Computational Optimization and Applications

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 295–309

Integrating SQP and Branch-and-Bound for Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming

  • Sven Leyffer
Article

Abstract

This paper considers the solution of Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming (MINLP) problems. Classical methods for the solution of MINLP problems decompose the problem by separating the nonlinear part from the integer part. This approach is largely due to the existence of packaged software for solving Nonlinear Programming (NLP) and Mixed Integer Linear Programming problems.

In contrast, an integrated approach to solving MINLP problems is considered here. This new algorithm is based on branch-and-bound, but does not require the NLP problem at each node to be solved to optimality. Instead, branching is allowed after each iteration of the NLP solver. In this way, the nonlinear part of the MINLP problem is solved whilst searching the tree. The nonlinear solver that is considered in this paper is a Sequential Quadratic Programming solver.

A numerical comparison of the new method with nonlinear branch-and-bound is presented and a factor of up to 3 improvement over branch-and-bound is observed.

mixed integer nonlinear programming branch-and-bound sequential quadratic programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Borchers and J.E. Mitchell, “An improved branch and bound algorithm for mixed integer nonlinear programming, ” Computers and Operations Research, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 359–367, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Borchers and J.E. Mitchell, “A computational comparison of branch and bound and outer approximation methods for 0–1 mixed integer nonlinear programs, ” Computers and Operations Research, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 699–701, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.R. Conn, N.I.M. Gould, and Ph.L. Toint, LANCELOT: A Fortran Package for Large-Scale Nonlinear Optimization (Release A), Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.R. Conn, N.I.M. Gould, and Ph.L. Toint, “Methods for nonlinear constraints in optimization calculations, ” Report RAL-TR-96-042, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 1996. (To appear in The State of the Art in Numerical Analysis, I. Duff and G.A. Watson (Eds.)).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.J. Dakin, “A tree search algorithm for mixed integer programming problems, ” Computer Journal, vol. 8, pp. 250–255, 1965.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.E. Dennis, M. El-Alem, and K.A. Williamson, “A trust-region approach to nonlinear systems of equalities and inequalities, ” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 9, pp. 291–315, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Duran and I.E. Grossmann, “An outer-approximation algorithm for a class of mixed-integer nonlinear programs, ” Mathematical Programming, vol. 36, pp. 307–339, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. El-Hallabi and R.A. Tapia, “An inexact trust-region feasible-point algorithm for non-linear systems of equalities and inequalities, ” Technical Report TR-09, Department of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization, 2nd ed., John Wiley: Chichester, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Fletcher and S. Leyffer, “Solving mixed integer nonlinear programs by outer approximation, ” Mathematical Programming, vol. 66, pp. 327–349, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Fletcher and S. Leyffer, “Nonlinear programming without a penalty function, ” Numerical Analysis Report NA/171, Department of Mathematics, University of Dundee, Sept. 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Fletcher and S. Leyffer, “User manual for filter SQP, ” Numerical Analysis Report NA/181, Dundee University, April 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O.E. Flippo and A.H.G. Rinnoy Kan, “Decomposition in general mathematical programming, ” Mathematical Programming, vol. 60, pp. 361–382, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.A. Floudas, Nonlinear and Mixed-Integer Optimization, Oxford University Press: New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.M. Geoffrion, “Generalized benders decomposition, ” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 10, pp. 237–260, 1972.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I.E. Grossmann and Z. Kravanja, “Mixed-integer nonlinear programming: A survey of algorithms and applications, ” in Large-Scale Optimization with Applications, Part II: Optimal Design and Control, A.R. Conn, L.T. Biegler, T.F. Coleman, and F.N. Santosa (Eds.), Springer: New York, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    I.E. Grossmann and R.W.H. Sargent, “Optimal design of multipurpose batch plants, ” Ind. Engng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., vol. 18, pp. 343–348, 1979.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O.K. Gupta and A. Ravindran, “Branch and bound experiments in convex nonlinear integer programming, ” Management Science, vol. 31, pp. 1533–1546, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S.P. Han, “A globally convergent method for nonlinear programming, ” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 297–309, 1977.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Horst and H. Tuy, Global Optimization: Deterministic Approaches, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G.R. Kocis and I.E. Grossmann, “Global optimization of nonconvex mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problems in process synthesis, ” Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 27, pp. 1407–1421, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A.H. Land and A.G. Doig, “An automatic method for solving discrete programming problems, ” Econometrica, vol. 28, pp. 497–520, 1960.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M.J.D. Powell, “A fast algorithm for nonlinearly constrained optimization calculations, ” in Numerical Analysis, 1977, G.A. Watson (Ed.), Springer Verlag: Berlin 1978, pp. 144–157.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. Quesada and I.E. Grossmann, “An LP/NLP based branch-and-bound algorithm for convex MINLP optimization problems, ” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol. 16, pp. 937–947, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A.J. Quist, R. van Geemert, J.E. Hoogenboom, T. Illés, E. de Klerk, C. Roos, and T. Terlaky, “Optimization of a nuclear reactor core reload pattern using nonlinear optimization and search heuristics, ” Draft paper, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Applied Mathematics, Department of Operation Research, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands, Sept. 1997.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R.A. Stubbs and S. Mehrotra, “A branch-and-cut method for 0–1 mixed convex programming, ” Technical report 96-01, Department of IE/MS, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA, Jan. 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Viswanathan and I.E. Grossmann, “Optimal feed location and number of trays for distillation columns with multiple feeds, ” I&EC Research, vol. 32, pp. 2942–2949, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    O.V. Volkovich, V.A. Roshchin, and I.V. Sergienko, “Models and methods of solution of quadratic integer programming problems, ” Cybernetics, vol. 23, pp. 289–305, 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Westerlund, J. Isaksson, and I. Harjunkoski, “Solving a production optimization problem in the paper industry, ” Report 95-146-A, Department of Chemical Engineering, Abo Akademi, Abo, Finland, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R.B. Wilson, “A simplicial algorithm for concave programming, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, 1963.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Y. Yuan, “Trust region algorithms for nonlinear equations, ” Technical Report 049, Department of Mathematics, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Leyffer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of DundeeDundeeU.K.

Personalised recommendations