1

Fig. 1. The laminated beech wood supply network stakeholders and the material flows between them. There is a direct flow from one entity to all entities of the next tier. The source is at the forest departments and finishes at the sink, the customers. From several candidates, optimal downstream facilities are chosen to be opened within supply network.

2

Fig. 2. The map represents the location of the several hardwood stakeholders. Forest departments with soft- and hardwood (green - 94), hardwood sawmills (orange - 27), laminated beech wood facility candidates (black -15) and customers (blue – have the same location as the forest departments - 88). View larger in new window/tab.

Table 1. Countries and amounts for beech roundwood procurement.
Country City as central
location 		Share of beech in the country, estimated Share of beech in the chosen location, estimated Production, Sawlogs and veneer logs, non-coniferous*
[m3 of roundwood] 		Amount of beech in the chosen location, calculated
[m3 of roundwood]
Slovakia Nitra 25% 10% 1 558 996 38 975
Hungary Székesfehérvár 6% 40% 919 400 22 066
Czech Republic Iglau 8% 10% 496 000 3968
Germany Landshut 18% 8% 3 356 883 48 339
Slovenia Celje 30% 30% 320 823 28 874
Croatia Zagreb 36% 10% 1 958 567 70 508
Total 212 730
* FAOSTAT
3

Fig. 3. Development of the annual product demand and the roundwood availability over the year.

Table 2. Demand distribution key for Austria (Kaufmann et al. 2011), Italy and Germany.
Countries Scenario #1 – #13 Scenario #14
  Federal States Weighting [%] Amount [m3] Weighting [%] Amount [m3]
Austria 100.00 50 000 40.00 19 998
  Lower Austria 21.52 10 760 21.52 4303
  Upper Austria 17.01 8505 17.01 3403
  Styria 16.53 8265 16.53 3306
  Vienna 12.59 6295 12.59 2519
  Tyrol 9.66 4830 9.66 1932
  Carinthia 8.06 4030 8.06 1612
  Salzburg 6.39 3195 6.39 1278
  Burgenland 4.24 2120 4.24 844
  Vorarlberg 4.00 2000 4.00 801
Italy 0 0 18.00 9000
Germany 0 0 42.00 21 000
4

Fig. 4. Generic LBWSN with the four entities forest departments (F), hardwood sawmills (S), LBWF (L) and customers (C). I, p, u, x and y represent decision variables and the notations C and D represent parameters.

Table 3. Developed scenarios with the defined parameters.
Scenarios Additional sawmill
(ADS) 		Amount of facilities
(AF) 		Facility capacity option
(FCO) 		Sourcing strategy
(SO) 		Amount of roundwood
(AR)
#1 unlimited 3 AUT 146 023
#2 unlimited 3 AUT 146 023
#3 unlimited 3 AUT 146 023
#4 unlimited 6 AUT 146 023
#5 x unlimited 3 AUT 146 023
#6 x unlimited 6 AUT 146 023
#7 x unlimited 3 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
#8 x unlimited 6 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
#9 x 1 3 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
#10 x 1 6 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
#11 unlimited 3 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
#12 x unlimited 3 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
#13 x unlimited 6 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
#14 x unlimited 6 AUT + Neighbours 358 762
5

Fig. 5. Material flow of #1. The individual colours illustrate the material flows from forest locations to sawmills (green), from sawmills to facility locations (orange) and from facility location to customer (yellow).

Table 4. Financial performance results for scenarios #1 to #14.
Cost
parameter 		#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14
Sadiesfied demand
[m3] 		14 972 14 847 23 942 26 639 24 181 24 378 30 000 33 451 19 992 31 092 34 703 34 710 37 548 38 242
Total supply cost per m3
[€ m–3] 		345 351 339 332 324 309 330 322 311 323 341 331 323 321
Opening cost
[€ m–3] 		48 49 53 41 53 30 49 33 46 30 47 47 34 27 €
Transport cost
[€ m–3] 		109 121 79 86 71 76 87 94 70 92 92 87 92 93 €
Production cost
[€ m–3] 		186 178 202 202 195 198 191 191 193 197 197 192 192 197 €
Storage cost
[€ m–3] 		2 2 5 2 5 5 4 4 2 5 5 5 4 4 €
6

Fig. 6. The total supply network costs are represented per satisfied demand and for each sceanrio.

Table 5. Material performance results for scenarios #1 to #14.
Material parameter #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14
Degree of demand fulfillment [%] 30 30 48 53 48 49 60 67 40 62 69 69 75 76
Amount of used resources [%] 49 49 78 87 79 80 40 45 27 41 46 46 50 51
Amount of imported resources [%] 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 27 6 17 25 24 27 28
Amount of used sawmill capacity [%] 54 61 42 46 37 37 45 51 30 23 27 26 28 28
Amount of used LBWF capacity [%] 100 99 60 78 69 98 100 98 100 91 99 87 88 75
7

Fig. 7. Material performance results are shown for scenario 6, 8, 9 and 13. The raw material (orange,) and demand of products (black, m3 of product, right diagram title) curves result from the key distribution parameter and have the same development in the four diagrams. In contrast to the following three scenarios, #6 includes a national souring only. Roundwood (grey, m3 roundwood, left diagram title) product transportation (red, m3 of product, right diagram title) are the results of the individual scenarios. View larger in new window/tab.

8

Fig. 8. For all 14 scenarios, the used sawmills and facilities are represented. For the facility locations, it is just shown if it is opened. The degree of sawmill capacity utilization is shown with percentage bar sizes. The additional sawmill 27 is used every time when it was possible.