004s7949/ss s3.00 + 0.
00
TECHNICAL NOTE
A NOTE ON OPTIMUM GEOMETRY
JACEK RETRZAK
Civil Engineering Department, Technical University of Poznan, 60-965 Poznan, Poland
(Received 21 April 1987)
Ahatraet-It is shown that by properly inclining the frame columns one can increase the buckling load
for two-bar and portal frames. This fact is worth considering in frame optimization. The inclusion of the
column inclination parameter into the design variable vector results in a more economic design than that
obtained by optimization of a frame of fixed geometry. Numerical examples that refer to a hinged-based
portal frame are given.
1. INTRODUCI’ION
The recent decades have witnessed si~ifi~nt progress in the
development of the theoretical foundations and numericat
methods of optimization of structures’ topology, geometry
and the member cross-sectional properties. In structural
design practice, however, optimization is usually confined to
searching for the optimum sizes of the member cross-
sections, in spite of the Fact that optimi~tion of topology
or geometry of some structures may be more eKective in
weight reduction than changes in the member sizes.
Most numerical results substantiating the advantages of
including in an optimization process the variation of geom-
etry have been gathered in the field of pin-jointed trusses
(see e.g. [l-3]). Less documented are the benefits of opti-
mization of geometry of rigidly jointed frames.
The aim of the present note is to show that the frame
geometry changes, consisting of in&ring the columns, may
lead to a remarkabie increase of the frame critical load and
noticeable reduction of the frame volume.
2. FSFRCT OF COLUMN INFLATION
ON THE CRITICAL LOAD
Consider the four frames depicted in Fig. I, subject to the
one-parameter loading P = PA, where P is a load pattern
matrix, and Z a load factor. The load factor may vary in the
range (0, ,2,), where & is the value of 1 at which ins~bi~ty
of the frame occurs.
The columns of the frame are allowed to deviate from the
vertical direction by an angle 6, as shown in Fig. 1. As will
be seen, the column inclinations affect, sometimes
si~ifi~ntly, the values of the critical load factor 1,.
In order to examine the effect of L on &, linear buckling
analyses of the four frames were carried out for various
values of L. It was assumed in the analyses that the frames
were prevented from out-of-plane buckling. The calcu-
lations were performed on a personal computer, using a
standard criterion (based on the value of the stiffness matrix
determinant) for occurrence of bifurcation.
The results obtained are shown in Fig. 2 in the form of
a plot of the four non-dimensional functions L&,, where &
denotes the critical load factor for the frame with vertical
column(s). (For the frames a, b, c and d, x, is equal to
0.15435 MN, 0.29816 MN, 0.0191 I MN and 0.07711 MN,
respectively.)
It can be seen from Fig. 2 that: (i) the critical load factor,
& is only moderately affected by L for the two-bar frames,
and turns out to be quite sensitive to changes in t for the
683
Pngamon Pressplc
OF A PORTAL FRAME
portal frames; (ii) for each frame, an angle P can be found
which maximizes the function @c. In the cases of the
frames a and b, the ma~mum values of the function differ
only slightly from unity; max (J,/&) is 1.001 for the pin-
supported bent, and reaches the value of 1.012 for the bent
with clamped supports. By contrast, for both of the portal
frames, max (&/&) differs significantly from unity; for the
frame c, max A,= 2.14& and for the frame d, max
& = I.43 n;.
Since, for the two-bar frames, a, is rather insensitive to
geometry variation, little benefit can be expected in this case
from geometry optimization. The portal frames c and d are,
however, promising in this respect.
Confining further attention to frame c, which exhibits the
strongest sensitivity of A, to 6, we will examine, in the next
section, the combined effect of the geometry variation and
changes in member sixes on the magnitude of & and the
feasible design domain.
3. OYMMUM PORTAL FRAME
Consider &hehinged-base portal frame shown in Fig. 3(a),
with the I-shaped cross-section [Fig. 3(b)]. The section is
assumed to be the same for both the columns and beam of
the frame. The only dimension of the section permitted to
vary is its depth, h. The columns of the frame are allowed
to be inclined at angle 8, which may assume values between
40 and 90”.
For the selected points of the design area defined by the
in~u~ties 4OO” Q @ c 90” and 0. I m G h GO.18 m, the val-
ues of the critical load factor function, /1,(& h), have been
calculated and the contour lines of the surface A, construc-
ted. The contour lines are shown in Fig. 4. They enable one
to quantitatively estimate the advantages of permitting the
geometry of the frame to be varied. For example, it can be
seen that the orthogonal frame, subject to loading with
1 = 0.25, hecomes unstable for h Q 6, where 6 = 0.1623 m.
The material volume, p, corresponding to 6 is 0.02968 m’.
The frames with inclined columns, subject to the same
loading, require smafler depth, L, and less material to remain
stable. For /I equal to 80 and 70”, the minimum allowable
web depths, h, are 0.1275 and 0.1127 m, respectively. For
B = 62”, which is an angle corresponding to point K on the
contour line of A,, minims h is 0.1095 m. The minimum
material volumes, V, required for the frames with the
inclined columns are as follows: for p = 80”, V = 0.9156P;
for /i = 70”, V = 0.87977; and for B = 62”, V = 0.8721 P,
which indicate that noticeable material savings accrue from
inclining the ~01~~s. Similar obsetvations can be made for
the frames subject to loading of different magnitudes of 1.
684 Technical Note

I P,=IX (MN)

A I
I
I L
T 4- T

Frame a Frame c

Frame b Frame d

For aU members :
La3m
A = 1.8 x lC2m2
I * 1.35 x IQ6m4
E=?OGPa

Fig. I. Sampie frames.

Detailed analysis of the cases corresponding to other values

of 1 will follow.
Obviously, whether or not a pair (B, h), pertaining to a
point on the contour line 1, = 1, gives a feasible design, still
depends on the other constraints, of which the constraint
imposed on stresses is most likely to become active. To
examine the role of the stress constraint in forming the
feasible domain, let us adopt the constraint in the form
CT= (jNI/A + [MI/S) 6 R, in which N is the column axial
force, M is the maximum bending moment, S is the section
modulus, and R is the prescribed allowable stress.

Frame c

lb) t

I
-40 -50
I I
-20 -IO
i I
0
I
IO 20
I
x) t
Efd6ggf
I b !
Fig. 2. Diagrams of A/& versus the column inclination
angle, e, for the four sample frames. Fig. 3. Geometry and cross-section of a portal frame.
 Technical Note 685

_ii*O.l623 m
tG = Q02968 m3)

0.1 I 0.12 0.13 414 O.I!s 0.16 0.17 0.16

h(m)

Fig. 4. Contour lines of the critical load factor function.

ii=Ql455 m
/
I
I

CXII ai2 o.i3 0. I4 0.15 0. I6

h(m)

90.1773m
9o(b)
1

0.1
h(m)

ii-0.2034m

h(m)

Fig. 5. Design areas for three loading cases: (a) L = 0.2; (b) I, = 0.3; (c) rl = 0.4.
686 Technical Note

R=iOOMFn

(b)

R=iGO MPa
I

R = 150,175, xx) MPo

= 100,125,150,175,200 MPa

(c)

'2:0.9 z IO
> 0

0.0 20

i
90 60 ?D 60 x) 40
j3 (degl

Fig. 6. Diagrams of the weight reduction function, rp, for three loading cases: (a) L = 0.2; (b) I = 0.3; (c)
L = 0.4.

Consider three loading cases that differ in the magnitude
of the load factor 1. The cases are: i = 0.2,0.3 and 0.4. For
each value of 1, the contour lines of the stress function have
been determined and superimposed on the curve A = ACand
on the contour lines of the material volume function (see
Fig. 5).
Inspection of Fig. 5 enables us to notice that: (i) for a
given A, the point X that would minimize the frame volume
in the absence of the stress constraint may (for small values
of 0 assumed as R) or may not (for la&‘R) be excluded
from the feasible domain; and (ii) for a liven R, the risk that
the point K tinds itself outside’the f&ibie area increases
with the increase of 1.
To quantitatively evaluate the reduction in the frame
volume, resulting from optimization of both the angle of the
column inclination and depth of the section, a vafue for R
has to be adopted. The results quoted below refer to R
assumed as 125 MPa, while the relevant data pertaining to
other values of R are presented in Fig, 6.
For A = 0.2, Fig. S(aj, the optimum-design is represented
by ooint K (19 = 62’. h = 0.0976 m’l. The volume of the
o&mum frame, V, is b.S789P, where P is the volume of the
relevant minimum weight orthogonal frame (@= QO”,
li = 0.1455 m).
For 1. =0;3, Fig. s(b), the optimum design is also
snecifled by noint K If3= 62“. li = 0.1201 ml. In this ease
k = 0.8662p; where VP refers to the orthogonal frame
(B = QO”,k = 0,1773 m).
For 1 = 0.4, Fig. 5(c), point K is non-feasible. The
optimum design is represented by point L @I= 78*,
h = 0.155 m) and V, = 0.8932 p, f’ being the volume of the
frame of /I = 90” and li = 0.2034 m.
To enable the evaluation of weight reduction for other
values of R be made, the diagrams shown in Fig. 6 were
 Technical Note
constructed. For each of the considered load factors, the
function V/V, corresponding to various R, is plotted. The
diagrams confirm the earlier remarks on the role played by
the stress constraint. Additionally, it can be seen that for all
the Is the function V/V exhibits the steepest descent for
80” g b < 90”, which, simultaneously, is the range of the
angle /I for which the function is not affected by the stress
constraint. Thus, even a small deviation of the column lines
from the vertical direction (-c not exceeding lo”) may lead
to a noticeable reduction of the frame volume with respect
to the volume of the orthogonal frame (in the case consid-
ered, 10” deviation gives 8-9% volume reduction). For
--L > lo” (i.e. /I c 80”) the volume reduction rate is smaller.
The material savings function, cp = (V - V)lOO/V, reaches
its maximum at different points, depending on R and ,I.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The numerical results presented in this note indicate that
the critical load for portal frames can be substantially
681
increased by properly inclining the frame columns. In
optimum designing, this modification of the originally or-
thogonal frames can be used as a means of extending the
feasible design domain, because the stability requirement
usually constitutes an essential constraint on a frame design.
The percentage of material savings, accruing from the frame
geometry changes, varies with the intensity of the frame load
and values of the allowable stress. For the sample hinged-
base frame, the material savings resulting from the inclina-
tion of the columns by IO” were about S-9%; for the larger
inclination angles, the savings exceeded 10%.
REFERENCES
1. M. P. Saka, Shape optimization of trusses. J. sfruct.
Div., ASCE RK(STS), 1155-1174 (1980).
2. W. R. Spillers, Iterative design for optimal geometry. J.
SITI(CLDiv., AXE lOl(SIY), 14351442 (1975).
3. P. Pedersen, Optimal joint positions for space trusses. J.
strucf. Div., ASCE 9!?(ST12), 24592476 (1973).