Optimization of Elevated Concrete Foundations for Vibrating

Machines
Marcelo A. Silva1; Jasbir S. Arora, F.ASCE2; Colby C. Swan, M.ASCE3; and Reyolando M. L. R. F. Brasil4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The objective of this study is to describe a problem formulation and an optimization procedure for the design of elevated
reinforced concrete foundations for vibrating machines. Special emphasis is placed on structures composed of footings, beams, and
columns. The dimensions of the structure and its reinforcement are the design variables for the optimization problem. The objective
function consists of costs of the concrete, the steel, the form, and the propping form. Constraints related to material and soil failure, as
well as geometrical limits and human comfort are imposed. A new failure surface for columns and beams subjected to biaxial bending and
axial loads is defined and used in the formulation. The main motivation of using the new failure surface is to save a large amount of
computational effort in the solution of this dynamic response optimization problem. The problem of minimizing the structural cost while
satisfying the operating and safety requirements is solved using an augmented Lagrangian method. A large number of constraints 共time
dependent and time independent兲 is treated without any difficulty in the method. The numerical methods used in the solution process are
described. Optimal solutions for an example problem are obtained and discussed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2002兲128:11共1470兲
CE Database keywords: Optimization; Design; Concrete structures; Dynamic loads; Soil-structure interaction.

Introduction while ‘‘Numerical Examples’’ contains numerical results for an

Introductory Remarks
To solve realistic and practical optimal structural design prob-
lems, different formulations need to be studied and their effects
on the optimal design process need to be investigated. The pur-
pose of this paper is to address the problem of optimal design of
reinforced concrete structures and foundations for vibrating ma-
chines. As a specific example of this class of problems, the design
of an elevated reinforced concrete foundation is considered. An
overview of the literature on the subject is presented in the fol-
lowing section, and the objectives of the paper are described. In
‘‘Problem Description,’’ the design problem is described and
structural analysis procedure is discussed, including the soil–
structure interaction problem. Formulation of the optimal design
problem is described in ‘‘Optimal Design: Problem Formulation,’’
1
Dept. de Engenharia de Estruturas e Fundações, Escola Politécnica
da Univ. de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 61548 CEP 05.424-970 São Paulo-
SP., Brasil.
2
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Computer-
Aided Design, The Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: jasbir-arora@uiowa.edu
3
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Computer-
Aided Design, The Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.
4
Dept. de Engenharia de Estruturas e Fundações, Escola Politécnica
da Univ. de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 61548 CEP 05.424-970 São Paulo-
SP., Brasil.
Note. Associate Editor: Shahram Pezeshk. Discussion open until April
1, 2003. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on January 3, 2001; approved on
April 9, 2001. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 128, No. 11, November 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2002/11-1470–1479/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
example problem. Finally, discussion and conclusions are given.
Review of Literature
The design of elevated foundations for vibrating machines in-
volves analysis of both the structure and its foundation. Several
publications describe the interaction of these two areas, as well as
the soil-structure interaction. Arya et al. 共1979兲 wrote a very im-
portant and complete book on the design of structures and foun-
dations for vibrating machines and described several available
processes for design of structures excited by vibrations with an
emphasis on practical applications. Studies describing how to
model dynamic soil–structure interaction can be found in several
works by Stojko 共1989, 1990, 1991, 1993兲, Llambias 共1993兲, Di-
eterman and Gajewski 共1996兲, and Zhao 共1999兲.
There are several methods for modeling the soil–structure in-
teraction, as described in Dieterman and Gajewski 共1996兲, and
Stojko 共1991, 1993兲. The solution based on Green’s function of a
cone model can be used to calculate the stiffness and mass ma-
trices of the soil 共Wolf 1994兲. Another approach is to solve the
problem as a contact problem, where two media—the plate and
the soil—deform together under the action of loads, but satisfying
the constraint of impenetrability of bodies 共Zhao 1999兲. A usual
way is to model the problem as a flexible plate on an elastic soil
共Das 1990兲. This approach is adopted in the present work.
Regarding the optimization process, there are numerous works
in this area in the literature 共Fletcher 1985; Arora 1989; Arora
et al. 1997; Kocer and Arora 1999; Arora 1999兲. These works
show how general optimization methodology can be applied for
practical design of continuous problems, such as the problems
solved in the present paper. For reinforced concrete structures in
particular, a number of design optimization studies have been
reported recently where the ultimate capacity constraints were
imposed upon the structure. For example, Roddis et al. 共1996兲

1470 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

 and Roddis and Chunnanond 共1996兲 used a genetic algorithm
where ultimate capacity constraints were incorporated into the
overall fitness function to design and detail concrete structures
subjected to static loading. Each element was optimized sepa-
rately by including bending capacity constraints based on biaxial
bending and axial load. Balling and Yao 共1997兲 described how to
optimize framework subjected to static loads using a two-phase
procedure. In the first phase, the cross-section dimensions of the
members were optimized. These were treated as continuous de-
sign variables and a nonlinear programming 共NLP兲 method was
used to obtain the solution. In the second phase, the cross-section
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dimensions as well as the member axial forces and moment en-

velopes of columns and beams were held fixed while the rein-
forcement was optimized using a discrete exhaustive search 共Ball-
ing et al. 1997兲. During the second phase constraints related to
bending capacity were imposed.
Several authors have investigated optimal structural design
with dynamic constraints. Haug and Arora 共1979兲 and a few oth-
ers were the early researchers in this area. They analyzed impact
absorbers, vibration isolators, and vehicle suspension systems.
Chahande and Arora 共1994兲 performed the optimization of large
linearly elastic structures subjected to dynamic loads. Mass of
columns of a 50 floors shear building was minimized subjected to
a blast load. Goldenberg et al. 共1997兲 performed optimization of a
portal frame with elastoplastic behavior subjected to an impact
load. Besides this, Silva and Brasil 共1999a,b兲 have considered
human comfort in problems of mass minimization of columns and
plates. They minimized the material and form costs of a rein-
forced concrete structure subjected to dynamic loads. Constraints,
design variables, and a general cost function for optimization of
foundations under vibratory loading were presented by Silva et al.
共1999兲, and a reinforced concrete footing was optimized for ma-
terial and construction costs. Kocer and Arora 共1999兲 treated dy-
namic response optimization of transmission line structures sub-
jected to earthquake loads using several optimization methods.
Objectives
The foregoing review of literature reveals that some research has
indeed been carried out regarding methods for optimal design of
reinforced concrete structures and reinforced concrete founda-
tions. In these studies, however, the structure and the foundation
were optimized separately. As a result, the main objective of this
work is to develop a realistic and practical formulation for inte-
grated optimal design of structures and foundations for vibrating
machines. Soil–structure interaction is included in the proposed
formulation.
In optimal design of reinforced concrete structures composed
of beams and columns subjected to dynamic loads, it is necessary
to perform dynamic structural analysis so that dynamic con-
straints can be imposed at each time point. The evaluation of
dynamic constraints related to the biaxial bending and load capac-
ity of beam/column sections at every time step consumes substan-
tial computational effort. For structures subjected to static loads,
this verification is not so expensive, because for every concrete
element, computation of the moment capacity must be done only
once for a given set of design variables. However, in dynamic
optimization problems it is necessary to check the bending capac-
ity constraint at every time step for a given design. To reduce this
computational effort of checking these constraints is quite impor-
tant. Therefore in this work a novel failure surface criterion de-
scribed in Silva et al. 共2001兲 is used. Use of this new criterion
Fig. 1. Typical elevated foundation
substantially reduces the computational effort in evaluating the
bending capacity constraint, especially for the dynamic loading
environment.
Problem Description
Elevated Foundation
A typical elevated pedestal foundation consisting of columns,
beams, and a footing is shown in Fig. 1. For beams and columns,
B⫽width, H⫽height of the cross section, and L⫽length. For the
footing, the sides are 2l x and 2l y , and the thickness is h. This
kind of a structure is encountered in several industrial plants and
is generally used as a table top compressor structure.
When the optimal design of structures supporting vibrating
machines is investigated, the machine requirements are an impor-
tant input. There are many types of vibrating machines that can be
classified into two large groups: centrifugal and reciprocating ma-
chines. In either case, a periodic time-dependent loading function
is transmitted through the structure to the foundation. To design
the foundation, the following machine geometrical and perfor-
mance factors are required: outline of the machine; functions of
the machine; weight of the machine and its components; location
of center of gravity; speed ranges of machine and unbalanced
frequency; primary and secondary forces; and limits imposed on
the foundation with respect to differential deflections within the
plan area of the foundation.
The outline for the machine base generally specifies minimum
permissible dimensions for the foundation and locates specific
areas that must be left clear for machine attachments. For ex-
ample, in turbines, certain regions under and over the machine
must be left clear for condensers and piping. Machine functions
include information on the overall purpose and critical nature of
the machine. Should the machine be of critical importance to the
overall operations, then a more conservative design approach is
recommended. The designer must set the level of conservative-
ness balanced against the possible unnecessary expense.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 1471

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Typical plate

Fig. 3. Plate triangular finite element

Structural Analysis
The finite element procedure is used to develop equations of mo-
tion for the system consisting of beams, columns, the footing, and
the soil. The equations are integrated numerically to determine the
dynamic response of the structure.
Footing and Soil formulation
A typical footing modeled as a plate structure is shown in Fig. 2.
The global reference coordinate system is denoted as 0XY Z. The
plate is developed in the 0XY plane. The directions of X, Y, and Z
are, respectively, the transverse, longitudinal, and vertical direc-
tions of the system. The plate is modeled as an isotropic, homo-
geneous, and a linearly elastic material of uniform thickness. The
soil system in which the slab foundation is embedded is modeled
by a system of springs and dashpots. The soil spring constants in
the X and Y directions are K x and K Y , respectively. K T ⫽soil
spring constant related to the rotation about the axis Z. The con-
stant ␩⫽soil coefficient of the subgrade reaction; physically, it
represents an elastic spring density per unit area in the Z direc-
tion.
A compilation of several procedures to estimate ␩ has been
performed by Silva et al. 共1999兲. Considering a point in the con-
tact area between the footing and the soil, the spring force F ␩ per
unit area is F ␩ ⫽␩ w, where w⫽vertical deflection of the soil–
plate interface. The inertial force per unit area is F 1 ⫽h␳ẅ, where
h⫽plate thickness and ␳⫽mass density of the plate material.
Using the basic moment-curvature relationships and the theory
of elastic plates on elastic spring foundations we obtain equation
of motion for the plate for transverse displacement 共Shigueme
1995; Zienkiewicz and Taylor 1989兲
Dⵜ 4 w⫹␩w⫹h␳ẅ⫺q 共 X,Y ,t 兲 ⫽0, ᭙t苸 关 t 0 ,t f 兴
where D⫽Eh / 关 12(1⫺␯ ) 兴 , and q(X,Y ,t)⫽load per unit area
3 2
relative to a local coordinate system. The displacement vector for
the node i in the global coordinate system is written as zti
⫽ 关 w i ␪ x i ␪ y i 兴 . Using the usual shape functions, element stiffness,
and mass matrices, nodal force vector can be generated.
Beam and Column Equations
Consider now the cross section of a beam/column member of a
three-dimensional framework, as shown in Fig. 4. Such elements
are referred to as the line elements in this work. L⫽length of the
element, while the cross section width is B and height is H. The
cross section geometric properties can be written as A⫽BH
共area兲, I y ⫽BH 3 /12 共moment of inertia related to yy axis兲, I z
⫽HB 3 /12 共moment of inertia related to zz axis兲, and J⫽I y ⫹I z
共polar moment of inertia兲. The material properties are Young’s
modulus E, shear elasticity modulus G, and mass density ␳. The
t
displacement vector for the eth element is ze ⫽ 关 ze t1 ze t2 兴 , where
t
zei ⫽ 关 u ei v ei w ei ␪ exi ␪ eyi ␪ zi
e
兴 is the displacement at the ith element
node. The components u ei , v ei , and w ei are, respectively, the dis-
placements in the x, y, and z directions, while ␪ exi , ␪ eyi , and ␪ zi e
are
the rotations of fibers parallel to the x, y, and z axis, respectively.
These displacements are given in the local system. The displace-
ment vector of the ith node in the global coordinate system is
denoted as zti ⫽ 关 u i ␯ i w i ␪ xi ␪ yi ␪ zi 兴 . The equations of motion for the
axial displacement, bending about two axes, and torsional motion
(1)

applied to the footing. The foundation, shown in the Fig. 2, is

discretized into several 3-node C 2 triangular plate finite elements
共Fig. 3兲. The local reference coordinate system is 0xyz. Each
plate element is considered in the 0xy plane. A description of the
triangular plate-bending element used in this work can be found
in Zienkiewicz and Taylor 共1989兲 and Shigueme 共1995兲. The dis-
t
placement vector for the element e is ze ⫽ 关 ze t1 ze t2 ze t3 兴 where ze ti
⫽ 关 w ei ␪ ex i ␪ ey i 兴 is the ith nodal displacement vector. The component
w ei ⫽vertical displacement of the plate at the node i, while ␪ exi and
␪ eyi ⫽rotations of a transverse fiber of the plate related to the axis
Fig. 4. Line element, degrees of freedom, and cross section
contained in the plate plane at the node i. These displacements are

1472 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

 can be derived for the finite element. Again, using the usual shape
functions, element stiffness, and mass matrices, nodal force vec-
tor can be generated. These matrices are given in Tedesco et al.
共1999兲, while the force vector is given in Zienkiewicz and Taylor
共1989兲.
The relationship between the nodal displacements and nodal
internal loads in the line element described above can be written
t
as Fe ⫽Ke ze where Fe ⫽ 关 Ft1 Ft2 兴 , Fti ⫽ 关 N i V yi V zi T i M l yi M l zi 兴 is in-
ternal load vector at the ith node for the eth element, and Ke
⫽element stiffness matrix. Note that N i ⫽normal or axial load,
V yi and V zi ⫽shear loads, T i ⫽torsional moment, and M lyi and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

l
M zi ⫽flexural moments. In case of columns, generally structural
design codes require the increment of flexural moment due to
l
second order effects; i.e., for M zi and M lyi . A simplified procedure Fig. 5. Typical cross section of line element and plate
described in NB-1 共1978兲, the Brazilian code for design and con-
struction of reinforced concrete structures, was used to calculate
this additional moment.
stress calculations for concrete and steel are described. All these
considerations and specifications are based on NB-1 共1978兲; how-
Global Equation of Motion
ever, any other code can be used.
Assembling the element level mass and stiffness terms, we can
Fig. 5 shows a typical concrete line element and a plate. In
build a global system of equations in the matrix form that in-
Fig. 5共a兲, B⫽width, H⫽height, A s and A ss ⫽respectively, longi-
volves all the structure degrees of freedom 共Zienkiewcz and Tay-
tudinal and transverse steel areas, and c⫽cover of longitudinal
lor, 1989兲
reinforcement, for beams and columns. In Fig. 5共b兲, h
Mz̈⫹Kz⫽p共 t 兲 , ᭙t苸 关 t 0 ,t f 兴 (2) ⫽thickness, A sx and A sy ⫽longitudinal steel area perpendicular to
the y and x axes, respectively, and c p ⫽reinforcement cover, for
To complete the dynamic analysis, it is necessary to compute plates. Elastoplastic behavior of the steel used here is considered
damping effects within the soil and the structure. In this work we with elasticity modulus E s and yield stress f y . This stress must be
consider Rayleigh damping, as divided by a factor ␥ s ⬎1 to get the steel design stress f yd
C⫽a 0 M⫹a 1 K (3) ⫽ f y /␥ s . The strain corresponding to this stress is ␧ yd ⫽ f yd /E s .
The distribution of strains on the cross section is linear. The con-
where a 0 and a 1 ⫽proportionality parameters, determined from crete and steel strains are, respectively, ␧ s and ␧ c . The maximum
the simultaneous solution of the expression tensile strain in steel is ␧ smax⫽1% and the maximum compressive

冉 冊 c ⫽0.35%. The elasticity modulus of con-

a0
␰ r⫽ ⫹a 1 ␻ r
␻r
for two specified values of ␰ r and ␻ r . These are, respectively, the
damping factor and the natural vibration frequency corresponding
to the rth normal mode of vibration. Then the global system of
equations of motion is written as
Mz̈⫹Cż⫹Kz⫽p共 t 兲 , ᭙t苸 关 t 0 ,t f 兴
In most structural problems, z is composed of two parts: the
static displacement zs due to the static loads ps plus the dynamic
displacement zd due to the dynamic loads pd , which can be writ-
ten as z⫽zs ⫹zd and p⫽ps ⫹pd . In order to calculate the static
displacement we need to solve the system: Kzs ⫽ps . The dy-
namic system in Eq. 共5兲 is now given as
Mz̈d ⫹Cżd ⫹Kzd ⫽pd 共 t 兲 , ᭙t苸 关 t 0 ,t f 兴
Note that every component of z has two parts: a static part and a
dynamic part. It is possible to simulate the static load as a dy-
namic load with a long time of application, but this process is
very expensive from a computational point of view. The equations
of motion 共6兲 are solved using standard techniques that are pre-
sented, for example, in Tedesco et al. 共1999兲.
Reinforced Concrete Design
In this section we shall present all the specifications related to the
reinforced concrete design. Also stress-strain relationship for steel
and concrete, mechanical properties of concrete and steel, and the
strain in concrete is ␧ max
(4) crete is E. The characteristic stress for concrete is f ck 共this is the
maximum stress allowable for concrete considering 5% probabil-
ity of failure under this value兲. This stress must be divided by a
factor ␥ c ⬎1 to get the concrete design stress f cd ⫽ f ck /␥ c . The
distribution of stress on concrete is the parabola-rectangular dia-
gram as described in Sussekind 共1979兲. As is done traditionally,
the tensile stress in concrete is neglected.
(5) Consider the plate section shown in Fig. 5共b兲. The classical
process to design reinforced concrete plates is based on the three
equations given below.
共i兲 The plate useful thickness, d⫽h⫺c p
d⫽␤ 1 冑␥ f 兩 M max兩 (7)
where M max⫽max(M xi ;M yi)⫽maximum flexural moment acting
in the plate at the ith node 共characteristic moment兲 and ␥ f ⬎1 is a
(6) load factor to get the design strength.
共ii兲 Steel areas in the cross section perpendicular to the y and x
axes are, respectively
␥ f 兩 M xi 兩 ␥ f 兩 M yi 兩
A sx ⫽␤ 2 ; A xy ⫽␤ 2 (8)
d d
The coefficients ␤ 1 and ␤ 2 depend on the characteristic stress in
concrete f ck , the coefficient ␥ c , the steel and concrete strains (␧ s
and ␧ c ), the steel yield stress f y , and the coefficient ␥ s . The
maximum steel area allowed in this cross section is 4.0% h, while
the minimum area is 0.15% h.
Consider the cross section of a line element, as described in
Fig. 5共a兲. The transverse steel for shear strength and torsional
strength are calculated using the expressions

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 1473

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

 ␥ fVk ␥ fTk ⫽footing settlement under that pressure. The physical constant ␩
V
A ss ⫽ ; T
A ss ⫽ (9) generally depends on the footing dimensions, shear modulus of
z f yd 2A l f yd
soil G s and the Poisson’s ratio of soil ␯ s . For embedded footing,
where V k ⫽shear load and z⫽I/m 0 , with I⫽moment of inertia an expression to calculate the coefficient of subgrade reaction was
related to neutral axis and m 0 ⫽first moment about the neutral presented by Arya et al. 共1978兲:
axis of the area above or below the neutral axis, T k ⫽torsional
moment and A l ⫽area, with external perimeter u, of the ideal G s ␤ w␩ w lx
␩⫽ ; ␤ w ⫽0.07778 ⫹2.07222;
section for designing for torsion, as described in Sussekind 1⫺␯ s 冑4l x l y ly
共1979兲. In this work we considered A l ⫽5/6B(H⫺B/6) and u
⫽2(H⫹2/3B). Note that the areas obtained in Eq. 共9兲 need to be 0.6共 1⫺␯ s 兲 h (13)
added to obtain the total area A ss . Another important observation ␩ w ⫽1⫹
冑4l x l y /␲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is that we have two shear loads V y and V z . The steel area corre-
sponding to each load is calculated and later added to obtain the
total area. This procedure is a little conservative, but quite simple
to implement. The minimum volume of the torsion steel in the
entire element is 0.14% of the ideal prism volume 共Sussekind
Here ␤ w and ␩ w ⫽nondimensional coefficients related to the foot-
ing dimensions and the soil Poisson’s ratio ␯ s . Arya et al. 共1978兲
also presented the following soil elastic constants parallel to tor-
sional, transverse, and longitudinal directions:

冑
1979兲. To design completely for the torsional moment, it is nec-
essary to adopt another steel area, the longitudinal steel area for 16G s r 30 4 l x l y 共 l 2x ⫹l 2y 兲
K T⫽ ; r 0 ⫽2 (14)
torsion 3 6␲
u␥ f T k K X ⫽4 共 1⫹␯ s 兲 G s ␤ x ␩ xy 冑l x l y ;
A Ts ⫽ (10) (15)
2A l f yd
K Y ⫽4 共 1⫹␯ s 兲 G s ␤ y ␩ xy 冑l x l y
After calculating the steel area for shear load and torsional
moment it is necessary to compute the concrete stress due to these where r 0 is the footing equivalent radius, and
strengths. A simple expression that can be used for this verifica- lx
tion is given in NB-1 共1978兲 as ␤ x ⫽0.02105 ⫹0.98947
ly
␶ td ␶ wd
⫹ ⫺1⭐0 (11) ly
␶ tu ␶ wu ␤ y ⫽0.02105 ⫹0.98947 (16)
lx
␥ fTk ␥ fVk
␶ td ⫽ , ␶ tu ⫽0.22 f cd , ␶ wd ⫽ , ␶ wu ⫽0.25f cd 0.55共 2⫺␯ s 兲 h
2A l e Ac ␩ xy ⫽1⫹
(12) 冑4l x l y /␲
In Eq. 共12兲 A c ⫽B(H⫺c) is the useful concrete area of the cross are nondimensional coefficients related to the footing dimensions
section and e⫽B/6. The values of ␶ tu and ␶ wu must be, respec- and the soil Poisson’s ratio. The masses associated with K X , K Y ,
tively, smaller than 3.92 and 4.41 MPa. and K T are, respectively
The verification of the longitudinal steel area in line elements
4
subjected to biaxial bending and axial load will be treated in m X ⫽m Y ⫽4␳hl x l y ; m T ⫽ ␳hl x l y 共 l 2x ⫹l 2y 兲 (17)
‘‘Biaxial Moment and Axial Load Constraints’’ considering a new 3
failure surface and a new failure criterion developed by the au- Generally ␩ and ␴ s can be determined as functions of the
thors. standard penetration test value 共Carter 1983兲, usually abbreviated
as N S PT . An expression for ␩ in MN/m3, is ␩⫽2N S PT . Bowles
共1996兲 has given an expression for the allowable bearing capacity
Soil Parameters
of soil under a rectangular footing in terms of N S PT , h, and l x .
A close interaction exists between the structure and its support However, in the present work, ␴ s is considered as given data.
共foundation and soil兲. The load on the structure is transmitted to
the foundation and the soil. A part of the work of the load applied Optimal Design: Problem Formulation
to the soil is stored in the form of strain energy, and damping due
to friction dissipates the remaining part. The physical constants
Design Variables and Cost Function
involved in this problem are functions of the soil geotechnical
parameters. Therefore knowledge of the soil representative prop- The design variables for a problem are the ones that define the
erties is required for structural and foundation analysis. Generally, system. Let b⫽ 关 b 1 b 2 ¯b n 兴 t represent a design variable vector,
the following information is required: Poisson’s ratio of soil, ␯ s ; where n⫽total number of design variables. In this work, we are
shear modulus of soil, G s , at several levels of strain 共or magni- dealing with structures having specified geometric configuration
tude of bearing pressure兲; coefficient of subgrade reaction of soil, and material. Therefore only structural dimensions and steel area
␩, if above parameters are not accurately known; and allowable are the design variables. Thus the design variables related to the
bearing capacity of soil, ␴ s , which is a function of the soil footing design are btf ⫽ 关 hA sx A sy l x l y 兴 , where h⫽plate thickness,
strength properties 共friction angle ␾ s and cohesion c s ), the system A sx and A sy ⫽steel areas in the cross section perpendicular to axis
foundation geometry, and ␥ so . y and x, respectively, and 2l x and 2l y ⫽plate sides length. The
The main parameters used in the analysis and design process design variables vector for the eth line element is btle
are ␩ and ␴ s . They can be determined by field or laboratory tests. ⫽ 关 B e H e A se A sse 兴 , where B e and H e ⫽respectively, width and
The coefficient of subgrade reaction, ␩, can be defined as the rate height of the cross section, and A se and A sse ⫽respectively, lon-
q s /⌬, where q s ⫽pressure applied on the footing and ⌬ gitudinal reinforcement steel area and transverse reinforcement

1474 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Structure design

steel area. The footing is discretized into n no nodes and n e ele- Design Constraints
ments, and the framework is discretized into n pe line elements
with n pno nodes. Then the entire design variable vector is given as For structures subjected to dynamic loads, the constraints are
bt ⫽ b btf btl1 ¯btl npe c . grouped into two types: static and dynamic constraints. The static
The objective function that determines the relative merits of constraints are imposed on dimensions of structural elements, the
various designs 共Arora 1989兲 is the construction cost of the struc- steel areas, static displacement and differential displacement,
ture. We consider the costs of concrete, steel, form, and propping stress in soil, and natural frequencies of vibration. These are ex-
form. Determination of the concrete cost is direct, because it is pressed as
proportional to the structural volume. Computation of the steel minimum footing thickness: h⭓h l (23)
cost demands a larger computational effort because the determi-
nation of the steel is not trivial, especially in the line elements. It minimum and maximum value for A sx :
is function of the stresses within the structure. The costs of form 0.0015h⭐A sx ⭐0.04h (24)
and propping form are proportional to external structure surface
area. minimum and maximum value for A sy :
The problem is to minimize the cost of the structure shown in
0.0015h⭐A sy ⭐0.04h (25)
Fig. 6. This structure is composed of footing, columns, and
beams. The cost function for the problem is f (b), given as minimum value for l x and l y : l x ⭓l x min ;l y ⭓l y min (26)
f 共 b兲 ⫽C c ⫹C s ⫹C f ⫹C p f (18)
main natural vibration frequency: 0.5⭓ ␻ 1 /⍀ ⭓1.5 (27)
where C c , C s , C f , and C p f ⫽respectively, costs of concrete,
maximum footing static displacement:
steel, form, and propping form:

再
footing:4l x l y hc c
C c ⫽ line element e:B H L c
e e e c
(19)
兩 w si 兩 ⭐z su , i⫽1,...,n no
maximum footing static differential displacement:
(28)

再
footing: 关 2 共 l x A sx ⫹l y A sy 兲 ␳ s 兴 c s
C s ⫽ line element e: A ⫹2A
关 se sse 共 B e ⫺2c⫹H e ⫺2c 兲兴 L e ␳ s c s
兩 w si ⫺w s j 兩 ⭐d su ,
maximum static bearing capacity:
i⫽1,...,n no , j⫽i⫹1,...,n no (29)

再
(20)
footing: 关 4l x l y ⫹4h 共 l x ⫹l y 兲兴 c f ␩ 兩 w si 兩 ⭐␴ s /␥ ss , i⫽1,...,n no (30)
C f ⫽ beam e: 共 B e ⫹2H e 兲 L e c f (21) verification of the minimum longitudinal steel area for line ele-
column e: 共 B e ⫹H e 兲 2L e c f ments:
C p f ⫽ 兵 beam e:B e L e c p f (22) beam e:A se ⭓0.0015B e H e , e⫽1,...,n pe
In these expressions c c ⫽concrete cost per unit volume, ␳ s (31)
column e:A se ⭓0.005B e H e , e⫽1,...,n pe
⫽steel density, c s ⫽steel cost per unit mass, c f ⫽form cost per
unit area, c p f ⫽propping form cost per unit area, and L e ⫽eth verification of the maximum longitudinal steel area for line ele-
element length. ments

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 1475

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

 element e:A se ⭐0.04B e H e , e⫽1,...,n pe (32) verification of longitudinal steel for torsional moments for every
line element:
verification of the minimum transverse steel area for line elements
A se ⭓A Ts , e⫽1,...,n pe (47)
0.0007B e H e
element e:A sse ⭓ , e⫽1,...,n pe (33) maximum dynamic bearing capacity:
B e ⫹H e ⫺4c
It is also necessary to impose constraints on the static displace- ␩ 兩 w di ⫹w si 兩 ⭐␴ s /␥ ds , i⫽1,...,n no (48)
ment in columns and beams: Machine and environmental requirements define the minimum
1. A beam supported by columns cannot have lateral displace- and maximum values of l x and l y . The maximum static displace-
ment larger than D/300, where D⫽distance between the col- ment allowed is z su ⫽min(lx ;ly)/10, and the maximum static dif-
umns. ferential displacement is d su ⫽min(lx ;ly)/100. The constraints
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2. Lateral displacement of a column cannot exceed L/150, 共34兲–共39兲 and 共42兲–共44兲 contemplate human comfort, as well as
where L⫽column length. machine conditions and structural damage. The limits on dis-
Dynamic constraints need to be imposed over the entire time placements, velocities, and accelerations were taken from the
interval t苸 关 t 0 ,t f 兴 . The predicted behavior of the structures is graphs in Arya et al. 共1978兲.
checked or compared with a number of design requirements,
many of which come from design codes. The dynamic constraints Biaxial Moment and Axial Load Constraints
imposed are
The verification of the longitudinal steel area in line elements
maximum footing displacement: subjected to biaxial flexural moment and axial load was done
using a procedure developed by the authors 共Silva et al. 2001兲.
兩 w di 兩 ⭐z du , i⫽1,...,n no (34) Consider the strengths obtained from the structural analysis: the
axial load N⬅N i , and the flexural moments M a ⬅M lyi and M b
兩 u dp 兩 ⭐z du ; 兩 ␯ dp 兩 ⭐z du (35)
⬅M zil
, that compose the point (N,M a ,M b ) in the three-
maximum footing velocity: dimensional space. The resultant moment is M r and ␰
⫽arctan(M b /M a)⫽angle between the direction of M r and a axis.
兩 ẇ di 兩 ⭐␯ u , i-1,...,n no (36)
Let N ut and N uc ⫽the maximum values of tension and com-
兩 u̇ dp 兩 ⭐␯ u ; 兩 ␯˙ dp 兩 ⭐␯ u (37) pression that can be assumed by N when M a ⫽M b ⫽0, with N
⬎0 for tension and N⬍0 for compression. Let N c ⫽1/2(N ut
maximum footing acceleration: ⫹N uc ) and N r ⫽1/2(N ut ⫺N uc ); let M ua ⫽the maximum value
兩 ẅ di 兩 ⭐a u , i⫽1,...,n no (38) assumed by M a when M b ⫽0 and N⫽N c ; let M ub ⫽the maxi-
mum value assumed by M b when M a ⫽0 and N⫽N c . Authors
兩 ü dp 兩 ⭐a u ; 兩 ␯¨ dp 兩 ⭐a u (39) have developed the following failure surface for members sub-
jected to biaxial bending and axial loads:
verification of Eq. 共7兲:
d⭓␤ 1 冑␥ f 兩 M xi 兩 ; d⭓␤ 1 冑␥ f 兩 M yi 兩 , i⫽1,...,n no (40) 冉 冊 冉 冊 冉
Ma
M ua
␣1
⫹
Mb
M ub
␣2
⫹
N⫺N c
Nr 冊 ␣3
⫺1.0⫽0 if N⬎N c
verification of Eq. 共8兲: (49a)

A sx ⭓
␥ f 兩 M xi 兩
␤ 2d
; A sy ⭓
␥ f 兩 M yi 兩
␤ 2d
, i⫽1,...,n no (41) 冉 冊 冉 冊 冉
Ma
M ua
␣1
⫹
Mb
M ub
␣2
⫹
兩 N⫺N c 兩
Nr 冊 ␣4
⫺1.0⫽0 if N⭐N c
(49b)
maximum framework node displacement:
where the exponents ␣ 1 , ␣ 2 , ␣ 3 , and ␣ 4 were determined using
兩 w di 兩 ⭐z du ; 兩 u di 兩 ⭐z du an optimization procedure. They depend on the cross section di-
(42) mensions, amount and distribution of steel reinforcement, stress-
兩 ␯ di 兩 ⭐z du , i⫽n no ⫹1,...,n no ⫹n pno strain characteristics of steel and concrete, concrete cover, and
maximum framework node velocity: size of lateral ties or spiral. When Eq. 共49a兲 or 共49b兲 is equal to
zero, the point (N,M a ,M b ) is on the failure surface; when it is
兩 ẇ di 兩 ⭐␯ u ; 兩 u̇ di 兩 ⭐␯ u smaller than zero, the point is below the failure surface; and when
(43) it is larger than zero, the point is outside the failure surface and
兩 ␯˙ di 兩 ⭐␯ u , i⫽n no ⫹1,...,n no ⫹n pno
the reinforced concrete element violates the failure constraint.
maximum framework node acceleration: Note that in Eqs. 共49a兲 and 共49b兲, the values of N, M a , and M b
are available from structural analysis and the values of M ua ,
兩 ẅ di 兩 ⭐a u ; 兩 ü di 兩 ⭐a u M ub , N ut , and N uc are calculated from geometry of the section.
(44)
兩 ␯¨ di 兩 ⭐a u ,i⫽n no ⫹1,...,n no ⫹n pno In the first formulation, the exponents ␣ 1 , ␣ 2 , ␣ 3 , and ␣ 4 are
calculated such that Eq. 共49a兲 or 共49b兲 is always conservative
verification of transverse steel for every node of every line ele- 共i.e., the approximate surface is inside the real surface兲. This is
ment: accomplished by imposing additional constraints on the error be-
tween the real surface and the approximate surface. In the second
A ss e ⭓A ss
V
⫹A ss
T
, e⫽1,...,n pe (45)
formulation, they are calculated to just minimize the sum of
verification of Eq. 共11兲 for every line element: squares of the errors between the real surface and the approximate
surface. This may not give conservative yield surface approxima-
␶ td ␶ wd tion everywhere. Optimal solutions with both of these approaches
⫹ ⭐1 (46)
␶ tu ␶ wu are obtained and compared later in the paper.

1476 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

 Table 1. Initial Design for Footing Table 2. Initial Design for Line Elements
h 共cm兲 A sx 共cm 兲2
A sy 共cm 兲 2
l x 共dm兲 l y 共dm兲 Element B e 共cm兲 H e 共cm兲 A se 共cm2兲 A sse 共cm2/m兲
91.44 13.72 13.72 36.58 45.72 127 91.44 60.96 27.87 2.00
128 91.44 60.96 27.87 2.00
129 91.44 60.96 8.36 2.00
130 91.44 60.96 8.36 2.00
A failure criterion related to Eq. 共49a兲 or 共49b兲 can be repre- 131 60.96 91.44 8.36 2.00
sented by the following time dependent constraints that are im- 132 60.96 91.44 8.36 2.00
posed along with Eqs. 共34兲–共48兲: 133 60.96 91.44 8.36 2.00

冉 冊 冉 冊 冉
Ma ␣1
⫹
Mb ␣2
⫹
N⫺N c
冊 ␣ 3 ,␣ 4
⫺1⭐0
134 60.96 91.44 8.36 2.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M ua M ub Nr 135 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00

136 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00
᭙t苸 关 t 0 ,t f 兴 (50) 137 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00
It may happen that the steel area necessary to satisfy Eq. 共49a兲 138 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00
or 共49b兲 is very small or very large. The codes require that the 139 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00
minimum steel area allowed is 0.15%BH for beams and 0.5%BH 140 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00
for columns 关Eq. 共31兲兴, and the maximum steel area allowed is 141 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00
4.0%BH for beams and columns 关Eq. 共32兲兴. Another procedure 142 91.44 91.44 12.54 2.00
adopted here is that if the value of A s is larger than the value of 143 91.44 91.44 41.81 2.00
A sT , then the steel area A sT is neglected 关Eq. 共47兲兴. 144 91.44 91.44 41.81 2.00
145 91.44 45.72 20.90 2.00
146 91.44 45.72 20.90 2.00
Numerical Examples
The structure was optimized in two ways: first by considering
the approximated failure surface to be always conservative and
Computational Procedures
second by not requiring it to be always conservative 共Silva et al.
A computer program based on the augmented Lagrangain method 2001兲. The failure surface was approximated using 79 points for a
was developed to solve the dynamic response optimization prob- quarter of the failure surface for every example analyzed 共the
lem. The method has been judged to be effective for such optimi- quarter where M a and M b were positive兲. This could be done due
zation problems 共Arora et al. 1991; Chahande and Arora 1994兲. to the failure surface symmetry. The values of ␤ 1 and ␤ 2 are,
Numerical methods used at different stages of the solution pro- respectively, 0.0699 and 39,100. We considered f ck ⫽18 MPa,
cess are: 共1兲 Newmark’s method was used to solve the equation of ␥ c ⫽1.4; the steel CA-50 with f y ⫽490.5 MPa, ␥ s ⫽1.15, ␳ s
motion 共6兲; 共2兲 the conjugate gradient method with Armijo line ⫽7,850 kg/m3 , ␳⫽2,500 kg/m3 , E⫽21.55 GPa, Es
search for unconstrained minimization; 共3兲 the forward finite dif- ⫽206.01 GPa, c p ⫽3.0 cm, c⫽2.5 cm, h l ⫽0.50 m, l x min
ference method to calculate the gradient vector; 共4兲 the Simpson ⫽1.0 m, l y min⫽4.57 m, ⍀⫽727.7 rad/s, ␥ f ⫽1.4, ␥ ss ⫽2.0, ␥ ds
rule to calculate integrals; 共5兲 the inverse vector iteration to cal- ⫽4/3, G s ⫽44,833,839.7 Pa, ␯ s ⫽0.45, ␴ s ⫽95,760 Pa, z du
culate the main natural frequency of vibration 共Tedesco et al. ⫽0.006 mm, ␯ u ⫽0.0127 m/s, and a u ⫽3.92 m/s2 . The length of
1999兲; and 共6兲 the Cholesky decomposition to solve linear sys- columns is L⫽5.18 m. To obtain the Rayleigh damping matrix
tems 共Atkinson 1993兲. we calculated a 0 and a 1 considering a damping factor of 15% for
the first and of 5% for the fourth mode of vibration. The initial
time is t 0 ⫽0.0 s and the final time is t f ⫽0.0863 s. This time
Problem Data
interval was discretized into 120 grid points. To compute the cost
The discretized structure is shown in Fig. 6, where the plate is function we considered c c ⫽US$105.56/m3 , c s ⫽US$1.44/kg, c f
discretized with n no ⫽80 nodes and n e ⫽126 elements 共geometri- ⫽US$27.78/m2 , and c p f ⫽US$19.44/m2 . These include the ma-
cally identical兲, and the framework is discretized in n pe ⫽20 line terial and the construction costs; they do not include construction
elements with n pno ⫽13 nodes. The dynamic model thus obtained administrative costs.
has 321 degrees of freedom. The total number of design variables The initial design adopted for solving the problem is shown in
is 85; 5 related to the footing and 80 related to the framework. Table 1 for the footing and in Table 2 for the line elements. This
The total number of static and dynamic constraints are 3,413 and design results in an initial cost of US$ 19,738.30.
863, respectively.
The external static loads applied on the structure are due to the
Numerical Results
structure weight and the motor weight. The structure weight is
applied to the nodes according to the node influence. The machine The problem was solved on a 500 MHz PC. The results shown in
weight is applied to some nodes: node 81, p sz ⫽120,251 N; node Tables 3 and 4 were obtained by considering that the approxima-
83, p sz ⫽120,251 N; node 87, p sz ⫽202,645 N; node 89, p sz tion for the failure surface was always conservative. The results
⫽48,991 N; node 90, p sz ⫽48,991 N; and node 92, p sz shown in Tables 5 and 6 were obtained by simply
⫽126,932 N. The external dynamic load is due the motor dy-
namic harmonic excitation with frequency ⍀. This load is applied Table 3. Final Design for Footing, Failure Surface Approximation is
along the motor axis as: node 82, p dz (t)⫽636.35 sin(⍀t) and always Conservative
p dx (t)⫽636.35 cos(⍀t); node 87, p dz (t)⫽17,978 sin(⍀t) and h 共cm兲 A sx 共cm2兲 A sy 共cm2兲 l x 共cm兲 l y 共cm兲
p dx (t)⫽17,978 cos(⍀t); and node 92, p dz (t)⫽17,341.65 sin(⍀t)
76.15 11.50 11.57 526.9 481.7
and p dx (t)⫽17,341.65 cos(⍀t).

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 1477

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

 Table 4. Final Design for Line Elements, Failure Surface Approxi- Table 6. Final Design for Line Elements, Failure Surface Approxi-
mation is always Conservative mation may or may not be Conservative
Element B e 共cm兲 H e 共cm兲 A se 共cm 兲2
A sse 共cm /m兲
2
Element B e 共cm兲 H e 共cm兲 A se 共cm2兲 A sse 共cm2/m兲
127 85.27 51.46 22.02 2.61 127 85.25 50.78 22.01 6.02
128 85.06 51.47 22.02 2.62 128 85.02 51.00 22.01 4.42
129 86.19 53.61 51.32 3.14 129 75.70 37.53 62.99 1.93
130 86.11 52.81 48.69 3.13 130 75.96 36.72 61.09 1.90
131 54.82 86.65 48.85 2.91 131 39.37 77.08 62.30 2.13
132 54.98 86.74 48.86 2.72 132 39.49 77.09 62.40 2.13
133 56.13 87.41 48.07 2.70 133 42.36 78.76 63.13 2.29
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

134 56.21 87.45 48.06 3.28 134 42.62 78.92 63.16 2.16
135 113.29 124.86 83.66 12.80 135 105.95 138.56 196.83 4.63
136 113.62 119.24 72.48 5.49 136 122.12 141.51 162.20 7.19
137 88.37 86.96 48.65 5.92 137 76.73 73.64 79.61 3.06
138 88.44 87.07 48.63 5.93 138 77.15 74.05 79.61 2.85
139 88.18 87.19 48.44 3.48 139 75.57 73.38 78.74 3.77
140 88.04 87.05 48.45 18.86 140 76.22 73.93 78.75 3.28
141 110.49 130.95 84.8 11.38 141 99.04 146.37 175.98 4.70
142 113.71 129.17 74.34 7.86 142 111.41 148.07 151.48 6.05
143 82.20 81.50 35.72 9.79 143 89.30 81.84 50.68 3.44
144 83.43 82.14 37.26 20.78 144 95.13 86.46 45.47 5.59
145 91.13 37.77 23.56 2.97 145 102.87 48.54 25.73 5.17
146 93.31 40.58 27.15 4.06 146 110.26 54.92 31.11 10.00

minimizing the approximation errors, and so the approximate sur-
face could be unconservative at some points.
These results shown in Tables 3 and 4 were obtained in 13
iterations and spent 341,112 s of total CPU time. The cost of the
final design was US$ 25,900.01.
The results shown in Tables 5 and 6 were obtained in 13 itera-
tions and spent 301,907 s of total CPU time. The cost of the final
design was US$ 24,613.07.
As expected, the design with conservative failure surface con-
straint is slightly more expensive compared to the one with less
conservative approximation. Also note that the final designs ob-
tained with the two formulations are quite different from each
other. For example: A sx for footing final design is 46% different;
B e for element 132 design is 39% different.
Discussion and Conclusions
In this paper, optimal design of reinforced concrete 共RC兲 struc-
tures subjected to dynamic loads was considered. Specifically, the
problem of design of elevated foundations for support of vibra-
tory machines was formulated as an optimization problem. The
design system consisted of a foundation modeled as an RC plate,
and columns and beams modeled as line elements. Interaction of
the foundation with the soil under it was included in the formu-
lation. Static as well as dynamic loads were treated. Constraints
related to human comfort, strength, and stiffness were checked in
the solution process. Many of the constraints were time-
dependent. Time history of such constraints was treated in the
solution process. The augmented Lagrangian method was used to
Table 5. Final Design for Footing, Failure Surface Approximation
may or may not be Conservative
h 共cm兲 A sx 共cm2兲 A sy 共cm2兲 l x 共cm兲
73.94 20.03 13.82 474.9
solve the optimization problem. In that method, a composite func-
tional was constructed by combining the cost and the constraint
functions. Thus a large number of static and dynamic constraints
in the present problem were treated without much difficulty. A
forward finite difference method was used to calculate the deriva-
tives of the composite functional that were needed in the minimi-
zation algorithm.
To overcome the problem of large computational time needed
for verification of the bending capacity of line elements over the
time domain, an empirical failure surface proposed by the authors
共Silva et al. 2001兲 that approximates the real failure surface was
used. The approximation was done in two ways: one required the
empirical failure surface to be always conservative, and the other
allowed the surface to be unconservative while minimizing the
error between the real surface and the empirical surface.
From the results, it is observed that the adoption of different
failure surfaces does not give much different final costs, even
though it gives different final designs. It is noted here that the
bending capacity of every line element could have been checked
using the traditional process of integration of the stress. However,
that process would have taken more than 40 days to solve the
example problem on a 500 MHz PC compared to less than 4 days
used with the proposed approximate surface. It is concluded that
it is possible to optimize in an integrated way structures and foun-
dation for dynamic loading environment in a reasonable compu-
tational time.
For further work, the following studies and analyses are sug-
gested:
1. Development of a more realistic cost function for the prob-
lem.
2. Utilization of a more efficient adjoint variable method to
calculate derivatives of the augmented Lagrangian func-
tional. This would reduce the computational time roughly by
a factor of the number of design variables compared to the
l y 共cm兲 finite difference method.
3. Utilization of the genetic algorithm to solve the same prob-
457.5
lem and to compare the results obtained.

1478 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002

J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.

 4. Use of some approximations in the formulation to further
reduce the computational effort. For example, the steel areas
could be eliminated as design variables by assuming that for
each member, either the strength constraint 关Eq. 共49a兲 or
共49b兲兴, the minimum steel constraint, or the maximum steel
constraint controls. This would also reduce the number of
constraints for the problem, and the optimization process
would focus on determining the member dimensions that
affect stiffness of the structure.
Acknowledgments
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 06/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This work was accomplished under a project sponsored by
CAPES, a Brazilian agency for research, Project No. BEX0013/
99-4. The research was completed when M. A. da Silva was a
visiting scholar in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering from May 1999 to April 2000. A great part of the
research was also done using resources of the Optimal Design
Laboratory and The University of Iowa.
References
Arora, J. S. 共1989兲. Introduction to optimal design, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Arora, J. S. 共1999兲. ‘‘Optimization of structures subjected to dynamic
loads.’’ Structural dynamic systems, computational techniques and
optimization; optimization techniques, C. Leondes, ed., Gordon and
Breach, New York, 1–72.
Arora, J. S., Burns, S. A., and Huang, M. 共1997兲. ‘‘What is optimization.’’
Guide to structural optimization, J. S. Arora, ed., ASCE Manuals and
Reports on Engineering Practice 90, Reston, Va., 1–24.
Arora, J. S., Chahande, A. I., and Paeng, J. K. 共1991兲. ‘‘Multiplier meth-
ods for engineering optimization.’’ Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 32,
1485–1525.
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas 共ABNT兲. 共1978兲. ‘‘Projeto e
Execução de Obras de Concreto Armado 共in Portuguese兲.’’ NB-1, Bra-
zil.
Atkinson, K. 共1993兲. Elementary numerical analysis, Wiley, New York.
Arya, S., O’Neill, M., and Pincus, G. 共1979兲. Design of structures and
foundations for vibrating machines, Gulf, Houston, Tex.
Balling, R. J., Gallup, S. S., and McGrath, C. S. 共1997兲. ‘‘How to opti-
mize a reinforced concrete column or beam.’’ Guide to structural
optimization, J. S. Arora, ed., ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engi-
neering Practice 90, Reston, Va., 55–73.
Balling, R. J., and Yao, X. 共1997兲. ‘‘How to optimize a reinforced con-
crete frame.’’ Guide to structural optimization, J. S. Arora, ed., ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice 90, Reston, Va., 123–
138.
Bowles, J. E. 共1996兲. Foundation analysis and design, 5th Ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Carter, M. 共1983兲. Geotechnical engineering handbook, Pentech, London.
Chahande, A. I., and Arora, J. S. 共1994兲. ‘‘Optimization of large structures
subjected to dynamic loads with the multiplier method.’’ Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng., 37, 413– 430.
Das, B. M. 共1990兲. Principles of foundation engineering, PWS-KENT,
Pacific Grove, Calif.
Dieterman, H. A., and Gajewski, R. R. 共1996兲. ‘‘An improved viscous
boundary for dynamic soil-structure interaction.’’ Comput. Assisted
Mech. Eng. Sci., 3, 55– 64.
Fletcher, R. 共1985兲. Practical methods of optimization, Wiley, New York.
Goldenberg, P., Silva, M. A., Pimenta, P. M., and Brasil, R. M. L. R. F.
共1997兲. ‘‘Augmented Lagrangian optimization of a portal frame with
elastoplastic behavior under dynamic loading.’’ Proc., 5th Pan-
American Congress on Applied Mechanics, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
373–376.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 1479
J. Struct. Eng. 2002.128:1470-1479.
Haug, E. J., and Arora, J. S. 共1979兲. Applied optimal design, Wiley-
Interscience, New York.
Kocer, F., and Arora, J. S. 共1999兲. ‘‘Optimal design of nonlinear struc-
tures subjected to dynamic loads with application to transmission line
structures.’’ Technical Rep. No. ODL-99.02, Optimal Design Labora-
tory, College of Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City,
Iowa.
Llambias, J. M. 共1993兲. ‘‘Validation of seismic soil structure interaction
共SSI兲 methodology for a UK PWR power station.’’ Proc., 12th Inter-
national Conf. on ‘‘Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology,’’
Vol. A, Stuttgart, Germany, 213–218.
Roddis, W. M. K., and Chunnanond, V. 共1996兲. ‘‘Genetic algorithms ap-
plied to single-criteria optimization of reinforced concrete design and
detailing,’’ SL Rep. No. 96-1, University of Kansas Center for Re-
search, Lawrence, Kan.
Roddis, W. M. K., Lucas, W. K., and Chunnonond, V. 共1996兲. ‘‘Single-
criteria genetic optimization for design and detailing of concrete struc-
tures.’’ Proc., Computing Congress III, ASCE, Anaheim, CA.
Shigueme, P. 共1995兲. ‘‘Análise de vibrações livres em torno de configu-
rações deformadas em placas de comportamento geometricamente
não-linear pelo método dos elementos finitos.’’ PhD thesis 共in Portu-
guese兲, Polytechnic School of The University of Sao Paulo, São
Paulo, Brazil.
Silva, M. A., Arora, J. S., Swan, C. C., and Brasil, R. M. L. R. F. 共1999兲.
‘‘Optimization of footing under vibratory loading.’’ Technical Rep.
No. ODL-99.11, Optimal Design Laboratory, The University of Iowa,
Iowa City, Iowa.
Silva, M. A., and Brasil, R. M. L. R. F. 共1999a兲. ‘‘Augmented lagrangian
optimization of steel plates under dynamic loading.’’ Technical Bulle-
tin BT/PEF/9906 of Polytechnic School of The University of Sao
Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Silva, M. A., and Brasil, R. M. L. R. F. 共1999b兲. ‘‘Optimization of con-
crete plates under dynamic loading.’’ XX CILAMCE-20th Iberian
Latin-American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering,
Anais, São Paulo, Brazil.
Silva, M. A., Swan, C. C., Arora, J. S., and Brasil, R. M. L. R. F. 共2001兲.
‘‘Failure criterion for RC members under biaxial bending and axial
load.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 127共8兲, 922–929.
Stojko, S. 共1989兲. ‘‘Soil structure interaction analysis in the time domain
using DYNA3D/ABAQUS.’’ Proc., 10th International Conf. on
‘‘structural mechanics in reactor technology,’’ Vol K, Paper K04/3,
Anaheim, Calif.
Stojko, S. 共1990兲. ‘‘NNC/DYNA3D—a modified version of DYNA3D
for general soil structure interaction analysis.’’ Proc., DYNA3D user
group conference, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Liver-
more, Calif.
Stojko, S. 共1991兲. ‘‘Non-linear soil structure interaction analysis of a
reactor building using NNC/DYNA3D.’’ Proc., DYNA3D user group
conference, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
Calif.
Stojko, S. 共1993兲. ‘‘Application of DYNA3D to non-linear soil structure
interaction 共SSI兲 analyses of retaining wall structures.’’ Proc., 1st In-
ternational LS-DYNA3D Conf., Livermore Software Technology
Corp., Livermore, Calif.
Sussekind, J. C. 共1979兲. Curso de concreto (in Portuguese), Editora
Globo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Tedesco, J. W., McDougal, W. G., and Ross, C. A. 共1999兲. Structural
dynamics: Theory and applications, Addison-Wesley Longman,
Menlo Park, Calif.
Wolf, J. P. 共1994兲. Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical
models, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Zhao, C. 共1999兲. ‘‘Applications of infinite elements to dynamic soil-
structure interaction problems.’’ Developments in geotechnical engi-
neering, Elsevier Science, Elmont, N.Y., 83.
Zienkiewicz, C., and Taylor, R. L. 共1989兲. The finite element method, 4th
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.