Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study of four penalty-free constraint-handling techniques in structural optimization using harmony search

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the search capability, stability, and computational efficiency of four improved penalty-free constraint-handling techniques (CHTs), including the death penalty, the Deb rule, the filter method, and the mapping strategy, in structural optimization using harmony search (HS). The first three general-purpose CHTs have been improved by hybridizing with a structural analysis filter strategy to enhance their computational efficiency based on the characteristics of structural optimization and the solution updating rule of the HS. This study also has modified the mapping operator of the mapping strategy to handle size and shape optimization with Euler buckling constraints. Four numerical examples examine the performances of these CHTs. The comparative results show that the mapping strategy exhibits apparent superiority both in search capability and stability among the four. However, it also demands the most computational cost, and the improved Deb rule becomes the most competitive method while considering computational efficiency. The difference between the death penalty and the Deb rule method is that the feasible solution initialization process required by the death penalty method will deteriorate its computational efficiency in problems with small feasible space. The filter method always reserves some infeasible solutions to guide the search in the iteration process. However, its performances are inferior to the other three approaches in four benchmark problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Li L, Huang Z, Liu F (2009) A heuristic particle swarm optimization method for truss structures with discrete variables. Comput Struct 87:435–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Farshchin M, Camp CV, Maniat M (2016) Optimal design of truss structures for size and shape with frequency constraints using a collaborative optimization strategy. Expert Syst Appl 66:203–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kanarachos S, Griffin J, Fitzpatrick ME (2017) Efficient truss optimization using the contrast-based fruit fly optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 182:137–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lieu QX, Do DT, Lee J (2018) An adaptive hybrid evolutionary firefly algorithm for shape and size optimization of truss structures with frequency constraints. Comput Struct 195:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tejani GG, Saysani VJ, Patel VK, Mirjalili S (2018) Truss optimization with natural frequency bounds using improved symbiotic organisms search. Knowl-Based Syst 143:162–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tejani GG, Savsani V, Patel V (2016) Adaptive symbiotic organisms search (SOS) algorithm for structural design optimization. J Comput Design Eng 3:226–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tejani GG, Savsani V, Bureerat S, Patel V (2018) Topology and size optimization of trusses with static and dynamic bounds by modified symbiotic organisms search. J Comput Civil Eng 32:04017085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tejani GG, Pholdee N, Bureerat S, Prayogo D, Gandomi AH (2019) Structural optimization using multi-objective modified adaptive symbiotic organisms search. Expert Syst Appl 125:425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tejani GG, Pholdee N, Bureerat S, Prayogo D (2018) Multiobjective adaptive symbiotic organisms search for truss optimization problems. Knowl Based Syst 161:398–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tejani GG, Savsani V, Patel V, Mirjalili S (2019) An improved heat transfer search algorithm for unconstrained optimization problems. J Comput Design Eng 6:13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tejani GG, Kumar S, Gandomi AH (2019) Multi-objective heat transfer search algorithm for truss optimization. Eng Comput 1–22

  12. Tejani GG, Savsani VJ, Bureerat S, Patel VK, Savsani P (2019) Topology optimization of truss subjected to static and dynamic constraints by integrating simulated annealing into passing vehicle search algorithms. Eng Comput 35:499–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Farshchin M, Maniat M, Camp CV, Pezeshk S (2018) School based optimization algorithm for design of steel frames. Eng Struct 171:326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cao H, Qian X, Chen Z, Zhu H (2017) Enhanced particle swarm optimization for size and shape optimization of truss structures. Eng Optim 1–18

  15. Cao H, Qian X, Zhou Y-L, Yang H (2018) Applicability of subspace harmony search hybrid with improved deb rule in optimizing Trusses. J Comput Civil Eng 32:04018021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaveh A, Ilchi GM (2018) A new hybrid meta-heuristic algorithm for optimal design of large-scale dome structures. Eng Optim 50:235–252

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaveh A, Moghanni RM, Javadi SM (2019) Optimum design of large steel skeletal structures using chaotic firefly optimization algorithm based on the Gaussian map. Struct Multidiscip Optim 60:879–894

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang ZM, Luo QF, Zhou YQ (2020) Hybrid metaheuristic algorithm using butterfly and flower pollination base on mutualism mechanism for global optimization problems. Eng Comput 34

  19. Adil B, Cengiz B (2019) Optimal design of truss structures using weighted superposition attraction algorithm. Eng Comput 1–15

  20. Kumar S, Tejani GG, Mirjalili S (2018) Modified symbiotic organisms search for structural optimization. Eng Comput 1–28

  21. Jafari M, Salajegheh E, Salajegheh J (2019) An efficient hybrid of elephant herding optimization and cultural algorithm for optimal design of trusses. Eng Comput 35:781–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaveh A, Zakian P (2018) Improved GWO algorithm for optimal design of truss structures. Eng Comput 34:685–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mezura-Montes E (2009) Constraint-handling in evolutionary optimization. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Coello CAC (2002) Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:1245–1287

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Mezura-Montes E, Coello CAC (2011) Constraint-handling in nature-inspired numerical optimization: past, present and future. Swarm Evol Comput 1:173–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu Z, Hui Q (2012) A constraint-handling technique for particle swarm optimization. World Automation Congress IEEE 1–6

  27. Deb K, Datta R (2013) A bi-objective constrained optimization algorithm using a hybrid evolutionary and penalty function approach. Eng Optim 45:503–527

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Bureerat S, Pholdee N (2015) Optimal truss sizing using an adaptive differential evolution algorithm. J Comput Civil Eng 30:04015019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. de Castro RM, Guimarães S, de Lima BSLP (2018) E-BRM: a constraint handling technique to solve optimization problems with evolutionary algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 72:14–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Balande U, Shrimankar D (2019) SRIFA: stochastic ranking with improved-firefly-algorithm for constrained optimization engineering design problems. Mathematics 7:250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Savsani V, Tejani GG, Patel V, Savsani P (2017) Modified meta-heuristics using random mutation for truss topology optimization with static and dynamic constraints. J Comput Design Eng 4:106–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tejani GG, Savsani V, Patel V, Savsani P (2018) Size, shape, and topology optimization of planar and space trusses using mutation-based improved metaheuristics. J Comput Design Eng 5:198–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tang J, Wang W (2015) A filter-genetic algorithm for constrained optimization problems. Advances in global optimization. Springer, Berlin, pp 355–362

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Hu T, Mao J, Tian M, Dai H, Rong G (2017) New constraint-handling technique for evolutionary optimization of reservoir operation. J Water Resour Plan Manage 144:04017097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schwefel H-P (1981) Numerical optimization of computer models. Wiley, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Deb K (2000) An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186:311–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fletcher R, Leyffer S (2002) Nonlinear programming without a penalty function. Math Program 91:239–269

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Clevenger L, Ferguson L, Hart WE (2005) A filter-based evolutionary algorithm for constrained optimization. Evol Comput 13:329–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hedar A-R, Fukushima M (2006) Derivative-free filter simulated annealing method for constrained continuous global optimization. J Global Optim 35:521–549

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Rocha AMA, Costa MFP, Fernandes EM (2014) A filter-based artificial fish swarm algorithm for constrained global optimization: theoretical and practical issues. J Global Optim 60:239–263

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Kazemzadeh Azad S, Hasançebi O, Kazemzadeh AS (2013) Upper bound strategy for metaheuristic based design optimization of steel frames. Adv Eng Softw 57:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cao H, Qian X, Zhou Y (2018) Large-scale structural optimization using metaheuristic algorithms with elitism and a filter strategy. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57:799–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu S, Zhu H, Chen Z, Cao H (2019) Frequency-constrained truss optimization using the fruit fly optimization algorithm with an adaptive vision search strategy. Eng Optim 1–21

  44. Baghlani A, Makiabadi M, Maheri M (2017) Sizing optimization of truss structures by an efficient constraint-handling strategy in TLBO. J Comput Civil Eng 2017:04017004

  45. Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan G (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76:60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Arora JS, Wang Q (2005) Review of formulations for structural and mechanical system optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 30:251–272

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Mahdavi M, Fesanghary M, Damangir E (2007) An improved harmony search algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl Math Comput 188:1567–1579

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Cassis JH, Sepulveda A (1985) Optimum design of trusses with buckling constraints. J Struct Eng Asce 111:1573–1589

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51708436, 51629801), the Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2018CFB609) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WUT: 2018IVB028).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China

    Hongyou Cao, Yupeng Chen & Shiqiang Qin

  2. State Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, School of Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, China

    Yunlai Zhou

  3. School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China

    Shuang Liu

Authors
  1. Hongyou Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yupeng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yunlai Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shuang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shiqiang Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiqiang Qin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cao, H., Chen, Y., Zhou, Y. et al. Comparative study of four penalty-free constraint-handling techniques in structural optimization using harmony search. Engineering with Computers 38 (Suppl 1), 561–581 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01162-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01162-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation