Advertisement

Parameter tuning for a cooperative parallel implementation of process-network synthesis algorithms

  • Aniko BartosEmail author
  • Botond Bertok
Original Paper

Abstract

Process-network synthesis is the determination of the optimal network structure of a process system together with optimal configurations and capacities of the operating units incorporated into the system. The aim of developing more and more sophisticated solver algorithms is to find the optimum as fast as possible and increase the circle of practically solvable process synthesis problems. The P-graph framework can effectively reduce the number of structures to be examined and accelerate the computation searching for the optimum due to the exploitation of combinatorial characteristics of candidate solution structures. A cooperative parallel implementation of P-graph algorithms have been published recently to exploit the capabilities of multi-core and multiprocessor systems (Bartos and Bertok in De Gruyter Ser Logic Appl 1:303–313, 2015). The parallel implementation has increased performance significantly but this can be further improved by fine tuning the parameters of the parallel algorithm. Outcomes of experiments on parameter optimization are to be presented herein.

Keywords

Graph and tree search Parallel programming Process network synthesis P-graph Parameter tuning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This publication has been supported by the ÚNKP-17-3 (IV-PE-1) New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities. The authors acknowledge the financial support of Széchenyi 2020 under the EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00015.

References

  1. Aviso KB, Cayamanda CD, Solis FDB, Danga AMR, Promentilla MAB, Yu KDS, Santos JR, Tan RR (2015) P-graph approach for GDP-optimal allocation of resources, commodities and capital in economic systems under climate change-induced crisis conditions. J Clean Prod 92:308–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bader DA, Hart WE, Phillips CA (2005) Parallel algorithm design for branch and bound. Tutor Emerg Methodol Appl Oper Res 76:5-1Google Scholar
  3. Barreto L, Bauer M (2010) Parallel branch and bound algorithm—a comparison between serial, OpenMP and MPI implementations. J Phys Conf Ser 256(1):012018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartos A, Bertok B (2014) Analysis of search strategies for parallel implementation of a process-network synthesis solver. In: ASCONIKK 2014: extended abstracts I. Information technologies for logistic systems, pp 5–10Google Scholar
  5. Bartos A, Bertok B (2015) Synchronization and load distribution strategies for parallel implementations of P-graph optimizer. De Gruyter Ser Logic Appl 1:303–313Google Scholar
  6. Bernini R, Bondavalli A, Lollini P, Montecchi L (2016) Combining SAN and P-graphs for the analysis and optimization of industrial processes. In: 2016 12th European dependable computing conference (EDCC), pp 97–207Google Scholar
  7. Bertok B, Friedler F, Fan LT (1998) Random generation of test problems for process synthesis. In: Presented at the CHISA ’98 (13th international congress of chemical and process engineering), Praha, Czech Republic, August 23–28Google Scholar
  8. Bertok B, Barany M, Friedler F (2013) Generating and analyzing mathematical programming models of conceptual process design by p-graph software. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(1):166–171Google Scholar
  9. Bourbeau B, Crainic TG, Gendron B (2000) Branch-and-bound parallelization strategies applied to a depot location and container fleet management problem. Parallel Comput 26(1):27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cartis C, Fowkes JM, Gould NI (2015) Branching and bounding improvements for global optimization algorithms with Lipschitz continuity properties. J Glob Optim 61(3):429–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakroun I, Melab N (2013) Operator-level gpu-accelerated branch and bound algorithms. Proc Comput Sci 18:280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clausen J, Perregaard M (1999) On the best search strategy in parallel branch-and-bound: best-first search versus lazy depth-first search. Ann Oper Res 90:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crainic TG, Cun BL, Roucairol C (2006) Parallel branch-and-bound algorithms. Parallel Comb Optim 1:1–28Google Scholar
  14. Dastghaibifard G, Ansari E, Sheykhalishahi S, Bavandpouri A, Ashoor E (2008) A parallel branch and bound algorithm for vehicle routing problem. Lect Notes Eng Comput Sci 2:1891–1896Google Scholar
  15. Eckstein J (1997) Distributed versus centralized storage and control for parallel branch and bound: mixed integer programming on the CM-5. Comput Optim Appl 7(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evtushenko Y, Posypkin M, Sigal I (2009) A framework for parallel large-scale global optimization. Comput Sci Res Dev 23(3–4):211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fan LT, Bertok B, Friedler F, Shafie S (2001) Mechanisms of ammonia-synthesis reaction revisited with the aid of a novel graph-theoretic method for determining candidate mechanisms in deriving the rate law of a catalytic reaction. Hung J Ind Chem 29:71–80Google Scholar
  18. Friedler F, Tarjan K, Huang Y, Fan LT (1993) Graph-theoretic approach to process synthesis: polynomial algorithm for maximal structure generation. Comput Chem Eng 17:929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedler F, Varga J, Fan LT (1995) Decision-mapping: a tool for consistent and complete decisions in process synthesis. Chem Eng Sci 50:1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedler F, Varga J, Feher E, Fan LT (1996) Combinatorially accelerated branch-and-bound method for solving the MIP model of process network synthesis. In: State of the art in global optimization, pp 609–626Google Scholar
  21. García-Ojeda JC, Bertok B, Friedler F, Argoti A, Fan LT (2015) A preliminary study of the application of the P-graph methodology for organization-based multiagent system designs: assessment. Acta Polytech Hung 12(2):103–122Google Scholar
  22. Honig U, Schiffmann W (2004) A parallel branch and bound algorithm for computing optimal task graph schedules. In: International conference on grid and cooperative computing, pp 18–25Google Scholar
  23. Lam HL, Varbanov PS, Klemeš JJ (2010) Optimisation of regional energy supply chains utilising renewables: P-graph approach. Comput Chem Eng 34(5):782–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mezmaz M, Melab N, Tuyttens D (2013) A multithreaded branch-and-bound algorithm for solving the flow-shop problem on a multicore environment. In: Large scale network-centric distributed systems, pp 53–70Google Scholar
  25. Miller D, Pekny J (1989) Results from a parallel branch and bound algorithm for the asymmetric traveling salesman problem. Oper Res Lett 8(3):129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pruul EA, Nemhauser GL, Rushmeier RA (1988) Branch-and-bound and parallel computation: a historical note. Oper Res Lett 7(2):65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PannoniaVeszprémHungary

Personalised recommendations