Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 9;35(10):7635–7658. doi: 10.1007/s00521-022-08058-8

Table 15.

Comparisons for Tension/Compression Spring Design (best-so-far solution)

Algorithm  × 1  × 2  × 3 Objective
CSS [28] 0.051744 0.358532 11.165704 0.012638
RO [68] 0.05137 0.349096 11.7679 0.012679
MCSS [50] 0.051627 0.35629 11.275456 0.012607
MOPM [74] 0.051718 0.357418 11.248016 0.012665
ISA [75] NA NA NA 0.012665
GWO [76] 0.05169 0.356737 11.28885 0.012666
TEO [79] 0.051775 0.358792 11.16839 0.012665
SOA [80] 0.051065 0.342897 12.0885 0.012645
PA [81] 0.051727 0.35763 11.235724 0.012665
MPA [84] 0.051725 0.357570 11.239196 0.012665
EO [85] 0.05162 0.355054 11.387968 0.012666
SRO [86] 0.051689 0.356723 11.288648 0.012665
CGO [89] 0.051663 0.356078 11.326575 0.012665
TLMPA [91] 0.051681 0.356533 11.299823 0.012665
SBO [92] 0.051598 0.354523 11.418801 0.012665
HS-WOA + [95] 0.05192 0.362288 10.969723 0.012666
HS-WOA [95] 0.053446 0.399928 9.173312 0.012764
AOS [96] 0.051690 0.356729 11.288297 0.012665
MGA [99] NA NA NA 0.012665
RSO [100] 0.051075 0.341987 12.0667 0.012656
CPA [101] 0.051741 0.357978 11.21548 0.012665
SCSO [102] 0.0500 0.3175 14.0200 0.012717
AHO [103] NA NA NA 0.0127
Proposed Algorithm (PbA) 0.05182 0.359887 11.105579 0.012665