| Literature DB >> 35983139 |
G Durga Bhavani1, Fasika Bete Georgise2, G S Mahapatra1, B Maneckshaw1.
Abstract
The potential to obtain defective or damaged items with non-defective commodities is common to experience at the production unit or when shipping products from one layer to another. This research focuses on the faulty things that retailers receive from suppliers. The retailer has set a restriction on the percentage of defective things, and the retailer receives a discount on the cost of purchasing defective items. The proposed inventory system handles the uncertainty in inventory costs and also considers the demand and deterioration of items with prioritized maximum product life. This work minimizes total inventory cost when demand rate as a function of reliability and power pattern of time under a crisp and triangular neutrosophic environment. The inventory system for degrading items considers the predictability and power pattern of time with a reasonable payment delay. The interest charges are applied only after a specific permissible time limit in the proposed inventory system. The neutrosophic number that defines three different kinds of membership functions representing the truth, hesitation, and falseness is applied in the inventory model in handling the uncertainty of the cost pattern. The proposed inventory model is investigated using a particle swarm optimization algorithm, and the results are validated using a numerical example and a sensitivity analysis for various parameters.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35983139 PMCID: PMC9381223 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7683417
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Contribution-based comparison of this article with earlier literature.
| Articles | Demand rate | Deterioration | Imprecise parameters | Nature of impreciseness | Defective items | Discount on defective items | Delay in payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee et al. [ | Constant | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Khanra et al. [ | Quadratic | Constant | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Chen and Teng [ | Constant | Product's maximum life time | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Pal et al. [ | Ramp type | Weibull | Cost parameters and inflation rate | Triangular fuzzy | No | No | No |
| Wu et al. [ | Constant | Product's maximum life time | No | No | No | No | No |
| San-Jose et al. [ | Power pattern of time | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Mahapatra et al. [ | Price, stock, reliability, and advertisement | Weibull | Cost parameters | Triangular fuzzy | No | No | Yes |
| Mullai and Surya [ | Constant | No | Cost parameters | Triangular neutrosophic | No | No | No |
| Sepehri et al. [ | Price | Constant | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Karakatsoulis and Skouri [ | Constant | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Luo et al. [ | Constant | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Present paper | Reliability and power pattern of time | Product's maximum life time | Cost parameters | Triangular neutrosophic | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Figure 1Graphical representation of demand and inventory model.
Algorithm 1Proposed PSO algorithm for the inventory model.
Optimal inventory costs in different environments.
|
| Environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crisp | 1.12183 | 2805.97 | 207.348 | 1.10380 | 2800.32 | 206.823 |
| 0.75 | Neutrosophic | 1.05876 | 2649.95 | 209.915 | 1.01887 | 2736.37 | 208.858 |
| 1 | Neutrosophic | 1.11206 | 2585.17 | 207.063 | 1.11793 | 2669.15 | 207.234 |
| 2 | Neutrosophic | 1.27544 | 2420.30 | 199.442 | 1.38407 | 2479.68 | 201.550 |
Optimal variation of inventory costs under neutrosophic domain.
| Values of |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.08924 | 2644.80 | 1.09369 | 2699.11 |
|
| 1.10047 | 2614.64 | 1.10560 | 2728.92 |
|
| 1.11206 | 2585.17 | 1.11793 | 2669.15 |
|
| 1.12405 | 2555.54 | 1.13070 | 2639.04 |
|
| 1.13644 | 2525.77 | 1.14394 | 2608.75 |
Sensitivity analysis for the different inventory related costs.
| Parameter | % change |
|
| % change in |
|
| % change in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −20 | 1.16292 | 2220.50 | −14.11 | 1.17547 | 2303.83 | −13.69 |
| −10 | 1.13663 | 2403.16 | −7.04 | 1.14539 | 2486.88 | −6.83 | |
| 10 | 1.08903 | 2766.57 | 7.02 | 1.09274 | 2850.73 | 6.80 | |
| 20 | 1.06737 | 2947.40 | 14.01 | 1.06952 | 3031.67 | 13.58 | |
| −20 | 0.99567 | 2445.99 | −5.38 | 0.99543 | 2532.48 | −5.12 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −10 | 1.05546 | 2517.50 | −2.62 | 1.05843 | 2601.76 | −2.52 |
| 10 | 1.16596 | 2649.55 | 2.49 | 1.17448 | 2733.13 | 2.40 | |
| 20 | 1.21753 | 2711.08 | 4.87 | 1.22851 | 2794.17 | 4.68 | |
| −20 | 1.12811 | 2616.88 | 1.23 | 1.13118 | 2684.18 | 0.56 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −10 | 1.12000 | 2601.06 | 0.61 | 1.12458 | 2676.68 | 0.28 |
| 10 | 1.10429 | 2569.21 | −0.62 | 1.11125 | 2661.59 | −0.28 | |
| 20 | 1.09669 | 2553.22 | −1.24 | 1.10452 | 2653.97 | −0.57 | |
| −20 | 1.16250 | 2530.31 | −2.12 | 1.17168 | 2613.93 | −2.07 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −10 | 1.13642 | 2558.39 | −1.04 | 1.14383 | 2641.88 | −1.02 |
| 10 | 1.08925 | 2611.68 | 1.03 | 1.09376 | 2695.80 | 1.00 | |
| 20 | 1.06782 | 2637.63 | 2.03 | 1.07114 | 2721.84 | 1.97 | |
Figure 2Sensitive analysis on optimal costs.
Sensitivity analysis for the different inventory related parameters.
| Parameter | % change |
|
| % change in |
|
| % change in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −20 | 1.24254 | 2192.72 | −15.18 | 1.25469 | 2285.96 | −15.37 |
| −10 | 1.17180 | 2390.87 | −7.52 | 1.18060 | 2466.05 | −7.61 | |
| 10 | 1.06073 | 2776.18 | 7.39 | 1.06398 | 2868.85 | 7.48 | |
| 20 | 1.01599 | 2964.36 | 14.67 | 1.01686 | 3065.58 | 14.85 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −20 | 1.11085 | 2594.48 | 0.36 | 1.11664 | 2678.48 | 0.35 |
| −10 | 1.11145 | 2589.82 | 0.18 | 1.11728 | 2673.82 | 0.17 | |
| 10 | 1.11267 | 2580.51 | −0.18 | 1.11858 | 2664.49 | −0.17 | |
| 20 | 1.11328 | 2575.85 | −0.36 | 1.11923 | 2659.83 | −0.35 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −20 | 1.05589 | 2657.17 | 2.79 | 1.05896 | 2741.42 | 2.71 |
| −10 | 1.08583 | 2617.74 | 1.26 | 1.09042 | 2701.87 | 1.23 | |
| 10 | 1.13527 | 2557.98 | −1.05 | 1.14226 | 2641.61 | −1.03 | |
| 20 | 1.15598 | 2534.37 | −1.97 | 1.16398 | 2618.08 | −1.91 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −20 | 1.11206 | 2635.78 | 1.96 | 1.12545 | 2700.67 | 1.18 |
| −10 | 1.11206 | 2610.47 | 0.98 | 1.12214 | 2685.13 | 0.60 | |
| 10 | 1.11206 | 2559.86 | −0.98 | 1.11276 | 2652.65 | −0.62 | |
| 20 | 1.11206 | 2534.55 | −1.96 | 1.10653 | 2635.53 | −1.30 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −20 | 1.12811 | 2616.88 | 1.23 | 1.13118 | 2684.16 | 0.56 |
| −10 | 1.12000 | 2601.06 | 0.61 | 1.12458 | 2676.68 | 0.28 | |
| 10 | 1.10429 | 2569.21 | −0.62 | 1.11125 | 2661.59 | −0.28 | |
| 20 | 1.09669 | 2553.18 | −1.24 | 1.10452 | 2653.97 | −0.57 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −10 | 1.14135 | 2485.90 | −3.84 | 1.14885 | 2565.39 | −3.89 |
| −5 | 1.12631 | 2536.30 | −1.89 | 1.13288 | 2618.07 | −1.91 | |
| 5 | 1.09868 | 2632.62 | 1.84 | 1.10388 | 2718.77 | 1.86 | |
| 10 | 1.08608 | 2678.78 | 3.62 | 1.09064 | 2767.02 | 3.67 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| −5 | 1.10570 | 2634.19 | 1.90 | 1.11118 | 2718.21 | 1.84 |
| −2 | 1.10958 | 2604.18 | 0.74 | 1.11530 | 2688.18 | 0.71 | |
| 2 | 1.11446 | 2566.89 | −0.71 | 1.12048 | 2650.87 | −0.68 | |
| 5 | 1.11791 | 2540.78 | −1.72 | 1.12414 | 2624.73 | −1.66 | |
Figure 3Sensitive analysis graphically on optimal costs vs other inventory related parameters.