StrucOpt manuscript No.
(will be inserted by the editor)
Optimal Truss Design Including Plastic Collapse Constraints
J.Romero, P.C. Mappa, J. Herskovits and C.M.Mota Soares
Abstract A new algorithm is presented for size opti-
mization of truss structures with any kind of smooth ob-
jectives and constraints, together with constraints on the
collapse loading obtained by limit analysis, for several
loading conditions. The main difficulty of this problem
is the fact that the collapse loading is a nonsmooth func-
tion of the design variables. In this paper we avoid non-
smooth optimization techniques based on the fact that
limit analysis constraints are linear by parts. Our ap-
proach is based on a Feasible Directions Interior Point
Algorithm for nonlinear constrained optimization. Three
illustrative examples are discussed. The numerical results
show that the calculation effort when limit analysis con-
straints are included is only slightly increased with re-
spect to classic constraints.
Key words Limit Analysis Constraints, Truss Opti-
mization.
1 tant issue in truss structural design. Limit analysis is an
Introduction
This work presents a new method for the automatic opti-
mal design of truss structures, to achieve the minimum of
a given objective function. The design variables represent
the cross-sectional areas of bars or groups of bars. The
truss may be subject to multiple load cases. The struc-
tural geometry is given and remains fixed (unchanged).
Received: date / Revised version: date
J.Romero1 , P.C. Mappa2 , J. Herskovits2 and C.M.Mota
Soares3
1 In this paper we consider the optimal design of struc-
Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, CT - UFES,
Vitória, ES, Brazil
2
Programma de Engenharia Mecânica, COPPE-UFRJ,
caixa postal 68503, 21945-970, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
jose@optimize.ufrj.br
3
IDMEC/IST - Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portu-
gal
Previous works dealing with the optimal design of
truss structures considering elastic constraints were pub-
lished by Schmidt and Miura (1976), Kirsch (1981), All-
wood and Chang (1984), Rozvany and Zhou (1991),
Ohasaki(2001), Gil and Andreu (2001), among others.
Literature concerning optimal design involving plastic
constraints is limited, however we can still mention the
classical work by Hodge and Prager(1951) and also Lee
and Gordon (1981) and Kirsch(1981), Lellep and Puman
(2001), Lellep and Tungel (2002), Kaliszky and Lógó
(2002). The combination of simultaneous constraints of
elasticity and plasticity was discussed extensively over
thirty years ago, Rozvany and Cohn (1970). We also men-
tion the work of Muralhidar and Rao(1997) on topology
optimization. The work by Rohan and Whiteman(2000)
is also interesting because it is applied to both trusses
and continua.
For statically determinate structures, the first yield
condition is the ultimate capacity of the structure. How-
ever, for structures with multiple degrees of indetermi-
nacy, the collapse loading is normally much higher than
the loading that produces the first yield condition. The
ultimate capacity of a structure has become an impor-
alternative analytical procedure for obtaining the ulti-
mate loading of a structure for collapse. It determines
the maximum safety factor, or factor of loading ampli-
fication, that can be supported by a structure of ideal
elastoplastic materials subjected to a specified external
loading, Drucker et al (1951),Prager and Hodge(1951),
Kirsch(1981), Feijóo and Zouain (1988, 1989), Zouain et
al. (1993). In optimal design, constraints on the safety
factors with respect to the plastic collapse can then be
introduced. As it is already known, the plastic design op-
timization problem can be formulated as a Linear Pro-
gram, Kirsch(1981).
tures with simultaneous constraints on smooth functions,
like the elements stresses or nodal displacement, and on
the safety factor in relation to the plastic collapse. The
main difficulty of this problem is the fact that the critical
load is a nonsmooth function of the design variables.
We show that, in the present problem, the limit anal-
ysis constraints are linear by parts. In consequence, they
2
can be substituted by a set of linear constraints. The
resulting problem is solved with an Interior Point Al-
gorithm for smooth nonlinear optimization. Some test
problems are solved in a very efficient way, Romero(1991).
In the next section the Limit Analysis technique is
described. Then, the sensitivity of the critical load to
changes in the structure is discussed. In the section 4
we describe the optimization problem as well as the lin-
ear program obtained in the particular case when only
limit analysis constraint are considered. The numerical
optimization procedure is presented in Section 5. Some
numerical results are presented in the following section
and finally we make our concluding remarks.
2 We discuss now the sensitivity of ᾱ(x) with respect to
About Limit Analysis
Limit analysis is the determination of the maximum load
factor amplification that can be supported by a structure
of ideal elasto-plastic material submitted to specified ex-
ternal loadings, Feijóo and Zouain (1988, 1989), Zouain
et al. (1993). We consider a Limit Analysis formulation
in terms of static forces based on the Static Limit Anal-
ysis theorem that leads to a Linear Programming prob-
lem, Christiansen(1981) and Zouain et al. (1993). Let us
assume statical proportional loading where ᾱ is the col-
lapse amplification factor. That is, ᾱ is the maximum of
the amplification factors α ∈ < for which there is a plas-
tically feasible stress distribution in equilibrium with α
times the external loading vector. Let be ne the number
of elements, ndf the number of degrees of freedom of the
structure. Hence,
 where the active set changes. As the derivatives of all

 max α
α, T

ᾱ = (1)

 such that: B T T − αP = 0
T − R ≤ 0;

where T ∈ <ne is the vector of internal forces, P ∈ <ndf
is the loading vector and B ∈ <ndf ×ne is the global defor-
mation matrix. The independent variables of the Linear
Program are α and T . The computation of B is obtained
by assembling the constant matrix of deformation of each
bar which is carried out in a similar way as in Zouain el
al.(1993).
The inequality constraints represent the condition of
plastic feasibility, where R ∈ <ne is a linear function of
the bars cross section. We assume for the sake of simpli-
city that the yield stresses are the same for traction and
compression.
Since in this paper, the design variables x ∈ <n are
the bars, or groups of bars, cross-sectional areas, we have
that R also depends linearly of x and B and P are con-
stant. We can write R = M Lx, where M ∈ <ne×ne is
a diagonal matrix with yield stresses and L ∈ <ne×n is
a boolean matrix relating the bars with the design vari-
ables.
Introducing now the design variables in the Limit
Analysis formulation, we have the collapse amplification
factor as a function of x:


 max α
α, T

ᾱ(x) = (2)

 such that: B T T − αP = 0
T − M Lx ≤ 0

3
Sensitivity Study of Limit Analysis
the design variables x. According to the sensitivity the-
orem for Linear Programming described by Sobieski et
al(1982), Luenberger(1984) and Haftka(1985), we have:
∂ ᾱ(x)
=λ (3)
∂R
Then,
∂ ᾱ(x) ∂R
∇ᾱ(x) = = [M L]T λ (4)
∂R ∂x
where λ ∈ <ne are the Lagrange Multipliers correspond-
ing to the inequality constraints of Problem (1). How-
ever, this expression is only valid if the set of active in-
equality constraints of the Linear Program (2) remains
unchanged in a neighborhood of x. Then, ᾱ(x) is non-
smooth, since the gradient does not exist at points x
the constraints of Problem (1) are constant with respect
to x, it is easy to prove that λ is constant at points x
with the same set of active constraints.
Let be the boolean vector I(x) ∈ <ne such that I(x) =
0 if λi = 0 and I(x) = 1 if λi 6= 0. It follows that ᾱ(x) is
linear in x if I(x) is constant.
For each design, we can define the collapse mechanism
as the set of elements that plastify for the critical loading
and causes the structure to fail. Then, I(x) describes the
collapse mechanism at x.
4
The Optimization Problem
The optimization problem considered here consists on
the minimization of a smooth objective function of the
cross-sections of the bars with smooth constraints, as well
as constraints on the critical loadings computed by limit
analysis, as shown in Section 2. In particular, the ob-
jective can be the structural weight and we can include
constraints on stress and displacement computed by lin-
ear or nonlinear elastic analysis. Side constraints on the
 3

design variables can also be included. This problem can paper we present a procedure to overcome this difficulty.
be expressed as a mathematical program as follows:
Let be I ≡ {I1 , I2 , ..., Ir } the set of all possible col-
lapse mechanism of the structure for different values of
minimize f (x) x. We denote by ᾱl (x) the function that represents the
x collapse amplification factor for the collapse mechanism
(5)
subject to: g(x) ≤ 0 Il . Then, in Problem (5) the limit analysis constraint can
αad − ᾱ(x) ≤ 0 be substituted by the set of constraints:
where f : <n → < is the objective and g : <n → <m
represent the inequality smooth constraints, including αad − ᾱl (x) ≤ 0, for l = 1, 2, .., r.
the side bounds.
These constraints are linear and their derivatives are
Since the feasible stresses for the limit analysis can be
given by (4). In practice, we do not include all this con-
taken less severe than the one for the elastic analysis, the
straints. At each iterate xk a limit analysis is carried out,
present approach gives lighter designs when compared
to obtain ᾱ(xk ) and the corresponding collapse mecha-
with the classical elastic methodology with displacement
nism I(xk ). If this is the first time that this mechanism is
and stress constraints.
obtained, then a new constraint αad − ᾱl (x) ≤ 0 is added
to the already existing set of constraints of the problem.
In the particular case when f (x) is the structural
The linearized constraints are stored in the function
weight, there is one loading condition and only the Limit
Analysis constraint is considered, Problem (5) is equiva-
lent to: h(x) ≡ [(αad − ᾱ1 (x)), (αad − ᾱ2 (x)), ..., (αad − ᾱl (x))],

were l is increased each time a new collapse mechanisms

minimize f (x)
is obtained. The sensitivity of h(x) follows from (4).
x, T
subject to: B T T − αad P = 0 (6)
Let be λ and φ the Lagrange Multipliers correspond-
T − M Lx ≤ 0
ing to the general inequality and the Limit Analysis con-
xmin − x ≤ 0
straints respectively and Λ = diag(λ), Φ = diag(φ). The
In effect, it is clear that at the optimum the collapse matrix B represents a quasi - Newton approximation of
amplification factor ᾱ will assume the allowable value. the second derivative of the Lagrangian.
This is in some way similar to Full Stress Design. Since The proposed algorithm for Problem (5) is stated as
the weight is a linear function of x, (6) is a Linear Ma- follows :
thematical Program. Under appropriate assumptions,
this expression can be extended to multiple loading cases. Algorithm
The formulation above is very well known, Hodge and Parameters. ξ ∈ (0, 1), η ∈ (0, 1), ϕ > 0 and ν ∈ (0, 1).
Prager(1951). Data. x0 interior, h1 (x0 ) = αad −ᾱ1 (x0 ), 0 < λ ∈ Rm , 0 <
φ ∈ R, B ∈ Rn×n symmetric and positive definite. Set
k = 0 and l=1.
5
The Numerical Optimization Procedure Step 1. Computation of a search direction.

We present now a numerical technique, see Romero(1991), (i) Compute (d0 , λ0 , φ0 ) by solving the linear system
to solve Problem (5) based on the Feasible Directions In-
terior Point Algorithm (FDIPA) described in Herskovits
(1998) and Herskovits(1995). FDIPA makes iterations in Bd0 + ∇g(xk )λ0 + ∇h(xk )φ0 = −∇f (xk ), (7)
the primal and dual variables to solve Karush-Kuhn-
Tucker first-order optimality conditions. At each itera- Λ∇g T (xk )d0 + G(xk )λ0 = 0. (8)
tion, a descent direction is defined by solving a linear
system. In a second stage, the linear system is perturbed Φ∇hT (xk )d0 + H(xk )φ0 = 0. (9)
so as to deflect the descent direction and obtain a fea-
sible descent direction. A line search is then performed If d0 = 0, stop.
to get a new interior point and to ensure global conver-
gence. There are first order, Newton, and quasi Newton (ii) Compute (d1 , λ1 , φ1 ) by solving the linear system
versions of FDIPA.
Bd1 + ∇g(xk )λ1 + ∇h(xk )φ1 = 0, (10)
The Limit Analysis constraints are nonsmooth and
FDIPA is an algorithm for smooth optimization. In this Λ∇g T (xk )d1 + G(xk )λ1 = −λ, (11)
4

Φ∇hT (xk )d1 + H(xk )φ1 = −φ. (12) 6

Numerical Examples
(iii) If dT1 ∇f (xk ) > 0, set
2
ρ = min[ϕ k d0 k2 ; (ξ − 1)dT0 ∇f (xk )/dT1 ∇f (xk )]. (13) The present method is applied to the weight minimiza-
tion of three illustrative test trusses. We only consider
Otherwise, set linear elastics stress and displacements constraints to-
2
gether with limit analysis constraints, since this is the
ρ = ϕ k d 0 k2 . (14) most interesting case for comparison with the classical
structural optimization model. In practical applications
(iv) Compute the search direction we can also include different types of smooth constraints.
d = d0 + ρd1 , (15) Local buckling conditions can be included as explained
in Kirsch(1981) or Vanderplaats(1984). The results are
and also obtained using 3D linear elastic pin joined bars. The re-
quired sensitivities for Linear Elastic Analysis are evalu-
λ̄ = λ0 + ρλ1 . (16) ated analytically as in Haftka et al.(1990) and for Limit
Analysis following the formulation described in Sections
φ̄ = φ0 + ρφ1 . (17) 3 and 4. Within each example three cases are studied:
Case 1) Linear elastic stress and displacement con-
Step 2. Line search.
straints.
Case 2) Critical loading and linear elastic displace-
Compute t, the first number of the sequence
ment constraints.
{1, ν, ν 2 , ν 3 , ...} satisfying
Case 3) Critical loading and linear elastic stress and
f (xk + td) ≤ f (xk ) + tη∇f T (xk )d, (18) displacement constraints.
In all the examples the same yield stress σy is consid-
ered for both elastic an limit analysis. In the first case,
σad = σy /ηad , where ηad is a safety factor. If αad ≤ ηad ,
g(xk + td) < 0, (19) it is easy to show that the Limit Analysis constraints are
and not active. In cases 1) and 2), we consider αad = ηad
in all test problems. In case 3) smaller values for ηad
h(xk + td) ≤ 0. (20) are taken. These values were selected in such a way to
have elastic and limit analysis constraints active at the
Step 3. Updates. optimal design.
The designs obtained here correspond to a Karush-
(i) Set Kuhn-Tucker point of the problem. When only limit anal-
xk+1 := xk + td ysis constrained are considered, it can be proved that the
problem is convex. Thus, there is only one KKT point.
If I(xk+1 ) 6= I1 , I2 , ..., Il ; Set hl+1 = (αad − ᾱl+1 ) and This one is a global minimum. In other cases a local mini-
l = l + 1. mum can be obtained, however we tried with several ini-
k =k+1 tial design and the same solution was obtained.
and define new values for Example 1: Ten bar truss, Fig 1. This structure sup-
λ>0 ports one loading condition, with p = 100000 lb. For the
optimal design, ten variables are considered and the min-
φ>0 imum area for each bar is 0.10 in2 . The material density
is 0.10 lb/in3 , the Young modulus is 10.7 psi and the
and yield stress is σy = ±40000 psi. The initial design is
B xi = 10 in2 for all variables corresponding to a weight
of 4196.46 lb. Displacement constraints are not consid-
symmetric and positive definite. ered in this problem. The optimal designs are shown in
(ii) Go back to Step 1. 2 Table 1, where our results, for Cases 1 and 2, are com-
pared with the ones shown in the open literature and
In a similar way, an algorithm based on the Feasible each design variable represents the cross-sectional area
Arc Interior Point Algorithm, FAIPA (Herskovits and of the element. In case 3) there are elastic stress and
Santos(1998)), can be obtained. limit analysis active constraints at the solution. In Fig.2
The theoretical results obtained in Herskovits(1998) we show our iterations history.
can be extended to the present algorithms. In particular,
global convergence to Karush-Kuhn-Tucker point of the
problem.
 5

360'' 360''
ure 4. The active constraints correspond to stresses and
5 1 3 2 1
displacements in case 1), to critical loadings and elas-
8 10 tic displacements in case 2) and to elastic stresses and
displacements and also critical loadings in case 3).
5 6 360''

7 9

6
3 4 2
4

p p

Fig. 1 10 Bars Truss

Table 1 10 Bars Truss - Optimal Design - Cross-Sections

areas in in2
Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Schmidt Present Kirsh Present Present
et al. (1981)
(1976)
1 7.938 7.9378 8.0 7.8 7.8964
2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1012
3 8.062 8.0621 8.0 8.2 8.1046 Fig. 3 25 Bars 3D tower
4 3.938 3.9378 3.9 3.9 3.8988
5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1011
6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1012
7 5.745 5.7447 5.66 5.9397 5.8034
8 5.569 5.5689 5.66 5.374 5.5107
9 5.569 5.5689 5.51 5.515 5.5140
10 0.1 0.1 0.14 0.1414 0.1431 Table 2 25 Bars 3D tower Loadings(lb)

Weight 1593.23 1593.18 1591.00 1591.20 1591.36 Node Loading 1 Loading 2

ηad 1.60 1.60 - - 1.59 x y z x y z
αad - - 1.60 1.60 1.60 1 1000 10000 -5000 - 20000 -5000
2 - 10000 -5000 - 20000 -5000
3 500 - - - - -
3400
Case 1
Case 2
6 500 - - - - -
3200 Case 3

3000

2800

2600
objective

2400

2200 Table 3 25 Bars 3D Tower - Optimal Design - Cross-Sections

2000 areas in in2
1800

1600 Variable Element Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

1400
0 2 4 6 8 10
iteration
12 14 16 18 20
1 1 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100
2 2-5 0.4015 0.2432 0.4000
Fig. 2 Iteration History for 10-Bars Truss 3 6-9 0.5512 0.6811 0.5500
4 10-11 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100
5 12-13 0.0100 0.0412 0.0100
Example 2: Twenty five bars 3D tower, Fig.3. This 6 14-17 0.1101 0.0910 0.1011
structure supports two loading conditions as shown in 7 18-21 0.3261 0.3401 0.3261
Table 2. The sizes of the bars are defined by eight de- 8 22-25 0.4421 0.4110 0.4221
sign variables with a minimum value of 0.01 in2 and a Weight (lb) 99.95 97.99 98.44
displacement limit of 2.0in is imposed on all nodes in all ηad 1.7 - 1.55
directions. The material density is 0.10 lb/in3 , the Young αad - 1.7 1.7
modulus is 10.7 psi and the yield stress is σy = ±60000
psi. The initial design is xi = 3 in2 for all variables cor-
responding to a weight of 992.16 lb. The optimal design Example 3: Seventy two bars space truss, Fig.5. The
are shown in Table 3 and the history of iteration in Fig- loading conditions are described in Table 4. The sizes of
6

500
Case 1
Case 2
Table 5 72 Bars Truss - Optimal Design - Cross-Sections
450 Case 3
areas in in2
400

350

Variable Element Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

300

250
1 1-4 0.6370 0.4438 0.6152
2 5- 12 0.3411 0.2864 0.3061
200
3 13-16 0.2152 0.2194 0.2131
150
4 17 18 0.2784 0.3173 0.3014
100 5 19-22 0.6886 0.7855 0.6280
6 23- 30 0.2459 0.2571 0.2544
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
7 31 - 34 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
8 35 36 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
Fig. 4 Iteration History for 25-Bars Truss 9 37- 40 0.7129 0.6249 0.6547
10 41 - 48 0.2349 0.2551 0.2526
11 49-52 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
the bars are defined by sixteen design variables. The min- 12 53 54 0.100 0.1000 0.1000
imum value of the variables is of 0.1in2 . The yield stress 13 55 - 58 1.0352 0.9418 0.9470
is σγ = ± 25000 psi. The maximum value of nodal dis- 14 59- 66 0.2356 0.2557 0.2535
placements is 0.5in for all nodes in all directions. The 15 67 - 70 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
optimal designs are shown in Table 5. The active con- 16 71-72 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
straints correspond to stresses and displacements in case Weight (lb) 232.516 226.148 227.805
1), to critical loadings and elastic displacements in case ηad 3.5 - 3.2
2) and to elastic stresses and displacements and also crit- αad - 3.5 3.5
ical loadings in case 3).

550
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
500

450

400
objctive

350

300

250

200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
iterations

Fig. 6 Iteration History for 72-Bars Truss

From the results it can be observed that slightly lighter

Fig. 5 72 Bars 3D tower optimal design are obtained whenever constraints on elas-
tic stresses are substituted by limit analysis. In general,
this effect is greater in structures with higher degrees of
indeterminacy. From figures 2, 4 and 6 the time history
Table 4 72 Bars 3D tower Loadings(lb) for the 3 cases is very similar. Since Case 3 also consid-
ers the constraints of Cases 1 and 2, its utilization in the
Node Loading 1 Loading 2 optimal design of truss structures is more advantageous.
x y z x y z
1 5000 5000 5000 0 0 -5000
2 - - - 0 0 -5000 7
3 - - - 0 0 -5000 Conclusions
4 - - - 0 0 -5000
The examples allow us to conclude that the mathema-
tical model and the computational system behave in a
very efficient way. They also show that the use of differ-
ent models yield different weights for the same structure,
however, we can not state that a model is better than an-

other. The choice of which method should be used in the
project will depend on the conditions of operation of the
structure and the reliability requested in the project. The
algorithm used to solve the present problem behaves in
a very efficient way in the different examples explored.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially supported by CNPq (Brazil-
ian Research Council), FAPERJ (Rio de Janeiro State
Research Council) and ICCTI(Portuguese Institute for
International Scientific and Technological Cooperation).
References
Allwood, R.; Chung, Y. 1984: Minimum weight design
of trusses by an optimality criteria methods. Int. J. for
Num. meth. in Eng. 20, 697-713.
Cristiansen, E. 1981: Computation of limit loads. Int.
J. for Num. meth. in Eng. 17,1547-1570.
Drucker; D.C.; Greenberg, H.J.; Prager, W 1951: The
safety factor of an elastic-plastic body in plane strain, J.
App. Mech. 18, 371-378.
Feijóo, R.A.; Zouain, N. 1988: Formulation in rates and
increments for elastic-plastic analysis. Int. J. for Num.
Meth. in Eng. 26,2031-2048.
Feijóo, R.A.; Zouain, N. 1989: A contribution to struc-
tural plasticity by optimization techniques. Comp. plast.
models soft. and appl. Ed. Owen, D.R.J. and Oñate.
Haftka,R.T.;Gurdal,Z.; Kamat, M.P. 1990: Elements of
Structural Optimization, 2nd Ed.,London: Kluwer Pub-
lishers.
Herskovits, J. 1995: A view on nonlinear optimization.
In Herskovits, J (ed.) Advances in Structural Optimiza-
tion; 71-116, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Herskovits, J. 1998: A Feasible Directions Interior Point
Technique for Nonlinear Optimization. JOTA - Jour-
nal of Optimization Theory and Applications; 99-1, 121-
146.
Herskovits, J.; Santos, G. 1998: Feasible Arc Interior
Point Algorithms for Nonlinear Optimization. Fourth
World Congress on Computational Mechanics; in CD-
ROM , Argentina.
Hodge, P.G.; Prager W. 1952: Limit design of reinforce-
ments of cut-outs in slabs. Bulletin of the American Math-
ematical Society, 58, 68.
7
Kaliszky, S.; Lógó, J. 2002:Plastic behaviour and sta-
bility constraints in the shakedown analysis and optimal
design of trusses. Structural and Multidisciplinary Opti-
mization,24, 118-124.
Kirsch, U. 1981: Optimum Structural Design. McGraw-
Hill.
Lee,J.; Gordon, J. 1981: Transmission tower design anal-
ysis and design by linear programming. IEE. Transaction
on power Apparatus and systems, 100(4), 1989-2007.
Lellep, J.; Puman, E. 2001: Optimization of conical shells
for Mises material. Structural and Multidisciplinary Op-
timization,22, 149-156.
Lellep, J.; Tungel, E. 2002:Optimization of plastic spher-
ical shells with a central hole.Structural and Multidisci-
plinary Optimization,23, 233-240.
Lluı́s, G.; Andreu, A. 2001: Shape and cross-section op-
timization of a truss structure.Computers an Structures,
79,681-689.
Luenberger,G.D. 1984: Linear and nonlinear program-
ming. Second edition, London: Addison-Wesley Publish-
ing Company.
Ohsaki, M. 2001: Random Search method based on exact
reanalysis for topology optimization of trusses with dis-
crete cross-section areas.Computers and Structures, 79,
673-679.
Prager, W. ; Hodge, P.G.1951: Theory of perfectly plas-
tic solids, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Rohan, E ; Whiteman, JR. 2000: Shape optimization of
elastic-plastic structures and continua. Computer Meth-
ods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,187, Issues1-
2, 261-288.
Romero,J. 1991: Projeto otimo de treliças restrições ao
colapso plático. M.Sc. Thesis, COPPE, UFRJ, Brazil(in
Portuguese).
Rozvany, G.I.N.; Cohn, M. 1970: Lower bound optimal
design of concret structures. J.Eng Mech. Div. ASCE,96,
1013-1030.
Rozvany, G.I.N.;Zouh, M. 1991: A note on truss design
for stress and displacement constraints by the optimality
criteria method. Structural Optimization, 3, 45-50.
Shmith, L.; Miura, H. 1982: An Advanced structural anal-
ysis/synthesis capability-access 1.AIAA Journal,29(2):1
934-939.
Sobieszcanski-Sobieski, J.; Berthelemy,J.F.,Riley K.M.
8

1982: Sensitivity of optimum solution of problem param-

eter. AIAA Journal, 20(90),1291-1299.

Vanderplaats, G.N.Vanderplaats 1984: Numerical Opti-

mization Techniques for Engineering Design with Appli-
cations. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Zouain, N., Herskovits, J., Borges, L.A., Feijóo, R.A.

1993: An Interative algorithm for limit analysis with non-
linear yield functions. Int.J.on Solid Struc.,30, 10, 1397-
1417.