The computational study presented in this chapter analyzes the impact of primal heuristics from different angles. This is done by investigating in which respect primal heuristics have an impact on the performance of a MIP solver, with respect to multiple performance measures.

Available at https://LAoE.link/LAoE_Chapter_17O.pdf.

This chapter presents the primal heuristics in the feasibility pump family. The fundamental idea of all feasibility pump algorithms is to construct two sequences of points that hopefully converge to a feasible solution of a given optimization problem. The points in the first sequence are feasible with respect to the linear programming constraints of the MIP, while those in the second sequence respect the integrality requirements. This basic concept has been developed in many ways in the literature, and this chapter gives an exhaustive overview of the resulting algorithms.

So what really happens when a program loads? When an interrupt event occurs? Well, a lot!

In addition, packaged logic gates are low density, typically containing only a few gates.1 That means any reasonably complex digital systems might need tens or hundreds of DIP packages. Because signals have to travel between packages, systems built with discrete logic are limited in speed as well.

AoE works a similar problem in detail: §2.2.5A. The example below differs in describing a follower for AC signals. That makes a difference, as you will see, but the problems are otherwise very similar.

In the last chapter’s Worked Examples, we looked at several digital comparators constructed out of gates. We certainly could translate those to structural models in Verilog, but that misses the point. The advantage of an HDL is it frees us from truth tables, Boolean equations, and the need to implement the result with logic gates. Instead, we can describe the desired result behaviorally.

Use a logic probe, not DVM or – worse – your eyes This should go without saying, but we’re not sure it yet does. We find it boring to stare at a wire, trying to see if it goes where it should.

Defines the level (high or low) in which a signal is “True,” or – better – “Asserted” (see next term). We avoid the former because many people associate “True” with “High,” and that is an association we must break.

In this chapter both hull girder longitudinal bending and torsional loading are treated. Ship-type bodies are considered in both still water and waves (quasi-static loading). The equations for longitudinal bending moment and shear force are obtained. Wave profiles are considered and the use of sectional area curves is illustrated. The balancing procedure of the hull girder on a wave is then described. The various factors that affect longitudinal bending moment and shear force distributions are discussed and reference is made to the Smith effect. Torsional loads are considered next and their generation is described in the case of both closed-deck and open-deck hull forms. Expressions obtained for torsional moments in the past as well as those included in the IACS Common Structural Rules are given. Wave loading of ship hulls is considered and classical linear strip theory is described. The IACS approach to estimating primary longitudinal bending loads and corresponding strength requirements is described. The role of classification societies in ensuring safety and durability is discussed, following which the formulas developed for bending moments and shear forces are presented.