Applying the big bang-big crunch metaheuristic to large-sized operational problems

In this study, we present an investigation of comparing the capability of a big bang-big crunch metaheuristic (BBBC) for managing operational problems including combinatorial optimization problems. The BBBC is a product of the evolution theory of the universe in physics and astronomy. Two main phases of BBBC are the big bang and the big crunch. The big bang phase involves the creation of a population of random initial solutions, while in the big crunch phase these solutions are shrunk into one elite solution exhibited by a mass center. This study looks into the BBBC’s effectiveness in assignment and scheduling problems. Where it was enhanced by incorporating an elite pool of diverse and high quality solutions; a simple descent heuristic as a local search method; implicit recombination; Euclidean distance; dynamic population size; and elitism strategies. Those strategies provide a balanced search of diverse and good quality population. The investigation is conducted by comparing the proposed BBBC with similar metaheuristics. The BBBC is tested on three different classes of combinatorial optimization problems; namely, quadratic assignment, bin packing, and job shop scheduling problems. Where the incorporated strategies have a greater impact on the BBBC's performance. Experiments showed that the BBBC maintains a good balance between diversity and quality which produces high-quality solutions, and outperforms other identical metaheuristics (e.g. swarm intelligence and evolutionary algorithms) reported in the literature

Optimization-Based Evolutionary Data Mining Techniques for Structural Health Monitoring

In recent years, data mining technology has been employed to solve various Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) problems as a comprehensive strategy because of its computational capability. Optimization is one the most important functions in Data mining. In an engineering optimization problem, it is not easy to find an exact solution. In this regard, evolutionary techniques have been applied as a part of procedure of achieving the exact solution. Therefore, various metaheuristic algorithms have been developed to solve a variety of engineering optimization problems in SHM. This study presents the most applicable as well as effective evolutionary techniques used in structural damage identification. To this end, a brief overview of metaheuristic techniques is discussed in this paper. Then the most applicable optimization-based algorithms in structural damage identification are presented, i.e. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Genetic Algorithm (GA), Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO). Some related examples are also detailed in order to indicate the efficiency of these algorithms

Operation and planning of distribution networks with integration of renewable distributed generators considering uncertainties: a review

YesDistributed generators (DGs) are a reliable solution to supply economic and reliable electricity to customers. It is the last stage in delivery of electric power which can be defined as an electric power source connected directly to the distribution network or on the customer site. It is necessary to allocate DGs optimally (size, placement and the type) to obtain commercial, technical, environmental and regulatory advantages of power systems. In this context, a comprehensive literature review of uncertainty modeling methods used for modeling uncertain parameters related to renewable DGs as well as methodologies used for the planning and operation of DGs integration into distribution network.This work was supported in part by the SITARA project funded by the British Council and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UK and in part by the University of Bradford, UK under the CCIP grant 66052/000000

Impact of coordination of intertie transformer tap changers on active power losses assessed by Big Bang Big Crunch algorithm

Abstract: Power utilities worldwide face significant technical power losses. There are two categories of power losses: technical and non-technical losses. Technical losses occur on the transmission and distribution lines, transformer windings, and capacitors. These include active power losses which are caused by resistive components and reactive power losses which are caused by reactive components. Transformer tap changers play a key role in the minimization of power losses. Many researchers have already investigated the effect of transformer tap changers on power systems. However, none of their publications have assessed the impact of transformer tap changers on power flows in the context of interties to minimize active power losses using BBBC algorithm. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of intertie transformer tap changers on active power losses using BBBC algorithm...M.Phil. (Electrical Engineering in Power and Energy Systems

Mitigating Metaphors: A Comprehensible Guide to Recent Nature-Inspired Algorithms

In recent years, a plethora of new metaheuristic algorithms have explored different sources of inspiration within the biological and natural worlds. This nature-inspired approach to algorithm design has been widely criticised. A notable issue is the tendency for authors to use terminology that is derived from the domain of inspiration, rather than the broader domains of metaheuristics and optimisation. This makes it difficult to both comprehend how these algorithms work and understand their relationships to other metaheuristics. This paper attempts to address this issue, at least to some extent, by providing accessible descriptions of the most cited nature-inspired algorithms published in the last twenty years. It also discusses commonalities between these algorithms and more classical nature-inspired metaheuristics such as evolutionary algorithms and particle swarm optimisation, and finishes with a discussion of future directions for the field

Investigations on performance enhancement measures of the bidirectional converter in PV–wind interconnected microgrid system

This is the final version. Available from MDPI via the DOI in this record. In this work, a hybrid microgrid framework was created with the assistance of a photovoltaic (PV) and wind turbine (WT) generator. Additionally, bidirectional control mechanisms were implemented where an AC system was integrated with permanent magnet synchronous generator (PMSG)-based WT and a DC system was integrated with a sliding mode algorithm controlled maximum power point tracker (MPPT)-integrated PV system. The wind and PV interconnected microgrid system was mathematically modeled for steady-state conditions. This hybrid microgrid model was simulated using the MATLAB/SIMULINK platform. Optimal load management strategy was performed on a chosen hybrid microgrid system. Various case studies pertaining to connection and disconnection of sources and loads were performed on the test system. The outcomes establish that the system can be kept up in a steady-state condition under the recommended control plans when the network is changed, starting with one working condition then onto the next

A New Optimization Algorithm Based on Search and Rescue Operations

[EN] In this paper, a new optimization algorithm called the search and rescue optimization algorithm (SAR) is proposed for solving single-objective continuous optimization problems. SAR is inspired by the explorations carried out by humans during search and rescue operations. The performance of SAR was evaluated on fifty-five optimization functions including a set of classic benchmark functions and a set of modern CEC 2013 benchmark functions from the literature. The obtained results were compared with twelve optimization algorithms including well-known optimization algorithms, recent variants of GA, DE, CMA-ES, and PSO, and recent metaheuristic algorithms. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for some of the comparisons, and the convergence behavior of SAR was investigated. The statistical results indicated SAR is highly competitive with the compared algorithms. Also, in order to evaluate the application of SAR on real-world optimization problems, it was applied to three engineering design problems, and the results revealed that SAR is able to find more accurate solutions with fewer function evaluations in comparison with the other existing algorithms. Thus, the proposed algorithm can be considered an efficient optimization method for real-world optimization problems.This study was partially supported by the Spanish Research Project (nos. TIN2016-80856-R and TIN2015-65515-C4-1-R).Shabani, A.; Asgarian, B.; Gharebaghi, SA.; Salido Gregorio, MA.; Giret Boggino, AS. (2019). A New Optimization Algorithm Based on Search and Rescue Operations. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2019:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2482543S1232019Bianchi, L., Dorigo, M., Gambardella, L. M., & Gutjahr, W. J. (2008). A survey on metaheuristics for stochastic combinatorial optimization. Natural Computing, 8(2), 239-287. doi:10.1007/s11047-008-9098-4Holland, J. H. (1992). Genetic Algorithms. Scientific American, 267(1), 66-72. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0792-66Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., & Colorni, A. (1996). Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 26(1), 29-41. doi:10.1109/3477.484436Manjarres, D., Landa-Torres, I., Gil-Lopez, S., Del Ser, J., Bilbao, M. N., Salcedo-Sanz, S., & Geem, Z. W. (2013). A survey on applications of the harmony search algorithm. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(8), 1818-1831. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2013.05.008Karaboga, D., Gorkemli, B., Ozturk, C., & Karaboga, N. (2012). A comprehensive survey: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm and applications. Artificial Intelligence Review, 42(1), 21-57. doi:10.1007/s10462-012-9328-0Rao, R. V., Savsani, V. J., & Vakharia, D. P. (2011). Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Computer-Aided Design, 43(3), 303-315. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.015Zhang, C., Lin, Q., Gao, L., & Li, X. (2015). Backtracking Search Algorithm with three constraint handling methods for constrained optimization problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(21), 7831-7845. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.05.050Yang, X. S. (2010). Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation, 2(2), 78. doi:10.1504/ijbic.2010.032124Punnathanam, V., & Kotecha, P. (2016). Yin-Yang-pair Optimization: A novel lightweight optimization algorithm. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 54, 62-79. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2016.04.004Zhao, C., Wu, C., Chai, J., Wang, X., Yang, X., Lee, J.-M., & Kim, M. J. (2017). Decomposition-based multi-objective firefly algorithm for RFID network planning with uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing, 55, 549-564. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2017.02.009Zhao, C., Wu, C., Wang, X., Ling, B. W.-K., Teo, K. L., Lee, J.-M., & Jung, K.-H. (2017). Maximizing lifetime of a wireless sensor network via joint optimizing sink placement and sensor-to-sink routing. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 49, 319-337. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2017.05.001Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67-82. doi:10.1109/4235.585893Simon, D. (2008). Biogeography-Based Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 12(6), 702-713. doi:10.1109/tevc.2008.919004Garg, H. (2015). An efficient biogeography based optimization algorithm for solving reliability optimization problems. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 24, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2015.05.001Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997). Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4), 341-359. doi:10.1023/a:1008202821328Das, S., Mullick, S. S., & Suganthan, P. N. (2016). Recent advances in differential evolution – An updated survey. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 27, 1-30. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2016.01.004Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433(7025), 513-516. doi:10.1038/nature03236Gandomi, A. H., & Alavi, A. H. (2012). Krill herd: A new bio-inspired optimization algorithm. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 17(12), 4831-4845. doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.05.010Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M., & Lewis, A. (2014). Grey Wolf Optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software, 69, 46-61. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007Erol, O. K., & Eksin, I. (2006). A new optimization method: Big Bang–Big Crunch. Advances in Engineering Software, 37(2), 106-111. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.04.005Kaveh, A., & Mahdavi, V. R. (2014). Colliding bodies optimization: A novel meta-heuristic method. Computers & Structures, 139, 18-27. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.04.005Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-pour, H., & Saryazdi, S. (2009). GSA: A Gravitational Search Algorithm. Information Sciences, 179(13), 2232-2248. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2009.03.004Zheng, Y.-J. (2015). Water wave optimization: A new nature-inspired metaheuristic. Computers & Operations Research, 55, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2014.10.008Kaveh, A., & Khayatazad, M. (2012). A new meta-heuristic method: Ray Optimization. Computers & Structures, 112-113, 283-294. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.09.003Glover, F. (1989). Tabu Search—Part I. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1(3), 190-206. doi:10.1287/ijoc.1.3.190Chiang, H.-P., Chou, Y.-H., Chiu, C.-H., Kuo, S.-Y., & Huang, Y.-M. (2013). A quantum-inspired Tabu search algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Soft Computing, 18(9), 1771-1781. doi:10.1007/s00500-013-1203-7Mousavirad, S. J., & Ebrahimpour-Komleh, H. (2017). Human mental search: a new population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Applied Intelligence, 47(3), 850-887. doi:10.1007/s10489-017-0903-6Karaboga, D., & Basturk, B. (2007). A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Journal of Global Optimization, 39(3), 459-471. doi:10.1007/s10898-007-9149-xRao, R. V., Savsani, V. J., & Vakharia, D. P. (2012). Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization: An optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Information Sciences, 183(1), 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2011.08.006Digalakis, J. G., & Margaritis, K. G. (2001). On benchmarking functions for genetic algorithms. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 77(4), 481-506. doi:10.1080/00207160108805080Karaboga, D., & Akay, B. (2009). A comparative study of Artificial Bee Colony algorithm. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 214(1), 108-132. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2009.03.090Lim, T. Y., Al-Betar, M. A., & Khader, A. T. (2015). Adaptive pair bonds in genetic algorithm: An application to real-parameter optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 252, 503-519. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2014.12.030Fleury, C., & Braibant, V. (1986). Structural optimization: A new dual method using mixed variables. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 23(3), 409-428. doi:10.1002/nme.1620230307Derrac, 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:10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002Gandomi, A. H., Yang, X.-S., & Alavi, A. H. (2011). Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems. Engineering with Computers, 29(1), 17-35. doi:10.1007/s00366-011-0241-yWang, G. G. (2003). Adaptive Response Surface Method Using Inherited Latin Hypercube Design Points. Journal of Mechanical Design, 125(2), 210-220. doi:10.1115/1.1561044Cheng, M.-Y., & Prayogo, D. (2014). Symbiotic Organisms Search: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 139, 98-112. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.03.007CHICKERMANE, H., & GEA, H. C. (1996). STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION USING A NEW LOCAL APPROXIMATION METHOD. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 39(5), 829-846. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0207(19960315)39:53.0.co;2-uChou, J.-S., & Ngo, N.-T. (2016). Modified firefly algorithm for multidimensional optimization in structural design problems. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 55(6), 2013-2028. doi:10.1007/s00158-016-1624-xSonmez, M. (2011). Artificial Bee Colony algorithm for optimization of truss structures. Applied Soft Computing, 11(2), 2406-2418. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2010.09.003Degertekin, S. O. (2012). Improved harmony search algorithms for sizing optimization of truss structures. Computers & Structures, 92-93, 229-241. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.10.022Degertekin, S. O., & Hayalioglu, M. S. (2013). Sizing truss structures using teaching-learning-based optimization. Computers & Structures, 119, 177-188. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.12.011Talatahari, S., Kheirollahi, M., Farahmandpour, C., & Gandomi, A. H. (2012). A multi-stage particle swarm for optimum design of truss structures. Neural Computing and Applications, 23(5), 1297-1309. doi:10.1007/s00521-012-1072-5Kaveh, A., Bakhshpoori, T., & Afshari, E. (2014). An efficient hybrid Particle Swarm and Swallow Swarm Optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 143, 40-59. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.07.012Kaveh, A., & Bakhshpoori, T. (2016). A new metaheuristic for continuous structural optimization: water evaporation optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 54(1), 23-43. doi:10.1007/s00158-015-1396-8Jalili, S., & Hosseinzadeh, Y. (2015). A Cultural Algorithm for Optimal Design of Truss Structures. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 12(9), 1721-1747. doi:10.1590/1679-7825154