Download ebooks file Multi-Objective Passing Vehicle Search algorithm for structure optimization Sumit Kumar all chapters
Download ebooks file Multi-Objective Passing Vehicle Search algorithm for structure optimization Sumit Kumar all chapters
com
https://ebookmass.com/product/multi-objective-passing-
vehicle-search-algorithm-for-structure-optimization-sumit-
kumar/
OR CLICK HERE
DOWLOAD NOW
https://ebookmass.com/product/objective-physics-for-the-jee-
main-2015-sanjeev-kumar/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/objective-physics-for-neet-and-other-
medical-entrance-examinations-abhay-kumar/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/four-dimensional-printing-for-clinical-
dentistry-rupinder-singh-ravinder-sharma-nishant-ranjan/
ebookmass.com
(eBook PDF) Mosby’s Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing &
Health Professions 10th Edition
https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-mosbys-dictionary-of-medicine-
nursing-health-professions-10th-edition/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/mktg5-5th-edition-joe-f-hair/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-archaeology-of-loss-life-love-and-
the-art-of-dying-sarah-tarlow/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/human-security-in-china-a-post-pandemic-
state-1st-edition-chi-zhang/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-calculus-
bc-2024-william-ma/
ebookmass.com
Facharztprüfung Innere Medizin 5th Edition Stefan Endres
https://ebookmass.com/product/facharztprufung-innere-medizin-5th-
edition-stefan-endres/
ebookmass.com
Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: A novel Multi-Objective Passing Vehicle Search (MOPVS) algorithm is proposed for structural design optimi
Metaheuristic zation. MOPVS is inspired by the two-lane highway passing vehicle mechanism. This multi-objective version is
Multi-objective optimization modified and further improved from the single-objective version of passing vehicle search through a Pareto
Structural design
dominance-based approach. For performance evaluation of MOPVS, five daunting benchmark structural design
Discrete variables
Constraint optimization
problems have been used. Two conflicting objectives i.e. structure weight minimization and minimization of
maximum nodal displacement along with discrete design variables have been considered to ensure its real-world
applications. For fitness and efficiency evaluation of the proposed algorithm, the results obtained from the new
algorithm are compared with four other state-of-the-art multi-objective algorithms. Moreover, two performance
indicators test called Hypervolume and Spacing-to-Extent were performed for the rigorous evaluation of the
performance and feasibility of the proposed algorithm. The findings demonstrate the superiority of the MOPVS
algorithm over the others while the potential to find a non-dominated solution set with diverse individual so
lutions. Present work considers the Friedman’s rank test for the statistical investigation of the experiment work.
The solutions and convergence behavior achieved by MOPVS show its high efficiency in solving challenging
design problems.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Kumar), [email protected] (G.G. Tejani), [email protected] (N. Pholdee), [email protected]
(S. Bureerat).
1
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3042-3779.
2
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9106-0313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114511
Received 7 June 2020; Received in revised form 5 October 2020; Accepted 14 December 2020
0957-4174/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
are inspired by natural events in our surroundings and have advantages was modified, improved, and hybridized with other algorithms by a few
like simplicity, almost parameter-free ability, and flexibility. Owing to scholars to check its performance. Savsani, Tejani, Patel, and Savsani
those advantages, the algorithms have been implemented to a wide (2017) modified PVS based on random mutation and applied for to
range of applications in engineering and industrial sectors for solving pology optimization of structures with static and dynamic constraints.
real-word optimization problems (Tejani, Kumar, & Gandomi, 2019). The results demonstrate the superiority of the modified PVS algorithm
Moreover, from the last two decades, MHs have seen a rise in their ap over other compared MHs. Tejani, Pholdee, Bureerat, Prayogo, and
plications in structural optimization problems for investigation of its Gandomi (2019) and Tejani, Savsani, Bureerat, Patel, and Savsani
potential to solve many objectives with conflicting nature. As opposed to (2019) modified the PVS based on a parallel run mechanism with the
the single-objective design problem which has only one solution, the MO incorporation of simulated annealing methodology which is used for
design issue has a set of optimal solutions traditionally called the Pareto- prevention from local optima trap and enhancement of population di
optimal set (Ho-Huu et al., 2018; Kumar, Tejani, Pholdee, & Bureerat, versity. In a similar study, to improve the exploration and exploitation
2020). Generally, there are two steps in dealing with a design problem potential of the basic PVS algorithm, Tejani, Pholdee, et al. (2018),
with more than one objective function. The first one is to explore all Tejani, Savsani, Patel, and Mirjalili (2018) and Tejani, Savsani, Patel,
possible Pareto optimal solutions by using a powerful optimizer. In the and Savsani (2018) incorporated a mutation-based search technique for
second task, the selection of one solution from the obtained Pareto the optimization of the truss under dynamic bounds. The results were
optimal set is performed usually employing a decision-making process. compared with other popular MHs and proved the dominance of the
Therefore, the best solution must be from the Pareto optimal set, and at improved PVS version over the others. Literature also witnessed few
the same time, it should be the chosen one or more from the designer hybridizations like enhanced PVS algorithm for wind farm layout opti
(Kaveh & Laknejadi, 2011). mization (Patel, Savsani, Patel, & Patel, 2019), and fuzzy-based sym
Meanwhile, as metaheuristics (initially named evolutionary algo biotic organism search with PVS for optimization of automatic
rithms) have been established for single-objective optimization, their generation control (Nayak, Shaw, & Sahu, 2020) which proves the better
MO versions can be created exploiting the nature of MH search, which is performance characteristics of PVS in challenging design issues.
based on a population or set of design solutions and randomization A very few scholars extended PVS to MO design issues. Parsana et al.
(Pardalos & Romeijn, 2013). The so-called non-dominated sorting (2018) in their study applied the PVS algorithm for the parametric MO
operator is a key to upgrade existing single-objective MHs to become MO optimization of Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) on Mg–RE Alloy. The
ones. At the very beginning, they were termed multi-objective evolu obtained Pareto front was better and the performance metric results
tionary algorithms (MOEAs) and later multi-objective metaheuristics were found to be acceptable. In a similar parametric study of EDM, Ram
(MOMHs) to cover all possible philosophical aspects of MH search. Some Prabhu et al. (2018) investigated the performance of PVS with MO in
of the first generation MOMHs are MO genetic algorithms (MOGA) different mathematical models and also compared it with other intelli
(Fonseca & Fleming, 1993), non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms gent MHs. The findings show better results. However, as per the
(NSGAII) (Deb, Pratap, Agarwal, & Meyarivan, 2002), and strength knowledge of the authors, the PVS has limited investigation so far
Pareto evolutionary algorithms (SPEA2) (Zitzler, Laumanns, & Thiele, especially in the case of MO structural design issues. Moreover, PVS is a
2001). Then, there have been numerous MOMHs invented in parallel to novel population-based algorithm which was just suggested, thus, there
their single-objective counterparts. The concepts for upgrading single- is room for even more research and need to explore its potential in
objective MHs to be MO versions include, for example, a non- different analyses. Furthermore, as per the no free lunch (NFL) theorem
dominance approach (Tejani, Pholdee, Bureerat, & Prayogo, 2018; (Wolpert & Macready, 1997), one MH cannot be efficient for all design
Tejani, Savsani, Patel, & Mirjalili, 2018; Tejani, Savsani, Patel, & Sav problems. Thus, there is always a need for a novel efficient algorithm for
sani, 2018), a decomposition-based approach (Zhang & Li, 2007), and more challenging design problems posed every year. PVS, with its suc
an elitism strategy (Deb, Agrawal, Pratap, & Meyarivan, 2000), a grid- cessful implementation to many engineering applications, is a new
based approach (Knowles & Corne, 1999), a preference-based metaheuristic that deserves this attention.
approach (Bureerat & Srisomporn, 2010), a guided population-based Therefore, this study suggests a Multi-Objective Passing Vehicle
approach (Got, Moussaoui, & Zouache, 2020), and an opposition- Search (MOPVS) algorithm for structure optimization. The two objec
based learning approach (Gupta, Deep, Heidari, Moayedi, & Wang, tives are mass minimization and minimization of maximum nodal
2020). The most outstanding feature of MOMHs is that they can explore deflection which are diverse in nature and simultaneously optimized.
a Pareto front within one optimization run. Nevertheless, to achieve Five challenging constrained test examples i.e. the 10-, 25-, 60-, 72-, and
such a feat, the reproduction must be very powerful for both exploitation 942-bar trusses have been examined in this investigation for the per
and exploration. It is even more difficult when the number of objective formance measurement of the proposed MOPVS algorithm. Also, the
functions is higher than 3, which is usually called many-objective findings of MOPVS are compared with other noteworthy algorithms for
optimization. As a result, the seek for new better MOMHs is still a efficiency verification.
challenging task. The rest of the article is convened as follows: Section 2 provides the
One of the newly developed state-of-the-art algorithms is Passing details about the fundamental PVS algorithm and the proposed MOPVS
Vehicle Search (PVS) which was proposed by Savsani and Savsani algorithm description has been shared in Section 3; Section 4 presents
(2016). This algorithm is typically a human action-based system in the mathematical formulation of the MO design problem; the findings
which the behavior of passing vehicles on the two-lane highway has and detail discussion of all the test examples are presented in Section 5;
been mathematically modelled. This is one of the population-based Section 6 puts forward the concluding remarks with prospects of the
global optimization algorithms which is designed for finding global proposed algorithm.
optima. It is motivated by the overtaking mechanism of vehicles and has
advantages like controlling parameter-free and fast convergence in 2. The Passing Vehicle Search algorithm
comparison to other MHs. This novel algorithm is investigated by a few
researchers in numerous design problems for its performance evalua PVS is a novel single-objective population-based MH suggested by
tion. Sheth et al. (2019) investigated PVS for parametric optimization of Savsani and Savsani (2016) as a global optimization algorithm that is
the Wire Electric discharge machine on Mg-Zn-RE-Zr alloy. Results were inspired by a certain natural occurrence. Like other population-based
compared with a standard GA code while outstanding performance was algorithms, PVS also initializes its search mechanism with a random
noticed which can be explored in the aerospace industry. To control the set of solutions traditionally called a population, and updates the current
network flow, PVS was used and the results show the least time delay of population as per the other searched solutions and finally end with the
the vehicles at the traffic signals. Furthermore, the basic version of PVS optimized set of solutions. PVS mimics the two-lane highways
2
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
overtaking or passing behavior of vehicles which is simplified into a In this PVS algorithm, three different vehicles i.e. Front vehicle (FV),
mathematical model. It is a simple, efficient, and parameter-free algo Back vehicle (BV), and Oncoming vehicles (OV) are considered which
rithm and modifies the population-based on three simple mathematical are engaged in the mechanism of overtaking of the vehicle on the
conditions of passing vehicles with numerous probabilities. Having a highway. The process of overtaking will be executed only when the BV
safe passing opportunity is the most significant criterion for the over velocity will become greater than the speed of FV and if not then the
taking mechanism of two-lane. This overtaking mechanism depends on overtaking process of vehicles will not be possible. This feature clearly
various criteria like the gap between the vehicles, individual vehicle illustrates the dependency of the overtaking process on the speed and
velocity, road, driver skills, traffic behaviors, and weather which are the position of OV and the distance between each vehicle and their
highly interrelated and have complex characteristics. corresponding velocities. This generates different conditions of the
Three sets of conditions will arise when a slow vehicle is approached overtaking process on the two-lane highway as follows:
by a vehicle: Assume,
(a) the fast vehicle will overtake the slower vehicle; s– Distance between Back vehicle and Front vehicle
(b) until a suitable opportunity arises, the vehicle will follow the k – Distance between Front vehicle and Oncoming vehicles
slow vehicle; S1 , S2 , S3 – Distance from the reference line
(c) without the objective of overtaking, the vehicle continues to v1 , v2 , v3 – Velocities of Back vehicle, Oncoming vehicles, and Front
follow the slower vehicle. vehicle, respectively,
If the vehicle is not able to overtake other slower vehicles then pla At any instant, the velocity of the BV, OV, and FV vehicles are v1 , v2 ,
toon rise to form which affects the desired speed of the vehicle again. and v3 respectively on the two-lane highway. Thus, based on the ve
This makes mathematical modeling of the overtaking mechanism of locity of FV, two specific conditions will arise i.e. FV is slower than BV
two-lane traffic more challenging. However, Savsani and Savsani (2016) and vice versa. At this particular condition, the overtaking phenomena
suggested a simplified model for easy understanding as illustrated in possibly mean BV can pass the FV. Passing is only feasible in that state
Fig. 1. when the distance from FV at which passing takes place is shorter than
3
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
the distance covered by OV. However, if the BV speed is slower than FV, prevented if BV does not switch lanes before OV passes BV. The
BV cannot overtake the FV and it only moves with its speed. Thus, based encounter between BV and OV will happen at distance somewhere
on the three selected vehicles, the following conditions will arise: located in between BV and OV initial positions.
Case1. When FV is slower than BV (v3 < v1 ) (termed as Primary The BV has the position changed as
condition-1)
BV c2 = rand(s + k) (12)
(a) (k − k1 ) > s1 (Secondary condition-1) In the above equation, rand is a uniform random number, rand ∈ [0,
(b) (k − k1 ) < s1 (Secondary condition-2) 1].
The change of BV location from the line of reference is
Case 2. FV is faster than BV (v3 > v1 ) (termed as Primary condition-2)
S1 + BV c2 = S1 + rand(s + k) = S1 + rand(S2 − S1 ) (13)
This is the case when FV has a slower velocity than BV which further
As per Fig. 1, BV cannot overtake FV when FV is faster than BV. Thus,
leads to two sub-cases i.e. secondary conditions (1) and (2). The details
the BV position change can be written as:
are in the following mathematical formulation form:
S1 + BV c3 = S1 + rands = S1 + rand(S3 − S1 ) (14)
2.1.1. Secondary condition-1
In the PVS algorithm, two-lane highway different vehicles are
It is assumed that after traveling distance s1 by FV the BV can catch
assumed to correspond to different solutions set. Vehicle velocities are
the FV and simultaneously pass it and the corresponding time is ‘t’ to
corresponding to objective function or fitness values where the vehicle
execute this passing mechanism which is depicted in Fig. 1.
with the highest velocity is assumed as the best fitness value. The ve
Hence, in time interval ‘t’ the distance travelled by FV is
hicle’s position on a motorway is analogous to design variables. Thus,
s1 = v3 t (1) PVS initializes its search with the vehicle population (set of solutions). In
the reproduction phase, three vehicles (solutions) are randomly
Similarly, in time ‘t’ the distance covered by BV will be
selected. BV corresponds to the current solution out of the three selected
s + s1 = v 1 t (2) vehicles while FV and OV are other two different solutions. Depending
on the size of the population and its fitness values, the relative distances
On substitution of Eq. (1) in Eq. (2), the following result will generate
between the vehicles and their corresponding velocities are allocated.
s1 =
v3 s
(3) Then the overtaking conditions are inspected after velocity and distance
v1 − v3 allocation. Subsequently, vehicles alter their positions on the highway
based on the condition applied. The detailed explanation of the PVS
and algorithm is shown in Fig. 2.
s
t= (4)
v1 − v3 3. The Multi-Objective Passing Vehicle Search (MOPVS)
At the same time, ‘t’ OV covered the distance of algorithm
4
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
solutions within acceptable computational time. However, there is no issues are challenging, thus a high-performance algorithm is always in
predefined set of conditions to balance these two performance defining demand. Also, the NFL theorem (Wolpert & Macready, 1997) states that
parameters. Thus, it is required to find an algorithm that can find a good an MH cannot solve all design issues competently. That means one al
quality solution most of the time and simultaneously efficient and gorithm may be seen effective in solving one particular design problem,
practical (Blum & Roli, 2003). In general, for efficient MHs two poten however, it may fail in another kind of optimization issue. Thus, there is
tials are a must. The first one is the potential of new solution generation a need for a successful MH which can solve MO design issues and has the
which has a greater chance to replace the existing or previous solution potential to find the global or near optimum solution with high
along with the ability to search all-important arena where the global accuracy.
optimum solution possibility lies. The second potential is to escape from Hence to resolve all aforementioned problems, in the proposed study
any local optima solution so that the MH can avoid the local mode trap. authors applied a highly efficient population-based novel PVS algorithm
However, the previous MHs studies and analyses of their conver for solving MO structural optimization problems named MOPVS. The
gence behavior, advocate that mere diversification leads to convergence dominance approach is incorporated into PVS to create a new MO
rate reduction whereas only intensification results in the enhancement version of PVS. Given that design solutions X1 and X2 result in function
of convergence speed (Kumar et al., 2019). Notwithstanding, excessive vectors f1 and f2 respectively, X1 is said to dominate X2 (for minimiza
diversification enhances the likelihood of the global optimal solution, tion) if i) all elements in f1 are less than or equal to their corresponding
however, it reduces the efficiency of an algorithm. Whereas too much elements in f2 and ii) at least one element of f1 is strictly less than its
intensification has an inclination toward the local optima trap of the corresponding element in f2. With the definition of dominance, having
algorithm. Thus, it is required for powerful MHs to have a good harmony had a population of solutions, those who are not dominated by any so
between the fine level of local intensification and well magnitude of lution in the set are said non-dominated solutions. Thus, MOMHs work
global diversification (Tejani, Kumar, et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2014). by iteratively reproducing a population, classifying non-dominated so
In MO problems, there are a set of optimal solutions called Pareto- lutions, and saving them to the so-called Pareto archive. The set of non-
optimal set instead of a single solution as in single objective design dominated solutions at the final iteration is regarded as an approximate
problems. In the absence of any prior knowledge, it is difficult for the Pareto optimal set. MOPVS works on the overtaking mechanism of the
designer to find which one is the best solution out of all. As MO design vehicles on the freeway which helps in updating the population-based
5
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
on vehicle velocity and the relative distance between the vehicles. It is a (Kanyakam & Bureerat, 2007). The normal line method is one of the
highly efficient algorithm that poses a good convergence rate which archiving techniques used to screen out some non-dominated solutions
helps in finding globally optimal solutions with less computational time. from the archive in order to save computer memory. This is because it is
At the initial stage, an initial population with function evaluations is usual that MOMHs can explore an excessively large number of non-
created at random while the non-dominated solutions are sorted and dominated solutions often leading to insufficient memory for the used
saved to the initial Pareto archive. The PVS reproduction operator is computer. The concept is to screen out some solutions whilst main
then activated to produce a new set of offspring. The offspring and the taining as high as possible diversity of the remaining solutions. The
members in the Pareto archive are combined to sort for new non- detailed process of the MOPVS algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 3.
dominated solutions. The population and the archive are iteratively In this study, MOPVS is applied for solving five challenging bench
updated until reaching a termination criterion. In cases that the archive mark structure design examples i.e. the 10-bar, 25-bar, 60-bar, 72-bar,
size is larger than a predefined size, some non-dominated solutions are and 942-bar trusses with discrete sections as design variables, to eval
removed from the Pareto archive by using the normal line method uate the performance of the algorithm. MOPVS algorithm creates a
6
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
4. The Multi-objective optimization problem formulation For processing the constrained problems like Eq. (7), one of the best
ways is to transform these design issues into dynamic unconstrained
Realistic industry and engineering design issues are relevant to optimization problems using a dynamic penalty approach. Considering
modeling as MO problems having conflicting objectives. These MO that in the design arena all the objective function values being positive,
challenging issues have characteristics like non-linearity, large search the multiplication-based penalty function (Tejani, Savsani, & Patel,
domain, and sometimes multi-modal functions. Moreover, instead of a 2016) is among the most effective penalty functions.
single best solution as in the case of single objectives, MO has an optimal ∑q ⃒
⃒
⃒
p⃒
solution set which makes the decision process more intricate for a f (X)*(1 + ε1 *∁)ε2 , ∁ = ∁i , ∁i = ⃒⃒1 − *i ⃒⃒ (16)
pi
designer. Out of all solutions in the set (also known as a Pareto optimal i=1
7
S. Kumar et al.
Table 1
Design considerations of the truss problems.
The 10-bar truss The 25-bar truss The 60-bar truss The 72-bar truss The 942-bar truss
Table 2
The hypervolume values of results obtained for the 10-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
Table 3
The front Spacing-to-Extent values of results obtained for the 10-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
100 independent runs to find the solutions. The Pareto front Hyper MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS, and MOPVS algorithms are 52094.31,
volume (PFHV) test is conducted for all algorithms where the mean 54864.00, 57352.53, 58491.60, and 58684.42 respectively. Similarly,
value is treated as equivalent to the rate of convergence and the standard the STD of the PFHV values for the MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS, and
deviation (STD) value is taken as the measure of reliability. MOPVS algorithms are 1304.90, 321.26, 241.81, 81.86, and 27.57
A blend of two testing indicators, i.e. a front spacing (S) scale and respectively. These results show that the proposed MOPVS algorithm has
Extent called the Front Spacing-to-Extent (FSTE) (Tejani, Pholdee, et al., better values of mean and STD than others in terms of convergence and
2018, 2019; Tejani, Savsani, Patel, and Mirjalili, 2018; Tejani, Savsani, search consistency. The Friedman’s rank test is performed for statistical
Patel, and Savsani, 2018; Tejani, Kumar, et al., 2019; Tejani, Savsani, analysis for each algorithm based on their PFHV values. The Friedman
et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2020) is used to measure algorithm perfor test values obtained by MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS, and MOPVS
mance. The lower value of FSTE specifies the superior result. Friedman’s are 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 respectively. At a 95% significance level
rank test is considered to rank the algorithms statistically. of Friedman’s rank test, MOPVS is found to be the best algorithm that
justifies the Hypervolume results. MOHTS and MOSOS followed the
5.1. 10-bar test example MPOVS and ranked second and third respectively among all.
Table 3 demonstrates the FSTE metric values which signify the
The first test example taken into account for investigation in this relative spacing between the solutions in the non-dominated set for the
study is a 10-bar structure which was widely applied in numerous re 10-bar example. The corresponding mean values for MOPVS and
searches. The details about this benchmark are illustrated in Fig. 4 which MOHTS are 0.0059 and 0.0058. The best values of STD are obtained by
also represents the loading conditions, constraints, nodes, and structure MOPVS i.e. 0.0001 followed by that of MOHTS and MOSOS, which are
dimensions. The design consideration of all the benchmarks is depicted 0.0004 and 0.0010 respectively. As per the Friedman’s test ranking, it is
in Table 1. evident that MOHTS and MOPVS are the best performers.
The statistical results obtained for the 10-bar test example are rep The obtained median Pareto fronts for the 10-bar example from all
resented in Table 2 in the PFHV value form. Here the mean and STD the considered algorithms are illustrated in Fig. 5 which is obtained from
optimal values are considered as the measure of performance for all the 100 independent runs of each optimizer. It is understood from the figure
considered algorithms. The optimal mean PFHV values of MOAS, that the solutions for MOAS and MOACS are scattered and non-
continuous. However, MOPVS, MOHTS, and MOSOS Pareto fronts are
smooth, well-distributed, and steady. Also, these algorithms have an
array of heterogeneous solutions. Considering all aspects, we can say
that MOPVS is the superior algorithm in comparison to other considered
algorithms in solving the MO 10-bar structure design problem.
9
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
Table 4
The hypervolume values of results obtained for the 25-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
Table 5
The front Spacing-to-Extent values of results obtained for the 25-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
10
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
mean and STD values are the point of interest in the performance
evaluation. As per the PFHV test, the mean values obtained from the
algorithms MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS, and MOPVS are 2140.24,
2142.38, 2270.93, 2282.66, and 2285.46 respectively. The STD values
are 10.17, 19.50, 1.81, 0.63, and 0.90 respectively for MOAS, MOACS,
MOSOS, MOHTS, and MOPVS algorithms. The MOPVS algorithm pre
sents better results in terms of convergence and search consistency. Also,
for a fair comparison of all the algorithms, a statistical test is performed
(Friedman rank test) at a 95% significant level. The test values obtained
by MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS, and MOPVS are 145, 155, 300,
403, and 497. As per the rank, MOPVS dominates the others followed by
the MOHTS and MOSOS algorithms. Also, the results values of all the
five algorithms are different from each other.
Table 9 demonstrates the FSTE metric values which signify the
relative spacing between the solutions in the non-dominated set for the
72-bar example. The corresponding mean values for MOPVS and
MOHTS are the same i.e. 0.0072. The best values of STD are obtained by
MOPVS i.e. 0.0002 followed by MOSOS and MOHTS which are 0.0004
and 0.0005 respectively. As per the Friedman’s test ranking, it is evident
that MOPVS is the best performer.
The obtained best Pareto fronts for the 70-bar example are illustrated
in Fig. 11 which is obtained from running the algorithms 100 times. The
figure demonstrates that the solutions from MOAS and MOACS are
scattered and non-continuous. However, MOPVS and MOHTS Pareto
fronts are smooth, well-distributed, and steady. Also, these algorithms
Fig. 8. The 60-bar ring truss. have an array of heterogeneous solutions. Considering all, we can say
that MOPVS is the superior algorithm in comparison to other considered
using the MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS, and MOPVS algorithms are algorithms in solving the MO 72-bar structure design problem.
3179.88, 3106.68, 4293.25, 4316.10, and 4323.02 correspondingly.
MOPVS and MOHTS algorithm obtained the Friedman test values of 500
5.5. 942-bar test example
and 400. The ranks allotted to algorithms conclude the dominance of
MOPVS over other algorithms. MOHTS and MOSOS are ranked second
The tower structure problem (942-bar) is the fifth benchmark
and third respectively in the Friedman ranking.
example considered in this study depicted in Fig. 12 with its geometric
The second test i.e. FSTE is performed for comparative analysis of
parameters. All accounted design aspects are presented in Table 1 for
algorithms and the obtained results are depicted in Table 7. The MOPVS
this test example. From a total of 200 structural elements, 59 groups
achieves the best mean value 0.0060 followed by MOHTS and MOSOS i.
were formed depending on the structural symmetry.
e. 0.0062 and 0.0120 respectively. Also, in terms of STD, MOPVS out
The PFHV results for the 942-bar example are presented in Table 10.
performs the others with a value of 0.0001. The Friedman’s rank test is
The mean values obtained from the MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS
performed for all algorithms and the results show the ascendancy of
and MOPVS algorithms are 60795099.20, 61174938.07, 71950729.01,
MOPVS among all others whereas the MOHTS and MOSOS settled at
76064884.48, and 76279259.43 respectively. Likewise, the obtained
second and third ranks individually.
STD values from the PFHV test are 4084186.41, 1116525.94,
The median Pareto fronts of the third test example are illustrated in
696707.86, 113801.21, and 122569.23 for the MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS,
Fig. 9 that is obtained from 100 independent runs of all algorithms. The
MOHTS, and MOPVS algorithms respectively. MOPVS shows better re
Pareto fronts obtained by MOAS and MOACS are broken and also
sults in terms of convergence rate and consistency. Moreover, for a fair
discontinuous whereas that from MOPVS is uniform and steady with
comparison of all the algorithms, a statistical test is performed (Fried
well-diverged solutions. Hence the MOPVS is the better algorithm in
man rank test) at a 95% significant level. The test values obtained by
terms of non-dominated solutions.
MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, MOHTS, and MOPVS are 152, 148, 300, 413,
and 487. As per the rank, MOPVS outperforms the others followed by the
5.4. 72-bar test example MOHTS and MOSOS algorithms. Also, the results values of all the five
algorithms are different from each other.
This subsection comprised the 72-bar 3D test example as the fourth Table 11 presents the FSTE results obtained from all examined al
benchmark (Fig. 10), which was evaluated according to five algorithms. gorithms for the 942-bar test example. The algorithms MOHTS and
Table 1 represents all the loading, elements, and dimension details of MOPVS have the best values of mean and STD values i.e. 0.0066 and
this example. From 72 elements of the structure, 16 groups were formed 0.00038, 0.0068, and 0.00040 respectively. Based on the Friedman rank
based on structural symmetry. values MOHTS and MOPVS are the best algorithms in terms of the
The PFHV values of the 72-bar example obtained by the various al relative spacing between the solutions in the non-dominated set.
gorithms are reported in Table 8. Similar to the previous examples, the The median Pareto fronts for the 942-bar example from all the
Table 6
The hypervolume values of results obtained for the 60-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
11
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
Table 7
The front Spacing-to-Extent values of results obtained for the 60-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
12
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
Table 8
The hypervolume values of results obtained for the 72-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
Table 9
The front Spacing-to-Extent values of results obtained for the 72-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
13
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
Table 10
The hypervolume values of results obtained for the 942-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
Table 11
The front Spacing-to-Extent values of results obtained for the 942-bar truss.
Algorithms Min Max Mean STD Friedman test Friedman rank
Table 12
The comparison of standard test convex problems based on hypervolume
indicator.
Test functions HTS PVS SOS
6. Conclusions
Fig. 13. Median Pareto fronts of the 942-bar truss.
A novel MOPVS algorithm is developed and investigated for multi-
objective structure optimization design issues. Inspired from the funda
mental two-lane highway overtaking mechanism of the vehicles, the
MOPVS is a global optimization algorithm. For performance evaluation,
Fig. 14. The 942 bar search history based on mean hypervolume indicator (a) original view (b) zoom in.
14
S. Kumar et al. Expert Systems With Applications 169 (2021) 114511
Fig. 15. Multi-objective standard convex test functions search history based on mean hypervolume indicator (Normalised).
five challenging structure test examples are accounted with discrete relatively new in this field, more research is needed for prediction of its
cross-sections under multiple loading conditions. Also, six convex test global optimization behavior which can be contrasted with other
functions are added for further performance investigation. For the prominent algorithms.
comparative analysis, the outcomes of the MOPVS can be compared with
four distinguished algorithms. Moreover, for measuring the effectiveness CRediT authorship contribution statement
of the proposed strategy, PFHV and FSTE tests were conducted. Simul
taneously for statistical analysis of considered algorithms, the Friedman Sumit Kumar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original
rank test is performed. Outcomes of this test demonstrated the superiority draft. Ghanshyam G. Tejani: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft
of MOPVS over the other accounted algorithms in terms of obtaining a ware, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing -
good balance between global diversification and local intensification. review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. Nantiwat Phol
Moreover, MOPVS results are significantly diverse from the other MHs, dee: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Data
especially for large-scale truss design problems. From the proposed curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervi
investigation, it is understood that MOPVS achieves the better non- sion, Project administration. Sujin Bureerat: Funding acquisition,
dominated Pareto front with a diverse optimal solution set in contrast Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Data
to MOAS, MOACS, MOSOS, and MOHTS algorithms. curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervi
In the future, one can investigate this algorithm for higher di sion, Project administration.
mensions and intricate engineering design problems. As this algorithm is
15
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
[Inhoud]
ZEVENDE HOOFDSTUK.
[Inhoud]
II.
—Daa’s net!
—Juistíg.…
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookmass.com