Bridge Structural Optimization Through Step-by-Step

Evolutionary Process

Tobia Zordan,
Prof., Dr, College of Civil Engineering,
Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Contact: zordan@bolinaingegneria.com
Abstract
In this paper, the structural optimization process aiming to reduce the weight
of the superstructure of a five span arch bridge, built in the Province of Venice,
Italy, and spanning the Piave River in the town of San Donà, is presented. The
original project, with a pre-stressed concrete superstructure, was re-considered
during construction because of the following two unexpected events. First, the
approved new seismic national regulation became effective when the bridge
was already partially built. As a result, existing foundations became unable to
withstand the prescribed new seismic action. Furthermore, the Venice Water
Authority, responsible for the management of the river spanned by the bridge,
declared that erection phases without any provisional supports and scaffolding
resting on the riverbed, as foreseen by the original project, should be preferred.
Between the two possible identified design strategies able to deal with the men-
tioned problems, namely, the strengthening of the foundations or the lightening
of the superstructure, the second option was chosen, on the basis of engineering
judgement concerning the simplification of construction procedures, timing and
budget. The search for the lightest possible solution, with the restraint given by
the approved aesthetics of the original design and the need of keeping within the
former budget, brought to the conclusion that an evolutionary structural optimi-
zation (ESO) process could be suitably applied to a composite steel and concrete
superstructure.
Keywords: bridge design; structural optimization; step-by-step ESO procedure.

The original layout for the San Donà

Introduction
An optimization process applied to the
Bruno Briseghella,
superstructure of a bridge, built in the
Prof., Dr, College of Civil Engineering,
Fuzhou University, Province of Venice, Italy, is presented
Fuzhou, Fujian, China in the following paragraphs. The pro-
cess, as widely explained in the paper,
aimed to reduce the mass of the struc-
ture after the introduction of a new
seismic national regulation, character-
ized by increased ground acceleration
levels, during the construction of the
bridge. As a consequence, the founda-
tions of the bridge, designed for lower
seismic actions, became inadequate to
the new prescriptions.
This was concomitant to the position,
expressed by the Venice Water Author-
Enrico Mazzarolo, ity, to deny permission to use tempo-
PhD Candidate,
rary supports resting on the riverbed
University IUAV of Venice,
for the construction phases, as original-
ly planned. Between the two possible
Venice, Italy
identified design strategies able to deal
with the mentioned problems, namely,
the strengthening of the foundations
Peer-reviewed by international ex-
perts and accepted for publication
or the lightening of the superstructure,
by SEI Editorial Board the second option was chosen, on the
basis of engineering judgement con-
Paper received: April 17, 2009 cerning the simplification of construc-
Paper accepted: October 8, 2009 tion procedures, budget and timing.
Bridge consisted of a pre-stressed con-
crete five span arch solution with a
length of 100 m for each span.
The aesthetics of the original design
could not be subjected to much varia-
tion because of the constraint imposed
by the Landscape Authority on the for-
mer solution, and given the restraint
to not exceed the original budget of 13
million euros, an evolutionary struc-
tural optimization (ESO) process was
applied to a composite steel and con-
crete superstructure chosen as a start-
ing solution on the basis of former
experience.
The application of the optimization
process led to an original layout with
the definition of a rather new shape for
this kind of structure.
Generally, performing an optimization
process, of every kind, takes into ac-
count the following problem1:
Minimize:
f ( x) ⫽ [ f1 ( x), f2 ( x), … , fQ ( x)]T
⎪⎧ g j ( x) ⱕ K j j ⫽ 1, … , p
Subject to: ⎨
⎩⎪ g j ( x) ⫽ K j j ⫽ p ⫹ 1, … , m

72 Science and Technology Structural Engineering International 1/2010

X439_72-78.indd 72 2/1/10 10:09:44 AM

 With:
⎧⎪ xi ⑀ Di , Di ⫽ (di 1 , di 2 , … , diqi ); i ⫽1, … , nd
⎨ the same level of safety.
⎪⎩ xiL ⱕ xi ⱕ xiU ; i ⫽ nd ⫹ 1, …, n (1)
where x = (x1, x2,…, xn) is the vector
of the n design variables, continuous
or discrete, f( x ) is the vector of the
i = 1, 2,…, Q object criteria function
fi( x ) that are each to be minimized
for the design and gj( x ) defines the
sets of equality or inequality constraint
governing the design.
This is generally referred to as multi-
criteria optimization procedure, which is
the search for an optimum point chosen
between the whole design variables.2
The application field of this relation is
manifold because it is proper for quite
every structural problem for which an
optimum function or parameter can be
clearly identified among constraints
of different kinds (budget, aesthetics,
physical constraints, etc.).
However, the definition of an absolute
optimum in the field of engineering
and architecture (the two complemen-
tary aspects in the usual design process
of a building, a bridge or another civil
structure) is a very difficult and subjec-
tive task, especially if the shape of the
structure, as in the case presented, is an
input data derived from a formerly ap-
proved project.
For the case presented, as mentioned
before, the search for the lightest pos-
sible layout of the superstructure being
the main goal of the optimization pro-
cess, a procedure based on a classic
ESO process was applied to the start-
ing layout of the Finite Element Model
(FEM model) of the bridge.
The principle at the base of the ap-
plied technique is that the stress level
Sp1 P1
92 m 100
Fig. 1: The original solution as planned and as built (in black hatch) before the interruption of the works
Structural Engineering International 1/2010
X439_72-78.indd 73
reached in every part of a well-dimen-
sioned structure should ideally be at
High stress state related to material
resistance means low safety level. In-
stead, low stress level means higher
safety coefficient.3 The optimization
procedure is therefore based on the
concept of slowly removing ineffi-
cient material from a structure upon a
check and design approach, adding it
where found to be necessary, so that
the structure can progressively evolve
towards an optimum.4–9
From the beginning of the 1990s, this
method has been identified as suitable
for achieving effective topological and
shape optimization.1 However, like
other automatic optimization tech-
niques, it presents the unfavourable
aspect of hindering the possibility of
controlling the process by the designer,
which is given the final solution as a
result of a non-manageable progres-
sion supplied by a kind of “black box”
which forgets to take into account for
non-quantifiable parameters such as,
for instance, constructability, durabil-
ity, aesthetics and others.
Therefore, for the case presented, a
fully automatic procedure was re-
placed by a step-by-step procedure
hand-controlled by the designer. In
this way, the optimization procedure
has revealed itself as an effective tool
able to lead to a final solution charac-
terized by a minimization of structural
weight, which is not just structurally
efficient but also fully consistent to all
initial requirements, including desired
aesthetical outcome.
Hence, the possibility of controlling
the whole optimization process by a
human decision maker allowed for the
P2 P3
100
Piave River
attainment of a relative optimum so-
lution not just from a structural point
of view but also from an architectural
point of view with the achievement of
an aesthetically innovative solution,
able to underline the performed opti-
mization process.9
Case Study
The project taken into consideration is
the newly built San Donà Bridge over
Piave River.10 The original project
was characterized by a five arch pre-
stressed concrete structure over a total
length of 500 m arranged on five bays
of 100 m each (Fig. 1).
The cross section of the original proj-
ect, with a total width of 17,86 m, as
presented in Fig. 2, was conceived with
cast-in-place concrete, poured on pre-
fabricated arched concrete segments
supported by provisional scaffolding.
The construction of the bridge slowed
down because of financial problems
and the building yard had to deal with
interruptions and resumptions. During
this period certain unforeseen events
not taken into account in the initial
project, occurred.
First the publication of the new Italian
seismic code O.P.C.M. no 3274 brought
in the definition of new seismic classifi-
cation of the national territory; in par-
ticular, the site under consideration was
defined as seismic zone 3, which means
low seismic hazard (base acceleration
equal to 0,15 g). Because the structure
was dimensioned without taking into
account any horizontal seismic action,
its foundations, already built, became
inappropriate for this new seismic
specification, requiring an increment
of about 35% in resistance capacity.
P4 Sp2
100 92
Previously Built
Structure
Science and Technology 73
2/1/10 10:09:48 AM
 17,86
3,25 11,36
Var.
0,48 3,07 0,48 2,98 0,48 3,07 0,48
Fig. 2: Typical cross section of the original
solution (Units: m)
Furthermore, the Venice Water Au-
thority, responsible for the manage-
ment of the river spanned by the
bridge, declared that erection phases
without any provisional supports and
scaffolding resting on the riverbed, as
foreseen in the original project, should
be preferred.
For this reason, a simple foundation
retrofitting was not sufficient and a
global review of the project had to be
performed.
It is necessary to underline that at the
time of the project updating, part of the
piers and the abutments had already
been built, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3.
Hence, considering that the concrete
piers represented a remarkable part of
the overall mass of the bridge, a signif-
icant reduction of the superstructure
weight was a required goal to comply
with the new seismic prescriptions.
Furthermore, the owner, because of
the already occurred delays, professed
to keep the construction schedule as
close as possible to the original pro-
gram, without introducing any further
delays.
These constraints called for a thorough
review of the former solution with a
completely new layout for the deck: a
suitable option was found in a compos-
ite steel concrete deck because of its
lightness, acceptable costs and favour-
able construction phases on the spans
considered.
The comparison between the cross
section of the bridge, before and after
re-design, is presented in Fig. 4. Typical
composite steel concrete section can be
Fig. 3: Some of the parts of the bridge built before the introduction of the new seismic
regulation
74 Science and Technology
X439_72-78.indd 74
17,86
3,25 3,25 11,36
Var.
2,00 7,36 2,00
Fig. 4: Typical cross section of the updated
solution (Units: m)
recognized: the steel structure is com-
posed of two lateral box girders con-
nected by a steel bottom flange, thus
re-creating the shape of the former
pre-stressed cross section, as required
by the Landscape Authority.
The new deck was connected to the
already built piers by means of non-
conventional steel-to-concrete con-
nections ensuring negative moment
resistance at supports.
Structural Modelling and
Optimization Process
From the beginning of the retrofitting
project, the global shape of the struc-
ture had to be considered as invariable
because of the requirement to guaran-
tee the original layout and re-use the
already built parts of abutments and
piers. Thus, after considering several
possible solutions able to reduce the
overall mass of the superstructure, a
composite steel and concrete layout,
characterized by two lateral steel box
girders with a full bottom flange (in
the initial non-optimized solution),
was chosen. Starting from this solution,
the fundamental idea was to remove
unexploited material from the lower
stressed zones with the objective to
find the optimal solution, correspond-
ing to the lightest possible one.
Consequently, a manual optimization
process has been performed. The ob-
jective of this procedure was that of
achieving a relatively handy means for
attaining the final optimum deck con-
figuration with the support of numeri-
cal results.
In order to simplify the problem, the
3,25
number of variables under evaluation
has been reduced, neglecting the ef-
fect of the variability of the steel plate
thicknesses and focusing more specifi-
cally on the bottom steel plate topol-
ogy. The optimal set of thicknesses has
been identified only in the second mo-
ment during the effective dimension-
ing phase when the optimum shape of
the deck had already been identified.
Starting from the initial FEM model
characterized by the fully continuous
bottom flange, the individuation of the
less stressed zone proceeded together
with their consequent removal from
the model (creating a hole) and further
FEM analysis, on the basis of an ESO
procedure (Fig. 5).
A complete three-dimensional (3D)
model of the deck of the bridge was
implemented with the general pur-
pose Strand7 finite element software,11
using four nodes plate elements. Simple
linear static analyses were performed
because the bridge was dimensioned in
the elastic domain.
The model is characterized by the pres-
ence of four different segments, with
different material properties (Table 1)
to facilitate the analysis; a specific
distribution of thicknesses at the bot-
tom flange has been used to achieve
an homogeneous distribution of stress
level at mid-span and at supports, and
therefore better identifies the effect of
the variation of the hole topology and
dimensions on the response of the bot-
tom flange.
Because there is not any crack model
implemented in the considered FE
software to describe the concrete be-
haviour,11 an elastic relationship has
been used for this purpose. For tak-
ing into account the contribution of
cracked concrete in negative bending
moment zones, indications contained
in CEB FIB model code 90 have been
considered, with reference to a resist-
ing area of concrete around the rein-
forcement of 15 times the bar diameter.
Furthermore, the elastic modulus of
the material has been reduced to 50%
to simulate concrete cracking effect.
Elastoplastic material has not been
used because no deep penetration of
concrete section in plastic domain was
expected.
In the following paragraphs, the opti-
mization process applied is explained:
– A fictitious unitary load was applied
to the concrete slab; this load was
used just for the optimization
Structural Engineering International 1/2010
2/1/10 10:09:49 AM

A
B
C Plates n. in reference model: 14840
Fig. 5: FEM model
Segment Top flange (mm) Web (mm)
A 30 12
B 30 12
C 30 10
D 30 10
Table 1: Material properties and thicknesses
stage, allowing for the evaluation
of the stress variation from one
optimization step to another, thus
identifying the zones eligible for the
material removal.
– Taking the non-optimized FE model
like the reference one, the percentage
in stress increment related to each
specific optimization step can be
obtained. Consequently, a curve
relating the percentages in stress
increments and area bottom flange
removal at each step can be traced.
– Comparing a linear relation linking
the stress increment with the area of
the hole surface (which is referred to
the weight decrease of the bottom
steel plate) and the numerical curves
referred to mid-span and supports
(Fig. 9), the optimization index for
the problem under consideration
can be identified as the distance
between the numerical curves and
the linear relationship, being the
optimal solution corresponding to the
maximum distance between the two.
– In order to assess structural response
under different load conditions,
different load distributions have
(a) (b)
Fig. 6: Load condition used for optimization: (a) uniform load, (b) asymmetric load,
(c) skew-symmetric load
Structural Engineering International 1/2010
X439_72-78.indd 75
Nodes n. in reference model: 15260
D
Concrete
Bottom flange (mm) thickness (mm)
30 300
20 300
20 300
15 300
been considered in the model: a
uniformly distributed load along
all the deck, an asymmetric load
along the principal axis and a skew-
symmetric load (Fig. 6).
During the optimization process, to
evaluate the stress distribution in the
structure, eight points located at the
connection between the web of the box
girder and its bottom flange have been
monitored. Four of these points were
located at the mid-span of the deck, and
the other four were located over the
supports. In order to describe the global
behaviour of the deck and proceed to
the identification of the optimum solu-
tion, the values recorded from the mon-
itoring points have then been averaged.
The first optimization process was car-
ried out with the uniform load condi-
tion: the sequence of the optimization
process is presented in Fig. 7, where
the longitudinal stress distribution at
the bottom flange of the FE models is
mapped.
From the investigation of the stress
level attained from the FE analyses
(c)
Concrete modulus Steel modulus
EC (MPa) ES (MPa)
15 000 210 000
15 000 210 000
30 000 210 000
30 000 210 000
during the optimization process, it can
be seen that an elliptical hole with
increasing axes can be progressively
bored as far as the parts of material
subjected to lower stress are removed.
The topology of the steel bottom plate
relative to the different steps is clearly
recognizable. The first model corre-
sponds to the reference non-optimized
initial. Model number 10 relates to the
solution where the bottom flange is
completely removed.
Observing the stress variation, the
structural response of the superstruc-
ture can be clearly identified.
Until the hole is absent (continuous
bottom plate) or rather limited in di-
mensions, a balanced behaviour be-
tween internal and external webs is
recognizable with a commonly shared
level of stress. With the hole increas-
ing in dimensions, the stress increases
remarkably at supports in a zone close
to the external web and remains al-
most constant at the internal web.
On the other side, at mid-span, an
anti-symmetric behaviour of internal
and external webs compared with the
one at support can be identified (Fig.
8); from step 6 to step 7 a reversal in
the trend of stress distribution can be
identified between the internal and the
external webs. This tendency leads to
a balanced stress condition when the
hole reaches its maximum dimensions
exceeding the span of the bay, and the
two box girders are no more connected
by the steel plate. This phenomenon
is visible also at supports, even in a
more sudden way, with the stress level
Science and Technology 75
2/1/10 10:09:52 AM
 Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa) Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa)
154 215
82 112
1 6
−27 −44
−135 −200
−171 −252
Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa) Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa)
158 208
85 106
2 −25 7 −47
−134 −199
−171 −250
Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa) Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa)
159 240
85 122
3 −25 8 −55
−136 −233
−173 −292
Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa) Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa)
173 246
93 124
4 −28 9 −57
−148 −239
−189 −300
Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa) Plate Stress:XX Mid plane (MPa)
201 263
105 144
5 10
−38 −35
−181 −214
−229 −273

Fig. 7: Stress distribution for different optimization steps: longitudinal stress with uniform load condition

260 −100 model referred to optimization step

Internal web; bay 7 was used (Fig. 10a), as explained at
External web; bay −140
220 the end of previous section. The model
−180 is characterized by 10 850 nodes and
MPa
MPa

180 10 176 plate elements. In this model,

140
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
Model
Fig. 8: Von Mises stress versus optimization steps; uniform load condition
immediately balanced as soon as the
bottom flange is completely removed
and the side box girders become dis-
connected (step 10).
After assessing the global structural
behaviour due to the bottom flange
topology modification, the optimum
condition has been chosen with the
procedure mentioned above: first the
stress increment ratio at the monitored
points has been related to the percent-
age of bored flange; then the optimiza-
tion index has been evaluated for the
different FE models to clearly identify
the optimum layout: two optimum so-
lutions can be identified, corresponding
to models 7 and 10, the first represent-
ing a slightly more favourable condi-
tion, as it can be seen from comparing
the histograms presented in Fig. 9.
In order to generalize the results ob-
tained, the same kind of procedure has
−220
Internal web; support
−260 External web; support
−300
7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6
Model
been applied to other two different
load conditions: asymmetric and skew-
symmetric (Fig. 9). The global response
of the structure showed no major dif-
ferences from that observed with the
uniform load condition, thus validat-
ing the topology obtained through the
uniformly distributed load case, corre-
sponding to that of step 7 in Fig. 7.
In conclusion, model 7 displayed the
best compromise towards optimization
procedure.
Final Structural Layout and
Bridge Construction
From the findings of the optimized
solution identified from the step-by-
step ESO-type process, the bridge to-
pology has been clearly identified. For
the final project of the bridge, the FE
the thickness of the steel plates has
been varied to achieve an optimum
solution, both for the shape of the bot-
tom flange and to the related thick-
7 8 9 10
nesses of the steel plates. Similar to the
previous optimization phase, in the di-
mensioning phase also a good balance
between stress distribution at supports
and stress distribution at mid-span
has been attained, reaching the 93%
of stress level allowed by the code for
steel S355 (Fig. 10c).
Local stability problems have been
taken into account: the most critical sit-
uation was displayed by the web panels
at the supports; the adopted longitudinal
and transversal stiffeners determined a
buckling factor of 1,77 (Fig. 10d).
With reference to the original concrete
solution, a global weight reduction of
60% was obtained for the superstruc-
ture spanning two adjacent piers. Con-
sidering that piles, abutments and piers
were already partially built at the mo-
ment of the project updating, an over-
all weight reduction of roughly 40%
was obtained for the whole superstruc-
ture. No further improvement in the
seismic performance of the bridge was
obtained because the mass decrease

76 Science and Technology Structural Engineering International 1/2010

X439_72-78.indd 76 2/1/10 10:09:54 AM

 100 40 can be considered complementary to
Bay 9 Bay
% Tension increment 8 architectural needs, as required by the
80 Support 10 Support

Optimisation index
Average
30
Average
fundamentals of structural architec-
60 6 ture discipline (Fig. 11).
5 20
40

4 7 10
Conclusions
20
1 2 3
The bridge presented, characterized in
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the original version of the project by
% Bottom flange removal Model a pre-stressed concrete superstructure,
was re-considered during construction
100 80 due to the approval of the new Ital-
Bay Bay
80 ian seismic regulation with more re-
Support
% Stress increment

Support

Optimisation index
60
Average
strictive prescriptions and due to the
60 Average 9
8 10 advice of the Venice Water Authority
40 6 40 who favoured a construction proce-
5
20 dure not requiring any provisional
7
20 supports and scaffolding resting on the
0
1 2 3 4 riverbed.
−20 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The solution finally identified had to
% Bottom flange removal Model deal with the search for the lighter
possible superstructure compatible
100 80
Bay Bay with a number of constraints, including
80 Support Support budget, construction schedule and aes-
% Stress increment

Optimisation index

9 60
60 Average 8
10 Average thetical issues.
40 6 40 On the basis of engineering judgement,
5
20
a composite steel and concrete super-
4 structure was identified as the most
20
0 7 suitable one. The search for a final de-
1 2 3
−20 0 sign characterized by a reduced weight
0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 gave rise to the opportunity and need
% Bottom flange removal Model
to perform a structural optimization
Fig. 9: Stress increment versus hole dimension ratio and optimization index for different process, based on a non-conventional
load conditions step-by-step ESO procedure, an effec-
tive technique when a single variable
continuum structural design optimiza-
tion process has to be processed.
Plate disp:DZ (mm)
2 The definition of a suitable optimi-
−18
−39 zation index has allowed for an easy
−59 identification of the optimum solution
−80
−100 for the deck, guaranteeing almost a
−110
(a) (b) 40% weight reduction for the whole
Plate Stress:VM Mid plane (MPa) structure, when compared with the ini-
329 tial pre-stressed concrete solution.
269
209 Because the optimization process ad-
(d)
150 opted is not based on an automatic pro-
90
cedure but is oriented by the designer,
30
0 (c) the final result has led to a remarkable
relationship between shape and struc-
Fig. 10: (a) Final FE model implemented for structural analysis, (b) and (c) maximum ture, with a global topology of the deck
stress and displacement at the ULS: dead + live load, (d) detail buckling analysis of the emphasizing the flow of forces in the
web at support: buckling factor = 1,77 structure and the way they are chan-
nelled from the point of application
to the foundations; this result could
It can be observed that the achieved so-
achieved through the optimization pro- have been achieved with difficulty by
lution is not only an optimum solution
cess made the fundamental frequency a completely automatic optimization
considering the final goal of reducing
of the bridge remain in the plateau process.
the global weight of the structure but
field of the acceleration spectra.
also represents a desirable and innova- This step-by-step kind of “design and
Nevertheless, the reduced mass made tive layout with reference to the bridge check” optimization process highlight-
the original foundations suitable for aesthetics where the flow of forces is ed the fundamental role played by the
final design under the new seismic re- emphasized by the geometry of the conceptual design in the achievement
quirements. superstructure, and structural issues of a fully integrated design.

Structural Engineering International 1/2010 Science and Technology 77

X439_72-78.indd 77 2/1/10 10:09:56 AM


Fig. 11: The completed optimized superstructure makes clear the correspondence between
shape and structural response
References
[1] Scott AB. Recent Advantage in Optimal Struc-
tural Design. Structural Engineering Institute of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, 2002.
[2] Kota S, Ward AC. Functions, Structures and
Constraints in Conceptual Design. Second In-
ternational Conference on Design Theory and
78 Science and Technology
x356.indd 154 78
X439_72-78.indd
Methodology, Chicago, IL, USA, American So-
ciety of Mechanical Engineering Division, 1990;
239–250.
[3] Liang Q, Xie YM, Steven GP. Optimal se-
lection of topologies for the minimum-weight
design of continuum structures with stress con-
straints. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C, J. Mech.
Eng. Sci. 1998.
Structural Engineering International 1/2010
[4] Querin OM. Evolutionary Structural Optimi-
zation: Stress Based Formulation and Implemen-
tation. PhD Thesis, Department of Aeronautical
Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia,
1997.
[5] Xie YM, Steven GP. Evolutionary Structural
Optimization. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1997.
[6] Lucia P. Progettazione Ottimale Di Ponti In
Struttura Mista Acciaio-Calcestruzzo Ad Asse
Rettilineo Mediante Algoritmi Evolutivi. PhD
Thesis, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste,
Italy, 2008.
[7] Yang RJ, Chung CH. Optimal topology de-
sign using linear programming. Comput. Struct.
1994; 52: 265–275.
[8] Buhl T, Pedersen W, Sigmund O. Stiffness
design of geometrically nonlinear structures
using topology optimization. Struct. Multidiscip.
Optim. 2000; 19: 93–104.
[9] Mattheck C. Design in Nature: Learning from
Trees. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1997.
[10] Olivieri S, Siviero E, Zanchettin F. Il ponte
sul Piave della Variante alla Statale 14. Le Strade
5/99, 1999.
[11] STRAND 7. User Manual. G+D Comput-
ing, 2003.
1/2/70 10:10:03
2/1/10 5:44:38 AM
PM