| Literature DB >> 36157977 |
Mohsen Momenitabar1, Zhila Dehdari Ebrahimi1, Mohammad Arani2, Jeremy Mattson1.
Abstract
Reconfiguring the structure of the supply chain network is one of the most strategic and vital decisions in designing a supply chain network. In this study, a Closed-Loop Blood Supply Chain Network (CLBSCN) considering blood group compatibility, ABO-Rh(D), and blood product shelf life has been studied to determine the best strategic and tactical decisions simultaneously considering lateral resupply/transshipment and service-level maximization. Several vital parameters, including supply and demand, are considered fuzzy numbers to approximate reality due to the nature of the world. Furthermore, two crucial factors include ABO-Rh(D) and blood product shelf life considered, while the concept of lateral resupply governs the interconnections of hospitals' excess blood units. We propose a fuzzy multi-objective Mixed-Integer Non-Linear Programming (MINLP) model to consider two critical objective functions: minimizing the total costs of the network and maximizing the minimum service level to the patients at each Hospital. The fuzzy multi-objective MINLP model is converted to a deterministic multi-objective model using the equivalent auxiliary crisp model to deal with uncertainty. Then, by utilizing two interactive fuzzy solution approaches, the results have been compared based on a real case study to suggest the best solution for the proposed model. Also, we conduct sensitivity analysis on essential parameters such as demand, supply, and capacity to understand how these parameter variations impact two proposed objective functions. Then, the proposed model is tested on a real case study for model validation. The results confirmed that considering the lateral resupply could significantly save the costs of the designed network by a total of $343,000. Interestingly, maximizing the minimum service level at hospitals increased the service level from 58% to 68%.Entities:
Keywords: Closed-loop blood supply chain network; Lateral resupply; Multi-objective mix-integer non-linear programming model; Robust possibilistic programming approach; Service-level maximization
Year: 2022 PMID: 36157977 PMCID: PMC9483431 DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-04930-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Oper Res ISSN: 0254-5330 Impact factor: 4.820
RBCs Cross-matching (American Red Cross, 2020b)
| The recipient’s blood group | Blood group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A+ | B+ | AB+ | O+ | A− | B− | AB− | O− | |
| O− | * | |||||||
| O+ | * | * | ||||||
| A− | * | * | ||||||
| A+ | * | * | * | * | ||||
| B− | * | * | ||||||
| B+ | * | * | * | * | * | |||
| AB− | * | * | * | * | ||||
| AB+ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
List of previous studies
| References | Objective function | Supply | Demand | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singlea | Bib | Multic | Service-Level max | Deterministic | Stochastic | Fuzzy | Deterministic | Stochastic | Fuzzy | |
| Rabbani et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Eskandari-Khanghahi et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Samani and Hosseini-Motlagh ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Zahiri and Pishvaee ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Yaghoubi et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Arani et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Attari and Jami ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Heidari-Fathian and Pasandideh ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Hosseini-Motlagh et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Mestre et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Cheraghi and Hosseini-Motlagh ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Ensafian and Yaghoubi ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Ensafian et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Ramezanian and Behboodi ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Zahiri et al. ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Hamdan and Diabat ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| This paper | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
aOnly cost minimization
bCost minimization and one other objective function
cSustainability
Fig. 1Structure of multi-echelon CLBSCN
RBC ABO-Rh(D) Priority (Hosseini-Motlagh et al., 2020a, 2020b)
| Recipient | Priority | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
| P1 | O− | P1 | |||||||
| P2 | O+ | P2 | P1 | ||||||
| P3 | A− | P3 | P1 | ||||||
| P4 | A+ | P4 | P3 | P2 | P1 | ||||
| P5 | B− | P5 | P1 | ||||||
| P6 | B+ | P6 | P5 | P2 | P1 | ||||
| P7 | AB− | P7 | P5 | P3 | P1 | ||||
| P8 | AB+ | P8 | P7 | P6 | P5 | P4 | P3 | P2 | P1 |
Fig. 2A conceptual outline of the proposed model
Fig. 3A framework of this study
Indices
| Name of Indices | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Index of donors | |
| Index of candidate location for bloodmobile | |
| Index of candidate location for blood facility center | |
| Index of candidate location for NBBs | |
| Index of Hospital | |
| Index of candidate location for blood disposal center | |
| Index of a time | |
| Index of the |
Fuzzy parameters
| Name of parameters | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Wastage cost of blood type | |
| Wastage cost of blood type | |
| Wastage cost of blood type | |
| Transportation cost of transferring blood type | |
| Transportation cost of transferring blood type | |
| Transportation cost of transferring blood type | |
| Operating cost of one unit of blood in a bloodmobile in period | |
| Operating cost of one unit of RBC at blood facility center | |
| Operating cost of one unit of RBC at national blood bank | |
| Operating cost of one unit of RBC at hospital | |
| Operating cost of one unit of RBC at disposal center | |
| Holding cost of blood type | |
| Holding cost of blood type | |
| Holding cost of blood type | |
| The fixed cost of moving bloodmobile between their locations | |
| Disposal cost of blood type | |
| The capacity of blood facility center | |
| The capacity of the national blood bank | |
| The capacity of hospitals | |
| The capacity of the disposal center | |
| The demand for blood type | |
| Supply of blood type |
Certain parameters
| Name of parameters | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Number of existing bloodmobiles | |
| Very large number | |
| The proportion of disruption at bloodmobile | |
| The proportion of disruption at blood facility center | |
| The proportion of disruption at national blood bank | |
| The shelf life of RBCs | |
| Cost of substituting one unit of blood between hospital h and hospital h’ in period t ($) | |
| The penalty item of blood type | |
| The priority of substitution of blood type | |
| Cross-matching matrix of blood type |
Continuous variables
| Name of variables | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Substituted amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Transferred amount of blood type | |
| Inventory level of blood type | |
| Inventory level of blood type | |
| Inventory level of blood type | |
| The amount of outdated blood type | |
| The amount of outdated blood type | |
| The amount of outdated blood types | |
| The shortage amount of blood types | |
| The processed unit of blood type | |
| The processed unit of blood type | |
| The processed unit of blood type | |
| The processed unit of blood type |
Binary variables
| Name of variables | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| If donor | |
| If donor | |
| If bloodmobile | |
| If blood facility center | |
| If the national blood bank | |
| If hospital | |
| If the bloodmobile | |
| If the blood facility center | |
| If the national blood bank | |
| If hospital |
Fig. 4The aerial map of Mazandaran province in the CLBSCN
PIS and NIS of each objective function by TH method through solving Eqs. (87)–(94)
| Each objective function | PIS | NIS |
|---|---|---|
| Z1-A (Min) | 554,608 | 2,587,913 |
| Z1-B (Max) | 3,546,028 | 365,960 |
| Z1-C (Min) | 728,508 | 4,571,094 |
| Z2-A (Max) | 0.80 | 0 |
| Z2-B (Min) | 0 | 1 |
| Z2-C (Max) | 0.78 | 0 |
The membership function value of each objective functions
| Membership function | Value |
|---|---|
| 0.882 | |
| 0.931 | |
| 0.917 | |
| 0.852 | |
| 0.963 | |
| 0.914 |
The membership function value of each objective functions
| Membership function | Value | Membership function | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.651 | 0.993 | ||
| 0.564 | 0.976 | ||
| 0.649 | 0.997 | ||
| 0.387 | 0.904 | ||
| 0.564 | 0.880 | ||
| 0.438 | 0.895 | ||
| 0.897 | 0.966 | ||
| 0.935 | 1.000 | ||
| 0.948 | 0.868 | ||
| 0.881 | – | – |
Satisfaction degree of TH and GMMT methods
| Satisfaction degree ( | Methods | |
|---|---|---|
| TH | GMMT | |
| 0.0 | 0.756 | 0.869 |
| 0.1 | 0.738 | 0.916 |
| 0.2 | 0.701 | 0.894 |
| 0.3 | 0.664 | 0.845 |
| 0.4 | 0.635 | 0.873 |
| 0.5 | 0.607 | 0.899 |
| 0.6 | 0.562 | 0.872 |
| 0.7 | 0.516 | 0.837 |
| 0.8 | 0.459 | 0.888 |
| 0.9 | 0.413 | 0.866 |
Fig. 5Satisfaction degree comparison obtained by two GMTM and TH methods
Objective functions values obtained by two TH and GMMT methods
| Objective functions | Methods | Best result | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TH | GMMT | ||
| Z1-A (Min) | 1,524,348 | 597,194 | GMMT |
| Z2-A (Max) | 0.66 | 0.71 | GMMT |
| Z1-B (Min) | 2,156,319 | 2,412,788 | TH |
| Z2-B (Max) | 0.64 | 0.97 | GMMT |
| Z1-C (Min) | 3,179,777 | 2,455,058 | GMMT |
| Z2-C (Max) | 0.82 | 0.70 | TH |
Performance measure of distance by TH and GMMT methods
| Methods | Distance measure | Dispersion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMMT | 0.346 | 0.259 | 0.234 | 0.165 |
| TH | 0.337 | 0.198 | 0.161 | 0.362 |
Generating unbalanced solutions by variation in
| 0.1 | 0.648 | 0.564 | 0.627 | 0.395 | 0.564 | 0.438 |
| 0.6 | 0.682 | 0.575 | 0.631 | 0.418 | 0.580 | 0.439 |
Result of strategic decisions (t = 49)
| Name of centers | BM (l) | BFC (j) | NBB (n) | BDC (w) | Hospitals (h) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Donors (d) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| BM (i) | 1 | – | – | – | 0 | 1 | – | – | 1 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 2 | – | – | – | 0 | 1 | – | – | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | |
| 3 | – | – | – | 0 | 0 | – | – | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | |
| BFC (j) | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | |
| NBB (n) | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hospitals (h) | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | |
| 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | |
Result of planning decisions for inventory
| Index | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| j | n | h | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| t | 48 | 0 | 11 | 38 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 49 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | |
| 50 | 0 | 7 | 25 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
Result of planning decisions for the outdated unit
| Index | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| j | n | h | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| t | 48 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 49 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |
| 50 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Result of planning decisions for shortage
| Index | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| h | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| t | 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 49 | 3 | 9 | 0 | |
| 50 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
Result of planning decisions for the substituted unit between hospitals
| Index | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| h′ | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| t = 48, h | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| t = 49, h | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| t = 50, h | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Fig. 6The Pareto fronts of the first and second objective functions
Set of the Pareto optimal solution obtained
| Number of Pareto optimal solution | First objective function | Second objective function |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1,305,000 | 0.815 |
| 2 | 1,276,000 | 0.842 |
| 3 | 1,202,000 | 0.863 |
| 4 | 1,157,000 | 0.884 |
| 5 | 1,103,000 | 0.892 |
| 6 | 1,089,000 | 0.906 |
Defining the different sets of test-size problem
| Problem number | Problem size | d | l | j | n | h, h′ | w | t | p, p′ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Small | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | Small | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | Small | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 4 | Small | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 5 | Small | 10 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 6 | Medium | 12 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 7 | Medium | 15 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 8 | Medium | 18 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 9 | Medium | 20 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| 10 | Medium | 22 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
Values of certain parameters
| Parameters | Random distribution |
|---|---|
| Uniform [50, 70] per item | |
| 35 days (Deterministic number) | |
| 4 (Deterministic number) | |
| Uniform [0.10, 0.20] | |
| 10E+12 (Deterministic number) |
Values of triangular fuzzy parameters
| Parameters | Triangular fuzzy number |
|---|---|
| (15, 22, 30) | |
| (20, 25, 35) | |
| (10, 25, 35) | |
| (20, 30, 50) | |
| (4, 6, 10) | |
| (10, 17, 25) | |
| (80, 110, 150) | |
| (12, 14, 18) | |
| (20, 30, 40) |
Fig. 7The CPU time of all test-size problems solved by two TH and GMMT methods
Fig. 8Demand variation with the first and second objective function
Fig. 9Supply variation with the first and second objective function
Fig. 10Capacity variation with the first and second objective function
Fig. 11Analyzing lateral resupply based on demand variations for two objective functions