Elsevier

Applied Soft Computing

Volume 70, September 2018, Pages 903-928
Applied Soft Computing

Full Length Article
Sizing, layout and topology design optimization of truss structures using the Jaya algorithm

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.10.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A very recently developed optimization algorithm called Jaya algorithm (JA) is proposed for sizing, layout and topology design optimization of truss structures for the first time.

  • The proposed JA algorithm is very efficient in terms of optimized weight and number of structural analyses.

  • The proposed JA algorithm is very robust and shows little statistical dispersion on optimized weight and number of structural analyses.

  • The proposed JA algorithm is very general and could be applied to other structural systems like frames and domes in future investigations.

Abstract

A very recently developed metaheuristic method called Jaya algorithm (JA) is implemented in this study for sizing and layout optimization of truss structures. The main feature of JA is that it does not require setting algorithm-specific parameters. The algorithm has a very simple formulation where the basic idea is to approach the best solution and escape from the worst solution. The original JA formulation is modified in this research in order to improve convergence speed and reduce the number of structural analyses required in the optimization process. The suitability of JA for truss optimization is investigated by solving six classical weight minimization problems of truss structures including sizing, layout and large-scale optimization problems with up to 204 design variables. Discrete sizing/layout variables and simplified topology optimization also are considered. The test problems solved in this study are very common benchmarks in structural optimization and practically describe all scenarios that may be faced by designers. The results demonstrate that JA can obtain better designs than those of the other state-of-the-art metaheuristic and gradient-based optimization methods in terms of optimized weight, standard deviation and number of structural analyses.

Introduction

Metaheuristic algorithms try to achieve a dynamic balance between exploration of search space (i.e. “diversification” phase) and exploitation of accumulated search experience (i.e. “intensification” phase). This balance allows to quickly identify regions of design space containing high quality solutions as well as to bypass regions that either were already explored or are far from global optimum [1], [2], [3].

Metaheuristic optimization methods such as, for example, genetic algorithms (GA) [4], [5], simulated annealing (SA) [6], [7], evolution strategies (ES) [8], [9], ant colony optimization (ACO) [10], [11], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [12], [13], harmony search optimization (HS) [14], [15], artificial bee colony algorithm (ABC) [16], big bang-big crunch optimization (BB-BC) [17], charged system search (CSS) [18], firefly algorithm (FFA) [2], teaching-learning-based optimization (TLBO) [19], flower pollination algorithm (FPA) [20], swallow swarm optimization algorithm (SSO) [21] and water evaporation optimization (WEO) [22], have been successfully used in every field of science and engineering.

Truss structures are very often selected as benchmark design problems to test the efficiency of metaheuristic algorithms. Just to cite a few examples from the extensive optimization literature, GA using different search operators and re-analysis strategies [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], differential evolution with various search schemes [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], SA based on single or multi-level search [36], [37], [38], [39], particle swarm optimization with different modelling of social/individual behavior, combination of global/local best and center of mass particles [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], harmony search optimization with different search and parameter adaptation strategies [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], big bang big crunch big bang-big crunch optimization with different definition of trial designs and infrequent explosions [48], [50], [51], [52], teaching-learning based optimization [53], [54], [55], [56], artificial bee colony algorithm with adaptive penalty approach [57], firefly algorithm [58], [59], cultural algorithm [60], flower pollination algorithm [61], water evaporation algorithm [62], hybrid methods combining two or more metaheuristic algorithms, as well as metaheuristic algorithms and gradient-based optimization [63], [64], [65], [66]. Further information can be found in classical textbooks [2], review papers [67], [68] and studies comparing the relative efficiency of several metaheuristic algorithms in static and dynamic truss optimization problems [69], [70].

The continuously increasing computational power has favored the blooming of new metaheuristic algorithms that are often claimed by authors to be very competitive with the most popular state-of-the-art optimizers. However, finding the global optimum at a reasonably low computational cost for all problems with a limited sensitivity to the selection (i.e. size and composition) of initial population and the setting/adaptation of internal parameters that drive the search process remains an unresolved issue in metaheuristic optimization.

An interesting metaheuristic algorithm that has a very simple formulation and does not require internal parameters is the JAYA algorithm (JA) developed by Rao in 2016 [71]. The JA algorithm was successfully tested on several benchmark functions. Rao and Waghmare [72] later utilized the JA for solving constrained mechanical design problems such as robot gripper, multiple disc clutch brake, hydrostatic thrust bearing and rolling element bearing. The efficiency of the JA with respect to other metaheuristic algorithms was demonstrated also for these test problems. The JA was used also for sizing optimization of a micro-channel heat sink [73] by taking thermal resistance and pumping power as objective functions and micro-channel width, depth and fin width as design variables. Once again JA resulted very competitive or even better than those obtained for TLBO and multi-objective evolutionary algorithms.

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the suitability of the JA algorithm for weight minimization of truss structures. This test suite is selected because of the tremendously large amount of data available in literature, which allows comprehensive and detailed comparisons to be carried out. Sizing optimization problems of trusses with 200, 942 and 1938 elements, and combined sizing-layout optimization problems of trusses with 25, 45 and 47 elements are solved for that purpose. Sizing optimization problems include up to 204 design variables while combined sizing-layout optimization problems include up to 81 design variables. Discrete sizing/layout variables and simplified topology optimization also are considered. The original JA formulation is modified in order to improve convergence speed thus reducing the number of structural analyses required in the optimization.

The results obtained by the JA are compared with those of other state-of-the-art metaheuristic optimization methods including variants of genetic algorithms, differential evolution, simulated annealing, particle swarm, harmony search, big bang big crunch, artificial bee colony, teaching-learning based optimization, cultural algorithm, firefly algorithm, flower pollination algorithm, water evaporation optimization, hybrid particle and swallow swarm optimization, hybrid particle swarm, ant colony and harmony search optimization. Comparisons with gradient-based optimizers also are presented in the article. The performance of JA is evaluated in terms of minimum weight, standard deviation on optimized weight and number of structural analyses required in the optimization process. In all test problems, JA is compared with the best solutions available in metaheuristic optimization literature as well as with commercial software. A statistical analysis of the best, average and worst optimized weights and corresponding standard deviations obtained over independent optimization runs is performed. Results prove that the proposed algorithm is very competitive with the other metaheuristic methods and its convergence speed is similar to gradient-based optimizers.

The paper is structured as follows. The formulation of the design optimization problem for truss structures is recalled in Section 2. The JAYA algorithm is described in Section 3 along with its implementation for truss structure problems. Section 4 describes the test problems and discusses optimization results. Section 5 summarizes the main findings of this study. Sensitivity of JA convergence behavior to population size is analyzed in detail in the Appendix.

Section snippets

Optimization of truss structures

The objective of truss optimization is to minimize the weight of the structure under design constraints such as element stresses and nodal displacements. The sizing optimization problem of a truss structure can be stated as:FindA=[A1,A2,.....,Ang]To minimizeW(A)=i=1nmγiAiLiSubjected toσicσiσit,i=1,2,.,nmδminδjδmax,j=1,2,..,nnAminAkAmax,k=1,2,.,ngwhere the A vector contains the sizing variables (i.e. cross-sectional areas of bars), W(A) is the weight of the truss structure. γi and Li,

The JAYA algorithm

The JAYA algorithm (JA) is a new metaheuristic optimization method proposed in 2016 by Rao [71]. The word “Jaya” means “victory” in Sanskrit. This population based algorithm is based on the concept that the search process should always move toward the best design and avoid the worst design. The search engine continuously tries to get closer to success (i.e. to reach the best design) trying at the same time to avoid failure (i.e. by moving away from the worst design) [73]. A definite strength

Test problems, optimization results and discussion

Six trusses previously optimized with various metaheuristic methods were considered in this study in order to demonstrate the efficiency of the JA algorithm in sizing-layout optimization of truss structures. The design examples regarded the sizing optimization of a planar 200-bar truss, a spatial 942-bar tower and a spatial 1938-bar tower; these test cases included up to 204 design variables. Combined sizing-layout optimization was performed for a spatial 25-bar transmission tower, a planar

Conclusions

A very recently developed metaheuristic optimization method called Jaya algorithm was applied in this study to sizing, layout and topology design of truss structures for the first time ever. Jaya is a non-parametric algorithm that attempts to approach the best design included in the population and simultaneously escape from the worst design. Here, the original formulation of JA was modified in order to improve the convergence speed of the optimization process by reducing the number of required

References (96)

  • I. Couceiro et al.

    Structural optimization of lattice steel transmission towers

    Eng. Struct.

    (2016)
  • A. Kaveh et al.

    Democratic PSO for truss layout and size optimization with frequency constraints

    Comput. Struct.

    (2014)
  • A. Mortazavi et al.

    Sizing and layout design of truss structures under dynamic and static constraints with an integrated particle swarm optimization algorithm

    Appl. Soft. Comput.

    (2017)
  • K.S. Lee et al.

    A new structural optimization method based on the harmony search algorithm

    Comput. Struct.

    (2004)
  • S.O. Degertekin

    Improved harmony search algorithms for sizing optimization of truss structures

    Comput. Struct.

    (2012)
  • L. Lamberti et al.

    Truss weight minimization using hybrid harmony search and big bang-Big crunch algorithms

  • A. Kaveh et al.

    Size optimization of space trusses using Big Bang-Big Crunch algorithm

    Comput. Struct.

    (2009)
  • S.O. Degertekin et al.

    Sizing truss structures using teaching-learning-based optimization

    Comput. Struct.

    (2013)
  • C.V. Camp et al.

    Design of space trusses using modified teaching-learning based optimization

    Eng. Struct.

    (2014)
  • M. Sonmez

    Artificial bee colony algorithm for optimization of truss structures

    Appl. Soft Comput.

    (2011)
  • G. Bekdaş et al.

    Sizing optimization of truss structures using flower pollination algorithm

    Appl. Soft Comput.

    (2015)
  • A. Kaveh et al.

    Truss optimization with natural frequency constraints using a hybridized CSS-BBBC algorithm with trap recognition capability

    Comput. Struct.

    (2012)
  • A. Kaveh et al.

    An efficient hybrid particle swarm and swallow swarm optimization algorithm

    Comput. Struct.

    (2014)
  • O. Hasancebi et al.

    Performance evaluation of metaheuristic search techniques in the optimum design of real size pin jointed structures

    Comput. Struct.

    (2009)
  • A. Kaveh et al.

    Comparison of nine meta-heuristic algorithms for optimal design of truss structures with frequency constraints

    Adv. Eng. Softw.

    (2014)
  • R.V. Rao et al.

    Dimensional optimization of a micro-channel heat sink using Jaya algorithm

    Appl. Therm. Eng.

    (2016)
  • A. Kaveh et al.

    Ray optimization for size and shape optimization of truss structures

    Comput. Struct.

    (2013)
  • O. Hasançebi

    Adaptive evolution strategies in structural optimization: enhancing their computational performance with applications to large-scale structures

    Comput. Struct.

    (2008)
  • S. Gholizadeh

    Layout optimization of truss structures by hybridizing cellular automata and particle swarm optimization

    Comput. Struct.

    (2013)
  • A. Ahrari et al.

    Fully stressed design evolution strategy for shape and size optimization of truss structures

    Comput. Struct.

    (2013)
  • L. Lamberti et al.

    Move limits definition in structural optimization with sequential linear programming. Part II: Numerical examples

    Comput. Struct.

    (2003)
  • L. Lamberti et al.

    Improved sequential linear programming formulation for structural weight minimization

    Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.

    (2004)
  • H. Rahami et al.

    Sizing, geometry and topology optimization of trusses via force method and genetic algorithm

    Eng. Struct.

    (2008)
  • K.S. Yoo et al.

    A modified ant colony optimization algorithm for dynamic topology optimization

    Comput. Struct.

    (2013)
  • L. Bianchi et al.

    A survey on metaheuristics for stochastic combinatorial optimization

    Nat. Comput.

    (2009)
  • X.S. Yang

    Engineering Optimization An Introduction with Metaheuristic Applications

    (2010)
  • A. Kaveh

    Advances in Metaheuristic Algorithms for Optimal Design of Structures

    (2014)
  • J.H. Holland

    Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems

    (1975)
  • D.E. Goldberg

    Genetic Algorithms in Search, Operation and Machine Learning

    (1989)
  • S. Kirkpatrick et al.

    Optimization by simulated annealing

    Science

    (1983)
  • P.J.M. Van Laarhoven et al.

    Simulated Annealing: Theory and Applications

    (1987)
  • I. Rechenberg

    Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem

  • R. Storn et al.

    Differential Evolution – a Simple and Efficient Adaptive Scheme for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces

    (1995)
  • M. Dorigo et al.

    The ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents

    IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B

    (1996)
  • M. Dorigo et al.

    Ant Colony Optimization

    (2004)
  • R.C. Eberhart , J. Kennedy, 1995. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory Proceedings of The Sixth International...
  • M. Clerc

    Particle Swarm Optimization

    (2006)
  • Z.W. Geem et al.

    A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search

    Simulation

    (2001)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text