Optimization Methods in Structural

Design 1st Edition Alan Rothwell

(Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/optimization-methods-in-structural-design-1st-edition-
alan-rothwell-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Topology Design Methods for Structural Optimization

Osvaldo M. Querin

https://textbookfull.com/product/topology-design-methods-for-
structural-optimization-osvaldo-m-querin/

Topology Design Methods for Structural Optimization

Osvaldo M. Querin Professor

https://textbookfull.com/product/topology-design-methods-for-
structural-optimization-osvaldo-m-querin-professor/

Advances in Structural Engineering—Optimization:

Emerging Trends in Structural Optimization Sinan Melih
Nigdeli

https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-structural-
engineering-optimization-emerging-trends-in-structural-
optimization-sinan-melih-nigdeli/

Multiscale Structural Topology Optimization 1st Edition

Liang Xia

https://textbookfull.com/product/multiscale-structural-topology-
optimization-1st-edition-liang-xia/
Advanced Methods in Structural Biology 1st Edition
Toshiya Senda

https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-methods-in-structural-
biology-1st-edition-toshiya-senda/

Advanced Perl Programming 1st Edition William "Bo"

Rothwell [Rothwell

https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-perl-programming-1st-
edition-william-bo-rothwell-rothwell/

Optimization methods in finance Second Edition

Cornuejols

https://textbookfull.com/product/optimization-methods-in-finance-
second-edition-cornuejols/

Optimization Methods in Finance Gerard Cornuéjols

https://textbookfull.com/product/optimization-methods-in-finance-
gerard-cornuejols/

Structural Renovation of Buildings: Methods, Details,

and Design Examples 2nd Edition Alexander Newman

https://textbookfull.com/product/structural-renovation-of-
buildings-methods-details-and-design-examples-2nd-edition-
alexander-newman/
Solid Mechanics and Its Applications

Alan Rothwell

Optimization
Methods in
Structural
Design
Solid Mechanics and Its Applications

Volume 242

Series editors
J.R. Barber, Ann Arbor, USA
Anders Klarbring, Linköping, Sweden

Founding editor
G.M.L. Gladwell, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Aims and Scope of the Series

The fundamental questions arising in mechanics are: Why?, How?, and How much?
The aim of this series is to provide lucid accounts written by authoritative
researchers giving vision and insight in answering these questions on the subject of
mechanics as it relates to solids.
The scope of the series covers the entire spectrum of solid mechanics. Thus it
includes the foundation of mechanics; variational formulations; computational
mechanics; statics, kinematics and dynamics of rigid and elastic bodies: vibrations
of solids and structures; dynamical systems and chaos; the theories of elasticity,
plasticity and viscoelasticity; composite materials; rods, beams, shells and
membranes; structural control and stability; soils, rocks and geomechanics;
fracture; tribology; experimental mechanics; biomechanics and machine design.
The median level of presentation is to the first year graduate student. Some texts
are monographs defining the current state of the field; others are accessible to final
year undergraduates; but essentially the emphasis is on readability and clarity.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6557

Alan Rothwell

Optimization Methods
in Structural Design

123
Alan Rothwell
Formerly Delft University of Technology
Delft
The Netherlands

Additional material to this book can be downloaded from http://extras.springer.com.

ISSN 0925-0042 ISSN 2214-7764 (electronic)

Solid Mechanics and Its Applications
ISBN 978-3-319-55196-8 ISBN 978-3-319-55197-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-55197-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017933063

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Microsoft and Excel are registered trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation.
ESDU is a registered trademark of ESDU International Limited.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my wife, Janette, for her love, support and
patience, and to our four children, Katherine,
Sarah, Rachel and Paul.
Preface

The aim of this book is to present numerical optimization methods in structural

design to students in engineering courses at final undergraduate level or in the first
year of a postgraduate study. For others in industry or elsewhere who may be new
to these highly practical techniques, the book can bridge the gap between familiar
design practice and some of the advanced texts on optimization theory. While the
specific application is to structural design, the principles involved can be applied far
more widely. A ‘how to do it’ approach is followed throughout the book, with less
emphasis at this stage on mathematical derivations. Extensive use is made of the
‘Solver’ optimization tool in Microsoft Excel1, because of its ready availability.
This provides an ideal means of illustrating the methods presented, how to set up an
optimization problem and to demonstrate the usefulness of optimization techniques
in general. With practice in the use of Solver, use of optimization modules in more
extensive computer packages should present little difficulty.
The spreadsheet programs provided with this book are, in the earlier chapters,
principally illustrations of optimization methods. In later chapters, these are of a
more practical nature, in particular for reinforced shell structures and for the design
of composite laminates. These topics are chosen to reflect the ever-increasing
demand for lightweight structures in many branches of engineering. Weight
reduction is not only to reduce operational costs, but also to offset the high cost of
many modern, high-performance metallic materials and composites. Detailed
instructions are given for use of the spreadsheets and on the use of Solver.
Exercises, with solutions where appropriate, are provided with each chapter, many
of them making some other use of Solver or further use of the spreadsheets. These
are intended to give practice in setting up an optimization problem and generally to
explore the characteristics of the optimization process. Many of the examples in the
book, throughout the text and in the spreadsheets, will be seen to have a distinct
aerospace flavour, this being simply a reflection of the author’s main field of work
over many years.

1
Microsoft and Excel are registered trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation.

vii
viii Preface

The early chapters of the book show the relationship between formal optimization
and the traditional methods of design, it not being the intention to replace existing
methods but rather to supplement them with an additional weapon in the armoury
of the designer. Strength-to-weight ratios, limits of feasibility and the concept of
structural efficiency are discussed. Classical optimization is then introduced, together
with the Lagrange multiplier, fundamental to the discussion of numerical optimiza-
tion methods in the following chapters. Numerical methods are introduced in suffi-
cient detail to enable the reader to appreciate the processes taking place in some of the
highly sophisticated ‘black box’ optimization routines in advanced computer pack-
ages. It is not the intention to describe these numerical methods in the detail necessary
to enable the reader to program them efficiently, this being a task primarily for the
programming specialist. The generalized reduced gradient method and the genetic
algorithm, two of the methods available in Solver, are given due attention, the latter in
a later chapter in the context of composite laminates. The remaining chapters of the
book are devoted to applications—reinforced shell structures, with the design of a box
beam and an aircraft fuselage section, as well as some extended discussion of the
design of composite laminates. For these topics, relevant methods of analysis are
covered in sufficient detail before proceeding to specific optimization problems and
spreadsheet programs for their solution. Composite laminates are of particular interest
because of the special problem introduced by the discrete nature of the individual plies
of the laminate and because of the freedom to optimize the lay-up to match the
application. A final chapter is given to optimization with finite element analysis, for
which some special methods are necessary.
The level of knowledge required to follow the text is no more than in a usual
engineering course. No specific demands are made, and the text should remain
largely accessible to those from other disciplines, sufficient information being given
‘to proceed from this point’. However, it is assumed that the reader already has a
working knowledge of Microsoft Excel, with some Visual Basic, and also is familiar
with matrix notation. With a less mathematical bias, he might in the first place go
rather superficially over Chaps. 4 and 5 and with no experience of finite element
methods might be tempted to miss Chap. 9. No attempt is made at completeness in
the book, but rather to provide a sound understanding of basic principles and a good
start for further study. For this, a list of further reading is included (reflecting perhaps
more the author’s personal choice). Specific reference to research papers is limited to
where this is of particular relevance. For a more comprehensive reference list, the
reader should turn to the several excellent, more advanced books on optimization
theory included amongst the references at the end of each chapter.
This book is based on lectures given at Delft University of Technology in the
Netherlands, while the author was professor of aircraft structures. He hopes that the
reader will enjoy a study of optimization methods as much as he has and will be
able to put them to good use in further study and engineering practice.

Delft, The Netherlands Alan Rothwell

Contents

1 The Conventional Design Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Fully Stressed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Structure Made of Different Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1.2 Structure Under Alternative Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2 Strength-to-weight Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.1 Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3 Comparison of Layouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3.1 Classification of Optimization Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4 Spreadsheet Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4.1 ‘Seven-Bar Truss’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2 Optimality Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.1 Circular Tube in Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.1.1 Efficiency Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1.2 Material Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2 Criterion for Maximum Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3 Spreadsheet Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3.1 ‘Circular and Square Tubes’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3.2 ‘Truss with Tubular Members’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3 The General Optimization Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1 Box Beam Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.1.1 General Form of Design Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

ix
x Contents

3.2 The Lagrange Multiplier Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.2.1 Interpretation of Lagrange Multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.3 Inequality Constrained Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.3.1 The Kuhn–Tucker Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.4 Spreadsheet Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.4.1 Eccentrically Loaded Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4 Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.1 Unconstrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.1.1 Steepest Descent Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1.2 Fletcher–Reeves Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.1.3 Quasi–Newton Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.2 Line Search Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.2.1 Region Elimination and the Golden Section Method. . . . . . 95
4.2.2 Polynomial Interpolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.3 Spreadsheet Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.3.1 ‘Hooke and Jeeves Method’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5 Numerical Methods for Constrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.1 Constraint-Following Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.1.1 Gradient Projection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.1.2 Generalized Reduced Gradient Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.1.3 Other Methods for Constrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.1.4 Substitution of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.2 Penalty Function Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.2.1 Interior Penalty Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.2.2 Exterior Penalty Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.2.3 Augmented Lagrangian Penalty Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.3 Spreadsheet Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.3.1 ‘Penalty Function Method’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6 Optimization of Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.1 Beam Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.1.1 Thin-Walled Beams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.1.2 Geometrically Similar Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Contents xi

6.2 Optimum Spanwise Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

6.2.1 Statically Determinate Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.2.2 Statically Indeterminate Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
6.3 Limit Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.3.1 Yield Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
6.3.2 Limit Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.4 Spreadsheet Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.4.1 ‘I-Section Beam’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
6.4.2 ‘Beam Under Lateral Load’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
7 Reinforced Shell Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
7.1 Bending Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7.1.1 Effect of Yielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
7.1.2 Modelling of Discrete Stiffeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.2 Shear Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7.2.1 Torsional Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
7.2.2 von Mises Criterion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
7.3 Buckling Formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
7.3.1 Buckling in Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
7.3.2 Buckling in Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
7.3.3 Efficiency Formula for a Compression Panel. . . . . . . . . . . . 210
7.3.4 Shear Web Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
7.3.5 Post-buckled Shear Webs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
7.4 Spreadsheet Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7.4.1 ‘Stiffened Panel’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7.4.2 ‘Rectangular Box Beam’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.4.3 ‘Circular Fuselage Section’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
8 Composite Laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
8.1 Lamination Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
8.1.1 Transformed Stiffness Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
8.1.2 Laminate Stiffness Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
8.1.3 Failure Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
8.1.4 Change in Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
8.1.5 Practical Restrictions on Lay-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
8.2 Laminate Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
8.2.1 Netting Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
8.2.2 Iterative Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
xii Contents

8.2.3 Numerical Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

8.2.4 Genetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
8.3 Spreadsheet Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
8.3.1 ‘Composite Laminate’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
8.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
9 Optimization With Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
9.1 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
9.2 Reduction in Design Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
9.3 Spreadsheet Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
9.3.1 ‘Design Variable Linking’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
9.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Recommended Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Solutions to Selected Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Principal Notation

A Laminate stiffness matrix

A Cross-sectional area
A0 Enclosed area
As Stiffener area
s
A Effective stiffener area
a Side of a square-section beam
B Width of a rectangular box structure
b Width of a square tube
Width of a beam
Stiffener spacing
Search interval
C Shape efficiency for a beam
Coefficient for the equivalent thickness of a panel
D Dimension of a truss
d Diameter of a circular tube
Stiffener spacing on a shear web
E Elastic modulus
Es Secant modulus
Et Tangent modulus
e Eccentricity of applied load on a column
F Force in a member of a truss
F(x) Penalty function
F(x, k) Lagrangian function
f Force vector
f(x) Objective function
G Shear modulus
gj(x) Inequality constraint (j = 1 … m)
H Height of a truss
Height of a rectangular box structure
h Vector of dummy loads
h Height of a beam

xiii
xiv Principal Notation

Stiffener height
Height of a shear web
hk(x) Equality constraint (k = 1 … p)
I Second moment of area
K Stiffness matrix
K Buckling coefficient
K0 Theoretical buckling coefficient for a circular cylinder
KF Flexural buckling coefficient
k Torsional stiffness
L Span of a truss
Length of a column
Span of a beam
Length of a panel
Number of layers in a laminate
l Length of a member of a truss
M Bending moment
Mass
Me Elastic bending moment
My Yield moment
m Number of inequality constraints
Index in the Ramberg–Osgood formula
N Vector of in-plane forces per unit width
n Number of design variables
Coefficient depending on the layout of a truss
Number of plies at a given angle h
ng Coefficient for geometrically similar beams
nh Coefficient for beams with a height limitation
P Applied load
PE Euler buckling load
PL Local buckling load
p Number of equality constraints
Loading intensity
Q Ply stiffness matrix

Q Transformed stiffness matrix
Q Shear force
q Shear flow
R Radius of a tube
Restraint force
r Penalty parameter
S Ply strength in shear
s Vector of components of the search direction si
s Stress in netting analysis
si Components of the search direction (i = 1 … n)
T Transformation matrix
Principal Notation xv

T Twisting moment
t Thickness
t Equivalent thickness
tk Layer thickness
tply Ply thickness
ts Stiffener thickness
u Displacement vector
V Volume of material
W Weight
Wk Weight expressed in kilogram
X Ply strength in the fibre direction
x Vector of design variables xi
xi Design variables (i = 1 … n)
Y Ply strength in the transverse direction

a Parameter in the line search

Coefficient of thermal expansion
b Post-buckling ratio
c Shear strain
d Deflection
Displacement in a collapse mode
e Strain
η Efficiency
h Angle of a member of a truss
Rate of twist
Fibre angle (anticlockwise from the laminate x-axis)
k Vector of Lagrange multipliers kk
kk Lagrange multipliers (k = 1 … p)
l Parameter for the stiffeners on a shear web
l ¼ 1  m12 m21 for a composite laminate
m Poisson’s ratio
q Density
qw Specific weight
r Tensile or compressive stress
r0 Allowable stress
r2 0.2% proof stress
rb Buckling stress in compression
rc Allowable compressive stress
rE Euler buckling stress
req von Mises equivalent stress
rF Flexural buckling stress
rL Local buckling stress
rR Reference stress in the Ramberg–Osgood formula
xvi Principal Notation

rt Allowable tensile stress

ry Yield stress
s Shear stress
Constant in the golden section method
s0 Equivalent shear stress
sb Shear buckling stress
u Penalty term

Matrices and vector quantities are written in bold, e.g. T is the transformation
matrix, and x is the vector of design variables xi .
An ‘asterisk’ denotes an optimum value, e.g. x1* is the optimum value of x1.
rf Gradient of a function fhðxÞ
kyk pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
Modulus of a vector y ¼ y21 þ y22 þ   
½ 1 Matrix inverse
½ T Matrix transpose

Other notation is introduced locally in the text where it occurs.

Notation for the lay-up of a composite laminate:

 
452 =ð90=0Þ2 S
¼ ½ þ 45=  45= þ 45=  45=90=0=90=0=
0=90=0=90=  45= þ 45=  45= þ 45 

(S = symmetric)
A ‘bar’ denotes a layer on the middle-plane:

½45=0S ¼ ½45=  45=0=  45=45

 
actual strength
Margin of safety is defined as: required strength  1 ð  0Þ
Chapter 1
The Conventional Design Process

Abstract The characteristics of the conventional design process, implying repeated

analysis of a structure and resizing of its members until a satisfactory design is
obtained, is illustrated by means of some simple truss structures. In this process, it is
implicitly assumed that by satisfying as closely as possible all requirements placed on
the design this will lead to the ‘best’ design. In terms of the maximum stress in the
members, this is the well-known principle of the fully stressed design. Effective as
this method often is, common situations are identified where this does not lead to an
optimum, minimum weight design. Furthermore, the process may be very slowly
convergent, in addition to which it offers no help when conditions other than a simple
maximum stress apply or, for example, with the optimum shape of a structure.
Minimum weight implies economy of material as well as operational savings directly
related to reduction in weight. All this provides justification for the formal opti-
mization methods in the remaining chapters of this book. While this chapter is
concerned only with truss structures, conclusions reached can, in principle, be taken
to apply more widely to the optimization of many other types of structure.
A spreadsheet program for the numerical optimization of a simple seven-bar truss
provides a first introduction to use of the Solver optimization tool in Microsoft Excel.

The principal aim of structural design is to produce a structure which can carry the
loads on it from where they are applied to where the structure is supported and to do
this in an efficient way. By ‘efficient’ is meant here with the least use of material,
implying at the same time a structure of minimum weight. Economy of material is,
of course, only one aspect of reducing cost, but in many cases reducing weight also
makes a substantial contribution to reducing manufacturing, transport and opera-
tional costs. Specific requirements imposed on a design relate in the first place to
the necessary strength of a structure under load, but in practice they are likely also
to include limits on deformation and many other requirements such as those
referring to fatigue or resistance to accidental damage. With reducing weight, a
structure inevitably becomes thinner and more slender, leading eventually to
buckling of the structure or of its individual components. Buckling is frequently one
of the prime considerations in the design of a lightweight structure.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

A. Rothwell, Optimization Methods in Structural Design, Solid Mechanics
and Its Applications 242, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-55197-5_1
2 1 The Conventional Design Process

A structure designed for minimum weight is commonly designed in one of two

ways: either as a shell structure, such as a box beam or some similar form of
structure, or as one of many different types of truss structure consisting of a lattice
of individual bars. In a shell structure, if it is relatively thin, reinforcement is
generally required to support the shell and delay buckling, or in other words to
enable a satisfactory stress level to be reached in the structure. In the box beam in
Fig. 1.1, stiffeners are placed along the length of the beam to break up its width into
smaller, more buckling-resistant panels and transverse stiffeners are placed on the
side walls. Diaphragms are placed at intervals along the length to assist in trans-
mitting load into the structure. In a truss structure, such as in Fig. 1.2, the material
is concentrated into more compact, thicker members, resulting in better buckling
resistance of the individual bars forming the truss, but with the added complexity of
the joints between them.
The wing and fuselage of an aircraft are well-known examples of a box beam
(albeit of entirely different shape but working in essentially the same way), while
more examples abound in a wide variety of applications. Examples of truss
structures can be found in many different branches of engineering, such as in
bridges, cranes, roof structures, space vehicles and countless other structures. The
optimization of a typical box beam will be considered in some detail in a later
chapter. But before proceeding to formal optimization methods and related
numerical procedures in the remaining chapters of this book, a simple truss
structure is chosen in the present chapter to explore first the characteristics of what

Fig. 1.1 Box beam structure

(main structure of an aircraft
wing)

Fig. 1.2 Section of a typical

truss structure
1 The Conventional Design Process 3

we shall refer to as the conventional design process. This will enable us better to
understand the role of optimization in design and its relationship with traditional
methods.
Conventional engineering design typically involves the repeated analysis and
modification of an initial concept until what is considered to be a satisfactory design
emerges. At each stage, the properties of the design are evaluated and compared
with the specified requirements. Appropriate changes are made in an attempt to
match the requirements as closely as possible. Precisely how this is done depends
on the nature of the design, but invariably a change in some aspect of a design to
meet a particular requirement influences the extent to which other requirements are
met. The process has therefore to be repeated, perhaps many times, until further
changes are sufficiently small. It is implicitly assumed that a design that just sat-
isfies as many of the requirements as possible is in some sense the ‘best’ design.
This is what is meant above by the conventional design process.
As already stated, a simple truss structure is used to illustrate the iterative design
process described above. The assumption is made that resizing the members of a
truss to just satisfy the required stress limits will result in a minimum weight design,
at least when only strength requirements are considered. This means adjusting the
cross-sectional area of all members until the maximum allowable stress is reached
in each of them. This is the well-known principle of the fully stressed design. The
validity of this principle—or situations under which a fully stressed design may not
lead to a true optimum—is explored in the present chapter. At the same time, we
can study the manner in which the fully stressed design procedure converges to a
final design, whether or not this is a true optimum. The strength-to-weight ratios of
some different layouts of truss structure are compared. From this, we can go on to
the fundamental question of feasibility—what, for example, is the longest possible
truss structure if supported at each end and required to be just able to carry only its
own weight?

1.1 Fully Stressed Design

Consider a two-dimensional truss structure, such as the symmetric truss in Fig. 1.3,
under a single applied load at mid-span. Note that the chosen truss is statically
indeterminate and, as commonly assumed, its members are pin-jointed to their
adjacent members at the nodes. All members are of the same material. Being
statically indeterminate, the forces Fi in the members of the truss are not a simple
function of the applied load but depend on the stiffness, in this case the
cross-sectional areas Ai , of all the members. Forces Fi can be calculated by finite
element analysis, or by a strain energy calculation (see, e.g., [1, 2] or [3]). A simple,
iterative redesign procedure to minimize the weight of the truss is as follows.
Starting from some chosen set of areas Ai and the corresponding forces Fi , calculate
the stress ri in each member. Resize each member so that the stress in it, under the
previously calculated force, is made equal to the allowable stress r0 of the material.
4 1 The Conventional Design Process

Fig. 1.3 Simply supported

4
truss loaded at mid-span (also
showing numbering of the 5
members) 7 6 1
2
45
8 3

After all areas Ai have been increased or decreased as necessary, the forces Fi in the
statically indeterminate truss are recalculated, and the process is repeated. This can
be represented as follows:

where A0i denotes the new value to replace the old one. For example, if the stress ri
in one of the members is precisely twice the allowable stress r0 , the new area A0i
must be made twice the previous Ai , and if ri is one-half of r0 , then A0i can be
reduced to one-half of Ai . This process is continued until sufficiently converged,
that is, until there is practically no further change in areas Ai and the stress in every
member is equal to the allowable stress r0 .
The outcome of this procedure for the chosen truss is shown in Fig. 1.4. The
individual members are not identified in this figure, but it is seen that some
members increase in area and others decrease, in some cases after an initial step in
the other direction. The sequence of iterations is shown in more detail in Table 1.1.
The area of the members has been non-dimensionalized by dividing by P=2r0 , and

Fig. 1.4 Progressive changes

in member areas Ai at each
iteration for the truss in
Fig. 1.3
Ai

iteration
1.1 Fully Stressed Design 5

Table 1.1 Iteration history for the truss in Fig. 1.3

Iteration Cross-sectional areas Weight
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
P=2r0 P=2r0 P=2r0 P=2r0 P=2r0 P=2r0 P=2r0 P=2r0

0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1 0.718 0.906 1.359 1.641 0.508 0.359 1.414 1.000 0.997
2 0.462 1.087 1.231 1.769 0.327 0.231 1.414 1.000 0.968
3 0.274 1.220 1.137 1.863 0.194 0.137 1.414 1.000 0.946
4 0.153 1.306 1.076 1.924 0.108 0.076 1.414 1.000 0.933
5 0.081 1.357 1.041 1.959 0.057 0.041 1.414 1.000 0.924
6 0.042 1.384 1.021 1.979 0.030 0.021 1.414 1.000 0.920
7 0.021 1.399 1.011 1.989 0.015 0.011 1.414 1.000 0.918
8 0.011 1.407 1.005 1.995 0.008 0.005 1.414 1.000 0.916
9 0.005 1.410 1.003 1.997 0.004 0.003 1.414 1.000 0.916
10 0.003 1.412 1.001 1.999 0.002 0.001 1.414 1.000 0.915

Fig. 1.5 Result of the iterative resizing procedure

initially, all members are chosen to have the same area. It is assumed throughout
this text that applied loads already include the necessary factor of safety or that the
allowable stress has been appropriately reduced. To eliminate the span of the truss
and the density of the material, the weight of the truss has been normalized to a
value of 1.0 at the start. The process has largely converged after 10 iterations, with
new member areas and a reduction in weight. The extent of this reduction depends,
of course, on the initial values chosen. Figure 1.5 shows the truss that results from
this procedure (also indicated by the thicker lines in Fig. 1.3). Certain members
have fallen away, leaving the statically determinate truss shown in the figure. Since
the objective has been to reach the maximum allowable stress in each member—the
principle of the fully stressed design—this is hardly surprising because for a stat-
ically determinate truss the forces in the members are independent of their
cross-sectional areas. In other words, members can then be sized individually,
according to the load in them, to ensure that each does reach the maximum stress.
Only if minimum values are imposed on some or all of the cross-sectional areas of
the members might other than a statically determinate structure be reached. In that
case, the members that have been reduced to their specified minimum areas will not
be fully stressed, and the final weight of the structure will, of course, be increased.
6 1 The Conventional Design Process

Fig. 1.6 ‘Partial structures’

derived from the truss in
Fig. 1.3

Further, it might be observed that if the iteration is terminated before fully con-
verged, some members of the truss will have a stress greater than the allowable
stress (i.e. those members increasing in area).
However, what is significant here is that the process has in this case managed to
converge to what is indeed the lightest statically determinate structure that can be
formed out of the original truss. Figure 1.6 shows two alternative such trusses. By
superimposing the two figures, the original truss is obtained. It is easily verified that
the left-hand structure (the one obtained by the iterative resizing process) is lighter
than the other one, if both are fully stressed, implying a more efficient load path.
The two structures in Fig. 1.6 are sometimes termed ‘partial structures’. Any
combination of the two partial structures will result in a structure with a weight
intermediate between the two (the distribution of load between the two partial
structures depending on matching their deflection at mid-span). The iterative pro-
cedure has therefore correctly selected the optimum, minimum weight structure.
That is, of course, not to say that an altogether different layout of truss would not be
more efficient. The advantage of starting with a statically indeterminate structure is,
of course, that this selection can be made, and in other words, the best load path is
chosen.
While this example demonstrates the effectiveness of the long established,
iterative design process, it should not be assumed that it will always converge to the
true optimum. Important situations exist where this may not occur, as will be seen
in the examples in the following two sections of this chapter. For the present, it
might be noted that the truss chosen here was of given layout, under a single load
case, and of the same material throughout. Furthermore, convergence can in some
cases be slow, requiring much repeated analysis (while this might, of course, be
accelerated by making larger, arbitrarily chosen, changes in areas Ai ). Also, it is
clear that the process does not aim directly to minimize weight, but simply to
achieve uniform stress throughout the structure, on the assumption that this does
indeed correspond to minimum weight. Finally, it might have been inferred from
above that a fully stressed design is necessarily statically determinate—in Sect. 1.3,
we shall see a simple, statically indeterminate truss that is nevertheless fully
stressed. However, such cases must be rare in more practical structures.
1.1 Fully Stressed Design 7

1.1.1 Structure Made of Different Materials

The truss structure studied in the previous section was made of a single material,
with the same allowable stress throughout. To explore now in how far the iterative,
fully stressed design approach does converge to the correct final result, we take the
classic problem of the three-bar truss shown in Fig. 1.7. Consider two cases:
(i) when all three bars are of the same material, and (ii) when the allowable stress of
the outer bars is less than that of the inner bar. In both cases, all three bars have the
same elastic modulus and density. By a simple strain energy calculation, formulae
for the stresses in the bars of the symmetric truss can be obtained as follows. In the
two outer bars:

P
r1 ¼ pffiffiffi ; ð1:1Þ
2A1 þ 2A2

and in the inner bar:

2P
r2 ¼ pffiffiffi : ð1:2Þ
2A1 þ 2A2

The volume of the structure is

 
pffiffiffi A2
V¼ 2A 1 þ L:
2

Taking P = 100 kN and L = 1000 mm, the iterative resizing procedure of the
previous section is followed in both cases, with the result given in Table 1.2.
It is seen that when all the bars are of the same material, the procedure converges
correctly to the expected design, in which the outer bars are gradually removed and
the whole load is taken by the inner bar (the obvious solution). However, in the
second case when the outer bars have a lower allowable stress, the result is quite

Fig. 1.7 Three-bar truss L

made of different materials

45

P
8 1 The Conventional Design Process

Table 1.2 Iterative resizing of the three-bar truss made of different materials in Fig. 1.7
r1max ¼ r2max ¼ 300 N=mm2 r1max ¼ 150 N=mm2
r2max ¼ 450 N=mm2
A1 (mm2) A2 (mm2) V/1000 (mm3) A1 (mm2) A2 (mm2) V/1000 (mm3)
100.0 100.0 191.4 100.0 100.0 191.4
97.6 195.3 235.7 195.3 130.2 341.2
61.6 246.3 210.2 242.6 107.8 397.1
35.4 283.3 191.7 289.5 85.8 452.2
19.1 306.3 180.2 332.2 65.6 502.6
10.0 319.2 173.7 368.5 48.5 545.4
5.1 326.1 170.3 397.4 34.9 579.4
2.6 329.7 168.5 419.3 24.5 605.3
1.3 331.5 167.6 435.4 17.0 624.2
0.6 332.4 167.1 446.8 11.6 637.6
0.3 332.9 166.9 454.7 7.9 647.0
0.2 333.1 166.8 460.1 5.3 653.4
0.1 333.2 166.7 463.8 3.6 657.7
0.0 333.3 166.7 466.3 2.4 660.7
0.0 333.3 166.7 468.0 1.6 662.7
0.0 333.3 166.7 469.1 1.1 664.0
0.0 333.3 166.7 469.9 0.7 664.9
0.0 333.3 166.7 470.4 0.5 665.5
0.0 333.3 166.7 470.7 0.3 665.9
0.0 333.3 166.7 471.0 0.2 666.1
0.0 333.3 166.7 471.4 0.0 666.7

different—the outer bars are now retained while the inner bar is removed. It is also
seen that the volume V of the structure is increasing, not reducing, with each
iteration, so in practice if would not be sensible to continue the iteration process
after the first few steps. But by proceeding until little or no further change occurs, it
becomes clear that an optimum truss has not been obtained, even though the
resulting structure is statically determinate and fully stressed. The explanation for
this behaviour in the second case is that the stress in the outer bars is necessarily
one-half of the stress in the inner bar, regardless of the values of A1 and A2 , as is
evident in Eqs. (1.1) and (1.2). Therefore, if the allowable stress of the outer bars is
less than one-half of the allowable stress of the inner bar, extra material will be
required in the outer bars at each iteration to avoid failure, in turn attracting more
load into those bars. On the other hand, if the allowable stress of the outer bars is
more than one-half of the allowable stress of the inner bar, the procedure converges
to the expected design with only the inner bar retained.
The example shows that an iterative redesign procedure cannot be guaranteed to
converge to the correct optimum design when the structure is made of different
materials, with different allowable stresses (a similar result for a 10-bar truss is
given by Haftka and Gurdal [4]. This applies just as much when the materials are of
1.1 Fully Stressed Design 9

different elastic modulus or different density, elastic modulus directly affecting the
load distribution in the structure and density affecting the contribution of each
member to the total weight. Although a very simple example has been chosen here,
a similar conclusion has to apply to any structure made of different materials.

1.1.2 Structure Under Alternative Loads

It will be recalled that the truss structure in Sect. 1.1 carried a single applied load, at
mid-span. However, any practical structure is likely to be subject to many different
load cases, with loads applied at different locations and at different times during its
use. To test the convergence of the iterative, fully stressed design approach for a
structure under different load cases, we take the same three-bar truss as in the
previous section, with all three bars of the same material, but now with obliquely
applied loads P1 or P2, as shown in Fig. 1.8 (this problem is discussed in the classic
review paper by Schmit [5]). Note that these loads are not applied at the same time.
The resulting structure is required, therefore, to be able to carry either load on its
own. To simplify the problem, we choose the two loads to be of equal magnitude:

P1 ¼ P2 ¼ P

so that the structure will be symmetric with area A3 ¼ A1 . We then have to consider
the stress in only one outer bar and the inner bar. Formulae for these stresses are
given below (these are again readily obtained by simple strain energy calculation).
In the left-hand outer bar (member 1) under load P1 :
pffiffiffi !
2A1 þ A2
r1 ¼ pffiffiffi 2 P; ð1:3Þ
2A1 þ 2A1 A2

and under load P2 :

Fig. 1.8 Three-bar truss L

under alternative loads
P1 or P2

45

P2 P1
10 1 The Conventional Design Process

!
A2
r1 ¼  pffiffiffi 2 P: ð1:4Þ
2A1 þ 2A1 A2

In the inner bar (member 2) under either load P1 or P2 :

pffiffiffi !
2A1
r2 ¼ pffiffiffi 2 P: ð1:5Þ
2A1 þ 2A1 A2

In the above formulae, P has been substituted for P1 or P2 as appropriate. The

volume of the structure is again:
 
pffiffiffi A2
V¼ 2A 1 þ L:
2

The same iterative resizing procedure as before is followed in Table 1.3. Note
that stress r1 is compressive (i.e. negative) under load P2 . However, since the loads
P1 and P2 have been chosen to be equal, and if the allowable compressive stress is
taken to be equal to the allowable tensile stress r0 , by comparing Eqs. (1.3) and
(1.4) we see that the compressive stress in member 1 can never be critical.
Equation (1.3) can then be used to resize member 1, and Eq. (1.5) for member 2.
The sequence of iterations is shown in Table 1.3, starting with A1 ¼ A2 ¼ 300
mm2, and taking P ¼ 100 kN, r0 ¼ 300 N/mm2 and L ¼ 1000 mm. The stress
ratios at each iteration are given in the last two columns of the table. It is seen that
after an initial decrease in volume at the first iteration (depending on the chosen
initial values of A1 and A2 ) the volume continues to increase. Convergence becomes
very slow as the iteration proceeds but, if followed towards the end, the design is
seen to be reducing to a two-bar, statically determinate structure, the inner bar being
eliminated and only the two outer bars carrying one or other of the two applied
loads. The volume of the fully stressed truss (in column 3 of the table) is finally:

V ¼ 471:4  103 mm3 :

While this may intuitively be considered a satisfactory result, the procedure has
not in fact converged to the minimum volume. Since the stress ratio r2 =r0 \1
throughout Table 1.3, the inner bar inevitably reduces in area at each iteration until
it disappears altogether. To avoid this, we choose a series of values of R ¼ A2 =A1 in
Table 1.4 and calculate the required volume of the truss at each R. This is done now
simply by scaling the structure to make the greater stress r1 equal to r0 . We see a
decrease in volume from R ¼ 0 (no inner bar) to a minimum V ¼ 439:8  103 at
R ¼ 0:5, followed by increase in volume to R ¼ 1:0. The above minimum volume
is in fact very close to the true optimum.
Significant now is that the optimum design is not in this case a statically
determinate structure, since all three bars are retained and that it is not fully stressed
1.1 Fully Stressed Design 11

Table 1.3 Iterative resizing A1 (mm2) A2 (mm2) V/1000 (mm3) r1 r2

r0 r0
of the three-bar truss under
alternative loads in Fig. 1.8 500.0 500.0 957.1 0.4714 0.2761
235.7 138.1 402.4 1.0938 0.7735
257.8 106.8 418.0 1.0541 0.8153
271.8 87.1 427.9 1.0353 0.8441
281.4 73.5 434.7 1.0249 0.8651
288.4 63.6 439.6 1.0185 0.8812
293.7 56.0 443.4 1.0143 0.8938
297.9 50.1 446.4 1.0114 0.9040
301.3 45.3 448.8 1.0093 0.9124
304.1 41.3 450.8 1.0077 0.9194
306.5 38.0 452.4 1.0065 0.9255
308.5 35.1 453.8 1.0056 0.9306
310.2 32.7 455.1 1.0048 0.9351
311.7 30.6 456.1 1.0042 0.9391
313.0 28.7 457.0 1.0037 0.9426
314.2 27.1 457.9 1.0033 0.9457
315.2 25.6 458.6 1.0030 0.9485
316.2 24.3 459.3 1.0027 0.9510
317.0 23.1 459.9 1.0024 0.9533
317.8 22.0 460.4 1.0022 0.9554
333.3 0.0 471.4 1.0 1.0

Table 1.4 Volume of the R A1 (mm2) A2 (mm2) V/1000 (mm3)

three-bar truss in Fig. 1.8 at
different values of ratio R 0 333.3 0.0 471.4
0.1 312.7 31.3 457.8
0.2 296.6 59.3 449.1
0.3 283.7 85.1 443.7
0.4 273.1 109.2 440.9
0.5 264.3 132.1 439.8
0.6 256.8 154.1 440.3
0.7 250.4 175.3 441.8
0.8 244.9 195.9 444.2
0.9 240.0 216.0 447.4
1.0 235.7 235.7 451.2

since the stress in the inner bar r2 \r0 under either P1 or P2 . The explanation for
this is that the tensile load in the inner bar makes a useful contribution to the load
carrying capacity of the truss in both load cases, while it accounts for only a
relatively small part of the total volume of the truss. However, a note of caution is
necessary here. While it proved possible to find the minimum volume in this simple
12 1 The Conventional Design Process

example with only two variables A1 and A2 , the same procedure will rapidly prove
impractical for larger, more realistic structures. A formal, numerical optimization
will be found to offer a much more effective means of obtaining optimum values for
the area of the bars and the corresponding minimum volume of the truss in this
example.
We see that, in general, a minimum weight structure under more than a single
load case need not be statically determinate or fully stressed and that an iterative,
fully stressed design procedure does not necessarily converge to the correct mini-
mum weight design. Taken together with the result of the previous section, we can
conclude that the iterative resizing procedure can only be guaranteed to converge to
a true optimum for a structure made of a single material and under a single load
case. The formal proof that, under these conditions, an optimum truss structure is
fully stressed was given by Michell [6]. Furthermore, we have up to now consid-
ered nothing other than a simple stress limitation. Again, we may assume that what
applies here to a truss structure has to apply much more generally to other
structures.
As we shall see in subsequent chapters of this book, numerical optimization
offers a logical alternative to the iterative redesign process of the present chapter, by
searching explicitly for a minimum weight design rather than simply satisfying the
stress limits as in fully stressed design. Since we then no longer have to insist that
all members are fully stressed, the particular difficulties experienced in this and the
previous section are avoided. While optimization methods remain essentially iter-
ative, convergence to the final solution will be greatly improved. The Solver
optimization tool in Microsoft Excel, used throughout this book, is introduced in
Sect. 1.4 of the present chapter.

1.2 Strength-to-weight Ratio

The strength-to-weight ratio of a structure is an essential parameter in many

branches of structural design, not least in aerospace, and plays an important role in
determining the feasibility of a design. We shall make use again of the truss
structures in the previous sections and limit the discussion here to truss structures
made of one material and under a single load case. For any chosen layout of truss,
such as the one already shown in Fig. 1.3, individual member lengths li can be
represented by

li ¼ ai L;

where L is the span of the truss (distance between supports, or some other repre-
sentative dimension) and ai are numerical coefficients. The forces Fi in the members
can be represented by
1.2 Strength-to-weight Ratio 13

Fi ¼ bi P;

where P is an applied load and bi are again numerical coefficients. If there are more
applied loads, each of these can be expressed in terms of a single chosen load P, but
for simplicity, it will be assumed here that only a single load is applied. Under the
conditions stated above, for minimum weight the truss will be statically determinate
and fully stressed. With maximum allowable stress r0 , the cross-sectional areas Ai
of the members are then

Fi
Ai ¼
r0

(being statically determinate no iterative calculation is now required).

The volume of material V in the truss can then be written as follows:
X X bi P
V¼ A i li ¼  ai L;
r0

or:

PL
V ¼n ; ð1:6Þ
r0

where
X
n¼ ai bi : ð1:7Þ

Expressed in non-dimensional form, we have

V 1 P
¼n  ;
L3 r0 L2

in which we can identify the structural index P=L2 , in units of stress. We shall come
across the structural index more often in subsequent chapters. If the specific weight
(weight per unit volume) of the material is qw , the weight W of the truss is
 
qw
W ¼n PL: ð1:8Þ
r0

Coefficient n in the above formula depends only on the layout of the truss, in other
words the arrangement of its members. This can be used, therefore, to compare the
efficiency of different layouts of truss—the smaller the n-value, the lower the
weight. Equation (1.8) can also be used for the weight of a statically indeterminate
truss, for example, if a minimum area of the bars is imposed, except that it will then
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
alli no se la hauia dado, la qual
dezia en esta manera.

CARTA DE FLAMIANO Á
VASQUIRAN
Verdaderamente, Vasquiran, tus
cartas me desatinan porque
quando miro en ellas el
encarecimiento de tu daño me
parece grande, quando considero
la causa dél lo juzgo pequeño.
Pero en esta carta tuya postrera
he conocido en las cosas que me
escribes lo que te engañas, en
especial en quererte hazer ygual
en el martirio con Petrarca y
Garcisanchez. Si supiesses de
quan lexos vas errado,
maravillarte yas por cierto. Los
tiros de su combate muy lexos
hizieron los golpes de donde los
tuyos dan. De virgines y martires
ganaron ellos la palma si bien lo
miras, que no de confessores de
sus vitorias como tú hazes. Si
gozo ellos han hauido, en la
muerte lo habrian; que en la vida
nunca lo houieron. Mi dolor
sintieron e tu gozo ignoraron.
Claro está segun muestran las
liciones del uno e los sonetos del
otro, e quanto ambos escriuieron,
porque de ninguno dellos leemos
sino pesares en la vida, congoxas
y dolores en la muerte; desseos,
sospiros, ansias apassionadas,
cuydados e disfauores e
desesperados pensamientos;
quando quexando, quando
plañendo, quando pidiendo la
muerte, quando aborreciendo la
vida. Destos misterios dexaron
llenos de tinta sus papeles e de
lastimas su memoria, estos
hizieron sus vidas llenos de pena
e sus fines tan doloridos; con
estos que son los males do mis
males se engendran, con estos
que fueron martirizados como yo
lo soy; verdad es que de dias
vencieron como tú a quien de
amor y fe vencidos los tuvo e los
hizo viuir desseando la muerte
con mas razon que tú la desseas.
Assi que mira lo que por la boca
escriuiendo publicaron e
conoceras lo que en el alma
callando encubierto suffrieron, e
mira si hallarás en ellos vn dia de
victoria como tú plañes doze años
de gloria que dizes que perdiste.
Yo digo que los ganaste, mas
hate parecido a ti que la fortuna te
era obligada a tenerte queda la
rueda en la cumbre del plazer; yo
te prometo que si de sus bienes
no te houiera hecho tan contento,
que de sus males no fueras tan
quexoso sin razon, como estos e
yo lo somos. Tambien me
escriues como soñaste que viste
en vision tu alegria, tus placeres,
tu descanso, tu consentimiento, tu
esperança, tu memoria, tu
desseo; beato tú que primero las
gozaste en la vida y en la muerte
las ensueñas, yo te prometo que
avnque mi placer, ni mi alegria, ni
mi descanso, ni mi
contentamiento, ni mi esperança
yo los encontrasse a medio dia,
que no los conociesse pues que
nunca los vi; mi desseo y mi
memoria no me los cale soñar,
que velando me hazen soñar la
muerte sin dormir cada hora.
Tambien me escribes que viste á
Violina e te habló, e quexaste
dello, ¿qué te pudo hazer
viuiendo que muerta no te quiere
oluidar? No me alegraré yo de lo
que tú, que ni agora en vida ni
despues de mis dias acabados de
mi tuuo memoria ni terná, no digo
de verme que es impossible, mas
avn de pensar si soy en el mundo.
Contentate pues, recobra tu
juyzio, no des mas causa para
que las gentes te juzguen, no
corrompas la reputacion de tu
fama, ni el agudeza de tu ingenio
con tan flaca causa, dando lugar
a tu dolor que de pesar te haya de
tener tal que á ti pierdas e a mi no
ayudes, pues que vees que mi
vida penando se consume; sino te
voy a ver es por la necesidad que
tengo que a verme vengas. Lo
qual te pido que hagas tanto
caramente quanto rogartelo
puedo, porque avnque soledad
busques para tu descanso, la
compañia de mis sospiros te la
dará, e con la mucha confianza
que de ti tengo quedo con tu vista
esperando la respuesta glosando
esta cancion:

Sin remedio es mi herida

pues se cansa quando os veo
y en ausencia mi desseo
más dolor me da en la vida.
¿Qué remedio haurá en mi
pena
si veros fue causa della
y el dolor de mi querella
vuestra ausencia lo condena?
de suerte que no hay salida
para mi, ni yo la veo,
pues veros é mi desseo
son el cabo de mi vida.

LO QUE VASQUIRAN ORDENÓ

DESPUES DE LEYDA LA
CARTA, E COMO SE PARTIO
PARA NOPLESANO.
Otro dia Vasquiran despues de
leyda la carta de Flamiano, de
gran mañana se fue a caça de
ribera y lleuó a Felisel consigo, al
qual despues de hauer volado
una pieça del dia le dixo
tomandole aparte: Ya sabes,
Felisel, como tengo deliberado de
yr a ver a tu señor, porque pues
mis congoxas no bastan para
acabarme quiças las suyas lo
haran; quissiera tenerte comigo
para lleuarte por el camino para
mi descanso e no es cosa que
hazerse pueda por la necesidad
que Flamiano tiene de ti, en
especial con mi yda e tambien
porque no seria razon tomalle
impensado, assi que más eres
allá menester para seruir a
Flamiano que no acá para mi
plazer pues no le tengo, assi que
mañana te parte y darle has
aviso, e pues que yo allá sere tan
en breue, no le delibero escriuir
sino que solamente de mi parte le
digas que si su señora le ha
mostrado sospirar que consigo
aprendera bien á llorar; e assi
hablando se tornaron a Felernisa.
Otro dia Felisel se partió e llegado
que fue á Noplesano fizo saber a
Flamiano la venida de Vasquiran.
Sabido que Flamiano la houo
mandó aparejar dentro en su
posada vn aposento para
Vasquiran, el qual se contenia con
vn jardin que en la casa hauia el
qual mandó adereçar conforme a
la voluutad e vida del que en el
hauia de posar.

LO QUE VASQUIRAN HIZO

DESPUES DE PARTIDO
 FELISEL HASTA LLEGAR A
NOPLESANO
Partido Felisel, Vasquiran deliberó
de yr aquel camino por mar e
mandó fletar vna muy buena naue
de las que en el puerto hauia, e
mandó meter en ella las cosas
que hauia necessarias para el
camino, y embarcar la ropa e
caualgaduras que deliberaua
lleuar; e assi partia á su heredad
ante de embarcar por visitar la
sepultura de Violina. Llegado alli
vna tarde mandó sobre la tumba
pussiesen un titulo con esta letra:

Aqui yaze
todo el bien que mal me haze.

E assi mandó dar orden en todo

lo que en ausencia suya deuia
hazer assi en el concierto de la
casa como en los officios de la
capilla, e assi despidiendose a la
partida hizo esta cancion a la
sepultura:

Pues mi desastrada suerte

contigo no me consiente,
quiero ver si estando ausente
pudiesse hallar la muerte.
Lo que mi viuir querria
es no verse ya comigo
porque yo estando contigo
más contento viuiria,
e pues que veo qu'en verte
 mi pena descanso siente,
cierto so que estando ausente
no verna buscar la muerte.

Otro dia se tornó a Felernisa e

queriendo partirse para
Noplesano mandó poner sobre el
portal de su casa un titulo que
dezia:

Queda cerrada la puerta

que la muerte halló abierta.

Aquesta noche mandaron

embarcar sus servidores, él se
embarcó ante que fuesse de dia
por escusarse de la importunidad
de las visitaciones e de los que al
embarcar le houieran querido
acompañar, hauiendo empero
visitado algunas personas
principales a quien la raçon e
alguna obligacion le constriñia.
Pues siendo ya embarcado
queriendo la naue hazer vela ante
que amaneciese, hizo esta
cancion:

El morir vino a buscarme

para matar mi alegria,
e agora que yo querria
no me quiere por matarme.
El me vino a mi a buscar
teniendole aborrecido
e agora que yo le pido
no le halla mi pesar,
 assi que haurá de forçarme
a buscalle mi porfia
pues veo que se desuia
de mi para más matarme.

Hecho que houo vela la naue, en

pocos dias fueron a vista de la
tierra de Noplesano, e por hauer
tenido algo el viento contrario
hallaronse algo baxos del puerto,
e no podiendole tomar acordaron
por aquella noche de surgir en
vna costa que está baxo de dicho
puerto a quarenta millas de
Noplesano, la qual es tan aspera
de rocas e peñas e alta montaña
que por muy pocas partes se
puede andar por ella a cauallo,
empero es muy poblada de
jardines e arboles de diuersas
maneras, en especial de
torongeros e sidras e limones e
toda diuersidad de rosas, e
muchas caserias assentadas por
lo alto de las rocas; e a la marina
hay algunos lugares e vna gentil
cibdad que ha nombre Malhaze
de donde toma el nombre la
costa. Pues assi llegados, la naue
surgió en vn reparo del viento que
venian muy cerca de tierra, en el
qual lugar, ya otra vez hauia
estado Vasquiran trayendo
consigo a Violina hauia mucho
tiempo. Pensar se puede lo que
Vasquiran sentiria viniendole a la
memoria, la qual le renouo
infinitos e tristes pensamientos los
quales le sacauan del coraçon
entrañables sospiros e infinitas
lagrimas, las quales porque mejor
e mas encobierto derramallas
podiesse, con una viuela en la
mano, de la nao se salio e
sentado sobre una roca muy alta
que la mar la batia, debaxo de vn
arbol començo a cantar esta
cancion:

No tardará la vitoria
de mi morir en llegar,
pues que yo vi este lugar
qu'era tan lleno de gloria
quanto agora de pesar.
Yo vi en toda esta riuera
mill arboles de alegria,
veola agora vazia
de plazer de tal manera
que me da la fantasia
qu'el dolor de su memoria
ya no dexará tardar
mi morir de no llegar
para darme tanta gloria
quanto m'a dado pesar.

Estando alli assi cantando e

pensando acordose que en aquel
mismo lugar hauia estado,
quando por alli passaron él e
Violina e otras señoras que en la
naue venian, toda vna tarde a la
sombra de aquel arbol jugando a
cartas e razonando, e hauian
cenado con mucho plazer
mirando la mar, e assi
acordandose dello començo a
cantar este villancico.

Di, lugar sin alegria,

¿quién te ha hecho sin plazer
que tú alegre solias ser?
¿Quién ha hecho tus
verdores
e tus rosas e tus flores
boluer todas en dolores
de pesares e tristuras,
quién assi t'a hecho ascuras
tus lumbres escurecer
que tú alegre solias ser?

Passada parte de la noche, ya

Vasquiran recogido en la naue,
con el viento de la tierra hizieron
vela e llegaron a hora de missa al
puerto de Noplesano. Mandó
Vasquiran que ninguna señal de
alegria la naue en la entrada
hiziesse de las que acostumbran
hazer. Sabido Flamiano por un
paje suyo que de unos corredores
de su casa vio la naue entrar, lo
que en la entrada hauia hecho,
penso lo que podía ser, e con
algunos caualleros mancebos que
con él se hallaron, sin más
esperar junto con ellos al puerto
se vino, e llegaron al tiempo que
la naue acabaua de surgir, e assi
todos apeados en vna barca en
ella entraron e hallaron a
Vasquiran que se queria
desembarcar. E assi se recibieron
con mucho amor e poca alegria.
Estando assi todos juntos
teniendo Flamiano a Vasquiran
abraçado, en nombre de todos
ellos le dixo: Vasquiran, a todos
estos caualleros amigos tuyos e
señores e hermanos mios que
aqui vienen o son venidos a verte,
no les duele menos tu pesar que
a mi; con tu vista se alegran tanto
como yo. Al qual él respondió:
Plega a Dios que a ti e a ellos
haga tan contentos con la vida,
como a mi con la muerte me
fazia. Al qual respondio el
marques Carlerin: Señor
Vasquiran, para las aduersidades
estremó Dios los animos de los
caualleros como vos, pues que no
es menos esfuerzo saber suffrir
cuerdamente que osar venzer
animosamente. Vasquiran le
respondio: Verdad es, señor
marques, lo que dezis, pero
tambien hizo Dios a los discretos
para saber sentir las perdidas,
como a los esforçados para
gozarse de las ganancias de las
vitorias, e no es menos virtuoso el
buen conocimiento que el buen
animo, ni vale menos la virtud por
saber bien doler, que saber bien
sofrir e osar bien resistir.
E assi razonando en muchas
otras cosas semejantes, salieron
de la naue, e todos juntos vinieron
a la posada de Flamiano donde
hallaron muchos caualleros que
los esperauan, e todos juntos alli
comieron hablando de muchas
cosas. E assi aquel dia passaron
en visitas de los que a ver
vinieron a Vasquiran y de muchos
señores que a visitar le embiaron.

LO QUE VASQUIRAN HIZO

DESPUES DE LLEGADO
Á NOPLESANO
Otro dia despues de hauer
comido, Vasquiran acordo de yr a
besar las manos a la señora
duquesa de Meliano e a Belisena,
e despues al visorey e al cardenal
de Brujas e a la señora princesa
de Salusana e a algunas otras
personas que sus estados e la
raçon lo requeria. E assi
acompañado de algunos
mancebos que con él e con
Flamiano se hallaron, hauiendolo
hecho saber a la señora duquesa
se fueron a su posada, y yendo
por el camino, Flamiano se llegó a
Vasquiran e le dixo: agora ymos
en lugar donde tú de tus males
serás consolado e yo de los mios
lastimado. Al qual respondio
Vasquiran: mas voy a oyr de
nueuo mis lastimas; tu vás a ver
lo que desseas; yo recibire pena
en lo que oyre; tú recibiras gloria
en lo que verás. Assi razonando
llegaron a la posada de la señora
duquesa, a la qual hallaron en
vna quadra con aquel atauio que
a tan gran señora siendo uiuda se
requeria, acompañada de la
señora Belisena su hija, con todas
las otras damas e dueñas de su
casa. E como las congoxas de los
lastimados con ver otros llagados
de su herida no pueden menos de
no alterar el dolor de las llagas,
alli hauiendo sido esta noble
señora vna de las que con más
raçon de la aduersa fortuna
quexarse deuia, uiendole perder
en poco tiempo el catolico abuelo,
la magestad del serenissimo
padre, el clarissimo hermano en
medio del triunfo mas prospero de
su gobierno reynando, e sobre
todo el ylustrissimo marido tan
tiranamente de su estado e
libertad con el heredero hijo
desposseidos, de manera que no
pudo menos la vista de Vasquiran
hazer que de mucho dolor su
memoria no lastimasse, e
verdaderamente ninguna de las
que viuen para ello mas raçon
tiene.
Pues assi llegados, hauiendo
Vasquiran besado las manos a la
señora duquesa, e a Belisena
hecho aquel acatamiento que se
deue hazer e a todas las otras
señoras e damas, despues de
todos sentados, la duquesa
començó de hablar en esta
manera.

LO QUE LA SEÑORA DUQUESA

HABLÓ A VASQUIRAN EN
PRESENCIA DE TODOS; E
LO QUE VASQUIRAN LE
RESPONDIO E ALLI PASSÓ.
Vasquiran, por vida de mi hija
Belisena qu'es la mas cara cosa
que la fortuna para mi consuelo
me ha dexado, que considerado
el valor e virtud e criança tuya, y
el amor e voluntad que al duque
mi señor, que haya santa gloria, e
a mi casa siempre te conoci tener,
sabido tu perdida tanto tu daño
me ha pessado, que con los mios
ygualmente me ha dado fatiga.
Esto te digo porque conozcas la
voluntad que te tengo, lo que
consolarte podria remitolo a ti
pues te sobra tanta discrecion
para ello quanto a mí me falta
consuelo para mis males.
Vasquiran le respondio: Harto,
señora, es grande mi desuentura
quando en tan alto lugar ha hecho
señal de compasion, mas yo doy
gracias a Dios que me ha hecho
tanto bien en satisffacion de tanto
mal qu'en tan noble señora como
vos e de tan agrauiados males
combatida mi daño haya tenido
cabida o lugar de doler; lo que yo
señora siempre desseo vuestro
seruicio Dios lo sabe; lo que en
vuestras perdidas yo he sentido
ha sido tanto que el dolor dellas
tenia ya en mí hecho el aposento
para quando las mias llegaron.
En esto y en otras cosas
hablando llegó el tiempo de
despedirse, en el que nunca
Flamiano los ojos apartó de
Belisena. Pues siendo de pies ya
de la duquesa despedidos,
Vasquiran se despidio de
Belisena a la qual dixo: señora,
Dios os haga tan contenta como
vos mereceys e yo desseo,
porque ensanche el mundo para
que sea vuestro y en que mi
pesar pueda caber. Al qual ella
respondio: Vasquiran, Dios os dé
aquel consuelo que con la vida se
puede alcançar, de manera que
tan alegre como agora triste
podays viuir muchos dias. E assi
la señora Yssiana se llegó a ellos
e muy baxo le dixo: señor
Vasquiran, esforçaos, que no
juzgo menos discrecion en
vuestro seso que dolor en vuestro
pesar; la fortuna os quitó lo que
pudo, pero no la virtud que en vos
queda que es más.
Señora, dixo Vasquiran, plega á
Dios que tanta parte os dé la
tierra quanta en vuestra
hermosura nos ha dado de lo del
cielo, pues que está en vos mejor
aparejado el merecer para ello
que en mí el consuelo para ser
alegre. Bien sé yo que si posible
fuera que en mí pudiera hauer
remedio para mi tristeça, el
esperança de vos sola la
esperara.
Al qual respondio la señora
Persiana: Vasquiran, por la
compasion que tengo de ver
vuestra tristeça, quiero consentir
que me siruays e sin perjuizio mio
yo hare que perdays mucha parte
de vuestra passion con mis
fauores.
Assi tornado a la señora duquesa
se despidio con todos aquellos
caualleros que con él hauian
venido, e quedose alli el marques
Carlerin. De alli se fueron a visitar
al señor visorey con el que
hallaron al cardenal de Brujas y el
cardenal de Felernisa, los quales
todos con mucho amor le
recibieron. El restante de lo que
alli passó, por abreuiar aqui se
acorta. Assi se tornaron á su
posada. Otro dia fue a besar las
manos a la reina Noplesana e a
su madre, e despues a otras
muchas señoras que a la sazon
en Noplesano se hallaron.

LO QUE DESPUES DE LAS

VISITACIONES E HAUER
REPOSADO ALGUNOS DIAS,
ENTRE FLAMIANO Y
VASQUIRAN PASSÓ SOBRE
SU QUESTION
Estando vn dia acabado de comer
Vasquiran e Flamiano en vna
huerta de su posada acostados
de costado sobre vna alfombra
debaxo vnos naranjos, comemço
Vasquiran en esta manera de
dezir. No quiero, Flamiano, qu'el
plazer de nuestra visita con su
plazer ponga silencio en nuestra
question a sus pesares, porque
tanto por dalle fin a nuestra
question soy venido, quanto por
verte; a tu postrera carta no
respondi por hazerlo agora.
Muchas variedades he visto en
tus respuestas assi de lo que en
mi contradizes como de lo que en
ti manifiestas, en especial agora
que a Belisena he visto, e digo
que todo el fin de tu mal seria
perder la vida por sus ameres;
digote vna cosa, que si tal
perdiesses el más de los bien
auenturados te podrias llamar,
¿pues si tu muerte seria
venturosa, tu pena no es
gloriosa? claro está. Todas las
cosas que me has escripto en
cuenta de tus quexas, agora que
lo he visto juzgo en cuenta de tus
glorias; quando nunca más bien
tuuiesses de verte su servidor es
mucho para hacerte ufano,
quanto más que tus ojos la
pueden ver muchas veces, que
más bien no le hay. Quantas
cosas me podrias encarecer de
los males que pregonas no son
nada, por que Quiral en tu egloga
te ha respondido lo que yo podria;
digote vna cosa, que te juzgo por
mas dichoso penando en seruicio
suye que no si alegre te viese sin
seruilla. Si assi supiesses tú suffrir
contento tu pena como supiste
escoger la causa della, ni comigo
competerias como hazes, ni yo te
reuocaria como hago. No plega a
Dios que mi mal sepas a qué
sabe, ni de tu pena sanes porque
viuas bien auenturado. Mirado el
lugar do tu desseo e voluntad
possiste, de todo lo possible
gozas; visto lo que quexas, todo
lo impossible desseas. Visto lo
que yo perdi no hay mas bien que
perder; visto lo que yo desseo no
hay mas mal que dessear, pues
que al fin con la vida se acaba
todo.
A todas las cosas que me has
escripto te he respondido; a lo
que agora me querras dezir
tambien lo verás, oyrte quiero.
 RESPUESTA DE FLAMIANO
Vasquiran, todo quanto hasta
agora en mis cartas y de palabra
te he escripto y enbiado a dezir,
en dos cosas me parece que
consiste. La vna, ha sido
parecerme que quexas mas de lo
que deues e que no perdiste sino
que se acabó tu plazer, e que
demasiado estremo dello
muestras. La otra ha sido que mi
mal es mayor qu'el tuyo. Agora
quiero que despacio juntos lo
determinemos, e quiero començar
por mí. Dizesme que las virtudes
e merecimientos de Belisena con
quantas excelencias en ella has
visto, me deuen hazer ufano y
contento, e que si por ella
perdiesse la vida seria bien
auenturado, e que no puedo mas
perder, e que cada hora la veo,
que no hay más bien que perder e
que desseo lo impossible y gozo
lo possible. ¿Cómo se podra
hazer que las perficiones de
Belisena si estas mismas
encienden el fuego do m'abraso
hagan mi pena gloriosa? quanto
más de su valer contento, más de
mi remedio desconfio, e si como
dizes por ella la vida perdiesse,
bien dizes que seria bien
auenturado, mas no la pierdo y
muero mill vezes cada hora sin
que agradecido me sea; el bien
que me cuentas que por su vida
gano, es todo el mal que cada
hora renueua mis males, pues
que para más no la veo de para
mis pesares. Pues mi desseo es
impossible, ¿qué bien puedo
hauer que sea lo posible como tú
dizes? A mi me pareze que el fin
de todas las glorias está en
alcançarse e no en dessearse,
porque el desseo es un acidente
que trae congoxa, e quanto mayor
es la cosa deseada mayor es la
congoxa que da su desseo;
¿pues cómo me cuentas tu a mi
el desseo por gloria siendo él
mismo la pena? Visto estar claro
que de todas las cosas e desseos
se espera algun fin, de todos los
trabajos se espera algun
descanso. Todos los desseos se
fundan sobre alguna esperança,
porque si cada cosa destas esta
causa no la caussase, no ternia
en si ninguna razon, pues que no
tuuiesse principio donde naciesse
no ternia termino do acabase,
pues no teniendo principio ni cabo
consiguiente caduca seria. Pues
luego si mi desseo es impossible
y es grande y grande la pasion
que me da, ¿qué cuenta haura en
mi mal? no otra sino que no hay
remedio para él? Pues si el
remedio le falta, el mio es grande,
que el tuyo no.