Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
DOI 10.1007/s13198-014-0274-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Efficient approach for solving type-1 intuitionistic fuzzy
transportation problem
Sujeet Kumar Singh • Shiv Prasad Yadav
Received: 15 November 2013 / Revised: 5 March 2014
 The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and
Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2014
Abstract In today’s real world problems such as in cor-
porate or in industrial, the experts and the decision makers
have to suffer with uncertainty as well as with hesitation
usually, due to the complexity of the situations. The main
reasons behind these complexities are lack of good com-
munications with all involved persons, error in data’s,
understanding of markets, unawareness of customers etc.
So, In this paper, we consider a transportation problem
having uncertainty and hesitation in supply and demand.
We formulate the problem and utilize triangular intuition-
istic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs) to deal with uncertainty and
hesitation. We propose intuitionistic fuzzy methods to find
starting basic feasible solution in terms of TIFNs. Intui-
tionistic fuzzy modified distribution method has been
proposed to find optimal solution. The shortcomings of the
existing methods have been pointed out. The proposed
method is illustrated by numerical examples.
Keywords Triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number 
Intuitionistic fuzzy transportation problem  Basic feasible
solution  Optimal solution
1 Introduction
The fuzzy set theory introduced by Zadeh (1965) has been
applied successfully in various fields. The concept of
S. K. Singh (&)  S. P. Yadav
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, Roorkee, India
e-mail: sksinghma209@gmail.com
S. P. Yadav
e-mail: spyorfma@gmail.com
intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) proposed by Atanassov (1986)
is found to be highly useful to deal with vagueness. The
major advantage of IFS over fuzzy set is that IFS separates
the degree of membership (belongingness) and the degree
of non-membership (non-belongingness) of an element in
the set. With the help of IFS theory decision maker (DM)
can decide about the degree of acceptance, degree of non-
acceptance and degree of hesitation for some quantity. In
case of transportation problem, the DM can decide about
the level of acceptance and non-acceptance for the trans-
portation cost. Due to this, the application of IFS theory
became very popular in decision making problems.
The concept of fuzzy mathematical programming was
firstly introduced by Bellman and Zadeh (1970). Then
many authors have used fuzzy set theory in various opti-
mization problems (Bector and Chandra 2002; Ganesan
and Veeramani 2006; Ebrahimipur et al. 2011; Kapur et al.
2011; Nagoorgani and Ponnalagu 2012; Kheirfam and
Verdegay 2013). Nagoorgani and Razak (2006) presented a
two stage cost minimizing fuzzy transportation problem
(FTP) in which supplies and demands are trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers. Dinager and Palanivel (2009) investigated a
method to solve FTP by taking trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
Pandian and Natarajan (2010) presented a new algorithm
for finding a fuzzy optimal solution for FTP. Mohideen and
Kumar (2010) did a comparative study on transportation
problem in fuzzy environment. Kaur and Kumar (2012)
solved FTP taking generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
In various real world transportation problems, the
demands as well as availabilities are not known exactly.
These are uncertain quantities with hesitation due to various
factors. This may be due to lack of good communications
with all involved persons, error in data’s, understanding of
markets, unawareness of customers and many more. In such
123
 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

situations the DM cannot predict exactly. He may hesitate. 1 There exists m2R such that lA~I ðmÞ ¼
Thus to represent the uncertainty with hesitation, IFS theory 1 and tA~I ðmÞ ¼ 0 (m is called the mean value of A~I ).
seems to be more reliable than the general fuzzy set theory. In 2 lA~I and tA~I are piecewise continuous mappings from
this paper, we utilize triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers Rto the closed interval [0, 1] and the relation
(TIFN) to represent demands and availabilities. Some 0  lA~I ðxÞ þ tA~I ðxÞ  1; 8x 2 R holds.
authors have solved transportation problem by using intui-
tionistic fuzzy numbers (IFNs) (Hussain and Kumar 2012; e I is
The membership and non-membership functions of A
Nagoorgani and Abbas 2013). of the following form:
8
In the existing methods for solving IFTP (Hussain and > t1 ðxÞ; m  a  x  m;
>
<
Kumar 2012; Nagoorgani and Abbas 2013) authors have 1; x ¼ m;
proposed ranking procedures for ordering the IFNs. In both lA~I ðxÞ ¼
>
> h 1 ðxÞ; m  x  m þ b;
the procedures the used ranking functions are not universal. :
0; otherwise;
These ranking functions cannot be used for ordering all
IFNs, hence these ranking cannot be utilized for solving a where t1 and h1 are piecewise continuous; strictly
general IFTP. To overcome this shortcoming, we devel- increasing and strictly decreasing functions in [m - a, m]
oped a new ordering procedure using accuracy function of and [m, m ? b] respectively.
8
TIFN and used this ordering to develop an algorithm for > t2 ðxÞ; m  a0  x  m; 0  t1 ðxÞ þ t2 ðxÞ  1;
>
<
finding optimal solution of IFTP. 0; x ¼ m;
tA~I ðxÞ ¼
The paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 deals with >
> h2 ðxÞ; m  x  m þ b0 ; 0  h1 ðxÞ þ h2 ðxÞ  1;
some definitions from literature and arithmetic operations :
1; otherwise;
on TIFNs (Atanassov 1986; Zimmerman 1996; Hussain
and Kumar 2012). In Sect. 3, a new ordering of TIFNs is where t2 and h2 are piecewise continuous; strictly
given using accuracy function and the shortcomings of the decreasing and strictly increasing functions in
ranking functions used in Hussain and Kumar (2012) and [m - a’, m] and [m, m ? b’] respectively.
Nagoorgani and Abbas (2013) are discussed. Section 4 Here m is the mean value of A~I ; a and b are left and right
0
deals with IFTP of type-1. Section 5 deals with solution spreads of membership function lA~I ðxÞ respectively; a and
0
procedure. In Sect. 6, a numerical example is given to b are left and right spreads of non- membership function
illustrate the method to get optimal solution. In Sect. 7, tA~I ðxÞ respectively. The IFN A~I is represented by
result and discussion of the obtained transportation cost is e I ¼ ðm; a; b; a0 ; b0 Þ.
A
given followed by conclusion in Sect. 8.
Definition 2.4 A TIFN A~I is an IFS in R with the fol-
lowing membership function lA~I and non-membership
2 Some Definitions function mA~I :
8 xa
> 1
Definition 2.1 Let X be a universal set. Then a fuzzy set >
> ; a1 \x  a2
>
> a 2  a 1
A~ in Xis defined by <
lA~I ðxÞ ¼ a3  x
  > ; a2  x\a3
A~ ¼ ðx; lA~ðxÞÞ : x 2 X ; where lA~ : X ! ½0; 1: > a3  a2
>
>
>
:
Definition 2.2 Let X be a universe of discourse. Then an 0; otherwise
8 a2  x 0
IFS A~I in X is defined by a set of ordered triples >
> 0 ; a1 \x  a2
  >
> a2  a1
>
<
A~I ¼ \x; lA~I ðxÞ; tA~I ðxÞ [ : x 2 X ; x  a2 0
mA~I ðxÞ ¼ ; a2  x\a3
where lA~I ; tA~I : X ! ½0; 1 are functions such that >
> a
0
 a
>
> 3 2
>
:
0  lA~I ðxÞ þ tA~I ðxÞ  1; 8x 2 X: lA~I ðxÞ represents the 1; otherwise;
degree of membership and tA~I ðxÞ represents the degree of 0 0

non- membership of the element x 2 X being in A~I . The where a1 B a1 \ a2 \ a3 B a3. This TIFN is denoted by
degree of hesitation for the element x 2 X being in A~I e I ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a0 ; a2 ; a0 Þ Fig. 1.
A 1 3
is given by hðxÞ ¼ 1  lA~I ðxÞ  tA~I ðxÞ  1 8x 2 X: Arithmetic operations on TIFNs
  
Definition 2.3 An intuitionistic fuzzy subset A ¼ ~I Let A e I ¼ a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a0 ; a2 ; a0 and B
e I ¼ b1 ; b2 ; b3 ; b01 ;
1 3
  
\x; lA~I ðxÞ; tA~I ðxÞ [ : x 2 X of the real line R is
0
b2 ; b3 Þ Addition: AeI  B e I ¼ a1 þ b1 ; a2 þ b2 ; a3 þ b3 ; a01
called an IFN if the following hold: 0 0 0
e I HB
þb1 ; a2 þ b2 ; a3 þ b3 Þ Subtraction: A e I ¼ ð a1  b3 ;

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
RankðA~I Þ ¼ ðxl ðA~I ÞÞ2 þ ðyl ðA~I ÞÞ2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðxm ðA~I ÞÞ2 þ ðym ðA~I ÞÞ2

Here it is clear that the defuzzified value of TIFN A~I

does not depend only on the components of the number but
also depend on DM as the values yl ðA~I Þ and ym ðA~I Þ are
independent from the components of TIFN. These are
chosen by the DM. Thus the defuzzified value will not give
a unique representation of a TIFN. It will give different
value for different DM. Also it is not possible always to
Fig. 1 Membership and non-membership functions of TIFN
find defuzzified value for all TIFNs by this ranking method,
which is clear by following example.
0 0 0 0
a2  b2 ; a3  b1 ; a1  b3 ; a2  b2 ; a3  b1 Þ Multiplication:
  Example 1 e I ¼ ð1; 1; 2; 0; 1; 3Þ and B
Let
A e I ¼ ð1; 2;
e I B
A e I ¼ l1 ; l2 ; l3 ; l01 ; l2 ; l03 ;

2; 0; 2; 2Þ, Here we cannot find the values of xl A eI

where
 I
and xm B e as the denumerator values a2 - a1 and a03 - a2
l1 ¼ minfa1 b1 ; a1 b3 ; a3 b1 ; a3 b3 g;
0
n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o reduce to zero respectively. Thus we cannot determine the
l1 ¼ min a1 b1 ; a1 b3 ; a3 b1 ; a3 b3 defuzzified values. Hence we cannot rank these numbers by
l3 ¼ maxfa1 b1 ; a1 b3 ; a3 b1 ; a3 b3 g; the ranking function given by Hussain and Kumar (2012).
0
n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o Thus this ranking method is not universal; we cannot order
l3 ¼ max a1 b1 ; a1 b3 ; a3 b1 ; a3 b3 all TIFNs by this ranking. This is not an efficient ranking
l 2 ¼ a2 b2 : for all TIFNs. Therefore this ranking method cannot be
utilized for solving a general IFTP.
Scalar multiplication:
  3.2 The existing ordering
1 kAe I ¼ ka1 ; ka2 ; ka3 ; ka0 ; ka2 ; ka0 : k [ 0
1 3
 
2 kAe I ¼ ka3 ; ka2 ; ka1 ; ka0 ; ka2 ; ka0 : k\0:  
3 1 Let A e I ¼ a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a0 ; a2 ; a0 be a TIFN. Then Nago-
1 3
organi and Abbas (2013) have given the graded mean
 
integration representation of A e I ¼ a 1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a0 ; a2 ; a0

h

i 1
3
3 Ordering of TIFNs e I ¼ Pa A e I ; Pb A e I ; where where Pa A eI ¼
as P A l m l
h
 0 0 0

3.1 The existing ordering aða1 a3 Þ b eI 2bða1 a3 Þþa2 þ2a3
þa3 þ 2a2 3 and Pm A ¼ 3 .

Let A~I ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a01 ; a2 ; a03 Þ be a TIFN. Then Hussain They said that for any two TIFNs A e I ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 ;
 

and Kumar (2012) defined the ranking for A~I as follows: 0 0

e I ¼ b1 ; b2 ; b3 ; b01 ; b2 ; b03 ; Pal A
a1 ; a2 ; a3 Þ and B eI

 3   3 

1 2 3 1 2 3
e I 6ða2 a1 Þ 2a2  3a2 a1 þ a1 þ 6ða3 a2 Þ 2a3  3a2 a3 þ 2a2
xl A ¼ a3 a1
2
 
0 2  
0 3

0  0 2 3

1 3 1 3

0
6ða2 a1 Þ
2a 2  3a 2 a 1 þ2 a 1 þ 0
6ða3 a2 Þ
ð2a 3 Þ  3a 2 a3 þa2
eI ¼
xm A 0 0
a3 a1
2

 I
 I
yl ðA~I Þ ¼ 13 and ym ðA~I Þ ¼ 23 : Then ranking of A~I is e I \Pb B
e and \Pbm A
\Pal B e )Ae I \B
eI:
m
given by

123
 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Example 2 Let e I ¼ ð2; 3; 6; 1; 3; 8Þ and B

A eI ¼ (c) f ðA~I Þ ¼ f ðB~I Þ ) A~I ¼ B~I
ð2; 4; 5; 1; 4; 7Þ: Then we have (d) MinðA~I ; B~I Þ ¼ A~I if A~I  B~I or B~I  A~I

4a þ 12
14b þ 19
Pal AeI ¼ ; Pbm AeI ¼ ; (e) MaxðA~I ; B~I Þ ¼ A~I if A~I  B~I or B~I  A~I
3 3
 I  3a þ 13  I  10b þ 16 4 Type-1 intuitionistic fuzzy transportation problem
Pal Be ¼ ; Pbm Be ¼ ;
3 3 (IFTP-1)

In transportation problem the DM or the expert hesitates

a = 0, b = 1 a = 0.5, b = 0.5 a = 1, b = 0 due to many factors from both sides that is from supplier



side and demand side. Sometimes a DM is not sure that
eI ¼ 4
Pal A e I ¼ 3:33
Pal A e I ¼ 2:66
Pal A how much quantity of a particular product is available at

e I ¼ 1:66
Pbm A eI ¼ 4
Pbm A e I ¼ 6:33
Pbm A his warehouse at a particular time by different reason. Such
 I  I  I that, he has not good communications to his fellows or he
e ¼ 4:33
Pal B e ¼ 3:83
Pal B e ¼ 3:33
Pal B
     
is not sure that how much quantity of particular product can
b eI b eI b eI
Pm B ¼ 2 Pm B ¼ 3:66 Pm B ¼ 5:33 be produced by the available row materials by that par-

 I
 I
 I
e I \Pa B
Pal A e e I \Pa B
Pal A e e I \Pa B
Pal A e ticular time. Similarly, he may hesitate from demand side.
l l l

 I
 I
 I Suppose some new product is to be launch in a market then
e I \Pb B
Pbm A e e I [ Pb B
Pbm A e e I [ Pb B
Pbm A e he cannot decide exactly that how much quantity of this
m m m

product should transport to a particular destination. This

Thus it is clear that in this case we cannot order TIFNs
~
A and B~I :
I the similar one. We utilize IFNs to deal with hesitation and
From Example 2, we get that the ranking (ordering) used
by Nagoorgani and Abbas (2013) is not universal. By this
ranking we cannot order all TIFNs. Hence we cannot solve
a general IFTP using this ordering.
3.3 Proposed ordering using accuracy function
may be due to unawareness of the customers about this
product or difference in price and utility of the product to
uncertainty.
Let us consider a transportation problem with m origins
and n destinations. Let cij be the cost of transporting one
unit of the product from the ith origin to the jth destination.
 0 0
Let e a Ii ¼ ai1 ; ai2 ; ai3 ; ai1 ; ai2 ; ai3 be the IF quantity
available at the ith origin.
0 0

e
b Ij ¼ b1j ; b2j ; b3j ; bj1 ; b2j ; bj3 be the IF quantity needed
 
Let Ae I ¼ a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a0 ; a2 ; a0 be a TIFN. The score

1 3 0 0

function for the membership function lA~I is denoted by at the jth destination. e x Iij ¼ xij1 ; xij2 ; xij3 ; xij1 ; xij2 ; xij3 be the

SðlA~I Þ and is defined by S leI ¼ a1 þ2a42 þa3 . The score IF quantity transported from the ith origin to the jth des-
A tination. Then the balanced IFTP-1 is given by
function for the non-membership function mA~I is denoted by


0 0 Xm Xn
S meI and is defined by S meI ¼ 1 42 3 .
a þ2a þa eI ¼
Min Z c e x Iij
A A i¼1 j¼1 ij

Xn
The accuracy function of A e I is denoted by f A
e I and s:t: xI ¼ e
e
j¼1 ij
a Ii ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m
Xm
defined by ex I ¼ e
i¼1 ij
b Ij ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n

S leI þ S meI x Iij  e
e 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n:
f A eI ¼ A A
2  0 0  5 Proposed methods to find starting basic feasible
ða1 þ 2a2 þ a3 Þ þ a1 þ 2a2 þ a3
¼ : solution (BFS)
8
We define the ordering of TIFNs as follow using accu- In this section we introduce some methods to find starting
racy function, which totally depends on membership and BFS of the given balanced IFTP.
non-membership of a TIFN.
 
Let Ae I ¼ a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a0 ; a2 ; a0 and eI ¼
B 5.1 Intuitionistic fuzzy north west corner method
1 3
 0 0  (IFNWCM) for IFTP-1
b1 ; b2 ; b3 ; b1 ; b2 ; b3 be two TIFNs. Then
(a) f ðA~I Þ  f ðB~I Þ ) A~I  B~I The following steps are involved in this method to find
staring BFS.
(b) f ðA~I Þ  f ðB~I Þ ) A~I  B~I

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Step1: Select the North West Corner Cell (NWCC) of resultant in front of the row on right. This is the penalty

the IFTP table (IFTPT) and find the min e a Ii ; e

b Ij , using for the first row. Similarly, compute the penalties for each
row and write them in front of the corresponding row. In
accuracy function. There may arise the following three similar fashion find the penalties for the columns and
cases:

write them in the bottom of the IFTPT below corre-
Case-1. If min ea Ii ; e
b Ij ¼ e
a Ii , then allocate ex Iij ¼ e
a Ii in sponding columns.
the NWCC of m 9 n IFTPT. Delete the ith row to obtain a Step 2: Select the highest penalty and observe the row or
I column for which this corresponds. Determine the smallest
new IFTPT of order (m-1) 9 n. Replace e b Ij by bj He a Ii in
cost in the selected row or column. Let it be cij. Find
the obtained IFTPT and then go to Step 2.

x~Iij ¼ minð~ aIi ; b~Ij Þ. Again there may arise three cases:-
Case-2. If min ea Ii ; e b Ij then allocate, ex Iij ¼ e
b Ij ¼ e b Ij in

Case-1. If min a~Ii ; b~Ij ¼ a~Ii , then allocate x~Iij ¼ a~Ii in the
the NWCC of m 9 n IFTPT. Delete the jth column to
(i,j)th cell of m 9 n IFTPT. Delete the ith row to obtain a
obtain a new IFTPT of orderm 9 (n-1). Replace e a Ii by
new IFTPT of order (m-1) 9 n. Replace b~Ij by b~Ij H~ aIi in
a Ii He
e b Ij in the obtained IFTPT and then go to the Step 2.
the obtained IFTPT and then go to the Step 3.
Case-3. If e aI ¼ e
b I , then either follow Case 1 or Case 2
i j Case-2. If minð~ aIi ; b~Ij Þ ¼ b~Ij , then allocate x~Iij ¼ b~Ij in the
but not both together.
(i,j)th cell of m 9 n IFTPT. Ignore the jth column to obtain
Step2: Repeat Step 1 for obtained IFTPT until the IF-
TPT reduces into a table of order 1 9 1. a new IFTPT of order m 9 (n-1). Replace a~Ii by a~Ii Hb~Ij in
Step3: Starting BFS and IF transportation cost (IFTC) the obtained table and then go to the Step 3.
PP
are given by ex Iij and x Iij respectively.
cij e Csase-3. If a~Ii ¼ b~Ij , then either follow Case 1 or Case 2
but not both together.
5.2 Intuitionistic fuzzy least cost method (IFLCM) Step 3: Calculate the penalties for the reduced table
for IFTP-1 obtained in Step 1. Repeat Step 2 until the table is reduced
into 1 9 1.
The following steps are involved in this method: Step 4: The starting BFS and IFTC are given by x~Iij and
PP
Step 1: Determine the smallest cost in the IFTPT. Let it

cij x~Iij respectively.
x Iij ¼ min a~Ii ; b~Ij using accuracy function. The
be cij. Find e
following three cases may arise: 5.4 Intuitionistic fuzzy modified distribution method

Case-1. If min e a Ii ; e
b Ij ¼ e
a Ii , then allocate e
x iij ¼ e
a Ii in (IFMODIM) to find optimal solution of IFTP-1

the (i,j)th cell of m 9 n IFTPT. Ignore the ith row to obtain
a new IFTPT of order(m-1) 9 n. Replace b~Ij by b~Ij H~
the obtained IFTPT and then go to the Step 2.
Case-2. If minð~ x Iij ¼ e
aIi ; b~Ij Þ ¼ b~Ij , then allocate e
(i,j)th cell of m 9 n IFTPT. Ignore the jth column to obtain
a new IFTPT of order m 9 (n-1). Replace a~Ii by a~Ii Hb~Ij in
the obtained table and then go to the Step 2.
Case-3. If a~Ii ¼ b~Ij , then either follow Case 1 or Case 2
but not both together.
Step 2: Repeat Step1 for the obtained IFTPT until it
reduces to an 1 9 1 IFTPT.
Step 3: The starting BFS and IFTC are given by x~Iij and
PP
x Iij respectively.
cij e
5.3 Intuitionistic fuzzy vogel’s approximation method
(IFVAM) for IFTP-1
The following steps are involved in this method:-
Step 1: Take the first row and choose its smallest entry
and subtract it from the next smallest entry. Write the
In this section IFMODIM is introduced for optimal solution
aIi in of IFTP-1.
The following steps are to be taken while finding the
b Ij in the optimal solution.
Step 1: Find the starting BFS using IFNWCM, IFLCM
or IFVAM.
Step 2: Define dual variables ui and vj corresponding to
the ith row and thejth column respectively such that
ui ? vj = cij for a basic cell (i,j).
Step 3: Define zij = ui ? vj. Find zij-cij for all non-
basic variables and write them in the right lower corner of
the concerned cell. Any one of the following two cases
may arise:
Case-1: If zij - cij B 0, for all i,j. Then the starting BFS
is optimal stop there.
Case-2: If there exists at least one zij - cij s.t. zij -
cij [ 0, then the BFS is not optimal. Go to Step 4.
Step 4: In IFTPT choose that zij - cij which is the most
positive.
Step 5: Assign h~I quantity in that cell for which zij - cij
is the most positive and make a loop as follows:

123
 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Rule for making the loop—start from h~I -cell and move Now to find the starting BFS we can apply any one of
horizontally and vertically to the nearest basic cell with the the methods discussed in Sect. 5. Here we have applied
restriction that the end of the loop must not lie in any non- IFNWCM to find the starting BFS. The BFS obtained is
basic cell except h~I -cell. In this way return to h~I -cell to given in Table 2.
complete the loop. Now we will apply IFMODIM to test the optimality of
Step 6: Add and subtract h~I in concerned cell of the loop the obtained starting BFS.
maintaining feasibility and define the value of h~I as the In Table 3, manyzij - cij [ 0, so solution is not optimal
minimum of x~Iij from which h~I is subtracted, using accuracy so we form a loop as shown above and improve the solu-
function. tion. z34 - c34 = 16 is the most positive, allocating h~I
Step 7: Inserting the value of h~I the next BFS is obtained quantity there, we get the smallest value among which h~I
subtracted is (2,3,5;1,3,6) because (2,3,5;1,3,6) \
which improves the IFTC. While inserting value of h~I one
(3,7,12;2,7,13). Hence allocating h~I = (2, 3, 5; 1, 3, 6), we
cell assumes 0~I value, i.e., this cell become non basic. This
get the new improved solution-1 given in Table 4.
gives the improved BFS.
In Table 4, z12 - c12 = 8 which is the most positive and
Step 8: Repeat step 1–7 until all zij - cij B 0Vi, j.
Step 9: The obtained IF optimal solution and IFTC are (2,4,5;1,4,6) \ (2,5,7;1,5,8) so allocating h~I = (2,4,5;1,
PP 4,6), we get the improved solution-2 given in Table 5.
given by x~Iij and cij x~Iij respectively, i = 1, 2, 3,…,
In Table 5, z31 - c31 = 5 which is the most positive and
m and j = 1, 2, 3,…, n.
(-2,4,10;-3,4,11) \ (0,4,9;-4,4,13), therefore allocating
h~I = (-2,4,10;-3,4,11), we have the improved solution-3
6 Numerical examples given in Table 6.
In Table 6, z41 - c41 = 3 which is the most positive and
Example 1 Hussain and Kumar (2012) There are four (-10, 0, 11;-15, 0, 16) \ (-8, 10, 29;-17, 10, 38).
sources and four destinations, all the sources are connected Therefore allocating h~I = (-10, 0, 11;-15, 0, 16), we get
to all the destinations by roads and the goods are trans- the improved solution-4 given in Table 7.
ported by trucks. The transportation cost per unit is known In Table 7, all zij - cij B 0 so, the obtained solution
as in Table 1 below. The availability and demand of goods is optimal. The optimal solution is x~I12 = (2, 4, 5; 1, 4,
are not known exactly, which are given in terms of TIFNs 6), x~I22 = (-3, 1, 5; -5, 1, 7), x~I23 = (-19,5,29;
as below. Find the optimal allocation which minimizes -30,5,40), x~I31 = (-2,4,10;-3,4,11), x~I34 = (2,3,5;1,3,6),
total transportation cost. x~I41 ¼ ð10; 0; 11; 15; 0; 16Þ; x~I43 ¼ ð19; 10; 39; 33; 10;
Solution by proposed method: Here we have, (3,4,6; 53Þ:
1,4,8)  (2,5,7;1,5,8)  (10,15,20;8,15,22)  (2,3,5;1,3,6) = Table 2 The starting BFS
(2,4,5;1,4,6)  (4,6,8;3,6,9)  (3,7,12;2,7,13)  (8,10,13;
16 1 8 13
5,10,16) = (17,27,38;11,27,44).
(2,4,5;1,4,6)
Hence the problem is balanced.
11 4 7 10
To compare the above mentioned IFNs we find the
(2,4,5;1,4,6) (2,5,7;1,5,8) (-7,1,8;-12,1,13)
accuracy functional values of a~Ii ‘s and b~Ij ‘s as under:
8 15 9 2
30 48 58 82 (3,7,12;2,7,13)
aI1 Þ ¼ ; f ð~
f ð~ aI2 Þ ¼ ; f ð~
aI3 Þ ¼ ; f ð~ aI4 Þ ¼ ; f ðb~I1 Þ
8 8 8 8 6 12 5 14
34 38 120 26
¼ ; f ðb~2 Þ ¼ ; f ðb~3 Þ ¼
I I
; f ðb~4 Þ ¼ :
I (-10,7,24;-18,7,32) (2,3,5;1,3,6)
8 8 8 8

Table 1 IFTP D1 D2 D3 D4 a~Ii

S1 16 1 8 13 (2,4,5;1,4,6)
S2 11 4 7 10 (4,6,8;3,6,9)
S3 8 15 9 2 (3,7,12;2,7,13)
S4 6 12 5 14 (8,10,13;5,10,16)
P I P I
b~I
j
(3,4,6;1,4,8) (2,5,7;1,5,8) (10,15,20;8,15,22) (2,3,5;1,3,6) a~ ¼ b~
i j

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Table 3 Optimality test of the starting BFS

16 1 8 13
u1 = 5 (2,4,5;1,4,6) 8 4 8
11 4 9 10
u2 = 0 (-2,0,4;-5,0,7) (2,5,7;1,5,8) (-7,1,8;-12,1,13) 6
8 15 9 2
u3 = 2 5 (3,7,12;2,7,13) θI 16
6 12 5 14
u4 =-2 3 (-10,7,24;-18,7,32) (2,3,5;1,3,6)
v1=11 v2=4 v3=7 v4=16

Table 4 Improved solution-1

16 1 8 13
u1 = 5 (2,4,5;1,4,6) θI 8 4
11 4 7 10
u2 = 0 (-2,0,4;-5,0,7) (2,5,7;1,5,8) (-7,1,8;-12,1,13)
8 15 9 2
u3 = 2 5 (-2,4,10;-3,4,11) (2,3,5;1,3,6)
6 12 5 14
u4 = -2 3 (-8,10,29;-17,10,38)
v1 =11 v2 = 4 v3 = 7 v4 = 0

Table 5 Improved solution-2

16 1 8 13
u1 = -3 (2,4,5;1,4,6)
11 4 7 10
u2 = 0 (0,4,9;-4,4,13) (-3,1,5;-5,1,7) (-7,1,8;-12,1,13)
8 15 9 2
u3 = 2 θI 5 (-2,4,10;-3,4,11) (2,3,5;1,3,6)
6 12 5 14
u4 = -2 3 (-8,10,29;-17,10,38)
v1 = 11 v2 = 4 v3 =7 v4 =0

Table 6 Improved solution-3

16 1 8 13
u1 = -3 (2,4,5;1,4,6)
11 4 7 10
u2 = 0 (-10,0,11;-15,0,16) (-3,1,5;-5,1,7) (-9,5,18;-15,5,24)
8 15 9 2
u3 = -3 (-2,4,10;-3,4,11) (2,3,5;1,3,6)
6 12 5 14
u4 = -2 θ I
3 (-8,10,29;-17,10,38)
v1 = 11 v2 = 4 v3 = 7 v4 = 5

123
 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Table 7 Improved solution-4 (optimal solution)

16 1 8 13
u1 = -3 (2,4,5;1,4,6)
11 4 7 10
u2 = 0 (-3,1,5;-5,1,7) (-19,5,29;-30,5,40)
8 15 9 2
u3 = 0 (-2,4,10;-3,4,11) (2,3,5;1,3,6)
6 12 5 14
u4 = -2 (-10,0,11;-15,0,16) (-19,10,39;-33,10,53)
v1= 8 v2 = 4 v3 = 7 v4 = 2

The IFTC Z~opt

I
= (2,4,5;1,4,6)  4(-3,1,5;-5,1,7)  The result in (1) can be explained (Refer to Fig. 2) as
7(-19,5,29;-30,5,40)  8(-2,4,10;-3,4,11)  2(2,3,5; follows:
1,3,6)  6(-10,0,11;-15,0,16)  5(-19,10,39;-33,10, Assuming that lZ~I ðcÞ is membership and mZ~I ðcÞ is non-
53) = (-310,131,579;-506,131,775). membership value at c. Then the degree of acceptance (in
Defuzzified value of the transportation cost percentage) of the transportation cost c for the DM is
~ I
f ðZopt Þ ¼ 310þ262þ579506þ262þ775 ¼ 132:75 100:lZ~I ðcÞ and the degree of non-acceptance of the trans-
8
portation cost c for the DM is 100:mZ~I ðcÞ. The degree of
Solution by existing methods: The optimal solution by
hesitation for the acceptance of c is given by
existing methods is given by Z~ex I
¼ ð76; 131; 345;
100ð1  lZ~I ðcÞ  mZ~I ðcÞÞ.
173; 131; 442Þ, f ðZ~ex Þ ¼ 132:75. Here we got Z~opt
I I
¼ Z~ex
I
. Values of lZ~I ðcÞ and mZ~I ðcÞ at different values of c can
So, the optimal solution in this case is likely equal to the be evaluated using Eq. (1a) and (1b) respectively.
optimal solution obtained by the proposed method, but the 8
>
> c þ 310
ranking used in existing methods are not universal. < 441 ; 310\c  131;
>
Example 2 Let us consider the following problem as in lZ~I ðcÞ ¼ 579  c ... ð1aÞ
>
> ; 131  c\579;
(Nagoorgani and Abbas 2013). >
: 448
0 otherwise
8
>
> 131  c
D1 D2 D3 D4 a~Ii < 637 ; 506\c  131;
>
mZ~I ðcÞ ¼ c  131 ::: ð1bÞ
S1 2 3 11 7 (4,6,9;2,6,10) >
> ; 131  c\775;
>
: 644
S2 1 0 6 1 (0.5,1,3;0,1,5) 1; otherwise:
S3 5 8 15 9 (8.5,10,12;8,10,14)
P I P I Similarly the result obtained in Example 2 can be
b~I
j
(6,7,9; (4,5,7; (2,3,5; (1,2,3; a~ ¼ b~
i j
5,7,11) 3,5,8) 1.5,3,6) 0.5,2,4) discussed.

Solving by proposed approach we have, Z~opt I

=
(-928.5, 100, 1138.5;-1831, 100, 2048), f ðZopt Þ =~ I

103.375.
And that of by existing approaches is given by Z~ex I
= 1

(-67, 100, 278.5; -185,100,402), f ðZ~ex Þ ¼ 103:5625:

I

Here we got Z~opt

I
\Z~ex
I
; thus sometimes our approach
gives better optimal solution than the existing approaches.

7 Result and discussion

0
-506 -310 131 579 775

The IFTC Z~opt

I
obtained in Numerical Example 1 is
Fig. 2 Intuitionistic fuzzy transportation cost
~I
Zopt = (-310,131,579;-506,131,775) …(1)

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
8 Conclusions
In this paper new methods are proposed to find the starting
BFS and optimal solution of IFTP-1 in which availabilities
and demands of goods are TIFNs. The algorithm is very
easy to understand and to apply in solving IFTPs because
these methods are similar to the methods which are applied
in solving crisp transportation problems. Also the short-
comings in existing methods proposed by Hussain and
Kumar (2012), Nagoorgani and Abbas (2013) are noticed.
The ranking functions used by the existing approaches are
not universal for ordering TIFNs. By using the existing
ranking functions, ordering of all TIFNs is not possible.
Hence existing approaches could not be utilized to solve a
general IFTP. These approaches only can be utilized in
solving particular types of IFTPs. Our ranking approach is
universal, it can be utilize for ordering all TIFNs. Also we
observed that our approach sometimes gives better solution
than existing approaches. In future this approach can be
applied in solving transportation problems having uncer-
tainty and hesitation in availabilities and demands of
commodities. In future our algorithm can be extended for
solving transportation problems having all parameters as
IFNs.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the critical
comments given by the learned reviewer which helped us to improve
the manuscript. The first author gratefully acknowledges the financial
support given by the Ministry of Human Resource and Development
(MHRD), Govt. of India, India.
References
Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst
20:87–96
Bector CR, Chandra S (2002) On duality in linear programming under
fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 125:317–325
Bellman R, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision making in fuzzy environment.
Manag Sci 17(B):141–164
Dinager DS, Palanivel K (2009) The transportation problem in fuzzy
environment. Int J Algorithm Comput Math 12(3):93–106
Ebrahimipur V, Qurayshi SF, Shabani A, Shoja BM (2011) Reliability
optimization of multi-state weighted k-out-of-n systems by fuzzy
mathematical programming and genetic algorithm. Int J Syst
Assur Eng Manag 2(4):312–318
Ganesan K, Veeramani P (2006) Fuzzy linear programs with
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Ann Oper Res 143:305–315
Hussain RJ, Kumar PS (2012) Algorithmic approach for solving
intuitionistic fuzzy transportation problem. Appl Math Sci
6(80):3981–3989
Kapur PK, Pham H, Gupta A, Jha PC (2011) Optimal release policy
under fuzzy environment. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 2(1):
48–58
Kaur A, Kumar A (2012) A new approach for solving fuzzy
transportation problem using generalized trapezoidal fuzzy
number. Appl Soft Comput 12:1201–1213
Kheirfam B, Verdegay JL (2013) The dual simplex method and
sensitivity analysis for fuzzy linear programming with symmet-
ric trapezoidal numbers. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 12:171–189
Mohideen IS, Kumar PS (2010) A comparative study on transpor-
tation problem in fuzzy environment. Int J Math Res 2(1):
151–158
Nagoorgani A, Abbas S (2013) A new method for solving intuition-
istic fuzzy transportation problem. Appl Math Sci 7(28):
1357–1365
Nagoorgani A, Ponnalagu K (2012) A new approach on solving
intuitionistic fuzzy linear programming problem. Appl Math Sci
6(70):3467–3474
Nagoorgani A, Razak KA (2006) Two stage fuzzy transportation
problem. J Phys Sci 10:63–69
Pandian P, Natarajan G (2010) A new algorithm for finding a fuzzy
optimal solution for fuzzy transportation problem. Appl Math
Sci 4(2):79–90
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Comput 8:338–353
Zimmerman HJ (1996) Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Allied
Publisher Limited, New Delhi Second Revised Edition
123