Comparison of meta-heuristic algorithms on the size and layout optimization of truss structures

Year 2024, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 13 - 23, 21.11.2024

Muhammed Serdar Avcı , Emre Ercan , Ayhan Nuhoğlu

Abstract

Truss structures constitute integral components of civil engineering projects, necessitating engineers to achieve optimal designs balancing material cost and structural capacity. Traditional gradient-based optimization methods often face challenges in nonlinear and non-convex optimization scenarios, leading to prolonged convergence times. Meta-heuristic algorithms present viable alternatives for optimizing the layout and dimensions of truss structures under such conditions. This study focuses on optimizing the sizes and configurations of three distinct planar benchmark truss structures using three different meta-heuristic optimization algorithms: Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), and Adaptive Geometry Estimation based MOEA (AGE-MOEA). The optimization results for the Planar 10-bar truss structure indicated that PSO slightly outperformed GA and AGE-MOEA by achieving the lowest weight of 5065.33 lb. For the 15-bar truss structure, GA achieved the lowest weight of 79.74 lb, demonstrating its effectiveness. In the case of the 18-bar truss structure, PSO again showed superior performance with the lowest weight of 4523.57 lb. Through comparative analysis of convergence rates and optimal solutions derived from these algorithms, this research evaluates their effectiveness in addressing the complexities of truss structural optimization. The findings suggest that while all three algorithms are effective, PSO often provides the most efficient solutions in terms of weight minimization for complex truss structures.

Keywords

Structural design, Truss optimization, Meta-heuristic algorithms

References

• Müller, T. E., & Klashorst, E. van der. (2017). A Quantitative Comparison Between Size, Shape, Topology and Simultaneous Optimization for Truss Structures. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 14(12), 2221–2242.
• Bekdaş, G., Yucel, M., & Nigdeli, S. M. (2021). Evaluation of Metaheuristic-Based methods for optimization of truss structures via various algorithms and Lèvy flight modification. Buildings, 11(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11020049
• Bekdaş, G., Yucel, M., & Nigdeli, S. M. (2021). Evaluation of Metaheuristic-Based methods for optimization of truss structures via various algorithms and Lèvy flight modification. Buildings, 11(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11020049.
• Kaveh, A., & Zolghadr, A. (2014). Comparison of nine meta-heuristic algorithms for optimal design of truss structures with frequency constraints. Advances in Engineering Software, 76, 9–30.
• Cazacu, R., & Grama, L. (2014). Steel truss optimization using genetic algorithms and FEA. Procedia Technology, 12, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.496
• Kao, C., Hung, S., & Setiawan, B. (2020). Two strategies to improve the differential evolution algorithm for optimizing design of truss structures. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2020, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8741862
• Dastan, M., Shojaee, S., Hamzehei-Javaran, S., & Goodarzimehr, V. (2022). Hybrid teaching–learning-based optimization for solving engineering and mathematical problems. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 44(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-022-03700-x
• Cheng, M., Prayogo, D., Wu, Y., & Lukito, M. M. (2016). A Hybrid Harmony Search algorithm for discrete sizing optimization of truss structure. Automation in Construction, 69, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.05.023
• Degertekin, S., & Lamberti, L. (2013). Sizing optimization of truss structures using the Firefly algorithm. Civil-comp Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.4203/ccp.102.229
• Kaveh, A., & Mahdavi, V. R. (2014). Colliding bodies optimization: A novel meta-heuristic method. Computers & Structures, 139, 18–27.
• Cheng, M.-Y., & Prayogo, D. (2014). Symbiotic Organisms Search: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 139, 98–112.
• Özbaşaran, H. (2018). A Study on Size Optimization of Trusses with BB-BC Algorithm: Review and Numerical Experiments. Afyon Kocatepe ÜNiversitesi Fen Ve MüHendislik Bilimleri Dergisi/Fen Ve MüHendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(1), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.5578/fmbd.66584
• Avcı, M. S., Yavuz, D., Ercan, E., & Nuhoğlu, A. (2024). Efficient sizing and layout optimization of TRUSs benchmark structures using ISRES algorithm. Applied Sciences, 14(8), 3324. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14083324
• ., Suzuki, K., & Yonekura, K. (2023). Combined sizing and layout optimization of truss structures via update Monte Carlo tree search (UMCTS) algorithm. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2309.14231
• Wang, K., Guo, M., Dai, C., & Li, Z. (2023). A novel heuristic algorithm for solving engineering optimization and real-world problems: People identity attributes-based information-learning search optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 416, 116307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2023.116307
• Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, 1942–1948.
• Panichella, A. (2019). An adaptive evolutionary algorithm based on non-euclidean geometry for many-objective optimization. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 595–603.