| Literature DB >> 34629938 |
Fatemeh Keshavarz-Ghorbani1, Seyed Hamid Reza Pasandideh1.
Abstract
This paper proposes a mathematical model in the context of agro-supply chain management, considering specific characteristics of agro-products to assist purchase, storage, and transportation decisions. In addition, a new method for determining the required quality score of different types of products is proposed based on their loss factors and purchasing costs. The model aims to minimize total cost imposed by purchasing fresh products, opening warehouses, holding inventories, operational activities, and transportation. Two sets of examples, including small and medium-sized problems, are implemented by general algebraic modeling language (GAMS) software to evaluate the model. Then, Benders decomposition (BD) algorithm is applied to tackle the complexity of solving large-sized instances. The results of both GAMS and BD are compared in terms of objective function values and computational time to demonstrate the efficiency of the BD algorithm. Finally, the model is applied in a real case study involving an apple supply chain to obtain managerial insights.Entities:
Keywords: Agro-supply chain; Benders decomposition algorithm; Inventory management; Quality score
Year: 2021 PMID: 34629938 PMCID: PMC8489375 DOI: 10.1007/s10878-021-00802-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Comb Optim ISSN: 1382-6905 Impact factor: 1.262
A literature review on agro-supply chain models
| Researchers | Products | SLD | Operational constraints | Solution procedures | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| single | multiple | Inventory balance | Transportation decision | Facility location | Quality scores | CFD | |||
| Banasik et al. ( | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Ghezavati et al. ( | – | – | – | – | – | Solver-BD | |||
| Orjuela-Castro et al. ( | – | – | – | – | – | – | Meta-heuristic | ||
| Soto-Silva et al. ( | – | – | Solver | ||||||
| Allaoui et al. ( | – | – | – | – | – | Solver | |||
| P Paam et al. ( | – | – | – | – | Solver | ||||
| Jonkman et al. ( | – | – | – | – | – | Solver | |||
| Onggo et al. ( | – | – | – | – | – | Simulation-meta-heuristic | |||
| P. Paam et al. ( | – | – | – | – | Solver | ||||
| Current study | – | Solver-BD | |||||||
SLD decision on shelf life, CFD decision on cold storage facilities
Fig. 1Overview of the paper
Fig. 2Structure of the proposed agro-supply chain
Indices, parameters, and decision variables
| Indices |
| Parameters |
Fig. 3The flowchart of BD
Equations related to the SP and its corresponding dual variables
| Equations | Dual variables |
|---|---|
| – | |
Dual variables associated with the sub-problem
| Dual variables |
|---|
The DSP and its corresponding variables
| DSP | Variables |
|---|---|
| – | |
Data generation functions
| Parameters | Distribution functions |
|---|---|
Data generation functions for products with different quality grades
Generated small, medium, and large-sized instances
| Instances | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 3 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 5 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 8 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 10 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 10 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 10 | 15 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 12 | 15 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 12 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 15 | 15 | 20 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 3 | |
| 15 | 20 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 3 | |
| 20 | 20 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 3 | |
| 25 | 20 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 3 | |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 25 | 20 | 20 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 3 |
Obtained results from solving small, medium, and large scales instances with GAMS and BD
| Size | Instances | CPLEX solver | Benders decomposition algorithm | PRE (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective function | CM (s) | LB | UB | CM (s) | Iter | GAP(%) | LB | UB | ||
| Small scale | P1 | 1,692,661 | 18 | 1,692,661 | 1,692,661 | 31 | 9 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| P2 | 1,937,866 | 25 | 1,937,512 | 1,937,893 | 17 | 12 | 0.020 | 0.018 | 0.001 | |
| P3 | 2,014,646 | 40 | 2,014,071 | 2,014,690 | 20 | 12 | 0.031 | 0.029 | 0.002 | |
| P4 | 1,513,379 | 23 | 1,509,382 | 1,513,478 | 24 | 11 | 0.271 | 0.264 | 0.007 | |
| P5 | 2,578,430 | 35 | 2,571,032 | 2,578,488 | 30 | 16 | 0.290 | 0.287 | 0.002 | |
| Medium-scale | P6 | 4,488,737 | 9757 | 4,476,869 | 4,489,851 | 63 | 19 | 0.290 | 0.264 | 0.000 |
| P7 | 5,775,525 | 28,795 | 5,773,605 | 5,787,357 | 97 | 19 | 0.238 | 0.033 | 0.205 | |
| P8 | 5,649,849 | > 28,795 | 5,635,241 | 5,650,601 | 495 | 11 | 0.273 | 0.259 | 0.013 | |
| P9 | 5,773,698 | > 28,795 | 5,758,896 | 5,774,913 | 255 | 19 | 0.278 | 0.256 | 0.021 | |
| P10 | 6,652,182 | > 28,795 | 6,652,159 | 6,653,543 | 461 | 22 | 0.021 | 0.000 | 0.020 | |
| P11 | 6,794,693 | > 28,795 | 6,778,839 | 6,797,817 | 621 | 17 | 0.280 | 0.233 | 0.046 | |
| Large scale | P12 | Out of memory | 8,342,697 | 8,367,630 | 2199 | 26 | 0.299 | – | – | |
| P13 | 10,164,640 | 10,188,150 | 2555 | 29 | 0.231 | – | – | |||
| P14 | 11,570,161 | 11,600,005 | 3654 | 21 | 0.258 | – | – | |||
| P15 | 13,682,170 | 13,692,152 | 3861 | 34 | 0.073 | – | – | |||
LB lower bound, UB upper bound, s seconds, CM computational time, GAP relative gap between upper and lower bounds, PRE percentage relative gaps between lower or upper bound and optimal values, Iter number of iterations
Fig. 4Comparison of the computational time between GAMS and BD solvers
Fig. 5The convergence of lower and upper bounds of BD for a small sized-instance (no. p5)
Fig. 6The convergence of lower and upper bounds of BD for a medium sized-instance (no. p8)
Fig. 7The convergence of lower and upper bounds of BD for a large sized-instance (no. p14)
Input data related to the varieties of apples
| Apples | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red delicious | 1 | 3 | 8 | 3.5 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – |
| Golden delicious | 1 | 3 | 8 | 3.5 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – |
| Golab | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Jonathan | 1 | 3 | 8 | 3 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – |
| Granny Smith | 1 | 3 | 8 | 3 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – |
| Fuji | 1 | 3 | 8 | 3 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – |
| Qabaleh | 1 | 3 | 8 | 0.7 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – |
| Baljei | 1 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Soltani | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mashhadi | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3.5 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Gardeshiri | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | |
| Asadkuhi | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Operational costs including transportation, packing, and sorting apples
| Warehouses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| producers | Tehran | Fars | Isfahan | Razavi Khorasan |
| Tehran | 12.12 | 21.76 | 14.08 | 21.20 |
| Alborz | 12.12 | 21.76 | 14.08 | 21.20 |
| Isfahan | 14.36 | 14.34 | 12.10 | 26.01 |
| West Azerbaijan | 19.34 | 29.26 | 29.18 | 16.06 |
| East Azerbaijan | 6.51 | 2.48 | 19.31 | 26.20 |
| Semnan | 21.2 | 27.14 | 26.01 | 5.04 |
Input data related to the vehicles
| 5 | 10 | 15 | 25 | |
| 18.92 | 25.36 | 33.2 | 47.52 |
Input data related to warehouses
| Tehran | Fars | Isfahan | Razavi Khorasan | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33.66 | 11.00 | 18.33 | 29.33 | |
| 1000 | 500 | 500 | 1000 | |
| 10 | 6 | 10 | 8 | |
| 3.31 | 0.99 | 1.66 | 2.64 |
Holding cost of apples under the different temperature conditions
| 29.4 | 50.4 | 159.92 |
Loss factors for different types of apples with different quality grades and minimum acceptable quality score based on expert’s opinion
| Red delicious | 22 | 22 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 0.634 |
| Golden Delicious | 20 | 24 | 25 | 23 | 22 | 20 | 13 | 19 | 17 | 10 | 14 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 0.769 |
| Golab | 23 | 21 | 20 | 24 | 24 | 22 | 15 | 13 | 17 | 13 | 10 | 11 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0.710 |
| Jonathan | 22 | 24 | 26 | 24 | 20 | 21 | 15 | 11 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 0.660 |
| Granny Smith | 21 | 24 | 25 | 22 | 25 | 23 | 14 | 12 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 0.658 |
| Fuji | 21 | 21 | 23 | 22 | 23 | 21 | 14 | 16 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 0.645 |
| Qabaleh | 24 | 20 | 24 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 16 | 14 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 15 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 0.670 |
| Baljei | 21 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 23 | 20 | 14 | 13 | 15 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 0.771 |
| Soltani | 24 | 22 | 23 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 15 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 18 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 0.613 |
| Mashhadi | 23 | 22 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 21 | 13 | 15 | 19 | 12 | 10 | 16 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 0.700 |
| Gardeshiri | 24 | 22 | 23 | 25 | 25 | 23 | 14 | 19 | 11 | 16 | 14 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 0.800 |
| Asadkuhi | 23 | 23 | 23 | 26 | 24 | 24 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 0.716 |
Demand for different types of apples
| Red delicious | – | – | – | – | 1.000 | 0.900 | 1.560 | 1.400 |
| Golden Delicious | – | – | – | – | 0.650 | 0.780 | 1.000 | 1.080 |
| Golab | – | – | 2.530 | 1.438 | – | – | – | – |
| Jonathan | – | – | – | – | 1.350 | 1.246 | 1.321 | 1.350 |
| Granny Smith | – | – | – | – | 1.630 | 1.630 | 2.430 | 2.150 |
| Fuji | – | – | – | – | 1.450 | 1.525 | 2.350 | 2.096 |
| Qabaleh | – | – | – | – | 0.554 | 0.324 | 0.268 | – |
| Baljei | 1.500 | 1.000 | 1230 | 1.551 | 1.470 | 1.580 | – | – |
| Soltani | – | 1.450 | 1375 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mashhadi | – | 1.250 | 1250 | 1.235 | – | – | – | – |
| Gardeshiri | – | – | – | 1.542 | 2.235 | – | – | – |
| Asadkuhi | 1.400 | 1.245 | 1.115 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2.900 | 4.945 | 7.500 | 5.766 | 10.0339 | 7.985 | 8.929 | 8.076 |
Fig. 8The convergence of the lower and upper bounds of BD for the case study
The results of sensitivity analysis
| Parameters | Changes (%) | Objective function values ($) | Percentage changes (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 34,048,377 | 34.63 | |
| 25 | 29,668,828 | 17.31 | |
| − 25 | 20,909,811 | − 17.31 | |
| − 50 | 16,530,329 | − 34.63 | |
| 50 | 23,458,018 | − 7.24 | |
| 25 | 24,281,249 | − 3.98 | |
| − 25 | 27,137,910 | 7.31 | |
| − 50 | Infeasible | − | |
| 50 | Infeasible | − | |
| 25 | Infeasible | − | |
| − 25 | 15,945,152 | − 36.94 | |
| − 50 | 10,358,746 | − 59.03 | |
| 50 | 28,589,282 | 13.04 | |
| 25 | 26,939,292 | 6.52 | |
| − 25 | 23,639,312 | − 6.52 | |
| − 50 | 21,989,421 | − 13.04 | |
| 50 | 25,785,923 | 1.96 | |
| 25 | 25,537,897 | 0.98 | |
| − 25 | 25,040,161 | − 0.98 | |
| − 50 | 24,790,887 | − 1.97 | |
| 50 | 25,253,548 | − 0.14 | |
| 25 | 25,267,852 | − 0.08 | |
| − 25 | 25,325,095 | 0.14 | |
| − 50 | 25,396,595 | 0.42 |
Fig. 9Impacts of the changes on operational costs
Fig. 10Impacts of the changes on inventory holding costs
Fig. 11Impacts of the changes on purchase costs
| Abbreviation | Description |
|---|---|
| MINLP | Mixed-integer nonlinear programming |
| BD | Benders decomposition |
| MILP | Mixed-integer linear programming |
| MP | Master problem |
| SP | Subproblem |
| DSP | Dual sub-problem |
| SLD | Decision on shelf life |
| CFD | Decision on cold storage facilities |