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

net/publication/261503088

Optimization of structural support locations using a hybrid genetic algorithm

Conference Paper · April 2013

DOI: 10.1109/CIES.2013.6611721

CITATIONS READS
0 27

2 authors, including:

Yin Li
Concordia University Montreal
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yin Li on 15 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2SWLPL]DWLRQRIVWUXFWXUDOVXSSRUWORFDWLRQVXVLQJ
DK\EULGJHQHWLFDOJRULWKP

Jin Cheng Yin Li

Department of Bridge Engineering
Tongji University
Shanghai, China

$EVWUDFW²7KLV SDSHU SUHVHQWV D K\EULG JHQHWLF DOJRULWKP be needed since they do not guarantee a convergence toward
*$ IRU WKH RSWLPL]DWLRQ RI VWUXFWXUDO VXSSRUW ORFDWLRQV 7KH
REMHFWLYHIXQFWLRQFRQVLGHUHGLVHLWKHUWKHPD[LPXPGHIOHFWLRQRU
PD[LPXP EHQGLQJ PRPHQW RI WKH VWUXFWXUH 7KH REMHFWLYH
IXQFWLRQLVPLQLPL]HGVXEMHFWHGWRWKHGHVLJQFRQVWUDLQWVWKDWDUH
LPSRVHG DV LQHTXDOLW\ FRQVWUDLQWV RQ WKH GHVLJQ YDULDEOHV 7KH
SURSRVHG DOJRULWKP LQWHJUDWHV WKH FRQFHSWV RI WKH *$ PHWKRG
DQG WKH ILQLWH HOHPHQW PHWKRG $ UHDOFRGHG PHWKRG LV XVHG WR
UHDOLVWLFDOO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH YDOXHV RI WKH GHVLJQ YDULDEOHV 7KUHH
*$ RSHUDWRUV FRQVLVWLQJ RI WKH QRUPDOL]HG JHRPHWULF UDQNLQJ
VHOHFWLRQ SURFHGXUH WKH DULWKPHWLF FURVVRYHU DQG WKH QRQ
XQLIRUPPXWDWLRQDUHSURSRVHG)LQLWHHOHPHQWPHWKRGLVXVHGWR
FRPSXWHWKHYDOXHVRILPSOLFLWREMHFWLYHIXQFWLRQV7KHUHVXOWVRI
WZR QXPHULFDO H[DPSOHV RQH E\ PLQLPL]LQJ WKH PD[LPXP
GHIOHFWLRQ DQG WKH RWKHU E\ PLQLPL]LQJ WKH PD[LPXP EHQGLQJ
PRPHQW RI WKH VWUXFWXUH LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH SURSRVHG PHWKRG LV
DFFXUDWH DQG FRPSXWDWLRQDOO\ HIILFLHQW LQ RSWLPL]LQJ VXSSRUWLQJ
ORFDWLRQV
.H\ZRUGV²*HQHWLF DOJRULWKP 6WUXFWXUDO VXSSRUW ORFDWLRQ
)LQLWH HOHPHQW PHWKRG 0D[LPXP EHQGLQJ PRPHQW 0D[LPXP
GHIOHFWLRQ
I. INTRODUCTION
The optimization of structural support locations has been
the subject of extensive studies during the past few decades.
This topic is of great importance to improve structural
performance such as in reducing the maximum deflection or
bending moment [1-3], increasing the fundamental natural
frequency [4], and increasing the buckling loads of structures
[5]. Various methods have been developed for determining the
optimal locations of supports in a structure by minimizing/
maximizing an objective function subjected to certain
constraints. These methods may be broadly divided into two
categories as: (1) gradient-based methods; and (2) non-
gradient methods.
.Gradient-based methods are based on a heuristic search
strategy [6]. The first order optimization method and
evolutionary shift method are two representative examples of
such methods. Extensive reviews of these two methods are
found in [2, 7]. However, these methods involve the design
sensitivity analysis, and therefore require a relatively long
computation time. Manual intervention to the programs may
978-1-4673-5851-4/13/$31.00 2013
c IEEE
global optima.
Two types of non-gradient methods, namely the sub-
problem approximation method and the genetic algorithm (GA)
method, have been established as an attempt to overcome the
above-mentioned problems found in the gradient-based
methods. The sub-problem approximation method requires
only the values of the dependent variables, and not their
derivatives. In other words, the calculation of the sensitivities
is not required to optimize the support locations. Thus, this
method is more convenient and more efficient than the
gradient-based methods. However, this method may not be as
accurate as the gradient-based methods. The weakness of the
sub-problem approximation method is discussed in Section 5.
A genetic algorithm is a search/optimization technique
based on the survival of the fittest theory and natural selection
proposed by Darwin. The genetic algorithm has the
advantages that it is able to deal with discrete optimum design
problems, does not need to know the derivatives of objective
functions and has the capability of identifying global optimal
values of the objective function. Due to these advantages, the
GA method has found numerous applications in the optimized
design of structures. A paper by Goldberg and Samtani [8]
examined the application of the GA method to the
optimization design of structures. More recent development of
the GA method can be found in papers by Rajeev and
Krishnamoorthy [9], Pezeshk et al. [10], Saka and Kameshki
[11], Yun and Kim [12], among others. Although much work
has been performed in this area, the application of the GA to
the optimization of structural support locations is quite limited.
An attempt was made to apply GA to find optimal support
location of beams [4]. In their paper, the main aim is to
determine the optimal support location in a beam, with the
objective of maximizing the fundamental natural frequency.
The problem was solved by a simple genetic algorithm with
reproduction, crossover, and mutation operators. The results
obtained from GA are reasonably accurate. However, there is
room for further improvement in the efficiency, which is a
very important issue when this method is applied to a complex
structure.
So far, to the knowledge of the authors, the GA has not
been applied to the optimization of structural support locations,
1
with the objective of minimizing the maximum deflection or
bending moment. In addition, there is no comprehensive study
carried out to assess the relative performance of the GA and the
above-mentioned two alternative methods (the first order
optimization method and sub-problem approximation method)
for solving the optimal support location problem. The
parameters of the GA may affect the optimal results. However,
there is no guidance regarding how to select appropriate values
for the parameters. The objective of this paper is to apply GA
method to solve the optimal support location problem, with the
objective of minimizing the maximum deflection or bending
moment. Its accuracy, efficiency and advantages over above-
mentioned two alternative methods namely the first order
optimization method and sub-problem approximation method,
will be discussed in detail.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT OF OPTIMAL SUPPORT LOCATIONS
The optimal support location problem is to find a design
variable vector representing support locations in order to
minimize a structural performance function. This function may
be the maximum defection or maximum bending moment of
the structure subjected to the design constraints that are
imposed as inequality constraints on the design variables.
In this paper, we have considered two optimal support
location problems. One is to minimize the maximum defection
of structures and the other is to minimize the maximum
bending moment of structures. Of course, other optimal
support location problem such as maximizing the fundamental
natural frequency of structures can also be considered. The
two optimal support location problems may be
correspondingly stated as follows:
(1) For the optimal support location problem of
minimizing the maximum defection of structures
III. SOLUTION OF OPTIMAL SUPPORT LOCATION PROBLEM
For illustrative purposes, two solution methods for the
optimal support location problem mentioned previously are
briefly reviewed in this section. One is the sub-problem
approximation method and the other is the first order
optimization method. These two methods have been already
integrated into a multi-physics commercial finite element code
as optimization tools [7]. More detailed description of the two
methods can be found in [7].
The sub-problem approximation method can be used to
provide a rapid solution to the optimal support location
problem, without using the derivatives of objective functions.
This method has three major steps. Firstly, the objective
function expressed by Eq. (1) or Eq.(3) is approximated using
least squares fitting of a number of design sets generated
randomly. Secondly, the constrained optimal support location
problem described above is converted into an unconstrained
form by using penalty functions. Finally, a sequential
unconstrained minimization technique is used to solve the
unconstrained optimal support location problem. The
algorithm proceeds iteratively until convergence is achieved,
or when the maximum number of iterations is reached in the
presented study.
Different from the sub-problem approximation method,
the first order optimization method needs to know the
derivatives of the objective functions. Instead of using least
square fitting, the constrained optimal support location problem
described above is directly transformed into an unconstrained
form. Various steepest descent and conjugate direction
searches are performed during each iteration until convergence
is reached. Each iteration is composed of sub-iterations that
include search direction and derivatives computations.
Minimize max ( į L ( ; ) ), L 1,..., N 
IV. THE PROPOSED SOLUTION METHOD FOR OPTIMAL
SUPPORT LOCATION PROBLEM
subjected to constraints / M d ; M d 8 M , M 1,..., Q 
where GL (; ) is the absolute deflection of the L th node of
the structural system; ; is the design variable vector
representing the support locations; ; M is the nodal
coordinates of the finite element model specifying the M th
location of support; / M and 8 M are the lower and upper
bounds of the location of support, respectively. N and Q are
the total number of nodes and the total numbers of supports in
the finite element model, respectively.
(2) For the optimal support location problem of
minimizing the maximum bending moment of structures
When the objective functions in Eqs (1) and (3) are
explicitly expressed in terms of the design variables, the
optimal support location problem can be solved easily using a
conventional GA. Unfortunately, the objective functions in Eqs.
(1) and (3) are usually an implicit function of the design
variables. In other words, the explicit expressions for the
objective functions in Eqs. (1) and (3) are not available. The
solution of the optimal support location problem is then not
straightforward. To overcome the problem of using a
conventional GA, a hybrid GA is developed. In the proposed
method, the finite element method (FEM) is used to compute
the value of implicit objective functions and the optimal
support location problem can then conveniently be solved by
using the conventional GA. Some important elements of the
Minimize max ( 0 L ( ; ) ), L 1,..., N  proposed method are briefly discussed in the following sections.

subjected to constraints / M d ; M d 8 M ,  $ *HQHWLFDOJRULWKP

where 0 L ( ; ) is the absolute bending moment of the L th
node of the structural system.
In the present study a genetic algorithm is presented which
is somewhat different from the one described in [4] regarding
the genetic operators and process. These differences include (1)
the use of real-coded method, instead of a simple binary

2 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Engineering Solutions (CIES)

coding method; (2) the adoption of a normalized geometric
ranking selection procedure, instead of a simple reproduction
scheme; (3) the use of arithmetic crossover, instead of a
simple one point crossover; and (4) the employment of non-
uniform mutation scheme, instead of a string character
mutation that is controlled by a prescribed mutation
probability.
An important element of the GA is the coding of the
design variables that describe the problem. Since the design
Mutation is the last essential step in the GA. Its general
aim is to alter one individual to produce a single new solution.
In this study, we employ a non-uniform mutation scheme. In
this non-uniform mutation scheme, let < be one P -
dimensional row vector denoting individuals (parents) from
'
the population. The new individuals < can be calculated
according to the following formula [15]:
­<L  (EL  <L ) ˜ I (* )LI U1  0.5
variables can be any real number, a real-coded method is used ' ° 
<L ®<L  (EL  <L ) ˜ I (* )LI U t 0.5
in this study. Compared to the binary coding method, the real- °< RWKHUZLVH
coded method has the following advantages: (1) the efficiency ¯ L
of the GA is improved because there is no need to convert * W
chromosomes to phenotypes before each function evaluation; where I (* ) (U2 (1  )) ;
(2) less memory is required as efficient floating-point internal *max
computer representations can be used directly; (3) there is no U1 and U2 is a uniform random number between (0,1),
loss in precision by discretization to binary or other values; respectively;
and (4) there is more freedom to use different genetic
operators. A detailed description of the use of real-coded * is the current generation;
method can be found in Michalewicz [13]
*max is the maximum number of generations;
Selection of individuals to produce successive generations
plays an extremely important role in the GA. There are a and W is a shape parameter.
number of selection schemes commonly used in the GA. They
include roulette wheel selection, tournament selection and
% (YDOXDWLRQRILPSOLFLWREMHFWLYHIXQFWLRQ
ranking selection (i.e. normalized geometric ranking selection
procedure). Comparison of the various schemes was made by Because the objective functions in Eqs. (1) and (3) are an
Elkamchouchi and Wagih [14].Their results showed that the implicit function of the design variables, the use of the
geometric ranking selection gives a more reliable convergence. proposed method may involve the evaluation of implicit
In this study, for selecting the individuals for the next objective functions. FEM is considered to be the most
generation, we use the normalized geometric ranking selection popular/reliable evaluation method. In this paper, the primary
procedure, where a probability of selecting each individual is purpose of applying FEM is to compute the value of implicit
given by [15] objective functions. For more details concerning the FEM used
in this paper, the reader is referred to [16].
T(1  T) U 1
3L = 
1  (1  T) V
where 3L is the probability of selecting the L th individual;
T is the probability of selecting the best individual; U is the
rank of the individual after sorting (with 1 being the best), and
V is the population size.
The selection of crossover schemes is another important
issue in the GA. There are many crossover schemes, such as
one point crossover, multi-point crossover, uniform crossover
and arithmetic crossover. Although any crossover scheme can
be used, a specialized crossover scheme must be used to
effectively select children solutions from parent solutions. In
this study we use the arithmetic crossover scheme that exploits
points of the search space belonging to a line connecting both
' '
parents. It produces offsprings F1 and F 2 from parents F1 and
F 2 , by calculating the linear combination of parents, i.e.:
' crossover, and mutation.
 & 3URFHGXUHIRUWKHSURSRVHGPHWKRG
The procedure of the proposed hybrid GA method is:
(1)Select the proposed GA control parameters suitable to
the given problem. The parameters include population size,
probability of selecting the best individual, maximum number
of generations, and shape parameter.
(2)The initial population is randomly generated.
(3)Calculate the value of objective functions using FEM
and check the given constraint.
(4)Check the convergence criteria. Terminate the design
process if it is satisfied; otherwise continue. Because the GA is
a stochastic search method, it is difficult to formally specify
convergence criteria. In this paper, we use a pre-specified
number of generations (maximum number of generations) as
the convergence criteria.
(5)Generate the next generation through selection,
F 1Ȧ ˜ F1  (1  Ȧ) ˜ F 2 
' (6)Repeat steps (3) through (5).
F 2 (1  Ȧ) ˜ F1  Ȧ ˜ F 2 
where the parameter, Ȧ is randomly chosen in the interval
[0,1].

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Engineering Solutions (CIES) 3

 V. EXAMPLES
Two examples are taken to check the accuracy and
efficiency of the proposed hybrid GA method. For comparison,
the results by the sub-problem approximation method, the first
order optimization method, and the evolutionary shift method
proposed by Wang [2-3] are presented. For example 2, the
exact result by analytical method is also provided. In the finite
element analysis, the structure for each example was modeled
using 4 elements unless as otherwise stated.
In the following analyses, unless as otherwise stated, the
parameters of the proposed algorithms given in Table 1 are
used in the numerical studies. Since the design results may be
different depending on the random numbers generated, the
optimal design was performed three times by generating the
random numbers when using the proposed method.
Table 1 Parameters of the proposed hybrid GA method 
Figure 2. Convergence of the proposed method for Example 1
*$SDUDPHWHUV 9DOXH
Number of population 20
Table 2 Comparison of optimal results for Example 1 using different methods
Probability of selecting the best
0.08
individual
Shape parameter 3
Maximum number of generations 60 6XESUREOHP (YROXWLRQDU\
3URSRVHG )LUVWRUGHU
 DSSUR[LPDWLRQ VKLIWPHWKRG
PHWKRG PHWKRG
$ ([DPSOH PHWKRG >@
X/L 0.6523 0.6514 0.59 0.6523
The example taken from Wang [2] is a simply supported
No of elements 4 700 300 -
beam with two rigid supports as shown in Figure 1. The
material properties of the beam are: Young’s modulus E = Absolute
maximum 1.072 1.096 2.796 1.072
2.1 u 105 MPa, and mass density ȡ = 7800 kg/m3. The deflection (mm)
geometrical dimensions are: width B = 0.1m, length L = 2.0 m,
and height H = 0.1m.This optimal support location problem Table 3 Influence of the number of elements on optimal results for Example 1
here is to determine the support location specified by the
6XESUREOHPDSSUR[LPDWLRQ
distance ; such that the maximum defection in the structure 1XPEHU )LUVWRUGHUPHWKRG
PHWKRG
RI
is minimized. The objectives of solving this optimal support HOHPHQWV ;/
$EVROXWHPD[LPXP
;/
$EVROXWHPD[LPXP
location problem are to verify and explore the characters of the GHIOHFWLRQPP GHIOHFWLRQPP
100 NS NS 0.56 3.877
proposed method and compare the performance of the 200 NS NS 0.71 2.659
proposed method with other optimization techniques. 300 NS NS 0.59 2.796
400 NS NS 0.59 2.743
500 NS NS 0.59 2.588
600 NS NS 0.59 2.588
700 0.6514 1.096 0.59 2.500
(Note: NS refers to no solution)

From Figure 2 and Tables 2 and 3, it can be seen that: (1)

 support locations were obtained within 25 generations for the
Figure 1. Geometry and applied loading for simply supported beam (Example
1)
Figure 2 illustrates the convergence of the proposed
method. Table 2 lists detailed design information for Example
1. Table 3 compares the design results of the sub-problem
approximation method and the first order optimization method
for different number of finite elements.
the optimized maximum defection decreases as the number of
generations increases. The optimized maximum defection and
proposed method. This can be attributed to the simplicity of the
problem and the efficiency of the proposed method; (2)there is
no differences between the results of the three runs obtained by
the proposed method, which proves the stability of the
proposed method in solving the optimal support location
problem; (3) the optimal support locations obtained by the
proposed method and the evolutionary shift method are
identical and they show better support location in terms of
maximum defection of the structure than those obtained by the
sub-problem approximation method and the first order
optimization method. Although more numbers of finite
elements are required when compared with the sub-problem
approximation method, the optimal results obtained with the

4 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Engineering Solutions (CIES)

first order optimization method are much more accurate;(4)
only 4 elements were required for the proposed method to
achieve the final optimal maximum defection and support
location, while in the sub-problem approximation method and
the first order optimization method, 300 and 700 elements were
required, respectively. There is an obvious advantage using
lower number of elements in the finite element model and,
consequently, lower computational cost. This advantage is
especially useful in solving the optimal support location
problem of a complicated structural system; (5) changing the
numbers of elements in the finite element model has a
significant effect on the accuracy of the optimal results for the
sub-problem approximation method and the first order
optimization method. When less than 700 elements are used,
the first order optimization method fails to obtain a solution.
This is due to the small number of elements that causes the
inaccuracy of the derivatives of the objective functions in
solving the optimal support location problem. When less than Figure 4. Convergence of the proposed method for Example 2
300 elements are used, the sub-problem approximation method
Table 4 Comparison of optimal results for Example 2 using different methods
fails to obtain a converged solution. However, these problems
can be solved by the proposed method. Therefore, the proposed
method does offer a significant improvement over the first 6XESUREOHP (YROXWLRQDU\
3URSRVHG )LUVWRUGHU
order optimization method and the sub-problem approximation 
PHWKRG PHWKRG
DSSUR[LPDWLRQ VKLIWPHWKRG
method; and (6) the proposed method does not require the PHWKRG >@
derivatives of the objective functions, and thus a large amount X/L 0.6411 0.64 0.54 0.64(0.6411)
of CPU time spent for sensitivity analysis using the gradient- No of
based methods (i.e. the first order optimization method and the element 4 600 200 30
s
evolutionary shift method) can be saved. Maxim
um
42.33 42.48 55.125 42.48(42.33)
% ([DPSOH moment
(kN.m)
The second example is also a simply supported beam with (Note: the figures in the parentheses refer to the exact value obtained by [3].)
two rigid supports, as shown in Figure 3. The structure was
optimized using the evolutionary shift method [3]. The
geometric data of the structure is the same as those used in the Table 5 Influence of the number of elements on optimal results for Example 2
previous example. The material data of the beam is: Young’s
modulus E = 2.1 u 105 MPa. The objective of support 1XPEHU )LUVWRUGHUPHWKRG
6XESUREOHPDSSUR[LPDWLRQ
PHWKRG
optimization is to minimize the maximum bending moment of RI $EVROXWHPD[LPXP $EVROXWHPD[LPXP
the structure. HOHPHQWV ;/ EHQGLQJPRPHQW ;/ EHQGLQJPRPHQW
N1P N1P
The optimized support location and corresponding 100 NS NS 0.56 53.680
maximum bending moment of the structure, which have been 200 NS NS 0.54 55.125
obtained from the proposed method, first order method, sub- 300 NS NS 0.54 55.609
problem approximation method, evolutionary shift method [3], 400 NS NS 0.54 55.851
and analytical solution [3] are listed in Table 4, and the 500 NS NS 0.54 55.997
convergence history of the proposed method is illustrated in 600 0.64 42.48 0.54 56.094
700 0.64 42.48 0.54 56.163
Figure 4. In addition, the optimal results obtained by the first
800 0.64 42.48 0.54 55.851
order method and the sub-problem approximation method are
compared in Table 5 for different numbers of elements.
As can be seen in Table 4, using only 4 elements the
optimal results were achieved by the proposed method that
provides identical optimal results to the exact analytical
solution. This is due to the use of a hybrid GA, which is
independent of the number of elements in the finite element
model. In contrast, to obtain a reasonable accuracy, the first
order method and the evolutionary shift method require 600
and 30 elements, respectively. Hence, significantly fewer
 numbers of elements are needed in the proposed method. As
Figure3. Geometry and applied loading for simply supported beam (Example expected, the sub-problem approximation method is the least
2) accurate one compared to the other methods.

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Engineering Solutions (CIES) 5

 Figure 4 demonstrates the proposed method’s ability to
converge. Table 5 shows that the number of elements
significantly affects the optimal results obtained by the first
order method and the sub-problem approximation method. In
some cases, the first order method with few numbers of
elements fails to obtain a solution.
As reported in [3], the evolutionary shift method proposed
by Wang [3] involves two stages for searching the optimal
support location of a structural system. In the first stage, an
initial range of the optimal support location for the structure
system is found using a smaller number of elements. In the
second stage, the structure system within the range is
subdivided with more number of finite elements, and the
optimal support location problem is resolved. It is worth
pointing out that the evolutionary shift method requires that the
optimal support location problem be solved twice with
different number of finite elements. Each stage usually needs to
repeat the finite element analysis many times due to the
changes of the design variables. This process might involve
prohibitive computational effort in solving optimal support
location problem of large-scale structures. Manual intervention
to the process may be needed since it solves the optimal
support location problem in more than one stage. In addition,
the selection of the number of finite elements to ensure
accurate results is not an easy task. However, these problems
can be overcome by the proposed method.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
An efficient, accurate, and robust algorithm is developed to
solve the optimal support location problem of structures. The
proposed algorithm integrates the concepts of the genetic
algorithm (GA) and the finite element method. A real-coded
method is used to realistically represent the values of the
design variables. Three GA operators consisting of normalized
geometric ranking selection procedure, arithmetic crossover,
and non-uniform mutation are proposed. Finite element
method is used to compute the values of implicit objective
functions. Two numerical examples were used to demonstrate
the proposed method. Comparisons were made with
alternative gradient-based and non-gradient based methods to
evaluate the accuracy and computational efficiency of the
proposed method. The results indicate that the proposed
method provides accurate and computationally efficient
optimal support location.
In this paper, relatively simple problems were solved since
the effectiveness of the genetic algorithm to solve optimal
support location problems and some points that might be used
to develop an efficient genetic algorithm especially for the
optimization of support locations are yet to be clarified. The
applicability of the genetic algorithm to a complicated problem
should be investigated in the next phase.
6 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Engineering Solutions (CIES)
View publication stats
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work presented herein has been supported by the
National Nature Science Foundation of China (Project
No.51178334) and a research grant from the Program for the
New Century Excellent Talents in University (Project
No.NCET-11-0380). These supports are gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] Imam, MH and AI-Shihri, M. Optimum topology of structural supports,
Computers and Structures, 1996, 61(1):147-154
[2] Wang, D. Optimization of support positions to minimize the maximal
deflection of structures, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
2004, 41:7445-7458
[3] Wang, D. Optimal design of structural support positions for minimizing
maximal bending moment, Finite Element in Analysis and Design, 2006,
43:95-102
[4] Wang, BP and Chen, JL. Application of genetic algorithm for the
support location optimization of beams, Computers and Structures, 1996,
58(4):797-800
[5] Liu, ZS, Hu, HC and Huang, C. Derivative of buckling load with respect
to support locations, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 2000,
126:559-564.
[6] Deb, K. Optimization for engineering design: algorithm and examples,
Prentic-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India, 1998.
[7] ANSYS Theory Reference (Release 9.0), ANSYS Inc, 2004
[8] Goldberg, DE and Samtani, MP. Engineering optimization via genetic
algorithms, Proceedings of the 9th conference on electronic computations,
ASCE, 1986, New York: 471-482
[9] Rajeev, S., Krishnamoorthy, CS. Discrete optimization of structures
using genetic algorithms, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1992,
118(5):1233-1250
[10] Pezeshk, S., Camp, CV and Chen, D. Design of nonlinear framed
structures using genetic optimization, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 2000, 126(3):382-388
[11] Saka, MP, Kameshki, ES. Optimum design of nonlinear steel frames
with semi-rigid connections using a genetic algorithm, Computers and
Structures, 2001, 79:1593-1604
[12] Yun, YM, Kim, BH. Optimum design of plane steel frame structures
using second-order inelastic analysis and a genetic algorithm, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2005, 131(12):1820-1831
[13] Michalewicz, Z. Genetic algorithms + Data structures = Evolution
programs, AI Series, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994
[14] Elkamchouchi, HM and Wagih, MM. Genetic algorithm operators effect
in optimizing the antenna array pattern synthesis, Twentieth National
Radio Science Conference, Egypt, 2003
[15] Houck CR, Joines, JA, Kay, MG. A genetic algorithm for function
optimization: a MATLAB implementation, NCSU-IE Technical Report,
1995
[16] Bathe, KJ. Finite element procedures, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J, 1996.