See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269986640

Water cycle, mine blast and improved mine

blast algorithms for discrete sizing
optimization of truss structures

ARTICLE in COMPUTERS & STRUCTURES · MARCH 2015

Impact Factor: 2.13 · DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.12.003

CITATION READS

1 133

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Ali Sadollah Ardeshir Bahreinineja

Korea University Institut Teknologi Brunei
34 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 331 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joong Hoon Kim

Korea University
147 PUBLICATIONS 1,706 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Ardeshir Bahreinineja

Retrieved on: 18 October 2015
 Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

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

Water cycle, mine blast and improved mine blast algorithms for discrete
sizing optimization of truss structures
Ali Sadollah a, Hadi Eskandar b, Ardeshir Bahreininejad c,⇑, Joong Hoon Kim a
a
School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, 136-713 Seoul, South Korea
b
Faculty of Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
c
Faculty of Engineering, Institut Teknologi Brunei, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the applications of the mine blast algorithm (MBA) and the water cycle algorithm
Received 18 August 2013 (WCA), in addition to an improved version of MBA for weight minimization of truss structures including
Accepted 1 December 2014 discrete sizing variables. The MBA mimics the explosion of landmines, while the WCA is inspired by the
observation of water cycle process. An improved version of MBA (IMBA), is also presented. The efficiency
of the three optimization algorithms is tested using classical benchmark discrete truss design problems.
Keywords: Optimization results show that MBA, IMBA, and WCA offer a good degree of competitiveness against
Mine blast algorithm
other state-of-the-art metaheuristic techniques.
Water cycle algorithm
Truss structures
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Discrete variables
Sizing optimization

1. Introduction
Over the last decades, various algorithms have been used for
truss optimization problems which are very popular in the field
of structural optimization. Metaheuristic methods such as genetic
algorithms (GAs), harmony search (HS), and particle swarm opti-
mization (PSO) can efficiently be used in truss design optimization
problems including discrete variables. GAs [1] mimic the processes
of natural selection leading to the survival of the fittest.
For instance, Goldberg and Samtani [2] and Rajeev and Krishna-
moorthy [3] performed sizing optimization of truss structures.
Krishnamoorthy et al. [4] used GAs to optimize space truss struc-
tures in the context of an object-oriented framework. Sivakumar
et al. [5] optimized steel lattice towers. Gero et al. [6] used GAs
for design optimization of 3D steel structures.
Geem et al. [7] developed the HS that reproduces the musical
process of searching for a perfect state of harmony. The harmony
in music is analogous to the optimum design, and the musicians’
improvisation is analogous to local/global search schemes [8].
The HS was successfully applied to truss optimization problems
using discrete and continuous variables [9,10].
The PSO is a population-based algorithm developed by Kennedy
and Eberhart [11]. Li et al. [12] developed an efficient heuristic PSO
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +673 897 5723.
E-mail address: bahreininejad@gmail.com (A. Bahreininejad).
(HPSO) for truss structures which outperformed hybrid PSO with
passive congregation (PSOPC) [13] and standard PSO.
The PSOPC was also combined with ant colony optimization
(ACO) and HS by Kaveh and Talatahari [14] to form an efficient
algorithm for truss optimization, called discrete heuristic particle
swarm ant colony optimization (DHPSACO). Comprehensive
reviews for applications of metaheuristic algorithms on skeletal
structures have been presented in the literature [15,16].
Sadollah et al. [17] recently developed the mine blast algorithm
(MBA) which mimics the explosion of landmines. The MBA was
successfully applied to discrete sizing optimization of truss struc-
tures [17]. Furthermore, Eskandar et al. [18] proposed another
metaheuristic algorithm, reproducing the water cycle process.
The water cycle algorithm (WCA) was tested in mathematical
and engineering problems [18]. The MBA and WCA algorithms
were found to be superior over other optimization methods in
terms of convergence rate and quality of optimized designs
[17,18].
In this study, MBA is improved and its operators are enhanced
in terms of efficiency so called improved MBA (IMBA). The relative
performance of the MBA, IMBA and WCA algorithms in discrete
optimization problems of truss structures are investigated in this
research. Furthermore, the efficiency of three algorithms is com-
pared with the results extracted in the literature.
The paper is organized as follows: the formulation of the dis-
crete optimization problem is presented in Section 2. The IMBA
and WCA algorithms and their constraint handling strategies are

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.12.003
0045-7949/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16
described in detail in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the optimiza-
tion results comparing the developed algorithms with the litera-
ture. Section 5 presents a sensitivity analysis on the effect of
algorithms internal parameters set by the user on the overall con-
vergence behavior; the analysis is carried out for some of the test
problems considered in this study. Finally, Section 6 summarizes
the findings of this study.
2. Discrete structural optimization problems
In discrete sizing optimization problems of truss structures, the
objective usually is to minimize the weight of the structure yet
satisfying nonlinear constraints on element stresses, nodal dis-
placements, critical loads, etc. The optimization problem can be
formulated as follows:
min WðXÞ; X ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . . ; xN ;
subject to:
g j ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xN Þ 6 0 j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; k;
xd 2 Sd ¼ fX1 ; X 2 ; . . . ; X p g;
where W(X) is the cost function corresponding to the structural
weight; N and k are the number of design variables and inequality
constraint functions, respectively. Each design variable can be cho-
sen from a discrete set Sd (X1, X2, . . . , Xp) of P available cross-sections
according to production standards.
3. Applied metaheuristic algorithms
3.1. Improved mine blast algorithm
MBA algorithm is inspired by the process of landmines explo-
sion; shrapnel pieces are thrown away and collide with other
mines in the vicinity of the explosion area causing further explo-
sions. Consider a landmine field where the goal is to clear land-
mines. To clear all the mines, the position of the most explosive
mine must be located. This position corresponds to the optimal
design.
Landmines of different sizes and explosive power are planted
under the ground. Landmine explosions cause many pieces of
shrapnel to be propelled in the air. The casualties of each piece
of shrapnel are evaluated using a cost function (fitness function)
and, then, related to the presence of other landmines with different
explosive power [17].
Often times, pieces of shrapnel collide with other mines and
trigger more mine explosions. This behavior is helpful for finding
the most explosive landmine. MBA algorithm was developed to
find the most explosive landmine (i.e., the landmine with the most
casualties). Table 1 lists nomenclature of MBA parameters.
The MBA algorithm requires an initial population of individuals,
similar to several other metaheuristic methods. The population is
Table 1
Nomenclature of MBA (IMBA) parameters.
Parameter Definition
Rand Uniformly distributed random number between 0 and
1(vector)
Randn Normally distributed random number (vector)
X0 Generated first shot point (initial solution, vector)
d0 Initial distance of shrapnel pieces (vector)
LB Lower bounds of design variables (vector)
UB Upper bounds of design variables (vector)
m Number of design variables (scalar)
XBest Best obtained solution (current improved solution, vector)
generated from a first shot explosion that produces a number of
individuals (shrapnel pieces). The size of initial population (Npop)
is taken as the number of shrapnel pieces (Ns). The MBA algorithm
initially uses the lower and upper bounds of design variables and,
then, randomly creates the first shot point as follows:
~
X 0 ¼ L~
B þ frandg  fU~
B  L~
Bg: ð4Þ
Vector quantities are denoted by over sign. Assume X is the cur-
rent location of a landmine; that is,
~
X ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . . ; xm : ð5Þ
Design variables (x1, x2, . . . , xm) can take real values in continu-
ous optimization problems or they can be selected from a prede-
fined set of discrete values. We assume that the first shot point
(X0) is the best solution (XBest = X0). For performing any optimiza-
tion method, exploration and exploitation are considered as two
ð1Þ
critical steps.
The difference between the exploration and exploitation phases
is how they influence the whole search process in finding the opti-
ð2Þ mal solution. Similar to other metaheuristic algorithms, MBA algo-
rithm starts with the exploration phase, which is responsible for
ð3Þ comprehensively exploring the search space.
The exploration factor (l) serves to explore different regions of
design space. This parameter, used in the early iterations of MBA, is
compared with an iteration number index (t): exploration takes
place if l is greater than t. The exploration phase of MBA is gov-
erned by the following equations [17]:
n o
2
Xe ¼ ~
~ dt1  frandn g  cos h t ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; l; ð6Þ
~
Xe ¼ ~
X Best þ ~
Xe t 6 l; ð7Þ
where the dt1 vector includes the shrapnel distance for exploded
mines with respect to each coordinate direction. Fig. 1 demon-
strates the concept and performance of Eq. (6) from a schematic
point of view.
By taking the square of a normally distributed random number,
better exploration is achieved at the beginning of the optimization
process (see Eq. (6)). The value of l determines the intensity of the
exploration. For example, increasing l makes it possible to explore
more remote regions of design space. The shrapnel angle of inci-
dence, denoted by h in Eq. (6), is given by:
h ¼ k  D k ¼ 0; 1; 2; . . . ; Ns  1; ð8Þ
where D = 360/Ns. The value of h ranges from 0 to 360; the resulting
value of cos(h) ranges between 1 and 1. The initial distance of each
piece of shrapnel is d0 = (UB–LB); thus, the best solution is in the
range [LB, UB]. For example, the LB and UB of a four design variable
problem are [30–20 10–5] and [30 20 10 5], respectively. Then,
the initial distance, d0 (dt1 when t = 1), is the vector of shrapnel
distances [60 40 20 10].
Improved MBA (IMBA) modifies the exploitation phase in MBA
and distance reduction of each shrapnel pieces. For the exploitation
Parameter Definition
XBest1 Previous best obtained solution (previous improved solution, vector)
D Euclidean distance between the current and previous best solutions
(scalar)
Xe Location of exploded mine (vector)
l Exploration factor (scalar)
t Iteration index number (scalar)
h Shrapnel angle of incidence (scalar)
a Reduction factor (scalar)
Ns (Npop) Number of shrapnel pieces (number of population, scalar)
 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16 3

To improve IMBA’s global search ability, the initial distance of

shrapnel pieces (d0) is gradually reduced at each iteration to
quickly detect the near location of the most explosive landmine.
During the optimization process, the distance of each shrapnel
piece at each dimension adaptively decrease as follows:

~dt1
~
dt ¼ ðt=aÞ t ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; Max Iteration; ð14Þ
e

where a is the reduction factor, a user-defined parameter, which

depends on the complexity of the optimization problem. At the
end of the optimization process, shrapnel distances are close to
zero. It is worth mentioning that in IMBA, unlike MBA, the shrapnel
distances are reduced if there are no changes in cost function in the
current iteration. Conversely, if the cost function decreases, there is
no need to reduce the value of shrapnel distances. This approach
helps to have more exploration improving cost in each iteration.
Fig. 2 summarizes the IMBA search process. The exploration
phase is represented by the dashed area, and the exploitation
phase is represented by the solid area. The black and white circles
Fig. 1. Schematic view of generating a new solution using the MBA exploration (exploded mines) correspond to locations of improved (the smaller
phase given in Eq. (6). the objective function value, the better the mine for minimization
problem) and non-improved shrapnel pieces, respectively. We
assume there are five shrapnel pieces (population size = 5), and
phase, IMBA focuses on the solution closest to the current best
l = 2, which means there are two iterations for the exploration
solution. The location of an exploding landmine Xe in the exploita-
phase.
tion phase is defined as follows [17]:
With respect to the exploitation process, IMBA converges to the
n o
Xe ¼ ~
~ dt1  frandng  cosðhÞ t ¼ l þ 1; . . . ; Max Iteration; ð9Þ global optimal solution using Eqs. (9) and (10). The distance of
shrapnel pieces is reduced adaptively using Eq. (14) in both the
exploitation and exploration processes. Pseudo-code for the explo-
~
Xe ¼ ~
X Best þ ~
Xe t>l ð10Þ ration and exploitation processes of IMBA is given in detail in
therefore, the updated formulation of the exploitation phase in Table 2.
IMBA is suggested as follows: The IMBA algorithm includes the following steps:
rffiffiffiffi!
1 n o Step 1: Set the internal parameters of MBA: a, Ns (Npop), and
~ ~
X e ¼ X e þ exp   frandg  ~
X Best  ~
X Best1 ; t > l: ð11Þ
D Max_Iteration.
Step 2: Check the condition of the exploration factor (l).
We compare IMBA to MBA [17] with a few modifications. The Step 3: If t 6 l, calculate distances of shrapnel pieces and their
concept of direction in MBA is adapted to a two dimensional opti- locations for exploded mines with Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively,
mization problem. When an optimization problem with more than and go Step 7. Otherwise, go to Step 4.
three decision variables is considered, determining the direction of Step 4: Calculate the locations of exploded landmines in the
each piece of shrapnel is difficult or impossible. exploitation phase using Eqs. (9) and (10).
For IMBA, we modify the exploitation equations to avoid prob- Step 5: Calculate the Euclidian distance between current and
lems with the dimension of the search space. Indeed, the percep- previous best solutions using Eq. (12).
tion of direction is replaced by moving to the best solutions. Step 6: Generate the updated landmines and compute their
The exponential term in Eq. (11) (when t > l in the exploitation improved locations using Eq. (11).
phase) improves the obtained exploded point by including infor- Step 7: Check constraints for generated shrapnel pieces (see
mation from current and previous best solutions (XBest and XBest1) constraint handling strategy outlined in Section 3.3).
and their Euclidean distances. The Euclidean distance between the Step 8: Save the best shrapnel piece as the current best record.
current and previous best landmines in m dimensions is given by: Step 9: Does the shrapnel piece improve cost with respect to the
" #1=2 current best record?
Xm
 2
D¼ X iBest  X iðBest1Þ : ð12Þ Step 10: If the above occurs, exchange the position of the shrap-
i¼1 nel piece with the current best record.
Step 11: Reduce adaptively the distance of the shrapnel pieces
It can be seen from Eq. (11) that when the distance between with Eq. (14).
XBest and XBest1 approaches 0 (i.e., in the final cycles of the optimi-
Step 12: If the stopping criterion is not satisfied return to Step 2.
zation process), the exponential term contained in that equation
vanishes. Eq. (13) allows locations of shrapnel pieces to be updated
in both exploration and exploitation phases in the IMBA as follows: 3.1.1. Setting initial parameters of IMBA
8n o n
2
o Poor choices of algorithm parameters may result in a low con-
> ~dt1  randn  cos h t6l
>
> vergence rate, convergence to a local minimum, or undesired solu-
>
<n o  qffiffiffi
~
Xe ¼ ~dt1  frandng  cosðhÞ þ exp  D1  frandg : tions. The following guidelines are designed to fine tune the
>
> n o internal parameters.
>
>
: ~ X Best  ~
X Best1 tl The reduction factor (a) depends on the complexity of the prob-
lem and the number of decision variables. The optimal value of a
ð13Þ relies on the value of the maximum iteration. As explained earlier
4 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16

Fig. 2. Schematic view of IMBA including exploration (dashed area) and exploitation (solid area) processes in two dimensional space.

in Section 3.1, the distance of shrapnel pieces decreases adaptively
according to Eq. (14).
The value of a should be chosen so that at the final iteration, the
distance of shrapnel pieces is approximately zero. For instance, if
the maximum number of iterations is 350 and the initial distance
is 1 (i.e., UB = 1 and LB = 0), setting a = 10,000 results in a final dis-
tance of 0.002, which is an acceptable value close enough to zero.
It is worth mentioning that being close enough to zero varies
from one problem to another. Therefore, a is a user-defined param-
eter in IMBA algorithm. The following formula computes a sug-
gested value for a used in the IMBA (MBA):
precipitation phenomena. An initial population of designs variables
(streams) is randomly generated. The best individual (i.e., the best
stream), classified in terms of having the minimum cost function, is
chosen as the sea [18].
Then, a number of good streams (i.e., cost function values close
to the current best record) are chosen as rivers, while all other
streams are considered as streams flowing to rivers and sea. In
an N dimensional optimization problem, a stream is an array of
1  N. This array is defined as follows:
A Stream Candidate ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . . ; xN  ð16Þ

where N is the number of design variables (problem dimension). To

M2 þ M 1
aSuggested ¼    aSelected  aSuggested ; ð15Þ start the optimization algorithm, an initial population representing
2 ln ~
d0 =Tolerance a matrix of streams of size Npop  N is generated (i.e., population of
streams). Hence, the matrix X which is generated randomly is given
where Tolerance is a small value close to zero (e.g., 0.001), and M is as (rows and column are the population size and the number of
the maximum number of iterations. In general, the selected a design variables, respectively):
should be greater than the suggested a. For instance, if M = 100 2 3
and d0 = 1, the suggested value of a is 731.06; thus, any value Stream1 2 3
6 Stream 7 x11 x12 x13  x1N
greater than 731.06 is an appropriate choice for the selected a 6 2 7 6 2 7
(e.g., 800).
6 7 6 x1 x22 x23  x2N 7
6 7 6 7
X ¼ 6 Stream3 7 ¼ 6 . 7 ð17Þ
The exploration factor (l) defines the number of iterations for 6 . 7 6 .. ... ... ..
. ... 7
6 .. 7 4 5
the exploration phase. Increasing l may result in a local minimum. 4 5 N N N N
For IMBA algorithm, we recommend l be equal to the maximum
x1 pop x2 pop x3 pop    xNpop
StreamNpop
number of iterations divided by five.
Population size (i.e., number of shrapnel pieces) and maximum where Npop and N are the number of streams (initial population) and
number of iterations are common user parameters for any popula- the number of design variables, respectively. Design variables (x1,
tion-based metaheuristic algorithm. Therefore, to effectively com- x2, . . . , xN) can take real values in continuous optimization problems
pare methods and maintain the same number of function or they can be selected from a predefined set of discrete values. The
evaluations (NFEs), the population size and maximum number of cost of a stream is obtained by the evaluation of cost function (C)
iterations may vary from one problem to another one. given as follows:
 
C i ¼ Cost i ¼ f xi1 ; xi2 ; . . . ; xiN i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; Npop ð18Þ
3.2. Water cycle algorithm
As the first step, Npop streams are created. A number of Nsr from
The water cycle algorithm (WCA) mimics the flow of rivers the best individuals (minimum values) are selected as a sea and
and streams toward the sea and derived by the observation of rivers. The stream which has the minimum value among others
water cycle process. Let us assume that there are some rain or is considered as the sea. In fact, Nsr is the summation of number
 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16 5

Table 2
Pseudo-code of IMBA.

 Set user parameters of IMBA: Ns, a, and Max_Iteration. Then,

D ¼ 360
N s ; l ¼ Max Iteration=5
 Determine the initial distance of shrapnel pieces using d0 = UB  LB
 Randomly generate a first shot point using Eq. (4)
 Calculate the objective function of the generated first shot point
 Set the best solution to the first shot point
while (t < Max_Iteration) or (Stopping Condition)
for i = 1: Population size (Ns)
if t < l (Exploration phase)
Calculate the updated position of shrapnel pieces
using Eqs. (6) and (7)
Checking constraint violations
if F_New_Mine < F_Best
Best = New_Mine
end if
else (Exploitation phase)
Calculate the position of exploded mines using Eqs. (9) and (10)
Calculate the Euclidian distance between mines using Eq. (12)
Evaluate the update position of shrapnel pieces using Eq. (11)
Checking constraint violations
if F_New_Mine < F_Best
Best = New_Mine
end if
end if
Update h using Eq. (8)
end for
if F_Best (t + 1) < F_Best (t) (for minimization problem)
Do not change the distance of each shrapnel pieces
else
Reduce the distance of each shrapnel pieces using Eq. (14)
end if
end while
 Postprocess results and visualization

of rivers (which is a user-defined parameter) and a single sea as Fig. 3. (a) Schematic description of the stream’s flow to a specific river and (b)
given in Eq. (19). The rest of the population (streams which flow schematic of the WCA optimization process.
to the rivers or may directly flow to the sea) is calculated using
Eq. (20) as follows:

Nsr ¼ Number of Riv ers þ |{z}

1 ð19Þ relation (22) corresponds to a random number (uniformly distrib-
Sea
uted or determined from any appropriate distribution) between 0
and (C  d).
NStreams ¼ Npop  Nsr ð20Þ Setting C > 1 allows streams to flow in different directions
toward rivers. This concept may also be used to describe rivers
Depending on flow magnitude, each river absorbs water from flowing to the sea. Therefore, as the exploitation phase in the
streams. The amount of water entering a river and/or the sea, WCA, the new position for streams and rivers flowing to the riv-
hence, varies from stream to stream. In addition, rivers flow to ers and sea, respectively, may be given in the following equations
the sea which is the most downhill location. The designated [18]:
streams for each rivers and sea are calculated using the following  
equation [18]: ~
X iþ1 ~i ~i ~i
Stream ¼ X Stream þ rand  C  X Riv er  X Stream ; ð23Þ
(  )
 Cost 
 n   
NSn ¼ round PNsr   NStreams ; n ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; Nsr ð21Þ
 Costi  ~
X iþ1 ~i ~i ~i
i¼1 Stream ¼ X Stream þ rand  C  X Sea  X Stream ; ð24Þ

where NSn is the number of streams which flow to the specific rivers
or sea. As it happens in nature, streams are created from raining and
join each other to generate new rivers. Some streams may even flow
directly to the sea. All rivers and streams end up in the sea that cor-
responds to the current best record.
Let us assume that there are Npop streams of which Nsr  1 are
selected as rivers and one is selected as the sea. Fig. 3a shows
the schematic view of a stream flowing toward a specific river
along their connecting line.
The distance X between the stream and the river may be ran-
domly updated as the following relation:
X 2 ð0; C  dÞ; C>1
where 1 < C < 2 and the best value for C may be chosen as 2; d is
the current distance between stream and river. The value of X in
 
~
X iþ1 ~i ~i ~i
Riv er ¼ X Riv er þ rand  C  X Sea  X Riv er ; ð25Þ
where rand is an uniformly distributed random number between 0
and 1. Vector quantities are indicated with the over signed notation.
Eq. (24) describes the movement of streams who directly flow to
sea. If the solution given by a stream is better than its connecting
river, the positions of river and stream are exchanged (i.e., the
stream becomes a river and the river becomes a stream). A similar
exchange can be done for a river and the sea.
The evaporation process operator also is introduced to avoid
ð22Þ premature convergence to local optima. Basically, evaporation
causes sea water to evaporate as rivers/streams flow to the sea.
This leads to new precipitations. Therefore, we have to check if
the river/stream is close enough to the sea to make the evaporation
6 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16
process occur. For that purpose, the following criterion is utilized
[18]:
! !
ifkX Sea  X iRiv er k < dmax or rand < 0:1 i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; Nsr  1
Raining process by Eq: ð26Þ
end
where dmax is a small number close to 0. After evaporation, the rain-
ing process is applied and new streams in the different locations
(similar to mutation in the GAs). Indeed, the evaporation operator
is responsible for the exploration phase in the WCA. For specifying
the new locations of the newly formed streams, the following equa-
tion is used:
~
X new ~ ~ ~
Stream ¼ LB þ rand  ðU B  LBÞ
where LB and UB are lower and upper bounds of design variables,
respectively. Similarly, the best newly formed stream is considered
as a river flowing to the sea. The rest of new streams are assumed to
flow to the rivers or may directly flow to the sea.
By setting a large value for dmax the number of searches is lim-
ited, while small values leads to search near the sea. Therefore,
dmax controls the search intensity near the sea. The value of dmax
adaptively decreases as follows:
i
iþ1 i dmax
dmax ¼ dmax 
Max Iteration
As it happens in nature, amount and location of precipitations
are also affected by winds and convective currents. Further
research must be carried out to understand if alternative defini-
tions of the evaporation operator may improve convergence
behavior.
In order to enhance the convergence rate and performance of
the WCA for constrained problems, Eq. (28) is used for streams
only which directly flow to the sea. This equation is considered
to encourage the generation of streams which directly flow to
the sea in order to improve the exploration near sea in the feasible
region for constrained problems as follows [18]:
~ ~ pffiffiffiffi
X new
stream ¼ X sea þ l  randnð1; NÞ
where l is a coefficient which shows the range of searching region
near the sea. Randn is a normally distributed random number. Set-
ting large values of l increases the possibility to exit from feasible
region. On the other hand, setting very small values of l leads to
limit the size of search domain near the sea. A suitable value for
l is set to 0.1.
pffiffiffiffi
In mathematical point of view, term l in Eq. (28) represents
the standard deviation and, accordingly, l in Eq. (28) defines the
concept of variance. Using these concepts and Eq. (28), generated
streams (individuals) having variance l are distributed around
the sea (best obtained optimum point).
The steps of the WCA are summarized as follows:
Step 1: Set the initial parameters of the WCA: Nsr, dmax, Npop, and
Max_Iteration.
Step 2: Generate a random initial population and form the initial
streams, rivers, and sea using Eqs. (17), (19) and (20),
respectively.
Step 3: Calculate the value (cost) of each stream using Eq. (18).
Step 4: Determine the intensity of flow for rivers and sea using
Eq. (21).
Step 5: The streams flow to the rivers by Eq. (23).
Step 6: The streams flow directly to sea by Eq. (24).
Step 7: Evaluate optimization constraints for created streams
according to Section 3.3.
Step 8: Exchange positions of river with a stream which gives
the best solution.
Step 9: Exchange positions of sea with a stream which gives the
best solution.
Step 10: The rivers flow to the sea which is the most downhill
place using Eq. (25).
Step 11: Evaluate optimization constraints for created rivers
according to Section 3.3.
Step 12: Similar to Steps 8 and 9, if a river finds better solution
than the sea, the position of river is exchanged with the sea.
Step 13: Check the evaporation condition with the pseudo-code
reported above.
Step 14: If the evaporation condition is satisfied, the raining pro-
cess will occur using Eqs. (26) and (28).
ð26Þ Step 15: Reduce the user-defined parameter dmax with Eq. (27).
Step 16: If the stopping criterion is not satisfied return to Step 5.
The development of the WCA optimization process is illustrated
by Fig. 3b (which contains Fig. 3a) where circles, stars, and the dia-
mond correspond to streams, rivers, and sea, respectively. The
white (empty) shapes denote the new positions taken by streams
and rivers.
In the WCA algorithm, rivers (a number of best selected points
except the best one (sea)) act as guidance points for guiding other
individuals in the population toward better positions (as shown in
Fig. 3b) in addition to minimize or prevent searching in regions
ð27Þ
containing local optima (see Eq. (23)).
Rivers are not fixed points and move toward the sea (the best
solution). This procedure (moving streams to the rivers and, then,
moving rivers to the sea) leads to indirectly moving toward the
best solution.
3.3. Constraint handling strategy
In the search space, created streams and rivers in the WCA algo-
rithm and generated shrapnel pieces in the MBA algorithm, may
violate either the problem specific constraints or the limits of the
decision variables. In this study, a modified feasible-based mecha-
nism is applied to tackle the constrained problems based on the
following four rules [19]:
ð28Þ
 Rule 1: Any feasible solution is preferred to any infeasible
solution.
 Rule 2: Infeasible solutions containing slight violation of the
constraints (from 0.01 in the first iteration to 0.001 in the last
iteration) are considered as feasible solutions.
 Rule 3: Between two feasible solutions, the one having the bet-
ter objective function value is preferred.
 Rule 4: Between two infeasible solutions, the one having the
smaller constraint violation is preferred.
Using the first and fourth rules, the search is oriented to the fea-
sible region rather than the infeasible region. Applying the third
rule guides the search to the feasible region with good solutions
[19]. For most structural optimization problems, the global mini-
mum locates on or close to the boundary of the feasible design
space.
Rule 2 increases the probability that trial design approach con-
straint domain boundaries and reach the global optimum [14]. The
same constraint handling strategy was utilized in this research for
WCA, MBA, and IMBA algorithms.
4. Test problems and optimization results
The WCA, MBA, and IMBA algorithms were applied to four clas-
sical weight minimization problems of truss structures with,
 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16 7

respectively, 52, 72, 200, and 582 elements, including discrete siz- Table 3
ing variables. Internal parameters of WCA were set as follows: pop- Discrete values available for cross-sectional areas from AISC norms.

ulation size (Ntotal), number of rivers (Nsr  1), and dmax were No. in2 mm2 No. in2 mm2
chosen as 50, 8, and 1e5, respectively. Initial parameters of 1 0.111 71.613 33 3.84 2477.414
MBA and IMBA were set as follows: 50, maximum number of iter- 2 0.141 90.968 34 3.87 2496.769
ation divided by five, and 50,000 for population size, exploration 3 0.196 126.451 35 3.88 2503.221
factor (l), and reduction factor (a), respectively. 4 0.25 161.29 36 4.18 2696.769
5 0.307 198.064 37 4.22 2722.575
The limit number of iterations was increased with the problem 6 0.391 252.258 38 4.49 2896.768
size. Structural analyses were performed with the finite element 7 0.442 285.161 39 4.59 2961.284
method. The number of design variables for the 52, 72, 200, and 8 0.563 363.225 40 4.8 3096.768
582-bar structures were, respectively, 12, 16, 96, and 32. The cor- 9 0.602 388.386 41 4.97 3206.445
10 0.766 494.193 42 5.12 3303.219
responding numbers of optimization constraints were 80, 198, 700,
11 0.785 506.451 43 5.74 3703.218
and 1573, respectively. Fifty independent optimization runs were 12 0.994 641.289 44 7.22 4658.055
carried out for each test problem in order to have statistically sig- 13 1 645.16 45 7.97 5141.925
nificant results. 14 1.228 792.256 46 8.53 5503.215
Except for the 200-bar and 582-bar tower truss problem, statis- 15 1.266 816.773 47 9.3 5999.988
16 1.457 939.998 48 10.85 6999.986
tical data for the MBA were extracted from Ref. [17]. In this paper,
17 1.563 1008.385 49 11.5 7419.34
all considered truss structure are investigated using IMBA and 18 1.62 1045.159 50 13.5 8709.66
WCA algorithms, while MBA is implemented for optimal solving 19 1.8 1161.288 51 13.9 8967.724
of 200-bar and 582-bar tower truss structures. The computations 20 1.99 1283.868 52 14.2 9161.272
21 2.13 1374.191 53 15.5 9999.98
entailed by this optimization study were performed in the MATLAB
22 2.38 1535.481 54 16 10322.56
23 2.62 1690.319 55 16.9 10903.204
24 2.63 1696.771 56 18.8 12129.008
25 2.88 1858.061 57 19.9 12838.684
26 2.93 1890.319 58 22 14193.52
27 3.09 1993.544 59 22.9 14774.164
28 3.13 2019.351 60 24.5 15806.42
29 3.38 2180.641 61 26.5 17096.74
30 3.47 2238.705 62 28 18064.48
31 3.55 2290.318 63 30 19354.8
32 3.63 2341.931 64 33.5 21612.86

environment using a Pentium IV system 2.5 GHz CPU with 4 GB

RAM.

4.1. Planar 52-bar truss problem

The planar 52-bar truss, shown in Fig. 4, was previously studied

by Lee et al. [10], Li et al. [12], Kaveh and Talatahari [14], Sadollah
et al. [17], and Wu and Chow [20]. The material density and mod-
ulus of elasticity of the structure are 7860 kg/m3 and E = 207 GPa,
respectively.
The structure must be designed so that element stresses do not
exceed 180 MPa. Because of the symmetry of the structure, ele-
ments can be grouped into 12 groups: (1) A1–A4, (2) A5–A10, (3)
A11–A13, (4) A14–A17, (5) A18–A23, (6) A24–A26, (7) A27–A30, (8)
A31–A36, (9) A37–A39, (10) A40–A43, (11) A44–A49, and (12) A50–
A52. Therefore, this test case included 12 sizing design variables
that can take the discrete values listed in Table 3 according to AISC
specifications.
Optimization results obtained by the WCA and IMBA algorithms
are compared in Table 4 with the HS [12], HPSO and DHPSACO [14],
MBA [17], and steady-state genetic algorithm (SGA) [20]. In terms of
used number of structural analyses (NSAs), IMBA surpassed others
finding the best optimum solution using fewer NSAs (see Table 4).
It can be seen that the WCA, MBA, and IMBA algorithms con-
verged to the best design. Statistical optimization results (e.g.,
worst, average, and best solutions) obtained by the IMBA, MBA
and WCA are tabulated in Table 5. By observing Table 5, IMBA
shows better statistical results than MBA and WCA algorithms in
terms of obtained optimized-weight. Fig. 5 compares convergence
behavior of HPSO, DHPSACO, MBA, WCA, and IMBA.

4.2. Spatial 72-bar truss problem

The second test case deals with the weight minimization of the
Fig. 4. Schematic of the planar 52-bar truss. spatial 72-bar truss shown in Fig. 6. This benchmark problem was
8 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16

Table 4
52-bar truss problem: comparison of WCA, MBA and IMBA optimization results with the literature.

Variables (mm2) SGA [20] HS [12] HPSO [12] DHPSACO [14] MBA [17] WCA IMBA
A1–A4 4658.055 4658.055 4658.055 4658.055 4658.055 4658.055 4658.055
A5–A10 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288
A11–A13 645.160 506.451 363.225 494.193 494.193 494.193 494.193
A14–A17 3303.219 3303.219 3303.219 3303.219 3303.219 3303.219 3303.219
A18–A23 1045.159 940.000 940.000 1008.385 940.000 940.000 940.000
A24–A26 494.193 494.193 494.193 285.161 494.193 494.193 494.193
A27–A30 2477.414 2290.318 2238.705 2290.318 2283.705 2283.705 2283.705
A31–A36 1045.159 1008.385 1008.385 1008.385 1008.385 1008.385 1008.385
A37–A39 285.161 2290.318 388.386 388.386 494.193 494.193 494.193
A40–A43 1696.771 1535.481 1283.868 1283.868 1283.868 1283.868 1283.868
A44–A49 1045.159 1045.159 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288 1161.288
A50–A52 641.289 506.451 729.256 506.451 494.193 494.193 494.193
Weight (kg) 1970.142 1906.76 1905.495 1904.83 1902.605 1902.605 1902.605
Number of structural analyses N/Aa N/A 105,000 11,100 5450 7100 4750
a
Not available.

Table 5
Statistical optimization results obtained from WCA, MBA, and IMBA for the 52-bar truss problem.

Methods Best optimized weight (kg) Average optimized weight (kg) Worst optimized weight (kg) Standard deviation on weight (kg)
WCA 1902.605 1909.856 1912.646 7.09
MBA 1902.605 1906.076 1912.646 4.09
IMBA 1902.605 1903.076 1904.83 1.13

Fig. 5. Comparison of convergence curves recorded for the 52-bar truss problem.

previously studied by Lee et al. [10], Li et al. [12], Kaveh and Tala-
tahari [14], Sadollah et al. [17], and Wu and Chow [20]. The mate-
rial density and the modulus of elasticity of the truss structure are
0.1 lb/in3 (2767.99 kg/m3) and E = 10 Msi (68.95 GPa), respectively.
The maximum stress developed in the elements must not
exceed 25,000 psi (172.4 MPa). The top nodes are subjected to dis-
placement limits of 0.25 in (6.35 mm) in coordinate directions x
and y. Because of the symmetry of the structure, the 72 elements
can be grouped into 16 groups: (1) A1–A4, (2) A5–A12, (3) A13–
A16, (4) A17–A18, (5) A19–A22, (6) A23–A30, (7) A31–A34, (8) A35–
A36, (9) A37–A40, (10) A41–A48, (11) A49–A52, (12) A53–A54, (13)
A55–A58, (14) A59–A66 (15) A67–A70, and (16) A71–A72.
Two variants were considered for this optimization problem: (i)
Case 1, where values of cross-sectional areas could be selected
from the discrete set D = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9,
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.0, 3.1,3.2] (in2); (ii) Case 2, where values
of cross-sectional areas could be selected from the discrete set of
Table 3. The structure is subject to two independent load cases
described in Table 6.
The maximum number of optimization iterations was set as
1000 for all problem variants. Statistical results obtained by the
WCA, MBA, and IMBA algorithms are compared in Table 7. All algo-
rithms converged to the best weight of 385.54 lb in the case of
 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16 9

Fig. 6. Schematic of the spatial 72-bar truss.

Table 6 problem variant 1, while the WCA and IMBA algorithms converged
Loading conditions for the spatial 72-bar truss structure problem. to a lighter design in the case of problem variant 2. The NSAs
Nodes Case 1 Case 2 required by the WCA ranged between 3200 and 19,750 for problem
Px (kips) Py (kips) Pz (kips) Px (kips) Py (kips) Pz (kips)
variant 1 and between 4600 and 26,050 for problem variant 2.
Tables 8 and 9 compare optimization results of WCA and IMBA
17 5 5 5 0 0 5
18 0 0 0 0 0 5
algorithms with the literature for Cases 1 and 2, respectively. In the
19 0 0 0 0 0 5 case of problem variant 1, the WCA, IMBA, MBA, and DHPSACO
20 0 0 0 0 0 5 converged to the lowest weight overall; however, the MBA, IMBA,

Table 7
Statistical optimization results obtained from MBA, IMBA, and WCA for the 72-bar problem.

Methods Best optimized weight (lb) Average optimized weight (lb) Worst optimized weight (lb) Standard deviation on weight (lb)
Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2
WCA 385.542 389.334 385.842 389.941 386.800 393.778 0.55 1.43
MBA 385.542 390.739 387.665 395.432 390.615 399.49 1.62 3.04
IMBA 385.542 389.334 385.765 389.823 387.942 389.457 0.41 0.84

Table 8
72-bar truss problem variant 1: comparison of WCA, MBA and IMBA optimization results with the literature.

Variables (in2) SGA [20] HS [12] HPSO [12] DHPSACO [14] MBA [17] WCA IMBA
A1–A4 1.5 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
A5–A12 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
A13–A16 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
A17–A18 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
A19–A22 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4
A23–A30 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
A31–A34 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
A35–A36 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
A37–A40 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
A41–A48 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
A49–A52 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
A53–A54 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
A55–A58 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
A59–A66 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
A67–A70 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
A71–A72 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Weight (lb) 400.66 387.94 388.94 385.54 385.54 385.54 385.54
Number of structural analyses N/A N/A 12,500 10,650 9450 3200 5750
10 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16

Table 9
72-bar truss problem variant 2: comparison of the WCA, MBA and IMBA optimization results with the literature.

Variables (in2) SGA [20] HPSO [12] DHPSACO [14] MBA [17] WCA IMBA
A1–A4 0.196 4.97 1.800 1.800 1.99 1.99
A5–A12 0.602 1.228 0.442 0.602 0.442 0.442
A13–A16 0.307 0.111 0.141 0.111 0.111 0.111
A17–A18 0.766 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111
A19–A22 0.391 2.88 1.228 1.266 1.228 1.228
A23–A30 0.391 1.457 0.563 0.563 0.563 0.563
A31–A34 0.141 0.141 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111
A35–A36 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111
A37–A40 1.800 1.563 0.563 0.442 0.563 0.563
A41–A48 0.602 1.228 0.563 0.442 0.563 0.563
A49–A52 0.141 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111
A53–A54 0.307 0.196 0.250 0.111 0.111 0.111
A55–A58 1.563 0.391 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196
A59–A66 0.766 1.457 0.563 0.563 0.563 0.563
A67–A70 0.141 0.766 0.442 0.442 0.391 0.391
A71–A72 0.111 1.563 0.563 0.602 0.563 0.563
Weight (lb) 427.203 933.09 393.380 390.73 389.334 389.334
Number of structural analyses N/A 50,000 12,500 11,600 4600 6250

Fig. 7. Comparison of convergence curves recorded for 72-bar truss problem for Variant 1.

and WCA found a slightly different design from that found by the
DHPSACO (see Table 8). In the case of problem variant 2, the
WCA and IMBA found the best design overall (see Table 9) and out-
performed others in terms of number of structural analyses.
By observing Table 9, IMBA was successful to find cheapest
design compared with MBA for the second variant. Talking about
NSAs, Tables 8 and 9 (last row) give required NSAs used by consid-
ered algorithms. WCA has performed all optimizer finding the opti-
mal solution in a fewer NSAs. Figs. 7 and 8 compare the
convergence curves recorded for the different optimization algo-
rithms for Cases 1 and 2, respectively. As shown in Figs. 7 and 8,
the WCA is superior over the MBA and IMBA as it designed a lighter
structure requiring less structural analyses for the 72-bar truss.
However, in terms of convergence rate, IMBA shows superiority
against MBA for two considered cases.
4.3. Planar 200-bar truss problem
The third test problem is the weight minimization of the planar
200-bar truss structure schematized in Fig. 9. This structure was
studied in literature considering different number of design vari-
ables and constraint types [21–23].
In this research, elements were grouped into 96 groups accord-
ing to [21]; hence, this test problem included 96 sizing variables.
Details of element grouping are given in Table 10. Material proper-
ties were set as follows: modulus of elasticity of 30 Msi (206.9 GPa)
and material density of 0.283 lb/in3 (7833.4 kg/m3). The allowable
displacement was limited to 0.5 in (1.27 cm), while the allowable
stress was set equal to 30,000 Psi (206.9 MPa).
Cross sectional areas could be selected from the following dis-
crete set including 30 values: A = [0.100, 0.347, 0.440, 0.539,
0.954, 1.081, 1.174, 1.333, 1.488, 1.764, 2.142, 2.697, 2.800,
3.131, 3.565, 3.813, 4.805, 5.952, 6.572, 7.192, 8.525, 9.300,
10.850, 13.330, 14.290, 17.170, 19.180, 23.680, 28.080, 33.700]
(in2).
The structure may be subject to three independent loading con-
ditions: (i) 1000 lbf acting in the positive x direction at nodes 1, 6,
15, 20, 29, 34, 43, 48, 57, 62, and 71; (ii) 10,000 lbf acting in the
negative y direction at nodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42,
 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16
Fig. 8. Comparison of convergence curves recorded for 72-bar truss problem for Variant 2.
Fig. 9. Schematic of the planar 200-bar truss.
43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68,
70, 71,72, 73,74, and 75; (iii) loading conditions 1 and 2 acting
together. In this study, only load Case 3 was considered according
to other studies documented in literature.
11
This benchmark problem was solved in technical literature with
different optimization algorithms such as GA [21], modified GA
(MGA) [22], and evolution strategies (ES) [23]. Optimization results
obtained by the WCA, MBA, and IMBA algorithms are presented in
Tables 11–13, respectively. Table 14 compares the statistical opti-
mization results obtained for the 50 independent optimization
runs carried out in this study for all three considered optimizers
(i.e., MBA, IMBA, and WCA).
It can be seen that the IMBA is superior over the MBA and WCA
algorithms in terms of optimized weight and computational cost.
The present algorithms found better designs than those reported
in literature: for example, Ghasemi et al. [21] reported a minimum
weight of 30,905 lb and 31,109 lb using the GA2-800 and GA2-100
algorithms, respectively; Dede et al. [22] reported an optimized
weight of 30,868.45 lb; Cai and Thierauf [23] reported a minimum
weight of 31,014 lb.
Conversely, the WCA converged to the best weight of
29,304.76 lb, while the optimized design found by the MBA and
IMBA weighting 27,532.95 lb and 27,349.72 lb are the best designs
found so far in literature. Remarkably, IMBA, MBA, and WCA algo-
rithms converged to optimized designs that violate marginally
constraints (see Tables 11–13). Fig. 10 shows that the MBA con-
verged to a nearly optimum solution after only 200 iterations,
while the WCA required about 550 iterations. Similar results were
obtained by setting the population size as 150. In spite of using a
three times larger population, the optimized weight found by the
WCA, MBA, and IMBA algorithms did not change significantly. This
proves that the IMBA, MBA and WCA algorithms can solve compli-
cated large-scale optimization problems using small population
sizes.
In terms of convergence rate, as can be seen in Fig. 10b, IMBA
converged to near optimum solutions at early iterations better
than MBA and WCA algorithms. The limit number of analyses set
in the optimization runs (i.e., 30,000 function evaluation) was cho-
sen based on the best design reported in literature [22].
The present algorithms clearly outperformed the MGA algo-
rithm described in Ref. [22]: the optimized designs found after
600 iterations and 30,000 structural analyses by the WCA, IMBA,
and MBA algorithms were better than the optimized design found
by MGA after 612 iterations and 122,400 structural analyses. This
happened in spite of the fact that MGA worked with a population
12 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16

Table 10
Details of element grouping adopted in the 200-bar truss problem.

No. Members No. Members No. Members No. Members

1 1,4 25 46,52 49 102,114 73 146
2 2,3 26 47,51 50 103,113 74 153,156
3 5,17 27 48,50 51 104,112 75 154,155
4 6,16 28 49 52 105,111 76 157,169
5 7,15 29 57,58,61,62 53 106,110 77 158,168
6 8,14 30 59,60 54 107,109 78 159,167
7 9,13 31 64,76 55 108 79 160,166
8 10,12 32 65,75 56 115,118 80 161,165
9 11 33 66,74 57 116,117 81 162,164
10 132,139,170,177,18,25,56,63 34 67,73 58 119,131 82 163
11 19,20,23,24 35 68,72 59 120,130 83 171,172,175,176
12 21,22 36 69,71 60 121,129 84 173,174
13 26,38 37 70 61 122,128 85 178,190
14 27,37 38 77,80 62 123,127 86 179,189
15 28,36 39 78,79 63 124,126 87 180,188
16 29,35 40 81,93 64 125 88 181,187
17 30,34 41 82,92 65 133,134,137,138 89 182,186
18 31,33 42 83,91 66 135,136 90 183,185
19 32 43 84,90 67 140,152 91 184
20 39,42 44 85,89 68 141,151 92 191,194
21 40,41 45 86,88 69 142,150 93 192,193
22 43,55 46 87 70 143,149 94 195,200
23 44,54 47 95,96,99,100 71 144,148 95 196,199
24 45,53 48 97,98 72 145,147 96 197,198

Table 11 Table 12
Details of the best design obtained by the WCA for the 200-bar truss problem. Details of the best design obtained by the MBA for the 200-bar truss problem.

No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2)
1 0.347 25 4.805 49 10.85 73 7.192 1 0.347 25 2.697 49 7.192 73 9.3
2 0.347 26 0.1 50 0.1 74 0.1 2 0.1 26 0.44 50 0.1 74 1.764
3 5.952 27 0.347 51 0.539 75 0.539 3 5.952 27 0.347 51 2.697 75 1.333
4 0.1 28 7.192 52 5.952 76 13.33 4 0.347 28 3.813 52 7.192 76 4.805
5 0.1 29 0.347 53 0.539 77 1.174 5 0.1 29 0.1 53 0.347 77 4.805
6 2.697 30 0.1 54 0.539 78 0.44 6 2.697 30 0.1 54 0.1 78 0.1
7 0.539 31 13.33 55 7.192 79 10.85 7 0.347 31 6.572 55 7.192 79 13.33
8 0.954 32 0.1 56 0.1 80 1.333 8 0.347 32 0.1 56 0.1 80 1.764
9 2.142 33 0.44 57 0.1 81 0.1 9 2.697 33 2.142 57 0.1 81 0.539
10 0.1 34 8.525 58 14.29 82 9.30 10 0.1 34 5.952 58 7.192 82 8.525
11 0.1 35 0.539 59 0.1 83 0.347 11 0.1 35 0.1 59 0.1 83 0.1
12 0.1 36 0.347 60 0.1 84 0.954 12 0.44 36 0.347 60 1.764 84 0.1
13 3.813 37 6.572 61 10.85 85 10.85 13 4.805 37 7.192 61 10.85 85 3.813
14 0.44 38 0.1 62 0.1 86 0.347 14 0.1 38 1.333 62 1.333 86 0.1
15 0.1 39 0.1 63 1.174 87 1.174 15 0.539 39 0.347 63 0.1 87 5.952
16 4.805 40 8.525 64 7.192 88 7.192 16 3.813 40 6.572 64 6.572 88 14.29
17 0.1 41 0.347 65 0.44 89 0.1 17 0.1 41 2.142 65 0.539 89 0.954
18 0.539 42 0.44 66 0.954 90 2.697 18 0.347 42 0.1 66 0.347 90 2.142
19 3.813 43 5.952 67 13.33 91 8.525 19 8.525 43 7.192 67 8.525 91 10.85
20 0.347 44 1.488 68 0.954 92 7.192 20 1.081 44 0.1 68 2.142 92 3.565
21 0.347 45 0.1 69 0.539 93 8.525 21 1.174 45 0.44 69 0.347 93 1.488
22 13.33 46 10.85 70 9.3 94 10.85 22 7.192 46 4.805 70 14.29 94 5.952
23 0.1 47 0.347 71 0.954 95 9.30 23 1.488 47 0.1 71 0.44 95 19.18
24 0.1 48 0.347 72 0.347 96 9.30 24 0.1 48 0.1 72 1.333 96 6.572
Weight = 29,304.76 lb (13,292.41 kg) Weight = 27,532.95 lb (12,488.73 kg)
Maximum constraint violation = 3.1556e4 Maximum constraint violation = 2.9048e5
Number of structural analyses = 29,550 Number of structural analyses = 26,750

size of 200, while the population size of IMBA, MBA, and WCA algo-
rithms was only 50.
4.4. Spatial 582-bar tower
The last test problem solved in this study is the weight minimi-
zation of the 582-bar tower structure schematized in Fig. 11. This
structure was first proposed by Hasançebi et al. [24] and then
investigated in detail by Kaveh and Talatahari [14]. The tower
includes 582 elements grouped in 32 independent groups.
The structure is subject to a single loading condition: concen-
trated forces of 5 kN (1.12 kips) and 30 kN (6.74 kips) applied
to all nodes as lateral loads in both X- and Y-directions, and vertical
loads in the Z-direction, respectively. Cross-sectional areas of ele-
ments can be selected from the discrete list of 140 W-shape steel
profiles (see Table 15) based on cross-sectional areas and radius
of gyration properties [24]. Cross-sectional areas of all elements
can range between 39.74 and 1378.09 cm2 (i.e., between 6.16
and 215 in2).
Modulus of elasticity (E) and yield stress (Fy), respectively, are
200 GPa (29,000 ksi) and 248 MPa (36 ksi), according to ASD-AISC
specifications [25]. Stress limits also are set according to [25] as
follows:

rþi ¼ 0:6F y ri P 0
; ð29Þ
ri ri < 0
 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16 13

Table 13
Details of the best design obtained by the IMBA for the 200-bar truss problem.

No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2) No. Area (in2)
1 1.764 25 5.952 49 8.525 73 1.174
2 2.142 26 0.954 50 0.1 74 0.954
3 1.081 27 0.1 51 4.805 75 0.539
4 3.565 28 2.8 52 9.3 76 3.131
5 0.1 29 0.1 53 3.813 77 4.805
6 1.174 30 0.1 54 0.1 78 0.1
7 0.1 31 6.572 55 1.081 79 19.18
8 1.333 32 0.1 56 0.1 80 1.174
9 1.174 33 0.347 57 1.488 81 0.1
10 0.1 34 3.565 58 6.572 82 2.697
11 0.539 35 0.1 59 0.1 83 0.539
12 0.539 36 1.764 60 1.081 84 0.44
13 3.813 37 3.813 61 14.29 85 3.565
14 0.44 38 2.142 62 1.081 86 0.347
15 2.8 39 1.174 63 0.44 87 3.813
16 1.764 40 5.952 64 1.488 88 23.68
17 1.174 41 2.697 65 1.174 89 0.1
18 0.1 42 0.1 66 0.44 90 0.954
19 2.142 43 6.572 67 7.192 91 2.697
20 0.1 44 0.1 68 2.697 92 2.697
21 2.697 45 4.805 69 0.954 93 0.954
22 7.192 46 0.1 70 14.29 94 4.805
23 0.539 47 0.44 71 0.954 95 23.68
24 0.347 48 0.1 72 0.954 96 3.813
Weight = 27,349.72 lb (12,405.62 kg)
Maximum constraint violation = 6.9466e5
Number of structural analyses = 29,150
Fig. 10. Comparison of convergence curves recorded in the case of the 200-bar truss
problem.
where ri depends on the slenderness ratio as follows:
8 h  . i
> k2i 3ki k3
< 1 F y 53 þ 8C  8Ci 3 for ki < C c
 2C 2c c
r ¼
i
c
: ð30Þ
> 2
: 12p 2E for ki P C c
23ki

Cc is the slenderness ratio (k) dividing the elastic and inelastic

buckling regions, defined as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2p 2 E
Cc ¼ : ð31Þ
Fy

Nodal displacements should not exceed 8 cm (i.e., 3.15 in). The

maximum allowable slenderness ratio is 200 or 300 for compres-
sion or tension elements, respectively. This constraint comes from
the ASD-AISC design code provisions and can be stated as follows:

ki li 300 for tension members
ki ¼ 6 ; ð32Þ
ri 200 for compression members

where ki is slenderness ration of the ith member; li and ri are the

element length and the radius of gyration, correspondingly. Should
the constraint on slenderness ratio of compression elements not be
satisfied, the allowable stress must not exceed the value obtained

by 12 p2 E [25].
2
23k i

Optimization results obtained by the WCA, MBA, and IMBA

algorithms are compared with the literature in Table 16. It can
be seen that IMBA is the most efficient optimizer and obtained
almost the same volume as MBA and WCA algorithms, about 10%
less than the other algorithms quoted in literature. Fig. 11. Schematic of the 582-bar tower truss.

Table 14
Statistical optimization results obtained by the WCA, MBA, and IMBA for the 200-bar problem.

Methods Best optimized Average optimized Worst optimized Standard deviation Max. number of
weight (lb) weight (lb) weight (lb) on weight (lb) structural analyses
WCA 29,304.76 29,885.78 30,188.52 409.75 30,000
MBA 27,532.95 28,667.09 29,742.63 312.68 30,000
IMBA 27,349.72 28,500.25 29,338.65 579.09 30,000
14 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16

Table 15
Profile list from AISC code for the spatial 582-bar tower.

W-shape profile list

W27  178 W21  122 W18  50 W14  455 W14  74 W12  136 W10  77
W27  161 W21  111 W18  46 W14  426 W14  68 W12  120 W10  68
W27  146 W21  101 W18  40 W14  398 W14  61 W12  106 W10  60
W27  114 W21  93 W18  35 W14  370 W14  53 W12  96 W10  54
W27  102 W21  83 W16  100 W14  342 W14  48 W12  87 W10  49
W27  94 W21  73 W16  89 W14  311 W14  43 W12  79 W10  45
W27  84 W21  68 W16  77 W14  283 W14  38 W12  72 W10  39
W24  162 W21  62 W16  67 W14  257 W14  34 W12  65 W10  33
W24  146 W21  57 W16  57 W14  233 W14  30 W12  58 W10  30
W24  131 W21  50 W16  50 W14  211 W14  26 W12  53 W10  26
W24  117 W21  44 W16  45 W14  193 W14  22 W12  50 W10  22
W24  104 W18  119 W16  40 W14  176 W12  336 W12  45 W8  67
W24  94 W18  106 W16  36 W14  159 W12  305 W12  40 W8  58
W24  84 W18  97 W16  31 W14  145 W12  279 W12  35 W8  48
W24  76 W18  86 W16  26 W14  I32 W12  252 W12  30 W8  40
W24  68 W18  76 W14  730 W14  120 W12  230 W12  26 W8  35
W24  62 W18  71 W14  665 W14  109 W12  210 W12  22 W8  31
W24  55 W18  65 W14  605 W14  99 W12  190 W10  112 W8  28
W21  147 W18  60 W14  550 W14  90 W12  170 W10  100 W8  24
W21  132 W18  55 W14  500 W14  82 W12  152 W10  88 W8  21

Table 16
Spatial 582-bar tower problem: comparison of WCA, MBA, and IMBA optimization results with the literature.

Element group Optimal cross-sectional areas (cm2)

PSO [24] DHPSACO [14] WCA MBA IMBA
Ready section (Area) Ready section (Area) Ready section (Area) Ready section (Area) Ready section (Area)
1 W8  21 (39.74) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
2 W12  79 (149.68) W12  72 (136.13) W14  68 (129.03) W18  76 (56.64) W24  76 (144.51)
3 W8  24 (45.68) W8  28 (53.16) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
4 W10  60 (113.55) W12  58 (109.68) W16  67 (127.09) W12  65 (48.51) W12  65 (48.51)
5 W8  24 (45.68) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
6 W8  21 (39.74) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
7 W8  48 (90.97) W10  49 (92.90) W12  45 (85.16) W14  48 (35.81) W10  54 (101.93)
8 W8  24 (45.68) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
9 W8  21 (39.74) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
10 W10  45 (85.81) W12  40 (75.48) W12  53 (100.64) W12  50 (37.34) W12  50 (37.34)
11 W8  24 (45.68) W12  30 (56.71) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
12 W10  68 (129.03) W12  72 (136.129) W10  68 (129.03) W16  77 (57.40) W10  68 (129.03)
13 W14  74 (140.65) W18  76 (143.87) W16  77 (145.81) W12  79 (58.93) W24  76 (144.51)
14 W8  48 (90.97) W10  49 (92.90) W10  60 (113.55) W8  48 (35.81) W14  53 (100.64)
15 W18  76 (143.87) W14  82 (154.84) W21  73 (138.71) W12  79 (58.93) W12  79 (58.93)
16 W8  31 (55.90) W8  31 (58.84) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
17 W8  21 (39.74) W14  61 (115.48) W18  76 (143.87) W16  67 (50.04) W12  65 (48.51)
18 W16  67 (127.10) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
19 W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
20 W8  21 (39.74) W12  40 (75.48) W16  50 (94.84) W8  48 (35.81) W12  45 (85.16)
21 W8  40 (75.48) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
22 W8  24 (45.68) W14  22 (41.87) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
23 W8  21 (39.74) W8  31 (58.84) W10  30 (57.03) W12  26 (19.43) W16  26 (49.54)
24 W10  22 (41.87) W8  28 (53.16) W10  22 (41.87) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
25 W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
26 W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W14  22 (41.87) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
27 W8  21 (39.74) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
28 W8  24 (45.68) W8  28 (53.16) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
29 W8  21 (39.74) W16  36 (68.39) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
30 W8  21 (39.74) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
31 W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
32 W8  24 (45.68) W8  24 (45.68) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74) W8  21 (39.74)
Volume (m3) 22.3958 22.0607 20.1919 20.0737 20.0688
NSAsa 17,500 17,500 15,600 14,850 15,300
a
Number of structural analyses.

Table 17
Statistical optimization results of WCA, MBA, and IMBA algorithms for the 582-bar tower problem.

Methods Best optimized volume (m3) Average optimized volume (m3) Worst optimized volume (m3) Standard deviation on volume (m3) Max. NSAs
WCA 20.1919 20.4253 20.7339 1.92e1 17,500
MBA 20.0737 20.1023 20.1489 4.07e2 17,500
IMBA 20.0688 20.0990 20.1027 2.01e2 17,500
 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16 15

converging to smaller volumes with less statistical dispersion with

respect to the average optimized volume.
Fig. 12 compares the convergence curves of IMBA, MBA, WCA,
and DHPSACO algorithms which converged to the best optimized
volume after 17,500 structural analyses. The limit number of anal-
yses set in the optimization runs (i.e., 17,500) was chosen based on
the best design reported in literature [14].
Remarkably, the IMBA, MBA, and WCA algorithms found inter-
mediate designs with corresponding volumes of 20.1544 m3,
20.0932 m3, and 20.5779 m3 within 8500 structural analyses
(170 iterations), respectively, which are considerably smaller than
the volume finally optimized by DHPSACO. The present algorithms
could further reduced the volume of the 582-bar tower after
17,500 structural analyses.
Looking at the optimization results obtained for the 200-bar
truss (96 design variables and 700 optimization constraints) and
582-bar tower (32 design variables and 1573 optimization con-
straints) problems, it may be concluded that IMBA, MBA, and
WCA algorithms are more efficient and reliable than other meta-
heuristic algorithms as they find better designs requiring less
structural analyses.

5. Sensitivity of WCA to internal parameters

A sensitivity analysis to assess variations in convergence behav-

Fig. 12. Comparison of convergence curves recorded for the 582-bar tower
problem.
Statistical optimization results of WCA, MBA, and IMBA
algorithms are compared in Table 17. Within the same limit num-
ber of structural analyses (i.e., 17,500 function evaluation), IMBA
was more efficient and robust than MBA and WCA algorithms
ior of WCA algorithm with respect to user-defined parameters (i.e.,
Npop, Nsr, dmax, and maximum number of iterations) was carried out
for the 72-bar truss (load case 1) and 582-bar tower problems. The
obtained data are presented in Tables 18 and 19 with respect to
optimized weight or optimized volume, respectively, for the 72-
bar truss and 582-bar tower problems.
It can be seen that the best results are obtained for Nsr = 8,
although in the 72-bar problem this entails a slightly larger stan-
dard deviation than Nsr = 10. The second user defined parameter,
dmax, controls the evaporation condition and raining process and
affects the WCA exploration phase.

Table 18
Sensitivity of WCA to internal parameters for the 72-bar truss problem.

Optimized Weight Maximum number of iterations = 100

Npop = 50 Nsr = 8 & dmax = 1e5
dmax = 1e5 Nsr = 8 Npop
Nsr dmax 10 30 50
4 8 10 1e1 1e3 1e5 1e7
Best (lb) 385.54 385.54 385.54 386.53 386.94 385.54 385.54 391.47 385.54 385.54
Average (lb) 397 388.01 388.09 392.89 389.9 388.01 389.19 465.68 415.91 388.01
Worst (lb) 475.47 390.06 390.34 437.11 396.41 390.06 396.41 535.99 501.01 390.06
SDa (lb) 27.68 1.62 1.3 15.57 2.98 1.62 3.1 48.61 40.6 1.62
a
Standard deviation.

Table 19
Sensitivity of WCA to internal parameters for the 582-bar tower problem.

Optimized volume Maximum number of iterations = 100

Npop = 50 Nsr = 8 & dmax = 1e5
dmax = 1e5 Nsr = 8 Npop
Nsr dmax 10 30 50
4 8 10 1e1 1e3 1e5 1e7
Best (m3) 21.22 21.15 21.16 21.45 21.32 21.15 21.4 37.66 24.5 21.15
Average (m3) 23.58 23.2 23.27 24.15 23.4 23.2 23.77 39.51 26.7 23.2
Worst (m3) 27.02 25.93 25.94 27.42 25.99 25.93 27.02 43.21 32.9 25.93
Standard Deviation (m3) 2.5 2.2 2.19 2.3 2.05 2.2 2.27 2.23 3.07 2.2
16 A. Sadollah et al. / Computers and Structures 149 (2015) 1–16
In general, setting dmax as a large value reduces the exploitation
capability, while setting small values of dmax reduces the explora-
tion capability. This is confirmed by the sensitivity analysis data
reported in Tables 18 and 19. The worst designs were obtained
for the very large value dmax = 1e1 and for the very small value
dmax = 1e7 that also entailed the largest standard deviations (SD).
The last parameter affecting performance of WCA is the size of
initial population (Npop). It should be noted that Npop is a common
input parameter for most metaheuristic algorithms. In general,
Npop should be considerably larger than Nsr. In the WCA case, if
Nsr = 8 and Npop = 10, some rivers are generated without having
any streams moving toward them. This has a detrimental effect
on optimization results. In particular, if Nsr = 8, the worst and best
performance of the WCA algorithm occur for Npop = 10 and
Npop = 50, respectively.
In summary, the best value for dmax is in the range [1e5,1e3],
while the value of Nsr should be selected based on the value of Npop
(looking at sensitivity analysis data, Nsr should be about one sixth
of Npop). By increasing the number of iterations, WCA as well as
other metaheuristic algorithms will have more chances to find
the best solution and explore the design space. For example, by
increasing the number of iterations to 500, WCA could reach the
best solution for both test problems.
Talking about MBA and IMBA internal parameters, the sug-
gested value of l is the maximum iteration number divided by five
recommended in Section 3.1.1. The exploration factor (l) gives the
algorithm more freedom to search a wider range, which results in
better detection of solutions. However, increasing the value of this
parameter more than the predefined value may diverge the results
and prevent further exploitation near the best obtained solutions.
The reduction factor (a) divides the distance of shrapnel pieces
into a interval distances, which enables searching within the
reduced intervals at each iteration. Searching smaller intervals is
better and more efficient than searching in large intervals.
Higher values of a increase the probability of finding the global
optimal solution; however, increasing a more than the suitable
value may inhibit searching regions near the optimal solution dur-
ing the final iterations. The user specified parameter sensitivity for
the MBA for solving truss structures is given in [26] which can also
be extend for weight/volume minimization problems of complex
truss structures.
6. Conclusions
This paper presented some applications of two recently devel-
oped optimization techniques, the mine blast algorithm (MBA)
and water cycle algorithm (WCA) to discrete sizing optimization
problems of truss structures. The WCA and MBA are inspired by
observation of water cycle process and explosion of landmines,
respectively. The MBA was improved and applied to solve bench-
mark problems, so called improved MBA (IMBA).
The efficiency and performance of IMBA, WCA, and MBA was
examined using four truss structures. The improvements made to
MBA are as follows: the distance of each shrapnel piece was chan-
ged by the value of the objective function (i.e., it was reduced when
there were no improvements to the obtained solution). The per-
ception of direction was replaced with the concept of moving to
the best solutions.
Optimization results obtained for four benchmark truss prob-
lems including a number of sizing variables ranging between 12
and 96 seem to prove that the IMBA, WCA, and MBA algorithms
are highly competitive with other metaheuristic algorithms pre-
sented in the literature in terms of optimized weight and number
of structural analyses required by the optimization process.
The IMBA slightly outperformed the MBA and WCA algorithms
in the large scale truss problems in this paper. Hybridization of the
WCA with MBA and/or other optimizers may lead to further
improve convergence behavior and is certainly a topic to be inves-
tigated in future research.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (NRF-
2013R1A2A1A01013886).
References
[1] Holland J. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor
(MI): University of Michigan Press; 1975.
[2] Goldberg DE, Samtani MP. Engineering optimization via genetic algorithms. In:
Proc of the ninth conference on electronic computations, ASCE. Birmingham,
Alabama; 1986. p. 471–82.
[3] Rajeev S, Krishnamoorthy CS. Discrete optimization of structures using genetic
algorithms. J Struct Eng 1992;118(5):1233–50.
[4] Krishnamoorthy CS, Venkatesh PP, Sudarshan R. Object-oriented framework
for genetic algorithms with application to space truss optimization. J Comput
Civ Eng 2002;16:66–75.
[5] Sivakumar P, Rajaraman A, Natajan K, Samuel KGM. Artificial intelligence
techniques for optimization of steel lattice towers, recent developments in
structural engineering. In: Proc structural engineering convention; 2001. p.
435–45.
[6] Gero MBP, Garcia AB, Diaz JJDC. Design optimization of 3D steel structures:
genetic algorithms vs. classical techniques. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:1303–9.
[7] Geem Z, Kim J, Loganathan GV. A new heuristic optimization algorithm:
harmony search. Simulation 2001;76:60–8.
[8] Lee KS, Geem ZW. A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering
optimization: harmony search theory and practice. Comput Method Appl
Mech 2005;194:3902–33.
[9] Lee KS, Geem ZW. A new structural optimization method based on the
harmony search algorithm. Comput Struct 2004;82:781–98.
[10] Lee KS, Geem ZW, Lee SH, Bae KW. The harmony search heuristic algorithm for
discrete structural optimization. Eng Optim 2005;37(7):663–84.
[11] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. In: Proc IEEE IJCNN. Perth,
Australia; 1995. p. 1942–48.
[12] Li LJ, Huang ZB, Liu F. A heuristic particle swarm optimization method for truss
structures with discrete variables. Comput Struct 2009;87:435–43.
[13] He S, Wu QH, Wen JY, Saunders JR, Paton RC. A particle swarm optimizer with
passive congregation. Biosystems 2004;78:135–47.
[14] Kaveh A, Talatahari S. A particle swarm ant colony optimization for truss
structures with discrete variables. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1558–68.
[15] Lamberti L, Pappalettere C. Metaheuristic design optimization of skeletal
structures: a review. Comput Technol Rev 2011;4:1–32.
[16] Saka MP. Optimum design of skeletal structures: a review. In: Topping BHV,
editor. Progress in civil and structural engineering computing. Stirlingshire
(UK): Saxe-Coburg Publications; 2003. p. 237–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.4203/
csets.10.10 [chapter 10].
[17] Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Eskandar H, Hamdi M. Mine blast algorithm for
optimization of truss structures with discrete variables. Comput Struct
2012;102–103:49–63.
[18] Eskandar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M. Water cycle algorithm – a
novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering
optimization problems. Comput Struct 2012;110–111:151–66.
[19] Montes EM, Coello CAC. An empirical study about the usefulness of evolution
strategies to solve constrained optimization problems. Int J Gen Syst
2008;37:443–73.
[20] Wu SJ, Chow PT. Steady-state genetic algorithms for discrete optimization of
trusses. Comput Struct 1995;56:979–91.
[21] Ghasemi MR, Hinton E, Wood RD. Optimization of trusses using genetic
algorithms for discrete and continuous variables. Eng Comput 1999;16–
3:272–301.
[22] Dede T, Bekiroglub S, Ayvazc Y. Weight minimization of trusses with genetic
algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 2011;11:2565–75.
[23] Cai J, Thierauf G. Discrete structural optimization using evolution strategies.
In: Topping BHV, Khan AI, editors. Neural networks and combinatorial
optimization in civil and structural engineering, civil-comp, Edinburg. p. 95–
100. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4203/ccp.16.6.11993.
[24] Hasançebi O, Çarbas S, Dogan E, Erdal F, Saka MP. Performance evaluation of
metaheuristic search techniques in the optimum design of real size pin jointed
structures. Comput Struct 2009;87(5–6):284–302.
[25] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Manual of steel construction
allowable stress design. 9th ed. Chicago (IL); 1989.
[26] Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Eskandar H, Hamdi M. Mine blast algorithm: a
new population based algorithm for solving constrained engineering
optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 2013;13:2592–612.