Journals / European Journal of Technique (EJT) / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

Comparative Performance Analysis of Metaheuristic Algorithms for Module Placement in Fog Computing-Based Healthcare Monitoring

Sis Bilişim Tabanlı Sağlık İzleme Sistemlerinde Modül Yerleştirme için Metasezgisel Algoritmaların Karşılaştırmalı Performans Analizi

Pages
82–90
Publication Date
2026-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Experimental results show that GA provides lower latency at medium loads, while PSO exhibits more competitive latency performance at high loads.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in healthcare has led to a continuous flow of delay-sensitive data such as electrocardiography (ECG) and glucose measurements.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, four module deployment strategies (First-In, First-Out (FCFS), Edge-Oriented, Genetic Algorithm (GA), and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)) on a four-layer fog-cloud architecture modeled in iFogSim are compared in terms of latency, energy consumption, makespan, and cost values calculated in the simulation environment.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Experimental results show that GA provides lower latency at medium loads, while PSO exhibits more competitive latency performance at high loads.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sis Bilişim · Görev Planlama · Genetik Algoritma

Abstract

The proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in healthcare has led to a continuous flow of delay-sensitive data such as electrocardiography (ECG) and glucose measurements. Traditional cloud-based architectures may not be able to process this data within clinically acceptable response times. Fog computing addresses this limitation by extending computation to regions closer to the data source. This presents a complex multi-objective module deployment problem. In this study, four module deployment strategies (First-In, First-Out (FCFS), Edge-Oriented, Genetic Algorithm (GA), and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)) on a four-layer fog-cloud architecture modeled in iFogSim are compared in terms of latency, energy consumption, makespan, and cost values calculated in the simulation environment. Two different topologies are considered in this study. The first is a homogeneous topology where all fog nodes share the same resources and gateways, and the second is a heterogeneous topology where the processing capacities of the end devices differ. Each algorithm was evaluated under four patient load scenarios using a weighted multi-objective fitness function incorporating latency, power consumption, and network usage in a homogeneous topology. Using another fitness function with some penalty parameters in a heterogeneous topology, each algorithm was evaluated under four patient loads. Experimental results show that GA provides lower latency at medium loads, while PSO exhibits more competitive latency performance at high loads. However, the cost difference between the two algorithms remains negligible in all scenarios. FCFS exhibits the worst overall performance, demonstrating the inadequacy of cloud-based strategies alone for real-time healthcare. All algorithms reach saturation above 30 patients, indicating that fog layer hardware capacity, rather than algorithm selection, becomes the dominant performance bottleneck.

Özet

Sağlık alanında Nesnelerin İnterneti (IoT) cihazlarının yaygınlaşması, elektrokardiyografi (ECG) ve glukoz ölçümleri gibi gecikmeye duyarlı verilerin sürekli olarak üretilmesine neden olmaktadır. Geleneksel bulut tabanlı mimariler, bu verileri klinik açıdan kabul edilebilir yanıt süreleri içinde işleyemeyebilir. Sis bilişim, hesaplama işlemlerini veri kaynağına daha yakın bölgelere taşıyarak bu sınırlılığı gidermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ancak bu durum, karmaşık ve çok amaçlı bir modül yerleştirme problemini ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, iFogSim ortamında modellenen dört katmanlı bir sis–bulut mimarisi üzerinde dört farklı modül yerleştirme stratejisi; İlk Gelen İlk Hizmet Alır (FCFS), Edge-Oriented, Genetik Algoritma (GA) ve Parçacık Sürü Optimizasyonu (PSO) karşılaştırılmıştır. Karşılaştırma, simülasyon ortamında hesaplanan gecikme, enerji tüketimi, tamamlanma süresi ve maliyet değerleri üzerinden gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada iki farklı topoloji ele alınmıştır. Birincisi, tüm sis düğümlerinin ve ağ geçitlerinin aynı kaynak özelliklerine sahip olduğu homojen topoloji, ikincisi ise uç cihazların işlem kapasitelerinin farklılaştığı heterojen topolojidir. Her algoritma, dört farklı hasta yükü senaryosu altında değerlendirilmiştir. Homojen topolojide gecikme, enerji tüketimi ve ağ kullanımını içeren ağırlıklı çok amaçlı bir uygunluk fonksiyonu kullanılmıştır. Heterojen topolojide ise ceza parametreleri içeren farklı bir uygunluk fonksiyonu uygulanarak algoritmalar yine dört hasta yükü altında değerlendirilmiştir. Deneysel sonuçlar, GA’nın orta düzey hasta yüklerinde daha düşük gecikme sağladığını, PSO’nun ise yüksek yüklerde daha rekabetçi gecikme performansı sergilediğini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, iki algoritma arasındaki maliyet farkı tüm senaryolarda ihmal edilebilir düzeydedir. FCFS yöntemi genel olarak en zayıf performansı göstermiş ve yalnızca bulut tabanlı stratejilerin gerçek zamanlı sağlık uygulamaları için yetersiz kaldığını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca tüm algoritmaların 30 hastanın üzerindeki yüklerde doygunluğa ulaştığı gözlemlenmiştir. Bu durum, bu noktadan sonra algoritma seçiminden ziyade sis katmanındaki donanım kapasitesinin temel performans darboğazı haline geldiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

İspir, F. B., Baydoğan, M. P., Tanyıldızı, E. (2026). Comparative Performance Analysis of Metaheuristic Algorithms for Module Placement in Fog Computing-Based Healthcare Monitoring. European Journal of Technique (EJT), Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.36222/ejt.1957905

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. Z. Li, X. Jiang, and H. Hopman, “Surface crack growth in offshore metallic pipes under cyclic loads: A literature review,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 8, no. 5, p. 339, May 2020, doi: 10.3390/jmse8050339.
  2. S. Deng, X. Tian, Y. Liu, B. Zhao, W. Shi, and J. Tan, “Optimizing guided wave propagation for sensitive axial stress measurement in steel pipes,” NDT & E Int., vol. 147, p. 103182, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ndteint.2024.103182.
  3. D. K. Singh, A. Villamayor, and A. Hazra, “Numerical and experimental analysis of loctite adhesive composite wrapping on EN 10028 steel pipe,” Mater. Today: Proc., vol. 44, pp. 4158–4165, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2023.104003.
  4. Y. Feng et al., “Research progress and prospect of key technologies for high-strain line pipe steel and pipes,” Nat. Gas Ind. B, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 146–153, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ngib.2020.09.015.
  5. S. Vishnuvardhan, A. R. Murthy, and A. Choudhary, “A review on pipeline failures, defects in pipelines and their assessment and fatigue life prediction methods,” Int. J. Press. Vessels Piping, vol. 201, p. 104853, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2022.104853.
  6. A. Eidaninezhad, P. Ziyaei, and A. Zare, “An overview of marine pipeline repair methods,” in Proc. 8th Int. Offshore Ind. Conf., Jun. 2019.
  7. K. Mohammadi, “Repair methods for damaged pipeline beyond diving depth,” M.S. thesis, Univ. Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway, 2011.
  8. Z. Lin and S. Li, “Study on interfacial mechanical properties of bonded pipe joint under dynamic load,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 16, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36369.
  9. C. R. De Luca, J. F. Sathler, F. F. Enne, J. M. Reis, and H. S. Da Costa Mattos, “Cyclic inelastic behaviour of a bonded patch repair system used for pipes with through-wall corrosion damage,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 164, p. 108657, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.108657.
  10. D. K. Singh, A. Villamayor, and A. Hazra, “Numerical and experimental analysis of loctite adhesive composite wrapping on EN 10028 steel pipe,” Mater. Today: Proc., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 4158–4165, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.525.
  11. A. Dorigato, A. Pegoretti, F. Bondioli, and M. Messori, “Improving epoxy adhesives with zirconia nanoparticles,” Compos. Interfaces, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 873–892, 2010, doi: 10.1163/092764410X539253.
  12. A. M. Pinto, J. Martins, J. A. Moreira, A. M. Mende, and F. D. Magalhães, “Dispersion of graphene nanoplatelets in poly(vinyl acetate) latex and effect on adhesive bond strength,” Polym. Int., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 928–935, 2013.
  13. H. R. Borghei, B. Behjat, and M. Yazdani, “The impact of graphene nanoparticle additives on the strength of simple and hybrid adhesively bonded joints,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 53, no. 23, pp. 3335–3346, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0021998318817588.
  14. S. Han, Q. Meng, S. Arababy, T. Liu, and M. Demiral, “Mechanical and electrical properties of graphene and carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy adhesives: Experimental and numerical analysis,” Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf., vol. 120, pp. 116–126, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.02.027.
  15. S. M. J. Razavi, M. R. Ayatollahi, A. G. Nemati, and H. Khoramishad, “Single lap joints bonded with structural adhesives reinforced with a mixture of silica nanoparticles and multi walled carbon nanotubes,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., vol. 80, pp. 76–86, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.10.007.
  16. M. A. S. Sadigh and G. Marami, “Enhancing fatigue life in adhesively bonded joints using reduced graphene oxide additive: Experimental and numerical evaluation,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., vol. 84, pp. 283–290, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.04.001.
  17. I. A. Akpinar, K. Gültekin, S. Akpinar, H. Akbulut, and A. Ozel, “Experimental analysis on the single-lap joints bonded by a nanocomposite adhesive which obtained by adding nanostructures,” Compos. B: Eng., vol. 110, pp. 420–428, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.046.
  18. E. Çetkin, “Investigation of the effects of use of GNP and GNP reinforced nano-fibers with epoxy adhesive on tension tests,” Eur. J. Tech., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 175–181, 2021.
  19. A. Ozel, M. Aydin, and Ş. Temiż, “The effects of overlap length and adherend thickness on the strength of adhesively bonded joints subjected to bending moment,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 313–325, 2004.
  20. D. Quan, D. Carolan, C. Rouge, N. Murphy, and A. Ivankovic, “Mechanical and fracture properties of epoxy adhesives modified with graphene nanoplatelets and rubber particles,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., vol. 81, pp. 21–29, 2018.
  21. X. Wang, L. Song, W. Pornwannchai, Y. Hu, B. Kandola, “The effect of graphene presence in flame retarded epoxy resin matrix on the mechanical and flammability properties of glass fiber-reinforced composites,” Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf.; 53:88-96, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2013.05.017.
  22. T. Topkaya, Y. H. Çelik, and E. Kilickap, “Mechanical properties of fiber/graphene epoxy hybrid composites,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., vol. 34, pp. 4589–4595, 2020.
  23. H. Ejaz, A. Mubashar, E. Uddin, Z. Ali, and N. Arif, “Effect of functionalised and non-functionalised GNPs addition on strength properties of high viscous epoxy adhesive and lap shear joints,” Polym. Test., vol. 113, p. 107680, 2022.
  24. I. Kılınç, “Evaluation of biological and fire resistance of Scots pine wood impregnated with commercial copper-based preservatives,” BioResources, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 9804–9816, 2025.
  25. M. Budakçı, D. Şağban, M. Korkmaz, and I. Kılınç, “Laminated wood material reinforced with bacterial cellulose sheets derived from kombucha pellicles: Part 1—Some physical properties,” BioResources, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 8976–8992, 2025, doi: 10.15376/biores.20.4.8976-8992.
  26. S. Chatterjee et al., “Mechanical reinforcement and thermal conductivity in expanded graphene nanoplatelets reinforced epoxy composites,” Chem. Phys. Lett., vol. 531, pp. 6–10, 2012.