| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Fourment, L.
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
document
A comparison between optimisation algorithms for metal forming processes
Abstract
Coupling optimisation algorithms to Finite Element (FEM) simulations is a very promisingway to achieve optimal metal forming processes. However, many optimisation algorithms exist and it is notclear which of these algorithms to use. This paper compares an efficient Metamodel Assisted EvolutionaryStrategy (MAES), three variants of a Sequential Approximate Optimisation (SAO) algorithm, and two iterativealgorithms (BFGS and SCPIP). They are compared to each other and to reference situations by application totwo forging examples. It is concluded that bothMAES and SAO outperform the iterative algorithms. Moreover,they yield significant improvements with respect to the reference situations, which makes them both veryinteresting algorithms for optimising metal forming processes