Advertisement

Fast Nash Hybridized Evolutionary Algorithms for Single and Multi-objective Design Optimization in Engineering

Chapter
Part of the Computational Methods in Applied Sciences book series (COMPUTMETHODS, volume 34)

Abstract

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are one of advanced intelligent systems and they occupied an important position in the class of optimizers for solving single-objective/reverse/inverse design and multi-objective/multi physics design problems in engineering. The chapter hybridizes the Genetic Algorithms (GAs) based computational intelligent system (CIS) with the concept of Nash-Equilibrium as an optimization pre-conditioner to accelerate the optimization procedure. Hybridized GAs and simple GAs are validated through solving five complex single-objective and multi-objective mathematical design problems. For real-world design problems, the hybridized GAs (Hybrid Intelligent System) and the original GAs coupled to the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) tool and one type of Computer Aided Design (CAD) system; the GiD software is used to solve reconstruction/inverse and multi-objective design optimization of High Lift Systems (HLS). Numerical results obtained by the hybridized GAs and the original GAs are compared in terms of optimization efficiency and solution quality. The benefits of using the concept of Nash-Equilibrium are clearly demonstrated in terms of solution accuracy and optimization efficiency.

Keywords

Computational Intelligence System (CIS) Reconstruction Inverse Design Multi-Objective Design Evolutionary Optimization Game Coalition Pareto-Optimality Nash-Equilibrium Hybridized Games 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank E. Tercero and the GiD team, R. Flores and E. Ortega at CIMNE for their support and fruitful discussions on the GiD package and PUMI software.

References

  1. 1.
    Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, ChichesterMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engelbrecht A (2007) Computational intelligence: an introduction, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1991) Game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrera F (2005) Genetic fuzzy systems: status, critical considerations and future directions. Int J Comput Intell Res 1(1):59–67Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE proceeding of IEEE international conference on neural networks, pp 1942–1948, 1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee DS, Gonzalez LF, Periaux J, Onate E (2009) Effective shape reconstruction of a BI-NACA aerofoil using advanced evolutionary algorithms coupled to game strategies. In Onate E, Papadrakakis M, Schrefler B (eds) Computational methods for coupled problems in science and engineering III. CIMNEGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee DS, Gonzalez LF, Periaux J, Srinivas K (2009) Evolutionary optimisation methods with uncertainty for modern multidisciplinary design in aeronautical engineering. In: 100 volumes of ‘Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics’, volume 100 of notes on numerical fluid mechanics and multidisciplinary design. Springer, Berlin, pp 271–284Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee DS, Gonzalez LF, Periaux J, Srinivas K (2011) Efficient hybrid-game strategies coupled to evolutionary algorithms for robust multidisciplinary design optimization in aerospace engineering. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 15(2):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee DS, Periaux J, Gonzalez LF (2010) UAS mission path planning system (MPPS) using hybrid-game coupled to multi-objective optimizer. J Dyn Sys Meas Control 132(4):041005 (11 pp)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee DS, Srinivas K, Gonzalez LF, Periaux J, Obayashi S (2010) Robust multidisciplinary design optimisation using CFD and advanced evolutionary algorithms. In: Computational fluid dynamics review 2010. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 469–491Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michalewicz Z (1992) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nash J (1951) Non-cooperative games. Ann Math 2(54):286–295CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sefrioui M, Periaux J (2000) Nash genetic algorithms: examples and applications. In: IEEE proceedings of the 2000 congress on evolutionary computation CEC00, pp 509–516Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith JM (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang Z, Périaux J, Désidéri J-A (2005) Multi criteria robust design using adjoint methods and game strategies for solving drag optimization problems with uncertainties. In: East west high speed flow fields conference 2005, Beijing, pp 487–493Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber R, Wu D (2004) Knowledge management for computational intelligence systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international symposium on high assurance systems engineering, HASE 2004, pp 116–125Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evolut Comput 8(2):173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong Seop Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jacques Periaux
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sung Wook Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Deloitte Consulting—Data Analytics (DA)SeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Centre Internacional de Metodes Numerics en Enginyeria (CIMNE), Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Mathematical Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations