Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 664–669

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Cost optimization of a composite floor system using an improved harmony

search algorithm
A. Kaveh a,∗ , A. Shakouri Mahmud Abadi b
a
Centre of Excellence for Fundamental Studies in Structural Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran-16, Iran
b
Building and Housing Research Centre, Tehran-14, Iran

article info abstract

Article history: In this study, cost optimization of a composite floor system is performed utilizing the harmony search
Received 19 June 2009 algorithm and an improved harmony search algorithm. These algorithms imitate the musical performance
Accepted 17 January 2010 process that takes place when a musician searches for a better state of harmony, similar to the optimum
design process which looks for the optimum solution. A composite floor system is designed by the LRFD-
Keywords: AISC method, using a unit consisting of a reinforced concrete slab and steel beams. The objective function
Structural optimization
is considered as the cost of the structure, which is minimized subjected to serviceability and strength
Composite structures
Harmony search algorithm
requirements. Examples of composite floor systems are presented to illustrate the performance of the
Load and resistance factor design presented algorithms.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction harmony. Jazz improvisation seeks musically pleasing harmony

Over the last three decades, the cost optimization of composite
structures was mainly considered from the viewpoint of the de-
velopment and application of different optimization techniques. A
cost-based optimization model for the design of composite beams
has been developed by Lorenz [1]. An optimum-cost design of par-
tially composite steel beams using LRFD is due to Bhatti [2]. An
optimization of composite floors is presented by Shock [3]. Cost
optimization of a composite I-beam floor system has been devel-
oped by Klanšek and Kravanja [4]. Composite frame design using
genetic algorithms can be found in the work of Camp et al. [5].
The design of steel structures generally requires the selection
of member sections from a discrete set of practically available
sections. This selection should be carried out in such a way that the
structure has the minimum weight or cost while the performance
of the structure is within the limitations described by the code
of practice. In recent years, structural optimization witnessed
the emergence of novel and innovative design techniques. These
stochastic search techniques make use of ideas taken from nature
and do not suffer the discrepancies of mathematical programming-
based optimum design methods. The basic idea behind these
techniques is to simulate the natural phenomena. One of the recent
additions to these techniques is the harmony search algorithm
[6–8]. This approach is based on the musical performance process
that takes place when a musician searches for a better state of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 44202710; fax: +98 21 7720398.
E-mail address: alikaveh@iust.ac.ir (A. Kaveh).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.01.009
similar to the optimum design process which seeks optimum
solutions. The pitch of each musical instrument determines the
aesthetic quality, just as the objective function value is determined
by the set of values assigned to each decision variable. In the
process of musical production a musician selects and brings
together a number of different notes from the whole notes and
then plays these with a musical instrument to find out whether
it gives a pleasing harmony.
The musician then tunes some of these notes to achieve a
better harmony. Similarly it is then checked whether this candidate
solution improves the objective function or not, much like finding
out whether it is euphonic. This candidate solution is then checked
to see whether it satisfies the objective function or not, similar
to the process of finding out whether euphonic music is obtained
or not. Different applications of the harmony search algorithm
in structural optimization problems can be found in the work of
Saka [9,10], Saka and Erdal [11], Kaveh and Talatahari [12], and in
the recent book of Geem [13].
In this study, the harmony search algorithm is used to deter-
mine the cost optimization of a composite floor system, consisting
of a reinforced concrete slab and steel beams, with the AISC load
and resistance factor design (LRFD).
2. Harmony search algorithm
The method consists of five basic steps. The detailed explana-
tion of these steps can be found in Lee and Geem [8]; the steps are
summarized in the following:
Step 1. The harmony search parameters are initialized.
 A. Kaveh, A. Shakouri Mahmud Abadi / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 664–669 665

Step 2. The harmony memory matrix is initialized. operation prevents stagnation and improves the harmony memory
Step 3. A new harmony memory matrix is improvised. for diversity with a greater chance of reaching the global optimum.
Step 4. After selecting the new values for each design variable,
Step 4. The harmony memory matrix is updated.
the objective function value is calculated for the new harmony
Step 5. Steps 3 and 4 are repeated until the termination criterion is vector. If this value is better than the worst harmony vector in the
satisfied. harmony matrix, it is then included in the matrix while the worst
Step 1. A possible value range for each design variable of the opti- one is taken out of the matrix. The harmony memory matrix is then
mum design problem is specified. A pool is constructed by collect- sorted in descending order by the objective function value.
ing these values together, from which the algorithm selects values Step 5. Steps 3 and 4 are repeated until the termination criterion,
for the design variables. Furthermore, the number of solution vec- which is the pre-selected maximum number of cycles, is reached.
tors in harmony memory (HMS), that is the size of the harmony This number is selected large enough such that within this number
memory matrix, harmony considering rate (HMCR), pitch adjust- of design cycles no further improvement is observed in the
ing rate (PAR) and the maximum number of searches are also se- objective function.
lected in this step.
Step 2. The harmony memory matrix is initialized. Each row of the 3. Improved harmony search algorithm
harmony memory matrix contains the values of design variables
which are randomly selected feasible solutions from the design The parameters HMCR and PAR in Step 3 help the algorithm to
pool for that particular design variable. Hence, this matrix has n find globally and locally improved solutions, respectively.
PAR in the harmony search (HS) algorithm is an important
columns, where n is the total number of design variables, and HMS
parameter for fine-tuning of the optimized solution vectors, and
rows, selected in the first step. HMS is similar to the total number
it can be potentially useful in adjusting the convergence rate of
of individuals in the population matrix of the genetic algorithm.
the HS to an optimal solution. Therefore, fine adjustment of this
The harmony memory matrix has the following form:
parameter is of great importance. The classic HS algorithm employs
 x
1 ,1 x2,1 ... ... xn−1,1 xn,1
 a fixed value for PAR. In the HS method, the PAR value is adjusted in
 x 1 ,2 x2,2 ... ... xn−1,2 xn,2 the initialization step and it cannot be altered during subsequent
 ... ... ... ... ... ... generations. The main drawback of this method appears to be in


[H ] = 
 ...
 (1) the number of iterations the algorithm needs to find an optimal
... ... ... ... ... 

x1,hms−1 x2,hms−1 ... ... xn−1,hms−1 xn,hms−1
 solution. Small PAR values can lead to poor performance of the
x1,hms x2,hms ... ... xn−1,hms xn,hms−1 algorithm and a considerable increase in the number of iterations
required for finding the optimum solution.
where xi,j is the value of the ith design variable in the jth randomly The main difference between the improved harmony search
selected feasible solution. These candidate designs are sorted such (IHS) algorithm, developed by [14] and the classic HS method is
that the objective function value corresponding to the first solution in the way of adjusting the PAR parameter. In order to improve the
vector is the minimum. In other words, the feasible solutions in the performance of the HS algorithm and to eliminate the drawbacks
harmony memory matrix are sorted in descending order according encountered with the fixed values of PAR, the IHS algorithm uses
to their objective function value. It is worthwhile mentioning that a variable PAR in the improvisation step. This parameter changes
not only the feasible designs are inserted into harmony memory dynamically with the generation number as
matrix, but those designs having a small infeasibility are also PARmax − PARmin
included in this matrix with a penalty on their objective function. PAR(gn) = PARmin + × gn (4)
NI
Step 3. In generating a new harmony matrix, the new value of the where
ith design variable can be chosen from any discrete value within
PAR is the pitch adjusting rate for each generation;
the range of ith column of the harmony memory matrix with the
probability of HMCR which varies between 0 and 1. In other words, PARmin is the minimum pitch adjusting rate;
the new value of xi can be one of the discrete values of the vector PARmax is the maximum pitch adjusting rate;
{xi,1 , xi,2 , . . . , xi,hms }T with the probability of HMCR. The same is NI is the number of solution vector generations; and
applied to all other design variables. In the random selection, the gn is the generation number.
new value of the ith design variable can also be chosen randomly In this study, we have used the improved harmony search de-
from the entire pool with the probability of 1 − HMCR. That is, veloped in Ref. [14], where the effects of this improvement on dif-
ferent mathematical functions and optimization problems are also
{xi,1 , xi,2 , . . . , xi,hms }T

w with probability HMCR
xne = (2) illustrated. In this paper, we have considered simple application of
i
{x1 , x2 , . . . , xns }T with probability (1 − HMCR) the IHS algorithm in our specific engineering problem.
where ns is the total number of values for the design variables in
the pool. If the new value of the design variable is selected among 4. Objective function
those of harmony memory matrix, this value is then checked to see
whether it should be pitch adjusted. This operation uses the pitch By minimizing a suitable cost function one can reach an opti-
adjustment parameter PAR that sets the rate of adjustment for the mum solution for a composite floor. According to [4], the percent-
pitch chosen from the harmony memory matrix as follows: ages of different costs of a composite floor are as shown in Fig. 1.
It can be seen that the power cost is very little and we can ignore
w
Is xne
i to be pitch-adjusted? it. The labour cost in a composite beam is almost permanent;
 therefore it is not necessary to include it in the objective function.
Yes with probability of PAR
(3) The optimal design of a composite floor system is proposed
No with probability of (1 − PAR). to be determined by the minimum of the costs of concrete, steel
w beams and shear studs. The objective function can be expressed as
Supposing that the new pitch-adjustment decision for xne i came
out to be yes from the test and if the value selected for xi new
from follows:
the harmony memory is the kth element in the general discrete set, Min Q = Ws × L × N × Cs + Wc × Cc + Ns × Cst (5)
w
then the neighboring value k + 1 or k − 1 is taken for new xne
i . This Wc = L × W × tc × ρ. (6)
666 A. Kaveh, A. Shakouri Mahmud Abadi / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 664–669

Slab breadth

Span

Composite
beam

Slab
thickness

Fig. 1. The distribution of the manufacturing costs of a composite floor system [4].

By replacing Eq. (6) in Eq. (5) and considering Q̄ = Q /L × Cs , we

have
   
Cc Ns Cst Steel
Min Q̄ = Ws × N + W × tc × ρ × + × , (7) sections
Cs L Cs
subject to
δ/δu ≤ 1 (8)
Concrete
Mu /(φb Mn ) ≤ 1 (9) slab
Vu /(φv Vn ) ≤ 1 (10) Welded stud
connector
where Ws is the weight of the steel beam in length units, L is the
length of the beam, N is the total number of steel beams in the
composite floor, Cs is the cost of the steel beam in weight units, Wc
is the total weight of concrete, Cc is the cost of concrete in weight
units, W is the length of the bay, tc is the thickness of the concrete
slab, ρ is the density of concrete, Ns is the total number of studs
and Cst is the cost of each stud. Fig. 2. Schematic view of a simple composite floor system.
δ in is the maximum displacement of the steel beam and δu is its
upper bound. φb is the resistance factor for flexure, which is given
as 0.9, Mn is the nominal moment strength and Mu is the factored 6. Design examples
service load moment for a steel beam. φv represents the resistance
factor for shear, given as 0.9, Vn is the nominal strength in shear Here we have considered a span, and in a structure this span is
and Vu is the factored service load shear for a steel beam. The repeated to cover a ceiling. Such a span behaves independently,
details for obtaining the nominal moment strength and nominal and once we optimize the problem for one span the result will
shear strength of a steel beam according to LRFD are given in the correspond to the entire ceiling. This process can be repeated for
Appendix. spans of different dimensions.

5. Optimum design process
The harmony search algorithm initiates the design process by
selecting random values for the steel beam spacing, the beam size
and the concrete slab thickness. The algorithm tries to find the best
value for each design variable to minimize the objective function.
The design process consists of six steps, as follows.
Step 1. Select the values of the harmony memory parameters (HM,
HMCR, PARmin and PARmax ).
Step 2. The harmony memory matrix is initialized (values for beam
spacing, beam size and concrete slab thickness are chosen).
Step 3. Check whether the newly selected design vector should be
pitch-adjusted.
Step 4. With the values selected for the beam spacing, beam size
and concrete slab thickness, the algorithm designs a composite
floor according to AISC-LRFD.
Step 5. Calculate the objective function value for the newly selected
design vector. If this value is better than the worst harmony vector
in the harmony matrix, it is then included in the matrix, while the
worst one is taken out of the matrix. The harmony memory matrix
is then sorted in descending order by the objective function value.
Step 6. Repeat Steps 2 and 6 are until the pre-selected maximum
number of iterations is reached.
Example 1. The considered composite I-beam floor system is 6 m
long, subjected to the combined effects of the self-weight and the
imposed dead load of 3 kN/m2 and imposed live load of 2 kN/m2 ;
the width of the floor is 8 m. The base diameter of the stud is 13 mm
and the overall height is 50 mm.
The compressive strength of the concrete is 21 MPa, and the
yield strength of the steel beam is 240 MPa.
For the classic HS algorithm, the parameters for this example
are taken as HMS = 30, HMCR = 0.9 and PAR = 0.45.
The improved harmony search algorithm parameters are taken
as HMS = 30, HMCR = 0.85, PARmin = 0.35 and PARmax = 0.99.
Bounds of the design variables are provided in Table 1. A
schematic view of the composite floor system for Example 1 is
shown in Fig. 2.
The output consists of the following:
Steel beam spacing = 1600 mm;
Concrete slab thickness = 80 mm;
Steel beam size = IPE18.
The histories of design with and without modification for this
example are shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the IHS algorithm
converges after 210 iterations, while the HS algorithm requires 370
iterations to attain the same result.
 A. Kaveh, A. Shakouri Mahmud Abadi / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 664–669 667

Table 1 Table 2
Bounds of design variables. Compression of the specifications of the IPE18 and the W250X17.9 section.
Bounds of the design variables Section properties IPE18 W250X17.9
No. Bounds Steel beam Concrete slab Steel beam Area 23.9 cm2 22.84 cm2
spacing (mm) thickness (mm) sizea Depth 18 cm 25.07 cm
1 Lower bound 500 80 1 Width 9.1 cm 10.05 cm
2 Upper bound 300 140 29 Web thickness 0.53 cm 0.48 cm
a
Flange thickness 0.80 cm 0.53 cm
The steel beam consists of 29 steel I-beams (IPE12 to 30, INP12 to 30 and IPB12
Moment of inertia about x-axis 1940 cm4 2239.32 cm4
to 30).

Table 3
Improved harmony search parameters used for the sensitivity analysis.
Case HMS HMCR PARmin PARmax

1 30 0.85 0.4 0.85

2 30 0.9 0.45 0.9
3 30 0.95 0.3 0.95
4 30 0.95 0.25 0.95
5 30 0.85 0.35 0.99

Fig. 3. Design histories for Example 1.

Fig. 5. Design histories for cases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Example 1.

7. Sensitivity analysis for improved harmony search parame-

ters

The HS algorithm has proven its capability in many optimiza-

Fig. 4. Design histories for Example 2.
Example 2. Here, Example 1 is studied by considering 267 AISC
cross sections. Other input data are the same as in the previous
example.
The output consists of the following:
Steel beam spacing = 1600 mm;
Concrete slab thickness = 80 mm;
Steel beam size = (W10X12)W250X17.9.
The histories of design with and without modification for this
example are shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the IHS algorithm
after 725 iterations attains an objective function of 169, while for
the HS algorithm we have 174.5 after 1000 iterations.
Compression of the specifications of the IPE18 section and the
W250X17.9 section is provided in Table 2.
tion problems. Here, we make a sensitivity analysis only to find
suitable initial values of the parameters for better performance in
our problem. As can be seen from Fig. 5, all the cases have con-
verged and only their rates are different. This is true for many other
heuristics as well, and different initial parameters can lead to dif-
ferent convergence rates.
In this section, a sensitivity analysis is performed for the
improved harmony search parameters involved in Example 1. The
results of the sensitivity analyses carried out to determine the
appropriate values of the improved harmony search parameters
are given in Table 3.
The design histories for the four cases are shown in Fig. 5. It is
apparent from this figure that the values of 0.95 for HMCR, 0.25 for
PARmin and 0.95 for PARmax are the best values for the parameters
in Example 1.
In this paper, a wide range is considered for the design variables.
As an example, the distance between two beams is considered
as 500 mm to 3000 mm, while in the previous researched this
distance has been considered as constant. In the second example,
267 different sections are considered for design. Naturally these
wide ranges for the variables increase the number of iterations.
8. Concluding remarks
This paper presents the cost optimization of a composite floor
system where the design constraints are implemented as in LRFD-
AISC rules. The composite floor system consists of a reinforced
concrete slab and steel I-beams. The optimization was performed
668 A. Kaveh, A. Shakouri Mahmud Abadi / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 664–669
by the recently developed improved harmony search method. This
mathematically simple algorithm sets up a harmony search matrix,
each row of which consists of randomly selected feasible solutions
to the design problem. In every search step, it searches the entire
set rather than a local neighborhood of a current solution vector.
It needs neither initial starting values for the design variables
nor a population of candidate solutions to the design problem.
The results obtained show that the improved harmony search
method is a powerful and efficient method for finding the optimum
solution of structural optimization problems.
The main aim of this paper has been to present a simple and
efficient algorithm which can be used in practical engineering
problems. Such a simple approach can be utilized in many other
engineering design problems to reduce the cost of the construction.
Acknowledgement
The first author is grateful to Iran National Science Foundation
for support.
Appendix. Load and resistance factor design
Load and resistance factor design for composite flexural mem-
ber consists of the following steps [15].
A.1. Effective width
The effective width of the concrete slab is the sum of the effective
widths for each side of the beam centerline, each of which should
not exceed:
(1) one-eighth of the beam span, center-to-center of supports;
(2) one-half the distance to the centerline of the adjacent beam; or
(3) the distance to the edge of the slab.
A.2. Shear strength of beam
Vu ≤ φ v Vn
req’d Vn = Vu /φv ≤ Vn .
The nominal shear strength, Vn , of unstiffened or stiffened webs,
according to the limit states of shear yielding and shear buckling, is
Vn = 0.6Fy Aw Cv .
s
E
For webs of rolled I-shaped members with h/tw ≤ 2.24
Fy
φv = 1.00 and Cv = 1.0.
A.3. Strength during construction
When temporary shores are not used during construction, the
steel section alone should have adequate strength to support all
loads applied prior to the concrete attaining 75% of its specified
strength fc0 .
A.4. Positive flexural strength of composite beams with shear
connectors
The design positive flexural strength, φb Mn , should be determined
for the limit state of yielding as follows:
φb = 0.90.
For
s longitudinal axis of the supporting composite beam. The maximum
h E
= 3.76 , (A.7)
tw Fyf
Mn should be determined from the plastic stress distribution on the
composite section for the limit state of yielding (plastic moment).
For
s
h E
> 3.76 , (A.8)
tw Fyf
Mn should be determined from the superposition of elastic stresses,
considering the effects of shoring, for the limit state of yielding
(yield moment).
A.5. Shear connectors
(1) Load transfer for positive moment.
The entire horizontal shear at the interface between the steel
beam and the concrete slab should be assumed to be transferred
by shear connectors, except for concrete-encased beams as defined
in Section I3.3 of Ref. [15]. For composite action with concrete
subject to flexural compression, the total horizontal shear force, V 0 ,
between the point of maximum positive moment and the point of
zero moment should be taken as the lowest value according to the
limit states of concrete crushing, tensile yielding of the steel section,
or strength of the shear connectors.
(a) Concrete crushing:
V 0 = 0.85fc0 Ac . (A.9)
(b) Tensile yielding of the steel section:
V 0 = Fy As . (A.10)
(c) Strength of shear connectors:
X
V0 = Qn (A.11)
where
Ac = area of concrete slab within the effective width.
As = area of steel cross section.
P
Qn = sum of the nominal strengths of shear connectors between
(A.1)
the point of maximum positive moment and the point of zero
(A.2) moment.
(2) Strength of stud shear connectors.
The nominal strength of one stud shear connector embedded in
(A.3) the solid concrete or in the composite slab is
Qn = 0.5Asc (fc0 Ec )1/2 ≤ Asc Fu . (A.12)
(A.4) (3) Required number of shear connectors.
The number of shear connectors required between the section
(A.5) of maximum bending moment, positive or negative, and the
adjacent section of zero moment should be equal to the horizontal
shear force divided by the nominal strength of one shear connector.
(4) Shear connector placement and spacing.
Shear connectors required on each side of the point of maxi-
mum bending moment, positive or negative, should be distributed
uniformly between that point and the adjacent points of zero mo-
ment, unless otherwise specified. However, the number of shear
connectors placed between any concentrated load and the nearest
point of zero moment should be sufficient to develop the maxi-
mum moment required at the concentrated load point. Shear con-
nectors should have at least 1 in (25 mm) of lateral concrete cover.
The diameter of studs should not be greater than 2.5 times the
thickness of the flange to which they are welded, unless located
over the web. The minimum center-to-center spacing of stud con-
(A.6) nectors should be six diameters along the longitudinal axis of the
supporting composite beam and four diameters transverse to the
center-to-center spacing of shear connectors should not exceed
eight times the total slab thickness nor 36 in (see Table 4).
 A. Kaveh, A. Shakouri Mahmud Abadi / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 664–669 669

Table 4 [4] Klanšek U, Kravanja S. Cost optimization of composite I beam floor system.
Summery of AISC-LRFD specification for composite beam. American Journal of Applied Sciences 2007;5(1):7–17.
[5] Camp C, Li J, Pezeshk S. Composite frame design using a genetic algorithm.
Summery of AISC-LRFD specification for composite beam
Department of Civil Engineering, Memphis (TN 38152): The University of
Section Item Summery Memphis; 1999.
Effective width on each b = Beam length/8 (L/8) [6] Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV. A new heuristic optimization algorithm:
I3.1 side of beam (Lesser of the b = Beam spacing/2 (s/2) Harmony search. Simulation 2001;76:60–8.
[7] Lee KS, Geem ZW. A new structural optimization method based on harmony
3 values) b = Distance to edge of slab
search algorithm. Computers and Structures 2004;82:781–98.
[8] Lee KS, Geem ZW. A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering
I5.1 Material Hs > 4ds (Minimum stud
optimization: Harmony search theory and practice. Computer Methods in
height)
Applied Mechanical Engineering 2005;194(36–38):3902–33.
= 0.85fc0 Ac [9] Saka MP. Optimum geometry design of geodesic domes using harmony search
Horizontal shear force (Lesser
I5.2 =A s Fy algorithm. Advances in Structural Engineering 2007;10(6):595–606.
of the 3 values) P
= Qn [10] Saka MP. Optimum design of steel sway frames to BS5950 using harmony
search algorithm. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2009;65(1):
I5.3 Strength of stud Qn = 0.5Asc (fc0 Ec )1/2 ≤ Asc Fu 36–43.
Shear connector placement = 6 ds Longitudinal [11] Saka MP, Erdal F. Harmony search based algorithm for the optimum design
I5.6 of grillage systems to LRFD-AISC. Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization
and spacing = 4 ds Transverse
2009;38:25–41.
[12] Kaveh A, Talatahari S. Particle swarm optimizer, ant colony strategy and
References harmony search scheme hybridized for optimization of truss structures.
Computers and Structures 2009;87:267–83.
[1] Lorenz ER. Understanding composite beam design methods using LRFD. [13] Geem ZW. Harmony search algorithms for structural design. Springer Verlag;
Engineering Journal, AISC 1988;25(2):35–8. 2009.
[2] Bhatti MA. Optimum cost design of partially composite steel beams using [14] Mahdavi M, Fesanghary M, Damangir E. An improved harmony search
LRFD. Engineering Journal 1996;33(1):18–29. algorithm for solving optimization problems. Applied Mathematics and
[3] Shock BT. automated design of steel wide flange beam floor framing systems Computation 2007;188:1567–79.
using genetic algorithms. M.S. thesis. Milwaukee (WI): Marquette University; [15] AISC. LRFD specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL): American
2003. Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.