Elsevier

Swarm and Evolutionary Computation

Volume 37, December 2017, Pages 90-103
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation

Sizing and topology optimization of truss structures using genetic programming

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2017.05.009Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper presents a genetic programming approach for simultaneous optimization of sizing and topology of truss structures. It aims to find the optimal cross-sectional areas and connectivities of the joints to achieve minimum weight in the search space. The structural optimization problem is subjected to kinematic stability, maximum allowable stress and deflection. This approach uses the variable-length representation of potential solutions in the shape of computer programs and evolves to the optimum solution. This method has the capability to identify redundant truss elements and joints in the design space. The obtained results are compared with existing popular and competent techniques in literature and its competence as a tool in the optimization problem are demonstrated in solving some benchmark examples, the proposed approach provided lighter truss structures than the available solutions reported in the literature.

Introduction

Structural optimization is the act of design and developing structures to take the maximum profit of available resources. This topic has attracted a great deal of interest amongst scholars and has become a challenging and critical research topic in the last decades.

Topological optimum design (TOD) aims to find the optimum layout of a structure for both types of continuous and discrete structures. For the first category, TOD discretizes the design space into small rectangular grids and each rectangle may contain material or void. However, for discrete structures (second category) such as trusses, this approach considers the number of elements and discretizes the design space into joints and the rigid elements which connect the joints and form a structure [1]. Truss optimal design tries to find the optimum distribution of stresses in the truss elements subjected to static or dynamic constraints in the design space.

Truss optimization problems classify into three perspectives: topology optimization seeks to find the optimal connectivity between joints, shape optimization tries to find the optimal coordinates of the joints in the design space and sizing optimization deals with the selection of the optimal cross-section areas for the elements of the structure. The combination of sizing and topology optimization tries to optimize the size of each element while incorporates new elements or eliminate the existing ones.

In each case, truss optimization problems aim to minimize an objective function, commonly the structural weight. These optimization problems are subjected to some constraints such as deflections of joints, element stresses, critical buckling load and natural frequencies.

Two major approaches to consider the design space are ground structure and open domain design. In the first approach, the boundaries of the design problem are well-defined; the ground structure represents the heaviest structure (the worst structure) including all potential connections between joints and all possible joints (with their preliminary position in design space) [2]. However, in the latter approach, the boundaries of the open design domain are ill-defined and no prior knowledge about the connectivity between nodes is known.

Many classical optimization methods such as sensitivity analysis or approximation concepts have been developed for structural optimization [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] which provide efficient solutions for solving truss optimization problems. However, they showed deficient capability to deal with non-small and complex problems [1], [10]; these mathematical methods lack efficacy to represent connectivity of truss elements [11].

Non-gradient and metaheuristic methods of solving structural optimization problems such as evolutionary algorithms have proved their capability in seeking the global optima for these problems [12]. These methods compensate the drawback in the conventional methods in solving non-convex problems; there has been a rapid growth in using evolutionary algorithms for structural optimization in the last two decades [1].

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) provide a mathematical platform inspired by the natural selection principle of Darwin to solve optimization problems. Many studies have applied different EAs in structural optimization [1]. EAs are computationally expensive in comparison with conventional methods, but this is a slight issue because of the rapid development of computer systems and parallel processing. It led to development of powerful algorithms to handle large scale optimization problems [13], [14], [15].

Hajela and Lin [16] implemented genetic search methods and considered integer, discrete and continuous design variables for optimization of trusses. Hajela et al. [17] used a stochastic search strategy for optimization of load-bearing truss structures. Adeli and Kumar [18] applied a distributed genetic algorithm for optimization of large truss structures using multiprocessor systems. Yang and Soh applied different methods for truss optimization: they combined genetic algorithm and fuzzy rule-based system [19]; they later incorporated tournament selection in genetic algorithm [20] and presented a variable string length genetic algorithm for topology, shape and size optimization of trusses [21]. Deb and Gulati [11] applied a real-coded genetic algorithm for truss optimization and proposed a penalty-based approach for handling constrained truss optimization problem. Kaveh and Kalatjari [22] used the genetic algorithm, force method and some concepts of graph theory for topology and sizing optimization of truss structures. Lee and Geem [23] employed harmony search algorithm [24] for truss optimization; this algorithm inspired by the musical process of searching a perfect state of harmony for the composer. Li et al. [25] presented a hybrid heuristic algorithm composed of harmony search and particle swarm optimization algorithms to find an optimal truss design [26]. Camp [27] applied big bang-big crunch algorithm [28] for truss optimization; this algorithm in the first stage distributes population in the design space and the second stage draws the scattered particles into an order. Luh and Lin [29] used a two-stage ant algorithm [30] for the design of optimal trusses; this algorithm inspired by the foraging behavior of real ant colonies. Li et al. [31] applied their proposed algorithm for optimization of trusses with discrete design variables. Hadidi et al. [32] used a modified artificial bee colony algorithm, this algorithm inspired by the foraging behavior of honeybee swarm. Wu and Tseng [10] applied an adaptive multi-population differential evolution algorithm [33] to find the optimal design of truss structures. Luh and Lin [34] employed a two-stage mixed particle swarm optimization algorithm; first, they found the optimum topology and in the second stage, the sizing of the elements for the obtained topology optimized. Camp and Farshchin [35] used a modified teaching-learning based optimization algorithm for truss optimization; this population-based algorithm mimics a class and the interaction between teacher and students to provide better students and raise the average performance of the class [36]. Azad and Hasançebi [37] presented a refined self-adaptive step size search algorithm for truss optimization. Kaveh et al. [38] proposed a hybrid algorithm composed of swallow swarm optimization [39] and particle swarm optimization for truss optimization. Kaveh and Bakhshpoori [40] proposed water evaporation optimization algorithm and employed it on truss optimization problems. Mortazavi and Toğan [41] used a modified particle swarm optimization algorithm for simultaneous topology, sizing and shape optimization of trusses. Cheng et al. [42] applied a variant harmony search algorithm for truss optimization with discrete design variables.

Genetic Programming (GP) is a prominent evolutionary algorithm which employs computer programs as an individual in its population [43]. GP has been used widely as a tool to solve optimization problems in a variety of domains such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, pattern recognition, neural networks, controller design and circuit design [43]. GP employs tree-structures and evolves more efficiently than EAs which employ typical representation forms such as binary encoding [44].

In structural design and truss optimization, genetic programming has been used sparsely. Soh and Yang proposed a tree-based GP method for simultaneous topology, shape and size optimization of trusses [45]. They incorporated ground structure design space and performed this approach with open domain design space later [46]. They also integrated fuzzy logic based decision approach to control iteration process of proposed algorithm for both design space approaches [47]. Zheng et al. suggested a linear GP structure employing ground structure design space for simultaneous topology, shape and size optimization of trusses, [48].

Recently, Fenton et al. [49], [50] has used Grammatical Evolution which is a type of GP for sizing and topology optimization of structures with ground structure design space and developed their method for ill-defined boundary problems later.

Because GP has the capability of simultaneously structural synthesis and parameter tuning of its individuals, it explores the search space more efficiently than other EAs. and Its unique type of genetic operators avoid the local optima traps in complex problems.

There exists a gap in the literature about the efficacy of simultaneous optimization of sizing and topology of structures using genetic programming. This apparent gap in the literature prompted us to investigate whether GP might be more efficient in sizing and topology optimization of structures than other methods.

This study presents a simultaneous structural sizing and topology optimization by genetic programming (SOGP) for trusses. The proposed method is validated by some truss benchmark examples. This approach is a comprehensive process and can be developed for other types of structures like plates, shells, and frames.

Section snippets

Genetic programming

Genetic programming (GP) is a prominent evolutionary algorithm which adopts computer programs for forming its population, binary trees represent these computer programs. These trees are generated by some branches and leaves which are represented by functions and terminals, respectively [43].

Functions include arithmetic unary or binary operations, standard programming operations, logic functions or custom functions. Terminals include variables, constants, random variables or specific quantities.

Problem description

Variable and problem-specified constraints bound search space in a constrained optimization problem. Fig. 3 depicts that the search space can be split into four regions for a tree (an individual) in GP population.

  • Variable boundary constraints: in this region, the tree satisfies the variable boundary constraints, but violates the problem-specified constraints boundary.

  • Problem-specified constraints boundary: in this region, the tree satisfies the problem-specified constraints boundary, but

Structural optimization by genetic programming

This section presents the approach for structural optimization by genetic programming (SOGP). The goal is to create a computer program whose output is a truss structure. This truss has the optimal connectivities between joints and optimal cross-section areas of elements to reach the minimum weight in the feasible region of search space.

Results and discussion

We found that genetic programming provides better solutions for the problem of sizing and topology optimization problem. The proposed approach is applied to three problems; the results are compared with methods in the literature such: Conventional methods [4], [5], [9], Genetic algorithm (GA) [11], Harmony Search algorithm (HS) [23], Heuristic Particle Swarm Optimization (HPSO) [25], Ant Algorithm [29], Adaptive Multi-Population Differential Evolution (AMPDE) [10], Grammatical Evolution (GE)

Conclusion

In this paper, a genetic programming approach has been used to solve the optimization problem of sizing and topology optimization of truss structures simultaneously. Every genetic programming individual represented a truss structure and the blind-searched initial population of genetic programming evolved along the evolution process to the potential candidate solution. Genetic programming has the capability of structural synthesis and parameter tuning of its individuals; this feature allows GP

References (57)

  • R.V. Rao et al.

    Teaching-learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems

    Comput.-Aided Des.

    (2011)
  • S.K. Azad et al.

    An elitist self-adaptive step-size search for structural design optimization

    Appl. Soft Comput. J.

    (2014)
  • A. Kaveh et al.

    An efficient hybrid particle swarm and swallow swarm optimization algorithm

    Comput. Struct.

    (2014)
  • M. Cheng

    A hybrid harmony search algorithm for discrete sizing optimization of truss structure

    Autom. Constr.

    (2016)
  • Y. Yang et al.

    Automated optimum design of structures using genetic programming

    Comput. Struct.

    (2002)
  • M. Fenton et al.

    Automatic innovative truss design using grammatical evolution

    Autom. Constr.

    (2014)
  • W.S. Dorn

    Automatic design of optimal structures

    J. Mec.

    (1964)
  • B.H.V. Topping

    Shape optimization of skeletal structures: a review

    J. Struct. Eng.

    (1983)
  • L.A. Schmit et al.

    A new structural analysis/synthesis capability-ACCESS 1

    AIAA J.

    (1976)
  • P. Rizzi, Optimization of multi-constrained structures based on optimality criteria?, in: Proceedings of the 17th...
  • R.T. Haftka, Z. Gürdal, Sensitivity of discrete systems, in: Elements of Structural Optimization, Springer Netherlands,...
  • G.N. Vanderplaats et al.

    Automated design of trusses for optimum geometry

    J. Struct. Div.

    (1972)
  • E.J. Haug et al.

    Introduction to Optimal Design

    (1989)
  • N.S. Khot, L. Berke, Structural Optimization Using Optimality Criteria Methods, Jan....
  • C.-Y. Wu et al.

    Truss structure optimization using adaptive multi-population differential evolution

    Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.

    (2010)
  • M.N. Omidvar et al.

    Cooperative co-evolution with differential grouping for large scale optimization

    IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput.

    (2014)
  • R. Cheng et al.

    A competitive swarm optimizer for large scale optimization

    IEEE Trans. Cybern.

    (2015)
  • P. Hajela et al.

    Genetic search strategies in multicriterion optimal design

    Struct. Optim.

    (1992)
  • Cited by (57)

    • A parametric study of adhesive bonded joints with composite material using black-box and grey-box machine learning methods: Deep neuron networks and genetic programming

      2021, Composites Part B: Engineering
      Citation Excerpt :

      Initially, researchers used genetic programming in formulating capacities of different types of steel beams [14–16], the distortional buckling stress of steels [17] and mechanical properties of rock [18]. Then, genetic programming also demonstrated its potential in tackling complex nonlinear structural engineering problems [19,20] and effects of microstructure on overall mechanical performance of composite materials [21]. Recently, genetic programming technique started to be used to develop meta-models for design optimization of composite lattice materials [22] and functional structures [23,24].

    • Optimization of Steel Truss Using Genetic Algorithm

      2024, Passer Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text