Journals / Endüstri Mühendisliği / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSTRAINT-HANDLING MECHANISMS FOR SOLVING ENGINEERING DESIGN PROBLEMS

MÜHENDİSLİK TASARIM PROBLEMLERİNİ ÇÖZMEK İÇİN KISIT-YÖNETİMİ MEKANİZMALARININ KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR ANALİZİ

Pages
201–216
Publication Date
2021-08-31
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The nonparametric statistical analysis incorporating Nemenyi and Holm post-hoc procedures shows that the inverse tangent constraint-handling and eclectic penalty methods exhibit high performance in real-life mechanical design problems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Optimization problems have numerous real-life applications in science and engineering.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The constraint-handling techniques are used along with the whale optimization algorithm, and 19 real-life mechanical design problems, which are also part of the CEC2020 benchmark suite, are tested in the experimental analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The nonparametric statistical analysis incorporating Nemenyi and Holm post-hoc procedures shows that the inverse tangent constraint-handling and eclectic penalty methods exhibit high performance in real-life mechanical design problems.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kısıt-yönetimi Mekanizmaları · Kısıtlı Optimizasyon · Metasezgisel Optimizasyon

Abstract

Optimization problems have numerous real-life applications in science and engineering. The engineering design problems are usually subject to various constraints. Although many state-of-the-art metaheuristic optimization algorithms have been developed during the last decades, these algorithms require additional constraint-handling mechanisms to cope with constrained optimization problems. Therefore, selecting a suitable constraint-handling mechanism requires extensive trial-and-error experiments, which is time-consuming and demanding. In this study, a comparative analysis of the eight constraint handling mechanisms is carried out, guiding decision-makers in their optimization practices. The constraint-handling techniques are used along with the whale optimization algorithm, and 19 real-life mechanical design problems, which are also part of the CEC2020 benchmark suite, are tested in the experimental analysis. The nonparametric statistical analysis incorporating Nemenyi and Holm post-hoc procedures shows that the inverse tangent constraint-handling and eclectic penalty methods exhibit high performance in real-life mechanical design problems.

Özet

Optimizasyon problemlerinin bilim ve mühendislikte çok sayıda gerçek yaşam uygulaması vardır. Mühendislik tasarım problemleri genellikle çeşitli kısıtlamalara tabidir. Son on yılda birçok modern meta-sezgisel optimizasyon algoritması geliştirilmiş olsa da bu algoritmalar, kısıtlı optimizasyon problemleriyle başa çıkmak için ek kısıt-yönetimi mekanizmaları gerektirir. Bu nedenle, uygun bir kısıt-yönetimi mekanizmasının seçilmesi, zaman alıcı ve zorlu olan kapsamlı deneme yanılma deneyleri gerektirir. Bu çalışmada, karar vericilere optimizasyon uygulamalarında yol gösterecek şekilde sekiz kısıt-yönetimi mekanizmasının karşılaştırmalı bir analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kısıt-yönetimi teknikleri, balina optimizasyon algoritmasıyla birlikte kullanılmış ve deneysel analizde yine CEC2020 kıyaslama paketinin bir parçası olan 19 gerçek hayat mekanik tasarım problemi test edilmiştir. Nemenyi ve Holm post-hoc prosedürlerini içeren nonparametrik istatistiksel analiz, ters tanjant kısıt-yönetimi ve eklektik ceza yöntemlerinin gerçek hayattaki mekanik tasarım problemlerinde yüksek performans sergilediğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖLCÜK, İ. (2021). A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSTRAINT-HANDLING MECHANISMS FOR SOLVING ENGINEERING DESIGN PROBLEMS. Endüstri Mühendisliği, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2, 201–216. https://ajindex.com/articles/389964

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Andrei, N., & Andrei, N. (2013). Nonlinear optimization applications using the GAMS technology: Springer. Arora, J. S. (2004). Introduction to optimum design: Elsevier. Beightler, C. S., & Phillips, D. T. (1976). Applied geometric programming: John Wiley & Sons. Belegundu, A. D., & Arora, J. S. (1985). A study of mathematical programming methods for structural optimization. Part I: Theory. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 21(9), 1583-1599.
  2. Carlson, S. E., & Shonkwiler, R. (1998, 14-14 Oct. 1998). Annealing a genetic algorithm over constraints. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Chew, S. H., & Zheng, Q. (2012). Integral Global Optimization: Theory, Implementation and Applications (Vol. 298): Springer Science & Business Media. Coello Coello, C. A. (2002). Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191(11), 1245-1287. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00323-1
  3. Deb, K. (2000). An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 186(2), 311-338. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(99)00389-8
  4. Derrac, J., García, S., Molina, D., & Herrera, F. (2011). A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 3-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002
  5. Gölcük, İ., & Ozsoydan, F. B. (2020). Evolutionary and adaptive inheritance enhanced Grey Wolf Optimization algorithm for binary domains. Knowledge-Based Systems, 105586. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105586
  6. Grandhi, R. (1993). Structural optimization with frequency constraints-a review. AIAA journal, 31(12), 2296-2303.
  7. Gupta, S., Tiwari, R., & Nair, S. B. (2007). Multi-objective design optimisation of rolling bearings using genetic algorithms. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 42(10), 1418-1443.
  8. Hadj-Alouane, A. B., & Bean, J. C. (1997). A Genetic Algorithm for the Multiple-Choice Integer Program. Operations Research, 45(1), 92-101. doi:10.1287/opre.45.1.92 Himmelblau, D. M. (2018). Applied nonlinear programming: McGraw-Hill. Homaifar, A., Qi, C. X., & Lai, S. H. (1994). Constrained Optimization Via Genetic Algorithms. SIMULATION, 62(4), 242-253. doi:10.1177/003754979406200405 Joines