Advertisement

Sizing Optimization of Truss Structures with Continuous Variables by Artificial Coronary Circulation System Algorithm

  • M. Kooshkbaghi
  • A. KavehEmail author
Research Paper
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

In the last two decades, many researchers have developed various kinds of metaheuristic algorithms in order to overcome the complex nature of the optimum design of structures. In this paper, a new and simple optimization algorithm is presented to solve weight optimization of truss structures with continuous variables. A very recently developed metaheuristic method called artificial coronary circulation system algorithm (ACCS) is applied to sizing optimization of truss structures. Artificial coronary circulation system optimization algorithm uses the visual center point of populations on each iteration. Therefore, with use of this center point, the ACCS becomes faster and can easily find the best solution of problems with higher efficiency. Here, the ACCS is utilized for truss optimization problems. The heart memory and boundary handling strategy are used in the ACCS algorithm. The suitability of the ACCS for truss optimization is investigated by solving four classical weight minimization problems of truss structures including sizing optimization problems. The viability and efficiency of the proposed method are demonstrated for truss structures subjected to multiple loading conditions and constraints on member stresses and nodal displacement. At the end, some numerical results are compared to those reported in the literature.

Keywords

Optimization Truss structures Minimum weight Artificial coronary circulation system Metaheuristic algorithms 

References

  1. AISC ASD (1989) Plastic design specifications for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Camp CV (2007) Design of space trusses using Big Bang-Big Crunch optimization. J Struct Eng 133:999–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camp CV, Bichon BJ (2004) Design of space trusses using ant colony optimization. J Struct Eng 130:741–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjee A, Siarry P (2006) Nonlinear inertia weight variation for dynamic adaptation in particle swarm optimization. Comput Oper Res 33:859–871CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Degertekin S, Hayalioglu M (2013) Sizing truss structures using teaching-learning-based optimization. Comput Struct 119:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, MHS’95. IEEE, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  8. Erbatur F, Hasançebi O, Tütüncü I, Kılıç H (2000) Optimal design of planar and space structures with genetic algorithms. Comput Struct 75:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eskandar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M (2012) Water cycle algorithm—a novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Comput Struct 110:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farshi B, Alinia-Ziazi A (2010) Sizing optimization of truss structures by method of centers and force formulation international. J Solids Struct 47:2508–2524CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gülcü Ş, Kodaz H (2015) A novel parallel multi-swarm algorithm based on comprehensive learning particle swarm optimization. Eng Appl Artif Intell 45:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Idris I, Selamat A, Nguyen NT, Omatu S, Krejcar O, Kuca K, Penhaker M (2015) A combined negative selection algorithm–particle swarm optimization for an email spam detection system. Eng Appl Artif Intell 39:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. John K, Ramakrishnan C, Sharma K (1987) Minimum weight design of trusses using improved move limit method of sequential linear programming. Comput Struct 27:583–591CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Karaboga D, Basturk B (2007) A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. J Global Optim 39:459–471MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaveh A, Bakhshpoori T (2016) A new metaheuristic for continuous structural optimization: water evaporation optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaveh A, Javadi SM (2014) An efficient hybrid particle swarm strategy, ray optimizer, and harmony search algorithm for optimal design of truss structures. Period Polytech Civ Eng 58:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaveh A, Khayatazad M (2012) A new meta-heuristic method: ray optimization. Comput Struct 112:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaveh A, Kooshkbaghi M (2019) Artificial coronary circulation system; A new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithmm. Scientia Iranica, Issue 3, (26) (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Kaveh A, Mahdavi VR (2014a) Colliding bodies optimization method for optimum design of truss structures with continuous variables. Adv Eng Softw 70:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaveh A, Mahdavi VR (2014b) Colliding bodies optimization: a novel meta-heuristic method. Comput Struct 139:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009a) Particle swarm optimizer, ant colony strategy and harmony search scheme hybridized for optimization of truss structures. Comput Struct 87:267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009b) Size optimization of space trusses using Big Bang-Big Crunch algorithm. Comput Struct 87:1129–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010) A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system search. Acta Mech 213:267–289CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Keleşoğlu Ö, Ülker M (2005) Fuzzy optimization of geometrical nonlinear space trusses design. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 29:321–329Google Scholar
  27. Khatib W, Fleming PJ (1998) The stud GA: a mini revolution? In: International conference on parallel problem solving from nature. Springer, Berlin, pp 683–691Google Scholar
  28. Kim DH, Abraham A, Cho JH (2007) A hybrid genetic algorithm and bacterial foraging approach for global optimization. Inf Sci 177:3918–3937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220:671–680MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Lamberti L (2008) An efficient simulated annealing algorithm for design optimization of truss structures. Comput Struct 86:1936–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee KS, Geem ZW (2004) A new structural optimization method based on the harmony search algorithm. Comput Struct 82:781–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee KS, Geem ZW (2005) A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering optimization: harmony search theory and practice. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194:3902–3933CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Li L, Huang Z, Liu F, Wu Q (2007) A heuristic particle swarm optimizer for optimization of pin connected structures. Comput Struct 85:340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Makris PA, Provatidis CG (2002) Weight minimisation of displacement-constrained truss structures using a strain energy criterion. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:2187–2205CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Mirjalili S (2015) The ant lion optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 83:80–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moayedikia A, Jensen R, Wiil UK, Forsati R (2015) Weighted bee colony algorithm for discrete optimization problems with application to feature selection. Eng Appl Artif Intell 44:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patnaik SN, Gendy AS, Berke L, Hopkins DA (1998) Modified fully utilized design (MFUD) method for stress and displacement constraints. Int J Numer Methods Eng 41:1171–1194CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Perez RL, Behdinan K (2007) Particle swarm approach for structural design optimization. Comput Struct 85:1579–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rao R (2016) Jaya: a simple and new optimization algorithm for solving constrained and unconstrained optimization problems. Int J Ind Eng Comput 7:19–34Google Scholar
  41. Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia D (2011) Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179:2232–2248CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Ratnaweera A, Halgamuge SK, Watson HC (2004) Self-organizing hierarchical particle swarm optimizer with time-varying acceleration coefficients. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8:240–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rizzi P (1976) Optimization of multi-constrained structures based on optimality criteria? In: 17th structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, p 1547Google Scholar
  45. Saka M (1990) Optimum design of pin-jointed steel structures with practical applications. J Struct Eng 116:2599–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmit LA, Farshi B (1974) Some approximation concepts for structural synthesis. AIAA J 12:692–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmit L, Miura H (1976) Approximation concepts for efficient structural analysis. CR-2552, March 1976Google Scholar
  48. Soh CK, Yang J (1996) Fuzzy controlled genetic algorithm search for shape optimization. J Comput Civ Eng 10:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sonmez M (2011) Artificial Bee Colony algorithm for optimization of truss structures. Appl Soft Comput 11:2406–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11:341–359MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Venkayya V (1971) Design of optimum structures. Comput Struct 1:265–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang X-S, Deb S (2009) Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. In: World congress on nature and biologically inspired computing. NaBIC 2009. IEEE, pp 210–214Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations