Optimization in Structural Engineering

Vanda Pomezanski
University of Pécs/Department of Structural Engineering, Pécs, Hungary

Index Terms: Mathematics, Computer Programming, Structural Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

BSc courses are introducing the fundamentals of structural analysis for determining the structural
behaviour, eg. deformations, stresses, bucklings, etc. In practice these fundamentals are used for a minimal
weight design without changing the earlier defined structural forms and conditions.
The structural optimization is taking in order more aspects, eg. to reduce costs, improve quality and
reliability. It is an extensive and increasingly developing field of research that can be described as following
[1]:
“Structural optimization may be defined as the rational establishment of structural design that
is the best of all possible design within a prescribed objective and given set of geometrical
and/or behavioral limitations.”

The optimization problems can be classified in terms of the variables, objectives, the determined
constrains and of the solution methods. Quick development of the computing technology gives the possibility
for solving large-scale problems as well.
The brief summary above presents that structural optimization requires big parts of mathematical
knowledge, of computer programming and of described and/or intuitive engineering knowledge for problem
formulation, solution and for computational problem management. Thus it is good to teach it in MSc and
mainly in PhD courses.

STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION IN BSC COURSES:

In BSc courses the curriculum is about the relation between forces and displacements (see Fig. 1.). In the
first term the subject of statics the concepts of forces, load types, resultant force, support types, supporting
forces and equilibriums, determination of external and internal forces, the calculation of bending moments
are learned up. In the second term, in subject of strength of materials the curriculum contains the force –
stress relations as equilibriums, the Hooke’s law for linear elastic materials as constitutive equation. Next the
theory of virtual forces and displacements, the small displacement theory, and the principle of work for
displacement calculations and finally the minimal energy design for calculation of indeterminate structures
are represented. Concerning to these theories different geometrical parameters are determined as central
point of a cross-section area, staticall moment, moment of inertia.

constitutive equations
strain stress

geometrical/kinematic
equilibriums
equations

displacement load/force

Fig. 1. The force-displacements relation.

 Using this knowledge the simplest problem of structural design is solvable: determine the needful and
adequate cross-sectional area at the given point of a loaded and supported statically determinate structure
with given material properties. (Example is from [2] in Fig. 2.)

K K-K: σ+

K F b σ-

Fig. 2. Cantilever with a unit load.

In the third term the curriculum is for structural analysis. Mainly that is for the solution methods of
statically indeterminate plane structures. Frames, trusses, strengthened structures and continuous beams are
solved by the force method, by the displacement method and by the moment distribution method manually.
Finally the principles and solution methods of the finite element method (FEM) are practiced. Models of different
structures: frames, grids, plates, walls, shells and compound structures, modelization of supports and connections are
solved by industrial FEM codes (eg. AXIS).

STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION FOR RESEARCHES

For structural design different geometrical, topological, material and stiffness parameters are required.
Some of these parameters are classified and fixed by functional and technological requirements; the others
are the design variables. The optimization problems can be classified by the design variables best.

FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS OF DESIGN VARIABLES

By a mathematical classification a variable is:

ƒ continuous, when it can take any value between an upper and a lower bound → continuous (or
distributed parameter) optimization problems,
ƒ or discrete, when the variable can take only some given values → discrete (or parameter)
optimization problems.

In mechanical point of view the design variables are describing different structural qualities:
ƒ Cross-sectional parameters: The most frequently used variables as cross-sectional area, moment of
inertia, etc. → Cross-section optimization

ƒ Material properties: the variable describes the physical properties of the material. Usually these are
discrete variables. For brittle materials a stochastic property character is used.→ Material
optimization

ƒ Topology or arrangement parameters: The design is usually determined by a given set of elements
(ground structure), where some elements are omissible and/or new elements are adaptable. The
topology can be modified in discrete steps only. → Topology optimization. (Example is from [3] in
Fig. 3.)
 Fig. 3. Example for Topology Optimization: a 12x24 element plate solved by Extended-SIMP.

ƒ Geometry or shape parameters: The continuous variable quantities are nodal coordinates or bar
lengths. → Shape optimization.

Fig. 4. Example for Shape Optimization.

ƒ Support and loading parameters: These types of design variables are describing the boundary
conditions as supports and load distribution of the structure. Either, place (location), type and
number of the design parameters can be varied. → Inverse problems. (Example is from [4] in Fig. 4.)

LFi
Fi

A B
LB=?
L

Fig. 5. Example for Support Optimization: where to put the truckle under a single supported beam.

FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS OF CONSTRAINS

To characterize and control the structural response, displacement, buckling, etc., different constrains are
determined:
ƒ The relations between design variables are presented in the equality constrains: usually as state
equations (1) or separately the equilibriums (2) and compatibility equations (3) of the structure:

Kv − q = 0 (1)
Cv + Gs − q = 0 (2)
~
GTv + F s = 0 (3)
where C is the diagonal matrix of the supports, G and its transpose is the geometrical matrix, F is the
flexibility matrix, K is the stiffness matrix v is the vector of node displacements, s is the vector of the
internal forces of bars and q is the external load vector.
 ƒ The totality of design space is often not acceptable, thus some or all variables may have limits. The
limit intervals can be determined by functionality, technology or aesthetical requirements as well.
These types of constraints are typically inequality constraints:
ƒ lower and upper bounds on design variables,
ƒ or on other quantities: local parameters as stress or deflection, or global parameters as
compliance (4) or potentional energy (it is proven that in case of permanent load, q, the
displacement limits on a structure can be replaced by appropriate limits of external work, vTq,
calculated from the linear system: Kv = q ).

v T Kv − C ≤ 0 (4)

FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS OF OBJECTIVES

The definition is termed as coast or criterion function, based on design variables and being continuous at
all points of the design space. Correct shaping of that is one of the main parts of constructing an optimization
process. It is shown, that the result is mainly determined by the objective function, the displacement and
internal force limits influence only the local optima [3]. The objective is the function whose value is
minimized or maximized during the optimization process. One optimization usually concerns to one
objective only, but in some cases it can be expedient to use two or more goals together. Mathematically the
objective can be linear, quadratic, hyperbolic or simply nonlinear, derivable or non-derivable.

EXAMPLES FOR TOPOLOGICAL OPTIMIZATION, TASKS AND PROBLEMS

Topology optimization is usually goes for minimal weight design. Different types of structures are
calculated, trusses, plates in plane. Important to note, that, the shape, supports and loads of the optimized
structures for controlling the results are same as those ones which are having an analytical solution.

TRUSS OPTIMIZATION

An advantage of truss-type structures is that the flexibility or the stiffness matrix of an element contains
only a simple formula of the Young modulus Ei, of the length l i and of the cross-sectional area Ai
concerning to the selected bar i. Thus it is easy to determine this or a part of this as a variable.
An other advantage of using simple, just nine or ten bars truss structures is that the calculation can be
easily controlled. Disadvantage of these structures is, that all loaded nodes are directly connected quite to all
supported nodes, thus the number of the adequate nodes is almost given (Example is from [3, 8] in Fig. 6.)

5 3 4
9 5
1.5m 8
3m 2 3
7
1.5m 6 4
1 2
1

4m 2m

Fig. 6. A well known nine bar truss and the admitted optimal form of that.

In case of truss structures, the optimization process is able to present as many solutions as much statically
determinate form there are. The displacement and internal force limits gently influence the local optima.
(Example is from [3, 8] in Fig. 7.)
 Fig. 7. Results of the internal bar force limit modification.

When the example ground structure (left drawings in Fig. 8 and 9.) follows the all to all except support to
support node-connect theory the result is free of discretization problems. In case of Fig. 8., the optimization
process gives a simple grid. Using a refined node mesh and producing double covering: a longer bar always
cover two shorter bars contacted at a middle point (see Fig. 9.), then the defined bar number is exponentially
higher, but the determined optimal result is the same. (Example is from [7] in Fig. 8. and in Fig. 9.)

1 2 3 1 2 3

a a

4 5 6 4 5 6
F F F F
a a a a

Fig. 8. Results of the internal bar force limit modification.

a a

F F F F
a a a a

Fig. 9. Results of the internal bar force limit modification.

Presenting truss type structures with a more complex connection network, eg. a ground structure wherein
the bars are going from a node to an other one without coverings, thus there are no direct connections
between loads and supports, which can present results more similar to plate structures, different results can
appear. (Examples are in Fig. 10, 12.)

1m

100 kN
1m

1m 1m 1m

a, Theoretical draw b, Numerically calculated draw

Fig. 10. Cantilever with the ratio of L:W=1.5:1.

 Using a quite simple structure with low node number a statically determinate result is given (example from
[6] in Fig. 11.). In this result structure each bar starts and finishes in a well supported node (support forces or
a few more working bar is connected as well).

S1

S3 1m
S5

100 kN
S4 S6 1m

S2
1m 1m 1m

a, Theoretical draw b, Numerically calculated draw

Fig. 11. An optimal design of Fig. 9.

But the possible discretization error appears, when the geometry of the ground structure is a little bit
changed: the ratio of the Length and the vertical size (Widths) 2 to 1. (Example from [6] is in Fig. 12.).

1m

100 kN
1m

1m 1m 1m 1m

a, Theoretical draw b, Numerically calculated draw

Fig. 12. Cantilever with the ratio of L:W=2:1.

The error is presented in unbounded nodes: internal nodes are appearing with two bars connection, where
the bars are in one continuous straight line. Thus this two bars team is working as a chain. Cinematically it is
stable when it is in tension (second node from left in the top border line of the structure in Fig. 13.), but
unstable when it is in pression (second node from left in the bottom border line of the structure in Fig. 13.).
S1 S2

S5 1m
S6 S8

S7 S9 100 kN
1m

S3 S4
1m 1m 1m 1m

a, Theoretical draw b, Numerically calculated draw

Fig. 13. An optimal design of Fig. 11.

PLATES STRUCTURES

Similar discretization error appears in topology optimization of plates in plane when simple four node finite
elements are used in the structural determination and calculation as well. The difficulty is caused by solid (or
“black”) ground elements connected only through a corner node diagonally. This configuration may appear
in checkerboard patterns, diagonal element chains or in isolated hinges. (Example from [9] is in Fig. 14.).

F=1
2L

Fig. 14. Topology optimization with checkerboard problem of a 120x60 elements plate.

Different methods are known for corner contact suppression:

ƒ a more accurate FE analysis of the ground elements , → Extended SIMP [10].
ƒ modification of the original problem by using geometrical constraints or “diffused” sensitivities
(filters),
ƒ employing a constraint preventing corner contacts directly, or
ƒ correcting selectively the discretization errors by appropriately penalizing corner contacts → Co-
SIMP [11]. (Example from [9, 11] is in Fig. 15.).

Fig. 15. A numerical solution of a 120x60 elements plate by Co-SIMP and the exact analytical solution.

SUMMARY

Structural optimization was quickly overviewed in point of different levels, problem formulations, solution
techniques and difficulties, but mainly in engineering point of view. There are other points as mathematical
problem formulations egs. linear programming or sequential quadratic nonlinear programming problems, and
of course there are the real computer programming problems. An other problem is the convexity of the
design space and concerning the convergence of the optimization process. Etc. The above note presents that
structural optimization requires big parts of mathematical knowledge, computer programming and of
described and/or intuitive engineering knowledge for problem formulation, solution and for computational
problem management.

REFERENCES
[1] H. Eschenauer, N. Olhoff, W. Schnell, “Applied Structural Mechanics, Fundamentals of Elasticity, Load-Bearing Structures,
Structural Optimization”, Springer 1997, pp. 301-306.
[2] Gáspár Zs., Rozványi Gy., Pomezanski V., „Tartószerkezetek optimális tervezése” GÉP, A Gépipari Tudományos Egyesület
Műszaki Folyóirata, LVI. évfolyam, 2005/2-3, pp. 80-83. (in Hungarian)
[3] Pomezanski V.: "Comparing the End-Results of the TNO and SIMP Methods of Topology Optimization". The Eleventh
International Conference on Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing in St. Julians, Malta, 18-21 September
2007. Short paper in Proceedings book by Civil-Comp Press, paper 35. ISBN 9778-1-905088-15-7. Long paper on Electronic
proceedings by Civil-Comp Press CD-ROM ISBN 978-1-905088-16-4.
[4] Pomezanski V., Vásárhelyi A., Chevallier, D., „Analysis of Boundary Conditions of Structural Elements”. Proceedings of First
Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Springer, May 28-29, 1998. Vol. 1, pp. 221-230. Eds: K. Molnár, Gy. Ziaja, G. Vörös.
[5] Hegenier G.A., Prager W.: On Michell Truss, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 11, 1969, 209-215.
[6] Pomezanski V., „Topology Optimization of Trusses Modeled Similar to Truss-like Structures“. The Ninth Internationale
Conference on Computational Structures Technology in Athens, Greece. 2-5 September 2008. (in progress).
[7] Csébfalvi A., Csébfalvi Gy. „A New Exterior Point Method for Optimal Truss Topology Design” Szigma, 1998. Vol. XXIX/1-2.
pp. 53-61.
[8] Pomezanski V., „Changing Connections Between Structural Elements During an Optimization Process” Journal of
Computational and Applied Mechanics Volume 5, No. 1. 2004. pp. 117-127, received November 6, 2002.
[9] Pomezanski V., "Corner Contact Penalty Functions in Plane and in Space", Pollack Periodika, An International Journal for
Engineering and Information Sciences, Vol. 2. pp. 39-50. 2007.
[10] Rozvany, G.I.N.; Querin, O.M.; Gáspár Zs.; Pomezanski V., „Extended optimality in topology design”. G. Rozvany (ed)
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Springer, Volume 24, Number3, September 2002. pp. 257-261.
[11] Pomezanski V., Querin O. M., Rozvany G. I. N., „CO-SIMP: extended SIMP algorithm with direct COrner COntact COntrol”
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Springer, Volume 30, Number 2, 2004. pp. 396–399.