| Literature DB >> 34519990 |
Parisa Rafigh1, Ali Akbar Akbari2, Hadi Mohammadi Bidhandi1, Ali Husseinzadeh Kashan3.
Abstract
This study proposes a sustainable closed-loop supply chain under uncertainty to create a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, a novel stochastic optimization model integrating strategic and tactical decision-making is presented for the sustainable closed-loop supply chain network design problem. This paper for the first time implements the concept of sustainable closed-loop supply chain for the application of ventilators using a stochastic optimization model. To make the problem more realistic, most of the parameters are considered to be uncertain along with the normal probability distribution. Since the proposed model is more complex than majority of previous studies, a hybrid whale optimization algorithm as an enhanced metaheuristic is proposed to solve the proposed model. The efficiency of the proposed model is tested in an Iranian medical ventilator production and distribution network in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results confirm the performance of the proposed algorithm in comparison with two other similar algorithms based on different multi-objective criteria. To show the impact of sustainability dimensions and COVID-19 pandemic for our proposed model, some sensitivity analyses are done. Generally, the findings confirm the performance of the proposed sustainable closed-loop supply chain for the pandemic cases like COVID-19.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; Multi-objective optimization; Stochastic programming; Sustainable supply chain; Whale optimization algorithm
Year: 2021 PMID: 34519990 PMCID: PMC8438288 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16077-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
A survey on relevant references from 2006 to 2021
| Reference | Product flow | Decision variables | Sustainability dimensions | Modeling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L&A | PT | MTS | ECO | ENV | SOC | |||
| Altiparmak et al. ( | F | √ | √ | |||||
| Alshamsi and Diabat ( | R | √ | √ | |||||
| Sahebjamnia et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Pishvaee et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | RP | |||
| Devika et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||
| Jamshidi et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Nurjanni et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Mardan et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | ||||
| Chalmardi and Camacho-Vallejo ( | F | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Paksoy et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | FP | |||
| Tsao et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | FP | |
| Fathollahi-Fard and Hajiaghaei-Keshteli ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | SP | ||
| Fathollahi-Fard et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | SP | ||
| Keyvanshokooh et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | RSP | ||
| Rezaei et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | RO | |||
| Baptista et al. ( | F | √ | √ | SP | ||||
| Gonela et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | √ | SP | ||
| Fathollahi-Fard et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | SP | |||
| Mohammadi et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | SP | ||
| Mehrotra et al. ( | F | √ | √ | SO | ||||
| Fathollahi-Fard et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | SP | |
| Fathollahi-Fard et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | ||||
| Theophilus et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | ||||
| Fallahpour et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | √ | FP | ||
| Pasha et al. ( | F | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Salehi-Amiri et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Zahedi et al. ( | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Mojtahedi et al. ( | R | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||
| This study | F&R | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | HCC&CF |
Note: F, forward; R, reverse; F&R, forward and reverse; L&A, location and allocation; PT, production technology; MTS, multiple transportation system; ECO, economic; ENV, environmental; SOC: social; RO, robust optimization; SP, stochastic programming; RP, robust programming; RSP, robust-stochastic programming; FP, fuzzy programming; SO, simulation and optimization; HCC&CF, hybrid chance constraint and cost function method
Figure. 1.Graphical illustration of the solution representation for the binary variables
Figure. 2.Graphical illustration of encoding plan for the technology selection
Figure 3Example of the transportation matrix-based solution representation method for the product flow
Figure 4The pseudo-code of proposed HWS for multi-objective problems
Problem setting and instances
| Small | P1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 3 |
| P2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 12 | 20 | 3 | |
| P3 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 14 | 30 | 3 | |
| P4 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 16 | 40 | 4 | |
| P5 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 8 | 18 | 45 | 4 | |
| Medium | P6 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 60 | 4 |
| P7 | 10 | 12 | 26 | 10 | 22 | 70 | 6 | |
| P8 | 10 | 14 | 32 | 10 | 24 | 80 | 6 | |
| P9 | 10 | 14 | 38 | 11 | 26 | 90 | 6 | |
| P10 | 10 | 16 | 44 | 12 | 28 | 100 | 8 | |
| Large | P11 | 15 | 20 | 50 | 14 | 30 | 130 | 8 |
| P12 | 15 | 22 | 54 | 15 | 32 | 150 | 8 | |
| P13 | 15 | 24 | 60 | 16 | 34 | 160 | 10 | |
| P14 | 15 | 26 | 70 | 17 | 36 | 170 | 10 | |
| P15 | 15 | 30 | 80 | 18 | 38 | 200 | 10 |
Factors of optimizers and their levels
| Optimizer | Factor | Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| SA | A: Maximum iteration ( | 1000 | 1500 | 2000 | - | - |
| B: Sub-iteration ( | 20 | 30 | 50 | - | - | |
| C: Used methodology of local search ( | Swap | Reversion | Insertion | - | - | |
| D: Initial temperature ( | 1000 | 1500 | 2000 | - | - | |
| E: Rate of reduction ( | 0.85 | 0.9 | 0.99 | - | - | |
| WOA | A: Maximum iteration ( | 200 | 400 | 600 | 1000 | 1500 |
| B: Population size ( | 50 | 100 | 150 | 200 | 300 | |
| HWS | A: Maximum iteration ( | 300 | 600 | 800 | 1200 | - |
| B: Population size ( | 50 | 100 | 150 | 200 | - | |
| C: Initial temperature ( | 1000 | 1200 | 1500 | 2000 | - | |
| D: Rate of reduction ( | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.9 | 0.99 | - | |
Tuned parameters
| Algorithm | Parameters |
|---|---|
| SA | |
| WOA | |
| HWS |
Comparison of the algorithms
| P1 | 5 | 8 | 2.3656 | 2.1668 | 322971 | 364337 | 284855 | 252546 | ||||
| P2 | 9 | 2.1409 | 1.1781 | 583346 | 659895 | 699981 | 696675 | |||||
| P3 | 6 | 12 | 3.0635 | 2.1143 | 674618 | 711843 | 889612 | 981314 | ||||
| P4 | 8 | 11 | 4.6701 | 3.6118 | 756024 | 995784 | 1500420 | 1400858 | ||||
| P5 | 9 | 12 | 2.9635 | 3.6959 | 894850 | 574956 | 2355835 | 2136201 | ||||
| P6 | 9 | 12 | 5.7248 | 3.1876 | 1261434 | 968246 | 2586113 | 2481696 | ||||
| P7 | 10 | 11 | 7.3716 | 5.4399 | 1053899 | 1057282 | 3219535 | 2868420 | ||||
| P8 | 11 | 13 | 5.8759 | 5.6609 | 1035657 | 919442 | 3463876 | 3506257 | ||||
| P9 | 12 | 12 | 6.8472 | 4.8438 | 1506496 | 1855450 | 5140232 | 5375823 | ||||
| P10 | 10 | 12 | 3.6925 | 3.9634 | 1750385 | 1839931 | 5210873 | 5702810 | ||||
| P11 | 11 | 14 | 5.7481 | 5.8276 | 1668077 | 1399581 | 5185450 | 6044003 | ||||
| P12 | 8 | 13 | 4.8701 | 6.3874 | 1585811 | 1457975 | 5801526 | 6249123 | ||||
| P13 | 10 | 3.2891 | 4.2675 | 3.2895 | 1547389 | 1475869 | 5833145 | 6657432 | ||||
| P14 | 11 | 4.4763 | 4.9788 | 3.8537 | 1453687 | 1564587 | 5437869 | 6935741 | ||||
| P15 | 10 | 15 | 5.8767 | 4.4633 | 1546738 | 1564372 | 6647315 | 6457823 | ||||
Best values in each test for each metric are shown in bold
Figure. 5.Computational time for each algorithm
Figure. 6LSD intervals based on the RDI of the selected performance metrics
Figure. 7.Sensitivity analysis on the growth of the demand in the objective functions
Figure. 8.Sensitivity analysis on the released CO2
Figure. 9.Sensitivity analysis on the waste products
Figure. 10.Comparison of the expected cost value with the SI index
Figure. 11.Comparison of the variance of cost value with the SI index