See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226183049

Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system

search

Article  in  Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization · February 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s00158-010-0566-y

CITATIONS READS

68 3,613

2 authors:

A. Kaveh Siamak Talatahari

Iran University of Science and Technology University of Tabriz
925 PUBLICATIONS   20,958 CITATIONS    151 PUBLICATIONS   8,762 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Emergency Management Systems View project

combinatorial force ethod View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. Kaveh on 28 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Struct Multidisc Optim
DOI 10.1007/s00158-010-0566-y
RESEARCH PAPER
Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes
using charged system search
Ali Kaveh · Siamak Talatahari
Received: 11 December 2009 / Revised: 12 June 2010 / Accepted: 11 August 2010

c Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract Dome structures provide cost-effective solutions
for covering large areas without intermediate supports. In
this article, simple procedures are developed to reach the
configuration of the geodesic domes. A new definition of
dome optimization problems is given which consists of
finding optimal sections for elements (size optimization),
optimal height for the crown (geometry optimization) and
the optimum number of elements (topology optimization)
under determined loading conditions. In order to find the
optimum design, the recently developed meta-heuristic algo-
rithm, known as the Charged System Search (CSS), is
applied to the optimum design of geodesic domes. The
CSS takes into account the nonlinear response of the domes.
Using CSS, the optimum design of the geodesic domes is
efficiently performed.
Keywords Geodesic domes · Optimization ·
Nonlinear design · Charged system search
1 Introduction
Structural systems, which enable the designers to cover
large spans, have always been a challenging task for struc-
tural engineers. Beginning with the worship places in the
A. Kaveh (B)
Centre of Excellence for Fundamental Studies in Structural
Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Narmak, Tehran 16, Iran
e-mail: alikaveh@iust.ac.ir
S. Talatahari
Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
early times, sports stadiums, assembly halls, exhibition cen-
ters, swimming pools, shopping centers and industrial build-
ings have been typical examples of structures with large
unobstructed areas nowadays (Makowski 1993). Dome
structures are the most preferred type of large spanned
structures. Domes have been of a special interest in the
sense that they enclose large areas without intermediate
supports.
Although dome structures are economical in terms of
consumption of constructional materials compared to the
conventional forms of structures (Makowski 1984), a more
lightweight design can be obtained using optimization
methods. Optimization of an engineering design is an
improvement of a proposed design that results in the best
properties for minimum cost. Structural optimization can be
categorized as:
• Sizing optimization in which the geometry and
topology of the structure remain unchanged but
cross sectional properties are optimized (e.g. Rajeev
and Krishnamoorthy 1992; Camp et al. 1998; Camp
and Bichon 2004; Serra and Venini 2006; Perez and
Behdinan 2007; Lamberti 2008; Kaveh and Shojaee
2007; Kaveh et al. 2008a; Kaveh and Talatahari 2009a,
b, c, 2010a);
• Geometry optimization which determines the optimum
location of the joints in the structure in addition to
the size of members (e.g. Prager and Rozvany 1977;
Hasançebi and Erbatur 2002; Saka 2007; Kaveh and
Talatahari 2010b); and
• Topology optimization that involves finding the num-
ber of members of the structure and the way in
which these members are connected to each other (e.g.
Dhingra and Bennage 1995; Rozvany 1998, 2001,
2009; Fourie and Groenwold 2002; Bendsoe and

Sigmund 2003; Wang et al. 2004; Svanberg and Werme
2005, 2006; Martínez et al. 2007; Kaveh et al. 2008b;
Rahami et al. 2008; Huang and Xie 2010).
The optimal design of topology and geometry has been
investigated far less due to its complexity, despite the fact
that the optimization of topology and geometry greatly
improves the design (Bendsoe and Mota Soares 1992;
Kirsch 1989, 1997; Rozvany et al. 1995; Topping 1983).
In general, optimization techniques used in structural
problems can be categorized into classical and heuristic
search methods. The disadvantages of traditional opti-
mization methods such as complex derivatives and the
large amount of required memory have forced researchers
to employ heuristic approaches for solving optimization
problems (Lee and Geem 2004). Many of the heuristic
approaches are inspired by the natural phenomena. These
Fig. 1 Geodesic domes with
a three rings, b four rings, (a) Nr =3
c five rings
3D view
Top view
Side view
A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari
phenomena include the biological evolutionary process,
animal behavior, or the physical processes.
Recently, the authors proposed a new optimization
approach, so-called Charged System Search (Kaveh and
Talatahari 2010c, d), which utilizes a number of Charged
Particle (CP). These particles affect each other based on
their fitness values and separation distances considering
the governing laws of Coulomb and Gauss from electri-
cal physics and the governing laws of motion from the
Newtonian mechanics. This paper develops the CSS method
to perform an optimum geometrical and topological design
of geodesic domes. A simple procedure is developed to cal-
culate the joint coordinates and element constructions in
order to determine the configuration of the domes. Here,
the joint coordinate equations are formulated for auto-
matic formation of the configuration. The nodal coordinates
are calculated using a simple relationship. The joints are
(b) Nr =4
3D view
Top view
Side view
Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search
divided into two types considering the symmetry, and then
the elements are easily determined. The serviceability and
strength requirements are considered in the design prob-
lems as specified in LRFD-AISC (1991). The algorithm
takes into account the nonlinear response of the dome
due to effect of axial forces on the flexural stiffness of
members.
In this paper, unlike the previous studies on the dome
optimization (Saka 2007; Kaveh and Talatahari 2010b)
which consider only size or geometry optimization of the
domes by determining the number of rings and the cross-
sectional areas of the elements, a method is developed that
has the ability to determine the element configurations and
(c) Nr =5
3D view
Top view
Side view
Fig. 1 (continued)
the number of elements automatically during the optimiza-
tion process, this number being considered as a design
variable. A discussion over the effect of the number of rings
and the number of elements on the results is presented in
Section 5.1.
The remaining sections of this paper are organized as fol-
lows: Section 2 contains the statement of the dome design
problem. Section 3 reviews the CSS, briefly. Section 4
describes the implementation of CSS methodology to opti-
mize geodesic dome structures. The achieved results are
explained in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 presents the
conclusion of the paper.
2 Geometry and topology optimum design
of dome structures
Geometrical optimal design of dome structures consists of
finding optimal sections for elements, optimal height for
the crown and the optimum number of rings under deter-
mined loading conditions. The allowable cross sections are
considered as 37 steel pipe sections taken from LRFD-
AISC (1991) which is also utilized as the code of practice.
The mathematical formulation for optimum design of dome
structures can be expressed as
Find X = [x1 , x2 , ..., xng ], h, Nr
xi ∈ {d1 , d2 , ..., d37 }
 
h i ∈ h min , h min + h ∗ , ..., h max

nm
to minimize W (X) = ρ · xi · L i (1)
i=1
where X is a vector containing the design variables of the
elements; h is the variable of the crown height; Nr is the
total number of rings which is taken as 3, 4 or 5 as shown in
Fig. 1; d j is the jth allowable discrete value for the design
variables (37 pipe sections taken from LRFD-AISC); h min ,
h max and h ∗ are the permitted minimum, maximum and
increased amounts of the crown height, which in this paper
are taken as 1.00, 9.00 and 0.25 m, respectively; ng is the
number of design variables or the number of size groups;
W (X) is the weight of the structure; L i is the length of mem-
ber i; ρ is the is the material mass density and nm is the total
number of elements.
Similarly, topological optimization of geodesic dome
structures can be considered as finding optimal sections for
elements, optimal height for the crown, optimum number of
rings and optimum number of the elements. Since the num-
ber of elements available in each ring is equal to the number
of nodes related to that ring, therefore once the number of
 A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari

ring nodes as the design variables is determined, the topo- The design constraints are as follows:
logical optimum design will be achieved. In the other hand,
Displacement constraint:
for the geodesic domes the number of nodes in each ring
is considered as the number of joints in the first ring (Nn)
|δi | ≤ δimax i = 1, 2, ..., nn (3)
multiplied by the number associated with that ring. Figure 2
shows the different forms of geodesic domes when Nn is
altered. As a result, if we consider Nn as the new design
Interaction formula constraints:
variable, the complete dome topology optimization problem  
Pu Mux Muy Pu
will be defined as + + ≤ 1 For < 0.2
2φc Pn φb Mnx φb Mny φc Pn
 
Pu 8 Mux Muy Pu
Find X = [x1 , x2 , ..., xng ], h, Nr, N n + + ≤ 1 For ≥ 0.2
φc Pn 9 φb Mnx φb Mny φc Pn
xi ∈ {d1 , d2 , ..., d37 } (4)
 
h i ∈ h min , h min + h ∗ , ..., h max Shear constraint:

nm
to minimize W (X) = ρ · xi · L i (2) Vu ≤ φv Vn (5)
i=1

Fig. 2 Geodesic domes with

different number of elements
(a) Nn =3 (b) Nn =4

3D view 3D view

Top view Top view

Side view Side view

Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search
Fig. 2 (continued)
(c) Nn =5
3D view
Top view
Side view
in which δi is the displacement of node i; δimax is the permit-
ted displacement for the ith node; nn is the total number of
nodes; Pu is the required strength; Pn is the nominal axial
strength; φc is the resistance factor (φc = 0.9 for tension,
φc = 0.85 for compression); Mux and Muy are the required
flexural strengths in the x and y directions, respectively;
Mnx and Mny are the nominal flexural strengths in the x and
y directions; φb is the flexural resistance reduction factor
(φb = 0.90); Vu is the factored service load for shear;
Vn is the nominal strength in shear and φv represents the
resistance factor for shear (φv = 0.90).
3 Charged System Search algorithm
The Charged System Search (CSS) algorithm is based on
the Coulomb and Gauss laws from electrical physics and the
(d) Nn =6
3D view
Top view
Side view
governing laws of motion from the Newtonian mechanics.
This algorithm can be considered as a multi-agent approach,
where each agent is a Charged Particle (CP). Each CP is
considered as a charged sphere with radius a, having a
uniform volume charge density and is equal to
fit(i) − fitworst
qi = i = 1, 2, ..., N (6)
fitbest − fitworst
where fitbest and fitworst are the best and the worst fitness
of all the particles; fit(i) represents the fitness of the agent i,
and N is the total number of CPs.
CPs can impose electric forces on the others. The kind
of the forces is attractive, and its magnitude for the CP
located in the inside of the sphere is proportional to the
separation distance between the CPs, and for a CP located
 A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari

Fig. 2 (continued)
(e) Nn =7 (f) Nn =8

3D view 3D view

Top view Top view

Side view Side view

outside the sphere is inversely proportional to the square of Pi j determines the probability of moving each CP toward
the separation distance between the particles the others as
  ⎧
 qi qi ⎪ fit(i)− f itbest
Fj = qj ri j · i 1 + 2 · i 2 pi j (Xi − X j ), ⎨1 > rand ∨ fit( j) > fit(i)
a3 ri j pi j = fit( j)−fit(i) (9)
i,i= j ⎪
⎩
0 otherwise
j = 1, 2, ..., N
i 1 = 1, i 2 = 0 ⇔ ri j < a (7) The resultant forces and the motion laws determine the new
i 1 = 0, i 2 = 1 ⇔ ri j ≥ a location of the CPs. At this stage, each CP moves towards
its new position under the action of the resultant forces and
where F j is the resultant force acting on the jth CP; ri j is
its previous velocity as
the separation distance between two charged particles which
is defined as follows Fj
X j,new = rand j1 · ka · · t 2
||Xi − X j || mj
ri j = (8)
||(Xi + X j )/2 − Xbest || + ε + rand j2 · kv · V j,old · t + X j,old (10)
X j,new − X j,old
where Xi and X j are the positions of the ith and jth CPs, V j,new = (11)
t
respectively; Xbest is the position of the best current CP,
and ε is a small positive number. The initial positions of where ka is the acceleration coefficient; kv is the velocity
CPs are determined randomly in the search space and the coefficient to control the influence of the previous velocity;
initial velocities of charged particles are assumed to be zero. and rand j1 and rand j2 are two random numbers uniformly
Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search

(g) Nn =9 and 1, sets the rate of choosing a value in the new vector
from the historic values stored in the CM, and (1-CMCR)
sets the rate of randomly choosing one value from the
possible range of values. The pitch adjusting process is per-
formed only after a value is chosen from CM. The value
(1-PAR), sets the rate of doing nothing. Here, ‘‘w.p.’’
means ‘‘with probability’’. For more details, the reader may
refer to Kaveh and Talatahari (2009a, c).
In order to have discrete results, a rounding function
is utilized which changes the magnitude of a result to the
3D view nearest discrete value, as follows


Fj
X j,new = Round rand j1 · ka · · t 2 + rand j2 · kv .
mj

· V j,old · t + X j,old (13)

The constraint handling approach is the penalty approach

and the framework of the CSS algorithm is illustrated in
Fig. 3.

Top view
4 The CSS methodology for deign of optimum
dome structures

The behaviour of the dome structures is nonlinear due to

the change of geometry under external loads. The imperfec-
Side view
tions arising either from the manufacturing process and/or
from the construction of the structure can also be the source
Fig. 2 (continued) of nonlinearity. Inclusion of geometric nonlinearity requires
additional considerations in the analysis. Stability check
distributed in the range of (0,1). To save the best design a is also necessary during the analysis to ensure that the
memory (Charged Memory or CM) is considered. If each structure does not lose its load carrying capacity due to
CP exits from the allowable search space, its position is cor- instability (Saka 2007) and furthermore, considering the
rected using the harmony search-based handling. According nonlinear behaviour in the design of domes results in lighter
to this mechanism, any component of the solution vector structural systems. The elastic instability analysis of domes
violating the variable boundaries can be regenerated from involves repeated analysis of the structure at progressively
the CM as increasing load factor. At each increment of the load factor,
⎧ nonlinear analysis of the structure is carried out. For this,
⎪
⎪w.p. CMCR the stiffness matrix for a three-dimensional space member
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ==> select a new value for a variable from CM that includes the effect of flexure on axial stiffness and the
⎪
⎨ ==> w.p. (1 − PAR) do nothing stiffness against translation is derived. Details of this deriva-
xi, j = ==> w.p. PAR choose a neighboring
⎪
⎪ tion and related terms of the nonlinear stiffness matrix of
⎪
⎪ value
⎪
⎪ (1 − a space member are given in Majid (1972) and Ekhande
⎪
⎩w.p. CMCR)
==> select a new value randomly et al. (1989). The stiffness matrix of a stable structure is
(12) positive-definite. During the nonlinear analysis iteration,
the determinant of the overall stiffness matrix is checked to
where xi, j is the ith component of the CP j. The Charged determine whether at any load increment it becomes neg-
Memory Considering Rate (CMCR) varying between 0 ative. This is an indication of a loss of stability in the

Fig. 3 The flowchart of the
CSS algorithm
structure and the load factor which causes this case, is iden-
tified as the critical load factor. As a result, the geometric
nonlinearity is also included in this study as described in
Kaveh and Talatahari (2010b).
Figure 4 shows the nodes of the geodesic dome, when
N n = 10. As it can be seen, the number of nodes in each
ring is considered as Nn multiplied by the number associ-
ated with that ring. In this paper the total number of rings
(Nr) is selected from 3 to 5, and the number of nodes in
A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari
the first ring (Nn) can be equal to 3 to 10. The distances
between the rings in the dome on the meridian line are gen-
erally of equal length. The structural data for the topology
of this form of the geodesic dome is a function of the diam-
eter of the dome (D), the total number of rings (Nr), the
number of nodes in the first ring (Nn) and the height of the
crown (h). The top joint at the crown is numbered as the first
joint as shown in Fig. 4a (joint number 1) which is located
in the centre of the coordinate system in the x − y plane.
Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search

(a) where n i is the number of ring corresponding to the node i;

R = (D 2 + 4h 2 )/(8h) is the radius of the hemisphere as
shown in Fig. 4b.
The member grouping is determined in a way that mem-
bers between each consecutive pair of rings belong to one
group, and the members on each ring belong to a different
group. The diagonal members between the crown and the
first ring are group 1, the members between ring 1 and 2 are
group 2 and the group number of members on the ring 2 is
3, and so forth. Also, the members on each ring constitute
one group.
The configuration of elements consists of determining
the start and end nodes of each element. For the first group,
the start node for all elements is the joint number 1 and the
end nodes are those on the first ring. The start and end nodes
of elements on each ring are two consecutive nodes on that
ring. As an example, the element (4,5) belongs to the first
ring’ group and the elements (16,17) and (17,18) belong to
the second ring’ group, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The element
with the lower and upper numbers on that ring also corre-
(b) sponds to that group. For the other diagonal elements, we
have
⎧
⎪ n i (n i − 1)
⎪
⎪ I = Nn × +2
⎪
⎪ 2 
⎪
⎪ j −1
⎪
⎪
⎨ + n i × Fi x
⎪ 
3 j = 2, 3, ..., 3 × N n
⎪
⎪ n (n + 1) n i = 1, 2, ..., Nr − 1
⎪
⎪ J = Nn ×
i i
+j
⎪
⎪ 2  
⎪
⎪   j −1
⎪
⎪
⎩ + n i − 2 × Fi x
3
(15)

Fig. 4 Nodal numbering and the related coordinate system. a Top

view of the geodesic dome. b Section of the geodesic domes

The coordinates of other joints in each ring are obtained as

follows:
⎧   
⎪ D.n i 360 N n × n i (n i − 1)
⎪
⎪ x i = cos i − − 2
⎪
⎪ 2Nr N n · ni 2
⎪
⎪   
⎪
⎪
⎨ D.n i 360 N n × n i (n i − 1)
yi = sin i− −2
⎪ 2Nr N n · ni 2
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪  n i2 D 2
⎪
⎪ 
⎩z i = R −2 − (R − h)
4Nr 2
(14) Fig. 5 The dome nodes and their related elements
 A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari

⎧    
⎪
⎪ ni ni − 1 j −1
⎪
⎪ I = Nn × + 3 + n i × Fi x  
⎪
⎪ 2 2 ni − 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪       
⎪
⎪ j − 2 n i − 1 × Fi x ( j − 1) 2(n i − 1) − 1
⎪
⎪ 
⎨ + Fi x
2 j = 1, 2, ..., 2 × N n × (n i − 1)
  (16)
⎪
⎪ n i (n i + 1) j −1 n i = 2, 3, ..., Nr − 1
⎪
⎪
⎪ J = Nn ×
⎪
⎪
+ 2 × Fi x
2(n i − 1)
⎪
⎪  2
⎪
⎪ j
⎪
⎪ + Fi x +3
⎪
⎩ 2

⎧  
⎪ n n −1
⎨ I = Nn × i i +2
 2   n i = 1, 2, ..., Nr − 1
⎪
⎩ J = Nn × in + 1 n i +2
+1
2 CMCR = 0.95 and PAR = 0.10 are used as suggested by
(17)
where I and J are the start and end nodal numbers of
the elements, respectively. We divide the nodes into two
types: primary and secondary nodes. The primary nodes
are located on the symmetry lines and the number of these
nodes is equal to Nn for each ring. Other nodes are consid-
ered as the secondary ones. The number of the secondary
nodes for the ring n i is equal to Nn × (n i − 1). As an exam-
ple, in the third ring, the nodes 32, 35, 38, ..., 59 are the
primary and the remaining nodes are the secondary ones,
when N n = 10 (Fig. 4a). Equations (15), (16) and (17)
present the total elements of the diagonal groups. Using
(15), the elements with the primary start nodes are deter-
mined. As an example, for n i = 1 and j = 4, 5, 6, the
second group contains (3,13), (3,14) and (3,15), as shown
in Fig. 5. Equation (17) presents only one element which
connects the first primary node on the ring n i to the last sec-
ondary node on the ring n i + 1 and for the second group,
it will be (2,31). The elements related to the secondary
nodes are given by (16). For example, using n i = 3 and
j = 1, 2, 3, 4 in this equation, the elements (33,63), (33,64),
(34,64) and (34,65) are specified. Figure 5 shows the pri-
mary and secondary nodes and their related elements when
N n = 10 and Nr = 4.
A population of 25 individuals is used for the CPs and the
value of constant a is set to one. The acceleration coefficient
ka and the velocity coefficient kv are taken as 0.5. Here,
Kaveh and Talatahari (2010c).
5.1 Effects of Nr and Nn on the optimum designs
Though the number of rings (Nr) and the number of nodes in
the first ring (Nn) are defined as the design variables in our
program, and the optimum values for these variables can
directly be obtained. However, in order to investigate the
effect of Nr and Nn on the optimum designs, here we con-
sider all possible conditions for these design variables. The
dome is considered to be subjected to equipment loading of
1,000 kN at its crown in this state.
Different design variables defined in (2) affect the weight
of structures in different manners. Nr and Nn determine the
number of elements and the height of dome alters the length
of elements and these in turn can change the sum of the
element lengths. On the other hand, the design variables
xi determines the cross-sectional areas of elements without
change in the geometry of the structure. In order to inves-
tigate the effect of the variables separately, the relation of
weight for the dome structure is modified as

nm
W (X) = ρx · Li (18)
i=1

where x is the average cross sectional area of the elements.

5 Results and discussion
In this section, the dome described in the previous
section is optimized using the CSS algorithm. The LRFD
specification and drift constraints are considered as the con-
straints for this structure. The modulus of elasticity for the
steel is taken as 205 kN/mm2 . The diameter of the dome
is selected as 20 m. The limitations imposed on the joint
displacements are 28 mm in the all directions for the nodes.
The sum of the element lengths is a function of the height of
the dome.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 list the optimal designs for the geodesic
dome with different Nn obtained by the CSS algorithm
when Nr is equal to 3, 4 and 5, respectively. From these
tables it can be observed that a dome with small number
of elements (Nn) tends to select the greater height. When
Nn increases, almost in the all the tables the height of the
dome decreases. For a dome with small Nn, having a large
Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search

Table 1 Optimum design of the geodesic dome with three rings

Group number Optimum sections (designations)

Nn = 3 Nn = 4 Nn = 5 Nn = 6 Nn = 7 Nn = 8 Nn = 9 N n = 10

1 PIPESTa (12) PIPEST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (10) PIPST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (10) PIPST (10)
2 PIPST (6) PIPST (5) PIPST (4) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3) PIPST (3)
3 PIPST (5) PIPST (4) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3) PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5)
4 PIPST (12) PIPST (8) PIPST (8) PIPST (10) PIPST (6) PIPST (6) PIPST (8) PIPEST (5)
5 PIPST (6) PIPST (5) PIPST (4) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (4) PIPST (3) PIPST (3)
Height (m) 8.00 7.00 7.25 6.50 5.75 5.00 5.25 5.00
Max. displacement (cm) 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.74 2.80 2.80
Max. strength ratio 99.82 86.38 90.19 97.26 91.86 99.98 99.99 97.35
Weight (kg) 7,213 6,312 5,977 5,970 6,105 6,161 6,236 6,454

L i (cm) 238.43 258.92 303.65 330.34 353.46 374.38 415.88 445.55
x (cm2 ) 38.5 31.1 25.1 23.0 22.0 21.0 19.1 18.5

a PIPST, PIPEST, and PIPDEST stand for standard weight, extra strong, and double-extra strong, respectively

height helps the dome to prevent instability. In addition, the
selected sections for the elements in a dome with a small Nn
are stronger than those of a dome with a large value for Nn.
This means that although a dome with small Nn has a small
value for the sum of the element lengths, however its aver-
age cross sectional area is a big value. The lowest weight
design is the one which has the smallest values for the aver-
age cross sectional area and the sum of the element lengths,
simultaneously.
From Table 1 related to the domes with three rings, the
good designs are obtained when Nn is set to 5, 6 and 7.
For the smaller values for Nn, as expected the sections are
very strong and therefore the average cross sectional area
becomes a higher value and for the big values of Nn, the
sum of the element lengths increases the weight of the dome.
Similarly, for the domes with 4 rings (Table 2) when Nn
is 7, 8 and 9, the economical designs are obtained. Opti-
mum value of Nn is 7, 8, 9, and 10 for the domes with
5 rings (Table 3). As it can be seen when the number of
rings increases, for optimum design, a bigger values should
be selected for Nn. For a constant Nn, when Nr increases,
the height remains almost constant and the weight reduces.
In other words, for a constant Nn, when Nr increases, the
height remains almost constant. For small values of Nn,

Table 2 Optimum design of the geodesic dome with four rings

Group number Optimum sections (designations)

Nn = 4 Nn = 5 Nn = 6 Nn = 7 Nn = 8 Nn = 9 N n = 10

1 PIPEST (12) PIPEST (12) PIPEST (12) PIPEST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (12)
2 PIPST (6) PIPEST (3.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (4) PIPST (3) PIPST (3)
3 PIPST (3) PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5)
4 PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5) PIPEST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2)
5 PIPST (8) PIPST (6) PIPST (5) PIPEST (2) PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (1.25)
6 PIPST (6) PIPST (5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (5) PIPST (4) PIPEST (3.5) PIPEST (3)
7 PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (3)
Height (m) 7.50 6.50 6.50 5.00 5.00 4.75 4.50
Max. displacement (cm) 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.76 2.78 2.80
Max. strength ratio 99.98 99.99 98 95.96 100 93.8 83.57
Weight (kg) 6,813 6,243 6,112 6,070 5,982 6,085 6,259

L i (cm) 371.96 404.65 456.83 466.91 513.79 553.17 591.48
x (cm2 ) 23.3 19.7 17.0 16.6 14.8 14.0 13.5
 A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari

Table 3 Optimum design of the geodesic dome with five rings

Group number Optimum sections (designations)

Nn = 4 Nn = 5 Nn = 6 Nn = 7 Nn = 8 Nn = 9 N n = 10

1 PIPEST (12) PIPEST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (12) PIPST (12)
2 PIPST (8) PIPST (5) PIPST (4) PIPST (4) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3) PIPST (3)
3 PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (3.5) PIPST (3) PIPEST (2) PIPEST (2) PIPEST (2)
4 PIPST (2.5) PIPEST (2) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2)
5 PIPST (2.5) PIPEST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (1.25)
6 PIPST (2.5) PIPEST (1.5) PIPST (1.25) PIPST (1.5) PIPST (1.25) PIPST (0.75) PIPST (0.5)
7 PIPEST (5) PIPEST (5) PIPST (5) PIPST (5) PIPEST (3.5) PIPEST (3) PIPST (4)
8 PIPST (4) PIPST (3) PIPST (3) PIPST (3) PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5)
9 PIPST (3) PIPST (3) PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2) PIPST (2)
Height (m) 7.00 6.75 6.50 5.50 5.25 5.25 4.75
Max. displacement (cm) 2.80 2.74 2.79 2.80 2.80 2.79 2.80
Max. strength ratio 100 99.75 99.9 91.13 98.5 88.57 87.1
Weight (kg) 6,927 6,332 6,210 5,896 5,848 6,041 6,091

L i (cm) 465.16 524.63 582.56 610.68 662.02 722.56 760.23
x (cm2 ) 19.0 15.4 13.6 12.3 11.3 10.7 10.2

the weight reduces, while for the large values of Nn the
weight increases, as shown in Fig. 6. As an example, for
N n = 8, the weight is equal to 6,161, 5,982 and 5,848 kg
when Nr = 3, 4 and 5, respectively, while these are equal
to 5,977, 6,243 and 6,332 kg when N n = 5.
When the number of rings increases, a feasible dome is
not found with N n = 3. This means that we must either
change the height limits or alter the utilized sections. The
dominant constraints of the designs are often the displace-
ment constraint; however changing a section of the reported
designs to a lighter one often causes swerving the stress
constraint in elements.
7000
Nr = 5
Nr = 4
Nr = 3
6500
6000
Weight

nm
Figure 7a, b show the relation between L i and the
i=1
height of the geodesic dome when Nn and Nr are changed,
respectively. As expected, raising the height of the dome
increases the sum of the element lengths; however the rate
of the increment is higher when Nn or Nr has a big value.
As an example, according to Fig. 7a, when the height of the
dome rises from 1 to 9 m, the sum of the element lengths
increases 27%, 44% and 53% for N n = 3, 6 and 10, respec-
tively, when Nr is kept constant (Nr = 4). Also according
to Fig. 7b, the element lengths increment is 49%, 51% and
51.5% for Nr = 3, 4 and 5, respectively, for N n = 8. From
this investigation, two results can be derived. Firstly with a
higher probability a small height will be a suitable choice
rather than a large one for domes with big Nn. In other
words, we expect when the value of the Nn increases, the
height of the dome decreases. Secondly, if a height is suit-
able for a dome with constant Nn, for another dome with a
different number of rings, the new height does not differ a
great deal.
In the other hand, the sum of the element lengths for
the geodesic dome with four rings is 1.38 times larger than

5500 that of the dome with three rings in average. This value
becomes 1.75 times when the domes with five and three
5000 rings are compared (Nn is constant). While these differences
are smaller when Nn is investigated (Nr remains constant).
4500
As an example, the sum of the element lengths for the four,
4000
five and six nodes on the first ring is 1.13, 1.26 and 1.39
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 times larger than that of the dome with three nodes on the
Nn
first ring, respectively. Therefore, it is expected that the
Fig. 6 The weight compression when Nn and Nr are varied alterations of x must be smaller when the number of nodes
Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search

Fig. 7 The relation between the 4

sum of lengths and the height of 9
x 10 (a)
the domes when a Nn is varied
(Nr = 4); b Nr is varied 8
(N n = 8)

Sum of the member lengths

7 Nn = 3
Nn = 4
Nn = 5
6
Nn = 6
Nn = 7
5
Nn = 8
Nn = 9
4
Nn = 10

2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Height of the domes

x 10
4
(b)
9

8
Sum of the member lengths

7
Nr = 3
6 Nr = 4
Nr = 5
5

3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Height of the domes

on the first ring is changed compared to it when the num-
ber of rings is altered. In addition, the value of x must be
decreased as much as possible when Nn or Nr increases.
Therefore, for the domes with small Nn and/or Nr, we will
have stronger sections. These points are supported by the
comparisons of the results made in the three Tables 1, 2
and 3.
Case 2: A multiple loading condition containing: the load-
ing of the previous case and a non-symmetric
loading condition including loads acting on all the
nodes with the sum equal to 800 kN, in addition to
loads with the sum of 400 kN acting only on half
of the structure, as shown in Fig. 8.

5.2 Optimum design of domes under multiple loadings
In the process of design, often non-symmetric and/or multi-
ple loading conditions must be taken into account. In order
to investigate the efficiency of the present methodology,
here two different loading conditions are considered as
follows:
Case 1: A uniform loading acting on the structural with the
sum equal to 1,000 kN. In this Case the equivalent
load for each joint is equal to 1,000 kN divided by
the number of the unsupported joints.
The best weight found for the first case is 2,728 kg which
almost is more than 45% economical design than the best
one obtained when 1,000 kN acting as a single load on
the crown. For Case 2, due to the non-symmetric loading
condition, the weight increases. It is 3,186 kg where both
symmetric and non-symmetric loads are utilized. Table 4
presents the results of these cases. In all loading cases, the
stress constraints are dominant and the displacement is not
active. The maximum stress ratio is 97.86% and 99.98% for
cases 1 and 2, respectively. The maximum displacement
values are very small than its allowable value. For both
cases the number of ring is equal four and the value of the
elements (Nn) is equal to 6 and 7 respectively which are
 A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari

(a) 6 Concluding remarks

This paper utilizes the Charged System Search algorithm for

design of geodesic domes. This algorithm determines the
total number of rings, the number of nodes on the first ring,
the optimum height and the optimum steel section designa-
tions for the members of geodesic domes from the available
steel pipe section table and implements the design con-
straints from LRFD-AISC. The CSS is inspired by the laws
from electrostatics and Newtonian mechanics. CSS contains
a number of charged particles. Each CP is considered a
charged sphere of radius a, which can impose an electric
force on other CPs. This force and the laws for the motion
(b)
determine the new location of the CPs. From optimization
point of view, this process provides a good balance between
the exploration and the exploitation paradigms of the algo-
rithm which can considerably improve the efficiency of the
algorithm.
A simple procedure is presented to calculate the joint
coordinates and specify the elements to determine the
configuration of the geodesic domes. First, the joint coor-
dinates are calculated and divided into the primary and
secondary types considering the symmetry of the dome.
Then using some simple relationships, the elements are con-
structed. A complete investigation on the effect of the num-
ber of rings and the number of nodes of the first ring on the
Fig. 8 The multiple load condition a a uniform loading; b non-
final optimum design is performed. It is shown that using
symmetric loading these parameters as the design variables, it is possible to
perform an optimum topological design of dome structures.
Semi-actual load conditions containing non-symmetric and
found directly by the present methodology. In addition, the
multiple loading conditions are also taken into account.
height of the dome is reduced in these cases compared to the
Although the results of the CSS algorithm as other heuris-
case with a single loading at the crown.
tic methods should be considered as suboptimal, however
the results show that the CSS method is a robust technique
Table 4 Optimum design of the geodesic dome with multiple loadings
that can successfully be utilized in the practical optimum
Group number Optimum sections (designations) topology design of the domes.
Since the height of the dome is considered as a design
Case 1 Case 2
variable and the wind load is directly determined using the
1 PIPST (2) PIPST (2.5) height of the dome, therefore the wind load will change in
2 PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5) the optimization process and it will be treated as a func-
3 PIPST (2.5) PIPST (2.5) tion of a design variable. Therefore, the load condition will
4 PIPST (2) PIPST (2) be changed by altering the design variables and this makes
5 PIPST (2) PIPST (2.5) the problem more difficult. However, formulation of such
6 PIPST (2) PIPST (2.5) a function gives a more accurate simulation of the real con-
7 PIPST (2.5) PIPEST (2) dition. The future work must consider the exact values for
Height (m) 3.25 3.5 the wind load conditions. Since our presented procedure is
Nr 4 4 utilized for different loading conditions, it is expected that
Nn 6 7 such a real condition can also be included in the present
Max. displacement (cm) 1.14 1.50
methodology.
Max. strength ratio 98.76 99.98
Weight (kg) 2728 3186 Acknowledgement The first author is grateful to Iran National
Science Foundation for the support.
Geometry and topology optimization of geodesic domes using charged system search
References
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (1991) Manual of
steel construction-load resistance factor design, 3rd edn. AISC,
Chicago
Bendsoe MP, Mota Soares C (eds) (1992) Proceedings of NATO ARW
on topology design of structures. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Bendsoe MP, Sigmund O (2003) Topology optimization: theory,
methods and applications. Springer, Berlin
Camp C, Bichon J (2004) Design of space trusses using ant colony
optimization. J Struct Eng ASCE 130(5):741−751
Camp C, Pezeshk S, Cao G (1998) Optimized design of two dimen-
sional structures using a genetic algorithm. J Struct Eng ASCE
124(5):551−559
Dhingra AK, Bennage WA (1995) Topological optimization of
truss structures using simulated annealing. Eng Optim 24:239−
259
Ekhande SG, Selvappalam M, Madugula KS (1989) Stability func-
tions for three-dimensional beam-columns. J Struct Eng ASCE
115(2):467−479
Fourie P, Groenwold A (2002) The particle swarm optimization algo-
rithm in size and shape optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim
23(4):259−267
Hasançebi O, Erbatur F (2002) Layout optimization of trusses using
simulated annealing. Adv Eng Softw 33:681−696
Huang X, Xie YM (2010) Evolutionary topology optimization of
continuum structures with an additional displacement constraint.
Struct Multidisc Optim 40(1−6):409−416
Kaveh A, Shojaee S (2007) Optimal design of skeletal structures
using ant colony optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng
70(5):563−581
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009a) Particle swarm optimizer, ant colony
strategy and harmony search scheme hybridized for optimization
of truss structures. Comput Struct 87(5−6):267−283
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009b) Size optimization of space trusses
using Big Bang−Big Crunch algorithm. Comput Struct 87(17−18):
1129−1140
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009c) A particle swarm ant colony optimiza-
tion algorithm for truss structures with discrete variables. J Constr
Steel Res 65(8−9):1558−1568
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010a) An improved ant colony optimization
for design of planar steel frames. Eng Struct 32(3):864−873
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010b) Optimal design of Schwedler and
ribbed domes via hybrid Big Bang-Big Crunch algorithm. J
Constr Steel Res 66(3):412−419
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010c) A novel heuristic optimization method:
charged system search. Acta Mech 213(3−4):267−289
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010d) Optimal design of skeletal structures
via the charged system search algorithm. Struct Multidisc Optim
41(6):893−911
Kaveh A, Farahmand Azar B, Talatahari S (2008a) Ant colony
optimization for design of space trusses. Int J Space Struct
23(3):167−181
Kaveh A, Hassani B, Shojaee S, Tavakkoli SM (2008b) Structural
topology optimization using ant colony methodology. Eng Struct
30(9):2559−2565
View publication stats
Kirsch U (1989) Optimal topologies of structures. Appl Mech Rev
42:223−239
Kirsch U (1997) Reduction and expansion processes in topology
optimization. In: Rozvany GIN (ed) Topology optimization in
structural mechanics. Springer, Berlin, pp 197−206
Lamberti L (2008) An efficient simulated annealing algorithm for
design optimization of truss structures. Comput Struct 86:1936−
1953
Lee KS, Geem ZW (2004) A new structural optimization method based
on the harmony search algorithm. Comput Struct 82:781−798
Makowski ZS (1984) Analysis, design and construction of braced
domes. Granada, London
Makowski ZS (1993) Space structures−−a review of the developments
within the last decades. Space Struct 4, Thomas Telford, London
1:283−292
Majid KI (1972) Nonlinear structures. Butterworth, London
Martínez P, Martí P, Querin OM (2007) Growth method for size,
topology, and geometry optimization of truss structures. Struct
Multidisc Optim 33:13−26
Perez RE, Behdinan K (2007) Particle swarm approach for structural
design optimization. Comput Struct 85:1579−1588
Prager W, Rozvany GIN (1977) Optimization of the structural geom-
etry. In: Bednarek AR, Cesari L (eds) Dynamical systems.
Academic, New York
Rahami H, Kaveh A, Gholipour Y (2008) Sizing, geometry and
topology optimization of trusses via force method and genetic
algorithm. Eng Struct 30(9):2360−2369
Rajeev S, Krishnamoorthy CS (1992) Discrete optimization of struc-
tures using genetic algorithms. J Struct Eng, ASCE 118(5):
1233−1250
Rozvany GIN (1998) Exact analytical solutions for some popular
benchmark problems in topology optimization. Struct Optim
15:42−48
Rozvany GIN (2001) Aims, scope, methods, history and unified ter-
minology of computer-aided topology optimization in structural
mechanics. Struct Multidisc Optim 21:90−108
Rozvany GIN (2009) A critical review of established methods of
structural topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 37:217−
237
Rozvany GIN, Bendsoe MP, Kirsch U (1995) Layout optimization of
structures. Appl Mech Rev 48:41−119
Saka MP (2007) Optimum geometry design of geodesic domes using
harmony search algorithm. Adv Struct Eng 10:595−606
Serra M, Venini P (2006) On some applications of ant colony optimiza-
tion metaheuristic to plane truss optimization. Struct Multidisc
Optim 32(6):499−506
Svanberg K, Werme M (2005) Hierarchical neighbourhood search
method for topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 29:
325−340
Svanberg K, Werme M (2006) Topology optimization by neighbour-
hood search method based on efficient sensitivity calculations. Int
J Numer Methods Eng 67:1670−1699
Topping BHV (1983) Shape optimization of skeletal structures: a
review. J Struct Eng 109:1933−1951
Wang X, Wang MY, Guo D (2004) Structural shape and topology opti-
mization in level-set-based framework of region representation.
Struct Multidisc Optim 27:1−19