Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Computers & Industrial Engineering: Ehsan Valian, Saeed Tavakoli, Shahram Mohanna, Atiyeh Haghi
Computers & Industrial Engineering: Ehsan Valian, Saeed Tavakoli, Shahram Mohanna, Atiyeh Haghi
Computers & Industrial Engineering: Ehsan Valian, Saeed Tavakoli, Shahram Mohanna, Atiyeh Haghi
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: An efficient approach to solve engineering optimization problems is the cuckoo search algorithm. It is a
Received 21 May 2011 recently developed meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Normally, the parameters of the cuckoo
Received in revised form 5 March 2012 search are kept constant. This may result in decreasing the efficiency of the algorithm. To cope with this
Accepted 5 July 2012
issue, the cuckoo search parameters should be tuned properly. In this paper, an improved cuckoo search
Available online 31 August 2012
algorithm, enhancing the accuracy and convergence rate of the cuckoo search algorithm, is presented.
Then, the performance of the proposed algorithm is tested on some complex engineering optimization
Keywords:
problems. They are four well-known reliability optimization problems, a large-scale reliability optimiza-
Cuckoo search
Improved cuckoo search
tion problem as well as a complex system, which is a 15-unit system reliability optimization problem.
Large-scale Finally, the results are compared with those given by several well-known methods. Simulation results
Optimization demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.
Reliability problem Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0360-8352/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2012.07.011
460 E. Valian et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 459–468
The Cuckoo Search (CS) developed in 2009 by Yang and Deb potentially better solutions (cuckoos) to replace not-so-good solu-
(2009, 2010), is a new meta-heuristic algorithm imitating animal tions in the nests. In the simplest form, each nest has one egg. The
behavior. The optimal solutions obtained by the CS are far better algorithm can be extended to more complicated cases in which
than the best solutions obtained by efficient particle swarm opti- each nest has multiple eggs representing a set of solutions (Yang
mizers and genetic algorithms (Yang & Deb, 2009). First, an Im- & Deb, 2009, 2010). The CS is based on three idealized rules:
proved Cuckoo Search (ICS) algorithm for optimization problems
is developed. Then, the performance of the proposed algorithm is Each cuckoo lays one egg at a time, and dumps it in a randomly
tested on some complex engineering optimization problems. chosen nest.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the procedure of The best nests with high quality of eggs (solutions) will carry
cuckoo search algorithm is briefly presented. In Section 3, the over to the next generations.
improved cuckoo search algorithm is presented. To apply it to The number of available host nests is fixed, and a host can dis-
reliability optimization problems, some preparation works are cover an alien egg with probability pa 2 [0, 1]. In this case, the
done in Section 4. In Section 5, four reliability optimization host bird can either throw the egg away or abandon the nest
problems, a large-scale reliability optimization problem as well to build a completely new nest in a new location (Yang &
as a complex system are introduced. In Section 6, a number of Deb, 2010).
simulations are carried out to test the performance and effective-
ness of the proposed algorithm in solving complex reliability For simplicity, the last assumption can be approximated by a
optimization problems. We end this paper with some conclusions fraction pa of the n nests being replaced by new nests, having
in Section 7. new random solutions. For a maximization problem, the quality
or fitness of a solution can simply be proportional to the objec-
2. Cuckoo search algorithm tive function. Other forms of fitness can be defined in a similar
way to the fitness function in genetic algorithms (Yang & Deb,
In this section the cuckoo search algorithm is briefly reviewed. 2010).
2.1. Cuckoo breeding behavior Based on the above-mentioned rules, the basic steps of the CS
can be summarized as the pseudo code, as follows (Yang & Deb,
The CS was inspired by the obligate brood parasitism of some 2010):
cuckoo species by laying their eggs in the nests of host birds. Some
cuckoos have evolved in such a way that female parasitic cuckoos begin
can imitate the colors and patterns of the eggs of a few chosen host Objective function f(x), x = (x1, . . . , xd)T
species. This reduces the probability of the eggs being abandoned Generate initial population of
and, therefore, increases their re-productivity (Payne, Sorenson, & n host nests xi(i = 1, 2, . . . , n)
Klitz, 2005). It is worth mentioning that several host birds engage While (t < MaxGeneration) or (stop criterion)
direct conflict with intruding cuckoos. In this case, if host birds dis- Get a cuckoo randomly by Lévy flights
cover the eggs are not their own, they will either throw them away evaluate its quality/fitness Fi
or simply abandon their nests and build new ones, elsewhere. Choose a nest among n (say.j) randomly
Parasitic cuckoos often choose a nest where the host bird just if (Fi > Fj),
laid its own eggs. In general, the cuckoo eggs hatch slightly earlier replace j by the new solution;
than their host eggs. Once the first cuckoo chick is hatched, his first end if
instinct action is to evict the host eggs by blindly propelling the A fraction (pa) of worse nests
eggs out of the nest. This action results in increasing the cuckoo are abandoned and new ones are built;
chick’s share of food provided by its host bird (Payne et al., Keep the best solutions
2005). Moreover, studies show that a cuckoo chick can imitate (or nests with quality solutions);
the call of host chicks to gain access to more feeding opportunity. Rank the solutions and find the current best
The CS models such breeding behavior and, thus, can be applied end while
to various optimization problems. Yang and Deb (2009, 2010) dis- Postprocess results and visualization
covered that the performance of the CS can be improved by using end
Lévy Flights instead of simple random walk.
2.2. Lévy flights
In nature, animals search for food in a random or quasi-random When generating new solutions xi(t + 1) for the ith cuckoo, the
manner. Generally, the foraging path of an animal is effectively a following Lévy flight is performed
random walk because the next move is based on both the current
xi ðt þ 1Þ ¼ xi ðtÞ þ a Le
vy ðkÞ ð1Þ
location/state and the transition probability to the next location.
The chosen direction implicitly depends on a probability, which where a > 0 is the step size, which should be related to the scale of
can be modeled mathematically. Various studies have shown that the problem of interest. The product means entry-wise multipli-
the flight behavior of many animals and insects demonstrates the cations location (Yang and Deb, 2009). In this research work, we
typical characteristic of Lévy flights (Brown, Liebovitch, & Glendon, consider a Lévy flight in which the step-lengths are distributed
2007). A Lévy flight is a random walk in which the step-lengths are according to the following probability distribution
distributed according to a heavy-tailed probability distribution.
vy u ¼ t k ; 1 < k 6 3
Le ð2Þ
After a large number of steps, the distance from the origin of the
random walk tends to a stable distribution. which has an infinite variance. Here, the consecutive jumps/steps of
a cuckoo essentially form a random walk process which obeys a
2.3. Cuckoo search implementation power-law step-length distribution with a heavy tail.
It is worth pointing out that, in the real world, if a cuckoo’s egg
Each egg in a nest represents a solution, and a cuckoo egg is very similar to a host’s eggs, then this cuckoo’s egg is less likely
represents a new solution. The aim is to employ the new and to be discovered, thus the fitness should be related to the
E. Valian et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 459–468 461
difference in solutions. Therefore, it is a good idea to do a random where k represents the penalty coefficient, and it is set to 105, in this
walk in a biased way with some random step sizes location (Yang & paper. As the maximization problem of F(x) is equivalent with the
Deb, 2010). minimization problem of F(x), Eq. (6) can be written as follows.
Xng
subsystem i, whilst f(r, n) is the system reliability. For each compo- Table 1
nent in subsystem i, wi, vi, and ci are the weight, volume, and cost, Data used in complex (bridge) and series systems.
respectively. V, C, and W refer to the upper limit on the sum of i 105ai bi wiv 2i wi V C W
the subsystems’ products of volume and weight, the upper limit
1 2.330 1.5 1 7
on the cost of the system, and the upper limit on the weight of 2 1.450 1.5 2 8
the system, respectively. The parameters ai and bi are physical fea- 3 0.541 1.5 3 8 110 175 200
tures of system components. Constraint g1(r, n) is a combination of 4 8.050 1.5 4 6
weight, redundancy allocation, and volume. g2(r, n) and g3(r, n) are 5 1.950 1.5 2 9
1 2 3 4 5
5.2. Case study 2: a series system
Fig. 2. The schematic diagram of a series system.
This case study (Chen, 2006; Hikita et al., 1992; Hsieh et al.,
1998; Kuo, Hwang, & Tillman, 1978; Wu et al., 2010; Xu, Kuo, &
Lin, 1990; Yeh & Hsieh, 2011) is a nonlinear mixed-integer pro- 5.4. Case study 4: an overspeed system for a gas turbine
gramming problem for a series system with five subsystems, as
shown in Fig. 2. Overspeed detection is continuously provided by the electrical
The problem formulation is as follows: and mechanical systems. When an overspeed occurs, it is necessary
to cut off the fuel supply. For this purpose, 4 control valves (V1–V4)
Y
m must be closed. The control system is modeled as a 4-stage series
Max f ðr; nÞ ¼ Ri ðni Þ system, as shown in Fig. 4. The objective is to determine an optimal
i¼1
level of ri and ni at each stage i so that the system reliability is
s:t:
maximized.
X
m
g 1 ðr; nÞ ¼ wi v 2i n2i V 6 0 This case study (Chen, 2006; Coelho, 2009; Dhingra, 1992; Wu
i¼1 et al., 2010; Yeh & Hsieh, 2011; Yokota et al., 1996; Zou et al.,
X
m bi 2010, 2011) is formulated as follows
1000
g 2 ðr; nÞ ¼ ai lnðr Þ
½ni þ expð0:25ni Þ C 6 0
i
i¼1 Y
m
X
m Max f ðr; nÞ ¼ ½1 ð1 r i Þni
g 3 ðr; nÞ ¼ wi ni expð0:25ni Þ W 6 0 i¼1
i¼1 s:t:
þ
0 6 r i 6 1; ni 2 Z ; 16i6m X
m
g 1 ðr; nÞ ¼ v i n2i V 6 0
This case study has three nonlinear constraints, which are the same i¼1
as those of the 1st case study. Also, the input parameters of the ser- Xm
ies system are the same as those of the complex (bridge) system. g 2 ðr; nÞ ¼ Cðr i Þ½ni þ expð0:25ni Þ C 6 0
i¼1
Xm
g 3 ðr; nÞ ¼ wi ni expð0:25ni Þ W 6 0
5.3. Case study 3: a series–parallel system i¼1
0 6 r i 6 1; ni 2 Z þ ; 16i6m 5
4
This case study has the same nonlinear constraints as those of the
1st case study, but it has different input parameters, given in Table
2. Fig. 3. The schematic diagram of a series–parallel system.
E. Valian et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 459–468 463
Table 2 error h, which implies 33% of the minimum requirement of each re-
Data used in series–parallel system. source (lj), is available for optimization. For the reliability system
i 105ai bi wi v 2i wi V C W with n subsystems, the average minimum resource requirements
Pn
1 2.500 1.5 2 3.5 j¼1 g ij ðlj Þ; ði ¼ 1; . . . ; 4Þ and the average values of which is repre-
h
Pn
2 1.450 1.5 4 4 sented by bi ¼ 1 þ 100 j¼1 g ij ðlj Þ; ði ¼ 1; . . . ; 4Þ. In this way, we set
3 0.541 1.5 5 4 180 175 100
the available system resources for reliability system with 36, 38,
4 0.541 1.5 8 3
5 2.100 1.5 4 4.5
40, 42 and 50 subsystems, respectively, as shown in Table 5.
The best solutions obtained by the above two approaches (Gen
& Yun, 2006; Prasad & Kuo, 2000) are reported in Table 6. Here,
VTV represents the variables which get value 2 in optimum condi-
tions and the other variables are equal to 1.
Gas Turbine
X
n
X
n 1 0.005 8 4 13 26 26 0.029 8 1 18 35
g 3 ðr; nÞ ¼ cj xj 1 þ 100
h
cj lj 6 0 2 0.026 10 4 16 32 27 0.022 8 3 16 32
j¼1 j¼1 3 0.035 10 4 12 23 28 0.017 9 3 15 29
4 0.029 6 3 12 24 29 0.002 10 1 18 35
X
n pffiffiffi
X
n pffiffiffi
h 5 0.032 7 1 13 26 30 0.031 9 2 19 37
g 4 ðr; nÞ ¼ dj xj 1 þ 100 dj lj 6 0
6 0.003 10 4 16 31 31 0.021 7 5 15 28
j¼1 j¼1
7 0.020 9 2 19 38 32 0.023 9 5 11 22
1 6 xj 6 10; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: 8 0.018 9 3 15 29 33 0.030 6 3 15 29
9 0.004 7 4 12 23 34 0.026 7 3 14 27
Table 4 shows the design data of reliability systems for case study 5. 10 0.038 6 4 16 31 35 0.009 6 5 15 29
The component reliabilities are generated from the uniform distri- 11 0.028 6 5 14 28 36 0.019 10 5 17 33
bution in [0.95, 1.0]. The coefficients aj, bj, cj and dj are generated 12 0.021 10 3 15 30 37 0.005 9 5 19 37
13 0.039 9 1 17 34 38 0.019 10 5 11 22
from uniform distributions in [6, 10], [1, 5], [11, 20] and [21, 40],
14 0.013 10 4 20 39 39 0.002 6 2 17 34
respectively. Here, lj represents the lower bound of xj. The tolerance 15 0.038 7 4 14 28 40 0.015 8 3 17 33
16 0.037 10 2 13 25 41 0.023 10 5 17 33
17 0.021 10 1 15 29 42 0.040 8 3 18 35
Table 3 18 0.023 8 3 19 38 43 0.012 8 1 18 35
Data used in overspeed protection system. 19 0.027 10 5 18 36 44 0.026 6 4 19 38
20 0.028 7 4 13 26 45 0.038 6 4 13 26
i 105ai bi vi wi V C W T
21 0.030 6 2 15 30 46 0.015 8 1 19 37
1 1.0 1.5 1 6 22 0.027 6 2 12 24 47 0.036 7 4 14 28
2 2.3 1.5 2 6 23 0.018 7 2 20 40 48 0.032 10 2 19 37
3 0.3 1.5 3 8 250 400 500 1000 h 24 0.013 8 5 19 38 49 0.038 8 3 15 30
4 2.3 1.5 2 7 25 0.006 9 5 15 39 50 0.013 10 2 11 22
464 E. Valian et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 459–468
Table 5 For the first four case studies, Tables 8–11 compare the best re-
Available system resources for each system in case study 5. sults obtained by the ICS with those provided by other methods re-
n i 1 2 3 4 ported in the literatures (Chen, 2006; Coelho, 2009; Dhingra, 1992;
36 bi 391 257 738 1454 Hsieh et al., 1998; Kuo et al., 1978; Wu et al., 2010; Xu et al., 1990;
38 bi 416 278 778 1532 Yokota et al., 1996; Zou et al., 2010; Zou et al., 2011). ‘Slack’ repre-
40 bi 435 289 823 1621 sents unused resources.
42 bi 458 306 870 1712 An improvement index is required to measure the improvement
50 bi 543 352 1040 2048
of the best solutions found by the proposed approach in compari-
son with those given by the other methods. This index, which has
been called maximum possible improvement (MPI) (Coelho, 2009),
Table 6 is as follows
The optimization results of case study 5 with different dimensions.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 15
9 10 11 12 13 14
Table 7
Parameter for CS and ICS.
Example Population size Number of iterations Pa for CS a for CS Pa for ICS a for ICS
Case study 1 10 1000 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 2 10 1000 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 3 10 1000 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 4 10 1000 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 5-(36 DIM) 10 2500 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 5-(38 DIM) 10 2500 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 5-(40 DIM) 10 2500 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 5-(42 DIM) 10 2500 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 5-(50 DIM) 10 5000 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 6-(15 1) 10 500 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
Case study 6-(15 1) 10 500 0.25 1 Pa(max) = 0.5 a(max) = 0.5
Pa(min) = 0.005 a(min) = 0.01
E. Valian et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 459–468 465
Table 8
Case study 1: Bridge (complex) system.
Parameter Hikita et al. (1992) Hsieh et al. (1998) Chen (2006) Coelho (2009) Zou et al. (2010) Wu et al. (2010) Yeh and Hsieh (2011) ICS
f(r, n) 0.9997894 0.99987916 0.99988921 0.99988957 0.99988962 0.99988963 0.99988962 0.99988964
n1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
n2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
n3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
n4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
n5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
r1 0.814483 0.814090 0.812485 0.826678 0.82883148 0.82868361 0.828087 0.828094038
r2 0.821383 0.864614 0.867661 0.857172 0.85836789 0.85802567 0.857805 0.858004485
r3 0.896151 0.890291 0.861221 0.914629 0.91334996 0.91364616 0.914240 0.914162924
r4 0.713091 0.701190 0.713852 0.648918 0.64779451 0.64803407 0.648146 0.647907792
r5 0.814091 0.734731 0.756699 0.715290 0.70178737 0.70227595 0.704163 0.704565982
MPI (%) 47.597341 8.672625 0.388122 0.063389 0.018120 0.009060 0.018120 –
Slack (g1) 18 18 19 5 5 5 5 5
Slack (g2) 1.854075 0.376347 0.001494 0.000339 0.00004063 0.00000359 0.00002500 0.00007929
Slack (g3) 4.264770 4.264770 4.264770 1.560466 1.56046629 1.56046629 1.56046628 1.560466288
Table 9
Case study 2: Series system.
Parameter Kuo et al. (1978) Xu et al. (1990) Hikita et al. (1992) Hsieh et al. (1998) Chen (2006) Wu et al. (2010) Yeh and Hsieh (2011) ICS
f(r, n) 0.92975 0.931677 0.931363 0.931578 0.931678 0.931680 0.931682 0.931682387
n1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
n2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
n3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
n4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
n5 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
r1 0.77960 0.77939 0.777143 0.779427 0.779266 0.78037307 0.779399 0.779416938
r2 0.80065 0.87183 0.867514 0.869482 0.872513 0.87178343 0.871837 0.871833278
r3 0.90227 0.90288 0.896696 0.902674 0.902634 0.90240890 0.902885 0.902885082
r4 0.71044 0.71139 0.717739 0.714038 0.710648 0.71147356 0.711403 0.711393868
r5 0.85947 0.78779 0.793889 0.786896 0.788406 0.78738760 0.787800 0.787803712
MPI (%) 2.750748 0.007904 0.465347 0.152583 0.006440 0.003513 0.000006 –
Slack (g1) 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Slack (g2) 0.000010 0.013773 0.000000 0.121454 0.001559 0.121454 0.0002184 0.000000265
Slack (g3) 10.57248 7.518918 7.518918 7.518918 7.518918 7.518918 7.5189182 7.518918241
Table 10
Case study 3: Series–parallel system.
Parameter Hikita et al. (1992) Hsieh et al. (1998) Chen (2006) Wu et al. (2010) ICS
f(r, n) 0.99996875 0.99997418 0.99997658 0.99997664 0.999976649
n1 3 2 2 2 2
n2 3 2 2 2 2
n3 1 2 2 2 2
n4 2 2 2 2 2
n5 3 4 4 4 4
r1 0.838193 0.785452 0.812485 0.81918526 0.819927087
r2 0.855065 0.842998 0.843155 0.84366421 0.845267657
r3 0.878859 0.885333 0.897385 0.89472992 0.895491554
r4 0.911402 0.917958 0.894516 0.89537628 0.895440692
r5 0.850355 0.870318 0.870590 0.86912724 0.868318775
MPI (%) 25.280000 9.566228 0.298890 0.042808 –
Slack (g1) 53 40 40 40 40
Slack (g2) 0.000000 1.194440 0.002627 0.000561 0.0000161
Slack (g3) 7.110849 1.609289 1.609289 1.609289 1.6092890
For the series system, Table 9 shows that the best results re- A same investigation has been done for the series–parallel sys-
ported by Kuo et al. (1978), Xu et al. (1990), Hikita et al. (1992), tem. Table 10 shows that the ICS leads to better results and the
Hsieh et al. (1998), Chen (2006), Wu et al. (2010), and Yeh and Hsieh improvement indices are 25.280000%, 9.566228%, 0.298890%, and
(2011), are 0.92975, 0.931677, 0.931363, 0.931578, 0.931678, 0.042808% in comparison with the best results reported by Hikita
0.931680 and 0.931682 respectively. The result given by the ICS et al. (1992), Hsieh et al. (1998), Chen (2006), and Wu et al. (2010),
is better than the above-mentioned results. The improvement indi- respectively.
ces are 2.750748%, 0.007904%, 0.465347%, 0.152583%, 0.006440%, Considering an overspeed system for a gas turbine, Table 11
0.003513% and 0.000006%, respectively. shows that the best results reported by Dhingra (1992), Yokota
466 E. Valian et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 459–468
Table 11
Case study 4: Over-speed system.
Parameter Dhingra (1992) Yokota et al. (1996) Chen (2006) Coelho (2009) Zou et al. (2010) Wu et al. (2010) Yeh and Hsieh (2011) ICS
f(r, n) 0.99961 0.999468 0.999942 0.999953 0.99995467 0.99995467 0.99995468 0.99995468
n1 6 3 5 5 5 5 5 5
n2 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 5
n3 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 4
n4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6
r1 0.81604 0.965593 0.903800 0.902231 0.90186194 0.90163164 0.901614 0.901614595
r2 0.80309 0.760592 0.874992 0.856325 0.84968407 0.84997020 0.849920 0.888223369
r3 0.98364 0.972646 0.919898 0.948145 0.94842696 0.94821828 0.948143 0.948141029
r4 0.80373 0.804660 0.890609 0.883156 0.88800590 0.88812885 0.888223 0.849920899
MPI (%) 88.4615 91.5414 22.4138 4.2553 0.012186 0.000910 – –
Slack (g1) 65 92 50 55 55 55 55 55
Slack (g2) 0.064 70.733576 0.002152 0.975465 0.00120356 0.000009 0.0000336 0.0000000096
Slack (g3) 4.348 127.583189 28.803701 24.801882 24.8018827 24.081883 24.801883 15.36346309
Table 12
The best results of case study 5 with different dimensions given by ICS algorithm.
n VTV in optimum f(x) Slack (g1) Slack (g2) Slack (g3) Slack (g4)
36 {5, 10, 15, 21, 33} 0.51997597 1 49.12576352 109 301.353247
38 {10, 13, 15, 21, 33} 0.51098860 1 53.63855081 115 317.0395385
40 {4, 10, 11, 21, 22, 33} 0.50599242 0 51.04714167 119 333.2405486
42 {4, 10, 11, 15, 21, 33} 0.47966355 2 52.71825039 129 52.71825039
50 {4, 10, 15, 21, 33, 42, 45} 0.40695474 0 61.95598259 154 423.9146468
Table 13
Comparison results for the large-scale system reliability problem.
Table 14 Table 15
Data used in the 15-unit system reliability problem. Comparison results for the 15-unit system reliability problem.
Table 16
Simulation results after 50 runs.
For all case studies, Table 16 includes the simulation results of comparison with several well-known methods. Moreover, the per-
fifty independent runs given by the CS and ICS. It shows that the formance of the proposed algorithm was tested on two complex
ICS performs better than the CS in all criteria. engineering optimization problems, namely a large-scale reliability
It can be seen in Table 13 that the best results of ICS and Wu optimization problem as well as a 15-unit system. Simulation re-
algorithms (Wu et al., 2010) are the same for n = 36, 38, 40, 42. sults demonstrated the superiority of the proposed algorithm over
Here, ‘SD’ represents the standard deviation based on fifty con- other well-known methods.
verged objective function values. Also the worst, median and SD re-
sults given by the ICS are better than those given by Wu for n = 36,
38, 40, and 42. Moreover, for n = 50 the ICS provides better results References
in terms of all criteria in comparison with Wu algorithm.
For case study 6, the 15-unit system reliability optimization Abraham, J. A. (1979). An improved algorithm for network reliability. IEEE
Transaction Reliability, 28, 58–61.
problem, Table 15 shows the results given by Genetic Algorithm
Agrwal, M., & Vikas, K. S. (2010). Ant colony approach to constrained redundancy
(GA) (Holland, 1975), Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) (Karaboga, optimization in binary systems. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34, 992–1003.
2005), Harmony Search (HS) (Lee and Geem, 2005), Novel Global Aponte, D. E. S., & Sanseverino, C. M. R. (2007). Solving advanced multi-objective
Harmony Search (NGHS) (Zou et al., 2010) and ICS. The parameters robust designs by means of multiple objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEA):
A reliability application. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92(6),
of GA, ABC, HS and NGHS algorithms are as follows. :697–706.
Brown, C., Liebovitch, L. S., & Glendon, R. (2007). Lévy flights in Dobe Ju/hoansi
GA: Chromosome = 50, Crossover = 0.9, Mutation = 0.3, Genera- foraging patterns. Human Ecology, 35, 129–138.
Chen, T. C. (2006). IAs based approach for reliability redundancy alposition
tions = 2000. problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 182(2), 1556–1567.
ABC: Colony = 20, Limit = 100, Iterations = 1000. Chern, M. S., & Jan, R. H. (1986). Reliability optimization problems with multiple
HS: HMS = 5, HMCR = 0.9,PAR = 0.3, BW = 0.01. constraints. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 35(4), 431–436.
Coelho, L. S. (2009). An efficient particle swarm approach for mixed-integer
NGHS: HMS = 5, pm = 0.05. programming in reliability–redundancy optimization applications. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 94(4), 830–837.
Considering two sets of problems, the result provided by the ICS Dhingra, A. K. (1992). Optimal apportionment of reliability & redundancy in series
systems under multiple objectives. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 41(4),
is better than the results given by above-mentioned algorithms.
576–582.
For all case studies, Table 16 includes the simulation results of Elegbede, C. (2005). Structural reliability assessment based on particles swarm
fifty independent runs provided by the CS and ICS. It shows that optimization. Structural Safety, 27(2), 171–186.
the ICS performs better than the CS in all criteria. The parameter Gen, M., & Kim, J. R. (1999). GA-based reliability design: State-of-the-art survey.
Computers and Industrial Engineering, 37(1–2), 151–155.
‘NFOS’a represents the number of feasible optimal solutions found Gen, M., & Yun, Y. S. (2006). Soft computing approach for reliability optimization:
in fifty runs. State-of-the-art survey. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91(9),
According to the above simulations and comparisons, it can be 1008–1026.
Hikita, M., Nakagawa, H., & Harihisa, H. (1992). Reliability optimization of systems
concluded that the ICS algorithm outperforms the other methods by a surrogate constraints algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 41(3),
in literature to find best solutions for the given reliability optimiza- 473–480.
tion problems. Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Hsieh, Y. C., Chen, T. C., & Bricker, D. L. (1998). Genetic algorithm for reliability
design problems. Microelectronics Reliability, 38(10), 1599–1605.
7. Conclusion Karaboga, D. (2005). An idea based on honeybee swarm for numerical optimization.
Technical report TR06, Erciyes University, Engineering Faculty, Computer
Engineering Department, 2005.
To enhance the accuracy and convergence rate of the cuckoo Kuo, W. (2007). Recent advances in optimal reliability allocation. IEEE Transactions
search algorithm, an improved cuckoo search algorithm was on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, 37(2), 143–156.
developed in this paper. Then, the proposed algorithm was tested Kuo, W., Hwang, C. L., & Tillman, F. A. (1978). A note on heuristic methods in optimal
system reliability. IEEE Transactions on Reliability Reliability, 27(5), 320–324.
on four well-known reliability optimization problems. Simulation Kuo, W., & Prasad, V. R. (2000). An annotated overview of system-reliability
results confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in optimization. IEEE Transaction on Reliability, 49(2), 176–187.
468 E. Valian et al. / Computers & Industrial Engineering 64 (2013) 459–468
Lee, K. S., & Geem, Z. W. (2005). A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous Xu, Z., Kuo, W., & Lin, H. H. (1990). Optimization limits in improving system
engineering optimization, harmony search theory and practice. Computer reliability. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 39(1), 51–60.
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 194, 3902–3933. Yang, X.S., Deb, S. (2009). Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. In Proceedings of World
Marseguerra, M., Zio, E., & Podofillini, L. (2004). Optimal reliability/availability of congress on nature & biologically inspired computing (NaBIC 2009, India) (pp. 210–
uncertain systems via multi-objective genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on 214).
Reliability, 53(3), 424–434. Yang, X. S., & Deb, S. (2010). Engineering optimisation by cuckoo search.
Meziane, R., Massim, Y., Zeblah, A., Ghoraf, A., & Rahli, R. (2005). Reliability International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation,
optimization using ant colony algorithm under performance and cost 1(4), 330–343.
constraints. Electric Power Systems Research, 76(1–3), 1–8. Yeh, W. C., & Hsieh, T. J. (2011). Solving reliability redundancy allocation problems
Painton, L., & Campbell, J. (1995). Genetic algorithms in optimization of system using an artificial bee colony algorithm. Computers & Operations Research, 38,
reliability. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 44(2), 172–178. 1465–1473.
Payne, R. B., Sorenson, M. D., & Klitz, K. (2005). The cuckoos. Oxford University Press. Yin, P. Y., Yu, S. S., Wang, P. P., & Wang, Y. T. (2007). Task alposition for maximizing
Prasad, V. R., & Kuo, W. (2000). Reliability optimization of coherent systems. IEEE reliability of a distributed system using hybrid particle swarm optimization.
Transactions on Reliability, 49(3), 323–330. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(5), 724–735.
Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2008). Port-of-entry safety via the reliability optimization Yokota, T., Gen, M., & Li, H. H. (1996). Genetic algorithm for nonlinear mixed-integer
of container inspection strategy through an evolutionary approach. Reliability programming problems and its application. Computers and Industrial
Engineering and System Safety, 93(11), 1698–1709. Engineering, 30(4), 905–917.
Salazar, D., Rocco, C. M., & Galvn, B. J. (2006). Optimization of constrained Zou, D., Gao, L., Li, S., & Wu, J. (2011). An effective global harmony search algorithm
multipleobjective reliability problems using evolutionary algorithms. Reliability for reliability problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 4642–4648.
Engineering and System Safety, 91(9), 1057–1070. Zou, D., Gao, L., Wu, J., Li, S., & Li, Y. (2010). A novel global harmony search algorithm
Wu, P., Gao, L., Zou, D., & Li, S. (2010). An improved particle swarm optimization for reliability problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58, 307–316.
algorithm for reliability problems. ISA Transactions, 50(1), 71–81.