<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf8"?>
 <!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.0/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd"> <article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JMBR</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Journal of Model Based Research</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2643-2811</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Open Access Pub</publisher-name>
        <publisher-loc>United States</publisher-loc>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14302/issn.2643-2811.jmbr-20-3465</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JMBR-20-3465</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>research-article</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Determining the Efficiency of Fuzzy Logic EOQ Inventory Model with Varying Demand in Comparison with Lagrangian and Kuhn-Tucker Method Through Sensitivity Analysis</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>K.</surname>
            <given-names>Kalaiarasi</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842363628">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
            <given-names>Sumathi</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842366436">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>H.</surname>
            <given-names>Mary Henrietta</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842364780">3</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842366076">*</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>A.</surname>
            <given-names>Stanley Raj</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842365500">4</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="idm1842363628">
        <label>1</label>
        <addr-line>Department of Mathematics, Cauvery College for Women, Bharathidasan University, Trichy, Tamilnadu -620018, India. </addr-line>
      </aff>
      <aff id="idm1842366436">
        <label>2</label>
        <addr-line>Department of Mathematics, KhadirMohideen College, Bharathidasan University, Adhiramapattinam,            Tamilnadu- 614701, India.</addr-line>
      </aff>
      <aff id="idm1842364780">
        <label>3</label>
        <addr-line>Department of Mathematics, Saveetha Engineering College, Chennai, Tamilnadu -602105, India</addr-line>
      </aff>
      <aff id="idm1842365500">
        <label>4</label>
        <addr-line>Department of Physics, Loyola College, Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600034, India.</addr-line>
      </aff>
      <aff id="idm1842366076">
        <label>*</label>
        <addr-line>Corresponding author</addr-line>
      </aff>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="editor">
          <name>
            <surname>Babak</surname>
            <given-names>Mohammadi</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="idm1842211140">1</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="idm1842211140">
        <label>1</label>
        <addr-line>College of Hydrology and Water Resources, China.</addr-line>
      </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <corresp>
          H. Mary Henrietta, Department of Mathematics, Saveetha Engineering College, Chennai, India. Mobile: <phone>9994991376</phone>; Email: <email>henriettamaths@gmail.com</email>
        </corresp>
        <fn fn-type="conflict" id="idm1843075476">
          <p>The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.</p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub" iso-8601-date="2020-08-01">
        <day>01</day>
        <month>08</month>
        <year>2020</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>1</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>1</fpage>
      <lpage>12</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>28</day>
          <month>06</month>
          <year>2020</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>10</day>
          <month>07</month>
          <year>2020</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="online">
          <day>01</day>
          <month>08</month>
          <year>2020</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>© </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
        <copyright-holder>Kalaiarasi K,et al.</copyright-holder>
        <license xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple">
          <license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <self-uri xlink:href="http://openaccesspub.org//jmbr/article/1413">This article is available from http://openaccesspub.org//jmbr/article/1413</self-uri>
      <abstract>
        <p>This paper considers an EOQ inventory model with varying demand and holding costs. It suggests minimizing the total cost in a fuzzy related environment. The optimal policy for the nonlinear problem is determined by both Lagrangian and Kuhn-tucker methods and compared with varying price-dependent coefficient. All the input parameters related to inventory are fuzzified by using trapezoidal numbers. In the end, a numerical example discussed with sensitivity analysis is done to justify the solution procedure. This paper primarily focuses on the aspect of Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) for variable demand using Lagrangian,     Kuhn-Tucker and fuzzy logic analysis. Comparative analysis of there methods are evaluated in this paper and the results showed the efficiency of fuzzy logic over the conventional methods. Here in this research trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are incorporated to study the price dependent coefficients with variable demand and unit purchase cost over variable demand. The results are very close to the crisp output. Sensitivity analysis also done to validate the model.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Economic order quantity(EOQ)</kwd>
        <kwd>graded-mean</kwd>
        <kwd>Lagrangian method</kwd>
        <kwd>Kuhn-tucker method</kwd>
        <kwd>trapezoidal number.</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
      <counts>
        <fig-count count="4"/>
        <table-count count="2"/>
        <page-count count="12"/>
      </counts>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="idm1842207180" sec-type="intro">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>In today’s competitive scenario, organizations face immense challenges for meeting the transitional consumer's demand, and maintaining the inventory plays a major role. Indulging the betterment of various promotional activities that yield a reputation for the concern. The classical economic order quantity by   Harris <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842700428">1</xref> and Wilson <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842707124">2</xref> was developed for problems where demand remains constant. In recent study of inexplicit demand rates by Chen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842714268">3</xref> and few more resulting in the time-dependent demand rates and varying holding cost. In 1965, Zadeh <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842811740">4</xref> introduced the concept of fuzzy that carries vagueness or unclear in sense. Hence fuzzy sets came into prominence in describing the vagueness and uncertainty that impressed many researchers. In this paper, the total cost has been taken and the proposed model economic order quantity (EOQ) and the input parameters such as ordering cost, purchase cost, order size, holding cost, unit purchase cost, and unit selling price are fuzzified using trapezoidal numbers. The optimization is carried out by both Lagrangian and Kuhn-Tucker methods and graded mean integration for defuzzification of the total cost.</p>
      <p>In the early 1990’s the Economic order quantity (EOQ) and Economic Production Quantity (EPQ) played a vital role in the operations management area, contrastingly it failed in meeting with the real-world challenges. Since these models assumed that the items received or produced are of a perfect quality which is highly challenging. In inventory management, EOQ plays a vital role in minimizing holding and ordering costs. Ford W. Harris (1915) developed the EOQ model but it was further extended and extensively applied by R.H. Wilson. Wang<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842564836">5</xref> examined an EOQ model where a proportion of defective items were represented as fuzzy variables. In the year 2000, Salameh et al <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842562532">6</xref> came up with a classical EOQ that assumed a random proportion of defective items, and the recognized imperfect items are sold in a single batch at an economical rate.                Chen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842714268">3</xref> in the year 2003, came up with an EOQ with a random demand that minimized the total cost. Firms to cope up with the current scenarios, have to adapt the diversity among inventory models due to the advancement of management strategies and varying production levels. </p>
      <p>Briefly, the input parameters of inventory models are often taken as crisp values due to variability in nature.H.J. Zimmerman <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842561236">7</xref> studied the fuzziness in operational research. In a classical EOQ, Park <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842550596">8</xref> fuzzified the decision variables ordering cost and holding cost into trapezoidal fuzzy numbers that gave rise to study the fuzzy EOQ models, solving non-linear programming to obtain the optimal solution for economic order quantity. In 2002, Hsieh <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842556140">9</xref> initiated two production inventory models that applied the graded-mean representation method for the defuzzification process. In traditional inventory models when minimizing the annual costs, the demand rate was always assumed to be independent. Despite the promotional setups and the deterioration items, a wavering demand arises. In 2003, Sujit <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842552684">10</xref> came up with an inventory model that involves a fuzzy demand rate fuzzy deterioration rate. In 2013, Dutta and Pavan Kumar <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842531548">11</xref> proposed an inventory model without shortfall with fuzziness in demand, holding cost, and ordering cost. The study of inexplicit demand rates was doneby Chan <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842526940">12</xref> and few more resulting in the time-dependent demand rates and varying holding cost. A detailed study of Lagrangian method to solve the non-linear programming of the total cost was done by Kalaiarasi et al<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842523628">13</xref>. The Kuhn-Tucker optimization technique was for the NPP(non-linear programming) problem was carried out by Kalaiarasi et al<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842510060">14</xref>.</p>
      <p>Considering these inputs, the non-linear programming problem is solved for total cost function using Lagrangian and Kuhn-Tucker method and concluded with a sensitivity analysis, which exhibits the variations between the fuzzy and crisp values.</p>
      <p>Considering these inputs, non-linear programming is solved for total cost function using Lagrangian and Kuhn-Tucker method and done a sensitivity analysis between the slight variations between the fuzzy and crisp values.</p>
      <p>
        <italic>Preliminaries</italic>
      </p>
      <p>Definition 1:</p>
      <p>A fuzzy set Ã defined on R (∞,-∞), if the membership function of Ã  is defined by</p>
      <fig id="idm1841769076">
        <graphic xlink:href="images/image1.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
      </fig>
      <p>Definition 2:</p>
      <p>A trapezoidal fuzzy number Ã=(a, b, c, d) with a membership function μÃ is defined by</p>
      <fig id="idm1841774692">
        <graphic xlink:href="images/image2.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
      </fig>
      <sec id="idm1842167596">
        <title>The Fuzzy Arithmetical Operations</title>
        <p>Function principle <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842526940">12</xref> is proposed to be as the fuzzy arithmetical operations by trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Defining some fundamental fuzzy arithmetical operations under function principle as follows</p>
        <p>Suppose Ã=(x<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>)  and <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image3.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>= (y<sub>1</sub>, y<sub>2</sub>, y<sub>3</sub>, y<sub>4</sub>) be two trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Then</p>
        <p>The addition of     <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image4.png" mime-subtype="png"/>        is</p>
        <p>Ã ⊕ B̅ =(x<sub>1</sub>+y<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>+y<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>+y<sub>3</sub>, X<sub>4</sub>+y<sub>4</sub>)</p>
        <p>Where x<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>,y<sub>1</sub>, y<sub>2</sub>, y<sub>3</sub>, y<sub>4</sub>  are any real numbers.</p>
        <p>(2) The multiplication of    <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image4.png" mime-subtype="png"/>        is  </p>
        <p>Ã ⊕ <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image3.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>= (c<sub>1</sub>, c<sub>2</sub>, c<sub>3</sub>, c<sub>4</sub>)</p>
        <p>Where Z<sub>1</sub>={x<sub>1</sub>y<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>1</sub>y<sub>4</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>y<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>y<sub>4</sub>}, Z<sub>2</sub> =  ={x<sub>2</sub>y<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>y<sub>3</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>y<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>y<sub>4</sub>}, C<sub>1</sub> = min Z<sub>1</sub>, C<sub>2</sub> = min Z<sub>1</sub>, C<sub>1</sub> = max Z<sub>2</sub>,  C<sub>1</sub> = max Z<sub>2</sub>. </p>
        <p>If x<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>,y<sub>1</sub>, y<sub>2</sub>, y<sub>3</sub> and y<sub>4</sub> are all zero positive real numbers then</p>
        <p>Ã ⊗ <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image3.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>= (x<sub>1</sub>y<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>y<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>y<sub>3</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>y<sub>4</sub>).</p>
        <p>(3) The subtraction of  <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image4.png" mime-subtype="png"/>        is </p>
        <p>Where   also   x<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>,y<sub>1</sub>, y<sub>2</sub>, y<sub>3</sub> and y<sub>4 </sub>are any real numbers.</p>
        <p>(4) The division of       <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image4.png" mime-subtype="png"/>        is</p>
        <fig id="idm1841690876">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image5.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841691380">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image6.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>where y<sub>1</sub>, y<sub>2</sub>, y<sub>3</sub> and y<sub>4</sub> are positive real numbers. Also  x<sub>1</sub>, x<sub>2</sub>, x<sub>3</sub>, x<sub>4</sub>,y<sub>1</sub>, y<sub>2</sub>, y<sub>3</sub> and y<sub>4</sub>are nonzero positive numbers. </p>
        <p>(5) For any ∝ ∈ R  </p>
        <fig id="idm1841686412">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image7.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>  Extension of the Lagrangian Method.</p>
        <p>Solving a nonlinear programming problem by obtaining the optimum solution was discussed by                Taha<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842523628">13</xref> with equality constraints, also by solving those inequality constraints using Lagrangian method.</p>
        <p>Suppose if the problem is given as</p>
        <p>Minimize y = f(x)</p>
        <p>Sub to g<sub>i</sub>(x) ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, · · ·, m.</p>
        <p>The constraints are non-negative say x ≥ 0 if included in the m constraints. Then the procedure of the extension of the Lagrangian method will involve the following steps.</p>
        <p>Step 1:</p>
        <p>Solve the unconstrained problem</p>
        <p>Min y = f(x)</p>
        <p>If the resulting optimum satisfies all the constraints, then stop since all the constraints are inessential. Or else set K = 1 and move to step 2.</p>
        <p>Step 2:</p>
        <p>Activate any K constraints (i.e., convert them into equalities) and optimize f(x) subject to the K active constraints by the Lagrangian method. If the resulting solution is feasible with respect to the remaining constraints, the steps have to be repeated. If all sets of active constraints taken K at a time are considered without confront a feasible solution, go to step 3.</p>
        <p>Step 3:</p>
        <p>If K = m, stop; there’s no feasible solution.</p>
        <p>Otherwise set K = K + 1 and go to step 2.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842143020">
        <title>Graded Mean Integration Representation Method</title>
        <p>Graded mean Integration Representation Method was introduced by Hsieh et al <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842510060">14</xref> based on the integral value of graded mean h-level of generalized fuzzy number for the defuzzification of generalized fuzzy number. First, a generalized fuzzy number is defined as follows: Ã-=(α<sub>1</sub>, α<sub>2</sub>, α<sub>3</sub>, α<sub>4</sub>,)<sub>LR</sub>. By graded mean integration are the inverses of L and R are L<sup>-1</sup>   and  R<sup>-1</sup> respectively. The graded mean h-level value of the generalized fuzzy number Ã-=(α<sub>1</sub>, α<sub>2</sub>, α<sub>3</sub>, α<sub>4</sub>,)<sub>LR</sub>  is given by h/2[L<sup>-1</sup>(h)+R<sup>-1</sup>(h)]. Then the graded mean integration representation of P(Ã)  with grade then</p>
        <fig id="idm1841668868">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image8.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841666492">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image9.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>In this paper trapezoidal fuzzy numbers is used as fuzzy parameters for the production inventory model.                    Let   <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image10.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>     Then the graded mean integration representation is given by the formula as</p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image11.png" mime-subtype="png"/> </p>
        <p> </p>
        <p>
          <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image12.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
          <bold>  </bold>
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842134900">
        <title> Inventory Model For Eoq</title>
        <p>The input parameters for the corresponding model are</p>
        <p>K - Ordering cost</p>
        <p>a - constant demand rate coefficient</p>
        <p>b - price-dependent demand rate coefficient</p>
        <p>P - selling price</p>
        <p>Q - Order size</p>
        <p>c - unit purchasing cost</p>
        <p>g - constant holding cost coefficient</p>
        <p>Let’s consider the total cost <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842506028">15</xref> and modify in a fuzzy environment </p>
        <p>The total cost per cycle is given by</p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image13.png" mime-subtype="png"/> </p>
        <p>Partially differentiating w.r.t Q,</p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image14.png" mime-subtype="png"/> </p>
        <p> </p>
        <p>Equating     <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image15.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>       the economic order quantity in crisp values obtained as</p>
        <fig id="idm1841676428">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image16.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842128924">
        <title>Inventory Model For Fuzzy Order Quantity</title>
        <p>By using trapezoidal numbers, fuzzified input parameters are as follows</p>
        <fig id="idm1841673116">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image17.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>The optimal order quantity </p>
        <fig id="idm1841674268">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image18.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>Partially differentiating w.r.t ‘Q’ and equating to zero,</p>
        <fig id="idm1841670452">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image19.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>Hence the optimal economic order quantity for crisp values is derived, </p>
        <fig id="idm1841670740">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image20.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>Applying the graded mean representation </p>
        <fig id="idm1841642572">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image21.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>Now partially differentiating w.r.t Q<sub>1</sub>, Q<sub>2</sub>, Q<sub>3</sub>, Q<sub>4</sub> and equating to zero,</p>
        <fig id="idm1841638900">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image22.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841640844">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image23.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841640916">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image24.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841638540">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image25.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>The above derived results depict that Q<sub>1</sub> &gt; Q<sub>2 </sub>&gt; Q<sub>3</sub> &gt; Q<sub>4</sub>  failing to satisfy the constraints 0 ≤ Q<sub>1</sub> ≤ Q<sub>2 </sub>≤ Q<sub>3</sub> ≤ Q<sub>4</sub> . So, converting the inequality constraint Q<sub>2 </sub>- Q<sub>1</sub> ≥  0  into equality constraint Q<sub>2 </sub>- Q<sub>1</sub> =  0 Optimizing P(TC(Q,P)  subject to Q<sub>2 </sub>- Q<sub>1</sub> =  0  by Lagrangian method.</p>
        <fig id="idm1841632420">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image26.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841633788">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image27.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p> <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image28.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/></p>
        <p> <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image29.png" mime-subtype="png"/></p>
        <fig id="idm1841646604">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image30.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841645596">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image31.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841645164">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image32.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>From equations (1) and (2) the results are,</p>
        <fig id="idm1841643292">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image33.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p> </p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image24.png" mime-subtype="png"/> </p>
        <p> </p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image34.png" mime-subtype="png"/> </p>
        <p>Since Q<sub>3</sub> &gt; Q<sub>4</sub> which does not satisfy the constraint 0 ≤ Q<sub>1</sub> ≤ Q<sub>2 </sub>≤ Q<sub>3</sub> ≤ Q<sub>4</sub>. Now converting the inequality constraints Q<sub>2</sub> - Q<sub>1</sub> ≥ 0, Q<sub>3</sub> - Q<sub>2</sub> ≥ 0  into equality constraints Q<sub>2</sub> - Q<sub>1</sub> = 0 and Q<sub>3</sub> - Q<sub>2</sub> = 0. Optimizing, </p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image35.png" mime-subtype="png"/> </p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image36.png" mime-subtype="png"/>  </p>
        <fig id="idm1841611540">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image37.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841610892">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image38.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>From equations (1’) , (2’) and (3’), </p>
        <fig id="idm1841611468">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image39.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841607292">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image34.png" mime-subtype="png"/>
        </fig>
        <p>In the above-mentioned results Since Q<sub>1</sub> &gt; Q<sub>4</sub>  which does not satisfy the constraint 0 ≤ Q<sub>1</sub> ≤ Q<sub>2 </sub>≤ Q<sub>3</sub> ≤ Q<sub>4</sub>. Converting the inequality constraints Q<sub>2</sub> - Q<sub>1</sub> ≥ 0, Q<sub>3</sub> - Q<sub>2</sub> ≥ 0 and Q<sub>4</sub> - Q<sub>3</sub> ≥ 0 into equality constraints   Q<sub>2</sub> - Q<sub>1</sub> = 0, Q<sub>3</sub> - Q<sub>2</sub> = 0 and Q<sub>4</sub> - Q<sub>3</sub> = 0 . Optimizing,</p>
        <p>  <inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image40.png" mime-subtype="png"/></p>
        <p>After Partially differentiation (Appendix)</p>
        <fig id="idm1841602324">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image41.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <fig id="idm1841600596">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image42.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>satisfies the required inequality constraints.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842089852">
        <title>Kuhn-Tucker Optimization Method</title>
        <p>By applying Kuhn Tucker conditions, the total cost is minimized by finding the solution of Q<sub>1</sub>, Q<sub>2</sub>, Q<sub>3</sub>, Q<sub>4</sub>   with Q<sub>1</sub>, Q<sub>2</sub>, Q<sub>3</sub>, Q<sub>4</sub></p>
        <fig id="idm1841596780">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image43.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>The above conditions simplify to the following 𝞴<sub>1</sub>, 𝞴<sub>2</sub>, 𝞴<sub>3</sub>, 𝞴<sub>4</sub>.</p>
        <fig id="idm1841594692">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image44.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>It is known that,  Q1 &gt; 0 then in  </p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image45.png" mime-subtype="png"/>  </p>
        <p>𝞴<sub>1</sub>Q<sub>1 </sub>= 0 arrive at 𝞴<sub>4 </sub>= 0 In a similar fashion, if 𝞴<sub>1</sub>= 𝞴<sub>2</sub> = 𝞴<sub>3 </sub>= 0, Q<sub>4</sub> ≤ Q<sub>3</sub> ≤ Q<sub>2</sub> ≤ Q<sub>1</sub>   does not satisfy  0 ≤ Q<sub>1</sub> ≤ Q<sub>2</sub> ≤ Q<sub>3</sub> ≤ Q<sub>4.</sub>   Therefore the conclusion is Q<sub>2</sub> = Q<sub>1</sub>, Q<sub>3 </sub>= Q<sub>2</sub> and Q<sub>4</sub> = Q<sub>3</sub></p>
        <p>i.e., Q<sub>1</sub> = Q<sub>2</sub> = Q<sub>3</sub> = Q<sub>4 </sub>= Q<sup>*</sup></p>
        <p><inline-graphic xlink:href="images/image46.png" mime-subtype="png"/> <bold> </bold></p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="idm1842078908">
        <title>Numerical Examples</title>
        <p>Let us consider an integrated inventory system having the following statistics with crisp parameters having following values <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842506028">15</xref>, the ordering cost K=520 units, the optimal selling price P=36.52 units, unit purchasing cost c=4.75, g=0.2, constant demand rate coefficient a=100 units, price-dependent demand rate coefficient b=1.5.</p>
        <p>As mentioned earlier, the trapezoidal numbers</p>
        <fig id="idm1841560116">
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image47.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>yielding the below results. Equation 1 was the optimal order quantity for crisp (equation 1) values and optimization to the EOQ is done by applying Lagrangian (equation 2) and Kuhn-Tucker (equation 3) methods under graded-mean defuzzification method. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841555868">Figure 1</xref> represents the crisp and fuzzified output varying on demand. </p>
        <fig id="idm1841555868">
          <label>Figure 1.</label>
          <caption>
            <title> Variable demand for crisp and fuzzy comparison for EOQ</title>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="images/image48.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
        </fig>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="idm1842074804" sec-type="conclusions">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>             The fuzzified output varies at a larger rate than crisp output while varying the demand. This shows that the optimization results can be obtained only by restricting the controlling parameters. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841554860">Figure 2</xref> shows the variations in unit purchase cost for crisp and fuzzy output. An analysis of the total cost in a fuzzy environment is studied herewith by applying the Lagrangian and Kuhn-Tucker methods for optimization and using trapezoidal numbers. The value does not show much variation in optimal solutions. While varying the price-dependent demand rate coefficient among both the methods, fuzzified values decrease in Lagrangian and increases in the Kuhn-Tucker method. In  <xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841551260">Figure 3</xref>, the curves of crisp and fuzzy EOQ remain closer. <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841538228">Table 2</xref> shows the comparison of graded mean values between the two optimization methods in operations research <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ridm1842523628">13</xref> Lagrangian and Kuhn-Tucker methods. The values are varied to an increase and decrease of 25% and 40% which clearly shows that the crisp values of  EOQ stay perfectly aligned between both the methods. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="idm1841553204">Figure 4</xref> collates the three parameters viz., price dependent coefficient, purchase cost, and varying demand which shows the variations in 3D model. <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841548740">Table 1</xref> &amp; <xref ref-type="table" rid="idm1841538228">Table 2</xref>.</p>
      <fig id="idm1841554860">
        <label>Figure 2.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Variable demand for unit purchase cost for EOQ</title>
        </caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="images/image49.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
      </fig>
      <fig id="idm1841551260">
        <label>Figure 3.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Variable demand for price dependent coefficient for EOQ</title>
        </caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="images/image50.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
      </fig>
      <fig id="idm1841553204">
        <label>Figure 4.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Three-dimensional variation of price dependent coefficient, demand and purchase cost.</title>
        </caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="images/image51.jpg" mime-subtype="jpg"/>
      </fig>
      <table-wrap id="idm1841548740">
        <label>Table 1.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Comparison of Lagrangian and Kuhn Tucker method for the variation done in price dependent coefficient</title>
        </caption>
        <table rules="all" frame="box">
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td>Price-dependentco-efficient</td>
              <td>Lagrangian method</td>
              <td>Kuhn-Tucker method</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>b=1</td>
              <td>EOQ   =  263.6169</td>
              <td>EOQ     =  263.6169</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>Fuzzy  =  260.2202</td>
              <td>Fuzzy    =  321.2251</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> b=1.5</td>
              <td>EOQ    =  222.4949</td>
              <td>EOQ      = 222.4949</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>Fuzzy  =  207.7356</td>
              <td>Fuzzy    =  258.333</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> b=2</td>
              <td>EOQ   =  171.7967</td>
              <td>EOQ      = 171.7967</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>Fuzzy  =  147.1273</td>
              <td>Fuzzy    = 194.5951</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </table-wrap>
      <table-wrap id="idm1841538228">
        <label>Table 2.</label>
        <caption>
          <title> Sensitivity analysis for Lagrangian and Kuhn Tucker method</title>
        </caption>
        <table rules="all" frame="box">
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td>Parameters</td>
              <td>% change parameters</td>
              <td>Graded-mean values</td>
              <td> CrispEOQ</td>
              <td>LagrangianMethod</td>
              <td>Kuhn-Tucker Method</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> K(520)</td>
              <td>+40%</td>
              <td>728(708,718,738,748)</td>
              <td>263.2595</td>
              <td>246.140</td>
              <td>305.902</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>+25%</td>
              <td>650(630,640,660,670)</td>
              <td>248.7569</td>
              <td>232.451</td>
              <td>288.931</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-25%</td>
              <td>390(370,380,400,410)</td>
              <td>192.6863</td>
              <td>179.430</td>
              <td>223.231</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-40%</td>
              <td>312(292,302,322,332)</td>
              <td>172.3438</td>
              <td>160.136</td>
              <td>199.342</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> P(36.52)</td>
              <td>+40%</td>
              <td>51.128(31.128,41.128,61.128,71.128)</td>
              <td>159.7376</td>
              <td>106.502</td>
              <td>128.4246</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>+25%</td>
              <td>45.65(25.65,35.65,55.65,65.65)</td>
              <td>185.7729</td>
              <td>147.128</td>
              <td>178.9012</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-25%</td>
              <td>27.39(7.39,17.39,37.39,47.39)</td>
              <td>253.9615</td>
              <td>236.628</td>
              <td>289.3353</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-40%</td>
              <td>21.912(1.912,11.912,31.912,41.912)</td>
              <td>271.093</td>
              <td>257.475</td>
              <td>315.0044</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> a(100)</td>
              <td>+40%</td>
              <td>140(120,130,150,160)</td>
              <td>305.4398</td>
              <td>301.807</td>
              <td>374.9838</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>+25%</td>
              <td>125(105,115,135,145)</td>
              <td>277.2588</td>
              <td>271.688</td>
              <td>338.6781</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-25%</td>
              <td>75(55,65,85,95)</td>
              <td>148.7803</td>
              <td>127.422</td>
              <td>168.3332</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-40%</td>
              <td>60(40,50,70,80)</td>
              <td>75.5944</td>
              <td>52.1485</td>
              <td>49.2549</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> b(1.5)</td>
              <td>+40%</td>
              <td>2.1(1.6,1.8,2.2,3)</td>
              <td>159.7376</td>
              <td>134.7605</td>
              <td>187.338</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>+25%</td>
              <td>1.9(1.6,1.8,2,2.2)</td>
              <td>185.7729</td>
              <td>180.8325</td>
              <td>227.4581</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-25%</td>
              <td>1.1(0.5,0.8,1.4,1.7)</td>
              <td>253.9615</td>
              <td>250.2417</td>
              <td>310.0121</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-40%</td>
              <td>0.9(0.6,0.8,1,1.2)</td>
              <td>271.0938</td>
              <td>271.8465</td>
              <td>334.0561</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> c(4.75)</td>
              <td>+40%</td>
              <td>6.7(6.4,6.5,6.9,7)</td>
              <td>188.0425</td>
              <td>169.2837</td>
              <td>210.5158</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>+25%</td>
              <td>5.9(5.5,5.7,6,6.5)</td>
              <td>199.0055</td>
              <td>179.1926</td>
              <td>222.8382</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-25%</td>
              <td>3.6(3,3.2,3.8,4.6)</td>
              <td>256.9150</td>
              <td>223.8899</td>
              <td>278.4223</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-40%</td>
              <td>2.8(2.2,2.7,3,3.2)</td>
              <td>287.2397</td>
              <td>258.3873</td>
              <td>321.3222</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td> g(0.2)</td>
              <td>+40%</td>
              <td>0.28(0.18,0.2,0.3,0.5)</td>
              <td>188.0425</td>
              <td>170.5264</td>
              <td>212.0612</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>+25%</td>
              <td>0.25(0.14,0.15,0.26,0.54)</td>
              <td>199.0055</td>
              <td>176.1179</td>
              <td>219.0145</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-25%</td>
              <td>0.15(0.1,0.14,0.16,0.2)</td>
              <td>256.9150</td>
              <td>241.4086</td>
              <td>300.208</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td/>
              <td>-40%</td>
              <td>0.12(0.1,0.11,0.13,0.14)</td>
              <td>287.2397</td>
              <td>271.2692</td>
              <td>337.3417</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </table-wrap>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ridm1842700428">
        <label>1.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Harris</surname>
            <given-names>F</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Operations and cost:AW Shaw Co.Chicago</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1915</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842707124">
        <label>2.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Wilson</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>A scientific routine for stock control:</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1934</year>
          </date>
          <source>Harvard Business Review</source>
          <volume>13</volume>
          <fpage>116</fpage>
          <lpage>128</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842714268">
        <label>3.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>C</surname>
            <given-names>Y</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>A probabilistic approach for traditional EOQ model: Journal of information optimization sciences v 24</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2003</year>
          </date>
          <fpage>249</fpage>
          <lpage>253</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842811740">
        <label>4.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>L</surname>
            <given-names>A Zadeh</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Fuzzy sets: Information Control v 8</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1965</year>
          </date>
          <fpage>338</fpage>
          <lpage>353</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842564836">
        <label>5.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
            <given-names>X</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Tang</surname>
            <given-names>W</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Zaho</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Random fuzzy EOQ model with imperfect quality items. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision-Making v 6</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2007</year>
          </date>
          <fpage>139</fpage>
          <lpage>153</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842562532">
        <label>6.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>M</surname>
            <given-names>K Salameh</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>M</surname>
            <given-names>Y Jaber</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Economic production quantity model for items with imperfect quality:</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2000</year>
          </date>
          <source>International Journal of Production Economics</source>
          <volume>64</volume>
          <fpage>59</fpage>
          <lpage>64</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842561236">
        <label>7.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Hans</surname>
            <given-names>J Zimmermann</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Fuzzy set theory and its applications: 3rdEd.Dordrecht Kluwer, Academic Publishers v 19</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1996</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842550596">
        <label>8.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>K</surname>
            <given-names>S Park</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Fuzzy Set Theoretical Interpretation of economic order quantity</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1987</year>
          </date>
          <source>IEEE Trans. Systems Man. CybernetSMCv</source>
          <volume>17</volume>
          <fpage>1082</fpage>
          <lpage>10</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842556140">
        <label>9.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>C</surname>
            <given-names>H Hsieh</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Optimization of fuzzy production inventory models: Information Sciences. v 146</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2002</year>
          </date>
          <fpage>29</fpage>
          <lpage>40</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842552684">
        <label>10.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Sujit</surname>
            <given-names>De Kumar</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>P</surname>
            <given-names>K Kundu</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Goswami</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>An Economic production quantity inventory model involving fuzzy demand rate and fuzzy deterioration rate:</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2003</year>
          </date>
          <source>Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing.12(1-2):</source>
          <fpage>251</fpage>
          <lpage>260</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842531548">
        <label>11.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Dutta</surname>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Kumar</surname>
            <given-names>Pavan</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Optimal policy for an inventory model without shortages considering fuzziness in demand, holding cost and ordering cost</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2013</year>
          </date>
          <source>International Journal of Advanced Innovation and Research</source>
          <volume>2</volume>
          <issue>3</issue>
          <fpage>320</fpage>
          <lpage>325</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842526940">
        <label>12.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>Chan</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <article-title>Wang.(1996) Backorder fuzzy inventory model under function principle: Information Science,95,pgs1-2,71-79</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842523628">
        <label>13.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>M</surname>
            <given-names>K Sumathi</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Mary HenriettaH.(2019) Optimization of fuzzy inventory model for EOQ using Lagrangian method:</article-title>
          <source>Malaya Journal of Matematik.v</source>
          <fpage>7</fpage>
          <lpage>3</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842510060">
        <label>14.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>M</surname>
            <given-names>K Sumathi</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>Mary</surname>
            <given-names>Henrietta H</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Optimization of fuzzy inventory EOQ model using Kuhn-Tucker method:Journal of Advanced Research and Dynamical control systems. v 11,09 Special issue</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>2019</year>
          </date>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842506028">
        <label>15.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>H</surname>
            <given-names>A Taha</given-names>
          </name>
          <date>
            <year>1997</year>
          </date>
          <source>Operations Research:Prentice Hall,New Jersey,USA</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842504444">
        <label>16.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>S</surname>
            <given-names>H Chen</given-names>
          </name>
          <name>
            <surname>C</surname>
            <given-names>H Hsieh</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Graded Mean Integration Representation of Generalized fuzzy numbers:</article-title>
          <date>
            <year>1999</year>
          </date>
          <source>Journal of the Chinese Fuzzy Systems Association</source>
          <volume>5</volume>
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          <lpage>7</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ridm1842502932">
        <label>17.</label>
        <mixed-citation xlink:type="simple" publication-type="journal">
          <name>
            <surname>TotanGarai</surname>
            <given-names>Dipankar</given-names>
          </name>
          <article-title>Chakraborty, Tapan Kumar Roy.(2019) Fully fuzzy inventory model with price-dependent demand and time varying holding cost under fuzzy decision variables:</article-title>
          <source>Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems v</source>
          <volume>36</volume>
          <fpage>3725</fpage>
          <lpage>3738</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>
