2002
DOI: 10.1080/03052150211750
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Evolutionary Algorithms for Mechanical Design Components

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
4

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
10
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, for mixed variable problems, several strategies can be applied. Mathematical programming and stochastic algorithms can also be combined [19] or Metamodeling used [20].…”
Section: Methodology For the Assistance Toolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, for mixed variable problems, several strategies can be applied. Mathematical programming and stochastic algorithms can also be combined [19] or Metamodeling used [20].…”
Section: Methodology For the Assistance Toolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Owing to the possible existence of a number of local optima in this solar desiccant cooling problem, the classical and traditional numerical methods are not feasible to tackle it. The stochastic and population-search nature of EA would enhance the optimization and prevent from being trapped at local optimum, and it has been found effective for this kind of engineering problems [20][21][22].…”
Section: Robust Evolutionary Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Metaheuristic algorithms have been applied to various fields and solved the real-time problems. A comparative study has been carried out among evolutionary algorithms, tabu search, and simulated annealing [27], and evolutionary strategy and genetic algorithm are compared to solve the mechanical design problem with different types of constraints [28]. El-Qulity and Mohamed [29] solved a higher education admission problem using a nonlinear goal programming model with integer decision variables using a modified differential evolution algorithm.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%