Advertisement

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 123–134 | Cite as

Border-search and jump reduction method for size optimization of spatial truss structures

  • Babak DizangianEmail author
  • Mohammad Reza Ghasemi
Research Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes a sensitivity-based border-search and jump reduction method for optimum design of spatial trusses. It is considered as a two-phase optimization approach, where at the first phase, the first local optimum is found by few analyses, after the whole searching space is limited employing an efficient random strategy, and the second phase involves finding a sequence of local optimum points using the variables sensitivity with respect to corresponding values of constraints violation. To reach the global solution at phase two, a sequence of two sensitivity-based operators of border-search operator and jump operator are introduced until convergence is occurred. Sensitivity analysis is performed using numerical finite difference method. To do structural analysis, a link between open source software of OpenSees and MATLAB was developed. Spatial truss problems were attempted for optimization in order to show the fastness and efficiency of proposed technique. Results were compared with those reported in the literature. It shows that the proposed method is competitive with the other optimization methods with a significant reduction in number of analyses carried.

Keywords

optimum design sensitivity analysis reduction method spatial trusses OpenSees 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kling R M, Banerjee P. ESP: Placement by simulated evolution. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 1989, 8(3): 245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg D E, Holland J H. Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Machine Learning, 1988, 3(2–3): 95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Battiti R, Tecchiolli G. The reactive Tabu search. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1994, 6(2): 126–140CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorigo M, Maniezzo V, Colorni A. Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part B, Cybernetics, 1996, 26(1): 29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kennedy J. Particle swarm optimization. In: Sammut C, Webb G I, eds. Encyclopedia of Machine Learning. Boston: Springer, 2011, 760–766Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang X, Deb S. Cuckoo search via levy flight. In: Proceedings of World Congress on Nature and Biologically Inspired Algorithms. IEEE, 2009, 210–214Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eusuff M, Lansey K, Pasha F. Shuffled frog-leaping algorithm: A memetic meta-heuristic for discrete optimization. Engineering Optimization, 2006, 38(2): 129–154MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang X S, Karamanoglu M, He X. Flower pollination algorithm: A novel approach for multiobjective optimization. Engineering Optimization, 2014, 46(9): 1222–1237MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xing B, Gao W J. Fruit fly optimization algorithm. In: Innovative Computational Intelligence: A Rough Guide to 134 Clever Algorithms. Cham: Springer, 2014, 167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varaee H, Ghasemi M R. Engineering optimization based on ideal gas molecular movement algorithm. Engineering with Computers, 2017, 33(1): 71–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park J, Ryu M. Optimal design of truss structures by rescaled simulated annealing. KSME International Journal, 2004, 18(9): 1512–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Dor A, Clerc M, Siarry P. A multi-swarm PSO using charged particles in a partitioned search space for continuous optimization. Computational Optimization and Applications, 2012, 53(1): 271–295MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dhadwal M K, Jung S N, Kim C J. Advanced particle swarm assisted genetic algorithm for constrained optimization problems. Computational Optimization and Applications, 2014, 58(3): 781–806MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayalioglu M S. Optimum load and resistance factor design of steel space frames using genetic algorithm. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2001, 21(4): 292–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shahnazari-Shahrezaei P, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Kazemipoor H. Solving a new fuzzy multi-objective model for a multi-skilled manpower scheduling problem by particle swarm optimization and elite Tabu search. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2013, 64: 1517CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Camp C V, Bichon B J, Stovall S P. Design of steel frames using ant colony optimization. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2005, 131 (3): 369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaveh A, Talatahari S. Optimum design of skeletal structures using imperialist competitive algorithm. Computers & Structures, 2010, 88(21): 1220–1229CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gandomi A H, Yang X S, Alavi A H. Cuckoo search algorithm: A metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems. Engineering with Computers, 2013, 29(1): 17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheikhi M, Ghoddosian A. A hybrid imperialist competitive ant colony algorithm for optimum geometry design of frame structures. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2013, 46(3): 403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dede T, Togan V. A teaching learning based optimization for truss structures with frequency constraints. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2015, 53(4): 833–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salar M, Ghasemi M R, Dizangian B. A fast GA-based method for solving truss optimization problems. International Journal of Optimization in Civil Engineering, 2015, 6(1): 101–114Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farshchin M, Camp C V, Maniat M. Multi-class teaching-learningbased optimization for truss design with frequency constraints. Engineering Structures, 2016, 106: 355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Artar M. A comparative study on optimum design of multi-element truss structures. Steel and Composite Structures, 2016, 22(3): 521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bekdaş G, Nigdeli S M, Yang X S. Sizing optimization of truss structures using flower pollination algorithm. Applied Soft Computing, 2015, 37: 322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanarachos S, Griffin J, FitzpatrickME. Efficient truss optimization using the contrast-based fruit fly optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 2017, 182: 137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghasemi H, Park H S, Rabczuk T. A level-set based IGA formulation for topology optimization of flexoelectric materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2017, 313: 239–258MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dizangian B, Ghasemi M R. Ranked-based sensitivity analysis for size optimization of structures. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2015, 137(12): 121402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Belegundu A D, Chandrupatla T R. Optimization Concepts and Applications in Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khan M R, Willmert K D, Thornton W A. A new optimality criterion method for large scale structures. In: Proceedings of 19th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials and Co-located Conferences. Bethesda, 1979Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li L J, Huang Z B, Liu F, Wu Q H. A heuristic particle swarm optimizer for optimization of pin connected structures. Computers & Structures, 2007, 85(7–8): 340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee K S, Geem Z W. A new structural optimization method based on the harmony search algorithm. Computers & Structures, 2004, 82 (9–10): 781–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Talatahari S, Kheirollahi M, Farahmandpour C, Gandomi A H. A multi-stage particle swarm for optimum design of truss structures. Neural Computing & Applications, 2013, 23(5): 1297–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perez R E, Behdinan K. Particle swarm approach for structural design optimization. Computers & Structures, 2007, 85(19–20): 1579–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Degertekin S O. Improved harmony search algorithms for sizing optimization of truss structures. Computers & Structures, 2012, 92–93: 229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaveh A, Sheikholeslami R, Talatahari S, Keshvari-Ilkhichi M. Chaotic swarming of particles: A new method for size optimization of truss structures. Advances in Engineering Software, 2014, 67: 136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Soh C K, Yang J. Fuzzy controlled genetic algorithm search for shape optimization. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 1996, 10(2): 143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kazemzadeh Azad S. Optimum design of structures using an improved firefly algorithm. International Journal of Optimization in Civil Engineering, 2011, 1(2): 327–340Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hadidi A, Azad S K, Azad S K. Structural optimization using artificial bee colony algorithm. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Engineering Optimization. 2010, 6–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringVelayat UniversityIranshahrIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Sistan and BaluchestanZahedanIran

Personalised recommendations