Sizing optimization of truss structures by method of centers and force formulation

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThis paper describes a new approach to optimum weight design of truss structures. The force method is incorporated in an optimization algorithm based on the method of center points. Design variables are the member cross-sectional areas and the redundant forces evaluated for each independent loading condition acting on the structure. The optimization method utilizes the largest hyperspheres inscribed within the feasible space. The method of hyperspheres has been enhanced here to handle the compatibility equality constraints as well. By including the analysis step in the optimization cycle there is no longer the need to perform separate structural analyses thus saving computation time. The viability and efficiency of the proposed method are demonstrated for truss structures subject to multiple loading conditions and constraints on member stresses, nodal displacement and minimum gage. Numerical results are compared with those reported in the literature.

Effects of introducing dynamic constraints for buckling to truss sizing optimization problems

“…Comparison of results from the literature, which use hybrid simulated annealing genetic algorithm (H-SAGA) [6], force method [7], hybrid harmony search (HSS) [8], and teaching-learning-based optimization (TLBO) [9], are given in tables 4 and 5 for 10 bar truss load cases 1 and 2 respectively. Table 3 gives optimization results for the 17 bar, and table 6 for the 25 bar trusses.…”

“…Galapagos optimization uses GA as its optimization method. Cross section parameters from the optimal models taken from the literature [6][7][8][9] are input into the same files, and the buckling conditions are checked for all bars. Various methods' results from the literature are compared to the GA used in this paper, for use both with and without the added constraint, to verify the created GA. All solutions which do not meet constraint criteria are penalized by assigning a large value.…”

“…Authors in [6] tested their developed hybridized genetic algorithm on various standard test examples. Farshi and Alinia-ziazi [7], applied the method of centers of force formation to solve truss sizing optimization problems with exceptional results. Testing for use on these problems by their respective authors was also conducted using hybrid harmony search [8], and teaching learning based algorithm [9].…”

Constrained mean‐variance mapping optimization for truss optimization problems

“…Table compares the solution from MVMO with a harmony search, particle swarm optimizer, and method of force‐centers . As it is shown, in the best case, MVMO has obtained a design with a lower structure weight after approximately 12,200 function evaluations.…”

Design optimization of truss structures using cuckoo search algorithm

“…The same problem has also been solved by other algorithms such as GA (Rajeev and Krishnamoorthy, ), PSO (Schutte and Groenwold, ), SA (Lamberti, ), GP (Adeli and Kamal, ), BCO (Sonmez, ), CP (Farshi and Alinia‐ziazi, ), CSS (Kaveh and Talatahari, ), DCOC (Zhou and Rozvany, ) and BB–BC (Kaveh and Talatahari, ). The best weight obtained by the CS is 545.035 lb, and this shows that the CS approach has better performance than the results by all other popular algorithms.…”