Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Optimal shape design of a frame structure for minimization of maximum
bending moment
D. Wang
Department of Aeronautical Structural Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, PO Box 118, Shaanxi 710072, PR China
Received 16 June 2006; received in revised form 26 August 2006; accepted 7 October 2006
Available online 22 November 2006
Abstract
In practical designs, the maximum bending moment in a given exural structure always has an importance in estimating both the structural
displacement (stiffness) and stress (strength) performance. It is of particular interest to designers to develop an appropriate procedure to minimize
the maximum moment through an optimal design of the structure. For this purpose, this paper presents a heuristic optimization algorithm, called
the evolutionary shift method, for minimization of the maximum bending moment by virtue of the structural shape or geometry optimization.
First, the sensitivity analysis of the bending moment in a exural member is investigated with respect to a general nodal coordinate by using the
heuristic adjoint method. An explicit formulation of the moment derivative is derived in detail. Then, on the basis of the design sensitivity, the
nodal positions are shifted in the steepest descent direction (the negative of the gradient) to reduce the maximum moment most effectively.
Consequently, the optimal solution is achieved gradually. Finally, three classical examples are presented to demonstrate the validity of the
sensitivity establishment and the capability of the proposed optimization algorithm for solving the maximum-moment minimization problem.
Results show that the structural shape optimization can reduce the maximum moment enormously, and deserves more attention in engineering
applications.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shape optimization; Heuristic adjoint method; Bending moment sensitivity analysis; Maximum-moment minimization
1. Introduction
Frame or beam-like structures are widely used in practical
engineering, especially in building construction, bridges, space
stations, antenna systems, etc. In most of the practical designs,
the structural behaviours are substantially inuenced by the
bending moment involved in the exural members. Because
it makes a main contribution to the proper design of a
structure on the responses of the displacement (stiffness)
and/or stress (strength) criteria, the bending moment has
always been one of the major concerns to a designer. In
civil engineering, for example, the designs of the sectional
dimension and reinforcement ratio of a concrete girder
are primarily dominated by the maximum bending moment
involved. Therefore, reducing or minimizing the maximum
(absolute) moment, or moment peak, is of paramount interest
e=1
{u
i
e
}
T
[k
e
]
x
j
{u
e
} (4)
where {u
i
} is the virtual displacement vector caused by { f
i
},
and the superscript T denotes transpose of a matrix. n
j
is the
number of the members connected to the j th node. {u
i
e
} and
{u
e
} are the nodal displacement vectors of the eth member
caused, respectively, by the virtual and real loads. Explicitly,
Eq. (4) indicates that the derivative of a nodal displacement can
be computed simply at the element level around the j th node,
and only required is the rst-order derivative of the related
element stiffness matrix [k
e
]. With the essential concepts of
the nite element analysis (FEA), the stiffness matrix [
k
e
] of
a planar beam element on the EulerBernoulli model is given
as
[
k
e
] = E
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
A
e
L
e
0 0
A
e
L
e
0 0
0
12I
e
L
3
e
6I
e
L
2
e
0
12I
e
L
3
e
6I
e
L
2
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
4I
e
L
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
2I
e
L
e
A
e
L
e
0 0
A
e
L
e
0 0
0
12I
e
L
3
e
6I
e
L
2
e
0
12I
e
L
3
e
6I
e
L
2
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
2I
e
L
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
4I
e
L
e
_
_
(5)
where E is Youngs modulus of the material, A
e
the cross-
sectional area and I
e
the area moment of inertia of the cross-
section of the eth element. The superimposed bar denotes
an item in the element local coordinate system, see Fig. 1.
Obviously, both axial and transverse deformations of the
element are under consideration, and the properties of the
beam do not vary along its length. By taking advantage of
Fig. 1. Beam element with its nodal displacements and rotations.
the displacement transformation matrix, one can easily get
the element stiffness matrix in the global Cartesian coordinate
system,
[k
e
] = [T]
T
[
k
e
][T] (6)
where [T] is the usual transformation matrix of size 6 6 for
a planar beam element [14]. Therefore, the derivative of the
element stiffness matrix can be calculated by the chain rule of
differentiation
[k
e
]
x
j
=
[T]
T
x
j
[
k
e
][T] + [T]
T
[
k
e
]
x
j
[T] + [T]
T
[
k
e
]
[T]
x
j
. (7)
Under most circumstances, this is an implicit expression for the
derivative of an element stiffness matrix, but can be readily
available. Thus, the expression is not written herein due to
its excessive lengthiness. Substitution of Eq. (7) into Eq. (4)
will lead to the expression of the displacement sensitivity with
respect to the j th node position. For developing the bending
moment sensitivity ahead, the derivatives of all degrees of
freedom of the eth element are formulated as follows
{u
e
}
x
j
= [ {u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i
1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i
2
} ]
T
e
[K]
x
j
{u} (8)
where {u
i
u
1
} is the virtual displacement vector caused
by the virtual unit force { f
i
u
1
}, which corresponds to
the nodal degree of freedom u
1
of the eth element,
and so is each of the other columns in the matrix
[ {u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i
1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i
2
} ]
e
.
2.2. Bending moment sensitivity analysis
Consider now a uniform beam of length L
e
as shown
in Fig. 1. Based on the FEA method, which is the
most commonly employed computational tool for evaluating
structural performances, the transverse displacement at a point
a within the element span can be represented with the nodal
transverse displacements and rotations at the element ends,
v(a) = [N] { u
e
} =
_
N
1
N
2
N
3
N
4
_
(a)
_
_
v
1
1
v
2
2
_
_
(9)
in which,
{ u
e
} = [T
c
] {u
e
} (10a)
D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832 1827
[T
c
] =
_
_
_
_
sin cos 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 sin cos 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
_
_
(10b)
where N
14
are the shape functions of a beam element, which
are utilized for interpolation of the transverse displacement in
terms of the nodal degrees of freedom. is the orientation
of the member with respect to the global x-axis. Note that
the bending moment in an element does not change in both
reference coordinate systems. For small deformations, the
momentdeection relation in the eth element can be evaluated
as [15]
M
e
(a) = EI
e
d
2
v
da
2
= EI
e
[B] { u
e
} (11)
where,
[B] =
d
2
[N]
da
2
=
_
d
2
N
1
da
2
d
2
N
2
da
2
d
2
N
3
da
2
d
2
N
4
da
2
_
(12)
is a row vector. Since the movement of a node may change
both the length and orientation of each related member, the
derivative of the moment to the j th node position can be
calculated according to Eqs. (10a) and (11)
M
e
x
j
= EI
e
_
[B]
x
j
[T
c
] {u
e
}
+ [B]
[T
c
]
x
j
{u
e
} + [B] [T
c
]
{u
e
}
x
j
_
. (13)
The derivative of [T
c
] in the second term of the preceding
formula is derived from Eq. (10b)
[T
c
]
x
j
=
ej
L
e
_
_
_
_
sin cos sin
2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 sin cos sin
2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
_
_
(14)
where the coefcient
ej
is employed for the eth element [9]
ej
=
_
_
_
0, if x
j
is not a coordinate of the element,
1, if x
j
is an initial nodal coordinate x
1
,
1, if x
j
is a nal nodal coordinate x
2
.
(15)
Commonly, the Hermite functions are adopted in a classical
EulerBernoulli beam model [14]
_
_
N
1
= 1 3
_
a
L
e
_
2
+ 2
_
a
L
e
_
3
,
N
2
= a 2L
e
_
a
L
e
_
2
+ L
e
_
a
L
e
_
3
N
3
= 3
_
a
L
e
_
2
2
_
a
L
e
_
3
,
N
4
= L
e
_
a
L
e
_
2
+ L
e
_
a
L
e
_
3
.
(16)
Hence, one can obtain
[B] =
d
2
[N]
da
2
=
_
12a
L
3
e
6
L
2
e
6a
L
2
e
4
L
e
12a
L
3
e
+
6
L
2
e
6a
L
2
e
2
L
e
_
. (17)
At rst sight of Eq. (17), it is immediately understood
that the bending moment indicated in Eq. (11) varies linearly
within an element span. In other words, using the cubic shape
functions implies that there is no distributed transverse load,
e.g. the self-weight load, acting on a member, and all of the
applied loads are restricted at the joints. In this special case,
the maximum moment can only appear at one of the beams
ends. Otherwise, it may also occur at the position where the
shear force is equal to zero if a distributed load is imposed
on a member, which is, in fact, design-dependent. In this
context, we focus our study on the former case with only
concentrated forces acting on the structure. For the bending
moment appearing at End 1 with a = 0, then
[B]
1
=
1
L
2
e
_
6 4L
e
6 2L
e
_
. (18)
Therefore, the rst-order derivative of [B]
1
with respect to the
nodal coordinate x
j
is,
[B]
1
x
j
=
ej
cos
_
12
L
3
e
4
L
2
e
12
L
3
e
2
L
2
e
_
. (19)
Note that the sign of [B]
1
derived from Eq. (18) (and also M
1
in
Eq. (11)), which is usually in relation to the beams deection in
Mechanics of Materials [15], is opposite to the sign convention
in accordance with the present coordinate system, see Fig. 1.
Additionally, this inconsistency can also be veried simply by
comparing entries in [B]
1
with those in the third row in the
element stiffness matrix in Eq. (5). For the moment appearing
at End 2 of the beam with a = L, one thus gets
[B]
2
=
1
L
2
e
[ 6 2L
e
6 4L
e
]. (20)
Thus, the derivative of [B]
2
is given as,
[B]
2
x
j
=
ej
cos
_
12
L
3
e
2
L
2
e
12
L
3
e
4
L
2
e
_
. (21)
Previously derived in Eq. (8) is the derivative vector of
all the nodal deformations of the eth element to the j th
node shift by means of the virtual unit forces. With the
formulations achieved so far, the sensitivity of a bending
moment can be easily calculated according to Eq. (13). In
accomplishing the calculation, however, there needs to be at
least 6 virtual unit forces imposed to the structure, respectively,
to treat each of the related nodal deformations as indicated
in Eq. (8). That is, the number of virtual loads depends
heavily upon the number of degrees of freedom per element.
Thus, the sensitivity calculation becomes very complicated and
inefcient even though the FEA method can solve all the virtual
1828 D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832
load cases simultaneously. It would be greatly benecial to
reduce the number of the virtual loads and then to improve the
computational efciency by incorporating all the virtual unit
forces [12]. According to the computation of the displacement
sensitivities in Eq. (8), the moment sensitivity in Eq. (13) can
be simplied as
M
e
x
j
= EI
e
_
[B]
x
j
[T
c
]{u
e
} + [B]
[T
c
]
x
j
{u
e
}
{U
i
}
T
[K]
x
j
{u}
_
(22)
where {U
i
}, in the third term on the right-hand side, represents
a comprehensive virtual displacement vector, which is the
solution of the following state equation for one virtual load
system {F
i
}
e
(see Appendix A):
[K] {U
i
} = {F
i
}
e
(23a)
{F
i
}
e
= [ f
i
]
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
(23b)
where,
[ f
i
]
e
= [ { f
i
u
1
} { f
i
v
1
} { f
i
1
} { f
i
u
2
} { f
i
v
2
} { f
i
2
} ]
e
(23c)
is the matrix of the virtual unit forces corresponding to
all degrees of freedom of the eth element. In Eq. (23a),
{F
i
}
e
represents a new virtual load, in which the component
corresponding to each degree of freedom of the eth element
may be neither zero nor a unit, opposite to that used in the
previous calculation for a displacement derivative in Eq. (4).
By introducing the integrated virtual load system {F
i
}
e
,
the efciency for calculating the moment sensitivity can be
signicantly improved. As a result, Eq. (22) enable us to
evaluate the change of the bending moment caused by the
variation of a node position and then facilitate the structural
shape modication for reducing the moment peak in a specic
element.
Apparently, in estimating the moment derivative, this
approach requires at least two runs of FEA for solving
the state equation to obtain nodal displacement vectors for
real and integrated virtual loads, respectively. In view of
this, the present approach of the sensitivity analysis can be
attributed to the adjoint variable method. In fact, solving the
comprehensive virtual displacement vector {U
i
} in Eq. (23a)
is in agreement with solving the adjoint variable vector
in the adjoint method [16]. Appendix B will demonstrate
the consistency of the two approaches. Though solving the
equations of equilibrium is the major computational effort in
the optimization process, we should note, however, that if a
Cholesky decomposition technique is used for solving Eq. (1),
the solution to {U
i
} is obtained quickly only by forward and
backward substitutions. Thus, the efciency for calculating the
bending moment sensitivity can be considerably raised, and
then the optimization process can be benecially improved in
the procedure.
3. Problem formulation of multiple load cases
In real design analyses, structural performances with
several load cases have to be considered, and the maximum
bending moment for all load cases is taken into account for
minimization. Thus, the objective of the optimization problem
is to minimize the maximum moment in all the members under
multiple load cases, i.e.,
Minimize
LCN
max
l=1
{|M
l
e
|, e = 1, . . . , n} (24)
where |M
l
e
| is the absolute value of the bending moment in
the eth member under the lth load condition. n is the number
of members in the frame structure, and LCN the total number
of load cases under consideration. In such a case, a node
shift scheme may sometimes lead to distinct impacts on the
moment peaks in different load cases. That is, it may reduce the
maximummoment substantially in a certain load case, but at the
same time, increase the moment peak in another load case. In
each design cycle, the present procedure will reduce the highest
bending moment in all load cases.
In many cases, constraints on design variables, which
directly specify the bounds of the nodal positions, are often
encountered in a shape optimization process,
x
j
x
j
x
j
, j = 1, . . . , k (25)
where x
j
and x
j
are the lower and upper bounds on x
j
,
respectively. k is the number of independent nodal coordinates.
Besides, some nodal coordinates are linked so as to retain the
structural symmetry, i.e.,
x
d
= f (x
j
) (26)
where x
d
is a dependent coordinate, and x
j
an independent
one. In general, design linkages make a shape optimization
algorithm much more complicated.
Because the maximum and absolute value presented in
Eq. (24) does not refer to the response measured at a single
point, the maximum moment may frequently migrate from one
point to another in the solution process. Consequently, abrupt
changes may often occur in the objective function as well as
in its derivative with the design progression, which then brings
a practical obstacle into a reliable optimization algorithm and
deteriorates the solution convergence.
4. Optimization procedure
With the acquisition of the bending moment sensitivity, it
follows to apply the results to the optimal shape design of a
frame for minimization of the maximum bending moment in
the structure. In this paper, a heuristic iterative algorithm based
on the design sensitivity is employed to reduce the moment
peak asymptotically just because of the characteristics of the
bending moment mentioned previously. At a given design stage,
the nodal coordinates are updated iteratively as
X
(n+1)
= X
(n)
+
(n)
S
(n)
(27)
D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832 1829
where X denotes the vector of the independent variables,
S the search direction in the design space and the scale
moving step along that direction. The superscript n indicates the
optimization cycle number. In most cases, the search direction
S is chosen along the negative of the gradient of the objective
function to reduce the moment peak most effectively,
S
(n)
= M
(n)
max
. (28)
In order to determine the moving step of the node positions,
at least, another FEA run is required in each iteration to
reduce the objective to a minimum along the search direction.
However, it is rather disadvantageous to mostly reduce the
current moment peak in one design cycle due to the regular
migration of the moment peak. Thus, the traditional steepest
descent method is not suitable for the problem. For efciency
and effectiveness of the algorithm, the moving step is now
determined from
M
(n+1)
max
M
(n)
max
+ (M
(n)
max
)
T
X
(n)
= M
(n)
max
M
(n)
max
2
. (29)
Then, it is suggested
=
M
(n)
max
M
(n)
max
2
(30)
where
M
(n)
max
1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i
2
} ]
e
= [ f
i
]
e
(A.2)
where [ f
i
]
e
is dened in Eq. (23c). Post-multiplying both sides
of the above equation by a vector ([B] [T
c
])
T
yields
[K]
_
[{u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i
1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i
2
}]
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
_
= [ f
i
]
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
(A.3)
which can be rewritten in a simpler form
[K]{U
i
} = {F
i
}
e
(A.4)
where {F
i
}
e
is described in Eq. (23b), and
{U
i
}
T
= [B] [T
c
]
[ {u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i
1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i
2
} ]
T
e
(A.5)
is just the item in Eq. (22).
Appendix B. Consistency of the comprehensive virtual
displacement with the adjoint variable
In the adjoint variable method, it is necessary, rst of all,
to estimate the dummy (or virtual) load vector {Z} [16]. From
Eqs. (10a) and (11) we achieve
{Z} =
M
e
{u
e
}
= EI
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
. (B.1)
Applying {Z} to the frame structure yields the adjoint variable
vector {}
[K]{} = {Z}. (B.2)
In Eq. (23c), [ f
i
]
e
represents a set of virtual unit forces
corresponding to all degrees of freedom of the eth element,
i.e., [ f
i
]
e
is an extended identity matrix so that the order of
the virtual nodal forces of the eth element can be rearranged.
Therefore, Eq. (B.1) is equivalent to Eq. (23b). Furthermore,
the adjoint variable vector {} in Eq. (B.2) is equivalent to
the comprehensive virtual displacement {U
i
} in Eq. (23a). The
factor EI
e
in Eq. (B.1) is also applied in Eq. (22) since the
structure is assumed to be a linear system.
References
[1] Erbatur F, Al-Hussainy MM. Optimum design of frames. Comput
Structures 1992;45:88791.
[2] Missoum S, Gurdal Z, Watson LT. A displacement based optimization
method for geometrically nonlinear frame structures. Struct Multidiscip
Optim 2002;24:195204.
[3] Pezeshk S. Design of framed structures: An integrated non-linear analysis
and optimal minimum weight design. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg
1998;41:45971.
[4] Sui YK, Wang XC. Second-order method of generalized geometric
programming for spatial frame optimization. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 1997;141:11723.
[5] Lamberti L, Pappalettere C. Improved sequential linear programming
formulation for structural weight minimization. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 2004;193:3493521.
[6] Imam MH, Al-Shihri M. Optimum topology of structural supports.
Comput Structures 1996;61:14754.
[7] Steven G, Querin O, Xie YM. Evolutionary structural optimisation (ESO)
for combined topology and size optimisation of discrete structures.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;188:74354.
[8] Xu L. On the minimummaximum bending moment and the least-weight
design of semi-rigid beams. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2001;21:31621.
[9] Perezzan JC, Hernandez S. Analytical expressions of sensitivities for
shape variables in linear bending systems. Adv Eng Softw2003;34:2718.
[10] Adelman HM, Haftka RT. Sensitivity analysis of discrete systems.
In: Kamat MP, editor. Structural optimization: Status and promise.
Progress in astronautics and aeronautics, vol. 150. Washington (DC):
AIAA; 1993. p. 291316.
[11] Arora JS, Wang Q. Review of formulations for structural and mechanical
system optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2005;30:25172.
[12] Li Q, Steven GP, Xie YM. Evolutionary structural optimization for stress
minimization problems by discrete thickness design. Comput Structures
2000;78:76980.
[13] Wang D, Zhang WH, Jiang JS. Truss shape optimization with multiple
displacement constraints. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2002;191:
3597612.
[14] Zhu BF. Principle and applications of nite element method. 2nd ed.
Beijing: Waterpower Publisher; 1998 [in Chinese].
[15] Gere JM. Mechanics of Materials. 5th ed. China Machine Press; 2004.
[16] Haftka RT, Kamat MP. Elements of structural optimization. 1st ed.
Martinus: Nijhoff Publishers; 1985.