Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Review article

Metaheuristic optimization algorithms for real-world electrical and civil

engineering application: A review
Hegazy Rezk a, * , Abdul Ghani Olabi b , Tabbi Wilberforce c , Enas Taha Sayed d
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering in Wadi Alddawasir, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
b
Sustainable Energy & Power Systems Research Centre, RISE, University of Sharjah, P.O. Box 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
c
Faculty of Natural, Mathematical and Engineering Sciences, Kings College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK
d
Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, Elminia, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Metaheuristic optimization algorithms (MOAs) are gaining increasing interest because of their exceptional
Metaheuristic optimization algorithms effectiveness in addressing many optimization issues. Nevertheless, these algorithms often face difficulties when
Civil engineering used to solve real-world problems, necessitating further evaluation of these algorithms that are used to solve real-
Electrical engineering
world problems. In addition, there is currently no established standard for evaluating algorithmic performance.
MOAs successfully address engineering challenges due to their inherent complexity and multidimensional
character. Several studies have explored the use of these algorithms to tackle electrical and civil engineering
problems, highlighting their practical importance. This study thoroughly examined the most recent papers on
electrical and civil engineering topics, specifically focusing on the extraction of parameters and optimization of
models.

1. Introduction independently without using the gradient method, thereby passing

several drawbacks associated with gradient-based algorithms, precisely
Optimization is a branch of computer science and mathematics the local solutions escaping. The development of models of real-world
investigating methods and strategies for locating the optimal solution to optimization problems and a successful solution to these problems
a given optimization problem. Minimizing or maximizing one or more through MOAs have prompted many research studies in recent years [3,
objective functions with dependent optimization variables, which may 4]. Despite extensive progress in their development and implementa­
be real or integer values, is required to solve such problems [1]. Con­ tion, researchers still face significant challenges in verifying their per­
ventional optimization techniques, such as linear programming (LP) [2], formance due to the stochastic nature of the solving methods.
nonlinear programming (NLP) [3], and dynamic programming (DP) [4], Furthermore, because of the random initialization, the statistical sig­
encounter notable drawbacks. These include difficulties in avoiding nificance of the results they have reported is frequently called into doubt
local solutions, the likelihood of divergence, the complexity of [5]. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research on these algorithms to
constraint handling, and computational difficulties when calculating ensure scientific rigor, value, and contribution.
derivatives of the first or second order. Metaheuristic optimization al­ The Genetic Algorithm (GA) is the first introduced MOA in the
gorithms (MOAs), which frequently derive their basis from empirically literature [6]. This algorithm comprises three processes: mutation, se­
inspired, are rising as an alternative to conventional algorithms. The lection, and recombination. Mutation alters the solution using stochastic
behavior of living organisms or natural phenomena may serve as sources terms, whereas selection chooses parent solutions to generate offspring
of inspiration. These algorithms are adaptable and can be modified, solutions. Recombination is the determining factor in the formation of
combined, or altered to suit the specific problem. For instance, the sta­ progeny solutions. The algorithms and research have been described
bility of the power system could be resolved by combining three algo­ using biological terms that have been adapted, drawing inspiration from
rithms [2]. A heuristic is any problem-solving strategy that utilizes a genetic studies. Differential Evolution (DE) is a highly effective algo­
practical method whose attainment is not assured to be the optimal rithm that mutates the initial solution of a population of three in­
solution. These algorithms share a common characteristic: they operate dividuals in accordance with the difference between the second and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Rezk), [email protected] (T. Wilberforce).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102437
Received 14 April 2024; Received in revised form 8 June 2024; Accepted 17 June 2024
Available online 17 June 2024
2590-1230/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

third solutions [7]. DE makes the mutation happen by adding up the first Fig. 1 shows the categorization of these algorithms. This diagram
base element and a scaling factor, which is usually shown as the dif­ depicts the categorization based on the number of solutions above the
ference in weight between the second and third solutions. If the random dashed red line and the source of inspiration below it.
value exceeds the crossover rate in some implementations, the fittest Researchers have created and implemented numerous MOAs in the
individual is used as the base individual. Various extended versions of last few years to address various challenges, with some demonstrating
DE with adaptive parameters have been established and published. exceptional efficacy. This subject’s increasing focus has led to a
Self-adaptive DE (SADE) is the earlier extended version of the DE that remarkable proliferation of pertinent published materials, typically
performed well with several benchmark tests due to its self-adaption dedicated to adapting, enhancing, and evaluating numerous methods
feature based on learning from previous experiences [8]. Linearly suc­ previously documented in the specialized literature. However, the ex­
cessful history-based adaptive DE (L-SHADE) is one of the most istence and creation of new MOAs resulted in some problems. New al­
well-known MOAs [9]. The population exhibits adaptation in conjunc­ gorithms raise questions about the need for new ones that seem similar
tion with the two additional critical parameters, namely Cr and F. to previous ones [16]. In addition, researchers frequently evaluate the
Opposition-based mutation is proposed in variants like partial proposed algorithms on benchmarking tests when comparing them to
opposition-based learning-based adaptive differential evolution algo­ traditional or representative metaheuristics. However, this approach
rithm (POBL-ADE) [10], which focuses less on parameter adaptation. often leads to unreliable findings and challenges real-world deployment.
The combination of partial opposition learning and adaptive DE seems To this end, this work proposed a comprehensive review of the
synergistic when tested on varying-dimensional problems. Particle application of MAPs to real-world optimization problems. The primary
Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a basic MOA that has undergone numerous objective of this paper is to provide researchers with a framework for
iterations to avoid early convergence toward local solutions [11]. MOAs conducting applicable studies that are considered valid for real-world
are commonly classified, such as evolutionary algorithms (EA) and use while being fair, accurate, and shareable.
swarm intelligence (SI); however, the increase in their number and the
variation in the inspiration sources made these classifications larger to 2. Solving methodology using MOAs
include novel definitions.
For a metaheuristic algorithm to obtain the global optimal solution, Solving various problems using intelligent methods based on meta­
it must be able to explore and exploit. Their primary attributes include heuristics has garnered considerable interest owing to the problem’s
the capacity to rapidly traverse vast search spaces, identify global so­ computational intricacy and practical applicability. But, before that,
lutions, and avoid becoming mired in local optimums. The ability to several steps should be taken. The main steps are illustrated in Fig. 2.
expand the search space is referred to as exploration, while the ability to
identify the optimal solution from the adjacent solutions is called • Identifying the problem and recognizing its nature initiate the
exploitation. Existing algorithms differ primarily in their efforts to bal­ research process, which commences with the conceptual definition
ance exploration and exploitation. Population-based and trajectory- of the problem and the analysis and definition of functional and non-
based algorithms comprise the two primary classifications of meta­ functional requirements. When defining functional requirements,
heuristic optimization algorithms. The ’No Free Lunch’ theorem (NFL) which are crucial for optimizing a system or product, it is necessary
states that there is no ultimate algorithm, meaning that the average to specify the objective function to be optimized and its equality and
performance of any algorithm on all known benchmark problems is the inequality constraints [17]. Regarding non-functional requirements,
same [12]. This means that simple algorithms will perform averagely there is no universal consensus. The non-functional requirements
even when compared to highly sophisticated algorithms that perform encompass the overall attributes of the system, including but not
exceptionally well in benchmark functions. This promotes the creation limited to portability, dependability, efficiency, human engineering,
of more and more MOAs. The MOAs can be categorized into the four testability, understandability, and modifiability [18]. These objec­
following groups based on the source of inspiration. tives are critical in determining the most suitable solution approach
and may necessitate a complete research redesign, which incurs
• Inspired by biological evolution, evolutionary algorithms incorpo­ significant financial and temporal investments. After the initial
rate mechanisms such as genetic recombination, natural selection, conceptual phase is completed, an examination of the scientific
and mutation. literature and the literature will be conducted to establish suitable
• Swarm-based algorithms leverage the collaborative actions of a large baseline references related to the defined functional requirements is
number of individuals. Every individual desires to interact with required. The research findings must include all non-functional re­
others to grow and progress in light of the collective knowledge of quirements. There is a potential for new non-functional goals, which
the swarm. would need re-analyzing the problem to address all the newly formed
• Principles of physics inform algorithms; for instance, gravity, mo­ requirements.
mentum, and electromagnetism are all physical concepts.
• Algorithms that are human-based are those that learn from human • Problem mathematical modeling and formulation: based on the de­
social behavior. signer’s experiences, the behavior of the studied problem should be
mathematically modeled. The model will reproduce the system’s
In addition, the MOAs have two classifications according to the behavior using the candidate solutions generated by the optimizer.
number of solutions implemented in each algorithmic step [4].

• Trajectory-based algorithms, such as hill climbing algorithm (HCA)

[13], simulated annealing algorithm (SAA) [14], and tabu search
algorithm (TSA) [15], follow an iterative process where they replace
a single solution at each iteration with a nearby solution that is
considered superior.
• Population-based algorithms utilize a collection of potential solu­
tions to accomplish a given mission. After randomly initializing the
population, it improves the solutions iteratively. Following each
iteration, the current generation transfers the best candidate solu­
tions to the next generation. Fig. 1. Metaheuristic optimization classifications.

2
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

where.

- Random initialization: an initial set of potential solutions is gener­

ated randomly.
- Selection: after evaluating a previously generated population with a
fitness function, the algorithm generates a new population by
selecting a subset using selection techniques such as crossover and
mutation. The selection technique influences the convergence and
pace of the algorithm to identify the most appropriate solutions for
the subsequent generation of solutions.
- Crossover: new chromosomes are generated via the crossover oper­
ator by fusing DNA from pre-existing chromosomes that have been
Fig. 2. Main steps for resolving optimization issues using MOAs.
selected using selection techniques. Diverse techniques, including
uniform, single/multi-point, and partially mapped crossover, pro­
The modeling should include the physical limits represented by the duce a progeny chromosome that exhibits superiority over its
quality and equality constraints. progenitors.
• Algorithmic design and implementation: after modeling the system, - Mutation: the mutation operator is implemented to permit stochastic
the MOA will be adopted with the model based on the application modifications in pre-existing chromosomes, thereby averting pre­
nature, whether online or offline optimization. The MOA will then mature convergence and traversing the search space by considering
send the candidate solutions and use the model’s outcomes to eval­ genes absent from the initial population.
uate the objective function and update these solutions based on the
best-obtained solution at the previous iteration. As evolutionary optimization methods, GAs perform better than
• Evaluation of performance: After establishing the optimization conventional gradient descent algorithms when applied to non-convex,
method, it is necessary to examine its performance. This phase is non-linear, discrete, and multi-modal problems. Nevertheless, they
crucial in addressing optimization problems, and the capacity to cannot ensure convergence towards the global optimum, and the process
replicate and maintain consistency in the study relies heavily on the may require some time. An adequate number of iterations and a sizable
effective execution of this stage. Therefore, some post-tests, population are essential for attaining satisfactory outcomes. As it directs
including statistical analysis, are required. Moreover, when the al­ the entire optimization procedure, the design of the fitness function is
gorithms have undergone testing on the theoretical issue, they critical; erroneous designs can result in ineffective solutions [19].
should be implemented in an actual context.
3.2. Particle swarm optimization (PSO)
3. Review of several MOAs
The fundamental concept underlying this algorithm originates from
3.1. Genetic algorithm (GA) the social behavior exhibited by birds, which endows them with the
critical ability to locate a suitable landing site. As with other introduced
These types of algorithms are based on the principle of natural se­ algorithms, only the primary version of PSO is discussed in this article,
lection. Ultimately, advantageous chromosomes (solutions) will either as it is the foundational version, and everyone should first study it to
supersede or coexist with their predecessors. Beneficial chromosomes comprehend new PSO derivations. Motivated by the concept of swarm
are produced by mutation of one or more genes on pre-existing chro­ intelligence, this metaheuristic approach can resolve intricate mathe­
mosomes before they are transmitted from parents to offspring. The matical challenges encountered in engineering applications. The PSO
standard GA main steps are illustrated in Fig. 3. algorithm is founded upon flock behavior, which entails a flock of birds
selecting an appropriate landing site. Numerous factors, including
minimizing predation risk, maximizing sustenance availability, and
maximizing survival opportunities, contribute to the complexity of this
decision. The flock’s motion resembles a symphonious dance, with every
bird taking flight together until the optimal landing site is identified; at
this point, the entire swarm descends simultaneously. If not, all mem­
bers can exchange information, this movement would not occur;
otherwise, each bird would land asynchronously at a distinct location.
Each avian achieves a balance between local and global knowledge by
simultaneously assessing the character of a location. Until the entire
flock knows it, everyone recognizes the optimal detected location. The
main steps of conventional PSO are illustrated in Fig. 4.
The benefits of PSO include refining, simplicity, and fewer parame­
ters [20]. However, it has drawbacks, such as a decrease in particle
velocity and convergence to the optimal result. Numerous improved
iterations of PSO are available, emphasizing the optimal global location
that each swarm member computes [21].

3.3. Artificial bee colony (ABC)

The methodology is founded on bees’ communication and foraging

patterns within a hive [22]. The quantity of nectar in the hive dictates
the quality of the solution. Three groups comprise the ABC algorithm:
scouts, employees, and onlookers. The scouts identify food sources,
Fig. 3. Main steps of the GA. whereas the employees evaluate their quality. By observing employees,

3
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

3.4. Ant colony optimization (ACO)

This algorithm was inspired by an actual ant colony, where worker

ants are randomly assigned to find food [25]. Traces of pheromone, an
odoriferous, colored liquid, are left behind by these ants. These ants
return to their nest upon locating sustenance, reinforcing the pheromone
trail on their way back. Because a pheromone trace is absent, ants
initially choose a single path for sustenance. Nevertheless, shortened
routes gain reinforcement as time passes, enticing every ant to follow
routes that contain more pheromone traces. Consequently, the colony
rapidly identifies food sources, with most worker ants opting for the
most efficient routes. Evolutionary algorithms, such as ACO, preserve
the opportunity to investigate the search space by incorporating a de­
gree of randomness. Artificial ants in ACO traverse the solution space in
each iteration by employing a stochastic method skewed toward the
pheromone variable at each edge. The procedure does not repeat arti­
ficial ant node visits until it concludes. The ACO flowchart is illustrated
in Fig. 6.
ACO can combine with other appropriate search methods to address
specific issues. It can regulate the values of hyperparameters across it­
erations [26]. Similar issues plague ACO as they do genetic algorithms,
but it can be effective when sufficient computing power and time are
Fig. 4. Main steps of the PSO. available. Convergence and completion necessitate a sufficient number
of iterations, while the implementation and execution of the algorithm
the onlookers discuss inspected food sources and make comparisons may prove intricate, mainly when the overall search approach is com­
with adjacent sources. Scouts may uncover novel solutions that can plex [21].
supplant existing ones. The ABC flowchart is illustrated in Fig. 5.
In constructing the ABC algorithm, a swarm intelligence method,
numerous concepts, including inter-bee communication and neighbor­ 3.5. Salp swarm algorithm (SSA)
hood search simulations, were incorporated. An enhanced iteration
employs swap sequences to rectify shortcomings in the traveling As a member of the Salpidae family, salps have jellyfish-like tissues
salesman model, attaining comparable performance to alternative ap­ and a transparent barrel-shaped body. They propel themselves, analo­
proaches [23,24]. However, the lack of practical experiments demon­ gous to jellyfish, by expelling water through their bodies. Biological
strating its effectiveness severely hinders the algorithm’s applicability in research on salps is still being developed due to the challenging labo­
the real world. While it is applicable in certain domains, its breadth of ratory conditions and living environments. A noteworthy characteristic
use is not as extensive as that of other algorithms. Researchers should is their swarming behavior, which manifests as salp chains in the ocean’s
acquaint themselves with the algorithm’s characteristics pertaining to depths. Researchers hypothesize that this facilitates foraging and rapid,
particular applications to potentially enhance the likelihood of attaining coordinated changes that improve locomotion. The Salp Swarm Algo­
exceptional outcomes. Similar to numerous swarm intelligence methods, rithm (SSA) aims to solve optimization problems by imitating salps [27].
the ABC algorithm may constrain process speed [21]. Its flowchart is presented in Fig. 7.
Two categories comprise the SSA population: leaders and followers.
The others follow the leader, represented by the salp at the front of the

Fig. 5. Main steps of the ABC. Fig. 6. Main steps of the ACO.

4
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

Fig. 7. Main steps of the SSA. Fig. 8. Main steps of the GWO.

chain. Under the leader’s direction, the swarm’s adherents follow one problems. The classification of the considered problems is illustrated in
another. The swarm’s objective within the search space is presumed to Fig. 9.
be a sustenance source (food position).
4.1. Electrical engineering applications
3.6. Grey wolf optimization (GWO)
Through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the support
of renewable energy sources, power systems are vital to the promotion
As members of the Canidae family, grey wolves occupy the highest
of environmental sustainability. An intriguing subject is the optimiza­
echelons of the food chain as apex predators. They favor groups of five to
tion of modern power systems through the use of metaheuristics. This
twelve members and maintain a strict socially dominant hierarchy. Male
part examines the suitability of various metaheuristic optimization al­
and female alphas (α) hold leadership positions and determine matters
gorithms for addressing challenges encountered in power systems.
about hunting, resting, and waking hours. While not inherently the
strongest, they excel at group management. As subordinate canines,
4.1.1. Electric vehicle charging scheduling
betas (β) assist the alpha with pack activities and decision-making. The
The environmental ramifications associated with carbon emissions
omega (ω), the lowest-ranking wolf, must consent to all dominant
have generated an increasing interest in electric vehicle (EV) technolo­
wolves as the scapegoat. A wolf that does not rank as an α, β, or ω is
gies in recent decades [29]. EVs decrease reliance on gasoline and can
referred to as a subordinate. The wolf pack also comprises custodians,
produce electricity from diverse sources, including renewable energy
sentinels, elders, hunters, and scouts. Elders are seasoned wolves, while
[30]. In addition to moderating network power and serving as auxiliary
scouts monitor territory boundaries, sentinels safeguard the pack,
energy storage, they can contribute to energy efficiency. Numerous
hunters assist in the pursuit of prey and provide sustenance, and at­
facets of EVs have been the subject of research, including
tendants tend to the needs of frail, ailing, or wounded wolves. Grey wolf
energy-efficient routing [31], vehicle-to-grid (V2G) scheduling [32],
group hunting is another noteworthy social behavior. The Grey Wolf
and comfortable driving strategies [33]. However, lengthy battery
Optimizer (GWO) is an algorithm for population-based meta-heuristics
charging periods can cause grid saturation when large fleets are used
that replicates grey wolves’ natural foraging mechanism and leadership
[34]. EV technology faces challenges in developing intelligent charging
structure [28]. The GWO mainly includes three phases: encircling,
systems to manage peak demand and minimize consumption, and
hunting, and attacking the prey. These phases are guided by control
determining a schedule that maximizes user satisfaction while
factors: a, A, and C. The organigramme of the GWO steps is illustrated in
Fig. 8.

4. Application of MOAs for solving engineering problem

optimization

The MOAs have been used to address the problems of various fields
of engendering applications, including electrical engineering, civil en­
gineering, medical applications, and so on. This part investigates the
performance of the MOAs’ solutions for different real-world engineering Fig. 9. Classification of the considered engineering problems.

5
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

minimizing expenses is difficult due to the physical limitations of However, their prohibitive price, primarily attributable to the expense
charging stations or insufficient energy availability. The charging sta­ of the catalyst, poses a substantial barrier to their commercialization. In
tion is inside a restricted parking zone, where each customer is allocated order to enhance the efficacy of PEMFCs, a precise and dependable
a parking spot [35]. The device has a three-phase power supply and a mathematical model is required. Interconnected nonlinear differential
charging port connected to a single-phase power source. The charging equations represent PEMFC mathematically, characterizing the chemi­
schedule for automobiles must consider limitations such as restricted cal reactions occurring within the fuel cell generating system. None­
contractual power, equitable power use, and user possession of parking theless, determining precise values for these parameters enhances the
places. Furthermore, the charging process is non-disruptible, posing computational efficacy of the mathematical model. In order to develop a
challenges in managing imbalances by freely allocating cars between precise simulation and an effective model for analyzing the character­
different lines. Further information on charging station limitations may istics of FC energy systems, it is critical to extract unknown parameters
be found in Ref. [35]. The real-world issue of the timing of vehicle ar­ immediately. In fuel cell models, meta-heuristic optimization algorithms
rivals and charging is subject to change, but studying the static form of (MA) are the most desirable and efficient option for the optimal
this problem is equally valuable for enhancing the dynamic solution and extraction of empirical parameters. In the literature, various MOAs have
generating efficient ideas. This work will examine both variations, been used to extract these empirical parameters. The parameters of a
providing the issue formulation described in Ref. [36]. Two objective PEMFC were extracted using the genetic algorithm (GA) [47,48]; how­
functions are minimized to optimize the EV charging stations: the total ever, its efficacy is constrained by its low efficiency and reliance on
cost of energy purchase in a multi-tariff pricing environment and the initial variables. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is widely regarded
total energy losses over the charging duration of the grid. as a highly efficient and dependable parameter extraction method
MOAs have been used widely to solve problems related to EV involving uncertain factors [49,50]. Recent optimization techniques
charging stations problem. An improved PSO has been used in Ref. [37] have demonstrated enhanced efficacy in the face of computational
to solve optimal power flow (OPF) related to EV charging stations [38]. complexity. Table 1 summarizers a set of recently published papers in
has implemented the gravitational search algorithm (GSA) to generate Scopus in this context.
large-scale and real-time power allocation optimizations. In Ref. [39], it
is described how optimal recharge of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in 4.1.3. Parameter extraction of lithium-ion batteries (LiBs)
distribution power systems is accomplished using artificial immune Sustainable energy supply is becoming increasingly popular due to
systems. Authors in Ref. [40] propose an Estimation of Distribution the scarcity of non-renewable resources [64]. Zero-emission technolo­
Algorithm based on computational intelligence for the optimal man­ gies like solar, wind, wave energy, and energy storage devices are being
agement of a large number of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) implemented to improve the efficiency of electrical power systems [65].
and Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs) charging at a municipal parking Lithium-ion batteries (LiBs) are considered efficient energy storage units
station. Authors in Ref. [41] proposed a real-time charging coordination due to their high energy density, lightweight design, long lifespan, good
of plug-in electric vehicles based on hybrid fuzzy discrete particle swarm performance, temperature tolerance, low self-discharge rate, fast
optimization. In addition, Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Pro­ charge, and customizable technology [66]. Integrating LiBs into power
cedure (GRASP) and Variable Neighborhood Search (VNS) algorithms grids raises concerns despite their wide use in electric and hybrid ve­
have been used in Ref. [42] to address several problems related to the hicles. Accurate LiB models are crucial for dynamic analyses, as they
PEV problems. In Ref. [43], the charging management structure is based significantly impact numerical result accuracy, affecting electric vehicle
on swarm intelligence, and alongside the development of the EV modeling integration into power grids and smart grids. Addressing these
charging capacity model, it is optimized based on an Ant-Based Swarm.
Table 1
4.1.2. Parameter extraction of proton exchange membrane fuel cell A set of MOAs for PEMFC identification.
(PEMFC)
Refe Year PEMFC type Employed algorithm
Fuel cells (FCs) are an energy-efficient generation system that con­
verts oxygen and hydrogen into electrical energy while emitting harm­ [51] 2017 Ballard V5 kW, SR-12 PEM 500 Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO)
W, BCS 500 W, and Temasek 1
less byproducts. In contrast to water electrolyzers, these devices utilize
kW
electrodes to separate hydrogen from oxygen, thereby generating an [52] 2018 NedStack PS6 6 kW and BCS 500- Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA)
electric current through the interaction of hydrogen with oxygen [44]. W PEM stack
FCs operate with exceptional precision and immunity to noise due to [53] 2020 NedStack PS6 6 kW and 500-W Chaos Owl Search Algorithm
their lack of mobile components. Hydrogen and oxygen fuels generate Horizon PEMFC (COSA),
[54] 2020 BCS 500W and SR-12 PEM 500 W Marin predator Algorithm
water and energy in FCs during the process. Combining hydrogen and
(MPA),
oxygen gases to form water transforms their high-energy states into a [55] 2020 BCS 500-W and NedStack PS6 improved Fluid Search
low-energy state. This energy is capable of doing both heat and elec­ Optimization Algorithm
tricity [45]. Fuel cells (FCs) have extensive applications across diverse (IFSO)
sectors, including residential electricity provision and the propulsion of [56] 2020 BCS-500W, SR-12 500W, 250W, modified Artificial Eco-system
and Temasek 1 kW. Optimization (mAEO)
automobiles, buses, trains, and trucks. The FC system comprises four [57] 2021 250W PEMFC and BCS 500W enhanced Archimedes
main components: anode, cathode, catalyst, and electrolyte. The anode Optimization Algorithm
transfers free electrons from hydrogen molecules to the external circuit, (eAOA),
while the cathode disperses oxygen across the catalyst’s surface [46]. [58] 2021 50 W PEMFC, NedStack PS6 6 LSHADE-EpSin
kW, BCS 500 W, and SR-12500
Catalysts are chemical substances that enhance the rate of a chemical
W.
reaction involving oxygen and hydrogen. In contrast, electrolytes func­ [59] 2021 Ballard Mark V, Horizon H-12, Adaptive Sparrow Search
tion as proton exchange membranes, transporting charged ions. A wide and NedStack PS6 Algorithm (ASSA)
range of fuel cells (FCs) are currently accessible, such as microbial fuel [60] 2022 NedStack PS6 and SR-12 500 W modified Artificial Electric
cells (MFC), proton exchange membranes (PEMFC), alkaline (AFC), Field Algorithm (mAEFA)
[61] 2022 250 W FC stack, BCS 500 W, and Gradient-Based Optimizer
molten carbonate (MCC), and solid oxide (SOFC). PEMFCs have a low SR-12 500 W (GBO),
operating temperature, an extended service life, an instantaneous initi­ [62] 2022 Avista SR – 12 PEM Artificial Eco-system
ation, a high-power density, a reduced propensity for corrosion, and a Optimization (AEO)
straightforward design. They are highly recommended in the automo­ [63] 2023 BCS 500 W and NedStack PS6 Balde Eagle Search Algorithm
(BES)
tive, residential, distributed generation, and electronic sectors.

6
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

issues is essential for the future of sustainable energy supply. To ensure instrument for addressing this challenge. Authors in Ref. [91] utilized
the safe operation and control of LiBs, the LiB model is an indispensable discrete design variables in conjunction with the rank-based ant system
instrument for identifying battery parameters such as internal resis­ (RBAS) to reduce the weight of truss structures. Designed
tance, polarization branches, and open-circuit voltage [67]. However, minimum-weight structures utilizing ABC and factors such as stress,
precisely determining these parameters is difficult due to their nonlinear fracturing, and nodal displacement have been proposed in Ref. [92].
characteristics and the intricate electrochemical analysis of LiBs [68]. Despite its consistent effectiveness, ABC exhibited a comparatively
Various MOAs have been used to extract the parameters of LiB models. sluggish CPU time compared to alternative methods. In Ref. [93],
Different types of these methods are reported in the literature, including optimized trusses utilizing the mine blast algorithm (MBA), which
PSO [69,70], adaptive PSO [71], genetic algorithm [72], dual adaptive exhibited satisfactory results in rapid convergence and minimal
ADS. Table 2 summarizers a set of recently published papers in Scopus in computational expense. To determine the optimal shapes and sizes for
this context. truss structures, the authors of [94] utilized the firefly algorithm (FA)
and harmony search (HS). HS produced solutions in less time, whereas
FA produced more optimal designs. The cuckoo search (CS) algorithm
4.2. Civil engineering applications
was employed in Ref. [95] to optimize trusses, surpassing the perfor­
mance of alternative algorithms, including GA, PSO, HS, SA, SLP, AL,
Given the intricate nature of civil engineering problems, various
GP, and CP. Authors in Ref. [96] demonstrated the efficacy of a modified
endeavors have been undertaken in distinct sub-fields, including struc­
multi-stage PSO (MSPSO) in the context of truss problems. Authors of
tural engineering, geotechnical engineering, transportation, and water
[97] approached the optimization of trusses in 2015, emphasizing
resource engineering [90]. MOAs are attracting interest in civil engi­
optimizing both the dimensions and topology. They implemented
neering research because of their capacity to address continuous,
colliding body optimization (CBO) for four numerical case studies,
discrete, and combinatorial optimization issues and ease of imple­
which produced superior results to earlier algorithms such as GA, FA,
mentation. These algorithms are versatile and may be used for many
and CSS. Optimized size, shape, and topology using search group algo­
problems. They do not rely on continuous or differentiable objective
rithms (SGA) with discrete design variables have been reported in
functions and can handle restrictions. Furthermore, they can search
Ref. [98]. The authors in Ref. [99] used water cycle algorithms (WCA)
across vast solution spaces and can be parallelized. An illustration of the
and enhanced MBA (IMBA) to improve discrete dimensions in
considered problems is presented in Fig. 10.
large-scale truss structures, showing that IMBA and WCA were not as
good as IMBA and MBA. By utilizing the flower pollination algorithm
4.2.1. Structural design optimization problems
(FPA) to optimize size, authors of [100] achieved results comparable to
The purpose of this part is to evaluate MOAs’ effectiveness in
those of other algorithms. In truss optimization [101], introduced
designing three-dimensional steel structures with single and multiple
guided and hybrid iterations of ADS, MBB-BC, and EBB-BC that adhere
objectives. The focus is on skeletal truss structures under static loading
to the regulations of ASC-LRFD. The study determined that the guided
conditions and sizing design optimization, which involves utilizing the
hybrid method (GADS-EBB) outperformed the other proposed tech­
cross-sectional dimensions of structural elements as variables.
niques. The impact of seeding an initial population with three meta­
heuristic algorithms—ADS, modified BB-BC (MBB-BC), and exponential
4.2.1.1. Truss optimization. In civil engineering, designing truss struc­
BB-BC—on the solution of truss structures was investigated in
tures is a critical and challenging undertaking. Scholars have investi­
Ref. [102]. Three methods were used to feed the initial population:
gated many facets, including minimizing weight, size, shape, and
random, feasible-generated solutions, and the highest feasible solution.
topology. The structure’s natural frequency, stresses, slenderness ratios,
The findings validated the notion that seeding an initial population can
and deflections determine the design procedures. Researchers have
rapidly reduce the impracticability of solutions during their nascent
conducted numerous investigations to identify the most effective
stages. Optimization algorithms focused on mutation-based modifica­
tions for soling five benchmark problems that involved displacement,
Table 2 kinematic stability, and stresses by adding mutations to TLBO, HTS,
A set of MOAs for LiBs identification.
WWO, and PVS, have been introduced in Ref. [103]. According to the
Ref Year Used model Used MOA study, mutations substantially improved the efficacy of these algo­
[73] 2012 Doyle-Fuller-Newman Genetic Algorithm (GA) rithms. Also, the modified grey wolf optimizer (IGWO) is utilized to
(DFN) model design truss structures with the lowest possible weight.
[74] 2016 Equivalent circuit model Ageist Spider Monkey Optimization
(ECM) (ASMO)
[75] 2016 Electrochemical model Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
4.2.1.2. Frame optimization. The complexity of steel frame structure
(EM) design in civil engineering is attributable to the multitude of design
[76] 2019 ECM Whale Optimization Algorithm variables and constraints involved. Reducing the weight of steel can
(WOA) result in substantial cost savings for construction projects. Recently,
[77] 2019 EM Harmony Search (HS)
metaheuristics have assisted in the efficient completion of this chal­
[78] 2020 ECM Hybrid Simulated Annealing PSO
(PSO-SA) lenging undertaking. Authors in Ref. [104] implemented the adaptive
[79] 2020 Tremblay’s model (TM) Gravity Search Algorithm (GSA) HS algorithm by the American Institute of Steel Construction-Allowable
[80] 2020 ECM Evolutionary-PSO (E-PSO) Strength Design (AISC-ASD) code to perform discrete optimization of
[81] 2021 Shepherd model (SM) Artificial Eco-system Optimization steel frames. The methodology was evaluated using two numerical case
(AEO),
[82] 2021 SM Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA)
studies applying wind and gravity loads. ADS exhibited markedly su­
[83] 2022 EM Artificial Neural Network with perior performance compared to alternative algorithms and the initial
Genetic Algorithm (ANN-GA) HS algorithm. In their optimization of steel frame design, the authors of
[84] 2022 SM modified Coot Algorithm (mCOOT) [105] employed metaheuristic algorithms with the primary objective of
[85] 2022 SM Balde Eagle Search Algorithm (BES)
removing superfluous analyses. The researchers implemented MBB-BC
[86] 2022 SM modified Balde Eagle Search
Algorithm (mBES) and EBB-BC, enhanced iterations of the BB-BC algorithm, alongside
[87] 2022 EM WOA AISC-LRFD regulations. Two numerical case studies confirmed the
[88] 2022 ECM Golden Eagle Optimization (GEO) methodology’s effectiveness in computationally intensive problems.
[89] 2022 TM hybrid Manta ray foraging These studies yielded substantial time savings for structural analyses of
optimization and PSO (MRFO-PSO)

7
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

Fig. 10. Presentation of the considered civil engineering problems.

1026-member and 135-member structures, respectively, without The researchers determined that JALS2 and JALS were the most pro­
impeding optimization algorithms’ exploration and exploitation capa­ ductive. Using the CBO algorithm, ref [115] optimized the design of a
bilities. Authors in Ref. [106] achieved superior results in their layout garment-supporting structure for offshore wind turbines. The model
optimization of braces in steel frames using dolphin echolocation opti­ accounted for ten elements’ weight, diameter, and thickness. A numer­
mization (DEO) and DE, as opposed to GA, ACO, PSO, and BB-BC. An ical case study involving aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads vali­
implemented modified DEO (MDEO) for step locations utilizing dated the model. This study emphasizes the efficacy of optimization
one-dimensional Gauss chaotic maps, lighter designs, and improved algorithms in addressing intricate challenges within the field of civil
performance has been proposed in Ref. [107]. Both algorithms were engineering.
evaluated compared to prior numerical instances and were founded on
AISC-ASD. Using SAP2000 and AISC-LRFD regulations, an optimized 4.2.2. Geotechnical engineering optimization problems
steel structure that considers soil-structure interaction has been sug­ Civil engineering encounters difficulties when confronted with
gested in Ref. [108]. They discovered that interaction between soil and geotechnical engineering issues, as their extensive utilization in con­
construction resulted in heavier designs, particularly for more robust struction endeavors generates discussions. Optimization, a subfield of
columns. In Ref. [109], a combined ABC and lift-flight distribution artificial intelligence, has demonstrated efficacy in addressing these
(LFABC) method to treat steel space frames is used. This method pro­ challenges.
duced better results with lower weights and faster convergence rates.
Authors of [110] utilized a massless foundation and seismic time-history 4.2.2.1. Slope stability analysis. In recent decades, the issue of identi­
analysis to determine the optimal design of steel-braced framed struc­ fying the critical failure surface on soil slopes has been the focus of an
tures with dynamic soil-structure interaction. They performed optimi­ extensive body of research. Researchers have implemented optimization
zation using the BB-BC algorithm and considered two frames, one with algorithms to tackle this issue. Authors in Ref. [116] identified the most
five stories and the other with ten levels, for numerical simulations. critical failure surface in soil slopes, utilizing the ABC algorithm and the
Spencer method to calculate the safety factor. Ref [117] solved slope
4.2.1.3. Miscellaneous structural optimization. Scientists are currently stability analysis using MPSO, considering the non-circular slip surface
investigating a range of optimization algorithms to tackle the intricate and the Spencer method. Using mutative scale chaos optimization
characteristics of civil engineering issues, specifically focusing on (MSCO) [118], found the most critical slip surface. In several situations,
structural and earthquake engineering. The potential of these sub­ they have a safety factor close to the minimum-security element. The
disciplines of civil engineering to optimize substantial real-world authors in Refs. [119,120] looked at four swarm intelligence-based ap­
structures and structural components to facilitate their efficient use in proaches to solving slope stability issues and found that the
various applications has garnered considerable interest. Using the BAT Morgestern-Price method for the non-circular slip surface worked best.
algorithm, ref [111] investigated the optimal positioning of steel plate They investigated how the efficacy of the CS algorithm is affected by the
shear walls in frameworks. Their research endeavored to determine the boundary constraint handling (BCH) method. The authors analyzed
optimal configuration of shear walls and frame dimensions. The objec­ slope stability issues and compared two distinct BCH schemes. They also
tive function aimed to minimize the structure’s weight by considering its optimized two-dimensional soil slopes with nonlinear slip surfaces by
elements’ cross-section and web plate thickness. The findings demon­ employing evolutionary-based techniques and utilizing the Spencer
strated that optimal placement produced lighter designs than GA and method to calculate the factor of safety in Ref. [121]. Authors in
PSO. Ref [112] utilized PSO, CBO, and ECBO to examine the optimal Ref. [122] used the enhanced pyrotechnics algorithm (EFWA) and the
design of steel plate shear walls. They determined that CBO managed the Morgenstern-Price method with a non-circular slip surface to stabilize
problem effectively, whereas ECBO outperformed alternative algo­ the slope. In their review [123], the authors compared and contrasted
rithms. As a result of steel shear walls, structure weights were reduced swarm intelligence-based algorithms with the antlion optimizer (ALO)
compared to other lateral load-resisting systems. As determined by the algorithm. They used the Spencer method and a nonlinear slip surface to
outcomes of performance-based design, the upper panels required evaluate the slope stability. These authors also used the TLBO algorithm
thicker web plates to maintain drift uniformity and minimize weight. and the non-circular failure surface to assess issues related to slope
Authors in Ref. [113] investigated the application of a filter strategy and stability in Ref. [124]. In addition, they assessed slope stability using the
five distinct algorithms to the optimization of a bridge and a 26-story multiverse optimization algorithm (MVO), which they discovered to be
truss structure. The primary objective was to reduce mass and competitive with other algorithms [125].
enhance computational efficacy. The methodology implementation
omitted fixability tests, which led to substantial enhancements in 4.2.2.2. Concrete cantilever retaining walls. Stabilizing unstable soil
computational efficiency. The outcomes validated the effectiveness of trenches during construction requires the installation of retaining wall
the methodology. Optimizing the post-tensioned cylindrical walls via structures. The significance of optimal design stems from the substantial
metaheuristics using a variety of algorithms, such as FPA, TLBO, and JA financial and material investments involved. Nonetheless, managing
is proposed in Ref. [114]. Hybrid approaches were developed incorpo­ many decision variables and regulations can present a formidable
rating JA and Levy flights, JALS, JALS2, and JA with probabilistic stu­ obstacle. Algorithms for optimization have demonstrated efficacy in
dent phases. The objective function comprised the total construction addressing this issue. When authors in Ref. [120] used swarm
cost, weight of steel reinforcement, weight of cables, and surface area. intelligence-based algorithms (PSO, APSO, FA, and CS) to improve

8
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

retaining walls, they focused on how base shear and two different addressed the issue of MSE barriers by implementing evolutionary al­
heights affected the results. They performed a sensitivity analysis on the gorithms. In Ref. [141], the authors proposed a hybrid method based on
surcharge load, backfill slope, and soil friction angle. Cost-effectiveness the hybridization of the PSO algorithm and ANN to predict pile settle­
and lightweight were the objective functions, and CS and PSO performed ment. A database was extracted from numerous mounds inserted into
the best. To design retaining walls with minimal cost and CO2 emissions the granite mass as part of Malaysia’s Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit
[126], implemented the BBO algorithm, considering the geotechnical project.
stability requirements and ACI 318 limitations. Authors in Ref. [127]
utilized three iterations of TLBO in accordance with the ACI 318 code for 5. Conclusion
optimal cost design. Ref [128] devised a combined algorithm based on
BBO and Levy flight (LFBBO) for seismic loading conditions. The out­ As a result of its ability to address a wide range of optimization
comes demonstrated that LFBBO performed better than other in­ problems, metaheuristic optimization algorithms, often referred to as
vestigations. Taking ACI 318 into account, evolutionary-based MOAs, are currently receiving an increasing amount of attention.
algorithms (GA, DE, ES, and BBO) to find the best-retaining wall designs Despite this, optimization algorithms confront hurdles when applied to
regarding cost and weight [129]. Additionally, they assessed the interior situations that arise in the real world. As a result, it is necessary to
search algorithm’s (ISA) effectiveness in determining the most optimal develop solutions that are durable in order to regulate limits. In order to
design for retaining walls. In their study, authors of [130] looked at how achieve the highest possible level of task optimization, it is vital to make
evolutionary algorithms could design pseudo-static retaining walls using certain that problems are effectively described. Through the process of
DE, ES, and BBO. minimizing and simplifying assumptions, it is likely that more practical
uses of optimization techniques could be identified.
4.2.2.3. Foundations. The operational and serviceability of a structure On the other hand, it is not possible to evaluate the performance of
are heavily reliant on its foundations, and different varieties are evalu­ an algorithm by employing a metric that may be regarded as definitive.
ated in accordance with the bearing capacity and soil composition. As a consequence, it is of the utmost importance to test the algorithm’s
Researchers have devoted much effort to optimizing the design of effectiveness by deploying simulations that are either highly accurate or,
foundations due to their critical nature. Foundation issues are similarly at the very least, base themselves on the real world. As a result of the
difficult and intricate as those encountered in other geotechnical complexity and multidimensionality of engineering challenges,
structures. In Refs. [131,132], a hybrid CC-BC algorithm to optimize optimization-based solutions have shown to be an effective method. The
shallow foundations in a cost-effective and CO2-efficient manner is practical utility of these algorithms and their application to problems in
employed. The constraints outlined in ACI 318 guided the design pro­ electrical and civil engineering have been investigated in many studies.
cess, incorporating design variables such as foundation depth, re­ These algorithms have also been explored for their application to
inforcements, and geometry. We conducted a sensitivity analysis on the problems in these fields. This research was carried out with the intention
applied load, Poisson ratio, soil elastic modulus, internal friction angle, of doing a comprehensive examination of the most recent articles that
safety factor, allowable settlement, and concrete compressive strength. addressed issues that are associated with electrical and civil engineering.
The trade-off between cost and CO2 emissions was explored using Particular focus was placed on the process of parameter extraction as
multi-objective optimization. In Ref. [133], swarm intelligence algo­ well as the optimization of the model.
rithms to improve shallow foundations while taking ACI 318 re­ It is possible that advocating for the production of new review arti­
quirements and design variables like geometry, depth, and cles that incorporate the most recent material could favor future
reinforcement into account are used. Furthermore, the study also research. In this way, metaheuristics would be able to identify and
examined the influence of column placement on the foundation. Authors successfully handle difficulties specific to practical designs. Expanding
in Ref. [134] investigated shallow foundations utilizing the collection of benchmark problems in this domain and refining those
biogeography-based optimization with covariance matrix-based migra­ challenges may assist academics in determining more efficient algo­
tion (CMM-BBO), an improved differential evolution algorithm (IDE), a rithms and offering upgrades to bring about efficiency improvements.
weighted differential evolution algorithm (WDE), a linear population
size reduction success-history-based adaptive differential evolution al­ CRediT authorship contribution statement
gorithm (L-SHADE), and DE, ES, and BBO, respectively.
Hegazy Rezk: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
4.2.2.4. Miscellaneous geotechnical optimization. Apart from the cate­ Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation,
gories above of geotechnical engineering challenges, there are various Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Abdul Ghani Olabi: Writing – re­
other endeavors spanning an extensive domain of geotechnical engi­ view & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis.
neering. The authors in Ref. [135] predicted the bearing capacity of piles Tabbi Wilberforce: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
using a hybrid approach consisting of a neural network (ANN) and a GA Investigation, Formal analysis. Enas Taha Sayed: Writing – review &
algorithm. Utilizing the methodology, fifty dynamic load experiments editing, Writing – original draft, Resources, Formal analysis.
were conducted on precast concrete foundations in Pekanbaru,
Indonesia. Using optimization algorithms, the total active earth pressure Declaration of competing interest
with and without earthquake loading is computed in Ref. [136]. In
Ref. [134], the maximal surface settlement caused by tunneling using a The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report
hybrid intelligence-based approach is examined. By integrating the PSO regarding the present study.
and ANN algorithms, they solved the problem by utilizing the
horizontal-to-vertical tension ratio, cohesion, and Young’s modulus. In Data availability
their study [137], devised two hybrid methodologies to forecast the
performance of tunnel boring machines in hard rock. Both models out­ No data was used for the research described in the article.
performed the essential ANN. Predicting the brittleness of rocks utilizing
GA and PSO with decision variables, including rock density, uniaxial Acknowledgment
compressive strength, and Brazilian tensile strength has been proposed
in Ref. [138]. Swarm intelligence algorithms on metal strips to stabilize "The authors extend their appreciation to Prince Sattam bin Abdu­
the earth has been used in Ref. [139]. The authors in Ref. [140] laziz University for funding this research work through project number
2023/RV/13."

9
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

References [28] S. Mirjalili, S.M. Mirjalili, A. Lewis, Grey wolf optimizer, Adv. Eng. Softw. 69
(2014) 46–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007.
[29] X. Hu, J. Jiang, B. Egardt, D. Cao, Advanced power-source integration in hybrid
[1] S.E. De Leon-Aldaco, H. Calleja, J. Aguayo Alquicira, Metaheuristic optimization
electric vehicles: multicriteria optimization approach, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
methods applied to power converters: a review, IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 30
62 (2015) 7847–7858, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2015.2463770.
(2015) 6791–6803, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2015.2397311.
[30] X. Wu, X. Hu, S. Moura, X. Yin, V. Pickert, Stochastic control of smart home
[2] R. Devarapalli, B. Bhattacharyya, N.K. Sinha, An intelligent EGWO-SCA-CS
energy management with plug-in electric vehicle battery energy storage and
algorithm for PSS parameter tuning under system uncertainties, Int. J. Intell. Syst.
photovoltaic array, J. Power Sources 333 (2016) 203–212, https://doi.org/
35 (2020) 1520–1569, https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22263.
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.09.157.
[3] K. Hussain, M.N. Mohd Salleh, S. Cheng, Y. Shi, Metaheuristic research: a
[31] M. Masikos, K. Demestichas, E. Adamopoulou, M. Theologou, Energy-efficient
comprehensive survey, Artif. Intell. Rev. 52 (2019) 2191–2233, https://doi.org/
routing based on vehicular consumption predictions of a mesoscopic learning
10.1007/s10462-017-9605-z.
model, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 28 (2015) 114–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[4] I. Boussaïd, J. Lepagnot, P. Siarry, A survey on optimization metaheuristics, Inf.
asoc.2014.11.054.
Sci. 237 (2013) 82–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.02.041.
[32] J. Soares, T. Sousa, H. Morais, Z. Vale, B. Canizes, A. Silva, Application-specific
[5] E. Osaba, E. Villar-Rodriguez, J. Del Ser, A.J. Nebro, D. Molina, A. LaTorre, P.
modified particle swarm optimization for energy resource scheduling considering
N. Suganthan, C.A. Coello Coello, F. Herrera, A tutorial on the design,
vehicle-to-grid, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 13 (2013) 4264–4280, https://doi.org/
experimentation and application of metaheuristic algorithms to real-world
10.1016/j.asoc.2013.07.003.
optimization problems, Swarm Evol. Comput. 64 (2021) 100888, https://doi.
[33] D. Chakraborty, W. Vaz, A.K. Nandi, Optimal driving during electric vehicle
org/10.1016/j.swevo.2021.100888.
acceleration using evolutionary algorithms, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 34 (2015)
[6] J.H. Holland, Genetic algorithms and adaptation, in: Adaptive Control of Ill-
217–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.024.
Defined Systems, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1984, pp. 317–333.
[34] X. Hu, C. Zou, C. Zhang, Y. Li, Technological developments in batteries: a survey
[7] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution - a simple and efficient heuristic for
of principal roles, types, and management needs, IEEE Power Energy Mag. 21
global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Glob. Optim. 11 (1997) 341–359,
(2023) 52–63, https://doi.org/10.1109/mpae.2023.10083081.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328.
[35] J. Sedano, M. Portal, A. Hernández-Arauzo, J.R. Villar, J. Puente, R. Varela,
[8] A.K. Qin, V.L. Huang, P.N. Suganthan, Differential evolution algorithm with
Intelligent system for electric vehicle charging: design and operation, Dyna 88
strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
(2013).
13 (2009) 398–417, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2008.927706.
[36] A. Hernández-Arauzo, J. Puente, R. Varela, J. Sedano, Electric vehicle charging
[9] A.P. Piotrowski, L-SHADE optimization algorithms with population-wide inertia,
under power and balance constraints as dynamic scheduling, Comput. Ind. Eng.
Inf. Sci. 468 (2018) 117–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.08.030.
85 (2015) 306–315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.04.002.
[10] Z. Hu, Y. Bao, T. Xiong, Partial opposition-based adaptive differential evolution
[37] J. Yang, L. He, S. Fu, An improved PSO-based charging strategy of electric
algorithms: evaluation on the CEC 2014 benchmark set for real-parameter
vehicles in electrical distribution grid, Appl. Energy 128 (2014) 82–92, https://
optimization, in: Proc. 2014 IEEE Congr. Evol. Comput. CEC 2014, 2014,
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.047.
pp. 2259–2265, https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2014.6900489.
[38] I. Rahman, P.M. Vasant, B.S. Mahinder Singh, M. Abdullah-Al-Wadud, Swarm
[11] Y. del Valle, G.K.G.K. Venayagamoorthy, S. Mohagheghi, J.C.J.-C. Hernandez, R.
intelligence-based smart energy allocation strategy for charging stations of plug-
G.R.G. Harley, Particle swarm optimization: basic concepts, variants and
in hybrid electric vehicles, Math. Probl Eng. 2015 (2015), https://doi.org/
applications in power systems, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12 (2008) 171–195,
10.1155/2015/620425.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2007.896686.
[39] D.Q. Oliveira, A.C. Zambroni de Souza, L.F.N. Delboni, Optimal plug-in hybrid
[12] D.H., W.; W.G., M. No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol.
electric vehicles recharge in distribution power systems, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
Comput. 1 (1995).
98 (2013) 77–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2012.12.012.
[13] B. Xi, Z. Liu, M. Raghavachari, C.H. Xia, L.A. Zhang, Smart hill-climbing
[40] W. Su, M.-Y. Chow, Computational intelligence-based energy management for a
algorithm for application server configuration, in: Proceedings of the Proceedings
large-scale PHEV/PEV enabled municipal parking deck, Appl. Energy 96 (2012)
of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM, New York, NY,
171–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.088.
USA, May 17 2004, pp. 287–296.
[41] S. Hajforoosh, M.A.S. Masoum, S.M. Islam, Real-time charging coordination of
[14] D. Bertsimas, J. Tsitsiklis, Simulated annealing, Stat. Sci. 8 (1993) 10–15, https://
plug-in electric vehicles based on hybrid fuzzy discrete particle swarm
doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011077.
optimization, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 128 (2015) 19–29, https://doi.org/
[15] V.K. Prajapati, M. Jain, L. Chouhan, Tabu search algorithm (TSA): a
10.1016/j.epsr.2015.06.019.
comprehensive survey, in: Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference
[42] J. García-Álvarez, M.A. González, C.R. Vela, Metaheuristics for solving a real-
on Emerging Technologies in Computer Engineering: Machine Learning and
world electric vehicle charging scheduling problem, Appl. Soft Comput. 65
Internet of Things (ICETCE), IEEE, February 2020, pp. 1–8.
(2018) 292–306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.01.010.
[16] J. Del Ser, E. Osaba, D. Molina, X.-S. Yang, S. Salcedo-Sanz, D. Camacho, S. Das,
[43] S. Xu, D. Feng, Z. Yan, L. Zhang, N. Li, L. Jing, J. Wang, Ant-based swarm
P.N. Suganthan, C.A. Coello Coello, F. Herrera, Bio-inspired computation: where
algorithm for charging coordination of electric vehicles, Int. J. Distrib. Sens.
we stand and what’s next, Swarm Evol. Comput. 48 (2019) 220–250, https://doi.
Networks 2013 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/268942.
org/10.1016/j.swevo.2019.04.008.
[44] F. Eljack, M.K. Kazi, Prospects and challenges of green hydrogen economy via
[17] S. Robertson, J. Robertson, Mastering the Requirements Process Getting
multi-sector global symbiosis in Qatar, Front. Sustain 1 (2020), https://doi.org/
Requirements Right 44 (2013), 9780321419491.
10.3389/frsus.2020.612762.
[18] M. Glinz, On non-functional requirements, in: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE
[45] M. Maaruf, M. Khalid, Power quality control of hybrid wind/electrolyzer/fuel-
International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007), IEEE, October
cell/BESS microgrid, in: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
2007, pp. 21–26.
Technologies - Asia (ISGT Asia), IEEE, December 5 2021, pp. 1–5.
[19] X. Fan, W. Sayers, S. Zhang, Z. Han, L. Ren, H. Chizari, Review and classification
[46] F. Barbir, PEM fuel cells: theory and practice, PEM Fuel Cells Theory Pract (2012)
of bio-inspired algorithms and their applications, J. Bionic Eng. 17 (2020)
1–518, https://doi.org/10.1016/C2011-0-06706-6.
611–631, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-020-0049-9.
[47] L. Zhang, N. Wang, Application of CoRNA-GA based RBF-NN to model proton
[20] H. Masoud, S. Jalili, S.M.H. Hasheminejad, Dynamic clustering using
exchange membrane fuel cells, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (2018) 329–340,
combinatorial particle swarm optimization, Appl. Intell. 38 (2013) 289–314,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.11.027.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-012-0373-9.
[48] M. Ohenoja, K. Leiviskä, Validation of genetic algorithm results in a fuel cell
[21] N. Tohidi, C. Dadkhah, Improving the performance of video collaborative
model, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010) 12618–12625, https://doi.org/
filtering recommender systems using optimization algorithm, Int. J. Nonlinear
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.07.129.
Anal. Appl. 11 (2020) 283–295, https://doi.org/10.22075/
[49] R. Salim, M. Nabag, H. Noura, A. Fardoun, The parameter identification of the
ijnaa.2020.19127.2058.
nexa 1.2kW PEMFC’s model using particle swarm optimization, Renew. Energy
[22] D. Karaboga, B. Basturk, Artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization algorithm for
82 (2015) 26–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.012.
solving constrained optimization problems, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4529 LNAI
[50] Q. Li, W. Chen, Y. Wang, S. Liu, J. Jia, Parameter identification for PEM fuel-cell
(2007) 789–798, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72950-1_77.
mechanism model based on effective informed adaptive particle swarm
[23] I. Khan, M.K. Maiti, A swap sequence based artificial bee colony algorithm for
optimization, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 58 (2011) 2410–2419, https://doi.org/
traveling salesman problem, Swarm Evol. Comput. 44 (2019) 428–438, https://
10.1109/TIE.2010.2060456.
doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2018.05.006.
[51] M. Ali, M.A. El-Hameed, M.A. Farahat, Effective parameters’ identification for
[24] J. Ning, C. Zhang, B. Zhang, A novel artificial bee colony algorithm for the QoS
polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell models using grey wolf optimizer, Renew.
based multicast route optimization problem, Optik 127 (2016) 2771–2779,
Energy 111 (2017) 455–462, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.036.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2015.11.223.
[52] A.A. El-Fergany, Extracting optimal parameters of PEM fuel cells using salp
[25] M. Dorigo, M. Birattari, T. Stutzle, Ant colony optimization, IEEE Comput. Intell.
swarm optimizer, Renew. Energy 119 (2018) 641–648, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Mag. 1 (2006) 28–39, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2006.329691.
j.renene.2017.12.051.
[26] B. Chandra Mohan, R. Baskaran, A survey: ant colony optimization based recent
[53] G. Zhang, C. Xiao, N. Razmjooy, Optimal parameter extraction of PEM fuel cells
research and implementation on several engineering domain, Expert Syst. Appl.
by meta-heuristics, Int. J. Ambient Energy 43 (2022) 2510–2519, https://doi.
39 (2012) 4618–4627, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.076.
org/10.1080/01430750.2020.1745276.
[27] S. Mirjalili, A.H. Gandomi, S.Z. Mirjalili, S. Saremi, H. Faris, S.M. Mirjalili, Salp
[54] A.A. Zaki Diab, M.A. Tolba, A.G. Abo El-Magd, M.M. Zaky, A.M. El-Rifaie, Fuel
swarm algorithm: a bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems, Adv.
cell parameters estimation via marine predators and political optimizers, IEEE
Eng. Softw. 114 (2017) 163–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Access 8 (2020) 166998–167018, https://doi.org/10.1109/
advengsoft.2017.07.002.
ACCESS.2020.3021754.

10
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

[55] F. Qin, P. Liu, H. Niu, H. Song, N. Yousefi, Parameter estimation of PEMFC based [78] S. Zhou, X. Liu, Y. Hua, X. Zhou, S. Yang, Adaptive model parameter
on improved fluid search optimization algorithm, Energy Rep. 6 (2020) identification for lithium-ion batteries based on improved coupling hybrid
1224–1232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.05.006. adaptive particle swarm optimization- simulated annealing method, J. Power
[56] S. Menesy, A, H.M. Sultan, A. Korashy, F.A. Banakhr, G. Ashmawy, M. Kamel, S, Sources 482 (2021) 228951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228951.
Effective parameter extraction of different polymer electrolyte membrane fuel [79] M.A. Jusoh, M.Z. Daud, Accurate battery model parameter identification using
cell stack models using a modified artificial ecosystem optimization algorithm, heuristic optimization, Int. J. Power Electron. Drive Syst. 11 (2020) 333, https://
IEEE Access 8 (2020) 31892–31909, https://doi.org/10.1109/ doi.org/10.11591/ijpeds.v11.i1.pp333-341.
ACCESS.2020.2973351. [80] A. Lorestani, J. Chebeir, R. Ahmed, J.S. Cotton, A new optimization algorithm for
[57] E.H. Houssein, B.E. Helmy, H. Rezk, A.M. Nassef, An enhanced archimedes parameters identification of electric vehicles’ battery, IEEE Power Energy Soc.
optimization algorithm based on local escaping operator and orthogonal learning Gen. Meet (2020) 2020–Augus, https://doi.org/10.1109/
for PEM fuel cell parameter identification, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 103 (2021) PESGM41954.2020.9281786.
104309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104309. [81] S. Ferahtia, A. Djeroui, H. Rezk, A. Chouder, A. Houari, M. Machmoum, Optimal
[58] A. Fathy, S.H.E. Abdel Aleem, H. Rezk, A novel approach for PEM fuel cell parameter identification strategy applied to lithium-ion battery model, Int. J.
parameter estimation using LSHADE-EpSin optimization algorithm, Int. J. Energy Energy Res. (2021) 6921, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6921.
Res. 45 (2021) 6922–6942, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6282. [82] S. Ferahtia, A. Djeroui, H. Rezk, A. Chouder, A. Houari, M. Machmoum, Adaptive
[59] Y. Zhu, N. Yousefi, Optimal parameter identification of PEMFC stacks using droop based control strategy for DC microgrid including multiple batteries energy
adaptive sparrow search algorithm, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) storage systems, J. Energy Storage 48 (2022) 103983, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
9541–9552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.107. est.2022.103983.
[60] E.H. Houssein, F.A. Hashim, S. Ferahtia, H. Rezk, An efficient modified artificial [83] J. Kim, H. Chun, J. Baek, S. Han, Parameter identification of lithium-ion battery
electric field algorithm for solving optimization problems and parameter pseudo-2-dimensional models using genetic algorithm and neural network
estimation of fuel cell, Int. J. Energy Res. 45 (2021) 20199–20218, https://doi. cooperative optimization, J. Energy Storage 45 (2022) 103571, https://doi.org/
org/10.1002/er.7103. 10.1016/j.est.2021.103571.
[61] H. Rezk, S. Ferahtia, A. Djeroui, A. Chouder, A. Houari, M. Machmoum, M. [84] E.H. Houssein, F.A. Hashim, S. Ferahtia, H. Rezk, Battery parameter identification
A. Abdelkareem, Optimal parameter estimation strategy of PEM fuel cell using strategy based on modified coot optimization algorithm, J. Energy Storage 46
gradient-based optimizer, Energy 239 (2022) 122096, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2022) 103848, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EST.2021.103848.
energy.2021.122096. [85] A. Fathy, S. Ferahtia, H. Rezk, D. Yousri, M.A. Abdelkareem, A.G. Olabi, Robust
[62] T. Wilberforce, H. Rezk, A.G. Olabi, E.I. Epelle, M.A. Abdelkareem, Comparative parameter estimation approach of lithium-ion batteries employing bald eagle
analysis on parametric estimation of a PEM fuel cell using metaheuristics search algorithm, Int. J. Energy Res. 46 (2022) 10564–10575, https://doi.org/
algorithms, Energy 262 (2023) 125530, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.1002/ER.7834.
energy.2022.125530. [86] S. Ferahtia, H. Rezk, A. Djerioui, A. Houari, S. Motahhir, S. Zeghlache, Modified
[63] H. Rezk, A.G. Olabi, S. Ferahtia, E.T. Sayed, Accurate parameter estimation bald eagle search algorithm for lithium-ion battery model parameters extraction,
methodology applied to model proton exchange membrane fuel cell, Energy 255 ISA Trans. 134 (2023) 357–379, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2022.08.025.
(2022) 124454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124454. [87] T.-C. Pan, E.-J. Liu, H.-C. Ku, C.-W. Hong, Parameter identification and sensitivity
[64] H. Zuo, J. Liang, B. Zhang, K. Wei, H. Zhu, J. Tan, Intelligent estimation on state analysis of lithium-ion battery via whale optimization algorithm, Electrochim.
of health of lithium-ion power batteries based on failure feature extraction, Acta 404 (2022) 139574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2021.139574.
Energy 282 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.128794. [88] Y.S. Cheng, Identification of parameters for equivalent circuit model of Li-ion
[65] A. Mahdy, H.M. Hasanien, R.A. Turky, S.H.E. Abdel Aleem, Modeling and optimal battery cell with population based optimization algorithms, SSRN Electron. J.
operation of hybrid wave energy and PV system feeding supercharging stations (2022), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4229575.
based on golden jackal optimal control strategy, Energy 263 (2023), https://doi. [89] R.M. Rizk-Allah, M.I. Zineldin, A.A.A. Mousa, S. Abdel-Khalek, M.S. Mohamed,
org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125932. V. Snášel, On a novel hybrid manta ray foraging optimizer and its application on
[66] G. Jie, Z. Liangheng, L. Yan, S. Fan, W. Bin, H. Cunfu, Ultrasonic guided wave parameters estimation of lithium-ion battery, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 15
measurement and modeling analysis of the state of charge for lithium-ion battery, (2022) 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-022-00114-4.
J. Energy Storage 72 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.108384. [90] S.M. Nigdeli, G. Bekda, X. Yang, Metaheuristics and optimization in civil
[67] N. Nasajpour-Esfahani, H. Garmestani, M. Rozati, G.F. Smaisim, The role of phase engineering, B. Optim. 7 (2016) 25–43.
change materials in lithium-ion batteries: a brief review on current materials, [91] P.V.S.Z. Capriles, L.G. Fonseca, H.J.C. Barbosa, A.C.C. Lemonge, Rank-based ant
thermal management systems, numerical methods, and experimental models, colony algorithms for truss weight minimization with discrete variables,
J. Energy Storage 63 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107061. Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 23 (2007) 553–575, https://doi.org/10.1002/
[68] Z. Wang, X. Zhao, H. Zhang, D. Zhen, F. Gu, A. Ball, Active acoustic emission cnm.912.
sensing for fast Co-estimation of state of charge and state of health of the lithium- [92] M. Sonmez, Discrete optimum design of truss structures using artificial bee colony
ion battery, J. Energy Storage 64 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. algorithm, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 43 (2011) 85–97, https://doi.org/
est.2023.107192. 10.1007/s00158-010-0551-5.
[69] Z. Hu, G. Ren, J. Zhang, Y. Si, Y.A. Duan, Parameter identification and state of [93] A. Sadollah, A. Bahreininejad, H. Eskandar, M. Hamdi, Mine blast algorithm for
charge estimation method of lithium-ion battery considering temperature bias, optimization of truss structures with discrete variables, Comput. Struct. 102–103
J. Energy Storage 68 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107650. (2012) 49–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.03.013.
[70] Z. Wang, G. Feng, X. Liu, F. Gu, A. Ball, A novel method of parameter [94] L.F.F. Miguel, L.F. Fadel Miguel, Shape and size optimization of truss structures
identification and state of charge estimation for lithium-ion battery energy considering dynamic constraints through modern metaheuristic algorithms,
storage system, J. Energy Storage 49 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012) 9458–9467, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2022.104124. eswa.2012.02.113.
[71] M. He, S. Wang, C. Fernandez, C. Yu, X. Li, E.D. Bobobee, A novel adaptive [95] A.H. Gandomi, S. Talatahari, X.S. Yang, S. Deb, Design optimization of truss
particle swarm optimization algorithm based high precision parameter structures using cuckoo search algorithm, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 22 (2013)
identification and state estimation of lithium-ion battery, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 1330–1349, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1033.
16 (2021) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.20964/2021.05.55. [96] S. Talatahari, E. Khalili, S.M. Alavizadeh, Accelerated particle swarm for
[72] X. Shu, G. Li, J. Shen, Z. Lei, Z. Chen, Y. Liu, A uniform estimation framework for optimum design of frame structures, Math. Probl Eng. 2013 (2013) 1–6, https://
state of health of lithium-ion batteries considering feature extraction and doi.org/10.1155/2013/649857.
parameters optimization, Energy 204 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [97] A. Kaveh, A. Dadras, Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms in Civil Engineering:
energy.2020.117957. New Applications, 2020, 978-3-030-45472-2.
[73] J.C. Forman, S.J. Moura, J.L. Stein, H.K. Fathy, Genetic identification and Fisher [98] M.S. Gonçalves, R.H. Lopez, L.F.F. Miguel, Search group algorithm: a new
identifiability analysis of the doyle-fuller-newman model from experimental metaheuristic method for the optimization of truss structures, Comput. Struct.
cycling of a LiFePO 4 cell, J. Power Sources 210 (2012) 263–275, https://doi.org/ 153 (2015) 165–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.03.003.
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.03.009. [99] A. Sadollah, H. Eskandar, A. Bahreininejad, J.H. Kim, Water cycle, mine blast and
[74] V. Sangwan, A. Sharma, R. Kumar, A.K. Rathore, Estimation of battery improved mine blast algorithms for discrete sizing optimization of truss
parameters of the equivalent circuit models using meta-heuristic techniques. 1st structures, Comput. Struct. 149 (2015) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
IEEE Int. Conf. Power Electron. Intell. Control Energy Syst. ICPEICES 2016, 2017, compstruc.2014.12.003.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPEICES.2016.7853240. [100] G. Bekdaş, S.M. Nigdeli, X.-S. Yang, Sizing optimization of truss structures using
[75] M.A. Rahman, S. Anwar, A. Izadian, Electrochemical model parameter flower pollination algorithm, Appl. Soft Comput. 37 (2015) 322–331, https://doi.
identification of a lithium-ion battery using particle swarm optimization method, org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.08.037.
J. Power Sources 307 (2016) 86–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [101] S. Kazemzadeh Azad, Enhanced hybrid metaheuristic algorithms for optimal
jpowsour.2015.12.083. sizing of steel truss structures with numerous discrete variables, Struct.
[76] X. Lai, W. Gao, Y. Zheng, M. Ouyang, J. Li, X. Han, L. Zhou, A comparative study Multidiscip. Optim. 55 (2017) 2159–2180, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-
of global optimization methods for parameter identification of different 1634-8.
equivalent circuit models for Li-ion batteries, Electrochim. Acta 295 (2019) [102] S. Kazemzadeh Azad, Seeding the initial population with feasible solutions in
1057–1066, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.11.134. metaheuristic optimization of steel trusses, Eng. Optim. 50 (2018) 89–105,
[77] H. Chun, M. Kim, J. Kim, K. Kim, J. Yu, T. Kim, S. Han, Adaptive exploration https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2017.1284833.
harmony search for effective parameter estimation in an electrochemical lithium- [103] G.G. Tejani, V.J. Savsani, V.K. Patel, P.V. Savsani, Size, shape, and topology
ion battery model, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 131501–131511, https://doi.org/ optimization of planar and space trusses using mutation-based improved
10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2940968.

11
H. Rezk et al. Results in Engineering 23 (2024) 102437

metaheuristics, J. Comput. Des. Eng. 5 (2018) 198–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [123] M. Mishra, V.R. Gunturi, T.F.D.S. Miranda, Slope stability analysis using recent
j.jcde.2017.10.001. metaheuristic techniques: a comprehensive survey, SN Appl. Sci. 1 (2019),
[104] O. Hasançebi, F. Erdal, M.P. Saka, Adaptive harmony search method for structural https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1707-6.
optimization, J. Struct. Eng. 136 (2010) 419–431, https://doi.org/10.1061/ [124] M. Mishra, V.R. Gunturi, D. Maity, Teaching–learning-based optimisation
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000128. algorithm and its application in capturing critical slip surface in slope stability
[105] S. Kazemzadeh Azad, O. Hasançebi, S. Kazemzadeh Azad, Upper bound strategy analysis, Soft Comput. 24 (2020) 2969–2982, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-
for metaheuristic based design optimization of steel frames, Adv. Eng. Softw. 57 019-04075-3.
(2013) 19–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.11.016. [125] M. Mishra, G.V. Ramana, D. Maity, Multiverse optimisation algorithm for
[106] A. Kaveh, N. Farhoudi, Layout optimization of braced frames using differential capturing the critical slip surface in slope stability analysis, Geotech. Geol. Eng.
evolution algorithm and dolphin echolocation optimization, Period. Polytech. 38 (2020) 459–474, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01037-2.
Civ. Eng. 59 (2015) 441–449, https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.8155. [126] I. Aydogdu, A. Akin, Biogeography based Co2 and cost optimization of RC
[107] S. Gholizadeh, H. Poorhoseini, Optimum design of steel frame structures by a cantilever retaining walls, 17th Int. Conf. Struct. Eng. (2015) 1480–1485.
modified dolphin echolocation algorithm, Struct. Eng. Mech. 55 (2015) 535–554, [127] R. Temur, G. Bekdas, Teaching learning-based optimization for design of
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.55.3.535. cantilever retaining walls, Struct. Eng. Mech. 57 (2016) 763–783, https://doi.
[108] A.T. Daloglu, M. Artar, K. Özgan, A.İ. Karakas, Optimum design of steel space org/10.12989/sem.2016.57.4.763.
frames including soil-structure interaction, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 54 (2016) [128] I. Aydogdu, Cost optimization of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls
117–131, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1401-x. under seismic loading using a biogeography-based optimization algorithm with
[109] İ. Aydoğdu, A. Akın, M.P. Saka, Design optimization of real world steel space Levy flights, Eng. Optim. 49 (2017) 381–400, https://doi.org/10.1080/
frames using artificial bee colony algorithm with Levy flight distribution, Adv. 0305215X.2016.1191837.
Eng. Softw. 92 (2016) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.10.013. [129] A.H. Gandomi, A.R. Kashani, F. Zeighami, Retaining wall optimization using
[110] M. Bybordiani, S. Kazemzadeh Azad, Optimum design of steel braced frames interior search algorithm with different bound constraint handling, Int. J. Numer.
considering dynamic soil-structure interaction, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 60 Anal. Methods GeoMech. 41 (2017) 1304–1331, https://doi.org/10.1002/
(2019) 1123–1137, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02260-4. nag.2678.
[111] S. Gholizadeh, A.M. Shahrezaei, Optimal placement of steel plate shear walls for [130] A.H. Gandomi, A.R. Kashani, Probabilistic evolutionary bound constraint
steel frames by bat algorithm, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 24 (2015) 1–18, handling for particle swarm optimization, Oper. Res. 18 (2018) 801–823, https://
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1151. doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-0401-6.
[112] A. Kaveh, M. Farhadmanesh, Optimal seismic design of steel plate shear walls [131] C.V. Camp, A. Assadollahi, CO 2 and cost optimization of reinforced concrete
using metaheuristic algorithms, Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. (2018), https://doi. footings using a hybrid big bang-big crunch algorithm, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
org/10.3311/PPci.12119. 48 (2013) 411–426, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0897-6.
[113] H. Cao, X. Qian, Y. Zhou, Large-scale structural optimization using metaheuristic [132] C.V. Camp, A. Assadollahi, CO2 and cost optimization of reinforced concrete
algorithms with elitism and a filter strategy, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 57 (2018) footings subjected to uniaxial uplift, J. Build. Eng. 3 (2015) 171–183, https://doi.
799–814, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1784-3. org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.07.008.
[114] G. Bekdaş, Optimum design of post-tensioned axially symmetric cylindrical walls [133] A.H. Gandomi, A.R. Kashani, Construction cost minimization of shallow
using novel hybrid metaheuristic methods, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 28 foundation using recent swarm intelligence techniques, IEEE Trans. Ind.
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1550. Informatics 14 (2018) 1099–1106, https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2017.2776132.
[115] A. Kaveh, S. Sabeti, Optimal design of jacket supporting structures for offshore [134] A.R. Kashani, M. Gandomi, C.V. Camp, A.H. Gandomi, Optimum design of
wind turbines using CBO and ECBO algorithms, Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 62 shallow foundation using evolutionary algorithms, Soft Comput. 24 (2020)
(2018) 11651, https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.11651. 6809–6833, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04316-5.
[116] F. Kang, J. Li, Z. Ma, An artificial bee colony algorithm for locating the critical slip [135] E. Momeni, R. Nazir, D. Jahed Armaghani, H. Maizir, Prediction of pile bearing
surface in slope stability analysis, Eng. Optim. 45 (2013) 207–223, https://doi. capacity using a hybrid genetic algorithm-based ANN, Measurement 57 (2014)
org/10.1080/0305215X.2012.665451. 122–131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.08.007.
[117] M. Khajehzadeh, M.R. Taha, A. El-Shafie, M. Eslami, Stability assessment of earth [136] S. Nama, A.K. Saha, S. Ghosh, Parameters optimization of geotechnical problem
slope using modified particle swarm optimization, J. Chinese Inst. Eng. 37 (2014) using different optimization algorithm, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 33 (2015)
79–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2012.757041. 1235–1253, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9898-0.
[118] C. Hu, R. Jimenez, S. Li, L. Li, Determination of critical slip surfaces using [137] D.J. Armaghani, E.T. Mohamad, M.S. Narayanasamy, N. Narita, S. Yagiz,
mutative scale chaos optimization, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 29 (2015), https://doi. Development of hybrid intelligent models for predicting TBM penetration rate in
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000373. hard rock condition, Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 63 (2017) 29–43, https://doi.
[119] A.H. Gandomi, A.R. Kashani, M. Mousavi, M. Jalalvandi, Slope stability analyzing org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.009.
using recent swarm intelligence techniques, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods [138] S. Yagiz, E. Ghasemi, A.C. Adoko, Prediction of rock brittleness using genetic
GeoMech. 39 (2015) 295–309, https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2308. algorithm and particle swarm optimization techniques, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36
[120] A.H. Gandomi, A.R. Kashani, D.A. Roke, M. Mousavi, Optimization of retaining (2018) 3767–3777, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0570-3.
wall design using recent swarm intelligence techniques, Eng. Struct. 103 (2015) [139] A. Bagheri Sereshki, A. Derakhshani, Optimizing the mechanical stabilization of
72–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.034. earth walls with metal strips: applications of swarm algorithms, Arab. J. Sci. Eng.
[121] A.H. Gandomi, A.R. Kashani, M. Mousavi, M. Jalalvandi, Slope stability analysis 44 (2019) 4653–4666, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3492-8.
using evolutionary optimization techniques, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods [140] A.R. Kashani, A. Saneirad, A.H. Gandomi, Optimum design of reinforced earth
GeoMech. 41 (2017) 251–264, https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2554. walls using evolutionary optimization algorithms, Neural Comput. Appl. 32
[122] Z. Xiao, B. Tian, X. Lu, Locating the critical slip surface in a slope stability analysis (2020) 12079–12102, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04264-z.
by enhanced fireworks algorithm, Cluster Comput. 22 (2019) 719–729, https:// [141] D.J. Armaghani, P.G. Asteris, S.A. Fatemi, M. Hasanipanah, R. Tarinejad, A.S.
doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-1196-6. A. Rashid, V. Huynh, Van on the use of neuro-swarm system to forecast the pile
settlement, Appl. Sci. 10 (2020) 1904, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10061904.

12