Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF
2D STEEL FRAME STRUCTURES
8.1 Objectives
This chapter presents a genetic algorithm for design optimization of multibay multi
storey steel frameworks according to BS 5950 to achieve four objectives. The first is to
ascertain that the developed GA approach can successfully be incorporated in design
optimization in which framework members are required to be adopted from the
available catalogue of standard steel sections. The design should satisfy a practical
design situation in which the most unfavourable loading cases are considered. The
second is to understand the advantages of applying automated design approaches. The
third is to investigate the effect of the approaches, employed for the determination of the
effective buckling length of a column, on the optimum design. Here, three approaches
are tackled and results are presented. The fourth is to demonstrate the effect of the
complexity of the design problem on the developed algorithm. This involves studying
different examples, each of which have different numbers of design variables
representing the framework members. This chapter starts with describing the design
239
procedure for steel frame structures according to BS 5950, then combines this procedure
with the GA to perform design optimization of the steel frame structures.
Y,
mem
nc
N ,1
Ix s
max
N mem
b
X
Y
Y,
mem
nc
N , N b +1
Y
X
Ix s
hN
Y
X
n ,1
I xs
Y
X
max
n mem
b
1, 1
Ix
max
1, n
Ix
ns , N b +1
Ix
1 , N b +1
Ix
hn
h1
Y
X
B1
BN
240
BS 5950 recommends that the designer selects appropriate standard sections for
the members of a steel framework in order to ensure a sufficient factor of safety is
achieved. This is accomplished by considering ultimate and serviceability limit states.
In elastic design of rigid jointed multistorey frameworks, BS 5950 recommends
that a linear analysis of the whole framework is carried out. This was achieved by
utilising the finite element package ANSYS, followed by a design criteria check. This
can be summarised in the following steps.
Step 1. Preparation of data files and these include framework geometry as well as
loading cases.
Step 2. Classification of the framework into sway or nonsway. This is achieved by
applying the notional horizontal loading case. A framework, analysed without including
the effect of cladding, is classified as nonsway if the difference between the upper
UY ,nmem ( x ) and lower LY ,n mem ( x ) horizontal nodal displacements of each column
c
Ln mem
2000
approaches:
241
a more accurate method (SCI, 1988) based on finite element analysis as applied in
Section 7.3.1;
the compression flange that occurs on the underside of a beam (see MacGinley, 1997).
To evaluate Leff
( xi , j ) of beams and columns, It is presupposed that the lateral
Y, n mem
bracing system restrain members from movements out of plane ( X - Z plane) at their
mid spans. Thus, Leff
( xi , j ) equals to the half of the length of the member Lnmem .
Y, n mem
Step 4. Calculation of the slenderness ratios X, nmem ( x ) and Y, nmem ( xi , j ) of the
member n mem using
X, n mem ( x ) =
Leff
( x)
X, n mem
rX, n mem
Y, nmem ( xi , j ) =
Leff
( xi , j )
Y, n mem
rY, n mem
(8.2)
(8.3)
where rX, nmem and rY, nmem are the radius of gyrations of the section about X and Y axes.
Sle
Step 5. Check of the slenderness constraints G s , n mem for each member using
Sle
G s , n mem ( x ) 1 , s = 1, 2
where
Sle
G1 , n mem ( x ) =
Sle
X, nmem ( x )
G 2 , n mem ( xi , j ) =
180
(8.4)
and
Y, nmem ( xi , j )
180
(8.5)
(8.6)
242
Step 6. Analysis of the framework under each loading case q to obtain the normal force,
shearing forces and bending moments for each member.
Step 7. Check of the strength requirements for each member n mem under the loading
case q as follows:
a) Determination of the type of the section of the member (e.g. slender, semicompact,
compact or plastic).
b) Evaluation of the design strength py , n mem of the member.
Str , q
(8.7)
Mq
X, n mem
( x)
M CX , n mem ( xi , j )
for tension
members
Str , q
G1 , n mem ( x ) =
(8.8)
F
n mem
( x)
Mq
X, n
mem ( x )
M CX , nmem ( xi , j )
X, n mem
for comprisson
members
axis (x) at the critical region of the member under consideration, p y, n mem ( xi , j ) is the
design strength of the member and M CX , n mem ( xi , j ) is the moment capacity of the
243
member section about its major local axis (X). The effective area and gross area of the
section of the member under consideration Ae, n mem ( xi , j ) and Ag, nmem ( xi , j ) are equal.
Str , q
X, n mem
( x)
for tension members
M b , n mem ( x )
Str , q
G 2 , n mem ( x ) =
(8.9)
F
n mem
( x)
q
n mem
( x) M
q
X, n mem
( x)
for comprisson
members
M b , n mem ( x )
Chapter 2 for each loading case (q). M b , n mem ( x ) is the buckling resistance moment.
Str , q
Str , q
G3 , n mem ( x ) =
Y, n mem
( x)
(8.10)
PY, n mem ( xi , j )
Y, n mem
( x ) is the critical
Each member should also satisfy the shear buckling constraint G 4 , n mem ( x ) if
d ( xi , j )
t ( xi , j )
63 ( xi, j ) .
(8.11)
Str , q
G 4 , n mem ( x ) =
Fq
Y, n mem
( x)
Vcr, n mem ( xi , j )
(8.12)
244
Gt , n mem ( x ) 1 , t = 1, 2 and 3.
(8.13)
Ser
G1 , n mem
c
Ln mem
300
where Lnmem is the length of the column under consideration. The indexes (U and L)
c
Ser
G 2 , n mem ( x ) =
b
nmem ( x )
b
Ln mem
n bmem = 1, 2 , , N bmem
(8.15)
360
where Lnmem is the length of the beam under consideration.
b
The flowchart given in Figure 8.3 illustrates the design procedure to BS 5950.
Description of the program developed for the design of steel frame structures is given in
Appendix C.
245
Start
Design of member n
mem
= 1, 2 , , N
mem
y, n mem
( x i , j ) of the member
NO
A
A
B
B
Tension
member?
YES
D
D
246
Is n
mem
= N mem ?
NO
YES
NO
Is q = Q?
YES
Compute the horizontal and vertical nodal displacements due to the
specified loading cases
End
247
Minimize F ( x ) =
n mem = 1
Wn mem Ln mem
Str , q
G s , n mem ( x ) 1 , s = 1, 2
Ser
Gt , nmem ( x ) 1 , t = 1, 2, 3
I xns , nb
I xns 1 , nb
1 , ns = 1, 2 , , N s , n b = 1, 2 , , N b + 1
(8.16)
x = ( x1T , x T2 , x Tj , , x TJ ) , j = 1, 2, , J
xi , j D j and
Dj
(d
j, 1
,d
j, 2
, , d
j,
where Wn mem is the mass per unit length of the member under consideration and is taken
Str , q
Sle
Ser
from the published catalogue. G r , n mem ( x ) , G s , n mem ( x ) and Gt , n mem ( x ) reflect the
strength, slenderness and serviceability criteria respectively. The vector of design
variables x is divided into J subvectors x J . The components of these subvectors take
values from a corresponding catalogue D j . In the present work, the crosssectional
properties of the structural members, which form the design variables, are chosen from
two separate catalogues (universal beams and columns covered by BS 4).
The flowchart in Figure 8.4 demonstrates the applied solution technique.
248
Start
NO
Design set = N po ?
New design
YES
249
Design set = 2, 3, , N p
New generation
Design set = N p ?
NO
New design
YES
Evaluate the objective and penalised functions
Convergence
occurred?
YES
NO
Store the best individuals, and impose them into the next
generation and carry out crossover and mutation
Stop
250
Minimize F ( x ) =
(8.17)
The convergence criteria and termination conditions detailed in Section 5.6.3.7 are
utilised where C av = 0.001, C cu = 0.001 and gen max = 200 .
251
8
4
5.00 m
5.00 m
10
9
1
10.00 m
10.00 m
The problem was run utilising the solution parameters described in Section 8.4.
When 4 design variables representing the framework members are taken into account,
the optimization process was carried out using 10 runs for each approach mentioned in
step 3 of Section 8.2. The optimization process was automatically terminated when one
of the termination conditions was satisfied. The solutions are listed in Table 8.1 while
the corresponding design variables of the optimum solution are given in Table 8.2.
Table 8.1. The solutions for the twobay twostorey framework (4 design variables)
Weight (kg)
Run
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
8640
7910
8870
8430
8010
8490
8690
7950
8630
8730
8360
8690
8630
7910
8630
8550
8110
8490
8430
8010
8750
8490
7910
8590
8750
8150
8870
10
8450
8110
8630
Average weight
8579
8043
8664
Minimum weight
8430
7910
8490
252
Table 8.2. The optimum solution for the twobay twostorey framework (4 design
variables)
Cross sections
Design
variable
Member
No.
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
1, 2, 5, 6
3, 4
7, 8
457 191 74 UB
9, 10
533 210 82 UB
533 210 82 UB
8430
7910
8490
Weight (kg)
12000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
0
10
20
30
40
50
Generation number
60
70
Similarly, the minimum weight design of the same framework under the same
loading cases is investigated when 6 design variables representing the framework
members are considered. The solutions obtained are listed in Table 8.3 while the
253
corresponding design variables of the best solution of each approach are also given in
Table 8.4. The convergence history of the best designs are also displayed in Figure 8.7.
Table 8.3. The solutions for the twobay twostorey framework (6 design variables)
Weight (kg)
Run
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
8490
7955
8700
8650
8015
8560
8600
8090
8495
8415
7870
8495
8430
7975
8570
8630
8030
8730
8600
8160
8630
8430
7870
8510
8550
8115
8495
10
8415
8100
8740
Average weight
8521
8018
8592.5
Minimum weight
8415
7870
8495
Table 8.4. The optimum solution for the twobay twostorey framework (6 design
variables)
Cross sections
Design
variable
Member
No.
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
1, 5
2, 6
254 254 73 UC
203 203 86 UC
7, 8
533 210 82 UB
533 210 82 UB
9, 10
533 210 82 UB
8415
7870
8495
Weight (kg)
254
12000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Generation number
From Tables 8.1 and 8.3, it can be observed that there is more than one solution
available, and the difference in weight between them is small. This could be of benefit
in using an automated design procedure that allows the designer to choose the
appropriate solution depending on the availability of the sections provided by
manufacturer. Moreover, applying design optimization allows the designer to achieve
better solutions when utilising more accurate methods for evaluating the effective
buckling lengths.
It is of interest also to compare the design variables of two solutions having the
same value of the objective function. This could add a new perspective to the
advantages of using automated design. In the first solution presented in Table 8.5, it can
be observed that the cross sections corresponding to the design variables representing
the columns are identical. The design variables corresponding to columns (1, 3 and 5)
are also the same in the second solution. This indicates that it may be economical to use
255
Table 8.5. Comparison between the design variables of two solutions having the same
value of the objective function
Cross sections
Design
variable
Member
No.
First solution
Second solution
1, 5
2,6
203 203 46 UC
203 203 71 UC
7,8
457 191 74 UB
9, 10
533 210 82 UB
8430
8430
Weight (kg)
5 2P
0.01P
10 4
P
36
2P
0.01P
0.01P
0.01P
2P
51
5.00 m
4P
11
5.00 m
4P
5.00 m
22
54
16
5.00 m
3.00 m
2
P
29
3.00 m
2P
28
3.00 m
2P 27
3.00 m
26
3.00 m
45
4P 23
49
53
52
44
4P 17
2P 30
40
4P 24
4P 18
48
12
7 4P
39
43
4P
47
46
2
13
4P
35
4P 25
4P 19
4P
42
8
2P
14
4P
41
3
38
37
9
34
4P 20
15 4P
2P
33
32
31
0.01P
2P
2P
50
55
21
5.00 m
256
The design optimization process was carried out using different numbers of design
variables representing the framework members. Here, 8 and 10 design variables were
considered. Figures 8.9 and 8.10 show the linking of 8 and 10 design variables
respectively. The three approaches described in Section 8.2 for the determination of the
effective lengths were applied (see Toropov et. al., 1999).
7
3
8
2
8
5
7
6
8
1
7
6
7
6
2
8
4
8
1
8
7
3
8
6
9
2
10
5
9
2
10
2
9
4
10
4
10
10
10
4
10
10
10
10
7
6
4
9
10
10
8
6
8
6
1
9
257
First, the optimization process was run using 8 design variables representing the
framework members. The solutions over 5 runs are given in Table 8.6. The design
variables corresponding to the optimum design of the three approachs are listed in Table
8.7.
Table 8.6. The solutions for the fivebay fivestorey framework (8 design variables)
Weight (kg)
Run
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
15455
14675
16101
15385
14851
15926
15465
14390
15991
15321
14935
15973
15367
14725
16299
Average weight
15398.6
14715.2
16058
Minimum weight
15321
14390
15926
Table 8.7. The optimum solution for the fivebay fivestorey framework (8 design
variables)
Design
variable
Cross sections
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
305 305 97 UC
254 254 89 UC
305 305 97 UC
203 203 52 UC
203 203 71 UC
254 254 73 UC
406 140 39 UB
305 102 28 UB
254 102 28 UB
406 140 39 UB
305 165 40 UB
406 140 46 UB
Weight (kg)
15321
14390
15926
258
It is of interest to note that the optimizer is able to obtain more than one suitable
solution for each approach, and the difference in the weight between them is little. This
can be concluded when comparing the average value of the solutions with each solution
separately. Using the more accurate approach for determining the effective buckling
length may results in achieving better solutions.
During the optimization process, the solutions are monitored to examine their
convergence history. Then, the graphical representation of changes of the best design
with the number of generations performed achieved to reach the optimum design is
shown in Figure 8.11. It is worth observing that the solution convergence is achieved in
90 generations using a population size of only 70.
24000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Generation number
Figure 8.11. Fivebay fivestorey framework (8 design variables):
best design versus generation number
Second, the problem was similarly analysed when utilising 10 design variables
representing the framework members. The solutions obtained are given in Table 8.8
while the design variables corresponding to the optimum design of each approach are
listed in Table 8.9.
259
Table 8.8. The solutions for the fivebay fivestorey framework (10 design variables)
Weight (kg)
Run
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
15391
14723
16309
15571
14461
16239
15371
14195
16941
15753
14809
15819
15679
14455
16469
Average weight
15553
14528.6
16355.4
Minimum weight
15371
14195
15819
Table 8.9. The optimum solution for the fivebay fivestorey framework (10 design
variables)
Design
variable
Cross sections
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
305 305 97 UC
305 305 97 UC
305 305 97 UC
203 203 52 UC
254 254 89 UC
254 254 73 UC
203 203 46 UC
203 203 46 UC
203 203 60 UC
533 210 92 UB
533 210 92 UB
356 171 51 UB
254 146 31 UB
254 102 25 UB
254 146 37 UB
356 171 51 UB
356 127 39 UB
406 178 54 UB
10
406 140 46 UB
406 140 39 UB
406 140 39 UB
Weight (kg)
15371
14195
15819
Figure 8.12 demonstrates the convergence history of the optimum designs during
the optimization process. It can be observed that the convergence has been achieved in
80 generations due to the termination conditions described in Section 8.4.
260
24000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Generation number
Figure 8.12. Fivebay fivestorey framework (10 design variables):
best design versus generation number
51
53
54
30
40
50
2P
4P
4P
4P
2P
55
56
57
19
29
39
49
2P
4P
4P
4P
2P
59
60
61
18
28
38
48
2P
4P
4P
4P
2P
64
65
17
27
37
47
2P
4P
4P
4P
2P
68
69
16
26
36
46
4P
4P
4P
2P
72
73
15
25
35
45
2P
4P
4P
4P
2P
76
77
14
24
34
44
2P
4P
4P
4P
2P
80
81
13
23
33
43
2P
4P
4P
4P
2P
2
2P
84
85
12
4P
87
22
4P
88
4.00 m
32
4P
21
4.00 m
42
2P
3.00 m
41
5.00 m
90
31
4.00 m
3.00 m
86
89
11
3.00 m
82
83
3.00 m
78
79
3.00 m
74
75
3.00 m
70
2P
71
3.00 m
66
67
3.00 m
62
63
3.00 m
58
52
2P
20
2P
10
2P
32.00 m
261
4.00 m
16.00 m
Figure 8.13. Fourbay tenstorey framework: dimensions, member numbering
and loading pattern for the stability analysis
262
3. The beams of the first bay (counting from the left) are exposed to the vertical loads
P v = 1.4 DL + 1.6 LL while the rest of the beams are subjected to the vertical loads
P v = 1.4 DL .
4. The beams of the first two bays (counting from the left) are subjected to the vertical
loads P v = 1.4 DL + 1.6 LL while the rest of the beams are subjected to the vertical
loads P v = 1.4 DL .
5. P v = 1.4 DL + 1.6 LL and P v = 1.4 DL are distributed in a staggered way. This
means that the loads applied to the top left storey are P v = 1.4 DL + 1.6 LL while the
adjacent beams either in the same storey level or the storey beneath carry vertical
loads P v = 1.4 DL .
6. The beams are subjected to vertical loads P v = 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL and the left hand side
of the framework is subjected to the factored wind loads P h = 1.2WL .
7. The beams are subjected to the vertical loads P v = 1.0 LL and the left hand side of
the framework is subjected to unfactored wind loads P h = 1.0WL . This loading
pattern is considered to check horizontal displacements at the nodes.
8. The beams are subjected to vertical loads P v = 1.0 LL . This loading pattern is taken
into account to check vertical displacements at nodes.
Figure 8.14 shows a loading pattern in which the values of the nodal loads of each
loading case, stated above, can be identified from Table 8.10.
P1
P4
H1
P7
P10
7
3
P2
H2
P6
H3
P2
P5
H4
P8
8
2
P3
H5
8
2
P2
5
P8
P5
H6
8
2
P3
P6
P9
8
2
P2
5
P8
P5
H8
4
P9
P6
H9
P2
H10
P8
8
P24
P27
5
P20
P23
2
P26
P24
1
P27
P18
4
P21
8
4
P14
P17
P20
P21
P23
2
P26
P11
2
P27
P24
8
P17
4
P15
P5
P17
5
P20
P18
5
P14
P12
8
1
5
P21
P26
P15
P11
8
1
P3
P18
P23
8
P12
P24
3
P27
P20
P14
H7
P17
P11
3
P26
P23
5
P15
P12
6
P21
8
5
P9
P6
P18
P14
P2
P11
6
P20
8
6
P17
P15
P2
P12
P19
8
6
P9
P16
6
P14
P11
8
3
P3
P13
7
6
P8
P5
263
P23
P26
264
Table 8.10. Loads applied on the fourbay tenstorey framework (in kN)
Loading case
Load
symbol
P1
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
35.0
15.0
15.0
P2
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
45.0
65.0
40.0
40.0
P3
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
65.0
40.0
40.0
P4
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
P5
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
60.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P6
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P7
90.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
70.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
P8
180.0
180.0
120.0
180.0
120.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P9
180.0
180.0
120.0
180.0
120.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P10
90.0
90.0
45.0
90.0
45.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
P11
180.0
180.0
60.0
180.0
180.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P12
180.0
180.0
60.0
180.0
60.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P13
90.0
90.0
60.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
P14
180.0
180.0
60.0
120.0
120.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P15
180.0
180.0
60.0
120.0
120.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P16
90.0
90.0
60.0
45.0
90.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
P17
180.0
180.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P18
180.0
180.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P19
90.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
70.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
P20
180.0
180.0
60.0
60.0
120.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P21
180.0
180.0
60.0
60.0
120.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P22
90.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
45.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
P23
180.0
180.0
60.0
60.0
180.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P24
180.0
180.0
60.0
60.0
180.0
130.0
80.0
80.0
P25
45.0
45.0
25.0
25.0
70.0
35.0
30.0
30.0
P26
90.0
90.0
45.0
45.0
90.0
65.0
80.0
80.0
P27
90.0
90.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
65.0
80.0
80.0
H1
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
9.2
0.0
H2
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
14.0
0.0
H3
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
13.0
0.0
H4
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.5
12.0
0.0
H5
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.4
11.2
0.0
H6
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
10.2
0.0
H7
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
9.25
0.0
H8
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
8.35
0.0
H9
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.9
7.5
0.0
H10
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
6.25
0.0
265
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
34421
30835
35125
34400
30649
35393
34424
29301
35649
34337
30904
34934
34406
30727
36992
Average weight
34397.6
30483.2
35618.6
Minimum weight
34337
29301
34934
Table 8.12. The optimum solution for the fourbay tenstorey framework
Design
variable
Cross sections
First approach
(code)
Second approach
(FE)
Third approach
(conservative)
203 203 71 UC
254 254 73 UC
254 146 31 UB
305 102 33 UB
305 102 25 UB
457 152 52 UB
457 152 52 UB
457 152 52 UB
Weight (kg)
34337
29301
34934
266
It can be observed that there is little difference in the values of the solution for
each approach, listed in Table 8.11. This indicates the developed algorithm can be
successfully applied to reach a good solution. It is also interesting to note that the
column members, belonging to group 1 and 4 were grouped separately, but the same
universal column (356 406 235 UC) was adopted for both groups when using either
the first or third approach. Similarly, the cross sections, corresponding to the third, fifth
and sixth design variable of the optimum design of the third approach, are also the same.
This indicates that it may be more economical to use the developed algorithm to decide
the best grouping of the framework members.
During the optimization process, the convergence characteristics of each solution
were examined. Figure 8.15 shows the changes of the best design with the number of
generations performed to reach the optimum design.
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Generation number
generation number
It is worth noting that the optimum solutions were reached within 50 generations,
and the rest of the computations were carried out to satisfy the convergence criteria.
267
worth noting that m qmem ( x ) is computed in the developed FORTRAN code as given
n
in clause 4.3.7.6 of BS 5950 (technique 1) for each member at each loading case.
3) The design results are then visualised in a separate window as shown later.
268
To validate the applied FORTRAN code, the problem described in Section 8.3
should be first run when m qmem ( x ) for each member equals 1. This is named as
n
Table 8.13. The best solution for the twobay twostorey framework (4 design
variables)
Cross sections
Design
variable
Member
No.
Technique 1
Technique 2
1, 2, 5, 6
3, 4
7, 8
457 191 74 UB
9, 10
533 210 82 UB
8430
8500
Weight (kg)
It is known from clause 4.3.7.6 of BS 5950 that the upper limit of m qmem ( x ) is 1.
n
Therefore, the cross sections of beams, obtained when applying technique 2, have more
269
strength than those achieved by employing technique 1. This allows the optimizer to
obtain solution (8500 kg), which has column sections (305 305 118 UC) having
strength less than those (356 368 177 UC) of technique 1.
The graphical representation of changes of the best design with the number of
generations performed for each trial is shown in Figure 8.16.
12000
First run
Second run
T hird run
Fourth run
Fifth run
11000
10000
9000
8000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Generation number
Figure 8.16. Twobay twostorey framework: best design versus
generation number.
At this stage, the framework weight is optimized and the section of each member
is known. The optimizer is also modified to indicate whether the framework is sway or
nonsway. Here, the optimizer identifies the framework as a nonsway framework. This
is also successfully examined when using SFRAME.
Following the three steps stated at the beginning of this section, the obtained
results are validated and the design results from SSTEEL are displayed in Figure 8.17.
Figure 8.17. The design results of twobay twostorey framework (captured from SSTEEL)
271
In this figure, the numbering of the framework members, type of cross section of
each member and node are shown. The design checks are indicated in colour in which
the code utilisation menu gives the range for of each colour. It is worth noting that the
design results vary between 0.8 and 1.0. Among the strength constraints, the overall
buckling constraints have the largest value.
272
also formulated. This indicates that the optimizer is able to treat different practical
constraints depending on the skills and experience of the designer.
5) It can be observed that the optimizer helps to identify the best arrangement of
grouping to obtain economical design. This illustrates that it may be economical to
use the developed algorithm to decide the optimum grouping of the members in a
framework using multiobjective functions.
6) It can also be concluded that the developed optimizer is able to obtain more than one
suitable solution, and the difference between them is small. This adds a benefit of
using an automated design that allows the designer to choose the appropriate
solution depending on the availability of the sections provided by manufacturer.
7) It is interesting to note that even some of the powerful computer software packages
available today for the design of steel frameworks such as CSC and STAADIII
require the structural designer to input the effective buckling length factor as a
parameter. In this study, computation of the effective buckling length is automated
and included in the developed algorithm. This is achieved by employing three
different approaches as discussed in Section 8.2.
Two questions arise. The first is whether or not the developed optimizer can
obtain a solution of minimum weight design of threedimensional steelwork. This is a
more complex problem and the formulation of the problem includes more constraints.
The bracing members, which take discrete values from BS 4848 have to be incorporated
in the design problem. The second is what difference could be achieved in the optimum
design when using either of these approaches for evaluating the effective buckling
length. These questions will be answered in the next chapter.