2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.01.051
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mountain railway alignment optimization using stepwise & hybrid particle swarm optimization incorporating genetic operators

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The objective of the least‐cost alignment optimization problem is to find an alignment with the lowest comprehensive cost between start and end points (Jong & Schonfeld, 2003). The cost function used in this study is the same as in our previous publications (Li et al., 2016; Pu, Song, Schonfeld, Li, Zhang, Hu et al., 2019). It contains the following components: Construction cost, including costs spent on bridge construction ( C B ), tunnel construction ( C T ), earthwork construction ( C E ), length‐dependent construction ( C L ), and right‐of‐way expenses ( C R ). Operation cost, which is the sum of annual operating costs related to the deflection angles at HPI's ( C A ), to alignment length ( C M ) and to gradients ( C G ). …”
Section: Least‐cost Railway Alignment Optimization Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The objective of the least‐cost alignment optimization problem is to find an alignment with the lowest comprehensive cost between start and end points (Jong & Schonfeld, 2003). The cost function used in this study is the same as in our previous publications (Li et al., 2016; Pu, Song, Schonfeld, Li, Zhang, Hu et al., 2019). It contains the following components: Construction cost, including costs spent on bridge construction ( C B ), tunnel construction ( C T ), earthwork construction ( C E ), length‐dependent construction ( C L ), and right‐of‐way expenses ( C R ). Operation cost, which is the sum of annual operating costs related to the deflection angles at HPI's ( C A ), to alignment length ( C M ) and to gradients ( C G ). …”
Section: Least‐cost Railway Alignment Optimization Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The detailed mathematical formulations for computing the cost components in Equation () can be found in our earlier publications (Li et al., 2016; Pu, Song, Schonfeld, Li, Zhang, Hu et al., 2019) and are not duplicated here.…”
Section: Least‐cost Railway Alignment Optimization Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The usual goal of alignment optimization is to find an alignment with the lowest comprehensive cost between two given endpoints. In the literature, representative methods for optimizing alignments include particle swarm optimization (Shafahi & Bagherian, 2013;Babapour, Naghdi, Ghajar, & Mortazavi, 2018;Pu et al, 2019), two-stage method that combines global optimization methods with a gradient type algorithm (Vázquez-Méndez, Casal, Santamarina, & Castro, 2018), derivative-free algorithms (Mondal, Lucet, & Hare, 2015), discrete algorithms (Hirpa, Hare, Lucet, Pushak, & Tesfamariam, 2016;, dynamic programming (Hogan, 1973;Li, Pu, Zhao, & Liu, 2013), mixed integer programming (Easa & Mehmood, 2008), linear programming (Revelle, Whitlatch, & Wright, 1996;Chapra & Canale, 2006), network optimization (Trietsch, 1987a(Trietsch, , 1987b), heuristic neighborhood search with mixed integer programming (Cheng & Lee, 2006;Lee, Tsou, & Liu, 2009), calculus of variations (Howard, Bramnick, & Shaw, 1968), numerical search (Robinson, 1973), enumeration (Easa, 1988), average-end-area method for improving earthwork calculation accuracy from 2D to 3D (Cheng & Jiang, 2013), genetic algorithms (Maji & Jha, 2009, and distance transforms (DTs) (de Smith, 2006;Li et al, 2016;Li et al, 2017;Pu et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%