Natural

Evolutionary natural frequency

frequency optimization of optimization

two-dimensional structures
233
with additional non-structural Received September 1995
lumped masses Revised May 1996

Chongbin Zhao
CSIRO Division of Exploration and Mining, Nedlands,West Australia,
Australia
G.P. Steven
Finite Element Analysis Research Centre, University of Sydney,
New South Wales, Australia and
Y.M. Xie
Department of Civil and Building Engineering,
Victoria University of Technology, MMC, Victoria, Australia

Introduction
In recent years, the structural topology optimization has become a very
important topic for two main reasons. First, the structural topology
optimization usually produces a much better structural configuration than the
conventional structural optimization such as the structural sizing optimization
or structural shape optimization. Second, the advent of both advanced
computer technology and the sophisticated structural analysis method enables
the complicated structural topology optimization problem in continuum
mechanics to be solved using numerical methods.
Thus, several optimization methods such as the ground structure approach
(Rozvany and Zhou, 1993), the homogenization method (Bendsøe, 1989; Bendsøe
and Kikuchi, 1988; Diaz and Kikuchi, 1992; Suzuki and Kikuchi, 1991) and the
bubble method (Eschenauer et al., 1993) have been developed and used to tackle
some structural topology optimization problems. Since these methods are based
on some conventional optimization concepts and techniques, the concepts of an
objective function, design variables, constraints and optimality criteria have
been employed in the process of developing them. In addition, based on the
evolutionary principle, the evolutionary structural optimization method (Xie
and Steven, 1993; 1994) has recently been proposed for solving two-dimensional
structural topology optimization problems. The basic idea behind the
evolutionary structural optimization method is that for a structure subjected to Engineering Computations,
Vol. 14 No. 2, 1997, pp. 233-251.
static loading, the material with small stress levels is not used efficiently © MCB University Press, 0264-4401
EC because it carries only a small amount of load. Thus, this material can be
14,2 removed so as to make the structural material more efficient. When the
inefficient material of a structure is removed gradually, the topology of the
structure is slowly evolving and the stress distribution within the resulting
structure becomes more and more uniform. For the purpose of keeping the
solution of high accuracy, the design domain which is a continuum should be
234 discretized into a very fine mesh of finite elements and the number of elements
removed at each iteration should be small. This will lead to a smooth transition
between any two adjacent generations of the structure. Realizing the simplicity
and easy implementation of the evolutionary structural optimization method,
Hinton and Sienz (1995) applied this method to the fully stressed topology
design of structures and produced very interesting results for the topology of
several two-dimensional structures under static loading conditions.
The main purpose of this paper is to extend the evolutionary structural
optimization method to the solution for the natural frequency optimization of
two-dimensional structures with additional non-structural lumped masses. The
statement of a structural natural frequency optimization problem is described
as follows. For a given design domain of the problem and a prescribed weight of
a target structure, the optimal topology of the target structure, which
corresponds to the maximum natural frequency for a concerned structural
vibration mode, needs to be found within this design domain. Generally, the
weight of the design domain is greater than that of the target structure. That is
to say, for the topology design of a target structure, there are infinite choices in
the continuum sense but a large number of choices in the finite element sense,
depending on the finite element mesh used. Once the finite element method is
employed in the process of the structural topology optimization, the basic
problem posed is how to choose the optimal topology of the target structure
among a large number of possible structural configurations, which are located
within the design domain and satisfy the prescribed structural weight
requirement. Since the finite element method is an approximate one, the finer
the finite element mesh used, the more accurate the optimal topology obtained.
In this regard, the term optimal topology only holds true in the finite element
sense. In order to find the optimal topology of a target structure using the
evolutionary structural optimization method, it is necessary to evaluate the
contribution of each element to the concerned natural frequency of the finite
element discretized design domain. If the finite element mesh used to model the
design domain is fine enough and the number of elements removed at each
iteration is very small, it is possible to find the optimal topology of the target
structure by simply removing the inefficient material/elements step by step
until the prescribed structural weight requirement is met. Unlike a static
optimization problem, the efficiency of material used in a free vibration system
is not represented by its stress level but represented by its contribution to the
concerned natural frequency of the system.
Keeping the above in mind, the expression for the contribution factor of an
element to the concerned natural frequency of a system as well as some new
criteria for the structural natural frequency optimization have been derived and Natural
outlined in this paper. Using the contribution factor of an element, the efficiency frequency
of any particular part of material in the design domain can be determined. This optimization
leads to a general method for the evolutionary natural frequency optimization
of a structure. Finally, two examples have been presented to demonstrate the
feasibility of the extended evolutionary structural optimization method when it
is used to deal with the natural frequency optimization problem of a structure 235
with additional non-structural lumped masses.

Basic criteria for evolutionary natural frequency optimization

Like other conventional structural optimization methods, the evolutionary
structural optimization method is iterative because of the highly non-linear
nature of the structural optimization problem itself. This indicates that the
general method for the evolutionary natural frequency optimization of a
structure with additional non-structural lumped masses must be iterative since
the evolutionary structural optimization method is employed to solve this
problem. For the purpose of developing the extended evolutionary structural
optimization method for the evolutionary natural frequency optimization of a
structure, some basic criteria need to be developed. These basic criteria are
described as follows.

The material efficiency criterion

In the evolutionary structural optimization method, a key issue is to evaluate
the efficiency of material used in the design domain. For a static optimization
problem, the efficiency of material can be evaluated by considering the stress
level of each particular element. If the stress level of an element is very low, it
means that the material of this element is not used efficiently and therefore can
be removed. For the natural frequency optimization problem, there is not any
external dynamic load in the system because the system is in a free vibration
state. Thus, it is impossible to use the stress level to determine the efficiency of
material for an evolutionary natural frequency optimization problem. In order
to solve this problem, it is essential to evaluate the individual contribution of an
element to the natural frequency concerned since finite elements are basic cells
of the design domain. Although the sensitivity of a natural frequency, which is
usually expressed in the differentiation sense, can be used to evaluate the
efficiency of an element, the contribution factor of an element to the natural
frequency is used in this study to evaluate the efficiency of the element because
it is expressed in the difference sense and therefore may be most suitable to the
finite element analysis. Based on the fact that the natural frequency of a
structure is usually obtained from the solution to an eigenvalue problem of the
structure under the undamped free vibration condition, it is possible to derive
the contribution factor of an element to the natural frequency of the structure
from the energy conservation principle because there is no energy dissipation in
such a structural system.
EC For the purpose of obtaining a finite element solution to the natural
14,2 frequency of a two-dimensional structure under undamped free vibration
conditions, it is a common practice to assume that the structure is subjected to
a harmonic motion as follows:

(1)
236
where u and v are the in-plane displacements of the structure; uA and vA are the
corresponding amplitudes of the displacements; ω is the circular frequency at
which the structure vibrates.
Under the condition of harmonic motion, the total strain energy and total
kinetic energy of a finite element discretized system can be expressed as:

(2)

where {∆A} is the displacement amplitude vector of the system; Ep and Ek are
the total strain energy and total kinetic energy of the system; [K] and [M] are the
global stiffness matrix and mass matrix of the system respectively.
From equation (2), the total energy of the system can be obtained as

(3)

where E is the total energy of the system.

Note that for an undamped free vibration system, the total energy is
constant. When the system passes through the static equilibrium position, the
strain energy is zero and the kinetic energy has a maximum value which is
equal to the total energy. On the other hand, when the system reaches the
maximum displacement, the kinetic energy is zero and the strain energy has a
maximum value which is also equal to the total energy of the system. This leads
to the following expression:
(4)
where Epmax and Ekmax are the maximum values of the strain energy and the
kinetic energy of the system respectively. They can be expressed as
(5a)

(5b)
In any iteration, if an old system represents the system before removing an
element at the beginning of the iteration and a new system represents the
system after removing the element at the end of the iteration, the natural
frequency difference between the old and the new systems indicates the
contribution of this element to the natural frequency of the old system for a
particular vibration mode. This is the basic idea used for deriving the Natural
contribution factor of an element to the concerned natural frequency of a system. frequency
For the old system, the following equation exists: optimization
(6)
where
237
(7a)

(7b)
where [K]o and [M]o are the global stiffness matrix and mass matrix of the old
system respectively; ω0 is the concerned natural frequency of the old system;
{∆A}o is the displacement amplitude vector of the old system.
Similarly, for the new system, there exists the following equation:
(8)
where
(9a)

(9b)
where [K]n, and [M]n, are the global stiffness matrix and mass matrix of the new
system; ω n , and {∆ A } n are the concerned natural frequency and the
displacement amplitude vector of the new system.
It is noted that the following relationships exist between the old and the new
systems.

(10)
where [Ke] and [Me] are the enlarged stiffness matrix and mass matrix of an
element. These enlarged matrices of the element have the same order as the
global matrices of the system. δω expresses the circular frequency difference
between the new and old systems and is called as the contribution factor of an
element to the circular frequency of the system. { δ ∆ A } represents the
displacement amplitude difference between the new and old systems.
It is obvious that the following equation can be obtained from equations (6)
and (8).
(11)
EC Substituting the relevant equations into equation (11 ) yields the following
14,2 equation:

(12)
238 The governing equation of motion for the new system under the undamped free
vibration condition can be expressed as
(13)
Substituting equation (13) into equation (12) yields the following equation:

(14)

where [me] and [ke] are the mass matrix and stiffness matrix of an element; {∆A
e}
is the displacement amplitude vector of the element.
From equation (14), the following expression can be derived.
(15)
where α can be expressed as:

(16)

If the first-order variations are only considered in equation (14), the contribution
factor of an element to the concerned natural frequency of an undamped free
vibration system can be approximately expressed as:

(17)

If the ith natural frequency and its corresponding vibration mode of the old
system are expressed as ωi and {di}, equations (15) and (17) can be further
simplified using the following equation in structural dynamics:
(18)
where Mi is the modal mass in correspondence with the ith natural frequency of
the system.
Considering equations (15), (16) and (18) simultaneously yields the following
equation:
(19)
where

(20)
where δω i is the exact contribution factor of an element to the ith natural Natural
frequency of the old system; {die} is the modal shape vector of the element in the frequency
old system; {δdi} is the ith modal shape vector difference between the old and optimization
the new systems. The other symbols in equation (20) are of the same meaning
as mentioned before.
Similarly, considering equations (17) and (18) simultaneously yields the
following equation: 239

(21)

where δω i* is the approximate contribution factor of an element to the ith

natural frequency of the old system.
Since δω*i depends only on the quantities associated with the old system, it is
used to predict and determine which element should be removed from the old
system in an iteration. This indicates that the approximate contribution factor
of an element to the concerned natural frequency of a system can be used as the
material efficiency criterion for the evolutionary natural frequency optimization
of a structure with additional non-structural lumped masses. If the main
purpose of the evolutionary natural frequency optimization is to maximize the
concerned natural frequency of a structure, the most inefficient material used in
the system comprises those elements, the contribution factors of which are of or
close to the maximum algebraic value to the concerned natural frequency.
Thus, it is necessary to remove those elements from the system in an iteration.
However, if the main purpose of the evolutionary natural frequency
optimization is to minimize the concerned natural frequency of a structure, the
most inefficient material used in the system comprises those elements, the
contribution factors of which are of or close to the minimum algebraic value to
the concerned natural frequency.

The positive definite structure criterion

When the evolutionary structural optimization method is used for solving static
optimization problems, the applied external load needs to be passed to the
boundary supports of the structure so that the structural connectivity between
the applied load and the boundary supports is not broken during the structural
evolution from one generation to another. However, when evolutionary
structural optimization is used for solving structural natural frequency
optimization problems, it has been recognized that the material around an
additional non-structural lumped mass is not used efficiently. As a result, the
structural connectivity between the additional non-structural lumped mass and
the structural boundary supports will be broken if special measures are not
taken in the process of the structural natural frequency optimization. This
indicates that there is a need for establishing a structural connectivity criterion
between the additional non-structural lumped mass and the structural
boundary supports because the additional non-structural lumped mass needs
EC to be kept in the target structure. From the structural point of view, if the
14,2 connectivity between the additional non-structural lumped mass and the
structural boundary supports is broken, it will lead to a non-positive definite
structure. For this reason, the structural connectivity criterion can be called the
positive definite structure criterion. This criterion is expressed as
(22)
240
where w1 is the fundamental natural frequency of the new system.
Once some elements are removed from the old system, the connectivity
between the additional non-structural lumped mass and the structural boundary
supports in the new system needs to be checked using the positive definite
structure criterion. If the check indicates that the connectivity between the
additional non-structural lumped mass and the structural boundary supports is
broken in the new system, then the removed elements in this particular iteration
need to be returned to the system as a part of the non-design domain.

The smooth change criterion

From the continuum mechanics point of view, the variation of any concerned
natural frequency of a system should be smooth and continuous. This requires
that the change of the concerned natural frequency of the system be small from
one generation to the consequent one since the finite element method is used for
the structural natural frequency analysis in the process of the structural
natural frequency optimization. That is to say, in order to obtain an accurate
solution for the evolutionary natural frequency optimization of a structure with
additional non-structural lumped masses, a smooth change criterion needs to
be included in the extended evolutionary structural optimization method. This
smooth change criterion can be expressed as:
(23)

where ωold and ωnew are the concerned natural frequency of the old and the new
systems respectively; β1is the maximum variation tolerance of the concerned
natural frequency between the old and the new systems.
The smooth change criterion is used to check the variation of the concerned
natural frequency of the system in a single iteration. If the check indicates that
the smooth change criterion is violated, it means that the number of the elements
removed in the iteration is too large or the elements are wrongly removed from
the system. In the former case, the elements removed in the iteration are returned
to the system and the maximum number of elements removed in a single
iteration need to be introduced. In the latter case, the elements removed need to
be returned to the system as a part of the non-design domain.

The average value criterion

If the purpose of the natural frequency optimization is to maximize the ith
natural frequency of a system, the values of the consecutive (i + j)th (j = 1, …, n)
natural frequencies may approach the value of the ith natural frequency of the Natural
system at some stages of the natural frequency optimization. This will lead to a frequency
repeated natural frequency problem and/or a natural frequency order exchange optimization
problem in the process of the evolutionary natural frequency optimization. In
order to cope with these problems, the average value criterion needs to be
introduced. For this purpose, the maximum number of the repeated natural
frequency is determined by comparing the ith natural frequency with its 241
consecutive ones as follows:
(24)
where n is the maximum number of the repeated natural frequency; β 2
represents the maximum allowable difference between the repeated natural
frequencies.
If equation (24) does not hold true in a particular iteration, it indicates that
there is not any repeated natural frequency in this iteration so that n should be
set at zero. If n is greater than zero in any iteration, then the average value
criterion can be written as follows:

(25)

where δω– i* is the average contribution factor of an element to the ith natural
–
frequency
–e
due to all the repeated natural frequencies of the system; ω– i, Mi and
{d i } are the average values of the related quantities due to all the repeated
natural frequencies of the system. They are expressed as:

(26)

The minimum number of elements removed criterion

If the design domain and the target structure are symmetric, there is a
requirement for removing the minimum number of elements in a single iteration
so as to maintain the symmetric nature of the system in the process of the
evolutionary natural frequency optimization. This minimum number is
determined by considering the number of the symmetric axes in the system. In
this regard, the minimum number of elements removed criterion can be viewed
as the system symmetry criterion. However, if more elements than the real
minimum number of elements are to be removed, the number of the elements
should be equal to a multiple of the real minimum number of elements. For
example, if there is one axis of symmetry in a structure, only a multiple of two
EC is allowed to be used to determine the number of elements to be removed in an
14,2 iteration.

Demonstrative examples
Using the extended evolutionary structural optimization method which
contains five basic criteria as mentioned in the last section, the natural
242 frequency optimization of two structures has been carried out under the plane
stress condition in this section. The concerned natural frequency is the
fundamental natural frequency of the structure in the process of the structural
natural frequency optimization. The design domain of the first structure is a
rectangular one with an additional non-structural lumped mass in its centre,
while the design domain of the second structure is a square with a small square
cut-out near its left-hand side and two additional non-structural lumped masses
near its right-hand side. Some detailed results from the natural frequency
optimization of these two structures are outlined below.

Two-dimensional structure with an additional non-structural lumped mass

As shown in Figure 1, the design domain of a two-dimensional structure with
an additional non-structural lumped mass in its centre is discretized into 700
four-node square elements. Four elements in the centre of the design domain are
assigned as the initial non-design domain because these elements are needed to
connect the additional non-structural lumped mass to the target structure. Both
the left and the right-hand side boundaries of the design domain are clamped.
The following parameters are used for the whole domain: the length, width and
thickness of the domain are 14m, 2m and 0.01m respectively; the elastic
modulus of the domain material is 25 × 106 kPa; Poisson’s ratio is 0.3; the unit
weight is 2.5 × 103 kg/m3; the weight of the additional non-structural lumped
mass is 125kg, the weight of the design domain and non-design domain is
700kg. Based on these parameters, the initial fundamental natural frequency of
the system before optimization is 154.32 rad/s. Also, in order to use the
extended evolutionary structural optimization method for the natural
frequency optimization of the structure, the following parameters are also used
in the calculation: β1 is equal to 0.2 and β2 is equal to 0.03. Since there are two
symmetric axes in the system, the minimum number of elements removed in an
iteration is equal to four so as to maintain the symmetric nature of the target
structure.
Figures 2 to 4 show a series of optimal structural topologies for different
weights of the target structure. In these figures, Ws is the weight of the target
structure; Wd is the initial weight of the design domain and the non-design

Figure 1.
Design domain of a 2D
structure with a lumped
mass
 Natural
frequency
optimization

243

Figure 2.
Optimization of a 2D
structure with a lumped
mass

domain. In the calculation, Wd is equal to 700kg. ω1 is the fundamental natural

frequency of the target structure. It is observed that if the weight of a target
structure is different the different optimal topology of the target structure is
obtained in the process of the fundamental natural frequency optimization.
When the value of Ws/Wd is high, the total amount of material needed to be
removed from the system is small so that the area of the non-design domain is
small and the contribution factor of the most inefficiently used material in the
EC
14,2

244

Figure 3.
Optimization of a 2D
structure with a lumped
mass

design domain to the fundamental natural frequency of the system is of a

positive value. This leads to the increase in the fundamental natural frequency
of the system at the early stage of the structural evolution. However, when the
value of Ws/Wd becomes smaller and smaller, the total amount of material
needed to be removed from the system becomes larger and larger so that owing
to the requirement for maintaining the connectivity between the additional non-
structural lumped mass and the structural boundary supports, the area of the
 Natural
frequency
optimization

245

Figure 4.
Optimization of a 2D
structure with a lumped
mass

non-design domain becomes larger and larger. As a result, the contribution

factor of the most inefficiently used material in the design domain to the
fundamental natural frequency of the system is of a negative value. This leads
to the decrease in the fundamental natural frequency from some stage of the
structural evolution. However, it needs to be pointed out that, although the
fundamental natural frequency of a target structure may decrease with the
decrease in the weight of the target structure, it is still maximized in the sense
that the material of the target structure is used most efficiently among all
possible structural configurations constructed by using the same amount of
material. With Ws/Wd = 72.00 per cent taken as an example, the corresponding
fundamental natural frequency of the target structure is 154.07 rad/s, which is
the maximum value of the fundamental natural frequency when 72 per cent of
the material in the initial design domain is used to construct a structure. For
this reason all topologies shown in Figures 2 to 4 are regarded as the optimal
structural topologies for different weights of target structures.
If the ratio of the fundamental natural frequency to the weight of a target
structure, ω1/Ws, is used to indicate the general performance of the structure, it
has been found that at the beginning of the structural evolution, ω1/Ws is equal
ω1
to 0.22046 (namely, W = 154.32
700
= 0.22046 ), while at the end of the structural
s ω
evolution, ω1/Ws is equal to 0.44097 (namely, W1s = 0.2914
89.95
× 700
= 0.44097). This fact
demonstrates that in the process of evolutionary structural optimization, the
material efficiency is indeed increased with a decrease in the weight of a target
structure.

Two-dimensional structure with two additional non-structural lumped masses

To demonstrate further the feasibility of the extended evolutionary structural
optimization method for solving structural natural frequency optimization
problems a two-dimensional structure with two additional non-structural
lumped masses has been considered. As shown in Figure 5, the whole domain
of the system, which is a large square with a small square cut-out near its left-
EC
14,2

246

Figure 5.
Design domain of a 2D
structure with two
lumped masses

hand side, is discretized into 800 four-node square elements. There are two
additional non-structural lumped masses in the system. One is located near the
top right-hand corner and another is located near the bottom right-hand corner
of the system. These two additional non-structural lumped masses are
connected by a bar which is considered as a part of the non-design domain. In
Figure 5, the elements with dark colour represent the initial design domain,
while the elements with light colour represent the initial non-design domain
before the structural optimization. The left-hand boundary of the design
domain is clamped in the calculation. The following parameters are used for the
whole domain containing the design one and the non-design one: the length,
width and thickness of the large square without the small square cut-out are 3m,
3m and 0.01m, while the length, width and thickness of the small square cut-out
are 1m, 1m and 0.01m respectively; the elastic modulus of the whole domain
material is 25 × 106 kPa; Poisson’s ratio is 0.3; the unit weight is 2.5 × 103 kg/m3;
the weight of each additional non-structural lumped mass is 80kg, which is
evenly distributed at two nodes in the non-design domain. The weight of the
whole domain except for the additional non-structural lumped masses is 200kg.
Based on these parameters, the initial fundamental natural frequency of the
system before optimization is 344.47 rad/s. Also, β1 and β2 are of the same
values as used in the first example. Since there is only one symmetric axis in the
system, the minimum number of elements to be removed in an iteration is equal
to two so as to maintain the symmetric nature of the target structure.
Figures 6 to 9 show a series of optimal structural topologies for different
weights of a target structure. In these figures, Ws is the weight of the target
structure; Wd is the initial weight of the whole domain excluding the additional
non-structural lumped masses and is equal to 200kg in this example; ω1 is the
 Natural
frequency
optimization

247

Figure 6.
Optimization of a 2D
structure with two
lumped masses
EC
14,2

248

Figure 7.
Optimization of a 2D
structure with two
lumped masses
 Natural
frequency
optimization

249

Figure 8.
Optimization of a 2D
structure with two
lumped masses
EC
14,2

250

Figure 9.
Optimization of a 2D
structure with two
lumped masses
fundamental natural frequency of the target structure. As expected, the same Natural
conclusions as were obtained from the first example can be drawn from the frequency
results shown in these figures. Thus, the feasibility of the extended
evolutionary structural optimization method has been further demonstrated for
optimization
solving the natural frequency optimization problem of a structure with
additional non-structural lumped masses.
251
Conclusions
To extend the evolutionary structural optimization method to the solution for
the natural frequency optimization of a structure with additional non-structural
lumped masses, five basic criteria have been presented in this paper. These
criteria are:
(1) the material efficiency criterion;
(2) the positive definite structure criterion;
(3) the smooth change criterion;
(4) the average value criterion; and
(5) the minimum number of elements removed criterion.
Using these criteria, the evolutionary structural optimization method has been
successfully extended for solving the natural frequency optimization of
structures with additional non-structural lumped masses. The related results
from two examples have demonstrated the feasibility of the extended
evolutionary structural optimization method.

References
Bendsøe, M.P. (1989), “Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem”, Structural
Optimization, Vol. 1, pp. 193-202.
Bendsøe, M.P. and Kikuchi N. (1988), “Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a
homogenization method”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 71,
pp. 197-224.
Diaz, A.R. and Kikuchi, N. (1992), “Solutions to shape and topology eigenvalue optimization
problems using a homogenization method”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 35 pp. 1487-1502.
Eschenauer, H.A., Schumacher, A. and Vietor, T. (1993), “Design making for initial designs
made of advanced materials”, in Bendøe, M.P. and Soares, C.A.M. (Eds), NATO ARW, Topology
Design of Structures, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 469-80.
Hinton, E. and Sienz, J. (1995), “Fully stressed topological design of structures using an
evolutionary procedure”, Engineering Computations, Vol. 12, pp. 229-44.
Rozvany, G.I.N. and Zhou, M. (1993), “Layout and generalized shape optimization by iterative
COC methods”, in Rozvany, G.I.N. (Ed.), NATO DFG ASI, Optimization of Large Structural
Systems, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 103-20.
Suzuki, K. and Kikuchi, N. (1991), “A homogenization method for shape and topology
optimization”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 93, pp. 291-318.
Xie, Y.M. and Steven, G.P. (1993), “A simple evolutionary procedure for structural optimization”,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 49, pp. 885-96.
Xie, Y.M. and Steven, G.P. (1994), “A simple approach to structural frequency optimization”,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 53, pp. 1487-91.