Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 1047–1066 | Cite as

A general purpose real-world structural design optimization computing platform

  • Nikos D. Lagaros
INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION

Abstract

Structural optimization has matured from a narrow academic discipline, where researchers focused on optimum design of small idealized structural components and systems, to become the basis in modern design of complex structural systems. Some software applications in recent years have made these tools accessible to professional engineers, decision-makers and students outside the structural optimization research community. These software applications, mainly focused on aerospace, aeronautical, mechanical and naval structural systems, have incorporated the optimization component as an additional feature of the finite element software package. On the other hand though there is not a holistic optimization approach in terms of final design stage for real-world civil engineering structures such as buildings, bridges or more complex civil engineering structures. The optimization computing platform presented in this study is a generic real-world optimum design computing platform for civil structural systems and it is implemented within an innovative computing framework, founded on the current state of the art in topics like metaheuristic optimization, structural analysis and parallel computing. For demonstration purposes the application of the optimization computing platform in five real-world design projects is presented.

Keywords

Final design of real-world structures Deterministic and probabilistic formulations Design procedures Metaheuristics Parallel computing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Harris Maragkos and Nikolaos Bakas; the first one for providing the .SDB files for the test examples considered in this study, and both of them for helping to link the optimization computing platform with SAP2000 software.

References

  1. AISC-ASD (1989) Manual of steel construction-allowable stress design, 9 th edn. American Institute of Steel Construction, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Altair OptiStruct (2013) http://www.altairhyperworks.com/Product,19,OptiStruct.aspx. Accessed Sept 2013
  3. Ang AH-S, Tang WH (1984) Probabilistic concepts in engineering planing and design. Decision, risk and reliability, vol II. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. ARUP (2013) http://www.arup.com/. Accessed Sept 2013
  5. ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 (2006) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, prepublication edition. Structural Engineering Institute, American Society of Civil EngineersGoogle Scholar
  6. ATC-58 (2009) Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  7. Barricelli NA (1962) Numerical testing of evolution theories. Acta Biotheor 16:69–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BS5950 (2000) Structural use of steelwork in building, part 1: code of Practice for Design - Rolled and Welded Sections, British Standards InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  9. Charmpis DC, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2005) Multi-database exploration of large design spaces in the framework of cascade evolutionary structural sizing optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194(30-33):3315–3330CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Daskalakis K (2013). http://www.konstantiosdaskalakis.com Accessed Sept 2013
  11. Der Kiureghian A (2005) First- and second-order reliability methods. In: Nikolaidis E, Ghiocel DM, Singhal S (eds) Chapter 14 in Engineering design reliability handbook. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorigo M, Stützle T (2004) Ant Colony Optimization. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebrahimi M, Farmani MR, Roshanian J (2011) Multidisciplinary design of a small satellite launch vehicle using particle swarm optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44(6):773–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EC2 (2004) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-part 1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium, The European Standard EN 1992-1-1Google Scholar
  15. EC3 (2005) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, part 1.1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium, The European Standard EN 1993-1-1Google Scholar
  16. EC8 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium, The European Standard EN 1998–1Google Scholar
  17. FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, SAC Joint VentureGoogle Scholar
  18. FEMA-445 (2006) Next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines, program plan for new and existing buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Geem ZW (2010) Recent advances in harmony search algorithm. Studies in Computational Intelligence, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  20. Genesis (2013) http://www.vrand.com/Genesis.html. Accessed Sept 2013
  21. Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H, Biddah A (1999) Response-based damage assessment of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(1):79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giovenale P, Cornell CA, Esteva L (2004) Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(8):951–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen N, Ostermeier A (2001) Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol Comput 9(2):159–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herzog, De Meuron (2013) http://www.herzogdemeuron.com. Accessed Sept 2013
  25. Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArbourGoogle Scholar
  26. Hornlein HREM, Schittkowski K (1993) Software systems for structural optimization. International Series of Numerical Mathematics, BirkhauserCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Igel C, Hansen N, Roth S (2007) Covariance matrix adaptation for multi-objective optimization. Evol Comput 15(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karaboga D, Basturk B (2008) On the performance of artificial bee colony algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 8(1):687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC, Shi Y (2001) Swarm intelligence, series in evolutionary computation. Morgan Kaufmann PublishersGoogle Scholar
  30. Kotinis M, Kulkarni A (2012) Multi-objective shape optimization of transonic airfoil sections using swarm intelligence and surrogate models. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45(5):747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lagaros ND (2010) Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis considering variable incident angle. Struct Infrastruct Eng 6(1–2):77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lagaros ND (2013) http://users.ntua.gr/nlagaros/. Accessed Sept 2013
  33. Lagaros ND, Karlaftis MG (2011) A critical assessment of metaheuristics for scheduling emergency infrastructure inspections. Swarm Evol Comput 1(3):147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2012) Applied soft computing for optimum design of structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45:787–799CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Le Riche R, Haftka RT (2012) On global optimization articles in SMO. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(5):627–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu P-L, Der Kiureghian A (1986) Multivariate distribution models with prescribed marginals and covariances. Probab Eng Mech 1(2):105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. LS-DYNA (2013) http://www.lstc.com. Accessed Sept 2013
  38. Michalewicz Z (2012) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs, 3rd Edition. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitropoulou ChCh, Fourkiotis Y, Lagaros ND, Karlaftis MG (2013) Metaheuristics in structural design optimization. In: Gandomi AH, Yang X-S, Talatahari S, Alavi AH (eds) Metaheuristic applications in structures and infrastructures. Elsevier, pp 79–102Google Scholar
  40. MSC Software (2013) http://www.mscsoftware.com. Accessed September 2013
  41. Ponsich A, Coello CAC (2011) Differential Evolution performances for the solution of mixed-integer constrained process engineering problems. Appl Soft Comput J 11(1):399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. PTW Architects (2013) http://www.ptw.com.au. Accessed Sept 2013
  43. Rechenberg I (1973) Evolutionsstrategie – Optimierung technischer systeme nach prinzipien der biologischen Evolution. Fromman-HolzboogGoogle Scholar
  44. Reh S, Beley J-D, Mukherjee S, Khor EH (2006) Probabilistic finite element analysis using ANSYS. Struct Saf 28(1–2):17–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SAP2000 (2013) http://www.csiamerica.com/sap2000. Accessed Sept 2013
  46. SCADA Pro (2013) http://www.scadapro.eu/. Accessed Sept 2013
  47. Schuëller GI (2006) Developments in stochastic structural mechanics. Arch Appl Mech 75(10–12):755–773CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson W (1887) On the division of space with minimum partitional area. Acta Math 11(1–4):121–134CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Storn RM, Price KV (1997) Differential evolution - a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11:341–359CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM, Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ (2003) The limitations and performances of different displacement based design methods. J Earthq Eng 7(1):201–241Google Scholar
  51. Tsompanakis Y, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2007) Structural optimization considering uncertainties. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  52. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Laarhoven PJ, Aarts EH (2010) Simulated annealing: theory and applications (mathematics and its applications). Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  54. Weaire D, Phelan R (1994) A counter-example to Kelvin’s conjecture on minimal surfaces. Philos Mag Lett 69:107–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang X-S (2011) Metaheuristic optimization: algorithm analysis and open problems. Experimental Algorithms. Lect Notes Comput Sci 6630:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang XS (2008) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Luniver Press, FromeGoogle Scholar
  57. YTONG (2004) Earthquake resistant design of load-bearing Ytong structures. Ytong Manual, Xella PorobetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Structural Analysis & Antiseismic Research, Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations