Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.
DOI 10.1007/s40996-016-0023-2
RESEARCH PAPER
Size and Topology Optimization of Trusses Using Hybrid
Genetic-Particle Swarm Algorithms
Mahmoud R. Maheri1 • M. Askarian1 • S. Shojaee2
Received: 13 April 2014 / Accepted: 5 March 2016
 Shiraz University 2016
Abstract In this article, a hybrid genetic algorithm (GA)
and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm
(HGAPSO) are proposed to simultaneously optimize size
and topology of trusses. The proposed hybrid algorithm
simulates a mimetic-type behavior in which both genetic
evolution and cultural information transfer are considered.
GA performs genotypic inheritance, while PSO focuses on
information transfer between population individuals. In the
proposed method, the population members are divided into
two equal numbered groups considering their fitness val-
ues. Then, the best half is sent to PSO for exploitation and
the worst half is sent to GA to benefit from its exploration
abilities. Several benchmark trusses are optimized using
the proposed hybrid algorithm. The results are compared to
those reported previously using other heuristic optimiza-
tion methods. Comparisons demonstrate the efficiency,
robustness and superior performance of the adopted
HGAPSO. The proposed hybrid algorithm is also per-
formed with a higher rate of convergence compared to
other solutions.
Keywords Optimization  Genetic algorithm  Particle
swarm optimization  Trusses  Hybrid algorithm
& Mahmoud R. Maheri
maheri@shirazu.ac.ir
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz,
Iran
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Bahonar Kerman
University, Kerman, Iran
1 Introduction
Metaheuristic optimization approaches have resulted in
finding better solutions for problems with large number of
design variables and large size of the search space in a
reasonable time in comparison with exhaustive search
algorithms. The main drawback in some of these heuristic
algorithms such as genetic algorithms (GAs) and simulated
annealing (SA) is their slow rate of convergence leading to
high computational cost and in some others such as tabu
search (TS), ant colony optimization (ACO), particle
swarm optimization (PSO) and harmony search (HS), it is
the likely trapping of the solution in a local optima. Recent
works have concentrated on overcoming these drawbacks
by either improving on the individual algorithms or by
hybridizing different algorithms, combining their more
advantageous features. Comprehensive reviews on new
developments in metaheuristic optimization approaches for
engineering problems are given by Saka (2003), Lamberti
and Pappalettere (2011) and Saka and Dogan (2012). Good
comparative accounts of different heuristic algorithms in
solving structural systems including trusses and frames are
also given by HasanÇebi et al. (2009, 2010).
The GAs are the oldest group of heuristic algorithms.
They belong to a branch of evolutionary algorithms
inspired by natural selection based on Darwinian theory.
The first application of simple GA on a structural opti-
mization problem was performed by Goldberg (1989).
Many structural optimization problems have since been
solved using GAs, including optimum design of trusses
(Toğan and Daloğlu 2006; Cheng 2010; Dede et al. 2011)
and frames (Prendes Gero et al. 2006; Safari and Maheri
2006). The strength of GA is in it being a global search
engine, while slow convergence is its main drawback.
Recent studies on GAs have had the tendency to focus on
123

reducing the computation time through modification of the
algorithm (e.g., see Lagaros et al. 2002; Foley and Schinler
2003; Prendes Gero et al. 2005; Toğan and Daloğlu 2008;
Safari and Maheri 2011). These newer versions of GAs are
referred to by different names in the literature including the
modified, enhanced, improved, intelligent and multiple-
deme GAs.
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is another heuristic
operation mimicking the maturing phenomenon in nature.
As a swarm intelligent optimizer, PSO was introduced by
Kennedy and Eberhart (1995). The algorithm imitates the
social behavior of bird flocking and fish schooling. The
group behavior is governed by social forces that depend on
both the memory of each individual as well as the
knowledge gained by the swarm (Kennedy and Eberhart
1995). There are several improved versions of PSO algo-
rithm. A comprehensive review of the existing PSO algo-
rithms for multimodal function optimization is presented
by Liu et al. (2011). The method is also widely applied in
structural design optimization problems. Perez and Behd-
inan (2007) presented the background and implementation
of a PSO algorithm suitable for constrained structural
optimization problems and investigated the effects of dif-
ferent setting parameters. Jansen and Perez (2011) exten-
ded the basic PSO approach for solution of constrained
engineering design optimization problems by directly
enforcing feasibility of constraints using an augmented
Lagrange multiplier method. They obtained improved
solutions compared to the basic PSO solution, as well as
some other heuristic solutions. More specific structural
design optimizations on steel floors, cellular beams and
unbraced steel frames using PSO algorithm are reported,
respectively, by Poitras et al. (2011), Erdal et al. (2011) and
Doğan and Saka (2012). Doğan and Saka obtained
improved designs compared to the older heuristic solutions
such as simple GA and SA, whereas Erdal et al. reported
better performance compared to HS solution. Most inves-
tigators have noted the advantage of PSO is its relatively
faster rate of convergence compared to the more estab-
lished GAs and SA; however, they have also highlighted
the possible trapping of the solution in local optima
(HasanÇebi et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2007).
To overcome the above-mentioned drawback of the PSO
solution, recently researchers have sought hybrid algo-
rithms utilizing the advantages of other heuristic methods.
Notable works in this regard are due to Kaveh and
Talatahari hybridizing PSO algorithm with ACO (2009), as
well as with ACO and HS algorithms (Kaveh and Talata-
hari 2009). The hybrid algorithms in both cases showed
improved performances compared to that of the basic PSO.
Li et al. (2007) also used a hybrid algorithm consisting of
PSO with passive congregation and HS algorithm. The
hybrid algorithm handles the problem-specific constraints
123
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.
using a fly-back mechanism method, and the harmony
search scheme deals with the variable constraints (Li et al.
2007).
Considering the main drawback of the PSO algorithm,
GAs are attractive candidates for hybridization with PSO.
As it was mentioned earlier, the strength of GA is in it
being a global search engine, while having a slow rate of
convergence. Combining the strong elements of the simple
GA and PSO algorithms provides a simple hybrid algo-
rithm free from their shortcomings. The hybrid algorithm is
often called ‘‘HGAPSO.’’ In the HGAPSO, first proposed
by Juang (2004), individuals in a new generation are cre-
ated not only by crossover and mutation operation as in GA
but also by PSO. The concept of elite strategy is adopted in
HGAPSO, where the upper-half of the best-performing
individuals in a population is regarded as elites. However,
instead of being reproduced directly to the next generation,
these elites are first enhanced. The group constituted by the
elites is regarded as a swarm and each elite corresponds to
a particle within it. In this regard, the elites are enhanced
by PSO. These enhanced elites constitute half of the pop-
ulation in the new generation, whereas the other half is
generated by performing crossover and mutation operations
on these enhanced elites (Juang 2004).
In recent years, different variations of HGAPSO are
applied to a variety of optimization problems in diverse
fields such as time–cost resource optimization problem in
construction project planning (Ashuri and Tavakolan
2011), recurrent network design in control, communication
and pattern recognition (Juang 2004), economic dispatch
problems (Guvenc et al. 2011) and shape reconstruction of
conducting cylinders (Mhamdi et al. 2011). An HGAPSO
was presented by Kao and Zahara (2008) for global opti-
mization of a number of multimodal test functions. They
showed the superiority of the HGAPSO approach over a
number of other search techniques in terms of solution
quality and convergence rate. Premalatha and Natarajan
(2009) also used hybrid GA and PSO for global opti-
mization of a number of benchmark functions. Their results
indicated that the hybrid models outperform the standard
PSO. In structural optimization, the only previously
reported work on HGAPSO is due to Kaveh and Malakouti
Rad (Kaveh and Malakouti-Rad 2010). They used Juang’s
HGAPSO approach (Juang 2004) on a number of structural
problems and compared the results with simple GA and
PSO solutions. Their results showed the superiority of the
HGAPSO, especially in larger problems with higher
degrees of static indeterminacy (Kaveh and Malakouti-Rad
2010).
Size, shape and topology optimizations of trusses have
been carried out using a number of individual or hybrid
heuristic optimization methods. Notable examples include
optimizations carried out using GA (Lamberti and
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.
Pappalettere 2011; Saka and Dogan 2012; HasanÇebi et al.
2009), PSO (Gomes 2011; Luh and Lin 2011), HS (Lee
et al. 2011), artificial bee colony (ABC) (Sonmez 2001),
hybrid PSO and ACO (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009), hybrid
PSO, AC and HS (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009) and Big
Bang-Big Crunch (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009) algorithms.
In the process of optimizing the size and topology of a
structure such as a truss, the objective is to minimize the
structural weight while the problem constraints are satis-
fied. For size and topology optimizations with fixed
geometry, optimization must be carried out simultaneously.
For such optimizations, member cross-sectional area and
nodal connectivity are considered as design variables.
Values for design variables are selected from a set of cross
sections which culminates in optimization problem to be
considered as a discrete problem.
In the present article, size and topology optimizations of
trusses are carried out using a hybrid GA and PSO algo-
rithm. There are a number of approaches to optimize
constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). The proposed
algorithm uses penalty function as a constraint handler
technique in which the stress and displacement violations
would be penalized.
In the following, the proposed algorithm is introduced
and several design examples with discrete design variables
are tested by the hybrid algorithm and the results are
compared with those from some previous studies using
other heuristic optimization solutions.
2 Problem Definition
2.1 Discrete Optimum Design Problem of Truss
Structures
Size optimization of truss structures involves arriving at
optimum values of the member cross section di that minimize
the structural weight, W. This minimum design also has to
satisfy the inequality constraints that limit design variable
sizes and structural responses (Lee and Geem 2004).
 
Find X ¼ x1 ; x2 ; . . .; xng ;
xi 2 D i ;
 
Di ¼ di;1 ; di;2 ; . . .; di;rðiÞ
to minimize
X
nm
WðXÞ ¼ ci  L i  x i ð1Þ
i¼1
subject to:
rmin  ri  rmax i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; nm
dmin  di  dmax i ¼ 1; 2; :. . .; m
where X is a vector containing the design variables; Di is an
allowable set of discrete values for the design variable xi;
g is the number of design variables or the number of
member groups; r(i) is the number of available discrete
values for the ith design variables; W(x) is the weight of
structure; nm is the number of members forming the
structure; m is the number of nodes; ci is the material
density of member i; Li is the length of the member i; ri
and di are the stress and nodal deflection, respectively, and
min and max mean the lower and upper bounds, respec-
tively (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009).
2.2 Penalty Function Method-Based Constraint
Handling
There are different methods to handle CSPs. In this
article, in order to investigate and compare the efficiency
of the proposed optimization method, the penalty func-
tion method is applied. Penalty functions are defined
such that they would become zero if no constraint vio-
lation occurs. The output of penalty function is the value
of violations. Some specified coefficients are applied on
the penalty. Weight of structure W(x) is added to the
penalty and the fitness function would be formed as
follows.
fitðiÞ ¼ e1  WðXi Þ þ e2  ðviolðXi ÞÞe3 ð2Þ
where fit(i) is the fitness function and ei’s are coefficients of
the objective function.
3 The Adopted GA and PSO Algorithms
3.1 Genetic Algorithm (GA)
Genetic algorithm is one of the most widely used and best
optimizers, inspired by natural selection. Structural ele-
ments of GA are chromosomes consisting of genes. Genes
contain data about the individual that specifies chromo-
some’s characteristics. GA consists of several operators as
follows:
3.1.1 Parent Selection
In parent selection, the parents are selected from the pool
using fitness considerations, etc. There are different types
of parent selection methods including: FPS (Fitness Pro-
portionate Selection), Roulette Wheel, Tournament,
Exponential Selection, etc. In this article, the Tournament
selection method is used. This method is very efficient and
quite flexible due to its t variable, allowing change in the
tournament size.
123

3.1.2 Crossover Operator
It is the operator through which two or more parents share
their characteristics and form the next generation. If more
than two parents contribute to the crossover, the operator is
called ‘‘recombination.’’ Some common crossover opera-
tors in use include: single-point, multi-point and bitwise or
uniform crossovers. Single- and multi-point crossover
operators suffer from the positional bias problem which
means they cannot bring together genes from opposite
sides of chromosome. Uniform crossover operator, on the
other hand, overcomes this problem by selecting genes
randomly. As a result, the latter crossover operator is used
in this article.
3.1.3 Mutation Operator
Mutation operator randomly chooses one or more genes
and changes the value of that gene. Mutation takes slight
paces but compared to the crossover, its motion is blind.
Mutation operator increases the exploitation abilities of
genetic algorithm. For discrete problems, there is one
common mutation operator, namely the uniform mutation.
3.1.4 Survival Selection
In this stage, the decision is made regarding the remaining
individuals. There are two types of survival selection,
(l ? k) and (l, k), called fitness-based and generational
selections, respectively; l being the population size or the
size of the parents pool and k being the number of off-
spring. In fitness-based operator, best individuals from
parents and offspring are selected; hence, it is also called
Elitism. In generational selection operator, offspring com-
pletely replace the parents. For the present study, initially
both methods were used and the results indicated they
produce almost identical results. Generational selection
was subsequently used due to its relative simplicity.
3.2 Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Similar to GA, this algorithm is also inspired by natural
phenomena. Individuals spread in the search space as
particles. Each particle moves in the search space consid-
ering the local best or global best individual. Particle
position is updated as follows:
Xilþ1 ¼ Xil þ Vilþ1 ð3Þ
where Xli is the particle’s current position and Vilþ1 is the
particle’s velocity.
Each particle i has its own best position shown as pbestil
in which l is the iteration number. Global best in the l’th
123
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.
iteration is gbestl which is the best position found by any of
the particles (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009).
The particle velocity consists of three parts: (1) previous
velocity, (2) movement in the direction of pbestil and (3)
movement in the direction of gbestl. The velocity is
updated as follows:
Vilþ1 ¼ wl Vil þ c1 r1 ðpbestil  Xil Þ þ c2 r2 ðgbestl  Xil Þ ð4Þ
where r1 and r2 are two uniform random sequences gen-
erated from interval [0, 1]; c1 and c2 are the cognitive and
social scaling parameters, respectively, and wl is the inertia
weight used to discount the previous velocity of particle
preserved (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009).
4 Hybrid GA and PSO (HGAPSO)
As it was discussed earlier, in order to overcome the
drawbacks of GA and PSO and to utilize their strong fea-
tures, HGAPSO is used. The advantages of the proposed
hybrid algorithm compared to its parent algorithms
include:
1. The hybrid algorithm has a faster rate of convergence
compared to the parent algorithms methods as a result
of the PSO’s exploitation abilities.
2. It covers more areas of search space stemming from
the exploration abilities of the GA.
3. It is robust, meaning that the algorithm usually
converges in similar pattern and divergence doesn’t
occur, due to the performance of the generational
survival selection.
As described previously, in the size and topology opti-
mization problems the cross-sectional areas of elements
and the node connectivity are found in a discrete search
space. The developed HGAPSO is executed in the fol-
lowing steps:
Step 1: Initialize population with random positions and
velocities.
Step 2: Evaluate the fitness of all individuals.
Step 3: If the convergence criteria are satisfied, then stop
and display the best individual; otherwise go to step 4.
The stopping criteria in this algorithm are:
Fmax  Fmin
e ð5Þ
Fmin
where Fmax and Fmin are the maximum and minimum
values of the objective function, respectively. Also, e is a
small number, something around 0.01.
Step 4: Considering that the exploitation abilities of PSO
are superior to its exploration abilities, the top half of the
population go to PSO while the bad half go to GA so that
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

they can be improved. Therefore, in this step, sort
population is based on the fitness values. Then, send the
top half (the elites with the lowest objective functions) to
step 5 and the rest to step 6.
Step 5: Enhance the elites using the enhancement operator.
Update particle velocity Vilþ1 and particle position Xilþ1
using Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively. Then, go to step 7.
PSO is a real-valued optimization algorithm, so a discrete
version of that, called DPSO, is used in this article.
Step 6: Utilize GA’s operators for the bad half; carry out
tournament selection, crossover, and mutation, then go
to step 7.
Step 7: Form the new population by assembling popu-
lations of step 5 and 6; then return to step 2.
The flow chart of the HGAPSO strategy is shown in
Fig. 1.
5 Numerical Examples
In this section, four benchmark truss optimization problems
are optimized with the developed hybrid method. These
problems include: a 25-member truss, a 52-member truss, a
72-member truss and a 113-member plane truss bridge. To
demonstrate the efficiency of the present hybrid approach,
results for each problem are then compared to the available
solutions given by other optimization methods. Details of
the HGAPSO parameters selected for each problem are
given in Table 1. Considering Holland’s Schema theorem,
the size of initial population (l) depends on the chromo-
some length, which in these examples is the number of
design variables. As a result, the size of initial population
differs for each example. The parameters, Pc, Pm and Niter
given in Table 1, are the GA crossover rate, mutation rate
and the number of iterations, respectively. Also, c1, c2,
Dt and w are, respectively, the PSO trust parameters, the
time step size and the inertia of the particle.
5.1 A 25-bar Truss
The 25-bar truss considered is shown in Fig. 2. The
members of truss are classified into 8 groups to represent 8
variables of cross-sectional areas. The member grouping
and the constraint data are given in Table 2. Table 3 lists
the values and directions of the loads applied to the truss.
The material has a modulus of elasticity of
6.895 9 104 MPa and a mass density of 0.0272 N/cm3

Fig. 1 Flowchart for HGAPSO

Table 1 Parameters of the

Example l Niter Pc Pm c1 = c2 w Dt
HGAPSO method used in
different examples A 25-bar truss 50 200 0.9 0.05 2 0.5 1
A 52-bar truss 100 200 0.9 0.05 2 0.5 1
A 72-bar truss 150 200 0.9 0.05 2 0.5 1
A 113-Member plane truss bridge 250 250 0.9 0.05 2 0.5 1

123
 Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

Table 4 List of the available profiles for the 25-bar truss

Ai2 S = {0.774, 1.255, 2.142, 3.348, 4.065, 4.632, 6.542, 7.742,
9.032, 10.839,
12.671, 14.581, 21.483, 34,839, 44.516, 52.903, 60.258, 65.226}
(cm2)

Table 5 Cross-sectional areas of the topology obtained for the 25-bar

truss
Design Chai et al. Kaveh and Kalatjari HGAPSO
variables (1999) (2003)
(cm2) RDQA GA

A1 – – –
A2 12.671 10.839 2.142
Fig. 2 Configuration of the 25-bar space truss A3 21.483 21.483 21.483
A4 – – –
Table 2 Grouping and the constraint data of the 25-bar truss A5 – – 12.671
A6 3.348 6.542 6.542
Group Members Allowable Allowable
(end nodes) compression tensile A7 12.671 12.671 4.065
stress (N/cm2) stress A8 21.483 14.581 21.483
(N/cm2) Weight (N) 2733.5 2517.24 2160.1
A1 1 (1, 2) 24,204 27,590
A2 2 (1, 4), 3 (2, 3), 4 (1, 5), 7994 27,590
5 (2, 6)
A3 6 (2, 5), 7 (2, 4), 8 (1, 3), 11,936 27,590
9 (1, 6)
A4 10 (3, 6), 11 (4, 5) 24,204 27,590
A5 12 (3, 4), 13 (5, 6) 24,204 27,590
A6 14 (3, 10), 15 (6, 7), 16 (4, 9) 4664 27,590
17 (5, 8)
A7 18 (3, 8), 19 (4, 7), 20 (6, 9), 4662 27,590
21 (5, 10)
A8 22 (3, 7), 23 (4, 8), 24 (5, 9), 7664 27,590
25 (6, 10)

Fig. 3 Topology obtained for the 25-bar space truss

Table 3 Loading data of the 25-bar truss
Node Fx(KN) Fy(KN) Fz(KN) topology for the truss is shown in Fig. 3. Also, the con-
1 4.454 -44.537 -44.537 vergence rate for the average weight in 50 runs and the best
2 0.0 -44.537 -44.537 results are compared in Fig. 4. Figure 4 shows little
3 2.22 0.0 0.0 divergence, proving robustness and reliability of the pro-
6 2.672 0.0 0.0 posed hybrid algorithm.

(Kaveh and Kalatjari 2003). The cross-sectional areas of
elements are presented in Table 4. The optimum solution
of this problem using the HGAPSO is compared with those
reported previously using other solutions, including Kaveh
and Kalatjari (2003) and Chai et al. (1999), in Table 5. As
it can be noted in Table 5, the HGAPSO solution improves
on the next best solution (GA solution Kaveh and Kalatjari
2003) by 14 %. This is an improvement on the optimum
design using the proposed hybrid algorithm. Optimal
5.2 A 52-bar Truss
The second example is a 52-bar planar truss shown in
Fig. 5. The members of this truss are divided into 12
groups: (1) A1–A4, (2) A5–A10, (3) A11–A13, (4) A14–A17, (5)
A18–A23, (6) A24–A26, (7) A27–A30, (8) A31–A36, (9) A37–
A39, (10) A40–A43, (11) A44–A49, and (12) A50–A52. The
material density is 7860.0 kg/m3 and the modulus of
elasticity is 2.07 9 105 MPa. The discrete variables are

123
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

Table 6 Available cross-sectional areas of the AISC code

No. in2 mm2 No. in2 mm2

1 0.111 71.613 33 3.840 2477.414

2 0.141 90.968 34 3.870 2496.769
3 0.196 126.451 35 3.880 2503.221
4 0.250 161.290 36 4.180 2696.769
5 0.307 198.064 37 4.220 2722.575
6 0.391 252.258 38 4.490 2896.768
7 0.442 285.161 39 4.590 2961.284
8 0.563 363.225 40 4.800 3096.768
9 0.602 388.386 41 4.970 3206.445
Fig. 4 Comparison of the convergence rates for the average of 10 0.766 494.193 42 5.120 3303.219
weight in 50 runs and the best result for the 25-bar truss 11 0.785 506.451 43 5.740 3703.218
12 0.994 641.289 44 7.220 4658.055
13 1.000 645.160 45 7.970 5141.925
14 1.228 792.256 46 8.530 5503.215
15 1.266 816.773 47 9.300 5999.988
16 1.457 939.998 48 10.850 6999.986
17 1.563 1008.385 49 11.500 7419.430
18 1.620 1045.159 50 13.500 8709.660
19 1.800 1161.288 51 13.900 8967.724
20 1.990 1283.868 52 14.200 9161.272
21 2.130 1374.191 53 15.500 9999.980
22 2.380 1535.481 54 16.000 10,322.560
23 2.620 1690.319 55 16.900 10,903.204
24 2.630 1696.771 56 18.800 12,129.008
25 2.880 1858.061 57 19.900 12,838.684
26 2.930 1890.319 58 22.000 14,193.520
27 3.090 1993.544 59 22.900 14,774.164
28 1.130 729.031 60 24.500 15,806.420
29 3.380 2180.641 61 26.500 17,096.740
30 3.470 2238.705 62 28.000 18,064.480
31 3.550 2290.318 63 30.000 19,354.800
32 3.630 2341.931 64 33.500 21,612.860

Kaveh and Talatahari (2009). The convergence rate for the

Fig. 5 52-bar planar truss
selected from Table 6. The members are subjected to stress
limitations of ±180 MPa. The loads considered are:
Px = 100 kN and Py = 200 kN; the same as those used in
average weight in 50 runs and the best result using the
proposed hybrid method are compared in Fig. 6. In this
example, due to the symmetric geometry and load condi-
tions, no member is deleted from the base structure.
Therefore, this problem is only a size optimization prob-
lem, solved to illustrate the efficiency and fast convergence
rate of the proposed method.
The optimal design results for this truss using the pro-
posed hybrid solution and three other solutions are com-
pared in Table 7. It can be seen in Table 7 that the
proposed HGAPSO solution has improved the optimal
results reported previously for PSO (Li et al. 2009) by
14.7 %, for GA (Wu and Chow 1995) by 3.4 %, and for a
discrete hybrid particle swarm ant colony optimization

123
 Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 6 Comparison of the convergence for the average of weight in Fig. 7 Comparison of the convergence rates for the best result of
50 runs and the best result for the 52-bar truss HGAPSO and those of some other PSO-based algorithms for the
52-bar truss

solution (DHPSACO) (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009) by

0.1 %, in less than 100 iterations. The convergence trend of
the proposed HGAPSO solution is compared with those of
a number of other PSO-based solutions, including an
ordinary PSO solution, a particle swarm optimizer with
passive congregation (PSOPC) solution and a heuristic
particle swarm optimization (HPSO) solution (Li et al.
2009), in Fig. 7. This figure shows that the rate of con-
vergence of the proposed HGAPSO is markedly higher
than the other solutions. It can be observed that PSO and
the PSOPC cannot achieve a good result, while the HPSO
and HGAPSO algorithms achieve good optimal results.
However, HPSO needs more than 2000 iterations to reach a
good solution, while HGAPSO finds the optimum result in
about 200 iterations.
5.3 A 72-bar Truss
For the 72-bar spatial truss structure shown in Fig. 8, the
material density is considered as 0.1 lb/in3 (2767.99 kg/m3)
and the modulus of elasticity as 10,000 ksi (68,950 MPa).
The constraint data and the cross-sectional areas of elements
are presented in Table 8 and the values and direction of
loads applied to the 72-bar spatial truss are given in Table 9.
The 72 structural members of this spatial truss are sorted
into 16 groups using symmetry: (1) A1–A4, (2) A5–A12, (3)
A13–A16, (4) A17–A18, (5) A19–A22, (6) A23–A30, (7) A31–A34,
(8) A35–A36, (9) A37–A40, (10) A41–A48, (11) A49–A52, (12)
A53–A54, (13) A55–A58, (14) A59–A66 (15), A67–A70, and (16)
A71–A72 (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009).

Table 7 Optimal design

Element group Optimal cross-sectional area (mm2)
comparison for the 52-bar
spatial truss Wu and Chow (1995)] Li et al. (2009) Kaveh and Talatahari (2009) HGAPSO
GA PSO DHPSACO

1 A1 * A4 4658.055 4658.055 4658.055 4658.055

2 A5 * A10 1161.288 1374.190 1161.288 1161.288
3 A11 * A13 645.160 1858.060 494.193 494.193
4 A14 * A17 3303.219 3206.440 3303.219 3303.219
5 A18 * A23 1045.159 1283.870 1008.385 939.998
6 A24 * A26 494.193 252.260 285.161 494.193
7 A27 * A30 2477.414 3303.220 2290.318 2238.705
8 A31 * A36 1045.159 1045.160 1008.385 1008.385
9 A37 * A39 285.161 126.450 388.386 494.193
10 A40 * A43 1696.771 2341.930 1283.868 1283.868
11 A44 * A49 1045.159 1008.380 1161.288 1161.288
12 A50 * A52 641.289 1045.160 506.451 494.193
Weight (kg) 1970.142 2230.16 1904.83 1902.6

123
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 8 72-bar spatial truss

Table 8 Constraint data of the 72-bar truss using the proposed HGAPSO and results are compared to
those of the previous methods. The results of optimal size
Constraint data (rt)i B 25 ksi, i = 1,2, …, 72
design are shown in Table 10. The best weight obtained
Stress constraints
using HGAPSO is 370.93 lb, while for the next best
|(rc)i| B 25 ksi, i = 1,2 ,…, 72
solution (DHPSACO) (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009) it is
Displacement constraint |D| B 0.25 in; in all
directions of the coordinate system 385.54 lb, an improvement of around 3.8 %. The
List of the Ai 2 S = {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, HGAPSO results also show improvements of 66 and
available profiles 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 7.4 % on the PSO (Li et al. 2009) and GA (Wu and Chow
1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 1995) solutions, respectively. Comparing the rate of
2.9, 3.0, 3.1,3.2} (in2) convergence, it may be noted that the DHPSACO algo-
rithm reached the optimal solution after 213 iterations
(Kaveh and Talatahari 2009), while it took the HGAPSO
Table 9 Load condition for the 72-bar spatial truss solution less than 50 iterations to converge. In the second
phase, simultaneous size and topology optimization of the
Node Px Kips (kN) Py Kips (kN) Pz Kips (kN)
truss was carried out using HGAPSO. A further 4.4 %
17 5.0 (22.25) 5.0 (22.25) -5.0 (22.25) reduction in weight, due to improved structural arrange-
ment, was thus achieved compared to the size optimiza-
tion alone (Table 10).
For this truss, no simultaneous size and topology The convergence rate for the average weight in 50 runs
optimization had previously been carried out and only and the best simultaneous size and topology optimization
size optimization results are available. As a result, in the result using the proposed hybrid method are compared in
present study the size optimization was first carried out Fig. 9. The stress ratio and nodal displacements of the best

123
 Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

Table 10 Optimal design comparison for the 72-bar spatial truss

Element group Optimal cross-sectional area (in2)
Wu and Chow (1995) Li et al. (2009) DHPSACO (Kaveh and HGAPSO Size and
GA PSO Talatahari 2009) topology

1 A1–A4 1.5 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.9

2 A5–A12 0.7 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
3 A13–A16 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 –
4 A17–A18 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 –
5 A19–A22 1.3 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.1
6 A23–A30 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
7 A31–A34 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 –
8 A35–A36 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 –
9 A37–A40 0.5 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.6
10 A41–A48 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.5 0.5
11 A49–A52 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 –
12 A53–A54 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.3
13 A55–A58 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1
14 A59–A66 0.5 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.5
15 A67–A70 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5
16 A71–A72 0.7 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
Weight (lb) 400.66 1089.88 385.54 370.93 354.61

Fig. 9 Comparison of the convergence rates for the average of Fig. 10 Member stress ratios for the 72-bar spatial truss
weight in 50 runs and the best result for the 72-bar truss

result are also shown in Figs. 10 and 11, indicating no
constraint violations.
5.4 A 113-Member Plane Truss Bridge
Figure 12 shows the geometry of the 113-member, three-
span bridge considered. The bridge was to be optimized for
minimum weight, with the cross-sectional areas of the
members being the design variables. The 113 truss mem-
bers were grouped into 43 independent design variables
considering the symmetry of the bridge about its centerline
and the design requirement that the upper and the lower
chord members change in every two panels. The grouping
of members is shown in Fig. 12. A single design loading is
considered consisting of traffic loads plus dead loads of the
floor system, resulting in an equivalent point load of 80
kips (355.86 kN) at each panel point on the upper chord. A
discrete set of 137 economical standard steel sections
selected from W-shape profile list based on area and radii
of gyration properties is used to size the variables. The
lower and upper bounds on size variables are taken as 6.16
in2 (39.74 cm2) and 215.0 in2 (1387.09 cm2), respectively
(HasanÇebi et al. 2009). The stress and stability limitations

123
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.
Fig. 11 Nodal displacements
for the 72-bar spatial truss
Fig. 12 113-member plane truss bridge
of the members are calculated according to the provisions
of ASD-AISC (1989). In addition, the displacements of all
nodes in any direction are restricted to a maximum value of
2.88 in. (7.31 cm), which is equal to 1/1000 of the middle
span of the bridge.
Similar to the 72-member truss, for this truss, also no
simultaneous size and topology optimization had previ-
ously been carried out and only size optimization results
were available. As a result, in the present study size opti-
mization of the bridge truss was first carried out using the
proposed HGAPSO. The results are compared with those of
the evolutionary strategy algorithm (ES) (HasanÇebi et al.
2009) in Table 11. The ESs algorithm was shown to
achieve the best results among some evolutionary algo-
rithms discussed in (HasanÇebi et al. 2009). Table 11
shows that on the size optimization alone, the HGAPSO
method has produced a better solution, reducing the weight
of the truss bridge by 4 %.
Following the size optimization of the truss, a simulta-
neous size and topology optimization was, for the first
time, carried out on this truss bridge using the proposed
HGAPSO method. The best structural arrangement gained
is quite different from the classic original form. With
respect to bridge design principles and codes, this algo-
rithm appears to have produced one of the best structural
arrangement solutions by dividing the central span of the
bridge into two cantilever sections and a simple truss
section (Fig. 13). This, in effect, changes the determinate
structure into an indeterminate structure, enabling a more
efficient transfer of load to the supports.
The size- and topology-optimized solution by HGAPSO,
given in Table 12, also shows a significant 7.4 % reduction
in the weight of this structure compared to the size-opti-
mized solution. Figure 14, in which the optimization trend
for this problem is shown, indicates that the optimum
solution is achieved after around 150 iterations. The
123
 Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

Table 11 Optimal design comparison for the 113-member plane truss bridge
size variable Area, (in2) Area, (in2) Size variable Area, (in2) Area, (in2)
ESs (HasanÇebi et al. 2009) HGAPSO ESs (HasanÇebi et al. 2009) HGAPSO

1 11.5 16.2 23 6.16 10.3

2 21.1 11.2 24 20.0 32.9
3 6.16 6.16 25 13.3 17.6
4 6.16 6.16 26 23.2 21.1
5 11.5 6.16 27 6.16 17.1
6 6.16 12.6 28 10.3 31.2
7 6.16 6.16 29 15.6 28.5
8 19.1 10.3 30 14.4 10.3
9 13.3 6.16 31 14.4 10.3
10 10.3 10.3 32 11.8 14.1
11 9.13 6.16 33 26.5 26.5
12 29.1 20 34 25.9 27.3
13 14.4 7.61 35 15.6 13.3
14 14.4 16.7 36 25.9 17.6
15 14.4 6.16 37 6.16 6.16
16 46.7 33.6 38 7.34 7.08
17 19.1 10.3 39 11.7 12.6
18 51.8 39.9 40 26.5 36.5
19 14.4 14.1 41 25.6 21.5
20 23.2 32 42 6.16 6.16
21 14.4 7.61 43 29.4 24
22 35.3 28.5
Weight (lb) 182,208.8 174,882.76

Fig. 13 Topology obtained for the 113-member plane truss bridge

element stress ratios and the nodal displacements in the X-
and Y-directions, shown in Figs. 15, 16 and 17, respec-
tively, demonstrate that no constraints were violated.
6 Conclusions
In this article, the PSO algorithm was hybridized with GA
in order to simulate a memetic-like behavior, adding
another natural phenomenon to the GA in order to benefit
from its environment as well as its genotypic characteris-
tics. In the proposed hybrid method (HGAPSO), the pop-
ulation members are divided into two equal numbered
groups considering their fitness values. Then, the best half
is sent to PSO for exploitation and the worst half is sent to
GA to benefit from its exploration abilities.
The results obtained from performing size and
topology HGAPSO on four benchmark problems showed
marked reductions in structural weight compared to
previous GA and PSO solutions of the same problems.

123
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.

Table 12 Optimum design

Size variable Ready section Area, (in2) Size variable Ready section Area, (in2)
obtained with HGAPSO for
HGAPSO HGAPSO
113-member plane truss bridge
1 W8 9 21 6.16 23 – –
2 W18 9 40 11.8 24 W27 9 102 30
3 W8 9 21 6.16 25 W12 9 35 10.3
4 W8 9 21 6.16 26 W18 9 97 28.5
5 W8 9 21 6.16 27 W12 9 35 10.3
6 W12 9 35 10.3 28 W8 9 31 9.13
7 W12 9 35 10.3 29 W12 9 87 25.6
8 W12 9 35 10.3 30 W12 9 35 10.3
9 W8 9 21 6.16 31 W12 9 35 10.3
10 W12 9 35 10.3 32 W12 9 35 10.3
11 W8 9 21 6.16 33 W18 9 143 42
12 W18 9 65 19.1 34 W21 9 93 27.3
13 W12 9 35 10.3 35 W18 9 40 11.8
14 W12 9 53 15.6 36 W21 9 93 27.3
15 W8 9 21 6.16 37 W8 9 21 6.16
16 W21 9 93 27.3 38 W12 9 35 10.3
17 W12 9 35 10.3 39 W8 9 31 9.13
18 W18 9 143 42 40 W10 9 112 32.9
19 W12 9 35 10.3 41 W12 9 87 25.6
20 W8 9 67 19.7 42 – –
21 W10 9 49 7.61 43 W12 9 79 23.2
22 W27 9 84 24.7
Weight (lb) 161,995.98

Fig. 14 Comparison of the convergence rates for the average of
weight in 50 runs and the best result for the 113-member planar truss
bridge
The adopted HGAPSO results also compared favorably
with those of the other hybrid solutions such as the
DHPSACO (Kaveh and Talatahari 2009). Weight
Fig. 15 Member stress ratios for the 113-member planar truss bridge
reductions of at least 14, 3.0, 3.8 and 4 % were obtained
for the benchmark problems one to four, respectively.
The proposed hybrid algorithm also performs with a
higher rate of convergence compared to other solutions.

123

Fig. 16 Nodal displacements for the 113-member planar truss bridge
in X-direction
Fig. 17 Nodal displacements for the 113-member planar truss bridge
in Y-direction
The HGAPSO was shown to also produce viable and
robust structural topology arrangements.
References
American Institute of Steel Construction (1989) Manual of steel
construction. Allowable stress design. 9th ed. AISC, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago
Ashuri B, Tavakolan M (2011) A fuzzy enabled hybrid genetic
algorithm-particle swarm optimization approach to solve time–
cost–resource optimization (TCRO) problems in construction
project planning. J Constr Eng Manag ASCE. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000513
Chai S, Shi LS, Sun HC (1999) An application of relative difference
quotient algorithm to topology optimization of truss structures
with discrete variables. Struct Optim 18:48–55
Cheng J (2010) Optimum design of steel truss arch bridges using a
hybrid genetic algorithm. J Constr Steel Res 66:1011–1017
Dede T, Bekiroglu S, Ayvaz Y (2011) Weight minimization of trusses
with genetic algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 11:2565–2575
Doğan E, Saka MP (2012) Optimum design of unbraced steel frames
to LRFD-AISC using particle swarm optimization. Adv Eng
Softw 46:27–34
Erdal F, Doğan E, Saka MP (2011) Optimum design of cellular beams
using harmony search and particle swarm optimizers. J Constr
Steel Res 67:237–247
123
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.
Foley CM, Schinler D (2003) Automated design of steel frames using
advanced analysis and object-oriented evolutionary computation.
J Struct Eng ASCE 129(5):648–660
Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization &
machine learning. Addison Wesley, Reading
Gomes HM (2011) Truss optimization with dynamic constraints using
a particle swarm algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 38:957–968
Guvenc U, Duman S, Saracoglu B, Ozturk A (2011) A hybrid GA-
PSO approach based on similarity for various types of economic
dispatch problems. Electron Electr Eng 2(108):109–114
HasanÇebi O, Çarbaş S, Doğan E, Erdal F, Saka MP (2009)
Performance evaluation of metaheuristic search techniques in the
optimum design of real size pin jointed structures. Comput Struct
87:284–302
HasanÇebi O, Çarbaş S, Doğan E, Erdal F, Saka MP (2010) Comparison
of non-deterministic search techniques in the optimum design of
real size steel frames. Comput Struct 88:1033–1048
Jansen PW, Perez RE (2011) Constrained structural design optimiza-
tion via a parallel augmented Lagrangian particle swarm
optimization approach. Comput Struct 89:1352–1366
Juang CF (2004) A hybrid of genetic algorithm and particle swarm
optimization for recurrent network design. IEEE Trans Syst Man
Cybern-Part B Cybern 34(2):997–1006
Kao Y, Zahara E (2008) A hybrid genetic algorithm and particle
swarm optimization for multimodal functions. Appl Soft Comput
8:849–857
Kaveh A, Kalatjari V (2003) Topology optimization of trusses using
genetic algorithm, force method and graph theory. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 58:771–791
Kaveh A, Malakouti-Rad S (2010) Hybrid genetic algorithm and
particle swarm optimization for the force method-based simul-
taneous analysis and design. Iran J Sci Tech Trans B: Eng
34(1):15–34
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009a) A particle swarm ant colony
optimization for truss structures with discrete variables. J Constr
Steel Res 65:1558–1568
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009b) Particle swarm optimizer, ant colony
strategy and harmony search scheme hybridized for optimization
of truss structures. Comput Struct 87:267–283
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009c) Size optimization of space trusses
using big bang-big crunch algorithm. Comput Struct
87:1129–1140
Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In:
Proceeding of IEEE international conference on neural networks,
Piscataway, pp 1942–1948
Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M, Kokossalakis G (2002) Structural
optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Comput Struct
80:571–589
Lamberti L, Pappalettere C (2011) Metaheuristic design optimization
of skeletal structures: a review. Comput Technol Rev 4:1–32
Lee KS, Geem ZW (2004) A new structural optimization method
based on the harmony search algorithm. Comput Struct
82:781–798
Lee KS, Han SW, Geem ZW (2011) Discrete size and discrete-
continuous configuration optimization methods for truss struc-
tures using the harmony search algorithm. Int J Optim Civ Eng
1:107–126
Li LJ, Huang ZB, Liu F, Wu QH (2007) A heuristic particle swarm
optimizer for optimization of pin connected structures. Comput
Struct 85:340–349
Li LJ, Huang ZB, Liu F (2009) A heuristic particle swarm
optimization method for truss structures with discrete variables.
Comput Struct 87(7–8):435–443
Liu Y, Ling X, Shi Z, Lv M, Fang J, Zang L (2011) A survey on
particle swarm optimization algorithm for multimodal function
optimization. J Softw 6(12):2449–2455
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Civ. Eng.
Luh GC, Lin CY (2011) Optimal design of truss-structures using
particle swarm optimization. Comput Struct 89:2221–2232
Mhamdi B, Grayaa K, Aguili T (2011) Hybrid of genetic algorithm
with particle swarm optimization to shape reconstruction of
perfect conducting cylinders. Int J Electron Commun
65:1032–1039
Perez RE, Behdinan K (2007) Particle swarm approach for structural
design optimization. Comput Struct 85:1579–1588
Poitras G, Lefrancois G, Cormier G (2011) Optimization of steel floor
systems using particle swarm optimization. J Constr Steel Res
67:1225–1231
Premalatha K, Natarajan AM (2009) Hybrid PSO and GA for global
maximization. Int J Open Prob Compt Math 2(4):597–608
Prendes Gero MB, Bello Garcı́a A, del Coz Dı́az JJ (2005) A modified
elitist genetic algorithm applied to the design optimization of
complex steel structures. J Constr Steel Res 61:265–280
Prendes Gero MB, Bello Garcı́a A, del Coz Dı́az JJ (2006) Design
optimization of 3D steel structures: genetic algorithms vs.
classical techniques. J. Constr Steel Res. 62:1303–1309
Safari D, Maheri MR (2006) Genetic algorithm search for optimal
brace positions in steel frames. J Adv Conc Des 2(4):400–415
Safari D, Maheri MR, Maheri A (2011) Optimum design of steel
frames using a multiple-deme PGA with improved reproduction
operators. J Constr Steel Res 67(8):1232–1243
Saka MP (2003) Optimum design of skeletal structures: a review. In:
Topping BHV (ed) Progress in civil and structural engineering
computing, vol Chapter 10. Saxe-Coburg Publications, Stirling-
shire, pp 237–284
Saka MP, Dogan E (2012) recent developments in metaheuristic
algorithms: a review. Comput Technol Rev 5:31–78
Sonmez M (2001) Artificial bee colony algorithm for optimization of
truss structures. Appl Soft Comput 11:2406–2418
Toğan V, Daloğlu AT (2006) Optimization of 3d trusses with adaptive
approach in genetic algorithms. Eng Struct 28:1019–1027
Toğan V, Daloğlu AT (2008) An improved genetic algorithm with
initial population strategy and self-adaptive member grouping.
Comput Struct 86:1204–1218
Wu SJ, Chow PT (1995) Steady-state genetic algorithms for discrete
optimization of trusses. Comput Struct 56(6):979–991
Zhang JR, Zhang J, Lok TM, Lyu MR (2007) A hybrid particle swarm
optimization-back-propagation algorithm for feed forward neural
network training. Appl Math Comput 185:1026–1037
123