Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

A modied ant colony optimization algorithm for dynamic topology

optimization
Kwang-Seon Yoo a, Seog-Young Han b,
a
b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-Dong, Seongdong-Gu, Seoul 133-791, South Korea
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-Dong, Seongdong-Gu, Seoul 133-791, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 31 May 2011
Accepted 15 April 2013
Available online 15 May 2013
Keywords:
Modied ant colony optimization (MACO)
Ant colony optimization (ACO)
Dynamic topology optimization for natural
frequencies
Finite element method

a b s t r a c t
A modied ant colony optimization (MACO) algorithm implementing a new denition of pheromone and
a new cooperation mechanism between ants is presented in this paper. The sensitivity of structural
response to the presence of each element included in the nite element (FE) model is evaluated. The
study aims to improve the suitability and computational efciency of the ant colony optimization algorithm in dynamic topology optimization problems. The natural frequencies of the structure must be
maximized yet satisfying a constraint on the nal volume. Optimization results obtained in three test
cases indicate that MACO is more efcient and robust than standard ACO in solving dynamic topology
optimization problems.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm is a metaheuristic
search method for global optimization. ACO was initially proposed
by Dorigo [1] to nd the optimal path in a graph. ACO mimics the
behavior of ants seeking a path between their colony and a food
source. This optimization technique was successfully applied to
many engineering problems including structural optimization
[24].
Topology optimization of structures underwent tremendous
development after the introduction of the homogenization method [5]. In addition, ad hoc optimization algorithms such as evolutionary structural optimization (ESO) [6,7], performance-based
optimization (PBO) [8,9], and level set theory [10,11] were successfully applied to topology optimization problems.
The homogenization method divides the design space in an innite number of microscale holes and optimal topology is obtained
by solving a material distribution problem. However, it may yield
an undesirable structure with innitesimal pores in the materials
that make the structure not realizable practically [12]. The
rationale of ESO and PBO is to remove gradually from the structure,
the inefcient elements hosting very low stress that hence do not
contribute much to the overall response of the structure: such an
operation is governed by the sensitivity number. Convergence
behavior of PBO depends on the performance of the structure. Bidirectional ESO (BESO) [13] was developed to improve the capability
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: syhan@hanyang.ac.kr (S.-Y. Han).
0045-7949/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.04.012

of adding or removing elements. However, the computational efciency of BESO depends on the previous positions of the elements
as well as on the area/volume of the element predened by the
meshing operation.
Topology optimization can be performed with metaheuristic
algorithms that mimic natural phenomena and physical processes.
Applications of genetic algorithms (GA) [14] and simulated annealing (SA) [15] to topology optimization problems were reviewed in
the paper written by Luh and Lin [16]. Also, ant colony optimization
was utilized in topology optimization problems [16,17]. For example, Luh and Lin [16] used the element transition rule instead of
node transition rule and connectivity analysis, pheromone updating rule and multiple-colony memories. Kaveh et al. [17] developed
a topology optimization technique to nd the stiffest structure with
a certain amount of material; the search criterion was based on the
contribution of each element to strain energy. It was found that
ACO can handle the topology optimization problem as an on-off
discrete optimization. However, there are not many other examples
of applying ACO to topology optimization problems documented in
literature.
Although dynamic topology optimization with respect to natural frequencies is of fundamental importance in aerospace and
automotive engineering, the number of papers published on this
subject is limited in comparison with the available literature on
static problems. For example, the homogenization method
[18,19] and modied SIMP (Solid Isotropic Microstructure with
Penalization) with a discontinuous function [2022] were successfully used to solve eigenvalue problems in topology design of
vibrating structures.

69

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

In this study, a modied ant colony optimization (MACO) algorithm is developed in order to improve computational efciency
and suitability of ACO in topology optimization problems dealing
with natural frequencies. An important improvement with respect
to classical ACO is the denition of a continuous variable, the element contribution signicance (ECS), which serves to evaluate the
effective contribution to structural response deriving from the
presence of each element. A mesh independent ltering scheme
[23] is adopted to prevent the formation of checkerboard patterns
in the optimization process. Optimal designs are compared with
those obtained with standard ACO and soft-kill BESO in order to assess the applicability and the efciency of the proposed MACO
algorithm in dynamic problems.

However, the SIMP model described above cannot be directly

applied to dynamic topology optimization problems where the
objective is to maximize target frequencies. This is because the
very high ratio between penalization on mass and stiffness for
small values of xi may result in the presence of localized modes
in the low-density [21].
One idea to avoid this problem is to keep the ratio between
mass and stiffness constant when xi = xmin by requiring that

2. Topology optimization for dynamic problems

qxi xi q1

qxmin xmin q1

Exmin xmin E1

Therefore, an alternative material interpolation scheme can be

expressed by Huang et al. [24];

xmin  xpmin
1  xpmin

8


2.1. Formulation of dynamic topology optimization problems

Exi

Excessive vibration due to resonance occurs when the frequency of the dynamic excitation is close to a natural frequency
of the structure. Therefore, it is necessary to restrict the fundamental frequency or several of the lower frequencies of the structure to
a prescribed range in order to avoid severe vibration.
In the nite element method, the dynamic behavior of a structure
is represented by the following general eigenvalue problem [24];

The change in natural frequency Dxi caused by the removal of

the generic ith element from the structure indicates the extent to
which the global structural response is sensitive to that element.
Therefore, the change in natural frequency can be taken as the
quantity of pheromone in the ant colony optimization process.
The change in natural frequency Dxi can be dened as follows [25];

K  x

2
i Mfui g

f0g

where [K] is the global stiffness matrix, [M] is the global mass matrix, xi is the ith natural frequency and {ui} is the eigenvector corresponding to xi. The natural frequency xi and the corresponding
eigenvector {ui} are related by the Rayleigh quotient as follows;

x2i

fui gT Kfui g
fui gT Mfui g

Dynamic topology optimization problems where the objective

is to maximize the ith natural frequency of a continuum structures
are considered in this research. For a solid-void design, the optimization problem can be stated as [24];

Subject to : V  
xi

N
X
V i xi 0

i1

1
xmin

if element is solid
if element is void

where Vi is the volume of an individual element, and V is the prescribed volume. N is the total number of elements in the structure.
The binary design variable xi denotes the density of the ith element;
xmin is set equal to a sufciently small value to denote a void
element.
2.2. Material interpolation scheme
To obtain the gradient information of the design variable, it is
necessary to interpolate the material between xmin and 1. A popular material interpolation scheme is the so-called power-law
penalization model (the SIMP model). For the solidvoid design,
the material density and Youngs modulus are functions of the design variable xi as [24];

qxi xi q1
Exi

xpi E1 0
1

8


>
x2i
1 T
>
>
ui ;
u
K

M
i
i
>
i
>
p
< 2xi

xi
>
 uTi M i ui ;
>
>
>
2p
>
:

0 < xmin 6 xi 6 1

x 1

x xmin

10

where Mi is the mass matrix of each element, Ki is the stiffness matrix of each element, and ui is the element eigenvector which are related to the removed each element.

3. Ant colony optimization formulations for dynamic topology

problems
3.1. Standard ACO applied to dynamic topology optimization

Maximize : xi

Dx i

1  xpi xpi E1

4
< xmin 6 xi 6 1
1

where q and E are the density and Youngs modulus of solid material, respectively. p is the penalty factor, usually used as 3.

The ant colony optimization algorithm (ACO) mimics the

behavior of real ant colonies. Ants can nd the shortest path from
a food source to their nest by exploiting a chemical substance
called pheromone. Each insect deposits a trail of pheromone on
the ground. This trail adds to the previously deposited pheromone
trails. The other ants will be more likely to go through a route if
this hosts a higher concentration of pheromone.
ACO was successfully utilized to solve the travelling salesman
problem (TSP), a classical combinatorial optimization problem. Kaveh et al. [17] developed a standard ACO formulation for static
topology optimization problems in order to design the stiffest
structure with the constraint of disposing of a certain amount of
material; the search criterion was based on strain energy. Following the logical scheme adopted to solve the TSP, standard ACO will
be applied in this study to dynamic topology problems. Elements of
discretized design domain correspond to distances covered by the
salesman while elements forming the structure under the given
volume constraint correspond to the cities.
The contribution of each element i to the cost function of the
optimization problem resembles the pheromone trail deposited
on a segment of a route, it is here denoted by si(t). The parameter
t represents the time of deployment of ants which is equivalent to
iteration cycles. Following the approach adopted for TSP [1], and
ignoring the effect of the local heuristic values, the ant decision index ai(t) can be written as [17];

70

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

si ta
ai t PN
a
j1 sj t

11

where a is a parameter that controls the relative weight of the pheromone trail, usually set equal to 1. N is the total number of nite
elements and t refers to an indication of the present cycle which
is analogous to the tth time of deploying our ants. It should be noted
that here the probability of an element being chosen by a typical ant
is the same as the decision index as dened in Eq. (11).
After completion of a cycle of designs by all ants, each ant k
deposits a quantity of pheromone Dski on each element based on
its relative natural frequency, as shown in Eq. (12). This is an index
of the performance of the element: a larger amount of pheromone
is deposited in purpose of improving the design.

Dski

D ki k
PN
k k
j1 D j

No

No

12

where the k exponent is a tuning parameter dened in order to optimize the performance and convergence behavior of the optimization algorithm. In static topology optimization, the usual value
k 2 is dictated by considerations on the convergence rate as the
strain energy used as pheromone is always positive. However, the
value k 1 should be considered in dynamic topology optimization
problems if some of Dxki s are not very small negative values, even
though the convergence rate may be slow. In other words, if the
magnitude of Dxki is a very small negative value (negligible) or it
is always positive, k 2 can also be used in dynamic topology optimization problems to accelerate the convergence rate.
The amount of pheromone in each element is due to the addition of new pheromones as well as evaporation which is implemented within the algorithm via the following rules,

si t 1 csi t Dsi
Pm

Yes

13

where Dsi k1 Ds and m is the number of ants used in each cycle. The evaporation coefcient c, usually set between 0.5 and 0.9,
takes into account the pheromone decay [17]. This serves to avoid
premature convergence to suboptimal designs. By increasing c, convergence behavior becomes stable but convergence rate decreases.
An initial amount of pheromone si(0) is introduced and a small positive constant value s(0) is considered for all elements in the rst
cycle [26].
The ACO process is summarized by the owchart of Fig. 1. The
algorithm includes the following steps:
k
i

1. Specify standard ACO control parameters (a, c) and tune the

parameter k and assign an initial pheromone trailing value on
each element.
2. Create initial designs using a sequence of random selection by
spreading pheromone trailing uniformly in the design space.
3. At each construction step, the choice of a solution component is
performed probabilistically using Eq. (11).
4. Carry out a linear dynamic nite element analysis (FEA) of the
structure and determine the natural frequencies. Use a lter
scheme to prevent a checkerboard pattern and creation of
undesirable tiny members.
5. Control whether a cycle is completed or not.
6. After completion of a cycle, the amount of pheromone on each
element is updated according to Eqs. (12) and (13).
7. Steps 3 through 6 are repeated until the following convergence
criteria (14) and (15) are satised.
The following convergence criteria are used in this study. If there
are local optima, the same value of target frequency maximized by
the optimizer may correspond to totally different designs. The
maximum error on design vector, namely, pheromone and the

Fig. 1. Flowchart of standard ACO for dynamic topology optimization.

objective function should hence be compared with each convergence error limit.

max :

si t  si t  1
6e
s t
P 0 i

 N

 i1 xki1  xkN0 i1 

error

PN 0

i1

xki1

14
6 econ

15

where e is the convergence limit set for the design vector (in this
study, e = 0.01%), x is the eigenfrequency that must be maximized
in the cost function, econ is the convergence limit set for the cost
function (in this study, econ = 0.1%), and N is the integer number
resulting in a stable frequency in at least 10 successive iterations.
In this study N was set set equal to 5: therefore natural frequency
must change marginally over the last 10 optimization iterations.
3.2. Modied ant colony optimization (MACO) algorithm for dynamic
topology optimization
As ants are randomly located in the elements of the structure
during the optimization process, their positions are expressed as
solid (1) or void (0) elements in the design domain. The best
topology found in each iteration includes only solid elements. This
allows us to obtain a stable topology if the target volume is large:
in such a case, symmetry of stiffness matrix can be preserved as
there are enough solid elements to represent the general topology
of the structure. However, this is not true if the target volume is set
to a small value. In such a case, computation efciency decreases

71

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

either in terms of stiffness matrix ill-conditioning (values of natural frequencies are not accurate) and high computation time.
In order to solve the above mentioned problems, design variables must be dened in a continuous distribution of density
[1820]. For this reason, a modied ant colony optimization algorithm (MACO) formulation was developed in this research. The
main difference between standard ACO and MACO is the introduction of a continuous variable, called Element Contribution Significance (ECS), in FEA. This new variable serves to replace the
positions of ants in a standard ACO. It serves to assess and monitor
the importance of each element in the optimization process. If an
element is always recognized as solid it contributes signicantly
to the structural response and concurs to drive the search process
towards the optimum design. Hence, it will always be included in
the population of ants used to update the distribution of material
in the structure.
For each element, the ECSi variable is dened as the ratio between the total number of ants passing through each element
and the inner loop number. That is:

PNiter
ECSi

iter1 Aiter i

Niter

A 1 or 0

16

Basically, the (Aiter)i term indicates if an ant was passing (if the
ant exists, A = 1; if the ant does not exist, A = 0) through the ith
element over the Niter optimization iterations completed up to this
moment. Convergence behavior depends on the ant decision index

No

as well as on the values assigned to the ACO internal parameters

a, k and c. It has been suggested that the convergence rate can also
be accelerated by resizing pheromones newly added to the
solution found by rank-based ant systems [27] or elite ants [28].
Similarly to the role played in the TSP problem by elite ants that
deposit pheromone on the edges of the best route, in order to
accelerate convergence rate the change in natural frequency
Dxnew
for the ith element is dened by the ECSi parameter that cori
responds to elite ants. It follows:

Dxnew
ECSi  Dxi
i

17

The resized Dxi is computed as:

Dxi 1  Min v alue

Dxnew
i
Min v alue
maxDxnew

18

where Min_value is set as 0.0001 in this study. This equation serves

to normalize Dxnew
which may then be compared more easily. The
i
Min_value can be selected as at least 106 to avoid the occurrence of
highly localized vibration modes [29]. Highly localized vibration
modes do not occur in the optimization iterations if the above specied values are chosen.
The optimization process carried out in MACO is summarized
by the owchart shown in Fig. 2. The steps of the algorithm are
now outlined as follows:
1. Specify ACO control parameters (a, c), tune the parameter k, and
assign an initial pheromone trailing value on each element.

No

Yes

Fig. 2. Flowchart of MACO for dynamic topology optimization.

72

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

2. Create the initial design using a sequence of random selection

by spreading pheromones trailing uniformly in the design space
and carry out a dynamic FEA.
3. At each construction step, the choice of a solution component is
performed probabilistically using Eq. (11).
4. Control if a cycle is completed or not.
5. After completion of a cycle, calculate ECS using Eq. (16).
6. Carry out dynamic FEA with a lter scheme using ECS.
7. Carry out update the change of natural frequency using Eqs.
(17) and (18).
8. The amount of pheromones on each element is updated according to Eqs. (12) and (13).
9. Steps 3 through 8 are repeated until convergence criteria (14)
and (15) are satised.
3.3. Filtering scheme
Finite element-based optimization algorithms may often nd
checkerboard patterns that cause severe numerical errors in topology optimization. A ltering scheme must be utilized to overcome
this problem that becomes more critical for three-dimensional
structures. In the case of static topology optimization problems,
it was found that the mesh independent ltering scheme with
xed elimination ratio (ER) allows the BESO optimization algorithm to converge to the same structural layout in spite of changing element sizes [23].The following ltering scheme was used in
this study:

Dx i

PNnode

wr ik Dxnode
k
PNnode
wr

ik
k1

k1

where, Dxnode

PNk

V Dxi element

Pi Nk

i1

19

i1

Vi

design and the number of optimization cycles for the rst variant
of test problem 1. The number of optimization cycles is indicated
between parentheses.
It can be seen that MACO is insensitive to the a exponent included in the ant decision index ai(t). This is because the a exponent does not affect the relative probability that an element will
be chosen by a typical ant. The k exponent plays the most important role. Based on the sign and magnitude of the changes in pheromone values, convergence behavior may signicantly depend on
the k exponent. As far as it concerns the evaporation coefcient
c, convergence behavior becomes stable but the number of optimization cycles increases as the evaporation coefcient increases
from 0.5 to 0.9 for a given value of k. In summary, the convergence
rate decreases as c increases. Through numerical experiments, the
best combination of MACO internal parameters was found for each
test problem based on the optimized design and the number of
optimization cycles.
The original BESO code, a soft-kill BESO implemented in MATLAB [25], along with the FEA routine built-in in BESO was utilized
in this research. Optimization runs were carried out on a standard
PC equipped with Core2 Quad Q8300 (2.5 GHz) and 2G of RAM
memory. Convergence analysis [23] in BESO was carried out for
all test problems in order to obtain mesh independent nite element solutions. It was performed for several mesh sizes and ER
with rmin = 3 for each example. After examining the optimized
topologies, the best combination of mesh size and ER for mesh
independent nite element solutions was determined.
The best combination of internal parameters for each problem
was selected in order to optimize convergence behavior of all optimization algorithms compared in this study. A lter scheme to prevent noise effects in optimized topology was utilized.

; wr ik r min  rik k 1; 2; . . . ; MIn

the above equations, Nk is the total number of elements connected

to the kth node, Nnode is the total number of nodes included in the
circular sub-domain, and w(rik) is the weight factor for the distance
from the center of the ith element to the kth node. Vi is the volume
of an individual element. The lter radius is usually used as
rmin = 1.53.0.

4.1. Test problem 1: short beam optimized for rst or second natural
frequency
The topology of the 5 m  1 m  0.01 m short beam clamped on
both sides shown in Fig. 4 must be optimized in order to maximize
the rst or second natural frequency. The volume of the structure
must be 90% of the original volume. Material properties are as fol-

4. Test problems and results

The MACO algorithm developed in this study was tested in
three dynamic optimization problems of 2D structures under plane
stress conditions. MACO was compared with standard ACO and
soft-kill BESO. In order to analyze the effect of internal parameters
on the convergence behavior of MACO and nd the best combination of those internal parameters in terms of natural frequency and
number of required structural analyses was evaluated for each test
problem. For example, Fig. 3 shows the variation of the optimized

Fig. 4. Schematic of the short beam under plane stress conditions optimized in test
problem 1.

Fig. 3. Sensitivity of optimized design to MACO internal parameters (rst variant of test problem 1).

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

lows: Youngs modulus E = 10 MPa, Poissons ratio v = 0.3 and mass

density q = 1 kg/m3. The design domain was meshed in 8000 (i.e.
200  40) 4-nodes bilinear elements. The lter radius is rmin = 3
while the penalty factor is p = 3. The elimination ratio parameter
(ER) utilized in BESO represents the ratio between the number of
elements removed in each iteration and the total number of elements that were present at the beginning of the current iteration.
The ER parameter was set equal to 2% in this test problem. The
proper ant colony optimization internal parameters are chosen:
a = 1, k 1, c = 0.9 for variant 1, and a = 1, k 2, c = 0.7 for variant
2 and econ = 0.1%, respectively.
Convergence curves obtained for MACO, ACO and BESO in the
case of variant 1 where the objective is to maximize the rst natural frequency and in the case of variant 2 where the objective is
to maximize the second natural frequency are shown in Figs. 5
and 6, respectively. Optimal topologies obtained by the three algo-

73

rithms mentioned above for variants 1 and 2 are presented in Figs.

7 and 8, respectively. The upper part of each sub-gure shows the
topology found in the rst optimization cycle while the bottom
part of each sub-gure shows the optimized topology. It can be
seen that while the rst intermediate designs are considerably different, optimal topologies are much more similar.
The very different topologies observed in the rst optimization
cycle can be explained as follows. ACO and MACO have to satisfy
the volume constraint throughout the optimization process. Conversely, BESO removes elements from the design domain based
on the value of elimination parameter ER set by the user.
Table 1 lists the values of natural frequency corresponding to
the optimal topology found by each optimization algorithm and
the number of structural analysis required in the optimization process. It can be seen that, in the case of variant 1, BESO designed the
structure with the highest rst natural frequency (8.371 Hz). In the

Fig. 5. Convergence curves for test problem1 (rst natural frequency).

Fig. 6. Convergence curves for test problem 1 (second natural frequency).

74

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

(a) ACO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

(b) BESO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

(c) MACO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

(a) ACO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

(b) BESO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

(c) MACO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

Fig. 7. Comparison of topologies optimized by different algorithms for test problem

1 (rst natural frequency).

Fig. 8. Comparison of topologies optimized by different algorithms for test problem

1 (second natural frequency).

case of variant 2, MACO designed the structure with the highest

rst natural frequency (10.855 Hz). ACO always designed structures with the lowest value of target frequency. MACO was much
slower than BESO in the problem variant 1, but more than 20% faster in the problem variant 2. ACO always required considerably
more structural analyses than the other two optimization algorithms to converge to the nal topology.
In the case of large volume constraint (90%), even though the
rst cycle of test problem 1 in MACO provides almost an optimal
topology, the number of optimization cycles signicantly increases
to reach the optimal topology. The is because pheromone parameter values ranged between 1 and 1 (where, k 1), and the evaporation coefcient c was set equal to 0.9 for this case. The slower
convergence rate exhibited by MACO with respect to BESO may
be due to the much larger amount of heuristics entailed by the
ant colony optimization method.
However, in presence of the tighter volume constraint (50%),
the convergence rate of MACO is slightly higher than that of BESO
since the pheromone parameters always keep the same sign
(where, k 2), and the evaporation coefcient c was set equal to
0.7. MACO can improve signicantly its performance since a population of very efcient trial designs is produced since the very
beginning of the search process in this case.

Table 1
Optimization results for test problem 1.
Algorithm

First
frequency
(Hz)

Second
frequency (Hz)

No. of structural analysis

(First/second)

ACO
BESO
MACO

7.439
8.371
7.947

10.311
10.611
10.855

77/28
22/23
56/18

4.2. Test problem 2: a pin-supported beam optimized for rst natural

frequency
The topology of the 8 m  1 m  0.01 m pin-supported beam
shown in Fig. 9 must be optimized in order to maximize the rst
natural frequency. The volume of the structure must be 50% of
the original volume. Material properties are as follows: Youngs
modulus E = 10 MPa, Poissons ratio v = 0.3 and mass density
q = 1 kg/m3. The design domain was meshed in 12,800 (i.e.
320  40) 4-nodes bilinear elements. The lter radius is rmin = 3
with ER = 2% while the penalty factor is p = 3. The proper ant colony optimization internal parameters are: a = 1, k 2, c = 0.7 and
econ = 0.1%, respectively.

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

Convergence curves are shown in Fig. 10. In this test problem,

standard ACO was not able to nd an optimal topology. This is because standard ACO uses only solid or void elements. If an intermediate topology does not consist of a stable structure, eigenvalues
cannot even be computed because of highly localized vibration
modes. In the case of large volume constraints (90%), standard

75

ACO did not incur in this problem. Since MACO utilized the ECS
parameter as a continuous variable, it was able to complete the
optimization even for the tighter volume constraint (50%). Soft-kill
BESO also could complete the dynamic topology optimization
problem. It should be noted that ECS describes the tendency of ants
to cross an element. Standard ACO could not have accounted

Fig. 9. Schematic of a pin-supported beam optimized in test problem 2.

Fig. 10. Convergence curves for test problem 2 (rst natural frequency).

(a) BESO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

(b) MACO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

Fig. 11. Comparison of topologies optimized by different algorithms for test problem 2 (rst natural frequency).

76

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

properly for the real contribution of each element to the global dynamic response of the structure. This becomes more signicant as
the design domain is smaller.
The difference in convergence behavior of MACO and BESO is
due to the fact that BESO removes elements from the design domain always keeping the same elimination ratio (ER). Therefore,
the natural frequency computed by BESO changes monotonically
as the optimization progresses. Conversely, MACO searches for
effective elements to satisfy the target volume constraint until
the optimal topology is obtained. This leads to have non-monotonic convergence curves whose variation is also inuenced by
the considerable level of heuristics included in the ant colony
algorithm.
Optimal topologies obtained by the above mentioned two algorithms are presented in Fig. 11. Again, the upper part of each subgure shows the topology found in the rst optimization cycle
while the bottom part of each sub-gure shows the optimized
topology. Whilst the rst intermediate designs are totally different
(BESO did not change signicantly topology with respect to the initial design), optimal topologies are much more similar.
Table 2 lists the values of natural frequency corresponding to
the optimal topology found by each optimization algorithm and
the number of structural analyses required in the optimization
process. It can be seen that MACO designed the structure with

Table 2
Optimization results for test problem 2.
Algorithm

First frequency (Hz)

No. of structural analysis

BESO
MACO

9.469
9.756

50
50

the highest rst natural frequency (9.756 Hz of MACO vs.

9.469 Hz of BESO). It is also shown that MACO is competitive with
BESO in terms of convergence rate.
4.3. Test problem 3: clamped beam with a concentrated mass
optimized for rst natural frequency
The topology of the 14 cm  2 cm  1 mm beam with a concentrated mass of 1.4  105 kg in its center and clamped at both sides
(see Fig. 12) must be optimized in order to maximize the rst natural frequency. The volume of the structure must be 50% of the original volume. Material properties are as follows: Youngs modulus
E = 100 N/cm2, Poissons ratio v = 0.3 and mass density q = 106 kg/
cm3. The design domain was meshed in 11,200 (i.e. 280  40) 4nodes bilinear elements. The lter radius is rmin = 1.5 with
ER = 2% while the penalty factor is p = 3. The proper ant colony
optimization internal parameters are: a = 1, k 2, c = 0.5 and
econ = 0.1%, respectively.
Convergence curves are shown in Fig. 13. Standard ACO could
not nd an optimal topology for this test problem. It can be seen
that MACO convergence behavior is slightly more stable than that
of test problem 2. This is because most pheromone parameter values are clearly different from their counterpart values due to presence of the concentrated mass. Consequently, convergence rate
increased with respect to test problem 2.
Optimal topologies obtained by MACO and BESO are compared
in Fig. 14. Again, the upper part of each sub-gure shows the topology found in the rst optimization cycle while the bottom part of
each sub-gure shows the optimized topology. Whilst the rst
intermediate designs once again are different (BESO did not change
signicantly the topology with respect to the initial design), opti-

Fig. 12. Schematic of the clamped beam with a concentrated mass optimized in test problem 3.

Fig. 13. Convergence curves for test problem 3 (rst natural frequency).

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

77

(a) BESO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

(b) MACO; upper (first design), lower (final design)

Fig. 14. Comparison of topologies optimized by different algorithms for test problem 3 (rst natural frequency).

mal topologies are almost the same. Table 3 lists the values of natural frequency corresponding to the optimal topology found by
MACO and BESO, and the number of structural analyses required
in the optimization process. It can be seen that BESO and MACO
had almost the same efciency in converging to the optimum design. In fact, MACO designed a structure with almost the same rst
natural frequency (0.0414 Hz of BESO vs. 0.0405 Hz of MACO).

in the three test problems solved. However, the present algorithm

sometimes required too many optimization cycles to complete the
optimization process. In order to test the robustness of MACO,
optimization runs were repeated 10 times for each test problem.
Remarkably, MACO always converged to the same optimal
topology.
5. Conclusions

4.4. Discussion
Optimization results indicate that MACO is considerably more
efcient than ACO and competitive with BESO. The superiority of
MACO over ACO derives from the fact that the present algorithm
searches for optimal topology by taking into account the real contribution of each single element included in the topology domain
to the overall structural response. This makes it is easier to eliminate the parts of the structure that do not provide stiffness where it
is necessary.
As far as it concerns the relative behavior of MACO and BESO, it
should be noted that the performance of meta-heuristic algorithms
can improve signicantly if a population of very efcient trial designs were created since the very beginning of the search process.
Furthermore, the pheromone parameter should always keep the
same sign as it happened for the second variant of test problem 1.
Conversely, even in presence of an initial population of very
efcient trial designs, convergence rate may be very low if pheromone parameter values vary between 1 and 1, and the evaporation coefcient is set to a large value. This was the case of the rst
variant of test problem 1. When a severe volume constraint is included in the design problem like in the case of test problems 2
and 3, MACO is fully competitive with BESO in terms of natural frequency and convergence rate provided that pheromone parameter
values do not change in sign and the evaporation coefcient is
small.
In summary, MACO is suited for dynamic topology optimization
as it could always maximize the natural frequency of the structure

Table 3
Optimization results for test problem 3.
Algorithm

First frequency (Hz)

No. of structural analysis

BESO
MACO

0.0414
0.0405

42
43

This paper presented a modied ant colony optimization algorithm (MACO) for dynamic topology optimization of 2D structures.
MACO implemented a novel ant colony optimization formulation
where the concept of ant position is reformulated in terms of the
sensitivity of structural response to the presence of each element.
This effect is evaluated by introducing the ECS parameter.
Numerical tests demonstrated that MACO is a robust and stable
metaheuristic algorithm highly suited for topology optimization in
dynamic problems where the objective is to maximize natural frequencies. In particular, the proposed algorithm was absolutely
superior over standard ant colony optimization and very competitive with bilinear evolutionary structural optimization algorithms
in terms of convergence rate. The natural frequencies corresponding to the designs optimized by MACO are higher than those obtained by ACO, and almost the same or even slightly higher than
for BESO.
However, further research will be required in order to improve
the convergence speed of MACO that was much faster than ACO
but sometimes considerably slower than BESO. Natural frequencies
optimized by MACO were greater than those found by standard
ACO but sometimes slightly smaller than those found by BESO.
References
[1] Dorigo M, Learning and natural algorithms (in Italian), Ph.D thesis. Politecnico
di Milano, Italie, 1992.
[2] Dorigo M, Stutzle T. Ant colony optimization. Cambridge (MA), USA: MIT Press;
2004.
[3] Blum C. Ant colony optimization: introduction and recent trends. Phys Life Rev
2005;2:35373.
[4] Lamberti L, Pappalettere C. Metaheuristic design optimization of skeletal
structures: a review. Computational technology reviews, Vol. 4. UK: SaxeCoburg Publications; 2011. vol. 4, p. 132.
[5] Bensoe MP, Kikuchi N. Generating optimal topologies in structural design
using homogenization method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
1988;71:197224.
[6] Xie YM, Steven GP. Evolutionary structural optimization. Springer; 1993.

78

K.-S. Yoo, S.-Y. Han / Computers and Structures 123 (2013) 6878

[7] Xie YM, Steven GP. A simple evolutionary procedure for structural
optimization. Comput Struct 1993;49:88596.
[8] Liang QQ. Performance-based optimization of structures: theory and
applications. London and New York: Spon Press; 2005.
[9] Liang QQ, Steven GP. A performance-based optimization method for topology
design of continuum structures with mean compliance constraints. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 2002;191:147189.
[10] Belytschko T, Xiao SP, Parimi C. Topology optimization with implicit functions
and regularization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2003;57:117796.
[11] Sethian J, Wiegmann A. Structural boundary design via level set and immersed
interface methods. J Comput Phys 2000;163:489528.
[12] Zhao H, Long K, Ma Z. Homogenization topology optimization method based
on continuous eld. Adv Mech Eng 2010:115561.
[13] Querin QM, Steven GP, Xie YM. Evolutionary structural optimization (ESO)
using a bidirectional algorithm. Eng Comput 1998;15:103148.
[14] Kane C, Schoenauer M. Topological optimum design using genetic algorithms.
Control Cybernet 1996;25:105988.
[15] Tagawa H, Ohsaki M. Simultaneous optimization of topology and geometry of
plane trusses with uniform cross-sectional area. J Struct Construct Eng AIJ
1999;521:7380.
[16] Luh GC, Lin CY. Structural topology optimization using ant colony optimization
algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 2009;9:134353.
[17] Kaveh A, Hassani B, Shojaee S, Tavakkoli SM. Structural topology optimization
using ant colony methodology. Eng Struct 2008;30:2259565.
[18] Tenek LH, Hagiwara I. Eigenfrequency maximization of plates by optimization
of topology using homogenization and mathematical programming. Jpn Soc
Mech Eng 1994;37:66777.

[19] Ma ZD, Cheng HC, Kikuchi N. Topological design for vibrating structures.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1995;121:25980.
[20] Kosaka I, Swan CC. A symmetry reduction method for continuum structural
topology optimization. Comput Struct 1999;47:4761.
[21] Pedersen NL. Maximization of eigenvalues using topology optimization. Struct.
Multidiscip. Optim. 2000;20:211.
[22] Du J, Olhoff N. Topological design of freely vibrating continuum structures for
maximum values of simple and multiple eigenfrequencies and frequency gaps.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 2007;34:91110.
[23] Huang X, Xie YM. Convergent and mesh-independent solutions for the bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization method. Finite Elem Anal Des
2007;43:103949.
[24] Huang X, Zuo ZH, Xie YM. Evolutionary topological optimization of vibrating
continuum structures for natural frequencies. Comput Struct 2010;88:35764.
[25] Huang X, Xie YM. Evolutionary topology optimization of continuum
structures. India: Wiley; 2009.
[26] Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo V, Distributed optimization by ant colony. In:
Proceedings of the rst European conference on articial life, USA 1991, p.
134142.
[27] Bullnheimer B, Hartl RF, Strauss CA, A New rank-based version of the ant
system: a computational study, Technical Report POM-03/97. Institute of
Management Science. University of Vienna, 1997.
[28] Shtovba SD. Ant algorithms: theory and applications. Program Comput Softw
2005;31:16778.
[29] Xie YM, Steven GP. Evolutionary structural optimization for dynamic
problems. Comput Struct 1996;58:106773.