Article

Transactions of the Institute of

Measurement and Control
Pareto optimal design of square 35(3) 289–300
Ó The Author(s) 2012

cyclone separators using a novel Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0142331212444154
multi-objective optimization algorithm tim.sagepub.com

MJ Mahmoodabadi1, A Bagheri1, R Abedzadeh Maafi2 and GR Hoseini3

Abstract
In the present study, multi-objective optimization (MO) of square cyclones is performed in three steps. In the first step, the collection efficiency (h) and
the pressure drop (Dp) in a set of square cyclone separators are numerically investigated using computational fluid dynamics techniques. In the second
step, two meta-models based on the evolved group method of data handling-type neural networks are obtained, for modelling of h and Dp with respect
to geometrical design variables. Finally, a novel MO based on a combination of the particle swarm optimization, multiple-crossover and mutation opera-
tor is introduced. The proposed MO is applied to Pareto optimal design of square cyclones considering two conflicting objectives (h and Dp), based on
the obtained polynomial neural networks. Furthermore, the proposed Pareto result is compared with that of Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm II.

Keywords
Multi-objective optimization, multiple-crossover and mutation operator, particle swarm optimization, square cyclone.

Introduction maximize the collection efficiency in cyclone separators. They

A cyclone separator is a device for removing particulates from
an air, gas or liquid stream, without the use of filters, through
vortex separation. Rotational effects and gravity are used to
separate mixtures of solids and fluids. The method can also be
used to separate fine droplets of liquid from a gaseous stream.
Cyclones are widely used in filtration and separation indus-
tries as a result of their low set-up and maintenance costs. A
conventional cyclone, which has a circular cross-section is the
commonly used cyclone for a circulating fluidized bed (CFB)
boiler. With the development of large CFB boilers, the huge
body of the conventional cyclone became a major shortcom-
ing because of the thick refractory wall, needing a long time
to start the boiler. An alternative way of overcoming these
problems is the use of a square cyclone. A square cyclone has
more advantages over the conventional cyclone, including
convenient construction, easier membrane wall arrangement
and shorter start–stop time, and at the same time, easy inte-
gration with the boiler (Raoufi et al., 2009; Wang et al., 1999).
Several attempts have been made in the last decade to
improve square cyclone performance. Wang et al. (1999)
studied the separation mechanism of a square cyclone at a
high inlet particle concentration. They proposed an instanta-
neous separation model based on experimental observation
and measurement. Junfu et al. (1999) investigated the square
cyclone in a 75 t/h CFB boiler and presented a model to
study the cyclones. Ravi et al. (2000) investigated a multi-
objective optimization (MO) process on cyclone separators
using the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II
(NSGA II). They tried to minimize the pressure drop and
did not use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in their
optimization procedure and used an analytical function for
pressure drop and collection efficiency. The effects of differ-
ent parameters, including length, diameter of vortex finder
and inlet velocity on the performance of square cyclones were
studied by Qiang et al. (2003). Su and Mao (2006) used a
three-dimensional particle dynamic analyser (3D-PDA) to
understand the nature and characteristics of the suspension
flow in the square cyclone separator and found the factors
affecting particle motion. The turbulent flow field inside a
square cyclone was experimentally investigated by Su (2006)
to study the mechanism of particle separation and provide
guidance for the optimization of its structure. Junfu et al.
(2007) evaluated the performance of an advanced water-
cooled square cyclone with curved inlet. The results were
compared with other cyclones through fly ash analysis and
showed that the overall performance of the square cyclone in
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Takestan, Iran
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bu-Ali
Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Corresponding author:
MJ Mahmoodabadi, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Guilan, PO Box 3756, Rasht, Iran.
Email: Mahmoodabadi@guilan.ac.ir.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

290 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 35(3)

such a capacity is compatible with conventional cyclones. ∂ui

=0 ð1Þ
Raoufi et al. (2009) obtained detailed flow information by ∂xi
CFD simulation within those cyclones tested by Wang et al.
∂ui ∂ui 
1 ∂P ∂2 ui ∂
(1999) and Su and Mao (2006). + uj = +v  Rij ð2Þ
Optimization of square cyclones is, indeed, a multi- ∂t ∂xj r ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
objective optimization problem rather than the single-
where Rij = ut 9 uj is the Reynolds stress tensor. Here,
objective optimization problem that has been considered so
ui 9 = ui  ut is the ith fluctuating velocity component.
far in the literature. Both the pressure drop and the collection
The RSTM provides differential transport equations for
efficiency in square cyclones are important objective functions
evaluation of the turbulence stress components where the tur-
to be optimized simultaneously in such a real-world, complex,
bulence production terms are defined as:
multi-objective optimization problem. These objective func-
tions either are obtained from experiments or computed using    
∂ ∂ ∂ vt ∂ ∂uj ∂ui
very timely and high-cost CFD approaches, which cannot be Rij + uk Rij = R ij  Rik + Rjk
∂t ∂xk ∂xk sk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
used in an iterative optimization task unless a simple but
effective meta-model is constructed over the response surface ð3Þ
from the numerical or experimental data. Therefore, model-  
∂uj ∂ui 1
ling and optimization of the parameters are investigated in Pij =  Rik + Rjk , P = Pij ð4Þ
∂xk ∂xk 2
the present study, by using group method of data handling
(GMDH)-type neural networks and a novel multi-objective with P being the fluctuating kinetic energy production.
algorithm in order to maximize the collection efficiency and sk = 1, C1 = 1:8, C2 = 0:6 are empirical constants ( Launder
minimize the pressure drop. et al., 1975).
Particle swarm optimization (PSO), introduced by The transport equation for the turbulence dissipation
Kennedy and Eberhart (1995), is one of the modern heuristic rate,e, is given as:
algorithms. It was developed through simulation of a simpli-
 
fied social system, and is robust in solving continuous non- ∂e ∂e ∂  vt  ∂e e ∂ui e2
linear optimization problems (Angeline, 1998; Kennedy and + uj = v+ e  C s1 Rij  C s2 ð5Þ
∂t ∂xj ∂xj s ∂xj K ∂xj K
Eberhart, 1995). The PSO technique can generate a high-
quality solution within a short calculation time and stable In Equation (5), K = 12 u9t u9t is the fluctuating kinetic energy
convergence characteristics better than other stochastic meth- and e is the turbulence dissipation rate. The values of con-
ods (Eberhart and Shi, 1998; Yoshida et al., 2000). stants are se = 1:3, C s1 = 1:44 and C s2 = 1:92.
Furthermore, in the recent years, several approaches, such as The dispersion of small particles is strongly affected by the
dynamic neighbourhood PSO (Hu and Eberhart, 2002), dom- instantaneous fluctuation of fluid velocity. The turbulence
inated tree (Fieldsend and Singh, 2002), the sigma method fluctuations are random functions of space and time. In this
(Mostaghim and Teich, 2003) and vector evaluated PSO study, a discrete random walk (DRW) model is used for eval-
(Parsopoulos et al., 2004), etc. have been proposed to extend uating the instantaneous velocity fluctuations. The values of
the PSO algorithm to deal with multi-objective optimization u9, v9and w9that prevail during the lifetime of the turbulent
problems. eddy, Te are sampled by assuming that they obey a Gaussian
In this paper, the pressure drop (Dp) and the collection probability distribution. In this model, the instantaneous velo-
efficiency (h) in a set of square cyclones are numerically city in the ith direction is given as:
investigated using CFD techniques and compared with those qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of experimental results of Wang et al. (1999) and the vali- u9i = j u9t u9t ð6Þ
dated CFD simulation of Raoufi et al. (2009). Next, GMDH-
type neural networks are used to produce the polynomial In Equation (6), j is a zero-mean, unit-variance, normally dis-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
models for the effects of geometrical parameters of the square tributed random number, u9t u9t is the local root mean-
cyclones on both Dp and h. Such an approach of meta- square (RMS) fluctuation velocity in the ith direction , and
modelling of those CFD results allows for iterative optimiza- the summation convention on i is suspended.
tion techniques to design the square cyclones optimally. The characteristic lifetime of the eddy is defined as a con-
Then, the obtained simple polynomial models are used in a stant given by
Pareto-based multi-objective PSO approach to find the best
possible combinations of Dp and h, known as the Pareto Te = 2Tl ð7Þ
front.
where Tl is the eddy turnover time given as, Te = 0:3K=e in
the RSTM. The other option allows for a long–normal ran-
CFD simulation and validation of the dom variation of eddy lifetime, given by
results Te =  Tl log r ð8Þ
CFD simulation where r is a uniform random number between 0 and 1. The
For an incompressible fluid flow, the equation of continuity particle is assumed to interact with the fluid fluctuation field,
and balance of momentum are given as: which stays fixed over the eddy lifetime. When the eddy

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

Mahmoodabadi et al. 291

Table 1 Comparison of collection efficiency and pressure drop for Table 2 Dimensions and operating conditions in the computational
three different grid numbers. fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation.

Total no. of cells h (%) Dp/0.5v2 Parameter Value

182,282 90.07 1.98 Inlet velocity (m/s) 26

212,398 91.42 2.02 Temperature (k) 300
280,716 88.12 1.93 Particle feed rate (g/min) 3
Max. diff. (%) 3.601 4.452 Inlet width (Y/a) 0.25
Inlet height (X/a) 0.50
Gas outlet length (S/a) 0.53

lifetime is reached, a new value of the instantaneous velocity

is obtained by introducing a new value of j in Equation (6). efficiency (D P 50% ) needs to be determined, according to the
There are two main approaches for modelling multi- following equation:
phase flows that account for the interactions between the sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
phases. These are the Eulerian–Eulerian and the Eulerian– 9mY
D P 50% = ð9Þ
Lagrangian approaches. The former is based on the concept 2pNe Vin rp
of interpenetrating continua, for which all the phases are
treated as continuous media with properties analogous to The collection efficiency for any other particle size (DPj ) can
those of a fluid. The Eulerian–Lagrangian approach adopts then be determined by
a continuum description for the liquid phase and tracks the
discrete phase using Lagrangian particle trajectory analysis. 1
h= ð10Þ
Dp50% 2
In the present study, the volume-averaged and steady state 1+( DPj )
Navier–Stokes equation is solved for the gas phase. The
particle motions are simulated by the Lagrangian trajectory Many empirical models have been proposed for the pressure
analysis procedure. Forces acting on the dispersed phase drop in the conventional cyclones (Casal and Martinez, 1983;
include drag and gravity. The discrete phase equations are Coker, 1993; Shepherd and Lapple, 1939; Wang, 2004). In
solved using Runge–Kutta method for particles. In this Wang’s model, the total pressure loss in the cyclone is
paper, the collisions between particles and the walls of the obtained by summing up the five pressure drop components
cyclone were assumed to be perfectly elastic, and particle– as follows:
particle collision is negligible (Gimbun et al., 2005;
Safikhani et al., 2010, 2011). DPtotal = DPe + DPk + DPf + DPr + DPo ð11Þ
To test for grid independence, three grid types with
increasing grid density are studied. The computational results where the components of Equation (11) are explained in
of three grid types are compared in Table 1. As seen, the max- Table 3.
imum difference between the results is less than 5% so the
grid template 182, 282 is used for all computations in the Definition of the design variables
present study.
The simulations are performed using commercial software The design variables in present paper are: the dimensionless
FLUENT. Inlet mass flow boundary condition is used at the vortex finder diameter (De/a), the dimensionless upside and
cyclone inlet and a fully developed boundary condition is used downside body of square cyclone (LUp/a) and (LDown/a). The
at the outlet (Safikhani et al., 2010, 2011). The computation is design variables and their range of variations are shown in
continued until the solution converged with a total residual of Figure 1 and Table 4. It should be mentioned that each of the
less than 0.00001. design variables are divided to a specific number and the
cyclone is designed with each of these design variables. By
changing the geometrical independent parameters according
Definition of the objective functions
Both the collection efficiency and pressure drop in cyclones Table 3 The components of Wang’s pressure drop theory.
are important objective functions to be optimized simultane-
ously. The collection efficiency statistics are obtained by Component Definition
releasing a specified number of particles at the inlet of the
cyclones and by monitoring the number escaping through the DPe = C2VPin Entry loss, C2’1
underflow. The range of particles size is 0.205 mm of a mate- DPk = VPin2VPout Kinetic energy loss
rial whose density is equal to 2250 kg/m3; some other operat- DPf = CVPin Frictional loss, C1D3D = 0.14, C2D2D = 0.28,
ing conditions are shown in Table 2. C1D2D = 0.15
DPr = rV2in(R/r021) Rotational loss, r0 = radius of the vortex
The first theory for collection efficiency in conventional
interface, R = cyclone body radius
cyclones was developed by Shepherd and Lapple (1939). It is
DP0 = C3VPout Pressure loss in the inner vortex and exit tube,
based on the assumption of a plug flow. In order to calculate C3’1.8
the efficiency, first the particle size with 50% collection

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

292 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 35(3)

predict the dynamic and static pressure drop with an accepta-

ble deviation from Raoufi et al. (2009) numerical data. A
comparison of experimental and CFD prediction for collec-
tion efficiency is shown in Figure 3. It is obvious that numeri-
cal simulation can properly adapt with a pattern of
experimental efficiency curves. Samples of numerical results,
using CFD are shown in Table 5. Moreover, the static pres-
sure contour in one of CFD simulations is shown in Figure 4.
The results obtained in such CFD analysis can now be
used to build the response surface of both the collection effi-
ciency and the pressure drop for those 80 different geometries
using GMDH-type polynomial neural networks. Such meta-
models will, in turn, be used for the Pareto-based multi-
objective optimization of the square cyclones. A post-analysis
using CFD is also performed to verify the optimum results
using the meta-modelling approach. Finally, the solutions
obtained using the approach in this paper exhibit some impor-
tant trade-offs among those objective functions, which can be
simply used by a designer to compromise optimally among
the obtained solutions.

Modelling of Dp and h using GMDH-type

neural networks
By means of a GMDH algorithm, a model can be represented
as a set of neurons in which different pairs in each layer are
connected through a quadratic polynomial, thus producing
new neurons in the next layer. Such a representation can be
used in modelling to map inputs to outputs. The formal defi-
nition of the identification problem is to find a function ^f so
that it can be approximately used instead of the actual func-
tion, f in order to predict output ^y for a given input vector
X = (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn ) as close as possible to its actual output
y. Therefore, given M observation of multi-input–single-out-
put data pairs so that
Figure 1 Definition of design variables.
yi = f (xi1 , xi2 , xi3 , . . . , xin ), i = 1, 2, . . . , M ð12Þ

Table 4 Design variables and their range of variations. it is now possible to train a GMDH-type neural network to
predict the output values ^yi for any given input vector
Design variable From To X = (xi1 , xi2 , xi3 , . . . , xin ), i.e.
De/a 0.2 0.6
^yi = ^f (xi1 , xi2 , xi3 , . . . , xin ), i = 1, 2, . . . , M ð13Þ
LUp/a 0.9 1.6
LDown/a 0.9 1.6
The problem is now to determine a GMDH-type neural net-
work so that the square of difference between the actual out-
to the Table 4, various designs will be generated and evaluated put and the predicted one is minimized, i.e.
by CFD. Consequently, some meta-models can be optimally
constructed using the GMDH-type neural networks, which X
M
½ ^f (xi1 , xi2 , xi3 , . . . , xin )  yi 2 ! min ð14Þ
will be further used for multi-objective Pareto-based design of i=1
such cyclones. In this way, 80 various CFD analyses have
been performed because of those different design geometries. The general connection between input and output variables
can be expressed by a complicated discrete form of the
Volterra functional series in the form of
Validation of the CFD results
To attain confidence about the simulation, it is necessary to X
n X
n X
n X
n X
n X
n

compare the simulation result with the available data. A com- y = a0 + ai xi + aij xi xj + aijk xi xj xk + . . .
i=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 k =1
parison of CFD prediction for dynamic and static pressure
drop is shown in Figure 2. As seen, our numerical data ð15Þ

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

Mahmoodabadi et al. 293

Figure 2 Comparison of numerical result for dynamic and static pressure drop.

which is known as the Kolmogorov–Gabor polynomial

(Farlow, 1984). This full form of mathematical description
can be represented by a system of partial quadratic polyno-
mials consisting of only two variables (neurons) in the form

^y = G(xi , xj ) = a0 + a1 xi + a2 xj + a3 xi xj + a4 xi 2 + a5 xj 2
ð16Þ

There are two main concepts involved within a GMDH-type

Figure 3 Comparison of numerical and experimental result for collection
efficiency. Reproduced with kind permission from Elsevier (Wang et al., 1999).
neural networks design, namely the parametric and the struc-
tural identification problems. In this way, some works by
Nariman-Zadeh et al. (2003) present a hybrid genetic algo-
rithm and singular value decomposition (SVD) method to
design such polynomial neural networks optimally. The meth-
odology in these references has been successfully used in this
paper to obtain polynomial models of Dp and h. The obtained
GMDH-type polynomial models have shown very good pre-
diction ability of unforeseen data pairs during the training
process, which will be presented in the following sections.

Table 5 Samples of numerical result using computational fluid dynamics (CFD).

Number Input data Output data

De/a LUp/a LDown/a Dp/0.5r v2 h (%)

1 0.6 0.9 0.9 2.362 92.058

2 0.4 1.6 0.9 2.751 99.363
3 0.6 1.3 1.3 0.868 45.740
4 0.2 1.3 1.6 1.270 52.417
5 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.431 76.511
6 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.175 76.389
7 0.3 0.9 1.3 2.521 96.222
8 0.5 1.3 1.1 1.810 82.440
9 0.6 1.6 1.3 2.331 85.555
10 0.2 1.3 1.1 1.184 56.409
.
79 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.890 50.023
80 0.6 0.9 1.3 2.217 49.125

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

294 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 35(3)

data pairs for Dp and h, is used for training the neural net-
work models using the method presented above. The testing
set, which consists of 20 unforeseen input–output data sam-
ples for Dp and h during the training process, is merely used
for testing to show the prediction ability of such evolved
GMDH-type neural network models. The GMDH-type
neural networks are now used for such input–output data to
find the polynomial models of Dp and h with respect to their
effective input parameters. In order to design genetically such
GMDH-type neural networks described in the previous sec-
tion, a population of 10 individuals with a crossover prob-
ability (Pc) of 0.7 and mutation probability (Pm) 0.07 has
been used in 500 generations for Dp and h. The correspond-
ing polynomial representation for dimensionless pressure
drop is as follows:

Lup LDown Lup 2

Y1 = 6940  3708( )4766( ) + 418( )
a a a
LDown 2 Lup LDown
+ 874( ) + 1466( )( ) ð17aÞ
a a a

De LDown De
Y2 = 727612096( )4597( ) + 6663( )2
a a a
LDown 2 De LDown
+ 874( ) + 3210( )( ) ð17bÞ
a a a

De De
Y3 = 550 + 584( ) + 2:94(Y23 ) + 82212( )2
a a
2 De
8:6180e  005(Y23 ) 3:88( )(Y23 ) ð17cÞ
a

Lup
Y4 = 151:66 + 1:9123 Y2 + 71:70( ) + 0:00016 Y2 2
a
Lup 2 Lup
26:021 ( ) 1:2012 Y2 ( ) ð17dÞ
a a

Dp
= 0:03992 + 1:55e  3 Y3 + 9:87e  4 Y4 + 7:4e
0:5r v2
7Y3 2 + 2:07e  6Y4 2  2:96e  6Y3 Y4 ð17eÞ

Similarly, the corresponding polynomial representation of the

Figure 4 Static pressure contour, Vin=26 m/s, De/a=0.5, LUp/
a=1.093, LDown/a=1.093. model for collection efficiency is in the form of

De Lup De
GMDH-type neural networks (polynomial modelling) are Y 91 = 2:44 + 0:26( ) + 7:01( )  0:860( )2
more accurate and simpler than traditional types (Nariman- a a a
Zadeh et al., 2003). Lup 2 De Lup
3:661( ) + 0:262123( )( ) ð18aÞ
The input–output data pairs used in such modelling a a a
involve two different data tables obtained from CFD simula-
tion discussed in previously. Both of the tables consists of Lup LDown Lup 2
Y 92 = 2:43 + 6:86( ) + 0:29( )  3:66( )
three variables as inputs, namely (De/a), (LUp/a) and (LDown/ a a a
a) and outputs, which are Dp and h. The tables consist of a LDown 2 Lup LDown
0:33( ) + 0:22( )( ) ð18bÞ
total of 80 patterns, which have been obtained from the a a a
numerical solutions to train and test such GMDH-type
neural networks. However, in order to demonstrate the pre- LDown
Y 93 = 0:330 + 1:071 Y 91 + 0:731( ) + 0:131 Y 91 2
diction ability of the evolved GMDH-type neural networks, a
the data in both input–output data tables have been divided LDown 2 LDown
into two different sets, namely training and testing sets. The 0:331( )  0:241 Y 91 ( ) ð18cÞ
a a
training set, which consists of 60 out of the 80 input–output

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

Mahmoodabadi et al. 295

Lup
Y 94 = 8:302  8:292Y 92  8:431( ) + 2:582Y 92 2
a
Lup 2 Lup
+ 2:131( ) + 4:721Y 92 ( ) ð18dÞ
a a
h = 4:823 + 75:911 Y 93 + 11:310 Y 94  601:31 Y 93 2
582:119 Y 94 2 + 1194:2109 Y 93 Y 94 ð18eÞ

The good behaviour of such GMDH-type neural network

model for dimensionless pressure drop is also depicted in
Figure 5, for both the training and testing data. Such beha-
viour has also been shown for the training and testing data of
collection efficiency in Figure 6. It is evident that the evolved
GMDH-type neural network in terms of simple polynomial
equations successfully model and predict the outputs of the
testing data that have not been used during the training pro-
cess. It should be noted that these polynomials are valid just
for design variables in the range of present case study (Table Figure 5 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) versus network for
4). The models obtained in this section can now be utilized in dimensionless pressure drop.
a Pareto multi-objective optimization of the square cyclone
considering both Dp and h as conflicting objectives. Such a
study may unveil some interesting and important optimal
design principles that would not have been obtained without
the use of a multi-objective optimization approach.

Combination of PSO, multiple-crossover

and mutation operator
In this section, a novel PSO is proposed, which is improved
by utilizing a multiple-crossover and mutation operator to
update the particle positions. In the following, basic concepts
of the PSO, multiple-crossover and mutation operator are
introduced, and in the next section, a hybrid of these opera-
tors is described.

Basic concepts of particle swarm optimization

Kennedy and Eberhart (1995) originally proposed the PSO
algorithm for optimization. PSO is a population-based search
algorithm based on the simulation of the social behaviour of
birds within a flock.
! !
Let xi (t) denote the position of particle pi, at time step t.
! !
The position of pi is then changed by adding a velocity vi (t)
to the current position, i.e.
! ! !
xi (t + 1) = xi (t) + vi (t + 1) ð19Þ
The velocity vector reflects the socially exchanged information
and, in general, is defined in the following way:
! ! ! ! ! !
vi (t + 1) = W vi (t) + C1 r1 ( x pbesti  xi (t)) + C2 r2 ( x gbest  xi (t))
ð20Þ
where r1 , r2 2 ½0, 1 are random values, C1 is the cognitive
learning factor and represents the attraction that a particle
has toward its own success. C2 is the social learning factor
and represents the attraction that a particle has toward the
success of its neighbours. W is the inertia weight, which is
employed to control the impact of the previous history of
Figure 6 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) versus network for
collection efficiency.
velocities on the current velocity of a given particle. x pbest is
the personal best position of the particle i, so far. x pbest is
position of the best particle of the entire swarm (Chau, 2007).
Basic concepts of multiple-crossover and mutation
operator
Multiple-crossover. Unlike the traditional crossover using only
two chromosomes, a crossover formula that contains three
parent chromosomes is used in this study. We assume that
!
chromosome xi (t) selected from the population randomly.
Also, let r 2 ½0, 1 be a random number. If r ˜ pCrossover , then
the following multiple-crossover is performed to generate the
new chromosome
! ! ! ! !
xi (t) = xi (t) + s(2 xi (t)  xi1 (t)  xi2 (t)) ð21Þ

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

296 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 35(3)

where s 2 ½0, 1 is a random value. If r ˜ pCrossover , no cross-

over operation is performed.

Mutation operator. The mutation operator provides a possi-

!
ble mutation on some chosen chromosome xi (t). Also, let
q 2 ½0, 1 be a random number. If q ˜ pMutation , then the fol-
lowing mutation operator is performed to generate the new
chromosome
! !
xi (t) = xi (t) + j3k ð22Þ

where j 2 ½0, 1 is a random value and k is a positive constant.

If q ˜ pMutation , no crossover operation is performed.

Proposed hybrid algorithm

The flowchart of the combination of PSO, multiple-crossover
and mutation operator is shown in Figure 7.

Definitions of multi-objective optimization problem

Optimization problems that have more than one objective
function are rather common in every field or area of knowl-
edge. In such problems, the objectives to be optimized are
normally in conflict with respect to each other, which means
that there is no single solution for these problems. Instead,
we aim to find good trade-off solutions that represent the best
possible compromises among the objectives.
A multi-objective optimization problem is of the form:
! ! ! ! ! The details of the proposed multi-objective algorithm are
Minimize : f ( x ) = ½f1 ( x ), f2 ( x ), . . . , fk ( x )
subject to:
! all the leaders in order to select (usually) one leader for each
gi ( x ) < 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , m
! leader is selected and the flight (Equations 19 and 20, or
hi ( x ) = 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , p
! uated, and its corresponding x pbest is updated. A new particle
where x = ½x1 , x2 , . . . , xn T is the vector of decision variables,
fi : Rn ! R , i = 1, . . . , k are the objective functions and
gi , hj : Rn ! R , i = 1, . . . , m, j = 1, . . . , p are the constraint
functions of the problem.
A multi-objective algorithm based on the combination
of PSO, multiple-crossover and mutation operator
Optimization problems that have more than one objective
function are rather common in every field or area of knowl-
edge. In such problems, the objectives are of conflicting
nature, which means that there is no single solution for these
problems. Instead, we aim to find good trade-off solutions
that represent the best possible compromises among the objec-
tives. PSO is a heuristic search technique (Eberhart and Shi,
1998), which simulates the movements of a flock of birds that
aim to find food. The relative simplicity of PSO and the fact
that it is a population-based technique have made it a natural
candidate to extend for multi-objective optimization. Moore
and Chapman (1999) proposed the first extension of the PSO
Figure 7 Flowchart of combination of particle swarm optimization
(PSO), multiple crossover and mutation operator.
strategy for solving multi-objective problems in an unpub-
lished manuscript. After this early attempt, great interest in
extending PSO arose among researchers, but interestingly, the
next proposal was not published until 2002. Nevertheless,
there are currently different proposals of multi-objective PSOs
reported in the specialized literature.
ð23Þ as following. First, the swarm is initialized. Then, a set of
leaders is also initialized with respect to the non-dominated
particles. Later, some sort of quality measure is calculated for
ð24Þ particle in the swarm. At each generation, for each particle, a
ð25Þ Equations 21 and 23) is performed. Then, the particle is eval-
!
!
usually replaces its x pbest particle when this particle is domi-
nated. After all the particles have been updated, the set of
leaders is also updated. Finally, the quality measure of the set
of leaders is recalculated. This process is repeated for a cer-
tain number of iterations.
Multi-objective optimization of square
cyclone via polynomial neural network
models
In order to investigate the optimal performance of the square
cyclones in different geometrical parameters, the polynomial
neural network models obtained above are now deployed in a
multi-objective optimization procedure using a proposed MO
algorithm. The two conflicting objectives in this study are Dp
and h, which are to be simultaneously optimized with respect
to the design variables (De/a), (LUp/a) and (LDown/a). The
two-objective optimization problem can be formulated in the
following form:

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

Mahmoodabadi et al. 297

functions. There are five optimum design points, namely A,

Figure 8 Pareto result for square cyclones by using of the proposed
multi-objective optimization (MO) algorithm.
8 optimal design concepts. In fact, the optimum design point B
>
> Maximize collection efficiency (h) = f1 (De =a, LUp =a, LDown =a)
>
>
< Minimize Pressure Drop (Dp) = f2 (De =a, LUp =a, LDown =a)
Subject to : 0:2 \ x1 = De =a \ 0:6
>
>
>
> 0:9 \ x2 = LUp =a \ 1:6
:
0:9 \ x3 = LDown =a \ 1:6
ð26Þ
In this problem, the algorithm configuration of the multi-
objective PSO is as follows. The inertia weight W is linearly
decreased from W1 = 0:9 to W2 = 0:4, C1 is linearly decreased
from C1i = 2:5 to C1f = 0:5, while C2 is linearly increased
from C2i = 0:5 to C2f = 2:5 over time. The related variables
used in multiple-crossover and mutation operator are:
pCrossover = 0:45, pMutation = 0:05 and k = 0:4. The term ~ vi (t) is
limited to the range ½vave9 + vave , where vave = xmax x
2
min
. If
the velocity violates this range, it will be multiplied by a ran-
dom number in the interval ½0, 1. The related variables used
in the NSGA II are: the crossover probability is 0.9 and the
mutation probability is 0.1. For the multi-objective PSO, a
swarm of size 100 and the maximum iteration 150 are used,
and for the NSGA II, a population of size 100 and the maxi-
mum generation 150 are used (both of the multi-objective
PSO and the NSGA II have same function evaluations
15,000). It should be mentioned that our program is able to
show the final optimum objective functions and design vari-
ables simultaneously.
Figure 8 depicts the obtained non-dominated optimum
design points as a Pareto front of those two objective
B, C, D and E, whose corresponding design variables and
objective functions are shown in Table 6. These points clearly
demonstrate trade-offs in objective functions h and Dp from
which an appropriate design can be compromisingly chosen.
It is clear from Figure 8 that all the optimum design points in
the Pareto front are non-dominated and could be chosen by a
designer as an optimum square cyclone. Evidently, choosing
a better value for any objective function in the Pareto front
would cause a worse value for another objective. The corre-
sponding decision variables of the Pareto front shown in
Figure 8 are the best possible design points, so if any other
set of decision variables is chosen, the corresponding values
of the pair of objectives will be located at a point inferior to
this Pareto front. Such an inferior area in the space of the
two objectives is in fact the bottom/right side of Figure 8.
In Figure 8, the design points A and E stand for the best
collection efficiency and the best pressure drop. Moreover, the
other optimum design points B and D can simply be recog-
nized from Figure 8. The design point B exhibits important
obtained in this paper exhibits a decrease in h (about 6.8%) in
comparison with that of point A, whereas its Dp improves
about 45.2% in comparison with that of A; similarly optimum
design point D exhibits an increase in Dp (about 7.05%) in
comparison with that of point E, whereas its h improves
about 37.6%.
We now need to find a trade-off optimum design point
compromising both objective functions. This can be achieved
by the method employed in this paper, namely the mapping
method. In this method, the values of objective functions of
all non-dominated points are mapped into interval 0 and
1.Using the sum of these values for each non-dominated
point, the trade-off point simply is one having the minimum
sum of those values. Consequently, optimum design point C
is the trade-off points, which have been obtained from the
mapping method.
There are some interesting design facts, which can be used
in the design of square cyclones. The optimal variations of pres-
sure drop and collection efficiency with respect to design vari-
ables are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. It is clear
from these figures, from point A to C, that (De/a) is almost con-
stant, whereas (LUp/a) and (LDown/a) vary linearly. Similarly,
from C to D, all of the design variables vary linearly. Finally,
from D to E, (De/a) and (LDown/a) vary linearly, whereas (LUp/
a) is constant. These useful relationships that are not feasible
between the optimum design variables of square cyclones can-
not be discovered without the use of the multi-objective Pareto
optimization process presented in this paper.

Table 6 The values of objective functions and their associated design variables of the optimum points.

Point De/a LUp/a LDown/a Dp/0.5r v2 h (%)

A 0.535 1.445 1.519 3.081 100.000

B 0.498 1.182 1.535 1.975 96.304
C 0.543 1.089 1.339 1.408 89.831
D 0.518 1.005 1.005 0.987 64.137
E 0.466 0.973 0.988 0.864 43.106

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

298 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 35(3)

Figure 9 Variations of pressure drop with respect to design variables. Figure 11 Overlay graphs of the proposed method and Non-dominate
Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA II) Pareto fronts with the
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data.

hybrid algorithm lays on the best possible combination of the

NSGA II’s Pareto front and objective values of CFD data,
which demonstrate the effectiveness of this paper in obtaining
the Pareto front.
In a post-numerical study, the design points of the
obtained Pareto front have been re-evaluated by CFD. It
should be noted that the optimum design points of the Pareto
set are not included in the training and testing sets utilized
meta-modelling using a GMDH-type neural network, which
makes such re-evaluation sensible. The results of such CFD
analysis re-evaluations have been compared with that of the
MO hybrid of PSO in Table 7. As seen, the network data
agree well with the CFD results.

Figure 10 Optimal variations of collection efficiency with respect to
design variables.
The Pareto front obtained from the proposed MO algo-
rithm (Figure 8) has been superimposed with the Pareto front
of the NSGA II (Deb et al., 2002) and the corresponding
CFD simulation data in Figure 11. It can be clearly seen from
Figure 11 that the Pareto front obtained from the proposed
Conclusion
Two different polynomial relations for collection efficiency
and pressure drop have been found by evolved GS-GMDH-
type neural networks using some validated CFD simulations
for input–output data of the square cyclones. The derived
models have been used in a novel multi-objective optimization
process so that some interesting and informative optimum
design aspects have been revealed for cyclones. The obtained
Pareto fronts from the proposed MO algorithm and NSGA II

Table 7 Re-evaluation of the obtained optimal Pareto front using computational fluid dynamics (CFD).

Points Dp/0.5r v2 h (%)

MOPSO CFD Error (%) MOPSO CFD Error (%)

A 3.081 3.171 2.83 100.000 100.0 0.00

B 1.975 2.021 2.27 96.304 99.99 3.69
C 1.408 1.342 24.91 89.831 88.03 22.04
D 0.987 1.033 4.45 64.137 62.85 21.82
E 0.864 0.905 4.53 43.106 45.33 4.91

MOPSO, multi- objective particle swarm optimization.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

Mahmoodabadi et al. 299

method have been compared, and it has been shown that the Chau KW (2007) Application of a PSO-based neural network in anal-
proposed Pareto front lies on the best possible combination ysis of outcomes of construction claims. Automation in Construc-
of NSGA II Pareto front and CFD data. tion 16(5): 642–646.
Coker AK (1993) Understand cyclone design. Chemical Engineering
Progress 28: 51–55.
Nomenclature Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S and Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and eli-
tist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGAII. IEEE Transac-
u Velocity (m/s) tions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2): 182–197.
x Position (m) Eberhart RC and Shi Y (1998) Comparison between genetic algo-
P Pressure (Pa) rithms and particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the
Ne Number of effective turns (-) IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
Vin Inlet velocity (m/s) Anchorage, pp. 611–616.
VP Velocity pressure (mPa/s) Farlow SJ (1984) Self-organizing, Method in Modeling: GMDH Type
Y Inlet width (m) Algorithm. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
X Inlet height (m) Fieldsend JE and Singh S (2002) A multi-objective algorithm based upon
R Reynolds stress tensor (Pa) particle swarm optimization and efficient data structure and turbu-
D50 Cut-point (m) lence. In: Workshop on Computational Intelligence, pp. 34–44.
Gimbun J, Chuah TG, Choong TS and Fakhru’l-Razi YA (2005) Pre-
K Kinematic Energy (kgm/s2)
diction of the effects of cone tip diameter on the cyclone perfor-
C Empirical constant (–)
mance. Aerosol Science 36: 1056–1065.
T Characteristic life time (s) Hu X and Eberhart RC (2002) Multi-objective optimization using
r Random number (–) dynamic neighborhood particle swarm optimization. In: Proceed-
D Diameter (m) ings of the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence,
a Side of square (m) pp. 1677–1681.
f Objective function Junfu L, Jiansheng Z, Guangxi Y, Qing L, Xiaoma L and Jiling L
(1999) The progress of the water cooled separator CFB boiler in
Greek symbols China. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fluidized
Bed Combustion, Savannah, Georgia, Paper No. FBC99-0038.
r Density (kg/m3) Junfu L, Jiansheng Z, Hai Z, Qing L and Guangxi Y (2007) Perfor-
n Viscosity (kg/ms) mance evaluation of a 220t/h CFB boiler with water-cooled square
e Turbulence dissipation (m2/s2) cyclones. Fuel Processing Technology 88: 129–135.
s Empirical constant (–) Kennedy J and Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarms optimization. In:
j Mean variance (–) Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Net-
h Efficiency (%) works IV, Perth, Australia, pp. 1942–1948.
Launder BE, Reece GJ and Rodi W (1975) Progress in the develop-
ment of a Reynolds stress turbulent closure. Journal of Fluid
Subscripts Mechanics 68: 537–538.
p Particle Mostaghim S and Teich J (2003) Strategies for finding good local guides
i,j,k 1,2,3 in multi- objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO). In: Pro-
t Turbulent ceedings of the IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, pp. 26–33.
e Vortex finder (diameter) Moore J and Chapman R (1999) Application of Particle Swarm to
Multi-objective Optimization. Auburn, AL: Department of Com-
puter Science and Software Engineering, Auburn University.
Superscripts Nariman-Zadeh N, Darvizeh A and Ahmad-Zadeh GR (2003) Hybrid
– Mean variables genetic design of GMDH-type neural networks using singular
value decomposition for modeling and prediction of the explosive
cutting process. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engi-
Abbreviation neers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 217: 779–790.
CFD Computational fluid dynamics Parsopoulos KE, Tasoulis DK and Vrahatis MN (2004) Multi-objec-
tive optimization using parallel vector evaluated particle swarm
GMDH Group method of data handling
optimization. In: Proceedings of the IASTED International Con-
NSGA Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms
ference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications.
PSO Particle swarm optimization Qiang G, Hairui Y, Junfu L, Qing L, Yu W, Guangxi Y, Makino K,
MO Multi-objective optimization Watababe S and Nakamura M (2003) Experimental investigation
CFB Circulating fluidized bed on the performance and characteristic parameter of the square
DRW Discrete random walk separator. The 8th China Japan Fluidization, Gifu, Japan.
Raoufi A, Shams M and Kanani H (2009) CFD analysis of flow field
in square cyclones. Powder Technology 191: 349–357.
Ravi G, Gupta SK and Ray MB (2000) Multi objective optimization
References of cyclone separators. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Angeline PJ (1998) Using selection to improve particle swarm optimi- 39: 4272–4286.
zation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Safikhani H, Akhavan-Behabadi MA, Shams M and Rahimyan MH
Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, pp. 84–89. (2010) Numerical simulation of flow field in three types of stan-
Casal J and Martinez JM (1983) A better way to calculate cyclone dard cyclone separators. Advanced Powder Technology 21(4): 435–
pressure drop. Chemical Engineering 90(2): 90–99. 442, available online.

Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015

300
Safikhani H, Shams M and Dashti S (2011) Numerical simulation of
square cyclones in small sizes. Advanced Powder Technology 22(3):
359–365, available online.
Shepherd CB and Lapple CE (1939) Air Pollution Control: a Design
Approach. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc., pp.
127–139.
Su Y (2006) The turbulent characteristics of the gas–solid suspension
in a square cyclone separator. Chemical Engineering Science 61:
1395–1400.
Su Y and Mao Y (2006) Experimental study on the gas–solid suspen-
sion flow in a square cyclone separator. Chemical Engineering
Journal 121: 51–58.
Downloaded from tim.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 19, 2015
Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 35(3)
Wang L (2004) Theoretical study of cyclone design. PhD thesis, A&M
University, Texas.
Wang S, Fang M, Luo Z, Li X, Ni M and Cen K (1999) Instanta-
neous separation model of a square cyclone. Powder Technology
102: 65–70.
Yoshida H, Kawata K and Fukuyama Y (2000) A particle swarm
optimization for reactive power and voltage control considering
voltage security assessment. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems
15: 1232–1239.