Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Optimum Shape Design of

Space Structures by Genetic


Algorithm
by

E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Reprinted from

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

SPACE STRUCTURES
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2009

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.


5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
Optimum Shape Design of
Space Structures by Genetic
Algorithm
E. Salajegheh*, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kerman, Kerman, 76169-133, Iran

(Received 13/11/07 - Revised version 15/09/08 Acceptation 04/03/09)

ABSTRACT: Space structures are usually highly indeterminate and


therefore have a large number of redundant members. It is important to
choose the appropriate number of elements and joints for the structure under
consideration. Optimum shape design of space structures is the aim of the
present work and to achieve an optimal configuration, parameters such as
number of joints, number of members, support conditions and the overall
shape of the structures are considered. To attain a practical configuration,
the presence of the joints of the structures and the locations of the columns
are taken as the shape design variables as well as the cross-sectional area of
the elements of the structures under considerations. The resulting
configurations are very interesting after the removal of unnecessary joints
and columns. It was also observed that a part of sphere might not be
appropriate for the dome structures as usually chosen by the designers. For
different static loading conditions that presented in this research, second or
third order polynomial would be more suitable for the shape of these
structures. In this study, optimum shape design of space structures is
performed using a modified genetic algorithm (MGA).

Key Words: Space structures, double layer grids, domes, shape optimization,
genetic algorithm.

1. INTRODUCTION Rajeev and Krishnamoorthy [2] introduced the


Space structures belong to special category of three Goldberg’s simplified and modified genetic algorithm
dimensional structures with special forms. The most (GA) [3] to optimize some structures in 1992. The
important kind of these structures are double layer weight of the structures was considered as objective
grids, domes and barrel vaults [1]. These structures function and discrete cross-sectional area of
are widely used in hangars, supermarkets, stadiums, members was chosen to be the design variables.
etc, to cover large areas without intermediate Adeli and Cheng, introduced GA to the field of
columns. In these structures, there are many members structural optimization in 1993 (e.g., [4, 5 and 6]).
which have little contribution (relative to their weight) Krishnamoorthy et al. [7] proposed GA with
in load transmission. Hence, omitting such objective-oriented framework which was used in
unnecessary members with regards to the applicability space truss optimization. Farsangi [8] used GA to
of the resultant configuration and optimizing cross- optimize the shape of double layer grids under
sectional area of the remaining members, by scientific gravity loads. The importance of members’ presence
and systematic methods, is the best way to reduce the is discussed without omitting any member or column.
construction weight of these structures. The application of GA to structural optimization is

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +983412111342; Fax: +983412114049; Email: eysasala@mail.uk.ac.ir

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 45


Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

very extensive and some of the recent work can be 5 18 29 40 53


found in [9].
4 17 28 39 52
In this study, topology and geometry optimization
of space structures are performed. Double layer grids 3 16 27 38 51
and space pyramids are optimized topologically and
single layer domes are optimized geometrically. To 2 15 26 37 50
achieve this aim, a modified genetic algorithm (MGA)
1 14 25 36 49
is employed. In the MGA, a new mutation and
Hs
modified elitist selection are proposed. These operators
cause the MGA algorithm converges quickly and the Hc
probability of achieving the global optimization would L
be increased.
13 24 35 48 9 23 34 44
For topology optimization, a structure with specific
divisions and a maximum number of members, which 12 22 33 47 8 43
is called the ground structure, is considered and its
perimeter joints are connected to rigid end columns. 11 21 32 46 7 42
Design variables for the optimization problem are the
10 20 31 45 6 19 30 41
presence of joints and cross-sectional area of
members. In order to reduce the computational weight Figure 1. Joint numbers of top and bottom grids and supports.
of optimization, symmetry properties of the structure
are considered for the elimination of joints.
Table 1. Joint groups considering symmetry
For geometry optimization, single layer domes with
constant rise and span is considered. In this optimization Group
problem, the design variables are the cross-sectional number Joints in each group Position of joints
area of members, equation of the dome curve and
coordinates of joints. A proper selection of a curve for 1 6, 9, 44, 41 Support
dome leads to a suitable placement of joints. 2 7, 19, 8, 23, 34, 43, Support
Consequently, this suitable placement optimizes the 42, 30
load bearing area of joints and configuration of the 3 10, 13, 48, 45 Bottom layer
structure. 4 12, 24, 35, 47, 46, 31, Bottom layer
Optimum shape design of space structures under 20, 11
different static loading conditions is studied considering 5 22, 33, 32, 21 Bottom layer
stress, slenderness ratio and displacement constraints. 6 17, 39, 37, 15 Top layer
In the optimization process, the weight of the structure 7 16, 28, 38, 26 Top layer
is considered as the objective function. 8 27 Top layer

2. OPTIMUM TOPOLOGY during structural analysis. In double layer grids, joints


AND GEOMETRY are eliminated in groups of 8, 4 or 1 joints. For example
In space structures topology optimization, geometry of in the structure shown in Fig. 1 number of joints with
the structure and coordinates of joints are kept similar geometry situations is tabulated in Table 1. Their
constant while the presence or absence of joints and presence or absence is governed by one gene.
also cross-sectional areas are selected as design Therefore, in this structure eight genes are needed to
variables. The goal is to find the most efficient parts of express the variability of any joint groups. In order to
the structure which can transmit the applied loads to achieve a practical structure, existence of perimeter
the base without violating the constraints. nodes in top and bottom grids of space structure will not
In this study, the symmetry properties of the structure be encoded in the final optimum structure.
are used for the tabulation of joints, which leads to a In geometry optimization, design variables are
reduction of chromosome length. Presence or absence coordinates of joints and cross-sectional area of
of a joint group is identified by a one bit-gene. A zero members. In the process of optimization, the
indicates that a joint group should not be considered coordinates of joints change in a way that the structure

46 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009


E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

7 Z
6 5 7
5 67
4 3 5
3 4 7 A
3 7
2 6
3
2 4 5 7
a 1 1 3 a H ri
1
2 3 7 zi B
1 4 5 r
6

Section a-a

Figure 2. Single layer dome.

gains the most effective state against the applied loads. The order of the polynomial is limited between 2
This situation optimizes the location of joints, their and circumferential divisions on the dome. Therefore,
load bearing area and the configuration of structure. the length of gene for the order of dome curve Ln is
In this research, optimization of single layer domes gained by the following equation:
with constant rise and span is studied. Since domes are
2 Ln ≥ nd − 1 (3)
formed by revolving a curve about a vertical axis, the
best equation for the curve and location of joints on where nd is the circumferential divisions.
this curve are considered as the variables of the Because the radius of dome rings is a continuous
optimization problem. For this purpose, first the variable, the gene length of radius for the ith ring Lr,i is
equation of the curve is determined and then by calculated by the following equation [10].
decoding the radius of each ring of the dome and the
 log (ru , i − rl , i )/ e 
use of curve equation, the height of joints on each ring Lr , i = INT 1 +  ; i = 1,, 2, ..., nd (4)
is calculated.  log 2 
With regards to the geometry of domes, the where ru,i , rl,i and e are the upper bound, lower bound
equation of curve should have the following properties and required accuracy for the radius of the ith ring,
in the interval [A, B] (Fig. 2). respectively.
1. The curve should have its maximum at A. In this study, discrete variables are used for
∂z
i.e.   = 0
optimizing the cross-sectional area of structural
 ∂r  A members. These variables are selected from pipe
2. The curve should be descending in the interval sections with specified thickness and diameter.
∂2 z
[A, B]. i.e. 2 < 0
∂r 3. DECODING OF VARIABLES
where z and r are the height of joints on each ring and
After generating an initial population, the real value of
radius of each ring, respectively.
each design variable is evaluated by decoding, in order
According to above conditions, the curve is chosen
to evaluate the objective function and the magnitudes
to be a polynomial of order n:
of constraint violations.
z = a0 + a1r n (1) In topology optimization, the chromosome is
composed of two parts which includes variables of the
By applying the boundary conditions in Fig. 2 and presence or absence of joints and cross-sectional area
calculating constants (a0 and a1), the equation takes of each member group. Suppose the chromosome
the form: shown in Fig. 3 is an individual from the initial
  2 n n  population. It is produced for the topology
A ( 0, H ) and B ( S / 2, 0 ) ⇒ z = H −   r + 1 (2)
  S
optimization of the structure shown in Fig. 1. It is also

assumed that the members of this structure are divided
where H and S are the rise and the span of the dome, into 12 groups in which cross-sectional area of each
respectively. group is selected from 8 profiles.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 47


Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

Presence or Absence of
the Joints
IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4 …
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Figure 3. A 44 bit chromosome.

Table 2. Categorizing symmetry positions of joints case, the purlins are designed, and their weights are
considered in the objective function.
Group Symmetry positions of joints
In geometry optimization, the chromosome is
1 37 composed of three parts which includes variables of
2 33, 34 dome curve order, radius of dome rings and cross-
3 31, 32, 35, 36 sectional area of each member group. Decoding the
4 19, 30 order of dome curve equation is accomplished by the
5 24, 25 following equation:
6 20, 21, 28, 29
Ln
n = ∑ Cn (i ) 2( Ln −i ) + 2
7 22, 23, 26,27
(5)
i =1

where Cn(i) is the binary value of ith bit in that gene.


For decoding the radius of dome rings, first the gene of
the jth ring is transformed to a decimal number Rj and
then its actual value is calculated as follows [10]:

R j (rl , j − ru , j )
rj = rl , j + (6)
−1
Lr, j
2
Hs
where rj is the actual value of radius of the jth ring.
Hc

L
34
4. FORMULATION OF
23
OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
In optimum shape design of the space structures, the
8 43 aim is to minimize the weight of the structure, under
42
some constraints on stresses, slenderness ratios and
7
displacements. The weight of the structure which
19 30 includes the weight of members, purlins and joints of
the space structures is taken as:
Figure 4. Top and bottom grids and support positions of
decoded structure.
Ne Nj
The first 8 bits in the chromosome relate to the minimize W = ∑ ρe Ai Li + ∑ Wj + Wp (7)
presence and absence of joints. Since the 3rd and 8th i =1 j =1

bits have a zero value, all the joints in 3rd and 8th
groups in Table 2 are omitted from the ground structure. where ρe, Ai, Li, Wj, Wp, Ne and Nj are the material
After decoding, the refined structure is shown in Fig. 4. density, cross-sectional area of ith element, length of
Now for decoding the cross-sectional area of members ith element, equivalent weight of jth joint, the weight
in any group, the remaining 32 bits of the chromosome of purlins, number of members and number of joints
are used. First, the value of each gene is transformed to after decoding of variables, respectively.
a decimal number [2]. Then, by referring to the table of In this study, Mero connector is used for the joints
profiles, properties of members in each group are of space structure. For calculating the equivalent
attained. After omitting the joints of top grid, a suitable weight of jth joint, first the diameter d of the bolt
cladding system is considered and the loads of any which connects the member to this joint is determined
removed joint are transformed to adjacent joints. In this by following formula [11]:

48 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009


E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Table 3. Equivalent joint diameter in correspondence To solve a constrained optimization problem its
with the bolt diameter objective function should be modified in such a way
that the constrained problem should be converted to
Bolt diameter 12 16 20 24 27 an unconstrained one, with a modified objective
(mm) function. The modified objective function φ is defined
Equivalent joint 50 75 88 110 130 as [7]:
diameter (mm)
φ = W (1 + r C ) (13)
4Pmax
d= (8) Ne Nj
0.6π Fy C = ∑ ( g σ , i + g λ , i ) + ∑ g δ, (14)
j
i =1 j =1
where Pmax and Fy are maximum force applied to this
joint and yield stress of the bolt, respectively. Then by where C and r̄ are the penalty function and the
the use of design Table 3, appropriate diameter Dj for coefficient of penalty function, respectively.
this joint is selected, and its equivalent weight is The optimum shape design of space structures is a
calculated by the following equation [11]: minimization problem, and hence the fitness function
must be chosen such that the higher the weight of an
W j = 0.9 π ρ j D 3j (9) individual, the lower is its fitness and vice-versa. The
following relation is selected as the measure of
where ρj is the material density of jth joint. fitness [7]:
In this study, the AISC code provisions are
employed for the stress limits and local buckling Fi = φmax + φmin − φi (15)
criteria [12]. All its recommendations for stresses and
slenderness ratios in elements such as tension, where φmax , φmin and φi are the maximum and
compression, bending stresses and their combination minimum modified objective function value in a
are considered. The stress constraint gσ and the generation and the modified objective function value
slenderness ratio constraint gλ are taken as: of the ith individual, respectively.

 σ  5. STATIC LOADING CONDITIONS


gσ = ∑ max  k − 1, 0 (10)
k  σk  Optimum shape design of space structures under
different static loading conditions is studied. Effective
λ  loads on double layer grids which include gravity and
g λ = ∑ max  k − 1, 0 (11) lateral loads are as follows:
k  λk 

where σk , σ k , λk and λk are the member stress, DL = 180 ( kg/m 2 )


(16)
allowable stress, member slenderness ratio and the E x = E y = 0.125 DL
allowable slenderness ratio for the members of space
structure in the kth load combination, respectively. where DL, Ex and Ey are distributed dead load and
In the optimization process, the horizontal distributed lateral forces in x and y directions,
displacements are limited to the rise of dome or the respectively.
height of columns /200, i.e. δH = H / 200, and the vertical For dome structures, the applied dead load is similar
displacements are limited to the span of dome or width to double layer grids, and snow and wind loads are also
of double layer grid/360, i.e.δ V = S / 360 [13]. The considered according to the ANSI code [14]. The dome
displacement constraint gδ is expressed as follows: roof snow load Ps is obtained by multiplying the flat
roof snow load Pf by the roof slope factor Cs [14]:
 δk 
gδ = ∑ max  − 1, 0 (12)
k  δu  SL = CS p f (17)

where δk, δu are the displacement of joints in the kth In this research, the flat roof snow load is taken as
load combination and the allowable displacement, 150 kg/m2, and the roof slope factor is determined as
respectively. follows [14]:

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 49


Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

p sin ϕ 6. MODIFIED GENETIC


ϕ
ALGORITHM (MGA)
R
In spite of its enormous capabilities, John Holland
Elevation simple genetic algorithm (GA) had deficiencies and it
was not capable of solving all problems. Some
investigations have been performed to improve the
method which led to outstanding results. Through some
Wind modifications, the GA would be able to solve almost all
θ
R
optimization problems. Many successful applications
of genetic algorithm in the field of structural
p cos θ
engineering are reported [6, 16, 17 and 18]. In this
Plan
study, a new mutation and modified elitist selection
Figure 5. Distribution of the wind load. were presented for modification of GA. This modified
genetic algorithm (MGA) was used for optimizing
shape design of space structures. In the MGA the
 1.0
 
0 ≤ α ≤ 45 selection is made using the method presented in [14],

 α − 45   and the adaptive crossover which is a combination of
CS =  1 − 45 < α < 70 (18)
uniform and two-point crossover is used [19].
 25
  The elitist selection is a strategy that carries over the
0 α ≥ 70
best individual in a population unchanged into the next
where α is the dome slope. generation. Elitist selection proposed by Coley [20] is
It is usual to represent dynamic loading, such as used in this study, but this operator is modified. In
wind effect, by statically equivalent for the purposes of each generation, the best individual is compared with
design. The wind load on dome structures is composed the best individual in the previous generation. If this
of pressure on the wind side and suction on the individual is worse, the worst individual of current
leeward side. Here the load component acting generation would be replaced by the best individual in
perpendicular to the middle surface WL is taken into the previous generation.
account. Assuming that the wind acts in the direction In simple mutation operator, value of bit mutated is
of the meridian plane θ = 0, this component of the ignored. In this paper, for solving this problem a new
wind pressure is defined as [15]: mutation operator is presented. This operator estimates
the value of bit before any mutation. Therefore, it
WL = p sin ϕ cos θ (19) increases the rate of convergence, and the probability
of achieving the global optimization is also increased.
where p represents the static wind pressure intensity. The
In this new mutation procedure, first one bit is chosen
components due to friction forces are negligible
randomly and then the value of this bit is compared
magnitude. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the wind load
with the corresponding bit in the best individual.
given by Eq. (19) on a dome. The static wind pressure
According to this comparison, two cases are possible:
intensity is calculated according to the ANSI code [14].
a. If the value of these bits is the same, the mutation
In this process, the basic wind speed, importance factor
in the random bit will not occur.
are taken as 32m/s2 and 1, respectively.
b. If the value of these bits is not the same, the
In the optimization process, the constraints should
mutation in the random bit will occur.
be calculated for load combinations proposed by AISC
For showing the capability of MGA compared to
code. The load combinations are as follows [12]:
GA, various truss examples with fixed geometries
 DL presented in [21] have been solved. Their results
 indicate that the MGA is a powerful search and
for duoble layer grids: 0.75( DL ± E x ) ;
optimization method for solving structural engineering
0.75( DL ± E )
 y problems compared to GA. For example, the 25-bar
(20) space truss shown in Fig. 6 has been considered. Full
 DL
 DL + SL list of design data has been presented in [21]. The best
 result is compared to the solutions reported by Erbatur
for domes : 
0.75 ( DL + WL ) et al. [21] in Table 4. The MGA found an optimum
0.75 ( DL + SL + W weight of 220.58 kg after 40 generations. The

50 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009


E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Table 4. The comparison table for 25-bar space truss Table 5. Available pipe profiles
Optimal cross-sectional areas (cm2) No D(cm) t(cm) No D(cm) t(cm)
1 6.03 0.29 9 21.91 0.45
Element Erbatur et al. [21]
2 7.61 0.29 10 27.30 0.50
group GAOS-Level1 GAOS-level2 MGA 3 8.89 0.32 11 32.39 0.50
1 0.65 0.65 0.65 4 10.80 0.36 12 35.56 0.80
2 6.45 7.74 1.29 5 11.43 0.36 13 40.64 0.88
3 21.94 20.65 21.94 6 13.97 0.40 14 45.72 1.00
4 1.29 0.65 0.65 7 16.83 0.45 15 50.80 0.88
5 3.87 7.10 13.55 8 19.37 0.45 16 55.88 0.88
6 7.09 5.81 7.10
7 5.80 20.58 3.23
8 19.35 21.94 21.94 convergence history of this example using the GA and
Weight (kg) 233.86 224.12 220.58 the MGA is presented in Fig. 7.

7. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Z
1 2 After many experiments, the population size and the
number of generation in each stage were taken as 50
and 100, respectively. The probability of crossover and
mutation were taken as 0.9 and 0.005, respectively,
and to avoid the change of MGA operations into a
perfect random search method, for the presence of
3 4
6 joints a mutation rate 0.001 is employed. The modulus
5
of elasticity, material density and yield stress are taken
as 2.1  106 kg/cm2 , 7850 kg/m3 and 2400 kg/cm2,
respectively.
8
7
7.1. 16  16 Double Layer Grid
X
This is a square-on-square space structure with 605
9 joints, the topology of which is shown in Fig. 8. The
10
Y joint spacing in the top and bottom chord is 3 m, while
the depth of the double layer grid is 3.75 m. In this
example, the number of member groups after a
Figure 6. Configuration of 25-bar space truss. preliminary analysis was assumed as 3 each for column,
bottom, web and top grids, which resulted in 12 design
700 variables. Cross-sectional area of members is selected
600 from the pipe profiles available in Table 5. The
optimum topology design is compared with the
Minimum weight

500
GA optimized ground structure in Table 6. Comparing
MGA
400 results of optimization, the weight of the optimum
shape becomes 10.29% less than the ground structure.
300
The optimum shapes of structure are shown in Figs. 9 to
200 13.
100 The resulting configuration is interesting, and the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 joints in some places are omitted. If the double layer
Number of generations
grid is replaced by a flat squire plate with semi fixed
Figure 7. Convergence history for 25-bar space truss. edges and distributed uniform loads, it can be seen that
the removed joints are related to the points of zero

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 51


Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

Table 6. Properties of the optimum ground structure and optimum topology structure
Optimum ground structure Optimum topology structure
Number of joints 605 496
Number of elements 2108 1620
Weight (kg) 72938 66190
Generations 68 94

3.75 m
7m
15@3 m

Figure 8. 16  16 ground structure. Figure 10. Optimum bottom layer.

Figure 11. Optimum top layer.

Figure 9. Optimum shape.

52 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009


E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Figure 13. Columns in optimum structure.

Figure 12. Optimum web layer.

Figure 14. Comparison of optimum shapes.

Figure 15. Double layer space pyramid.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 53


Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

Table 7. Properties of the optimum ground structure and optimum topology structure
Optimum ground structure Optimum topology structure
Number of joints 577 521
Number of elements 2400 1824
Weight (kg) 48038 36996
Generations 57 86

Table 8. Available pipe profiles


No D(cm) t(cm) No D(cm) t(cm)
1 5 0.20 9 22 0.65
2 7 0.30 10 24 0.70
3 10 0.45 11 25 0.65
4 12 0.50 12 31 0.65
5 15 0.60 13 34 0.70
6 17 0.60 14 38 0.65
7 20 0.70 15 42 0.65
8 21 0.60 16 45 0.65

Table 9. Allowable and optimized values for radius of circumferences

Circum. Radius boundary Polynomial


No. Bottom Top Second order Third order Circular
1 150 300 192.18 276.56 322.48
2 300 450 304.68 417.18 483.42
3 450 600 484.06 567.18 644
4 600 750 754.31 651.56 804.10
5 750 900 867.18 855.93 963.61
6 900 1050 904.68 979.68 1122.40
7 1050 1200 1148.43 1120.31 1280.35
8 1200 1350 1270.31 1270.31 1437.35
9 1350 1500 1459.31 1410.93 1593.28
10 1500 1700 1645.31 1645.31 1748.03
11 1700 1850 1835.93 1807.83 1901.48
12 1850 2000 1957.81 1854.68 2053.51
13 2000 300 2135.93 2032.81 2204.02
14 2150 2300 2154.68 2257.81 2352.88
Optimum weight (kg) 56833 48133 70822
Generations 82 93 68

bending moment of the flat plate. Thus the optimal shown in Fig. 14.a. This optimum shape is similar to
places of the joints are analogous to the variation of the optimum topology design of a plate shown in Fig.
bending moment and internal stresses of similar flat 14.b. that was obtained in [22], but the optimum shape
plates. is not practical. In order to achieve a practical
If presence and absence of all of the joints are topology, existence of perimeter nodes in top and
considered as variable, some perimeter joints are bottom grids of space structure was not considered as
removed from the optimum shape of space structure variable.

54 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009


E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Figure 16. Optimum bottom layer.

Figure 18. Ground structure.

Figure 17. Optimum top layer.

7.2. Double Layer Space Pyramid Figure 19. Structure optimized with a second order
A double layer space pyramid with 577 joints, the polynomial.
topology of which is shown in Fig. 15 is selected. In
this example, the number of member groups after a the optimum shape is logic and the distribution of joints
preliminary analysis was assumed as 3 each for bottom, is analogous to the stress distribution of a continuum
web and top grids, which resulted in 9 design variables. pyramid.
Cross-sectional area of members is selected from the
pipe profiles available in Table 5. The optimum 7.3. Dome Geometry Optimization
topology design is compared with the optimized The dome shown in Fig. 18 has 5 meridional and 8
ground structure in Table 7. The weight of the optimum circumferential divisions. The rise and the span of the
shape is 23% better than the optimal weight of the dome are 8 m and 50 m, respectively. Members of the
ground structure. The optimum shapes of structure dome are collected in eighteen distinct groups with
are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. It can be observed that the manner of the members grouping being similar to

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 55


Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

In single layer domes, the optimum order of curve


leads to a suitable placement of joints. Consequently,
this suitable placement optimizes the load bearing area
of joints and configuration of the structure. The
numerical examples show that second and third order
polynomials are the best types of curves for the dome
under different static load cases that presented in this
research. It should be noted that the obtained
configurations are suitable for the assumption presented
in this paper. Other factors such as non-linear, collapse
and reliability analyses, etc. should be investigated.

REFERENCES
[1] Parke, G. and Disney, P., Space Structures 5, Thomas
Telford, London, 2002.
[2]. Rajeev, S. and Krishnamoorthy, C.S., Discrete
optimization of structures using genetic algorithms,
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 1992, 118(5),
1233–1238.
[3]. Goldberg, D.E., Genetic algorithms in search,
Figure 20. Structure optimized with a third order polynomial. optimization and machine learning. Massachusetts,
Addison-Wesley publishing Company, 1989.
[4]. Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.-T., Integrated Genetic
Fig. 2. Cross-sectional area of members is selected
Algorithm for Optimization of Space Structures, Journal
from the pipe profiles available in Table 8. After of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 1993, 6(4), 315–328.
ground structure optimization, it is concluded that [5] Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.-T., Augmented Lagrangian
second and third order polynomial weigh less than Genetic Algorithm for Structural Optimization, Journal
parabolas with other orders. For the optimum shapes of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 7(1), 104–118.
[6] Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.-T., Concurrent Genetic
that are shown in Figs. 19 and 20, top and bottom Algorithm for Optimization of Large Structures,
boundary of radius of circumferences and optimized Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 7(3),
value of radius are given in Table 9. The weight 276–296.
percentage reduction of second and third order [7] Krishnamoorthy, C.S., Prasanna, V.P. and Sudarshan, R.,
Object-oriented framework for genetic algorithm with
polynomials are 19.8% and 32%, respectively. application to space truss optimization, Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 2002, 16(1), 66–75.
8. CONCLUSION [8] Farsangi, E., Topological optimization of double layer
In this paper, an modified genetic algorithm (MGA) grids using genetic algorithms: Proceedings of 5th
was implemented for optimizing shape design of large International Conference on Space Structure, Telford,
space structures to confirm the ability of the GA in London, 2002, 459–468.
[9] Topping, B.H.V., Montero, G. and Montenegro, K.,
shape structural optimization. The following remarks Proceeding of the 8th International Conference on
can be made: Computational Structures Technology, Civil-Comp
This paper proposes a methodology for optimum press, Scotland, 2006.
topology design of large space structures, which takes [10] Kaveh, A. and Kalatjari, V., Topology optimization of
trusses using genetic algorithm, force method and graph
into account discrete variations in the member cross-
theory, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
sectional areas and the presence or absence of the Engineering, 2003, 58, 771–791.
joints. The proposed methodology provides a practical [11] Dianat, N., Space Structures Company, Private
and scientific basis to find the optimum shape of space communications, Tehran, Iran, 2005.
structures which can replace the trial and error [12] American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC Manual,
2005.
methods for removal of joints in these structures. The [13] Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of
presented examples have demonstrated that by Building, BHRC Publication, Tehran, 2006.
employing the methodology efficient topology for [14] American National Standards. Minimum design loads for
space structures can be found. buildings and other structures, (ANSI A58.1), 1982.

56 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009


E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

[15] Ventsel, E. and Krauthammer, Th., Thin Plates and [19] Spears, W. M., Adapting crossover in a genetic
Shells: Theory, Analysis, and Application, Marcel algorithm, European Journal of Operational Research,
Dekker, New York, 2001. 1992, 4, 392–404.
[16] Kaveh, A. and Kalatjari, V., Genetic algorithm for [20] Coley, D., An introduction to genetic algorithms for
discrete-sizing optimal design of trusses using the force scientists and engineers, World Scientific Publishing,
method, International Journal for Numerical Methods in London, 1999.
Engineering, 2002, 55, 55–72. [21] Erbatur, F. Hasancebi, O. Tutuncu, I. and Kilic, H.,
[17] Salajegheh, E. and Gholizadeh, S. Optimum design of Optimal design of planar and space structures with
structures by an improved genetic algorithm using neural genetic algorithms, Journal of Computers and Structures,
networks, Advances in Engineering Software, 2005, 2000, 75, 209–224.
36(11–12), 757–767. [22] Liang, Q and Steven, G., A performance-based
[18] Salajegheh, E. and Heidari, A. Optimum design of optimization method for topology design of continuum
structures against earthquake by adaptive genetic structures with mean compliance constraint, Journal of
algorithm using wavelet networks, Structural and Computer methods in applied mechanics and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2004, 28(4), 277–285. engineering, 2001, 191, 1471–1489.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 57