Compurers & Srrvcrures Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. W-896.

1993
0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain.
0045-7949/93 $6.00 + 0.00

TECHNICAL NOTE

A SIMPLE EVOLUTIONARY PROCEDURE FOR

STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION
Y. M. XIE and G. P. STEVEN
Finite Element Analysis Research Centre, Engineering Faculty, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

(Received 6 July 1992)

Abstract-A simple evolutionary procedure is proposed for shape and layout optimization of structures.
During the evolution process low stressed material is progressively eliminated from the structure. Various
examples are presented to illustrate the optimum structural shapes and layouts achieved by such a
procedure. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

1. INTRODUCITON
Structural optimization, in particular the layout optimiz-
ation, has been identified as the most challenging and
economically the most rewarding task in structural design
[I]. Traditionally solutions to structural optimization prob-
lems have been sought by using various mathematical
programming techniques. However, mathematical program-
ming has been demonstrated to be inefficient and often
unsuitable for tackling layout optimization problems and to
overcome these difficulties optimality criteria and optimal
layout theories have been developed [2].
Recently Bendsoe and Kikuchi [3] developed the so-called
homogenization method in which a material model with
infinitely many microscale voids is introduced and the
layout optimization problem is defined by seeking the
optimal porosity of such a porous medium using one of the
optimahty criteria.
By observing the evolution of naturally occurring struc-
tures such as shells, bones and trees it becomes obvious that
the topology and shape of such structures achieve their
optimum over a long evolutionary period and adapt to
whatever environment they find themselves in. This paper is
to demonstrate the possibilities of achieving similar struc-
tural shape and layout optimization by using the finite
element analysis and training the software to follow a
particular evolutionary path.
2. A SIMPLE EVOLUTIONARY PROCEDURE
After finite element analysis the stress distribution
throughout the structure is found. Often it happens that
part of the material is not effectively used. Using some
criterion for rejection, here called a rejection criterion (RC),
such as the von Mises stress, this unneeded part of the
material can be eliminated. For example, elements are
deleted where the von Mises stress in the element is less than
a rejection ratio (RR) times the maximum von Mises stress
over the structure.
Such a finite element analysis and element elimination
cycle is repeated using the same RR until a steady state is
reached. At this stage an evolution rate (ER ) is introduced
and added to the RR. The iteration takes place again until
a new steady state is reached.
This evolutionary process continues until a desired opti-
mum is reached, for example, until all stress levels are within
25% of the maximum. It might not be the absolute best
result but such an evolutionary optimization procedure
offers the possibility of knowing every stage of the shape and
layout path towards the true optimum.
Although the proposed procedure appears to be trivial or
primitive, we shall show in the next section the encouraging
results achieved by this simple procedure. In various test
cases, the results agree remarkably well with solutions
obtained by analytical and other mathematically rigorous
procedures.
3. EXAMPLES
Example 1. Metal implant in bone
An example of the natural evolutionary structural optim-
ization occurs in metal implants to repair bone breakage. It
has been noticed that after the repair, if any local bone does
not have sufficient stress applied that part of bone dimin-
ishes as calcium is absorbed into the bloodstream.
This evolutionary process is simulated with the model in
Fig. 1 using 82 x 20 bilinear quadrilateral plane stress
elements. The ‘bone’, which is broken into two parts, is
connected by the ‘metal’ in the middle. The Young’s modu-
lus for the metal is assumed to be 10 times as much as that
of the bone and the system is stretched at both zyxwvutsrqponm
e nds.
The initial rejection ratio R& = 1% is assumed and the
evolution rate ER is taken as 1% Figures 2(a)(j) show the
eroded shape of the bone at various stages. These pictures

Fig. 1. Model of metal implant in broken bone.

885
886 Technical Note

(a> RR = 1%

RR = 2%

(c>

(e)

Fig. 2(a-f).
 Technical Note 887

RR = 7%

--

00 RR = 8%

(i) RR = 9%

Cj)

Fig. 2. Evolutionary history of bone erosion. (Initial rejection ratio RR, = l%, evolution rate ER = I%.)

provide a clear view of the evolutionary history of the bone

erosion. On average seven iterations are needed to achieve
a steady state for each RR increment.
Example 2. Optimum two-bar frame
As a verification of the present evolutionary procedure a
simple problem whose solution may be obtained analytically
is considered. It is a two-bar frame shown in Fig. 3. For
fixed values of the applied load F and the horizontal length
24

Fig. 3. A two-bar frame structure. Fig. 4. Design domain for the two-bar frame structure.
888 Technical Note

RR= 3% (b) RR = 6%

RR = 12%
RR = 9% (4

RR= 18%
RR = 15% (0

........................
........................
........................
........................
f ........................

Fig. 5(a-f ).
 Technical Note 889

RR = 30%
RR = 21% zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
(J)
(9

tt .......................
.......................

Fig. 5. Evolutionary path towards the optimum two-bar frame structure. (Initial rejection ratio RR, = I %,
evolution rate ER = 1%. Figure S(j) gives H = 2L, which agrees exactly with the analytical solution.)

L, the optimal height is obtained as H = 2L, if this structure
is assumed to be a truss.
To get such an optimum structural layout, a model shown
in Fig. 4 is used where the rectangular ‘design domain’ is
larger than the size L x 2L (L = 10 m). It is discretized using
25 x 60 bilinear quadrilateral plane stress elements. Young’s
modulus E = 100 GPa and Poisson’s ratio v = 0.3 are as-
sumed. The same problem has been modelled by Suzuki and
Kikuchi [4] using the homogenization method with 40 x 96
elements.
We start the evolution with the initial rejection ratio
RR, = I%, taking the evolution rate ER as 1%. Figures
5(a)< j) show the different stages of the evolution. After the
RR reaches 30% a perfect two-bar system is achieved. The
final solution in Fig. 5(j) gives H = 2L, which is exactly the
same as the analytical solution.
On average eight iterations are needed to converge to a
steady state at each RR increment.
L=2H d
t-

_d- F
1F
A-
Fig. 7. Design domain for the Michell type structure.
H

Fig. 6. A Michell type structure.

890

RR = 2.5%
(a)

..............
..............
..............

RR = 5%

............... ...
pu

RR = 7.5%
(c>

............ .........................

..............

RR = 10%

RR = 12.5%

Fig. 8(a e)
 Technical Note 891

RR = 15%

................
. ... ... . . .... ...... ....... . .
...............

......................... ................
................................................ ....
...................................... .......
.,.,........,.....
..................................... ............
................
. ...............

fg) RR = 17.5%

.................
.................

.................

.................

RR = 20%

0) RR = 22.5%

Cj> RR = 25%

Fig. 8. Evolutionary path towards the optimum Michell type structure. (Initial rejection ratio RR, = 1%,
evolution rate ER = 0.5%. Figure 8(j) gives B = x/4, which agrees exactly with the analytical solution.)
892 Technical Note zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPO

E.xample 3. A Michell type structure

The second verification of the present evolutionary pro-

cedure of layout optimization is whether it can reproduce a
Michell type structure shown in Fig. 6, which has been
solved analytically as a typical problem of structural layout
optimization [5].
A design domain of the size 2H x H (H = 5 m) as shown
in Fig. 7 is discretized into 50 x 25 bilinear quadrilateral
plane stress elements. The two corners at the bottom are
assumed fixed and the load is applied at the middle of the
bottom. Young’s modulus E = 100 GPa and Poisson’s ratio
v = 0.3 are assumed. The initial rejection ratio RR, is equal
to 1% and the evolution rate ER is 0.5%.
F
Figures 8(a)(j) show the evolutionary history of this
Fig. 9. Change of support at the bottom right corner.
model from a rectangular plate into the final truss type

(4 RR = 2.5%

RR = 5%

RR = 7.5%
Cc)

RR = 10%

Fig. lO(a4).
 (e) zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
RR = 12.5%

RR = 15%

w RR = 17.5%

RR = 20%

...................................................

(9 RR = 22.5%

............
............ ............

...................................................
.................
...............

RR = 25%
0)

RR, = I%,
Fig. 10. A different e volutionary history due to changing support. (Initia ~1 r,ejection ratio
evolution rate ER = O.S%.)
893
 Technical Note

structure, which is similar to the analytical solution in

Fig. 3(a). It is worth pointing out that the angle 0 in Fig. 8(j)
is equal to 45”. which is exactly the same as in the analytical
solution.
On average four iterations are needed to achieve a steady
state for each RR increment.

E.xample 4. Chutqy of’ supporr

To examine the effect of changing support of a structure,
the model in Example 3 is now reanalysed with the support
at the bottom right changed from fixed to rolling condition
as shown in Fig. Y.
Keeping all the other parameters the same as in Example
Fig. 11. Design domain for a short cantilever. 3, we now get a diRerent evolutionary history as shown in

RR = 11%
(4

RR = 12%

(cl RR = 13%

RR = 14%

Fig. I2(a~ d)
 Technical Note 895 zyxwvutsr

......................
......................
......................

RR = 17%
w

RR = 18%
O-4 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Fig. 12. Evolutionary path to the optimum configuration. (Initial rejection ratio RR, = lo%, evolution
rate ER = l%.)

Figs lO(aHj). There are two extra horizontal bars
at the bottom which obviously are in tension and
pulling the bottom right corner from moving further to the
right.
On average four iterations are needed to converge to a
steady state at each RR increment.
It is noticed from results of both Example 3 and Example
4 that there are a cluster of elements at the location where
the load is applied, which are in contrast to solutions from
truss theory in which the pin-joint condition is assumed.
This is consistent with the modelling whereby rigid joints are
present and extra material is needed at joints to support
bending moments.
Example 5. A short ~~niil~er
Next let us apply the optimization procedure to a short
cantilever subject to the vertical force at the free end, see
Fig. 11. The rectangular design domain is discretized into
64 x 40 quadrilateral bilinear plane stress elements. Young’s
modulus E = 100 GPa and Poisson’s ratio Y = 0.3 are
assumed.
896 Technical Note
Figures lZ(aHh) show the evolutionary path towards
the optimum configuration. The final solution shown
in Fig. 12(h) is very similar to what Suzuki and
Kikuchi [4] obtained using a totally different approach of
the homogenization method.
On average ten iterations are needed to achieve a steady
state for each RR increment.
4. DISCUSSION
The examples shown here are all plane stress problems.
However, it is obvious that the proposed approach applies
equally to general two- and three-dimensional problems.
The only change in the existing finite element analysis codes
is adding a few lines regarding comparing the element von
Mises stress with the maximum von Mises stress and then
rejecting the low stressed elements.
During the evolutionary process, it is not necessary to
generate a new mesh. Instead we assign the material prop-
erty number of the rejected elements to zero and ignore these
elements when the globle stiffness matrix is assembled in the
following solutions. Thus as more and more elements are
eliminated, the number of equations becomes less and less.
Typically it takes 5-8 iterations to reach a steady state at
each value of the rejection ratio. We have found that the
initial rejection ratio RR,, must be small, say 1% and that
the evolution rate must also be small, again 1% is typical.
If the evolution rate ER is too high then over rejection
occurs and the structure becomes singular. When this
happens, it is necessary that the software steps back and
starts off the current evolutionary cycle with a halved ER to
try again.
It is noted that most of the examples have reached close
to their optimum configurations with the RR round about
25%. This indicates that there is still a wide range of stress
between the lowest and the highest stressed elements using
the element von Mises stress compared with the maximum
von Mises stress as the rejection criterion. Because of the
presence of rigid joints and fixed support joints there can be
significant stress raises at these locations which can explain
the low terminal RR value. It is a possible further develop-
ment to compare the element von Mises stress with its
average over all the elements as an alternative rejection
criterion.
It can take nearly 100 iteration to reach a suitable final
optimum configuration. We currently use STRAND6 [6]
software which allows the user to set up batch files to handle
the iteration cycles automatically. At the end of each
iteration or each RR increment, a picture of the remaining
elements is stored. When the whole solution is finished, these
pictures are shown in a sequence, typically for 2 seconds
each frame. This has resulted in a collection of interesting
videos of the evolutionary history of various structures.
To speed up this optimization procedure two possible
improvements are currently under investigation. One is to
use the similarity of the element stiffness matrices when
identical quadrilateral or brick elements are zyxwvutsrqponml
use d to dis-
cretized the whole or most part of the design domain. The
other is to employ reanalysis techniques, see for example 171,
to avoid assemble and decompose the global stiffness matrix
at every iteration.
It has been shown that the present evolutionary procedure
is able to give the design engineer at least a rough guide to
the optimum layout and shape of a structure under certain
loading conditions. The final design of a structure can be
improved by using existing shape optimization codes which,
although very limited in the capability of changing topology
of a structure, can provide details of the shape and size of
a structure.
REFERENCES
I. G. I. N. Rozvany, Historical review of layout optimiz-
ation. In Structural Optimization, Proceedings of the
IVTAM Symposium on Structural Optimization (Edited
by G. I. N. Rozvany and B. L. Karihaloo), Melbourne,
9-13 Feb. 1988. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1988).
2. G. I. N. Rozvany, Structural Design via Optimality
Criteria. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1988).
3. M. P. Bendsae and N. Kikuchi, Generating optimal
topologies in structural design using a homogenization
method. Comput. Meth. appl. Mech. Engng. 71,197-224
(1988).
4. K. Suzuki and N. Kikuchi, A homogenization method
for shape and topology optimization. Comput. Meth.
appl. Mech. Engng. 93, 291-381 (1991).
5. W. S. Hemp, Michell’s structural continua. In Opti-
mum Structures, Chap. 4. Clarendon Press, Oxford
(1973).
6. STRAND6 Reference Manual and User Guide. G + D
Computing, Sydney (1991).
7. B. H. V. Topping, Exact and approximate static struc-
tural re-analysis. In CISM Advanced Course on Shape
and Lay-out Optimization of Structural Systems. Udine
(1990).