VIII

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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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.

8.2 Design procedure to BS 5950

In order to correlate between the notations given by BS 5950 and that employed in this
context, the local and global coordinate systems shown in Figure 8.1 are assumed. This
allows us to use the same indices and notations as utilised in BS 5950. Figure 8.2 shows
the coordinate systems combined with a deformed configuration of a framework
X

Figure 8.1. Local and global coordinate systems

Z
Y
X

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

Figure 8.2. Deformed configuration of a framework combined with coordinate systems

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

member ncmem satisfies the following condition:

UY ,n mem ( x ) LY ,n mem ( x )
c

Ln mem

1 , ncmem = 1, 2 , , N cmem . (8.1)

2000

Step 3. Calculation of the effective buckling lengths Leff

and Leff
of columns
X, n mem
Y, n mem
and beams. For columns, Leff
is determined according to one of the following three
X, n mem
c

approaches:

using the charts from BS 5950 as described in Section 2.6.2.2;

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

241

a more accurate method (SCI, 1988) based on finite element analysis as applied in
Section 7.3.1;

selection of the conservative (higher) value out of the two approaches.

The effective buckling length Leff
of a beam equals the unrestrained length of
X, n mem
b

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)

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

c) Check of the strength constraints G r , n mem ( x ) depending on whether the member is

in tension or compression. This stage contains four checks (r = 4) for each member
under each loading case q. The strength constraints, which are local capacity, overall
capacity, shear capacity and the shear buckling capacity, should satisfy
Str , q

G r , n mem ( x ) 1 , r = 1, 2, 3, 4, and q = 1,2, , Q

(8.7)

where the local capacity

F qmem ( x )
n

Ae, nmem ( xi , j ) p y , n mem ( xi , j )

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)

Ag, n mem ( xi , j ) p y , nmem ( xi , j )

where F qmem ( x ) is the axial force, M q

n

Mq

X, n

mem ( x )

M CX , nmem ( xi , j )

X, n mem

for comprisson
members

( x ) is the moment about the major local

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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

For each member, the overall capacity G 2 , n mem ( x ) is determined by

m qmem ( x ) M 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)

Ag, n mem ( xi , j ) p C , n mem ( xi , j )

q
n mem

( x) M

q
X, n mem

( x)
for comprisson
members

M b , n mem ( x )

where m qmem ( x ) is the equivalent uniform factor and is calculated as discussed in

n

Chapter 2 for each loading case (q). M b , n mem ( x ) is the buckling resistance moment.
Str , q

The shear capacity G3 , n mem ( x ) is computed by

Fq

Str , q

G3 , n mem ( x ) =

Y, n mem

( x)

(8.10)

PY, n mem ( xi , j )

where PY, n mem ( xi , j ) is the shear capacity of the member, and F q

Y, n mem

( x ) is the critical

shear force under the specified loading case (q).

Str, q

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

Hence, G 4 , n mem ( x ) is computed by

Str , q

G 4 , n mem ( x ) =

Fq

Y, n mem

( x)

Vcr, n mem ( xi , j )

(8.12)

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

244

where Vcr, n mem ( xi , j ) is the shear resistance of the member section.

d) For a sway structure, the notional horizontal loading case is considered, this is
termed sway stability criterion.
Step 8. Checks of the horizontal and vertical nodal displacements. These are known as
serviceability criteria
Ser

Gt , n mem ( x ) 1 , t = 1, 2 and 3.

(8.13)

This is performed by:

a) Computing the horizontal nodal displacements due to the unfactored imposed loads
and wind loading cases in order to satisfy the limits on the horizontal displacements,

Ser
G1 , n mem
c

UY , nmem ( x ) LY, n mem ( x )

c

Ln mem

and ncmem= 1, , N cmem (8.14)

300
where Lnmem is the length of the column under consideration. The indexes (U and L)
c

define the position of the twocolumn ends.

b) Imposing the limits on the vertical nodal displacements (maximum value within a
beam) due to the unfactored imposed loading case.
max

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.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

245

Start

Apply notional horizontal loading case, compute horizontal nodal

displacements and determine whether the framework is sway or
nonsway using step 2

Compute the effective buckling lengths according the required

approach mentioned in step 3

Apply loading case q = 1, 2 , , Q : if the framework is sway, then

include the notional horizontal loading case

Analyse the framework, compute normal forces, shearing forces

and bending moments for each member

Design of member n

mem

= 1, 2 , , N

mem

Determine the type of the section (slender, semicompact,

compact or plastic) utilising Table 7 of BS 5950

Evaluate the design strength p

y, n mem

( x i , j ) of the member

Check the slenderness criteria employing (8.20) (8.6)

NO

A
A

B
B

Tension
member?

YES

Figure 8.3a. Flowchart of design procedure of structural steelwork

D
D

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

246

Local capacity check

Local capacity check

Overall capacity check

Lateral torsional buckling

check

Carry out the checks of shear applying (8.10) and

shear buckling using (8.12) if necessary

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

Check of the serviceability criteria using (8.13) (8.15)

End

Figure 8.3b. (cont.) Flowchart of design procedure of structural steelwork

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

247

8.3 Problem formulation and solution technique

The general formulation of the design optimization problem can be expressed by
N mem

Minimize F ( x ) =

n mem = 1

Wn mem Ln mem

Str , q

subject to: G r , n mem ( x ) 1 , r = 1, 2, 3, 4, q = 1,2, , , Q

Sle

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.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

248

Start

Input data files: GA

parameters, FE model,
loading cases etc.

Randomly generate the initial population

Design set =1, 2, , N p

Decode binary chromosomes to integer values and

select the sections from the appropriate catalogue
according to their corresponding integer values

Apply the design procedure illustrated in flowchart

given in Figure 8.3 to check strength, sway stability
and serviceability criteria to BS 5950

Save the feasibility checks of the design set

NO

Design set = N po ?

New design

YES

Evaluate the objective and penalised functions

Select the best N p individuals out of N p , and impose

them into the first generation of GA algorithm

Figure 8.4a. Flowchart of the solution technique

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

249

Generation 1: Calculate the new penalised objective

function, then carry out crossover and mutation

Design set = 2, 3, , N p

Decode binary chromosomes to integer values and

select the sections from the appropriate catalogue
according to their corresponding integer values

Apply the design procedure illustrated in flowchart

given in Figure 8.3 to check strength, sway stability
and serviceability criteria to BS 5950

Save the feasibility checks of the design set

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

Figure 8.4b. (cont.) Flowchart of the solution technique

Stop

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

250

8.4 Benchmark examples

Having introduced the design procedure according to BS 5950, formulated the problem
and the solution technique, the process of optimization is now carried out.
Three representative frameworks are demonstrated here to illustrate the
effectiveness and benefits of the developed GA technique as well as investigating the
effect of the employed approach for determining the effective buckling lengths on the
optimum design attained. The sectional members are chosen from BS4 as described in
Section 7.2.1.
In the present work, it is assumed that N po and N p are 1000 and 60 respectively.
Onepoint crossover is applied. Probability of crossover Pc and mutation Pm are 70 %
and 1 % respectively. The elite ratio E r is 30 %. The technique described in Section 6.2
is utilised where the simple "exact" penalty function employed is

Minimize F ( x ) =

C - F ( x ) , all constraints satisfied

0,
any of constraints violated.

(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 .

8.4.1 Example 1: Twobay twostorey framework

The optimum design of the twobay twostorey framework shown in Figure 8.5 is
investigated. The loading cases described in Section 7.3.2 were considered. The
optimization process was carried out when the number of design variables representing
the framework members is 4 and 6 respectively. The linking of design variables are the
same as those described in Section 7.2.2. The three approaches described in Section 8.2
for the determination of the effective length were also applied.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

251

8
4

5.00 m

5.00 m

10

9
1

10.00 m

10.00 m

Figure 8.5. Twobay twostorey framework

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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

356 368 177 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 153 UC

3, 4

356 368 177 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 153 UC

7, 8

457 191 74 UB

610 229 101 UB

610 229 113 UB

9, 10

533 210 82 UB

610 229 101 UB

533 210 82 UB

8430

7910

8490

Weight (kg)

The convergence characteristics of the weight of the framework were then

examined during the optimization process. Figure 8.6 shows the changes of the best
framework design with number of generations performed.

12000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)

Best design (kg)

11000

T hird approach (conservative)

10000
9000
8000
7000
0

10

20

30
40
50
Generation number

60

70

Figure 8.6. Twobay twostorey framework (4 design variables):

best design versus generation number

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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

356 368 153 UC

356 368 177 UC

356 368 153 UC

2, 6

254 254 73 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 153 UC

356 368 153 UC

356 368 177 UC

356 368 202 UC

203 203 86 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 153 UC

7, 8

610 229 101 UB

533 210 82 UB

533 210 82 UB

9, 10

762 267 147 UB

533 210 82 UB

610 229 101 UB

8415

7870

8495

Weight (kg)

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

254

12000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)

Best design (kg)

11000

T hird approach (conservative)

10000
9000
8000
7000
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Generation number

Figure 8.7. Twobay twostorey framework6 design variables:

best design versus 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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

255

the developed algorithm to decide the optimum grouping of the members in a

framework.

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

356 368 177 UC

356 368 177 UC

2,6

356 368 177 UC

203 203 46 UC

356 368 177 UC

356 368 177 UC

356 368 177 UC

203 203 71 UC

7,8

457 191 74 UB

610 229 101 UB

9, 10

533 210 82 UB

762 267 147 UB

8430

8430

Weight (kg)

8.4.2 Example 2: Fivebay fivestorey framework

The next example to study is the fivebay fivestorey framework shown in Figure 8.8.
The loading cases described in Section 7.3.3 are taken into account.
2P

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

Figure 8.8. Fivebay fivestorey framework

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

Figure 8.9. Fivebay fivestorey framework showing the arrangement

of 8 design variables

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

Figure 8.10. Fivebay fivestorey framework showing the arrangement

of 10 design variables

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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)

356 368 153 UC

305 305 118 UC

305 305 118 UC

356 368 129 UC

305 305 118 UC

305 305 118 UC

356 368 129 UC

305 305 97 UC

254 254 89 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 129 UC

254 254 107 UC

305 305 97 UC

305 305 137 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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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)

Best design (kg)

22000

T hird approach (conservative)

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.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

305 305 137 UC

305 305 137 UC

305 305 97 UC

305 305 137 UC

305 305 97 UC

254 254 107 UC

203 203 52 UC

254 254 89 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 129 UC

254 254 107 UC

254 254 73 UC

356 368 129 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.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

260

24000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)

Best design (kg)

22000

T hird approach (conservative)

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

8.4.3 Example 3: Fourbay tenstorey framework

The final example is the fourbay tenstorey framework shown in Figure 8.13. In this
figure, the loading pattern for the stability analysis and member numbering are shown
where = 0.01 . The problem formulated in Section 8.4.1 utilising 8 design variables
representing the framework members are considered and the linking is given in Figure
8.13. It is assumed that the spacing between successive frameworks is 6.00 m. The
framework will be used for offices and computer equipment purposes. The following
eight loading cases were considered.
1. The beams are subjected to the vertical loads P v = 1.4 DL + 1.6 LL .
2. The beams are subjected to the vertical loads P v = 1.4 DL + 1.6 LL , and the left hand
side of the framework is subjected to the notional horizontal loads.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

Figure 8.14. Fourbay tenstorey framework

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

265

The problem was analysed employing the solution parameters mentioned in

Section 8.4. The optimization process was carried out using 5 runs for each approach for
determining the effective buckling lengths. The optimization process was automatically
terminated when one of the termination conditions, stated in Section 8.4, is satisfied.
The solutions achieved are listed in Table 8.11 while the corresponding design variables
of the optimum solution of each approach are given in Table 8.12.
Table 8.11. The solutions for the fourbay tenstorey framework
Weight (kg)
Run

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)

356 406 235 UC

356 368 177 UC

356 406 235 UC

356 368 153 UC

305 305 118 UC

356 368 153 UC

356 368 129 UC

203 203 71 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 406 235 UC

356 368 202 UC

356 406 235 UC

305 305 118 UC

356 368 129 UC

356 368 129 UC

305 305 118 UC

254 254 73 UC

356 368 129 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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

Best design (kg)

First approach (code)

Second approach (FE)
T hird approach (conservative)

50000

40000

30000

20000
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Generation number

Figure 8.15. Fourbay tenstorey framework: best design versus

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.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

267

8.5 Validation of the optimum design

This section shows that the values of the constraints obtained by applying the developed
FORTRAN code for the design of steel frame structures to BS 5950 are in a good
agreement with those obtained by CSC software.
Since 1975, CSC UK Ltd. (1998) has specialised in developing PCbased
software for structural engineering design. The product SFRAME was introduced to
analyse a framework under specified loading cases, then by switching to the product S
STEEL the framework members can be checked for compliance with BS 5950 design
criteria. Due to the innovative use of graphics, both SFRAME and SSTEEL have a
user interface facility. The user interface facility provides the designer to visualise the
orientation of the sections of the members, coordinate system, member numbering and
the design results. The following steps can summarise the used procedure.
1) In SFRAME, the framework geometry, member sections and loading cases are
defined. Then, the bending moments, shear forces, displacements are calculated
applying the linear analysis facility.
2) Starting to SSTEEL program. This automatically detects the framework geometry,
loading cases, bending moments, shear forces and displacements and member
sections. The design checks are then carried out. Here, the effective length factors
( LeX,ffnmem ( x ) Ln mem and LeY,ffnmem ( xi , j ) Ln mem ) and the equivalent uniform factor
m qmem ( x ) are user defined. The default value for each is unity. At this stage, it is
n

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.

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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

technique 2. Then, CSC software is used to check the obtained results.

The optimum design of twobay twostorey framework is investigated when 4
design variables representing the framework members are considered. The framework is
shown in Figure 8.5. The framework is subjected to the same loads as mentioned in
Section 7.3.2. The optimization process was carried out utilising the design procedure
discussed in Section 8.2 while the solution parameters and the convergence criteria are
considered as those given in Section 8.4. Five runs were carried out when applying the
first approach for determining the effective buckling lengths. The design variables
corresponding to the optimum solution were then tabulated in Table 8.13. It is worth
comparing the best solution obtained with that achieved in section 8.4.1 (technique 1)
when a more accurate equation for determining m qmem ( x ) was applied. This comparison
n

is also presented in Table 8.13.

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

356 368 177 UC

305 305 118 UC

3, 4

356 368 177 UC

305 305 118 UC

7, 8

457 191 74 UB

610 229 101 UB

9, 10

533 210 82 UB

762 267 147 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

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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.

Best design (kg)

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)

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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.

8.6 Concluding remarks

Optimization technique based on GA was applied for design optimization of steel frame
structures. Multiple loading cases were considered. The design method obtained a steel
frame structure with the least weight by selecting appropriate sections for beams and
columns from BS 4. The following concluding remarks can be made.
1) It has been proven that the developed GA approach can be successfully incorporated
in design optimization in which framework members have to be selected from the
available sections taken from BS 4 while the design satisfies the design criteria
according to BS 5950.
2) It is also worth noting that different numbers of design variables are considered for
each framework and the optimizer is able to obtain a good solution in a reasonable
number of generations. This indicates that the developed approach can be utilised by
a practising designer.
3) The optimizer is successfully linked to a finite element package for a more accurate
treatment of the determination of the effective buckling length that leads to
achieving a more economical design.
4) In the present chapter, the constraints imposed on the second moment of area of two
adjacent columns in two adjacent storey levels are chosen to reflect the designers
experience. Other constraints, such as sectional dimensions, sectional area, etc., can

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures

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.