Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
823
objective function value will have a larger probability of being observations can be summarized by running the program many
selected to produce offspring. Sigma scaling as described in [5] times. Statistical based performance comparisons are necessary
is applied to avoid premature convergence. for such methods with probability and random initialization
4) Select members from the current population to produce offspring. involved. As a result, the optimization process is repeated for
Stochastic universal sampling [6] is used here, which exhibits both PSO and GA 18 times and the results are summarized in
no bias and minimal spread and ensures a selection of offspring. Table I, where the coefficients of PSO and GA are carefully
As the population size is 6, 6 pointers will be used in the tuned to improve the performance.
universal sampling and 6 chromosomes will be selected.
5) Perform crossover TABLE I
COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL OBJECTIVE FUNCTION VALUE (OFV) FOR 18 RUNS BY
6 pairs of parents are randomly picked from the 6
PSO AND GA
chromosomes selected in step 4). Uniform crossover is used,
where each gene in the offspring is created by copying the Best Worst Average Standard Times to find correct
corresponding gene from one or the other parent chosen OFV OFV of OFV deviation optimal objective
according to a random generated binary crossover mask [7]. of OFV
6) Perform mutation PSO 53.4 58.3 55.2 1.8 7
Each bit in the chromosome is subject to mutation with a GA 53.6 59.7 56.0 2.1 3
probability.
7) Repeat 3) to 6) until terminating criterion is met If we use the criterion that a value of fewer than 54 for the
The terminating criterion in this paper is chosen to be that the objective function is considered to be an optimal solution, then
number of generations has reached a prespecified maximum Table 1 shows that PSO and GA are both able to find the optimal
value. solution with the 18 runs. However, PSO have a lower average
optimal OFV (55.2) than GA (56.0). The PSO also have less
standard deviations of the optimal OFV in 18 runs than the GA.
IV. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Moreover, PSO also has a higher probability to find the correct
PSO and GA are implemented with the analytical model optimal than GA (7 in 18 versus 3 in 18). All the above
described in section II and the objective function (1). PSO and comparison results indicate that the PSO have better
GA will be compared in terms their ability to find the correct performance in finding the correct optimal solution than GA
optimal solution and the computational efficiency in solving the from a stochastic point of view.
optimization problem. For comparison purposes, the PSO uses 6
particles and 100 iterations, while the GA uses a population size B. Computational efficiency
of 6 and 100 generations. This results in an evaluation of 600 In this machine design problems, running the machine design
designs for both GA and PSO in a single run. A typical result of model to evaluate design candidates is the dominate part of the
running the PSO and GA for this machine design problem is overall computational burden. As a result, high computational
shown in Fig.4, where the best objective means the lowest value efficiency here means to find the correct optimal design solution
of the objective function found by the GA or the PSO from the with less number of design candidates evaluated. In the actual
beginning to the current iteration or generation. The result implementation of the computational intelligence algorithm in
shows that as the number of iterations or generations increases, optimization problems, the best optimal solution is found by
the PSO and GA are finding better solutions and finally reaches running the algorithm sufficient times with different running
the correct optima. coefficients. The overall computational efficiency is the product
of the population size, the number of iterations or generations,
and the times needed to run the algorithm in order to ensure a
sufficiently good optimal solution.
1) Number of iterations or generations and population size
362 *$ The number of iterations or generations needed depends on the
convergence rate of the problem, which is determined primarily
%HVW2EMHFWLYH
)XQFWLRQ9DOXH
824
the running coefficients is properly tuned, a correct optimal V. CONCLUSIONS
solution can be found with certain probability by running the PSO and GA are applied to optimize the design of an SMPM
algorithm within 20 times. The problem of how many times motor according to user defined multi-objective functions with a
needed to run the algorithm is then effectively converted to how previous developed analytical model. The results are compared
many times needed to tune the running coefficients. The and show that PSO and GA both have the ability to find the
algorithm whose performance is more robust to the values of the correct optimal solution, and PSO has a slightly better
running coefficients needs less tuning, thus less number of times performance in terms of average and standard deviation from
will be needed to run the algorithm in total. The robustness of multiple runs of the algorithm. However, in terms of the
GA and PSO to their running coefficients is compared by computational efficiency, which is a key requirement for the
running the algorithms with randomly chosen running algorithms in the machine design, PSO outperforms GA
coefficients. The result is shown below in Table III. significantly. PSO has a lower performance degrading with a
smaller population size, and higher robustness to algorithm
TABLE II coefficients, which indicates that the fewer design candidate
PERFORMANCES COMPARISON OF PSO AND GA FOR REDUCED POPULATION SIZE evaluations is necessary for PSO. The comparison results
WITH 5 TIMES OF RUNNING EACH indicate that PSO can be preferred over GA when time is a
limiting factor. Although this work is carried out for a SMPM
Population size = 3 machine with and analytical design model, similarities in
Best Worst Average Standard Deviation machine design problem make it also applicable to the design of
other types of machines and with other modeling methods.
OFV OFV of OFV of OFV
PSO 55.2 59.7 57.5 2.1
GA 56.4 64.7 61.8 3.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Population size = 2 Financial support for this work from the Office of Naval
Best Worst Average Standard Deviation Research is gratefully acknowledged.
OFV OFV of OFV of OFV
PSO 56.4 60.5 58.8 1.7 REFERENCES
GA 59.8 83.1 67.4 9.5 [1] Y. Duan, R. G. Harley and T. G. Habetler, "Multi-objective Design
Optimization of Surface Mount Permanent Magnet Machine with Particle
Swarm Intelligence", Swarm Intelligence Symposium 2008, St. Louis, pp.
1-5, September 2008.
TABLE III
[2] W. Ouyang, D. Zarko and T.A. Lipo, “Permanent Magent Machine Design
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF PSO AND GA FOR RANDOMLY CHOSEN
Practice and Optimization”, IEEE conference on Industrial Applications,
COEFFICIENTS WITH 15 TIMES OF RUNS EACH
pp. 1905 – 1911, 2006
[3] V. Ostovic, “Magnetic equivalent circuit presentation of electric macines”,
Best Worst Average Standard deviation of OFV Electric Machines and Power Systems. Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 407-432, Jun.
1984
OFV OFV of OFV
[4] J. Robinson and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Particle Swarm Optimization in
PSO 53.9 61.8 56.7 2.7 Electromagnetics”, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,
Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 397 – 407, February 2004
GA 55.8 72.0 61.2 5.3 [5] Melanie Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, 3rd ed., MIT
Press, 1998, pp. 167-168
[6] James E. Baker. “Reducing Bias and Inefficiency in the Selection
In Table III, the coefficients in the PSO and GA are chosen to be Algorithm”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
uniformly distributed random variables between values of 0 to 1. Genetic Algorithms and their Application, pp. 14-21, 1987
For PSO, they are the inertia, self and social acceleration [7] S.N. Sivanandam and S.N. Deepa, Introduction to Genetic Algorithms,
Springer, 2008, pp.50 and pp. 53
constant and for GA are the probability of crossover and [8] Bazaraa, Mokhtar S. and Shetty, C. M., “Nonlinear programming : Theory
mutation, the sigma scaling coefficient and linkage coefficients. and algorithms”, John Wiley & Sons, 1979
Because the maximum speed in the PSO can be chosen
according to the range of the variable and it does not need
carefully tuning, they will not be randomized. The results show
clearly that PSO has a lower average and standard deviation and
GA’s worst solution of 72, is significantly higher than the 61.8
of the PSO. The comparison shows that tuning of the parameters
is important for GA while can be neglected or not carefully
treated for PSO and the time saving in the tuning is pronounced
as the modeling techniques become more intensive.
825