. ,Ui. “ . v
V l. in ..V. 0: .
Ewan“ Jag. .
.5... .r.
.J hzui V

.. .9." . .4. ..
(v.51? .5

. .‘ .nu. Ea:

f. .
Vls .. ael
. rNivvnioV‘

“.1541

.ishahuuvwfifl x. .
til-flu: .5 by C. I
5315, : 3 I... V
3153 . . .
_( ... ,
V 1: (ill ,
y at,
13“}

it.‘
... .%
. .rfinumu. Watt...‘
. u. 4,“va 3.2L... 0». I};
. «Hui A.» t... .. 333i. .
. V . n. grids»: . . s .. l1
ruwha‘t’\r:zfl4
ll .31.. .‘
firing ‘

IKE...” a - .
Elgwgldusa ;.
afltv!
.51 9.

 

.
‘0.
El.
III.

iv‘nfi‘i;

1.31:..1:

. 3 .
... V|?. C. 5 .
.vll. . 1. ._ I

:lQaLIwQ.“ .v. at,» . i: ‘

Evil!) is :l K.

.vfiiivr4‘

x. .0 xi .

w“ o.

. ‘ .

O.“
V ultr‘l...
I
.. 1-I.
.
x
I?! t!

.v

gin... ,..

.. .1 ,1! .0

(to e:
V :15...

 

 

 

. .u‘l‘l(”‘ll..
. ».a\v..§ “as!
. . '11.}!!3
[(131,] I...
V 3:7...) .1
I ll? «0 la .
13.!!! 111““
ICWJ.’ :l J!
5'. tifl:.\~1 I

 

 

.Vx! :u :iaylfiliixa 5
.. .. 5:5...) (unit-a
.Ltl.r5.§i.t}- 41:623.,
804324.". ,3. 3|}
1...,

1.. Air:

 

flv« V.
v3.11.
bx‘lpe.

!..l

(flirl.l£lo
{it ix! 331

, -199)“; If) ,

It" .

,_ .mnw.wmamn,_onwsa....vfi% :vfi....§§fié§..t: . .. V.
. ,. .I 1. V . V . .v, ‘ .. , .. .. , ., V

‘I'

 

 

 

 

   

 

                                                                                     

mlllllllllllllll

31293 02060 4082

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Analysis of Factors Affecting-the Cost of
Returnable Logistical Packaging Systems

presented by

Sangjin Lee

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

JIM);— degree in mm.

dulmlz/

Major professor

 

Date ‘2 "7 -qq

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11m chlRClDateDutfis-p. 14

AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE COST OF RETURNABLE
LOGISTICAL PACKAGING SYSTEMS

By

Sangjin Lee

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Packaging

1999

AN AN?

 

Th :
six varat)

exrstlrg lr

vanabies a
030k quarf
Significant
da‘IY VOIUF.
I5 l0W ieiat
VlSUeIIZE 3.
also finds T

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE COST OF RETURNABLE
LOGISTICAL PACKAGING SYSTEMS

By

Sangjin Lee

This paper develops a cost model and simulation to explore the effect of
six variables on the cost of returnable packaging systems and the trade-off
existing in the use of collapsible/nestable returnable containers. The six
variables are 1) cycle time, 2) average daily volume, 3) peak volume factor, 4)
pack quantity, 5) delivery distance, and 6) container unit cost. It finds that the
significant cost drivers are the container unit cost, delivery distance, average
daily volume, and pack quantity. The effect of cycle time and peak volume factor
is low relative to the others. A production and logistics profile is developed to
visualize and improve the cost justification of returnable container systems. It
also finds that the return ratio of one-to—fifteen (1 :15) balances the trade-off

between the increase in packaging cost and the decrease in transportation cost.

Ided:

 

 

I dedicate this paper to my parents who always have been there for me.

II.

In
conlnbute
snayeth
encourage
lhESSld€£
mebodck
Livonia Er

medordu

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to those who have
contributed to the development of this research. I would like to wish a most
sincere thanks to my major professor, Dr. Twede for the great support and
encouragement. I also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Closs for the
thesis idea and guidance, and Dr. Burgess for the directions through
methodology. I also like to record the acknowledgements to GM Powertrain,
Livonia Engine Plant for the great internship opportunity, and to Pete Warner, my

mentor during the internship, for your considerations.

ACKNOWI
TABLE 0
LIST OF T
LIST OF F

   
  

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2 .......................................................................................................... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 4
Returnable Containers .......................................................................................... 4
Benefits of Returnable Containers ........................................................................ 6
Returnable Container Systems ............................................................................. 7
Packaging Cost ................................................................................................. 9
Cycle Time ...................................................................................................... 10
Average Daily Volume ..................................................................................... 14
Peak Daily Volume .......................................................................................... 15
Pack Quantity .................................................................................................. 16
Transportation cost: Motor carrier ....................................................................... 17
Other Important Costs ......................................................................................... 19
Collapsibility/Nestability ...................................................................................... 21
Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................ 23
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 23
Expendable Container System Cost (ECSC) ...................................................... 23
Expendable Container Cost (ECC) .................................................................. 24
Transportation Cost for Expendable Container Systems (TCE) ...................... 25
Labor Cost for Expendable Container Systems (LCE) .................................... 26
Disposal Cost for Expendable Container Systems (DCE) ............................... 27
Returnable Container System Cost (RCSC) ....................................................... 28
Returnable Container Cost (RCC) ................................................................... 29
Transportation Cost for Returnable Container System (TCR) ......................... 31
Labor Cost (LCR) ............................................................................................ 32
Return Ratio (Rr) ................................................................................................. 33
Cost Simulation ................................................................................................... 36
Model Description ............................................................................................ 41
Data Evaluation ............................................................................................... 44
Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................ 46
RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 46
Single Variable Analysis ..................................................................................... 46
Cycle Time (CT) .............................................................................................. 46
Average Daily Volume (ADV) .......................................................................... 54
Peak Volume Factor (PVF) ............................................................................. 62
Pack Quantity (PO) ......................................................................................... 70
Delivery Distance (DD) .................................................................................... 77
Container Unit Cost (CUC) .............................................................................. 85

Return R
Multi-Var

Data E

Manufz
Chapter I
DISCUSE
Significar
Optimal F
Productic
Managen
Future Re
APPEND
A Guide I
APPEND:
Comparin
APPENDI
Multiple V
APPENDI
Multiple V
APPENDI
Multiple V.
BlblIOg'ap

 

 

Return Ratio (R,) ................................................................................................. 89

Multi-Variable Analysis ........................................................................................ 91
Data Evaluation ............................................................................................... 91
Manufacturing and Logistics System Profile .................................................... 95

Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................ 99

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 99

Significant Cost Drivers and Their Effects ........................................................... 99

Optimal Return Ratio ........................................................................................ 101

Production and Logistics Structure ................................................................... 102

Management Implications ................................................................................. 105

Future Research Recommendations ................................................................ 107

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................... 11 1

A Guide to Returnable Containers and Racks (Pashall 1986) .......................... 111

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................... 113

Comparing Container Performance and Cost (Truck 1993) .............................. 113

APPENDIX C .................................................................................................... 114

Multiple Variable Simulation Data For Low Cost Container .............................. 114

APPENDIX D .................................................................................................... 123

Multiple Variable Simulation Data for Mid Cost Container ................................ 123

APPENDIX E .................................................................................................... 132

Multiple Variable Simulation Data for High Cost Container ............................... 132

Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 142

vi

Table 1 UI
Ship;
1991

Table 2 C:l

Table 3 Cil'

Table 4 Arl

Table 5 A'

Table 6 Val

Table 7 LaI

Table 8 8'.

Table 9 Ir*

Table 10 I

Table 11 i

Table 12 I

Table 13 I

Table 14 I

Table 15 I

Table 16 1

Table 17 I

Table 18 l

Table 19 I

Table 20 I

Table 21 I

Table 22 I

Table 23 l

Table 24 l

Table 25 ~

Table 25%

Table 23:.

Table 25.C

Table 27 ;.

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Lifetime Cost Comparison of One-Way and Reusable 2-cubic Foot
Shipping Containers, by Material (“How to Select Shipping Containers"

1991) ............................................................................................................. 7
Table 2 Container Cycle Time (Cozart 1997) ...................................................... 11
Table 3 Calculation of Cycle Time Using General Process Chart ....................... 13
Table 4 An Example of Variables and Ranges ................................................... 37
Table 5 An Example of Cost Simulation Using Variables and Ranges in Table 4

..................................................................................................................... 38
Table 6 Variables and associated ranges ........................................................... 39
Table 7 Labor time involved in the two container systems .................................. 42
Table 8 Standardized Variables and associated ranges ..................................... 45
Table 9 Impact of Cycle Time for Low Cost Container Set ................................. 49
Table 10 Impact of Cycle Time for Mid Cost Container Set ................................ 51
Table 11 Impact of Cycle Time for High Cost Container Set ............................... 53
Table 12 Impact of Average Daily Usage for Low Cost Container Set ................ 57
Table 13 Impact of Average Daily Usage for Mid Cost Container Set ................. 59
Table 14 Impact of Average Daily Usage for High Cost Container Set ............... 61
Table 15 Impact of Peak Volume Factor for Low Cost Container Set ................. 65
Table 16 Impact of Peak Volume Factor for Mid Cost Container Set .................. 67
Table 17 Impact of Peak Volume Factor for High Cost Container Set ................ 69
Table 18 Impact of Pack Quantity for Low Cost Container Set ........................... 72
Table 19 Impact of Pack Quantity for Mid Cost Container Set ............................ 74
Table 20 Impact of Pack Quantity for High Cost Container Set .......................... 76
Table 21 Impact of Delivery Distance for Low Cost Container Set ..................... 80
Table 22 Impact of Delivery Distance for Mid Cost Container Set ...................... 82
Table 23 Impact of Delivery Distance for High Cost Container Set ..................... 84
Table 24 Impact of Container Unit Cost .............................................................. 88
Table 25 Trade-offs between container cost vs. transportation cost ................... 90
Table 26-a Regression Statistics ........................................................................ 93
Table 26-b Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ......................................................... 93
Table 26-c Regression Results with Additional Diagnostic Statistics .................. 93
Table 27 Production and logistics profile for returnable container systems ........ 98

vii

Figure 1 Al

eleme
Figure 2 T'
Figure 3 8
Figure 4 "l
Figure 5 Ir
Figure 6 In
Figure 7 In
Figure 8 Ir
Figure 9 ii
Figure 10 I
Figure 11 :
Figure 12 5
Figure 13 :
Figure 14
l:lgure 15 ‘
Flgure 16
Figure 17
Fltlure 18
Figure 19

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 An example of a random demand pattern with both trend and seasonal

elements (Ballou 1998) ................................................................................ 16
Figure 2 Transportation cost associated with return ratio ................................... 34
Figure 3 Simulated Distribution Configurations ................................................... 41
Figure 4 Impact of Cycle Time for Low Cost Container Set ................................ 48
Figure 5 Impact of Cycle Time for Mid Cost Container Set ................................. 50
Figure 6 Impact of Cycle Time for High Cost Container Set ............................... 52
Figure 7 Impact of Average Daily Volume for Low Cost Container Set ............... 56
Figure 8 Impact of Average Daily Volume for Mid Cost Container Set ................ 58
Figure 9 Impact of Average Daily Volume for High Cost Container Set .............. 60
Figure 10 Impact of Peak Volume Factor for Low Cost Container Set ................ 64
Figure 11 Impact of Peak Volume Factor for Mid Cost Container Set ................. 66
Figure 12 Impact of Peak Volume Factor for High Cost Container Set ............... 68
Figure 13 Impact of Pack Quantity for Low Cost Container Set .......................... 71
Figure 14 Impact of Pack Quantity for Mid Cost Container Set ........................... 73
Figure 15 Impact of Pack Quantity for High Cost Container Set ......................... 75
Figure 16 Impact of Delivery Distance for Low Cost Container Set .................... 79
Figure 17 Impact of Delivery Distance for Mid Cost Container Set ..................... 81
Figure 18 Impact of Delivery Distance for High Cost Container Set .................... 83
Figure 19 Impact of Container Unit Cost ............................................................. 87

viii

As

 

container
the econ:
1998. Kit
cost of the
manufact,
manufact.
areturnat
Thr-
relation to
SITUCIUreS
determinir
Thi

the rem”.U
dOCUmen:
manufacf‘
l W»
2- W.»

3' Wt»

 

tet.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

As more and more companies find economic benefits of returnable
container systems over expendable packaging, several studies have addressed
the economic justification of returnable packaging systems (Block 1999, Turvey
1998, Kibler 1997, Cozart 1997, and Findlay 1997). These studies compare the
cost of the two types of packaging systems for a particular product with a specific
manufacturing and logistics system. The studies have been the basis for
manufacturers to make the decision to either stay with expendables or change to
a returnable packaging system.

These studies, however, do not generalize the container systems’ costs in
relation to the other products and their various manufacturing and logistics
structures. The need exists for research to develop generalized rules for
determining when returnable container systems are cost effective.

This paper evaluates returnable container systems, container costs, and
the resulting total logistics costs. The research objective is to quantitatively
document how activities of reverse logistics affect levels of costs in various
manufacturing and logistics systems, focusing on the following questions:

1. What are the significant cost drivers in reusable packaging systems?
2. What is the effect of each cost driver on total packaging system cost?
3. What is the optimal return ratio in the use of nestabIe/collapsible

returnable containers?

aCthit‘y
(WierSI
develo;
perforrr
slmuiati
that eco
will help
design a
achieve ;
It i
System 3
8Islam. '
Specificag
COmDOner
manufacn
If the deSlg

hat/e a n6

 

keeping tr.

4. What are the appropriate production and logistics structures for the
returnable container systems?

Activity-based costing systems are applied as a tool to identify each
activity and its cost drivers involved in a distribution packaging system
(Wiersema 1995). Two cost functions, one for each packaging system, are
developed for the purpose of cost comparison. Next, a cost simulation is
performed under varying conditions of production and logistics. The cost
simulation can specify a relevant range of production and logistics settings, so
that economics of returnable container system can be evaluated. This research
will help to identify systems that favor returnable packaging. It can be used to
design a reverse material flow system by specifying the cost drivers in order to
achieve an efficient system for returnable containers.

It is important to analyze the role of each component as a part of the total
system and consider its influence on the performance of the entire manufacturing
system. The designer of a material flow system is faced not only with the
specification of individual system components but also the association between
components and the interaction of the material flow system with the
manufacturing system itself. Individual system design may be optimal in itself, but
if the design cannot be integrated into the overall supply chain system, it may
have a negative impact on the manufacturing system performance. The design
of material flow systems is required to achieve a comprehensive set of goals by

keeping track of a large amount of information. This set of goals indicates the

number of dr
analysis of a

The 5
regarding the
systems. Th
methodology

implications.

number of dependent decisions that have to be incorporated in the design or
analysis of any supply network.

The second chapter of this thesis reviews the supporting literature
regarding the economics and environmental benefits of returnable container
systems. The third chapter describes the cost models and the cost simulation
methodology. Chapter 4 reports the results and Chapter 5 discusses the

implications.

 

This re\
discusses the
the use of reti
discusses six
ll Cycle time

5) delivery d;

RETURNAB

Revel
B0th the ma
longth chai
DtOducts an
aDplltlation
DTOGUQ Tet;
dlsttibutiOn
malerlals a

I-

deDendlng

were” by"
i~

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This review begins with a discussion of the returnable containers. It
discusses the role that will be played by reverse logistics in the future, including
the use of returnable packaging systems. The remainder of the literature review
discusses six variables known to affect the cost of returnable packaging systems:
1) cycle time, 2) average daily volume, 3) peak volume factor, 4) pack quantity,

5) delivery distance, and 6) container unit cost.

RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Reverse logistics may be applied to several stages of the logistic chain.
Both the materials management part and the physical distribution part of the
logistic chain are potential areas of application. Reverse logistics systems pull
products and/or packaging back from the point of use to specific facilities. This
application of reverse distribution systems can be found most for supporting
product recall, exchange, and repair programs. Increasingly, however, reverse
distribution systems are designed to reuse or recycle secondary packaging
materials and to a lesser extent recover products and primary packaging
materials (Kopicky et al 1993).

Opportunities for reducing the amount of packaging material vary,
depending on the type of packaging involved. While packaging may exist in

different types, such as containers, pallets, slipsheets, or bottles, depending on

its major DUF
two categorii
Cons
leg. soup c
consumer e
isdesgned
Stimulate pr
to facilitate -
product. or
Gamer).
Con:
l99islation t
household
Shopping b
packaging
obstacgeS (
lDdu
packaging.

dUl’lng tram

l982). llld,

VOld fi” 980

moreCtion.

its major purpose, it is convenient to categorize containers. Packaging falls into
two categories, consumer packaging, and industrial packaging.

Consumer packaging is basic packaging that physically holds a product
(e.g., soup can, soda bottle, soap powder box) and is intended to provide the
consumer ease of use until the product is consumed. This consumer packaging
is designed to contain and protect the product and to appeal to consumers and
stimulate product sales. Sometimes additional secondary packaging is designed
to facilitate self-service sales, to prevent theft, to further advertise and market the
product, or to facilitate use by the consumer (e.g., toothpaste box, six-pack
carrier).

Consumer packaging waste is the primary target for waste recycling
legislation because most of it has traditionally been Iandfilled. This is because
household waste involves heterogeneous materials and is the result of complex
shopping behavior, resulting in high costs to recycle. Reuse of consumer
packaging is problematic at best due to sanitation, logistical and behavioral
obstacles (Twede 1995).

Industrial packaging (also called “distribution packaging,” “logistical
packaging,” and transport packaging”) is packaging used for packaging products
during transport from a sender to a recipient, either in retail or industry (Stock
1992). Industrial packaging often represents boxes, crates, pallets, banding, and
void fill packaging (e.g., polystyrene “peanuts”) with great emphasis on
protection, ergonomics, and shipping consideration. This type of container is

usually designed for single or multiple use, depending on its destination. If it can

be used or
consumer
materials a
waste dis;

Ret
be used or
reverse lo-

packaging

BENEFIT.

Thi
come up ‘
StllTlulatet
from the S
US, Wher

SL
Dackagin
SYSIEmS
Pasha” .
millign ll".
exPectin,
Miner lnc

be used only once, they are defined as one-way packaging material. Unlike
consumer packaging, industrial packaging is made for relatively homogenous
materials and is regularly recycled as a matter of business practice, to reduce
waste disposal costs (Twede 1995).

Returnable industrial packaging is a type of secondary packaging that can
be used more than once in the same form. This thesis studies the application of
reverse logistics in the area of physical distribution: the reuse of logistical

packaging material.

BENEFITS OF RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

The use of returnable containers is one of the solutions that industry has
come up with for our growing environmental concern. This development is
stimulated by a growing responsibility towards the environment and regulations
from the government in many European countries. But, this is not the case in the
US, where the use of returnable containers has been driven by economics.

Substantial amount of anecdotal evidence indicates that returnable
packaging systems can have great cost savings over expendable container
systems (Witt 1986, 1994, 1993; Auguston 1993; Andel 1995; Karen 1997;
Pashall 1986; Trunk 1995). For example, John Deere & Co. has invested $20
million in a returnable container program with its suppliers of assembly parts
expecting a positive cash payoff (Andel 1993). Another example is Herman
Miller Inc., which has saved more than $600,000 during 2 years of returnable

container practice. IBM, Ford, General Motors, and Toyota have also

 

succes:
cost (W
T
rehnnab
nslde.tf
inmalcos
ofpackag
dynanficr
container:

TabevlLr

W
lnMalcost
ESIImated i
(number of
COSIDettn

W

 

successfully implemented a returnable container system and reduced packaging
cost (Witt 1993; Auguston 1993).

The economic benefit becomes possible mainly due to the longer life of
returnable containers. When the cost of a returnable container is amortized over
its life, the cost of packaging material can become lower, even with its higher
initial cost, than that of a disposable container (see Table 1). However, the cost
of packaging is not the only cost factor making savings possible because of the
dynamic nature of activities involved in reverse logistics systems for reusable
containers.

Table 1 Lifetime Cost Comparison of One-Way and Reusable 2-cubic Foot
Shipping Containers, by Material (“How to Select ShippingContainers" 1991)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corrugated One- Corrugated

way Resuable Plastic Reusable
Weight (pounds) 1.5 2.2 5.5
Initial cost $0.53 $1.06 $11.03
Estimated life
(number of trips) 1 5 250
Cost per trip
(average) $0.53 $0.21 $0.044

 

RETURNABLE CONTAINER SYSTEMS

The nature of returnable container systems is dynamic, as it becomes a

two-way flow system. For example, a large number of parts are shipped from

suppliers to customers. Several activities take place. First parts have to be

packed, then loaded on a transport i.e. truck. They travel either directly to the

plant, to another supplier or to a consolidation center. Upon arrival to a specific

dock door, the parts go into storage where they are physically stored until the

point of use. The empty containers then have to be returned to their point of

 

 

origin for re
through a 51
distribution
increases
This
costs of mo
affects the (
operations I
a disposal c
tahoredur
d55l9ned to
DaCklng, ha
aneslmentl
Operations 1
Seve
SIStems, F
estimated tl
fresh pTOdu
indUSlW. Kit
investigated
compreheHs
Cttlttzau~,er 0;

used in this .

origin for reuse either by retracing the steps in the opposite order or by shipping
through a separate container return logistical system (Huettner 1998). This
distribution system can be even more complex if the number of participants
increases.

This number of activities that make up the distribution system, and the
costs of most logistical operations are affected by packaging. Packaging cost
affects the cost of packing, handling, transport, storage and unpacking
operations for all channel members. The use of returnable containers eliminates
a disposal costs and the need to repeatedly purchase packaging. In most cases,
it also reduces logistical operation costs since the returnable containers can be
designed to increase cubic efficiency for transport and storage as well as ease
packing, handling and unpacking. On the other hand, it requires a large initial
investment, additional transport costs and the need for empty container sorting
operations (Twede 1999).

Several studies have addressed cost-justification of returnable container
systems. Findlay (1997) and Turvey (1998) proposed a cost model that
estimated the cost of corrugated and plastic containers for use within the Ontario
fresh produce industry. Cozart (1997) has done a similar study for automobile
industry, Kibler’s study (1997) was in the furniture industry, and Block (1999)
investigated medical device packaging alternatives. These studies present a
comprehensive and clear understanding of the cost infrastructure of the defined
container options. Most of them employed the activity based costing method

used in this thesis. These studies, however, were limited to comparing specific

I reusable !
in a specr'

Re
expendab
associate
individual
cases.ret
regardles:
how logisl

Be:
supply ch;
lower Ove-
Of Other fa

tranSporta

Packagin

The
the materi
requll’eme
enter into 1

”l
anufaCtu

TQQUlTed f0

reusable shipping containers as an alternative to single-use transport packaging
in a specific system.

Returnable container systems cannot be a direct substitute for the
expendable container systems. Each firm works with different products that
associated with unique market, customer, and facilities. It is necessary for the
individual firm to develop a logistics system that is optimal for itself. In some
cases, reusable shipping containers are an integral part of inbound supply chains
regardless of their cost (Meagher 1998). It is important for a firm to understand
how logistical factors affect the container system costs.

Because of the activities involved and container’s compatibility with the
supply chain strategy, the use of returnable containers does not always result in
lower overall physical distribution costs than expendable containers. A number
of other factors affect the overall system cost including type of packaging used,

transportation, handling and labor and disposal costs.

Packaging Cost

The cost of packaging material in general varies widely and depends on
the material, the level of protection desired for product, and marketing
requirements. With some products, for which no merchandising considerations
enter into the selection of the package (such as parts for automobile
manufacturing), the packaging cost is usually based on the level of protection
required for the product. The cost of distribution packaging for expensive
electronic components, for example, may represent a small fraction of the

product cost. The packaging cost for shipments of cement, on the other hand,

 

may be IT
cement rr‘
because t
packaging

In 9
expendab
(Pashall 1
much large
The unit cc
containers
distribution
investment

2) Average

CYCle Tlme

The .
lOOp betweE
Containers a
ready fOr the
delivered to '
use fer fOU r C
place on the
DroduCtlon li

TEIUrn to the

may be much greater relative to the product cost. The level of protection for
cement may be set to anticipate a certain percentage of product loss in shipment
because the cost of replacing this loss may be less than the cost of improving
packaging to provide full protection (Saphire 1994).

In general, the returnable containers can provide better protection than the
expendables and reduce shipping damage due to greater container strength
(Pashall 1986). However, investing in a set of returnable containers requires a
much larger initial investment than would be needed to buy one-way containers.
The unit cost of returnable container is higher and the adequate number of
containers that must be purchased at the onset to account for the fact that the
distribution pipeline must be stocked at all times (Auguston 1995). The initial
investment in the container fleet depends on the four major factors: 1) Cycle time

2) Average Daily Volume 3) Peak Volume Factor 4) Pack Quantity.

Cycle Time

The container cycle time refers to the total time it takes for a complete
loop between the supplier and the customer. Table 3 represents a typical cycle.
Containers are filled in one day. Filled containers are stocked for four days,
ready for the shipment at supplier. They will then be loaded onto a truck and
delivered to the customer in one day. The containers are stored till the point of
use for four days. The consumption of the parts inside the containers takes
place on the production line for one day. Empty containers at the end of the
production line are stored at the customer location for 5 days and are sorted to

return to the supplier for reuse. Then, containers are shipped back (one day)

10

and for tt
loop is M

Table 2 C
”T?

Full conta

Container
process
Empty cor

The
container t
Payback pe
cost invest;

Sing.
the Cycle tir
anestment_
underestl‘mE
0V8iestlmatf
llOthlng.

In 0rd
QEnerai pro
docuhierm-ng
DTOceSS (Me
invoIVEd in tr

filling In the ‘

and for three days await refilling. In this case, the cycle time for the complete
loop is twenty days.

Table 2 Container Cycle Time (Cozart 1997)

 

 

 

 

 

 

AT SUPPLIER IN TRANSPORT AT CUSTOMER l
Full containers 4 days :Ltll‘l’ltggqngfiners to 1 day Full containers 4 days
Container in Container in .
process 1 day process 1 day
Empty containers 3 days fig‘rgtzuggggers 1 day Empty containers 5 days

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cycle time is known to be the important cost determinant. When the
container turnovers are speeded up, containers gain with a relatively short
payback period (Trunk 1993). The shorter the cycle time, the lower the initial
cost investment (low quantities to be purchased), and vice versa.

Since the returnable container system requires a high initial investment,
the cycle time tends to be underestimated in the attempt to lower the initial
investment. Calculating the right cycle time is important. If the cycle time is
underestimated, there will be a lack of containers. If the cycle time is
overestimated, money will be wasted on excess containers sitting around doing
nothing.

' In order to measure the accurate cycle time, it would be practical to use
general process chart. Using a process flow chart is a technique for
documenting activities in a detailed, compact, and graphic form to understand the
process (Melnyk and Denzler 1996). Table 4 is a collection of general activities
involved in the packaging cycle time as an example of the process chart. By

filling in the time required per activity, a fairly accurate cycle time can be

11

measured.
symbols. '
but can im

activities.

measured. The flow through the process can be shown by connecting the
symbols. This technique cannot only help to calculate an accurate cycle time,
but can improve the cycle time by eliminating redundant or unnecessary

activities.

12

a

Table 3 C

A0_C_ C _C_I_I_|_CEI_I |_|_.Jl_-1 LIE (LIEIEJIIEINIFI ~1515|

90x0

cmzaazw 7x .059sz ~< LDLLQQDW C0 OCESOQQ

6...
alpha
OT

Slor

.n'

Table 3 Calculation of Cycle Time UsigrLGeneral Process Chart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities Time Description
0 I - D V Locate correct returnables in warehouse ,
O I - D V Transfer stored returnables to packaging line j
. I _ ’ V Remove totes from palletand prepare for use
B (cleaning, check for usability) l
i O I -' D V Pack product into tote
g 0 I - D V Unitize tote on pallet
‘2 O I - D V Inventory finished goods ,1
< O I - D V Locate the product ordered
O I -v D V Transfer to loading dock
O I -> D V Load product onto trailer
0 I - D V Ship product to customer
0 I -> D V Unload product pallets from truck
0 I - D V Transfer into inventory
0 I - D V Transfer product to assembly line
0 I -> D V Open totes
2 . I _. ’ V Remove product from tote and use in assembly
0 process
‘9' O I -> D V Stage empty tote for collection
2 . I n . V Egret and transfer empty totes to staging/sorting
O I -> D V Sort empty totes by customer and it own kind
0 I -> D V Stage empty totes for supplier pick up
0 I -> D V Transfer empty totes to loading dock
O I - D V Transfer empty totes onto truck trailer
5 O I -> D V Ship empty totes back to supplier
'3 O I - D V Unload empty totes from truck
g 0 I -> D V Transfer them to sorthg and accounting area
3’5 53 . I _. . V Inspect each tote for cleanliness, damage, and
m >, separate If necessary
,5 0 O I -> D V Re unitrze totes for storage
E O I - D V Transfer pallet of totes into inventory location
C53; . I _. . V Enter number of totes, type, and location for
Inventory account program
Total
0 Operation I Inspection
- Transportation of physical item D Delay
V Storage

13

Average
Th

over a pe
expected
the dai‘y \
rate. This
referred tc
tapering p
For
purchasec
UHit cost O
13’99 pr Odl
Container 5
Should be i
The

same Way
be differs. n t
should not i
containEr Cc
Container. Tl

 

Average Daily Volume

The average daily volume represents the demand for the packed items
over a period of time divided by the total workdays during that period. The
expected impact of the average daily volume on the container system cost is as
the daily volume goes up, the total system cost should go up, but at a decreasing
rate. This impact of average daily usage on the container system cost can be
referred to as the economies of scale existing in the production costs and
tapering principle in the transportation costs (Bowersox and Closs 1996).

For example, if the daily volume increases, more containers have to be
purchased. As a consequence, the initial container investment increases, but the
unit cost of container decreases because the high setup costs diminish over the
large production quantities. in comparison of the expendable with the returnable
container systems’ costs, the sensitivity of reaction, as a total system cost,
should be different from each other.

The average daily volume affects the both of container systems in the
same way. However, the degree of reaction to the average daily volume should
be different from each other. The expendable container cost, as a cost per part,
should not be affected by average daily volume but by pack quantity only. The
container cost per part depends on the number of part quantities in that
container. The actual cost impact of average daily volume for the expendable

container system is in the transportation cost.

14

 

C

should t
containe
quanhhe

containe

Peak Da

De
seasonal
of factors
time. Cyc
(T wede it
be large e
stock Out a

The
aCCurate or
products w
acmal you”
Volume Can
the ayerage
time is abOL

day‘ and a \

 

day wOU/d

On the other hand, the returnable container cost, as a cost per part,
should be affected by the average daily volume since the initial investment in the
container fleet depends on the initial container quantities and the initial container
quantities depends on the average daily volume. In addition, the returnable

container cost is amortized by its useful life and pack quantity.

Peak Daily Volume

Demand variation with time is a result of growth or decline in sales rates,
seasonality in the demand pattern, and general fluctuations caused by a multiple
of factors (Ballou 1998). The demand variation is an important element of cycle
time. Cycles with little variation are best for the returnable container systems
(Twede 1999). When there is a lot of variation, the inventory of containers has to
be large enough to cover the largest volume cycle in order to prevent container
stock out and under estimation of the initial investment.

The use of peak volume instead of average volume does not always give
accurate container quantities. The use of peak volume is more suitable for
products with the relatively long duration of peak demand. If, for example, the
actual volume for a product draws a sine curve that has the highest and lowest
volume can be canceled each other within one cycle, it is recommended to use
the average daily volume rather than the peak volume. For example, the cycle
time is about 20 days, the anticipated average volume is about 500 products per
day, and a container holds 50 products, the average container consumption per

day would be 200 containers. As shown in the Figure 1, the fluctuation in the

15

 

daily volL
trend llf'lE

. 1 1
Figure
elements

 

Dally Volume
5

Pack Quar
The

When l00kin
Container. .

becomes.

The

 

 

Since the U

man the Ex

daily volume is about i100 parts, equivalent to :20 containers, along the average

trend line. This fluctuation doesn’t affect the initial container quantities.

Figure 1 An example of a random demand pattern with both trend and seasonal
elements (Ballou 1998)

 

0 Actual volume

- - - -Trend in volume

Smoothed trend and
seasonal volume

 

Daily Volume

 

 

 

40

Time, days

 

 

 

Pack Quantity

The pack quantity represents the number of products per standard
container pack. Pack quantity should be an important factor in packaging costs
when looking at the packaging cost in proportion to the number of parts per

container. The more products per container, the cheaper the packaging cost

becomes.

The pack quantity affects both container systems’ cost in same way.
Since the unit cost of returnable containers is more expensive than that of

expendables, the decreasing rate should be higher for the returnable containers

than the expendables when the pack quantity increases.

16

Tr
materials
line. Thi:
encourag
returnabl
replenisr
smaller v

be more

TRANSF

C
flanspor
Provider:
GOOds b.-
origin‘ d,
make u;
semice i
ReleVan
8qume

T
Si29 of a
COnglder

A:

hundred\

The use of returnable containers is known for an ideal solution when
materials are delivered in small lot size quantities directly to the manufacturing
line. This is one of the applications in just-in-time (JIT) production, which have
encouraged the returnable container system. JIT reduces the number of
returnable containers required by increasing the speed of the inventory
replenishment cycle (cycle time) (Twede 1999). if the pack quantity can be
smaller with the support of quick change over, the smaller pack quantity should

be more justifiable for the returnable container system.

TRANSPORTATION COST: MOTOR CARRIER

Cost of transport service to a shipper is simply the line-haul rate for
transporting goods plus any accessorial or terminal charges for additional service
provided. In the case of for-hire service, the rate charged for the movement of
goods between two points plus any additional charges, such as for pickup at
origin, delivery at destination, insurance, or preparing the goods for shipment,
make up the total cost of service. When the shipper owns the service, the cost of
service is an allocation of the relevant costs to the shipment in question.
Relevant costs include such items as fuel, labor, maintenance, depreciation of
equipment, and administrative costs (Bowersox and Closs 1996).

Two basic economic considerations influence the cost of transport: (1) the
size of a shipment, and (2) the length of haul. Each of these basic
considerations are briefly discussed.

As a general rule, the larger a shipment is, the lower the cost-per-

hundredweight (CWT) per unit of distance (Bowersox and Closs 1996).

17

 

Distributir‘
costs. Th
collecting
The fixed
pickup an
sizes. Th
the quanti
truckload
A 9
longer the
on tranSpc
terminal of
follows Cos
(Bowersox
Charges ar.
late that ca
Slgnlficam I
SimpllCllY al
1998). Tm

Shlpper in f

 

the ShOf‘t ll:

COstS are

Distributing the fixed costs over greater volume generally reduces the per-unit
costs. The fixed costs, pickup and delivery platform handling, and billing and
collecting, are highly sensitive to shipment sizes below 2,000 to 3,000 pounds.
The fixed costs for shipments larger than 3,000 pounds continue to drop as
pickup and delivery and handling costs are spread over the larger shipment
sizes. This impact of shipment size on transportation cost is often referred to as
the quantity discount (economies of scale), which is typically classified as
truckload (TL) or less than truckload (LTL).

A general rule for the rate associated with delivery distance is that the
longer the haul, the lower the cost per unit of distance. The impact of distance
on transport cost is traditionally referred to as the tapering principle. Because the
terminal charges are often included in line-haul charges, a rate structure that
follows costs will show rates increasing with distance but at a decreasing rate
(Bowersox and Closs 1996). In other words, the terminal costs and other fixed
charges are distributed over miles as the delivery distance increases. Another
rate that can be found common is proportional rate. For those carriers with the
significant line-haul cost components, a compromise between rate structure
simplicity and service costs is provided by the proportional rate structure (Ballou
1998). This simple structure adversely discriminates against the long-haul
shipper in favor of the short-haul shipper. Terminal charges are not recovered on
the short haul. Truckload rates can have this characteristic because handling

costs are minimal.

18

DIS
Transport.
return trar

quantities,

OTHER IN

The

The contai
constructio
are some ti
Container li'
number los
Labc
process of 5
different poi
nunTber of a
Thef
Corllponents
l. Grew

2. Placin

3' movi

 

4‘ loadir
5' trans,

Distance is a critical issue for returnable container systems.
Transportation cost is always higher for returnable container systems because of
return transportation. This report examines distance-related rates for truckload

quanfifies.

OTHER IMPORTANT COSTS

The container’s life is critical data for the returnable container system cost.
The container’s life depends on the strength of the material and the container
construction. Steel and plastic have a longer life than wooden packages. There
are some tests can be used for estimation. However, the information concerning
container life is not reliable enough. The number of trips also depends on the
number lost (Rosenau 1996).

Labor cost is related to the process of shipping and handling goods. The
process of shipping goods may involve the participation of many parties at
different points. The labor cost, as a function of time, must be increasing as the
number of activities is increasing.

The following procedures are found common in the process of shipping
components from a supplier to an assembly factory:

1. erecting and packing containers

2. placing individual containers into bulk units on pallets or slipsheets

3. moving unitized loads to shipping docks

4. loading and unloading trucks

5. transporting unit loads from shipping docks to storage or assembly areas

6. fitting individual containers onto assembly line equipment

19

 

These 3:
systems.
Tr

the time i

truu

Th4
reQuires Ie
design an:
GM Powe,
intensive t
d‘VSDOSing 1
Consumed
Stor
l9lurnabie I
reClUlre mo'
a facility air

 
 
   
 

COst.

EXpt

The dlspos

These are common procedures for both expendable and returnable container
systems.

The difference in the labor cost between these two container systems is
the time involved in three activities:

7. container assembly

8. disposing for expendable container systems

9. sorting empty containers for returnable container systems and loading
trucks for return.

There is no general rule that tells which one of the two container systems
requires less labor. It varies from industry to industry depending on packaging
design and its ergonomics. l have learned, during my internship experience at
GM Powertrain in 1999 that returnable container systems can be less labor-
intensive than expendable containers. The time involved in cutting open and
disposing the expendable containers usually takes as twice as the time
consumed for sorting the returnable containers.

Storage space is another factor. In comparison between expendable and
returnable container systems, it is true that the empty returnable containers
require more space than is necessary for the expendables. However, as long as
a facility already has the available space, there should not be any additional
storage cost. If extra space is needed, there would be an additional carrying
cost

Expendable container systems entail costs related to recycling or disposal.

The disposal costs include charges for special handling equipment (compactors

20

 

 

and bailer
approprla‘.
package r
The
associatec
available a
container :
1994).
This
container 5
vahances.
the numbe

for these c

COLLAPS

 

and bailers), material pickup and disposal, and labor to sort and place items in
appropriate waste containers, compactors, or bailers. However, expendable
package recycling can also generate revenue.

The returnable container systems, however, don’t have any costs
associated with recycling or disposing. Usually, the regrind services are
available at no charge. A different set of costs associated with the returnable
container system would be the cost of cleaning and repairing containers (Saphire
1994)

This section discussed some other important costs in the returnable
container systems. It is hard to generalize the complexity involved in these
variances. In addition, the amount of simulation results would be too large that
the number of variables must to be limited. Thus, the fixed values are to be used

for these costs. The fixed values will be further discussed in the Chapter 3.

COLLAPSIBILITYINESTABILITY
Returnable containers may be designed with features that reduce the cost
of shipping, handling, and storaging empty containers, including (Saphire 1994):
. Collapsibility: The walls of the container are designed to fold down when
collapsed.
- Nestability: Empty containers can easily be placed into one another.
These features allow for a reduction in the space that empty containers take up
in transportation and storage, and allow for more containers to be hauled back

than were delivered full (Auguston 1993).

21

FOI
advantage
return trai
Since em
returned.

container:

For companies with limited storage space, collapsibility/nestability is an
advantage. However, some companies utilizing the features in order to minimize
return transportation cost may find that more containers must be purchased.
Since empty containers are generally stockpiled until a full truckload can be
returned, more collapsed/nested will be required in the system than if the

containers were returned fully erected.

22

 

This
research.
developed
as a basis
torneasure
Second.a
multiple va
results of ti
irldel3€3l’ld8r
measures (
developed‘
Containers

Aise
ratio in USe

model5= Da

EXl’ENDA

FOL

sylemS. I

 

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This section describes cost models and the simulations used in this
research. Two sets of cost models, one for each container system, were
developed for the purpose of cost comparison. The cost models were then used
as a basis of cost simulations. First, a single variable cost simulation was used
to measure the impact of the six cost drivers on the container systems’ costs.
Second, a multi-variable cost simulation was designed to capture the impact of
multiple variables at once. A multiple regression analysis was applied to the
results of the multi-variable cost simulation in order to identify the individual
independent (six cost drivers) which had the greatest impact on the three
measures of performance. A manufacturing and logistics system profile was
developed, which can reveal when savings can be achieved over expendable
container systems.

A separate analysis was used in order to determine the optimal return
ratio in use of nestable/collapsible containers. A discussion of the two cost

models, parameters and dynamics follows. The results are provided in Chapter 4.

EXPENDABLE CONTAINER SYSTEM COST (ECSC)

Four types of cost were identified to be important in expendable container

systems.
1. container cost

2. transportation cost

23

 

l

The
four types
E CE
whe
E CC
TCE
LCE
DCE
For
exbendable

be reDrese

E"bender;

The

an expend;
ECc

Whe
EC
Uc ,

PQ‘

3. labor cost
4. disposal cost
The expendable container system cost ECSC in $lpart is the sum of the
four types of cost:
ECSC = E00 + TCE + LCE + DCE (1)
where
ECC = expendable container cost, $/part
TCE = transportation cost for expendable container system, $lpart
LCE = labor cost for expendable container system, $lpart
DCE = disposal cost for expendable container system, $lpart
For the sake of comparison later in the cost simulation between
expendable and returnable container system costs, all units of cost models will

be represented as $/part.

Expendable Container Cost (ECC)

The expendable container cost ECC as $lpart can be given by unit cost of
an expendable container UCE over standard pack PQ:

UCE _ $lcontainer
PQ parts/container

 

ECC = = $lpart (2)

where
ECC = expendable container cost per product, $lpart
UCE = unit cost of an expendable container, $lcontainer

P0 = pack quantity: part quantity per container, part/container

24

If.

$3.00. tt
30 parts
expende
and stre
cost oft
Twenty

$39.50.
label. 1
cost of

actual t

$3.001:

Trans;

XDDH

pr 090$

If, for example, a container holds 30 parts and the container unit cost is
$3.00, the expected expendable container cost ECC is ECC = $3.00/container +
30 parts/container = $0.10/part. It should be noted that the unit cost of an
expendable container includes the cost of materials, such as pallets, labels, tape,
and stretch wrap. Suppose, for example, the cost of a container is $0.99. The
cost of tape to seal the bottom and the top plus one label on the side is $0.01.
Twenty of these containers will be unitized on a pallet and the cost of pallet is
$39.50. After palletizing, the package requires stretch wrapping and a master
label. The stretch wrapping and the master label cost $0.50 together, so that the
cost of the pallet, stretch wrap, and label is $40 + 20 = $2 per part. Thus, the
actual unit cost an expendable container CE would be $0.99 + $0.01 + $2 =

$3.00/part in this e.g.

Transportation Cost for Expendable Container Systems (TCE)

Whether it is for expendable or returnable container systems,
transportation cost should be in proportion to the delivery distance DD: TCE = R

x DD, where R is the constant rate per mile. The cost of TCE per part can be

proposed as:

 

 

 

miles
TCE = R x DD = mile x = $lpart (3)
FOSx ADV day“ 9313
day

where
FOS = frequency of supply, days

ADV = average daily volume, parts/day

25

The
made betv.
place once
takes even
fiequencyi
that the fre
Thereasor
customer.
delivery be

Sup
delivers 10
time betWe
apart from

miles + 1 d

LabOr COS

Labc

LCE

 

whe
LC
TE

The frequency of supply FOS represents how often the deliveries are
made between the shipper and the consignee. For example, if delivery takes
place once every four days, frequency of supply is 4 + 1 = 4 days, and if delivery
takes everyday, frequency of supple is 1, and if delivery takes four times per day,
frequency of supply would be 1 + 4 = 0.25 days, and so on. It should be noted
that the frequency of supply could not be longer than the container cycle time.
The reason is that the cycle time includes at least one delivery from supplier to
customer. If frequency of supply is greater than cycle time, there would be no
delivery between supplier and customer.

Suppose, for example, a trucking company with a rate of $1 .40/mile
delivers 100 parts of average daily volume from supplier to customer. The cycle
time between supplier and customer is 20 days long and they are 1000 miles

apart from each other. Thus, the transportation cost would be $1 .40/mile x 1000

miles -:- 1 day + 100 parts = $14/part.

Labor Cost for Expendable Container Systems (LCE)

Labor cost is driven by the amount of time involved in the set of activities.
Thus, labor cost can be expressed as

3
LR _ hours X hour

PQ — container parts
container

LCE = TE x = $Ipart (4)

 

 

where
LCE = labor cost for expendable, $Ipart

TE = time needed to handle expendable container, hours/container

26

LF?=

FKD=

Supr
or 0.84 + 6i
the point of
and the hor
expendable
parts/coma
cacmafion
takes 0.005
disDosing t
Calculation

SlZJhOUT).

Disillosarl l
Dis;

dBDOSed_

be exprESj
DC

th

DR

LR = labor rate per hour, $/hour

PQ = pack quantity, parts/container

Suppose, for example, a plant consumes an average time of 0.84 minutes
or 0.84 + 60 = 0.014 hours per expendable container from packing at a shipper to
the point of disposal at a consignee. The pack quantity is 20 parts per container
and the hourly rate is $12.00. Thus, the expected labor cost for such an
expendable container system would be 0.014 hours/container x $12Ihour -:- 20
parts/container = $0.0084/part. If labor rate is different for each activity, the
calculation should break down to individual activity. For example, if packing
takes 0.005 hours per container and the hourly rate is $8, and unpacking and
disposing takes 0.009 hours per container and the hourly rate is $12, the

calculation would be (0.005 hours/container x $8/hour + 0.009 hours/container x

$12Ihour) -:- 20 parts/container = 0.0074/part.

Disposal Cost for Expendable Container Systems (DCE)
Disposal cost should be in proportion to the amount of material to be
disposed. Thus, the disposal cost for an expendable container system DCE can

be expressed as

 

 

$ X lbs
_ DR XCW _ lb- container _
DCE — PQ - parts — $Ipart (5)
container
where

DCE = disposal cost, $Ipart

DR = disposal rate per lb, $/Ib

27

 

CV1
PO
Sui
pans.and
is 500475
be noted 1

So:

EC

RETURN!

Thr
Container:
1. con
2. trap
3. labc
The

three t‘ipes
RC5

Whe
RC
Tc-

LC

CW= container weight, lbs/container

P0 = pack quantity, parts/container

Suppose, for example, a container with a tare weight of 3 pounds holds 20
parts, and the disposal charge is $00475 per pound. Thus, the disposal cost DC
is $0.0475/lbs x 3 lbs/container + 20 parts/container = $0.007125/part. It should

be noted that this model does not account for any revenue from recycling.

So;

TEX

UCE R x DD LR DR x cw
ECSC = = / rt
PQ + FOS x ADV + PQ + PQ $ pa (6)

RETURNABLE CONTAINER SYSTEM COST (RCSC)
Three types of cost have been identified to be important in returnable
container systems.
1. container cost
2. transportation cost
3. labor cost
The returnable container system cost RCSC in $Ipart is the sum of the
three types of cost:
RCSC = RCC + TCR + LCR (7)

where
RCC = returnable container cost, $Ipart

TCR = transportation cost for returnable container system, $Ipart

LCR = labor cost for returnable container system, $Ipart

28

 

 

cost ir

Retur

to beg
antkfl;

Assun

return;

 

From the literature review, it is known that there is virtually no disposal

cost involved in returnable container systems.

Returnable Container Cost (RCC)

A returnable container system requires a certain number of containers N
to begin with. The number of returnable containers N is expected to handle the
anticipated amount of material flow during the time period of the containers life.
Assuming that AV is annual volume and container life is CL in years, the

returnable container cost RCC in per part units can be expressed as:

 

$ .
R C C = Container cost = UCRx N = container x containers = $ Ipa rt
Product quantity AV x CL parts x years
year
(8)
where

RCC = returnable container cost, $Ipart

UCR = unit cost of returnable container, $lcontainer

N = initial container quantities to be purchased, containers

AV = annual volume, parts/year

CL = container life, years

The important task here is to establish the initial container quantity to be
purchased N. N, in other words, is number of containers required to hold a

number of products during the container cycle time CT: N = w, where

PO is pack quantity representing quantity of products per container and ADV is

29

average daily volume. In reality, however, not all containers can make it through
their lifetime. Some of the containers must be damaged, stolen, or misplaced,
and they will have to be replaced with new containers. The container return rate
CRR, as percentage of N, can capture these unexpected situations:

_CTxADV

N x ORR. In addition, there must be variations in daily volume.

Peak volume factor PVF is a multiple factor used to capture the variations in the

daily volume: PVF = %, where PDV is the anticipated peak daily volume.
Thus, the number of containers is: N = CT—;SD—V x CRR x PVF . Thus,

returnable container cost RCC becomes:

UCRX[CTXADV

x CRR x PVF]

RCC = (9)

 

A V x CL

Suppose, for example, the returnable container unit cost is $5.00 and the
expected useful life of a container is 2 years. Due to the harsh distribution
environments, 30 percent of the containers are expected to get stolen, damaged,
or misplaced. Again, the unit cost represents all the material costs involved in
shipping containers. Due to the stable stackability, stretch wrapping may not be
required. However, the cost of the label and a fraction of pallet cost must be
included if the containers are palletized. This container has pack quantity P0 of
10 parts. The average consumption of the product in a day is 100 parts. Due to
the production variation, the manufacturer anticipates peak consumption to be

150 parts. Based on the anticipated peak daily volume, the cycle time is

30

calculated to be 20 days. The official working days of this plant are 250 days per
year. Thus, the returnable packaging cost is $5.00/container x 20 days x 100
parts/day + 10 parts/container x 1.3 x 1.5 + 25000 parts/year + 2 years =

$0.03/part.

Transportation Cost for Returnable Container System (TCR)

The transportation cost for a returnable container system is the same as
that of an expendable container system plus additional charges for back hauling
empty containers. These charges are for the extended delivery distance from
customer back to supplier plus charges for stoppage. However, the mileage rate
for a returnable container system is often lower than the rate for an expendable
container system. It is usually 20 ~ 40 % cheaper depending on the amount of
transported goods. Assuming that the discount rate is fixed at 30 %, the
transportation cost for a returnable container can be proposed as:

TCRsz0.7xDDx2+NSxSR=$lpart (10)
FOSxADV

 

where

TCR = transportation cost for returnable container system, $Ipart
R x 0.7 = rate per mile including discount rate of 30 %, $/mile
DD x 2 = delivery distance (round trip), miles

NS = number of stoppages, stops

SR = stoppage rate, $/stop

FOS = frequency of supply, days

ADV = average daily volume, parts/day

31

The term R x 0.7 represents the discount mileage rate at 30%. The term DD x 2
represents the extended delivery distance for the back hauling. It should be
noted that sometimes the charges for inbound and outbound transportation is
different because the inbound transport is for full containers and the outbound
transport is for empty containers. The transportation cost model in this study
represents one fixed rate with 30% discounts for both inbound and outbound
transports. Usually this is the case when a company hires a third party company
for the dedicated transportation service.

If, for example, in the same situation as the expendable container system,
one stoppage and $50 per stoppage, the transportation cost for the returnable

container system TCR would be ($1 .40/mile x 0.7 x 1000 miles x 2 + 1 stop x

$50/stop) + 1 day -:- 100 parts = $20.1/part.

Labor Cost (LCR)

The labor cost can be proposed as it was in the expendable container
system LCE previously. The labor cost between the expendable and returnable
container systems becomes different because each system requires a different

set of activities. Thus, the labor cost for the returnable container system LCR is:
LR
LCR=TR —= lart 11
x PQ $ p l l

where

TR = time needed to handle returnable container, hours/container

So;

32

UCRX[CTX ADV

x CRR x PVF
+M'RXOJXDDXZ-l-NSXSR

RCSC =
AVxCL FOSXADV

 

LR
TR —= lart
+ xF>Q $p
(12)

RETURN RATIO (R,)

In the use of collapsible or nestable returnable containers, two important
cost functions can be found:

1. cost of transportation C,

2. cost of containers Cc (for additional containers for holding days)

Using collapsible/nestable containers reduces the transportation cost by
maximizing the cubic efficiency. On the other hand, more containers are needed
since no empty containers are returning to the supplier while waiting for the truck
to be fully loaded. lntuitively, it can be assumed that as R, increases, C,
decreases and Cc increases. Trade-offs can be made to find the best
compromise such that the total cost Cr reduces to a minimum.

CT(R,) = C,(R,) + Cc(R,) (13)

The expected situation when utilizing collapsible returnable containers
isthat the supplier receives the same number of trailerloads as it ships, on a one-
to-one basis, and that it avoids shipping packages back LTL. If, for example, the
return ratio is one-to-four, and the supplier delivers once every day, then the
supplier would be receiving the empties back every four days. Figure 2 shows

that three out of four deliveries are not closed loop.

33

Figure 2 Transportation cost associated with return ratio

 

 

 

—‘ 1St delivery *———*

 

 

_— 2nd delivery ——>

 

 

 

 

—— 3'“ delivery —’

_‘I 4th delivery 3

Thus, the transportation cost should be based on the one-way rate for the

 

Supplier

 

Jewozsng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first through third deliveries and the two-way rate for the fourth delivery. To
capture this relationship, the transportation cost can be calculated by a
combination of the transportation cost for expendable container system and
returnable container system:

C,(R,) =aT(l—R,)+bTR, =aT-aTR, +bTR, (14)

where

a = cost per one-way trip, $Itrip

T = number of trips over the time period of container life, trips/year

b = cost per two-way trip, $Itrip
A further definition of these terms is:

a = $/mile x mile = R x DD as in TCE previously

b = $lmile x 0.7 x mile x 2 = MR x 0.7 x DD x 2 as in TCR previously

T(1 - R,) = number of one-way deliveries out of the total number of trips in

a container’s life

34

TR, = number of two-way deliveries out of total number of trips in a
container’s life

Container cost 0,; is for the additional containers to the given float of
returnable container. For example, if a float of returnable containers was
determined for a 20-day cycle time based on a daily delivery basis using a one-
to-one return ratio, the number of returnable containers based on one-to-four
return ratios would make the cycle time 23 days, adding two extra days of
holding empty containers with the customer. This additional cost CC can be

expressed:
Cc(Rr) ———-'-_=_Rr (15)

where

c = unit cost of a returnable container, $Icontainer

Q = quantity of container consumed at customer, containers/day
I= container life, years

The term (R;1 — 1) represents extra days of cycle time caused by

decreasing the return ratio. If, for example, the return ratio decreased from one

to one to one to four, the three extra days would be added to the total cycle time:

-1
3 = :1- — 1. As the additional containers becomes a part of the container fleet

being used over the container life, Cc is the one-time cost that should be
amortized over the container life I.

The total cost C,(R,) is the sum of C,(R,) and Cc(R,):

35

c,(R,)= C,(R,)+CC(R,)= aT —aTR, +bTR, +9l9R;‘ -319 (16)

In order to get the optimal return ratio, while balancing additional container

cost and transportation cost, CT was differentiated with respect to R,:

 

dC,(R) dC,(R) dC (R) CO -2
r = r c r =_ T bT___R =
dR dR, + dR, a + r ’ 0 (17)

f

The derivative was then set to zero and solved for the optimal return ratio

R, .-= l (b 0:)TI . Assuming a, b, c, and [are rate constant, the two major

determinants for an optimal return ratio are daily container consumption Q and

 

total number of trips Tduring the container lifetime I. As the Q increases, the

optimal return ratio increases. As the T increases, the optimal return ratio

decreases.

COST SIMULATION

In order to examine the paper’s basic research questions, two different
methods were proposed. First, by changing the key variables one by one, it can

be observed that how the individual variable affects the total cost. The six

variables found to be important are:
1. Cycle time
. Average daily usage

Pack quantity

2
3

4. Delivery distance
5 Peak volume factor
6

Container unit cost (returnable and expendable)

36

The limitation with this method is that it cannot capture the magnitude of impact
by the multiple variables at once.

The cost simulation was designed to capture the possible manufacturing
and logistics conditions under which the returnable container systems can be
justified. To be more specific, the two sets of cost models, one set of models
representing the total cost of expendable container systems and another
representing the total cost of returnable container systems, were compared
under the various settings of manufacturing and logistics system.

The collection of these settings under which returnable systems are the
least expensive can be expressed as a relevant range for using returnable
container systems.

In order to generate the various system settings, a spreadsheet static
simulation method was developed using Microsoft Excel. Each variable was
given three values representing the ranges of systems settings (low, mid, high)
(see table 4).

Table 4 An Example of Variables and Ranges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3
Low 1 4 7
Mid 2 5 8
Hig 3 6 9

 

 

Assuming that there are m variables, each will be tested at n levels. The
total number of test combinations will be n”'. The simulations in this example
perform cost analysis with the three variables at the three different levels. Thus,
the simulation tested the total of twenty-seven combinations: 27 = 33. The

container system cost for each container option can be calculated and compared

37

at each combination (see Table 5). The collection of combinations in favor of
returnable container system is shown as the manufacturing and logistics profile
limitations to each variable.

Table 5 An Example of Cost Simulation Usin Variables and Ranges in Table 4

 

Ret. Exp
Variable1 Variable2 Variable3 System System
Cost Cost

Difference
(Ret-Exp)

Seq.
No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDCDVQU'I-th—K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ODOODO’IU’IU'l-h##CDODODOIU'IUI-b-bhODOJODUIUIUD-fib#
Omflmmflmmflomflomflom\ICDCDVCOCDVCOCD\l
I
I
0

.x
O)
QQQWQQQWQNNNNNNNNNA—t-fi—s—t—k—t—x—s

 

The actual simulation was performed with the five variables at three levels
for three different container categories. The total number of combinations tested

was 243 = 35 for each container category. The variables and ranges are

38

 

swnma
fiomth
heder
hede;
Theva
onmy

Tahel

 

Low

‘—

Mode

CT:cy
PVF'p
CUC:<

gwenl
manuf
COMaI
deflet
lhGav
ind,a
anyde
”Umbe
vane“:
Goddt

“RISE

summarized in the Table 6. These numbers are selected, based on the results
from the individual variable analysis. For the variables with the depleting points,
the depleting points was selected as the high value because any point beyond
the depleting points wouldn’t be much impact on the container systems cost.
The variables without depleting points were given numbers for the ranges based
on my internship experience and data from literatures.

Table 6 Variables and associated ranges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CT on PVF PQ DD CUC
Exp Ret
Low 14 1,000 1.1 10 500 0.5 6
Middle 28 5,000 1.5 50 1,500 3 24
High 42 10,000 2.0 100 3,000 60 400
CT: cycle time, days ADV: average daily volume, parts/day
PVF: peak volume factor PQ: pack quantity, parts/container

CUC: container unit cost, $lcontainer DD: delivery distance, miles

Since the cycle time doesn’t have depleting point, the cycle time was
given the numbers of 14, 28, 42 days as the range. Although it varies from
manufactures to manufactures, the automobile industry practices 14 days of
container cycle time which is know as short. The container system costs starts
depleting when the average daily volume is around 10,000 parts. The ranges for
the average daily volume are 1,000 parts per day as low, 5,000 parts per day as
mid, and 10,000 parts per day as high. The container system costs do not have
any depleting point for peak volume factor, so the peak volume factor was given
numbers of 10, 50, and 100 percent of the average daily volume. Considering
various characteristics of products, 100 percent of the average daily volume
could be considered as high in the demand fluctuation. The container system

cost starts depleting when the pack quantity is around 100 parts per container, so

39

the give
Deliver
approx
distanc

and mc

thigh) f
the exp
contain
on the I
made c
molded
tooling
based (
Odd sh;
made c
presen-
Contain
designg
x45 x 4

Wlth W0

the given numbers for the range are 10 for low, 50 for mid and 100 for high.
Delivery Distance was tested at 500, 1,500, and 3,000 miles. Considering the
approximate distance from east coast to west coast is 3,000 miles, the high
distance was set to 3,000 miles. The other two values were set based on low

and moderate distance moves representing low and mid ranges.

Container unit cost was given ranges of $6 (low), $24 (mid), and $400
(high) for the returnable containers and $0.5 (low), $3 (mid), and $60 (high) for
the expendable containers. These are approximate costs for the existing
containers that are used in GM Powertrain. The low range containers are based
on the container size 15 x 12 x 8 and 48 x 45 pallet. The expendable container is
made of single wall corrugated board. The returnable container is injection
molded tote. This is one of the standard size containers that doesn’t require
tooling charges for both expendable and returnable. Mid range containers are
based on the 24 x 15 x 18 containers and 48 x 45 pallet. This container is for
odd shape and relatively big and heavy part. The expendable containers are
made of single wall corrugated with customized inserts for protection and part
presentation. The returnable container is customized vacuum formed plastic
containers. No separate insert is required since the contour of the containers is
designed for the specific product shape. The high container cost is based on 48
x 45 x 45 steel rack for returnable container and same size corrugated container

with wood supports for expendable container. This container holds heavy parts.

40

oldest

Howevr

Model

was all!
wasass
single p
hmsu
oleont
the lelu
emphr

FlQure 1

The container unit costs vary in terms of its size, material used, complexity
of design, etc. Container cost also varies among the container manufacturers.

However, it should be able to capture the impact of container unit cost.

Model Description

Figure 3 depicts the basic supply chain configuration (fixed variables) that

was utilized in the both container cost simulations. As illustrated in the figure, it
was assumed that a supplier serves a manufacturing facility (customer) for a
single part. The line represents the transportation link that moves containers
from supplier to customer. In the expendable container system model, the flow
of containers is one-way, so no empty containers are going back to supplier. In

the returnable container system model, the flow of containers is two-way, and the

empty containers are going back to the supplier.

Figure 3 Simulated Distribution Configurations

Full containers
(expendables or returnables)

 

Supplier

 

 

$ Customer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empty containers
(returnables only)

The transportation from supplier to customer is scheduled once every day
for both models. The trucks take the empties back to supplier after unloading full
containers. The amount of empty containers going back to supplier is supposed
to be the same as what is came into customers (one-to-one return ratio). In

reality, however, containers get damaged, stolen, etc. It is assumed that it is

41

NECESS

next tvI

dzflere

related

2-year
contair
possib.
tolerate
the act
will be
return;

some t

Inform

1999,

necessary to purchase the additional 10% of the initial container quantities for the
next two years.

Two other assumptions associated with the transportation system are the
difference of cubic efficiency and weight factors. The cubic efficiency and weight
related rate between the two container systems are assumed to be same.

The simulation calculates the returnable container systems cost based on
2-year return on investment, so the container life is fixed at 2 years. Returnable
containers, in general, last longer than 2 years. The container life represents two
possibilities. First, regardless of amount of investment, a customer cannot
tolerate any investment that can’t pay back within two years. Second, although
the actual container life is longer than 2 years, it is assumed that the product life
will be supplied for only 2 years. For example, GM Powertrain implements
returnable container system only if 2-year return on investment is possible, and
some of the parts become obsolete as new model comes out every year.

Labor cost calculation is based on the information in table 7. The
information is based on GM Powertrain Engine Plant during my internship in
1999, and captures the major activities involved in the both container systems.

The model does not include any activities at the supplier assuming that suppliers’

labor costs are the same for both packaging systems.

Table 7 Labor time involved in the two container systems

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ Seq. Expendable Returnable

No.

[1 Load box to tugger Load tote to tugger

\2 Cut open box (300~400 sq. in. top Unload tote to creform/load
per box) empty to tugger

E Dispose box tops (estimated per Place empty tote to dunnage
box) sort area (estimate**)

 

 

42

 

both p
The tL
line (Vt
cut 0p
works
hours
Contas
90hdc
estim,

come

()0 no
Works

The 9r

eSllma

 

 

l 4 Unload box to creform/load empty to Load tote to truck (per pallet
L tugger estimate***)
5 Dispose empty box in gondola (per 4

boxes)

 

 

0)

Empty gondola (per gondola”)

 

 

 

Total: 0.65 min per container Total: 0.38 min per container

 

* Assume 50 empty boxes per gondola
** Assume (4) totes at a time brought from tugger to sort area

*** Assume: 32 empty totes/pallet and 500’ round trip from/to tote storage to
dock

 

Table 7 represents the time taken for the set of activities involved in the
both packaging systems. For expendable containers, it is loaded to a tugger.
The tugger is a delivery vehicle routing between the storage area and production
line (workstations). As loading the containers to tugger, the container tops are
cut open. The box tops are disposed. The containers are delivered to the proper
workstations. Each workstation has a creform (gravity rack) where at least two-
hours inventory should be available for an assembler all the time. As loading
containers to the creforms, pick up empties and dispose them in gondola. The
gondola is emptied on the regular basis depends on the filling rates. The
estimated time consumption for expendable container system is 0.65 min per
container. i

For returnable containers, it is loaded to tugger. The returnable containers
do not require cutting tops. The containers are delivered to the designated
workstations and unloaded to creform. After unloading full containers, empties
are loaded to tugger. The tugger driver places empty containers to sorting area.
The empties, then, staged and loaded to truck going back to the supplier. The

estimated time for this set of activities is 0.38 min per container.

43

cotah
lpoun
cotar
any oti
jufito

50047

Data E

motiw
mdepe
indepe
wheny
Symen

USGdtr

Where
reDIES

one-Ur

Uhngt
lblGOr

Disposal cost for expendable container system is based on a fixed
container weight for each classification. Low cost containers are assumed to be
3 pounds. Mid cost containers are to be 5 pounds and 50 pounds for high cost
containers. This weight should include any fraction weight of pallet, label, and
any other shipping material. There is no logic or data behind this numbers. It is
just to make a distinction between the classes. The disposal rate for recycling is

$0.0475 per pound (National Solid Waste Management Association 1992).

Data Evaluation

Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the result data from the
multi-variable cost simulation in order to estimate the relationship between the
independent variables (X1) and the dependent variable (Y). In this study, the
independent variables are the five cost drivers and the dependent variable is the
difference between the returnable container systems’ cost and expendable
systems’ cost. For each dependent variable, the technique of least—squares was

used to estimate the regression coefficients (b,) in an equation of the form:

Y =bo +b1X1+b2X2 +...+b,,X,, +u

where u denotes a random disturbance term. The regression coefficient (b,-)
represents the expected change in the performance indicator associated with a
one-unit change in the ith independent variable.

The coefficients (bi) depend upon the units of measurement for Y and X,-.
Using the standardized independent variables (Xi), the regression coefficients
(b,-) do not depend upon the units of measurement and facilitate a comparison of

the relative impact of different variables. The standardized independent

44

rariab
Y is e'
The 5'

fl
Middl
l'llGl'
CT. 0
PVF.
CUC:

 

 

 

variables (X) can then be interpreted as the number of standard deviations that

Y is expected to change in response to a one standard deviation change in X,7.

The standardized variables from Table 6 are presented in the Table 8.

Table 8 Standardized Variables and associated ranges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CT ADV PVF PQ DD CUC
Low -1 -0.96 -O.96 -0.96 -O.93 -O.64
Middle 0 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -O.13 -0.54
High 1 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.15

 

CT: cycle time
PVF: peak volume factor
CUC: container unit cost

ADV: average daily volume

PQ: pack quantity

DD: delivery distance

45

 

expen
mahul
oollap:
impac
ophhu
srhuh

the nu

SHIGI

Cycle

lime (s
phser
conhn

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This section provides a discussion of the cost comparisons between the

expendable and the returnable container system models for various
manufacturing and logistics settings and the optimal return ratio for
collapsible/nestable returnable containers. First, discussion addresses the
impact of individual variable to the total container system cost. Second, the
optimal return ratio is discussed. Third, the results from the multi-variable cost

simulation are discussed using findings from the multiple regression analysis and

the manufacturing and logistics profile.

SINGLE VARIABLE ANALYSIS

Cycle Time (CT)

The returnable container system cost increases in proportion to the cycle
time (see Figure 4). The specific parameters associated with the Figure 4 are
presented in Table 9. As cycle time increases from 7 to 34 days, the increase in
container system cost was from $04182 to $04645 (about $ 0.05) per part. As
the cycle time increases, the total returnable container system cost increases
because more containers are required.

The magnitude of the impact by the cycle time is relatively low. The

increase in the cycle time increases the container initial investment. However,

46

the ad

the co

oontai
cost o
of low
any a)
about
cost or

the ret

the additional container cost for the increased cycle time is not significant after
the cost is amortized over the container life.

The same cost prediction was performed with mid and high cost
containers. Figure 5 and Table 10 represent the cost prediction results for mid
cost container set, and Figure 6 and Table 11 for high cost container set. In case
of low cost containers, a returnable container system could not be justified with
any cycle time between 7 and 34. However, savings became possible up to
about 30 days of cycle time for mid cost containers, and all cycle times for high

cost containers. As the container unit cost increases, the cycle can be longer for

the returnable container system to be justified.

47

 

 

em 4
“mm 0

east
Co. as» 226

om ow or o

L ll. , i .. Fl-) . twill- ..r--r -.lll . 11+

 

8 6m .9, m...» 9m.

 

new $59.60 7.00 26.. .2 9:: £96 Lo 63E. v 9:9“.

no.3
o to»
m fow
omd»
mmda
omda
and»
93»
9.3
omda

uedls
3903 0.191353 Jeugezuoa

 

48

:85 .38

E953 559:8 5.555595 ”Owom
55:5 .55. 5: 99 .5886 ”mo
559525988 559:8
5.555595 5.89. 9 55:55: 9:: Mt.
59:5 .99 555. um...

55.: 58:5 No 85:55: ”won.
55__E 55:95.5 852.55 ”an.

555.» .9: 559:8 1.0
55955355 5.55:: 3.55: “On.
55: .5E: 5.96 PO

.595 .38 E958 559:8 5.55535: Howom
5595955. .2952, 559:8 H>>O

559595 559:8 5.555595 5o 88 5:: ”mo:
559553988 55595: 5.55595: 5.55: 9 55555: 55. um...
5.85 .99 585...: “ms.

5295: .5555: 2.9: 559525 H>o<

99 8588.539 559:8 ”mmo

589 5.8.8 55: H...>n.

559525 559:8 53855: No 38 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.55 5555.55 58:: 5 55.: 55.55 8 8.: F FvF 85 88 N .F 8 5F 5 8.55
8.3 35.3 88.: 5 55.: 3.3 8 8.: F F: 85 88 N .F :F 5F F: 8.3
8.55 «85.55 58:: 5 55.: 55.55 5F 8.: F :1 85 88 N .F :F 5F N 8.55
8.3 F533 5:8: 5 55.: 3.3 9 8.: F :1 :8 88 N .F :F 5F 8 8.3
8.3 83.3 88.: 5 55.: 3.3 9 8.: F F: 85 88 N .F :F 5F N 8.3

5.8 581:5 58:: m 55.: 55.55 8 8.: F FvF 85 88 N .F 8 5F F 8.55
8.3 585.3 558.: 5 55.: 3.3 8 8.: F F: 85 88 N .F :F 5F 5F 8.3
8.3 585.3 52:: 5 55.: 3.3 5F 8.: F F: :8 88 N .F :F 5F F 8.3
8.3 85.3 5N8: 5 55.: 3.3 8 8.: F F: :8 88 N .F m” M" ”F “Wm“

. 5.: 528.: m 55.: 3.3 5F 5.: F :1 :5 88 N .F . .
8 35858F owe: m: 2,: 5:. mo: 5 E won. as. 8 >8 8 :8 o: “S: 5 mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.5 55950 5500 26.. :9 5E:. 5.80 50 555E. m 5.555

49

 

 

me 5
5m 0

5>au

 

to. as: 226
ov om cm 9 o
_ - : I! : t : I I i 1! -LT
F
U D D r

U D
D D

a I m 4 4 a 4 4 q d T

 

«N5 8: .2, 3 9m.

55 55980 3:0 5:2 8.. 5:55 5.80 5: 859:. 5 9:95

0 F69
cud»
and»
8.05
and»
00.05
05:5

wed/s
1803 masks Jaumuoa

 

50

E38 .88

E988 552:8 mzmucmaxm Homom
3.8 .3. .3 9m. .8086 ”mo
558828556 859:8
988098 2.89. 9 886: 9:: “w...
595 .29 Bow. My...

88 .238 .6 55:3: ”m0“.
mm__E doc—3.0.6 >638 do

28> .mE .8888 Jo
5:5:onth .bzcmsc xoma ”Ga
88. .98 226 F0

:88 .88 828m 559:8 038.39 Homom
553F523. .2.ng .mEmEoo H>>o

558:0on .hmEmEoo 282.598 .6 88 55 “mo:
5588082355 8559.80 038.29 mica; 2 888.: me: ”E.
883 .99 88.8 ”as.

>88th .88: >85 399m “>04.

.29 EmEszmEQ .mEmEoo ”mmo

88$ 0E2? xmma i>n_

858.508 .hmEmEoo 28539 8 88 :5. ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 8.8 88.0 m 88 8.3 F 8.0 F FvF o8 88 F.F oF 0F 8 863
88 No.8 888 8 mod 8.3 F 88 F F: 8o 88 N F.F 2 OF 8 8.8»
_3.8 8.8 888 m 88 8.3 F 8.o F F: 28 88 N F.F oF 8F N 863
8.8 8.8 888 m 8.0 8.3 F and F F: 28 88 N F.F oF 0F 8 8&3
8.8 8.8 88.0 m 88 8.3 F 88 F F: 28 88 N F.F OF .3 NN 8&3
8.8 3.8 888 m 88 8.3 F 88 F :1 o8 88 N F.F 8 OF 8 863
8.8 3.8 888 m 88 8.3 F and F :1 8o 88 N F.F oF mF 8 863
8.8 8.8 888 m 88 8.3 F 8.o F F: 08 88 N F.F OF 3 8F 883
8.8 2.8 888 m 8.0 8.3 F and F F3 08 88 N x m" MN mF “um”
. . . 86 8.3 F 8.o F F: o8 88 N .
8 808mg. 888.23 exam/>0 8 mo: 5 E won. a; 8 >8 .5 mac on. “Sn. a5 Moan
.1 8885380800 2522 mEF mV.90 88m E_ 8 E h

51

 

wa <
“mm 0

m>au
So. as; 226
8 8 ON

88 .3. .2, 8» 9m.

L .l .. .Il .llllll'liw .7 l‘lllitluvl’lll'll'llx .4“lt

 

o
11:11; I”
D . OO.—‘$ m
8.8 m...
w
. s I.
88 Wk.
7 . S
8.8 u m
- 8.8 w
0
- 8.8 m
. 8
cos»

Em .8580 800 :9: .3 9:: 280 8 88:: o 9:9“.

 

52

50.5 .88

E555 559:8 5.550595 ”050m.
55.5 .50. 50 99 55005.0 ”mo
5595259058 559:8
5.550595 5.05: 9 05055: 58: m:
58.5 .99 555. ”m...

550 .2008 5 55:05: ”50“.
5...: 50:95.0 .5550 do

555.» .55.. 559:8 1.0
55950550 55:80 550 ”Ga
5.80 .58: 5.0.6 #0

.505 .58 8555 559:8 5.55535: ”050m.
5595055. .2053 559:8 H>>o

559505 559:8 5.598595 5 500 5:: ”mo:
5595059052. 5:559:05 5.55535: 5.05.. 9 05055: 58: ”E.
5...:5 .99 5055.? is.

525.50 .5055: 2.95 50.555 ”>n.<

99 858585.05: 559:8 ”$5

559 5E:.o> 5.550 ”n.>n.

559505 559:3 5.55535: 5 500 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.855 05.55 580.0 05 55.0 00.055 5F 55.0 F :1 005 0005 N F.F 0F 5.F 5 00.035
W555 55.55 580.0 05 55.0 00.055 5F 55.0 F FvF 005 0005 N F.F F 5.F F5 00.0055
.5555 F555 5300 05 55.0 00.055 5F 55.0 F Fv.F 005 0005 N F.F 0F 5F 5 00.005
75.55 3.55 5550.0 05 55.0 00.055 5F 55.0 F Fv.F 005 0005 N F.F 0F 5.F 5N 00.0055
V5.55 N5.N5 55.0.0 05 55.0 00.055 5F 55.0 F Fv.F 005 0005 N F.F 0F 5.F NN 00.005
75.55 5555 580.0 05 55.0 00.055 5F 55.0 F FYF 005 0005 N F.F 0F 5F .2. 00.0055
@555 N55 53.0.0 05 55.0 00.055 5F 55.0 F Fv.F 005 0005 N F.F 0F 5.F 5.. 0.0055
.855 8.8 580.0 8 55.0 8.08 8 8.0 F F: 005 88 N F.F 0F 5F .2 8.88
.855 8.8 580.0 8 55.0 8.85 8 8.0 F FF..F 005 88 M w." w” 5“” WF “an”
. . 55.0.0 8 55.0 8.08 5F 8.0 F F: 005 008 .
.8 505505.FN ””505 50 2,0 5 mo: 5 E 50“. ms. 00 >8 5 55 8. ”Sn. .5 mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55 55950 5500 50.... :8 5.5.5 5.5.6 50 550E. FF 5.555

53

Average Daily Volume (ADV)

Increasing the average daily volume reduces costs for both kinds of
container systems. Figure 7 and Table 12 show the results of the low cost
container set in comparison of expendable and returnable container system cost.
As the average daily volume was increased from 1,000 to 10,000 parts, the
returnable container system cost decreased from $1.20 to $0.13 per part, and the
expendable container system cost decreased from $0.93 to $0.17 per part. The
interesting observation is that the cost of returnable container system decreases
at a faster rate than expendable container system.

As the container cost increases, the decreasing rate increases. Figure 8
and Table 13 show the results for cost prediction for mid cost set, and the Figure
9 and Table 14 show the results for cost prediction. The savings become
possible when the average daily volume was greater than 6,000 parts per day for
the low cost container set, 2,000 parts per day for the mid cost container set, and
any daily volumes for the high cost container set.

The economies of scale are the reason for this behavior. The sensitivity of
economies of scale is greater with the returnable container systems because the
returnable container unit cost is higher than expendable container unit cost. In
other words, when the higher container cost diminishes over the large amount of
the daily volume, it does faster than the lower container cost. For example, if 2
divide a number 20, it becomes 10. If a number 40 divided by 2, it becomes 20.
The number decreased by 10 in the first case, and by 20 in the second case. It

is clearly shown that the decreasing rate is faster for the higher number. In

54

addition, the expendable container cost is expense, but the returnable container
cost diminishes over number of trips between the supplier and customer for the

given period of time. Returnable container system cost can be more easily

justified with higher daily volume and higher cost containers.

55

 

$2852.
$05 oE:_c> 2.50 om8c><

 

OOONF oooo ooow Doom ooov OOON o
_I i ; _ i p i c -Liiillllglf
c c
o 0 I I a
m j
q
9m. 1 a

com o i

 

o» «om .m> m6» nxm

 

omda
ovdw
00.0»
end»

8. a .

cm. 5
0.... 3

«mm 55950 $00 26.. .8 oE:_o> >__mo 00.90216 53:: 5 9:9“.

wed/s
1909 mate‘s Jeumuoo

 

 

 

56

:59» .58

E355 553:8 5355595 ”owow
55$ .55 5: 33 58:56 ”me
553:85335E 553:8
5335:5555 56:5: 2 .5555: 5E: ”m5
505$ .33 525. mm...

555 .2335 5 5:535: “won.
55E: 58356 >525: do

95> .52. 553:8 1.0
55352355 .5236 555: ”on.
55: .5E: 5.96 #0

.o

:53» .88 E355 553:8 535535: Howom
5535255 .2953 553:8 H>>o

553839 553:8 5355595 he 58 5:: ”mo:
5535355335.: .m553:8 535535.. 56:5: 3 55555: 55: ”E.
5:55» .33 585:5 is.

5235: .5955: 555 5m55>m H>o<

33 3:5E:m_:5_:5: 553:8 “$5

583 5559 v.55: m>n_

553:83 553:8 535535.. 5 «moo 5:: ”mo:

v9
we

 

553:8 500 26.. :2

NF 53m...

57

 

 

 

em 4
«mm 0

 

>335:
55$ 8.2.; 53 3222

occur oooov coo coco ooov OOON o

iliiLlli ii l1-_- 5| L|lill :

o n. ONO»
4 4 4 4 0 V- ovdw
4 0 . cod»

4 Y omd»
oo. re
a i ON. a
5 CV. Fm

 

:8 6: .2, 3 ea

 

5m 553:00 500 2.2 :8 oE:_o> €50 5mm5>< *0 659.5 w 059”—

uedls
3803 masks Jeumuoo

 

58

:59: 5:8

E559: 553:8 5555:5555 Homom.
:55: .3. 5:. 555: .5852: ”mm.
5:.3:8\:55:5E 553:8
5355:5555 5.5:5: 55 55:55: 5.55 m...
59.5: .555: 555. Nm...

5.53: 5.55:: 55 55:55: ”won.
:55: 55:35: >525: do

955.. .55. 553:8 Jo
5553:8595: 5.65:: 5.55: ”On.
:55 .555 5.98 #0

:59: 5:8 53:5 553:8 5.55535: ”owom
5555:8555. 5:953 553:8 H>>o

555E859 553:8 5355595 55 5:8 5:: ”mo:
553:855355: 6.55558 5.55535: 5.55: 3 55555: 555 um...
55:55» .35.. 5055:: “ms.

52:5: 555:: .55: 55555 ”>95

35: 5585.55.55: 553:8 ”mmo

5553 55:29 5.55: ”n.>n.

555E859 553:8 5.55535: 55 5:8 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

::.:: 5:: :53: : ::.: ::.:: 5 ::.: 5 55.5 8: ::::5 N 5.5 :5 :5 : ::.eN:
.:: 5:: :53: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 5.5.5 ::: :8: N 5.5 :5 :5 : ::.:N:
::.:: 5:: :53: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 5:5 8: 8:: N 5.5 :5 :5 : ::.:.N:
5:: :N.:: :53: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 55.5 8: ::2. N 5.5 :5 :5 : :32
v.:: :N.:: :53: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 5.5.5 :8 8:: N 5.5 :5 :5 : ::.:.N:
5::: 55:: :53: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 5:5 :8 ::.: N 5.5 5 :5 ::.VN:
::.:: ::.:: :53: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 5:5 :8 ::8 N 5.5 :5 :5 : ::.:N:
swam ”Mn” :55: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 55.5 8: :8: N 5.5 :5 :5 : 8.5::
H . ::.:: : ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 5:5 8: :::N N 5.5 :5 . .
5 5: NN5: :53: ::.: ::.:: :5 ::.: 5 5:5 :8 :85 N 5.5 :5 M." : ::.eN:
5:55 555:. m: 255 55 55; m: E :0”. : :: «N:
:2. :: >2 .6 ::o a: “S: 5 :5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55m 553:8 5:00 :52 5:5 5 5:: >550 5:555. 5: 55:5. :5 535...

 

 

 

me d
55m 5

55523.55

 

.>:<. oE=_o> 2.5: 82:2
:::N5 885 8:: :8: :85. :::N :

.1 f.Ill|nhu||-m IliniIIUl M U W 0 5 H.“ o
o a .5 8 5: m
i ::.N: m.
::.:: 3m
, 85.: w. .m.
. u s
5 o: m: m
......... ,::.::m
< 1 008» W

5 ::.::

 

:8: 5:: .2, 8: ea

 

 

:5w 555.50 :80 :9... :55 5E:.o> 2.50 5m5:5>< 55 859:. 5 555.“.

 

60

:53: .855
5:58.»: .8668 5358598 6wa
::.: .m:_ :5: 555: .5886 ”mo
5556558565.: :5:_5::55
5656:5558 5.6:5: 2 65655: 58: ME.
55:3 .555: 5:5. ”m...
«$56 23:: 5o 8:535: ”won.
:26. 55:58.6 b5>=56 do

955.» .55.. .555655 1.0
655652.065: 5.65:: 5.55: ”on.

956 .58.: 5.5.8 #0

:53: .855 E588 5:65:55 565535: ”owom
5556523. 4:953 5:65:55 H>>0

855655: .:5:_5::55 5656:5955 6 ::55 5_:: ”mo:
55565585658 8555655 565525: 56:5: 9 65655: 58.: ”a:
5.65 .555: 5:556: ”ms.
868:5: .5m5m: 2.56 5m5:5>5 ”>045

555: 658865.55: 555655 ”mmo
.5555: 5829 x55: ”u.>n_
5556553 .:5:_5::o5 565535: 6 855 5_:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:8 5:: :28: 8 :: 8.8: :5 ::.: 5 5.5.5 8 885 N 5.5 :5 :.5 : 8.8::
::.:: ::.:: :28: 8 ::.: 8.8: :5 ::.:5 55.5 8 ::8 N 5.5 :5 :5 : 8.83
::.:: 8:: :28: 8 ::.: 8.8: :5 ::.:5 3.5 8 8:: N 5.5 :5 :5 : 8.85.:
::.:: :8 :28: 8 ::.: ::.8: :5 ::.:5 5:5 8 82. N 5.5 :5 :5 : 8.8.:
::.:: :8 ::8: 8 ::.: 8.8: :5 ::.:5 5.1 8 88 N 5.5 :5 :5 : 8:8:
::.:: ::a :53: o: :5: 55.55: :5 ::.: 5 55.5 :5 5::: N 5.5 :5 .5 55.53:
::.:: ::.:: :28: 8 ::.: 8.8: :5 ::.:5 3.5 8 88 N 5.5 :5 :5 : 8.85.:
:3“ “Mom :28: 8 ::.: 8.8: :5 ::.:5 55.5 8 8:: N 5.5 5 :5 : 8.83
. .: :25: 8 ::.: 8.8: :5 ::.:5 5:5 8 88 N 5.5 :5 :. .
:E: :5: :28: :: ::.: 8.8: :5 ::.:5 5:5 8 :85 N 5.5 :5 :H M “an”
5:55. 5:5: mo .55 5:. 55: m... E .50“. :2. 5: >2 .6 Eu 0: ”Sn. .8 mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5w 555650 ::50 :

.I 85 555:: 2.50 58:52: 6 5559:. 5.5 5.

:5:

61

Peak Volume Factor (PVF)

Recall that the peak volume factor (PVF) is a measure of the fluctuations
in the average daily volume (ADV). The impact of fluctuations for the low cost
container set was observed for the peak volume increasing from 10 "/0 to 100 %.
As the peak volume factor was increased, the returnable system cost increased
very little, from $04106 to $04141 per part (see Figure 10 and Table 15).

High fluctuations did affect the container system cost. However, the
impact is relatively low. Increasing the peak volume factor actually increases the
average daily volume, 3,000 parts per day in this case. The increase from 10%
to 100% was actually the increase of average daily volume from 3,100 to 6,000.
The impact of average daily volume was relatively high in the previous section.
The increase in the average daily volume (ADV) increases the annual volume
that causes the significant increase in the initial investment.

However, unlike average daily volume (ADV) in the previous section, this
increase by peak volume factor is not related to annual volume (see equation for
returnable container system cost). The peak volume factor only measures the
cost impact of additional containers for the daily fluctuation. The additional
containers cost for daily fluctuation become significantly low after the cost
amortized by number of usages over containers’ life.

Higher container cost overcomes the effect of peak volume factor
significantly as it did for the other variables. Figure 11 and Table 16 present the

results for mid cost container set, and Figure 12 and Table 17 present the results

62

for high cost container set. With the higher cost containers, the peak volume

factor does not affect the overall system’s cost.

63

 

 

90 <
:5m. 0

 

:55: :28: oE=_o> 5.8.:
:.N N :5 5

ddddd‘dd“

0000000000

:: 8: .9, :8 9.:

 

 

 

 

-- ::.::

wad:
- and»
::.::
- ovd»

.. 5.5.5:

 

- Ned:

uedls
1803 mate‘s Jeugeauog

 

 

:5w 555650 850 35.. :5: 6:55... 5:::_o> 5.551 :5 :55aE_ 0.. 559....

 

64

5:59: .88

E588 555::8 5656:5555 ”owom.
::.:: ::.:. 5: 55: .5886 do
5556885655 .55588
5656:5555 5.6:5: 2 65655: 5.5: m...
55:: .555: 5:5. My...

m>56 5.55:: :o 55:55:: ”:0...
:5..:: 55:58.6 5:52.56 do

::55> .55. 555::8 Jo
55568855: 5.65:: 5.55: ”On.
8:56 .5555 5.5555 #0

:53: .88 E588 555::8 565525: ”0:01
5555:5585 5:952, 55568 ”:50

:0:_mucoo\6 ...®c_m~c00 wamflcwaxm :0 “woo «E: ”MOD

:0c_mucoo\m0«:c_E .m:0c_mucoo 0_Dmc:3«m: EDEN...— Ou Umflmmc 05.5 ”NE.

55.5: .555: 5:556: ”ms.

568:5: .5555: 2.56 5m55>5 ”>95.

55: 858865.55: 555::8 “mmo

5:55: 5E:.o> x55: ”u.>n.

55588:: 555::8 565535: 55 855 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

End: ::.:: mnvod m mmd and: :5 and F 3... com coo: N we or N a cod:
#06: 9.16: @256 m mod and: we and 5 5:... com Doom N 5.5 or .m._. m cad:
5:6: :36: mnvod m mod and: 9 mad w 3.: com coon N _.... 0.. .m.—. m cod:
End: Need: mnvod m mod and: :5 and .. 3.: com 000: N we 0.. h... a cad:
had: vavd: mnvod m. mod and: w.. and 5 3.5 600 ooom N F... or o... m 2.6:
had: N36: @556 m mod and: :5 wad .. ::.: coo ooom N F... or m... m cod:
had: 5.3.0: mnvod m mod and: :5 and .. 3.5 coo coon N 5... or .—. m 09.0»
had: :56: mwvod m mod and: we and .. 3.: com Doom N ..... 0.. .—. m 6:6:
5:6: 2.3.9: @556 m mod 6nd: :5 mmd F ::.5 com coon N ..... or N._. m cad:
5:6: 6:36: 055.0 m med and: w: wmd _. 3.: Com coon N 5... .. v... m ad:
Umom Umom. mm. >>0 m... m0: w... «E wOu 1.2. CD >04 ..0 $10 On. “5a: ._. ”.02.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5: 555::50 850 26.. :o: 5555“. 5E:_o> 5.55.: 6 5559:. m5 565...

65

 

 

wa 1
:5”. a

£3. :38: 2.5:; 5.8.:
55 N 5.. : no

.- 111 ‘x- .31.! . ‘. , .. :

0000000000

d‘dfifidfidfid

a» :3. .2, 8 am.

 

2.3
5 8.3
one»
.- 3.8
one»
8.9:
. Ed»

 

:5w 55580 800 5.5. :o: 8:55“. 5E:_o> v.55n. :o 859:. 55 5:39“.

wed/S
3903 masks Jaumuog

 

66

:55.» .855

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

558$ :5:.5::55 5.55.5595 Howow ::55:5 .855 558.6 :5:.5::55 5.55535: ”050m
55:5 .55. :55 5:5: 55555.5 ”mo :5:.5::5585. 5.5.53 :5:.5::55 H>>o
:5:.5::5585555 :5:.5::55

5.5555595 5.5:5: 5: 55555: 55.: ”w... :5:.5::555 :5:.5::55 5.555555 :5 855 :.:5 ”mo:

5555 5:5: :555. ”m... :5:.5::5585555 .m:555::55 5.55535: 5.5:5: 5: 55555: 55.: “m...

9.55 5.598 :5 5:55.55: ”won. 5:55 .5:5: 5555..:: ”as.

55:5 55:58.: 552.55 do 558.55 .5558: 2.55 555:5>5 ”>05.

5:55.. .5:.. :5:.5::55 5.0 5:5: 555855.55: :5:.5::55 ”mmo

:5:.5::558555 .>:.::5:5 5.55: ”On. :5:55: 5:::.5> 5.55: “5?...

955 .55.: 5.55 “.50 :5:.5::55} :5:.5::55 5.55535: :5 855 :.:5 ”mo:

W555 $555.55 55555 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 N 5 55.5N5
.5555 555.5» 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 .5... 5 55.5N5
55.55 555.55 555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 .5 5 55.5N»
5.55 5555.5» 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 5.5 5 55.5N5
W555 555.5» 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 5.5 5 55.5N5
.5555 5555.55 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 5... 5 55.5N5
55.55 .55N5.55 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 .5 5 55.5N5
55.55 W5N555 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 .5 5 55.5N5
.5555 N5N555 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 N... 5 55.5N5
.5555 55N5.55 5555.5 5 55.5 55.55 55 55.5 5 55.5 555 555 N 5.5 55 5... 5 55.5N5
050m 0501 me >>Q m... mu: m... a... mo“. E2. on >o< :0 mac On. “5 .50 mo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:55 :5:.5::50 850 5:2 :5: 8:55“. 55:_5> 5.555 :5 85%. 55 5.55...

67

 

IE. :33“: oE=_o> 5.8a.

55 N 5.5 : 5.5 0

0000000000 co...»
8.55
qud 00.5»
.010 00.3
8.8
5 8.5»
5 8.5»

‘1‘fi‘Q‘dC‘

 

8... a :3. .2, 58 em

 

 

 

 

:55 55.3550 850 :5... :5. 5:55“. 55:.o> x55n. :5 :5555. N5 5:55.".

wed/s
1803 masks Jaumuoo

 

68

tméw .umoo
899$ 559:8 mEmccmaxm “owom

3:» .8. .3 2m. :30qu ”mo

558523ng $58.80
293596 295: 2 33m: 9:: ”w...

505» .92 Sam. My...
38 $.33. ho 55:3: ”won.

mm__E .mocmumfi 39:8 do

93> .9: 85250 Jo
.mEmEooBtma $5.530 xoma ”Ga
gun 6E: 298 #0

E25 .58 8296 558:8 mEmEBQ Homom
5598039. .3903 559:8 H>>o

558.50% 359.50 mfimucmaxm be “moo HE: ”mo:
5535032358 .mmemEoo 23:53. 20:9. 2 830: 0E: ”E.
05E» .mfi. momm=E ”m2
>m2mtma .mmmm: >=mu 399m H>o<

9m. EmEcmEmEQ .mEmEoo ”mmo
.203 9:29 :93 m>n_
$5953» 65250 $32.29 *0 $8 ES ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ind» nwd» nvod m mod ocdoa P and F 3‘... Com com N F.F F N m @96ch
~36» 36» @556 on mod codma wv wmd r 21‘ com com N F.F _. 3;. a 6:60?“
@969 and» mnvod m mod oodm» 9‘ mad _. rvé com com N F... _. _w._, m codov»
3.6» end» mhvod om mod 69cm» 9. and F 5‘? com com N F... F Ev m 092.?»
"36» and» mnwod om mmd 69cm“ 9. and F 3... com com N _.._. F 9—. m coda?»
@669 and» mnvod cm mod ccdm» fir wmd _‘ 3... com com N 2‘ _. m... m codovw
@md» mud“ mtuod om mod code» w? and _. 3‘... com com N v.9 F at? a ocdcv»
wand» who“ mnvod on 60.0 codom mp wmd P IVA com com N F.F P n.—. m @6695
dea find» mnvod cm 00.0 codmm aw wmd _. 36 com com N E, P N... a 2:53
dea and“ mnvod om med 69.3» 9. wmd _. 3;. com com N 7? w —..—. m ocdcv»

Uwom Umom mo >>Q wk m0: «3 1h won. m OD >01 40 mmo Om u..>n_ H0 “02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“mm $5350 .80 :9: .8 Baum“. mE:.o> xmmn. “6 6mg: 5 min...

69

Pack Quantity (P0)

The pack quantity was varied from 10 to 560 parts per container. The
results for the low cost container set are shown in Figure 13 and Table 18. As
the pack quantity increased, the cost decreased from $0.4113 to $03951 per
part for the returnable container system and from $03658 to $02835 per part for
the expendable container system.

Returnable container systems can be more easily justified with lower pack
quantity. Economies of scale can explain this behavior. The increase in pack
quantity is spread over the fixed container investment, labor cost, and disposal
cost. The reason that the returnable container system cost is less sensitive is
that since the container unit cost is already amortized over its lifetime, the pack
quantity does not impact as mush as on the expendable container systems.

With higher container unit cost, the savings can be achieved more easily.
The returnable container systems could not be justified for the low cost container
set. As the container cost increased to the mid and high cost container set, the
economic justification became possible. For the mid cost container set, savings
was possible up to 20 parts per container (see Figure 14 and Table 19). For the
high cost container set, the savings was available up to 480 parts per container,

and the savings was greater than the mid cost container set (see Figure 15 and

Table 20).

7O

 

9m. 4
Em a

com

353203353

.9: £226 x28
com oov com com oer o
e
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q T
Q Q
t
o D 0 o 0 0 o D on .
r

 

3 8m .2, no» em

 

-m
no.3 Mu
So» m.
9.3 m.
8.3 m us
3.3 m.“
8.3 m
8.8 m.
9.3 m
3.3

“mm .mEScoo “moo 26.. .8 bzcmac xomd co 838. m? 059“.

 

 

71

:25 .38
839$ 553:8 mfimucmaxm Homom

33 .3. .3 9m. .3036 “mo

553838558 358:8
mEmucmaxm mica: 2 880: as: m:
59:» .29 Bow. ”m:

98 .233 yo 65:3: ”won.

mm__E .mocmumfi >553 do
2mm.» 6:. 558:8 no
559503th .bzcmaa xoma ”on.

9% .mE: 298 #0

:25 .38 Ema? 553:8 032.39 ”owom
553538. .5903 558:8 u>>o

55953» 359:8 033595 3 $8 5:: ”mo:
559828555. 905980 53532 0.95: 9 880: we: “a...
2:5» .29 momma: ”ms.

323.8 .mmmm: >=mu mmmbm>m ”>o<

9m. EoEcmEmEQ 553:8 ”mmo

.203 9:29 xmma «Sm

858.52% 359:8 29255. 8 $8 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anda wmwnda mnvod 0.0 omdm F wmd w Sir om Doom N _..w 6mm me m 690»
hmde» vmamda mngd mmd omdw 9. and F 3.? co coon N F.F cm... mé m 6.96»
wvad» Nmmmd» mnvod mod cmd» 2 and _. EV... om coon N F._. 69‘ m... m 06»
@vad» Rwanda mnvod mod and» _. wad F :9 om boom N _.._. cNm we a cd»
mmmNd» mmmnda mnvod mad cmda a? and F :5 cm coon N F... OQN me m cad»
thNd» wmmnd» mnvod mod and“ 9 and _. EV... om ooom N F.F 02. m... m and»
NaNd» mommda mnvod mod omdm ww mmd —. EXP o0 com N F... m me n coda
fiNonda mmmnd» mnvod mod and» 9. mad F :1. oo Doom N re v m... m cod»
FnNnd» wnovdw mnvod mod and» we and w 3... 00 Doom N _.._. ON a9 m cod»
fimmnda 236» 65.0.0 med and» Q and F EV... om Doom N F... 2. me a cod»

omom Owom mo 26 m... m0: 1.. 1 m0“. «:2 DD >O< 4Q me Oar “5n. ._.Q «.0

 

 

 

“om $59.80 $00 26.. at

 

5580 xomn. B 885. 2 033

72

 

me 4
“mm 0

358202853

 

6.: 55:0 58..

com com cow com com co? o
_ I - ELI}: _ - LI: 1.. -8
8.8
- 8.8
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q r OM.O$
a 0 0 0 a 0 0 man.5 ovda
. - 8.8
.., 8.8
- 8.8

«8 .3. .2, 8 ea

 

uedls
3803 masks Jaumuoo

 

 

“am 55550 “moo 5.2 .2 33:30 52$ *0 63.5 3. 93¢

73

.595 .58

5555 55558 5.55595 deem
55.5 .55. .55 55. .5585... ”mo
5555555555.: .55558
5.555595 5.55.. o. .5555: 5:... ”wk
55:5 .55. .555. Mm...

555 5.558 .5 5:53.55: ”won.
55...: 55:55... 552.55 do

5.55.. .5... .55558 1.0
555585.55 5.5535 555 ”on.
5.55 .55.. 5.55 #0

5.55.5 .58 E555 5:.558 5.55535. Home”.
5555855. .5553 .555555 H>>o

55558.5 .555555 5.55.5595 .5 .555 5:: ”mo...
555555.555... 5.555555 5.55535. 5.5:5: 5. 55555: 5:... mm...
5.5.5 .55. 5555.5. is.

555.55 .5555: 2.55 555.55 H>o<

55. 555555.55. 555555 Name

.955. 5E:.o> x555 “u.>n.

5555585 .55558 5.55535. .5 .58 .5: ”mo:

 

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

weeNda madda envod m med ddd» er eed .. EV... doe doom N ...F Gee eé e ddéum
NmeNdm mend» mwvod m med dddm er eed .. .5... doe doom N F... dev dé d ddéN»
edmNd» emmddm mnvod m med ddd» e.. emd _. EV... doe doom N ..... ddv 0.? m ddéN»
thNdm emmdd» muvod m med add» e.. end .. .5... doe doom N _.... de me e ddéua
emNd» remade envod m med dddm er end .. EV... doe doom N ...F dVN eé e ddéNu
mnemdm eemddm envod m med ddda er emd .. eve doe doom N F... oer e... m ddéN»
EVNdd» eemdda mnvod m med dd» er end P 3.? doe doom N ...F de me e ddéN»
bend” eNdvd» muvod med Odd» e.. end w .55 doe doom N F.F dc m... e ddéN»
deed» edwvda mnvod m med Odd» er eed .. EV... doe doom N F.F dN e9 5 2.de
.dmNed» .eeNvda mnvod m med ddd» er end P 36 doe doom N w... d.. d... e ddéN»
Umom omum mo w... m0: w... a... m0“. ”:2. DD >O< ..0 me On. “Sn. ...0 mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.55 55985 .85 2.2 .o. 55:85 5.85 .o .89... 2 285

 

559555.355

 

.5... £2.35 5.8:
com com oov com com go. o

_ I I .I L41 limlr‘ Q . 1% .n_nw.nlrfl.fl -6 O
4 , 8.; m
4 .85» M.
9m: 4 . cod» Mm.
.3... - 8... mm
, 8...» m
4. oo o» N

- 8.5

 

 

83 .3. .2, 8» 9.5

 

l ‘+'|I$|IIIJG||III ».'16t\" ‘Jl-ulil.

5» 555550 .550 :9... .5. 3.55:0 x55 .5 .5555. or 5.35.“.

75

:33 .58

:55? 552:8 mfimucmaxm ”owom
55B .3. 5a 5.9 .5836 ”mo
5585055558 559:8
535235 5.95; 2 555: 58: ”wk
505$ .55. 595 my:

gas .233 5 55:55: ”m0“.

55:8 .8556 >553 do

m55> .55. 559:8 50
559505th .5253 xoma ”on.

59» .58 :55? 559:8 535539 “owom
5595035 .5953 559:8 n>>o

559505 553:8 5359595 5 58 5:: ”mo:
5558855558 $555.50 5.99.55. 5.95: 2 555: 56: ”a...
55:5 .55. 595:6 ”as.

>52»th .595»: 55g mmm5>m 50¢.

55. «cmecflcmam. 558:8 ”mmo

553 5829 V53 H..._>n_

9.3 .58: 5.26 Po

bmcfiuconuxw £0:_mucoo gnaw—=50. ho “moo ::3 .103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and» :ovd» mnvod om mod oodma 9 and _. 3... com com N r._. 0mm m... m .56an
:6» NNovdfi @256 cm mod cede» fir and _. 3.? com com N re O»? we a 69.2?»
36» hmovda 055.0 om mod codma mv mmd _. EV; 00 com N _..F 69* m... m 2.60?»
we...“ mmcvdw @556 on mmd ocdoa 9‘ and w 3... com com N F.F ON” m... m codovm
6» 023.0» mwvod om mod ocdm» mw and _. 3... com com N F.F OVN we m ocdcva
Roda 2.36m mwvod om mod 6:60» we and _. Sir com com N fr cow mé m 2:31»
$9.; $915 @356 cm mod code» w? and r 21‘ com com N .2? on m... m 2.69%
mg; named» mhvod om mod ocdm» m: amd _. 51‘ com com N we ov mé m ccdcva
3d» 359:» nnvod om mod 69.5» m: mod F Sue com com N F.F ON mé m 2.693
find» achdm @556 cm mod ccdm» mv mad r EXP com com N w... 3. me M 2:53
Owou Umog m0 >>0 m3. mu m... m... m0“. a; DO >D< .6 mac 0; n.>n_ ._.O 102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“mm 555:8 .80 c i .8 5:25 53 .o 3%.. cm 533

76

Delivery Distance (DD)

The delivery distance was varied from 500 to 3,200 miles. The response
to the increase in the delivery distance was to increase the both container
systems' costs. This increase is due to the increase in the transportation cost by
the increased delivery distance. The results are shown in Figure 16 and Table
21 for the low cost container set, in Figure 17 and Table 22 for the mid cost
container set, and in Figure 18 and Table 23 for the high cost set.

For the low cost container set, no savings was available for the returnable
container system at any distance. The returnable container system cost for the
low cost container increased from $0.35 for short distance to $2.12 per part for
long distance, and from $0.32 to $1.59 per part for expendable container system.
However, savings can be expected if the cost prediction was projected to the
lower than 500 mile. It is more likely that the returnable container system can be
justified with the higher cost containers. The mid cost returnable containers were
cost effective up to 1400 miles. High cost containers were cost justified all the
way to 3200 miles.

The returnable container system cost increased at a faster rate than the
expendable container system cost. In other words, the transportation cost for the
returnable container system increases faster than expendable with the increase
in the delivery distance. According to the tapering principle, the graph should
show the both container systems’ cost increases at a decreasing rate. In this
analysis, a fixed mileage rate (proportional rate) was used in the calculation, so

the graph shows a linear relationship between the delivery distance and the

77

container systems’ cost. In any cases, the results agree to that the transportation
cost for returnable container systems increases at a faster rate than for the
expendable container systems. Therefore, the shorter the delivery distance, the

greater is the chance for a returnable container system to be justified.

78

 

5::.
no 8:3»5 53.8

5 .ii-;.| .5 111-..! if»! u a Lt —

a
4m
<<u

a
em: «D

Em a 4 n

3 .3. .2, 98 axm

comm coon oomN OQON com ooow com o

..i ii i F! .l! 1111112

 

omdw

00.5

oméa

oon

OWN»

5w 555.50 “moo 26.. .8 8:850 >5>__5n_ ho 5595 or 559”.

uedls
:sog wetslis .Ieugezuoo

 

79

.530 .555

85.5.6 555855 5.55.8595 ”000m.
55..» .55 5a 5.5. .5585... ”5.0
55585555858 .555855
5.55.8595 5:85.. 5. 55555: 58.. ”m...
555.0 .55. .555. ”m...

9.55 5.5535 .5 585355... ”00...
55:8 55.5.5.5 852.55 “00

5.55.. .5... .555855 no
5558855.. 5.8535 5.555 ”on.
5.55 .58.. 5.55 #0

.530 .855 85.95 555855 5.55835. ”0005..
55585555. .8052, 555855 .30

.0c_muCOo\$ chfiucoo 0350:0me ho “—000 :c... ”MOD

.mc_m~:00\m0«3c_e .m..m:_mucoo EON-Psam. 06cm... 0. “um—00m: we: ”NP—u

558.0 5.5. 505558 is.

525.55 .5055: 555 5055>5 ”>04.

55. 858855.55. 555855 ”110

.955. 58:.o> x555 ”u.>n.

55588.0 .555855 5.55835. .5 .555 .8: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.00...“ ...N0 550.00 00.0 0.00 0? 00.0 w ...«.w .00N0 0000 N .2? 0w 0; 0 00.0»
0v...» 0...» 05.0.00 00.0 00.0» 0? 0.0 .. Eve 000N 0000 N ..... 0F .06 0 00.0»
.0...» 5.0 05.000 00.0 00.0» 0F 00.0 .. EV... 000N 0000 N ..... 0? .v 0 00.00
09...“ 0...“ 050.00 00.0 00.00 0? 00.0 .. EXP 000N 0000 N ...F or 0... 0 00.00
N0...“ 0.; 050.00 00.0 00.0» 0.. 00.0 _. Sue 000N 0000 N ...F 0? 0e 0 00.0»
00.00 w...» 0550.00 00.0 00.00 0.. 00.0 .. ...V... 005.. 0000 N we 0.. 0... 0 00.0»
E00 0.00 020.00 00.0 00.00 0.. 00.0 .. .5... 003. 0000 N F.F 0.. 0... 0 00.0»
00.0» N0» 020.00 00.0 00.0» 0.. 00.0 w 3‘? 00.... 0000 N we 0? 0... 0 00.00
0800 0.00 020.00 00.0 00.0» 0? 00.0 .. $9 000 0000 N F... 0? 04 0 00.00
N000 0.0» 05.0.00 00.0 00.0» 0? 00.0 .. EXP 00m 0000 N ..... 0.. 0... 0 00.0»
Umow 000m. mo >>0 M... mu: m... m... 00“. 1.2. an >04 40 me On. n.>n. H0 ”.02.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.50 555850 .550 26.. .5. 5585.50 852.50 .5 .5558. .N 5.55..

80

 

med
£55.”.

 

55:8

 

55 8:855 52.55
85... 88 88 88 82 82 85 c
_ ,. 9|- . r -. -«rl: a}!!! . ii]... ..|. 152.5 1115!. --i .. I”
D o
D ‘ ; cm 0”
D ‘
4
o 8. a
m a
. m . on. a
< 0
d
a - 8.55
D
5 8.3

 

a» .3. .2, 3 5x5

 

50 555850 .550 5.2 .5. 55:55.0 >.5>..50 .5 .5558. t 5.50.“.

uedls
1903 masks Jaumuoa

 

81

F595 .58
E555 559:8 5355:5555 Howom
55$ .55 5a 555: .5585: ”mo

5552855558 .555E8
5355595 56:5: 2 55555: 58: ”m:

59:» .555: 555. My:

95: .2335 5 5:53:55. ”m0”.
55:8 58556 E5255 do

m55> .55. 558:8 1.0
5555:8355 55:53: 5.55: ”on.
355 .55: 5.55 “.Fo

.555 .58 855% 552:8 535525: Howom
5558855 .5953 559:8 H>>o

555285 55585 5355595 5 58 5:: ”mo:
555E855S5E .5555E8 535535: 55:5: 2 55555: 55: ”m...
55:3 .55: 5555.7: is.

52955 .5555: >555 5m55>5 H>o<

555: #:5655535: 55558 #30

555* 5829 x55: u.._>n_

555E555 559:8 535529 5 58 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m9; VFNa muted mod cad» mF wmd F FvF SON” Doom N F.F oF 0F m ooéNa
FNF» #3.; mhvod m mod ooé» wF and F FvF oomN Doom N F.F oF 5F m océN»
hméa $5.3 mnvod m mod bod» wF and F FvF ocmN Doom N F.F OF m.F m océu»
VF» mmé» @556 m mod Gad» mF and F FvF can ooom N F.F OF m.F a ccéN»
NF» 9:.» mnvod m mod bed» mF wad F FvF OQON Doom N F.F oF 6F m ooéNa
?F.Fa at; @256 m med God» mF mmd F FvF cat. coon N F.F OF m.F n coéNw
69F» mmda mnvod m mod 09”» mF and F Fv.F oovF coon N F.F oF NF m 09an
mod» Show mmvod 0 mod cod» wF and F FvF chF coon N F.F 6F 0F 0 2..va
N56“ omdw @5506 m mod Goa» mF and F FvF bow coon N F.F oF 0F m éoéN»
and» and» mnvod 0 mod coda mF and F FYF com coon N F.F 6F mF m océN»
omom omom mo >>Q ME mu: m.— m._. m0“. KS: 00 >O< .50 $10 On. n.>n_ #0 mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5m 555500 500 5.2 :8 8:555 552.50 5 53:5 NN 5B5...

82

 

wa 5
“mm 0

«5::.
on 8:85.: 52.8

88 88 88 88 83 82 com o

n. , .5- . :L 311..-.-- - .- ma
0 8.;
a a a o a - 8.8
.. 8.8
- 8.3
8.8
5 8.3
....... -85»
8.8
5 8.8

I - .lllllillw- Ir-

0
D D

 

 

uedls
1303 man‘s Jeumuoa

 

.5m 555.80 .80 :9... :8 55:55.0 .5550 .o 855E. 5F 559...

 

83

.590 .58

E555 559:8 5350595 ”0000
3:0 .8. 5: 5.9 .5836 “10
5595555558 559:8
5350595 56:9. 9 05.55: 55.. ”m:
595 .99 595. my...

9.95 .233 v6 5:53.50 ”00“.
55:8 50:95: >525“. “00

555.. .53 559:8 10
5595295: 50:52: v.09. ”on.
9.95 .55.. 5.96 0.0

.590 .58 E955 559:8 535535. ”000”.
559555... .3053 559:8 n>>0

559:8.» 559:8 5395595 .o 58 5:: ”mo:
559:85555E 955980 5.25525: 56:9. 2 05.55: 55. ”mp
5:8.» .99 50555:. is.

>505th .5055: 2.5: 50955 ”>0<

99 5565.535: 559:8 5.00

559 553.9 5.55: ”u.>n.

559:8.» 559:8 535535: .o 58 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emma 0v.N0 $0.0 00 00.0 00.000 0.. 00.0 .. 3.? 0N0 0000 N F... 0.. 0... a 00.00%»
NOKa 0N.N0 05.0.0 00 00.0 00.000 0.. 00.0 F Fvé 000N 0000 N ...P or 0.? 0 00.0.3»
0‘50 ~0.N0 050.0 00 00.0 00.000 0.. 00.0 F 3... 000N 0000 N ..... 0.. 0.? 0 00.03.”
«K» 50.; 050.0 00 00.0 00.000 0.. 00.0 v EXP 000N 0000 N r... 0.. ... 0 0.0.3»
0NKa 50...» 050.0 00 00.0 00.000 2 00.0 .. 3.? 000N 0000 N ..... 0.. m... 0 00.0.30
00.50 51—.» 050.0 00 00.0 00.000 0? 00.0 .. Sue 00x... 0000 N F... or 0... 0 00.00vw
N00» 0”; 03.0.0 00 00.0 00.000 0.. 00.0 .. 3... 003. 0000 N w... 09 we 0 00.001»
55.0» 00.; 050.0 00 00.0 00.000 0.. 00.0 F 3.? 00:. 0000 N F... 0.. 06 m 00.00%»
00.00 00.00 020.0 00 00.0 00.00» 0.. 00.0 .. 3.... 000 0000 N P4 or mé 00.00%»
.0100 0.00 05.3.0 00 00.0 00.000 0.. 00.0 _. 3... 000 000 N F.F 0w 0... m 00.00.}
000m_ 000m. 10 >>0 m... m0: m... 1... won. 0.2. 00 >04. 00 ~30 On. n.>n. ._.0 103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.50 559:00 500 :9... 5. 8:950 052.50 .0 559:. mN 5.05:.

84

Container Unit Cost (CUC)

The returnable container unit costs were increased from $6.25 to $62.50,
and from $0.69 to $6.90 for the expendable containers. This increment is based
on the assumption that the container cost increases at the one-to-nice ratio
between the expendable and returnable containers cost. Although both the
returnable and expendable container unit costs increase at the same rate, the
impact of container unit cost on the expendable container system cost was much
more dramatic than that on returnable container system cost. While the
returnable container system cost varied from $0.42 to $0.53 per part, the
expendable container system cost varied from $0.38 to $1.01. The results are
presented in Figure 19 and Table 24.

The impact of the container unit cost over the container system cost was
shown in the other variables. In general, the effect of container costs is a lot
greater than the other variables, so the returnable container system can be more
easily justified with the higher container cost.

The expendable container cost diminishes over the pack quantity only.

On the other hand, the cost of returnable container diminishes over the pack
quantity and number of usage over its lifetime, 500 trips for two years in this
analysis.

When the expendable container cost is low, less than a dollar, the
container cost can be absorbed by the pack quantity and result in lower system

cost than returnable container system cost. However, the relatively expensive

85

expendable container results in higher container system cost than the returnable

container system cost considering return transportation cost.

86

 

0000 o
0001 4

 

559:8.»
.85 5:: 355:8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0N0 0.090 -0

ll 5 . lLl: lillLllllll» l : i3

0N.00
: .

‘ ‘ DD 0.? O”

00.00

00.00

000.0

 

0Né0

uedls
330:) weaslis Jeugetuoa

 

 

500 5:0 559:o0 .o 559:. 0? 550.“.

87

050.0 ..88

E958 559:00 5350:5005 “000....
55.0 .80. 5a 5.5: 55008.0 ”00
555.80.55.35... 559:8
5350:5008 50:5: 0. 05055: 5.5. ”m...
50:.0 5.9 505. ”m...

950 .2838 .o 55:05.. ”00“.
85...: 50:98.0 552.50 ”00

855.. .5... 559:8 1.0
555500.809. 5.55:0 0.058.. ”on.
0.50 5.5. 55.6 #0

050.0 ..88 85.8.6 559:00 5.05525: ”0008.
5598050. .5053 559:8 H>>0

559:8.0 559:8 5.050598 .0 .500 5:: “mo:
555.50.85.25... 8:559:00 5.05535: 50:5: 0. 05055: 55.. um»
5.8.0 5.5. 5055...: ”ms.

80.8050 .5058: 2.50 5055>5 ”>04.

55: 55.5.5555: 55980 ”08.0

5.05. 505.9 0.550 ”0)..

559:8.0 559:8 5.05535: .0 .800 5:: ”mo...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.88 ...8 8.8.8 8 8.8 8.8.8. 8.8 . .8. 8 88 8 ... 8. 8.. 8 8.880
8.8 ...8 8.8.8 8 8.8 .8808. 88.8 . 3.. 8 88 8 ... o. 8.. 8 88.880
..88 8.8 8.8.8 8 88.8 88.808. 88.8 . .8. 8 88 8 ... o. 8.. 8 8.80
8.8 8.8 8.8.8 8 88.8 88.808. 88.8 . .... 8 88 8 ... o. 8.. 8 88.80
88.8 8.8 8.8.8 8 88.8 3.808. 88.8 . .... 8 88 8 ... 8. 8.. 8 8.880
8.8 ...8 8.8.8 8 88.8 88.808. 88.8 . .8. 8 88 8 ... o. 8.. 8 88.80
8.8 ...8 8.8.8 8 88.8 88.808. 88.8 . ...... 8 88 8 ... 8. 8.. 8 8.880
88.8 ...8 8.8.8 8 8.8 3.808. 88.8 . .... 8 88 8 ... o. 8.. 8 8.8.0
8.8.8 ...8 8.8.8 8.8 88.08. 88.8 . .... 8 88 8 ... 8. 8.. 8 8.8.0
88.8 8.8 8.8.8 8 8.8 8.08. 88.8 . .... 8 88 8 ... o. 8.. 8 88.80

0805 080: me .50 5. m0: 5 E 508 ms. 8 >9. ..0 8:0 8 “Sn. .0 :0;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.80 .85 58.8.80 .o .88.. 8 533

88

RETURN RATIO (R,)

Using collapsible/nestable returnable containers are often a trade-off
between additional container costs vs. savings in transportation costs. Using
collapsible/nestable returnable containers can reduce transportation cost. Since
the collapsible/nestable returnable containers can be less volume when they are
empty, the number of transports for the empties can be reduced by sending more
empties per transport (increasing cubic efficiency for returning empties). For
example, the returnable containers with a return ratio of one-to-three can reduce
the return transportation cost by two third. On the other hand, the associated
time spent accumulating collapsible/nestable returnable containers to their return
ratio requires higher initial container quantities than when fully erected returnable
containers are used.

Assuming the mileage rate is $1.41 and delivery distance is 1000 miles,
the cost per one way trip a becomes $1 ,410/trip and the cost per two-way trip b
becomes $1 ,974Itrip. Let container unit cost 0 be $8.00 and container lifetime I
be 2 years. The daily container consumptions are 300 containers and total of
500 trips takes place over 2 years period. According to the equation, the optimal
return ratio is 0.065233. Table 25 shows the total cost (C6 + To) is minimized

between 0.07 and 0.06, which is about 1 to 15 return ratio.

89

Table 25 Trade-offs between container cost vs. transportation cost

 

R r Ct CC CC+ TC

 

0.09 $730,380.00 $12,133.33 $742,513.33

 

0.08 $727,560.00 $13,800.00 $741,360.00

 

0.07 $724,740.00 $15,942.86 $740,682.86

 

0.06 $721,920.00 $18,800.00 $740,720.00

 

0.05 $719,100.00 $22,800.00 $741,900.00

 

0.04 $716,280.00 $28,800.00 $745,080.00

 

0.03 $713,460.00 $38,800.00 $752,260.00

 

0.02 $710,640.00 $58,800.00 $769,440.00

 

 

0.01 $707,820.00 $118,800.00 $826,620.00

 

 

 

 

 

In reality, however, the optimal return ratio of 0.065233 (about 1:15) is not
available. The smallest return ratio available on the market today is container
with one-to—ten return ratios, which is about 0.10. The reason for such huge gap
is that the additional container cost is one-time cost that is amortized over
container life. On the other hand, the transportation cost keeps occurring during
the container lifetime.

Depends on the container unit cost, additional container quantities, and
delivery distance, the optimal return ratio can be found. This optimal return ratio
measures and balance the savings in transportation cost and additional container
cost. In general, however, the transportation cost is a lot higher than the cost for
additional containers. Unless there is a situation where container unit cost is
high enough, and additional container quantity is high because the average
volume is so big, and delivery distance is short that the investment on the
additional containers can be bigger than the savings in the transportation cost,

utilizing the nestable/collapsible containers decrease the total cost.

90

MULTl-VARIABLE ANALYSIS

Data Evaluation

The regressions run on the dependent variable, returnable container
systems’ cost minus expendable container systems’ cost, contained the six
independent variables. The results are reported in Tables 26-a, b, and c. These
Tables report the t statistics and regression results, along with some additional
diagnostic statistics. The various combinations of the six independent variables
could account for 41 percent of the variation (see Table 26-a for R2 value). Of
the six independent variables, the container unit cost (CUC) was the most

significant. The effects of the variables are in order of the most effect to the least

effect:
1. Container Unit Cost (CUC): -8.3
2. Average Daily Volume (ADV): -0.41
3. Delivery Distance (DD): 0.31
4. Cycle Time (CT): 0.29
5. Pack Quantity (PQ): 0.22
6. Peak Volume Factor (PVF): 0.16

The estimated regression relationship for the savings is:
Savings (Ret - Exp) = 1.1796 + 0.279997 (cycle time) + 0.164684 (peak volume
factor) + 0.222529 (pack quantity) - 0.409972 (average daily volume) + 0.30753
(delivery distance) - 8.316537 (container unit cost; expendable/returnable).
Since the dependent variable is the returnable container system cost minus the
expendable container system, the returnable container systems’ cost is cheaper

than the expendables” when the dependent variable is negative.

91

The interpretation of this equation is that the container unit cost and
average daily volume has a negative effect upon savings (i.e. higher cost
containers and higher average daily volume are negatively correlated with
savings for expendables), while others have positive correlation with savings for
expendable. The variables with a positive effect are cycle time (CT), peak
volume factor (PVF), pack quantity (PO), and delivery distance (DD). An
increase in any of these variables is expected to decrease savings for returnable
systems container. As mentioned in the methodology previously, the amount of
increase expected wouldn't differ for each variable since the independent
variables were deviated and standardized. The coefficients of the six variables
then can be used to measure the impact.

The regression equation characteristics of savings indicate an R2 of 0.41.
This indicates that 41 percent of the variation in container systems’ cost is
explained by this equation. The order of the variables’ entry into the regression
equation is presented, as they are in Table 26-c. When the coefficient is used to
indicate impact, the variable with the greatest effect is container unit cost (-
8.316537), followed by average daily volume (0409972), delivery distance
(0.30753), cycle time (0.279997), peak volume factor (0.164684), and pack
quantity (0.222529). The results agree to the single variable analysis. The
container unit cost has the most impact. The impact of the average daily volume
and delivery distance has relatively higher impact than the cycle time, peak

volume factor, and pack quantity. The peak volume factor has the least impact.

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00000.0- 00..0.- 0.0000 00800.0- 00000.0 00.0.0. 030
0000000 000000 .0030 0080.00 00.000 00800.0 00
000000- .800- 00000.0 0.000.- 00.000 800000- >9.
8000000 00.0..0 0.0000 00000..8 00.000 0000000 08.
0.00.0 0.00.0 80000.. 0080000 00.000 00000.0 n.>n_
000.000 00.00 0.0000 00.0000 00.000 000800 .5
.0000... 80000.0 0000.. 0000.0. 0003.0 008... E50052.
8\800 058...: 0800 5.50.. 50.5.71 .50. .0Em. 85025.0 0.05.0580

 

88888.8 88888.0 8888.. 5.; 8888: 8.888888 8-8N 838.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E88888 N. .86.

$88.08 88.38 NN. 58.888
88.58... 88.08 808.88 880.8 8 8.88980
u. 88.8.88 n. 0:. mm .8

 

 

 

A<>OZ< 50:5...5> .0 0.02598. 0-0m 5.05.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. 888828880
.8888 5:5 8.8828
8.8808 8.888 8 88.88.88.
88. .08 9888 m
.8588 m 888.8
00.00050 00.005558.

 

 

00.8.5.0 :0.885:05m. 5.00 5.05.:

93

While the results presented thus far have focused on the level of savings
variation explained by the regression equations, it is also helpful to indicate the
amount of dependent variable variation not explained. ln this study, the
independent variables were not able to account for 59 percent of the variation.
As noted previously, there are several other important cost drivers that were
excluded. The author believes that some of the most important variables
excluded in this analysis were the container return rate (CRR) and container
lifetime (CL).

This analysis dealt only with the one to one relationship between a shipper
and a consignee. There are many other reverse distribution system that may not
agree to the results. For example, many companies utilizing milk run and cross
dock facilities in order to reduce the transportation cost. Then, the savings with
the milk run and cross-dock would be much greater for using returnable container
system.

Another important limitation is that the use of linear regression equations
suggests that the addition of one more unit of the independent variables will
continue to produce a positive or a negative effect on a continual basis.
Nonlinear specifications might provide useful insight on an optimal level of

average daily volume, pack quantity, etc.

94

Manufacturing and Logistics System Profile

The results of the cost simulation are summarized in Table 27. Based on
the individual variable analysis, the variables are placed in order that is in favor of
expendable container system as the numbers move to the right. The actual
simulation results are included in Appendix C, D, and E (C for low, D for mid, and
E for high container cost). The categories of container represent three different
level of container cost (low, mid, high). The actual costs used for each level are
converted and shown as ratios. Within the colored areas, it is less expensive to
use a returnable container system than an expendable container system. It does
not mean that all the combinations within the shaded area are less expensive to
use returnable containers. Each variable has 81 combinations, and the number
of combinations that was savings for returnable container systems is converted
to percentage and shown in the parenthesis underneath the variables. For
example, if 2 out of 81 combinations were the savings for the returnable
container systems, it would be shown as 2.5%. It should be noted that this
profile is subject to change if the parameters change.

These results agree with the individual variable analyses. The individual
analyses cannot be a direct comparison to the profile. However, the profile can
be explained by the results from the individual variable. For the cycle time from 7
to 34 days, the returnable container system cost was always higher than the
expendable container system cost when it was tested for the low cost container
set (see Figure 4). The reason is that the system cost was calculated for the

average daily volume of 3,000 (see Table 9). Recall that the returnable container

95

system cost can be more easily justified with higher daily volume and higher cost
containers. The profile shows that with the combination of the higher average
daily volume, 10,000 parts per day, the savings for the returnable container
system becomes possible.

Peak volume factor had relatively low impact on the overall container
system cost, and the returnable container system was more expensive to use for
the all peak volume factors tested (see Figure 10). However, the profile shows
that the returnable container system can be less expensive to use for up to 50
percent daily fluctuations. As the peak volume factor was increased from 10 to
50 percent, the returnable container system cost increased from $04106 to
$04121 per part (see Table 15). This increase is too low, even after the
increase by cycle time is added, that the container system costs are driven by the
average daily volume.

The pack quantity had a relatively low impact in as much as the less the
pack quantity, the less expensive it can be to use the returnable container
systems. However, the returnable container system cost was higher for the low
cost container set (see Figure 13). The difference between the two container
system costs was $00456 higher for the returnable container system when the
pack quantity was 10 parts per container (see Table 18). This difference is still
so small that the average daily volume can drive the savings for the returnable
container system, but the savings is no longer available as the pack quantity

becomes 50 parts per container.

96

The shorter the delivery distance, the greater is the chance for a
returnable container system to be justified. The delivery distance of 500 miles is
about the point where the returnable container system cost is about to be lower
than the expendable container system cost (see Figure 16). Again, with the high
average daily volume, the returnable container system can be justified in the
profile, but the average daily volume is not big enough to justify the returnable
container system when the delivery distance becomes 1,500 miles.

The impact of container unit cost was that the higher cost containers is
greater than the other variables. The returnable container system can be more
easily justified when the container cost is higher. In other word, the returnable
container system cost is driven most by the container unit cost. The same
observation can be made through the profile. When the container unit costs are
low (first column), the economic justification of returnable container system is
more constrained by the tight variables. As the container unit cost move onto
mid and high cost container columns, the variable ranges become more open.
The impact of unit cost is so great that the returnable container system still can

be justified with the wide ranges of variables.

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

. _, . 2 .. 88.8. 88.8. _ 82.5
, . . . 888.8 88.. 8858.0 082.80
.888. .. 0.08.8. 8.88. . 8:88
.. ... a...” . . : -.. ... OOF. - . - aim. OCF om . ..HWW bar—“=5 v—ONQ
. 2 .. , , 8.8.8. . . ....
.. ...... . . . .. .. . 88. ...-...... . 3.88.. 2.5.2. 0.88.".
.,,. a. .8... .... . 8.8.. ..
8.8.8. . . 88.8. 88.8. we 8:88
. 888.. . . 888.. 888.8 2 82281888 88282
, .... .. . . .88. 8.8.8. 8.88
.. . . N0 00 5E: 5.080
:8... - ._ . . -
.88” .0 .88 .9 em. .8” .0 .88 8., em. .N: .0 .8”. .8> em. 88.88.,
00.... 0..... 30.. .800 E5009... 5Eow

 

 

.000 8...: >0 b00350 0555.000

 

3.5.880 :5:.5E00 5.05E35. 00.. 5.00.0 0008.00. 0:5 5003000.". 80 5.05 ...

98

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This section discusses the results and gives recommendations for future
research. Some of my internship experience at GM Powertrain during Fall 1999

was applied to this discussion.

SIGNIFICANT COST DRIVERS AND THEIR EFFECTS

The both of individual variable and multiple variable simulations agreed to
that the cost of container was the most dominant cost driver among the six
variables. The cost of the container is the most significant determinant if the
returnable container system can be cost justified or not. If the container cost is
low, it is less likely that the returnable container system can be cost justified and
vice versa.

The expendable container unit cost is an expense that diminishes over the
pack quantity while the returnable container investment is amortized over the
number of parts held during the container lifetime. This explains why the
automobile industry has been the leading manufacturers in using returnable
container system. Automobile parts, such as engines and transmissions, require
sturdy containers which are very expensive. For example, an engine racks costs
six hundred dollars. The equivalent expendable container costs about two
hundred dollars. In this case, the savings can be as much as seventeen dollars

per engine.

99

The impact of average daily volume over the container system cost is
relatively high. As the average daily volume increases, the returnable container
system cost decreases at a faster rate than the expendable container system
cost. Economies of scale can explain this. The high initial investment for the
returnable container system decreases much faster as the average daily volume
increases, and the decreasing rate decreases as the average daily volume
becomes large because the investment diminishes over the large daily volume.
Since this decreasing rate is faster for the returnable container system then
expendable container, the returnable container system can be justified with the
larger daily volume.

The delivery distance is also a cost driver. Distance has a great impact on
the cost of a returnable container system. The transportation cost is always
higher for the returnable than the expendable container systems due to return
transportation cost, and this transportation cost gap becomes bigger with the
increasing distance. With the shorter distance, the difference of transportation
cost between the two container systems is smaller. Unless the savings from the
container unit cost can surpass the additional transportation cost for back
hauling, a returnable container system cannot be justified.

This research confirms that the pack quantity matters. In smaller sized
packages with a lower pack quantity, returnable packages can be more cost
effective than expendable, and it is true only when the both container unit cost
are high enough to be sensitive to the changes in the pack quantities (see Figure

13, 14 and 15). As expressed in the equation for the Expendable Container Cost

100

(ECG) and the Returnable Container Cost (RCC), the pack quantity affects the
unit cost of expendable container more directly than the unit cost of returnable
container. The unit cost of an expendable container is amortized only by the
pack quantity. But, since the unit cost of returnable container becomes low after
the returnable container cost is amortized over its lifetime, the impact of pack
quantity is not significant anymore. The continued popularity of just-in-time
delivery strategies, under which items are delivered to the production line in small
lot-size quantities, is one factor that has helped to stimulate a growing interest in
returnable containers.

The cycle time and peak volume factor does impact the overall container
system cost, but the impact is relatively low. The cycle time and peak volume
factor measure the additional containers that need to be purchased for the
increased cycle time and demand fluctuations. This additional container

investment is not significant after the cost is amortized over the container life.

OPTIMAL RETURN RATIO

Many companies are trying to utilize the benefits of collapsible/nestable
returnable containers to decrease storage space and return transportation cost.
On the other hand, the additional containers have to be purchased for a longer
container cycle time due to the longer waiting to accumulate a cubic volume,
such as a truckload of empties, which minimizes return transport cost. The
optimal return ratio that balances the trade-off between the decrease in
transportation cost and the increase in initial investment was found. The optimal

return ratio found in this study was about one-to-fifteen (1:15), which is smaller

101

than what is available on the market (1:10). The reason is that the transportation
cost is a lot higher than the investment for the additional containers. The
collapsible/nestable returnable containers with the lower return ratio can give
more savings than using fully erected containers. Using the fully erected
containers minimizes the initial investments in the container fleet, but the savings
in return transport cost by using collapsible/nestable containers can be a lot
greater unless the container cost is so high that purchasing additional container
can be more expensive than the savings in the return transport cost.

However, the management of a returnable container system is already
complex. Using collapsible/nestable returnable containers increases the
complexity of management. For example, if filled containers with a one-to-three
return ratio come into a facility palletized three high, the emptied containers can
be palletized nine high for return. This means that two returnable pallets are left
without any containers, which have a high possibility of being misplaced or not

being returned to suppliers with the corresponding containers that came in with.

PRODUCTION AND LOGISTICS STRUCTURE

The manufacturing and logistics profile (Table 27) shows the appropriate
production and logistics structure in which the returnable container system can
be cost justified. With the given sets of parameters, it was found that the ranges
turned out to be relatively narrow for the low cost containers. As the container
cost increased, the range becomes wider.

When comparing the expendable container at $0.5 to the returnable

container at $6 (low cost containers at ratio of 1:12), the appropriate production

102

and logistics structures are when the cycle time is 14 days or less, the average
daily volume is 10,000 parts or more. the peak volume factor is 50 percent or
less, the pack quantity is 10 parts or less, and the delivery distance is 500 miles
or less. These combinations represent only 2 out of 243 (0.82%) combinations.
Recall the amortized returnable container cost becomes lower than the
expendables (see Table 1). However, the unit cost of containers is so low that
the savings on the packaging material cost from using the returnable containers
cannot justify the return transportation cost for empties. It is difficult to justify the
returnable container system for low cost containers.

When comparing the expendable container at $3 to the returnable
container at $24 (mid cost containers at ratio of 1:8), more combinations are cost
justified for returnable container systems. 27 out of 243 combinations (11.1%)
turned out to be cost justified for returnable container systems. The apprOpriate
production and logistics systems is when the cycle time is less than 28 days, the
average daily volume is more than 5,000 parts, the peak volume factor is less
than 100 percent, the pack quantity is 50 parts, and the delivery distance is less
than 3,000 miles. With the increased container cost, the savings on the
packaging material cost becomes big enough to pay off the return transportation
cost, and allow longer delivery distance, more pack quantities, higher fluctuations
in daily demand, smaller average daily volume and longer container cycle times
than it was for low cost containers. Although the mid cost container can be more

easily cost justified, the savings on the packaging material cost by using

103

returnable containers is not still big enough to be cost justified for the all the
combinations.

This impact becomes bigger when comparing higher cost containers, a
$60 expendable container to a $400 returnable container. In this case, 161 out
of 243 combinations (66.3%) were favor to the returnable container systems. As
the unit cost of container become higher, the savings on packaging material
become bigger. The bigger savings can pay off the cost associated with the
longer cycle time, longer delivery distance, higher demand fluctuations, and less
daily volume, and more pack quantities.

The profile visualizes the manufacturing and logistics system, so that a
company can improve the system setting under which the returnable container
system can be justified. For most logistics structures with low container costs, it
is shown that the returnable container systems cannot easily be cost justified.
This explains why the automobile industry is still utilizing expendable containers
for small parts, such as fasteners. Usually, a 9 x 9 x 5 container can hold
between 1000 and 8000 fasteners depending on the size of fasteners. The cost
of this expendable container is low, and when the low container cost diminishes
over the high pack quantity that the amortized, savings from returnable container
is not significant to cover the return transport cost.

In order to improve this situation, Automobile Industry Action Group
(AlAG) has been working on using a standardized returnable container for the
fasteners between Ford, GM, and Daimler Chrysler. The expected benefits and

savings from the project can be shown in the results of this research. Although

104

Ford, GM, and Daimler Chrysler are separate automobile manufacturers, if they
share a standardized container they can be considered as one huge company.
In other words, the daily volume subject to the container would be a lot higher
than when they utilized three different kinds. From the analysis, it is known that
as the daily volume increases, there is better chance for the returnable container
system cost to be justified. At the same time, container unit cost will decrease
due to the high container volume to be purchased (quantity break). Service
charge from suppliers should also decrease since they do not have to sort three

different containers.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study have provided insight into some prediction factors
that have an important impact in explaining the variation in savings for returnable
container systems. The findings from this study should assist in developing a set
of activities in manufacturing and logistics systems that can potentially help their
savings in distribution system. What is most significant in this regard is that
those factors found to drive the savings in using returnable container systems
were container unit cost, average daily volume, and delivery distance.

The characteristic of average daily volume is that the larger the average
daily volume, the bigger the savings can be. It is not possible to increase the
daily volume over night to justify the container system. However, there are many
ways that can improve the situations. The consolidation and standardization of
containers increases the average daily volume subject to that container without

increasing the actual volume. The delivery distance can be tweaked by utilizing

105

the milk run and cross-dock. The milk run and cross-dock reduces the
transportation cost without decreasing the physical distance.

Cycle time, peak volume factor, and pack quantity didn’t affect the savings
of returnable container system as much as the other three. However, the degree
of effects increased with the higher container cost. Developing a set of strategies
support the short cycle time, low in daily volume fluctuation, and small lot pack
quantity can maximize the savings in use of returnable container system. These
characteristics of returnable container system overlap just-in-time and
postponement manufacturing environment. These applications have been driven
more by marketing strategies that the packaging system is not incorporated.
Implementation of returnable container system can increase the benefits of those
applications and overall material flow system.

This study also quantified the importance of other cost involved in the
returnable container systems besides the packaging material cost. Two main
cost involved in the returnable container system are packaging material cost and
transportation cost. If the savings in the packaging material is larger than the
additional transportation cost for back hauling empties, the returnable container
system is more likely cost justified as long as the packaging material cost is
based on the descent values of cycle time, average daily volume, peak volume
factor, and pack quantity.

Same variables were tested for three different cost container sets. For the
low cost containers, the findings suggest that the implementing the returnable

container system is hardly cost justified. Even if the returnable container system

106

can be cost justified, the savings wouldn’t be big enough to sacrifice the
complexity involved in the two-way flow systems. The returnable container
systems are more recommended for the mid and high cost containers.

The results suggest that the production and logistics systems have to be
planned accordingly in order to justify economics of returnable container system.
Recall Table 1 (Lifetime Cost Comparison of One-Way and Reusable 2-cubic
Foot Shipping Containers, by Material) shows the reason how returnable
container pays itself as the cost of returnable container amortized over its life.
Using the numbers in the table, it was $11.03 returnable container vs. $0.53

expendables. Simply thinking, if the returnable container can be used 21 times

 

(Initial cost of returnable _ $11.05

, , — z 20], the investment evens out and savings
Initial cost of returnable $0.53

starts. However, the accuracy of this estimation is not good because of the
factors discussed previously. Even if the returnable container can be used
infinite times, the maximum savings can be expected is about $0.53. This is the
maximum savings can be achieved without consider the other variables that
make up the actual returnable packaging material cost. After considering the
other variables, the saving must be decreased. Assume that the saving become
$0.25 after considering every other variable. Then, there is return transportation

cost that has to be paid off before the savings can start.

FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

This report provides an understating of some important cost variables and

the manufacturing and logistics system profile for returnable container systems.

107

It can be useful to decision-makers who are considering a returnable packaging
system.

But through my internship experience at GM and the literature, I have
found that there are still plenty of cost and operational concerns after a
returnable system is adopted. An important area of potential research is in the
area of strategies for returnable packaging logistics management. I found the
information system must to be established along with the returnable container
implementation. The loss and misplacement of empties represent a significant
amount of money. The container shortage due to the lost has to be replaced.
The misplaced empties have to be expedited to the right place with premium
transportation cost. In worst case, the production line has to be shut down or the
product is not available for sale because the containers were not available. It is
crucial to acknowledge the importance of container flow management. It is
important to develop a system that better integrates the container systems.

The complexity of a multi-location returnable container system is much
greater than the way it has been represented in this model. There are so many
activities incorporated in returnable container systems that a container can cause
a company to lose a lot more money than savings from the returnable container
itself. It may be easy to show that the implementation of returnable container
systems could save millions of dollars in the cost analysis. Without the adequate
management, the use of returnable container systems is nothing more than

headache.

108

The economic benefits of returnable container system are not something
that can just happen. It has to be earned. Many practitioner articles state that
using the returnable container system can save a lot of money, but they do not
emphasize enough how hard it is to implement and manage the returnable
container system. It is true that using returnable container system can save
money. However, savings are not what is shown in the predictive calculation;

they are in the execution.

109

APPENDICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000.00.00. .0.-. 0. 000.000 .0. 00 0600.. 0003000200
50.; 080 38.0: .09 .020 03-50.. E. 0.0 2 80 580 20.0: 03203.00
088.0528 m .8 20.0; 05 =2 805 003 .0 ”.5 .0 2 0.. so... 5205 8_ 888.0 2 0: 03.80.00
E000x0
00.00000 0000 00 00.0 0 000.0000 00 000 000.0000
00.0.08 0.30 00902000.. 000 02000000. 00.0 .0. on x 0.00 x 3V 0.30 000000000
.00.. 0000.0 0002000 0.: 0>00.0 00.000000 :0. 0. 00.0 .0. on x 3‘ x mm 0. 000.0 0. 0: 000000000
00.00.05 00.00.00 000 0.0000 0.00000
0000 0003000 00.000000 >0 005000 00.. 00:00:000 >000 .000.
0000.0 0002000 .0 000 0.00.0000. 00.00. E00... .5 0. 000.0000 0000> 0000> 000020000
0_0 .0000
0000.00. 00.00.0000 000
000.000 000 0.0050 20.0003 00.0 0000.0 00.0 .0. on x 00 x 00 0.0 000E020
00... 00.0.00000 000. 003000 ..000000 0. ...v 000 .mm o. 00.0 .0. o. x mm x cm 0. 000.0 0. 0: 03.00900
5.00000 0000.
00 00... 0 000.0000 00 000 000.000 0002, 0.0
000000 00. 00.00 000 0000 050000 0.0008 00.0 .0. mm x 00 x mm 000350200
0.80 0:8 000. .8. 58.988 20.0350: .0 o. .0... .5 0.0 x 80 x mm ... 888... 2 880.. 03.8000
0.0000 000 .000 000.0000 00.030.0000 .00._00 000 000.0008 0. com; 0. E0000
0 0000 E 0000 00 3009 0 0. 00x00 000... o 00 .m .0 .v .N 00:00 .0. 000-000.0008 000.0000
00:000.. 000000000000 .050 .0. 0000 .mm .00 x .mm 00 0.00 x .00 .0. 80.10.00 00.0005.
00000 00:00:00.0. 000. 0020. 002000.05 0.000000 00.:
00.00000 00.000000 000..
00000.60

 

 

60¢. ....(Im<n.0 mxoé OZ< wmwz_<._.ZOO mAm<ZmDHmm O... wDSO <

< X52mmm<

111

 

.0000. 3.30 00.00.00 00. .200: 0.00.
.0000 .000..00>000 0 00.... 00.00.. 008 500....

...v

....
00 59.3 E. .0 20.0:
E. E o. .0 52. 50.2.

0. oood 0. 0:

x00. 590
0.0.8000

 

 

 

 

 

 

x00.

 

 

112

000000.000 .0. 00.0.0 0.0 0 .00.0.000 00. .0. 0.0.. 000. 000300.300... 000 .000 ..0: 000030 000 ..00.0

0 .0 0.2.00 00. 00 .00.0.000 00. £0.03 .000. 00. 0. 0.00000 0.03m 00.00 .00.0.000 0000 000. 000.0>0 00. 0. 000. .00....02

0050.000 30.00 00 .0 £0.02. 0.0 00. 0. .00.0.s 00.0.“. ... :0 0.. .0 0N.0 00.00 00. 0.02. 0.00.0.000 00. :0 .E0.0>0 00.00.00

.00.0.000 0.00530. 0 0. 000: 0.00.0.000 0000.0 000 00.003000 .0 000.0. 0:0..0> 00 0.00 00.00050 0000 0.0..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00 00 .0 0 F . 0.3. 0.5. .0. 05F 003
5. .8. 0o. 00. 0.. 00. .0. 0... .00 .80
+83 000 000 80 0 F 000.0 0.; 8.890
00.0. 8.0 om. : 8..: 00. 00. .0. .000 ...5
80.0 08.. 80.. 80.. 00 .... .02. 508.0 0.00.0
80 o. 0.: o. 9. 00 .02. 003 00.055.
0.0 0... 0.0 00 0.. 0.. .02. .2. 00......
000.900.... 000.05. .000“. 000”. .9000 .0000
©0205. Cozum—c— 8.3.03.5 Easom> US$90.50 Dm.mm:..00
:o_wwm.QEoO . . GENE—081 >m>>-®cO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8000 xonmb ...mOO QZ< woz<2m00mwa meEFZOO 025010.200

m x_ozmn_n.<

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ndmdd Rod deFd mused F mmd md F and F Fv.F ddm ddddFN F.F 02 0F NV

mmNdd mnhdd NudFd mnvod F mmd md F and F FvF ddm ddddFN F.F 03 N mN o
dded mnnod mmdFd mnvod F mod md F and F FYF ddm ddddFN F.F ddF F.F NV 0
wded Vmwdd NmFFd ded F med md F and F FYF don ddddFN F.F om F.F NV 0
mNNdd awhdd vmdFd mnvod F mod md F mmd F Fv.F com ddddFN F.F ddF m.F wN o
noNdd T0000.0 FNFFd 003d F mod md F and F Fv.F ddm ddddFN F.F om m.F mN o
moNdd mvde FFNFd vaod F mod md F and F F.V.F do... ddddFN F.F dF F.F NV o
d©Ndd munod mmdFd mnvod F mod md F wmd F FYF com ddddFN F.F ddF F.F mN o
omNdd mused mmdFd mwvod F mod md F mod F FYF ddm ddddFN F.F 63 N VF o
RVNdd ohnod oNdFd muvod F nod md F and F F.V.F don ddddFN F.F 09 0F VF @
mmNdd mused 0FdFd mnvod F mod md F and F Fv.F do... ddddFN F.F ddF F.F F m
medd $.de FmdFd 055.0 F mod @d F mmd F F.V.F ddm ddddFN F.F do F.F wN o
dMNdd .vmmdd .deFd mmvod F mod md F and F FYF ddm coedFN F.F om N .F o
mFNdd mmFNd m©MNd mnvod F mod @d F wmd F Fv.F com 0000 N F.F dF m.F 0F 0
NFNdd medd modFd mnvod F mod md F and F FvF don ddddFN F.F om m.F .VF o
wONdd wvde mmoFd mnvod F mod md F and F FYF com ddddFN F.F dF m.F wN m
andd vmmdd dmdFd mwvod F mod md F and F FYF ddm ddddFN F.F om F.F .F 0
003.0 mmFNd FONNd mwvcd F mod md F mad F FYF com 0000 N F.F oF F.F 0F 0
doddd 32.. 003.0 025.0 F mod md F and F Fv.F com ddddFN F.F dF F.F wN 0
«Need wvde anFd mnvod F mod md F and F FYF ddm ddddFN F.F oF N .F o
0oood- $0.de wand mhvod F mmd md F and F FYF ddm dddoFN F.F oF m.F VF o
vadd- wvde wded 035d F mmd md F and F FvF ddm ddddFN F.F dF F.F ...F o

owowéwom owom owom mo >>O m... m0: m... «.0. mo“. ”:27 DO >D< ..0 mac On. n_>n. ...Q mo:

 

 

 

mm2_<..ZOO ...mOO 30.. KO“. <0<D 20.0.5325 w..m<.m<> m._n=._.._3_2

0 x_ozwn_n_<

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NF00d 40de 000Nd 05V0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000 N F.F 00F N No. 0
0000.0 000Fd 00FNd 05V0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FvF 000 0000 N F.F 00 0F NV 0
5000.0 000Nd 030.0 050.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000F0000FN F.F 0F N L.VF 0
0000.0 000Fd 0¢FNd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 N 0N 0
0000.0 03.0 000Nd 05V0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F Nv 0
0500.0 #0de 000Nd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F N 0N 0
N000d ¢0de 0v0Nd 053d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F NV 0
0000.0 000Fd 0FFNd 05V0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F NV 0
5000.0 ¢0de FVONd 05¢0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0
0V00d 000Fd 00FNd 053d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000 N F.F 00 0F 0N 0
0v00d 00FNd 000Nd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F NV 0
NV00d ¢0VFd 0NONd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 0
0000.0 03.0 NNONd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FYF 000 0000 N F.F 00F N VF 0
0N00d *0de 0FONd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F VF 0
FN00.0 603d 000Nd 053d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F fivF 0
0N00d 000Fd 050Nd 053d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N 0
NF00d 000Fd F50Nd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 N T.VF 0
0.0.0 000Nd N000d 05¢0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FvF 000F0000FN F.F 0F 0.F .vF 0
V0v0d 000Fd NO0Nd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000 N F.F 00 0F F 0
00V0d 0FNd Nv0Nd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
00vod 03Fd 000Fd 053d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000FN F.F 0F 0.F NF‘ 0
053.0 000Fd 500Nd 053d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F .vF 0
FNv0d 000Nd 05N0d 05v0d F 0.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FVF 000F0000FN F.F 0F F.F FF 0
0000.0 0Fade 0VOFd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000FN F.F OF N 0N 0
0500.0 #000.0 NONFd 05F.0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000FN F.F 00 N Nv 0
NV00d 00FNd 00VNd 05¢0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FvF 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 0
0000.0 0550.0 00FFd 05¢0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FvF 000 0000FN F.F 00F N Nv

0N00d €000d 05FFd 053.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FYF 000 0000FN F.F 00 0F Nv 0
0000.0 00FNd 00VNd 05V0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F Fv.F 000 0000 N F.F OF N VF 0
V000d #000d 00FFd 05v0d F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FvF 00 0000FN F.F 00 N 0N 0

 

 

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50NFd 050Vd 00N0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 0F F.F VF 0
50NFd 050Vd 00N0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 0F F.F VF 0
0VOFd 000Nd 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
VVdFd 00FNd 50F0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F OF N NV 0
5000.0 000Nd VF00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F F N 0N 0
NV00.0 VONNd 00N0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 N NV 0
V000d 00FNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F N NV 0
5000.0 VONNd 00F0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 0.F NV 0
0000.0 VONNd NOF0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 N 0N

0000.0 00FNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F 0.F NV 0
5000.0 00FNd 0V00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F N 0N 0
VV00d 00FNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 0F F.F NV 0
NV00.0 VONNd 00F0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 F.F NV 0
0000.0 00FNd 0N00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0
F000d VONNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 0.F 0N 0
5N00d 000Nd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 0F F.F NV 0
VN00.0 00FNd 0F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F F.F 0N 0
0N00d 00FNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F N VF 0
FF00.0 00FNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F 0.F VF 0
0000.0 00FNd 00Nd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F _00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00F F.F VF 0
N00dd VONNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F _00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 F.F 0N 0
V050d VONNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 N VF 0
0550.0 VONNd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 0.F VF

N550d 000Nd 0N00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
5050.0 00FNd 0NONd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
N050d 0VVFd 0FNNd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 0F N NV 0
F050d VONNd VN00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000FN F.F 00 F.F VF 0
0500.0 00FNd 5NONd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F N 0N 0
0000.0 000Fd 0FNNd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 N NV 0
VN00.0 000Nd NOV0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00F0000FN F.F F F.F 0N 0

 

 

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000Fd 00Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0
550Fd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 0.F 0N 0
550Fd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 0
050Fd 050Vd 0V00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000FN F.F 0F F.F NV 0
050Fd 050Vd 0V00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 0F F.F NV 0
050Fd VO0Vd V500d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F F.F 0N 0
050Fd VO0Vd V500d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 0
000Fd VO0Vd 0500.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F N VF 0
000Fd VO0Vd 0500.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F N _VF 0
500Fd VO0Vd F000d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F 0.F VF 0
500Fd VO0Vd F000d 05V0.0 F 000 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F 0.F _VF 0
0VOFd VO0Vd V000d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F F.F €F

0VOFd VO0Vd V000d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F F.F VF 0
0VOFd 050Vd 0N00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 F.F 0N 0
0VOFd 050Vd 0N00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N

0VOFd 050Vd 0F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 N VF 0
0VOFd 050Vd 0F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 N F 0
NNOFd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 0.F VF 0
NNOFd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 0.F VF 0
0FOFd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
0FOFd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
500Fd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 F.F VF 0
500Fd 050Vd 000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 F.F VF 0
05VFd 050Vd 0VVOd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 0F F.F 0N 0
05VFd 050Vd 0VVOd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 0
00VFd 050Vd 00V0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 0F N VF 0
00VFd 050Vd 00V0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F OF N VF 0
FVOFd 050Vd 0F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 0F 0.F VF 0
FVOF.0 050Vd F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 0
0NOFd 000Nd VOFVd 05V0.0 F 0.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 00F 000FN F.F F N NV 0

 

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

005Nd 00F5d 0V00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 00F N F.F 00 0.F VF 0
0V5Nd 0055.0 0000.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
005Nd 00F5d 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00 F.F VF 0
000Nd 0055.0 F000.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F F.F 0N

FO0Nd 0055.0 V000.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F OF N VF 0
00VNd 0055.0 FON0.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00 002 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 0
000Nd 0055.0 50F0.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F F.F VF 0
N5FNd 050Vd 0VF5d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F OF N NV 0
N5FNd 050Vd 0VF5d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F OF N NV 0
000Fd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000FN F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
000Fd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
000Fd 050Vd 0550.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000FN F.F OF N 0N 0
000Fd 050Vd 0550.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F OF N 0N 0
005Fd 050Vd 50F0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 N NV 0
005Fd 050Vd 50F0d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 N NV 0
0V5Fd VO0Vd VV00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F N NV 0
0V5Fd VO0Vd VV00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F N NV 0
005Fd 050Vd FFFOd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 0.F NV 0
005Fd 050Vd FFFOd 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 0.F NV 0
VF5Fd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 N 0N 0
VF5Fd 050Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000 N F.F 00 N 0N 0
NF5Fd VO0Vd 5F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F 0.F NV 0
NF5Fd VO0Vd 5F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F 0.F NV 0
005Fd VO0Vd 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F N 0N 0
005Fd VO0Vd 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F N 0N 0
000Fd VO0Vd V000d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00F F.F NV 0
000Fd VO0Vd V0000 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00F F.F NV 0
000Fd 050Vd 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000FN F.F 00 F.F NV 0
000Fd 050Vd 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F0000 N F.F 00 F.F NV 0
000Fd VO0Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000FN F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FV00d 00.0 50F.F 5V0d F 0.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F F.F VF 0
0V00d 0000.0 0VOF.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N 0
N000d 0000.0 FVOF.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 .0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 N VF 0
VF00d 0000.0 NNOF.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 0.F VF 0
300.0 00N0d NFON.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
0000.0 0055.0 000F.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F OF N NV 0
00N0d 0000.0 500F.F 05V0.0 F 0.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 F.F VF 0
NOF0d 00N0d 000N.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 0F F.F N 0
0NFOd 00N0d 0NON.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 .0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F OF N VF 0
0000.0 .00N0d 00NN.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 0
0N00d 0055.0 0F00.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
000Nd 00N0d FOFN.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 0F F.F VF 0
FO0Nd 0055.0 0N50.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F OF N 0N 0
0FONd 00F5d 0FFO.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 N NV 0
000Nd VNF5.0 N000d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00F N NV 0
FO0Nd 00F5d 0000.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 0.F NV 0
VONd 00F5d FV00.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00 N 0N 0
0VONd VNF5.0 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00F 0.F NV 0
FO0Nd VNF5.0 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F N 0N 0
0FONd VNF5.0 NV00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F F.F NV 0
0FONd 00F5d 0F00.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 F.F NV 0
0FONd VNF5.0 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0
000Nd 00F5d V000.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 0
FO0Nd 0055.0 V000.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00 003 N F.F 0F F.F NV 0
005Nd VNF5.0 NN00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F F.F 0N 0
V05Nd VNF5.0 0F00d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00F N VF 0
005Nd VNF5.0 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00F 0.F VF 0
555Nd VNF5.0 N000d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00F F.F F 0
055Nd 00F5d V500d 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00 F.F 0N 0
005Nd 00F5d 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00 009 N F.F 00 N VF

 

 

 

 

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00V0.0 VNNF.N N000.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F F.F 0N 0
VOV00 VNNF.N 0000.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F N VF 0
0NV00 VNNF.N 0V00.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F 0.F VF 0
5FV00 VNNF.N NV00.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F F.F VF 0
0FV00 00NF.N VF50.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 F.F 0N 0
00V0.0 00NF.N 5050.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 N VF 0
0000.0 00NF.N 0000.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 0.F VF 0
0000.0 000FN 05N0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
0500.0 00NF.N 0500.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 F.F VF 0
00N0d 000FN FOF0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 0F F.F 0N 0
FON0d 000FN V0000 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F OF N VF 0
020.0 000FN F0000 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 0F 0.F VF 0
0000.0 000FN 5N00.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 0F F.F VF 0
V0000 00N0d 5000.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F OF N NV 0
5000.0 00N0d 005N.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
00V0.0 00N0d 500N.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 0F N 0N 0
00V0.0 0000.0 000N.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 N NV 0
NOV00 V0000 000F.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F N NV 0
0NVOd 0000.0 000N.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 0.F NV 0
00V0.0 0000.0 0FON.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 N 0N 0
VOV00 V0000 000F.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F 0.F NV 0
000.0 V0000 0NOF.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F N 0N 0
000.0 V0000 0FOF.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F F.F NV 0
0000.0 0000.0 000F.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 F.F NV 0
5500.0 V0000 FFOF.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0
0000.0 0000.0 050F.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 0
0000.0 00N0d 000N.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 0F F.F NV 0
N000d V0000 000F.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 0
0000.0 V0000 NO0F.F 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00000000 N F.F 00F N VF 0
0V00d V0000 00F.F 5V00 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000 N F.F 0F . VF

 

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F00.F 50N.V 50N0.0 5V00 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0
0000.F 0VVN.V V0000 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 0.F 0N 0
F000.F 0V00.V VV00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 0F F.F NV 0
0000.F V50N.V N5N0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 00F N F.F 00F F.F 0N 0
V000.F V50N.V 00N0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F N VF 0
0000.F V50N.V 00N0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F 0.F VF
5500.F V50N.V NON0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F F.F VF 0
0500.F 0VVN.V VN00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 F.F 0N 0
0000.F 0VVN.V 5F00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 N VF 0
0000.F 0VVN.V 00N0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 0.F VF 0
0V00.F 0V00.V 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 0
0000.F 0VVN.V 00N0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 F.F VF 0
0000.F 0V00.V FV50.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 0F F.F 0N 0
F000.F 0V00.V V0500 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F OF N VF 0
0000.F 0V00.V FF00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 0F 0.F VF 0
00V0.F 0V00.V 5000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 0F F.F VF 0
0V000 000FN 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 0.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 0F N NV 0
0000.0 000FN 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
F5000 000FN 00V0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F OF N 0N 0
0000.0 00NF.N 0000.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F .000 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 N NV 0
0000.0 VNNF.N N050.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F N NV 0
F0000 00NF.N 0050.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 0.F NV 0
NOV00 00NF.N F050.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 N 0N 0
00V0.0 VNNF.N 0050.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F 0.F NV 0
F5V00 VNNF.N 0000.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 000 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F N 0N 0
00V0.0 VNNF.N N000.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F F.F NV 0
00V0.0 00NF.N 0050.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 F.F NV 0
00V0.0 VNNF.N 5500.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00F 0.F 0N 0
0VVOd 00NF.N VV50.N 05V0.0 F 00.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F000F N F.F 00 0.F 0N 0
FVVOd 000FN V0000 05V0.0 F 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 00F 00F N F.F 0F F.F NV 0

 

 

121

 

 

:85 .58

E895 558:8 538595 ”0000
8:0 .8. :8 88 .8850 ”mo
558:8\m8:5E 558:8
538595 56:5: 8 .5055: 5:5 mm:
50:0 .88 :85 ”m...

98 $.88 5 5:525: ”00“.
m5__E .8:8m_n >558 ”00

«55> .8: 558:8 Jo
558:8?th 50:58 58 ”Ga
98 .58: 5.96 ”50

:85 .88 E886 558:8 5.8535: “0000
558:855 8:053 558:8 H>>o

558:80 558:8 5.98595 5 58 5:: ”mo:
558:858358 .m558:8 535585.. 56:8. 8 .555: 8:: ”a...
5.550 .88 508:8 ”ms.

>52th0 .508: 5:8 50855 ”>0<

88 0:55:5538 558:8 ”000

558 8:28 5.50 a);

558:80 558:8 5.8585: 5 58 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00V5.F 0V00.V 0VVd.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 00F N F.F 0F N NV 0
0NF5.F 0V00.V 00F0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 0F 0.F NV 0
F005.F 0V00.V 0500.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 00F N F.F OF N 0N 0
0F05.F 0VVN.V 0V0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 N NV 0
0000.F V50N.V NV00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F N NV 0
F000.F 0VVN.V 00V0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 0.F NV 0
NV00.F 0VVN.V F0000 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00 N 0N 0
0V00.F V50N.V 0F00.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F 0.F NV 0
F000.F V50N.V 0000.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F N 0N 0
0F00.F 50N.V NON0.0 05V0.0 F 00.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000000F N F.F 00F F.F NV 0
0F00.F 0VVN.V 0000.0 05V0.0 F 0.0 0.0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 00F N F.F 0 F.F NV 0

 

 

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00F00- 00V0.0 00N0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N VN
00N0.0- 050Fd N5FFd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 00 F.F VF VN
0NN00- 0V5Vd 5NOVd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
0NV00- 0005.0 0VF5d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0003 N F.F 0F 0.F VF N
0NV00- 0005.0 0VF5d 05V0.00 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF N
NVVdd- 0V5Vd 000V0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N N
N0000- 0VOVd 0V00d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
0500. 0005.0 0V00d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 0F F.F VF VN
0F500- 0005.0 0V00d 05V0.00 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F F.F VF N
VN500- 0VOVd 0F00d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N VN
F0500- 00V0.0 F05Vd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0003 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
0000.0- 00V0.0 000Vd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F OF N VF VN
000Fd- 0V5Vd VF50d 05V0.00 00.00 F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
FOFFd- 0V5Vd 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F OF N VF VN
00NFO- 00V0.0 VOFVd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 0F 0.F VF VN
0FOFd- 0VOVd 5N5Nd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0003 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
00VFO- 0VOVd 050Nd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F OF N VF VN
FO0Fd- 0V5Vd 0F0d 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF VN
VO0F.0.. 00V0.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 0F F.F VF VN
000Fd- VOVd 0FNNd 05V0.0 0 00d 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F VF VN
0VOFd- 0V5Vd FO0Nd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F VF VN
0NFNd- 0VOV0 FOFd 05V0.00 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 F.F 0F F.F VF VN
Omowémom 000m 000m mo 30 mt. mu: m.— 15 won. 1 DD >O< .5 ~30 Ga “_>n_ .50 mo:

 

 

 

«02.4.5200 .500 0:2 m0“. <._.<D 20.53225 m..m<_m<> 01.0.5435.

0 x_ozmn_m<

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V0000 005N0 0VF00 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 00 F.F VF VN
0000.0 050Nd 0VVNd 05V0.00 0000 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N VN
0000.0 VV5Fd 000Nd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F VF VN
0N000 VV5Fd 500Nd 05V0.0—0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F VF VN
0000.0 050Fd 050Fd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00 0.F NV VN
50N0.0 0V5Vd 0V00d 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F F N 0N VN
NON00 000Fd FO0Fd 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F 0.F NV VN
00N0.0 000Fd VONFd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 0.0F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F N N N
0VN00 050Nd NNONd 05V0.00 00.90 0F 00dF FV.F 000 000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
NN00 050Fd FO0Fd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00 N 0N VN
0FN00 050Nd NONNd 05V0.00 0000 0F 000F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 N VF VN
VON00 000Fd NVNFd 05V0.00 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F F.F NV VN
05.0 002.0 0NNFO 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F 0.F 0N VN
FVFdd 050Nd 0FNNd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F VF VN
0NF00 050Fd 00VFd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0003 N F.F 00 F.F NV VN
NNFdd 0030 0:0 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
503.0 002.0 0VFFd 05V0.00 00d_0 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F N VF VN
0000.0 0005.0 N005d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
0000.0 0005.0 N005d 05V0.00 00.050 0F 00dF FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
N0000 050Nd 00FNO 05V0.00 00.0—0 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F VF VN
F0000 050Fd 00VFd 05V0.00 00.0—0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00 0.F 0N VN
F5000 000Fd 0FFO 05V0.0 00.00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F .F VF VN
N0000 00V0.0 VF00d 05V0.0—0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
FV000 000Fd 000F0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00dF FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 00F F.F VF VN
0500 0VOVd 000Vd 05V0.0—0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000FN F.F 0F N 0N VN
5000.0- 050Fd 000Fd 05V0.0 0 00d 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
0000.0- 0005.0 VF05d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F OF N VF VN
0000.0- 0005.0 VF05d 05V0.00 00.0 0 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F N VF VN
50000- 050Fd 000Fd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 N VF VN
FVF00- 050Fd NONFd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 0.F VF VN

 

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

050.0 0VVNO 0FN00 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 00F F.F NV VN
0V500 0VVNd VOF0d 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 00F 0.F 0N VN
050.0 0000.F 000F.F 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF VN
0000.0 005Nd N5V00 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 00 F.F NV VN
0000.0 0VVNd 00F00 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 00F F.F 0N N
0000.0 0005.0 VON0d 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 0F 0.F 0N N
0000.0 0005.0 VON0d 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N VN
0000.0 VV5Fd 0NVNO 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F N NV VN
F5000 0VVNd 0NFOd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 00F N VF N
5000.0 0V5Vd VFVOd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV _VN
0V000 005Nd 5NV00 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 00 0.F 0N N
0000.0 0VVNO 0000.0 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F N F.F 00F 0.F VF VN
0000.0 0VVNO V0000 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 00F N F.F 00F F.F VF VN
0000.0 050Nd NO0Nd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00 0.F NV VN
0500.0 00V0.0 N000d 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F N F.F OF N 0N VN
V5000 VV5Fd 0FONd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F 0.F NV VN
5000.0 VV5Fd FONNO 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F N 0N VN
5N000 005Nd 0000.0 05V0.00 0F 0.0F FV.F 000F N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
VN00.0 050Fd 500Fd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00 N NV VN
FF00.0 050Nd 000Nd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00 N 0N VN
50V00 005Nd 05N0.0 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F N F.F 00 N VF VN
00V0.0 VV5F0 0NNNd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F F.F NV VN
00V0.0 VV5Fd 50NNd 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F 0.F 0N VN
0NV00 005Nd 00N0.0 05V0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 00 0.F F VN
0FV00 0000.F 5050.F 05V0.00 0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 0F F.F VF VN
50V00 050N0 00VNO 05V0.00 0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00 F.F NV VN
VOV00 VV5Fd 0VFNd 05V0.00 0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
00V0.0 000Fd NVVFd 05V0.00 0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F N NV VN
0000.0 VV5Fd 00FNO 05V0.00 0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 00F N VF VN
0000.0 0VOVd 5NVVd 05V0.00 0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 N F.F 0F . NV VN

 

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOVFd 00Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00d 0 0F 0.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 00 0.F 0N VN
FOVFO 000Vd 0000.0 05V0.0 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N VN
FOVFd VO0Vd VV00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 00F 0.F VF VN
FOVFd VO0Vd VVd00 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F VF VN
FOVFd VO0Vd 0F00d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 00F F.F VF VN
FOVFO VO0Vd 0F00d 05V0.00 00.00 F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F F.F F VN
0NVFd 0005.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 0F N 0N VN
0NVFd 0005.0 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F N 0N VN
050Fd 000Vd 05N0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
050Fd 000Vd 05N0.0 05V0.00 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
0VOFd 000Vd 0VNOd 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00 N VF VN
0VOFd 000Vd 0VN00 05V0.00 00d 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 N VF VN
00NFd 005F.F 000.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF VN
00NFd 000Vd 50F0d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 00 0.F VF VN
00NFO 000Vd 50F00 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000 N F.F 00 0.F VF VN
0NNFd 0000.F FOF.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
0FNFd 000Vd 50F0d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00 F.F VF N
0FNFO 000Vd 50F0d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 F.F 00 F.F VF VN
0090 005Nd F5000 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0009 N F.F 00 NV N
050Fd 0000.F NOVF.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 000F F.F 0F N VF VN
V5000 005F.F F55N.F 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F VF _VN
5000.0 0VVNd 0FV00 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 00F N NV _VN
0V000 00V0.0 FOV0d 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 0F 0.F NV N
0000.0 0005.0 05V0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
0000.0 0005.0 05V0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
5000.0 005Nd 0V00d 05V0.0 0 00.90 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0009 N F.F o0 0.F NV VN
0000.0 0VVNd 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00F 0.F NV VN
0000 0VVNd 00N0.0 05V0.0 0 00d 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0009 N F.F 00F N 0N VN
0000.0 050Nd VO0Nd 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 N NV VN
0050.0 005N0 0500.0 05V0.0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00 N N VN

 

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000Nd 000.F 0NVN.F 05V0.0 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
VO0Fd 000Vd N000d 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00 N NV VN
VO0Fd 000Vd N000d 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 N NV VN
VFOFd 0000.F NONN.F 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N VN
0FOF0 VO0V0 5500.0 05V0.00 00.90 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00F N NV VN
0FOFd VO0Vd 5500.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F N NV VN
005Fd 0005.0 N000d 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 0F 0.F NV N
005Fd 0005.0 N000d 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV VN
505Fd 005F.F V000.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
055Fd 0V5Vd 0N00d 05V0.00 0000 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F OF N NV VN
0F5Fd 000V0 0F00d 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00 0.F NV VN
0F5Fd 000V0 0F000 05V0.00 0.0 F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 0.F NV VN
N05Fd VO0V0 00N0.0 05V0.00 000w... 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00F 0.F NV VN
N05Fd VO0Vd 00N0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F NV VN
000Fd VO0Vd 0NNOd 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00F N 0N VN
000Fd VO0V0 0NNOd 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F N 0N VN
000Fd 005F.F 00V0.F 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 F.F OF N VF VN
000Fd 000Vd 0000.0 05V0.00 00d 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00 N 0N VN
000Fd 000Vd 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 N 0N VN
VFOF0 VO0Vd 55F0d 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00F F.F NV VN
VFOFd VO0Vd 55F0d 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 F.F 00F F.F NV VN
FO0Fd VO0Vd 00F0d 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00F 0.F 0N VN
FO0Fd VO0Vd 00F00 5V000 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F 0N VN
000Fd 000Vd 00V0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00 F.F NV VN
000Fd 000Vd 00V0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 F.F NV VN
NO0Fd VO0Vd 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
NO0Fd VO0Vd 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
5FOFd VO0Vd F0000 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000FN F.F 00F N VF VN
5FOFd VO0Vd F0000 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F N VF VN
VOVFd 0VOVd 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 0.0F FV.F 000 0003 F.F OF N NV N

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5FF00 005F.F 0FOV.F 05V0.00 0000 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F N 0N VN
0000.0 0NFOd NOFN.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
N000d 0F550 0050.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00 N NV VN
0000.0 0NF00 NOFN.F 05V0.0 0000 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 N VF VN
FO0Nd 0NFOd 000N.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F VF VN
FVONd V0050 0N00.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00F N NV VN
0NONd 0000.F 0F00.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F NV VN
VO0Nd 0005.0 F5V0.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000FN F.F OF N NV VN
VO0Nd 0005.0 F5V0.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F F N NV VN
NO0N0 0NF00 0NON.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F VF VN
FVONd 0F55d 0000.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 0.F NV VN
000Nd V0050 VFNO.F 05V0.00 00.00 F 00.0F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00F 0.F NV VN
005Nd V0050 55F0.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00F N 0N VN
505N0 0F55d VOV0.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 N 0N VN
NV5Nd V0050 0NFO.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00F F.F NV VN
0F5N0 V0050 00F0.F 05V0.00 00.00 F 00.0F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F 0.F 0N VN
000N0 0F55d F000.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00 F.F NV VN
000Nd V0050 VVddF 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
0VONd V0050 0N00.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F N VF ~VN
0FONd 0F55d 0000.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 0.F 0N N
000Nd V0050 N000d 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00F 0.F VF VN
000Nd 005F.F 500V.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
050Nd V0050 0000.0 05V0.00 0000 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F F.F VF VN
000Nd 0000.F FVON.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 0F N 0N VN
FO0Nd 0F550 0FNO.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 F.F 0N _VN
F5VNO 0F550 00F0.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 00 000F N F.F 00 N VF N
500Nd 0F55d 0FFO.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00 0.F VF N
050Nd 005F.F 05FV.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N VN
000Nd 0F55d 0000.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00 F.F VF VN
000Nd 00V0.0 F050 05V0.00 0.00 0F 0.0F FV.F 000F 0000FN F.F 0F N NV N

 

 

128

 

m. .. Ea-.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0VN00 VOVF.N 050.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 00F N F.F 00F 0. VF VN
0FN00 VOVF.N 0050.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 009 N F.F 00F F.F VF VN
0000 00VV.N FO0N.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F OF N 0N VN
FVFOd 0FOF.N 0000.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
FFFOd 0FOF.N 0N00.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 00 N VF VN
5000.0 0FOF.N 0000.N 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 00 0.F VF VN
0505.0 0FOF.N 0050.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00 F.F VF VN
0505.0 00VV.N 00FN.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
VOV5d .00VV.N NVOF.0 05V0.00 00.0.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N VN
0000.0 00VV.N 000F.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
0500 00VV.N NONF.0 05V0.00 00.050 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F OF N VF VN
0V00d 00VV.N 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0F 0.F VF VN
0000.0 00VV.N 5000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 009 N F.F 0F F.F VF VN
000Vd 005F.F 0000.F 05V0.0 0 00d 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F OF N NV HVN
NO0Vd 0000.F 0FVV.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 0F N NV _VN
0N00d 0NF00 V05N.F 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 N NV VN
0000.0 V0500 00NN.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F N NV VN
50V00 005F.F VON0.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV VN
00V0.0 0NFOd NO0N.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F NV HVN
V0000 V0500 00FN.F 05V0.0 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV ?N
5000.0 V0500 FOFN.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F N 0N HVN
F0000 0NFOd 00VN.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 N 0N VN
0000.0 V0500 000N.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F NV VN
00N0.0 V0500 550N.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F N VN
5NNOd 0NFOd 000N.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F NV N
VNNOd V0500 0FON.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
00N0.0 V0500 000N.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F N VF N
00F00 0NF00 0FON.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N _VN
05F00 V0500 000F.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F 0.F VF VN
0VFOd V0500 500F.F 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000 N F.F 0F F.F F N

 

 

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0050.F VO0N.V V0000 05V0.00 00.30 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
0V50.F VO0N.V 0500.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00F N VF VN
0F50.F 000N.V 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00 0.F 0N VN
0050.F VO0N.V NV00.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 00F 0.F VF VN
0500.F VO0N.V 0F000 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 00F N F.F 00F F.F VF VN
0000.F 0000.V FONN.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 0F N 0N VN
F000.F 000N.V 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00 F.F 0N VN
F500.F 000N.V 000.0 05V0.0 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 003 N F.F 00 N VF VN
50V0.F 000N.V 00V0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 003 F.F 00 0.F VF VN
00V0.F 000N.V 00V0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 0 F.F VF VN
00F0.F 0000.V 055F.0 05V0.0 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 0F F.F NV VN
VF00.F 0000.V NO0F.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N VN
0N00.F 0000.V 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 0F F.F 0N VN
05F0.F 0000.V NF00.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 0F N VF VN
000V.F 0000.V 0VVd.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 0F 0.F VF VN
0FOV.F 0000.V 5VF0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 003 N F.F 0F F.F VF VN
N500d 00VV.N 00FV.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 0F N NV VN
N050d 0FOF.N 0N00.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00 N NV VN
F0000 VOVF.N 0000.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00F N .NV VN
0000.0 00VV.N 0000.0 05V0.00 00.0—0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 0F 0.F NV N
FOV00 0FOF.N 00N0.0 05V0.0 00.0—0 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F F.F 00 0.F NV VN
05V0.0 VOVF.N V000.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 00F 0.F NV VN
00V0.0 VOVF.N 5F00.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00F N 0N VN
50V0d 0FOF.N VNN0.0 05V0.0—0 0000 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00 N 0N VN
N000d VOVF.N 0000.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00F F.F NV VN
0000.0 VOVF.N 0V00.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 00F 0.F 0N VN
0000.0 0FOF.N FNF0.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 00F N F.F 00 F.F NV VN
0000.0 VOVF.N V050N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 009 N F.F 00F F.F 0N VN
00N0.0 VOVF.N 0050.N 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00F N VF VN
00N0.0 0FOF.N 0500.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00 0.F 0N VN

 

 

130

 

.580 .858

E8555 558:8 538595 ”0000
8:0 .55 5a 88 .8855 ”me
558:858358 558:8
538595 56:5: 8 5855: 58: ”m...
585 .88 :85. ”0..

558 .5385 .6 55:53.55: ”00”.
555.: 58855 552.8 ”00

5555 .55. 558:8 Jo
5588888 50:58 5.58 ”On.
558 .58: 5.555 ”.5

:80 .858 E8555 558:8 5.55585: 600m
558:855 .5053 558:8 H>>o

558:80 558:8 538595 ho .58 5:: ”mo:
558:858358 .5558c8 5.55585: 56:5... 8 5855: 5::: ”E.
5:83 .88 50555.: ”ms.

552855 .508: 5:8 50855 50.4

88 8:585:85: 558:8 “000

.858 5828 x555 ”n55

558:80 558:8 5.55585: 5 58 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOF0.F 0000.V 050.0 05V0.00 0.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F OF N NV VN
NOF5.F 000N.V 00F0.0 05V0.00 00.00 F 00.0F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00 N NV VN
FV05.F VO0N.V 0500.0 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00F N NV VN
0N05.F 0000.V 000N.0 05V0.00 00.0 F 00.0F FV.F 0000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F V N
FV00.F 000N.V 0000.0 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 003 N F.F 00 0.F NV VN
0000.F VO0N.V V0000 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00F 0.F NV _VN
0000.F VO0N.V 5N000 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00F N 0N _VN
5000.F 000N.V V0000 05V0.00 00.00 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00 N 0N 5VN
NV00.F VO0N.V 05V0.0 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 00F F.F NV N
0F00.F VO0N.V 00V0.0 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00.0F FV.F 0000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N N
0050.F 000N.V F0500 05V0.00 00.0 0F 00F FV.F 0000 00F N F.F 00 F.F NV VN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000N.0- VOF.0 00N0.N 05V0.0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F F F.F 0N 00V
VON0.0- 0VF.0 VON0.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 000F 000F F.F 0F 0.F VF 00V
N000.0- 00V.0 0500.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 0F N VF 0V
N000.0- 00V.0 0500.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F N VF 00V
005V.0- 0VN.0 0F55.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0009 N F.F 0F N _VF 00V
0N00.0- V5F.0 0N50.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F N F 00V
N000.0- VOF.0 FV50.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 0F N VF 00V
NFN0.0- 0VF.0 05N0.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
0000.0- 050.0 00V0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 00V
VN00.0- 005.0 VOV0.N 05V0.0 0 0.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 00V
N000.V. 00V.0 0FOV.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F _VF 00V
N000.V. 00V.0 0FOV.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F .F VF 00V
0000.V. 0VN.0 000FN 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F VF 00V
00FF.V. V5F.0 0000.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 00V
NOVF.V. VOF.0 F000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 00V
00N0.V. 050.0 0F00.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
N000.V. 005.0 0000.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
000V.V. 00V.0 0000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 0F F.F F 0V
000V.V. 00V.0 0000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
0N00.V. 0VN.0 5N00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
00F0.V. V5F.0 0V00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
0000.V. VOF.0 000V.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0003 N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
Owowéwom 000w 000m. mo >>0 M5. mo: m... «E. 00”. m 00 >O< ..Q me On. n_>n_ ._.Q mo:

 

 

”00225200 .5000 10:... 10.... <._.<o 20:53—25 m.._m<.m_<> 0.F—EMS.)—

m x_n_zmn_n_<

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00FF.F- 0VF.0 0000.5 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0F F.F NV 00V
VO0V.F- 0VF.0 V0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
VOF0.F- 050.0 VFON0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F F F.F NV 00V
00N0.F- 00N.0FO0V0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
0V50.F- 005.0 0V00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F F.F NV 00V
0505.F- 00V.0 N000.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 0F F.F NV 0V
0505.F- 00V.0 N000.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F F.F NV 00V
V000.F- 00N.0FV500.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 0F N VF 00V
NN50.F- 0VN.0 F050.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F F.F 0F F.F NV 00V
V000.F- V5F.0 VV5N.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F NV 00V
00N0.F- VOF.0 505F.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0009 N F.F 0F F.F NV 00V
0000.F- 050.0 0F00.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
VVVO.N- 005.0 VV00.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
N50F.N- 00V.0 000N.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
N50F.N- 00V.0 000N.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F N 00V
0FVN.N- 0VN.0 0000.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
005N.N- V5F.0 0V00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
NO0N.N- VOF.0 F0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
000V.N- 0VF.0 0N00.0 05V0.0 0 0.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
VNOV.N- 00N.0FVF05.5 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 0F 0.F VF 00V
VNF5.N- 0VF.0 VO0V.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 0F N VF 00V
0050.N- 050.0 N000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 0.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
N050.N- 00N.0F000N5 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 0F F.F VF 00V
0000.0- 005.0 0005.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
0NVF.0- 00V.0 0VF0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
0NVF.0- 00V.0 0VF0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
00NN.0- 050.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F N VF 00V
V5NN.0- 0VN.0 05F0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0003 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
000N.0- V5F.0 NOF0.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F F.F 0N 00V
V05N.0- 005.0 VNOV.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F OF N VF 0V

 

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000V.0- N00.N 0000.F 5V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 F.F 00 0.F VF 00V
0NV0.0- 0N0.F 0500.F 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00 N VF 00V
0NV0.0- 0N0.F 0500.F 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 N VF 00V
0N00.0- FFO.F 0000.F 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00 0.F VF 00V
0550.0- 0FV.F 00V0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 0 F.F 0N 00V
0000.0- N00.N 550V.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F VF 00V
0000.0- 5V0.F 0FV5.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N 00V
F5N0.0- 0FV.F NF05.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00 N VF 00V
NV00.0- 55N.F FOV0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 00 F.F 0N 00V
VV00.0- 00N.0FVON00 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 00F N F.F 0F 0.F 0N 00V
VF00.0- FFO.F 000N.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00 F.F VF 00V
0000.0- 5V0.F 0N00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 N VF 00V
5000.0- 0N0.F FV000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00 0.F VF 00V
5000.0- 0N0.F FV000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 0.F VF 00V
0000.0- 55N.F 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0009 N F.F 00 N VF 00V
0005.0- 0FV.F 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00 0.F VF 00V
0005.0- 050.0 00NF.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F N N 00V
NV05.0- 0N0.F 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00 F.F VF 00V
NV05.0- 0N0.F 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 F.F VF 00V
0055.0- 5V0.F 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F VF 00V
5000.0- 55N.F 005V.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 00 0.F F 00V
0NF0.0- 005.0 VON00 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 0F N 0N 00V
00V0.0- 0FV.F V0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00 F.F VF 00V
0550.0- 5V0.F 505V.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F VF 00V
N000.0- 55N.F 0N50.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 F.F VF 00V
FON0.0- 00V.0 0F000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F OF N 0N 0V
FON0.0- 00V.0 0F000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F N 0N 00V
0000.F- 0VN.0 000N.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F OF N 0N 0V
0000.F- V5F.0 000F.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F OF N 0N 00V
N000.F- VOF.0 F0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 000 0002 F.F OF N 0N 00V

 

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FO0N.0- 0N0.F 5000.F 05V0.0 0 0.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
FO0N.0- 0N0.F 5000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
050N.0- 0N0.F 00N5.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0003 N F.F 00F F.F VF 00V
050N.0- 0N0.F 00N5.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F F.F F 00V
VO0N.0- VV5.0 0VVV.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00FN VF 00V
0000.0- 050.0 0050.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
0000.0- 0FV.F 0FFF.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
N000.0- 00V.0 05VF.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0003 N F.F 0F 0.F V 00V
N000.0- 00V.0 05VF.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
0VN0.0- N00.N 00N5.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F 0N 00V
05N0.0- 050.0 NOV0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 00 0000F N F.F 00FN _VF 00V
0N00.0- VF0.0 0NOV.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00F0.F 5VF 00V
0000.0- 5V0.F 0NFO.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
2000- VV5.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F0.F VF 00V
N000.0- 55N.F FVF0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
0050.0- N00.N 0050.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000 N F.F 00 N _VF 00V
V0000- FFO.F VF00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00 F.F 0N 00V
5000.0- 0FV.F 0500.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 0 0.F 0N 00V
FN00.0- VF0.0 0NOV.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00F F.F F 00V
N000.0- 050.0 0VON.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0003 N F.F 00F0.F .VF 00V
0000.0- 0VN.0 0F000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
000V.0- 5V0.F 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
00FV.0- VV5.0 FV000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F VF 00V
0NN.V.0- V5F.0 0N050 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
50NV.0- FFO.F FNOV.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 009 N F.F 00 N VF 00V
F50V.0- 55N.F NOV0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
000V.0- 050.0 VO0N.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 000 0003 N F.F 00F F.F VF 00V
NO0V.0- VOF.0 FV000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
NO0V.0- 0N0.F 000F.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 00 F.F 0N 00V
NO0V.0- 0N0.F 000F.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000 N F.F 0 F.F 0N 00V

 

 

 

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VO0F0- FFO.F N00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
FFFFO- VF0.0 0005.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 00F 0009 N F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
00NF.0- N00.N 00N0.F 05V0.0 0 0.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
00NF.0- 0VV.F FFNO.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F VF 00V
0VOF0- 0FV.F 0VON.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0009 N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
VO0F0- 000.F 0N5F.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 00F F.F 00F0.F VF 00V
000F0- VV50 F0000 05V0.0 0 0.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
00VFO- 050.0 0005.0 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
00VFO- VF0.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 0F0.F 0N 00V
0NOF0- 0N0.F VV00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
0NOF0- 0N0.F VV00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
0NOF0- 5V0.F 000F.F 05V0.0 0 000 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 00 0000 F.F 00 N 0N 00V
050F0- 050.0 V0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
N05F0- VV5.0 F0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F0.F 0N 00V
000F0- FFO.F 00N5.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
5VOF0- 000.F 50NF.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F F.F F 00V
000F0- 0N0.F 000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 00FN VF 00V
000F0- 0N0.F 5000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00FN VF 0V
500F0- 55N.F 0000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
000F0- 005.0 VNV0.0 05V0.0 0 000 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
VVON0- 050.0 VO0V0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00F0.F 0N 00V
NNNNO- 0N0.F 050V.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
NNNNO- 0N0.F 050V.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
00VNO- VF0.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0003 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
NOVNO- 0N0.F F0550 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00F0.F VF 00V
NOVNO- 0N0.F F0550 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 F.F 00F0.F VF 00V
VOVNO- 0VF.0 V0005 05V0.0 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 00F N F.F OF N N 00V
0VON0- 00N.0F00000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 0F F.F NV 00V
NF5N0- VF0.0 00V0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 00FN VF 00V
0V5N0- VV5.0 000V0 5V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V

 

 

 

136

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000.0 000.F 5V00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 00.0 F FV.F 000 00F N F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
0050.0 0N0.F 0005.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
0050.0 0N0.F 0005.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
F0000 FFO.F 0V50.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
0000.0 0N0.F F000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00FN 0N 00V
0000.0 0N0.F F000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00FN 0N 00V
VOV00 000.F 5500.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 003 N F.F 00F0.F 0N 00V
0000.0 VF0.0 0F000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0003 N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
FFF00 FN0.0 0N00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0 0.F _VF 00V
0000.0 VV5.0 0N050 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
N5000 0VV.F 000V.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
FFF00- 0FV.F N50V.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0002 N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
V5F00- 0VV.F 0FOV.F 05V0.0 .0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00FN VF 00V
00F00- 050.0 NV00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0003 N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
0VN0.0- VF0.0 0005.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 00F 0009 N F.F 00FN 0N 00V
00N0.0- 0N0.F 0000.0 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00F F.F V 00V
00N0.0- 0N0.F 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000 N F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
00000- 5V0.F 0000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 00 0000 N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
NOV00- 000.F NO0N.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
50V00- 0N0.F F000.F 05V0.0 0 000 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
50V00- 0N0.F F000.F 05V0.0 0 000 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
0N00.0- N00.N 0000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
0000.0- VV5.0 0F000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00FN 0N 00V
V0000- 0N0.F 0N00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00F0.F 0N 00V
V0000- 0N0.F 0N00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F0.F 0N 00V
0500.0- 55N.F 000N.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
0050.0- 000.F 0VON.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00FN VF 00V
0050.0- 0VV.F 0050.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F0.F VF 00V
NF00.0- 050.0 0N00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0003 N F.F 00FN 0N 00V
V5000- FN0.0 0VON.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 00F N F.F 0 F.F VF 00V

 

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V05V0 0VV.F 5VNO.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00FN NV 00V
5VOV0 FN0.0 V0550 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
FOVVO 0N0.F 0N50.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0002 N F.F 00 N NV 00V
FOVVO 0N0.F 0N50.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00 N NV 00V
00NVO 0F5.N 00VF.0 05V0.0 0 000 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 00F0.F VF 00V
00FV.0 000.F 05N5.F 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00FN NV 00V
5000.0 FN0.0 0N05.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
0050.0 0F5.N 5500.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00F F.F VF 00V
05000 0VF.0 VOF0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
0000.0 0FV.F 0055.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00 N NV 00V
0000.0 5V0.F F050.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 N NV 00V
N000.0 0N0.F 0N00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0009 N F.F 00FN NV 00V
N000.0 0N0.F 0N00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00FN NV 00V
FN00.0 55N.F V050.F 05V0.0 .0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0002 N F.F 00 N NV 00V
000N.0 0VV.F 0005.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
5NVNO N00.N 000N.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
NVON0 000.F 0NVO.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
00NNO 0VV.F 0050.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0FN 0N 00V
0FNNO VF0.0 V000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000F N F.F 00FN NV 00V
VO0F0 VV5.0 5500.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 00FN NV 00V
000F.0 FFO.F F000.N 05V0.0 0 000 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
000F.0 FN0.0 V0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00 F.F 0N 00V
0N5F0 000.F 000V.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 00FN 0N 00V
NO0F0 050.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0009 N F.F 00FN NV 00V
5NVFO 0VV.F FN00.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
0VOF0 FN0.0 FO0V.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00 N VF 00V
VFNFO 0N0.F 55VF.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
VFNFO 0N0.F 55VF.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0000 N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
00FFO N00.N 0N5F.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
000F.0 0VV.F F000.F 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 00F0.F 0N 00V

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000V.F 000.V 0N0.0 5V0.0 0 00.0 00 F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
F05V.F 00V.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
VO0V.F 000.V 5NON.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00F0.F 0N 00V
0VOV.F 0VN.0 0000.5 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 0003 N F.F 0F N NV 00V
FONV.F V5F.0 0000.5 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 N F.F 0F N NV 00V
0500.F VOF.0 FN00.5 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000F N F.F 0F N NV 00V
0000.F 000.V NVOF.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 003 N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
N000.F 000.V 000F.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 00F N _VF 00V
5000.F 00V.0 V5050 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00 F.F NV 00V
0V5N.F 000.V 050F.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00F0.F F 00V
50NN.F 00V.0 0000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 0.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00 0.F 0N 00V
00NN.F 000.V 5000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 009 N F.F 00F F.F VF 00V
50FN.F 00NOF 55V.FF05V00 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 003 N F.F 0F 0.F NV 00V
00FF.F FN0.0 5FVV.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00 NV 00V
00N0.F 00V.0 VO0V.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00 F.F 0N 00V
0000.0 0F5.N 0F05.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F F.F 00FN V 00V
0000.0 00V.0 F5FV.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00 N F 00V
F5000 00V.0 000N.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00 0.F VF 00V
N0050 0F5.N 00F0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00F0.F NV 00V
0005.0 00V.0 000F.0 05V0.0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00 F.F .VF 00V
0005.0 FN0.0 FN50.V 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00 0.F NV 00V
0005.0 0F5.N 0VOV.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00FN 0N 00V
0000.0 0F5.N 5000.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00F F.F NV 00V
F5N00 FN0.0 00V0.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 00 N 0N 00V
VOF00 0F5.N 5F00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 003 N F.F 00F0.F N 00V
0NF00 N00.N F000.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 0000 F.F 00 N NV 00V
5500.0 00NOF F000F05V00 0 000 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F F N 0N 00V
0000.0 FFO.F 550V.N 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 002 N F.F 00 N NV 00V
0VF0.0 0F5.N NO0N.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 00F F.F 0N 00V
NO0V0 0F5.N 000N.0 5V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 002 N F.F 00F N VF 00V

 

 

139

 

5550 .8555

E58555 558:8 5.555555 ”0000
55.0 .55. 55 85. 55555.5 00
558:585835E 558:8
5.555555 55:8. 8 55555: 5E: ”0.F
55:0 .85: 555. mm...

5555 5.55:5 5 55:53.50 ”00”.
55._E 55:85.5 55555 ”00

5555 .55. 558:55 50
55858855 55:58 5.55 ”On.
5555 .55. 5.555 5.0

5550 .858 E8555 558:8 5.55585: ”0000
555E855. 8:053 558:8 H>>o

558:80 558:8 5.555555 .5 858 5:: ”mo:

558:585835E 5:558:55 5.55::85: 5.5:5: 8 55555: 5E: Hm..-

5._E0 .85: 5055..E 0.2

555555 .5055: 5555 5055>5 ”>04.

85: E5E:5.:5.58 558:55 ”000

.858 5E:.o> x555 ”...>n.

558:80 558:8 5.55585: 5 8555 5:: ”mo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5F00.0 00NOF 0N0.0F05V00 0 00.0 0 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 00F N F.F 0F N NV 00V
50FN.N 0VF.0 V000F05V00 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000F N F.F 0F N NV 00V
0000.F 00V.0 5NOV.5 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00 N NV 00V
00N0.F 000.V 0N00.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00F N NV 00V
F005.F 050.0 0500.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000 N F.F 0F N NV 00V
5F00.F 005.0 V0000 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000 000F N F.F 0F N NV 00V
NVVO.F 000.V 055V.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 00F0.F V 00V
0000.F 00V.0 F0005 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 002 N F.F 0 0.F NV 00V
0N00.F 000.V 00FV.0 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 000F N F.F 00F N 0N 00V
0000.F 00V.0 0000.5 05V0.0 0 00.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 0000 0000F N F.F 0F N NV 00V
0000.F 00V.0 0000.5 05V0.0 0 0.0 00 0F 00.0 F FV.F 000F 000 N F.F OF N NV 0V

 

 

 

140

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andel, T. 1995. “Conversion to Returnable Wins Believers." Transportation &
Distribution. Vol. 36, No. 9,: 94.

---------- . 1993. “The Environment's right for a packaging plan.” Transportation &
Distribution. Vol. 34, No. 11: 66-74.

Auguston, K. 1995. “A Selection Guide to Returnable Containers.” Modem
Material Handling. Vol. 50, No. 13: 42-43.

---------- . 1993. “Reduce Packaging Costs with Resuable Containers.” Modem
Material Handling. Vol. 47, No. 2: 14.

Ballou, HR. 1998. Business Logistics Management: Planning, Organizing, and
Controlling the Supply Chain. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Block, OS. 1999. A Returnable Container System for Medical Device
Components. Thesis. Michigan State University, The School of Packaging,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Bowersox, D.J. and Closs D.J. 1996. Logistical Management: The Integrated
Supply Chain Process. McGraw-Hill, lnc., New York, New York.

Cozart, T. 1997. “Economic Justification of Returnable Containers.” Proceedings
of Current Issues in Retumabie Packaging Conference, East Lansing, MI.

Findlay, R. 1997. “Costs for Corrugated and Reusable Plastic Shipping
Containers for the Ontario Fresh Produce Industry.” Proceedings of
Current Issues in Returnable Packaging Conference, East Lansing, MI.

“How to Select Shipping Containers.” 1991. Buckhom, |nc., Milford, Ohio.

Huettner, K. 1998. “Packaging: A Key Element of Supply Chain Management.”
Packaging Technology & Engineering. Vol. 31, No. 6: 13-18.

142

Karen, AF. 1997. “Ford Windsor Saves Millions with Returnable Containers."
Modern Material Handling. Vol. 52, No. 10: 42-45.

Kibler, SE. 1997. Retumable/Reusable Logistical Packaging: A Decision Support
Framework and Modular Fumiture Case Study. Thesis. Michigan State
University, The School of Packaging, East Lansing, Michigan.

Kopicky, R.J., Berg, M.J., Legg, L., Dasappa, V. and Maggioni, C. 1993. Reuse
and Recycling: Reverse Logistics Opportunities. Council of Logistics
Management, Oak Brook, IL.

Meagher, D. 1998. “Getting Control of Returnable Container System."
Proceedings of Current Issues in Returnable Packaging Conference, East
Lansing, MI.

Melnyk, SA. and Denzler, DR. 1996. Operations Management: A Value-Driven
Approach. Von Hoffmann Press, Inc.

National Solid Waste Management Association. 1992. “The Cost to Recycle at a
Materials Recover Facility," Washington, DC.

Pashall, RM. 1986. “Returnable Container Systems boost handling economy.”
Modem Material Handling. Vol 41, No. 12; 74-75

-------- -. 1986. “Returnable Containers Save Automakers over $20 Million.”
Modem Material Handling. Vol. 41, No. 12: 76-78.

Rosenau, V.W, Twede, D, Mazzeo, AM, and Singh, PS. 1996.
“Returnable/Reusable Logistical Packaging: A Capital Budgeting
Investment Decision Framework.” Journal of Business Logistics. Vol 17,
No.2, 139-164.

Saphire, David. 1994. “Delivering the Goods: Benefits of Reusable Shipping
Containers.” INFORM.

Stock, JR. 1992. Reverse Logistics. Council of Logistics Management. Oak
Brook, IL.

143

 

Trunk, C. 1995. “Reusable Containers Blast Off for Manufacturing.” Material
Handling Engineering. Vol. 50, No. 3: 57.

---------. 1993. “Making Ends Meet with Returnable Plastic Containers.” Material
Handling Engineering. Vol 48, No. 10: 79-85.

Turvey, H. 1998. “Spreadsheet Analysis of Packaging Alternatives.” Proceedings
of Current Issues in Returnable Packaging Conference, East Lansing, MI.

Twede, D. 1999. “Current Issues in Returnable Packaging." Proceedings of 11th I
IAPRI (The International Association of Packaging Research Institute?
World Conference on Packaging: Challenges of Packaging in the 215
Century, Singapore.

 

-------. 1995. “Less Waste on The Loading Dock: Competitive Strategy and The
Reduction of Logistical Packaging Waste." Working Paper #2: Program on
Solid Waste Policy. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut.

Witt, CE. 1994. “Ford Clix with Hot Six.” Material Handling Engineering. Vol 49,
No. 8: 34-38.

-------. 1986. “Oldsmobile Cuts Cost, Reduces Handling with Returnable
Containers.” Material Handling Engineering. Vol. 41, No. 4: 81-85.

---.---- 1993. “Returnable distribution packaging saves money.” Material
Handling Engineering. Vol. 48, No. 2: 14.

Wiersema, W.H. 1995. Activity based management. New York: American
Management Association.

144

I'IICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293020604082