Struct Multidisc Optim
DOI 10.1007/s00158-009-0404-2
INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
Optimum topology and shape design of prestressed
concrete bridge girders using a genetic algorithm
Zekeriya Aydın · Yusuf Ayvaz
Received: 2 April 2008 / Revised: 5 May 2009 / Accepted: 5 May 2009
© Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract The purpose of this study is to optimize the
topology and shape of prestressed concrete bridge gird-
ers. An optimum design approach that uses a genetic
algorithm (GA) for this purpose is presented. The cost
of girders is the optimum design criterion. The design
variables are the cross-sectional dimensions of the pre-
fabricated prestressed beams, the cross-sectional area
of the prestressing steel and the number of beams
in the bridge cross-section. Stress, displacement and
geometrical constraints are considered in the optimum
design. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges are taken into account when calculating the
loads and designing the prestressed beams. A computer
program is coded in Visual Basic for this optimization.
Many design examples from various applications have
been optimized using this program. Several of these
examples are presented to demonstrate the efficiency
of the algorithm coded in the study.
Keywords Prestressed concrete · Bridge girder ·
Genetic algorithm · Optimum design ·
Simply supported beam
Z. Aydın
ONTÜ Construction Engineering Consulting Co. Ltd.,
Ataköy 9.kısım Block B28 D:2, İstanbul, Turkey
e-mail: zaydin.eng@gmail.com
Y. Ayvaz (B)
Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical
University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey
e-mail: ayvaz@ktu.edu.tr
1 Introduction
The most important criteria in structural design are
safety and cost. The general aim of a designer is to
guarantee the safety of the structure while using a
minimum amount of material.
Prestressing refers to the permanent internal stress
in a structure to improve performance by reducing the
effect of external forces. The compression performance
of concrete is strong but its tension performance is
weak. The main idea of prestressing concrete is to coun-
teract the tension stresses that are induced by external
forces.
The first application of prestressed concrete was per-
formed by P.H. Jackson in 1886. However, Eugene
Freyssinet truly pioneered modern prestressed con-
crete technology. He recognized the importance of pre-
stress losses and proposed ways to mitigate those losses
(Naaman 1982).
Today, prestressed concrete is used in bridges and in
many structural components, such as beams, columns,
plates, pipes, or piles. Many prestressing techniques
have been developed. They are categorized into three
groups: pre-tensioning, post-tensioning and chemical
prestressing.
Many studies on optimizations of different structures
have been reported in the literature, including Rozvany
(2008), Lewinski and Rozvany (2007a, b), Rozvany
et al. (2006).
There are also many studies regarding topological
and shape optimizations of prestressed concrete bridge
superstructures (Totres et al. 1966; Jones 1985; Yu et al.
1986; Lounis and Cohn 1993; Chon and Lounis 1994;
Lounis et al. 1997; Sirca and Adeli 2005). However,
none of these studies use a genetic algorithm (GA).
 Z. Aydın, Y. Ayvaz

The purpose of this study is to minimize the cost of 2.2 Design variables and design parameters
precast concrete and prestressing steel for middle span
bridge girders through topological and shape optimiza- The design variables considered in this study are as
tion. The considered bridge girders are composed of follows:
pretensioned prestressed concrete adjacent simply sup-
nb number of the girders at the bridge cross-section
ported I section beams. The topological optimization
h height of the precast beam
of such a structure requires determination of the op-
bb bottom flange width
timum number of adjacent beams. Shape optimization
bw web thickness
requires the determination of the dimensions of the I
tt top flange thickness
section beam. In this study, the topological and shape
tb bottom flange thickness
optimization of the girder are performed at the same
pt top sloped thickness
time using a GA to reach an optimal solution.
pb bottom sloped thickness
A computer program coded in Visual Basic is used
nps number of the prestressing steel bars in each
to identify the optimum design, and the program is then
beam.
used for several design examples.
A typical cross-section of a prestressed concrete I-
beam section is illustrated in Fig. 1 to highlight several
of the design variables. In this study, adjacent I-beam
2 Optimum design of prestressed concrete girders are considered. Therefore, the slab thickness is
bridge girders not taken as a design variable. The design parameters
in this study are previously selected bridge cross-section
2.1 Objective function dimensions, material properties, unit costs of materials,
loads and the other relevant parameters.
In this study, the design criterion is the cost of pre-
cast beams. The objective is to minimize the cost 2.3 Constraints
without violating the constraints. The cost of precast
beams includes the cost of the precast concrete and the A total of 28 constraints are considered, consistent
cost of the prestressing steel. The cost of the precast with the AASHTO Standard Specifications (AASHTO
beams also includes the cost of the non-prestressed 2002). These constraints can be categorized into six
conventional reinforcing steel and the cost of suitable groups:
frameworks; however, these costs do not contribute
significantly to the total cost compared to the costs of 1. Flexural working stress constraints.
the precast concrete and the prestressing steel. The 2. Flexural ultimate strength constraints.
total cost of a prestressed concrete bridge girder is
formulated as
bt

CT = Cpc + Cps (1)

tt
where Cpc and Cps are the costs of the precast con-
pt
crete and the prestressing steel, respectively. The costs
of the precast concrete and the prestressing steel are
calculated as

hw
Cpc = uppc · nb · Apc · L (2) h bw

Cps = upps · nb · Apc · ρ · L (3)

prestressing steel
where uppc and upps are the unit prices of the precast pb
conventional reinforcing steel
concrete and the prestressing steel, respectively; Apc tb
and Aps are the cross-section areas of the precast con-
crete and the prestressing steel, respectively; nb is the bb
number of the precast beams; ρ is the density of the
prestressing steel; and L is the length of the girders. Fig. 1 Typical cross-section of prestressed concrete I-beam
Optimum topology and shape design of prestressed concrete bridge girders using a genetic algorithm

3. Shear constraints (working stress and ultimate where σ b , σ t and σ ts are the calculated stresses at the
strength). bottom edge of the precast section, at the top edge of
4. Ductility constraints. the precast section, and at the top edge of the composite
5. Deflection constraints. section, respectively; σ̄ci and σ̄ti are the initial allowable
6. Geometrical constraints. compression and tension stresses, respectively, of the
precast concrete; σ̄cf and σ̄tf are the associated final
These constraints are explained below. allowable compression and tension stresses; and σ̄cs is
the allowable compression stress of the traditional deck
2.3.1 Flexural working stress constraints concrete.

Working stresses are considered under four different

load conditions. The first load condition includes the 2.3.2 Ultimate flexural strength constraints
girder dead loads in addition to the prestress. The
second load condition includes a dead load of the deck The ultimate flexural strength constraints are consid-
superposed on the first load condition. The third load ered for the composite and the precast sections and can
condition includes all loads, except the vehicular load. be written, respectively, as
The fourth load condition includes all loads. For the
Md,c
third and fourth load conditions, it is assumed that the g11 = − 1, (14)
dead loads of the girders and the deck are carried by φ Mn
the precast section, and the other loads are carried by Md,p
g12 = − 1, (15)
the composite section. Under the first load condition, φ Mn
prestress losses are assumed to be minimal. For the
other load conditions, prestress losses are assumed to where Md,c and Md,p are the factored bending moments
be at a maximum. According to these load conditions, for the composite and the precast sections, respectively;
the working stress constraints in normalized form are φ Mn is the flexural strength of the related section; and
as follows: φ is the load factor that is assumed to be equal to 1.0 for
For the first load condition: factory-produced precast prestressed concrete mem-
σb1 bers. The flexural strength is determined according
g1 = − 1, (4) to the AASHTO Standard Specifications (AASHTO
σ̄ci
σt1 2002).
g2 = − 1. (5)
σ̄ti
For the second load condition: 2.3.3 Shear constraints (working stress and ultimate
strength)
σb2
g3 = − 1, (6)
σ̄tf The shear working stress constraints are considered at
σt2 the time of the initial prestress and for the long term
g4 = − 1. (7)
σ̄cf loading. The shear working stress constraints are:
For the third load condition:
τi
σb3 g13 = − 1, (16)
g5 = − 1, (8) τ̄i
σ̄tf τf
σt3 g14 = − 1, (17)
g6 = − 1, (9) τ̄f
σ̄cf
σts3 where τ i and τ f are the maximum shear stresses at the
g7 = − 1. (10)
σ̄cs time of the initial prestress and for the long term load-
ing, respectively; and τ̄i , and τ̄f are the initial and the
For the fourth load condition:
final allowable shear stresses, respectively. The details
σb4
g8 = − 1, (11) on τi , τf , τ̄i , and τ̄f can be found in AASHTO (2002).
σ̄tf The ultimate shear strength constraint is expressed
σt4 as
g9 = − 1, (12)
σ̄cf
σts4 Vu
g10 = − 1. (13) g15 = −1 (18)
σ̄cs φ (Vc + Vs )
 Z. Aydın, Y. Ayvaz

where Vu is the factored shear force at the section; sections, respectively, and β 1 is a concrete strength fac-
and Vc and Vs are the shear strengths provided by the tor as defined in the AASHTO Standard Specifications
concrete and the web reinforcement, respectively. φ in (AASHTO 2002).
this equation is assumed to be equal to 0.90 for shear. The total amount of the prestressing steel must be
sufficient to develop an ultimate moment that is no
2.3.4 Deflection constraints less than 1.2 times the cracking moment at the critical
section. Therefore, the minimum prestressing steel con-
The deflection constraints are considered for four dif- straints can be given as
ferent load cases, as in the case of the flexural work- ∗
Mcr,c · 1.2
ing stress. The deflection constraints are listed below, g23 = − 1, (26)
φ Mn
consistent with these loads and final cases.
∗
Mcr,p · 1.2
f1 g24 = − 1, (27)
g16 = − 1, (19) φ Mn
(L/500)
∗ ∗
where Mcr,c and Mcr,p are the cracking moments of the
f2 composite and the precast sections, respectively.
g17 = − 1, (20)
(L/500)
2.3.6 Geometrical constraints
f3
g18 = − 1, (21) The geometrical constraints in this study are given
(L/500)
below.
The thickness of the top flange must be adequate to
f4
g19 = − 1, and (22) transfer the latitudinal moment. Thus, the top flange
(L/1000) thickness of the optimal design section must be greater
than the constrained thickness. The related constraint
f can be given as
g20 = − 1, (23)
(L/500)
(tt + pt )min
g25 = −1 (28)
where f1 , f2 , f3 and f4 are deflections associated with (tt + pt )
the related number of load cases, and f is the deflection
of the final case. where (tt + pt )min is the minimum value of the top
It is considered that the deflection f1 is due to the flange thickness.
beam’s self weight; f2 is from the beam and deck self The width of the bottom flange must be smaller than
weights; f3 is due to all dead loads; f4 is due to the live the width of the top flange. The related constraint is
loads; and f is due to all live and dead loads.
bb
g26 = − 1. (29)
bt
2.3.5 Ductility constraints
The width of the web must be smaller than the width of
According to the AASHTO Standard Specifications the bottom flange. The related constraint is
(AASHTO 2002), the prestressed concrete members
must be designed so that the steel yields when the bw
g27 = − 1. (30)
ultimate capacity is reached. Therefore, the maximum bb
prestressing steel constraints for the composite and
The prestressing steels do not generally fit into one
precast sections are given below, respectively:
row. Thus, the thickness of the bottom flange must
ψc be adequate to fit the prestressing steels. The related
g21 = − 1, and (24) constraint can be written as
0.36β1
ψp tb,min
g22 = − 1, (25) g28 = −1 (31)
0.36β1 tb

where ψ c and ψ p are the prestressing steel reinforce- where tb,min is the minimum bottom flange thickness
ment indices for both the composite and the precast that is sufficiently thick to place prestressing steels.
Optimum topology and shape design of prestressed concrete bridge girders using a genetic algorithm
3 Optimum design with a genetic algorithm
A GA is an optimization method from the artificial
intelligence family that uses the principles of natural
selection. According to Darwin’s natural selection the-
ory, strong individuals of a population survive, while
weak individuals do not. The surviving individuals mate
to produce the next generation of individuals. It is
clear that individuals in the next generation will be
better than the individuals of the previous generations;
individuals continue to get fitter as evolution continues.
Thus, individuals ultimately become perfect (Holland
1975; Goldberg 1989).
A GA is an evolutionary optimization method that
uses a group of initial solutions. These solutions are
represented by the design variables. The GA improves
these solutions by using certain genetic rules. The initial
population is randomly determined. This generation
of solutions is taken to be the first generation of the
design, and each individual is considered to be a solu-
tion within a given generation. The solutions for each
generation are coded using binary numbers in order
that genetic operators can be readily applied.
After determining the initial population, the genetic
evolution begins. At first, the fitness of each individ-
ual is determined according to their closeness to the
optimum solution, and individuals are categorized ac-
cording to their fitness. After that, the reproduction,
the crossover and the mutation operators are applied
to each generation to constitute a new generation. This
evolution continues until the majority of the solutions
are identical (Ayvaz and Aydın 2000; Daloğlu and
Aydın 1999), i.e. the convergence has occurred.
GAs are widely used in engineering—for examples,
see Rajaev and Krishnamoorthy (1992, 1998), Jenkins
(1992), Sarma and Adeli (2000), and Kameshki and
Saka (2001).
3.1 Penalty function and penalized objective function
GAs are suitable only for unconstrained optimum de-
sign problems. Therefore, the objective function must
be expressed as an unconstrained function. For this
purpose, a penalty function is calculated consistent with
constraint violations. The unconstrained penalized ob-
jective function can be defined by adding this penalty
function to the objective function. The penalty function
is the fully normalized value of the violated constraints.
Thus, the penalty function can be expressed as

n ciency of the genetic operators. The solutions from the
P= pi , (32)
i=1
where n is the total number of constraints, and pi is the
violation factor of the ith constraint, calculated as
pi = gi for gi > 0
pi = 0 for gi ≤ 0. (33)
Given this penalty function, the penalized objective
function can be written
(x) = C(x) · [1 + K · P] , (34)
where K is a coefficient that depends on the type of the
problem. K determines the activity of the penalty func-
tion when calculating the penalized objective function.
It is important to determine a suitable value of K to
reach the best solution in a short time.
3.2 Coding of solutions and determining the initial
population
There are several coding strategies for GAs, including
binary, integer and real-valued representations. Binary
coding is chosen in this study, since the purpose of
this study is to optimize the topology and the shape of
the prestressed concrete bridge girders, not to explore
different coding types.
The GA uses a set of design variables to generate an
optimum design. Thus, the probable value set for each
design variable must be chosen before commencing.
This set is termed the design variable values set.
In the case of binary-coded GA, the solutions are
represented as strings that represent the values of de-
sign variables. They are obtained by coding the row
numbers of the design variables into a binary represen-
tation. Thus, the solution strings are constituted by the
numbers “0” and “1”.
For example, suppose there are sixteen different
entries in a design variable values set for a given de-
sign variable. Then “0000” indicates the first possible
value, “0001” indicates the second possible value, and
following this pattern, “1111” indicates the sixteenth
possible value. All the design variables are coded in
this manner and the solution strings are generated by
joining these short strings. In this context, “0” and “1”
are termed genes, the small strings are chromosomes
and the solution strings are individuals who belong to a
certain generation.
The number of solution strings of a given generation
depends on the length of the strings. If the string lengths
increase, more strings are required to increase the effi-
initial population are determined by randomly coding a
certain number of “0”s and “1”s.

3.3 Reproduction operator
The aim of the reproduction operation is to create
a subsequent generation that exhibits better solution
strings. The worst strings are removed and replaced
with copies of the best individuals. After the structural
analysis, the solution strings are categorized into three
groups according to their fitness values by applying the
reproduction operator. They are labeled the fittest, the
normal and the least fit solution strings. The weakest
strings are replaced by the fittest strings in the mating
pool. Thus, the fittest solution strings are placed twice,
the normal strings are placed once, and none of the
weakest strings are involved in the mating. The solution
strings in the mating pool are known as parent strings.
The fitness value of each solution is determined ac-
cording to its closeness to a problem related large value:
 
Fi = (x) max + (x) min − (x)i (35)
where (x) max and (x) min are the largest and smallest
values of the penalized objective function among the
solution strings in each generation. A fitness factor is
described, which is consistent with the fitness value.
The factor for each solution string is calculated as:
Fc,i = Fi /Fort ,
where Fort is the average of the fitness values.
3.4 Crossover operator
The reproduction operator works among existing so-
lution strings and selects individuals from them, but it
does not create new individuals. In order to reach an
optimum solution, the solution strings in the population
must be changed and generated. The crossover opera-
tion is used to create new solution strings that depend
on the existing solution strings in the mating pool.
The crossover operation is applied by exchanging
characters of strings between the selected solution
strings. In the literature, the most popular crossover
methods are the single-point crossover, the multi-point
Parent strings New strings
101101100011 101101101000
011010101000 011010100011
Crossover position ( 7 )
Fig. 2 Single-point crossover operation
Z. Aydın, Y. Ayvaz
Parent strings New strings
101101100011 101010100011
011010101000 011101101000
Crossover position ( 4, 7 )
Fig. 3 Two-points crossover operation
crossover, and the uniform crossover. All of these
crossover methods are used in this study.
In the single-point crossover, a particular position
in the string character is chosen as the crossover po-
sition, and characters after this number are exchanged
between randomly mated parent strings. An example
of a single-point crossover is given in Fig. 2.
In the two-point crossover, two positions are chosen
as crossover positions and characters between these
two numbers are exchanged between randomly mated
parent strings. An example of a two-point crossover is
given in Fig. 3.
Another crossover method used in this study is the
uniform crossover. Randomly determined new strings
(a crossover mask) are used for a uniform crossover.
The crossover masks have the same number of char-
(36)
acters as the solution strings. In order to perform a
uniform crossover, if the number in the crossover mask
is “1”, then the related characters (based on its posi-
tion) will be exchanged between parent strings. If this
number is “0”, then the related number characters are
not exchanged. An example of a uniform crossover is
given in Fig. 4.
3.5 Mutation operator
Another operator that creates new solution strings is
the mutation operator: a few random characters from
each generation are changed. The mutation rate in a
generation is generally chosen to be between 0.1%
and 1%. In the event of a larger mutation rate, the
fitter solution strings may be destroyed. In this study,
three kinds of the mutation operator—the standard
Crossover mask 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
Parent strings
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
New strings
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Fig. 4 Uniform crossover operation
Optimum topology and shape design of prestressed concrete bridge girders using a genetic algorithm

Table 1 Hybrid mutation String Generation before the Fitness Mutation Generation after the
operation
no mutation factor characters mutation
1 10100011100011100111 1.10 7–12 10100011100011100111
2 10100001110101001110 0.74 10100001110101001110
3 01010000111001110111 0.48 01010001111001110111
4 11000100100001111101 1.12 11000100100001111101
5 00110001010001110101 1.49 00110001010001110101
6 10101100101010011000 1.14 3–8 10101100101010011000
7 00111011111010111011 0.96 00111011111010111011
8 01101111011101110111 0.85 01101111011101110111
9 10011100000011010010 1.11 10011100000011010010
Mutation rate: 1% 10 00011100011111011011 1.01 00011100011111011011

mutation, the controlled mutation and the hybrid
mutation—are used.
For the standard mutation, a fixed mutation rate is
determined at the beginning of the design. The mu-
tation characters from each generation are randomly
selected at this rate. The values of these characters are
changed when the mutation operator is applied.
In a controlled mutation, the mutation rate is re-
duced stepwise as the generated solution becomes fit-
ter. In this study, the mutation rate is reduced by 50%
when one-third of the solution strings in a generation
are the same. The mutation stops when two-thirds of
the solution strings in a generation are the same.
In a hybrid mutation, a fixed mutation rate is used,
as with the standard mutation. However, in the hybrid
mutation, instead of changing the value of the mutation
character directly, it is made to match the character
expressed by the fittest string in the generation. In other
words, if the mutation character has the same value as
the fittest solution, then the value of the character is
unchanged. Otherwise, it is changed. An example of a
hybrid mutation is given in Table 1.
4 Numerical examples
A software package has been developed to perform
the optimization as explained above. Three examples
are solved to demonstrate the efficiency of the devel-
oped program. These examples have been previously
designed by Emay International Eng. Cons. Co. (Emay
1998, 2004) and by Haytek International Eng. Cons. Co.
(Haytek 2004) and have been constructed in Turkey.
The discrete design variables are used in our software.
If continuous valued design variables had been selected
instead, it would have been impossible to calculate the
dimensions of the beam cross-section as integer values.
In the industry, the dimensions of the beam cross-
section are always integers—and often multiples of 5
or 10 cm. Also, the concrete strength is not chosen as a
design variable in this study, because in reality concrete
strength is normally pre-selected before the production
of prestressed concrete elements can begin.
The thickness of the slab for all of the examples
given below is constant since the chosen bridge girders
include pretensioned and prestressed concrete in adja-
cent, simply supported I section beams.
4.1 Example 1
This example was optimised several times with differ-
ent optimal design parameters to demonstrate the capa-
bilities of our software. The design parameters used for
the first attempt are listed below. The design variable
set for this example is listed in Table 2.
Length of span (L) 32.00 m
Width of deck (W) 10.00 m

Table 2 Design variable values sets for example 1

Design variable
Number of prestressed beam (nb )
Height of beam (hb )
Bottom flange width (b b )
Web thickness (b w )
Top flange thickness (tt )
Bottom flange thickness (tb )
Top sloped thickness ( pt )
Bottom sloped thickness ( pb )
Number of prestressing steel (nps )
Number of value Values
8 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
16 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 150
16 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105
8 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, 30, 35, 40
8 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25
8 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 28, 30, 35
8 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 25
8 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 25
16 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36
 Z. Aydın, Y. Ayvaz

Table 3 Optimal design parameters and penalized objective functions

Design Number of solution Length of solution Type of crossover Type of mutation Rate of Iteration number (x)
no in generation strings operator operator mutation
1 20 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% 168 151,204
2 30 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% 283 130,036
3 16 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% 74 139,007
4 26 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% 349 134,343
5 36 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% 323 117,560
6 40 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% No Convergence 132,713
7 46 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% No Convergence 123,980
8 50 30 Uniform Controlled 0.5% No Convergence 119,975
9 36 36 Uniform Controlled 0.4% 796 124,637
10 36 36 Uniform Controlled 0.3% 281 118,186
11 36 36 Single-point Controlled 0.3% 300 120,663
12 36 36 Two-point Controlled 0.3% 456 119,390
13 36 36 Uniform Standard 0.3% No Convergence 118,186
14 36 36 Uniform Hybrid 0.3% 141 122,473
15 36 36 Uniform No Mutation – 134 133,794

Width of motorway 8.00 m Thickness of coating 10 cm

Number of traffic lanes (NL ) 2 Thickness of sidewalk 30 cm
Thickness of slab 0.20 m Weight of parapet and precast 3 kg/cm
Compressive strength of slab 250 kg/cm2 Load due to pedestrian 0.03 kg/cm2
concrete ( fcs ) Average annual relative 40%
Modulus of elasticity of slab 302,500 kg/cm2 humidity (RH)
concrete (Ecs ) Truck load category H30-S24
Compressive strength of 400 kg/cm2 Necessary spacing between 6 cm

prestressed concrete ( fc ) prestressing steels
Modulus of elasticity of 345,500 kg/cm2 Diameter of web reinforcement 10 mm
prestressed concrete (Ec ) steels
Ultimate strength of 18,983 kg/cm2 Spacing between web reinforcement 10 cm

prestressing steel ( fs ) steels
Modulus of elasticity of 2,073,000 kg/cm2
prestressing steel (Es )
Yield strength of non- 4,200 kg/cm2 In addition to the parameters given in Table 2, the
prestressed reinforcement ( fsy ) convergence criterion is taken as 60%, the maximum
Unit cost of prestressed 650 TL/m3 (TL: number of iterations is 1,000, and the violation factor
concrete (UCpc ) Turkish Lira) is 1.1. The effects of these design parameters on the
Unit cost of prestressing steel 7,000 TL/t optimum solution can be seen in Table 3.
(UCps ) As can be seen from Table 3, the best solution comes
Distance between top flanges 7.77 cm from design 5. The values of the design variables and
of girders (F) the cost function for this design are listed in Table 4.
Distance between slab and girder 0 Table 4 also shows the comparison of our results with
Diameter of reinforcing 15.24 mm the one of the real life project. The cross-sections of the
steel (dps ) bridge superstructure and of the prestressed beam are
Unit weight of concrete 2.5 t/m3 given in Fig. 5 for the application project and for the
Unit weight of coating 2.4 t/m3 best solution as provided by the GA.

Table 4 Values of design variables and cost function for the real life project and for the solution of this study
Design nb hb (cm) bb (cm) bw (cm) tt (cm) tb (cm) pt (cm) pb (cm) nps C
Real life project 10 125 75 20 10.7 16 7.3 8 25 158,215
This study 8 150 70 15 8 18 5 5 22 117,560
Optimum topology and shape design of prestressed concrete bridge girders using a genetic algorithm

Fig. 5 Cross-section of bridge

superstructure for a the real
life project and for b the best
solution obtained in this study

(a) The real life project

(b) The best solution obtained in this study

As can be seen from Table 4, the solution obtained of the prestressed beam is 75 cm. The design variable
in this study is 25% more economical than the one of value sets for this example are listed in Table 5.
the real life project. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the
number of beams at the bridge superstructure cross- Length of span (L) 14.725 m
section obtained in this study is less than the one for Width of deck (W) 9.00 m
the real life project. The variation of the penalized ob- Width of motorway 7.00 m
jective function average value according to the iteration Distance between top flanges of girders (F) 7.5 cm
number for the first design is illustrated in Fig. 6. Unit weight of coating 2.4 t/m3

The optimal design parameters for this example are:

4.2 Example 2
Number of solutions per generation 30
Length of solution strings 30
The design parameters that differ from those of the first
Type of crossover operator Uniform
example are listed below. All the other parameters are
Type of mutation operator Controlled
the same ones as those of the first example. This bridge
Rate of mutation 0.4%
is constructed in an urban area, so the maximum height
Convergence criterion 60%
Maximum number of iterations 1,000
Violation factor 1.5
2000000 The required convergence for the optimum design
1800000
is reached by the 342nd iteration. The design variable
values and the cost function of the optimum solution
1600000
are given in Table 6, which also compares our results
penalized objective function

1400000 with the ones of the real life project. The cross-section
of the bridge superstructure and of the prestressed
1200000
beam are given in Fig. 7 for the real life project and
1000000 for the solution obtained in this study.
As can be seen from Table 6, the solution obtained
800000
in this study is 28% more economical than the one of
600000 the real life project. As confirmed by Fig. 7, the number
400000 of beams at the bridge superstructure cross-section in
this study is fewer than the one for the real life project.
200000

0 4.3 Example 3
100

120
140

160
180

200

220

240

260

280
20

40

60

80
0

iteration number
In this example, the chosen bridge superstructure is
Fig. 6 Variation of the penalized objective function value for the optimized twice. First, the number of prestressed beams
first design at the bridge superstructure cross-section is maintained
 Z. Aydın, Y. Ayvaz

Table 5 Design variable value sets for example 2

Design variable
Number of prestressed beam (nb )
Height of beam (hb )
Bottom flange width (b b )
Web thickness (b w )
Top flange thickness (tt )
Bottom flange thickness (tb )
Top sloped thickness ( pt )
Bottom sloped thickness ( pb )
Number of prestressing steel (nps )
Number of value Values
8 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
8 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75
16 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100
8 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22.5, 25
8 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.5, 20
8 15, 17.5, 20, 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 35
8 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12.5, 15
8 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12.5, 15
32 2, 3, 4, 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

Table 6 Values of design variables and cost function for the real life project and for the solution of this study
Design nb hb (cm) bb (cm) bw (cm) tt (cm) tb (cm) pt (cm) pb (cm) nps C
Real life project 11 75 75 20 10 15 12.5 7.5 8 46,028
This study 8 75 65 15 10 15 5 5 10 33,080

Fig. 7 Cross-section of the

bridge superstructure for
a the real life project and
for b the solution obtained
in this study
(a) The real life project

(b) Solution obtained in this study

Table 7 Design variable value sets for example 3

Design variable
Height of beam (hb )
Bottom flange width (b b )
Web thickness (b w )
Top flange thickness (tt )
Bottom flange thickness (tb )
Top sloped thickness ( pt )
Bottom sloped thickness ( pb )
Number of prestressing steel (nps )
Number of value Values
16 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 150, 155, 160
16 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100
8 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22.5, 25
8 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.5, 20
8 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50
8 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12.5, 15
8 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12.5, 15
32 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

Table 8 Values of design variables and cost functions for the real life project and for the solutions obtained in this study
Design nb hb (cm) bb (cm) bw (cm) tt (cm) tb (cm) pt (cm) pb (cm) nps C
Real life project 11 120 75 20 10 18 8 10 24 101,781
This study (number of beams is fixed) 11 125 40 15 10 35 5 5 21 82,907
This study (number of beams 7 140 65 18 10 25 5 5 29 75,941
is variable)
Optimum topology and shape design of prestressed concrete bridge girders using a genetic algorithm

Fig. 8 Cross-section of the

bridge superstructure for
a the real life project and
for b, c solutions obtained
in this study
(a) The real life project

(b) Solution obtained in this study

(The number of beams is fixed)

(c) Solution obtained in this study

(The number of beams is variable)

equal to the one of the real life project in order to in- tion for the optimum solution are listed in Table 8 by
vestigate the effects of the other design variables on the comparing our results with the ones of the real life
optimal design. Secondly, the number of prestressed project. The cross-sections of the bridge superstructure
beams at the bridge superstructure cross-section is and the prestressed beam are given in Fig. 8 for the
taken as the design variable. The design parameters real life project and for both solutions obtained in this
that differ from those of the first example are given be- study.
low. The other design parameters used are the same as As can be seen from Table 8, the solution reached
the ones of the first example. The design variable values by the GA is 19% more economical than the one of
for the eight design variables are listed in Table 7. the real life project if the number of prestressed beams
at the bridge superstructure cross-section is kept to
Length of span (L) 27.70 m be equal to the one of the real life project. As can
Width of deck (W) 12.00 m also be seen from Table 8, the solution reached by
Width of motorway 9.50 m the GA is 25% more economical than the one of the
Number of traffic lanes (N L ) 3 real life project if the number of prestressed beams at
Thickness of slab 0.21 m the bridge superstructure cross-section is taken as the
Distance between top flanges of girders (F) 4.5 cm design variable. This result suggests that it is important
Distance between slab and girder 1 cm to consider the number of beams a design variable,
Unit weight of coating 2.0 t/m3 in addition to the cross-sectional shape parameters, in
order to reach a more economical solution.
The optimal design parameters for this example are:
As can be seen from Fig. 8b, the number of beams at
Number of solutions in a single 30 the bridge superstructure cross-section obtained in this
generation study is fewer than the one of the real life project if the
Length of solution strings 28 number of prestressed beams at the bridge superstruc-
Type of crossover operator Uniform ture cross-section is taken as the design variable.
Type of mutation operator Controlled
Rate of mutation 0.4%
Convergence criterion 60%
Maximum number of iterations 1,000 5 Conclusions
Violation factor 1.5.
The aim of this study was to optimize the cost of a
The required convergence is obtained by the 356th prestressed concrete I-beam bridge superstructure by
iteration. The design variable values and the cost func- using a genetic algorithm. It is concluded that our

GA-driven software can be used to efficiently optimize
the shape and the topology of prestressed concrete
bridge girders. In addition, the following conclusions
can be drawn from this study:
• KM:17 + 088.000 üst geçit köprüsü üst yapı uygulama projesi
The solution obtained by the proposed GA is up to
28% more economical than the real life project.
• In this study, various crossover and mutation types
are used. The best solutions are obtained by using a
uniform crossover and a controlled mutation.
• In addition to the beam cross-section, it is impor-
tant to include the number of prestressed beams
at the bridge superstructure cross-section as a de-
sign variable in order to obtain a more economical
solution.
• Constraints can easily be adapted to the problem
using a GA penalty function and design variable
value sets.
• It is difficult to solve topological and shape opti-
mization problems at the same time by using clas-
sical optimization methods, but they can be easily
solved with a GA.
• The solutions reached by the GA are realistic and
constructible without modification because of the
use of discrete design variables and a probable
design variable value sets.
References
AASHTO (2002) Standard specifications for highway bridges.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC
Ayvaz Y, Aydın Z (2000) Optimum design of trusses using a ge-
netic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the second international
conference on engineering using metaphors from nature.
Leuven, Belgium, pp 159–168
Chon MZ, Lounis Z (1994) Optimal design of structural concrete
bridge systems. J Struct Eng-ASCE 120(9):2653–2674
Daloğlu A, Aydın Z (1999) Kafes sistemlerin uygulamaya yöne-
lik optimum tasarımı (in Turkish). Mühend Bilim Der 5(1):
951–957
Emay International Eng.Cons.Co. (1998) Uzunçayır Barajı
Varyantı yolu Dinar Köprüsü uygulama projesi hesapları
(in Turkish). İstanbul, Turkey
Z. Aydın, Y. Ayvaz
Emay International Eng.Cons.Co. (2004) Edirnekapı kavþak
köprüleri Köprü-4 uygulama projesi hesapları (in Turkish).
İstanbul, Turkey
Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization
and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, New York
Haytek International Eng. Cons. Co. (2004) O-1 Otoyolu
hesapları, İstanbul, Turkey
Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Jenkins WM (1992) Plane frame optimum design environ-
ment based on genetic algorithm. J Struct Eng-ASCE
118(11):3103–3112
Jones HL (1985) Minimum cost prestressed concrete beam de-
sign. J Struct Eng-ASCE 111(11):2464–2478
Kameshki ES, Saka MP (2001) Optimal design of nonlinear steel
frames with semi-rigid connections using a genetic algo-
rithm. Comput Struct 79:1593–1604
Lewinski T, Rozvany GIN (2007a) Exact analytical solutions for
some popular benchmark problems in topology optimization
II: three-sided polygonal supports. Struct Multidiscipl Optim
33:337–349
Lewinski T, Rozvany GIN (2007b) Exact analytical solutions for
some popular benchmark problems in topology optimization
III: L-shaped domains. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 35:165–174
Lounis Z, Cohn MZ (1993) Optimization of precast prestressed
concrete bridge girder systems. PCI J 38(4):60–78
Lounis Z, Mirza MS, Cohn MZ (1997) Segmental and conven-
tional precast prestressed concrete I-bridge girders. J Bridge
Eng 2(3):73–82
Naaman AE (1982) Prestressed concrete analysis and design fun-
damentals. McGraw-Hill, New York
Rajaev S, Krishnamoorthy CS (1992) Discrete optimization of
structures using genetic algorithms. J Struct Eng-ASCE
118(5):1233–1250
Rajaev S, Krishnamoorthy CS (1998) Genetic algorithm-based
methodology for design of reinforced concrete frames.
Comput-Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 13:63–74
Rozvany GIN (2008) A critical review of established methods of
structural topology optimization. Struct Multidiscipl Optim.
doi:10.1007/s00158-007-0217-0
Rozvany GIN, Querin OM, Lógó J, Pomezanski V (2006) Exact
analytical theory of topology optimization with some pre-
existing members or elements. Struct Multidiscipl Optim
31:373–377
Sarma KC, Adeli H (2000) Fuzzy discrete multicriteria cost
optimization of steel structures. J Struct Eng-ASCE
126(11):1339–1347
Sirca GF, Adeli H (2005) Cost optimization of prestressed con-
crete bridges. J Struct Eng-ASCE 131(3):380–388
Totres GGB, Brotchie JF, Cornell CA (1966) A program for
the optimum design of prestressed concrete highway bridges.
PCI J 11(3):63–71
Yu CH, Das GNC, Paul H (1986) Optimization of prestressed
concrete bridge girders. Eng Optim 10(1):13–24