Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39498059›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Truss sizing optimum design using a metaheuristic approach: Connected banking system.

Mehrdad Nemati, Yousef Zandi, Jamshid Sabouri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mehrdad NematiDepartment of Civil Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.
Yousef ZandiDepartment of Civil Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.
Jamshid SabouriDepartment of Civil Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several methods have been used to solve structural optimum design problems since the creation of a need for light weight design of structures and there is still no single method for solving the optimum design problems in structural engineering field that is capable of providing efficient solutions to all of the structural optimum design problems. Therefore, there are several proposed and utilized methods to deal with optimum design issues and problems, that sometimes give promising results and sometimes the solutions are quite unacceptable. This issue with metaheuristic algorithms, which are suitable approaches to solve these set of problems, is quite usual and is supported by the "No Free Lunch theorem". Researchers try harder than the past to propose methods capable of presenting robust and optimal solutions in a wider range of structural optimum design problems, so that to find an algorithm that can cover a wider range of structural optimization problems and obtain a better optimum design. Truss structures are one of these problems which have extremely complex search spaces to conduct search procedures by metaheuristic algorithms. This paper proposes a method for optimum design of truss sizing problems. The presented method is used against 6 well-known benchmark truss structures (10 bar, 17 bar, 18 bar, 25 bar, 72 bar and 120 bar) and its results are compared with some of the available studies in the literature. The performance of the presented algorithm can be considered as very acceptable.

Indexed as

Algorithm designMetaheuristicsOptimizationOptimum designTruss structure

Identifiers

PMID39498059
PMCPMC11532830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.