ARTICLE IN PRESS

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530

www.elsevier.com/locate/engappai

Using a modified genetic algorithm to minimize the production costs for

slabs of precast prestressed concrete joists
Vanessa Cristina de Castilhoa, Mounir Khalil El Debsa, Maria do Carmo Nicolettib,
a
Departamento de Engenharia de Estruturas, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, USP, Av. Dr. Carlos Botelho, 1465, São Carlos, SP, Brasil
b
Departamento de Computac- ão, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Caixa Postal 676, São Carlos, SP, Brasil
Received 21 November 2005; received in revised form 31 August 2006; accepted 12 September 2006
Available online 7 November 2006

Abstract

Genetic algorithms (GAs) are search methods that have been successfully applied to a variety of tasks. This paper describes the use of a
modified GA as an optimization method in structural engineering for minimizing the production costs of slabs using precast prestressed
concrete joists. The work initially identifies and describes the multiple costs involved in the production of these slabs and then combines
them into a function subjected to 28 equality and inequality constraints. The experiments conducted address the minimization of this
function using GA, where constraints are treated using a penalty technique. In addition, results obtained with a conventional
optimization method are presented, for comparison.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cost optimization; Slabs with precast prestressed concrete joists; Genetic algorithm; Structural engineering

1. Introduction problem, seeking those that perform best according to a

Genetic algorithms (GAs) are adaptive methods inspired
by Darwin’s evolutionary theory that have been success-
fully applied to a variety of tasks, in areas such as function
optimization, parameter tuning, learning, etc. GAs can
deal with complex problems in a computationally simple
and yet highly effective manner and are not limited to a few
assumptions as conventional optimization methods are.
The basic principles of GAs have been rigorously
established in Holland (1975) and can be found in
numerous references (Beasley et al., 1993a,b; Goldberg,
1989; Michalewicz, 1992).
In GAs, the term population is used for naming a set of
potential solutions to a problem; each individual solution is
called a chromosome. A GA can be approached as a search
algorithm that searches a space of potential solutions to a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 (16) 33518232;
fax: +55 (16) 33518233.
E-mail addresses: castilho@sc.usp.br (V.C. de Castilho),
mkdebs@sc.usp.br (M.K. El Debs), carmo@dc.ufscar.br
(M. do Carmo Nicoletti).
chosen fitness function. Generally, the search begins with
an initial population of a pre-defined number of randomly
created chromosomes and, by applying selection and
reproduction operators, the algorithm iteratively ‘evolves’
the population into a potentially improved one until a
termination criteria is reached.
GAs are increasingly becoming very popular in
many engineering areas mainly because they have
shown to be an acceptable alternative to many computa-
tionally expensive deterministic optimization methods.
Despite being still considered an emerging tool, its
success as an optimization method in diverse engineering
areas, particularly in structural engineering (e.g. Coello
et al., 1997; Cohn and Lounis, 1994; Davidor, 1990),
makes it a very promising technique that can be
broadly applied to problems in other related engineering
areas. It is well known from the literature that the
cost minimization (of any product) is a highly controversial
and troublesome topic due to uncertain characteristics
of data. In the highly competitive world of production,
few companies are willing to share data related to
product production. In regards to the minimization of

0952-1976/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2006.09.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
520 V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530
the production costs for slabs of precast prestressed
concrete joists, there is no published work that considers
this problem using either a conventional or evolutionary
method.
This article reports on the use of a modified version
of the canonical GA in a sub-area of structural engineering:
the production of slabs with precast prestressed
concrete joists. For the experiments described in this
paper, the modified GA introduced in (Castilho, 2003;
Castilho et al., 2002) was used to determine the optimal
solution of the problem of minimizing the production
costs of these slabs. The remainder of the paper is
organized along the following lines: Section 2 presents
the basic notions and information related to the
problem domain i.e., slabs and the production of
prestressed concrete joists. Section 3 details the multiple
costs involved in producing slabs with precast prestressed
concrete joists. Since the problem to be solved can
be characterized as a minimization problem with restric-
tions, Section 4 describes a method for approaching
and representing this type of problem. Section 5 discusses
the GA approach to this minimization problem and
describes the GA variant MGA1 (Modified GA 1) used
in the minimization experiments. The results obtained
using MGA1 are discussed; the results obtained using a
conventional optimization method are also presented, for
comparison. The general conclusions are presented in
Section 6.
fillling
element
cast-in-place
concrete
(a)
reinforced prestressed
concrete concrete
(b)
Fig. 1. Slab with precast concrete joists: (a) components, (b) types of joists and (c) filling elements (El Debs, 2000).
2. The problem domain
The most popular type of slab used in Brazilian
construction is a slab made of precast concrete joists. This
type of slab is constituted by precast concrete joists, filling
elements and cast-in-place concrete as illustrated in
Fig. 1(a). Figs. 1(b) and (c) illustrate the types of precast
joist and the types of filling elements, respectively.
This paper focuses on slabs using precast pretressed
concrete joists. In order to design and produce this type of
joist the following guidelines must be considered:
 Transitory phases—individual joists should be checked at all
stages (i.e., stripping, transportation storage and erection) as
well as the number of necessary scaffold supports.
 Serviceability limit state—the normal stresses should be
checked to avoid cracks and the deflection limit.
 Ultimate limit state—the strength for bending moment
and strength for shear force without transversal
reinforcement should be checked, as well as the shear
stresses at the interface between the joist concrete and
cast-in-place concrete.
3. Specification of multiple costs involved in the production
of slabs with precast prestressed concrete joists
Since there are multiple costs involved in the production
of slabs with precast prestressed concrete joists, the first
scaffold
supports
precast concrete
joists
ceramic block
concreteblock
lattice expanded
reinforcement polystyrene block
(c)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530 521

task was systematically identifying the various costs of slab C. administration,

production, in order to represent them as mathematical
equations, aiming at obtaining a function that would
represent the total cost of production of this element.
It was decided not to present all the cost figures here as
they were calculated using Brazilian currency and the
average of Brazilian wage for different types of jobs. These
values are less relevant in the global context and do not
contribute to a better understanding of the work carried
out herein. It is worthwhile, however, to list all the different
costs that have been considered for determining the final
total cost function of producing such a product. A general
diagram with all costs involved is shown in Fig. 2(a)–(c).
The following subsections discriminate and explain the
different costs involved in the problem.
The costs related to administration and rates are a
collection of different values and taxes related to the
necessary administrative structures necessary for running
the business. The following subsections describe the different
costs involved in the problem, classified by transient stages.
3.1. Fabrication costs
The fabrication costs (Fig. 2(b)) are defined as the costs
related to the following aspects:
A. raw material,
B. factory activity,
D. rates.
A. Raw material: The cost of raw material is the sum of
the costs of concrete, reinforcement and filling blocks.
The cost of concrete is the sum of three costs: material
(cement, aggregates, etc.), labor (involved in supervising
the concrete mixer and controlling the equipment)
and depreciation of the equipment (basically the concrete
mixer and the extruding machine). The determination of
this cost, in Brazilian currency (R$, Reals), is a function
of the compressive strength of the concrete (fck), given
in MPa:
concrete cost ðR$=m3 Þ ¼ 2:475f ck þ 87:00.
The cost of the reinforcement is also the sum of three
costs: prestressed steel, labor (for operating the equipment
and placing and prestressing the wires) and equipment
(hydraulic jack, machine for cutting the wires):
reinforcement cost ðR$=kgÞ ¼ 2:82.
The cost of the filling is the sum of the cost of EPS
blocks, manual labor (for operating the equipment), and
equipment (electrical saw):
filling cost ðR$=m3 Þ ¼ 5:2.
B. Factory activity: The cost of this phase is related to the
activities that take place after molding and before

TOTAL COST

FABRICATION EXTERNAL ASSEMBLY

(a) TRANSPORT

FABRICATION

RAW MATERIAL FACTORY ADMINISTRATION

ACTIVITY &
RATES

concrete reinforcement filling manual equip.

labor

cement, manual equip. material manual equip. EPS manual equip.

aggregates, labor steel labor blocks labor
etc.
(b)

ASSEMBLY

ERECTION COMPLEMENTARY CAST-IN- PLACE ADMINISTRATION

REINFORCEMENT CONCRETE

manual equip. manual equip. material manual equip.

labor labor labor
(c)

Fig. 2. Costs involved in the production of slabs with precast prestressed concrete joists: (a) total cost, (b) fabrication cost and (c) assembly cost.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
522 V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530
delivering the product. It is the sum of manual labor
(controlling the equipment, curing, transport and storage)
and equipment (stacking machine, curing, energy, fuel,
etc.):
factory cost ðR$=m3 Þ ¼ 6:07.
C. Administration: Administration is the sum of costs
involved in administrative tasks as well as the salaries of
those involved in the job. It also includes costs related to
advertising, energy, taxes, rents, insurance, office equip-
ment, maintenance expenses, freight, fuel and depreciation.
This cost is estimated as 10% of the sum of costs relative to
raw materials and factory activity.
D. Rates: The Brazilian sales tax is approximately 12%
of the retail price for concrete and reinforcement.
3.2. External transport costs
External transport costs include the cost of transport
from the factory to the construction site. This cost includes
costs related to labor, trucks, fuel, insurance and main-
tenance expenses. This cost depends on the joist volume as
well as distance (in km):
external transport cost ðR$=m3 =kmÞ ¼ 52:00.
3.3. Assembly costs
The assembly costs (Fig. 2(c)) include the costs related to
the following aspects:
A. erection,
B. cast-in-place concrete,
C. complementary reinforcement,
D. administration.
A. Erection: The cost of erecting the precast prestressed
joists is the sum of the costs of labor and equipment
(scaffold support rental). Considering labor and equipment
costs given by:
labor cost ðR$=m3 Þ ¼ 4:4
and
equipment cost ðR$=m3 Þ
¼ SN  6:0 ðSN : number of scaffold supportsÞ
the cost of erecting (taking into consideration one support)
adds to
erection costðR$=m3 Þ ¼ 10:4.
B. Cast-in-place concrete: Cast-in-place concrete is the
sum of costs related to material (concrete, sand, additive,
etc.), labor (concrete placement and compaction, curing
and stripping) as well as rental of the equipment (vibrator,
mould). This cost is also dependent on the concrete
compressive strength (fck,cc), in MPa:
cast_in_place costðR$=m3 Þ ¼ 2:475f ck;cc þ 186:80.
C. Complementary reinforcement: Complementary rein-
forcement is the sum of the cost of steel and cost of labor:
complementary reinforcement cost ðR$=kgÞ ¼ 1:43.
D. Administration: Administration is the cost involved in
administrative tasks as well as staff salaries. It also includes
costs related to advertising, energy, taxes, rents, insurance,
office equipment, maintenance expenses, freight, fuel and
depreciation. This cost represents, on average, 20% of the
sum of costs involved in erection, cast-in-place concrete
and complementary reinforcement.
4. Representing the problem
The above-mentioned costs were combined in order to
produce a single function representing the total cost of the
production of slabs with precast prestressed concrete
joists, with and without the use of scaffold supports,
for two different spans. Although in the previous
section (item Erection), the general formula considers the
number of scaffold supports (NS), only one support was
necessary (i.e., NS ¼ 1) for the experiments described in
this work. Fig. 3(a) shows a concrete slab cross-section,
while Fig. 3(b) shows a joist cross-section. In both, the
dimensions are provided in millimeters and some of the
main variables involved in the definition of the cost
function are identified. The following values have been
adopted: 39 MPa for compressive strength of the joist
concrete and 100 km for the distance from the factory to
the construction site.
In Fig. 3, variables x1, x2 and x3 represent the amount of
steel in each of the three levels, respectively. Variables x4
and x5 represent the height of the second and third level in
the element, respectively. Although x4 and x5 do not
interfere in the cost function, they have been identified
because some of the problem restrictions are based on
them. The height of the first level is defined in order to
obtain the minimum cover stipulated in the structural
concrete code. Variable x6 represents the compressive
strength of the cast-in-place concrete (MPa).
The problem has been approached considering two
different spans: 3 and 4 m.
The function that combines all the costs (per square
meter), and represents the total cost to be minimized is
provided by Eq. (1), expressed by variables x1, x2 and x3,
that represent the amount of prestressed steel in levels 1, 2
and 3, respectively, and variables x6, x7 and x8, described
next. Since the configuration of a slab using precast
prestressed joists should conform to the ultimate limit
states (flexural and shear strength) and serviceability limit
states (excessive deflection, flexural cracking) (see Chakra-
barty, 1992; El Debs, 2000; Koskisto and Ellingwood,
1997; Lounis and Cohn, 1993; Prakash et al., 1988), the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530 523

60
170 170

x3

x8

60
x2

110
120

20 x4 x5

50
x7
x1
150
(a) (b)

Fig. 3. (a) Slab cross-section and (b) joist section (dimensions are provided in mm).

problem should be approached as a minimization problem

with restrictions, which can be stated as:
Minimize:
4735:2
f ðx1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x6 ; x7 ; x8 Þ ¼ þ 0:1552x8 þ 0:0012ð2:475x6 þ 74:25Þx8
x7
33:578ðx1 þ x2 þ x3 Þ 0:01584x7
þ þ þ 0:0057x7 , ð1Þ
x7 ðx1 þ x2 þ x3 Þ
where f ðx̄Þ ¼ f ðx1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x6 ; x7 ; x8 Þ —objective function; x1—amount of steel—level 1 (mm2); x2—amount of steel—level 2
(mm2); x3—amount of steel—level 3 (mm2); x6—compressive strength of the cast-in-place concrete (MPa); x7—inter-axis
distance (mm); x8—height of the concrete cover (mm).
Such that:
A. Transitory phases
(a) After stripping:
g1 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1po þ s1g1  sctj where g1 ðx̄Þp0
g2 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Po þ s2g1 þ scj where g2 ðx̄ÞX0
(b) Transport phase (the factors 0.8 and 1.3 consider the dynamic effects):
g3 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Po þ 0:8s1 g1  sctj where g3 ðx̄Þp0
g4 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Po þ 0:8s2 g1 þ scj where g4 ðx̄ÞX0
g5 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Po þ 1:3s1 g1  sctj where g5 ðx̄Þp0
g6 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Po þ 1:3s2 g1 þ scj where g6 ðx̄ÞX0
(c) Storage phase:
g7 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ s1g1  sctj where g7 ðx̄Þp0
g8 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ s2g1 þ scj where g8 ðx̄ÞX0
(d) Erection phase:
g9 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Po þ s1g1 þ s1g2  sctj where g9 ðx̄Þp0
g10 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Po þ s2g1 þ s2g2 þ scj where g10 ðx̄ÞX0
(e) check how many scaffold supports are necessary
Without supporting
g11 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ ðM g1 þ M g2 þ M qex Þð1:2=W 1h Þ where g11 ðx̄Þo0
g12 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ ðM g1 þ M g2 þ M qex Þð1:2=W 2h Þ þ sc where g12 ðx̄ÞX0
One support—support in the middle of the span
 Positive moment:
g13 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ ðM pos
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 1h Þ
where g13 ðx̄Þo0
g14 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ ðM pos
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 2h Þ þ sc
where g14 ðx̄ÞX0
 Negative moment:
g15 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ ðM neg
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 1h Þ þ sc
where g15 ðx̄ÞX0
g16 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ ðM neg
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 2h Þ
where g16 ðx̄Þ40
Two supports—supports at distances 2/5 and 3/5 along the span
 Positive moment:
g17 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ ðM pos
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 1h Þ
where g17 ðx̄Þo0
g18 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ ðM pos
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 2h Þ þ sc
where g18 ðx̄ÞX0
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
524 V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530

 Negative moment:
g19 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ ðM neg
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 1h Þ þ sc
where g19 ðx̄ÞX0
g20 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ ðM neg
g1þg2þqex Þð1:2=W 2h Þ
where g20 ðx̄Þ40

B. Serviceability Limit State

Normal stress level
 Almost-permanent combination (with a small fraction of live load):
ðM g1þg2 Þ ðM kg2 þM g3 þ0:2M q Þ where g21 ðx̄Þp0
g21 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ w1h þ w1hh
ðM g1þg2 Þ ðM kg2 þM g3 þ0:2M q Þ where g22 ðx̄ÞX0
g22 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ w2h þ þ sc
w21hh
 Rare combination (with total live load):
ðM Þ ðM þM þM Þ where g23 ðx̄Þp0
g23 ðx̄Þ ¼ s1Poo þ wg1þg2
1h
þ kg2 w1hhg3 q  sct
ðM g1þg2 Þ ðM kg2 þM g3 þM q Þ where g24 ðx̄ÞX0
g24 ðx̄Þ ¼ s2Poo þ w2h þ w21hh þ sc

Assessing the limit of the cracking stage depends upon whether or not the supports exist and should be approached
considering: (a) no support: checking should be performed in the middle of the span; (b) one support: checking
should be performed in the middle of the two spans and in the section of the largest bending moment; and (c) two
supports: checking should be performed in the middle of the three spans and the section of the largest bending
moment. However, for the experiments described in this paper using 3 and 4 m span slabs, only one support
was used.
Deflection control:
g25 ðx̄Þ ¼ alim  a where g25 ðx̄ÞX0
C. Ultimate limit state
Bending moment strength
g26 ðx̄Þ ¼ M d  M u where g26 ðx̄Þp0
Shear strength
g27 ðx̄Þ ¼ V d  V u0 where g27 ðx̄Þp0
Shear strength at interface
g28 ðx̄Þ ¼ V d  V u0c where g28 ðx̄Þp0
where
s1g1 , s2g1 Normal stress due to joist dead weight in the top and bottom, respectively
s1g2 , s2g2 Normal stress due to weight of the cast-in-place concrete and the filling blocks in the top and
bottom, respectively
s1Po , s2Po Normal stress due to prestressed in the concrete in the top and bottom, respectively
s1Poo , s2Poo Stress due to prestressed after the loss in the top and bottom, respectively
sctj Concrete tensile limit stress at j days, stipulated by structural concrete code
sct Concrete tensile limit stress, stipulated by structural concrete code
scj Concrete compressive limit stress at j days, stipulated by structural concrete code
sc Concrete compressive limit stress, stipulated by structural concrete code
Md Bending moment due to dead and live load
Mu Ultimate moment of the composite section, determined according to structural concrete code
guidelines
M g1 , M g2 , M qex Bending moment due to joist dead weight, moment due to dead weight of the cast-in-place concrete
and live load in assembly stage
M pos
g1þg2þqex
Positive bending moment for one or two supports
M neg
g1þg2þqex
Negative bending moment for one or two supports
M g1þg2 Bending moment due to joist dead weight and moment due to dead weight of the cast-in-place
concrete
M kg2 Bending moment due to support reaction
M g3 Bending moment due to other permanent loads
Mq Bending moment due to live load
W1h, W2h Section modulus regarding the top and bottom, respectively
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530
W1hh, W2hh Section modulus of composite sections (slab+cast-in-place concrete) with respect to the top and
bottom, respectively
alim Limit deflection, stipulated by structural concrete code
a Total deflection due to loading
Vd Shear force
Vu0 Ultimate shear strength, determined in accordance to structural concrete code guidelines
V u0c Ultimate shear strength at interface, determined in accordance to structural concrete code
guidelines
In addition to the restrictions previously mentioned the
range of values of the eight variables were limited to the
following intervals:
40px1 p300 ðmm2 Þ,
10px2 p260 ðmm2 Þ,
0px3 p100 ðmm2 Þ,
10px4 ðmmÞ,
10px5 ðmmÞ,
x4 þ x5 p85 ðmmÞ,
15px6 p30 ðMPaÞ,
300px7 p500 ðmmÞ,
40px8 p110 ðmmÞ.
The choice of these values is justified by:
 x1, x2, x3: the inferior limit corresponds to the minimum
required reinforcement amount and the superior limit
corresponds to a realistic reinforcement amount for
levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively;
 x4, x5: the inferior limit corresponds to a feasible
distance, and the superior limit corresponds to a
distance so that both distances and the thickness of
the cover are considered and do not exceed the height of
the joist;
 x6: the inferior limit is stipulated by the structural
concrete code and the superior limit corresponds to the
typical commercial compressive strength available from
mixed concrete suppliers in Brazil;
 x7: both limits are established by the structural concrete
code;
 x8: the inferior limit is stipulated by the structural
concrete code; the superior limit was adopted because
higher values are not practical for this type of slab.
Having mapped the problem of minimum production
cost of slabs with precast prestressed concrete joist into a
minimization problem with restrictions, the next step was
to solve the minimization problem using two different
approaches: GAs and a conventional optimization method,
525
for comparison. As stated initially, the main goal of this
work was to investigate the efficacy of GAs in this
particular optimization problem as a more flexible and
robust alternative to a conventional optimization method.
5. Minimizing the total cost function: A GA approach
When applying GAs to problems with restrictions it is
common to add a penalty term to the objective function.
This technique ‘‘transforms the constrained problem into
an unconstrained problem by penalizing infeasible solu-
tions, in which a penalty term is added to the objective
function for any violation of the constraints’’ (Gen and
Cheng, 1997). Generally, a penalty function ðpenðx̄ÞÞ is
added to the objective function ðf ðx̄ÞÞ in order to construct
the fitness function ðF ðx̄ÞÞ, as shown in Eq. (2). Usually, the
penalty function has a value of zero ðpenðx̄Þ ¼ 0Þ when x̄ is
feasible and a positive value, otherwise.
F ðx̄Þ ¼ f ðx̄Þ þ penðx̄Þ. (2)
There are no general guidelines for defining the penalty
function for optimization problems. This work adopts the
linear equation (see Rajeev and Krishnamoorthy, 1992 for
details):
penðx̄Þ ¼ 1500C,
P
where C ¼ m i¼1 ci , m is the number of restrictions, ci is the
value associated with the gi ðx̄Þ restriction, determined as:
Procedure 1 Procedure 2
for those restrictions s.t. for those restrictions s.t.
gi ðx̄Þ should be less equal gi ðx̄Þ should be greater
to 0 do equal to 0 do
if gi ðx̄Þp0 if gi ðx̄ÞX0
then ci ¼ 0 then ci ¼ 0
else ci ¼ 1 else ci ¼ 1
Notice that the formula penðx̄Þ ¼ 1500C will penalize
solutions not conforming to the imposed restrictions.
Focusing on Procedure 1 above, if a solution x̄ satisfies a
restriction gi that establishes that gi ðx̄Þ should be less or
equal to 0, the corresponding penalty value (i.e., ci) is set as
0 (i.e., the solution has satisfied the restriction gi and,
consequently, it is not penalized). However, if the solution
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
526 V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530
does not satisfy the restriction (meaning that solution x̄ is
such that gi ðx̄ÞX0), the corresponding penalty value (i.e.,
ci) is set to 1 (i.e., the solution is penalized). A similar
procedure is adopted for penalizing solutions x̄ that should
satisfy restrictions that establish gi ðx̄ÞX0 and they do not
(as described by Procedure 2 above).
The fitness function used in the experiments described
next was the sum of function f(x), provided by Eq. (1), plus
function pen(x) as stated above, which considers the
restrictions imposed by the problem, described in Section 3.
Castilho et al. (2002) describes the solution of a similar
problem (involving, however, a smaller number of vari-
ables) to the one treated in this paper that of minimizing
the production costs of hollow core slabs using GAs.
Castilho (2003) proposes and describes three families of
GA variations; each family is composed of GA variations
that use the same selection operator. In each family the
elements differ from each other in respect to the reproduc-
tion scheme and the way the population is restored to its
original size. Three reproduction schemes were tried,
namely, substitution, evaluation and steady state:
Substitution: in each generation parents are substituted
by their sons;
Evolution: the fitness values of parents and sons are
compared and those with best fitness values are chosen
and
Steady state: implements what is called steady-state
replacement, where in each generation only a few
(typically two) individuals are replaced.
The idea behind the proposal of 22 GA variations (the
total number of elements in the three families) was to
consider multiple variations of the canonical GA (as
described in Fig. 4) to determine the combination of
genetic characteristics and genetic parameters most suitable
for this particular problem.
The multitude of GA variations proposed were the result
of the many different combinations of the selection
operator, reproduction scheme and restoration of the
population to its original size. The six algorithms that
Fig. 4. Canonical genetic algorithm.
constitute the family MGA can be characterized as
canonical GAs (as in Fig. 4), which employ a selection
mechanism inspired by the rank selection. Using the fitness
value of each individual as criteria, MGA algorithms rank
the whole population. Based on crossover rate (x%), MGA
algorithms select for crossover the first x% ranked
individuals.
Among the 22 different GA variations considered in the
minimization problem of core slabs, the one identified as
MGA1 (Modified GA 1, part of family MGA) was chosen
to be used for solving the problem described in this paper
because of its efficacy in solving the cost minimization
problem in the production of hollow core slabs. MGA1
implements the substitution scheme, which replaces parents
by their children at each generation and restores the
population to Npop individuals by randomly selecting
individuals from the current population. MGA1 also
implements an elitist process which guarantees that a
percentage of the best individuals in a population will be
part of the next population.
By adopting MGA1 we intended to investigate this
algorithm further, by changing some of its genetic
characteristics namely, the representation and crossover
operator. Fig. 5 shows the pseudo code of MGA1 and
Table 1 lists the values of the main GA characteristics used
in the experiments conducted in this work.
The data presented in the following tables, describe the
results of each experiment for the average values obtained
using ten randomly selected initial populations (average of
ten runs). As commented in Davis (1991), ‘‘Since GAs are
stochastic, their performance usually varies from run to
run, and so a curve showing average performance is a more
useful way to view the behavior of a GA than a
representation of the behavior of a GA in a single run’’.
The results using the conventional optimization Aug-
mented Lagrangian Method implemented as the system
ALGENCAN (previously known as EASY and now part
of the Trustable Algorithms for Nonlinear General
Optimization (TANGO) set of Fortran routines for
optimization (Andreani et al., 2005; Andreani et al.,
2004) (available for download at http://www.ime.uni-
camp.br/martinez/) are also presented, for comparison.
In addition to using the binary representation, the
experiments considered seven different crossover operators
namely, 1X,y, 5X, uniform, as well the one proposed in
Hasancebi and Erbatur (1998) and referred to as variable-
to-variable.
Using a random mask (of bits), the uniform crossover
determines which bits of each parent will be inherited by
each of the two children. If the first bit of mask is 1, the first
bit of parent1 is copied as the first bit of child1; otherwise,
the first bit of parent2 is copied as the first bit of child1—
this process is repeated for all bits. For creating child2 the
roles between the parents are reversed. The definition of the
variable-to-variable crossover, as provided in Hasancebi
and Erbatur (1998) is ‘‘In this crossover technique, first the
paired individuals (strings) are decomposed into their
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530 527

Fig. 5. Pseudo code of the MGA1 genetic algorithm variant.

substrings. Next, single-point crossover is separately Table 1

carried out on all the substrings. In this way, each design Main characteristics of MGA1
variable amongst the individuals is activated to accomplish Characteristics Values
the design exchange separately.’’ Fig. 6 shows an example
of variable-to-variable crossover. Elitism 1 individual
The analysis of the results will focus on the values Size of the population 100
Representation Binary—88 bits (considering 2 decimal
obtained using MGA1 with each of the crossover operators
places for each variable)
listed in Table 1, for the length of slab of 3 and 4 m as 1st variable—10 bits
shown in Table 2 and Fig. 7, respectively. 2nd variable—10 bits
As can be seen in Table 2, the results using different 3rd variable—10 bits
crossover operators are very similar. MGA1 achieved its 4th variable—13 bits
5th variable—13 bits
best performance using uniform crossover and worst using
6th variable—11 bits
variable-to-variable crossover. It is noteworthy that the 7th variable—11 bits
results implied the use of one support. The results of the 8th variable—10 bits
cost function considering a 4 m slab and the different Crossover 1X, 2X, 3X, 4X and 5X, uniform and
crossover operators are shown in Fig. 6. Again, MGA1 variable-to-variable
Probability of crossover 0.85
using the variable-to-variable operator had the worst
Probability of mutation 0.01
performance of all. Stop criterion 1000 generations
In addition regarding the minimization of production
costs of 4 m span slabs, the sets of discrete values for
representing the possible values a variable can assume. This
is a widespread practice for addressing problems related to
steel structures (Lin and Hajela, 1992; Templeman, 1988).
It is worth noting that the size of the chromosome was
defined according to the limits of the total chromosome
length, provided by 2nb ¼ nv (nb is the number of bits and
nv is the number of possible values). The number of
possible values was determined based on the characteristics
Fig. 6. Variable-to-variable crossover implementation.
of the problem (such as the 5 mm diameter of a bar) as well
as on the results obtained using continuous values (such as
the values that define the set of discrete values associated
with variables x4 and x5). The size (given in bits) of each of values for variables x1, x2 e x3 (reinforcement levels 1, 2
discrete variables is defined as follows: and 3, respectively). These values correspond to 5 mm
bar multiples. Considering that a 5 mm diameter bar has
 The ordered set area described next contains 16 possible an area of 19.6 mm2 (so 2 (bars)  19.6 ¼ 39.3; 3
reinforcement values which, in the problem, are possible (bars)  19.6 ¼ 58.9 and so on).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
528 V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530

Table 2
Variables and cost function values, where x1, x2, x3—amount of steel (level 1, 2 and 3 respectively), x4, x5—distances of the reinforcement levels,
x6—compressive strength of cast-in-place concrete, x7—inter-axis distance and x8—height of the cast-in-place concrete cover

MGA1 with different crossover operators Function value (R$/m2) Variables—3 m span

x1 (mm2) x2 (mm2) x3 (mm2) x4 (mm) x5 (mm) x6 (MPa) x7 (mm) x8 (mm)

Uniform 27.48 40 10 0 59.3 —a 15.0 499.8 40.0

1X 27.53 40 10 1 58.5 22.0 15.0 499.7 40.0
2X 27.54 40 10 1 57.8 22.9 15.0 499.8 40.0
3X 27.54 40 10 1 59.2 23.3 15.0 499.8 40.0
4X 27.52 40 10 1 57.9 21.3 15.0 500.0 40.0
5X 27.52 40 10 1 55.3 26.9 15.0 500.0 40.0
Var_Var 27.57 40 10 1 55.6 17.5 15.1 498.6 40.0
ALGENCAN 27.47 40 10 0 40.0 —a 15.0 500.0 40.0
a
As x3 is null, x5 has no meaning.

Cost x Type of Crossover  The ordered set interaxis contains the thirty-two
38 possible values for the inter-axis distance, represented
best_MGA1 average_MGA1
worst_MGA1 by variable x7.
37 Interaxis ¼ {300, 305, 310, 315, 320, 325, 330, 335, 340,
cost (R$/m2)

36
35
34
Uniform 1X 2X 3X 4X 5X
type of crossover
Fig. 7. Values of the cost function provided by MGA1 using different
crossover operators, considering a 4 m slab (with one support).
Area ¼ {19.6, 39.3, 58.9, 78.5, 98.2, 117.8, 137.4, 157.1,
176.7, 196.3, 216.0, 235.6, 255.3, 274.9, 294.5, 314.2}
In order to represent the sixteen values using binary
representation, four bits suffice for representing each of
the three variables. Consequently, the three variables
require 12 bits to be represented.
 The ordered set distance contains sixty four values
representing the possible distances between the different
levels of reinforcement, represented by variables x4
and x5.
Distance ¼ {0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 67}
For a binary representation of these sixty four possible
values, six bits will suffice. So the two variables will be
represented by 12 bits.
 The ordered set fck contains 16 possible values for the
locally molded concrete resistance, represented by
variable x6.
fck ¼ {15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30}
In order to represent x6 four bits are sufficient.
345, 350, 355, 360, 365, 370, 375, 380, 385, 390, 395, 400,
405, 410, 420, 430, 44.0, 45.0, 46.0, 47.0, 48.0, 49.0, 50.0}
In order to represent x7 five bits are sufficient.
 The ordered set coverCML contains the eight possible
height values a locally molded concrete cover can have,
Var_var defined by variable x8.
CoverCML ¼ {40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110}
In order to represent x8 three bits are sufficient.
The experiments also aimed to investigate the dynamic
change of the crossover operator, during the minimization
process conducted by MGA1, as suggested in Hasancebi
and Erbatur (1998). In each generation a random integer
number from 0 to N was generated (N ¼ 6 in the
experiments with the following correspondence 0: uniform,
1: variable-to-variable, 2: 1X, 3: 2X, 4: 3X, 5: 4X and 6:
5X) and the correspondent crossover operator used. The
results of using this dynamic change of crossover operator
are presented in the line discrete/random sequence of
Table 3.
Table 3 presents the values of the cost function and the
relevant variables using a 4 m slab. It can be seen that the
value of the cost function using a set of discrete values for
variables and either, uniform crossover or random
sequence, are the same.
The experiments also investigated the impact of the real
representation versus binary representation as well as the
use of random sequence crossover operator when solving
the problem using discrete variables. It can be seen that
using real representation with the arithmetic crossover (as
described in Fig. 8), the results are worse than those with
discrete variables.
Despite the real representation being the most recom-
mended for optimization problems with restrictions (see
Gen and Cheng, 1997) the results shown in Table 3 are not
consistent with this recommendation. It can also be seen
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530 529

Table 3
Variables and cost function values, where x1, x2, x3—amount of steel (levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively), x4, x5—distances of the reinforcement levels, x6—
compressive strength of cast-in-place concrete, x7—inter-axis distance and x8—height of the cast-in-place concrete cover

MGA1 (4 m SPAN)

Type of the variable value/crossover Function value (R$/m2) x1 (mm2) x2 (mm2) x3 (mm2) x4 (mm) x5 (mm) x6 (MPa) x7 (mm) x8 (mm)

Binary representation
Discrete/uniform crossover 36.90 39.3 19.6 19.6 31.0 41.0 25.0 395.0 50.0
Discrete/random sequence 36.90 39.3 19.6 19.6 33.0 36.0 25.0 395.0 50.0
Real/uniform crossover 35.46 41.0 11.0 7.0 33.8 36.1 24.8 405.6 51.8
Real representation
Real/arithmetic 40.45 49.0 39.0 24.0 24.8 32.8 24.1 395.0 52.7
ALGENCAN 34.78 40.0 10.0 2.0 40.0 40.0 25.0 398.6 50.6

system converges to the value shown in previous tables.

Fig. 8. Arithmetical operator (used with l1 ¼ 2/3 and l2 ¼ 1/3).
that the results obtained by ALGENDAN are the best
ones.
6. Conclusions
The programs that implement the MGA1 variant were
written in C++ and executed under Windows NT. The
ALGENCAN system, which implements the Augmented
Lagrangian was downloaded from http://www.ime.uni-
camp.br/martinez/. More details about this method can
be found in Andreani et al. (2005), Andreani et al. (2004)
as well.
Analysing the results presented in the previous section, it
is obvious that despite the fact that ALGENCAN out-
performed the MGA1 (considering the average values of
the runs), certain MGA1 runs offered as their absolute best
value, the same value provided by ALGENCAN, thus
demonstrating that a GA based method is feasible and
effective approach for solving the cost problem described
in this paper.
It is worth mentioning that when using ALGENCAN
for this particular problem, many initial values have been
tried (the implementation used requires the user to provide
an initial value). For initial values reasonably distant from
the optimal, the ALGENCAN system does not converge
and informs the user of this. When using as initial value
any of those obtained by the variants, the ALGENCAN
The performance ALGENCAN is strongly dependent on
the initial value provided by the user. When there is little
information about the space of solutions, this optimization
method is highly ineffective. When this occurs, an
interesting alternative approach is that of combining the
conventional method with a heuristic method, such as GA.
The GA would provide the initial point to the conventional
method. The results have shown that Gas with certain
characteristics can be an alternative for solving the
minimization problem described in this work. If a ‘good’
starting point is known in advance, ALGENCAN can be
considered the best option. If there is no such information,
however, MGA1 is an appropriate good option to be
considered.
Acknowledgements
To CAPES for the doctoral scholarship granted to
Vanessa Cristina de Castilho, to Leonie Catherine Pearson
for her valuable comments on this work and for proof-
reading the first version of this paper.
References
Andreani, R., Birgin, E., Martı́nez, J.M., Schuverdt, M.L., 2004.
Augmented Lagrangian methods under the constant positive linear
dependence constraint qualification, Technical Report MCDO-
040806, Department of Applied Mathematics, UNICAMP, Brazil.
Andreani, R., Birgin, E., Martı́nez, J.M., Schuverdt, M.L., 2005. On
augmented Lagrangian methods with general lower-level constraints,
Technical Report MCDO-050304, Department of Applied Mathe-
matics, UNICAMP, Brazil.
Beasley, D., et al., 1993a. An overview of genetic algorithms: Part 1.
Fundamentals. University Computing 15 (4), 170–181.
Beasley, D., et al., 1993b. An overview of genetic algorithms: Part 2.
Fundamentals. University Computing 15 (2), 58–69.
Castilho, V.C., 2003. Optimization of precast prestressed elements using
genetic algorithms. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Structural Engineer-
ing, São Paulo University, SP (in Portuguese).
Castilho, V.C., Nicoletti, M.C., El Debs, M.K., 2002. Using genetic
algorithms for minimizing the production costs of hollow core slabs.
In: Abraham, A., et al. (Eds.), Soft Computing Systems: Design,
Management and Applications. IOS Press, pp. 796–805.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
530 V.C. de Castilho et al. / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 519–530
Chakrabarty, B.K., 1992. Models for optimal design of reinforced
concrete beams. Computers & Structures 42 (3), 447–451.
Coello, C.C., Hernández, F.S., Farrera, F.A., 1997. Optimal design of
reinforced concrete beams using genetic algorithm. Expert Systems
with Applications 12 (1), 101–108.
Cohn, M.Z., Lounis, Z., 1994. Optimal design of structural concrete
bridge systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 120 (9),
2653–2674.
Davidor, Y., 1990. Genetic Algorithms and Robotics: A Heuristic
Strategy for Optimization. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore.
Davis, L. (Ed.), 1991. Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
El Debs, M.K., 2000. Precasted concrete: basics and applications. São
Carlos, Projeto REENGE, EESC-USP (in Portuguese).
Gen, M., Cheng, R., 1997. Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Design.
Wiley, New York.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and
Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, USA.
Hasancebi, O., Erbatur, F., 1998. Evaluation of crossover techniques
based optimum structural design. In: Topping, B.H.V. (Ed.), Advances
in Engineering Computation Technology. Civil-Comp Press, Edin-
burgh, pp. 111–113.
Holland, J.H., 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Koskisto, O.J., Ellingwood, b.r., 1997. Reliability-based optimization of
plant precast concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 123 (3), 298–304.
Lin, C.Y., Hajela, P., 1992. Genetic algorithm problems with discrete and
integer design variables. Engineering Optimization 19, 309–327.
Lounis, Z., Cohn, M.Z., 1993. Optimization of precast prestressed
concrete bridge girder systems. PCI Journal 123 (3), 60–77.
Michalewicz, Z., 1992. Genetic Algorithms+Data structures ¼ Evolution
Programs. Springer, Berlin.
Prakash, A., Agarwala, S.K., Singh, K.K., 1988. Optimum design of
reinforced concrete sections. Computers & Structures 30 (4), 1009–1011.
Rajeev, S., Krishnamoorthy, C.S., 1992. Discrete optimization of
structures using genetic algorithm. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 118 (5), 1233–1250.
Templeman, A.B., 1988. Discrete optimum structural design. Computers
& Structures 30 (3), 511–518.