A MODIFIED PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION AND ITS APPLICATION IN THERMAL MANAGEMENT OF AN ELECTRONIC COOLING SYSTEM by Mohammed R.A Alrasheed B.Sc., King Saud University, 1997 M.Sc., Carnegie Mellon University, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Mechanical Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2011 © Mohammed R.A. Alrasheed, 2011 Abstract Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is an evolutionary computation technique, which has been inspired by the group behavior of animals such as schools of fish and flocks of birds. It has shown its effectiveness as an efficient, fast and simple method of optimization. The applicability of PSO in the design optimization of heat sinks is studied in this thesis. The results show that the PSO is an appropriate optimization tool for use in heat sink design. PSO has common problems that other evolutionary methods suffer from. For example, in some cases premature convergence can occur where particles tend to be trapped at local optima and not able to escape in seeking the global optimum. To overcome these problems, some modifications are suggested and evaluated in the present work. These modifications are found to improve the convergence rate and to enhance the robustness of the method. The specific modifications developed for PSO and evaluated in the thesis are: Chaotic Acceleration Factor Chaotic Inertia Factor Global Best Mutation The performance of these modifications is tested through benchmarks problems, which are commonly found and used in the optimization literature. Detailed comparative analysis of the modifications to the classical PSO approach is made, which demonstrates the potential performance improvements. In particular, the modified PSO algorithms are applied to problems with nonlinear constraints. The non-stationary, multi-stage penalty method (PFM) is implemented to handle ii nonlinear constraints. Pressure vessel optimization and welded beam optimization are two common engineering problems that are used for testing the performance of optimization algorithms and are used here as benchmark testing examples. It is found that the modified PSO algorithms, as developed in this work, outperform many classical and evolutionary optimization algorithms in solving nonlinear constraint problems. The modified PSO algorithm is applied in heat sink design and detailed results are presented. The commercially available software package Ansys Icepak is used in the present work to solve the heat and flow equations in implementing the optimal design variables resulting from the modified PSO algorithms. The main contributions the work are summarized and suggestions are made for possible future work. iii Preface 1. A version of Chapter 3 has been published: Alrasheed, M.R., de Silva, C.W., and Gadala, M.S., "Evolutionary optimization in the design of a heat sink," Editor: de Silva C.W., Mechatronic Systems: Devices, Design, Control, Operation and Monitoring, pp. 55-78, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL , 2007. Alrasheed, M. R. , de Silva, C. W., and Gadala, M. S. ,“A new extension of particle swarm optimization and its application in electronic heat sink design,” in ASME Conference Proceeding (IMECE 2007), Seattle, Washington, pp.1221-1230, November 2007. 2. A version of Chapter 5 has been submitted for publication: Alrasheed, M.R., de Silva, C.W., and Gadala, M.S., " Application of PSO with Novel Chaotic Acceleration, Chaotic Inertia factors and Best Global Mutation Algorithms to solve Constrained Nonlinear Engineering Problems,” (Submitted). 3. A version of Chapter 6 has been submitted for publication: Alrasheed, M.R., de Silva, C.W., and Gadala, M.S., "Applying Modified Particle Swarm Optimization in Heat Sink Design by using Chaotic Acceleration and Global Mutation," (Submitted). iv Table of Contents Abstract................................................................................................................................ ii Preface ................................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ix Nomenclature…………………………………………………………………….………..…xi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ....xvi Dedication ........................................................................................................................ xvii Chapter 1 Optimization Techniques .................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Classical Optimization Methods ...................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 The Steepest Descent Algorithm ....................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Simplex Method ................................................................................................... 4 1.2.3 Newton Raphson Method………………………………………………….. ... 5 1.3 Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) ....................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Evolution Strategy (ES) ....................................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Genetic Algorithms (GA) .................................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) ................................................................... 7 1.4 Research Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 9 1.5 Thesis Structure .............................................................................................................. 10 Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 History of PSO ................................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Developments of PSO ..................................................................................................... 18 2.4 Comparing PSO with Other Evolutionary Methods ..................................................... 21 2.5 Applications of PSO ...................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 3 Applicability of PSO in Heat Sink Design Optimization ................................. 24 3.1 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 24 3.2 PSO Implementation.......................................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 3.3 Numerical Results ................................................................................................. 27 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 28 v Chapter 4 New Extensions to PSO and Analysis ............................................................. 29 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 29 4.2 Proposed Developments .................................................................................................... 30 4.2.1 Chaotic Acceleration Factor (Ca) ........................................................................... 30 4.2.2 Chaotic Inertia Weight Factor (ωc ) .................................................................. 31 4.2.3 Global Best Mutation ............................................................................................ 32 4.3 Parameter Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................... 36 4.3.1 Population Size ..................................................................................................... 37 4.3.2 Chaotic Acceleration Factor (Ca) ...................................................................... 37 4.3.3 Results of Parameter Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................. 37 4.4 Benchmarks .................................................................................................................... 46 4.4.1 Sphere Function.................................................................................................. 46 4.4.2 Griewank’s Function .......................................................................................... 46 4.4.3 Rosenbrock Function ......................................................................................... 47 4.4.4 Rastrigin Function .............................................................................................. 47 4.5 Results and Evaluation................................................................................................... 47 4.6 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 65 Chapter 5 Application of Modified PSO Algorithms to Solve Constrained Nonlinear Engineering Problems ........................................................................................................ 66 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 66 5.2 The Penalty Function Methods ..................................................................................... 67 5.3 Test Problems ................................................................................................................. 69 5.3.1 Pressure Vessel Optimization ............................................................................ 70 5.3.2 Weld Beam Optimization .................................................................................. 73 5.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 77 Chapter 6 Applying Modified PSO in Heat Sink Design by Using Chaotic Acceleration and Global Mutation .......................................................................................................... 78 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 78 6.2 Entropy Generation Minimization (EGM) of a Heat Sink .......................................... 79 6.3 Optimization Results ...................................................................................................... 88 6.4 CFD Solution.................................................................................................................. 92 6.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 93 Chapter 7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 94 vi 7.1 Contributions and Significances ................................................................................... 94 7.2 Possible Future Work..................................................................................................... 95 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 97 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix A: Rosenbrock Simulations ............................................................................... 103 Appendix B: Rastrigrin Simulation Results ........................................................................ 105 Appendix C: Griewank Simulation Results ........................................................................ 107 Appendix D: Pressure Vessel Optimization (Simulation Results) .................................... 109 Appendix E: Weld Beam Optimization (Simulation Results) ........................................... 111 Appendix F: Computer Codes ............................................................................................. 113 vii List of Tables Table 3.1: Results obtained in this work and the paper by Shih and Liu ............................. 27 Table 4.1: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for PSO method ................................................................................... 38 Table 4.2: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSO method ................................................................................. 39 Table 4.3: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOS method ............................................................................... 40 Table 4.4: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOT method............................................................................... 40 Table 4.5: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOM method ............................................................................. 42 Table 4.6: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMS method ........................................................................... 43 Table 4.7: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMT method ........................................................................... 44 Table 4.8: Sphere function optimization with D=10............................................................ 49 Table 4.9: Sphere function optimization with D=20............................................................ 51 Table 4.10: Sphere function optimization with D=30 .......................................................... 51 Table 4.11: Griewank function optimization with D=10 ................................................... 53 Table 4.12: Griewank function optimization with D=20 .................................................... 54 Table 4.13: Griewank function optimization with D=30 ..................................................... 56 Table 4.14: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=10 ..................................................... 57 Table 4.15: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=20 .................................................... 58 Table 4.16: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=30 ..................................................... 60 Table 4.17: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=10 .................................................. 61 Table 4.18: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=20 .................................................. 63 Table 4.19: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=30 .................................................. 64 Table 5.1: Best results of pressure vessel optimization for PSO and modified algorithms .. 72 Table 5.2: Comparison of results for design of pressure vessel .......................................... 73 Table 5.3: Results of designing welded beam for PSO and modified PSO algorithms ....... 75 Table 5.4: Comparison of results for design of weld beam ................................................. 76 Table 6.1: Optimization results of non dimensional entropy generation rate ...................... 88 viii List of Figures Figure 2.1 : Movement of a particle in search space ......................................................... 16 Figure 2.2 : Flow chart describes the search mechanism of particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSO) ................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 3.1: Schematic diagram of a plate-fin sink. .............................................................. 24 Figure 3.2: Optimum entropy generation rate with vary of N (PSO and GA) .................... 28 Figure 0.1: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for PSO m ............................................................................................ 38 Figure 0.2: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSO method ................................................................................ 39 Figure 4.3: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOS method .............................................................................. 40 Figure 4.4: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOT method .............................................................................. 41 Figure 4.5: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOM method ............................................................................ 43 Figure 4.6: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMS method .......................................................................... 44 Figure 4.7: Parameter sensitivity analysis of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMT method .......................................................................... 45 Figure 4.8: Sphere function optimization with D=10 .......................................................... 49 Figure 4.9 : Sphere function optimization with D=20 ......................................................... 50 Figure 4.10: Sphere function optimization with D=30 ........................................................ 52 Figure 4.11: Griewank function optimization with D=10 .................................................... 53 Figure 4.12: Griewank function optimization with D=20 .................................................... 54 Figure 4.13: Griewank function optimization with D=30 .................................................... 55 Figure 4.14: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=10 .................................................... 57 Figure 4.15: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=20 .................................................... 58 Figure 4.16: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=30 .................................................... 59 Figure 4.17 : Rosenbrock function optimization with D=10 ................................................ 61 Figure 4.18: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=20 ................................................. 62 Figure 4.19: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=30 ................................................. 64 Figure 5.1: Schematic diagram of pressure vessel .............................................................. 71 ix Figure 5.2: Schematic diagram of welded beam ................................................................. 74 Figure 6.1: Schematic diagram of a general fin in convective heat transfer ........................ 82 Figure 6.2: Geometrical configuration of a plate-fin sink ................................................... 86 Figure 6.3: Optimization of non dimensional entropy generation rate ................................ 89 Figure 6.4: Optimum entropy generation rate with vary of N ............................................. 89 Figure 6.5: Optimum entropy generation rate and optimum flow velocity with different values of N ........................................................................................................................ 90 Figure 6.6: Optimum entropy generation rate and optimum thickness of fin with different values of N ........................................................................................................................ 91 Figure 6.7: Optimum entropy generation rate and optimum height of fin with different values of N ........................................................................................................................ 91 Figure 6.8: Temperature distribution through cross section of the heat sink ....................... 92 Figure 6.9: Velocity profile through the heat sink .............................................................. 93 x Nomenclature List of Symbols a Height of fin, m. Ac Cross-sectional area of the fin, m2. b Base thickness, mm. Ca Chaotic acceleration factor. d Thickness of the fin, m. Dh Hydraulic diameter of the channel, m. fapp Apparent friction factor. Drag force, N. fi Current solution that is achieved by a particle i. fg Global solution that is achieved by all particles. . h Fully developed flow factor Reynolds number group. ( ) Objective Function. ( ) Penalty factor. ( ) Inequality constraints. h Heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K. ℎ( ) Equality constraints. ℎ( ) Penalty value. iterationcurrent Current iteration number. iterationmax Total number of iteration. k Thermal conductivity of the heat sink, W/m.K. kf Thermal conductivity of air, W/m.K. Contraction loss coefficient. Expansion loss coefficient. L ∗ m Base length, mm. Dimensionless fin length. Mass, kg. xi ̇ Mass flow rate, kg/s. N Total number of fins. ̇ Non-dimensional Entropy generation rate. Nsize Swarm size. Nusselt number on heat sink in flow direction. P Perimeter, m. Best solution of the objective function that has been discovered by a particular particle. Best global solution of the objective function that has been discovered by all the particles of the population. ( ) Violated function of the constraints. Q Total heat dissipation , W. R Overall heat sink resistance, K/W. Rfin Thermal resistance of a single fin, K/W. Random number. Random number. ∗ s Reynolds number. Spacing between the fins, m. ̇ Entropy generation rate, W/k. Tb Base temperature, K. Te Ambient air temperature, K. Tw Wall temperature, K. Current velocity for particle i. New velocity for particle i. Vch Channel velocity, m/s. Stream velocity, m/s. Maximum velocity, m/s. W Heat sink width, m. Current location of the solution for each particle in the search space. New location of the solution for each particle in the search space. Lower bounds. xii Upper bounds. List of Greek Symbols ( ( )) Assignment function. Control parameter. Kinematical viscosity coefficient, m2/s. Air density, kg/m. ρ1 Cognitive parameter. ρ2 Social parameter. ( ( )) τ Power of the penalty function. Mutation operator. Inertia factor. Chaotic inertia weight factor. Minimum value of inertia factor. Maximum value of inertia factor. List of Subscripts amb Ambient. app Approach. ch Channel. d Dimension number D Total number of dimensions f Fluid. fin i Single fin. Particle number xiii List of Abbreviations CPSO Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization. CPSOM Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization with Mutation. CPSOMS Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization with Mutation (Chaotic Acceleration added to Second Term of Velocity equation). CPSOMT Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization (Chaotic Acceleration added to Third Term of Velocity equation). CPSOS Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization (Chaotic Acceleration added to Second Term of Velocity equation). CPSOT Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization (Chaotic Acceleration added to Third Term of Velocity equation). ES Evolution Strategy. EAs Evolutionary Algorithms. GA Genetic Algorithms. LP Linear programming problems. MAs Memetic Algorithms. NLP Nonlinear programming problem. PFM Non-stationary, Multi-stage Penalty Method. PSO Particle Swarm Optimization. QP Quadratic programming problems. SFL Shuffled Frog Leaping algorithm. xiv Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. C.W. de Silva and Dr. M.S. Gadala, my supervisors, for the opportunity they provided me to complete my doctoral studies under their exceptional guidance. Without their unending patience, constant encouragement, guidance and expertise, this work would not have been possible. My colleagues in Dr. de Silva’s Industrial Automation Laboratory and Dr. Gadala’s research group also deserve many thanks for their support. Most of all, I want to thanks my parents and my wife for endless support and encouragements throughout my various studies and life endeavors. xv Dedication To my parents xvi Chapter 1 Optimization Techniques 1.1. Introduction Optimization may be defined as the art of obtaining the best ways or solutions to satisfy a certain objective and at the same time satisfying fixed requirements or constraints [1]. The practice of optimization is as old as the civilization. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Egyptians applied an early version of optimization technique when they tried to figure out farmland taxes taking into account any change in value of each land resulting from annual flooding of Nile river [2]. Optimization is the branch of computational science that searches for the best solution of problems that are encountered in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, architecture, economics, management, and so on. The rapid advancement in the digital computing power and the enormous practical need for solving optimization problems have helped researchers in exploring different areas of science and in coming up with new methods that have the capability to solve hard and complicated problems. An optimization problem consists of the following basic components: The quantity to be optimized (maximized or minimized) which is termed the objective function (or, cost function or performance index or fitness function). The parameters which may be changed in the search for the optimum, which are 1 called design variables (or, parameters of optimization). The restrictions or limits placed on the parameter values (design variables) of optimization, which are known as constraints. The optimization scheme finds the values (design variables) that minimize or maximize the objective function while satisfying the constraints. Thus, the standard form of an optimization problem can be expressed as follows: Minimize ( ), =( , ,…………, ) 1-1 Subject to: ℎ ( ) = 0, = 1, … . , 1-2 ( ) ≤ 0, = 1, … . , 1-3 ≤ where ≤ 1-4 ( ) is the objective function and x is the column vector of the n independent variables. Constraint equations of the form ℎ ( ) = 0 are termed equality constraints, and those of the from ( ) ≤ 0 are termed inequality constraints. The equations ≤ ≤ are bounds on optimization variables. In summary, the formulation of an optimization problem involves the following: Selecting one or more design variables or parameters Choosing an objective function Identifying a set of constraints as applicable The objective function(s) and the constraint(s) must be functions of one or more design variables. 2 The optimization problems are mainly classified into these four types: Unconstrained problems: these problems have an objective function with no constraints. Problems with simple bounds can be treated as unconstrained problems. Linear programming problems (LP): if the objective function and all the constraints are linear functions, then the problem is called a linear programming problem. Quadratic programming problems (QP): if the objective function is a quadratic function and all the constraints are linear functions, then the problem is called a quadratic programming problem. Nonlinear programming problem (NLP): a general constrained optimization problem where one or more functions are nonlinear is called a nonlinear programming problem. The majority of engineering applications are classified under these categories of problems. In practice, there are many optimization algorithms and they may be classified into classical and stochastic methods [2]. Classical methods converge toward the solution by making deterministic decisions. They are considered to be less expensive in terms of the computational time. In the next section, the steepest descent algorithm, the Simplex method, and the Newton’s method will be described briefly as they are considered among the most common classical algorithms. 1.2. Classic Optimization Methods 1.2.1 The Steepest Descent Algorithm The steepest descent algorithm, which may be traced back to the French mathematician Cauchy in 1847 [2], is a first-order optimization algorithm to find the minimum value of a 3 function. It uses the gradient of a function (or the scalar derivative, if the function is singlevalued) to determine the direction in which the function is increasing or decreasing most rapidly. If the minimum points exist, the method is guaranteed to locate them after an (infinite number, theoretically) of iterations. The method is a simple, stable, and easy to implement but it has some major drawbacks as follows: It guarantees the convergence to a local minimum but does not ensure finding the global minimum. It is good for unconstrained optimization problems only. It is generally a slow algorithm. It tends to have poor performance if it is used by itself, not in conjunction with other optimizing methods. 1.2.2 Simplex Method Simplex method is a conventional direct search algorithm for solving linear programming problems, which was created by George Dantzig in 1947 [3]. In this method the best solution lies on the vertices of a geometric figure in N-dimensional space made of a set of N+1 points. The method compares the objective function values at the N+1 verteces and moves towards the optimum point, iteratively. The simplex method is very efficient in practice, generally taking 2m to 3m iterations at most (where m is the number of equality constraints) [2], and converging in expected polynomial time for certain distributions of random inputs. The movement of the simplex algorithm is achieved by reflection, contraction, and expansion. It has drawbacks including the following: it is costly in terms of computational time 4 it does not ensure convergence to global optimum and there exists the possibility of cycling 1.2.3 Newton Raphson Method In 1669, Isaac Newton found an algorithm to solve for the roots of a polynomial equation. Later, in 1690, Joseph Raphson modified Newton's method by using the derivative of a function to find its roots. That modified method is called the Newton-Raphson method [4]. In mathematics, it is the most widely used one of all root-locating algorithms. It can also be used to find local maxima and minima of functions, as theses extreme values are the roots of the derivative function. As the Newton-Raphson method uses the first derivative of the function to find the root, it is necessary that the function should be differentiable. 1.3. Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) In optimization problems where the functions do not satisfy convexity conditions or when the solution space is discontinuous, the deterministic methods are not applicable. However, stochastic methods, which make random decisions to converge to a solution, are known to be suitable for these problems. Most stochastic methods are usually considered to be computationally expensive but this may be offset by the advancements in computer technology. For this reason many researchers have heavily investigated the applicability of stochastic methods in different areas of science, engineering, economics, and so on. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are considered one of stochastic methods that take their inspiration from natural selection and survival of the fittest in the biological world [5]. EAs differ from other optimization techniques in that they involve a search from a "population" of solutions, not from a single point. Each iteration of an EA involves a competitive 5 selection, which wipes out poor solutions. Evolution Strategy (ES), Genetic Algorithms (GA), and PSO are examples of EAs [6] and they will be described briefly in the subsequent paragraphs. 1.3.1 Evolution Strategy (ES) Evolution Strategy (ES) is a stochastic search method based on the ideas of adaptation and evolution. The concept of ES was introduced by Ingo Rechenberg at Berlin Technical University in 1973 but was not developed as an algorithm to be used in the optimization field, but rather used as a method to find optimal parameter settings in laboratory experiments. Later on, through the work of Schwefel [5], ES was introduced as a method to solve optimization problems. ES merely concentrates on translating the fundamental mechanisms of biological evolution for technical optimization problems [7]. In ES, the individuals, which are the problem potential solutions, consist of the objective variables plus some other parameters such as the step size to guide the search. Search steps are taken through stochastic variation, called mutation [8]. The mutation is usually carried out by adding a realization of a normally distributed random vector. The parameters that parameterize the mutation distribution are called strategy parameters. The parameterization of an ES is highly customizable [9]. 1.3.2 Genetic Algorithms (GA) Genetic Algorithms (GA), under the umbrella of evolutionary methods work by mimicking natural evolution and selection in nature according to Darwin’s theory. GA was proposed by John Holland and his colleagues in the early part of the 1970s [10]. Simply, GA encodes a possible solution to a specific problem in the form of a simple chromosome (encoded string) and applies recombination operators to these structures in such a way as to 6 keep and store critical information of the problem. A collection of such strings is called a population. Associated with each chromosome is its fitness value. Those chromosomes which represent a better solution to the target problem are given more opportunity to reproduce than those that are poorer solutions [11]. If the processes of natural reproduction combined with the biological principle of survival of the fittest are applied, then in each generation progresses, good chromosomes with high values of fitness are predicted to be achieved. GA is known to be a useful substitute to traditional search and optimization methods, especially for problems with highly complex, non-analytic, or ill-behaved objective functions. A key element in a GA is that it maintains a population of candidate solutions that evolves over time [12]. The population allows the chromosomes to continue to explore new areas of the search space that potentially appear to have optimum solutions. 1.3.3 Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) More recently, an evolutionary computation technique called particle swarm optimization (PSO) has evolved as a population-based stochastic optimization technique. It was developed by Kennedy and Eberhart [13] and has been inspired by the group behavior of animals such as schools of fish and flocks of birds. Unlike other heuristic techniques of optimization, PSO has a flexible and well-balanced mechanism to enhance and adapt to the global and local exploration abilities. PSO has its roots primarily in two methodologies [14]. Perhaps more obvious are its ties to artificial life (A-life), and the behavior of flocks of birds, schools of fish, and swarms in particular. It is also related to evolutionary computation, and has ties to genetic algorithms and evolutionary strategies [15]. It exhibits some evolutionary computation attributes such as its initialization with a population of random solutions, searching for optima by updating generations, and updating based on the previous generations. 7 In general, PSO is based on a relatively simple concept, and can be implemented in a few lines of computer code. Furthermore, it requires only simple mathematical operators, and is computationally inexpensive in terms of both memory requirement and speed. In test functions of evolutionary algorithms PSO has been proved to perform well and has been used to solve many of the same kinds of problems as for evolutionary algorithms. PSO was initially used to handle continuous optimization problems. Subsequently, PSO has been expanded to handle combinatorial optimization problems, with both discrete and continuous variables. Early testing has found the implementation to be effective in complex practical problems. PSO does not suffer from some of the difficulties of EA. For example, a particle swarm system has memory, which the genetic algorithm (GA) does not have. In PSO, individuals who fly past the optima are pulled to return toward them, and knowledge of good solutions is retained by all particles [16]. Unlike other evolutionary computing (EC) techniques, PSO can be realized using a relatively simple program, which is an important advantage when compared with other optimization techniques. In summary, compared with other methods, PSO has the following advantages [17]: Faster and more efficient: PSO may get results of the same quality in significantly fewer fitness and constraint evaluations. Better and more accurate: In demonstrations and various application results, PSO is found to give better and more accurate results than other algorithms reported in the literature by its ability to converge to a good solution and escape local optima. Less expensive and easier to implement: The algorithm is intuitive and does not need specific domain knowledge to solve the problem. There is no need for transformations 8 or other complex manipulations. Implementation in difficult optimization areas requires relatively simple and short coding. The PSO method and the EAs seem to be promising alternatives to deterministic techniques. First, they do not rely on any assumptions such as differentiability or continuity. Second, they are capable of handling problems with nonlinear constraints, multiple objectives, and time-varying components. Third, they have shown superior performance in numerous real-world applications. 1.4. Research Goals and Objectives The main objectives of the present work are the following: Investigate possible adaptations of the PSO method for enhancing the thermal performance and efficiency of electronic cooling systems by applying PSO in heat sink design. Develop new extensions as performance enhancement strategies for the conventional PSO method. These modifications should not significantly complicate the algorithm and should improve its computational speed, its robustness and its ability to escape local minima. Study the enhanced PSO as an optimization tool in the present class of applications, using minimization of the entropy generation rate on the thermal performance of a heat sink. Apply the modified PSO method to design a heat sink for a practical electronic device. Compare its performance with that obtained using classical optimization methods, through computer simulation. 9 Utilize numerical procedures (e.g., FD) in solving the flow and heat transfer (HT) equations of the heat sink problem. 1.5 Thesis Structure A brief background of the optimization theory and the classical and non-classical techniques of optimization were presented in the first part of the present chapter (Chapter 1). In Chapter 2, a comprehensive literature review of PSO including its structure, how it works, suggested developments to improve PSO, and its applications are highlighted. Chapter 3 shows the applicability of PSO in heat sink design optimization. Chapter 4 presents the modifications (Chaotic Acceleration Factor, Chaotic Inertia Factor, and Best Global Mutation) to the PSO algorithm, in the present work, to enhance its performance. In Chapter 5, the performance of the modified PSO algorithms when they are applied to nonlinear constraint problems is studied. Chapter 6 presents a detailed study of application of the modified PSO algorithm in heat sink design. In Chapter 7 the main conclusions of the present work are drawn and avenues for future research are suggested. 10 Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Introduction The particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a relatively new generation of combinatorial metaheuristic algorithms and is based on mimicking the group behavior of animals; for example, flocks of birds or schools. In test functions of evolutionary algorithms, PSO has proved to perform well and has been used to solve many of the same kinds of problems as evolutionary algorithms. In this chapter PSO will be explained in detail in terms of its history, how it works, modifications that have been added to improve its research ability, and its applications. 2.2 History of PSO In 1995, two scientists introduced a new optimization technique and they named it “Particle Swarm Optimization.” The technique was inspired by A-life, biological evaluation and natural selection of species [6]. Simply, the method uses a population of individual particles where each particle has a position, a velocity, and memory of the location of its best fitness found during the search process. Each particle updates its velocity according to its momentum, its memory, and the shared memory of the other particles in its neighborhood. By adding the newly found velocity of the particle to its current position, the particle will move to a new position in the search space. The PSO method appears to rely on the five basic principles of swarm intelligence, as defined by [18]: Proximity: the swarm should handle simple space and time computations 11 Quality: the swarm should be a able to respond to quality factors in the environment Diverse response: the swarm should not commit its activities along excessively narrow channels Stability: the swarm should not change its behavior every time the environment varies Adaptability: the swarm must be able to change its behavior when the computational cost is not prohibitive. The PSO in its original form is defined by (see [14]): Velocity Update Equation: = + . .( − )+ . . − 2-1 Position Update Equation: = + 2-2 where Particle position vector : This vector contains the current location of the solution for each particle in the search space. Particle velocity vector : This vector represents the degree to which vector (both vectors have consistent units) will change in magnitude and direction in the next iteration. The velocity is the step size—the amount by which a change in the values changes the direction of motion in the search space; it causes the particle to make a turn. The velocity vector is used to control the range and resolution of the search. 12 Best solution Pi: This is the best solution of the objective function that has been discovered by a particular particle. Best Global Solution Pg : This is the best global solution of the objective function that has been discovered by all the particles of the population. ρ1 and ρ 2: Learning factors applied to influence the best position and the global best position, respectively, of a particle. rand1 and rand2 : are random numbers. Kennedy and Eberhart [18] introduced their new method to researchers by highlighting its potential as an effective optimization method while testing it in depth. They tested three variations of PSO: GBEST, where all particles have knowledge about the group’s best fitness, and two of the “LBEST” versions, one with a neighborhood of six particles and one with a neighborhood of two particles. They tested PSO by using it to train the weights of a neural network and showed that it is as effective as the usual error back-propagation method, and compared the performance of PSO to published benchmarks results for genetic algorithms (GAs). PSO outperformed GAs as it found the global optimum in each run, and appears to have fairly similar results to that reported for GAs in [19] in terms of the number of evaluations required to reach specified performance levels. In 1997 Kennedy [20] studied the effect of both social and cognition components on the performance of the algorithm by examining four models of PSO. These are “cognitiononly,” “social-only,” the full, and the “selfless” models. The first model was the “cognitiononly” model where he considered only the cognition component = + . .( − ) 2-3 13 The second model was “social-only" where the only social component was considered. = . . − 2-4 The “selfless” model was identical to the “social-only” model, with the exception that the neighborhood did not contain the individual's own previous best performance, that is, i ≠ g. Therefore, none were attracted to their own successes, but rather only followed one another through the hyperspace. Also, he introduced Vmax to control the particle’s velocity as he realized that some particles tend to have an explosive growth in their velocities. Kennedy compared the above-mentioned models with varying values of ρ1, ρ 2, and Vmax, by applying these four models in finding the weights of a neural network. He found that: In order to help particles avoid trapping at local minimum, Vmax should be sufficiently high. Both “social-only” and “selfless” models showed better performance when compared to the full model. On other hand, the “cognition-only” model showed the worst performance among the four models. In 1998, Shi and Eberhart [21] introduced the inertia factor w which plays a very crucial role in enhancing the search capability of the PSO algorithm. The inertia factor w is a parameter that is used to control the impact of the previous velocities on the current velocity. Hence, it influences the trade-off between the global and local exploration abilities of particles. When w is small, the PSO is more like a local search algorithm. If there is an acceptable solution within the initial search space, the PSO will find the global optimum quickly; otherwise, it will not find the global optimum. When w is large ( >1.2), the PSO tends to exploit new areas, which are beyond the search space limit. Consequently, the PSO will take more iterations to find the global optimum and have more chances of failing to find 14 the global optimum. When is 0.8 < <1.2 , the PSO will have the best chance to find the global optimum with a moderate number of iterations. According to Shi [21] it is recommended to start with a large value 1.4 for and linearly decrease the value to 0.5 in order to realize better convergence at reasonable speed. The inertia factor w can be computed according to the following equation: = + ∗ 2-5 where : the inertia factor and : the maximum and minimum values of inertia factor, which is assigned according to the behavior of the problem iterationmax = total number of iteration iterationcurrent = current iteration number The velocity equation after adding the inertia factor is as follows: = . + . .( − )+ . . − 2-6 The heart of the PSO algorithm is the process by which vid is modified in equation (2-6), forcing the particles to search through the most promising areas of the solution space again and again adding the particle’s velocity vector vid to its location vector xid to obtain a new location, as shown in Figure 2-1. Without modifying the values in vid, the particle would simply take uniform steps in a straight line through the search space and beyond. At each iteration, the previous values of vid constitute the momentum of a particle. This momentum is essential, as it is this feature of PSO that allows the particles to escape local 15 optima. The velocities of the particles in each dimension are clamped to a maximum velocity Vmax, as described before, which is an important parameter in determining the optimum value of the objective function, with which the regions between the present position and the best target position thus far are searched. If Vmax is too high, the particles might fly past good solutions. ∗ ∗ ∗( − ∗( − ) ) Figure 2.1: Movement of a particle in the search space. 16 On the other hand, if Vmax is too small, the particles might not explore sufficiently beyond locally good regions. In fact, they could become trapped in local optima, unable to move far enough to reach a better position in the problem space [22]. The acceleration constants ρ1 and ρ2 in equation (2-6) represent the weightings of the stochastic acceleration terms that direct each particle toward the pbest and gbest positions. They can be set to a value of 2.0 in a typical optimization problem [19]. Population size is related to the search space. If the population size is too small, is easy for the algorithm to converge to a local optimum; if the size is too large, it will occupy a large computer memory and will need long calculation time [18]. According to past work, 30–50 is a good population size, which will ensure good search space convergence and a reasonable computational time [23]. Figure 2.2 presents a flow chart that describes the search mechanism of the PSO algorithm. 17 Figure 2.2: Flow chart of the search mechanism of the PSO algorithm. 2.3 Developments of PSO The PSO algorithm has shown some important advances by providing high speed of convergence in specific problems. However, it has also been reported that the algorithm has a tendency to get stuck in a near optimal solution and it is difficult to improve the solution accuracy by fine tuning. The present work proposes a new variation of the PSO model where a new method of providing nonlinear variation of the inertia weight along with a 18 particle's old velocity are used to improve the speed of convergence as well as to fine tune the search in the multidimensional space. Also a new method of determining and setting a complete set of free parameters for any given problem is presented. This eliminates the tedious trial and error-based approach to determine these parameters for a specific problem. The performance of the proposed PSO model, along with the fixed set of free parameters, is amply demonstrated by applying it to several benchmark problems and comparing with several competing popular PSO and non-PSO combinatorial metaheuristic algorithms. Ratnaweera et al. [24] suggested a new acceleration coefficient and called it timevarying acceleration coefficient (TVAC). It improves convergence to the global solution by applying the linearly varying inertia weight (Equation 2-5) to adjust the acceleration constants. Fan [25] introduced an adaptive scaling term into the PSO algorithm in order to improve its convergence rate and reduce the number of objective function evaluations. The modified PSO algorithm was empirically studied with a suite of four well-known benchmark functions, and was further examined with a practical application case—neural-networkbased modeling of aerodynamic data. Chatterjee and Siarry [26] introduced a nonlinear variation of inertia weight along with a particle's old velocity to improve the speed of convergence as well as to fine tune the search in the multidimensional space. Higashi and Iba [27] combined PSO with Gaussian mutation. This method combines the traditional velocity and position update rules with the idea of Gaussian mutation. Stacey et al. [28] introduced a mutation operator into the PSO algorithm. This operator is a number randomly generated from a Cauchy distribution. 19 Secrest and Lamond [29] presented a new visualization approach based on the probability distribution of the swarm; thus the random nature of PSO is properly visualized. They suggested a new algorithm based on moving the swarm a Gaussian distance from the global and the local best. Liu et al. [30] introduced a mutation mechanism into PSO to increase its global search ability and to escape from local minima. The variable gbest mutated with Cauchy distribution. Xiang at al. [31] introduced a piecewise linear chaotic map (PWLCM) to perform the chaotic search. An improved PSO algorithm combined with PWLCM (PWLCPSO) was proposed subsequently, and experimental results were used to verify its superiority. Selvakumar and Thanushkodi [32] proposed what was called a split-up in the cognitive behavior. Making each particle remember its worst position helps the particles to explore the search space very effectively. In order to exploit the promising solution region, a simple local random search (LRS) procedure was integrated with PSO. Angeline, a well known researcher in the evolutionary computation area, suggested a hybrid version of the PSO algorithm [33]. The hybrid PSO incorporates a standard and explicit tournament selection method from the evolutionary programming algorithm. A comparison was performed between hybrid swarm and particle swarm, which showed that the new development provided an advantage for some but not all complex functions. For example, the hybrid PSO performed much worse than the standard PSO in evaluating the Griewank function, which is a complex function with many local minima. 20 2.4 Comparison Methods of PSO with Other Evolutionary Angeline in 1998 [34] did an early study to compare the particle swarm approach and evolutionary computation in terms of their performance in solving four nonlinear functions, which have been well-studied in the evolutionary optimization literature. He concluded that the performance of the two methods was competitive. Particularly, PSO often locates the near-optimum significantly faster than by evolutionary optimization but cannot dynamically adjust its velocity step size to continue optimization. Kennedy and Spears [35] compared the PSO algorithm with three versions of genetic algorithm (GA), without mutation; without crossover; and the standard GA which has crossover, mutation and selection, in a factorial time-series experiment. They found that all algorithms improved over time, but the PSO found the global optimum on every trial, under every condition. In short, PSO appears to be robust and shows superiority over all versions of GA in almost every cases. Hasen et al. [36] examined the effectiveness of PSO in finding the true global optimal solution and made a comparison between PSO and GA in terms of their effectiveness and their computational efficiency by implementing statistical analysis and formal hypothesis testing. The performance comparison of the GA and PSO was implemented using a set of benchmark test problems as well as two problems of space system design optimization, namely, telescope array configuration and spacecraft reliabilitybased design. They showed that the difference in the computational effort between PSO and the GA was problem dependent. It appears that PSO outperforms GA by a large differential in computational efficiency when used to solve unconstrained nonlinear problems with 21 continuous design variables and with low efficiency differential when applied to constrained nonlinear problems with continuous or discrete design variables. Lee et al. [37] implemented PSO and compared it with GA to find technical trading rules in stock market. It was found that PSO could reach the global optimal value with less iteration and kept equilibrium when compared to GA. Moreover, PSO showed the possibility of solving complicated problems without using the crossover, mutation, and other manipulations as in GA but using only basic equations. Elbeltagi et al. [38] compared five evolutionary algorithms: GAs, Memetic Algorithms (MAs), PSO, and Shuffled Frog Leaping algorithm (SFL) in solving two benchmark continuous optimization test problems. The PSO method was generally found to perform better than the other algorithms in terms of the success rate and the solution quality, while being second best in terms of the processing time. Allahverdi and Al-anzi [39] conducted extensive computational experiments to compare the three methods: PSO, Tabu search, and Earliest Due Date (EDD) along with a random solution in solving an assembly flow shop scheduling problem. The computational analysis indicated that the PSO significantly outperformed the others for difficult problems. 2.5 Applications of PSO PSO, since its introduction in 1995, has been extensively applied to a wide range of areas such engineering, science, medicine, and finance. Some examples of major areas of applications are given below. 22 DNA reach: Chang et al. [40] successfully applied PSO to protein sequence motif discovery problem. Their simulation results indicated that PSO could be used to obtain the global optimum of protein sequence motifs. Power and voltage control: Abido [41] applied PSO to solve the optimal power flow (OPF) problem. The results were promising and showed the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed approach. Biomedical imaging: Wachowiak et al. [42] introduced a version of hybrid PSO to biomedical image registration. The hybrid PSO technique produced more accurate registrations than by the evolutionary strategies in many cases, with comparable convergence. These results demonstrated the effectiveness of the PSO in image registration, and emphasized the need for hybrid approaches for difficult registration problems. Heat sink design in electronic cooling: Alrasheed et al. [43] applied PSO in the area of electronic cooling to heat sink design optimization. This work will be explained in more detail later in the thesis. Through a comparative evaluation using the results available in the literature, the following comments may be made: PSO uses objective function information to guide the search in the problem space. Therefore, it can easily accommodate non-differentiable and non-convex objective functions. Additionally, this property relieves PSO of analytical assumptions and approximations that are often required for traditional optimization methods. PSO uses probabilistic rules for particle movements, not deterministic rules. Hence, it is a type of stochastic optimization algorithm that can search a complicated and uncertain area, which makes PSO more flexible and robust than conventional method. 23 Chapter 3 Applicability of PSO in Heat Sink Design Optimization1 In this chapter, the particle swarm optimization (PSO) is applied to design a heat sink system. In the presented approach, a plate-fin heat sink design is realized for maximum dissipation of the heat generated from electronic components, as represented by the entropy generation rate. 3.1 Problem Statement d s a W L Figure 3.1: Schematic diagram of a plate-fin sink. 1 Alrasheed, M.R., de Silva, C.W., and Gadala, M.S., "Evolutionary optimization in the design of a heat sink," Editor: de Silva C.W., Mechatronic Systems: Devices, Design, Control, Operation and Monitoring, pp. 55-78, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, , 2007. Alrasheed, M. R. , de Silva, C. W., and Gadala, M. S. ,“A new extension of particle swarm optimization and its application in electronic heat sink design,” in ASME Conference Proceeding (IMECE 2007), Seattle, Washington, pp.1221-1230, November 2007. 24 Figure 3.1 shows the geometrical configuration of a plate-fin sink with horizontal inlet cooling flow. Configuration data are as follows: Both the base length L and the width W are 50 mm. The total heat dissipation of 30 W is uniformly applied over the base plate of the heat sink with a base thickness b of 2 mm. The thermal conductivity of the heat sink k is 200 W/m.K. The ambient air temperature Te is 278 K. The conductivity of air kf is 0.0267 W/m.K. The air density is 1.177 kg/m. The kinematical viscosity coefficient is 1.6 (10-5) m2/s. The goal is to establish the optimal number of fins N, optimum height of fins a, optimum thickness of each fin d, and the optimum flow velocity of cooling flow Vf. The objective is to minimize entropy generation rate: ̇ = + 3-1 Where ̇ : Entropy generation rate, W/k. : Heat dissipation rate, W : Overall thermal resistance of the total finned surface K/W. : Drag force, N : Stream velocity, m/s. 25 : Ambient temperature, K. N : Total number of fins a : Height of fin, m. d : Thickness of the fin, m. s : The spacing between the fins, m. W : Heat sink width, m. and the design variables [x1, x2, x3, x4]T = [ N, a, d, Vf ]. The design boundaries corresponding to each design variable are 2≤ ≤ 40 25 mm ≤ ≤ 140 mm 0.2 mm ≤ ≤ 2.5 mm 0.5 m⁄s ≤ ≤ 40 m⁄s The number of fins must be an integer that can be restricted in the following domain: 2≤ ≤ 1+ 3-2 The spacing s between two fins is given by: = − 3-3 The first example in the paper of Shih and Liu [44, 44] is considered here, for a comparative evaluation. 26 3.2 PSO Implementation Initially, several runs were carried out with different values for the PSO key parameters such as the initial inertia weight and the maximum allowable velocity. In the present implementation, the initial inertia weight w is set to 0.9. Other parameters are set as: number of particles n = 35, = = 2.0. The search is stopped if the number of iterations reaches 300. 3.2.1 Numerical Results Table 3.1 presents the results that were obtained by applying the PSO method, and a compassion of the obtained results with those by Shih and Liu in which they used the Newton-Raphson Method [44]. The last column shows the total structural volume of the heat sink, which is indicated as VoL (mm3). The larger value of VoL represents the higher structural mass required to manufacture the heat sink. Table 3.1: Comparison of the results obtained in this work and in [44]. N A (mm) d (mm) Vf (m/s) s (mm) ̇ 3 ( ) VoL (mm ) Current Work 21 106 1.4 1.25 1.2 0.002504 155820 [44] 1.61 1.05 .9368 0.002967 220740 20 134 The optimal solution of the entropy generation rate is 0.002504 W/K. A comparison has been done between PSO and GA and is shown in Figure 3.2. It shows both solutions of PSO and GA for different values of N. Both of PSO and GA have reached very close to the global solution but PSO has outperformed GA. 27 Figure 3.2: Variation of optimal entropy generation rate with number of fins, N (PSO and GA Solutions). 3.3 Summary The applicability of the PSO algorithm to the optimal heat sink design has been investigated and the PSO process was presented for the design of a plate-fin heat sink, with the objective of achieving maximum dissipation of the heat generated from electronic components. The entropy generation rate was used in the fitness function, to realize the highest heat transfer efficiency. The results are quite promising and indicate that PSO may be successfully applied in heat sink optimization. Also, PSO outperforms both GA and the classical optimization method as shown in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1. 28 Chapter 4 New Extensions to PSO and Analysis 4.1 Introduction In the previous chapters, the method of particle swarm optimization (PSO) was introduced in detail and it was shown that it is an effective, efficient, fast and simple method, which can outperform other available techniques of optimization. However, it entails several problems that other evolutionary methods suffer from. For example, in some cases, the particles tend to be trapped at local minima and are not able to escape them, resulting in premature convergence. In this chapter some innovative modifications are proposed to deal with these problems and to improve the robustness and convergence rate of PSO. Specifically, the following modifications are introduced and investigated: Chaotic Acceleration Factor Chaotic Inertia Factor Best Global Mutation The performance of these enhancements will be tested through benchmark equations that are commonly used in the optimization field. 29 4.2 Proposed Innovations From numerical experiments it is observed that in the final stage of searching, PSO suffers from a lack of diversity of the population. Because of premature convergence, particles will not be able to adequately explore the feasible domain, and they may eventually get trapped at local optima. 4.2.1 Chaotic Acceleration Factor (Ca) Although there is no standard definition of chaos, it may be defined as a behavior between perfect regularity and pure randomness [45]. There are typical features that a system should possess for it to be described as chaotic system. These features include the following: (a) It is nonlinear. (b) It has deterministic rules that every future state of the system must follow. (c) It is sensitive to initial conditions. Historically, the study of chaos began in mathematics and physics in 1963 when Lorenz [46] introduced the canonical chaotic attractor. It then expanded into engineering, and more recently into information and social sciences. Subsequently, the use of chaos as a tool to enhance optimization algorithms has attracted many researchers due to its ease of implementation and special ability to avoid trapping in local minima [47-54]. Due to the dynamic properties of the variables of chaos, the use of certain chaotic sequences, rather than random numbers, may alter the characteristics of optimization algorithms toward better solutions, by escaping from local optima. 30 In the present thesis a new parameter called the chaotic acceleration factor (Ca) is introduced into a new position equation of the PSO algorithm, to improve the speed and efficiency of the search. In particular, Ca is extracted from the logistic map equation, which is one of the chaotic sequences, as follows: = where ∙ ( − ) 4-1 is the control parameter and t is the iteration number. While equation (4-1) is deterministic, it exhibits chaotic dynamics when = 4 and ≠ {0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0}; that is, it exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions, which is a basic characteristic of chaos. The chaotic phenomenon is incorporated into PSO by using Ca n order to improve the quality of solutions and to ensure that the particles properly explore the search space. Moreover, Ca can enrich the searching behavior and improve the computational speed. 4.2.2 Chaotic Inertia Weight Factor (ωc ) In the standard PSO equation, the inertia weight factor ω was introduced by Shi and Eberhart [15, 16, 21,] to control the momentum of the particle by weighing the contribution of the previous velocity; i.e., controlling how much the knowledge (memory) of the previous flight direction will influence the new velocity. We used a starting value of 0.9 for the inertia factor and decreased it gradually with time until it reached 0.4. In order to ensure maintaining diversity of the population during all stages of the optimization process, a chaotic inertia weight factor ( ) is proposed here instead of the regular inertia weight factor (ω). The chaotic inertia weight factor ( =( ) can be computed as: ) ∗ 4-2 Where 31 ∶ the chaotic inertia weight factor ω : the regular inertia weight factor Ca : the chaotic acceleration factor 4.2.3 Global Best Mutation It has been observed through simulations with numerical benchmarks that PSO quickly finds a good local solution but it sometimes remains in a local optimum solution for a considerable number of iterations (generations) without any improvement [43]; i.e., particles are trapped at one of the local optimum solutions. To get rid of this tendency, the global search is improved by the introduction of a mutation process, which has some conceptual similarity to the mutation in genetic algorithms (GAs). Under this new modification, when the global optimum solution does not improve with the increasing number of generation, the mutation = operator ∑ (τ) is computed as follows: 4-3 Where fg = the global solution that is achieved by all particles fi = the current solution that is achieved by a particle i Nsize = swarm size When τ is too small, it indicates that particles may be trapped at a local optimum solution. So, if τ is less than a designated value σ, then the mutation process will start working by changing the updated velocity equation to be of the form: = + . 4-5 32 The following pseudocode shows how mutation process takes place in the PSO scheme: begin initialize the population for i=1 to number of particles evaluate the fitness update Pid and Pg for d = 1 to number of dimensions if ≤ = + . else = ∙ + ∙ ∙( − )+ ∙ ∙( − ) end if update the position increase d increase i end end 33 The effect of incorporating these proposed modifications into the PSO method is evaluated using the six versions of modified PSO listed below, in terms of both convergence rate and performance of the modified PSO. Version 1 (CPSO): replaces the regular inertia factor in the first right-hand term of velocity- update equation so that the new velocity of the particle is given by: = ∙ + ∙( ∙ )+ − ∙ ∙( − ) 4-6 Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term in the position-update equation: = Version 2 (CPSOS): + ∙ 4-7 replaces the regular inertia factor in the first right-hand term and Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term of velocity- update equation so that the new velocity of the particle is given by: = ∙ + . ∙( ∙ − )+ ∙ ∙ − 4-8 Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term in the position-update equation: = Version 3 (CPSOT): + ∙ 4-9 replaces the regular inertia factor in the first right-hand term and Ca is introduced to the third right-hand term of the velocity-update equation so that the new velocity of the particle is given by: = ∙ + ∙ ∙( − )+ . ∙ ∙ − 4-10 Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term in the position-update equation: = + ∙ 4-11 34 Version 4 (CPSOM): replaces the regular inertia factor in the first right-hand term of velocity-update equation so that the new velocity of the particle is given by: = ∙ Note that if + ≤ ∙( ∙ )+ − ∙ ∙( − ) 4-12 the update velocity equation given above will be replaced by what is called the mutated velocity equation: = + . 4-13 Also, Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term in the position-update equation: = Version 5 (CPSOMS): + ∙ 4-14 replaces the regular inertia factor in the first right-hand term and Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term of the velocity-update equation so that the new velocity of the particle is given by: If + ∙ ∙( ∙ )+ = ∙ − ∙ ∙ − ≤ the update velocity equation given above will be replaced by what is called the 4-15 mutated velocity equation: = + . 4-16 Aloso Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term in the position-update equation, = + ∙ 4-17 35 Version 6 (CPSOMT): replaces the regular inertia factor in the first right-hand term and Ca is introduced to the third right-hand term of the velocity-update equation so that the new velocity of the particle is given as: = If ≤ ∙ + ∙ ∙( − )+ ∙ ∙ ∙ − 4-18 the update velocity equation as given above will be replaced by what is called the mutated velocity equation: = + . 4-19 Also, Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term in the position-update equation: = + ∙ 4-20 The modified PSO method, as presented in this thesis, is termed mean PSO (or MPSO). All modifications that are incorporated into PSO are validated next against the original PSO using benchmark functions that are well known in the field of optimization. 4.3 Parameter Sensitivity Analysis The PSO algorithm has several parameters that play a crucial role in the performance of the algorithm in finding a good solution. These parameters are: Number of particles in the population, Nsize Inertia parameter, ω Cognitive parameter, ρ1 Social parameter, ρ2 36 In order to find the best set of parameters, a sensitivity analysis for determining the optimal values of the population size Nsize and the two learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 has been done and will be presented in Section 4.3.2. 4.3.1 Population Size Population size is related to the scale of the search space. If the population size is too small, the algorithm can easily converge to a local optimum; if it is too large, it will require a significant amount of computer memory and correspondingly increased computational time [20, 56]. In fact, the selected population size is problem-dependent. 4.3.2. Learning Factors ( ρ1 ) and (ρ2 ) The two learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 in the velocity-update equation represent the weighting of the stochastic acceleration terms that direct each particle toward the positions Pi and Pg. Early experience with PSO led to setting each of the acceleration constants ρ1 and ρ2 at 2.0 for typical applications [14]. However, for the newly modified versions of PSO the parameter sensitivity analysis will be done to decide if the settings of the classical PSO parameters are still adequate to achieve a good optimal solution. 4.3.3 Results of Parameter Sensitivity Analysis In order to perform the parameter sensitivity analysis, the sphere function is used as the fitness function with 20 dimensions, and each PSO version is run for 5 times. The resulting average fitness values are listed in the following tables. Tables 4.1 through Table 4.7 present the experimental results of optimal values for both population size Nsize and two learning factors ρ1 and ρ2. 37 Table 4-1: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for PSO. Nsize ρ1 = 0.5 ρ2 = 3.5 ρ1 = 1.0 ρ2 =3.0 ρ1 = 1.5 ρ2 =2.5 ρ1 = 2.0 ρ2 = 2.0 ρ1 = 2.5 ρ2 = 1.5 ρ1 = 3.0 ρ2 = 1.0 ρ1 = 3.5 ρ2 = 0.5 10 1.05E-01 4.60E-03 4.65E-04 1.54E-03 4.41E-03 1.00E-02 5.44E-01 20 2.00E-02 3.30E-04 2.79E-06 5.56E-09 2.21E-09 6.13E-05 7.19E-02 30 40 4.70E-02 1.19E-04 1.96E-06 2.13E-09 8.60E-11 4.54E-05 6.60E-02 5.00E-03 1.30E-04 1.53E-08 5.36E-12 9.55E-18 6.06E-07 4.80E-02 Figure 4.1: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for PSO. 38 Table 4.2: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSO. Nsize 10 ρ1 = 0.5 ρ2 = 3.5 8.80E-05 ρ1 = 1.0 ρ1 = 1.5 ρ2 =3.0 ρ2 =2.5 2.8E-04 2.20E-03 ρ1 = 2.0 ρ2 = 2.0 6.70E-05 ρ1 = 2.5 ρ2 = 1.5 4.40E-03 ρ1 = 3.0 ρ2 = 1.0 6.70E-03 ρ1 = 3.5 ρ2 = 0.5 8.E-02 20 30 40 1.90E-08 6.90E-16 2.80E-17 2.6E-12 1.9E-17 2.7E-21 1.00E-08 6.70E-14 9.60E-19 1.30E-07 9.50E-10 9.90E-12 2.50E-04 1.20E-06 7.50E-07 2.E-02 1.E-03 2.E-04 1.60E-12 4.56E-23 4.90E-30 Figure 4.2: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSO. 39 Table 4.3: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOS. Nsize 10 ρ1 = 0.5 ρ1 = 1.0 ρ1 = 1.5 ρ1 = 2.0 ρ1 = 2.5 ρ1 = 3.0 ρ1 = 3.5 ρ2 = 3.5 ρ2 =3.0 ρ2 =2.5 ρ2 = 2.0 ρ2 = 1.5 ρ2 = 1.0 ρ2 = 0.5 1. 38E 06 2.80E-05 2.20E-03 8.50E-05 1.08E-02 8.98E-03 1.63E-01 20 3.31E-09 2.60E-11 6.43E-11 8.20E-09 1.90E-07 2.54E-06 1.07E-01 30 8.54E-16 1.90E-15 9.12E-20 3.26E-13 2.23E-09 4.55E-08 1.63E-01 40 6.43E-18 2.70E-20 5.67E-24 5.53E-17 2.01E-11 2.08E-10 8.27E-02 Figure 4.3: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOS. 40 Table 4.4: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOT. Nsize 10 20 30 40 ρ1 = 0.5 ρ1 = 1.0 ρ1 = 1.5 ρ1 = 2.0 ρ1 = 2.5 ρ1 = 3.0 ρ1 = 3.5 ρ2 = 3.5 ρ2 =3.0 ρ2 =2.5 ρ2 = 2.0 ρ2 = 1.5 ρ2 = 1.0 ρ2 = 0.5 9.10E-05 2.90E-04 2.28E-03 6.93E-05 4.55E-03 6.93E-03 8.27E-02 2.87E-08 3.92E-12 2.41E-17 1.51E-08 1.96E-07 3.77E-04 3.02E-02 6.92E-16 1.91E-17 4.92E-28 6.72E-15 9.53E-10 1.20E-06 1.00E-03 3.74E-17 3.61E-25 6.54E-36 1.28E-30 1.32E-11 1.00E-06 2.67E-04 Figure 4.4: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOT. 41 Table 4.5: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOM. Nsize 10 20 30 40 ρ1 = 0.5 ρ1 = 1.0 ρ1 = 1.5 ρ1 = 2.0 ρ1 = 2.5 ρ1 = 3.0 ρ1 = 3.5 ρ2 = 3.5 ρ2 =3.0 ρ2 =2.5 ρ2 = 2.0 ρ2 = 1.5 ρ2 = 1.0 ρ2 = 0.5 9.10E-05 2.90E-04 2.28E-03 6.93E-05 4.55E-03 6.93E-03 8.27E-02 2.87E-08 3.92E-12 2.41E-12 1.51E-08 1.96E-07 3.77E-04 3.02E-02 6.92E-16 1.91E-17 4.92E-21 6.72E-14 9.53E-10 1.20E-06 1.00E-03 3.74E-17 3.61E-21 6.54E-25 1.28E-18 1.32E-11 1.00E-06 2.67E-04 42 Figure 4.5: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOM. Table 4.6: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMS. Nsize 10 20 30 40 ρ1 = 0.5 ρ1 = 1.0 ρ2 = 3.5 ρ2 =3.0 ρ1 = 1.5 ρ2 =2.5 ρ1 = 2.0 ρ2 = 2.0 ρ1 = 2.5 ρ2 = 1.5 ρ1 = 3.0 ρ2 = 1.0 ρ1 = 3.5 ρ2 = 0.5 1.85E-04 5.90E-04 4.64E-03 1.41E-04 9.26E-03 1.41E-02 1.68E-01 7.20E-08 9.83E-12 6.05E-12 3.79E-08 4.92E-07 9.46E-04 7.58E-02 7.16E-16 1.98E-17 5.09E-21 6.95E-14 9.86E-10 1.24E-06 1.03E-03 4.99E-17 4.82E-21 8.73E-24 1.71E-18 1.76E-11 1.34E-06 3.57E-04 43 Figure 4.6: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMS. Table 4.7: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMT. Nsize 10 20 30 40 ρ1 = 0.5 ρ1 = 1.0 ρ2 = 3.5 ρ2 =3.0 ρ1 = 1.5 ρ2 =2.5 ρ1 = 2.0 ρ2 = 2.0 ρ1 = 2.5 ρ2 = 1.5 ρ1 = 3.0 ρ2 = 1.0 ρ1 = 3.5 ρ2 = 0.5 8.31E-05 2.65E-04 2.08E-03 6.33E-05 4.16E-03 6.33E-03 7.55E-02 2.42E-08 3.30E-12 2.03E-12 1.27E-08 1.65E-07 3.18E-04 2.54E-02 6.52E-16 1.80E-17 4.63E-23 6.33E-14 8.98E-10 1.13E-06 9.42E-04 2.70E-18 2.61E-22 4.73E-29 9.26E-20 9.55E-13 7.23E-08 1.93E-05 44 Figure 4.7: Sensitivity of learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 with different population number for CPSOMT. It is noticed from the results that, generally, if we increase the number of particles (population size), all PSO versions provide a better fitness function value, and this supports what is published in the literature. On the other hand, we cannot come to the same conclusion on the two learning factors ρ1 and ρ2. According to literature [56], it is a common practice to set the values of both learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 to be 2.0. However, there are better values for the two learning factors ρ1 and ρ2 that can be chosen. According to the numerical experiments performed in the present work, the optimal values of ρ1 and ρ2 in PSO are 2.5 and 1.5, respectively, as noted in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1. However, the optimal values of ρ1 and ρ2 in CPSO, CPSOS, CPSOT, CPSOM, CPSOMS, and CPSOMT 45 are 1.5 and 2.5, respectively, when the swarm size is greater than or equal to 20, as clear from Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, and Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. Otherwise, the optimal values of ρ1 and ρ2 in CPSO, CPSOS, CPSOT, CPSOM, CPSOMS, and CPSOMT are chosen to be 2. 4.4 Benchmarks In evolutionary optimization methods several well-known benchmarks have been used to evaluate their performance, primarily with regard to the optimum solution after a predefined number of iterations and the rate of convergence to the optimum solution. Four well-known benchmark functions are given in the following sections. These functions are used in the present work to assess the proposed modifications to the PSO. 4.4.1 Sphere Function This is known as De-Jong’s function. The definition of this function is: ( )=∑ Its global minimum is ( ) = 0.0; 4-21 = 0, = 1, . 4.4.2 Griewank’s Function Griewank’s function is a highly multimodal problem and many optimization methods normally get trapped in its local minima. The definition of this function is: ( )= Its global optimum is ( ) = 0, ∑ +∏ √ 4-22 =0, d = 1, D. 46 4.4.3 Rosenbrock Function Rosenbrock’s valley is also known as the Banana function. The global optimum is inside a long, narrow and parabolic shaped flat valley with many local minima. Arriving at the neighborhood of the valley is trivial, but converging to the global optimum is difficult. The definition of this function is: ( )= ∑ Its global optimum is ( ( ) = 0, − ) +( − ) 4-23 =0, d = 1, D. 4.4.4 Rastrigin Function This is a nonlinear multimodal function. This function is a fairly difficult problem due to its large search space and its large number of local minima. The definition of this function is: ( )=∑ ( Its global optimum is − ( ) = 0, + − ) + ∗ − ∗ ( )+ 4-24 =0, d = 1, D. 4.5 Results and Evaluation The original PSO and the newly modified CPSO, CPOS, CPSOT, and CPSOM, CPSOMS and CPSOMT2 methods are applied to the four benchmark functions presented above (Sphere, Rastrigin, Griewank, and Rosenbrock). All benchmarks are tested with 10, 20, and 30 dimensions and the search domain for all benchmark functions is {-5,5}. For each function, 20 trials 3 are carried out. The resulting average solution, best solution, worst 2 Computer codes of PSO and modified PSO algorithms are included on Appendix F. Results of all trials for Rosenbrok, Rastrigin, and Griewank functions are listed on Appendix A, B, and C respectively . 3 47 solution, and the standard deviation (S.D.) are presented in Tables 4.8 through 4.19 and Figure 4.8 through Figure 4.19. All benchmark functions have the global optimum values of 0.0. All benchmark functions are multidimensional. In the simulation exercises, the modified and original PSO algorithms are implemented in MATLAB 7.1 and run on a Pentium 4 computer with a 3.20 GHz processor and 1GB of RAM. It is clear from the results given in Tables 4.8 through 4.19, that in general, the modified PSO algorithms as proposed in the present thesis have been able to reach the true solution for each test function more successfully than the original PSO. In particular, CPSO, CPSOT and CPSOS are found to be superior to the other methods considered here in most test cases. With regard to the convergence rate, most methods have reached the global solution within the allowed number of iterations, which was 2000 taking into consideration that in each iteration all algorithms do a number of fitness function evaluations. When a population-based optimization method is applied to solve a real world problem, a trade-off has to be struck between the convergence rate and the precision of the solution. The modified PSO algorithms as proposed in the present work have demonstrated both good convergence rate and solution precision, which make them appropriate for solving complex optimization problems. Figure 4.8 and Table 4.8 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Sphere function with 10 design variables (D = 10). It is clear that all PSO algorithms are able to reach a good solution within allowable iteration number. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and convergence rate. CPSOT outperformed all other algorithms and achieved the best solution which was 1.8E-108. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape 48 a local minimum in shorter time. In terms of number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1000 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 180 to 450 iterations to achieve their goals. Table 4.8: Sphere function optimization with D=10. D=10 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 1.3E-43 3.3E-39 1.3E-39 1.6E-39 CPSO 5.04E-96 5.04E-96 1.40E-82 8.06E-83 CPSOS 8.6E-93 6.0E-81 2.4E-81 3.0E-81 CPSOT 1.8E-108 4.86E-90 1.94E-90 2.4E-90 CPSOM 2.67E-75 3.49E-71 1.40E-71 1.76E-71 CPSOMS 6.22E-73 7.03E-64 2.81E-64 3.54E-64 CPSOMT 8.38E-80 2.67E-78 1.17E-78 1.3E-78 Figure 4.8: Sphere function optimization with D=10. 49 Figure 4.9 and Table 4.9 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Sphere function with 20 design variables (D = 20). It is clear that all PSO algorithms are able to reach a good solution within allowable iteration number. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and convergence rate. CPSOT outperformed all other algorithms and achieved the best solution which was 2.1E-36. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in shorter time. In terms of number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1200 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 450 to 700 iterations to achieve their goals. Figure 4.9: Sphere function optimization with D=20. 50 Table 4.9: Sphere function optimization with D=20. D=20 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 9.70E-18 4.91E-17 6.83E-18 2.37E-17 CPSO 1.00E-31 5.43E-29 3.64E-30 3.03E-29 CPSOS 7.31E-26 2.60E-24 4.87E-25 1.3E-24 CPSOT 2.1E-36 8.4E-35 2.1E-36 4.7E-35 CPSOM 4.09E-25 1.98E-24 5.43E-25 8.71E-25 CPSOMS 7.56E-20 1.72E-19 6.48E-25 8.62E-20 CPSOMT 3.70E-30 1.52E-27 8.93E-28 7.62E-28 Figure 4.10 and Table 4.10 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Sphere function with 30 design variables (D = 30). It is clear that all PSO algorithms are able to reach a good solution within the allowable iteration number. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of the solution and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSO, CPSOT, and CPSOM have outperformed all other algorithms and have achieved the best solution which was 0. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1500 iteration whereas all the modified PSO algorithms needed 700 to 850 iterations to achieve their goals. Table 4.10: Sphere function optimization with D=30. D = 30 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 6.598E-11 5.246E-09 2.41E-09 1.77E-09 CPSO 0 1.03E-10 4.52E-11 4.773E-11 CPSOS 2.1E-14 4.06E-09 1.78E-09 1.868E-09 CPSOT 0 8E-15 3.75E-15 3.192E-15 CPSOM 0 1.088E-07 4.754E-08 4.99E-08 CPSOMS 2.79E-09 3.62E-06 1.58E-06 1.311E-06 CPSOMT 2.307E-12 1.35E-09 6.01E-10 4.82E-10 51 Figure 4.10: Sphere function optimization with D=30. Figure 4.11 and Table 4.11 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Griewank function with 10 design variables (D = 10). It is clear that all PSO algorithms are able to reach a good solution within the allowable iteration number. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and convergence rate. Specifically, CPSO, CPSOS, CPSOT, CPSOM and CPSOMT have outperformed all other algorithms and achieved the average solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1000 52 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 250 to 400 iterations to achieve their goals. Figure 4.11: Griewank function optimization with D=10. Table 4.11: Griewank function optimization with D=10. D=10 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 0 0.085313 0.027272 0.028536 CPSO 0 0.007396 0.002853 0.003819 CPSOS 0 0.007396 0.002219 0.003118 CPSOT 0 0.007396 0.0028 0.003573 CPSOM 0 0.007396 0.003381 0.003819 CPSOMS 0 0.043659 0.011411 0.013485 CPSOMT 0 0.00739604 0.002852758 0.003819299 Figure 4.12 and Table 4.12 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Griewank function with 20 design variables (D = 20). It is clear that all PSO algorithms have been able to reach a good solution within the allowable iteration number. All PSO algorithms were able to achieve the known global optimum. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution 53 and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSO and CPSOM outperformed all other algorithms and achieved the average solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1200 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 550 to 620 iterations to achieve their goals. Table 4.12: Griewank function optimization with D=20. D=20 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 0 0.009396 0.003415 0.004206 CPSO 0 0.007396 0.001233 0.002465 CPSOS 0 0.007396 0.002193 0.003291 CPSOT 0 0.007396 0.00281 0.003609 CPSOM 0 0.007397 0.001233 0.002466 CPSOMS 0 0.007405 0.002855 0.003638 CPSOMT 0 0.007398195 0.001849378 0.003261846 Figure 4.12: Griewank function optimization with D=20. 54 Figure 4.13 and Table 4.13 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Griewank function with 30 design variables (D = 30). It can be seen that all PSO algorithms have been able to reach a good solution within allowable iteration number. All modified PSO algorithms were able to achieve the known global optimum except CPSOMT. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. It is seen that CPSO, CPSO, CPOST, CPSOM and CPSOMS outperformed all other algorithms in terms of the average solution and the best solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in relatively a shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1300 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 750 to 850 iterations to achieve their goals. Figure 4.13: Griewank function optimization with D=30. 55 Table 4.13: Griewank function optimization with D=30. D=30 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 1.06E-11 0.007396 0.002602 0.003118 CPSO 0 0.001396 0.000336 0.000589 CPSOS 0 0.002567 0.000903 0.001082 CPSOT 0 0.00604 0.001454 0.002547 CPSOM 0 0.008222 0.001979 0.0026 CPSOMS 0 0.008026 0.004542 0.003957 CPSOMT 3E-15 0.007443829 0.002686594 0.003593766 Figure 4.14 and Table 4.14 show the simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Rastrigrin function with 10 design variables (D = 10). Rastrigrin function is one of the most difficult functions to be optimized as it has a large number of local minima. It is seen that all PSO algorithms have been able to reach a good solution within the allowable iteration number. In particular, CPSO, CPSOMS and CPSOMT algorithms were able to achieve the known global optimum. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSO, CPSOMS and CPSOMT outperformed all other algorithms in terms of the average solution and the best solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a relatively shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1600 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 1100 to 1200 iterations to achieve their goals. 56 Figure 4.14: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=10. Table 4.14: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=10. D=10 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 4.974795285 7.959672457 6.910442906 0.96122177 CPSO 2E-15 5.969754 3.464267 1.694354 CPSOS 1.989918 7.959667 3.979835 2.149356 CPSOT 1.989918 3.979836 2.695435 0.914304 CPSOM 0.995383 4.974799 3.227677 1.303357 CPSOMS 0 3.013232 1.835103 1.131792 CPSOMT 0 5.969754 2.813475 1.843339 Figure 4.15 and Table 4.15 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Rastrigrin function with 20 design variables (D = 20). It is clear that all PSO algorithms have been able to reach an acceptable solution within the allowable iteration number. In particular, CPSO, CPSOMS and CPSOMT algorithms were able to achieve the known global optimum. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the 57 traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSO, and CPSOS outperformed all other algorithms in terms of the average solution and the best solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a relatively shorter time. Table 4.15: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=20. D=20 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 15.91934491 28.50376999 21.09443762 4.470941433 CPSO 7.959672 17.90926 13.16813 3.416182 CPSOS 10.94454 21.88908 15.39171 3.555032 CPSOT 10.94455 16.91429 12.98059 2.300148 CPSOM 17.92058 26.32373 20.905 3.498989 CPSOMS 11.94915 26.87325 19.33908 5.794101 CPSOMT 10.97153 23.98774 16.4983 4.13588 Figure 4.15: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=20. 58 Figure 4.16 and Table 4.16 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Rastrigrin function with 30 design variables (D = 30). It is seen that CPSO, CPSOMS and CPSOMT algorithms have been able to achieve the known global optimum. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSO outperformed all other algorithms in terms of the average solution and the best solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a relatively shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 1600 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 1100 to 1200 iterations to achieve their goals. Figure 4.16: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=30. 59 Table 4.16: Rastrigrin function optimization with D=30. D=30 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 26.86389454 43.8588536 33.65625578 6.879109055 CPSO 8.954632 33.82858 22.70315 8.007193 CPSOS 17.90925 36.81344 26.74327 6.137811 CPSOT 15.91934 40.79325 24.27848 7.831487 CPSOM 18.17345 40.78773 33.43253 6.222735 CPSOMS 19.43948 40.40168 33.38235 6.570589 CPSOMT 13.17637 36.20901 28.6357 6.494845 Figure 4.17 and Table 4.17 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Rosenbrock function with 10 design variables (D = 10). Rosenbrock function is one of the most difficult functions to be optimized as it has a large number of local minima. It is clear that all PSO algorithms have been able to reach a good solution within the allowable iteration number. In particular, CPSO and CPSOT were able to achieve the known global optimum. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSOT outperformed all other algorithms in terms of the average solution and the best solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a relatively shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 2000 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 500 to 1000 iterations to achieve their goals. 60 Figure 4.17: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=10. Table 4.17: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=10. D=10 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 0.090054 3.940706 1.909339 1.628303 CPSO 0.001282 1.840562 0.955371 0.742766 CPSOS 0.001639 4.038685 0.873332 1.23413 CPSOT 6.6E-06 2.451469 0.50586 0.868776 CPSOM 0.090054 2.437366 1.54684 0.754985 CPSOMS 0.090054 3.327898 1.584687 1.227509 CPSOMT 0.020679 4.157364 1.650556 1.252528 Figure 4.18 and Table 4.18 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Rosenbrock function with 20 design variables (D = 20). It is clear that all PSO algorithms have been able to reach a good solution within the allowable iteration number. CPSO, CPSOS and CPSOT algorithms were able to achieve the known global optimum. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO 61 in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSO, CPSOS and CPSOT outperformed all other algorithms in terms of the average solution and the best solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a relatively shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 2000 iterations whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 650 to 800 iterations to achieve their goals. Figure 4.18: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=20 62 Table 4.18: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=20. D=20 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 12.65441 14.9686 13.69032 0.815488 CPSO 0.002623 12.13264 3.725323 4.849451 CPSOS 0.00032 12.39382 2.585996 5.022837 CPSOT 0.000709 12.22404 2.600068 4.948742 CPSOM 9.608504 15.31318 11.61442 1.584104 CPSOMS 10.46939 15.60611 12.06622 1.503618 CPSOMT 11.60427 15.08629 12.8114 1.120934 Figure 4.19 and Table 4.19 show simulation results of applying all PSO algorithms to minimize a Rosenbrock function with 30 design variables (D = 30). It is seen that all PSO algorithms have been able to reach a good solution within the allowable iteration number. However, all modified PSO algorithms show superiority over the traditional PSO in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. In particular, CPSO, CPSOS and CPSOT outperformed all other algorithms in terms of the average solution and the best solution. Moreover, the traditional PSO needed a very long time to escape from local minima whereas all other modified PSO algorithms were able to escape a local minimum in a relatively shorter time. In terms of the number of iterations needed to reach the optimum, PSO needed around 2000 iteration whereas all modified PSO algorithms needed 850 to 950 iterations to achieve their goals. 63 Figure 4.19: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=30. Table 4.19: Rosenbrock function optimization with D=30. D=30 Best Worst Average STDEV PSO 21.95872 25.52825 23.49714 1.26055 CPSO 0.131364 23.27029 7.753474 6.710197 CPSOS 0.882529 24.16119 8.680051 6.399701 CPSOT 0.24779 23.41681 8.199372 6.247195 CPSOM 20.15327 24.96864 22.68379 1.652533 CPSOMS 20.32102 24.09354 22.67154 1.241008 CPSOMT 0.24779 25.01151 9.550961 7.182383 As it is easy to be figured out, the classical PSO is out performed by all modified PSO algorithms suggested in this thesis. Because of velocity playing a crucial role in PSO’s performance and the change in velocity in the classical PSO decreases especially when particles reach a local optimum and makes particles not able to explore new area so that the classical PSO reaches a stagnation period. Whereas in modified PSO Algorithms, this problem has been avoided by incorporating chaos phenomena in PSO by introducing a 64 chaotic acceleration factor and modified inertia factor and velocity equation. By having such modifications, population diversity is ensured and maintained through search process and particles may travel over the whole search space. In most cases, modified PSO algorithms without mutation factor generally performed better than other modified PSO with mutation. The mutation factor should be reconsidered and also velocity during mutation process. 4.6 Summary The PSO algorithm is known to have superior features compared with the traditional optimization methods. The PSO algorithms use objective-function information to guide the search in the problem space. Therefore, they can easily deal with non-differentiable and nonconvex objective functions. This property relieves PSO algorithms of numerous analytical assumptions and approximations, which are often, required for traditional optimization methods. The PSO algorithms use probabilistic rules for particle movements, not deterministic rules. Hence, they are a type of stochastic optimization algorithm that can search a complicated and uncertain area. This feature makes the PSO algorithms more flexible and robust than the conventional methods. However, improving the convergence of the PSO algorithm is an important objective when solving complex real-world problems. In this chapter, novel modifications were incorporated into the original PSO method, in different formats, to improve its convergence performance. The performance of the proposed PSO methods were studied and compared with the original PSO method by using a suite of four well-known test functions. All modified PSO methods proposed in this chapter showed superior performance over the original PSO in terms of the quality of solution and the convergence rate. 65 Chapter 5 Application of Modified PSO Algorithms to Solve Constrained Nonlinear Engineering Problems4 5.1 Introduction Constraint handling is a challenging problem in numerous applications such as engineering design, finance, mathematics, economics, and structural engineering. A general constrained optimization problem may be defined as: Minimize ( ), =( , ,…………, ) Subject to ( ) ≤ 0, ≤ = 1, … . , ≤ where f (x) is the objective function, and x is the column vector of n independent variables. ( ) ≤ 0 are inequality constraints and ≤ ≤ are bounds on the optimization 4 Alrasheed, M.R. ,de Silva, C.W. and Gadala, M.S., " Application of PSO with Novel Chaotic Acceleration, Chaotic Inertia factors and Best Global Mutation Algorithms to solve Constrained Nonlinear Engineering Problems”, (Submitted) 66 variables. Nonlinear optimization problem is complex and unpredictable. Therefore applying deterministic approaches to it may be not be feasible if the objective function has discontinuity or is non-differentiable. Thus, applying evolutionary algorithms (EAs) and PSO to solve nonlinear constraint problems shows better promise over the classical optimization algorithms. Parsopoulos and Vrahatis [57] compared the ability of PSO with EAs such as genetic algorithms (GAs) to solve nonlinear constrained optimization problems. They found that PSO in most cases outperformed the other EAs in terms of convergence to better solutions. There are different techniques to handle constraints in evolutionary computing optimization algorithms and PSO. Michalewicz [58] classified these techniques into several areas as follows: Techniques based on penalty functions Techniques based on the rejection of infeasible solutions Techniques based on repair algorithms Techniques based on specialized operators Techniques based on behavioral memory 5.2 The Penalty Function Methods The penalty function methods-based techniques are common approaches to constraint handling optimization problems. In these techniques, a constrained problem is transformed into a non-constrained problem by penalizing the constraints and forming a single objective function as: ( )= ( ) ( )+ ( ) ∈ ∉ 5-1 67 where ( ) is zero if no constraint is violated and is positive otherwise. The feasible region is where satisfies all constraints and the unfeasible region is where at least one of constraints has been violated. ( )= ( )+ ( ) 5-2 The penalty functions are classified into two main types according the penalty values. If the fixed penalty values have to be used, then the penalty function is called a stationary penalty function. In contrast, if the penalty values are adjusted dynamically, then the penalty function is called a non-stationary penalty function [57]. If the penalty values are high, the optimization algorithms usually get trapped in local minima. However, if the penalty values are low, this may lead to slow and difficult convergence in optimization algorithms. Non-stationary penalty functions generally show superiority over the stationary penalty functions [57]. Consequently, the penalty function methods require a fine tuning of both the penalty functions and the penalty values to avoid premature convergence. In this chapter a non-stationary, multi-stage penalty method (PFM) for constraint handling with PSO and modified PSO algorithms are implemented to solve two engineering problems. Non-stationary, Multi-stage Penalty Method (PFM): The non-stationary, multi-stage penalty method (PFM) for constraint handling was first introduced by Parsopoulos and Vrahatis in [57, 59]. The penalty value ℎ( ) and a penalty factor ( ). So, the ( ) = ℎ( ) ∗ ( ) ( ) is the product of a ( ) can be written as: 5-3 where ℎ( ) is a dynamically modified penalty value, t is the current iteration, and ( ) is a penalty factor. So, an objective function may be defined as: ( )= ( ) + ℎ( ) ∗ ( ) 5-4 68 ( ) , a penalty factor, is defined as follows: ( )=∑ ( ( ))∗ ( ) ( ( )) 5-5 where ( )= So, {0 , ( )} , = 1, … . And ( ) are the constraints. ( ) is a violated function of the constraints ( ( ) ) is an assignment function ( ( )) is the power of the penalty function For the problems that are optimized in this chapter, a violation tolerance is used for ( ) is considered to be violated if constraints. Therefore, a constraint ( ) > 10 . The following values (reported in Yang et al.[60] ) are used for the penalty function: If ( ) < 1, then ( If ( ) < 0.001, then else if ( ) < 0.1, then ( else if ( ) ≤ 1, then ( otherwise ( ( ) ) = 10, else if ( ) = 2; ( ) = 1, ( ) ) = 20, ( ) ) = 100, ( ) ) = 100; The penalty value ℎ( ) is set to ℎ( ) = ∗ √ 5.3 Test Problems A non-stationary, multi-stage penalty function method (PFM) for constraint handling with the original PSO and the proposed modified CPSO, CPOS, CPSOT, and CPSOM, CPSOMS and CPSOMT methods are applied to two engineering problems with constraints: Pressure vessel design optimization and Weld beam optimization. Both problems are tested 69 in 30 dimensions. For each problem, 50 trials5 are carried out. The resulting average solution, best solution, worst solution, and the standard deviation (S.D.) are presented in Tables 5.1 and Table 5.3. In the simulation, the modified and the original PSO algorithms are implemented in MATLAB 7.1 and run on a Pentium 4 computer with a 3.20 GHz processor and 1GB of RAM. 5.3.1 Pressure Vessel Optimization Pressure vessel (see Figure 5-1) design is an important structural engineering optimization problem. The objective is typically to find the lowest cost including the cost of material, forming and welding. The problem involves discontinuous and non-differentiable problems, so we have to consider stochastic optimization algorithms. Here we specifically apply the PSO and Modified PSO algorithms. The objective of the problem of the pressure vessel design is to minimize the total cost, including the cost of material, forming and welding. There are four design variables: head, ), R (inner radius, including the head, (thickness of the shell, ), (thickness of the ) and L (length of the cylindrical section of the vessel, not ). 5 Results of all trials for Vessel design optimization and Weld beam optimization are listed on Appendix D, and E respectively 70 Th Ts L R R Figure 5-1: Schematic diagram of a pressure vessel. Using the same notation as given by Kannan and Kramer [61] and Coello [62], the problem may be stated as follows: Minimize ( ) = 0.6224 ∗ 1.7781 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ + 3.1661 ∗ 19.84 ∗ + ∗ + ∗ 5-6 Subject to: ( )=− ( )=− ( )=− ∗( ( )= + 0.0193 ∗ + 0.00954 ∗ ∗ ) − 0.75 ∗ − 240 ≤ 0 ≤0 ≤0 ∗( ) + 1296000 ≤ 0 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 The following ranges of variables are used: 1≤ ≤ 99 71 1≤ ≤ 99 10 ≤ ≤ 200 Table 5.1 shows the simulations results of the PSO and suggested modified PSO algorithms when they were applied to solve the pressure vessel design problem. Table 5.1: Results of pressure vessel optimization with PSO and modified PSO. PSO CPSO CPSOS CPSOT CPSOM CPSOMS CPSOMT Best 8796.867 5835.759 5829.556 5864.28 5831.785 5878.712 5862.23 Worst 10176.55 7190.018 6376.388 6388.048 6399.267 6470.638 7209.17 Average 9075.586 6050.966 6044.642 6038.196 6087.259 6138.296 6121.879 315.3599 246.6402 132.3832 120.0518 128.0795 134.7369 217.2764 S.D Some observations may be made from the results given in Table 5.1: All modified PSO algorithms have converged to a solution much better than the one achieved by the PSO algorithm and there are no big differences in the solutions that were achieved by the modified PSO algorithms as proposed in the present work. CPSOS has outperformed all modified PSO algorithms in terms of achieving the optimum result of 5829.5. CPSOT has converged to the best average solution of 6038.19 among all the algorithms The pressure vessel design problem has been studied by many researchers. To make a comparison between the modified PSO algorithms proposed in the present work and other classical and evolutionary algorithms, the following results are selected from the literature: 1. Deb and Gene [63] used Genetic Adaptive Search 2. Kannan and Kramer [61] used an augmented Lagrangian Multiplier approach 72 3. Coello [64] employed Genetic Algorithm (GA) 4. Parsopoulos and Varahatis [59] used a modified particle swarm approach, a unified PSO algorithm. A table of comparison is given below. Table 5.2: Comparison of results for pressure vessel optimization. Best Solution PSO 8796.867 CPSO 5835.759 CPSOS 5829.556 CPSOT 5864.28 CPSOM 5831.785 CPSOMS 5878.712 CPSOMT 5862.23 Deb 6410.3811 Kannan 7198.0428 Coello 6069.3267 Parsopoulos 6154.7 As indicated in the table, the modified PSO algorithms have generated better results over the other methods, and the lowest cost is obtained by CPSOS, as 5829.556 5.3.2 Welded Beam Optimization Now a welded beam is designed for minimum cost of weld subject to constraints on shear stress(τ), bending stress in the beam (σ), buckling load on the bar ( ), end deflection of the beam (δ), and side constraints. There are four design variables as shown in Figure 5.2: ℎ ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ). Using the same notation as given by Rao [65] , the problem is stated as follows: ( ) = 1.10471 ∗ ∗ + 0.0481 ∗ ∗ ∗ (14.0 + ) 5-11 Subject to: ( )= ( )− ≤0 5-12 73 ( )= ( )− ≤0 5-13 h P t l L b Figure 5-2: Schematic diagram of a welded beam. ( ) = 0.010471 ∗ + 0.0481 ∗ ( )=− ( )= + 0.125 ≤ 0 − ≤0 ( )= ( )− ( )= ∗ − ∗ (14.0 + ) − 5.0 ≤ 0 5-14 5-15 5-16 ≤0 ( )≤0 5-17 5-18 Where ( )= ( ′) +2 ′ ′′ = = ′ ′′ + ( ′′ ) 5-20 ∗ √ 5-19 ∗ 5-21 = ∗( + = + ) 5-22 5-23 74 = 2 √2 ∗ + ∗ ( )= 5-25 ∗ ∗ ∗ ( )= ( )= 5-24 ∗ . 5-26 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 1− ∗ 5-27 ∗ = 6000 = 14 = 30 × 10 = 12 × 10 = 30000 = 0.25 The following ranges of the variables are used: 0.1 ≤ ≤ 2.0 0.1 ≤ ≤ 2.0 0.1 ≤ ≤ 10.0 0.1 ≤ ≤ 2.0 Table 5.3 shows the results of the PSO and suggested modified PSO algorithms for the welded beam problem. Table 5.3: Results of welded beam design using PSO and modified PSO. Best Worst Average S.D PSO 1.724852 1.814283 1.801827 0.031178 CPSO 1.724839 1.772954 1.726503 0.007085 CPSOS 1.724839 1.833444 1.729617 0.016825 CPSOT 1.724839 1.775117 1.727479 0.008333 CPSOM 1.72537 1.784874 1.731995 0.010338 CPSOMS 1.725078 1.830611 1.730727 0.015052 CPSOMT 1.725056 1.762249 1.729492 0.006407 75 Some observations may be made from the results given in Table 5.3: All modified PSO algorithms have converged to a solution much better than the one achieved by the conventional PSO algorithm, and there are no big differences of the solutions that were achieved by the modified PSO algorithms. CPSO, CPSOS, and CPSOT outperformed the other modified PSO algorithms in terms of achieving the optimum result of 1.724839. CPSO was able to converge to the best average solution of 1.726503 among all the algorithms. The weld beam problem has been studied by many researchers. The following work is selected for comparison: 1. Deb [66] used Genetic algorithm to solve the problem; 2. Ragsdell and Phillips [66] used geometric programming 3. Parsopoulos and Varahatis [59] use a modified particle swarm technique, a unified PSO algorithm. As seen from Table 5.4, the modified PSO algorithms have achieved better results than from other methods. The lowest cost, as obtained by CPSO, CPSOS, CPSOT is 1.72839. Table 5.4: Comparison of the results for the weld beam design. Best Solution PSO 1.724852 CPSO 1.724839 CPSOS 1.724839 CPSOT 1.724839 CPSOMT 1.72537 CPSOMS 1.725078 CPSOMT 1.725056 Deb 2.4331160 Ragsdell 2.38593732 Parsopoulos 1.7558 76 5.4 Summary In the present chapter, the optimization performance of the modified PSO algorithms, as proposed in the proposed thesis, in solving constraints engineering problems was investigated, by applying these algorithms for optimal design of a pressure vessel and a welded beam. The modified PSO algorithms have been able to generate better solutions, in comparison to the regular PSO and other approaches found in the literature, for both design problems. It may be concluded that the proposed modifications to PSO show potential for solving more complicated and real life engineering problems and in finding the global optimum with fewer iterations. 77 Chapter 6 Heat Sink Design by Using Modified PSO6 6.1 Introduction The recent trend in the electronic device industry is toward denser and larger heat flux densities. As a result, more powerful products require higher thermal performance through efficient cooling. For example, some 900 million computers are in use in the world today, with personal computers comprising approximately half the total. This growth is reasonable in view of the projections taking into account that some 400 million computers were in use by the end of 2001 [67]. These rapid advances in computer systems and other digital hardware have led to the associated increase in the thermal dissipation from microelectronic devices. This trend has fueled the interest of the engineers and researchers in controlling the maximum operating temperature, and achieving long term reliability and efficient performance of electronic components. In electronic equipment, the temperature of each component must be maintained within an allowable upper limit, specified for each component from the viewpoint of operating performance and reliability. The power density in electronic systems is growing due to the high speeds of operation that are attained and the miniaturization of the associated components and devices. Generally, heat sinks are used to maintain the operating temperature for reliable operation of the electronic device. Choosing a suitable heat sink has become crucial to the overall performance of electronic packages. The forced-air cooling 6 Alrasheed, M.R. , de Silva, C.W., and Gadala, M.S., " Applying Modified Particle Swarm Optimization in Heat Sink Design by using Chaotic Acceleration and Global Mutation," (Submitted). 78 technique, which is one of the effective methods for thermal management of electronic equipment cooling, is commonly used in the electronic cooling area [68]. The development of a systematic and rather optimal design methodology for air-cooling heat sinks is undoubtedly very important in satisfying the current thermal necessities and for successful heat removal in the future generations of critical electronic components [69]. The performance of forced air convection heat sinks in electronic devices depends on a number of parameters including the thermal resistance, dimensions of the cooling channels, location and concentration of the heat sources, and the airflow bypass due to flow resistance through the channel. In general, an important goal of the heat sink design is to reduce the overall thermal resistance [70]. An alternative and related criterion for designing a heat sink is to maximize the thermal efficiency. Both criteria would affect the maximum heat dissipation. In a practical industrial design, different criteria are chosen depending on whether the primary objective is to maximize the heat transfer, minimize the pumping power, or achieve the minimum device volume or weight under the prescribed constraints such as component size and heat transfer time [71]. 6.2 Entropy Generation Minimization of a Heat Sink The idea of using the entropy generation rate to estimate the heat transfer enhancement was first proposed by Bejan [72] as a performance assessment criterion for thermal systems. A fin can generate the entropy associated with the external flow and because the fin is non-isothermal it can also generate entropy internally. The entropy generation rate that is associated with the heat transfer in a heat sink can serve as the capability of transferring heat to the surrounding cooling medium. As in all thermodynamic systems, the entropy in a heat sink is generated from the irreversibility of heat transfer with 79 finite temperature differences and the friction of fluid flow. The basic thermodynamic equations for the stream channel as an open system in steady flow are: ̇ = ̇ = ̇ ′′ ̇ ℎ +∬ ̇ The canonical form − ̇ ℎ = ̇ − − ℎ 6-2 ̇ + 1 ℎ= ℎ 6-1 ′′ −∬ 6-3 may be written as: ( = )+ 1 − ( − ) 6-4 where it is assumed that the temperature and density do not change significantly between the inlet and the outlet. Combining equations (6-2) through (6-4), the entropy generation rate can be written in this form: ̇ ′′ =∬ − ̇ − ( − ) 6-5 Knowing that: ̇ = 6-6 = ( − ) 6-7 We obtain: ̇ = ∬ ′′ ( − ) − 6-8 where Fd is the drag force. 80 Equation (6-8) represents the entropy generation rate associated with the fin heat transfer in external flow. As shown in Figure 6.1, a fin also generates entropy internally since the fin is nonisothermal: ̇ =∬ ′′ − 6-9 where Tw and Tb represent the local temperature and the base temperature, respectively, and Q is the heat dissipation rate of the heat sink. Adding equations (6-8) and (6-9) the entropy generation rate for a single fine can be written as: ̇ = Δ + 6-10 A uniform stream with velocity Vf and the absolute temperature Te passes through the fin as shown in Figure 6.1. Fluid friction appears in the form of the drag force Fd along the direction of Vf. Equation (6-10) shows that fluid friction and inadequate thermal conductivity jointly contribute to degrading of the thermodynamic performance of the fin. Thus, the optimal thermodynamic size of the fin can be computed by minimizing the entropy generation rate given by equation (6-10) subjected to necessary design constraints. 81 Vf q Q Tw Tb Te Figure 6.1: Schematic diagram of a general fin in convective heat transfer. The heat transfer rate between the fin and the stream is q and theoretically a heat sink is required to satisfy an equation of the form ∬ ′′ ≅ 6-11 For a heat sink set, the temperature excess of ∆ is related to the overall heat sink thermal resistance as Δ = . 6-12 where Q is the heat dissipation rate of the heat sink and R is the overall heat sink thermal resistance. The first term of the entropy generation in (6-10) can be written as (Q ∆ / Te2). The temperature difference (∆ ) is represented as (Tb - Te). So, the entropy change rate of a heat sink set can be written as ̇ = + 6-13 82 The entropy generation rate in equation (6-13) is a function of both heat sink resistance and viscous dissipation. The viscous dissipation term is small and may be neglected under low velocity conditions such as buoyancy-induced flow [67]. The simplified expression for the dimensional entropy generation rate can be written as: ̇ = ̇ 6-14 ⁄ Where ̇ is the dimensionless entropy generation rate is the ambient temperature is the kinetic viscosity of the fluid In the general thermal design of a heat sink, the goal can be either to minimize the total thermal resistance or to maximize the total efficiency. The minimization of the entropy generation rate is equivalent to the minimization of the total thermal resistance. Therefore, the design strategy of minimizing entropy generation rate has the same effect as maximizing the thermal efficiency, surface area, and convective coefficients. Additionally, the optimal flow velocity and viscous dissipation can be found through minimization of the entropy generation rate. In the heat sink optimization, one important implication is that since the size parameter is naturally linked directly to the volume and the weight, it should be considered as one of the design constraints in the minimization of the entropy generation rate. The overall heat sink resistance is given by = ⁄ ( ) + 6-15 83 where N is the number of fins and Rfin is the thermal resistance of a single fin given by: = ( ) ( 6-16 ) with = 6-17 Also P is the perimeter of the fin and Ac is the cross-sectional area of the fin. The total drag force on the heat sink may be obtained by considering a force balance on the heat sink. Specifically, ( ⁄ ) = (2 )+ + ( )+ ( ) 6-18 where fapp is the apparent friction factor for hydrodynamically developing flow. The channel velocity Vch is related to the free stream velocity by = (1+ ) 6-19 The apparent friction factor fapp for a rectangular channel may be computed using a form of the model developed by Muzychka [73] for developing laminar flow: . = √ ∗ . + 6-20 where ∗ = 6-21 84 Here Dh is the hydraulic diameter of the channel and f . ReDh is the fully developed flow factor Reynolds number group, given by . = 24 − 32.537 + + 46.721 − 40.829 + +22.954 − 6.089 6-22 The expansion and contraction loss coefficients may be computed using the simple expressions for a sudden contraction and a sudden expansion: = 0.42 1 − 1 − 6-23 = 1− 1− 6-24 The heat transfer coefficient h can be computed using the model developed by Teertstra et al. [74]. = ∗ ⁄ + 0.664 ∗ ⁄ 1+ . ∗ 6-25 where ∗ = 6-26 The spacing s between two fins is given by: 85 = − 6-27 = 6-28 d s a W L Figure 6.2: Geometrical configuration of a plate-fin sink. Configuration data are as follows: Both the base length L and the width W are 50 mm. The total heat dissipation of 30 W is uniformly applied over the base plate of the heat sink with a base thickness b of 2 mm. The thermal conductivity of the heat sink k is 200 W/m.K. 86 The ambient air temperature Te is 278 K. The conductivity of the air kf is 0.0267 W/m.K. The air density is 1.177 kg/m. The kinematical viscosity coefficient is 1.6 (10-5) m2/s. The goal is to get the optimal number of fins N, optimum height of fins a, optimum thickness of each fin d, and the optimum flow velocity of cooling flow Vf. The objective function is ̇ ̇ = and the design variables are: 6-29 ⁄ [x1, x2, x3, x4]T = [ N, a, d, Vf ]. Subject to =1− = −1 ≤0 −1 − = 0.01 − 6-30 −5 ≤0 ≤0 6-32 = − 19.40 ≤ 0 = 0.001 − 6-31 ∗ 6-33 ≤ 6-34 The design boundaries corresponding to the design variable are: 2≤ ≤ 40 25 ≤ ≤ 140 87 0.2 ≤ 0.5 ⁄ ≤ ≤ 2.5 ⁄ ≤ 40 6.3 Optimization Results CPSO Algorithm is applied here as it has shown its superiority over other modified PSO algorithms. (CPSO): replaces the regular inertia factor in the first right-hand term of velocity-update equation so that the new velocity of the particle is given by: = ∙ + ∙( ∙ − )+ ∙ ∙( − ) 6-35 Also, Ca is introduced to the second right-hand term in the position-update equation as = + 6-36 Table 6.1 and Figure 6-3 present the results that were obtained by applying the CPSO algorithm. Note that by definition, the nondimensional parameters ̇ is a very small quantity by order of 10 -7. The last column in Table 6.1 gives the total structural volume of the heat sink, indicated as VoL (mm3). The larger value of VoL indicates the further structural mass required to manufacture the heat sink. Table 6.1: Optimization results of non-dimensional entropy generation rate. N A (mm) d (mm) Vf (m/s) s (mm) Solution 17 117.8 1.95 1.49 1.07 ̇ VoL (mm3) 2.9e-8 195253.5 88 Figure 6.3: Optimization of non-dimensional entropy generation rate. Figure 6.4: Variation of optimum entropy generation rate with N. 89 Figure 6.4 shows that as N the number of fins increases the entropy generation rate will decrease dramatically due to increasing the surface area of the heat sink. When N reaches 22 fins and up then the entropy generation rate will start increasing gradually and the search will start go away from the optimal solution location. As it is clear from the figure the optimal solution location is located N values vary between 15 and 20 fins. The optimal solution of the entropy generation rate is 0.002679 W/K. Figure 6.5: Variation optimum entropy generation rate and optimum flow velocity with N. 90 Figure 6.6: Variation of optimum entropy generation rate and optimum thickness of fin with N. Figure 6.7: Variation of optimum entropy generation rate and optimum height of fin with different values of N. 91 Figure 6.5, Figure 6.6, and Figure 6.7 show the behavior of the design variables (Vf = flow velocity, a = height of fin, d = thickness of fin) in the optimization process of the entropy generation rate for different values of N. 6.4 CFD Solution The optimal values of N, a, d, and Vf are applied using Ansys IcePak, which uses the finite volume method to solve computational fluid dynamic problems. Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show the temperature distribution through the cross-section of a heat sink and velocity distribution through the heat sink as analyzed by Ansys Icepak. The results show that the highest base temperature is approximately 43.2o. Figure 6.8: Temperature distribution through the cross-section of heat sink. 92 Figure 6.9: Velocity profile through the heat sink. 6.5 Summary The applicability of the modified PSO algorithm to the optimal heat sink design has been investigated in this chapter. The modified PSO algorithm was presented for the design of a plate-fin heat sink, with the objective of realizing the maximum dissipation of the heat generated from electronic components. The entropy generation rate was used in the fitness function, to realize the highest heat transfer efficiency. A practical application was presented as an illustrative example. 93 Chapter 7 Conclusion The particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is known to have superior features compared with the traditional optimization methods. The PSO algorithms use objectivefunction information to guide the search in the problem space. Therefore, they can easily deal with non-differentiable and non-convex objective functions. Additionally, this property relieves PSO algorithms of various analytical assumptions and approximations, which are often required by traditional optimization methods. PSO algorithms use probabilistic rather than deterministic rules for particle movement. Hence, they are types of stochastic optimization algorithm that can search a complicated and uncertain area. This feature makes PSO algorithms more flexible and robust than conventional methods. However, improving the convergence of a PSO algorithm is an important objective when solving complex realworld problems. To the best knowledge of the author, the present thesis represents the first study of the applicability of PSO in the optimization of the heat sink design Optimization. 7.1 Contributions and Significance In this thesis, a novel Chaotic Acceleration Factor, Chaotic Inertia Factor, and Global Best Mutation have been incorporated into the original PSO method, in different formats, to improve its convergence performance. The performance of the modified PSO methods are studied in the present thesis and compared with the original PSO method by using wellknown test functions. All modified PSO methods proposed in this work show superior 94 performance over the classical PSO with regard to the quality of the solution and the convergence rate. The performance of the modified PSO algorithms when applied to nonlinear constraints problems has been studied as well in the thesis. Non-stationary, multi-stage penalty method (PFM) was implemented within the modified algorithms to handle nonlinear constraints. Pressure vessel optimization and welded beam optimization are two common engineering problems that are usually used for testing the performance of optimization algorithms. These two examples have been used as benchmark testing examples in the present work. The modified PSO algorithms, developed in this work, have outperformed many classical and evolutionary optimization algorithms in solving nonlinear constraints problems. Finally in the present thesis, the modified PSO algorithm was applied in heat sink design and detailed results were presented. Ansys Icepak was used to solve the heat and flow equations by implementing the optimal design variables resulting from the application of the modified PSO algorithms. 7.2 Possible Future Work Even though the work presented in this thesis is complete in its entirety, there are several possibilities of further work in this area. Some suggestions in this regard are listed below. It would be useful to study the performance of the modified PSO algorithms when they are applied to high dimensional problems. Although the incorporation of the proposed modifications has significantly improved the performance of the PSO algorithm in most cases, the modified PSO algorithms occasionally experienced premature convergence. Hybridization with other 95 optimization algorithms might be a possible solution to this problem provided that the new hybridization technique retain the good features of PSO. It is also of interest to develop parallel versions of the modified PSO algorithms, so that they can be made more efficient when applied to highly constrained problems. 96 Bibliography [1] Dantzig, G.B., Linear Programming and Extensions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998. [2] Nocedal, J., and Wright, S.J., Numerical Optimization, Springer Series in Operations Research, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2000. [3] Nelder, J., and Mead, R., "A Simplex Method for Function Minimization," The Computer Journal, Vol. 7, No.4, pp. 308-313, 1965. [4] Tjalling J. Ypma, "Historical Development of the Newton-Raphson Method," SIAM Review, Vol.37, No.4, pp. 531-551, 1995. [5] Bäck, T., Hammel, U., and Schwefel, H. P., "Evolutionary Computation: Comments on the History and Current State," IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 3-17, 1997. [6] Kennedy, J., And Eberhart, R. , "Particle swarm optimization," Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, Piscataway, NJ. pp. 1942–1948, 1995. [7] Beyer, H.G., 2001, The theory of evolution strategies, Springer, Berlin, 2001. [8] Mezura-Montes, E., and Coello, C. A. C., "A Simple Evolution Strategy to Solve Constrained Optimization Problems," IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 1- 17, 2005. [9] Hansen, N., and Ostermeier, A., "Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies," Evolutionary Computation, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 159-195, 2001 [10] Forrest, S., "Genetic Algorithms," ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol.28, No.1, pp. 77-80, 1996. [11] Maulik, U., and Bandyopadhyay, S., "Genetic Algorithm-Based Clustering Technique," Pattern Recognition, Vol.33, No.9, pp. 1455-1465, 2000. [12] Whitley, D., "A Genetic Algorithm Tutorial," Statistics and Computing, Vol.4, No.2, pp. 65-85, 1994. [13] Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R., and Shi, Y., Swarm Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2001. [14] Eberhart, R. C., and Kennedy, J., "A New Optimizer using Particle Swarm Theory," Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, New York, NY , 1995. 97 [15] Abido, M., "Optimal Power Flow using Particle Swarm Optimization," International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol.24, No.7, pp. 563-571, 2002. [16] Fukuyama, Y., "Fundamentals of Particle Swarm Techniques," Editors: Lee, K.Y., ElSharkawi, M.A., Modern Heuristic Optimization Techniques with Applications to Power Systems, Vol.51, pp. 45-51, 2002. [17] Hu, X., Eberhart, R. C., and Shi, Y., "Engineering Optimization with Particle Swarm," Proceedings of IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, Indianapolis, Indiana, pp. 53–57, 2003. [18] Eberhart, R. C., and Kennedy, J., "A New Optimizer using Particle Swarm Theory," Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, New York, NY, 1995 . [19] Davis, L., Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1991. [20] Kennedy, J., "The Particle Swarm: Social Adaptation of Knowledge," IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 303-308, 1997. [21] Shi, Y. and Eberhart, R.," Modified Particle Swarm Optimizer," Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 69-73, 1998 [22] Eberhart, R. C., and Shi, Y., "Particle Swarm Optimization: Developments, Applications and Resources," Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 81-86, 2001. [23] Carlisle, A., Applying the Particle Swarm Optimizer to Non-Stationary Environments, PhD Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 2002. [24] Ratnaweera, A., Halgamuge, S. K., and Watson, H. C., "Self-Organizing Hierarchical Particle Swarm Optimizer with Time-Varying Acceleration Coefficients," Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 8, No.3, pp. 240-255, 2004. [25] Fan, H., "A Modification to Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm," Engineering Computations, Vol.19, No.8, pp. 970-989,2002. [26] Chatterjee, A., and Siarry, P., "Nonlinear Inertia Weight Variation for Dynamic Adaptation in Particle Swarm Optimization," Computers & Operations Research, Vol.33, No.3, pp. 859-871, 2006. [27] Higashi, N., and Iba, H., "Particle Swarm Optimization with Gaussian Mutation," Proceedings of IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, Indianapolis, Indiana, pp. 72-79, 2003. 98 [28] Stacey, A., Jancic, M., and Grundy, I., "Particle Swarm Optimization with Mutation," Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Canberra, Australia, pp. 1425-1430, 2003. [29] Secrest, B. R., and Lamont, G. B., "Visualizing Particle Swarm Optimization-Gaussian Particle Swarm Optimization," Proceeding of IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, Indianapolis, IN, , pp. 198-204, 2003. [30] Liu, J., Xu, W., and Sun, J., 2005, "Quantum-behaved Particle Swarm Optimization with Mutation Operator," Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Hong Kong (China), pp.230-240, 2005. [31] Xiang, T., Liao, X., and Wong, K., "An Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm Combined with Piecewise Linear Chaotic Map," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol.190, No.2, pp. 1637-1645, 2007. [32] Selvakumar, A. I., and Thanushkodi, K., "A New Particle Swarm Optimization Solution to Nonconvex Economic Dispatch Problems," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 42-51, 2007. [33] Angeline, P. J., "Using selection to improve Particle Swarm Optimization," IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Anchorage, AK , pp. 84-89, 1998. [34] Angeline, P. J., "Evolutionary Optimization Versus Particle Swarm Optimization: Philosophy and Performance Differences," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 601-610, 1998. [35] Kennedy, J., and Spears, W. M., "Matching Algorithms to Problems: an Experimental Test of the Particle Swarm and some Genetic Algorithms on the Multimodal Problem generator," Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, AK , pp. 78–83, 1998. [36] Hassan, R., Cohanim, B., De Weck, O., "A Comparison of Particle Swarm Optimization and the Genetic Algorithm," Proceedings of the 1st AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conference, Austin, TX , 2005. [37] Lee, J., Lee, S., Chang, S., "A Comparison of GA and PSO for Excess Return Evaluation in Stock Markets," Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering Applications: A Bioinspired Approach, pp. 221-230,2005. [38] Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T., and Grierson, D., "Comparison among Five EvolutionaryBased Optimization Algorithms," Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 4353, 2005. 99 [39] Allahverdi, A., and Al-Anzi, F. S., "A PSO and a Tabu Search Heuristics for the Assembly Scheduling Problem of the Two-Stage Distributed Database Application," Computers & Operations Research, Vol.33, No.4, pp. 1056-1080, 2006. [40] Chang, B. C. H., Ratnaweera, A., Halgamuge, S. K., "Particle Swarm Optimisation for Protein Motif Discovery," Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, Vol.5, No.2, pp. 203-214, 2004. [41] Abido, M. A., "Optimal Power Flow using Particle Swarm Optimization," International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol.24, No.12, pp. 563-571, 2002. [42] Wachowiak, M. P., Smolíková, R., Zheng, Y., "An Approach to Multimodal Biomedical Image Registration Utilizing Particle Swarm Optimization," IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol.8, No.3, pp. 289-301, 2004. [43] Alrasheed, M.R., de Silva, C.W., and Gadala, M.S., "Evolutionary optimization in the design of a heat sink," Editor: de Silva C.W., Mechatronic Systems: Devices, Design, Control, Operation and Monitoring, pp. 55-78CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, , 2007. [44] Shih, C. J., and Liu, G. C., "Optimal Design Methodology of Plate-Fin Heat Sinks for Electronic Cooling using Entropy Generation Strategy," IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 551-559, 2004. [45] Ditto, W., and Munakata, T., "Principles and Applications of Chaotic Systems," Communications of the ACM, Vol.38, No.11, pp. 96-102, 1995. [46] Lorenz, E. N., "Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow," Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.20, pp. 130-141, 1963. [47] Elwakil, A., and Ozoguz, S., "Chaos in Pulse-Excited Resonator with Self Feedback," Electronics Letters, Vol.39, No.11, pp. 831-833, 2003. [48] Li, B., and Jiang, W., "Optimizing Complex Functions by Chaos Search," Cybernetics and Systems, Vol.29, No.4, pp. 409-419, 1998. [49] Liu, S., and Hou, Z., "Weighted gradient direction based chaos optimization algorithm for nonlinear programming problem," Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, Vol. 3, Shanghai, China, pp. 1779-1783, 2002. [50] Lu, Z., Shieh, L. S., Chen, G., "Simplex Sliding Mode Control for Nonlinear Uncertain Systems Via Chaos Optimization," Chaos, Solutions & Fractals, Vol. 23, No.3, pp. 747755, 2005. [51] Wang, S., Jiang, Y., and Yang, H., "Chaos optimization strategy on fuzzy-immune-PID control of the turbine governing system," IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing, China, pp. 1594-1598, 2006. 100 [52] Yan, X. F., Chen, D. Z., and Hu, S. X., "Chaos-Genetic Algorithms for Optimizing the Operating Conditions Based on RBF-PLS Model," Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol.27, No.10, pp. 1393-1404, 2003. [53] Yang, D., Li, G., and Cheng, G., "On the Efficiency of Chaos Optimization Algorithms for Global Optimization," Chaos, Solutions & Fractals, Vol. 34, No.4, pp. 1366-1375, 2007. [54] Zilong, G., Sun'an, W., and Jian, Z., "A Novel Immune Evolutionary Algorithm Incorporating Chaos Optimization," Pattern Recognition Letters, Vol. 27, No.1, pp. 2-8, 2006. [55] Shi, Y., and Eberhart, R., "Parameter Selection in Particle Swarm Optimization," Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Evolutionary Programming, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 591-600, 1997. [56] Kennedy, J., and Eberhart, R. C., "Particle Swarm Optimization," Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, Perth, Australia, pp. 1942-1948, 1995. [57] Parsopoulos, K. E., and Vrahatis, M. N., "Particle Swarm Optimization Method for Constrained Optimization Problems," Intelligent Technologies–Theory and Application: New Trends in Intelligent Technologies, pp. 214–220, 2002. [58] Michalewicz, Z., "A Survey of Constraint Handling Techniques in Evolutionary Computation Methods," Evolutionary Programming, Vol.4, pp. 135, 1995. [59] Parsopoulos, K., and Vrahatis, M., 2005, "Unified Particle Swarm Optimization for Solving Constrained Engineering Optimization Problems," Advances in Natural Computation, pp. 582-591. [60] Yang, J. M., Chen, Y. P., Horng, J. T, "Applying Family Competition to Evolution Strategies for Constrained Optimization," Evolutionary Programming VI, Springer, pp. 201211, 1997. [61] Kannan, B., and Kramer, S. N., "An Augmented Lagrange Multiplier Based Method for Mixed Integer Discrete Continuous Optimization and its Applications to Mechanical Design," Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol.116, pp. 405-423, 1994. [62] Coello, C., and Carlos, A., "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, Vol. 191, No.11, pp. 1245-1287, 2002. [63] K. Deb, A. S. Gene, Evolutionary Algorithms in Engineering Applications, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 497-514, 1997. [64] Coello, C. A. C., "Constraint-Handling using an Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Technique," Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, Vol. 17, No.4, pp. 319-346, 2000. 101 [65] Rao, S.S., Engineering optimization: theory and practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1996. [66] Regsdell. K.M., Phillips, D.,T., "Optimal Design of a Class of Welded Structures using Geometric Programming," ASME Journal of Engineering for Industries, Vol. 98, No.3, pp. 1021-1025, 1976. [67] Bar-Cohen, A., and Iyengar, M., "Least-Energy Optimization of Air-Cooled Heat Sinks for Sustainable Development," IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, Vol. 26, No.1, pp. 16-25, 2003. [68] Ogiso, K., "Assessment of overall Cooling Performance in Thermal Design of Electronics Based on Thermodynamics," Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.123, pp. 999-1118, 2001. [69] Shih, C., and Liu, G., "Optimal Design Methodology of Plate-Fin Heat Sinks for Electronic Cooling using Entropy Generation Strategy," IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, Vol. 27, No.3, pp. 551-559, 2004. [70] Iyengar, M., and Bar-Cohen, A., 2003, "Least-Energy Optimization of Forced Convection Plate-Fin Heat Sinks," IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 62-70. [71] Wei, X., and Joshi, Y., "Optimization Study of Stacked Micro-Channel Heat Sinks for Micro-Electronic Cooling," IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 55-61, 2003. [72] Bejan, A., "Fundamentals of Exergy Analysis, Entropy Generation Minimization, and the Generation of Flow Architecture," International Journal of Energy Research, Vol.26, No.7, pp. 11-43, 2002. [73] Muzychka, Y., and Yovanovich, M., "Modeling Friction Factors in Non-Circular Ducts for Developing Laminar Flow," AIAA Theoretical Fluid Mechanics Meeting, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 98-111, 1998. [74] Teertstra, P., Yovanovich, M., and Culham, J., "Analytical Forced Convection Modeling of Plate Fin Heat Sinks," Journal of Electronics Manufacturing, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 253-262, 2000. 102 Appendix A: Rosenbrock Simulations D=10 PSO CPSO CPSOS CPSOT CPSOM CPSOMS CPSOMT 3.640832 3.640832 3.940706 3.799521 3.546718 3.434511 2.72171 0.432756 0.173356 0.090054 0.090054 2.5421 3.940706 0.090054 3.940706 1.840562 0.318817 0.296693 0.023535 0.001282 0.219986 1.402038 1.103641 1.729728 1.522814 0.001282 0.84591 1.840562 0.001282 1.840562 0.884144 0.303438 0.877698 4.038685 0.748705 0.052233 0.003762 0.001639 0.023514 0.002521 0.001639 0.693634 4.038685 0.001639 4.038685 1.699185 2.451469 0.332115 0.058462 0.053166 0.003459 0.002182 6.6E-06 0.001191 0.128525 6.6E-06 0.472976 2.451469 6.6E-06 2.451469 1.16701 2.437366 1.108192 2.105517 1.84968 2.161527 2.37336 1.422613 2.356026 0.090054 0.090054 1.707134 2.437366 0.090054 2.437366 1.044121 3.327898 2.003032 0.506606 0.799626 0.090054 3.32764 1.35959 2.923288 0.506606 0.090054 1.588846 3.327898 0.090054 3.327898 0.020679 2.25528 0.650753 0.397768 0.62545 1.892486 0.95937 0.349325 0.622895 4.157364 0.020679 1.193137 4.157364 0.020679 4.157364 1.909339 1.628303 0.955371 0.742766 0.873332 1.23413 0.50586 0.868776 1.54684 0.754985 1.584687 1.227509 1.650556 1.252528 D=20 PSO 14.77538 14.9686 13.86907 13.83683 13.6464 14.34583 14.74087 13.23384 12.65441 12.84771 12.65441 14.9686 13.87849 CPSO 12.13264 9.04781 5.087471 2.30223 0.305469 0.012199 0.002623 3.990205 3.990836 3.990278 0.002623 12.13264 4.416418 CPSO1 12.39382 9.127112 5.729692 1.70002 0.171469 0.015282 0.00032 0.002849 0.000939 0.005093 0.00032 12.39382 3.461728 CPSO2 12.22404 9.506127 6.045682 2.526545 0.456638 0.073817 0.021811 0.00418 0.000709 0.00345 0.000709 12.22404 3.590646 CPSOM 15.31318 14.14127 13.34389 11.85639 11.25901 11.65092 11.34093 11.46004 10.48114 9.608504 9.608504 15.31318 12.11475 CPSOM1 15.60611 14.09401 13.61235 12.80462 12.81378 12.20007 10.84917 10.80718 10.91709 10.46939 10.46939 15.60611 12.52077 CPSOM2 15.08629 14.2138 12.31349 11.98918 13.17808 13.76581 12.53197 11.91513 11.63848 11.60427 11.60427 15.08629 12.91059 103 D=20 PSO 12.65441 14.9686 13.69032 0.815488 CPSO 0.002623 12.13264 3.725323 4.849451 CPSO1 0.00032 12.39382 2.585996 5.022837 CPSO2 0.000709 12.22404 2.600068 4.948742 CPSOM 9.608504 15.31318 11.61442 1.584104 CPSOM1 10.46939 15.60611 12.06622 1.503618 CPSOM2 11.60427 15.08629 12.8114 1.120934 D=30 PSO 25.44421 25.24805 24.38584 25.52825 24.69256 23.96387 23.43649 22.83932 21.95872 22.63532 21.95872 25.52825 23.9683 CPSO 23.27029 20.78994 18.24011 15.03935 10.98845 7.786614 5.444626 2.68628 0.737856 0.131364 0.131364 23.27029 10.70971 CPSO1 24.16119 21.10782 17.55898 14.7054 12.37957 9.204992 6.200303 3.843773 1.499634 0.882529 0.882529 24.16119 11.38233 CPSO2 23.41681 20.00034 17.3837 13.8474 11.09909 9.044747 5.872516 4.153748 1.586254 0.24779 0.24779 23.41681 10.85975 CPSOM 22.3762 24.35923 22.11317 20.57749 20.90991 21.81795 24.96864 24.69238 24.13376 20.15327 20.15327 24.96864 22.60199 CPSOM1 22.82363 20.32102 24.09354 23.54891 22.57798 23.64399 23.18691 22.85872 22.66534 22.87414 20.32102 24.09354 22.75073 CPSOM2 25.01151 17.3837 13.8474 11.09909 9.044747 5.872516 4.153748 1.586254 0.24779 22.31824 0.24779 25.01151 11.31869 21.95872 25.52825 23.49714 1.26055 0.131364 23.27029 7.753474 6.710197 0.882529 24.16119 8.680051 6.399701 0.24779 23.41681 8.199372 6.247195 20.15327 24.96864 22.68379 1.652533 20.32102 24.09354 22.67154 1.241008 0.24779 25.01151 9.550961 7.182383 104 Appendix B: Rastrigrin Simulation Results D=10 PSO 7.959672457 6.9647134 7.959672457 7.959672457 7.959672457 7.959672457 6.9647134 4.974795285 6.9647134 7.959672457 4.974795285 7.362697022 7.959672457 4.974795285 CPSO 1.989918 5.969754 1.989918 2E-15 3.979836 4.974795 2.984877 2.984877 3.979836 3.979836 2E-15 3.283365 5.969754 2E-15 CPSO1 5.969754 3.979836 1.989918 7.959667 1.989918 1.989918 5.969754 1.989918 4.974795 2.984877 1.989918 3.979836 7.959667 1.989918 CPSO2 1.989918 2.984877 3.979836 3.979836 1.989918 1.989918 2.984877 1.989918 3.979836 1.989918 1.989918 2.785885 3.979836 1.989918 CPSOM 3.979841 0.995383 3.979853 2.98488 2.985448 3.624665 3.775655 0.996019 4.974799 3.979859 0.995383 3.22764 4.974799 0.995383 CPSOM1 2.984896 0.99521 2.984877 2.984879 0.994984 3.013232 2.984878 0 1.989918 2.984881 0 2.191775 3.013232 0 CPSOM2 0.994959 4.974795 2.984877 5.969754 0 2.985722 2.984877 1.99357 4.974795 2.984921 0 3.084827 5.969754 0 7.959672457 6.910442906 0.96122177 5.969754 3.464267 1.694354 7.959667 3.979835 2.149356 3.979836 2.695435 0.914304 4.974799 3.227677 1.303357 3.013232 1.835103 1.131792 5.969754 2.813475 1.843339 PSO CPSO CPSOS CPSOT CPSOM CPSOMS CPSOMT 16.91430397 15.91934491 18.90422208 16.91430397 15.91934492 26.32372571 16.91430397 28.50376999 16.91430397 18.90422208 15.91934491 28.50376999 19.71291337 15.91934491 28.50376999 14.92438 15.91933 17.90926 7.959672 17.90925 10.94454 9.949591 11.9395 15.91931 12.93446 7.959672 17.90926 13.51485 7.959672 17.90926 12.93446 13.92942 21.88908 10.94454 13.92942 11.93951 13.92942 11.9395 17.90925 18.90421 10.94454 21.88908 15.0902 10.94454 21.88908 17.90925 11.9395 16.91429 11.9395 11.9395 10.94455 11.9395 12.93446 12.93446 12.93446 10.94455 17 13.35617 10.94455 16.91429 17.92058 24.91385 17.92058 25.3492 26.32373 17.92058 17.92058 17.92058 20.50377 19.96834 17.92058 26.32373 20.90884 17.92058 26.32373 13.0003 23.08105 25.87178 23.88613 13.99532 11.94915 25.42521 20.8488 16.01282 26.87325 11.94915 26.87325 19.98052 11.94915 26.87325 12.04297 17.91471 20.95621 17.93904 13.83725 10.97153 23.98774 12.85887 15.39511 17.94496 10.97153 23.98774 16.56731 10.97153 23.98774 21.09443762 4.470941433 13.16813 3.416182 15.39171 3.555032 12.98059 2.300148 20.905 3.498989 19.33908 5.794101 16.4983 4.13588 D=20 105 D=30 PSO CPSO CPSOS CPSOT CPSOM CPSOMS CPSOMT 27.8588536 27.8588536 28.85381266 26.86389454 26.86389455 26.86389454 43.8588536 43.8588536 27.8588536 27.8588536 26.86389454 43.8588536 31.61011384 26.86389454 43.8588536 33.65625578 8.954632 11.9395 27.85883 28.85377 33.82858 27.85883 23.879 21.88909 15.91936 18.90422 8.954632 33.82858 21.88909 8.954632 33.82858 22.70315 17.90925 23.879 28.85379 34.82354 23.87901 19.89918 24.87396 29.84875 22.88404 36.81344 17.90925 36.81344 26.53222 17.90925 36.81344 26.74327 15.91934 31.83866 40.79325 29.84873 16.9143 22.88403 17.90926 19.89917 23.879 26.86388 15.91934 40.79325 25.28852 15.91934 40.79325 24.27848 32.22532 29.75289 18.17345 29.08372 37.90482 35.50147 36.04048 34.6957 40.78773 32.74896 18.17345 40.78773 32.15631 18.17345 40.78773 33.43253 19.43948 29.4346 40.40168 29.17302 38.51367 34.47192 40.3305 36.22407 36.25866 28.96988 19.43948 40.40168 32.75489 19.43948 40.40168 33.38235 13.17637 31.84311 24.29034 23.21942 29.86681 36.20901 32.02557 32.37525 29.22827 28.96801 13.17637 36.20901 27.54896 13.17637 36.20901 28.6357 6.879109055 8.007193 6.137811 7.831487 6.222735 6.570589 6.494845 106 Appendix C: Griewank Simulation Results D=10 PSO CPSO CPSOS CPSOT CPSOM CPSOMS CPSOMT 0 0 0.043476 0.085313 0.007396 1E-15 0.041013 0 0.007396 0.007396 0 0.019199 0.085313 0.007396 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0 0.002958 0.007396 0 0.007396 0 0 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0 0 0.001479 0.007396 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0 0.002219 0.007396 0 0 0 0 0.007396 0.007396 0 0.007396 0 0.007396 0 0.002958 0.007396 0 0 0 0.007396 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0.043659 0 0 0.006585 0.043659 0.00739604 0.00739604 0 0 0.00739604 0 0 0.00739604 0 0 0 0.002958416 0.00739604 0.085313 0.027272 0.028536 0.007396 0.002853 0.003819 0.007396 0.002219 0.003118 0.007396 0.0028 0.003573 0.007396 0.003381 0.003819 0.043659 0.011411 0.013485 0.00739604 0.002852758 0.003819299 PSO CPSO CPSOS CPSOT CPSOM CPSOMS CPSOMT 0 0.009396 0 0.007396 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0.009396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 1E-15 0 0 0 0 0 0.007396 0.007396 0 0.004126 2E-15 0 0 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0.004134 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0 0 0.007396 0.007397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-15 0 0.007397 0.007402 0 0.007399 0 0 0 0.007405 0 0.004653 0 0 0.007405 0.007398195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.007396148 0 0 0.007398195 0.003415 0.004206 0.001233 0.002465 0.002193 0.003291 0.00281 0.003609 0.001233 0.002466 0.002855 0.003638 0.001849378 0.003261846 D=20 107 D=30 PSO CPSO CPSOS CPSOT CPSOM CPSOMS CPSOMT 1.06E-11 8.04E-11 6.07E-11 7.19E-11 2.32E-11 1.53E-11 2.28E-11 1.14E-11 0.007396 2.1E-11 1.06E-11 0.007396 0.001233 1.06E-11 0.007396 0.002602 3.01E-12 3E-15 9E-15 0.001396 4E-15 8.9E-14 1.7E-14 3.7E-14 1E-14 0 0 0.001396 0.000233 0 0.001396 0.000336 0 4.87E-12 5.3E-14 2.24E-13 6.4E-14 2.91E-13 0.002567 0 0 0 0 0.002567 0.000428 0 0.002567 0.000903 1E-15 0 0 2E-14 0 0.00604 3.9E-14 0 0 1E-15 0 0.00604 0.001007 0 0.00604 0.001454 0.008222 8.63E-12 5.8E-14 1.04E-10 1.93E-13 0 1.1E-11 6.55E-12 2.75E-12 7.4E-14 0 0.008222 0.00137 0 0.008222 0.001979 0.005822 0.007594 3.69E-08 5.88E-09 3.57E-08 0.008026 0 0.007925 0.007588 0.005139 0 0.008026 0.004177 0 0.008026 0.004542 8.9E-13 3.074E-12 0.007443829 6.76E-13 3E-15 1.4505E-11 6.7E-14 2.5492E-11 0.007431741 3.6E-14 3E-15 0.007443829 0.00185995 3E-15 0.007443829 0.002686594 0.003118 0.000589 0.001082 0.002547 0.0026 0.003957 0.003593766 108 Appendix D: Pressure Vessel Optimization (Simulation Results) PSO 8796.884 8796.915 8797.004 8796.916 8796.896 8796.926 8796.913 8796.88 8796.876 8796.959 8796.892 8796.867 8796.87 8796.883 8796.947 8796.899 8796.871 8796.879 8796.885 8796.893 8796.867 8796.891 8796.895 8796.919 8796.871 8796.903 10176.55 CPSO 7190.018 7003.932 6010.459 6020.994 6305.108 6248.081 6065.531 5925.38 6017.54 6153.132 6158.924 6035.853 5916.74 6015.536 6027.925 6116.141 6207.858 5988.475 5903.546 5987.078 5957.708 5932.197 5884.556 5962.767 6059.238 5857.927 5886.025 CPSOS 5989.492 5829.556 5861.232 5853.971 5989.457 6208.878 5873.009 6216.601 6195.007 5915.469 6001.134 5885.866 6063.848 5880.652 6076.797 5956.658 5954.31 5932.31 6074.185 5982.897 6179.165 6065.439 6220.362 5979.058 6087.931 6050.008 6039.791 CPSOT 6054.759 5932.188 6175.754 6119.498 5939.382 5864.28 5916.384 6091.931 6067.776 6236.646 6036.32 6091.923 6086.912 5910.816 5899.785 5995.417 5923.049 5962.83 6015.271 6100.399 6099.233 5979.789 6163.729 5933.845 6016.159 5877.105 5982.907 CPSOM 6399.267 5954.443 6228.004 6131.617 6209.942 6190.718 6060.783 5993.087 6014.935 6201.671 6024.932 5945.187 6081.729 5949.104 5987.478 5891.553 6177.071 6242.64 6090.186 6028.456 6028.003 6061.138 5831.785 6269.179 6224.667 6177.402 5872.66 CPSOMS 5986.464 6092.014 6183.503 6055.247 6248.179 6014.459 5937.829 6158.28 5958.566 6241.259 6137.546 6243.576 5920.963 6034.898 6168.116 6164.952 6188.045 5992.153 6157.67 6328.228 6073.127 6265.008 6470.638 6335.704 6067.95 5878.712 6051.509 CPSOMT 7209.17 6458.71 6283.905 5995.457 6197.416 5953.12 6261.098 6327.716 5927.957 5934.56 5935.668 6287.962 6103.301 6038.42 6071.911 6067.235 5977.582 5998.207 6032.622 6135.064 6069.775 6320.782 5984.26 6107.06 5895.28 6027.583 5892.388 109 PSO 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 9342.754 CPSO 5934.718 5962.668 5940.455 5910.321 6126.18 6192.029 6059.53 5835.759 6048.66 5861.292 6043.429 5927.741 5968.521 5836.176 5971.621 5912.351 5939.627 6333.629 5934.336 5867.223 5937.88 6180.656 5984.83 CPSOS 6097.069 5966.112 6101.746 6325.312 6005.179 6095.219 6049.481 6376.388 6045.709 6075.187 5860.821 5990.364 5931.883 5847.605 6102.715 5948.469 5997.607 6096.572 6143.406 6189.761 6037.557 6266.767 6318.091 CPSOT 6064.499 6137.385 5945.35 5936.039 6045.959 6106.576 5938.562 6202.906 5981.825 5899.497 6016.819 6105.484 6324.294 5904.54 5942.242 5997.299 6009.198 5988.621 5937.637 6301.411 6058.344 6388.048 6203.16 CPSOM 6175.912 6026.005 5886.543 6325.642 6064.574 6249.599 6010.594 6094.165 6093.162 6129.368 6052.186 5931.346 6026.83 6171.415 6087.72 5902.177 5921.249 6070.329 6126.126 6297.317 6178.109 6066.641 6208.309 CPSOMS 5926.959 6117.226 6137.593 6277.084 6133.279 6395.565 6320.367 6234.844 6178.271 6099.708 6233.715 6293.671 6066.763 6356.82 6039.884 6048.295 6101.446 6055.331 6139.207 6220.028 5986.954 5951.942 6245.236 CPSOMT 6108.169 6118.399 6121.822 6005.888 6102.08 6103.644 6376.837 6231.615 6376.061 6107.417 5940.814 6055.253 6025.135 5880.311 5862.23 6402.254 6308.219 6205.76 6073.765 6180.54 6002.698 5913.174 6097.64 110 Appendix E: Welded Beam Optimization (Simulation Results) PSO 1.81428 1.814279 1.814279 1.814279 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.814279 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.814279 1.814279 1.81428 1.814281 1.814279 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.814279 1.814279 1.814279 1.814283 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.814279 CPSO 1.72484 1.72484 1.724839 1.72484 1.726325 1.731532 1.724898 1.729475 1.724849 1.72484 1.724844 1.726098 1.724849 1.72484 1.725079 1.724998 1.724894 1.724855 1.724839 1.724848 1.729492 1.724854 1.772954 1.724839 1.724839 1.724848 1.724839 1.725056 CPSOS 1.725005 1.724839 1.724839 1.724839 1.724843 1.724918 1.755606 1.724839 1.724841 1.72484 1.734566 1.833444 1.724854 1.72485 1.727079 1.724839 1.725759 1.724855 1.724849 1.724882 1.725104 1.739738 1.725939 1.725228 1.751026 1.724872 1.724839 1.724839 CPSOT 1.726163 1.724868 1.72531 1.724846 1.740583 1.725166 1.724839 1.726643 1.724839 1.72484 1.724859 1.724839 1.72484 1.738992 1.724843 1.724839 1.724848 1.729096 1.72513 1.724903 1.724839 1.724839 1.72484 1.72484 1.724839 1.724875 1.734895 1.724839 CPSOM 1.726586 1.729601 1.72957 1.740152 1.726071 1.728371 1.726196 1.72652 1.727664 1.728795 1.732981 1.738247 1.725804 1.731919 1.727055 1.736438 1.726573 1.729529 1.72948 1.725975 1.726924 1.728194 1.729634 1.731365 1.736005 1.72537 1.725756 1.726782 CPSOMS 1.743457 1.725709 1.725536 1.727841 1.741822 1.738443 1.726774 1.726875 1.725511 1.726096 1.726919 1.72806 1.727204 1.728399 1.732553 1.728774 1.725757 1.727897 1.726885 1.726114 1.726837 1.727484 1.730017 1.725723 1.72936 1.728552 1.727168 1.830611 CPSOMT 1.725143 1.725965 1.737385 1.729866 1.728633 1.727109 1.725896 1.726273 1.762249 1.731086 1.731236 1.730059 1.729139 1.72852 1.728771 1.725056 1.731783 1.730413 1.727682 1.726617 1.725142 1.734987 1.728455 1.735446 1.736384 1.725134 1.725573 1.729475 111 PSO 1.814279 1.814279 1.814279 1.81428 1.814282 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.814279 1.814279 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.81428 1.724852 1.724902 1.72486 1.726184 1.724852 1.726626 1.725056 CPSO 1.72485 1.724839 1.724868 1.724946 1.724841 1.724847 1.725769 1.724865 1.724839 1.724842 1.725345 1.724859 1.724839 1.738619 1.724898 1.724839 1.72484 1.724897 1.72484 1.724841 1.724841 1.724852 CPSOS 1.725454 1.724839 1.724839 1.72484 1.724839 1.724876 1.725005 1.724861 1.724886 1.724844 1.724839 1.724843 1.724839 1.72511 1.724975 1.724863 1.731118 1.759771 1.72517 1.724839 1.725245 1.724975 CPSOT 1.724839 1.724839 1.724841 1.724851 1.724839 1.733023 1.725237 1.725145 1.724842 1.724839 1.724839 1.72484 1.724885 1.748989 1.775117 1.72484 1.724839 1.724845 1.72484 1.724851 1.72484 1.724845 CPSOM 1.729434 1.733766 1.726944 1.731285 1.726727 1.784874 1.733297 1.72538 1.734863 1.727989 1.733662 1.725761 1.727021 1.758437 1.733731 1.728956 1.732136 1.732397 1.732625 1.761494 1.727125 1.728287 CPSOMS 1.730033 1.729947 1.725078 1.728233 1.72632 1.7272 1.727176 1.726277 1.743071 1.726331 1.728173 1.725996 1.726528 1.725278 1.726811 1.726374 1.72576 1.733052 1.725097 1.729005 1.729705 1.732513 CPSOMT 1.725468 1.725624 1.729982 1.727708 1.725663 1.725487 1.725085 1.732099 1.727105 1.726081 1.726268 1.726016 1.726407 1.727995 1.749225 1.726936 1.725726 1.728529 1.7266 1.726723 1.729205 1.735197 112 Appendix F: Computer Codes PSO%% Particle Swarm Optimization Simulation % Simulates the movements of a swarm to minimize the objective function % The swarm matrix is % swarm(index, [location, velocity, best position, best % value], [x, y components or the value component]) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%Initialization%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Parameters%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% clear clc correction_factor1 = 2; correction_factor2 = 2; wmax=1.2; wmin=0.2; iterations =100; swarm_size = 40; D=4; for NR =1:1 for d=1:D %%%%%%%%%%%Welding xmin=[0.1; 0.1; 0.1 ;0.1]; xmax=[2.0; 10.0; 10.0; 2.0]; %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %xmin=[0;0]; %xmax=[6;6]; xmin=[5 ;0.025; 0.0002; 0.5]; xmax=[40; 0.14; 0.002; 1.5]; %d1=0.0625; xmin = [1;1;10;10]; d2=d1*99; %xmax = [99; 99; 200; 200]; %xmin(d)=-5; %xmax(d)=+5; %xmin=[-5;0]; %xmax=[10;15]; end %------------------------------------------------------% %tic for iter=1:iterations W(iter)=wmax-((wmax-wmin)/iterations)*iter; end % ---- initial swarm position -------------------------% for d=1:D f2=0.3; Vmax(d)=f2*(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end for i=1:swarm_size for d= 1 : D swarm(i, 1, d) =(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end 113 end % Asumming of Global best value so far swarm(:, 4, 1) = 100; swarm(:, 3, 1) =200; %initial velocity swarm(:, 2, :) = 0; gbest=4; %%%%%%%%%%%%% PSO search strat%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% for iter = 1 : iterations %-- evaluating position & quality --for i = 1 : swarm_size %----------------------------%%%%%fitness evaluation val=moh(swarm,i,D,iter); % Stopping=abs(val-swarm(gbest,4,1)); if val < swarm(i, 4, 1) % local best valu swarm(i, 4, 1) = val; % if new position is better for d=1:D % update position of best solution of each particle swarm(i, 3, d) = swarm(i, 1, d); end end temp = global best position gbest= the particle that discoverd the best Solution [temp, gbest] = min(swarm(:, 4, 1)); temp1=gbest; bestLocation=swarm(gbest,1,:); Fittness(iter,1)=temp; %%%-----------------------------%--- updating velocity vectors for d=1:D swarm(i, 2, d) =(W(iter)*swarm(i, 2, d)... +correction_factor1*rand*(swarm(i, 3, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))... + correction_factor2*rand*(swarm(gbest, 1, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))); if (swarm(i,2,d)>Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=Vmax(d); if (swarm(i,2,d)<-Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=-Vmax(d); end %update particle's position 114 swarm(i, 1, d) =(swarm(i, 1, d) +swarm(i, 2, d)); if (swarm(i,1,d)>xmax(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=xmax(d); end if (swarm(i,1,d)<xmin(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=xmin(d); end end end Final(NR,1)=temp; if Stopping<0.0001 toc break end end AFinal(NR,1)=temp; Ploting A good Figures fh = figure(1); % returns the handle to the figure object set(fh, 'color', 'white'); % sets the color to white h=plot(Fittness); get(gcf); get(gca); get(h); o modify the line style. Possible options are ':' dotted, '-' solid, '--' dashed, '-.' dash-dotted set(h,'linestyle','--'); set(h,'color','r'); set(h,'linewidth',5); set(h,'marker','+'); set(h,'markersize',1); set(gca,'box','off'); xlabel('iteration','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); ylabel('Fucntion Minimization','fontsize',12,... % 'fontweight','bold'); Legend('PSO','CSPO','CPSO1','CPSO2','CPSOM','CPSOM1','CPSOM2'); grid; fh = figure(1); % returns the handle to the figure object set(fh, 'color', 'white'); % sets the color to white hleg1 = legend('PSO','CPSOM','CPSO','CPSO1'); plot(Fittness,'k-') [glob,iterF]=min(Fittness(:,1)); FINAL=glob; FinalLocation=bestLocation(iterF,1,:); plot (bestLocation,'dg-.','DisplayName', 'Fittness', 'YDataSource', 'Fittnes' ); figure(gcf) Defines limits for x and y axes, and sets title, labels and legends axis([0 2*pi -1.5 1.5]) title('2D plots', 'fontsize', 12) xlabel('iteration') ylabel('Fucntion Minimization') legend('cos(x)', 'sin(x)') axis([0 1000 0 0.5]); hold on 115 end CPSO for NR =1:1 D=30 for d=1:D xmin=[0; 0]; xmax=[6; 6]; %d1=0.0625; %xmin = [1;1;10;10]; %d2=d1*99; %xmax = [99; 99; 200; 200]; %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %xmin(d)=-5; %xmax(d)=+5; %xmin=[-5;0]; %xmax=[10;15]; End gbest=3; correction_factor1 = 2; correction_factor2 = 2; wmax=1.2; wmin=0.2; iterations =500; swarm_size =40; %------------------------------------------------------% %tic for iter=1:iterations W(iter)=wmax-((wmax-wmin)/iterations)*iter; end % ---- initial swarm position -------------------------% for d=1:D f2=0.3; Vmax(d)=f2*(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end for i=1:swarm_size swarm(i, 4, 1) =100; for d= 1 : D swarm(i, 1, d) =(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); swarm(i, 2, d) = 0; end end % Asumming of Global best value so far % initial velocity %%%%%%%%%%%%% PSO search strat%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% for iter = 1 : iterations %-- evaluating position & quality --for i = 1 : swarm_size %----------------------------%%%%%fitness evaluation val=moh(swarm,i,D,iter); % Stopping=abs(val-swarm(gbest,4,1)); if val < swarm(i, 4, 1) % local best valu swarm(i, 4, 1) = val; 116 % if new position is better for d=1:D % update position of best solution of each particle swarm(i, 3, d) = swarm(i, 1, d); end end temp = global best position gbest= the particle that discoverd the best Solution [temp, gbest] = min(swarm(:, 4, 1)); temp1=gbest; bestLocation(:,1,:)=swarm(gbest,1,:); Fittness(iter,1)=swarm(gbest,4,1); %%%-----------------------------%--- updating velocity vectors for d=1:D f1=rand; f2=4.*f1.*(1-f1) swarm(i, 2, d) =f2^0.5*(W(iter)*swarm(i, 2, d)... +correction_factor1*rand*(swarm(i, 3, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))... + correction_factor2*rand*(swarm(gbest, 1, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))); if (swarm(i,2,d)>Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=f2*Vmax(d); end if (swarm(i,2,d)<-Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=-f2*Vmax(d); end %update particle's position swarm(i, 1, d) =(swarm(i, 1, d) +f2*swarm(i, 2, d)); if (swarm(i,1,d)>xmax(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmax(d); end if (swarm(i,1,d)<xmin(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmin(d); end end end Final(NR,1)=temp; if Stopping<0.0001 Fiter=iter; toc break %end end AFinal(NR,1)=temp; %plot(Fittness,'k-') fh = figure(1); % returns the handle to the figure object set(fh, 'color', 'white'); % sets the color to white h=plot(Fittness); get(gcf); get(gca); get(h); %o modify the line style. Possible options are ':' dotted, '-' solid, '--' %dashed, '-.' dash-dotted set(h,'linestyle','--'); set(h,'color','c'); set(h,'linewidth',5); set(h,'marker','d'); set(h,'markersize',1); 117 set(gca,'box','off'); xlabel('iteration','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); ylabel('Fucntion Minimization','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); Legend('PSO','CSPO','CPSO1','CPSO2','CPSOM','CPSOM1','CPSOM2'); grid; [glob,iterF]=min(Fittness(:,1)); FINAL=glob; FinalLocation=bestLocation(iterF,1,:); plot (bestLocation,'dg-.','DisplayName', 'Fittness', 'YDataSource', 'Fittnes' ); figure(gcf) % Defines limits for x and y axes, and sets title, labels and legends axis([0 2*pi -1.5 1.5]) title('2D plots', 'fontsize', 12) xlabel('iteration') ylabel('Fucntion Minimization') legend('cos(x)', 'sin(x)') axis([0 1000 0 0.5]); hold on end CPSOS %% Particle Swarm Optimization Simulation % Simulates the movements of a swarm to minimize the objective function % The swarm matrix is % swarm(index, [location, velocity, best position, best % value], [x, y components or the value component]) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%Initialization%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Parameters%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% clear clc correction_factor1 = 2; correction_factor2 = 2; wmax=1.2; wmin=0.2; iterations =100; swarm_size = 40; for NR =1:1 for d=1:D xmax = [99; 99; 200; 200]; xmin=[2 ;0.025; 0.0002; 0.5]; xmax=[40; 0.14; 0.002; 1.5]; %xmin(d)=-5; %xmax(d)=+5; %xmin=[-5;0]; %xmax=[10;15]; end %------------------------------------------------------% %tic for iter=1:iterations W(iter)=wmax-((wmax-wmin)/iterations)*iter; end % ---- initial swarm position -------------------------% for d=1:D f2=0.3; Vmax(d)=f2*(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end for i=1:swarm_size for d= 1 : D swarm(i, 1, d) =(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end 118 end % Asumming of Global best value so far swarm(:, 4, 1) = 100; %swarm(:, 3, 1) =200; % initial velocity swarm(:, 2, :) = 0; %%%%%%%%%%%%% PSO search strat%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% for iter = 1 : iterations %-- evaluating position & quality --for i = 1 : swarm_size %----------------------------%%%%%fitness evaluation val=moh(swarm,i,D,iter); Stopping=abs(val-swarm(gbest,4,1)); if val < swarm(i, 4, 1) % local best valu swarm(i, 4, 1) = val; % if new position is better for d=1:D % update position of best solution of each particle swarm(i, 3, d) = swarm(i, 1, d); end end % temp = global best position gbest= the particle that discoverd the best Solution [temp, gbest] = min(swarm(:, 4, 1)); temp1=gbest; bestLocation(iter,1,:)=swarm(gbest,1,:); Fittness(iter,1)=temp; %%%-----------------------------%--- updating velocity vectors for d=1:D f1=rand; f2=4.*f1.*(1-f1); swarm(i, 2, d) =f2^0.5*(W(iter)*swarm(i, 2, d)... +f2*correction_factor1*rand*(swarm(i, 3, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))... + correction_factor2*rand*(swarm(gbest, 1, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))); if (swarm(i,2,d)>Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=f2*Vmax(d); end if (swarm(i,2,d)<-Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=-f2*Vmax(d); end %update particle's position swarm(i, 1, d) =(swarm(i, 1, d) +f2*swarm(i, 2, d)); if (swarm(i,1,d)>xmax(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmax(d); end if (swarm(i,1,d)<xmin(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmin(d); end end end Final(NR,1)=temp; if Stopping<0.0001 Fiter=iter; toc break %end end AFinal(NR,1)=temp; plot(Fittness,'k-') fh = figure(1); % returns the handle to the figure object set(fh, 'color', 'white'); % sets the color to white 119 h=plot(Fittness); get(gcf); get(gca); get(h); o modify the line style. Possible options are ':' dotted, '-' solid, '--' dashed, '-.' dash-dotted set(h,'linestyle','-.'); set(h,'color','k'); set(h,'linewidth',5); set(h,'marker','*'); set(h,'markersize',1); set(gca,'box','off'); xlabel('iteration','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); ylabel('Fucntion Minimization','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); Legend('PSO','CSPO','CPSO1','CPSO2','CPSOM','CPSOM1','CPSOM2'); grid; [glob,iterF]=min(Fittness(:,1)); FINAL=glob; FinalLocation=bestLocation(iterF,1,:); plot (bestLocation,'dg-.','DisplayName', 'Fittness', 'YDataSource', 'Fittnes' ); figure(gcf) % Defines limits for x and y axes, and sets title, labels and legends axis([0 2*pi -1.5 1.5]) title('2D plots', 'fontsize', 12) xlabel('iteration') ylabel('Fucntion Minimization') legend('cos(x)', 'sin(x)') axis([0 1000 0 0.5]); hold on end CPSOT gbest=3; correction_factor1 = 2; correction_factor2 = 2; wmax=1.2; wmin=0.2; iterations =500; swarm_size = 40 for NR =1:50 for d=1:D %xmax = [99; 99; 200; 200]; xmin(d)=-5; xmax(d)=+5; xmin=[-5;0]; xmax=[10;15]; end %------------------------------------------------------% %tic for iter=1:iterations W(iter)=wmax-((wmax-wmin)/iterations)*iter; end % ---- initial swarm position -------------------------% for d=1:D f2=0.3; Vmax(d)=f2*(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end for i=1:swarm_size for d= 1 : D swarm(i, 1, d) =(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end end 120 % Asumming of Global best value so far swarm(:, 4, 1) = 100; %swarm(:, 3, 1) =200; % initial velocity swarm(:, 2, :) = 0; %%%%%%%%%%%%% PSO search strat%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% for iter = 1 : iterations %-- evaluating position & quality --for i = 1 : swarm_size %----------------------------%%%%%fitness evaluation val=weld(swarm,i,D,iter); % Stopping=abs(val-swarm(gbest,4,1)); if val < swarm(i, 4, 1) % local best valu swarm(i, 4, 1) = val; % if new position is better for d=1:D % update position of best solution of each particle swarm(i, 3, d) = swarm(i, 1, d); end end % temp = global best position % gbest= the particle that discoverd the best Solution [temp, gbest] = min(swarm(:, 4, 1)); temp1=gbest; bestLocation(iter,1,:)=swarm(gbest,1,:); Fittness(iter,1)=temp; %%%-----------------------------%--- updating velocity vectors for d=1:D f1=rand; f2=4.*f1.*(1-f1); swarm(i, 2, d) =f2^0.5*(W(iter)*swarm(i, 2, d)... +correction_factor1*rand*(swarm(i, 3, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))... + f2*correction_factor2*rand*(swarm(gbest, 1, d)- swarm(i, 1, if (swarm(i,2,d)>Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=f2*Vmax(d); end if (swarm(i,2,d)<-Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=-f2*Vmax(d); end %update particle's position swarm(i, 1, d) =(swarm(i, 1, d) +f2*swarm(i, 2, d)); if (swarm(i,1,d)>xmax(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmax(d); end if (swarm(i,1,d)<xmin(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmin(d); end end end % Final(NR,1)=temp; %if Stopping<0.0001 % Fiter=iter; % toc % break %end d))); end AFinal(NR,1)=temp; fh = figure(1); % returns the handle to the figure object set(fh, 'color', 'white'); % sets the color to white 121 h=plot(Fittness); get(gcf); get(gca); get(h); %o modify the line style. Possible options are ':' dotted, '-' solid, '--' %dashed, '-.' dash-dotted set(h,'linestyle','-.'); set(h,'color','g'); set(h,'linewidth',5); set(h,'marker','x'); set(h,'markersize',1); set(gca,'box','off'); xlabel('iteration','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); ylabel('Fucntion Minimization','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); Legend('PSO','CSPO','CPSO1','CPSO2','CPSOM','CPSOM1','CPSOM2'); grid; CPSOM correction_factor1 = 1.5; correction_factor2 = 2.5; wmax=1.2; wmin=0.2; iterations =100; swarm_size = 40; D=4; for NR =1:1 for d=1:D %xmin=[-5;0]; %xmax=[10;15]; end %------------------------------------------------------% %tic for iter=1:iterations W(iter)=wmax-((wmax-wmin)/iterations)*iter; end % ---- initial swarm position -------------------------% for d=1:D f2=0.3; Vmax(d)=f2*(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end for i=1:swarm_size for d= 1 : D swarm(i, 1, d) =(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end end % Asumming of Global best value so far swarm(:, 4, 1) = 100; %swarm(:, 3, 1) =200; % initial velocity swarm(:, 2, :) = 0; %gbest=4; %%%%%%%%%%%%% PSO search strat%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% for iter = 1 : iterations %-- evaluating position & quality --for i = 1 : swarm_size %----------------------------%%%%%fitness evaluation swarm(i, 1, 1)=int8(swarm(i, 1, 1)); val=moh(swarm,i,D,iter); 122 Stopping=abs(val-swarm(gbest,4,1)); if val < swarm(i, 4, 1) % local best valu swarm(i, 4, 1) = val; AAAAAA(iter,1)=val; % if new position is better for d=1:D % update position of best solution of each particle swarm(i, 3, d) = swarm(i, 1, d); AQQ(iter,d)= swarm(i, 1, d); end end % temp = global best position % gbest= the particle that discoverd the best Solution [temp, gbest] = min(swarm(:, 4, 1)); temp1=gbest; bestLocation(1,:)=swarm(gbest,1,:); Fittness(iter,1)=temp; %%%-----------------------------%--- updating velocity vectors for d=1:D f1=rand; f2=4.*f1.*(1-f1); swarm(i, 2, d) =f2^0.5*(W(iter)*swarm(i, 2, d)... +correction_factor1*rand*(swarm(i, 3, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))... + correction_factor2*rand*(swarm(gbest, 1, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))); if iter >= iterations/2 swarm(i, 2, d)= swarm(i, 2, d)+swarm(gbest,3, d)/swarm_size*exp (W(iter)^2*f2); end if (swarm(i,2,d)>Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=f2*Vmax(d); end if (swarm(i,2,d)<-Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=-f2*Vmax(d); end %update particle's position swarm(i, 1, d) =(swarm(i, 1, d) +f2*swarm(i, 2, d)) if (swarm(i,1,d)>xmax(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmax(d); end if (swarm(i,1,d)<xmin(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmin(d); end end end Final(NR,1)=temp; if Stopping<0.0001 Fiter=iter; toc break end end AFinal(NR,1)=temp; %======Ploting Nice figure fh = figure(1); % returns the handle to the figure object set(fh, 'color', 'white'); % sets the color to white h=plot(Fittness); get(gcf); get(gca); get(h); %o modify the line style. Possible options are ':' dotted, '-' solid, '--' %dashed, '-.' dash-dotted set(h,'linestyle',':'); 123 set(h,'linewidth',5); set(h,'marker','o'); set(h,'markersize',1); set(gca,'box','off'); xlabel('iteration','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); ylabel('Fucntion Minimization','fontsize',12,... grid; %hleg1 = legend('CPSOM'); %plot(Fittness,'-bo') %[glob,iterF]=min(Fittness(:,1)); %FINAL=glob; %FinalLocation=bestLocation(iterF,1,:); %plot (bestLocation,'dg-.','DisplayName', 'Fittness', 'YDataSource', 'Fittnes' ); figure(gcf) % Defines limits for x and y axes, and sets title, labels and legends %axis([0 2*pi -1.5 1.5]) %title('2D plots', 'fontsize', 12) %legend('cos(x)', 'sin(x)') %axis([0 1000 0 0.5]); hold on end CPSOMS %% Particle Swarm Optimization Simulation % Simulates the movements of a swarm to minimize the objective function % The swarm matrix is % swarm(index, [location, velocity, best position, best % value], [x, y components or the value component]) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%Initialization%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Parameters%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% clear clc gbest=3; correction_factor1 = 1.5; correction_factor2 = 2.5; wmax=1.2; wmin=0.2; iterations =500; swarm_size = 40; D=4; for NR =1:50 for d=1:D %%%%%%%%%%%Welding xmin=[0.1; 0.1; 0.1 ;0.1]; xmax=[2.0; 10.0; 10.0; 2.0]; %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %d1=0.0625; %xmin = [1;1;10;10]; %d2=d1*99; %xmax = [99; 99; 200; 200]; 124 %xmin(d)=[2 ;0.025; 0.0002; 0.5]; %xmax=[40; 0.14; 0.002; 1.5]; %xmin(d)=-5; %xmax(d)=+5; %xmin=[-5;0]; %xmax=[10;15]; end %------------------------------------------------------% %tic for iter=1:iterations W(iter)=wmax-((wmax-wmin)/iterations)*iter; end % ---- initial swarm position -------------------------% for d=1:D f2=0.3; Vmax(d)=f2*(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end for i=1:swarm_size for d= 1 : D swarm(i, 1, d) =(xmax(d)-xmin(d)); end end % Asumming of Global best value so far swarm(:, 4, 1) = 100; %swarm(:, 3, 1) =200; % initial velocity swarm(:, 2, :) = 0; %gbest=4; %%%%%%%%%%%%% PSO search strat%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% for iter = 1 : iterations %-- evaluating position & quality --for i = 1 : swarm_size %----------------------------%%%%%fitness evaluation val=weld(swarm,i,D,iter); % Stopping=abs(val-swarm(gbest,4,1)); if val < swarm(i, 4, 1) % local best valu swarm(i, 4, 1) = val; % if new position is better for d=1:D % update position of best solution of each particle swarm(i, 3, d) = swarm(i, 1, d); end end % temp = global best position % gbest= the particle that discoverd the best Solution [temp, gbest] = min(swarm(:, 4, 1)); temp1=gbest; bestLocation(iter,1,:)=swarm(gbest,1,:); Fittness(iter,1)=temp; %%%-----------------------------%--- updating velocity vectors for d=1:D f1=rand; f2=4.*f1.*(1-f1); swarm(i, 2, d) =f2^0.5*(W(iter)*swarm(i, 2, d)... 125 +f2*correction_factor1*rand*(swarm(i, 3, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))... + correction_factor2*rand*(swarm(gbest, 1, d)- swarm(i, 1, d))); if iter >= iterations/2 swarm(i, 2, d)= swarm(i, (W(iter)^2*f2); end if (swarm(i,2,d)>Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=f2*Vmax(d); end if (swarm(i,2,d)<-Vmax(d)) swarm(i,2,d)=-f2*Vmax(d); end 2, d)+swarm(gbest,3, d)/swarm_size*exp %update particle's position swarm(i, 1, d) =(swarm(i, 1, d) +f2*swarm(i, 2, d)); if (swarm(i,1,d)>xmax(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmax(d); end if (swarm(i,1,d)<xmin(d)) swarm(i,1,d)=f2*xmin(d); end end end % Final(NR,1)=temp; %if Stopping<0.0001 % Fiter=iter; % toc % break %end end AFinal(NR,1)=temp; %plot(Fittness,'k-') fh = figure(1); % returns the handle to the figure object set(fh, 'color', 'white'); % sets the color to white h=plot(Fittness); get(gcf); get(gca); get(h); %o modify the line style. Possible options are ':' dotted, '-' solid, '--' %dashed, '-.' dash-dotted set(h,'linestyle','-'); set(h,'color','y'); set(h,'linewidth',5); set(h,'marker','s'); set(h,'markersize',1); set(gca,'box','off'); xlabel('iteration','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); ylabel('Fucntion Minimization','fontsize',12,... 'fontweight','bold'); %Legend('PSO','CSPO','CPSO1','CPSO2','CPSOM','CPSOM1','CPSOM2'); grid; %[glob,iterF]=min(Fittness(:,1)); %FINAL=glob; %FinalLocation=bestLocation(iterF,1,:); 126 %plot (bestLocation,'dg-.','DisplayName', 'Fittness', 'YDataSource', 'Fittnes' ); figure(gcf) % Defines limits for x and y axes, and sets title, labels and legends %axis([0 2*pi -1.5 1.5]) %title('2D plots', 'fontsize', 12) %xlabel('iteration') %ylabel('Fucntion Minimization') %legend('cos(x)', 'sin(x)') %axis([0 1000 0 0.5]); Benchmark Functions function val= asd(swarm,i,D) for d=1:D x(d)=swarm(i,1,d); end val=0; %----------------------Sphere for d=1:D val=val+x(d)^2;end %---------------------------------------------------------%%Rosenbrock &&&&&&&x1&x2=[-5,5] for d=1:D-1 a1=x(d+1)-(x(d))^2; b1=1-x(d); val=val+((100*(a1)^2+(b1)^2)); end %-------------------------------------------------------------% Brianin function x1=[-5,10]& x2=[0,15] val =(x(2)-(5.1/(4*pi^2))*x(1)^2+(5/pi)*x(1)-6)^2+(10*(1(1/(pi*8)))*cos(x(1))+10); %----------------------------------------------------------------------%Rastrigrin val=x(1)^2+x(2)^2-cos(18*x(1))-cos(18*x(2)); val=x(1)^2+x(2)^2-cos(18*x(1))-cos(18*x(2)); val=(4-(2.1*x(1)^2+x(1)^4/3))*x(1)^2+(x(1)*x(2))+(-4+4*x(2)^2)*x(2)^2; for d=1:D val=val+(x(d)^2-(10*cos(2*pi*x(d)))+10); end %=========================== % Griewank function n=D; fr = 4000; s = 0; p = 1; for d = 1:n; s = s+x(d)^2; end for d = 1:n; p = p*cos(x(d)/sqrt(d)); end val = s/fr-p+1; %======================== 127
- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- UBC Theses and Dissertations /
- A modified particle swarm optimization and its application...
Open Collections
UBC Theses and Dissertations
Featured Collection
UBC Theses and Dissertations
A modified particle swarm optimization and its application in thermal management of an electronic cooling… Alrasheed, Mohammed R.A. 2011
pdf
Page Metadata
Item Metadata
Title | A modified particle swarm optimization and its application in thermal management of an electronic cooling system |
Creator |
Alrasheed, Mohammed R.A. |
Publisher | University of British Columbia |
Date Issued | 2011 |
Description | Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is an evolutionary computation technique, which has been inspired by the group behavior of animals such as schools of fish and flocks of birds. It has shown its effectiveness as an efficient, fast and simple method of optimization. The applicability of PSO in the design optimization of heat sinks is studied in this thesis. The results show that the PSO is an appropriate optimization tool for use in heat sink design.PSO has common problems that other evolutionary methods suffer from. For example, in some cases premature convergence can occur where particles tend to be trapped at local optima and not able to escape in seeking the global optimum. To overcome these problems, some modifications are suggested and evaluated in the present work. These modifications are found to improve the convergence rate and to enhance the robustness of the method. The specific modifications developed for PSO and evaluated in the thesis are: (1) Chaotic Acceleration Factor (2) Chaotic Inertia Factor (3) Global Best Mutation The performance of these modifications is tested through benchmarks problems, which are commonly found and used in the optimization literature. Detailed comparative analysis of the modifications to the classical PSO approach is made, which demonstrates the potential performance improvements. In particular, the modified PSO algorithms are applied to problems with nonlinear constraints. The non-stationary, multi-stage penalty method (PFM) is implemented to handle nonlinear constraints. Pressure vessel optimization and welded beam optimization are two common engineering problems that are used for testing the performance of optimization algorithms and are used here as benchmark testing examples. It is found that the modified PSO algorithms, as developed in this work, outperform many classical and evolutionary optimization algorithms in solving nonlinear constraint problems. The modified PSO algorithm is applied in heat sink design and detailed results are presented. The commercially available software package Ansys Icepak is used in the present work to solve the heat and flow equations in implementing the optimal design variables resulting from the modified PSO algorithms. The main contributions the work are summarized and suggestions are made for possible future work. |
Genre |
Thesis/Dissertation |
Type |
Text |
Language | eng |
Date Available | 2011-10-12 |
Provider | Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library |
Rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International |
DOI | 10.14288/1.0072284 |
URI | http://hdl.handle.net/2429/37900 |
Degree |
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD |
Program |
Mechanical Engineering |
Affiliation |
Applied Science, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of |
Degree Grantor | University of British Columbia |
GraduationDate | 2011-11 |
Campus |
UBCV |
Scholarly Level | Graduate |
Rights URI | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
AggregatedSourceRepository | DSpace |
Download
- Media
- 24-ubc_2011_fall_alrasheed_mohammed.pdf [ 2.94MB ]
- Metadata
- JSON: 24-1.0072284.json
- JSON-LD: 24-1.0072284-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0072284-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: 24-1.0072284-rdf.json
- Turtle: 24-1.0072284-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 24-1.0072284-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: 24-1.0072284-source.json
- Full Text
- 24-1.0072284-fulltext.txt
- Citation
- 24-1.0072284.ris
Full Text
Cite
Citation Scheme:
Usage Statistics
Share
Embed
Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML
of your page to embed this item in your website.
<div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
<script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
src="{[{embed.src}]}"
data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
async >
</script>
</div>
Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard.
To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0072284/manifest