Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim.

13, 5 (2022)
© Q. Zaheer et al., Published by EDP Sciences, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1051/smdo/2021039
Available online at:
https://www.ijsmdo.org

REVIEW

Literature review of bridge structure’s optimization

and it’s development over time
Qasim Zaheer1 , Tan Yonggang1, and Furqan Qamar2,*
1
Dalian University of Technology Dalian, China
2
University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, UK

Received: 5 October 2021 / Accepted: 8 November 2021

Abstract. The structural development in bridge engineering along with efficiency have got much attention in
few decades. Leading to the development, Optimization of structure established on mathematical analysis
emerged mostly employed strategies for productive and sustainable design in the bridge engineering. Despite the
widespread knowledge, there has yet to be a rigorous examination of recent structural optimization exploration
development. Thus, the primary objectives of this paper are to critically review previous structural optimization
research, provide a detailed examination of optimization goals and outline recent research field limitations and
provide guidelines for future research proposal in the field of bridge engineering structural optimization. This article
begins by outlining the relevance of efficiency and sustainability in the bridge construction, as well as the work done
required for this review. Suitable papers are gathered and followed by a statistical analysis of the selected
publications. Following that, the selected papers are evaluated in terms of the optimization targets as well as their
spatial patterns. Structure’s optimization four key steps, including modeling, optimization techniques, formulation
of optimization concerns and computational tools, are also researched and examined in depth. Finally, research gaps
in contemporary works are identified, as well as suggested guidance for future works.
Keywords: Metaheuristic algorithm / bridge structure / bridge optimization /
critical review of bridge optimization

1 Introduction bridge engineering activities. With the start of 20th

century, birth and growth of computational methodology
Bridge engineering field is basically a vocation that deals for structural design and analysis, in a past few decades it
with study of design, function, maintenance, construction, has been observing that optimization techniques build on
and development related to road infrastructures having the mathematical programming methods have been
various kinds of works in bridges, for instance piling, and formulated and also approved in bridge engineering and
culverts [1]. However, the low efficiency, high labor it pertains to pile up the best effect under particular
intensity and increasing environmental effects [2–4] are circumstances [7,8].
often understood trade by the architecture, engineering In bridge engineering the optimization may enforce in
and construction industry while a huge fraction of saving is every stage of project from its design to its construction or
part of it as well. According to Karen Manley, Tim Rose’s supervision. The structural optimization is one the most
report et al. [5], the nearly 9% of the World GDP is made up utilized divisions of optimization. In this survey, to attain
by the accepted construction business. In 2017 another the different goals under given circumstances, “structural
survey from [6] is carried out according to that, construc- optimization” means to explore the decent arrangement of
tion industry is the 2nd largest china’s energy consuming structural elements and also dismissing the properties
sector. Estimating 20% of entire energy utilization, almost of approved materials [9]. The crucial and essential part of
23% of total electric power usage and approximately 30% bridge engineering structure is ‘material’ which has the
carbon emission (CO2) which is throwing remarkable greater part in their achievement. In bridge engineering
effects on the climate. Therefore, it is core interest of all in infrastructures [10], concrete-based composite materials
boosting economic, social, and environmental ability of are widely used in which ordinary concrete, enhanced
concrete, pre-stressed concrete etc are involved [11].
Although bridge engineering structures have different
* email: [email protected] kinds of materials, but sole type of material is generally

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

understood in structural optimization because of the for high-dimensional dilemmas [24], etc. Therefore, big
computational complications when material distribution numbers of researchers documented to concentrate on
are contemplated. increasing the achievement of improvement (optimization)
Structural optimization is further categorized into four techniques either to recommend unique optimization
types [12]: techniques or to improve the prevailing metaheuristic
– Size optimization: leads to the cross-sectional volume of techniques. For instance, to increase the execution
structures or structural components as design variable of interactive search algorithm (ISA) for sizing of structure
[13]; size and topology improvement, Mor Razavi [25] recom-
– Shape optimization: Shape optimization: it has another mended an auxiliary fuzzy judgment mechanism. Less
name “configuration optimization” that leads to the computational cost and bigger outcome precision are
structure’s nodal coordinate changes and act as design attained by the Fuzzy Adapted Interactive Search
variables [14]; Algorithm (FTISA). From several trials that are based
– Topology optimization: intends to eliminate unwanted on the empirical findings, the new algorithm is verified to
structural components to attain the optimum solution in have a higher convergence momentum, lower computa-
design as well as concentrates on how joints are attached tional expense and better optimization results as compared
and supported [15]; to the conventional harmony search algorithm. Topology
– Multi-objective optimization: for better optimization optimization [26] exemplified that can achieve the opti-
results [16], this optimization understood multiple of the mum result more smartly related to many more state-of-
mentioned optimization goals; an optimization implicat- the-art mathematical algorithms described topology opti-
ed shape, size as well as topology in parallels time frame mization technique such as the transformable triangular
also known as layout optimization [17]. mesh (TTM) technique. In the domain of structural
optimization these above described research explained the
In the initial step, area of bridge engineering studies on
ability and achievements of structural optimization to
optimization only consists of mathematical proofs and
increase the working and quality of structural engineering
programming methods, they rely on simple structure as
especially in bridges [27]. Nevertheless, although in field of
model. Structural optimization has been pertained to more
bridge optimization considerable amount of surveys and
complicated bridge engineering structures, especially
research summaries were printed, none of them fulfilled the
topology optimization [9] due to the improvement of
thorough view of the exploration improvement in struc-
computational and construction method. Further illustra-
tural optimization. Thus, in the field of bridge engineering
tion of optimization application of structure, concerned to
this article endeavors to thoroughly survey the state-of-
large-scale bridge engineering project is, Dalian suspension
the-art publications in area of structural optimization.
bridge china.
It includes analysis of the optimization aims, and its
The optimized exoskeleton member layout increased
worldly and spatial changes, examination of optimization
the material performance through the help of topology
processes with four important points, arguments of
optimization boosted design while the widespread stiffness
exploration, drawbacks and proposals of coming works.
the structure was ensured [18]. Structural optimization has
The remaining of the manuscript is comprised of
one of the main purposes to minimize the gross expense of
interpretation. Section 2 leads to the procedure that is for
structure [19]. In infrastructure works, the regulations
literature retrieval. As far as Section 3 concerns, it explicit
of structural achievement wished on the assumption of
a statistical data of the chosen manuscripts. In Section 4,
convincing is always a lower expenditure. By decreasing
the optimization objectives of the specified papers are
the full weight of structure in order to curtail the whole
classified and analyzed with respect to the temporal and
cost, for this purpose various kinds of researches have been
spatial trends. Section 5 provides a complete analysis,
documented. Recently, with the uplift probe on the
survey and basic of the structural optimization techniques
environmental problem and considerable improvement,
according to four possibilities, comprising modeling,
another substantial purpose of structural optimization has
problems of optimization formulation, structural analysis
been evolved by lessening environmental consequences just
optimization methodologies, design platforms, and compu-
due to significant quantity of CO2 emissions in area of
tational tools. In Section 6 implicit the constraints of the
construction engineering [20]. In improvement, enhancing
existing study and is founded on which magnifies the
certain structural achievements, Le [21] emphasized by
probable future works. In Section 7, finally decisions are
some study manuscripts on structural optimization such as
taken out to conclude and outline this work.
dynamic seismic performance, aerodynamic performance
and mechanical behavior [22] to make structure friendly for
various regions and their ecosystem. 2 Methodology
Several optimization techniques have been composed
and formulated in order to get the aims those are described This research takes a comprehensive strategy to critically
above. Recently, in bridge engineering structural optimi- examine current state-of-the-art research work and illus-
zation exploration, the metaheuristic techniques have the trate comprehensive overview of structural optimization in
significant optimization techniques because they are area of bridge engineering. The investigation was limited to
adequate for combinatorial optimization difficulties. How- English-language materials published between the 1970s
ever, there are some disadvantages of metaheuristic and February 2021. Figure 1 depicts the entire procedure of
techniques i.e. the high complexity [23], and deficiency the survey, which includes selection of specific literature
Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 3

Fig. 1. Demonstration of research methodology.

4 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

Fig. 2. Selected articles publication period.

engineering structures, and metaheuristic approaches are

utilized as search phrases to make literature retrieval
convenient and easier. From the search results, the most
relevant information was hand-picked.
A total of 156 papers were chosen using the aforemen-
tioned literature retrieval approach, including 125 research
publications, 10 conference papers, 4 chapter from different
books, 9 review papers, and 8 thesis. Despite its long history,
structural optimization was first used in the aircraft
industry, and it was only much later that it was applied
to civil engineering [28]. Furthermore, as information
technology has advanced, the optimization tactics used in
current studies have drastically changed from those used in
previous studies.

2.2 Keywords for literature selection

Fig. 3. Selected articles from each journal. The research was conducted using a Boolean search
strategy involving the phrases AND, OR, and (“Bridge
Optimization”) AND (“optimization” OR “optimal” OR
“optimum” OR “minimal cost” OR “least cost”). To
from internet database, statistical evaluation of the chosen
distinguish the type of structure explored in this study,
literature, a deep study about optimization objectives with
the term “bridge optimization” was coined. The phrases
regional and periodic trends, study of the optimization
“optimal”, “minimum cost”, “optimization”, “optimum”,
procedure, drawbacks, and research gap and its proposal,
and “least-cost” were used to discover works that
as well as a conclusion. Section 2.1 delves into the
employed optimization algorithms, whereas research
technicalities of literature selection, while Section 2.2 gives
papers that did not use optimization methods were
a quick rundown of the keywords employed in the process.
deleted because these terms are commonly used in this
To avoid duplication, all references from the selected
field’s literature search.
publications were double-checked for relevant research
that may have been missed during the electronic and
manual searches. 3 Statistical data analysis of literature

2.1 Literature retrieval The chosen literature ratio of publications is shown in

Figure 2 over time. The study started in 1970 and lasted for
Publications about bridge optimization, which make up the five decades. Structure optimization is becoming more
majority of the academic literature published, were found popular and attracting increasing academic interest,
using the electronic databases Scopus, Google Scholar and according to the literature review. Eighty three percent
Web of Science. Passing structural optimization, layout, of these research were published after the year 2000, from
size, shape, topology, optimum design, civil and bridge the percentage of total data fifty seven percent were
 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 5

Fig. 4. Selected articles from different continents. Fig. 5. Proportion of papers for their objectives.

Table 1. Summary of Optimization objectives with references.

Objective Brief Description Related Study

Cost minimization Optimization to reduce cost of bridge, that [110–117]
usually attained by reducing structure’s volume.
Structural performance development Optimization for the improvement of some [13,30,54,57,97,118–122]
structural properties in order to order to adapt
functional requirements
Environmental impact minimization Optimization to reduce the impact of bridge [123–126]
construction on environment. i.e. emission of
gases, bridge in water, material impact of species
living in water
Multi-objective Optimization considering more than one of the [54,62,65,66,127–134]
above objectives

published from 2011 to 2021. Our case is aided by the fact – Cost minimization: The purpose of structural optimiza-
that data is readily available (that garnering attention tion design is to reduce total cost, which is usually
from researchers takes time). accomplished by reducing the weight or volume of the
These papers were evaluated using the sources that structure.
publish the most papers on the topic of Bridge engineering – Structural performance development: The purpose of
structures optimization. In well-known and famous ten structural optimization design is to improve certain
journals, a total of 103 papers have been published. Journal structural features such as mechanical behavior, aerody-
of Bridge Engineering takes the lead with 25 articles, namic achievement, and dynamic seismic performance in
followed by Engineering Structures and Computer Struc- order to meet requirements under varied scenarios [29].
tures, each with more than 15 papers. – Minimization of environmental impact: The purpose of
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 4, the retrieved structural optimization design is to reduce greenhouse
publications are separated into regions based on the chief gas emissions or energy consumption in order to improve
author’s research school/geographical institute affiliation. the environmental performance of the structure.
With 73, 41, and 25 articles published, Asia, North – Multi-objective optimization: a single optimization that
America, and Europe are the top three continents, incorporates more than one of the three objectives [30].
accounting for 93 percent of the total number of
Table 1 presents a detail of the four classes of
publications.
optimization objectives with References.
The percentage of articles picked for each optimization
4 Objectives of structural optimization goal is shown in Figure 5. The majority of the investigators,
who account for 48 percent of the papers picked, are project
4.1 Categories of optimization objectives stakeholders who are focused on cost reduction. Another
30% of the papers assessed use structural optimization to
The four classes below can be used to classify the increase structural achievement, while another 21% use
optimization goals of the structural optimization studies structural optimization to achieve multiple goals. Only 1%
that have been chosen: of the papers selected are solely focused on curtailing the
6 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

bad environmental impact on and due to bridge structures.

The explanation for this could be that lowering the total
cost of structures by controlling greenhouse gas emissions
and also embodied energy use at the same time [31]. As a
result, multi-objective optimization is a prominent tech-
nique in this industry, as it targets both cost and
environmental effect mitigation at the same time.

4.2 Temporal changes of optimization objectives

The entire trend in bridge engineering structural optimi-

zation research has risen over time, while the proportion of
papers devoted to each goal has shifted. Figures 6 and 7
show the quantity and ratio of articles respective of their Fig. 6. Number of papers and publication time with objectives.
optimization goal in each of the five intervals to assess
differences in study progress in domain where structures
are optimized over decades. Prior to year 2000, the article’s
primary focus was on cost reduction. This topic is structural optimization is vital when the security and
mentioned in nine articles, accounting for 65% of all
studies published before 2000. Because the weight or
volume of a structure accounts for such large amount of its
cost [9], all of the early studies concentrated to make
structure lighter in volume. Quite less studies focus on
structural working enhancement and multi-objective
optimization that contain 16 percent and 15 percent of
the publications respectively. In addition to cost reduction.
All of the research published during this time period that
tries to improve structural performance uses topology
optimization [31], which comprises eliminating subsystems
that make small contributions to structural performance
while adhering to established standards [32]. Because
these studies did not use a single structural
performance parameter, various performance metrics such
as obedience [33], ultimate displacement [34] and moment
(“Analysis of Load Optimization in Cable Stayed Bridge
Using CSI Bridge Software Load Optimization in Cable Fig. 7. How structural optimization changes over time.
Stayed Bridge” 2018) were used to optimize the results.
The initial study cited in this paper performed separate
mean compliance and weight minimizations before inte-
grating the two types of optimizations to perform multi- service is on priority than cost (weight) reduction [37].
objective structural optimization (Algorithm, n.d.). Multi- Furthermore, few academics use structural optimization to
objective optimization is more typical when two objectives achieve multiple aims at the same time. These objectives
are considered at the same time. Shifting multi-objective are frequently incompatible and competitive [38]. Due to
problems with single-objective problems, some scholars constraints such as computational complexity and out-
offered a multiplier [35] while others employed a Pareto come uncertainty, number of surveys associated to this
solution to simultaneously achieve several optimization subject are very limited, accounting for 16 percent of the
goals [36]. total papers selected [39], Figure 6 shows how the number
After 2000, the amount of publications in domain of of multi-objective research has fluctuated since 2000. Since
structural optimization skyrockets, particularly in the 2000, the number of multi-objective studies has fluctuated
fourth phase, from 21 papers in 2006 to 36 manuscripts in as shown in Figure 7. Furthermore, three of the five pieces
2011, with the percentage of articles meeting each target were produced between 2016 and 2021, indicating that this
continuously increasing. As shown in Figures 6 and 7, cost topic may become more popular in the future as concerns
reduction has always been a hot research topic, and the about bridge engineering’s long-term viability develop [40].
number of papers on the subject has increased fourfold
since 2000. However, the ratio of this theme is lower in 4.3 Spatial changes of optimization objective
the last four time intervals (before 2000) than in the first
(54 percent, 59 percent, 67 percent, and 58 percent, Financing from the public institutions or private authori-
respectively). Structure’s performance enhancement is the ties heads towards an increase in the number of research
2nd most popular area, accounting for 24% of all stated publications produced in specific topics on average. In a
papers. Since 2000, the number of papers with this purpose previous review paper [41], the phrase “geographical scope”
has risen in each of the four different time periods. This was used to characterize the division of geographical areas.
 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 7

countries in terms of the number of manuscripts collected

and articles submitted. The leading four countries having
the most publications and selected in this review are China,
the United States of America, Iran, and Spain. A total of
115 articles have been brought up online by researchers
mostly from these four states, containing 73% total number
of papers collected. Various studies objectives are evenly
scattered in states with good economy (China, the United
States, Australia, South Korea, Canada, Italy, Turkey,
Spain and Germany), whereas in states with somewhat
poor economy (Iran, Brazil, South Africa, India, and
Pakistan), the study mainly concentrates on cost minimi-
zation. In countries with seismically active zones, such as
United States, China, South Korea, and Japan, more
research on structural performance development has been
Fig. 8. Distribution of gathered manuscripts in each continent. discovered. This suggests that geographic and environ-
mental factors can have an impact on exploratory routes
[27]. Researchers in these countries are more motivated to
improve structural performance in the face of earthquakes
and seismic loads [42].

5 Process of structural optimization

In bridge structures, there are various structural optimi-
zation items such as the pier, girder, steel sections, cables,
and so on, but modular structures; frames and trusses are
the most often used. When using structural optimization
techniques, four fundamental factors should be kept in
mind:
– A structural analysis and design modeling technique that
distinguishes between discrete and continuous structural
optimization;
– Definition of optimization problem, in addition with
objective function(s), variable descriptions, and con-
Fig. 9. Distribution of gathered manuscripts in countries.
straint descriptions.
– Optimization strategy, which deals with the mathemati-
cal programming approaches that are used to get
optimum structure;
– Design platform and Computational tool, which deals
Figure 5 depicts the proportion of articles collected by with software strategies that are employed to drive the
continent, with Asia, Europe, and North America being the optimization programs and codes to carry out optimal
most major landmasses with the most publications. For design.
each optimization target, Figure 8 displays the distribution
of gathered manuscripts in each continent. Across all
continents, cost minimization appears to be the most 5.1 Modelling techniques for design and analysis
popular topic. However, in entire Europe continent and of structure
North American, the volume of conversation on this issue is
only somewhat minor than in entire Asia. One more Optimization of structure is iterative process in its nature.
discrepancy is that environmental effect mitigation Structural analysis must be run numerous times during the
research is found in Europe and North America but not optimization process to examine the evolution of every
in Asia. Each of the other three continents received only design till the achievement of convergence that is
two, five, and eight pieces, respectively (Africa, South significant computational cost. As a result, selecting a
America, and Oceania, respectively). This means that computationally sound structural analysis technique is
structural optimization-related investigation is quite basic crucial, particularly for big, complex bridge engineering
in these areas. projects. In structural analysis, the finite element method
The geographical scope was subsequently broadened to (FEM) is extensively employed to reduce computational
cover the specific territory in order to assess geographical costs, with basic finite element models being utilized more
research directions in the area of bridge structural frequently than complicated finite element models. The
optimization. Total 156 papers are collected for this review next cost-cutting alternative is the simultaneous analysis
came from 50 different states. Figure 8 shows the top 12 and design strategy, which integrates structural analysis
8 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

with structural design [43,44]. Structural optimization can the objective function as penalty functions to shift it from a
be classified into two groups based on the modeling limited to unconstrained state [27] limits of design variables
approaches adopted in early stages of design procedure: are known as design space or search space, and it can be
discrete optimization and continuous optimization. Struc- separated to two domains: infeasible and feasible. The
ture network is molded with discrete structural compo- viable domain is made up of design junctures that meet all
nents in discrete optimization, however the structure of the criteria, whereas the infeasible realm is made up of
network systems taken as solid continuum when have design degrees that break at least one constraint constant.
inconsistent topology in continuum optimization [45]. The following is the most typical understanding of an
Because structures distributed into few components, optimization problem [13]:
cross-sectional characteristics and nodal locations are useful
in the discrete optimization technique. As a result, when f ðxÞ¼ Objective Function ðminimization or maximizationÞ
given a stated and constrained topology. This phenomenon is ð1Þ
frequently utilized in optimizing shape and size and a sort of
optimization technique that focuses these components is
known as pre-defined or no topological optimization [46]. To Bi ðXÞ
0; where i ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . . ::m;
put it another way, topological optimization is the process of
selecting a structure’s form, whereas shape optimization is C j ðXÞ ¼ 0; where j ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . . ::p;
the process of modifying a structure’s shape to enhance its
desired properties (usually mass volume or weight) [47]
illustrate pre-defined topological optimization. The connec- X∈S
tion of structural components is generally the subject of the
discrete optimization approach for topology optimization. where X is a vector X = [X1, X2, X3 …. Xn] and exemplifies
The best design elements from each part may be merged to the design set of variables, where n denotes number of
create a full perfect design. design variables; f (X) is the objective function; Bi (X) and
This method is frequently associated with topology Cj (X) pertain both inequality and equality constraints; p
optimization, which is used to solve material distribution and m are numbers of constraints, and S is denoted for
difficulties [48]. The ideal design are not always result in design or search space.
truss or girder like structural components, continuum As previously indicated, structural optimization
optimization strategy outperforms the discrete optimiza- includes four sorts of aims. As a consequence, the objective
tion technique to some extent. However, the applicability category will be used to evaluate the issue formulation. The
of the continuum strategies with in domain of bridge process of learning desired quantification of finding for an
engineering are restricted since the problem to be optimization issue, while convincing few regulations is
optimized is more complex and the method of program- known as interpreting the objective function. As a result,
ming is more harder than dealing with discrete sections of the parameter depicting the objective function may differ
the structure [45]. from the optimization target in some cases. The most
widely acknowledged aim in structural optimization, cost
reduction, is typically assessed to set up the volume of
5.2 Formulation of optimization problems structure for target purpose. Nonetheless, structural
Problem or research gap formulation relates basic three designers sometimes criticize the use of weight to influence
components in optimizing a problem: objective function(s), cost since a structured design with the least weight does not
constraints and design variables, within problem search always imply the lowest cost [49]. As a result, certain
area [27]. Presuppositions are used to alter the attributes of objective functions are developed to handle cost reduction,
component when performing structural optimization. The but due to the worries and fuzziness experienced, small
parameters that are utilized to indicate how these traits number of bridge engineering articles with in optimization
change are known as design variables, denoted as a vector. domain, stress this area. The overall structure’s volume is
The two types of design variables that can be categorized directly affected by to the cross-sectional characteristics of
depending on their relevance are continuous and discrete structural component, structural system is frequently
design variables. Discrete design variables have values that scattered in several structural components, with cross-
are separated, whereas continuous design variables have sectional worth chosen for design variables. Objective
discrete values that change within range. A function (or function can be interpreted since the ratio of various
combination of functions) that can be used to calculate the materials is not taken into account in these studies as
outcome of an optimization is known as an objective Equation below [50]:
function. Constraints are security and serviceability X
n
constraints that must be met during the optimization W¼ gaAiDi ð2Þ
process. Equality and inequality restrictions are two i¼1
distinct types of limits that can be applied in various
ways. Possible they can be combined to declare few where W represents overall weight of member; g density; a
optimization strategies. For instance, equality constraint denotes gravitational acceleration; and X = {A1, A2, A3,
H(X) = 0 renovated by couple of inequality constraints A4... . . . . . . An} the cross-sectional areas of structural
H1(X) ≥ 0 and H2(X)
0. Constraints, incorporated into components are denoted by Ai, while the length of each
 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 9

structural member is denoted by Di. To reduce weight, this Academics have paid little attention to the third goal of
form of optimization of structure is usually coupled with structural optimization, which is to decrease environmental
sizing (size optimization) [50–52]. That structural optimi- impacts. There have only been four works discovered on this
zation is concerned much in determining the best link subject. The environmental effect of bridge engineering
between nodes, or if structural components should be constructions is measured in CO2 emissions or in energy
present between nodes. The ground structure, which is a usage in these studies, and the environmental impact is
predetermined big structure with large number of decreased by reducing the amount of material utilized [60].
structural components, usually starting point for topology In the same manner that cost-cutting restrictions are
optimization. Excess components are continually removed accepted, security and serviceability needs are accepted to
during the optimization process until the best design with induce design provisions [61].
the lowest weight is attained [53]. Vector always used to In the bridge engineering business, there is always an
represent collection of topological variables. They have two uniform criteria for analyzing a project, which is to
degrees of significance for variables: 1 and 0. Suppose value reduce costs while increasing security and serviceability.
of a topological variable is 1, the component of structure However, these goals may conflict with one another,
indicated by variable may be deleted; if the value is 0, the meaning that improving one may result in the deteriora-
portion cannot be eliminated. Structural topology optimi- tion of another. Thus, in the realm of structural
zation is commonly coupled with sizing for structure optimization, boosting studies have focused on balancing
volume minimization to structural components with conflicting goals (typically two objectives) [62]. Multi-
extremely minute cross-sectional occupancy are viewed objective optimization is the name given to this form of
as superfluous and can be eliminated [54]. Rather than the structural optimization, and it is the last category of
type of optimization, the specific design requirements are structural optimization goal discussed in this article.
depending on the geographical specifications utilized. The fact that multi-objective optimization considers
Stress and displacement limits are commonly achieved in several objective functions distinguishes it from single-
structural optimization with the goal of lowering costs. The objective optimization. For example, researchers may
AASHTO, Euro-codes 2, and ACI Codes for Concrete, as look at reducing both weight and deflection at the same
well as British Standards, are some of the most commonly time [63,64]. Multi-objective optimization problems are
used regional standards [27]. more difficult to solve, necessitating the use of more
Another common goal for structural optimization is advanced computational techniques [65]. Another signif-
to improve structural performance. In any case, there are icant point of contention is that, contrary to multi-
no uniform standards for evaluating structural perfor- objective optimization’s fundamental nature, there is no
mance. You can choose from a variety of performance unique solution that accomplishes the best of all
indices such as stiffness [18], compliance [55], strain objectives at the same time [66]. Normally, a multi-
energy [17], and static displacement [69] Manipulation of objective optimum difficulty can be developed as
the gathered works establishes the objective function. Equation [67]:
The majority of the articles in this article that attempt Minimization function
to enhance structural performance employ topology
optimization. The reason for this might be that, in F ðxÞ ¼ ½F 1 ðxÞ; F 2 ðxÞ; F 3 ðxÞ:::::::::::F k ðxÞT ð4Þ
principle, topology optimization leads to the ideal
structural size, which can then be further enhanced whereas
using size and/or shape optimization approaches [56].
Compliance reduction is usually used as the goal function Bi ðXÞ ≥ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . . ::m;
in this form of structural optimization to optimize the
stiffness of structures. The goal might be stated as in C j ðXÞ ¼ 0; j ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . . ::p;
equation [57]:

Minimum : C P ¼ F T  QðxÞ ð3Þ X∈S

where CP is the compliance of member (structure); F where F (x) denotes objective function’s set; Bi (X) and
indicates the load vector, and Q refers to the displacement Cj (X) showing both inequality and equality constraints;
vector. Limits of structure’s optimization for the performance X = [x1, x2, x3, … …, xn] design variables set; and S is the
development of structure are further distinct compare to design space of outcome. Previously stated, the formula-
those for volume reduction due to the several design rules for tion yields no particularly good optimum treatment, and
structural features. Natural regularity is constantly restrict- the optimization result is a collection of trade-off findings
ed when considering the dynamic response of structures, for [68]. The Pareto optimum set [69], is made up of these
example, to avoid the damaging consequences of dynamic results, which are referred to as no-dominated results.
loads [58]. This category of structural optimization accom- Pareto optimum set also known as Pareto front [69], that a
plishes distinct mechanical constraints of structure such as useful tool for displaying results of multi-objective
stiffness, buckling loads, stress, and displacement based on optimization when it schemes in coordinate system
design criteria. More, material volume limits are frequently according to design standards. Making trade-off judgments
used to keep bridge structural costs in check [59]. on competing aims benefits designer. The constraint is a set
10 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

of restrictions for each goal in multi-objective optimization, a result, after several cycles, the best result can be achieved.
such as deflection constraints, volume constraints, To reduce computing expense, scientists may occasionally
mechanical constraints, and so on. include approximated techniques into these gradient-based
The framing of the issue is crucial in optimization of optimization procedures. These approaches begin by
structure. It describes the variables, objectives, con- establishing an approximation of the structural design
straints, and solution scope. The optimization step next issue established on structural analysis, so we use
involves acquiring computational tools and techniques in optimization techniques to solve the estimated problem.
order to identify the optimum solution(s) in the design The best solution to the estimated difficulty is utilized
space (search space). as a starting point for more investigation and improvement
of design [73].
5.3 Optimization techniques and methods These gradient-based optimization approaches were
widely used in early structural optimization studies in
During the twentieth century, structural optimization was bridge engineering, and they are also known as conven-
one of the most frequently researched subject areas in tional procedures. For instance, Chan [72] a linear
engineering. The 1951 paper by Kuhn and Tucker [70], was programming method was used to optimize structures
a seminal work in this field since it linked several key that are vulnerable to more than one loading. These two
mathematical programming method for optimization of researcher Dobbs and Felton employed a steepest downfall
structure, such as the Lagrange multiplier approach, the nonlinear programming approach for truss form optimum
equivalence theorem, and so on. In the future, these design for reducing the structure’s volume. Lin et al. [13]
approaches will be used often. In modern time, numerical For minimal weight design of buildings under static and
research methods and mathematical programming have dynamic constraints, a bi-factor a-b approach, which is a
become renowned methodologies to effectively seek for the beneficial iteration algorithm and relates to the feasible
best conclusion in the field of structure optimization. The direction techniques, was developed. According to previous
best technique for finding a solution often begins with a research, these gradient-based methods have a number of
preliminary design and iterates the value of goal until drawbacks, despite their wide range of applications. In
convergence [71]. In bridge engineering structural optimi- general, these restrictions are further disperse into three
zation, two types of optimization techniques are commonly categories:
used: heuristic and gradient-based approaches. – Convergence to the global optimized structure is
Gradient-based approaches anticipate predetermined challenging to obtain using these gradient-based techni-
investigation direction, which is called as gradient, prior to ques in several bridge engineering structural optimiza-
look for best result [72]. This optimization strategy can be tion experiments [72]. If the starting design and search
more classified in four main groups: linear programming directions are not sufficiently separated, these gradient-
techniques, nonlinear programming techniques, optimality based approaches possibly converge close to any local
criteria techniques, and feasible direction techniques are all optimums among all, in a structural optimization
examples of linear programming techniques. problem. To put it another way, mentioned algorithms
Linear programming techniques are optimization are mostly trapped in a local optimum rather than
methods that use linear objective functions and restric- attaining the global optimum.
tions. While one among them is non-linear, that techniques – Computing gradient regulation is inefficient and difficult
of optimization are known as non-linear programming to implement [74]. Gradient-based techniques, as a
techniques. Developing efficient techniques for the struc- result, are unable to solve the optimization issue of large
tural optimization with stiffness limitations placed on members with nonlinear, discontinuous and implicit
statically determinate or indeterminate structures, as well constraints;
as structural dynamics principles, are all part of the – A number of gradient-based techniques include explicit
optimality standards approaches [55]. The Lagrange optimization constraints that limit their applicability.
multipliers are used to find local minima and maxima of Heuristic methods are a new type of mathematical
a function that is subject to stress and displacement programming methodology that was developed to meet the
restrictions, equality constraints, and a separate optimality needs of structural optimization while avoiding the
standard. Optimal starts are sought in feasible direction limitations of gradient-based algorithms.
procedures from a place that meets all restrictions. Using Heuristic approaches to problem solving are problem-
the iterative technique below, the point is then walked to a solving techniques that rely on trial and error to arrive at a
better point: solution. This type of optimization technique employs a
variety of machine learning approaches, i.e. artificial neural
Xiþ1 ¼ Xi þ ’S i ð5Þ
networks [75] and support vector network machine [76],
where Xi and Xi+1 are starting point and endpoint of ith increase precision of outcomes via iterations. Heuristic
iteration; w the distance of movement, and Si is movement techniques are simple to build and have a lot of computing
direction; whose value predefined to make Xi+1 fall within power, but they are problem-specific and can become stuck
the reasonable area. Si determines the investigation in a local optimum. As a result, academics have developed
direction and is established on two basic principle: (1) a remotely evolved heuristic methods, often known as
modest change that does not violate restrictions, and (2) a metaheuristic techniques, to improve optimization out-
change that reduces the importance of the goal function. As comes. Metaheuristic techniques are not dependent on
 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 11

Table 2. Algorithm and their references.

Year Algorithm References

1998 Genetic Algorithms [135]
2006 An ant colony optimization [136]
2007 Modified shuffled frog-leaping optimization algorithm [137]
2010 An improved particle swarm optimization algorithm [71]
2011 Effective global harmony search algorithm [138]
2011 Global Optimization Algorithm [139]
2013 Generalized Pattern Search Algorithm [140]
2014 Hybrid glowworm swarm algorithm [20,141]
2015 Anti-sway algorithm [142]
2017 Enhanced discrete particle swarm optimization [143]
2017 Hybrid evolutionary algorithm [141]
2018 Artificial fish swarm algorithm [144]
2019 Simulated annealing [145]
2020 ANFIS and LAPO Algorithm [21]
2021 Hybrid chaotic whale optimization algorithm [146]

problem and use different trade-off randomization to go rithms are more effective in locating the best overall
from local to global search. That sort of optimization solution. There have been numerous successful metaheur-
technique has been more prominent in the study of istic applications in structural optimization. For illustra-
optimization of structure during the last several years [22]. tion, Kociecki and Adeli [90] a two-phase GA for size and
Realistic or man-made events are frequently used to topology optimization was developed to minimize the total
drive metaheuristic methods i.e. ant colony [77], water weight of frame member with rectangular hollow structural
flow, and an ensemble of musicians [78]. Some illustrations components.
of the metaheuristic techniques in addition to genetic Despite the advantages and widespread uses described
algorithm (GA) [79,80], harmony search (HS) [81], firefly above, prior studies have found that metaheuristic
algorithm (FA) [82], Tabu search (TS) [83], artificial bee algorithms have certain flaws and limitations. As an
colony (ABC) [84], teaching–learning-based optimization example, Sörensen [91] Metaheuristic algorithms are
(TLBO) [85], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [86], bat challenging to design and evaluate on a limited number
algorithm (BA) [87], cuckoo search (CS) [79], and many of specimens with modest structural changes, according to
others. To characterize metaheuristic algorithms, taxon- the research. While metaheuristic algorithms are capable of
omies founded on specific features of algorithms are created producing good outcomes, this does not imply that are
[88], Nature-inspired vs. non-nature-provoked objective superior to constructive heuristic algorithms. Saka et al.
functions, population-based vs. trajectory-based objective [15] explained metaheuristic algorithms drawbacks; they
functions, and dynamic vs. static objective functions are are computationally costly, particularly while applying on
only a few examples. Regardless of differences, among all large and complicated structures that are subjected to a
these metaheuristic algorithms share two key character- range of stresses. According to Mahdavi et al. [92], the
istics: Exploration and extraction are two different things major disadvantage of classical metaheuristic algorithms,
[89]. Exploration seeks to provide a range of outcomes for it successfully solve high-dimensional difficulties due to
comparison, whereas exploitation is utilized to find best high landscape complexity, and vast design space (search
answer currently available. Finally, the global optimum space). As a result, a number of new structural optimi-
outcome effectively achieved by fair balance of exploration zation studies propose that present optimization methods
and exploitation. should be improved. Founded on the properties for every
As shown by four properties described below, meta- metaheuristic algorithm, these algorithm modification
heuristic algorithms provide a variety of benefits over techniques aim to improve optimization efficiency. i.e.
standard deterministic and stochastic optimization tech- Cheng et al. [93] Formulated a hybrid HS algorithm that
niques [84]. Metaheuristic methods may be used for both retained traditional HS algorithm’s harmony memory and
sequential and discrete design variables in combinatorial pitch adjustment features while replacing the randomiza-
optimization problems. Furthermore, metaheuristic algo- tion function with PSO search and neighborhood search for
rithms do not consider whether or not gradient data is global optimum. When compared to traditional metaheur-
available. Third, the convexity of an explicit connection istic algorithms, this hybrid method has demonstrated to
between the goal function and constraints is not required perform well in terms of solution precision and convergence
for metaheuristic algorithms. Fourth, metaheuristic algo- rate. Further, Cao et al. [28] assumed four techniques to
12 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

enhance the achievement of the traditional PSO algorithm: Because software speed has a direct impact on
(1) (2) merging PSO with diverse metaheuristic optimization efficiency, selecting the right software to
approaches, (3) integrating traditional gradient-based execute structural optimization is crucial. After establish-
methods with PSO, and (4) restoring conventional global ing the issue formulation and optimization approach, the
topology with various local topologies These approaches optimization procedure usually proceeds in the following
increase the traditional PSO algorithm’s searchability for order: solution encoding, mathematical computing, struc-
finding a global optimum, as well as its exploitation ability tural calculation, and design. When employing metaheur-
to improve the convergence rate and precision of results. istic operators, two encoding techniques are used: natural
Table 2 summarizes the findings of a number of additional encoding, which uses significances to present binary
structure optimization experiments that included encoding, and design variables which uses binary strings
improved metaheuristics. Although there are many to represent the design variables. The encoding strategy
additional metaheuristic algorithms, each one focuses on selected is dictated on the metaheuristic algorithm
enhancing a different aspect (capacity) of the original employed since each algorithm acts differently [67]. After
method. As a result, choosing the right approach for a that, two sorts of software packages are used to optimize
specific optimization problem is crucial for getting the best the structure: computational software and design software.
design while keeping computational costs down. The former is for running optimization programs, while the
In addition to increasing algorithm performance, latter is for structural analysis and design. The computing
reducing the time-consuming inspections of optimization program is stuck in the iterative phase of the optimization,
objectives or constraint functions in the optimization and each iteration yields a set of values for the design
method is another way to improve optimization efficiency. variables.
However, because this technique may result in an MATLAB is a commonly utilized computing software
optimization outcome that differs from the optimization in structure optimization because of its excellent calcula-
goal, it is not explored in this article. tion and programming capabilities. For topology optimi-
Apart this, gradient-based and heuristic optimization zation, Yang et al. [24] proposed a modified bidirectional
approaches, reliability-based design optimization (RBDO) evolutionary structural optimization (BESO) approach
techniques stand out. By examining the structural system’s that they applied using MATLAB software.
issues, such as dimension, material, model, loads, and so on, BIM software is a popularly borrowed type of structural
RBDO intends to find best balance between the cost of research, design, and visualization software. However, in
structure and security [94]. As a result, this optimization the same way to get best design, the structure information
approach gives a minimal degree of dependability, from BIM environment should be transferred to finite
providing designers a place to start. The two-level method, element analysis programs like ETABS, ABAQUS,
single loop approach, and decoupled approach are the three ANSYS, and SAP.
basic types of RBDO methods. Despite these benefits, these Some researchers already agreed a single integrated
RBDO approaches have significant limitations, as the high platform to execute whole optimization of structure
computational cost of the dependability analysis every method, rather of using two types of software and
iteration and difficulty of estimating probabilistic con- executing mathematical calculations, structural analysis,
straint gradients, which limit their application in bridge and design. In SAP2000, a wrapper was created to call the
structural optimization. MATLAB toolbox’s fmincon function. This method does
not need the use of computational tools in the optimization
5.4 Computational tools and design platforms process, nor does it necessitate data manipulation.
Although the majority of the papers in this collection do
Following structural analysis and modeling, optimization not go into great detail on computational tools and design
problem formulation, and methodologies, it’s critical to use platforms, they are essential since they may have a big
appropriate computational and design tools programs to influence on optimization efficiency. The current tools are
run optimization programs and codes, and obtain the confident in their capacity to convince computational and
optimal structural design. For structural design and design rules. Regardless, new tools or platforms to increase
analysis, manual computations and trial and error were optimization capacity, computational efficiency, and data
formerly employed, resulting in a high degree of labor and a interchange are still needed.
substantial risk of inaccuracy. A multitude of computa-
tional and design tools platforms have emerged as a result 6 Limitations and future work
of the advancement of information technology to provide
environment for structural modeling, design, and analysis. 6.1 Quantification of optimization objectives
Few well-known software packages, such as ANSYS [95],
BIM [96], ABAQUS [97] Significantly improve computa- Prior to employing mathematical analysis to find the best
tion speed and get acceptable results. However, not all answer, researchers must first construct a mathematical
software packages work as well as others. When dealing quantification of the goal. In structural optimization, there
large-scale structures, several existing software packages are several common quantification methodologies. For
have been shown to be somewhat successful. Meanwhile, example, cost of structure often expressed as structure’s
software based on building information modeling (BIM), volume. The words total strain energy and compliance are
which is often used for structural design and visualization, frequently called for characterize structural stiffness.
is plagued by data interoperability issues [98]. Theoretically, properties of structure, including beauty
 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 13

of structure, can be presented as optimization targets if striving optimization aims and so persuades structure
they are well characterized [99]. However, it might be developers’ regulations. Despite this, the subject of multi-
difficult to accurately assess motives in particular objective structure optimization still has a lot of unresolved
situations. Aldwark and Adeli [72] Structural designers concerns. Optimization that takes into account two goals
have long time concept of the efficacy of utilizing structure at the same time does not yield a substantial outcome.
volume to predict overall cost of structure. Although Although a set of perfect outcomes (Pareto set) is possible,
aiming for the less volume minimum material costs, which finding one exceptional choice that meets design standards
include large portion of the whole structural cost, the entire may be difficult. Furthermore, all multi-objective optimi-
cost still includes carrier and facility fees. As a result, the zation research papers on this website only consider two
weight of the structure has no immediate impact on the objectives at a time. In none of these studies, three or more
total cost. optimization goals were considered at the same time.
While optimizing the design of continuous reinforced Researchers have experimented with a variety of
concrete girder, Sharafi et al. [100] employed an objective approaches to address the issues highlighted by multi-
to reduce formwork and material costs. Some academics objective optimization. The concession solution technique,
employ the parametric mixed-integer non-linear program- which gives a single best result, is an alternative to Pareto
ming (MINLP) technique for structure optimization to optimality [104]. The best outcome is produced by
reduce the cost. References [101,102], that a mathematical gradually shrinking the distance between the possible
programming method that uses nonlinear objective ideal point and the outstanding point, as recommended by
functions and constraints to optimize the discrete system this strategy. It is difficult to quantitatively demonstrate
structure and subsequent parameters at the same time the relationship between the two points unless the
[103]. Highly combinatorial, Large-scale, and highly objective functions have no direction [104]. When dealing
nonlinear problems are typically solved using the outer with multi-objective optimization, incorporating decision-
approximation/equality-relaxation (OA/ER) technique makers’ priorities is becoming more common. In these
and the extended generalized Bender’s decomposition strategies, weights are used as parameters to influence
(GBD) algorithm, both part of the MINLP strategy [103]. decision-makers’ intentions. Prior strategies, interactive
Material unit price, hourly labor costs, assessed loads, strategies, and posterior strategies are the three sorts of
structure lengths, steel and concrete classes, and other procedures based on the time period when the decision-
structural cost-affecting design characteristics are all makers’ tendencies are given [105]. Prior approaches
designed using the MINLP approach and accompanying evaluated the significance of each optimization target
algorithms. Reference [101] may be taken into account before looking for the optimal result. To complement this
simultaneously with the creation of the objective function, technique, many weighted standards, such as the linearly
resulting in a good optimization result. The difficulties in weighted standard, have been produced [106], weighted
MINLP, on the other hand, are particularly difficult to global standard [104] and evaluated scalar-valued achieve-
comprehend because they cover all of the subclasses., i.e. ment norm [107]. In the field of bridge engineering
the combinatorial nature of mixed-integer programs (MIP) structural optimization, Sanaei and Babaei [108] to
and the complication in solving nonconvex (and even maximize the geometry and topology of continuum
convex) nonlinear programs (NLP) [103]. As a result, the structures at the same time, researchers applied the
application of the MINLP approach is limited. weighted sum approach (WSM), which is the simplest
Despite these accomplishments, there is no commonly and most generally used weighted standards method. This
acknowledged structural cost measurement since research- method uses a set of scalar values to interpret the weight of
ers would integrate multiple structural cost components in each optimization objective, resulting in single objective
various optimization tasks. As a result, future research is functions. As a result, the optimization crisis can be
expected to recommend a detailed system for structural addressed using the single-objective optimization strategy,
cost assessment that includes material costs, transporta- and a significant optimal result can be obtained. During the
tion costs, and invention and formation costs related to search, the interactive techniques provide the decision-
construction technique (e.g., precast or cast in place) and maker with priorities. Regardless, interactive methods are
standardization rates for structural elements. In order to rarely used in the articles chosen, which could be due to
construct such a system, structured cost data from existing differences in the priority information provided by a
operations must be gathered, and a cost assessment system decision-maker [105]. After the search, the decision-
based on in-depth analyses of existing project data must be intentions makers are implicated in post-search
built. Furthermore, more accurate quantifications of approaches. The information gathered can be utilized to
structural mechanical and aesthetic qualities appear to calculate weighted norms in posterior approaches [104].
be on the horizon, allowing these characteristics to be For illustration, Zavala et al. [67] they endorsed posterior
addressed as structural optimization goals. techniques in their review study on multi-objective
structure optimization, where they gave decision-makers
6.2 Weighting standards for multi-objective outcomes based on an approximation of the Pareto front
optimization and subsequently factored in the decision-makers’ Refer-
ences.
Multi-objective optimization, as previously stated, is Despite these achievements, preference-based
appropriate and an important topic in the domain of approaches continue to face significant challenges. That
bridge structure optimization since it equated multiple is, regardless of the criteria used to evaluate the objectives,
14 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

it is subjective in some ways. To put it another way, 7 Conclusion

determining whether or not a weighting system is
acceptable for a certain task is difficult. Furthermore, The findings of this study were scrutinized thoroughly in
decision-makers may not always be able to communicate order to assess previous structural optimization work in the
their priorities for each objective or choose the most area of bridge structures. Following selection of data, 156
appealing conclusion from optimization impacts data [104]. most suitable and relevant papers were found in Google
As a result, more research is needed to construct an Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. The papers in this
extended optimization objective weighting network that collection were published between 1970 and 2021. The
provides a variety of weight importance based on the publishing year, paper kind, journal, geographical area, and
methodology utilized, design specifications, and restric- optimization aims were all taken into account while
tions, allowing researchers to use suitable weighting norms. statistically evaluating these submissions. The optimization
Although such a weighting system may not be capable of targets’ global and geographical trends were also thoroughly
covering all sorts of structural optimization, this network explored. In general, amount of published research in this
would suffice as a citation when the decision-makers’ area has risen over time, particularly in nations where the
objectives are unknown. This weighting strategy can also government can afford to fund them adequately. Although
be used to evaluate three or more goals at the same time by cost reduction is the most common optimization goal, recent
integrating multiple objective functions into a single years have seen a surge in study into multi-objective
objective function. optimization and structural performance development.
The present exploration, structural optimization limits
6.3 Application of optimization methods were recognized, and more effort to break the rules was
proposed. Future study could focus on establishing a
Several structural optimization research have sought to precise weighting standard for each goal, effectively
build unique methods with a high convergence ratio and turning multi-objective issues of optimization to single-
good optimal results. However, there has never been a objective problems. More, mathematical quantifications
standardized way for assessing the efficacy of optimization should be constructed in order, so that effectively portray
methods [109]. of optimization objectives to carry out optimization
Metaheuristic algorithms are only beneficial in partic- process. Despite this, a fundamental technique for
ular contexts, as evidenced by the facts and citations assessing the precision of objective quantifications has
above. Each algorithm may be limited to solving a single yet to be devised, which will be necessary. Third,
optimization problem. Even if novel technique or metaheuristic algorithms have restricted applicability.
optimization algorithm is developed to solve single To put it another way, depending on the optimization
optimization problem, its performance for other optimi- problem, the outputs of a metaheuristic algorithm can
zation problems will not be guaranteed, even if it alter. As a result, future research may focus classifying
outperforms earlier algorithms for that problem. Further- optimization issues according to their building a bench-
more, all of the recently recommended approaches have marking system to each type of optimization difficulty and
been evaluated on a range of architectures, which makes characteristics, such as standard test problems and model
comparing the outcomes of these novel algorithms algorithms. Unique optimization algorithms established on
challenging. As a result, the next step should be the the standard system level could be enhanced to effectively
creation of a benchmarking network for comparisons of solve optimization problem’s subset instead tackling a
optimization methods to aid the development of new specific optimization problem.
metaheuristic algorithms with better structural optimi-
zation application. Making algorithm comparisons easier,
structural optimization problems could be categorized CRediT authorship contribution statement
into a variety of classes based on structure variations,
hierarchies, and more aspects. For each category of Qasim Zaheer: Literature review, Methodology, Data
optimization problems, a few systematic structural extraction, Writing  original draft; Tan Yonggang:
optimization challenges could be identified as benchmark Supervision, review; Furqan Qamar: Supervision, review
test model problems. Traditional metaheuristic algo- & editing.
rithms with reasonable performance for each classification
of optimization problems could be utilized as benchmark
algorithms in the meantime. The success of any newly Declaration of competing interest
recommended algorithm can then be assessed by compar-
ing it to the benchmark algorithms for the relevant The authors declare that they have no known competing
classification of optimization problems, as well as the financial interests or personal relationships that could have
benchmark test difficulties. Fresh optimization algorithms appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
based on the benchmarking technique are intended to
develop and discussed wide range of optimization queries Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Dalian
with acceptable working performance instead specific University of Technology Dalian, China who provided them an
optimization problem. opportunity to carry out this research work.
 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 15

References 19. A. Kaveh, M. Khayatazad, Ray optimization for size and

shape optimization of truss structures, Comput. Struct. 117,
1. X. Zhou, X. Zhang, Thoughts on the development of bridge 82–94 (2013)
technology in China, Engineering 5, 1120–1130 (2019) 20. V. Yepes, J.V. Martí, T. García-Segura, Cost and CO2
2. C. Albuquerque, A.L.L. Silva, A.M.P.D. Jesus, R. Calçada, emission optimization of precast-prestressed concrete
An efficient methodology for fatigue damage assessment of U-beam road bridges by a hybrid glowworm swarm
bridge details using modal superposition of stress intensity algorithm, Autom. Constr. 49, 123–134 (2015)
factors, Int. J. Fatigue 81, 61–77 (2015) 21. N.L. Chau, N.T. Tran, T.P. Dao, A multi-response optimal
3. K.L. Scrivener, V.M. John, E.M. Gartner, Eco-efficient design of bridge amplification mechanism based on efficient
cements: potential economically viable solutions for a low- approach of desirability, fuzzy logic, ANFIS and LAPO
CO2 cement-based materials industry, Cement Concr. Res. algorithm, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 45, 5803–5831 (2020)
114, 2–26 (2018) 22. A. Martins, M.B. Luís, M.C. Simões, J.H.J.O. Negrão,
4. D. Sen, K. Erazo, W. Zhang, S. Nagarajaiah, L. Sun, On the Optimization of cable-stayed bridges: a literature survey,
effectiveness of principal component analysis for decoupling Adv. Eng. Softw. 149, 102829 (2020)
structural damage and environmental effects in bridge 23. M. Esade, B. McKelvey, Integrating modernist and
structures, J. Sound Vib. 457, 280–298 (2019) postmodernist perspectives on organizations: a complexity
5. K. Manley, T. Rose, Innovation in the road and bridge science bridge, Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 415–433 (2010)
industry, in 2013 Proceedings of PICMET 2013: Technology 24. Z. Xia, A. Li, J. Li, H. Shi, M. Duan, G. Zhou, Model
Management in the IT-Driven Services (2013), pp. 2468– updating of an existing bridge with high-dimensional
2474 variables using modified particle swarm optimization and
6. G. Xu, W. Wang, China’s energy consumption in construc- ambient excitation data, Measurement 159, 107754 (2020)
tion and building sectors: an outlook to 2100, Energy 195, 25. A. Mortazavi, A new fuzzy strategy for size and topology
117045 (2020) optimization of truss structures, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 93,
7. C.C. Fu, S. Wang, Computational Analysis and Design of 106412 (2020)
Bridge Structures. CRC Press (2017) 26. S. Zheng, W. Tang, B. Li, A new topology optimization
8. B.G. Sumpter, R.K. Vasudevan, T. Potok, S.V. Kalinin, A framework for stiffness design of beam structures based on
bridge for accelerating materials by design, Npj Comput. the transformable triangular mesh algorithm, Thin-Walled
Mater. 1 (October) (2015) Struct. 154, 106831 (2020)
9. B. Briseghella, L. Fenu, C. Lan, E. Mazzarolo, T. Zordan, 27. M. Afzal, Y. Liu, J.C.P. Cheng, V.J.L. Gan, Reinforced
Application of topological optimization to bridge design, concrete structural design optimization: a critical review,
J. Bridge Eng. 18, 790–800 (2013) J. Clean. Prod. 260, 120623 (2020)
10. A. Elrehim, Z. Mostafa, M.A. Eid, M.G. Sayed, Structural 28. H. Cao, X. Qian, Z. Chen, H. Zhu, Enhanced particle swarm
optimization of concrete arch bridges using genetic algo- optimization for size and shape optimization of truss
rithms, Ain Shams Eng. J. 10, 507–516 (2019) structures, Eng. Optim. 49, 1939–1956 (2017)
11. H. Toutanji, Design equations for concrete columns confined 29. S.F. Rahmatalla, C.C. Swan, A Q4/Q4 continuum struc-
with hybrid composite materials, Adv. Compos. Mater. 10, tural topology optimization implementation, Struct. Multi-
127–138 (2001) discipl. Optim. 27, 130–135 (2004)
12. R.J. Vanderbei, Structural optimization, Int. Ser. Oper. Res. 30. K. Deb, L. Zhu, S. Kulkarni, Multi-scenario, multi-objective
Manag. Sci. 285, 275–291 (2020) optimization using evolutionary algorithms: initial results,
13. P. Darvishi, S. Shojaee, Size and geometry optimization of in 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC
truss structures using the combination of DNA computing 2015  Proceedings, 1877–1884 (2015)
algorithm and generalized convex approximation method, 31. H. Guan, Y.J. Chen, Y.C. Loo, Y.M. Xie, G.P. Steven,
Int. J. Optim. Civil Eng. 8, 625–656 (2018) Bridge topology optimisation with stress, displacement and
14. L.M. Gil-Martín, E. Hernández-Montes, A. Palomares, M. frequency constraints, Comput. Struct. 81, 131–145 (2003)
Pasadas-Fernández, The optimum shape of an arch under 32. J. Chung, K. Lee, Optimal design of rib structures using the
non-symmetric loading conditions, Arch. Appl. Mech. 86, topology optimization technique, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C
1509–1520 (2016) 211, 425–437 (1997)
15. M.P. Saka, O. Hasançebi, Z.W. Geem, Metaheuristics in 33. A.R. Mijar, C.C. Swan, J.S. Arora, I. Kosaka, Continuum
structural optimization and discussions on harmony search topology optimization for concept design of frame bracing
algorithm, Swarm Evol. Comput. 28, 88–97 (2016) systems, J. Struct. Eng. 124, 541–550 (1998)
16. J.A. Hernández Mejía, O. Schütze, O. Cuate, A. Lara, K. 34. H. Wei, B. Shirinzadeh, W. Li, L. Clark, J. Pinskier, Y.
Deb, RDS-NSGA-II: a memetic algorithm for reference point Wang, Development of piezo-driven compliant bridge
based multi-objective optimization, Eng. Optim. 49, 828– mechanisms: general analytical equations and optimization
845 (2017) of displacement amplification, Micromachines 8 (2017)
17. N. Arabha, A.F. Daneshjoo, H.R. Ahmadi, Multiple damage 35. R.T. Terms, NRC publications archive (NPArC) archives des
detection in complex bridges based on strain energy publications Du CNRC (NPArC) Optimization of bridge
extracted from single point measurement, Front. Struct. maintenance management using Markovian models, Span
Civil Eng. 14, 722–730 (2020) (2014)
18. F. Chen, Z. Du, M. Yang, F. Gao, W. Dong, D. Zhang, 36. R. Bowerman, B. Hall, P. Calamai, A multi-objective
Design and analysis of a three-dimensional bridge-type optimization approach to urban school bus routing:
mechanism based on the stiffness distribution, Precis. Eng. formulation and solution method, Transp. Res. Part A
51, 48–58 (2018) 29, 107–123 (1995)
16 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

37. G. Washer, R. Connor, M. Nasrollahi, J. Provines, New two-dimensional structures, Contin. Mech. Thermodyn.
framework for risk-based inspection of highway bridges, 31, 133–146 (2019)
J. Bridge Eng. 21, 04015077 (2016) 56. E. Design, R. Prototyping, Design Optimization What Is
38. D. Castro e Silva Neto, C.O. Cruz, F. Rodrigues, P. Silva, Design Optimization? (2005)
Bibliometric analysis of PPP and PFI literature: overview of 57. S. Sotiropoulos, G. Kazakis, N.D. Lagaros, High perfor-
25 years of research, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142, 06016002 mance topology optimization computing platform, Proc.
(2016) Manufactur. 44, 441–448 (2020)
39. W.S. Ruy, Y.S. Yang, G.H. Kim, Y.S. Yeun, Topology 58. R. Heywood, W. Roberts, G. Boully, Dynamic loading of
design of truss structures in a multicriteria environment, bridges, Transp. Res. Record 1770, 58–66 (2001)
Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 16, 246–258 (2001) 59. R. Tokerud, Precast prestressed concrete bridges for low-
40. S. Sabatino, D.M. Frangopol, Y. Dong, Sustainability- volume roads, PCI J. 24, 42–56 (1979)
informed maintenance optimization of highway bridges 60. Y.L. Zheng, T.P. Zhang, B. Fang, Y.Y. Tang, Discriminant
considering multi-attribute utility and risk attitude, Eng. isomap projection, in 2009 International Conference on
Struct. 102, 310–321 (2015) Wavelet Analysis and Pattern Recognition, ICWAPR 2009
41. Q.J. Wen, Z.J. Ren, H. Lu, J.F. Wu, The progress and trend 20, 144–147 (2009)
of bim research: a bibliometrics-based visualization analysis, 61. J. Hammervold, M. Reenaas, H. Brattebø, Environmental
Autom. Constr. 124, 103558 (2021) life cycle assessment of bridges, J. Bridge Eng. 18, 153–161
42. D.H. Bassir, J.L. Zapico, M.P. González, R. Alonso, (2013)
Identification of a spatial linear model based on earthquake- 62. M. Liu, D.M. Frangopol, Multiobjective maintenance
induced data and genetic algorithm with parallel selection, planning optimization for deteriorating bridges considering
Int. J. Simul. Multidiscipl. Des. Optim. 1, 39–48 (2007) condition, safety, and life-cycle cost, J. Struct. Eng. 131,
43. P. Qiao, J.F. Davalos, B. Brown, Systematic analysis and 833–842 (2005)
design approach for single-span FRP deck/stringer bridges, 63. M.D. Thompson, C.D. Eamon, M. Rais-Rohani, Reliability-
Compos. B: Eng. 31, 593–609 (2000) based optimization of fiber-reinforced polymer composite
44. H.A. Salim, J.F. Davalos, P. Qiao, S.A. Kiger, Analysis and bridge deck panels, J. Struct. Eng. 132, 1898–1906 (2006)
design of fiber reinforced plastic composite deck-and- 64. A.O. Thippeswamy, Analysis of load optimization in cable
stringer bridges, Compos. Struct. 38, 295–307 (1997) stayed bridge using CSI bridge software, Int. J. Appl. Eng.
45. J. Du, N. Olhoff, Topological optimization of continuum Res. 13, 78–80 (2018)
structures with design-dependent surface loading  Part I: 65. Z. Wang, N. Zhang, X. Du, S. Wang, Q. Sun, Multiobjective
new computational approach for 2D problems, Struct. optimization of cable forces and counterweights for universal
Multidiscipl. Optim. 27, 151–165 (2004) cable-stayed Bridges, J. Adv. Transp. 2021 (2021)
46. R. Mark, A.S. Cakmak, K. Hill, R. Davidson, Transactions 66. Y. Dong, D.M. Frangopol, D. Saydam, Pre-earthquake
on the Built Environment (WIT Press, 1993), Vol 3 multi-objective probabilistic retrofit optimization of bridge
47. A. Csébfalvi, Combined shape and size optimization of steel networks based on sustainability, J. Bridge Eng. 19,
bridges, Des. Fabric. Econ. Welded Struct. 53–60 (2008) 04014018 (2014)
48. S. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Huang, An improved multi-objective 67. G.R. Zavala, A.J. Nebro, F. Luna, C.A.C. Coello, A survey
topology optimization model based on SIMP method for of multi-objective metaheuristics applied to structural
continuum structures including self-weight, Struct. Multi- optimization, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 49, 537–558
discipl. Optim. 63, 211–230 (2021) (2014)
49. L.M.C. Simes, H.O, Negrxo, Pergamon OM-7949(94) 68. K. Suresh, A 199-line matlab code for pareto-optimal tracing
EOO44-3 sizing and geometry optimization of cable-stayed in topology optimization, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 42,
bridges, Comput. Sfru. 52, 3–32 (1994) 665–679 (2010)
50. L.F.F. Miguel, L. Fleck, F. Miguel, Shape and size 69. P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, Optimal resilience- and cost-
optimization of truss structures considering dynamic based postdisaster intervention prioritization for bridges
constraints through modern metaheuristic algorithms, along a highway segment, J. Bridge Eng. 17, 117–129 (2012)
Exp. Syst. Appl. 39, 9458–9467 (2012) 70. U.M. Diwekar, Nonlinear programming, Springer Optim.
51. W. Lingyun, Z. Mei, W. Guangming, M. Guang, Truss Appl. 22, 55–94 (2020)
optimization on shape and sizing with frequency constraints 71. P. Wu, L. Gao, D. Zou, S. Li, An improved particle swarm
based on genetic algorithm, Comput. Mech. 35, 361–368 (2005) optimization algorithm for reliability problems, ISA Trans.
52. P.C. Fourie, A.A. Groenwold, The particle swarm optimi- 50, 71–81 (2011)
zation algorithm in size and shape optimization, Struct. 72. M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli, Advances in optimization of highrise
Multidiscipl. Optim. 23, 259–267 (2002) building structures, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 50, 899–
53. O. Skoglund, J. Leander, R. Karoumi, Optimizing the steel 919 (2014)
girders in a high strength steel composite bridge, Eng. 73. F. Edition, 04  Rao S S  Engineering Optimization 
Struct. 221, 110981 (2020) Theory and Practice-Wiley (2009). Pdf (2009)
54. S.O. Degertekin, L. Lamberti, I.B. Ugur, Discrete sizing/ 74. Z.H. Han, S. Görtz, R. Zimmermann, Improving variable-
layout/topology optimization of truss structures with an fidelity surrogate modeling via gradient-enhanced kriging
advanced jaya algorithm, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 79, 363–390 and a generalized hybrid bridge function, Aerosp. Sci.
(2019) Technol. 25, 177–189 (2013)
55. N. Ranaivomiarana, F.X. Irisarri, D. Bettebghor, B. 75. Y.-H. Huang, Artificial neural network model of bridge
Desmorat, Concurrent optimization of material spatial deterioration, J. Perform. Construc. Facil. 24, 597–602
distribution and material anisotropy repartition for (2010)
 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022) 17

76. S.N. Mahmoudi, L. Chouinard, Seismic fragility assessment 96. L. Zhao, W. Zhang, W. Wang, Construction cost prediction
of highway bridges using support vector machines, Bull. based on genetic algorithm and BIM, Int. J. Pattern Recogn.
Earthquake Eng. 14, 1571–1587 (2016) Artif. Intell. 34 (2020)
77. S.H. Huang, Y.H. Huang, C.A. Blazquez, G. Paredes- 97. K. Deng, P. Pan, Y. Su, Y. Xue, Shape optimization of
Belmar, Application of the ant colony optimization in the U-shaped damper for improving its bi-directional perfor-
resolution of the bridge inspection routing problem, Appl. mance under cyclic loading, Eng. Struct. 93, 27–35 (2015)
Soft Comput. J. 65, 443–461 (2018) 98. Y. Arayici, T. Fernando, V. Munoz, M. Bassanino,
78. A. Fox, E. Chew, M. Campbell, E.M. Atkins, H. Hess, Interoperability specification development for integrated
Frontiers of Engineering, Front. Eng. (1999) BIM use in performance based design, Autom. Constr. 85,
79. M.A. Mellal, E. Zio, System reliability-redundancy optimi- 167–181 (2018)
zation with cold-standby strategy by an enhanced nest 99. D. Chamoret, K. Qiu, M. Domaszewski, Optimization of
cuckoo optimization algorithm, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 201, truss structures by a stochastic method, Int. J. Simul.
106973 (2020) Multidiscipl. Des. Optim. 3, 321–325 (2009)
80. J.L. Zapico, D.H Bassir, ESDA2008-59553 (2016) 1–6 100. P. Sharafi, M.N.S. Hadi, Lip H. Teh, Geometric design
81. H. Ghodsi, M.J. Khanjani, A.A. Beheshti, Evaluation of optimization for dynamic response problems of continuous
harmony search optimization to predict local scour reinforced concrete beams, J. Comput. Civil Eng. 28, 202–
depth around complex bridge piers, Civil Eng. J. 4, 402 209 (2014)
(2018) 101. S. Kravanja, T. Zula, U. Klansek, Multi-parametric MINLP
82. A. Kohansarbaz, A. Kohansarbaz, B. Yaghoubi, M.A. optimization study of a composite I beam floor system, Eng.
Izadbakhsh, S. Shabanlou, An integration of adaptive Struct. 130, 316–335 (2017)
neuro-fuzzy inference system and firefly algorithm for scour 102. S. Kravanja, G. Turkalj, S. Šilih, T. Zula, Optimal design of
estimation near bridge piers, Earth Sci. Inf. 14, 1399–1411 single-story steel building structures based on parametric
(2021) MINLP optimization, J. Constr. Steel Res. 81, 86–103
83. L.B. Morales, Scheduling a bridge club by tabu search, (2013)
Math. Mag. 70, 287–290 (1997) 103. M.R. Bussieck, A. Pruessner, Mixed-integer nonlinear pro-
84. M.A. Latif, M.P. Saka, Optimum Design of tied-arch bridges gramming, Int. Ser. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 84, 373–395 (2006)
under code requirements using enhanced artificial bee colony 104. R.T. Marler, J.S. Arora, Survey of multi-objective optimi-
algorithm, Adv. Eng. Softw. 135, 102685 (2019) zation methods for engineering, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim.
85. G. Bekdas, S.M. Nigdeli, Optimum design of reinforced 26, 369–395 (2004)
concrete columns employing teaching-learning based opti- 105. C.A.C. Coello, G.B. Lamont, D.A.V. Veldhuizen, Evolu-
mization, Chal. J. Struct. Mech. 2, 216–219 (2016) tionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems.
86. S. Sudha Letha, T. Thakur, J. Kumar, Harmonic elimination Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Prob-
of a photo-voltaic based cascaded H-bridge multilevel lems (2007)
inverter using PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization) for 106. L.A. Zadeh, Optimality and non-scalar-valued performance
induction motor drive, Energy 107, 335–346 (2016) criteria, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 8, 59–60 (1963)
87. R. Khamooshi, J.S. Moghani, Comprehensive harmonic 107. T.W. Athan, P.Y. Papalambros, A note on weighted criteria
optimization in cascaded H-bridge multilevel inverters using methods for compromise solutions in multi-objective
variable DC sources, in PEDSTC 2014  5th Annual optimization, Eng. Optim. 27, 155–176 (1996)
International Power Electronics, Drive Systems and Tech- 108. E. Sanaei, M. Babaei, Topology optimization of structures
nologies Conference (2014), no. Pedstc: 249–254 using cellular automata with constant strain triangles, Int.
88. A. Kaveh, Applications of Metaheuristic Methods in Civil J. Civil Eng. 10, 179–188 (2012)
Engineering Problems (2017), Vol. 1 109. M.P. Saka, Z.W. Geem, Mathematical and metaheuristic
89. S. Gholizadeh, Layout optimization of truss structures by applications in design optimization of steel frame structures:
hybridizing cellular automata and particle swarm optimi- an extensive review, Math. Probl. Eng. 2013 (2013)
zation, Comput. Struct. 125, 86–99 (2013) 110. F. Ghodoosi, S. Abu-Samra, M. Zeynalian, T. Zayed,
90. M. Kociecki, H. Adeli, Two-phase genetic algorithm for Maintenance cost optimization for bridge structures using
topology optimization of free-form steel space-frame roof system reliability analysis and genetic algorithms, J. Constr.
structures with complex curvatures, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. Eng. Manag. 144, 04017116 (2018)
32, 218–227 (2014) 111. A.N. Morab, R.J. Fernandes, Optimization of box girder
91. K. Sörensen, Metaheuristics-the metaphor exposed, Int. bridge using genetic algorithm method, IOSR J. Mech. Civil
Trans. Oper. Res. 22, 3–18 (2015) Eng. 15, 24–29 (2018)
92. S. Mahdavi, M. Ebrahim Shiri, S. Rahnamayan, Meta- 112. H.A. Rani, Optimization and effectiveness of bridge
heuristics in large-scale global continues optimization: a construction development based on value engineering, Int.
survey, Inf. Sci. 295, 407–428 (2015) J. Civil Struct. Environ. Infrastruct. Eng. Res. Dev. 7, 15–22
93. M.Y. Cheng, D. Prayogo, Y.W. Wu, M.M. Lukito, A hybrid (2017)
harmony search algorithm for discrete sizing optimization of 113. J.O. Almeida, R.M. Delgado, P.F. Teixeira, A bridge life-
truss structure, Autom. Constr. 69, 21–33 (2016) cycle cost optimization methodology, in Life-Cycle of
94. A. Younes, A. Chateauneuf, Benchmark study of numerical Engineering Systems: Emphasis on Sustainable Civil
methods for reliability-based design optimization, Struct. Infrastructure  5th International Symposium on Life-
Multidiscipl. Optim. 41, 277–294 (2010) Cycle Engineering, IALCCE 2016 (2017) pp. 1103–1110
95. Z.Y. Ning, Structural optimization research on girder of 200t 114. T.G. Chitari, T.N. Narkhede, Cost optimization of extra-
bridge crane based on ANSYS, Adv. Mater. Res. 430–432, dosed bridge by varying cable position, Int. Res. J. Eng.
1708–1711 (2012) Technol. 1462–1474 (2019)
18 Q. Zaheer et al.: Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)

115. S. Qin, Y.L. Zhou, H. Cao, M.A. Wahab, Model updating in programming FEM components and genetic algorithm,
complex bridge structures using kriging model ensemble with Eng. Struct. 241 (2021)
genetic algorithm, KSCE J. Civil Eng. 22, 3567–3578 (2018) 132. C. Liu, A. Hammad, Y. Itoh, Multiobjective optimization
116. R.M. Burkart, J.W. Kolar, Comparative h-r-s pareto of bridge deck rehabilitation using a genetic algorithm,
optimization of Si and SiC multilevel dual-active-bridge Comput. Aided Civil Infrastructure Eng. 12, 431–443
topologies with wide input voltage range, IEEE Trans. (1997)
Power Electr. 32, 5258–5270 (2017) 133. S. Tong, Z. Tianqi, S. Li, Z. Hao, Optimal design of negative
117. A. Rajguru, Effective techniques in cost optimization of stiffness devices for highway bridges using performance-
construction project: an review, Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. based genetic algorithm, Front. Phys. 9, 1–8 (2021)
04, 464–469 (2015) 134. A. Yosri, Y. Elleathy, S. Hassini, W. El-Dakhakhni, Genetic
118. W. Zhang, N. Wang, Bridge network maintenance prioriti- algorithm-Markovian model for predictive bridge asset
zation under budget constraint, Struct. Saf. 67, 96–104 management, J. Bridge Eng. 26, 04021052 (2021)
(2017) 135. C.K. Soh, J. Yang, Optimal layout of bridge trusses by
119. S. Shuai, Q. Xili, C. Shiyong, X. Yi, O. Huiying, T. Hongbo, genetic algorithms, Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng.
H. Xiaoxu, Study on scheme optimization of bridge 13, 247–254 (1998)
reinforcement increasing ratio, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth 136. C. Solnon, D. Bridge, An ant colony optimization meta-
Environ. Sci. 671 (2021) heuristic for subset selection problems, Syst. Eng. Using
120. H. Park, Model-based optimization of ultra high perfor- Particle Swarm Optim. 3–25 (2007)
mance concrete highway bridge girders 139 (2003) 137. E. Elbeltagi, T. Hegazy, D. Grierson, A modified shuffled
121. G.H. Eom, S.J. Kim, T.H. Lee, J.H.J. Kim, Design frog-leaping optimization algorithm: applications to project
optimization and structural performance evaluation of plate management, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 3, 53–60 (2007)
girder bridge constructed using a turn-over process, 138. D. Zou, L. Gao, S. Li, J. Wu, An effective global harmony
Materials 10 (2017) search algorithm for reliability problems, Exp. Syst. Appl.
122. D. Bui-Ngoc, T. Bui-Tien, H. Nguyen-Tran, M.A. Wahab, 38, 4642–4648 (2011)
G.D. Roeck, Structural health monitoring using handcrafted 139. R. Ahsan, S. Rana, S. Nurul Ghani, Cost optimum design of
features and convolution neural network, Lect. Notes Civil posttensioned I-girder bridge using global optimization
Eng. 110 (2021) algorithm, J. Struct. Eng. 138, 273–284 (2012)
123. V. Penadés-Plà, T. García-Segura, J.V. Martí, V. Yepes, An 140. W.M. Li, Z.H. Jiang, T.L. Wang, H.P. Zhu, Optimization
optimization-LCA of a prestressed concrete precast bridge, method based on generalized pattern search algorithm to
Sustainability (Switzerland) 10, 1–17 (2018) identify bridge parameters indirectly by a passing vehicle,
124. T. García-Segura, V. Penadés-Plà, V. Yepes, Sustainable J. Sound Vibr. 333, 364–380 (2014)
bridge design by metamodel-assisted multi-objective opti- 141. V. Yepes, J.V. Martí, T. García-Segura, Design optimiza-
mization and decision-making under uncertainty, J. Clean. tion of precast-prestressed concrete road bridges with steel
Prod. 202, 904–915 (2018) fiber-reinforcement by a hybrid evolutionary algorithm, Int.
125. Z. Yiyun, J. Jiang, Stability behavior of plate girders with J. Comput. Methods Exp. Measur. 5, 179–189 (2017)
laterally unbraced ends, J. Civil Eng. Architect. 10 (2016) 142. D. Jolevski, O. Bego, Model predictive control of gantry/
126. E.K. Chalouhi, Optimal Design Solutions of Concrete Bridges bridge crane with anti-sway algorithm, J. Mech. Sci.
Considering Environmental Impact and Investment Cost Technol. 29, 827–834 (2015)
(2019) 143. M.D. Phung, C.H. Quach, T.H. Dinh, Q. Ha, Enhanced
127. M. Ronagh, Plastic hinge length of RC columns subjected to discrete particle swarm optimization path planning for UAV
both far-fault and near-fault ground motions having forward vision-based surface inspection, Autom. Constr. 81, 25–33
directivity, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 24, 421–439 (2011) (2017)
128. V. Penadés-Plà, T. García-Segura, V. Yepes, Accelerated 144. W. Shi, L. Wang, Z. Lu, Q. Zhang, Application of an
optimization method for low-embodied energy concrete box- artificial fish swarm algorithm in an optimum tuned mass
girder bridge design, Eng. Struct. 179, 556–565 (2019) damper design for a pedestrian bridge, Appl. Sci.
129. J. Bennetts, G.T. Webb, P.J. Vardanega, S.R. Denton, N. (Switzerland) 8 (2018)
Loudon, Using data to explore trends in bridge performance, 145. J. Guo, W. Yuan, X. Dang, M.S. Alam, Cable force
Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Smart Infrastruct. Construct. 171, optimization of a curved cable-stayed bridge with combined
14–28 (2018) simulated annealing method and cubic b-spline interpola-
130. Y. Feng, C. Wang, B. Briseghella, L. Fenu, T. Zordan, tion curves, Eng. Struct. 201, 109813 (2019)
Structural optimization of a steel arch bridge with genetic 146. Z. Xu, M. Huang, Improving bridge expansion and
algorithm, Struct. Eng. Int. 1–10 (2020) contraction installation replacement decision system using
131. K. Korus, M. Salamak, M. Jasinski, Optimization hybrid chaotic whale optimization algorithm, Appl. Sci.
of geometric parameters of arch bridges using visual (Switzerland) 11 (2021)

Cite this article as: Qasim Zaheer, Tan Yonggang, Furqan Qamar, Literature review of bridge structure’s optimization and it’s
development over time, Int. J. Simul. Multidisci. Des. Optim. 13, 5 (2022)