Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Performance evaluation of metaheuristic search techniques in the optimum

design of real size pin jointed structures
O. Hasançebi a, S. Çarbasß b, E. Doğan b, F. Erdal b, M.P. Saka b,*
a
Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
b
Middle East Technical University, Engineering Sciences Department, 06531 Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years a number of metaheuristic search techniques have been widely used in developing struc-
Received 14 May 2008 tural optimization algorithms. Amongst these techniques are genetic algorithms, simulated annealing,
Accepted 6 January 2009 evolution strategies, particle swarm optimizer, tabu search, ant colony optimization and harmony search.
Available online 6 February 2009
The primary goal of this paper is to objectively evaluate the performance of abovementioned seven tech-
niques in optimum design of pin jointed structures. First, a verification of the algorithms used to imple-
Keywords: ment the techniques is carried out using a benchmark problem from the literature. Next, the techniques
Structural optimization
compiled in an unbiased coding platform are evaluated and compared in terms of their solution accura-
Metaheuristic techniques
Combinatorial optimization
cies as well as convergence rates and reliabilities using four real size design examples formulated accord-
Pin jointed structures ing to the design limitations imposed by ASD-AISC (Allowable Stress Design Code of American Institute of
Steel Institution). The results reveal that simulated annealing and evolution strategies are the most pow-
erful techniques, and harmony search and simple genetic algorithm methods can be characterized by
slow convergence rates and unreliable search performance in large-scale problems.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction reinforced concrete frame. Some mathematical programming tech-

Structural optimization provides tools for structural designers
to determine the optimum topology or the optimum geometry
and/or optimum cross-sectional dimensions for the members of a
structure. This may be the prime reason why numerous research
studies have been conducted in this topic in last three decades. Ini-
tially mathematical programming techniques are used in the
development of optimum structural design algorithms [1]. One of
the basic assumptions in mathematical programming techniques
is that the design variables are assumed to have continuous values.
With this assumption the early optimum structural design algo-
rithms yielded values for the optimum cross-sectional areas of
structural members that are neither available in the practice nor
are economical to produce. The reality of the practice is that there
are certain steel sections produced by steel mills that are available
for a designer to choose from in the case of steel structures and
there are practically accepted dimensions for the beams and col-
umns among which the selection can be carried out in a reinforced
concrete structure due to architectural reasons. Hence, the struc-
tural designer finds himself/herself in a restricted area where only
discrete values are available when it comes to make a decision
what sections he/she has to select for the members of a steel or
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 210 2382; fax: +90 312 210 4462.
E-mail address: mpsaka@metu.edu.tr (M.P. Saka).
niques, such as branch and bound method and integer program-
ming do allow design variables having discrete values. SODA [2]
is one of the early commercial structural optimization software
for practical building design. This software considered the design
requirements from Canadian Code of Standard Practice for Struc-
tural Steel Design (CAN/CSA-S16-01 Limit States Design of Steel
Structures) and obtained optimum steel sections for the members
of a steel frame from available set of steel sections. Comprehensive
review of the methods for discrete structural optimization prob-
lems is given in Arora [3]. The algorithms that are based on math-
ematical programming techniques are deterministic. They need an
initial design point to initiate the search for the optimum solution
and require gradient computations in the exploration process. In
some cases, the objective function and constraints in the design
problem may have irregular peaks for which the gradient search
might become difficult [4,5]. However, these techniques are fairly
rapid and well established, and there are a number of commercial
structural optimization packages that make use of these
algorithms.
Recently another group of optimization techniques have
emerged that do not require gradient computations. These novel
and innovative metaheuristic search algorithms make use of ideas
inspired from the nature. The basic idea behind these techniques is
to simulate natural phenomena, such as survival of the fittest,
immune system, swarm intelligence and the cooling process of

0045-7949/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.01.002
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302 285

molten metals through annealing into a numerical algorithm [5–
13]. These methods are non-traditional stochastic search and opti-
mization methods, and they are very suitable and effective in find-
ing the solution of combinatorial optimization problems. They do
not require the gradient information of the objective function
and constraints and they use probabilistic transition rules not
deterministic ones. The optimum structural design algorithms that
are based on these techniques are robust and quite effective in
finding the solution of discrete programming problems. There are
large numbers of such metaheuristic techniques available in the
literature nowadays. A detailed review of these algorithms as well
as their applications in the optimum structural design is carried
out in Saka [14]. All of these algorithms employ random number
call, and incorporate a set of parameters that require to be adjusted
prior to their use. Their performance differs depending on the
problem under consideration and also predefined values of these
parameters.
There are a number of publications in the literature where com-
parison of metaheuristic techniques algorithms is carried out, such
as Keane [15], Manoharana and Shanmuganathan [16], etc. How-
characterized by slow convergence rates and unreliable search effi-
ciency in large-scale problems.
2. Discrete optimum design problem of steel trusses
For a pin jointed steel structure consisting of Nm members that
are grouped into Nd design variables, formulation of the optimum
design problem according to Allowable Stress Design Code (ASD-
AISC) [24] yields the following discrete programming problem.
Find a vector of integer values I Eq. (1) corresponding to the se-
quence numbers of steel sections in a given profile list
IT ¼ ½I1 ; I2 ; . . . ; INd  ð1Þ
to generate a vector of cross-sectional areas A for Nm members of
the truss Eq. (2)
AT ¼ ½A1 ; A2 ; . . . ; ANm  ð2Þ
such that A minimizes the objective function
X
Nm

ever, only a selected few of these techniques have been included W¼ qm Lm Am ð3Þ
m¼1
in each of these studies, and thus an overall comparison has not
been pursued. The literature lacks more comprehensive studies and satisfies the following constraints:
where many metaheuristic techniques are assessed as a whole in
rm
a chosen problem area. This has led to the motivation of the cur- gm ¼  1 6 0; m ¼ 1; . . . ; N m ð4Þ
ðrm Þall
rent study.
In the paper, the performances of seven optimum structural de-
km
sign algorithms based on simulated annealing [17], evolution strat- sm ¼  1 6 0; m ¼ 1; . . . ; N m ð5Þ
egies [18], particle swarm optimizer [19], tabu search method [20],
ðkm Þall
ant colony optimization [21], harmony search method [22] and
simple genetic algorithm [23] are evaluated and compared in opti-
dj;k
dj; k ¼  1 6 0; j ¼ 1; . . . ; N j ð6Þ
mum design of pin jointed structures. The computational steps of ðdj;k Þall
these techniques are outlined in Section 3 in sufficient detail. It
where W is the weight of the truss structure; Lm, qm are the length
is important to highlight that there is no a unique formulation or
and unit weight of member m, respectively; Nj is the total number
a standardized algorithm used to implement any metaheuristic
of joints; the functions gm, sm and dj,k are referred to as constraints
search technique; rather each technique has numerous different
being bounds on stresses, slenderness ratios and displacements,
variants, extensions and modifications in the literature. It is well
respectively; rm and (rm)all are the computed and allowable axial
known that the performance of a technique may vary to a great ex-
stresses for the mth truss member, respectively; km and (km)all are
tent depending on the algorithm used to formulate it. Here, both
the slenderness ratio and its upper limit for mth member, respec-
generality and performance criteria have been taken into account
tively; finally dj,k and (dj,k)all are the displacements computed in
when selecting a particular algorithm for each technique. A stan-
the kth direction of joint j and its permissible value, respectively.
dard test problem (25-member truss) chosen from the literature
In ASD-AISC [24] design code provisions, the maximum slender-
is studied to verify the effectiveness of the algorithms chosen.
ness ratio is limited to 300 for tension members, and it is recom-
Although it is not the goal of the paper, improvements of some
mended to be 200 for compression members. Hence, the
techniques are also achieved, which are clearly documented in
slenderness related design constraints can be formulated as
their computational steps to give the complete details of the algo-
follows:
rithms employed. Numerical performances of the techniques com-
puterized in an unbiased coding platform are tested and identified K m Lm
using four real size design examples formulated according to the km ¼ 6 300 ðfor tension membersÞ
rm
provisions of ASD-AISC (Allowable Stress Design Code of American ð7Þ
K m Lm
Institute of Steel Institution) specification. These examples are as km ¼ 6 200 ðfor compression membersÞ
rm
follows: a 113-member plane truss bridge with 43 design variables
and 202 constraints, a 354-member braced truss dome with 22 de- where Km is the effective length factor of mth member (Km = 1 for all
sign variables and 425 constraints, a 582-member space truss truss members), and rm is its minimum radii of gyration.
tower with 32 design variables and 523 constraints, and a 960- The allowable tensile stresses for tension members are calcu-
member double layer grid with 251 design variables and 751 con- lated as in Eq. (8).
straints. All the structures are sized for minimum weight with each
of the seven techniques, and a comparison is carried out in terms of ðrt Þall ¼ 0:60F y
ð8Þ
accuracy of the optimum solutions attained by the techniques (i.e., ðrt Þall ¼ 0:50F u
solution accuracy) as well as their convergence rates and reliabili-
ties observed in a number of runs. The results indicate that simu- where Fy and Fu stand for the yield and ultimate tensile strengths,
lated annealing and evolution strategies show the best and the smaller of the two formulas is considered to be the upper
performance in terms of minimum weights located, and display a level of axial stress for a tension member.
high convergence reliability producing near-optimum solutions The allowable stress limits for compression members are calcu-
in the majority of the runs. On the other hand, harmony search lated depending on two possible failure modes of the members
and simple genetic algorithm exhibit a substandard performance known as elastic and inelastic buckling, Eqs. (9)–(11).
286 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2p 2 E
Cc ¼
Fy
h 2
i Amongst all of these approaches, the two most common ones are
1  ðK m L2C
m =r m Þ
2 Fy
ðrc Þall ¼ c
3
; km < C c ðinelastic bucklingÞ
5
3
þ 3ðK m8CLmc =rm Þ  ðK m L8C
m =rm Þ
3
c in conjunction with all metaheuristic methods. In this approach, an
12p2 E
ðrc Þall ¼ ; km P C c ðelastic bucklingÞ
23ðK m Lm =r m Þ2
In Eqs. (9)–(11), E is the modulus of elasticity, and Cc is referred to
as the critical slenderness ratio parameter. For a member with
km < Cc, it is assumed that the member buckles inelastically, and
its allowable compression stress is computed according to Eq.
(10). Otherwise (km P C c ), elastic buckling of the member takes
place, in which case the allowable compression stress is computed
as to Eq. (11).
3. Metaheuristic search techniques in optimization
The solution of the optimum design problem given in Eqs. (1)–
(6) necessitates selection of set of appropriate steel sections for
each member groups (design variables) of the structure from the
standard steel sections list. This selection should be carried out
such that with the selected set of steel profiles the response of
the structure remains within the limitations imposed by the design
code and it has the minimum weight. This is a combinatorial opti-
mization problem that requires exhaustive search and effort to
determine the optimum combination which is computationally
expensive and in some cases may even not be practically possible.
Metaheuristic search techniques are developed to make this search
within computationally acceptable time period. These techniques
set up black-box procedures that simulate natural phenomena. In
this study, seven optimum design algorithms are developed for
the solution of the discrete programming problem given with
Eqs. (1)–(6) that are based on simulated annealing (SA), evolution
strategies (ESs), particle swarm optimizer (PSO), tabu search meth-
od (TS), ant colony optimization (ACO), harmony search method
(HS) and genetic algorithms (GAs). Before initiating the design pro-
cess, a set of steel sections selected from the available section list
are collected in a design pool and these sections are sorted in
descending order. The sequence number of these sections varies
between 1 to total number of sections (Ns) included in the design
pool. This sequence number is treated as design variable. For
example, if there are 272 steel sections in the design pool and
15-member groups in the truss to be designed then the abovemen-
tioned algorithms select randomly an integer number which has a
value between 1 and 272 for each member group. Once this selec-
tion is carried out for each group, the cross-sectional properties of
each steel section become available from the design pool. The
structure is then analyzed under the external loads with these sec-
tions to find out whether its response is within the limitations im-
posed by the design code. If some of the constraints are not
satisfied, then a penalty is applied to these constraints in order
to force the solution to satisfy the design limitations. The same
type of penalty function is used in all these design algorithms that
is explained in the next section.
3.1. Penalty function method based constraint handling
A comprehensive overview of practically all constraint handling
approaches used in conjunction with metaheuristic optimization
methods is presented in an excellent review article by Coello
[25]. In general, these approaches extend from some relatively
straightforward constrained-to-unconstrained transformation
ð9Þ applications (i.e., penalty functions) to more sophisticate ap-
proaches, such as repair algorithms and multi-objective methods.
the death penalty and penalty function implementations.
In the literature, the dead penalty approach has been employed
ð10Þ initial design or design population is generated such that it consists
of only feasible solution(s). Whenever an infeasible solution is
sampled, it is automatically disregarded, and the search is directed
ð11Þ
to feasible regions of the design space. Although straightforward,
this approach has two notable drawbacks. Firstly, for problems
whose design spaces are heavily controlled by constraints, the at-
tempt to generate feasible designs may lead to a computationally
expensive solution algorithm. Secondly, a search over feasible re-
gions is usually less efficient than over both feasible and infeasible
regions, because the latter makes it possible to approach the opti-
mum from any direction [26].
Considering the aforementioned shortcomings of the death
penalty, and the fact that penalty function approach is easier to
implement and also efficient with a proper parameterization, con-
straints are dealt with a penalty function implementation for all
metaheuristic methods discussed in the present study. Specifically,
a constrained (penalty integrated) objective function is defined to
evaluate infeasible design(s) in proportion to the sum of the con-
straint violation, as formulated in Eq. (12).
" Nj
!#
X
Nm X
Nm X X
3
/¼W 1þa gm þ sm þ dj;k ð12Þ
m¼1 m¼1 j¼1 k¼1
In Eq. (12), / is the constrained objective function, and a is referred
to as the penalty coefficient, used to tune the intensity of penaliza-
tion as a whole. It has been shown in Hasançebi [27] that a dynamic
or adaptive implementation of the penalty coefficient generally
leads to a more efficient search process. Nonetheless, this parame-
ter is set to an appropriate static value of a = 1 for all stochastic
methods discussed here in order to evaluate different methods
objectively, since some methods do not permit a change in the level
of penalization between designs sampled at different times during
optimization process.
In a more traditional penalty approach of the form / = W + pen-
alty, weight and penalty are considered as two separate and unre-
lated terms in evaluating the objective function value of a design. It
follows that for each problem considered one should adjust the
penalty parameter to make certain that penalty and weight are
comparable to each other in order to avoid severe or light penali-
zation. Eq. (12) offers a great advantage in this context. Unlike
the traditional approach, penalty term is coupled with the weight
in Eq. (12). As a consequence of this, penalty is assigned in conjunc-
tion with the design weight, which in turn makes a pre-adjustment
of penalty coefficient unnecessary to achieve required compatibil-
ity between weight and penalty.
3.2. Simulated annealing
The rationale behind simulated annealing (SA) extends to the
annealing process of physical systems applied in thermodynamics.
In this process, a physical system initially at a high-energy state is
gradually cooled down until its minimum energy level is reached.
The idea that this process can be simulated to solve optimization
problems was pioneered independently by Kirkpatrick et al. [17]
and Cerny [28], establishing a direct analogy between minimizing
the energy level of a physical system and lowering the cost of an
objective function. The SA algorithm employed in the current study
is based on the work of Bennage and Dhingra [29]. The basic steps
involved in this algorithm are outlined below [29].
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
Step 1. Cooling schedule: The first step is the setting of an
appropriate cooling schedule. After choosing suitable values for
starting acceptance probability (Ps), final acceptance probability
(Pf), and the number of cooling cycles (Nc), the cooling schedule
parameters are calculated as follows:
 1=Nc 1
1 1 lnðP s Þ
Ts ¼  ; Tf ¼  ; g¼
lnðPs Þ lnðP f Þ lnðP f Þ
In Eq. (13), Ts, Tf and g are referred to as starting temperature, final
temperature, and the cooling factor, respectively. The starting tem-
perature is assigned as the current temperature, i.e., T = Ts.
Step 2. Initial design: The next step is the generation of an ini-
tial design. The initial design is generated randomly such that each
design variable represents the sequence number of the steel sec-
tion selected from the profile list. This design is assigned as the
current design of the optimization process. The analysis of the
structure is performed with the standard steel sections selected
in the current design and the force and deformation responses
are obtained under the applied loads. The objective function value
of the current design (/c) is calculated from Eq. (12).
Step 3. Generating candidate designs: A number of candidate
designs are generated in the vicinity of the current design. This is
performed as follows: (i) a design variable is selected, (ii) the se-
lected variable (Ii) is given a small perturbation in a predefined
neighbourhood Eq. (14), and (iii) finally, a candidate design is gen-
erated by assuming the perturbed value (I0i ) of the variable, while
keeping all others same as in the current design. It follows that a
candidate design differs from the current one in terms of one de-
sign variable only. It is important to note that each design variable
is selected only once in a random order to originate a candidate de-
sign. Hence, the total number of candidate designs generated in a
single iteration of a cooling cycle is equal to the number of design
variables.
I0i ¼ Ii  zi
In Eq. (14), zi refers to the amount of perturbation applied to the ith
design variable, and is sampled randomly within an integer neigh-
bourhood [1, nw], where nw indicates the width of the neighbourhood.
Step 4. Evaluating a candidate design and Metropolis test:
Each time when a candidate is generated, its objective function
(/a) is computed according to Eq. (12) and is set to compete with
the current design. If the candidate provides a better solution
(i.e., D/ ¼ /a  /c 6 0), it is automatically accepted and replaces
the current design. Otherwise, the so-called Metropolis test is re-
sorted to determine the winner, in which the probability of accep-
tance of a poor candidate design P is assigned as follows:
P ¼ expðD/=KTÞ
where K is referred to Boltzman parameter, and is manipulated as
the working average of D/ values. Hence, whenever a non-improv-
ing candidate is sampled, this parameter needs to be updated.
It might be expected that the acceptance probability for an
average poor candidate would follow the theoretical curve identi-
fied by the function exp(1/T), since K = D/ave. In practice, how-
ever, it assumes much higher values than does the theory
indicate when acceptance probabilities of poor candidates are cal-
culated directly from Eq. (15). A reformulation of Eq. (15) has been
considered in the present study to surmount this drawback, where
a correction factor (0:9 6 u 6 1:1) is introduced as formulated in
Eqs. (16) and (17).
P ¼ u  expðD/=KTÞ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiðk1Þ
u¼ 3 
P t =Pp ; 0:9 6 u 6 1:1
287
 t Þðk1Þ and ðP
In Eq. (17), ðP  p Þðk1Þ represent the theoretical and prac-
tical (operational) average acceptance probabilities at the (k1)th
cooling cycle, respectively. Accordingly, the acceptance probabili-
ties of poor candidates at the kth cooling cycle are modified based
on the value of / observed in the preceding cycle. The upper and
lower bounds on the correction factor are enforced to facilitate a
steady change in the value of the parameter in a controlled manner,
ð13Þ
otherwise immediate fluctuations would occur.
In general, the degree of inferiority of a design would be unlim-
ited. The sampling of such designs is always a threat to a successful
implementation of the algorithm, since it drives the Boltzmann
parameter to unnecessarily high values, hindering the search to fo-
cus on favourable design regions. To protect the algorithm against
such designs, and thus to ensure an efficient implementation of
Boltzmann parameter, we consider a transformation of D/ values
for the update of Boltzmann parameter using the sigmoid function
given in Eq. (18),
 
D/
D/tra ¼ tanh 0:35  ð18Þ
K
where D/tra represents the transformed value of D/. Hence, no
matter how big the value of D/ is, Eq. (18) maps it into a value be-
tween [0, 1]. The Boltzmann parameter is then manipulated as the
working average of the transformed values of D/, i.e. K = (D/tra)ave.
Step 5. Iterations of a cooling cycle: A single iteration of a cool-
ing cycle is referred to the case where all design variables are se-
lected once and perturbed to generate candidate designs.
Generally, a cooling cycle is iterated a certain number of times in
the same manner to ensure that objective function is reduced to
a reasonably low value associated with the temperature of the
cooling cycle. Having selected the iterations of the starting and fi-
nal cooling cycles (is and if), the iteration of a cooling cycle (ic) is
determined by a linear interpolation between is and if as follows:
 
ð14Þ T  Tf
ic ¼ if þ ðif  is Þ ð19Þ
Tf  Ts
Step 6. Reducing temperature: When the iterations of a cool-
ing cycle are completed, the temperature is reduced by the ratio
of the cooling factor g, and the temperature of the next cooling cy-
cle is set.
T kþ1 ¼ T k  g ð20Þ
k k+1
In Eq. (20), T and T represent the temperatures at the k and
(k+1)th cooling cycles respectively.
Step 7. Termination criterion: The steps 3 through 6 are re-
peated until the whole cooling cycles are implemented.
ð15Þ
3.3. Evolution strategies
Evolution strategies (ESs) is conceived as one of the three main-
streams of evolution algorithms (EAs). In fact, the term ‘‘evolution-
ary algorithms” is used to refer to a cluster of techniques
employing a crude simulation of natural evolution to evolve a pop-
ulation of individuals (designs) toward the optimum over succes-
sive generations. Although ESs were originally developed by
Rechenberg [18,30] and Schwefel [31] to work in continuous de-
sign spaces, they have been extended to deal with discrete optimi-
zation problems in different studies in the literature. Some of these
extensions have been scrutinized and compared in Hasançebi [32]
for discrete structural optimization problems. In addition, the
method based on Rudolph’s [33] extension has been reformulated
ð16Þ
therein to yield a more powerful discrete search algorithm with
ESs. The essence of the method lies in the point that design vari-
ð17Þ ables are mutated by random numbers sampled according to geo-
metric distribution in the form of
288 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
 z
1 1
PðzÞ ¼ 1 ; z 2 f0; 1; 2; . . .g
wþ1 wþ1
where z represents a geometrically distributed integer random
number and w is the mean (expectation) of this distribution. The
ES algorithm employed in the present study is based on this refor-
mulation of the technique, which is briefly discussed below.
Step 1. Initial population: Initial population consists of l num-
ber of parent individuals. Each individual (J) incorporates two sets
of additional components (p and w) known as strategy parameters,
apart from the vector of design variables I. Both strategy parame-
ters are self-adaptive by nature, and are employed by the individ-
ual for establishing a problem-specific search scheme in an
automated manner.
J ¼ JðI; p; wÞ
In Eq. (22), p is the mutation probability parameter, which is used to
tune the overall mutability of the individual. The vector w repre-
sents the whole set of wi(i = 1, . . . , Nd)parameters, such that each de-
sign variable in an individual is coupled with a different wi to
change online the shape and flatness of the geometric distribution
used to mutate it. A random initialization of population is imple-
mented for the design vectors, and the strategy parameters are as-
ð0Þ
signed to appropriate values initially (p(0), wi ) based on numerical
experimentation.
Step 2. Evaluation of population: The initial population is
measured (evaluated) next, where each parent individual is given
a fitness score in conjunction with Eq. (12).
Step 3. Recombination: After evaluated, the parent population
undergoes recombination and mutation operators to yield the off-
spring population. Recombination provides a trade of design infor-
mation between the l parents to generate k new (offspring)
individuals. Recombination can be applied not only to design vec-
tors, but also to the strategy parameters of the individuals in a vari-
ety of different schemes. In the present study, a global discrete
recombination operator is utilized for design variables, whereas
strategy parameters are recombined using intermediate scheme.
Given that s represents an arbitrary component of an individual,
0
i.e., s e {I, p, w}, the recombined s can be formulated as follows:
( and ones, such as 001001, and is referred to as a substring in GA
sai or sbj : global discrete
s0i ¼ i
sai þ ðsbi  sai Þ=2 : intermediate
In Eq. (23), sa and sb refer to the s component of two parent individ-
uals which are chosen randomly from the parent population, and sai
and sbi represent typical elements of sa and sb. In global discrete
recombination, sai is chosen from the two parents under equal prob-
ability such that the first parent is held unchanged, whereas the
second parent is chosen a new for each element of i. In intermediate
recombination scheme, both parents are kept fixed for all elements
of i and their arithmetic means are calculated.
Step 4. Mutation: Mutation is conceived as the main operator
of ESs, and is applied to each offspring subsequent to recombina-
tion, resulting in a new set of design variables and strategy param-
eters for the offspring. A complete formulation of mutation
pertaining to this particular ES algorithm of interest is given in
Eqs. (24)–(26).
 1
1  p cNð0;1Þ
p0 ¼ 1 þ e
p calculated according to the conversion from base two numbers to
w0i ¼ wi  esNi ð0;1Þ P 1:0 if r 6 p0 2 ½0; 1
I0i ¼ I0i þ zi;1 ðw0i Þ  zi;2 ðw0i Þ
0
In Eqs. (24)–(26), p and w0i are the mutated values of their respected
parameters; N(0, 1) is a normally distributed random variable with
expectation 0 and standard deviation 1; c and s are the learning rate
ð21Þ
and ffiwi, which are usually set to recommended val-
parameters ofppffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffi
ues of c ¼ 1= 2 Nd and 1= N d , respectively where Nd stands for
the number of design variables. Accordingly, mutation probability
parameter p is first mutated using a logistic normal distribution
Eq. (24), which ensures that the mutated value of p always remains
within a range (0, 1). A random number r is then generated between
the range [0, 1] for each design variable Ii and its associated wi
0
parameter. If r > p , neither Ii nor wi is mutated. Otherwise, wi is mu-
tated according to a lognormal distribution based variation Eq. (25).
Finally, two geometrically distributed integer random numbers
(zi,1, zi,2) are sampled using the distribution parameter w0i , and Ii is
mutated by the difference of them, Eq. (26).
Step 5. Selection: Selection is implemented next to determine
ð22Þ the survivors out of parent and offspring populations. The (l, k)-
selection strategy is applied here, where the parents are all left
to die out, and the best l offspring having the lowest objective
function scores are selected deterministically out of k offspring.
The selected (surviving) individuals become the parents of the next
generation.
Step 6. Termination: The steps 2 through 4 are implemented
over a predefined number Ngen of generations.
3.4. Genetic algorithms
The most well known stream of EAs are genetic algorithms
(GAs), which have found vast amount of applications in a wide
spectrum of diverse engineering disciplines, including structural
optimization. Today, many variations and extensions of the tech-
nique have been proposed in the literature for applications to dis-
crete and continuous variable problems. In the present study,
however, a genetic algorithm with standard components referred
to as simple genetic algorithm (SGA) has been tested due to its gen-
erality and wide acceptability. The fundamentals of this algorithm
are outlined below [23].
Step 1. Initial population: In SGA, a design variable is not rep-
resented by its actual design value; instead it is encoded as a bin-
ary string of finite length. A coded design variable consists of zeros
terminology. If there are Nd design variables in all, then Nd such
ð23Þ
substrings are joined together to form a complete string (chromo-
some or individual) that represents a potential design to a problem
at hand. Initial population incorporates a predefined number of
individuals (l, population size) that are constructed through a ran-
dom initialization of binary strings.
Step 2. Encoding: For each individual decoding is carried out to
map all substrings to some integer values representing the se-
quence numbers of standard steel sections in a given profile list.
Multi-parameter mapping scheme is often used for this purpose
Eq. (27).
 
Imax  Imin
Ii ¼ Imin þ ı X ð27Þ
2 1
In Eq. (27), l is the length of the substring (total number of zeros and
ones in the substring); Imin and Imax are the sequence numbers cor-
responding to the first and last standard steel sections in the profile
list, respectively; and X is the binary coding value of the substring
ð24Þ
base ten numbers (e.g., X = (100101) = 25 + 22 + 20 = 37).
ð25Þ Step 3. Evaluation and fitness: Once an individual is decoded,
analysis is carried out to obtain its structural response under exter-
ð26Þ nal loads, and an objective function value is assigned to it in
conjunction with Eq. (12). After all the individuals are evaluated
in this manner, each individual is assigned a fitness score, which
indicates the merit of the individual with respect to overall popu-
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
lation. In the present study, an inverse transformation function Eq.
(28) is used to calculate the fitness score fk of an individual k such
that the objective function value /k of the individual is propor-
tioned to the maximum / (/max) in the population.
/max
fk ¼ ð28Þ
/k
The individuals’ finesses calculated from Eq. (28) need to be
scaled to eliminate the dominance of highly fit individuals during
selection process. Eq. (29) shows the fitness scaling function used
for this purpose.
 
ðsc  1Þ ðfmax  sc fave Þ
fk0 ¼ fk fave þ fave ð29Þ
ðfmax  fave Þ ðfmax  fave Þ
In Eq. (29), fmax, fmin and fave are the maximum, minimum and aver-
age fitnesses in the population, respectively; sc is a real-valued scal-
ing factor (typically taken as 2.0); and fk0 is the scaled fitness score of
the kth individual. By virtue of fitness scaling, the ratio of maximum
scaled fitness to average scaled fitness is set to a value around sc.
Step 4. Selection and reproduction: Selection is carried out
next, where individuals of high fitness scores are selected and
reproduced, while the least fit ones are eliminated to create an
intermediate population called mating pool. Theoretically, the
number of copies (reproductive trials) which an individual is rep-
resented with in the mating pool is determined in accordance with
fitness proportionate selection scheme Eq. (30).
fk0
gk ¼ ð30Þ
fave
0
0 separately for each particle in a vector B. On the other hand, the
In Eq. (30), fave denotes the average scaled fitness of the population;
and gk represents the number of reproductive trials allocated to an
individual. Eq. (30) is not directly used due to possible round-off er-
rors; instead its algorithmic realization is conducted by the roulette
wheel selection approach. In this approach, firstly the individuals
take up slots on a simulated roulette wheel in connection to their
scaled fitnesses. The roulette is then spun l times to select and
reproduce the individuals for mating pool.
Step 5. Crossover: The selected and reproduced individuals are
mated randomly to form l/2 pairs, and crossover is separately
implemented between each pair according to a preset probability
value called crossover probability pc. When applied to a pair, cross-
over swaps the genetic information between the mating (parent)
individuals to produce two new child individuals. A number of dif-
ferent strategies have been devised to implement this task. In the
present study, a two-point crossover approach is used, where mat-
ing individuals are cut at two randomly selected crossover sites,
and a design exchange is facilitated by swapping either the inner
portion falling between the crossover sites or the two outer
portions.
Step 6. Mutation: Mutation is applied on the genes of child
individuals by randomly altering a gene of 1 to 0 or vice versa
based on a specified gene-wise mutation probability pm, which is
usually kept less than 0.01.
Step 7. Termination: The child (new) population replaces the
parent one and the steps 2 through 6 are repeated until a maxi-
mum number of generations Ngen is reached.
3.5. Particle swarm optimizer
Particle swarm optimizer (PSO) is based on the social behaviour
of animals such as fish schooling, insect swarming and birds flock-
ing. This behaviour is concerned with grouping by social forces that
depend on both the memory of each individual as well as the
knowledge gained by the swarm [19,34]. The procedure involves
a number of particles which represent the swarm being initialized
289
randomly in the search space of an objective function. Each particle
in the swarm represents a candidate solution of the optimum de-
sign problem. The particles fly through the search space and their
positions are updated using the current position, a velocity vector
and a time step. The steps of the algorithm are outlined in the fol-
lowing as given in [35,36]:
Step 1. Initializing particles: A swarm consists of a predefined
number of particles referred to as swarm size (l). Each particle (P)
incorporates two sets of components; a position (design) vector I
and a velocity vector v Eq. (31). The position vector I retains the
values (positions) of design variables, while the velocity vector v
is used to vary these positions during the search. Each particle in
the swarm is constructed by a random initialization such that all
ð0Þ ð0Þ
initial positions Ii and velocities v i are assigned from Eqs. (32)
and (33):
P ¼ ðI; v Þ; I ¼ ½I1 ; I2 ; . . . ; INd ; v ¼ ½v 1 ; v 2 ; . . . ; v N d
 ð31Þ
ð0Þ
Ii ¼ Imin þ rðImax  Imin Þ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; N d ð32Þ
Imin þ rðImax  Imin Þ
v ð0Þ
i ¼ ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; N d ð33Þ
Dt
where r is a random number sampled between 0 and 1; Dt is the
time step; and Imin and Imax are the sequence numbers of the first
and last standard steel sections in the profile list, respectively.
Step 2. Evaluating particles: All the particles are analyzed with
the values of design variables that they represent, and their objec-
tive function values are calculated in conjunction with Eq. (12).
Step 3. Updating the particle’s best and the global best: A par-
ticle’s best position (the best design with minimum objective func-
tion) thus far is referred to as particle’s best and is stored
best feasible position located by any particle since the beginning
of the process is called the global best position, and it is stored in
a vector G. At the current iteration k, both the particles’ bests
and the global best are updated Eq. (34).
h i h i
ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
BðkÞ ¼ B1 ; . . . Bi . . . ; BNd
ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
GðkÞ ¼ G1 ; . . . Gi . . . GNd ð34Þ
Step 4. Updating a particle’s velocity vector: The velocity vec-
tor of each particle is updated considering the particle’s current po-
sition, the particle’s best position and global best position, as
follows:
! !
ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
Gi  Ii Bi  Ii
v ðkþ1Þ
i
ðkÞ
¼ wv i þ c1 r1 þ c2 r2 ð35Þ
Dt Dt
where r1 and r2 are random numbers between 0 and 1; w is the
inertia of the particle which controls the exploration properties of
the algorithm; and c1 and c2 are the trust parameters, indicating
how much confidence the particle has in itself (cognitive) and in
the swarm (social), respectively. It is important to mention that r1
and r2 in Eq. (35) are generated anew for each component of the
velocity vector. Otherwise, as the iterations progress the lack of
directional diversity between cognitive and social vectors causes
the algorithm to conduct a fruitless line search in the design space,
which is clearly demonstrated in Wilke et al. [37].
Eq. (35) performs very well on small-scale problems as well as
on problems with continuous design variables. However, when ap-
plied to large-scale discrete structural optimization problems, the
performance of the algorithm has been observed to degenerate sig-
nificantly. Rounding off the real-valued terms of the velocity vec-
tors to nearest integer values in discrete implementations results
in development of zero velocity vectors, once the swarm ap-
proaches the global best position as a whole. Since the particles
cannot fly any more under this circumstance, the search gets stuck
in a very poor design point. A reformulation of Eq. (35) is therefore
considered in the present study, where an additional velocity term
290 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
is defined and added to the former equation as in Eqs. (36) and (37)
to give each particle a random move in certain directions in the
close neighbourhood of its current position.
ðkÞ ðkÞ
! ðkÞ
ðkþ1Þ ðkÞ Gi  Ii Bi  Ii
v i ¼ wv i þ c1 r 1 þ c2 r2
Dt Dt
8 1
< 1 if r 6 2Nd
> In Eq. (39), zi stands for the perturbation applied to the ith design
h
 i ¼ 0 if r > 1 ð37Þ
>
: 2N d
In Eqs. (36) and (37), r3 is a random number between 0 and 1; Ns is
hi is 0–1 heavi-
the number of steel sections in the profile list; and 
side function implemented by sampling a random number r be-
tween 0 and 1. Probabilistically, Eq. (36) implies that in every two
iterations only one design variable in a particle is changed to a
new position with random velocity term. The reformulated equa-
tion has been observed to eliminate the aforementioned drawback
and greatly improve the efficiency of the technique.
Step 5. Updating a particle’s position vector: The position vec-
tor of each particle is then updated with the updated velocity vec-
tor Eq. (38).
ðkþ1Þ ðkÞ ðkþ1Þ
Ii ¼ Ii þ v i Dt
Step 6. Termination: The steps 2 through 5 are repeated in the
same way for a predefined number of iterations Nite.
3.6. Tabu search
Tabu search (TS) is another metaheuristic method, which was
first developed by Glover [20]. The method implements a simple
yet an efficient iterative based local search strategy for solving
combinatorial optimization problems. At each step a number of
candidate solutions are sampled in the close vicinity of the current
design by perturbing a single design variable called a move. The
best candidate is chosen and replaced with the current design even
if it offers a non-improving solution, and the move leading to this
candidate is recognized as a successful move. To protect the search
against cycling within the same subset of solutions, information
regarding most recently visited solutions is collected in a list re-
ferred to as tabu list. It is actually a set of restricted moves the
search is prohibited to be transmitted to. Only a predefined num-
ber of very last successful moves (called tabu size, tsize) are re-
corded in the tabu list, not the complete solutions to avoid a
computationally expensive algorithm. A candidate is allowed to re-
place the current design provided that its move is not in tabu list;
otherwise the search is proceeded with the current solution. None-
theless, since only moves are stored in a tabu list, it is always pos-
sible that tabu list may inhibit a solution that has not been visited
beforehand. An aspiration criterion is introduced to interrogate
this possibility. It is actually a test whose satisfaction indicates that
search is not cycling, rather moving to a new point in the design
space. The best solution is the most commonly used aspiration cri-
terion, which is satisfied if the candidate sampled is the best feasi-
ble solution obtained so far during the search. In such a case, tabu
restriction to this move is momentarily overruled, and the search is
directed to this forbidden solution.
Step 1. Initial design: Usually, the initial design is constructed
randomly. However, in some cases (observed in some numerical
problems) when the process is initiated from an infeasible design
point, it may take unacceptably long time for the algorithm to
reach a feasible design point. Under this circumstance the initial
design is constructed such that the sequence number of strongest
standard steel section (Imax) in the profile list is assigned to all the
design variables to ensure the feasibility of the initial design. The
initial design is considered as the current solution.
Step 2. Generating candidates: A design variable (Ii) is selected,
ðkÞ
! pffiffiffiffiffiffi and a number of candidate solutions are created in the neighbour-
Ns hood of the current solution by perturbing this variable within a
þ hi r 3
Dt predefined neighbouring width nw Eq. (39).
ð36Þ
I0i ¼ Ii  zi ; zi ¼ 1; . . . ; nw ð39Þ
variable, and I0i represents its perturbed value. The design variable
is perturbed for all values within nw, i.e. zi = 1, . . . , nw. It follows that
nw also determines the number of candidates generated in the
neighbourhood, which is equal to 2nw, unless the variable is very
close to or on the boundary.
Step 3. Evaluation of candidates: All the candidates are ana-
lysed and evaluated, and objective function values are assigned
with respect to Eq. (12). The candidate having the lowest objective
function is recognized as the best candidate with its associated I
0
value being the successful move.
Step 4. Checking tabu status: Next, it is checked whether the
move leading to the best candidate is forbidden by tabu list or
not. If it is not, the candidate design is replaced with current solu-
tion, and the move is accepted and recorded in the tabu list. Other-
wise, the aspiration criterion is checked.
ð38Þ Step 5. Checking aspiration criterion: If a forbidden candidate
satisfies the aspiration criterion, it replaces the current solution
and tabu list is updated. Otherwise, the candidate is rejected and
the search is carried on with the current solution.
Step 6. A single iteration: A single iteration of the algorithm is
completed, when all design variables are selected only once in a
random order and the steps 2 through 5 are repeated for each of
them.
Step 7. Termination: The above procedure is implemented in
the same way for a predefined number of iterations Nite.
3.7. Ant colony optimization
Ant colony optimization (ACO) technique is inspired from the
way that ant colonies find the shortest route between the food
source and their nest. Ants being completely blind individuals
can successfully discover as a colony the shortest path between
their nest and the food source. They manage this through their
characteristic of employing a volatile substance called phero-
mones. When searching food, the ants deposit pheromones on
the ground, which is used by other ants in the colony as a guide
to find the food sources. When there is a chance of selection for
an ant between two paths, it selects the one where the concentra-
tion of pheromone is greater. Since the shorter trail will be rein-
forced more than the long one after a while, a great majority of
ants in the colony will travel on this route. Ant colony optimization
was developed by Colorni et al. [38] and Dorigo [39] and used in
the solution of traveling salesman. In the following, the computa-
tional steps of the technique are outlined based on the works of
Camp et al. [40].
Step 1. Initialization of pheromones (Trails): Given that a pro-
file list with Ns steel sections is used, each design variable can as-
sume Ns number of different values (paths). The term ‘‘path” is
used synonymously with standard steel section for a variable in
ACO to implicate the choice of an ant. Each path is characterized
by a pheromone level, indicating the suitability of the path (dis-
crete section) for the variable. If there are a total of Nd design vari-
ables, the pheromone levels deposited in all paths for these
variables are stored in a matrix called a trail matrix T, Eq. (40). It
is a Ns  Nd matrix with a typical element Tji indicating pheromone
level in the jth path for the ith design variable. Consequently, each
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
column vector in T represents the entire set of pheromones accu-
mulated in all Ns paths for a design variable.
ð40Þ
The trail matrix is initialized such that all the elements of the matrix
ð0Þ
are assigned an initial value of T ji ¼ 1=W min , where Wmin is the
minimum weight of the structure resulting from assigning the
smallest steel section (indicated by sequence number Imin) to all
members of the structure.
Step 2. Selection probabilities: Once the trail matrix is con-
structed, the selection probabilities of the paths are calculated next
using Eq. (41).
½T ji   ½v j b
pji ¼ PN ð41Þ
b Step 5. Global pheromone update: A global pheromone update
k¼1 ½T ki   ½v k 
S
In Eq. (41), pji indicates the selection probability of jth path for the
ith design variable. This probability is a function of the ratio of the
path’s pheromone level (Tji) to the sum of all others’ for the ith de-
sign variable. It follows that those paths with higher pheromone
levels probabilistically have a greater chance for being selected.
The visibility coefficient for the jth section (vj) in this equation is de-
fined as follows:
1 path ji by the kth ant in the colony, where /k represents the objec-
vj ¼ ð42Þ
Aj
where Aj represents cross-sectional area of the jth section. As seen
from Eq. (42), the visibility is inversely proportional to the cross-
sectional area, increasing selection probabilities of paths with small
sections to some extent in order to bias the search towards these
paths. Finally, b is a constant parameter used to adjust the relative
importance between the visibility and the trail.
Step 3. Constructing a colony of ants: An ant colony consists of
a predefined number of ants (l, colony size), each of which repre-
sents a potential solution to a problem of interest. Each ant within
the colony is constructed probabilistically based on paths’ selection
probabilities for each design variable. Selection process is carried
out such that each design variable is selected by all ants before pro-
ceeding to the other. Whenever a choice is performed by an ant for
a design variable, the intensity of pheromone on the selected path
(Tji) is somewhat lowered using the following local update
equation:
T new ¼ n  T old ð43Þ
ji ji
where n is the local update parameter assigned to a suitable value
between 0 and 1. The path probabilities are recalculated (updated)
accordingly, and the forthcoming ant makes its choice under up-
dated values. As anticipated, the rationale behind local update is
to encourage the subsequent ants to choose different sections,
and thus to produce dissimilar solutions for a more exhaustive
search. Since pheromone levels and probabilities at any time de-
pend on earlier selections made, when an ant makes its own choice
becomes important. An order of selection is determined anew for all
l ants at random prior to selection of each variable. The construc-
tion of colony is completed when all design variables are selected
291
for all the ants in the colony. In the present study, a formulation
of Eq. (43) is considered such that instead of using a static value
for n, a dynamical local update parameter 
nji is introduced to reduce
the pheromone level on a path dynamically based on its selection
probability Eqs. (44) and (45).
T new
ji ¼ nji  T old
ji ð44Þ
nji ¼ 1  ð1  nmin Þpffiffiffiffiffi
pji ð45Þ
The idea behind Eq. (45) is to operate a higher local update value for
paths with low selection probabilities so as to minimize the reduc-
tion of pheromone level on these paths when they are selected. The
equation yields a minimum predefined value of  nji ¼ nmin for a path
with pji = 1.0, and this value is progressively increased when the
selection probability of a path decreases. Especially for those paths
whose selection probabilities are well below 0.01, the function pro-
duces values close to  nji ffi 1:0, implying that almost no pheromone
reduction is applied to those paths.
Step 4. Evaluation of colony: The structure is analyzed for the
designs characterized by l ants, and an objective function value is
assigned to each ant in conjunction with Eq. (12). The ants evalu-
ated are ranked by their objective function values, and the elitist
ant is updated. Elitist ant is the best feasible ant located so far since
the beginning of the process.
scheme is implemented next to add pheromones to the paths se-
lected by the ants. In the original AC algorithm developed by Dor-
igo [39], this scheme is formulated in Eq. (46).
l
X
T new
ji ¼ ð1  er Þ  T old
ji þ ðDT ji Þk ð46Þ
k¼1
In Eq. (46), er is a constant referred to as evaporation rate, and
(DTji)k defined in Eq. (47) is the amount of pheromone added to
tive function value of this ant.

1=/k ; if the path ij selected by kth ant
ðDT ji Þk ¼ ð47Þ
0; otherwise
In fact, Eq. (46) consists of two terms; an evaporation term and an
accumulation term. The evaporation term is applied to all the paths
Tji to simulate the nature such that in nature the pheromone is sub-
ject to evaporation over time. This term helps prevent an early con-
vergence of the algorithm by implementing a positive form of
forgetting [41]. The second term accounts for the accumulation of
pheromones on selected paths. Paths that are not selected by an
ant receive no pheromone update.
A number of extensions of the original global pheromone up-
date scheme have been proposed in the literature. One of such
extensions, called the ranked ant system, was formulated by Camp
et al. [40], where the elitist ant and a selected number of kr top
ranked ants in an iteration are used for pheromone update to bias
the search towards favourable regions Eq. (48).
" #
X
kr
T new
ji ¼ ð1  er Þ  T old þ
ji þ er kr DT ji þ ðkr  r k ÞðDT ji Þk ð48Þ
k¼1
In Eq. (48), DT þ
ij refers to the pheromone accumulation due to the
elitist ant, and rk is the rank of the ant (between 1 and kr).
Step 6. Pheromone scaling: The concept of pheromone scaling
is not involved in the original ACO algorithm; rather it is a new
component of the algorithm developed by the authors. Numerical
experiments have clearly indicated that pheromones are concen-
trated on only a small group of paths for a design variable, while
the other paths go towards zero selection probabilities due to the
effect of pheromone evaporation. This phenomenon is referred to
292
as pheromone concentration by the authors, and results in entrap-
ment of the search in a poor local optimum since the search cannot
be directed to other regions of the design space. The local update
parameter was implemented with low values as a remedy to over-
come this problem, yet it did not seem to make it any better. The
group of paths where the pheromone is concentrated is still main-
tained; only a cycling of pheromone is observed within the paths of
the same group. When the local update parameter was kept too
low, the process turned into a completely random search due to
a strict policy against favoring any path, suffering a convergence
problem. Consequently, the pheromone scaling approach has been
developed to surmount the problem.
After the paths are modified using global update scheme, they
are ranked by their pheromone levels for each variable. A selected
number (np) of top ranked paths is identified for each design vari-
able such that np is a function of total number of paths available
(standard steel sections, Ns), and is calculated from Eq. (49).
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
np ¼ Ns
The sum of pheromone accumulated in the np top ranked ants
for each variable is calculated and proportioned to the total pher-
omone in all paths of the variable Eq. (50).
np
, number ri is generated between 0 and 1 for each variable Ii. If ri is
X XNs
pcr i ¼ T ji T ji
j¼1 j¼1
The ratio pcri is referred to as pheromone concentration rate of the
variable i. If the ratio appears to be equal to or greater than 0.95, the
variable is deemed pheromone concentrated. Once pcr value is cal-
culated for each variable, pheromone scaling is carried out to yield a
more homogeneous pheromone distribution amongst the paths of a
variable so that paths with zero selection probabilities regain a
chance of selection. At each iteration scaling is applied to a single
variable only; the one with the highest pcr value amongst all pher-
omone concentrated variables. Scaling applied to multiple variables
simultaneously has been observed to impair convergence character-
istics of the algorithm. During scaling, the half of the average pher-
omone (Ti)ave of a variable is added to each path of the variable, as
formulated in Eq. (51).
ðT i Þav e X
Ns
T scaled
ji ¼ T ji þ ; ðT i Þav e ¼ T ji =Ns
2 j¼1
In Eq. (51), T scaled represents the scaled value of the path ji, and (Ti)ave
ji
is obtained by dividing the total pheromone accumulated in the
variable by the path number.
Step 7. Termination: The steps 2 through 6 define a single iter-
ation of the algorithm. The process is repeated for a predefined
number of iterations Nite .
3.8. Harmony search algorithm
Another recently developed metaheuristic algorithm is the har-
mony search (HS) method originated by Lee and Geem [22]. The
method is based on natural musical performance processes that
occur when a musician searches for a better state of harmony.
The resemblance, for example between jazz improvisation that
seeks to find musically pleasing harmony and the optimization is
that the optimum design process seeks to find the optimum solu-
tion as determined by the objective function. The pitch of each mu-
sical instrument determines the aesthetic quality just as the
objective function is determined by the set of values assigned to
each design variable.
Step 1. Initialization of harmony memory matrix: A harmony
memory matrix H is generated and initialized first, Eq. (52). Con-
ceptually, a harmony memory matrix is similar to a population
O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
in GAs and ESs, to a swarm in PSO, and to a colony in ACO methods.
It incorporates a specified number of solutions referred to as har-
mony size (l). Each solution (harmony vector, Ii) consists of Nd de-
sign variables, and is represented in a separate row of the matrix;
consequently the size of H is l  N d .
2 3
I11 I12
/ðI1 Þ . . . I1Nd
6 2 7
6I I2 . . . IN d 7
2 2 2
H¼6 1 7 /ðI Þ ð52Þ
6 7
4... ... ... ...5 ...
l l l
I1 I2 . . . INd /ðIl Þ
Step 2. Evaluation of harmony memory matrix: l solutions
are then analyzed, and their objective function values are calcu-
lated in conjunction with Eq. (12). The solutions evaluated are
sorted in the matrix in the increasing order of objective function
values, that is /(I1) 6 /(I2) 6    6 /(Il).
Step 3. Improvizing a new harmony: A new harmony
I0 ¼ ½I01 ; I02 ; . . . ; I0Nd  is improvised (generated) by selecting each de-
ð49Þ
sign variable from either harmony memory or the entire discrete
set. The probability that a design variable is selected from the har-
mony memory is controlled by a parameter called harmony mem-
ory considering rate (hmcr). To execute this probability, a random
ð50Þ smaller than or equal to hmcr, the variable is chosen from harmony
memory in which case it is assigned any value from the ith column
of the H, representing the value set of variable in l solutions of the
matrix Eq. (53). Otherwise (if ri > hmcr), a random value is assigned
to the variable from the entire discrete set.
(
l
I0i 2 fI1i ; I2i ; . . . ; Ii g if ri 6 hmcr
I0i ¼ ð53Þ
I0i 2 f1; . . . ; Ns g if ri > hmcr
If a design variable attains its value from harmony memory, it is
checked whether this value should be pitch-adjusted or not. In pitch
adjustment, the value of a design variable is altered to its very
upper or lower neighbouring value obtained by adding ±1 to its cur-
rent value. Similar to hmcr parameter, it is operated with a probabil-
ity known as pitch adjustment rate (par), Eq. (54). If not activated by
par, the value of the variable does not change.
(
I0i  1 if r i 6 par
ð51Þ I00i ¼ ð54Þ
I0i if r i > par
Step 4. Update of harmony matrix: After generating the new
harmony vector, its objective function value is calculated. If this
value is better (lower) than that of the worst harmony vector in
the harmony memory, it is then included in the matrix while the
worst one is discarded out of the matrix. The updated harmony
memory matrix is then sorted in ascending order of the objective
function value.
Step 5. Termination: The steps 3 and 4 are repeated until a pre-
assigned maximum number of cycles Ncyc is reached.
4. Numerical examples
The solution algorithms presented above for the metaheuristic
techniques are computerized in seven design and optimization
softwares that are all compiled in Borland Delphi source code.
The softwares are automated to interact with SAP2000 v7.4 struc-
tural analysis program for generating and screening the structural
models of the problems under consideration as well as carrying out
a displacement based finite element analysis for each solution
sampled during optimization process. They use the same inte-
grated programming unit for defining optimum design problem
(i.e., objective function, design variables, design set, constraints,
penalization, etc.), which in turn provides an ideal and unbiased
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302 293

Table 1
The optimum designs located with metaheuristic search techniques for 25-member truss problem.

Size variable Truss members PSO HS SA ESs AC SGA TS

1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
2 2–5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4
3 6–9 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
4 10, 11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
5 12, 13 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.8
6 14–17 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9
7 18–21 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6
8 22–25 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
Weight (lb) 484.85 484.85 484.85 485.05 485.05 485.38 485.57
Number of analysis 1600 2100 6624 4350 10050 9050 1626
Computation time (s) 216 284 894 586 1357 1221 219

platform for an objective evaluation of performances of metaheu- formed using serial computers with Intel Quad Core Q9300
ristic search techniques. 2.5 GHz LGA775 processor. For all design examples the results ob-
In the first part of numerical examples, a benchmark problem tained from these runs are shown in comparison tables in four
(25-member truss) chosen from the literature is studied to verify rows. The values of the best (lightest), worst (heaviest) and average
the effectiveness of the abovementioned solution algorithms em- designs obtained with the techniques are reflected in the first, sec-
ployed for the techniques, as well as to check our implementations ond and third rows, respectively, and the last row shows average
with those of others in the literature. The optimum solutions lo- computation time taken by each optimizer. It is underlined that
cated by the algorithms and the number of structural analyses re- all the designs included in the comparison tables are fully feasible,
quired to obtain these solutions are reported in Table 1. In the i.e., they satisfy all the specified problem constraints. For all the
second part, four design examples, namely a 113-member plane examples the design history graphs shown in Figs. 3, 6, 8 and 10
truss bridge with 43 design variables, a 354-member braced truss are plotted, demonstrating the improvement of the feasible best
dome with 22 design variables, a 582-member space truss tower design in the search process with all the techniques. These graphs
with 32 design variables and a 960-member double layer grid with are produced by averaging the results of five runs for each tech-
251 design variables are used to test and compare the numerical nique for identifying and comparing the convergence rates of the
performances of the techniques in optimum design of real size techniques towards the optimum. The number of structural analy-
pin jointed structures according to ASD-AISC [24] design code pro- sis performed (the number of design points sampled) is shown in
visions. The parameterizations of the techniques listed in Table 2 the horizontal axis of these graphs, whereas the vertical axis repre-
are performed in line with their recommended settings in sents the variation of the best feasible design weight obtained thus
preceding studies as well as extensive numerical experimentations far during the search. The number of structural analysis is taken as
conducted in the present study. However, we note that metaheu-
ristic techniques are known for their sensitivity to implementation
details and algorithmic outlines. Hence, it is almost impractical to
Z
fully tune each technique to yield its best performance for all de-
sign examples considered here. Each design example is indepen-
dently solved five times with each technique, resulting in a
different final design in each run due to stochastic nature of these 100 inch
1
techniques. The same random number seed value is used in each
1
run for all the design algorithms so that each optimizer has the 2
same type of random number series. The computations are per- 8
9
3
75 inch
2 6
4 5
Table 2 7
10 12 100 inch
3
The parameter data set.
6 4
Method Values of parameter set 13 11
15 23 18
SA Ps = 0.50, Pf = 103, is = 1, Y
if = (5, 11, 7, 3)*, nw = (10, 5, 10, 5), 14 5
Nc = (315, 300, 315, 200) 22 19 24
ESs l = 10, k = 50, p(0) = 0.25, 7
ð0Þ 17
wi = (15,6,15,6) 20
Ngen = (1000, 1000, 1000, 2000) 21 25 16
SGA l = 50, pc = 0.90, pm = 0.005,
sc = 2.0, N_{gen} = (1000, 1000, 1000, 2000) 10 8
PSO l = 50, Dt = 1.0, c1 = 1.5, c2 = 1.5,
w = 0.5, Nite = (1000,1000,1000,2000) 200 inch
TS nw = 2, tsize = (64, 33, 48, 376) 200 inch
Nite = (300, 600, 400, 130)
ACO l = 50, b = 0.2, er = 0.5, kr = 25, 9
nmin = (0.90, 0.80, 0.90, 0.80)
Nite = (1000, 1000, 1000, 2000)
HS l = 50, hmcr = 0.90, par = 0.30, kr = 25
Ncyc = (50,000, 50,000, 50,000, 100,000)
*
X
The values in parentheses indicate the different values of the parameter used in
the four design examples in the order that the examples appeared in the paper. Fig. 1. 25-member truss (benchmark problem).
294 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
50,000 for the first three design examples to make sure that all the
metaheuristic techniques are given the equal opportunity to grasp
the global optimum, and that it is not a restraint for not being able
to reach the global optimum. For the last design example (960-
member double layer grid), it has been increased up to 100,000
owing to the fact that a very high number of design variables
(251 variables in all) is defined for this example. In all the design
examples, the following material properties of the steel are used:
modulus of elasticity (E) = 29,000 ksi (203893.6 MPa) and yield
stress (Fy) = 36 ksi (253.1 MPa).
4.1. Benchmark problem
The standard 25-member truss shown in Fig. 1 has been fre-
quently used in the literature for testing and comparing various
optimization techniques. Two versions of the problem are available
with discrete and continuous design variables. The differences be-
tween them do not only extent to type of design variables em-
ployed, but also to loading and constraints imposed on the
problem. Here, the discrete version of the problem is studied owing
to discrete implementation nature of metaheuristic search tech-
niques. The 25 truss members grouped in 8 independent design
variables are selected from a discrete set of 30 ready sections. A
stress limitation of 40 ksi is imposed on members both in tension
and compression, and maximum displacements of joints 1 and 2
are limited to 0.35 in. in x- and y-directions. Further details of
the design data are readily available in the literature.
450000
400000
Best Feasible Design (lb)
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
0 10000 20000 30000
Number of Analysis
Fig. 3. The design history graph obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 113-
member plane truss bridge.
Fig. 2. 113-member plane truss bridge.
Three independent runs are carried out with each of the seven
metaheuristic techniques. All the algorithms are automated to ter-
minate when no improvement is achieved in the weight of the best
design over the last 5000 structural analyses. A comparison of opti-
mum solutions located by the techniques as well as the number of
structural analyses carried out to locate them are tabulated in Ta-
ble 1. All the techniques perform very well locating an optimum
within a close range of 484.85–485.57 lb, albeit the number of
structural analyses required to obtain these solutions vary consid-
erably between 1600 and 10,050. In the literature, a plenty of dif-
ferent solutions of the problem ranging between 484.50 and
546.01 lb are reported with different numerical techniques. Some
of them are as follows: 546.01 lb by Rajeev and Krishnamoorty
[42] with GAs, 493.80 lb by Erbatur et al. [43] with GAs,
490.87 lb by Ponteresso and Fox [44] with GAs, 485.05 lb by Cao
[45] with GAs, 484.85 lb by Camp and Bichon [46] with ACO and
484.85 lb by Camp [47] with Big Bang–Big Crunch (BB–BC) meth-
od. A lighter design weight of 481.3 lb is reported with SA in Ben-
nage and Dhingra [29], yet the authors note that this design
slightly violates the displacement limitations such that joint 2 de-
flects 0.3514 in. in y-direction.
4.2. Design examples
4.2.1. 113-Member plane truss bridge
Fig. 2 shows the geometry of a 113-member, three-span bridge
with a total length of 560 ft (170.69 m). The bridge is to be opti-
mized for minimum weight with the cross-sectional areas of the
members being the design variables. The 113 truss members are
grouped into 43 independent design variables considering the
symmetry of the bridge about centerline plus the design require-
SA
ment that upper and lower chord members change in every two
ESs
panels. The grouping of members is shown in Fig. 2. A single design
PSO loading is considered such that traffic loads combined with dead
loads of the floor system have resulted in an equivalent point load
TS
ACO
of 80 kips (355.86 kN) at each panel point on the upper chord. A
discrete set of 137 economical standard steel sections selected
HS
from W-shape profile list based on area and radii of gyration prop-
SGA erties is used to size the variables. The lower and upper bounds on
size variables are taken as 6.16 in.2 (39.74 cm2) and 215.0 in.2
(1387.09 cm2), respectively. The stress and stability limitations of
the members are calculated according to the provisions of ASD-
AISC [24]. In addition, the displacements of all nodes in any direc-
tion are restricted to a maximum value of 2.88 in. (7.31 cm), which
is equal to 1/1000 of the middle span of the bridge.
The 113-member plane truss bridge is separately designed five
times by each of seven optimum design algorithms explained
above. The best, the worst and the average minimum weights ob-
40000 50000
tained by each technique are given in Table 3. It is apparent from
the table that the ESs method produced the lightest truss that
has the minimum weight of 182208.8 lb. This design is tabulated
in Table 4 with section designations attained for each member
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302 295

Table 3
The minimum weights (lb) obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 113-member plane truss bridge.

Designs of five different runs SA ESs PSO TS ACO HS SGA

Best run 182451.1 182208.8 185876.6 195762.7 194116.9 207124.6 211226.7
Worst run 184145.6 192068.1 190735.1 197166.5 201604.2 216104.7 221254.7
Average run 183543.6 185995.6 187898.1 196704.4 197556.7 212551.9 215856.2
Computation time (min) 200 196 198 202 204 196 201

group, and is considered to be the optimum solution of the prob-
lem reached in the present study. The next lightest design has been
obtained by SA that has the minimum weight of 182451.1 lb. It can
be noticed that the difference between the two is only 242.3 lb,
which is not very much compared to the overall weight. The third
lightest design was attained by PSO algorithm, which is 3667.8 lb
heavier than the design obtained by the ESs method. Simple genet-
ic algorithm (SGA) achieved the heaviest design, which is
211226.7 lb while HS method accomplished the second heaviest
design that is 207124.6 lb. The final design obtained by SGA is
16% heavier than the one obtained by ESs method. The design his-
tory graph is shown in Fig. 3. It is observed from this graph that ESs
method is the fastest approach amongst all, and located a design
within a vicinity of its optimum solution after sampling approxi-
mately 10,000 solutions only. Surprisingly, SA emerged to be the
second fastest method for this example, and produced better re-
sults than ESs (on average) starting from 30,000 structural analy-
ses. On the other hand, PSO method showed a steady
convergence towards a near-optimum throughout the process. Fol-
lowing an initial phase of rapid progress the convergence rates of
HS, ACO and TS methods reduced considerably, resulting in stagna-
tion of the search in non-optimum solutions. Among all the meta-
heuristic algorithms, SGA displayed a substandard performance
throughout the design cycles in this particular design problem.
4.2.2. 354-Member braced dome truss
Fig. 4 shows plan, elevation and 3-D views of a braced dome
truss with 40 m (131.23 ft) diameter designed for covering the
top of an auditorium at an elevation of 10 m (32.8 ft). The dome
has a height of 8.28 m (27.17 ft), and consists of 127 joints and
354 members. The 354 members are grouped into 22 independent
design variables (Fig. 4), which are selected from a database of 37
circular hollow sections in ASD-AISC [24] steel profile list. For de-
sign purpose, the dome is subjected to following three load cases
considering various combinations of dead (D), snow (S) and wind
(W) loads calculated according to the provisions of ASCE 7-98
[48]: (i) D + S, (ii) D + S + W (with negative internal pressure),
and (iii) D + S + W (with positive internal pressure). It is important
to notice that the load cases resulting from unbalanced snow loads
are disregarded in the study to avoid excessive computational bur-
den. The illustrations of the three load cases are shown in Fig. 5. It
has been assumed that dead and snow loads act on the projected
area, while wind load acts on the curved surface area. Sandwich
type aluminum cladding material is used, resulting in an assumed
dead load pressure of 200 N/m2 including the frame elements used
for the girts. The design snow load ps (in kN/m2) is computed using
the following equation in ASCE 7-98 [48]:
ps ¼ 0:7C s C e C t Ipg ð55Þ
where Cs is the roof slope factor, Ce is the exposure coefficient, Ct is
the temperature factor, I is the importance factor, and pg is the
ground snow load. These factors are calculated and/or chosen as fol-
lows: Cs = 1.0, Ce = 0.9, Ct = 1.0, I = 1.1 and pg = 1.1975 kN/m2
(25.0 lb/ft2), resulting in a design snow pressure of ps = 830 N/m2
(17.325 lb/ft2). To compute the wind design load, first the velocity
pressure is computed using the following equation in ASCE 7-98
[48]:
qh ¼ 0:613K z K zt K d V 2 I ð56Þ
2
where qh (in N/m ) is the velocity pressure evaluated at mean roof
height, Kz is the velocity exposure coefficient, Kzt is the topographic
factor, Kd is the wind directionality factor, V (in m/s) is the basic

Table 4
The optimum design obtained with ESs for 113-member plane truss bridge.

Size variable Ready section Area, cm2 (in2) Size variable Ready section Area, cm2 (in2)
1 W10X39 74.19 (11.5) 23 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
2 W12X72 136.13 (21.1) 24 W14X68 129.03 (20.0)
3 W8X21 39.74 (6.16) 25 W10X45 85.81 (13.3)
4 W8X21 39.74 (6.16) 26 W12X79 149.68 (23.2)
5 W10X39 74.19 (11.5) 27 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
6 W8X21 39.74 (6.16) 28 W8X35 66.45 (10.3)
7 W8X21 39.74 (6.16) 29 W12X53 100.65 (15.6)
8 W12X65 123.23 (19.1) 30 W10X49 92.90 (14.4)
9 W10X45 85.81 (13.3) 31 W10X49 92.90 (14.4)
10 W8X35 66.45 (10.3) 32 W12X40 74.13 (11.8)
11 W8X31 58.90 (9.13) 33 W14X90 170.97 (26.5)
12 W14X99 187.84 (29.1) 34 W10X88 167.10 (25.9)
13 W10X49 92.90 (14.4) 35 W12X53 100.65 (15.6)
14 W10X49 92.90 (14.4) 36 W10X88 167.10 (25.9)
15 W10X49 92.90 (14.4) 37 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
16 W14X159 301.30 (46.7) 38 W6X25 47.36 (7.34)
17 W12X65 123.23 (19.1) 39 W8X40 75.50 (11.7)
18 W14X176 334.19 (51.8) 40 W14X90 170.97 (26.5)
19 W10X49 92.90 (14.4) 41 W12X87 165.16 (25.6)
20 W12X79 149.68 (23.2) 42 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
21 W10X49 92.90 (14.4) 43 W10X100 189.68 (29.4)
22 W14X120 227.74 (35.3)
Weight 82648.16 kg (182208.8 lb)
296 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302

a) 3D view
1
2
4 3
5
7 6

8
10 9
11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18 19

20
22 21

40 m (131.24 ft)
b) top view
8.28 m
( 27.165 ft ) 7.59 m
( 24.901 ft )
6.735 m
( 22.096 ft ) 5.52 m
( 18.215 ft )
4.025 m
( 13.205 ft ) 2.175 m 8.28 m
( 7.136 ft ) (2.17 ft )

c) side view
Fig. 4. 354-member braced truss dome (a) 3D view (b) top view and (c) side view.

wind speed, and I is the importance factor. These factors are as-
signed to following values for the dome: Kz = 1.07 for a mean roof
height of 14.14 m (46.4 ft), Kd = 0.85, Kzt = 1.087, I = 1.15, and
V = 40 m/s (90 mph), resulting in a velocity pressure of 1115
N/m2. Next, the design wind pressure is computed considering a
combined effect of internal and external pressures acting on the
roof, as follows:
pw ¼ qh GC p  qh ðGC pi Þ
where pw is the design wind pressure, G is the gust effect factor (ta-
ken as 0.85), Cp is the external pressure coefficient, and (GCpi) is the
internal pressure coefficient. The first term in this equation consid-
ers the effect of external pressure, while the effect of internal pres-
sure is accounted for by the second term. To calculate external wind
pressure, the dome is divided into three parts; a windward quarter,
a centre half and a leeward quarter as recommended by ASCE 7-98
[48]. The external pressure coefficient Cp is then calculated for each
part considering rise-to-span ratio of the dome, as follows:
Cp = 0.0105 for windward quarter, Cp = 0.907 for centre half and
ð57Þ
Cp = 0.5 for leeward quarter. On the other hand, GCpi is taken as
–0.18 and +0.18 in the second and third load cases over the entire
internal surface to take into account the suction and uplift effects
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302 297

0.200 kN/m2 Table 6

D The optimum design obtained with SA for 354-member braced truss dome.
S
0.830 kN/m2 Size variable Ready section Area, cm2 (in2)
1 P2 6.90 (1.07)
8.28 m
(27.16 ft) 2 P3 14.39 (2.23)
3 P4 20.45 (3.17)
Load Case 1 4 P3.5 17.29 (2.68)
40 m (131.23 ft) 5 P3 14.39 (2.23)
6 P3 14.39 (2.23)
0.200 kN/m2 7 P3 14.39 (2.23)
D 8 P2.5 10.97 (1.70)
S 9 P3 14.39 (2.23)
1.060 kN/m2 0.830 kN/m2 10 P3 14.39 (2.23)
11 P2.5 10.97 (1.70)
0.211 kN/m2 0.674 kN/m2 12 P2.5 10.97 (1.70)
8.28 m
(27.16 ft)
13 P2.5 10.97 (1.70)
14 P2.5 10.97 (1.70)
Load Case 2 15 P2.5 10.97 (1.70)
10 m 10 m 16 P2.5 10.97 (1.70)
20 m (65.62 ft)
(32.81 ft) (32.81 ft) 17 PX2 9.55 (1.48)
18 PX2 9.55 (1.48)
0.200 kN/m2 19 P2 6.90 (1.07)
D
20 P2 6.90 (1.07)
S 21 P2 6.90 (1.07)
0.659 kN/m2 0.830 kN/m2
22 P2 6.90 (1.07)
0.191 kN/m2 0.273 kN/m2 Weight 14760.8 kg (32542.3 lb)
8.28 m
(27.16 ft)

Load Case 3 70000

10 m 20 m (65.62 ft) 10 m
(32.81 ft) (32.81 ft)
SA
65000
ESs

PSO
60000
ACO
Best Feasible Design (lb)

55000 TS
HS

50000 SGA

45000

40000

35000

30000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
10 m 20 m (65.62 ft) 10 m Number of Analysis
(32.81 ft) (32.81 ft)

Fig. 6. The design history graph obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 354-
Fig. 5. The three load cases considered for 354-member braced truss dome. member braced truss dome.

of the internal pressure, respectively. The net pressure acting on dif-
ferent parts of the dome is obtained by combining internal and
external wind pressures as per Eq. (57) (see Fig. 5). The stress and
stability limitations of the members are calculated according to
the provisions of ASD-AISC [24]. The displacements of all nodes
are limited to 11.1 cm (4.37 in.) in any direction.
The minimum weights obtained by each technique for 354-
member braced dome is given in Table 5. For this structure, SA
technique gives the least weight, which is 32542.3 lb. This design
is tabulated in Table 6 with pipe section designations attained
for each member group, and is considered to be the optimum solu-
tion of the problem reached in the present study. The final designs

Table 5
The minimum weights (lb) obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 354-member braced truss dome.

Designs of five different runs SA ESs PSO ACO TS HS SGA

Best run 32542.3 32664.4 32664.4 33866.6 35370.1 35394.6 36641.4
Worst run 32542.3 32664.4 34752.4 34791.4 35912.3 37448.8 40425.2
Average run 32542.3 32664.4 33165.8 34403.8 35680.2 36173.2 38109.2
Computation time (min) 603 600 596 601 608 612 604
298 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302

32

31
30 29

28
27 26

25
24 23
12 x 4 m (13.12 ft )
=
48 m (157.44 ft )
22
21 20

19
18 17

16 15

14
13

12
11 10

9
8 7
8 x 4 m (13.12 ft)
=
32 m (104.96 ft)
6
5 4
a) 3D view

3 2

b) side view

20 m
( 65.62 ft )

6m
( 19.68 ft
12 m
( 39.37 ft )

19.02 m
( 62.34 ft )

c) top view
Fig. 7. 582-member space truss tower (a) 3D view (b) top view and (c) side view.

achieved by ESs and PSO methods are both 32664.4 lb, and are only
0.3% different from the one located by SA. Hence, we may conclude
that SA, ESs, PSO techniques have exhibited the identical perfor-
mance, yet ACO, TS, HS and SGA methods achieved 4%, 8.7%,
8.8%, 12.6% heavier designs, respectively. Noticeable is that SGA
once more has given the heaviest design. Another interesting point
is that SA and ESs techniques reached the same final designs in all
the five runs owing to the fact that displacement constraints were
inactive for this example. This indicates the consistent behavior of
these methods in obtaining the solution of this particular design
problem. The other methods do not exhibit similar behavior. They
are more prone to performance variations based on stochastic
behaviour. However, this cannot be generalized since the same
performance is not observed in the other design examples. The de-
sign history graph is shown in Fig. 6. Again, ESs has appeared the
fastest approach by attaining designs that are in the vicinity of
the final design within 10,000 cycles, indicating the relative effec-
tiveness of this algorithm. Unlike previous example, SA method
displayed a slow and steady progress towards the optimum resem-
bling the behaviour characterized by PSO. TS method showed a
very rapid progress in the early stages, yet no improvement of
the best design has been recorded at all after 10,000 generations.
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302 299

Table 7
The minimum weights (lb) obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 582-member space truss tower.

Designs of five different runs PSO ESs SA TS ACO HS SGA

Best run 363795.7 364205.5 365199.1 368472.1 370087.3 377483.2 384583.8
Worst run 370159.1 371948.9 368281.5 383693.4 374298.7 381972.2 406845.4
Average run 365124.9 367058.7 367350.6 371810.9 372180.5 379570.3 397520.5
Computation time (min) 559 562 566 564 564 562 566

Table 8
The optimum design obtained with PSO for 582-member space truss tower.

Size Variable Ready Section Area, cm2 (in2) Size Variable Ready Section Area, cm2 (in2)
1 W8X21 39.74 (6.16) 17 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
2 W12X79 149.68 (23.2) 18 W16X67 127.10 (19.7)
3 W8X24 45.68 (7.08) 19 W8X24 45.68 (7.08)
4 W10X60 113.55 (17.6) 20 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
5 W8X24 45.68 (7.08) 21 W8X40 75.48 (11.7)
6 W8X21 39.74 (6.16) 22 W8X24 45.68 (7.08)
7 W8X48 90.97 (14.1) 23 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
8 W8X24 45.68 (7.08) 24 W10X22 41.87 (6.49)
9 W8X21 39.74 (6.16) 25 W8X24 45.68 (7.08)
10 W10X45 85.81 (13.3) 26 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
11 W8X24 45.68 (7.08) 27 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
12 W10X68 129.03 (20) 28 W8X24 45.68 (7.08)
13 W14X74 140.65 (21.8) 29 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
14 W8X48 90.97 (14.1) 30 W8X21 39.74 (6.16)
15 W18X76 143.87 (22.3) 31 W8X24 45.68 (7.08)
16 W8X31 55.90 (9.13) 32 W8X24 45.68 (7.08)
Weight 165014.6 kg (363795.7 lb)

The rate of convergence of ACO technique has downgraded with observations are pretty much the same and compatible with those
increasing number of design cycles. Finally, HS and SGA ap- in the previous example except that PSO comes out to be a much
proaches exhibited almost a similar behaviour throughout the faster method in this example.
search identified by a slow convergence to substandard solutions
although the former had a slightly higher convergence rate. 4.2.4. 960-Member double layer grid
The last design example shown in Fig. 9 is a double layer grid
4.2.3. 582-Member space truss tower consisting of 263 joints and 960 members. The objective is to size
The third design example is an 80 m long, 582-member truss the double layer for minimum weight with cross-sectional areas of
tower shown in Fig. 7. The tower is optimized for minimum weight the members being the design variables. The symmetry of the
with the cross-sectional areas of the members being the design structure around x- and y-axes is employed to group the 960
variables. The symmetry of the tower around x- and y-axes is con-
sidered to group the 582 members into 32 independent size vari-
ables. A single load case is considered such that it consists of 600000
lateral loads of 5.0 kN (1.12 kips) applied in both x- and y-directions
PSO
and a vertical load of 30 kN (6.74 kips) applied in the z-direc-
ESs
tion at all nodes of the tower. A discrete set of 137 economical
550000
standard steel sections selected from W-shape profile list based SA
on area and radii of gyration properties is used to size the variables. TS
The lower and upper bounds on size variables are taken as 6.16 in.2
Best Feasible Design (lb)

ACO
(39.74 cm2) and 215.0 in.2 (1387.09 cm2), respectively. The stress
500000 HS
and stability limitations of the members are imposed according
to the provisions of ASD-AISC [24]. In addition, the displacements SGA
of all nodes are limited to 8.0 cm (3.15 in.) in any direction.
The final designs obtained by each metaheuristic technique are 450000
given in Table 7. PSO has obtained the lightest design in this prob-
lem, which is 363795.7 lb. This design is tabulated in Table 8 with
section designations attained for each member group, and is con-
sidered to be the optimum solution of the problem reached in 400000
the present study. ESs technique gives the second good answer,
which is 364205.5 lb; only 0.1% heavier than the previous. The
other minimum weights obtained by SA, TS, ACO, HS and SGA are
0.4%, 1.2%, 1.7%, 3.8% and 5.7% heavier than the one attained by 350000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
PSO, respectively. Excluding the one found by SGA, the differences
Number of Analysis
among the minimum weights obtained by the stochastic search
techniques are not as large as the ones achieved in the previous de- Fig. 8. The design history graph obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 582-
sign examples. The design history graph is shown in Fig. 8. The member space truss tower.
300 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302

a ) 3D view
2.5 m
(8.2 ft)

8 x 3.25 m ( 10.66 ft )
=
26 m (85.3 ft)

2.5 m
(8.2 ft)

2.75 m 2.25 m
(9.02 ft) (7.38 ft)

10 x 3.25 m (10.66 ft) = 32.5 m (106.63 ft)

2.75 m 2.75 m
(9.02 ft) (9.02
b ) Top view ft)

Fig. 9. 960-member double layer grid.

members into 251 independent size variables. They are selected
from a database of 28 circular hollow sections in ASD-AISC [24]
steel profile list. The lower and upper bounds on size variables
are taken as 1.07 in.2 (6.90 cm2) and 21.3 in.2 (137.42 cm2), respec-
tively. The structure is subjected to a single load case resulting
from snow load only. It is calculated according to ASCE7-98 [48]
manual by selecting the following parameter values: Cs = 1.0,
Ce = 0.9, Ct = 1.0, I = 1.0 and pg = 1.1975 kN/m2 (25.0 lb/ft2), result-
ing in a design snow pressure of 754 N/m2 (15.75 lb/ft2). The stress
and stability limitations of the members are calculated in accor-
dance with the provisions of ASD-AISC [24]. In addition, the dis-
placements of all nodes are restricted to a maximum value of
4.16 in. (10.57 cm) in any direction.
960-Member double layer grid is the largest design example
considered in this study. The final designs obtained by the each
technique for the double layer grid is given in Table 9. The lightest
structure is obtained by SA method, which is 53656.7 lb. Due to the
large number of member groups the cross-sectional designations
of this design are not given in the paper. ESs approach found the
minimum weight of the double layer grid as 54631 lb, which is

Table 9
The minimum weights (lb) obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 960-member double layer grid.

Designs of five different runs SA ESs PSO TS ACO SGA HS

Best run 53656.7 54631.0 55057.1 55821.1 65161.2 71294.2 88479.9
Worst run 54792.4 57089.1 57906.8 58369.4 67258.0 81742.0 95719.0
Average run 54219.2 55558.8 56250.0 56901.9 66220.3 75060.7 87456.3
Computation time (min) 565 558 557 567 691 566 558
 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302 301

200000 the application of the seven different metaheuristic techniques

considered in this study. A summary of the results obtained is
SA
reproduced in Table 10. The numbers in each cell of the table show
175000 ESs the order of the algorithm in finding the minimum weights; 1
PSO being the lightest and 7 being the heaviest. Remembering the fact
that in the design example of 582-member space tower the differ-
TS
ences among the minimum weights attained by SA, ESs and PSO
Best Feasible Design (lb)

150000
125000
100000
75000
50000
0 20000 40000
Number of Analysis
Fig. 10. The design history graph obtained with metaheuristic techniques for 960-
member double layer grid.
Table 10
Performance evaluation of metaheuristic techniques in the design examples
considered.
Design Examples SA ESs
113-member plane bridge truss 2 1
354-member braced truss dome 1 2
582-member space truss tower 3 2
960-member double layer grid 1 2
1.8% heavier than the previous one. The other minimum weights
obtained by PSO, TS, ACO, SGA and HS methods are 2.6%, 4%, 21%,
33% and 65% heavier, respectively than the minimum weight
achieved by SA. In this design example HS method has attained
the heaviest design. The design history graph is shown in Fig. 10.
ESs and TS appeared to be the fastest methods in this design exam-
ple. PSO, the second fastest method of the previous example, fell
below even SA in terms of its convergence rate, yet it approached
a near-optimum solution beyond halfway through the process.
SGA displayed its routine slow convergence performance, and gave
a signal that it might tend to produce better results if more design
cycles were processed. HS, on the other hand, displayed an unac-
ceptable performance indicating no sign of convergence to any rea-
sonable solution within design cycles of manageable size.
5. Conclusions
The design optimization based on metaheuristic techniques is
quite sensitive to a large set of issues that result from decisions
and assumptions made when an optimization model is established
for a problem. Amongst these parameters are (i) the number and
type (continuous or discrete) of design variables used, (ii) discrete
sets for design variables, (iii) the choice of starting solutions, (iv)
the number of design cycles, (v) the method of handling infeasible
solutions, and (vi) the number of experiments (independent runs)
performed. An objective performance evaluation of stochastic opti-
mization techniques requires that all these parameters are kept
identical from one method to another. This fact is observed in
ACO were close to each other, it may be deduced that amongst all the
SGA metaheuristic search techniques considered here, SA and ESs
methods are the most powerful ones. ESs approach exhibited a ra-
HS
pid and linear convergence towards the optimum in the early
stages of the optimization process. On the other hand, SA showed
a slower and gradual convergence in the course of optimization
process, yet it generally obtained a slightly better result than did
ESs due to the improved local search characteristics of the former.
Both methods located near-optimum solutions in the majority of
the runs, indicating their high convergence reliabilities. Another
promising method turned out to be PSO. It has exhibited a prob-
lem-dependent varying convergence rate. It is of consequence to
mention that the reformulated velocity update function Eq. (36)
60000 80000 100000 seemed to enhance the performance of the technique to a great ex-
tent. Experiments performed with non-reformulated velocity func-
tion resulted in very poor local optimum due to exhausted search
ability resulting from zero velocity vectors. TS and ACO techniques
displayed a mediocre performance in all the examples. They both
demonstrated almost a linear convergence behaviour in the early
stages and located a local optimum not very far from the global
one. However, thereafter they could not manage to direct the
search to other regions where better design points lie, resulting
in a non-improving curve in the case of TS, and a barely improving
PSO TS ACO HS SGA curve in the case of ACO. It is worth mentioning that the phero-
3 4 5 6 7
mone scaling incorporated into the ACO algorithm resulted in a
3 5 4 6 7 significant gain in the performance of this technique. The heaviest
1 4 5 6 7 designs were achieved by the SGA and HS methods. They are both
3 4 5 7 6 characterized by slow convergence rates and unreliable search per-
formance. Despite the inadequate performance of HS for large-
scale problems, the authors have observed that HS might be a very
efficient optimizer for small-scale problems. Hence, an improve-
ment of the technique seems to be necessary for large-scale design
optimization. Finally, it is noted that the results and observations
derived here for genetic algorithms are valid only for SGA variant
of the technique. It is highly possible that recent and improved
variants of GAs would produce better results than does SGA.
Acknowledgements
This paper is partially based on research supported by the Sci-
entific Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK Research Grant No:
108M070) and the Middle East Technical University Research
Funding (BAP-2008-03-03-02), which are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Atrek E. New directions in optimum structural design. John Wiley and Sons;
1984.
[2] Grierson DE, Cameron GE. SODA-structural optimization design and analysis.
Released 3.1 user manual. Waterloo Engineering Software, Waterloo, Canada;
1990.
[3] Arora JS. Methods for discrete variable structural optimization. In: Burns SA,
editor. Recent advances in optimum structural design, ASCE, USA; 2002. p. 1–
40.
[4] Horst R, Pardolos PM, editors. Handbook of global optimization. Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 1995.
[5] Horst R, Tuy H. Global optimization deterministic approaches. Springer; 1995.
[6] Paton R. Computing with biological metaphors. USA: Chapman and Hall; 1994.
[7] Adami C. An introduction to artificial life. Springer-Verlag/Telos; 1998.
[8] Matheck C. Design in nature: learning from trees. Berlin: Springer-Verlag;
1998.
[9] Mitchell M. An introduction to genetic algorithms. The MIT Press; 1998.
302 O. Hasançebi et al. / Computers and Structures 87 (2009) 284–302
[10] Kennedy J, Eberhart R, Shi Y. Swarm intelligence. Berlin: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers; 2001.
[11] Kochenberger GA, Glover F. Handbook of metaheuristics. Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 2003.
[12] DeCastro LN, VonZuben FJ. Recent developments in biologically inspired
computing. USA: Idea Group Publishing; 2005.
[13] Dreo J, Petrowski A, Siarry P, Taillard E. Metaheuristics for hard
optimization. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2006.
[14] Saka MP. Optimum design of steel frames using stochastic search techniques
based on natural phenomena: a review. In: Topping BHV, editor. Civil
engineering computations: tools and techniques. Saxe-Coburgh Publications;
2007. p. 105–47.
[15] Keane AJ. A brief comparison of some evolutionary optimization methods. In:
Proceedings of the conference on applied decision technologies. Modern
heuristic search methods, Uxbrigde, Wiley; 1995. p. 255–72.
[16] Manoharana S, Shanmuganathan S. A comparison of search mechanisms for
structural optimization. Comput Struct 1999:363–72.
[17] Kirkpatrick S, Gerlatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing.
Science 1983;220:671–80.
[18] Rechenberg I. Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem. Royal
aircraft establishment, library translation no. 1122. UK: Farnborough, Hants;
1965.
[19] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE international
conference on neural networks, vol. 4. IEEE Press; 1995. p. 1942–8.
[20] Glover F. Tabu search-part I. ORSA J Comput 1989;1(3):190–206.
[21] Dorigo M, Stützle T. Ant colony optimization a Bradford
book. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2004.
[22] Lee KS, Geem ZW. A new structural optimization method based on the
harmony search algorithm. Comput Struct 2004;82:781–98.
[23] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search optimization and machine
learning. Addison Wesley; 1989.
[24] Manual of steel construction. Allowable stress design. 9th ed. AISC, American
Institutes of Steel Construction, Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 1989.
[25] Coello CAC. Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used
with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Comput Meth
Appl Mech Eng 2002;191:1245–87.
[26] Michalewicz Z. A survey of constraint handling techniques in evolutionary
computations methods. In: Fourth annual conference on evolutionary
programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. p. 135–55.
[27] Hasançebi O. Adaptive evolution strategies in structural optimization:
enhancing their computational performance with applications to large-scale
structures. Comput Struct 2008;86(1–2):119–32.
[28] Cerny V. Thermodynamical approach to the traveling salesman problem: an
efficient simulation algorithm. J Opt Theory Appl 1985;45:41–51.
[29] Bennage WA, Dhingra AK. Single and multi-objective structural optimization
in discrete–continuous variables using simulated annealing. Int J Numer Meth
Eng 1995;38:753–2773.
[30] Rechenberg I. Evolutionsstrategie: optimierung technischer systeme nach
prinzipien der biologischen evolution. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog; 1973.
[31] Schwefel H-P. Kybernetische evolution als strategie der experimentellen
forschung in der strömungstechnik Diplomarbeit. Berlin: Technische
Universität; 1965.
[32] Hasançebi O. Discrete approaches in evolution strategies based optimum
design of steel frames. Struct Eng Mech 2007;26(2):191–210.
[33] Rudolph G. An evolutionary algorithm for integer programming, PPSN III
international conference on evolutionary computation. In: Parallel problem
solving from nature. Lect Notes Comput Sci, vol. 866. Berlin: Springer; 1994. p.
139–48.
[34] Venter G, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J. Multidisciplinary optimization of a
transport aircraft wing using particle swarm optimization. Struct Multidiscip
Opt 2004;26:121–31.
[35] Fourie P, Groenwold A. The particle swarm optimization algorithm in size and
shape optimization. Struct Multidiscip Opt 2002;23(4):259–67.
[36] Perez RE, Behdinan K. Particle swarm approach for structural design
optimization. Comput Struct 2007;85(19–20):1579–88.
[37] Wilke DN, Kok S, Groenwold AA. Comparison of linear and classical velocity
update rules in particle swarm optimization: notes on diversity. Int J Numer
Meth Eng 2007;70:962–84.
[38] Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo, V. Distributed optimization by ant colony. In:
Proceedings of the first European conference on artificial life, USA; 1991. p.
134–42.
[39] Dorigo M. Optimization, learning and natural algorithms, PhD thesis.
Dipartimento Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Italy; 1992.
[40] Camp CV, Bichon JB, Stovall SP. Design of steel frames using ant colony
optimization. J Struct Eng ASCE 2004;131(3):369–79.
[41] Blum C. Ant colony optimization: introduction and recent trends. Phys Life Rev
2005;2:353–73.
[42] Rajeev S, Krishnamoorty CS. Discrete optimization of structures using genetic
algorithms. J Struct Eng 1992;118(5):1233–50.
[43] Erbatur F, Hasançebi O, Tütüncü I,_ Kılıç H. Optimal design of planar and space
structures with genetic algorithms. Comput Struct 2000;75:209–24.
[44] Ponteresso P, Fox DSJ. Heuristically seeded genetic algorithms applied to truss
optimisation. Eng Comput 1999;15:344–5.
[45] Cao G. Optimized design of framed structures using a genetic algorithm, PhD
thesis. University of Memphis; 1996.
[46] Camp CV, Bichon BJ. Design of space trusses using ant colony optimization. J
Struct Eng 2004;130(5):741–51.
[47] Camp CV. Design of space trusses using Big Bang–Big Crunch optimization. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2007;133(7):999–1008.
[48] Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of
Civil Engineers; 1998.