CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The transportation problem is a special type of linear programming problem. It deals with

the distribution of goods from the various points of supply, such as factories, often known

as sources, to a number of points of demand, such as warehouses, often known as

destinations. Each source is able to supply a fixed number of units of the product, usually

called capacity or availability and each destination has a fixed demand, usually called the

requirements. The objective is to schedule shipments from sources to destinations so that

transportation cost is a minimum. The transportation problem has been used in varied

types of practical applications such as product allocation, machine assignment and

product distribution, in an effort to minimize costs of distribution and/or allocation and

optimize distribution efficiency.

Product allocation is a type of linear programming problem easily solved by the

transportation problem.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The transportation methods will also handle machine assignment problem. An example of

this type of problem is in classroom assignment at a university. The university building is

a shop consisting of a number of classrooms (machines) which can handle a certain type

and number of jobs, i.e. a class of students. At the beginning of semester, the

transportation model can allocate classes of students of various classrooms in such a way

that a minimal amount of moving from classrooms too classrooms can be accomplished

without lengthening the total time required for each classroom in a given day. The

original and most common use of the transportation method of linear programming

1
problems is the product distribution problem. For instance, a company gas m warehouses

containing𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , … , 𝑎𝑚 quantities of the product respectively. The sum of the product

available at the warehouses will be equal to A. The company has n retail outlets with the

number of products each can sell equal 𝑏1 , 𝑏2 , … , 𝑏𝑛 respectively. The sum of the

products in demand at retail outlets is equal B. assume that A is equal B since the

transportation method is only set up to handle problems with supply equal to demand.

This is the balanced transportation problem. The cost of transporting an item from each

warehouse 𝑎𝑖 to retail outlet 𝑏𝑗 is equal 𝑥𝑖𝑗 , where 𝑥𝑖𝑗 must be greater than or equal to

zero, because a retail outlet may not supply a warehouse as would be the case if 𝑥𝑖𝑗 is

negative.

Since the entire supply of each warehouse 𝑎𝑖 will be shipped, 𝑥11 + 𝑥12 + … + 𝑥𝑖𝑛 = 𝑎𝑖

for all 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛 warehouses. Now since the constraints of 𝐴 equal to 𝐵 is put on the

system, each retail will receive the exact amount it required. Thus 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + … +

𝑥𝑚𝑗 = 𝑏𝑗 for each retail, i.e. for 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛. therefore, the total cost, 𝑍, of shipping a

products to n retail outlets from m warehouses is equal to the sum of the cost of sending

one product times the number of products sent from each warehouses to each retail

outlets. Represented mathematically:

n m
Maximize Z =  cij xij equation (1.1)
i 1 j 1

n
Subject to: x
j 1
ij  ai for all i  1, 2,..., m equation (1.2)
n

x
j 1
ij  ai for all i  1, 2,..., n equation (1.3)

And 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ≥ 0, for all 𝑖 and 𝑗. Equation (1.4)

2
 Where 𝑥𝑖𝑗 is the amount of units of shipped from origin 𝑖 to destination 𝑗 and 𝐶𝑖𝑗 is the

cost of shipping one unit from origin 𝑖 to destination 𝑗. The amount of supply at origin is

𝑎𝑖 and the amount of destination is 𝑏𝑗 .

The objective of the transportation model is to allocate the number of products to be sent

from each warehouse to each retail outlet at the minimum cost 𝑍 , while satisfying

specified constraints.

The general method of solution for transportation problems is to first establish the

problem matrix with each origin as a row and each destination as a column.

Second, an initial solution must be obtained that satisfied all constraints on the matrix

model.

A matrix with m origins and n destinations will have 𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1 quantities of goods

shipped from origin 𝑖 to destination 𝑗. Now, a test, (explained later) is performed on the

matrix to see if there exist a solution that will provide a higher total income cost to the

company. If one exists, a new solution is found and this new solution is in turn tested for

a possible better solution. Each solution which is tested, and the new solution formed is

called an iteration. On a large problem, thousands of iterations may be required before

an optimal solution, an answer that cannot be improved upon is found.

A comparison among the four methods for finding initial solutions mentioned earlier will

be made on four small transportation problem common to relatively small businesses.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The project seek to address the problem that arises in transportation companies as it

relates to cost.

3
1.3 Aim and objectives of the study

1.3.1 Aim:

To carry out a comparative study of initial feasible solution methods to transportation

problem.

1.3.2 Objectives:

i. To formulate a transportation problem

ii. To solve the transportation problem using the different methods

iii. To test for optimality using excel solver as a validation tool

1.4 Significance of the study

The implementation method with excel solver will serve as an alternative to other

methods for finding initial basic feasible solution to transportation models. It will also

serve as a validation tool.

The study helps to identify optimal transportation routes along with units of commodity

to be shipped in order to minimize total cost of transportation.

1.5 Scope of the study

This research is concerned with the real world transportation problem from simple-

business oriented context and hypothetical case (derived to give a more general test of the

different methods of finding initial feasible solutions).

1.6 Assumptions of the transportation model

I. The total quantity of the items available at different sources is equal to the total

requirement at different destinations.

II. Items can be transported conveniently from all sources to all destinations.

4
 III. The unit transportation cost of the item from all sources to destination is certainly

and precisely known.

IV. The cost of transportation on a given route is directly proportional to the number of

units shipped (transported) on that route. But in real life situation when a

commodity is transported, a fixed cost is incurred in the objective function. The

fixed cost may represent the cost of renting a vehicle, landing fees at the airport, set

up costs for machines in a manufacturing environment, etc.

V. The objective is to maximize the total transportation cost for the organization as a

whole and not for individual supply and distribution Centre.

1.7 Definition of relevant terms

i. Allocation: the number of units of items transported from a source to a destination

which is recorded in a cell in the transportation tableau.

ii. Feasible Solution: a feasible solution to a transportation problem is a set of non-

negative allocations 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ≥ 0 that satisfies the rim (row and column) restrictions.

iii. Basic Feasible Solution: is a feasible solution to m-origin and n-destination problem

if the number of positive allocations are (𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1). If the number of allocations in

the basic feasible solutions are less than (𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1), then it is called degenerate

basic feasible solution (otherwise non-degenerate).

The initial results of transportation methods are called basic feasible solution; it is also

called starting solution of the transportation problem.

iv. Optimal Solution: is a feasible solution (not necessary basic) that minimizes the

transportation cost or maximizes profit.

5
 v. Degenerate Basic Feasible Solution: A basic feasible solution in which the total

number of non0negative allocation is less than 𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1 is called degenerate basic

feasible solution.

vi. Non-Degenerate Basic Feasible Solution: A basic feasible solution to a matrix

(𝑚 × 𝑛) transportation problem is said to be non-degenerate if;

a. The total number of non-negative allocation is exactly 𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1 (i.e. number of

independent constraint equations) and

b. These 𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1 allocations are in independent position.

vii. Dummy Sources: These are artificial shipping route points created in the

transportation tableau when total supply is greater than the total demand. They

serve to equalize the total demand and supply.

viii. Cell: it is a small compartment in the transportation tableau. A circuit is a

sequence of cells (in the balanced transportation tableau) such that:

a. It starts and ends with the same cell.

b. Each cell in the sequence can be connected to the next number by a horizontal

or vertical line in the tableau.

ix. Basic Variables: the variables in a basic solution whose values are obtained as

the simultaneous solution of the system of equations that comprise the functional

constraints.

1.8 Limitation

This project work is limited to three (3) methods of finding initial feasible solution to

transportation problems (North-west Corner, Least Cost and Vogel's Approximation

Methods)

6
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LETERATURE

2.1 Historical perspective

Many researchers have developed different types of transportation models. The simplest

of them was first presented by Hitchcock (1941). It was further developed by Koopmans

(1949) and Dantzig (1951). Several extensions of transportation model and methods have

been subsequently developed. In general, the Vogel’s approximation method yields the

best starting solution and the north-west corner method yields the worst. However, the

latter is easier, quick and involves the least computations to get the initial solution. Goyal

(1984) improved VAM for the unbalanced transportation problem, while Ramakrishnan

(1988) discussed some improvement to Goyal’s Modified Vogel’s Approximation

method for unbalanced transportation problem. Adlakha and Kowalski (2009) suggested

a systematic study for allocating loads to obtain an alternate optimal solution. However,

the study on comparative study or study of initial feasible solution method is clearly

limited in the literature of transportation with the exception of Sudhakar V. J.,

Arunnsankar N., karpagam T. (2012) who suggested a new approach for finding an

optimal solution for transportation.

Roy and Gelders (1980) solved a real life distribution problem of a liquid bottled product

through a 3-stage logistic system; the stages of the system are plant-depot-distributor and

distributor-dealer. They modeled the customer allocation, depot location and

transportation problem as a 0-1 integer programming model with the objective function

of minimization of the fleet operating costs, the depot setup costs, and delivery costs

7
subject to supply constraints, demand constraints, truck load capacity constraints, and

driver hours’ constraints. The problem was solved optimally by branch and bound, and

Langrangian relaxation.

Tzeng et al. (1995) solved the problem of how to distribute and transport the imported

coal to each of the power plants on time in the required amounts and at the required 18

qualities under conditions of stable and supply with least delay. They formulated a LP

that minimizes the cost of transportation subject to supply constraints, demand

constraints, vessel constraints and handling constraints of the ports. The model was

solved to yield optimum results, which is then used as input to a decision support system

that help manage the coal allocation, voyage scheduling, and dynamic fleet assignment.

Saumis et al. (1991), considered a problem of preparing a minimum cost transportation

plan by simultaneously solving following two sub-problems: first the assignment of units

available at a series of origins to satisfy demand at a series of destinations and second, the

design of vehicle tours to transport their units, when the vehicles have to be brought back

to their departure point. The cost minimization mathematical model was constructed,

which is converted into a relaxation total distance minimization, then finally decomposed

to network problems, a full vehicle problem, and an empty vehicle problem. The

problems were solved by tour construction and improvement procedures. This approach

allows large problems to be solved quickly, and solutions to large problems to be solved

quickly, and solutions to large test problems have been shown to be 1% or 2% from the

optimum.

8
Equi et al. (1996) modeled a combined transportation and scheduling in one problem

where a product such as sugar cane, timber or mineral ore is transported from multi origin

supply points to multi destination demand points or transshipment points using carriers

that can be ships, trains or trucks. They defined a trip as a full-loaded vehicle travel from

one origin to one destination. They solved the model optimally using langrangean

Decomposition.

Kwak and Schniederjans (1985) applied GP to transportation problem with variable

supply and demand requirements. Several other researchers Sharma et al. (1999) have

also used the GP model for solving the transportation problem.

Gass (1990) detailed the practical issues for solving transportation problems and offered

comments on various aspects of transportation problem methodologies along with

discussions on the computational results, by the respective researchers.

Sharma and Sharma (2000) proposed a new heuristic approach for getting good starting

solutions for dual based approaches used for solving transportation problems the

transportation criterion is, however, hardly mentioned at all where the transportation

problem is treated. Apparently, several researchers have discovered the criteria

independently from each other. But most papers on the subject refer to the papers by

Charnes and Klingman and Szawarc as the initial papers.

In this work, we shall concentrate on the comparative study of initial feasible solution

method to the balanced and unbalanced Transportation Problem using TORA as

implementation tool.

9
2.2 Theoretical framework

2.2.1 Theorem 1. A balanced transportation problem always has a feasible solution. Proof:

(Existence of a feasible solution): The necessary and sufficient condition for the

existence of a feasible solution to the balanced transportation problem is

m m

a  b
i 1
i
i 1
j
(Rim condition), that 𝑑 is the total capacity (supply) must equal total

requirement (demand).

(i) (Necessary condition):

Let there exists a feasible solution to the Transportation Problem given in equation (1.1)

to (1.4). Then:

𝑚 𝑛 𝑚

∑ ∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = ∑ 𝑎𝑖 (2.1)
𝑖=1 𝑗=1 𝑖=1

And
𝑛 𝑚 𝑚

and ∑ ∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = ∑ 𝑏𝑖 (2.2)

𝑗=1 𝑖=1 𝑗=1

Since the LHS of equations (2.1) and (2.2) are the same,

𝑚 𝑛

Therefore, ∑ 𝑎𝑖 = ∑ 𝑏𝑗
𝑖=1 𝑗=1

10
(ii) (Sufficient condition)

𝑚 𝑚

Let us assumed that: ∑ 𝑎𝑖 = ∑ 𝑏𝑗

𝑖=1 𝑗=1

We think of a working rule to distribute the supply at the ith-source in strict proportion to

the requirements of all destinations, i.e. let 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 𝜆𝑖 𝑏𝑗 where 𝜆𝑖 is the proportionality

factor for the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ - source.

Since this supply must be completely distributed.

𝑚 𝑛

∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 𝜆𝑖 ∑ 𝑏𝑗 = 𝑎𝑖
𝑖=1 𝑗=1

Or

ai ai
i  m
 n
(by given)

b
j 1
j a
i 1
i

Thus:

ai
xij  i b j  m
bj (2.3)
b
j 1
j

11
 Now:

n n m
ai ai
x   ij m
bj  m b j  ai
j 1 j 1
b
j 1
j b
j 1
j
j 1

And,

n m m
ai bi
 xij   m
bj  m a i  bj
i 1 j 1
b
j 1
j a
i 1
j
i 1

This shows that all the constraints of equations (1.1) to (1.4) are satisfied. Furthermore,

since all ɑ𝑖 and 𝑏𝑗 are positive, 𝑥𝑖𝑗 determined from (2.1) must be all positive.

Therefore, (1.5) yields a feasible solution.

n m n
And  x   b
j 1 i 1
ij
j 1
i

m m
Therefore,  ai   b j
i 1 i 1

2.2.3 Theorem 2: If we have a non-degenerate basic feasible solution, i.e. a cell with exactly

(𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1) independent positive allocations and a set of arbitrary numbers 𝑢𝑖 and 𝑣𝑗,

𝑖 = 1,2, … 𝑚 and 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛, such that 𝑐𝑟𝑠 = 𝑢𝑟 + 𝑣𝑠 for all occupied cell (r, s) then

the net evaluations are given by Δ𝑖𝑗 = 𝑐𝑖𝑗 − (𝑢𝑖 + 𝑣𝑗 ). Proof: The Transportation is to

find 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ≥ 0 so as to:

m n
Maximize z   cij xij (2.2)
i 1 j 1

12
 Subject to:
𝑛

Subject to: 𝑎𝑖 − ∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 0 for all 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚 (2.3)

𝑗=1

𝑏𝑖 − ∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 0 for all 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚 (2.4)

𝑖=1

Now, adding 𝑢𝑖 times (2.3) and 𝑣𝑗 times (2.4) to objective function (2.2), it becomes:

𝑚 𝑛 𝑚 𝑛 𝑛 𝑚

𝑧 = ∑ ∑ 𝑐𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + ∑ 𝑢𝑖 (𝑎𝑖 − ∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) + ∑ 𝑣𝑗 (𝑏𝑗 − ∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 )

𝑖=1 𝑗=1 𝑖=1 𝑗=1 𝑗=1 𝑖=1

𝑚 𝑛 𝑚 𝑛

= ∑ ∑[𝑐𝑖𝑗 − (𝑢𝑖 + 𝑣𝑗 )]𝑥𝑖𝑗 + ∑ 𝑢𝑖 𝑎𝑖 + ∑ 𝑣𝑗 𝑏𝑗 (2.5)

𝑖=1 𝑗=1 𝑖=1 𝑗=1

But given that for all occupied (basic cells), 𝑐𝑟𝑠 = 𝑢𝑟 + 𝑣𝑠 , all terms of positive

allocations vanish from e.g. (2.5) as their coefficients become zero.

Therefore,

𝑚 𝑛

𝑧 = ∑ 𝑢𝑖 𝑎𝑖 + ∑ 𝑣𝑗 𝑏𝑗
𝑖=1 𝑗=1

2.2.4 Theorem 3 (Dual of Transportation Model)

For a given basic feasible solution if we associate numbers (also called dual variables or

multipliers) 𝑢𝑖 and 𝑣𝑗 with row 𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑚) and column 𝑗(𝑗 = 1, 2, … , 𝑛) of the

transportation table, respectively, then 𝑈𝑖 and 𝑉𝑗 must satisfy the equation: 𝑢𝑖 + 𝑣𝑗 = 𝑐𝑖𝑗

for each occupied cell (𝑖, 𝑗).

13
These equations yield 𝑚 + 𝑛 − 1 equations in 𝑚 + 𝑛 unknown dual variables. The

values of these variables can be determined by assigning a zero value to any one of these

variables. Once the values of 𝑢𝑖 and 𝑣𝑗 have been determined, evaluation in terms of

opportunity cost of each unoccupied cell (called non-basic variable or unused route) is

also done by using the equation:

𝑑𝑟𝑠 = 𝑐𝑟𝑠 − (𝑢𝑟 + 𝑣𝑠 ) for each occupied cell (r, s)

For proving these two results, let us consider the general transportation model using the

sigma notation:

m n
Minimize z   cij xij
i 1 j 1

Subject to the constraints:

∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 𝑎𝑖, 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚 (Supply)

𝑗=1

∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 𝑏𝑗, 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛 (Demand)

𝑖=1

And 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ≥ 0 for all 𝑖 and 𝑗

Since all of the constraints are equalities, write each equality constraints equivalent to

two inequalities as follows:

14
 𝑛

∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ≥ 𝑎𝑖 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛
𝑗=1
𝑛 (Supply Constraints)
∑(−𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) ≥ −𝑎𝑖 ,
𝑗=1 }

∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ≥ 𝑏𝑗 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛
𝑖=1
𝑛𝑚 (Supply Constraints)
∑(−𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) ≥ −𝑏𝑗 ,
𝑗=1 }

Let 𝑈𝑖+ and 𝑈𝑖− be the dual variables, one for each supply constraint 𝑖. similarly 𝑉𝑖+ and

𝑉𝑗− be the dual variables one for each demand constraint J. Now the dual of the

transportation model is given by:

𝑚 𝑛

𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑍 = ∗
∑(𝑈𝑖+ − 𝑈𝑗− )𝑎𝑖 + ∑(𝑉𝑖+ − 𝑉𝑗− )𝑏𝑗
𝑖=1 𝑗=1

Subject to the constraints:

(𝑈𝑖+ − 𝑈𝑗− ) − ( 𝑉𝑖+ − 𝑉𝑗− ) ≤ 𝐶𝑖𝑗

And 𝑈𝑖+ , 𝑈𝑗𝑖 , 𝑉𝑖+ , 𝑉𝑗− ≥ 0, for all 𝑖 and 𝑗

The variables 𝑈𝑖+ and 𝑈𝑗− that appear in the objective function may take positive,

negative or zero values. Thus, either of these will appear in the optimal basic feasible

solution because one is the negative of the other. The same argument may be given for

𝑉𝑖+ and 𝑉𝑗− . Thus, let:

𝑈𝑖 = 𝑈𝑖+ − 𝑈𝑗− , 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚

15
𝑉𝑗 = 𝑉𝑖+ − 𝑉𝑗− 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛

The values of 𝑈𝑖 and 𝑉𝑗 will then be unrestricted in sign. Hence, the dual of the

transportation model can now be written as:

𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑍 ∗ = ∑𝑚 𝑛
𝑖=1(𝑈𝑖 𝑎𝑖 ) ∓ ∑𝑗=1 𝑉𝑗 𝑏𝑗

Subject to the constraints:

𝑈𝑖 + 𝑉𝑗 ≤ 𝐶𝑖𝑗

And 𝑈𝑖 , 𝑉𝑗 unrestricted in sign for all 𝑖 and 𝑗

The variables 𝑋𝑖𝑗 form an optimal solution to the given transportation problem provided:

(i) Solution 𝑋𝑖𝑗ℎ is feasible for all (𝑖, 𝑗) with respect to the original transportation

model.

(ii) (ii) Solution 𝑈𝑖 and 𝑉𝑗 is feasible for all (i, j) with respect to the dual of the

original transportation model.

(iii) (𝐶𝑖𝑗 – 𝑈𝑖 + 𝑉𝑗 )𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 0 for all 𝑖 and 𝑗.

The relationship (𝐶𝑖𝑗 – 𝑈𝑖 + 𝑉𝑗 )𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 0 is also known as Complementary Slackness

for transportation and indicates that:

(a) If 𝑋𝑖𝑗 > 0 and is feasible then 𝐶𝑖𝑗 – 𝑈𝑖 − 𝑉𝑗 = 0 or 𝐶𝑖𝑗 – 𝑈𝑖 + 𝑉𝑗 = 0 for

each occupied cell,

(b) (b) If 𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 0 and 𝐶𝑖𝑗 – 𝑈𝑖 + 𝑉𝑗 ; then it is not desirable to have 𝑋𝑖𝑗 > 0 in

the solution mix because it would cost more to transport on a route (𝑖, 𝑗),

16
 (c) (c) If 𝐶𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑈𝑖 + 𝑉𝑗 for some 𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 0 then 𝑋𝑖𝑗 can be brought into the

solution mix.

The per unit net reduction in the total cost of the transportation for a route (i, j) is given

by 𝑑𝑖𝑗 = 𝐶𝑖𝑗 – (𝑈𝑖 + 𝑉𝑗 ) for all 𝑖 and 𝑗

Here, it may be noted 𝑑𝑖𝑗 = 0 for occupied cells (basic variables).

2.3 Economic interpretation of 𝑼𝒊 𝒔 and 𝑽𝒋 𝒔

The value of each variable 𝑈𝑖 measures the comparative advantage of either the location

or the value of a unit of a capacity at the supply centers 𝑖 and, therefore, may be termed

as location centre. Similarly, the value of each variable 𝑉𝑗 measures the comparative

advantage of additional unit of commodity transported to the demand centre 𝑗 and

therefore, may be termed as market price.

17
 CHAPTER THREE

3.1 THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM

Transportation method is the simplified version of the simplex technique that may be

used to solve a type of linear programming problem. Because of the major application in

solving problems involving several product sources and several destination of products.

This type of problem is frequently called the transportation problem/model. It obtains it

name from it application to problems involving transporting products from several

sources to several destinations.

3.2 FORMULATION

The transportation model/problem was one of the original application of linear

programming models. For instance 𝐴 firm produces goods at m different supply

countries, i.e. 𝑖 = 1,2.3, … , 𝑚. The supply product at centre 𝑖 = 𝑠; the demand for the

goods is spread out at 𝑛 different demand centres i.e. 𝑗 = 1,2,3, … , 𝑛. The demand at the

𝑗 𝑡ℎ demand centre is 𝐷𝑗 . The problem of the firm is to get goods from supply centres to

demand centres at minimum cost. Assume that the cost of shipping one unit from supply

centre 𝑖 to demand centre 𝑗 is 𝐶𝑖𝑗 and that shipping cost is linear. Which means that if you

shipped 𝑋𝑖𝑗 unit from centre 𝑖 to demand centre 𝑗, then, the cost would be 𝐶𝑖𝑗 𝑋𝑖𝑗 .

Where 𝑋𝑖𝑗 is the number of units shipped from supply centre 𝑖 to demand centre 𝑗 the

problem is to identify the minimum or maximum shipping cost schedule. The constraints

been that must meet demand at each demand centre and cannot exceed supply at each

supply centre.

18
The cost of the schedule by the linearity assumption is given by

𝑚 𝑛

𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∑ ∑ 𝐶𝑖𝑗 𝑋𝑖𝑗

𝑖=1 𝑗=1

The total amount shipped out of supply centre 𝑖 is

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗
𝑗=1

i.e. 𝑋𝑖𝑗 is the unit shipped from 𝑖 to 𝑗. Also from 𝑖 amount of unit can be shipped to any

demand centre (𝑗 = 1,2,3, … , 𝑛). The quantity cannot exceed the supply available, hence

the constraint

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑆𝑖 for all 𝑖 = 1,2,3, … 𝑚

𝑗=1

Similarly, the constraints that guarantee that the demand at each demand centre is met is

given by

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 ≥ 𝐷𝑗 For all 𝑗 = 1,2,3, … , 𝑛

𝑗=1

Thus we assume that the total supply is equal to total demand that is if

𝑛 𝑚

∑ 𝐷𝑗 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖
𝑗=1 𝑖=1

19
Then all the constraint in the problems must hold as equations.

After making the simplification that total supply equal total demand, we arrive at the

standard formulation of the transportation problem/model. The model provides 𝑚 supplues

𝑆𝑖 for 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑚, 𝑛 demand 𝐷𝑗 for 𝑗 = 1,2,3, … , 𝑛 that satisfy

𝑛 𝑚

∑ 𝐷𝑗 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖 and cost 𝐶𝑖𝑗

𝑗=1 𝑖=1

The objective is to find a transportation plan denoted by 𝑋𝑖𝑗 to sovle

𝑚 𝑛

𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∑ ∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 𝐶𝑖𝑗

𝑖=1 𝑗=1

subject to ∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 𝑆𝑖 for all 𝑖 = 1,2,3, … , 𝑚

𝑗=1

and
𝑛

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 𝐷𝑖 for all 𝑗 = 1,2,3, … 𝑛

𝑗=1

In the problem it is natural to assume that the variable 𝑋𝑖𝑗 takes on integer value (and non-

negative ones). That is one can only ship items in whole number batches.

Then the standard mathematical model for this problem is:

𝑚 𝑛

maximize Z = ∑ ∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 𝐶𝑖𝑗

𝑖=1 𝑗=1

Subject to:
𝑛

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑎𝑖 for all 𝑖 = 1,2,3, … 𝑚 . . . . . (1)

𝑗=1

20
 𝑛

∑ 𝑋𝑖𝑗 ≥ 𝑏𝑗 for all 𝑖 = 1,2,3, … 𝑚 . . . . . (2)

𝑗=1

Where

𝑚 = number of sources

𝑛 = number of destinations

𝑎𝑖 = capacity of 𝑖 𝑡ℎ source

𝑏𝑗 = capacity of 𝑗 𝑡ℎ destination

𝐶𝑖𝑗 = cost coefficient for materials shiped from 𝑖 𝑡ℎ source to 𝑗 𝑡ℎ destination

𝑋𝑖𝑗 = amount of materials shiped between 𝑖 𝑡ℎ source to 𝑗 𝑡ℎ destination

3.3 THE TRANSPORTATION TABLEAU

The above can be shown using the transportation tableau where supply availability are

each source is shown in the far right column and the destination requirements are shown

in the bottom row. Each cell represents one route. The unit shipping cost is shown in the

upper right corner of the cell, while the around of shipped material is shown in the centre

of the cell.

21
 Destination

Supply
𝐷1 𝐷2 𝐷3 ⋮ ⋮ 𝐷𝑛
𝑆1 𝐶11 𝐶12 𝐶13 ⋮ ⋮ 𝐶1𝑛
𝑎1
𝑋11 𝑋12 𝑋13 ⋮ ⋮ 𝑋11
𝑆2 𝐶21 𝐶22 𝐶23 ⋮ ⋮ 𝐶2𝑛
𝑎2
𝑋21 𝑋22 𝑋23 ⋮ ⋮ 𝑋2𝑚
𝑆3 𝐶31 𝐶32 𝐶33 ⋮ ⋮ 𝐶3𝑛
𝑎3
𝑋31 𝑋32 𝑋33 ⋮ ⋮ 𝑋3𝑚
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
Sources/supply ⋮
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
𝑆𝑚 𝐶𝑚1 𝐶𝑚2 𝐶𝑚3 ⋮ ⋮ 𝐶3𝑚
𝑎𝑚
𝑋𝑚1 𝑋𝑚2 𝑋𝑚3 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
Balanced
Model
𝑚

Demand ∑ 𝑎𝑖
𝑏1 𝑏2 𝑏3 ⋮ ⋮ 𝑏𝑛
𝑖=1
𝑛

= ∑ 𝑏𝑗
𝑗=1

22
Max 𝑍 = 𝑋11 𝐶11 + 𝑋12 𝐶12 + 𝑋13 𝐶13 + 𝑋14 𝐶14 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋1𝑚 𝐶1𝑚

𝑋21 𝐶21 + 𝑋22 𝐶22 + 𝑋23 𝐶23 + 𝑋24 𝐶24 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋2𝑚 𝐶2𝑚

𝑋31 𝐶31 + 𝑋32 𝐶32 + 𝑋33 𝐶33 + 𝑋34 𝐶34 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋3𝑚 𝐶3𝑚

𝑋41 𝐶41 + 𝑋42 𝐶42 + 𝑋43 𝐶43 + 𝑋44 𝐶44 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋4𝑚 𝐶4𝑚

⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

𝑋𝑛1 𝐶𝑚1 + 𝑋𝑛2 𝐶𝑚2 + 𝑋𝑛3 𝐶𝑚3 + 𝑋𝑛4 𝐶𝑚4 + ⋯ ⋯ + 𝑋𝑛𝑚 𝐶𝑛𝑚

Subject to

𝑋11 + 𝑋12 + 𝑋13 + 𝑋14 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋1𝑚 = 𝑆1

𝑋21 + 𝑋22 + 𝑋23 + 𝑋24 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋2𝑚 = 𝑆2

𝑋31 + 𝑋32 + 𝑋33 + 𝑋34 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋3𝑚 = 𝑆3

𝑋41 + 𝑋42 + 𝑋43 + 𝑋44 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋4𝑚 = 𝑆4

⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

𝑋𝑛1 + 𝑋𝑛2 + 𝑋𝑛3 + 𝑋𝑛4 + ⋯ ⋯ + 𝑋𝑛𝑚 = 𝑆𝑚

And

23
 𝑋11 + 𝑋21 + 𝑋31 + 𝑋41 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋𝑚1 = 𝐷1

𝑋12 + 𝑋22 + 𝑋32 + 𝑋42 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋𝑚2 = 𝐷2

𝑋13 + 𝑋23 + 𝑋33 + 𝑋43 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋𝑚3 = 𝐷3

𝑋14 + 𝑋24 + 𝑋34 + 𝑋44 + ⋮ ⋮ + 𝑋𝑚4 = 𝐷4

⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

𝑋𝑛1 + 𝑋𝑛2 + 𝑋𝑛3 + 𝑋𝑛4 + ⋯ ⋯ + 𝑋𝑛𝑚 = 𝐷𝑚

3.4 BALANCED TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM

If total supply equals total demand, the problem is said to be a balanced transportation

problem: that is;

𝑚 𝑛

∑ 𝑎𝑖 = ∑ 𝑏𝑗
𝑖=1 𝑗=1

3.4.1 BALANCING A TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM IF EXCEED DEMAND

If total supply exceed total demand, we can balce that problem by adding dummy

fictitious to the demand points. Since shipments to the demand point are not for real, they

are assign a cost of zero(0).

3.4.2 BALANCING A TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM IF TOTAL SUPPLY IS LESS

THAN TOTAL DEMAND

If a transportation problem has a total supply that is strictly less than total demand, the

problem has no feasible solution. There is no doubt that in such a case one more of the

demand will be left out or unit. Therefore dummy is added to supply point

24
3.5 THE SOLUTION METHOD

The transportation problem can be described using linear programming mathematical

model and usually it can be represented in the transportation tableau. There are three (3)

general steps in solving transportation problems.

At first, it is necessary to prepare an initial feasible solution, which may be done in

several different ways: the only requirement is that the destination needs be met within

the constraints of sources supply.

The steps involves:

i. Finding an initial basic feasible solution

ii. Testing the solution for optimality

iii. Improving the solution when it is not optimal.

In a case whereby the solution is not optimal, step ii-iii should be repeated until the

optimal solution is obtained.

3.5.1 METHODS OF FINDING INITIAL BASIC FEASIBLE SOLUTION FOR

TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM

Unlike other linear programming problems, a balanced transportation problem with 𝑚

supply points and 𝑛 demand points is easier to solve, although it has 𝑚 + 𝑛 equality

constraints. The reason for that is, if a set of decision variables (𝑋𝑖𝑗 ′𝑠) satisfies all but one

constraints, the values for 𝑋𝑖𝑗 ′𝑠 will satisfy that remaining supply and demand

constraints.

25
 There are three basic methods:

i. The northwest corner method

ii. The least cost method

iii. The Vogel’s Approximation method

3.5.1.1 THE NORTHWEST CORNER METHOD

To find the initial basic feasible solution by the northwest corner method the following

steps should be followed:

Step 1: Begin in the upper left (or northwest) corner of the transportation tableau and set

𝑋11 as large as possible.

Step 2: If 𝑋11 = 𝑆1, cross out the first row of the transportation tableau, this indicates that

no more basic variables will come from row 1. Also 𝑑1 is changed to 𝑑1 − 𝑆1.

Step 3: If 𝑋11 = 𝑑1 cross out the first column of the transportation tableau; this indicates

no more basic variable sill come from column 1. Also change 𝑆1 to 𝑆1 − 𝑑1 .

Step 4: If 𝑋11 = 𝑆1 𝑑1 cross either row 1 or column 1 (but not both) if we cross out row 1,

change 𝑑1 to 0, if we cross out column 1, change 𝑆1 to 0.

Step 5: Continue applying this procedure to the most northwest cell in the tableau that

does not lie in a crossed-out row or column eventually you will come to a point

where there is only one cell that can be assigned a value. Assign this cell a value

equal to its row or column demand and cross out both the cell’s row and column.

A basic feasible solution has been obtained.

26
3.5.1.2 THE LEAST COST METHOD

The least cost method finds a better starting solution by concentrating on the cheapest

routes. The method assigns as much as possible to the cell with the smallest unit cost.

Step 1: Find the decision variable with the smallest shipping cost 𝑋𝑖𝑗 . Then assign 𝑋𝑖𝑗 its

largest possible value, which is the minimum of 𝑆𝑖 and 𝑑𝑗

Step2: Cross out row 𝑖 and column 𝑗 and reduce the supply and demand of the non-

crossed out row or column by the value of 𝑋𝑖𝑗 .

Step 3: Chose the cell with the minimum cost of shipping from the cell that do not lie in

a crossed-out row or column.

Step 4: Repeat the procedure in Step 2 and Step 3

27
3.5.1.3 THE VOGEL’S APPROXIMATION METHOD

In addition to the northwest corner method and least cost methods of setting an initial

solution to transportation problems, we introduce one other important technique-Vogel’s

approximation method (VAM). VAM is not unique as simple as the northwest corner

approach, but it facilitates a vey good initial solution as a matter of fact, one that is often

the optimal solution.

To apply the VAM, we first compute for each row and column the penalty faced if we

should ship over the second best route instead of the least cost route.

The steps involved in determining an initial VAM solution are shown below:

Step 1: For each row and column of the transportation tableau, find the difference

between the two lowest unit shipping costs. These numbers represent the

difference between the distribution cost on the best route in the row or column

and the second best route in the row or column (This is the opportunity cost of

not using the best route).

Step 2: Identify the row or column with the greatest opportunity cost or difference.

Step 3: Assign as many units as possible to the lowest cost square in the row or column

selected.

Step 4: eliminate any row or column that has just been completely satisfied by the

assignment just made. This can be done by placing 𝑋𝑠 in each appropriate

square.

Step 5: Re-compute the cost differences for the transportation tableau, omitting rows and

columns crossed-out in the preceding step.

28
 Step 6: Return to Step 2 and repeat the steps until an initial feasible solution has been

obtained.

3.6 TEST FOR OPTIMALITY

In this research work we shall use excel solve application to test for optimality and a

validation tool.

29
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data for this research work were collected from Young Shall Grow Motors Limited,

Bluewhales Transport Company Limited, Peace Mass Transit and Pleasure Travels

Limited and used for comparison of transportation algorithm(s) with the view of finding

the most efficient transportation algorithm and the best transportation route for the benefit

of the companies involved in order to maximise profit. Three methods of finding initial

feasible solution where employed (i.e. northwest corner, least cost and vogel’s

approximation method)

Excel solver was used to compute the optimal solution as a validation tool for the

transportation problem.

4.1.1 CONSTRUCTION OF YOUNG SHALL GROW MOTORS LIMITED

TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM TABLEAU

Consider a transportation company Young Shall Grow Motors limited that allocates

buses to different route on a daily bases and the total income generated on each per trip

(to-fro) as well as the total passengers transported per trip (to-fro) as shown in table 1

below:

30
Table 4.1

ROUTE PASSENGERS NO OF NO OF INCOME PER

PER BUS VEHICLE PASSENGERS TRIP
CARRIED
TO FRO
ABUJA- 22 5 5 220 N1,012,000

ENUGU
50 1 1 100 N 440,00

ABUJA- 22 2 2 88 N 369,600

ONITCHA
50 1 1 100 N 400,000

ABUJA-ABA 22 1 1 44 N 233,200

50 1 1 100 N 530,000

ABUJA- 60 1 1 120 N 636,000

UMUIAHA 22 2 2 88 N 440,000

TOTAL 14 14 860 N 4,060,800

Table 1 is transformed into transportation tableau and the initial feasible solution of the

transportation problem is computed as follows:

31
Table 4.2

A B C D Supply

Abuja – Enugu 4600 4500 4500 4500

320
220 100
4200 4100 4100 4100
Abuja-Onitcha 188
88 100
5300 5300 5300 5300
Abuja – Aba 264
44 100 120
Abuja Umuahia 5000 5000 5000 5000
88
88
Demand 860
440 200 100 120

Now we compute the total number of passengers that uses bus A to all the route from

Abuja.

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 220 + 88 + 44 + 88

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 440

Total number of passengers that uses bus B to all the route

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 100 + 100

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 200

Total number of passenger that uses bus C

𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 100

32
Total number of passenger that uses bus D

𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 120

𝐴 + 𝐵 + 𝐶 + 𝐷 = 440 + 200 + 100 + 120 = 860

TOTAL DEMAND = 860

number of passengers that move from Abuja to Enugu using bus

𝐴 − 𝐷 = 320

Number of passenger that move from Abuja to Onitcha using Bus

𝐴 − 𝐷 = 180

Number of passenger that mover from Abuja to Aba using Bus

𝐴 − 𝐷 = 264

Number of passengers that move from Abuja to Umuahia using Bus

𝐴 − 𝐷 = 88

Total supply= 320 + 188 + 264 + 88

= 860

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐋𝐘 = 𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐃

This gives a balanced Transportation Problem

Total income generated

4,600 × 220 = 𝑁1,012,00

4,400 × 100 = 𝑁440,000

4,200 × 88 = 𝑁369,600

4,000 × 100 = 𝑁400,000

5,300 × 44 = 𝑁233,200

33
 5,300 × 100 = 𝑁530,000

5,300 × 120 = 𝑁636,000

5,000 × 88 = 𝑁440,000

TOTAL INCOME = 𝑵𝟒, 𝟎𝟔𝟎, 𝟖𝟎𝟎

4.2 FINDING INITIAL FEASIBLE SOLUTION

4.2.1 NORTH-WEST CORNER METHOD

The initial basic feasible solution is obtained using north-west corner method following

the algorithm presented starting from the north-west corner cell until all demand and

supply are met a shown in table 4.3.

Table 4.3

A B C D Supply

Abuja – Enugu 4600 4500 4500 4500

320
320
4200 4100 4100 4100
Abuja-Onitcha 188
120 68
5300 5300 5300 5300
Abuja – Aba 264
132 100 32
Abuja Umuahia 5000 5000 5000 5000
88
88
Demand 860
440 200 100 120

34
 TOTAL INCOME

4,600 × 320 = 147,200

4,200 × 120 = 504,000

4,100 × 68 = 278,800

5,300 × 132 = 699,600

5,300 × 100 = 530,000

5,300 × 32 = 169,600

5,000 × 88 = 440,000

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝟒, 𝟎𝟗𝟒, 𝟎𝟎𝟎

4.2.2 LEAST COST METHOD

The least cost method is applied starting allocation to the cell wish minimum cost

following the algorithm mentioned earlier as shown in Table 4.4

Table 4.4

A B C D Supply

Abuja – Enugu 4600 4500 4500 4500

320
88 200 32
4200 4100 4100 4100
Abuja-Onitcha 188
68 120
5300 5300 5300 5300
Abuja – Aba 264
264
Abuja Umuahia 5000 5000 5000 5000
88
88
Demand 860
440 200 100 120

35
 TOTAL INCOME

4,600 × 88 = 𝑁404,800

4,500 × 200 = 𝑁900,000

4,500 × 32 = 𝑁144,000

4,100 × 68 = 𝑁278,800

4,100 × 120 = 𝑁492,000

5,300 × 264 = 𝑁1,399,200

5,000 × 88 = 𝑁440,000

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝑁4,058,800

4.2.3 VOGEL’S APPROXIMATION METHOD

The Vogel’s approximation method was applied to the transportation tableau and after

several iterations the final tableau was obtained following the algorithm mentioned

earlier as shown in Table 4.5:

Table 4.5

A B C D Supply

Abuja – Enugu 4600 4500 4500 4500

320
252 68
4200 4100 4100 4100
Abuja-Onitcha 188
188
5300 5300 5300 5300
Abuja – Aba 264
44 100 120
Abuja Umuahia 5000 5000 5000 5000
88
88
Demand 8600
440 200 100 120

36
 TOTAL INCOME

4600 × 252 = 𝑁1,159,200

4200 × 188 = 𝑁789,600

4500 × 68 = 𝑁306,000

5300 × 44 = 𝑁233,200

5000 × 88 = 𝑁440,000

5,300 × 100 = 𝑁530,000

5,300 × 120 = 𝑁636,000

𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 = 𝑁4,094,000

4.3 CONSTRUCTION OF PEACE MASS TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION

PROBLEM

Table 4.6

ROUTE PASSENGERS NO OF TOTAL INCOME

PER BUS VEHICLE PASSENGER
TO FRO
ABUJA- 14 2 2 56 N380,800

CALABAR 13 2 2 52 N 353,600

ABUJA- 13 3 3 78 N 475,800

P.HARCOURT 14 1 1 28 N 170,800

ABUJA – OWIRI 39 1 1 78 N 546,000

13 1 1 26 N 183,300

ABUJA- 42 1 1 84 N 588,00

IBADAN 13 1 1 26 N 184600

Total 12 12 428 N 2,882,900

37
 Table 2 can be transformed into transportation tableau a shown in the next table and the

initial feasible solution can be obtained as follows:

4.3.1 NORTH-WEST CORNER METHOD

Table 4.7

A B C D Supply

6800 6800 6600 6600

A 108
108
6100 6100 6000 6000
B 106
4 102
7050 7050 7000 7000
C 104
52 52
7100 7100 7000 7000
D
110
26 84
Demand 428
112 154 78 84

TOTAL INCOME

108 × 6,800 = 𝑁734,400

4 × 6,100 = 𝑁24,400

102 × 6,100 = 𝑁622,200

52 × 7,050 = 𝑁366,600

52 × 7,000 = 𝑁364,000

26 × 7,000 = 𝑁182,000

84 × 7,000 = 588,000

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝑵𝟐, 𝟖𝟖𝟏, 𝟔𝟎𝟎

38
4.3.2 LEAST COST METHOD

Table 4.8

A B C D SUPPLY

6800 6800 6600 6600

A 108
52 56
6100 6100 6000 6000
B 106
22 84
7050 7050 7000 7000
C 104
2 102
7100 7100 7000 7000
D
110
110
Demand 428
112 154 78 84

TOTAL INCOME

52 × 6,800 = 𝑁353,600

52 × 6,600 = 𝑁369,600

22 × 6,000 = 𝑁132,000

84 × 6,000 = 𝑁528,000

2 × 7050 = 𝑁14,100

102 × 7050 = 𝑁719,100

110 × 7,100 = 781,000

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝑁2,873,400

39
4.3.3 VOGEL’S APPROXIMATION METHOD

Table 4.9

A B C D Supply

6800 6800 6600 6600

A 108
108
6100 6100 6000 6000
B 106
106
7050 7050 7000 7000
C 104
78 26
7100 7100 7000 7000
D
110
6 46 58
Demand 428
112 154 78 84

TOTAL INCOME

106 × 6,100 = N646,600

6 × 7,100 = N42,600

108 × 6,800 = N734,400

46 × 7,100 = N326,600

78 × 7,000 = N546,000

26 × 7,000 = N182,000

58 × 7,000 = N406,000

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝐍𝟐, 𝟖𝟖𝟒, 𝟐𝟎𝟎

40
4.4 CONSTRUCTION OF BLUEWHALES TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED

TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM

Table 4.10

ROUTE VEHICLE NO OF NO OF INCOME

MAKE VEHICLE PASSENGERS

TO FRO
Abuja – 22 2 2 88 514,800

Lagos
22 1 1 44 253,000

Abuja – 36 1 1 72 233,200

Delta
22 1 1 44 388,800

Abuja 22 1 1 44 237,600

Yenagoa 42 1 1 84 445,200

Abuja – Edo 22 2 2 88 435,600

36 1 1 72 345,600

TOTAL 10 10 536 N2,834,600

Table 4.10 above can be transformed into transportation tableau as shown in the next

table and the initial solution can be obtained or computed as follows:

41
4.4.1 NORTH-WEST CORNER METHOD

Table 4.11

A B C D Supply

5850 5750 5750 5750

A 132
132
5400 5300 5300 5300
B 116
116
5400 5300 5300 5300
C 128
44 44 40
4950 4800 4800 4800
D
160
76 84
Demand 536
292 44 116 84
Total income using North-West corner method

TOTAL INCOME

132 × 5,850 = N772,200

116 × 5,400 = N626,400

44 × 5,400 = N237,600

44 × 5,300 = N233,200

40 × 5,300 = N212,000

76 × 4,800 = N364,800

84 × 4,800 = N403,200

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝐍𝟐, 𝟖𝟒𝟗, 𝟒𝟎𝟎

42
4.4.2 LEAST COST METHOD

Table 4.12

A B C D Supply

5850 5750 5750 5750

A 132
132
5400 5300 5300 5300
B 116
116
5400 5300 5300 5300
C 128
44 84
4950 4800 4800 4800
D
160
44 116
Demand 536
292 44 116 84
Total income generated using Least Cost Method

TOTAL INCOME

132 × 5,850 = N772,200

116 × 5,400 = N626,400

44 × 5,400 = N237,600

44 × 4,800 = N211,200

116 × 4,800 = N556,800

84 × 5,300 = N445,200

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝐍𝟐, 𝟖𝟒𝟗, 𝟒𝟎𝟎

43
4.4.3 VOGEL’S APPROXIMATION METHOD

Table 4.13

A B C D Supply

5850 5750 5750 5750

A 132
48 84
5400 5300 5300 5300
B 116
4 44 68
5400 5300 5300 5300
C 128
128
4950 4800 4800 4800
D
160
160
Demand 536
292 44 116 84
Total income generated using the Vogel’s Approximation method

TOTAL INCOME

4 × 5,400 = N21,600

128 × 5,400 = N691,200

160 × 4950 = N792,000

44 × 5,300 = N233,200

66 × 5,300 = N276,000

48 × 5,750 = N360,400

84 × 5,750 = N483,000

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝐍𝟐, 𝟖𝟓𝟕, 𝟒𝟎𝟎

44
4.5 CONSTRUCTION OF PLEASURE TRAVELS TRANSPORTATION TABLEAU

Table 4.14

ROUTE PASSENGER NO OF TOTAL INCOME

PER BUS VEHICLE PASSENGER
TO FRO
ABUJA- 14 2 2 56 380,800

CALABAR 13 1 1 26 171,600

ABUJA- 36 1 1 72 511,200

OWERRI 13 1 1 26 182,000

ABUJA – 42 1 1 84 546,000

LAGOS 36 1 1 72 460,800

ABUJA- 42 1 1 84 487,200

IBADAN 14 1 1 28 151,200

TOTAL 9 9 448 2,890,800

Table 4.13 above can be transformed into transportation tableau as shown in the table

below and the initial feasible solution of the transportation tableau be computed:

45
4.5.1 NORTH-WEST CORNER METHOD

Table 4.14

A B C D Supply

6800 6600 6600 6600

A 82
82
7100 7100 7000 7000
B 98
46 52
6500 6400 6400 6400
C 156
100 56
5800 5800 5800 5800
D
112
112
Demand 448
128 52 100 168
Total income generated using the North-West corner method

TOTAL INCOME

82 × 6,800 = N557,600

46 × 7,100 = N326,600

52 × 7,100 = N369,200

100 × 6,400 = N640,000

56 × 6,400 = N358,400

112 × 5,400 = N649,600

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = N2,901,400

46
4.4.2 LEAST COST METHOD

Table 4.15

A B C D Supply

6800 6600 6600 6600

A 82
16 66
7100 7000 7000 7000
B 98
98
6500 6400 6400 6400
C 156
52 100 4
5800 5700 5700 5800
D
112
112
Demand 448
128 52 100 168
Total income generated using the least cost method

TOTAL INCOME

16 × 6,800 = N108,800

112 × 5,800 = N649,600

52 × 6,400 = N332,800

100 × 6,400 = N640,000

4 × 6,400 = N46,400

98 × 7,000 = N686,000

86 × 6,600 = N435,600

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = 𝐍𝟐, 𝟖𝟗𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟎

47
4.5.3 VOGEL’S APPROXIMATION METHOD

Table 4.15

A B C D Supply
A 6800 6600 6600 6600
82 82
7100 7000 7000 7000
B 98
12 86
6500 6400 6400 6400
C 156
16 52 88
D 5800 5800 5800 5800
112 112
Demand 128 52 100 168 448
Total income generate using the Vogel’s Approximation method

TOTAL INCOME

16 × 6,500 = N108,800

112 × 5,800 = N649,600

52 × 6,400 = N332,800

88 × 6,400 = N563,200

12 × 7,000 = N84,000

86 × 7,00 = N602,000

82 × 6,600 = N541,200

𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 = N2,881,600

48
4.6 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Using the excel solver application, the optimal solution for the four companies were

obtained as follows:

I.Young Shall Grow Motors Limited = N 4,094,000

II.Bluewhales Transport Company Limited = N 2,857,400

III.Pleasure Travels Limited = N 2,901,400

IV.Peace Mass Transit = N 2,884,200

The table below shows the companies name, initial income generated by the companies,

the initial basic feasible solution using the three (3) different methods of solving

transportation problems, the optimal solution obtained using the excel solver, the

difference between the optimal solution and the initial basic feasible solution method’s

and the percentage (%) difference.

49
COMPANY INITIAL OPTIMAL
METHODS DIFFERENCE % DIFFERENCE
NAME SOLUTION SOLUTION

COMPANY INITIAL NWCM LCM VAM OPTIMAL OPT-NWCM OPT-LCM OPT-VAM NWCM LCM VAM

YSGML 4,060,800 4,094,000 4,058,800 4,094,000 4,094,000 0 35,200 0 0 0.86% 0

BTL 2,853,800 2,849,400 2,849,400 2,857,400 2,857,400 8000 8,000 0 0.28% 0.28% 0

PT 2,890,800 2,901,400 2,899,200 2,901,400 2,901,400 0 2,200 0 0 0.07% 0

PMT 2,882,900 2,881,600 2,873,400 2,884,200 2,884,200 2600 10,800 0 0.09% 0.37% 0

Difference = Optimal Solution – Initial Basic Feasible Solution

𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛−𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑐 𝐹𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

% Difference = × 100%
𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

50
From the table above it is clear that the north-west corner method generated the same

income as that of optimal solution for two companies (Young Shall Grow Motors

Limited and Pleasure Travels), and generated income less than that of initial income for

Bluewhales Travels and Peace Mass Transit.

The least cost generated an income less than the initial income for (YSGML,BTL and

PMT) but the income generated for the pleasure travels is better than that of initial

solution but less than the optimal solution.

Vogel’s Approximation Method yields the best initial basic feasible solution for all the

companies as its income generated were found to be the same as that of optimal solution.

This could be achieved because it takes into consideration the cost associate with each

route alternatives. Although it takes a longer time to compute, this is something the

North-West Corner and Least Cost Method could not have achieved.

Graph showing the income generated by each methods used for Young Shall Grow

Motors Limited.

YOUNG SHALL GROW MOTORS LTD.

4,100,000 4,094,000 4,094,000 4,094,000

4,090,000

4,080,000
INCOME

4,070,000
4,060,800 4,058,800
4,060,000

4,050,000

4,040,000
INITIAL NWCM LCM VAM OPTIMAL
METHODS

51
Graph showing the income generated by each methods used for Bluewhales Transport

Company Limited.

BLUEWHALES TRANSPORT CO. LTD.

2,857,400 2,857,400
2,858,000

2,856,000
2,853,800
2,854,000
INCOME

2,852,000
2,849,400 2,849,400
2,850,000

2,848,000

2,846,000

2,844,000
INITIAL NWCM LCM VAM OPTIMAL
METHODS

Graph showing the income generated by each methods used for Pleasure Travels Limited.

PLEASURE TRAVELS LTD.

2,904,000
2,901,400 2,901,400 2,901,400
2,902,000
2,899,200
2,900,000

2,898,000
INCOME

2,896,000

2,894,000

2,892,000 2,890,800

2,890,000

2,888,000

2,886,000

2,884,000
INITIAL NWCM LCM VAM OPTIMAL
METHODS

52
Graph showing the income generated by each methods used for Peace Mass Transit.

PEACE MASS TRANSIT

2,886,000 2,884,200 2,884,200
2,884,000 2,882,900
2,881,600
2,882,000
2,880,000
INCOME

2,878,000
2,876,000
2,873,400
2,874,000
2,872,000
2,870,000
2,868,000
INITIAL NWCM LCM VAM OPTIMAL
METHODS

DATA GRAPH

This shows the income generated by each bus according to its capacity and the number

allotted to a particular route.

YOUNG SHALL GROW MOTORS LTD.

BUS CAPACITY INCOME NO OF BUS

1200000
1,012,000
1000000

800000 636,000
530,000
600000 440,000 440,000
369,600 400,000
400000
233,200
200000
22 50 22 50 22 50 60 22
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
BUS CAPACITY 22 50 22 50 22 50 60 22
INCOME 1,012,000 440,000 369,600 400,000 233,200 530,000 636,000 440,000
NO OF BUS 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 2

53
 BLUEWHALES

600000

500000 514,800
445,200
435,600
400000 388,800
345,600
300000
253,000 237,600
233,200
200000

100000
22 22 36 22 22 42 22 36
0 1
2
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
2
8
1

BUS CAPACITY 22 22 36 22 22 42 22 36
INCOME 514,800 253,000 233,200 388,800 237,600 445,200 435,600 345,600
NO OF BUS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

PLEASURE TRAVELS
BUS CAPACITY INCOME NO OF BUS

600000 546,000
511,200 487,200
460,800
500000
380,800
400000
300000
171,600 182,000
151,200
200000
100000 14 13 36 13 42 36 42 14
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
BUS CAPACITY 14 13 36 13 42 36 42 14
INCOME 380,800 171,600 511,200 182,000 546,000 460,800 487,200 151,200
NO OF BUS 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

54
 PEACE MASS TRANSIT
bus capacity total income no: of buses

700000
588,000
600000 546,000
475,800
500000
380,800
353,600
400000
300000
170,800 183,300 184,600
200000
100000 14 13 13 14 39 13 42 13
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
bus capacity 14 13 13 14 39 13 42 13
total income 380,800 353,600 475,800 170,800 546,000 183,300 588,000 184,600
no: of buses 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1

Blue color = bus capacity.

Orange color = income.

Gray color = number of bus allotted.

55
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

An advantage of the transportation problem algorithm is that, the solution process

involves only main variables, artificial variables are not required as in the case of simplex

method. Large transportation problem could relatively be solved using the transportation

algorithm. It was shown that solving balanced transportation problem was easier using

the north-west corner and least cost methods using the transportation problem formulated

for Young Shall Grow Motors Ltd, Bluewhales Transport Co. Ltd, Pleasure Travels and

Peace Mass Transit. Vogel’s approximation method was found to be much difficult to

calculate, yet it always yields a better result near optimal if not optimal. It can therefore

be concluded that Vogel’s approximation method although not quite as easy as the other

methods, facilitates a better initial basic feasible solution. The optimal solution obtained

using the excel solver application for the four (4) companies were found to be

N4,094,000.00, N2857400.00, N2,901,400.00 and N2,884,200.00 respectively.

5.2 RECOMMENDATION

In general, the passenger population (demand) is always greater than the vehicle

availability (supply). But this can only be verified if the actual data management and

records are always available for researches to be carried out on them. Further research

needs to be carried out in the area of bus services and maintenance looking at the number

of times the buses could breakdown.

56
 REFERENCE

Abdul S. S, Gurudeo A. T., and Ghulam M. B. (2013), A Comparative Study of Initial

Basic Feasible Solution Methods for Transportation Problems, Mathematical
Theory and Modelling, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2014)

Ahmad, H. A. (2012) “The Best Candidates Method for Solving Optimization Problems.”
Journal of Computer Science,: 711-7 15

Buffa, E.S., and Dyer J.S., (1981) Management Science/Operations Research:

Chaudhuri, A.( 2011) “A Comparative study of Transportation Problem” Journal of

Mathematics and Computer Science,:256-267

Dantzig, G.B., (1951). “Application of Simplex method to a transportation problem” in

T.C. Koopmans (ed.), Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, Wiley, pp.
359 – 373.

Dantzig, G.B., (1960). “On the Shortest Route Problem Through a Network”,
Management Science, Vol 6, pp. 187-190

Dantzig, G.B., (1963). “Linear Programming and Extension Princeton. Univ. Press
Production, N.J.

Edward, S.A. and Venkatachalapathy, M. (2011): Modified Vogel’s Approximation

Method for Tuzzy Transportation Problem, Ramakrishnan (1988) discusse3d
some Improvement to Goyal’s Modified Vogel’s Approximation Method for
Unbalanced Transportation Problem.

Enyi, E.P. (2007). Maximizing Profits from Passenger Transport Service using
Transportation Model Algorithm.

57
George B. D. (1951): Application of the Simplex Method to a Transportation Problem,
Allyn and Bacon Inc. Boston, United State, Pp. 3 15-322.

Goyal H., (1988) “An Improvement to Goyal Modified VAM for the unbalanced
Transportation Problem”, Journal of the Operational Research Society 3 9(6)-
June

Gupta, P. K. and Hira D.S. (2011) Operations Research, 6th Edition, S.Chand &
Company Ltd, New Delhi, India. Pp233-329

Hakim, M.A., (2012) An Alternative Method to Find Initial Basic Feasible Solution of a
Transportation Problem, Annals of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 1, No. 2,
203-209.

Hitchcock, F.L. (1941).The Distribution of a Product from Several Sources to numerous

Localities”, Journal of Mathematics Physics. 20: pp. 224-230.

Iman, T. Elsharawy. G, Gomah, M. and Samy, I. (2009): Solving Transportation Problem

Using Object Oriented Model. IJESNS International Journal of Computer Science
and Network.

Jim C. and Douglass K.S. (2009) Mathematical Modeling, Case Studies and Projects 4th
Edition, Kiuwer Academic Publishers, New Delhi, India. Pp233-329

Journal of Management and Enterprise Development Vol.5, No.4, (2007). http://papers.

nssrn.com/abstract=1005417

Kanjana Thongsanit (2013): Solving the Course-Classroom Assignment Problem for a

University, Silpakorn U.Science & Tech J. 8(1): 46-52, 2014.

Koopmans, T.C. (1947): Efficient Allocation of Resource Cowles Commission Paper No.
24. Conferences Washington.

58
Koopmans, T.C., Optimum Utilization of the Transportation System Econometrica. 17,
pp.3-4, 1947.

Mathematical Theory and Model. ISSN 224-5804 (paper) Vol.4 No.1. 2014

Model formulation and Solution Methods, 2nd edition, Wiley, New York.

Rekha V. J. (2013) “Optimization Techniques for Transportation Problems of Three

Variable”, IOSR Journal of Mathematics,: Volume 9, Issue 1, Pp 46-50

Shah, N.H., Gor R.M. and H. Soni (2010) Operations Research, 4th Edition, PHI
Learning Private Limited, New Delhi, India. Pp 195-240

Sharma, J.K. (2009): Operations Research, Theory and Applications (4th Edition)
Macmillan Publishers India Ltd.

Sharma, V., Dahiya K and Verma, V. (2008), A Note on two-stage interval time
minimization transportation problem, Austrian Society for Operations Research
Bulletin, 27(3), 12-18.

Sudhakar V.J, Arunnsankar N. and Karpagam T (2012). A new approach for find an
Optimal Solution for Transportation Problems, European Journal of ScientfIc
Research 68, 254-25 7.

Swarup, K., Gupta, P.K and Maham M., (2008), “Operations Research “, Published by
Sultan Chand and Sons, pp. 247-265, 287-289

Venty.A. A, Omega K. K (2007)) “A Simple Heuristic for solving small fixed-charge

transportation problem”, 3 1(3), 205-211,203.

Weiss J., Howard and Gershon, E. Mark (1989): Production and Operations
Management. Allyn and Bacon Inc. Boston, United State. Pp. 507,546,522.

59
Weiss, H.W. (2011) POMfor Windows Version 4.0: Software for Decision Sciences
Manual, Pearson Educational Inc., Pearson Prentice Hall

Zheng, H.R, Xu, J.M and Hu, Z.M (1994), Transportation Problem with Upper Limit
Constraints on the Variables and with Parameters, Journal of Wuham University,
Natural Science, 5, 1-5.

60