24 European Journal of Operational Research 51 (1991)24-34

North-Holland

Case Study

Modelling a fertiliser distribution system

R.R.K. Sharma
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, P.O.I.I.T., Kanpur 208016, India

Abstract: The fertiliser production-distribution problem is formulated as a mixed z e r o - o n e integer linear

programming problem. The distinguishing features of the problem are described. Benders' decomposition
is used as a solution procedure. Two Lagrangean relaxation procedures are developed to solve the primal
problem, one of them converging at a much faster rate. The computational performance and the
implementation details of the solution procedure are discussed.

Keywords: Fertiliser distribution (application), warehouse location, mixed 0-1 integer linear program

1. Introduction

This paper describes an application of a decomposition-based approach to the case of a fertiliser

production-distribution problem in the Indian context. A typical fertiliser manufacturer has around 10%
market share and an annual distribution bill of approximately Indian Rs.100 crores and also has four to
five plants at different locations, each with a different production cost structure and capacity. The demand
for fertiliser during a cropping season is determined by a combination of several factors such as
availability of credit, pesticides, water and seeds and the expected return which determines the crop mix
chosen by the farmers. The company's marketing department collects the relevant information from the
field and prepares the sales forecast. The Government of India has classified the fertilisers as an essential
commodity and regulates its distribution. It issues written orders to the fertiliser companies in which their
market share for the current cropping season (usually of six months) is mentioned. These figures may get
revised as the field conditions change significantly. Hence, for the purposes of planning the demand can be
assumed to be deterministic.
The existing rail network although quite large, is not able to directly reach most of the fertiliser
consumption centres. Therefore, in a typical distribution system, the fertilisers are moved from the
manufacturing plants to certain points known as the rake points; from there fertilisers are moved by road
to the secondary points using heavy commercial vehicles and finally reach the markets in light commercial
vehicles. Warehouses can be hired at the rake points and the secondary points but at the secondary points
the warehouse sizes are approximately one fourth the sizes available at the rake points. Almost all the
fertiliser is moved through the above chain, although a small percentage (less than 55[) of it may reach the
markets directly from the rake points or the fertiliser plant itself. Such cases can be easily taken care of in
the model (described later) by adding dummy rake points or secondary points.
The number of wagons that would be available at a station in a particular period can be known from
the railway authorities and an estimate of the number of trucks available for movement at the various

Received December 1989; Revised September1990

0377-2217/91/$03.50 1991 - ElsevierSciencePublishers B.V. (North-Holland)

 R.R.K. Sharma /Modelling a fertiliser distribution system 25

points is known. Warehousing costs have three components, the fixed cost for locating a warehouse at a
point, the cost proportional to the size of space booked and the inventory handling charge proportional to
the quantity handled. The transportation and the production costs are approximately linear.
The decision makers have to decide, in a multiperiod context, at which rake and secondary points to
locate warehouses, the size of warehouses, the amount of inventory to be stocked at each of these
warehouses, the transportation plan to meet the demand and how much to produce at each of the fertiliser
plant in each subperiod. Severe restrictions exist on the quantities that can be transported in various
directions as the number of the railway wagons and the heavy commercial vehicles available at a point is
limited. The warehouse space available at various points is also limited. The warehousing corporations
have imposed the condition that the fertiliser companies should book space for a period of at least three
months.

2. Previous work

The facility location problem has been attempted by Kuhn and Hamburger [11], Khumawallah [10] and
Jacobson [9], Feldman [4] and Cornuejols et al. [3]. They have suggested heuristics which produce good
solutions in a reasonable computational effort. Geoffrion and Graves [7] have developed two formulations
of the multicommodity distribution problem and have shown that the solutions of one formulation always
dominated that of the other. Lagrangean relaxation has been used for the facility location problem by
Geoffrion and McBride [8], Christofides and Beasly [2], and Van Roy [13].
The distinguishing features of the present problem are that decision makers have the choice of booking
a warehouse of any size; there are multiple stages in the distribution chain and it is required to locate
warehouses at two stages; due to severe restrictions, a particular point may receive fertiliser from many
points of the previous stage and finally the fertiliser demand is seasonal.

3. Problem formulation

In this paper the plants, rake points, secondary points and markets, will be referred to as points of type
"1", "2', "3" and "4" respectively.

3.1. Variable definition

The beginning and ending inventory at point number j of point type i in period k of product type h is
represented by Bijkh, Eijkh respectively; Lij is the location variable which is 1 if it is decided to locate a
warehouse at point number j of point type i (where i varies from 2 to 3) and 0 otherwise. The quantity
produced at plant number j (point of type 1) in period k of product type h is denoted by Pl,jkh; QTR4jkh
is the quantity received at market number j (point of type 4) in period k of product type h and the space
booked at point number j of point type i in the first and last three months of a six monthly season is
denoted by SI~j, S2~j respectively. The total quantity transported from point number j l of point type il to
point number j2 of point type i2 in period k of product type h is represented by Til,jl,i2,j2,k,h; TTij k
denotes the total quantity transported from point number j of point type i in period k.

3.2. Constants of the problem

A cropping season of six months duration is divided into K number of periods (for convenience
assumed even); H is the number of products and U denotes the number of nutrients. The quantity of
nutrient demanded of type u at market j (point of type 4) in period k is denoted by D4jk, while fhu is the
fraction of nutrient of type u obtainable from product of type h.
26 R.R.K. Sharma / Modellinga fertiliser distribution system

The total number of points of category i is N(i); SN(i, j ) is the set of points of type i + l to which a
point of type i having a number j can supply fertiliser, and RN(i, j ) denotes the set of points of type
i - 1 from which a point of type i having a number j can receive fertiliser.
Variables in Section 2.1 have lower and upper limits and an associated cost co-efficient and these
constants are denoted by putting " L " and " U " and " C " respectively before variables names. For example
LPljkh, UPljkh and CPljkh are respectively the lower limit, upper limit and unit cost of variables Pljkh for
all j, k and h.
Distribution cost is composed of the production cost: CPljkh * Pajkh; cost of space: CSlij *SI~j +
CS2ij*S2~j; cost of carrying inventory: 0.5*CI~jkh*(Eijkh +B~jkh ), and the fixed cost of locating a
warehouse: CL~j * L,j. The cost minimisation problem is set up as follows.

3.3. Objective function

Problem (P1)
minimizes Y'~ CPljkh * Pljkh + ~_, CTijkpmn * Tijkpmn + E CIijkh * ( Eijkh "}- nijkh) *0.5
jkh ijkpmn iJ'kh

+ E CSlij *Slij + ~ CS2ij *S2ij + E C L i j * t i j .

ij ij O"

3.4. Constraints

3.4.1. Subproblem constraints

Pljkh + BUsh = Eljkh + ~_, Tlj2,,kh
m~ SN(1,j)
forallj=l . . . . . N(1), k = l . . . . . K, h = l . . . . . H. (1)

E T(i-1)mijkh -}- Bijkh = Eijkh q- E rij(i+l)mkh

m~RN(i,j) meSN(i,j)
foralli=2 . . . . . 3, j=l ..... N(i), k=l ..... K andfor h=l ..... H. (2)
Lower and upper limit on variables defined in Section 2.1. (3)

QTRajkh = E Z3m4jkh for all j , k, h. (4)

m~RN(4,j)

Totally there are K * H number of subproblems (Figure 1) and for each subproblem (of a particular
period and a particular product), the constraints (1) to (4) are present. The equations (1) and (2) are the
material balance conditions at the plants and at the rake and the secondary points, respectively. The
equations (3) set the lower and the upper bounds on variables; and the equations (4) ensure that the
demand is satisfied.

3.4. 2. Linking constraints

H
]~fhu*QTRajkh>D4jku for a l l u = l . . . . . U, j=l ..... M and k = l . . . . . K, (5)
h=l
Bij~k+a)h=Eijkh f o r i = l , 2,3, j = l . . . . . N(i), k=l ..... K-1 and h = l .... ,H,
(6)
 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling a fertiliser distribution system 27

orc for limiting arc f o r limiting arc f o r limiting

outflow from plont o u t f l o w from roke o o t f l o w f r o m sec.

/
, )' ggga
_ '' / ,'' ' , \~ Ii // \, .I/ I-' " ,,
4, // 3 v,/i o ,er
\ // ~ ri-/ ~ ~-' .... --"~._., .......
\ ,,-- e~n ! / ein ,11 ein
\ II I/ II' bin-beginning inventory
" . " ein - ending inventory node
. . . . .

bin bin bin

Figure 1. Network subproblem configuration (for a particular period and product)

H
TTij,= }--'. ~ T/j(i+i)~,h for i = 1, 2, 3, j = 1 ..... N(i), k = 1 ..... K, (7)
h=l x~SN(i,j)
H
E, skh~S1,j fort=l,2,3, j = l ..... N(i), k = l ..... K, (8a)
h=I
H
y ' E , jkh~S2 o for i = l , 2, 3, j = l ..... N(i), k=K+l ..... K. (8b)
h=l

The nutrient requirements are met by the equations (5). These constraints are not necessary for the case
of a single product and a single nutrient problem, as the equations (4) suffice. The constraints (6) denote
the condition that the opening inventory in a period is equal to the ending inventory of the previous period
and (7) is an expression for the total quantity transported from a point. The total inflow at a point is kept
within the space available by the equations (8).
The constraints (5) to (8) link the variables appearing in the subproblems represented by constraints (1)
to (4).

3. 4. 3. Location constraints

A set of linear constraints representing the condition that if a warehouse is located at a

particular point then the space booked must be within the permissible lower and upper
limits, (9)

TTijk, Tit ,jl ,i2,j2,k,h, Eijkh, BGkh, QTR4jkh, PU*h, Slij, S2ij>0

for all i, j, k, h, il, i2, j l , j2, (lO)

L~i=(0,1) for alli, j. (11)

The equations (10) are the non-negativity constraints on all the real variables while (11) indicates that
the integer variables assume zero-one values.
28 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling a fertiliser distribution system

4. Solution method

The Benders' decomposition procedure, used to solve problem (P1), is described below.

4.1. Benders' decomposition

Let X denote the polyhedron due to constraint (1) to (4) in the problem (P1). Then for a particular
value of y, the problem becomes as follows:
Problem (P2)
minimize CX
subject to x x, (12)
Bx = b, (13)
Dx = f - Ey, (14)
x >/0 real,
y = (0, 1) integer and known.
In problem (P2), any point x ~ X can be represented as a convex combination of extreme points of X,
as follows:
T T
x= ~?~j*xj, Y'~Y~j=I, )~j>~0 forj=l . . . . . T.
j=l j=l

It is assumed that there are T extreme points of the polyhedral set X and these are xj ( j = 1. . . . . T).
Using the above, problem (P2) can be posed as follows:
Problem (P3)
T
minimize Y'. cxj * Xj
j=l
T
subject to ~ Bxj * Xj = b, (15)
j=l
T
Dxj * Xj = f - Ey, (16)
j=l
T
E xj = 1, (17)
j=l
Xj>~O for all j = l . . . . . T,
y = (0, 1) integer and known.
Problem (P3) is the primal problem and the dual variables corresponding to equations (15), (16) and
(17) are denoted by u, v and w, respectively. Then the dual problem is
Problem (P4)
maximize ub + v ( f - Ey ) + w
T T T
subject to u B(xj)+v Y'.D(xj)+w<<, E c ( x j ) ,
j=l j=l j=l
u, v and w unrestricted in sign.
Let us denote the polyhedron of problem (P4) by M. Let us denote the extreme points of M by
(u p, vP, w p) where p = 1 . . . . . P (assuming that there are P extreme points) and extreme rays by
 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling a fertiliser distribution system 29

(u~, v~, w~) where s = 1 . . . . . S (assuming there are S extreme rays). It is also to be noted that M is
independent of y and thus, no matter what the value of y, the optimal value of problem (P4) occurs at one
of the extreme points of M or grows unbounded along one of its extreme rays of M. Now, if for some y
there exists an s, such that
u~b + vsl( f - Ey ) + w~ > O,
then the optimal value of problem (P4) is unbounded. The converse is also true.
When problem (P4) is unbounded, then it means by the dual theorem of linear programming that
problem (P3) (the primal problem) has no solution for that y. Therefore,
u~b+v~(f-Ey)+w~<~O for a l l s = l . . . . . S
provides necessary and sufficient conditions on y to permit feasible x to the mixed integer program (P1).
Then problem (P4) becomes as follows:
Problem (P5)
max uPb + v P ( f - Ey) + w p
p=l ..... P

subject to u~b + vsl(f - Ey) + w( <~0 for all s = 1 . . . . . S,

y = (0, 1) integer. (18)
Using this, problem (P1) becomes
Problem (P6)
m~)[n
+ {,dy p=lmax,l" u P b + v P ( f - E y ) + w P }

subject to u~b + VSl(f - Ey) + w~ <~0 for all s = 1 . . . . . S,

y = (0, 1) integer.
Problem (P3) is solved to get (u p, v p, w p) and hence one additional constraint for problem (P6) is
generated, which when solved gives a configuration of warehouses, i . e . y . Problem (P3) is solved again,
with a new value of y to obtain a new set of dual variables. We continue to iterate in this fashion until the
upper bound produced by problem (P3) converges to the lower bound given by problem (P6).
If an optimal solution to the primal problem (P3) is obtained, then Benders' decomposition is continued
by computing the dual variables of its equivalent problem. The proposition given below describes this
procedure.
Proposition, Let xf be an optimal solution to the primal problem (P3). Then, the dual variables of its
equivalent problem can be computed.
Method. Consider the following problem.
Problem (P7)
T
minimize ~ cxj * Xj
j=l
T
subject to ~ Bxj * Xj = b + g, (19)
J-1
T
Y'~ Dxj* Xj= ( f - Ey) + h, (20)
j=l
T
EXj=I, (21)
j=l

)t j>/0 for all j = l . . . . . T,

y = (0, 1) integer and known,
30 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling a fertiliser distribution system

where g = ( c , 0); B = ( B I G ) ; D = ( D I H ) with B and G, D and H, b and g, and f and h of

conformable dimensions; elements in G, H, g and h are all equal to 1 . . ~ is the polyhedron X with
constraint Zisi = 1; and ~j = (x, s) T is an extreme point of the polyhedron .~.

Clearly, for all the feasible solutions of problem (P3) it is possible to construct feasible solutions to
problem (P7) with arbitrary values of si and hence they are equivalent problems. Problem (P1) is
transformed into pure integer program (referred to as problem (PS)) by using p_roblem (P7). Problems (P6)
and (P8) have the same structure. Let Xs be the array of extreme points of X such that the i-th extreme
point, Xsi, is stored in the i-th column; then X~ can be constructed as follows.

x~, = (xf,l,0,0,0 . . . . . 0,0) T, Xs2 = (xf,0,1,0,0 . . . . . 0 , 0 ) T,

Xs(m_l) = ( X f , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 . . . . . 1,0) T, Xsm = ( X f , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 . . . . . 0,1) T.

Dual variables of problem (P6) are given by

where R is a row matrix with all elements as 1.

Benders' decomposition is continued by alternately solving (P7) and (P8).
Balas' [1] algorithms for the pure 0-1 integer linear program is used to solve (P8). It is possible to get
two formulations of problem (P8) by using substitutions as given below:
zl>~uPb+vP(f-Ey)+w p forallp=l ..... P and mindy+z l,
z>~dy+uPb+oP(f-Ey)+w p forallp=l ..... P and minz.
The first one was found to be effective in pruning the branches during the progress of the implicit
enumeration algorithm as the value of the 'current solution' changes as we branch on y. The second
transformation was not fruitful as the value of 'current solution' does not change until we branch on z and
hence it is not effective in pruning the search tree. It was found that Balas' algorithm took more than eight
hours to solve problem (P8) with approximately 50 variables and 140 constraints when the second
formulation was used and it took less than two minutes with the first formulation; and hence we used the
first transformation for solving problem (P8).

4.2. Lagrangean relaxation

The constraints (13) of problem (P2) are dualised and included in the objective function, and the
subgradient procedure is used to update the value of the multipliers. Lagrangean relaxation technique is
described in Fisher [5] and Geoffrion [6], and is described here very briefly. Consider
Z = m i n cx (P)
subject to Ax=b,
D x <~e,
x>~O,
where x is n x 1, b is m X 1, e is k X 1 and all other matrices have conformable dimensions.
Let us say that the constraints of (P) are partitioned into two sets A x = b and D x ~< e, so that the
following problem can be easily solved.
Zd(U ) = min cx + u ( A x - b) (LR(u))
subject to D x <~e,
x>~0,
where u = { u(1), u(2) . . . . . u(m)} is a vector of Lagrangean multipliers.
 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling,a fertiliser distribution system 31

Now the Lagrangean dual Z a is defined to be

Za = max Z d ( u ). (DP)
u

The best choice of u gives the optimal solution to problem (DP). The value of u can be found by
different methods. The subgradient procedure is a widely known procedure for updating the values of u.
Subgradient procedure is explained below.
Given an initial value of u 0, a sequence u k is obtained by the rule

Uk+l = Uk + tk * ( A X k - - b),
where x k is an optimal solution to LR(uk) and t k is a positive step size. The step size commonly used in
practice is

tk = Pk * ( Z ( * ) - Z d (u k ) ) / N o r m ,
where Norm = ( A x k b) 2 and 0 ~<Pk ~ 2.0.
-

Z( * ) is an upper bound on Zd, obtained by a suitable heuristic or algorithm.

Constraints (13) of problem (P2) are dualized and included in the objective function and the
subgradient procedure is used to update the value of multipliers.
Details of the two relaxations attempted are described in Sharma [12] but are reproduced here for
completeness. For the purpose of illustration the case of a single product and a single nutrient is
considered.

4.2.1. Relaxation 1: (LR1)

Now the constraints Bx = b of problem (P2) are of the type

Bij(k+ 1)1 = E, jkl for i = 1 , 2 , 3 , j=l ..... U(i), k=l ..... K-l, (22)

(Eijkl) ~ Slij for i = 2 , 3 , j=l ..... N(i), k = l . . . . . K, (23)

Eijkl ~ S2~j f o r i = 2 , 3, j=l ..... N(i), k=K+l . . . . . K. (24)

Multipliers for equations (22), (23) and (24) are denoted by usj k, v~jk and w~9k respectively.
Starting values for the multipliers were chosen as follows:
u,j k = O for i = l , 2, 3, j= l,..., N(i), k=l ..... K-l,

v,j k, W~jk=min(CSl~j, CS2,j ) for i = 2 , 3 , j=l ..... N(i) and all k.

l,J

4.2.2. Relaxation 2: (LR2)

New constraints were prepared by adding constraints (22) and (23) and (22) and (24) of (LR1). Now,
the constraints Bx = b of problem (P2) have the following form.
Bij(k+m=Egjka fori=l,2,3, j=l ..... N(i), k=l ..... K-l, (25)
E;jkl<~Slij fori=2,3, j--1 ..... N(i), k = l . . . . . K, (26)
B,j~k+ln~<Sl~j fori=2,3, j=l ..... N(i), k = l . . . . . K, (27)
E~jkl~S2ij for i = 2 , 3 , j=l ..... N(i), k=K+l . . . . . K, (28)
Bsj(k+m~<S2,/ for i = 2 , 3 , j=l ..... N(i), k-=K . . . . . K - 1 . (29)

Multipliers for equations (25), (26), (27), (28) and (29) are denoted by U~jk, vl~jk, V2~jk, wl,jk, W2,jk
respectively.
32 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling a fertiliser distribution system

Starting values for the multipliers were chosen as follows:

u,j k=O fori=l,2,3, j = l ..... N(i), k = l ..... K - l ,
Vlijk, V2ijk,

wl~jk, w2~jk=0.5.min(CSl~j, CS2,j) fori=2,3, j= l,..., N(i) all k.

l,J

4.2.3. Computation of the near optimal solution

The Lagrangean relaxation procedure is stopped when the sum of total booked warehouse space attains
the minimum level to be able to meet the demand. A backward recursive procedure is then used to get a
feasible primal solution. That is, for the relative cost coefficients that are passed down to the subproblems,
the last period ( K ) problem is solved first, and its beginning inventories passed down to the previous
period ( K - 1) problem as ending inventories, and then problem of period K - 1 is solved, and again its
beginning inventories are passed down to the period K - 2. This recursive procedure is followed till the
first period problem is solved. Finally, the warehouse space booked is computed by setting it to the
maximum of the ending inventories.

4.3. Inclusion of feasibility constraints in problem (P8)

Feasibility of the primal problem (P7) is ensured to a great extent by including a set of linear
constraints in problem (P8). These linear constraints ensure that (see Figure 1) the maximum flow possible
between every two successive stages is greater than or equal to the cumulative demand in that subproblem.

5. Computational results and implementation details

It was found that, on an average, for problems of different sizes, relaxation (LR2) converged in around
one third the number of iterations taken by relaxation (LR1) (see Table 1). In relaxation (LR2), the
relative cost coefficient of warehouse space booked is a function of multipliers which determine the
relative cost coefficients of beginning and ending inventories, whereas, in relaxation (LR1), the relative
cost coefficient of warehouse space booked is a function of multipliers which determines the relative cost
coefficients of ending inventories only. This could result in a better adjustments of multipliers in relaxation
(LR2) so that it is able to terminate in fewer iterations as compared to relaxation (LR1). Relaxation (LR2)
was developed after observing slower convergence of certain multipliers in relaxation (LR1).
Obtaining primal feasibility was found to be sensitive to the starting value of Pk used. We used the
starting value of p~ as 1.5 and halved it after every 10 iterations. If primal feasibility was not obtained,
then slight tinkering with the starting value of Pk produced the desired result. Primal feasibility was
attained in all the thirty eight problems that were attempted and the duality gap was less than 5%. Thus,
the heuristic solution procedure appeared to be computationally attractive.
Four problems were prepared by collecting the data from a fertiliser company in India. The existing
accounting systems in the company do not maintain the relevant costs associated with the decisions, and
hence, a considerable effort was spent in going through the accounting records to prepare the relevant

Table 1
Average performance of relaxations (LR1) and (LR2)
Relaxation type Avg. no. of iterations
Lagrangean relaxation 1 101
Lagrangean relaxation 2 31
 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling a fertiliser distribution system 33

Table 2
Computational results
Problem Number Number Number Number of Time taken
number of var. of int. var. of constr. Benders' on VAX-750
iterations
1 3180 37 6028 3 4 hrs.
2 3180 37 6028 10 10 hrs.
3 2098 31 3930 2 3 hrs.
4 3760 51 7078 3 15 hrs.

costs required in the problem formulation. The four problems were optimally solved by the model and the
computational results are given in Table 2. The use of OR models has underscored the need to obtain the
relevant costs associated with the decisions. The management accounting systems serve this purpose as
traditional accounts do not supply this kind of information.
The feasibility constraints included in problem (P8) (Section 4.3) greatly reduced the number of
Benders' iterations. When these problems were solved without these constraints, the optimal solution could
not be produced in twenty iterations. (The process was terminated as the computations are expensive.)
Benders' cuts once generated can be stored and used later. When the demand pattern changes
marginally, the optimal solution of the previous problem can be used as a good starting solution which
reduces the number of Benders' iterations required to produce the optimal solution.
Computer implementation produced the warehouse location and production-allocation plan in few
hours of time whereas the distribution managers took a few days to produce a feasible solution manually.
The demand forecast normally gets revised around three to four times in a season of six months which
makes the task difficult. The model presented here is useful as it gives solutions in a reasonable time.
Algorithm was implemented on a VAX-750 at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India.
A constraint generator was developed to prepare all the constraints and the subproblems. The out-of-kilter
algorithms was used to solve the rain-cost-flow network subproblem as the code was easily available.
Provision was made to store the solution of each subproblem, so that the next iteration could be started
from the optimal solution of the previous iteration. This helped to reduce the kilter n u m b e r encountered
during the successive iterations. Each of the linking constraints has a maximum of six variables with
nonzero coefficients and hence, linked list was used for its representation. Such a scheme resulted in the
savings in the computer storage required and also reduced the computational time. The code was
developed by the author himself and the total program size was approximately 20 000 lines and the CPU
time consumed in code development was more than 1440 hours. The terminal connect time was more than
7380 hours.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the application of Benders' decomposition to the problem of fertiliser distribution is
demonstrated. The primal problem was attempted by two Lagrangean relaxation procedures and one of
these converged at a faster rate. The model developed here serves as a good aid to making decisions and
routine sensitivity analysis is possible as complete information on dual variables is available.

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank Prof. A. Tripathy and Prof. P.R. Shukla for the constant encouragement
provided by them. The author also likes to thank the various executives of the Indian Farmers and
Fertilisers Co-operative Ltd. for arranging the data required.
34 R.R.K. Sharma / Modelling a fertiliser distribution system

References

[1] Balas, E., "An additive algorithm for solving linear program with zero-one variables", Operations Research 13 (1965) 517-545.
[2] Christofides, N. and Beasley, J.E., "An algorithm for capacitated warehouse location problem", European Journal of Operational
Research 12(1) (1983) 19-28.
[3] Cornuejols, G., Fisher, M.L., and Nemhauser, G.L., "Location of bank accounts to optimise float: An analytic study of exact
and approximate algorithms", Management Science 23 (1977) 789-810.
[4] Feldman et al., "Warehouse location under continuous economies of scale", Management Science 12(6) (1965) 670-684.
[5] Fisher, M.L., "The Lagrangian relaxation method for solving integer programming problem", Management Science 27 (1981)
1-18.
[6] Geoffrion, A.M., "Lagrangean relaxation and its uses in integer programming", Mathematical Programming Study 2 (1974)
82-114.
[7] Geoffrion, A.M., and Graves, G.W., "Multicommodity distribution system design by Benders' decomposition", Management
Science 20(5) (1974) 82-114.
[8] Geoffrion, A.M., and McBride, R., "Lagrangean relaxation applied to capacitated facility location problems", A I l E Transac-
tions 10 (1978) 40-47.
[9] Jacobson, S.K., "Heuristics for capacitated plant location model", European Journal of Operational Research 12 (1983) 253-261.
[10] Khumawallah, B.M., "An efficient heuristic procedure for capacitated plant location problem", Naval Research Logistics
Quarterly 21(4) (1974) 609-623.
[11] Kuhn, A., and Hamburger, M., "A heuristic program for locating warehouses", Management Science 9(4) (1963) 643-666.
[12] Sharma, R.R.K., "An application of Lagrangean relaxation based approach to the bulk commodity production distribution
problem", Australian Society of Operations Research, Special Publication, Recent Developments in Mathematical Programming,
Santosh Kumar (ed.), Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, London, 1991 (to appear).
[13] Van Roy, T.J., "A cross decomposition approach for capacitated facility location", Operations Research 34 (1986) 145-163.