Skip to main content
Log in

Topology Optimization of Trusses—Random Cost Method Versus Evolutionary Algorithms

  • Published:
Computational Optimization and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recently proposed random cost method is applied to the topology optimization of trusses. Its performance is compared to previous genetic algorithm and evolution strategy simulations. Random cost turns out to be an optimization method with attractive features. In comparison to the genetic algorithm approach of Hajela, Lee and Lin, random cost turns out to be simpler and more efficient. Furthermore it is found that in contrast to evolution strategy, the random cost strategy's ability to find optima, is independent of the initial structure. This characteristic is related to the important capacity of escaping from local optima.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. W. Achtziger, M. Bendsøe, A. Ben-Tal, and J. Zowe, “Equivalent displacement based formulations for maximum strength truss topology design,” DFG-Report (FSP “Applied Optimization and Control”) No. 338, University of Bayreuth, Mathematical Institute, 1991.

  2. B. Baumann, “Noncanonical path and surface simulation,” Nucl. Phys., vol. B285, p. 391, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M.P. Bendsøe, Optimization of Structural Topology, Shape, and Material, Springer: Berlin, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  4. B.A. Berg, Int. J. mod. Phys., vol. C3, p. 1083, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B.A. Berg, “Locating global minima in optimization problems by a random-cost approach,” Nature vol. 361, p. 708, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B.A. Berg, “New algorithm to investigate neural networks,” Comp. Phys. Commun., vol. 98, p. 35, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  7. B.A. Berg and Th. Neuhaus, “Multicanonical algorithms for first order phase transistions,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 68, p. 9, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D.R. Cox and D. Oakes, Analysis of Survival Data, Chapman & Hall, 1984.

  9. W.S. Dorn, R.E. Gomory, and H.J. Greenberg, “Automatic design of optimal structures,” Journal de Mécanique, vol. 3, p. 25, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley: Reading, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. Hajela, E. Lee, and C.-Y. Lin, “Genetic algorithms in structural topology optimization,” in Topology Design of Structures, M.P. Bendsøe and C.A. Mota Soares (Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  12. F. Hoffmeister and Th. Bäck, “Genetic algorithms and evolution strategies: Similarities and differences,” Technical Report “Green Series” No. 365, Department of Computer Science, University of Dortmund, 1990.

  13. F. Hoffmeister and Th. Bäck, “Genetic algorithms and evolution strategies: Similarities and differences,” in Proceedings of the 1st PPSN Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, H.-P. Schwefel and R. Männer (Eds.), Springer: Berlin, 1991, vol. 496, p. 455.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  15. W. Janke, “Recent developements in monte-carlo simulations of first-order phase transitions in computer simulation studies in condensed matter physics VII,” Proceedings in Physics, D.P. Landau, K.K. Mon, and H.-B. Schüttler (Eds.), Springer, 1994, vol. 78, p. 29.

  16. K.A. De Jong, “An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems,” Dissertation, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. Kirkpatrik, C.D. Gelatt, and M.P. Vecchi, “Optimization by simulated annealing,” Science, vol. 220, p. 671, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  18. U. Kirsch, “Optimal topologies of structures,” Applied Mechanics Review, vol. 42, p. 223, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  19. U. Kirsch, Structural Optimization, Springer: Berlin, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. B. Kost, “Evolution strategies in structural topology optimization of trusses,” in Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, P.J. Pahl and H. Werner (Eds.), Balkema: Rotterdam, p. 675, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. I. Rechenberg, “Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem,” Royal Aircraft Establishment, Library Translation 1122, Farnborough, 1965.

  22. S. Sankaranarayanan, R.T. Haftka, and R.K. Kapania, “Truss topology optimization with stress and displacement constraints,” M.P. Bendsøe and C.A. Mota Soares (Eds.), Topology Design of Structures, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  23. H.-P. Schwefel, Numerical Optimization of Computer Models, Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  24. B.H.V. Topping, Shape optimization of skeletal structures: A review, J. of. Structural Engineering, ASCE, 109, 1983.

  25. M. Wax, Selected Papers on Noise and Stochastic Processes, Dover Publisher: New York, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baumann, B., Kost, B. Topology Optimization of Trusses—Random Cost Method Versus Evolutionary Algorithms. Computational Optimization and Applications 14, 203–218 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008795215794

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008795215794

Navigation