skip to main content
10.1145/2908812.2908945acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Benchmarks for the Coal Processing and Blending Problem

Published:20 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we present a challenging problem that many decision makers in coal mining industry face. The coal processing and blending problem (CPBP) builds upon the traditional blending problem known in operations research (OR) by including decision variables around coal processing, novel constraints as well as arbitrary user-defined profit functions which express price bonuses and penalties. The added complexity turns the traditional blending problem into a challenging black-box optimisation problem. We give an informal and mathematical description of this problem and present nine real-world problem instances as benchmark. Finally, we provide preliminary results for solving the problem by using a Genetic Algorithm (GA) and compare the results with those from a commercial Linear Programming (LP) solver. The results show that the GA significantly outperforms the LP solver in many problem instances while being marginally worse in others.

References

  1. M. Alfaki. Models and solution methods for the pooling problem. PhD thesis. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. W. C. Association. Coal facts 2014. http://www.worldcoal.org/bin/pdf/originalpdffile/coal facts 2014-12 09 2014).pd. {accessed 2015-08-11}. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. W. Blaschke, E. Mokrzycki, and Z. Shan. Coal preparation economics. In W. Blaschke, editor, New trends in coal preparation technologies and equipment. Vol. 1, pp. 867--878. Taylor & Francis, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. N. Boland, T. Kalinowski, and F. Rigterink. Bounding the gap between the mccormick relaxation and the convex hull for bilinear functions. Arxiv preprint, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. R. Bonyadi, Z. Michalewicz, and L. Barone. The travelling thief problem: the first step in the transition from theoretical problems to realistic problems. In Evolutionary computation (cec), 2013 ieee congress on. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1037--1044.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. W. Candler. Coal blendingwith acceptance sampling. Computers & operations research, 18(7):591--596, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Chakraborty and M. Chakraborty. Multi criteria genetic algorithm for optimal blending of coal. Opsearch, 49(4):386--399, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. C. C. Coello, G. B. Lamont, and D. A. Van Veldhuizen. Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. Deb. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Vol. 16. John Wiley & Sons, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. E. Goldberg. Simple genetic algorithms and the minimal, deceptive problem. Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing, 74:88, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. V. Gupta and M. Mohanty. Coal preparation plant optimization: a critical review of the existing methods. International journal of mineral processing, 79(1):9--17, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. I. Gurobi Optimization. Gurobi optimizer reference manual. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. A. Haverly. Studies of the behavior of recursion for the pooling problem. Acm sigmap bulletin, (25):19--28, 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. U. Lorenz and Z. Grudziski. Hard coal for energetic purposes: price--quality relationships; international coal market observations and polish practice. Applied energy, 74(3):271--279, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. B. Manderick, M. d. Weger, and P. Spiessens. The genetic algorithm and the structure of the fitness landscape. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on genetic algorithms, 1991, pp. 143--150.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. V. Maniezzo, T. Stützle, and S. VoSS. Hybridizing metaheuristics and mathematical programming, ser. Annals of information systems, 10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Mashohor, J. R. Evans, and T. Arslan. Elitist selection schemes for genetic algorithm based printed circuit board inspection system. In Evolutionary computation, 2005. the 2005 ieee congress on. Vol. 2. IEEE, 2005, pp. 974--978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. P. C. Pendharkar and J. A. Rodger. Nonlinear programming and genetic search application for production scheduling in coal mines. Annals of operations research, 95(1-4):251--267, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. R. Raidl. Decomposition based hybrid metaheuristics. European journal of operational research, 244(1):66--76, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. F. Rothlauf. Representations for genetic and evolutionary algorithms. Springer, 2nd ed., 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Rushdi, A. Sharma, and R. Gupta. An experimental study of the effect of coal blending on ash deposition. Fuel, 83(4-5):495--506, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. H. Sherali and R. Puri. Models for a coal blending and distribution problem. Omega, 21(2):235--243, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. L.-H. Shih. Planning of fuel coal imports using a mixed integer programming method. International journal of production economics, 51(3):243--249, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J.-S. Shih and H. Frey. Coal blending optimization under uncertainty. European journal of operational research, 83(3):452--465, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. G. Speight. The chemistry and technology of coal. CRC Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. E. Weinberger. Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and how to tell the difference. Biological cybernetics, 63(5):325--336, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Benchmarks for the Coal Processing and Blending Problem

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GECCO '16: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2016
        July 2016
        1196 pages
        ISBN:9781450342063
        DOI:10.1145/2908812

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 July 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        GECCO '16 Paper Acceptance Rate137of381submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

        Upcoming Conference

        GECCO '24
        Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 14 - 18, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader