To cite this article: S. H. HAN , A. ADAMU & B. L. KARIHALOO (1995) APPLICATION OF DCOC TO
OPTIMUM PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN, Engineering Optimization, 25:3, 179200,
DOI: 10.1080/03052159508941262
Article views: 23
Download by: [Northeastern Forestry University] Date: 23 November 2015, At: 23:48
Eng. Opt., 1995, Val. 25, pp. 179200 0 1995 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association)
Reprints available directly from the publisher Amsterdam B.V. Published in The Netherlands under
Photocopying permitted by license only license by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SA
Printed in Malaysia
S. H. HAN
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
This paper describes the application of discretized continuumtype optimality criteria (DCOC) lo the
minimum cost design of prestressed concrete beams. The costs to be minimized involve those of concrete..
prestressing steel, nonprestressing steel and formwork. The design constraints include limits on the
maximum deflection in a given span, on flexural and shear strength, in addition to upper and lower
bounds on design variables. An explicit mathematical derivation of optimality criteria is given based on
the KuhnTucker necessary conditions, followed by an iterative procedure for designs when the design
variables are the depth of beam, the eccentricity of prestressing steel at midspan and the nonprestressing
steel ratio. The DCOC and computer code are developed for beam designs whose member cross
sections are uniform along the length. Selfweight of the structure is included in the equilibrium of the real
system and the effect of prestressing force on deflection is included in the deflection constraint. Numerical
examples of partially prestressed concrete beams with rectangular and T sections have been solved to
show the accuracy and efficiency of the DCOCbased technique.
KEY WORDS: Discretized continuumtype optimality criteria, structural optimization, partial prestress
ing, eccentricity.
1 INTRODUCTION
member has been discretized. Here and in the sequel, the letter e used as a super
script or subscript indicates that the item in question is being treated at the element
level.
T o simplify the mathematical derivation of the optimality criteria, especially the
handling of the prestrains of the adjoint system, the behavioural constraints are
expressed in terms of nodal forces using the flexibility method. The optimization
problem with one displacement constraint and several strength and side constraints
may be mathematically stated, using the augmented Lagrangian25, as follows:
where p, i.; , {av),fl; and y: are Lagrange multipliers, q is a slack variable, w;,$,
{a'),
5; are slack functions. Here, the basic variables are the element crosssection vector z
with elements zi(i = 1, ... ,n,), the element nodal forces {F,) of the real system, and
the element nodal forces {F,} of the adjoint system.
(a) U ++
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
Figure 2 Partially prestressed concrete beam: (a) rectangular crosssection; (b) T crosssection.
in which
/I= { 0.045E,z1
0.045E,zC (0.7 + 0.3z1/zJ3
for a rectangular section
for a Tsection
in which

only for this computation be up,= kJp, where k is assumed conservatively to be 0.6.
The equivalent distributed upward load' due to prestressing force is then
w, (8~,,ASp4";I(L2).
The deflection constraint is now written as
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
in which
V: = ~ ~ ( 0L ,. 5 X,)
Here, A refers to the left node of an element, and VA and M A ,and FA and MAare
the shear force and bending moment at this node in the real and adjoint beams,
respectively.
where yd, is the depth of the equivalent rectangular stress block, and a,, is the stress
for a bonded tendon which may be expressed as:
k , depends on the particular type of prestressing steel, and its value is k , = 0.40 if
0.85 < f p , / f p < 0.9, k , = 0.28 if fp,/fq 2 0.9, where f,, is the specified yield strength of
the prestressing steel. The term k , IS given by
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
+
in which M:, = M:,, M:,,. The moment capacity of an element with a rectangular
section may be expressed using design variables as
M:,, = + , [ z 2 X l { 1 . 0  f i x 2  f 2 X 3 } {0.5(z2+2zeJ + d l )
 ~ ~ X ~ (i llX.2 0 f2x3)  z 2 z S x 5 j l (I2)
ME,, = + , [ z ~ z ~ X 6 { 1 . 0X , i I . O  f , X ,  f , X 3 )  z S X , } ] (1 3)
Here, 4, is a strength reduction factor for flexure, and f , = z , / ( z , + 22; + d'),
f2 = z , z ; / ( z , + 2 4 + d'), XI = f p z , z 4 , X2 = 2k,Jpz41!f: Y ) , X3,= 2 k , f ; . l ( f: Y ) , X 4 =
f p z 4 / ( l . 7 f : ) ,X , = f , / ( 1 . 7 f : ) , and X , = / , z , , where f, is the ult~matestrength of the
prestressing steel, fy is the yield stress of nonprestressing steel, and f : is the charac
teristic compressive strength of concrete at 28 days.
In the case of a beam of Tsection, the contribution of web area to the flexural
strength is neglected to avoid complications. More details of problem formulation,
ultimate flexural strength and of the gradients necessary for deriving the optimality
criteria and for the solution procedure are given in the Appendix.
3) Shear strength constraint
The shear strength constraint is imposed to limit the shearing force against web
crushing:
Here, V:", is the maximum design shear force in the element due to applied loads,
c= + , X , z , z , with X , = 0 . 2 f ; , where +,
is a strength reduction factor for shear.
The effect of prestressing force on shear is neglected because it is not critical.
I ) Variation of z,
The effect of the selfweight ( W ) may be included in the equilibrium equation of the
real system through the concept of equivalent nodal loadss. The adjoint nodal
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
displacement i: is represented as
in which dW =  2 , w,, and w, is the weight of prestressed concrete per unit volume.
+ +
Wis the selfweight, W = Z , (z, d ' ) w , for a rectangular section, W = [ z , ( 2 , + d ' )
(z,  z,)h,]w, for a Tsection. Upward deflection and counterclockwise rotation of
a node are positive. The adjoint displacement in this problem can include any
prestrain effects.
2 ) Variation of z;
e= 1
3) Variation of z;
The optimal eccentricity at midspan, z';, is computed from Eq.(17) using the
NewtonRaphson method
where
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
e= 1 e= 1
in which

3L;
During computation, if z'; is out of bounds 0 <z'; < 0.5(z2 d')  d , then it is set
equal to the maximum value = 0.5(z2  d')  d" for a rectangular section or
z';,, = z2  y , d" for a Tsection in which y, is the distance from top fibre to
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN
centroid
where z;, = (1.4/1;.)  z, for a rectangular section and z;, = (1.4/f,)  z4(z,/zl) for a
Tsection, respectively. The depth of these elements in the span is computed from
Eq. (20) after setting I ; = 0.
If zP, is smaller than its lower bound in the element with the absolute maximum
moment in the span, the flexural strength constraint is not active a t all. In such a
case, the depth of the beam may be computed using
This latter case will only occur if a very large prestressing steel ratio is used.
Case 3. Elements controlled b y shear a n d j e x u r a l strength constraints (SM)
In the case of elements whose design is controlled by strength constraints only, the
minimum depth required to satisfy the flexural strength requirement may be ob
tained from Eq. (1 1)
in which the nonprestressing steel ratio z', and the eccentricity z', infil,fi2,fi3 are to
be the maximum z ; , ~ ~and z';, respectively. However, the z',,,, obtained from the
combination DF of active constraints (case 1 above) may have to be increased by
about 10% to achieve rapid convergence. The details offil,fiz,fi3 are given in the
Appendix. Likewise, the depth required for meeting the shear strength constraint is
computed from Eq. (14)
188 S. H . HAN el al.
The larger of the depths z,, and z,, is adopted, in which the z: and z', are computed
as just described.
Case 4. Ele~nentscontrolled by shear constraint and lower bound on nonprestressing
steel ratio z; (SL)
If the depth of the beam, z,, is governed by the shear strength constraint, it is
computed from Eq. (38), and the nonprestressing steel ratio is given by Eq. (34).
Case 5. Elcnlents controlled by jlexurcll strength constraint (MM)
If the depth of the beam is governed by the flexural strength constraint only, it is
computed from Eqs. (36) or (37). The eccentricity of the prestressing tendon at midspan
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
and the nonprestressing steel ratio are computed as described for case 3 above.
Case 6. Elenlents controlled by jlexural strength constraint and lower bound on non
prestressing steel rcrtio z; (ML)
The depth of the beam is computed as in case 5 above. Also, if Eq. (33) yields a
nonprestressing steel ratio z; smaller than its lower bound for any element, it is set
equal to this bound (Eq. (34)).
Case 7. Elements controlled by jfexural strength constraint and lower bound on z ,
(for Tsection only)
If the largest depth z, determined for all the preceding combinations of constraints
is smaller than its lower bound, then it is set equal to this bound
The nonprestressing steel ratio is calculated from Eq. (33) with z , = z,,.
Note that IT >O only for the combination of deflection and flexural strength
constraints (DF).
Note that calculation of z,, from Eq. (20) and of 2;' from Eq. (22) and 2; from
Eq. (33) needs an iterative procedure.
2) Compute z'; using Eq. (22) and set
3 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Before describing the numerical example problems, some common features of the
numerical code will be first listed:
1) T o improve the accuracy of deflection calculations, the span was discretized into
ten equal elements.
2) The intensity of uniform service load for use in the deflection constraint was
computed from
p,, = [DL+ W, + 0.7LL1 + k,, [DL+ W , + 0.3LL1
where DL, W, and L L are superimposed dead load, selfweight, and service live load,
respectively. k,, = C2.0 1.2(A,,/AS,:l] a0.8 is a load factor that enables one to ac
count for the deflection resulting from shrinkage and creep; (AJA,,) is the ratio of
190 S. H. HAN el a/.
6) Since the tendon profile was assumed to be parabolic, the length of the tendon
+
was approximated by L, = (L 223, Ref. [8].
l:'.uurnple 1. P~rtiullyprestressed concrete beam with rectungulur secrion
A simply supported beam of span Lis used to support a permanent dead load
DL= 25 kN/m and a live load of L L = 40kN/m, in addition to its own weight.
Obtain the minimum cost design satisfying the deflection, flexural and shear
strength constraints as prescribed in the design Code. The material and design
parameters are listed as below.
1) Material properties
Concrete
f:=40MPa
E, = 32,000 M P a
Prestressing steel
f,= 1,860MPa
k, = 0.28
z, = 0.001 (prestressing steel ratio)
E, = 195 Gpa
Nonprestressing steel
f ,= 400 M Pa
2) Beam dimensions
span L= 23,000 mm
width z, = 1,000 mm
(1' = 50 mm
rl" = l SO mm
3) Relative costs (with c, = 130$/m3, c, = 50,700$/rn3, c, = 8590$/m3, and c, =
55$/rnz)
c,?,= 66
c,, = 390
c,, = 0.42
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN 191
This example was solved with different starting designs after the beam was dis
cretized into ten equal elements. The prestressing steel ratio was fixed at 0.001. The
optimum solutions starting with three different initial design depths are summarized
in Table I . The three initial costs of 152.91, 124.57, 111.69 converged to almost the
same optimal cost of 116.67 irrespective of whether the starting designs were feasible
or not. These costs must be multiplied by c, to obtain the actual cost of construc
tion. The Lagrange multiplier p converged on the average to 5.507 x 10' and the
number of iterations to reach the optimum solution was on the average 12. A,,, in
the Table represents the nonprestressing steel area required for the midspan
element. A ,,,, A ,, A,,, and A,,, in Table 2 represent the nonprestressing steel areas
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
required for the first, second, third and fourth elements, respectively as counted from
the left. The design of the first and second elements is governed by the deflection
constraint and the lower bound on steel ratio (designated DL), whereas for that of
the third, fourth and fifth elements is controlled by the combination of deflection
and flexural strength constraints (designated DM). In order to see the influence of
the deflection constraint on the optimum design, the results for different LlA,, are
summarized in Table 3. The larger the ratio LlA,, (i.e the smaller the allowable A,,),
the more elements are controlled by the deflection constraint and the larger is the
depth of the beam.
Table I Convergence of DCOC for optimum design of PC beam with rectangular section (L/Aa, = 250)
Table 3 Optimum design of PC beam with rectangular section for different L/Aa,
L/Aa, Opr.z2 0pr.z; Opr.A,,, Opt.A,,, Opt.As,, Opr.As,, Opr.A,,, Opr.Asp b,,
mm mm mm2 mm2 mm2 m 2 m 2 mml
Concrete
ff=32MPa
E, = 28,600 M Pa
Prestressing steel
fp = 1,840 MPa
k , = 0.28
z, = 0.00022 (prestressing steel ratio)
Ep = 195 Gpa
Nonprestressing steel
f;. = 400 MPa
2) Beam dimensions
span L= 18,500 mm
ctl'ective width of flange z, = 4,000 mm
thickness of flange hI = 140 mm
width of web z , = 300 mm
d' = 80 mm
(1" = 150 mm
3) Relativc costs: same as example 1.
The beam in this example was treated by rectangular beam analysis (Appendix
(B)) because the floor slab is too wide. It was solved with different starting designs to
check convergence, as in example 1. The prestressing steel ratio was fixed at 0.00022.
The optimum solutions starting with three different initial design depths are sum
marized in Table 4. The three initial costs of 57.09,44.07, 41.28 converged to almost
the same cost of 41.48 irrespective of whether the starting designs were feasible or
not. These costs must be multiplied by c, to obtain the actual cost of construction.
The Lagrange multiplier 11 converged on the average to 1.6867 x lo8 and the numb
er of iterations to reach the optimum solution was on the average just 12. A , , in the
Table represents the nonprestressing steel area required for the midspan element.
Tublc4 Convergence of DCOC for optimum design of PC beam with Tsection (L/Aa,
= 250)
The nonprestressing steel areas for remaining elements are summarized in Table 5.
The design of the first element is governed by the deflection constraint and the lower
bound on steel ratio, whereas that of the remainder is controlled by the combination
of deflection and flexural strength constraints. As in example I , the larger the L l A , , ,
the more elements are controlled by the deflection constraint and the larger is the
depth of the beam (Table 7). I t is observed rrom Table 6 that the optimum designed
by DCOC is very similar to that obtained in Ref. [7] using the conventional design
approach.
Table 6 Comparison of optimum design of PC beam of Tsection (L/Aa, = 400, ape= 0.6475fp)
with the design in Ref. [7]
Mcrhod Opt.z2 0pr.i; Opr.As,, Opr.AS,, Opr.Ps,, Opr.ASrJ Opr.As,, Opr.Aso boo,
mm mm mm2 mm2 mm mm' mm2 mm2
DCOC 1,035.1 741.8 2.346.1 2.346.1 2,483.1 2.862.6 2,989.0 910.9 43.26
Ref.[7] 1.080.0 778.0 3.090.0 3,090.0 3,090.0 3,090.0 3,090.0 900.0 44.73
250 934.2 552.5 2,117.6 2,697.9 3,616.2 4,173.2 4,340.9 822.1 41.48
(DL) (DM) (DM) (DM) (DM)
350 1.030.0 620.2 2,334.6 2.334.6 2,932.4 3,393.9 3,540.7 906.4 43.61
(DL) (DL) (DM) (DM) (DM)
500 1,137.1 694.4 2,577.4 2,577.4 2,577.4 2,612.1 2,727.9 1,000.6 46.29
(DL) (DL) (DL) (DM) (DM)
194 S. H. H A N cf a/.
l'uble X = 250)
Convergence of D C O C for optimum design of P C beam with Tsection (L/An,
I ) Material properties
Prestressing steel
z, = 0.00085 (prestressing steel ratio)
a,, = 0.5473f,
2) Ream dimensions
effective width of flange z, = I , 200 mm
thickness of flange h, = 200mm
width of web z , = 300mm
d ' = 130mm
d" = 150mm
This example was designed by Tbeam analysis. The prestressing steel ratio was
fixed at 0.00085. The optimum solutions starting with three different initial design
depths are summarized in Table 8. The three initial costs of 121.25, 102.60, 89.62
converged to almost the same cost of 94.20 irrespective of whether the starting
designs were feasible or not. These costs must be multiplied by c, to obtain the
actual cost of construction. The Lagrange multiplier /I converged on the average to
3.0262 x 1 0 5 n d the number of iterations to reach the optimum solution was on the
average just 13. A,,, in the Table represents the nonprestressing steel area required
for the midspan element. The nonprestressing steel areas for remaining elements are
listed in Table 9. The design of all the elements was governed by the combination of
deflection and flexural strength constraints. A comparison of the optimum design
with that of Ref. [9] and example 1 above given in Table 10 shows that the optimum
design with a Tsection is much cheaper than that of Ref. [9] and that of the design
with a rectangular section. Moreover, it is observed from Table 1 1 that a Tsection
is more economical than a rectangular section because all elements of the former are
fully utilized in the sense that they are all controlled by both deflection and flexural
strength constraints, whereas in the latter some elements are controlled by the lower
bound on nonprestressing steel ratio.
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN 195
Table 10 Comparison of optimum design of PC beam of Tsection (L/An, = 350) with that of Ref. [9]
and Example I
DCOC 2,085.3 1.079.9 2,472.3 4,098.4 5,268.1 5,988.4 6,192.3 2,127.0 99.72
Ref.[7] 1,350.0 620.0 6,272.0 6,272.0 6,272.0 6,272.0 6,272.0 3,000.0 126.02
Exam.1 2,088.7 869.4 5,221.9 5,221.9 5,221.9 5,386.1 5,808.3 2,088.7 128.31
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
250 1,893.0 977.1 2,939.7 4,981.9 6,456.0 7.340.0 7,648.3 1,930.9 94.20
(DM) (DM) (DM) (DM) (DM)
350 2,085.3 1,079.9 2.472.3 4,098.4 5,268.1 5,988.4 6,192.3 2,127.0 99.72
(DM) (DM) (DM) (DM) (DM)
500 2,298.7 1,193.0 2,035.1 3,263.2 4,130.6 4,657.5 4,816.6 2.344.7 106.13
(DM) (DM) (DM) (DM) (DM)
4 CONCLUSION
This study has developed practical numerical codes based on DCOC for obtaining
the minimum cost designs of prestressed concrete beams subjected to deflection,
flexural and shear strength design constraints and bounds on design variables. The
objective function and design constraints are highly nonlinear functions of design
variables. The emphasis was placed on problem formulation and solution techniques
for P C beams in which the effect of prestressing force on deflection has been explicit
ly considered.
T o demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of the DCOCbased technique
to P C beams, several examples have been considered. Selfweight has been included,
as well as the effects of shrinkage and creep in the computation of maximum
deflection. It is shown that DCOC is effective and accurate for practical P C beam
design problems. Further work is in progress to extend this technique to multispan
prestressed concrete beams.
5. Ad:imu. A. and Karihaloo, R. L. (1994) Minimum cost design of RC beams using DCOC. Part 11:
bc:~mswith uniform crosssections. Srruct. Opr.. 7, 252259.
6. Standards Association of Australia. AS 3600. (1988) Concrete structures. Sydney.
7. Gilbert, R. I. and Mickleborough, N. C. (1990) Design of Prestressed Concrete. Unwin Hyman,
London.
8. Yu. C. H.. Das Guptn. N. C. and Paul. H. (1986)
. . Optimization
.  girders.
of prestressed concrete bridge
Eng. Opr.. 10, 1324.
9. Warner, R. F. and Faulkes, K. A. (1988) Presrressed Concrere. Longman Cheshire.
10. Karih:lloo. B. L. (19931
. 
. Minimum cost desien of reinforced concrete members bv nonlinear oro
gramming. In: Rozvany, G.I.N. (ed) Oprimizarion of Larye Srrtrcrural Systems. (Proc. NATO ASI,
Ikrchtesgnden, Germany, 1991). Kluwer, Dordrecht, 927950.
I I. Kozv:lny, G. I. N. (1989) Srrucrural Design via Oprimality Criteria (rhe Prayer Approach lo Structural
Oprimizarion). Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
12. Rozvany, G. I. N. and Zhou, M. (1991) A note on truss design for stress and displacement constraints
by optitnality criteria methods. Srrucr. Opr.. 3. 4550.
13. Kirsch, U. (1981) Optimum Srrucrural Dcsiyn. McGraw Hill, New York.
14. Cohn, M. Z. and Lounis, Z. (1993) Optimum limit design of continuous prestressed concrete beams.
J. Srrucr. Eny.. ASCE. 119, 35513569.
15. Adamu, A., Karihaloo, B. L. and Rozvany, G. I. N. (1994) Minimum cost design of reinforced con
crete beams using continuumtype optimality criteria. Srruct. Opr.. 7, 91 102.
APPENDIX
This appendix gives details of the flexural strength constraint and of its gradients.
A) Rectangular Section
The ultimate flexural strength of a partially prestressed concrete beam with rectan
gular section is written as
whcrc
+
Here, f , = z 2 / ( z 2 2z",d'), f2 = z 2 z ; / ( z 2+ 22: + d'), X , = f p z l z 4 , X 2 = 2k1fpz4/(f i y ) ,
X 3 = 2 k 1 f , / ( f , ' y )X, 4 =fpz41(l.7f,'),X 5 =1;./(1.71,'), and X 6 = f , z l .
f
ah
==
+
z ; ( ~ z ; dp)
f af2
=
~z,z; azy Jf2 zz
22 az2 +
( z , 2 ~ +; d c ) 2 ' 2razc (z, + 2z; + d')" = =(z, + 2 ~ +; d , )
198 S. H. HAN er al.
M:, = ~ m ~ ~ l ~ +
2 x~ 8 l~ :f z i; f 2i 3 1
whcre
ji3 = 1 . 0  X 6 f i l  X 7 z f , Ll = z 2 + d l  h f , LZ=~ehJ+~lfnl
f~ = ~ 2 / f n 3 , f2 = ( z ~ z ; ) l L j ,f3 = ( z ~ f n l ) l L 3 , f4 =(zzz~LI)IL~
f"3=z,(f"l)2+2zlLl(h,+z',)+z,h,(2z;+hf)
Here, X I =f,z,z,, X 2 = 2k&hJz,z4l(J,'y), X 3 = 2 k l ~ h f z , l ! f , ' ~X)4, = 2 k l f p z lz4/(J,'y),
X , = 2 k l f , z l l ( J , ' y ) X, 6 =fpz4/(1.75,'),X 7 =J;./(1.7f,'), and X 0 =&,.
The gradient information required for optimum solution is listed below:
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN 199
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
M:,=4,CXlz2jil112 + x,z2z;fi31
where, since the values of coefficients are almost the same as in the preceeding case,
only the coefficients which differ from their counterparts are indicated.
h2 = [ +
O . ~ Z I (f~~I~ )j z~1 f , l 0 . 5 h ~ z , ] / f ,Z2; X6, L3 =Z2 X6
Here, X I =JPz,z4, X 2 = 2klf,kJz,z4/(S,'y), X 3 = 2 k , f , h J z , / ( , f , ' y ) ,
X L = 2 k l f p ~ I ~(S,'Y),
4 / X 5 = 2 k l f . z l / ( . f , ' y )X, 6 = h J / 2 , and X, =f,.z,.
The gradient information required for optimum solution is listed below:
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015
200
S. H. HAN er a!.
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.