VIII

DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF
2D STEEL FRAME STRUCTURES

8.1 Objectives

This chapter presents a genetic algorithm for design optimization of multi–bay 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 Z
Z′
Y

X′ Y′

Figure 8.1. Local and global coordinate systems

Z′

Y U
∆ Y′, mem max
X X
nc
δ
N mem
Y b
N ,1
Ix s X
Y Y L N , N b +1 hN
∆ Y′, mem
nc
Y
Ix s s
X X
X
Y

n ,1 X ns , N b +1
I xs max hn
Y Y max δ Ix s
δ n mem
b
X 1

X
1, 1 1 , N b +1
Ix Y Y 1, n Ix h1
b
Ix
X

Y′

B1 BN
b
X′

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 multi–storey 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 non–sway. This is achieved by

applying the notional horizontal loading case. A framework, analysed without including

the effect of cladding, is classified as non–sway if the difference between the upper

∆UY′ ,nmem ( x ) and lower ∆LY′ ,n mem ( x ) horizontal nodal displacements of each column
c c

member ncmem satisfies the following condition:

∆UY′ ,n mem ( x ) − ∆LY′ ,n mem ( x )

≤ 1 , ncmem = 1, 2 , Λ , N cmem . (8.1)
c c

Ln mem
c

2000

Step 3. Calculation of the effective buckling lengths Leff

X, n mem
and Leff
Y, n mem
of columns

and beams. For columns, Leff

X, n mem
is determined according to one of the following three
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

X, n mem
of a beam equals the unrestrained length of
b

the compression flange that occurs on the underside of a beam (see MacGinley, 1997).

To evaluate Leff
Y, n mem
( xi , j ) of beams and columns, It is presupposed that the lateral

bracing system restrain members from movements out of plane ( X ′ - Z′ plane) at their

mid spans. Thus, Leff

Y, n mem
( xi , j ) equals to the half of the length of the member Lnmem .

Step 4. Calculation of the slenderness ratios λ X, nmem ( x ) and λ Y, nmem ( xi , j ) of the

member n mem using

Leff
X, n mem
( x)
λ X, n mem ( x ) = , (8.2)
rX, n mem

Leff
Y, n mem
( xi , j )
λ Y, nmem ( xi , j ) = (8.3)
rY, n mem

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 (8.4)

Sle
λ X, nmem ( x )
where G1 , n mem ( x ) = and (8.5)
180

Sle
λ Y, nmem ( xi , j )
G 2 , n mem ( xi , j ) = . (8.6)
180
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, semi–compact,

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, Λ , Q (8.7)

where the local capacity

F qmem ( x ) Mq ( x)
X, n mem
n
+ for tension
Ae, nmem ( xi , j ) p y , n mem ( xi , j ) M CX , n mem ( xi , j )
members
Str , q
G1 , n mem ( x ) = (8.8)
F q
( x) Mq mem ( x )
n mem
+
X, n
for comprisson
Ag, n mem ( xi , j ) p y , nmem ( xi , j ) M CX , nmem ( xi , j )
members

where F qmem ( x ) is the axial force, M q ( x ) is the moment about the major local
n X, n mem

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 X, n mem
for tension members
M b , n mem ( x )
Str , q (8.9)
G 2 , n mem ( x ) = q q q
F ( x) m ( x) M ( x)
n mem n mem X, n mem
+ for comprisson
Ag, n mem ( xi , j ) p C , n mem ( xi , j ) M b , n mem ( x )
members

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

Str , q Fq ( x)
Y, n mem
G3 , 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 ( x ) is the critical
Y, n mem

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 )
≥ 63 ε ( xi, j ) . (8.11)
t ( xi , j )

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

Str , q Fq ( x)
Y, n mem
G 4 , n mem ( x ) = (8.12)
Vcr, n mem ( xi , j )
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,

∆UY′ , nmem ( x ) − ∆LY′, n mem ( x )

Ser c c
G1 , n mem = and ncmem= 1,Λ , N cmem (8.14)
c Ln mem
c

300

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

define the position of the two–column ends.

b) Imposing the limits on the vertical nodal displacements (maximum value within a

beam) due to the unfactored imposed loading case.

max
δ nmem ( x )
Ser
G 2 , n mem ( x ) = b
, n bmem = 1, 2 , Λ , N bmem (8.15)
b Ln mem
b

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
non–sway using step 2

Compute the effective buckling lengths according the required

approach mentioned in step 3

Apply loading case q = 1, 2 ,Λ , 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

mem mem
Design of member n = 1, 2 ,Λ , N

Determine the type of the section (slender, semi–compact,

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 Tension YES
member?

A
A B
B C D
D

Figure 8.3a. Flowchart of design procedure of structural steelwork

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures 246

A B C D

Local capacity check Local capacity check

Lateral torsional buckling

Overall capacity check
check

Carry out the checks of shear applying (8.10) and

shear buckling using (8.12) if necessary

mem NO
Is n = N mem ?

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 ) = Wn mem Ln mem
n mem = 1

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

Sle
G s , n mem ( x ) ≤ 1 , s = 1, 2

Ser
Gt , nmem ( x ) ≤ 1 , t = 1, 2, 3

I xns , nb
≤ 1 , ns = 1, 2 ,Λ , N s , n b = 1, 2 ,Λ , N b + 1 (8.16)
I xns −1 , nb

x = ( x1T , x T2 , x Tj ,Λ , x TJ ) , j = 1, 2,Λ , J

xi , j ∈ D j and

Dj = (d ,d ,Λ , d )
j, 1 j, 2 j, λ

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 sub–vectors x J . The components of these sub–vectors take

values from a corresponding catalogue D j . In the present work, the cross–sectional

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

o
Design set =1, 2, Λ , 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

o
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, Λ , 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
New generation Design set = N p ? New design

YES

Evaluate the objective and penalised functions

Convergence YES
Stop
occurred?

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

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.

One–point 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

C - F ( x ) , all constraints satisfied

Minimize F ( x ) = (8.17)
0, any of constraints violated.

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: Two–bay two–storey framework

The optimum design of the two–bay two–storey 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

7 8
2 4 6 5.00 m

9 10
1 3 5 5.00 m

10.00 m 10.00 m

Figure 8.5. Two–bay two–storey 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 two–bay two–storey framework (4 design variables)

Weight (kg)
Run
First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)

1 8640 7910 8870

2 8430 8010 8490
3 8690 7950 8630
4 8730 8360 8690
5 8630 7910 8630
6 8550 8110 8490
7 8430 8010 8750
8 8490 7910 8590
9 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 two–bay two–storey framework (4 design
variables)

Design Member
variable No.
1 1, 2, 5, 6
2 3, 4
3 7, 8
4 9, 10
Cross sections
First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)
356 × 368 × 177 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 153 UC
356 × 368 × 177 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 153 UC
457 × 191 × 74 UB 610 × 229 × 101 UB 610 × 229 × 113 UB
533 × 210 × 82 UB 610 × 229 × 101 UB 533 × 210 × 82 UB

Weight (kg) 8430 7910 8490

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)
11000 T hird approach (conservative)
Best design (kg)

10000

9000

8000

7000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Generation number

Figure 8.6. Two–bay two–storey 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 two–bay two–storey framework (6 design variables)

Weight (kg)
Run
First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)

1 8490 7955 8700

2 8650 8015 8560
3 8600 8090 8495
4 8415 7870 8495
5 8430 7975 8570
6 8630 8030 8730
7 8600 8160 8630
8 8430 7870 8510
9 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 two–bay two–storey framework (6 design
variables)

Cross sections
Design Member
variable No. First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)
1 1, 5 356 × 368 × 153 UC 356 × 368 × 177 UC 356 × 368 × 153 UC
2 2, 6 254 ×254 × 73 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 153 UC
3 3 356 × 368 × 153 UC 356 × 368 × 177 UC 356 × 368 × 202 UC
4 4 203 × 203 × 86 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 153 UC
5 7, 8 610 × 229 × 101 UB 533 × 210 × 82 UB 533 × 210 × 82 UB
6 9, 10 762 × 267 × 147 UB 533 × 210 × 82 UB 610 × 229 × 101 UB
Weight (kg) 8415 7870 8495
Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures 254

12000
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)
11000 T hird approach (conservative)
Best design (kg)

10000

9000

8000

7000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Generation number

Figure 8.7. Two–bay two–storey framework–6 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 Member
variable No. First solution Second solution

1 1, 5 356 × 368 × 177 UC 356 × 368 × 177 UC

2 2,6 356 × 368 × 177 UC 203 × 203 × 46 UC
3 3 356 × 368 × 177 UC 356 × 368 × 177 UC
4 4 356 × 368 × 177 UC 203 × 203 × 71 UC
5 7,8 457 × 191 × 74 UB 610 × 229 × 101 UB
6 9, 10 533 × 210 × 82 UB 762 × 267 × 147 UB
Weight (kg) 8430 8430

8.4.2 Example 2: Five–bay five–storey framework

The next example to study is the five–bay five–storey framework shown in Figure 8.8.

The loading cases described in Section 7.3.3 are taken into account.

P 2P 2P 2P 2P P

31 32 33 34 35
0.01P
5 2P 10 4 15 4P 4P 20 4P 25 2P 30 3.00 m
0.01P P
36 37 38 39 40
9
4
2P 4P 14 4P 4P 19 4P 24 2 29 3.00 m
0.01P P
41 42 43 44 45
8 13 4P 18 28
3 2P 4P 4P 4P 23 2P 3.00 m
0.01P
46 47 48 49 50
2 7 4P 12 4P 17 22 2P 27 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P
0.01P
51 52 53 54 55
1 6 11 16 21 26 3.00 m

5.00 m 5.00 m 5.00 m 5.00 m 5.00 m

Figure 8.8. Five–bay five–storey 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 7 7 7 7
3 6 6 6 6 3

8 8 8 8 8
2 5 5 5 5 2

8 8 8 8 8
2 5 5 5 5 2

8 8 8 8 8
1 4 4 4 4 1

8 8 8 8 8
1 4 4 4 4 1

Figure 8.9. Five–bay five–storey framework showing the arrangement

of 8 design variables

7 8 8 8 7
3 6 6 6 6 3

9 10 10 10 9
2 5 5 5 5 2

9 10 10 10 9
2 5 5 5 5 2

9 10 10 10 9
1 4 4 4 4 1

9 10 10 10 9
1 4 4 4 4 1

Figure 8.10. Five–bay five–storey 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 five–bay five–storey framework (8 design variables)

Weight (kg)
Run
First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)

1 15455 14675 16101

2 15385 14851 15926
3 15465 14390 15991
4 15321 14935 15973
5 15367 14725 16299

Average weight 15398.6 14715.2 16058

Minimum weight 15321 14390 15926

Table 8.7. The optimum solution for the five–bay five–storey framework (8 design
variables)

Cross sections
Design
variable First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)
1 356 × 368 × 153 UC 305 × 305 × 118 UC 305 × 305 × 118 UC
2 356 × 368 × 129 UC 305 × 305 × 118 UC 305 × 305 × 118 UC
3 356 × 368 × 129 UC 305 × 305 × 97 UC 254 × 254 × 89 UC
4 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC
5 254 × 254 × 107 UC 305 × 305 × 97 UC 305 × 305 × 137 UC
6 203 × 203 × 52 UC 203 × 203 × 71 UC 254 × 254 × 73 UC
7 406 × 140 × 39 UB 305 × 102 × 28 UB 254 × 102 × 28 UB
8 406 × 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)
22000
T hird approach (conservative)
Best design (kg)

20000

18000

16000

14000

12000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Generation number

Figure 8.11. Five–bay five–storey 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 five–bay five–storey framework (10 design variables)

Weight (kg)
Run
First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)

1 15391 14723 16309

2 15571 14461 16239
3 15371 14195 16941
4 15753 14809 15819
5 15679 14455 16469

Average weight 15553 14528.6 16355.4

Minimum weight 15371 14195 15819

Table 8.9. The optimum solution for the five–bay five–storey framework (10 design
variables)

Cross sections
Design
variable First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)
1 305 × 305 × 97 UC 305 × 305 × 137 UC 305 × 305 × 137 UC
2 305 × 305 × 97 UC 305 × 305 × 137 UC 305 × 305 × 97 UC
3 254 × 254 × 107 UC 203 × 203 × 52 UC 254 × 254 × 89 UC
4 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC
5 254 × 254 × 107 UC 254 × 254 × 73 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC
6 203 × 203 × 46 UC 203 × 203 × 46 UC 203 × 203 × 60 UC
7 533 × 210 × 92 UB 533 × 210 × 92 UB 356 × 171 × 51 UB
8 254 × 146 × 31 UB 254 × 102 × 25 UB 254 × 146 × 37 UB
9 356 × 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)
22000
T hird approach (conservative)
Best design (kg)

20000

18000

16000

14000

12000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Generation number

Figure 8.12. Five–bay five–storey framework (10 design variables):

best design versus generation number

8.4.3 Example 3: Four–bay ten–storey framework

The final example is the four–bay ten–storey framework shown in Figure 8.13. In this

figure, the loading pattern for the stability analysis and member numbering are shown

where α = 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 261

P 2P 2P 2P P

αP
51 52 53 54
10 20 30 40 50 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
55 56 57 58
9 19 29 39 49 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
59 60 61 62
8 18 28 38 48 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
63 64 65 66
7 17 27 37 47 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
67 68 69 70
6 16 26 36 46 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
71 72 73 74

32.00 m
5 15 25 35 45 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
75 76 77 78
4 14 24 34 44 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
79 80 81 82
3 13 23 33 43 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
83 84 85 86
2 12 22 32 42 3.00 m
2P 4P 4P 4P 2P
αP
87 88 89 90

1 11 21 31 41 5.00 m

4.00 m 4.00 m 4.00 m 4.00 m

16.00 m

Figure 8.13. Four–bay ten–storey 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 263

P1 P4 P7 P10 P13 P16 P19 P2 P2

H1
7 7 7 7
3 6 6 6 3
P2 P5 P8 P11 P14 P17 P20 P23 P26
H2
8 8 8 8
3 6 6 6 3
P3 P6 P9 P12 P15 P18 P21 P24 P27
H3
8 8 8 8
3 6 6 6 3
P2 P5 P8 P11 P14 P17 P20 P23 P26
H4
8 8 8 8
2 5 5 5 2
P3 P6 P9 P12 P15 P18 P21 P24 P27
H5
8 8 8 8
2 5 5 5 2
P2 P5 P8 P11 P14 P17 P20 P23 P26
H6
8 8 8 8
2 5 5 5 2
P3 P6 P9 P12 P15 P18 P21 P24 P27
H7
8 8 8 8
2 5 5 5 2
P2 P5 P8 P11 P14 P17 P20 P23 P26
H8
8 8 8 8
1 4 4 4 1
P3 P6 P9 P12 P15 P18 P21 P24 P27
H9
8 8 8 8
1 4 4 4 1
P2 P5 P8 P11 P14 P17 P20 P23 P26
H10
8 8 8 8

1 4 4 4 1

Figure 8.14. Four–bay ten–storey framework

Design Optimization of 2D Steel Frame Structures 264

Table 8.10. Loads applied on the four–bay ten–storey framework (in kN)

Load Loading case

symbol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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 four–bay ten–storey framework

Weight (kg)
Run
First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)

1 34421 30835 35125

2 34400 30649 35393
3 34424 29301 35649
4 34337 30904 34934
5 34406 30727 36992

Average weight 34397.6 30483.2 35618.6

Minimum weight 34337 29301 34934

Table 8.12. The optimum solution for the four–bay ten–storey framework

Cross sections
Design
variable First approach Second approach Third approach
(code) (FE) (conservative)
1 356 × 406 × 235 UC 356 × 368 × 177 UC 356 × 406 × 235 UC
2 356 × 368 × 153 UC 305 × 305 × 118 UC 356 × 368 × 153 UC
3 356 × 368 × 129 UC 203 × 203 × 71 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC
4 356 × 406 × 235 UC 356 × 368 × 202 UC 356 × 406 × 235 UC
5 305 × 305 × 118 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC
6 305 × 305 × 118 UC 254 × 254 × 73 UC 356 × 368 × 129 UC
7 254 × 146 × 31 UB 305 × 102 × 33 UB 305 × 102 × 25 UB
8 457 × 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
First approach (code)
Second approach (FE)
T hird approach (conservative)
50000
Best design (kg)

40000

30000

20000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Generation number

Figure 8.15. Four–bay ten–storey 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 PC–based

software for structural engineering design. The product S–FRAME 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 S–FRAME and S–STEEL 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 S–FRAME, 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 S–STEEL 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 two–bay two–storey 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 two–bay two–storey framework (4 design
variables)

Design Member Cross sections

variable No. Technique 1 Technique 2
1 1, 2, 5, 6 356 × 368 × 177 UC 305 × 305 × 118 UC
2 3, 4 356 × 368 × 177 UC 305 × 305 × 118 UC
3 7, 8 457 × 191 × 74 UB 610 × 229 × 101 UB
4 9, 10 533 × 210 × 82 UB 762 × 267 × 147 UB
Weight (kg) 8430 8500

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.

12000
First run
Second run
T hird run
11000 Fourth run
Best design (kg)

Fifth run

10000

9000

8000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Generation number

Figure 8.16. Two–bay two–storey 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

non–sway. Here, the optimizer identifies the framework as a non–sway framework. This

is also successfully examined when using S–FRAME.

Following the three steps stated at the beginning of this section, the obtained

results are validated and the design results from S–STEEL are displayed in Figure 8.17.
Figure 8.17. The design results of two–bay two–storey framework (captured from S–STEEL)
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 multi–objective 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 STAAD–III

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 three–dimensional 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.