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

net/publication/361931642

The Mosaic of Metaheuristic Algorithms in Structural Optimization

Article in Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · July 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s11831-022-09773-0

CITATIONS READS

13 560

3 authors:

Nikos Lagaros Vagelis Plevris

National Technical University of Athens Qatar University
272 PUBLICATIONS 5,889 CITATIONS 141 PUBLICATIONS 2,117 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nikos A. Kallioras
National Technical University of Athens
24 PUBLICATIONS 317 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nikos Lagaros on 15 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The mosaic of metaheuristic algorithms in structural
optimization
Nikos D. Lagaros1,a, Vagelis Plevrisb, and Nikos Ath. Kalliorasa,c
a
Institute of Structural Analysis & Antiseismic Research,
School of Civil Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens,
9, Heroon Polytechniou Str., Zografou Campus,
GR-15780 Athens, Greece,
E-mail: nlagaros@central.ntua.gr, kallioras.nikos@gmail.com
b
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering,
College of Engineering, Qatar University
P.O. Box: 2713, Doha, Qatar
E-mail: vplevris@qu.edu.qa
c
Infersence,
1, Georgiou Mpakou Str., GR-11524, Athens, Greece,
E-mail: info@infersence.com

Abstract. Metaheuristic optimization algorithms (MOAs) represent powerful tools for dealing with
multi-modal nonlinear optimization problems. The considerable attention that MOAs have received
over the last decade and especially when adopted for dealing with several types of structural
optimization problems can be mainly credited to the advances achieved in computer science and
computer technology rendering possible, among others, the solution of real-world structural design
optimization cases in reasonable computational time. The primal scope of the study is to present a
state-of-the-art review of past and current developments achieved so far in structural optimization
problems dealt with MOAs, accompanied by a set of tests aiming to examine the efficiency of various
MOAs in several benchmark structural optimization problems. For this purpose, 24 population-based
state-of-the-art MOAs belonging in four classes, (i) swarm-based; (ii) physics-based; (iii)
evolutionary-based; and (iv) human-based, are used for solving 11 single objective benchmark
structural optimization test problems of different levels of complexity. The size of the problems
employed varies, with the number of unknowns ranging from 3 to 328 and the number of constraint
functions ranging from 2 to 264, related to the structural performance of the design with reference to
deformation and stress limits.

Keywords. Metaheuristic optimization algorithms; structural optimization; swarm intelligence,

evolutionary computation.

1
Corresponding author
1
1. INTRODUCTION

During the last decades, the Architectural, Design and Construction (ADC) industry has shown
excessive innovation both in the theoretical and its practical directions [1]. These innovations could
not be made possible without the advancements in fields related to computational mechanics, which
played a critical role [2]. These developments made it possible not only to provide solutions to
complex traditional problems in engineering, but also to propose novel mathematical formulations
and solving techniques for practical applications, leading to innovative, unique, economic and more
environmental-friendly structural systems [3]. Nowadays, modern numerical tools are available to
provide enormous capabilities to architects and engineers, by fulfilling the demands of the analysis
and design procedures.

During the last three decades, metaheuristic optimization algorithms (MOAs) have conquered many
areas of engineering optimization, structural design optimization problems included, due to the
easiness of implementation, their simplified nature, and mainly due to their efficiency in dealing with
NP-complete problems. Structural design optimization (SDO) explains the procedure of proposing
improved designs of structures with respect to material or construction cost, manufacturability,
structural performance, among other design criteria. Several researchers have tried to make a
systematic review and organize the broad research literature on optimization algorithms in general,
or metaheuristics in particular, applied to structural optimization problems. Sahab et al. [4] performed
a review on traditional and modern structural optimization problems and solution techniques. Kashani
et al. [5] did a similar review work, focusing on population-based optimization methods applied in
structural engineering, while Bekdaş et al. [6] presenting a review on metaheuristic algorithms and
their applications in civil engineering optimization problems, highlighting the recent progress and the
state-of-the-art developments in the field. On the other hand, Yang et al. [7] focused their review on
the applications of metaheuristic algorithms in civil engineering problems, particularly.

Most real-world structural design optimization problems are expressed in standard mathematical
terms through highly nonlinear and multimodal expressions. A single objective non-linear
programming (NLP) problem can be formulated as follows:
Optimize 𝑓(𝑠),
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜
𝑔𝑎 (𝑠) ≤ 0, 𝑎 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑚𝑎 (1)
ℎ𝑏 (𝑠) = 0, 𝑏 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑚𝑏
𝑙𝑏𝑗 ≤ 𝑠𝑗 ≤ 𝑢𝑏𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑛
where 𝑓(𝑠) is the objective function (e.g. minimizing the weight of the structure that is related to the
material requirements, improving the structural performance characterized for instance by the modal
characteristics of the structural system, etc.), 𝑔𝑎 (𝑠) is the ath inequality constraint, ℎ𝑏 (𝑠) is the bth
equality constraint, while 𝑙𝑏𝑗 and 𝑢𝑏𝑗 denote the lower and upper limits, respectively, of the jth

2
component of the design variable vector 𝑠 of size 𝑛. It has to be noted that in the majority of structural
optimization problems, no equality constraints are used for the problem formulation.

The scope of the present study is two-fold; first to review the achievements of the past and to present
the future challenges through the state-of-the-art development of MOAs when used for solving
structural optimization problems (SOPs). Then, in the second part of the study, several well-known
MOAs are tested into typical and large-scale benchmark structural optimization problems, where the
common characteristics and the similarities among the chosen MOAs are also presented. There are
three categories of SOPs, namely (a) sizing; (b) shape; and (c) topology optimization. In addition,
when uncertainty is involved into the problem formulation, two general types of problems can be
described, namely reliability-based structural optimization and robust design optimization problems
[8]. The structure of the work begins with the presentation of the history of the integration of MOAs
with the various types of structural optimization problems. Subsequently, the 24 MOAs chosen for
being tested into 11 benchmark structural optimization problems are briefly described. The selected
MOAs cover a wide range of metaheuristic algorithms with different characteristics and nature, from
well-known and well-established algorithms to the most recent and most promising ones that
represent the latest trends in this research field. The implementation of these algorithms relies on the
MATLAB codes provided by the developers of the corresponding MOAs, while the special features
of each algorithm implementation together with the basis of comparison are provided in the next
chapter of this study. In the last chapter, the numerical tests are presented, classified into two groups;
in the first one three well known truss-structure problems are presented together with the welded
beam, pressure vessel and the tension-compression string design problems. In the second group, five
large-scale sizing-shape structural optimization problems are investigated, taken from the
International Student Competition in Structural Optimization (ISCSO 2015 to 2019) [9-13].

2. THE HISTORY OF MOAS IN STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION

Over the last few decades, the so-called “metaheuristic techniques” have been developed, to provide
near-to-optimum solutions to various problems [14]. They are especially tailored to hard optimization
problems that are difficult or even impossible to be optimized by the exact-optimal techniques, such
as linear programming (LP) [15], non-linear programming (NLP) [16], integer programming (IP)
[17], and dynamic programming (DP) [18]. Initially, these new techniques were called “Heuristics”
and each such algorithm was exclusively developed to handle a specific problem [19], without having
any “global” problem solving properties. After a while, the researchers started to generalize these
algorithms, building wider solving frameworks that could be used to solve wider problems of any
nature. This group of global solvers is nowadays known as “Metaheuristics” [20].

There are two main classifications of the fundamental mechanisms used in metaheuristic optimization
algorithms: (i) diversification and (ii) intensification [21]. The main difference between these two is
3
that diversification tries to diverge the search in an attempt to explore the entire solution space, while
intensification simply pushes the search towards the already found best solutions. Metaheuristics can
be classified according to various criteria, such as (i) population-based or single-solution-based; (ii)
trajectory or discontinuous; (iii) memoryless or using memory; (iv) local-oriented or global-oriented,
among others.

Figure 1 displays Metaheuristics of various types where they have been first classified according to
whether they use a population of solutions (population-based metaheuristics) or not (single-based
metaheuristics). Single-based metaheuristics use a single solution at each run while population-based
ones maintain a set of solutions (population) at each run. As shown in the figure, the class of
population-based metaheuristics can be further classified into four main categories: (i) swarm-based,
(ii) physics-based, (iii) evolutionary-based, and (iv) human-based. Swarm-based methods use swarm
intelligence (SI) approaches that mimic the behaviour of swarms in nature. Evolutionary-based
algorithms or evolutionary algorithms (EA) are inspired by the evolutionary phenomena in nature and
they usually use three operators: selection, recombination and mutation. Physics-based methods are
inspired by and related to physical phenomena while Human-based methods are related to human
activities and the human behaviour. The original figure with the classification of the algorithms, that
appears in [22], includes 45 algorithms. In the new version of this figure (Figure 1) we have added 9
additional algorithms and as a result the final scheme contains 54 algorithms in total. Of them, 24,
denoted with bold letters and a thicker border in the figure, are examined in detail in the present study,
as will be discussed in the next sections.

4
 Metaheuristics

Population-based Single-based
metaheuristics metaheuristics

Swarm-based Physics-based Evolutionary-based Human-based

Particle Swarm Central Force

Dragonfly Algorithm (DA) Genetic Algorithm (GA) Harmony Search (HS) Simulated Annealing (SA)
Optimization (PSO) Optimization (CFO)

Ant Colony Optimization Whale Optimization Gravitational Search Differential Evolution Imperialist Competitive
(ACO) Algorithm (WOA) Algorithm (GSA) (DE) Algorithm (ICA) Tabu Search (TS)

Artificial Bee Colony Crow Search Algorithm Big-Bang Big-Crunch Evolutionary FireWork Algorithm
(ABC) Algorithm (CSA) (BBBC) Programming (EP) (FWA)
Guided Local Search (GLS)

Cuckoo Search Algorithm Salp Swarm Algorithm Magnetic Charged Human Group Formation
Evolution Strategies (ES)
(CS) (SSA) System Search (MCSS) (HGF)

Iterated Local Search (ILS)

Grasshoper Optimization Electromagnetic Field Genetic Programming Teaching Learning-Based
Firefly Algorithm (FA)
Algorithm (GOA) Optimization (EFO) (GP) Algorithm (TLBA)

Probability-Based Stochastic Local Search

Water Evaporation Football Game Inspired (SLS)
Bat Algorithm (BA) GOA faster (GOAf) Incremental learning
Optimization (WEO) Algorithm (FGIA)
(PBIL)

Optics Inspired Biogeography-Based FA2

Interior Search Algorithm Variable Neighborhood
Krill Herd (KH) Ant Lion Optimizer (ALO)
Optimization (OIO) Optimizer (BBO) (ISA) Search (VNS)

Covariance Matrix FA3

Grey Wolf Optimizer Pity Beetle Algorithm Multi-Verse Optimizer
Adaptation Evolution Greedy Randomized
FA2
(GWO) (PBA) (MVO)
Strategies (CMAES) Adaptive Search
Procedure (GRASP)
Multi-Trial vector-based
Slime Mould Algorithm Thermal Exchange
Improved GWO (IGWO) Differential Evolution
(SMA) Optimization (TEO)
(MTDE)

Moth-Flame
Henry Gas Solubility
Optimization (MFO)
Optimization (HGSO)
Algorithm

Arithmetic Optimization
Algorithm (AOA)

Sine Cosine Algorithm

(SCA)

Figure 1. The mosaic of metaheuristic optimization algorithms.

In this section we try to identify the various ways that MOAs have been used in structural optimization
problems. These include benchmark structural optimization test problems for assessing the efficiency
of new MOAs, implementations of existing MOAs for solving new formulations of structural
optimization problems, methodologies for handling the excessive computational effort that MOAs
require for solving structural optimization problems, and others.

Deterministic structural optimization problems that do not involve uncertainties of any kind can be
classified into three broad categories: (i) sizing, (ii) shape, and (iii) topology optimization. In sizing
optimization, usually the design variables have to do with some geometric characteristics of the cross
sections of the members, for example in a truss or a frame structure, in 2D or 3D. In shape
optimization, the optimizer can change the locations of the nodes or other control points of the
geometry of the structure, changing this way the overall shape of the structure. In topology

5
optimization, the optimizer can completely change the topology of the structure, by adding or
removing elements, creating holes in slabs, etc. These three categories are not always discrete and
clearly distinguishable from each other. Many times, we end up with mixed sizing-shape structural
optimization problems, where both the geometric characteristics of the sections and the locations of
some nodes are subject to change. In other cases, we have mixed shape-topology optimization
problems where again the shape and the topology can be simultaneously changed by the optimizer.

2.1. New MOAs assessed through SOPs

The collection of metaheuristic algorithms is being continuously enriched with new methods and
new, improved variations of existing methodologies. Researchers keep proposing new optimization
schemes claiming that their performance is better than the one of other algorithms, at least in the
optimization test examples examined. Many times, these test examples come from the field of
structural engineering as these problems are usually some of the hardest to deal with. In other words,
the performance of a new MOA is assessed through structural optimization problems, instead of the
usual mathematical functions, or in addition to them.

Cuckoo search (CS) was originally presented by Yang and Deb [23] as a new metaheuristic based on
the obligate brood parasitic behaviour of some cuckoo species combined with the Lévy flight
behaviour of certain birds and fruit flies. The implementation of the algorithm involves Lévy flights
with random steps, providing random walk capabilities to the method. In another study [24], the same
authors applied the algorithm to solve engineering design optimisation problems, including the design
of springs and welded beam structures. In addition, Gandomi et al. [25] assessed the validity and
performance of the algorithm in handling SOPs. In particular, CS is assessed with several SOPs
including the design of a pin-jointed plane frame with a fixed base, the minimization of the vertical
deflection of an I-beam, the design of a piston component, the minimum-weight design of the
corrugated bulkhead for a tanker, the design of a cantilever beam and a tubular column, a three-bar
truss, a reinforced concrete beam design, and others. A multi-objective version of the CS algorithm
was proposed in [26] by Yang and Deb, assessed again through of structural design optimization
problems, such as beam design and disc brake design.

Cheng and Prayogo proposed the symbiotic organisms search (SOS) algorithm [27], a method which
simulates the symbiotic interaction strategies adopted by organisms to survive and propagate in an
ecosystem. To show the capabilities and the robustness of the algorithm, the authors used 26
mathematical problems as well as five engineering design problems including the design of a
cantilever beam, the minimization of the vertical deflection of an I-beam, and two plane truss
structures with 15 and 52 members. Yang proposed a Bat-inspired optimization algorithm [28], based
on the echolocation behaviour of bats, in an attempt to combine the advantages of existing algorithms.
The new algorithm is compared to GA and PSO in handling optimization problems. The method was

6
first assessed through engineering optimization problems in the work of Yang and Gandomi [29]
using eight nonlinear engineering optimization problems. Shadravan et al. [30] proposed the sailfish
optimizer, a metaheuristic inspired by a group of hunting sailfish, tailored in solving constrained
engineering optimization problems. The particularity of the algorithm is that it maintains two
populations, one of sailfish for intensification of the search around the best so far and one of sardines
for diversification of the search space. After evaluating the algorithm in 20 well known unimodal and
multimodal mathematical functions, the authors proceed with testing it in different engineering
optimization problems including an I-beam design problem, a Welded beam design problem, a Gear
train design problem, a 3-bar truss design problem and a Circular antenna array design problem.

Heidari et al. [31] introduced Harris hawks optimization (HHO), simulating the hunting behaviour of
Harris’ Hawks. The algorithm is inspired by the cooperative behaviour and chasing style of Harris’
hawks in nature, called surprise pounce, where hawks pounce a prey from different directions trying
to surprise it. The effectiveness and performance of the method is tested on 29 benchmark problems
and several real-world engineering design problems. Askarzadeh [32] introduced Crow search
algorithm in 2016, for solving constrained engineering design optimization problems. The algorithm
is based on the intelligent behaviour of crows and based on the idea that crows store their excess food
in hidden places and retrieve it when it is needed. The method is applied to six engineering design
problems with different natures and level of complexity. Eskandar et al. [33] proposed another nature-
inspired metaheuristic, the so called water cycle algorithm. The algorithm is based on the observation
of water cycle process and how rivers and streams flow to the sea in the real world. The algorithm
comes with an embedded constraint handling mechanism and is suited to handling constrained
engineering optimization problems.

2.2. MOAs for solving new formulations of sizing SOPs

Sizing optimization is one of the most important and arguably the most widely applied structural
optimization discipline because of the simplicity of the problem formulation and its practical
significance for the design of real-world structures composed of linear elements, such as columns,
beams and truss members. The class of sizing optimization problems was the first application of
optimization algorithms in structural engineering.

Farshi and Alinia-ziazi [34] proposed a new methodology for the design of truss structures with
optimum weight incorporating the force method based on the method of center points. The design
variables of the optimization problem are the cross-sectional areas of the members. The method
utilizes the largest hyperspheres inscribed within the feasible space and the analysis step is included
in the optimization cycle. Kociecki and Adeli [35] developed GA with two phases to solve the
problem of the design of space-frame roof structures with minimum weight (size optimization). They
compared their results with the ones obtained with the commercial design software SAP2000, against

7
the factors of: a) convergence improvement, b) computation time reduction, and c) practicality of the
optimum design. The advantages of this two-phase GA approach are the following: a) the design
process can be fully automated, even for one-of-a-kind structures, b) the design time, no longer based
on trial and error, can be drastically reduced, and c) a lighter and more economic design can be
achieved.

Hasançebi et al. [36] investigated the use of genetic algorithms (GA), simulated annealing (SA),
evolution strategies (ES), particle swarm optimizer, tabu search, ant colony optimization (ACO) and
harmony search (HS) in the optimum design of real size pin jointed structures, where design
limitations were imposed based on the allowable stress design code of American Institute of Steel
Institution (ASD-AISC). The authors claim that HS and GA are characterized by slow convergence
in large-scale problems, while SA and ES proved to be powerful techniques. Kaveh et al. [37]
presented a performance-based optimal seismic design of frame structures using the ACO method.
The structural response at various seismic performance levels, is simulated and evaluated using non-
linear push-over analysis. The authors claim that ACO is more capable than GA for handling this
type of problems and the relevant results are illustrated via two example steel frame structures.
Moayyeri et al. [38] applied the PSO algorithm for the optimum design of reinforced concrete
retaining walls taking into account both geotechnical and structural constraints for the optimization
problem and considering different methods of the bearing capacity computation.

Gholizadeh and Milany [39] proposed an improved fireworks algorithm [40] (IFWA) for discrete
sizing optimization of steel skeletal structures. The algorithm features the possibility of interaction
among different solutions during the optimization process. IFWA is employed to deal with the
discrete structural optimization problems of steel frames and trusses. Bureerat and Pholdee [41]
proposed an adaptive differential evolution algorithm for the solution of optimal truss sizing
problems. The method is based on DE while a strategically adaptive scheme is also employed,
together with an effective constraint handling technique for dealing with constrained structural
optimization problems. Hasançebi and Kazemzadeh [42] employed an exponential big bang-big
crunch algorithm for the discrete design optimization of steel frames. Two real-world numerical
design examples are used, including a 132-member unbraced steel frame and a 209-member industrial
factory building. The method proved to be robust and efficient in tackling practical design
optimization instances of steel frames. Another work on the optimum design of steel structures is the
one by Lagaros et al. [43] where the optimum design of 3D steel structures with perforated I-section
beams is examined. The problem is formulated as a combined sizing, shape and topology optimization
problem where the cross-sectional dimensions of beams and columns are the sizing variables, while
the number and size of web openings in the beams are the topology and shape design variables.

Papadrakakis et al. [44] proposed the use of evolution strategies to perform structural sizing
optimization of space frames under seismic loading conditions. In this work the authors used two
8
methods for the dynamic analysis of the structure, namely the traditional design response spectrum
approach and the direct integration approach [45] using artificial accelerograms compatible with the
elastic design response spectrum. Fragiadakis et al. [46] went one step further in the optimum design
of structures under dynamic loading, by proposing a performance-based optimum design
methodology for steel structures subjected to seismic loading, considering the inelastic behavior (via
pushover analysis) and the life-cycle cost of the structure. The life-cycle cost of the structure was also
taken into account in the work of Mitropoulou et al. [47], for the assessment of optimally designed
reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions. In this work, the performance of the structure is
evaluated in multiple earthquake hazard levels using incremental static and dynamic analyses, while
the life-cycle cost is taken into account as an additional objective function, other than the initial
weight of the structure.

2.3. MOAs for solving new formulations of shape and topology SOPs

Kociecki and Adeli, previously mentioned for their work in sizing optimization [35], extended their
work to sizing and topology optimization also, where they used a two-phase genetic algorithm for
solving the sizing and topology optimization problem of free-form steel space frame roof structures
[48]. They applied the algorithm to two real-life space roof structures. The initial design in both cases
is a real design performed by a design office iteratively using a general-purpose structural analysis
software in a period of several days. The proposed method resulted in savings of 12% and 4% for the
two example cases, respectively. The previously mentioned work of Kociecki and Adeli was further
extended for handling sizing, topology, and shape optimization of free-form steel space-frame roof
structures with complex geometries using evolutionary computing [49]. Two methods of changing
the geometry of the structure are presented, a simple one for mostly regular geometries, as well as a
more complex one. The aim was to achieve an optimal design by changing the geometry of the roof
structure while simultaneously optimizing the roof member, the column dimensions and the roof
topology. Additional constraints, having to do with esthetics have been added to the algorithm as
heuristic limits to avoid undesirable changes in the architectural form. Efficiencies in the range of 10-
16% have been achieved for the two examined example structures using the proposed methodology.

Amir [50] introduced a new computational approach for optimizing reinforced concrete structures.
The major goal was to reduce the amount of material (weight) used in concrete structures, which is
extremely desirable due to the negative environmental impact of cement production. Building lighter
concrete structures can be considered an important step towards more sustainable architecture. The
fundamental concept was to integrate realistic finite element modelling of reinforced concrete with
topology optimization algorithms based on a sensitivity analysis. The strain softening response of
concrete was treated as a continuum, with a nonlocal damage model used to account for it.
Reinforcement was embedded in the continuum concrete domain and represented as a set of all
allowable rebar placements. In a topology optimization approach combining truss-based and
9
continuum-based approaches, both materials, concrete, and the steel reinforcement, were designed
simultaneously. It was discovered that the optimized designs performed 20% to 30% better than the
standard structures in terms of load-bearing capacity per unit weight. Lagaros et al. [51] also
investigated the application of optimization methods in the design of 3D reinforced concrete
buildings, where the aim was to minimize the eccentricity between the mass center and the rigidity
center of each story, handled as a combined topology and sizing optimization problem. The optimized
design led to a significant reduction in the structural cost of the building in the test examples
considered. Zakian and Kaveh [52] conducted a research study on the topology optimization of shear
walls considering material volume and displacement constraints. The aim was to optimize the
structural compliance under seismic loads commonly applied to a shear wall. The one-field density
approach of simplified isotropic material with penalization (SIMP) was employed and enriched with
a penalty function for dealing with the drift constraint of shear walls. The optimality criteria method
was incorporated for the solution of the optimization problem. Various heights are defined for shear
walls to obtain optimized configurations under different circumstances. The shear wall-frame
interaction that influences the single and coupled shear walls was assessed. The results of the
investigation revealed the material distribution of shear walls and vital parts of the structure where
openings or cut-outs should not be created.

Kaveh and Kalatjari [53] performed size/topology optimization of trusses using a genetic algorithm
(GA), the force method and concepts of graph theory. The application of the force method, together
with the theory of graphs, allowed the generation of a suitable initial GA population. If unstable
trusses were identified during the process, they were penalized properly. The efficiency of the method
was illustrated using numerical examples and comparisons to the corresponding results from previous
studies. Tian et al. [54] carried out a study which aimed to apply topology optimization approaches
in offshore platform structural design and examine how this might help produce better solutions and
methods while reducing the design, deployment, and manufacturing costs. The methodology can be
used at an early design stage, which helps in determining the initial structure and transmission path.
The entire design space is selected as the available space for the design variables, and the objective
is to maximize the structural stiffness. Deformation, stress and vibration-related constraints are
imposed, all contributing to creating the constraints for a multi-criteria design assessment. The results
of the optimization procedure were verified by FE analysis for static and dynamic performance.

De Souza et al. [55] optimized transmission line towers by dividing the structure into modules that
can take various pre-determined topologies. Shape and size were optimized at the same time as the
topology. Two example cases were considered, a tower with eight different load cases, and a self-
supported tower that was subjected to a cable rupture scenario and a wind load. When compared to a
classical topology optimization procedure, the obtained results indicated a reduction of up to 6.4% in
the final structural weight. Jiang et al. [56] proposed four shape optimization problems in order to

10
obtain reasonable shapes for free-form shell structures with both high static and dynamic
performance. Static performance was measured by strain energy under static loads, whereas dynamic
performance was measured by the lower bound on the fundamental natural frequency or strain energy
under seismic stresses. The self-weight and live loads are applied, and an optimization problem is
initially developed for reducing the strain energy under frequency constraints. After that, the strain
energy associated with the comparable seismic static load is minimized. In the cases where the design
variables were dense, the surface curvature was added as the second objective function in a multi-
objective optimization problem, to avoid ending up to an undesirable shape. The efficacy of the
approach was demonstrated in several numerical examples.

Papadrakakis et al. [57] investigated the use of combinatorial optimization methods, in particular
evolution strategies, for handling structural shape optimization problems. According to the study, the
combination of ES with SQP gives very promising results in shape optimization problems, especially
when also taking advantage of a parallel computing environment. The efficiency of the ES was
confirmed in the work of Lagaros et al. [58], which investigated the optimum design of shell
structures with stiffening beams using an ES optimization scheme, considering sizing, shape and
topology design variables.

Belevičius et al. [59] developed a method for optimizing simultaneously the shape, size, and topology
of tall, guyed masts. Strength, stability, and slenderness constraints were imposed while designing
the mast structure against self-weight and wind loading. The guyed mast’s nonlinear behavior was
simplified by considering the nonlinear guys as approximate boundary conditions for the mast.
Following the selection of the best solution from a set of Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) solutions, the
pattern search algorithm was used to thoroughly investigate the solution’s surroundings, after the best
solution was chosen. A conventional 96 m steel guyed mast holding a standard antenna cluster was
optimized using the method. The optimization of the mast with various sets of design parameters
revealed that the most relevant mast schemes had three to five guys’ clusters, with the optimal mat
scheme being the one with five guys’ clusters. Mam et al. [60] studied the optimization of the shape
of a timber braced framed structure with dowel-type connections subjected to an overall drift
restriction as well as strength requirements under wind and gravity loads. The primary goal of the
study was to demonstrate the importance of joint flexibility in achieving the best possible solution for
a truss-like construction. To establish a simpler relationship between joint stiffness and axial load-
carrying capability, dowel-type connections are first investigated. The established local behavior rule
is then used to the shape optimization and design of a discrete braced frame subjected to lateral drift
constraints under wind load. A two-level optimization approach was developed, using the low-level
optimization methods FSD (Fully Stressed Design) and a rigorously determined OC (Optimality
Criteria) for size optimization and a more general optimization approach for shape optimization. This
approach provides more control over the optimization process as well as the use of specific

11
optimization methods for each sub-problem. When compared to classical results, the semi-rigid
behavior of connections results in a substantial increase in the volume of wood, but it also has an
impact on the optimum form and the topology of the X-braced frame.

Pastore et al. [61] presented a novel optimization method for designing lightweight concrete structural
components based on an integrated Risk-Factor and Stress-Constrained method, which can account
for the asymmetrical compression and traction stresses that characterize concrete materials. In a
simply supported beam arrangement, the algorithm was tested across a set of concrete material
characteristics. When compared to a traditional Von Mises stress condition, the Risk Factor method
showed to be more efficient in producing optimal beams when dealing with a variety of asymmetrical
stress restrictions. The method was embedded in an iterative heuristic algorithm, which was then put
to the test in a simply supported beam setup with a large number of concrete classes. The findings of
the study indicate that the suggested approach can improve the traditional Von Mises paradigm by
producing optimized beams that can withstand a variety of asymmetrical stress constraints. In an
effort to support and advance sustainable architecture, Frangedaki et al. [62] investigated the design
of tree-shaped structural systems using the advanced characteristics of a bamboo material native to
South America, and to test its effectiveness by means of a structural parametric design optimization
approach. Two structural systems, an elliptical-shaped one and a quadrangular one were parametrized
and optimized.

2.4. Hybrid methods based on MOAs for solving SOPs

Various hybrid methods have been proposed in the literature combining the advantages of different
methodologies in an effort to achieve higher quality results and increased speed. Some of the hybrid
approaches simply try to speed up the convergence of the optimization algorithm, usually combining
different types of optimizers that work well either in searching the general search space or specialize
mostly in local search. Other approaches combine different numerical methodologies, in an attempt
to reduce the computational effort of the optimization scheme, especially when handling large-scale
structural optimization problems.

Plevris and Papadrakakis [63, 64] presented a hybrid PSO-gradient algorithm for the global
optimization of 2D and 3D truss structures. In this work, the Particle Swarm Optimization [65]
method was enhanced with a gradient-based sequential quadratic programming (SQP) optimizer for
handling constrained optimization problems of 2D and 3D trusses. The methodology proved to be
better in finding optimal solutions for structural optimization problems compared to traditional (non-
hybrid) optimization approaches. Similarly, Aydilek [66] proposed a hybrid firefly [67] and particle
swarm optimization (HFPSO) algorithm for computationally expensive numerical problems. The
algorithm combines the strongest points of firefly and particle swarm algorithms, while it mitigates
the disadvantages of both methods. The hybrid algorithm is checked in several benchmark

12
engineering mechanical design problems including the pressure vessel, welded beam, and tension and
compression spring.

Using both GA and neural networks (NN), Gholizadeh et al. [68] proposed a method to find the
optimal weight of structures subject to multiple natural frequency constraints. GA is used to find the
optimal weight, through the virtual sub-population (VSP) method. NN is employed to evaluate the
natural frequencies, through a wavelet radial basis function (WRBF). This is the first time WRBF has
been employed to identify the natural frequencies of the structure as previously it was only employed
to identify other structural characteristics. The test examples included a 10-bar aluminum truss and a
200-bar steel double layer grid. The result of the investigated algorithm (VSP & WRBF) is compared
to an exact analysis result and an approximate one obtained by a single RBF neural network, and it is
found that for an efficient trial structural optimization, the best results (in terms of weight & time) are
obtained by VSP & WRBF. Nguyen and Vu [69] employed composite differential evolution (CoDE)
for structural optimization, where the optimization scheme is accompanied with neural networks used
as surrogate models for speeding up the process by rapidly evaluating the fitness of candidates. First,
CoDE is used in the traditional way, but the fitness values of the possible solutions are saved to the
database. After enough data have been generated, NN is trained with these data to provide inexpensive
estimations of the fitness function value of other individuals. Three structural benchmark problems
are used, the 10-bar truss, 25-bar truss, and 72-bar truss. The methodology achieves a significant
reduction of the computational, by around 60%. In the same direction of employing neural networks
in an optimization procedure, Papadrakakis et al. [70] investigated the application of NN models to
substitute the time-consuming structural analysis phase in large-scale shape and sizing structural
optimization problems, achieving significant computational advantages, especially in large-scale
optimization problems. A similar approach was employed by the same group in [71], where this time
the NN models were applied in a reliability-based structural optimization framework.

Lagaros et al. [72] proposed an adaptive neural network strategy for improving the computational
performance of evolutionary structural optimization. In this work, NN is used to predict, the
feasibility or infeasibility of structural designs in the framework of an ES optimization procedure.
The NN is adaptive, in the sense that its configuration is updated incorporating knowledge about the
search domain acquired during the optimization phase. Lagaros and Papadrakakis [73] assessed the
performance of differential evolution, harmony search and particle swarm optimization, with
reference to their efficiency and robustness for the optimum design of real-world structures with a
large number of degrees of freedom. In addition, a neural network-based prediction scheme of the
structural response was proposed for assessing the quality of each candidate design during the
optimization procedure. The same authors [74] proposed a novel method to improve network training
using an adaptive activation function with a properly updated gain parameter, where the efficacy of

13
the methodology was examined in structural optimization problems with NN being used to replace
the structural analysis phase.

Liao [75] proposed two hybrid differential evolution algorithms for dealing with engineering design
optimization problems. One of them strengthens the exploitation ability by providing DE [76, 77]
with a local search operator, i.e. a random walk with direction exploitation. The second hybrid
approach enhances DE with its combination with harmony search to achieve a synergetic effect. The
two hybrid algorithms are assessed with 14 engineering design optimization problems selected from
different fields of engineering. Kaveh [78] proposed a hybrid scheme where swallow swarm
optimization (SSO) [78] is implemented in the framework of particle swarm optimization (PSO) to
form the hybrid particle swallow swarm optimization (HPSSO) algorithm, in an attempt to achieve a
good balance between global and local search. The new scheme is evaluated by solving 11
mathematical optimization problems and 6 truss design engineering problems.

Carbas [79] used an enhanced firefly algorithm for the design optimization of steel frames under the
load and resistance factor design–American Institute of Steel Construction (LRFD-AISC) steel design
code provisions, where steel profiles for the members are selected from a given table of steel sections.
The study proposes an enhancement of firefly algorithm by adding two new expressions for the
attractiveness and randomness parameters. Two real-world design examples are successfully
designed using the enhanced algorithm. Talatahari et al. [80] introduced a new hybrid scheme, ES-
DE, of Eagle Strategy [81] with Differential Evolution, for the optimum design of frame structures.
The performance of the hybrid algorithm is evaluated by solving four benchmark problems where the
objective is to minimize the weight of steel frames. Khalilpourazari and Khalilpourazary [82]
proposed a hybrid algorithm based on water cycle [33] and moth-flame optimization (MFO) [83]
algorithms for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. In particular, the spiral
movement of moths in MFO is introduced into the water cycle algorithm in an attempt to enhance its
exploitation ability. The efficiency of the hybrid scheme is evaluated with solving three well-known
structural engineering problems and comparing the results with the ones of other optimizers in the
literature.

2.5. MOAs for solving practical, real-world SOPs

MOAs have been found very efficient for solving real world problems in various disciplines and
currently they are used in the everyday professional practice with great success. In the case of SOPs,
the economic and environmental benefits through the use of such algorithms are enormous [84, 85].
Although adopting optimization-based design procedures can have a drastic environmental impact
and contribute to economic development, the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)
industry appears to be reluctant in adopting such procedures. Two of the reasons that justify the
hesitance of AEC industry is the enormous computational effort required for solving real world SOPs

14
and the issues of constructability encountered on the optimized solutions achieved. In this part of the
investigation some attempts on dealing with these issues are reported.

To speed up the optimization time in a structural optimization framework based on ES, Papadrakakis
et al. [86] employed a preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) solution algorithm that was proved
as a computationally efficient iterative procedure for solving linear systems of equations resulting
from the FEA discretization,. The numerical tests demonstrated the computational advantages of the
methodology, especially in the case of large‐scale optimization problems and in a parallel
computing environment. The efficiency and benefits of parallel computational strategies in structural
optimization are also exhibited in [87] with reference to ES and GA. In this work, parallel strategies
are implemented first at the optimization algorithm level (i.e., dealing with several members of the
population in parallel), and second at the structural model (FEM analysis) level, where the finite
element analyses are performed with the help of the FETI domain decomposition method. In the same
direction based on parallelism, Lagaros [8] proposed the implementation of parallel computing at the
level of metaheuristic optimization, by exploiting the physical parallelization feature of the
nondominated sorting evolution strategies method. The method is accompanied by an efficient
dynamic load balancing algorithm for optimum exploitation of the available computing resources,
achieving almost 100% speedup factors with respect to the sequential procedure.

On the constructability issue, Lagaros [88] proposed a generic real-world optimum design computing
platform for civil structural systems, founded on advances achieved on metaheuristic optimization
algorithms, structural analysis and parallel computing. Five real-world design projects optimized
using the proposed framework are presented. Lagaros and Karlaftis [89] investigated a design
procedure for steel wind towers subject to constraints imposed by the Eurocode, formulated as a
structural design optimization problem. In this work, five test examples are considered, in particular
real-world steel wind towers with varying heights which are optimally designed with minimum cost.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE 24 METAHEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION

ALGORITHMS

As discussed in section 2, Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms (MOAs) can be categorized into

four broad classes: (i) Swarm-based (SB); (ii) Physics-based (PB); (iii) Evolutionary-based (EB); and
(iv) Human-based (HB). In this work, 24 MOAs are applied and tested into several structural
optimization problems. 14 of them belong to the Swarm-based class, 3 to the Physics-based class, 3
to the Evolutionary-based class and 4 to the Human-based class, as shown in Table 1. In this section
a short description of each algorithm is also provided.

An important characteristic of a MOA is the number of main parameters that need to be adjusted for
the algorithm to work, a piece of information which is also provided in Table 1. In this table, the
variables that are adjusted randomly or automatically into the range [0,1], and are usually used during
15
the search process, are not included. Based on the number of user defined parameters ALO, SSA,
TLBO require only 2 basic parameters to be adjusted (the population size and the maximum function
evaluations), while CMAES requires 3 parameters, the previous mentioned two and an extra one,
since there is a distinction between the number of parents and offspring. The rest of the algorithms,
require 1 up to 7 additional user defined parameters, on top of the two basic ones. MTDE and PBA
are the most demanding cases, requiring 7 extra parameters to be defined, apart from population size
and maximum function evaluations.

Although there are so many metaheuristic optimization algorithms in the literature, it is worth
mentioning that according to the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem [90], there is no metaheuristic best
suited for solving all optimization problems. In other words, there is no point in trying to find the
“best” overall algorithm, as it simply does not exist for all cases and all possible problems. Different
algorithms are better suited for different problems, while also their settings and the parameters used
play a very important role in the efficiency of the algorithm for handling a specific problem. As far
as structural optimization problems are concerned, it can be said that most established metaheuristics
can be used for these problems, provided that they can be equipped with an efficient constraint
handling mechanism for dealing with the constraints.

Table 1. The 24 investigated optimization algorithms.

ID Acronym Name and reference Class Year Parameters
1 GWO Grey Wolf Optimizer [91] SB 2014 1+2 2
2 IGWO Improved GWO [92] SB 2020 1+2 2
3 WOA Whale Optimization Algorithm [93] SB 2016 2+2 2
4 ALO Ant Lion Optimizer [94] SB 2015 0+2 2
5 CMAES Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategies EB 2001 0+3 3
[95]
6 MTDE Multi-Trial vector-based Differential Evolution [96] EB 2020 7+2 2
7 DA Dragonfly Algorithm [97] SB 2016 1+2 2
8 GOA Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm [98] SB 2017 2+2 2
9 GOAf Improved GOA [99] SB 2020 2+2 2
10 MFO Moth-Flame Optimization [83] SB 2015 2+2 2
11 MVO Multi-Verse Optimizer [100] PB 2016 3+2 2
12 SCA Sine Cosine Algorithm [101] PB 2016 1+2 2
13 SSA Salp Swarm Algorithm [102] SB 2017 0+2 2
14 PSO Particle Swarm Optimization [65] SB 1995 4+2 2
15 FA Firefly Algorithm [67] SB 2008 5+2 2
16 ICA Imperialist Competitive Algorithm [103] HB 2007 4+2 2
17 DE Differential Evolution [76, 77] EB 1995 2+2 2
18 HS Harmony Search [104] HB 2001 4+2 2
19 TLBO Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization [105] HB 2011 0+2 2
20 KH Krill herd [106] SB 2012 4+2 2

2
population size and maximum function evaluations
3
number of parents and offspring plus maximum function evaluations
16
 21 ISA Interior Search Algorithm [107] HB 2014 1+2 2
22 PBA Pity Beetle Algorithm [108] SB 2018 7+2 2
23 SMA Slime Mould Algorithm [109] SB 2020 2+2 2
24 AOA Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm [110] PB 2021 4+2 2

The above mentioned 24 optimization algorithms are independent algorithms which have been
published in distinct scientific papers, as shown in Table 1 and the relevant references for each
algorithm. For this reason, in this study, they are treated individually, but similarities do exist among
them in some cases, in terms of their formulation, the algorithmic description, and other
characteristics. For example, the Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO) could be considered as a variant of
Differential Evolution (DE), while Moth-Flame Optimization (MFO) has important similarities with
Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA). In addition, the flight equation used in Dragonfly Algorithm
(DA) is based on the corresponding one of Cuckoo Search algorithm (CS) [23].

In the next sections, 3.1 to 3.24, a short description of each of the 24 metaheuristics is presented along
with their distinct features and additional similarities with other methods and with each other. The
following common notations and characteristics have been used:

▪ 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) is the position vector of the 𝑖𝑡ℎ search agent, for the 𝑔𝑡ℎ iteration,
▪ 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔) is the 𝑗𝑡ℎ element of the 𝑖𝑡ℎ search agent,
▪ where 𝑖 = 1,2, ⋯ , 𝑁𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 and 𝑗 = 1,2, ⋯ , 𝑛,
▪ 𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔) is the global best solution achieved so far,
▪ 𝑢𝑏𝑗 and 𝑙𝑏𝑗 are the upper and lower bounds of the 𝑗𝑡ℎ design variable (dimension),
▪ 𝑁 is the maximum number of iterations,
▪ random numbers are denoted as 𝑟𝑘 ∼ 𝑈[0,1], (𝑘 = 1, 2, 3 𝑎𝑛𝑑 4),
▪ the initial population is generated randomly in the design space,
▪ the global best solution found so far is considered by many algorithms as the target to be
chased by the agents.

3.1. Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO)

GWO refers to a swarm-based metaheuristic [91] inspired by the hunting mechanism and leadership
hierarchy of grey wolves (Canis lupus). During the iterations of GWO, candidate solutions are
classified into alpha, beta, delta and omega classes. The best one constitutes class alpha, the second
and third best candidates belong to classes beta and delta, respectively, while the rest ones are part of
the omega class. The three main operators of the algorithm are: chasing the prey, encircling and then
attacking it. The position vectors 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) are defined as follows:
𝑠𝑖,1 (𝑔) + 𝑠𝑖,2 (𝑔) + 𝑠𝑖,3 (𝑔)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = (2)
3
and
𝑠𝑖,1 (𝑔) = 𝑠𝛼 (𝑔) − 𝐴𝑖,1 · 𝐷𝛼 (3)

17
 𝑠𝑖,2 (𝑔) = 𝑠𝛽 (𝑔) − 𝐴𝑖,2 · 𝐷𝛽
𝑠𝑖,3 (𝑔) = 𝑠𝛿 (𝑔) − 𝐴𝑖,3 · 𝐷𝛿
where coefficient vectors 𝐴𝑖,1 , 𝐴𝑖,2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑖,3 are defined as 𝐴 = 2𝑎 · 𝑟1 − 𝑎, where parameter 𝑎 is
decreased linearly from 2 to 0 to switch the values of 𝐴 vectors outside and inside of [−1,1];
𝑠𝛼 , 𝑠𝛽 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝛿 are the position vectors of the prey for each set, i.e. the first, second and third best agents
obtained so far; 𝐷𝛼 , 𝐷𝛽 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝛿 denote the distances of the agent of the corresponding set to the prey:
𝐷𝛼 = |𝐶1 · 𝑠𝛼 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)|
𝐷𝛽 = |𝐶2 · 𝑠𝛽 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)| (4)
𝐷𝛿 = |𝐶3 · 𝑠𝛿 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)|
where 𝐶1 , 𝐶2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶3 are coefficient vectors (𝐶𝑖 = 2 · 𝑟2 ). Alpha, beta, and delta are the agents who lead
the search and omega is a follower. In every iteration, parameters 𝑎 and 𝐶𝑖 are defined, while vectors
𝐴 and 𝐷 are updated.

3.2. Improved GWO (IGWO)

An improvement of GWO algorithm [91] was proposed in 2020 [92], in an attempt to enhance the
population diversity and to improve the equilibrium amid global and local search. The new algorithm
(IGWO) can be considered as a variation of the existing GWO algorithm. In this variation,
neighboring information can be shared amongst candidates through the dimension learning-based
hunting (DLH) scheme, that aims to improve global search domain using multi neighbors learning.
According to IGWO, candidates are selected either based on either GWO or DLH schemes depending
on the quality of their new positions:
𝑠𝑖,𝐷𝐿𝐻 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔) + 𝑟1 ∙ (𝑠𝑛,𝑗 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑟,𝑗 (𝑔)),
𝑠 (𝑔 + 1) 𝐸𝑞. (1) 𝑖𝑓 𝑓(𝑠𝑖,𝐺𝑊𝑂 ) < 𝑓(𝑠𝑖,𝐷𝐿𝐻 ) (5)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = { 𝑖,𝐺𝑊𝑂
𝑠𝑖,𝐷𝐿𝐻 (𝑔 + 1) 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where 𝑠𝑛,𝑖 (𝑔) denotes the 𝑖𝑡ℎ dimension of a random neighbor and 𝑠𝑟,𝑑 (𝑔) is an agent randomly chosen
from the population.

3.3. Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA)

WOA metaheuristic [93] depends on the hunting scheme of humpback whales, which is of spiral
bubble-net type. The search process relies on three procedures: search (exploration), encircling, and
bubble-net attacking (exploitation). The later one simulates the humpback swim type of whales
around prey composed by two movements: spiral-shaped path towards the sea surface and shrinking
circle, chosen with 50% probability each:
𝑠𝑝 (𝑔) − 𝐴 · 𝐷 𝑖𝑓 𝑟1 < 0.5]
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = { ′ 𝑏·𝑙
(6)
𝐷 · 𝑒 · cos(2𝜋 · 𝑙 ) + 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where 𝐷 denotes the distance to the prey of the 𝑖𝑡ℎ search agent (whale) according to Eq. (6), 𝐴 is a
coefficient vector as defined for GWO and 𝐷′ = |𝑠𝑝 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)|, parameter 𝑏 controls the form of
the logarithmic spiral, number 𝑙 is randomly chosen in [−1,1]. The position vector of the prey 𝑠𝑝 (𝑔)
contains the global best solution achieved so far, or a randomly chosen agent out of the current
18
iteration, depending on whether the search purpose represents exploitation or exploration,
respectively.

3.4. Ant Lion Optimizer (ALO)

ALO metaheuristic [94] simulates the synergy between ants and antlions during a hunting process.
During the main procedure, the location of antlions and ants is renewed by means of five operators
up to convergence: random walk of ants, traps building by antlions, ants entrapment, prey catching,
and re-building traps for another prey. For numerically modelling the ants’ random walk the following
formula is used:
𝑠(𝑔) = [0, 𝑐𝑠(2𝑟(𝑔1 )– 1), 𝑐𝑠(2𝑟(𝑔2 ) – 1), … . 𝑐𝑠(2𝑟(𝑔𝑁 ) – 1)] (7)
where 𝑐𝑠(∙) stands for cumulative sum function of its vector input argument, 𝑁 is the maximum
number of allowed iterations, 𝑟(𝑔1 ) is a stochastic function that returns 1 when 𝑟1 > 0.5 and 0
otherwise. In order to mimic the sliding of ants towards the antlion in the trap, the radius of ants’
random walk is shrunk. When a fitter prey is caught, the antlion renews its position to the prey. The
random walk of each ant is affected by two antlions; one selected by the roulette wheel mechanism
and another which is saved in the memory as the “elite” antlion.

3.5. Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategies (CMAES)

CMAES method [95] represents a self-adaptation pattern which is entirely de-randomized, where the
covariance of mutation is altered first aiming to enhance likelihood of generating the specific step.
Subsequently, the modification degree is updated based on the amount of strategy parameters allowed
to be altered. Then, according to a random selection scheme the expectation of the covariance matrix
is stationary. In addition, the adaptation mechanism is independent of the coordinate system. In the
(𝑔 + 1)𝑡ℎ iteration, 𝜆 new offspring are generated as follows:
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1)~𝑁(𝑚(𝑔), 𝜎 2 (𝑡) ∙ 𝐶 (𝑔) ) ∼ 𝑚(𝑔) + 𝜎 (𝑔) 𝑁(0, 𝐶 (𝑔) ) (8)
𝑛
where 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) ∈ ℜ (𝑖 = 1, . . . , 𝜆), random numbers 𝑁(𝑚(𝑔), 𝐶 (𝑔) ) are normally distributed where
mean value vector 𝑚(𝑔) ∈ ℜ𝑛 and 𝐶 (𝑔) is the covariance matrix, while global step size 𝜎 (𝑔) ∈ ℜ+ .

3.6. Multi-Trial vector-based Differential Evolution (MTDE)

The performance of Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm is highly affected by the employed search
strategy and the parameter settings. In order to cover a variety of problems, multiple search strategies
should be combined [90]. In this direction, Nadimi-Shahraki et al. [96] proposed MTDE, a DE
variant, where three different search strategies are combined, producing the so called multi-trial
vector (MTV) approach. More specifically the trial vector procedures (TVP) are the representative
based (R-TVP), one which maintains diversity, the local random based (L-TVP) one that ensures the
balance between exploration and exploitation, and the global best history based (G-TVP) one that
enhances the exploitation ability:

19
 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔 + 1)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝐹 ⋅ (𝑠𝑖,𝑏 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) + 𝐹 ⋅ (𝑠𝑖,𝑤 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) + 𝑎1 ⋅ (𝑠𝑟 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)), 𝑅 − 𝑇𝑉𝑃
= 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝐹 ⋅ (𝑠𝑟𝑖1 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑟𝑖2 (𝑔)) + 𝑎2 ⋅ (𝑠𝑟 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)), 𝐿 − 𝑇𝑉𝑃 (9)

{ 𝑠𝑖,𝑔𝑏ℎ (𝑔) + 𝑎2 ⋅ (𝑠𝑟𝑖1 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑟𝑖2 (𝑔)) , 𝐺 − 𝑇𝑉𝑃

𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑁𝑅−𝑇𝑉𝑃 or 𝑁𝐿−𝑇𝑉𝑃 or 𝑁𝐺−𝑇𝑉𝑃
where indices 𝑟𝑖1 and 𝑟𝑖2 are random integers within the corresponding population range, mutually
exclusive and different than index 𝑖. Mutation factor 𝐹 controls the magnitude of variation and
coefficients 𝑎1 and 𝑎2 are functions of seven user defined variables (𝑊𝑖𝑛𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟 , 𝐻, 𝑖𝑛𝑖, 𝑓𝑖𝑛, 𝜇, 𝜇𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜎) [96].
𝑠𝑖,𝑏 (𝑔) and 𝑠𝑖,𝑤 (𝑔) are the best and worst members of 𝑅 − 𝑇𝑉𝑃 sub-population while 𝑠𝑖,𝑔𝑏ℎ (𝑔) is the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ
member of history best archive. Subsequently, crossover operator is used based on a trial vector
𝑢𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) and then the new population is generated by means of the search operator (see description
of DE below). In contrast with DE variants that distribute the population into smaller subpopulations
of the same size, MTV employs a winner-based policy, that distributes the subpopulation not in an
equal manner, but using the approach “the better the search strategy, the larger the subpopulation it
will handle”. MTV approach introduces adaptive movement steps that rely on a life-time archive that
preserves and shares information of the restored promising solutions while also maintaining
population diversity.

3.7. Dragonfly Algorithm (DA)

DA is a swarm-intelligence metaheuristic that mimics the surviving swarm behavior of dragonflies

[97]. The algorithm is implemented through five swarm movements. In nature, dragonflies follow
this scheme either in static swarming (hunting), or in dynamic swarming (migration). The hunting
swarming is simulated during the exploration phase of the optimization, in which the dragonflies
create sub swarms and fly back and forth over different areas within the search domain. The dynamic
migration swarming is simulated during the exploitation phase, where the dragonflies fly in larger
swarms and along one direction. To simulate this scheme, the step vector is defined as follows:
𝛥𝑠(𝑔 + 1) = (𝑠 ∙ 𝑆𝑖 + 𝑎 ∙ 𝐴𝑖̇ + 𝑐 ∙ 𝐶𝑖 + 𝑓 ∙ 𝐹𝑖 + 𝑒 ∙ 𝐸𝑖 ) + 𝑤 ∙ 𝛥𝑠(𝑔) (10)
where 𝑆𝑖 , 𝐴𝑖̇ , 𝐶𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 , 𝐸𝑖 are the five parameters of the swarm behavior defined as, Separation that
maintains avoidance of individuals collision in a neighborhood, Alignment controlling the velocity
matching between the neighboring agents, Cohesion referring to the individuals’ tendency to the
neighborhood, Attraction to food, and Distraction from enemies. respectively. The parameters s, a,
c, f and e, are weighting factors and w is an inertia weight. The position vector is given by:
𝑠(𝑔) + 𝛥𝑠(𝑔 + 1), 𝑖𝑓 neighbors around
𝑠(𝑔 + 1) = { (11)
𝑠(𝑔) + Lѐvy(d) ∙ 𝑠(𝑔), 𝑖𝑓 no neighbor around
where
𝑟1 ∙ 𝜎
𝐿ѐ𝑣𝑦(𝑥 ) = 0.01 ∙ 1
|𝑟2 |𝛽 (12)

20
where 𝛽 is a constant and 𝜎 is a function of 𝛽 . It is worth mentioning that Lévy flights were first used
by the Cuckoo Search (CS) algorithm [23].

3.8. Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA)

GOA metaheuristic [98] mimics the natural swarm behavior of grasshoppers. A grasshopper’s
movement is based mainly on the social interaction with its neighbors. It is described in terms of three
zones: attraction, repulsion, or comfort zone state. In order for the swarm to converge to one optimal
point eventually (global optimum), two mathematical terms are added to let the best-found solution
at each iteration affect the next swarm direction, and also to shrink gradually the 3 zones that control
each grasshopper’s movement, in order to avoid being stuck at the comfort zone so early with no
further movement (i.e. trapped in a local optimum). To model this behavior mathematically, the
following equations are used. The position of 𝑖𝑡ℎ grasshopper is given by:
𝑁𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑆𝐼𝑧𝑒

𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗
𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑐 ∙ ∑ 𝑐∙ ∙ 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝐼𝑛𝑡 + 𝑠𝑔𝑏,𝑗 (𝑔)
2
(13)
( 𝑘=1 )
𝑠𝑘,𝑗 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔)
𝑆𝑜𝑐𝐼𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺(|𝑠𝑘,𝑗 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔)|)
𝑑𝑖𝑘
where shrinking coefficient 𝑐 ≤ 1, and 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝐼𝑛𝑡 defines the social interaction of the grasshopper with
its neighbors, where 𝐺() represents the social force, either attraction (during exploitation) or repulsion
(during exploration), expressed as follows:
−𝑟
𝐺 (𝑟 ) = 𝑓 ∙ e 𝑙 − e−𝑟 (14)
where the size of the attraction, repulsion and comfort zones can be adjusted by the intensity of
attraction 𝑓 and the attractive length scale 𝑙 . Convergence of grasshoppers towards the target over the
course of iterations, is actually due to decreasing 𝑐 that is a function of its maximum and minimum values,
and the target effect of pulling the swarm. The next position of a population member is affected by
its current position, the target position, and the positions of all other members. This behavior is in
contrast to PSO, in which the swarm particles’ positions (except for the best individual) do not play
a role in defining the next movement of a particle.

3.9. Improved GOA (GOAf)

GOAf metaheuristic [99] is a variant of the original GOA [98] with the change of a specific
implementation feature, in particular the update expression of coefficient 𝑐, and the application of
random walk. Given that coefficient 𝑐 is used to balance between exploitation and exploration, it
should remain close to unity during the first iterations and then be reduced at a lower value 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 in
order to support exploitation, according to
2
𝑙
exp (−0.5 ∙ [ ] ) , 𝑖𝑓 𝑐 > 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑐={ 𝐿⁄ (15)
𝜎
𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
21
where 𝑙 is the attractive length scale (𝐿 is the maximum value of the length), 𝜎 controls the variation
of 𝑐, as it defines the rate in which 𝑐 will be decreased, with typical values 𝜎 = 3 𝑜𝑟 4. Furthermore,
in order to avoid premature convergence a biased random walk is also used, similar to the one of
cuckoo search algorithm [23].

3.10. Moth-Flame Optimization (MFO)

MFO algorithm [83] relies on the transverse orientation navigation patterns of moths. In particular,
the spiral movement of moths towards artificial lights is the part in the transverse orientation method
that is simulated in the MFO’s movement operator. In the transverse orientation approach, a moth
flies by fixing a certain angle with respect to the light source, forming a spiral fly path, which ensures
convergence. To maintain investigating the most promising areas of the search space, moths 𝑠𝑖,𝑀 (𝑔)
(search agents) take flames 𝑠𝑖,𝐹 (𝑔) (best-found solutions) as the source of light and fly spirally around
them. To preserve exploration and avoid local optima, each moth is allowed to alter its position using
only one specific flame. The new positions of moths 𝑠𝑖,𝑀 (𝑔 + 1) are then defined as:
𝑠𝑖,𝑀 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑆(𝑠𝑖,𝑀 (𝑔), 𝑠𝑗,𝐹 (𝑔)) (16)
where 𝑆() is the spiral function calculated over the 𝑖𝑡ℎ month and the 𝑗𝑡ℎ flame as follows:
𝑆(𝑠𝑖,𝑀 (𝑔), 𝑠𝑗,𝐹 (𝑔)) = |𝑠𝑖,𝑀 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑗,𝐹 (𝑔)| ⋅ 𝑒 𝑏∙𝑔 ⋅ 𝑐𝑜𝑠(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑔) + 𝑠𝑗,𝐹 (𝑔) (17)
It is the same spiral-shaped path expression used by the WOA metaheuristic in Eq. (6), that was
presented a year later than MFO. Constant 𝑏 defines the shape of the logarithmic spiral, 𝑡 is a random
number in [𝑟, 1], and 𝑟 is linearly decreased from -1 to -2 over the course of iterations to promote the
exploitation proportional to the number of iterations (the lower 𝑔, the closer the distance to the flame).
For further promotion of the exploitation proportional to the number of iterations, the number of
flames is decreased gradually over the course of iterations, until all moths at the final step update their
positions with respect to only one flame.

3.11. Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO)

MVO metaheuristic [100] was inspired by the relevant multi-verse theory in physics. Three concepts
of multi-universe are simulated, namely white holes, black holes, and wormholes, where the relevant
models associated with these concepts are used for exploration, exploitation and local search,
respectively. The white holes are the main component for the birth of a universe, while black holes
will attract everything towards them with their enormous gravitational force. Wormholes, on the other
hand, connect different parts of a universe and in the multi-verse theory they can also connect one
universe to another. Objects (variables) travel from white holes (solution with high fitness function
value) to black holes (solutions with low fitness function value), while searching for better fitness
values. The white holes are selected using a roulette wheel mechanism. The exchange of variables
through white and black holes maintains the exploration of the search space, while wormholes exist
randomly in any universe (regardless of its fitness function value) to assist the MVO in exploiting the
22
search space, through transporting a universe’s objects within its space in a random manner. The
process starts with the creation of a set of random solutions. In every iteration, variables in the solution
agents with high objective values tend to move towards others with lower (better) objective values
via the white and the black holes (exploration):

𝑠𝑔𝑏,𝑗 (𝑔) + 𝑇𝐷𝑅 ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝑟4 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) , 𝑖𝑓 𝑟4 < 0.5

{ , 𝑖𝑓 𝑟2 < 𝑊𝐸𝑃
𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑠𝑔𝑏,𝑗 (𝑔) − 𝑇𝐷𝑅 ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝑟4 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) , 𝑖𝑓 𝑟4 ≥ 0.5 (18)

{ 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔), 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

where coefficients 𝑇𝐷𝑅 and 𝑊𝐸𝑃 are gradually modified (increased and decreased, respectively) over
the iterations as functions of three variables (maximum and minimum values of 𝑊𝐸𝑃 and parameter
𝑝). Meanwhile, all the members are moved towards the best solution randomly regardless of their
own solution fitness value, which maintains the diversity.

3.12. Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA)

SCA metaheuristic algorithm [101] relies on the concept of randomly generated agents that are forced
to fluctuate either towards or outwards the best-found solution according to a sine-cosine behavior.
The positioning of the agents is iteratively guided by a random-walk function:
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝑟1 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑟2 ) ∙ |𝑟3 ∙ 𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)|, 𝑖𝑓 𝑟4 < 0.5
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = { (19)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝑟1 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝑟2 ) ∙ |𝑟3 ∙ 𝑠𝑔𝑛 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)|, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where random numbers 𝑟1 indicates the region of the next position, either inside or outside the space
between the solution and its destination, 𝑟2 defines how far the movement will be, 𝑟3 gives a random
weight to control the effect of destination in defining the distance, and 𝑟4 has the role of switching
between the sine and cosine functions. The cyclic form of cosine and sine functions guarantee
exploitation of the search space. While exploration is achieved by modifying the 𝑟1 range of the
sin/cosine function, where a solution will be able to move outwards its destination point. In order to
promote the exploitation over exploration as the iteration number goes higher 𝑟1 is defined as:
𝑎
𝑟1 = 𝑎 − 𝑔 ∙ (20)
𝑁
where 𝑔 and 𝑁 denote the current and maximum iterations allowed, respectively, and 𝑎 is a constant.

3.13. Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA)

SSA is a simple and easy-to-implement metaheuristic [102] that mimics the swarming behavior of
the ocean salps travelling in form of a salp chain. The chain consists of a leader and a number of
followers. The leader goes towards an artificial source of food, and the followers simply enjoy the
ride behind the leader. In the optimization process, the best-found solution is considered as a target
to be chased by the salps afterwards, iteratively. The algorithm is equipped with two movement
equations, one for the leader and one for the followers. The leader walk is actually a random
movement, but towards the source of food (best-found solution so far), which maintains investigating

23
the most promising regions in the search space during the optimization process. On the other hand,
the followers walk with respect to each other following the leader in a gradual movement based on
Newton’s law of motion. The following equation is used to update the position of the leader:

𝑠𝑔𝑏,𝑗 (𝑔) + 𝑐1 ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝑟2 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) 𝑟3 ≥ 0

𝑠1,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = { (21)
𝑠𝑔𝑏,𝑗 (𝑔) − 𝑐1 ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝑟2 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) 𝑟3 < 0

where 𝑠1,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) shows the 𝑗𝑡ℎ dimension of the leader and coefficient 𝑐1 balances exploration and
exploitation. The position of the followers is updated as:
1
𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = ∙ (𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔) + 𝑠𝑖−1,𝑗 (𝑔)) (22)
2
where 𝑖 ≥ 2.

3.14. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

PSO [65] is an optimization algorithm that works with a population of solutions, called particles.
Each particle has a position and a velocity in the design space while all the particles together form
the so called “swarm”. The method mimics the behaviour of birds and particles “fly” in the search
space looking for the optimum solution. With iterations, the particles adjust their velocities and
positions based on their own “experience”, the experience of neighbouring particles and also the one
of the “best” particle. The experience of a particle is about the best position they have seen, i.e. the
best objective function value they have encountered in their path so far. This way PSO combines local
and global search, balancing exploration and exploitation. The velocity and the position of every
particle is updated as follows
𝑣𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑤 ∙ 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝑐1 ∙ 𝑟1 ∙ (𝑠𝑖,𝑝𝑏 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) + 𝑐2 ∙ 𝑟2 ∙ (𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) (23)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) (24)
where 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔) is the velocity of 𝑖𝑡ℎ particle and 𝑠𝑖,𝑝𝑏 (𝑔) is the personal best (found by 𝑖𝑡ℎ particle); 𝑐1
and 𝑐2 are the cognitive and social parameters (constant parameters of the method), respectively and
coefficient 𝑤 is a weight function.

3.15. Firefly Algorithm (FA)

FA is a metaheuristic inspired by the natural flashing behaviour of fireflies [67, 111]. Each firefly is
considered to be attracted to brighter fireflies, while exploring and searching for prey. The brightness
of each firefly is associated with the objective function value. The movement of the 𝑖𝑡ℎ firefly which
is attracted by a brighter 𝑗𝑡ℎ firefly is determined by the formula:
2
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝛽0 ∙ 𝑒 −𝛾∙𝑟𝑖𝑗 ∙ (𝑠𝑗 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) + 𝑎𝑔 ∙ 𝜀𝑖 (𝑔) (25)

where 𝛾 is the light absorption coefficient, 𝑎𝑔 is the randomization parameter, 𝜀𝑖 (𝑔) is a vector of
random numbers generated based on a Gaussian or uniform distribution defined as functions of 𝛿 ∈
[0,1], 𝛽0 ∈ [0,1] is the attractiveness when the cartesian distance 𝑟𝑖𝑗 = 0, usually 𝛽0 = 1, and 𝛾 = 𝛰(1)
that characterizes the variation of attractiveness, usually varies from 0.001 to 1,000. The

24
randomization parameter 𝑎𝑔 should ideally decrease with iterations. A simple scheme to achieve this
is:
𝑎𝑔 = 𝑎0 ∙ 𝜃 𝑔 (26)
where the initial randomness 𝑎0 = 1 and 𝜃 is the randomness reduction factor which is similar to the
one used for cooling in simulated annealing. In its original version presented by Yang [67, 111], light
absorption coefficient, attractiveness β0 at r = 0 and the randomization parameter 𝑎𝑔 , are the control
parameters used. In the variant used for the purposes of this study, also presented by Yang [112], 𝑎𝑔
is controlled by two parameters (𝑎0 and 𝜃, see Eq. (26)), while the control parameter 𝛿 is used to
generate the random vector 𝜀𝑖 (𝑔).

3.16. Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA)

ICA is an evolutionary socio-politically inspired metaheuristic [103]. The idea is to consider the
countries as possible solutions, where the best ones are the imperialists (𝑁𝑖𝑚𝑝 ) and the rest are the
colonies (𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙 ). Each imperialist is supposed to possess a portion of the colonies, thus forming an
empire. The evolutionary improvement of the solutions is implemented through assimilation,
revolution, title exchange and empires’ survival/collapse operators. The normalized power of an
imperialist, i.e. the elements of the solution vector, is given by:
𝐶𝑖
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = | 𝑁𝑖𝑚𝑝 |
∑𝑘=1 𝐶𝑘 (27)
𝐶𝑖 = 𝑓(𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) − max(𝑓(𝑠𝑙 (𝑔)))
𝑙

where 𝐶𝑖 denotes the normalized cost of an imperialist. Given that 𝑁𝑖𝑚𝑝 refers to the number of
imperialists, 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙 = 𝑁𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑆𝐼𝑧𝑒 − 𝑁𝑖𝑚𝑝 is the number of the colonies. The initial number of colonies of
an empire will be:
𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙,𝑖 = 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 (𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) ⋅ 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙 ) (28)
and they will be randomly chosen. During the Assimilation process (defined as function of variable
𝜃, 𝛽), the power of each colony approaches gradually the one of its respective imperialist. The colonies
move in random distances, along directions towards their respective imperialist, maintaining both
exploration and exploitation capabilities. The Revolution operator maintains better exploration, in
which some colonies resist to be ruled by the imperialists, jumping out of the empire, thus exploring
new promising areas within the search space. The Title Exchange operator is performed to promote a
colony to be an imperialist in the next iterations, and vice versa. Empires’ survival/collapse occurs
after performing assimilation, revolution and title exchanging processes, when the empires get either
weaker or more powerful (the power is defined through variable 𝜉 ). The weak empires collapse
leaving behind their colonies that will be taken over by the stronger ones. Convergence in ICA occurs
when either one empire finally survives (the “grand empire”) while all the rest have collapsed, or
when another convergence criterion is met.

25
3.17. Differential Evolution (DE)

Since its inception by Storn and Price in 1995 [76, 77], DE has proven to be a powerful optimization
algorithm. The method generates a new vector through the weighted difference of two population
members to a third one. According to the “DE/rand/1” scheme, a donor vector 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) is defined
as:
𝑣𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑠𝑟𝑖1 (𝑔) + 𝐹 ⋅ (𝑠𝑟𝑖2 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑟𝑖3 (𝑔)) (29)
where the indices 𝑟𝑖1 , 𝑟𝑖2 and 𝑟𝑖3 are random integers within the population range, mutually exclusive
and different than index 𝑖. The mutation factor 𝐹 ∈ [0,2] controls the magnitude of differential
variation. The crossover operator is used based on a trial vector 𝑢𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) which is defined from the
components of vectors 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) and 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔 + 1):
𝑣𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1), 𝑖𝑓 rand𝑖,𝑗 ≤ 𝐶𝑅 or 𝑗 = 𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑢𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = { (30)
𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔), 𝑖𝑓 rand𝑖,𝑗 > 𝐶𝑅 or 𝑗 ≠ 𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
where 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖,𝑗 ∼ 𝑈[0,1] and random integer 𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∈ [1, 𝑛] ensures that 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) ≠ 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔). The last step
of the generation procedure is the implementation of the selection operator:
𝑢𝑖 (𝑔 + 1), 𝑖𝑓 𝑓(𝑢𝑖 (𝑔 + 1)) ≤ 𝑓(𝑠𝑖 (𝑔))
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = { (31)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔), otherwise
Several successful variations of DE have been reported and investigated in the literature, for general
optimization problems as well as structural optimization problems [113-115]. It is worth mentioning
that MVO metaheuristic can be considered as a variant of DE, since the derivation of the new design
implemented by Eq. (18) represents a combination of Eqs (29) and (30).

3.18. Harmony Search (HS)

HS is an algorithm inspired by music [104] which aims to mimic the improvisation process of Jazz
musicians. Every musician (saxophonist, bassist, guitarist etc.) represents a design variable, while the
pitch range of each musical instrument corresponds to a value of a design variable. The Musical
harmony has to do with a solution vector at a given iteration, and the objective function is expressed
by the audience’s aesthetics. Given this algorithmic concept, HS has the following five steps:
parameter initialization; harmony memory initialization; new harmony improvisation; harmony
memory update; and termination criteria check. A new harmony vector is defined following three
rules: usage of harmony memory, pitch adjustment and randomization. The harmony memory has a
function similar to the mutation operator in GA. Randomization is employed to increase the diversity
of the solutions. In the case that the new generated harmony vector is better (having a better objective
function value) than the worst harmony vector already in the harmony memory (HM), then the new
harmony vector replaces the worst harmony. In the original variant of HS [104], the harmony memory
consideration rate (HMCR) was the basic control parameter, while parameters including pitch
adjustment rate (PAR), and fret width (FW) were fixed. In the current version [116, 117], pitch
adjustment rate, fret width and fret width damping ratio (FWDR) are also considered as control

26
parameters. Thus, the main control parameters that need to be adjusted by the user are the harmony
memory consideration rate, pitch adjustment rate, fret width and fret width damping ratio.

3.19. Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO)

TLBO is a population-based metaheuristic inspired by the human teaching and learning behavior
[105]. Using two main operators, Teacher Phase and Learner Phase, the students (solutions) get
improved in terms of their grades (fitness function value). The taught subjects are represented by the
design variables. The indication of the students’ level of knowledge in a specific subject, is the mean
value of their grades in the subject. The best candidate (the one having the best fitness) 𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔) is set
as a teacher, and for the rest of the candidates, the mean value of each design variable is calculated:
𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛,𝑗 (𝑔) = 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛[𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔)]. Then, the Teacher Phase (TF) starts, by enhancing the students’ level of
knowledge, through pulling the mean value of each design variable to the corresponding one in the
teacher’s solution:
𝑠𝑛𝑒𝑤,𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝑟1 ∙ (𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔) − 𝑇𝑓 ∙ 𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 (𝑔))
𝑠𝑛𝑒𝑤,𝑖 (𝑔 + 1), 𝑖𝑓 𝑓 (𝑠𝑛𝑒𝑤,𝑖 (𝑔 + 1)) 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓(𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) (32)
𝑠𝑇𝐹,𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = {
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔), 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where integer 𝑇𝑓 is randomly set as 1 or 2, with equal probability. The second operator (Learner
Phase) also provides an improvement for the solutions through the interaction between the candidates
themselves:
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1)
𝑠𝑇𝐹𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) + 𝑟1 ∙ (𝑠𝑟𝑖1 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑟𝑖2 (𝑔)) , 𝑖𝑓 𝑓 (𝑠𝑟𝑖1 (𝑔)) 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓 (𝑠𝑟𝑖2 (𝑔)) (33)
={
𝑠𝑇𝐹𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) + 𝑟 ∙ (𝑠𝑟𝑖2 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝑟𝑖1 (𝑔)) , 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

where 𝑠𝑟𝑖1 (𝑔) and 𝑠𝑟𝑖2 (𝑔) are two randomly chosen solutions.

3.20. Krill herd (KH) algorithm

KH is a metaheuristic inspired by the krill herding in nature [106], in which the movement of each
individual of the swarm has three main pillars to determine its time-dependent position: the whole
swarm movement, seeking food and random spread. The objective of Krill herd is to minimize the
distances of each individual krill from the food location. For modelling the motion of the individuals
mathematically, the following formula is employed:
𝑑𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)
= 𝑁𝑖 + 𝐹𝑖 + 𝐷𝑖 (34)
𝑑𝑡
where 𝑁𝑖 is the motion induced by the swarm movement (function of its user defined maximum value
𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑥 ), 𝐹𝑖 is the foraging motion (function of user defined variable 𝑣𝑓 in [0,1]), and 𝐷𝑖 is the physical
diffusion of the 𝑖𝑡ℎ krill [106] (function of its user defined maximum value 𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). While the position
of the krill is updated as follows:
𝑑𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + 𝛥𝑡 ∙ (35)
𝑑𝑡

27
 𝑛

𝛥𝑡 = 𝐶𝑡 ∙ ∑(𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) (36)

𝑗=1

where constant 𝐶𝑡 is a real number in [0,2]. Subsequently the well-known crossover and mutation
operators are implemented over the krills’ locations. One of the advantages of the algorithm,
according to the authors of the original study [106], is that only one parameter, the time interval (𝐶𝑡 )
needs to be fine-tuned.

3.21. Interior Search Algorithm (ISA)

ISA metaheuristic [107] was inspired by the architectural process of the interior design and
decoration. In the interior design and decoration process, there are two main concepts used to find the
best view and decoration; composition and mirror concepts. Composition refers to the process of
replacing the items’ position until getting the best view, while mirror denotes the concept of placing
mirrors near the most beautiful items in order to emphasize their beauty. These two concepts are
followed in ISA, where the candidates (with the exception of the fittest candidate) are randomly
divided into two groups: the composition group in which the candidates change their position only
when it gives fitter values, and the mirror group in which some mirrors are placed near the fittest
candidates giving them higher weights among the population. The position vector is defined as
follows:
𝑙𝑏(𝑔) + (𝑢𝑏(𝑔) − 𝑙𝑏(𝑔)) ∙ 𝑟2 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑟1 ≤ 𝑎 (composition group)
𝑠𝑖 (𝑔 + 1) = { (37)
𝑟3 ∙ 𝑠𝑖 (𝑔) + (1 + 𝑟3 ) ∙ 𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔), 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 (mirror group)
where 𝑢𝑏(𝑔) and 𝑙𝑏(𝑔) denote the upper and lower bounds of the composition group at the 𝑔𝑡ℎ
iteration, while parameter 𝑎 needs to be fine-tuned. The location of 𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔) is slightly changed by
means of random walk using a variable 𝜆.

3.22. Pity Beetle Algorithm (PBA)

PBA is a metaheuristic optimization algorithm [108] inspired by the behaviour of the six-toothed bark
beetle (pityogenes chalcographus beetle) when searching for food. This beetle feeds on the bark of
the trees. PBA simulates the searching for food behavior of this bark beetle, with three main stages;
initialization of a population consisting of males and females, regeneration of new populations, and
location update stage. In the first stage, an initial population consisting of males and females is
randomly located within the search space. Some males act as pioneers as they search for the most
suitable host, aggregating into it by producing pheromone that attracts the other males and females.
The initial population in PBA should be well diversified in order to avoid premature convergence. To
ensure diversification, the initial population is generated by means of a random sampling technique.
In the second stage, every particle will look for a better position in the search space to create its own
population. This is done through five types of hypervolume selection patterns: neighboring search
volume, global-scale search volume, large-scale search volume, mid-scale search volume and

28
memory consideration search volume. In the last type, the best-found positions are saved and used.
In the third stage, the position of each mating male and female is updated, removing the previous
positions except those that are kept in the memory for the memory consideration search volume. By
experiments, it is proved that PBA can handle NP-hard optimization problems.

3.23. Slime Mould Algorithm (SMA)

SMA is a stochastic metaheuristic [109] that simulates the slime mold process that Physarum
polycephalum forages in a way that leads to the food through optimal paths, producing positive and
negative indications out of the propagation wave that is resulted from the bio-oscillator. The formula
for updating the location of the slime mould (wrap food) is defined as follows:
𝑟1 ⋅ (𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑟2 < 𝑧
𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = {𝑠𝑔𝑏,𝑗 (𝑔) + 𝑣𝑏 ⋅ (𝑊 ⋅ 𝑠𝐴,𝑗 (𝑔) − 𝑠𝐵,𝑗 (𝑔)) , 𝑖𝑓 𝑟2 < 𝑝 (38)
𝑣𝑐 ⋅ 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔), 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where 𝑧 = 0.03 based on a parametric study, parameter 𝑣𝑐 is decreased linearly from 1 to 0 and 𝑣𝑏 ∈
[−𝑎, 𝑎], 𝑠𝐴 (𝑔) and 𝑠𝐵 (𝑔) represent two individuals, randomly selected from slime mould, 𝑊 represents
the weight of the slime mould defined as a function of the best and worst solutions currently in the
iterative process, and parameter p is given by
𝑝 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ (|𝑓(𝑠𝑖 (𝑔)) − 𝑓 (𝑠𝑔𝑏 (𝑔))|)
𝑔 (39)
𝑎 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ (1 − )
𝑁

3.24. Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm (AOA)

AOA is a newly presented population-based metaheuristic [110], inspired by the four main
mathematical operators, i.e. addition, division, multiplication and subtraction. In order to switch
between exploration and exploitation phases, a random number 𝑟1 is used. If 𝑟1 > 𝑚𝑜𝑎(𝑔) then
exploration phase is activated, otherwise, exploitation phase is implemented, where 𝑚𝑜𝑎(𝑔) stands
for math optimizer accelerated function of the 𝑔𝑡ℎ iteration:
𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑜𝑎(𝑔) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑔 ∙ (40)
𝑁
where 𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑚𝑎𝑥 are minimum the maximum values of the accelerated function and 𝑁 is the
maximum number of iterations. For the exploration phase:
𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡(𝑠𝑗 ) ÷ (𝑚𝑜𝑝 + 𝜖 ) ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝜇 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) 𝑖𝑓 𝑟2 < 0.5
𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = { (41)
𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡(𝑠𝑗 ) × (𝑚𝑜𝑝) ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝜇 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
while for the exploitation phase:
𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡(𝑠𝑗 ) − (𝑀𝑂𝑃) ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝜇 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) 𝑖𝑓 𝑟3 < 0.5
𝑠𝑖,𝑗 (𝑔 + 1) = { (42)
𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡(𝑠𝑗 ) + (𝑀𝑂𝑃) ∙ ((𝑢𝑏𝑗 − 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∙ 𝜇 + 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where match optimizer probability (mop) coefficient is defined as:
𝑔1/𝛼
𝑚𝑜𝑝(𝑔) = 1 − (43)
𝑁 1/𝛼
29
where 𝜖 is a small integer number, control parameter μ aims to emphasize on exploration not only
during the first steps of the search procedure, control parameter a is used to emphasize on exploitation
accuracy during the optimization.

4. ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF MOAS’ IMPLEMENTATION FOR

SOLVING STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS
MOAs represent randomized search procedures where computing is combined with concepts from
physical and biological sciences like the imitation of the evolution process, the social behaviour of
species etc., and were developed originally for solving unconstrained NP-complete problems, while
so far, they have been used for solving any type of problems, ranging from engineering design to
economics, routing problems, among others. For implementing MOAs into problems related to
structural optimization, there are some special features that need to be integrated into their
implementation, such as the handling of constraints, either related to structural performance or box-
type constraints for the bounds of the design variables. Before presenting the results obtained through
the implementation of the 24 state-of-the-art MOAs, the authors need to underline that although an
optimized objective function value is provided for each problem found in the literature, the scope of
this study is not to achieve better results compared to the literature, since the conditions of the
implementation of the algorithms and the characteristics of the problems’ formulations are not always
clear. The main scope is to present the efficiency of these algorithms, all assessed on a common
framework and a common basis of comparison. In order to define the common basis of comparison,
all algorithms were implemented in MATLAB using the guidelines provided by their own developers
in the original work where they were first presented. In addition, the same stopping criterion
corresponding to a specific number of function evaluations and common technique for dealing with
the problem constraints were used, for both performance and box-type constraints. Last but not least,
the same procedure has been implemented also for the discrete and the integer design variables.
A feasibility rules-based procedure is used for handling the constraints. In order to calculate the fitness
function of an infeasible individual, 𝑝𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 factor is introduced which is the individual’s
normalized maximum constraint violation multiplied by a term that takes into account the number of
the violated constraint functions of a solution. This factor is defined as:
𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙
𝑝𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ‖𝑚𝑎𝑥 {𝑚𝑎𝑥{0, 𝑔𝑗 (𝑠)}}‖ × (1 + )>1 (44)
𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡
where the term 𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙 denotes the number of violated constraint functions and 𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 stands for
the total number of constraints. Then, in order to calculate the individual’s fitness function, the
𝑝𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 factor is multiplied with the maximum objective function value between the best feasible
individual found until now and the individual itself. The fitness function is formulated as:
𝑓(𝑠) if 𝑔𝑎 (𝑠) ≤ 0 ∀ 𝑎 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑚𝑎
𝐹(𝑠) = { (45)
𝑚𝑎𝑥(𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 , 𝑓(𝑠)) × 𝑝𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 otherwise

30
where 𝑓𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 is the global best feasible solution found so far. The constraints of Eq. (1) can be
divided into two broad categories; function constraints and bound constraints. The first category
includes the inequality and equality constraints and represents a more complex type of constraints,
defined as functions. The second category concerns the variable’s upper and lower limits (bounds)
which restrict the possible values of the problem’s design variables. Most researches try to optimize
constrained problems using techniques that handle the function constraints while only few have put
significant effort to handle properly the limits of the decision variables implementing boundary
constraint handling methods (BCHMs). These methods are controlling formulations that try to modify
and correct the position of an infeasible variable solution vector of a problem and set it again inside
the search space in order to become feasible. Some of the most known boundary constraints handling
methods, where 𝑦𝑗 is the new corrected variable vector, are the following:
𝑠𝑗 if 𝑙𝑏𝑗 ≤ 𝑠𝑗 ≤ 𝑢𝑏𝑗
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 𝑦𝑗 = { 𝑙𝑏𝑗 if 𝑠𝑗 < 𝑙𝑏𝑗 (46)
𝑢𝑏𝑗 if 𝑠𝑗 > 𝑢𝑏𝑗
It has to be noted that in the case of structural optimization problems, the design variables are not
always continuous as many of them can only take integer or discrete values. These variables, for
every algorithm examined in this study, are treated as equivalent continuous variables, using the
correction function of the following simple expression:
𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟(𝑠𝑗 ) for the integer variables
𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 𝑦𝑗 = { (47)
𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟(𝑠𝑗 × 10)/10 for discrete variables of 0.1 step size
For the case of discrete variables where there is no constant step size, an integer variable is employed
instead, used as a pointer denoting the discrete value to be assigned to the design variable.

5. NUMERICAL TESTS

In this section, 11 benchmark test examples are investigated, aiming to test the efficiency of the 24
MOAs presented previously. Each problem was solved by each algorithm 20 times (i.e. in 20
independent runs), in order to remove any random bias and to obtain the probabilistic characteristics
of the results. In total, 11×24×20 = 5,280 optimization runs were conducted. The parameters that need
to adjusted and were used during the implementation of the 24 algorithms can be found in Table 2,
they refer to those of Table 1 and correspond to the suggested values provided by the developers of
each algorithm.
Table 2. Parameters of the 24 algorithms.
Global Parameters
gpopsize_short=30
gpopsize_long=100
maxFEs_mult=10,000 (for problems 1 to 6)
maxFEs_mult=1,000 (for problems 7 to 11)
maxFEs=dim*maxFEs_mult

Algorithm Parameters Algorithm Parameters

GWO SearchAgents=gpopsize_long, SSA SearchAgents_no=gpopsize_short,
MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents) MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents_no)
31
 a linearly decreased from 2 to 0
IGWO Same with GWO PSO noP=gpopsize_short,
maxIter=floor(maxFEs/noP), wMax=0.9,
wMin=0.2, c1=2, c2=2
WOA SearchAgents=gpopsize_short, FA nPop=gpopsize_short,
MaxIter=floormaxFEs/SearchAgents), maxIter=floor(maxFEs/nPop), gamma=1,
parameter a like in GWO, b = 1 beta0=1, alpha0=0.2, theta=0.98,
delta=0.05
ALO SearchAgents=gpopsize_long, ICA nPop=gpopsize_long,
MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents) maxIter=floor(maxFEs/nPop), Νimp=10,
beta=0.5, theta=pi/4, xi=0.1
CMAES PopSize=2*dim+10, DE nPop=gpopsize_long,
maxIter=floor(MaxFunEvals/PopSize), MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/nPop), F=0.5,
lambda=floor(PopSize/2), CR=0.2
sigma=0.5*(UBounds-LBounds)
MTDE PopSize=gpopsize_long, HS HMS=gpopsize_short,
MaxGen=floor(MaxFES/PopSize), MaxIter=floor((maxFEs-HMS)/nNew),
WinIter=20, H=5, initial=0.001, HMCR=0.9, PAR=0.1, FW=0.02,
final=2, Mu=log(D), μf=0.5, σ=0.2 FWDR=0.995
where D is the problem dimension.
DA SearchAgents=gpopsize_short, TLBO nPop = gpopsize_long,
MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents), MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/(2*nPop))
beta=3/2
GOA SearchAgents=gpopsize_long, KH NK = gpopsize_short,
MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents), maxIter=floor(maxFEs/NK), Vf=0.02,
cMax=1, cMin=0.00001 Dmax=0.005, Nmax=0.01, Ct=1
GOAf Same with GOA ISA n=gpopsize_long,
maxIter=floor(maxFEs/n), lambda=0.01
MFO SearchAgents=gpopsize_short, PBA nPop = gpopsize_short
MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents), maxIter=floor(maxFEs/nPop),
b=1, r linearly decreased from -1 to -2 fnear=0.08, fact=3, flast=0.015,
fnear2=0.90, frand2=100, fact3=0.35,
fmem=0.20
MVO Universes=gpopsize_short, SMA SearchAgents=gpopsize_short,
MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/Universes), maxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents),
WEPmax=1, WEPmin=0.2, p=6 z=0.03, vc linearly decreased from 1 to 0
SCA SearchAgents=gpopsize_short, AOA Solution=gpopsize_short,
MaxIter=floor(maxFEs/SearchAgents), maxIter=floor(maxFEs/Solution),
a=2 max=1, min=0.2, alpha=5, mu=0.499

The constraints handling mechanism used for all the employed optimization algorithms and test cases
is such that ensures that in the end of the of the optimization process all constraints will be satisfied
and there will be no constraint violations, at all.

5.1. Six benchmark structural optimization problems

In this section, six benchmark structural optimization problems are studied. First, three well-known
benchmark structural truss sizing optimization problems in 2D and 3D are investigated, namely the
10-bar truss [34], the 25-bar truss [34] and the 72-bar truss structures [34]. All three problems refer
to steel truss structures, that are formulated as sizing structural optimization problems, with their size
in terms of design variables ranging from 8 to 16 design variables. The sizing design variables are
continuous values denoting the cross-section area that is to be assigned to the specific structural
element, or group of elements. For all three problems the weight of the structure is used as the
objective function, to be minimized. Next, three well-known benchmark structural optimization
problems having an analytical expression of the corresponding problem formulation are studied,

32
namely the Welded beam design problem [118], the Pressure vessel design problem [118], and the
Tension-compression string problem [118].
For all six cases, the number of function evaluations allowed, for all algorithms, was equal to the
dimensionality n of the problem times 10,000. This value for the maximum number of function
evaluations may not be optimal for each individual problem, but it provides a common base of
comparison for problems with different levels of complexity, while also ensuring that the number of
function evaluations will be large enough to accommodate even the most difficult cases.

5.1.1 10-bar truss

For the 10-bar truss problem, an independent design variable is employed for each bar, resulting into
a 10 design variables problem, that are treated as continuous variables in the range [0.1, 33.5] in2.
The constraint functions imposed refer to (i) stress constraints, where the stress of the truss members
should not exceed the stress limit of 25 ksi, and (ii) displacement constraints where the absolute value
of the displacement of all nodes should not exceed the limit of 2.0 in; more details on the problem
formulation can be found in [34]. The reference objective function value found in the literature that
refers to the weight of the structure is equal to 5057.88 lb [34]. The results obtained for the 10-bar
truss problem are reported in Table 3, where it can be seen that most algorithms achieved excellent
results; the best result for this problem was achieved by CMAES, FA, TLBO and SMA algorithms
resulting to the Best optimized value lower than 5061 lb, while the least variance on the results
obtained out of the 20 independent optimization runs carried out for each algorithm corresponds to
IGWO, MTDE, MVO, FA, DE and TLBO algorithms, as denoted by the coefficient of variation with
values lower than 0.10%. This problem proved to be easy to handle for most optimizers, with very
few exceptions.

Table 3. 10-bar truss example – collective results.

Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 5062.28 5069.68 5086.28 5071.16 0.14%
IGWO 5061.55 5062.45 5063.21 5062.46 0.01%
WOA 5171.54 5606.54 6987.53 5823.45 9.55%
ALO 5062.28 5072.33 5097.44 5074.88 0.18%
CMAES 5060.85 5060.85 5076.67 5063.23 0.11%
MTDE 5060.86 5060.90 5060.95 5060.90 0.00%
DA 5090.99 5235.04 5575.38 5257.89 2.67%
GOA 5065.29 5088.91 5102.23 5087.51 0.17%
GOAf 5077.83 5193.91 5633.45 5210.60 2.84%
MFO 5062.74 5081.20 5429.34 5108.44 1.64%
MVO 5061.76 5065.67 5072.91 5066.22 0.06%
SCA 5158.26 5238.47 5307.14 5234.16 0.81%
SSA 5061.99 5067.16 5087.15 5069.10 0.13%
PSO 5061.27 5087.17 6279.92 5173.62 5.14%
FA 5060.87 5060.95 5061.48 5061.00 0.00%
ICA 5077.56 5134.42 5549.57 5175.55 2.30%
DE 5062.10 5063.48 5070.28 5064.05 0.04%

33
 HS 5071.60 5102.72 5621.60 5128.90 2.28%
TLBO 5060.87 5060.90 5076.71 5061.69 0.07%
KH 5061.01 5061.96 5077.59 5068.60 0.16%
ISA 5707.11 5896.29 7116.73 6007.23 5.41%
PBA 5265.65 5410.69 5680.10 5422.12 1.82%
SMA 5060.95 5061.37 5077.27 5063.78 0.11%
AOA 5096.51 5299.32 5610.07 5320.36 2.43%

5.1.2 25-bar truss

For the 25-bar truss problem, the structural elements are grouped, resulting into a problem with 8
design variables, that are treated as continuous variables in the range [0.01, 3.4] in2. The constraint
functions imposed refer to (i) stress constraints, where for tension members the stress should not
exceed the stress limit of 35 ksi and for compression members the stress is limited according to AISC
code, and (ii) displacement constraints where the absolute value of the displacement of all nodes
should not exceed the threshold of 0.35 in; more details on the problem formulation can be found in
[34]. The reference objective function value found in the literature, referring to the weight of the
structure, is equal to 545.175 lb [34]. The results obtained for the 25-bar truss problem are provided
in Table 4, where it can be seen that most algorithms achieved very good results. The best result for
this problem was achieved by CMAES, MTDE, FA and TLBO algorithms resulting to the Best
optimized value lower than 545.20 lb, while the least variance on the results obtained out of the 20
independent optimization runs corresponds to CMAES, MTDE, MVO, FA, DE and TLBO
algorithms, with coefficient of variation values lower than 0.10%.

Table 4. 25-bar truss example – collective results.

Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 545.58 546.59 549.06 546.81 0.18%
IGWO 545.33 545.46 545.64 545.46 0.01%
WOA 550.61 579.29 617.16 580.24 3.01%
ALO 545.31 549.50 575.83 552.17 1.44%
CMAES 545.16 545.16 545.16 545.16 0.00%
MTDE 545.16 545.16 545.17 545.16 0.00%
DA 545.49 562.41 662.15 572.15 5.02%
GOA 545.44 547.30 611.04 554.85 3.51%
GOAf 545.50 548.67 602.03 556.57 2.70%
MFO 545.28 546.73 551.74 547.05 0.26%
MVO 545.23 545.38 546.00 545.43 0.04%
SCA 551.99 558.09 564.37 557.92 0.64%
SSA 545.20 549.11 556.31 549.20 0.61%
PSO 545.18 545.45 547.07 545.82 0.14%
FA 545.16 545.19 545.28 545.20 0.01%
ICA 545.45 549.52 554.11 549.42 0.39%
DE 545.33 545.40 545.88 545.46 0.03%
HS 545.92 549.43 567.12 550.39 0.86%
TLBO 545.16 545.18 545.22 545.18 0.00%
KH 545.22 545.53 549.14 545.79 0.17%
ISA 557.59 557.91 592.64 562.97 1.74%
PBA 550.95 563.09 576.02 562.34 1.08%
SMA 545.19 545.35 546.25 545.45 0.05%

34
 AOA 553.75 563.42 601.81 570.16 2.38%

5.1.3 72-bar truss

For the 72-bar truss problem, the structural elements are grouped, resulting into a 16 design variables
problem, that are treated as continuous variables in the range [0.1, 3.0] in2. The constraint functions
imposed refer to (i) stress constraints, where the stress of the truss members should not exceed the
stress limit of 25 ksi in general, and (ii) displacement constraints, where the absolute value of the
displacement of the uppermost nodes should not exceed the limit of 0.25 in; more details on the
problem formulation can be found in [34]. The reference objective function value found in the
literature, referring to the weight of the structure, is equal to 379.66 lb [34]. The results obtained for
the 72-bar truss problem are provided in Table 5. It can be seen that most of the algorithms achieved
very good results. The best result for this problem was achieved by GWO, IGWO, CMAES, MTDE,
PSO, FA, TLBO, KH and SMA algorithms resulting to the Best optimized value lower than 379.70
lb, while the algorithms GWO, IGWO, CMAES, MTDE, FA, DE, TLBO and SMA achieved the least
variance, with values of the coefficient of variation lower than 0.10%.

Table 5. 72-bar truss example – collective results.

Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 379.69 379.78 379.93 379.80 0.02%
IGWO 379.69 379.75 379.90 379.75 0.01%
WOA 411.27 472.21 536.62 477.52 6.97%
ALO 381.05 385.22 421.12 390.83 3.07%
CMAES 379.61 379.61 379.61 379.61 0.00%
MTDE 379.62 379.62 379.62 379.62 0.00%
DA 385.36 421.09 508.78 427.72 8.11%
GOA 380.86 434.26 540.58 446.20 12.55%
GOAf 381.30 403.39 579.48 423.11 11.84%
MFO 379.86 380.53 447.17 391.68 4.99%
MVO 379.94 381.61 387.65 382.00 0.46%
SCA 415.92 428.07 445.85 429.14 2.08%
SSA 380.64 383.68 412.35 387.53 2.23%
PSO 379.62 379.63 467.15 391.63 6.41%
FA 379.62 379.62 379.63 379.62 0.00%
ICA 388.63 400.48 503.47 459.63 13.76%
DE 379.66 379.69 379.74 379.69 0.01%
HS 380.25 381.95 386.68 382.33 0.45%
TLBO 379.62 379.62 379.62 379.62 0.00%
KH 379.68 379.78 430.68 385.96 4.16%
ISA 451.79 755.51 947.13 727.08 21.18%
PBA 416.96 439.93 453.68 439.38 2.11%
SMA 379.65 379.70 379.77 379.70 0.01%
AOA 482.52 506.23 525.30 505.17 2.82%

5.1.4 Welded beam design problem

The well-known welded beam design problem [118] can be formulated as follows:
Minimize 𝑓(𝑠) = 1.10471𝑠12 𝑠2 + 0.04811𝑠3 𝑠4 (14.0 + 𝑠2 ) (48)
35
 Subject to
𝑔1 (𝑠) = 𝜏(𝑠) − 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 0
𝑔2 (𝑠) = 𝜎(𝑠) − 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 0
𝑔3 (𝑠) = 𝑠1 − 𝑠4 ≤ 0
𝑔4 (𝑠) = 0.10471𝑠12 + 0.04811𝑠3 𝑠4 (14.0 + 𝑠2 ) − 5.0 ≤ 0
𝑔5 (𝑠) = 0.125 − 𝑠1 ≤ 0
𝑔6 (𝑠) = 𝛿 (𝑠) − 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 0
𝑔7 (𝑠) = 𝑃 − 𝑃𝑐 (𝑠) ≤ 0
where
𝑠2
𝜏(𝑠) = √(𝜏′)2 + 2𝜏′𝜏′′ + (𝜏′′)2
2𝑅
𝑃
𝜏′ =
√2𝑠1 𝑠2
𝑀𝑅
𝜏′′ =
𝐽
𝑠2
𝑀 = 𝑃 (𝐿 + )
2
𝑠2 2 + (𝑠1 + 𝑠3 )2
𝑅=√
4
𝑠2 2 (𝑠1 + 𝑠3 )2
𝐽 = 2 {√2𝑠1 𝑠2 [ + ]}
12 4
6𝑃𝐿
𝜎 (𝑠 ) =
𝑠4 𝑠3 2
4𝑃𝐿3
𝛿 (𝑠 ) =
𝛦𝑠3 3 𝑠4
4.013𝛦√𝑠3 2 𝑠4 6 𝑠3 𝐸
𝑃𝑐 (𝑠) = 2
(1 − √ )
6𝐿 2𝐿 4𝐺

Where 𝑃 = 6,000 𝑙𝑏, 𝐿 = 14 𝑖𝑛, 𝐸 = 30 × 106 𝑝𝑠𝑖 , 𝐺 = 12 × 106 𝑝𝑠𝑖 , 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 13600 𝑝𝑠𝑖 , 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
30,000 𝑝𝑠𝑖, 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.25 𝑖𝑛. More details on the problem and its formulation can be found in [118].
The reference objective function value found in the literature is equal to 1.72485084 [118]. The results
obtained for the welded beam problem are provided in Table 6. It can be seen that most of the
algorithms achieved very good results managing to reach the vicinity of the optimum. The best result
for this problem was achieved by CMAES, MTDE, MFO, PSO, FA and TLBO algorithms resulting
to the Best optimized value lower than 1.7249, while the least variance on the results obtained out of
the 20 independent optimization runs carried out for each algorithm corresponds to IGWO, CMAES,
MTDE, FA and TLBO algorithms as denoted by the coefficient of variation with values lower than
0.10%.

Table 6. Welded beam design problem – collective results.

Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 1.725815 1.727201 1.732929 1.727801 0.10%
IGWO 1.725205 1.726402 1.727412 1.726407 0.03%
WOA 1.764439 2.066289 3.805661 2.320700 24.75%
ALO 1.738265 2.033519 2.270306 2.077232 6.62%
CMAES 1.724852 1.724852 1.724852 1.724852 0.00%
MTDE 1.724861 1.724871 1.724927 1.724879 0.00%
DA 1.736235 1.808789 2.497832 1.949844 13.34%
GOA 1.758468 2.240731 3.395531 2.330782 16.02%

36
 GOAf 1.842398 2.275301 3.370820 2.353270 17.04%
MFO 1.724852 1.967988 3.051153 1.994456 19.11%
MVO 1.761176 1.964720 2.239683 1.953782 7.37%
SCA 1.792420 1.869048 1.943238 1.865548 2.15%
SSA 1.936579 2.037333 2.316735 2.089118 5.61%
PSO 1.724852 1.724852 1.974449 1.737488 3.21%
FA 1.724852 1.724852 1.724852 1.724852 0.00%
ICA 1.725042 2.151993 4.197115 2.347707 28.54%
DE 1.761492 1.833467 2.142021 1.875381 5.79%
HS 2.356651 3.160089 4.310701 3.179208 17.22%
TLBO 1.724852 1.724852 1.724852 1.724852 0.00%
KH 1.731836 2.124365 3.097703 2.249855 18.47%
ISA 1.890158 3.304555 4.262717 3.264702 20.62%
PBA 1.797781 1.904672 2.038480 1.912669 3.46%
SMA 1.725136 1.725794 1.839148 1.732070 1.46%
AOA 1.950500 2.225528 2.617353 2.283393 8.51%

5.1.5 Pressure vessel design problem

The pressure vessel problem [119] is formulated as follows:

Minimize 𝑓(𝑠) = 0.6224𝑠1 𝑠3 𝑠4 + 1.7781𝑠2 𝑠32 + 3.1661𝑠12 𝑠4 + 19.84𝑠12 𝑠3
Subject to
𝑔1 (𝑠) = −𝑠1 + 0.0193𝑠3 ≤ 0
𝑔2 (𝑠) = −𝑠2 + 0.00954𝑠3 ≤ 0 (49)
4
𝑔3 (𝑠) = −𝜋𝑠32 𝑠4 − 𝜋𝑠33 + 1296000 ≤ 0
3
𝑔4 (𝑠) = 𝑠4 − 240 ≤ 0
where 𝑠1, 𝑠2 design variables are integer multipliers of 0.0625. More details on the problem
formulation can be found in [119]. Τhe reference objective function value found in the literature is
equal to 5888.3400 [92]. The results obtained for the welded beam problem are provided in Table 7,
where it is shown that while some algorithms achieved very good results, others failed to do so. The
best result for this problem was achieved by ALO, MTDE, FA, TLBO and SMA algorithms. Some
algorithms achieved a better (smaller) optimum value than the reference value reported in the
literature and these results are denoted with bold in the table. The least variation of the results was
exhibited by GWO, IGWO, MTDE and TLBO algorithms, with values of the coefficient of variation
lower than 0.10%.

Table 7. Pressure vessel design problem – collective results.

Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 5851.70 5852.63 5854.93 5853.15 0.02%
IGWO 5850.65 5850.99 5851.88 5851.23 0.01%
WOA 6254.77 7463.27 8490.07 7481.39 12.61%
ALO 5850.38 6410.09 7332.84 6415.42 8.84%
CMAES 6059.71 6370.78 7119.97 6492.28 7.16%
MTDE 5850.38 5850.38 5850.39 5850.38 0.00%
DA 6185.52 6198.52 7544.49 6482.06 9.19%
GOA 5850.54 5940.26 6516.42 6043.91 4.48%
GOAf 5850.41 6059.73 7050.68 6255.45 7.47%
MFO 6073.18 6379.40 6410.56 6269.42 2.72%
MVO 6092.04 6372.21 7333.59 6532.62 8.07%
SCA 6352.29 6664.72 7734.11 6786.73 8.12%

37
 SSA 6068.85 6820.41 7273.51 6652.20 7.22%
PSO 6059.71 6090.53 7544.49 6375.17 10.26%
FA 5850.38 6090.53 6370.78 6098.55 3.02%
ICA 6063.30 6074.21 6130.17 6083.42 0.46%
DE 5883.62 5929.28 5991.73 5934.27 0.74%
HS 6069.95 6432.58 6853.87 6453.31 4.31%
TLBO 5850.38 5850.39 5850.42 5850.39 0.00%
KH 6090.72 6410.60 6820.90 6437.27 5.49%
ISA 7486.10 10400.00 13200.00 10150.69 23.22%
PBA 6084.00 6422.30 6878.42 6438.08 4.45%
SMA 5850.38 6090.53 7332.84 6421.01 9.60%
AOA 7044.90 8574.39 14736.28 9940.79 30.76%

5.1.6 Tension-compression string problem

The tension-compression string problem [118] can be formulated as follows:

Minimize 𝑓(𝑠) = (𝑠3 + 2)𝑠2 𝑠12
Subject to
𝑠23 𝑠3
( )
𝑔1 𝑠 = 1 − ≤0
71785𝑠14
4𝑠22 − 𝑠1 𝑠2 1
𝑔2 (𝑠) = 3 4 + −1≤0 (50)
12566(𝑠2 𝑠1 − 𝑠1 ) 5108𝑠1 2
140.45𝑠1
𝑔3 (𝑠) = 1 − ≤0
𝑠22 𝑠3
𝑠2 + 𝑠1
𝑔4 (𝑠) = −1≤0
1.5

More details on the problem formulation can be found in [118]. The reference objective function
value found in the literature is equal to 0.012665 [118]. The results obtained for the tension-
compression string problem are provided in Table 8 where it can be seen that most of the algorithms
achieved excellent results. The best result for this problem was achieved by WOA, ALO, CMAES,
MTDE, MFO, ICA, TLBO and ISA algorithms resulting to the Best optimized value lower than
0.012668. The least variance of the results was exhibited by IGWO, CMAES, MTDE and TLBO
algorithms with a value of the coefficient of variation lower than 0.10%.

Table 8. Tension-compression string problem – collective results.

Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 0.012694 0.012730 0.012761 0.012729 0.12%
IGWO 0.012671 0.012687 0.012703 0.012689 0.07%
WOA 0.012665 0.013369 0.016708 0.013967 9.18%
ALO 0.012667 0.012719 0.017741 0.013407 10.94%
CMAES 0.012665 0.012665 0.012665 0.012665 0.00%
MTDE 0.012667 0.012671 0.012678 0.012672 0.03%
DA 0.012719 0.012869 0.017854 0.013240 8.61%
GOA 0.012706 0.014500 0.024514 0.015786 19.62%
GOAf 0.012864 0.015688 0.022771 0.016179 16.86%
MFO 0.012665 0.012719 0.015753 0.012992 5.51%
MVO 0.012739 0.014010 0.018147 0.015168 15.62%
SCA 0.012840 0.013027 0.013820 0.013077 1.61%
SSA 0.012678 0.012884 0.016380 0.013303 8.17%
PSO 0.012685 0.012746 0.013298 0.012849 1.54%
FA 0.012684 0.012719 0.012821 0.012720 0.20%
38
 ICA 0.012665 0.012670 0.012987 0.012698 0.56%
DE 0.012680 0.012722 0.012825 0.012737 0.33%
HS 0.012671 0.015082 0.017776 0.015229 11.47%
TLBO 0.012667 0.012680 0.012706 0.012682 0.09%
KH 0.012673 0.012857 0.017374 0.013204 8.46%
ISA 0.012665 0.012711 0.014808 0.012823 3.70%
PBA 0.012689 0.012892 0.013365 0.012942 1.49%
SMA 0.012734 0.015367 0.017813 0.015145 13.29%
AOA 0.012810 0.013265 0.027160 0.016390 32.74%

5.1.7 Comparative results

In order to present the globality of the algorithms’ efficiency, Figure 2 shows the variation (or relative
error value) of the best achieved optimum solution by each one of the 24 MOAs, in comparison to
the reference (best reported) solution found in the literature, for each problem. In this diagram, lower
bars represent better solutions and ideally a zero-height bar (i.e. zero error) would mean that the
algorithm has achieved the same optimum as the one found in the literature. 10 out of 24 MOAs
(GWO, IGWO, ALO, CMAES, MTDE, MFO, PSO, FA, TLBO, SMA) managed to give excellent
solutions with error values less than 1% for all the problems examined, while 12 of them (GWO,
IGWO, ALO, CMAES, MTDE, DA, MFO, PSO, FA, TLBO, KH, SMA) managed to end up to very
good solutions with error values less than 2% in all examined problems. The best three overall
performances were the ones of CMAES, MTDE and TLBO, with average error values (average over
all 6 problems) less than 0.16%, followed by MFO, IGWO, PSO and FA with average error values
less than 0.2%. These excellent results show the clear potential of MOAs in handling structural
optimization problems.

(a)

39
 (b)
Figure 2. Performance of the 24 algorithms in the group of the 6 benchmark test problems: (a)
Algorithms 1-12, (b) Algorithms 13-24.

5.2. International Student Competition in Structural Optimization (ISCSO 2015 to 2019)

In this section, five test examples taken from the recent International Student Competition in
Structural Optimization events (i.e. ISCSO2015 to ISCSO2019, [9-13]), are used for further
challenging the efficiency of the 24 MOAs. These five problems refer to steel truss structures, they
are formulated as combined sizing-shape structural optimization problems and their size, in terms of
design variables, range from 54 to 328 design variables. The sizing design variables are integer values
denoting the discrete standardized cross-section that is to be assigned to the specific 2D or 3D truss
structural element, while the shape design variables are continuous denoting the value of the specific
node coordinate. For each problem, we report a table which presents the results obtained by the 20
independent optimization runs, performed for each problem with the same algorithm. In particular,
each table reports the best objective function value found in 20 runs, the median, worst and mean
value, as well as the coefficient of variation which is a standardized measure of dispersion of the
results, defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. The number of function evaluations
allowed for the six problems, for all algorithms, was equal to the dimension n of each problem times
1,000.

5.2.1 ISCSO 2015 Problem

The test example of ISCSO2015 [9] is formulated as a sizing and shape optimization of the 45-bar
2D truss structure shown in Figure 3, that is discretised with 45 sizing and 9 shape design variables.
The sizing variables denote the cross-sectional areas of the truss elements (in groups) and take values
in the range 0.1 to 15 in2 with increments of 0.1 in2. The constraint functions imposed refer to (i)
stress constraints, where the stress of the truss members should not exceed the stress limit of 30 ksi,
and (ii) displacement constraints where the absolute value of the displacement of all nodes should not

40
exceed the limit of 2.0 in. More information about the problem formulation (including loading
conditions, design variables grouping etc) and how it can be implemented through a simple MATLAB
function for the structural analysis and design of this particular truss is provided in [9].

Figure 3. The ISCSO2015 two-dimensional truss problem (dimensions in in).

The best value achieved in the framework of the competition was equal to 3861.1045 lb and it is taken
as the reference value for comparison in the present study. The results obtained from the 24 MOAs,
for the ISCSO2015 two-dimensional truss optimization problem, are presented in Table 9. In this test
example, DE outperformed the other algorithms resulting to the Best optimized value of 5046.70 lb,
followed by PBA, SSA and SCA. The worst performance in terms of final best objective value is the
one of GWO (7847.57 lb) followed by IGWO, ICA and GOAf. IGWO exhibited the least variation
on the results obtained out of 20 independent optimization runs (4.07%), but its performance was
overall poor when we consider the value of the objective function achieved. From the top-5
performers in terms of best objective value achieved (DE, PBA, SSA, SCA and KH), SSA showed a
good balance between best value and variation, with a best value of 5126.45 lb and a coefficient of
variation equal to 20.60%. Interestingly, when the median or the mean values are taken into account,
things are different with the top performers being FA, CMAES, TLBO, SMA and ICA. So, the top-5
performers in terms of best value achieved are completely different than the top-5 performers when
the median value or the average value is taken into account.

Table 9. ISCSO2015 test example – collective results (objective function values in lb).
Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 7847.57 8667.70 10011.98 8695.66 6.77%
IGWO 7322.22 8098.97 8473.70 8051.59 4.07%
WOA 5153.90 8488.70 12175.60 8777.50 26.66%
ALO 5208.14 7458.92 11850.75 7940.61 24.95%
CMAES 5633.38 6038.90 6680.38 6077.00 4.77%
MTDE 5469.02 8735.15 10092.62 8587.29 14.10%
41
 DA 5209.22 7823.33 12532.20 8530.07 28.06%
GOA 5170.39 7970.05 12574.50 8254.99 27.90%
GOAf 5844.59 9264.72 12128.22 9078.35 24.41%
MFO 5423.47 8495.52 11808.38 8455.49 21.34%
MVO 5205.39 8247.57 12432.26 8462.21 22.52%
SCA 5128.14 9778.64 12139.61 8903.87 28.97%
SSA 5126.45 9893.93 11772.47 9441.13 20.60%
PSO 5373.44 8828.13 11243.41 8391.92 19.99%
FA 5226.31 5797.08 6868.02 5862.77 8.19%
ICA 6014.06 7301.66 8567.34 7387.79 11.08%
DE 5046.70 8960.40 12341.89 9023.18 26.10%
HS 5247.47 9043.99 10581.26 8655.61 16.99%
TLBO 5692.23 6499.32 9156.10 6846.41 14.23%
KH 5136.65 8579.90 12542.30 8753.96 30.60%
ISA 5471.80 8978.11 12088.31 8932.18 24.23%
PBA 5113.99 8548.61 12559.71 8780.52 27.83%
SMA 5666.07 6559.16 7910.83 6730.15 9.36%
AOA 5193.87 9100.84 12234.46 9072.24 26.50%

5.2.2 ISCSO 2016 Problem

The test example of ISCSO2016 [10] refers to the steel cantilever 3D truss structure shown
schematically in Figure 4. The structure consists of 117 members and 30 nodes in total. The problem
is formulated as a combined sizing and shape optimization problem, with 117 sizing and 7 shape
design variables. The sizing design variables can only take integer values ranging from 1 to 37
representing the section ID from a database of 37 pipe sections. The shape variables have to do with
the vertical coordinates of the 14 top nodes of the structure, grouped in pairs. The structure is designed
according to AISC-LRFD 1994 regulations, and each member is assessed considering the limit states
of tensile yielding and compressive buckling. Thus, the constraint functions imposed refer to (i) stress
constraints where the truss members should satisfy the stress requirements of the code, and (ii)
displacement constraints where the absolute value of the displacement of all nodes should not exceed
the limit of 4.0 cm. More information about the problem formulation (including loading conditions,
design variables etc) and how it can be implemented through a simple MATLAB function for the
structural analysis and design of this particular truss is provided in [10].

Figure 4. The ISCSO2016 three-dimensional truss problem (dimensions in mm).

42
The best value achieved in the framework of the competition is equal to 2816.0281 kg and it is taken
as the reference value for comparisons. The results obtained from the 24 MOAs, for the ISCSO2016
three-dimensional truss optimization problem, are presented in Table 10. In this test example,
CMAES outperformed the other algorithms resulting to the Best optimized value of 3862.19 kg,
followed by DA, GOAf, SCA and MFO. A similar trend is seen when the median or average values
are taken into account. In the median case criterion, the top-5 performers are CMAES, SMA, FA,
IGWO and ICA. In this test example, CMAES has consistently shown the best performance, in terms
of both the best value achieved and also the median value and the mean value over the 20 independent
runs. The worst performances in terms of the median value are the ones of PBA, DE, GOA, SCA and
MFO, while the worst performers in terms of the best value are PSO, DE, MVO, HS and TLBO.
Interestingly, CMAES also exhibited the least variation on the results obtained out of 20 independent
optimization runs (0.55%), followed by IGWO, HS, MTDE and SMA in this criterion.

Table 10. ISCSO2016 test example – collective results (objective function values in kg).
Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 4965.04 5898.39 6722.70 5774.91 8.42%
IGWO 4382.93 4515.26 4688.40 4508.56 1.64%
WOA 4417.05 6969.41 8608.95 6862.18 19.89%
ALO 4709.22 7095.62 8400.86 6842.96 13.12%
CMAES 3862.19 3913.07 3941.95 3910.77 0.55%
MTDE 4776.83 5063.14 5489.69 5071.87 3.90%
DA 3891.69 6405.33 9296.56 6550.99 24.52%
GOA 4294.78 7411.09 8637.58 7245.68 12.24%
GOAf 3971.69 6084.66 9502.94 6235.25 25.00%
MFO 4050.96 7309.54 9150.50 6812.72 23.94%
MVO 5530.12 6299.50 7532.81 6363.06 8.35%
SCA 3972.65 7334.26 9557.15 6877.93 27.51%
SSA 4245.66 7044.14 9472.31 6878.10 21.04%
PSO 5976.08 6904.59 8628.51 6931.45 11.01%
FA 4215.88 4510.99 4939.68 4514.09 4.56%
ICA 4339.00 4642.72 5083.93 4645.91 4.56%
DE 5770.26 7499.07 9532.21 7439.93 18.37%
HS 5303.45 5506.09 5716.85 5539.99 2.70%
TLBO 5040.97 5387.82 6267.89 5465.42 7.13%
KH 4441.11 5921.93 7531.86 5846.85 19.77%
ISA 4361.39 6878.25 9234.16 6696.96 22.67%
PBA 4181.79 7895.46 9269.37 7278.02 26.80%
SMA 4306.85 4412.69 4934.29 4482.34 4.21%
AOA 4979.00 6433.52 9327.49 6943.43 24.16%

5.2.3 ISCSO 2017 Problem

The test example of ISCSO2017 [11] refers to the 3D steel truss structure shown in Figure 5. It
consists of 198 members and 52 nodes. The problem is formulated as a sizing and shape optimization
problem with 198 sizing variables (one for each member) and 13 shape design variables, resulting in
211 design variables in total. The sizing variables can only take integer values ranging from 1 to 37
representing the section ID from a database of 37 pipe sections. The structure is designed according

43
to AISC-LRFD 1994 regulations, considering the limit states of tensile yielding and compressive
buckling for each member. The constraint functions imposed refer to (i) stress constraints, where the
truss members should satisfy the stress requirements of AISC-LRFD 1994, and (ii) displacement
constraints where the absolute value of the displacement of all nodes should not exceed the limit of
100.0 mm. More information about the problem formulation (loading conditions, design variables
etc.) and how it can be implemented through a simple MATLAB function for the structural analysis
and design of this particular truss is provided in [11].

Figure 5. The ISCSO2017 three-dimensional truss problem (horizontal dimensions in mm).

The best value achieved in the framework of the competition is equal to 44090.5356 kg and it is
considered the reference value for comparison in the present study. The results obtained from the 24
MOAs, for the ISCSO2017 three-dimensional truss optimization problem, are presented in Table 11.
In this test example, IGWO outperformed the other algorithms resulting to the Best optimized value
of 62172.46 kg, followed by WOA, PBA, ALO and AOA. When the median value is taken into
account, the top-5 performers are AOA, PBA, SMA, DA and DE while when the average value is
taken into account, the top-5 performers are AOA, PBA, SMA, DA and DE. The worst performances
in terms of the median values are the ones of GOA, ICA, SSA, KH and HS, while the worst
performers in terms of the best value achieved are KH, ISA, MFO, FA and DE. DE achieved the least
variation with a CoV value of 1.92%, followed by FA, MTDE, MFO and KH in this criterion.

Table 11. ISCSO2017 test example – collective results (objective function values in kg).
Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 67002.68 117756.09 153277.42 113644.64 31.33%
IGWO 62172.46 120165.52 148519.88 114437.05 27.58%
WOA 62472.37 88053.99 145342.98 98860.32 28.94%
44
 ALO 64920.22 86122.89 141814.45 98483.01 31.43%
CMAES 79235.84 112207.46 154717.85 116872.75 23.58%
MTDE 87374.94 105761.09 110090.33 102065.62 9.50%
DA 76446.15 82123.40 122174.65 95670.80 23.69%
GOA 88676.07 142898.32 152849.15 129227.54 21.77%
GOAf 68000.43 118675.90 145884.71 116821.88 25.47%
MFO 105213.86 111712.35 136461.41 117210.47 10.77%
MVO 73336.95 109988.18 131288.65 103132.39 22.24%
SCA 85895.53 116980.14 149377.89 122556.67 21.81%
SSA 75099.34 125820.59 147015.58 118558.58 22.81%
PSO 69185.98 101626.58 152751.45 102722.99 33.70%
FA 99473.62 114855.25 126806.13 112697.90 9.05%
ICA 84976.11 129741.57 152394.73 127943.81 21.58%
DE 95835.68 98722.06 99984.35 98104.99 1.92%
HS 91799.40 123280.33 138668.79 116235.70 15.96%
TLBO 71876.54 90500.69 143171.23 98291.52 29.46%
KH 109902.55 125320.46 150197.83 129067.13 12.23%
ISA 107746.38 120473.00 154049.94 127515.43 15.31%
PBA 63947.01 84796.79 113317.97 87974.23 24.34%
SMA 72368.74 92391.89 129049.47 94824.73 23.61%
AOA 66280.21 77992.87 111039.46 84010.68 20.00%

5.2.4 ISCSO 2018 Problem

The test example of ISCSO2018 [12] refers to the 3D steel truss structure shown in Figure 6. The
structure is composed of 314 members and 84 nodes. The problem is formulated as a combined sizing
and shape optimization problem having 314 sizing variables (representing the cross-sectional areas
of the truss members) and 14 shape design variables (representing the z-coordinates of the 28 top
nodes, grouped in pairs). The sizing variables can only take integer values ranging from 1 to 37
representing the section ID from a database of 37 pipe sections. The structure is designed according
to the regulations of AISC-LRFD 1994, considering the limit states of tensile yielding and
compressive buckling for each member. The constraint functions refer to (i) stress constraints,
according to the stress requirements of AISC-LRFD 1994, and (ii) displacement constraints, where
the absolute value of the displacement of any node should not exceed the limit of 50.0 mm. More
information about the problem formulation (including loading conditions, design variables etc) is
provided in [12].

45
 Figure 6. The ISCSO2018 three-dimensional truss problem (horizontal dimensions in mm).

The best value achieved in the framework of the competition is equal to 14425.0973 kg, taken as the
reference value for comparison in the present study. The relevant results obtained from the 24 MOAs,
for the ISCSO2018 three-dimensional truss optimization problem, are presented in Table 12. In this
test example, SCA outperformed the other algorithms resulting to the Best optimized value of
21341.16 kg, followed by PBA, FA, MVO and GOA. When the median value is used as a criterion,
the top-5 performers are MTDE (27521.62 kg), PBA, GOA, DE and WOA. Exactly the same are the
top-5 performers if the average value is used. In terms of the CoV value and the least variation of the
results, the top-5 performers are CMAES (16.30%), SSA, DE, TLBO and HS. The worst performers
in terms of best objective value achieved are TLBO (30754.40 kg), SSA, MFO, ISA and CMAES. If
we use the median value as the ranking criterion, the worst performers become MFO (49296.43 kg),
GWO, FA, ISA and ALO.

Table 12. ISCSO2018 test example – collective results (objective function values in kg).
Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 24645.09 47708.26 50620.89 39478.24 32.85%
IGWO 24230.62 40219.53 46544.21 36938.99 28.40%
WOA 26642.16 31526.44 46282.57 34898.86 23.37%
ALO 25012.71 43013.61 50819.41 40600.24 23.40%
CMAES 28244.96 38030.40 44975.47 37699.79 16.30%
MTDE 22056.32 27521.62 48896.31 30044.00 36.66%
DA 23280.23 41183.75 52325.09 38791.98 27.45%
GOA 21708.44 31615.69 48482.15 33132.88 30.54%
GOAf 23339.12 40642.34 50265.65 38557.28 29.24%
MFO 28990.20 49296.43 51651.67 42989.19 23.48%
MVO 21563.40 35968.90 44347.80 35213.84 24.26%
SCA 21341.16 40146.07 51055.73 36135.45 34.78%
SSA 29832.12 38218.37 45152.10 37106.54 18.65%
PSO 23106.30 36025.75 50528.95 37060.66 27.86%
FA 21560.03 47297.80 50730.87 42635.56 28.52%
ICA 24707.18 38728.63 48458.06 38647.73 23.00%
DE 26323.23 31355.72 42524.15 33843.16 18.76%
HS 26401.04 40513.03 45500.21 38936.50 20.23%
TLBO 30754.40 38302.58 47858.18 38270.10 19.07%

46
 KH 21811.50 38319.41 47824.84 35474.90 28.73%
ISA 28387.39 43368.48 50945.76 41972.37 22.80%
PBA 21492.56 30504.49 42378.49 32449.64 24.55%
SMA 26122.25 40447.14 49090.18 37155.12 26.01%
AOA 21854.95 42083.95 51312.41 39463.85 27.88%

5.2.5 ISCSO 2019 Problem

The test example of ISCSO2019 [13] is formulated as a sizing and shape optimization of the 260-
member 3D truss structure shown in Figure 7. The structure is composed of 260 members and 76
nodes. The optimization problem consists of 260 sizing design variables (representing the cross-
sectional areas of the truss members) and 10 shape design variables (representing 10 characteristic z-
coordinates of the structure affecting the locations of 38 nodes). The sizing variables are discrete,
taking integer values ranging from 1 to 37 representing the section ID from a database of 37 pipe
sections. The structure is designed according to AISC-LRFD 1994 regulations, where each member
is assessed considering the limit states of tensile yielding and compressive buckling. The constraint
functions refer to (i) stress constraints where the truss members should satisfy the stress requirements
of the code, and (ii) displacement constraints where the absolute value of the displacement of any
node should not exceed the limit of 25.0 mm. More information about the problem formulation
(including loading conditions, design variables, etc) can be found in [13].

Figure 7. The ISCSO2019 three-dimensional truss problem (horizontal dimensions in mm).

The best objective value achieved in the framework of the competition is equal to 12329.1302 kg,
taken as the reference value for comparison. The results obtained from the 24 MOAs, for the
ISCSO2019 problem, are presented in Table 13. In this test example, AOA outperformed the other
algorithms resulting to the Best optimized value of 17697.21 kg, followed by TLBO, PBA, DE and
KH. When the median value is taken into account, the top-5 performers are TLBO (23380.96 kg),
GOA, DE, SSA and ALO while for the average value, the relevant ranking is TLBO (25144.96 kg),

47
SSA, ALO, GOA and DE. The least coefficient of variation is exhibited by SMA (6.86%), followed
by IGWO, FA, HS and ICA. Nevertheless, the result of SMA in terms of best value is very poor
(29440.1 kg, the worst of all algorithms). The worst performers in terms of the median value achieved
are DA (35332.21 kg), IGWO, SCA, SMA and ICA, while if the best achieved value is taken into
consideration the algorithms with the worst performances are SMA (29440.1 kg), ICA, HS, WOA
and FA.

Table 13. ISCSO2019 test example – collective results (objective function values in kg).
Algorithm Best Median Worst Mean CoV(%)
GWO 18991.54 31293.86 37716.59 29968.59 23.05%
IGWO 20211.42 34348.39 38904.45 32829.80 16.17%
WOA 21919.76 31809.16 41527.48 32074.53 21.05%
ALO 19003.75 26326.31 40925.86 27628.12 25.68%
CMAES 18323.61 28785.49 43560.18 29852.75 26.81%
MTDE 19421.50 31409.96 43620.59 32289.22 24.28%
DA 21065.37 35332.21 43677.06 33192.22 25.72%
GOA 18916.25 24385.98 41997.75 27869.24 31.01%
GOAf 18696.02 29519.40 43455.02 29504.43 26.10%
MFO 19721.84 31964.70 40919.61 32277.63 20.36%
MVO 18597.36 30259.26 40929.23 30138.30 24.34%
SCA 19942.10 34103.17 43611.44 33461.70 21.57%
SSA 18331.28 24859.55 40043.42 27088.33 27.64%
PSO 19287.75 27286.90 43925.87 28455.32 25.19%
FA 21272.41 33280.35 41658.88 32481.87 18.97%
ICA 23973.61 34020.50 43820.49 34345.02 20.15%
DE 18052.67 24598.27 42599.65 28165.39 30.50%
HS 21954.27 27126.90 37994.61 28601.30 20.15%
TLBO 17735.41 23380.96 33541.89 25144.96 24.68%
KH 18147.48 33993.82 44084.55 32554.39 28.90%
ISA 19863.61 30503.88 38508.74 28701.59 24.00%
PBA 18051.75 29984.21 40554.94 29450.65 20.99%
SMA 29440.10 34039.64 38908.84 34063.71 6.86%
AOA 17697.21 31951.31 39946.53 30512.30 22.71%

5.2.6 Comparative results

Figure 8 shows the variation (or relative error value) of the best achieved optimum solution by each
one of the 24 MOAs, in comparison to the reference (best) solution found in framework of the
competitions, for each problem. Overall, the error values vary from the lowest value of 23.49% (DE
optimizer, ISCSO2015 problem) to the highest value of 59.88% (KH optimizer, ISCSO2017
problem). A general finding is that these structural optimization problems are hard and much more
demanding than the ones examined in the previous section where most of the algorithms did an
excellent job in finding solutions very close to the known global optimum.

Considering the difficulty and overall complexity of each problem, it appears that the first problem
of ISCSO2015 was the least demanding, with the optimizers managing an average error value of
29.48% (median value 26.27%) altogether and the best (minimum) error value of 23.49% (DE
optimizer). The most demanding problem appears to be the one of ISCSO2017, with an average error

48
value of 43.40% for the 24 MOAs altogether (median value 41.81%) and the best (minimum) error
value of 29.08% (IGWO optimizer). No optimizer managed to give results with error values less than
20% in comparison to the reference (best found) solution, in any of the examined problems. This is a
clear indications that these problems are very complex and hard to deal with.

(a)

(b)
Figure 8. Performance of the 24 algorithms in the group of the 5 ISCSO test problems: (a)
Algorithms 1-12, (b) Algorithms 13-24.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Metaheuristic optimization algorithms (MOAs) have proved to be very efficient, able to handle
various optimization problems in several scientific fields during the last decades. The study presented
a state-of-the-art review of past and current developments achieved so far in structural optimization
problems dealt with MOAs. In addition, 24 well-known MOAs are presented in short in a unified
description framework aiming to identify their differences and similarities, while they are also
investigated in several structural optimization problems of varying complexity and difficulty. The
numerical tests belong to two groups. The first six problems are benchmark structural optimization
problems taken from the literature, while the next five problems are taken from the International
49
Student Competition in Structural Optimization (2015-2019). The investigated MOAs exhibited
excellent performance in handling the first six problems. Most of the algorithms managed to find the
vicinity of the optimum in the majority of the problems rather easily, while 12 of them achieved
optimal results leading to error values less than 2% in all problems examined. The top-3 performers
managed to end up to solutions with average values (i.e. average over all 6 problems) less than 0.16%
in all problems examined, combined. These results show the great potential of MOAs in handling
structural optimization problems.

The results of MOAs were not so impressive in the case of the five problems taken from the
International Student Competition in Structural Optimization. It appears that these problems are
extremely hard, incorporating a large number of design variables. The examined MOAs were not able
to provide solutions with error values less than 20% (in comparison to the reference solution) in any
of the examined problems. The best performance was 23.49% far from the optimum reference value,
which is not an impressive result, but from an engineer point of view it is not a bad result, also.
Practically the algorithms were unable to find the vicinity of the optimum in the huge, multi-
dimensional search space of these problems. At this point, it has to be noted that the optimizers were
simply run with random initialization of the design variables without having any particular knowledge
or guidance on the specific optimization problem at hand. There were no heuristic rules or tips that
the optimizers could use to facilitate their search; they faced the problems “blindly”. In a real-life
situation, an experienced engineer may be able to help the optimizer by providing tips and guidance
based on experience and intuition. For example, the engineer can facilitate the search by appropriately
grouping variables based on existing symmetries on the structure, or can guide the optimizer towards
specific areas of the search space based on the expected shape of the optimal structure, or other
expected outcomes. This can boost the optimization procedure as it can quickly guide the optimizer
near the neighbourhood of the global minimum and thus drastically reduce the size of the search space
in practice, especially in cases with a large number of design variables, such as the competition
problems examined in this study. In this sense, it can be said that in structural optimization problems,
an optimization algorithm is a powerful tool in the hands of an experienced engineer, rather than an
expert system that can provide solutions merely on its own. In other words, the expert needs the
optimizer, but the optimizer also needs the expert, in order to achieve the best possible results.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research has been co-financed by the European Union and Greek national funds through the
Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call
RESEARCH-CREATE-INNOVATE (project code: T1EDK-05603).

REFERENCES

50
[1] Dulaimi, M.F., et al., Enhancing integration and innovation in construction. Building Research &
Information, 2002. 30(4): p. 237-247 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/09613210110115207.
[2] Plevris, V. and G. Tsiatas, Computational Structural Engineering: Past Achievements and Future
Challenges. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2018. 4(21): p. 1-5 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00021.
[3] Slaughter, E.S., Models of Construction Innovation. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management-asce, 1998. 124: p. 226-231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1998)124:3(226).
[4] Sahab, M.G., V.V. Toropov, and A.H. Gandomi, A Review on Traditional and Modern Structural
Optimization: Problems and Techniques, in Metaheuristic Applications in Structures and
Infrastructures, A.H. Gandomi, et al., Editors. 2013, Elsevier: Oxford. p. 25-47. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-398364-0.00002-4.
[5] Kashani, A.R., et al., Population-based optimization in structural engineering: a review. Artificial
Intelligence Review, 2022. 55(1): p. 345-452 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10036-w.
[6] B k ş, G , , Optimization in Civil Engineering and Metaheuristic Algorithms: A Review of State-
of-the-Art Developments, in Computational Intelligence, Optimization and Inverse Problems with
Applications in Engineering, G.M. Platt, X.-S. Yang, and A.J. Silva Neto, Editors. 2019, Springer
International Publishing: Cham. p. 111-137. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96433-1_6.
[7] Yang, X.- , G B k ş, M N , Review and Applications of Metaheuristic Algorithms in Civil
Engineering, in Metaheuristics and Optimization in Civil Engineering. Modeling and Optimization in
Science and Technologies, X.- Y , G B k ş, M N ,E , D :
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26245-1_1.
[8] Lagaros, N.D., An efficient dynamic load balancing algorithm. Computational Mechanics, 2014. 53(1):
p. 59-76 DOI: https:doi.org/10.1007/s00466-013-0892-1.
[9] International Student Competition in Structural Optimization 2015 (ISCSO 2015). 25 May 2021];
Available from: https://www.brightoptimizer.com/problem_iscso2016/.
[10] International Student Competition in Structural Optimization 2016 (ISCSO 2016). 25 May 2021];
Available from: http://www.brightoptimizer.com/optimization-problem-of-iscso-2016/.
[11] International Student Competition in Structural Optimization 2017 (ISCSO 2017). 25 May 2021];
Available from: https://www.brightoptimizer.com/problem_iscso2017/.
[12] International Student Competition in Structural Optimization 2018 (ISCSO 2018). 25 May 2021];
Available from: https://www.brightoptimizer.com/problem_iscso2018/.
[13] International Student Competition in Structural Optimization 2019 (ISCSO 2019). 25 May 2021];
Available from: https://www.brightoptimizer.com/problem-iscso2019/.
[14] Kaveh, A., Advances in Metaheuristic Algorithms for Optimal Design of Structures. 3rd ed. 2021,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, ISBN: 978-3-030-59392-6.
[15] Brockett, R.W., Dynamical systems that sort lists, diagonalize matrices, and solve linear programming
problems. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 1991. 146: p. 79-91 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3795(91)90021-N.
[16] Lyamin, A.V. and S.W. Sloan, Lower bound limit analysis using non-linear programming. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2002. 55(5): p. 573-611 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.511.
[17] Yokota, T., M. Gen, and Y.-X. Li, Genetic algorithm for non-linear mixed integer programming
problems and its applications. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 1996. 30(4): p. 905-917 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(96)00041-1.
[18] Dadebo, S.A. and K.B. McAuley, Dynamic optimization of constrained chemical engineering problems
using dynamic programming. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 1995. 19(5): p. 513-525 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(94)00086-4.
[19] Wang, F.-S. and L.-H. Chen, Heuristic Optimization, in Encyclopedia of Systems Biology, W. Dubitzky,
et al., Editors. 2013, Springer New York: New York, NY. p. 885-885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4419-9863-7_411.
[20] ö , K F G , Metaheuristics, in Encyclopedia of Operations Research and
Management Science, S.I. Gass and M.C. Fu, Editors. 2013, Springer US: Boston, MA. p. 960-970. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7_1167.

51
[21] Glover, F. and M. Samorani, Intensification, Diversification and Learning in metaheuristic
optimization. Journal of Heuristics, 2019. 25(4): p. 517-520 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10732-019-
09409-w.
[22] Meraihi, Y., et al., Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm: Theory, Variants, and Applications. IEEE
Access, 2021. 9: p. 50001-50024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3067597.
[23] Yang, X. and D. Suash. Cuckoo Search via Lévy flights. in 2009 World Congress on Nature & Biologically
Inspired Computing (NaBIC). 2009.
[24] Yang, X.-S. and S. Deb, Engineering optimisation by cuckoo search. International Journal of
Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation, 2010. 1(4): p. 330-343 DOI:
10.1504/IJMMNO.2010.03543.
[25] Gandomi, A.H., X.-S. Yang, and A.H. Alavi, Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve
structural optimization problems. Engineering with Computers, 2013. 29(1): p. 17-35 DOI:
10.1007/s00366-011-0241-y.
[26] Yang, X.-S. and S. Deb, Multiobjective cuckoo search for design optimization. Computers & Operations
Research, 2013. 40(6): p. 1616-1624 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.09.026.
[27] Cheng, M.-Y. and D. Prayogo, Symbiotic Organisms Search: A new metaheuristic optimization
algorithm. Computers & Structures, 2014. 139: p. 98-112 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.03.007.
[28] Yang, X.-S., A New Metaheuristic Bat-Inspired Algorithm, in Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies
for Optimization (NICSO 2010), J R G zá z, ,E , :B ,H D :
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6_6.
[29] Yang, X.S. and A. Hossein Gandomi, Bat algorithm: a novel approach for global engineering
optimization. Engineering Computations, 2012. 29(5): p. 464-483 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02644401211235834.
[30] Shadravan, S., H.R. Naji, and V.K. Bardsiri, The Sailfish Optimizer: A novel nature-inspired
metaheuristic algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2019. 80: p. 20-34 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.01.001.
[31] Heidari, A.A., et al., Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications. Future Generation
Computer Systems, 2019. 97: p. 849-872 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028.
[32] Askarzadeh, A., A novel metaheuristic method for solving constrained engineering optimization
problems: Crow search algorithm. Computers & Structures, 2016. 169: p. 1-12 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.03.001.
[33] Eskandar, H., et al., Water cycle algorithm – A novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving
constrained engineering optimization problems. Computers & Structures, 2012. 110-111: p. 151-166
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.07.010.
[34] Farshi, B. and A. Alinia-ziazi, Sizing optimization of truss structures by method of centers and force
formulation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2010. 47(18): p. 2508-2524 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.05.009.
[35] Kociecki, M. and H. Adeli, Two-phase genetic algorithm for size optimization of free-form steel space-
frame roof structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013. 90: p. 283-296 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.07.027.
[36] H ç , , , Performance evaluation of metaheuristic search techniques in the optimum
design of real size pin jointed structures. Computers & Structures, 2009. 87(5): p. 284-302 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.01.002.
[37] Kaveh, A., et al., Performance-based seismic design of steel frames using ant colony optimization.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2010. 66(4): p. 566-574 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.11.006.
[38] Moayyeri, N., S. Gharehbaghi, and V. Plevris, Cost-Based Optimum Design of Reinforced Concrete
Retaining Walls Considering Different Methods of Bearing Capacity Computation. Mathematics,
2019. 7(12): p. 1-21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2018.1351.1362.
[39] Gholizadeh, S. and A. Milany, An improved fireworks algorithm for discrete sizing optimization of steel
skeletal structures. Engineering Optimization, 2018. 50(11): p. 1829-1849 DOI:
10.1080/0305215X.2017.1417402.

52
[40] Tan, Y. and Y. Zhu, Fireworks Algorithm for Optimization, in Advances in Swarm Intelligence. ICSI 2010.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, T. Y., S. Y., and T. K.C., Editors. 2010, Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13495-1_44.
[41] Bureerat, S. and N. Pholdee, Optimal Truss Sizing Using an Adaptive Differential Evolution Algorithm.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2016. 30(2): p. 04015019 DOI: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-
5487.0000487.
[42] H ç , K z z h Az , An exponential big bang-big crunch algorithm for discrete
design optimization of steel frames. Computers & Structures, 2012. 110-111: p. 167-179 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.07.014.
[43] Lagaros, N.D., et al., Optimum design of steel structures with web openings. Engineering Structures,
2008. 30(9): p. 2528-2537.
[44] Papadrakakis, M., N.D. Lagaros, and V. Plevris, Optimum Design of Space Frames under Seismic
Loading. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 2001. 1(1): p. 105-123 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219455401000093.
[45] Papazafeiropoulos, G. and V. Plevris, OpenSeismoMatlab: A new open-source software for strong
ground motion data processing. Heliyon, 2018. 4(9): p. 1-39 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00784.
[46] Fragiadakis, M., N.D. Lagaros, and M. Papadrakakis, Performance-based multiobjective optimum
design of steel structures considering life-cycle cost. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
2006. 32(1): p. 1-11.
[47] Mitropoulou, C.C., N.D. Lagaros, and M. Papadrakakis, Life-cycle cost assessment of optimally
designed reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
2011. 96(10): p. 1311-1331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.04.002.
[48] Kociecki, M. and H. Adeli, Two-phase genetic algorithm for topology optimization of free-form steel
space-frame roof structures with complex curvatures. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, 2014. 32: p. 218-227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2014.01.010.
[49] Kociecki, M. and H. Adeli, Shape optimization of free-form steel space-frame roof structures with
complex geometries using evolutionary computing. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
2015. 38: p. 168-182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2014.10.012.
[50] Amir, O., A topology optimization procedure for reinforced concrete structures. Computers &
Structures, 2013. 114: p. 46-58.
[51] Lagaros, N.D., M. Papadrakakis, and N. Bakas, Automatic minimization of the rigidity eccentricity of
3D reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2006. 10(4): p. 533-564.
[52] Zakian, P. and A. Kaveh, Topology optimization of shear wall structures under seismic loading.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2020. 19(1): p. 105-116 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-
020-0550-5.
[53] Kaveh, A. and V. Kalatjari, Topology optimization of trusses using genetic algorithm, force method
and graph theory. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2003. 58(5): p. 771-
791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.800.
[54] Tian, X., et al., Topology optimization design for offshore platform jacket structure. Applied Ocean
Research, 2019. 84: p. 38-50 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.01.003.
[55] de Souza, R.R., et al., A procedure for the size, shape and topology optimization of transmission line
tower structures. Engineering Structures, 2016. 111: p. 162-184.
[56] Jiang, B., J. Zhang, and M. Ohsaki, Shape optimization of free-form shell structures combining static
and dynamic behaviors. Structures, 2021. 29: p. 1791-1807 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.045.
[57] Papadrakakis, M., Y. Tsompanakis, and N.D. Lagaros, Structural Shape Optimization using Evolution
Strategies. Engineering Optimization, 1999. 31(4): p. 515-540.
[58] Lagaros, N.D., M. Fragiadakis, and M. Papadrakakis, Optimum design of shell structures with stiffening
beams. AIAA Journal, 2004. 42(1): p. 175-184.
[59] B č ,R, , Optimization of rigidly supported guyed masts. Advances in Civil Engineering,
2017. 2017.
[60] Mam, K., et al., Shape optimization of braced frames for tall timber buildings: Influence of semi-rigid
connections on design and optimization process. Engineering Structures, 2020. 216: p. 110692 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110692.
53
[61] Pastore, T., et al., Topology optimization of stress-constrained structural elements using risk-factor
approach. Computers & Structures, 2019. 224: p. 106104 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2019.106104.
[62] Frangedaki, E., L. Sardone, and N.D. Lagaros, Design Optimization of Tree-Shaped Structural Systems
and Sustainable Architecture Using Bamboo and Earthen Materials. Journal of Architectural
Engineering, 2021. 27(4): p. 04021033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000492.
[63] Plevris, V. and M. Papadrakakis, A Hybrid Particle Swarm – Gradient Algorithm for Global Structural
Optimization. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2011. 26(1): p. 48-68 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00664.x.
[64] Plevris, V., Innovative computational techniques for the optimum structural design considering
uncertainties. 2009, National Technical University of Athens: Athens, Greece. p. 312.
[65] Kennedy, J. and R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in IEEE International Conference on Neural
Networks. 1995: Piscataway, NJ, USA. p. 1942–1948.
[66] Ay k, İ B , A hybrid firefly and particle swarm optimization algorithm for computationally expensive
numerical problems. Applied Soft Computing, 2018. 66: p. 232-249 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.02.025.
[67] Yang, X.-S., Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. 2008: Luniver Press, ISBN: 1905986106.
[68] Gholizadeh, S., E. Salajegheh, and P. Torkzadeh, Structural optimization with frequency constraints
by genetic algorithm using wavelet radial basis function neural network. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 2008. 312(1): p. 316-331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2007.10.050.
[69] Nguyen, T.-H. and A.-T. Vu, Speeding up Composite Differential Evolution for structural optimization
using neural networks. Journal of Information and Telecommunication, 2021: p. 1-20 DOI:
10.1080/24751839.2021.1946740.
[70] Papadrakakis, M., N.D. Lagaros, and Y. Tsompanakis, Structural optimization using evolution
strategies and neural networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1998.
156(1-4): p. 309-333.
[71] Papadrakakis, M. and N.D. Lagaros, Reliability-based structural optimization using neural networks
and Monte Carlo simulation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2002.
191(32): p. 3491-3507.
[72] Lagaros, N.D., D.C. Charmpis, and M. Papadrakakis, An adaptive neural network strategy for
improving the computational performance of evolutionary structural optimization. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2005. 194(30-33): p. 3374-3393.
[73] Lagaros, N.D. and M. Papadrakakis, Applied soft computing for optimum design of structures.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2012. 45(6): p. 787-799 DOI: 10.1007/s00158-011-
0741-9.
[74] Lagaros, N.D. and M. Papadrakakis, Learning improvement of neural networks used in structural
optimization. Advances in Engineering Software, 2004. 35(1): p. 9-25.
[75] Liao, T.W., Two hybrid differential evolution algorithms for engineering design optimization. Applied
Soft Computing, 2010. 10(4): p. 1188-1199 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.05.007.
[76] Storn, R. and K. Price, Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for global Optimization
over Continuous Spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 1997. 11(4): p. 341-359 DOI:
10.1023/a:1008202821328.
[77] Storn, R. and K. Price, Differential Evolution - A Simple and Efficient Adaptive Scheme for Global
Optimization Over Continuous Spaces. 1995: Berkeley, CA.
[78] Kaveh, A., T. Bakhshpoori, and E. Afshari, An efficient hybrid Particle Swarm and Swallow Swarm
Optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 2014. 143: p. 40-59 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.07.012.
[79] Carbas, S., Design optimization of steel frames using an enhanced firefly algorithm. Engineering
Optimization, 2016. 48(12): p. 2007-2025 DOI: 10.1080/0305215X.2016.1145217.
[80] Talatahari, S., et al., Optimum design of frame structures using the Eagle Strategy with Differential
Evolution. Engineering Structures, 2015. 91: p. 16-25 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.02.026.
[81] Yang, X.-S. and S. Deb, Eagle Strategy Using Lévy Walk and Firefly Algorithms for Stochastic
Optimization, in Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (NICSO 2010), G. J.R., et al.,
Editors. 2010, Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6_9.
54
[82] Khalilpourazari, S. and S. Khalilpourazary, An efficient hybrid algorithm based on Water Cycle and
Moth-Flame Optimization algorithms for solving numerical and constrained engineering optimization
problems. Soft Computing, 2019. 23(5): p. 1699-1722 DOI: 10.1007/s00500-017-2894-y.
[83] Mirjalili, S., Moth-flame optimization algorithm: A novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm.
Knowledge-Based Systems, 2015. 89: p. 228-249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.07.006.
[84] Lagaros, N.D., The environmental and economic impact of structural optimization. Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2018. 58(4): p. 1751-1768 DOI: 10.1007/s00158-018-1998-z.
[85] Mavrokapnidis, D., C.C. Mitropoulou, and N.D. Lagaros, Environmental assessment of cost optimized
structural systems in tall buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019. 24: p. 100730 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100730.
[86] Papadrakakis, M., et al., Advanced solution methods in structural optimization based on evolution
strategies. Engineering Computations, 1998. 15(1): p. 12-34.
[87] Papadrakakis, M., N.D. Lagaros, and Y. Fragakis, Parallel computational strategies for structural
optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2003. 58(9): p. 1347-1380.
[88] Lagaros, N.D., A general purpose real-world structural design optimization computing platform.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2014. 49(6): p. 1047-1066 DOI: 10.1007/s00158-013-
1027-1.
[89] Lagaros, N.D. and M.G. Karlaftis, Life-cycle cost structural design optimization of steel wind towers.
Computers & Structures, 2016. 174: p. 122-132 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.09.013.
[90] Wolpert, D.H. and W.G. Macready, No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, 1997. 1(1): p. 67-82 DOI: 10.1109/4235.585893.
[91] Mirjalili, S., S.M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, Grey Wolf Optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software, 2014.
69: p. 46-61 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007.
[92] Nadimi-Shahraki, M.H., S. Taghian, and S. Mirjalili, An improved grey wolf optimizer for solving
engineering problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 2021. 166: p. 113917 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113917.
[93] Mirjalili, S. and A. Lewis, The Whale Optimization Algorithm. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016.
95: p. 51-67 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008.
[94] Mirjalili, S., The Ant Lion Optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software, 2015. 83: p. 80-98 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.010.
[95] Hansen, N. and A. Ostermeier, Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies.
Evolutionary Computation, 2001. 9(2): p. 159-195 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/106365601750190398.
[96] Nadimi-Shahraki, M.H., et al., MTDE: An effective multi-trial vector-based differential evolution
algorithm and its applications for engineering design problems. Applied Soft Computing, 2020. 97: p.
106761 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106761.
[97] Mirjalili, S., Dragonfly algorithm: a new meta-heuristic optimization technique for solving single-
objective, discrete, and multi-objective problems. Neural Computing and Applications, 2016. 27(4): p.
1053-1073 DOI: 10.1007/s00521-015-1920-1.
[98] Saremi, S., S. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, Grasshopper Optimisation Algorithm: Theory and application.
Advances in Engineering Software, 2017. 105: p. 30-47 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004.
[99] Mishra, P., V. Goyal, and A. Shukla. An Improved Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm for Solving
Numerical Optimization Problems. in Advances in Intelligent Computing and Communication. 2020.
Singapore: Springer Singapore.
[100] Mirjalili, S., S.M. Mirjalili, and A. Hatamlou, Multi-Verse Optimizer: a nature-inspired algorithm for
global optimization. Neural Computing and Applications, 2016. 27(2): p. 495-513 DOI:
10.1007/s00521-015-1870-7.
[101] Mirjalili, S., SCA: A Sine Cosine Algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 2016. 96: p. 120-133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.12.022.
[102] Mirjalili, S., et al., Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems.
Advances in Engineering Software, 2017. 114: p. 163-191 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.002.

55
 [103] Atashpaz-Gargari, E. and C. Lucas. Imperialist competitive algorithm: An algorithm for optimization
inspired by imperialistic competition. in 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. 2007.
[104] Geem, Z.W., J.H. Kim, and G.V. Loganathan, A New Heuristic Optimization Algorithm: Harmony
Search. SIMULATION, 2001. 76(2): p. 60-68 DOI: 10.1177/003754970107600201.
[105] Rao, R.V., V.J. Savsani, and D.P. Vakharia, Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for
constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Computer-Aided Design, 2011. 43(3): p. 303-
315 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.015.
[106] Gandomi, A.H. and A.H. Alavi, Krill herd: A new bio-inspired optimization algorithm. Communications
in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 2012. 17(12): p. 4831-4845 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.05.010.
[107] Gandomi, A.H., Interior search algorithm (ISA): A novel approach for global optimization. ISA
Transactions, 2014. 53(4): p. 1168-1183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2014.03.018.
[108] Kallioras, N.A., N.D. Lagaros, and D.N. Avtzis, Pity beetle algorithm – A new metaheuristic inspired by
the behavior of bark beetles. Advances in Engineering Software, 2018. 121: p. 147-166 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.04.007.
[109] Li, S., et al., Slime mould algorithm: A new method for stochastic optimization. Future Generation
Computer Systems, 2020. 111: p. 300-323 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.03.055.
[110] Abualigah, L., et al., The Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, 2021. 376: p. 113609 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.113609.
[111] Yang, X.-S. Firefly Algorithms for Multimodal Optimization. in Stochastic Algorithms: Foundations and
Applications. 2009. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[112] Yang, X.-S., Chapter 8 - Firefly Algorithms, in Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms, X.-S. Yang,
Editor. 2014, Elsevier: Oxford. p. 111-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416743-8.00008-
7.
[113] Georgioudakis, M. and V. Plevris, A comparative study of differential evolution variants in constrained
structural optimization. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2020. 6(102): p. 1-14 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00102.
[114] Georgioudakis, M. and V. Plevris, On the Performance of Differential Evolution Variants in
Constrained Structural Optimization. Procedia Manufacturing, 2020. 44: p. 371-378 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.281.
[115] Georgioudakis, M. and V. Plevris, A Combined Modal Correlation Criterion for Structural Damage
Identification with Noisy Modal Data. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018. 2018(3183067): p. 20 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3183067.
[116] Tuo, S., Z.W. Geem, and J.H. Yoon, A New Method for Analyzing the Performance of the Harmony
Search Algorithm. Mathematics, 2020. 8(9): p. 1421.
[117] Ocak, A., et al., Optimization of Tuned Liquid Damper Including Different Liquids for Lateral
Displacement Control of Single and Multi-Story Structures. Buildings, 2022. 12(3): p. 377.
[118] Tsipianitis, A. and Y. Tsompanakis, Improved Cuckoo Search algorithmic variants for constrained
nonlinear optimization. Advances in Engineering Software, 2020. 149: p. 102865 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102865.
[119] Kannan, B.K. and S.N. Kramer, An Augmented Lagrange Multiplier Based Method for Mixed Integer
Discrete Continuous Optimization and Its Applications to Mechanical Design. Journal of Mechanical
Design, 1994. 116(2): p. 405-411 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2919393.

56

View publication stats