I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología

volumen XX (número 4), octubre-diciembre 2019 1-10

ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM artículo arbitrado
Información del artículo: Recibido: 23 de marzo de 2018, aceptado: 27 de agosto de 2019
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038

Plane trusses optimization by means of parametric design and genetic algorithms

applying visual programming
Optimización de cerchas planas mediante diseño paramétrico y algoritmos genéticos
aplicando programación visual
Begliardo-Olivero Hugo Félix Bonelli-Hernández Matías
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Universidad Tecnológica Nacional
Facultad Regional Rafaela, Argentina Facultad Regional Rafaela, Argentina
Departamento de Ingeniería Civil Departamento de Ingeniería Civil
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5969-5949 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3917-4035

Abstract
The optimization of structures is a wished goal, but it is not always achieved in engineering practice, due to either the large additional
effort that it demands or the lack of necessary resources to carry it out. Structural engineers usually use batch procedures, consisting
of utilizing the software, in which data are input, running the analysis and evaluating the results, along which it is decided whether
the design is accepted or modifications must be made, in which case the process is repeated again. The consequence of this is that
the final result, normally, will always be improvable. For that reason, the field of optimization has usually been reserved to the acade-
mia. The new currents of structural engineering seek optimization by means of parametric design and evolutionary computing. As an
additional contribution to the use of these resources, the objective of this work is to present an algorithm developed through visual
programming for sizing, shape and topology optimization of plane trusses of the classic Howe, Pratt or Warren typologies, and to
highlight the advantages that the use of this resource provides for the professional work of structural engineers, since it allows them
to develop their own algorithms without the need of previous knowledge of programming, and to achieve economic and environ-
mental benefits from saving materials. All this configures a clear transfer of the advances of computer technology to professional
practice, extending the frontiers of the academic sphere. As an example of application, a truss analyzed by traditional methods,
without optimizing, and the same truss optimized with the aforementioned algorithm, are compared.
Keywords: Structural optimization, plane trusses, parametric design, genetic algorithms, visual programming.

Resumen
La optimización de estructuras es un fin anhelado, pero no siempre se concreta en la práctica de la ingeniería, bien sea por el ingen-
te esfuerzo adicional que demanda o por no contarse con los recursos necesarios para llevarlo a cabo. El ingeniero estructural habi-
tualmente utiliza procedimientos tipo lote, consistentes en emplear software donde se ingresan los datos, se ejecuta el análisis y se
evalúan los resultados sobre los que se decide si se acepta el diseño o se le deben practicar modificaciones, en cuyo caso el proceso
se vuelve a repetir. Consecuencia de ello es que el resultado final, normalmente, será susceptible a mejoras, de allí que el campo de
la optimización usualmente ha quedado reservado al ámbito académico. Las nuevas corrientes de la ingeniería estructural procuran
la optimización apoyándose en el diseño paramétrico y la computación evolutiva. Como aporte adicional al empleo de estos medios,
el objetivo de este trabajo es presentar un algoritmo desarrollado mediante programación visual para la optimización de las seccio-
nes, forma y topología de celosías planas de tipologías clásicas, como: Howe, Pratt o Warren. Asimismo, destacar las ventajas que
provee el empleo de este recurso para la labor profesional del ingeniero estructural, al permitirle desarrollar sus propios algoritmos
sin necesidad de conocimientos previos de programación, y lograr beneficios tanto económicos como medioambientales a partir del
ahorro de materiales. Todo ello configura un claro traslado de los avances de la tecnología informática a la práctica profesional, ex-
cediendo las fronteras de las aplicaciones académicas. Como ejemplo de aplicación se compara una armadura analizada mediante
procedimientos tradicionales, sin optimizar, y la misma armadura optimizada con el algoritmo mencionado.
Descriptores: Optimización estructural, cerchas planas, diseño paramétrico, algoritmos genéticos, programación visual.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Plane trusses optimization by means of parametric design and genetic algorithms applying visual programming

Introduction A general structural optimization (SO) problem can

be defined as the search for the minimization of an ob-
The goal is the design jective function (f), under restrictions imposed by the de-
sign variables (which can be modified during the
In civil construction practice, when projecting a buil- optimization process, as e.g. the shape or the material
ding, the natural way of proceeding is that the architect election), the state variables (related with the structural
proposes the forms, and the engineer runs the structu- response) and the satisfaction of compatibility and
ral analysis based on those forms that, generally, have a equilibrium equations, which are expressed by means
previous structural design of the structure with a cer- of state equation in linear analysis (Christensen & Klar-
tain geometric rigidity. After a first analysis, any neces- bring, 2008).
sary modification to the original proposal needs the In mathematical terms, a SO problem consists of ob-
agreement of the parties in order to continue with the taining those values of the n design variables
analysis until the project is definitively closed.
This iterative batch process, consisting of running x = (x1 , x2 , x3 , ... , xn) (1)
the analysis, evaluating the results and modifying some
parameters to finally arrive at an acceptable solution, is that minimize an objective function (weight, cost, etc.)
used by the majority of structural engineers and, usua-
lly, relies on heuristic rules where experience plays an f (x) = f(x1 , x2 , x3 , ... , xn) (2)
important role (Figure 1a). However, it does not mean
that the solution reached is the optimal one, nor that it or more than one
cannot be improved in terms of the tensional behavior
and the economy of the materials. f (x) = [ f1(x), f2(x), f3(x), ... , fm(x)] (3)
The fact is that, normally, engineers do not deal
with the structural design as a primary goal (Norris et under a set of r restrictions
al., 1977). Instead, they focus on the structural analysis,
which would be the final step of the design process, gi (x1 , x2 , x3 , ... , xn) ≤ 0; i = 1, 2, ..., r (4)
and carry out the calculus as a tool to check the fitness
of shapes and dimensions to support the loads (Torroja, that shall be taken into account in order to limit the
2007). search space and allow the solution to be feasible.
A correct design of a structure implies its optimiza- This requires the service of specific tools. However,
tion, which means dealing with those methods that since this kind of resources is still scarce and demands
allow to choose the best possible solutions changing the its development under an interdisciplinary approach
transverse sections, geometric shape, topology or the between architects, engineers, and computer scientists
material properties (Dimčić, 2011), (Figure 1b). It is not (Jones, 2013; Ochsendorf, 2006), traditionally the opti-
sufficient, therefore, to satisfy only resistance, stability mization treatment has been reserved for the academic
and shape requirements of such an initial architectural world.
proposal.

a) Conventional design process b) Optimal design process

Figure 1. Flow charts of the design

processes of structures (Source: Adapted
from Hernández (1993))

2 I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 4), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Begliardo-Olivero Hugo Félix, Bonelli-Hernández Matías

There are many analysis tools in the market, but rithm. These new computer tools allow the unification
scarce ones to achieve good structural forms (Ochsen- of engineering design processes and the achievement of
dorf, 2006, 2012). In practice, engineers normally use structural shapes, both free and complex, as well as pre-
classic structural analysis software for design purposes cise and efficient (Maltagliatti, 2016).
(Clune, 2010). However, this does not guarantee opti-
mal solutions, or something close to them. As the struc-
AIM
tural performance depends on geometry, that focus
will lead to structures of low efficiency (Danhaive & The aim of this work is to present an algorithm develo-
Mueller, 2015). ped by visual programming, for the optimization of the
This fact is clearly evident in plane and space trus- sections, shape and topology of plane trusses, taking as
ses, structural types widely used in industrial sheds, an example its application to a real structure, and
sports pavilions, among others, which have a signifi- highlighting the advantages that the use of this compu-
cant incidence in the final construction cost. ter resource provides for the professional work of struc-
In consequence, faced with the query of how to re- tural engineers, allowing them to develop their own
solve the problem of achieving optimized designs for algorithms without the need of previous knowledge of
trusses, with efficiency and economy of materials, new programming.
streams of structural engineering seek optimization by
means of parametric design and evolutive computing. Methodology

Parametric design with visual programming and Algorithm description

genetic algorithms: A suitable and promising path
By means of Grasshopper, version 0.9.0076, an algo-
The basis of parametric design comprises a set of digital rithm was developed by the authors for the optimiza-
tools that allow the user to generate geometries on the tion of plane trusses in relation to their own weight,
basis of the definition of a family of initial parameters which makes it possible to choose between three typo-
and the programming of the formal relations between logies: Howe, Pratt or Warren. The boundary condi-
them (Salcedo, 2012). At present, parametric design soft- tions (supports, loads), the input parameters (material,
ware packages operating with visual programming, section library) and other restraints are introduced
such as Grasshopper (Robert McNeel & Associates, from Karamba, version 1.1.0 (Preisinger C. and Bollin-
2015b), which run inside the geometric modeling soft- ger-Grohmann-Schneider ZT GmbH, 2015), a parame-
ware Rhinoceros (Robert McNeel & Associates, 2015c), tric software of structural analysis by finite element
have paved the way significantly for structural engi- method that operates as a Grasshopper plug-in and
neers to develop their own algorithms for the modeling that, in addition to providing the structural responses,
and resolution of practical cases of different complexity allows the optimization of the sections of each bar
within their professional expertise. through an iterative process of stresses and displace-
Visual programming has become a powerful and ments control.
accessible tool to provide a versatile and simple langua- The optimal distribution of the material in bars
ge that does not require prior programming knowledge structures (topological optimization) is given by the
to generate the algorithm to solve problematic situa- search for the best interconnectivity among its mem-
tions (Danhaive & Mueller, 2015). bers (Hultman, 2010) so that during the resolution pro-
The aforementioned software, complemented with cess the removal of some of them takes place
structural analysis plug-ins by means of finite elements, (Christensen & Klarbring, 2008). When it lacks control,
and the implementation of evolutionary methods of this type of optimization generally leads to structures
optimization by means of genetic algorithms (GAs), of great efficiency but very difficult to materialize. Hen-
make it possible to reach structurally efficient shapes ce, to achieve a tool that can be applied in professional
with minimization of materials. practice it is necessary to establish design limits. For
The GA optimization technique produces a range of this reason, the algorithm developed does not generate
possible optimal solutions, based on objective functions free form structures but is limited to the indicated typo-
that define the design criteria. Likewise, the parametric logies (Bonelli & Begliardo, 2016).
design allows the introduction of a significant number Through Galapagos (Robert McNeel & Associates,
of variables, making it possible to evaluate a large num- 2015a), an evolutionary solver by genetic algorithms that
ber of geometric configurations with the same algo- operates as an add-on of Grasshopper modifying the

I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 3), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Plane trusses optimization by means of parametric design and genetic algorithms applying visual programming

design variables within established domains, an initial shown to establish the length of the truss to be optimi-
population of possible solutions (individuals) is created. zed, and the adopted value of the clear span.
This is then subjected to selection, crossing and muta- Each modification of a variable creates a new struc-
tion processes, for which an evaluating function is used ture, and the totality of the combinations establishes the
to determine which individuals are the fittest that will solution set, that is, the search space of the optimal
survive and which will be discarded. This evaluator, truss.
called fitness, is the weight of the truss. The lower the
weight, the greater the aptitude, and vice versa.
The objective function
Through the repetition of the selection, combina-
tion, and mutation process of individuals, new genera- In structural engineering, this function usually descri-
tions evolve towards the individual with the best bes a minimization problem. In this case, what has been
fitness. When an individual becomes stable during n sought is the structure of minimum weight w(x), as it is
generations, without the appearance of a better new a decisive factor in its final cost, and it is associated with
one, a global optimum or an individual near to it has a lower consumption of material.
been obtained, and the process stops. As a consequence Assuming that each i bar has a straight direction
of this, the cross-section size of each bar, the shape, and and constant cross-sectional area Ai in its entire length
the truss topology (expressed in the gaps number) have li, on the basis of (2), the result is:
been optimized.
1
The screen image of Figure 2 shows the assembly of f ( x) = (5)
the aforementioned software in the algorithm under the w( x)
Rhinoceros (version 5.0) modeling software environment.
Where:

Design variables t
w( x)
= ∑=
AlY; i i i i
1, 2,... , t (bars) (6)
The variable parameters constitute the degrees of free- i

dom of the problem that allows for the definition of the

structural geometry. A usual way of expressing them γi being the specific weight of the material, which is
has been indicated in (1). Each of them has a domain usually the same for the entire structure.
defined by a maximum value and a minimum value.
Figure 3 defines the variable parameters used in the Imposed restrictions
algorithm, while Figure 4 shows, on the left, its defini-
tion in Grasshopper based on sliders that allow variabi- In addition to the restrictions imposed by the design
lity. On the right, the domain predefined by the user is variables, the algorithm establishes behavioral limita-

Figure 2. Applied software

4 I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 4), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Begliardo-Olivero Hugo Félix, Bonelli-Hernández Matías

Figure 3. Design variables

Figure 4. Design variables in Grasshopper

L
tions on the state variables and the verification of the δ ≤ δ max = (9)
state equation: k

a) Behavioral restrictions: The axial load Pi in each where L is the clear span of the structure and k is the
bar i, both in tension and compression, must not deflection factor which, for trusses, usually takes a va-
exceed the maximum value Pui that can resist the lue between 200 ≤ k ≤ 300.
material, nor suffer from problems of local instabi-
lity. b) Equilibrium restrictions: State equation in the linear
static analysis must be verified
Pi ≤ Pui (7)
Ku = P (10)
Pui is determined by the yield stress Fyi of the material.
Assuming that it is unique, then where:

Pui = Fy.Ai (8) K = rigidity matrix of the structure

u = vector of the unknown nodal displacements
The deflection δ at any point in the structure must not P = vector of external forces
exceed a predefined δmax value or a value set by regula-
tion

I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 3), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM 5
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Plane trusses optimization by means of parametric design and genetic algorithms applying visual programming

That is to say, the optimal structure of lower weight Through the application of the developed algorithm,
will be obtained from the point of view of resistance, the optimal design (weight minimization) of the truss
and that is the one that allows the maximum use of the was sought for the isostatic condition variant applied in
material, fulfilling the equilibrium and compatibility the idealized model of the original structure and, addi-
conditions given by (10) (Gil & Andreu, 1999). tionally, for three more options of external supports,
which are indicated in Table 1 as Cases 1 to 4. In all of
them, the response was evaluated for the profile classes
Applied standards
CFCS and CHS (circular hollow section).
The algorithm implements argentine standards (INTI- Case 1 (CFCS) is similar to the idealized model in
CIRSOC Regulations and specific IRAM Standards), in the constructed structure, and Case 4 (CFCS) is the one
addition to Karamba’s own library of sections. Howe- that most resembles the one materialized on the buil-
ver, the addition of any other regulations is feasible, ding site.
requiring the introduction of simple modifications. Argentina structural safety regulations were applied
(CIRSOC, 2018), considering all combinations of loads
prescribed for the region where the structure was built,
Example
with the dead weight (D), imposed loads (IL), wind
As an example of application to a real case, a Howe loads (WL), concentrated loads (P) and thermal varia-
truss of 20 m clear span corresponding to a built indus- tion (ΔT). The Argentine Structural Security Regula-
trial shed located in the central region of Argentina (Fi- tions, second generation, are based on US codes. In
gure 5) was taken for analysis and comparison. The particular, in the area of metallic structures, the rules of
structural engineer analyzed it as a simply supported the AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) are
beam leaning on two columns. applied.
However, in the building site, the supports were By default, the algorithm uses F-24 steel (equivalent
welded to columns, generating boundary conditions to ASTM A36), although it can be modified. According
that modified the internal forces in truss members. The to the regulations, δmax = L / 300 was adopted for the
following are the constructive details: design.
In relation to the cross-sections, in addition to those
• Bars composed of cold-formed C sections (CFCS). included in Karamba, there is a library of steel profiles
• Heights: 0.50 m (lateral edge); 1.00 m (central). according to the standards of the Instituto Argentino de
• Loads types: dead load (DL), imposed loads (IL) and Normalización (IRAM, 2018), which makes it possible
wind loads (WL). to include other standards if necessary by means of the
• Idealized supports for analysis: roller support-hin- addition of a spreadsheet.
ged support (isostatic). On the basis of the clear span of the original truss,
• Materialization of supports on site: fixed (welded) Table 2 indicates the numeric domain of the geometri-
on columns. cal design variables applied to the algorithm.
• Truss´s weight (considering only profiles): 4.473 kN. Figure 6 illustrates the configuration of the geome-
tric domain in which the search space for the best solu-
tion was delimited.

Figure 5. The analyzed structure

6 I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 4), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Begliardo-Olivero Hugo Félix, Bonelli-Hernández Matías

Table 1. Analyzed cases (Howe type)

Supports Degree of redundancy Profile
Case 1 R-H 0 (Isostatic) CFCS CHS
Case 2 H-H 1 (Hyperstatic) CFCS CHS
Case 3 H-F 2 (Hyperstatic) CFCS CHS
Case 4 F-F 3 (Hyperstatic) CFCS CHS
Notations: R (roller); H (hinged); F (fixed)
CFCS (Cold-formed C section); CHS (circular hollow section)

Table 2. Parameters domains

Design variables Minimum Maximum Observations
Left end-post height (hi) 0.00 m 1.00 m Floor level minimum distance: 5.50 m
Right end-post height (hd) 0.00 m 1.00 m Floor level minimum distance: 5.50 m
Left edge elevation (Δa) 0.00 m 0.00 m See Figure 6
Left top-chord height (Δ1) 0.50 m 3.00 m See Figure 6
Left bottom-chord height (Δ2) -1.00 m 4.00 m Floor level minimum distance: 4.50 m
Maximun height (ht) 0.00 m 4.00 m It is not a variable: ht = hi + Δ1- Δ2
N° of segments (gaps between 16 24 Purlins support distance:
vertical bars) 0.80 m to 1.25 m
Profiles CFCS - CHS According to IRAM (2018)

Results and discussion It is observed from the table that, in full optimiza-
tion, for case 4 (CFCS) the reduction in weight would be
In the runs analyzed, initial populations of 100 or 150 in- 50 %, a fact that warns us about the importance of mo-
dividuals were applied, with stopping criteria determi- deling a structure in the way that it effectively will be
ned by the repetition of the most suitable genome for built (Bonelli & Begliardo, 2016).
100 generations, which led to a number comprised bet- Figure 8 shows schematically, and for comparative
ween 104 and 501 iterations, depending on the case. purposes, the external shape that the optimized truss
Table 3 shows the results of the four cases analyzed takes depending on the type of external supports with
(optimized design variables, weight, and L/ht ratio). which it is modeled. As it can be seen, there is a qualita-
For the simply supported condition (Case 1), the tive leap in the configuration when going from the isos-
application of the developed algorithm led to a structu- tatic case (Figure 8a) to the hyperstatic case since one
ral form that adapts to the law of bending moments (Fi- additional restriction is incorporated (Figure 8b). This
gure 7), a conclusion also observed by Gil & Andreu external form, substantially, does not change in the re-
(1999) for these cases. maining two cases (Figures 8c and 8d). Likewise, from
Weights indicated in Table 3 refer to the full optimi- Table 3 it appears that the weight decreases signifi-
zation, bar to bar, which for Case 1 (CFCS) leads to 8 cantly in the hyperstatic cases, being Case 2 (hinged-
different profiles, meaning a weight reduction close to hinged supports) the one which leads to the lighter
39 %. In practice, this presents drawbacks at the mo- structure.
ment of constructing the truss, either due to difficulties The topological optimization is shown in the number
in the assembly between one bar and the other, or be- of cavities (16 for Case 1 (CFCS) compared), tending to the
cause of the increase in the cost of labor. Normally, in minimum possible value within the domain of the varia-
these circumstances, the sections in chords, verticals, tion of the segments, which are pre-defined by the user as
and diagonals are homogenized to gain constructive a design variable (16-24 according to Table 2). This will
simplification. In this situation, adopting 4 different happen as long as the cross-sections of the library of avai-
sections for the CFSC profile (one of them for the top lable commercial profiles support the tension or compres-
chord, one for the bottom chord, one for both left and sion loads to which the bars will be subject.
right end posts, and the fourth one for the rest of the It also emerges from the aforementioned table that,
inside members), for the cited variant that is compared, in all cases, the use of SCH profiles leads to structures
the reduction will be close to 25 %. of lower weight than CFCS.

I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 3), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM 7
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Plane trusses optimization by means of parametric design and genetic algorithms applying visual programming

Figure 6. The geometric domain of the

truss

Table 3. Optimal design of the truss: values obtained

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Design variables CFCS CHS CFCS CHS CFCS CHS CFCS CHS
Left end-post height (hi) 0.85 0.98 0.90 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.94
Right end-post height (hd) 0.89 0.97 0.96 0.91 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.00
Left top-chord height (Δ1) 0.50 0.54 1.95 1.93 1.60 1.76 2.08 2.03
Left bottom-chord height (Δ2) -0.96 -1.00 2.03 1.85 1.93 1.70 2.20 2.05
Maximum height (ht) 2.31 2.52 0.82 1.07 1.00 1.06 0.88 0.92
N° of segments 16 18 18 22 20 22 16 24
Clear span/ maximum height
8.6 7.9 24.4 18.7 20 18.9 22.7 21.7
ratio (L/ht)
Weight (kN) 2.744 2.247 2.079 1.545 2.198 1.661 2.231 1.715
Note: Units are in meters (m); Weights in kN (kilonewton)

Figure 7. Case 1: The final shape of the

optimized truss

Figure 8. Schematics of the geometric

shape that the truss takes, according to
the kind of supports (Source: Bonelli &
Begliardo (2016))

8 I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 4), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Begliardo-Olivero Hugo Félix, Bonelli-Hernández Matías

An output of the remarkable results of Karamba, in http://www.cimec.org.ar/ojs/index.php/mc/article/viewFi-

the framework of the search for sizing optimization, is le/4994/4926
that makes possible to know the advantages of the ma- Christensen, P. & Klarbring, A. (2008). An Introduction to Structural
terial bar to bar, in relation to its resistance capacity, a Optimization. (G.M.L. Gladwell, Ed.), 1st ed. Waterloo (Onta-
fact that allows structural engineers to regulate it accor- rio): Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
ding to their needs and restrictions. 4020-8666-3
As a complementary contribution to the informa- CIRSOC. (2018). Centro de Investigación de los Reglamentos Na-
tion, Bonelli & Begliardo (2016) provide results for the cionales de Seguridad ara las Obras Civiles. Retrieved from
four cases with the Pratt type truss variant. https://www.inti.gob.ar/cirsoc/index.html
Clune, R.P. (2010). Explorative Structural Design. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.
Conclusions
net/1721.1/60798
An algorithm has been developed through visual pro- Danhaive, R.A. & Mueller, C.T. (2015). Combining parametric mo-
gramming for structural optimization of sizing, shape, deling and interactive optimization for high-performance and
and topology of plane trusses based on parametric de- creative structural design. In Proceedings of the International
sign and genetic algorithms, with structural analysis Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) (pp. 1-15).
resolution by the finite element method. Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://digitalstructures.mit.edu/
The field of structural optimization has been long files/2015-09/iass2015-524698.pdf
questioned by engineers for its impracticalities in engi- Dimčić, M. (2011). Structural optimization of grid shells based on gene-
neering practice (Clune, 2010). In this paper, paraphra- tic algorithms. Universität Stuttgart.
sing this author, it has been demonstrated that the Gil, L. & Andreu, A. (1999). Diseño óptimo de celosías planas con
proposed resources are relevant and beneficial, and criterios de estado límite último. Revista inrternacional de méto-
that they provide techniques to explore the design spa- dos numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería, 15, 447-460.
ce in an optimal way, leading to structural designs that Hernández, S. (1993). Del diseño convencional al diseño óptimo.
are feasible and can be built with less material and costs Posibilidades y variantes. Parte I. Análisis de sensibilidad y
than structures designed by conventional software. optimización local y global. Revista inrternacional de métodos
Additionally, all this contributes to environmental sus- numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería, 9(1), 91-110.
tainability, a premise that, as indicated by Ochsendorf Hultman, M. (2010). Weight optimization of steel trusses by a ge-
(2012), should always be sought in the field of structu- netic algorithm. Size, shape and topology optimization accor-
res. ding to Eurocode. Lund University. Retrieved from http://
These resources allow structural engineers to custo- www.kstr.lth.se/fileadmin/kstr/pdf_files/Exjobb/TVBK-5000_
mize algorithms in order to apply them to their current pdf/TVBK-5176MH.pdf
practice without the need for prior programming IRAM. (2018). Instituto Argentino de Normalización y Certifica-
knowledge, making it possible to transfer advances in ción. Retrieved from http://www.iram.org.ar
computer technology to professional practice and to ex- Jones, G.P. (2013). Interoperable software for parametric structural
tend the frontiers of academic applications. analysis and optimization. Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
gy. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/82713
Maltagliatti, I. (2016). Diseño paramétrico de estereo estructuras
Acknowledgments
con optimización de secciones. In U.T.N. F.R.Villa María
This work is part of Matías Bonelli’s bachelor’s thesis (Ed.), CYTAL 2016. 7a Jornada de Ciencia y Tecnología (p. 6).
for his civil engineering degree, which was directed by Villa María, Argentina: edUTecNe. Retrieved from http://
Hugo F. Begliardo and developed in the framework of cytal.frvm.utn.edu.ar/q/tf/7/32
R&D Project #2298 funded by the National Technologi- Norris, C.H., Wilbur, J.B. & Utku, S. (1977). Elementary structural
cal University, Argentina, to which we express our sin- analysis, 3rd.ed. Singapore: Mc Graw-Hill.
cere thanks. Ochsendorf, J. (2006). New tools for structural design. Retrieved from
https://www.ibpsa.us/sites/default/files/publications/SB06_
An-6.pdf
References
Ochsendorf, J. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for Low-car-
Bonelli, M. & Begliardo, H.F. (2016). Optimización de armaduras bon buildings, 37. Retrieved from https://www.nae.edu/File.
planas mediante diseño paramétrico y algoritmos genéticos: aspx?id=57879
Efectos de la no correspondencia objeto real-modelo idealiza- Preisinger C. & Bollinger-Grohmann-Schneider ZT GmbH. (2015).
do. Mecánica Computacional, XXXIV, 501-515. Retrieved from Karamba. Retrieved from https://www.karamba3d.com/

I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 3), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM 9
http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2019.20n4.038
Plane trusses optimization by means of parametric design and genetic algorithms applying visual programming

Robert McNeel & Associates. (2015a). Galapagos. Retrieved from

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/galapagos
Robert McNeel & Associates. (2015b). Grasshopper. Retrieved
from http://www.grasshopper3d.com/
Robert McNeel & Associates. (2015c). Rhinoceros. Retrieved from
http://www.rhino3d.com
Salcedo-Lagos, P. (2012). Análisis paramétrico de volúmenes ar-
quitectónicos con algoritmos genéticos (Parametric analysis of
architectural volumes through genetic algorithms). Hábitat
Sustentable, 2 (1), 47-58.
Torroja-Miret, E. (2007). Razón y ser de los tipos estructurales, 3a ed.
Madrid: Doce Calles.

10 I ngeniería I nvestigación y T ecnología , volumen XX (número 4), octubre-diciembre 2019: 1-10 ISSN 2594-0732 FI-UNAM