sustainability

Article
Coal Industrial Supply Chain Network and
Associated Evaluation Models
Ge He, Li Zhou, Yiyang Dai , Yagu Dang and Xu Ji *
School of Chemical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China; hegescu@gmail.com (G.H.);
chezli@scu.edu.cn (L.Z.); daiyy@scu.edu.cn (Y.D.); derkdang@scu.edu.cn (Y.D.)
* Correspondence: jixu@scu.edu.cn




Received: 15 September 2020; Accepted: 9 November 2020; Published: 27 November 2020


Abstract: To improve integration and achieve better coal industry materials and energy balance,
integrated collaborative supply chains (SCs) are needed. However, as single-core SC models are not
suitable for complex coal industry systems, a multicore, correlated, conditional SC model, called
a supply chain network (SCN), is proposed. SCN collaborative evaluation models are discussed
including industrial metabolic balance (IMB), enterprise profitability, contract execution ability and
information interaction ability, for which IMB is used as the efficiency index of resource coordination
of SCN, also as the constraints of the models on system levels. Further, data modeling by using
BP-ANN algorithm is used to predict the profitability of supply chain network. Finally, the feasibility
of the above models is illustrated by cases. The proposed evaluation models in this paper form the
scientific and quantitative evaluation method of SC, which could be used for both SC planning and
operations management helping detect and eliminate risks.

Keywords: supply chain network; coal industry; grey relational analysis; neural networks; industrial
metabolism balance; collaboration

1. Introduction
As a result of technological development trends and the structural characteristics of new energy,
the energy industry, which encompasses the coal, oil and gas and new energy industries, needs to
find new development modes to respond to the challenges of the ever-increasing environmental
requirements and production and marketing and energy-price volatility imbalances [1]. In China,
the resource endowment is characterized by rich coal, poor oil and less gas, so the coal industry
occupies a dominant position in China’s energy consumption. In the past 40 years of economic
development, coal accounts for 70% of energy consumption. The development of the Chinese coal
industry can be divided into four stages [2]. The first stage to the fourth stage is the introduction
period, growth period, maturity period and decline period. At present, due to the strong constraints on
environmental resources and the enhancement of energy substitutability, the market demand for coal
has declined [3]. With the reform of government supply side and the improvement of energy structure,
the coal proportion has decreased as the share of natural gas and other clean energies has increased,
intensifying the coal chemical industry production surplus. In 2014, mining fixed asset investment was
USD 0.23 trillion, an increase of 0.7%; however, coal asset investment experienced a decrease of 9.5% to
USD 73.2 billion, the second consecutive year of negative growth (2015 China Mineral Resources, 2015),
and in 2015, average coal industry capacity utilization decreased by 26%. Therefore, the government
has issued a series of policies to eliminate backward production capacity, resolve excess capacity and
improve the quality of coal supply [4,5]. In the coal supply chain involved in the production, supply,
transportation, demand and other different links, there are many trading subjects and enterprises,
and always through the two-way flow of logistics and capital flow, bank settlement and financing

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919; doi:10.3390/su12239919 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 2 of 20

Sustainability
demand is 2020,huge12, x FOR
[6,7]. PEER REVIEW
Enterprise agglomeration 2 of 20
and industry integration trends, which have attracted
significant research and engineering practice attention, have therefore become important development
trends, which have attracted significant research and engineering practice attention, have therefore
directions for the coal industry [8]. Supply chain integration has been seen to be a typical solution,
become important development directions for the coal industry [8]. Supply chain integration has been
with such supply chain (SC) integration and collaboration mainly focused on material movement value
seen to be a typical solution, with such supply chain (SC) integration and collaboration mainly
chains from raw material suppliers to manufacturers to distributors to retailers and customers [9,10],
focused on material movement value chains from raw material suppliers to manufacturers to
as shown in Figure 1.
distributors to retailers and customers [9,10], as shown in Figure 1.

supply node i1 customer i1

supply node i customer i
supply node in customer in
core enterprise
supply node jn customer jn
supply node j customer j
supply node j1 customer j1

Figure 1. Supply chain model with single core.

Figure 1. Supply chain model with single core.
Consequently, SC collaborative evaluation has become an important research focus for SC
Consequently, SC collaborative evaluation has become an important research focus for SC
establishment and optimization [11–17]. Lambert et al. indicated that successful SC management
establishment and optimization [11–17]. Lambert et al. indicated that successful SC management
depended on the focal members of SC, which integrated SC by four components: planning, control
depended on the focal members of SC, which integrated SC by four components: planning, control
methods, workflow, communication and information flow facility structure. The integration and
methods, workflow, communication and information flow facility structure. The integration and
redesign initiatives of SC should be aimed at promoting efficiency and effectiveness of the whole
redesign initiatives of SC should be aimed at promoting efficiency and effectiveness of the whole SC
SC and every member of the supply chain [18,19]. Zhang analyzed the influential factor action
and every member of the supply chain [18,19]. Zhang analyzed the influential factor action
mechanism in supply chains using self-organization theory, from which SC technology spillover
mechanism in supply chains using self-organization theory, from which SC technology spillover
models were established [20]. Kristianto introduced an initial basis for an innovative decision support
models were established [20]. Kristianto introduced an initial basis for an innovative decision support
systems platform which was capable of integrating supply chain system design, management, control
systems platform which was capable of integrating supply chain system design, management, control
and optimization activities [21]. Anbanandam developed a method, which included factors such
and optimization activities [21]. Anbanandam developed a method, which included factors such as
as management commitment, information sharing, trust between supply chain partners, long-term
management commitment, information sharing, trust between supply chain partners, long-term
relationships, as well as risk and reward sharing variables, to measure the collaborative degree between
relationships, as well as risk and reward sharing variables, to measure the collaborative degree
apparel retailers and manufacturers in the retail apparel industry [22]. Zokaee presented a robust
between apparel retailers and manufacturers in the retail apparel industry [22]. Zokaee presented a
optimization model for the design of a supply chain facing uncertainty in demand, supply capacity
robust optimization model for the design of a supply chain facing uncertainty in demand, supply
and major cost data including transportation and shortage cost parameters [23]. Arampantzi propose
capacity and major cost data including transportation and shortage cost parameters [23]. Arampantzi
a new Multi-objective Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MMILP) model, which captures significant
propose a new Multi-objective Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MMILP) model, which captures
decisions involved in designing or redesigning high performance, sustainable supply chains. To solve
significant decisions involved in designing or redesigning high performance, sustainable supply
the proposed model, both goal programming and the e-constraint method to achieve efficient trade-offs
chains. To solve the proposed model, both goal programming and the e-constraint method to achieve
among the three objectives are used [24]. However, to date, as most SC research has been business
efficient trade-offs among the three objectives are used [24]. However, to date, as most SC research
oriented, there have been few energy industry focused studies. In fact, to realize sustainable coal
has been business oriented, there have been few energy industry focused studies. In fact, to realize
chemical industry development, enterprises need to diversify value and promote industrial chain
sustainable coal chemical industry development, enterprises need to diversify value and promote
integration, increasing the complexity of the SC structure [25–27]. The coal chemical industry chain is
industrial chain integration, increasing the complexity of the SC structure [25–27]. The coal chemical
shown in Figure 2.
industry chain is shown in Figure 2.
The coal chemical industry refers to the process of converting coal into gas, liquid and solid
fuels and chemicals, mainly including coal gasification, liquefaction, retorting, tar processing and
calcium carbide acetylene chemical industry. In order to realize clean and efficient utilization of
coal resources, various technical paths, product categories and market supplies should be integrated
and complementary based on the balance of mass, energy, chemical reactions and special market
conditions. At the same time, the utilization of waste gas, synthetic tail gas, coal gasification and
combustion ash and other wastes and surplus energy are also important. In essence, on each node
of SC, the physical form and material composition could be changed obeying the rules of energy
and material balance, it is the distinctions between chemical industry supply chain integration and
other industry supply chain integration. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a single-core model for
a complex supply chain that embraces coal resources, industrial production, consumption as well
as environmental factors. As business difficulties by a single enterprise in the coal industrial chain
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 3 of 20

can lead to a decrease and/or fluctuation in SC integration, making it difficult to maintain normal
operations, constructing collaborative evaluation models adapted to the carbon industry chain would
be a more practical solution [28]. To improve the coordination and the robustness of the coal industry
chain, the viability of a multicore supply chain and its associated collaborative evaluation models
needs to be2020,
Sustainability evaluated based
12, x FOR PEER on the coal industry properties.
REVIEW 3 of 20

S CO2
electricity
coal gas electricity
heatsupply heat

emission
topping carbocoal

chemkleen chemical products

supply
liquifying gasoline

generation
supply industry supply expend emission environment
water application
heat industry or civil

supply
acetylith C

emission
supply
coal electricity
flyash reuse

CO2
hydrocarbon
gasificiation synthesis
gas indirect alcohols and for vihecle
liquefaction ether
foe industry and civil

Figure 2. The
Figure 2. The coal
coal industry
industry chain.
chain.

There have been some research interests in the development of multinode SC models.
The coal chemical industry refers to the process of converting coal into gas, liquid and solid fuels
Dan proposed a stochastic programming model for locating distribution centers to adapt to the
and chemicals, mainly including coal gasification, liquefaction, retorting, tar processing and calcium
dynamically changing demands at retailers’ sites [29]. Tang analyzed the SC robustness when faced
carbide acetylene chemical industry. In order to realize clean and efficient utilization of coal
with catastrophic disruption events [30]. Ma proposed an integrated bilevel production-distribution
resources, various technical paths, product categories and market supplies should be integrated and
planning model aimed at minimizing total costs on the condition that the core firm plays a key role
complementary based on the balance of mass, energy, chemical reactions and special market
in deciding which node in the SC serves customers [31]. Herwig identified resources, objects and
conditions. At the same time, the utilization of waste gas, synthetic tail gas, coal gasification and
parameters for supply chain flexibility, and designed and highlighted the potential of a strategic supply
combustion ash and other wastes and surplus energy are also important. In essence, on each node of
chain network to improve SC flexibility [32]. Farahani [33] reviewed and introduced the main features
SC, the physical form and material composition could be changed obeying the rules of energy and
of the models proposed in both supply chain network design (SCND) and competition literature.
material balance, it is the distinctions between chemical industry supply chain integration and other
After investigating the proposed competitive SCND model, a general framework of competitive
industry supply chain integration. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a single-core model for a
SCND problem modeling considering management insight is developed, and the potential areas for
complex supply chain that embraces coal resources, industrial production, consumption as well as
future research are proposed. Based on the closed-loop supply chain network, Amin [34] propose a
environmental factors. As business difficulties by a single enterprise in the coal industrial chain can
mixed-integer linear programming model with minimum total cost, which can be extended to consider
lead to a decrease and/or fluctuation in SC integration, making it difficult to maintain normal
environmental factors by weighted sum and a-constraint method. The test results show that the model
operations, constructing collaborative evaluation models adapted to the carbon industry chain would
can deal with demand and return uncertainties, simultaneously. Amin [35] proposed a mathematical
be a more practical solution [28]. To improve the coordination and the robustness of the coal industry
model for a closed-loop supply chain network by considering global factors, including exchange rates
chain, the viability of a multicore supply chain and its associated collaborative evaluation models
and customs duties. To design a multiproduct closed-loop green supply chain network consisting
needs to be evaluated based on the coal industry properties.
of manufacturing/remanufacturing and collection/inspection centers as well as disposal center and
There have been some research interests in the development of multinode SC models. Dan
markets, Talaei [36] proposed a mixed-integer linear programming model capable of reducing the
proposed a stochastic programming model for locating distribution centers to adapt to the
network total costs. The model has been developed so as to consider such environmental objectives as
dynamically changing demands at retailers’ sites [29]. Tang analyzed the SC robustness when faced
reducing the rate of carbon dioxide emission in the environment throughout the network in question.
with catastrophic disruption events [30]. Ma proposed an integrated bilevel production-distribution
Li et al. [37] take the coal supply chain network as the research object, combined with the carbon
planning model aimed at minimizing total costs on the condition that the core firm plays a key role
emission policy and establish the comprehensive decision-making model for sustainable design of
in deciding which node in the SC serves customers [31]. Herwig identified resources, objects and
coal supply chain. Through empirical analysis and comparison of four different carbon emission
parameters for supply chain flexibility, and designed and highlighted the potential of a strategic
policies on coal supply chain network optimization, it is found that coal enterprises have the best
supply chain network to improve SC flexibility [32]. Farahani [33] reviewed and introduced the main
emission reduction effect under carbon trading policy. Ghahremani-Nahr [38] proposed a facility
features of the models proposed in both supply chain network design (SCND) and competition
literature. After investigating the proposed competitive SCND model, a general framework of
competitive SCND problem modeling considering management insight is developed, and the
potential areas for future research are proposed. Based on the closed-loop supply chain network,
Amin [34] propose a mixed-integer linear programming model with minimum total cost, which can
be extended to consider environmental factors by weighted sum and a-constraint method. The test
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 4 of 20

location/allocation model for a multiechelon multiproduct multiperiod CLSC network under shortage,
uncertainty and discount on the purchase of raw materials. To design the network, a mixed-integer
nonlinear programming (MINLP) model capable of reducing total costs of network is proposed.
Ahmadzadeh [39] propose a nonlinear programming model based on the three-level closed loop
supply chain for location-inventory-pricing decisions and use three meta-heuristic algorithms for
solving it namely the genetic algorithm (GA), the imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) and the
firefly algorithm (FA).However, as the above SC models were based on one core firm, these models
and methods are unable to meet the evaluation and optimization needs for a complex multicore
SC. To improve coal industry industrial structural theory and address the shortage of collaborative
evaluation models for the coal industry supply chain network, a new collaborative SC evaluation model
will be proposed in this paper which considers industrial metabolic balance, sustainable profitability,
enterprise contract execution ability and information interactivity.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a multicore supply chain,
called the SCN and presents a theoretical discussion of the current evaluation models. In Section 3,
case studies are presented to analyze the SCN and the associated coal industry evaluation models.
Grey relational analysis (GRA) is applied to remove lowly correlated, nonindependent influential
factors, and a hybrid GA-BP algorithm is used to establish an enterprise profitability model. Finally,
in Section 4, we conclude the paper and discuss future research directions.

2. Multinode Supply Chain and Collaborative Evaluation Models

2.1. Multinode Supply Chain

As discussed, because of complex product structures, materials cross linking, the rigid constraints
for each single chemical process and the need for close collaboration between SC node enterprises,
it is difficult to establish stable closed-loop material balance and decision optimization models for
coal enterprise groups [40]. To achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, material balances and conditions
suitable for the enterprise group, a multicore, correlated, conditional supply chain mode is required to
integrate the environmental, industrial and market requirements; a “resource–product–consumption–
waste–renewable resource”; which is composed of a variety of enterprises and correlative entities,
all of which are seen as equivalent.
To distinguish the difference from a single-core SC model, the above multicore SC mode is named
the supply chain network (SCN). In the SCN, resources, machining, markets, the environment and
other related factors are called nodes, each of which is independent but also connected through
cooperative contracts and material flows. The connection modes between the nodes are known as a
cooperative mode, a competitive mode and a cooperative-competitive mode. The SCN can achieve
overall optimal benefit and minimum environmental impacts by balancing resources and energy and
integrating production and the market. As there are multiple core enterprises in the SCN, integration and
cooperation between the nodes is extremely important. Stable, reliable coordination among the nodes
is the most important feature of SCNs, for which codecisions, information sharing, fair competition
and benefit equilibrium are the key factors for overall SCN collaborations and optimal performances.
SCN coordination evaluation models, therefore, are significantly different to those of a SC.

2.2. SCN Coordinated Evaluation Models

Previous studies have shown that partnership diagnoses, reliability analyses and risk identification
and assessment are important for general SCN collaborative evaluations. For the coal chemical industry,
correlation, conditionality and an atomic economy are the main differences from other industries;
therefore, the coal industry supply chain network should be studied from the atomic levels to the
system levels to meet the evaluative collaborative needs. In this thesis, the evaluation models for SCN
was built based on the three-hierarchized process mechanism models and management models for
chemical industry,
Previous correlation,
studies conditionality
have shown and an atomic
that partnership economy reliability
diagnoses, are the main differences
analyses andfrom
risk
other industries; therefore, the coal industry supply chain network should be studied
identification and assessment are important for general SCN collaborative evaluations. For the from the atomic
coal
levels
chemicalto the systemcorrelation,
industry, levels to meet the evaluative
conditionality and collaborative needs. are
an atomic economy In this thesis,differences
the main the evaluation
from
models for SCN was built based on the three-hierarchized process mechanism
other industries; therefore, the coal industry supply chain network should be studied from the atomic models and
management
Sustainability models
2020, 12, 9919 for chemical processes, shown as Figure 3, which include dynamic
levels to the system levels to meet the evaluative collaborative needs. In this thesis, the evaluation process
5 of 20
simulation
models formodels,SCN was process control
built based models,
on thetechnical and economicprocess
three-hierarchized evaluation and decision-making
mechanism models and
models.
management modelsshown for chemical processes, shown as Figure process
3, which include dynamic process
chemical processes, as Figure 3, which include dynamic simulation models, process
simulation
control models, models, process control models, technical and economic evaluation and decision-making
typetechnical and economic evaluation and decision-making models.
models
models.
Tech-Economy reliability multi-objectives synergy evaluation
Assessment
type data resource
evaluation optimization models
models
models
Tech-Economy reliability multi-objectives synergy evaluation
Assessment
Process data resource
evaluation optimization models
hazard and operability anomaly detection and
models
control PID control models APC models
evaluation models fault diagnosis model
models
Process hazard and operability anomaly detection and
control
Process PID control models APC models
statistical evaluation models fault diagnosis
models reaction kinetics thermodynamic flow models the energy and model
mechanism models momentum models
models models
Process statistical
reaction kinetics thermodynamic flow models the energy and
mechanism models momentum models
models Figure 3. The three-hierarchized
models models for chemical processes.

2.2.1. Models for SCNFigure

Industrial
Figure Metabolic
The
3. The
3. Balance models
three-hierarchized
three-hierarchized models for
for chemical
chemical processes.
processes.

2.2.1.Resource
Models for recycling and environmental
SCN Industrial Metabolic Balanceprotection, which are directly related to long-term
2.2.1. Models
industrial for SCN Industrial
development, Metabolic
are important Balance
targets for the energy industry. Industrial metabolism made
Resource recycling and environmental protection, which are directly related to long-term industrial
up ofResource
product metabolism
recycling andand environmental
waste metabolism is therefore
protection, proposed
which to assess
are directly the environmental
related to long-term
development, are important targets for the energy industry. Industrial metabolism made up of product
impacts of the material and energy flows during the manufacturing process
industrial development, are important targets for the energy industry. Industrial metabolism [41,42]. Product
made
metabolism and waste metabolism is therefore proposed to assess the environmental impacts of the
metabolism focuses on the production chain to realize its value conversion, while
up of product metabolism and waste metabolism is therefore proposed to assess the environmental waste metabolism
material and energy flows during the manufacturing process [41,42]. Product metabolism focuses on
focuses
impactsonofthe waste
the chain,and
material in which
energytheflows
manufacturing
during the process waste from process
manufacturing one process becomes
[41,42]. the
Product
the production chain to realize its value conversion, while waste metabolism focuses on the waste
raw materials for another process for conversion into another product, thereby extending
metabolism focuses on the production chain to realize its value conversion, while waste metabolism the waste
chain, in which the manufacturing process waste from one process becomes the raw materials for
chain
focusesand
onconverting waste in
the waste chain, into valuable
which materials, improving
the manufacturing processgains
wasteinfrom
the production
one processchain.
becomes In the
the
another process for conversion into another product, thereby extending the waste chain and converting
coal chemical for
raw materials industry,
another maintaining the balance
process for conversion intobetween production
another product, metabolism
thereby extending andthe waste
waste
waste into valuable materials, improving gains in the production chain. In the coal chemical industry,
metabolism is critical for
chain and converting SCN
waste collaboration
into [43]. In this
valuable materials, study, the
improving SCN
gains inindustrial metabolic
the production chain.balance
In the
maintaining the balance between production metabolism and waste metabolism is critical for SCN
was
coal achieved
chemical using an effective
industry, chemical
maintaining the element
balance utilization rate. The relationship
between production metabolismbetween
and wastethe
collaboration [43]. In this study, the SCN industrial metabolic balance was achieved using an effective
material flows is shown in Figure 4.
metabolism is critical for SCN collaboration [43]. In this study, the SCN industrial metabolic balance
chemical element utilization rate. The relationship between the material flows is shown in Figure 4.
was achieved using an effective chemical element utilization rate. The relationship between the
material flows is shown in Figure 4.
by-product Bij

by-product Bij
resourceVij product Pij
Process of element i

resourceVij ηBij ηPij product Pij

the downstream Process of element i
recycle Rij
process
waste Wij ηBij ηPij
the downstream
recycle Rij
process
wasteemissions
Wij wastes chain product chain

emissions
Figure 4. Material flow relationship for chemical process j.
wastes chain product chain
For element i, the industrial metabolic balance for subsupply chain j is expressed in Formula (1):
P 
wij + Pij × ηpij + Bij × ηBij − Rij
Eij = 1 − (1)
Vij

where Eij is the industrial metabolic balance for subsupply chain j expressed by element i; Vij is the
inflow of the component; Pij , Bij and Wij are respectively the product flow, the by-products and the
wastes; ηPij and ηBij are the product waste rate and the by-products after consumption and Rij is the
recycled quantity.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 6 of 20

The multiple subsupply chains are related to element i in the SCN (j = 1, 2 . . . , n). The SCN
comprehensive industry metabolic balance represented by element i can be expressed by Formula (2):
n
Y
Ei = Eij (2)
j=1

Analyzing Equation (1), Ei could be increased by reducing Bij , Wij , ηPij and ηBij . Increasing Rij
is also an important alternative. In this way, a more complete industrial chain can be established,
within which more waste is recycled, thereby improving the collaboration between the upstream
industry and the downstream industry.

2.2.2. SCN Evaluation Models for Sustainable Profitability

SCN stability depends on the sustainable development and profitability of the enterprises
inside the network. If a single enterprise in the SCN falls into difficulty, or its collaboration with
other enterprises fails, the overall SCN industrial metabolic balance reduces, affecting supply chain
development. Therefore, sustainable profitability is one of the main goals for supply chain network
construction and also the main evaluation indicator. As is known, enterprise sustainability requires the
integration of decision-making abilities, organizing abilities, execution abilities, partner collaborative
abilities and innovation abilities, amongst others. Using cluster analysis and canonical correlation
methods, Liu verified the relationships between enterprise operating ability and profitability and
development [44]. To address the profitability and sustainability compromise, coal chemistry enterprises
need to strengthen their core technical abilities to achieve the goals of structural industrial optimization,
energy conservation and environmental protection and recycling. As the key to coal chemical industry
profitability, the main focus needs to be on achieving atomic level equilibrium by focusing on the
atomic economy within the supply chain network through supply chain network assimilation and
node enterprise coordination. Therefore, the evaluation indexes for the supply chain network, such as
profitability, development ability and the collaborative degree, must be based on the industrial
metabolic balance. The related evaluation models are established in the following.

(1). Development Ability Evaluation Models

The economic status of a single enterprise can be assessed from its operating revenue, profit,
growth trends, total assets, net asset value, debt-paying ability and cash flow. The sustainable
development capacity can be assessed through the degree of product differentiation, human resources
and R&D input [45]. The comprehensive SCN development ability evaluation model, therefore, can be
expressed by Equation (3):
Fa = f (m, e, o, k, g) (3)

where Fa is the SCN development ability index and; m, e, o, k, and g are customer relationships,
decision-making capacity, operating superiority, supply network support and financial profitability
of the SCN enterprises, respectively. As SCN enterprises may belong to different areas, function f is
established based on actual operating data. In the following case study, a GA-BP was used to establish
the model.

(2). Industrial Collaboration Degree Evaluation

As enterprises in the industrial chain have deterministic interconnections, the flexible operation
under the uncertain conditions is the key to achieve industrial collaboration [46], there are some
limitation to operating flexibility. The greater the enterprise’s industrial collaboration, the greater the
SCN restriction. From the perspective of industrial metabolism balance, its operation-feasible values
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 7 of 20

range of θ decides the size of flexible region of coal chemical process. The SCN industry collaboration
degree evaluation model is shown in Equation (4):

Fb = f (c, v, r, s, p, fi ) (4)
 
min max fi d, z, θ ≤ 0 (5)
θ∈T (δ) i∈I
n  o
+
T (δ) = θθNi − δi ∆θ−
i ≤ θi ≤ θN
i + δ i ∆θi
(6)

where Fb is the SCN industry collaboration index, c, v, r, s and p are: the conformity between product and
service, customer viscosity, delivery reliability, business flexibility, and client satisfaction, respectively.
fi is the constraint condition of node i which integrates objective parameters, operating parameters and
industrial metabolic balance. i presents the node i. Equation (5) presents the minimum operating region
for all nodes under the certain metabolic balance. d is the vector of design business objectives described
by Equation (3) and z, is the vector of actual operation variables. θ is the industrial metabolic balance
among the SCN enterprises. T(δ) presented in Formula (6) is the hyper-rectangle describing the range
of operation-feasible θ. θN i
is the nominal point of node i, ∆θi+ , ∆θ− i
are the corresponding positive
and negative deviations, δ is the scalar parameter mainly based on actual operations, respectively. I is
the set of all nodes.
For a conventional chemical process, the adjustment strategies of z should meet the requirements of
the certain range of hyper-rectangle considering the node plant only. While in the SCN, the coordination
of multinodes is subject to the more rigorous ranges of θ, and so the adjustable regions of z is smaller.

(3). Sustainable Profitability Evaluation

SCN sustainable profitability is evaluated based on development ability and collaboration, which is
expressed by Equation (7)
F = f (Fai , Fbi ) (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) (7)

where Fai is the development ability index for enterprise i, Fbi is the industrial collaboration degree
index for enterprise i. Fi is the profitability index of enterprise i, and F is the aggregative indicator for
overall SCN profitability. To evaluate F, the following aspects are considered:
For F, the SCN industrial metabolic balances are both restraints and influential factors.
Business integration could improve customer viscosity and delivery reliability but could also
restrict SCN business flexibility; therefore, the industrial correlative degree models are both goal
functions and constraints.
Market demand and resource supply stability as well as competition with enterprises outside the
SCN are all influential factors [47].
As product price is an important factor when evaluating enterprise competitiveness in fully
competitive conditions, it needs to be compared with the price and manufacturing costs of competing
products; therefore, as the manufacturing costs in competing industries are also an important comparative
index, oil, natural gas and shale gas prices can substantially influence coal industry operations.

2.2.3. Evaluation of Enterprise Contract Execution Ability

SCN enterprise operations must be consistent with interests across the whole SCN, and must
also meet shareholder profit expectations [48]. However, these two demands may conflict and even
threaten normal SCN operations. Therefore, an enterprise’s ability to execute contracts needs to be
analyzed as an enterprise’s profitability is the most important influential factor when implementing
contracts. The model for an enterprise’s ability to execute contracts can be expressed as:

Fi
Pni = (8)
max{Ft |t = 1, 2, . . . , n}
threaten normal SCN operations. Therefore, an enterprise’s ability to execute contracts needs to be
analyzed as an enterprise’s profitability is the most important influential factor when implementing
contracts. The model for an enterprise’s ability to execute contracts can be expressed as:
𝐹𝑖
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 𝑃𝑛𝑖 = (8)20
8 of
max{𝐹𝑡 |𝑡 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛}
where Pni is the contract execution ability of enterprise i facing n competitors and Fi is the profitability
index P
where ni is
for the contract
enterprise execution
i. The ability of
denominator (6) is the i maximum
inenterprise facing n competitors andofFinisrelated
profitability the profitability
member
index for enterprise i. The denominator in (6) is the maximum profitability of
enterprises both inside and outside the SCN, for which Pni equals 1 when enterprise i has maximumn related member
enterprises
profitability.both
Theinside
abilityand outsidecontracts
to execute the SCN,infor thewhich PniSCN
overall equals as Pn, the ivalue
1 when enterprise
is expressed has maximum
for which
profitability. The ability to execute contracts in the overall SCN is expressed as
depends on the relationship between the node enterprises. The fundamental SCN structures P n , the value for which
are
depends on the relationship between the node enterprises. The fundamental
cooperative mode, competitive mode and hybrid cooperative-competitive mode, as shown in Figure SCN structures are
cooperative
5. mode, competitive mode and hybrid cooperative-competitive mode, as shown in Figure 5.

node Pni
Pni Pnj Pnk enterprise i

node node node node Pnj

enterprise i enterprise j enterprise k enterprise j

node Pnk
(a) cooperative structure enterprise k
(b) competitive structure
node Pnb1
enterprise b1
Pna Pnc Pnd
node node Pnb2 node node
enterprise a enterprise b2 enterprise c enterprise d

node Pnb3
enterprise b3

(c) cooperative-competitive structure

Figure 5. Basic supply chain network (SCN) structural models.

Figure 5. Basic supply chain network (SCN) structural models.
The Pn for the cooperative structure in Figure 5a can be calculated using Equation (9):
The Pn for the cooperative structure in Figure 5a can be calculated using Equation (9):
Yn
Pn = 𝑛 Pni (9)
𝑃𝑛 = ∏
i=1 𝑃
𝑛𝑖 (9)
The Pn for the competitive structure in Figure𝑖=1
5b can be calculated using Equation (10):
The Pn for the competitive structure in Figure 5b can be calculated using Equation (10):
Pn = min{Pni |i = 1, 2, . . . , n} (10)
𝑃𝑛 = min{𝑃𝑛𝑖 |𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛} (10)
The PPnn for
The forthe
thecooperative-competitive
cooperative-competitivestructure in in
structure Figure 5c can
Figure be calculated
5c can using
be calculated Equation
using (11):
Equation
(11):
Pn = Pna × (min{Pnb1 , Pnb2 , Pnb3 }) × Pnc × Pnd (11)
𝑃𝑛 = 𝑃𝑛𝑎 × (min{𝑃𝑛𝑏1 , 𝑃𝑛𝑏2 , 𝑃𝑛𝑏3 }) × 𝑃𝑛𝑐 × 𝑃𝑛𝑑 (11)
where Pna , Pnb1 , Pnb2 , Pnb3 , Pnc , Pnd , are the contract execution ability indicators of the node enterprises
a, b1, b2,Pnab3,
where , Pc,nb1d,
, Prespectively, when
nb2, Pnb3, Pnc, P facing
nd, are n competitors.
the contract execution ability indicators of the node enterprises
As an enterprise’s profitability changes with
a, b1, b2, b3, c, d, respectively, when facing n competitors. the operating environment and each enterprise’s
situation,
As anthe ability to execute
enterprise’s SCN contracts
profitability has dynamic
changes with attributes.
the operating environment and each enterprise’s
situation, the ability to execute SCN contracts has dynamic attributes.
2.2.4. SCN Information Interactive Ability
2.2.4.Research
SCN Information
has shownInteractive Ability interactivity is very important for successful supply chain
that information
integration [48–51]. With the increasing integration of digital networks and physical entities, a new
type of network, shown as Figure 6, was proposed, which connects information, resources, entities
and human beings, supports the automatic delivery of information to the SCN production elements
and promotes SCN integration and optimization throughout the complete lifecycle. This structure
integrates the information into networks using cloud computing and emphasizes collaboration between
the information network system and the physical system.
 Research has
Research has shown
shown that
that information
information interactivity
interactivity is
is very
very important
important forfor successful
successful supply
supply chain
chain
integration [48–51].
integration [48–51]. With
With the
the increasing
increasing integration
integration of
of digital
digital networks
networks and and physical
physical entities,
entities, aa new
new
type of network, shown as Figure 6, was proposed, which connects information,
type of network, shown as Figure 6, was proposed, which connects information, resources, entities resources, entities
and human
and human beings,
beings, supports
supports the
the automatic
automatic delivery
delivery of
of information
information to to the
the SCN
SCN production
production elements
elements
and promotes
and promotes SCN SCN integration
integration and
and optimization
optimization throughout
throughout the the complete
complete lifecycle.
lifecycle. This
This structure
structure
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 9 of 20
integrates the
integrates the information
information intointo networks
networks using
using cloud
cloud computing
computing and and emphasizes
emphasizes collaboration
collaboration
between the
between the information
information network
network system
system and
and the
the physical
physical system.
system.

cloudcomputing
cloud computingplatform
platform
informationintegration
information integration
data
data digital
digital dynamic
dynamic knowledge
knowledge
3C
3C
reconciliation
reconciliation emulation
emulation simulation
simulation management
management
system
cyber system
bigdata
big data
cyber

datasecurity
data securitymanagement
management

optimization
optimization
optimization
optimization

delivery

delivery
delivery

delivery

decision
decision
decision
decision

data

data

model
data

data
model

model
model

process
process coordination
agility
agility informationsynchorous
information synchorous agility
agility
APC ERP
APC ERP APC ERP
APC ERP

coordination
system
physical system

materialflow
material flow chemicalmaterials
chemical materials materialflow
material flow
resources
resources &facilities
facilities &facilities
facilities products
products
& &

SCN
SCN
physical

refiningprocess
refining process chemicalprocess
chemical process
recycle
recycle

Figure 6. The information interaction architecture facing SCN.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
The information
information interaction
interaction architecture
architecture facing
facing SCN.
SCN.
In summary, SCN collaborative evaluation is useful for sophisticated planning and operations
In summary,
In summary,
management SCN
as bySCN collaborative
collaborative
evaluating the SCN evaluation
evaluation is useful
is
collaboration useful
level, for
for sophisticated
sophisticated
enterprises planning
planning
seeking and
and
to enter operations
anoperations
industrial
management
management as by evaluating
as by evaluating
park can be carefully the
the
selected in SCN
SCN
the collaboration
collaboration
planning level, enterprises
level, enterprises
phase. Additionally, seeking
seeking
dynamic to enter an industrial
to enter anevaluations
collaborative industrial
parkcan
park canbe
conducted beduring
carefully
carefully selectedin
selected
operations inthe
can the planning
planning
detect phase.Additionally,
phase.
and eliminate Additionally,
risks. dynamiccollaborative
dynamic collaborativeevaluations
evaluations
conducted during
conducted during operations
operations can
can detect
detect and
and eliminate
eliminate risks.
risks.
3. Coal Industry SCN Evaluation Models
3. Coal
3. Coal Industry
Industry SCN SCN Evaluation
Evaluation Models
Models
Taking the coal industry as shown in Figure 2 as an example, the SCN model was established as
Taking
Taking
in Figure 7, inthe
the coal industry
coal
which industry as shown
as shownindustry
the petrochemical in Figure
in Figureis22the
as an
as an example,
example,
system the SCN
the SCN
competitor. model
model
The was
coalwas established
established
industry as
as
SCN was
inFigure
in Figure7,
analyzed 7, inwhich
in
based which the
the
on the petrochemical
petrochemical
methods outlined industry
industry isthe
is
in Section the systemcompetitor.
2. system competitor.The
Thecoal
coalindustry
industrySCNSCN was
was
analyzed based
analyzed based on on the
the methods
methods outlined
outlined inin Section
Section 2.2.
petrochemical
petrochemical
enterprises
enterprises

topping
topping petrol
petrol civiluse
civil use
water CO22
CO
water
ash
ash
coal
coal electricity
electricity
resources
resources gasification
gasification generation industry
industry resources
resources
generation SS NN
ecology
ecology
wastewater
waste water

liquefication chemicals nextgrade

next grade
liquefication chemicals industry
industry

petrochemical
petrochemical
enterprises
enterprises

Figure 7.
Figure Coalchemical
7. Coal chemicalindustry
industry SCN
SCN structure.
structure.

3.1. Industry Metabolic Balance Analysis

3.1. Industry
3.1. Industry Metabolic
Metabolic Balance
BalanceAnalysis
Analysis
On the basis of the coal industry product structure, technical routes and equipment operating
On the
On the basis
basis of
of the
the coal
coal industry
industry product
product structure,
structure, technical
technical routes
routes and
and equipment
equipment operating
operating
conditions, dioxide emissions are selected to evaluate the industry metabolic balance. As CO2 comes
conditions, dioxide
conditions, dioxide emissions
emissions are
are selected
selected to
to evaluate
evaluate the
the industry
industry metabolic
metabolic balance.
balance. As
As CO
CO22 comes
comes
mainly from the utilization of fossil energy [52], CO2 emissions are considered to be a strong correlation
mainly from
mainly from the
the utilization
utilization of
of fossil
fossil energy
energy [52],
[52], CO
CO22 emissions
emissions are
are considered
considered toto be
be aa strong
strong
index for coal industry industrial metabolic balance. For data accuracy and the necessity to reflect
the carbon balance across the whole industry, China, Japan and America were taken as examples to
calculate the results using Equation (1) (Table 1).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 10 of 20

Table 1. Industrial metabolic balance for carbon dioxide.

Petrochemical Resource Carbon

CO2 Emissions
Consumption (Mtonne of Balance—Degree of
(Mtonne)
Standard Coal Equivalent) Industrial Metabolism
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
CHN 3171 3460 8324 8640 0.286 0.318
USA 2662 2620 5433 5341 0.443 0.444
JAP 576 591 1171 1180 0.445 0.455
(Data resources: World Bank Database).

In Table 1, the carbon industry metabolism in China is lower than in either America or Japan
because China’s low-carbon technologies need further improvements and China’s energy sector is
characterized by abundant coal and less oil, resulting in greater CO2 emissions.
The carbon industry metabolic balance can be improved by strengthening the carbon utility
inside the SCN. Xie developed a new method for carbon capture and utilities (CCU) to reduce CO2
emissions which focused on the S-based compound fertilizer being produced by mineralizing solid
wastes phosphogypsum and CO2 [53]. The chemical reaction was as in Equations (12) and (13) with
the magnesium chloride conversion rate being up to 100% under 600 ◦ C.

MgCl2 .6H2 O→Mg(OH)2 + 4H2 O + 2HCL (12)

Mg(OH)2 + CO2 →MgCO3 + H2 O (13)

Xie et al. found that about 0.125 billion tonnes of CO2 could be mineralized in China using
0.5 billion tons of phosphogypsum, thereby improving the carbon metabolic balance by about 13.5%.
Therefore, if the SCN covers the element’s complete life cycle, the overall industry metabolic balance
could be improved.

3.2. Enterprise Profitability Evaluation Based on Grey Relationship Analysis

Equations (3) and (4) constitute the framework for the SCN sustainable profitability models.
When applied, concrete evaluation models are needed. Enterprise profitability models primarily focus
on quantitative economic factors. The range of related evaluation indexes that reflect the various
enterprise profitability aspects and have a different impact on overall profitability evaluations are listed
in Table 2; therefore, a nonlinear time-varying coefficient factor model could be a viable alternative
solution [54]. However, as the indices in Table 2 are not independent, the models based on these factors
remain extremely complex; therefore, it is necessary to isolate the essential model inputs to establish a
concise enterprise profitability evaluation model. Chang developed a hybrid model by integrating Self
Organization Map (SOM) neural networks, Genetic Algorithms (GA) and a Fuzzy Rule Base (FRB)
to forecast a company’s future sales [55]. Marquez created a list of attributes that together defined
customer value, and then grouped customers who prioritized the same attributes, thereby improving
decision-making and increasing sales, revenue and market share [56]. As a result of the multicriteria
evaluations and complicated influencing factors facing the coal industry, the research in this paper used
Grey relational analysis (GRA) to remove the lowly correlated, non-independent influencing factors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 11 of 20

Table 2. Partial evaluation indexes for enterprise’s profitability.

Item Evaluation Indexes Item Evaluation Indexes

E01 network density E14 current ratio
E02 network centralization E15 ratio of liabilities to assets
E03 viscosity of brand with customers E16 total assets turnover
E04 product quality qualification rate E17 current asset turnover
E05 product species diversity E18 accounts receivable turnover
E06 products prices E19 rate of capital turnover
prices for the competitive products
E07 E20 inventory turnover
(crude oil)
E08 sales-output ratio E21 return on sales
E09 production-demand balance E22 ratio of Profits to Cost
E10 products output E23 raw material supply timeliness
E11 revenue growth rate E24 purchasing lead time
E12 market share E25 delivery timeliness
E13 profit rate to net worth ... ...

3.2.1. Grey Relational Analysis of the SCN Influencing Factors

As stated, as the enterprise evaluation indexes are complex and lack independence, diversified
evaluation indicators was required. GRA is a feasible method to eliminate more weakly correlated
factors [57] as it measures the relational degrees (IDs) between the different factors based on serial
data similarity degrees. Factors which have a lower correlation degree than a certain discriminatory
coefficient or a preset correlation degree could be regarded as being weakly correlated factors [58].
According to the GRA, the reference sequence that reflects SCN behavior and the comparative
sequence affecting SCN behavior n are first determined. o The former is expressed as X0 (k), k = 1, 2, . . . n,
the latter is expressed as Xi = Xi (k)k = 1, 2, . . . n , i = 1, 2 . . . m. The data for each influential factor are
processed using the mean value method and nondimensionalization and normalization. The correlation
coefficient is defined as in Equation (14), which identifies the relationships between the influential
factors and enterprise profitability.
 
minmin|X0 (k) − Xi (k) + ρmaxmax|X0 (k) − Xi (k)
i k i k
ξi (k) =   (14)
|X0 (k) − Xi (k) + ρmaxmax|X0 (k) − Xi (k)
i k

where ξi (k) is the correlation coefficient, for which, the greater the value, the higher the correlation
degree, and p. is the discrimination coefficient, which is usually set at 0.5.
Taking China Coal Energy (the Shanghai Stock Exchange, stock code 601898) as an example,
the gross profit rate (GPR) was selected as the index for the reference sequence, and the 25 evaluation
indexes in Table 2 are the indicators for the comparative sequence, the values for which were calculated
based on financial statements. The GPR was calculated using Equation (15)

GPR = 100 ∗ (TR − OC)/TR % (15)

where TR is the total revenue and OC is the operating cost. According to Equation (12), ξi (k) for the
25 comparative indices were calculated, and the results are presented in Figure 8. It was found that the
values for ξi (E06), ξi (E07), ξi (E10) were all larger than 0.8, indicating that they had a greater impact
on the GPR than any other index. Research has shown that there is a competitive relationship between
the coal industry and the petrochemical industry, with crude oil prices having a significant impact on
coal industry profitability [59], which is in accordance with the calculated values for ξi (k).
 e values for 𝜉𝑖 (𝐸06), 𝜉𝑖 (𝐸07), 𝜉𝑖 (𝐸10) were all larger than 0.8, indicating that they had a greate
mpact on the GPR than any other index. Research has shown that there is a competitive relationshi
tween the coal industry and the petrochemical industry, with crude oil prices having a significan
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 12 of 20
mpact on coal industry profitability [59], which is in accordance with the calculated values for 𝜉𝑖 (𝑘)

Figure 8. Radar chart for the correlation coefficients for the 25 comparative indexes.

Therefore, from the calculated values for ξi (k), E06, E07 and E10 were selected as the key factors
for the establishment of the SCN profitability evaluation models. As it is difficult to establish a
theoretical model between crude oil prices and coal industry profitability due to unstable and uncertain
correlations, conventional regression models were unable to achieve an ideal correlation model.
To compensate for the drawbacks in traditional linear and nonlinear regression models, there has
been increased attention on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as artificial neural
networks, fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms and hybrid models. In this study, hybrid genetic algorithms
(GA) and a back-propagation artificial neural network were applied.

3.2.2. Profitability Model Based on the GA-BP

The back-propagation artificial neural network (BP-ANN) is a large-scale nonlinear dynamic
system consisting of a number of interconnected simple nonlinear processing elements that have
adjustable strength, the independent and dependent variables for which are respectively the input
values and output values of the network. BP-ANN is good at dealing with unstructured and
uncertain relationships; for example, an improved neural network algorithm has been used to establish
performance evaluation models for a green supply chain in an uncertain environment [59].
Different from regression algorithms that use statistical regression to establish the mathematical
relationship models between the causal variables, BP-ANN has various input nodes and one or several
output nodes, which represent the mapping relationships between the independent and dependent
variables. BP-ANN uses a gradient descent method and an error backpropagation algorithm to adjust
the weights and thresholds on each layer to ensure the outputs are closer to expected values and to
accelerate convergence. BP-ANN is therefore applied to build the enterprise profitability models,
with the output nodes being the SCN evaluation indexes, and the input nodes being the influencing
factors from the SCN evaluation models listed in Table 2. To eliminate interference and improve
accuracy, the key factors identified by the GRA are selected as the input nodes, with the GPR as the
output node.
As a random search method based on the biological evolution [60], genetic algorithms (GAs) have
a remarkable ability to escape the local optima and find a global optimal solution that minimizes the
differences between the actual and calculated values; therefore GAs have become increasingly popular
for solving optimization problems [61,62]. As they use the survival of the fittest principle, GAs guide
the search to the most promising areas in the stated space, accelerating the dynamic optimization
process for the BP-ANN weights and thresholds [63]; therefore, in this study a GA and BP-ANN were
combined to improve the models’ accuracy and convergence, the hybrid algorithm for which is shown
in Figure 9.
s guide the search to the most promising areas in the stated space, accelerating the dynamic
mization process for the BP-ANN weights and thresholds[63]; therefore, in this study a GA and
ANN were combined to improve the models’ accuracy and convergence, the hybrid
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919
algorithm for
13 of 20
ch is shown in Figure 9.
BP neural network

Initialize
Initialize weights
weights and
and
Genetic algorithm thresholds
thresholds

Create
Create initial
initial population
population Obtain
Obtain the
the optimal
optimal
weights
weights and
and thresholds
thresholds
Input data

Obtain
Obtain the
the fitness
fitness value
value
by
by training
training Calculate
Calculate error
error

Selection
Selection
Update
Update weights
weights and
and
Crossover
Crossover
thresholds
thresholds
Mutation
Mutation

Calculate
Calculate the
the fitness
fitness No
Meet
Meet stopping
stopping criterion
criterion
value
value
Yes
No Yes Output
Output simulated
simulated
Meet
Meet stopping
stopping criterion
criterion
results
results

Figure 9. Hybrid algorithm of genetic algorithm (GA) and back-propagation artificial neural
network (BP-ANN).

To evaluate the accuracy of the model, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) and the R-square
coefficient (R2 ) of the output were calculated (Yuan et al., 2014).
RMSE is used to measure the deviation between the simulated values and the true values, and is
given by Equation (16).
v
u
N
t
1 X
RMSE = ( Oi − t i ) 2 (16)
N
i=1

R2 is a measure of how well the independent variables account for the measured dependent
variable and is determined using Equation (17).
PN 2
2 i = 1 ( Oi − t i )
R = 1− PN 2
(17)
i = 1 ( Oi )

where ti is the true value of GPR, Oi is the simulated value and N is the total number of data points.
In this article, China Coal Energy (CCE, stock code: 601898), China Shenhua Energy Company
Limited (CSEC, stock code: 601088) and Yanzhou Coal Mining Company Limited (YanzCoal, stock code:
600188) were selected as the research objects, with a time period ranging from the first quarter 2012
(2012Q1) to first quarter 2015 (2015Q1). Data from 2012Q1 to 2014Q2 were chosen as the BP-ANN
training data, and data from 2014Q3 to 2015Q1 were selected as the test values. The BP-ANN simulated
results are listed in Table 3. The RMSE was 0.0231 and the R2 was 0.998, indicating that there were
deterministic relationships between the GPR and E06, E07, E10. As the influential factors for the
coal industry GPR are complex, the above relationships are only reflections of certain situations
under established technical and equipment conditions; however, whether these results have a wider
adaptability range needs to be verified with additional samples. The average relative error was −2.32%.
Figure 10 shows the relative errors in the GPR output values for the BP-ANN models in comparison to
the real values, indicating that the BP-ANN-based enterprise profitability model is feasible, and proving
that there are significant correlations between the coal chemical industry earning ability and crude oil
prices, coal prices and coal output.
 E10 E06 E07 CCE CSEC YanzCoal
uarter Coal Output Coal Price Oil Price ANN ANN
GPR ANN Output GPR GPR
(gigatonne) (RMB/tonne) (dollar/bbl) Output Output
012Q1 0.838
Sustainability 2020, 12,501
9919 118.49 37.4% - 36.9% - 14 of 31.9%
20 -
012Q2 1.072 491 108.42 34.3% - 37.4% - 27.2% -
012Q3 0.97 Table 3. Test 442values for the BP-ANN
109.61 based gross
35.5%
profit rate (GPR)- for coal chemical
37.8% companies.
- 23.3% -
012Q4 0.77 438 110.09 36.2% - 36.0% - 24.1% -
E10 E06 E07 CCE CSEC YanzCoal
013Q1 0.83Quarter 448
Coal Output Coal Price112.49Oil Price 35.4% ANN
- 36.1%
ANN
- ANN24.4% -
(Gigatonne) (RMB/Tonne) (Dollar/bbl) GPR GPR GPR
013Q2 0.96 424 102.58 33.3% -
Output 36.3%
Output - Output21.4% -
2012Q1 0.838 501 118.49 37.4% - 36.9% - 31.9% -
013Q3 0.982012Q2 1.072
400 491
110.27 108.42 32.8%34.3% -
- 37.4%
35.0%- 27.2%
- -
21.7% -
013Q4 0.91 2012Q3 416
0.97 442 109.21 109.61 31.8%35.5% -- 37.8% 33.9%- 23.3%- - 22.3% -
2012Q4 0.77 438 110.09 36.2% - 36.0% - 24.1% -
014Q1 0.852013Q1 401
0.83 448 108.17 112.49 35.1%35.4% -- 36.1% 34.8% - 24.4%- - 17.1% -
2013Q2 0.96 424 102.58 33.3% - 36.3% - 21.4% -
014Q2 0.9662013Q3 363
0.98 400 109.70 110.27 32.6%32.8% -- 35.0% 35.0% - 21.7%- - 17.2% -
014Q3 1.0342013Q4 340
0.91 416 101.82 109.21 30.7%31.8% 29.9%
- 33.9% 34.0% - 34.9% - 18.7%
22.3% 18.6%
2014Q1 0.85 401 108.17 35.1% - 34.8% - 17.1% -
014Q4 0.1022014Q2 0.966364 363 76.40 109.70 30.0%32.6% 28.8%
- 35.0% 34.3% - 35.4% - 19.1%
17.2% 21.2%
2014Q3 1.034 340 101.82 30.7% 29.9% 34.0% 34.9% 18.7% 18.6%
015Q1 0.852014Q4 0.102347 364 53.92 76.40 29.8%30.0% 28.7%
28.8% 34.3% 39.8%
35.4% 35.9% 21.2%28.0%
19.1% 23.2%
2015Q1 0.85 347 53.92 29.8% 28.7% 39.8% 35.9% 28.0% 23.2%
(Data resources: the (Data
financial statements of the listed company. The price is the average for the quarter).
resources: the financial statements of the listed company. The price is the average for the quarter).

Figure 10. Relative error for the GPR output values vs. the real values.
Figure 10. Relative error for the GPR output values vs. the real values.
Figure 11 shows that the GPR value trends for the companies since 2006 were decreasing year
on year, which was primarily due to overcapacity in China’s coal chemical industry. The GPR for
Figure 11 shows
CCE andthat
CESC the GPRthan
are better value trendsindicating
for YanzCoal, for theacompanies since 2006
more stable profit-earning were
ability. The decreasing
two year
petrochemical companies, coming from more competitive industries, (Sinopec and Yueyang Xingchang
year, which Petro-chemical
was primarily due to overcapacity in China’s coal chemical industry. The GPR for
Co. Ltd., Yueyang, China) have a more stable GPR because of better SCN integration.
CE and CESC Itare better
could than for
be concluded, YanzCoal,
therefore, indicating
that to achieve a more
sustainable stable
profitability, theprofit-earning ability. The two
coal chemical industry
trochemical should have strong
companies, capital integration
coming from more with the petrochemical
competitive industry to improve (Sinopec
industries, industrial SCN and Yueyang
integration and financial profit-earning and to increase the ability to combat risks.
ngchang Petro-chemical Co. Ltd., Yueyang, China) have a more stable GPR because of better SCN
egration. It could be concluded, therefore, that to achieve sustainable profitability, the coa
emical industry should have strong capital integration with the petrochemical industry to improve
dustrial SCN integration and financial profit-earning and to increase the ability to combat risks.
Sustainability 2020, 12,2020,
Sustainability x FOR PEER REVIEW
12, 9919 15 of 20 15 of 20

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20

Figure 11.
Figure 11. GPR
GPR for
for the
the coal
coal chemical
chemical companies.
companies.
Figure 11. GPR for the coal chemical companies.
In summary,
In summary,crude crude oil coal
oil and and prices
coal prices are significant
are significant influentialinfluential
factors for factors forprofitability
enterprise enterprise
profitability
In in
summary, incrude
the coal
the coal chemical chemical
industry;
oil and industry;
with with this
this in prices
coal mind, thearein mind, theevaluation
profitability
significantprofitability evaluation
models
influential could models could
be simplified
factors for enterprise
beEquation
to simplified to Equation (18).
(18).
profitability in the coal chemical industry; with this in mind, the profitability evaluation models could
Pi = f (Pcoal , Poil , Qcoal ) (18)
be simplified to Equation (18). 𝑃𝑖 = 𝑓(𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑙 , 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑙 , 𝑄𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑙 ) (18)
where Pi is the contract execution ability indicator of node enterprise i in facing the competitors, Pcoal is
where Pi is the contract execution ability indicator of node enterprise i in facing the competitors, Pcoal
𝑃𝑖 =and
the coal price, Poil is the crude oil price
is the coal price, Poil is the crude oil price
𝑓(𝑃
Q 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑙 , 𝑃coal
is the
Qcoal is the𝑜𝑖𝑙
and coal
, 𝑄 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑙 )
output.
coal output.
(18)
where P3.3.
i is the contract
Contract execution
Execution ability indicator of node enterprise i in facing the competitors, Pcoal
Ability Evaluation
3.3. Contract Execution Ability Evaluation
is the coal price, Poil is the
To analyze SCNcrude oilexecution
contract price and Qcoal is
ability, thethe coal output.
contracts need to truncate the network chain
To analyze SCN contract execution ability, the contracts need to truncate the network chain into
into its basic relationship structure through the selection of the core enterprise nodes to develop an
its basic relationship structure through the selection of the core enterprise nodes to develop an
3.3. Contract Execution
independent Ability Evaluation
sub-network. The SCN chains shown in Figure 7 are truncated, with gasoline, diesel oil
independent sub-network. The SCN chains shown in Figure 7 are truncated, with gasoline, diesel oil
and olefin being the core nodes, as shown in Figure 12:
and olefinSCN
To analyze beingcontract
the core nodes, as shown
execution in Figure
ability, 12:
the contracts need to truncate the network chain into
its basic relationship structure through the selection of the core enterprise nodes to develop an
independent sub-network. The SCN chains shown in Figure 7 are truncated, with gasoline, diesel oil
and olefin being the core nodes, as shown in Figure 12:

Figure 12. Truncated

Figure 12. Truncated SCN
SCN chains.
chains.

The
The execution
execution contract
contract abilities
abilities of
of mode
mode (a)
(a) Pertrol
Pertrol subnetworks
subnetworks of
of coal
coal SCN
SCN and
and (b)
(b) Chemicals
Chemicals
subnetworks of coal SCN can be calculated using Equations (19) and (20):
subnetworks of coal SCN can be calculated using Equations (19) and (20):
 n o
𝑃𝑡𝑎Pta==𝑃P𝑐 c×× (min{𝑃 , , 𝑃
min Pb 𝑏 , , 𝑄
P g𝑔 Qo 𝑜 })
× P×po𝑃𝑝𝑜 (19)
(19)
Figure 12.
 Truncated
n SCN chains.
o
𝑃𝑡𝑏Ptb==𝑃𝑐P×
c ×(min{𝑃
min Pb𝑏, , 𝑃
P g𝑔××Pl𝑃 , 𝑄
, 𝑙Q })P×
o 𝑜× pc 𝑃𝑝𝑐 (20)
(20)

The execution contract abilities

The comprehensive of mode
SCN contract (a) Pertrol
execution ability issubnetworks of coal SCN and (b) Chemicals
subnetworks of coal SCN can be calculated using|𝑘Equations
𝑃 = max{𝑃 (19) and (20):
= 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛} (21)
𝑡𝑘

𝑃𝑡𝑎 = 𝑃𝑐 × (min{𝑃𝑏 , 𝑃𝑔 , 𝑄𝑜 }) × 𝑃𝑝𝑜 (19)

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 16 of 20

The comprehensive SCN contract execution ability is

P = max{Ptk |k = 1, 2, . . . , n} (21)

where Pc is the contract execution ability index for the coal supply node, Pb is the contract execution
ability index for the light fraction separation node, Pg is the contract execution ability index for
the gasification node, Pl is the contract execution ability index for the liquefaction node, Po is the
contract execution ability index for the petrochemical process node, Ppc is the contract execution ability
index for the chemicals node, Pta and Ptb are the contract executions in subnetworks (a) and (b) as
shown in Figure 12, respectively, Ptk is the contract execution in subnetwork k, k is 1, 2 . . . , n, with n
being the maximum number of independent SCN subnetworks, and P is the complete overall SCN
contract execution.

3.4. Information Interactive Ability Evaluation

The information interactive ability can be evaluated using investment intensity and the information
project business scopes. In this paper, the SCN information interactive ability was calculated using
Equation (22):
Pn Ii
i=1 Ri
In = (22)
n
where Ii is the information project investment intensity for enterprise i, Ri is the revenue from enterprise
i and n is the number of the SCN enterprises. From Equation (20), the investment intensity of CCE is
0.25%, and that of YanzCoal and CSEC are 0.16% and 0.19%, respectively. From these results, it could
be surmised that lower investment intensity is one of the reasons that YanzCoal has a lower GPR.
The qualitative evaluation indexes listed in Table 4 are proposed to evaluate the information interactive
ability which can be analyzed using the Delphi method.

Table 4. Qualitative evaluation indexes for information interactive ability.

Evaluation Method Evaluation Indexes

Information Openness
Accuracy and agility of information
Qualitative evaluation Value of information sharing
Information integration
Information content and intensity

Combined with the model and method proposed in this paper, the following experiences can
be applied: (1) Comprehensively use oil, natural gas, clean energy, etc., and constantly optimize the
energy structure; (2) formulate scientific and reasonable countermeasures, adopt advanced technology,
continuously improve the quality of coal, realize energy conservation and emission reduction, and meet
the green and sustainable development; (3) accelerate the development of advanced capacity, speed up
the development of advanced capacity, provide adequate and stable supply of coal, and further
accelerate the construction of the base of coal industry on the basis of the use of advanced technology
and equipment, and combine the big data and Internet plus to make the coal industry develop
towards the direction of information, intelligence and technology; (4) reorganize coal, steel, building
materials and other related industries, give full play to the role of advantageous enterprises, develop
and integrate all kinds of favorable resources, coordinate the relationship between upstream and
downstream, cooperate with related industries, continuously extend the industrial chain and realize
the intensive development of industries.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 17 of 20

4. Conclusions
As it is difficult to evaluate the collaboration in coal industry supply chains using single-core
supply chain models, a multinode, no-core, correlation, conditional SC mode, known as a supply chain
network (SCN), was proposed, for which associated collaborative evaluation models were developed.
Compared with previous SCN evaluation models, the models presented in this paper had the following
features and advantages.
(1) For thermodynamic equilibrium, material balances, and process conditions, coal chemical
processes must have rigid constraints and strong collaboration between the supply chain node
enterprises; therefore, the multinode, no-core, correlation condition supply chain network mode is
more suitable compared to previous modes which primarily focus on material flows. Cooperative,
competitive and cooperative–competitive SCN modes were discussed and examined. Through the
above mode analysis, the more reasonable supply chain could be constituted, and the operational
risks could be precontrolled.
(2) As a result of coal chemical industry characteristics such as correlation, conditionality and atomic
economy, this paper examined the supply chain networks from the atomic level to system level,
and established related evaluation models which took account of industrial metabolic balances,
enterprise sustainable profitability, contract execution ability and information interaction abilities.
In this study, the industrial metabolic balance degree, the enterprise profitability indexes and
the contract execution ability indexes were defined, and respective computational formulas
developed. The proposed evaluation models in this paper form the scientific and quantitative
evaluation method of SC, which could be used for both SC planning and operations management
helping detect and eliminate risks.
(3) Based on the technological economic characteristics of the coal chemical industry, the industrial
metabolic balance was used as the efficiency index for SCN resource coordination, and as the
evaluation models’ constraints on the system levels, the industrial metabolic balance met the
requirements for clean efficient resource utilization. In this study, the SCN industrial metabolic
balance was defined by the effective chemical element utilization rate, which was a combination of
the product metabolism and waste metabolism rates. The industrial metabolic balance evaluation
is the important distinction between the evaluations models of chemical industrial supply chain
and that of other types of supply chains, such as the logistics industry.
(4) As the enterprise evaluation indexes were complex and non-independent, on the basis of enterprise
actual operation data, GRA was used to analyze the SCN influential factors to remove the weakly
correlated factors and the independent factors. BP-ANN was used to deal with the unstructured
and indeterminate collaborative relationships. In the case analysis, crude oil prices, coal prices
and coal output were found to be the key factors affecting enterprise profitability in the three coal
chemical enterprises, and the hybrid algorithm of GA and BP-ANN confirmed the relationships
between the output layer and the input layers, with the RMSE calculated at 0.0231, the R2 at 0.998,
and the average prediction error at −2.32%. The results indicated that the BP-ANN algorithm
was feasible for SCN profitability analysis, and could also be used in other SC problems which
are not suitable for fitting modeling method.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.J. and L.Z.; methodology, G.H.; software, G.H.; validation,
Y.D. (Yiyang Dai); formal analysis, Y.D. (Yagu Dang); investigation, Y.D. (Yagu Dang); data curation, G.H.;
writing—original draft preparation, G.H.; writing—review and editing, X.J.; visualization Y.D. (Yiyang Dai);
supervision, L.Z.; project administration, X.J.; funding acquisition, X.J. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Key Lab of Process Analysis and Control of Sichuan Universities,
grant number 2016003.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Natural Science Foundation,
China (No. 51473102).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 18 of 20

References
1. Zhou, R.-J.; Li, L.-J. Joint capacity planning and distribution network optimization of coal supply chains
under uncertainty. AIChE J. 2018, 64, 1246–1261. [CrossRef]
2. Qu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Appolloni, A.; Li, M.; Liu, Y. Measuring green growth efficiency for Chinese manufacturing
industries. Sustainability 2017, 9, 637. [CrossRef]
3. Wu, X.F.; Chen, G.Q. Coal use embodied in globalized world economy: From source to sink through supply
chain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 978–993. [CrossRef]
4. Appolloni, A.; Sun, H.; Jia, F.; Li, X. Green Procurement in the private sector: A state of the art review
between 1996 and 2013. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 122–133. [CrossRef]
5. Cheng, W.; Appolloni, A.; D’Amato, A.; Zhu, Q. Green public procurement, missing concepts and future
trends—A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 176, 770–784. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, P.; Chang, Y.; Zhou, D.; Pang, M.; Yin, H. Assessing the environmental externalities
for biomass- and coal-fired electricity generation in China: A supply chain perspective. J. Environ. Manag.
2019, 246, 758–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Rioux, B.; Galkin, P.; Murphy, F.; Pierru, A. Economic impacts of debottlenecking congestion in the Chinese
coal supply chain. Energy Econ. 2016, 60, 387–399. [CrossRef]
8. Hu, S.; Chen, D.; Jin, Y.; Zhu, B.; Ma, S.; Song, X.; Chen, Z. Green development strategies for chemical
industry in China: Based on analysis of fertilizer industry and coal chemical industry. Huagong Xuebao
CIESC J. 2014, 65, 2704–2709.
9. Wang, S.K.; Chen, G.H. Risk assessment of industry chain and its application in chemical industrial parks.
J. Chem. Eng. Chin. Univ. 2014, 28, 1097–1104. (In Chinese)
10. Kong, Y.; Xie, C.; Zheng, S.; Jiang, P.; Guan, M.; Wang, F. Dynamic early warning method for major hazard
installation systems in chemical industrial park. Complexity 2019, 2019, 6250483:1–6250483:18. [CrossRef]
11. Cooper, M.C.; Lambert, D.M.; Pagh, J.D. Supply chain management: More than a new name for logistics.
Int. J. Logist. Manag. 1997, 8, 1–14. [CrossRef]
12. Manzini, R.; Gamberi, M.; Gebennini, E.; Regattieri, A. An integrated approach to the design and management
of a supply chain system. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008, 37, 625–640. [CrossRef]
13. Carter, C.; Easton, P. Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 46–62. [CrossRef]
14. Silvestre, B. Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: Environmental turbulence,
institutional voids and sustainability trajectories. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 167, 156–169. [CrossRef]
15. Ralston, P.; Blackhurst, J.; Cantor, D.; Crum, M. A structure-conduct-performance perspective of how strategic
supply chain integration affects firm performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 51. [CrossRef]
16. Gong, J.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J. Meeting the challenges to sustain capacity through process integration—Process
systems engineering review. Chem. Ind. Eng. Prog. 2006, 25, 721–728.
17. Gardner, T.A.; Benzie, M.; Borner, J.; Dawkins, E.; Fick, S.; Garrett, R.; Godar, J.; Grimard, A.; Lake, S.;
Larsen, R.K.; et al. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev.
2019, 121, 163–177. [CrossRef]
18. Lambert, D.; Cooper, M.; Pagh, J. Supply chain management: Implementation issues and research
opportunities. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 1998, 9, 1–20. [CrossRef]
19. Gharaei, A.; Karimi, M.; Shekarabi, S.A.H. An integrated multi-product, multi-buyer supply chain under
penalty, green, and quality control polices and a vendor managed inventory with consignment stock agreement:
The outer approximation with equality relaxation and augmented penalty algorithm. Appl. Math. Model.
2019, 69, 223–254. [CrossRef]
20. Lingron, Z. Influence factors and action mechanism of supply chain technology spillover: A multi-case study
based on the self-organizing process of supply chain. J. Manag. Case Stud. 2014, 7, 182–194.
21. Kristianto, Y.; Gunasekaran, A.; Helo, P.; Sandhu, M. A decision support system for integrating manufacturing
and product design into the reconfiguration of the supply chain networks. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 52, 790–801.
[CrossRef]
22. Anbanandam, R.; Banwet, D.K.; Shankar, R. Evaluation of supply chain collaboration: A case of apparel
retail industry in India. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2011, 60, 82–98. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 19 of 20

23. Zokaee, S.; Jabbarzadeh, A.; Fahimnia, B.; Sadjadi, S.J. Robust supply chain network design: An optimization
model with real world application. Ann. Oper. Res. 2017, 257, 15–44. [CrossRef]
24. Arampantzi, C.; Minis, I. A new model for designing sustainable supply chain networks and its application
to a global manufacturer. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 276–292. [CrossRef]
25. Tian, Y. Opinions on the development of China’s Coal Chemical Industry—Remarks drawn before the 13th
five-year plan. Coal Chem. Ind. 2014, 175, 1–8. (In Chinese)
26. Vanany, I.; Zailani, S.; Pujawan, N. Supply chain risk management: Literature review and future research.
IJISSCM 2009, 2, 16–33. [CrossRef]
27. Hong, Z.F.; Guo, X.L. Green product supply chain contracts considering environmental responsibilities.
Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci. 2019, 83, 155–166. [CrossRef]
28. Laeequddin, M.; Sardana, G.D.; Sahay, B.S.; Abdul Waheed, K.; Sahay, V. Supply chain partners’ trust building
process through risk evaluation: The perspectives of UAE packaged food industry. Supply Chain Manag.
Int. J. 2009, 14, 280–290. [CrossRef]
29. Zhuge, D.; Yu, S.; Zhen, L.; Wang, W. Multi-Period distribution center location and scale decision in supply
chain network. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 101, 216–226. [CrossRef]
30. Tang, L.; Jing, K.; He, J.; Stanley, H. Robustness of assembly supply chain networks by considering risk
propagation and cascading failure. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 2016, 459, 129–139. [CrossRef]
31. Ma, Y.; Yan, F.; Kang, K.; Wei, X. A novel integrated production-distribution planning model with conflict
and coordination in a supply chain network. Knowl. Based Syst. 2016, 105, 119–133. [CrossRef]
32. Winkler, H. How to improve supply chain flexibility using strategic supply chain networks. Logist. Res.
2009, 1, 15–25. [CrossRef]
33. Farahani, R.Z.; Rezapour, S.; Drezner, T.; Fallah, S. Competitive supply chain network design: An overview
of classifications, models, solution techniques and applications. Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci. 2014, 45, 92–118.
[CrossRef]
34. Amin, S.H.; Zhang, G.Q. A multi-objective facility location model for closed-loop supply chain network
under uncertain demand and return. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 4165–4176. [CrossRef]
35. Amin, S.H.; Baki, F. A facility location model for global closed-loop supply chain network design.
Appl. Math. Model. 2017, 41, 316–330. [CrossRef]
36. Talaei, M.; Moghaddam, B.F.; Pishvaee, M.S.; Bozorgi-Amiri, A.; Gholamnejad, S. A robust fuzzy optimization
model for carbon-efficient closed-loop supply chain network design problem: A numerical illustration in
electronics industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 662–673. [CrossRef]
37. Li, J.Y.; Wang, L.; Tan, X. Sustainable design and optimization of coal supply chain network under different
carbon emission policies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119548. [CrossRef]
38. Ghahremani-Nahr, J.; Kian, R.; Sabet, E. A robust fuzzy mathematical programming model for the closed-loop
supply chain network design and a whale optimization solution algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 116, 454–471.
[CrossRef]
39. Ahmadzadeh, E.; Vahdani, B. A location-inventory-pricing model in a closed loop supply chain network with
correlated demands and shortages under a periodic review system. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2017, 101, 148–166.
[CrossRef]
40. Jin, Y.; Wei, F. Sustainable development and ecological process engineering. China J. Nonferous Met.
2004, 14, S1. (In Chinese)
41. Korhonen, J. On the ethics of corporate social responsibility—Considering the paradigm of industrial
metabolism. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 48, 301–315. [CrossRef]
42. Fan, Y.P.; Qiao, Q.; Fang, L. Network analysis of industrial metabolism in industrial park—A case study of
Huai’an economic and technological development area. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1552–1561. [CrossRef]
43. Zhe, Z. Coal-Based industrial metabolism and ecological optimization. Comput. Appl. Chem. 2001. [CrossRef]
44. Liu, T.; Han, Y.-J. Exploring the relationship among the enterprise operation ability, profitability and
development ability. In Proceedings of 2012 3rd International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Management Innovation (IEMI2012); Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013;
pp. 813–821.
45. Cheng, X.J. Simple analysis on some evaluating indexes for enterprise development ability. Pet. Petrochem.
Today 2015, 244, 34–39.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9919 20 of 20

46. Li, Y.-Q.; Fang, P.; Deng, B.-G.; Li, Y. The collaboration evolution mechanism research of industrial chain and
innovation chain based on system dynamics. Value Eng. 2015, 21, 79–82. (In Chinese)
47. Mercure, J.-F.; Salas, P. An assessement of global energy resource economic potentials. Energy 2012, 46,
322–336. [CrossRef]
48. Yang, Y.Q.; Jiang, X.Y. Development strategy of China’s chemical industries in Merge of Industrialization
and Information. Mod. Chem. Ind. 2009, 29, 9–14. (In Chinese)
49. SiWei, C. Improving integration of enterprises by relying on process systems engineering. Mod. Chem. Ind.
1998, 7, 1–5. (In Chinese)
50. Brito Alves, R.; Nascimento, C. Analysis and detection of outliers and systematic errors in industrial plant
data. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2007, 194, 382–397. [CrossRef]
51. Ji, X.; He, G.; Xu, J.; Guo, Y. Study on the mode of intelligent chemical industry based on cyber-physical
system and its implementation. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 99, 18–26. [CrossRef]
52. Shen, L.; Sun, Y. Review on carbon emissions, energy consumption and low-carbon economy in China from
a perspective of global climate change. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 855–870. [CrossRef]
53. Xie, H.; Xie, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Liang, B.; Ju, Y. CCU: A more feasible and economic strategy than CCS for
reducing CO2 emissions. J. Sichuan Univ. (Eng. Sci. Ed.) 2012, 44, 1–5.
54. Fritsche, U.; Kuzin, V. Analysing convergence in Europe using the non-linear single factor model. Empir. Econ.
2011, 41, 343–369. [CrossRef]
55. Chang, P.-C.; Liu, C.-H.; Wang, Y.-W. A hybrid model by clustering and evolving fuzzy rules for sales
decision supports in printed circuit board industry. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1254–1269. [CrossRef]
56. Crespo Marquez, A.; Blanchar, C. A decision support system for evaluating operations investments in
high-technology business. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 41, 472–487. [CrossRef]
57. Han, X.; Li, B.; Guan, Z. Atmospheric quality prediction model based on RBF neural network-markov chain
of grey correlational analysis filter indexes. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Nankaiensis 2013, 46, 22–27.
58. Lin, H.-L. The use of the Taguchi method with grey relational analysis and a neural network to optimize a
novel GMA welding process. J. Intell. Manuf. 2012, 23, 1671–1680. [CrossRef]
59. Cao, X. Achieving a healthy development of coal-based chemicals and CTL in China. Chem. Ind. Eng. Prog.
2011, 30, 80–87. (In Chinese)
60. Goldberg, D.E.; Holland, J.H. Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Mach. Learn. 1988, 3, 95–99. [CrossRef]
61. Fu, Z.; Mo, J.-H.; Chen, L.; Chen, W. Using genetic algorithm-back propagation neural network prediction and
finite-element model simulation to optimize the process of multiple-step incremental air-bending forming of
sheet metal. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 267–277. [CrossRef]
62. Rao, D.S.H.; Reddy, S.P.V.; Ghorpade, D.V.G.; Reddy, D.C.T. Development of genetic algorithm based hybrid
neural network model for predicting the ultimate flexural strength of ferrocement elements. Int. J. Eng.
Sci. Technol. 2012, 4, 867–873.
63. Xue, X.; Li, Y.; Yang, X.; Chen, X.; Xiang, J. Prediction of slope stability based on GA-BP hybrid algorithm.
Neural Netw. World 2015, 25, 189–202. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).