Structural Design Optimization of Multi-layer Spherical Pressure Vessels: A Metaheuristic Approach

  • Tolga Akış
  • Saeid Kazemzadeh AzadEmail author
Research Paper


This study addresses the optimum design problem of multi-layer spherical pressure vessels based on von Mises yield criterion. In order to compute the structural responses under internal pressure, analytical solutions for one-, two-, and three-layer spherical pressure vessels are provided. A population-based metaheuristic algorithm is reformulated for optimum material selection as well as thickness optimization of multi-layer spherical pressure vessels. Furthermore, in order to enhance the computational efficiency of the optimization algorithm, upper bound strategy is also integrated with the algorithm for reducing the total number of structural response evaluations during the optimization iterations. The performance of the algorithm is investigated through weight and cost minimization of one-, two- and three-layer spherical pressure vessels and the results are presented in detail. The obtained numerical results, based on different internal pressures as well as vessel sizes, indicate the usefulness and efficiency of the employed methodology in optimum design of multi-layer spherical pressure vessels.


Design optimization Discrete variables Metaheuristics Multi-layer pressure vessel von Mises yield criterion Spherical pressure vessel 


  1. Akis T (2009) Elastoplastic analysis of functionally graded spherical pressure vessels. Comput Mater Sci 46:545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akis T (2017) On the yielding of two-layer composite spherical pressure vessels. J Polytech 20(1):9–16Google Scholar
  3. Bufler H (1998) The arbitrarily and periodically laminated elastic hollow sphere: exact solutions and homogenization. Arch Appl Mech 68:579–588CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen YZ, Lin XY (2008) Elastic analysis for thick cylinders and spherical pressure vessels made of functionally graded materials. Comput Mater Sci 44:581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng M-Y, Prayogo D (2014) Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 139:98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo V (1991) Distributed optimization by ant colony. In: Proceedings of the first European conference on artificial life, USA, pp 134–142Google Scholar
  7. Dorigo M (1992) Optimization, learning and natural algorithms, Ph.D. thesis. Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  8. Erbatur F, Al-Hussainy MM (1992) Optimum design of frames. Comput Struct 45:887–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erol OK, Eksin I (2006) A new optimization method: big bang–big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 37:106–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eslami MR, Babaei MH, Poultangari R (2005) Thermal and mechanical stresses in a functionally graded thick sphere. Int J Press Vessels Pip 82:522–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gamer U (1988) The expansion of the elastic-plastic spherical shell with nonlinear hardening. Int J Mech Sci 30:415–426CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg DE, Samtani MP (1986) Engineering optimization via genetic algorithm. In: Proceeding of the ninth conference on electronic computation, ASCE, pp 471–482Google Scholar
  13. Guven U, Baykara C (2001) On stress distributions in functionally graded isotropic spheres subjected to internal pressure. Mech Res Commun 28:277–281CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasançebi O, Kazemzadeh Azad S (2014) Discrete size optimization of steel trusses using a refined big bang–big Crunch Algorithm. Eng Optim 46(1):61–83MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hasançebi O, Kazemzadeh Azad S (2015) Adaptive dimensional search: a new metaheuristic algorithm for discrete truss sizing optimization. Comput Struct 154:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jayalakshmi V, Rao ARM (2017) Simultaneous identification of damage and input dynamic force on the structure for structural health monitoring. Struct Multidiscip Optim. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiang W (1994) Hollow spheres subjected to sustained and variable loads. J Eng Mech ASCE 120:1343–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karaboga D, Basturk B (2007) A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. J Global Optim 39(3):459–471MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Kazemzadeh Azad S, Akış T (2016) Automated selection of optimal material for pressurized multi-layer composite tubes based on an evolutionary approach. Neural Comput Appl. Google Scholar
  20. Kazemzadeh Azad S, Hasançebi O, Kazemzadeh Azad S (2013) Upper bound strategy for metaheuristic based design optimization of steel frames. Adv Eng Softw 57:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kazemzadeh Azad S, Kazemzadeh Azad S, Hasançebi O (2016) Structural optimization using big bang–big crunch algorithm: a review. Int J Optim Civ Eng 6:433–445Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE international conference on neural networks, IEEE Press, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  23. Lakshmi K, Rao ARM (2013) Optimal design of laminate composite isogrid with dynamically reconfigurable quantum PSO. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(5):1001–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakshmi K, Rao ARM (2015) Optimal design of laminate composite plates using dynamic hybrid adaptive harmony search algorithm. J Reinf Plast Compos 34(6):493–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rao ARM (2009) Lay-up sequence design of laminate composite plates and a cylindrical skirt using ant colony optimization. Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng 223(1):1–18Google Scholar
  26. Rao ARM, Arvind N (2005) A scatter search algorithm for stacking sequence optimisation of laminate composites. Compos Struct 70(4):383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rao ARM, Lakshmi K (2011) Discrete hybrid PSO algorithm for design of laminate composites with multiple objectives. J Reinf Plast Compos 30(20):1703–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rao ARM, Lakshmi K (2012) Optimal design of stiffened laminate composite cylinder using a hybrid SFL algorithm. J Compos Mater 46(24):3031–3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rao ARM, Lakshmi K, Ganesan K (2013) Structural system identification using quantum behaved particle swarm optimisation algorithm. SDHM Struct Durab Health Monit 9(2):99–128Google Scholar
  30. Saka MP (1991) Optimum design of steel frames with stability constraints. Comput Struct 41:1365–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Storn RM, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11:341–359MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Tabak EI, Wright PM (1981) Optimality criteria method for building frames. J Struct Div, ASCE 107:1327–1342Google Scholar
  33. Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN (1970) Theory of elasticity, 3rd edn. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York, pp 393–394zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang X-S (2008) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Luniver Press, BeckingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. You LH, Zhang JJ, You XY (2005) Elastic analysis of internally pressurized thick-walled spherical pressure vessels of functionally graded materials. Int J Press Vessels Pip 82:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAtilim UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations