Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 22 (2007) 282–292

Reliability-Based Optimal Design of Electrical

Transmission Towers Using Multi-Objective
Genetic Algorithms
Sachin Mathakari & Paolo Gardoni∗
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3136

Pranab Agarwal
RISA Technologies, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610

Anne Raich
Department of Civil and Environ. Engineering, Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042

&

Terje Haukaas
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada

Abstract: A hybrid methodology for performing
reliability-based structural optimization of three-
dimensional trusses is presented. This hybrid method-
ology links the search and optimization capabilities
of multi-objective genetic algorithms (MOGA) with
structural performance information provided by finite
element reliability analysis. To highlight the strengths
of the proposed methodology, a practical example
is presented that concerns optimizing the topology,
geometry, and member sizes of electrical transmission
towers. The weight and reliability index of a tower are
defined as the two objectives used by MOGA to perform
Pareto ranking of tower designs. The truss deformation
and the member stresses are compared to threshold
values to assess the reliability of each tower under wind
loading. Importance sampling is used for the reliability
∗ Towhom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: gardoni@
tamu.edu.
analysis. Both the wind pressure and the wind direction
are considered as random variables in the analysis.
The research results presented demonstrate the benefit
of implementing MOGA optimization as an integral
part of a reliability-based optimization procedure for
three-dimensional trusses.
1 INTRODUCTION
Safety and economy are the primary concerns dur-
ing the design of any civil engineering structure, be-
cause the designer, the owner, and the public prefer
a structure that is safe and cheap. Reliability-based
optimization helps designers in identifying a good bal-
ance between the safety and economy of a struc-
ture. Although theoretically appealing, the optimization
of practical structures has several computational and
modeling challenges. The reliability-based optimization


C 2007 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA,
and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.
 Reliability-based optimal design of electrical transmission towers
problem domain is complex, which requires the appli-
cation of robust search and optimization techniques to
arrive at a near-global optimal solution. Traditional op-
timization methods, which include calculus-based, enu-
merative or hill-climbing algorithms, work best in find-
ing a single, locally optimal solution, and are therefore
ineffective in discontinuous and multi-modal search do-
mains. In comparison, genetic algorithms (GAs) perform
a more global, probabilistic directed search, which re-
sults in a greater likelihood of obtaining near-global opti-
mal solutions when searching complex problem domains.
Since their original development by John Holland
(1975) and his colleagues at the University of Michigan,
GAs have been used in various fields to find solu-
tions to complicated optimization problems. Rajeev and
Krishnamoorthy (1992) and Jenkins (1992) were among
the first researchers to implement simple GAs in struc-
tural optimization problems. The former explored the
application of GAs to optimize the cross-sectional ar-
eas of truss members, although the latter used GAs to
optimize the member sizes for plane frames. In both re-
search efforts, the fitness of each design was assessed by
considering how well the objectives were met and any
constraint violations were handled by imposing a fitness
penalty.
Thampan and Krishnamoorthy (2001) performed
reliability-based structural optimization of trusses us-
ing a simple GA. Member section sizes and the ge-
ometric truss configuration were considered as design
variables for producing optimal trusses. Thampan and
Krishnamoorthy defined a fitness function with a single
objective of minimizing weight and used normalized re-
liability indices as penalties for performing selection in
subsequent generations. In their research the reliability
of a truss is estimated using upper bounds. Dimou and
Koumousis (2003) also evaluated the system reliability
using bounds on the probability of failure. Tolson et al.
(2004) optimized a water distribution network by link-
ing a simple GA with a first order reliability method
(FORM). Instead of using reliability bounds, a single re-
liability measure was imposed as a penalty on the cost
optimization function to optimize overall network per-
formance. Adeli and Cheng (1993, 1994a, 1994b), Adeli
and Kumar (1995a, 1995b), and Adeli and Sarma (2006),
applied GA to large realistic structures. Adeli and Hung
(1995) provided a comprehensive review on the applica-
tion and implementation of GA.
During the last few decades, many different ap-
proaches to multi-objective optimization have been in-
vestigated by researchers. Some of the early attempts to
consider multiple objectives include VEGA (Schaffer,
1985), lexicographic ordering (Rao, 1984), and weighted
sum objective functions (Hajela and Lin, 1992). Several
different multi-objective GA implementations have
283
been proposed by Fonseca and Fleming (1993), Horn
et al. (1994), and Srinivas and Deb (1994). The con-
cept of Pareto-optimality to capture the trade-off be-
tween multiple objectives has gained prominence in the
last decade, although the basic concept was developed
as early as 1906 by Pareto. Cheng and Li (1998) used
a multi-objective GA (MOGA), which implements a
Pareto ranking procedure for selection, to address the
trade-off between weight and strain energy objectives
in the optimization of a 72-bar space truss. Deb (2001)
provides a comprehensive review on the application and
implementation of MOGA.
The method proposed in this research uses MOGA
to search for and optimize transmission tower designs.
In any problem where multiple objectives are defined,
trade-offs exist in the ability to satisfy the objectives.
In this research, a tradeoff exists between minimizing
the total weight of the truss and maximizing the re-
liability of the truss. MOGA relies on the use of the
concept of Pareto-optimality to perform multi-objective
optimization. MOGA works with a population of design
alternatives and uses the concept of Pareto-optimality
to determine a ranking of current design alternatives
in order to guide the search process toward an opti-
mal solution. Solutions are identified as nondominated
or dominated by other solutions in the population. The
nondominated solutions, which are solutions that are
considered to be equally good, define a Pareto-optimal
front. A set of Pareto-optimal designs can be evolved by
MOGA in a single trial and can be used to clearly define
the tradeoffs occurring in meeting the stated objectives.
MOGA does not require assigning weights to each ob-
jective as is required to construct single fitness functions,
which avoids the solution evolved being dependent on
the weights selected.
In this article, a new approach for the reliability-based
optimal design of structures that combines MOGA opti-
mization with finite element reliability analysis is pro-
posed. In general, FORM or second order reliability
method (SORM) may not provide an accurate esti-
mate of the system reliability. Therefore in this re-
search, importance sampling is utilized to perform the
reliability analysis. An application of the proposed ap-
proach is presented that optimizes the design of elec-
trical transmission towers subjected to wind loading.
The topology, geometry, and member sizes of the tower
are optimized while keeping the height of the tower
constant.
2 MULTI-OBJECTIVE GENETIC ALGORITHMS
A GA is classified as a heuristic optimization method that
works with a population of individual solutions. Genetic
284 Mathakari et al.

algorithms “combine survival of the fittest among string fq (x) ≤ fq (x∗ ) for all q ∈ {1, 2, . . . , Q} (1)
structures with a structured yet randomized informa-
tion exchange to form a search algorithm with some fq (x) < fq (x∗ ) for at least one q ∈ {1, 2, . . . , Q} (2)
of the innovative flair of human search” (Goldberg,
where, f q (x) is the objective function for the Q objective.
1989). In essence, it is a computational technique that
A rank of 1 is assigned to all nondominated individuals
bases its probabilistic operations on natural evolution
identified in the population. Rank 1 individuals form a
and Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory. GAs provide
trade-off surface that is commonly known as the Pareto-
a balance between exploration for better solutions and
optimal surface. For a two-objective minimization prob-
exploitation of the good solutions found. The main bene-
lem, Figure 1 shows an example of the Pareto-optimal
fit of using GAs over other optimization techniques is its
surface defined by a set of nondominated individuals.
ability to escape local optima and attain the near-global
The ranking procedure used by MOGA continues by
optimum.
excluding Rank 1 individuals from consideration and
The basic operations performed by GAs are the gen-
identifying the set of nondominated individuals in the
eration and evaluation of an initial population. The evo-
remaining population, which are assigned a rank of 2.
lution begins with a randomly generated population of
This process continues until all individuals in the popula-
individuals and advances in generations. In each gener-
tion have been assigned a rank (Srinivas and Deb, 1994).
ation, the fitness of the whole population is evaluated
Tournament selection is then performed to identify pairs
and individuals are selected from the current popula-
of individuals to undergo crossover and mutation. A ran-
tion using selection criteria based on their fitness. The
dom subset of n-individuals from the population com-
selected individuals are then modified using the genetic
pete in each tournament. The winner of a tournament is
operations of crossover and mutation to form a new pop-
the individual with the lowest rank. In case of a tie, one
ulation, which becomes current in the next iteration of
of the individuals is selected at random.
the algorithm. In GAs, design variables are encoded into
Crossover and mutation are then applied probabilisti-
character strings and these strings are combined to form
cally to the pairs of selected individuals and a new pop-
an individual string representing a design solution. This
ulation is defined. During crossover, multiple locations
individual string is a genetic representation of the design
are randomly selected along the binary bits encoded by
solution.
each individual and the sections of strings are swapped
To perform topology and geometry optimization, each
to generate two children as shown in Figure 2. Muta-
individual encodes a set of topology and geometry de-
tion then is performed by randomly flipping selected en-
sign variables associated with the truss. For sizing opti-
coded bits in randomly selected individuals as shown in
mization in this research, each individual also encodes a
Figure 3. Mutation helps prevent information from be-
member cross-section design variable for each member
ing permanently lost and also introduces new informa-
in the truss based on the set of member cross-sections
tion to the search process. An elitism strategy is adopted
defined. These design variables are encoded as binary
numbers in each individual.
A set of integer fitness values f q (·) are assigned to Non-dominated
each individual in the population that describe how f1
Points (Rank 1)
well that individual satisfies the Q stated objectives. An
individual’s fitness plays an important role in determin-
ing whether an individual will be selected for reproduc-
tion in the next generation. In simple GAs, often the
fitness function is highly sensitive to its formulation and
has to be optimized in order to produce good results. In
MOGA, selection of individuals from the current pop-
ulation is performed by applying the concept of Pareto
optimality to the population and assigning each individ-
ual a rank based on their fitness values. The Eschenauer
(1990) criterion is used to evaluate the nondominated
points and can be stated as follows for the minimization
problem: f2
A feasible solution x∗ is a nondominated (Pareto,
1906) optimum if and only if there exist no feasible vector Fig. 1. Illustration of applying Pareto ranking to a population
x such that to identify the nondominated front.
 Reliability-based optimal design of electrical transmission towers 285

Pf, jk = P[Cjk (x) ≤ Djk (x)] = P[Cjk (xd , xr ) ≤ Djk (xd , xr )]

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Parents

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = P[gjk (xd , xr ) ≤ 0] = fXr (xr )dxr
gjk (xd ,xr )≤0
Location 1 Location 2 Location 3

j = 1, . . . , J and k = 1, . . . , K (3)
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Children
where, fXr (xr ) denotes the joint probability density func-
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
tion of the random variables xr .
In our application, we consider the following limit
Fig. 2. Illustration of multi-point crossover operation.
states:
r Serviceability limit state: Monitors the maximum lat-
Before Mutation 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
eral displacement of the top of the structure due to
external loads.
After Mutation 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r Ultimate limit state: Monitors the maximum axial
stress in each member due to external loads.
Fig. 3. Illustration of mutation operation.

3.2 Assessment of structural system reliability

in which the first five individuals are chosen from the
Pareto-optimal set and copied directly into the next gen-
eration. This helps to prevent the loss of fitter individuals
from the population.
The parameter values used by GAs, such as the num-
ber of elite members, crossover rate and mutation rate,
are problem dependent and are typically set by a trial
and error process. In the MOGA trial performed in this
research, the following parameter settings were used:
population size of 200, string length of individual is 170,
tournament size of 5, crossover over rate of 0.8, muta-
tion rate of 0.004, and the number of elite individuals
selected was five.
3 STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY
3.1 Assessment of structural component reliability
Failure of a structural component j can be expressed
in terms of its demand measure Djk (x) and its capac-
ity measure Cjk (x), where k ranges over all the possible
modes of failure, K, (e.g., failure due to excessive stress
or deflection). Djk (x) and Cjk (x) are functions of a set of
basic variables x of the model, which include the geom-
etry, material properties, and loads. The variables x can
be partitioned into deterministic variables, xd , and ran-
dom variables, xr . Following the conventional notation
in structural reliability theory (Ditlevsen and Madsen,
1996), component failure is described using a limit state
function gjk (x). The limit state function is defined such
that {gjk (x) ≤ 0} indicates a failure of component j in
mode k. Probability of failure P f, jk of a component j in
mode k is given as
In this article, the failure of the system occurs when any
of its components fail either in the ultimate limit state
or in the serviceability limit state. However, it is noted
that, for statically redundant structures, a single element
failure does not necessarily imply that the structure has
failed. The probability of failure Pf of such a system in
terms of limit state functions gjk (x) is expressed as
 
J K
Pf = P gjk (xd , xr ) ≤ 0 (4)
j=1 k=1
The generalized reliability index (Ditlevsen, 1979) is
defined as
β = −1 (1 − Pf ) (5)
where, −1 (·) denotes the inverse of the standard normal
cumulative probability function.
3.3 Reliability analysis methods
Given that xr are common to each limit state function
in Equation (4), the failure events are correlated and a
closed-form solution is not available. Several methods
can be used for an approximate solution, including
FORM, SORM, Monte Carlo simulations, importance
sampling, response surface methods, and numerical in-
tegration schemes (Ditlevesen and Madsen, 1996). The
present case is a series system problem, for which FORM
analysis combined with bounding formulas constitutes
one feasible alternative. Another approach is sampling
analysis, although mean-centered Monte Carlo sampling
tends to be excessively computationally expensive in
the presence of finite element computations to eval-
uate the limit state function. In this study we select
286
to determine the failure probability by a two-step ap-
proach. First, the design point is determined for the
most critical limit state function. Subsequently, an effi-
cient importance sampling centered at this design point
is carried out. This approach is an improvement over
the traditional Monte Carlo simulations. The approach is
particularly well suited when high correlation is present
between the limit state functions.
3.4 Importance measures
There may be several random variables in a limit state.
Some random variables have a larger effect on the vari-
ance of the limit state (and thus are more important) and
some have a smaller effect (and thus are less important).
Following Der Kiureghian and Ke (1985), the measure
of importance γ can be defined as
αT Ju∗ ,xr∗ SD
γT =  T  (6)
α Ju∗ ,x∗ SD 
r 0.25 m.
where, α is the negative normalized gradient to the limit
state surface at the design point in the standard nor-
mal space. This vector is also an importance measure
for the random variables in the case of no correlation
although γ is the importance vector for the case of
correlated random variables. If variables are uncorre-
lated then this vector is equal to α vector. Ju∗ ,xr∗ is the
Jacobian of the probability transformation from the orig-
inal space xr to the standard normal space u, with re-
spect to the coordinates of the design point xr∗ . SD
is
the standard deviation matrix of equivalent normal vari-
ables z defined by the linearized inverse transformation
xr = xr∗ + Jxr∗ ,u∗ (u − u∗ ) at the design point. The elements
of SD
are the square roots of the corresponding diag-
onal elements of the covariance matrix Σ = Jxr∗ ,u∗ JxTr∗ ,u∗
of the variables xr .
Importance measures are used to reduce the number
of random variables by considering less important ran-
dom variables as deterministic. This selective simplifica-
tion is used to reduce the analysis time required for the
importance sampling.
4 DESCRIPTION OF TRUSS TOWER
PROBLEM DOMAIN
To highlight the strengths of the proposed methodology,
a practical example is presented that concerns optimizing
the topology, geometry, and member sizes of electrical
transmission towers. The weight and reliability index of
a tower are defined as the two objectives used by MOGA
to perform Pareto ranking of tower designs. The truss
deformation and the member stresses are compared to
Mathakari et al.
threshold values to assess the reliability of each tower
under wind loading.
4.1 Structural configuration
The structural configuration of a truss is governed by
its topology, geometry, and member section properties.
A typical three-dimensional three-story truss is shown
in Figure 4. The details of structural configuration used
in the geometry, topology, and sizing optimization are
discussed below:
r Geometry optimization: A three-dimensional, sym-
metric truss is defined. The basic geometry of the truss
is identified by the bottom width w b , top width w t , and
the height of the truss h. The trusses are generated so
that wt ≤ w b and h is kept constant, that is, 15 m. The
wb is selected from a pool that ranges from 2.25 m to
6.0 m, with a step size of 0.25 m. w t is selected from a
pool that ranges from 1 m to 6 m, with a step size of
r Topology optimization: The topology of the truss is
altered by changing the number of stories, N s , and the
height from the ground of each internal floor zr , r =
1, . . . , (N s − 1). N s varies from 1 to 6 and zr is selected
from a pool of values ranging from 0.5 m to 14.5 m
with a step size of 0.5 m The horizontal members of
each internal floor can also be randomly removed.
r Size optimization: The discrete vertical, horizontal,
and bracing members at each floor are grouped
wt
3rd story
2nd story
h=15.0 m
z
1st story
wb
Fig. 4. Typical three-dimensional three-story truss.
 Reliability-based optimal design of electrical transmission towers 287

Table 1
List of available member sections based on the AISC LRFD
Manual (2001) 0.5Dm 2 ( z )
Truss
Dm 2 ( z )
W4 × 13 W5 × 16 W5 × 19 W6 × 9
W6 × 16 W6 × 25 W8 × 10 W8 × 15
W8 × 18 W8 × 21 W8 × 24 W8 × 28 θ
W8 × 31 W10 × 12 W10 × 15 W10 × 17 0.5Dm1 ( z )
W10 × 19 W10 × 30 W10 × 33 W10 × 39
W10 × 49 W12 × 14 W12 × 22 W12 × 26 Dm1 ( z )
W12 × 40 W12 × 50 W14 × 34 W14 × 38
W14 × 43 W14 × 48 W16 × 36 W16 × 45 Wind Direction

Group 6 Fig. 6. Wind loading distribution.

Group 9 where δ(z) is the solidity of tower face defined as a ratio

Group 3
Group 5
Group 8
Group 2
Group 4
Group 7
Group 1
Fig. 5. Group assignments for member sizes for an example
truss.
separately. The member section properties are as-
signed to groups in such a way that heavier sections
are available for selection for the bottom levels and
lighter sections are available for selection at the top
levels. The available member sections are selected
from the AISC LRFD Manual (2001) and are listed
in Table 1. As shown in Figure 5, nine groups of truss
members are defined for the three story truss. Groups
1 to 3 are assigned to vertical members, Groups 4 to
6 are assigned to horizontal members, and Groups 7
to 9 are assigned to the bracing members.
4.2 Wind load model
Following Holmes (1996), the mean drag force per unit
height Dm (z) is defined as
Dm(z) = pm(z)Cd δ(z)w(z) (7)
of area of member sections to the area projected by the
members, w(z) is the width of the truss at height z, Cd is
the drag force coefficient assumed to be 2.2, and pm (z)
is the pressure distribution given by

  z 2α
pm(z) = 0.5ρ ūh 2
+ σε (8)
h
where ρ is the air density assumed to be 1.225 Kg/m3 ,
ūh is the mean annual maximum wind speed, assumed as
nominal 3-second gust wind speed according to ASCE
(2002). The value for the mean wind speed is assumed to
be 60 m/s, α is the power law exponent that depends on
the surface roughness assumed to be 0.28, σ represents
the standard deviation of the pressure such that the co-
efficient of variation of pm (z) is 30%, and ε is a random
variable with zero mean and unit standard deviation.
The direction of the wind identified by the angle θ
is considered a random variable with uniform distribu-
tion from 0◦ to 90◦ (see Figure 6). The drag forces on
the two faces of the transmission tower affected by the
wind, called Dm1 (z, θ) and Dm2 (z, θ ), are a function of z
and θ.
4.3 Assessment of structural reliability
The finite element platform OpenSees (Haukaas and
Der Kiureghian, 2004; McKenna et al., 2005; McKenna
and Fenves, 2005) was used to perform finite element re-
liability analysis. Finite element reliability methods are
characterized by response quantities from a finite ele-
ment solution entering the limit state function. In this
article limit state functions are defined as,
gjk = threshold − response quantity (9)
where the threshold for the serviceability limit state is
defined as the allowable deflection and the threshold for
288 Mathakari et al.

Table 2
Uncertain model parameters for the three-dimensional truss problem domain

Parameter Distribution Mean COV Corr.

Cross-sectional area Aj of members Lognormal Assigned by MOGA 5.0% 0.0

Young’s modulus Ej for bilinear material Lognormal 210,000 N/mm2 5.0% 0.3
Yield strength σ y j for bilinear material Lognormal 300 N/mm2 10.0% 0.3
Second stiffness ratio bj for bilinear material Lognormal 0.01 10.0% 0.3
Nodal coordinates in x, y and z Lognormal Assigned by MOGA St. Dev. = 10 mm 0.0
ε Standard normal 0 St. Dev. = 1 –
θ Uniform 0.78539816 0.57735 –

the ultimate limit state is defined as the design strength
(tension or compression) of a member as given by the
AISC LRFD Manual (2001). The corresponding re-
sponse quantities are derived from the finite element
analysis. When the uncertain response quantity exceeds
the specified threshold, the limit state function takes on
a negative value and failure is implied.
Initially, all of the cross-sectional member areas (Aj ),
material properties, including the Young’s modulus of
elasticity (Ej ), yield strength (σ y j ), and second stiff-
ness ratio (bj ) for bilinear materials, and nodal coordi-
nates in the x, y, and z directions were considered as
random variables to capture manufacturing imperfec-
tions, uncertainties in the material properties, and fabri-
cation and construction errors, respectively. The details
of the uncertain model parameters in the three dimen-
sional trusses are given in Table 2 (Haukaas and Der
Kiureghian, 2004). Each random variable has a specified
distribution, mean, and coefficient of variation (COV). A
correlation coefficient (Corr.) of 0.3 is assumed among
the Ej . The same assumption is made to characterize
the correlation among the σ y j , and among the bj . Based
on the value of gamma (γ ) from importance measures,
only epsilon and theta turned out to be important and
they are the only two random variables considered in the
reliability-based optimization.
4.4 Implementation of reliability-based optimal design
In the proposed methodology, MOGA initially
generates a random population of N individuals. The
reliability of each individual, i, is then computed by
importance sampling. The weight of each individual,
w i , and its reliability index, β i , are used directly as ob-
jectives in the Pareto ranking method used by MOGA
to evolve a new population. As shown in Figure 7,
this process is repeated for each generation until the
MOGA population converges to a near-optimal Pareto
set of design solutions.
An in-house MOGA software developed at Texas
A&M University is used in this research. The program
generates truss designs and performs a reliability analy-
sis of each truss by calling the OpenSees finite element
reliability module.

MOGA Rel i abi l i ty Anal ysi s

Random Initialization of Interpretation of Binary Finite Element Model

Population Representation Generation

Initialization of GA Finite Element Reliability

GA Crossover and Mutation
Parameters Analysis

Selection based on Ranking Calculation of Weight and

and Elitism Reliability Index

MOGA Pareto Surface Encoding Binary

Ranking Representation

Fig. 7. Flow-chart of the hybrid optimization methodology.

 Reliability-based optimal design of electrical transmission towers 289

-1 Table 3
Number of stories, base and top width, total weight and
0
reliability index for trusses found in the Pareto-optimal set
1 after Generation 9
2
Reliability Index, β

Total weight Reliability

3
1 Truss Ns w b (mm) wt (mm) (Kg) index β
4 2
1 2 3,250.0 1,500.0 2,919.98 2.9773
5
GENERATION 1 2 2 3,750.0 3,750.0 3,258.86 3.6549
6 3
GENERATION 4 3 2 3,750.0 3,750.0 3,366.35 5.9701
7 4 GENERATION 7 4 2 4,000.0 1,500.0 3,785.63 6.5441
5
13 14 GENERATION 9 5 2 3,750.0 3,750.0 4,189.85 6.8884
8 6 2 3,500.0 2,750.0 4,630.59 7.3252
6
7
9 8-12 7 3 4,500.0 2,750.0 5,136.41 8.1514
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 8 3 4,000.0 3,750.0 5,558.79 8.2929
Total Weight (Kg)
9 3 4,000.0 3,750.0 5,569.94 8.2929
10 3 4,000.0 3,750.0 5,628.34 8.2929
Fig. 8. Comparison of distribution of individuals in MOGA 11 3 4,000.0 3,750.0 5,639.48 8.2929
population with respect to weight and reliability objective 12 3 4,000.0 3,750.0 5,685.34 8.2929
values in Generations 1, 4, 7, and 9. 13 3 4,000.0 3,750.0 5,828.92 8.2929
14 3 4,000.0 3,750.0 6,910.76 8.2929

5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The present reliability based multi-objective problem

has two objectives, which are minimizing the structural
weight, w, and maximizing the reliability index, β. The
results of one of the MOGA optimization trials are pro-
vided in Figure 8. Figure 8 compares the population
distributions in terms of objective values for the truss
designs after Generations 1, 4, 7, and 9. As the number
of generations progresses, the Pareto-optimal curve de-
fined by Rank 1 individuals in each population shifts
toward the left (lower weight) and down (higher re-
liability index) on the graph. After nine generations,
the MOGA population converges to the Pareto-optimal
curve. The Pareto-optimal curve defines a set of near-
optimal truss designs that show the tradeoff that is oc-
curring in trying to optimize the conflicting objectives.
The solutions found along the Pareto-optimal curve af-
ter Generation 9 are shown in Figure 8. The solutions
obtained can be graphically compared to a discontinu-
ous, idealized Pareto front. The truss designs obtained
in this research effort on the Pareto-optimal curve are
numbered from 1 to 14 in Figure 8. Tables 3–5 present the
design detail information for each of the truss designs de-
fined in the Pareto-optimal set, including the number of
stories, dimensions, and member sizes selected. Figure 9
shows graphically the range of topology and geometry
of the truss towers defined in the Pareto-optimal set of
designs evolved by MOGA.
6 DISCUSSION AND FURTHER WORK
The quality of the results obtained and the computa-
tional time required for the analysis are two important
factors in the field of reliability-based structural op-
timization. Specific issues related to the proposed
reliability-based optimization procedure are discussed
in the following:
r It is recognized that the quality and diversity of the
initial population may have a prominent effect on the
direction of GA optimization and on the results ob-
tained, particularly in the initial generations. It is en-
couraged to spend an effort to ascertain a good initial
population.
r Convergence of the finite element reliability analy-
sis may itself be challenging, although recent devel-
opments (Haukaas and Der Kiureghian, 2004) have
enabled the present study. It is noted that changing
the shape and geometry of a structure during the
optimization process results in different design vari-
able values and loading patterns, which may make
the evaluation of the system reliability more difficult
(Murotsu and Shao, 1990).
r Two important aspects of any reliability-based opti-
mization procedure are the accuracy and time effec-
tiveness of the reliability analysis. In this article, the
authors implement importance sampling to improve
the accuracy and to reduce the computational time re-
quired for the system reliability analysis, which would
be prohibitive if crude Monte Carlo simulations were
pursued.
r In the present study, the authors assume that fail-
ure of the truss occurs when any component fails
either in the ultimate limit state or in the service-
ability limit state. It is noted that, for statically
290 Mathakari et al.

Table 4
Members for trusses found in the Pareto-optimal set after Generation 9

Groups
Vertical members Horizontal members Cross-bracing members
Truss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 W4 × 13 W8 × 10 – – W8 × 10 – W6 × 9 W6 × 9 –
2 W8 × 10 W6 × 9 – W12 × 14 W8 × 10 – W6 × 9 W6 × 9 –
3 W4 × 13 W8 × 10 – W12 × 14 W8 × 10 – W6 × 9 W6 × 9 –
4 W4 × 13 W10 × 12 – W8 × 15 W10 × 12 – W12 × 14 W8 × 10 –
5 W12 × 14 W4 × 13 – W8 × 18 W8 × 18 – W10 × 12 W6 × 9 –
6 W10 × 17 W12 × 14 – W10 × 15 W10 × 12 – W6 × 9 W6 × 9 –
7 W10 × 12 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 – W5 × 16 W10 × 12 W8 × 21 W5 × 16 W12 × 14
8 W10 × 39 W6 × 25 W6 × 25 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 W6 × 16 W6 × 9 W6 × 9
9 W14 × 43 W6 × 25 W6 × 25 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 W6 × 16 W6 × 9 W6 × 9
10 W10 × 39 W6 × 25 W6 × 25 W10 × 12 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 W6 × 16 W6 × 9 W6 × 9
11 W14 × 43 W6 × 25 W6 × 25 W10 × 12 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 W6 × 16 W6 × 9 W6 × 9
12 W14 × 43 W6 × 25 W6 × 25 W4 × 13 W8 × 10 W6 × 9 W6 × 16 W6 × 9 W6 × 9
13 W14 × 43 W6 × 25 W6 × 25 W4 × 13 W8 × 10 W6 × 9 W10 × 19 W6 × 9 W6 × 9
14 W10 × 39 W6 × 25 W6 × 25 W10 × 12 W6 × 9 W6 × 9 W14 × 43 W6 × 9 W6 × 9

redundant structures, a single element failure does
not necessarily imply that the structure has failed.
r It is also noted that, in this study, wind load is applied
as a static load. The dynamic aspect of wind load and
cable loading along the transmission lines are ignored.
7 CONCLUSIONS
analysis is successfully implemented and applied to a
practical engineering problem. The design of an elec-
trical transmission tower subject to wind loading is op-
timized. The geometry and topology of the truss and
groups of member sections are optimized for the con-
flicting objectives of total weight and reliability of the

A hybrid methodology that combines a MOGA search

as optimization method and finite element reliability

Table 5
Story heights for trusses found in the Pareto-optimal set after
Generation 9

Truss Ns z1 (mm) z2 (mm) z3 (mm)

Truss 1 Truss 2 Truss 3 Truss 4
1 2 4,000 15,000 –
2 2 3,000 15,000 –
3 2 4,500 15,000 –
4 2 4,000 15,000 –
5 2 9,000 15,000 –
6 2 7,000 15,000 –
7 3 4,500 8,000 15,000
8 3 3,500 7,500 15,000
9 3 3,500 7,500 15,000
10 3 3,500 7,500 15,000
11 3 3,500 7,500 15,000 Truss 5 Truss 6 Truss 7 Truss 8-14
12 3 3,500 7,500 15,000
13 3 3,500 7,500 15,000
Fig. 9. Topology and geometry of the truss towers obtained
14 3 3,500 7,500 15,000
in the Pareto-optimal set.
 Reliability-based optimal design of electrical transmission towers
truss. The reliability is assessed considering failure due
to excessive deflection of the top floor of the truss and
excessive axial stress in each member.
Importance measures were used to reduce the num-
ber of random variables by considering less important
random variables as deterministic values. This selective
simplification was used to reduce the computational time
in the reliability analysis, which allows importance sam-
pling to be applied to estimate the reliability of trusses
with multiple limit states.
The research results demonstrate the benefit of using
MOGA to perform reliability-based structural optimiza-
tion. The ability of MOGA to obtain the Pareto-optimal
set of designs efficiently in a single trial is a significant
feature of the proposed method. The set of designs ob-
tained define a range of equally optimal designs that
highlight the tradeoff occurring in trying to meet the con-
flicting weight and reliability objectives. A design engi-
neer can use this information to make informed decisions
concerning how much weight savings may be gained by
accepting a lower level of reliability, or what increase in
reliability can be expected by accepting a heavier truss.
The designer can also use structural configuration found
along the Pareto curve as guidelines in the truss design
process.
Solving complex, realistic problems, such as the re-
liability based optimal design of transmission towers
subjected to wind loading as performed in this re-
search, illustrate the potential of the proposed hybrid
methodology to allow the consideration of other prac-
tical aspects as part of the design process. This ap-
proach could be used to develop Pareto-optimal curves
for reliability-based optimization of large-scale build-
ing and bridge structures or other complex design
problems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge Soumya S. Pathi (Graduate Student,
Texas A&M University) and Sangwook Paik (Gradu-
ate Student, Texas A&M University) for their assistance
during this research effort.
REFERENCES
Adeli, H. & Cheng, N.-T. (1993), Integrated genetic algorithm
for optimization of space structures, Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, ASCE, 6(4), 315–28.
Adeli, H. & Cheng, N.-T. (1994a), Augmented lagrangian
genetic algorithm for structural optimization, Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(1), 104–18.
Adeli, H. & Cheng, N.-T. (1994b), Concurrent genetic al-
gorithms for optimization of large structures, Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(3), 276–96.
291
Adeli, H. & Hung, S. L. (1995), Machine Learning—Neural
Networks, Genetic Algorithms, and Fuzzy Sets, John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Adeli, H. & Kumar, S. (1995a), Distributed genetic algorithms
for structural optimization, Journal of Aerospace Engineer-
ing, ASCE, 8(3), 156–63.
Adeli, H. & Kumar, S. (1995b), Concurrent structural opti-
mization on a massively parallel supercomputer, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(11), 1588–97.
Adeli, H. & Sarma, K. C. (2006), Cost Optimization of
Structures—Fuzzy Logic, Genetic Algorithms, and Parallel
Computing, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England.
AISC LRFD Manual - 325-01 (2001), LRFD Manual of
Steel Construction, 3rd Edn., American Institute of Steel
Construction.
ASCE Standard 7. (2002), Minimum Design Loads for Build-
ings and Other Structures, SEI/ASCE, Reston, VA 20191.
Cheng, F. Y. & Li, D. (1998), Genetic algorithm develop-
ment for multi-objective optimization of structures, Amer-
ican Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 36(6), 1105–
12.
Deb, K. (2001), Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolu-
tionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex,
England.
Der Kiureghian, A. & Ke, J.-B. (1985), Finite-element based re-
liability analysis of frame structures, in Proceedings of ICOS-
SAR ’85, 4th International Conference on Structural Safety
and Reliability, Kobe, Japan, 1, 395–404.
Dimou, C. K. & Koumousis, V. K. (2003), Competitive genetic
algorithms with application to reliability optimal design, Ad-
vances in Engineering Software, 34, 773–85.
Ditlevsen, O. (1979), Generalized second moment reliability
index, Journal of Structural Mechanics, 7(4), 435–51.
Ditlevsen, O. & Madsen, H. O. (1996), Structural Reliability
Methods, Wiley, New York.
Eschenauer, H., Koski, J. & Osyczka, A., eds. (1990), Multicri-
teria Design Optimization, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Fonseca, C. M. & Fleming, P. J. (1993), Genetic algorithm for
multi-objective optimization: Formulation, discussion and
generalization, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Con-
ference on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kauffman, San Ma-
teo, CA, 416–23.
Goldberg, D. E. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search, Opti-
mization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Hajela, P. & Lin, C. Y. (1992), Genetic search strategies in mul-
tioptimal design, Strucutral Optimization, 4, 99–107.
Haukaas, T. & Der Kiureghian, A. (2004), Finite element
reliability and sensitivity methods for performance-based
earthquake engineering, Report No. PEER 2003/14, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley.
Holland, J. H. (1975), Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Sys-
tems, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Holmes, J . D. (1996), Along-wind response of lattice towers-
III. Effective load distributions, Engineering Structures,
18(7), 489–94.
Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N. & Goldberg, D. E. (1994), A niche
pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization, in
Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary
Computations, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, New Jer-
sey, 82–87.
Jenkins, W. M. (1992), Plane frame optimum design environ-
ment based on genetic algorithm, ASCE Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, 118(11), 3103–12.
292 Mathakari et al.
McKenna, F. & Fenves, G. L. (2005), http://opensees.berkeley.
edu/. The OpenSees User Manual. Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L. & Scott, M. H. (2005), Open sys-
tem for earthquake engineering simulation, http://opensees.
berkeley.edu/, accessed January 15, 2005. Pacific Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, CA.
Murotsu, Y. & Shao, S. (1990), Optimum shape design of truss
structure based on reliability, Structural Optimization, 2(1),
65–76.
Pareto, V. (1906), Manuale d’Economia Politica. Società Ed-
itrice Libraria, Milano.
Rajeev, S. & Krishnamoorthy, C. S. (1992), Discrete
optimization of structures using genetic algorithms,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(5), 1233–
50.
Rao, S. S. (1984), Multi-objective optimization in structural
design with uncertain parameters and stochastic processes,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 22(11),
1670–78.
Schaffer, J. D. (1985), Multi-objective optimization using vec-
tor evaluated genetic algorithms, in Proceedings 1st In-
ternational Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Pittsburgh, PA, 93–100.
Srinivas, N. & Deb, K. (1994), Multi-objective optimization
using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evolu-
tionary Computation, 2(3), 221–48.
Thampan, C. K. P. V. & Krishnamoorthy, C. S. (2001), System
reliability-based configuration optimization of trusses, Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, 127(8), 947–56.
Tolson, B. A., Maier, H. R., Simpson, A. R. & Lence, B. J.
(2004), Genetic algorithms for reliability-based optimiza-
tion of water distribution systems, Journal of Water Re-
sources Planning and Management, 130(1), 63–72.