| Literature DB >> 35591237 |
Mehran Gharye Mirzaei1, Fariba Goodarzian2,3, Saeid Maddah4, Ajith Abraham3, Lubna Abdelkareim Gabralla5.
Abstract
This paper proposes a dual-channel network of a sustainable Closed-Loop Supply Chain (CLSC) for rice considering energy sources and consumption tax. A Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model is formulated for optimizing the total cost, the amount of pollutants, and the number of job opportunities created in the proposed supply chain network under the uncertainty of cost, supply, and demand. In addition, to deal with uncertainty, fuzzy logic is used. Moreover, four multi-objective metaheuristic algorithms are employed to solve the model, which include a novel multi-objective version of the recently proposed metaheuristic algorithm known as Multi-Objective Reptile Search Optimizer (MORSO), Multi-Objective Simulated Annealing (MOSA), Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO), and Multi-Objective Grey Wolf (MOGWO). All the algorithms are evaluated using LP-metric in small sizes and their results and performance are compared based on criteria such as Max Spread (MS), Spread of Non-Dominance Solution (SNS), the number of Pareto solutions (NPS), Mean Ideal Distance (MID), and CPU time. In addition, to achieve better results, the parameters of all algorithms are tuned by the Taguchi method. The programmed model is implemented using a real case study in Iran to confirm its accuracy and efficiency. To further evaluate the current model, some key parameters are subject to sensitivity analysis. Empirical results indicate that MORSO performed very well and by constructing solar panel sites and producing energy out of rice waste up to 19% of electricity can be saved.Entities:
Keywords: agricultural products’ supply chain optimization; mathematical modeling; metaheuristic algorithms; multi-objective optimization
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591237 PMCID: PMC9103749 DOI: 10.3390/s22093547
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Some online shopping merits (www.smartinsights.com (accessed on 3 March 2022)).
Figure 2Major rice producing countries (www.fao.org (accessed on 3 March 2022)).
Figure 3Rice production share in each continent (www.fao.org (accessed on 3 March 2022)).
Figure 4Paddy rice and its components.
Figure 5Some rice by-product applications.
Figure 6Rice waste disposal and its environmental impacts.
Figure 7Using solar panels in agriculture sector.
Some papers published in the scope of ASC.
| Authors | Model | Objectives | Uncertainty | Period | Online | Energy Source | Case Study | Solution Method | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single | Multi | ||||||||
| [ | LP | Minimizing the transportation costs | * | Fruit | Exact | ||||
| [ | LP | Minimizing costs | * | An agro-food | AHP | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Citrus | Meta-heuristics | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Rice | Meta-heuristics | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | Robust | * | Wheat | Exact | |||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing CO2 emissions | * | Citrus | Meta-heuristics | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Wheat | Benders | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | Simulation | * | Wheat | Goal programming | |||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Wheat | Benders | ||||
| [ | MILP | Maximizing total profit | Roust fuzzy | * | Pistachio | Epsilon constraint | |||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Crops | Lingo | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Walnut | Meta-heuristics | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Sugarcane | Meta-heuristics | ||||
| [ | MILP | Minimizing total cost | * | Avocado | Meta-heuristics and Exact | ||||
| The present study | MILP | Minimizing total cost | Fuzzy | * | * | * | Rice | Meta-heuristics and Exact | |
The asterisk means the model is single period or multi period.
Figure 8Proposed rice logistics network.
Figure 9Rice production stages.
Figure 10Schematic design of proposed arrays.
Figure 11Sorting random numbers.
Proposed priority-based decoding procedure of segment 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Update demands and capacities |
|
|
|
|
| End while |
|
|
|
|
The proposed priority-based decoding procedure of segment 2.
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| by vehicle between nodes |
| ------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
| select the value of first column of first sub-segment |
|
|
| Update demands and capacities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The proposed priority-based decoding procedure of segment 3.
|
|
| by vehicle between nodes |
|
|
|
|
| step2: |
|
|
|
|
| Update demands and capacities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pseudo-code of RSO algorithm.
| Calculate the Fitness Function for the candidate solutions |
| Find the Best solution so far. |
| Update the |
| Update the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 12Flowchart of MORSO algorithm.
Pseudo-code of MORSO algorithm.
| Calculate the fitness value of each search agent, |
| Determine the non-dominated reptiles and add them to archive |
| Update the position of current search agent based on RSO mechanism |
|
|
| Compute the fitness of all search agents |
| Find the non-dominated optimal solutions from updated search agents |
| Update the obtained non-dominated reptiles to archive |
| Check if any search agent goes beyond the search space and then adjust it |
| Compute the objective function values of each search agent |
|
|
| Return archive |
Figure 13Major cities of Mazandaran Province.
General data of test problem.
| Test |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 22 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 8 |
| 4 | 30 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 11 |
| 5 | 40 | 15 | 7 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 14 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 14 |
| 6 | 55 | 20 | 8 | 20 | 14 | 9 | 23 | 13 | 18 | 17 | 17 |
| 7 | 65 | 24 | 11 | 24 | 16 | 12 | 28 | 15 | 25 | 24 | 22 |
| 8 | 72 | 30 | 14 | 28 | 20 | 15 | 35 | 16 | 31 | 30 | 26 |
| 9 | 80 | 34 | 17 | 32 | 24 | 19 | 42 | 18 | 37 | 39 | 34 |
| 10 | 82 | 38 | 20 | 36 | 28 | 21 | 49 | 20 | 42 | 40 | 39 |
Distance between mentioned cities of Mazandaran province (KM).
| Behshahr | Neka | Sari | Juybar | Qaemshahr | Pol Sefid | Savadkooh | Babolsar | Babol | Mahmood Abad | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behshahr | - | 23 | 46 | 66 | 62 | 116 | 110 | 106 | 82 | 135 |
| Neka | - | - | 23 | 37 | 43 | 93 | 90 | 83 | 63 | 112 |
| Sari | - | - | - | 20 | 20 | 70 | 65 | 60 | 40 | 89 |
| Juybar | - | - | - | - | 20 | 70 | 65 | 34 | 43 | 75 |
| Qaemshahr | - | - | - | - | - | 50 | 45 | 40 | 20 | 69 |
| Pol Sefid | - | - | - | - | - | - | 10 | 90 | 70 | 119 |
| Savadkooh | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 86 | 65 | 110 |
| Babolsar | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 20 | 41 |
| Babol | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 49 |
| Mahmoudabad | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Tuning other parameters of model.
| Parameters | Values | Units | Parameters | Values | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| capait | Uniform (7000,8000) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (70,80) | Ton |
| chjt | Uniform (70,80) | Dollar per Ton |
| Uniform (300,350) | Kilogram |
| cpai | Uniform (600,650) | Dollar per Ton |
| Uniform (55,65) | Dollar per Ton |
| dctp1ct | Uniform (400,500) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (30,35) | Ton |
| dcop1ct | Uniform (350,400) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (25,30) | Ton |
| dkkt | Uniform (30,40) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (200,300) | Dollar per Ton |
| duut | Uniform (20,30) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (200,300) | Kilogram |
| dmmt | Uniform (20,30) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (20,30) | Ton |
| pcappft | Uniform (90,100) | Ton |
| Uniform (200,220) | Kilogram |
|
| Uniform (20,100) | Megawatt hour |
| Uniform (200,220) | Kilogram |
|
| Uniform (15,20) | Dollar per Megawatt hour |
| Uniform (15,20) | Person per ton |
| prmpmt | Uniform (2,5) | Dollar per Kg |
| Uniform (3,4) | Person |
| prfpft | Uniform (1.5,4.5) | Dollar per Kg |
| Uniform (70,000,80,000) | Dollar |
| πbb | Uniform (200,220) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (5000,6000) | Dollar |
| cpoot | Uniform (200,220) | Dollar per ton |
| Uniform (500,000,600,000) | Dollar |
| poo2 | Uniform (400,450) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (4,5) | Person |
| pss | Uniform (100,150) | Kilogram |
| Uniform (10,12) | Person per ton |
Applied algorithms’ parameter levels and their values.
| Algorithm | Parameter | Parameter Level | Best Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | |||
| MOSA | Maximum iteration (Maxiter) | 50 | 100 | 150 | 150 |
| Population size (Npop) | 40 | 50 | 60 | 60 | |
| T | 30 | 40 | 50 | 50 | |
| Alpha | 0.9 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.95 | |
| MOGWO | Maximum iteration (Maxiter) | 50 | 100 | 150 | 150 |
| Population size (Npop) | 40 | 50 | 60 | 50 | |
| Initialization ratio (IR) | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | |
| MOPSO | Maximum iteration (Maxiter) | 50 | 100 | 150 | 150 |
| Population size (Npop) | 40 | 50 | 60 | 50 | |
| C1 | 1.9 | 2 | 2.1 | 2.1 | |
| C2 | 2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.1 | |
| MORSO | Maximum iteration (Maxiter) | 50 | 100 | 150 | 150 |
| Population size (Npop) | 40 | 50 | 60 | 60 | |
| Alpha | 0.1 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.1 | |
| Beta | 0.1 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.12 | |
The orthogonal array L9 and computational results for MOSA.
| Run | Npop | Maxit | T0 | Alpha | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.49 × 10−5 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.62 × 10−5 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.58 × 10−5 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2.53 × 10−5 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.74 × 10−5 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1.68 × 10−5 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1.21 × 10−5 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1.45 × 10−5 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1.32 × 10−5 |
The orthogonal array L9 and computational results for MOPSO.
| Run | Npop | Maxit | Phi1 | Phi2 | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.54 × 10−5 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.36 × 10−5 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1.33 × 10−5 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.73 × 10−5 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.28 × 10−5 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1.09 × 10−5 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1.03 × 10−5 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1.3 × 10−5 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1.22 × 10−5 |
The orthogonal array L9 and computational results for MOGWO.
| Run | Npop | Maxit | IR | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.75 × 10−5 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2.11 × 10−5 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3.06 × 10−5 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2.94 × 10−5 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1.77 × 10−5 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.88 × 10−5 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1.19 × 10−5 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1.32 × 10−5 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1.63 × 10−5 |
The orthogonal array L9 and computational results for MORSO.
| Run | Npop | Maxit | Alpha | Beta | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.92 × 10−5 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.57 × 10−5 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1.67 × 10−5 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.59 × 10−5 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.63 × 10−5 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1.27 × 10−5 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1.21 × 10−5 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1.09 × 10−5 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1.12 × 10−5 |
Figure 14Signal to noise plot of MOSA.
Figure 15Signal to noise plot of MOPSO.
Figure 16Signal to noise plot of MOGWO.
Figure 17Signal to noise plot of MORSO.
Evaluation of mentioned algorithms in each metric measure.
| Problem | NPS | CPU Time (Second) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOPSO | MOGWO | MOSA | MORSO | LP-Metric | MOPSO | MOGWO | MOSA | MORSO | LP-Metric | |
| 1 | 22 | 24 | 16 | 25 | 11 | 29 | 28 | 4.1 | 25 | 1223 |
| 2 | 13 | 22 | 14 | 24 | 11 | 44 | 40 | 3.3 | 37 | 1757 |
| 3 | 23 | 24 | 15 | 24 | 12 | 57 | 54 | 3.6 | 53 | 2598 |
| 4 | 36 | 35 | 17 | 37 | 11 | 67 | 71 | 4 | 68 | 3150 |
| 5 | 26 | 24 | 23 | 28 | 13 | 83 | 88 | 4.2 | 85 | 5294 |
| 6 | 28 | 30 | 16 | 32 | NA | 98 | 101 | 4.5 | 96 | NA |
| 7 | 17 | 21 | 15 | 23 | NA | 116 | 125 | 4.8 | 112 | NA |
| 8 | 32 | 27 | 20 | 27 | NA | 137 | 139 | 5.1 | 132 | NA |
| 9 | 29 | 25 | 21 | 27 | NA | 155 | 163 | 5.4 | 151 | NA |
| 10 | 27 | 26 | 20 | 29 | NA | 179 | 197 | 5.6 | 173 | NA |
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 76,996 | 78,902 | 80,928 | 81,616 | 813,421 | 97,270 | 76,686 | 62,796 | 98,209 | 96,036 |
| 2 | 179,312 | 191,723 | 329,516 | 258,032 | 293,404 | 322,501 | 303,975 | 300,817 | 331,716 | 339,023 |
| 3 | 362,921 | 402,387 | 334,579 | 410,477 | 425,328 | 476,055 | 493,922 | 475,192 | 498,241 | 500,445 |
| 4 | 483,448 | 512,464 | 415,642 | 517,116 | 505,373 | 637,523 | 682,038 | 598,916 | 672,870 | 675,803 |
| 5 | 495,925 | 472,086 | 426,705 | 522,802 | 480,042 | 773,715 | 876,200 | 834,830 | 881,936 | 852,516 |
| 6 | 514,229 | 503,311 | 350,392 | 530,459 | NA | 1021,995 | 1031,169 | 1087,758 | 1105,495 | NA |
| 7 | 668,699 | 613,566 | 597,331 | 608,137 | NA | 1241,442 | 1262,644 | 1241,226 | 1293,651 | NA |
| 8 | 348,317 | 563,723 | 552,739 | 583,602 | NA | 1489,544 | 1549,389 | 1438,068 | 1567,032 | NA |
| 9 | 737,518 | 794,779 | 649,699 | 774,415 | NA | 1664,923 | 1723,552 | 1732,838 | 1743,955 | NA |
| 10 | 835,031 | 887,315 | 587,273 | 906,189 | NA | 1947,220 | 1931,833 | 1895,988 | 1963,370 | NA |
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 1 | 1.56 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.3 | |||||
| 2 | 4 | 2.5 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 2.2 | |||||
| 3 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.46 | |||||
| 4 | 4.2 | 3.7 | 5.4 | 3.5 | 3.1 | |||||
| 5 | 4.7 | 6.1 | 5.2 | 4.4 | 4.2 | |||||
| 6 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 6.5 | 4.3 | NA | |||||
| 7 | 5.4 | 6.9 | 8.8 | 5.5 | NA | |||||
| 8 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 8.6 | 4.7 | NA | |||||
| 9 | 5.4 | 7.7 | 8 | 5.9 | NA | |||||
| 10 | 5.9 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 6.1 | NA | |||||
Figure 18Interval plots of NPS.
Figure 19Interval plots of CPU time.
Figure 20Interval plots of MID.
Figure 21Interval plots of MS.
Figure 22Interval plots of SNS.
Figure 23Pareto front of the first test problem from MOGWO.
Figure 24Pareto front of the first test problem from MOSA.
Figure 25Pareto front of the first test problem from MOPSO.
Figure 26Pareto front of the first test problem from MORSO.
Energy sources capacity variation effect.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Condition | Bio-Refinery | Solar Panels | Mains Electricity | Bio-Refinery | Solar Panels | Mains Electricity |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | +19% | −100% | −100% | - |
| 2 | +7% | 13% | −7% | +30% | +30% | −30% |
| 3 | 8% | 16% | −9% | +50% | +50% | −40% |
Figure 27Demand variation effect on first objective function.
Figure 28Demand variation effect on second objective function.
Figure 29Demand variation effect on third objective function.