# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Resource allocation flowshop scheduling with learning effect and slack due window assignment
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Decision framework for location and selection of container multimodal hubs: A case in china under the belt and road initiative
doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021011

## Robust control in green production management

 1 Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China 2 The Research Center of Information Technology & Social and Economic Development, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China

* Corresponding author: Jian-Xin Guo, guojianxin@casisd.cn

Received  February 2020 Revised  October 2020 Published  December 2020

Fund Project: Support from National Key R&D Program of China, 2018YFC1509008; National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 71801212 and 71701058.

This study proposes a robust control model for a production management problem related to dynamic pricing and green investment. Contaminants produced during the production process contribute to the accumulation of pollution stochastically. We derive optimal robust controls and identify conditions under which some concerns about model misspecification are discussed. We observe that optimal price and investment control decrease in the degree of robustness. We also examine the cost of robustness and the relevant importance of contributions in the overall value function. The theoretical results are applied to a calibrated model regarding production management. Finally, we compare robust choices with those in the benchmark stochastic model. Numerical simulations show that robust decision-making can indeed adjust investment decisions based on the level of uncertainty.

Citation: Jian-Xin Guo, Xing-Long Qu. Robust control in green production management. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021011
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
$p^{*}(S)$ with different levels of robustness
$e^{*}(S)$ with different levels of model robustness
Price $p_t$ sensitivity analysis: the left image is $k_p = k_p(s, \theta)$, and the right image is $b_p = b_p(s, \theta)$
Abatement effort $e_t$ sensitivity analysis: the left image is $k_e = k_e(s, \theta)$, and the right image is $b_e = b_e(s, \theta)$
Demand $d_t$ sensitivity analysis: the left image is $k_d = k_d(s, \theta)$, and the right image is $b_d = b_d(s, \theta)$
Model parameters used in the simulation
 Parameter Description Value $T$ Time Duration 20 $S_0$ Pollution stock in the initial year 100 $r$ Compound Rate 5% $\alpha$ Potential market size 1001 $\beta$ Coefficient in the demand function associated with the sales price 11 $s$ Co-benefit of the abatement effort 0.12 $\tau$ Coefficient of environmental damage caused by accumulation of pollution 0.53 $c$ Cost coefficient associated with firm's pollution abatement effort 14 $\delta$ Pollution decay rate 0.13 $\sigma$ Volatility parameter in $S_t$ 105 $\theta$ Robust parameter depends 1 Parameters in the demand function mainly refer to the relevant literature [38, 5, 7] and are corrected. The special relative relationship must be kept reasonable. 2 This parameter mainly refers to [5], whose magnitude corresponds to $\alpha, \beta$. 3 This parameter mainly refers to [17] and is adjusted. 4 This parameter mainly refers to [7] and is adjusted. 5 This parameter mainly refers to [29] and is adjusted.
 Parameter Description Value $T$ Time Duration 20 $S_0$ Pollution stock in the initial year 100 $r$ Compound Rate 5% $\alpha$ Potential market size 1001 $\beta$ Coefficient in the demand function associated with the sales price 11 $s$ Co-benefit of the abatement effort 0.12 $\tau$ Coefficient of environmental damage caused by accumulation of pollution 0.53 $c$ Cost coefficient associated with firm's pollution abatement effort 14 $\delta$ Pollution decay rate 0.13 $\sigma$ Volatility parameter in $S_t$ 105 $\theta$ Robust parameter depends 1 Parameters in the demand function mainly refer to the relevant literature [38, 5, 7] and are corrected. The special relative relationship must be kept reasonable. 2 This parameter mainly refers to [5], whose magnitude corresponds to $\alpha, \beta$. 3 This parameter mainly refers to [17] and is adjusted. 4 This parameter mainly refers to [7] and is adjusted. 5 This parameter mainly refers to [29] and is adjusted.
Model parameters with different levels of robustness
 $l$ $m$ $n$ $\Delta_m$ $\Delta_n$ $\theta$=200 106304.82 -258.15 0.27 -138.15 0.11 $\theta$=500 81176.12 -153.22 0.16 -33.22 0.03 $\theta$=800 77749.76 -138.88 0.15 -18.88 0.02 $\theta=\infty$ 73244.95 -120.0 0.13 0 0
 $l$ $m$ $n$ $\Delta_m$ $\Delta_n$ $\theta$=200 106304.82 -258.15 0.27 -138.15 0.11 $\theta$=500 81176.12 -153.22 0.16 -33.22 0.03 $\theta$=800 77749.76 -138.88 0.15 -18.88 0.02 $\theta=\infty$ 73244.95 -120.0 0.13 0 0
Control processes with different levels of robustness
 $h_t$ $p_t$ $e_t$ $\theta$=200 -0.03$S$ + 12.90 -0.28$S$ + 185.34 -0.25$S$ + 125.43 $\theta$=500 -0.006$S$ + 3.06 -0.16$S$ + 130.38 -0.15$S$ + 75.46 $\theta$=800 -0.003$S$ + 1.73 -0.15$S$ + 122.87 -0.14$S$ + 68.63 $\theta=\infty$ 0 -0.13$S$ + 112.98 -0.12$S$ + 59.64
 $h_t$ $p_t$ $e_t$ $\theta$=200 -0.03$S$ + 12.90 -0.28$S$ + 185.34 -0.25$S$ + 125.43 $\theta$=500 -0.006$S$ + 3.06 -0.16$S$ + 130.38 -0.15$S$ + 75.46 $\theta$=800 -0.003$S$ + 1.73 -0.15$S$ + 122.87 -0.14$S$ + 68.63 $\theta=\infty$ 0 -0.13$S$ + 112.98 -0.12$S$ + 59.64
 [1] Ellina Grigorieva, Evgenii Khailov. Optimal control of pollution stock. Conference Publications, 2011, 2011 (Special) : 578-588. doi: 10.3934/proc.2011.2011.578 [2] T. Tachim Medjo. Robust control of a Cahn-Hilliard-Navier-Stokes model. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2016, 15 (6) : 2075-2101. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2016028 [3] Roberta Ghezzi, Benedetto Piccoli. Optimal control of a multi-level dynamic model for biofuel production. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2017, 7 (2) : 235-257. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2017008 [4] Yuepeng Wang, Yue Cheng, I. Michael Navon, Yuanhong Guan. Parameter identification techniques applied to an environmental pollution model. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (2) : 817-831. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017077 [5] Caojin Zhang, George Yin, Qing Zhang, Le Yi Wang. Pollution control for switching diffusion models: Approximation methods and numerical results. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (8) : 3667-3687. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018310 [6] Lino J. Alvarez-Vázquez, Néstor García-Chan, Aurea Martínez, Miguel E. Vázquez-Méndez. Optimal control of urban air pollution related to traffic flow in road networks. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2018, 8 (1) : 177-193. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2018008 [7] A Voutilainen, Jari P. Kaipio. Model reduction and pollution source identification from remote sensing data. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2009, 3 (4) : 711-730. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2009.3.711 [8] Gregory Zitelli, Seddik M. Djouadi, Judy D. Day. Combining robust state estimation with nonlinear model predictive control to regulate the acute inflammatory response to pathogen. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2015, 12 (5) : 1127-1139. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.1127 [9] Pasquale Palumbo, Pierdomenico Pepe, Simona Panunzi, Andrea De Gaetano. Robust closed-loop control of plasma glycemia: A discrete-delay model approach. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2009, 12 (2) : 455-468. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2009.12.455 [10] T. Tachim Medjo, Louis Tcheugoue Tebou. Robust control problems in fluid flows. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2005, 12 (3) : 437-463. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2005.12.437 [11] Lingshuang Kong, Changjun Yu, Kok Lay Teo, Chunhua Yang. Robust real-time optimization for blending operation of alumina production. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (3) : 1149-1167. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016066 [12] Michela Eleuteri, Jana Kopfov, Pavel Krej?. Fatigue accumulation in an oscillating plate. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2013, 6 (4) : 909-923. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2013.6.909 [13] T. Tachim Medjo. On the Newton method in robust control of fluid flow. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2003, 9 (5) : 1201-1222. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2003.9.1201 [14] T. Tachim Medjo. Robust control problems for primitive equations of the ocean. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2011, 15 (3) : 769-788. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2011.15.769 [15] Magdi S. Mahmoud, Omar Al-Buraiki. Robust control design of autonomous bicycle kinematics. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2014, 4 (3) : 181-191. doi: 10.3934/naco.2014.4.181 [16] Xavier Litrico, Vincent Fromion, Gérard Scorletti. Robust feedforward boundary control of hyperbolic conservation laws. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2007, 2 (4) : 717-731. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2007.2.717 [17] Simone Göttlich, Patrick Schindler. Optimal inflow control of production systems with finite buffers. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (1) : 107-127. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.107 [18] Faker Ben Belgacem. Uniqueness for an ill-posed reaction-dispersion model. Application to organic pollution in stream-waters. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2012, 6 (2) : 163-181. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2012.6.163 [19] Chiu-Ya Lan, Huey-Er Lin, Shih-Hsien Yu. The Green's functions for the Broadwell Model in a half space problem. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2006, 1 (1) : 167-183. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.167 [20] Claudio Giorgi, Diego Grandi, Vittorino Pata. On the Green-Naghdi Type III heat conduction model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2014, 19 (7) : 2133-2143. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2014.19.2133

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366