This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 04 February 2015, At: 04:09

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Closed loop supply chain network design and

optimisation using fuzzy mixed integer linear
programming model
a a
Anil Jindal & Kuldip Singh Sangwan
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani,
India
Published online: 02 Dec 2013.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Anil Jindal & Kuldip Singh Sangwan (2014) Closed loop supply chain network design and optimisation
using fuzzy mixed integer linear programming model, International Journal of Production Research, 52:14, 4156-4173, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2013.861948

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.861948

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Production Research, 2014
Vol. 52, No. 14, 4156–4173, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.861948

Closed loop supply chain network design and optimisation using fuzzy mixed integer linear
programming model
Anil Jindal and Kuldip Singh Sangwan*

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India
(Received 15 April 2013; accepted 27 October 2013)

Owing to the revolution in sustainable and green manufacturing the production planning and network design of
closed loop supply chain concept has got the attention of researchers and managers. In this paper, a multi-product,
multi-facility capacitated closed-loop supply chain framework is proposed in an uncertain environment including reuse,
refurbish, recycle and disposal of parts. The uncertainty related to demand, fraction of parts recovered for different
product recovery processes, product acquisition cost, purchasing cost, transportation cost, processing, and set-up cost is
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

handled with fuzzy numbers. A fuzzy mixed integer linear programming model is proposed to decide optimally the
location and allocation of parts at each facility and number of parts to be purchased from external suppliers in order to
maximise the profit of organisation. The proposed solution methodology is able to generate a balanced solution between
the feasibility degree and degree of satisfaction of the decision maker. The proposed model has been tested with an
illustrative example.
Keywords: closed loop supply chain; mixed integer linear programming; fuzzy numbers; reverse logistics

1. Introduction
Closed loop supply chain (CLSC) management has attracted growing attention in recent years due to the revolution in
green manufacturing, increased environmental concerns, government legislations and awareness of limited natural
resource (Özceylan and Paksoy 2012b). It is an environmentally and economically sound approach to achieve many of
the goals of sustainable development (Ayres, Ferrer, and Van Leynseele 1997; Ferrer 1997a, 1997b; Thierry et al. 1995).
In many industries, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are looking for efficient ways to integrate reverse logistics
into their supply chains, to recover economic value from returned products and to reduce disposal costs (Autry 2005;
Realff, Ammons, and New 2000). As OEMs have more knowledge on products and markets, they can operate the
manufacturing and remanufacturing activities together and optimise the value of the closed-loop system. Remanufacturing
of used products and bringing them back to the market provides not only the environmental and customer benefits to
OEMs but it also reduces their production cost (Lee, Gen, and Rhee 2009). Compared with normal production,
manufacturers can save about 40–60% of the cost while paying for only 20% of the manufacturing effort (Dowlatshahi
2000). Kim, Raichur, and Skerlos (2008) demonstrated that a remanufactured product uses less than 20% of the materials,
16% of the energy and releases only 35% of the greenhouse gas emissions of those released in the process of producing
a new product.
The production planning and network design of CLSC is a major challenge as compared to forward supply chain
(Jindal and Sangwan 2011). In the CLSC, the manufacturer needs to integrate both manufacturing and remanufacturing
activities by using the parts recovered from return products and the new purchased from external suppliers. It is further
complicated as the quantity, quality and timing of the return are also quite uncertain (Shi, Zhang, and Sha 2011). This
uncertainty affects the percentage of products/parts recovered for different product recovery options like reuse, refurbish,
recycle, and disposal. The fraction of parts recovered by different recovery options being uncertain, affect the processing
and set-up cost at various facility centres. Therefore, in this uncertain environment, determining the number of products
to be remanufactured, the number of parts to be directly purchased as well as the location and allocation of external
supplier(s), collection centre(s), disassembly centre(s), refurbishing centre(s), recycling centre(s), and disposal centre(s)
is challenging to maximise the total profit. Multiple costs like refund to the customer, purchasing cost from external
supplier(s), transportation cost, processing cost and set-up cost at each facility further complicate the CLSC solutions.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Production Research 4157

There is uncertainty involved at each output of the reverse portion of the supply chain unlike the forward portion of the
supply chain. The reverse supply chain provides ill-known parameters affecting the forward portion and thus making the
whole supply chain environment uncertain.
In this paper, a multi-product, multi-facility capacitated closed-loop supply chain framework is proposed in the
uncertain environment. To handle this uncertainty, the ill-known parameters (e.g. product demand, percentage of return,
transportation cost, processing and set up cost, and percentage of parts recovered for reuse, disassemble, refurbish,
disposal and recycle) are represented by fuzzy numbers. A fuzzy mixed integer linear programming (FMILP) model is
proposed to represent the proposed framework in mathematical terms to maximise the total profit by optimally deciding
the quantity of parts to be processed at each reverse supply chain facility and the number of parts to be purchased from
multiple suppliers. The proposed framework is tested by solving an illustrative CLSC network problem using the
methodology proposed by Jiménez et al. (2007). The advantage of the methodology is that, it allows working with the
concept of feasibility degree to find an optimal solution between two conflicting objectives, i.e. to improve the objective
function value and to improve the degree of satisfaction of constraints simultaneously. As higher the degree of
satisfaction of constraints, smaller is the feasible solution and consequently the optimal objective value is worse. The
model is solved by using LINGO 13, an optimization tool.
The paper is organised as follows. The literature review is presented in Section 2. Section 3 introduces the proposed
CLSC framework and the mathematical model. The proposed solution methodology is discussed in Section 4 and 5 is
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

devoted to an illustrative example to test the model. Finally, in Section 6, conclusions are presented.

2. Literature review
In spite of a considerable amount of research already carried out on supply chain network design, in recent years, there
has been a growing awareness of the importance of incorporating CLSC activities along with the traditional indicators
(Özceylan and Paksoy 2012b). Owing to the revolution in green manufacturing for the global market, the CLSC
concepts have become important issues that can play a pivotal role in a company’s competitive advantage and help
strategic decision- making (Gungor and Gupta 1999; Sasikumar and Kannan 2008). Various strategic and operational
aspects of CLSC such as forecasting, production planning and control and inventory control and management have been
investigated in the last decade. Fleischmann et al. (1997) discussed the quantitative models for reverse logistics, while
Guide, Jayaraman, and Srivastava (1999) examined the production planning and control function of remanufacturing
firms.
Wang and Huang (2012) discussed that the production planning and control of the hybrid manufacturing and
remanufacturing system is more complex as compared to the traditional system. In the closed loop system, the manufac-
turer not only has to coordinate the production process, but also has to consider the balance between demand and the
uncertain return. Guide Jr (2000) identifies that balancing return with demand; and uncertainties in timing, quality
and quantity of returns as complicating characteristics of the remanufacturing systems. Inderfurth (2005) analyses the
challenges to the product recovery management in a closed-loop system and points out that production, recovery and
disposal decisions often have to be balanced under considerable uncertainties of demand and return. Jayaraman (2006)
investigated the CLSC in which the used products are acquired according to their quality and presented an analytical
approach to optimise the production planning and control of the system. Key decisions of the model include the
number of units with a nominal quality level that is disassembled, disposed, remanufactured and acquired in a given
time period.
Kim et al. (2006) developed a multi-period, multi-product mixed integer programming model for a supply planning
problem in which returned products are disassembled to remanufacture. However, in the framework, only refurbishment
and disposal of parts is considered and the repair, reuse and recycle of products/parts is not considered. Moreover, the
collection and inspection cost, transportation cost and product acquisition cost are not considered. In this model, all the
parameters are considered to be crisp and uncertainty in parameters is not taken into account.
Mutha and Pokharel (2009) presented a model considering the modular product structure with different disposal and
recycling fractions for each module. The focus was on deciding the number of facilities with location and allocation of
used products/modules at an optimal cost. The model assumes only deterministic demands by historical average,
although the demand for remanufactured products and spare markets can vary. Shi, Zhang, and Sha (2011) proposed a
mathematical model based on Lagrangian relaxation method to investigate a CLSC network in which demand and return
are uncertain. The problem is to maximise the manufacturer’s expected profit by jointly determining the production
quantities of brand-new products and the quantities of remanufactured products. However, buy back cost of used
product is not considered.
 4158 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

Özceylan and Paksoy (2012b) proposed a mixed integer mathematical model for the CLSC network that
includes both forward and reverse flows with multi-periods and multi-parts. The proposed model provides the optimal
values of manufactured and disassembled products in the CLSC while determining the location of plants and retailers.
However, the uncertainty in parameters is not considered in this model. Özceylan and Paksoy (2012a) proposed a fuzzy
multi-objective model to take into account the fuzziness in the capacity, objectives, demand constraints, and in the
reverse rates. However, in this model, recycling is not considered and is a single product model. Moreover, the
product acquisition cost, collection and inspection cost, disassembly cost, and disposal cost are not taken into
consideration.
Amin and Zhang (2012) proposed a two- phase multi- objective model to maximise profit and weights of suppliers,
and to minimise defect rates. In the first phase, a fuzzy method is designed to evaluate suppliers based on qualitative
criteria. In the second phase, a multi- objective mixed integer linear programming model is proposed to determine the
supplier and refurbishing sites in addition to the optimal number of parts and products in the CLSC network. However,
the dynamic and imprecise nature of return products is not considered. Moreover, the product acquisition cost, collection
cost, transportation cost, and inventory costs are ignored.
The dynamic and imprecise nature of quantity and quality of end of life (EOL) products imposes a high degree of
uncertainty in reverse and CLSC network design decisions. Literature suggests different types of uncertainties and
different methods to handle them. Sahinidis (2004) has classified different approaches for optimisation under uncertainty
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

as recourse-based stochastic programming, robust stochastic programming, probabilistic (chance-constraint) program-

ming, fuzzy programming, and stochastic dynamic programming. Dubois, Fargier, and Fortemps (2003) discussed three
types of uncertainties. One, uncertainty related to flexibility in constraints and goals. In this, flexible mathematical
programming models are used to cope with flexible target values (Mula, Poler, and Garcia 2006). Second, uncertainty
related to randomness in the data that comes from the random nature of parameters and usually stochastic programming
approaches are used to model this kind of uncertainty (El-Sayed, Afia, and El-Kharbotly 2010). Third, uncertainty that
deals with ill-known parameters for which sufficient historical data is not available. The type of uncertainty in reverse
logistics is because of ill-known parameters. These are best modelled by fuzzy numbers in the setting of possibility
theory (Mula, Poler, and Garcia 2006). Few researchers have used fuzzy programming to model the uncertainty in the
field of reverse supply chain (Jindal and Sangwan 2013; Liang and Cheng 2009; Mula, Peidro, and Poler 2010;
Özceylan and Paksoy 2012a; Peidro et al. 2009; Pishvaee and Torabi 2010; Sangwan and Jindal 2012). Table 1 presents
the review of recent literature in the area of CLSC and the research gap.
From the above literature review it is clear that the design of CLSC network is an important research problem, and
there is a need to develop a generalised framework and optimisation model including product acquisition, transportation,
purchase, processing and set-up costs simultaneously in an uncertain environment. Therefore, this paper proposes a
multi-product, multi-facility capacitated CLSC framework that includes reuse, refurbish, recycle and disposal EOL
strategies. The objective of the model is to optimise the profit of the organisation by optimally determining the number
of parts to be purchased from external supplier(s) and the number of products to be remanufactured under capacity
constraints. It also provides optimal location and allocation to different collection centres, disassembly centres,
refurbishing centres and external suppliers. The model also takes into consideration the product acquisition cost,
transportation cost, collection and inspection cost, disassembly cost, refurbishing cost, disposal cost, set-up cost and
recycling profit at various facility locations. The practical implication of the proposed model is examined through an
illustrative example.

3. The proposed CLSC framework and mathematical model

3.1 Description of the proposed CLSC framework
A generalised framework is presented for handling multi-product returns in which forward flow, reverse flow and their
mutual interactions are considered simultaneously. The network (Figure 1) is structured as a typical five-echelon forward
supply chain consisting of raw-material suppliers, plants, distributors, retailers and customers. The reverse supply chain
is also five-echelon including collection/repair centres, disassembly centres, refurbishing centres, recycling centres and
disposal centres as shown in Figure 1.
Product recovery system starts with the collection of returned products from the customers with some incentive to
them. It is assumed that g~j is the maximum percentage of products collected from the customers. At the collection
facility centre, inspection and sorting is done. The products which can be reused after minor repair or cleaning are sent
to distribution centre and the rest are forwarded for disassembly. It is further assumed that c~j is the maximum percent
age of collected products that are reused and the rest are sent for disassembly. Since a product consists of various parts,
 International Journal of Production Research 4159

Table 1. A review of CLSC models.

Method to
handle Salient features and
Author Objective uncertainty Uncertain parameters research gap

Kim et al. (2006) The model determines the Sensitivity Capacity of collection centre,
Disassembly cost,
quantity of products/parts to analysis disassembly centre and refurbishing cost,
be processed at the refurbish centre disposal cost, set-up
remanufacturing facilities and cost and inventory
the amount of parts to be cost are considered,
purchased from the external but the transportation
suppliers while maximising cost, collection cost
the total cost saving and incentive to
customers is not
considered in the
model.

Refurbishing and
disposal is
considered, but
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

recycling, repair and

reuse of products is
not considered.

Multiple locations
for different facility
centres are not
considered.

Multiple external
suppliers are not
considered for new
parts supply.
Mutha and Deciding the number of Scenarios Quantity of return, capacity of
Although, the
Pokharel (2009) facilities, their locations and analysis processing centres, disposal to demands for
allocation of corresponding recycle percentage remanufactured
flow of used products and products can vary,
modules at an optimal cost but this current
for a given market demand model assumes only
and used product returned deterministic
quantities demands by
assuming historical
averages.

Recycle, disposal
and remanufacturing
is considered but the
reuse of products is
not considered.
Lee, Dong, and The objective of the model is Stochastic Demand of forward products
Only fixed cost,
Bian (2010) to minimise the total cost by programming and supply of returned transportation cost
deciding the type of facility products and processing cost
(forward processing, at facility centres is
collection or hybrid facility) considered, but the
to build at each potential collection cost,
depot, their location and the inventory cost,
quantities of forward and product acquisition
returned products shipped in cost, disposal cost
the transportation links and recycling cost is
not considered.

Different product
recovery options are
not considered.

(Continued)
 4160 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

Table 1. (Continued)

Method to
handle Salient features and
Author Objective uncertainty Uncertain parameters research gap

Özceylan and Developing an integrated, Scenarios Percentage of product
After disassembly

Paksoy (2012b) multi-echelon, multi-period analysis recovery options there can be some
mixed-integer linear fraction of parts for
programming model to recycling, this is not
minimise the total cost considered.

Only refurbishing
cost, transportation
cost is considered,
but the processing
cost at collection
centre, disassembly
centre, disposal
centre and recycling
cost is not
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

considered.

Fixed cost for only
plants and retailers is
considered, but not
for collection centres,
disassembly centres
and refurbishing
centres.

Incentive to
customers or the
product acquisition
cost is not
considered in the
model.
Amin and Zhang The objective of model is to Fuzzy Supplier selection related
The cost of
(2012) (i) maximise profit of the programming parameters only disassembly,
organisation, (ii) maximise the refurbishing and
weights of suppliers and (iii) disposal are
to minimise defect rates. The considered but the
model not only determines cost of
the amount of parts and transportation,
products in the nodes of collection cost,
CLSC network, but also incentive to
selects the best suppliers and customers and
refurbishing sites recycling profit is not
considered.

Only refurbishing
and disposal is
considered but repair,
reuse and recycling
as a product recovery
option are not
considered.

Multiple locations
only for refurbishing
centres are
considered.

Single time horizon,
so inventory cost is
not considered.

(Continued)
 International Journal of Production Research 4161

Table 1. (Continued)

Method to
handle Salient features and
Author Objective uncertainty Uncertain parameters research gap

Özceylan and The objective of the model is Fuzzy Demand, capacity and reverse
Only three
Paksoy (2012a) to (i) minimise total programming rates parameters i.e.
manufacturing and demand, capacity
distribution costs, (ii) and reverse rates is
minimise total fixed costs of considered uncertain.
plants and retailers But all the other
parameters are taken
as crisp numbers.

Unit cost of
processing at
collection centre,
disassembly centre,
disposal centre,
inventory cost, and
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

incentive to
customers is not
considered.

Recycling as a
product recovery
option is not
considered.
Pishvaee and The objective of the model is Fuzzy Demand, return, fixed cost,
Only recycling and
Razmi (2012) to (i) minimise total cost, (ii) programming transportation cost, processing disposal are
minimise the environmental cost, capacity at facility considered as
impact centres product recovery
options, while repair,
reuse, refurbishing
etc. are not
considered.

The refund to
customer, inventory
cost and disassembly
cost are also not
taken into account.
Amin and Zhang To minimise the total cost of Scenario Demand and return volume
Fixed cost for plant
(2013) a CLSC network and analysis and collection
maximise the effect of using centres only.
environmental friendly
Incentive to
material and using clean customers and
technology inventory cost is not
considered.

Need to consider
uncertainty in other
parameters also like
percentage of
products/parts that
can be reused,
refurbished, recycled
and disposed.

Product disassembly
into reusable parts,
refurbishable parts
and recyclable parts
is not considered.

(Continued)
 4162 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

Table 1. (Continued)

Method to
handle Salient features and
Author Objective uncertainty Uncertain parameters research gap

Proposed model Multi-product, multi-facility, Fuzzy Demand of product; unit cost
Unit cost or
capacitated facility location programming of collection, disassembly, processing and set-up
CLSC model to maximise the refurbishing and disposal; set- cost at each
profit by optimally deciding up cost at each facility centre; collection centre,
the number of products to be capacity of each facility disassembly centre
remanufactured and number centre; unit purchasing cost and refurbishing
of parts to be purchased and maximum percentage of centre is considered.
parts that can be reused,
Transportation cost,
refurbished recycled and purchasing cost,
disposed. refund to customers,
disposal cost and
profit from recycling
is considered.

Maximum percentage
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

of product/parts that
can be reused,
refurbished, recycled
and disposed are
considered.

Reuse, refurbishing,
recycling, and
disposal are
considered as end of
life processes.

~
Sik Pj Dj
External
Manufacturer Distributor Retailer Customers
Suppliers (k)

Ajm C jm
Fil

Refurbishing Finl Disassembly Rjmn Collection /Repair

Centers (l) Centers (n) Centers (m)

Win

Recycle Center Disposal Center

Figure 1. The proposed CLSC framework.

 International Journal of Production Research 4163

the returned products are disassembled to remanufacture the parts. Disassembled parts are classified into the
refurbishable parts, recyclable parts and disposable parts. It is assumed that out of the disassembled parts, k~i is the
maximum percentage of parts that will go to the refurbishing centre, b~i is the maximum percent age of parts that will
go to recycling centre and the rest of parts will be disposed off. After refurbishing process, the ‘as new’ parts are
stocked as part inventory together with new parts purchased from the external supplier(s). Finally, parts in inventory are
supplied to the manufacturing plant according to the production plan. Here, it is assumed that:

The remanufactured products have same quality as the brand-new products and can be sold in the same market
with the same price (Beamon and Fernandes 2004; Kim et al. 2006).

Inventory costs are not considered in model as the storing period for parts is assumed negligible (Amin and
Zhang 2013; Harraz and Galal 2011).

Only parts of products can be disposed off or recycled and not the whole product (Harraz and Galal 2011).
The company is interested in minimising total remanufacturing cost so that eventually it can maximise total profit.
The framework contains multiple collection centres, disassembly centres, and refurbishing centres and allocates
optimally products/parts to be processed at these facility centres. Similarly, it allocates optimally the number of parts to
be purchased from different external suppliers. The model considers multi-product with different reuse, refurbish,
disposal and recycling fractions. Collection, disassembly and refurbishing centres have limited capacities in the proposed
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

model. The recyclable parts are given to the recycler for a profit.
The product demand; cost parameters and fraction of parts recovered for reuse, refurbish, recycle and disposal are
affected by the uncertainty in quantity, quality and time of return. So assigning a crisp value to parameters in the
model is very difficult for the experts/decision makers (DMs). As discussed in Section 2, the type of uncertainty in
the present case is of ill-known parameters, and therefore, these uncertain parameters are modelled by fuzzy numbers
(Mitra 2012; Pishvaee and Razmi 2012). The proposed framework is expected to represent a more realistic CLSC
situation.

3.2 The proposed FMILP model

The proposed FMILP Model is presented in this section. The FMILP model represents the proposed framework in
mathematical terms for optimisation.

Indices
j set of products, j = 1, 2, … J
i set of parts, i = 1, 2, … I
k set of suppliers, k = 1, 2, … K
m set of collection/repair centres, m = 1, 2, … M
n set of disassembly centres, n = 1, 2, … N
l set of refurbishing centres, l = 1, 2, … L

Decision variables
Pj units of product j to be produced
Cjm units of product j to be collected at collection centre m
Ajm units of product j to be reused from collection centre m
Rjmn units of product j to be disassembled at site n from collection centre m
Sik units of part i to be purchased from supplier k
Tin units of part i to be obtained at disassembly site n
Finl units of parts i to be refurbished at site l from disassembly centre n
Fil units of part i to be refurbished at refurbishing centre l
Win units of part i to be disposed from disassembly centre n
Yin units of part i to be recycled from disassembly centre n
Bjm binary variable for set-up of collection facility for product j at m
Vjn binary variable for set-up of disassembly site for product j at n
Uil binary variable for set-up of refurbishing site for part i at l
Zk binary variable for purchasing part i from external supplier k
 4164 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

Parameters
D~j demand of product j to be produced
(MP)j maximum capacity of product j to be produced by the plant
~
ðC CÞ the unit cost of collection and inspection for product j at collection centre m
jm
~
ðS CÞ the set-up cost for collection of product j at centre m
jm
ðM CÞ~ maximum capacity of the collection centre m for product j
jm
ðDCÞ~ the unit cost of disassembly for part i at disassembly centre n
in
~
ðS DÞ the unit set-up cost for disassembly of product j at centre n
jn
ðM DÞ~ maximum capacity of the disassembly centre n for product j
jn
ðRCÞ~ the unit cost of refurbishing for part i at centre l
il
~
ðS RÞ the unit set-up cost for refurbishing of part i at centre l
il
ðM RÞ~ maximum capacity of the refurbishing centre l for part i
il
ðU CÞ~ the unit cost of repair for product j from collection centre m
jm
~
ðW DCÞ the unit cost of disposal for part i
i
f
ð RPÞ the unit profit of recycling for part i
fÞ
ð RF the unit cost of refund to customers for product j
jm
ðPCÞ~ the unit purchasing cost for part i from supplier k
ik
qij units of part i in product j
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

(MXS)k, (MNS )k the maximum and minimum purchase order from supplier k
~
ðT CDÞ the unit cost of transportation from collection centre m to disassembly centre n for product j
jmn
~
ðT CRÞ the unit cost of transportation from disassembly centre n to refurbishing centre l for part i
inl
~ Þ
ðT CU the unit cost of transportation from collection/repair centre m to distributor for product j
jm
g~j maximum percentage of product j returned
c~j maximum percentage of product j reused
k~i maximum percentage of part i refurbished
b~i maximum percentage of part i recycled

It should be noted that symbols with a tilde (~) at the top indicated the parameters with uncertainty and are
estimated by appropriate possibility distribution.

Objective function
Maximize !
X X XX XX XX
ðPF~j Þ  Pj þ Ajm þ ~  Yin 
ðRPÞ ~  Sik 
ðPCÞ ~  Cjm
ðC CÞ
i ik jm
j
XX m
XX
n i k
XX
i m
XX
j
 ~  Bjm 
ðS CÞ ~  Ajm 
ðU CÞ ~  Tin 
ðDCÞ ~  Vjn
ðS DÞ
jm jm in jn
X
m
X
j
Xm Xj XX n i
Xn Xj
 ~
ðRCÞil  Fil  ~
ðS RÞil  Uil  ~
ðW DCÞi  Win  ~  Cjm
ðRFÞ jm
X
l
X
i
X l i
XXX n i
XX j m
 ~
ðT CDÞ ~ ~ Þ  Ajm
jmn  Rjmn  ðT CRÞinl  Finl  ðT CU jm ð1Þ
j m n i n l j m
The objective function is to maximise the total profit of the organisation. The first two terms of the objective function
reflect the profit earned by selling the products and profit from recyclers, respectively. The third term represents the
purchasing cost of parts from external suppliers. The fourth and fifth terms represent the processing and set-up cost at
collection centres. Cost of repair for the reused products is represented in sixth term. The seventh and eighth term repre-
sents the processing and set-up cost at the disassembly centres. The next two terms represent the processing and set-up
cost at refurbishing centres. The 11th and 12th terms represent the waste disposal cost and cost of product acquisition
(refund given to customers), respectively. The last three terms represents the transportation cost of retuned products from
collection to disassembly centres, transportation cost of refurbishable parts from disassembly centres to refurbishing
centres, and transportation cost of reused products from collection/repair centres to distributor centres, respectively.

Subject to
Demand constraint
Constraint (2) ensures that demand for each product is satisfied with the sum of newly produced products and reused
products. X
D~ j ¼ Pj þ Ajm 8j (2)
m
 International Journal of Production Research 4165

3.2.1 Flow balance constraints

Constraint (3) ensures that number of products collected at collection centres is equal to sum of number of products
reused and number of products disassembled. Similarly, constraint (4) ensures the flow balance at disassembly centre,
i.e. number of parts disassembled is equal to sum of parts refurbished, recycled and disposed off. Constraint (5) ensures
that the total requirement of parts is equal to sum of parts refurbished and parts purchased from external supplier(s).
Constraint (6)–(8) calculate the number of parts at disassembly centres, number of parts at refurbishing centres and
number of products at disassembly centres, respectively.
X
Cjm ¼ Ajm þ Rjmn 8 j; m (3)
n

X
Tin ¼ Yin þ Win þ Finl 8 i; n (4)
l

X X X
qij  Pj ¼ Fil þ Sik 8i (5)
j l k

XX
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

Tin ¼ qij Rjmn 8 i; n (6)

m j

X
Fil ¼ Finl 8 i; l (7)
n

X
Rjn ¼ Rjmn 8 j; n (8)
m

3.2.2 Capacity constraints

Constraints (9)–(12) provide the maximum limit on the number of products collected, number of products reused,
number of parts refurbished and number of parts to be recycled respectively. Constraints (13)–(15) ensure the capacity
limit for collection centre, disassembly centre and refurbishing centre respectively. Constraint (16) ensures the maximum
and minimum capacity of the external suppliers. The number of products to be produced is less than the plant capacity
is ensured by constraint (17).
X
~j
Cjm  g~j  D 8j (9)
m

Ajm  c~j  Cjm 8 j; m (10)

X
Finl  k~i  Tin 8 i; n (11)
l

Yin  b~i  Tin 8 i; n (12)

Cjm  ðMCÞjm  Bjm 8 j; m (13)

X
Rjmn  ðMDÞjn  Vjn 8 j; n (14)
m

X
Finl  ðMRÞil  Uil 8 i; l (15)
n

X
ðMNSÞk  Sik  ðMXSÞk 8k (16)
i
 4166 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

Pj  ðMPÞj 8j (17)

3.2.3 Decision variables constraints

The following constraints are related to binary and general integer values of the decision variables. All the decision
variables are positive numbers.

Bjm ; Vjn ; Uil ; Zk  f0; 1g 8 j; m; n; i; k (18)

Pj ; Cj ; Ajm ; Rjmn ; Rjn ; Sik ; Tin ; Finl ; Fil ; Win ; Yin I 8 j; m; n; l; i; k (19)

4. The proposed solution methodology

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

The uncertainties in the proposed model are handled using possibilistic programming approach as discussed in the
Section 3.1. The possibility distribution represents the degree of occurrence of values for each uncertain parameter and
is determined based on available data as well as experts’ knowledge. Each ill-known parameter is represented with
triangular fuzzy numbers. The pattern of triangular distribution is commonly adopted to handle ill-known parameters as
the DMs are familiar with estimating the optimistic, pessimistic and most likely value of the ill-known parameters
(Liang 2008; Yang, Ignizio, and Kim 1991). Rommelfanger (1996) also recommended triangular distribution of the
fuzzy number when knowledge of the DMs is limited. The triangular shape also provides the simplicity and flexibility
of the fuzzy arithmetic operations (Liang 2006).
The fuzzy input provided by the experts is next converted into crisp values.

4.1 Converting the fuzzy MILP model to crisp MILP model

A number of methods are proposed in the literature to deal with possibilistic programming models (Jiménez et al. 2007;
Lai and Hwang 1992; Liang 2006). Among these methods the Jiménez et al. (2007) method is selected to cope with
proposed fuzzy MILP model. The advantage of this method is that it allows the DMs to work with the concept of
degree of feasibility (α). This helps the DMs to find a balanced solution between two conflicting objectives, i.e. to
improve the objective function value and to improve the degree of satisfaction of constraints. As higher the degree of
satisfaction of constraints, the feasible solution set becomes smaller, and consequently, the optimal objective value is
worse. Jiménez et al. (2007) proposed an interactive method in order to evaluate these two conflicting factors. Also, this
method is computationally efficient to solve fuzzy linear problems as it can preserve its linearity and does not increase
the number of objective functions and inequality constraints. Zadeh (1975) recommended that the best way to reflect
DM preferences is to express them through natural language, establishing a semantic correspondence for the different
degrees of feasibility (α) such that 0 ≤ α ≤ 1. The number of elements on the semantic scale depends on the number of
linguistic labels that the DM is able to distinguish. Kaufmann and Gil Aluja (1992) proposed eleven levels which allow
sufficient distinction among them:
Unacceptable solution (α = 0); Practically unacceptable solution (α = 0.1); Almost unacceptable solution (α = 0.2);
Very unacceptable solution (α = 0.3); Quite unacceptable solutions (α = 0.4); Neither acceptable nor unacceptable solu-
tion (α = 0.5); Quite acceptable solution (α = 0.6); Very acceptable solution (α = 0.7); Almost acceptable solution
(α = 0.8); Practically acceptable (α = 0.9); Completely acceptable solution (α = 1).
Depending on the wish of DM, other scales can also be used. In this paper, the scale mentioned above is used with
the minimum acceptable degree of 0.4. As infinite number of values of degree of feasibility is not considered, the con-
version of fuzzy MILP to crisp MILP is not an exact method.
The equivalent crisp model is presented below. The numbers with superscript pes represents the pessimistic value of
the fuzzy number, opt represents the optimistic value of the fuzzy number and mos represents the most likely value of
the fuzzy number.
 International Journal of Production Research 4167

Maximise
! !
X PFjpes þ 2  PFjmos þ PFjopt X X X RPpes þ 2  RPmos þ RPopt 
 Pj þ Ajm þ i i i
 Yin
j
4 m n i
4
!
X X PC pes þ 2  PC mos þ PC opt  X X CCjm
pes
þ 2  CCjm
mos opt
þ CCjm
 ik ik ik
 Sik   Cjm
k i
4 m j
4
! !
X X SCjm
pes
þ 2  SCjmmos opt
þ SCjm X X UCjm pes
þ 2  UCjm mos
þ UCjm opt
  Bjm   Ajm
m j
4 m j
4
!
X X DC pes þ 2  DC mos þ DC opt  X X SDpes jn þ 2  SDjn þ SDjn
mos opt
 in in in
 Tin   Vjn
n i
4 n j
4
X X RC pes þ 2  RC mos þ RC opt  X X SRpes þ 2  SRmos þ SRopt 
 il il il
 Fil  il il il
 Uil
l i
4 l i
4
!
X X WDC pes þ 2  WDC mos þ WDC opt  X X RFjm pes
þ 2  RFjm mos
þ RFjmopt
 i i i
 Win   Cjm
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

n i
4 j m
4
!
X X X TCD pes jmn þ 2  TCDjmn þ TCDjmn
mos opt
X X X TCRpes þ 2  TCRmos þ TCRopt 
  Rjmn  inl inl inl
 Finl
j m n
4 i n l
4
!
X X TCUjm pes
þ 2  TCUjm mos
þ TCUjm opt
  Ajm
j m
4

And the crisp equivalents of constraint number (2, 9, 10, 11, and 12) are as follows. The other constraints remain as
such.
!
D pes
j þ 2  Dj
mos
þ Dopt
j
X
¼ Pj þ Ajm 8j
4 m

" ! !# " ! !#
X g pes
j þ gj
mos
gopt
j þ gj
mos
D pes
j þ Dj
mos
Dopt
j þ Dj
mos
Cjm  a þ ð1  aÞ  a þ ð1  aÞ 8j
m
2 2 2 2
" ! !#
c pes
j þ cj
mos
copt
j þ cj
mos
Ajm  a þ ð1  aÞ  Cjm 8 j; m
2 2

X   pes   opt 
ki þ kmos ki þ kmos
Finl  a i
þ ð1  aÞ i
 Tin 8 i; n
l
2 2

  pes   opt 
bi þ bmos bi þ bmos
Yin  a i
þ ð1  aÞ i
 Tin 8 i; n
2 2

4.2 Calculating the decision vector complying the expectations of DMs

In order to get a decision vector that complies with the expectations of the DM, two conflicting factors (the feasibility
degree and the reaching of an acceptable value for the objective function) are evaluated. Therefore, the model is solved
for each value of degree of feasibility (α) to obtain a set of acceptable solution ~zðaÞ. After seeing the information given
by the different ~zðaÞ, the DM is asked to specify a goal such that DM is fully satisfied (lG~ ðzÞ = 1) when z  G  and

DM is fully dissatisfied (lG~ ðzÞ = 0) when z ≤ G as shown in Figure 2. For the values of z in between G and G, lG~ ðzÞ
is approximated by linear interpolation given in Equation 20.
 4168 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

8
>
<h
1 i if z  G
zG
lG~ ðzÞ ¼ decreasing G\z\G (20)
>
:
GG
0 if z  G

4.3 Computing the optimum solution

The next step is to compute the degree of satisfaction of the fuzzy goal G ~ for each α – acceptable solution, i.e. the
~
membership degree of each fuzzy number ~zðaÞ to the fuzzy set G. There are several methods to do this, but the index
proposed by Yager (1978) is used here as shown in Equation (21).
R þ1
l~zðaÞ ðzÞ:lG~ ðzÞdz
KG~ ðzðaÞÞ ¼ 1R þ1 (21)
1 l~zðaÞ ðzÞdz

where the denominator is the area under l~zðaÞ and in the numerator the possibility of occurrence of l~zðaÞ ðzÞ of each crisp
value z is weighted by its satisfaction degree lG~ ðzÞ of the goal G~ as shown in Figure 2. Now to find the balance
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

solution between the feasibility degree and the degree of satisfaction, the membership degree of each α – acceptable
optimal solution is calculated using t-norm algebraic product (Equation 22). So the best solution is one which has the
greatest membership degree.
lD~ ðx Þ ¼ max f a  KG~ ð~zðaÞÞg (22)

5. An illustrative example
In this section, a numerical example is presented to illustrate how the proposed model works in a multi-product,
multi-facility CLSC framework. A data set is prepared reflecting the real business situation. It is assumed that there are
two types of products and three types of parts with different utilisation factor as shown in Table 2. In the network it is
assumed that there are three collection/repair centres, two disassembly centres, two refurbishing centres, three external
suppliers, one recycle centre, and one disposal centre. The processing cost, set-up cost, and maximum capacity of the
collection centres, disassembly centres, and refurbishing centres are given in the Tables 3–6, respectively. The transpor-
tation cost from collection centres, disassembly centres and refurbishing centres is given in Tables 7–9. The other prod-
uct and part related parameters including the cost of purchasing from external supplier are shown in Tables 10 and 11.
The maximum purchase order for each supplier is 4000, 5000 and 5000, and the minimum purchase order for each sup-
plier is 100. It is further assumed that g~j (maximum percentage of product j returned) = (0.5, 0.6, 0.7), c~j (maximum per-
centage of product j reused) = (0.1, 0.2, 0.3), k~i (maximum percentage of part i refurbished) = (0.65, 0.7, 0.75), and b~i
(maximum percentage of part i recycled) = (0.1, 0.15, 0.2).
The proposed model is solved using LINGO 13 on intel core i5 processor machine in 0.01 s. The model contains
total variables = 94, integers = 66, constraints = 81, and total non-zeros = 576. As the optimum value of objective func-

Figure 2. Possibility distribution of objective values and the fuzzy goal provided by DM.
 International Journal of Production Research 4169

Table 2. The usage of part i per unit of product j.

qij i=1 i=2 i=3

j=1 2 3 2
j=2 3 3 2

Table 3. The collection cost, set-up cost, and maximum capacity at collection centre m for each product j.

CCjm SCjm MCjm

m=1 m=2 m=3 m=1 m=2 m=3 m=1 m=2 m=3

j=1 (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (5,6,7) (4,5,6) 300 400 300
j=2 (3,4,5) (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (3,4,5) (4,5,6) 350 300 300
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

Table 4. The set-up cost and maximum capacity at disassembly centre n for each product j.

SDjn MDjn
n=1 n=2 n=1 n=2

j=1 (3,4,5) (4,5,6) 500 500

j=2 (5,6,7) (3,4,5) 500 400

Table 5. The processing cost at disassembly centre n for each part i.

DCin n=1 n=2

i=1 (3,4,5) (2,3,4)

i=2 (4,5,6) (3,4,5)
i=3 (5,6,7) (4,5,6)

Table 6. The processing cost, set-up cost, and maximum capacity at refurbishing centre l for each part i.

RCil SRil MRil

l=1 l=2 l=1 l=2 l=1 l=2

i=1 (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (3,4,5) 1500 1800

i=2 (5,6,7) (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) 2000 1800
i=3 (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (4,5,6) 1500 1000

Table 7. The transportation cost from collection centre m to disassembly centre n, for each product j.

TCDjmn(j = 1) TCDjmn(j = 2)
m=1 m=2 m=3 m=1 m=2 m=3

n=1 (0.4,0.5,0.6) (0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.5,0.6,0.7) (0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.5,0.6,0.7) (0.3,0.4,0.5)

n=2 (0.6,0.7,0.8) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (0.7,0.8,0.9) (0.5,0.6,0.7) (0.4,0.5,0.6) (0.4,0.5,0.6)
 4170 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

Table 8. The transportation cost from disassembly centre n to refurbishing centre l, for each part i.

TCRinl(i = 1) TCRinl(i = 2) TCRinl(i = 3)

n=1 n= 2 n=1 n= 2 n=1 n=2

l=1 (0.2,0.3,0.4) (0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.6) (0.6,0.7,0.8) (0.3,0.4,0.5)

l=2 (0.1,0.2,0.3) (0.5,0.6,0.7) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (0.5,0.6,0.7)

Table 9. The transportation cost from collection/repair centre m to distributor centre j.

TCUjm m=1 m=2 m=3

j=1 (0.5,0.6,0.7) (0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.5,0.6,0.7)

j=2 (0.7,0.8,0.9) (0.5,0.6,0.7) (0.7,0.8,0.9)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

Table 10. Product related parameters.

Refund (RFjm)
Demand(Dj) Profit(PFj) Max production capacity(MPj) m=1 m=2 m=3

j=1 (1400,1500,1600) (190,200,210) 1700 (13,14,15) (16,18,20) (18,20,22)

j=2 (1300,1400,1500) (240,250,260) 1500 (18,20,22) (13,15,17) (16,18,20)

Table 11. Part related parameters.

PCik (cost of purchasing part i from

supplier k)
WDCi (waste disposal cost for part i) RPi (recycling profit from part i) k=1 k=2 k=3

i=1 (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (14,16,18) (16,18,20) (17,19,21)

i=2 (4,5,6) (3,4,5) (19,21,23) (20,22,24) (18,20,22)
i=3 (2,3,4) (5,6,7) (20,22,24) (19,21,23) (21,23,25)

tion depends on the degree of feasibility of constraints, i.e. higher the degrees of feasibility lower the value of objective
function. So to find the optimum value of degree of feasibility, all the α-acceptable optimal solutions are calculated
(with the minimum α = 0.4, as specified by the DM) as shown in Table 12.
After that the DM establishes an aspiration level G~ whose membership function is as follows (using Equation 20). It
is fixed such that the DM is fully satisfied if objective value is higher than 323166.3 (maximum value from Table 12)
and fully dissatisfied if objective value is lower than 266554.8 (minimum value from Table 12);

Table 12. α-acceptable optimal solutions.

Feasibility degree, α Possibility distribution of the objective value, ~zðaÞ

α = 0.4 (323166.3, 311963.0, 295524.9)

α = 0.5 (319127.6, 307633.8, 290740.0)
α = 0.6 (314954.2, 303152.4, 285791.4)
α = 0.7 (310834.5, 298775.0, 281012.9)
α = 0.8 (306473.6, 294148.9, 275930.6)
α = 0.9 (302312.6, 289731.2, 271116.8)
α=1 (298343.8, 285550.0, 266554.8)
 International Journal of Production Research 4171

8
> 1 if z  323166:3
<
z  266554:8
lG~ ðzÞ ¼ decreasing 323466:3  z  26655:4
>
: 323166:3  266554:8
0 if z  266554:8
Now the compatibility index of each solution with DM aspiration is calculated using Equation (21) and the values are:
KG~ ðzð0:4ÞÞ ¼ 0:78; KG~ ðzð0:5ÞÞ ¼ 0:70; KG~ ðzð0:6ÞÞ ¼ 0:62; KG~ ðzð0:7ÞÞ ¼ 0:54;
KG~ ðzð0:8ÞÞ ¼ 0:46; KG~ ðzð0:9ÞÞ ¼ 0:38; KG~ ðzð1ÞÞ ¼ 0:31
In order to find the balance solution between the feasibility degree and the degree of satisfaction, the membership
degree of each α – acceptable optimal solution is calculated using Equation (22) and the values are:
lD~ ðxð0:4ÞÞ ¼ 0:4  0:78 ¼ 0:311

lD~ ðxð0:5ÞÞ ¼ 0:4  0:78 ¼ 0:351

lD~ ðxð0:6ÞÞ ¼ 0:4  0:78 ¼ 0:373

lD~ ðxð0:7ÞÞ ¼ 0:4  0:78 ¼ 0:381

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

lD~ ðxð0:8ÞÞ ¼ 0:4  0:78 ¼ 0:370

lD~ ðxð0:9ÞÞ ¼ 0:4  0:78 ¼ 0:346

lD~ ðxð1ÞÞ ¼ 0:4  0:78 ¼ 0:310

Therefore, the optimum feasibility degree is 0.7, which corresponds to the highest membership degree of 0.381. If
the DM is not satisfied with this solution than the goal and its tolerance threshold can be changed to refine the result or
refine the values of degree of feasibility.
With a feasibility degree (α) = 0.7, the results show that to meet the customer demand, 1346 units of product 1 and
1256 units of product 2 are to be manufactured, with the possibilistic profit of Rs. (310834.5, 298775.0, 281012.9).
Table 13 shows the number of products to be collected and reused at the various collection/repair centres. The number
of products disassembled at the disassembly centres are also shown in the same table. Table 14 shows parts- related
decision variables, i.e. number of parts to be purchased from different external supplier and number of parts to be refur-
bished at each refurbishing centre. All units of part 1are purchased from supplier 1 and 2, and nothing from supplier 3.
Similarly, part 2 is purchased from supplier 3 only, while part 3 is purchased from supplier 2 only. Table 14 also shows
the number of parts disassembled (Tin), number of parts recycled (Yin), and number of parts disposed off (Win) from the
various disassembly centres.

Table 13. Number of products collected, reused and disassembled for α = 0.7.

Ajm Cjm Rjn

m=1 m=2 m=3 m=1 m=2 m=3 n=1 n=2

j=1 54 72 28 300 400 157 203 500

j=2 36 54 54 200 300 300 256 400

Table 14. Number of parts purchased from external supplier, number of parts disassembled, number of parts refurbished, number of
parts recycled and number of parts disposed for α = 0.7.

Sik Tin Fil Win Yin

k=1 k=2 k=3 n=1 n=2 l=1 l=2 n=1 n=2 n=1 n=2

i=1 4000 132 0 1174 2200 1500 828 200 374 164 308
i=2 0 0 4993 1377 2700 1013 1800 235 459 192 378
i=3 0 3329 0 918 1800 875 1000 157 306 128 252
 4172 A. Jindal and K.S. Sangwan

6. Conclusions
In this paper, a multi-product, multi-facility capacitated CLSC framework is proposed in an uncertain environment
including reuse, refurbish, recycle and disposal of parts. The model considers multi-collection centres, multi-disassembly
centres, multi-refurbishing centres and multi-external suppliers to take care of purchasing cost, transportation cost,
processing cost, set-up cost and capacity constraints simultaneously. The uncertainties related to ill-known parameters
are represented by triangular fuzzy numbers. A FMILP model is proposed to represent the proposed framework in
mathematical terms for optimisation. The proposed solution methodology is able to generate a balance solution between
the feasibility degree and the degree of satisfaction.
The effectiveness of the developed fuzzy optimisation model as well as the usefulness of the proposed solution
approach is investigated by solving an illustrative example. The proposed CLSC framework and mathematical model
can be customised for various industries. The proposed model is based on the single time period. This model can be
extended further to multi- period model with inventory flow. An illustrative example has been solved by using Lingo13
optimisation tool which is based on branch and bound techniques. However, for the large size real business problems
efficient heuristics or evolutionary algorithms like genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, particle swam optimisation,
neural network, ant colony optimization, etc. need to be developed.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

References

Amin, S. H., and G. Zhang. 2012. “An Integrated Model for Closed-loop Supply Chain Configuration and Supplier Selection:
Multi-objective Approach.” Expert Systems with Applications 39 (8): 6782–6791.
Amin, S. H., and G. Zhang. 2013. “A Multi-objective Facility Location Model for Closed-loop Supply Chain Network Under
Uncertain Demand and Return.” Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (6): 4165–4176.
Autry, C. W. 2005. “Formalization of Reverse Logistics Programs: A Strategy for Managing Liberalized Returns.” Industrial
Marketing Management 34 (7): 749–757.
Ayres, R., G. Ferrer, and T. Van Leynseele. 1997. “Eco-efficiency, Asset Recovery and Remanufacturing.” European Management
Journal 15 (5): 557–574.
Beamon, B. M., and C. Fernandes. 2004. “Supply-chain Network Configuration for Product Recovery.” Production Planning &
Control 15 (3): 270–281.
Dowlatshahi, S. 2000. “Developing a Theory of Reverse Logistics.” Interfaces 30 (3): 143–155.
Dubois, D., H. Fargier, and P. Fortemps. 2003. “Fuzzy Scheduling: Modelling Flexible Constraints vs. Coping with Incomplete
Knowledge.” European Journal of Operational Research 147 (2): 231–252.
El-Sayed, M., N. Afia, and A. El-Kharbotly. 2010. “A Stochastic Model for Forward–reverse Logistics Network Design Under Risk.”
Computers & Industrial Engineering 58 (3): 423–431.
Ferrer, G. 1997a. “The Economics of Personal Computer Remanufacturing.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21 (2): 79–108.
Ferrer, G. 1997b. “The Economics of tire Remanufacturing.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19 (4): 221–255.
Fleischmann, M., J. M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, R. Dekker, E. van der Laan, J. A. E. E. van Nunen, and L. N. Van Wassenhove. 1997.
“Quantitative Models for Reverse Logistics: A Review.” European Journal of Operational Research 103 (1): 1–17.
Guide Jr., V. D. R., V. Jayaraman, and R. Srivastava. 1999. “Production Planning and Control for Remanufacturing: A State-of-the-art
Survey.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 15 (3): 221–230.
Guide Jr, V. D. R. 2000. “Production Planning and Control for Remanufacturing: Industry Practice and Research Needs.” Journal of
Operations Management 18 (4): 467–483.
Gungor, A., and S. M. Gupta. 1999. “Issues in Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing and Product Recovery: A Survey.”
Computers and Industrial Engineering 36 (4): 811–853.
Harraz, N. A., and N. M. Galal. 2011. “Design of Sustainable End-of-life Vehicle Recovery Network in Egypt.” Ain Shams
Engineering Journal 2 (3–4): 211–219.
Inderfurth, K. 2005. “Impact of Uncertainties on Recovery Behavior in a Remanufacturing Environment: A Numerical Analysis.”
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35 (5): 318–336.
Jayaraman, V. 2006. “Production Planning for Closed-loop Supply Chains with Product Recovery and Reuse: An Analytical
Approach.” International Journal of Production Research 44 (5): 981–998.
Jiménez, M., M. Arenas, A. Bilbao, and M. V. Rodriguez. 2007. “Linear Programming with Fuzzy Parameters: An Interactive Method
Resolution.” European Journal of Operational Research 177 (3): 1599–1609.
Jindal, A., and K. S. Sangwan. 2011. “Development of an Interpretive Structural Model of Barriers to Reverse Logistics
Implementation in Indian Industry.” In Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing, edited by J. Hesselbach and
C. Herrmann, 448–453. Berlin: Springer.
Jindal, A., and K. S. Sangwan 2013. “An Integrated Fuzzy Multi-criteria Evaluation of Sustainable Reverse Logistics Network
Models.” IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 1–7. Hyderabad.
 International Journal of Production Research 4173

Kaufmann, A., and J. Gil Aluja. 1992. “Técnicas de gestión de empresa.” Previsiones, decisiones y estrategias [Business Manage-
ment Techniques. Estimates, Decisions and Strategies]. Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide [Pyramid].
Kim, K., I. Song, J. Kim, and B. Jeong. 2006. “Supply Planning Model for Remanufacturing System in Reverse Logistics Environ-
ment.” Computers and Industrial Engineering 51 (2): 279–287.
Kim, H.-J., V. Raichur, and S. J. Skerlos. 2008. “Economic and Environmental Assessment of Automotive Remanufacturing:
Alternator Case Study.” ASME Conference Proceedings 2008 (48517): 33–40.
Lai, Y. J., and C. L. Hwang. 1992. “A New Approach to Some Possibilistic Linear Programming Problems.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems
49 (2): 121–133.
Lee, J.-E., M. Gen, and K.-G. Rhee. 2009. “Network Model and Optimization of Reverse Logistics by Hybrid Genetic Algorithm.”
Computers & Industrial Engineering 56 (3): 951–964.
Lee, D.-H., M. Dong, and W. Bian. 2010. “The Design of Sustainable Logistics Network Under Uncertainty.” International Journal
of Production Economics 128 (1): 159–166.
Liang, T.-F. 2006. “Distribution Planning Decisions Using Interactive Fuzzy Multi-objective Linear Programming.” Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 157 (10): 1303–1316.
Liang, T.-F. 2008. “Fuzzy Multi-objective Production/Distribution Planning Decisions with Multi-product and Multi-time Period in a
Supply Chain.” Computers and Industrial Engineering 55 (3): 676–694.
Liang, T.-F., and H.-W. Cheng. 2009. “Application of Fuzzy Sets to Manufacturing/Distribution Planning Decisions with
Multi-product and Multi-time Period in Supply Chains.” Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2, Part 2): 3367–3377.
Mitra, S. 2012. “Inventory Management in a Two-echelon Closed-loop Supply Chain with Correlated Demands and Returns.”
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:09 04 February 2015

Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (4): 870–879.

Mula, J., R. Poler, and J. P. Garcia. 2006. “MRP with Flexible Constraints: A Fuzzy Mathematical Programming Approach.” Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 157 (1): 74–97.
Mula, J., D. Peidro, and R. Poler. 2010. “The Effectiveness of a Fuzzy Mathematical Programming Approach for Supply Chain
Production Planning with Fuzzy Demand.” International Journal of Production Economics 128 (1): 136–143.
Mutha, A., and S. Pokharel. 2009. “Strategic Network Design for Reverse Logistics and Remanufacturing using New and Old Product
Modules.” Computers and Industrial Engineering 56 (1): 334–346.
Özceylan, E., and T. Paksoy. 2012a. “Fuzzy Multi-objective Linear Programming Approach for Optimising a Closed-loop Supply
Chain Network.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (8): 2443–2461.
Özceylan, E., and T. Paksoy. 2012b. “A Mixed Integer Programming Model for a Closed-loop Supply-chain Network.” International
Journal of Production Research 51 (3): 718–734.
Peidro, D., J. Mula, R. Poler, and J.-L.Verdegay. 2009. “Fuzzy Optimization for Supply Chain Planning Under Supply, Demand and
Process Uncertainties.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (18): 2640–2657.
Pishvaee, M. S., and J. Razmi. 2012. “Environmental Supply Chain Network Design Using Multi-objective Fuzzy Mathematical
Programming.” Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (8): 3433–3446.
Pishvaee, M. S., and S. A. Torabi. 2010. “A Possibilistic Programming Approach for Closed-loop Supply Chain Network Design
Under Uncertainty.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 161 (20): 2668–2683.
Realff, M. J., J. C. Ammons, and D. Newton. 2000. “Strategic Design of Reverse Production Systems.” Computers & Chemical
Engineering 24 (2–7): 991–996.
Rommelfanger, H. 1996. “Fuzzy Linear Programming and Applications.” European Journal of Operational Research 92 (3):
512–527.
Sahinidis, N. V. 2004. “Optimization Under Uncertainty: State-of-the-art and Opportunities.” Computers & Chemical Engineering 28
(6–7): 971–983.
Sangwan, K. S., and A. Jindal, 2012. “An Integrated Fuzzy Multi-criteria Evaluation of Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Processes.”
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 6 (4): 359–371.
Sasikumar, P., and G. Kannan. 2008. “Issues in Reverse Supply Chains, Part I: End of Life Product Recovery and Inventory
Management – An Overview.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 1 (3): 154–172.
Shi, J., G. Zhang, and J. Sha. 2011. “Optimal Production Planning for a Multi-product Closed Loop System with Uncertain Demand
and Return.” Computers & Operations Research 38 (3): 641–650.
Thierry, M. C., M. Salomon, J. A. E. E. v. Nunen, and L. N. v. Wassenhove. 1995. “Strategic Issues in Product Recovery Manage-
ment.” California Management Review 37 (2): 114–135.
Wang, H.-F., and Y.-S. Huang. 2012. “A Two-stage Robust Programming Approach to Demand-driven Disassembly Planning for a
Closed-loop Supply Chain System.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (8): 2414–2432.
Yager, R. R. 1978. “Ranking Fuzzy Subsets Over the Unit Interval.” IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the 17th
Symposium on Adaptive Processes, 1435–1437. San Diego, CA.
Yang, T., J. P. Ignizio, and H.-J. Kim. 1991. “Fuzzy Programming with Nonlinear Membership Functions: Piecewise Linear
Approximation.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 41 (1): 39–53.
Zadeh, L. A. 1975. “The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning – I.” Information Sciences
8 (3): 199–249.