Engineering Computations

Bat algorithm: a novel approach for global engineering optimization

Xin-She Yang Amir Hossein Gandomi

Article information:

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Xin-She Yang Amir Hossein Gandomi, (2012),"Bat algorithm: a novel approach for global engineering
optimization", Engineering Computations, Vol. 29 Iss 5 pp. 464 - 483
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02644401211235834
Downloaded on: 03 February 2016, At: 04:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1455 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Gai-Ge Wang, Amir Hossein Gandomi, Xin-She Yang, Amir Hossein Alavi, (2014),"A novel improved
accelerated particle swarm optimization algorithm for global numerical optimization", Engineering
Computations, Vol. 31 Iss 7 pp. 1198-1220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EC-10-2012-0232
Sergio Rodolfo Idelsohn, Norberto Marcelo Nigro, Juan Marcelo Gimenez, Riccardo Rossi, Julio Marcelo
Marti, (2013),"A fast and accurate method to solve the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations",
Engineering Computations, Vol. 30 Iss 2 pp. 197-222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02644401311304854
Amir Hossein Alavi, Amir Hossein Gandomi, (2011),"A robust data mining approach for formulation
of geotechnical engineering systems", Engineering Computations, Vol. 28 Iss 3 pp. 242-274 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02644401111118132

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:393177 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-4401.htm

EC
29,5

Bat algorithm: a novel approach

for global engineering
optimization

464

Xin-She Yang

Received 28 April 2011

Revised 5 August 2011
Accepted 11 August 2011

Mathematics and Scientific Computing, National Physical Laboratory,

Teddington, UK, and

Amir Hossein Gandomi

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Department of Civil Engineering, Tafresh University, Tafresh, Iran

Abstract
Purpose Nature-inspired algorithms are among the most powerful algorithms for optimization.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new nature-inspired metaheuristic optimization algorithm,
called bat algorithm (BA), for solving engineering optimization tasks.
Design/methodology/approach The proposed BA is based on the echolocation behavior of bats.
After a detailed formulation and explanation of its implementation, BA is verified using eight
nonlinear engineering optimization problems reported in the specialized literature.
Findings BA has been carefully implemented and carried out optimization for eight well-known
optimization tasks; then a comparison has been made between the proposed algorithm and other
existing algorithms.
Originality/value The optimal solutions obtained by the proposed algorithm are better than the
best solutions obtained by the existing methods. The unique search features used in BA are analyzed,
and their implications for future research are also discussed in detail.
Keywords Iterative methods, Programming and algorithm theory, Optimization techniques,
Bat algorithm, Engineering optimization, Metaheuristic algorithm
Paper type Research paper

Engineering Computations:
International Journal for
Computer-Aided Engineering and
Software
Vol. 29 No. 5, 2012
pp. 464-483
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0264-4401
DOI 10.1108/02644401211235834

1. Introduction
Design optimization forms an important part of any design problem in engineering and
industry. Structural design optimization focuses on finding the optimal and practical
solutions to complex structural design problems under dynamic complex loading
pattern with complex nonlinear constraints. These constraints often involve thousands
of and even millions of members with stringent limitations on stress, geometry as well
as loading and service requirements. The aim is not only to minimize the cost and
materials usage, but also to maximize their performance and lifetime service. All these
designs are of scientific and practical importance (Deb, 1995; Yang, 2010). However,
most structural design optimization problems are highly nonlinear and multimodal with
noise, and thus they are often NP-hard. Finding the right and practically efficient
algorithms are usually difficult, if not impossible. In realistic, the choice of an algorithm
requires extensive experience and knowledge of the problem of interest. Even so, there is
no guarantee that an optimal or even suboptimal solution can be found.
Amir Hossein Gandomi is now based in the Department of Civil Engineering, The University of
Akron, Akron, Ohio, USA.

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Metaheuristic algorithms including evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms

are now becoming powerful methods for solving many tough problems (Gandomi and
Alavi, 2011) and especially real-world engineering problems (Gandomi et al., 2011;
Alavi and Gandomi, 2011). The vast majority of heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms
have been derived from the behavior of biological systems and/or physical systems in
nature. For example, particle swarm optimization was developed based on the swarm
behavior of birds and fish (Kennedy and Eberhart, 1995) or charged system search
inspired from physical processes (Kaveh and Talatahari, 2010). New algorithms are also
emerging recently, including harmony search (HS) and the firefly algorithm. The former
was inspired by the improvising process of composing a piece of music (Geem et al.,
2001), while the latter was formulated based on the flashing behavior of fireflies
(Yang, 2008). Each of these algorithms has certain advantages and disadvantages. For
example, simulating annealing (Kirkpatrick et al., 1983) can almost guarantee to find the
optimal solution if the cooling process is slow enough and the simulation is running long
enough; however, the fine adjustment in parameters does affect the convergence rate of
the optimization process. A natural question is whether it is possible to combine major
advantages of these algorithms and try to develop a potentially better algorithm?
This paper is such an attempt to address this issue. In this paper, we intend to propose
a new metaheuristic method, namely, the bat algorithm (BA), based on the echolocation
behavior of bats, and preliminary studies show that this algorithm is very promising
(Yang, 2010). The capability of echolocation of microbats is fascinating as these bats can
find their prey and discriminate different types of insects even in complete darkness. We
will first formulate the BA by idealizing the echolocation behavior of bats. We then
describe how it works and make comparison with other existing algorithms. Finally, we
will discuss some implications for further studies.
2. Echolocation of microbats
Bats are fascinating animals. They are the only mammals with wings and they also have
advanced capability of echolocation. It is estimated that there are about 1,000 different
species which account for up to about one-fifth of all mammal species (Altringham,
1996). Their size ranges from the tiny bumblebee bat (of about 1.5-2 g) to the giant bats
with wingspan of about 2 m and weight up to about 1 kg. Microbats typically have
forearm length of about 2.2-11 cm. Most bats uses echolocation to a certain degree;
among all the species, microbats are a famous example as microbats use echolocation
extensively while megabats do not (Richardson, 2008).
Most microbats are insectivores. Microbats use a type of sonar, called, echolocation,
to detect prey, avoid obstacles, and locate their roosting crevices in the dark. These bats
emit a very loud sound pulse and listen for the echo that bounces back from the
surrounding objects. Their pulses vary in properties and can be correlated with their
hunting strategies, depending on the species. Most bats use short, frequency-modulated
signals to sweep through about an octave, while others more often use
constant-frequency signals for echolocation. Their signal bandwidth varies depends
on the species, and often increased by using more harmonics.
Though each pulse only lasts a few thousandths of a second (up to about 8-10 ms);
however, it has a constant frequency which is usually in the region of 25-150 kHz. The
typical range of frequencies for most bat species are in the region between 25 and
100 kHz, though some species can emit higher frequencies up to 150 kHz. Each ultrasonic

Bat algorithm

465

EC
29,5

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

466

burst may last typically 5-20 ms, and microbats emit about 10-20 such sound bursts
every second. When hunting for prey, the rate of pulse emission can be sped up to about
200 pulses per second when they fly near their prey. Such short sound bursts imply
the fantastic ability of the signal processing power of bats. In fact, studies show the
integration time of the bat ear is typically about 300-400 ms.
As the speed of sound in air is typically v 340 m/s, the wavelength l of the
ultrasonic sound bursts with a constant frequency f is given by l v/f, which is in the
range of 2-14 mm for the typical frequency range from 25 to 150 kHz. Such
wavelengths are in the same order of their prey sizes.
Amazingly, the emitted pulse could be as loud as 110 dB, and, fortunately, they are
in the ultrasonic region. The loudness also varies from the loudest when searching for
prey and to a quieter base when homing towards the prey. The travelling range of such
short pulses is typically a few meters, depending on the actual frequencies (Richardson,
2008). Microbats can manage to avoid obstacles as small as thin human hairs.
Studies show that microbats use the time delay from the emission and detection of
the echo, the time difference between their two ears, and the loudness variations of the
echoes to build up three dimensional scenario of the surrounding. They can detect the
distance and orientation of the target, the type of prey, and even the moving speed of
the prey such as small insects. Indeed, studies suggested that bats seem to be able to
discriminate targets by the variations of the Doppler effect induced by the wing-flutter
rates of the target insects (Altringham, 1996).
Obviously, some bats have good eyesight, and most bats also have very sensitive
smell sense. In reality, they will use all the senses as a combination to maximize the
efficient detection of prey and smooth navigation. However, here we are only interested
in the echolocation and the associated behavior.
Such echolocation behavior of microbats can be formulated in such a way that it can
be associated with the objective function to be optimized, and this makes it possible to
formulate new optimization algorithms. In the rest of this paper, we will first outline the
basic formulation of the BA and then discuss the implementation and comparison in
detail.
3. Bat algorithm
If we idealize some of the echolocation characteristics of microbats, we can develop
various bat-inspired algorithms or BAs. For simplicity, we now use the following
approximate or idealized rules:
.
All bats use echolocation to sense distance, and they also know the difference
between food/prey and background barriers in some magical way.
.
Bats fly randomly with velocity vi at position xi with a fixed frequency fmin,
varying wavelength l and loudness A0 to search for prey. They can
automatically adjust the wavelength (or frequency) of their emitted pulses and
adjust the rate of pulse emission r in the range of [0, 1], depending on the
proximity of their target.
.
Although the loudness can vary in many ways, we assume that the loudness
varies from a large (positive) A0 to a minimum constant value Amin.
Another obvious simplification is that no ray tracing is used in estimating the time
delay and three dimensional topography. Though this might be a good feature for the

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

application in computational geometry, however, we will not use this feature, as it is

more computationally extensive in multidimensional cases.
In addition to these simplified assumptions, we also use the following
approximations, for simplicity. In general the frequency f in a range [fmin, fmax]
corresponds to a range of wavelengths [lmin, lmax]. For example, a frequency range of
[20, 500 kHz] corresponds to a range of wavelengths from 0.7 to 17 mm.
For a given problem, we can also use any wavelength for the ease of implementation.
In the actual implementation, we can adjust the range by adjusting the wavelengths
(or frequencies), and the detectable range (or the largest wavelength) should be chosen
such that it is comparable to the size of the domain of interest, and then toning down to
smaller ranges. Furthermore, we do not necessarily have to use the wavelengths
themselves; instead, we can also vary the frequency while fixing the wavelength l. This
is because l and f are related due to the fact lf is constant. We will use this later approach
in our implementation.
For simplicity, we can assume f is within [0, fmax]. We know that higher frequencies
have short wavelengths and travel a shorter distance. For bats, the typical ranges are a
few meters. The rate of pulse can simply be in the range of [0, 1] where 0 means no
pulses at all, and 1 means the maximum rate of pulse emission.
Based on these approximations and idealization, the basic steps of the BA can be
summarized as the pseudo code shown in Figure 1.

Bat algorithm

467

3.1 Velocity and position vectors of virtual bats

In simulations, we use virtual bats naturally. We have to define the rules how their
positions xi and velocities vi in a d-dimensional search space are updated. The new
solutions x ti and velocities v ti at time step t are given by:
f i f min f max 2 f min b

v ti 5 v ti 21 1 x ti 2 x * f i

Bat Algorithm
Objective function f (x), x = (x1, ...,xd)T
Initialize the bat population xi (i = 1,2, ...,n) and vi
Define pulse frequency fi at xi
Initialize pulse rates ri and the loudness Ai
while (t < Max number of iterations)
Generate new solutions by adjusting frequency,
and updating velocities and locations/ solutions [equations (1) to (3)]
if (rand <ri)
Select a solution amoung the best solutions
Generate a local solution around the selected best solution
end if
Generate a new solution by flying randomly
if (rand < Ai & f (xi) < f (x*))
Accept the new solutions
Increase ri and reduce Ai
end if
Rank the bats and find the current best x*
end while
postprocess results and visualization

Figure 1.
Pseudo code of the BA

EC
29,5

468

x ti 5 x ti 21 1 v ti

where b [ [0, 1] is a random vector drawn from a uniform distribution. Here x* is the
current globalbest location (solution) which is located after comparing all the solutions
among all the n bats. As the product li fi is the velocity increment, we can use either
fi (or li) to adjust the velocity change while fixing the other factor li (or fi), depending
on the type of the problem of interest. In our implementation, we will use fmin 0 and
fmax 100, depending the domain size of the problem of interest. Initially, each bat is
randomly assigned a frequency that is drawn uniformly from [fmin, fmax].
For the local search part, once a solution is selected among the current best
solutions, a new solution for each bat is generated locally using a local random walk:

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

x new 5 x old 1 1A t

4
Ati

where 1 [ [2 1, 1] is a random number, while At ,

. is the average loudness of
all the bats at this time step.
The update of the velocities and positions of bats have some similarity to the
procedure in the standard particle swarm optimization (Geem et al., 2001) as fi essentially
controls the pace and range of the movement of the swarming particles. To a degree,
BA can be considered as a balanced combination of the standard particle swarm
optimization and the intensive local search controlled by the loudness and pulse rate.
3.2 Variations of loudness and pulse emission
Furthermore, the loudness Ai and the rate ri of pulse emission have to be updated
accordingly as the iterations proceed. As the loudness usually decreases once a bat has
found its prey, while the rate of pulse emission increases, the loudness can be chosen as
any value of convenience. For example, we can use A0 100 and Amin 1. For
simplicity, we can also use A0 1 and Amin 0, assuming Amin 0 means that a bat
has just found the prey and temporarily stop emitting any sound. Now we have:
aAti ;
At1
i

r t1
r 0i 1 2 exp2gt

i

where a and g are constants. In fact, a is similar to the cooling factor of a cooling
schedule in the simulated annealing (Kirkpatrick et al., 1983; Yang, 2008). For any
0 , a , 1, 0 , g, we have:
Ati ! 0;

r ti ! r 0i ;

as t ! 1

In the simplicity case, we can use a g, and we have in fact used a g 0.9 in our
simulations. The choice of parameters requires some experimenting. Initially, each bat
should have different values of loudness and pulse emission rate, and this can be achieved
by randomization. For example, the initial loudness A0i can typically be [1, 2], while the
initial emission rate r0i can be around zero, or any value r0i [ [0, 1] if using (equation (5)).
Their loudness and emission rates will be updated only if the new solutions are improved,
which means that these bats are moving towards the optimal solution.
4. Non-linear engineering design tasks
Most real-world engineering optimization problems are nonlinear with complex
constraints, sometimes the optimal solutions of interest do not even exist. In order to see

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

how BA performs, we will now test it against some well-known, tough but yet diverse,
benchmark design problems. We have chosen eight case studies as:
(1) mathematical problem;
(2) Himmelblaus problem;
(3) three-bar truss design;
(4) speed reducer design;
(5) parameter identification of structures;
(6) cantilever stepped beam;
(7) heater exchanger design; and
(8) car side problem.

Bat algorithm

469

The reason for such choice is to provide a validation and test of the proposed BA
against a diverse range of real-world engineering optimization problems. As we will
see below, for most problems, the optimal solutions obtained by BA are far better than
the best solutions reported in the literature. In all case studies, the statistical measures
have been obtained, based on 50 independent runs.
4.1 Case 1: mathematical problem
Now let us start with a nonlinear mathematical benchmark problem. This problem has
been used as a benchmark constrained optimization problem with some active
inequality constraints (Chen and Vassiliadis, 2003). In this problem, N is the number of
variables and it is a multiple of four (N 4n, n 1, 2, 3, . . .). This problem has N/2
inequality constraints and 2N simple bounds or limits. The problem can be stated as
follows:
"
#2
N p
N
X
X
2
2
xi 2 25
7
ixi 2 1
Minimize : f X
i1

i1

Subject to:
g j x4 j211 2x4 j212 3x4 j213 4x4 j214 2 20
0 # g j # 30 and j 1; 2; . . . ;

N
4

8
9

with simple bounds:

0:5 # xi # 10i 1; 2; . . .N :
For this problem, the global optimum and best known optimum for N 12 and N 60
obtained by BA is given in Table I. It can clearly be seen from Table I that the BA
ID

Variables no.

Constraints no.

Global optimum

Best BA result

1
2

12
60

6
30

256.75
30,945.28

256.75
30,945.28

Table I.
BA results and global
optimums for the
mathematical problem

EC
29,5

470

successfully find the global minimum. The statistical results of the mathematical
problem are also presented in Table II.
4.2 Case 2: Himmelblaus problem
Now we solve a well-known benchmark problem, namely Himmelblaus problem. This
problem was originally proposed by Himmelblaus (1972) and it has been widely used as
a benchmark nonlinear constrained optimization problem. In this problem, there are five
design variables [x1, x2, x3, x4, x5], six nonlinear inequality constraints, and ten simple
bounds or limits. The problem can be stated as follows:
Minimize : f X 5:3578547x23 0:8356891x1 x5 37:293239x1 2 40792:141 10

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Subject to 0 # g1 # 92, 90 # g2 # 110, and 20 # g3 # 25 where:

g 1 85:334407 0:0056858x1 x5 0:0006262x1 x4 2 0:0022053x3 x5

11

g 2 80:51249 0:0071317x2 x5 0:0029955x1 x2 2 0:0021813x23

12

g 3 9:300961 0:0047026x3 x5 0:0012547x1 x3 2 0:0019085x3 x4

13

with simple bounds:

78 # x1 # 102; 33 # x2 # 45; and 27 # x3 ; x4 ; x5 # 45:
The best known optimum for the Himmelblaus problem obtained by BA is given in
Table III.
The problem was initially solved by Himmelblau (1972) using a generalized gradient
method. Since then, this problem has also been solved using several other methods such
as GA (Gen and Cheng, 1997; Homaifar et al., 1994), HS algorithm (Lee and Geem, 2004;
Fesanghary et al., 2008), and PSO (He et al., 2004; Shi and Eberhart, 1998). Table II
summarizes the results obtained by BA, as well as those published in the literature. It can
clearly be seen from Table IV that the result obtained by BA is better than the best
feasible solution previously reported.
4.3 Case 3: a three-bar truss design
This case study considers a three-bar planar truss structure shown in Figure 2. This
problem was first presented by Nowcki (1974). The volume of a statically loaded three-bar
truss is to be minimized subject to stress (s) constraints on each of the truss members. The
objective is to evaluate the optimal cross sectional areas. The mathematical formulation is

Table II.
Statistical results of the
mathematical problem

Table III.
BA results for the
Himmelblaus problem

ID

Best

Mean

Worst

SD

No. bats

No. evals.

Ave. time (s)

1
2

256.752
30,945.278

256.753
35,622.163

256.758
46,707.949

0.0016
4,770.34

10
25

10,000
50,000

1.539
32.50

Fmin

No. bats

No. evals.

Ave. time (s)

230,665.4922

15

15,000

2.76224

X [x1, x2, x3, x4, x5]

[78, 33, 29.995523554, 45, 36.77520645342]

SDa

Author(s)

Best

Himmelblau (1972)
N/A
Gen and Cheng (1997)
N/A
Homaifar et al. (1994)
N/A
Lee and Geem (2004)
N/A
Fesanghary et al. (2008)
N/A
He et al. (2004)
70.0400
Shi and Eberhart (1998)
N/A
Coello (2000)
73.6335
Omran and Salman (2009)
N/A
Present study
444.293

2 30,373.9490
2 30,183.5760
2 30,005.7000
2 30,665.5000
2 31,024.3160
2 30,643.9900
2 31,025.5610
2 31,020.8590
2 31,025.5560
2 30,665.4922

0 # g1 # 92 90 # g2 # 110 20 # g3 # 25
N/A
N/A
91.65619
92.00004
93.27834
93.28536
93.28533 b
93.28381
93.28536
91.99990

N/A
N/A
99.53690
98.84051
100.39612
100.40478
100.40473
100.40786
100.40478
98.84039

N/A
N/A
20.02553
19.99994
20.00000
20.00000
19.99997
20.00191
20.00000
20.00001

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Notes: aSD is standard deviation; bitalized sets are violated sets

Bat algorithm

471

Table IV.
Statistical results for the
Himmelblaus problem

A2

A1 = A3

A1

Figure 2.
Three-bar truss
P

given as below:
Subject to:

p
Minimize : f X 2 2x1 x2 l
p
2x1 x2
g 1 p 2
P2s#0
2x1 2x1 x2
x2
g 2 p 2
P2s#0
2x1 2x1 x2
g3

1
p P 2 s # 0
x1 2x2

14

15
16
17

where:
0 # x1 # 1 and 0 # x2 # 1; l 100 cm; P 2 KN =cm2 ; and s 2 KN=cm2

EC
29,5

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

472

This design problem is a nonlinear fractional programming problem. The statistical

values of the best solution obtained by BA are given in Table V. The best solution
by BA is (x1, x2) (0.78863, 0.40838) with the objective value equal to 263.896248.
Table VI presents the best solutions obtained by BA and those reported by Ray and Saini
(2001) and Tsai (2005). It can be seen clearly that the best objective value reported by
Tsai (2005) is not feasible because the first constraint (g1) is violated. Hence, it
can be concluded that the results obtained by BA are better than those of the previous
studies.
4.4 Case 4: speed reducer design
The design of a speed reducer is a more complex case study (Golinski, 1973) and it is
one of the benchmark structural engineering problems (Gandomi and Yang, 2011).
This problem involves seven design variables, as shown in Figure 3, with the face
width b (x1), module of teeth m (x2), number of teeth on pinion z (x3), length of first shaft
between bearings l1 (x4), length of second shaft between bearings l2 (x5), diameter of
first shaft d1 (x6), and diameter of second shaft d2 (x7). The objective is to minimize the
total weight of the speed reducer. There are nine constraints, including the limits on the

Table V.
Statistical results
of the best three-bar
truss model

Table VI.
Best solutions
for the three-bar truss
design example

Best
263.896248

x1(A1)
x2(A2)
g1
g2
g3
fmin

Mean

Worst

SD

No. bats

No. evals.

Ave. time (s)

263.90614

263.9024677

0.003527

10

15,000

0.72

Park et al. (2007)

Ray and Saini (2001)

Tsai (2005)

Present study

0.78879
0.40794
0.00000
2 0.26778
2 0.73223
263.8965

0.79500
0.39500
2 0.00169
2 0.26124
2 0.74045
264.3000

0.78800
0.40800
0.00082 a
2 0.26740
2 0.73178
263.6800

0.78863
0.40838
0.00000
2 0.26802
2 0.73198
263.8962

Note: aItalized set is violated sets

z
l1
d1

Figure 3.
Speed reducer

d2

l2

bending stress of the gear teeth, surface stress, transverse deflections of shafts 1 and 2
due to transmitted force, and stresses in shafts 1 and 2.
The mathematical formulation can be summarized as follows:


Minimize : f X 0:7854x1x22 3:3333x32 14:9334x3 2 43:0934 2 1:508x1 x26 x27




7:477 x36 x37 0:7854 x4 x26 x5 x27
Subject to:
g1

27
P21#0
x1 x22 x3

18

397:5
21#0
x1 x22 x23

19

1:93
21#0
x2 x3 x34 x46

20

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

g2
g3

1:93
21#0
x2 x3 x34 x47
q
745x4 =x2 x3 2 1:69 106
g4

g5

21#0
110x36
p
745x4 x2 x3 2 157:5 106
g6
21#0
85x37
x2 x3
21#0
g7
40
5x2
21#0
g8
B21
x1
g9
21#0
12x2

21

22

23
24
25
26

In addition, the design variables are also subject to simple bounds list in Table VII.
This problem has been solved by using BA, and the corresponding statistical values of
the best solutions are also presented in Table VII.
Table VIII summarizes a comparison of the results obtained by BA with those
obtained by other methods. Although some of the best objective values are better than
those of BA, these reported values are not feasible because some of the constraints are
violated. Thus, BA obtained the best feasible solution for this problem.
4.5 Case 5: parameter identification of structures
Estimation of structural parameter is the art of reconciling an a priori finite-element model
(FEM) of the structure with nondestructive test data. It has a great potential for use
in FEM updating. Sanayei and Saletnik (1996) developed a parameter estimation
benchmark using measured strains for simultaneous estimation of the structural

Bat algorithm

473

EC
29,5

474

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Table VII.
Statistical results
of the speed reducer
design example

x1 (b)
x2 (m)
x3 (z)
x4 (l1)
x5 (l2)
x6 (d1)
x7 (d2)
Objective function value
No. bats
No. iterations
Time of each run (s)

Kuang
Akhtar et al.
et al. (1998)
(2002)

Table VIII.
Statistical results
of the speed reducer
design example

Best
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
g6
g7
g8
g9
g10
g11
Mean
Max.
SD

2,876.1176
3.6
0.7
17
7.3
7.8
3.4
5
20.100
20.220
20.528
20.877
20.043
0.182
20.703
20.028
20.571
20.041
20.051
NA
NA
NA

3,008.08
3.506122
0.700006
17
7.549126
7.85933
3.365576
5.289773
2 0.076
2 0.199
2 0.456
2 0.899
2 0.013
2 0.002
2 0.703
2 0.002
2 0.583
2 0.080
2 0.018
3,012.120
3,028.280
NA

Bound

Value

[2.6-3.6]
[0.7-0.8]
[17-28]
[7.3-8.3]
[7.3-8.3]
[2.9-3.9]
[5.0-5.5]

3.50000
0.70000
17.0000
7.30001
7.71532
3.35021
5.28665
2,994.4671
15
15,000
2.53317

Golinski
(1973)

Ray and
Saini (2001)

Hsu and
Liu (2007)

Li and
Papalambros
(1985)

Present
study

2,985.2
3.5
0.7
17
7.3
7.3
3.35
5.29
2 0.074
2 0.198
2 0.499
2 0.919
0.000
2 0.002
2 0.703
0.000
2 0.583
2 0.051
0.057
NA
NA
NA

2,732.9006
3.514185
0.700005
17
7.497343
7.8346
2.9018
5.0022
20.078
20.201
20.036
20.875
0.540
0.181
20.703
20.004
20.582
20.166
20.055
2,758.888
2,780.307
NA

3,007.8
3.5197
0.7039
17.3831
7.3
7.7152
3.3498
5.2866
20.246
20.513
20.907
0.000
0.000
20.694
0.000
20.583
20.051
0.000
20.246
NA
NA
NA

2,985.22
3.500243
0.70
17
7.3
7.8
3.4
5.0
20.074
20.198
20.528
20.877
20.043
0.182
20.703
0.000
20.583
20.041
20.051
NA
NA
NA

2,994.4671
3.50000
0.70000
17.0000
7.30001
7.71532
3.35021
5.2875
2 0.074
2 0.198
2 0.499
2 0.905
0.000
0.000
2 0.703
0.000
2 0.583
2 0.051
0.000
2,994.4671
4,973.8644
721.51803

Notes: Italized sets are violated sets

parameters. The parameter estimation objective function is defined as follows:


N
MS 
X

1a
m;i 2 1a
a;i 
Minimize :


1
m;i
i1

27

where [1a]m is the measured strains, [1a]m number of measurements (NMS)

number of loading states (NLS), and [1a]a is the analytical strains.

The static FEM equation for a structural system is [F ] [K ][U ]. Thus, the
analytical strains can be calculated as follows:
1
B
K
21 F

Bat algorithm

28

It is not required to measure all the strains, therefore, equation (32) is partitioned based
on measured strain a and unmeasured strain b:
   
1a
Ba

K
21 F

1b
Bb

475

29

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Since there is no need for unmeasured strains [1b] is eliminated as:

1a
B a
K
21 F

30

In this work, the case study is a frame structure presented by Sanayei and Saletnik
(1996) (Figure 4). The identified parameter in this example is moment of inertia I (X) for
each member.
A 445 N load is applied to degrees of freedom of 2, 5, 8 and 11, and each load set is
composed of only one force. Strains are measured on 3, 6 and 7 for each load set. The
cross section areas are, respectively, 484 and 968 cm2 for the horizontal and inclined
members. The elastic modulus is 206.8 GPa for all elements. The optimal solution is
obtained at X [869, 869, 869, 869, 869, 1,320, 1,320] (cm4) with corresponding function
value equal to f *(X) 0.00000. The statistical results for this case study provided by
BA are presented in Table IX.
The analytical algorithm proposed by Sanayei and Saletnik (1996) is not applicable
to this problem due to a singularity. Arjmandi (2010) solved this problem using GA.
A comparison of the results obtained by GA and BA with the measured values is
shown in Figure 5. The results show that BA has found the global optimum and
identified all the parameters without any error.
610 cm

4
2

1
1

610 cm

8
5

6
2

5.39 102 14

427 cm

610 cm

Best

366 cm

427 cm

7
7

19

Mean

Worst

SD

No. bats

No. evals.

Ave. time (s)

5.1052 102 10

5.1146 102 4

2.491 102 5

25

25,000

14.9

Figure 4.
Frame structure
used for parameter
identification example

Table IX.
Best solutions for the
parameter identification
example using BA

EC
29,5

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

476

Figure 5.
Parameter identification
results using GA and BA

4.6 Case 6: cantilever stepped beam

The capability of BA for continuous and discrete variable design problems are verified
using a design problem with ten variables. The case is originally presented by Thanedar
and Vanderplaats (1995). Figure 6 shows a five-stepped cantilever beam with
rectangular shape. In this case study, the width (x1 2 x5) and height (x6 2 x10) of the
beam in all five steps of the cantilever beam are design variables. The volume of the
beam is to be minimized. The objective function is formulated as follows:
Minimize : V

5
X

31

xi xi5 l i

i1

where li 100 cm (i 1, 2, . . . , 5).

Subject to the following constraints:
600P
2 14000 # 0
g1
x5 x210
6Pl s l 4
2 14000 # 0
x4 x29

33

6Pl s l 4 l 3
2 14000 # 0
x3 x28

34

g2
g3

32

Figure 6.
A stepped cantilever beam

l1

l2

l3
L

l4

l5

hi
bi

g4

6Pl s l 4 l 3 l 2
2 14000 # 0
x2 x27

35

6Pl s l 4 l 3 l 2 l 1
2 14000 # 0
x1 x26


Pl 3 1
7 19 37 61
g6

2 2:7 # 0
3E I s I 4 I 3 I 2 I 1
g5

x10
2 20 # 0
x5
x9
g 8 2 20 # 0
x4
x8
g 9 2 20 # 0
x3
x7
g 10 2 20 # 0
x2
x6
g 11 2 20 # 0
x1

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

g7

Bat algorithm

36
37

477

38
39
40
41
42

where P 50,000 N, E 2 107 N/cm2 and the initial design space are: 1 # xi # 5
(i 1, 2, . . . , 5), and 30 # xj # 65 (j 6, 7, . . . , 10).
BA has achieved a solution that satisfies all the constraints and it reaches the best
solution, possibly the unique global optimum. BA outperforms the previous other
methods in terms of the minimum objective function value. Table X presents the
results obtained by BA. We can see that the proposed method requires 25 bats and
1,000 iterations to reach the optimum.
This nonlinear constrained problem has been solved by other researchers shown in
Table XI. As it is seen, BA significantly outperforms other studies.
4.7 Case 7: heat exchanger design
As another case study, we now try to solve the heat exchanger design task, which is a
difficult benchmark minimization problem since all the constraints are binding.
It involves eight design variables and six inequality constraints (three linear and three
non-linear). The problem is expressed as follows:
Minimize : f X x1 x2 x3

43

g 1 0:0025x4 x6 2 1 # 0

44

Subject to:

Best
61,914.86841

Mean

Worst

SD

No. bats

No. evals.

Ave. time (s)

61,914.86842

61,914.86845

0.00001

25

25,000

7.025

Table X.
Best solution results for
the stepped cantilever
beam examples

EC
29,5

478

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Table XI.
Statistical results
of the stepped cantilever
beam example using
different methods

Thanedar and
Vanderplaats (1995)
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
Best objective

Lamberti and
Pappalettere (2003)

3.06
2.81
2.52
2.2
1.75
61.16
56.24
50.47
44.09
35.03
63,110

Huang and
Arora (1997)

Present
study

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
63,108.7

2.99204
2.77756
2.52359
2.20455
1.74977
59.84087
55.55126
50.4718
44.09106
34.99537
61,914.9

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
65,352.2

g2 0:0025x5 x7 2 x4 2 1 # 0

45

g 3 0:01x8 2 x5 2 1 # 0

46

g 4 833:33252x4 100x1 2 x1 x6 2 83333:333 # 0

47

g 5 1250x5 x2 x4 2 x2 x7 2 125x4 # 0

48

g 6 x3 x5 2 2500x5 2 x3 x8 125 104 # 0

49

Table XII shows the best solution for the heat exchanger design obtained by BA as
well as the best solutions obtained previously by other methods. The solution shown
for BA is the best generated using 25 bats. The solution generated by BA
(with X * [579.30675, 1,359.97076, 5,109.97052, 182.01770, 295.60118, 217.98230,
286.41653, 395.60118]) is better than the best solutions reported in the literature.
As shown in Table XII, the SD and the number of evaluations using BA are also much
less than those obtained by the other methods. This solution is feasible and
Author(s)

Table XII.
Statistical results
of the heat exchanger
design example by
different model

Lee and Geem (2004)

Joines and Houck (1994)
Jaberipour and Khorram (2010) (1)
Jaberipour and Khorram (2010) (2)
Deb (2000)
Michalewicz (1995)
Shopova and Vaklieva-Bancheva (2006)
Chootinan and Chen (2006)
Koziel and Michaelwicz (1999)
Runarsson and Yao (2000)
Farmani and Wright (2003)
Amirjanov (2006)
Wright and Farmani (2001)
Ben Hamida and Schoenauer (2000)
Present study

Best
7,057.2744
7,068.688
7,109.1901
7,051.3012
7,060.221
7,377.976
7,095.485
7,049.2607
7,147.9
7,054.316
7,061.34
7,054.316
7,152.83
7,095.15
7,049.248

Mean

Worst

SD

NA
7,244.2786
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7,049.5659
8,163.6
7,559.192
7,627.89
7,372.613
NA
NA
7,049.2484

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7,051.6857
9,659.3
8,835.655
8,288.79
8,835.655
NA
NA
7,049.3307

NA
107.7516
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.57
NA
530
373
1,000
NA
NA
0.00523

No. evalus.
NA
NA
200,000
200,000
320,080
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
128,000
NA
NA
25,000

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

the constraint values are G * [0.0000000, 0.0000000, 0.0000000, 2 0.0071449,

2 0.0061782, 2 0.0020000].

Bat algorithm

4.8 Case 8: car side impact design

Design of car side impact is used as a benchmark problem of the proposed BA. On the
foundation of European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee procedures, a car is exposed
to a side impact (Youn et al., 2004). Here we want to minimize the weight using nine
influence parameters including, thicknesses of B-pillar inner, B-pillar reinforcement, floor
side inner, cross members, door beam, door beltline reinforcement and roof rail (x1 2 x7),
materials of B-pillar inner and floor side inner (x8 and x9) and barrier height and hitting
position (x10 and x11). The car side problem is formulated as follow:

479

Minimize f x Weight;

50

g1 x F a load in abdomen # 1 kN;

51

g 2 x V Cudummy upper chest # 0:32 m=s;

52

g 3 x V Cmdummy middle chest # 0:32 m=s;

53

g 4 x V Cldummy lower chest # 0:32 m=s;

54

g5 x Dur upper rib deflection # 32 mm;

55

g6 x Dmr middle rib deflection # 32 mm;

56

g 7 x Dlr lower rib deflection # 32 mm;

57

g8 x F p Pubic force # 4 kN;

58

Subject to:

g9 x V MBP Velocity of V 2 Pillar at middle po int # 9 : 9 mm=ms;

59

g 10 x V FD Velocity of front door at V 2 Pillar # 15 : 7 mm=ms;

60

with simple bounds:

0:5 # x1 ; x3 ; x4 # 1:5; 0:45 # x2 # 1:35; 0:875 # x5 # 2:625; 0:4 # x6 ; x7
# 1:2; x8 ; x9 [ {0:192; 0:345}; 0:5 # x10 ; x11 # 1:5;
For solving this problem, we ran BA with 20 bats and 1,000 iterations. Because this case
study has not been solved previously in the literature, we also solved this problem using
PSO, DE and GA methods so as to benchmark and compare with the BA method.
Table XIII shows the statistical results for the car side impact design problem using the
proposed BA method and other well-known methods after 20,000 searches. As it can be
seen from Table XIII, in comparison with other heuristic algorithms, the proposed
algorithm is better than GA and it seems that the BA method performances similar to the
PSO and DE.
5. Discussions and conclusions
We have presented a new BA for solving engineering optimization problems. BA has
been validated using several benchmark engineering design problems, and it is found

EC
29,5

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

480

Table XIII.
Statistical results of the
car side design example
by different methods

Method
Best objective
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
x11
Mean objective
Worst objective
SD

PSO

DE

GA

BA

22.84474
0.50000
1.11670
0.50000
1.30208
0.50000
1.50000
0.50000
0.34500
0.19200
219.54935
2 0.00431
22.89429
23.21354
0.15017

22.84298
0.50000
1.11670
0.5000
1.30208
0.50000
1.50000
0.50000
0.34500
0.19200
219.54935
20.00431
23.22828
24.12606
0.34451

22.85653
0.50005
1.28017
0.50001
1.03302
0.50001
0.50000
0.50000
0.34994
0.19200
10.3119
0.00167
23.51585
26.240578
0.66555

22.84474
0.50000
1.11670
0.50000
1.30208
0.50000
1.50000
0.50000
0.34500
0.19200
2 19.54935
2 0.00431
22.89273
23.21354
0.17383

from our simulations that BA is very efficient. The extensive comparison study, carried
out over seven different nonlinear constrained design tasks, reveals that BA performs
superior to many different existing algorithms used to solve these seven benchmark
problems. It is potentially more powerful than other methods such as GA and PSO as
well as HS. The primary reason is that BA uses a good combination of major advantages
of these algorithms in some way. Moreover, PSO and HS are the special cases of BA
under appropriate simplifications. More specifically, if we fix the loudness as Ai 0 and
pulse emission rate as ri 1, BA reduces to the standard particle swarm optimization.
On the other hand, if set Ai ri 0.7-0.9, BA essentially becomes a HS as frequency
change is equivalent to the pitch adjustment in HS.
Sensitivity studies can be an important issue for the further research topics, as the
fine adjustment of the parameters a and g can affect the convergence rate of the BA. This
is true for almost all metaheuristic algorithms. In fact, parameter a plays a similar role as
the cooling schedule in the simulated annealing. Though the implementation is more
complicated than many other metaheuristic algorithms; however, the detailed study of
seven engineering design tasks indicates that BA actually uses a balanced combination
of the advantages of existing successful algorithms with innovative feature based on the
echolocation behavior of microbats. New solutions are generated by adjusting
frequencies, loudness and pulse emission rates, while the proposed solution is accepted
or not depends on the quality of the solutions controlled or characterized by loudness
and pulse rate which are in turn related to the closeness or the fitness of the
locations/solution to the global optimal solution.
Theoretically speaking, if we simplify the system with enough approximations, it is
possible to analyze the behaviour of the BA using analysis in the framework of
dynamical systems. In addition, more extensive comparison studies with a more wide
range of existing algorithms using much tough test functions in higher dimensions will
pose more challenges to the algorithms, and thus such comparisons will potentially
reveal the virtues and weakness of all the algorithms of interest. Furthermore, a natural
extension is to formulate a discrete version of BA so that it can directly solve
combinatorial optimization problems such as the travelling salesman problem.

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

On the other hand, for dynamical optimization problems and computational geometry, a
further natural extension to the current BA would be to use the directional echolocation
and Doppler effect, which may lead to even more interesting variants and new
algorithms. These further extensions will help us to design more efficient, often hybrid,
algorithms to solve a wider class of even tougher optimization problems.
References
Akhtar, S., Tai, K. and Ray, T. (2002), A socio-behavioral simulation model for engineering
design optimization, Eng. Optmiz., Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 341-54.
Alavi, A.H. and Gandomi, A.H. (2011), A robust data mining approach for formulation of
geotechnical engineering systems, International Journal of Computer Aided Methods in
Engineering-Engineering Computations, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 242-74.
Altringham, J.D. (1996), Bats: Biology and Behaviour, Oxford Univesity Press, Oxford.
Amirjanov, A. (2006), The development of a changing range genetic algorithm,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 195, pp. 2495-508.
Arjmandi, P. (2010), Damage detection of continues steel beams using static data, MSc thesis,
Tafresh University, Tafresh.
Ben Hamida, S. and Schoenauer, M. (2000), An adaptive algorithm for constrained optimization
problems, Proceedings of Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Vol. VI, pp. 529-38.
Chen, T.W.C. and Vassiliadis, V.S. (2003), Solution of general nonlinear optimization problems
using the penalty/modified barrier method with the use of exact Hessians, Comput. Chem.
Eng., Vol. 27, pp. 501-25.
Chootinan, P. and Chen, A. (2006), Constraint handling in genetic algorithms using
a gradient-based repair method, Comput. Oper. Res., Vol. 33, pp. 2263-81.
Coello, C.A.C. (2000), Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization
problems, Comput. Ind., Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 113-27.
Deb, K. (1995), Optimization for Engineering Design: Algorithms and Examples, Prentice-Hall,
New Delhi.
Deb, K. (2000), An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 186, pp. 311-38.
Farmani, R. and Wright, J.A. (2003), Self-adaptive fitness formulation for constrained
optimization, IEEE T. Evolut. Comput., Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 445-55.
Fesanghary, M., Mahdavi, M., Minary-Jolandan, M. and Alizadeh, Y. (2008), Hybridizing
harmony search algorithm with sequential quadratic programming for engineering
optimization problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 197, pp. 3080-91.
Gandomi, A.H. and Alavi, A.H. (2011), Multi-stage genetic programming: a new strategy to
nonlinear system modeling, Information Sciences, Vol. 181 No. 23.
Gandomi, A.H. and Yang, X.S. (2011), Benchmark problems in structural optimization,
in Koziel, S. and Yang, X.S. (Eds), Computational Optimization, Methods and Algorithms,
Chapter 12, Springer, Berlin, pp. 267-91.
Gandomi, A.H., Yang, X.S. and Alavi, A.H. (2011), Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic
approach to solve structural optimization problems, Engineering with Computers, Vol. 27.
Geem, Z.W., Kim, J.H. and Loganathan, G.V. (2001), A new heuristic optimization algorithm:
harmony search, Simulation, Vol. 76, pp. 60-8.
Gen, M. and Cheng, R. (1997), Genetic Algorithms & Engineering Design, Wiley, New York, NY.

Bat algorithm

481

EC
29,5

Golinski, J. (1973), An adaptive optimization system applied to machine synthesis, Mech. Mach.
Synthesis, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 419-36.

482

Homaifar, A., Lai, S.H.V. and Qi, X. (1994), Constrained optimization via genetic algorithms,
Simulation, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 242-54.

He, S., Prempain, E. and Wu, Q.H. (2004), An improved particle swarm optimizer for mechanical
design optimization problems, Eng. Optimiz., Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 585-605.
Himmelblau, D.M. (1972), Applied Nonlinear Programming, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Hsu, Y.L. and Liu, T.C. (2007), Developing a fuzzy proportional-derivative controller
optimization engine for engineering design optimization problems, Eng. Optimiz., Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 679-700.

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Huang, M.-W. and Arora, J.S. (1997), Optimal design with discrete variables: some numerical
experiments, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., Vol. 40, pp. 165-88.
Jaberipour, M. and Khorram, E. (2010), Two improved harmony search algorithms for solving
engineering optimization problems, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat., Vol. 15
No. 11, pp. 3316-31.
Joines, J. and Houck, C. (1994), On the use of non-stationary penalty functions to solve nonlinear
constrained optimization problems with gas, in Fogel, D. (Ed.), Proceedings First IEEE
Conf. on Evolutionary Computation, Orlando, FL, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 579-84.
Kaveh, A. and Talatahari, S. (2010), A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system
search, Acta Mech., Vol. 213 Nos 3/4, pp. 267-89.
Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. (1995), Particle swarm optimization, Proceedings IEEE Int. Conf.
Neural Networks, Perth, Australia, pp. 1942-5.
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D. and Vecchi, M.P. (1983), Optimization by simulated annealing,
Science, Vol. 220 No. 4598, pp. 671-80.
Koziel, S. and Michaelwicz, Z. (1999), Evolutionary algorithms, homomorphous mappings,
and constrained parameter optimization, Evol. Comput., Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Kuang, J.K., Rao, S.S. and Chen, L. (1998), Taguchi-aided search method for design optimization
of engineering systems, Eng. Optimiz., Vol. 30, pp. 1-23.
Lamberti, L. and Pappalettere, C. (2003), Move limits definition in structural optimization with
sequential linear programming. Part II: numerical examples, Computers & Structures,
Vol. 81, pp. 215-38.
Lee, K.S. and Geem, Z.W. (2004), A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continues engineering
optimization: harmony search theory and practice, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.,
Vol. 194, pp. 3902-33.
Li, H.L. and Papalambros, P. (1985), A production system for use of global optimization
knowledge, ASME. J. Mech Transm. Autom. Des., Vol. 107, pp. 277-84.
Michalewicz, Z. (1995), Genetic algorithms, numerical optimization, and constraints,
in Eshelman, L. (Ed.), Proceedings Sixth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms,
Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham, MA, pp. 151-8.
Nowcki, H. (1974), Optimization in pre-contract ship design, in Fujita, Y., Lind, K. and
Williams, T.J. (Eds), Computer Applications in the Automation of Shipyard Operation and
Ship Design, Vol. 2, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 327-38.
Omran, M.G.H. and Salman, A. (2009), Constrained optimization using CODEQ, Chaos Soliton.
Fract., Vol. 42, pp. 662-8.

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

Park, Y.C., Chang, M.H. and Lee, T.Y. (2007), A new deterministic global optimization method
for general twice differentiable constrained nonlinear programming problems,
Eng. Optimiz., Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 397-411.
Ray, T. and Saini, P. (2001), Engineering design optimization using a swarm with an intelligent
information sharing among individuals, Eng. Optimiz., Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 735-48.
Richardson, P. (2008), Bats, Natural History Museum, London.
Runarsson, T.P. and Yao, X. (2000), Stochastic ranking for constrained evolutionary
optimization, IEEE T. Evolut. Comput., Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 284-94.
Sanayei, M. and Saletnik, M.J. (1996), Parameter estimation of structures from static strain
measurements I: formulation, J. Struct. Eng-ASCE, Vol. 122 No. 5, pp. 555-62.
Shi, Y and Eberhart, R.C. (1998), A modified particle swarm optimizer, Proceedings Int. Cong.
Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ.
Shopova, E.G. and Vaklieva-Bancheva, N.G. (2006), BASIC a genetic algorithm for engineering
problems solution, Comput. Chem. Eng., Vol. 30, pp. 1293-309.
Thanedar, P.B. and Vanderplaats, G.N. (1995), Survey of discrete variable optimization for
structural design journal of structural engineering, J. Struct. Eng.-ASCE, Vol. 121 No. 2,
pp. 301-6.
Tsai, J. (2005), Global optimization of nonlinear fractional programming problems in
engineering design, Eng. Optimiz., Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 399-409.
Wright, J.A. and Farmani, R. (2001), Genetic algorithm: a fitness formulation for constrained
minimization, Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conf., San Francisco,
CA, July 7-11, pp. 725-32.
Yang, X.-S. (2008), Nature-inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms, Luniver Press, Beckington.
Yang, X.-S. (2010), A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm, in Cruz, C., Gonzalez, J.,
Krasnogor, N. and Terraza, G. (Eds), Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for
Optimization (NICSO 2010), Vol. SCI 284, Springer, Berlin, pp. 65-74.
Youn, B.D., Choi, K.K., Yang, R.-J. and Gu, L. (2004), Reliability-based design optimization for
crashworthiness of vehicle side impact, Struct. Multidisc. Optim., Vol. 26, pp. 272-83.
Corresponding author
Amir Hossein Gandomi can be contacted at: a.h.gandomi@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Bat algorithm

483

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. S.M. Abd-Elazim, E.S. Ali. 2016. Load frequency controller design via BAT algorithm for nonlinear
interconnected power system. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 77, 166-177.
[CrossRef]
2. Letcia Fleck Fadel Miguel, Leandro Fleck Fadel Miguel, Rafael Holdorf Lopez. 2016. Simultaneous
optimization of force and placement of friction dampers under seismic loading. Engineering Optimization
48, 582-602. [CrossRef]
3. Adn Jos-Garca, Wilfrido Gmez-Flores. 2016. Automatic clustering using nature-inspired
metaheuristics: A survey. Applied Soft Computing 41, 192-213. [CrossRef]
4. Ahmed S. Tawfik, Amr A. Badr, Ibrahim F. Abdel-Rahman. 2016. Comparative optimizer rank and score:
A modern approach for performance analysis of optimization techniques. Expert Systems with Applications
45, 118-130. [CrossRef]
5. Eneko Osaba, Xin-She Yang, Fernando Diaz, Pedro Lopez-Garcia, Roberto Carballedo. 2016. An
improved discrete bat algorithm for symmetric and asymmetric Traveling Salesman Problems. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence 48, 59-71. [CrossRef]
6. Munir A. Ghanem, Rabei A. Ahmed. 2016. Ant Colony Optimization: Approach for an Obstacle. Journal
of Applied Sciences 16, 58-67. [CrossRef]
7. Gai-Ge Wang, Mei Lu, Yong-Quan Dong, Xiang-Jun Zhao. 2016. Self-adaptive extreme learning
machine. Neural Computing and Applications 27, 291-303. [CrossRef]
8. Iordanis A. Naziris, Nikos D. Lagaros, Kyriakos Papaioannou. 2016. Selection and Resource Allocation
Model for Upgrading Fire Safety of Historic Buildings. Journal of Management in Engineering 05016004.
[CrossRef]
9. Vladimir Stojanovic, Novak Nedic. 2016. A Nature Inspired Parameter Tuning Approach to Cascade
Control for Hydraulically Driven Parallel Robot Platform. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications
168, 332-347. [CrossRef]
10. Sakkayaphop Pravesjit. 2015. A hybrid bat algorithm with natural-inspired algorithms for continuous
optimization problem. Artificial Life and Robotics . [CrossRef]
11. Apoorva Aggarwal, Tarun Kumar Rawat, Manjeet Kumar, D.K. Upadhyay. 2015. Optimal design of FIR
high pass filter based on L1 error approximation using real coded genetic algorithm. Engineering Science
and Technology, an International Journal 18, 594-602. [CrossRef]
12. Mohammad Veysi, Mohammad Reza Soltanpour, Mohammad Hassan Khooban. 2015. A novel selfadaptive modified bat fuzzy sliding mode control of robot manipulator in presence of uncertainties in task
space. Robotica 33, 2045-2064. [CrossRef]
13. Beatriz Gonzlez, Fevrier Valdez, Patricia Melin, German Prado-Arechiga. 2015. Fuzzy logic in the
gravitational search algorithm enhanced using fuzzy logic with dynamic alpha parameter value adaptation
for the optimization of modular neural networks in echocardiogram recognition. Applied Soft Computing
37, 245-254. [CrossRef]
14. A. S. Oshaba, E. S. Ali, S. M. Abd Elazim. 2015. PI controller design for MPPT of photovoltaic system
supplying SRM via BAT search algorithm. Neural Computing and Applications . [CrossRef]
15. Mustafa Servet Kiran. 2015. TSA: Tree-seed algorithm for continuous optimization. Expert Systems with
Applications 42, 6686-6698. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

16. Adil Baykasolu, Fehmi Burcin Ozsoydan. 2015. Adaptive firefly algorithm with chaos for mechanical
design optimization problems. Applied Soft Computing 36, 152-164. [CrossRef]
17. Manjeet Kumar, Tarun Kumar Rawat. 2015. Optimal fractional delay-IIR filter design using cuckoo search
algorithm. ISA Transactions 59, 39-54. [CrossRef]
18. Gai-Ge Wang, Suash Deb, Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi. 2015. Opposition-based krill herd
algorithm with Cauchy mutation and position clamping. Neurocomputing . [CrossRef]
19. Mohammad Hassan Khooban, Taher Niknam. 2015. A new intelligent online fuzzy tuning approach
for multi-area load frequency control: Self Adaptive Modified Bat Algorithm. International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems 71, 254-261. [CrossRef]
20. Xian-Bing Meng, X.Z. Gao, Yu Liu, Hengzhen Zhang. 2015. A novel bat algorithm with habitat selection
and Doppler effect in echoes for optimization. Expert Systems with Applications 42, 6350-6364. [CrossRef]
21. Rajnish Mallick, Ranjan Ganguli, M. Seetharama Bhat. 2015. Robust design of multiple trailing edge flaps
for helicopter vibration reduction: A multi-objective bat algorithm approach. Engineering Optimization
47, 1243-1263. [CrossRef]
22. Hamid Reza Ansari, Amin Gholami. 2015. An improved support vector regression model for estimation
of saturation pressure of crude oils. Fluid Phase Equilibria 402, 124-132. [CrossRef]
23. Richa Sharma, Prerna Gaur, A.P. Mittal. 2015. Performance analysis of two-degree of freedom fractional
order PID controllers for robotic manipulator with payload. ISA Transactions 58, 279-291. [CrossRef]
24. Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi. 2015. An introduction of Krill Herd algorithm for engineering
optimization. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 1-10. [CrossRef]
25. Yongquan Zhou, Liangliang Li, Mingzhi Ma. 2015. A Complex-valued Encoding Bat Algorithm for
Solving 01 Knapsack Problem. Neural Processing Letters . [CrossRef]
26. Murat Canayaz, Ali Karci. 2015. Cricket behaviour-based evolutionary computation technique in solving
engineering optimization problems. Applied Intelligence . [CrossRef]
27. Rajko Sveko, Dragan Kusi. 2015. Feedforward neural network position control of a piezoelectric actuator
based on a BAT search algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications 42, 5416-5423. [CrossRef]
28. Dongsheng Zhao, Yuzhu He. 2015. Chaotic binary bat algorithm for analog test point selection. Analog
Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing 84, 201-214. [CrossRef]
29. Goran R. Miodragovi, Radovan R. Bulatovi. 2015. Loop bat family algorithm (Loop BFA) for
constrained optimization. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 29, 3329-3341. [CrossRef]
30. Bijaya Bijeta Nayak, Siba Sankar Mahapatra. 2015. Optimization of WEDM process parameters using deep
cryo-treated Inconel 718 as work material. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal
. [CrossRef]
31. Yaohui Zeng, Zijun Zhang, Andrew Kusiak, Fan Tang, Xiupeng Wei. 2015. Optimizing wastewater
pumping system with data-driven models and a greedy electromagnetism-like algorithm. Stochastic
Environmental Research and Risk Assessment . [CrossRef]
32. Yassine Saji, Mohammed Essaid Riffi. 2015. A novel discrete bat algorithm for solving the travelling
salesman problem. Neural Computing and Applications . [CrossRef]
33. Puja Dash, Lalit Chandra Saikia, Nidul Sinha. 2015. Automatic generation control of multi area thermal
system using Bat algorithm optimized PDPID cascade controller. International Journal of Electrical Power
& Energy Systems 68, 364-372. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

34. Sashikala Mishra, Debahuti Mishra. 2015. Adaptive multi-classifier fusion approach for gene expression
dataset based on probabilistic theory. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society 44, 247-260. [CrossRef]
35. A.S. Oshaba, E.S. Ali, S.M. Abd Elazim. 2015. MPPT control design of PV system supplied SRM using
BAT search algorithm. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 2, 51-60. [CrossRef]
36. Gai-Ge Wang, Suash Deb, Amir H. Gandomi, Zhaojun Zhang, Amir H. Alavi. 2015. Chaotic cuckoo
search. Soft Computing . [CrossRef]
37. Xin-She Yang, Suash Deb, Thomas Hanne, Xingshi He. 2015. Attraction and diffusion in nature-inspired
optimization algorithms. Neural Computing and Applications . [CrossRef]
38. Maryam PourkamaliAnaraki, Mehdi Sadeghi. 2015. Honey bee-inspired algorithms for SNP haplotype
reconstruction problem. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 1-14. [CrossRef]
39. Manjeet Kumar, Tarun Kumar Rawat. 2015. Optimal design of FIR fractional order differentiator using
cuckoo search algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications 42, 3433-3449. [CrossRef]
40. Murat Canayaz, Ali Karc. 2015. Investigation of cricket behaviours as evolutionary computation for system
design optimization problems. Measurement 68, 225-235. [CrossRef]
41. Nour El Yakine Kouba, Mohamed Menaa, Mourad Hasni, Mohamed BoudourA novel robust automatic
generation control in interconnected multi-area power system based on bat inspired algorithm 1-6.
[CrossRef]
42. Tzung-Pei Hong, Chun-Hao Chen, Feng-Shih Lin. 2015. Using group genetic algorithm to improve
performance of attribute clustering. Applied Soft Computing 29, 371-378. [CrossRef]
43. Beatriz Gonzlez, Fevrier Valdez, Patricia Melin, German Prado-Arechiga. 2015. Fuzzy logic in the
gravitational search algorithm for the optimization of modular neural networks in pattern recognition.
Expert Systems with Applications . [CrossRef]
44. Xiaolei Liang, Wenfeng Li, PanPan Liu, Yu Zhang, Aaron Agbenyegah AgboSocial Network-based
Swarm Optimization algorithm 360-365. [CrossRef]
45. Selim Ylmaz, Ecir U. Kksille. 2015. A new modification approach on bat algorithm for solving
optimization problems. Applied Soft Computing 28, 259-275. [CrossRef]
46. Yu-Jun Zheng. 2015. Water wave optimization: A new nature-inspired metaheuristic. Computers &
Operations Research 55, 1-11. [CrossRef]
47. Xiangtao Li, Minghao Yin. 2015. A particle swarm inspired cuckoo search algorithm for real parameter
optimization. Soft Computing . [CrossRef]
48. Kelton A.P. Costa, Luis A.M. Pereira, Rodrigo Y.M. Nakamura, Clayton R. Pereira, Joo P. Papa,
Alexandre Xavier Falco. 2015. A nature-inspired approach to speed up optimum-path forest clustering
and its application to intrusion detection in computer networks. Information Sciences 294, 95-108.
[CrossRef]
49. U. Sabura Banu, S.K. LakshmanaprabuAdaptive multi-loop fractional order PID controller tuning using
Bat colony optimization for Quadruple Tank process 1-8. [CrossRef]
50. Saeed Gholizadeh, Amir Masoud Shahrezaei. 2015. Optimal placement of steel plate shear walls for steel
frames by bat algorithm. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 24:10.1002/tal.v24.1, 1-18.
[CrossRef]
51. A. Rezaee Jordehi. 2015. Chaotic bat swarm optimisation (CBSO). Applied Soft Computing 26, 523-530.
[CrossRef]

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

52. Xin-She Yang, Su Fong Chien, Tiew On TingBio-Inspired Computation and Optimization 1-21.
[CrossRef]
53. M.R. Sathya, M. Mohamed Thameem Ansari. 2015. Load frequency control using Bat inspired algorithm
based dual mode gain scheduling of PI controllers for interconnected power system. International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 64, 365-374. [CrossRef]
54. Gai-Ge Wang, Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi, Suash Deb. 2015. A hybrid method based on krill herd
and quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization. Neural Computing and Applications . [CrossRef]
55. Mridul Chawla, Manoj Duhan. 2015. Bat Algorithm: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art. Applied Artificial
Intelligence 29:6, 617. [CrossRef]
56. M. Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Aminnayeri. 2014. Solving the integrated scheduling of production and rail
transportation problem by Keshtel algorithm. Applied Soft Computing 25, 184-203. [CrossRef]
57. K.R. Subhashini, A.T.Praveen KumarPseudo-bessel pattern generation employing linear and non linear
synthesis of a hexagonal antenna array 1-6. [CrossRef]
58. Liangliang Li, Yongquan Zhou. 2014. A novel complex-valued bat algorithm. Neural Computing and
Applications 25, 1369-1381. [CrossRef]
59. Halima Djelloul, Sara Sabba, Salim ChikhiBinary bat algorithm for graph coloring problem 481-486.
[CrossRef]
60. Yassine Saji, Mohammed Essaid Riffi, Belaid AhiodDiscrete bat-inspired algorithm for travelling salesman
problem 28-31. [CrossRef]
61. Bibliography 393-412. [CrossRef]
62. Fevrier Valdez, Patricia Melin, Oscar Castillo. 2014. A survey on nature-inspired optimization algorithms
with fuzzy logic for dynamic parameter adaptation. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 6459-6466.
[CrossRef]
63. E.S. Ali. 2014. Optimization of Power System Stabilizers using BAT search algorithm. International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 61, 683-690. [CrossRef]
64. Gai-Ge Wang, Amir Hossein Gandomi, Xin-She Yang, Amir Hossein Alavi. 2014. A novel improved
accelerated particle swarm optimization algorithm for global numerical optimization. Engineering
Computations 31:7, 1198-1220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Xin-She Yang, Mehmet Karamanoglu, Xingshi He. 2014. Flower pollination algorithm: A novel approach
for multiobjective optimization. Engineering Optimization 46, 1222-1237. [CrossRef]
66. Nantiwat Pholdee, Sujin Bureerat. 2014. Comparative performance of meta-heuristic algorithms for mass
minimisation of trusses with dynamic constraints. Advances in Engineering Software 75, 1-13. [CrossRef]
67. Gebrail Bekdas. 2014. Optimum design of axially symmetric cylindrical reinforced concrete walls.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics 51, 361-375. [CrossRef]
68. Gai-Ge Wang, Lihong Guo, Amir H. Gandomi, Guo-Sheng Hao, Heqi Wang. 2014. Chaotic Krill Herd
algorithm. Information Sciences 274, 17-34. [CrossRef]
69. Xin-She Yang, Mehmet Karamanoglu, T. O. Ting, Yu-Xin Zhao. 2014. Applications and analysis of
bio-inspired eagle strategy for engineering optimization. Neural Computing and Applications 25, 411-420.
[CrossRef]
70. Lihong Guo, Gai-Ge Wang, Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi, Hong Duan. 2014. A new improved krill
herd algorithm for global numerical optimization. Neurocomputing 138, 392-402. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

71. Gai-Ge Wang, Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi, Guo-Sheng Hao. 2014. Hybrid krill herd algorithm
with differential evolution for global numerical optimization. Neural Computing and Applications 25,
297-308. [CrossRef]
72. Omid Bozorg-Haddad, Iman Karimirad, Samaneh Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, Hugo A. Loiciga. 2014.
Development and Application of the Bat Algorithm for Optimizing the Operation of Reservoir Systems.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 04014097. [CrossRef]
73. Manoj Kumar Dhadwal, Sung Nam Jung, Chang Joo Kim. 2014. Advanced particle swarm assisted
genetic algorithm for constrained optimization problems. Computational Optimization and Applications
58, 781-806. [CrossRef]
74. Richa Sharma, K.P.S. Rana, Vineet Kumar. 2014. Performance analysis of fractional order fuzzy PID
controllers applied to a robotic manipulator. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 4274-4289. [CrossRef]
75. Satyasai Jagannath Nanda, Ganapati Panda. 2014. A survey on nature inspired metaheuristic algorithms
for partitional clustering. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 16, 1-18. [CrossRef]
76. Aziz Ouaarab, Belad Ahiod, Xin-She Yang. 2014. Discrete cuckoo search algorithm for the travelling
salesman problem. Neural Computing and Applications 24, 1659-1669. [CrossRef]
77. Georgios Kalantzis, Yu LeiA self-tuned bat algorithm for optimization in radiation therapy treatment
planning 1-6. [CrossRef]
78. Gai-Ge Wang, Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi. 2014. An effective krill herd algorithm with migration
operator in biogeography-based optimization. Applied Mathematical Modelling 38, 2454-2462. [CrossRef]
79. Junpeng Li, Yinggan Tang, Changchun Hua, Xinping Guan. 2014. An improved krill herd algorithm:
Krill herd with linear decreasing step. Applied Mathematics and Computation 234, 356-367. [CrossRef]
80. Siamak Talatahari, Amir Hossein Gandomi, Gun Jin Yun. 2014. Optimum design of tower structures
using Firefly Algorithm. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23:10.1002/tal.v23.5, 350-361.
[CrossRef]
81. Bibliography 114-134. [CrossRef]
82. Gai-Ge Wang, Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi. 2014. Stud krill herd algorithm. Neurocomputing 128,
363-370. [CrossRef]
83. Mohamad Amin Bakhshali, Mousa Shamsi. 2014. Segmentation of color lip images by optimal
thresholding using bacterial foraging optimization (BFO). Journal of Computational Science 5, 251-257.
[CrossRef]
84. Bahman Bahmani-Firouzi, Rasoul Azizipanah-Abarghooee. 2014. Optimal sizing of battery energy
storage for micro-grid operation management using a new improved bat algorithm. International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 56, 42-54. [CrossRef]
85. Xin-She Yang, Mehmet Karamanoglu, Tao Luan, Slawomir Koziel. 2014. Mathematical modelling and
parameter optimization of pulsating heat pipes. Journal of Computational Science 5, 119-125. [CrossRef]
86. Gaige Wang, Lihong Guo, Heqi Wang, Hong Duan, Luo Liu, Jiang Li. 2014. Incorporating mutation
scheme into krill herd algorithm for global numerical optimization. Neural Computing and Applications
24, 853-871. [CrossRef]
87. Amir H. Gandomi, Xin-She Yang. 2014. Chaotic bat algorithm. Journal of Computational Science 5,
224-232. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

88. Saeed Gholizadeh, Fayegh Fattahi. 2014. Design optimization of tall steel buildings by a modified particle
swarm algorithm. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23:10.1002/tal.v23.4, 285-301.
[CrossRef]
89. Xin-She YangBat Algorithms 141-154. [CrossRef]
90. O. Hasanebi, S. Carbas. 2014. Bat inspired algorithm for discrete size optimization of steel frames.
Advances in Engineering Software 67, 173-185. [CrossRef]
91. Qifang Luo, Yongquan Zhou, Jian Xie, Mingzhi Ma, Liangliang Li. 2014. Discrete Bat Algorithm
for Optimal Problem of Permutation Flow Shop Scheduling. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 1-15.
[CrossRef]
92. Jiao-hong Yi, Wei-hong Xu, Yuan-tao Chen. 2014. Novel Back Propagation Optimization by Cuckoo
Search Algorithm. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 1-8. [CrossRef]
93. Xin-She YangAnalysis of Algorithms 23-44. [CrossRef]
94. Xin-She YangA Framework for Self-Tuning Algorithms 175-182. [CrossRef]
95. Xin-She Yang, Slawomir Koziel, Leifur Leifsson. 2014. Computational Optimization, Modelling and
Simulation: Past, Present and Future. Procedia Computer Science 29, 754-758. [CrossRef]
96. Adis Alihodzic, Milan Tuba. 2014. Improved Bat Algorithm Applied to Multilevel Image Thresholding.
The Scientific World Journal 2014, 1-16. [CrossRef]
97. Amir Hossein Gandomi, Siamak Talatahari, Xin-She Yang, Suash Deb. 2013. Design optimization of truss
structures using cuckoo search algorithm. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 22:10.1002/
tal.v22.17, 1330-1349. [CrossRef]
98. Wipada Parika, Wipada Seesuaysom, Srisatja Vitayasak, Pupong PongcharoenBat algorithm for designing
cell formation with a consideration of routing flexibility 1353-1357. [CrossRef]
99. Alireza Fathi, Ahmad Mozaffari. 2013. Identification of a dynamic model for shape memory alloy actuator
using Hammerstein-Wiener gray box and mutable smart bee algorithm. International Journal of Intelligent
Computing and Cybernetics 6:4, 328-357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Xing-shi He, Wen-Jing Ding, Xin-She Yang. 2013. Bat algorithm based on simulated annealing and
Gaussian perturbations. Neural Computing and Applications . [CrossRef]
101. O. Hasanebi, T. Teke, O. Pekcan. 2013. A bat-inspired algorithm for structural optimization. Computers
& Structures 128, 77-90. [CrossRef]
102. Xing Wei, Xiaojin YangSpeech dynamic time warping based on ant colony optimization algorithm
602-604. [CrossRef]
103. Rishemjit Kaur, Ritesh Kumar, Amol P. Bhondekar, Pawan Kapur. 2013. Human opinion dynamics: An
inspiration to solve complex optimization problems. Scientific Reports 3. . [CrossRef]
104. Robert C. Green, Lingfeng Wang, Mansoor Alam, Chanan Singh. 2013. Intelligent state space pruning for
Monte Carlo simulation with applications in composite power system reliability. Engineering Applications
of Artificial Intelligence 26, 1707-1724. [CrossRef]
105. Xin-She Yang, Suash Deb, Xingshi HeEagle strategy with flower algorithm 1213-1217. [CrossRef]
106. S. Talatahari, N. Mohajer Rahbari, A. Kaveh. 2013. A new hybrid optimization algorithm for recognition
of hysteretic non-linear systems. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 17, 1099-1108. [CrossRef]
107. Wang Gai-Ge, Hossein Gandomi Amir, Hossein Alavi Amir. 2013. A chaotic particle-swarm krill herd
algorithm for global numerical optimization. Kybernetes 42:6, 962-978. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

108. Amir Hossein Gandomi, Xin-She Yang, Amir Hossein Alavi, Siamak Talatahari. 2013. Bat algorithm for
constrained optimization tasks. Neural Computing and Applications 22, 1239-1255. [CrossRef]
109. Amir Hossein Gandomi, Gun Jin Yun, Xin-She Yang, Siamak Talatahari. 2013. Chaos-enhanced
accelerated particle swarm optimization. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation
18, 327-340. [CrossRef]
110. Gai-Ge Wang, Lihong Guo, Amir Hossein Gandomi, Amir Hossein Alavi, Hong Duan. 2013. Simulated
Annealing-Based Krill Herd Algorithm for Global Optimization. Abstract and Applied Analysis 2013, 1-11.
[CrossRef]
111. Momin Jamil, Hans-Jrgen ZepernickLvy Flights and Global Optimization 49-72. [CrossRef]
112. Amir Hossein Gandomi, Amir Hossein Alavi, Siamak TalatahariStructural Optimization Using Krill Herd
Algorithm 335-349. [CrossRef]
113. Olympia Nikolaeva Roeva, Stefka Stoyanova Fidanova. 2013. Hybrid Bat Algorithm for Parameter
Identification of an E. Coli Cultivation Process Model. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 27,
4323-4326. [CrossRef]
114. Gaige Wang, Lihong Guo. 2013. A Novel Hybrid Bat Algorithm with Harmony Search for Global
Numerical Optimization. Journal of Applied Mathematics 2013, 1-21. [CrossRef]
115. Yongquan Zhou, Jian Xie, Hongqing Zheng. 2013. A Hybrid Bat Algorithm with Path Relinking for
Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2013, 1-10. [CrossRef]
116. Akemi Glvez, Andrs Iglesias. 2013. From Nonlinear Optimization to Convex Optimization through
Firefly Algorithm and Indirect Approach with Applications to CAD/CAM. The Scientific World Journal
2013, 1-10. [CrossRef]
117. Xin-She Yang, Slawomir Koziel, Leifur Leifsson. 2013. Computational Optimization, Modelling and
Simulation: Recent Trends and Challenges. Procedia Computer Science 18, 855-860. [CrossRef]
118. Xin-She Yang, Mehmet Karamanoglu, Xingshi He. 2013. Multi-objective Flower Algorithm for
Optimization. Procedia Computer Science 18, 861-868. [CrossRef]
119. Xin-She YangOptimization and Metaheuristic Algorithms in Engineering 1-23. [CrossRef]
120. Siamak Talatahari, Vijay P. Singh, Yousef HassanzadehAnt Colony Optimization for Estimating
Parameters of Flood Frequency Distributions 121-146. [CrossRef]
121. Mohammed Ghasem Sahab, Vassili V. Toropov, Amir Hossein GandomiA Review on Traditional and
Modern Structural Optimization 25-47. [CrossRef]
122. Parviz Mohammad Zadeh, Mohadeseh Alsadat Sadat ShiraziMultidisciplinary Design and Optimization
Methods 103-127. [CrossRef]
123. Gebrail Bekda, Sinan Melih NigdeliOptimization of Tuned Mass Damper with Harmony Search
345-371. [CrossRef]
124. Giuseppe Carlo Marano, Giuseppe Quaranta, Jennifer Avakian, Alessandro PalmeriIdentification of Passive
Devices for Vibration Control by Evolutionary Algorithms 373-387. [CrossRef]
125. Luciano Lamberti, Carmine PappalettereTruss Weight Minimization Using Hybrid Harmony Search and
Big BangBig Crunch Algorithms 207-240. [CrossRef]
126. Benot Descamps, Rajan Filomeno CoelhoGraph Theory in Evolutionary Truss Design Optimization
241-268. [CrossRef]
127. Amir Hossein Gandomi, Xin-She Yang, Siamak Talatahari, Amir Hossein AlaviMetaheuristic Algorithms
in Modeling and Optimization 1-24. [CrossRef]

128. Gholizadeh SaeedStructural Optimization for Frequency Constraints 389-417. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by RMIT University At 04:40 03 February 2016 (PT)

129. Alireza Azarbakht, Mehdi MousaviApplication of Genetic Algorithms in Ground Motion Selection for
Seismic Analysis 319-344. [CrossRef]
130. Emad E. ElbeltagiSwarm Intelligence for Large-Scale Optimization in Construction Management
479-495. [CrossRef]
131. Chara Ch. Mitropoulou, Yiannis Fourkiotis, Nikos D. Lagaros, Matthew G. KarlaftisEvolution StrategiesBased Metaheuristics in Structural Design Optimization 79-102. [CrossRef]
132. Xin-She Yang, Mehmet KaramanogluSwarm Intelligence and Bio-Inspired Computation 3-23. [CrossRef]
133. Gaige Wang, Lihong Guo, Amir Hossein Gandomi, Lihua Cao, Amir Hossein Alavi, Hong Duan,
Jiang Li. 2013. Lvy-Flight Krill Herd Algorithm. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2013, 1-14.
[CrossRef]
134. Jian Xie, Yongquan Zhou, Hongqing Zheng. 2013. A Hybrid Metaheuristic for Multiple Runways Aircraft
Landing Problem Based on Bat Algorithm. Journal of Applied Mathematics 2013, 1-8. [CrossRef]
135. Amir Hossein Gandomi, Amir Hossein Alavi. 2012. Krill herd: A new bio-inspired optimization
algorithm. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 17, 4831-4845. [CrossRef]
136. Xin-She Yang, Suash Deb, Mehmet Karamanoglu, Xingshi HeCuckoo search for business optimization
applications 1-5. [CrossRef]
137. Conclusions and Emerging Topics 238-265. [CrossRef]
138. Xin-She Yang, Suash DebCuckoo Search for Optimization and Computational Intelligence 133-142.
[CrossRef]
139. Gai-Ge Wang, Amir H. Gandomi, Amir H. Alavi, Yong-Quan DongA Hybrid Meta-Heuristic Method
Based on Firefly Algorithm and Krill Herd 505-524. [CrossRef]