technologies

Article
Design Optimization of Long-Span Cold-Formed
Steel Portal Frames Accounting for Effect of Knee
Brace Joint Configuration
Thanh Duoc Phan 1, * ID
, James B. P. Lim 2 , Meheron Selowara Joo 1 and Hieng-Ho Lau 1
1 Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Curtin University
Malaysia, Miri Sarawak 98009, Malaysia; meheron.sj@curtin.edu.my (M.S.J.);
lau.hieng.ho@curtin.edu.my (H.-H.L)
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Auckland,
Auckland 1010, New Zealand; james.lim@auckland.ac.nz
* Correspondence: tphan01@qub.ac.uk

Received: 10 November 2017; Accepted: 8 December 2017; Published: 12 December 2017

Abstract: The application of cold-formed steel channel sections for portal frames becomes more
popular for industrial and residential purposes. Experimental tests showed that such structures with
long-span up to 20 m can be achieved when knee brace joints are included. In this paper, the influence
of knee brace configuration on the optimum design of long-span cold-formed steel portal frames is
investigated. The cold-formed steel portal frames are designed using Eurocode 3 under ultimate limit
states. A novel method in handling design constraints integrated with genetic algorithm is proposed
for searching the optimum design of cold-formed steel portal frames. The result showed that the
proposed routine for design optimization effectively searched the near global optimum solution with
the computational time is approximate 50% faster than methods being popularly used in literature.
The optimum configuration for knee brace joint can reduce the section size of rafter and so the lighter
frame could be obtained especially for long-span portal frame. The minimum weight of main frame
obtained from optimization process is approximate 19.72% lighter than a Benchmark Frame used in
the full-scale experimental test.

Keywords: long-span portal frame; cold-formed steel; genetic algorithm; penalty strategy; constraint
handling

1. Introduction
The use of cold-formed steel members for low-rise building construction has increased
significantly in recent years. More than 70% of all steel building construction is expected to be
cold-formed in the near future. The European construction sector has been characterized by rising
costs, low productivity and a heavy reliance on traditional building methods. For industrial and
residential, etc. purposes to provide large spaces, portal frame buildings are a popular form of
construction, which are often composed of hot-rolled steel sections, or alternatively can be constructed
from cold-formed steel (CFS) sections for spans up to 20 m [1,2]. It necessitates a need to develop a
resilient generation of cold-formed steel framing systems using optimum cold-formed steel sections.
This is essential to the future of the world aimed at achieving the target of sustainable development.
Compared to their hot-rolled counterparts, CFS members are often found to be more economical
and efficient, due to inherent advantages such as lightweight, ease and speed of erection and a greater
flexibility in manufacturing cross-sectional profiles and sizes. However, CFS structural members are
susceptible to buckling owing to their relatively thin steel walls [3–5] and its application to portal
framing system is often applied for small and modest spans. For long-span steel portal frames, i.e.,

Technologies 2017, 5, 81; doi:10.3390/technologies5040081 www.mdpi.com/journal/technologies

Technologies 2017, 5, 81 2 of 13

Technologies 2017, 5, 81 2 of 13

larger than 10 m, knee brace joints could be included at the eaves to enhance the structural performance
portal frames, i.e., larger than 10 m, knee brace joints could be included at the eaves to enhance the
(see Figure 1). performance (see Figure 1).
structural

Figure 1. Geometry of CFS Benchmark Frame with knee brace joints.

Figure 1. Geometry of CFS Benchmark Frame with knee brace joints.
Structural design of hot-rolled steel portal frames having long-span requires a large stiffness of
the joints at the knees and apex to transfer the applied loads through bending action of the members.
Structural design of hot-rolled steel portal frames having long-span requires a large stiffness of
In practical design, the stiffness of such frame joints can be improved using the haunch, welding to
the jointsrafters
at the kneesand
at eaves and apex
apex to transfer
connection. However, the for
applied loads
CFS portal through
frames, bending
the joints actionowing
are semi-rigid of the members.
In practical design, the stiffness of such frame joints can be improved
to the deformation of the bolt holes in the web of channel-sections and brackets under applied using the haunch, welding
moments [6]. Therefore, the effect of joint’s flexibility on the frame
to rafters at eaves and apex connection. However, for CFS portal frames, the joints are semi-rigid design should be taken into
owing toaccount, in order to obtain a realistic performance of such general steel portal framing system [7]. In
the deformation of the bolt holes in the web of channel-sections and brackets under applied
this paper, this influence on apex joint is considered for the optimum design of long-span CFS portal
momentsframes.
[6]. Therefore, the effect that
It is worth mentioning of joint’s flexibility
some effects on the frame
of thermochemical designofshould
treatment screws, be taken into account,
low-torque
in order and
to obtain
uneven adistribution
realistic performance
of screw etc. on of thesuch
framegeneral
joints aresteel portal
not taken intoframing
account insystem [7]. In this paper,
this study.
this influence Structural
on apexoptimization has been anfor
joint is considered interesting
the optimumtopic for design
researchers, which can be
of long-span categorized
CFS portal frames. It is
into two distinct approaches: mathematical programming methods and heuristic search methods.
worth mentioning that some effects of thermochemical treatment of screws, low-torque and uneven
During the past decade, mathematical programming methods have been used to solve optimization
distribution
problems; these etc.
of screw on the
methods can frame joints
be divided intoare notprogramming
linear taken into and account in this
nonlinear study. in
programming,
Structural optimization has been an interesting topic for researchers,
which objective function and design constraints are linear or nonlinear to the design which canvariables.
be categorized into
However, calculation of gradients of correlated nonlinear
two distinct approaches: mathematical programming methods and heuristic search methods. equations is challenging in most During
optimization problems.
the past decade, mathematical programming methods have been used to solve optimization problems;
Another group of optimization techniques that have emerged recently are heuristic approaches,
these methods canalgorithms,
i.e., genetic be divided into linear
simulated programming
annealing, and nonlinear
evolution strategies, programming,
particle swarm optimization, in tabu
which objective
functionsearch,
and design
ant colonyconstraints
optimization areand
linear or nonlinear
harmony to the
search. Genetic design variables.
algorithms However,
(GAs) that are inspired by calculation of
gradients natural selection, i.e.,
of correlated Darwinian
nonlinear principle of
equations issurvival of the fittest,
challenging in most are optimization
heuristic search problems.
techniques
for solution of many optimization problems. While most classical optimization methods, i.e.,
Another group of optimization techniques that have emerged recently are heuristic approaches,
mathematical programming methods, generate a deterministic sequence of computation based on
i.e., genetic algorithms,
the gradient or higher-order simulated annealing,
derivatives of objectiveevolution
function, strategies,
GAs perform particle
a multipleswarm optimization,
directional
tabu search,
search through population-based search. GA techniques also do not require gradient information of are inspired
ant colony optimization and harmony search. Genetic algorithms (GAs) that
by naturaltheselection,
objective function and constraints
i.e., Darwinian principleand use probabilistic
of survival transition
of the fittest,rules, not as deterministic
are heuristic search techniques for
ones. GAs can therefore deal with discontinuous and non-differentiable objective function.
solution of many optimization problems. While most classical optimization methods, i.e., mathematical
The application of genetic algorithm (GA) for optimizing hot-rolled steel portal frame buildings
programming methods,
was considered generate
in the literaturea[8–12].
deterministic
The robustness sequence of computation
and reliability basedachieved
were successfully on the gradient or
higher-order
through derivatives
a number ofofruns. objective function,
Thereafter, GA wasGAs perform
applied for designa multiple directional
optimization of CFS portalsearch through
framing system
population-based [13]. Australian
search. design code
GA techniques of practice,
also do notAS/NZS
require 4600 [14], was used
gradient for the member
information of the objective
functionchecks, which rigid joints were assumed for the frame analysis. It is worth noting that rigid joints can
and constraints and use probabilistic transition rules, not as deterministic ones. GAs can
be formed through swages that are interlocked under the action of bending moments. The material
thereforecost
deal with discontinuous
of frame members was minimized and non-differentiable
per square meter on the objective function.
floor of building. Also, influence of
Thepitch
application of genetic algorithm (GA) for optimizing hot-rolled
of the roof and the frame spacing was investigated in term of topology variables. steel portal frame
The effect of buildings
was considered in the literature [8–12]. The robustness and reliability were successfully achieved
through a number of runs. Thereafter, GA was applied for design optimization of CFS portal framing
system [13]. Australian design code of practice, AS/NZS 4600 [14], was used for the member checks,
which rigid joints were assumed for the frame analysis. It is worth noting that rigid joints can be
formed through swages that are interlocked under the action of bending moments. The material
cost of frame members was minimized per square meter on the floor of building. Also, influence of
pitch of the roof and the frame spacing was investigated in term of topology variables. The effect of
stressed-skin on cladded portal frame buildings is recently considered [15–18], in which the influence
of knee brace joint at eaves was investigated as a fixed configuration.
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 3 of 13

stressed-skin on81 cladded portal frame buildings is recently considered [15–18], in which3 ofthe
Technologies 2017, 5, 13
influence of knee brace joint at eaves was investigated as a fixed configuration.
Since GAs are unconstrained optimization techniques, constraint handling approaches
Since GAs are unconstrained optimization techniques, constraint handling approaches therefore
therefore play an important role in its implementation. A variety of constraint handling methods has
play an important role in its implementation. A variety of constraint handling methods has been
been suggested by many researchers. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages [19].
suggested by many researchers. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages [19]. The most
The most popular constraint handling strategy among users is penalty function methods, which
popular constraint handling strategy among users is penalty function methods, which penalizes any
penalizes any solutions violating the constraints and so a lower chance is given to these candidates
solutions violating the constraints and so a lower chance is given to these candidates for surviving
for surviving through the evolutionary process.
through the evolutionary process.
The penalty function approaches involve a number of penalty parameters which must be set
The penalty function approaches involve a number of penalty parameters which must be set
properly for every problem to obtain near global optimum solutions. This dependency of GA’s
properly for every problem to obtain near global optimum solutions. This dependency of GA’s
performance on penalty parameters has led researchers to devise sophisticated penalty function
performance on penalty parameters has led researchers to devise sophisticated penalty function
approaches such as multi-level penalty functions, dynamic penalty functions and penalty functions
approaches such as multi-level penalty functions, dynamic penalty functions and penalty functions
involving temperature-based evolution of penalty parameters with repair operators [20]. It is
involving temperature-based evolution of penalty parameters with repair operators [20]. It is
well-known that if the penalty is too large, the design process may prematurely converge into the
well-known that if the penalty is too large, the design process may prematurely converge into the
optima, not allowing the GA to exploit various combinations of infeasible solutions which may
optima, not allowing the GA to exploit various combinations of infeasible solutions which may
provide some useful information. On the contrary, the convergence process may be too slow and the
provide some useful information. On the contrary, the convergence process may be too slow and the
computational costs could be high when the penalty is too small [21].
computational costs could be high when the penalty is too small [21].
For sophisticated penalty approaches, the use of dynamics penalty function to handle the
For sophisticated penalty approaches, the use of dynamics penalty function to handle the
constraint of optimization problems is generally quite successful in locating the region of the search
constraint of optimization problems is generally quite successful in locating the region of the search
space containing the global optimum but not the true optimum itself [22,23]. Traditional strategy of
space containing the global optimum but not the true optimum itself [22,23]. Traditional strategy
dynamics penalty function is that the penalty value is increased as the generation progresses.
of dynamics penalty function is that the penalty value is increased as the generation progresses.
However, it is experienced that in the end of evolutionary process, feasible solutions may
However, it is experienced that in the end of evolutionary process, feasible solutions may dominantly
dominantly appear in the population. Therefore, the dynamics penalty strategy through imposing a
appear in the population. Therefore, the dynamics penalty strategy through imposing a large penalty
large penalty to candidates violating the design constraints would be unnecessary. Instead, the
to candidates violating the design constraints would be unnecessary. Instead, the penalty given to
penalty given to individuals to measure the fitness should be decreased and this proposed strategy
individuals to measure the fitness should be decreased and this proposed strategy is considered in
is considered in this paper. Since all design constraints are normalized to unity, an empirical factor
this paper. Since all design constraints are normalized to unity, an empirical factor of 100 is sufficient
of 100 is sufficient enough to scale the penalty to the same order with the objective function value.
enough to scale the penalty to the same order with the objective function value.
2. General Description of Long-Span Cold-Formed Steel Portal Frames
2. General Description of Long-Span Cold-Formed Steel Portal Frames
The parameters adopted for the proposed portal frame are as follows: span of frame Lf, height
The parameters adopted for the proposed portal frame are as follows: span of frame Lf , height
to eaves hf, pitch of frame θf and bay spacing bf (see Figure 2). For long-span frame considered in this
to eaves hf , pitch of frame θf and bay spacing bf (see Figure 2). For long-span frame considered in
study, the framing systems were composed of back-to-back channels (BBC) used for the columns,
this study, the framing systems were composed of back-to-back channels (BBC) used for the columns,
rafters and knee braces. Column bases are pinned into its foundations.
rafters and knee braces. Column bases are pinned into its foundations.

Figure 2. Parameters used to define general portal framing system.

Figure 2. Parameters used to define general portal framing system.

Details of
Details of eaves
eaves joint [1] formed through plane brackets
brackets bolted
bolted between
between the
the webs
webs of the
channel-sections is shown in Figure 3. For eaves joints, only four
channel-sections is shown in Figure For eaves joints, only four boltsbolts are used for each connection
between the brackets and the members. ForFor the
the apex
apex joint,
joint, nine
nine bolts
bolts are
are assumed
assumed to be used for the
connection between bracket and rafter (see Figure 4).
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 4 of 13
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 4 of 13
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 4 of 13

Technologies 2017, 5, 81 4 of 13

Figure 3. Knee brace joint at eaves.

Figure3.3.Knee
Figure Kneebrace
bracejoint
jointat
ateaves.
eaves.

Figure 3. Knee brace joint at eaves.

Figure 4. Details of apex joint.

Figure4.4.Details
Figure Detailsof
ofapex
apexjoint.
joint.
Figure 4. Details of apex joint.
The Benchmark Frame considered in this paper has a span of 13.6 m, height to eaves of 5.4 m,
The Benchmark
The Benchmark Frame Frame considered
considered in in this
this paper
paper has has aa span
span of of 13.6
13.6 m,
m, height
height toto eaves
eaves of of 5.4
5.4 m,
m,
pitch of 10°The
◦ and frame spacing
Benchmark (bf) of 3.6 m.
Frame considered Also,
in this the has
paper layout of knee
a span of 13.6brace is formed
m, height to eaves with a distance
of 5.4 m,
pitchof
pitch of10
10°andandframeframespacing
spacing(b(b f )f)ofof3.6
3.6m.m.Also,Also,thethelayout
layout ofof knee
knee brace
brace is formed
is formed with with a distance
a distance of
of 1.36 m of
pitch from10° andthe frame
top ofspacing
column (bf)and
of 3.6knee angle
m. Also, the of 50° [1].
layout
◦ [1]. Thebrace
of knee primary
is formedmembers are laterally
with a distance
of 1.36
1.36 m m
from
of 1.36byfrom
the the
top
m purlins
oftop
from theand of
column column
top side
and
of column and
knee knee
angle
and knee
ofangle
50 of
angle ofof 50°
The
50°1.3 [1].
primary
[1]. The primary
members members
are laterally are laterally
restrained
restrained rails with the spacing m.The primary
It is worth members
noting that are out-of-plane
laterally
restrained
by purlins by purlins
and
restrained byside
purlins and
rails and side
with side rails
the rails with
spacing
with the spacing
of spacing
the 1.3 m. It ofis
of 1.3
1.3 m.
worth
m. It It is worth
noting
is worth that
notingnoting that
out-of-plane
that out-of-plane
restraints
out-of-plane
restraints were applied to the rafters at the locations of the purlin brackets and the center of the apex
restraints
were were
applied
restraints to
wereapplied
theapplied
raftersto to
the
attherafters
the atatthe
locations
rafters the locations
of the purlin
locations ofofthe
the purlin
brackets
purlin brackets
and
bracketsthe
and and
center
the the
of center
centerthe ofapex
the ofapex
the apex
bracket,
bracket, to prevent lateral deflection.
bracket,
to prevent tolateral
bracket, prevent lateral
deflection.
to prevent lateraldeflection.
deflection.
Through a full-scale experimental test of CFS long span portal frame, it was shown that the true
Through
Through
Through a full-scale
aa full-scale experimentaltest
experimental
experimental test
testofofCFS
CFS
CFSlong
long
long span
span portal
span portalframe,
portal it was
frame,
frame, shown
it was shown
it was that
shownthe
thattrue
the true
that the
spring stiffness of the eaves connection has minimal impact, owing to effective triangle formed
true spring
spring
spring stiffness
stiffness
stiffnessof ofof the
the the eaves
eaves
eaves connection
connection
connection has
has hasminimal
minimal
minimal impact,
impact,
impact,owing
owing
owingto effective
to
to effectivetriangle formed
triangle
triangle formed
formed
between knee,knee,
between columncolumn andand rafter
rafterat the eaves connection [1].Therefore,
Therefore, column to rafter,
kneeknee to to
between
between knee, column
knee, column and rafter
and rafter atatthe
at theeaves
the eaves connection
eaves connection
connection[1]. [1]. Therefore,
[1]. Therefore, column
column
column to rafter,
to rafter,
to rafter, knee
knee to
to
column and knee to rafter connections can be considered as ideally
column and knee to rafter connections can be considered as ideally pinned joints (Figure 5). pinned joints (Figure 5).
columnand
column andkneekneeto torafter
rafterconnections
connectionscan canbe beconsidered
consideredas asideally
ideallypinned
pinnedjointsjoints(Figure
(Figure5). 5).

Figure General
5. 5.
Figure Generaldiagram
diagram of kneebrace
of knee bracejoint
jointconfiguration.
configuration.
Figure 5. General diagram of knee brace joint configuration.
For the apex joint of CFS portal frames, owing to the bolt holes elongate under load leading to a
Figure
For the apex joint of CFS 5. General
portal diagram
frames, owingof knee brace
to the joint
bolt configuration.
holes elongate under load leading to
remarkable rotation in the joints [24,25]. Such joints therefore cannot be processed as rigid. Also, it
For the
a remarkable
was
apex joint
rotation of
in CFS
the portal
joints frames,
[24,25]. owing
Such to
joints the bolt holes
therefore elongate
cannot under
be processed loadas leading
rigid. to a
Also,
For observed
the apex when
joint oftheCFSbolt portal
group resists
frames,anowing
externaltomoment
the boltitholes
rotateselongate
around the center
under of the
load bolt to a
leading
remarkable
it wasgroup rotation
observed when in the
the boltjoints [24,25].
group Such
resists an joints
external therefore
moment cannot
it rotatesbe processed
around the as rigid.
center of Also,
the it
bolt
remarkablebecause
rotation of in
thethe
symmetrical configuration
joints [24,25]. Such joints of the bolted joints
therefore cannot[26–28]. Through the
be processed as full-scale
rigid. Also, it
was
groupobserved
because
test of CFSwhen thethe
ofportal bolt group
symmetrical
frame, resistsnoting
an external
configuration
it is worth of the
that moment
the bolted itjoints
assumption rotates around
is[26–28]. thewith
Through
reasonable centertheoffull-scale
the bolt
sufficient
was observed when the bolt group resists an external moment it rotates around the center of the bolt
group because
test ofaccuracy.
CFS portalof frame,
The the symmetrical
stiffness itofisthe
worth configuration
boltednoting
jointsthat
usedthe ofassumption
for the portal
CFS boltedframe
jointscan[26–28].
is reasonable Through
with
be idealized the full-scale
sufficient accuracy.
by a rotational
group because of the symmetrical configuration of the bolted joints [26–28]. Through the full-scale
test of CFSatportal
spring
The stiffness thethe
of frame,
center
bolted it is used
of rotation
joints worth
of each noting
forbolt
CFSgroup that
[24],
portal the assumption
as shown
frame can in beEquation is reasonable
idealized (1). with sufficient
by a rotational spring at
test of CFS portal frame, it is worth noting that the assumption is reasonable with sufficient
accuracy.
the centerThe stiffnessofofeach
of rotation the bolt
bolted joints
group used
[24], for CFSinportal
as shown frame
Equation can be idealized by a rotational
(1).
accuracy. The stiffness of the bolted joints used for CFS portal frame can be idealized by a rotational
spring at the center of rotation of each bolt group [24], as shown in Equation (1).
spring at the center of rotation of each bolt group [24], as shown in Equation (1).
Technologies 2017,5,
Technologies2017, 5,81
81 55 of
of 13
13

3 3
( )

kB k=B = aa2ar2ar2 + 222
B 2
+ b k
ar b b
ar k (1)
(1)
2 ar ar b
where
where aaar is the
ar is
ar
the length
length of
of bolt
bolt group;
group; bbararar is
is the
the width
width of
of bolt
bolt group;
group; kkbbb (kN/mm)
(kN/mm) is is bolt
bolt hole
hole elongation
elongation
stiffness
stiffness depending
dependingon onthe
theweb
webthickness
thicknessofofCFS CFSchannel
channelsections [7].
sections [7].TheThedistance from
distance intersection
from of
intersection
the members to the center of rotation of each bolt-group is referred to as the effective
of the members to the center of rotation of each bolt-group is referred to as the effective length of the length of the
connection
connection (Figure
(Figure 6).
6).

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Effective length of
Effective length of apex
apex connection.
connection.

The variation of vertical load against vertical deflection at the apex obtained from experimental
Thebeam
test and variation of vertical
idealization areload against
shown vertical
in Figure deflection
7. As at thethe
can be seen, apex obtained
deflection from
due experimental
to misalignment
test and beam idealization are shown in Figure 7. As can be seen, the deflection due to misalignment
of the bolt holes was offset along the deflection axis and so enables the experimental and numerical
of the bolt holes was offset along the deflection axis and so enables the experimental and numerical
results to be compared at loads when all the bolt shanks are in full bearing contact against the bolt
results
holes. Ittoalso
be compared
can be seenat loads when
that the all the
results bolt shanks
obtained fromare in full
elastic bearing
frame contact
analysis againstwith
is similar the bolt
the
holes. It also can be seen that the results obtained from elastic frame analysis is similar with the
experimental results in the elastic region [6,24].
experimental results in the elastic region [6,24].

Figure 7. Variation of
Figure 7. of vertical
vertical load
load against
against apex
apex deflection
deflection [6].
[3].

3. Design of Benchmark Frame Following Eurocode 3

Benchmark frame is designed
designed under
under the
the permanent
permanent load
load (G)
(G) of
of0.15 kN/m222 and variable load
0.15kN/m load
(Q) of
(Q) of 0.6 2
0.6 kN/m
kN/m2. .Variable
2 Variable and
and permanent
permanent actions
actions for
for ultimate
ultimate load combination in accordance with
Eurocode 33 [29]
Eurocode [29] are
are factored
factored as
as follows:
follows:
ULS= 1.35G + 1.5Q + EHF
ULS
ULS = =1.35G
1.35G++ 11.5Q
.5Q ++EHF
EHF
(2)
(2)
where:
where:
ULS is the ultimate limit state
ULS
EHF is
is the
the ultimate limit
equivalent state
horizontal forces
EHF is the equivalent horizontal forces
The magnitude of the equivalent horizontal forces is based on initial sway imperfection of
frame. It is simply assumed that the notional horizontal load acts at the top of the column according
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 6 of 13

The magnitude of the equivalent horizontal forces is based on initial sway imperfection of frame.
It is simply assumed that the notional horizontal load acts at the top of the column according to
Eurocode 3. Also, it should be noted that only a vertical load case is considered in this study, which is
the same as loading used for the full-scale experimental test of Benchmark Frame.
In this study, second-order elastic analysis is used for frame analysis, using the finite element
program ANSYS. BEAM3 element was used for the columns and rafters; LINK10 was used to idealize
the knee brace member. For the semi-rigidity of the joints, a rotational spring element of zero size
connected with two coincident nodes at the joint positions (COMBIN40) was used [30].
The normalized forms of the design constraints for checking frame members following
Eurocode 3 [31] are expressed as follows:

NEd
g1 = −1 ≤ 0 (3)
Nc,Rd

NEd
g2 = −1 ≤ 0 (4)
Nb,Rd
NEd My,Ed
g3 = + −1 ≤ 0 (5)
Nc,Rd Mcy,Rd
MEd F
g4 = + Ed − 1.25 ≤ 0 (6)
Mc,Rd Rw,Rd
MEd
g5 = −1 ≤ 0 (7)
Mb,Rd

NEd 0.8 MEd 0.8

   
g6 = + −1 ≤ 0 (8)
Nb,Rd Mb,Rd
where g1 is constraint for sectional buckling, namely, local or distortional buckling of section; g2 is
constraint for lateral buckling of members; g3 is constraint for combined axial compression and bending
moment; g4 is constraint for crushing at the frame joints; g5 is constraint for lateral torsional buckling
of bending members; g6 is constraint for buckling of member in both bending and compression.

4. Design Optimization Model

The objective of the design optimization is to minimize the weight of the portal frame per unit
floor area for one full bay (see Figure 2), whilst satisfying the design constraints as mentioned in
Section 3. It should be noted that the unit weight depends on the frame spacing, frame geometry,
cross-section sizes of members and sizes apex bracket and can be expressed as:
" #
m
1
W=
Lf bf ∑ ci li + wbr cbr (9)
i=1

where

W is the weight of the frame per square meter of floor area

wi are the weights per unit length of cold-formed steel sections for frame members
li are the lengths of cold-formed steel frame members
m is the number of structural members in the portal frame
wbr is the total weight of the brackets

For this optimization model, decision variables consist of both discrete and continuous ones.
Optimum section of columns, rafters and knee braces respectively, is processed as discrete variables.
Continuous variables are roof pitch, frame spacing, knee configuration and apex bracket size. Details of
design variables for this design optimization are categorized into four groups, i.e., G1 to G4, as follows:
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 7 of 13

G1. The size of cross sections designated for column, rafter and knee brace members
G2. Dimensions of knee brace joints: knee angle and position of knee brace connection from the top
of column (vert. dist.), as shown in Figure 5.
G3. Topology of framing system: frame spacing (bay) and rafter pitch
G4. Length of bolt-group of apex joint

As can be seen, there are total eight decision variables that need to be optimized for the minimum
unit weight of Benchmark Frame. Three design variables in Group 1 (G1) are chosen from the list
of commercial CFS channel sections as shown in Table 1. It is worth mentioning that back-to-back
channel section (BBC), as shown in Figure 4, is used for frame members owing to long-span frame,
as well as eliminating the effect of eccentricity happened for the case of the single channel sections.

Table 1. The list of CFS channel sections used for frame members.

No. Section Depth (mm) Width (mm) Lip (mm) Aeff (mm2 ) Ieff (mm4 ) kb (kN/mm)
1 C14014 140 62 13 204.0401 1,082,779 7.86
2 C14015 140 62 13 232.1936 1,201,011 8.33
3 C14016 140 62 13 261.3747 1,321,448 8.79
4 C14018 140 62 13 322.529 1,563,576 9.67
5 C14020 140 62 13 386.939 1,809,198 10.53
6 C17014 170 62 13 203.7955 1,626,803 7.86
7 C17015 170 62 13 229.7369 1,806,830 8.33
8 C17016 170 62 13 258.3304 1,990,087 8.79
9 C17018 170 62 13 320.1387 2,355,960 9.67
10 C17020 170 62 13 385.4579 2,729,076 10.53
11 C17025 170 62 13 547.9565 3,638,582 12.5
12 C20014 200 70 15 211.0629 2,404,960 7.86
13 C20015 200 70 15 238.186 2671228 8.33
14 C20016 200 70 15 266.5817 2950971 8.79
15 C20018 200 70 15 329.2035 3,524,825 9.67
16 C20020 200 70 15 399.0659 4,101,795 10.53
17 C20025 200 70 15 583.5274 5,555,008 12.50
18 C24015 240 74 17 244.4894 4,054,743 8.33
19 C24016 240 74 17 273.7871 4,486,942 8.79
20 C24018 240 74 17 336.7747 5,374,958 9.67
21 C24020 240 74 17 409.5579 6,283,747 10.53
22 C24025 240 74 17 607.8716 8,585,415 12.50
23 C24030 240 74 17 806.4516 1.08 × 107 14.28
24 C30020 300 95 19 418.55 1.07 × 107 10.53
25 C30025 300 95 19 617.1334 1.50 × 107 12.50
26 C30030 300 95 19 862.1016 1.95 × 107 14.28

For practical design of frame, parameters of G2–G4 variables are set in predefined range.
Specifically, vert.dist. dimension is varied in the range of [column-height/10, column-height/3];
knee angle is varied in the range of [5◦ , 70◦ ]. Frame spacing is set in the range of [2 m, 6 m] for an
economical design of purlins and side rails. Roof pitch is varied from [6◦ , 30◦ ]. Bolt-group length is
varied in the range of [0.14 m to 1.00 m]. To provide a high lateral stiffness of bracket, thickness of 4 mm
is assumed to be applied for the eaves and apex brackets. For the preliminary design of Benchmark
Frame for experimental test, the knee angle is of 50◦ ; position of knee brace connection from the top of
column (vert.dist.) is of 1.36 m; pitch is of 10◦ , frame spacing bf is of 3.6 m (see Figure 2).
Due to the high nonlinearity of the problem, a real-coded genetic algorithm (RC-GA) was adopted.
This population-based algorithm generates solutions by carrying out binary tournament selection,
SBX crossover and polynomial mutation for the evolutionary process [22]. It is worth noting that the
binary tournament selection can efficiently preserve the population diversity, which increases the
exploration component of the algorithm. The genetic operators of RC-GA, i.e., selection, crossover
from the top of column (vert.dist.) is of 1.36 m; pitch is of 10°, frame spacing bf is of 3.6 m (see Figure
2).
Due to the high nonlinearity of the problem, a real-coded genetic algorithm (RC-GA) was
adopted. This population-based algorithm generates solutions by carrying out binary tournament
selection, SBX crossover and polynomial mutation for the evolutionary process [22]. It is worth
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 8 of 13
noting that the binary tournament selection can efficiently preserve the population diversity, which
increases the exploration component of the algorithm. The genetic operators of RC-GA, i.e.,
and mutation,
selection, are directly
crossover applied are
and mutation, to the decision
directly variables
applied to thewithout
decisioncoding andwithout
variables decoding. This and
coding is a
convenient characteristic as compared against binary GAs.
decoding. This is a convenient characteristic as compared against binary GAs.
In this paper,
paper, thethe effect
effect of
of niching
niching strategy
strategy onon maintaining
maintaining the population diversity is combined
with
with RC-GA
RC-GA to to increase
increase the
the robustness
robustness andand reliability
reliability of
of proposed
proposed algorithm
algorithm in searching
searching for the
the
optimum solution. Niching Nichingstrategy
strategyisisapplied
appliedforforselection
selectionandandreproduction
reproductionoperators.
operators.Niching
Niching is
is carried
carried outout through
through comparing
comparing a normalized
a normalized Euclidean
Euclidean distance,
distance, known
known as as niching
niching radius
radius [22].
[22]. If
If distance
distance smaller
smaller thana apre-defined
than pre-defineddistance,
distance,ororininthe
thesame
same niche,
niche, they
they are
are allowed to become
become
mating partners. If the randomly chosen solutions satisfy the constraint of the niching radius, they
then
then are
arecompared
compared with fitness
with values
fitness for the
values fortournament selection
the tournament operator.operator.
selection Therefore, only solutions
Therefore, only
in same region (or niche) are considered. GA flowchart for design optimization
solutions in same region (or niche) are considered. GA flowchart for design optimization of of Benchmark Frame is
shown
Benchmarkin Figure
Frame 8. is shown in Figure 8.

[11].
Figure 8. Flowchart of real-coded GA [11].

5. Fitness
5. Fitness Function
Function
Tohandle
To handlethethe design
design constraints
constraints for single
for single objective
objective optimization
optimization using genetic
using genetic algorithms,
algorithms, penalty
functions are often used for transforming a constrained problem to an unconstrained one. In thisone.
penalty functions are often used for transforming a constrained problem to an unconstrained In
study,
athis study,
novel a novel
dynamics dynamics
penalty penalty
strategy strategy in
is proposed, is which
proposed, in which
descending descending
penalty value ispenalty
added value is
into the
added into the objective function to evaluate the fitness of individuals in the population
objective function to evaluate the fitness of individuals in the population as generation progresses. as
generation progresses.
K.gi
CVPi = K.gi0.5 (10)
CVP= i
Gen0.5 (10)
Gen
where CVPi is the violated penalty for the ith design constraint; K is scale factor of 100; gi is the violated
constraint; Gen is the current generation.
For making the comparison, this study also carries out two typical penalty methods, namely,
non-scale factor strategy applying for tournament selection operator, where two solutions are compared
at a time and the following criteria are carried out: (a). any feasible solution is preferred to any
infeasible solution; (b). among two feasible solutions, the one having better objective function value
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 9 of 13

is preferred; (c). among two infeasible solutions, the one having smaller constraint violation is
preferred [22]. It should be noted that penalty parameters are not needed because in any of these
three settings, solutions are not compared in terms of both objective function and constraint violation
information. Second penalty strategy considered in this paper uses ascending penalized value as
generation progresses.
CVPi = (0.5Gen)2 × 10gi (11)

This method will define the fitness function to assess the quality of the solutions throughout
evolutionary process of genetic algorithms. The adopted fitness function (F) has a form as follows:

6
F = W + ∑ CVPi (12)
i=1

6. Design Examples

6.1. Optimum Design of Benchmark Frame with Full Rigidity for Apex Joint
In this section, Benchmark Frame is firstly optimized whilst decision variables of groups G2 and
G3 are fixed. With rigid joint assumption, design variable for bolt-group length of apex connection
is excluded in this example. The real-coded GA is applied for searching the optimum section
designated for columns, rafters and knee member to minimize the unit weight of Benchmark Frame.
The genetic parameters used for optimization process are as follows: number of generations = 50;
niching radius = 0.3; mutation probability = 0.1; crossover probability = 0.9. The initial populations
were generated randomly with 40 individuals. The optimization algorithm was executed 10 times for
each penalty function strategy. It was observed that for all of three penalty methods, the standard
deviations of the lightest weight achieved, based on 10 optimization runs, are consistently small
with the minimum weight obtained for each run near the best one. The lightest weight of frame per
unit area on the floor of building for one full bay obtained is of 7.76 kg/m2 . The optimum section
designated for frame members is BBC24030, BBC24016 and BBC14014 for column, rafter and knee
brace members respectively (Table 2). Design constraint for buckling of column member in both
bending and compression is critical and governed the optimum design, i.e., g6 = −0.01.

Table 2. Optimum design of Benchmark Frame with rigid joint at apex.

G1 (BBC Configuration) G2 G3 Weight

Design Options
Column Rafter Knee Vert.dist. Knee Angle Bay Pitch kg/m2
G1: varied
C24030 C24016 C14014 1.36 m 50◦ 3.6 m 10◦ 7.76
G2,G3: fixed
G1,G2 b : varied
C24025 C24020 C14014 1.36 m 37.4◦ 3.6 m 10◦ 7.61
G2 a ,G3: fixed
G1,G2: varied
C24025 C24018 C14014 1.79 m 38.2◦ 3.6 m 10◦ 7.44
G3: fixed
All: varied C30030 C24025 C14014 1.75 m 41.2◦ 6.0 m 7.4◦ 6.23
a b
Notes: G2 is for position of knee brace connection from the top of column; G2 is for knee angle.

Next, the effect of knee brace configuration on the design optimization of Benchmark Frame is
investigated. The knee angle is optimized, whilst fixing the position of knee brace connection from the
top of column (vert.dist) of 1.36 m. The real-coded GA is applied using the same genetic parameters as
used in previous example. It is worth mentioning that with such addition of extra design variable,
the dimension of the search space could grow exponentially. To enhance the searching performance of
proposed algorithm, a number of trials for determining the population size for optimization process
are carried out for each penalty method. For penalty strategy with non-scale factor, a population of 120
is found for the best performance of real-coded GA in associated with a reasonable processing time.
the top of column (vert.dist) of 1.36 m. The real-coded GA is applied using the same genetic
parameters as used in previous example. It is worth mentioning that with such addition of extra
design variable, the dimension of the search space could grow exponentially. To enhance the
searching performance of proposed algorithm, a number of trials for determining the population
size for optimization process are carried out for each penalty method. For penalty strategy10with
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 of 13
non-scale factor, a population of 120 is found for the best performance of real-coded GA in
associated with a reasonable processing time. It was observed that the time of searching the
It was observed
optimum solution that the time4.5
is around ofhsearching the optimum
after carrying out 15,000 solution
function is evaluations.
around 4.5 hItafterwas carrying
experiencedout
15,000 function evaluations. It was experienced that evolutionary
that evolutionary process slowly converged into the optimum solution. For the method usingprocess slowly converged into the
optimum
ascendingsolution.
penalty For the method
strategy, it is using ascending
observed that thepenalty strategy,
reliability it isrobustness
and observed thatof the reliability
optimization
and robustness
algorithm is lowof optimization
with standard algorithm is low
deviations is with
quitestandard deviations
large. This is quite
is because thelarge.
best This
factoris because
for this
the best factor for this penalty strategy is not straightforward to determine,
penalty strategy is not straightforward to determine, which causes a premature convergence. For the which causes a premature
convergence.
proposed method For the proposed
with descendingmethod with strategy,
penalty descending penalty
it was foundstrategy,
that onlyit was found
small that onlysize
population small
of
population size ofsearch
60 can effectively 60 canfor
effectively
the optimum search for the within
solution optimum 2 h solution within 2 h that
that is approximate 50%isfaster
approximate
in terms
50% faster in termstime
of computational of computational
compared totime compared
previous to previous
methods. methods. was
The reliability The reliability
obtained waswithobtained
a small
with a small
standard standard
deviation ofdeviation of 0.066after
0.066 obtained obtained
10 runs. afterThe10 runs. The convergence
convergence history ofhistory
typicalofGAtypical
runsGAin
runs in associated with each penalty strategy is shown in Figure 9. As can
associated with each penalty strategy is shown in Figure 9. As can be seen, the minimum unit weight be seen, the minimum unit
weight 2 . Detail of optimum result obtained from this
for thisfor this design
design optimization
optimization is 7.61
is 7.61 kg/m kg/m
2. Detail of optimum result obtained from this design
optimization is also shown in Table Table 2.2.

Figure 9. Convergence history of GA runs with three penalty strategies.

As can be seen in Table 2, the optimum knee angle is of 37.4°, which is smaller than that of
As can be seen in Table 2, the optimum knee angle is of 37.4◦ , which is smaller than that of
preliminary design, i.e., 50°. Since bending moment on rafters is transferred to column through knee
preliminary design, i.e., 50◦ . Since bending moment on rafters is transferred to column through knee
braces, a small knee angle can reduce the maximum bending moment on the column, whilst
braces, a small knee angle can reduce the maximum bending moment on the column, whilst increasing
increasing hogging moment at the knee brace joint on rafter. For such response of bending moment
hogging moment at the knee brace joint on rafter. For such response of bending moment through the
through the variation of knee brace configuration, a smaller cross section size was designated for
variation of knee brace configuration, a smaller cross section size was designated for column members,
column members, i.e., BBC24025 and larger section was applied for rafters, i.e., BBC24020 (Table 2).
i.e., BBC24025 and larger section was applied for rafters, i.e., BBC24020 (Table 2). It can be seen that the
It can be seen that the effect of knee angle only shows a slight decrease on the minimum unit weight
effect of knee angle only shows a slight decrease on the minimum unit weight of Benchmark Frame.
of Benchmark Frame. Design constraint for buckling of column and rafter member in both bending
Design constraint for buckling of column and rafter member in both bending and compression is
and compression is critical and governed the optimum design, i.e., g6 = 0.
critical and governed the optimum design, i.e., g6 = 0.
For the case of design accounting for the influence of both vert.dist parameter of knee joint
For the case of design accounting for the influence of both vert.dist parameter of knee joint
position on column and knee angle. The optimum solution indicated that a small knee brace angle of
position on column and knee angle. The optimum solution indicated that a small knee brace angle of
38.2° in associated with large distance for position of knee brace connection from the top of column
38.2◦ in associated with large distance for position of knee brace connection from the top of column
of 1.79 m can reduce the unit weight of Benchmark Frame around 4.12%. Interestingly, when all
of 1.79 m can reduce the unit weight of Benchmark Frame around 4.12%. Interestingly, when all
decision variables are varied, the minimum unit weight remarkably decreases approximately 19.72%
decision variables are varied, the minimum unit weight remarkably decreases approximately 19.72%
as compared with the preliminary design. It should be noted that the remaining design cases used a
as compared with the preliminary design. It should be noted that the remaining design cases used
population size of 80 for the evolutionary process using proposed penalty method. As expected, the
a population size of 80 for the evolutionary process using proposed penalty method. As expected,
reliability and robustness were obtained with small standard deviation obtained after 10 GA runs.
the reliability and robustness were obtained with small standard deviation obtained after 10 GA runs.

6.2. Optimum Design of Benchmark Frame Accounting for Semi-Rigidity of Apex Joint
The process of structural analysis of Benchmark Frame with full rigidity at apex joint experienced
that bending moment is considerably distributed to apex joint owing to low stiffness with the
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 11 of 13

6.2. Optimum Design of Benchmark Frame Accounting for Semi-Rigidity of Apex Joint
The 2017,
Technologies process
5, 81 of structural analysis of Benchmark Frame with full rigidity at apex11joint of 13
experienced that bending moment is considerably distributed to apex joint owing to low stiffness
with the assumption of pinned joints being used for column to rafter, knee to column and knee to
assumption
rafter connections of pinned joints
at eaves being frame.
of portal used for It iscolumn to rafter, knee
worth mentioning that to column
realistic and knee
response to rafter
of apex joint
connections at eaves of portal frame. It is worth mentioning that
is semi-rigid in associated with finite connection-length. This behavior therefore has significant realistic response of apex joint is
semi-rigid
influence on in bending
associated with finite
moment connection-length.
redistribution from apex This behavior
joint to eaves therefore
joints on hascolumn
significant
and influence
rafter. In
on
this section, the optimum design of Benchmark Frame including the effect of semi-rigid section,
bending moment redistribution from apex joint to eaves joints on column and rafter. In this joint is
the optimum design of Benchmark Frame including the effect of semi-rigid joint is considered.
considered.
There
There are areeight
eightdesign
design variables
variablesfor for
this this
optimization,
optimization,namely, three discrete
namely, variables
three discrete for column,
variables for
rafter and knee cross sections (G1), two continuous variables for vert.dist.
column, rafter and knee cross sections (G1), two continuous variables for vert.dist. parameter and parameter and knee angle
(G2), two continuous
knee angle variables for
(G2), two continuous buildingfor
variables topology
building(G3) and bolt-group
topology length of apex
(G3) and bolt-group lengthjoint (G4).
of apex
Since the reliability and robustness of real-coded GA combining
joint (G4). Since the reliability and robustness of real-coded GA combining with proposed penalty with proposed penalty function
method
functionhas been shown
method has been in previous
shown inexamples, optimum design
previous examples, optimum of Benchmark Frame is carried
design of Benchmark Frameout is
10 GA runs
carried out with
10 GA a population
runs with of 80 randomlyofgenerated.
a population 80 randomly The generated.
genetic parameters
The genetic usedparameters
for optimization used
process are also as process
for optimization follows: arenumberalso ofasgenerations
follows: number = 50; niching radius = 0.3;
of generations = mutation
50; niching probability
radius == 0.3;0.1;
crossover probability = 0.9.
mutation probability = 0.1; crossover probability = 0.9.
It
It was
was observed
observed that that the
the history
history of of evolutionary
evolutionary process process converged
converged into into the
the optimum
optimum solution
solution
within
within 3200 function evaluations (Figure 10). As expected, the standard deviations of the lightest
3200 function evaluations (Figure 10). As expected, the standard deviations of the lightest
weight
weight achieved,
achieved, basedbased on on 10
10 optimization
optimization runs runs are
are consistently
consistently small,small, i.e.,
i.e., 0.085,
0.085, with
with thethe minimum
minimum
weight 2 . Design
weight obtained
obtainedfor foreach
eachrunrunnear the the
near best best
one of 6.30
one ofkg/m
6.30 kg/m constraint
2. Design for buckling
constraint of column
for buckling of
and rafter member in both bending and compression is critical and
column and rafter member in both bending and compression is critical and governed the optimum governed the optimum design, i.e.,
g 6 = −0.011.
design, i.e., g6 = −0.011.
The
The detailed
detailedresultresultshowed
showed that optimum
that optimum cross-section
cross-section designated
designated to frame members
to frame and frame
members and
spacing
frame spacingare the sameare theas the frameasdesign
same the framewith rigid jointwith
design at apex. Thejoint
rigid influence of semi-rigidity
at apex. The influence at apexof
joint shows the ◦ was obtained
semi-rigidity at effect on knee
apex joint showsconfiguration
the effect on and pitch.
knee The optimum
configuration and pitch
pitch.ofThe 11.84
optimum pitch of
that
11.84° could
was reduce
obtained thethat
distance
could of kneethe
reduce joint on column
distance of kneefrom theon
joint top, i.e., 1.46
column from m,the
in associated
top, i.e., 1.46 with
m,
an optimum knee ◦
in associated withangle of 42.5 .knee
an optimum The angle
advance of theThe
of 42.5°. design procedure
advance of theisdesign
that the detail of apex
procedure is thatjoint,
the
i.e.,
detailbolt-group lengthi.e.,
of apex joint, of 0.406 m, waslength
bolt-group obtained and the
of 0.406 m, apex
was stiffness
obtainedisand 68.34thekNm/deg, as calculated
apex stiffness is 68.34
from
kNm/deg, as calculated from Equation (1). It was observed from experimental result maximum
Equation (1). It was observed from experimental result about the relationship between about the
bending
relationship moment
between on column
maximum andbending
apex stiffnessmoment [1], on
thatcolumn
the joint and detail
apexatstiffness
apex of CFS portal
[1], that theframe
joint
obtained from design optimization almost behaves as rigid joint. This
detail at apex of CFS portal frame obtained from design optimization almost behaves as rigid joint. resulted in the same optimum
cross-section
This resulted designated
in the samefor frame members
optimum cross-section as those used for
designated forBenchmark
frame members Frameaswith those rigid
usedjointfor
at apex.
Benchmark Frame with rigid joint at apex.

Figure 10. Convergence history of design optimization for frame having semi-rigidity at apex joint.
Figure 10. Convergence history of design optimization for frame having semi-rigidity at apex joint.

7. Conclusions
The optimum design of long-span CFS portal frame having span of 13.6 m and column height
of 5.4 m, known as Benchmark Frame, was carried out accounting for the influence of knee brace
configuration. Eurocode 3 was applied for conducting the member and joint checks. The real-coded
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 12 of 13

niching GA in associated with a novel penalty method to handle constraints of the design optimization
of Benchmark Frame under the action of gravity loads. Through a number of GA runs, it was
shown that the proposed constraint handling procedure with descending penalty values as generation
progressed can effectively search for the optimum solution. The effective computational time, which
is approximate 50% faster than methods being popularly used in literature, indicates capability of
proposed optimum routine for practical application.
The effect of knee brace configuration combining with topology of framing system was
investigated through four design cases, which the saving of material used for Benchmark Frame
up to 19.72% as compared against experimental frame. The reasonable location of knee brace joint on
the column should be one third of the eaves height from the top and knee angle is approximate 42◦ .
For a future research, this result should be verified against the full-scale experiment, as well as 3-D
modeling with shell elements to further investigate the realistic structural behavior of such long-span
CFS portal frame. Also, the influence of horizontal forces, i.e., seismic or wind loads on the optimum
configuration of knee brace joints and structural performance of CFS frame should be considered.

Author Contributions: Phan conceived and designed the optimization. The optimization algorithm was scripted
and performed by Thanh Duoc Phan and Meheron Selowara Joo prepared the manuscript based on the guidance
and feedback from A/P. James B. P. Lim and Hieng-Ho Lau. All authors have checked the optimization outcome,
read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Blum, H.B.; Rasmussen, K.J.R. Experiments on long-span cold-formed steel portal frames composed of
double channels. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Coupled Instabilities in Metal
Structures, Baltimore, MD, USA, 7–8 November 2016.
2. Dundu, M. Design approach of cold-formed steel portal frames. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2011, 11, 259–273.
[CrossRef]
3. Schafer, B.W. Local, Distortional and Euler Buckling of Thin-Walled Columns. J. Struct. Eng. 2002, 128,
289–299. [CrossRef]
4. Orlando, M.; Lavacchini, G.; Ortolani, B.; Spinelli, P. Experimental capacity of perforated cold-formed steel
open sections under compression and bending. Steel Compos. Struct. 2017, 24, 201–211.
5. Bertocci, L.; Comparini, D.; Lavacchini, G.; Orlando, M.; Salvatori, L.; Spinelli, P. Experimental, numerical and
regulatory P-Mx-My domains for cold-formed perforated steel uprights of pallet-racks. Thine-Walled Struct.
2017, 119, 151–165. [CrossRef]
6. Lim, J.B.P.; Nethercot, D.A. Finite element idealization of a cold-formed steel portal frame. J. Struct. Eng.
2004, 130, 78–94. [CrossRef]
7. Phan, D.T.; Lim, J.B.P.; Tanyimboh, T.T.; Sha, W. Effect of joints having semi-rigidity and finite
connection-length in optimal design of cold-formed steel portal frames. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2017, 17,
427–442. [CrossRef]
8. Toropov, V.V.; Mahfouz, S.Y. Design optimization of structural steelwork using genetic algorithm, FEM and
a system of design rules. Eng. Comput. 2001, 18, 437–459. [CrossRef]
9. Saka, M.P. Optimum design of pitched roof steel frames with haunched rafters by genetic algorithm.
Comput. Struct. 2003, 81, 1967–1978. [CrossRef]
10. Issa, H.K.; Mohammad, F.A. Effect of mutation schemes on convergence to optimum design of steel frames.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2010, 66, 954–961. [CrossRef]
11. Phan, D.T.; Lim, J.B.P.; Tanyimboh, T.T.; Lawson, R.M.; Martin, S.; Sha, W. Effect of serviceability limit on
optimal design of steel portal frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 86, 74–84. [CrossRef]
12. McKinstray, R.; Lim, J.B.P.; Tanyimboh, T.T.; Sha, W.; Phan, D.T. Optimal design of long-span steel portal
frames using fabricated beams to Eurocode. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015, 104, 104–114. [CrossRef]
13. Phan, D.T.; Lim, J.B.P.; Sha, W.; Siew, C.; Tanyimboh, T.T.; Issa, K.H.; Mohammad, F.A. Design optimization
of cold-formed steel portal frames taking into account the effect of topography. Eng. Optim. 2013, 45, 415–433.
[CrossRef]
Technologies 2017, 5, 81 13 of 13

14. Autralian/New Zealand StandardTM . Cold-Formed Steel Structures; AS/NZS4600:2005; Standards Australia:
Sydney, Australia, 2005. Available online: https://www.saiglobal.com/PDFTemp/Previews/OSH/as/
as4000/4600/4600-2005.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2017).
15. Wrzesien, A.M.; Phan, D.T.; Lim, J.B.P.; Lau, H.H.; Hajirasouliha, I.; Tan, C.S. Effect of stressed-skin action on
optimal design of cold-formed steel square and rectangular-shaped portal frame buildings. Int. J. Steel Struct.
2016, 16, 299–307. [CrossRef]
16. Phan, D.T.; Lim, J.B.P.; Tanyimboh, T.T.; Wrzesien, A.M.; Sha, W.; Lawson, R.M. Optimal design of
cold-formed steel portal frames for stressed-skin action using genetic algorithm. Eng. Struct. 2015, 93,
36–49. [CrossRef]
17. Phan, D.T.; Wrzesien, A.M.; Lim, J.B.P.; Hajirasouliha, I. Effects of Stressed-Skin Action on Optimal Design of
a Cold-Formed Steel Portal Framing System. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Specialty Conference
in Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Saint Louis, MO, USA, 5–6 November 2014.
18. British Standard. BS 5950–5: Structural Use of Steelworks in Building. Part 5. Code of Practice for Design
of Cold-Formed Thin Gauge Sections; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 1998. Available online:
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030155279 (accessed on 10 December 2017).
19. Yeniay, O. Penalty function methods for constrained optimization with genetic algorithms.
Math. Comput. Appl. 2005, 10, 45–56. [CrossRef]
20. Deb, K. An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
2000, 186, 311–338. [CrossRef]
21. Pezeshk, S.; Camp, C.V.; Chen, D. Design of nonlinear framed structures using genetic optimization.
J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 382–388. [CrossRef]
22. Deb, K. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2001.
23. Erbatur, F.; Hasançebi, O.; Tutuncu, I.; Kiliç, H. Optimal design of planar and space structures with genetic
algorithms. Comput. Struct. 2000, 75, 209–224. [CrossRef]
24. Lim, J.B.P.; Nethercot, D.A. Stiffness prediction for bolted moment-connections between cold-formed steel
members. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2004, 60, 85–107. [CrossRef]
25. Wrzesien, A.M.; Lim, J.B.P.; Nethercot, D.A. Optimum Joint Detail for a General Cold-Formed Steel Portal
Frame. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2012, 15, 623–640. [CrossRef]
26. Kulak, G.L.; Fisher, J.W.; Struik, J.H.A. Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints, 2nd ed.;
John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
27. Davies, J.M. Connections for cold-formed steelwork. In Design of Cold-Formed Steel Members; Rhodes, J., Ed.;
Elsevier Applied Science: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1991.
28. Zandanfarrokh, F.; Bryan, E.R. Testing and design of bolted connections in cold-formed steel sections.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Saint Louis,
MO, USA, 20–21 October 1992; pp. 625–662.
29. British Standard BS EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures: Part 1—General Rules and Rules for
Buildings; Committee European de Normalization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005; ISBN 0580460789. Available
online: http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/showpage.php?id=133 (accessed on 11 December 2017).
30. SAS IP, Inc. ANSYS: Release 14.5. 2012. Available online: http://www.ansys.com (accessed on 11 December 2017).
31. Dubina, D.; Ungureanu, V.; Landolfo, R. Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structures; European Convention
for Constructional Steelwork: Timisoara, Romania, 2012; ISBN 978-3-433-02979-4. Available online:
http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3433029792.html (accessed on 11 December 2017).

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).