Size and Geometry Optimization of Double-Layer Grids Using CBO and ECBO Algorithms

  • A. Kaveh
  • M. Moradveisi
Research Paper


In this paper, the optimum design procedure based on colliding bodies optimization method and its enhanced version are applied to optimal design of two commonly used configurations of double-layer grids, and optimum span–depth ratios are determined. Two ranges of spans as small and large sizes with certain bays of equal lengths in two directions and different types of element groupings are considered for each type of square grids. These algorithms obtain minimum weight grid through appropriate selection of tube sections available in AISC load and resistance factor design (LRFD). Strength constraints of AISC-LRFD specifications and displacement constraints are imposed on these grids. The comparison is aimed at finding the depth at which each of the different configurations shows its advantages. Finally, the effect of support locations on the weight of the double-layer grids is investigated. The results are graphically presented from which the optimum depth can easily be estimated for each type, while the influence of element grouping can also be realized at the same time.


Double-layer grids Size and geometry optimization Colliding bodies optimization Optimum depth 



The first author is grateful to Iran National Science Foundation for the support.


  1. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (1994) Manual of steel construction load resistance factor design, 2nd edn. AISC, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Camp CV (2007) Design of space trusses using Big Bang–Big Crunch optimization. J Struct Eng ASCE 133:999–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camp CV, Bichon BJ, Stovall S (2005) Design of steel frames using ant colony optimization. J Struct Eng ASCE 131:369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Degertekin SO (2012) Improved harmony search algorithms for sizing optimization of truss structures. Comput Struct 92–93:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Degertekin SO, Hayalioglu MS (2013) Sizing truss structures using teaching–learning based optimization. Comput Struct 119:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Gholizadeh S (2015) Optimal design of double layer grids considering nonlinear behavior by sequential grey wolf algorithm. Int J Optim Civil Eng 5:511–523Google Scholar
  8. Kaveh A (2014) Advances in metaheuristic algorithms for optimal design of structures. Springer, SwitzerlandCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaveh A, Bakhshpoori T (2013) Optimum design of space trusses using cuckoo search. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng 37(C1):1–15Google Scholar
  10. Kaveh A, Forhoudi N (2013) A new optimization method: dolphin echolocation. Adv Eng Softw 59:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaveh A, Ilchi Ghazaan M (2014a) Computer codes for colliding bodies optimization and its enhanced version. Int J Optim Civil Eng 4:321–332Google Scholar
  12. Kaveh A, Ilchi Ghazaan M (2014b) Enhanced colliding bodies algorithm for truss optimization with dynamic Constraints. J Comput Civil Eng. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000445 Google Scholar
  13. Kaveh A, Khayatazad M (2012) A novel meta-heuristic method: ray optimization. Comput Struct 112–113:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaveh A, Khayatazad M (2014) Optimal design of cantilever retaining walls using ray optimization method. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng 38(C1+):261–274Google Scholar
  15. Kaveh A, Mahdavi VR (2014) Colliding bodies optimization: a novel meta-heuristic method. Comput Struct 139:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaveh A, Servati H (2002) Neural networks for the approximate analysis and design of double layer grids. Int J Space Struct 17:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009b) Size optimization of space trusses using Big Bang–Big Crunch algorithm. Comput Struct 87:1129–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010) A charged system search with a fly to boundary method for discrete optimum design of truss structures. Asian J Civil Eng 11(3):277–293Google Scholar
  20. Kaveh A, Bakhshpoori T, Afshari E (2011) An optimization-based comparative study of double layer grids with two different configurations using cuckoo search algorithm. Int J Optim Civil Eng 1:507–520Google Scholar
  21. Lamberti L (2008) An efficient simulated annealing algorithm for design optimization of truss structures. Comput Struct 86:1936–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Makowski ZS (1990) Analysis, design and construction of double-layer grids. Applied Science Publisher Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Perez RE, Behdinan K (2007) Particle swarm approach for structural design optimization. Comput Struct 85:1579–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seyedpoor SM, Salajegheh J, Salajegheh E, Gholizadeh S (2011) Optimal design of arch dams subjected to earthquake loading by a combination of simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation and particle swarm algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 11:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Talebpour MH, Kaveh A, Kalatjari VR (2014) Optimization of skeletal structures using a hybridized ACO–HS–GA algorithm. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng 38:1–20Google Scholar
  26. Yang XS, Deb S (2010) Engineering optimization by cuckoo search. Int J Math Model Numer Optim 1:330–343MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Excellence for Fundamental Studies in Structural Engineering, School of Civil EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyNarmak, TehranIran
  2. 2.Building and Housing Research CenterTehranIran

Personalised recommendations