# How to Drive Tariff from two VARIABLES?

#### myem1983

Hello Everyone,

I need your assistance here with the following problem and I'm sure someone will help me. I've trucking rates which are based on fixed kilos - the range starts from 50 kilos to 5000 kilos.
Condition is whatever the volume of the cargo is we have to multiply it by 200 and whatever the answer will be then we have to look down into the weight slab where it falls. For e.g.

We have 1000 kilos and volume is 1 cubic-meter.
Now we have to multiply 1 cubic-meter by 200 and answer will be 200 so we can see 1000 is higher so we have to pick 1000.

I'm wondering is there is any co-relation we can find and make a flat rate? For e.g.

rather we multiply volume of the cargo with 200 why can't we have one SIMPLE rate and whatever weight or volume we get we multiple it with a flat rate?

I'm not sure I'm being clear and detailed explaining here.... sorry for the inconvenience. rest of the details are as below:
Weight
50 , 100 , 150 , 200 , 250 , 300 , 350 , 400 , 450 , 500 , 600 , 700 , 800 , 900 , 1000 , 1100 , 1200 , 1300 , 1400 , 1500 , 1600 , 1700 , 1800 , 1900 , 2000 , 2100 , 2200 , 2300 , 2400 , 2500 , 3000 , 4000 , 5000 ,

Rate
45.98 , 55.11 , 66.11 , 73.59 , 85.69 , 96.69 , 107.69 , 117.81 , 129.03 , 136.51 , 148.17 , 165.33 , 179.41 , 196.383 , 203.643 , 213.444 , 223.366 ,
234.014 , 242.605 , 250.107 , 255.915 , 264.627 , 273.218 , 281.688 , 290.158 , 304.799 , 312.906 , 321.013 , 329.12 , 336.864 , 346.907 , 349.569 , 366.63

Appreciate if you could help me to drive a tariff which is one figure - and by multiplying it with VOLUME or WEIGHT I get an answer.

Thanking you in advance!! Regards,
MYEM

Last edited by a moderator:

#### DarnItJimImAnEngineer

If I'm understanding correctly, the tariff accounts for large but lightweight (low-density) shipments by calculating an effective weight:
$effective~weight = MAX[weight~(kg), \left( 200 ~\frac{kg}{m^3} \right) \cdot volume~(m^3)]$

So 1000 kg in 1 m^3 uses the 203.643 rate, but 1000 kg in 10 m^3 would use the 290.158 rate.

Is that right? If so, there's no way to get around that step.

As far as calculating the rate, it looks like the rate is almost but not quite piecewise linear. There's not going to be an analytic relation to model this. You're stuck with looking it up on the chart, I'm afraid.