Engineering Optimization

ISSN: 0305-215X (Print) 1029-0273 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geno20

APPLICATION OF DCOC TO OPTIMUM PRESTRESSED

CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN

S. H. HAN , A. ADAMU & B. L. KARIHALOO

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, 179-200,
DOI: 10.1080/03052159508941262

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03052159508941262

Published online: 27 Apr 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=geno20

Download by: [Northeastern Forestry University] Date: 23 November 2015, At: 23:48
 Eng. Opt., 1995, Val. 25, pp. 179-200 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

APPLICATION OF DCOC TO OPTIMUM

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN

S. H. HAN
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

Departtnent of Civil Engineering,

T h e Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, 360-763, Korea
A. ADAMU and B. L. KARIHALOO
School of Civil and Mining Engineering,
The University o f s y d n e y , N . S. W 2 0 0 6 , Australia

(Received 31 January 1995)

This paper describes the application of discretized continuum-type optimality criteria (DCOC) lo the
minimum cost design of prestressed concrete beams. The costs to be minimized involve those of concrete..
prestressing steel, non-prestressing 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 Kuhn-Tucker 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 non-prestressing
steel ratio. The DCOC and computer code are developed for beam designs whose member cross-
sections are uniform along the length. Self-weight 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 DCOC-based technique.

KEY WORDS: Discretized continuum-type optimality criteria, structural optimization, partial prestress-
ing, eccentricity.

1 INTRODUCTION

Structural optimization has developed along two directions-the numerical stream

using mathematical programming method^'^.'^,'^ and the analytical stream based
on optimality ~ r i t e r i a ' - ~ . ' ' . ' ~ . Usually
'~. the numerical methods are known to be
more efficient than the analytical methods when the design variables and constraints
are limited in number. As the number of design variables increases, the computer
time required for the redesign procedure and the number of structural reanalyses
needed for reaching the optimum also increase, thus placing a severe limitation on
the capability of numerical structural optimization methods. When the constraints
and the design variables are numerous, the analytical methods based on optimality
criteria generally tend to be more efficient. This has been demonstrated by Rozvany
and Zhoul who developed an iterative algorithm coupling the C O C (continuum-
type optimality criteria) methods and FE analysis for problems with pointwise
 180 S.H. H A N er ol

streess constraints and a single displacement constraint. However, the methods

based on C O C are still not practical and are limited to simple structures because of
the difficulty in handling prestrain effects in the analysis of the adjoint systems as it
is necessary to analyse both real and adjoint structural systems. T o remove this
limitation, methods based on the discretized continuum-type optimality criteria
(DCOC) have been developed by Zhou and R o ~ v a n y * .Following
~. their paper, the
general optimality criteria for discretized structural systems are derived using the
flexibility matrix formulation for analysis and the Kuhn-Tucker optimality condi-
tions. However, in the actual numerical procedure, the analysis of structures is
-
~erformed usine. the more efficient stiffness matrix formulation. Adamu and
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

Karihaloo4.' developed an optimization algorithm for reinforced concrete beam

svstems based on the stiffness formulation of matrix analvsis and the Kuhn-Tucker
optimality conditions and demonstrated the efficiency and versatility of the DCOC-
based methods for these structures.
This paper is an extension or previous investigations on reinforced concrete beam
optimization based on the DCOC method to prestressed concrete beam. The opti-
mality criteria and numerical algorithms are specialised to the solution of the prob-
lems of minimum cost design of prestressed concrete (PC) beams with rectangular o r
T-sections. The design variables are the depth of beam which is assumed to be
uniform along its entire length, the maximum eccentricity at midspan of the pre-
stressing steel whose profile is assumed to be parabolic, and the non-prestressing
steel ratio which is allowed to vary freely along the span. The objective function is
the cost of construction; the cost to be minimized is the sum of the costs of concrete,
prestressing steel, non-prestressing steel and formwork. Constraints are placed on
the maximum allowable deflection in the span, and on the flexural and shear
strengths. The effect of self-weight of the beam and prestressing force on the deflec-
tion is included in the analysis of the real system and the derivation of optimality
criteria.

2 PROBLEM FORMULATION AND OPTIMALITY CRITERIA

2.1 General Statement of the Problem

Consider the minimum cost design problem of P C beams with one displacement and
several strength constraints. The problem of optimization may generally be repre-
sented as follows in the notation of Zhou and Rozvany2:
Minimize Q(z); z E Z,
Subject to u, - A,, < 0
g w S0
z, S z Qz,
where z is the design variable vector with elements zi (i = 1,. . . ,n,), z, is its feasible
domain, Q(z) is the objective function, u, and A,, are respectively the deflection a t a
given node and its allowable value; gJz), ( j = I , ... ,J,) represent j strength con-
straints on the eth element; e = 1, ...,N,, N , is the number of elements into which the
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE B E A M DESIGN 181

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 Lagrangian2-5, as follows:

Minimize @=c#~(z)+p[{F,}~[f]{F,} + { F I T + {i,}- A a I + q ]

Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

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 cross-section 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.

2.2 Problem Formulation

In a partially prestressed concrete beam (Figure 1) with a parabolic tendon profile of
rectangular section (Figure 2a), denote width z,, depth z,, maximum eccentricity of
prestressing steel at midspan zy, prestressing steel ratio z, and non-prestressing steel
ratio z',. In a beam of T-section (Figure 2b), denote effective flange width z, and web
width z,. The eccentricity of the- tendon in each element is computed from
Z; = 42'; [(x/L) - (x/Q2], x is the longitudinal coordinate along the beam axis.
It is assumed that z,, z, and z, are given and that z,, Z; and z; are to be
determined optimally using DCOC. The flexural rigidity of a PC beam element like
its RC beam element c ~ u n t e r p a r t , ,may
~ be written as follows:

Figure 1 Partially prestressed beam with a parabolic tendon profile

 S. H. HAN el a/.

(a) U ++
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

Figure 2 Partially prestressed concrete beam: (a) rectangular cross-section; (b) T cross-section.

in which

/I= { 0.045E,z1
0.045E,zC (0.7 + 0.3z1/zJ3
for a rectangular section
for a T-section

and E, is the modulus of elasticity of concrete.

2.2.1 Objective Function

The objective function-the cost of construction-is the sum of the costs of concrete,
prestressing steel, non-prestressing steel and formwork. It may be written in terms of
design variables as

in which

m,=(z,-zlz4+z,z,c,+2cf,)c,, m,=(z,-z,c,,)c,, m3=(2z,z4cpJc,

+
E l = [ z 1 d f + ( z l 2d')c,,] r, for a rectangular section,
m, =(zl-z,z4+z,z4c,+2c,,)c,, m,=(z,-z,c,,)c,, m3=(2z,z4c,)c,
E1=[(zld'+z,hf-z1h,)+(2d'+z,)c,,]c, for a T-section
Here, Le is the length of a n element, Le= L / N , , e = 1, ... ,N,,c, is the cost of con-
crete per unit volume, c,, is the cost of non-prestressing steel per unit volume relative
to c,, c, is the cost of prestressing steel per unit volume relative to c,, c,, is the cost
of formwork per unit area relative to c,. The areas of steel can be represented as
A,, = z, z2z4, A,, = z,z,z', for a rectangular section and A,, = z,z2z4, A,, = z,z,z;
for a T-section.
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN

2.2.2 Design constraints

1 ) Deflection constraint
In a simply supported beam, the deflection constraint can be expressed explicitly in
terms of the design variables. The effect of prestressing force on deflection, however,
complicates the problem somewhat. In this paper, the effect of prestressing force on
deflection is included in the following manner. Let the effective prestressing stress

-
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

where, Q; and Q; are given by

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.

2) Flexural strength constraint

According to Australian Standard AS 3600-19886, the ultimate flexural strength for
a partially prestressed concrete beam with rectangular section and no compression
reinforcement is
 184 S. H. H A N et a/.

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

Therefore, the flexural strength constraint for each element is written as

+
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 non-prestressing steel, and f : is the charac-
teristic compressive strength of concrete at 28 days.
In the case of a beam of T-section, 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.

2.3 Optimality Criteria

The optimality criteria resulting from the variation of 5 with respect to the design
variables may be written as follows:
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN

I ) Variation of z,

The effect of the self-weight ( 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 self-weight, W = Z , (z, d ' ) w , for a rectangular section, W = [ z , ( 2 , + d ' )
(z, - z,)h,]w, for a T-section. Upward deflection and counter-clockwise 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;

2.4 jreratioe Procedure

2.4.1 Updating the Design Variables
Case I . Elements controlled by dejection and flexural strength constraints (D-F)
If the depth of beam, z,, is governed by the deflection constraint, whereas the
eccentricity at midspan z;, and the non-prestressing steel ratio of each element z',
are controlled by the flexural strength constraint, A; = /?', = y', = = ye3 = =
y; = 0, so that Eq. (15) becomes

Simplifying Eq. (19) gives the optimal depth of beam

 186 S. H. H A N cr a/

As the Lagrange multiplier I; for the D-F controlled elements is important to

generate the adjoint prestrain, it is computed from Eq.(18)

The optimal eccentricity at midspan, z';, is computed from Eq.(17) using the
Newton-Raphson method

where
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

e= 1 e= 1
in which

In the above equations, the various gradients are given by

aQ"
-=---
aM:Le
[ 2 p A - P;L']
a V : -[ 3 a A - 2v; L'I
+-
az, az, 2 az, 6

-
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 T-section in which y, is the distance from top fibre to
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN

centroid

From the maximum eccentricity at midspan, the eccentricity of the prestressing

tendon at each element is calculated from the assumed parabolic profile
z; = 42'; [ ( x / L )- (xJL)~].The corresponding optimal non-prestressing steel ratio z;
for each element is computed from the flexural strength constraint using the inter-
val-halving method
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

Case 2. Elements controlled by dejection constraint and lower bound on non-pre-

stressing steel ratio z; (D-L)
If Eq. (33) yields a non-prestressing steel ratio z; smaller than its lower bound z', for
some elements, then it is set equal to this bound

where z;, = (1.4/1;.) - z, for a rectangular section and z;, = (1.4/f,) - z4(z,/zl) for a
T-section, 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 (S-M)
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 non-prestressing 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 D-F 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 non-prestressing
steel ratio z; (S-L)
If the depth of the beam, z,, is governed by the shear strength constraint, it is
computed from Eq. (38), and the non-prestressing steel ratio is given by Eq. (34).
Case 5. Elcnlents controlled by jlexurcll strength constraint (M-M)
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 non-prestressing 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; (M-L)
The depth of the beam is computed as in case 5 above. Also, if Eq. (33) yields a
non-prestressing 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 T-section 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

where z,, is computed from yd, > h, for a T-section as

The non-prestressing steel ratio is calculated from Eq. (33) with z , = z,,.

2.4.2. Cornputation of the Lagrange n~ultiplier

The Lagrange multiplier is computed from the deflection constraint (5) using
Eq. (15) as
p 3/4 =

Note that IT >O only for the combination of deflection and flexural strength
constraints (D-F).

2.4.3. Iterative procedure

The computational aspects of the iterative procedure for the solution of the problem
are summarized below.
1) Compute the depths from Eqs. (20), (36), and (38) or (40) (for T-section only) and
label these z,,, z , , z,,, z,,, respectively. Choose
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN 189

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) Compute z', using Eq. (33) and set

Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

4 ) Check the ductility constraint by computing the minimum depth required to

ensure the ductility of the beam at the optimum solution z'; and z.; For this it is
necessary that d, - 5d, $ 0 in which 5 = 0.3, Ref. [7], and so giving

5) Repeat step ( I ) if there is a change in the element domain controlled by the

displacement and the strength constraints.
6 ) Check convergence with regard to changes in the cost of construction and design
variables as follows

where E,,,, and are equal to and respectively

7 ) Repeat step ( 1 ) through (6) until the convergence criteria (step 6) are simulta-
neously met.

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, self-weight, 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/.

the area of longitudinal compressive reinforcement to that of the tensile reinforce-

ment. As no compressive reinforcement is employed, k, = 2.0.
3) The design factored load for ultimate strength limit states was computed using

in which y, = i.25, yQ = 1.5, Ref. [4].

4) The lower bound on non-prestressing steel ratio is z;, = (l.4/f,) - z, for a rec-
t;lngular section and z;, = (1.4/f,) - z,(z,/z,) for a T-section, and is non-zero.
5) For the explicit inclusion of the deflection constraint in the practical design of PC
structures, an equivalent allowable deflection corresponding to the factored design
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

loads was computed using5

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
Non-prestressing 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 non-prestressing steel area required for the midspan
element. A ,,,, A ,, A,,, and A,,, in Table 2 represent the non-prestressing 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 D-L), whereas for that of
the third, fourth and fifth elements is controlled by the combination of deflection
and flexural strength constraints (designated D-M). 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)

1ir2 n i z n i t . Opr.z, Opt.:; Opt.A., 0pr.A 4 , bow No. of

mm mm mm mm mm2 mml Irer.

Table2 Optimum steel areas required for the elements

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

250 1,841.6 745.8 4,604.0 4,604.0 6,196.5

7,756.2 8,305.5 1,841.6 1 16.67
(D-LI (D-LI (D-M)
. (D-M)
.
. (D-MI
350 2.070.5 860.2 5,176.2 5,176.2 5,176.2
5,525.0 5,990.'1 2,070.5 127.40
(D-L) (D-L) (D-L) (D-M) (D-M)
500 2,342.8 996.4 5,857.1 5,857.1 5,857.1
5,857.1 5,857.1 2,342.8 142.46
(D-L) (D-L) (D-L) (D-L) (D-L)
 192 S. H . H A N er ol

E s m p l e 2. Partially prestressed concrere beutil with T-section (yd, < hI)

A slab and beam floor system consists of post-tensioned, simply supported T-beams
spanning 18.5m and spaced at 4m centres. The floor supports a superimposed
permanent dead load of 2 kPa and a variable live load of 3kPa, 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. This example has been
borrowed from the textbook7 using the material and design parameters given there.
Thesc are:
1) Material properties
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

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
Non-prestressing 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 non-prestressing steel area required for the midspan element.

Tublc4 Convergence of DCOC for optimum design of PC beam with T-section (L/Aa,
= 250)

1 i . z 1 . z 1 . z Opt.z, 0pr.z; Opr.A,,, Opr.A,, bini, b,,, No.oj

mni mm mm mm2 mm2 lter
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN 193

The non-prestressing 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.

Example 3. Partially presrressed concrete beam with Tsection (yd, > h f )

Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

Simply supported girders spanning 23m are to be designed to support a permanent

imposed uniformly distributed load of 25kN/m, in addition to self-weight. A live
load of 40kN/m is to be allowed for in the design. Obtain the minimum cost design
satisfying the deflection, flexural and shear strength constraints as prescribed in the
design Code. This problem was treated as text example in Ref. [Y]. The same
material and design parameters have been used a example 1, with the following
differences for ease of comparison with Ref.[Y].

Table 5 Optimum steel areas required for the elements

Table 6 Comparison of optimum design of PC beam of T-section (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

Table 7 Optimum design o f PC beam o f T-section for different L /A

250 934.2 552.5 2,117.6 2,697.9 3,616.2 4,173.2 4,340.9 822.1 41.48
(D-L) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M)
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
(D-L) (D-L) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M)
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
(D-L) (D-L) (D-L) (D-M) (D-M)
 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 T-section (L/An,

1 1 ; ~ 1;fz; I n z Opr.z2 0pt.z; Opr.A,,, Opl.A,, NO.OJ

mm mm mm mm mm2 mm2 Iter.
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

l'uble 9 Optimum steel areas required for the elements

1,893.02.939.7 4,981.9 6,456.0 7,340.0 7.648.3 94.20

(D-M) (DM) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M)

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 T-beam 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 non-prestressing steel area required
for the midspan element. The non-prestressing 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 T-section 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 T-section
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 non-prestressing steel ratio.
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN 195

Table 10 Comparison of optimum design of PC beam of T-section (L/An, = 350) with that of Ref. [9]
and Example I

Merhod Opr.:, 0pt.z; Opt.A,,, Opt.AS,, Opr.As,, Opf.ASt4 Opt.As,, Opr.A,l

mm mm mm2 mm2 mm2 mm"m2 mm2

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

Table 11 Optimum design of PC beam with T-section for different L/Aa,

A , O P ~Opr.:; Opt.A,,, Opr.A,,, Op[.A',, Opr.A,,, OP~.A,,, 0 ~ r . A ~ ~

mm mm mm2 mm' mm2 mm2 mm2 mm2

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
(D-M) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M)
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
(D-M) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M)
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
(D-M) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M) (D-M)

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 DCOC-based technique
to P C beams, several examples have been considered. Self-weight 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 multi-span
prestressed concrete beams.

I. Rozvany, G. I. N. and Zhou. M. (1991) The C O C algorithm. Part I: cross-section optimization or

sizing. Comp. Merh. Appl. Mech. Etiyrg., 88, 281-308.
2. Zhou, M. and Rozvany, G. 1. N. (1992) DCOC: an optimalitv criteria method for large - systems.
. Part
I: theory. Srrucr. Opt., 5, 12-25.
3. Zhou, M. and Rozvany, G. I. N. (1993) DCOC: an optimality criteria method for large systems. Part
11: alaorithms. Strucr. Opt., 6. 250-262.
4. ~ d a m u A.
, and ~ a r i h a i o o ,B. L. (1994) Minimum cost design of RC beams using DCOC. Part I:
beams with freely-varying cross-sections. Srrurr. Opr.. 7. 237-251.
 196 S. H. HAN el al.

5. Ad:imu. A. and Karihaloo, R. L. (1994) Minimum cost design of RC beams using DCOC. Part 11:
bc:~mswith uniform cross-sections. Srruct. Opr.. 7, 252-259.
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, 13-24.
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, 927-950.
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. 45-50.
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, 3551-3569.
15. Adamu, A., Karihaloo, B. L. and Rozvany, G. I. N. (1994) Minimum cost design of reinforced con-
crete beams using continuum-type 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

It can be represented in terms of design variables as

M:r= 4, [ ~ 2 ~ l f i l . h+2 'iz; X6i31
where
.hI = l.O-f,X, -fix3
L, = 0.5(z2 + 2zf + d') - X , Z , ~ ,- X S ~ Z ~ :
.h3 = 1.0- X 4 h l - xsz;
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM DESIGN 197

+
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 .

The gradient information required for optimum solution is listed below.

Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

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.

( I ) Rectangular beam design case ( y d , ,< h,.)

The ultimate flexural strength of a partially prestressed concrete beam can be repre-
sented in terms of the design variables as
Downloaded by [Northeastern Forestry University] at 23:48 23 November 2015

M:, = ~ m ~ ~ l ~ +
2 x~ 8 l~ :f z i; f 2i 3 1
whcre

A1 = 1 ' 0 - f 1 X 2 -fZx3 -f3 X 4 -f4'5

fi2 = [0.5z1(fn1)2 + h f z l f n l +0.5h;zel/fn2 + z>x6z2A1 -X7z2zf

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

(2) T-beam design case (yd, > h,)

The ultimate flexural strength of a partially prestressed concrete beam can be repre-
sented in terms of the design variables as

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!.