Optimum design of nonlinear steel frames with

semi-rigid connections using a genetic algorithm

E.S. Kameshki
*
, M.P. Saka
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Bahrain, P.O. Box 32038, Isa Town, Bahrain
Received 8 October 1999; accepted 22 February 2001
Abstract
The realistic modeling of beam-to-column connections plays an important role in the analysis and design of steel
frames. A genetic algorithm based optimum design method is presented for nonlinear multistorey steel frames with
semi-rigid connections. The design algorithm obtains a frame with the least weight by selecting appropriate sections
from a standard set of steel sections such as wide ange sections of AISC or universal sections of British standard. The
algorithm accounts for the serviceability and strength constraints as specied in BS5950. A nonlinear empirical model is
used to include the momentrotation relation of beam-to-column connections. Furthermore, the PD eect is also
accounted for in the analysis and design of the multistorey frame. The eective length factors for columns which are
exibly connected to beams are obtained from the solution of the nonlinear interaction equation. A number of frames
with end plate without column stieners are designed to demonstrate the eciency of the algorithm. 2001 Civil-
Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Structural optimization; Genetic algorithm; Semi-rigid connections; Nonlinear analysis; Steel design; Unbraced frame
1. Introduction
The structural response of a steel frame is closely
related with the behavior of its beam-to-column con-
nections. The realistic modeling of a steel frame, there-
fore, requires the use of realistic connection modeling, if
an accurate response of the frame is desired to be ob-
tained. It is common engineering practice to assume
either pinned or a fully rigid connections between beams
and columns. Experiments, however have shown that
the actual behavior lies somewhere between these two
idealized models which makes them exible. Further-
more, experiments have also shown that when a moment
is applied to a exible connection, the relation of relative
beam column rotation is nonlinear. Momentrotation
curves of various types of connections are shown in Fig.
1 [1]. The rotational distortion of the connections aects
the displacements of the frame and brings about redis-
tribution of moments between columns and beams.
Thus, in the analysis and design of steel frames beam-
to-column connections should be modeled as semi-rigid
connections.
The exibility of a connection is dependent on the
geometric parameters of the elements used in the con-
nection such as bolt size and dimensions of end plate or
angle sections. Extensive research works, experimental
as well as numerical have been carried out to establish
momentrotation relationship to be used for predicting
the actual behavior of the exible connections [26]. As
a result of these studies several mathematical expressions
have been proposed which vary from a simple linear
model to polynomial and power models. These relation-
ships are used in the modeling of the steel frame con-
nections and they provide a fairly accurate prediction of
frame response. Although the problem of analysis of
steel frames with semi-rigid connections has drawn great
attention, it is not possible to state the same for the
design of such frames. In spite of the fact that design
Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc
*
Corresponding author.
0045-7949/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Civil-Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0045- 7949( 01) 00035- 9
codes such as AISC-LRFD [7] and BS5950 [8] allows
the designer to consider partially restrained connections
in the design of steel frames, no specic guidelines are
given for the design in these codes. In some of the recent
research works the design problem of steel frames
with semi-rigid connections is addressed [912]. In all
these works, mathematical programming techniques
are used to formulate and obtain the solution of the
optimum design problem. Due to the discrete nature
of the programming problem, the solution techniques
available in mathematical programming are complex,
require the computation of sensitivities of design con-
straints and they are not very ecient particularly for
large size structures. Furthermore, in all the research
works drift constraints were not considered in the design
problem.
In the present study, a genetic algorithm based op-
timum design method is developed for unbraced multi-
storey steel frames with semi-rigid beam-to-column
connections. Lateral displacements in such frames are
much more than those of rigid frames due to joint
exibility. The geometric nonlinearity due to PD eect
is taken into account in the frame analysis. The design
algorithm obtains the frame with the least weight by
selecting appropriate sections for the beams and col-
umns of the frame from the standard set of available
sections such as universal section of BS standard or wide
ange section of AISC. The serviceability and combined
strength constraints are implemented in the design al-
gorithm as they are described in BS5950.
2. Discrete optimum design of unbraced steel frames with
partially restrained connections
The design of unbraced steel frames necessitates the
selection of steel sections for its columns and beams
from a standard steel section tables such that the frame
satises the serviceability and strength requirements
specied by the code of practice while the economy is
observed in the overall or material cost of the frame.
Further more, most of the present design codes such as
AISC and BS5950 allow the designer to carry out a
simple design, rigid design and semi-rigid design de-
pending upon the assumptions made for the beam-
to-column connections. While the rigid joint assumption
implies that full slope continuity exists between the ad-
joining members, the simple joint assumption on the
other hand implies that the beams behave as simply
supported members. In reality, experimental studies
have shown that all connections exhibit semi-rigid de-
formation behavior which fall between fully rigid and
ideally pinned connections. Partially restrained connec-
tions aect the moment distribution in the beams and
columns as well as the increase of frame drift. Hence,
designing steel frames without taking into account
the eect of joint exibility may lead to uneconomical
frames.
2.1. Design problem
The discrete optimum design problem of unbraced
steel frame where the minimum weight is taken as the
objective and the constraints are implemented from
BS5950 [8] has the following form:
Minimize W =

ng
r=1
m
r

tr
s=1
l
s
(1a)
Subjected to
d
j
_
d
j1
_
=h
j
6d
ju
j = 1; . . . ; n
s
(1b)
d
j
6d
ju
i = 1; . . . rd (1c)
F
k
A
gk
p
y

M
xk
M
cxk
61 k = 1; . . . ; nc (1d)
or
F
k
A
gk
p
ck

mM
xk
M
bk
61 k = 1; . . . ; nc (1e)
M
xl
6M
cxl
l = 1; . . . ; nb (1f)
B
bfr
6B
cfr
r = 1; . . . ; nd (1g)
D
u
t
6D
l
t
t = nby 2; . . . ; n
j
(1h)
Fig. 1. Connections momentrotation curves.
1594 E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604
where Eq. (1a) denes the weight of frame. m
r
is the unit
weight of steel section to be adopted for group r from
the standard steel section table. t
r
is the total number of
members in group r and ng is the total number of groups
in the frame. l
s
is the length of member s.
Eq. (1b) represents the interstorey drift limitation
of the multistorey frame. d
j
and d
j1
are the lateral de-
ections of two adjacent storey levels and h
j
is the storey
height. n
s
is the total number of storeys in the frame.
BS5950 limits the horizontal deection of columns due
to unfactored imposed and wind loads to height of
column/300 in each storey of a building with more than
one storey. Eq. (1c) denes the displacement restrictions
that may be required to be included other than drift
constraints such as deections in beams. BS5950 limits
such deections under the unfactored imposed loads to
span/360, if they carry plaster or other brittle nish. rd is
the total number of such restricted displacements in the
frame.
Eqs. (1d) and (1e) dene the local capacity and overall
buckling checks for beam columns. These expressions are
given in clause 4.8.3 of BS5950 which covers the design of
compression members with moments. Eq. (1d) insures
that at the points of greatest bending moment and axial
load, yielding or local buckling do not take place. F
k
and
M
xk
in this equation are the ultimate axial force and the
ultimate bending moment about the major axis at the
critical region of member k. A
gk
is the gross cross sec-
tional area and p
y
is the design strength of the steel grade
used for member k. M
cxk
is the moment capacity of the
member about the major axis. BS5950 carries out the
overall buckling check of a beam-column by using either
the simplied or more exact approach. Eq. (1e) repre-
sents the simplied approach where m is the equivalent
uniform moment factor given in Table 18 of the code.
M
bk
is the buckling resistance moment capacity of mem-
ber k about its major axis computed as explained in
clause 4.3.7. p
ck
is the compression strength of member k
which is obtained from the solution of the quadratic
PerryRobertson equation given in Appendix c.1 of
BS5950. It is apparent that computation of compression
strength of a compression member requires its eective
length. The computation of the eective length of a
compression member connected to beams with semi-rigid
connections is automated and included in the algorithm
developed. nc in Eq. (1d) represents total number of
compression members in the frame.
The constraint (1f) represents the moment capac-
ity check for the laterally supported beams. Design of
members in bending is given in clause 4.2 of BS5950. It is
assumed in this study that slabs in the steel building
provide sucient lateral restraint for the beams. M
xl
in
Eq. (1f) is the ultimate bending moment in member
l determined at the critical region. M
cxl
is the moment
capacity of member l which is computed as explained in
clause 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 of the code.
The constraint (1g) is required to insure that the steel
section selected for the column has wider ange width
than the steel section adopted for the beam. B
bfr
and B
cfr
are the ange widths of the steel sections used for beam
and column respectively. This requirement is imposed at
every joint in the frame where a beam and column meet.
n
j
is the total number of joints in the frame except
supports.
The last constraint (1h) is included to insure that the
steel sections selected for upper oor columns are not
wider in depth than that of lower oor columns. n
by
is
the number of bays in the frame. D
ut
and D
lt
are the
depths of the steel section adopted for the upper and
lower oor columns.
2.1.1. Section classication
It is worthwhile mentioning that BS5950 necessitates
the determination of the classication of the cross sec-
tion of the steel sections selected for the frame members
prior to computation of their load capacity of a member
depending upon whether its cross section is plastic or
compact or semi-compact or slender.
2.1.2. Eective column-length factor
The eective length factor k for the columns in
an unbraced steel frame with semi-rigid connections is
determined from the following interaction equation [7,
24]
G
/
A
G
/
B
p=k ( )
2
36
6 G
/
A
G
/
B
( )
=
p=k
tan p=k ( )
(2)
where G
/
A
and G
/
B
are modied relative stiness factors at
Ath and Bth ends of column and given as:
G
/
A
=

A
EI
L
_ _
c

A
a
uf
EI
L
_ _
b
; G
/
B
=

B
EI
L
_ _
c

B
a
uf
EI
L
_ _
b
(3)
where subscript b and c denote beam and column re-
spectively. a
uf
is a coecient which represents the con-
nection condition. It is equal to 1 for rigid connections
and computed from the following expression for semi-
rigid beam end connections.
a
uf
= 1
_

2EI
b
L
b
K
+
__
R
+
(4)
where
R
+
= 1
_

4EI
b
L
b
K
A
_
1
_

4EI
b
L
b
K
B
_

EI
b
L
b
_ _
2
4
K
A
K
B
(5)
in which K
A
and K
B
are the rotational stiness of the
semi-rigid connections at the rst and the second ends
of the beam. I
b
and L
b
are the moment of inertia and
E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604 1595
the length of the beam. K
+
is the smaller of K
A
and K
B
.
The solution of the nonlinear Eq. (2) for k results
in the eective length factor k for the column in con-
sideration.
2.2. Solution by genetic algorithm
The solution of the optimum design problem given
from Eqs. (1a)(1f) requires the selection of appropriate
steel sections from a standard list such that the weight of
the frame becomes minimum while the constraints are
satised. This turns the design problem into a discrete
programming problem. The solution techniques avail-
able in mathematical programming for obtaining the
solution of such problems are somewhat cumbersome.
On the other hand, the genetic algorithms which are
recent addition to optimization techniques are easy to
apply and provide eective solutions to discrete opti-
mum design problems.
Genetic algorithms are developed by applying the
principle of survival of the ttest into a numerical search
method. They are used as a function optimizers, par-
ticularly when the variables have discrete values. They
achieve this by rst selecting an initial population where
each individual is constructed by bringing together the
total number of variables respectively in a binary or
other coded form. These individuals are called articial
chromosomes and they have a nite length string. The
binary code for each design variable represents the se-
quence number of this variable in the discrete set.
A genetic algorithm initiates a search for nding the
optimum in a discrete space by rst selecting a number
of individuals randomly and collecting them together
to constitute the initial population. It then makes use
of four operators to generate a new population. These
operators are selection, mating, crossover and mutation.
A detailed explanation of these operators is given in
Refs. [1318]. Among these, the crossover operator is
probably the one which plays an important role in the
production of the new generation. There are several
types of crossover operators such as single point, two
point, multipoint, uniform and variable to variable
crossover. It is shown that two or three point crossover
performs much better among the multipoint crossover
techniques [17]. In the detailed study carried out in Ref.
[19] on the evaluation of crossover techniques it was
shown that direct design variable exchange produced the
best solutions in the test problems considered.
The genetic algorithm works on a population of in-
dividuals instead of single solution. The population is
obtained at the beginning of the computations by col-
lecting the individuals randomly. Those individuals in
the population who are t are then selected for mating.
This selection is carried out according to a tness cri-
teria. In order to establish a tness criterion, it is nec-
essary to transform the constrained design problem of
(1) into an unconstrained one. This is achieved by using
a penalty function. There are dierent types of penalty
functions used in conjunction with genetic algorithm
such as linear double segment, linear multiple segment
and quadratic penalty functions [15,16]. In this study the
transformation is based on the violation of normalized
constraints as suggested in Ref. [20]. The normalized
form of the design constraints given in Eqs. (1a)(1h) are
expressed as follows:
g
i
= d
i
= d
iu
( 1) 60 i = 1; . . . ; rd (6a)
g
j
= d
j
_
d
j1
_
= h
j
d
iu
_ _
1 60 j = 1; . . . ; n
s
(6b)
g
k
=
F
k
A
gk
p
y
_

M
xk
M
cxk
_
1 60 k = 1; . . . ; nc (6c)
or
g
k
=
F
k
A
gk
p
ck
_

mM
xk
M
bk
_
1 60 k = 1; . . . ; nc (6d)
g
l
= M
xl
=M
cxl
1 60 l = 1; . . . ; nb (6e)
g
r
= B
bfr
=B
cfr
1 60 r = 1; . . . ; n
j
(6f)
g
t
= D
ut
=D
lt
1 60 t = nby 2; . . . ; n
j
(6g)
The unconstrained function P is then constructed
P = W 1
_
C

m
t=1
m
t
_
(7)
where W is the objective function given in Eq. (1a), C
is a constant to be selected depending on the prob-
lem and m
t
is a violation constant computed as in the
following:
if g
t
> 0 then m
t
= g
t
if g
t
60 then m
t
= g
t
(8)
where t varies from 1 to m which is the total number
of constraints. The expression for tness is selected as
F
t
= (P
max
P
min
) P
t
(9)
where F
t
is the tness of the individual t, P
max
and P
min
are the maximum and minimum values of the uncon-
strained function of (7) for the entire population. P
t
is
the value of the same function for the individual t only.
The tness factor for each individual is then calculated
as F
t
=F
av
; where F
av
is the mean tness of the entire
population. Individuals are then selected according to
their tness factor, coupled randomly. The crossover
operator is applied and o-springs are produced to ob-
tain a new population. The details of selection, crossover
1596 E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604
and mutation are explained in Ref. [18] and are not re-
peated here.
3. Analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections
A genetic algorithm moves from one generation to
another until either a certain individual dominates the
population or a predetermined number of generations is
reached. It is apparent that during the computation of
the tness factor for each individual the evaluation of
constraints is required. This in turn necessitates the
analysis of the frame in order to update its structural
response under the external loads. In the analysis of steel
frames with semi-rigid connections, the eect of con-
nection exibility is modeled by attaching rotational
springs with stiness moduli K
a
and K
b
to the rst and
second ends of a member as shown in Fig. 2.
The nonlinear stiness matrix of member i with semi-
rigid restraints at the ends in global coordinates has the
following form:
S [ [ =
a
.
.
.
b d
.
.
.
c
1
e
1
f
1
.
.
.

a b c
1
.
.
.
a
b d e
1
.
.
.
b d
c
2
e
2
f
2
.
.
.
c
2
e
2
g
_

_
_

_
(10)
in which
a =
EA
L
cos
2
a
12EI
L
3
f
x1
/
5
sin
2
a
b =
EA
L
_

12EI
L
3
f
x1
/
5
_
cos a sina
d =
EA
L
sin
2
a
12EI
L
3
f
x1
/
5
cos
2
a
c
1
=
6EI
L
2
f
x2
/
2
sin a
c
2
=
6EI
L
2
f
x3
/
2
sin a
e
1
=
6EI
L
2
f
x2
/
2
cos a
e
2
=
6EI
L
2
f
x3
/
2
cos a
f
1
=
4EI
L
f
x4
/
3
f
2
=
2EI
L
f
x5
/
3
g =
4EI
L
f
x6
/
4
(11)
where E is the modulus of elasticity, A, I, L and a are the
area, the moment of inertia, the length and the direction
cosine of the member respectively. The eects of the
exible connections are included in the stiness matrix
by modifying the stiness terms of rigid frame member
through the use of f
x1
, f
x2
, f
x3
, f
x4
, f
x5
, and f
x6
. These
coecients are given in [22] as:
f
x1
= K
a
( K
b
K
a
K
b
)=KK
f
x2
= K
a
K
b
( 2)=KK
f
x3
= K
b
K
a
( 2)=KK
f
x4
= K
a
K
b
( 3)=KK
f
x5
= K
a
K
b
=KK
f
x6
= K
b
K
a
( 3)=KK
KK = K
a
K
b
4(K
a
K
b
) 12
(12)
where K
a
and K
b
are the stiness moduli of the exible
connections at the ends of the member. The eect of
axial forces on the deformed shape of the member are
included in the stiness matrix by using stability func-
tions of /
2
, /
3
, /
4
, and /
5
. These functions are derived
Fig. 2. Semi-rigid plane frame member. (a) End forces and end
displacements and (b) end rotations.
E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604 1597
in Ref. [21] and used in the optimum design of unbraced
rigid frames [23]. They have the following form:
/
1
= b cot b; /
2
= b
2
=(3 3/
1
)
/
3
= (3/
2
/
1
)=4; /
4
= (3/
2
/
1
)=2
/
5
= /
1
/
2
(13)
where
b = 0:5p

q
_
; q = F
l
=P
cr
= F
l
l
2
= p
2
EI
_ _
in which F
l
is the axial force in the member, and P
cr
is the
Euler critical load for a pin-ended member of the same
length and stiness of the member.
3.1. Determination of K
a
and K
b
The stiness moduli K
a
and K
b
of the exible con-
nections are determined by considering nonlinear con-
nection behavior. There are several mathematical
models to describe the Mh
r
relationship obtained by
tting a curve to experimental data [6]. Among these the
polynomial model proposed by Frye and Morris [3] is
adopted in this study due to its easy implementation.
This model is represented by an odd power polynomial
of the form
h
r
= c
1
KM ( )
1
c
2
KM ( )
3
c
3
KM ( )
5
(14)
where K is the standardization constant which depends
upon connection type and geometry; and c
1
; c
2
and c
3
are the curve tting constants. The values of these
constants are given in Ref. [6] for dierent types of
connections. The rotational stiness K
a
and K
b
of the
springs at the ends of the member are calculated as a
tangent stiness using the nonlinear standardized func-
tion given in Eq. (14). This is simply achieved by rst
computing the exibility of the connection as dh
r
=dM.
The stiness of the connection is then obtained as a re-
ciprocal of the exibility calculated for a certain value of
a moment, if the connection is loaded [6]. The stiness of
the connection is taken as its initial stiness, if the
connection is unloaded as shown in Fig. 3.
3.2. PD eect
Analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections
yields an increase in lateral displacements. This in turn
makes it necessary to consider the eect of axial forces in
the structural response of the frame. The nonlinear
stiness matrix which accounts for this eect through
the use of stability functions is shown in Eqs. (10), (11)
and (13). The algorithm utilized to account for PD
eects is given in detail in Refs. [21,23] and it has the
following steps:
1. Assume the axial forces in members to be zero ini-
tially.
2. Setup the overall stiness matrix, analyze the frame
under the external loads, obtain joint displacements
and member end forces.
3. Use the axial forces found for the members, calculate
the corresponding stability functions.
4. Repeat the steps from 2 until the dierence between
two successive sets of axial forces is smaller than a
specic tolerance.
During these iterations the determinant of the overall
stiness matrix is calculated and loss of stability is
checked. If the convergence in the axial forces is ob-
tained without loss of stability, the joint displacements
and member forces obtained in this nonlinear response
are used in the computation of tness values for this
individual. It should be pointed out that in this algo-
rithm the design load is not applied incrementally in the
nonlinear analysis. Instead it is applied immediately and
iterations are carried out at this load. It should also
be noted that during the nonlinear analysis the xed
end moments change from one iteration to another due
to rotational springs attached at the end of beams. The
modied xed end moments are calculated by taking
into account the eect of exible end connection for a
frame member which is loaded as described in Ref. [2].
4. Optimum design procedure
The optimum design algorithm developed for steel
frames with semi-rigid connections and based on genetic
algorithm consists of the following steps:
1. An initial population which consists of 50 individuals
is constructed randomly.
Fig. 3. Momentrotation behavior of semi-rigid connection.
1598 E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604
2. For each individual decoding is carried out and steel
sections adopted for the design variables from the
standard steel section table are identied.
3. The nonlinear analysis of the frame is carried out
under the applied loads for these sections by account-
ing for nonlinear behavior of the semi-rigid connec-
tions and PD eect.
4. The joint displacements and member forces obtained
from the nonlinear analysis are used to calculate the
values of normalized constraints and unconstrained
function P from Eqs. (6a)(6g) and (7) for each indi-
vidual.
5. Fitness value and tness factor are computed for each
individual and depending on their tness factor indi-
viduals are copied into mating pool.
6. Individuals are coupled randomly and reproduction
operator is applied using two point cross sites and
the value of 0.8 for probability of crossover. Two
o-springs are generated from each couple and a
new population is obtained.
7. Mutation is applied to the new population with the
probability value of 0.001.
8. The initial population is replaced with the new popu-
lation and steps 1 to 7 are repeated until the same in-
dividual dominates 80% of the new population or
preselected number of generations is reached. The t-
test individual of all the generations represents the
best solution.
In order to insure that the best individual of each
generation is not destroyed from one generation to an-
other elitist strategy is followed in the design algorithm.
At each generation, among the individuals which satisfy
all the design constraints, the one with minimum weight
is stored and compared with the similar individual of the
next generation. If the new one is heavier than the old
one, there is then a loss of good genetic material. This
Fig. 4. End plate connection without column stieners.
Fig. 5. Three-storey, two-bay steel frame.
E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604 1599
situation is rectied by replacing the individual having
the lowest tness of the current generation with the
previous individual. In this way the loss of good indi-
viduals during the generations is prevented.
5. Design examples
The design algorithm presented is used to design two
unbraced steel frames with semi-rigid connections. The
modulus of elasticity was 210 kN/mm
2
in both examples.
It is assumed that beam-to-column connections are
made using end plate with no column stieners as shown
in Fig. 4. The curve tting and standardization constants
of Mh
r
polynomial relationship shown in Eq. (14) for
end plates without column stieners are given in Ref. [6]
as:
c
1
= 1:83 10
3
; c
2
= 1:04 10
4
;
c
3
= 1:24 10
8
and
k = d
2:4
g
t
0:4
p
d
1:5
b
(15)
where d
g
and t
p
are shown in Fig. 4 and d
b
is the dia-
meter of the bolt used in the connection. In the ex-
amples considered the thickness of end plate is selected
as 12 mm. The value of d
g
is calculated depending upon
Table 1
Optimum design of three-storey, two-bay steel frame
Group no. Member type Steel section designation
Linear frame analysis Nonlinear frame analysis
Rigid connection Semi-rigid con-
nection
Rigid connection Semi-rigid con-
nection
1 Column W30X90 W21X50 W24X55 W21X73
2 Column W18X55 W18X35 W21X73 W21X73
3 Column W10X33 W18X35 W18X40 W6X15
4 Column W24X68 W27X84 W21X50 W24X68
5 Column W18X55 W24X55 W16X36 W18X35
6 Column W14X34 W18X46 W12X40 W18X35
7 Beam W12X26 W18X35 W18X35 W16X26
Total weight (kg) 4217.40 4230.00 4434.00 3938.10
Top storey sway (cm) (allowable = 3:66 cm) 1.32 0.39 0.96 1.20
Maximum interstorey drift (cm)
(allowable = 1:22 cm)
0.59 0.21 0.48 0.52
Maximum interaction ratio 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.84
Fig. 6. Design history of the three-storey, two-bay steel frame.
1600 E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604
the standard steel section adopted for the beam. During
the design process the bolt diameter to be used in the
connection is computed from the design of the connec-
tion according to clause 6.3 of BS5950 for bending
moment and shear considering grade 8.8 of ordinary
bolts. With this information, the nonlinear expression
(14) can easily be used to obtain the stiness of the
exible connection for any particular value of a bending
moment.
In the design examples considered, rst British stan-
dard sections given in Ref. [25] were used. The sections
for beams were selected from the universal beam sec-
tions varying from 914 419 388 UB to 254
107 28 UB and the sections for columns were adopted
from the set varying from 356 406 634 UC to
152 152 23 UC. It was noticed that these sets of
sections were able to provide optimum solutions for
small size steel frames, but unable to provide any solu-
tion for moderate or large size frames due to their limi-
ted total number in the set, particularly when semi-rigid
connections were considered for beam-to-column con-
nections. This diculty was overcome by replacing
British standard steel sections with that of American
wide ange sections [7], which are used for both beams
and columns. This has increased the total number of
available sections from 96 to 512 providing much greater
exibility for the algorithm to reach even a lighter frame
than the case of using British sections. The steel grade of
A36 is considered for wide ange sections.
5.1. Three-storey, two-bay frame
A three-storey, two-bay frame is designed with rigid
and semi-rigid connections considering linear and non-
linear (PD eect) frame behavior. Fig. 5 shows the
frame conguration, dimensions, loading, numbering of
joints and grouping of members. The frame is taken
from [26] where it was used to demonstrate the eect of
semi-rigid connections in the analysis of steel frames.
The allowable interstorey drift was 1.219 cm and al-
lowable sway of the top storey was 3.65 cm as specied
by the code.
The optimum results after 400 generations are pre-
sented in Table 1. For each case, 10 dierent designs
were performed and those reported in the table are the
lightest among 10 runs and they are obtained for the
seed value equal to six. In the case where the PD eect
is not considered in the frame analysis, a linear modeling
was used to represent the semi-rigid connection. In this
modeling, the initial stiness of the connection is utilized
throughout the analysis. The initial stiness of the beam-
to-column connection adopted in this study is close to
the rigid connection. This is why when PD eect is not
considered, minimum weights obtained for both rigid
and semi-rigid frames turn out to be almost the same. It
is apparent from Table 1 that in both cases ultimate
strength constraints but not the drift constraints were
dominant in the design problem. While the maximum
interaction ratio was equal to 1.0 in rigid and semi-rigid
Fig. 7. Ten-storey, one-bay steel frame.
E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604 1601
optimum frame, the drift values were below their al-
lowable limits.
The design history of generations for the optimum
nonlinear frame with semi-rigid connections given in
Table 1 is shown in Fig. 6. It is apparent that after 120
generations the minimum weight almost remains the
same. This veries that selection of the terminal genera-
tion number of 400 is reasonable.
In the case where the PD eect is considered in the
frame analysis, the semi-rigid frame is 11% lighter than
the rigid frame. In this case neither the ultimate strength
nor the drift constraints are active in the design problem.
Instead the size limitations govern the selection of sec-
tions for the frame members. However, Table 1 shows
that semi-rigid optimum frame has 25% larger drift.
Another interesting result obtained is that conside-
ration of PD eect in the design of rigid frame generates
5% heavier frame while it causes 7% lighter frame in
semi-rigid modeling. It is clear that in the rigid frame
consideration of PD eect yields heavier frame. How-
ever the same was not observed for the semi-rigid frame.
This is due to the fact that in the optimum frame it was
size constraint, which govern the design not strength or
drift limitations. It was noticed that ve linear analyses
were required to obtain the nonlinear response of the
frame in the case of exible connection modeling.
5.2. Ten-storey, one-bay frame
The ten-storey, one-bay frame of Fig. 7 is also de-
signed using the algorithm presented. The frame con-
guration dimensions, loading, joint numbering and
member grouping is shown in the gure. This frame is
designed with and without considering PD eect to-
gether with rigid and semi-rigid connection modeling.
The allowable interstorey drift was 1.22 cm while the top
storey sway was limited to 12.5 cm.
The optimum frames obtained after 400 generations
for each case are shown in Table 2. The variation of
weight for nonlinear frame with semi-rigid connections
against number of generations during the optimum de-
sign process is shown in Fig. 8. Each case designed 10
times, each time using dierent seed value and the
lightest among these obtained for the seed value of 4 is
reported in the table.
In the case where PD eect is not considered semi-
rigid connection modeling results in 16% lighter frame.
In both rigid and semi-rigid case ultimate strength
constraints are dominant in the design. Intermediate
drift and top storey sway of the frame are well below
their upper limits. When PD eect is considered, semi-
rigid frame becomes 15% lighter than the rigid frame.
Once again, it is the ultimate strength constraint, which
decides the sections for frame members. While these
constraints are at their upper limits of 1 for number of
members in the frame, both drift constraints were well
below the allowable limits. It is noticed that in the case
of rigid frame, the nonlinear response is obtained after
two to three linear analysis while in the semi-rigid frame
7 to 8 linear analysis are required to reach the nonlinear
behavior of the frame. It is also interesting to notice that
consideration of PD eect in the frame analysis yields
16% and 15% lighter frames in both cases.
Table 2
Optimum design of ten-storey, one-bay steel frame
Group no. Member type Steel section designation
Linear frame analysis Nonlinear frame analysis
Rigid connection Semi-rigid con-
nection
Rigid connection Semi-rigid con-
nection
1 Column W40X167 W36X182 W40X192 W36X182
2 Column W36X182 W33X118 W36X182 W33X118
3 Column W36X182 W30X108 W36X280 W33X118
4 Column W30X108 W27X84 W36X182 W27X84
5 Column W21X166 W21X111 W24X104 W14X82
6 Beam W30X90 W24X68 W24X68 W33X118
7 Beam W24X68 W27X84 W30X90 W30X108
8 Beam W21X73 W27X84 W18X86 W21X93
9 Beam W21X83 W12X45 W18X55 W21X50
Total weight (kg) 28607.00 23971.00 31788.00 26963.00
Top storey sway (cm) (allowable = 12:5 cm) 0.77 0.36 0.63 1.03
Maximum interstorey drift (cm)
(allowable = 1:22 cm)
0.24 0.11 0.21 0.44
Maximum interaction ratio 0.97 0.96 0.91 0.91
1602 E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604
6. Summary and conclusions
A genetic algorithm based optimum design method is
presented for nonlinear steel frames with semi-rigid
connections. Design examples are included to demon-
strate the eect of connection exibility and geometric
nonlinearity in the design of steel frames.
It is noticed from the design examples that semi-rigid
connection modeling produces lighter frames. Connec-
tion exibility aects the distribution of forces in the
frame and causes increase in the drift of the frame. This
in turn necessitates the consideration of PD eect in the
frame analysis. It required ve to eight iterations in the
design examples considered to obtain the nonlinear re-
sponse of frame which clearly indicates the signicance
of geometric nonlinearity in the design of semi-rigid steel
frames. It is also noticed that consideration of PD eect
yields a heavier frame in the case of semi-rigid as well as
rigid frame.
References
[1] Gerstle KH. Eects of connections on frames. In: Chen
WF, editor. Steel beam-to-column building connections.
NewYork: Elsevier; 1988. p. 24167.
[2] Monforton GR, Wu TS. Matrix analysis of semi-rigidly
connected steel frames. J Struct Div ASCE 1963;90(6):13
42.
[3] Frye MJ, Morrris GA. Analysis of exible connected steel
frames. Can J Civil Engng 1975;2(3):28091.
[4] Lui EM, Chen WF. Analysis and behavior of exibly-
jointed frames. Engng Struct 1986;8:10718.
[5] Cunningham R. Some aspects of semi-rigid connections in
structural steel work. Struct Engng 1990;68(5):8892.
[6] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability design of steel frames. Boca
Raton: CRC press; 1991.
[7] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specications for
structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, ILL 1994.
[8] British standards, BS5950. Structural use of steelworks in
building. Part 1. Code of practice for design in simple and
continuous construction, hot rolled sections, British Stan-
dard Institution, London, UK, 1990.
[9] Xu L, Grierson DE. Computer automated design of semi-
rigid steel frameworks. J Struct Engng ASCE 1993;119(6):
174060.
[10] Almusallam TH. Eect of connection exibility on the
optimum design of steel frames. In: Topping BHV, editor.
Developments in computational techniques for civil engi-
neering. Edinburgh: Civil-Comp Press; 1995. p. 12935.
[11] Simoes LMC. Optimization of frames with semi-rigid
connections. J Comput Struct 1996;60(4):5319.
[12] Dhillon BS, O'Malley JW. Interactive design of semi-rigid
steel frames. J Struct Engng ASCE 1999;125(5):55664.
[13] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithm in search optimization
and machine learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1989.
[14] Leite JPB, Topping BHV. Improved genetic operators for
structural engineering optimization. In: Topping BHV,
editor. Development in neural networks and evolutionary
computing for civil and structural engineering. Edinburgh:
Civil-Comp Press; 1995. p. 14369.
[15] Camp C, Pezeshk S, Caa G. Design of framed structures
using a genetic algorithm. Struct Optimiz ASCE 1996:
1930.
[16] Camp C, Pezeshk S, Caa G. Optimized design of two-
dimensional structures using a genetic algorithm. J Struct
Engng ASCE 1996;124(5):1930.
Fig. 8. Design history of the ten-storey one-bay steel frame.
E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604 1603
[17] Cehn T-Y, Chen C-J. Improvement of simple genetic
algorithm in structural design. Int J Num Meth Engng
1997;40:132334.
[18] Saka MP, Kameshki E. Optimum design of multi-storey
sway steel frames to BS5950 using a genetic algorithm. In:
Topping BHV, editor. Advances in engineering computa-
tional technology. Edinburgh: Civil-Comp Press; 1998.
p. 13541.
[19] Hasancebi O, Erbatur F. Evaluation of crossover tech-
niques in genetic algorithm based optimum structural
design. In: Topping BHV, editor. Advances in engineering
computational technology. Edinburgh: Civil-Comp Press;
1998. p. 11123.
[20] Rajeev S, Krishnamoorthy CS. Discrete optimization of
structures using genetic algorithms. J Struct Engng ASCE
1992;118(5):123350.
[21] Majid KI. Nonlinear structures. London: Butterworth;
1972.
[22] Grundy P. Stability and design of frames with exible
connections. Civil Engng Trans Instn Engng Austr 1986;
28(2):1904.
[23] Saka MP, Kameshki ES. Optimum design of unbraced
rigid frames. J Comput Struct 1998;69:43342.
[24] Kishi N, Chen WF, Goto Y. Eective length factor of
columns in semi-rigid and unbraced frames. J Struct Engng
ASCE 1970;123(3):31320.
[25] Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950: Part I section prop-
erties, member capacities, vol. 1, 4th ed. The Steel Con-
struction Institute, UK, 1990.
[26] Barakat M, Chen W-F. Practical analysis of semi-
rigid frames. Engng J AISC Second Quarter 1990:
5468.
1604 E.S. Kameshki, M.P. Saka / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15931604