You are on page 1of 4


1 General In the majority of structural optimization problems, the equality constraints constitute a part of or the whole equilibrium equation and, so, are excluded from the above formulation and hence are treated implicitly.

Solving constrained optimization problems is generally cumbersome. While there are methods such as the feasible directions method [Kirsch, U.,
Optimum Structural Design, McGraw-Hill, New York (1981)., Rao, S.S., Optimization: Theory and Applications, Wiley Eastern Limited (1984).

] that solves the constrained problems directly, the main

strategy behind the penalty methods is to change the form of the above constrained optimization problem to an unconstrained form so that unconstrained optimization techniques can be applied. To this end, a global objective function, , called the penalty function, is defined, which includes both the main objective function and all the constraints. is so defined that, through its optimization by unconstrained optimization techniques, both the constraints are satisfied and also the objective function is minimized.

Penalty function methods are the most popular constraint handling methods among users [Yeniay, O. \Penalty function methods for constrained optimization with genetic algorithms",
Mathematical and Computational Application, 10(1), pp. 45-46(2005).

]. Interior penalty function method has

been proposed in this research work. The statement of optimization

hence there are m inequality and p equality constraints. j = 1.1c) (4. and g and h are the inequality and equality constraints respectively. 2.. f(x) = objective function to be minimized.problem and algorithm development is briefly described in the following sections. . U. ..1a) (4. .Σ1/hk(x)] r 0 where r reduces from a high value to 0 gradually. 3. 2.New York (1981). ___ . ]: (4. 4.. (4.2 Problem Statement The general form of a minimization problem with inequality and equality constraints is as follows: Find x (4.3 Algorithm Development The original form of the interior penalty function is as follows [Kirsch. and: hk(x) = 0. p. 4. McGraw-Hill.2a) Ф(x.1b) to minimize f(x) subject to: gj(x)≤ 0. Optimum Structural Design.1d) where x = n-dimensional vector of design variables. m j = 1.r)=f(x)-r [Σ1/gj(x) .

S. Here. Figure 4. Optimization: Theory and Applications. tions.. Wiley Eastern Limited (1984).2b) where x1 is the initial point in the feasible region. Optimization: Theory and Applica- rn+1=c rn where c is a coe_cient less than 1.2c) Figure 4. the reduction follows [Rao. S.1 summarizes the optimization procedure of the interior penalty method.]: S. (4.1 Flow chart for interior penalty function . The optimization procedure is an iterative method in which r reduces to 0 gradually.1~1..] has proposed the following function for selecting r at the start of the optimization procedure: r1=(0.S.Rao [Rao.0)[ f(x1)/-Σ1/g(x1)] (4. Wiley Eastern Limited (1984).

The shear forces in columns. The steel frames considered. columns beams with rigid joints.2 Beam Members 4.3. and shear forces in BRBs are insignificant (not worthy of notice).4.4.4 Application of the Algorithm The algorithm developed for minimum weight of structural members is applied to steel MRFs and BRBFs respectively.1 Columns Members 4. MRFs and BRBFs are formed by connecting structural members. BRBs are connected at joints by bolts.4. therefore discarded in optimization process. The application of the method for the columns beams and BRBs are briefly described as follows. axial forces in beams and bending moments. Therefore all the members have subjected to shear forces. bending moments and axial forces. 4.4.Buckling Restrained Brace .