A Dissertation
entitled
An Integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Optimization Approach for
Automotive De-manufacturing Systems
by
Naif A. Alsaadi
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Engineering
______Dr. Matthew Franchetti, Committee Chair
______Dr. Ioan Marinescu, Committee Member
______Dr. Ashok Kumar, Committee Member
______Dr. Yue Zhang, Committee Member
______Dr. Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, Dean College of Graduate Studies
The University of Toledo
December 2016
Copyright 2016, Naif A. Alsaadi
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.
An Abstract of
An Integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Optimization Approach for Automotive De-manufacturing Systems
by
Naif A. Alsaadi
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Engineering
The University of Toledo
December 2016
The Automotive Recycling Industry currently faces the greatest challenges in terms of the efficient reuse and recycling of End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs). While the automotive industry has integrated almost every breakthrough from multi-disciplinary fields of sciences and engineering, the technology and practices surrounding the proper disposal and recycling of ELVs remains a lagging indicator to automotive technology. However, despite the greater focus of business entities and researchers on the manufacturing of new vehicles, the responsibility surrounding the recycling and disposal of ELVs is equally important. The improper or ineffective strategies in the disposal of waste materials from ELVs can lead to grave environmental consequences.
Furthermore, aside from their adverse effects on the environment, problems associated with improper waste disposal of ELV materials may also lead to various social and economic problems. One of the most notable barriers to effective and proper ELV processing is the high economic cost associated with their recycling and disposal. From the consumer’s point of view, proper and effective disposal would require additional expenditure which could be otherwise added to the funds needed to purchase and acquire a new car. On the other hand, from a business
iii perspective, automotive recycling companies seek to recycle and reuse ELVs while at the same time expect to profit from such a venture. This study aims to use the Integrated Life-Cycle
Assessment (LCA) and Optimization Approach for Automotive De-manufacturing Systems in order to arrive at a most efficient and effective method which can be adopted in order to streamline the ELV recycling and waste disposal process. It aims to investigate and analyze the insights and findings derived from existing research in relation to the current methods conventionally used in the disposal and recycling of ELVs. The factors are then aggregated and integrated in order to arrive at formulas and cost metrics which are needed for evaluating the efficacy of the entire ELV recycling network. Furthermore, this study would also investigate the problems currently faced by the Automotive Recycling Industry in general, and how these problems can be related to the objectives of the study. It is the aim of this study to arrange an effective method which policy-makers and business entities can use in order to find the optimum location for a processing facility which will help improve regional or even global ELV recycling processes as well as keep the overall cost associated with such processes at a minimum. The network model that was formulated in this study includes the various factors that are considered important in ELV de-manufacturing. The said optimized model was applied to resolve the problems faced by the automotive aftermarket industry in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which resulted to reduced cost and greater efficiency.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... iii
Table of Contents ...... v
List of Tables ...... ix
List of Figures ...... x
1 Background of the Study ...... 1
1.1 Automotive De-manufacturing ...... 1
1.2 The De-manufacturing Process...... 3
1.3 Global Automotive De-manufacturing Industry ...... 5
2 Problem Statement and Research Hypothesis ...... 7
3 Review of Related Literature ...... 9
3.1 Reverse Logistics ...... 9
3.2 ELV De-manufacturing ...... 11
3.2.1 Parts and Suppliers De-manufacturing ...... 11
3.2.2 Cost of De-manufacturing ...... 15
3.2.3 Automotive Recycling Association ...... 19
v
3.3 Summary of Review of Related Literature...... 22
4 Methodology ...... 24
4.1 ELV De-manufacturing Facility ...... 26
4.2 Research Materials ...... 26
4.3 Identification of the Problem and Objectives of the Project ...... 29
4.4 Identification of Materials, Spare Parts and Processes ...... 29
4.5 Identification of the cost metrics for vehicle de-manufacturing process ...... 32
4.6 Determination of Economic and Environmental Benefits of De-manufacturing ...... 34
4.7 Determination of the Optimal Location of Processing Facilities ...... 34
4.8 Determination of the Constraints and the Assumptions of the Project ...... 35
4.9 Creation of the Model Project ...... 35
4.10 Applying the Model on a Case Study ...... 36
4.11 Providing Recommendations in Regard to the Project ...... 36
5 Analysis of Findings...... 37
5.1 Common Materials Found in ELVs ...... 37
5.1.1 Ferrous Metals ...... 38
5.1.2 Non-Ferrous Metals ...... 39
5.1.3 Rubber/Tires ...... 40
5.1.4 Glass ...... 40
5.2 Process Analyses...... 41
vi
5.3 Cost Analyses ...... 44
5.3.1 Procurement Cost ...... 46
5.3.2 Transport Cost ...... 47
5.3.3 Depollution ...... 47
5.3.4 Cost of Extraction and Storage of Parts that are Resalable ...... 48
5.3.5 Cost of Shredding Machine or ASR Incinerator ...... 49
5.3.6 Fixed Cost...... 49
5.3.7 Operating Cost ...... 50
5.3.8 Melting and Recycling Plant Cost ...... 50
5.3.9 Landfill Cost ...... 51
5.4 Cost of Current Method of Disposal ...... 51
5.5 Comparative Analysis ...... 54
5.6 Economic and Environmental Benefits of De-manufacturing ...... 56
5.7 Depollution Process ...... 60
5.8 Optimal Location of De-manufacturing Facility ...... 65
6 Formulation of the Optimization ELV De-manufacturing Network...... 70
6.1 Assumptions ...... 70
6.2 Mathematical Formulation ...... 72
6.1.1 Index...... 73
6.1.2 Parameters ...... 73
vii
6.1.3 The Decision Variables ...... 75
6.1.4 Objective Function ...... 76
6.1.5 Constraints ...... 77
7 Case Study_ Jeddah, Saudi Arabia...... 79
7.1 Introduction ...... 79
7.2 The Current State of ELV Management in Jeddah ...... 81
7.3 Associated Problems with the ELV Management in Jeddah...... 82
7.4 Real Life Problem ...... 84
8 Computational Results ...... 89
8.1 Objective Function ...... 89
8.2 Reduced Cost ...... 90
8.3 Dual Price ...... 95
8.4 More Sensitivity Analyses ...... 102
9 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 105
References ...... 109
Appendix A : Recycling Auto Parts ...... 113
Appendix B : Solving The Model Using Lingo Software ...... 113
Model ...... 118
The Output ...... 125
Display the Model ...... 139
Model Statistics ...... 147
viii
List of Tables
1.1 Estimated Amount of Materials Recovered Annually ...... 5
3.1 Standard Handling Procedure of De-manufacturing ...... 12
3.2 Place and the Directives or Laws Regarding ELVs ...... 19
4.1 Concepts are Derived from Other Related Materials ...... 27
4.2 Identification of Materials, Spare Parts and Processes ...... 30
4.3 Possible Costs Incurred During De-manufacturing ...... 33
5.1 Cost Estimation Table for the ELV Recycling ...... 45
5.2 Cash Saved for Recycled Components ...... 57
7.1 Percentage of Imported Vehicles by Saudi Arabia ...... 80
7.2 Population of Jeddah City ...... 81
7.3 Vehicle Age Break-up in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia ...... 82
7.4 Composition of Typical Passenger Vehicles ...... 86
7.5 Distance Matrix from Collection Centers to Dismantlers ...... 87
7.6 Distance Matrix from Dismantling Facilities...... 88
7.7 Distance Matrix from Shredding Facilities ...... 88
8.1 The Cases for Rate of Materials Disposed of ...... 104
ix
List of Figures
1-1 The Recycling Rates ...... 2
1-2 Automotive De-manufacturing Process ...... 3
3-1 Reverse Logistics flow ...... 10
3-2 Components of a Commercial Vehicle ...... 13
3-3 ASR Process after ELV Shredding...... 14
4-1 Methodology Paradigm...... 25
4-2 ELV Treatment Facilities ...... 26
5-1 Composition of Typical ELV ...... 38
5-2 ELV De-manufacturing Framework ...... 42
5-3 Overview of the ELV Treatment Process ...... 52
5-4 ELV Depollution Process ...... 61
5-5 ELV Depollution Facility ...... 65
5-6 Cost of Dismantling versus Number of Vehicles ...... 66
5-7 The Results of the Optimization ...... 68
6-1 ELV De-manufacturing Network ...... 71
6-2 ELV Network Flowchart ...... 72
7-1 Jeddah Map (Area Modeled) ...... 85
x
8-1 ELVs Flow from the Collection Centers ...... 98
8-2 Material Flow from the Dismantling Facilities ...... 100
8-3 Material Flow from the Shredding Facility ...... 101
8-4 The Effect of the Dismantling Capacity ...... 103
8-5 The Effect of the Unit Transportation Cost ...... 103
8-4 The Effect of Rate of Materials Disposed ...... 104
A-1 Recycling Auto parts ...... 113
xi
Chapter 1
Background of the Study
1.1 Automotive De-manufacturing
De-manufacturing is the practice of disassembly and recycling of disposed or old
products. Automotive de-manufacturing is the recovering of parts and materials from a
motor vehicle that can still be reused and recycled. Its main purpose is to harvest all
automotive parts to reuse and salvage the remaining materials and recycle them to make
new products that can be used in producing basic materials like plastic, steel, aluminum,
copper and brass (Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, 2010). The so-called ends of
life vehicles (ELVs) are recycled into new vehicles. New vehicles can be made of
recycled old consumer products and vice versa, old vehicles can be turned to new
consumer products. New technology had made an opportunity to reuse and recycle
material contents from the old vehicles. There is an estimate of 86% material recovery in
a vehicle in the United States (Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, 2010). Cars can be
1 considered as most recycled consumer product. Recycling Rates 2010 show that vehicles recycling rates are over 95 percent (Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, 2010) as shown in Figure 1-1. The difference between recovery and recycling rate is that recovery rate entails reclaiming used parts and materials and delivering them to a processing mill.
While recycling rate refers to the level of reprocessing the recovered parts and materials, and it happens when a product has completed its original function where it is reprocessed and converted into useful new material.
Figure 1-1: The Recycling Rates of Autos in the Year 2010 in Comparison to Other Commonly Used Materials and Parts (Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, 2010)
2
1.2 The De-manufacturing Process
Car de-manufacturing would help reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and improve resource use. Cars can be de-manufactured in three steps, dismantling, shredding and resource recovery (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Figure 1-
2 shows the process on how the vehicle is retrieved from the consumer down to the resale of parts, recycling of parts and landfill (International Specialized Skills Institute, 2009).
The diagram explains how the de-manufacturing process starts.
Figure 1-2: Automotive De-manufacturing Process
3
From the last owner of the vehicle, the car is turned over by the first level in the diagram, which are the used car dealers, insurance companies, car repair centers and other sources. Then the Car Dismantlers choose what parts can still be recycled from the vehicle. There are a lot of recovered materials from the vehicle. These can be parts or fluids from the car that are being recovered and still have a profitable value in the second hand market. The parts of the car that cannot be recycled by the wreckers are flattened and go through a shredder. Sorting is done by separating the non-ferrous (non-metal), ferrous and shredder residue. Non-ferrous materials go to the second-hand market, ferrous materials are melted and recused and the residue is put in the landfill. The use of recycled scrap iron and steel reduces the use of virgin iron ore. The manufacture of recycled steel saves 74% less energy and 40% less water. It also results in 86% less air pollution, 76% less water pollution and 97% less mining wastes (Royal Automotive Club of Victoria, 2014). For every ton of new steel made of scrap, it conserves 2,500 lbs. of iron ore, 1,400 lbs. of coal and 120 lbs. of limestone (Ecoamisco, 2015). Recycled metals also reduced Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. According to the Automobile Recycling
Industry (2010) there is an approximate of 12.6 million vehicles recycled each year worldwide. Based on this estimate, GHG emissions are reduced by 30 million metric tons per year (Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, 2010). Through this recycling process, energy is saved, natural resources are conserved, and pollution in the air, water and greenhouse emissions is reduced. Hazardous substances like lead, mercury, oil and unspent fuel can be recycled.
4
1.3 Global Automotive De-manufacturing Industry
The de-manufactured cars annually produce a lot of potential pollutants that can harm the environment. If these pollutants are not disposed properly by the de- manufacturer, dire consequences can be suffered. Every year, there is an estimate of 27 million cars that reach the end of their useful life (US Environmental Protection Agency,
2012). Five million tons of shredder residues are being dumped in the landfills annually.
Table 1.1 shows an estimate of the total potential pollutants that are being collected, reused and recycled annually.
Table 1.1: Estimated Amount of Materials Recovered Annually (Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, 2010) Fluid Recovered Quantity Recovered
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel 100.8 million gallons
Motor Oil 24 million gallons
Engine Coolant 8 million gallons
Windshield Washer Fluid 4.5 million gallons
Lead Acid Batteries 96%
Mercury 9 000 lbs.
The de-manufacturing of cars is done worldwide. Government legislations have been implemented in order to address the issue. The European End-of-Life Legislation
5
Directive 2000/53/EC is the most relevant legislative directive in the global automotive industry. The directive aims to put in heavy metal restrictions, recycling and recovery, recycled content usage and vehicle end of life take back schemes (International
Specialized Skills Institute, 2009). This legislation aims to recover at least 85% of the materials from the vehicle. An amendment on the directive was also put in place wherein the vehicles may only be sold in the market if the materials are 85% (minimum) reusable or recyclable by mass. Other directives worldwide include the 2002 Japanese Automobile
Recycling Law (Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, 2002), 2008 South
Korean regulation for reuse, recycle and recover hazardous substances (South Korea’s waste management policies, 2015), 2008 Taiwan’s ELV voluntary agreement and 2010
China which launched a technical standard. This standard is a combination of the
European and Japanese Legislation. These policies create an importance to the use of recycled materials for new vehicles as well as proper disposal of materials recovered from it. In addition, they also make sure that the new vehicles in the market would be designed to have a minimal impact to the environment.
6
Chapter 2
Problem Statement and Research Hypothesis
The number of ELVs is increasing every year and this needs to be addressed in a manner with consideration to financial feasibility and its environmental impact worldwide. The automobiles consist of different materials and as such, different types of recycling facilities must be covered to ensure that good recovery of materials is done.
This research aims to determine a particular approach in order to reduce the generation of environment pollutants, minimize the cost of processing of the automobiles being recycled and reduce the total amount of materials that is ultimately disposed to landfills. The statement of the problem is to find out if an optimized automobile de-manufacturing network that is economically and environmentally beneficial to the current disposal methods can be established.
The research seeks to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of an integrated vehicle de-manufacturing systems. There are a number of questions that the project seeks to answer.
Some of the questions that are expected to be answered by the project include the following;
7
What are the environmental impacts that are caused by the current methods of vehicle
disposal?
What are the existing legal policies that govern the disposal of ELVs?
What are the existing disposal mechanisms that are involved in developing an integrated
vehicle de-manufacturing facility?
What are the optimal processing mechanisms that can be used to dispose ELVs?
What are the main raw materials that can be obtained from processed ELVs?
What are the factors that should be taken into account for cost computation of
dismantling and shredding ELVs?
What are the factors that should be taken into account for choosing the location of the
processing facility?
These questions will be answered by the project. The project looks forward to determine the overall benefits that can be accrued from the development of an integrated vehicle de- manufacturing facilities. In addition, the main objectives of the study are the following:
1. To identify automobile materials, suppliers, and processes suitable for de-manufacturing
operations.
2. To establish baseline cost metrics for vehicle de-manufacturing, reuse, recycling and
disposal.
3. To identify an optimal location for a centralized processing/shredding facility that would
minimize the cost and at the same time avoid hazard in the environment.
4. To be able to create an optimal de-manufacturing network model that would minimize
cost of processing and logistics.
8
Chapter 3
Review of Related Literature
This part of the paper shows the relevant research materials that the researchers had gathered to get more information on the problem at hand. This is also a way to answer some of the objectives of the study and provide ideas to solve the problem under study.
3.1 Reverse Logistics
Manufacturing industries are used to doing forward logistics most of the time.
Raw materials are gathered and processed in order to create new products for the
consumers. Logistics enters from raw materials to manufacturing until it reaches the end
consumer. However, the same is not true for recycling materials. In de-manufacturing,
reverse logistics is used in order to recover raw materials from the product. Reverse
logistics is concerned about all procedures or methods associated from product returns,
maintenance and repairs, recycling and dismantling for products and materials (Adaptalift
9
Hyster, 2011). Recycling companies use reverse logistics in order to have raw materials for their production. Figure 3-1 shows the diagram on how reverse logistics work.
Figure 3-1: Reverse Logistics flow (Adaptalift Hyster, 2013)
All activities in the Reverse Logistics System incur costs. These must be considered in the design of the model for the system. Activities that incur cost in the system are as follows: transportation, product collection, disposal of products,
10 remanufacturing and recycling of the products and the labor costs for the retrieval of the product (Sanket, 2009).
3.2 ELV De-manufacturing
Automotive de-manufacturing has three primary areas of recovery for reverse logistics. First, the working components, these are sold as what they are to the market.
Second, recoverable components or auto parts which are refurbished before they are sold in the market and lastly, unrecoverable components, these materials are reclaimed through crushing and shredding.
3.2.1 Parts and Suppliers De-manufacturing
An article from Holden Australia had cited the procedure on how the vehicles are recycled in general. Batteries are first disconnected. After the disconnection, all fluids must be drained out of the car. Pyrotechnic devices are also removed; these devices include airbags. It is advisable to remove them because pyrotechnic devices contain ingredient that represent explosion hazards (Autoparts Recycle Association of Australiar;
Greenfleet; Holden, 2014). There is a standard initial handling procedure that automotive companies follow during the de-manufacturing process. Table 3.1 shows a list of manufacturers and their procedures in ELV de-manufacturing. These 3 companies were chosen because information is readily available to the public.
11
Table 3.1: Standard Handling Procedure of De-manufacturing per Company
BMW TOYOTA HOLDEN
(BMW Group, 2009) (Toyota Motor Corporation, (Autoparts Recycle 2014) Association of Australiar; Greenfleet; Holden, 2014) 1. Neutralization of 1. Chlorofluorocarbons 1. Disconnect and
Pyrotechnic Devices CFC Collection Remove Battery
2. Removal of Vehicle 2. Airbag Collection and 2. Drain fluids and gasses
Fluids Recycling 3. Remove pyrotechnic
3. Removal of Hazardous 3. Removal of Parts in devices
Materials Good Condition 4. Cleaning
4. Dismantling 4. Press 5. Storage
5. Removal of Core Scrap 5. Shredder 6. Reuse materials,
6. Compacting 6. Sorting of Ferrous, Non- energy and other
7. Shredding Process ferrous and Anti-Slip collected materials
8. Post Shredder Regulation (ASR) from the ELV
Technologies 7. Reuse as materials, 7. Disposal
energy, ferrous and non-
ferrous metals.
Each manufacturer has a different way of recycling materials. However, all of the above is focused on removing the hazardous materials inside the car. Appendix A is a list of de-manufacturing auto parts that could be removed from the car. The list contains the component of the vehicle, the materials used to manufacture the component, the method
12 of dismantling, the storage area where these components must be stored in, disposal of the hazardous component and safety precautions. This information is provided in the article of Holden Australia (Autoparts Recycle Association of Australia; Greenfleet;
Holden, 2014).
Figure 3-2: Components of a Commercial Vehicle
The following is a brief description of the process, as soon as the vehicle is dropped of,
Hazardous materials such as the CFC and the airbags are removed.
Parts that are in good condition are removed;
13
Parts are sorted according to reusable ones, ferrous materials and non-ferrous
materials.
After this recovery, the cars are pressed and go through the shredder.
The shredded parts would be classified as either ferrous or non-ferrous and shredder
residue.
Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are melted and reused; ASR or shredder residue is either used as a material or as energy. Figure 3-3 shows processing of the ELV from the shredder to the ASR Recycling Plant (Toyota Motor Corporation, 2014).
Figure 3-3: ASR Process after ELV Shredding
14
As of the moment, Toyota can recover and reuse the ELV materials 99% its body weight (Toyota Motor Corporation, 2014), in Holden Australia the ELV materials recovered is around 75% and 25% is dumped in the landfill (Autoparts Recycle
Association of Australia; Greenfleet; Holden, 2014) and BMW is expected to recover at least 85% of its materials (BMW Group, 2009). However, Europe has a directive that recovery target level must reach about 95% (European Commission, 2005).
3.2.2 Cost of De-manufacturing
Nowadays, cars are created to be more fuel efficient and to do that lighter materials are chosen. The metallic fraction of the automobiles is reduced resulting to higher components of polymers, fabrics and glass. There is a high demand for metal scrap but for the other materials there is no demand in the form where it emerges from the shredder. Disposal of the materials are done through landfills. If the cost of the landfill is low, then the cost of operating the shredder is just a fraction of the cost amount in operating the shredder. However, if the landfill cost is high, the cost in operating the shredder may not be able to cover the costs (Field, 1993). There are five factors that a dismantler must take into account for cost computation. The following factors are:
The procurement cost of ELV’s,
The cost of extraction, storage and distribution of parts that can be sold,
The price of the used parts that can be sold,
The cost of extracting and removing the parts that the shredder does not need in the
stripped car, and
The price of the stripped car that would be sold to the shredder.
15
Given that the dismantler and the shredder are not in the same company, then there are also five factors to consider in shredding the vehicle. These include:
The cost of the hulk to be obtained,
The operating cost of the shredder and the ferrous separator,
Disposal cost of the automotive shredder residue,
The asking price that the shredder gets from the steel processed, and
The asking price for the mixed non-ferrous metal blend (Field, 1993).
A lot of researches had been done using Reverse Logistics as a tool to formulate mathematical models to support the recovery plan and disassembly sequence in automobiles.
Technical cost models of ELV processing operators were developed and the results show that removing of 14% of the ELV mass results in a recycling rate of 80%
(Zarei, Mansour, Kashan, & Karimi, 2010). A simulated model to examine the effects of future changes in the vehicle was developed. The model yielded that the recycling target of 95% by the year 2015 would be unreachable unless changes would be done in vehicle material composition (Zarei, Mansour, Kashan, & Karimi, 2010).
The conceptual model was developed by Zarei, Mansour, Kashan, and Karimi and had included the production of new vehicles and recovery of used ones. In this model, it was assumed that the whole network is conducted by a vehicle manufacturer.
Distribution-collection centers are assumed. Collection of ELVs is assigned to these distribution centers. The model developed was to minimize the costs of setting up
16 network and raw materials flow between different facilities (Zarei, Mansour, Kashan, &
Karimi, 2010).
Elwany, Fors, Harraz, & Galal (2007) in their article “Reverse logistics network design” reviewed different review of models and solution techniques were reviewed in an article for reverse logistics. Four different modelling technique classifications were identified in the study. These are the following:
i. Classification based on order type of flow
There are two models consider; and these are the forward and reverse networks.
These two models two different entities and are designed in succession. The other approach in this type is the combination of these two flow types in the design process.
ii. Classification according to model type
These models are based on the type of programming used. Model can be a mixed integer linear programming or mixed integer non-linear programming. Mixed integer models represent integer variables such as facilities and continuous variables; they also represent the amount of material flow between the different facility types. The Mixed integer non-linear programming accounts for the aspects discussed in mixed integer models combined with time.
iii. Classification according to objective function
The objective function classifies the models according to the numbers and type of model. The model can answer one objective or multiple objectives depending on the
17 researcher. Most objective function models are considered to have a location allocation problem with a single objective either to minimize cost or maximize revenue.
iv. Uncertainty in Reverse Logistics
Some models used for reverse logistics incorporated uncertainty variables in their models. There are four approaches that can incorporate uncertainty in the models, and these are:
Sensitivity analysis, this is used to determine how the output of the model will be
changed if uncertainties are present in the model inputs.
Scenario Based Approaches, this is an extension of the sensitivity analysis. The model
is iterated until an individual solution that performs best is arrived at.
Robust Optimization, the uncertainty is represented through different scenarios, the
model aims to minimize the measure of deviation of the resolution from the objective
function value from the best solution achieved for each scenarios created.
Stochastic Programming, this is a mathematical programming process that deals with
stochastic elements in the data. Probability distributions are used as the main element
in the model.
The program applied in network design problem is considered as the recourse type.
There are two stages of approach to this type of model. Stage 1 determines the set of decision variables and Stage 2 determines the recourse action after a random event has taken value. The action in stage 2 makes sure that the constraints in the models are in place.
18
3.2.3 Automotive Recycling Association
A lot of countries around the world are conscious on the growing problem of vehicle recycling. In order to address the problem, these countries had joined movements such as the Automotive Recyclers Association in order to learn and share ideas about
ELV recycling. The association was founded in 1943, and has a global presence being an international trade association representing the automotive industry with a focus on efficient removal and reuse of automotive parts. The following regions and countries have different legislations and directives to follow. Each point would be explained through the legislation, recovery rate and the law directives. The regions and countries have been chosen because they have the most elaborate legislations and directives regarding ELVs.
Table 3.2: Country/Place and the Directives or Laws Regarding ELVs
EUROPE Law/Legislation Directive 2000/53/EC
(Directive Recovery Rates 85 – 95% 2000/53/EC, 5% of ASR will go to landfill 2005) The Law Manufacturers must reduce the use of
hazardous materials when designing or
producing a vehicle
Emphasize on increasing the use of
recycled materials
Producers must use ISO guidelines for
labelling the parts
19
Collection of ELVs and deadlines for
material recovery will be implemented
permits must be obtained by dismantlers
JAPAN Law/Legislation End of Life Vehicle Recycling Law
(Ministry of Recovery Rates 85 – 95% Economy, The Law A network must be established between car Trade and Industry, 2005) owners, ELV collecting business, manufacturers and car importers to recycle
ELVs properly
Fees shall be paid upon purchasing new
cars for those who purchase new cars from
January 2005, the case of disposing of cars
without undergoing a periodic inspection,
fees shall be paid to ELV - collecting
businesses when ELVs are handed over to
them
KOREA Law/Legislation Act for Resource Recycling of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles (RSJ Technical Recovery Rates 85 – 95% Consulting, 2007) The Law Restriction on the use of hazardous
materials
Improvement of materials and structure in
products for easy recycling
20
Separate collection of waste products for
easy recycling
Manufacturers or importers of vehicles
receive an annual recycling rate by joining
a vehicle association
Establishment of Recycling Information
Network
Canada Law/Legislation Canadian Auto recyclers Environmental Code
(Automotive Recovery Rates 94% recovery rate Recyclers of The Law Dismantling and Recycling of vehicles is Canada, 2011) more environmentally friendly
Manufacturers are mandated to produce
new vehicles with a view to increased
recyclability
UNITED Law/Directive Automobile Recycling Study Act of 1991 (HR STATES 3369). Recovery Rate 95% recovery rate (Staudinger & Keoleian, The Law Identify potential problems in recycling 2001) and develop new solutions to the identified
problems
Recyclability must be incorporated in the
plans and designs of newly manufactured
autos
21
Determine possible substitutes to
hazardous substances used in vehicles.
Create design standards for autos that
would result in phasing out of hazardous
and non-recyclable materials
Examine methods for creating more
recyclable plastics for use in autos
In order for these laws to take into effect, the main focus of recycling must be with the producer which can either be the vehicle manufacturer or the professional importer of the vehicle. The link from supplier of the cars to the collector, dismantler and shredder is necessary in order to meet all the regulations directed by law (Kanari, Pineau,
& Shallari, 2003).
3.3 Summary of Review of Related Literature
Reverse Logistics is the control process flow of raw materials, inventory and finished goods from the end user to the point of origin to recapture value or disposed waste properly. Reverse Logistics is also the foundation of the mathematical models formulated for ELV network design. Reverse Logistics System for Automotive Industry is usually designed in order to minimize cost and optimize materials recovery. Different models and techniques were formulated by past researchers in order to determine the optimal solution for the problem at hand. Reverse Logistics is the basis of the models
22 being created by the previous researchers. Different techniques include Mixed Integer
Programming, Non-Linear Programming, and Order type of flow models, Objective function models, and models that consider uncertainty. In this study, legislative orders, processes and recycled materials are taken into consideration to determine the feasibility of creating a new vehicle de-manufacturing facility.
In dealing with ELV de-manufacturing , one must study the different parts that auto manufacturers disposes and sells in the market so as to determine the different costs and profit around the system. Each car manufacturer deals with a different kind of approach in ELV de-manufacturing. Toyota, BMW and Holden are only examples of manufacturers who do ELV de-manufacturing. These car manufacturers together with brilliant minds in the world and different recycling associations had joined in order to create the Automotive Recycling Association (ARA). Since each parts of the world deal with ELV differently, the ARA can be a good way to share ideas and make the recycling of vehicles in each country more efficiently done. Different laws also apply in each country but the most effective law that has been referenced from is the European Law, directive 2000/53/EC. Most countries and car manufacturers have adapted with this particular directive.
23
Chapter 4
Methodology
This chapter deals with the research design and the methodology carried out throughout the study. The project puts emphasis on different methods and techniques that are known to be effective in developing an integrated vehicle de-manufacturing network. The vehicle de- manufacturing system is also expected to improve the willingness of vehicle owners toward adopting good disposal mechanisms of ELVs. It is expected to establish de-manufacturing facilities at different regions in the world. These facilities will be established close to ELVs prone regions. The project will also focus partly on research that has been done in the past in relation to the disposal techniques of ELVs hence is based on the secondary source of data. This implies that the project will involve a wide scope in deriving the solution to the problem of environmental pollution that is realized from poor disposal mechanisms of ELVs. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches will be involved in deriving a concrete solution. The following diagram can be used to illustrate the key steps that will be involved in the design of an
24 effective development methodology. Both the research and effective historical practices have been incorporated in the methodology.
ELV De-manufacturing Research Materials Identification of the Facility Problem and Objectives
Determination of Identification of economic and Identification of the Cost Materials, Spare Parts environmental benefits Metrics and Processes of de-manufacturing
Determination of the Determination of the Optimal Location of Assumptions and Creating a Model for the Processing Facilities Constraints of the Project Project
Providing Recommendations in Applying the Model on a Regard to the Project Case Study
Figure 4-1: Methodology Paradigm
25
4.1 ELV De-manufacturing Facility
The researchers have determined the industry of interest as ELV de- manufacturing facility. The de-manufacturing of ELVs is of interest to the researcher because it poses a threat to the environment. Aside from the threat to the environment, a number of materials can be recovered from vehicle recycling. This facility can save a lot of energy and resources from the environment and as such is a good topic of interest.
Figure 4-2: ELV Treatment Facilities
4.2 Research Materials
The methodology for this project involves research in the internet and other related materials from online libraries. A section of the project will be developed on the basis of the information received from already existing de-manufacturing facilities. The following table can be used to summarize the methodology that will be employed in the study;
26
Table 4.1: Concepts are Derived from Other Related Materials
CONCEPT DESCRIPTION SOURCE Determination of 1. ELV De-manufacturing (Alliance of Automotive Effective Manufacturers, 2010) Network for ELV De- (US Environmental Protection manufacturing Agency, 2012)
2. Reverse Logistics (Adaptalift Hyster, 2013)
(Sanket, 2009)
Identification of 1. Typical ELV Process (Zhaoanjian & Yang, 2014) Process and
Materials 2. Parts and Suppliers De- (Toyota Motor Corporation, manufacturing 2014)
(Autoparts Recycle Association
of Australiar; Greenfleet;
Holden, 2014)
(BMW Group, 2009)
3. Factors that must take (Field, 1993) into account for ELV’s Recycling Cost
Identification of 1. EUROPE (Kanari, Pineau, & Shallari, 2003) the constraints Directive 2000/53/EC and laws 2. JAPAN (Ministry of Economy, Trade and End of Life Vehicle Industry, 2005) Recycling Law
27
3. KOREA (RSJ Technical Consulting, 2007)
Act for Resource Recycling
of Electrical and
Electronic Equipment
and Vehicles
4. Canada (Automotive Recyclers of Canada,
Canadian Auto recyclers 2011)
Environmental Code
5. UNITED STATES (Staudinger & Keoleian, 2001)
Automobile Recycling
Study Act of 1991 (HR
3369).
Mathematical 1. Technical Cost model of (Zhaoanjian & Yang, 2014) Models ELV Processing
Operators
2. Conceptual Model of a (Zarei, Mansour, Kashan, &
network handled by Karimi, 2010)
vehicle manufacturer
3. Four Modelling (Elwany, Fors, Harraz, & Galal,
Technique classification 2007)
28
4.3 Identification of the Problem and Objectives of the
Project
The problem and objectives of the project were identified based on the research materials gathered from the industry statistic and second hand information materials. The objectives of the study were based on how the solution can be arrived at to solve the problem of the study.
4.4 Identification of Materials, Spare Parts and Processes
This stage involves determination of the materials and processes involved in the vehicle de-manufacturing network. It will seek to identify different raw materials that can be retrieved from the ELVs. It will also determine the operational standards of spare parts obtained from ELVs. Table 4.2 shows how the raw materials, spare parts and the processes can be determined.
29
Table 4.2: Identification of Materials, Spare Parts and Processes
DETAILS MATERIALS SOURCE
Materials and Recycled Vehicle Fluids Check local directory for end
Spare Parts users of Vehicle Fluids (Yellow
Pages, interview with local
wreckers)
Hazardous Materials from Check with local government
ELV departments if there are any
special procedures in dealing
with hazardous materials from
ELV (Online and Interview with
local government units)
Recycled Spare Parts from Check local directory for end
ELV users of recycled Spare Parts
(interview with local wreckers)
ELV Car Chassis, Compacted Check local directory for
Scrap Metal, Shredded shredders and compacting
Materials (Ferrous and Non- facilities in the area. It would be
ferrous) helpful to ask local car dealers if
they are acquiring ELV from
customers and how they deal
with this
30
Process Acquiring ELV Ask Car dealers if they are
acquiring ELV, Check local
directory for car junk yards on
how they acquire ELV
Neutralization of Pyrotechnic Inquire about this with car
Devices dealers, local car wreckers and
car junk yard
Removal of Vehicle Fluids Inquire about this with car
dealers, local car wreckers and
car junk yard
Removal of Hazardous Inquire about this with car
Materials dealers, local car wreckers and
car junk yard
Dismantling Inquire about this with car
dealers, local car wreckers and
car junk yard
Removal of Core Scrap Inquire about this with car
dealers, local car wreckers and
car junk yard
Compacting Inquire about this with car
dealers, local car wreckers and
car junk yard. Research on
compacting facilities for cars
31
Shredding Process Inquire about this with car
dealers, local car wreckers and
car junk yard. Research on
Shredding facilities for cars
Post Shredder Technologies Inquire about this with scrap
metal dealers and shredding
facilities or even local waste
management unit
4.5 Identification of the cost metrics for vehicle de- manufacturing process
This stage involves determination of the costs involved in the vehicle de- manufacturing facilities. The cost associated for each process should be determined in order to create the proposed model for the project. Each cost can be used as a variable in the model formulation. Table 4.3 illustrates how the costs incurred in the vehicle de- manufacturing system can be determined.
32
Table 4.3: Possible Costs Incurred During the ELV De-manufacturing
COST METRIC SOURCE
Cost of Acquiring ELV Interview with car dealers (if they are de-
manufacturing), car wreckers, car junk
yard
The cost of extracting, storing, and Interview with car wreckers and car distributing the parts that can be sold junkyard
Cost of extracting and removing the parts Interview with car dealers (if they are de- that the shredder does not want in the manufacturing), car wreckers, car junk stripped car yard
Cost of disposing hazardous materials Interview with car wreckers and car
junkyard
Cost of metal scrap Interview with metal scrap dealers
Operating cost of the shredder and ferrous Interview with shredding facilities separator
Disposal cost of Automotive Shredder Interview with shredding facilities and
Residue local waste management unit
Cost of transportations within the network Research online and interview with
transportation companies
33
4.6 Determination of Economic and Environmental
Benefits of De-manufacturing
The de-manufacturing network of ELV’s provides various direct and indirect environmental and economic benefits. The process implementation is expected to create a new channel of standardized scrap metals and spare parts, the dependence on virgin materials may be reduced. It is also expected to improve the willingness of vehicle owners toward adopting good disposal mechanisms of ELVs. This leads to indirectly increase the number of vehicles that can be processed in vehicles de-manufacturing facilities. Also, ELV de-manufacturing can be beneficial in reducing the cost of current vehicles. Manufacturing of any vehicle part requires energy, and through more effective means of ELV de-manufacturing. Furthermore, it may also serve as a potential income generating activity for ELV owners and businesses. Environmental benefits may also be perceived in this practice through the reduction of environmental pollution as well as the conservation of natural ecosystems.
4.7 Determination of the Optimal Location of Processing
Facilities
Based on the review of related literature and the cost metrics identified, the researchers must determine what practices must be done and where the optimal location of processing facilities could be established. The network will facilitate the market of the
34 scrap metals and spare parts obtained from ELVs. It will also boost the willingness of owners in disposing their vehicles through the facility.
4.8 Determination of the Constraints and the
Assumptions of the Project
This stage will involve determination of the establishment limits that are associated with implementation of vehicle de-manufacturing facilities. All the constraints including cost, sensitization and review of different legal parameters in different countries will be evaluated in this stage. Constraints can be something that the government had created and assumptions can be ideal conditions that the process takes place in.
4.9 Creation of the Model Project
A synthesized model will be created to establish de-manufacturing network for end-of-life vehicles. The model will constitute all the parameters that are expected to be involved in the implementation of the project and will comprise of preliminary and actual necessary operations. The mathematical model would be able to allocate material flows within the network and determine the optimum locations of the shredding facilities that can minimize the total cost related to vehicle de-manufacturing. The criteria of optimization are the cost of transportation, dismantling and shredding of ELVs. The model inputs would be cost of acquiring and collecting ELV, cost of dismantling ELV, cost of compacting and shredding ELV, and transportations costs within the network.
35
4.10 Applying the Model on a Case Study
All the materials or spare parts acquired, costs, constraints, and assumptions relevant to the de-manufacturing process of end of life vehicles will be implied on the case study as according to the environmental and economic conditions of the specific country or region. The location for the shredding and other processes will be chosen that is best for such operations and also minimize the total cost. After evaluating all the factors, a mathematical model will be developed for the case study, and real data will be use in order to find to the optimal solution. In this research, the case study of Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia will be observed.
4.11 Providing Recommendations in Regard to the Project
Recommendations for further study will be discussed after create the model.
Implementation of the solution will also be discussed in this particular part of the research.
36
Chapter 5
Analysis of Findings
5.1 Common Materials Found in ELVs
At the end of the recycling and de-manufacturing process, various materials can
be obtained from the processed ELV, and each of these materials have varying properties
and are used differently. These materials can be used as spare parts or materials for new
or refurbished automobiles, but can also be used for the manufacture of other consumer
or industrial good. One example of such an application is the process of recycling of
vehicle tires is in Africa, where old tires are used to create sandals for consumer use.
Many of the by-products of ELV recycling and de-manufacturing could be possibly
reused as raw materials for various industries, rather than disposing the materials on
sanitary landfills.
37
The research done by (Demirel, Demirel, & Gokcen, 2014) has shown that despite
the number and degree of advances in automotive technology, the material composition
of vehicles has remained unchanged for over a decade. The following figure shows the
various materials found on ELVs from three distinct periods, namely, 2002, 2006, and
2015. The data shows that there is insignificant changes in the composition for ELVs
studied on these periods. However, it is interesting to note that the 2015 data shows
decreasing reliance on ferrous metals in favor of plastics and processed polymers or fiber
composites.
Figure 5-1: Composition of Typical ELV over Time (Demirel, et al., 2016)
5.1.1 Ferrous Metals
Ever since the rise and prevalence of automobiles in the previous century, ferrous
metals already form a bulk of the materials needed to manufacture vehicles. Ferrous
metals are found in vehicles mostly in the form of steel and iron, most of which are
produced as a result of re-smelting scrap metal. The ferrous metals are obtained from 38
shredding specific parts of the vehicle that contains steel or iron. The engine, gear box,
transmission system, and the chassis are among the foremost examples of automobile
parts made of ferrous metals. After extraction, such material are normally delivered to
steel processing plants where they were once again melted and molded in order to
produce new products.
Ferrous metals form a huge percentage of the materials found in vehicles.
Furthermore, they are also responsible for most of the weight of ELVs, which can affect
the various levels of the ELV recycling process. Therefore, most of the processes
involved in material recovery will also consider ferrous metals recovery as a priority. In
this case, the ferrous metals comprising a vehicle must be separated from other
components, mainly, plastics and non-ferrous metals. In order to achieve this, hulks are
first transported to the shredder, which shreds the hulks into fist-sized chunks (Simic &
Dimitrijevic, 2012). This would allow the ferrous materials to be better fit for further
processing. The lighter materials comprising the hulk are then siphoned out through
pneumatic processes (vacuum, etc.). On the other hand, the ferrous materials are
separated from the non-ferrous ones through the use of a magnetic sorter, which attracts
the latter in order for them to be separated from the former (Simic & Dimitrijevic, 2012).
5.1.2 Non-Ferrous Metals
Along with ferrous metals, automobiles also contain non-ferrous metals, but the
ratio between the amount of ferrous and non-ferrous metals found may vary from one
vehicle into another. Older vehicles are mostly made out of steel or iron, but newer
models often have more non-ferrous metals such as aluminum, which is far lighter than
39
steel and iron, and thus helps vehicle owners in terms of energy efficiency. Similar to
processing ferrous metals, these materials are extracted from ELVs through the shredding
process, and are re-sent to metal treatment facilities in order to be melted and fashioned
into new products. Parts of the vehicles usually made up of aluminum are automobile
seats, the automobile body, and in some cases, even the car chassis.
5.1.3 Rubber/Tires
Vehicle tires form a considerable portion of the materials extracted from ELV
processing, primarily due to the fact that tires are made up of rubber, and most vehicles
have four or more tires available to them. Tires are handled depending on their state upon
their arrival on an ELV processing facility. Tires in good working conditions are
dismantled from the vehicle and possibly reintroduced to the market. On the other hand,
tires that are no longer useable on vehicles can then be further shredded and allocated for
a different industry, such as the textiles or energy industry.
5.1.4 Glass
A significant portion of vehicles also includes pieces of glass, mainly from the
windows of the automobile. Older vehicles usually employ windows made up of pure
glass. However, due to the fragility of glass, it was not so practical to be installed on
vehicles for a number of reasons, such as human injury, theft, etc. Most glass windows
for use in automobiles are usually made up of transparent carbon fiber composites, or
pure glass mixed with some fibrous material. ELV processing facilities, therefore, should
40 carefully evaluate what type of glass or window a vehicle uses before subjecting the component for further processing.
5.2 Process Analyses
A system that utilizes Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and optimization techniques may be able to improve the ordinary recycling system by foreseeing how the recycling system may impact the environment during its operations. LCA covers the entire lifetime of a given product, from raw material extractions, to the formation of individual components, manufacturing, distribution to consumers, usage, repair and maintenance, and finally recycling. It also requires a certain level of sustainability which makes a life cycle assessment plan ideal for the improvement of the system’s current model.
The model recommends that the crucial design parameters of the system
(collection point, dismantlers, and industrial shedder) be given more consideration during the ELV reverse model design for the vehicle de-manufacturing system. However, the company may not have enough resources to implement the collection. In this case, a third-party logistics provider may be employed as long as the party has viable logistic provision ability. The following system framework shows the crucial steps involved in recycling the vehicles.
41
Collection Centers
ELV Sorting
Hazardous Depollution Material Recycling Materials
Second Hand Dismantling of Spare Reusable Market Refurbishing Parts Parts
Dismantling of Core Waste Scrap
Landfill
Hulk Shredding
Ferrrous Magnetic Separation Recycling Facilities Metals
Non-Ferrous ASR Air Separation Metals
Figure 5-2: ELV De-manufacturing Framework
42
The entire ELV de-manufacturing framework begins on the accumulation of ELV to be staged for processing. These vehicles are normally stored in collection facilities, delivered from distribution facilities located all throughout the serviceable vicinity, in accordance with the reverse logistics model. The next stage of the framework involves
ELV sorting, which separates the vehicles to be recycled from those that could be possibly refurbished and re-introduced into the second-hand market, without undergoing any further processing. Under this stage, the vehicles are also evaluated to determine which particular facility the ELV should be sent to for further processing, based on its useable condition. Under the depollution stage, two types of materials are removed: (1) hazardous materials, (2) recyclable materials. The hazardous materials such as chemicals can be processed separately or be directly sent to the landfill, while the recyclable materials can be reintroduced to the market by repairing or refurbishing them, and integrating them with other second-hand parts in order to be used in new or used vehicles.
The remaining components of the ELV are then subjected for further dismantling.
Specific parts of a vehicle may be unusable, but some minor parts of components or parts may still be in good working condition, in which case, they are also reintroduced to the second-hand market in order to use them again. The next stage is where the vehicle is mostly scrapped of components with little or no inherent value, with such components eventually sent to the landfill for disposal. The next step would involve the shredding of the hulk and defective or unrecoverable components of the ELV, primarily for the purpose of separating the useable materials from the unusable ones. At this stage of the de-manufacturing process, the ELV would be typically composed of three major components: (1) ferrous metals, (2) non-ferrous metals, and (3) automotive shredder
43 residue. The ferrous components are derived from magnetic separation, while the non- ferrous materials are retrieved using air or pneumatic separation, leaving ASR behind, which is mostly composed of plastic, rubber and fiber composites. Both the ferrous and non-ferrous materials are sent to recycling facilities as a component for producing new spare parts, while the ASR is then sent to the landfill.
5.3 Cost Analyses
The entire process of vehicle de-manufacturing has several critical factors to consider in determining the viability of such a process for a given vehicle. One of the foremost elements among these is the cost of the de-manufacturing process. De- manufacturing requires the dismantling of the salvageable parts and equipment before proceeding to material reclamation and recovery procedures. Dismantling and salvaging equipment often comes with little economic and environmental costs. However, material reclamation and recovery is different, since each material that can be extracted often has a different way of extraction, which may be costly and even time-consuming, or can lead to environmental degradation.
From the ELV de-manufacturing framework, it would be possible to develop a cost analysis table through the quantification of the stages where money is spent during the de-manufacturing process of the ELV. Table 5.1 shows a sample table where the cost of the entire process can be subdivided into phases and displayed in itemized format. The table also requires the citation of various roles or sub-processes to be conducted for each phase. This is to further segment the entire system as well as to ascertain which sub- components of a given process are the most cost-intensive. The cost is then tabulated at
44 the last column of the table, showing how much money is needed to process a single product (in this case, a vehicle) for a given process.
Table 5.1: Sample Cost Estimation Table for the ELV Recycling Life Cycle
EXPENDITURE ROLE AVERAGE UNIT
COST $/UNIT
Procuring the vehicle type and status of the vehicle
Transport Collection - Dismantler
Dismantler - Shredder
Dismantler -Secondhand Market
Dismantler - Landfill
Shredder - Recycling Facility
Shredder - Landfill
Depollution Labor dismantling Fixed/Opening Cost
Operating Cost
Shredding Fixed/Opening Cost
Operating Cost
Melting/Recycling Operating Cost
Landfill Operating Cost
The cost analysis of the entire process can be divided into smaller units in order to make the cost of the entire unit easier to value.
45
5.3.1 Procurement Cost
For a typical consumer, it is often believed that end-of-life vehicles already lose
their entire value. These vehicles are usually sold at a very low price, or become entirely
untradeable on the consumer markets. However, under the product de-manufacturing
perspective, such products still have some value at least for the worth of the materials that
comprise them. ELVs which are missing some parts may have low market value.
However, one vehicle with all the parts has an average price of $194.72 (Easier Cars,
2014). The last owners of the ELVs may choose to sell the item for scraps. In this case,
the price of the vehicle may vary depending on the platform they will sell the item to. It is
for this reason that owners of end-of-life vehicles should first research various markets in
order to select the platform that would make the most out of their vehicles.
A study by Qu & Williams (2008) has established that the procurement cost of
vehicle recycling is approximately 50% of the total price of the scrap ferrous metal price.
This presents a significant amount in evaluating the profitability of vehicle recycling.
When the procurement cost is combined with the other costs associated with ELV
recycling, it is possible for the total cost to exceed that of the total price of the scrap
ferrous metal price. In this case, the recycling facility would either need to cut down on
cost or ensure that most of the components of the vehicles are refurbished and
reintroduced to second-hand markets, since processing the vehicles for raw materials
alone would not be sufficient to cover the expenses needed in recycling them.
The high procurement costs may also be the reason why some ELVs are not
processed in the first place, especially if there is no ELV recycling facility found nearby.
In such conditions, from an engineering perspective, a significant portion of the
46
components can still be recycled and reused. However, from an economic perspective,
processing such ELVs may be impractical even at the early stages of recycling, such as
procurement. As a result, processing some ELVs with high procurement costs may
become unprofitable, giving less incentives for recycling facilities to process them,
despite the inherent value of the materials that comprise them.
5.3.2 Transport Cost
The transport cost is normally computed based on the distance to be travelled by
the courier in order to relocate the vehicle unit, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
In this particular aspect, the locations of both of the de-manufacturing plant and the
vehicle to transport are of practical importance since these would directly affect the cost
of de-manufacturing a vehicle. It can be said that both the distance and tonnage are
directly proportional to the transportation cost and these factors may bring the latter up or
down. The transportation of the ELV from the collection centers take the highest
transportation cost, which usually comes from a household garage or some disposal area
where the ELV was dumped or stored for further processing. Another factor that drives
the transportation cost is the cost of relocating the car hulk to a shredder, which is often
located in a separate facility.
5.3.3 Depollution
In the depollution process, hazardous components found in the ELV, such as used
oil and battery fluid, are separated from the rest of the vehicle. This can be a sensitive
issue since depollution is often required to comply with environmental regulation, but
47
doing so drives the de-manufacturing costs upwards. Processing hazardous components
may require separate facilities on top of other existing facilities normally employed for
ELV processing, mainly for ferrous metals. It also incurs additional labor costs.
Furthermore, the removal of certain materials may be impractical to be removed by
automated machinery, and thus would incur additional labor costs. The revised modern
ELV de-manufacturing technique revolutionizes the entire process by improving on the
depollution stage where the fluids to be extracted from ELVs are sorted and later moved
to facilities where these materials can be recycled separately.
5.3.4 Cost of Extraction and Storage of Parts that are Resalable
The cost of extraction and storage for resalable parts covers all the costs incurred
for the extraction of the individual parts from the rest of the vehicle, which individually
still possesses some market value. The process starts with the assessment of the working
condition of the part before it is removed. The current state of such parts then determines
whether or not it should be classified as a scrap material or as a refurbished or resalable
spare part. When a given part has been determined to be still useable, resalable, and still
in good working condition, the spare part is then relocated to a storage area where it is
stored prior to being reintroduced to the market. This would, in turn, incur storage costs,
and the costs involved would be related on the space required to store such parts in a
facility. Consequently, larger spare parts will demand huge storage costs, while smaller
units will have minimal costs, but this also depends on the quantity of the items involved.
On top of this, the demand on the market may also influence the viability of extracting
and storing the spare parts. Some spare parts may be in good working condition, but from
48
the economic point of view, extraction, salvaging, and storage of such parts may not be
practical due to the fact that doing so will be more expensive than producing a new one.
On the other hand, spare parts with above-average demand will often be priced higher
and/or sold almost immediately, reducing storage and inventory costs. Likewise, spare
parts that take time to get interested buyers will incur huge storage costs.
5.3.5 Cost of Shredding Machine or ASR Incinerator
The shedding or incineration plant is important in the vehicle de-manufacturing
and recycling process. These are essential in the disposal or even extraction of some parts
that cannot be disposed or salved through any other means. However, operating these
facilities require huge amounts of energy. The cost of operating an automobile shredder
machine may be calculated by estimating the cost of the amount of energy it consumes
per hour and multiplying the value with the entire time of operation. On the other hand,
operating such these machines may have varying levels of capacity causing
environmental impact, which also causing additional cost to solve or reduce the impact
on the environment.
5.3.6 Fixed Cost
Fixed costs cover the costs not affected by the number of goods or services
processed by the company involved in ELV processing. These are the costs incurred
during the company’s operations on a macroscopic scale, and are incurred by the
company whether it is operating or not operating, and whether the processing demand is
49
low or high. One of the expenses normally classified as part of fixed costs is rent, which
is paid on a periodic basis whether the company is profitable or not.
5.3.7 Operating Cost
Operating cost covers the amount that the recycling company has to pay for the
maintenance and administration of its human and non-human resources. Such a cost is
usually linked with the operating income and is represented in the financial statements of
the company, under the income statement. The operating expenses commonly include
sales and marketing costs, bank transactions costs, accounting and legal costs, utility
costs, as well as labor costs in terms of wage and salary. In the context of vehicle de-
manufacturing, the company’s operating costs cover the expenses needed for the
dismantling of machines, shredding of parts, maintenance of facilities, and other de-
manufacturing and recycling related expenses.
5.3.8 Melting and Recycling Plant Cost
It is not always possible to completely disassemble a vehicle and reintroduce its
spare parts to the market. These spare parts or materials are extracted for the intrinsic
value of the materials that comprise them. Therefore, there are recycling costs, which
cover the expenses needed in order to operate the recycling plant, and/or incineration
plant, depending on the company’s current de-manufacturing plan. This particular cost is
highly variable, as it is subject to changing socio-economic and cultural trends, and thus
it is one of the expenses of the company which fluctuates over time.
50
5.3.9 Landfill Cost
Materials which have no intrinsic value or whose processing will prove to be
impractical will ultimately be stored on landfills. Landfilling cost refers to the expenses
to be paid by the facility for dumping its waste to a landfill. This particular cost varies
depending on the volume of the wastes incurred during ELV de-manufacturing.
Moreover, the cost also increases if the landfill location is remote since this suggests
higher transportation costs for the waste to be dumped into the landfill. Thus, it is often
advisable to ensure the landfill nearest to the processing facilities in order to save both
time and money, as well as cut down on transportation costs. The standard cost for
landfilling is set at a price for ton, which is approximately $45/ton (Waste Business
Journal, 2012).
5.4 Cost of Current Method of Disposal
The ELV de-manufacturing and recycling processes involve various costs before
reaching the final stage of disposal. The following figure shows the various stages
involved in the process, from the transportation of the ELV from consumer garages or
dumping sites, to the dismantling stage where certain parts are separated and sorted, up to
the stage where the remaining parts of the vehicle is transported to the shredding site. The
dismantling phase involves the use of various options in retaining most of the salvageable
parts of the vehicle such as re-use as spare part, recycling, energy recovery for
combustible materials, and disposal to landfills. On the other hand, shredding involves
51 various options such as recycling, energy recover, with the unrecoverable or unsalvageable parts to be disposed to the landfill as well.
Figure 5-3: Overview of the ELV Treatment Process
The company starts to accrue expenses as soon as the automobile users decided that their vehicles are no longer deemed worthy of being kept. Under this scenario, the users have two choices, either to dispose of the car or sell it. If the owner decides to sell, he can then use the proceeds to purchase a new car. On the other hand, the owner may also decide to simply dump the car somewhere, seeing no perceived value in reintroducing the car into the consumer market.
The costs associated with the de-manufacturing are determined by a lot of factors such as the location of the recycling and shredding facilities, the materials that comprise the item, as well as the size of the item to be de-manufactured. In the past, automobiles are mostly made of metallic materials, but the use of alternative materials, such as fiber composites, is gaining in popularity. In this case, the capacity to de-manufacture the
52 metallic parts of the car can be significantly reduced. Furthermore, materials made with non-ferrous materials may not be suitable for reintroduction to the market if in not good working condition. In this case, such components will ultimately be disposed to a landfill.
There are also three key factors that influence the overall costs involved in the de- manufacturing of an end-of-life vehicle. The first of these is the cost of procurement of the end-of-life vehicle, which forms a huge percentage of the overall cost of de- manufacturing. This cost tends to get higher the farther the ELV is to be transported from a remote place, or from a place far away from the recycling and shredding facility. On the other hand, if the ELVs to be transported are near to the facilities of the company, the costs associated in this process will be significantly lower. The costs cover the cost of fuel as well as transportation charges when a courier or lorry is employed to transport the end-of-life vehicle. Thus, it is imperative for the facilities involved to be located in or near a densely-populated area. In this case, the expenses in this regarded can be significantly reduced, with the possibility of accepting ELVs located in faraway places if there is a need to reach intended production targets. The second factor that contributes to the overall costs of the de-manufacturing of end-of-life vehicles is the cost of extraction, storage, and distribution of the part of the vehicle that are found to be still in good working condition. After extraction, such parts may no longer require further processing, and can be readily re-introduced into the market. The company may still be able to enjoy huge profits in this regards since a good percentage of the recycling revenue can be attributed to the resale of spare parts. A vehicle being classified as end-of-life does not always rule out that all of the components that comprise it are no longer useable. Some of these, in fact, may remain operational and in good working condition. Ideally, these parts
53 should be extracted from the vehicle and re-introduced to the market as spare parts, or as parts of a refurbished vehicle that has not yet reached end-of-life. However, the downside of this practice is that it requires a storage facility in order to store the parts extracted.
The higher the volume and quantity of the parts, the higher would be the expenditure for the company. The third factor is the use of shredders. Shredders, being power machinery, are energy intensive. However, they are needed in vehicle de-manufacturing in order to maximize the space on the landfill. After shredding, the shredded materials undergo a series of sorting procedures allowing for the segregation of materials that are fit to be disposed in a landfill. Furthermore, the process of dismantling or shredding non-scrap metallic materials will also result to waste, and in turn, would also require proper disposal. The entire process also incurs additional expenditure in the form of transportation costs.
5.5 Comparative Analysis
The de-manufacturing model aims to improve at the system currently being used.
The model aims to reduce the generation of environmental pollutants, lower the fixed and variable costs of recycling and reduce the total amount of material that is ultimately disposed to landfills. However, this approach requires a more proactive stance in processing ELVs, since it would require reverse logistics along with the good cooperation of old automobile users in terms of a more efficient unit collection, recycling time, and pollution reduction. Furthermore, a good de-manufacturing and recycling model would be best achieved with the cooperation of other countries, whether they are automobile producers or not. Doing so would allow the industry to enjoy greater levels of efficiency
54 and also serve as an inspiration for other industrial sectors to emulate and follow.
Moreover, a good model would be able to help reduce environmental pollution, mainly through the reduction of the need for landfills where unrecoverable and unsalvageable parts and materials from ELVs are ultimately disposed into landfills. It would also help streamline the automotive industry by integrating all the aspects of vehicle production, from manufacturing, up until decommissioning and disposal. Having a good de- manufacturing and recycling model for ELVs also aims to drive the cost of vehicles down, by making refurbished and second-hand parts to re-enter the market more easily.
This can be done more efficiently if an organized body exists to oversee the ELV de- manufacturing and recycling industry, and would be able to help establish recycling facilities in strategic locations in countries around the world.
In that sense the comparative analysis will point out the areas improved that has distinct features to the previous way of doing things. One of the differences is the method of handling and depollution of fluids in the ELV. Initially not much consideration was given to such fluid like brake fluid and oil and were considered to consume too much labor hence not viable. However retrieved oil and other body fluids have to be retrieved the first thing before dismantling. The oil are not disposed in the landfill like before but accumulated and stored in a double-walled container. The accumulated fluids can then be reprocessed or recycled and the new product formed, or even possibly reintroduced to the environment through a sewage treatment facility. Therefore the current method doesn’t make money from recycling the ELV fluid and some of the polluted fluids end up in the landfill and can possible contaminate the underground water used by the surrounding community. Another difference is the body taking the recollection initiative. The reverse
55 model pushes for users to be responsible and return the car for recycling as soon as it is approaching its end-of-life. However the system advices for the producing firm to have a follow up mechanism that keeps track of the location of the users.
5.6 Economic and Environmental Benefits of De-
manufacturing
Recycling can be advantageous in various ways depending on the missions and objectives of the persons or entities involved. The most obvious benefit of recycling lies in cost reduction since raw material can be obtained from existing ones with or without any further need for reprocessing in order to be re-introduced into the market.
Furthermore, recycling old parts or units considered end-of-life will also help reduce environmental pollution and promote community health since the amount of material being dumped into sanitary landfills can be significantly reduced. Under an economic perspective, in some cases, parts recovered or extracted from used vehicles are still in good working condition and thus can be reintroduced into the market either by selling the item to interested parties, or even integrating them with other used components and sell them as a whole refurbished unit. Recycling removes automobile parts such as transmission systems, engines, doors and bumpers, gear boxes, which can often be reused in other similar vehicle models and brands. The parts recovered from the de- manufacturing process can also be used to remanufacture other commercial items and commodities that also utilize the same material, so these items can then be segregated prior to the melting process. Automobile parts such as old batteries and tires can be dismantled and materials can be used to the manufacture of similar components.
56
However, this only usually applies to non-ferrous or non-metallic components of the automobile. For metallic components, the same thing can be done but more often than not, the metal has to be melted first before being fashioned into some other components.
There are cases where certain fluids present in ELVs such engine oil, fuel, and other coolants can possibly be reused rather than disposed. These materials are often extracted early on during the de-manufacturing process in order to prevent spillage and fire-related accidents as the item goes deeper into the de-manufacturing and recycling process. If the collected fluids are still in useable conditions, they can then be reused on other vehicles. This is usually the case with vehicles that are not essentially considered end-of-life, but rather suffer from total wreckage due to other factors (road accidents).
These cars often have salvageable parts and can be resold to manufacturers at discounted prices. The following table shows the recycled components that lead to cost-savings of up to about 90% against their newly-manufactured counterparts:
Table 5.2: Cash Saved for Recycled Components on Ford Focus 2006 and Vauxhall Corsa 2003 (Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association , n.d.)
Part Ford Focus $ % Vauxhall Corsa $ % 2006 Savings Savings 2003 Savings Savings
New Recycled New Recycled Starter 192 25 167 87% 94 20 74 79% Alternator 108 25 83 77% 179 20 159 89% Headlamp 108 25 33 57% 66 20 46 70% Bonnet 183 50 133 73% 152 35 117 77% Mirror 106 20 86 81% 127 15 112 88% Rear amp 70 15 55 79% 40 10 30 75%
57
The process of de-manufacturing ELV’s is imperative in reducing the problem of air and wastewater polluton. The recycled fuids and solids, if deposited on the sanitary landfill ultimately results from the seeping of chemicals, in the form of leachate, at the bottom of landfills. In order to prevent a dangerous buildout of this chemical on such sites, the liquid waste would need to be harvested and sent to treatment facilities as wastewater. Sanitary landfills are also prone to the release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mostly in the form of methane gas, which is a possible contributor to global warning and introduces a fire hazard within the vicinity of the landfill. Both of these effects have negative implications on the environment, not mentioning the displacement of land that could still be used to preserve wildlife, or be used for human habitation.
Apart from the reduction of environmental pollution, de-manufacturing also helps in the conservation of the environment and natural ecosystems. ELVs take space when dumped in consumers’ garage or in dumping facilities. Furthermore, similar to landfills, such vehicles may able to release toxic emissions that may either be introduced into the air or seep into the ground. Unlike landfills, which have dedicated facilities to extract leachate generated by waste, leaving ELVs unprocessed may pose a considerable harm on the environment. Furthermore, as most of the materials comprising cars is made of metal, the metallic parts of the ELV can be melted and re-molded into new vehicle parts.
This is a more viable and more environment-friendly alternative than procuring metals from mining operations. Furthermore, ELV recycling and de-manufacturing also reuse rather than dump certain substances that pose grave environmental hazards, such as mercury, led, and unspent fuel and oil.
58
Another economic aspect that is advantageous of ELV de-manufacturing and recycling is in terms of energy savings. The energy needed to manufacture metal used in the production of new vehicles is often greater than what would be needed when re- manufacturing components to produce refurbished vehicles. And with continued dependence of heavy industry on non-renewable energy sources such as petroleum, the cost of producing cars from the components of ELVs may prove to be a lasting economic advantage among manufacturers.
Having a laid out plan on how the de-manufacturing of ELVs may also engender a social impact, especially on vehicle owners. The existence of a streamlined de- manufacturing and recycling plan on vehicles may improve the willingness of such owners into embracing measures conducive to good disposal practices of ELVs.
Complexity is often the impediment in achieving such social change. However, with a highly simplified process, vehicle owners may be more enthusiastic in following a certain de-manufacturing plan. Furthermore, it may also become a source of income by allowing such owners to be compensated for returning an item that they consider to be worthless.
There are many other benefits that can be accrued from a streamlined de- manufacturing and recycling process, not only for ELVs, but into other consumer and industrial products as well. Furthermore, the introduction of more vehicle de- manufacturing technology may also be able to further promote consumer willingness to participate in de-manufacturing and recycling programs, and further improve the efficiency of the entire industry. This can be further augmented by creating a national or
59 even an international organization that would be able to utilize the most out of vehicle de- manufacturing through cooperation with other countries.
5.7 Depollution Process
There is a need to establish a sustainable system of coordination within the de- manufacturing sector in order to realize all of the benefits involved in the reuse of components on ELVs. Not only would this bring about economic benefits within the automotive industry, but would also be able to promote environmental welfare. In order to accomplish this, there are several operations that would need to be introduced in the depollution process. Such operations include an improved method for the removal of vehicle batteries, engine liquids and filter caps, setting of heat controls, removal of balance weights from the wheels, removal of tires and specialized facilities for processing electric vehicles. Most of these activities are expected to be performed on every ELV that is brought to the dismantling facility. However, the greatest hurdle to fully implementing these activities is due to the fact that special equipment is needed. Furthermore, some activities may be either laborious or would require a huge number of employed human workers. The following figure shows a detailed analysis of the operations involved in the depollution process.
60
Administrative REMOVE FLUIDS Preliminary Checks Insert plugs in all Remove brake fluid gravity drain holes Remove Power Steering fluid Remove clutch fluid Start of the Remove Windshield Wash fluid Depollution Process Remove ELV from Disconnect batteries Remove Anti-Freeze draining frame and and remove from Remove fuel tank using OTHER ITEMS place on concrete vehicle specialist tools pad Set heater control to Remove catalyst(s) Remove oil filter Place ELV on maximum Check for and remove any items supported frame marked hazardous (e.g. mercury giving above and Deploy air bags at a below access for switches) Remove hazardous waste loads set time delay after fluids and gasses disconnection of the removal OPTIONAL REMOVAL OF contained within vehicle FLUIDS battery, or remove air bag units for Remove Motor Oil subsequent Remove Gearbox Fluid neutralization Remove Freon Remove all wheels Remove rear axle(s) and tires from the Remove hydraulic rams vehicle (optional) End of the Depollution Process
Figure 5-4: Operations Involved in an ELV Depollution Process
As shown in Figure 5-4, a typical depollution deals primarily with the removal of gases, fluids, refrigerants, and other hazardous chemicals from vehicles which may be inappropriate for storage or to dispose of in landfills without further processing. These are often found in certain parts of the vehicle such as the engine, the transmission and braking systems, the batteries, air-conditioning systems, electronics, and vehicle safety systems. The entire process starts with administrative preliminary checks. Under this stage, the ELV is assessed of the possible hazardous substances that it may still contain, as well as the measures to implement in order to extract them from the ELV. The next stage involves the proper positioning of the ELV in order for the fluids and gases present
61 within the vehicle to be removed, possibly on top of a vehicle draining frame. There is also another stage, albeit optional, where non-essential or distinct components, such as the tires from the vehicle, are removed for refurbishment or introduction to the second- hand markets. The next step involves the disconnection and removal of the batteries from the rest of the vehicle, which may be subject to a separate process of recycling. Under this stage, the heater control is also set to maximum in order to allow for the extraction of the refrigerant, primarily from the car’s air-conditioning system. The next step involves the removal of certain fluids from the vehicle. The types of fluids that require mandatory removal are those that are unfit to be disposed to a landfill, such as brake fluid, power steering fluid, and anti-freeze. These components may require further processing, or possibly can be reused again. On the other hand, fluids that require optional removal include Freon, motor oil, and gearbox fluid. These fluids are often in smaller quantities that extracting them can compound the total cost of depollution, or those can be retrieved later in the depollution process (such as Freon). The next step is the removal of certain vehicle components that came into contact with these fluids, which may also be classified with the same degree of hazard as the substances that they came into contact with, such as oil filters and catalysts. The last step would be the dismantling of other components which may prove unnecessary or even harmful to other processes. An example of this is the airbags, which may lead to disasters in later stages of ELV processing, such as shredding.
Another critical aspect of the depollution process is that this is the most optimum stage to ELV recycling to remove and extract hazardous chemicals found in ELVs. This is essential under economic and environmental considerations. Separating the hazardous
62 substances early in the process of depollution would ensure that the by-product of the process, which is the entire residue, would not be classified as hazardous prior to disposal. Not all residues generated from this process are classified as hazardous, and only a small portion of such residue can be classified as such. Therefore, isolating the hazardous components early in the process of depollution would ensure that not all residues will require expensive procedures regarding their disposal, according to the type of hazardous substance to be disposed. Rather, the hazardous components, which are separated early from the ELV, can be processed independently, while the rest of the ELV material can then processed normally, mostly as non-hazardous sewer residue.
The operations shown in Figure 5-4 illustrate the steps for a typical depollution process for an ELV. This is also consistent with the entire ELV recycling process shown in Figure 5-2. However, in such a figure, the ELV is not yet shredded, which is more preferable given the fact that hazardous materials may be harder to extract when the vehicle was already shredded to smaller pieces. However, it is still possible to implement depollution at a later stage, such as the dismantling stage or right after crushing or shredding the ELV, where components that are hazardous or containing hazardous chemicals can be removed for special processing.
Despite the benefits of depollution in ELV processing, the largest impediment to its full implementation is cost. Using machines and automated processes in extracting hazardous chemicals from vehicles may not be cost-effective due to the number of such chemicals to be found on such vehicles. Another factor is that each type of vehicle has its own unique design, which the designers of automated machinery should also consider. As
63 a consequence, complying with environmental regulations surrounding hazardous substances in vehicles may lead ELV recycling facilities to rely more on manual labor for hazardous material extraction. This would result to greater operating cost, which as mentioned earlier, may the recycling of hazardous materials for a higher percentage of
ELVs impractical to implement.
One possible solution for this problem is make policy-makers promote the depollution process in ELV recycling by imposing certain requirements on manufacturers, particularly for delegating to them the responsibility of extracting the hazardous materials from their own cars, as needed, whether ELV or not. This may help eliminate the financial burden shouldered by ELV recycling facilities, allowing them to recycle more ELVs with greater effectiveness. However, in this case, car manufacturers have at least three options: (1) pass the additional expense to the consumer, (2) implement vehicle designs with as little hazardous substances as possible, and/or (3) make the extraction of hazardous materials from their vehicles faster and more cost- effective. Manufacturers may then choose the first option, but they run the risk of losing market share, especially if their competitors are adopting the second and even the third options. Furthermore, it also fosters innovation by incentivizing manufacturers with more efficient and more environment-friendly vehicle designs, at least as far as the recycling of
ELVs is concerned.
64
Figure 5-5: ELV Depollution Facility
5.8 Optimal Location of De-manufacturing Facility
At least under an economic perspective, the location of the de-manufacturing facility is important in ELV processing. The choice of location has to consider several aspects such as the demographics of the area it is meant to serve, the available space needed by the facility against the actual space of the location, the accessibility from consumer ELVs, and the distance involved to move ELVs to the location. Ideally, the de- manufacturing facility should be located at the heart of an existing community. Such a
65 location will result in relatively lower transportation costs. Furthermore, the population within the area should already have a considerable amount of unprocessed ELVs or a population where a huge percentage is comprised of vehicle owners. In both cases, the community should already be urbanized. This way, the facility would be able to expect a high demand for ELV processing without having to source units from remote or faraway locations. This would keep the transportation costs at a minimum, for both the ELV owner and the owner of the processing facility. As shown in the following figure, and in accordance with the economies of scale, the more vehicles are processed by an ELV facility, the operating costs involved in dismantling tends to be lessened.
Figure 5-6: Cost of Dismantling versus Number of Vehicles Dismantled (Golebiewski, et al., 2013)
66
In larger communities, a single ELV processing facility may not be able to meet the demand of all its constituents. In this case, numerous ELV processing facilities may need to be built on strategic places to compensate for the demand, and to normalize the transportation costs for consumers. Ideally, consumers would hand over their old vehicles to the one closes to their location. However, in some cases, this may not be entirely feasible, primarily due to the limitations in terms of land available for erecting an ELV processing facility, as well as the cost of purchasing or leasing real estate in the area.
Apart from the economic aspects of the location of the de-manufacturing facility, having a nearby ELV processing facility would also have social effects on consumers. If there is a facility nearby, there would be greater willingness for car owners to deliver
ELVs to such a facility. Thus, it would be ideal for ELV processing facilities be located closer to establishments that cater to the automotive industry, such as car dealers, junk yards for cars, and car repair shops. Furthermore, the willingness of owners to surrender their old or damaged cars to these facilities would also minimize the occurrences of such owners dumping their unattended cars on unused spaces, or even dumping them on junkyards, which could have detrimental environmental effects.
A study of ELV processing in Poland has shown the cost benefit of the optimization of locations of various processing facilities with respect to the total area to be serviced (Golebiewski, Trajer, Jaros, & Winiczenko, 2013), which is shown in the figure below. The research of Golebiewski et al. used a computer program in order to find the best configuration that would guarantee the lowest possible cost in ELV recycling, using genetic algorithms. Based on this research, the costs of transporting
67
ELV’s and materials may represent 70% of the total recycling cost, which can be significantly reduced over successive generations, with the total cost apparently reaching a lower limit (Figure 5-7a). Having identified the optimum configuration, the data is then reformatted to its cartographic representation (on this research, for the provinces comprising Poland).
Figure 5-7: The Results of the Optimization of: (A) the Cost of Recycling Krec in Successive Iterations for the Basic Set of Input Data and (B) the Location of Dismantling Stations (Golebiewski, et al., 2013)
Using genetic algorithms and linear programming may be able to help policy- makers and state leaders to find the most optimal solution to the establishment of locations of facilities for ELV processing. It is advantageous for many reasons. First, the
68 simulations such as done by Golebiewski et al. do not require any physical establishment of a recycling facility in order to be tested. All the estimations are done by the computer program itself. Another factor is that due to the many factors that may affect the establishment of recycling facilities, estimating the total cost of recycling using a given set of configuration may take a long time for humans to compute. Furthermore, such a system would not require only a single facility, but multiple facilities, which may also be of various types, such as a dismantling facility, shredding facility, or disposal facility
(landfill). All of these factors can be automatically considered by a computer program when estimating the total cost of recycling for a given configuration.
69
Chapter 6
Formulation of the Optimization ELV De- manufacturing Network
6.1 Assumptions
The selection of the optimum location for the shredding facilities for the vehicle
de-manufacturing network was formulated under certain assumptions. Figure 6-1 shows
the de-manufacturing network. Rather than collecting the vehicles one by one from
individual ELV owners, it will have collection centers. The ELVs will then be delivered
from this location in order to be dismantled at a separate dismantling facility. The
dismantler would then identify some materials that may be introduced to secondary
markets. Those that are unfit for re-introduction would be subjected to shredding
facilities, wherein recoverable materials with inherent value can be recycled. On the other
70 hand, those unfit for recycling will eventually be treated as waste and disposed of in landfills.
Figure 6-1: End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) De-manufacturing Network
The assumptions are summarized in the following key points:
The ELV de-manufacturing network consists of ELV collection centers, dismantlers, secondary markets, recycling facilities, shredding facilities, and landfills.
Owners of ELVs who surrendered their vehicles to collection centers receive compensation
Scraps collected in the collection centers are forwarded to the nearest dismantling facilities that would deal with the introduction of such materials to secondary markets.
Shredding facilities are to be developed near dismantling centers and recycling
71 centers
Shredding facilities are developed based on demand
There should be a minimum of one shredding facility in a given ELV de- manufacturing network.
The cartographic coordinates used in mapping facilities are scaled in terms of units in kilometers
6.2 Mathematical Formulation
Figure 6-2: ELV De-manufacturing Network Flowchart
72
The proposed model is formulated as follows:
6.1.1 Index
푖 – ELV collection centers, 푖 = 1,2, … . 퐼
푗 – Dismantling facilities, 푗 = 1,2, … . 퐽
푘 – Shredding facilities, 푘 = 1,2, … . 퐾
푙 – Landfill centers, 푙 = 1,2, … . 퐿
푠 – Second-hand markets, 푠 = 1,2, … . 푆
푟 – Recycling centers, 푟 = 1,2, … . 푅
6.1.2 Parameters
퐹푗 − Fixed opening cost for dismantling facility 푗
퐹푘 − Fixed opening cost for shredding facility 푘
푂푗 − Unit operating cost of dismantling facility 푗
푂푘 − Unit operating cost of shredding facility 푘
푂푙 − Unit operating cost of landfill center 푙
푄 − Unit cost of Procurement ELV
73
푡푖푗 – Unit cost of transportation from collection center 푖 to dismantling facility 푗
푡푗푘 – Unit cost of transportation from dismantling facility 푗 to shredding facility 푘
푡푗푠 – Unit cost of transportation from dismantling facility 푗 to second-hand market 푠
푡푘푟 – Unit cost of transportation from shredding facility 푘 to recycling center 푟
푡푘푙 – Unit cost of transportation from shredding facility 푘 to landfill center 푙
푡푗푙 – Unit cost of transportation from dismantling facility 푗 to landfill center 푙
푑푖푗 – Distance between collection center 푖 to dismantling facility 푗
푑푗푘 – Distance between dismantling facility 푗 to shredding facility 푘
푑푗푠 – Distance between dismantling facility 푗 to second-hand market 푠
푑푘푟 – Distance between shredding facility 푘 to recycling center 푟
푑푘푙 – Distance between shredding facility 푘 to landfill center 푙
푑푗푙 – Distance between dismantling facility 푗 to landfill center 푙
퐶푎푝푖 – Capacity of collection center 푖
퐶푎푝푗 – Capacity of dismantling facility 푗
퐶푎푝푘 – Capacity of shredding facility 푘
74
퐶푎푝푙 – Capacity of landfill center 푙
퐶푎푝푟 – Capacity of recycling center 푟
푤ℎ − Hulk rate
α – Reusable parts rate transported to the second-hand market
β – Material rate transported to the landfill from the shredding facility
λ – Material rate transported to the landfill from the dismantling facility
γ – Material rate transported to the recycling center from the shredding facility
6.1.3 The Decision Variables
푉푖푗 – The amount of ELV transported from collection center 푖 to dismantling facility 푗
퐻푗푘 – The amount of hulk transported from dismantling facility 푗 to shredding facility 푘
푃푗푠 – The amount of reusable parts shipped from dismantling facility 푗 to second-hand market 푠
푈푘푟 – The amount of material transported from shredding facility 푘 to recycling center 푟
푀푗푙 – The amount of material transported from dismantling facility 푗 to landfill 푙
퐴푘푙 – The amount of ASR transported from shredding facility 푘 to landfill 푙
75
1 if a dismantling facility opened at location 푗
푋푗 =
0 otherwise
1 if a shredding facility opened at location 푘
푌푘 =
0 otherwise
6.1.4 Objective Function
퐽 퐾 퐼 퐽 퐼 퐽
푀푖푛푖푚푖푧푒 퐶푟푒푐 = ∑ 푋푗 퐹푗 + ∑ 푌푘 퐹푘 + ∑ ∑ 푉푖푗 푄 + ∑ ∑ 푉푖푗 푂푗 푗=1 푘=1 푖=1 푗=1 푖=1 푗=1
퐽 퐾 퐽 퐿 퐾 퐿 퐼 퐽
+ ∑ ∑ 퐻푗푘 푂푘 + ∑ ∑ 푀푗푙 푂푙 + ∑ ∑ 퐴푘푙 푂푙 + ∑ ∑ 푉푖푗 푡푖푗 푑푖푗 푗=1 푘=1 푗=1 푙=1 푘=1 푙=1 푖=1 푗=1
퐽 퐾 퐽 푆 퐾 푅 퐽 퐿
+ ∑ ∑ 퐻푗푘 푡푗푘 푑푗푘 + ∑ ∑ 푃푗푠 푡푗푠 푑푗푠 + ∑ ∑ 푈푘푟 푡푘푟 푑푘푟 + ∑ ∑ 푀푗푙 푡푗푙 푑푗푙 푗=1 푘=1 푗=1 푠=1 푘=1 푟=1 푗=1 푙=1
퐾 퐿
+ ∑ ∑ 퐴푘푙 푡푘푙 푑푘푙 푘=1 푙=1
76
6.1.5 Constraints
1) 1≤ K
퐾 퐼 2) ∑푘=1 퐻푗푘 = 푤ℎ ∑푖=1 푉푖푗 for all 푗
푆 퐼 3) ∑푠=1 푃푗푠 = α ∑푖=1 푉푖푗 for all 푗
퐿 퐼 4) ∑푙=1 푀푗푙 = λ ∑푖=1 푉푖푗 for all 푗
푅 퐽 5) ∑푟=1 푈푘푟 = γ ∑푗=1 퐻푗푘 for all 푘
퐿 퐽 6) ∑푙=1 퐴푘푙 = 훽 ∑푗=1 퐻푗푘 for all 푘
퐼 7) ∑푖=1 푉푖푗 ≤ 퐶푎푝푗 푋푗 for all 푗
퐽 8) ∑푗=1 퐻푗푘 ≤ 퐶푎푝푘 푌푘 for all 푘
퐾 9) ∑푘=1 푈푘푟 ≤ 퐶푎푝푟 for all 푟
퐽 퐾 10) ∑푗=1 푀푗푙 + ∑푘=1 퐴푘푙 ≤ 퐶푎푝푙 for all 푙
11) 푉푖푗 , 퐻푗푘, 푃푗푠, 푀푗푙, 푈푘푟 , 퐴푘푙 ≥ 0 for all 푖, 푗, 푘, 푠, 푙, 푟
Where 퐶푟푒푐 stands for the objective function that denotes total cost incurred on vehicle de-manufacturing. The objective function consists of thirteen terms. The first one represents the opening/fixed costs that are incurred and associated with the operation of dismantling facilities. The second term represents the opening/fixed costs that are incurred for the operation of shredding facilities. The third term represents the total procurement cost of ELVs from the last owners as scraps values that are sold for disposal.
The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th terms represent the variable costs that are incurred on
77 dismantling, shredding, and disposal. The other terms represent the costs that are incurred during transportation ELVs, ELV components, materials, and waste at each network arch.
The first constraint, which is 1≤ K ensures that for any given ELV de- manufacturing network, there exists at least one shredding facility. Constraints 2, 3, and 4 verify the rates of dismantled vehicles, as well as the materials transferred to shredding facilities, second-hand markets and landfills, respectively. Similarly, constraints 5 and 6 verify the rates of materials transferred to recycling centers and landfills from shredding facilities. Constraint 7 verifies the number of vehicles transferred to the dismantling facility from the collection centers. Constraint 8 verifies the number of hulks transferred to the shredding facility from the dismantling facilities. Constraint 9 verifies the quantity of materials transferred to the recycling center from the shredding facilities. Constraint 10 verifies the quantity of materials transferred to the landfills center. For all the transfers involved, the materials delivered should never cause the receiving facility to exceed its current capacity. Finally, Constraint 11 verifies the values of the decision variables are non-negative values.
78
Chapter 7
Case Study_ Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
7.1 Introduction
Among the countries in the Middle East, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has one
of the most competitive automotive aftermarket industries. It is believed that the
automotive aftermarket industry in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the fastest growing
and largest in the wider Middle East. This can be attributed primarily due to the fact that
the kingdom has one of the highest vehicle imports from various parts of the world. The
breakdowns of vehicle imports from overseas are summarized in the following table.
79
Table 7.1: Percentage of Imported Passenger Vehicles by Saudi Arabia in 2015 (Messe Franfurt, 2016)
Country of origin Percentage of imported passenger
vehicles
Japan 50%
USA 25%
Korea 15%
Germany 3%
Others 7%
Total 100 %
The importation of more vehicles has been necessitated by the increased demand for transportation, particularly for road transport, which is considered to be the most efficient form of transport in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The high demand of transportation is due to the ever increasing population, the nature of Saudi Arabia's geography and the population spacing in the Kingdom. The total mileage of existing roads is thus very high, with more than 80 thousand kilometers. Furthermore, the size of the vehicle fleet in these roads is about 12 million vehicles. It is evident that the light vehicles cover the highest percentage of the fleet on the roads, which constitute approximately 82 % of the fleet on the roads in the Kingdom.
One of the largest cities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is Jeddah, which is located in the region of Hijaz along the coast of the Red Sea. It is one of the biggest urban centers located in the western part of Saudi Arabia. The city is highly urbanized, which
80 makes it a very active and attractive city in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It also has an adamant impact in the economy of the entire kingdom. Jeddah covers an area of 5,460 square kilometers and it is positioned in the western part of Saudi Arabia. The number of people in the city of Jeddah is approximately four million people and continues to increase. The increase in the population is due to the economic state of the city. Hence, people of Jeddah are highly productive. The following table shows the population of
Jeddah since 2010 and illustrates how the population has increased significantly for the past seven years.
Table 7.2: Population of Jeddah City
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population 3,513717 3,631691 3,750941 3,865873 3,976368 4,082184 4,183,427
7.2 The Current State of ELV Management in Jeddah
In 2015, it was estimated that the number of operational vehicles in Jeddah were approximately 1,350,000. A massive growth has been observed in the number of vehicles in Jeddah as it is estimated that Jeddah has exhibited a Compound Average Growth Rate of approximately 8.8 % from 2007 to 2015 (Joshi, 2015). Due to this growth rate, a
Compound Average Growth Rate of about 6 % is forecasted between 2015 and 2020. The average age of vehicles in Jeddah is between 15 -20 years old. It is estimated that the vehicles that are more than 15 years old on the roads in Jeddah are nearly 23 % of all the
81 vehicles on the road. Out of these vehicles, approximately 7.7 % are more than 20 years old and are very close to the end of their life. Furthermore, there will be 27 % of vehicles that will be in the more than 15 years age category by 2020. This data implies that there will be more vehicles approaching end-of-life status in the city. The table below shows the expected vehicle age break up in Jeddah for 2015 and 2020.
Table 7.3: Vehicle Age Break-up in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2015 and 2020
Vehicle Age 2015 2020
<=4 Years 27.6 % 26.5%
5 to 9 Years 23.7% 22.6%
10 to 14 Years 25.6% 23.3%
15 to 19 Years 15.3% 15.5%
>=20 7.7% 12.1%
7.3 Associated Problems with the ELV Management in
Jeddah
Jeddah faces a lot of problems in its efforts to manage ELVs in the city. There are hundreds of cars that are being abandoned after they reach their end of life and this is causing problems to the residents of Saudi Arabia. On Jeddah's streets, many ELVs are left unattended, and leave residents no space to park their current vehicles. The cars also cause embarrassment to the locals due to their negative impact on tourism. The
82 government has already issued an ordinance imposing sanctions on ELV owners who leave their vehicles in this way. However, it did not do much to rectify the situation.
In Saudi Arabia, Jeddah has the highest number of cars that have been abandoned by their owners. The locals blame the local authorities for their inability to handle this growing concern. In the efforts to reduce the number of vehicles dumped on the streets of Jeddah, the Saudi Arabian authorities withdrew thousands of vehicles that had been abandoned for years in some districts in the city of Jeddah during the year 2015.
Jeddah municipality reported that in 2015, 19,853 abandoned vehicles were removed from Jeddah’s streets (Jeddah Municipality, 2015). The operation that was implemented by the local authorities was aimed at preventing the disruption of street roads and transforming the traffic management in the city of Jeddah. A poster would be put on the abandoned car for the owner to come for it and if no response were made within fifteen days, then the car would be removed from the street and confiscated. Huge fines were imposed on such owners.
The owners of the cars which got damaged in Jeddah city had several courses of action. The owner may fix the car and continue using it. However, fixing a car costs a lot of money, and those who can afford the costs usually would rather buy a new car.
Another option for such owners is to sell the damaged car to dismantlers. It was viewed as the best option since the owner would generate some income from the damaged car.
The last option is to dump the damaged vehicle on the streets. This is the preferred option for a lot of owners for reasons of personal convenience. However, this does not come without damaging environmental consequences. The dumped vehicles release gases and
83 operating fluids may threaten the surrounding air and water resources. Furthermore, since these vehicles are not being recycled or reintroduced to the market, a lot of resources from dumped ELVs are not being utilized.
7.4 Real Life Problem
Inspired by a real-life problem ELV recycling in Jeddah, it is necessary to apply the model that was proposed in the previous chapter on the case study. Real data were used, and in a bid to find where and how many shredding facilities should be constructed, attempts were made to find an optimal solution. Jeddah consists of 13 regions as shown in Figure 7-3, and each region has a sub-municipality which has a center to collect the end-of-life vehicles. These collection centers were distributed in the northern, middle and southern regions of Jeddah. Moreover, there are three operational dismantling facilities located in Buraiman region (1), Um –Alsalam Region (2) and Jeddah South region (3).
There are also three landfills according to Jeddah Municipality website: Wadi-Alnakhil landfill (1) in Briman region, Asela landfill (2) in Um-Alsalam Region, and Alkumrah landfill (3) in Jeddah South region. There are three recycling centers, which are located in
Obhur region (1), Aljamea region (2), and Jeddah South region (3). There are also three second-hand markets, which are based in Almatar (1), Alaziziyah (2), and Jeddah South
(3). Two possible locations for a shredding facility are in Briman region (1) and Jeddah
South region (2).
84
Figure 7-1: Jeddah Map (Area Modeled)
85
The cost of transporting the materials depends on the weight of the materials and the distance between the locations of the facilities involved. The weight of the vehicles is also of great importance and it is assumed that the average weight of a vehicle is one ton
(1000 Kg) and the average weight of a hulk is 0.8 tons. The table below shows the composition of a typical passenger vehicle in Jeddah.
Table 7.4: Composition of Typical Passenger Vehicles for 2015
Material/fraction Weight in Kg
Ferrous metal 650
Non-ferrous metal 90
Plastics and process polymers 120
Tyres 30
Glass 30
Batteries 13
Fluids 17
Textiles 10
Rubber 20
Other 20
Total 1000
The cost of transporting ELV from the collection centers to the facilities that dismantle these vehicles is 3.0 SR/Tan-Km, while the cost of transportation of the hulk between the facilities where the vehicles are dismantled and shredding facilities is 1
SR/Tan-Km. Transporting the parts from dismantling facilities to the second-hand
86 markets cost about 2 SR/Tan-Km, while transporting ferrous and non-ferrous materials from the shredding facilities to the centers that are meant for recycling cost about 1
SR/Tan-Km. Also, the cost of transporting materials from the dismantling facilities to landfills and transporting ASR from shredding facilities to landfills is 0.75 SR/Tan-Km.
The distances between facilities are shown in the tables below.
Table 7.5: Distance Matrix (km) from Collection Centers to Dismantling Facilities
Collection Dismantling Facilities
Centers Buriman (1) Um_Alsalam (2) Jeddah South(3)
Thuwal (1) 75.055 100.593 128.019
Dhaban (2) 44.687 75.669 98.902
Tibah (3) 34.631 63.400 82.867
Obhur (4) 15.967 40.994 63.401
Buriman (5) 7.473 18.839 51.480
Almatar (6) 9.016 23.751 45.630
New Jeddah (7) 14.031 27.121 48.016
Alaziziyah (8) 16.484 24.598 40.703
Sharafya (9) 18.899 17.299 36.275
Um_Alsalam (10) 27.977 4.494 25.514
Aljamea (11) 24.266 16.443 19.793
Albalad (12) 30.144 26.137 28.601
Jeddah South (13) 49.475 33.910 10.166
87
Table 7.6: Distance Matrix (km) from Dismantling Facilities
Shredding Second-hand Market Landfills
1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3
Dismantling
1 8.87 37.02 11.45 18.31 27.98 10.73 15.02 40.40
2 29.93 26.89 31.95 17.83 19.16 30.21 12.51 34.83
3 66.12 17.26 53.31 39.56 18.90 73.15 46.39 22.01
Table 7.7: Distance Matrix (km) from Shedding Facilities Recycling Landfills
1 2 3 1 2 3
Shredding
1 20.94 37.80 51.09 10.81 19.09 47.74
2 35.62 12.93 14.19 45.59 29.92 9.45
Moreover, the fixed costs of dismantling and shredding facilities are 4,000,000
SR and 10,000,000 SR, respectively. The operating costs of dismantling, shredding, and landfills facilities are approximately 500 SR/Tan, 150 SR/Tan and 20 SR/Tan, respectively. The average capacity for the collection centers is 7,000 vehicles. It is estimated that the capacities for the model for dismantling, shredding, recycling and landfill are 30,000, 100,000, 30,000, and 100,000 tons, respectively. In addition, the average cost for procurement an ELV is 500 SR. The other parameter values that were estimated based on the market research and using the composition of typical vehicles are
α = 0.16, β = 0.18, λ = .04, γ = 0.82.
88
Chapter 8
Computational Results
The proposal model was used and applied to solve the specific problem. Using our model, will attempt to optimize the ELV recycling network in Jeddah. LINGO 8.0 software was used to solve the model. The software system is usually used to solve nonlinear, linear, or integer optimization models in an easy, faster, and efficient manner. Optimization problems can best be solved using LINGO 8.0 as it provides best features to find the optimal solutions.
8.1 Objective Function
The objective of this linear program was to minimize the end-of-life de-
manufacturing cost of the vehicle using the reverse logistics technique, which came out
to be 0.1338138E+09 SR. This optimal solution was set up at the iteration # 162.
89
8.2 Reduced Cost
To improve the objective function coefficient that is to decrease the minimization problem and determine the optimal solution, the techniques of opportunity cost or reduced costs are used.
The movement of vehicle from collection center 1, 2, 3 and 4 to dismantler 1 gave
us the reduced cost in dismantler 2 and 3. The value of their corresponding reduced
cost is shown below.
Also, movement of vehicle from collection center 6 depicted reduced cost in dismantler 3. The value of reduced cost is 8.709 SR per unit.
90
Moving further, we can see that different collection centers are depicting different reduced costs for corresponding dismantlers. The movement of the vehicle from collection center 5, 7, and 10 to dismantler 2 (P2) gave us the reduced cost in dismantlers 1 and 3.
However, movement of the vehicle from collection center 9 depicted reduced cost in dismantler 1. The value of reduced cost is 49.005 SR per unit.
For collection center 8, 11, 12 and 13, the trend of reduced cost has changed somehow. These centers supply dismantler 3 and show reduced cost in dismantling facilities 1 and 2. The respective reduced cost of these centers is shown below.
91
Then, movement and delivery of parts from dismantlers to the markets also depicted
some reduced or opportunity cost as well.
Dismantler 1 depicted reduced cost of 13.712 and 33.046 for market 2 and 3,
respectively.
Dismantler 2 depicted reduced cost of 28.232 and 2.66 for market 1 and 3,
respectively.
Dismantler 3 depicted reduced cost of 68.822 and 41.312 for market 1 and 2,
respectively.
92
In this problem, opening the shredder 2 (K2) gave us a reduced cost value. This cost
is decreased in the objective function for optimality. The shredder 1 (K1) gives
7,756,650 while K2 gives a value of .1000000e+8 in terms of reduced cost or
opportunity cost
The supply of hulks to shredders also gives us some value of reduced or opportunity
cost. The movement of hulks to the open shredding facility (K2) gives us 31.187 and
77.006 reduced cost from dismantlers 2 and 3, respectively in the shredding facility
1 (K1).
The movement of materials from shredding facility to recycling centers (arc KR)
also gives some value of reduced cost from shredder 1 to recycler 2 and 3 having
respective reduced costs of 18.133 and 30.155. Also, reduced cost from shredder 2
to recycler 1 as evident from the table below:
93
The arc K to L, which is from shredders to landfills, shows some reduced cost.
Shredder 1 gives 6.209 and 27.696 reduced cost for landfill 2 and 3, respectively.
Shredder 2 gives 27.101 and 15.349 for landfill 1 and 2.
The arc J to L, which is actually from dismantling facilities to landfills, also gives
reduced cost.
Dismantler 1 to landfill 2 and 3 gives 3.213 and 22.253 reduced cost
correspondingly.
Dismantler 2 to landfill 1 and 3 gives 13.279 and 16.742 reduced cost,
respectively.
Dismantler 3 to landfill 1 and 2 also depicts reduced cost of 38.357 and 18.285,
respectively.
94
8.3 Dual Price
When relaxed by one unit, the dual price improves the objective function coefficient.
This technique generates interesting values for each constraint in the linear program solution. It produces positive values only when the constraint is binding. Similarly, the
LINGO solution report also generates dual price figures for all constraints. It may be interpreted in a way that when the constraint term is increased by one unit, the objective coefficient at the right side may improve.
The supply from collection center 1 is 0. If we increase any unit in its constraint,
then there is no effect on cost. Supply from collection centers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12 and 13 decreases the objective function in terms of cost if we increase one
unit in their right side of the constraint. Increasing RHS by one unit will decrease
the total cost by 91.104, 121.272, 177.264, 212.853, 198.117, 188.007, 204.189,
217.473, 255.888, 266.919, 240.495 and 295.800, respectively.
95
Increasing one unit in the demand’s constraints for dismantlers 1, 2, and 3 will
increase the objective function by 1392.781, 1430.979 and 1480.827, respectively.
Capacity of shredder 1 (K1) decreases the objective function by 22.433 in terms of
cost if we increase one unit in RHS of shredder constraint. However, shredder 2
(K2) remains the same.
Recycling materials from shredder K1 and K2 increases the total cost by 20.939 and
14.197, respectively when we increase one unit in its constraint.
96
Capacity of recyclers 2 (R2) decreases the objective function by 1.270 in terms of
cost if we increase one unit in its constraint. R1 and R3 remain the same and having
no effect in the cost function.
Increasing materials moving to landfills from dismantling or shredding facilities will
increase the total cost function as shown below.
The study area results produced using the model in relevance to material flows and vehicles between network stages are presented in the following figures. Figure 8-1 shows the flow of ELV’s from the collection centers to the dismantling facilities. It may be noticed from the given figures that all dismantling facilities are working. The figure also shows which collection center is assigned to which dismantling facility. Collection
Centers 1 – 4 (CC1 – CC4) are assigned to dismantling facility 1 (P1), while collection centers 6 (CC6) is assigned to both dismantling facility 1 (P1) and dismantling facility 2
(P2). Collection centers 5, 7, and 10 (CC5, CC7, and CC10) are assigned to dismantling facility (P2) only, while collection centers 9 (CC9) is assigned to both dismantling facility 2 (P2) and dismantling facility 3 (P3). Collection centers 8, 11, 12, and 13 (CC8,
CC11, CC12, and CC13) are assigned to dismantling facility (P3).
97
Figure 8-1: ELV Flows from the Collection Centers to the Dismantling Facilities
98
Figure 8-2 demonstrates the network generated decisions during the next stages. It shows the flow of hulks, parts, and materials from the dismantling facilities to the shredding facilities, second-hand markets, and landfills. The model shows only a single shredding facility in operation. Shredding facility 2 (K2) receives the hulks from all dismantlers. It also shows the flow of useful parts from the dismantling facilities to the markets. Market 1(S1) is assigned to dismantler 1 (P1), market 2 (S2) is assigned to dismantler 2 (P2), and market 3 (S3) is assigned to dismantler 3 (P3). Moreover, the flow of unrecyclable materials from dismantling facilities to landfill centers can also be observed in the figure. Landfill 1 (L1) is assigned to dismantler 1 (P1), landfill 2 (L2) is assigned to dismantler 2 (P2), and landfill 3 (L3) is assigned to dismantling facility 3
(P3). On the othor hand, figure 8-3 shows the structure of the network from the shredding process to the recycling centers and landfills. It shows the flow of raw materials that have inherent value from the working shredding facility (K2) to recycling centers 2 and 3 (R2 and R3). It also shows the flow of ASR to the closest landfill, which is landfill 3 (L3).
99
Figure 8-2: Parts, Hulks and Material Flow from the Dismantling Facilities
100
Figure 8-3: Material and ASR Flow from the Shredding Facility
101
8.4 More Sensitivity Analyses
Sensitivity analysis is a method used for determining how an independent variable behaves differently when the values are changed and how the variable impacts dependent variables. The method is usually used in cases where the output depends on different numbers of input variables. The method is also used to predict the results of the decision variables if the situation turns out different than what was predicted. In the case of this research study, there are various factors that affect the total cost of the de- manufacturing and recycling process of the end of life vehicles. Here, sensitivity analysis method will be used to determine the impact on the objective function value by changing the values of the decision variables; thus, the total cost of the process is predicted.
Three input variables were changed and the new outputs were analyzed. First, the capacities of the dismantling facilities were changed. In this analysis, the capacities of dismantling facilities were increased by 20%, 50% and 100%. The effect on the value of the objective function is shown in figure 8-4. In this case study, it was observed that with the increase in the capacity of dismantler 1 (P1), the total cost or the objective function was decreased. While, with the increase in the capacity of dismantler 2 (P2) or dismantler 3 (P3), the objective function was also increased. Therefore, it is better to increase the capacity and the demand of dismantler 1 (P1) in order to reduce the total cost of the objective function.
102
137,000,000 136,000,000 135,000,000 134,000,000 Dismantlar (P1) 133,000,000 Dismantlar (P2) 132,000,000 Dismantlar (P3) Objective Function Objective 131,000,000 130,000,000 Base = 30000 (20%) 36000 (50%) 45000 (100%) 60000 Capacity
Figure 8-4: The Effect of Dismantling Capacity on the Objective Value
Second, the unit transportation costs were changed and the results were analyzed.
Figure 8-5 shows the effect on the objective function when the transportation costs were reduced by 50%, kept without change, increased by 50%, and increased by 100%. The figure shows that on increasing the transportation costs by 50% and 100%, the total cost is increased; however, when reduced by 50%, the total cost or objective function value was also reduced.
150,000,000
145,000,000
140,000,000
135,000,000
130,000,000
Objective Function Objective 125,000,000
120,000,000 -50% Base 50% 100% Unit Transportion Cost
Figure 8-5: Unit Transportation Cost's Effect on the Objective Function
103
Finally, the rates of material disposed of into landfills from the dismantling facility
(λ) and from shredding facility (β) were changed. In this analysis, 7 cases were performed as shown in the following table. Figure 8-6 shows the effect of the changing rates on the objective function. Results show when the rates of disposal increase, the cost function will increase. β has a little more effect on the objective function than λ.
Table 8.1: The Cases for Rate of Materials Disposed of on the Landfills Cases From Dismantler (λ) From Shredder (β) Result
Case 1 -50% -50% λ = 0.02, β= 0.09
Case 2 Base Case -50% λ = 0.04, β= 0.09
Case 3 -50% Base Case λ = 0.02, β= 0.18
Case 4 Base Case Base Case λ = 0.04, β= 0.18
Case 5 50% Base Case λ = 0.06, β= 0.18
Case 6 Base Case 50% λ = 0.04, β= 0.27
Case 7 50% 50% λ = 0.06, β= 0.27
Materials Disposed Effect 134,100,000 134,000,000 133,900,000 133,800,000 133,700,000 Objective Function 133,600,000 133,500,000 133,400,000 133,300,000 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
Figure 8-6: The Effect of Rate of Materials Disposed on the Objective Value
104
Chapter 9
Conclusion and Recommendations
Automotive de-manufacturing systems and processes are essential in ensuring the sustainability and affordability of new cars being introduced into the market. Most of the resources needed in the manufacture of automobiles are not finite, and thus recovering and recycling the parts and materials from old and used vehicles can help drive down the cost of vehicle production, especially as conventional methods of procuring those resources from virgin sources (i.e. mining) have become scarcer. Moreover, more effective automotive de- manufacturing processes would also promote sustainability, as poor practices regarding the disposal of ELVs also imposes a hidden cost to be shouldered not just by consumers, but by business establishments and state governments as well. The model presented in this study can be used to promote the recycling and reuse of materials and salvageable parts from ELVs, and thus can also be used to further increase the utilization of such materials in automobile manufacturing. The Integrated Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) and optimization approaches to
105
ELV recycling would greatly help in the pursuit of this aim, as these tools and strategies can be used in order to lower the cost of ELV recycling and make the utilization of recycled materials a more attractive option for automobile manufacturers and make them on par with materials procured using conventional methods. In combination with reverse logistics, which pertains to the process of procurement of old parts and materials from consumers to de-manufacturing facilities for recovery and recycling, the entire process of ELV de-manufacturing can become more economical and easier.
The proposed network model potentially reduces the operating cost of the de- manufacturing facilities, as well as cuts down the cost of transportation since the ELVs are usually delivered to the nearest de-manufacturing facility available. This greater efficiency, in turn, leads to environmental benefits since the ELV de-manufacturing process can be performed more efficiently, and thus allows for the accommodation of more ELVs for processing and reduced backlog in unprocessed end-of-life vehicles. Furthermore, the proposed depollution process in the new model allows for the removal of hazardous substances from vehicles early in
ELV de-manufacturing, and thus prevents more costly procedures that may need to be performed later in the de-manufacturing process, which can be more expensive. Furthermore, the worse scenario is for such materials to up in landfills, which can be potentially more dangerous and may even increase landfill maintenance costs. And taking into consideration the environmental impact of such pollutants, in the end, early methods of depollution may lead to cost savings due to the elimination or reduction of expenses needed to process the said pollutants through other means. The application of the proposed model has shown that such a model allows for reduced cost of ELV processing, while also eliminates most inefficiencies regarding the logistics operations required in ELV de-manufacturing.
106
The proposed model is superior to traditional models in such a way that ELV de- manufacturing can be achieved using higher environmental standards at far reduced costs. It is also far more superior to not implementing any ELV de-manufacturing framework at all, as it prevents the accumulation of old vehicles being dumped by their owners on the streets and other places, which may lead to various grave environmental and economic consequences. In this study, the viability of the proposed model was seen in the case study of Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia. The city has seen the adverse effects of the lack of ELV de-manufacturing facilities, as well as the need for a more streamlined model to process end-of-life vehicles. The statistics shown in the city of Jeddah relating to this sector has shown that there is a perceived demand for ELV processing. Thus, the model applied in the case study of Jeddah may also be applied to other cities and areas as well, since high vehicle count can be well interpreted as a sign of urbanization.
Future work regarding this area in vehicle de-manufacturing will include the formulation of an optimization model on a more practical level, which is the development of such a model where ELV legislation and laws are already firmly established. At present, the models presented apply only to general circumstances related to vehicle recycling and de- manufacturing. This can be limited in such a way that there is currently lesser incentives in procuring materials from de-manufacturing facilities than from traditional sources. With various sectors of the automotive industry subject to these laws and regulations, the dynamics involved in the recycling of ELVs are expected to dramatically change. Thus, a new optimization model may be needed in order to ascertain the impacts of such laws as vehicles undergo the various stages needed for its de-manufacturing. Most, if not all of the factors identified in this study will remain, but with the possibility of adding additional factors and metrics, especially on how each
107 metric relates to the rest of the model and how government regulation influence their impact of the cost of de-manufacturing ELVs.
Another possible area for future study regarding the development of the optimization model is the inclusion of a possible limiting factor in the ELV de-manufacturing process: traffic congestion and its impact on (reverse) logistics processes involved in the recycling process.
This study has so far included the unit costs of transportation of ELVs, parts, and materials among consumers and de-manufacturing facilities as well as the distance between such facilities. However, on a more practical level, vehicular roads do not exist for the sole purpose of ELV de-manufacturing. The roads used for such a purpose are also used by the rest of the society for a wide variety of purposes. And as vehicles increase in number, this factor could pose a considerable challenge for policy makers and constituents of the automotive recycling industry.
108
References
Adaptalift Hyster. (2011, November). What is Reverse Logistics. Retrieved from Adaptalift Hyster: http://www.aalhysterforklifts.com.au/index.php/about/blog- post/what_is_reverse_logistics_reverse_logistics_series_part_1
Adaptalift Hyster. (2013, May). What is Reverse Logistics. Retrieved from Adaptalift Hyster: http://www.aalhysterforklifts.com.au/index.php/about/blog- post/reverse_logistics_from_opportunity_to_success1
Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers. (2010). Automotive Recycling Industry. Retrieved October 2014, from http://wwwwww.autoalliance.org/download.cfm?downloadfile=1CDF0DE0- B983-11E1-9E4C000C296BA163&typename=dmFile&fieldname=filename
Automotive Recyclers of Canada. (2011, Septemer 20). A National Approach to the Environmental Management of End-of-life Vehicles in Canada. Retrieved 2014, from Automotive Recyclers of Canada: http://autorecyclers.ca/2011/a-national- approach-to-the-environmental-management-of-end-of-life-vehicles-in-canada/
Autoparts Recycle Association of Australia; Greenfleet; Holden. (2014). Auto Parts Recycling: A Guide to the Future. Retrieved 2014, from Holden: http://www.holden.com.au/resources/documents/recycling_guide.pdf
Autoparts Recycle Association of Australiar; Greenfleet; Holden. (2014). Auto Parts Recycling: A Guide to the Future. Retrieved 2014, from Holden: http://www.holden.com.au/resources/documents/recycling_guide.pdf
BMW Group. (2009, May). Vehicle Recycling: Focusing on Sustainability. Retrieved Jan 2014, from BMW Group: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/owners/service/_shared/pdf/2009_recycling.pdf
109
Demirel, E., Demirel, N., & Gokcen, H. (2014). A mixed integer linear programming model to optimize reverse logistics activities of end-of-life vehicles in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, pp.2101-2113.
Easier Cars. (2014). Motorists urged to get the best price for scrap cars. Retrieved 17 July 2016, from http://www.easier.com/120686-motorists-urged-to-get-the-best- price-for-scrap-cars.html
Ecoamisco. (2015). Ecodesign. Retrieved from http://www.amiscocontract.com/Ecoamisco.aspx
Elwany, H., Fors, N., Harraz, N., & Galal, N. (2007). REVERSE LOGISTICS NETWORK DESIGN: REVIEW OF MODELS AND. 37th International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, 9.
European Commission. (2005, January). Directive 2000/53/EC On End-of-Life Vehicles. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/guidance_doc.pdf
Field, F. R. (1993). The Recycling of Automobiles: Conflicting Environmental Objectives In A Competitive Marketplace. KIET International Seminar on Korea's Auto Industry, A-1 to A-16.
Golebiewski, B., Trajer, J., Jaros, M., & Winiczenko, R. (2013). Modelling of the location of vehicle recycling facilities: A case study in Poland. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 80, 10-20.
International Specialized Skills Institute. (2009). Vehicle Recycling and Sustainability. Retrieved October 2014, from http://issinstitute.org.au/wp- content/media/2011/05/ISS-FEL-REPORT-N-MCNAMARA-Low-Res.pdf
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. (2002). New Car Recycling Law in Japan. Retrieved from http://jama-english.jp/europe/news/2002/200209-10uk.pdf
Jeddah Municipality. (2015). Retrieved from Jeddah Municipality: https://www.jeddah.gov.sa/English/
Joshi, S. (2015). Auto Recycling in the Middle East. Waste and Recycling - Middle East.
Kanari, N., Pineau, J.-L., & Shallari, a. S. (2003). End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling in the European Union. Retrieved 2014, from The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0308/Kanari-0308.html
Messe Franfurt. (2016). Automechanika_Jeddah. Retrieved from http://automechanikadubai.com/resources/files/Presentation_6thNetwork__Full20 15_novid.pdf
110
MInistry of Economy, Trade and Industry. (2005). End of Life Vehicle Recycling Law. Retrieved 2014, from MInistry of Economy, Trade and Industry: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/recycle/main/english/law/end.html
Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association . (n.d.). Second Hand Vehicle Parts. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://www.mvda.org.uk/secondhandvehicleparts.aspx
Qu, X., & Williams, J. (2008). An analytical model for reverse automotive production planning and pricing. European Journal of Operational Research 190, 756-767.
Royal Automotive Club of Victoria. (2014). Vehicle Recycling. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/racv/Internet/Primary/my+car/advice+ _+information/motoring+_+the+environment/reduce+your+emissions+and+fuel+ costs/vehicle+recycling
RSJ Technical Consulting. (2007). What is Korea RoHS. Retrieved 2014, from RSJ technical Consulting: http://www.rsjtechnical.com/WhatisKoreaRoHS.htm
Sanket. (2009). Reverse Logistics. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/sanket_123/reverse-logistics-presentation
Simic, V., & Dimitrijevic, B. (2012). Production planning for vehicle recycling factories in the EU legislative and global business environments. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, Volume 60, pp. 78-88.
South Korea’s waste management policies. (2015). Legislative Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/sec/library/1213inc04-e.pdf
Staudinger, J., & Keoleian, G. A. (2001, March). Management of End of Life Vehicles in the US. Retrieved 2014, from Center for Sustainable Systems: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-01.pdf
Toyota Motor Corporation. (2014, April). Vehicle Recycling. Retrieved 2014, from Toyota: http://www.toyota-global.com/sustainability/report/vehicle_recycling/
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Automotive Parts. Retrieved from US Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/auto.htm
Waste Business Journal. (2012, October 02). US Landfill Tipping Fees Reach $45 per Ton; Slow Volume Growth. Retrieved from Waste Business Journal.com: http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20121003A.htm
111
Zarei, M., Mansour, S., Kashan, A.-H., & Karimi, B. (2010). Designing a Reverse Logistics Network for End-of-Life Vehicles Recovery. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 16.
Zhaoanjian, M., & Yang, J. (2014, May). Reverse Logistics in Automotive Industry. Retrieved from Hogskolan I Gavle: http://hig.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:725973/FULLTEXT01.pdf
112
Appendix A
113
114
115
116
117
Appendix B
Solving the Model Using Lingo Software
Model
! ELV De-manufacturing Problem in Jeddah;
SETS:
Collections / CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6, CC7, CC8, CC9,
CC10, CC11, CC12, CC13/:CAP_I;
PLANTS / P1, P2, P3/: DEM_J, FCOST_J, CAP_J, OPEN_J, O_J;
MARKETS / S1, S2, S3/: DEM_S;
SHREDDERS / K1, K2/: FCOST_K, CAP_K, OPEN_K, O_K;
RECYCLERS / R1, R2, R3/: CAP_R;
LANDFILLS / L1, L2, L3/: CAP_L, O_L;
ARCS_IJ (collections, PLANTS): DIST_IJ, COST_IJ, V;
ARCS_JS (PLANTS, MARKETS): DIST_JS, COST_JS, PARTS;
118
ARCS_JK (PLANTS, SHREDDERS): DIST_JK, COST_JK, HULKS;
ARCS_KR (SHREDDERS, RECYCLERS): DIST_KR, COST_KR, U;
ARCS_KL (SHREDDERS, LANDFILLS): DIST_KL, COST_KL, A;
ARCS_JL (PLANTS, LANDFILLS): DIST_JL, COST_JL, M;
ENDSETS
DATA:
!capacity at the collections;
CAP_I = 7000, 7000, 7000, 7000, 7000, 7000, 7000,
7000, 7000, 7000, 7000, 7000, 7000;
! DEMAND AT EACH DISMANTING PLANT;
DEM_J = 30000, 30000, 30000;
! FIXED COST OF OPENING AT EACH DISMANTING PLANT;
FCOST_J = 4000000, 4000000, 4000000;
! CAPACITIES AT EACH DESMANTING PLANT;
CAP_J = 30000, 30000, 30000;
! DEMANDS AT EACH SECOND-HAND MARKET;
DEM_S = 4000, 4000, 4000;
! FIXED COST OF OPENING AT EACH SHREDDER;
FCOST_K = 10000000, 10000000;
! CAPACITIES AT EACH SHREDDER;
CAP_K = 100000, 100000;
119
! CAPACITIES AT EACH RECYCLER;
CAP_R = 30000, 30000, 30000;
! CAPACITIES AT EACH LANDFILL;
CAP_L = 100000, 100000, 100000;
! THE DISTANCE FROM I TO J;
DIST_IJ = 75.055, 100.593, 128.019,
44.687, 75.669, 98.902,
34.631, 63.400, 82.867,
15.967, 40.994, 63.401,
7.473, 18.839, 51.480,
9.016, 23.751, 45.630,
14.031, 27.121, 48.016,
16.484, 24.598, 40.703,
18.899, 17.299, 36.275,
27.977, 4.494, 25.514,
24.266, 16.443, 19.793,
30.144, 26.137, 28.601,
49.475, 33.910, 10.166;
! THE DISTANCE FROM J TO S;
DIST_JS = 11.454, 18.310, 27.977,
31.949, 17.833, 19.163,
53.312, 39.557, 18.901;
! THE DISTANCE FROM J TO K;
DIST_JK = 8.873, 37.018,
120
29.934, 26.892,
66.119, 17.258;
! THE DISTANCE FROM K TO R;
DIST_KR = 20.939, 37.802, 51.094,
35.623, 12.927, 14.197;
! THE DISTANCE FROM J TO L;
DIST_JL = 10.733, 15.017, 40.404,
30.209, 12.504, 34.826,
73.154, 46.392, 22.012;
! THE DISTANCE FROM K TO L;
DIST_KL = 10.808, 19.086, 47.736,
45.587, 29.917, 9.452;
! THE OPERATING COST FOR DISMANTLERS;
O_J = 500, 500, 500;
! THE OPERATING COST FOR SHREDDERS;
O_K = 150, 150;
! THE OPERATING COST FOR LANDFILLS;
O_L = 20, 20, 20;
! AVG Procurement COST;
Q = 500;
! THE UNIT SHIPMENT COST;
COST_IJ = 3;
COST_JS = 2;
121
COST_JK = 1;
COST_KR = 1;
COST_KL = 0.75;
COST_JL = 0.75;
! Vehicle Average weight;
Va = 1;
ENDDATA
! THE OBJECTIVE;
MIN = @SUM(PLANTS: FCOST_J * OPEN_J) + @SUM(SHREDDERS:
FCOST_K * OPEN_K) +
@SUM(COLLECTIONS(I):@SUM(PLANTS(J):V(I,J) * Q)) +
@SUM(COLLECTIONS(I):@SUM(PLANTS(J):V(I,J) * O_J)) +
@SUM(PLANTS(J):@SUM(SHREDDERS(K):HULKS(J,K) * O_K)) +
@SUM(PLANTS(J):@SUM(LANDFILLS(L):M(J,L) * O_L)) +
@SUM(SHREDDERS(K):@SUM(LANDFILLS(L):A(K,L) * O_L)) + @SUM(
ARCS_IJ : DIST_IJ * COST_IJ * V ) + @SUM( ARCS_JK :
DIST_JK * COST_JK * HULKS) + @SUM( ARCS_JS : DIST_JS *
COST_JS * PARTS) + @SUM( ARCS_KR : DIST_KR * COST_KR * U) +
@SUM( ARCS_JL : DIST_JL * COST_JL * M) + @SUM( ARCS_KL :
DIST_KL * COST_KL * A);
122
! THE COLLECTION CENTERS CAPACITIES;
@FOR( COLLECTIONS( I): [SUPPPLY_I] @SUM( PLANTS( J): V( I,
J)) <= CAP_I( I) );
![4]; @FOR(PLANTS(J): @SUM(SHREDDERS(K): HULKS(J,K)) = 0.8
* Va * @SUM(COLLECTIONS(I): V(I,J)));
! THE DEMAND CONSTAINTS;
![5]; @FOR(PLANTS(J): @SUM(MARKETS(S): PARTS(J,S)) = 0.16 *
Va * @SUM(COLLECTIONS(I):V(I,J)));
@FOR (MARKETS(S): [DEMAND_S] @SUM (PLANTS (J): PARTS (J,
S))>= DEM_S(S));
! THE DEMAND CONSTAINTS FOR DISMANTLERS;
@FOR( PLANTS(J): [DEMAND_J] @SUM( COLLECTIONS( I): V( I,
J)) >= DEM_J( J) );
! THE SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS FOR DISMANTLERS;
![9]; @FOR( PLANTS(J): [SUPPLY] @SUM (COLLECTIONS( I): V(
I, J))<= CAP_J(J)* OPEN_J);
! THE CAPACITY CONSTAINTS FOR SHREEDERS;
![10]; @FOR( SHREDDERS(K): [CAPACITY_K] @SUM (PLANTS(J):
HULKS(J,K))<= CAP_K(K) * OPEN_K(K));
! THE FLOW CONSTAINTS FOR RECYCLERS;
![7]; @FOR( SHREDDERS(K): [RECLING_MATERIALS] @SUM(
RECYCLERS( R): U( K, R) ) = 0.82 * @SUM ( PLANTS(J):
HULKS(J,K)));
123
! THE CAPACITY CONSTAINTS FOR RECYCLERS;
! [11]; @FOR (RECYCLERS(R): [CAPACITY_R] @SUM (SHREDDERS
(K): U (K, R)) <= CAP_R(R));
! THE FLOW CONSTAINTS FOR LANDFILL;
![8]; @FOR( SHREDDERS(K): [LANFILL_FROM_SHREEDERS] @SUM(
LANDFILLS( L): A( K, L) ) = @SUM ( PLANTS(J): HULKS(J,K) *
0.18));
![6]; @FOR( PLANTS(J): [LANFILL_FROM_PLANTS] @SUM(
LANDFILLS( L): M( J, L) ) =0.04 * Va * @SUM (
COLLECTIONS(I): V(I,J)));
! THE CAPACITY CONSTAINTS FOR LANDFILL;
![12]; @FOR( LANDFILLS(L): [CAPACITY_L] (@SUM (PLANTS(J):
M(J,L))+ @SUM(SHREDDERS(K): A(K,L)))<= CAP_L(L));
! MAKE OPEN BINARY (0/1);
@FOR (PLANTS: @BIN (OPEN_J));
! MAKE OPEN BINARY (0/1);
@FOR (SHREDDERS: @BIN (OPEN_K));
END
124
The Output
Global optimal solution found at iteration: 162 Objective value: 0.1338138E+09
Variable Value Reduced Cost
Q 500.0000 0.000000
VA 1.000000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC1) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC2) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC3) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC4) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC5) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC6) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC7) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC8) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC9) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC10) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC11) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC12) 7000.000 0.000000
CAP_I (CC13) 7000.000 0.000000
DEM_J (P1) 30000.00 0.000000
DEM_J (P2) 30000.00 0.000000
DEM_J (P3) 30000.00 0.000000
125
FCOST_J (P1) 4000000. 0.000000
FCOST_J (P2) 4000000. 0.000000
FCOST_J (P3) 4000000. 0.000000
CAP_J (P1) 30000.00 0.000000
CAP_J (P2) 30000.00 0.000000
CAP_J (P3) 30000.00 0.000000
OPEN_J (P1) 1.000000 4000000.
OPEN_J (P2) 1.000000 4000000.
OPEN_J (P3) 1.000000 4000000.
O_J (P1) 500.0000 0.000000
O_J (P2) 500.0000 0.000000
O_J (P3) 500.0000 0.000000
DEM_S (S1) 4000.000 0.000000
DEM_S (S2) 4000.000 0.000000
DEM_S (S3) 4000.000 0.000000
FCOST_K (K1) 0.1000000E+08 0.000000
FCOST_K (K2) 0.1000000E+08 0.000000
CAP_K (K1) 100000.0 0.000000
CAP_K (K2) 100000.0 0.000000
OPEN_K (K1) 0.000000 7756650.
OPEN_K (K2) 1.000000 0.1000000E+08
O_K (K1) 150.0000 0.000000
O_K (K2) 150.0000 0.000000
126
CAP_R (R1) 30000.00 0.000000
CAP_R (R2) 30000.00 0.000000
CAP_R (R3) 30000.00 0.000000
CAP_L (L1) 100000.0 0.000000
CAP_L (L2) 100000.0 0.000000
CAP_L (L3) 100000.0 0.000000
O_L (L1) 20.00000 0.000000
O_L (L2) 20.00000 0.000000
O_L (L3) 20.00000 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC1, P1) 75.05500 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC1, P2) 100.5930 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC1, P3) 128.0190 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC2, P1) 44.68700 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC2, P2) 75.66900 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC2, P3) 98.90200 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC3, P1) 34.63100 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC3, P2) 63.40000 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC3, P3) 82.86700 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC4, P1) 15.96700 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC4, P2) 40.99400 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC4, P3) 63.40100 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC5, P1) 7.473000 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC5, P2) 18.83900 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC5, P3) 51.48000 0.000000
127
DIST_IJ (CC6, P1) 9.016000 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC6, P2) 23.75100 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC6, P3) 45.63000 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC7, P1) 14.03100 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC7, P2) 27.12100 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC7, P3) 48.01600 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC8, P1) 16.48400 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC8, P2) 24.59800 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC8, P3) 40.70300 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC9, P1) 18.89900 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC9, P2) 17.29900 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC9, P3) 36.27500 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC10, P1) 27.97700 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC10, P2) 4.494000 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC10, P3) 25.51400 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC11, P1) 24.26600 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC11, P2) 16.44300 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC11, P3) 19.79300 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC12, P1) 30.14400 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC12, P2) 26.13700 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC12, P3) 28.60100 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC13, P1) 49.47500 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC13, P2) 33.91000 0.000000
DIST_IJ (CC13, P3) 10.16600 0.000000
128
COST_IJ (CC1, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC1, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC1, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC2, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC2, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC2, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC3, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC3, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC3, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC4, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC4, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC4, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC5, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC5, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC5, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC6, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC6, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC6, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC7, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC7, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC7, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC8, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC8, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC8, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
129
COST_IJ (CC9, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC9, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC9, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC10, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC10, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC10, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC11, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC11, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC11, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC12, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC12, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC12, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC13, P1) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC13, P2) 3.000000 0.000000
COST_IJ (CC13, P3) 3.000000 0.000000
V (CC1, P1) 6000.000 0.000000
V (CC1, P2) 0.000000 32.40900
V (CC1, P3) 0.000000 57.75900
V (CC2, P1) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC2, P2) 0.000000 48.74100
V (CC2, P3) 0.000000 61.51200
V (CC3, P1) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC3, P2) 0.000000 42.10200
V (CC3, P3) 0.000000 43.57500
130
V (CC4, P1) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC4, P2) 0.000000 30.87600
V (CC4, P3) 0.000000 41.16900
V (CC5, P1) 0.000000 10.10700
V (CC5, P2) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC5, P3) 0.000000 40.99500
V (CC6, P1) 3000.000 0.000000
V (CC6, P2) 4000.000 0.000000
V (CC6, P3) 0.000000 8.709000
V (CC7, P1) 0.000000 4.935000
V (CC7, P2) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC7, P3) 0.000000 5.757000
V (CC8, P1) 0.000000 28.47600
V (CC8, P2) 0.000000 8.613000
V (CC8, P3) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC9, P1) 0.000000 49.00500
V (CC9, P2) 5000.000 0.000000
V (CC9, P3) 2000.000 0.000000
V (CC10, P1) 0.000000 114.6540
V (CC10, P2) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC10, P3) 0.000000 6.132000
V (CC11, P1) 0.000000 114.5520
V (CC11, P2) 0.000000 46.87800
V (CC11, P3) 7000.000 0.000000
131
V (CC12, P1) 0.000000 105.7620
V (CC12, P2) 0.000000 49.53600
V (CC12, P3) 7000.000 0.000000
V (CC13, P1) 0.000000 219.0600
V (CC13, P2) 0.000000 128.1600
V (CC13, P3) 7000.000 0.000000
DIST_JS (P1, S1) 11.45400 0.000000
DIST_JS (P1, S2) 18.31000 0.000000
DIST_JS (P1, S3) 27.97700 0.000000
DIST_JS (P2, S1) 31.94900 0.000000
DIST_JS (P2, S2) 17.83300 0.000000
DIST_JS (P2, S3) 19.16300 0.000000
DIST_JS (P3, S1) 53.31200 0.000000
DIST_JS (P3, S2) 39.55700 0.000000
DIST_JS (P3, S3) 18.90100 0.000000
COST_JS (P1, S1) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P1, S2) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P1, S3) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P2, S1) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P2, S2) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P2, S3) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P3, S1) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P3, S2) 2.000000 0.000000
COST_JS (P3, S3) 2.000000 0.000000
132
PARTS (P1, S1) 4800.000 0.000000
PARTS (P1, S2) 0.000000 13.71200
PARTS (P1, S3) 0.000000 33.04600
PARTS (P2, S1) 0.000000 28.23200
PARTS (P2, S2) 4800.000 0.000000
PARTS (P2, S3) 0.000000 2.660000
PARTS (P3, S1) 0.000000 68.82200
PARTS (P3, S2) 0.000000 41.31200
PARTS (P3, S3) 4800.000 0.000000
DIST_JK (P1, K1) 8.873000 0.000000
DIST_JK (P1, K2) 37.01800 0.000000
DIST_JK (P2, K1) 29.93400 0.000000
DIST_JK (P2, K2) 26.89200 0.000000
DIST_JK (P3, K1) 66.11900 0.000000
DIST_JK (P3, K2) 17.25800 0.000000
COST_JK (P1, K1) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_JK (P1, K2) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_JK (P2, K1) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_JK (P2, K2) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_JK (P3, K1) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_JK (P3, K2) 1.000000 0.000000
HULKS (P1, K1) 0.000000 0.000000
HULKS (P1, K2) 24000.00 0.000000
HULKS (P2, K1) 0.000000 31.18700
133
HULKS (P2, K2) 24000.00 0.000000
HULKS (P3, K1) 0.000000 77.00600
HULKS (P3, K2) 24000.00 0.000000
DIST_KR (K1, R1) 20.93900 0.000000
DIST_KR (K1, R2) 37.80200 0.000000
DIST_KR (K1, R3) 51.09400 0.000000
DIST_KR (K2, R1) 35.62300 0.000000
DIST_KR (K2, R2) 12.92700 0.000000
DIST_KR (K2, R3) 14.19700 0.000000
COST_KR (K1, R1) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_KR (K1, R2) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_KR (K1, R3) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_KR (K2, R1) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_KR (K2, R2) 1.000000 0.000000
COST_KR (K2, R3) 1.000000 0.000000
U (K1, R1) 0.000000 0.000000
U (K1, R2) 0.000000 18.13300
U (K1, R3) 0.000000 30.15500
U (K2, R1) 0.000000 21.42600
U (K2, R2) 30000.00 0.000000
U (K2, R3) 29040.00 0.000000
DIST_KL (K1, L1) 10.80800 0.000000
DIST_KL (K1, L2) 19.08600 0.000000
DIST_KL (K1, L3) 47.73600 0.000000
134
DIST_KL (K2, L1) 45.58700 0.000000
DIST_KL (K2, L2) 29.91700 0.000000
DIST_KL (K2, L3) 9.452000 0.000000
COST_KL (K1, L1) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_KL (K1, L2) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_KL (K1, L3) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_KL (K2, L1) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_KL (K2, L2) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_KL (K2, L3) 0.7500000 0.000000
A (K1, L1) 0.000000 0.000000
A (K1, L2) 0.000000 6.208500
A (K1, L3) 0.000000 27.69600
A (K2, L1) 0.000000 27.10125
A (K2, L2) 0.000000 15.34875
A (K2, L3) 12960.00 0.000000
DIST_JL (P1, L1) 10.73300 0.000000
DIST_JL (P1, L2) 15.01700 0.000000
DIST_JL (P1, L3) 40.40400 0.000000
DIST_JL (P2, L1) 30.20900 0.000000
DIST_JL (P2, L2) 12.50400 0.000000
DIST_JL (P2, L3) 34.82600 0.000000
DIST_JL (P3, L1) 73.15400 0.000000
DIST_JL (P3, L2) 46.39200 0.000000
DIST_JL (P3, L3) 22.01200 0.000000
135
COST_JL (P1, L1) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P1, L2) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P1, L3) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P2, L1) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P2, L2) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P2, L3) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P3, L1) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P3, L2) 0.7500000 0.000000
COST_JL (P3, L3) 0.7500000 0.000000
M (P1, L1) 1200.000 0.000000
M (P1, L2) 0.000000 3.213000
M (P1, L3) 0.000000 22.25325
M (P2, L1) 0.000000 13.27875
M (P2, L2) 1200.000 0.000000
M (P2, L3) 0.000000 16.74150
M (P3, L1) 0.000000 38.35650
M (P3, L2) 0.000000 18.28500
M (P3, L3) 1200.000 0.000000
136
Row Slack or Surplus Dual Price
1 0.1338138E+09 -1.00000
SUPPPLY_I (CC1) 1000.000 0.000000
SUPPPLY_I (CC2) 0.000000 91.10400
SUPPPLY_I (CC3) 0.000000 121.2720
SUPPPLY_I (CC4) 0.000000 177.2640
SUPPPLY_I (CC5) 0.000000 212.8530
SUPPPLY_I (CC6) 0.000000 198.1170
SUPPPLY_I (CC7) 0.000000 188.0070
SUPPPLY_I (CC8) 0.000000 204.1890
SUPPPLY_I (CC9) 0.000000 217.4730
SUPPPLY_I (CC10) 0.000000 255.8880
SUPPPLY_I (CC11) 0.000000 266.9190
SUPPPLY_I (CC12) 0.000000 240.4950
SUPPPLY_I (CC13) 0.000000 295.8000
15 0.000000 -203.5356
16 0.000000 -193.4096
17 0.000000 -183.7756
18 0.000000 -22.90800
19 0.000000 -35.66600
20 0.000000 -37.80200
DEMAND_S (S1) 800.0000 0.000000
DEMAND_S (S2) 800.0000 0.000000
DEMAND_S (S3) 800.0000 0.000000
137
DEMAND_J (P1) 0.000000 -1392.781
DEMAND_J (P2) 0.000000 -1430.979
DEMAND_J (P3) 0.000000 -1480.827
SUPPLY (P1) 10000.00 0.000000
SUPPLY (P2) 10000.00 0.000000
SUPPLY (P3) 10000.00 0.000000
CAPACITY_K (K1) 0.000000 22.43350
CAPACITY_K (K2) 28000.00 0.000000
RECLING_MATERIALS (K1) 0.000000 -20.93900
RECLING_MATERIALS (K2) 0.000000 -14.19700
CAPACITY_R (R1) 30000.00 0.000000
CAPACITY_R (R2) 0.000000 1.270000
CAPACITY_R (R3) 960.0000 0.000000
LANFILL_FROM_SHREEDERS (K1) 0.000000 -28.10600
LANFILL_FROM_SHREEDERS (K2) 0.000000 -27.08900
LANFILL_FROM_PLANTS (P1) 0.000000 -28.04975
LANFILL_FROM_PLANTS (P2) 0.000000 -29.37800
LANFILL_FROM_PLANTS (P3) 0.000000 -36.50900
CAPACITY_L (L1) 98800.00 0.000000
CAPACITY_L (L2) 98800.00 0.000000
CAPACITY_L (L3) 85840.00 0.000000
138
Display the Model
MIN 28.106 A( K1, L1) + 34.3145 A( K1, L2) + 55.802 A(
K1, L3) + 54.19025 A( K2, L1) + 42.43775 A( K2, L2) +
27.089 A( K2, L3)+ 28.04975 M( P1, L1) + 31.26275 M( P1,
L2) + 50.303 M( P1, L3) + 42.65675 M( P2, L1) + 29.378 M(
P2, L2) + 46.1195 M( P2, L3) + 74.8655 M( P3, L1) + 54.794
M( P3, L2) + 36.509 M( P3, L3) + 20.939 U( K1, R1) + 37.802
U( K1, R2) + 51.094 U( K1, R3) + 35.623 U( K2, R1) + 12.927
U( K2, R2) + 14.197 U( K2, R3) + 158.873 HULKS( P1, K1) +
187.018 HULKS( P1, K2) + 179.934 HULKS( P2, K1) + 176.892
HULKS( P2, K2) + 216.119 HULKS( P3, K1) + 167.258 HULKS(
P3, K2) + 22.908 PARTS( P1, S1) + 36.62 PARTS( P1, S2) +
55.954 PARTS( P1, S3) + 63.898 PARTS( P2, S1) + 35.666
PARTS( P2, S2) + 38.326 PARTS( P2, S3) + 106.624 PARTS( P3,
S1) + 79.114 PARTS( P3, S2) + 37.802 PARTS( P3, S3) +
1225.165 V( CC1, P1) + 1301.779 V( CC1, P2) + 1384.057 V(
CC1, P3) + 1134.061 V( CC2, P1) + 1227.007 V( CC2, P2) +
1296.706 V( CC2, P3) + 1103.893 V( CC3, P1) + 1190.2 V(
CC3, P2) + 1248.601 V( CC3, P3) + 1047.901 V( CC4, P1) +
1122.982 V( CC4, P2) + 1190.203 V( CC4, P3) + 1022.419 V(
CC5, P1) + 1056.517 V( CC5, P2) + 1154.44 V( CC5, P3) +
1027.048 V( CC6, P1) + 1071.253 V( CC6, P2) + 1136.89 V(
139
CC6, P3) + 1042.093 V( CC7, P1) + 1081.363 V( CC7, P2) +
1144.048 V( CC7, P3) + 1049.452 V( CC8, P1) + 1073.794 V(
CC8, P2) + 1122.109 V( CC8, P3) + 1056.697 V( CC9, P1) +
1051.897 V( CC9, P2) + 1108.825 V( CC9, P3) + 1083.931 V(
CC10, P1) + 1013.482 V( CC10, P2) + 1076.542 V( CC10, P3) +
1072.798 V( CC11, P1) + 1049.329 V( CC11, P2) + 1059.379 V(
CC11, P3) + 1090.432 V( CC12, P1) + 1078.411 V( CC12, P2) +
1085.803 V( CC12, P3) + 1148.425 V( CC13, P1) + 1101.73 V(
CC13, P2) + 1030.498 V( CC13, P3) + ***** OPEN_K( K1) +
***** OPEN_K( K2) + 4000000 OPEN_J( P1) + 4000000 OPEN_J(
P2) + 4000000 OPEN_J( P3)
SUBJECT TO
SUPPPLY_I( CC1)] V( CC1, P1) + V( CC1, P2) + V( CC1, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC2)] V( CC2, P1) + V( CC2, P2) + V( CC2, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC3)] V( CC3, P1) + V( CC3, P2) + V( CC3, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC4)] V( CC4, P1) + V( CC4, P2) + V( CC4, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC5)] V( CC5, P1) + V( CC5, P2) + V( CC5, P3)
<= 7000
140
SUPPPLY_I( CC6)] V( CC6, P1) + V( CC6, P2) + V( CC6, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC7)] V( CC7, P1) + V( CC7, P2) + V( CC7, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC8)] V( CC8, P1) + V( CC8, P2) + V( CC8, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC9)] V( CC9, P1) + V( CC9, P2) + V( CC9, P3)
<= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC10)] V( CC10, P1) + V( CC10, P2) + V( CC10,
P3) <= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC11)] V( CC11, P1) + V( CC11, P2) + V( CC11,
P3) <= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC12)] V( CC12, P1) + V( CC12, P2) + V( CC12,
P3) <= 7000
SUPPPLY_I( CC13)] V( CC13, P1) + V( CC13, P2) + V( CC13,
P3) <= 7000
15] HULKS( P1, K1) + HULKS( P1, K2) - .8 V( CC1, P1) - .8
V( CC2, P1)
- .8 V( CC3, P1) - .8 V( CC4, P1) - .8 V( CC5, P1)
- .8 V( CC6, P1) - .8 V( CC7, P1) - .8 V( CC8, P1)
- .8 V( CC9, P1) - .8 V( CC10, P1) - .8 V( CC11, P1)
- .8 V( CC12, P1) - .8 V( CC13, P1) = 0
16] HULKS( P2, K1) + HULKS( P2, K2) - .8 V( CC1, P2) - .8
V( CC2, P2)
141
- .8 V( CC3, P2) - .8 V( CC4, P2) - .8 V( CC5, P2)
- .8 V( CC6, P2) - .8 V( CC7, P2) - .8 V( CC8, P2)
- .8 V( CC9, P2) - .8 V( CC10, P2) - .8 V( CC11, P2)
- .8 V( CC12, P2) - .8 V( CC13, P2) = 0
17] HULKS( P3, K1) + HULKS( P3, K2) - .8 V( CC1, P3) - .8
V( CC2, P3)
- .8 V( CC3, P3) - .8 V( CC4, P3) - .8 V( CC5, P3)
- .8 V( CC6, P3) - .8 V( CC7, P3) - .8 V( CC8, P3)
- .8 V( CC9, P3) - .8 V( CC10, P3) - .8 V( CC11, P3)
- .8 V( CC12, P3) - .8 V( CC13, P3) = 0
18] PARTS( P1, S1) + PARTS( P1, S2) + PARTS( P1, S3)
- .16 V( CC1, P1) - .16 V( CC2, P1) - .16 V( CC3, P1)
- .16 V( CC4, P1) - .16 V( CC5, P1) - .16 V( CC6, P1)
- .16 V( CC7, P1) - .16 V( CC8, P1) - .16 V( CC9, P1)
- .16 V( CC10, P1) - .16V(CC11, P1) - .16 V(CC12, P1)
- .16 V( CC13, P1) = 0
19] PARTS( P2, S1) + PARTS( P2, S2) + PARTS( P2, S3)
- .16 V( CC1, P2) - .16 V( CC2, P2) - .16 V( CC3, P2)
- .16 V( CC4, P2) - .16 V( CC5, P2) - .16 V( CC6, P2)
- .16 V( CC7, P2) - .16 V( CC8, P2) - .16 V( CC9, P2)
- .16 V(CC10, P2) - .16 V(CC11, P2) - .16 V(CC12, P2)
- .16 V( CC13, P2) = 0
20] PARTS( P3, S1) + PARTS( P3, S2) + PARTS( P3, S3)
- .16 V( CC1, P3) - .16 V( CC2, P3) - .16 V( CC3, P3)
142
- .16 V( CC4, P3) - .16 V( CC5, P3) - .16 V( CC6, P3)
- .16 V( CC7, P3) - .16 V( CC8, P3) - .16 V( CC9, P3)
- .16 V(CC10, P3) - .16 V(CC11, P3) - .16 V(CC12, P3)
- .16 V( CC13, P3) = 0
DEMAND_S( S1)] PARTS( P1, S1) + PARTS( P2, S1) + PARTS(
P3, S1) >= 4000
DEMAND_S( S2)] PARTS( P1, S2) + PARTS( P2, S2) + PARTS(
P3, S2) >= 4000
DEMAND_S( S3)] PARTS( P1, S3) + PARTS( P2, S3) + PARTS(
P3, S3) >= 4000
DEMAND_J( P1)] V( CC1, P1) + V( CC2, P1) + V( CC3, P1) +
V( CC4, P1) + V( CC5, P1) + V( CC6, P1) + V( CC7, P1) + V(
CC8, P1) + V( CC9, P1) + V( CC10, P1) + V( CC11, P1) + V(
CC12, P1) + V( CC13, P1) >= 30000
DEMAND_J( P2)] V( CC1, P2) + V( CC2, P2) + V( CC3, P2) +
V( CC4, P2) + V( CC5, P2) + V( CC6, P2) + V( CC7, P2) + V(
CC8, P2) + V( CC9, P2) + V( CC10, P2) + V( CC11, P2) + V(
CC12, P2) + V( CC13, P2) >= 30000
DEMAND_J( P3)] V( CC1, P3) + V( CC2, P3) + V( CC3, P3) +
V( CC4, P3) + V( CC5, P3) + V( CC6, P3) + V( CC7, P3) + V(
CC8, P3) + V( CC9, P3) + V( CC10, P3) + V( CC11, P3) + V(
CC12, P3) + V( CC13, P3) >= 30000
SUPPLY( P1)] V( CC1, P1) + V( CC2, P1) + V( CC3, P1) + V(
CC4, P1) + V( CC5, P1) + V( CC6, P1) + V( CC7, P1) + V(
143
CC8, P1) + V( CC9, P1) + V( CC10, P1) + V( CC11, P1) + V(
CC12, P1) + V( CC13, P1) - 30000 OPEN_J( P1) <= 0
SUPPLY( P2)] V( CC1, P2) + V( CC2, P2) + V( CC3, P2) + V(
CC4, P2) + V( CC5, P2) + V( CC6, P2) + V( CC7, P2) + V(
CC8, P2) + V( CC9, P2) + V( CC10, P2) + V( CC11, P2) + V(
CC12, P2) + V( CC13, P2) - 30000 OPEN_J( P2) <= 0
SUPPLY( P3)] V( CC1, P3) + V( CC2, P3) + V( CC3, P3) + V(
CC4, P3) + V( CC5, P3) + V( CC6, P3) + V( CC7, P3) + V(
CC8, P3) + V( CC9, P3) + V( CC10, P3) + V( CC11, P3) + V(
CC12, P3) + V( CC13, P3) - 30000 OPEN_J( P3) <= 0
CAPACITY_K( K1)] HULKS( P1, K1) + HULKS( P2, K1) + HULKS(
P3, K1) - 100000 OPEN_K( K1) <= 0
CAPACITY_K( K2)] HULKS( P1, K2) + HULKS( P2, K2) + HULKS(
P3, K2) - 100000 OPEN_K( K2) <= 0
RECLING_MATERIALS( K1)] U( K1, R1) + U( K1, R2) + U( K1,
R3) - .82 HULKS( P1, K1) - .82 HULKS( P2, K1) - .82 HULKS(
P3, K1) = 0
RECLING_MATERIALS( K2)] U( K2, R1) + U( K2, R2) + U( K2,
R3) - .82 HULKS( P1, K2) - .82 HULKS( P2, K2) - .82 HULKS(
P3, K2) = 0
CAPACITY_R( R1)] U( K1, R1) + U( K2, R1) <= 30000
CAPACITY_R( R2)] U( K1, R2) + U( K2, R2) <= 30000
CAPACITY_R( R3)] U( K1, R3) + U( K2, R3) <= 30000
144
LANFILL_FROM_SHREEDERS( K1)] A( K1, L1) + A( K1, L2) + A(
K1, L3) - .18 HULKS( P1, K1) - .18 HULKS( P2, K1) - .18
HULKS( P3, K1) = 0
LANFILL_FROM_SHREEDERS( K2)] A( K2, L1) + A( K2, L2) + A(
K2, L3) - .18 HULKS( P1, K2) - .18 HULKS( P2, K2) - .18
HULKS( P3, K2) = 0
LANFILL_FROM_PLANTS( P1)] M( P1, L1) + M( P1, L2) + M(
P1, L3) - .04 V( CC1, P1) - .04 V( CC2, P1) - .04 V( CC3,
P1) - .04 V( CC4, P1) - .04 V( CC5, P1) - .04 V( CC6, P1) -
.04 V( CC7, P1) - .04 V( CC8, P1) - .04 V( CC9, P1) - .04
V( CC10, P1) - .04 V( CC11, P1) - .04 V( CC12, P1) - .04 V(
CC13, P1) = 0
LANFILL_FROM_PLANTS( P2)] M( P2, L1) + M( P2, L2) + M(
P2, L3) - .04 V( CC1, P2) - .04 V( CC2, P2) - .04 V( CC3,
P2) - .04 V( CC4, P2) - .04 V( CC5, P2) - .04 V( CC6, P2) -
.04 V( CC7, P2) - .04 V( CC8, P2) - .04 V( CC9, P2) - .04
V( CC10, P2) - .04 V( CC11, P2) - .04 V( CC12, P2) - .04 V(
CC13, P2) = 0
LANFILL_FROM_PLANTS( P3)] M( P3, L1) + M( P3, L2) + M(
P3, L3) - .04 V( CC1, P3) - .04 V( CC2, P3) - .04 V( CC3,
P3) - .04 V( CC4, P3) - .04 V( CC5, P3) - .04 V( CC6, P3) -
.04 V( CC7, P3) - .04 V( CC8, P3) - .04 V( CC9, P3) - .04
V( CC10, P3) - .04 V( CC11, P3) - .04 V( CC12, P3) - .04 V(
CC13, P3) = 0
145
CAPACITY_L( L1)] A( K1, L1) + A( K2, L1) + M( P1, L1) +
M( P2, L1) + M( P3, L1) <= 100000
CAPACITY_L( L2)] A( K1, L2) + A( K2, L2) + M( P1, L2) +
M( P2, L2) + M( P3, L2) <= 100000
CAPACITY_L( L3)] A( K1, L3) + A( K2, L3) + M( P1, L3) +
M( P2, L3) + M( P3, L3) <= 100000
END
INTE OPEN_K( K1)
INTE OPEN_K( K2)
INTE OPEN_J( P1)
INTE OPEN_J( P2)
INTE OPEN_J( P3)
146
Model Statistics
Rows= 44 Vars= 80 No. integer vars= 5 ( all are linear)
Nonzeros= 428 Constraint nonz= 323(189 are +- 1) Density= 0
Smallest and largest elements in abs value= 0.400000E-01 0.100000E+08
No. < : 24 No. =: 13 No. > : 6, Obj.= MIN, GUBs <= 24
Single cols= 0
147