Engineering with Computers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01534-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimal design of truss structures with frequency constraints:

a comparative study of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and CMAES algorithms
H. Moosavian1 · P. Mesbahi2 · N. Moosavian3 · H. Daliri3

Received: 15 June 2020 / Accepted: 20 October 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2021, corrected publication 2022

Abstract
The present study examines the performance of three powerful methods including the original differential evolution (DE), the
improved differential evolution (IDE), and the winner of the CEC-2014 competition, LSHADE, in addition to the covariance
matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMAES) for size optimization of truss structures under natural frequency constraints.
Despite the abundant researches on novel meta-heuristic algorithms in the literature, the application of CMAES, one of the
most powerful and reliable optimization algorithms, on the optimal solution of the truss structures has received scant atten-
tion. For consistent comparison between these algorithms, four stopping criteria are defined and for each of these criteria, all
algorithms are executed 30 times. Statistical analysis of the results for each algorithm is performed, and the mean, standard
deviation, minimum, and maximum for 30 executions of the algorithms are calculated. For the small population size, results
show that the CMAES algorithm not only has the best performance and the least standard deviation values among other
given algorithms in all cases but also finds the best ever optimal solutions for the design of the benchmark truss structures
which have not been reported in other studies. However, by increasing the number of decision variables and the population
size, the CMAES algorithm needs more function evaluations to converge to the global optimal solution with higher accuracy.

Keywords Covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMAES) · Truss structures · Frequency constraints · Optimal
design · Statistical tests

1 Introduction Over the past decades, many researchers have conducted

The dynamic behavior of the structural system is primarily
influenced by its natural frequencies and the correspond-
ing mode shapes, especially in low-frequency vibration
problems. For instance, when the frequencies of external
dynamic excitations match with one of the natural frequen-
cies, the resonance phenomenon occurs. Hence, the ability to
control each system’s natural frequencies and consequently
prevent the destructive outcomes of the resonance phenom-
enon is of paramount importance.
* H. Moosavian
hashemmoosavian@yahoo.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science
and Technology, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
several studies to develop an efficient optimization tech-
nique for the optimal design of the structures under fre-
quency constraints. The primary works in this field deal
with traditional gradient-based techniques. Kiusalaas and
Shaw [1] proposed a design algorithm for optimizing struc-
tures subject to lower bound frequency constraints based
on the finite element method and Kuhn–Tucker conditions.
Levy and Chai [2] suggested an effective optimality crite-
rion technique for the selection of the cross-sectional area
to control the frequency of structures and linked it to an
algorithm for natural frequency assessment. Another work
for solving such problems was released by Khot [3]. In this
method, a basic optimality criterion is extended, and vari-
ous schemes are also proposed to obtain a specified natural
frequency. Sadek [4] utilized an iterative design procedure
based on Kuhn–Tucker conditions to minimize truss struc-
tures with frequency constraints. In the latter work, the size
of the cross-sections and the coordinates of nodes are con-
sidered as the design variables. Grandhi and Vernkayya [5]
employed a simple resizing algorithm based on optimality

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

criterion (OC) in conjunction with a scaling technique to
minimize the weight of structures under frequency con-
straints. Sedaghati et al. [6] developed a structural optimi-
zation algorithm by the integrated force formulation to find
the optimum weight of the frame-type and truss structures
with single or multiple natural frequency constraints. Since
the optimal solution in such problems highly depends on the
selection of initial points, the application of gradient-based
techniques under frequency constraints encounters serious
difficulties. It is worthwhile to mention that this drawback
is absent in some optimization problems under stress and
displacement constraints [7]. In other words, frequency con-
straints are non-convex, highly nonlinear, and implicit with
respect to the design variables and these features made the
traditional techniques impractical. Due to the advancement
of the computational capability of computers, metaheuris-
tic algorithms have been known as practical and efficient
methods to solve intricate optimization problems regard-
less of starting points and gradient information. Some of
the most significant methods in the field are listed as follows:
genetic algorithm (GA) [8], differential evolution (DE) [9],
covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMAES)
[10], soccer league competition (SLC) [11–13], and particle
swarm optimization (PSO) [14].
In this regard, Wei et al. [15] employed a hybrid method,
called NHGA, to solve shape and size optimization of truss
structures. They combined a Niche technique and a simplex
search to prevent premature convergence while enhancing
the global searching capacities of basic GA. Subsequently,
Wei et al. [16] improved the computational cost of NHGA
by utilizing the advantages of parallel computing and intro-
duced the NHPGA algorithm with better performance com-
pared to the original version. Among various studies on
the optimization of truss structures with multiple natural
frequency constraints, the contribution of Kaveh and his co-
workers towards the incorporation of novel meta-heuristic
algorithms is substantial. Kaveh and Zolghadr [17] utilized
the charged system search algorithm and its improved ver-
sion for the optimization of the aforementioned problem.
Kaveh and Mahdavi [18] adopted Big Bang–Big Crunch
(BB–BC) algorithm combined with the quasi-Newton
method to effectively search for the optimal solution in
both local and global domains. Kaveh and Zolghadr [19]
introduced the democratic PSO algorithm to simultane-
ously benefit from the advantages of PSO and avoid any
premature convergence of the original algorithm. In another
study, they proposed a new algorithm through hybridization
of PSO and ray optimization algorithm (PSRO) to maintain a
suitable balance between exploitation and exploration of the
approach [20]. In order to tackle this highly nonlinear opti-
mization problem, Kaveh and Javadi [21] enhanced the PSO
algorithm by equipping the method with exploitation opera-
tor in harmony search (HS) and motion refinement in ray
13
Engineering with Computers
optimization. Other novel methods such as vibrating particle
systems algorithm [22], cyclical parthenogenesis algorithm
(CPA) [23], and improved version of the spiral optimization
algorithm (SPO) [24] have been proved to be reliable and
stable with the desirable speed of convergence when applied
to the weight minimization of truss structures under natural
frequency limitations. Miguel and Miguel [25] tested two
meta-heuristic methods of HS and firefly algorithm (FA)
to perform shape and size optimization of various trusses
with multiple fundamental frequency constraints. Zuo et al.
[26] combined OC and GA and presented a hybrid OC–GA
algorithm for finding the least weight of truss configuration,
which satisfies multiple dynamic constraints.
Using the modified versions of passing vehicle
search (PVS), Tejani et al. [27] obtained the optimal topol-
ogy of the truss structures under various static and dynamic
constraints. Vu [28] proposed a new methodology for achiev-
ing the optimal node coordinates and cross-section areas of
truss structures subject to natural frequency constraints. This
method is constructed using DE and finite element code.
Ho-Huu et al. [29] proposed an improved differential evolu-
tion (IDE) for solving this type of problem. They used an
adaptive mutation scheme and an elitist selection algorithm
to improve the performance of basic DE. Another modi-
fied DE method in this research direction was developed by
Pham [30]. This method was named ANDE and carried out
three improvements in different phases of DE to preserve
an effective balance between global exploration and local
exploitation. Another research utilizing DE concepts in this
field was reported by Bureerat and Pholdee [31]. They also
incorporated a constraint handling technique in their main
algorithm to efficiently deal with constraints of the optimi-
zation problem. Lieu et al. [32] presented a new adaptive
hybrid evolutionary firefly algorithm (AHEFA) to improve
the accuracy of the final solution and to speed up the con-
vergence rate. Khatibinia and Naseralavi [33] introduced
a new metaheuristic method named OMGSA which com-
bines a multi-gravitational search algorithm (MGSA) and
an orthogonal cross-over to solve truss optimization prob-
lems with dynamic constraints. Another algorithm adopting
a modified version of symbiotic organism search (SOS) was
introduced by Kumar et al. [34] which improves the effi-
ciency and accuracy of the search procedure. It should be
noted that an extensive study on the efficiency and suitability
of nine popular meta-heuristic algorithms was carried out by
Kaveh and Zolghadr [35]. Furthermore, the performances
of the improved ray optimization (IRO) algorithm [36], the
aging mechanism in PSO algorithm (ALC-PSO), and HS
mechanism combined with ALC-PSO (HALC-PSO) [37]
were examined through comparison with other well-known
algorithms.
Among the variety of non-gradient-based methods, covar-
iance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMAES) [10]
Engineering with Computers
has been known as one of the most promising metaheuristic
methods. This stochastic method employs a derandomized
evolution strategy and covariance matrix adaption. Moreo-
ver, to reduce the computational cost, CMAES takes the
advantage of parallel computing. The excellent performance
of this algorithm helps many researchers to apply this algo-
rithm successfully for solving the most complicated optimi-
zation problems in different engineering fields. For example,
Wang et al. [38] and Su et al. [39] used CMAES for truss
optimization under displacement, stress, and local stability
constraints and compared the results with those obtained
by other population-based algorithms such as PSO and the
evolutionary node shift (ENS). In the work by Ghosh et al.
[40], some useful features of classical DE were combined
with the CMAES algorithm for real parameter optimization.
de Melo and Iacca [41] presented a modified CMAES by
changing the stopping criteria and improving the sampling
mechanism of the standard CMAES. Then, the algorithm
was investigated for the optimization of several benchmark
functions and various engineering problems. Recently, Yang
et al. [42] employed CMAES to achieve an optimum design
of curvilinear stiffener in aircraft panel structures. Moreover,
Moosavian and Moosavian [43] compared the performance
of CMAES with ten popular optimization algorithms for
sizing optimization of truss structures considering discrete
decision variables. Statistical analysis of optimal results
showed that this algorithm is efficient and reliable and can
be more investigated for structural design. Despite being
employed by the CMAES algorithm in various optimization
problems, the extension of this algorithm for the optimiza-
tion of truss structures under dynamic constraints has not yet
been presented. In this paper, the CMAES algorithm with
adaptive penalty function strategy for handling frequency
constraints has been implemented and the results are com-
pared with the DE, IDE, and LSHADE algorithms. In the
next two sections, a brief review of the optimization problem
and then a detailed description of the CMAES algorithm
are provided.
2 Optimization of truss structures
with frequency constraints
In the truss optimization problem, the total weight of the
truss structure is minimized such that its natural frequen-
cies fulfill some inequality constraints. Throughout the
optimization, the truss layout is taken fixed, hence, the
cross-sectional areas of members are considered as the
only design variables. In this regard, the design variables
are confined to some upper and/or lower bounds. The math-
ematical framework for the optimization problem of the
truss structure with the jth natural frequency, 𝜔j can be
defined as
{ }
∑
n
Min 𝜌Li Ai ,
i=1
subjected to
(1)
𝜔j ≤ 𝜔U
j , for jth natural frequency,
𝜔k ≥ 𝜔Lk , for kth natural frequency,
ALi ≤ Ai ≤ AU
i , for i = 1, 2, ⋯ , n,
in which n is the total number of truss members and 𝜌 is the
mass density. Moreover, Li and Ai denote the length and
cross-sectional area of the ith member, respectively. ALi and
AU represent the lower bound and the upper bound of cross-
i
sectional area for the ith member of truss. To avoid any unde-
sired effects such as resonance, the natural frequencies need
not fall in the prescribed ranges. For this purpose, 𝜔Lj and 𝜔U
j
are introduced in the above equation as the lower and upper
bounds for the jth natural frequency, respectively. The fre-
quency-prohibited bands are determined according to the
dominant frequencies of the external agents. Moreover, from
the perspective of control engineering, it is preferable to
avoid any coincidence of natural frequencies of different
modes. Thus, manipulation of the natural frequencies ena-
bles a designer to control the final response of the structure
under different dynamic loadings [5, 44].
3 Covariance matrix adaptation evolution
strategy (CMAES)
In this section, the CMAES algorithm with the proposed
adaptive penalization for optimization of truss structures is
presented. The objective function is denoted f ∶ ℝn → ℝ.
CMAES [10] is an iterative stochastic search algorithm for
real-parameter (continuous domain) optimization of non-
linear, non-convex functions where at each iteration, instead
of acting operators on the population, a population of can-
didate solutions is sampled. In other words, the CMAES
algorithm translates the evolution of the probability distribu-
tion to sample points at each iteration. The algorithm’s main
strategy is sampling a population of 𝜆 candidate solutions;
evaluation of the 𝜆 candidate solutions on f; and adapta-
tion of the sampling distribution using the feedback from
f obtained. The sampling distribution in CMAES is based
on a multivariate normal distribution which is denoted by
N(𝐦, 𝐂) where 𝐦 is a mean vector of ℝn and 𝐂 is an n × n
symmetric positive definite matrix corresponding to the
covariance matrix of the random vector. The random vector
is determined based on the set of parameters (𝐦, 𝐂).
In CMAES, the mean vector 𝐦 represents the best esti-
mate of the optimum or favorite solutions, and the covari-
ance matrix 𝐂 characterizing the geometric shape of the
distribution defines where new solutions are sampled.
13
 Engineering with Computers

Moreover, the step-size 𝜎 is also used as a global scaling and cc is the time constant and is defined as a function of
factor for the covariance matrix. Overall, in the first step of number of decision variables n by
the CMAES algorithm, points are sampled according to the 𝜇eff
following formula: 4+
n
cc = . (10)
𝐦 + 𝜎N(𝟎, 𝐂). (2) 2𝜇
n + 4 + eff
n
The adaptation of 𝐦 aims at finding the best estimate of the
The vector 𝐏c moves towards the descent direction
g
optimum, the adaptation of 𝐂 aims at learning the right coor-
dinate system of the problem, and the adaptation of 𝜎 aims (𝐦g+1 − 𝐦g )∕𝜎 g and adds the steps followed by the mean
at achieving fast convergence to an optimum and preventing vector 𝐦 over the iterations implementing some normali-
premature convergence. The basic equation for sampling the zation to dampen previous steps. This operation helps to
search points is given as follows: reduce the effect of the old information and the number of
function evaluations (NFE) [10]. Therefore, the rank-one
g
𝐱i = 𝐦g + 𝜎 g Ni (𝟎, 𝐂g ), g+1 ( g+1 )T
for i = 1, ⋯ , 𝜆. (3) matrix 𝐏c 𝐏c is constructed and added to the covari-
ance matrix 𝐂 to increase the probability of sampling in the
The 𝜆 individuals are sampled and then evaluated and ranked
direction of 𝐏c . The rank-𝜇 matrix is also the stochastic
g+1
according to f:
approximation of the gradient with respect to 𝐂 defined by
∑𝜇
g g g w 𝐲 𝐲T and added to the covariance matrix 𝐂 . By
f (x1∶𝜆 ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ f (x𝜇∶𝜆 ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ f (x𝜆∶𝜆 ), (4) i=1 i i∶𝜆 i∶𝜆
combining the rank-one and rank-𝜇 update, the update of the
where xi∶𝜆 = ith best individual and 𝜇 is the parent popula-
g covariance matrix can be given as
tion size (< 𝜆). Then, the mean 𝐦g is updated by taking the ∑
( g+1 )T 𝜇
weighted mean of the best 𝜇 individuals as 𝐂g+1 = (1 − c1 − c𝜇 )𝐂g + c1 𝐏g+1
c
𝐏c
+ c𝜇
T
wi 𝐲i∶𝜆 𝐲i∶𝜆 ,
i=1
∑
𝜇
g
∑
𝜇
g (11)
(5)
g+1 g g
𝐦 = wi 𝐱i∶𝜆 =𝐦 +𝜎 wi 𝐲i∶𝜆 ,
i=1 i=1 where c1 and c𝜇 are learning rates of the rank-one and rank-𝜇
update, respectively, and defined as
in which
2
g 1 g c1 = , (12a)
𝐲i∶𝜆 = g (𝐱i∶𝜆 − 𝐦g ). (6) (n + 1.3)2 + 𝜇eff
𝜎
In general, 𝜇 = 𝜆∕2 and wi is strictly positive and ⎧ 1 ⎫
2(𝜇eff − 2 + )
⎪ 𝜇eff ⎪
∑
𝜇
c𝜇 = Min⎨1 − c1 , ⎬. (12b)
wi = 1, w1 ≥ w2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w𝜇 > 0. (7) ⎪ (n + 2)2 + 𝜇eff ⎪
i=1 ⎩ ⎭
By applying Eq. (5), the mean vector moves towards the best Besides the covariance matrix adaptation, the step-size 𝜎 g
∑𝜇
solutions. The term 𝜎 g i=1 wi 𝐲i∶𝜆 is a stochastic approxi-
g
needs to be controlled after every iteration. In this regard, a
mation of the gradient with respect to 𝐦 which depends on conjugate evolution path 𝐏𝜎 ∈ ℝn at iteration g is updated by
g

quantiles of the objective function f. √

The update of the covariance matrix 𝐂g uses two mecha- 1 ( )−1 g+1
𝐏g+1 = (1 − c )𝐏
𝜎 𝜎
g
+ c𝜎 (2 − c𝜎 )𝜇eff 𝐂g (𝐦 − 𝐦g ),
nisms: (a) rank-one update and (b) rank-𝜇 update. The rank-
𝜎 g
𝜎
one update uses the evolution path 𝐏c ∈ ℝn which may be
g (13)
updated by the following equation: where c𝜎 is the learning rate and defined by

1√ 𝜇eff + 2
𝐏g+1
c = (1 − cc )𝐏gc + cc (2 − cc )𝜇eff (𝐦g+1 − 𝐦g ), (8) c𝜎 = . (14)
𝜎g n + 𝜇eff + 5
where 𝜇eff is the variance effective selection mass and is The step-size 𝜎 g is adapted according to
defined by
[ ( g+1 )]
( )−1 c ∥ 𝐏𝜎 ∥
∑ 𝜇 𝜎 g+1 = 𝜎 g exp 𝜎 −1 , (15)
𝜇eff = w2i , (9) d𝜎 E ∥ N(𝟎, 𝐈) ∥
i=1
where d𝜎 is damping parameter and calculated by

13
Engineering with Computers
{ √ } does not involve any user-specified constant. In this study,
𝜇eff − 1
d𝜎 = 1 + 2 Max 0, − 1 + c𝜎 . (16)
N+1
As the algorithm progresses, the global step-size changes
dynamically, and the step-size update rule implements to
increase the step-size (exploration) when the length of the
conjugate evolution path 𝐏𝜎 is larger than the length of
g 𝛾2
random selection N(𝟎, 𝐈) and decrease it (exploitation) oth-
erwise. The combination of the step-size adaptation with
covariance matrix adaptation provides linear convergence
on a wide range of functions including ill-conditioned
problems.
On the class of convex functions, the covariance matrix
sequence 𝐂g turns out to be proportional to the inverse Hes-
sian of the objective function f, and the algorithm is able to
capture second-order information without using any deriva-
tives [45].
4 Handling variable and frequency
constraints with CMAES algorithm
As it was alluded to, there are two types of constraints for
the optimal design of truss structures: (a) design variable
constraints that restrict the cross-sectional areas and (b)
frequency constraints that restrict the natural frequencies.
In the literature, several methods are proposed to handle
these constraints in stochastic optimization algorithms. For
satisfying the variable constraint, two approaches have been
implemented. In the first and most widespread approach,
the violated variables are replaced with the specified upper
and lower bounds, and in the second one, if the variable
constraint is violated, the value is set to be the middle of the
previous value and the specified upper and lower bounds. In
this study, the first approach has been utilized to handle the
cross-sectional variable constraints.
For satisfying the frequency constraints, unfeasible solu-
tions can be rejected, penalized, or repaired. Penalization
is the most popular approach used to handle these types of
constraints [45]. This approach transforms the constraint
optimization problem to an unconstrained model as
{ }
Min f (𝐱) subjected to hi (𝐱) ≤ di ∀i = 1, ⋯ , m,
(17)
or alternatively
{ }
∑m
Min f (𝐱) + 𝛾(hi (𝐱) − di ) , (18)
i=1
where m is the number of constraints and 𝛾 is the penalty
function which has a large positive value and needs to be
tuned. A solution to avoid the difficulty of tuning these
parameters consists in using an adaptive penalization that
the adaptive penalty function method presented by Kaveh
and Zolghadr [17] will be implemented which improves
the convergence properties of the CMAES algorithm. It is
defined as follows:
{ }
Min f (𝐱) + (1 + 𝛾1 × Λ) f (𝐱) ,
{ }
∑
m (19)
Λ= Max (0, hi (𝐱) − di ) ,
i=1
where Λ denotes the sum of the violated constraints; and the
parameters 𝛾1 and 𝛾2 are constants representing the explora-
tion and the exploitation rates of the search space, respec-
tively. In this paper, 𝛾1 is set to be one, and 𝛾2 is set to linearly
increase from 1.5 to 6.
5 The statistical tests
For comparing the performance of the algorithms, we apply
two well-known nonparametric statistical procedures: the
Friedman test [46, 47] (nonparametric analysis of variance),
and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test [48] which are imple-
mented in IBM-SPSS Statistics software.
The Friedman test involves a multiple comparisons test
which may be used to detect significant differences between
the responses of two or more subjects to various treatments.
For the results presented herein, the response is the least-
weight values, the subjects are the optimization algorithms,
and the treatments are the multiple executions. The Fried-
man tests are conducted separately for each stopping cri-
terion. The test determines the ranks of the responses, or
least-weight solutions, for each of the algorithms. For each
algorithm, the mean of these ranks is evaluated. The Fried-
man test statistic, based on the number of subjects, the num-
ber of treatments, and the mean ranks of the responses for
each treatment, is tested against a Chi-square critical value
and indicates whether the various treatments or executions
are significantly different. For a significance level of 0.05, if
the asymptotic significance or p value is greater than 0.05,
the test indicates the similarity of algorithms executions.
In addition to the Friedman test, the present study
adopts the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to demonstrate the
performance of the CMAES with respect to DE, IDE, and
LSHADE algorithms in a pairwise manner. By taking the
CMAES algorithm as the comparison basis, R+ and R− are
defined as the sum of the ranks in which the CMAES is
superior and inferior to the other given algorithm, respec-
tively. In other words, if R+ is greater than R− , it can be
deduced that the CMAES has the better performance than
the other algorithm. According to the given parameters
of R+ and R−, the associated p values can be computed to
13
 Engineering with Computers

determine whether the null hypothesis is rejected or not. For
example, if the p value is less than 0.05, two distributions are
not equal at the 5 percent level of significance.
The results of the statistical tests will be provided in the
next section for each numerical example separately.
are implemented in the MATLAB programming language
environment with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4800MQ CPU
P8700 @ 2.7 GHz and 16.00 GB RAM.
6.1 A ten‑bar planar truss

The first example is devoted to the analysis of a ten-bar

6 Numerical examples planar truss structure as illustrated in Fig. 1. The material
density, 𝜌 and modulus of elasticity, E are considered for all
The performance of the CMAES and three powerful DE- members as 2770 kg/m3 and 6.98 × 1010 N/m2 , respectively.
based algorithms are tested for the determination of the min- Furthermore, the parameter L shown in Fig. 1 is taken as
imum weight of four benchmark truss structures: a 10-bar 9.144 m and all nodes are equipped with 454 kg non-struc-
planar truss, a 72-bar space truss, a 120-bar dome truss, and tural masses. The allowable bounds for cross-section areas
a 200-bar planar truss structure with natural frequency con- A are expressed as follows:
straints. These DE-based algorithms are the original DE, an
improved version of DE (IDE) presented by Ho-Huu et al. 0.645 × 10−4 m2 ≤ A ≤ 50 × 10−4 m2 , (20)
[29], and the winner of the competition on real-parameter and first three natural frequencies 𝜔1, 𝜔2 , and 𝜔3 are sub-
single objective optimization at CEC-2014 (LSHADE) pre- jected to the following constraints:
sented by Tanabe and Fukunaga [49].
Throughout the truss analysis, the material behavior of all 𝜔1 ≥ 7 Hz, 𝜔2 ≥ 15 Hz, 𝜔3 ≥ 20 Hz. (21)
truss members is assumed to behave linearly elastic within
infinitesimal deformation. Furthermore, in the optimiza-
The performance of the algorithms, in terms of the mini-
tion process of truss structures, only the size of the bars is
mum total weight, under the four stopping criteria, is shown
allowed to alter and the truss layouts remain unchanged.
in the Tables 1, 2, and 3 , for the 20, 50, and 100 population
Hence, the cross-section of truss members is taken into
size, respectively. The results show that, for the number of
account as design variables. To compute the natural fre-
population = 20 and the number of function evaluations =
quency of each structure, the weights of truss members are
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000, the CMAES exhibits the
incorporated in addition to the additional non-structural
best minimum weight of 524.6354, 524.4512, 524.4508,
masses attached to some nodes. The position of non-struc-
and 524.4508, respectively. For the number of population
tural masses will be reported in detail for each case later.
= 50 and the number of function evaluations = 3000, the
For consistent comparison between algorithms, four
LSHADE exhibits the best performance in terms of the best
stopping criteria are defined as: (i) the maximum number
minimum and for the number of function evaluations =
of function evaluations is set to 3000. Given these crite-
6000, 10000, and 20000, the CMAES found the best mini-
ria, the initial speed of convergence and performance of the
mum weight of 524.4663 and 524.4508 and shows the best
algorithms may be evaluated; (ii) the maximum number of
performance. However, the CMAES algorithm has the least
function evaluations is set to 6000; (iii) the maximum num-
standard deviation in all cases which shows that the algo-
ber of function evaluations is set to 10000. Here, the per-
rithm has a consistent behavior in the search process, for the
formance of the algorithms is evaluated for a more mature
evolution, compared with (i); (iv) the maximum number of
function evaluations is set to 20000, for which the evolu-
L L
tion of the algorithms is considered to be fully mature. For
each of these criteria, all algorithms are executed 30 times, 1 2
i.e., 30 sets of initial populations of solutions are generated
based on 30 different random number sequences. Statisti- 7 9
cal analysis of results for all algorithms are performed, and
the mean, standard deviation (STD), minimum (Min), and 5 6
maximum (Max) for the 30 executions of the algorithms are L
calculated. The mean shows the overall performance of the
algorithm for different runs. The standard deviation indicates 8 10
the variation of the final solution with respect to the mean
3 4
value. Small standard deviation values show that an algo-
rithm has a similar behavior regarding its search process for
different initial random populations. All the computations Fig. 1  The ten-bar planar truss

13
Engineering with Computers

Table.1  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of the The Wilcoxon signed-
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and Friedman test rank test (comparison
CMAES corresponding to with CMAES)
the ten-bar planar truss for
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000 R+ R− p value
function evaluations for 20
populations 3000 DE 539.08 547.30 532.66 3.74 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 528.75 533.61 525.59 2.19 2.37 352 113 0.013
LSHADE 528.24 534.29 524.64 3.19 1.97 320 145 0.073
CMAES 526.78 531.70 524.64 2.74 1.67
6000 DE 526.83 531.83 524.70 2.24 3.07 359 106 0.008
IDE 526.21 530.83 524.46 2.72 2.20 371 94 0.003
LSHADE 527.98 533.60 524.64 3.22 3.37 405 60 0.000
CMAES 525.88 530.60 524.45 2.59 1.37
10000 DE 525.27 530.70 524.49 1.82 2.97 330 135 0.045
IDE 526.16 530.82 524.45 2.74 2.73 371 94 0.003
LSHADE 526.64 531.50 524.45 2.97 2.93 416 49 0.000
CMAES 525.88 530.57 524.45 2.59 1.37
20000 DE 525.10 530.66 524.45 1.84 2.43 330 135 0.045
IDE 526.15 530.82 524.45 2.73 2.90 371 94 0.003
LSHADE 526.64 531.49 524.45 2.97 3.30 416 49 0.000
CMAES 525.88 530.57 524.45 2.59 1.37

Table.2  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of the The Wilcoxon signed-
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and Friedman test rank test (comparison
CMAES corresponding to with CMAES)
the ten-bar planar truss for
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000 R+ R− p value
function evaluations for 50
populations 3000 DE 561.70 578.05 551.56 7.36 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 541.74 547.82 531.15 4.14 2.93 464 1 0.000
LSHADE 530.47 534.98 525.98 2.53 1.53 254 211 0.670
CMAES 530.22 535.76 527.21 2.28 1.53
6000 DE 545.55 553.96 536.25 4.04 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 530.97 535.31 527.34 2.25 2.93 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 525.56 531.66 524.49 2.24 1.93 406 59 0.000
CMAES 524.52 525.11 524.47 0.12 1.13
10000 DE 537.74 543.45 531.60 3.03 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 526.22 528.32 525.14 0.87 2.87 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 525.28 530.86 524.45 2.11 2.07 448 17 0.000
CMAES 524.45 524.45 524.45 0.00 1.07
20000 DE 528.65 533.34 525.95 1.67 3.87 465 0 0.000
IDE 524.61 524.83 524.47 0.08 2.87 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 525.27 530.63 524.45 2.09 2.27 465 0 0.000
CMAES 524.45 524.45 524.45 0.00 1.00

breadth of different initial random populations. For the num-
ber of population = 100 and the number of function evalua-
tions = 3000, the LSHADE and then IDE gain the first and
second places. However, CMAES for the 6000, 10000, and
20000 function evaluations has the least mean, maximum,
minimum, and standard deviation, i.e., in all executions, it
converges to the global minimum solution. Tables 1, 2, and
3 also show the weak performance of the DE algorithm in
comparison with IDE, LSHADE, and CMAES in all cases.
In the literature, there are abundant attempts to solve
this optimization problem utilizing different meta-heuris-
tic algorithms [15–18, 21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 50, 51]. For
example, Gomes [50] used a particle swarm optimiza-
tion (PSO) algorithm to minimize the truss weight and

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table.3  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of The Wilcoxon
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and signed-rank test
CMAES corresponding to the Friedman test
(comparison with
the ten-bar planar truss for CMAES)
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000
function evaluations for 100 R+ R− p value
populations
3000 DE 581.68 595.68 550.61 8.67 3.27 122 343 0.022
IDE 561.68 573.40 543.58 6.86 2.03 4 461 0.000
LSHADE 544.66 553.45 539.75 3.52 1.03 0 465 0.000
CMAES 591.49 654.72 556.90 21.19 3.67
6000 DE 564.68 579.29 549.47 6.69 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 544.33 554.22 533.34 3.91 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 530.35 535.75 526.88 1.90 2.00 465 0 0.000
CMAES 526.90 528.79 525.79 0.73 1.00
10000 DE 552.22 559.53 542.38 3.85 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 536.78 542.66 532.38 2.27 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 524.85 525.29 524.62 0.18 2.00 465 0 0.000
CMAES 524.49 524.53 524.47 0.01 1.00
20000 DE 540.26 546.49 531.19 3.46 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 527.93 530.26 525.85 0.89 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 524.45 524.45 524.45 0.00 1.77 465 0 0.000
CMAES 524.45 524.45 524.45 0.00 1.23

presented the best minimum weight of 537.98 kg without
reporting further information about the number of func-
tion evaluations. Kaveh and Mahdavi [18] reported the
best minimum weight of 524.5499 kg using hybridized
BB-BC/quasi-Newton algorithm. Kaveh and Javadi [21]
utilized PSO in combination with HS and ray optimization
algorithm (HRPSO) and obtained the optimal result as
524.88 kg . Pham [30] applied LSHADE and the enhanced
differential evolution (ANDE) algorithms and reported
the best minimum weight of 524.4748 kg and 524.4956
kg after 5500 and 6115 function evaluations, respec-
tively. Baykasoğlu and Baykasoğlu [52] utilized weighted
superposition attraction-repulsion (WSAR) approach and
obtained the minimum weight of 524.4605 kg . Lieu et al.
[32] used DE, FA, and an adaptive hybrid evolutionary
firefly algorithm (AHEFA) for the optimization of this
truss and found the minimum weight of 524.4561 kg,
524.6413 kg, and 524.4516 kg after 11460, 13060, and
5860 function evaluations, respectively. So far, the lat-
ter one which is obtained using AHEFA yields the best
solution of ten-bar planar truss reported in the literature.
However, the CMAES algorithm in this study converged
to the minimum weight of 524.4508 kg after 10000 func-
tion evaluations, which is even better than the result of
AHEFA. Table 4 shows the optimum cross-section design
obtained by the CMAES algorithm which results in
𝜔1 = 7.0000 Hz , 𝜔2 = 16.1913 Hz , and 𝜔3 = 20.0000 Hz.
To achieve more realistic results, in addition to the natu-
ral frequency constraints accounting for the stress, displace-
ment, and Euler buckling constraints under various loading
patterns is inevitable. The incorporation of these additional
constraints would definitely lead to the reduction in the fea-
sible domain. If the previous optimal solution still remains
in the feasible domain under the extra constraints, the opti-
mal weight of the structures keeps unchanged. However, in
the majority of cases, the introduction of new constraints
is accompanied by a weight penalty for the structure. This
penalty substantially depends on the magnitude of loads
as well as the strength of the material and allowable nodal
displacements. For instance, Canfield et al. [53] studied
the introduction of stress constraints on all members of the
above-mentioned ten-bar truss structure (with different fre-
quency constraints) and reported the weight penalty of 4%
for this case.

Table.4  Optimum cross-section design of ten-bar truss structure (rounded to five decimal places) obtained from CMAES
Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cross-section (cm2) 35.13225 14.71431 35.13223 14.71431 0.64500 4.55894 23.70088 23.70088 12.41792 12.41792

13
Engineering with Computers

3
6.2 A 72‑bar space truss
3 1
2 In the second example, the optimization algorithms are
4
4 3 examined for a 72-bar space truss as illustrated in Fig. 2.
2
3 1 The truss members are categorized into 16 groups of design
2 2 variables as demonstrated in Fig. 2. Similar to previous
h 1 7
7 1 examples, the mass density and the modulus of elasticity
2
2 8
are taken as 2770 kg/m3 and 6.98 × 1010 N/m2 for all mem-
7 bers, respectively. The height of each story, h is chosen to
6
7 5
be 1.524 m and an additional mass of 2270 kg is added to
6 6 the four upper nodes of the truss structure. In addition, the
h 5
6 11 5 cross-section areas of all members need to be selected within
6 12 the following range:
11
10
11 9 6.45 × 10−5 m2 ≤ A ≤ 20 × 10−4 m2 . (22)
h 10 10
9 Likewise, there are only two constraints on the first and third
15 9
10 natural frequencies 𝜔1 and 𝜔3 presented as
10 16
15
15 13
𝜔1 = 4 Hz, 𝜔3 ≥ 6 Hz. (23)
h 14 It is worthwhile to mention that the violation tolerance
13
13 associated with the equality constraint is considered as
14
14 14 1 × 10−10 Hz.
14 2h The performance of the algorithms, in terms of the mini-
mum total weight, under the four stopping criteria, is shown
2h
in the Tables 5, 6, and 7 , for the 20, 50, and 100 population
size, respectively. The results show that, for the number of
Fig. 2  The 72-bar space truss population = 20 and the number of function evaluations =
3000 and 6000, the LSHADE algorithm exhibits the best
mean weight and the best minimum weight of 324.3923

Table.5  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of the The Wilcoxon signed-
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and Friedman test rank test (comparison
CMAES corresponding to with CMAES)
the 72-bar space truss for
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000 R+ R− p value
function evaluations for 20
populations 3000 DE 345.72 366.92 336.29 7.23 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 328.58 334.43 326.19 1.63 2.97 460 5 0.000
LSHADE 324.75 325.57 324.39 0.30 1.17 36 429 0.000
CMAES 325.54 327.85 324.45 0.80 1.87
6000 DE 328.17 334.26 325.48 1.73 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 324.72 325.57 324.47 0.25 2.67 389 76 0.001
LSHADE 324.31 324.62 324.23 0.10 1.13 33 432 0.000
CMAES 324.51 324.87 324.29 0.16 2.20
10000 DE 324.90 325.97 324.43 0.33 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 324.28 324.41 324.23 0.05 2.53 388 77 0.001
LSHADE 324.26 324.52 324.22 0.05 1.77 292 173 0.229
CMAES 324.24 324.35 324.22 0.02 1.70
20000 DE 324.25 324.33 324.22 0.03 3.30 465 0 0.000
IDE 324.25 324.37 324.22 0.04 2.97 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 324.25 324.43 324.22 0.04 2.73 465 0 0.000
CMAES 324.22 324.22 324.22 0.00 1.00

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table.6  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of the The Wilcoxon signed-
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and Friedman test rank test (comparison
CMAES corresponding to with CMAES)
the 72-bar space truss for
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000 R+ R− p value
function evaluations for 50
populations 3000 DE 414.66 441.53 393.83 12.36 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 367.49 390.90 349.21 8.56 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 329.35 332.62 327.03 1.54 1.10 14 451 0.000
CMAES 336.41 351.08 327.41 5.61 1.90
6000 DE 371.37 389.81 357.45 7.52 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 337.83 346.09 329.50 3.47 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 324.43 324.68 324.30 0.10 1.23 65 400 0.000
CMAES 324.59 325.38 324.30 0.24 1.77
10000 DE 349.52 361.93 337.21 5.95 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 328.58 332.25 326.65 1.16 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 324.23 324.25 324.22 0.01 1.00 50 415 0.000
CMAES 324.26 324.49 324.22 0.05 2.00
20000 DE 332.14 335.49 329.20 1.80 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 324.88 325.43 324.60 0.19 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 324.22 324.22 324.22 0.00 1.77 459 6 0.000
CMAES 324.22 324.22 324.22 0.00 1.23

Table.7  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of the The Wilcoxon signed-
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and Friedman test rank test (comparison
CMAES corresponding to with CMAES)
the 72-bar space truss for
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000 R+ R− p value
function evaluations for 100
populations 3000 DE 452.65 483.60 422.84 15.94 3.10 12 453 0.000
IDE 418.79 436.32 394.00 11.74 2.03 1 464 0.000
LSHADE 352.73 364.22 336.76 6.02 1.00 0 465 0.000
CMAES 513.18 642.25 430.32 49.37 3.87
6000 DE 418.06 433.68 389.06 9.99 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 371.92 381.70 361.89 5.26 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 328.92 331.53 327.15 1.20 1.27 69 396 0.000
CMAES 331.21 337.89 325.89 2.43 1.73
10000 DE 390.54 411.58 371.78 10.19 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 347.64 355.00 341.50 3.90 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 324.60 325.20 324.31 0.19 1.73 380 85 0.002
CMAES 324.46 324.83 324.28 0.13 1.27
20000 DE 357.24 370.44 346.43 6.14 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 331.01 333.74 328.48 1.24 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 324.22 324.22 324.22 0.00 1.07 463 2 0.000
CMAES 324.22 324.22 324.22 0.00 1.93

kg, and 324.2278 kg, respectively, and the CMAES algo-
rithm has the second-best mean and best minimum weight
of 324.4521 kg, and 324.2888, respectively. For the number
of function evaluations = 10000 and 20000, the CMAES
algorithm finds the best minimum weight of 324.2222 kg,
and 324.2209 kg and shows the best performance among
all algorithms. In Table 6, for the number of population =
50 and the number of function evaluations = 3000, 6000,
and 10000, the LSHADE algorithm exhibits the best perfor-
mance and for the number of function evaluations = 20000,
the CMAES algorithm finds the best minimum weight of
324.2209 kg and shows the least standard deviation. How-
ever, the LSHADE algorithm has also a standard deviation
close to zero. The IDE and DE algorithms are taken the third

13
Engineering with Computers
and fourth rank, respectively. In Table 7, for the number
of population = 100 and the number of function evalua-
tions = 3000 and 6000 the LSHADE algorithm exhibits the
fastest convergence, and the CMAES algorithm is placed
in the second rank. However, both LSHADE and CMAES
for the 20000 function evaluations have almost similar
mean, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation values.
These results also show the weak performance of DE and
IDE algorithms in comparison with LSHADE and CMAES
algorithms in most cases.
This truss structure with mentioned properties has been
optimized by several researchers in the following studies [17,
21, 28–30, 32, 51, 54]. For instance, Kaveh and Javadi [21]
obtained the minimum weight of this truss as 324.497 kg
with the aid of HRPSO. Tejani et al. [51] implemented mod-
ified symbiotic organisms search and found the best mini-
mum weight of 324.6897 kg after 4000 function evaluations.
Ho-Huu et al. [29] used the IDE algorithm and found the best
minimum weight of 324.2441 kg after 11620 function evalu-
ations. Pham [30] applied LSHADE and ANDE algorithms
and obtained the best minimum weight of 324.2402 kg and
324.2262 kg after 7500 and 7430 function evaluations,
respectively. Recently, Baykasoğlu and Baykasoğlu [52] by
employing the WSAR method obtained the minimum weight
of 324.2221 kg which is the best ever reported in the litera-
ture. They selected the number of populations as 10 in the
algorithm and found the optimum result after 2150 function
evaluations with a 0.0009 standard deviation. However, in
the present study, the CMAES and LSHADE algorithms
converged to the best minimum weight of 324.2209 kg after
20000 function evaluations, which are even better than
the result of LSHADE given by Pham [30] and WSAR by
Baykasoğlu and Baykasoğlu [52]. Further details about the
optimum cross-section design obtained by the latter scenario
are demonstrated in Table 8. The mentioned results give
𝜔1 = 𝜔2 = 4.0000 Hz and 𝜔3 = 6.0000 Hz.
6.3 A 120‑bar dome truss structure
In this example, the size optimization problem of a 120-bar
dome truss structure with frequency constraints is investi-
gated. The mass density and the modulus of elasticity of
Table.8  Design area of the 72-bar truss structure (rounded to five decimal places) obtained from CMAES
Group member 1 2 3 4
Cross-section (cm2) 3.46173 7.84905 0.64500
Group member 9 10 11
Cross-section (cm2) 12.67536 7.97434 0.64500
all bars in the truss are assumed to be 7971.810 kg/m3 and
2.1 × 1011 N/m2 , respectively. To the nodes with the height
of 7.00, 5.85, and 3.00 m the non-structural masses 3000,
500, and 100 kg are attached, respectively. The geometrical
properties of the 120-bar dome truss structure are depicted
in Fig. 3. The allowable range of cross-sectional areas in this
structure is given as
0.0001 m2 ≤ A ≤ 0.01293 m2 . (24)
Furthermore, the first two natural frequencies 𝜔1 and 𝜔2
must hold the following inequality conditions:
𝜔1 ≥ 9 Hz, 𝜔2 ≥ 11 Hz. (25)
The performance of the algorithms, in terms of the mini-
mum total weight, under the four stopping criteria, is shown
in the Tables 9, 10, and 11 for the 20, 50, and 100 popula-
tion size, respectively. The results show that, for the num-
ber of population = 20 and the number of function evalu-
ations = 6000, 10000, and 20000, the CMAES algorithm
exhibits the best mean weight and the best minimum weight
of 8707.2432 kg, and the LSHADE algorithm found the
second-best minimum weight of 8707.2511 kg. Moreover,
for the number of population = 50 and the number of func-
tion evaluations = 3000, the LSHADE algorithm exhibits
the best performance in terms of the best mean and least
standard deviation. For the number of function evaluations
= 6000, 10000, and 20000, the CMAES finds the best mini-
mum weight of 8707.2456, 8707.2432, and 8707.2432 kg
and shows the best performance. However, both the CMAES
and LSHADE algorithms have the least standard deviation
in these cases. A similar manner can be observed for the
number of population = 100 and the number of function
evaluations = 3000, in which the LSHADE algorithm exhib-
its the fastest convergence, and for the number of function
evaluations = 6000, 10000, and 20000, the CMAES gains
the first rank. In other words, the CMAES algorithm has the
least mean, maximum, minimum, and its standard deviation
is zero, i.e., in all executions it converges to the global mini-
mum solution. These tables also show the weak performance
of DE and IDE algorithms in comparison with LSHADE and
CMAES in most cases.
5 6 7 8
0.64500 7.97092 7.92595 0.64500 0.64500
12 13 14 15 16
0.64500 17.09355 8.00203 0.64500 0.64500
13
 Engineering with Computers

Fig. 3  The 120-bar dome

structure
7 6 7
7 7
6 6
7 5 5 7
5 3 5
5 4 4 3 5
7 3 4 4 7

6 5 4 4 5 6
4 2 2 4
7 3 3 7
5 2 2 5
4 1 4
7 1 1 7
5 4 2 1 2 4 5
1
6 3 1 1 3 6
5 4 1 1 2 4 5
2
7 1 1 7
1
4 4
5 2 2 5
7 3 3 7
4 2 2 4
6 5 4 5 6
4
7 3 4 4 3 7
5 4 5
4 3
7 5 5
5 5 7
6 6
7 7
7 6 7

6.94 m
12.04 m
15.89 m

7.00 m
5.85 m
3.00 m

In the literature, several algorithms have been used to
optimize this problem [17–20, 22, 29, 32, 35–37, 51, 54].
For example, the minimum weight of this dome truss struc-
ture has been determined by hybridized BB-BC/quasi-New-
ton algorithm as 8789.50 kg [18] and by PSRO as 8892.33 kg
[20]. Kaveh and Zolghadr [19] used a modified PSO for
truss optimization and presented the best minimum weight
of 8890.48 kg after 6000 function evaluations. Kaveh and
Ilchi Ghazaan also solved this problem by employing IRO
[36], ALC-PSO [37], HALC-PSO [37], and vibrating parti-
cle system algorithm [22] and obtained the optimal weight
as 8895.42 kg , 8890.70 kg , 8889.96 kg , and 8888.74 kg ,
respectively. Ho-Huu et al. [29] used DE and IDE algo-
rithms and found the best minimum weight of 8707.2808
kg and 8707.2898 after 8620 and 4060 function evaluations.
In this study, the IDE algorithm converged to 8707.243 kg
after 20000 function evaluations. Lieu et al. [32] employed
the DE, FA, and AHEFA algorithms for the optimization
of this truss and found the minimum weight of 8707.2715
kg, 8708.2350 kg, and 8707.2559 kg after 6000, 13840, and
3560 function evaluations, respectively. Among all attempts,
the WSAR optimal solution with 8707.2537 kg [52] and 1580
function evaluations is the best result obtained in the litera-
ture so far. The CMAES and LSHADE algorithms in this
study converged to the best minimum weight of 8707.2432
kg, respectively, after 6000 and 10000 function evaluations,
which are better than the result of other outputs reported in
the literature. The standard deviation of the CMAES method
is given as 0.0004 which is less than 0.342 proposed by [52].
For more details, Table 12 shows the optimum cross-section
design obtained by the proposed algorithms. The data results
in 𝜔1 = 9.0000 Hz and 𝜔2 = 11.0000 Hz.

13
Engineering with Computers

Table.9  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of the The Wilcoxon
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and Friedman test signed-rank test
CMAES corresponding to (comparison with
the 120-bar dome truss for CMAES)
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000
function evaluations for 20 R+ R− p value
populations
3000 DE 8752.82 8802.22 8717.33 22.30 3.97 465 0 0.000
IDE 8710.82 8717.95 8708.40 2.06 2.60 444 21 0.000
LSHADE 8712.67 8741.60 8707.25 8.98 2.03 346 119 0.019
CMAES 8707.72 8712.95 8707.29 1.01 1.40
6000 DE 8708.75 8712.06 8707.53 1.14 3.50 465 0 0.000
IDE 8707.56 8708.20 8707.25 0.30 2.67 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8712.48 8741.60 8707.25 9.07 2.77 429 36 0.000
CMAES 8707.24 8707.25 8707.24 0.00 1.07
10000 DE 8707.32 8707.79 8707.25 0.11 2.73 465 0 0.000
IDE 8707.52 8708.15 8707.25 0.28 3.30 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8712.13 8741.60 8707.24 9.13 2.90 426 39 0.000
CMAES 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.07
20000 DE 8707.26 8707.38 8707.24 0.03 2.33 465 0 0.000
IDE 8707.52 8708.15 8707.25 0.27 3.50 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8712.07 8741.60 8707.24 9.15 3.10 465 0 0.000
CMAES 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.07

Table.10  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of The Wilcoxon
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and the Friedman signed-rank test
CMAES corresponding to test (comparison with
the 120-bar dome truss for CMAES)
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000
function evaluations for 50 R+ R− p value
populations
3000 DE 9864.17 11160.72 9171.96 414.84 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 8960.27 9172.83 8804.23 79.64 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8743.64 8772.42 8719.93 14.28 1.33 115 350 0.15
CMAES 8756.99 8793.77 8716.52 19.23 1.67
6000 DE 8936.92 9146.87 8750.72 86.49 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 8726.09 8740.40 8713.57 6.44 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8707.53 8708.03 8707.29 0.18 2.00 465 0 0.000
CMAES 8707.26 8707.29 8707.25 0.01 1.00
10000 DE 8750.41 8777.87 8725.73 13.84 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 8708.90 8710.75 8707.67 0.70 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.92 465 0 0.000
CMAES 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.08
20000 DE 8709.63 8711.36 8707.90 0.99 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 8707.24 8707.25 8707.24 0.00 2.90 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.55 465 0 0.000
CMAES 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.55 465 0 0.000

6.4 A 200‑bar planar truss structure
To examine the effects of large-scale problems on the per-
formance of the DE, IDE, LSHADE, and CMAES algo-
rithms, the optimal design of a 200-bar planar truss structure
is obtained based on these algorithms. In this example, all
members of the structure are assumed to have Young’s mod-
ulus of 2.1 × 1011 N/m2 and mass density of 7860 kg/m3. The
additional masses of 100 kg are added to the nodes 1–5 as
illustrated by blue solid circles in Fig. 4. Furthermore, all

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table.11  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of The Wilcoxon
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and the Friedman signed-rank test
CMAES corresponding to test (comparison with
the 120-bar dome truss for CMAES)
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000
function evaluations for 100 R+ R− p value
populations
3000 DE 10947.22 12953.72 9376.79 796.49 3.73 432 33 0.000
IDE 10060.98 10946.97 9492.05 368.55 2.60 252 214 0.700
LSHADE 9125.52 9360.02 8880.54 110.47 1.00 0 465 0.000
CMAES 9999.26 10853.63 9336.30 408.42 2.67
6000 DE 9791.62 10487.24 9200.15 295.08 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 8967.46 9169.94 8867.47 74.37 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8754.80 8809.39 8717.72 19.18 2.00 465 0 0.000
CMAES 8710.47 8715.49 8707.81 1.72 1.00
10000 DE 9152.13 9365.20 8933.53 121.55 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 8756.88 8805.22 8734.49 15.41 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8708.95 8710.87 8707.88 0.71 2.00 465 0 0.000
CMAES 8707.25 8707.25 8707.24 0.00 1.00
20000 DE 8772.58 8855.80 8742.26 22.64 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 8711.16 8713.71 8709.43 1.11 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.50 465 0 0.000
CMAES 8707.24 8707.24 8707.24 0.00 1.50

Table.12  Design area of the 120-bar dome truss structure (rounded to five decimal places) obtained from CMAES
Group member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cross-section (cm2) 19.49937 40.38900 10.60733 21.11262 9.84202 11.77150 14.83839

truss members are grouped into 29 independent variables as
depicted in Fig. 4. The first three fundamental frequencies of
the structure need to satisfy the following relations:
𝜔1 ≥ 5 Hz, 𝜔2 ≥ 10 Hz, 𝜔3 ≥ 15 Hz. (26)
In addition, the cross-section areas of all members must be
selected from the interval of 0.1 cm2 and 30 cm2.
The performances of the DE, IDE, LSHADE and
CMAES algorithms are given in Tables 13, 14, and 15 for
the population sizes of 20, 50, and 100, respectively. For the
population size = 20 and the function evaluations = 3000
and 6000, the LSHADE algorithm obtains the least mini-
mum and mean values. On the other hand, for the function
evaluation of 10000, the LSHADE algorithm still gives the
best minimum solution, while the IDE algorithm gives the
least value for maximum, mean, and standard deviation. By
increasing the number of function evaluations to 20000,
the CMAES excels at DE, IDE, and LSHADE algorithm in
terms of the minimum and the standard deviation. For popu-
lation size = 50 and function evaluations = 3000, 6000, and
10000, the performance of the LSHADE algorithm remains
superior to other given algorithms with the least minimum,
maximum, mean, and standard deviation. However, increas-
ing the number of function evaluations to 20000 improves
the performance of the CMAES algorithm such that it finds
the best result with a significantly lower standard deviation.
Unlike the previous cases, for the population size = 100,
LSHADE exhibits the best performance in terms of mean,
maximum, minimum, and standard deviation for all function
evaluations = 3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000. The powerful
mechanism of the LSHADE in the higher population sizes
is originated from its ability in the updating population size.
Nevertheless, it can be expected that the CMAES will out-
perform the LSHADE algorithm for the larger number of
function evaluations.
This example has been already optimized and reported
in the former studies. Kaveh and Zolghadr [17] utilized
the charged system search algorithm and its modified ver-
sion in combination with BB–BC algorithm to optimize
this structure and obtained the optimal weight of 2259.86
kg and 2298.61 kg, respectively. Tejani et al. [51] applied
SOS algorithm together with its improved version using
adaptive benefit factors and determined the minimum
weight of this structure as 2180.3210 kg and 2164.8840 kg,

13
Engineering with Computers

6.1 m 6.1 m 6.1 m 6.1 m 7 Results and discussion

1 1 1 1
As shown in Tables 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2 2 2 2 2 3.66 m 15, it is evident that the data obtained by the Friedman and
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 the Wilcoxon signed-rank test provide a reasonable frame-
5 6 6 5
6 6 5
6 6 5
6 6 5 3.66 m work for comparison between the performances of all four
7 7 7 7
algorithms.
The Friedman mean rank of the algorithms denotes the
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
8 8 8 8 8 3.66 m mean of the ranks pertinent to the least-weight solutions
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 over each of the algorithms and consequently the less rank
10 11 11 10 11 11 10 11 11 10 11 11 10 3.66 m indicates more reliable results. Accordingly, the Friedman
12 12 12 12
test results conclude that the DE algorithm is inferior to the
others due to the largest mean rank in the majority of cases.
16 16 16 16
13
16
13
16
13
16
13
16
13 3.66 m This weak performance of DE is amplified for larger deci-
4 14 14 14 14 14 14 4 sion variables. Moreover, in most cases especially for 6000,
16 16 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 10000, and 20000 function evaluations, the IDE gains the
15 15 15 15 3.66 m
17 17 17 17
second largest mean rank after the DE algorithm. Unlike
the two mentioned algorithms, the ranks of the CMAES and
18
21 21
18
21 21
18
21 21
18
21 21
18 3.66 m LSHADE algorithm highly depend on the number of deci-
4 19 19 19 19 19 19 4 sion variables, function evaluations, and the population size.
21 21 21
In the proposed examples, increasing the population size
20 21 20 21 20 21 20 21 21 20 3.66 m
from 20 to 100 has an adverse effect on both the optimal
22 22 22 22
result and the standard deviation of all algorithms. Never-
23
26 26
23
26 26
23
26 26
23
26 26
23 3.66 m theless, the performance of the LSHADE algorithm remains
4 24 24 24 24 24 24 4 stable compared to others. This is due to the fact that the
26 26 26 LSHADE algorithm updates the population size during the
25 26 25 26 25 26 25 26 26 25 3.66 m
optimization procedure and hence, increasing the population
27 27 27 27
size yields a lower mean rank for the LSHADE algorithm.
29 29
On the other hand, the higher number of function evalua-
tions enhances the associated performance of all algorithms.
28 28 28 28 9.144 m However, this process causes the CMAES algorithm distin-
guishes itself from others due to the remarkable improve-
ment. This distinctive feature of the CMAES gives rise to the
least mean rank of the algorithm as the number of function
evaluations rises. It should be noted that, the rejection of the
Fig. 4  The 200-bar planar truss structure null hypothesis for all Friedman tests (i.e., Asymp. Sig. or p
value< 0.05), in all cases, indicates that the performance of
the algorithms executions differs significantly.
respectively. Lieu et al. [32] optimized the weight of this The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test fairly agree
problem via DE (2160.7747 kg), FA (2441.3773 kg), and with those of the Friedman test, but they further clarify the
AHEFA (2160.7445 kg) algorithms. In the literature, the performance of the CMAES compared to other algorithms.
best result has been reported by the WSAR method [52] with In all the examples with fixed population size, it is observed
10 populations and 6110 function evaluations which yields that R+ grows significantly as the number of function evalu-
the optimal weight of 2159.590 kg and standard deviation ations increases. This behavior confirms the marked posi-
of 0.04438. In the present study, however, the CMAES algo- tive impacts of the number of function evaluations on the
rithm finds the best optimal weight of 2159.5474 kg with a CMAES performance.
standard deviation of 0.26943 for 20 populations and 20000 Based on the statistical analysis and results obtained in
function evaluations. For the latter case, the cross-section this work, the CMAES algorithm shows the most reliable
areas associated with each group member are reported in performance with the least standard deviation values in
Table 16. It is worthwhile to note that these data lead to most cases. However, raising the population size and the
𝜔1 = 5.0000 Hz, 𝜔2 = 12.2098 Hz, and 𝜔3 = 15.0203 Hz for number of independent variables have adverse effects on
the first three fundamental frequencies. the performance of the CMAES algorithm. To compensate

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table.13  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of The Wilcoxon
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and the Friedman signed-rank test
CMAES corresponding to test (comparison with
the 200-bar planar truss for CMAES)
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000
function evaluations for 20 R+ R− p value
populations
3000 DE 4057.51 5266.33 3234.49 438.88.29 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 2759.96 3174.66 2561.18 126.51 2.23 67 398 0.000
LSHADE 2327.94 2771.37 2184.38 138.75 1.03 0 465 0.000
CMAES 3036.95 3657.53 2545.79 297.88 2.73
6000 DE 2800.46 3321.67 2414.02 183.25 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 2200.79 2298.24 2177.54 22.46 1.93 60 405 0.000
LSHADE 2193.98 2343.55 2164.45 43.30 1.47 61 404 0.000
CMAES 2255.36 2501.89 2166.90 71.11 2.60
10000 DE 2321.46 2541.06 2231.33 66.17 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 2163.51 2168.29 2161.34 1.87 1.43 22 443 0.000
LSHADE 2169.45 2234.23 2160.64 13.97 2.07 145 320 0.073
CMAES 2173.91 2226.91 2160.50 12.93 2.50
20000 DE 2167.80 2173.82 2164.23 2.35 3.90 465 0 0.000
IDE 2160.04 2160.97 2159.66 0.39 1.57 311 154 0.109
LSHADE 2162.99 2180.47 2160.01 3.75 3.07 462 3 0.000
CMAES 2159.91 2160.77 2159.55 0.27 1.47

Table.14  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of the The Wilcoxon
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and Friedman test signed-rank test
CMAES corresponding to (comparison with
the 200-bar planar truss for CMAES)
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000
function evaluations for 50 R+ R− p value
populations
3000 DE 7008.27 8219.26 5860.67 547.08 3.80 408 57 0.000
IDE 5252.20 6070.84 4635.62 333.06 2.10 11 454 0.000
LSHADE 2796.56 3085.78 2484.11 144.23 1.00 0 465 0.000
CMAES 6253.90 8684.88 4954.69 749.11 3.10
6000 DE 5359.99 6173.51 4452.36 429.46 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 3613.27 4060.21 3162.14 212.30 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 2231.31 2348.24 2180.40 50.45 1.00 0 465 0.000
CMAES 2635.35 3108.82 2360.45 156.41 2.00
10000 DE 4341.10 5076.67 3848.74 244.26 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 2800.74 3072.42 2584.91 102.29 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 2176.72 2263.97 2162.50 23.93 1.10 35 430 0.000
CMAES 2227.06 2324.12 2166.97 38.44 1.90
20000 DE 3321.26 3622.97 2962.23 173.86 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 2246.75 2298.26 2209.60 23.26 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 2162.63 2174.36 2160.35 3.36 1.93 440 25 0.000
CMAES 2160.34 2162.67 2159.67 0.55 1.07

for this drawback, a higher number of function evaluations 8 Conclusions

is required. This algorithm also discovered the best optimal
results for all four truss structures which were not presented
in other studies. The adaptive penalty function proposed
in this paper, also makes the CMAES algorithm free from
parameter tuning in different problems.
In this study, the CMAES algorithm, one of the most robust
and reliable self-adaptation mechanisms, was developed to
solve the size optimization of truss structures under mul-
tiple frequency constraints. For this purpose, an adaptive

13
Engineering with Computers

Table.15  Statistical results NFE Algorithm Mean Max Min STD Mean rank of The Wilcoxon
of DE, IDE, LSHADE, and the Friedman signed-rank test
CMAES corresponding to test (comparison with
the 200-bar planar truss for CMAES)
3000, 6000, 10000, and 20000
function evaluations for 100 R+ R− p value
populations
3000 DE 9137.41 10942.18 6372.60 943.35 2.90 0 465 0.000
IDE 7557.75 8731.50 6559.78 533.42 2.10 0 465 0.000
LSHADE 3848.56 4177.81 3550.58 167.80 1.00 0 465 0.000
CMAES 222507.91 36642.59 14484.71 4867.11 4.00
6000 DE 7521.35 9005.59 5579.96 660.83 4.00 0 465 0.000
IDE 5550.44 6441.31 5017.87 309.39 2.93 5 460 0.000
LSHADE 2733.00 3025.48 2508.02 110.36 1.00 0 465 0.000
CMAES 4918.12 5563.04 4325.03 337.77 2.07
10000 DE 6021.02 7092.24 5347.13 434.10 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 4265.00 4564.06 3844.55 180.65 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 2228.92 2326.33 2182.02 35.27 1.00 0 465 0.000
CMAES 2675.67 3198.34 2381.88 150.75 2.00
20000 DE 4714.17 5150.23 4155.77 248.80 4.00 465 0 0.000
IDE 3049.38 3221.75 2815.49 112.33 3.00 465 0 0.000
LSHADE 2163.54 2175.83 2160.62 3.23 1.17 49 416 0.000
CMAES 2177.38 2240.73 2163.10 18.05 1.83

Table.16  Design area of the 200-bar planar truss structure (rounded to five decimal places) obtained from CMAES
Group member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cross-section (cm2) 0.30349 0.45043 0.10000 0.10000 0.50880 0.82103 0.10000 1.42386 0.10000 1.58807
Size of grouped members 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Cross-section (cm2) 1.15781 0.12438 2.97083 0.10000 3.25442 1.58406 0.25604 5.09849 0.10000 5.44473
Group member 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Cross-section (cm2) 2.09734 0.69048 7.66664 0.10000 7.95770 2.79246 10.52297 21.32787 10.66537

penalty function was added to the algorithm which elimi-
nated its parameter selection process in different problems.
Subsequently, the performance of the proposed algorithm
was compared with three powerful DE-based optimiza-
tion algorithms, the original DE, an improved version of
DE (IDE), and the winner of the CEC-2014 competition
(LSHADE), through size optimization of four benchmark
truss structures with multiple natural frequency constraints:
a 10-bar planar truss, a 72-bar space truss, a 120-bar dome
truss, and a 200-bar planar truss. To compare the perfor-
mance of each algorithm consistently, four stopping crite-
ria were introduced and all algorithms were executed 30
times associated with each criterion. Then, the statistical
analysis of the results of each algorithm was performed
and the Friedman as well as the Wilcoxon signed-rank test
for the 30 executions of the algorithms were carried out
separately. The results reveal that the LSHADE algorithm
has more reliable performance compared to others for a
smaller number of function evaluations. However, in the
cases with the larger number of function evaluations, the
CMAES algorithm provides the best results among other
given algorithms as well as the least standard deviation
values and mean ranks. Moreover, the CMAES algorithm
found the least weight design in all trusses which had not
been reported in other previous studies. In other words, the
present work suggests that the CMAES algorithm com-
bined with the proposed penalty function can be a robust
and reliable technique for a wide range of populations and
decision variables. By increasing the population size and/
or the decision variables, the algorithm requires a larger
number of function evaluations to obtain the global best
solution.

13
 Engineering with Computers

Declarations optimizer for enhancing the particle swarm optimization algo-

rithm. Acta Mech 225(6):1595–1605
22. Kaveh A, Ghazaan MI (2017) Vibrating particles system algo-
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
rithm for truss optimization with multiple natural frequency con-
interest.
straints. Acta Mech 1:307–322
23. Kaveh A, Zolghadr A (2017) Cyclical parthenogenesis algorithm
for layout optimization of truss structures with frequency con-
References straints. Eng Optim 49(8):1317–1334
24. Kaveh A, Mahjoubi S (2019) Hypotrochoid spiral optimization
approach for sizing and layout optimization of truss structures
1. Kiusalaas J, Shaw RCJ (1978) An algorithm for optimal struc-
with multiple frequency constraints. Eng Comput 35:1443–1462
tural design with frequency constraints. Int J Numer Methods Eng
25. Miguel LFF, Miguel LFF (2012) Shape and size optimization of
13(2):283–295
truss structures considering dynamic constraints through modern
2. Levy R, Chai K (1979) Implementation of natural frequency anal-
metaheuristic algorithms. Expert Syst Appl 39(10):9458–9467
ysis and optimality criterion design. Comput Struct 10(1):277–282
26. Zuo W, Bai J, Li B (2014) A hybrid OC-GA approach for fast and
3. Khot N (1985) Optimization of structures with multiple frequency
global truss optimization with frequency constraints. Appl Soft
constraints. Comput Struct 20(5):869–876
Comput 14:528–535
4. Sadek EA (1986) Dynamic optimization of framed structures with
27. Tejani GG, Savsani VJ, Bureerat S, Patel VK, Savsani P (2019)
variable layout. Int J Numer Methods Eng 23(7):1273–1294
Topology optimization of truss subjected to static and dynamic
5. Grandhi RV, Venkayya VB (1988) Structural optimization with
constraints by integrating simulated annealing into passing vehicle
frequency constraints. AIAA J 26(7):858–866
search algorithms. Eng Comput 535:499–517
6. Sedaghati R, Suleman A, Tabarrok B (2002) Structural optimi-
28. Vu TV (2015) Weight minimization of trusses with natural
zation with frequency constraints using the finite element force
freqency constraints. In: Conference: WCSMO-11
method. AIAA J 40(2):382–388
29. Ho-Huu V, Vo-Duy T, Luu-Van T, Le-Anh L, Nguyen-Thoi T
7. Sarcheshmehpour M, Estekanchi HE, Moosavian H (2020) Opti-
(2016) Optimal design of truss structures with frequency con-
mum seismic design of steel framed-tube and tube-in-tube tall
straints using improved differential evolution algorithm based on
buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 29(14):e1782
an adaptive mutation scheme. Autom Constr 68:81–94
8. Goldberg DE, Holland JH (1988) Genetic algorithms and machine
30. Pham HA (2016) Truss optimization with frequency constraints
learning. Mach Learn 3:95–99
using enhanced differential evolution based on adaptive direc-
9. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and effi-
tional mutation and nearest neighbor comparison. Adv Eng Softw
cient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J
102:142–154
Glob Optim 11:341–359
31. Bureerat S, Pholdee N (2015) Optimal truss sizing using an
10. Hansen N (2006) The CMA evolution strategy: a comparing
adaptive differential evolution algorithm. J Comput Civ Eng
review. Springer, Berlin, pp 75–102
30:04015019
11. Moosavian N, Roodsari BK (2014) Soccer league competition
32. Lieu QX, Do DT, Lee J (2018) An adaptive hybrid evolutionary
algorithm: a novel meta-heuristic algorithm for optimal design of
firefly algorithm for shape and size optimization of truss structures
water distribution networks. Swarm Evol Comput 17:14–24
with frequency constraints. Comput Struct 195:99–112
12. Moosavian N (2015) Soccer league competition algorithm for
33. Khatibinia M, Naseralavi SS (2014) Truss optimization on shape
solving knapsack problems. Swarm Evol Comput 20:14–22
and sizing with frequency constraints based on orthogonal multi-
13. Moosavian N, Roodsari B (2014) Soccer league competition algo-
gravitational search algorithm. J Sound Vib 333(24):6349–6369
rithm, a new method for solving systems of nonlinear equations.
34. Kumar S, Tejani GG, Mirjalili S (2019) Modified symbiotic
Int J Intell Sci 4:7–16
organisms search for structural optimization. Eng Comput
14. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization, in
35:1269–1296
Proceedings of ICNN’95—international conference on neural
35. Kaveh A, Zolghadr A (2014) Comparison of nine meta-heuristic
networks 4:1942–1948
algorithms for optimal design of truss structures with frequency
15. Wei L, Mei Z, Guangming W, Guang M (2005) Truss optimization
constraints. Adv Eng Softw 76:9–30
on shape and sizing with frequency constraints based on genetic
36. Kaveh A, Ilchi Ghazaan M (2015) Layout and size optimization
algorithm. Comput Mech 35:361–368
of trusses with natural frequency constraints using improved
16. Wei L, Tang T, Xie X, Shen W (2011) Truss optimization on
ray optimization algorithm. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng
shape and sizing with frequency constraints based on parallel
39(C2+):395–408
genetic algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43:665–682
37. Kaveh A, Ilchi Ghazaan M (2015) Hybridized optimization algo-
17. Kaveh A, Zolghadr A (2012) Truss optimization with natural fre-
rithms for design of trusses with multiple natural frequency con-
quency constraints using a hybridized CSS-BBBC algorithm with
straints. Adv Eng Softw 79:137–147
trap recognition capability. Comput Struct 102–103:14–27
38. Wang D, Zhang W, Jiang J (2002) Truss shape optimization with
18. Kaveh A, Mahdavi VR (2013) Optimal design of structures with
multiple displacement constraints. Comput Methods Appl Mech
multiple natural frequency constraints using a hybridized BB-BC/
Eng 191(33):3597–3612
quasi-newton algorithm. Period Polytech Civ Eng 57(1):27–38
39. Su GS, Zhang Y, Wu ZX, Yan LB (2012) Optimization design
19. Kaveh A, Zolghadr A (2014) Democratic PSO for truss layout
of trusses based on covariance matrix adaptation evolution strat-
and size optimization with frequency constraints. Comput Struct
egy algorithm, advances in design technology. Appl Mech Mater
130:10–21
215:133–137 (Trans Tech Publications Ltd, 11)
20. Kaveh A, Zolghadr A (2014) A new PSRO algorithm for fre-
40. Ghosh S, Das S, Roy S, Islam SM, Suganthan P (2012) A dif-
quency constraint truss shape and size optimization. Struct Eng
ferential covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary algorithm for
Mech 52(3):445–468
real parameter optimization. Inf Sci 182(1):199–219 (Nature-
21. Kaveh A, Javadi SM (2014) Shape and size optimization of trusses
Inspired Collective Intelligence in Theory and Practice)
with multiple frequency constraints using harmony search and ray

13
Engineering with Computers
41. de Melo VV, Iacca G (2014) A modified covariance matrix adap-
tation evolution strategy with adaptive penalty function and restart
for constrained optimization. Expert Syst Appl 41(16):7077–7094
42. Yang W, Yue Z, Li L, Yang F, Wang P (2017) Optimization design
of unitized panels with stiffeners in different formats using the
evolutionary strategy with covariance matrix adaptation. Proc Inst
Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng 231(9):1563–1573
43. Moosavian N, Moosavian H (2017) Testing soccer league com-
petition algorithm in comparison with ten popular meta-heuristic
algorithms for sizing optimization of truss structures. Int J Eng
30:926–936
44. Grandhi R (1993) Structural optimization with frequency con-
straints—a review. AIAA J 31(12):2296–2303
45. Bouzarkouna Z, Ding DY, Auger A (2012) Well placement opti-
mization with the covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy
and meta-models. Comput Geosci 16:75–92
46. Friedman M (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of
normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc
32(200):675–701
47. Friedman M (1940) A comparison of alternative tests of signifi-
cance for the problem of m rankings. Ann Math Stat 11(1):86–92
48. Derrac J, García S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tuto-
rial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology
for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms.
Swarm Evol Comput 1(1):3–18
49. Tanabe R, Fukunaga AS (2014) Improving the search performance
of SHADE using linear population size reduction. In: 2014 IEEE
congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp. 1658–1665
50. Gomes HM (2011) Truss optimization with dynamic con-
straints using a particle swarm algorithm. Expert Syst Appl
38(1):957–968
51. Tejani GG, Savsani VJ, Patel VK (2016) Adaptive symbiotic
organisms search (SOS) algorithm for structural design optimi-
zation. J Comput Des Eng 3(3):226–249
52. Baykasoğlu A, Baykasoğlu C (2021) Weighted superposition
attraction-repulsion (WSAR) algorithm for truss optimization
with multiple frequency constraints. Structures 30:253–264
53. Canfield RA, Venkayya VB, Grandhi RV (1989) Structural opti-
mization with stiffness and frequency constraints. Mech Struct
Mach 17(1):95–110
54. Ho-Huu V, Nguyen-Thoi T, Truong-Khac T, Le-Anh L, Vo-Duy T
(2018) An improved differential evolution based on roulette wheel
selection for shape and size optimization of truss structures with
frequency constraints. Neural Comput Appl 29:167–185
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13