
3
a2 2 a1 a5 2 a4
AD 2 BC
w p
A BC DB DA C
13
Strong fuzziness
Weak fuzziness
Total
Strong fuzziness
Weak fuzziness
Total
A
C
AC
B
D
BD
AB
CD
5.
Minimize Z~
~ r~2tp T 2 t2
c~1 c~2 De
T
2T
~
m3
m5
m2
m4
1
>
A0 k 1 r m
>
1 ; k 2 r2 ; k 3 r3 ; k 4 r4 ; k 5 r5 ;
>
>
>
>
~
>
>
A1 hc11 ; c12 ; c13 ; c14 ; c15 i
>
>
>
>
1
>
~
r1 2t5 p5 1
r2 2t4 p4 1
r3 2t3 p3
>
A2 2 c21 D1 e
; 2 c22 D2 e
; 2 c23 D3 e
; >
>
=
1
r4 2t2 p2 1
r5 2t1 p51
c
D
e
;
c
D
e
i
24
4
25
5
2
2
>
>
>
1
~
>
r1 2t5 p5 r1 2s5 t2 1
; 2 c32 D2 e r2 2t4 p4 r2 2s4 t2 ; >
A3 2 c31 D1 e
>
>
>
>
1
r3 2t3 p3 r3 2s3 t2 1
r4 2t2 p2 r4 2s2 t2 >
>
c
D
e
;
c
D
e
;
>
2 33 3
2 34 4
>
>
>
>
1
r5 2t1 p1 r5 2s1 t2
;
i:
2 c35 D5 e
17
Therefore, using (17), the fuzzy objective function (14)
may be written as
k~ r~ m
2T
Z hZ 1 ; Z 2 ; Z 3 ; Z 4 ; Z 5 i;
14
where
t2
1
1
r 1 2 t5 p 5
1
1
Z 1 k 1 rm
T2t
12 c31 D1 e r1 2t5 p5 r1 2s5 t2 T2
1 T c11 2 c21 D1 e
T
2
7
6
6
t22 7
T2t1 2
1
1
r 2 2 t4 p 4
1
r2 2t4 p4 r2 2s4 t2
2
7
6 Z 2 k 2 rm
c
D
e
c
D
e
2
T 12
2 22 2
2 32 2
T
T 7
6
7
6
6 Z k rm3 1 c 1 c D e r3 2t3 p3 T2t1 2 1 c D e r3 2t3 p3 r3 2s3 t2 t22 7
3 3
6 3
T 13
2 23 3
2 33 3
T
T 7
7
6
6
t22 7
T2t1 2
1
1
r 4 2 t2 p 2
1
r4 2t2 p2 r4 2s2 t2
4
7
6 Z 4 k 4 rm
c
D
e
c
D
e
14
24
4
34
4
4
T
2
2
T
T 7
6
5
4
t22
T2t1 2
1
1
r5 2t1 p1
1
r5 2t1 p1 r5 2s1 t2
5
Z 5 k 5 rm
c
D
e
c
D
e
:
15
25
5
35
5
5
T
T
T
2
2
subject to the constraints 0 , r , s and 0 # t2 # T,
where the PFN vector components are given by c~1 kc11 ;
18
1 w1 2Z 22 2 Z 1 Z 2 2 Z 21 1 2 w1 2Z 23 2 Z 3 Z 2 2 Z 22 1 2 w2 2Z 24 2 Z 3 Z 4 2 Z 23 w2 Z 4 Z 5 Z 25 2 2Z 24
x0
3
w1 Z 2 2 Z 1 1 2 w1 Z 3 2 Z 2 1 2 w2 Z 4 2 Z 3 w2 Z 5 2 Z 4
19
,
c12 ;c13 ;c14 ;c15 l; c2 kc21 ;c22 ;c23 ;c24 ;c25 l; c~ 3 kc31 ;c32 ;
~ kD1 ;D2 ;D3 ;D4 ;D5 l; r~ kr1 ; r2 ; r3 ; r4 ; r5 l;
c33 ;c34 ;c35 l; D
y0
t~ kt1 ; t2 ; t3 ; t4 ; t5 ;l ks~ s1 ; s2 ; s3 ; s4 ; s5 l; km
~ m1 ;m2 ;
m3 ;m4 ;m5 l; p~ kp1 ;p2 ;p3 ;p4 ;p5 l, and k~ kk1 ;k2 ;k3 ;k4 ;k5 l:
Let us rewrite (14) as follows:
~
MinZ A0 A1 F 1 A2 F 2 A3 F 3 ;
where
t2
2
; F 3 T2 ;
F 1 T1 ; F 2 T2t
T
2
A0 kr m ; A1 c1 ; A2 12 c2 Der2tp ;
A3
and
1
r2tpr2st2
:
2 c3 De
9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;
15
16
20
Now, Using (9) and (10), the ranking index and Euclidean
distance of the order and shortage quantities are
8
q
2 2
>
* Iq
>
q
x
q yq
<
q
21
2
>
2
*
>
: S IS xS yS
and
8
q
2 2
>
* dq
>
q
xq 2 dqmax yq
<
q
2 2
>
* dS
>
xS 2 dSmax yS ;
S
:
22
where
1 u1 2q22 2 q1 q2 2 q21 1 2 u1 2q23 2 q3 q2 2 q22 1 2 u2 2q24 2 q3 q4 2 q23 u2 q4 q5 q25 2 2q24
xq
3
u1 q2 2 q1 1 2 u1 q3 2 q2 1 2 u2 q4 2 q3 u2 q5 2 q4
yq
1 u1 2S22 2 S1 S2 2 S21 1 2 u1 2S23 2 S3 S2 2 S22 1 2 u2 2S24 2 S3 S4 2 S23 u2 S4 S5 S25 2 2S24
xS
3
u1 S2 2 S1 1 2 u1 S3 2 S2 1 2 u2 S4 2 S3 u2 S5 2 S4
yS
23
24
25
26
and
2
"
S1 ; S2 ; S3 ; S4 ; S5
q1 ; q2 ; q3 ; q4 ; q5 ;
#T
6
6 D2 t2 er2 1t2 2t4 p4 2s4 t2
6
6
D t er3 1t2 2t3 p3 2s3 t2
6
6 32
6
6 D4 t2 er4 1t2 2t2 p2 2s2 t2
4
D5 t2 er5 1t2 2t1 p1 2s1 t2
7
D1 t2 er2 2t4 p4 ft1 t2 e2r2 2s4 t2 } 7
7
7
D1 t2 er3 2t3 p3 ft1 t2 e2r3 2s3 t2 } 7
7
7
D1 t2 er4 2t2 p2 ft1 t2 e2r4 2s2 t2 } 7
5
D1 t2 er5 2t1 p1 ft1 t2 e2r5 2s1 t2 }
27
5.3.
Numerical Example 2
Case
(i)
(ii)
Max IZ
Min IZ
I(q)
I(S)
Z*
476.146
182.912
353.866
97.074
298.02
164.36
1:5; 1:8; 2:2, t~ k0:02; 0:04; 0:06; 0:08; 0:1l, s~ k1; 1:4;
1:7; 2:2; 3l, m
~ k2:2; 2:6; 3; 3:4; 3:6l, p~ k14:5; 16:8;
20:5; 24:2; 26:5l, k~ k2:5; 3; 5; 8; 11l, w1 0.85, w2
0.65, u1 0.95 and u2 0.65. Then, we have dZmax 170,
dqmax dSmax 130 and get the results shown in Table 5.
*
*
Here, we have obtained t1 12 days, t2 18 days for
*
*
strong fuzziness and t1 27:5 days, t2 2:5 days for weak
fuzziness. The phi-coefficients are provided in Tables 6 8.
Then, the correlation coefficient between I(Z) and d(Z)
is obtained with the help of (13) as w 0.289.
6.
Sensitivity analysis
Let
us
change
each
of
the
parameters
fc1 ; c2 ; c3 ; d; k; r; t; p; s; m; T} from 2 50 to 50% to
study on the optimal solution for the crisp model.
Table 6.
I(Z)
d(Z)
Total
Table 7.
q
S
Total
Weak fuzziness
Total
298.02 (A)
163.85 (C)
461.87 (A C)
164.36 (B)
297.74 (D)
462.10 (B D)
462.38 (A B)
461.59 (C D)
Weak fuzziness
Total
476.146(A)
353.866 (C)
830.012 (A C)
182.912 (B)
97.074 (D)
279.986 (B D)
659.058(A B)
450.94(C D)
Table 8.
q
S
Total
Strong fuzziness
Weak fuzziness
Total
182.912 (A)
97.074 (C)
279.986 (A C)
346.146 (B)
223.866 (D)
570.012 (B D)
659.058 (A B)
320.94 (C D)
Cases
(iii)
(iv)
Min dZ
Max dZ
d(q)
dS
Z*
182.912
346.146
97.074
223.866
163.85
297.74
8. Conclusion
In this paper, we have developed a solution procedure for a
backorder EOQ model having shortage time dependent
demand rate when the coefficient vectors are pentagon
fuzzy numbers. Earlier researchers have usually used
parabolic, triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy numbers to
fuzzify their models. In our present study, we have extended
the model to pentagon fuzzy numbers beyond these
assumptions. These kinds of consideration have great
practical implications in modern applied research on
inventory management. Regarding the solution, we usually
see that most researchers have tried to make a decision
about the output of the numerical results of the objective
function. This decision may not be supported by the attitude
of the decision maker (DM). So the basic intention behind
any kind of decision variable is very important. In a
backorder inventory model, the basic intention is to reduce
the amount of shortage quantity with respect to reordering
the considerable amount of items in stock. That is, in a
linguistic (behavioral) fuzzy environment, the relationship
between order quantity and shortage quantity would be
such that their correlation coefficient is negative. However,
in many cases this has not been tested by the researchers.
For data handling, several methods are available in the
literature, but the choice is in general ambiguous because of
the following questions.
(a) What data are acceptable?
(b) Which method is correct and why?
(c) What should we have to do to select the best reliable
data?
We cannot answer these questions unless we genuinely
analyze the dichotomous fuzzy variables (strong weak)
Table 9.
Parameter
c1
c2
c3
q*
S*
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
201.109
174.295
93.851
67.036
73.581
93.539
192.171
244.297
73.581
93.539
192.171
244.297
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
134.073
132.982
133.465
134.533
134.753
134.575
134.440
133.161
131.528
131.685
132.853
134.941
135.399
211.239
84.992
62.657
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
18.884
16.366
8.812
6.295
6.909
8.783
18.044
22.939
6.909
8.783
18.044
22.939
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
12.589
18.172
15.997
9.008
6.526
8.599
9.849
17.404
23.265
13.312
12.975
12.288
12.118
19.411
8.187
6.159
t*2 days
Z * ($)
(Z* 2 Z*)/Z*100%
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
25.5
26.1
28
28.5
28
27.7
25.7
24
26.3
26.6
27.3
27.4
27.2
26.7
26.6
4.5
3.9
2
1.5
2
2.3
4.3
6
3.7
3.4
2.7
2.6
2.8
3.3
3.4
329.94
299.94
209.94
179.94
300.67
282.38
227.51
209.22
213.69
227.30
294.57
330.12
213.69
227.30
294.57
330.12
261.69
258.99
250.89
248.19
266.25
260.89
250.82
248.79
174.46
199.23
358.42
496.39
293.73
278.74
229.52
211.63
258.13
257.14
250.97
245.89
253.64
254.24
255.51
255.82
323.69
212.64
194.50
29.42
17.65
2 17.65
2 29.42
17.94
10.76
2 10.76
2 17.93
2 16.18
2 10.84
15.54
29.49
2 16.18
2 10.84
15.54
29.49
2.65
1.59
21.59
22.65
4.44
2.33
21.62
22.41
2 31.56
2 21.85
40.59
94.71
15.22
9.33
29.97
2 16.99
1.25
0.86
21.56
23.55
20.51
20.27
0.22
0.35
26.97
2 16.59
2 23.71
t*1 days
References
Allahviranloo, T., & Saneifard, R. (2012). Defuzzification
method for ranking fuzzy numbers based on center of
gravity. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 9(6), 57 67.
Bass, S. M., & Kwakernaak, H. (1977). Rating and ranking of
multiple aspect alternatives using fuzzy sets. Automatica,
13(1), 47 58.
Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision making in a
fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17(4),
B141 B164.
Cardenas-Barron, L. E. (2007). Optimizing inventory decisions
in a multi-stage multi-customer supply chain: A note.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 43(5), 647 654.
Cardenas-Barron, L. E., & Porter, J. D. (2013). Supply chain
models for an assembly system with preprocessing of raw
materials: A simple and better algorithm. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(14-15), 7883 7887.
Cardenas-Barron, L. E., Taleizadeh, A. A., & Trevino-Garza, G.
(2012a). An improved solution to replenishment lot size
problem with discontinuous issuing policy and rework, and
the multi-delivery policy into economic production lot size
problem with partial rework. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(18), 13540 13546.
Cardenas-Barron, L. E., Teng, J. T., Trevino-Garza, G., Wee,
H. M., & Lou, K. R. (2012b). An improved algorithm and
solution on an integrated production-inventory model in a
three-layer supply chain. International Journal of Production
Economics, 136(2), 384 388.
Cardenas-Barron, L. E., & Trevino-Garza, G. (2014). An optimal
solution to a three echelon supply chain network with multiproduct and multi-period. Applied Mathematical Modelling,
38(5-6), 19111918.
Cardenas-Barron, L. E., Wee, H. M., & Blos, M. F. (2011).
Solving the vendor buyer integrated inventory system with
arithmetic geometric inequality. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53(5-6), 991 997.
Chen, S. H. (1985). Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing
set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(2),
113 129.
Cheng, C. H. (1998). A new approach for ranking fuzzy
numbers by distance method. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 95(3),
307 317.
Chu, T., & Tsao, C. (2002). Ranking fuzzy numbers with an area
between the centroid point and original point. Computers &
Mathematics with Applications, 43(1-2), 111 117.
Das, P., De, S. K., & Sana, S. S. (2014). An EOQ model for time
dependent backlogging over idle time: A step order fuzzy
approach. International Journal of Applied and Computational Mathematics. doi:10.1007/s40819-014-0001-y
De, S. K., Goswami, A., & Sana, S. S. (2014). An interpolating by
pass to Pareto optimality in intuitionistic fuzzy technique for
a EOQ model with time sensitive backlogging. Applied
Mathematics and Computation, 230(March), 664674.
De, S. K., Kundu, P. K., & Goswami, A. (2003). An economic
production quantity inventory model involving fuzzy
demand rate and fuzzy deterioration rate. Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Computing, 12(1), 251 260.
De, S. K., Kundu, P. K., & Goswami, A. (2008). Economic
ordering policy of deteriorated items with shortage and fuzzy
cost co-efficients for vendor and buyer. International Journal
of Fuzzy Systems and Rough Systems, 1(2), 69 76.
De, S. K., & Sana, S. S. (2013a). Fuzzy order quantity inventory
model with fuzzy shortage quantity and fuzzy promotional
index. Economic Modelling, 31(1), 351 358.
De, S. K., & Sana, S. S. (2013b). Backlogging EOQ model for
promotional effort and selling price sensitive demand an
intuitionistic fuzzy approach. Annals of Operations
Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-013-1476-3.
De, S. K., & Sana, S. S. (2014). A multi-periods productioninventory model with capacity constraints for multimanufacturers a global optimality in intuitionistic fuzzy
environment. Applied Mathematics and Computation,
242(1), 825 841.
Ezatti, R., & Saneifard, R. (2010). A new approach for ranking of
fuzzy numbers with continuous weighted quasi-arithmetic
means. Mathematical Sciences, 4(2), 143 158.
Ghosh, S. K., & Chaudhuri, K. S. (2006). An EOQ model with a
quadratic demand, time proportional deterioration and
shortages in all cycles. International Journal of Systems
Science, 37(10), 663672.
Ghosh, S. K., Khanra, S., & Chaudhuri, K. S. (2011). Optimal
price and lot size determination for a perishable product
under conditions of finite production, partial backordering
and lost sale. Applied Mathematics and Computation,
217(13), 6047 6053.
Goyal, S. K., & Chang, C. T. (2009). Optimal ordering and
transfer policy for an inventory with stock dependent
demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(1),
177 185.
Goyal, S. K., & Gunasekaran, A. (1995). An integrated
production-inventory-marketing model for deteriorating
items. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 28(4), 755 762.
He, Y., Zhao, X., Zhao, L., & He, J. (2009). Coordinating a
supply chain with effort and price dependent stochastic
demand. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(6),
2777 2790.
Kao, C., & Hsu, W. K. (2002). Lot size reorder point inventory
model with fuzzy demands. Computers & Mathematics with
Applications, 43(10), 1291 1302.
Kaufmann, A., & Gupta, M. (1988). Fuzzy mathematical models
in engineering and management science. Amsterdam: NorthHolland.
Konstantaras, I., Skouri, K., & Papachristos, S. (2011). Optimal
pricing, return and modular design policy for Build-To-Order
(BTO) products in a two parties supply chain system. IMA
Journal of Management Mathematics, 22(1), 1 12, .
Kumar, R. S., De, S. K., & Goswami, A. (2012). Fuzzy EOQ
models with ramp type demand rate, partial backlogging and
time dependent deterioration rate. International Journal of
Mathematics in Operational Research, 4(5), 473 502.
Lee, H. M., & Yao, J. S. (1999). Economic order quantity in
fuzzy sense for inventory without back order model. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, 105(1), 13 31.
10
11
Appendix A
We shall discuss the following integrals one by one.
Case 1: For region R1, x varies from a1i to a2i and y varies from 0 to w1(x 2 a1i)/(a2i a1i). The integral values are
dx dy
R1
x dx dy
R1
x
a1i
>
>
a1i >
>
:
8
x2a
>
w1i a a1i
>
>
2i 1i
>
<
a2i
8
x2a
>
w1i a a1i
>
>
2i
1i
a2i >
<
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
=
a2i
x 2 a1i
w1i
a2i a1i ;
dx
dy dx w1i
>
a2i a1i
2
>
>
a1i
>
;
9
>
>
>
a2i
>
=
x 2 a1i
w1i 2
2a2i 2 a1i a2i 2 a21i
dy dx xw1i
dx
>
a2i a1i
6
>
>
a1i
>
;
A1
A2
and
a2i
y dx dy
R1
a1i
8
x2a
>
w1i a a1i
>
>
2i 1i
>
<
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
=
a2i
1
x 2 a1i 2
w2
ydy dx
w21i
dx 1i a2i a1i :
>
2
a2i a1i
6
>
>
a1i
>
;
A3
Case II: For region R2, x varies from a2i to a3i and y varies from w1i to w1i (1 2 w1i)(x 2 a2i)/(a3i a2i). The integral values are
a3i
dx dy
R2
a2i
8
x2a
>
w1i 12w1i a a2i
>
>
3i 2i
>
<
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
=
dy dx
>
>
>
>
;
w1i
9
8
x2a
>
>
w1i 12w1i a a2i
>
>
>
>
a3i >
>
3i 2i
<
=
x dx dy x
dy dx
>
>
R2
>
>
>
a2i >
w1i
>
>
:
;
a3i
1 2 w1i
a2i
x1 2 w1i
a2i
x 2 a2i
1 2 w1i 2
2a3i 2 a2i a3i 2 a22i
dx
6
a3i a2i
A4
a3i
x 2 a1i
1 2 w1i
a3i a2i ;
dx
2
a2i a1i
A5
and
y dx dy
R2
8
x2a
>
w1i 12w1i a a2i
>
>
a3i >
3i 2i
<
a2i
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
=
ydy dx
>
>
>
>
;
w1i
A6
a3i "
2
#
1
x 2 a2i
1 2 w1i 1 2w1i a3i a2i
2 x 2 a2i
dx
1 2 w1i
2w1i 1 2 w1i
:
a3i a2i
a3i a2i
2
6
a2i
Case III: For region R3, x varies from a3i to a4i, y varies from 1 to w2i (1 2 w2i)(a4i 2 x)/(a4i a3i), and
dx dy
R3
a4i
a3i
8
a 2x
>
w2i 12w2i a 4i a
>
>
a4i >
4i 3i
<
a3i
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
=
dy dx
>
>
>
>
;
a4i 2 x
1 2 w2i
1 2 w2i
dx 2
21 2 w2i 1 2 w2i
a4i a3i ~
a4i a3i ;
a4i a3i
2
2
A7
12
=
<
x dx dy x
dy dx
>
>
R3
>
>
>
a3i >
1
>
>
;
:
a4i
a3i
a4i 2 x
x 21 2 w2i 1 2 w2i
dx
a4i a3i
1 2 w2i 2
1 2 w2i 2
2a4i 2 a23i~ 2 a3i a4i
2a4i 2 a23i 2 a3i a4i
6
6
A8
y dx dy
R3
a3i
8
a 2x
>
w2i 12w2i a 4i a
>
>
4i 3i
>
<
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
=
ydy dx
>
>
>
>
;
a3i
"
2 12
w22i
1 2 w2i
a2i
a4i 2 x
a4i a3i
#
a4i 2 x
dx
2w2i 1 2 w2i
a4i a3i
A9
0
<
=
a5i 2 x
w2i
w2i
a5i a4i ~
a5i a4i
dx 2
dxdy
dy dx 2 w2i
>
>
a
a
2
2
5i
4i
R4
>
>
>
a4i >
a4i
>
>
a
2x
:w2i 5i
;
A10
a5i a4i
<
=
xdxdy x
dy dx
>
R4
>
>
>
>
a4i >
>
>
:w2i a5i 2x
;
a5i 2 x
dx
2 x w2i
a5i a4i
a5i
w2i 2
w2i 2
a a5i a~ 4i 2 2a24i
a5i a5i a4i 2 2a24i A11
6 5i
6
a4i
a5i a4i
9
>
>
>
a5i "
>
2 #
=
1
2 a5i 2 x
dx
ydxdy
w2i
ydy dx 2
>
>
2
a5i a4i
R4
>
>
>
a4i >
a
>
>
4i
: w2i a5i 2x
;
a5i
a5i a4i
w22i
w2
a5i a4i ~ 2i a5i a4i
6
6
A12