STRUCTURAL OPTIMISATION OF TRUSSES

– AN OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT METHODS

Lt Cdr V S Swaminathan
Dept of Ocean Engineering & Naval Architecture, IIT Kharagpur
Abstract

This paper presents the over view of structural optimisation strategies used in truss
problems, their merits, demerits and the future trends. Comparisons between different methods
has also been discusses keeping the accuracy, efficiency and the convergence rate of each of
the methods in mind. Over the period of time many new methods have been developed in the
field of structural optimisation. They are different from the classical methods developed in many
ways. Most of these methods are meta-heuristic in nature. The common factor in meta-heuristic
algorithms is that they combine rules and randomness to imitate natural phenomena. The
complexities of a problem limit the structural designer from using the classical methods for
analysis and optimisation. However, one has to have a clear understanding of the new methods,
and exercise caution as any error in formulation can lead to wrong results. Even now most of the
goals of a common structural optimisation problem remain the minimisation of weight of the
structure. In this paper one of the classical case will be discussed which has been researched
quiet well.

1. Introduction optimum design of large structures

Optimisation of structure has
gained lots of significance in the last
decade. Much of this progress was
made possible by impressive
developments in the field of digital
computer technology. The escalation
of cost and time has forced the
structural designer to deviate from the
classical methods of design. Even the
structural optimisation has undergone
evolution from the classical methods to
the meta-heuristic methods. The
classical methods such as linear,
nonlinear, and dynamic programming
are efficient for certain range of
problems. However, they have
limitations with respect to complex
problems. Some techniques, including
the penalty-function, augmented
Lagrangian, and conjugate gradient
methods, search for a local optimum
by moving in a direction related to the
local gradient. These methods become
inefficient when searching for the
due to the large amount of gradient
calculations those are required.
Structural optimisation problems
are generally characterized by a large
number of design variables, a simple
objective function and an indirect but
well behaved constraint functions. The
constraint functions are indirect in the
sense that they cannot he expressed
explicitly as functions of the design
variables. Attempts to optimize
structures by nonlinear programming
methods have met with varying degree
of success. These methods are
extremely useful in defining the design
problem in proper mathematical terms.
This paper compares most of the
methods, classical and meta-heuristic
for their accuracy, merits, de-merits,
computational time and ease and the
rate of convergence. Due to the fact
that material cost is one of the major
factors, minimisation of weight has
become one of the important goals.

1
2. Problem formulation ∆ l≤ ∆ i ≤ ∆ u

In general the structural Al ≤ Ai ≤ Au

optimisation problem can be
categorised in different groups viz. l, u  lower and upper bounds
shape optimisation, weight
optimisation, topology optimisation, 3. Overview of methods
reliability and dynamic characteristics
etc. However, this paper is limited to Some of the methods that will
weight optimisation only. The be seen are modified double cuts
optimisation problem of the structure is approach, sequential quadratic
defined as: programming, genetic algorithm,
harmony search method, improved
Minimise ƒ(X) move limit method of SLP and strain
energy method.
ƒ(X)  The objective function
3.1 Modified double cuts approach
Subjected to the constrains
The work of C J Shih & H W Lee
Gi(X) ≤ 0 { i = 1,2,3,4 ……. n} [1] is presented here. The general form
Hj(X) = 0 { j = 1,2,3,4 ……. m} of a nonlinear programming problem with
fuzzy inequality constraints (FNLP) can
X  The design vector be stated as

As far as weight optimisation is Find X = [x1,x2…..xn]

concerned the objective function is
defined as: Min ƒ(X) (1)
s.t gi(X) ≤ b i , i = 1,2,3…m (2)
k
Minimise W(X) = ∑l A ρ
i =1
i i i
The fuzzy number b i, ∀ i are in the
k  Total number of members in the fuzzy region of [bi, bi + pi] with given
truss fuzzy tolerance of pi. Assume that the
l, A, ρ  length, area and density of ith fuzzy tolerance pi for the ith fuzzy
member. constraint is known, then, b i can be
equivalent to (bi + θ pi), ∀ i, where θ is
A typical structural optimisation in [0, 1]. Eq. (2) can be expressed as
problem is restricted with a number of following formulation used for solving a
constraints controlling the structural FNLP problem:
response. Constraints can be stress
constraints, displacement constraints, s.t gi(X) ≤ b i + (1-α )pi i = 1,2,…m (3)
frequency constraints etc with bounds
on the design variables.
Where α ∈ [0, 1]. Thus, the FNLP
problem containing constraint given in
σ l≤ σ i ≤ σ u Eq. (3) is equivalent to a parametric
programming while α = 1 - θ . For

2
each α , there is an optimal solution,
therefore, the solution with a grade of
membership function is fuzzy. One can
consequently apply the max–min
operator to obtain the optimal decision.
Then, the problem of Eqs. (1) and (2)
can be solved by the max-λ strategy,
where
λ = min[µ f(X), µ g1(X), µ g2(X),….,
µ gm(X)]
Max λ (4)
s.t λ ≤ µ f(X) (5)
λ ≤ µ gi(X) i = 1,2,…m
(6)
s.t f(X) – [fmax - α f(fmax – fmin)] = 0
(for linear µ f(X)) (8)
f(X) – (fmin/α f) = 0
(for non-linear µ f(X)) (9)
gi(X) ≤ bi + (1-α )pi, i = 1,2…m (10)
where α f ∈ [0,1] and 0.01 ≤ α ≤ 1. Eq.
(7) for nonlinear µ f(X) can be viewed
as minimising f(X) and minimising α f /
α simultaneously; which in terms
implies that Eq. (7) can be replaced by
an another utility function to be
minimised, as written in the following:

Where µ f(X) and µ gi(X) represent the 2

αf f 
membership function corresponding to 2  − min 
the objective function and the ith fuzzy  f ( X ) − f min   α f max 
Min   + f min
(11)
constraint, respectively.  f min   
 f max 

When one observes the conventional An alternate function for Eq. (7) in the
α -cuts method in which the value of case of linear µ f(X) can be written as
gi(X) goes to bi + pi as α gi(X) is
approaching to zero; simultaneously, 2
the value of f(X) goes to the direction of αf 
  α −α p 
2
fmin (the minimum value of objective  f ( X ) − f min
Min   +  (12)
function) as α f (the level cut value  f min   α p 

corresponding to the objective function)  
goes to one. For maintaining the
equilibrium between α f and α gi in the Where α p is an additional design
optimization process, there is a variable with the range in 10-4 ≤ α p ≤ 1.
tendency to pull α f toward a lower limit The inadequacy in Eq. (7) resulting the
and to push α gi toward an upper limit local optimum because of αf
so to achieve a balance state. The numerically goes to the minimum and
resultant optimal design eventually α goes to the maximum. Especially the
converges to two different compromise variable α p in Eq. (12) seems to be
values of α *f and α *gi , where each agi useless due to yielding to its upper
in the formulation uses a same level of bound. Therefore, Eqs. (11) & (12) are
α . This consideration leads us to modified to be Eqs. (13) & (14) for
develop the double-cuts approach for avoiding those computationally
FNLP, the formulation can be written as difficulties.

Find [X, α f, α ]T
Min f(X) x α f / α (7)

3
  αf f 
2
gk=∇ f (xk) and Bk is an n×n matrix.
2  − min  Often Bk is required to be positive
 f ( X ) − f min  α f max
Min   + 1 f min
 definite, which is supposed to be an
 f max − f min    approximate Hessian of the Lagrangian
 0.0001 − f 
 max 
l ( x, λ ) = f ( x ) − λ T c ( x ) (16)
…….. (13)
At the current iterate xk. A merit
2
 αf  function, which is normally a penalty
 f ( X ) − f min 
2
 − 0.0001  function such as the l 1 exact penalty
α
Min   + 1  function, is used to carry out line
 f max − f min   − 0.0001  searches. It has been proved that SQP
 0.0001  is globally convergent. One of the
resulted difficulties of SQP for large-
……. (14) scale problem is that the memory
requisite for each QP sub-problem may
Eq. (13) is used with nonlinear be very large if the original problem is
µ f(X) and Eq. (14) is used with linear large.
µ f(X). Formulation of Eqs. (13) & (14)
are developed from the idea of 3.3 Genetic algorithm
quadratic normalization in which the
parameter a goes to a small value. The The work of Kalyanmoy Deb &
Eq. (14) also shows the advantage of Surendra Gulati [3] is presented here.
neglecting the additional design In this method, simulated binary
variable α p. crossover (SBX) and a parameter-
based mutation operator are used.
3.2 Sequential quadratic
programming (SQP) 3.3.1 Simulated binary crossover
(SBX)
The work of R. Sedaghati & E.
Esmailzadeh [2] is presented here. The A probability distribution is used
optimisation problem is defined as around parent solutions to create two
minimisation of the weight of the children solutions. In the proposed SBX
structure subjected to stress and operator, this probability distribution is
displacement constrains and lower not chosen arbitrarily. Instead, such a
bound on the cross-sectional areas. probability distribution is fist calculated
SQP is a kind of iterative method, at for single-point crossover operator in
iterate k it needs to solve a QP sub- binary-coded GAs and then adapted for
problem: real-parameter GAs. The chosen
probability distribution is as follows:
Min gkTd + ½ dTBkd (15)
0.5(ηc + 1) β ηc if β ≤ 1, 
s.t ci(xk) + ∇ ci(xk) d ≥ 0, I = 1,2 …, m
T
P( β ) =  ηc +2  (17)
0.5(ηc + 1) / β otherwise 
where xk is the current iterate,

4
 where η c is a parameter which
controls the extent of spread in children 2
β = 1+ min[( x (1) − x1 ), ( x u − x(2) )]
solutions. A small value of η c allows y (2)
−y (1)

solutions far away from parents to be

created as children solutions and a 3.3.2 Parameter-based mutation
large value restricts only near-parent operator
solutions to be created as children
solutions. The procedure of computing A polynomial probability
children solutions y(1) and y(2) from two distribution is used to create a solution
parent solutions x(1) and x(2) are as y in the vicinity of a parent solution x.
follows: The following procedure is used for
1) Create a random number u between variables where lower and upper
0 and 1. boundaries are not specified:
2) Find a parameter β using the
polynomial probability distribution from 1) Create a random number u between
a schema processing point of view, as 0 and 1
follows: 2) Calculate the parameter δ as
follows:
(2u ) c , u ≤ 0.5 
1/(η +1)

β =  (18)
(2u ) m − 1, u ≤ 0.5 
1/(η +1)
1/(η +1)
(1/ 2(1 − u ) c , otherwise  δ = 
1/(ηm +1)
3) The children solutions are then 1 − [2(1 − u )] , otherwise 
calculated as follows: where η m is the distribution index for
mutation and takes any non-negative
y (1) = 0.5[( x(1) + x(2) ) − β x(2) − x(1) ] value.

y (2) = 0.5[( x(1) + x(2) ) − β x(2) − x(1) ] 3) Calculate the mutated child as
follows:
The above procedure is used for
variables where no lower and upper Y=x+ δ∆ max
bounds are specified. Thus, the
children solutions can lie anywhere in Where ∆ max is the maximum
the real space [-∞,∞] with varying perturbance allowed in the parent
probability. For calculating the children solution. For variables where lower and
solutions where lower and upper upper boundaries (xl and xu) are
bounds (xl and xu) of a variable are specified, above equation may be
specified, Eq. (18) needs to be changed as follows:
changed as follows:
 2u + (1 − 2u )(1 − δ )ηm +1 ]1/(ηm +1) − 1, u ≤ 0.5 
(α u ) 1/(ηc +1)
, u ≤ 1/ α  δ = η +1 1/(η +1) 
β =  (19) 1 − [2(1 − u ) + 2(u − 0.5)(1 − δ ) m ] m , otherwise 
1/(ηc +1)
(1/ 2(1 − α u ) , otherwise  Thus, in order to get a mutation
effect of 1% perturbance in solutions,
− (η c +1)
where α = 2 – β and β are we should set η m ≈ 100. We terminate
calculated as follows: a GA simulation when a pre-specified
number of generations are elapsed.

5

3.4 Harmony search method
This section is based on the
work by Kang Seok Lee & Zong Woo
Geem [4]. Harmony search method
(HMS) was conceptualized using the
musical process of searching for a
perfect state of harmony. The HS
algorithm does not require initial values
and uses a random search instead of a
gradient search, hence derivative
information is unnecessary. The
different steps involved in HSM are
given below:
Step 1: Initialize the optimization
problem and algorithm parameters
First, the optimization problem is
defined as minimisation of weight of a
truss with stress and displacement
constrains. The HS algorithm
parameters that are required to solve
the optimization problem are also
specified in this step: harmony memory
size (number of solution vectors, HMS),
harmony memory considering rate
(HMCR), pitch adjusting rate (PAR),
and termination criterion (maximum
number of searches). Here, HMCR and
PAR are parameters that are used to
improve the solution vector.
Step 2: Initialize the harmony
memory (HM)
In this step, the ‘‘harmony memory’’
(HM) matrix shown is filled with as
many randomly generated solution
vectors as the size of the HM (i.e.,
HMS) and sorted by the values of the
objective function, f ( x ) .
6
 x1 
 2 
x 
 x3 
 
HM = . 
 
. 
. 
 HMS 
 x 
Step 3: Improvise a new harmony
from the HM
A New Harmony vector, xJ = (x1J,
x2 ,….xNJ) is generated from the HM
J
based on memory considerations, pitch
adjustments, and randomization. For
instance, the value of the first decision
variable (x1J) for the new vector can be
chosen from any value in the specified
HM range (x11 ~ x1HMS). Values of the
other decision variables (xiJ) can be
chosen in the same manner. Here,
there is a possibility that the new value
can be chosen using the HMCR
parameter, which varies between 0 and
1 as follows:
xi ← 
J {
 xi J ∈ xi1 , xi 2 ,...., xi HMS } w. pHMCR
 xi J ∈ X i w. p (1 − HMCR )
The HMCR sets the rate of
choosing one value from the historic
values stored in the HM, and (1-HMCR)
sets the rate of randomly choosing one
value from the possible range of
values. For example, a HMCR of 0.95
indicates that the HS algorithm will
choose the decision variable value from
historically stored values in the HM with
a 95% probability and from the entire
possible range with a 5% probability. A
HMCR value of 1.0 is not
recommended, because there is a
chance that the solution will be
improved by values not stored in the
HM. This is similar to the reason why
genetic algorithms use a mutation rate
in the selection process. On the other
hand, every component of the New
Harmony vector, xJ = (x1J, x2J,….xNJ), is
examined to determine whether it
should be pitch-adjusted. This
procedure uses the PAR parameter
that sets the rate of adjustment for the
pitch chosen from the HM as follows:
Pitch adjusting decision for xiJ
Yesw. p.PAR
←
 Now. p (1 − PAR )
The pitch adjusting process is
performed only after a value is chosen
from the HM. The value (1-PAR) sets
the rate of doing nothing. A PAR of 0.1
indicates that the algorithm will choose
a neighboring value with 10% ·HMCR
probability. If the pitch adjustment
decision for xiJ is yes, and xiJ is
assumed to be xi(k), i.e., the kth element
in Xi, the pitch-adjusted value of xi(k) is
xiJ  xi(k+m) for discrete decision
variables
xiJ  xiJ + α for continuous decision
variables
where m = the neighboring
index, m ∈ {…,-2, -1,1,2}; α = the
value of bw x u(-1,1); bw = an arbitrary
distance bandwidth for the continuous
variable; and u(-1,1) = a uniform
distribution between -1 and 1. The
HMCR and PAR parameters introduced
in the harmony search help the
algorithm find globally and locally
improved solutions, respectively.
7
Step 4: Update the HM
If the New Harmony vector is
better than the worst harmony in the
HM, judged in terms of the objective
function value, the New Harmony is
included in the HM and the existing
worst harmony is excluded from the
HM. The HM is then sorted by the
objective function value.
Step 5: Repeat Steps 3 and 4
The computations explained are
terminated when the termination
criterion is satisfied. If not, Steps 3 and
4 are repeated.
3.5 Improved move limit method
This section is presented based
on the work done by KV John, CV
Ramakrishnan & KG Sharma [5]. A
brief resume of the improved move limit
method of sequential linear
programming at a particular design
point is presented below.
Let X P be the current design
point. The linear programming problem
referred above is solved by the simplex
algorithm leading to the point X P +1 . If
P +1
X is a feasible point, the objective
function is checked for improvement
[W( X P +1 ) < W( X P )]. The sequence of
linear programming is continued from
P +1
if improvement is found, taking
X
care to compute the constrain values
corresponding to this point. Otherwise
the new design point is selected by
quadratic interpolation between the
design points X P +1 and X P .
Thus if
 P +1
and X and then optimization
P +1 P
S=X −X continued.
+ P
(20)
X = X +α S +
3.6 Strain energy criterion method

Where α + is the optimal step length Strain energy criterion method

along S direction. The move limit is
also modified as
+
M =α+M
P
(21)
If the linear programming solution
enters an unfeasible region, it is
steered to the feasible domain by
moving in the gradient direction of the
most violated constraint. Thus the new
design point is given by
+ P +1 P +1
X =X + β ∇g q ( X
Where ∇g q is the gradient of the
most violated constraint q and
P +1
g j (X )
β =−
∇g q T ( X
P +1
)∇gq ( X
It may be necessary in some
problems to use the above technique of
steering to the feasible region
repeatedly. After steering the design
vector to the feasible region if no
improvement is found in the objective
function, the usability of the direction
* * P
S =X −X
is checked. The quadratic
interpolation is resorted to only if the
direction is usable. Otherwise quadratic
interpolation erroneously leads to X P
as optimum. In such cases quadratic
interpolation is to be done between X P
explained here is based on the work by
V B Venkayya [6]. A structure with m
structural elements and specified
configuration is subjected to a
generalized force vector R. The
problem is to obtain optimum sizes for
the elements such that the weight of
the structure is a minimum. The design
that has the same average strain
energy density in all its elements is a
lower weight design than the one in
which this condition is not satisfied.
) (22) Now the statement of the optimality
criteria is as follows:
“The optimum structure is the
one in which the average strain energy
density is the same in all its elements.”
(23)
P +1
) If the change in potential of the
applied forces is considered as a
measure of the stiffness of the structure
then it can be shown that the structure
that satisfies the above strain energy
criteria will also be the stiffest structure
for that loading condition.
The optimality criteria modified
for the general case is as follows:
“The optimum design is the
one in which the strain energy of each
element bears a constant ratio to its
energy capacity.”
The energy capacity is defined
as total strain energy stored if the entire
element is stressed to its limiting
normal stress. The limiting normal
stress can be different from the actual
stress limit as long as it does not

8
exceed it. The step size in iteration, 1 t '
ui = si vi (28)
based on energy criteria, can be altered 2Λ
by varying the magnitude of the limiting
normal stress. It should be pointed out Where si is the generalized force vector
that the definition of energy capacity is of the ith element and vi’ is the
independent of the actual state of corresponding relative displacement
stress in the element and depends only vector. It is related to the actual
on the volume and on the limiting displacement vector vi by
normal stress of the elements.
The expression for the energy capacity vi’ = Λ vi
of the ith element is given by (29)
According to the modified optimality
1 criteria the strain energy of each
τ i = σ i (U )ε i (U )Vi (24)
2 element should bear a constant ratio to
its energy capacity. Equations (26) and
Assuming the material to be linearly (28) and the optimality criteria yield
elastic the relation between limiting
normal stress and strain is written as ui '
Λ =C '2 2
(30)
τ
σ i (U ) = Ei ε i (U ) (25) Where C is the constant of
proportionality and ui’ and τ i’ are given
Substitution of equation (25) in (24) by
gives the expression for energy
capacity in the form 1 ' '
ui ' = si vi
2
1 (31) & (32)
τ i = (ε i (U ) )2 Λαi li (26) 1
2 τ i ' = (ε i (U ) )2 αi li
2
Quantity li is defined as
Multiplying both sides of equation (30)
Vi Ei
li = (27) by α i2 and taking the square root yields
Λα i
1

The scalar Λ is the base parameter for u ' 2

α i Λ = Cαi  i '  (33)
all the elements and α i is the relative τ i 
value of the ith design variable. The
actual design variable vector may be Where α iΛ is the ith design variable
written as Λ α . The vector α alone will which is expressed as a function of xi.
be referred to as the relative design The form of equation (33) suggests the
variable vector or normalized vector. following recursion relation for
The scalar Λ is then the normalizing determining the design variable in each
factor. The strain energy in the element cycle.
is written in terms of its internal forces 1

and displacements as  u '   2

(α i Λ )v +1 = C (αi )v  i'   (34)
 τ i v 

9
 Where the subscripts ν and
ν +1 refer to the cycles of iteration.
When the design conditions include
multiple loading case equation (34) will
be modified to read
1 Schmit and Miura [8], Gellatly and
 ui 'max   2
(α i Λ )v +1 = C (αi )v  '  
τ authors already mentioned in section 3.
 i v 
’
Where ui max is a measure of the
maximum strain energy of the ith
element due to any of the loading
conditions. In the case of a single
loading condition with stress constraints
only, the design that satisfies the
optimality criteria is the lowest weight
design. Iteration using equation (35)
produces such a design. When there
are constraints on the sizes of the
elements and multiple loading
conditions the design satisfying the
optimality criteria may not be the lowest
weight design. In such cases equation
(35) will be used to simply generate
design lines and in conjunction with the
scaling procedure a directed search for
the lowest weight design can be made.
4. Case study of a classical problem
25 – Bar space truss problem
has been considered for the case
study. The 25-bar transmission tower
space truss, shown in Fig. 1, has been
size optimized by many researchers.
These include Schmit and Farshi [7],
Berke [9], Rizzi [10] apart from the
(35)
In these studies, the material density
was 0.1 lb/in3 and modulus of elasticity
was 10,000 ksi.
This space truss was subjected
to the two loading conditions shown in
Table 1. The structure was required to
be doubly symmetric about the x- and
y-axes; this condition grouped the truss
members as follows: (1) A1, (2) A2 ~ A5,
(3) A6 ~ A9, (4) A10 ~ A11, (5) A12 ~ A13,
(6) A14 ~ A17, (7) A18 ~ A21 & (8) A22 ~
A25. The truss members were subjected
to the compressive and tensile stress
limitations shown in Table 2. In
addition, maximum displacement
limitations of ±0.35 in. were imposed on
every node in every direction. The
minimum cross-sectional area of all
members was 0.01 in2. The comparison
of results are given in Table 3.

Condition 1 Condition 2
Node No.
Px Py Pz Px Py Pz

1 0.0 20.0 -5.0 1.0 10.0 -5.0

2 0.0 -20.0 -5.0 0.0 10.0 -5.0

3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

10
 Table 1 – Loading conditions for 25 – Bar space truss
(Loads are in Kips)

Fig 1 – 25 – Bar space truss

Compressive
Tensile stress
Variables Members stress limitations
limitations (Ksi)
(Ksi)
1 A1 35.092 40.0
2 A2 ~ A5 11.590 40.0
3 A6 ~ A9 17.305 40.0
4 A10 ~ A11 25.092 40.0
5 A12 ~ A13 35.092 40.0
6 A14 ~ A17 6.759 40.0
7 A18 ~ A21 6.059 40.0

11
 8 A22 ~ A25 11.082 40.0

Table 2 – Member stress limitations for 25 – Bar space truss

K S Lee KV John, CV
Schmit K Deb & VB
Rizzi & Z W Ramakrishna
Members & Farshi S Gulati Venkayya
[10] Geem n & KG
[7] [3] [6]
[4] Sharma [5]
A1 0.010 0.010 0.060 0.047 0.01 0.028
A2 ~ A5 1.964 1.988 2.092 2.022 1.604 1.942
A6 ~ A9 3.033 2.991 2.884 2.950 3.540 3.081
A10 ~ A11 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.01 0.01
A12 ~ A13 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.014 0.01 0.01
A14 ~ A17 0.670 0.684 0.690 0.688 0.652 0.693
A18 ~ A21 1.680 1.677 1.640 1.657 1.761 1.678
A22 ~ A25 2.670 2.663 2.691 2.663 2.446 2.627
Weight(lb) 545.22 545.16 544.984 544.38 548.07 545.49

Table 3 – Comparison of results for 25 – Bar space truss (Areas  in2)

5. Merits and de-merits The improved modified double-

Compared to gradient-based
mathematical optimization algorithms,
the HS algorithm imposes fewer
mathematical requirements to solve
optimization problems and does not
require initial starting values for the
decision variables. The HS algorithm
generates a new vector after
considering all of the existing vectors
based on the HMCR and the PAR,
rather than considering only two
(parents) as in genetic algorithms.
These features increase the flexibility of
the HS algorithm and produce better
solutions. However, this method has
few shortcomings. Selection of HMCR
and PAR plays a vital role in the results
and the number of iterations required to
converge to the optimum is very high.
cut approach for solving nonlinear
engineering design problems is very
effective for fuzzy structural
optimization. The proposed modified
approach is the most recommended for
its beneficial to simple algorithm and
the neglecting of the redundant design
variable. It also improves the final
design as compared with single-cut
approach and sophisticated multiple-cut
approach. The proposed modified
double-cuts approach guarantees to
obtain the unique compromise final
design.
It is found that the optimization
technique that is based on the force
method is computationally far more
efficient than the displacement one.

12
 Improved move limit method of
sequential linear programming is an
approach which is naturally suited for
solution and works very well for all trial
problems. The number of design
iterations for convergence is nearly the
same or even less than that for other
well established methods. However,
optimisation of complex space truss
problems using this method needs to
be verified.
The strain energy criterion
method charts an efficient path to the
optimum and this makes it attractive for
the optimization of structures with a
large number of variables. However,
the validity of the optimality criteria
approaches have been established only
for restrictive cases and need to be
extended to more general design
conditions.
One of the resulted difficulties of
SQP for large-scale problem is that the
memory requisite for each QP sub-
problem may be very large if the
original problem is large.
6. Way ahead & Conclusion
Most of the new methods
developed in the field of structural
optimisation are deviating from the
classical approach. As the complexities
of the structure has increased the
efficiency of the method play a vital role
as far as rate of convergence and
accuracy of the results are concerned.
Most of the gradient based methods
are getting replaced by meta-heuristic
methods which promises to reduce the
computational difficulties. The common
factor in meta-heuristic algorithms is
that they combine rules and
randomness to imitate natural
13
phenomena. However, most of these
methods are not yet been tested on
wide range of structural optimisation
problems.
One has to exercise extreme
caution while dealing with such
methods as errors in formulation can
lead to wrong results. An approach with
mixture of different methods, exploiting
the advantages of each one of them
looks quiet promising for complex
problems.
References
[1] C.J. Shih, H.W. Lee. Modified double-
cuts approach in 25-bar and 72-bar fuzzy
truss optimization. Computers and
Structures 84 (2006) 2100–2104
[2] R. Sedaghati, E. Esmailzadeh. Optimum
design of structures with stress and
displacement constraints using the force
method. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 1369–
1389.
[3] Kalyanmoy Deb, Surendra Gulati. Design
of truss-structures for minimum weight
using genetic algorithms. Finite Elements
in Analysis and Design 37 (2001)
447}465.
[4] Kang Seok Lee, Zong Woo Geem. A new
structural optimization method based on
the harmony search algorithm.
Computers and Structures 82 (2004)
781–798
[5] K V John, C V Ramakrishnan and K G
Sharma. Minimum weight design of
trusses using improved move limit
method of sequential linear programming.
Computers & Structures Vol. 27. No. 5.
pp. 583-591. 1971.
[6] V B Venkayya. Design of optimum
structures. Computers & Structures Vol.
1, pp. 265-309. 1987.
[7] Schmit Jr LA, Farshi B. Some
approximation concepts for structural
synthesis. AIAA J 1974;12(5):692–9.
[8] Schmit Jr LA, Miura H. Approximation
concepts for efficient structural synthesis.
NASA CR-2552, Washington, DC: NASA;
1976.
[9] Gellatly RA, Berke L. Optimal structural
design. AFFDLTR-70-165, Air Force
Flight Dynamics Lab., Wright-Patterson
AFB, OH; 1971.
[10] Rizzi P. Optimization of multi-constrained
structures based on optimality criteria.
AIAA/ASME/SAE 17th Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, King of Prussia, PA; 1976.

14