Transportation Planning and Technology

Fo
rP
ee

Fuzzy modeling approach to rail freight car

inventory problem
rR

Journal: Transportation Planning and Technology

Manuscript ID: GTPT-2011-0101

ev

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Date Submitted by the

31-Jul-2011
ie

Author:

Complete List of Authors: Milenkovic, Milos; The Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering,
Railway
w

Bojovic, Nebojsa; The Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering,

Railway
On

Keywords: rail, freight car, inventory, fuzzy, EOQ

ly

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 1 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
2 Fuzzy modeling approach to rail freight car
3
4 inventory problem
5
6 Milos Milenkovic1, Nebojsa Bojovic
7 The Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering
8
9 Belgrade University, Belgrade, Serbia
10
11 Techniques to improve freight-car fleet use are of considerable interest to the
12 railroad industry. In this paper we present a fuzzy inventory control approach
13 applied to the sizing of empty cars on a rail network. We address the problem of
14 deciding the optimal inventory level and optimal ordering quantity for a rail
15 freight car fleet system in which the demand and travelling time are uncertain
16
Fo

17 variables represented as triangular fuzzy numbers. Based on the fuzzy economic

18 order quantity (EOQ) formula, a modified fuzzy EOQ model is set up and the
19 optimal policy is developed using the signed distance method to defuzzify the
20 fuzzy total cost. Computational results made for a Serbian rail network case verify
rP

21 the proposed model as well as the efficiency of the approach.

22
23 Keywords: rail, freight car, inventory, fuzzy, EOQ
24
ee

25
26
27
Introduction
28
rR

29 From the point of providing a higher level service for customers and reducing
30 operational cost to the minimum, techniques to improve rail freight car fleet use
31 are of considerable interest to the railroad industry.
32 Rail freight transport operating costs can be divided into three categories: train
33
ev

34 costs, terminal operating costs, and car costs. Within the car cost component there
35 are the car ownership cost and inventory costs. Total inventory costs represent a
36 sum of all stations’ inventory costs including the cost of supplying the cars for
iew

37 each particular station, holding costs and costs of backlogging due to the fact that
38 a sufficient number of cars to carry loads is not available.
39
40
Every railway company has an inventory problem. There are uncertain demand
41 and unreliable deliveries of empty cars in stations within the rail network. So,
42 under the assumption that the railway company wants to provide all the cars that
43 the shipper wants, there is a need for a buffer of freight cars in all stations. Since
On

44 there are different demands in different stations and freight cars have limited
45 capacities, a shortage or excess inventory may occur. The different demand rates
46
47 will give varying replenishment periods and number of cars. Stations with higher
consumption rates need a higher frequency of inventory replenishment or larger
ly

48
49 order sizes. Therefore, when a customer visits a station, his requests may not be
50 met due to inappropriate replenishment policies including periods and quantities.
51 This paper reports the results of inventory control applied to one aspect of the
52
53
process, namely the sizing of empty-car inventories at particular points in the
54 network. On base of classic economic ordering quantity (EOQ) model we
55 designed a fuzzy inventory model that can determine the optimum inventory level,
56 for a single terminal area, as a function of uncertain daily demand and car
57 travelling time, cost of supplying the cars, cost of holding a car in a terminal
58 awaiting loading and cost of having no car available to satisfy shipper demand.
59
60 Daily demand and car travelling time are represented as triangular fuzzy numbers
(Zimmermann 1991), whereas the cost components are crisp.

1
Corresponding author. E-mail: m.millenkovic@gmail.com
1
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 2 of 27

1
2
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2., a brief
3 literature review is given. In Section 3., some definitions and properties about
4 fuzzy sets related to this study are introduced. In Section 4, we develop the fuzzy
5 rail freight car inventory model involving variable demand and lead time. Using
6 the signed distance method, we derive the estimate of total cost in the fuzzy sense.
7
By minimizing the estimate of total cost in the fuzzy sense we obtain optimal
8
9 order quantity and inventory level. In Section 5, a real numerical example is
10 provided to illustrate the results. Section 6. summarizes the work done in this
11 paper.
12
13
14
15
Literature review
16
Fo

17 Railroad cars are allocated depending on the existing supply of empty cars and
18 their demand at railroad terminals or classification yards. One of the problems
19 addressed by researches has therefore been maintaining an adequate supply of
20 empty cars at the network terminals (Dejax and Crainic 1987).
rP

21
22
First results of inventory control applied to empty car inventories are contained in
23 (Philip and Sussman 1977). Authors evaluate existing techniques in distributing
24 empty rail cars on a rail network, and propose discrete event simulation model to
ee

25 account for variations in supply and demand. Proposed model can determine the
26 optimum inventory level, for a single terminal area, as a function of a daily supply
27
variations, daily demand variations, and cost of holding a car in a terminal
28
rR

29 awaiting loading compared to cost of have no car available to satisfy shipper

30 demand. This inventory model approach is presented as an alternative to the
31 classical transportation optimization methodologies developed earlier (White and
32 Bomberault 1969) for empty car allocation problems. Authors also demonstrate
33
ev

the applicability of the model to a real railroad operating situation.

34
35
Rail freight car inventory control has been treated also as a part of a general empty
36 car inventory management model over an entire railroad network (Mendiratta and
Turnquist 1982). Namely, authors viewed the problem as a lack of coordination
iew

37
38 between decisions made centrally for the railroad as a whole and decisions made
39 locally at individual terminals. Model incorporates interacting submodels, the
40
network model and terminal model each representing the activities performed at
41
42 the corresponding level in the railroad system: central decision making at
43 corporate headquarters is concerned with movements over the total railroad
On

44 network, while the inventory-sizing decisions are made at each individual railroad
45 terminal. Decisions are made at each level (corporate and terminal), while the
46 coordination between the two levels relies on a price mechanism. The objective of
47
the system is to maximize profits for the railroad subject to the constraints
ly

48
49 imposed by available empty cars, shipper demands for empty cars, and
50 institutional requirements. The objective of the network model is to determine
51 internal transfer prices (dual variables) for empty cars that are then input to the
52 terminal model. The terminal model uses these prices to determine orders of
53
54
release of cars.
55 The precise derivation of the form of the price schedules of the network model
56 may be found in (Mendiratta 1981). The model is formulated as a linear
57 programming optimization model and solved by Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition.
58 The terminal model is an inventory-control formulation that incorporates
59 stochastic demand and lead times for the delivery of empty cars. It differs from
60
the previously described inventory control model only in details of the
formulation. An important aspect of the model is that it functions even when there
is an overall shortage of empty cars in the system.

2
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 3 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
2
Tests using data from a U.S. railroad indicate that the model leads to distribution
3 decisions that reduce empty-car miles, empty trips, and empty car days without
4 reducing the percentage of demand satisfied.
5 Inventory control system can be involved via a mixed integer optimization model
6 for the operation of empty freight car distribution (Joborn et al 2004). Presented
7
optimization model is a capacitated network design model, where each capacity
8
9 constraint limits the flow on several arcs. They described a tabu heuristic for
10 solving the model and present computational results.
11
12
13 Fuzzy preliminaries
14
15
16 Before presenting a fuzzy rail freight car inventory model, we introduce some
Fo

17 definitions and properties about fuzzy numbers with relevant operations. Most of
18 these related definitions and properties may be found in (Yao and Wu 2000),
19 (Chang 2004), (Yao and Chiang 2003) and (Chiang 2005).
20
Definition 1. Fuzzy point: Let a% be a fuzzy set on R = (−∞, ∞) . It is called a
rP

21
22 fuzzy point if its membership function is
23
24 1, if x = a
µa% ( x) =  (1)
ee

25
26 0, if x ≠ a
27
Definition 2. Level α fuzzy interval: Let [a, b; α ] be a fuzzy set on R = (−∞, ∞) . It
28
is called a level α fuzzy interval, 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, a < b , if its membership function is
rR

29
30
31 α , if a ≤ x ≤ b
32 µ[ a ,b;α ] ( x) =  (2)
33  0, otherwise
ev

34
If a = b , [a, b; α ] is a level α fuzzy point at a .
35
36 Definition 3. A fuzzy set A = ( a , b, c ) on R , a < b < c , is called a triangular fuzzy
iew

37
number if its membership function is
38
39 x−a
40 b−a , a ≤ x ≤ b
41 
42 c−x
43 µ A ( x) =  , b≤x≤c (3)
 c −b
On

44
45 0, otherwise
46 

47
ly

48 When a = b = c , we have a fuzzy point (c, c, c ) = c% . The family of all triangular

49
50 fuzzy numbers on R is denoted as
51 F = {(a, b, c) | ∀a < b < c, a, b, c ∈ R} (4)
52
53
54
The α − cut of A = ( a, b, c) ∈ F , 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 , is A(α ) = [ AL (α ), AR (α )] . AL (α ) and
55 AR (α ) are left and right endpoints of A(α ) . From (3), we have
56
57 AL (α ) = a + (b − a )α and AR (α ) = c + (c − b)α .
58 As in (Lee and Chiang 2007), we consider the definition of the signed distance on
59 F.
60
Definition 4. The Signed Distance: We define d 0 (a, 0) = a , for a,0 ∈ R .

3
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 4 of 27

1
2 This means if a > 0 then the distance between a and 0 is d 0 (a, 0) = a . If
3 a < 0 then the distance between a and 0 is − d 0 (a, 0) = −a . Therefore, we call
4
5 d 0 (a, 0) = a is the signed distance between a and 0 .
6
7
For D ∈ F , from Definition 4., we have that the signed distance of DL (α ) and
8 DR (α ) measured from 0 are d 0 ( DL (α ), 0) = DL (α ) and d 0 ( DR (α ), 0) = DR (α ) ,
9
10
respectively. Therefore, we may define the signed distance of the
11 interval [ DL (α ), DR (α )] , which is measured from the origin 0 , by
12 1 1
13 d 0 ([ DL (α ), DR (α )], 0] = [ d0 ( DL (α ), 0) + d0 ( DR (α ), 0)] = [ DL (α ) + DR (α )] .
14 2 2
15 For each α ∈ [0,1] , the crisp interval [ DL (α ), DR (α )] and the level α fuzzy
16
interval [ DL (α ), DR (α );α ] are in one to one correspondence. Therefore, we may
Fo

17
18 define the signed distance from [ D (α ), D (α );α ] to 0% as
L R
19
20
d0 ([ DL (α ), DR (α );α ],0]% = d ([ D (α ), D (α )],0) = 1 [ D (α ) + D (α )]
rP

21 0 L R
2
L R
22
23 Since D ∈ F , DL (α ) and DR (α ) exist and are integrable for α ∈ [0,1] , we have
24 the following definition.
ee

25
26 Definition 5. Let D ∈ F . We define the signed distance of D measured from 0%
1
27 1
%
2 ∫0
28 as d ( D ,0) = [ DL (α ) +DR (α )]dα .
rR

29
30 We have the ordering definition of F as follows:
31
32 Definition 6. Let D, E ∈ F . The ordering of D, E is:
33 % < d ( E , 0)
D p E iff d(D, 0) %
ev

34
35 % = d ( E , 0)
D ≈ E iff d(D, 0) %
36 Using Definitions 5. and 6., and the properties of ordering relation <, =, on R we
iew

37
have the following proposition.
38
39 Proposition 1:
40 (a) D, E ∈ F , then one and only one of the following, D p E , D ≈ E , or E p D
41
is true.
42
43 (b) C , D, E ∈ F then the following three axioms of the ordering relations are true.
On

44
45
(i) C p ≈ C
46 (ii) if C p ≈ D and D p ≈ C , then C ≈ D
47
(iii) if C p ≈ D and D p ≈ E , then C ≈ E
ly

48
49 From Proposition 1, we have that p, ≈ are the linear order on F .
50
51 Remark 1. If A = ( a , b, c ) then the left endpoint and the right endpoint of the
52 α − cut of A are AL (α ) = a + (b − a )α and AR (α ) = c + (c − b)α , respectively. The
53
54 1
centroid of A is C ( A) = (a + b + c) and the signed distance of C is
55 3
56
57 % = 1 (2b + a + c) . The midpoint of the interval [a, c] is M ' = 1 (a + c) .
d (C , 0)
58 4 2
59
60
% = 1 ( M '− b)
C (C ) − d (C , 0)
6
% − b = 1 ( M '− b)
d (C , 0)
2
4
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 5 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
1
2 M '− C (C ) = ( M '− b)
3 3
4 % < C (C ) < M ' < c
(a) If M ' > b, then a < b < d (C , 0)
5
6 % <b<c
(b) If M ' < b, then a < M ' < C (C ) < d (C , 0)
7 % =b<c
8 (c) If M ' = b, then a < M ' = C (C ) = d (C , 0)
9 % is near q , and C (C ) is near M ' . From
From (a) and (b), it is clear that d (C , 0)
10
11 Figures 1 and 2, we know that the membership grade of C at b is 1. The
12 membership grade of C at d (C , 0)% is greater than that at C (C ) . Then, we have,
13
14 % > µ (C (C )) . Therefore, from the membership grade viewpoint, it is
µ (d (C , 0))
C C
15
16
% than by C (C ) .
better for us to defuzzify the fuzzy number C by d (C , 0)
Fo

17
18
19
20
rP

21
22
23
24
ee

25
26
27 Figure 1. Case M ' > b .
28
rR

29
30
31
32
33
ev

34
35
36
iew

37
38 Figure 2. Case M ' < b .
39
40 Let D, E ∈ F . For 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 we have next four operations for the level α fuzzy
41 intervals:
42
43 µ[ D L (α )α , DU (α )α ]+[ EL (α )α , EU (α )α ] ( z ) = µ[ DL (α )α + EL (α )α ]+[ DU (α )α + EU (α )α ] ( z ) (5)
On

44
45
D+E = U [(DL (α ) + EL (α ))α , ( DU (α ) + EU (α ))α ]
0≤α ≤1 (6)
46
47
By the same way, we have
ly

48
49 D- E = [(DL (α ) − EU (α ))α , ( DU (α ) − EL (α ))α ]
50 U
0≤α ≤1
(7)
51
52 If 0 ≤ DL (α ) ≤ DU (α ) and 0 < EL (α ) < EU (α ) for α ∈ [0,1] , then we have
53
54
D⋅E = U [(DL (α ) ⋅ EL (α ))α , ( DU (α ) ⋅ EU (α ))α ] (8)
55
0≤α ≤1
56
57 DL (α ) D (α )
58 D÷E = Uα [( )α , ( U )α ] (9)
59 0 ≤ ≤1 EU (α ) EL (α )
60

5
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 6 of 27

1
2
3
4
5 Fuzzy model for rail freight car inventory process
6
7
8 It should be mentioned that there is a number of papers dealing with fuzzy
9 inventory problems. Some approaches consider inventory problem with fuzzy
10 costs, some treat demand and lead time as fuzzy variables whereas in some papers
11 all components are fuzzy (Lee and Chiang 2007), (Kazemi et al 2010), (Bjork
12 2009).
13
14
Consider following fuzzy inventory model and define its correspondence with
15 freight car state description in a station of a railway network. Let γ i (n) represent
16 freight car inventory level in station i for period n of planning horizon. Let ηi ( n)
Fo

17
18 represent the ordering quantity for the same station and period n created
19 whenever the inventory drops to some reorder level. The reorder level is a
20 function of the lead time between placing and receiving an order. Figure 1.
rP

21
represents inventory model of freight cars in station i . The basic criteria for
22
23 determining an optimal number of cars and optimal ordering quantity is the cost
24 minimum consisted of the sum of fleet ownership and allocation costs (Bojovic
ee

25 2002).
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31
32
33
ev

34
35
36
iew

37
38
39 Figure 3. Variation of freight car inventory level in station i .
40
41
It is obvious from the figure that:
42 γ i* (0) = γ i* (1) = ... = γ i* ( P − 1) = γ i*
43 (10)
On

44 ηi* (0) = ηi* (1) = ... = ηi* ( P − 1) = ηi*

45
46 The cycle begins with the receipt of the order, it progresses as demand depletes
47 the inventory to the reordering level, and then it continues for the lead time when
ly

48 the next lot is received. As we can see from the Figure 3., the inventory level
49
50 increases instantaneously by the amount ηi with the receipt of an order (Taha
51 2003).
52 In this analysis we are also concerned with the possibility of shortage during an
53
54
order cycle that is the event of the inventory level falling below zero. This is also
55 called the stock out event. We assume shortages are backordered and are satisfied
56 when the next replenishment arrives.
57 Let us now assume that in the context of freight car inventories, the lead time Lij ,
58
59 or the time of freight car travelling between two stations, is uncertain but possible
60 to describe with a triangular fuzzy number. This assumption is natural, since there
is a great uncertainty in rail car supplying. Note that uncertain lead times are not
directly found in the total cost equation but will affect on cost through the
maximum inventory level γ i . For each station i , there is a relation,
6
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 7 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1 n
2 γ i = ri − Lij Di + ηi , where Di = ∑ Dij is average demand per a cycle and ri is a
3 j =1
4
5
reorder point inventory level. The ordering quantity is fixed (after the
6 optimization procedure), and if the lead times are uncertain, γ i will also be
7 uncertain.
8
9
The lead time is a triangular fuzzy number given by:
10
Lij = ( Lij − δ l ij , Lij , Lij + δ h ij )
L L
11
(11)
12
13 The maximum inventory level γ i will then be
14
15 γ i = (γ i − δ lγ i , γ i , γ i + δ hγ i ) (12)
16
Fo

17 Where
18
δ lγ = δ h Di and δ hγ = δ l Di
Lij Lij
19
i i
(13)
20
rP

21 A triangular fuzzy number is also used to model the demand. Average daily
n
22
23 demand per a cycle in a station i , Di = ∑ Dij is:
j =1
24
ee

25
26 Di = ( Di − δ lDi , Di , Di + δ hDi ) (14)
27
28 The total demand for freight cars in station i on P − 1 period of planning horizon
rR

P −1 N
29
30 is denoted by Ti = ∑∑ Dijk , and can be represented as a triangular fuzzy number:
k =1 j =1
31
32
33 Ti = (Ti − δ lTi , Ti , Ti + δ hTi ) (15)
ev

34
35 Based on these definitions, the elements of the cost function for the rail freight car
36 inventory model are now determined.
iew

37 1. Setup cost representing the cost of delivery of freight cars from supplying
38 stations to the station for which the optimal delivery by period has been calculated
39 as:
40
41 cij Ti
42 (16)
43 ηi
On

44
N
45
46 cij = ∑ (v ⋅ eij + (1 − v )lij ) (17)
j =1
47
ly

48 Where v denotes the ratio of the number of empty cars to the total number of
49
50
freight cars. The value of this coefficient is calculated for all cars in the rail
51 network considered.
52 2. Holding cost. To be able to calculate the fleet holding cost, we must determine
53 the average stock of cars. Let us assume that the number of cars varies linearly
54 from ηi , the value at the beginning of the planning horizon, to γ i , the value at the
55
56 end. Now, the average fleet holding cost can be expressed as the fuzzy number:
57 γ + ηi
58 hi ⋅ ( i − Di ) (18)
59 2
n
60
Where Di = ∑ Dij is the average demand per period calculated with respect to
j =1

P − 1 periods of the considered planning horizon.

7
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 8 of 27

1
2
3. Shortage cost. Shortage occurs when the demand during the lead time is greater
3 then the inventory level. Thus, the shortage quantity cost per period is:
4
Ti n
(ηi − γ i )2
5 ⋅ ∑ pij ⋅ (19)
6 ηi j =1 2ηi
7
8 n
9 Where ∑p ij represent the total shortage cost between station i and all other
10 j =1
11 stations j per period.
12
13
Finally, the freight car inventory model with fuzzy demand and fuzzy lead times
14 will have a cost function given by:
15 cij T i γ i + ηi Ti n (ηi − γ i ) 2
16 C (γ i ,ηi ) = + hi ⋅ ( − Di ) + ⋅ ∑ pij ⋅ (20)
Fo

17 ηi 2 ηi j =1 2ηi
18 In order to defuzzify the cost function, the signed distances need to be defined.
19
The signed distance between C and 0 is given by:
20
rP

21
% % % n 2 %
% = cij d (Ti ,0) + h ⋅ ( d (γ i , 0) + ηi − d ( D , 0))
% + d (Ti , 0) ⋅ p ⋅ d ((ηi − γ i ) , 0)
22
23
24
d (C , 0)
ηi i
2
i
ηi
∑
j =1
ij
2ηi
ee

25 (21)
26
27 where according to (1):
28
rR

29 % = 1 [(T − δ Ti ) + 2T + (T + δ Ti )] = T + 1 δ Ti − 1 δ Ti
d (Ti , 0) (22)
i l i i h i h l
30 4 4 4
31
32 d ( Di ,0)% = 1 [( D − δ Di ) + 2D + ( D + δ Di )] = D + 1 δ Di − 1 δ Di (23)
i l i i h i h l
33 4 4 4
ev

34
% = 1 [(γ − δ γ i ) + 2γ + (γ + δ γ i )] = γ + 1 δ γ i − 1 δ γ i
d (γ i , 0) (24)
35 i l i i h i h l
36 4 4 4
iew

37 1
% = 1 [(η − γ ) 2 (α ) + (η − γ ) 2 (α )]dα =
2 ∫0
38 d ((ηi − γ i ) , 0) 2
i i L i i U
39
40 1
41 1
42
=
20∫ [(ηi − γ i + δ lγ i − δ lγ i α ) 2 + (ηi − γ i − δ hγ i − δ hγ i α ) 2 ]dα = (25)
43
On

44 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
45 = ηi2 − 2ηiγ i + γ i2 − γ iδ lγ i + γ iδ hγ i + ηiδ lγ i − ηiδ hγ i + δ lγ i + δ hγ i
2 2 2 2 6 6
46
47 Inserting equations (13), (14), (15) and (16) into (12) yields to a defuzzified total
ly

48 cost function:
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

8
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 9 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
% = cijTi + cijδ h − cijδ l + hiγ i + hiδ h − hiδ l + hiηi − h D + hiδ h − hiδ l +
Ti Ti γi γi Di Di
2
C (γ i ,ηi ) ≡ d (C ,0)
3 ηi 4ηi 4ηi 2 8 8 2
i i
4 4
4
N N N N
5
6
δ lγ i
∑ pij
j =1 δ lγ i
γi
δ lT γ iδ hγ
i i
∑ pij
j =1
Tiγ iδ hγ i ∑ pij
j =1
δ hT γ iδ hγ
i i
∑p
j =1
ij

7 + (4Ti + δ − δ )( Ti Ti
− )− + + −
8 η i
2 h l
48 16 16η i
2
4η i
2
16η i
2

9 N N N N N N
10 δ lT δ lγ
i i
∑ pij
j =1
Tiδ lγ i ∑ pij
j =1
δ hT δ lγ i i
∑ pij
j =1
δ lT γ 2 ∑ pij
i
i
j =1
δ lT δ hγ
i i
∑ pij
j =1
Tiγ i2 ∑ pij
j =1
11 − + + − − + +
12 16ηi 4ηi 16ηi 8η i
2
48η i
2
2η i
2

13 N N N N N N
Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij δ hT δ hγ ∑ pij δ hT δ hγ ∑ pij Tiγ i ∑ pij Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij γ iδ hT ∑ pij
2
14 i i i i i

15 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
16 + + − − − − −
12η 8η 48η ηi 4ηi 4ηi
Fo
2 2 2
17 i i i
18 N N N N N N

19 δ hT δ hγ
i i
∑ pij
j =1
δ lT γ i ∑ pij
i

j =1
δ lT δ hγ i i
∑ pij
j =1
δ lT ∑ pij
i

j =1
δ hT ∑ pij
i

j =1
Ti ∑ pij
j =1
20 − + + − + +
rP

21 4ηi 16ηi 16ηi 8 8 2

22
(26)
23
24 The convexity of the Equation (26) representing a cost function need to be
ee

25 examined through the Hessian matrix H .

26
27  ∂ 2C (γ i ,ηi ) ∂ 2C (γ i ,ηi ) 
28  
∂γ i2 ∂γ i ∂ηi 
H = 2
rR

29
 ∂ C (γ ,η ) ∂ 2C (γ i ,ηi ) 
30  i i

31  ∂ηi ∂γ i ∂ηi2  (27)
32
33 For computation of Hessian matrix, the derivatives need first to be computed (first
ev

34
and second grade).
35 N N N N N
36
γ iδ hT ∑ pij i
Tiγ i ∑ pij δ lT ∑ pij i
Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij δ hT δ hγ
i i
∑p
iew

∂C (γ i ,ηi ) hi
37 ij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
38 = + + + + + +
39 ∂γ i 2 4η i
2
η i
2
16ηi 4η i
2
16η i
2

40 N N N N N N N
41
42
δ lT δ lγ
i i
∑ pij
j =1
Tiδ lγ i ∑ pij
j =1
δ hT δ lγ
i i
∑ pij
j =1
δ lT δ hγ
i i
∑ pij
j =1
δ hT ∑ pij
i

j =1
Ti ∑ pij
j =1
γ iδ lT ∑ pij
i

j =1
43 − − − − − −
16η 4η 16η 16η 4ηi ηi 4η
On

2 2 2 2 2
44 i i i i i

45 (28)
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

9
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 10 of 27

1 N N
δ lT δ hγ ∑ pij δ hT δ hγ ∑p
2 2
2 i i i i

∂C (γ i ,ηi ) hi δ l i cij δ h i cij Ti cij

T T ij
3 j =1 j =1
4 = + − − 2 + − −
5 ∂ηi 2 4ηi2 4ηi2 ηi 24η i
3
24η i
3

6 N N N N N
Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij δ lT δ hγ ∑ pij δ hT δ hγ ∑ pij Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij γ i2δ lT ∑ pij
2
i i i i i
7
8 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
− + + + + −
9 6η i
3
16η i
2
16η i
2
4η i
2
4η i
3

10
N N N N N
γ i2δ hT ∑ pij γ i2Ti ∑ pij γ iδ lT ∑ pij γ iδ hT ∑ pij Tiδ lγ i γ i ∑ pij
11 i i i
12
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
13 − − − + + +
14 4η i
3
η i
3
2η i
2
2η i
2
2η 3
i
15 N N N N
16 δ hγ δ lγ γ i ∑ pij
i i
δ hγ δ lT γ i ∑ pij
i i
2Tiγ i ∑ pij Tiγ iδ hγ i ∑ pij
Fo

17 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
18 + + + − −
8η 3
i 8η 3
i η 3
i 2η 3
i
19
20 N N N N
δ hT δ hγ γ i ∑ pij δ lT δ lγ γ i ∑ pij δ lT δ lγ ∑p δ hT δ lγ ∑p
2 2
rP

i i i i i i i i
21 ij ij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
22 − − + − +
23 8η 3
i 8η 3
i 24η i
3
24η i
3

24 N N N

∑ pij Tiδ lγ i ∑ pij ∑p

ee

25 δ lT δ lγ
i i
δ hT δ lγ
i i
ij (29)
26 j =1 j =1 j =1
27 + − −
28 16η i
2
4η i
2
16η i
2
rR

29 N N N
30 δ hT ∑ pij
i
Ti ∑ pij δ lT ∑ pij
i

31 ∂ 2C (γ i ,ηi ) j =1 j =1 j =1
= + − (30)
32 ∂γ i 2 4η i
2
η i
2
4η i
2

33
ev

N N N
34
Tiδ lγ i ∑ pij δ lγ δ hT ∑ pij
i i
γ iδ lT ∑ pij
i
35 ∂ 2C (γ i ,ηi ) ∂ 2C (γ i ,ηi ) j =1 j =1 j =1
36 = = + + +
∂γ i ∂ηi ∂ηi ∂γ i 2ηi3 8ηi3 2ηi3
iew

37
38 N N N N N
39 δ hγ δ lT ∑ pij
i i
2Ti ∑ pij δ hT ∑ pij
i
Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij Tiδ hTi ∑ pij
40 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
+ + − − − (31)
41 8η 3
i η i
3
2η i
3
2η 3
i 2η 3
i
42
N N N N
43
∑p ∑p ∑p ∑p
On

γi γi γi
44 δh δ Ti
h ij δl δ l
Ti
ij δ l
Ti
ij 2Tiδ h ij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
45 − − − −
46 8η 3
i 8η 3
i 2η i
3
η 3
i
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

10
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 11 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1 N N N
δ hT δ hγ ∑p Tiδ hγ i ∑p δ lT δ hγ ∑p
2 2 2
2 i i i i

∂ C (γ i ,ηi ) 2Ti cij δ c δ c

2 Ti Ti ij ij ij
3 = 3 + − +
h ij l ij j =1
+
j =1
−
j =1
−
4 ∂ηi 2 ηi 2η 2η 3
i
3
i 8η i
4
2η i
4
8η i
4

5 N N N N N
δ hT δ hγ ∑p Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij δ lT δ hγ ∑p Ti δ lγ i ∑p δ hT δ lγ ∑p
2 2
6 i i
ij
i i
ij ij
i i
ij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
7 − − + + + −
8 8η i
3
2η i
3
8η 3
i 2η i
4
8η i
4

9 N N N N N
δ lT δ lγ ∑p Tiδ lγ i ∑ pij δ hT δ lγ ∑p Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij δ lT δ lγ ∑p
2
i i i i i i
10 ij ij ij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
11 − + + − − +
12 8η i
4
2η i
3
8η 3
i 2η i
3
8η 3
i

13 N N N N N

14 3Ti γ i δ hγ i ∑ pij 3Ti γ i δ hTi δ hγ i ∑ pij 3Tiγ iδ lTi δ lγ i ∑ pij 3Ti γ i δ lγ i ∑ pij 3γ iδ lγ i δ hTi ∑ pij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
15 + + + − − −
2η 4
8η 4
8η 4
2η 4
8η 4
16 i i i i i
Fo
N N N N N N
17
3γ i δ hγ i δ lTi ∑ pij 3Ti γ i2 ∑ pij 3δ hTi γ i2 ∑ pij 3δ lTi γ i2 ∑ pij 3δ lTi γ i ∑ pij 3δ hTi γ i ∑ pij
18 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
19 − + + − + − −
8η i
4
4η i
4
4η i
4
4η i
4
2η i
4
2ηi4
20
rP

N
21 6Ti γ i ∑ pij
22 j =1
23 −
ηi4 (32)
24
We can now present a corresponding Hessian matrix:
ee

25
26
27
 N N N N N

28  Ti δ lγ i ∑ pij δ lγ i δ hTi ∑ pij γ i δ lTi ∑ pij δ hγ i δ lTi ∑ pij 2Ti ∑ pij 
rR

 j =1
+
j =1
+
j =1
+
j =1
+
j =1
+ 
29 

2ηi3 8ηi3 2ηi3 8ηi3 ηi3 

30 
 δ Ti
h ∑
N
pij Ti ∑
N
p ij δ l
Ti
∑
N
p ij δ h
Ti
∑
N
pij T i δ h
γi
∑
N
p ij T i δ Ti
h ∑
N
p ij δ γ i Ti
h δ h ∑
N
p ij δ l
γ i Ti
δ l ∑
N
p ij


j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
31  + − + − − − − − 
 4ηi2 ηi2 4ηi2 2ηi3 2ηi3 2ηi3 8ηi3 8ηi3 
32  N N

 δ l ∑ pij 2Ti δ h ∑ pij
Ti γi 
 
33
ev

j =1 j =1
 − − 
 2ηi3 ηi3 
34  N N N N 
 δ h δ h ∑ pij Ti δ h ∑ pij δ l δ h ∑ pij δ h δ h ∑ pij
Ti γ i 2
γi 2
Ti γ i 2
Ti γ i 
35  2Ti cij δ hTi cij δ lTi cij j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1

 + − + + − − − 
36 
H =
ηi3
2ηi 3
2ηi 3
8ηi 4
2ηi 4
8ηi 4
8ηi 3


iew

N N N N N N N N N N N
37  Ti δ lγ i ∑ pij δ lγ i δ hTi ∑ pij γ i δ lTi ∑ pij δ hγ i δ lTi ∑ pij 2Ti ∑ pij Ti δ hγ i ∑ pij δ lTi δ hγ i ∑ pij Ti δ lγ i ∑ pij δ hTi δ lγ i ∑ pij δ lTi δ lγ i ∑ pij Ti δ lγ i ∑ pij 
2 2 2

 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 
38  + + + + + − + + + − + + 
 2ηi 8ηi3 2ηi3 8ηi3 ηi3 2ηi3 8ηi3 2ηi4 8ηi4 8ηi4 2ηi3
3

39  N N
 δ h ∑ pij Ti δ h ∑ pij Ti δ h ∑ pij δ h δ h ∑ pij
Ti γi Ti
N
γ i Ti
N N N N
δ h δ l ∑ pij Ti δ h ∑ pij δ l δ l ∑ pij 3Ti γ i δ h ∑ pij 3Ti γ i δ h δ h ∑ pij
Ti γ i γi Ti γ i γi
N
Ti γ i
N 

40  j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 
+ − − − − + − − + + + 
 2η 3
2 η 3
2 η 3
8 η 3
8 η 3
2 η 3
8 η 3
2 η 4
8 η 4

41  γ T N
i i
N
i
N
i i
N
i
N
i
N
i
N
i
N 
 δ l δ l ∑ pij δ l ∑ pij 2Ti δ h ∑ pij
i i Ti γi
3Ti γ i δ l δ l ∑ pij 3Ti γ i δ l ∑ pij 3γ i δ l δ h ∑ pij 3γ i δ h δ l ∑ pij 3Ti γ i ∑ pij 
Ti γ i γi γ i Ti γ i Ti 2
42  j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 
− 8ηi3
−
2ηi3
−
ηi3
+
8ηi4
−
2ηi4
−
8ηi4
−
8ηi4
+
4ηi4
+ 
43
On

 
 N N N N N 
44  3δ hTi γ i2 ∑ pij 3δ lTi γ i2 ∑ pij 3δ lTi γ i ∑ pij 3δ hTi γ i ∑ pij 6Ti γ i ∑ pij 
 +
j =1
−
j =1
+
j =1
−
j =1
−
j =1 
45 
 4ηi4 4ηi4 2ηi4 2ηi4 ηi4 

46
(33)
47
ly

48 The determinant of the first order principle minor of the Hessian matrix is given
49 N N N
50 δ hT ∑ pij i
Ti ∑ pij δ lT ∑ piji

51 j =1 j =1 j =1
52 by +
> 0 , which is necessary for the convexity −
53
4η η 4η i
2
i
2
i
2

54 requirement. After rearrangement of this condition we have that

55 4Ti + δ hTi > δ lTi which is always true considering that 0 < δ lTi , δ hTi < Ti . The
56
57 determinant of the second order principal minor is:
58
59
60

11
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 12 of 27

1 N N N N
Tiδ hγ i ∑p Tiδ lγ i ∑p δ hγ ∑p δ lγ ∑p
2 2 2 2

2 N
δ Ti
δ Ti ij ij
i
ij
i
ij

3 Det 2 = ∑ pij ( h
+ Ti − l
)( j =1
+ j =1
+ j =1
(δ hTi − δ lTi ) + j =1
(δ hTi − δ lTi ) +
j =1 4 4 2η i
6
2η i
6
8η 6
i 8η 6
i
4 N N N

5 Ti ∑ pij δ hT ∑ pij i
3δ lTi γ i ∑ pij
j =1 cij
6 + (δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) + j =1
(δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) + (δ hTi − δ lTi + 4Ti ) + j =1
(δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) +
2ηi5 8η i5 2ηi5 8ηi4
7 N N N
8 3Ti ∑ pij 3δ lTi γ i2 ∑ pij ∑p 2

j =1 j =1 j =1
ij
Ti 2 δ hT i

(δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) +
2 2

9 + (γ i2 − 2γ i ) + (δ hTi − δ lTi )) + ( (γ i2 − 2γ i ) +
η i
6
4η i
6
ηi6 4 4
10
δ hT δ lγ δ lT δ hγ δ lT δ lγ
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

11 δ lT
i
δ hT
i i i i i i i
δ hT δ lT γ i
i i

(δ hγ i − 2δ hγ i ) + (δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) +
2
+ (γ i2 − 2γ i ) + + + +
4 16 64 64 64 4
12
δ hγ Ti δ lγ Ti δ lγ γ i
2 2
i i i
13 + (δ hTi − δ lTi ) + (δ hTi − δ lTi ) + (δ hTi − δ lTi ) + Ti γ iδ hγ i (δ hTi − δ lTi ) + δ hTi δ lTi (δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) +
8 8 8
14
1
15 +2Tiγ i2 (δ hTi − δ lTi ) + 4Ti 2γ i2 + δ hTi Ti (δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) + δ hTi δ lTi (γ i − ) + 4Tiγ i (δ hTi − δ lTi ) + 2Ti 2 (δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) +
2
16
Fo
N N N

17 Ti 2 Ti 2
δ lT ∑ pij
i
3Tiγ i ∑ pij 3γ i ∑ pij
δ +δ j =1
18 +2Ti (δ hTi − δ lTi ) + 4Ti 2 + h l
+ (δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) + j =1
(δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) + j =1
(δ hTi − δ lTi ) +
4 8ηi5 2ηi6 2ηi6
19
δ hT δ lT δ hγ δ hT γ iδ lγ
2 2
i i i i i
δ hT δ lT γ i2
i i

20 +2Ti 2γ i (δ lγ i − δ hγ i ) − − − )
rP

16 4 2
21
22 (34)
γi γi
23 Considering the assumptions that δ l > δ h , δ < δ it is obvious that this l
Ti Ti
h
24 expression is positive. Also, it is logical that freight car inventory level will
ee

25
26 always be greater than 2 and integer. Therefore, to obtain the minimum of (26),
27 we only need to solve a following system of equations:
28
rR

29 ∂C (γ i ,ηi ) ∂C (γ i ,ηi )
30 = =0 (36)
∂γ i ∂ηi
31
32 N N N N N
33 γ iδ hT ∑ pij i
Ti γ i ∑ pij δ lT ∑ piji
Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij δ hT δ hγi i
∑p
ev

ij
34 hi j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
35 + + + + + +
2 4η i
2
η i
2
4ηi 4η i
2
16η i
2
36
N N N N N
iew

37
38 δ lT δ lγ i i
∑ pij
j =1
Tiδ lγ i ∑ pij
j =1
δ hT δ lγ i i
∑ pijj =1
δ lT δ hγ i i
∑ pij
j =1
δ hT ∑ pij
i

j =1
39 + − − − − − (37)
40 16η i
2
4η i
2
16η i
2
16η i
2
4ηi
41 N N
42 Ti ∑ pij γ iδ lT ∑ pij i

43
On

j =1 j =1
44 − − =0
ηi 4η i
2
45
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

12
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 13 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1 N N N
δ lT δ hγ ∑p δ hT δ hγ ∑p Tiδ hγ i ∑p
2 2 2
2 i i i i

hi δ c δ c Ti cij
Ti Ti ij ij ij
3 + − − 2 +
l ij h ij j =1
−
j =1
−
j =1
+
4 2 4η 4η ηi i
2
i
2
24η i
3
24η i
3
6η i
3

5 N N N N N N
6 δ lT δ hγ
i i
∑p
j =1
ij δ hT δ hγ
i i
∑p
j =1
ij Tiδ hγ i ∑ pij
j =1
γ i2δ lT ∑ pij i

j =1
γ i2δ hT ∑ pij
i

j =1
γ i2Ti ∑ pij
j =1
7 + + + + − − −
8 16ηi2 16ηi2 4ηi2 4ηi3 4ηi3 ηi3
9 N N N N N N

10 γ iδ lT ∑ pij
i
γ iδ hT ∑ pij i
Tiδ lγ i γ i ∑ pij δ hγ δ lγ γ i ∑ pij
i i
δ hγ δ lT γ i ∑ pij
i i
2Ti γ i ∑ pij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
11 − + + + + + − (38)
12 2ηi2 2ηi2 2ηi3 8ηi3 8ηi3 ηi3
13 N N N N N N
Ti γ i δ hγ i ∑ pij δ hT δ hγ γ i ∑ pij δ lT δ lγ γ i ∑ pij δ lT δ lγ ∑p δ hT δ lγ ∑p δ lT δ lγ ∑p
2 2
i i i i i i i i i i
14 ij ij ij
j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
15 − − − + − + −
2η 3
8ηi3 8ηi3 24η 3
24η 3
16η 2
16 i i i i
Fo
N N
17
Ti δ lγ i ∑ pij δ hT δ lγ
i i
∑p ij
18 j =1 j =1
19 − − =0
4η i
2
16η i
2
20
rP

21 Therefore, the optimal solution for γ i (n) , the maximum rail freight car inventory
22
23
level in station i for period n of planning horizon and ηi ( n) , the ordering
24 quantity for the same station and period n is obtained by solving this system of
ee

25 two nonlinear equations.

26
27
28
Numerical example
rR

29
30
31 Proposed fuzzy rail freight car inventory model has been tested on a real case of
32 Serbian rail network within the four days planning period. We arbitrarily choose
33
ev

this planning horizon length due to the fact that there is no restrictions on the
34
35
length of planning period from the aspect of model and computing process.
36 Serbian rail network has in total about two hundred stations open for rail freight
transport operations. However, we made an approximation by involving eight
iew

37
38 main rail freight stations that generate the most of rail freight transport according
39 to available origin/destination matrices. Figure 4. contains Serbian rail network
40
with main freight stations.
41
42 Table 1. gives the input data on: unit costs of empty trips, unit costs of loaded
43 trips, unit car shortage costs, fuzzy travel time between stations. Table 2. contains
On

44 the unit car holding costs for all stations. The coefficient of empty trip is 0.30.
45
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

13
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 14 of 27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo

17
18
19
20
rP

21
22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31
32
33
ev

34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On

44
45
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Figure 4. Serbian rail network: Main freight stations.

14
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 15 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1 Table 1. Input parameters for eight-station rail freight car inventory problem.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo

17
18
19
20
rP

21
22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31
32
33
ev

34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On

44
45
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

15
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 16 of 27

1
2
Table 2. Unit station’ holding cost.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Demand for transportation is described via triangular fuzzy numbers for all days
Fo

17 over a planning horizon and all origin-destination combinations and is presented

18 in Table 3. This data has been derived by analyzing freight volume reports by
19 stations in previous period.
20
rP

21
22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31
32
33
ev

34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On

44
45
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

16
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 17 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
2
Table 3. Daily demand on Serbian rail network.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo

17
18
19
20
rP

21
22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31
32
33
ev

34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On

44
45
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

17
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 18 of 27

1
2
For all stations within the Serbian rail network the optimal values of car inventory
3 status and the number of dispatched cars have been determined along with the
4 values of objective functions. For solving the system of nonlinear equations (37)-
5 (38) we used Matlab software (Table 4.).
6
7 Table 4. Optimal solution for the rail freight car inventory problem
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo

17
18
19
20
rP

21
22
23 Conclusion
24
ee

25
26 Inventory problems are common in manufacturing, maintenance service and
27 business operations in general. Often uncertainties may be associated with
28 demand, various relevant costs and lead time. In conventional inventory, models
rR

29 treat uncertainty as randomness and are handled by probability theory. In this

30 paper, we have presented a modified economic ordering quantity model for rail
31
32
freight car inventory system with uncertainty for a case where backorders and the
33 lead times as well as the rail freight car demand are triangular fuzzy numbers.
ev

34 Building upon Bojovic’s model in which the demand within the planning horizon
35 is normally distributed, we first fuzzify the demand and after that rail freight car
36 travelling time to be triangular fuzzy numbers and derive the total expected cost in
iew

37
the fuzzy sense. After defuzzification, we derive the estimate of total expected
38
39 cost in the fuzzy sense and obtain the corresponding optimal freight car inventory
40 level in station i for period n of planning horizon and the ordering quantity for
41 the same station and period n . Currently, within the Serbian railways there is no
42 rail freight car inventory policy. Therefore, presented approach could be of great
43
On

benefit for minimization of total inventory costs within the company. Future
44
45 research includes the task to cover more membership functions than the triangular
46 one and also to test the different defuzzification methods.
47
ly

48
49
References
50 Bjork, K.M., 2009. An analytical solution to a fuzzy economic order quantity problem.
51 International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50, 485-493.
52 Bojovic, N.J., 2002. A general system theory approach to rail freight car fleet sizing. European
53 Journal of Operational Research, 136, 136-172.
54 Chang, H.C., 2004. An application of fuzzy sets theory to the EOQ model with imperfect quality
55 items. Computers & Operations Research, 31, 2079-2092.
56 Chiang, J., Yao, J.S., and Lee, H. M., 2005. Fuzzy Inventory with Backorder Defuzzification by
57 Signed Distance Method. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 21, 673-694.
58 Dejax, J.P. and Crainic, T.G., 1987. A Review of Empty Flows and Fleet Management Models in
59 Freight Trasportation. Transportation Science, 21(4), 227-248.
60 Joborn, M., Crainic, T.G., Gendreau, M., Holmberg, K. and Lundgren, J.T., 2004. Economies of
Scale in Empty Freight Car Distribution in Scheduled Railways. Transportation Science, 38(2),
121-134.
Kazemi, N., Ehsani, E., and Jaber, M.Y., 2010. An inventory model with backorders with fuzzy
parameters and decision variables. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 51, 964-972.
18
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 19 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1 Lee, H.M. and Chiang, J., 2007. Fuzzy Production Inventory Based on Signed Distance. Journal of
2 Information Science and Engineering, 23, 1939-1953.
3 Mendiratta, V.B. and Turnquist, M.A., 1982. A Model for the Management of Empty Freight Cars.
4 Transportation Research Record, 838, 50-55.
5 Mendiratta, V.B., 1981. A Dynamic Optimization Model of the Empty Car Distribution Process.
6 Thesis (PhD), Northwestern University.
7 Philip, C.E. and Sussman, J.M., 1977. Inventory model of the railroad empty-car distribution
8 process. Transportation Research Record, 656, 52-60.
9 Taha, H.A., 2003. Operations Research: An Introduction. Pearson Education International.
10 White, W.W. and Bomberault, A.M., 1969. A Network Algorithm for Empty Freight Car
11 Allocation. IBM Systems Journal, 8, 147-169.
12 Yao, J.S. and Chiang, J., 2003. Inventory without backorder with fuzzy total cost and fuzzy storing
13 cost defuzzified by centroid and signed distance. European Journal of Operational Research, 148,
14 401-409.
15 Yao, J.S. and Wu, K., 2000. Ranking fuzzy numbers based on decomposition principle and signed
16 distance. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 116, 275-288.
Fo

17 Zimmermann, H. J., 1991. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic
18 Publishers.
19
20
rP

21
22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31
32
33
ev

34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On

44
45
46
47
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

19
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 20 of 27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
163x234mm (300 x 300 DPI)
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 21 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
Table 1. Input parameters for eight-station rail freight car inventory problem
2 Unit cost of Unit cost of Unit car
3 Fuzzy travel
Origin empty trip
Destination loaded trip shortage cost
4 time (days)
(m.u./car) (m.u./car) (m.u./car)
5 Subotica Elemir 80 40 90 (0.1,0.12,0.14)
6 Subotica Pancevo 90 45 100 (0.11,0.12,0.13)
7 Subotica Belgrade 120 60 120 (0.12,0.14,0.16)
8 Subotica Radinac 130 50 120 (0.5,0.55,0.6)
9
Subotica Bor 150 50 130 (1.0,1.10,1.2)
10
Subotica Nis 170 40 170 (2.0,2.05,2.1)
11
Subotica Vreoci 100 50 100 (1.0,1.05,1.1)
12
Elemir Subotica 80 30 80 (0.1,0.12,0.14)
13
Elemir Pancevo 50 20 60 (0.11,0.12,0.13)
14
Elemir Belgrade 60 20 50 (0.12,0.13,0.14)
Fo
15
16 Elemir Radinac 80 30 70 (0.18,0.2,0.22)
17 Elemir Bor 90 30 90 (1.05,1.1,1.15)
18 Elemir Nis 110 35 100 (1.3,1.40,1.5)
rP
19 Elemir Vreoci 70 25 80 (0.8,0.9,1.0)
20 Pancevo Subotica 90 45 100 (0.1,0.12,0.14)
21 Pancevo Elemir 50 30 60 (0.11,0.12,0.13)
22 Pancevo Belgrade 40 20 40 (0.1,0.12,0.14)
Pancevo Radinac 80 40 80 (0.13,0.15,0.17)
ee
23
24 Pancevo Bor 120 60 120 (0.7,0.8,0.9)
25 Pancevo Nis 150 50 100 (1.5,1.6,1.7)
26 Pancevo Vreoci 80 40 80 (0.4,0.5,0.6)
rR

27 Belgrade Subotica 120 60 120 (0.12,0.14,0.16)

28 Belgrade Elemir 60 20 50 (0.12,0.14,0.16)
29 Belgrade Pancevo 40 20 40 (0.10,0.12,0.14)
30 Belgrade Radinac 50 20 50 (0.12,0.14,0.16)
ev

31 Belgrade Bor 90 40 100 (0.4,0.5,0.6)

32 Belgrade Nis 140 50 140 (0.6,0.7,0.8)
33 Belgrade Vreoci 100 40 100 (0.12,0.14,0.16)
34 Radinac Subotica 120 50 120 (0.7,0.8,0.9)
ie

35 Radinac Elemir 110 40 100 (0.6,0.7,0.8)

36 Radinac Pancevo 80 40 80 (0.3,0.4,0.5)
37
w

Radinac Belgrade 50 20 50 (0.11,0.12,0.13)

38 Radinac Bor 60 20 50 (0.4,0.5,0.6)
39 Radinac Nis 120 60 110 (0.4,0.5,0.6)
40 Radinac Vreoci 80 40 80 (0.2,0.3,0.4)
On

41 Bor Subotica 150 50 130 (1.0,1.1,1.2)

42 Bor Elemir 120 60 110 (1.1,1.3,1.5)
43 Bor Pancevo 120 60 120 (0.9,1.1,1.3)
44 Bor Belgrade 90 40 80 (0.4,0.5,0.6)
45
ly

Bor Radinac 60 20 50 (0.2,0.3,0.4)

46
Bor Nis 50 25 50 (0.1,0.2,0.3)
47
Bor Vreoci 140 50 130 (1.5,1.6,1.7)
48
Nis Subotica 170 40 170 (1.8,1.9,2.0)
49
Nis Elemir 110 35 100 (1.5,1.6,1.7)
50
51 Nis Pancevo 150 50 100 (1.8,1.9,2.0)
52 Nis Belgrade 140 50 140 (1.5,1.6,1.7)
53 Nis Radinac 120 60 110 (0.4,0.5,0.6)
54 Nis Bor 60 20 60 (0.1,0.2,0.3)
55 Nis Vreoci 155 500 155 (1.0,1.2,1.4)
56 Vreoci Subotica 100 50 100 (1.0,1.1,1.2)
57 Vreoci Elemir 70 25 80 (0.8,0.9,1.0)
58 Vreoci Pancevo 80 40 80 (0.4,0.6,0.8)
59 Vreoci Belgrade 80 40 80 (0.1,0.2,0.3)
60 Vreoci Radinac 80 40 80 (0.2,0.4,0.6)
Vreoci Bor 140 50 30 (1.5,1.7,1.9)
Vreoci Nis URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
155 50 155 (1.0,1.4,1.8)
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 22 of 27

1
2
3
4 Table 2. Unit station’ holding cost
5 Station Unit holding cost (m.u./car)
6 Subotica 30
7 Elemir 35
8 Pančevo 30
9 Belgrade 30
10 Radinac 35
11 Bor 25
12 Nis 30
13 Vreoci 35
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 23 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

Table 3. Daily demand on Serbian rail network

1 Destination Fuzzy daily demand
2 1 2 3 4
3 Subotica Elemir (10,11,13) (7,8,11) (5,6,7) (5,7,9)
4 Subotica Pancevo (6,7,8) (9,10,11) (8,10,12) (10,11,13)
5 Subotica Belgrade (15,16,17) (12,13,15) (13,14,16) (10,11,12)
6
Subotica Radinac (2,3,5) (4,5,7) (3,4,6) (4,6,8)
7
Subotica Bor (4,5,6) (4,5,7) (3,4,6) (2,4,6)
8
Subotica Nis (1,2,3) (2,3,5) (2,4,6) (5,6,8)
9
Subotica Vreoci (1,2,4) (2,4,7) (2,3,4) (4,5,6)
10
Elemir Subotica (7,8,10) (9,10,11) (3,4,6) (2,3,5)
11
12 Elemir Pancevo (8,9,10) (8,10,12) (6,7,8) (4,5,8)
13 Elemir Belgrade (11,12,14) (5,7,9) (6,7,9) (8,9,11)
14 Elemir Radinac (2,3,5) (2,3,4) (3,4,7) (4,5,7)
Fo
15 Elemir Bor (3,4,6) (4,5,7) (5,6,8) (4,5,6)
16 Elemir Nis (5,6,8) (4,5,6) (10,11,14) (2,3,5)
17 Elemir Vreoci (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (14,15,17) (8,9,12)
18 Pancevo Subotica (10,11,13) (6,7,9) (4,6,8) (4,5,6)
rP
19 Pancevo Elemir (8,9,10) (6,7,8) (5,6,8) (4,5,6)
20 Pancevo Belgrade (8,9,11) (6,7,9) (9,10,11) (5,7,9)
21 Pancevo Radinac (2,3,4) (2,4,6) (3,4,5) (4,6,7)
22 Pancevo Bor (6,7,8) (6,8,10) (4,6,9) (5,7,10)
Pancevo Nis (8,9,11) (7,8,9) (9,10,12) (11,12,14)
ee
23
24 Pancevo Vreoci (2,3,4) (3,4,6) (3,4,5) (4,5,7)
25 Belgrade Subotica (8,10,12) (6,7,8) (9,10,12) (4,5,8)
26 Belgrade Elemir (5,6,8) (4,5,7) (2,3,4) (2,3,5)
rR

27 Belgrade Pancevo (9,10,12) (14,15,16) (13,14,17) (14,15,17)

28 Belgrade Radinac (7,8,10) (9,10,12) (5,6,8) (9,11,14)
29 Belgrade Bor (12,13,14) (16,17,18) (14,15,16) (14,16,17)
30 Belgrade Nis (9,10,12) (14,15,17) (14,15,16) (14,15,16)
ev

31 Belgrade Vreoci (8,9,12) (12,14,17) (8,10,13) (8,10,13)

32 Radinac Subotica (2,3,6) (2,4,7) (4,5,7) (2,4,7)
33 Radinac Elemir (2,3,4) (1,3,6) (2,4,6) (2,3,4)
34 Radinac Pancevo (15,17,19) (10,12,14) (14,16,18) (11,12,13)
ie

35 Radinac Belgrade (12,14,17) (12,14,16) (8,10,13) (10,11,12)

36 Radinac Bor (10,11,12) (9,11,14) (10,12,15) (11,13,16)
37
w

Radinac Nis (10,11,13) (8,10,14) (11,13,16) (6,8,11)

38 Radinac Vreoci (8,10,13) (10,12,15) (9,10,12) (14,15,18)
39 Bor Subotica (1,2,4) (2,3,5) (3,4,6) (4,5,7)
40 Bor Elemir (3,4,5) (4,5,8) (3,4,7) (4,5,7)
On

41 Bor Pancevo (7,8,10) (5,6,8) (4,5,6) (1,2,4)

42
Bor Belgrade (5,7,9) (10,12,14) (14,16,18) (11,12,13)
43
Bor Radinac (4,7,10) (2,3,4) (2,3,5) (3,4,6)
44
Bor Nis (2,4,7) (3,4,6) (3,4,5) (1,2,4)
45
ly

Bor Vreoci (10,11,12) (9,11,14) (10,12,15) (11,12,13)

46
Nis Subotica (5,7,10) (9,10,12) (5,7,10) (6,8,11)
47
48 Nis Elemir (8,9,12) (10,12,14) (9,10,12) (6,7,9)
49 Nis Pancevo (1,4,8) (2,3,5) (6,7,10) (8,9,11)
50 Nis Belgrade (3,5,8) (4,5,7) (3,4,7) (4,5,7)
51 Nis Radinac (7,8,10) (9,10,12) (5,6,8) (9,11,14)
52 Nis Bor (4,6,9) (4,5,7) (5,6,8) (5,6,7)
53 Nis Vreoci (1,2,4) (2,3,5) (3,4,6) (4,5,7)
54 Vreoci Subotica (1,2,4) (2,3,5) (3,4,6) (1,2,3)
55 Vreoci Elemir (3,4,5) (4,5,8) (3,4,7) (4,5,7)
56 Vreoci Pancevo (7,8,10) (5,6,8) (4,5,6) (1,2,4)
57 Vreoci Belgrade (5,7,9) (10,12,14) (14,16,18) (11,12,13)
58 Vreoci Radinac (1,2,4) (2,3,4) (2,3,5) (3,4,6)
59 Vreoci Bor (1,2,3) (1,2,3) (1,2,3) (1,2,4)
60 Vreoci Nis (6,8,11) (9,11,14) (4,6,8) (5,6,9)
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 24 of 27

1
2
3
4 Table 4. Optimal solution for the rail freight car inventory problem
5 Optimal freight
Optimal freight car
6 Station car inventory Minimum cost
ordering quantity
7 level
8 Subotica 48 50 1549,55
9 Elemir 34 37 1020,21
10 Pančevo 44 45 1198,21
11 Belgrade 54 58 1648,49
12 Radinac 52 53 1254,40
13 Bor 30 34 1472,61
14 Nis 31 32 1098,92
Fo
15 Vreoci 28 31 1354,42
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 25 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ηi* (2)
*
9 η (0)
i

10 γ i* (0) = γ i* (1) = ... = γ i* ( P − 1) ηi* (1)

11 ηi* (3)
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17 Fig. 3 Variation of freight car inventory level in station i
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
 Transportation Planning and Technology Page 26 of 27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M'
14
Fo
15 % C (C )
16 d (C , 0)
17
18 Fig. 1 Case M ' > b
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt
Page 27 of 27 Transportation Planning and Technology

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
M'
12
13 %
C (C ) d (C , 0)
14
Fo
15 Fig. 2 Case M ' < b
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gtpt