OPTIMUS: Self-Adaptive Differential Evolution with Ensemble of Mutation Strategies for Grasshopper Algorithmic Modeling

被引:28
作者
Cubukcuoglu, Cemre [1 ,2 ]
Ekici, Berk [1 ]
Tasgetiren, Mehmet Fatih [3 ]
Sariyildiz, Sevil [1 ]
机构
[1] Delft Univ Technol, Fac Architecture & Built Environm, Chair Design Informat, Julianalaan 134, NL-2628 BL Delft, Netherlands
[2] Yasar Univ, Fac Architecture, Dept Interior Architecture & Environm Design, Univ Caddesi,37-39 Agacli Yol, TR-35100 Izmir, Turkey
[3] Istinye Univ, Dept Ind & Syst Engn, Maltepe Mahallesi,Cirp Yolu B Ck 9, TR-34010 Istanbul, Turkey
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
grasshopper; optimization; differential evolution; architectural design; computational design; performance based design; building performance optimization; single-objective optimization; architectural design optimization; parametric design; OPTIMIZATION; PERFORMANCE; PARAMETERS; BENCHMARK; SEARCH;
D O I
10.3390/a12070141
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Most of the architectural design problems are basically real-parameter optimization problems. So, any type of evolutionary and swarm algorithms can be used in this field. However, there is a little attention on using optimization methods within the computer aided design (CAD) programs. In this paper, we present Optimus, which is a new optimization tool for grasshopper algorithmic modeling in Rhinoceros CAD software. Optimus implements self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm with ensemble of mutation strategies (jEDE). We made an experiment using standard test problems in the literature and some of the test problems proposed in IEEE CEC 2005. We reported minimum, maximum, average, standard deviations and number of function evaluations of five replications for each function. Experimental results on the benchmark suite showed that Optimus (jEDE) outperforms other optimization tools, namely Galapagos (genetic algorithm), SilverEye (particle swarm optimization), and Opossum (RbfOpt) by finding better results for 19 out of 20 problems. For only one function, Galapagos presented slightly better result than Optimus. Ultimately, we presented an architectural design problem and compared the tools for testing Optimus in the design domain. We reported minimum, maximum, average and number of function evaluations of one replication for each tool. Galapagos and Silvereye presented infeasible results, whereas Optimus and Opossum found feasible solutions. However, Optimus discovered a much better fitness result than Opossum. As a conclusion, we discuss advantages and limitations of Optimus in comparison to other tools. The target audience of this paper is frequent users of parametric design modelling e.g., architects, engineers, designers. The main contribution of this paper is summarized as follows. Optimus showed that near-optimal solutions of architectural design problems can be improved by testing different types of algorithms with respect to no-free lunch theorem. Moreover, Optimus facilitates implementing different type of algorithms due to its modular system.
引用
收藏
页数:27
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]  
Almaraz A., 2015, THESIS
[2]  
[Anonymous], The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package
[3]   Informed Geometries. Parametric Modelling and Energy Analysis in Early Stages of Design [J].
Anton, Ionut ;
Tanase, Daniela .
EENVIRO-YRC 2015 - BUCHAREST, 2016, 85 :9-16
[4]   Assessing gaps and needs for integrating building performance optimization tools in net zero energy buildings design [J].
Attia, Shady ;
Hamdy, Mohamed ;
O'Brien, William ;
Carlucci, Salvatore .
ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2013, 60 :110-124
[5]  
Austern G., 2018, P 36 ECAADE C LODZ P
[6]   Self-adapting control parameters in differential evolution: A comparative study on numerical benchmark problems [J].
Brest, Janez ;
Greiner, Saso ;
Boskovic, Borko ;
Mernik, Marjan ;
Zumer, Vijern .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, 2006, 10 (06) :646-657
[7]   Numerical optimisation through dynamic simulation of the position of trees around a stand-alone building to reduce cooling energy consumption [J].
Calcerano, Filippo ;
Martinelli, Letizia .
ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2016, 112 :234-243
[8]  
Chatzikonstantinou I., 2012, HOOPSNAKE
[9]  
Chatzikonstantinou I, 2015, IEEE C EVOL COMPUTAT, P2311, DOI 10.1109/CEC.2015.7257170
[10]  
Cichocka J.M., 2017, INT C COMP AID ARCH, P151, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-5197-5_9