See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325881983

Solving the multi-period fixed cost transportation problem using LINGO

solver

Article  in  International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

2 1,095

2 authors, including:

A. N. Balaji
KLN College of Engineering
44 PUBLICATIONS   1,152 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Polymer Matrix Composite View project

Nano cellulose reinforced composites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. N. Balaji on 10 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
Volume 119 No. 12 2018, 2151-2157
ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)
url: http://www.ijpam.eu
Special Issue
ijpam.eu

Solving the multi-period fixed cost transportation problem

using LINGO solver

N. Balaji1, A.N.Balaji2
1
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology,
Coimbatore 641 008,Tamilnau,India.
2
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
KLN College of Engineering
Sivagangai 630 612, Tamilnadu, India
Tel.: +91 4222678001; Fax: +91 4222678012
E-mails: balajin@skcet.ac.in, rajbalaji2001@gmail.com

Abstract
The experimental outcomes while solving a multi-period fixed cost
transportation problem using an Operational Research software tool
LINGO solver were addressed in this paper. The objective was to
compare the solver time with respect to problem size. The proposed
solver was tested with forty test problems. The results disclosed the
performance of the proposed solver. In addition, the experiment
revealed the difficulty of solving large scale multi-period fixed cost
transportation problem.

Keywords: Multi-period fixed cost transportation problem; LINGO

solver; Solver time.

2151
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

1. Introduction
Traditional transportation problems are confined to a particular period. But
in reality, the distribution decisions are prolonged for more than one time frame,
because it provides a chance to take advantage in lot sizing. This model is referred
as multi-period transportation problem. The inclusion of fixed costs in the problem
transformed the problem as multi-period fixed cost transportation problem.
The fixed cost transportation problems persist to be a crucial area of
transportation research (Palekar et al 1990, Sun et al 1998 , Kim and Pardalos
1999, Kim et al 2000, Adlakha and Kowalski 2003, Poh et al 2005, Adlakha et al
2007, Jawahar and Balaji 2009, Jawahar and Balaji 2010, Jawahar and Balaji
2011, Jawahar and Balaji 2012).
The literature survey uncovered the followings: Fixed cost transportation
problems are hard to solve due to the presence of fixed costs; Branch and bound
techniques are extensively proposed to solve fixed cost problems but still it is a very
computational intensive procedure; Several approximate algorithms have been
proposed for some specific types of problems but there is still a need for a more
effective solution approach to more general problems; The problem specific
heuristics provide a good foundation for solving small size problems. Few articles
(Jawahar and Balaji 2010, Jawahar and Balaji 2011, 2012) have tried to solve
multi-period problems approximately by annealing/genetic based meta heuristic
algorithms and by LINGO solver by relaxing the nonlinearities.
LINGO is a well-known and powerful Operational Research software tool
available today designed to make building and solving problems easier and more
efficient. It is capable to solve any kind of nonlinear problems. It includes a set of
integral solvers to handle a wide range of problems. All of the LINGO solvers are
directly associated with the modeling situation. It comprises a number of ways to
find locally or globally optimal solutions to nonlinear models. LINGO has an
optional nonlinear solver based on the principle of generalized reduced gradient
algorithm. The key benefits of LINGO are easy model expression, convenient data
options, create turn-key applications and extensive documentation and help (Lingo
User’s Guide 1999).
In this paper, the multi-period fixed cost transportation problem has been
attempted to solve using LINGO solver including the nonlinearities. The
experimental outcomes are addressed by solving a set of forty test problems using
LINGO solver.
The rest of the paper is prearranged as follows: The problem environment
and mathematical details of the multi-period fixed cost transportation problem are
given in section 2. Section 3 discusses the performance particulars of LINGO solver
while solving test problems of multi-period fixed cost transportation problem. A
summary of multi-period fixed cost transportation test problems solved by LINGO
solver are concluded in section 4.

2152
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

2. Multi-period fixed cost transportation problem

A number of realistic transportation problems can be represented as multi-
period fixed cost transportation problem. Jawahar et al (2011) and Jawahar and
Balaji (2012), formulated a more generalised multi-period fixed cost transportation
problem including variable and fixed cost allied with transportation, inventory that
can be stored at any of the supplier’s or customer’s places with variable inventory
storing costs and unfilled demands met as backorders to any of the customers with
variable backorder penalty costs. The mathematical model expressed as a Pure
Integer Non-Linear Programming problem as shown below. It integrates the
decisions on transportation, inventories and backorders. The decision variables
along with model are shown below.
Decision variables
X ijt - Shipment from Supplier i to Customer j during period t
SI i
t
- ith Supplier inventory during period t
CI t
j - jth Customer inventory during period t
BLtj - jth Customer Backorder during period t
Mathematical Model
T m n T 1 m T 1 n T 1 n
Min Z   (Cij * X ijt  FC ij *  ijt )   SH i * SI it   CH j * CI tj   BC j * BLtj (1)
t 1 i 1 j 1 t 1 i 1 t 1 j 1 t 1 j 1

Subject to
n
Pi t  SI it 1   X ijt  SI it (2)
j 1
m
D tj  BLtj1  CI tj1   X ijt  BLtj  CI tj (3)
i 1

X ijt * ( ijt  1)  0 (4)

 ij  X ij  0
t t
(5)
 ij t  0 X ijt  0 , SIit  0 , CI tj  0 , BLtj  0 and integer; (6)
i , i  1...m,  j , j  1...n & t , t  1...T ,

The total cost of transportation, supplier side inventory, customer side inventory
and customer side back order for the entire period T is shown in objective equation
1. First constraint set equates the material balance at the supplier side. In the same
way, second constraint set balances the materials at the customer side. It also
ensures the presence of inventory or backorder on both sides of the equation.
Constraints 4 and 5 send back the value of  ij based on the value of X ij . Last
t t

constraint declares the non-negativity of the decision variables.

2153
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

3. Performance of LINGO solver

In this chapter, there are forty test problems with different dimensions are
attempted to solve optimally using LINGO solver. Table 1 demonstrates the output
of the test problems with the maximum run time of 350 seconds. Figure 1 illustrates
the solver time for providing the solutions to the test problems.

Table 1: Test problems outputs using LINGO solver

S.No. Problem Solver Total S.No. Problem Solver Total
dimensions Time Cost dimensions Time Cost
(secs) (secs)
Constraints

Constraints
(Note:
Variables

Variables
T*m*n

T*m*n
No of

No of
No of

No of
N-ONon
Optimal)

1. 2*2*2 28 36 2 13,365 21. 2*5*5 130 150 152 34,538

2. 2*2*3 40 50 2 22,500 22. 2*5*6 154 176 136 26,074
3. 2*2*4 52 64 2 21,305 23. 3*2*2 42 54 2 21,405
4. 2*2*5 64 78 4 45,350 24. 3*2*3 60 75 2 32,150
5. 2*2*6 76 92 4 43,420 25. 3*2*4 78 96 17 32,255
6. 2*2*7 88 106 9 30,120 26. 3*3*2 57 72 6 16,920
7. 2*3*2 38 48 2 11,955 27. 3*3*3 81 99 4 27,170
8. 2*3*3 54 66 2 17,390 28. 3*3*4 105 126 -- 32,105 N:O
9. 2*3*4 70 84 8 21,600 29. 3*3*5 129 153 -- 36,070 N:O
10. 2*3*5 86 102 8 31,310 30. 3*4*2 72 90 5 23,755
11. 2*3*6 102 120 92 38,220 31. 3*4*3 102 123 12 38,610
12. 2*3*7 118 138 20 45,500 32. 3*4*4 132 156 -- 46,230 N:O
13. 2*4*2 48 60 4 15,695 33. 3*4*5 162 189 -- 42,825 N:O
14. 2*4*3 68 82 4 37,390 34. 3*5*2 87 108 4 38,890
15. 2*4*4 88 104 47 38,061 35. 3*5*3 123 147 252 48,740
16. 2*4*5 108 126 59 35,260 36. 4*2*2 56 72 2 25,355
17. 2*4*6 128 148 40 38,930 37. 4*2*3 80 100 8 49,845
18. 2*5*2 58 72 9 21,845 38. 4*2*4 104 128 82 26,710
19. 2*5*3 82 98 26 36,360 39. 4*3*2 76 96 4 18,290
20. 2*5*4 106 124 117 45,533 40. 4*3*3 108 132 -- 19,145 N:O

2154
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Solver ends and results in non-

optimal solutions

Solver
Time
(secs)

Problem’s serial number

Figure 1: LINGO solver computational time for forty test problems

4. Conclusions
In this paper, a more generalised multi-period fixed cost transportation
problem is considered for experimentation. An Operational Research software tool
LINGO (8) solver is used to evolve the optimal solutions. The proposed solver is
tested with forty test problems. The results reveal the following;
• The solver is able to solve most of the problems optimally in a reasonable good
computational time.
• It is unable to provide optimal solution to certain large scale problems
(problems with S.No. 28, 5429, 32, 33 and 40).
• Above all, the experiment reveals that solver time grows along with the
problem size and validates the difficulty of solving large scale multi-period
fixed cost transportation problems.
• It is a challenging study to develop an efficient tool to tackle the multi-period
fixed cost transportation problem in the present supply chains networks.

References
1. Adlakha V, Kowalski K. 2003. “A simple heuristic for solving small
fixed-charge transportation problems.” Omega: the International
Journal of Management Science. 31: 205-211.

2155
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

2. Adlakha V, Kowalski K., Vemuganti R.R, and Lev B. 2007. “More-for-

less algorithm for fixed-charge transportation problems.” Omega: the
International Journal of Management Science. 35: 116–127.
3. Ehsan Goodarzi, Mina Ziaei and Edward Zia Hosseinipour. 2014.
“Optimization Analysis Using LINGO and MATLAB.” Text book on
Introduction to Optimization Analysis in Hydrosystem Engineering.
149-193.
4. Jawahar N, Angappa Gunasekaran and Balaji N. 2011. “A simulated
annealing algorithm based heuristic to the multi-period fixed charge
distribution problem.” International Journal of Production Research.
50(9): 2533-2554.
5. Jawahar N and Balaji N. 2010. “Constructive heuristics to the multi-
period fixed charge transportation problem.” International Journal of
Business Performance and Supply Chain Modeling. 2(2): 97-111.
6. Jawahar, N. and Balaji, A. N. 2009. “A genetic algorithm for the two-
stage supply chain transportation problem associated with a fixed
charge.” European Journal of Operations Research. 194: 496-537.
7. Jawahar N and Balaji N. 2012. “A genetic algorithm based heuristic
to the multi-period fixed charge distribution problem.” Applied Soft
Computing. 12: 682-699.
8. Kim, D., Pardalos, P.M. 1999. “A solution approach to the fixed
charge network flow problem using a dynamic slope scaling
procedure.” Operations Research Letter. 24: 195–203.
9. Kim.J.U, and Kim.Y.D. 2000. “A Lagrangian relaxation approach to
multi-period inventory/distribution planning.” Journal of the
Operational Research Society. 51: 364-370.
10. Klose, A. 2008. “Algorithms for solving the single-sink fixed-charge
transportation problem.” Computers & Operations Research. 35(6):
2079-2092.
11. Lingo User’s Guide. Chicago, LINDO Systems Inc., 1999.
12. Palekar, U.S., Karwan, M.H., Zionts, S. 1990. “A branch-and-bound
method for the fixed charge transportation problem.” Management
Science. 36(9): 1092–1105.
13. Poh.K.L, Choo.K.W, Wong.C.G. 2005. “A heuristic approach to the
multi-period multi-commodity transportation problem”. Journal of
the Operational Research Society. 56: 708–718.
14. Sun, M., Aronson, J. E., McKeown, P. G. and Drinka, D. 1998. “A
tabu search heuristic procedure for the fixed charge transportation
problem.” European Journal of Operations Research. 106: 441-456.

2156
2157
 2158

View publication stats