STUDY OF CARBON EMISSION IN TRANSPORTATION

PROBLEM

A PROJECT WORK
Submitted for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

MATHEMATICS

BY

AKASH SINGH

Enrollment No: 14PMA002

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, AGARTALA

BARJALA, JIRANIA, AGARTALA

TRIPURA (WEST) -799046, INDIA

MAY, 2016
 DEDICATED TO
MY TEACHERS, PARENTS
AND FRIENDS
 CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the work contained in the thesis titled “ STUDY OF CARBON EMISSION IN
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM,” by “AKASH SINGH”, has been carried out under my
supervision and that this work has not been submitted elsewhere for the degree of M.Sc.
(Mathematics).

(Dr. Uttam Kumar Bera)

Signature of Supervisor

Department of Mathematics

N.I.T. Agartala

May, 2016
 APPROVAL SHEET

This dissertation entitled “Study of Carbon Emission in Transportation Problem” by Akash

Singh is approved for the degree of master of science in Mathematics.

Examiners

------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------

Supervisor (s)

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

Date :____________

Place :____________
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is indeed my great honor to confer my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Uttam kumar bera
for his encouragement, invaluable comments and devoting his valuable time in guiding me with his
rare intellectual capacities and human qualities. I hold him high esteem for his deep knowledge
and humaneness.

Also , I am profoundly grateful to all my family members, for their moral support and constant
encouragement. All of them had to sacrifice on countless instances, setting aside their individual
considerations.

I also want to thanks my friend comes elder brother Mr. Amrit Das for his restlessly support.

Last but not the least I again want to thank to my supervisor and all of my friends for their
immense support.

(Akash Singh)

Date :

Place : NIT, Agartala

 DECLARATON

This work is either in part or in full has not been submitted to any other university or elsewhere for
award of any degree.

(Akash Singh)

Date :

Place : NIT, AGARTALA

 FOREWARD

We hereby forward that this project entitled by “STUDY OF CARBON EMISSION IN

TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM,” in partial fulfillment of the requirement for award of the
degree of Master of Science in Mathematics under National Institute of Technology, Agartala.

(Dr. Uttam Kumar Bera)

(Associate Professor)

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

H.O.D.

NIT AGARTALA
 CONTENTS
Introduction

1. Preliminaries

1.1. Definition of carbon emission

1.2. Types of carbon emission

1.2.1 HOT EMISSION

1.2.2 COLD-START EMISSSIONS

1.2.3 Evaporative VOC Emissions

2. [Pollution] Bharat Emission Standards in INDIA

3. Dynamic Supply Chain Greening Analysis

3.1 Static Supply Chain Greening Analysis

3.2 Dynamic Supply Chain Greening Analysis

3.3 A Mathematical Model for Dynamic Supply Chain Greening Analysis

3.4 An illustrative example

4. Conclusion

5. References
 INTRODUCTION
Transportation sustains economic and social activity and is central to operations research and
management science. When operations research emerged as a structured field during World War
II, some of the first problems investigated arose from the need to optimize military logistics and
transportation activities. After the war ended, the scope of operations research applications
broadened but transportation problems always occupied a central place. It is now widely
recognized that some of the most successful applications of operations research are encountered in
transportation, most significantly in the airline industry where they underlay almost every aspect of
strategic, tactical and operational planning.

Transportation problem (TP) is a problem of linear programming problem (LPP). It is one of the
most important and practical application based area of operations research. The object of this
problem is to transport various amounts of a single homogenous commodity, initially stored at
different sources (or origins) to different destinations in such a way that the total cost of shifting
(or transporting) is minimum. For this problem the following information’s are to be needed.
1. Available amount of the commodity at different origins.
2. Amounts demanded at different destinations.
 3. The transportation cost of the unit of commodity from various origins to various
destinations.
The TP was originally developed by Hitchcock [16]. In [2], Appa discussed about the different
variations in transportation problem. Kennington and Unger [24], Palekar et al. [43] considered
new branch and bound algorithm for the fixed charge transportation problems respectively.
Climate change and its impacts on the earth and humanity are gaining momentum, threatening the
integrity and security of economies and the quality of life of vulnerable populations; both of which
are intricately dependent on the current production and consumption trends. Anthropogenic green
house gases (GHGs) are the main contributors to climate change, as their atmospheric
concentrations have grown markedly since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between
1970 and 2004. In parallel, eleven of the last 12 years (1995–2006) rank among the twelve
warmest years in terms of mean global surface temperature (since 1850) [1].

In response to climate change, the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 and came into force in 2005.
The protocols’ targets require an emissions reduction of greenhouse gases by an average of 5%
from 1990 levels by 2012 in 37 industrialized countries [2]. It sets more aggressive targets for
developed nations for their responsibility for 150 years of industrialized activity.
The Kyoto protocol not only calls for collaborative governmental action, but also sets legally
binding conditions for the committing countries. This represents an important first step towards
limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but a much more
ambitious international agreement involving all major emitters will be needed beyond 2012.
The Kyoto protocol introduced various flexible mechanisms through which different countries can
cooperate to meet
their reduction targets and decrease costs. The Kyoto mechanisms are:

Emissions trading, also known as the ‘‘carbon market’’, defined in article 17, allows countries
that are below their targets to sell this excess capacity to countries that are exceeding their targets.
Since carbon dioxide is the principal GHG, it is now tracked and traded as a commodity through
markets such as the Emissions Trading System for the European Union.

Clean development mechanism (CDM), defined in Article 12, and allows countries with gas
reduction commitments to invest in emissions reduction projects in developing countries. Such
projects can earn salable certified emission reduction (CER) credits which can be counted towards
meeting the Kyoto targets.

Joint implementation (JI), defined in Article 6, and allows a country with an emissions reduction
commitment to invest in emissions reduction projects in another developed country committed to
its emissions reductions. In addition, such projects can earn emissions reduction units (ERUs) from
the host country, which can be counted towards meeting the Kyoto targets of the investing country.

In addition to the carbon trading mechanisms that have been developed for countries to satisfy
their obligations towards the Kyoto protocol, voluntary exchanges have also been established for
buyers that seek to offset their emissions voluntarily. These Voluntary Emissions Reductions
(VER) normally sell for lower prices than CERs.
Preliminaries

What is a Transportation Problem?

The objective of the transportation problem is to transport various quantities of a single
homogenous commodity, which are initially stored at various origins to various destinations in
such a way that the total transportation cost is minimum.

Balanced transportation problem:-

Transportation problem that has the supply and demand equal is a balanced transportation
problem. In other words requirements for the rows must equal the requirements for the columns.

Unbalanced transportation problem:-

An unbalanced transportation problem is that in which the supply and demand are unequal. There
are two possibilities that make the problem unbalanced which are
(i) Aggregate supply exceeds the aggregate demand or
(ii) Aggregate demand exceeds the aggregate supply.

Basic Concepts and Terminologies in Transportation:

 Resources:
The places where the goods originate from (the plants, production center or warehouse etc.) are
called the sources or the origin.

Destination:
The places where the goods are to be supplied (warehouses, customer etc.) are called destination.

Demand:
Demand refers to the quantity of a commodity required at a given time. It usually depends upon
the decisions of people outside the organization which has the inventory problem. Demand can be
categorized according to its size, rate and pattern. In some cases, demand may be represented by
vague, imprecise and uncertain data. This type of demand is termed as fuzzy demand. Demand
also can be treated as fuzzy-stochastic in nature.

Availability:
The amount/ quantity of the goods which can be possible to transport from the respective resource
is refereed as availability of that resource.

Unit Transportation Cost:

The cost by which one unit product which is transported from source or availability of the product
to destination or the retailer.

The Total Transport Time:

The total duration of time for the transportation of all products/ resource from the source points to
destination points.

Transportation Problem (TP):

The traditional transportation problem is one of the best known linear programming problems in
which all the constraints are of equality type.

We formulate T.P. as follows

𝒎 𝒏

𝑴𝒊𝒏 𝒁 = ∑ ∑ 𝑪𝒊𝒋 𝒙𝒊𝒋

𝒊=𝟏 𝒋=𝟏
Subject to,
 𝑛

∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 𝑎𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1,2,3, … … … . , 𝑚.
𝑗=1
𝒎

∑ 𝒙𝒊𝒋 = 𝒃𝒋 , 𝒋 = 𝟏, 𝟐, 𝟑, … … … , 𝒏
𝒊=𝟏
𝒙𝒊𝒋 ≥ 𝟎 , 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒊, 𝒋.

Where

𝒄𝒊𝒋 = unit transportation cost from i-th origin to j-th destination.

𝒙𝒊𝒋 = the unknown quantity to be transported from i-th origin to j-th destination.
𝒂𝒊 = amount of a homogeneous product available at i-th origin.
𝒃𝒋 = demand at j-th destination.

Constraints:
Constraints in transportation system deal with various properties that some way place limitations
imposed on the system. Constraints may be imposed on the amount of investment, available space,
resources and finance (budget constraint), available/ required space of the resources/ destination
(space constraint), etc. These constraints can be crisp, stochastic or fuzzy in nature, i.e., data for
constraints, goals for the objectives, resources, etc., may be deterministic, random or imprecise and
vague.

Some Important Definition in Transportation Problem:

Feasible Solution:
A Solution that satisfies the row and column sum restriction and also the non – negativity
restrictions is a feasible solution.

Basic Feasible solution:

A feasible solution to a m-origin, n-destination problem is said to be basic if the number of positive
allocations are equal to (m+n-1).

Optimal Solution:
A feasible solution (not basically basic) is said to be optimal if it minimizes the total transportation
cost.
Methods of solving Transportation Problems:
1. North- West Corner Rule method.
2. Row-minima Method.
3. Column minima method.
4. Matrix Minima Method or least cost method.
5. Vogel's Approximation method (VAM).

Methods for checking Optimality

Modified Distribution Method, UV or MODI method.

EXAMPLE: There are 3 Parties who supply the following quantity of coal P1= 14t, P2=16t,
P3= 5t. There are 4 consumers who require the coal as follows C1=6t, C2=10t, C3=15t, C4=4t.
The cost matrix in Rs. Per ton is as follows. Find the schedule of transportation policy which
minimizes the cost:

6 4 1 5

8 9 2 7

4 3 6 2

SOLUTION:
The solution matrix is given as:

𝐷1 𝐷2 𝐷3 𝐷4 Supply

𝑆1 6 4 1 5 14

𝑆2 8 9 2 7 16

𝑆3 4 3 6 2 5

Demand 6 10 15 4

Matrix Model of the Transportation Problem

 1. North-West corner rule Method :
The Total feasible transportation cost
= 6x6 + 4x8 + 9x2 + 2x14 + 6x1 + 2x4 = Rs. 128/-

2. Row Minima Method:

The Total feasible transportation cost
= 1x14+8x6+9x5+2x1+7x4+3x5 = Rs.152/-

3. Column-Minima Method:
The Total feasible transportation cost

= 6x1+4x10+1x3+2x12+7x4+4x5= Rs. 121/-

1.1. DEFINITION OF CARBON EMISSION: Carbon emission is the release of carbon into
the atmosphere. To talk about carbon emissions is simply to talk of greenhouse gas emissions;
there are both natural and human sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Natural sources include
decomposition, ocean release and respiration. Human sources come from activities like cement
production, deforestation as well as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

1.2. TYPES OF CARBON EMISSION: There are basically three kinds of carbon
emission, these are

Hot Emissions
Cold-Start Emissions
Evaporative VOC Emissions
 1.2.1. HOT EMISSION: These emissions depend upon a variety of factor including the
distance that each vehicle travels, its speed (or road type), its age, engine size and
weight. There are number of other factors that may influence vehicle emissions, e.g.
state of maintenance.
The basic formula for estimating hot emissions, using experimentally obtained emission
factor is:

Emission[g] = emission factor [g/km]*vehicle kilometers per year [km]

The emission factors and vehicle kilometers are in the most cases split into certain classes of road
types (as the use of the average speed for its calculation implies) and vehicle categories.
However, for many countries the only data known with any certainty is the total fuel consumption
of petrol, diesel and LPG, not vehicle kilometers. It is therefore suggested that fuel consumption
data are used to check vehicle mileage where they are known and to make a final fuel balance.

1.2.2. COLD-START EMISSSIONS: The emissions produced during the warm-up phase
are often called cold-start emissions. Cold-starts compared with the hot emissions,
result in additional emissions. If a vehicle has not been used for several hours, the
temperature of its engine and exhaust system will normally be similar to that of the
ambient temperature. Once the engine is started and a journey begins, the temperatures
of a engine and exhaust system gradually increase until they become comparatively
stable at their normal operational levels. The temperature of engine coolant during
normal operation is typically between 70 C and 90 C, whereas the temperature of the
exhaust system reaches several hundred degrees centigrade. Rates of emission and fuel
consumption are higher during the warm-up phase than during thermally stable
operation.

1.2.3. Evaporative VOC Emissions: These emissions are calculated in the vehicles which
are operated by the gases. e.g., C.N.G. vehicles etc.
CHAPTER- 2

[Pollution] Bharat Emission Standards in

INDIA
 Vehicle emission control in India
1991- Vehicle emission norms introduced in India

1999- SC order government to introduce Euro norms like pollution control regime.

2000 onwards- Bharat State emission standard I introduced.

2003- Dr. R.A. Mashelkar Committee drafted “Auto Fuel Policy”.

Recommended adopting Bharat stage 3 and stage 4 fuel standards.

2005- Auto Fuel Policy 2003 implemented.

Bharat 3 standards introduced in 13 major cities.

2010- By 2010 entire India under Bharat stage 3.

Dec 2012- Petroleum ministry had setup Saumitra Chaudhuri Committee for Auto fuel vision
policy 2025

2014, May- Saumitra Chaudhri gave recommendations.

What are Bharat emission standards?

 Euro norms define the maximum limit of pollutant that a vehicle can emit. (CO2, nitrogen
oxide, sulfur and suspended particulate matter)

 If vehicle emits more than this limit, it cannot be sold in Europe.

 In India, we follow Euro norms under the label “Bharat stage” norms. we are gradually
implementing them in more and more cities
 Higher Stage Means Less Emission

 #as per Saumitra Committee recommendation.

 *Respirable suspended particulate matter (RSPM)

 Sulfur lead content vs Bharat norms:
 To reduce emission from vehicle, we’ve to fit “catalytic converter”, “particulate filter”, &
other fancy devices in its exhaustion system.

 But the chemical catalysts in such devices get immobilized in presence of lead/sulphur.

 Therefore, fuel should have minimal quantity of lead and sulfur. Else, you’ll have to
replace those fancy devices too often.

 Lead: we are already selling lead-free petrol. Since year 2000 only lead free petrol sold in
India.

Sulfur: the Bharat norms give following limits

Year particles per million (ppm) in diesel

Present (BS3)- 350

2017 (BS4)- 50 (already done in BS4 cities)

2020 (BS5)- 10

To implement Bharat norms, we have to do two things:

To Vehicle manufacturers To Oil refineries

You’ve fit “catalytic converter”, “particulate filter” &
other fancy gadgets in the engine. This will decrease soot
& pollutants.
Not a problem because these companies already fitting
such equipment’s in engine, before exporting vehicles to
Europe. (due to higher level Euro standards)
You produce fuel with less sulfur,
olefin & other impurities. (especially
for Bharat stage 5)
Problem because refiners have to buy
machines and technology worth
Rs.~80,000 crore.

 Government can arrange cash for refineries, by imposing 75 Paise “special fuel upgradation
cess” on Petrol and Diesel. (says Sumitra Committee)

 Send this cash to Oil Industry Development Board (OIDB)

 Then, OIDB will upgrade the refineries to Bharat stage 4 and 5.

  Previously, recall Famous lawyer Harish Salve reported to supreme court and asked
for 30% cess on private diesel vehicles, and that money should be used for implementing
Bharat stage 5 and 6.

Taxation: Misc. recommendations

 Import duty should be 0% on both LNG and crude oil.

 States VAT should be reduced on CNG sale (to promote CNG vehicles)

Bharat Standards: limitations

1. Four refineries in the North East- Guwahati, Digboi, Numaligarh and Bongaigaon- their
equipment outdated, cannot produce BS4, BS5 quality fuels.

2. Government designated only a few cities under BS-4 standards. BS-4 vehicles more
expensive than BS3. Hence public buys BS3 vehicles from peripheral towns to evade
registration taxes.

3. BS3 fuel is cheaper than BS4 fuel.

4. On older vehicles, we need to fit “catalytic after-treatment devices” to reduce their

emission. But government & public not pursuing this project enthusiastically.

5. Our diesel to petrol usage ratio is almost (4.5): 1 hence more pollution. This ratio is low in
USA, Europe and Japan.

Flash point in Diesel

 It is the lowest temperature at which a fuel starts turning into vapor (which will later ignite)

 Flash point of diesel is set at 35 degree C. (under both BS3 and BS4.)

 Some journalists argue that 35 degree is too dangerous. Because in India, temperature often
above 40 degree Celsius (Even EU has flash point limit 55 C, despite having cold climate.)

 Sumitra rejects this hypothesis, because even tropical countries like Brazil and Argentina
have lower flash points. The temperature in and around the engine of the vehicle is well
over 100 C – much above the highest flash point prescribed anywhere in the world. Hence
35 degree flash point doesn’t automatically mean explosion.
Misc. terms from his report

Olefin These are unsaturated alkenes. We need to reduce their quantity in fuel, to
reduce pollution.
Cetane number It is a measure of diesel quality. Lower the cetane number, diesel will
produce more smoke.

Alternatives Fuel

#1 METHNOL

Good points Bad points

Methanol is readily biodegradable in both Methanol has a high toxicity in humans.
aerobic (oxygen present) and anaerobic (oxygen
absent) environments.

is an alternative fuel for internal combustion Even 10 ml pure methanol can cause permanent
engines blindness. (recall those hooch liquor victims)

Can be used directly or by blending with petrol Methanol fire burns invisibly, while petrol
burns with a visible flame.

Used in racing cars in many countries, even in So difficult to detect methanol fire hazard.
China Pure methanol is corrosive to engine and fuel
lines

#ETHANOL

 is an organic solvent

 Ethanol itself burns cleaner and burns more completely than petrol.

 Ethanol can be derived from Sugar cane juice and molasses.

 Molasses is the byproduct when sugar cane juice converted to sugar.

Timeline of Ethanol blending program in India

2001 Government permitted adding Ethanol in petrol. Pilot project in Uttar Pradesh.
2006 5% Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) began in most states, except JK and North East.
2008 National biofuel policy. Now oil companies required to blend atleast 5% ethanol
with petrol.
But project mostly #EPICFAIL. Most companies not blending more than 2%
ethanol, because ethanol not easily available at reasonable price.

2017 Sumitra Committee proposed 20% ethanol blending by 2017.

Case study: Brazil’s ethanol blending program

 Started in mid-70s

 Their car-engines designed such way; they use even up to 18% ethanol blending.

#3 Hydrogen fuel
Bad points
1. Cost of hydrogen pipeline is 15x times more expensive than a CNG/LPG pipeline.

2. Hence, only few areas of USA have hydrogen pipeline.

3. In the entire world hardly 200 hydrogen refiling stations by 2013. (rank: N.America > Asia
> South America)

4. Hydrogen burns with colorless odorless flame, hence hard to detect leakage.

Hydrogen Vision 2020 – (GIFT)

 Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE)’s Green Initiatives for Future Transport
(GIFT)

 It has vision 2020 for Hydrogen.

 Aim: sell Hydrogen at cost of 60-70 per kg

 Build pipelines and refilling stations for hydrogen fuel.

 Get at least 1 lakh hydrogen vehicles on Indian road

 Safety regulation, laws and codes.

#4 CNG Compressed Natural Gas

FAVOUR AGAINST
  CNG emits far less pollutants than petrol
or diesel
 CNG doesn’t have carcinogens like
Benzene.
 Success story in Delhi and Mumbai
CNG-public transport.
 CNG filling station requires more
investment than petrol pump.
Public not ready to buy CNG kits/vehicles
because
1. Lack of CNG filling stations in many
highways.
2. Price difference between CNG vs
petrol/diesel not that big.

#5: LPG-Liquefied Petroleum gas

 LPG is predominantly propane and butane. Propane constitutes 30-99%.

 LPG can be derived from.

o refining crude oil

o natural gas

 Hence no risk of “single source dependence”

 LPG is globally surplus because of Natural Gas production.

 In some countries, LPG is called “Auto-Gas” and used in taxis e.g. Korea, Turkey, Russia,
Poland and Italy.

GOOD POINT BAD POINT

 emits far less pollutants than petrol or
diesel
 Unlike CNG, the LPG does not require
elaborate gas grid-network or
compressor station at refueling stations.
 Therefore, LPG refilling station can be
opened with less investment. Cheaper in
long run.
 Today, cost per km for LPG car is
almost equals petrol car.
 So there is no cost-advantage to make
public shift from petrol cars to LPG
cars.

#6: Hybrid and electric vehicles (HEV)

 HEVs have both internal combustion (running on petrol) and electricity.
  Both USA and China planning to add 1-5 million new HEV vehicles by 2020.

 India should also work on this.

Suggestions to reduce tailpipe pollution

1. BEE (Bureau of energy efficiency) labels on vehicles to show their fuel efficiency.

2. We need to replace the existing PUC system to a more reliable computerized system.

3. We need to link vehicle insurance with pollution. (i.e. higher pollution vehicle should be
ordered to pay higher premium for same coverage)

4. Give subsidy, tax-benefit to vehicle owners to retrofit their engines with newly emission
control devices

5. Impose higher taxes on old vehicles, because they emit more gases.

6. More tax on diesel guzzling SUV cars.

7. Less tax on hybrid cars, CNG vehicles.

8. Use chemical markers to detect adulteration of diesel/petrol with kerosene. Make oil
companies responsible for fuel quality at their station.
CHAPTER- 3

Dynamic Supply Chain Greening Analysis

 INTRODUCTION
Greening of supply chain operations is best to be addressed at the network design phase where
strategic facility location, technology and transport model decisions are made. This has been an
important area of research focus for almost a decade now. Given the increasing frequency and
intensity of disruptive events facing today’s organizations, the greening analyses of supply chains
need to take into consideration how the economic and environmental performance of the supply
chain can be affected in the face of unanticipated disruptions. Thus, static greening analysis is
simplistic and achieving a truly green supply chain requires a dynamic analysis to develop robust
supply chains whose sustainability performance remains unaffected or only lightly affected by
disruptions of various types. This chapter presents a framework and optimization model for
dynamic sustainability analysis. A numerical example is presented to illustrate the application of
the approach in performing tradeoff analysis in business-as-usual and disruption circumstances.

3.1 Static Supply Chain Greening Analysis

Many organizations today are lauded for being carbon-neutral, zero-waste, and energy efficient.
Greening initiatives and innovations have predominantly focused on the reduction of emissions,
wastes and energy consumption; not only because it is better for the planet, but to “future-proof”
the organizations. The two primary challenges in this context are (1) identifying economic and
environmental metrics based upon which the performance of the supply chain can be assessed, and
(2) exploring the tradeoff solutions that can balance the economic and environmental sustainability
of the supply chain. We here review some of the related modeling efforts in these areas.

Supply chain cost and carbon emissions have been the most popular economic and environmental
metrics amongst both researchers and practitioners. Environmental impact assessment methods use
a set of criteria such as energy sources, water usage, carbon emissions, hazardous/chemical
material usage, land use, and environmental technology and innovation investments to assess the
environmental performance of the supply chain at every stage in the product life cycle. The
information is translated into a set of socio-environmental impact categories and a score is
assigned to each impact category. Most modeling efforts in this context arrive at multi-objective
optimization models that aim to simultaneously address economic and environmental goals. In
multi-objective problems, there is no unique solution that can satisfy all objectives. In most cases,
an objective function is improved at the cost of compromising at-least one other objective. In these
situations, a multi objective solution approach is used to find a tradeoff solution or a set of tradeoff
solutions. Numerous approaches have been developed and implemented to solve multi-objective
programming models. Weighted sum methods, goal programming, “ε-constraint” method, multi-
objective evolutionary algorithms, and fuzzy programming approaches are amongst the most
popular. Weighted sum methods aim to convert multiple objectives into a single objective
equivalent by assigning a weight to each objective function corresponding to its importance.
A weight will turn into normalization constant if objective values have different units/dimensions.
In goal programming, instead of minimizing or maximizing the objective function(s), their
deviations from goals or aspiration levels are minimized. A weighted goal programming approach
assigns weighting coefficients (or normalization constants in case of different dimensions) to the
deviation values to generate a unified objective function. The so-called “ε-constraint” method
prioritizes one objective function and transforms the remaining objective functions to constraints.
Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms generate a set of non-dominated solutions to the problem
and attempt to improve the solutions in several iterations seeking for a better tradeoff among
objectives. One primary issue with these methods is determining the weights of objective
functions. Fuzzy programming approaches can be used to imprecisely express the relative of each
goal.

3.2 Dynamic Supply Chain Greening Analysis

Accelerating climate change and global warming increase the likelihood that disruptive
events from natural disasters will continue to occur. History also records as continuous
stream of anthropogenic catastrophes that can affect supply chain operations at various
levels. To remedy these extensive problems, organizations need to build resilience into
their supply chains. Resilience is defined as the capacity for a supply chain to survive and
continue operating in the face of unanticipated disruptions. Looking for best practices to
manage supply chain imbalance in disruptions can become a formidable challenge. In this
environment, achieving sustainability will necessitate the development of resilient supply
chains whose sustainability performance remains unaffected or lightly affected in
disruption situations. A focus on supply chain greening without considering the dynamic
nature of the operating environment means trying to operate in an environmentally
sustainable fashion in one specific state of the system with no effort to manage supply
chain sustainability imbalance when changes occur in the state of the system . In other
words, in an increasingly volatile world, a steady-state sustainability analysis is simplistic.
In this environment, a realistic supply chain greening analysis in this environment requires
moving beyond a static supply chain analysis towards a dynamic evaluation where supply
chain greening can be examined in multiple states of the system. Here we present a
framework and optimization model that can be used for dynamic supply chain greening
analysis. In the context of supply chain resilience, different approaches and solution
techniques have been developed and applied to address system resilience issues. Expected
value approaches have been amongst the most popular to measure and account for supply
chain resilience. The approach helps in making sound decisions on investment and
prioritizing resilience building options by assigning weights to future events and
calculating the expected value of different disruption scenarios.
3.3 A Mathematical Model for Dynamic Supply Chain Greening Analysis
We now present an optimization model that can be used to evaluate the design of a green supply
chain, using cost and carbon emissions as economic and environmental performance metrics,
under a set of disruption scenarios. Let us consider a supply chain comprised of a set of factories,
distribution centers (DCs) and end-users. Fixed and variable production costs and emissions
performance of each factory is determined based on the location and capacity of the factory,
manufacturing technology adopted, and sustainability initiatives undertaken. Multiple transport
modes are available for the shipment of products between factories, DCs and end-users. Shipment
costs and emissions data are available for every transport mode. DCs may have different fixed and
variable holding costs depending on the location, size, material handling system adopted, and
environmental initiatives undertaken.een Factories and DCs are subject to major disruptions. A set
of disruption scenarios need to be developed to represent situations where one or more facilities
are affected by disruption(s). The objective is to minimize the overall supply chain costs in both
business-as-usual and disruption situations; whilst ensuring that the environmental performance of
the network is kept within a desired range. Another way to look at this analysis is to seek for the
desired greening degree at which an acceptable economic performance can be attained for the
supply chain in both business-as-usual and disruption situations. The following set of indices,
parameters and decision variables are used for mathematical modeling of this problem.

Indices
 I Set of candidate locations for factories, indexed by i

 J Set of candidate locations for DCs, indexed by j

 K Set of end-users, indexed by k

 L Set of capacity levels of a factory, indexed by l

 T Set of product types, indexed by t

 M Set of transport modes for the shipment of products from factories to DCs,
indexed by m

 N Set of production technologies, indexed by n

 O Set of capacity levels of a DC, indexed by o

 R Set of transport modes for the shipment of products from DCs to end-users, indexed by r
  S Set of disruption scenarios, indexed by s

Parameters
𝑎𝑖𝑠 : Equal to 1 if factory i is disrupted in scenario s; 0, otherwise.

𝑏𝑗𝑠 : Equal to 1 if DC j is disrupted in scenario s; 0, otherwise.

𝑑𝑘𝑡 : Forecasted demand for product t in end users k (units).

𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑛 : Fixed cost of establishing a factory with capacity level l and technology n at location i

($).

𝑓𝑗𝑜′ : Fixed cost of establishing DC with capacity level o at location j ($).

𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑡 : Variable cost of manufacturing a unit product t in factory i using technology n ($ / unit).

ℎ𝑛𝑡 : Processing time to produce a unit of product t using technology n (hour).

𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑛 : Production capacity of a factory with capacity level l and technology n at location i (hour).

𝑣𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 : Unit cost of transportation for the shipment of product t from factory i to dc j through transport mode m
′
𝑣𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 : Unit cost of transportation for the shipment of product t from DC j to end-user k through transport mode r

𝑢𝑘𝑡 : Unit cost of lost sales for product t at end-user k ($/unit).

ℎ𝑡′ : Volume of a unit of product t (m3)

′
𝑐𝑗𝑜 : Storage capacity of a DC with capacity level o at location j (m3)

𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡 : Estimated carbon emissions to produce product t using technology n in factory i (ton)
′
𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 : Estimated carbon emissions for the shipment of product t from factory i to DC j through
transport mode m (ton).
′′
𝑒𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 : Estimated carbon emissions for the shipment of product t from DC j to end user k through
transport mode r (ton).

C: emission cap; maximum allowed carbon emissions for the supply chain (ton).

w: Resilience weight: the contribution of the disruption cost function.

Decision Variables
𝑋𝑖𝑙𝑛 : A binary variable, equal to 1 if a factory with capacity level l and technology n is established
at location i; 0, otherwise
′
𝑋𝑗𝑜 : A binary variable, equal to 1 if a DC with capacity level o is established at location j;

0, otherwise
𝑠
𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑡 : Quantity of product t produced in factory i using technology n under scenario s
𝑠
𝑈𝑘𝑡 : Quantity of lost sales for product t at end-user k under scenario s.
𝑠
𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 : Quantity of product t shipped from factory i to DC j through transport mode m under
scenario s.
𝑠
𝑍𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 : Quantity of product t shipped from DC j to end-user k through transport mode r under
scenario s.

Using the above parameters and decision variables, we can now formulate the cost parameters the
summation of which will form the objective functions.

Cost of establishing factories:

𝑀𝐶𝑠 = ∑𝑖∈𝐼 ∑𝑙∈𝐿 ∑𝑘∈𝑘 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑛 𝑋𝑖𝑙𝑛 _____________________ (1)

Cost of establishing DCs:

DCs = ∑𝑗∈𝑗 ∑𝑜∈𝑜 𝑓𝑗𝑜′ 𝑋𝑗𝑜

′
____________________________ (2)

Shipment costs:
𝑠
SCs = ∑𝑖∈𝐼 ∑𝑗∈𝐽 ∑𝑚∈𝑀 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 𝑣𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡
′ 𝑠
+ ∑𝑗∈𝐽 ∑𝑘∈𝐾 ∑𝑟∈𝑅 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 𝑣𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 𝑍𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 ___________ (3)

Production costs:
𝑠
PCs = ∑𝑖∈𝐼 ∑𝑛∈𝑁 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑡 ________________________ (4)

Cost of lost sales:

 𝑠
LCs = ∑𝑘∈𝐾 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 𝑢𝑘𝑡 𝑈𝑘𝑡 ___________________________ (5)

The problem is formulated as a bi-objective mixed-integer linear programming model. Objective

function 1, formulated in Eq. 3.6, represents the supply chain cost in business-as-usual situation.
Scenario 1 (s = 1) denotes the “business-as-usual” scenario when no disruption occurs.

Objective function 1:

G1 = MC1 + DC1 + SC1+PC1 + LC1 ____________________(6)

Objective function 2 (Eq. 3.7) represents the expected supply chain cost in disruption
situations.

Objective function 2:

G2 = MCs + DCs + SCs + PCs + LCs ___________(7)

The two objectives can be aggregated to form a tradeoff objective function as shown in Eq. 3.8,
where w denotes the resilience weight (0 ≤ w ≤ 1), the relative importance of supply chain
performance in disruptions.

Tradeoff objective function:

(1-w)*G1 + w*G2 ________________ (8)

The goal of the proposed model is to minimize the value of the tradeoff objective function subject
to the following constraints:

∑𝑙∈𝐿 ∑𝑛∈𝑁 𝑋𝑖𝑙𝑛 ≤ 1 ∀ 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼, ___________________(9)

′
∑𝑜∈𝑂 𝑋𝑗𝑜 ≤1 ∀ 𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, ________________(10)
𝑠 𝑠
∑𝑛∈𝑁 𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑡 = ∑j∈J ∑m∈M 𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼, ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝑇, ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆, ____________(11)
𝑠 𝑠
∑𝑖∈𝐼 ∑𝑚∈𝑀 𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 = ∑𝑘∈𝐾 ∑𝑟∈𝑅 𝑍𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝑇, ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆, __________ (12)
𝑠 𝑠
∑𝑗∈𝐽 ∑𝑟∈𝑅 𝑍𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 = 𝑑𝑘𝑡 − 𝑈𝑘𝑡 ∀𝑘 ∈ 𝐾, ∀𝑡 ∈T,∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆,__________ (13)
𝑠
∑𝑡∈𝑇 ℎ𝑛𝑡 𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑡 ≤ (1 − 𝑎𝑖𝑠 ) ∑𝑙∈𝐿 𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑛 𝑋𝑖𝑙𝑛 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼, ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝑁, ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆,_________ (14)
𝑠 ′
∑𝑖∈𝐼 ∑𝑚∈𝑀 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 ℎ𝑡′ 𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 ≤ (1 − 𝑏𝑗𝑠 ) ∑𝑜∈𝑂 𝑐𝑗𝑜
′
𝑋𝑗𝑜 ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆 ____(15)
 𝑠 ′ 𝑠 ′′ 𝑠
∑𝑖∈𝐼 ∑𝑛∈𝑁 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑡 + ∑𝑖∈𝐼 ∑𝑗∈𝐽 ∑𝑚∈𝑀 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 + ∑𝑗∈𝐽 ∑𝑘∈𝐾 ∑𝑟∈𝑅 ∑𝑡∈𝑇 𝑒𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 𝑍𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 ≤𝐶

________________(16)

𝑋𝑖𝑙𝑛 ∈ {0,1} ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼 , ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝐿, ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝑁 ______________(17)

′
𝑋𝑗𝑜 ∈ {0,1} ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, ∀𝑜 ∈ 𝑂 __________________________(18)
𝑠
𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑡 ≥ 0 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼, ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝑁, ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝑇, ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆 __________(19)
𝑠
𝑈𝑘𝑡 ≥0 ∀𝑘 ∈ 𝐾, ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝑇, ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆. _____________(20)
𝑠
𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑡 ≥ 0 ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝐼, ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, ∀𝑚 ∈ 𝑀, ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝑇.______________(21)
𝑠
𝑍𝑗𝑘𝑟𝑡 ≥0 , ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐽, ∀𝑘 ∈ 𝐾, ∀𝑟 ∈ 𝑅, ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝑇_________(22)

Constraints (9) and (10) ensure that only one facility can be established in candidate locations for
factories and DCs, respectively. Constraints (11), (12) and (13) represent the flow balance
constraints in factories, DCs and end-users, respectively. Constraints (14) and (15) enforce the
capacity limitation of factories and DCs at different disruption scenarios. Constraint (16) expresses
the carbon emission constraint. Constraints (17)–(22) define the domains of the decisions
variables. Using the proposed model in this section, one can examine the performance of a green
supply chain under a set of hypothetical disruption scenarios. These test experiments and
performance evaluations can assist in making more informed decisions on investment for design or
reconfiguration of a green supply chain that can maintain its economic and environmental
performance when facing real disruptions. Section 3.4 illustrates the application of the proposed
model in a hypothetical case

3.4 An Illustrative Example

Consider a manufacturing supply chain with two production factories (i) and two DCs (j)
supplying two product types(t) to two customer zones (k). The manufacturing plant can produce
two kind of product. A manufacturing plant and DCs can be built in two sizes (l) and (o)
respectively. There are two mode of transport for the shipment of products from factories to DCs
and also two modes of transport for shipping of products from DCs to end-users i.e.(m) and (r)
respectively . In this particular example we consider two scenario one which is business as usual
scenario and second in which disruption is occurred.
The non linear programming problem can be solved with the help of LINGO-13. A set of
disruption scenario needs to be developed representing possible facility disruption situation. When
w = 0, disruption scenarios are overlooked and the model is solved for objective function 1 only.
When w = 1, disruption scenarios are overlooked and the model is solved for objective function 2
only.
The solution for different resilience weight is given in the following table:

Resilience weight z G1 G2
w=0 4108.00$ 4108.00$ 1607.00$
w=0.2 3365.443$ 3804.929$ 1607.00$
w=0.4 2905.715$ 3771.192$ 1607.00$
w=0.6 2461.900$ 3743.500$ 1607.50$
w=0.8 1931.840$ 3029.199$ 1657.500$
w=1 1662.500$ 2760.515$ 1662.500$

The above table shows the configuration of the supply chain network at different
resilience weights.

4. Conclusion
The following conclusions are

(i) This dissertation presents the analysis of carbon emission.

(ii) The bharat emission norms and its impact on environment.
(iii) Now it’s appropriate time to implement the bharat standard 5 or bharat standard 6
in INDIA.
(iv) In chapter 3 we discuss a supply chain with disruption and providing resilience
weight to the disruption.
 5. References

Jabbarzadeh (&) _ B. Fahimnia Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of
Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Tarek Abdallah ⇑ , Ali Farhat, Ali Diabat, Scott Kennedy; Masdar Institute of Science and
Technology, P.O. Box 54224, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Bharat Emission Standards, Saumitra Chaudhuri Committee report.

Baghalian, A., Rezapour, S., & Farahani, R. Z. (2013). Robust supply chain network design with
service level against disruptions and demand uncertainties: A real-life case. European Journal of
Operational Research,

Google