Optimum Shape Design of

Space Structures by Genetic

Algorithm
by

E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Reprinted from

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

SPACE STRUCTURES
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2009

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
 Optimum Shape Design of
Space Structures by Genetic
Algorithm
E. Salajegheh*, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kerman, Kerman, 76169-133, Iran

(Received 13/11/07 - Revised version 15/09/08 Acceptation 04/03/09)

ABSTRACT: Space structures are usually highly indeterminate and

therefore have a large number of redundant members. It is important to
choose the appropriate number of elements and joints for the structure under
consideration. Optimum shape design of space structures is the aim of the
present work and to achieve an optimal configuration, parameters such as
number of joints, number of members, support conditions and the overall
shape of the structures are considered. To attain a practical configuration,
the presence of the joints of the structures and the locations of the columns
are taken as the shape design variables as well as the cross-sectional area of
the elements of the structures under considerations. The resulting
configurations are very interesting after the removal of unnecessary joints
and columns. It was also observed that a part of sphere might not be
appropriate for the dome structures as usually chosen by the designers. For
different static loading conditions that presented in this research, second or
third order polynomial would be more suitable for the shape of these
structures. In this study, optimum shape design of space structures is
performed using a modified genetic algorithm (MGA).

Key Words: Space structures, double layer grids, domes, shape optimization,
genetic algorithm.

1. INTRODUCTION Rajeev and Krishnamoorthy [2] introduced the

Space structures belong to special category of three
dimensional structures with special forms. The most
important kind of these structures are double layer
grids, domes and barrel vaults [1]. These structures
are widely used in hangars, supermarkets, stadiums,
etc, to cover large areas without intermediate
columns. In these structures, there are many members
which have little contribution (relative to their weight)
in load transmission. Hence, omitting such
unnecessary members with regards to the applicability
of the resultant configuration and optimizing cross-
sectional area of the remaining members, by scientific
and systematic methods, is the best way to reduce the
construction weight of these structures.
Goldberg’s simplified and modified genetic algorithm
(GA) [3] to optimize some structures in 1992. The
weight of the structures was considered as objective
function and discrete cross-sectional area of
members was chosen to be the design variables.
Adeli and Cheng, introduced GA to the field of
structural optimization in 1993 (e.g., [4, 5 and 6]).
Krishnamoorthy et al. [7] proposed GA with
objective-oriented framework which was used in
space truss optimization. Farsangi [8] used GA to
optimize the shape of double layer grids under
gravity loads. The importance of members’ presence
is discussed without omitting any member or column.
The application of GA to structural optimization is

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +983412111342; Fax: +983412114049; Email: eysasala@mail.uk.ac.ir

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 45

 Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

very extensive and some of the recent work can be 5 18 29 40 53

found in [9].
4 17 28 39 52
In this study, topology and geometry optimization
of space structures are performed. Double layer grids 3 16 27 38 51
and space pyramids are optimized topologically and
single layer domes are optimized geometrically. To 2 15 26 37 50
achieve this aim, a modified genetic algorithm (MGA)
1 14 25 36 49
is employed. In the MGA, a new mutation and
Hs
modified elitist selection are proposed. These operators
cause the MGA algorithm converges quickly and the Hc
probability of achieving the global optimization would L
be increased.
13 24 35 48 9 23 34 44
For topology optimization, a structure with specific
divisions and a maximum number of members, which 12 22 33 47 8 43
is called the ground structure, is considered and its
perimeter joints are connected to rigid end columns. 11 21 32 46 7 42
Design variables for the optimization problem are the
10 20 31 45 6 19 30 41
presence of joints and cross-sectional area of
members. In order to reduce the computational weight Figure 1. Joint numbers of top and bottom grids and supports.
of optimization, symmetry properties of the structure
are considered for the elimination of joints.
Table 1. Joint groups considering symmetry
For geometry optimization, single layer domes with
constant rise and span is considered. In this optimization Group
problem, the design variables are the cross-sectional number Joints in each group Position of joints
area of members, equation of the dome curve and
coordinates of joints. A proper selection of a curve for 1 6, 9, 44, 41 Support
dome leads to a suitable placement of joints. 2 7, 19, 8, 23, 34, 43, Support
Consequently, this suitable placement optimizes the 42, 30
load bearing area of joints and configuration of the 3 10, 13, 48, 45 Bottom layer
structure. 4 12, 24, 35, 47, 46, 31, Bottom layer
Optimum shape design of space structures under 20, 11
different static loading conditions is studied considering 5 22, 33, 32, 21 Bottom layer
stress, slenderness ratio and displacement constraints. 6 17, 39, 37, 15 Top layer
In the optimization process, the weight of the structure 7 16, 28, 38, 26 Top layer
is considered as the objective function. 8 27 Top layer

2. OPTIMUM TOPOLOGY during structural analysis. In double layer grids, joints

AND GEOMETRY
In space structures topology optimization, geometry of
the structure and coordinates of joints are kept
constant while the presence or absence of joints and
also cross-sectional areas are selected as design
variables. The goal is to find the most efficient parts of
the structure which can transmit the applied loads to
the base without violating the constraints.
In this study, the symmetry properties of the structure
are used for the tabulation of joints, which leads to a
reduction of chromosome length. Presence or absence
of a joint group is identified by a one bit-gene. A zero
indicates that a joint group should not be considered
are eliminated in groups of 8, 4 or 1 joints. For example
in the structure shown in Fig. 1 number of joints with
similar geometry situations is tabulated in Table 1. Their
presence or absence is governed by one gene.
Therefore, in this structure eight genes are needed to
express the variability of any joint groups. In order to
achieve a practical structure, existence of perimeter
nodes in top and bottom grids of space structure will not
be encoded in the final optimum structure.
In geometry optimization, design variables are
coordinates of joints and cross-sectional area of
members. In the process of optimization, the
coordinates of joints change in a way that the structure

46 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009

E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

7 Z
6 5 7
5 67
4 3 5
3 4 7 A
3 7
2 6
3
2 4 5 7
a 1 1 3 a H ri
1
2 3 7 zi B
1 4 5 r
6

Section a-a

Figure 2. Single layer dome.

gains the most effective state against the applied loads.
This situation optimizes the location of joints, their
load bearing area and the configuration of structure.
In this research, optimization of single layer domes
with constant rise and span is studied. Since domes are
formed by revolving a curve about a vertical axis, the
best equation for the curve and location of joints on
this curve are considered as the variables of the
optimization problem. For this purpose, first the
equation of the curve is determined and then by
decoding the radius of each ring of the dome and the
use of curve equation, the height of joints on each ring
is calculated.
With regards to the geometry of domes, the
equation of curve should have the following properties
in the interval [A, B] (Fig. 2).
1. The curve should have its maximum at A.
∂z
i.e.   = 0
 ∂r  A
2. The curve should be descending in the interval
∂2 z
[A, B]. i.e. 2 < 0
∂r
where z and r are the height of joints on each ring and
radius of each ring, respectively.
According to above conditions, the curve is chosen
to be a polynomial of order n:
z = a0 + a1r n
By applying the boundary conditions in Fig. 2 and
calculating constants (a0 and a1), the equation takes
the form:
  2 n n 
A ( 0, H ) and B ( S / 2, 0 ) ⇒ z = H −   r + 1 (2)
  S

where H and S are the rise and the span of the dome,
respectively.
The order of the polynomial is limited between 2
and circumferential divisions on the dome. Therefore,
the length of gene for the order of dome curve Ln is
gained by the following equation:
2 Ln ≥ nd − 1 (3)
where nd is the circumferential divisions.
Because the radius of dome rings is a continuous
variable, the gene length of radius for the ith ring Lr,i is
calculated by the following equation [10].
 log (ru , i − rl , i )/ e 
Lr , i = INT 1 +  ; i = 1,, 2, ..., nd (4)
 log 2 
where ru,i , rl,i and e are the upper bound, lower bound
and required accuracy for the radius of the ith ring,
respectively.
In this study, discrete variables are used for
optimizing the cross-sectional area of structural
members. These variables are selected from pipe
sections with specified thickness and diameter.
3. DECODING OF VARIABLES
After generating an initial population, the real value of
each design variable is evaluated by decoding, in order
to evaluate the objective function and the magnitudes
of constraint violations.
(1) In topology optimization, the chromosome is
composed of two parts which includes variables of the
presence or absence of joints and cross-sectional area
of each member group. Suppose the chromosome
shown in Fig. 3 is an individual from the initial
population. It is produced for the topology
optimization of the structure shown in Fig. 1. It is also
assumed that the members of this structure are divided
into 12 groups in which cross-sectional area of each
group is selected from 8 profiles.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 47


Presence or Absence of
the Joints
IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Figure 3. A 44 bit chromosome.
Table 2. Categorizing symmetry positions of joints
Group Symmetry positions of joints
1 37
2 33, 34
3 31, 32, 35, 36
4 19, 30
5 24, 25
6 20, 21, 28, 29
7 22, 23, 26,27
Hs
Hc
L
34
23
8 43
42
7
19 30
Figure 4. Top and bottom grids and support positions of
decoded structure.
The first 8 bits in the chromosome relate to the
presence and absence of joints. Since the 3rd and 8th
bits have a zero value, all the joints in 3rd and 8th
groups in Table 2 are omitted from the ground structure.
After decoding, the refined structure is shown in Fig. 4.
Now for decoding the cross-sectional area of members
in any group, the remaining 32 bits of the chromosome
are used. First, the value of each gene is transformed to
a decimal number [2]. Then, by referring to the table of
profiles, properties of members in each group are
attained. After omitting the joints of top grid, a suitable
cladding system is considered and the loads of any
removed joint are transformed to adjacent joints. In this
48
Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm
…
case, the purlins are designed, and their weights are
considered in the objective function.
In geometry optimization, the chromosome is
composed of three parts which includes variables of
dome curve order, radius of dome rings and cross-
sectional area of each member group. Decoding the
order of dome curve equation is accomplished by the
following equation:
Ln
n = ∑ Cn (i ) 2( Ln −i ) + 2
(5)
i =1
where Cn(i) is the binary value of ith bit in that gene.
For decoding the radius of dome rings, first the gene of
the jth ring is transformed to a decimal number Rj and
then its actual value is calculated as follows [10]:
R j (rl , j − ru , j )
rj = rl , j + (6)
−1
Lr, j
2
where rj is the actual value of radius of the jth ring.
4. FORMULATION OF
OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
In optimum shape design of the space structures, the
aim is to minimize the weight of the structure, under
some constraints on stresses, slenderness ratios and
displacements. The weight of the structure which
includes the weight of members, purlins and joints of
the space structures is taken as:
Ne Nj
minimize W = ∑ ρe Ai Li + ∑ Wj + Wp (7)
i =1 j =1
where ρe, Ai, Li, Wj, Wp, Ne and Nj are the material
density, cross-sectional area of ith element, length of
ith element, equivalent weight of jth joint, the weight
of purlins, number of members and number of joints
after decoding of variables, respectively.
In this study, Mero connector is used for the joints
of space structure. For calculating the equivalent
weight of jth joint, first the diameter d of the bolt
which connects the member to this joint is determined
by following formula [11]:
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009
E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Table 3. Equivalent joint diameter in correspondence To solve a constrained optimization problem its
with the bolt diameter objective function should be modified in such a way
that the constrained problem should be converted to
Bolt diameter 12 16 20 24 27 an unconstrained one, with a modified objective
(mm) function. The modified objective function φ is defined
Equivalent joint 50 75 88 110 130 as [7]:
diameter (mm)
φ = W (1 + r C ) (13)
4Pmax
d= (8) Ne Nj
0.6π Fy C = ∑ ( g σ , i + g λ , i ) + ∑ g δ, (14)
j
i =1 j =1
where Pmax and Fy are maximum force applied to this
joint and yield stress of the bolt, respectively. Then by where C and r̄ are the penalty function and the
the use of design Table 3, appropriate diameter Dj for coefficient of penalty function, respectively.
this joint is selected, and its equivalent weight is The optimum shape design of space structures is a
calculated by the following equation [11]: minimization problem, and hence the fitness function
must be chosen such that the higher the weight of an
W j = 0.9 π ρ j D 3j (9) individual, the lower is its fitness and vice-versa. The
following relation is selected as the measure of
where ρj is the material density of jth joint. fitness [7]:
In this study, the AISC code provisions are
employed for the stress limits and local buckling Fi = φmax + φmin − φi (15)
criteria [12]. All its recommendations for stresses and
slenderness ratios in elements such as tension, where φmax , φmin and φi are the maximum and
compression, bending stresses and their combination minimum modified objective function value in a
are considered. The stress constraint gσ and the generation and the modified objective function value
slenderness ratio constraint gλ are taken as: of the ith individual, respectively.

 σ  5. STATIC LOADING CONDITIONS

gσ = ∑ max  k − 1, 0 (10)
k  σk  Optimum shape design of space structures under
different static loading conditions is studied. Effective
λ  loads on double layer grids which include gravity and
g λ = ∑ max  k − 1, 0 (11) lateral loads are as follows:
k  λk 

where σk , σ k , λk and λk are the member stress, DL = 180 ( kg/m 2 )

allowable stress, member slenderness ratio and the
allowable slenderness ratio for the members of space
structure in the kth load combination, respectively.
In the optimization process, the horizontal
displacements are limited to the rise of dome or the
height of columns /200, i.e. δH = H / 200, and the vertical
displacements are limited to the span of dome or width
of double layer grid/360, i.e.δ V = S / 360 [13]. The
displacement constraint gδ is expressed as follows:
 δk 
gδ = ∑ max  − 1, 0
k  δu 
(16)
E x = E y = 0.125 DL
where DL, Ex and Ey are distributed dead load and
distributed lateral forces in x and y directions,
respectively.
For dome structures, the applied dead load is similar
to double layer grids, and snow and wind loads are also
considered according to the ANSI code [14]. The dome
roof snow load Ps is obtained by multiplying the flat
roof snow load Pf by the roof slope factor Cs [14]:
(12)
SL = CS p f (17)

where δk, δu are the displacement of joints in the kth In this research, the flat roof snow load is taken as
load combination and the allowable displacement, 150 kg/m2, and the roof slope factor is determined as
respectively. follows [14]:

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 49

 Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

p sin ϕ 6. MODIFIED GENETIC

ϕ
ALGORITHM (MGA)
R
In spite of its enormous capabilities, John Holland
Elevation simple genetic algorithm (GA) had deficiencies and it
was not capable of solving all problems. Some
investigations have been performed to improve the
method which led to outstanding results. Through some
Wind modifications, the GA would be able to solve almost all
θ
R
optimization problems. Many successful applications
of genetic algorithm in the field of structural
p cos θ
engineering are reported [6, 16, 17 and 18]. In this
Plan
study, a new mutation and modified elitist selection
Figure 5. Distribution of the wind load. were presented for modification of GA. This modified
genetic algorithm (MGA) was used for optimizing
shape design of space structures. In the MGA the
 1.0



0 ≤ α ≤ 45 selection is made using the method presented in [14],

 α − 45

and the adaptive crossover which is a combination of
CS =  1 − 45 < α < 70 (18)
uniform and two-point crossover is used [19].
 25

The elitist selection is a strategy that carries over the
0 α ≥ 70
best individual in a population unchanged into the next
where α is the dome slope. generation. Elitist selection proposed by Coley [20] is
It is usual to represent dynamic loading, such as used in this study, but this operator is modified. In
wind effect, by statically equivalent for the purposes of each generation, the best individual is compared with
design. The wind load on dome structures is composed the best individual in the previous generation. If this
of pressure on the wind side and suction on the individual is worse, the worst individual of current
leeward side. Here the load component acting generation would be replaced by the best individual in
perpendicular to the middle surface WL is taken into the previous generation.
account. Assuming that the wind acts in the direction In simple mutation operator, value of bit mutated is
of the meridian plane θ = 0, this component of the ignored. In this paper, for solving this problem a new
wind pressure is defined as [15]: mutation operator is presented. This operator estimates
the value of bit before any mutation. Therefore, it
WL = p sin ϕ cos θ (19) increases the rate of convergence, and the probability
of achieving the global optimization is also increased.
where p represents the static wind pressure intensity. The
In this new mutation procedure, first one bit is chosen
components due to friction forces are negligible
randomly and then the value of this bit is compared
magnitude. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the wind load
with the corresponding bit in the best individual.
given by Eq. (19) on a dome. The static wind pressure
According to this comparison, two cases are possible:
intensity is calculated according to the ANSI code [14].
a. If the value of these bits is the same, the mutation
In this process, the basic wind speed, importance factor
in the random bit will not occur.
are taken as 32m/s2 and 1, respectively.
b. If the value of these bits is not the same, the
In the optimization process, the constraints should
mutation in the random bit will occur.
be calculated for load combinations proposed by AISC
For showing the capability of MGA compared to
code. The load combinations are as follows [12]:
GA, various truss examples with fixed geometries
 DL presented in [21] have been solved. Their results
 indicate that the MGA is a powerful search and
for duoble layer grids: 0.75( DL ± E x ) ;
optimization method for solving structural engineering
0.75( DL ± E )
 y problems compared to GA. For example, the 25-bar
(20) space truss shown in Fig. 6 has been considered. Full
 DL
 DL + SL list of design data has been presented in [21]. The best
 result is compared to the solutions reported by Erbatur
for domes : 
0.75 ( DL + WL ) et al. [21] in Table 4. The MGA found an optimum
0.75 ( DL + SL + W weight of 220.58 kg after 40 generations. The

50 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009

E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Table 4. The comparison table for 25-bar space truss Table 5. Available pipe profiles
Optimal cross-sectional areas (cm2) No D(cm) t(cm) No D(cm) t(cm)
1 6.03 0.29 9 21.91 0.45
Element Erbatur et al. [21]
2 7.61 0.29 10 27.30 0.50
group GAOS-Level1 GAOS-level2 MGA 3 8.89 0.32 11 32.39 0.50
1 0.65 0.65 0.65 4 10.80 0.36 12 35.56 0.80
2 6.45 7.74 1.29 5 11.43 0.36 13 40.64 0.88
3 21.94 20.65 21.94 6 13.97 0.40 14 45.72 1.00
4 1.29 0.65 0.65 7 16.83 0.45 15 50.80 0.88
5 3.87 7.10 13.55 8 19.37 0.45 16 55.88 0.88
6 7.09 5.81 7.10
7 5.80 20.58 3.23
8 19.35 21.94 21.94 convergence history of this example using the GA and
Weight (kg) 233.86 224.12 220.58 the MGA is presented in Fig. 7.

7. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Z
1 2 After many experiments, the population size and the
number of generation in each stage were taken as 50
and 100, respectively. The probability of crossover and
mutation were taken as 0.9 and 0.005, respectively,
and to avoid the change of MGA operations into a
perfect random search method, for the presence of
3 4
6 joints a mutation rate 0.001 is employed. The modulus
5
of elasticity, material density and yield stress are taken
as 2.1
106 kg/cm2 , 7850 kg/m3 and 2400 kg/cm2,
respectively.
8
7
7.1. 16
16 Double Layer Grid
X
This is a square-on-square space structure with 605
9 joints, the topology of which is shown in Fig. 8. The
10
Y joint spacing in the top and bottom chord is 3 m, while
the depth of the double layer grid is 3.75 m. In this
example, the number of member groups after a
Figure 6. Configuration of 25-bar space truss. preliminary analysis was assumed as 3 each for column,
bottom, web and top grids, which resulted in 12 design
700 variables. Cross-sectional area of members is selected
600 from the pipe profiles available in Table 5. The
optimum topology design is compared with the
Minimum weight

500
GA optimized ground structure in Table 6. Comparing
MGA
400 results of optimization, the weight of the optimum
shape becomes 10.29% less than the ground structure.
300
The optimum shapes of structure are shown in Figs. 9 to
200 13.
100 The resulting configuration is interesting, and the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 joints in some places are omitted. If the double layer
Number of generations
grid is replaced by a flat squire plate with semi fixed
Figure 7. Convergence history for 25-bar space truss. edges and distributed uniform loads, it can be seen that
the removed joints are related to the points of zero

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 51

 Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

Table 6. Properties of the optimum ground structure and optimum topology structure
Optimum ground structure Optimum topology structure
Number of joints 605 496
Number of elements 2108 1620
Weight (kg) 72938 66190
Generations 68 94

3.75 m
7m
15@3 m

Figure 8. 16
16 ground structure. Figure 10. Optimum bottom layer.

Figure 11. Optimum top layer.

Figure 9. Optimum shape.

52 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009

E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha

Figure 13. Columns in optimum structure.

Figure 12. Optimum web layer.

Figure 14. Comparison of optimum shapes.

Figure 15. Double layer space pyramid.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009 53

 Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm

Table 7. Properties of the optimum ground structure and optimum topology structure
Optimum ground structure Optimum topology structure
Number of joints 577 521
Number of elements 2400 1824
Weight (kg) 48038 36996
Generations 57 86

Table 8. Available pipe profiles

No D(cm) t(cm) No D(cm) t(cm)
1 5 0.20 9 22 0.65
2 7 0.30 10 24 0.70
3 10 0.45 11 25 0.65
4 12 0.50 12 31 0.65
5 15 0.60 13 34 0.70
6 17 0.60 14 38 0.65
7 20 0.70 15 42 0.65
8 21 0.60 16 45 0.65

Table 9. Allowable and optimized values for radius of circumferences

Circum. Radius boundary Polynomial

No. Bottom Top Second order Third order Circular
1 150 300 192.18 276.56 322.48
2 300 450 304.68 417.18 483.42
3 450 600 484.06 567.18 644
4 600 750 754.31 651.56 804.10
5 750 900 867.18 855.93 963.61
6 900 1050 904.68 979.68 1122.40
7 1050 1200 1148.43 1120.31 1280.35
8 1200 1350 1270.31 1270.31 1437.35
9 1350 1500 1459.31 1410.93 1593.28
10 1500 1700 1645.31 1645.31 1748.03
11 1700 1850 1835.93 1807.83 1901.48
12 1850 2000 1957.81 1854.68 2053.51
13 2000 300 2135.93 2032.81 2204.02
14 2150 2300 2154.68 2257.81 2352.88
Optimum weight (kg) 56833 48133 70822
Generations 82 93 68

bending moment of the flat plate. Thus the optimal
places of the joints are analogous to the variation of
bending moment and internal stresses of similar flat
plates.
If presence and absence of all of the joints are
considered as variable, some perimeter joints are
removed from the optimum shape of space structure
shown in Fig. 14.a. This optimum shape is similar to
the optimum topology design of a plate shown in Fig.
14.b. that was obtained in [22], but the optimum shape
is not practical. In order to achieve a practical
topology, existence of perimeter nodes in top and
bottom grids of space structure was not considered as
variable.

54 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009

E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha
Figure 16. Optimum bottom layer.
Figure 17. Optimum top layer.
7.2. Double Layer Space Pyramid
A double layer space pyramid with 577 joints, the
topology of which is shown in Fig. 15 is selected. In
this example, the number of member groups after a
preliminary analysis was assumed as 3 each for bottom,
web and top grids, which resulted in 9 design variables.
Cross-sectional area of members is selected from the
pipe profiles available in Table 5. The optimum
topology design is compared with the optimized
ground structure in Table 7. The weight of the optimum
shape is 23% better than the optimal weight of the
ground structure. The optimum shapes of structure
are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. It can be observed that
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009
Figure 18. Ground structure.
Figure 19. Structure optimized with a second order
polynomial.
the optimum shape is logic and the distribution of joints
is analogous to the stress distribution of a continuum
pyramid.
7.3. Dome Geometry Optimization
The dome shown in Fig. 18 has 5 meridional and 8
circumferential divisions. The rise and the span of the
dome are 8 m and 50 m, respectively. Members of the
dome are collected in eighteen distinct groups with
the manner of the members grouping being similar to
55

Figure 20. Structure optimized with a third order polynomial.
Fig. 2. Cross-sectional area of members is selected
from the pipe profiles available in Table 8. After
ground structure optimization, it is concluded that
second and third order polynomial weigh less than
parabolas with other orders. For the optimum shapes
that are shown in Figs. 19 and 20, top and bottom
boundary of radius of circumferences and optimized
value of radius are given in Table 9. The weight
percentage reduction of second and third order
polynomials are 19.8% and 32%, respectively.
8. CONCLUSION
In this paper, an modified genetic algorithm (MGA)
was implemented for optimizing shape design of large
space structures to confirm the ability of the GA in
shape structural optimization. The following remarks
can be made:
This paper proposes a methodology for optimum
topology design of large space structures, which takes
into account discrete variations in the member cross-
sectional areas and the presence or absence of the
joints. The proposed methodology provides a practical
and scientific basis to find the optimum shape of space
structures which can replace the trial and error
methods for removal of joints in these structures. The
presented examples have demonstrated that by
employing the methodology efficient topology for
space structures can be found.
56
Optimum Shape Design of Space Structures by Genetic Algorithm
In single layer domes, the optimum order of curve
leads to a suitable placement of joints. Consequently,
this suitable placement optimizes the load bearing area
of joints and configuration of the structure. The
numerical examples show that second and third order
polynomials are the best types of curves for the dome
under different static load cases that presented in this
research. It should be noted that the obtained
configurations are suitable for the assumption presented
in this paper. Other factors such as non-linear, collapse
and reliability analyses, etc. should be investigated.
REFERENCES
[1] Parke, G. and Disney, P., Space Structures 5, Thomas
Telford, London, 2002.
[2]. Rajeev, S. and Krishnamoorthy, C.S., Discrete
optimization of structures using genetic algorithms,
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 1992, 118(5),
1233–1238.
[3]. Goldberg, D.E., Genetic algorithms in search,
optimization and machine learning. Massachusetts,
Addison-Wesley publishing Company, 1989.
[4]. Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.-T., Integrated Genetic
Algorithm for Optimization of Space Structures, Journal
of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 1993, 6(4), 315–328.
[5] Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.-T., Augmented Lagrangian
Genetic Algorithm for Structural Optimization, Journal
of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 7(1), 104–118.
[6] Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.-T., Concurrent Genetic
Algorithm for Optimization of Large Structures,
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 7(3),
276–296.
[7] Krishnamoorthy, C.S., Prasanna, V.P. and Sudarshan, R.,
Object-oriented framework for genetic algorithm with
application to space truss optimization, Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 2002, 16(1), 66–75.
[8] Farsangi, E., Topological optimization of double layer
grids using genetic algorithms: Proceedings of 5th
International Conference on Space Structure, Telford,
London, 2002, 459–468.
[9] Topping, B.H.V., Montero, G. and Montenegro, K.,
Proceeding of the 8th International Conference on
Computational Structures Technology, Civil-Comp
press, Scotland, 2006.
[10] Kaveh, A. and Kalatjari, V., Topology optimization of
trusses using genetic algorithm, force method and graph
theory, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 2003, 58, 771–791.
[11] Dianat, N., Space Structures Company, Private
communications, Tehran, Iran, 2005.
[12] American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC Manual,
2005.
[13] Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of
Building, BHRC Publication, Tehran, 2006.
[14] American National Standards. Minimum design loads for
buildings and other structures, (ANSI A58.1), 1982.
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009
E. Salajegheh, M. Mashayekhi, M. Khatibinia and M. Kaykha
[15] Ventsel, E. and Krauthammer, Th., Thin Plates and
Shells: Theory, Analysis, and Application, Marcel
Dekker, New York, 2001.
[16] Kaveh, A. and Kalatjari, V., Genetic algorithm for
discrete-sizing optimal design of trusses using the force
method, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 2002, 55, 55–72.
[17] Salajegheh, E. and Gholizadeh, S. Optimum design of
structures by an improved genetic algorithm using neural
networks, Advances in Engineering Software, 2005,
36(11–12), 757–767.
[18] Salajegheh, E. and Heidari, A. Optimum design of
structures against earthquake by adaptive genetic
algorithm using wavelet networks, Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2004, 28(4), 277–285.
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 24 No. 1 2009
[19] Spears, W. M., Adapting crossover in a genetic
algorithm, European Journal of Operational Research,
1992, 4, 392–404.
[20] Coley, D., An introduction to genetic algorithms for
scientists and engineers, World Scientific Publishing,
London, 1999.
[21] Erbatur, F. Hasancebi, O. Tutuncu, I. and Kilic, H.,
Optimal design of planar and space structures with
genetic algorithms, Journal of Computers and Structures,
2000, 75, 209–224.
[22] Liang, Q and Steven, G., A performance-based
optimization method for topology design of continuum
structures with mean compliance constraint, Journal of
Computer methods in applied mechanics and
engineering, 2001, 191, 1471–1489.
57