| Literature DB >> 30781502 |
Gaoyuan Qin1, Fengming Tao2, Lixia Li3.
Abstract
Under fierce market competition and the demand for low-carbon economy, cold chain logistics companies have to pay attention to customer satisfaction and carbon emissions for better development. In order to simultaneously consider cost, customer satisfaction, and carbon emissions in the cold chain logistics path optimization problem, based on the idea of cost⁻benefit, this paper proposes a comprehensive cold chain vehicle routing problem optimization model with the objective function of minimizing the cost of unit satisfied customer. For customer satisfaction, this paper uses the punctuality of delivery as the evaluation standard. For carbon emissions, this paper introduces the carbon trading mechanism to calculate carbon emissions costs. An actual case data is used with a cycle evolutionary genetic algorithm to carry out computational experiments in the model. First, the effectiveness of the algorithm and model were verified by a numerical comparison experiment. The optimization results of the model show that increasing the total cost by a small amount can greatly improve average customer satisfaction, thereby obtaining a highly cost-effective solution. Second, the impact of carbon price on total costs, carbon emissions, and average customer satisfaction have also been numerically analyzed. The experimental results show that as carbon price increases, there are two opposite trends in total costs, depending on whether carbon quota is sufficient. Increasing carbon price within a certain range can effectively reduce carbon emissions, but at the same time it will reduce average customer satisfaction to a certain extent; there is a trade-off between carbon emissions and customer satisfaction. This model enriches the optimization research of cold chain logistics distribution, and the study results complement the impact research of carbon price on carbon emissions and customer satisfaction. Finally, some practical managerial implications for enterprises and government are offered.Entities:
Keywords: carbon emissions; carbon trading; cold chain logistics; customer satisfaction; vehicle routing problem
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30781502 PMCID: PMC6406631 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16040576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flowchart of the study.
Description of the symbols.
| Symbols | Description |
|---|---|
|
| The number of customers (0, 1, 2,…, |
|
| The number of trucks owned by the depot |
|
| The rated load of the truck |
|
| The fixed cost of the truck |
|
| The distance between customer |
|
| The arrival time to customer |
|
| The price of the unit weight goods |
|
| The spoilage rate |
|
| The refrigeration costs which generate during transportation process of unit time |
|
| The refrigeration costs which generate during unloading process of unit time |
|
| The demand of customer |
|
| The weight of goods remaining on the vehicle when the refrigerated truck leaves customer |
|
| The coefficient value of CO2 emission |
|
| The unit fuel price |
|
| The unit carbon trading price |
|
| The carbon quota which is allocated by government |
|
| The total fuel consumption in the entire distribution |
|
| The fuel consumption per unit distance when the vehicle is running |
|
| The fuel consumption per unit distance when the vehicle is empty |
|
| The fuel consumption per unit distance when the vehicle is fully loaded |
|
| The load of goods to be delivered when it travels between customer |
|
| The unit distance fuel consumption when the cargo weight carried by the vehicle is |
|
| The average customer satisfaction |
|
| 0–1 variable, |
|
| 0–1 variable, |
|
| 0–1 variable, |
|
| 0–1 variable, |
Test results of cycle evolutionary genetic algorithm (CEGA).
| Problems | GA | CEGA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Vehicles | Distance | Number of Vehicles | Distance | |
| R1-01 | 19 | 1701.92 | 18 | 1647.32 |
| C1-04 | 10 | 881.23 | 10 | 831.58 |
| RC1-08 | 10 | 1396.51 | 10 | 1139.82 |
| R2-02 | 6 | 1242.34 | 3 | 1191.70 |
| C2-06 | 4 | 685.43 | 4 | 654.91 |
| RC2-07 | 4 | 1259.31 | 3 | 1061.14 |
Customer information.
| Number | Coordinates (km) | Demand (t) | Desirable time | Service Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | (13,271.60, 2896.72) | 0 | 5:30–17:00 | 0 |
| 1 | (13,270.70, 2898.86) | 1.50 | 6:00–8:00 | 20 |
| 2 | (13,270.47, 2900.73) | 0.50 | 7:30–9:00 | 10 |
| 3 | (13,269.09, 2899.42) | 1.50 | 6:00–8:00 | 20 |
| 4 | (13,268.75, 2898.41) | 1.50 | 6:30–8:20 | 20 |
| 5 | (13,271.67, 2901.61) | 2.00 | 6:40–8:30 | 25 |
| 6 | (13,269.14, 2901.44) | 2.00 | 7:00–9:00 | 25 |
| 7 | (13,267.98, 2900.32) | 1.80 | 7:20–9:00 | 22 |
| 8 | (13,270.21, 2902.49) | 1.00 | 7:30–9:00 | 15 |
| 9 | (13,267.91, 2898.22) | 1.00 | 7:00–8:30 | 15 |
| 10 | (13,266.67, 2900.79) | 1.00 | 7:00–9:00 | 15 |
| 11 | (13,267.42, 2902.81) | 1.00 | 7:30–9:30 | 15 |
| 12 | (13,269.22, 2903.54) | 0.50 | 7:30–9:00 | 10 |
| 13 | (13,265.98, 2902.38) | 0.50 | 7:30–9:30 | 10 |
| 14 | (13,273.00, 2901.03) | 1.50 | 7:30–9:00 | 20 |
| 15 | (13,272.98, 2902.44) | 2.00 | 6:50–8:30 | 25 |
| 16 | (13,271.86, 2903.30) | 1.50 | 7:00–8:40 | 20 |
| 17 | (13,271.00, 2902.40) | 1.50 | 7:00–8:40 | 20 |
| 18 | (13,272.03, 2901.11) | 0.50 | 7:50–9:00 | 10 |
| 19 | (13,269.82, 2898.65) | 2.50 | 6:30–8:30 | 30 |
| 20 | (13,271.21, 2898.11) | 1.00 | 7:50–9:00 | 15 |
Vehicle parameters.
| Parameters | Parameter Values | Parameters | Parameter Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outline dimension | 9990 × 2490 × 3850 mm | Container size | 7400 × 2280 × 2400 mm |
| Total mass | 16,000 kg | Rated load capacity | 9000 kg |
| Engine type | B19 033 | Fuel type | Diesel oil |
| No-load fuel consumption | 16.5 L/100 km | Integrated fuel consumption | 23.3 L/100 km |
Relevant parameters of the model.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
|
| 2000 CNY/t |
|
| 7.25 CNY/L |
|
| 2.63 kg/L |
|
| 0.165 L/km |
|
| 0.377 L/km |
|
| 200 CNY |
Figure 2The optimal distribution paths of minimizing total cost.
Figure 3The optimal distribution paths of minimizing the cost of unit satisfied customer.
Comparison of results.
| Objective Function | Minimize Total Cost | Minimize the Cost of Unit Satisfied Customer |
|---|---|---|
| Total cost | 1080.25 CNY | 1149.84 CNY |
| Carbon emissions | 71.8 kg | 80.2 kg |
| ACS | 40% | 70% |
|
| 135.03 CNY | 82.13 CNY |
is the value of objective function.
Figure 4The changing trends of carbon emissions and total cost with the carbon price changes under insufficient carbon quota.
Figure 5The changing trend of average customer satisfaction with the increase in carbon price under insufficient carbon quota.
Figure 6The changing trends of carbon emissions and total cost with the carbon price changes under sufficient carbon quota.
Figure 7The changing trend of average customer satisfaction with the increase in carbon price under sufficient carbon quota.