International Journal of Steel Structures 17(3): 1183-1198 (2017)

DOI 10.1007/s13296-017-9025-6
ISSN 1598-2351 (Print)
ISSN 2093-6311 (Online)

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm

Son Thai1, Nam-Il Kim2, Jaehong Lee3, and Joo-Won Kang4,*
1
School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia
2
Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, 209, Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05006,
S. Korea
3
Ph.D., Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, 209, Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05006, S. Korea
4
Ph.D., Professor, School of Architecture, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-Ro, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk 38541, S. Korea

Abstract

This paper presents a generalized procedure to optimize cable nets by using the Genetic Algorithm (GA). The finite element
program employing 2-, 3- and 4-node isoparametric curved cable elements is utilized to deal with the nonlinear behavior of
cable nets under static loads. The allowable stress and the maximum displacement are considered as optimization constraints
while the minimum volume is selected as an objective function. To validate the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed
procedure, four optimization examples originated from nonlinear analysis problems of cable nets are introduced.

Keywords: cable nets, nonlinear analysis, finite element method, optimization, genetic algorithm

1. Introduction structure can be considered easily. In this method, the

The cable structures have been widely used in civil,
architectural and marine engineering applications due to
their singularity characteristics having light weight, high
strength and high degree of flexibility. The typical structures
in which the cable is utilized are the cable-stayed bridge,
the suspension bridge and the large space structures like
suspension shells and light roof structures. However, the
study of structural behavior for cable structures is still
limited because of their highly geometric nonlinear
properties. To handle this problem, a lot of researches
have been carried out. In general, there are two classified
approaches to model the cable members. The first model
has been developed by expressions of elastic catenary
cables (Thai and Kim, 2011; Jayaraman and Knudson,
1981; Salehi Ahmad Abad et al., 2013). The realistic
behavior of cable is obtained and the curved elements
without internal joint are used to get the analytical
expressions. This approach is suitable for both low- and
large-sag cables. The second model has been based on the
finite element approach with the approximate interpolation
polynomials, therefore the nonlinear effect of cable
Received September 25, 2016; accepted February 14, 2017;
published online September 30, 2017
© KSSC and Springer 2017
*Corresponding author
Tel: 82-53-810-2429
E-mail: kangj@ynu.ac.kr
two-node element (Ozdemir, 1979) and the curved
element (Tibert, 1999; Chen et al., 2010) having the
rotational degree of freedom are presented. Truss element
is the most probably used one in case of low sag and
highly stretch cables (Ozdemir, 1979; Gambhir and
Batchelor, 1979), while the multi-node curved elements
can be used to model a cable with a complex expressed
formulation (Ali and Abdel-Ghaffar, 1995; Coyette and
Guisset, 1988; Kim et al., 2016). In recent studies, Thai
et al. (2017a, 2017b) proposed a novel cable element
based on B-spline curved to investigate the static and
free-vibration response of cable structures.
For an optimal design of cables, there have been some
representative researches. By employing the calculus of
variation with equality and inequality constraints, Huang
(1975) obtained the optimum distribution of cross-
sectional areas for the minimum weight design of elastic
cable under uniformly distributed loads. Thevendran and
Wang (1985) developed a generalized systematic method
for determining the least-weight isolated cables. They
also used the calculus of variation method to find optimal
solutions for cable models having any vertical load and
supports at different levels. Swaddiwudhipong et al.
(1989) used a procedure based on the method proposed
by Nelder and Mead (1965) to derive the optimal design
values of pretension force, which make the cable become
stiffer. Selleri and Spadaccini (1977) investigated the
optimal design of two-surface hanging cable structures
and cable-stayed structures by setting up a mathematical
1184 Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017
programming, where a few loading conditions as well as
initial prestress values were the design parameters. Wang
(1986) studied the effects of self-weight, concentrated
loads and the distribution of loads on the optimal shape of
isolated cable. Another prominent optimization research
for cable structures was carried out by Braga and D’Asdia
(1981). In their work, a method for the optimization of
plane cable with distributed loads was proposed.
From the previous optimization researches of cables, it
can be seen that the analytical method is the dominant
approach to handle the highly nonlinear effect of cables.
This approach could only be put into practice efficiently
for the quite simple model of cable structures like isolated
cables or plane cable systems. For a more complicated
and practical system such as cable net which composes a
number of isolated cable elements, it is unreasonable to
apply the previous analytical methods to the optimization
problem since it would be expected to require a lot of
computational effort to handle a complex problem. To
overcome difficulties from the analytical approaches for a
complicated optimization problem, it is necessary to use
the finite element method as an efficient approach.
There have been a number of robust algorithms to solve
optimization problems. Among them, the Genetic Algorithm
(GA) is one of the most famous techniques widely
employed. The essence of GA is generally based on the
natural evolution (Yang, 2014). Up to now, a huge number
of researches in different fields have proven that GA is an
effective technique to handle searching as well as optimization
problems, especially when the number of possibilities is
enormous. For example, Lute (2011) obtained the relative
cost of the cable-stayed bridge including a great number
Figure 1. Initial and two consecutive configurations of cable element.
of design variables and practical constraints. Recently,
Yamamoto et al. (2011), Koohestani (2012) and Lee et al.
(2014) successfully utilized GA when dealing with
tensegrity structures.
The goal of this paper is to present a generalized
procedure to seek the optimal volume of cable nets based
on GA by using the geometrically nonlinear finite element
method. In the first content of this paper, the formulation
of a spatially distributed cable member under the pretension
and the external forces is developed by using the 2-, 3-
and 4-node isoparametric curved cable elements. In
addition, the linear and nonlinear tangent stiffness
matrices and the force vector are evaluated based on the
total Lagrangian formulation. The application of GA and
optimal formulations are discussed in the next part. In
numerical examples, the four types of cable nets are
introduced and the accuracy of isoparametric curved
cable elements is demonstrated by comparing the obtained
results with the previous published ones. For the optimization
problem, allowable stress and limited displacement are
considered simultaneously as the design constraints. The
optimal results are also investigated to evaluate the
effects of constraint values as well as the numbers of
design variables on optimal results. Some remarkable
conclusions are presented in the final part of paper.
2. Cable Formulation
2.1. Incremental equation of elastic continuum
The configuration of a curved cable is presented from
the theory of elastic continuum since the cable undergoes
large deformation under self-weight or external load. The
 Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm 1185

total Lagrangian formulation is employed to express the n n n

incremental equation for a cable element. As shown in x1 = ∑ x1i Ni (ξ ) ; x2 = ∑ x2i Ni (ξ ) ; x3 = ∑ x3i Ni (ξ )
Fig. 1, three configurations of body can be conceived in i =1 i =1 i =1

terms of a stationary Cartesian coordinate system: initial (6)

undeformed configuration C0, the last known deformed
where Ni is the isoparametric interpolation functions
configuration C1, and the current deformed configuration
which are expressed in terms of natural coordinate ξ; n
C2. It is assumed that the deformation of body from C1 to
denotes the number of nodes per an element. According
C2 due to an increment in the load is small, and the
to the conception of isoparametric element, the displacement
accumulated deformation of body from C0 to C1 can be
field is also represented as
arbitrary large but continuous. Considering a line element
with length 0ds in its original C0 which has taken the n n n
length 1ds in the C1 configuration and 2ds in the C2 u1 = ∑ u1i Ni (ξ ) ; u2 = ∑ u2i Ni (ξ ) ; u3 = ∑ u3i Ni (ξ )
configuration, the Green strain increment tensor 0ε is i =1 i =1 i =1

defined as follows: (7)

in which, the nodal displacement vector U is
( ds ) ( ds ) = ( ds ) − ( ds )
2 2 2 2
20 ε 0
= 2 ( 0 e +0 η ) 0 2 1 (1)

{ }
T
U = u11 , u12 , u31 ,L, u1n , u2n , u3n (8)
where 0e and 0η are the linear and nonlinear components,
respectively, of the incremental Green strain increment,
The linear and nonlinear strains in Eq. (4) can be
and the infinitesimal lengths 1ds and 2ds are expressed as
expressed in matrix manner as follows
follows:

0e = BL .U (9a)
( ) ( )( )
1 2
ds = d 0 xi + d 01ui d 0 xi + d 01ui (2a)
0η = B NL .U (9b)
( ds ) = ( d x + d u )( d )
2 2 0 2 0
i 0 i xi + d02ui (2b)
where B L = B0 + Bu and B NL are the linear and
2 1 nonlinear strain-displacement matrices, respectively. The
where ui = − 0 ui 0 ui
denotes the incremental displacement.
small strain-displacement relationship matrix B0 can be
The incremental equation for an elastic continuum can be
written as
expressed by the principle of virtual work as
B0 = ⎡⎣B10 B02 ... B0n ⎤⎦
∫ V 0 Sδ ( 0 ε ) d
0
0
V + ∫0 1
V 0
Sδ ( 0η ) d 0V =δ ( R) − δ ( R)
2
0
1
0
(10)

(3) where
0
where d V is the differential volume; 0S is the component
⎡ dx dN dx2 dN i dx3 dN i ⎤
of the Second Piola-Kirchhoff stress increment tensor and Bi0 = ⎢ 0 1 0 i 0 0 0 ⎥ (11)
⎣ ds ds ds ds ds 0ds ⎦
d 0 xi dui dui d 01ui 1 dui dui
0e = + 0η = (4) in which
0 0 0 0
ds ds ds ds 2 0 ds 0 ds
dNi d ξ dNi 1 dNi
= =
In the right-hand side of the Eq. (3), δ ( )
2
0R is the 0
ds 0
ds d ξ J dξ
(12a)

external virtual work and δ ( R)1

0 is the virtual internal dxi d ξ dxi 1 n dN k k
0
= 0
= ∑ xi (12b)
energy of body at configuration C1, which is defined as ds ds dξ J k =1 d ξ

δ ( R ) = ∫0 Sδ ( e ) d V
1

V
1

0 0
0

(5) with J being the Jacobian determinant, which is expressed

as
0 3 ⎛ n
dNα α ⎞
2.2. Finite element model J=
ds
dξ
= ∑⎜ ∑
i =1 ⎝ α =1 d ξ
xi ⎟ ( ) (13)
In this subsection, 2-, 3-, and 4-node isoparametric ⎠
curved cable elements that have an arbitrary orientation in
space is developed. The geometry of cable elements is In a similar manner, Bu matrix is defined as follows:
interpolated with respect to coordinate of nodal points in
global Cartesian coordinate as Bu = ⎡⎣ B1u Bu2 ... Bun ⎤⎦ (14)
1186 Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017

where
1
1 T
⎡ du dN du dN du dN ⎤
K NL = ∫ 0 SAB NL B NL Jdξ (17)
B iu = ⎢0 1 0 i 0 2 0 i 0 3 0 i ⎥ (15) −1
⎣ ds ds ds ds ds ds ⎦
1
1 1 T
The nonlinear strain-displacement matrix is defined as 0F = ∫ 0 SAB L Jdξ (18)
−1
⎡ dN1 dN n ⎤
⎢ dξ 0 0 0 0 ⎥ where E and A are the Young’s modulus and the cross-
⎢ dξ ⎥ sectional area of cable element, respectively. In this study,
1⎢ dN1 dN n ⎥ the well-known Newton-Raphson method is employed to
B NL = ⎢ 0 0 L 0 0 ⎥
J⎢ dξ dξ ⎥
deal with the geometric nonlinear equations.
⎢ dN1 dN n ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥ 3. Design Optimization
⎣ dξ dξ ⎦
(16) Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a famous computational
searching technique inspired by the Darwin’s theory of
Substituting above expressions into Eq. (3), the
evolution for the process of natural selection. Until now,
equilibrium equation of cable is obtained as follows
there have been a plenty of research by GA as a stochastic
algorithm to seek good or optimal solutions in various
( K L + K NL ) U = 20 R − 01F (16)
fields of science and engineering (Yang, 2014). A great
number of papers and text books presented detail descriptions
in which K L and K NL denote the linear and nonlinear
about this technique. Therefore, this section discusses
incremental stiffness matrices, respectively; 01F is the
briefly features of GA and focuses on the implementation
vector of nodal point force at the configuration C1; 20 R
of method to optimization problems of cable nets.
is the vector of externally applied nodal point loads at
configuration C2. The Gauss integration scheme is
3.1. Genetic algorithm (GA)
employed to perform the numerical evaluation of these
The general procedure of GA can be succinctly summarized
terms as
as revolutions of a population through generations to find
1 the most fitted individual with respect to the given conditions.
T
KL = ∫ EAB L B L Jdξ (16) An individual or so-called chromosome is the representation
−1 of a possible solution expressed by an encoded binary

Figure 2. Genetic Algorithm operators.

 Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm 1187

string. A chromosome consists of a group of sets for

genes and each group defines the value of corresponding
variable. The total number of genes determine the length
of chromosome. Analogous to the evolution theory, the
reproduction of generations is carried out by the basic
nature-based operators such as selection, crossover and
mutation, which are illustrated in Fig. 2. At the beginning
of procedure, the first population is initialized by randomly
distributing variables for each chromosome. In next
generation, new populations are created by employing
three bio-inspired operators. The procedure is repeated
until maximum number of generation is reached or the
converged result is attained.
As depicted in Fig. 2, the reproduction process begins
with the selection operator, which chooses the most fitted
chromosomes to pair with each other for giving birth to
two new chromosomes in the next generation. The
selection operator is carried out based on a fitness function
which measures the ability of each to satisfy requirements
and conditions of environment. The fitness function, Figure 3. General flow chart of optimization procedure.
which will be discussed in details in next section, concerns
about stresses and displacements of components of 3.2. Optimal formulations
structures. After the selection operator is implemented, The dominant objective of this study is to minimize the
crossover and mutation involve in the reproduction volume of all cable segments with respect to certain
process. The crossover operator is the essential part of values of applied loads as well as the constraint values of
GA and its task is to interchange information between stresses and displacements. The objective function is
parents. Therefore, children will have the features of mathematically defined as follows
both. It should be noted that uniform crossover with
ne
mixing ratio of 0.5 is used in this study. In the next stage
Minimize : V ( X ) = ∑ Ai li (19)
of process, the mutation operator randomly changes the 1
value of an arbitrary chosen binary, thus increase the
diversity of new populations. Restoring the lost information where V is the total volume of cable net and li are the
over generations, extending the exploratory and limiting length of the ith element. Eq. (19) is subjected to the stress
the risk of local convergence of algorithm are the purposes and displacement constraints as follows
of mutation process. One thing needed to scrutinize is that
σ
the mutation probability should remain relatively small
enough to take advantages of operator and guarantee to
( g1 ( X ) )i = σ i − 1 ≤ 0; allowable stress condition
a
preserve the consistent rate of convergence. Therefore,
(20a)
the proposed mutation probability for all problems is
δj
chosen as 0.1. To obtain the higher rate of convergence,
the multi-elitist selection technique is introduced. This
( g 2 ( X ) )i = δ − 1 ≤ 0; limited displacement condition
limit
technique copies consistently the fittest chromosomes
(20b)
from the previous generation. In other words, the elite
chromosome in the current generation is preserved to the where X is a set of design variables and represents a
next generation. possible solution. In other words, it is an individual
The general flowchart of the current GA-based optimization containing the information about the cross-sectional areas
procedure is illustrated in Fig. 3. There are two main parts Ai and the pretension forces Fi of all cable elements; σi
of optimization procedure: the nonlinear analysis and the and σa are the tensile stress of the ith element and its
operators of GA. The analysis part gets the information allowable stress, respectively; δj is the vertical displacement
about design variables from the particular chromosome in of the jth node and δ limit is the limited displacement value;
the current generation. Then it produces the output ne is the total number of elements in cable net.
information which is needed to evaluate the fitness As mentioned in the previous section, coding the
function. The more details about optimization formulations design variables into binary strings or converting the
will be discussed specifically in the next section. design space into genetic space is one of the most
1188 Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017

Figure 4. Chromosome structure.

important features of GA. The simple illustration of
structure for a chromosome and its sequence of variable
is shown in Fig. 4. To determine the required binary
strings to represent for the encoded variable, it is
necessary to define the number of its possibilities, which
are expressed as the side constrains or the range of design
value. The side constrains are expressed by the maximum
and minimum values of design space as
Amin ≤ Ai ≤ Amax
between the constraint values of allowable stress, limited
displacement and the optimal volumes are discussed in
examples of plane and spatial cable nets. Besides that, the
effects of number of design variables on the optimal
results and the optimization convergence rate are also
investigated in examples of the hyperbolic paraboloid
cable and saddle nets. For all numerical examples, 2-, 3-
and 4-node elements are employed to model the cable
nets and the total number of elements are similar in all
(21a) cases

Fmin ≤ Fi ≤ Fmax (21b) 4.1. Plane cable net

Figure 5 shows the initial configuration of plane cable
The fitness function is given as follows net subjected to vertical loads. All cables in the structure
have the cross-sectional area A of 146.45 mm2 and the
{
f ( X ) = D − V ( X ) + β ⎡⎣ p1 ( X ) + p2 ( X ) ⎤⎦} (22) Young’s modulus E of 82.737 kN/mm2. In the initial
equilibrium state, the pretension forces in eight inclined
where D and β are the relative magnitude parameters and four horizontal segments are 23.70 and 24.29 kN,
which are chosen flexibly to make the value of fitness respectively. The lengths of inclined and horizontal segments
function positive and the magnitude of total volume and are 31.76 and 30.42 m, respectively. In this example, the
penalty values relatively equal. Therefore, the ranking self-weight of cables is neglected. The additional concentrated
process can be carried out quickly and more accurately; point loads of 35.6 kN are simultaneously applied to
p1 ( X ) and p2 ( X ) are the penalty functions taking into joints of 4, 5, 8 and 9. The vertical displacements at joint
account stress and displacement constants, respectively. 4 by the present study are compared with those reported
The acceleration and accuracy of GA procedure are by Thai and Kim (2011), Jayaraman and Knudson (1981),
obtained by using these two functions which are Desai et al. (1988) in Table 1. It can be seen that the
determined as present results and those from previous researchers are
very comparable.
2 The optimization problem of plane cable net is to find
ne ⎛ c ⎞
σ
p1 ( X ) = ∑ ⎜ i − 1⎟ (23a) the optimal cross-sectional area for all cable segments
⎜ ⎟
i =1 ⎝ σ a ⎠ regarding to the different design variables and constraint
values. In the first case, the uniform cross-sectional area
2 (A) of all segments is the unique design variable. In the
nj ⎛ δ cj ⎞
p2 ( X ) = ∑ ⎜ − 1⎟ (23b) second case, the uniform pretension force is also taken
⎜
j =1 ⎝ δ limit
⎟ into account (A + F). The pretension forces Fi and Fh in
⎠
inclined and horizontal segments are intended to be two
where
different variables in the third case together with the
⎧0 if σ i ≤ σ a uniform cross-sectional area (A + Fi + Fh)
σ ic = ⎨ (24a) To investigate the effects of allowable stress and
⎩σ i otherwise displacement constraints on optimal results, three values
of each constraint are introduced in Table 2 together with
⎧⎪0 if δ j ≤ δ limit the detailed information of design variables and input
δ cj = ⎨ (24b)
⎪⎩δ j otherwise parameters. The maximum number of generation and the
population size are 200 and 50, respectively, and the
and nj is the number of unconstrained joints of cable net. convergence of algorithm is achieved when the maximum
number of generation is attained. The optimal cross-
4. Numerical Results and Discussion sectional areas obtained from GA are shown in Table 3.
It is seen that in case of σa =410 MPa and δ limit =0.45 m,
In numerical examples, the four types of cable nets the present optimal cross-sectional area 145 mm2 is in
under static loads are considered to demonstrate the good agreement with the analysis input parameter 146.5
effectiveness of proposed method. The relationships mm2. This proves that the proposed procedure works
 Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm 1189

Figure 5. Plane cable net.

Table 1. Comparison of displacements for plane cable net (mm)

Displacement of node 4
Researcher
x-direction y-direction z-direction
Thai and Kim (2011) -40.13 -40.43 -446.50
Jayaraman and Knudson (1981) -36.92 -40.20 -446.32
Y.M. Densai et al. (1988) -40.17 -40.17 -446.11
Present study: 2-node element -40.16 -40.16 -445.95
3-node element -40.16 -40.16 -445.95
4-node element -40.16 -40.16 -445.95

Table 2. Constraint parameters for plane cable net Table 3. Optimal cross-sectional areas A (mm2) and
pretension forces F (kN) with different values of
Constant Condition allowable stress and limited displacement
Allowable stress σ a =200, 410, 600 MPa
σa δ limit
Limited displacement δ limit =0.2, 0.45, 0.7 m A A+F A+2F
(MPa) (m)
Cross-sectional area 1 mm2 ≤ A ≤ 500 mm2, ∆A =1 mm2
200 0.45 A = 303 A= 299 A = 299
Pretensioned force 1 kN ≤ F ≤ 100 kN, ∆F =1 kN
F= 4.88 Fi = 5.26
Fh = 4.13

properly. Figures 6 and 7 show the effects of stress and 410 0.20 A = 299 A = 149 A = 148
displacement constraints, respectively, on the optimal F = 49.99 Fi = 55.24
results. It is seen that the results in such case having only Fh = 22.89
cross-sectional area variable and case having it together 410 0.45 A = 145 A = 145 A = 145
with the pretension force variable become significantly F = 24.676 Fi = 34.63
different when the magnitude of displacement is relatively Fh = 13.65
small and the value of allowable stress is relatively large. 410 0.70 A = 145 A = 142 A = 142
The efficiency of solutions is evaluated by employing two
F = 10.35 Fi = 12.51
parameters: Δ S = σ max σ a and Δ D = δ max δ limit
Fh = 6.05
which indicate how the constraints are involved in the
optimization procedure. It is seen in Table 4 that the 600 0.45 A = 145 A= 99 A= 99
allowable stress is fully utilized in case that the pretension F = 36.87 Fi = 50.59
force is considered as a design variable. While the Fh = 9.36
displacement ratio Δ D becomes critical when the cross-
sectional area is the unique design variable.
cable segments arranged in a 4 m×4 m quadrilateral form
4.2. Spatial net as shown in Fig. 8. The cable net is symmetric in both x-
The spatial cable net considered has 38 pretension and y-directions and the z-coordinates of nodes for a
1190 Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017

Figure 6. Optimal cross-sectional areas for plane cable net Figure 7. Optimal cross-sectional areas for plane cable net
in case that δ limit =0.45 m and σ a =200, 410, and 600 in case that σa =410 MPa and δ limit =0.2, 0.45, and 0.7 m.
MPa.

quarter of net are listed in Table 5. The cross-sectional

areas of cables in x- and y-directions are 350 and 120
mm2, respectively, and the Young’s modulus of all cables
is 160 kN/mm2. The initial geometry of cable net is
achieved by the pretension forces of 90 and 30 kN in x-
and y-directions, respectively. The cable net is modelled
with 38 elements and subjected to vertical loads of 6.8 kN
at all internal nodes. The vertical displacements obtained
from this study are presented and compared with those
predicted by other researchers in Table 5. It is seen that
the results by this study are very close to those given by
available references. Figure 8. Spatial net.
The optimization problem of spatial cable net is divided
into four cases. In the first and second cases, only uniform
cross-section area is considered as a design variable. and the fourth case (5A+5F). The constraint parameters
Specifically, in the first case (2A), there are 2 cross- of the optimization problem are presented in Table 6.
sectional areas corresponding to cables in x- and y- There are three values regarding to allowable stress and
directions. In the next case (5A), each cable has its own displacement constraints similar to the previous example.
cross-sectional area and the cable net includes 8 cables. The optimal volumes corresponding to different cases are
Consequently, there should be 8 independent cross- shown in Table 7 and are illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10. It
sectional variables, but thanks to the symmetry of cable is observed that the optimal volumes are clearly different
net and the external load about two centerlines, the total when the number of design variables varies. In addition,
number of design variables can be reduced from 8 to 5 by it is worth observing that the optimal volumes can be
grouping symmetrical cables. The pretension forces are reduced substantially when the pretension force variables
taken into account by applying each to the corresponding are considered. In general, the better results can be
cross-sectional area variables in the third case (2A+2F) obtained in case that the value of displacement constraint

Table 4. Optimal ratios of stress and displacement

∆D=δ max/δ limit ∆S =σmax/σa
σ a (MPa) δ limit (m)
A A+F A+Fi+Fh A A+F A+Fi+Fh
200 0.45 0.5047 0.7671 0.7675 0.9985 1.0000 1.0000
410 0.20 0.9981 0.9562 0.6641 0.4265 1.0000 1.0000
410 0.45 1.0000 0.8883 0.9008 0.9956 1.0000 1.0000
410 0.70 0.6428 0.8842 0.8868 0.9956 1.0000 1.0000
600 0.45 1.0000 0.8853 0.9207 0.6804 1.0000 1.0000
 Table 5. Comparison of vertical displacements for spatial net (mm)
Salehi Ahmad Abad et al. (2013) Present study
Thai and Kim (2011) Lewis et al. (1984)
Node z-coord DCC CCC 2-node element 3-node element 4-node element
dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz
1 1000.0
2 2000.0
3 3000.0
6 0.0
7 819.5 -5.03 0.41 29.86 -5.05 0.40 29.55 -5.02 0.41 29.55 -5.14 0.42 30.41 -5.03 0.41 29.45 -5.03 0.40 29.45 -5.03 0.40 29.45
8 1409.6 -2.23 0.46 17.29 -2.23 0.40 17.16 -2.24 0.43 17.55 -2.26 0.47 17.70 -2.23 0.39 17.10 -2.23 0.39 17.10 -2.23 0.39 17.10
9 1676.9 0.00 -2.31 -3.61 0.00 -2.36 -3.19 0.00 -2.33 -3.19 0.00 -2.27 -3.62 0.00 -2.36 32.00 0.00 -2.36 -3.20 0.00 -2.36 -3.20
13 0.0
14 687.0 -4.92 0.00 42.85 -4.93 0.00 42.94 -4.94 0.00 42.99 -4.98 0.00 43.49 -4.92 0.00 42.83 -4.92 0.00 42.83 -4.92 0.00 42.83
15 1147.8 -2.55 0.00 44.26 -2.55 0.00 44.34 -2.56 0.00 44.30 -2.55 0.00 44.47 -2.55 0.00 44.24 -2.55 0.00 44.24 -2.55 0.00 44.24
16 1317.6 0.00 0.00 42.08 0.00 0.00 42.14 0.00 0.00 42.04 0.00 0.00 41.65 0.00 0.00 42.06 0.00 0.00 42.06 0.00 0.00 42.06
Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm

DCC: Discrete catenary cable

CCC: Continuous catenary cable
1191
1192 Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017
Table 6. Constraint parameters for spatial net
Constant Condition
Allowable stress σ a =300, 362, 420 MPa
Limited displacement δ limit =0.02, 0.045, 0.07 m
Cross-sectional area 10 mm2 ≤ A ≤ 400 mm2, ∆A =10 mm2
Pretensioned force 0 kN ≤ F ≤ 150 kN, ∆F =1 kN
Figure 9. Optimal volumes for spatial net in case that
δ limit =0.045 m and σa =300, 362, and 400 MPa.
Figure 10. Optimal volumes for spatial net in case that
σa =410 MPa and δ limit =0.02, 0.045, and 0.07 m.
is relatively small as well as the value of stress constraint
is relative large.
4.3. Hyperbolic paraboloid cable net
Figure 11 shows the hyperbolic paraboloid cable net
which was experimentally and numerically investigated
by Lewis et al. (1984). This cable net is modelled with 31
elements. Some nodes of net are subjected to concentrated
loads of 15.7 N as shown in Fig. 11. All cable segments
have a cross-sectional area of 0.785 mm2 and its elastic
modulus is 128.3 kN/mm2. Before being subjected to
Figure 11. Hyperbolic paraboloid cable net.
Figure 12. Optimal volumes for hyperbolic paraboloid
cable net with different numbers of design variables.
external loads, all segments have been pretensioned under
the force of 200 N. Table 8 shows the comparison of
vertical displacements obtained from this study with
those from other researchers. It is seen that the current
results agree very well with those from other numerical
methods.
The optimization problem is to find the optimal volumes
in different cases regarding to different number of design
variables. The constraint parameters for the optimization
problem are presented in Table 9. There are 12 optimal
cases which are combined three cases for the number of
cross-sectional area with four cases for the number of
pretension force. The detail information about variables
in each case and its corresponding results are presented in
Table 10 and the observation is illustrated in Fig. 12. It is
clearly seen that the better results of optimal volumes can
be obtained when the more number of design variables
are used. This simple conclusion proves the accuracy of
present optimization procedure. The observation gives
that the biggest optimal result is 1.244×10−5 m3 which
corresponds to the case of uniform cross-sectional area as
a design variable. Whereas the smallest optimal volume is
attained when there are 7 cross-sectional areas and 7
pretension forces, which is reduced by 12.48% compared
to the biggest one. The convergence history of GA is
 Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm 1193

Table 7. Optimal cross-sectional areas (mm2), pretension forces (kN) and volumes (10−2 m3) for spatial cable net with
different values of allowable stress and limited displacement
σ a (MPa) δlimit (m) 2A 5A 2A+2F 5A+5F
300 0.045 A1 = 92 A1 = 100 A1 = 60 A1 = 10
A2 = 436 A2 = 80 A2 = 340 A2 = 10
A3 = 90 F1 = 0 A3 = 60
A4 = 360 F2 = 90 A4 = 330
A5 = 440 A5 = 370
F1 = 0
F2 = 0
F3 = 0
F4 = 100
F5 = 130
V = 3.9112 V = 3.5381 V = 2.9568 V = 2.6590
362 0.020 A1 = 85 A1 = 190 A1 = 140 A1 = 10
A2 = 1195 A2 = 80 A2 = 400 A2 = 40
A3 = 90 F1 = 20 A3 = 120
A4 = 720 F2 = 120 A4 = 300
A5 = 1170 A5 = 370
F1 = 0
F2 = 10
F3 = 50
F4 = 100
F5 = 140
V = 9.3781 V = 7.3392 V = 4.0384 V = 2.7091
362 0.045 A1 = 90 A1 = 80 A1 = 60 A1 = 10
A2 = 380 A2 = 110 A2 = 280 A2 = 10
A3 = 80 F1 = 0 A3 = 50
A4 = 290 F2 = 90 A4 = 250
A5 = 360 A5 = 300
F1 = 0
F2 = 0
F3 = 10
F4 = 90
F5 = 120
V = 3.4681 V = 3.0209 V = 2.5204 V = 2.0852
362 0.070 A1 = 80 A1 = 80 A1 = 20 A1 = 10
A2 = 360 A2 = 70 A2 = 250 A2 = 10
A3 = 70 F1 = 0 A3 = 10
A4 = 300 F2 = 90 A4 = 230
A5 = 360 A5 = 270
F1 = 0
F2 = 0
F3 = 0
F4 = 80
F5 = 70
V = 3.2161 V = 2.9243 V = 2.3429 V = 1.8503
420 0.045 A1 = 120 A1 = 70 A1 = 40 A1 = 10
A2 = 340 A2 = 110 A2 = 270 A2 = 10
A3 = 70 F1 = 10 A3 = 60
A4 = 250 F2 = 90 A4 = 220
A5 = 350 A5 = 250
F1 = 0
F2 = 0
F3 = 0
F4 = 90
F5 = 100
V = 3.4456 V = 2.7540 V = 2.2865 V = 1.8354
1194 Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017

Table 8. Comparison of vertical displacements for hyperbolic paraboloid net (mm)

Salehi Ahmad Abad et al.
Lewis et al. (1984) Present study
Thai and Kim (2013)
Node
(2011) Dynamic 2-node 3-node 4-node
DCC CCC Experiment
relaxation element element element
5 19.56 19.51 19.50 19.50 19.30 19.38 19.40 19.40
6 25.70 25.57 25.56 25.30 25.30 25.32 25.29 25.29
7 23.37 23.27 23.27 22.80 23.00 22.95 22.95 22.95
10 25.91 25.82 25.81 25.40 25.90 25.58 25.53 25.53
11 34.16 33.94 33.93 33.60 33.80 33.77 33.71 33.71
12 29.60 29.42 29.41 28.80 29.40 29.33 29.33 29.33
15 25.86 25.61 25.60 25.20 26.40 25.45 25.42 25.42
16 31.43 31.01 31.00 30.60 31.70 31.09 31.10 31.10
17 21.56 21.24 21.22 21.00 21.90 21.29 21.28 21.28
20 21.57 20.84 20.83 21.00 21.90 21.19 21.19 21.19
21 20.14 19.20 19.18 19.80 20.50 19.77 19.76 19.76
22 14.55 13.83 13.81 14.20 14.80 14.30 14.30 14.30
DCC: Discrete catenary cable
CCC: Continuous catenary cable

Table 9. Constraint parameters for hyperbolic paraboloid

net
Constant Condition
Allowable stress σ a =360 MPa
Limited displacement δ limit =0.034 m
Cross-sectional area 0.1 m2 ≤ A ≤ 1 m2, ∆A =0.001 m2
Pretensioned force 0 kN ≤ F ≤ 0.5 kN, ∆F =0.001 kN

presented in Fig. 13 in case that the best optimal volume

is attained.

4.4. Saddle net

In our final example, the saddle net as shown in Fig. 14
is considered. The saddle net is symmetric about both Figure 13. Objective function for hyperbolic paraboloid
centerlines and constructed from 142 pretension cable cable net with 7 cross-sectional areas and 7 pretension
segments spaced at 5 m×5 m grid. As a result, 142 forces as design variables.

Figure 14. Saddle net.

 Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm 1195

Table 10. Optimal cross-sectional areas (mm2), pretension

forces (kN) and volumes (10−5 m3) for hyperbolic paraboloid
net in cases of different numbers of design variables
A A+F A+2F A+7F
A = 0.770 A = 0.767 A = 0.764 A = 0.747
F = 0.199 F1 = 0.230 F1 = 0.245
F2 = 0.204 F2 = 0.225
F3 = 0.234
F4 = 0.233
F5 = 0.202
F6 = 0.207
F7 = 0.235
V = 1.2444 V = 1.2392 V = 1.2343 V = 1.2072
2A 2A+F 2A+2F 2A+7F
A1 = 0.690 A1 = 0.683 A1 = 0.614 A1 = 0.596 Figure 15. Optimal volumes for saddle net with different
A2 = 0.777 A2 = 0.773 A2 = 0.837 A2 = 0.830 numbers of design variables.
F = 0.201 F1 = 0.181 F1 = 0.183
F2 = 0.221 F2 = 0.191
F3 = 0.184
F4 = 0.244
F5 = 0.201
F6 = 0.194
F7 = 0.246
V = 1.1850 V = 1.1757 V = 1.1710 V = 1.1513
7A 7A+F 7A+2F 7A+7F
A1 = 0.620 A1 = 0.629 A1 = 0.579 A1 = 0.589
A2 = 0.679 A2 = 0.685 A2 = 0.638 A2 = 0.741
A3 = 0.653 A3 = 0.661 A3 = 0.614 A3 = 0.355
A4 = 0.661 A4 = 0.667 A4 = 0.687 A4 = 0.619
A5 = 0.829 A5 = 0.775 A5 = 0.914 A5 = 0.852
A6 = 0.759 A6 = 0.743 A6 = 0.757 A6 = 0.789 Figure 16. Objective functions for saddle net.
A7 = 0.653 A7 = 0.677 A7 = 0.677 A7 = 0.889
F = 0.202 F1 = 0.187 F1 = 0.191
F2 = 0.207 F2 = 0.215 To carry out the optimization problem of saddle net,
F3 = 0.101 three cases of variables are introduced. All segments have
F4 = 0.181 the uniform cross-sectional area in the first case (A), the
F5 = 0.217 segments in each direction (x- or y-directions) have the
F6 = 0.222 same cross-sectional area in the second case (2A), and in
F7 = 0.285 the third case (16A), there are 16 cross-sectional areas
V = 1.1111 V = 1.1094 V = 1.1051 V = 1.0888 corresponding to each individual segment. Details of
constraint parameters for saddle net are shown in Table
12. As can be seen in Table 13 and Fig. 15, the optimal
elements are employed to model the structure. The z- volume decreases as the number of design variable
coordinates for a quarter of net are given in Table 11. The increases. The rate of change for the optimal volume is
cross-sectional area and the elastic modulus of all cables noticeable when the number of variable for the cross-
are 306 mm2 and 147 kN/mm2, respectively. The pretension sectional area increases from 1 to 2 where the optimal
force of 60 kN is applied to all segments before it is value decreases an amount of 0.0144×10−1. Whereas the
subjected to external loads. All free nodes on one-half of obtained optimal volume just decreases with a relatively
net, which are symmetric to the others in y-direction, are small amount of volume change of 0.0043×10−1 when the
subjected to the loads of 1 kN in the x- and z-directions. number of variable increases from 2 to 16. A suggested
The nodal displacements obtained from this study are conclusion can be drawn that it is not efficient to increase
compared with those from other researchers in Table 11. the number of variables for the cross-sectional area when
The excellent agreement between results from this study it is expected to attain the better optimal volume. Fig. 16
and those from previous ones is evident. shows the optimization curves for three cases of design
 1196
Table 11. Comparison of displacements for saddle net
Salehi Ahmad Abad et al. (2013) Present study
Thai and Kim (2011) Kwan (1998)
DCC CCC 2-node element 3-node element 4-node element
Node z-coord dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz dx dy dz
1 -1368
2 -2432
3 -3192
4 -3648
5 -3800
11 -1032 15.55 -4.46 81.66 15.58 -4.47 81.87 15.57 -4.46 81.79 15.55 -4.46 81.70 15.55 -4.46 81.66 15.55 -4.46 81.66 15.55 -4.46 81.66
12 -1835 11.50 -5.54 61.18 11.52 -5.56 61.36 11.51 -5.55 61.28 11.50 -5.55 61.22 11.50 -5.54 61.18 11.50 -5.54 61.18 11.50 -5.54 61.18
13 -2408 7.38 -4.19 33.28 7.39 -4.20 33.41 7.39 -4.20 33.36 7.38 -4.20 33.31 7.38 -4.19 33.28 7.38 -4.19 33.28 7.38 -4.19 33.28
14 -2752 5.34 -3.11 17.87 5.34 -3.12 19.79 5.34 -3.11 17.92 5.34 -3.11 17.88 5.34 -3.11 17.87 5.34 -3.11 17.87 5.34 -3.11 17.87
15 -2868 4.10 -2.80 11.15 4.10 -2.80 11.24 4.10 -2.80 11.21 4.11 -2.80 11.16 4.10 -2.80 11.15 4.10 -2.80 11.16 4.10 -2.80 11.16
22 -792 14.42 -3.53 97.10 14.46 -3.54 97.44 14.44 -3.53 97.29 14.43 -3.53 97.14 14.42 -3.53 97.10 14.42 -3.53 97.10 14.42 -3.53 97.1
23 -1408 11.26 -4.46 72.84 11.29 -4.48 73.17 11.28 -4.47 73.03 11.27 -4.47 72.90 11.26 -4.46 72.83 11.26 -4.46 72.83 11.26 -4.46 72.83
24 -1848 7.25 2.97 31.94 7.26 -2.98 32.20 7.25 -2.98 32.09 7.25 -2.97 31.98 7.25 -2.97 31.94 7.25 -2.97 31.94 7.25 -2.97 31.94
25 -2118 5.67 -2.11 10.52 5.67 -2.13 10.74 5.67 -2.12 10.64 5.67 -2.12 10.54 5.67 -2.11 10.52 5.67 -2.11 10.52 5.67 -2.11 10.52
26 -2200 4.77 -0.60 -11.34 4.77 -0.61 -11.13 4.77 -0.60 -11.22 4.77 -0.60 -11.34 4.77 -0.60 -11.34 4.77 -0.60 -11.34 4.77 -0.60 -11.34
33 -648 11.70 -1.71 92.40 11.74 -1.72 92.80 11.72 -1.71 92.63 11.71 -1.71 92.44 11.70 -1.71 92.40 11.70 -1.71 92.40 11.70 -1.71 92.4
34 -1152 9.54 -2.11 66.89 9.57 -2.12 67.31 9.56 -2.11 67.13 9.55 -2.11 66.94 9.54 -2.11 66.88 9.54 -2.11 66.88 9.54 -2.11 66.88
35 -1512 6.30 -1.15 20.17 6.31 -1.16 20.53 6.31 -1.16 20.37 6.30 -1.15 20.21 6.30 -1.15 20.17 6.30 -1.15 20.17 6.30 -1.15 20.17
36 -1728 4.91 -0.23 -14.06 4.92 -0.23 -13.74 4.92 -0.23 -13.88 4.92 -0.23 -14.05 4.91 -0.23 -14.06 4.91 -0.23 -14.06 4.91 -0.23 -14.06
37 -1800 4.65 0.52 -35.77 4.64 0.52 -35.46 4.65 0.52 -35.59 4.65 0.52 -35.79 4.65 0.52 -35.77 4.65 0.52 -35.77 4.65 0.52 -35.77
44 -600 10.62 0.00 88.68 10.66 0.00 89.11 10.64 0.00 88.93 10.63 0.00 88.73 10.62 0.00 88.68 10.62 0.00 88.68 10.62 0.00 88.68
45 -1067 8.79 0.00 62.77 8.82 0.00 63.23 8.81 0.00 63.04 8.80 0.00 62.83 8.79 0.00 62.76 8.79 0.00 62.76 8.79 0.00 62.76
46 -1400 5.83 0.00 13.95 5.84 0.00 14.35 5.84 0.00 14.18 5.83 0.00 13.99 5.83 0.00 13.95 5.83 0.00 13.95 5.83 0.00 13.95
Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017

47 -1600 4.63 0.00 -22.52 4.64 0.00 -22.17 4.64 0.00 -22.32 4.64 0.00 -22.52 4.63 0.00 -22.52 4.63 0.00 -22.52 4.63 0.00 -22.52
48 -1667 4.54 0.00 -45.87 4.54 0.00 -45.51 4.54 0.00 -45.66 4.55 0.00 -45.89 4.54 0.00 -45.86 4.54 0.00 -45.86 4.54 0.00 -45.86
52 -600 -0.92 0.00 5.86 -0.96 0.00 6.27 -0.94 0.00 6.10 -0.92 0.00 5.86 -0.92 0.00 5.87 -0.92 0.00 5.87 -0.92 0.00 5.87
72 -1848 3.85 -0.78 -30.10 3.83 -0.76 -29.82 3.84 -0.77 -29.94 3.85 -0.78 -30.12 3.85 -0.78 -30.10 3.85 -0.78 -30.10 3.85 -0.78 -30.1
81 -2867 4.10 2.80 11.15 4.10 2.80 11.24 4.10 2.80 11.21 4.11 2.80 11.16 4.10 2.80 11.16 4.10 2.80 11.16 4.10 2.80 11.16
85 -1032 -5.40 1.87 32.15 -5.44 1.88 32.38 -5.42 1.88 32.28 -5.40 1.87 32.17 -5.40 1.87 32.16 -5.40 1.87 32.16 -5.40 1.87 32.16
 Optimum Design of Cable Nets by Using Genetic Algorithm 1197

Table 12. Constraint parameters for saddle net (2) When the pretension forces are considered as design
Constant Condition variables in optimization procedure, the stress constraints
are fully utilized.
Allowable stress σ a =258.5 MPa
(3) The appropriate pretension forces applied to cable
Limited displacement δ limit =0.00972 m
nets can help the structure reduce the displacement and
Cross-sectional area 100 mm2 ≤ A ≤ 400 mm2, ∆A =1 mm2
then the optimal volumes can be obtained as well.
Table 13. Optimal cross-sectional areas (mm2) and
(4) The pretension forces play a significant role on
volumes (10−1 m3) for saddle net with different numbers obtaining the optimal volume when the displacement
of cross-sectional area design variables constraint is relatively small or the allowable stress is
relatively large.
A 2A 16A (5) The results obtained from the proposed optimization
A= 305 A1 = 311 A1 = 301 procedure can be used as a reliable information for the
A2 = 258 A2 = 368 preliminary design of cable nets.
A3 = 270
A4 = 262 Acknowledgments
A5 = 229
A6 = 197 This research was supported by a grant (17AUDP-
A7 = 263 B100343-03) from Architecture & Urban Development
A8 = 229 Research Program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
A9 = 332 and Transport of Korean government.
A10 = 327
A11 = 370 References
A12 = 259
A13 = 296 Ali, H. M. and Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M. (1995). “Modeling the
A14 = 264 nonlinear seismic behavior of cable-stayed bridges with
A15 = 261 passive control bearings.” Computers and Structures, 54,
A16 = 222 pp. 461-492.
Braga, F. and D’Asdia, P. (1981). “Analysis and optimization
V = 0.2176 V = 0.2032 V = 0.1989
of plane cable trusses.” Journal of Structural Mechanics,
9, pp. 253-269.
variables. It is evident that the case with 16 cross- Chen, Z. H., Wu, Y. J., Yin, Y., and Shan, C. (2010).
sectional areas needs the smallest generation to obtain the “Formulation and application of multi-node sliding cable
optimal volume. element for the analysis of suspen-dome structures.”
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 46, pp. 743-750.
Coyette, J. P. and Guisset, P. (1988). “Cable network
5. Conclusions analysis by a nonlinear programming technique.”
Engineering Structures, 10, pp. 41-46.
Based on the combination of the geometric nonlinear Desai, Y. M., Popplewell, N., Shah, A. H., and Buragohain,
finite element analysis and GA, a generalized approach to D. N. (1988). “Geometric nonlinear static analysis of
optimize the volume of cable nets is proposed in this cable supported structures.” Computers and Structures,
study. The suggested procedure has ability to find the 29, pp. 1001-1009.
optimal volumes of cable nets. Cross-sectional areas and Gambhir, M. L. and Batchelor, B. (1979). “Finite element
pretension forces are taken into consideration as design study of the free vibration of 3-D cable networks.”
variables, while stress and displacement conditions are International Journal of Solids and Structures, 15, pp.
considered as optimal constraints. The accuracy of employing 127-136.
isoparametric cable elements is demonstrated through Huang, N. C. (1975). “Minimum weight design of elastic
four numerical examples. Optimization problems are also cables.” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications,
introduced to show the efficiency of the optimization 15, pp. 37-49.
Jayaraman, H. B. and Knudson, W. C. (1981). “A curved
procedure. Consequently, the following conclusions are
element for the analysis of cable structures.” Computers
drawn as follows: and Structures, 14, pp. 325-233.
(1) For cable nets under the concentrated point loads, Kim, N. I., Thai, S., and Lee, J. (2016). “Nonlinear elasto-
the results given by the minimum number of 2-, 3- and 4- plastic analysis of slack and taut cable structures.”
node elements are in great agreement 13with those from Engineering with Computers, 32, pp. 615-627.
other references and do not show any noticeable Koohestani, K. (2012). “Form-finding of tensegrity structures
difference between each element. However, it should be via genetic algorithm.” International Journal of Solids
noted here that all cables in net structures are assumed to and Structures, 49, pp. 739-747.
be the taut ones. Kwan, A. S. K. (1998). “A new approach to geometric
1198 Son Thai et al. / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1183-1198, 2017
nonlinearity of cable structures.” Computers and Structures,
67, pp. 243-252.
Lee, S., Woo, B. H., and Lee, J. (2014). “Self-stress design
of tensegrity grid structures using genetic algorithm.”
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 79, pp. 38-
46.
Lewis, W. J., Jones, M. S., and Rushton, K. R. (1984).
“Dynamic relaxation analysis of the nonlinear static
response of pretensioned cable roofs.” Computers and
Structures, 18, pp. 989-997.
Lute, V., Upadhyay, A., and Singh, K. K. (2011). “Genetic
algorithms-based optimization of cable stayed bridges.”
Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 4, pp.
571-578.
Nelder, J. A. and Mead, R. (1965). “A simplex method for
function minimization.” The Computer Journal, 7, pp.
308-313.
Ozdemir, H. (1979). “A finite element approach for cable
problems.” International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 15, pp. 427-437.
Salehi Ahmad Abad, M., Shooshtari, A., Esmaeili, V., and
Naghavi Riabi A. (2013). “Nonlinear analysis of cable
structures under general loadings.” Finite Elements in
Analysis and Design, 73, pp. 11-19.
Selleri, F. and Spadaccini, O. (1977). “Optimal design of
prestressed plane cable structures.” Journal of Structural
Mechanics, 5, pp. 179-205.
Swaddiwudhipong, S., Wang, C. M., Liew, K. M., and Lee,
S. L. (1989). “Optimal pretensioned forces for cable
networks.” Computers and Structures, 33, pp. 1349-1354.
Thai, H. T. and Kim, S. E. (2011). “Nonlinear static and
dynamic analysis of cable structures.” Finite Elements in
Analysis and Design, 47, pp. 237-246.
Thai, S., Kim, N. I., and Lee, J. (2017a). “Isogeometric cable
elements based on B-spline curves.” Meccanica, 52, pp.
1219-1237.
Thai, S., Kim, N. I., and Lee, J. (2017b). “Free vibration
analysis of cable structures using isogeometric approach.”
International Journal of Computational Methods, 14, pp.
1750033.
Thevendran, V. and Wang, C. M. (1985). “Minimum weight
design of cables with supports at different levels.”
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 27, pp.
519-529.
Tibert, G. (1999). Numerical analyses of cable roof
structures, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of
Structural Engineering.
Wang, C. M., Pulmano, V. A., and Lee, S. L. (1986). “Cable
optimization under self-weight and concentrated loads.”
Journal of Structural Mechanics, 14, pp. 191-207.
Yamamoto, M., Gan, B. S., Fujita, K., and Kurokawa, J.
(2011). “A genetic algorithm based form-finding for
tensegrity structure.” Procedia Engineering, 14, pp.
2949-2956.