Comparison of approaches to 10 bar truss structural optimization with included buckling constraints

SCImago Journal Rank
2024: SJR=0.300

CWTS Journal Indicators
2024: SNIP=0.77

Vol.2, No.3, 2017: pp.98-103

COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO 10 BAR TRUSS STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION WITH INCLUDED BUCKLING CONSTRAINTS

Authors:

Nenad Petrović¹

, Nenad Kostić¹, Nenad Marjanović¹

¹Department of Mechanical Constructions and Mechanization, University of Kragujevac Faculty of Engineering, Kragujevac, Serbia

Received: 15.07.2017.
Accepted: 05.08.2017.
Available: 30.09.2017.

Abstract:

The complex problem of truss structural optimization, based on the discrete design variables assumption, can be approached through optimizing aspects of sizing, shape, and topology or their combinations. This paper aims to show the differences in results depending on which aspect, or combination of aspects of a standard 10 bar truss problem is optimized. In addition to standard constraints for stress, cross section area, and displacement, this paper includes the dynamic constraint for buckling of compressed truss elements. The addition of buckling testing ensures that the optimal solutions are practically applicable. An original optimization approach using genetic algorithm is verified through comparison with literature, and used for all the optimization combinations in this research. The resulting optimized model masses for sizing, shape, and topology or their combinations are compared. A discussion is given to explain the results and to suggest which combination would be best in a generalized example.

Keywords:

Structural optimization, sizing,shape, topology, truss, Eulerbuckling, genetic algorithm

References:

[1] B.S. Gan, T. Hara, A. Han, S.W. Alisjahbana, S. As’ad, Evolutionary ACO Algorithms for Truss Optimization Problems, Procedia Engineering, 171 (-), 2017: pp.1100-1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.467
[2] R. Cazacu, L. Grama, Steel Truss Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms and FEA, Procedia Technology, 12 (-), 2014: pp.339-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.496
[3] R.N. Asl, M. Aslani, M.S. Panahi, Sizing Optimization of Truss Structures using a Hybridized Genetic Algorithm, [s.n.], 2016. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1454.pdf
[4] B. Farshi, A. Alinia-ziazi, Sizing optimization of truss structures by method of centers and force formulation, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 47 (18-19), 2010: pp.2508-2524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.05.009
[5] M.-Y. Cheng, D. Prayogo, Y.-W. Wu, M.M. Lukito, A Hybrid Harmony Search algorithm for discrete sizing optimization of truss structure, Automation in Construction, 69 (-), 2016: pp.21-33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.05.023
[6] S.O. Degertekin, M.S. Hayalioglu, Sizing truss structures using teaching-learning-based optimization, Computers & Structures, 119 (-), 2013: pp.177-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.12.011
[7] L. Li, K. Khandelwal, Topology optimization of geometrically nonlinear trusses with spurious eigenmodes control, Engineering Structures, 131 (-), 2017: pp.324-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.001
[8] M. Galante, Genetic algorithms as an approach to optimize real-word trusses, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 39 (3), 1996: pp.361-382. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19960215)39:3<361::AID-NME854>3.0.CO;2-1
[9] R. Frans, Y. Arfiadi, Sizing, Shape, and Topology Optimizations of Roof Trusses Using Hybrid Genetic Algorithms, Procedia Engineering, 95 (-), 2014: pp.185-195. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.178
[10] H. Rahami, A. Kaveh, Y. Gholipour, Sizing, geometry and topology optimization of trusses via force method and genetic algorithm, Engineering Structures, 30 (-), 2008: pp.2360-2369.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.01.012
[11] V.J. Savsani, G.G. Tejani, V.K. Patel, P. Savsani, Modified meta-heuristics using random mutation for truss topology optimization with static and dynamic constraints, Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 4 (2), 2017: pp-106-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2016.10.002
[12] A. Kaveh, V.R. Mahdavi, Colliding bodies optimization for size and topology optimization of truss structures, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 53 (5), 2015: pp.847-865. doi:10.12989/sem.2015.53.5.847
[13] E.G. Shopova, N.G. Vaklieva-Bancheva, BASIC-A genetic algorithm for engineering problems solution, Computers & Chemical Engineering, 30 (8), 2006: pp.1293-1309. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2006.03.003

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Volume 10
Number 3
September 2025

Comparison of approaches to 10 bar truss structural optimization with included buckling constraints

How to Cite

N. Petrović, N. Kostić, N. Marjanović, Comparison of Approaches to 10 Bar Truss Structural Optimization With Included Buckling Constraints. Applied Engineering Letters, 2(3), 2017: 98-103.

More Citation Formats

APA

Petrović, N., Kostić, N., & Marjanović, N. (2017). Comparison of Approaches to 10 Bar Truss Structural Optimization With Included Buckling Constraints. Applied Engineering Letters, 2(3), 98-103.

MLA

Petrović, Nenad, et al. “Comparison of Approaches to 10 Bar Truss Structural Optimization With Included Buckling Constraints.“ Applied Engineering Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, 2017, pp. 98-103.

Chicago

Petrović, Nenad, Nenad Kostić, and Nenad Marjanović. 2017. “Comparison of Approaches to 10 Bar Truss Structural Optimization With Included Buckling Constraints.“ Applied Engineering Letters, 2 (3): 98-103.

Harvard

Petrović, N., Kostić, N., and Marjanović, N. (2017). Comparison of Approaches to 10 Bar Truss Structural Optimization With Included Buckling Constraints. Applied Engineering Letters, 2(3), pp.98-103.