Regular Article
An integrated gasoil and biodiesel supply network model with strategic and tactical applications considering the environmental aspects
School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding author: hadi_sahebi@iust.ac.ir
Received:
2
November
2020
Accepted:
12
April
2021
In recent years, research has shown that biomass can be a source of energy to replace fossil fuels and effectively reduce current environmental crises. Researchers have studied how biofuels are supplied through the oil supply chain to achieve tangible results. This paper presents an optimization model for the gasoil and biodiesel supply chains suggesting the optimization of both supply chains simultaneously for the first time. The proposed model deals with the connection points of two supply chains and determines the two chains’ connection points by considering two economic and environmental objective functions. The model can be used to make decisions on issues such as location, allocation, production planning, inventory management, capacity expansion, and so forth. The proposed programming model’s performance has been studied through a real case study in Iran and the sensitivity analyses have been performed. The εconstraint method was used to solve the multiobjective model. The proposed model is expected to be effective in the future management of countries’ fuel sources, particularly to be used as an alternative to fossil fuels. Also, this research can provide a basis for more extensive research on fuel supply chain integration.
© S.M. Rafie & H. Sahebi, published by IFP Energies nouvelles, 2021
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Introduction
Current global energy consumption shows a significant upward trend by 2030. Rising pollution, declining fossil fuels, environmental concerns, economic development, climate change, the food crisis, and fuel price fluctuations have posed serious challenges for energy planning and management [1]. In recent years, on the one hand, issues such as energy security and countries’ dependence on fossil fuels that end one day, and on the other hand, crises caused by environmental pollution have shifted countries to alternative sources that address the above two challenges [2]. Experts have examined alternative sources that are both renewable and cleaner. Considering that the transportation sector has a great impact on environmental pollution, finding alternative sources in this sector can greatly help reduce environmental pollution [3].
Experts believe that using clean energy such as solar energy, wind, biomass, etc., instead of fossil fuels, will prevent environmental pollution and its dangers [4]. Expert research shows that biofuels, which can be supplied from various sources, can be economically and environmentally suitable alternatives to fossil fuels [5]. Biofuels can be produced from biomass, including agricultural, household, commercial and industrial waste, crops and natural biomass. Bioethanol and biodiesel can be used as liquid biofuels as fuel for vehicles or additives to petroleumbased fuels [6]. Biodiesel is a type of biofuel that can be successfully combined with diesel earned from fossil fuels at different percentages for transportation [7]. Jatropha is a promising source of biodiesel production that has received much attention due to its high oil content for biodiesel production, drought tolerance and water scarcity, soil reclamation, desert reduction, rural development, and environmental benefits [8].
Despite much attention to the biofuel supply chain in recent years, few papers have addressed the dropin property of advanced hydrocarbon biofuel. The US Department of Energy in a study has addressed the issue of integrating a hydrocarbon biofuel supply chain with existing oil supply chain production and distribution infrastructure. They show three connection points for these two chains. First, after preprocessing the biomass and liquefying it, they combine it with the crude oil and lead it to the distillation towers. The second is for the semifinished material to go to upgrade units for further processing, and the third is for the finished fuel to come to a warehouse or distribution point for petroleum products to use the existing distribution capacity. This eliminates the need of building many facilities in the biofuel supply chain and reduces many costs [9]. Therefore, some papers have studied how to integrate these two supply chains. Huber and Corma [10] studied biomass conversion techniques for biofuels through existing oil refineries. They concluded that there are three techniques for this: catalytic cracking, hydrotreating, and hydrocracking. In order to lower the cost of advanced hydrocarbon biofuels to a level comparable to conventional fuels, a sophisticated supply chain model, which considers designing, logistics, and planning decisions, is urgently needed to take the advantage of the existing petroleum refinery infrastructures.
This paper proposes a multiobjective Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model to design an integrated biodiesel and gasoil supply chain. The proposed model considers all parts of both chains from harvesting sites of the biodiesel supply chain and oil fields of the gasoil supply chain to the final customers. Besides maximizing profits as an economic goal, the proposed model also minimizes the emission of carbon dioxide as an environmental goal. Jatropha is considered a feedstock in the biodiesel supply chain due to its proper biodiesel production characteristics, which has already been pointed out. According to [11] and its case study that was done for Iran, Jatropha is more viable than biowastes. Also, due to the model’s reduced complexity and its solution time, only Jatropha is considered feedstock. This model can be used in many strategic and tactical decisions such as location, allocation, capacity expansion, production planning, and inventory management. This paper has been used for a genuine case in Iran for the 20year planning horizon.
The rest of this article is as follows. The literature review is presented in Section 2. The concerned problem is described in Section 3. The symbols used in the model and the developed model are presented in Section 4. The solution method used is described in Section 5. The case study and its relevant results are described in Section 6. Finally, the results and some directions for future research are presented in Section 7.
2 Literature review
The issue of designing a network of oil supply chains and biofuels has been the focus of many researchers due to the inclusion of various strategic, tactical, and operational decisions. Responses to all decisions such as location, allocation, capacity determination, capacity expansion, technology selection, production planning, inventory management, and so forth can be obtained as a chain network design model. Numerous papers have examined the supply chain of crude oil and petroleum products and biofuels to provide energy with maximum profit and minimum environmental pollution. In papers related to the oil supply chain and petroleum products, part or all of the supply chain is optimized. Papers optimizing the supply chain by considering biomass generation as raw material are also discussed in papers on the biofuel supply chain.
To better understand the studies conducted on the oil supply chain and its derivatives and the biofuel supply chain, we would separately investigate the papers and studies conducted on these two issues. Table 1 shows the papers’ classification on the oil supply chain and its derivatives and on the biofuel supply chain. The upper half of the table shows the papers on oil, and the lower half shows the ones on biofuels.
An overview of some papers in oil supply chain and its derivatives and biofuel supply chain.
2.1 Literature review of oil and petroleum products supply chain
The oil supply chain and its derivatives have always attracted researchers’ attention due to their breadth, importance and attractiveness. The studies carried out in this field are very extensive. Therefore, in this paper, only the studies conducted on designing the oil supply chain network and its derivatives are discussed.
As shown in Table 1, the papers’ structure on the oil supply chain and its derivatives can include upstream parts such as oil fields and crude oil storage centers and intermediate parts such as refineries and product storage centers and downstream parts such as distribution centers and customer types. Much research has been done on the downstream and midstream of the oil supply chain. Fernandes et al. [12] consider a multilevel, multiproduct and multitransportation downstream Petroleum Supply Chain (PSC) network. In another paper, they [13] developed their work with a dynamic MILP model for collaborative design and tactical planning. Guajardo et al. [14] presented a model for a company’s downstream oil supply chain and determined the optimal plan for it. Fiorencio et al. [15] presented a MILPbased Decision Support System (DSS) that enables strategic planning of the oil supply chain. This model is used for studies evaluating investment options for a logistics infrastructure. Kazemi and Szmerekovsky [16] presented a MILP model for a multiproduct, multilevel downstream oil supply chain network that minimizes costs. Their model addresses multimodal transportation planning in strategic supply chain design. Ghezavati et al. [17] designed the downstream part of the PSC. They demonstrated a hierarchical structure including a mathematical optimization model for determining strategic decisions in the leader problem and a simulation model for determining tactical and operational decisions in a follower problem. Öztürkoğlu and Lawal [18] developed a singleperiod and singleproduct deterministic mathematical model and analyzed scenarios such as breakdowns in pipeline connections. Ghaithan et al. [19] have presented an integrated multiobjective model for midterm tactical decisionmaking for the downstream part of the oil and gas supply chain. Lima et al. [20] presented a multistage stochastic programming to solve the refined product distribution problem optimally. Wang et al. [21] have presented a MILP model for optimizing the downstream segment of the oil supply chain to plan new pipelines.
Many researchers have studied the upstream oil supply chain, and some by considering it as integrated. Leiras et al. [22] address integration and coordination under uncertainty the tactical and operational levels. Spatial integration is examined the tactical level, while temporal integration is examined by the interaction between tactical and operational levels. Gamari and Sahebi [23] presented a multiobjective mathematical model for stochastic lotsizing in the petrochemical supply chain, considering uncertainty. In a study, Nasab and AminNaseri [24] investigated a multilevel, multimodal transportation and multiperiod integrated oil supply chain to obtain a global optimal solution. They simultaneously considered both the construction and capacity expansion of the facilities and the pipeline route. Jabbarzadeh et al. [25] presented a multiperiod MILP mathematical model for designing the oil supply chain network. Farahani and Rahmani [26] introduced a MILP model to maximize the net present value of a crude oil network. The effect of gas injection and swap simultaneously is considered in the proposed model. Azadeh et al. [27] presented a multiobjective mathematical model for integrating the upstream and middle sectors of the crude oil supply chain of environmental indicators. In this paper, an algorithm based on the MultiObjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition (MOEAD) approach is used to solve the proposed nonlinear Mixed Integer Programming (MINLP) model. Azadeh et al. [28] also presented another paper that year that simultaneously focuses on the upstream and downstream sectors of the crude oil supply chain. This paper also puts into consideration the simultaneous development of the oil field and the planning of the transformation.
As shown in Table 1, decision levels can vary from paper to paper. Among the most important decisions are location, capacity determination or expansion, technology selection, allocation, production planning, inventory planning, and transportationrelated decisions. Fernandes et al. [12], through developing MILP, strategically designed and planned the PSC downstream network and determine the optimal locations of depots, optimal capacities, modes of transport and longterm planning. MILP maximizes profit of petroleum companies and is tested with a real PSC network in Portugal. Guajardo et al. [14] addressed tactical issues related to decision making in production, distribution to customers, and inventory. The decision levels of other papers are also listed in Table 1.
To model, papers can be classified into different categories. The major problems are actually MINLP, but the mathematical models are in the LP, MILP, NLP, and MINLP types. Papers can also be classified into singleobjective and multiobjective in terms of the type of objective function. Most multiobjective models in this area have used economic and environmental functions. Zhou et al. [29] presented a multiobjective MILP model for minimizing total economic costs and CO_{2} gas emissions simultaneously. They identified the Pareto boundary for solving the multiobjective model and examined it in a realworld example. Also Ghaithan et al. [19] have presented an integrated multiobjective model. The objectives of this paper are: minimize total costs, maximize total revenue, and maximize service level. Uncertainty in parameters is another important factor that should be considered in the classification of papers. In a general division, the approach to dealing with uncertainty in papers can be divided into three categories: fuzzy, robust, and stochastic. For example, Oliveira et al. [30] presented a twostage stochastic programming model for the petroleum products supply chain. They also used the development of stochastic Benders decomposition method to solve. Gupta and Grossmann [31] presented a multistage stochastic programming model for planning the offshore oil and gas fields’ infrastructure. They considered endogenous uncertainties and complex fiscal rules into their planning model. Jabbarzadeh et al. [25] investigated uncertain parameters via fuzzy theory. Lima et al. [20] presented a multistage stochastic programming model. To investigate the uncertainty in oil price and demand, they used time series as well as scenario tree analyses. They also used AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) method for time series analysis and a scenario reduction method to compress the problem dimensions. Beiranvand et al. [32] proposed a robust optimization model to consider demand and price uncertainties.
2.2 Literature review of biofuel supply chain
Although biofuel supply chain studies are not as old as oil supply chain studies, they have attracted the attention of many researchers in recent years. Crises caused by countries’ dependence on oil have drawn the attention of researchers to alternative sources, the most important of which are biofuels. Features of biofuel supply chain papers can also be included in Table 1. The structures of the supply chain network, considered in most papers in this field, are similar, and in some cases, there is a slight difference. The feedstock considered in the biofuel supply chain papers can vary. Most papers consider the second generation of feedstock. Some papers also consider a combination of generations. Babazadeh [33] presented a multiperiod and multiproduct biodiesel supply chain network design model. He is considering Jatropha seeds and waste cooking oil to produce secondgeneration biodiesel. Babazadeh et al. [34] presented a possible multiobjective programming model for the design of the second generation biodiesel supply chain network under risk conditions. This paper presents a planning method for risk reduction based on uncertainty. Ezzati et al. [35] designed the biodiesel supply chain network with Jatropha, waste cooking oil, and microalgae as feed stocks. They offered a multiperiod, multiproduct, multimode MILP model that integrates all levels of the chain. Mahjoub et al. [11] developed a multiperiod multiobjective MILP model that designs the second/third generation biofuel supply chain. They studied three types of biomass simultaneously as a feedstock for production and used an augmented εconstraint approach to solve it. Kheybari et al. [36] focused on identifying the best location for the production of bioethanol. They proposed an evaluation framework that based on the three dimensions of sustainability. They applied the BestWorst Method (BWM) in their paper. Kang et al. [37] proposed a threestep model for designing a biofuel supply chain from microalgae. The first stage is the design of economic decisions and analyses. The second stage is selecting candidate locations based on GIS, and the third stage is the mathematical optimization.
Biofuel papers, as shown in Table 1, can help make various decisions at different levels. Lin et al. [38] presented a MILP model for optimizing strategic and tactical decisions. This model covers all activities from harvesting to distribution. In some papers, issues such as seasonal feedstock are considered in the design of biofuel supply chain networks. Xie et al. [39] proposed a multistage MILP model for the cellulosic biofuel supply chain. This paper deals with the feedstock’s seasonality. SantibañezAguilar et al. [40] presented a dynamic optimization model for optimal supply chain planning. They considered the seasonality of biomass cultivation in their study.
Papers on biofuels can also singleobjective or multiobjective. The objectives of these papers are mainly economic, environmental, and social. Mousavi Ahranjani et al. [41] presented a model that simultaneously considers economic, environmental, and social objectives. Also, Fattahi and Govindan [42] considered environmental and social aspects. Ghani et al. [43] examined the impact of incentives on one side and the greenhouse gas emissions penalty. On the other, it made farmers refrain from burning biomass residues and provide opportunities to convert these materials into biofuels. As a result, the costs and emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced.
Another feature of papers in this field is the certainty or uncertainty in network design. Papers that consider uncertainty in parameters are generally classified into three categories: fuzzy, robust, and stochastic. Azadeh et al. [44] presented a multiperiod stochastic linear programming model that maximizes profits and then analyzed the results. Zhang and Jiang [45] designed biofuel supply chain based on waste cooking oil at strategic and tactical levels. They introduced a multiobjective MILP model with a robust approach. Mohseni et al. [46] presented a twostage model for designing and planning a biodiesel supply chain from microalgae. They used GIS and AHP to determine potential locations. They used a robust MILP model to optimize in uncertainty. Gilani et al. [47] proposed a threephase robust optimization model for network design of supply chain to produce bioethanol from sugarcane. They employed fuzzy integrated data envelopment analysis method to select suitable cultivation lands as supply potential points. Their model performance has been illustrated through a case study in Iran. Bairamzadeh et al. [48] presented a MILP model for determining the strategic and tactical decisions of the bioethanol lignocellulosic supply chain. A hybrid robust optimization model has been used to consider the uncertainties. Ghelichi et al. [1] presented a twostage stochastic programming model for designing an integrated green biodiesel supply chain from Jatropha seeds. In their multiproduct, multiperiod MILP model, they developed a twostage scenariobased stochastic programming approach. Shavazipour et al. [49] presented a twostage scenariobased multiobjective optimization methodology. They considered three objectives in their problem under uncertainty of six parameters. A case study of South African sugarcane industry utilized to examine the proposed model. Mousavi Ahranjani et al. [41] presented a hybrid multiobjective robust possibilistic programming model for designing and planning a multiperiod biofuel supply chain network under uncertainty. Fattahi and Govindan [42] presented a multistage stochastic programming model for biofuel supply chain design and planning. Ghaderi et al. [50] presented a multiobjective robust possibilistic programming model for designing a sustainable bioethanol supply chain network. Babazadeh et al. [51] presented a possibilistic programming model for designing the secondgeneration biodiesel supply chain network under uncertainty, in which case Jatropha seeds and waste cooking oil are considered the raw material of biodiesel. They also used a benderslocal branching algorithm to solve their model. Razm et al. [52] made a redesign of the biomass supply network by considering price changes as a decision variable. They examined demand and exchange rates in three different scenarios.
None of the above papers have considered the use of oil network infrastructure to produce biofuels. Tong et al. [53] optimized and strategically planned the integrated hydrocarbon biofuel system and oil supply chain under uncertainty. This paper proposes a twostage stochastic MILP model for optimal design and strategic planning of hydrocarbon and petroleum fuels using uncertainty. Tong et al. [54] designed the optimal design of an advanced integrated hydrocarbon biofuel supply chain with existing oil refineries and analyzed the three points of connection of the biofuel supply chain with oil refineries. They also provided a multiperiod fuzzy MILP model to consider uncertainties. In another paper in the same year, Tong et al. [55] designed an optimal biofuel supply chain for advanced integrated hydrocarbons with existing oil refineries and identified an integration strategy using the robust optimization approach.
Therefore, the contributions of this, are briefly as follows:
Elaborating a novel sustainable planning model to design a fuel and biofuel supply chain network to mitigate CO_{2} emissions and improve economic performance.
Addressing a comprehensive diesel supply chain including upstream, midstream, and downstream entities.
Developing a biobjective model to integrate gasoil and biodiesel supply chain network design.
Simultaneous consideration of environmental pollution caused by transportation within the supply chain and reduction of pollution due to the use of biodiesel instead of diesel.
Applying the developed biobjective mathematical model to a real case study.
3 Problem definition
The issue under discussion in this study is the design of an integrated gasoil and biodiesel supply chain network that considers all parts of both chains, from harvesting sites in the biodiesel supply chain and oil fields in the gasoil supply chain to final products for the customers. The issue discussed in this study is examined through a deterministic multiobjective MILP model so that in addition to maximizing profits as an economic goal, it also minimizes the emission of carbon dioxide as an environmental goal.
According to [56], the harvested biomass feed stocks can either be sent to integrated biorefineries for direct production, or undergo a twostage conversion process, namely preconversion and upgrading. Preconversion stage converts biomass into biointermediates (e.g., biooil and bioslurry) that is economical and efficient for transportation, whereas upgrading stage upgrades the biointermediates into final products [57]. Crude oil flows from oil fields to crude oil storage facilities, some of which are exported. In the biodiesel supply chain, Jatropha can be transferred from harvesting sites to collection centers and preprocessing centers and biodiesel refineries. On the one hand, after preprocessing in the biomass supply chain, the bioslurry enters the crude oil storage. The inflows to the crude oil storage centers enter the distillation towers. After separation, diesel is obtained in distillation towers, which the consumer cannot use according to the standards, and the final processing must be done in the production units. Bioslurry and biooil were obtained in preprocessing units, where biooils directly enter the upgrading units in oil refineries. On the other hand, the materials that come out of the preprocessing units can be turned into the final product in the upgrading units that are in the biofuel chain. Also, from biomass collection centers, they can be transferred directly to biodiesel refineries where all processes can be done and the final product can be obtained. The final product obtained from the upgrade units in the oil supply chain as well as the production units enters the product storage centers. There are two ways to get the final products from biodiesel refineries and upgrade centers in the biofuel supply chain: either entering the products’ storage centers and sending them to the distribution centers after mixing or sending them directly to the distribution centers where they can be mixed. Finally, the final product is sent from distribution centers to customer centers, industry and export centers. Figure 1 shows the schematic of the network examined in this paper: Oil fields, crude oil storage centers, distillation towers, upgrading units in the diesel supply chain, refinery production units, product storage centers, export terminals, distribution centers, Jatropha farms, Jatropha collection centers, preprocessing units, upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain, and biorefineries, each has a certain level of capacity. Except for the refinery production units, other cases have a fixed capacity. Refinery production units can increase capacity to a certain extent. There is infinite capacity for the means of transport and only one mode of transport is considered. The model will determine the construction of upgrading units in the diesel supply chain, Jatropha harvesting sites, Jatropha collection centers, preprocessing units, upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain, biorefineries and distribution centers.
Fig. 1 The structure of the integrated gasoil and biodiesel supply chain network studied in this paper (of: oil fields, so: crude oil storage, du: crude oil distillation centers, pu: refinery production units, uu: upgrading units in the gasoil supply chain, s: fuel storage centers, h: Jatropha harvesting centers, c: Jatropha collection centers, p: preprocessing units, u: upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain, br: biorefineries, dc: distribution centers, ex: export centers, in: industries, cu: customers). 
For crude oil storage centers, product storage centers and Jatropha storage centers, inventory costs are considered. In the upgrading units in the diesel supply chain, refinery production units, preprocessing units, upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain and biorefineries production yield. The environmental goal function considers two issues. The first is to minimize the emissions of carbon dioxide from transportation in the supply chain network, and the second is to maximize future savings from using biodiesel instead of diesel. These two issues are simultaneously considered in the environmental objective function. The problem is considered for a 7year planning horizon. However, to reduce the computational complexity of the problem, a time is considered each year. The main decisions made by the model: location, allocation, capacity expansion, inventory management, and production planning.
4 Model formulation
The indices, parameters, and variables of the proposed model are defined in the Table A.1 (Appendix).
In the current study, a MILP model with two objective functions is proposed. The first objective function is presented in equation (1) which maximizes the profit using net present value method. The second objective function is presented in equation (9) which minimizes the adverse environmental effects in a certain way that will be explained.
4.1 Economic objective function
The net present value of profit is equal to the net present value of incomes, minus the net present value of costs,
The net present value of the income is obtained by converting the income of each period to the present value in accordance with equation (2),
The income of each period in accordance with equation (3) is obtained from the total income from the sale of the product to local customers, industries and export centers, as well as the sale of crude oil to export centers,
Similar to the present value of incomes, to obtain the present value of the costs, we convert the sum of the costs of each period to the present value in accordance with equation (4),
According to equation (4), costs comprise several elements: investment costs, operating costs, transportation costs, and inventory holding costs. Investment costs in accordance with equation (5) are obtained from the costs of building potential centers and the costs of increasing the capacity of refinery production units,
The second cost element is operating costs, which are obtained in accordance with equation (6). In units where processing is performed, we have operating costs,
The third cost element is transportation costs, which are obtained in accordance with equation (7). Transportation costs are considered between all network units where raw materials, intermediate products and final products are transported.
The fourth cost element is inventory holding costs, which are obtained in accordance with equation (8). This cost is calculated for Jatropha storage units, crude oil storage units, and final product storage units,
4.2 Environmental objective function
In this paper, the environmental objective function is obtained from the difference between the two equations. Using the first equation, the goal is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions caused by transportation on the network. With the help of the second equation, the goal is to increase the savings in carbon dioxide emissions by using biodiesel instead of gasoil. This is shown in equations (9)–(11),
In equation (10), according to the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per unit distance due to network transport, the amount of carbon dioxide produced by transportation throughout the network is obtained,
In equation (11), according to the amount of biodiesel produced from different units of the supply chain network and the coefficient indicating a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions due to biodiesel instead of gasoil, the amount of carbon dioxide emission reduction is obtained,
4.3 Model constraints
Material balance constraint: equations (12)–(21) show the balance between inputs and outputs to network elements. In some elements, due to the loss of inputs, the output value is less than the input, which is formulated by considering the element’s efficiency factor,
Demand constraint: equations (22)–(25) indicate demand satisfaction. Equation (22) shows the satisfaction of crude oil demand for export terminals, equation (23) shows satisfaction of product demand for export terminals, equation (24) shows satisfaction of product demand for local customers and equation (25) shows satisfaction of product demand for industries,
Capacity constraint: equations (26)–(39) are related to considering network elements’ capacity for inputs and outputs. For potential points, the availability of that location is to be first checked, and if available, the capacity of that location to enter and exit the stream would be considered. In the case of refinery production units, the capacity varies according to the possibility of increasing production capacity, which is shown in equations (30) and (31),
Logical constraint: In this model, we have two types of binary variables: construction variables and availability variables. If a facility is built in one course, it can be used (available) from later courses. So if y (t − 1) is one, it means it is available from the previous period and no longer needs to be constructed in this period (x(t) = 0). In fact, it must have been built once from the first period to before the t period, and there is no need to rebuild it as shown in equations (40)–(46),
Also, for the first period, availability means construction. This is shown in equations (47)–(53),
The increase in refinery’s capacity production units cannot exceed a certain level. It is also possible to increase the capacity from the second period. The increases, as mentioned earlier, can be seen in equations (54) and (55),
Inventory constraint: The inventory in each period is equal to the sum of the inventory of the previous period, and is also equal to the difference between the outputs and inputs to each storage centre in the same period, all of which are shown in equations (56)–(58),
The inventory of each storage centre’s first period is equal to the difference between the outputs and inputs of the first period in the same storage centre,
5 Solution approach
Several methods have been proposed to solve multiobjective problems. These methods are classified into three categories: priori, interactive, and posteriori, depending on the type of decisionmaker’s role in decisionmaking. In priori methods, the decision maker is involved before the problem is solved. In interactive methods, communication with the decision maker is continuous and according to the received feedback, the calculations continue to converge to the desired result. In posteriori methods such as the εconstraint method, a set of optimal Pareto points is first obtained, which the decision makers can choose according to their own priorities. In this paper, the εconstraint method is used to solve the twoobjective model. First, each of the goals is optimized separately, the results of which can be seen in Table 2. Then, one goal is considered as a constraint and the other is optimized to get the Pareto border according to Figure 2.
Payoff results of the two objectives.
Fig. 2 Line representation of the Pareto optimal solutions. 
6 Case study
In order to show the performance of the proposed model, the gasoil and biodiesel supply network in Iran has been studied. The network includes 44 oil fields, 16 crude oil storage centers, 11 export terminals, 9 distillation units, 9 refinery production units, 9 potential locations for upgrading gasoil supply chain units, 9 gasoil and biodiesel storage centers, 10 potential locations for harvesting Jatropha, 10 potential locations for collecting Jatropha, 10 potential locations for preprocessing sites, 6 potential locations for upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain, 6 potential locations for biorefinery sites, 37 potential locations for distribution centers, 31 local customer centers, and finally 43 locations for Industry centers. The time horizon is 20 years. The provided information is summarized in the Table 3 (for more information please see Tables A.2, A.3 and A.4 from the Appendix).
Characteristics of case study supply chain elements.
Figure 3 shows the points in the network of case study. As can be seen in the figure, in the center of Iran the density of points is low. Conversely, in the southwestern border cities, the density is very high. The highest density rates of oil fields and other network elements exist in Khuzestan and Bushehr provinces.
Fig. 3 Potential and current points in the network of case study. 
Figure 3 shows all potential and actual points. After the equations in the model are solved and the answers are obtained, the set of network points will be as Figure 4. Crude oil is transported from 44 oil fields to crude oil storage centers. Crude oil is transferred directly to 11 export terminals or enters the country’s refinery network through 16 crude oil storage centers to produce its derivatives. After being transferred to 9 refineries, the crude oil first enters the distillation tower and then enters the refinery’s production units. The produced gas oil is transferred to 9 product storage centers. All of these elements are typically present in the diesel supply chain and are actual. Data related to the elements have been extracted from the hydrocarbon balance sheet of Iran [58]. In the biodiesel supply chain, the 10 potential Jatropha planting centers transfer Jatropha to its collection centers. These collection centers have been selected from 10 potential centers. Jatropha is either moved directly from collection centers to biorefineries or transferred to preprocessing units. Biorefineries are selected from 6 potential centers and preprocessing units from 10 potential centers. After preprocessing, the bioslurry enters the crude oil storage and biooils directly enter the upgrading units at oil refineries. These upgrading units are selected from 9 potential units. The materials coming out of the preprocessing units can be turned into the final product in the upgrading units that are in the biodiesel supply chain. Upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain have been selected from 6 potential units. Data on potential locations of biodiesel supply chain elements are given in papers [11] and [59]. Biodiesel produced in biorefineries and upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain can be transported directly to distribution centers or first to product storage centers and then to distribution centers. Distribution centers are selected from 37 potential centers. Finally, fuel is transported from distribution centers to local customers in 31 provinces and industries that are the 43 major diesel power plants.
Fig. 4 Current points in the network of case study. 
6.1 Results and discussion
The proposed model is coded in GAMS 24.1 optimization software and solved by CPLEX solver. The model characteristics are illustrated in Table 4.
Model statistics.
In the Table 5, three models of gasoil supply chain, nonintegrated gas oil and biodiesel supply chain, and integrated gas oil and biodiesel supply chain (study done in this article) have compared. As can be seen, although the costs of the biodiesel supply chain increase compared to the gas oil supply chain due to the construction of some facilities, the amount of the environmental objective function improves. Also, as mentioned in this article, if we use the supply chain integration approach, we have economic savings compared to the nonintegrated state.
Comparison between economic and environmental objective function in three models of gas oil supply chain, nonintegrated gasoil and biodiesel supply chain, and integrated gasoil and biodiesel supply chain.
Given that the model has been formulated and solved for a 20year time horizon, it is necessary to analyze the effects of changes in demand over the years. In this regard, we analyze the effect of demand changes up to 5% more or less on model elements. Given that the importance of economic and environmental goals in different years varies according to the policies adopted, the analysis is performed for both objective functions.
Figure 5 shows the changes in total profit relative to the change in demand. In both objective functions, as the demand increases or decreases, the amount of total profit decreases. To analyze this issue, it is necessary to identify the elements that make up the total profit and have them studied. In general, it can be said that with the increase in demand, although revenues increase, the rate of increase in expenditures to meet the specific demand is higher than the increase in revenues. Moreover, the decrease in demand, as the costs also decrease, the rate of decrease in revenues is higher than the rate of decrease in costs.
Fig. 5 Changes in total profits with changes in demand. 
Total income is generated through sales as much as demand, so the amount of income is equal for each economic and environmental goal. Figure 6 shows the rate of change in total income per change in demand. With increasing demand, total income will also increase.
Fig. 6 Total income changes with changes in demand. 
The total cost increases with increasing demand. As shown in Table 6, costs vary between 5% and 10% when they depend on an economic or environmental objective. These percentages vary by several hundred milliards dollars. As shown in Figure 7, the graph’s slope is less in the former parts of the graph. Given that the cost ratio is inversely related to total profit, Figure 5 shows that the first part of the diagram is sloping more.
Fig. 7 Total costs changes with changes in demand. 
Total costs changes with changes in demand.
The total amount of costs is derived from the sum of investment, transportation, operating, and holding costs. Due to the fact that the value of t is one year, in response to the model, the inventory has not been kept for 1 year. Therefore, investment, transportation, and operating costs must be investigated.
As shown in Figure 8, when the objective function is to maximize profits, investment costs, operating costs and transportation costs all increase with increasing demand. Also, in higher demand rates, the slope of changes in these costs increases with the change in demand. As can be seen in Figure 9, investment costs in both economic and environmental functions do not change in the same way. In the environmental objective function, because the cost is not considered important, the amount of investment costs does not coincide with demand change. With the change in demand in order to minimize the environmental impact, construction sites will also change and may decrease or increase the investment costs. In the case of operating costs and transportation costs, they increase as demand increases.
Fig. 8 Percentage of changes in investment costs, operating costs and transportation costs due to changes in demand, considering the profit maximization function as an objective function. (a) 5% reduction, (b) 2.5% reduction, (c) 2.5% increase, (d) 5% increase. 
Fig. 9 Percentage of changes in investment costs, operating costs and transportation costs due to changes in demand, considering the environmental pollution minimization function as an objective function. (a) 5% decrease, (b) 2.5% decrease, (c) 2.5% increase, (d) 5% increase. 
Changing environmental impacts by changing demand is another critical issue, which is shown in Figure 10 for both economic and environmental objectives. As expected, as the demand increases, the amount of environmental impact increases, which is less when the objective is to minimize the environmental impact.
Fig. 10 Changes in environmental impacts with changes in demand. 
Interest rate changes are one of the essential factors in the profitability of the entire supply chain in its time horizon. Figure 11 shows the total profit changes per change in interest rates. In two ways, the chart is upward; Firstly, income is higher than cost, therefore with the increase in interest rates, the difference in current value of income and cost will increase. Secondly, a large part of the investment costs are incurred in the first period and therefore are not affected by the interest rate changes.
Fig. 11 Total profit changes with changes in interest rates. 
Changes in total profit relative to price changes can be seen in Figure 12. As it is known, due to the higher price and high volume of exports, the most significant impact is due to the increase in export prices. The least impact is on changes in selling prices to industries because industries seem to have less demand. Figure 13 shows the amount of income generated by selling the product in different ways. In Figure 12, price changes for exports have a much more significant impact on overall profits. Figure 13 also shows that most of the income comes from exports and a very tiny percentage from the industry.
Fig. 12 Total profit changes with changes in selling prices. 
Fig. 13 Percentage of income from different sales routes. 
7 Conclusion and future research direction
In recent years, finding alternative energy sources to fossil fuels has become an important issue in the world. In addition to reducing environmental pollution and being renewable, these resources must be economical. Biofuels are considered to be a good source of energy due to their credible properties.
This paper examines the composition of the oilgas supply chain and the biodiesel supply chain and provides a model for using the oil gas network infrastructure to produce biodiesel to make biofuel production more economical. In this paper, for the first time, all the two supply chains’ elements are considered and optimized with integration. All location decisions, selection of the connection point of two supply chains, allocation, production planning, inventory management, and capacity expansion are all done by solving the MILP model. In order to consider environmental aspects, the function of the second objective is also used. In addition to considering the amount of carbon dioxide emissions due to transportation in the network, the environmental objective function also considers the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions due to the use of biodiesel instead of gas oil. In order to better evaluate the model, a realworld case study was performed in Iran and according to the data gathered, the model was solved and sensitivity analysis was performed. The multiobjective model was solved using the εconstraint method and the Pareto boundary was obtained.
The model results show that with increasing demand, total profit does not necessarily increase because as demand increases, increasing costs is more considerable than increasing incomes. As demand declines, incomes decline more than costs do, and total profit declines as well. Therefore, at a certain point in demand, the total profit is the highest. Also, in order to make the whole supply chain more profitable, the effect of increasing export prices is more than increasing sales prices to local customers or industries. By reducing the production costs of biodiesel, the proposed model on the one hand, makes it more economical to use instead of gas oil, and one the other hand, it is very effective in reducing the environmental pollution.
The above model can be expanded by considering social issues in order to achieve sustainable development. Also, considering uncertainty in important parameters such as demand, selling price and so forth can help make better decisions. Future researchers can consider secondgeneration biomass such as livestock waste and municipal wastewater that have the reliable potentiality in energy production.
References
 Ghelichi Z., SaidiMehrabad M., Pishvaee M.S. (2018) A stochastic programming approach toward optimal design and planning of an integrated green biodiesel supply chain network under uncertainty: A case study, Energy 156, 661–687. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ward H., Radebach A., Vierhaus I., Fügenschuh A., Steckel J. (2017) Reducing global CO_{2} emissions with the technologies we have, Resour. Energy Econ. 49, 201–217. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Khan T.M.Y., Atabani A.E., Badruddin I.A., Badarudin A., Khayoon M.S., Triwahyono S. (2014) Recent scenario and technologies to utilize nonedible oils for biodiesel production, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 37, 840–851. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Debnath D. (2019) Chapter 13 – Advanced biofuels: Supply chain management, in D. Debnath, S.C. Babu (eds), Biofuels, Bioenergy and Food Security, Academic Press, pp. 231–246. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gnansounou E. (2019) Chapter 4 – Economic assessment of biofuels, in A. Pandey, et al. (eds), Biofuels: Alternative feedstocks and conversion processes for the production of liquid and gaseous biofuels (2nd edn.), Academic Press, pp. 95–121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Sharma B., Lngalls R.G., Jones C.L., Khanchi A. (2013) Biomass supply chain design and analysis: Basis, overview, modeling, challenges, and future, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 24, 608–627. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Peri M., Baldi L. (2013) The effect of biofuel policies on feedstock market: Empirical evidence for rapeseed oil prices in EU, Resour. Energy Econ. 35, 1, 18–37. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Achten W.M.J., Verchot L., Franken Y.J., Mathijs E., Singh V.P., Aerts R., Muys B. (2008) Jatropha biodiesel production and use, Biomass Bioenergy 32, 1063–1084. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Downing M., Eaton L.M., Graham R.L., Langholtz M.H., Perlack R.D., Turhollow A.F. Jr, Stokes B., Brandt C.C. (2011) US billionton update: Biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Technical Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). [Google Scholar]
 Huber G.W., Corma A. (2007) Synergies between bio and oil refineries for the production of fuels from biomass, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 46, 38, 7184–7201. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Mahjoub N., Sahebi H., Mazdeh M., Teymouri A. (2020) Optimal design of the second and third generation biofuel supply network by a multiobjective model, J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120355. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fernandes L.J., Relvas S., BarbosaPóvoa A.P. (2013) Strategic network design of downstream petroleum supply chains: Single versus multientity participation, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 91, 8, 1557–1587. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fernandes L.O.J., Relvas S., BarbosaPóvoa A.P. (2014) Collaborative design and tactical planning of downstream petroleum supply chains, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53, 44, 17155–17181. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Guajardo M., Kylinger M., Rönnqvist M. (2013) Speciality oils supply chain optimization: From a decoupled to an integrated planning approach, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 229, 2, 540–551. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fiorencio L., Oliveira F., Nunes P., Hamacher S. (2015) Investment planning in the petroleum downstream infrastructure, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 22, 2, 339–362. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Kazemi Y., Szmerekovsky J. (2015) Modeling downstream petroleum supply chain: The importance of multimode transportation to strategic planning, Transp. Res E Logist. Transp. Rev. 83, 111–125. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ghezavati V.R., Ghaffarpour M., Salimian M. (2015) A hierarchical approach for designing the downstream segment for a supply chain of petroleum production systems, J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 8, 4, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
 Öztürkoğlu Ö., Lawal O. (2016) The integrated network model of pipeline, sea and road distribution of petroleum product, Int. J. Optimiz. Contr. Theor. Appl. 6, 2, 151–165. [Google Scholar]
 Ghaithan A.M., Attia A., Duffuaa S.O. (2017) Multiobjective optimization model for a downstream oil and gas supply chain, Appl. Math. Model. 52, 689–708. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lima C., Relvas S., BarbosaPóvoa A. (2018) Stochastic programming approach for the optimal tactical planning of the downstream oil supply chain, Comput. Chem. Eng. 108, 314–336. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Wang B., Liang Y., Zheng T., Yuan M., Zhang H. (2019) Optimisation of a downstream oil supply chain with new pipeline route planning, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 145, 300–313. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Leiras A., Ribas G., Hamacher S., Elkamel A. (2013) Tactical and operational planning of multirefinery networks under uncertainty: An iterative integration approach, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 25, 8507–8517. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gamari A., Sahebi H. (2017) The stochastic lotsizing problem with lost sales: A chemicalpetrochemical case study, J. Manuf. Syst. 44, 53–64. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Nasab N.M., AminNaseri M. (2016) Designing an integrated model for a multiperiod, multiechelon and multiproduct petroleum supply chain, Energy 114, 708–733. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Jabbarzadeh A., Pishvaee M., Papi A. (2016) A multiperiod fuzzy mathematical programming model for crude oil supply chain network design considering budget and equipment limitations, J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 9, special issue on supply chain, 88–107. [Google Scholar]
 Farahani M., Rahmani D. (2017) Production and distribution planning in petroleum supply chains regarding the impacts of gas injection and swap, Energy 141, 991–1003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Azadeh A., Shafiee F., Yazdanparast R., Heydari J., Mohammadi Fathabad A. (2017) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization of environmental indicators of integrated crude oil supply chain under uncertainty, J. Clean. Prod. 152, 295–311. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Azadeh A., Shafiee F., Yazdanparast R., Heydari J., Keshvarparast A. (2017) Optimum integrated design of crude oil supply chain by a unique mixed integer nonlinear programming model, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56, 19, 5734–5746. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Zhou X., Zhang H., Xin S., Yan Y., Long Y., Yuan M., Liang Y. (2020) Future scenario of China’s downstream oil supply chain: Low carbonoriented optimization for the design of planned multiproduct pipelines, J. Clean. Prod. 244, 118866. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Oliveira F., Grossmann I.E., Hamacher S. (2014) Accelerating benders stochastic decomposition for the optimization under uncertainty of the petroleum product supply chain, Comput. Oper. Res. 49, 47–58. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gupta V., Grossmann I.E. (2014) Multistage stochastic programming approach for offshore oilfield infrastructure planning under production sharing agreements and endogenous uncertainties, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 124, 180–197. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Beiranvand H., Ghazanfari M., Sahebi H., Pishvaee M.S. (2018) A robust crude oil supply chain design under uncertain demand and market price: A case study, Oil Gas Sci. Technol.  Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles 73, 66. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Babazadeh R. (2017) Optimal design and planning of biodiesel supply chain considering nonedible feedstock, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 75, 1089–1100. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Babazadeh R., Razmi J., Pishvaee M.S., Rabbani M. (2017) A sustainable secondgeneration biodiesel supply chain network design problem under risk, Omega 66, 258–277. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ezzati F., Babazadeh R., Donyavi A. (2018) Optimization of multimodal, multiperiod and complex biodiesel supply chain systems: Case study, Renew. Energy Focus 26, 81–92. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Kheybari S., Kazemi M., Rezaei J. (2019) Bioethanol facility location selection using bestworst method, Appl. Energy 242, 612–623. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Kang S., Heo S., Realff M., Lee J. (2020) Threestage design of highresolution microalgaebased biofuel supply chain using geographic information system, Appl. Energy 265, 114773. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lin T., Rodriguez L., Shastri Y., Hansen A., Ting K.C. (2014) Integrated strategic and tactical biomass–biofuel supply chain optimization, Bioresour. Technol. 156, 256–266. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Xie F., Huang Y., Eksioglu S. (2014) Integrating multimodal transport into cellulosic biofuel supply chain design under feedstock seasonality with a case study based on California, Bioresour. Technol. 152, 15–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 SantibañezAguilar J.E., ReveraToledo M., FloresTlacuahuac A., PonceOrtega J.M. (2015) A mixedinteger dynamic optimization approach for the optimal planning of distributed biorefineries, Compute. Chem. Eng. 80, 37–62. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Mousavi Ahranjani P., Ghaderi S.F., Azadeh A., Babazadeh R. (2018) Hybrid multiobjective robust possibilistic programming approach to a sustainable bioethanol supply chain network design, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57, 44, 15066–15083. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fattahi M., Govindan K. (2018) A multistage stochastic program for the sustainable design of biofuel supply chain networks under biomass supply uncertainty and disruption risk: A reallife case study, Transp. Res E Logist. Transp. Rev. 118, 534–567. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ghani N.M.A.M.A., Vogiatzis C., Szmerekovsky J. (2018) Biomass feedstock supply chain network design with biomass conversion incentives, Energy Policy 116, 39–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Azadeh A., Arani H.V., Dashti H. (2014) A stochastic programming approach towards optimization of biofuel supply chain, Energy 76, 513–525. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Zhang Y., Jiang Y. (2017) Robust optimization on sustainable biodiesel supply chain produced from waste cooking oil under price uncertainty, Waste Manag. 60, 329–339. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Mohseni S., Pishvaee M.S., Sahebi H. (2016) Robust design and planning of microalgae biomasstobiodiesel supply chain: A case study in Iran, Energy 111, 736–755. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gilani H., Sahebi H., Oliveira F. (2020) Sustainable sugarcanetobioethanol supply chain network design: A robust possibilistic programming model, Appl. Energy 278, 115653. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Bairamzadeh S., SaidiMehrabad M., Pishvaee M.S. (2018) Modelling different types of uncertainty in biofuel supply network design and planning: A robust optimization approach, Renew. Energy 116, 500–517. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Shavazipour B., Stray J., Stewart T.J. (2020) Sustainable planning in sugarbioethanol supply chain under deep uncertainty: A case study of South African sugarcane industry, Comput. Chem. Eng. 143, 107091. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ghaderi H., Moini A., Pishvaee M.S. (2018) A multiobjective robust possibilistic programming approach to sustainable switchgrassbased bioethanol supply chain network design, J. Clean. Prod. 179, 368–406. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Babazadeh R., Ghaderi H., Pishvaee M.S. (2019) A benderslocal branching algorithm for secondgeneration biodiesel supply chain network design under epistemic uncertainty, Comput. Chem. Eng. 124, 364–380. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Razm S., Nickel S., Saidimehrabad M., Sahebi H. (2019) A global bioenergy supply network redesign through integrating transfer pricing under uncertain condition, J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1081–1095. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Tong K., Gong J., Yue D., You F. (2013) Stochastic programming approach to optimal design and operations of integrated hydrocarbon biofuel and petroleum supply chains, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2, 1, 49–61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Tong K., Gleeson M.J., Rong G., You F. (2014) Optimal design of advanced dropin hydrocarbon biofuel supply chain integrating with existing petroleum refineries under uncertainty, Biomass Bioenergy 60, 108–120. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Tong K., You F., Rong G. (2014) Robust design and operations of hydrocarbon biofuel supply chain integrating with existing petroleum refineries considering unit cost objective, Comput. Chem. Eng. 68, 128–139. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Wang B., Gebreslassie B.H., You F. (2013) Sustainable design and synthesis of hydrocarbon biorefinery via gasification pathway: Integrated life cycle assessment and technoeconomic analysis with multiobjective superstructure optimization, Comput. Chem. Eng. 52, 55–76. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gebreslassie B.H., Yao Y., You F. (2012) Design under uncertainty of hydrocarbon biorefinery supply chains: Multiobjective stochastic programming models, decomposition algorithm, and a Comparison between CVaR and downside risk, AIChE J. 58, 7, 2155–2179. [Google Scholar]
 Adhitya A., Srinivasan R., Karimi I.A. (2007) Heuristic rescheduling of crude oil operations to manage abnormal supply chain events, AIChE J. 53, 2, 397–422. [Google Scholar]
 Babazadeh R., Razmi J., Rabbani M., Pishvaee M.S. (2017) An integrated data envelopment analysis – mathematical programming approach to strategic biodiesel supply chain network design problem, J. Clean. Prod. 147, 694–707. [Google Scholar]
Appendix
The indices, parameters, and variables of the proposed model.
Capacity of distribution centers considered in this paper.
Cost of construction of distribution centers.
Cost of purchasing a unit of the capacity of the Jatropha harvesting center.
All Tables
An overview of some papers in oil supply chain and its derivatives and biofuel supply chain.
Comparison between economic and environmental objective function in three models of gas oil supply chain, nonintegrated gasoil and biodiesel supply chain, and integrated gasoil and biodiesel supply chain.
All Figures
Fig. 1 The structure of the integrated gasoil and biodiesel supply chain network studied in this paper (of: oil fields, so: crude oil storage, du: crude oil distillation centers, pu: refinery production units, uu: upgrading units in the gasoil supply chain, s: fuel storage centers, h: Jatropha harvesting centers, c: Jatropha collection centers, p: preprocessing units, u: upgrading units in the biodiesel supply chain, br: biorefineries, dc: distribution centers, ex: export centers, in: industries, cu: customers). 

In the text 
Fig. 2 Line representation of the Pareto optimal solutions. 

In the text 
Fig. 3 Potential and current points in the network of case study. 

In the text 
Fig. 4 Current points in the network of case study. 

In the text 
Fig. 5 Changes in total profits with changes in demand. 

In the text 
Fig. 6 Total income changes with changes in demand. 

In the text 
Fig. 7 Total costs changes with changes in demand. 

In the text 
Fig. 8 Percentage of changes in investment costs, operating costs and transportation costs due to changes in demand, considering the profit maximization function as an objective function. (a) 5% reduction, (b) 2.5% reduction, (c) 2.5% increase, (d) 5% increase. 

In the text 
Fig. 9 Percentage of changes in investment costs, operating costs and transportation costs due to changes in demand, considering the environmental pollution minimization function as an objective function. (a) 5% decrease, (b) 2.5% decrease, (c) 2.5% increase, (d) 5% increase. 

In the text 
Fig. 10 Changes in environmental impacts with changes in demand. 

In the text 
Fig. 11 Total profit changes with changes in interest rates. 

In the text 
Fig. 12 Total profit changes with changes in selling prices. 

In the text 
Fig. 13 Percentage of income from different sales routes. 

In the text 