Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Structural optimization of concrete arch bridges using Genetic

Algorithms
Mostafa Z. Abd Elrehim, Mohamed A. Eid, Mostafa G. Sayed ⇑
Civil Engineering Department, Minia University, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Concrete bridges are used for both highways and railways roads. They are characterized by their durabil-
Received 13 April 2018 ity, rigidity, economy and beauty. Concrete bridges have many types such as simply supported girder
Revised 29 December 2018 bridges, arch bridges and rigid frame bridges. However, for very large spans, arch bridges are more eco-
Accepted 24 January 2019
nomic in addition to their beauty appearance. In this research, a geometrical structural optimization
Available online 16 February 2019
study for a deck concrete arch bridges using Genetic Algorithms technique is presented. This research
aims mainly to demonstrate a methodology to find the least cost design, in term of material volume,
Keywords:
by finding the optimal profile. A Finite Element numerical model is used to represent the arch structure.
Optimization
Genetic Algorithms
The MATLAB programing platform is used to develop codes for Genetic Algorithms optimization tech-
Finite Element nique and Finite Element analysis method. The resulted design from the optimization process is com-
Arch bridges pared to traditional design and an obvious cost reduction is obtained.
Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques show wide
applications to facilitate human life. These techniques (such as
Evolutionary Algorithms, Simulated Annealing, Particle Swarm
Optimization, Ant Colony Optimization, Tabu Search, Fuzzy Opti-
mization and Artificial Neural Network-based methods) have been
applied individually or coupled to solve the life problems [1,2].
Genetic Algorithms technique, which is one of AI branches, is used
for solving complex engineering optimization problems. The
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) have been started in 1975 by John Hol-
land [3]. GAs have been widely used in most engineering fields
such as: chemistry and physics, mechanics, aerodynamics,
robotics, networks, architecture and civil engineering. In civil engi-
neering, GAs have been used in almost all branches; for example:
reinforced concrete flat slab buildings [4], optimization of tunnel
profile in different ground conditions [5], determining the optimal
⇑ Corresponding author at: El-souq St., Next to Civil Registry, Maghagha, El-Minia,
Egypt.
E-mail addresses: M.Eid@mu.edu.eg (M.A. Eid), eng.mgs.2013@gmail.com
(M.G. Sayed).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
cross-section of steel beams [6] and the design of water distribu-
tion networks [7]. Few structural optimization researches investi-
gated the optimal design of arch bridges. In 2008, there was an
attempt for bending moment reduction in arch using a specific
arrangement sequence for hangers [8]. Two years later, an optimal
design of steel truss arch bridges using a Hybrid Genetic Algorithm
was presented [9]. A comparison between circular and parabolic
arch was presented in the same year and it was observed that
the parabolic arch has lower internal forces, more economic than
the circular arch and it is more efficient for open bridges [10].
Nowadays, Genetic Algorithms are being applied to widespread
application in business, scientific and engineering specializations.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a numerical technique that can
be used to get the accurate solution for complex engineering prob-
lems. It started since several centuries back as an idea of replacing
the complicated problem by a simpler one. The main concept of
FEA is considering the origin solution as built up of many small
interconnected sub regions [11]. It has been used for solving many
structural analysis problems [12]. Today, the Finite Element
Method is considered one of the most important analysis tools
for engineers and scientists.
The arch bridges have a main advantage over other crossing
structures; the economy. In order to increase their economy supe-
rior, some attempts were introduced to find the optimal design for
these bridges. In 1999, the optimality criteria method was used to
develop a recursive relationship for the design variables
(mainly, the depth at the crown and at the support) considering

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.01.005
2090-4479/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
508 M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516

displacement, stresses and minimum depth constraints [13]. In
2014, global optimization algorithms were used to minimize the
cost of super structure particularly arches and hangers of network
arch bridge by optimizing the geometric shape, rise to span ratio,
cross section of arch, and the number, arrangement and cross sec-
tional dimensions of hangers [14]. In another attempt, presented in
2015, a research proposed a methodology for optimization the lon-
gitudinal shape of open arch bridge using Simultaneous Perturba-
tion Stochastic Approximation (SPSA) algorithm [15]. In 2016, a
new research presented a new strategy for modular steel construc-
tion: Adjustable module for variable depth steel arch bridges [16].
In the same year, some researchers developed a new methodology,
which evaluates the optimum configuration of network arch bridge
schemes (hangers) [17].
The current research deals with the concrete arch bridge opti-
mization problem by developing a new analysis tool that com-
prises both Finite Analysis and Genetic Algorithms using MATLAB
programming platform. In this methodology, the arch is modelled
numerically as a continuum structure divided into 2D Constant
Strain Triangular (CST) elements joined together at corners. The
joints coordinates are the design variables for the optimization
process which aims to minimize the arch weight. The developed
Finite Element Analysis program is used to check the structural
safety issue.
2. The numerical model
2.1. Geometry
The parabolic geometry for the applied arch is presented by the
equation:
f x
z¼4 2
ðl  xÞ
l
where
x, z are the coordinates of any point on the arch
l is the span of arch
f is the rise of the arch at the crown (at l/2)
The rise to span ratio for arches varies widely. Most arches
would have a rise to span ratio in the range from 0.16 to 0.20.
The span to crown thickness (t crown) ratio (from existing concrete
arches) can be taken between 70 and 80. The springing thickness
(t springing) to crown thickness ratio is between 1.55 and 1.72.
Fig. 1 shows the preliminary dimensions for a typical concrete
arch [18].
2.2. Structural system and applied loads
The considered arch bridge consists of two-way directions sep-
arated by an island with 2.00 m width and sidewalk in each side
with 3.00 m width. Each way has 2 lanes with lane width = 3.00 m.
So, the total width of the bridge is 20.00 m as shown in Fig. 2.
The structural system consists of a bridge slab, secondary
beams, main beams, and the arch girder as shown in Fig. 3. Second-
ary beams are distributed every 2.00 m along the bridge (2 edge
and 9 intermediate secondary beams). The main beams, with
20.00 m length, distributed at least every 4.00 m in which the
bridge slab is divided into a number of one way bays. So, the num-
ber of main beams is adaptable by the program according to the
span which is defined by the user. The two arch girders support
the bridge from both sides.
The dead loads is automatically calculated by the program con-
sidering slab thickness, main beam dimensions, secondary beam
dimensions and material properties which are given by the user.
According to the Egyptian Code of Practice for design loads
(ECP), there is a typical live loading case for design, including the
dynamic impact factor, shown in Fig. 2 [19]. Using influence line,
the worst position for vehicle to get the maximum internal forces
on arch girder is the center.
2.3. The structural analysis
Herein, FEA model is presented. This model is classified as a two
dimensional case (plane stress). The assumption of plane stress is
applicable for bodies whose dimension is very small in one of the
coordinate directions. Thus, the analysis of thin plates loaded in
the plane of the plate can be made using the assumption of plane
stress. In plane stress distribution, it is assumed that.
ð1Þ rzz ¼ rzx ¼ ryz ¼ 0 ð2Þ
where (z) represents the direction perpendicular to the plane of the
plate as shown in Fig. 4.
The main concept in FEA is to divide the structural problem to
small interconnected elements. The Constant Strain Triangular
(CST) elements are to be used to form the arch body. The CST ele-
ment is composed of 3 corner nodes; each node has 2 Degrees of
Freedom (DOF), u and v, as shown in Fig. 5. The stress-strain rela-
tion is given by:
frg ¼ ½Dfeg ð3Þ
0 1
1 t 0
E B
½D  ¼ @t 1 0 C
A ð4Þ
1  t2 1t
0 0 2

where
8 9
ex =
<
e = strain vector for element = ey
:c ;
xy
ex = strain component in x direction.
ey = strain component in y direction.
cxy = the strain on the plane xy.8 9
< rx =
r = stress vector for element = ry
:
sxy ;
rx = stress component in x direction.
ry = stress component in y direction.
sxy = shearing stress on the plane where x value is constant and
y is the direction.
D = the elasticity matrix which expresses the properties of
Fig. 1. Preliminary dimensions for a typical arch. material
 M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516 509

Fig. 2. Plan of bridge and applied loads.

Fig. 3. Structural system.

E = modulus of elasticity for reinforced concrete where

t = Poisson’s ratio for reinforced concrete
Ke = the stiffness matrix of the element.
The arch body is divided into (32) CST elements, as shown in Ve = the volume of the element = Ae * width.
Fig. 6, connected together in (34) nodes. It should be noticed that Be = the matrix which expresses the geometry of the
the arch is symmetric in geometry and loads. Nodes (1, 2, 33, element.
and 34) are fixed support. So, the stiffness matrix size; taking the
end conditions in consideration; is (30 nodes * 2 DOF) = 60 * 60. 0 1
b1 b2 b3 0 0 0
For a linear displacement field with in-plane loads, the resulting 1 B C
½Be ¼ @ 0 0 0 c1 c2 c3 A ð6Þ
6  6 in-plane stiffness matrix for each CST element can be 2Ae
expressed as: c1 c2 c3 b1 b2 b3

½K e ¼ ½BTe ½D½Be V e ð5Þ where

510 M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516

c1 = the horizontal distance between node 3 and node 2 =

x3 – x2
c2 = the horizontal distance between node 1 and node 3 =
x1 – x3
c3 = the horizontal distance between node 2 and node 1 =
x2 – x1

From the 32 stiffness matrices of the CST elements, a global

stiffness matrix [K] can be formed through their contact points
and therefore strain vector for elements can be expressed as:
feg ¼ ½Bfdg ð7Þ

fdg ¼ ½K 1 fF g ð8Þ

where

F = load vector applied on nodes

d = deformation vector for nodes

2.4. A verification example

Fig. 4. Example of a plane stress problem.

In order to check the developed numerical model and FEA code,

a verification example is analyzed with SAP program with the same
conditions and the results are compared as shown in Table 1 [20].
From these assumptions, the coordinates that forms the arch
body are mapped in Fig. 7.
Figs. 8–10 show the extreme values for nodal deformation, nor-
mal and shear stresses. The comparison between developed model
and plane stress SAP model is illustrated in Table 2.
The table shows that difference in results between the devel-
oped model and SAP model does not exceed 3% of values.

3. The optimization technique

In this paper, Genetic Algorithms technique is used to get the

optimal nodes coordinates to form the optimal shape of arch girder
which has the minimum weight and therefore has the minimum

Table 1
Assumed conditions.

Concrete strength for the 29419.95 kN/m2 Poisson’s ratio 0.25

Fig. 5. The Constant Strain Triangular Element.
standard cube (fcu)
Width of arch girder 0.80 m Thickness of bridge 0.20 m
2 3 slab
x1 z1 1 Width of secondary beams 0.30 m Depth of secondary 0.50 m
Ae = area of the element = 0.5 * det.4 x2 z2 15 beams
x3 z3 1 Width of main beams 0.40 m Depth of main 0.70 m
beams
b1 = the vertical distance between node 2 and node 3 = z2 – z3
Span of arch 30.00 m Rise of arch (f) 6.00 m
b2 = the vertical distance between node 3 and node 1 = z3  z1 Crown thickness 1.20 m Springing thickness 3.00 m
b3 = the vertical distance between node 1 and node 2 = z1 – z2

Fig. 6. Finite Element model.

M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516 511

Fig. 7. Verification example dimensions and coordinates.

Fig. 8. Deformation.

Fig. 9. Normal Stresses.

Fig. 10. Shear Stresses.

512 M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Table 2
Comparison of results for the developed numerical model.
Allowable shear stress ¼ 21:79  f cu =cc ðkN=m2 Þ ð13Þ

Model type Developed model SAP model

Allowable deflection ¼ l=250 ðmÞ ð14Þ
Max. Deformation 0.0074 m 0.0072 m
Max. Compression Stress 6940.916 kN/m2 6940.9157 kN/m2 where
Max. Shear Stress 2976.783 kN/m2 2976.7833 kN/m2
fcu = concrete strength for the standard cube after 28 days
cc = the reduction factor for the concrete strength
cost. A steady state Genetic Algorithms technique is applied for this
model [21]. The optimization process aims to consume the element 3.1. The design variables
for maximum stresses and deformations allowed by the Egyptian
specifications. So, the objective function can be formulated as fol- The design variables here are the nodes vertical coordinates.
lowing [22]: Thirty four nodes are selected to form the arch body. Sixteen nodes
X in the right side have equal coordinates to their counterpart in the
Minimize f ðxÞ ¼ V ¼ Ai  T i i ¼ 1; 2; 3       ; n ð9Þ
left side in addition to two nodes on the axis of symmetry. So, only
where 18 nodes are applied as design variables for the optimization pro-
cess with 16 alternative positions for each node. The step between
V = Total volume of structure alternative positions for each node depends on the given span as
Ai = Element Area (defined by coordinates) shown in Fig. 11. It means that the program searches in (1618) dif-
Ti = Element Thickness (constant) ferent geometric design field to get the optimal safe design. Num-
n = number of elements ber of nodes and search space can be increased to give more
accurate analysis with higher computational cost.
Two constraints are applied; induced stresses and deformations
should not exceed the allowable stresses and allowable deforma- 3.2. Genetic Algorithms operators
tions defined by the Egyptian Code of Practice for design and con-
struction of concrete structures (ECP) [23]. The constraints in this Genetic Algorithms technique starts with generating a set of
model can be formed as follow: possible solutions (parents) randomly as an initial population to
the problem. Eight random solutions, which represent different
g i ¼ rall  ri  0; i ¼ 1; 2; 3;       ; n ð10Þ arch geometries, with length of 18 gene (nodes coordinates) are
used for this model. These design vectors are encoded to binary
g i ¼ Dall  Di  0; i ¼ 1; 2; 3;       ; m ð11Þ
form to facilitate the application of mating operators. So, the total
where length for each solution, chromosome, is 18 * 4 = 72 bit. Genetic
Algorithm’s mating operators are crossover and mutation. Each
ri = the stresses in each CST element two solutions (parents) are combined together to create two chil-
Di = the deformation in each node dren solutions. Uniform crossover technique is used for this model.
m = number of nodes The mutation technique which is used for this model is flip bit
rall = the allowable stresses mutation with mutation probability selected by the user. All the
Dall = the allowable deformation sixteen solutions (parents and children) are collected in one pool.
All solutions are sent to the structural analysis program to check
The allowable stresses and deformation can be calculated as the safety constraints, stresses and deformations. The program
follow: reads the induced stresses and deformation values for each node
and compare them to the allowable limits, according to the ECP.
Allowable normal stress ¼ f cu =cc ðkN=m2 Þ ð12Þ Unsafe solutions gets penalty function by increasing their target

Fig. 11. The design variables.

 M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516 513

weight with a suitable factor. The best 8 solutions which have less mutation probability (pm) – number of iterations (not less than
weight for the arch girder are selected to be new parents for the 1000 iterations).
next generation [24]. These operators are repeated and new gener- By using a laptop CORE I3 processor and 2 GB RAM, the devel-
ations are created until the global optimum solution is reached. oped model has been applied for 3 examples with different spans
as shown in Table 3.
4. The results After running the model for these examples, with average
4 days running time for each example, the induced optimized
The developed program gives the user the authority to change shape for each case has been shown in Figs. 12–14.
any of the following numerical model parameters: It’s noticed that thickness of arch girder is increased in the
Arch span (not less than 20.00 m) – arch width – secondary lower part of the first and last third while increasing in the upper
beam width – secondary beam depth – main beam width – main part of the middle third of the arch for all cases. A skeletal model is
beam depth – bridge slab thickness – fcu – poisson’s ratio – developed for the investigated cases using SAP program. The
induced bending moment diagrams are shown in Figs. 15–17.
It is clear that the resulted rough optimal design follow the
Table 3 moment diagram with reversed direction. This rough geometry
Input Data of Examples. can be smoothed using curve fitting (for practical considerations)
Example no. 1 2 3 as shown in Figs. 18–20.
Span (m) 20 30 53
Fig. 21 shows the progression of the minimum weight value
Arch width (m) 0.70 0.80 0.80 through 1,000,000 iterations of the optimization process. There
Width of secondary beams (m) 0.25 0.30 0.30 are many clear drops in the weight value in the first 100 iterations
Depth of secondary beams (m) 0.50 0.50 0.60 then the change in weight value occurs at long intervals until
Width of main beams (m) 0.30 0.40 0.40
reaches the optimal weight.
Depth of main beams (m) 0.60 0.70 0.80
Thickness of bridge slab (m) 0.20 The resulted optimal geometry is compared to concrete arch tra-
Concrete strength (fcu) (kN/m2) 29419.95 ditional design. This comparison is illustrated in Table 4. The rough
Poisson’s ratio 0.25 optimal design has arch weight reduction ranges from 35% to 40%
Mutation probability (Pm) 0.1 compared to traditional design arch weight. After solution enhance-
Number of iterations 1,000,000
ment, the reduction percentage became in range of 30–35%.

Fig. 12. Optimal Arch Shape for 20.00 m span.

Fig. 13. Optimal Arch Shape for 30.00 m span.

Fig. 14. Optimal Arch Shape for 53.00 m span.

514 M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516

Fig. 15. Bending Moment Diagram for skeletal model of span 20.00 m.

Fig. 16. Bending Moment Diagram for skeletal model of span 30.00 m.

Fig. 17. Bending Moment Diagram for skeletal model of span 53.00 m.

Fig. 18. Enhanced arch shape vs traditional shape for 20.00 m span.

Fig. 19. Enhanced arch shape vs traditional shape for 30.00 m span.
M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516 515

Fig. 20. Enhanced arch shape vs traditional shape for 53.00 m span.

Fig. 21. Progression of minimum weight for 53.00 m span.

516 M.Z. Abd Elrehim et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 507–516
Table 4
Comparison of optimal and traditional design.
Example no.
Arch weight (kN) Optimization model
Traditional model
Weight reduction percentage
Maximum deformation (m) Optimization model
Traditional model
Max. compression stress (kN/m2) Optimization model
Traditional model
Max. shear stress (kN/m2) Optimization model
Traditional model
5. Conclusions
The developed program gives a wide variety for the user to
assign the input values even for odd ones. It perform self-
adaptation to calculate loads and structural system according to
entered data. The developed Finite Element Analysis program gives
trusted results when compared to well-known commercial pro-
grams. The proposed optimization methodology proved to be suc-
cessful technique for the investigated structural optimization
process. It can reach sufficiently the optimal solution with reason-
able computation cost. Although, the results shows a reasonable
reduction in weight for the proposed optimal solution. The reduc-
tion percentage is not affected significantly with the entered bridge
span. The resulted optimal designs, after geometric enhancement,
have a reduction percentage ranges from 30% to 35% compared
to traditional designs. Considering the induced deformations and
stresses in the optimal arch geometry, the shear stress is the con-
trol parameter as the allowable shear strength is reached com-
pared to normal stress and deformation. The resulted optimal
profile reflects the bending moment profile which matches well
with the common design principles.
References
[1] Olivas F et al. Ant colony optimization with dynamic parameter adaptation
based on interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems. Appl Soft Comput, 53. Elsevier B.
V.; 2017.
[2] Gonzalez B, Valdez F, Melin P, Prado-Arechiga G. Fuzzy logic in the
gravitational search algorithm for the optimization of modular neural
networks in pattern recognition. Elsevier Ltd; 2015.
[3] Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press; 1975.
[4] Sahab MG, Ashour AF, Toropov VV. A hybrid genetic algorithm for reinforced
concrete flat slab buildings. Comput Struct 2005;83.
[5] Eid MA, Zaki Abd Elrehim M. Optimization of tunnel profile in different ground
conditions using genetic algorithms. In: 3rd international conference on
computational methods in tunnelling and subsurface engineering. Ruhr
University Bochum, Germany, Euro: TUN; 2013.
[6] Griffiths DR, Miles CJ. Determining the optimal cross-section of beams. Adv
Eng Inform 2003;17.
[7] Keedwell E, Khu S. A hybrid genetic algorithm for the design of water
distribution networks. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2005;18.
[8] Tveit P. The network arch: bits of manuscript in September 2008 after lectures
in 50 countries; 2008.
[9] Cheng J. Optimal design of steel truss arch bridges using a hybrid genetic
algorithm. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66.
[10] Sonavane T. Analysis of arches. Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science; 2014.
[11] Rao SS. The finite element method in engineering. 5th ed. Elsevier Inc; 2011.
[12] Argyris JH, Kelsey S. Energy theorems and structural analysis. Aircraft Eng vols.
26 and 27, October 1954 to May 1955. Part I by Argyris JH, Part II by Argyris JH,
Kelsey S.
[13] Uzman U, Daloglu A, Saka MP. Optimum design of parabolic and circular
arches with varying cross-section. Struct Eng Mech 1999;8(5):465–76.
[14] Islam N, Rana S, Ahsan R, Ghani S. An optimized design of network arch bridge
using global optimization algorithm. Adv Struct Eng 2014;17(2):pp.
[15] Pouraminian M, Ghaemian M. Shape optimization of concrete open spandrel
arch bridges. Gradevinar 2015;67(12):1177–85.
[16] Wang Y, Thrall AP, Zoli TP. Adjustable module for variable depth steel arch
bridges. J Constr Steel Res 2016;126.
1 2 3
339.80 799.83 2427.57
532.01 1235.64 4002.09
36.13% 35.27% 39.34%
0.0074 0.0098 0.0194
0.0048 0.0074 0.013
10269.14 7699.79 9083.85
6863.97 6940.916 6984.59
3050.99 3049.67 3048.51
2859.13 2976.783 2993.58
[17] Bruno D, Lonetti P, Pascuzzo A. An optimization model for the design of
network arch bridges. J Constr Steel Res 2016;170.
[18] Nettleton DA, Torkelson JS. Arch bridges. Washington, D.C. 20590: Bridge
Division, Office of Engineering Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation; 1977.
[19] Egyptian code of practice for design loads. Housing and Building National
Research center, Egypt, Code No. ECP 201; 2008.
[20] https://www.csiamerica.com/products/sap2000.
[21] Back T, Fogel DB, Michalewicz Z. Michalewicz, evolutionary computation, vol.
1: basic algorithms and operators. Bristol and Philadelphia: Institute of Physics
Publishing; 2000.
[22] Rao SS. Engineering optimization- theory and practice. 4th ed. John Wiley &
Sons Inc; 2009.
[23] Egyptian code for design and construction of concrete structures. Housing and
Building National Research center, Egypt, Code No. ECP 203; 2017.
[24] Eid MA. Genetic algorithms in structural engineering and its application to
tunneling. Faculty of Engineering of Minia University in partial fulfillment for
the requirement of Ph.D. Degree in Civil Engineering; 2011.
Mostafa Zaki ABDELREHIM (Prof, PhD) is recognised as
an expert in tunnelling and problematic structures. His
experience spans 30+ years, including more than 15
years of experience with European universities, research
centres, and international consultant companies for
structural analysis and tunnelling disciplines. His
research activities, interests and publications include
Improvement of computational techniques and its
application to large complex finite element models,
Optimization techniques and genetic algorithms for
structural analysis and design and, Developing analysis
tools and retrofitting techniques of damaged structures
especially tunnels.
Mohamed Abdelfattah EID (PhD) is an assistant profes-
sor in Civil Engineering Department, Minia University –
Egypt. His main teaching subjects are structural analysis
and tunnelling engineering. His reseach fields are
structural optimization, tunnelling engineering and
structures integreity. He also has 20 years of experience
in concrete structures analysis and design and he
works as a consultant for several Egyptian official
organizations.
Mostafa Gomaa SAYED is a civil engineer with 6 years
experience in road and building construction. He works
as a supervision engineer in New Minia City for New
Urban Community Authority, Ministry of Housing –
Egypt. As a researcher, he is interested in the structural
optimization research field.