You are on page 1of 63

Abstract

xv


) (MATLAB
) (EXCEL

) (GRG

) (GA and GRG

) (GA
) (GRG.

CONTENTS

NOTATION

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

Motivation
Design optimization of RC structures
Aims and objectives
Methodology
Thesis outline

1
1
2
2
2

CHAPTER 2: OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES


2.1 Optimization problems
2.2 Classical search and optimization techniques
2.2.1 The Generalized Reduced Gradient Method
2.3 Heuristic optimization techniques
2.3.1 Genetic algorithms

4
6
7
7
8

CHAPTER 3: OPTIMIZATION OF RC STRUCTURES


3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Introduction
Optimization of individual RC beams and columns
Optimization of RC structures with several elements
Conclusions

10
10
13
15

Contents

iv

CHAPTER 4: STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF BEAMS


4.1 Structural design of simply supported RC beams
4.1.1 Design stages of RC beams
4.1.2 Preassigning of parameters
4.1.3 Loading and structural analysis
4.1.4 The factored bending moment
4.1.5 The design bending moment
4.1.6 Strength reduction factor
4.1.7 Maximum and minimum amount of bending reinforcement
4.1.8 Maximum and minimum spacing of reinforcement
4.1.9 The factored shear force
4.1.10 The design shear force
4.1.11 Shear strength provided by concrete
4.1.12 Minimum web reinforcement
4.1.13 Design for shear reinforcement
4.1.14 Deflection
4.1.15 Initial or short term deflection
4.1.16 Long term deflection
4.2 Structural design of simply supported PC beams
4.2.1 Loading and structural analysis
4.2.2 The factored bending moment
4.2.3 Design for bending moment
4.2.4 Strength reduction factor
4.2.5 The factored shear force
4.2.6 Design for shear force
4.2.7 Deflection
4.2.8 Initial or short term deflection
4.2.9 Long term effects on deflection and camber

16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
22
22
22
23
24
24
24
24
26
26

CHAPTER 5: DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM FORMULATION


5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6

Introduction
Fixed parameters
Design variables
Objective function
Design constraints
Optimization of a simple RC beam
5.6.1 Fixed parameters
5.6.2 Design variables
5.6.3 Variables bounds
5.6.4 Design constraints
5.6.5 Objective function
5.7 Optimization model for simple PC beams

28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
32
33

Contents

5.7.1
5.7.2
5.7.3
5.7.4
5.7.5

Fixed parameters
Design variables
Variables bounds
Design constraints
Objective function

34
34
34
35
37

CHAPTER 6: GENETIC ALGORITHMS


6.1 Historical background
6.2 Biological terminology in the context of GAs
6.3 The basic GA procedure
6.3.1 Representation
6.3.1.1 Binary coding
6.3.2 Basic GA processes
6.3.2.1 Selection
6.3.2.2 Creation of the mating pool
6.3.2.3 Binary-valued crossover
6.3.2.4 Binary-valued mutation
6.4 The Genetic Algorithm operators
6.4.1 No of iterations
6.4.2 Population size
6.4.3 Crossover type
6.4.4 Mutation
6.4.5 Number of matings
6.4.6 Penalty function
6.5 Elitist strategy
6.6 Constraint handling
6.7 Fitness function

39
39
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
46

CHAPTER 7: PARAMETRIC STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS


7.1 Introduction
7.2 Numerical examples and analysis of results
7.2.1 The RC simple beam numerical example
7.2.2 The PC simple beam numerical example
7.2.3 Tuning the GA operators
7.2.3.1 Number of iterations
7.2.3.2 Population size
7.2.3.3 Mutation rate
7.2.3.4 Percent of population not selected for mating (population
(kept)
7.2.4 Effect of using different values for fixed parameters on the cost
7.2.4.1 Effect of the compressive strength using the stated design
variables bounds

47
47
47
49
50
50
53
55
57
60
60

Contents

7.2.4.2 Effect of the compressive strength using the extended


design variables bounds
7.2.4.3 Influence of tendons cost on the optimum design
7.3 The classical optimization spreadsheet models
7.3.1 The EXCEL SOLVER optimization dialog box
7.4 Comparison between the developed GA and classical optimization models

vi

62
65
68
70
72

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


8.1 Achievements
8.2 Conclusions
8.3 Recommendations for further studies

73
73
75

REFERENCES

76

Appendix A: Sample input data files for the developed GA computer models

81

Appendix B: Sample output data files for the developed GA computer models

85

Appendix C: Sample input data files for the developed spreadsheet classical
optimization models

89

Notation
All abbreviations and notations have been defined where they first used. A summary of
those is given below:

Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block

ACI

American Concrete Institute

Ac

Area of concrete cross section

A ps

Area of prestressing tension reinforcement

As'

Area of nonprestressed compression reinforcement

As

Area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement

Av

Total cross sectional area of web steel

Width of the beam

Cc

Cost of concrete per cubic meter

Cps

Cost of prestressing tendons per ton

Cs

Cost of reinforcement steel per ton

Depth of the beam

d'

Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of nonprestressed


compression reinforcement

db

Diameter of flexural bars

dp
ds

Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of prestressed


reinforcement
Diameter of stirrups

dt

Diameter of tendons

Eccentricity of the tendons measured from centroid of cross section

EA

Evolutionary Algorithm

Ec

Modulus of elasticity of concrete

fbe

Extreme fiber tensile stress in concrete at service load

fbi

Extreme fiber compressive stress in concrete at initial prestress

fc

Maximum allowable compressive stress in concrete at service load

f c'

Specified compressive strength for concrete

fci

Maximum allowable compressive stress in concrete at initial prestress

f c 'i

Characteristic strength for concrete at time of prestressing

Notation

viii

fps

Stress in prestressed reinforcement at nominal strength

f py

Yield strength of prestressing tendons

f pu

Ultimate strength of prestressing tendons

ft

Maximum allowable tensile stress in concrete at service load

fte

Extreme fiber compressive stress in concrete at service load

fti

Extreme fiber tensile stress in concrete at initial prestress

ftmi

Maximum allowable tensile stress in concrete at initial prestress

fy

Yield strength of web steel

GA

Genetic Algorithm

Total depth of the concrete section

Ic

Moment of inertia of the concrete cross section

Icr

Moment of inertia of cracked section transferred to concrete

Iel

Effective moment of inertia under dead and live load

Ied

Effective moment of inertia under dead load only

Span of the beam

Ma

Maximum moment in member at stage deflection is computed

M cr

Cracking bending moment

Md

Bending moment under service dead loads only

Mn

Nominal moment strength

Ms

Bending moment under service dead and live loads

nt

Number of tendons

nb

Number of flexural bars

PC

Prestressed Concrete

RC

Reinforced Concrete

Longitudinal spacing of web reinforcement

Longitudinal spacing of web reinforcement

Sc

Concrete cover

Vc

Nominal shear strength provided be concrete.

Vs

Nominal shear strength provided be shear reinforcement

Vu

Factored shear force

Wu

Factored total distributed load

Wstr

Weight of stirrups

Wd

Service distributed dead load

Notation

ix

Width of the support

Unit weight of steel reinforcement


i l

Immediate deflection due to live load only

g j (X )

j-th inequality constraint function

hk ( X )

k-th equality constraint function

(X )

i-th penalty function


Total reinforcement index

List of Figures
Figure 2.1.

Flowchart for working principle of a Genetic Algorithm........................9

Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.5.

Strength reduction factor for bending moment and shear......................18


Actual design shear force.......................................................................19
Flowchart for flexural analysis of rectangular prestressed sections ......23
Flowchart for shear web reinforcement .................................................25
Flowchart for immediate moment curvature camber and deflection.....26

Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.5.

Typical simple RC beam with distributed loads....................................30


Geometry of a RC simple beam.............................................................30
Typical simple PC beam with distributed loads ....................................33
Geometry of a RC simple beam.............................................................33
Flowchart for the developed GA optimization model ...........................38

Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.5.

Biological terminology used in GAs .....................................................39


Flowchart of a simple genetic algorithm ...............................................40
A binary string to represent n design variables......................................41
Three most common types of crossover.....43
Mutation.................................................................................................44

Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.3.

The RC simple beam optimization test problem ..................................47


The PC simple beam optimization test problem...................................49
No. of iterations Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem
(Pop. Size = 100, Deb Penalty unction) ................................................51
No. of iterations Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem
(Pop. Size = 100, Simple Penalty unction) ...........................................52
No. of iterations Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(Pop. Size = 100, Deb Penalty unction) ................................................52
No. of iterations Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(Pop. Size = 100, Simple Penalty unction) ...........................................53
Population size Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem
(200 iterations, Deb Penalty unction)....................................................54
Population size Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem
(200 iterations, Simple unction)............................................................54
Population size Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(200 iterations, Deb Penalty unction)....................................................55
Population size Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(200 iterations, Simple unction)............................................................55
Mutation rate Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem
(200 iterations, Deb Penalty function) ..................................................56
Mutation rate Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem
(200 iterations, Simple Penalty function) .............................................56
Mutation rate Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(200 iterations, Deb Penalty function) ..................................................57
Mutation rate Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(200 iterations, Simple Penalty function) .............................................57

Figure 7.4.
Figure 7.5.
Figure 7.6.
Figure 7.7.
Figure 7.8.
Figure 7.9.
Figure 7.10.
Figure 7.11.
Figure 7.12.
Figure 7.13.
Figure 7.14.

List of Figures

xi

Figure 7.15.

Population kept Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem


(200 iterations, Deb Penalty function) ..................................................58
Population kept Vs. Min cost for the RC test problem
(200 iterations, Simple Penalty function)...............................................58
Population kept Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(200 iterations, Deb. Penalty function) .................................................59
Population kept Vs. Min cost for the PC test problem
(200 iterations, Deb Penalty function) ..................................................59
Effect of compressive strength of concrete on cost of RC beam ..60
Effect of compressive strength of concrete on cost of PC beam61
Effect of compressive strength of concrete ( f c ' ) on the total cost
of the RC beam (Extended variables bounds) .63
Effect of compressive strength of concrete ( f c ' ) on the total cost
of PC beam (extended variables bounds).....64
Effect of prestressing steel cost on the total cost of the PC beam
(Extended variables bounds) ...66
Using EXCEL SOLVER for the optimization of the RC beam ....70
Using EXCEL SOLVER for the optimization of the PC beam........70
The EXCEL SOLVER dialogue box.....71

Figure 7.16.
Figure 7.17.
Figure 7.18.
Figure 7.19.
Figure 7.20.
Figure 7.21.
Figure 7.22.
Figure 7.23.
Figure 7.24.
Figure 7.25.
Figure 7.26.

List of Tables
Table 2.1.

Classification of optimization problems ...................................................5

Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.

Maximum permissible computed deflection ...........................................21


C1 Multipliers for long-term camber and deflection....27

Table 7.1.
Table 7.2.
Table 7.3.
Table 7.4.

Effect of changing f c ' on total cost of the RC beam ..............................61


Effect of changing f c ' on total cost of the PC beam...............................62
Current and extended design variables bounds for the RC beam............62
Effect of changing f c ' on total cost of the RC beam (extended
variables bounds) ...................................................................................63
Current and extended design variables bounds for the PC beam ............64
Effect of changing f c ' on total cost of the PC beam
(extended variables bounds) ................................................................65
Effect of change of prestressing tendons cost on the total cost of
the PC beam ............66
Effect of change of prestressing tendons cost on the total cost of
the PC beam (extended variables bounds).....67
Part of the developed optimization spreadsheet for the RC beam ..68
Part of the developed optimization spreadsheet for the PC beam ......69
Functions of EXCEL SOLVER dialogue box buttons....71

Table 7.5.
Table 7.6.
Table 7.7.
Table 7.8.
Table 7.9.
Table 7.10.
Table 7.11.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1

Motivation

Optimum design of structures has been the topic of many studies in the field of
structural design. A designers goal is to develop an optimal solution for the structural
design under consideration. An optimal solution normally implies the most economic
structure without impairing the functional purposes the structure is supposed to serve,
(Rafiq, 1995). The total cost of the concrete structure is the sum of the costs of its
constituent materials; these constituent materials are at least: concrete, steel and
framework, (Sarma and Adeli, 1998).
A study on the design optimization of structural concrete simple beams according
to ACI 318-05 Code and using the Genetic Algorithm optimization technique is to be
carried out in this thesis.
As there are an infinite number of possible beam dimensions, reinforcement ratios
and prestressing forces that yield the same moment of resistance, it becomes difficult to
achieve the least-cost design by conventional iterative methods, (Barakat, 2004). It was
shown that even for a simple and well-defined RC structure of a small garage, the
designs proposed by experienced design engineers can be very different (Brge and
Schneider, 1994). In such a situation an optimization procedure can help designers to
find the best design or at least, a good design among different possible designs.

1.2

Design optimization of RC structures

There are some characteristics of RC structures which make design optimization


of these structures distinctly different from other structures. The cost of RC structures is
influenced by several cost items including the cost of concrete and reinforcement.
Therefore, in case of RC structures, the minimum weight design is not necessarily the
same as the minimum cost design. In fact, for RC structures the optimum cost design is
a compromise between the consumption of concrete, reinforcement which minimizes
the total cost of the structure and satisfies the design requirements.
In the design optimization of RC structures the cross-sectional dimensions of
elements and detailing of reinforcement, e.g. size and number of steel bars, need to be
determined. Consequently, the number of design parameters, that need to be optimized

Introduction

for a RC structure can be larger than that for a steel structure. Also cracking and
durability requirements are two characteristic properties of RC structures; these increase
the number of design constraints of the optimization problem of RC structures. (Sahab,
2002).

1.3

Aims and objectives

The goal of this study is to develop design optimization models for structural
concrete beams using genetic algorithms as an optimization technique. The following
objectives are defined to achieve the research goal:
Develop computer models to automate the design process of reinforced and
prestressed concrete beams according to ACI 318-05 Code.
Develop genetic algorithm (GA) optimization models using MATLAB software.
Develop spreadsheets for the design optimization of reinforced and prestressed
concrete simple beams using Generalized Reduced Gradient (GRG) method as an
example of the classical optimization methods.

1.4

Methodology
Carry out a survey on the previous relevant researches.
Join the GA optimization models with the developed computer design models to
perform the design optimization process.
Validate the developed optimization models using two numerical examples, one for
reinforced concrete simple beams and the other for prestressed concrete simple
beams.
Perform a tuning process of the GA operators using the identified numerical
examples.
Perform a study on the influence of the fixed parameters of the numerical examples
on the cost functions.
Compare the design results obtained from the GA optimization process with those
obtained from the GRG method.

1.5

Thesis outline

The thesis includes 8 chapters and three appendices. A brief description of the
chapters contents is presented below:
Chapter 1 highlights the need for research in the field of design optimization of
concrete structures. The characteristic features of design optimization of structures are
studied. The aims and objectives of the project are described. At the end, the structure
of the thesis is presented.
Chapter 2 includes a review of optimization problems and techniques, including
classical and heuristic search and optimization techniques.
Chapter 3 includes a review of optimization researches done in this area,
structural optimization generally, and design optimization of reinforced concrete beams
specifically.

Introduction

In Chapter 4, the design procedure of RC and PC simple beams according to ACI


318-05 is discussed. The design stages and requirements are presented.
Design optimization problem formulation of reinforced concrete and prestressed
concrete simple beam is presented in Chapter 5. Also the fixed parameters, design
variables, design variables bounds, the design constraints and the objective functions
are defined for both the RC and PC simple beams.
In Chapter 6, GA as a powerful technique for solution of the optimization problem
is reviewed thoroughly explaining the basic process and operators of this optimization
technique.
In Chapter 7, a study on the effect of various operators of the genetic algorithms
and parameters of two numerical examples is presented for both the RC and PC simple
beam models, and then a comparison between the results of the developed models and
the spreadsheet (The generalized reduced gradient (GRG)) optimization models is
carried out.
Achievements and the main conclusions of the project with recommendations for
future research are given in Chapter 8.
Appendix A contains sample input data files for the developed GA computer
models.
Appendix B contains sample output data files for the developed GA computer
models.
Appendix C contains sample input data files for the developed spreadsheet
classical optimization models.

CHAPTER 2

Optimization Techniques

2.1

Optimization problems

Optimization is a branch of mathematics which is concerned with obtaining the


conditions that give the extreme value of a function under given circumstances. An
optimization problem can be mathematically stated as follows:
Find
X = (x1, x2, . . ., xn) which minimizes
subject to:
(or maximizes)
g j (X )
hk ( X )
x ml

xm

x mu

fi ( X )

i =1, 2, . . ., no (2.1)

j= 1, 2, . . ., ng

(2.2)

k = 1, 2, . . ., ne

(2.3)

m = 1, 2, . . ., ns

(2.4)

where X is the vector of n design variables, fi(X) is an objective or merit function, gj(X)
and hk(X) are the inequality and the equality constraints, respectively. These constraints
represent limitations on the behaviour or performance of the system. Therefore, they are
called behavioural or functional constraints. Side constraints (2.4) restrict the acceptable
range of potential solutions of the problem based on non-behavioural constraints. In this
expression xml and xmu are the lower and upper limits on the design variable x m ,
respectively. In the above expressions no, ng, ne and ns are the number of objective
functions, number of inequality, equality and side constraints, respectively. Depending
on the specific choice of design variables, objective functions, and constraints, various
types of optimization problems may exist. Table 2.1 presents a classification of
optimization problem which has been collected from (Foulds, 1981), (Rao, 1984),
(Arora, 1989), (Haftka and Gurdal, 1992), (Kirsch, 1993), (Sarma and Adeli, 1998),
(Vanderplaats, 1999), (Sarma and Adeli, 2000).

oujy

Optimization Techniques

Table 2.1. Classification of optimization problems


Base for
classification
Number of
design
variables

Number of
objective
functions

Category

Specifications

Single variable

The vector of design variables includes only one


variable.

Multi-variable

The vector of design variables includes more


than one variable.

Single objective

There is one criterion expressed as an objective


function.

Multi-objective

There are many criteria which they are


considered together to determine optimum
solution.

Unconstrained

A minimum or maximum of objective function


without any limitation is attempted.

Constrained

Some constraints define the set of feasible


solutions.

Linear
programming
(LP)

Objective functions and constraints are linear.

Non-linear
programming
(NLP)

Some of the objective functions and constraints


can be non-linear. Quadratic programming (QP)
and geometric programming (GMP) problems are
two specific kinds of non-linear optimization
problems.

Static

Design variables are independent. They are not


functions of other parameters.

Presence of
constraints

Features of
constraints and
objective
functions

Nature of
design
variables

Type of design
variables

Dynamic

Design variables are


parameters, e.g. time.

Discrete

Design variables can only take integer or discrete


values.

Continuous
Mixed

Nature of
design
variables and
design input
data

Deterministic

Probabilistic

functions

of

other

Design variables take any real value.


Some design variables take integer values and
others take real values.
All design variables or preassigned parameters
such as loads acting on a structure are assumed to
be deterministic.
All or some of design variables or preassigned
parameters are described by random or
probabilistic variables within a given range.

Optimization Techniques

2.2

Classical Search and Optimization techniques

Traditional search and optimization methods can be classified into two distinct
groups: Direct and gradient-based methods (Deb, 1995; Reklaitis et al., 1983). In direct
methods, only objective function and constraints are used to guide the search strategy,
whereas gradient-based methods use the first and/or second-order derivatives of the
objective function and/or constraints to guide the search process. Since derivative information is not used, the direct search methods are usually slow, requiring many
function evaluations for convergence. For the same reason, they can be applied to many
problems without a major change of the algorithm. On the other hand, gradient-based
methods quickly converge to an optimal solution, but are not efficient in nondifferentiable or discontinuous problems. In addition, there are some common
difficulties with most of the traditional direct and gradient-based techniques:

Convergence to an optimal solution depends on the chosen initial solution,


Most algorithms tend to get stuck to a suboptimal solution,
An algorithm efficient in solving one search and optimization problem may
not be efficient in solving a different problem.
Algorithms are not efficient in handling problems having discrete variables.

Because of the nonlinearities and complex interactions among problem variables


often exist in complex search and optimization problems, the search space may have
many optimal solutions, of which most are locally optimal solutions having inferior
objective function values. When solving these problems, if traditional methods get
attracted to any of these locally optimal solutions, there is no escape from it.
Many traditional methods are designed to solve a specific type of search and
optimization problems. For example, geometric programming (GP) method is designed
to solve only posynomial-type objective function and constraints (Duffin et al., 1967).
GP is efficient in solving such problems but can not be applied suitably to solve other
types of functions. Conjugate direction method has a convergence proof for solving
quadratic functions, but they are not expected to work well in problems having multiple
optimal solutions. Frank- Wolfe method (Reklaitis et al., 1983) works efficiently on
linear-like function and constraints, but the performance largely depends on the chosen
initial conditions. Thus, one algorithm may be best suited for one problem and may not
be even applicable to a different problem. This requires designers to know a number of
optimization algorithms.
In many search and optimization problems, problem variables are often restricted
to take discrete values only. To solve such problems, a usual practice is to assume that
the problem variables are real-valued. A classical method can then be applied to find a
real-valued solution. To make this solution feasible, the nearest allowable discrete
solution is chosen. But, there are a number of difficulties with this approach. Firstly,
since many infeasible values of problem variables are allowed in the optimization
process, the optimization algorithm is likely to take many function evaluations before
converging, thereby making the search effort inefficient. Secondly, for each infeasible
discrete variable, two values (the nearest lower and upper available sizes) are to be
checked. For N discrete variables, a total of 2N such additional solutions need to be

Optimization Techniques

evaluated. These difficulties can be eliminated if only feasible values of the variables
are allowed during the optimization process.
The above discussion suggests that traditional methods are not good candidates
for an efficient search and optimization algorithm. In the following sections, we
describe the genetic algorithm which works according to principles of natural genetics
and evolution, and which has been demonstrated to solve various search and
optimization problems.

2.2.1 The Generalized Reduced Gradient Method


GRG Methods are algorithms for solving nonlinear programs of general structure.
This algorithm was developed by Leon Lasdon, of the University of Texas at Austin,
and Allan Waren, of Cleveland State University.
If there are no constraints; the problem is solved as an unconstrained optimization
problem. Upper and lower bounds on the variables are optional and, if present, are not
treated as additional constraints but are handled separately.
GRG2 uses first partial derivatives of each function with respect to each variable.
These are automatically computed by finite difference approximation (either forward or
central differences). After an initial data entry segment, the program operates in two
phases. If the initial values of the variables supplied by the user do not satisfy all the
constraints, a Phase I optimization is started. The Phase I objective function is the sum
of the constraint violations plus, optionally, a fraction of the true objective. This
optimization terminates either with a message that the problem is infeasible or with a
feasible solution. Beware if an infeasibility message is produced, because the program
may have become stuck at a local minimum of the Phase I objective (or too large a part
of the true objective is incorporated), and the problem may actually have feasible
solutions. The suggested remedy, in this case, is to choose different starting values for
the variables (or reduce the proportion of the true objective) and try again.
Phase II begins with a feasible solution, either found by Phase I or with the user
provided starting point if it is feasible, and attempts to optimize the objective function.
At the conclusion of Phase II, a full optimization cycle has been completed and
summary output is provided. (http://www.maxthis.com/Grg2ug.htm)

2.3

Heuristic optimization techniques

In the last three decades, heuristic methods have been rapidly developed to solve
optimization problems. These methods are principally intuitive and do not have
theoretical support. Heuristic methods such as genetic algorithms (GAs), simulated
annealing (SA) and tabu search (TS) provide general ways to search for a good but not
necessarily the best solution.
Manoharan and Shanmuganathan (1999) applied four different search
mechanisms of TS, SA, GA and branch and bound technique to the design optimization

Optimization Techniques

of three different truss problems and compared them. They concluded that all three
heuristic search methods, TS, SA, GA, work well and produce an acceptable solution
within a reasonable amount of time. Amongst these three methods, GA has a feature
that it does not need an initial guess to search for the optimum. Branch and bound
technique consumes an enormous amount of computing time to find optimum solution.
Also, it is not viable for structures of any reasonable size (e.g. a truss structure with
more than 6 bars).

2.3.1

Genetic algorithms

Genetic algorithms were introduced by Holland in the 1960s. With the aid of his
colleagues and students, he developed these algorithms during the 1970s in University
of Michigan. He summarized the results of these researches in the book Adaptation in
natural and artificial systems (Holland, 1975). GAs are numerical optimization
techniques inspired by the natural evolution laws. A GA starts searching design space
with a population of designs, which are initially created over the design space at
random. In the basic GA, every individual of population (design) is described by a
binary string (encoded form). GA uses four main operators, namely, selection, creation
of the mating pool, crossover and mutation to direct the population of designs towards
the optimum design. In the selection process, some designs of a population are selected
by randomized methods for GA operations, for example in creation of the mating pool,
some good designs in the population are selected and copied to form a mating pool. The
better (fitter) designs have a greater chance to be selected. Crossover allows the
characteristics of the designs to be altered. In this process different digits of binary
strings of each parent are transferred to their children (new designs produced by the
crossover operation). Mutation is an occasional random change of the value of some
randomly selected design variables. The mutation operation changes each bit of string
from 0 to 1 or vice versa in a designs binary code depending on the mutation
probability. Mutation can be considered as a factor preventing from premature
convergence.
A GA uses a discrete set of design variables in the optimization process.
However, by defining the number of decimal digits for representation of continuous
variables or step size between the sequential values of design variables this method can
be applied to continuous problems as well. Lin and Hajela (1992) implemented GAs in
the optimal design of structural systems with a mix of continuous, integer and discrete
design variables.

Optimization Techniques

Begi

Initialize

gen =

Evaluatio

Assign

Cond?

No

gen = gen + 1
ye

Reproductio
Stop
Crossove

Mutatio
Figure (2.1) Flowchart of working principle of a Genetic Algorithm

CHAPTER 3

Optimization of RC structures

3.1

Introduction

Optimization has applications in various branches of science and engineering,


among them structural engineering. In structural optimization, design objectives are
structural criteria to evaluate the merit of a design such as minimum construction cost.
Building code provisions, which provide safety and serviceability requirements to the
structure, are usually appeared as the design constraints.
Optimization techniques implementing Genetic algorithms (GAs), among other
search techniques, have recently been widely used in various disciplines, A
comprehensive study of research efforts on optimization of RC structures can be found
in Krishnamoorthy and Mosi (1979) and Sarma and Adeli (1998), some of these studies
are listed below.

3.2

Optimization of individual RC beams and columns


Cohn and MacRae (1984a) consider the minimum cost design of simplysupported RC and partially or fully pre-tensioned and post-tensioned concrete
beams of fixed cross-sectional geometry subjected to serviceability and ultimate
limit states constraints, including constraints on flexural strength, deflection,
ductility, fatigue, cracking, and minimum reinforcement, based on the ACI code
("Building" 1977) or the Canadian building code ("Code" 1977), using the
feasible conjugate-direction method (Kirsch, 1993).
Using integer programming, Jones (1985) formulates minimum cost design of
precast, prestressed concrete simply supported box girders used in a multibeam
highway bridge and subjected to the AASHTO (Standard 1977).
Prakash et al. (1988) present minimum cost design of singly and doubly
reinforced rectangular and T-shape RC beams, using Lagrangian and Simplex
methods per limit state conditions of the prevailing Indian code. They state that
a two-way slab is more economical than a T-beam floor for spans up to 6 m in a
residential type building, whereas for heavier loads or longer spans, the reverse
is true.
Kanagasundaram and Karihaloo (1990) describe minimum cost design of
simply supported and continuous rectangular, L, and T-section RC beams

Optimization of RC Structures

11

according to the Australian code ("Concrete" 1988) using two different


methods: sequential linear programming (LP) and sequential convex
programming (Arora, 1989).
Ezeldin (1991) presents minimum cost design of rectangular, reinforced fiber
concrete beams with four variables: width and depth of the beam, steel fiber
content, and area of bending reinforcing bars.
Quiroga et al. (1991), By means of linear optimization the sizes of the
prestressing cables with a given fixed geometry for bridge decks are obtained.
This procedure of linear optimization is also used to obtain the best cable
profile, by combining a series of feasible cable profiles. The results are
compared with the ones obtained by other researchers.
Chakrabarty (1992a and b) applied the geometric programming to find
minimum cost design of rectangular singly reinforced concrete beams. The area
of tensile steel reinforcement, the depth and width of the beam were the design
variables. The objective function was the cost of unit length of beam including
the cost of tensile reinforcement, concrete and formwork. He considered the
strength constraints but ignored the ductility and side constrains in his
formulation. He did not introduce any specific design code requirements in the
constraint equations.
Erbatur et al. (1992). This paper is concerned with the optimum design of
prestressed concrete beams. Both minimum weight and minimum cost
optimization formulations are given for simply supported beams having three
different sections. Sensitivity of the optimum designs, with respect to various
design parameters are also discussed.
Khaleel et al. (1993). A comprehensive study on the optimization of simply
supported partially prestressed concrete girders under multiple strength and
serviceability criteria is presented, Using sequential quadratic programming a
set of optimal geometrical dimensions, amounts of prestressing and nonprestressing steel, and spacing between shear reinforcements are obtained.
Results point to the need for non-prestressing steel to obtain economical
designs, This study automates the design of partially prestressed concrete
girders and provides needed design solutions to problems which are of
importance to practicing engineers.
Adamu et al. (1994) used continuum-type optimality criteria (COC) approach
for economic design of RC singly reinforced beams with rectangular crosssection to the European Code (CEB). The cost function consists of the cost of
concrete, longitudinal reinforcement and formwork of the beam. The design
variables are the width, effective depth, and steel ratio of a cross-section. The
optimality criteria are derived using the calculus of variation on an augmented
Lagrangian function. An iterative procedure based on optimality criteria is

Optimization of RC Structures

12

applied to optimize design of a RC beam with fixed support at one end and
simple support at the other end with variable depth and width along its length.
Al-Salloum and Siddiqi (1994) presented minimum cost design of singly
reinforced rectangular concrete beams based on the American Code (ACI 31889) provisions. The cost function contains the cost of concrete, bending
reinforcement and formwork of the unit length of the beam. They presented a
closed-form solution for optimal depth and steel ratio of a beam with given
width and design moment in terms of material costs and strength parameters.
Zielinski et al. (1995) investigated optimum design of RC short-tied rectangular
columns under biaxial bending based on the Canadian Code (CAN3-A23.3M84). The cost components of the objective function are the cost of concrete,
longitudinal reinforcement and formwork. Design variables are the crosssectional dimensions of the column and the area of tension and compression
bars or, alternatively, the number of reinforcement along the width and depth of
a column cross-section. Then the problem is solved by the Powells method.
Al-Gahtani, (1995). An effective formulation for optimum design of two-span
continuous partially prestressed concrete beams is described. Variable
prestressing forces along the tendon profile are considered. The imposed
constraints are on flexural stresses, ultimate flexural strength, cracking moment,
ultimate shear strength, reinforcement limits cross-section dimensions, and
cable profile geometries, the capabilities of the program to solve several
engineering problems are presented.
Barakat et al. (2003). A general approach to the single objective reliabilitybased optimum (SORBO) design of prestressed concrete beams (PCB) is
presented in this paper. Several limit states are considered, including permissible
tensile and compressive stresses at both initial and final stages, prestressing
losses, ultimate shear strength, ultimate flexural strength, cracking moment,
crack width, and the immediate deflection and the final long term deflection.
The results consist of, but not limited to, the initial and final prestressing forces,
prestressing losses, immediate and final deflections, and upper and lower bounds
on the parabolic tendon profile.
Barakat et al. (2004). A general approach to the multiobjective reliability-based
optimum (MORBO) designs of prestressed concrete beams (PCB) is presented
in this paper. The competing objectives in the multiobjective optimization of
PCB are selected from, minimization of the overall cost of the PCB,
maximization of the system reliability index, maximization of the flexural
strength reliability index, and maximization of the tensile stress reliability index
at service stage.
Kirsch, (2004). A two-level design procedure for prestressed concrete structures
is developed, where the prestressing force and the tendon coordinates are

Optimization of RC Structures

13

optimized at the first-level, while the concrete dimensions are selected at the
second-level.
Shopova et al. (2006). This paper introduces in details a genetic algorithm-called
BASIC, which is designed to take advantage of well known genetic schemes so
as to be able to deal with numerous optimization problems. A range of various
optimization problems has been solved to test its capability; the solutions
obtained are commensurable with other genetic algorithms and solution
techniques.

3.3

Optimization of RC structures with several elements


Choi and Kwak (1990) presented a simple and effective algorithm for cost
optimization of rectangular beams and columns of RC frames by using a direct
search method according to the American (ACI 318-89) and Korean Codes.
Design sections for concrete elements are selected from some predetermined
discrete sections which have been accepted as suitable sections. The cost
function included the costs of concrete, reinforcement and formwork. The
optimization of the entire structure was accomplished through optimization of
the individual members. A simple beam and a 10-storey RC building with two
spans in each direction have been optimized as two examples.
Saka (1992) studied optimum design of multi-storey structures with shear walls.
He developed an algorithm to find optimum values of beam, column and shear
wall depths. The cost function included the costs of concrete, main
reinforcement and formwork. He applied displacement, strength and minimum
size constraints in three separate stages. He used the British Code provisions
(BS 8110) to calculate the ultimate load capacity of RC elements. The values of
design variables are determined from several relationships. The first
relationship is obtained for displacement limitations using optimality criteria
approach. The second is an iterative algorithm developed for the case of
dominant ultimate axial and bending moment constraints. The third is minimum
size restrictions. In each cycle, the largest dimension amongst the results,
obtained from the three relationships, is adopted as the new value of design
variable for the next optimum design cycle. The areas of reinforcement are
obtained in terms of member section dimensions.
Moharrami and Grierson (1993) studied minimum cost of RC building
frameworks. The width, depth and area of longitudinal reinforcement of
member sections are taken as the design variables. They used OC method to
minimize the total cost of building including the costs of concrete reinforcement
and formwork, subject to constraints on strength and stiffness to the American
Code (ACI 318-89). The columns have rectangular cross-sections and beams
can be rectangular, L or T shapes. Although in practice the design variables of
the problem take discrete values, in this approach they have been assumed
continuous.

Optimization of RC Structures

14

Das Gupta et al. (1993) considered minimum cost design of RC frames in


accordance with the British Code (BS 8110). The objective function is the total
costs of concrete, steel, and formwork. Design variables are width and depth of
the cross-section of each member and area of reinforcement in specific sections
of members. The problem has been transferred into an equivalent unconstraint
minimization problem using the exterior penalty function method of sequential
unconstraint minimization technique.
Adamu and Karihaloo (1995a) presented minimum cost design of twodimensional multi-bay and multi-storey RC frames subject to constraints on
maximum deflection, bending and shear strengths of beams and combined axial
and bending strength of columns in accordance with limit state design
requirements of the Australian (AS 3600) and European (CEB) Codes. The cost
function includes the costs of concrete, reinforcement and formwork. In the
second part of this paper (1995b), they took approximately into account the
biaxial bending of corner columns.
Fadaee and Grierson (1996) presented the optimal design of three-dimensional
RC skeletal structures with rectangular section members subjected to biaxial
moments, biaxial shears, and axial loads to the American Code (ACI 318-95).
They used OC method to minimize the cost of concrete, steel and formwork for
the structure. The design variables are concrete cross-sectional dimensions and
the area of longitudinal bars in member sections. In another paper Fadaee and
Grierson (1998) considered optimization of three-dimensional RC structures
having shear walls, which can be subjected to pure shear. The design variables
for shear walls are the thickness of the wall, the area of vertical reinforcement,
horizontal distance between the vertical stirrups, the area of horizontal
reinforcement, vertical space between the horizontal stirrups and the area of
vertical flexural reinforcement. They used the method for design optimization
of a one-bay and one-storey space framework.
Balling and Yao (1997) studied optimization of three-dimensional RC structures
with rectangular T or L-shape beams according to the ACI Code (ACI 318-89)
by two different methods. The first method is a bilevel method that optimizes
concrete cross-section dimensions in one level and the number, diameter and
topology of reinforcement in another level. The second method represents the
number, diameter and topology of reinforcement through a single design
variable, which is the total area of steel. In this method, the area of steel and the
cross-sectional dimensions of members are optimized simultaneously. They
concluded that the optimum costs obtained from these two methods are very
close to each other. Based on this conclusion; they proposed a simplified
method for cost optimization of space frames. The cost function consisted of
material, fabrication, and placement costs of the concrete and reinforcement.
Sahab, M. G., Ashour A. F. and Toropov V.V. (2004) Studied the cost
optimisation of reinforced concrete flat slab buildings according to the British
Code of Practice (BS8110). The objective function is the total cost of the
building including the cost of floors, columns and foundations. The cost of each

Optimization of RC Structures

15

structural element covers that of material and labour for reinforcement, concrete
and formwork. Cost optimisation for three reinforced concrete flat slab
buildings is illustrated and the results of the optimum and conventional design
procedures are compared.
Govindaraj and Ramasamy (2005) presented the application of Genetic
Algorithms for the optimum detailed design of reinforced concrete continuous
beams based on Indian Standard specifications. The produced optimum design
satisfies the strength, serviceability, ductility, durability and other constraints
related to good design and detailing practice. The optimum design results are
compared with those in the available literature. An example problem is
illustrated and the results are presented. It is concluded that the proposed
optimum design model yields rational, reliable, economical and practical
designs.

3.4

Conclusions

Some of the major advances during the history of structural optimization are reviewed
in chapter 3.
The main conclusions of the literature survey can be drawn as follows:
The optimality criteria method has been applied to various field of structural
optimization. This method is more efficient for design optimization of largescale problems when the number of constraints is small compared to the
number of design variables. In this method, the optimization problem is
treated as a continuous problem.
The use of modern heuristic optimization techniques is rapidly increasing.
They have become increasingly popular for solving optimization problems in
three recent decades. These techniques have been made possible optimization
of a large-scale structure according to practical design codes. These
techniques can be used for solving continuous or discrete optimization
problems.
In RC structures, the cost of concrete, reinforcement and formwork can be
involved in the total cost of the structure. Therefore, the minimum weight for
these structures is not necessarily equivalent to the minimum cost, or in other
words, the total cost of the structure is not generally proportional to its weight.
In most structural design optimization problems, design variables are
essentially discrete. For example, the area of a reinforcing bar can take some
discrete values from the catalogue. However, in many publications in the field
of structural optimization the problem has been treated as a continuous
problem.

CHAPTER 4

Structural Design of Beams

4.1

Structural Design of Simply Supported reinforced


Concrete Beams

The chief task of the structural engineer is the design of structures. Design is the
determination of the general shape and all specific dimensions of a particular structure
so that it will perform the function for which it is created and will safely withstand the
influences that will act on it through its useful life. These influences are primarily the
loads and other forces to which it will be subjected (Nilson et al., 2004). Beams are
structural members carrying transverse loads that can cause bending moments, shear
forces and in some cases torsion.
Design of a beam starts with proportioning its sections to resist bending moment
and choosing the required reinforcement. Once this is done, the chosen sections are
checked and designed for shear and torsion. In order to limit deflections, the depth of
the cross section is chosen to fulfil the ACI Code serviceability requirements.

4.1.1

Design stages of reinforced concrete beams

The main stages of design of the superstructure of Reinforced Concrete beams can
be summarised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Pre-assigning of parameters
Loading and structural analysis.
Determining the design bending moments.
Calculation of bending reinforcement.
Detailing of bending reinforcement.
Determining the design shear force.
Calculation of shear reinforcement
Detailing of shear reinforcement
Checking of deflections.

4.1.2

Pre-assigning of parameters

At the first stage of a structural design of beams, the designer initially assumes the
general shape of the beam, size of beam and material properties based on his previous
experiences and some rules of thumb. In this manner the self-weight of the beam can be
calculated and the model of beam can be provided for the structural analysis. In an
optimization program the process of design optimization is started from an initial

Structural Design of Beams

17

feasible design or an initial population of designs. During the optimization process the
initial design or designs are improved in such a way that they become compatible with
the constraints and minimize the objective function. Those specifications of the
structure such as the characteristic strength of the materials, which can be considered to
be fixed during the design optimization process, are called pre-assigned parameters. The
Code provisions of ACI 318-05 have to be considered in pre-assigning of parameters or
determining the minimum dimensions of the beam.

4.1.3

Loading and structural analysis

In this research it is assumed that the load which the reinforced concrete beam
will carry is only of the distributed load type, the loads are the self weight of the beam,
the dead load and the live load.

4.1.4

The factored bending moment


The factored bending moment is calculated using the following relationship:
Mu

Wu L2
( KN .m)
8

(4.1)

Where:
Wu =factored total distributed load = 1.2 (Wd
L = Span of the beam

4.1.5

Wsd ) 1.6 Wl

The design bending moments

The nominal moment strength for underreinforced concrete beams can be


calculated from the following relationship:

Mn

4.1.6

As * f y * d

As * f y
1.7 * f c' * b

(KN.m)

(4.2)

Strength reduction factor

The ACI Code defines a tension controlled member as one with a net tensile strain
greater than or equal to 0.005. The corresponding strength reduction factor is
0.9 ,
The Code additionally defines a compression controlled member as having a net tensile
strain of less than 0.002 the strength reduction factor for compression controlled
members is 0.65. Between net tensile strains of 0.002 and 0.005, the strength reduction
factor varies linearly, and the ACI Code allows a linear interpolation of based on t as
shown in figure (4.1):

Structural Design of Beams

18

Figure (4.1) Strength reduction factor for bending


moment and shear (ACI 318-05)

4.1.7

Maximum and Minimum amounts of bending reinforcement

As per paragraph 10.5.1 of the ACI 318-05 code, the minimum amount of flexural
reinforcement is given by the following relationship:

As, min

f c'

0.25
fy

bw d

(cm 2 )

1.4 bw d
fy

And not less than

(4.3)

(4.4)

And according to paragraph 10.3.5 of the Code, the maximum reinforcement ration is:

max

4.1.8

0.85

f c'
fy

0.003
0.003 0.004

(4.5)

Maximum and Minimum Spacing of Reinforcement


Minimum and maximum spacing between bars are as follows:

d b cm
S

2.5 cm
4
* max agg. size
3

(cm)

300

252
(cm)
0.6 f y

(4.6)

Structural Design of Beams

4.1.9

19

The Factored shear force

The factored shear force is calculated at a distance of d from the face of the
support as per paragraph 11.1.3.1 of the ACI 318-05 building Code, assuming that the
width of the support is z m, the factored shear force is calculated using the following
relationship:
Vu

Wu ( L

z /2 d)
2

( KN )

(4.7)

Where:
Wu = Factored total distributed load
L = Span of the beam
d = Depth of the beam
z = Width of the support

4.1.10 The design shear force


According to ACI Code 11.1.1, the design of beams for shear is to be based on the
relation
Vu
Vn
(4.8)
Where Vu is the total shear force applied at a given section of the beam due to factored
loads, and Vn Vc Vs is the nominal shear strength, equal to the sum of the
contribution of the concrete and the web steel if present. Thus for vertical stirrups
Vu

Av

Vc

fy d
S

( KN )

(4.9)

The strength reduction factor is to be taken equal to 0.75 for shear.


For typical support conditions, where the reaction from the support surface or from a
monolithic column introduces vertical compression at the end of the beam, sections
located less than a distance d form the face of the support may be designed for the same
shear Vu as that computed at a distance d (ACI code 11.1.3.1) as shown in the following
figure.

Figure (4.2) Actual design shear force (ACI 318-05)

4.1.11 Shear strength provided by concrete


According to ACI code, the nominal shear strength contribution of the concrete is
Vc

0.17

f c'

b d

0.29

f c' b d

(4.10)

Structural Design of Beams

20

4.1.12 Minimum web reinforcement


If V u , the shear force at factored loads, is no larger than V c , then theoretically
no web reinforcement is required. Even in such a case, however, ACI Code 11.5.5
requires provision of at least a minimum area of web reinforcement equal to

Av , min

f c'

0.062

b s
fy

0.35

b s
fy

(cm2 )

(4.11)

Where:
s = Longitudinal spacing of web reinforcement
f y = Yield strength of web steel
Av = Total cross sectional area of web steel within distance s

4.1.13 Design for shear reinforcement


Where Vu exceeds Vc , shear reinforcement shall be provided, such that Vs shall
be computed as follows

A
v
s

yt

d
0.66

f'
c

(KN)

(4.12)

4.1.14 Deflection
The deflection is calculated at two stages, at the first stage, the initial or short term
deflection is calculated and at the second stage the long term deflection is calculated.

4.1.15 Initial or short term deflection


It consists of two components, the deflection due to dead load and the deflection
due to live load.
The deflection due to dead load only is calculated from the following relationship

i d

5 Wd L4
(mm)
384 Ec Ied

(4.13)

Where:
Wd = service distributed dead load
L = Span of the beam
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete
Ied = Effective moment of inertia under dead load only
The deflection due to live load only is calculated from the following relationship

i d l

5 Ws L4
(mm)
384 Ec Iel

(4.14)

Structural Design of Beams

21

Where:
Ws = service distributed total load
L = Span of the beam
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete
Iel = Effective moment of inertia under dead and live load
i l

i d l

i d

i l

where :
i l

(4.15)

limit by ACI - code

Immediate deflection due to live load only

4.1.16 Long term deflection


Long term deflection for five years

2*

i d l

i l

limit by code

(4.16)
The calculated deflections are then compared with the allowable ones as per table 9.5(b)
of the ACI 318-05 Code, which is shown here in table (4.1)
Table (4.1) Maximum permissible computed deflection (ACI 318-05)
Type of member

Deflection to be
considered

Deflection
limitations

Flat roofs not supporting or attached to


Immediate Deflection due to
non-structural elements likely to be
live load
damaged by large deflections

Floors not supporting or attached to nonImmediate Deflection due to


structural elements likely to be damaged
live load
by large deflections

Roof or floor construction supporting or That part of the total


attached to non-structural elements likely deflection occurring after
to be damaged by large deflections
attachment of non-structural
elements (sum of the long
Roof or floor construction supporting or term deflection due to all
loads
and
attached to non-structural elements not sustained
immediate
deflection
due
to
likely to be damaged by large deflections
any additional live load)

180

360

480

240

Structural Design of Beams

4.2

22

Structural Design of Simply Supported Prestressed


Concrete beams

Prestressed concrete is a form of concrete in which internal stresses are introduced


by means of high strength pre-strained reinforcement. Prestressing relies on bond and/or
bearing mechanisms to achieve stress transfer to concrete. Prestressing forces induce
internal actions of such magnitude and distribution to counteract the external loading.
In prestressed concrete members, steel is in tension and concrete is in compression,
even before the application of any external loading. (http://ceprofs.tamu.edu).
The disadvantages of Prestressed Concrete can be summarized as follows:
*
Higher material costs.
*
Prestressing is an added cost.
*
Formwork is more complex than for reinforced concrete.
*
Not as ductile as reinforced concrete.
*
Losses of prestressing force with time.
Since reinforced concrete has some limitations and fully prestressed concrete has
some disadvantages, it is thought that the best solution is probably a combination of
prestressed and reinforced concrete, this technique is referred to as partial prestressing.
Early in the development of prestressed concrete, the goal of prestressing was the
complete elimination of concrete tensile stress at service loads. The concept was that of
an entirely new homogeneous material that would remain uncracked and respond
elastically up to the maximum anticipated loading.
This kind of design, where the limiting tensile stress in the concrete at full service load
is zero, is generally known as full prestressing, whereas an alternative approach, in
which flexural tensions, and usually some cracking, are permitted in the concrete at
normal service load, is called partial prestressing.
There are many cases where substantially improved performance, reduced cost, or both
may be obtained through the use of a lesser amount of prestress. (Nilson, 1987).

4.2.1

Loading and structural analysis

In this research it is assumed that the load which the prestressed concrete beam will
carry is only of the distributed load type, the loads are the self weight of the beam, the
superimposed dead load and the live load.

4.2.2

The factored bending moment

The factored bending moment is calculated using the following relationship:

Mu

Wu L2
( KN .m)
8

Where:
Wu = Factored total distributed load
L = Span of the beam

(4.17)

Structural Design of Beams

4.2.3

23

Design for bending moments

The nominal moment strength for underreinforced concrete beams can be


calculated from figure (4.3):
START

Input data: Section properties, Load, Material


properties
Calculate
fps

Calculate
a

Determine whether the section is


overreinforced or underreinforced

Mn

Aps (d p

As f y (d

a
)
2

a
)
2
As' f y (

a
2

d ')

Mn

f c' bd 2p (0.36

0.08

2
1 )

Figure (4.3) Flowchart for flexural analysis of rectangular


prestressed sections
Where:
fps = Stress in prestressed reinforcement at nominal strength
f c' = Specified compressive strength for concrete
a = Depth of equivalent rectangular stress block
b = Width of the beam
d = Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of nonprestressed
tension reinforcement
'
d =Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of nonprestressed
compression reinforcement
d p = Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of prestressed
reinforcement
As = Area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement
As' = Area of nonprestressed compression reinforcement
A ps =Area of prestressed tension reinforcement
Mn = Nominal moment strength

Structural Design of Beams

4.2.4

24

Strength reduction factor

Strength reduction factored was presented in section 4.1.6 for bending moment,
figure (4.1) can be used to calculate the value of the strength reduction value for shear
also.

4.2.5

The factored shear force

The factored shear force is calculated at a distance of d from the face of the
support as, assuming that the width of the support is z , the factored shear force is
calculated using the following relationship:

Vu

Wu ( L z
2

d)

( KN )

(4.18)

Where:
Wu =factored total distributed load
L = Span of the beam
d = depth of the beam
z = width of the support

4.2.6

Design for shear force

The design shear force, shear strength provided by concrete and minimum web
reinforcement are calculated as shown in figure (4.4).
Where:
Vc = Nominal shear strength provided be concrete.
Vu = Factored shear force.
Vs = Nominal shear strength provided be shear reinforcement.
S = Longitudinal spacing of web reinforcement
h = Total depth of the concrete section

4.2.7

Deflection

The deflection is calculated at two stages, at the first stage, the initial or short term
deflection is calculated and at the second stage the long term deflection is calculated.
It consists of two components, the deflection due to dead load and the deflection due to
superimposed dead load and live load, see figure (4.5).

Structural Design of Beams

25

START

Input data: Section properties, Load, Material


properties
Calculate Vc

Vu

No web steel

1
Vc
2
N

Vu

Enlarge section

Vc

Ye

Use min required


web steel

Vs

Vu

8 f c' bd p

Vc

Select web steel


0.75h 60cm min .req.s

END

Vs

Vu

Vc

Ye

Use s = s/2 for same Av


computed above
Figure (4.4) Flowchart for shear web reinforcement

4.2.8

Initial or short term deflection

4 f c' bd p

Structural Design of Beams

26

START

Input data: Section properties, Load, Material


properties
Calculate camber due to prestress
Pi eL2
i
8 Ec I c

Calculate deflection due to self


weight
5WD L4
D
384 E I
Calculate effective moment of inertia
Ie

M cr
Ma

Ic

M cr
Ma

I cr

Ic

Calculate deflection due to live and superimposed dead load


5 WSD WL L4
SD L
384 Ec I e
Figure (4.5) Flowchart for immediate moment curvature
camber and deflection
Where:
Ma = Maximum moment in member at stage deflection is computed
Mcr = Cracking moment
Icr = Moment of inertia of cracked section transferred to concrete
e = Eccentricity of the tendons measured from centroid of cross section
Ic = Moment of inertia of the concrete cross section.

4.2.9

Long term effects on deflection and camber

The PCI multipliers method provides a multiplier C1 which takes account of long term
effects in prestressed concrete members. The following table provide multipliers of
immediate deflection and camber. Shaikh and Branson (1970), propose that substantial
reduction can be achieved in long term camber by the addition of nonprestressed steel.
In that case, a reduction multiplier C2 can be used given by:

Structural Design of Beams

27

C1
C2
1

As
As

Aps

(4.19)

Aps

Table (4.2) C1 Multipliers for long-term camber and deflection


At erection
Deflection (downward) component-apply to the elastic deflection due
to the member weight at release of prestress

1.85

Camber (upward) component-apply to the elastic camber due to


prestress at the time of release of prestress

1.80

Final
Deflection (downward) component-apply to the elastic deflection due
to the member weight at release of prestress

2.70

Camber (upward) component-apply to the elastic camber due to


prestress at the time of release of prestress

2.45

Deflection (downward) component-apply to the elastic deflection due


to the superimposed dead load only

3.00

The calculated deflections are then compared with the allowable ones as per table 9.5(b)
of the ACI 318-05 Code, see table 4.2 above

CHAPTER 5

Design Optimization Problem


Formulation

5.1

Introduction

In an optimization problem some of the parameters can be considered as


preassigned or fixed parameters and others are considered as design variables. The
design variables are determined in such a way that the value of an objective function,
which is often the cost of the structure, becomes minimum. Some restrictions, called
design constraints, may limit the acceptable values of the design variables.
Arora (1989) stated that the correct formulation of a problem takes roughly 50%
of the total effort needed to solve it. The proper formulation of a design optimization
problem not only affects the optimum solution but can also influence the appropriate
choice of solution technique of the problem. Formulation of an optimization problem
includes definition of fixed parameters, design variables, objective function and design
constraints. In this chapter, these components of an optimization problem are presented
for the design optimization of a simple reinforced and prestressed simple concrete
beams. The beams have a rectangular cross section and a simple span, in addition the
prestressed concrete beam is assumed to be designed for partial prestressing, which
means that it consists of normal reinforcing steel in addition to the prestressing tendons.

5.2

Fixed parameters

The span of the beam, the characteristic strength, modulus of elasticity and unit
weight of concrete and reinforcement, the intensity of the dead and live loads are
assumed to be fixed parameters. It is assumed that the total cost of concrete and
reinforcement is proportional to volume and weight of each material, respectively.
Consequently, the total cost of a structure is calculated using fixed parameters of the
cost of unit volume of concrete and unit weight of reinforcement.

5.3

Design variables

An important first step in the formulation of an optimization problem is to identify


the design variables. Design variables should be independent of each other. If one of the
design variables can be expressed in terms of others then that variable can be eliminated
from the model.

Design Optimization Problem formulation

29

In the present study the width, depth and the number and size of bars in a given
section of the RC beam are considered as design variables, the width, depth, the number
and size of bars, the number and size of tendons and the eccentricity of the tendons in a
given section of the PC beam are considered as design variables.
The width of the beam, number and size of bars, number of tendons variables are
taken as integer variables. Although width of the beam may theoretically take any real
number, practically it is restricted to a set of discrete values. For example, it can change
from 40 cm to 80 cm with an increment of 5 cm, also the diameter of the bars are
chosen to be changing with an increment of 2.
Shear reinforcement may need to be provided along the span of the beam either it is a
RC beam or a PC one.

5.4

Objective function

The objective function is a criterion by which one or many acceptable


designs are preferred to others. The objective function is also called merit or criterion
function. It is often assumed that the objective function has to be minimized but in some
cases maximization of the objective function (e.g. maximization of mechanical
efficiency) is aimed. Although in many cases the weight of structure is considered as
the objective function. For RC structures the total cost of structure should be regarded
as the objective function. In general, the cost function may include the initial cost,
maintenance cost and expected failure cost.
In this research the minimization of the initial cost of the beam is carried out. The
most important cost items in the initial cost of the beams are usually the cost of
material. So the total cost is the cost of concrete and the cost of reinforcing and
prestressing steel.

5.5

Design constraints

The constraints reflect design requirements in the optimization problem. In other


words they limit the range of acceptable designs in the problem. In this research, the
constraints relevant to the design of RC and PC beam are applied using a penalty
function.

5.6

Optimization model for simple RC beams

In this section, the model of the RC beam is described, showing the fixed
parameters, the design variables, the design variables bounds, the design constraints
and the objective function.
A typical simply supported rectangular RC beam has a span of L m and may be carrying
a uniform dead and live loads of WD KN/m and WL KN/m respectively, in addition
to its own weight. It is intended to optimize the design of the beam according to the
provisions of the ACI 318-05 Code. Figures (5.1) and (5.2) below show the geometry of
the simple RC beam.

Design Optimization Problem formulation

30

W D = D .L KN /m ',

W L= L.L K N /m '

Lm
Figure (5.1): Typical simple RC beam with distributed loads

A
b

Sc

S
Section A-A

Figure (5.2): Geometry of a RC simple beam

5.6.1

The fixed parameters

The fixed parameters for this RC simple beam model are taken as the span of the
beam, max. aggregate size, the cost/m3 of concrete, the cost/ton of steel, the modulus of
elasticity of concrete, the compressive strength of concrete, the yield strength of
reinforcement and the value of the distributed dead and live loads.

5.6.2

Design variables

The design variables which are considered in this RC beam model are listed below:

5.6.3

b = Beam width
d = Effective beam depth
nb = Number of flexural bars
d b = Diameter of flexural bars

(integer values)
(real values)
(integer values)
(integer values)

Design variables bounds

As it is stated earlier, some or all of the variables have bounds, these bounds
results from different issues such as the provisions of the code under consideration, the
aesthetic of the structural elements in the building, the practical issues and the

Design Optimization Problem formulation

31

availability of some sizes of the material at the local market, listed below are the bounds
considered at this research project.
d min
b

db
2

hmin
bmin

Sc d s ,
b

d max

hmax

db
2

Sc d s

bmax

(5.1)

(5.2)

where bmin and bmax are chosen according to architectural and practical considerations
db

db min ,

db

db max

(5.3)

where d b min and db max are chosen according to range of reinforcement available at market
nb

nb min ,

nb

nb max

(5.4)

where nb min and nb max are chosen according to practical considerations


Where:
L
(Table 9.5a of the ACI - code)
16
hmax is chosen according to architectural considerations
hmin

Sc = Concrete cover
ds = diameter of stirrups

5.6.4

Design constraints

The design constraints which are considered in this optimization model are listed below:
Design for flexure

Mu

Mn

(5.5)

Minimum spacing between flexural bars


S

S min

(5.6)

db cm
S min

max 2.5 cm
4
* max agg. size
3

ACI - Code

(5.7)

Design Optimization Problem formulation

32

Maximum spacing between bars (cracking control)

S max

S max

(5.8)

min 300 *

280
280
,380 *
0.67 * f y
0.67 * f y

2.5 * 50 (cm)

ACI - Code

(5.9)

Maximum and minimum reinforcement ratios


Ast
b d

max ,

min

Ast
b d

(5.10)

Design for shear

2
3

Vs

fc

b d

(KN)

ACI - Code

(5.11)

Deflection control
Md
i l

2*

Ms

3 M cr ,

3 M cr

(5.12)

limit by ACI - code, as mensioned in table (4.1) in section 4.1.16

i d l

i l

limit by ACI - code, as mensioned in table (4.1) in section 4.1.16

Where:

Md

Bending moment under service dead loads only

Ms

Bending moment under service dead and live loads

M cr

Cracking bending moment

i l

2*

5.6.5

Immediate deflection due to live load only

i d l

Long term deflection due to service dead and live loads

Objective Function

The chief task of the optimization process is to select the values of variables in a
way that satisfies the provisions of the code regarding safety and serviceability within
the least cost possible, the function below defines the total cost of the RC simple beam
model in terms of the cost of the concrete and reinforcement used.

Design Optimization Problem formulation

Cc * ( Ac

As ) * L

33

Wstr

Cs *

* As

Wstr

($)

(5.13)

Where:
Cc = Cost of concrete per cubic meter
Cs = Cost of reinforcement steel per ton
Ac = Area of concrete cross section
As = Area of longitudinal reinforcement
L = Span of the beam
Wstr = Weight of stirrups
= Unit weight of steel reinforcement

5.7 Optimization model for simple PC beams


In this section, the model of the PC beam is described, showing the fixed
parameters, the design variables, the variables bounds, the design constraints and the
objective function.
A typical simply supported rectangular PC beam has a span of L m and may be carrying
a uniform superimposed gravity dead load of WSD KN/m, and a uniform live load of
WL KN/m, in addition to its own weight. It is intended to optimize the design of the
beam according to the provisions of the ACI 318-05 Code. Figures (5.3) and (5.4)
below show the geometry of simple PC beam
WSD=D.L KN/m',

WL=L.L KN/m'

Lm
Figure (5.3): Typical simple PC beam with distributed loads
B

B
b

Sc

S
Section B-B

Figure (5.4): Geometry of a PC simple beam

Design Optimization Problem formulation

34

5.7.1 Fixed parameters


The fixed parameters for the PC simple beam model are taken as the span of the
beam, max. aggregate size, the cost/m3 of concrete, the cost/ton of normal steel bars, the
cost/ton of prestressing tendons, the modulus of elasticity of concrete, the modulus of
elasticity of prestressing tendons, the modulus of elasticity of steel, the compressive
strength of concrete, the compressive strength of concrete at time of initial prestress, the
yield strength of reinforcement, the tensile strength of prestressing tendons, the yield
strength of prestressing tendons and the value of the distributed superimposed dead and
live loads.

5.7.2 Design variables


The design variables which are considered in this PC beam model are listed below:
b = Beam width
d p = Effective beam depth
nb = Number of flexural bars
d b = Diameter of flexural bars
nt = Number of tendons
dt = Diameter of tendons
e = Eccentricity of the c.g of the tendons

(integer values)
(real values)
(integer values)
(integer values)
(integer values)
(real values)
(real values)

5.7.3 Variables Bounds


As it is stated earlier, some or all of the variables have bounds, these bounds
results from different issues such as the provisions of the code under consideration, the
aesthetic of the structural elements in the building, the practical issues and the
availability of some sizes of the material at the local market, listed below are the bounds
d p min
b

dt
2

hmin

bmin

Sc d s ,
b

d p max

hmax

dt
2

Sc d s

bmax

where bmin and bmax are chosen according to Architectural and practical considerations
db

db min

db

d b max

where bmin and bmax are chosen according to range of bars available at local market
dt

d t min

dt

dt max

where d t min and d t max are chosen according to range of tendons available at local market

Design Optimization Problem formulation

nb

nb min

nb

35

nb max

(5.18)

where nb min and nb max are chosen according to practical considerations


nt

nt min

nt

nt max

(5.19)

where nt min and nt max are chosen according to practical considerations


e emin

emax

(5.20)

where emin and emax are chosen according to practical considerations


Where:
L
(Nawy, 2000)
16
hmax is chosen according to architectural considerations)
hmin
Sc
ds
dt
e

0.75

= Concrete cover
= diameter of stirrups
= diameter of tendons
= tendon eccentricity

5.7.4 Design constraints


The design constraints which are considered in this optimization model are listed below:
Design for flexure

Mu

Mn

(5.21)

Minimum spacing between flexural bars


S

Smin

(5.22)

db cm
S min

max 2.5 cm
4
* max agg. size
3

ACI - Code

(5.23)

Maximum spacing between bars (cracking control)

S max

(5.24)

Design Optimization Problem formulation

S max

min 300 *

36

280
280
,380 *
0.67 * f y
0.67 * f y

2.5 * 50 (cm)

ACI - Code

(5.25)

Maximum and minimum reinforcement ratios


2 M cr

M n,,,,

0.36

(5.26)

Limiting section stresses


f bi

f ci , f te

f c , f be

f t , f ti

f tmi

(5.27)

Where:
fci = maximum allowable compressive stress in concrete at initial prestress
fbi = Extreme fiber compressive stress in concrete at initial prestress
ftmi = maximum allowable tensile stress in concrete at initial prestress
fti = Extreme fiber tensile stress in concrete at initial prestress
fte = Extreme fiber compressive stress in concrete at service load
fc = Maximum allowable compressive stress in concrete at service load
fbe= Extreme fiber tensile stress in concrete at service load
ft = Maximum allowable tensile stress in concrete at service load
d
'
(
) = Total reinforcement index
t =
p
dp
1

Equivalent rectangular block depth, a


Neutral axis depth, c

(5.28)

Design for shear

Vs

fc

fy dp

Vu

0.75 (Vc

(KN)
fc

f y d p ) (KN)

ACI - Code

(5.29)

ACI - Code

(5.30)

Deflection control
Md
i l

2*

Ms

3 M cr ,

3 M cr

(5.31)

limit by ACI - code, as mensioned in table (4.1) in section 4.1.16

i d l

i l

limit by ACI - code, as mensioned in table (4.1) in section 4.1.16

Design Optimization Problem formulation

37

Where:

Md

Bending moment under service dead loads only

Ms

Bending moment under service dead and live loads

M cr

Cracking bending moment

i l

2*

Immediate deflection due to live load only

i d l

Long term deflection due to service dead and live loads

Geometry constraint
e

dt
2

ds

Sc

h
2

(5.32)

5.7.5 Objective Function


The function below defines the total cost of the PC simple beam model in terms of the
cost of the concrete and reinforcement used.
Z

Cc * ( Ac

( As

C ps *

* A ps

Aps )) * L
L

Wstr

Cs *

* As

Wstr

( $)

Where:
Cc = Cost of concrete per cubic meter
Cs = Cost of reinforcement steel per ton
Cps = Cost of prestressing tendons per ton
Ac = Area of concrete cross section
As = Area of longitudinal reinforcement
Aps = Area of prestressing tendons
L = Span of the beam
Wstr = Weight of stirrups
= Unit weight of steel reinforcement
Figure (5.5) shows a flowchart for the developed GA optimization models.

(5.33)

Design Optimization Problem formulation

38

GA Model

Call Input Data

Create initial population according to GA parameters


Iterate through generations

Design the beam for flexure, shear and deflection for each
individual population
Calculate the objective function (cost) for every individual in the
population
Check for constraint violation. Is there any violation?
Ye

Apply penalty function

Sort population according to their fitness function value

Apply crossover process

Apply mutation process

Produce the set of individuals of the new generation

Are stopping criteria met?


Iterate through
generations

Ye

END, Display
results

Figure (5.5) Flowchart for the developed GA optimization models

CHAPTER 6

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization


Technique

6.1

Historical background

Genetic algorithms belong to the family of evolutionary algorithms (EA).


Evolutionary strategies (ES), evolutionary programming (EP) and genetic programming
(GP) are some of the other major algorithms of this family. Evolutionary algorithms
have been inspired by the principles of evolution in nature. The idea of evolutionary
strategies was introduced in 1960 by Rechenberg and further developed by Rechenberg
and Schwefel in the 1960s at the Technical University of Berlin (Bck, 1996).
Evolutionary programming was pioneered by Fogel, Owens and Walsh and extended by
Fogel in the late 1980s (Bck, 1996). Genetic algorithms were developed by Holland, a
computer scientist and psychologist at the University of Michigan, his colleagues and
students in the 1960s and 1970s. He published a book entitled Adaptation in natural
and artificial systems in 1975 (Holland, 1975). In 1990, J. Koza proposed evolutionbased genetic programming (GP) to search for the best fit computer program to perform
a certain task (Koza, 1990).

6.2

Biological terminology in the context of GA

Some biological terms are often used in the context of genetic algorithms in the
spirit of analogy with biology. Being familiar with these terms enables better
understanding of the basic GA concepts.
Each cell of a living organism contains the same set of one or more chromosomes.
Chromosomes are strings of DNA (DNA stands for Deoxyribo-Nucleic_Acid, an acid

Collection of chromosomes
forming a cell (genome)

A gene of a chromosome

a
Allele

Figure (6.1) Biological terminology used in GA

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization Technique

40

that carries genetic information in a cell); they serve as a model for the organism. A
chromosome can be divided into genes. Any of the alternative forms of a gene that may
occur at a given position of a gene is called an allele. Each gene is located at a particular
position (locus) in the chromosome. The complete collection of chromosomes in the cell
is called the organisms genome. Figure 6.1 illustrates these concepts.

6.3

The basic GA procedure

GA is an iterative procedure that is motivated by the survival of the fittest


principle of Darwinian theory of natural evolution (Darwin, 1859). The flowchart of a
simple GA is given in Figure 6.2. A GA begins with a randomly created population of
solutions that are represented by a coded string of fixed length (chromosome). The
solutions are decoded and evaluated according to a criterion, called the fitness function.
Every solution is assigned a fitness value according to the obtained value of the fitness
function for that solution. To produce a new generation of solutions (new
population)
Initialize

Evaluation of the
fitness of individuals

Termination
?

Yes

Result
s

No
Choose the best individuals
and creation of a new
population using GA
Figure (6.1) Flowchart of a simple genetic algorithm
some solutions are first selected according to their fitness values to enter a mating pool.
The mating pool is then filled up by cloning the individuals (solutions), which have
been entered in the mating pool, in proportion to their fitness values (creation of the
mating pool). Creation of a new population is implemented by repeating the crossover
and mutation operations. In the crossover stage, two individuals are initially selected as
parents and then some segments of encoded strings of parents are swapped to create two
children. For the mutation, some children are selected randomly, then some alleles of
these children are altered at random. The fitness value of individuals in the new
generation is then evaluated. If the termination conditions are satisfied, the process is
terminated. Otherwise, the iterative process is repeated for a new generation.

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization Technique

41

6.3.1 Representation
In GAs, design variables are usually encoded and represented in a string
form. Two popular systems of coding are binary and real coding schemes. In the real
number representation, each variable is represented as a conventional floating-point
number. Binary and real codings differ mainly in the way of implementation of GA
processs. In this project the basic binary coding method is used.
Binary coding
In this method, design variables are represented by a string of bits, 0 or 1 in a
binary arithmetic system. Figure 6.3 illustrates how n design variables in a particular
problem form a binary string. In this figure, sxn is a binary number in a reserved location
for n-th design variable. Each binary number in a given location of the binary string
shows an encoded integer decimal number. This integer number corresponds to a
specific value of a certain design variable. Therefore, the length of each sub-string sxi
should be sufficient to produce all integer numbers corresponding to a given design
variable xi. If the lower and upper bounds on the i-th design variable are xil and xiu ,
respectively and the increment for the possible values for this design variable in the
specified range is i, the required binary sub-string length to represent this variable can
be computed as follows:
x u xil
li ceiling (log 2 ( i
))
(6.1)
i

where ceiling(x) is a function which delivers the closest integer number to the argument x
11101011001011010111..1010
sx 1

sx2

sx3

sxn

Figure (6.1) A binary string to represent n design variables


but not smaller than x. Therefore, the total binary string length, lst, for n design variables
is:
n

l st

li .

(6.2)

i 1

Every gene with a specific number of bits of the length li generates np possibilities for
the configuration of a gene (schema), where np is:
n p 2 li .
(6.3)
In the process of random creation of the initial population, all possible solutions should
have equal probability of creation.

6.3.2 Basic GA processes


A typical genetic algorithm includes four processes: selection, creation of the mating
pool, crossover and mutation. In the literature, some other processes like inversion,
crowding, dominance, immigration, segregation, speciation, sharing, intrachromosomal
duplication, deletion and translocation may be found (DeJong, 1975, Goldberg and
Richardson, 1987, Mitchell, 1998, Coley, 1999, Pham and Karaboga,

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization Technique

42

2000) among many others. The use of these additional processes is optional in a
GA. Depending on the problem and the selected representation scheme some of these
processs can be applied. In the present research only the four main processs, i.e.
selection, creation of the mating pool, crossover and mutation have been used.
6.3.2.1

Selection

In different stages of a GA some individuals are selected by a randomized


technique for performing certain GA processs on them. The method of selection of
individuals has a significant influence on driving the search towards a promising area
and finding a good solution within a short time. However, decreasing the diversity of
the population may cause premature convergence to a local optimum. Many selection
methods have been discussed in the literature, among them roulette wheel (also referred
to as fitness-proportional selection), Boltzman selection, tournament selection, ranking
selection (linear and non-linear) and steady state selection (Goldberg and Deb, 1991,
Mitchell, 1998, Coley, 1999). In this project, roulette wheel selection method has been
implemented.
In the fitness-proportional selection, the selection probability for each individual
is proportional to its fitness value. The process of randomized selection of individuals
can be simulated using a roulette wheel in which the width of each slot corresponds to
the fitness of a specific individual of the population. The wheel is then spun and the
individual that come under the marker of the wheel is selected. Whitley (1989) pointed
out two weaknesses of the fitness-proportional selection, which are stagnation and
premature convergence of the search. When the relative difference between fitness
value of the individuals is small the search process stagnates. On the other hand, when
the relative difference between the fitness value of the individuals is large, the fittest
individuals dominate the creation of the next generation. Consequently, the search
prematurely converges to a solution.
6.3.2.2

Creation of the mating pool

Creation of the mating pool is a process in which some individuals in a population


are selected according to their fitness values as parents to form a mating pool. In this
process, the fitter individuals have a greater chance to be selected to enter the matting
pool. All individuals in a current population may initially be considered to enter the
matting pool. However, a criterion may be determined for the acceptance or rejection of
certain individuals for reproduction. The average fitness of the current population can
be considered as an acceptance limit for individuals to enter the mating pool.
Alternatively, it is possible to select a percentage of the existing population in the order
of decreasing magnitude of their fitness values that can enter the mating pool
(percentage of survivors). The second strategy for selection of individuals is
implemented in the GA developed in this project.
6.3.2.3
Binary-valued crossover schemes
Crossover is used to create two new individuals (children) from two randomly selected
parents from the mating pool. The parents may be selected by using any of the
aforementioned selection schemes. Several methods of crossover have been proposed in

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization Technique

43

the GA literature, among them one-point, two-point, uniform, cycle and arithmetic
crossover. Below the first two most common methods, which have been used in this
study, are described.
One-point crossover is the simplest type of crossover. In this method, one location
along the bit string of each parent is chosen at random. The parts of two parents after
the crossover site are swapped to create two offspring (Figure (6.4a)). One-point
crossover has some shortcomings (Coley, 1999, Mitchell, 1998). This method
recombines the bit strings in a limited way. Sometimes only a few bits in the parents
strings need to be altered. However, this method exchanges the whole set of bits after
the crossing site. This effect is called positional bias. Such positional bias implies that
long strings are likely to be destroyed under a one-point crossover (Coley, 1999,
Mitchell 1998). The segments exchanged between the parents always include the
endpoints of the strings, which is called endpoint effect. In addition, crossover of
parents string that are identical after the crossing point, has no effect, as the children
will be identical to the parents.
In order to reduce positional bias and remove two other aforementioned problems
of the one-point crossover, many researchers use two-point crossover. In this method,
two crossing sites are selected at random and the portions of strings between them are
exchanged as shown in Figure (6.4b).
Crossover site
Parent 1
Parent 2
Child 1
Child 2

10110100010101110
10010111010101011
10110100010101011
10010111010101110
a) One-point crossover
Two crossover sites

Parent 1
Parent 2
Child 1
Child 2

10110100010101110
10010111010101011
10110111010101110
10010100010101011
b) Two-point crossover

Parent 1
Parent 2
Child 1
Child 2

10110100010101110
10010111010101011
10010110010101010
10110101010101111
C) Uniform crossover

Figure (6.4) Three most common types of crossover

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization Technique

44

As Figure (6.4c) shows in uniform crossover every bit along the parents string is
exchanged at random. Each bit of an offspring in a specific position of its string can
randomly be adopted from each parent. Uniform crossover does not have any of the
aforementioned shortcomings of the one-point crossover. However, Researches have
exclaimed that this method can be highly disruptive especially in early generations
(Coley, 1999, Mitchell 1998).
6.3.2.4

Binary-valued mutation

The mutation process changes some randomly selected alleles in a randomly


selected string from 1 to 0, or vice versa, with a small mutation probability Pm as shown
in Figure (6.5). Mutation increases the diversity of the population and a chance of
finding global optimum or, at least a better solution. This process helps avoiding
premature convergence to a local optimum. The probability of mutation is typically of
the order of 0.001, i.e. one bit in every thousand is mutated (Coley, 1999). However, the
correct setting for Pm is problem-dependent. It is probably true that too low a rate is
likely to be less disastrous than too high a rate for most problems (Coley, 1999).

Before mutation

After mutation

10101011110011110

10101001111011110

Figure (6.5) Mutation

6.4
6.4.1

Mutated alleles

The Genetic Algorithm operators:


No of iterations

The no of iterations identifies the number of loops that the model must run in
order to find the best solution. Using very little number of iteration may allow little
application of the basic operators of the GA on the population, so the model will not be
able to discover wide range of developed populations (solutions) and the model may get
stuck to a suboptimal or infeasible solution. Meanwhile, using very high value of the
iteration may slow down very much the model which is not proffered in most cases.

6.4.2

Population size

The population size defines the number of initial (feasible and infeasible)
solutions which are created at the beginning of the GA model work. These initial
solutions are created taking into account the variables bounds which are stated in the
GA model. Limiting the population size to very little initial solutions will prevent the
development of much better solutions since the interaction between the initial solutions
are limited to a narrow range. Meanwhile increasing the population size enables the
genetic algorithm to search more points and thereby obtain a better result, however, the
larger the population size, the longer the genetic algorithm takes to compute each
generation. So one can experiment with different settings for population size that return
good results without taking a prohibitive amount of time to run.

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization Technique

6.4.3

45

Crossover Type

Crossover enables the algorithm to extract the best genes from different
individuals and recombine them into potentially superior children. Three types of
crossover are found in the literature of the GA, two of them are considered in this study,
namely: single point crossover and two point crossover.

6.4.4

Mutation

Mutation adds to the diversity of a population and thereby increases the likelihood
that the algorithm will generate individuals with better fitness values. Different values
of the mutation rate are considered in the models in order to examine the best mutation
rate that will lead to the optimum solution.

6.4.5

Number of matings

In this stage a percent of the total population size is chosen in order to perform the
crossover and mutation on it. In our models, this percent is chosen randomly and varies
between (0.3 and 0.8), these different values are examined in order to get the best
solution.

6.4.6 Penalty function


In a penalty method, a constrained optimization problem is converted to an
unconstrained problem by adding a penalty for each constraint violation to the objective
function, two different penalty functions are used in the two models, the first is the
simple penalty function and the second is the method that is proposed by Deb, (1998).

6.5

Elitist strategy

The elitist strategy, introduced by DeJong (1975), transfers some number of the
fittest individuals of the current generation according to the assumed percentage of elite,
Pre, to the next generation. Therefore, the best individuals are not lost due to the
crossover and mutation operations and the maximum fitness value in a generation can
not decrease as compared to the previous generation.

6.6

Constraint handling

As GAs are an unconstrained optimization technique; it is necessary to transform


the constrained design optimization problem to an unconstrained one. Several methods
for handling constraints by GAs have been proposed Michalewics, (1995). Among them
the rejecting strategy and methods based on a penalty approach can be named. In the
rejecting strategy, any design that violates one or more constraints is not accepted for
the involvement in the GA process to create a new population. In a penalty method, a
constrained optimization problem is converted to an unconstrained problem by adding a
penalty for each constraint violation to the objective function, the simple penalty
function is a famous function of the penalty method. It converts the constrained
nonlinear programming NLP problem to an unconstrained minimization problem by
penalizing infeasible solutions:

Genetic Algorithms as an Optimization Technique

46

P ( x, R, r )

f ( x)

R j g j ( x)
j 1

rk hk ( x)

(6.4)

k 1

The parameters R j and rk are the penalty parameters for inequality and equality
constraints, respectively.
The success of this simple approach lies in the proper choice of these penalty
parameters. One thumb rule of choosing the penalty parameters is that they must be so
set that all penalty terms are of comparable values with themselves and with the
objective function values. This is intuitive because if the penalty corresponding to a
particular constraint is very large compared to that of other constraints, the search
algorithm emphasizes solutions that do not violate the former constraint.
This way other constraints get neglected and search process gets restricted in a
particular way. In most cases, most search methods prematurely converge to a
suboptimal feasible or infeasible solution. Since a proper choice of penalty parameters
are the key aspect of the working of such a scheme, most researchers experiment with
different values of penalty parameter values and find a set of reasonable values.
Deb, (1998) proposed a technique for handling constraint optimization problems
for Genetic Algorithms. The proposed method belongs to both second and third
categories of constraint handling methods described by Michalewicz and Schoenauer
(1996). Although a penalty term is added to the objective function to penalize infeasible
solutions, the method differs from the way the penalty term is defined in conventional
methods. He devised the following fitness function, where infeasible solutions are
compared based on only their constraint violation:
f ( x),
F ( x)

if g j ( x)

0,

f max

g i ( x) ,

otherwise

j 1,2,......., m,
(6.5)

j 1

The parameter f max is the objective function value of the worst feasible solution in the
population. Thus, the fitness of an infeasible solution not only depends on the amount of
constraint violation, but also on the population of solutions at hand. However, the
fitness of a feasible solution is always fixed and is equal to its objective function value.
The two penalty functions discussed above are used in this research.

6.7

Fitness function

The fitness function is a criterion for the evaluation of the goodness of each
individual in a population. Since the fitness function is a figure of merit, and some of
the selection methods require a positive fitness value, it must therefore take positive
values. In typical cost optimization problems, minimization of some cost function is
carried out rather than maximization of utility or profit.

CHAPTER 7

Analysis of Optimization Results

7.1

Introduction

A typical genetic algorithm includes four basic processes: selection, creation of


the mating pool, crossover and mutation, these processes include seven basic operators,
namely: Number of iterations, Population Size, Mutation rate, Percent of population not
selected for mating, Crossover type, Selection function, Penalty function.
In this chapter, a tuning process of the GA operators was carried out. As it is
stated earlier in chapter 6, the operators of the GA are always problem dependent, so the
values of these operators have to be tuned in order to get the best results for the model
under consideration.
Also, the effect of using different values for the compressive strength of concrete
and the cost of the prestressing tendons on the cost functions was studied.

7.2

Numerical examples and analysis of results

In order to validate the developed GA models for both the RC and the PC cases,
two numerical examples were applied and the results are studied.

7.2.1 The RC simple beam numerical example


A simply supported rectangular RC beam example is studied in this chapter.
Figure (7.1) shows the beam with the fixed parameters. The data for this beam are as
follows:

W d= 7.85 K N /m ',

W l= 12.5 K N /m '

7m
Figure (7.1) The RC simple beam numerical example

Analysis of Optimization Results

48

The Fixed Parameters:


Span of 7 m.
Uniform dead load of 7.85 KN/m.
Uniform live load of 12.5 KN/m.
The own weight of the beam.
The characteristic strength for concrete f c ' = 24.5 MPa.
The yield strength of steel f y = 410 MPa.
The cost of concrete per cubic meter Cc = 60 $.
The cost of normal steel bars per ton Cs = 450 $.
The Design Variables:
The design variables which were considered in this RC beam model are listed
below:
b = Beam width
d = Effective beam depth
nb = Number of flexural bars

(integer values)
(real values)
(integer values)

db = Diameter of flexural bars

(integer values)

The Design Variables bounds:


b cm

30,70

d cm

70,100

nb

i.e., 30 b 70cm

4,12

d b (mm)

12,24

The Constraints:
The design constraints for the simply supported reinforced concrete beam model
were stated in section 5.6.4. These constraints were used for this beam
The Objective Function:
The objective function for the simply supported reinforced concrete beam model
as stated and explained in section 5.6.5. is:
Z

C c * ( Ac

As ) * L

Wstr

Cs *

* As

Wstr

($)

(7.1)

The model was run to optimize the design of a rectangular cross section for this beam
and loadings while satisfying the provisions of the ACI 318-05 Code.

Analysis of Optimization Results

49

7.2.2 The PC simple beam numerical example


A simply supported rectangular PC beam example is studied. Figure (7.2) shows
the fixed parameters of the example. The data for this beam are as follows:
W d = 2 K N / m ',

W l= 3 K N / m '

1 9 .5 m
Figure (7.2) The PC simple beam numerical example

The Fixed Parameters:


Span of 19.5 m.
Uniform superimposed gravity dead load of 2 KN/m.
Uniform live load of 3 KN/m.
The own weight of the beam.
The characteristic strength for concrete at 28 days f c ' = 41.4 MPa.
The characteristic strength for concrete at time of prestressing f c 'i = 33.1 MPa.
The yield strength of normal steel bars f y = 410 MPa.
The yield strength of prestressing tendons f py = 1517 MPa.
The ultimate strength of prestressing tendons f pu = 1862 MPa.
The cost of concrete per cubic meter Cc = 60 $.
The cost of normal steel bars per ton Cs = 450 $.
The cost of prestressing tendons per ton Cps = 1000 $.
The Design Variables:
The design variables which were considered in this PC beam model are listed
below:

b = Beam width
e = Eccentricity of the c.g of the tendons
nb = Number of flexural bars
db = Diameter of flexural bars
d p = Effective beam depth
nt = Number of tendons
dt = Diameter of tendons

(integer values)
(real values)
(integer values)
(integer values)
(real values)
(integer values)
(real values)

Analysis of Optimization Results

50

The Design Variables bounds:


b cm

30,70

e cm

10,50

nb

4,10

d b (mm)

12,18

d p (cm)

80,120

nt

2,20

d t (in)

0.25,0.5625

The Constraints:
The design constraints for the simply supported prestressed concrete beam model
were stated in section 5.7.4, these constraints were used for this beam
The Objective Function:
The objective function for the simply supported prestressed concrete beam model
was stated and explained in section 5.7.5. The function is stated again as:
Z

Cc * ( Ac
C ps *

( As

* A ps

Aps )) * L
L

Wstr

( $)

Cs *

* As

Wstr
(7.2)

It is intended to optimize the design of a rectangular cross section for this beam and
loadings while satisfying the provisions of the ACI 318-05 Code

7.2.3 Tuning the GA operators


Various values for each GA operator were tried bearing in mind the recommended
values of these operators. The operator was chosen and then the optimization models
(the RC and the PC beam models) were run several times. Then, the best value for each
operator is chosen (the best value is that which corresponds to the least cost among
other values). The models were run again to check various values of another operator
taking into account the best value of the preceding tuned operator.
7.2.3.1 Number of iterations
The number of iterations was studied by keeping the values of other parameters
fixed as follows:

Analysis of Optimization Results

51

The Population size = 100, the Mutation rate = 0.15, the Percent of population not
selected for mating = 0.5, Roulette Wheel selection function, Single and two point
crossover and Simple and Deb penalty methods.
Figures (7.3), (7.4), (7.5) and (7.6) show the results of tuning the number of
iterations. It is clear that by using a very little number of iterations (< 50), the optimizer
kept the value of the cost far away from the optimum (minimum). Therefore, the
obtained solution is not the best possible one. This means that using a very little number
of iteration may allow little application of the basic operators of the GA on the
population. Therefore, the model will not be able to explore wide range of developed
populations (solutions) and the model may get stuck to a suboptimal or infeasible
solution.
It can be said that as the number of iteration increases, the solution will enhance,
this is true until the number of iteration reaches the value of 200 for both the single
point and the two point crossover types, these results are the same when using both the
simple and Deb penalty functions, beyond this value, any increase in the number of
iteration will not significantly alter the best solution.
The number of iterations of 200 is a moderate value that could result in the
optimum solution in an acceptable time of run of the GA model for both the RC and PC
models. It can also be seen that the type of crossover and the type of the penalty
function has a small effect on the results of the GA model either on the trend of the
graph or on the minimum cost obtained.

170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
0

50

100

150

200

250

No. of iterations
One point crossover

two point crossover

Figure (7.3) No. of iterations Vs. Min cost for the RC beam

300

Analysis of Optimization Results

(Population Size = 100, Deb Penalty function)

Figure (7.4) No. of iterations Vs. Min cost for the RC beam
(Population Size = 100, Simple Penalty unction)

Figure (7.5) No. of iterations Vs. Min cost for the PC beam
(Population Size = 100, Deb Penalty function)

52

You might also like