Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3 Mathi Manoj IJLSM
3 Mathi Manoj IJLSM
net/publication/264820891
CITATIONS READS
24 4,071
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mathirajan M on 23 October 2015.
M. Mathirajan*
Operations Research Group,
Anna University Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli 620 024, Tamil Nadu, India
E-mail: msdmathi@mgmt.iisc.ernet.in
E-mail: mathirajan@tau.edu.in
*Corresponding author
K. Manoj
Department of Management Studies,
Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka, India
E-mail: Manoj.K@unilever.com
V. Ramachandran
Operations Research Group,
Anna University Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli 620 024,
Tamil Nadu, India
E-mail: rama@annauniv.edu
1 Introduction
The distribution network is an important part in the supply chain management and the
distribution network design problem is a very important strategic decision in supply
planning and management. Distribution network design problems involve both (a) the
optimisation of the flows of goods and (b) the improvement of the existing distribution
network (Ambrosino and Scutella, 2005). A good distribution network design can be used
to achieve a variety of supply chain objectives ranging from low cost to high
responsiveness (Chopra, 2003; Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2004; Liu and Hao, 2006).
In today’s rapidly changing economic and political conditions, it is a big challenge
for companies to constantly evaluate and optimally configure their distribution network.
An important strategic issue related to the design/re-design and operation of a physical
distribution network in a supply chain system is the determination of the best
sites/facilities for intermediate stocking points or warehouses (Melo et al., 2009). The use
110 M. Mathirajan et al.
The literature review is divided into two broad categories namely, (i) studies related to
facility location and distribution policy design issues, and (ii) studies related to
implementation of breakeven analysis methods in the area of supply chain management
issues.
Some researchers have looked at facility location problems as independent decision
issues (e.g., Aikens, 1985; Owen and Daskin, 1998; Bhutta, 2004; Wu et al., 2006;
Sahin and Sural, 2007; Rentizelas and Tatsiopoulos, 2010). There have been
many attempts to solve facility location problem along with other decision issues
such as allocation (e.g., Ohlemuller, 1997; Murat et al., 2010), allocation and routing
(e.g., Wu et al., 2002; Lashine et al., 2006; Nagy and Salhi, 2007), transportation and
inventory (e.g., Jayaraman, 1998; Perl and Sirisoponslip, 1988; Shen and Qi, 2007),
inventory control (e.g., Ballou, 1984; Miranda and Garrido, 2006; Wang et al., 2007;
Gebgennini et al., 2009), storage capacity calculation (e.g., Levén et al., 2004) and supply
chain management (e.g., Tsiakisa and Papageorgiou, 2008; Melo et al., 2009).
Furthermore, in the last decade, the facility location problem as an integral problem
while designing a distribution network has attracted the attention of researchers and these
types of researchers are closely related to the problem addressed in this paper. Chopra
(2003) described a framework for designing the distribution network in a supply chain by
considering various factors such as response time, product variety, product availability,
A design of distribution network and development 111
Norton et al. (2006) used breakeven analysis in their study to compare costs of upgrading
centralised treatment facility and an alternative distributed treatment facility.
3 Problem descriptions
The problem considered in this study is observed in a large consumer product company
in India, which is involved in manufacturing of electronic consumer products. This
company felt the need to reconfigure the existing supply chain because of the current
practice of CST. The CST is a tariff that is levied on all the inter-state trade transactions.
It is payable when there is any trading goods transaction, between any two parties
(e.g., manufacturer and distributor), does not happen in the same state. In other words,
when a manufacturer located in state ‘A’ ships goods to a distributor located in state ‘B’,
the transaction will be levied upon CST as well as local sales tax (=VAT – Value Added
Tax) of state ‘B’.
Let us consider a traditional supply chain network operating in India (comprising of
28 states), which is selling electronic consumer products through distributors. There are
one or few production houses (Factories) shipping goods to distributors. Generally, there
are few distributors in each state of the country. These distributors meet the demand of
stockiest, which are more in numbers for a particular state, generally one or two per
district. Finally, the product will reach to the customer through these stockiest and the
retailers. An example of a complete chain is shown in Figure 1.
Now, suppose the Factory is in state ‘A’ and the Distributor is located in state ‘B’
(Figure 2). In such case, the CST is levied on goods traded between them, in addition to
VAT. To avoid this CST, the company can open a Warehouse in state ‘B’ and transaction
is shown from warehouse to distributor, thus avoiding interstate selling and hence CST.
But, the introduction of the warehouse incurs extra fixed cost of opening a warehouse in
each state and also the operating cost of warehouses add up to the distribution cost.
Hence, this part of the supply chain (as shown in dashed box in Figure 2) is of interest to
operations manager. They have to develop a model to select the location for new
warehouse, compare the extra cost of opening and operating new warehouse with existing
network design and reconfigure the distribution network.
A design of distribution network and development 113
Figure 2 Tax structure for interstate selling and introduction of state-owned depot
4 Solution framework
In this section, we propose the solution framework for the problem discussed.
The decision problem addressed in this study is viewed as the two-stage integrated
decision problem, namely (1) decision on warehouse location, and (2) decision on
finalising the warehouse location in comparison with the existing distribution design
114 M. Mathirajan et al.
network. The modelling and the algorithm details of this solution framework are
discussed in the following subsections.
Assumptions
Notations
Sets
F: (1 … I) factories and i denotes ith factory
S: (1 … J) states and j denotes jth state
W: (1 … K) potential warehouses and k denotes kth potential warehouse
D: (1 … M) distributors and m denotes mth distributor.
Parameters
R_WH: Required no. of warehouses in state S
P_WH: No. of potential warehouses in state S
K: Maximum number of potential warehouse in state S
DBUTOR: No. of distributors in state S
M: Maximum number of distributors in state S
C_F: Capacity of factory F
Capacity: Max capacity allowed for the potential warehouse
PC_F: Production cost at factory F
FC_SW: Fixed cost of opening a warehouse W in state S
LC_SW: Labour cost/operating cost per unit of warehouse W in state S
A design of distribution network and development 115
Objective function
I J P _ WH
∑∑ ∑
i =1 j =1 k =1
( PC _ F (i ) + TC _ FSW (ijk )) * X _ FSW (ijk )
J P _ WH
+∑ ∑ FC _ SW ( jk ) * Y _ SW ( jk ) +
j =1 k =1
J P _ WH DBUTOR
∑∑ ∑
j =1 k =1 m =1
( LC _ SW ( jk ) + TC _ SWD ( jkm)) * X _ SWD( jkm) (1)
J P _ WH
∑∑j =1 k =1
X _ FSW (ijk ) ≤ C _ F (i ) ∀i ∈ I (2)
DBUTOR
∑
m =1
X _ SWD ( jkm) ≤ Capacity * Y _ SW ( jk ) ∀j ∈ J , k ∈ K (3)
I DBUTOR
∑ X _ FSW (ijk ) = ∑
i =1 m =1
X _ SWD ( jkm) ∀j ∈ J , k ∈ K (4)
P _ WH
∑
k =1
X _ SWD ( jkm) ≤ N _ SD ( jm) ∀j ∈ J , m ∈ M (5)
P _ WH
∑ Y _ SW ( jk ) ≤ R _ WH ( j )
k =1
∀j ∈ J (6)
P _ WH ( j ) ≤ K ∀j ∈ J (7)
DBUTOR( j ) ≤ M ∀j ∈ J (8)
116 M. Mathirajan et al.
Y _ SW ( jk ) ∈ {0, 1} ∀j ∈ J , k ∈ K (9)
The objective is to minimise total cost, which includes: Production Cost, opening and
operating cost of warehouse, and transportation costs. Constraint set (2) is the Capacity
Constraint of factories. It ensures that the total quantity of goods shipped from each
factory is less than the capacity of the factory. Constraint set (3) is the Capacity
Constraint of the potential warehouses. Although in our problem the capacity constraint
of the warehouse is not considered but it is important because apart from capacity
constraint of the warehouses it also ensures the relation between quantity shipped and
binary variable Y_SW (whether the potential warehouse is selected or not). In our
problem, the value for capacity is given a large number so that this constraint set only
acts as the relation between quantity shipped and binary variable Y_SW. Constraint set (4)
is the Demand Constraint of the distributors. It ensures that the quantity of goods shipped
to a distributor is equal to the demand of that distributor. Constraint set (5) is the Flow
Balance Constraint at each potential warehouse. It ensures that the quantity of goods
shipped to the warehouse is equal to the quantity of goods shipped out of the warehouse.
It also ensures that the warehouse in state j will ship goods to distributors in state j only.
Constraint set (6) ensures that the number of warehouses selected for a state is equal
to the required number of warehouses in that state. Constraint set (7) ensures that the
number of potential warehouse locations does not exceed the maximum number of
potential warehouse in a state. Constraint (8) ensures that the number of distributors does
not exceed the maximum number of distributor in a state. Constraint set (9) ensures that
the variable Y_SW takes the binary values. Constraint sets (10) and (11) are non-
negativity constraint for the respective decision variables.
A LINGO set code, which generates the ILP model proposed in this section for any
given data, was developed and presented in Appendix 1. Both the proposed ILP model
and the LINGO set code were verified appropriately by solving a small-scale numerical
problem and by interpreting the optimal solution. Owing to the brevity of the paper,
the verification details are not presented here. As the proposed ILP model has minimum
number of binary decision variables, the computational difficulties of the proposed model
do not arise.
The ILP model proposed in this study does not involve routing decisions for serving
the warehouses from the plants and from the warehouses to distributors. These additional
decisions can be achieved using Travelling Salesman Problem’s modelling approach
by introducing a third phase in the existing solution methodologies.
beneficial for the company to open the warehouse in the state as suggested by the FLPDP
model or should it stick to the existing distribution design in that state.
The procedure developed for breakeven analysis involves comparison of the cost of
existing distribution and new proposed distribution for each state. Total cost of existing
distribution will include: Transportation cost from the factories to the distributors and the
CST for interstate selling. Total distribution cost for new proposed distribution system
will include: Transportation cost from factories to warehouses, opening and operating
cost (labour cost) at warehouses, transportation cost from warehouses to distributors.
In the end of the comparison of the cost of existing distribution and new proposed
distribution for each state, the optimal Breakeven Period is computed to decide whether
to go for new proposed distribution system and open the warehouses. This detail of the
proposed breakeven analysis is shown in Figure 3 with the following terminology used
in the proposed procedure for the breakeven analysis:
Net Gain: For state ‘j’, if the proposed distribution system is implemented, the Net Gain
in distribution cost can be found out by:
Net Gain = (Transportation Cost from the factories to the distributors+ the CST
for interstate selling) − (Transportation Cost fromfactories to
warehouses + Operating Cost (Labour Cost) at warehouses+
Transportation Cost from warehouses to distributors).
Breakeven Period: is defined as the time period in which the cost of new proposed
distribution will be equal to the cost of existing distribution. In this study, the Breakeven
118 M. Mathirajan et al.
Period is computed in two ways, namely (a) Breakeven Period without time vale of
money (denoted as N), and (b) Breakeven Period with time value of money (denoted as
Nr). If the rate of interest is known, the time value of money can be incorporated
in the computation of Breakeven Period. With this, the computation details of N and Nr
are as follows:
FC _ SW
N= (12)
NetGain
where
N: Breakeven Period without time value of money
FC_SW: Fixed Cost of opening a warehouse W in state S
FC _ SW * R
ln 1 −
NetGain
Nr = (13)
ln(1 + R )
where
Nr: Breakeven Period with time value of money
FC_SW: Fixed cost of opening a warehouse W in state S
R: Rate of interest for the company.
5 A pseudocase study
produced in their state. It brings down the cost of production in those factories and hence
an incentive to increase the production capacity in those factories.
The products marketed by EFL reaches the ultimate customer through various
distribution channels. Figure 4 shows the business distribution of the company. Around
35% goes through direct sales, Industrial division caters to 15% of sales, 25% reaches the
customers through distributors and rest 25% is through services and other sales.
Currently, 25% business through distributors (shown in a shaded box: Figure 4) is
growing at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 40%, which makes it an
important part of their business. There are around 100 of such distributors across the
country.
Considering the business through distributor channel only, the distribution network for
EFL is shown in Figure 5. The products are manufactured by the production facility units
and passed on to warehouse. From these warehouses, the products are distributed to
various EFLs’ Distributors (EFLDs). Suppose the warehouse is located in state S1 and it
is distributing goods to EFLDs located in states S1, S2, S3, …, Sn, (transit points), then
the goods traded with EFLD(S1) will not attract CST because the transaction is
happening in same state. But for the goods trades with EFLDs (S2, S3,…, Sn) will attract
CST (as shown in shaded box in Figure 5) because of the interstate selling. If the
company wants to avoid this CST levied on interstate selling, it has to open their own
warehouse in each state where goods can be shipped from production facilities and then
goods can be traded from these warehouses to the EFLDs in that state, thereby avoiding
any interstate selling. But, there will be extra cost of opening and operating warehouse in
each state, so EFL has to trade off between the two options.
As some of the real data related to the research problem addressed here was not
available, it is randomly generated to demonstrate the solution framework proposed in the
study on real-life size problems and the same is discussed in the next section.
120 M. Mathirajan et al.
State-wise, the data on required no. of warehouses (R_WH), the number of potential
warehouses (P_WH) and the number of distributors (DBUTOR) are generated randomly
considering the size (in terms of area) of the state. These data are shown in Table 2.
Unit transportation cost of shipping goods from factory F to warehouse W (TC_SWF)
and unit transportation cost of shipping goods from warehouse W to distributor D
(TC_SWD) are generated based on the physical distance between the cities where
these warehouses and distributors are located. Cost is assumed to be proportional to
the distance between two cities.
Data for other parameters such as demand at distributor D in State S (N_SD), fixed
cost of opening a warehouse W in State S (FC_SW), and labour-cost/operating-cost per
unit of warehouse W in State S (LC_SW) are generated randomly by assuming uniform
distribution functions U (50, 1050), U (30,000, 90,000) and U (25, 75), respectively.
These data is shown in Appendix 2.
A design of distribution network and development 121
Table 5 Optimal distribution policy for the warehouse located at the state: Andhra Pradesh
The existing cost of distribution and new proposed cost of distribution as obtained
from FLPDP model is compared and breakeven period is calculated using both the
formula discussed in Section 4.2 and the result has been summarised in Table 6. The rate
of interest for formula (13) is assumed to be 7%, which is cost of borrowing for most of
the big companies.
Table 6 Breakeven Period and optimal decision (to opt for new warehouse in the state)
for accepting the new proposed warehouse
Assuming that the demand data generated for the case being yearly, the breakeven period
is calculated and then converted in months. The decision to go for new proposed
warehouse locations was taken based on this period. For a state, if the opening of new
proposed warehouses is breaking even in less than or equal to six months, then we decide
to go for the opening warehouses in that state.
6 Conclusion
the total inventory for the company, which will affect the overall benefit gained. This can
also be taken as the future work to include inventory issues along with other issues.
Another extension of this study can be taken as incorporating the breakeven period
analysis in the mathematical model itself and convert the solution into single stage
solution. Lastly, the model proposed in this study does not involve routing decisions for
serving the warehouses from the plants and from the warehouses to distributors and this
issue can be addressed following TSP modelling process as third phase in this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors are most grateful to the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions
that helped to improve the presentation of the paper considerably.
References
Aikens, C.H. (1985) ‘Facility location models for distribution planning’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 22, pp.263–279.
Ambrosino, D. and Scutella, M.G. (2005) ‘Distribution network design: new problems and related
models’, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 165, pp.610–624.
Amiri, A. (2006) ‘Designing a distribution network in a supply chain system: formulation and
efficient solution procedure’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 171,
pp.567–576.
Avittathur, B., Shah, J. and Gupta, O.K. (2003) ‘Distribution centre location modeling for
differential sales tax structure’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 162,
pp.191–205.
Ballou, R. (1984) ‘DISPLAN: a multiproduct plant/warehouse location model with nonlinear
inventory costs’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.75–90.
Bhutta, K.S. (2004) ‘International facility location decisions: a review of the modelling literature’,
Int. J. Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.33–50.
Bidhandi, H.M., Yusuff, R.M., Ahmad, M.M.H.M. and Bakar, A.R.A. (2009) ‘Development of a
new approach for deterministic supply chain network design’, European Journal of
Operations Research, Vol. 198, pp.121–128.
Chopra, S. (2003) ‘Designing the distribution network in a supply chain’, Transportation Research
Part E, Vol. 39, pp.123–140.
Gebgennini, E., Gamberini, R. and Manzini, R. (2009) ‘An integrated production-distribution
model for the dynamic location and allocation problem with safety stock optimization’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122, No. 1, pp.286–304.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2004) ‘Virtual supply-chain management’, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.584–595.
Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Sridharan, S.V. (1993) ‘Adapting traditional breakeven analysis
to modern production economics: simultaneously modeling economies of scale and scope’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.187–201.
Jayaraman, V. (1998) ‘Transportation, facility location and inventory issues in distribution network
design’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 18,
pp.471–494.
A design of distribution network and development 127
Klose, A. and Drexl, A. (2005) ‘Facility location models for distribution systems design’, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 162, pp.4–29.
Lashine, S.H., Fattouh, M. and Issa, A. (2006) ‘Location/allocation and routing decisions in supply
chain network design’, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 1, pp.173–183.
Levén, E. and Segerstedt, A. (2004) ‘Polarica’s wild berries: an example of a required storage
capacity calculation and where to locate this inventory’, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9,
pp.213–218.
Liu, Y. and Hao, G. (2006) ‘Design of optimization model of the distribution network
oriented to the customer’, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 1, No. 5,
pp.36–42.
Melkote, S. and Daskin, M.S. (2001) ‘Capacitated facility location/network design problems’,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 129, pp.481–495.
Melo, M.T., Nickel, S. and Saldanha-da-Gama, F. (2009) ‘Facility location and supply chain
management – a review’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 196, pp.401–412.
Miranda, P.A. and Garrido, R.A. (2006) ‘A simultaneous inventory control and facility location
model with stochastic capacity constraints’, Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 6,
pp.39–53.
Murat, A., Verter, V. and Laporte, G. (2010) ‘A continuous analysis framework for the solution of
location–allocation problems with dense demand’, Computers and Operations Research, Vol.
37, No. 1, pp.123–136.
Nagy, G. and Salhi, S. (2007) ‘Location-routing: issues, models and methods’, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 177, No. 2, pp.649–672.
Norton Jr., J.W. and Weber Jr., W.J. (2006) ‘Breakeven costs for distributed advanced technology
water-treatment systems’, Water Research, Vol. 40, No. 19, pp.3541–3550.
Ohlemuller, M. (1997) ‘Tabu search for large location-allocation problems’, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 48, pp.745–750.
Owen, S.H. and Daskin, M.S. (1998) ‘Strategic facility location: a review’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 111, pp.423–447.
Perl, J. and Sirisoponslip, S. (1988) ‘Distribution network: facility location, transportation and
inventory’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management,
Vol. 18, No. 6, pp.18–26.
Rentizelas, A. and Tatsiopoulos, I.P. (2010) ‘Locating a bioenergy facility using a hybrid
optimization method’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 123, No. 1,
pp.196–209.
Sahin, G. and Sural, H. (2007) ‘A review of hierarchical facility location models’, Computer and
Operations Research, Vol. 34, pp.2310–2311.
Shen, Z-J. and Qi, L. (2007) ‘Incorporating inventory and routing costs in strategic location
models’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 179, pp.372–389.
Tsiakisa, P. and Papageorgiou, L.G. (2008) ‘Optimal production allocation and distribution supply
chain networks’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 111, pp.468–483.
Wang, Z., Yao, D-Q. and Huang, P. (2007) ‘A new location-inventory policy with reverse logistics
applied to B2C e-markets of China’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 107, pp.350–363.
Wu, T-H., Low, S. and Bai, J-W. (2002) ‘Heuristic solutions to multi-depot location routing
problems’, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 29, pp.1393–1415.
Wu, W-Y., Bai, C-J. and Gupta, O.K. (2006) ‘A hypermarket site selection model using the grey
multi-objective decision method’, Int. J. Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.68–77.
128 M. Mathirajan et al.
SETS:
STATE: R_WH, P_WH, DBUTOR;
WAREHOUSE;
DISTRIBUTOR;
FACTORY: C_F, PC_F;
STATE_WH( STATE, WAREHOUSE): FC_SW, LC_SW, Y_SW;
STATE_DBUTOR( STATE, DISTRIBUTOR): N_SD;
FACTORY_WH(STATE_WH, FACTORY): X_SWF, TC_SWF;
WHOUS_DBUTOR(STATE, WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTOR): X_SWD,
TC_SWD;
ENDSETS
DATA:
!Data input through Excel Sheet;
STATE = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
WAREHOUSE = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
DISTRIBUTOR = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
R_WH = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
P_WH = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
DBUTOR = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
FACTORY = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
N_SD = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
FC_SW = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
PC_F = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
C_F = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
TC_SWF = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
TC_SWD = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
LC_SW = @OLE('E:\PROJECT\DATA.XLS');
CAPACITY = 50000;
!Exporting Result to Excel Sheet;
@OLE('E:\PROJECT\RESULT.XLS') = Y_SW, X_SWF, X_SWD;
ENDDATA
A design of distribution network and development 129
State N_SD
APR 388 370 688 841 120 965 525 938 709 218
ARP 441 172 385 644 484 404 437 297 866 776
ASM 902 976 200 903 956 77 962 61 124 157
BIH 813 806 1003 534 593 600 229 77 837 101
CHT 1007 353 313 102 475 762 787 600 821 375
GOA 343 304 584 528 519 255 132 762 184 649
GUJ 550 337 311 144 60 884 492 255 566 247
HAR 464 426 918 616 472 1037 96 884 516 344
HPR 525 762 612 445 952 957 783 1037 752 719
JNK 766 273 101 95 900 744 81 957 504 924
JKD 108 140 105 239 57 840 711 744 549 564
KAR 255 62 283 750 800 616 197 840 981 687
KER 558 820 735 290 234 994 576 616 272 863
MPR 129 793 579 910 125 828 474 994 706 656
MAH 710 757 620 521 290 615 723 828 620 757
MEG 649 656 706 440 226 480 466 615 579 793
MIZ 210 863 272 810 173 868 389 480 735 820
NAG 357 687 981 875 246 942 327 868 283 62
ORI 207 564 549 798 617 419 934 942 105 140
PUN 847 924 504 653 381 894 889 419 101 273
RAJ 362 719 752 664 621 1005 95 894 612 762
SKM 92 344 516 198 457 453 565 1005 918 426
TND 790 247 566 496 428 451 88 453 311 337
TRI 488 649 184 1000 71 660 926 451 584 304
UPR 222 375 821 380 381 828 800 660 313 353
UTT 745 101 837 105 915 205 358 828 1003 806
WBN 679 164 124 900 960 520 915 205 200 976
DEL 510 453 866 404 484 644 385 520 101 337
A design of distribution network and development 131
TC_SWF: Unit transportation cost of shipment from factories to state warehouses based
on inter-city distances
A design of distribution network and development 133