EngOpt 2008 - International Conference on Engineering Optimization

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 01 - 05 June 2008.

A Technique for Optimal Sizing of Flexural Reinforced Concrete Beams Gines Santos Falcn, Sergio Gonzlez Garcia, Mariana Peixoto Piraciaba Vnia Karam, Jean Marie Dsir Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Laboratrio de Engenharia Civil Avenida Alberto Lamego, 2000 Parque Califrnia CEP: 28013-602, Fax: +55 22 27261517 ramal 24 Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ, Brasil gines@uenf.br; liluiser@uenf.br; marypiraciaba@yahoo.com.br, vjkaram@uenf.br, jean.marie@ufrgs.br 1. Abstract This paper presents a technique for optimal sizing of reinforced concrete beams with rectangular and T sections by minimizing the total fabrication cost. In the design of reinforced concrete structures the main characteristic is the non-linear behavior caused by the combination of mechanical properties of steel and concrete. The proposed optimization model considers the beams cross section geometry and the steel area in the tension or compression zones as design variables and imposes limitations related to best mechanical behavior of a reinforced beam. Balance of axial forces and bending moments of a reinforced concrete beam are performed considering a strain diagram between the ultimate limit states 3 and 4 (balanced failure). The cross-section areas of the compressed and tensioned steel, and the effective height of the concrete are chosen as design variables, and design constraints can include strain, stress and sizing constraints. The objective function is the cost of the reinforced concrete beams. The optimal design is performed by using the Sequential Quadratic Programming algorithm. All computational implementation was made in MATLAB computational environment. The emphasis is particularly placed on the practical applicability of the optimization technique in engineering practice. Graphical results are shown for optimal sizing of a reinforced concrete beam of rectangular and T cross sections for different bending moments. For validating of the proposed model the results are compared with those found in literature and usual practice of beam construction. Some applications of this proposed technique show significant savings in cost and in this way the material waste, our principal target. 2. Keywords: structural optimization, optimal sizing, rectangular and T cross sections 3. Introduction Actually the industry of the civil construction is developing quickly and becomes a very competitive market where the reduction in the cost of individual beam through pre-casting represents an important issue considering that these are produced in industrial processes in great amounts and then carried until the construction site. In elapsing of the time several studies have been published to optimize reinforced and pre-stressed concrete structures for building purpose dealing mainly with beams of rectangular sections and rarely about T cross sections. A large number of cross section dimensions combinations, as well as useful height, effective depth, beam width and steel reinforcement areas can yield equal nominal moment capacity of reinforced concrete beam. In the conventional procedure, a designer often assumes the beam section dimensions, and then the design is improved accordingly to previous experiences. The procedure can be repeated many times aiming at reducing costs and the enhancement of the mechanical performance of the beam. Using techniques of mathematical programming the solution of the problem consists, basically, in finding the best solution that identifies a point of maximum or minimum of an objective function, subjected to some restrictions. In this way, the optimal solution for the adopted model does not ask for previous experiences. Optimization leads to a better structural solution, the lightest and most economical one, guaranteeing architectural, safety, and constructive conditions. In the description of a problem of optimization the variables and parameters are defined to explain the physical problem, the restrictions to which the variables are subjected to and the objective function that has to quantify the quality of the project being studied. Optimization techniques can be divided into three categories: mathematical programming, optimization criteria method and heuristic search methods [3, 4]. In the linear programming, the objective function and the restrictions are linear functions of the project variables while nonlinear programming was developed for the optimization problems where the restrictions are nonlinear functions of the project variables. In the literature about this subject, it can be found several methodologies that provide solutions utilizing non linear programming techniques and also heuristic methods, like genetic algorithms [1]. Concerning structural reinforced concrete elements most of published articles are studies on optimization of the dimensions of rectangular cross-section beams, aiming at the minimum cost of fabrication [2-11]. In the last decades a few studies dealing with optimization of reinforced and pre-stressed concrete for building purpose have been released, being still rare the works that deal with T section beams. A number of analytical solutions can be found in the literature, in particular those resulting from the application of the Augmented Lagrangean Method [1]. In these works optimality conditions established by Karush-Kuhn-Tucker are used to identify the points where an optimal solution should be expected. Then, applying second-order conditions the optimal solutions of the problem are verified. One likes to remark, that these methodologies are academically attractive, but are very limited for practical use. Similar works have been carried through with the objective to optimize plane and spatial frames [12-16]. According to the knowledge of the authors, these researches are open for studies due to the complexity of interaction among the elements of the structure.

In this work beams of rectangular and T cross sections have been optimized by using nonlinear programming technique and the implementation of computational codes in MATLAB environment. For this, a mathematical modeling with the purpose of minimizing the cost manufacture of beams has been developed. The emphasis is particularly placed on the practical applicability of the optimization technique in engineering practice. Results of this model have been compared with those of similar works. 4. Mathematical Modeling Initially, the design variables, the objective function and the design constraints are presented for the problem of cost minimization of the rectangular cross section and then the model for cost minimization of T section beam. 4.1 Mathematical Modeling of Rectangular Beam Section The width of the cross-section of the beam is a known value, because in a structural design usually the width is defined in accordance with the thickness of the wall or for architectural needs. In this way, the variables to be optimized in a beam of rectangular crosssection are: the useful height of the transversal section of the beam (d), the area of tensioned reinforcement and the area (As) of the compressed reinforcement (A's). Additionally, this model has also been tested to observe its performance when the beam width (bw) is considered as a design variable. In the objective function, Eq. (1), material costs as well as workmanship costs for the manufacture of the beam are taken in account, including these costs in the concrete, the longitudinal reinforcement and the used formwork. The equation then reads: (1) f (x) = b d + a C + A + A' C + b + 2 d + a C
w

))

Where: f(x) represent the objective function; Cc is the cost of the concrete per unit volume; s is the specific weight of the steel; Cs is the cost of the steel per unit volume; Cf is the cost of the formwork per unit surface. In this model the cost function, f(x), represents cost of the manufacture of the beam per unit of length. In order to compare results with Nina [11], it uses a=3cm; Cc=226.50 R$/m3 for conventional concrete; s=7850 kg/m3; Cs=4.36 R$/kg for steel CA-50; Cf=42.10 R$/m2 for wood formworks. 4.1.1- Restrictions of Balance for the Rectangular Beams In the ultimate limit state, beams submitted to simple bending need to respect the conditions of force and moment balance.

Figure 1. Diagram of tension for a beam transversal section According to figure 1, balance equations should be:

M
Then one can obtain:

st

0,8 d = 0 Fsc (d a ) + Fcc d = Msd 2

x

= 0 Fcc + Fsc Fst = 0

(2)

(3)

sc A 's (d a) + 0,80 X b w 0,85 fcd (d 0,4 X) Msd = 0

c X= + st c d

0,80 X bw 0,85 fcd + sc A 's st A s = 0

(4) (5)

The compatibility relations are used to define the tension in the reinforcement. The position of the neutral line, X, can be geometrically determined from figure 1 and is expressed by: (6)

Aiming at simplifying the formulae some constant expressions have been taken as Ki,, being then:

K 1 = 0 .8

K 2 = 1 0.4
The balance restrictions result in the form:

c + st

0 . 85 f cd b w

fyd A 's (d a ) + K1 K 2 d2 Msd = 0

K 1 h + f yd A s' f yd A s = 0

c + st

(7) (8)

(9) (10)

The design of simple bending must always be addressed in a way that the failure occurs in state 2 or 3 of strain, since in these cases the steel will have a ductile rupture, showing observable displacements and an intense cracking. The most economic design is the border between state 3 and 4, where the concrete works in maximum capacity and the tensioned steel starts to yield. Thus, in this work the balanced rupture was used (border between states 3 and 4). In this way the tensioned reinforcement works with tension fyd and the height of the neutral line is settled in function of the strain limits of the steel and the concrete. 4.1.2 Inequality Constraints in Rectangular Section Beam Inequality constraints are used to define the minimum and maximum limits for each project variable. They are summarized thereafter. For example, the restriction that keeps the reinforcement within the limits, preventing from an unacceptable cracking of the concrete reads: ' (11)

As + As PAC bw (d + a ) 0 As' 0,5 Ast 0

PAC is the ratio between the area of reinforcement and the area of concrete in the section. The Brazilian Norm NBR 6118 [17] limits the percentage of compressed reinforcement to 50% of the tensioned one: (12)

Also, the minimum necessary reinforcement for the design against simple bending for rectangular beam reads [17]: (13)

A f As ,min = 0.035 c cd f yd

0.0015

in witch Ac is the cross section area of concrete; fyd is the steel yielding strength and fcd is the concrete design strength. 4.2 - Mathematical Modeling of T Section Beams In what follows, the problem of the minimization of a typical T cross section is formulated. The geometry and principal dimensions are illustrated in figure 2. The T section can be considered more efficient that the rectangular section, since the concrete section is narrow in tensioned zone.

Figure 2. T cross section geometry The design variables in this case are: the effective height (d), the flange height (hf), the reinforcement cross area (As) and the compressed reinforcement cross area (As). Similarly, as in the case of rectangular cross section, material and manufacturing costs are included in concrete and reinforcement prices through the objective function. (14) '

f (x) = {(bhf ) + bw ((d + a) hf ) }Cc + As + As Cs + {2[(d + a) + b]}C f

4.2.1-Equilibrium Constraints in T Section When the behavior of a beam submitted to simple bending is assumed as depicted in figure 3, the balance of the forces in the section of the beams reads:

Figure 3. Strain and stress ultimate limit state of the T section

x

The balance equations can be written as:

h f ' [(b b w ) h f 0,85 fcd ] d + [(0,68 b w X fcd ) (d 0,4 X )] + sc A s (d a ) Msd = 0 2

[(b b w ) hf 0,85 fcd ] + (b w 0,8 X 0,85 fcd ) + sc A 's st A s = 0

st

h = 0 Fsc (d a ) + 2 Fcc d f 2

= 0 Fcc + Fsc Fst = 0

(15)

+ Fcc (d 0,4 X ) = Msd

(16)

[(

(17) (18)

Considering the neutral line position under the beam flange ensures that the section is behaving as a T section beam as illustrated in figure 3. Using the same equations for Ki, as already defined above for the rectangular section, the restrictions and compatibility are given by: ' (19)

f cd As' (d a ) K 1 K 2 d 2 + b b w h f 0,85 f cd

K 1 d + f yd As f yd A + (b b w ) h f 0,85 f cd = 0
hf d 2

M sd

=0

(20)

4.2.2-Inequality Constraints The same inequality constraints considered for optimization of the rectangular section are applied. In addition, one considers that the neutral line, X, must be always below the flange. The inequality constraints then state: (21) A ' + A P b (d + a h ) + b h 0
s s AC

A 0,5 As 0 hf X 0
w
' s

(22) (23)

in witch X is the depth of neutral line defined by compatibility relations as defined in equation (6). 5. Optimization Technique Using mathematical programming techniques the solution of the problem consists, basically, in finding the best solution that identifies a point of maximum or minimum of and objective function, taking into account the design constraints. Applying this procedure, previous experience is not necessary. In the present methodology, one considers compatibility relation, Eq. (6). Because, this represents the best mechanical behavior of reinforced beam, and this relation is kept through all the iterative process of optimization. In this way, the given optimal solutions are compelled to minimum cost and the beam behavior falls between strain states 3 and 4. Using this nonlinear programming model, the minimum cost beam design could be achieved directly, exactly matching ultimate moment of resistance of beam in equilibrium with the applied bending moment. 5.1 Optimization Algorithm The algorithm FMINCON, which uses a Sequential Quadratic Programming, was used and it is available in optimization toolbox in MATLAB. In this code, the function solves a quadratic programming sub problem at each iteration and an estimate of the Hessian matrix is updated using the BFGS formula [1]. k The gradient consists of the partial derivatives of f(x) at the point x . The derivatives (gradients of the objective and constraints) are evaluated by finite-differencing technique. Algorithm FMINCON finds the minimum of a problem specified by:

c( x) 0 c ( x) = 0
eq

min

f ( x ) subject to

lb x ub

(24)

x are design variables; c(x) are inequality constraints, ce(x) are equality constraints, lb and ub are lower and upper boundary condition. Numerically x, c, ceq, lb and ub are vectors, c(x) and ceq(x) are functions that return vectors, and f(x) is a function that returns a scalar. In the proposal model, the objective function, f(x), inequality constraints, c(x), and equality constraints, ceq(x), can be nonlinear functions and upper boundary constraints, ub, is not used. All computational implementation was made in MATLAB computational environment. The vectors ceq and c are defined as followed: Ceq(1) - Balance of forces, as defined in Eq.(9); Ceq(2) - Balance of moments, as defined in Eq.(10); C(1) - Ratio between steel and concrete areas, as defined in Eq.(11); C(2) - Ratio between tensioned and compressed steel area, as defined in Eq.(12); C(3) - Minimum longitudinal reinforcement ratio, as defined in Eq.(13). The proposed model looks for optimal size cross section of a beam, with ultimate strength matching with external bending moment. In accordance with civil construction practice was considered different values for external bending moment were considered varying from 50000kN.cm to 120000 kN.cm. Several initial configurations, x0, and lower boundary conditions, lb were tested. The discussion of the results begins with rectangular beam and then T section beam is considered. 5.2 Analysis of Results for Rectangular Section The design variables are the effective height (d), tensioned steel area (As) and compressed steel area (As). According to practical recommendations the lower boundary conditions were d>5 cm, As>1 cm2 and As>0 cm2.

Figure 4. Optimal section dimensions while varying bending moment Figure 4 shows results for bending moment, Msd, varying from 5000 kN.cm to 120000 kN.cm. In this case, the initial configuration, x0, was: d=40 cm, As=1.0 cm2 and As=1.0 and constant width beam bw=15 cm. Curves are given with results for effective height (d), tensioned steel area (As) and compressed steel area (As). In general, one can observe that the curves are smooth, but for some configurations, one has points apparently away from the curve. For example, for bending moment Msd=65000 kN.cm it was obtained useful height of d=81.65 cm. However, the optimal value d=97.38 cm for this same moment would be a point situated at the blue curve. In the following it is shown that this configuration is also a local minimum. In figure 5, obtained results can be observed for variations of initial useful height, d0, from 10 to 150 cm for fixed bending moment Msd=650000 kN.cm. It is verified that d=81.65 cm obtained for d0=40 cm in figure 4 is local minimum and the result more frequent for different bending moments is d=97.38 cm, a point exactly at the smooth curve of figure 4. In this test, the beam width was set to 15 cm. One can observe from this figure that this constant width beam value was more indicated for thick beams. Actually, it is observed that for d0 > 75 cm, the solutions converge to the same local minimum, as observed in blue curve in figure 5.

Figure 5. Optimal section dimensions with different values of d0 Thus, one can observe that there are several configurations with same minimum cost and that the optimal cross section geometry depends substantially on the compressed steel area. However, all found solutions fully satisfy equality constraints and inequality constraints with ease. In fact, this optimization problem has several local minimums that satisfy the equality constraints and also inequality constraints. As an example of the iterative optimization process, tables 1 and 2 summarizes the record of the optimization process for d0=100 cm e two different values of Msd, and the resultant optimal configurations. Table 1. Iterations for bending moment, Msd=65000 kN.cm and initial effective height, d0=100cm max constraint 0 4 1.34888 7762 1 8 1.95298 152 2 12 1.95082 0.08869 3 16 1.95081 3.081e-008 Optimal configuration: d=97.38 cm As=20.506cm2 and As=0 cm2. Minimum cost fx=195.08 R$/m. Inequality constraints: c(1)= -39.722; c(2)=-10.253 and c(3)=-18.315. Equality constraints: ceq(1)=-1.1369e-013 and ceq(2)= 3.0814e-008. Iteration F-count f(x) Directional derivative 0.604 0.604 -0.00216 -1.26e-006

Table 2. Iterations for bending moment, Msd=100000 kN.cm and initial effective height, d0=100cm max constraint 0 4 1.34888 2.724e+004 1 8 2.49134 1204 2 12 2.51631 296.6 3 16 2.5122 8.065 4 20 2.51208 0.006672 5 24 2.51208 1.067e-008 Optimal configuration: d=99.851 cm As=28.545 cm2 and As=7.5185 cm2. Minimum cost f=251.21 R$/m. Inequality constraints: c(1)= -25.647; c(2)=-6.7539 and c(3)= -26.298. Equality constraints: ceq(1)= -7.5033e-012 and ceq(2)= -1.0667e-008 Iteration F-count f(x) Directional derivative 1.14 0.025 -0.00411 -0.000118 -1.9e-007

In tables 1 and 2 one observes that the obtained results satisfy fully equality constraints and inequality constraints with ease. In order to compare results with Nina [11], it was tested the initial configuration d0=120.0 cm, As=1.0 cm2 e As'=1.0 cm21.0 and

width beam constant of bw=15 cm. The results are shown in figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6. Optimal section dimensions while varying bending moment In figure 6 smooth curves are observed for all variables and the optimal configurations for minimum cost are obtained without compressed steel area. This fact verifies the theoretical analysis of proposed model.

Figure 7. Minimum cost while varying bending moment In the figure 7 shows cost curves obtained in the present work represented in blue and results of Nina [11] depicted in red. The methodology proposed in the present work achieves smaller costs. For example, for Msd=65000 kN.cm the cost values differences is the order of 14.8%. In addition, the optimization model was tested, in this time the cross section width, bw, was considered as design variable. In this case, the quantity of local minimums increases significantly, due to the great number of combinations of dimensions d, bw, As and As that satisfy all constraints for minimum cost and the results also depends on the initial configuration adopted. As an example of this

optimization model, figure 8 displays the results for variable bending moments.

Figure 8. Dimensional optimization of the rectangular section taking bw as the design variable Figure 8 presents the cost curves for this case - bw as additional design variable - in blue and minimums costs obtained in Nina [17] in red. One can observe that this model has better solutions than the reference one. 5.3 Analysis of Results for T Section Beams In this case, the design variables are the effective height (d), flange height (hf), tensioned steel area(As) and compressed steel area (As). Taking practical recommendations the inferior limits to lower boundary conditions have been hf =5 cm, the As= 1 cm2 and the As=0 cm2. As an example some achieved results are presented. In figure 9 the actual results are shown for T section beam with different initial configurations, d0=20 cm, d0=80 cm and d0=120 cm and lower boundary conditions were: As>1.0, As>0 and hf>5.

Figure 9. Optimal values of As and As' for a variable bending moment For bending moment Msd=70000 kN.cm, various possible results are observed, i.e. combinations of the variables that satisfy the

proposed model with minimum local cost. All configurations satisfy the inequality constraints with ease and also the equality constraints with great accuracy. In all cases, results were obtained with no compressed steel, As'=0. This result confirms theoretical previsions in which the most economic beam is obtained with simple steel reinforcement.

Figure 10. Optimal values of d and hf for d0=20, d0=80 and d0=120 cm In figure 10, the results are presented for effective height (d), flange height (hf). In results, it is observed that neutral line position is always below the flange position, in accordance with the best geometric design where one of the borders enters the ultimate strain limit between states 3 and 4.

Figure 11. Optimal cost for different values of d0 for a variable bending moment Figures 9, 10 and 11 show for bending moment Msd=70000 kN.cm the optimum configuration: d=86.35 cm, As= 23.163 cm2, As= 0 cm2, hf=15.296 cm and minimum cost of 190.3 R$/m. For all initial configurations tested, the curves of minimum cost almost coincide. This shows that there are steel reinforcement and geometric combinations that define local minimum for virtually identical minimum cost. Finally, table 3 reveals the optimal

configurations for three initial values of useful height d0 with Msd=70000kN.cm:

0

d (cm) 20 80 120

Table 3. Actual final configurations for different values of d0 d(cm) As(cm2) As(cm2) bf(cm) 88.087 22.737 1.8277e-025 13.9 86.35 23.163 3.356e-02 15.296 101.41 20.413 7.9398e-022 5.0 Table 4. Comparison between proposed model and [18] Project variables d(cm) As(cm2) As(cm2) This model Pinheiro[18] This model Pinheiro[18] This model Pinheiro[18] 28.221 42 32.603 27.30 0 0 31.298 42 35.089 33.92 0 0

Cost(R$/m) 190.34 190.42 193.61

Cost (R$/m) This model 204.21 217.96 Pinheiro[18] 206.85 229.49

Msd(kN.cm) 31500 37800

Table 4 compares the results of the proposed model with those presented in [18]. These results show that this model provides optimal solutions with lower cost than that described in this reference. 6. Conclusions This work proposes a friendly methodology for optimum designing of reinforced concrete beams. All the computational implementation was carried out in the MATLAB computational environment. One uses the optimization algorithm FMINCON, available in the software toolbox. The actual program is very easy to use and its results are easily comprehensible without the need of abacus or tables. The actual results strongly depend on the relative costs between concrete, steel and the formwork material and these costs vary from one region to another and also along the time. This modeling achieves local minimum which fully satisfies the equality and inequality constraints. The actual results are very sensitive to the initial configuration and the material costs adopted. This model achieved a lower cost than the bibliographic reference and it was used for validation of the present methodology. 7. References 1. J. S. Arora, Introduction to Optimum Design, Mc Graw Hill New-York, 1989. 2. C. CAMP, S. PEZESHK, G. CAO, Optimized Design of two-Dimensional Structures Using a Genetic Algorithm - Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1998,124(5), 551-559. 3. B.K. CHAKRABARTY, Models for Optimal Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams - Computer & Structures, 1992, 42(3), 447-451. 4. B.K. CHAKRABARTY, A model for optimal Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam - Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1992, 118(11), 3238-3242. 5. S. KANAGASUNDARAM, B.L. KARIHALOO, Minimum-cost Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures - Structural Optimization, 1990, 2(3), 173-184. 6. S. KANAGASUNDARAM, B.L. KARIHALOO, Minimum-Cost Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns - Computers & Structures, 1991, 41(3), 509-518. 7. Y. A. AL-SALLOUM, G. H. SIDDIQI, (). Cost-Optimum Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams - ACI Structural Journal, 1994, 91(6), 647-655. 8. A. ADAMU; B. L. KARIHALO, Minimum Cost Design of RC Beams Using DCOC, Part I: Beams with Freely-Varying CrossSection. Structural Optimization, 1994, 7(4), 237-251. 9. A. ADAMU A.; B. L. KARIHALOO, Minimum Cost Design of RC Beams Using DCOC, Part II: Beams with Uniform CrossSection. Structural Optimization, 1994, 7(4), 252- 259. 10. R.C. SOARES, Otimizao de Sees Transversais de Vigas de Concreto Armado Sujeitas Flexo: Aplicao a Pavimentos. M. Sc. dissertation, Escola de Engenharia de So Carlos, Universidade de So Paulo, 1997. 11. T. C. Nina, Otimizao de Seo Transversais de Concreto Armado. M. Sc. dissertation, Escola de Engenharia de So Carlos, Universidade de So Paulo, 2006. 12. S. Huanchun; C. Zheng, Two-Level Optimum Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Integer Variables. Engineering Optimization, 1985, 9(3), 219-232. 13. H. MOHARRAMI; D. E. GRIERSON, Computer-automated design of reinforced concrete frameworks. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1993, 119(7), 2036-2058. 14. A. ADAMU; B. L.KARIHALOO, Minimum Cost Design of RC Frames Using the DCOC Method, Part II: Columns under Biaxial Bending Actions. Structural Optimization, 1995, 10(1), 33-39. 15. M. J. FADAEE; D. E. GRIERSON, Design Optimization of 3D Reinforced Concrete Structures. Structural Optimization, 1996, 12(2/3), 127-134. 16. R. J. Balling; X. YAO, Optimization of Reinforced Concrete Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1997,123(2), 193-202. 17. ABNT. NBR 6118, Projeto de Estruturas de Concreto Armado e Protendido. Rio de Janeiro, 2003 18. L. M. Pinheiro, Fundamentos do Concreto e Projeto de Edifcios; Escola de Engenharia de Estruturas; 2006, 95-96 19. MATLAB, Optimization Toolbox User's Guide.