Authors:
László Kota Self-Employed IT Engineer and Software Developer, Budapest, H-1158, Hungary

Search for other papers by László Kota in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Károly Jármai Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, H-3515 Miskolc, Egyetemváros, Hungary

Search for other papers by Károly Jármai in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8487-4327
Open access

Abstract

In the research projects and industrial projects severe optimization problems can be met, where the number of variables is high, there are a lot of constraints, and they are highly nonlinear and mostly discrete issues, where the running time can be calculated sometimes in weeks with the usual optimization methods on an average computer. In most cases in the logistics industry, the most robust constraint is the time. The optimizations are running on a typical office configuration, and the company accepts the suboptimal solution what the optimization method gives within the appropriate time limit. That is, why adaptivity is needed. The adaptivity of the optimization technique includes parameters of fine-tuning. On this way, the most sensitive setting can be found. In this article, some additional adaptive methods for logistic problems have been investigated to increase the effectivity, improve the solution in a strict time condition.

Abstract

In the research projects and industrial projects severe optimization problems can be met, where the number of variables is high, there are a lot of constraints, and they are highly nonlinear and mostly discrete issues, where the running time can be calculated sometimes in weeks with the usual optimization methods on an average computer. In most cases in the logistics industry, the most robust constraint is the time. The optimizations are running on a typical office configuration, and the company accepts the suboptimal solution what the optimization method gives within the appropriate time limit. That is, why adaptivity is needed. The adaptivity of the optimization technique includes parameters of fine-tuning. On this way, the most sensitive setting can be found. In this article, some additional adaptive methods for logistic problems have been investigated to increase the effectivity, improve the solution in a strict time condition.

1 Introduction

In research works, logistic problems are solved many times, which are not only nonlinear, but discrete, some are non-continuous, and cannot be represented in diagrams, only with matrix forms. In one of previous research, the problem of adaptive optimization has been employed using evolutionary programming in the optimization of large-scale maintenance systems [1]. If the optimization problem is complex, it is hard to find the global minimum or maximum [2, 3]. In this paper, the firefly algorithm has been applied to a logistic problem with a large variable count. The firefly algorithm is a swarm-based heuristic algorithm presented by Xin-She Yang [4], inspired by the mating behavior of fireflies. The firefly algorithm based on three rules:

  • All fireflies are attracted by each other;

  • Attractiveness is proportioned by brightness, the less brilliant move towards the brighter one;

  • If there is no more luminous firefly than the selected one, that will move randomly in the state space.

The algorithm is shown in Code 1.

Code 1. Pseudo-code of the firefly algorithm, (on the basis of [4])

The firefly algorithm has several control parameters, for example, the absorption coefficient, the randomization control factor, and the firefly population size. The values of these control parameters significantly affect the quality of the achieved solution and the efficiency of the algorithm. It is a problem depends on selecting suitable control parameters for the actual algorithm. Hard to deal with complex issues with many local optima where the most algorithms are trapped. Although it is highly important, there is no consistent methodology for determining the control parameters of the applied firefly algorithm variant. Mostly, the settings are fixed throughout many experiments or set arbitrarily within some predefined ranges [5].

2 The problem

The problem to be optimized is a supply chain optimization problem based on the olive oil production by the company Tariş in Turkey described in [6]. The whole problem cannot be described within the framework of this article, so the core function (1) is needed to be optimized here. The main objective function is the profit maximization, as in many other cases:
F(Xi)=i=1Ik=1K(picik)Yiki=1I(oc·oilipci)Xit·toil,
where pi is the product price; cik is the transportation cost; Yik is the produced quantity; oc is the oil cost (1 L); oili is the required oil quantity; pci is the packaging cost; X is the total produced quantity of the given packaging unit; t × toil is the transportation cost of the oil used; and the constraints are:
Xik=1KYiki,
i=1IoiliXitotaloil,
Yikdiki,k,
XiZi,
YikZi,k.

The total produced quantity must less than the entire amount required (1); the oil used must less than the total oil available (2); the amount provided for each region must be less than the required quantity of the given region (3); and the variables must be integers (5), (6).

In the model 10 packaging units (p), and 13 regions (r) have been used, so the matrix (Y) to be optimized, which is the produced quantity matrix, will contain 130 variables.

3 Distance and movement

In the research, the swarm methods like the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [7] and the Firefly Algorithm (FA) [8] are very often used; both of them are common and widely used to solve a wide range of problems. However, until now they were not used for a large number of variables. The firefly algorithm is working well with various test functions, a lot of general problems [9], but how it performs on a large variable count problem.

The first problem was the discrete nature of the problem. The original firefly algorithm was developed to optimize continuous problems and not just continuous problems, but problems where the directions have meaning, so the moving toward have meant so that the fireflies can move toward each other. Thus, the first task was to define the distance of the fireflies and define the movement function. In some articles, they followed that way [10, 11]. The distance of two fireflies (F1, F2) is:
dst(F1,F2)=i=1..pj=1..rAbs(yikF1yikF2),
where F1 and F2 are the two fireflies whose distance we want to define; yik is the decision variable the manufactured quantity of the packaging unit i in the region k.

The movement function is:

move toward(F1,F2):yikF1=yikF1+β·(yikF1yikF2)+α·rnd0.5
executed on every matrix element, where β=eγr, gamma was set to 1; α = range 0.05 randomization component where the range is the range of interpretation, in this case, it was a set to 30,000 as the upper limit of the decision variables.
When there is no brighter firefly the firefly moves randomly:
moverandom(F1)yikF1=yikF1+rnd(±50).

First, the random movement parameter has been fixed, which was selected by guesswork; the firefly count was 5. All runs were done in an average office computer, a 1st generation Intel Core I7-870 processor, 6 GB RAM, the algorithm was programmed in C# .NET and all the test runs were limited 10 min.

The first run, with the usual parameters, as mentioned in the literature [6], gave the following result.

Figure 1 shows the convergence of the solution. In the figure, it is visible when the algorithm jumps out in a local optimum, and the function does not start to flatten during the limited 10 min of the run. The best fitness value was: 11579252.39.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

The target function, firefly algorithm first run without any adjustment

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 1; 10.1556/606.2020.00180

4 Modified random movement with self-adaptive values

The random movement function (9) moves that firefly, which is not moved in the actual iteration because there was no brightest firefly than him. Several parameters have been tried instead of the first guess ±50 value in the random movement function; the increase was slight. Then a proportional equation has been used where the random movement is proportional to the actual value therefore, the random movement will adapt to the scale of the actual problem.

The proportional value equation is the following:
moverandom(F1)yikF1=yikF1+rnd(yikF1/n)rnd(yikF1/n).

The algorithm was run at different proportional values (n) (Table 1). These values show that the target function value is not improved after it reached the 25,000 dividers, because the highest value of the product matrix is about 30,000 so the 25,000 and the 50,000 gives the same random movement value of 1. This modified firefly algorithm with this method of here its brightness improves. So, we generate N random movement variants and choose the best solution; if the solution improves the solution, the firefly will move in that direction, if not, it will stay there. In this case, this firefly program acts as an elitist entity algorithm, because its value does not change; it will go unmodified to the next generation of the fireflies. Several proportional numbers have been tried: the 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 and 1,000 random solutions and selected the best; which has the minimum value of the objective function. Do not forget that the running time is limited, so higher cycle number (N) results in a lower iteration count. Experimental runs have been carried out for all proportional values.

Table 1.

Proportional values at random movement

Proportional to the actual valueTarget function
±yikF18862235.24
±yikF1/210661050.00
±yikF1/510310898.52
±yikF1/1010167617.44
±yikF1/5011074974.70
±yikF1/10011546460.71
±yikF1/50011618969.21
±yikF1/100011470180.17
±yikF1/500011518200.56
±yikF1/1000011600611.80
±yikF1/2500011621109.67
±yikF1/5000011621109.67

The results (Table 2) show that the modified random movement improved the solution in every case. The higher randomization values were better to avoid the local optima or jump out if stuck in a local optimum, but it cannot be too big, because it moves in the state space too far. The best solution was at ±yikF1/100 and N = 500, but a lot of other values are close to this solution. This method also greatly improved the convergence (Fig. 2); the difference can be noticed compared to Fig. 1.

Table 2.

Modified random movement with proportional movement (best values are marked)

N±yikF1±yikF1/2±yikF1/5±yikF1/10
511658592.0711819534.4611826480.5711901170.66
1011708473.5511850753.7911922270.7511933058.08
5011747862.5811811321.5411804486.6411968312.55
10011706481.2911832501.8911933977.4111968701.49
50011898168.5811777553.5812069210.9111971114.62
1,00011744732.5911887363.7611971260.7211953844.37
N±yikF1/50±yikF1/100±yikF1/500±yikF1/1000
511730555.3811652020.711610061.011612635.3
1012028420.9211831095.411512298.011433305.7
5011831781.9311902323.211730092.111542878.0
10011874872.3911919576.211766607.411607951.0
50012060338.9212120813.711683133.611571373.9
1,00012049089.4112063160.511721536.011682845.1
N±yikF1/5000±yikF1/10000±yikF1/25000
511230433.211498258.511709050.3
1011682722.311607271.811594346.8
5011639638.011524683.711567352.8
10011547163.811490801.811607922.2
50011554956.311287234.811324414.3
1,00011370669.211075469.711280026.5
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Modified random movement improved the convergence

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 1; 10.1556/606.2020.00180

5 Adaptive firefly count

Another critical parameter of the algorithm is the firefly count, which is constant in standard algorithms. The main idea was to improve the search power of the algorithm when the convergence was starting to flatten. So, it was decided to use a simple adaptive method to increase the firefly count. If there is no increase in the global optimum, then the algorithm adds new random initialized fireflies to the state space, Code 2.

Code 2. A simple adaptive method

This improved method has been tested with N = 1, 5, 10 new additional fireflies combined with the self-adaptive random movement method. Table 3 shows the solution. The improvement percentage based on Table 2 improved values with modified random movement and the firefly count at the end of the limited run. According to the results, there is a slight improvement in the results using this method, but at two values/5 and/5,000, there are some minor negative values where the improved method failed. The additional firefly count is a good indicator of the continuous convergence. If it is small it shows that the result gets better and better in every iteration, like at the /5,000 case where the result is worse than the other values, but the firefly count is smaller, so the function has a slow but continuous convergence in the calculated time window.

Table 3.

Improvement on the initial solution with adaptive firefly count

N±yikF1±yikF1/2±yikF1/5±yikF1/10
N = 112070827.2212122923.3812125154.0112144917.07
Imp.1.43%1.94%−0.16%0.88%
FF count442450451419
N = 512051943.0512098366.6612087990.3812108718.04
Imp.1.28%1.74%−0.47%0.58%
FF count905.00895.00870.00855.00
N = 1012084262.6012095241.0612129499.7512111717.77
Imp.1.54%1.72%−0.12%0.60%
FF count1145.001165.001135.001095.00
N±yikF1/50±yikF1/100±yikF1/500±yikF1/1000
N = 112134597.0612142955.412010016.111978007.0
Imp.0.94%1.38%2.03%2.46%
FF count3012746149
N = 512118359.6212093069.912073598.612073523.3
Imp.0.80%0.98%2.54%3.24%
FF count780.00735.00305.00925.00
N = 1012124155.7812083340.912101332.112106607.0
Imp.0.85%0.90%2.77%3.50%
FF count1065.001065.00780.00565.00
N±yikF1/5000±yikF1/10000±yikF1/25000
N = 111300520.011830410.112082614.0
Imp.−3.38%1.89%3.09%
FF count624457
N = 511579538.611970996.812113865.7
Imp.−0.89%3.04%3.34%
FF count10.0045.00905.00
N = 1011859666.812044566.412085391.3
Imp.1.49%3.63%3.11%
FF count35.00375.001145.00

6 Conclusions

In this article, some improvement methods have been shown, which have been extensively tested on a large-scale logistic problem, and the combination of these methods has been checked. In discrete logistic problems, where lots of decision variables exist, it is essential to determine the distance metric and the movement function or functions. However, these functions are not precisely specified when to use them and the use of which one from the available variety is appropriate, usually the most straightforward and fastest functions have been used. Several distance metrics can be used, and the movement in most cases in huge state space has to be defined by one or occasionally more matrices, which makes the task even more complicated. These choices can significantly affect the quality of the solution. Because heuristics are used, it is not sure, if the global optimum reached or not and whether the selected movement function for the actual problem is useful or not. The applied improvement methods can help, whether the firefly algorithm or other heuristic methods have been used, and their combination also can be used. Still, it needs serious testing, to determine which helps a lot, and which improves a little and which method did not work in this case.

Acknowledgements

The research was partially supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office – NKFIH − under the project number K 134358.

References

  • [1]

    L. Kota and K. Jármai, “Adaptive methods in the optimization of large scale technical inspection and maintenance systems,” in XXVII. MicroCAD International Scientific Conference, Material Flow Systems . Logistical Information Technology and Technical Language, Miskolc, Hungary, Mar. 21–22, 2013, 2013, Paper no. J17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    M. Petrik, G. Szepesi, and K. Jármai, “CFD analysis and heat transfer characteristics of finned tube heat exchangers,” Pollack Period., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 165176, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    H. N. Ghafil and K. Jármai, “Kinematic-based structural optimization of robots,” Pollack Period., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 213222, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    X. S. Yang, Nature-inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. Luniver Press, 2008.

  • [5]

    N. J. Cheung, X. M. Ding, and H. B. Shen, “Adaptive firefly algorithm: Parameter analysis and its application,” PloS One, vol. 9, no. 11, Paper no. e112634, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    O. Yurt, L. Kota, K. Jármai, and E. Aglamaz, “Analysis and optimization of an olive oil supply chain: A case from Turkey,” Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Manage. Inform., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5979, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    H. N. Ghafil and K. Jármai, “Comparative study of particle swarm optimization and artificial bee colony algorithms,” in XXXII. MicroCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference, Miskolc, Hungary, Sep. 5–6, 2018, 2018, Paper no. D1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    L. Kota, “Optimization of the supplier selection problem using discrete firefly algorithm,” Adv. Logistic Syst., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 117126, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    L. Kota and K. Jármai, “Discretization of the firefly algorithm for the travelling salesman problem,” in 28th MicroCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference, University of Miskolc, Apr. 10–11, 2014, 2014, Paper no. D30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    S. L. Tilahun and H. C. Ong, “Modified firefly algorithm,” J. Appl. Math., vol. 2012, Paper no. 467631, pp. 112, 2012.

  • [11]

    S. Yu, S. Yang, and S. Su, “Self-adaptive step firefly algorithm,” J. Appl. Math., vol. 2013, Article no. ID 832718, pp. 18, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [1]

    L. Kota and K. Jármai, “Adaptive methods in the optimization of large scale technical inspection and maintenance systems,” in XXVII. MicroCAD International Scientific Conference, Material Flow Systems . Logistical Information Technology and Technical Language, Miskolc, Hungary, Mar. 21–22, 2013, 2013, Paper no. J17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    M. Petrik, G. Szepesi, and K. Jármai, “CFD analysis and heat transfer characteristics of finned tube heat exchangers,” Pollack Period., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 165176, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    H. N. Ghafil and K. Jármai, “Kinematic-based structural optimization of robots,” Pollack Period., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 213222, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    X. S. Yang, Nature-inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. Luniver Press, 2008.

  • [5]

    N. J. Cheung, X. M. Ding, and H. B. Shen, “Adaptive firefly algorithm: Parameter analysis and its application,” PloS One, vol. 9, no. 11, Paper no. e112634, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    O. Yurt, L. Kota, K. Jármai, and E. Aglamaz, “Analysis and optimization of an olive oil supply chain: A case from Turkey,” Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Manage. Inform., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5979, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    H. N. Ghafil and K. Jármai, “Comparative study of particle swarm optimization and artificial bee colony algorithms,” in XXXII. MicroCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference, Miskolc, Hungary, Sep. 5–6, 2018, 2018, Paper no. D1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    L. Kota, “Optimization of the supplier selection problem using discrete firefly algorithm,” Adv. Logistic Syst., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 117126, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    L. Kota and K. Jármai, “Discretization of the firefly algorithm for the travelling salesman problem,” in 28th MicroCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference, University of Miskolc, Apr. 10–11, 2014, 2014, Paper no. D30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    S. L. Tilahun and H. C. Ong, “Modified firefly algorithm,” J. Appl. Math., vol. 2012, Paper no. 467631, pp. 112, 2012.

  • [11]

    S. Yu, S. Yang, and S. Su, “Self-adaptive step firefly algorithm,” J. Appl. Math., vol. 2013, Article no. ID 832718, pp. 18, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instructions template is available in MS Word.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Amália

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Péter

 

Scientific Secretary

Miklós M. Iványi

Editorial Board

  • Bálint Bachmann (Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Jeno Balogh (Department of Civil Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA)
  • Radu Bancila (Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Terrestrial Communications Ways, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, “Politehnica” University Timisoara, Romania)
  • Charalambos C. Baniotopolous (Department of Civil Engineering, Chair of Sustainable Energy Systems, Director of Resilience Centre, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.)
  • Oszkar Biro (Graz University of Technology, Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Austria)
  • Ágnes Borsos (Institute of Architecture, Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Matteo Bruggi (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
  • Petra Bujňáková (Department of Structures and Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Slovakia)
  • Anikó Borbála Csébfalvi (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Mirjana S. Devetaković (Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Szabolcs Fischer (Department of Transport Infrastructure and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Architerture, Civil Engineering and Transport Sciences Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Radomir Folic (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad Serbia)
  • Jana Frankovská (Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • János Gyergyák (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Kay Hameyer (Chair in Electromagnetic Energy Conversion, Institute of Electrical Machines, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
  • Elena Helerea (Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania)
  • Ákos Hutter (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technolgy, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Károly Jármai (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Teuta Jashari-Kajtazi (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina, Kosovo)
  • Róbert Kersner (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Rita Kiss  (Biomechanical Cooperation Center, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • István Kistelegdi  (Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Stanislav Kmeť (President of University Science Park TECHNICOM, Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia)
  • Imre Kocsis  (Department of Basic Engineering Research, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • László T. Kóczy (Department of Information Sciences, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, University of Győr, Hungary)
  • Dražan Kozak (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia)
  • György L. Kovács (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Balázs Géza Kövesdi (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Engineering and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tomáš Krejčí (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Jaroslav Kruis (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Miklós Kuczmann (Department of Automations, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Tibor Kukai (Department of Engineering Studies, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Maria Jesus Lamela-Rey (Departamento de Construcción e Ingeniería de Fabricación, University of Oviedo, Spain)
  • János Lógó  (Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary)
  • Carmen Mihaela Lungoci (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Universitatea Transilvania Brasov, Romania)
  • Frédéric Magoulés (Department of Mathematics and Informatics for Complex Systems, Centrale Supélec, Université Paris Saclay, France)
  • Gabriella Medvegy (Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Tamás Molnár (Department of Visual Studies, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Ferenc Orbán (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán Orbán (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Dmitrii Rachinskii (Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA)
  • Chro Radha (Chro Ali Hamaradha) (Sulaimani Polytechnic University, Technical College of Engineering, Department of City Planning, Kurdistan Region, Iraq)
  • Maurizio Repetto (Department of Energy “Galileo Ferraris”, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
  • Zoltán Sári (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Grzegorz Sierpiński (Department of Transport Systems and Traffic Engineering, Faculty of Transport, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland)
  • Zoltán Siménfalvi (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Andrej Šoltész (Department of Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • Zsolt Szabó (Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary)
  • Mykola Sysyn (Chair of Planning and Design of Railway Infrastructure, Institute of Railway Systems and Public Transport, Technical University of Dresden, Germany)
  • András Timár (Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Barry H. V. Topping (Heriot-Watt University, UK, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)

POLLACK PERIODICA
Pollack Mihály Faculty of Engineering
Institute: University of Pécs
Address: Boszorkány utca 2. H–7624 Pécs, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36 72) 503 650

E-mail: peter.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu 

or amalia.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • SCOPUS
  • CABELLS Journalytics

 

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
14
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.298
Scimago Quartile Score

Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation (Q3)
Software (Q3)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1.4
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 256/350 (27th PCTL)
Modeling and Simulation 244/316 (22nd PCTL)
General Materials Science 351/453 (22nd PCTL)
Computer Science Applications 616/792 (22nd PCTL)
Software 344/404 (14th PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
0.861

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
12
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,26
Scimago Quartile Score Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q4)
Modeling and Simulation (Q4)
Software (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 232/326 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 536/747 (Q3)
General Materials Science 329/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 228/303 (Q4)
Software 326/398 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,613

2020  
Scimago
H-index
11
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,257
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
340/243=1,4
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 219/318 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 487/693 (Q3)
General Materials Science 316/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 217/290 (Q4)
Software 307/389 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
1,09
Scopus
Cites
321
Scopus
Documents
67
Days from submission to acceptance 136
Days from acceptance to publication 239
Acceptance
Rate
48%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
10
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,262
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
269/220=1,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 206/310 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 445/636 (Q3)
General Materials Science 295/460 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 212/274 (Q4)
Software 304/373 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,933
Scopus
Cites
290
Scopus
Documents
68
Acceptance
Rate
67%

 

Pollack Periodica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 336 EUR / 411 USD
Print + online subscription: 405 EUR / 492 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

 

Pollack Periodica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2006
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1788-1994 (Print)
ISSN 1788-3911 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jan 2024 0 60 3
Feb 2024 0 17 3
Mar 2024 0 18 3
Apr 2024 0 15 15
May 2024 0 4 0
Jun 2024 0 22 3
Jul 2024 0 0 0