Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 459–477 | Cite as

Optimum design of FRP bridge deck: an efficient RS-HDMR based approach

  • T. MukhopadhyayEmail author
  • T. K. Dey
  • R. Chowdhury
  • A. Chakrabarti
  • S. Adhikari


A novel efficient hybrid method based on random sampling-high dimensional model representations (RS-HDMR) and genetic algorithm coupled with a local unconstrained multivariable minimization function is proposed in this study for optimization of FRP composite web core bridge deck panels. The optimization is performed for lightweight design of FRP composite bridge deck panels based on deflection limit, stresses, buckling and failure criteria and subsequently the representative design curves are developed considering normal as well as skew configurations of FRP bridge decks. Sensitivity analysis is also performed to study the effect of variation in geometry of the bridge deck to its deflection, stress and buckling behaviours. High level of computational efficiency can be achieved without compromising the accuracy of results for optimization of high dimensional systems following the proposed approach.


FRP bridge deck lightweight design RS-HDMR Genetic algorithm Sensitivity analysis Optimization 



Applied stress


Permissible stress


Applied buckling load


Permissible load


Observed deflection


Permissible deflection


Deck length


Depth of web core


Width of the deck


Thickness of bottom face plate


Thickness of top face plate


Thickness of web webs


Number of webs in the core



The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support received from MHRD, India during the period of this research work.


  1. ABAQUS CAE 6.8 (2008) Dassault Systèmes Simulia CorpGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida FS, Awruch AM (2009) Design optimization of composite laminated structures using genetic algorithms and finite element analysis. Compos Struct 88:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1998) LRFD bridge design specifications. 2nd edGoogle Scholar
  4. António CC (2009) Self-adaptation procedures in genetic algorithms applied to the optimal design of composite structures. Int J Mech Mater Des 5(3):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aref AJ, Alampalli S (2001) Vibration characteristics of a fiber-reinforced polymer bridge superstructure. Compos Struct 52:467–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aref AJ, Alampalli S, He Y (2001) Ritz-based static analysis method for fiber reinforced plastic rib core skew bridge superstructure. J Eng Mech 127:450–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aref AJ, Alampalli S, He Y (2005) Performance of a fiber reinforced polymer web core skew bridge superstructure, part ii: failure modes and parametric study. Compos Struct 69(4):500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aydın Z, Ayvaz Y (2010) Optimum topology and shape design of prestressed concrete bridge girders using a genetic algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(1):151–162zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azzi VD, Tsai SW (1965) Anisotropic strength of composites. Exp Mech 283–288Google Scholar
  10. Bakis C, Bank L, Brown V, Cosenza E, Davalos J, Lesko J, Machida A, Rizkalla S, Triantafillou T (2002) Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction - state-of-the-art review. J Compos Constr 6(2):73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Balu AS, Rao BN (2011) Efficient explicit formulation for practical fuzzy structural analysis. Sadhana 36(4):463–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Balu AS, Rao BN (2012) Multicut-high dimensional model representation for structural reliability bounds estimation under mixed uncertainties. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 27:419–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barros AFM, Barros MHFM, Ferreira CC (2012) Optimal design of rectangular RC sections for ultimate bending strength. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45(6):845–860zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Briseghella B, Fenu L, Feng Y, Mazzarolo E, Zordan T (2013) Topology optimization of bridges supported by a concrete shell. Struct Eng Int 23(3):285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnside P, Babero EJ, Davalos JF, Ganga Rao H (1993) Design optimization of an all-FRP bridge. Proceedings of 38th Int SAMPE SympGoogle Scholar
  16. Chowdhury R, Rao BN (2009) Assessment of high dimensional model representation techniques for reliability analysis. Probab Eng Mech 24:100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chowdhury R, Rao BN, Prasad AM (2009a) High dimensional model representation for structural reliability analysis. Commun Numer Methods Eng 25(4):301–337zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chowdhury R, Rao BN, Prasad AM (2009b) Stochastic sensitivity analysis using HDMR and score function. Sadhana 34(6):967–98zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohn MZ, Dinovitzer AS (1994) Application of structural optimization. J Struct Eng ASCE 120(2):617–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davalos JF, Quio P, Xu XF, Robinson J, Barth KE (2001) Modeling and characterization of fiber-reinforced plastic honeycomb sandwich panels for highway bridge applications. Compos Struct 52:441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalyanmoy Deb (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. John Wiley & Sons ISBN 047187339Google Scholar
  22. Dey TK, Srivastava I, Khandelwal PR, Sharma KU, Chakrabarti A (2013) Optimum design of FRP rib core bridge deck. Compos Part B 45:930–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dey S, Mukhopadhyay T, Adhikari S (2015a) Stochastic free vibration analyses of composite doubly curved shells—a Kriging model approach. Compos Part B Eng 70(1):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dey S, Mukhopadhyay T, Khodaparast HH, Adhikari S (2015b) Stochastic natural frequency of composite conical shells. Acta Mech. doi: 10.1007/s00707-015-1316-4 zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Dey S, Mukhopadhyay T, Adhikari S (2015c) Stochastic free vibration analysis of angle-ply composite plates—a RS-HDMR approach. Compos Struct 122:526–536. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.09.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Faure H (1992) Good permutations for extreme discrepancy. J Number Theory 42:47–56zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fletcher R (1980) Practical methods of optimization, Vol. 1, unconstrained optimization. John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  28. Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A, Keane AJ (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling—a practical guide. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galanti S, Jung A (1997) Low-discrepancy sequences: Monte Carlo simulation of option prices. J Deriv 5:63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  31. Halton JH (1960) On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numer Math 2:84–90zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. He Y, Aref AJ (2003) An optimization design procedure for fiber reinforced polymer web-core sandwich bridge deck systems. Compos Struct 60(2):183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS, Soden PD (2004) Failure criteria in fibre-reinforced-polymer composites. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  34. Indian Road Congress (IRC) (2000) Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges. Section: II loads and stresses. 4th revision. New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  35. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson T (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keller T (2002) Overview of fibre-reinforced polymers in bridge construction. Struct Eng Int 12(2):66–70Google Scholar
  37. Keller T, Schaumann E, Vallee T (2007) Flexural behavior of a hybrid FRP and lightweight concrete sandwich bridge deck. Compos Part A 38:879–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim HY, Choi YM, Hwang YK, Cho HN (2003) Optimum design of a pultruded FRP bridge deck, ECI conference on advanced materials for construction of bridges, buildings, and other structures IIIGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim BS, Lee YB, Choi DH (2009) Comparison study on the accuracy of metamodeling technique for non-convex functions. J Mech Sci Technol 23(4):1175–1181MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koehler JR, Owen AB (1996) Computer experiments. In: Ghosh S, Rao CR (eds) Handbook of statistics, vol 13. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam, pp 261–308Google Scholar
  41. Kovacs G, Groenwold AA, Armai KJ, J F (2004) Analysis and optimum design of fibre-reinforced composite structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 28:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Li G, Rabitz H (2006) Ratio control variate method for efficiently determining high-dimensional model representations. J Comput Chem 27:1112–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li Y, Ng S, Xie M, Goh T (2010) A systematic comparison of metamodeling techniques for simulation optimization in decision support systems. Appl Soft Comput 10(4):1257–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li G, Wang SW, Rabitz H, Wang S, Jaffe P (2002a) Global uncertainty assessments by high dimensional model representations (HDMR). Chem Eng Sci 57:4445–4460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li G, Wang SW, Rabitz H (2002b) Practical approaches to construct RS-HDMR component functions. J Phys Chem A 106:8721–8733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Li G, Rabitz H, Wang SW, Georgopoulos PS (2003) Correlation method for variance reduction of monte carlo integration in RS-HDMR. J Comput Chem 24:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Li G, Hu J, Wang SW, Georgopoulos PG, Schoendorf J, Rabitz H (2006) Random Sampling-High Dimensional Model Representation (RS-HDMR) and orthogonality of its different order component functions. J Phys Chem A 110:2474–2485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matlab Version (R2013b) (2013) MathWorks IncGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller MA, Feng XJ, Li G, Rabitz HA (2012) Identifying biological network structure, predicting network behavior, and classifying network state with High Dimensional Model Representation (HDMR). PLoS One 7(6):e37664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Montgomery DC (1991) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, NJzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Mukherjee D, Rao BN, Prasad AM (2011) Global sensitivity analysis of unreinforced masonry structure using high dimensional model representation. Eng Struct 33:1316–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mukhopadhyay T, Dey TK, Chowdhury R, Chakrabarti A (2015) Structural damage identification using response surface based multi-objective optimization: a comparative study. Arab J Sci Eng. doi: 10.1007/s13369-015-1591-3 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Niederreiter H (1992) Random number generation and quasi-Monte Carlo methods. CBMS-NSF regional conference series in applied mathematics. Soc Ind Appl Math 63Google Scholar
  54. Nieto F, Hernández S, Jurado JA (2009) Optimum design of long-span suspension bridges considering aeroelastic and kinematic constraints. Struct Multidiscip Optim 39(2):133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ohkubo S, Taniwaki K, Yamano N (2008) Optimum design system for steel cable-stayed bridges dealing with shape, sizing variables and cable prestresses. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 7(3):201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Park KT, Kim SH, Lee YH, Hwang YK (2005) Pilot test on a developed GFRP bridge deck. Compos Struct 70:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Plunkett, J.D. (1997) Fiber-reinforcement polymer honeycomb short span bridge for rapid installation. IDEA Project RepGoogle Scholar
  58. Qiao P, Davalos JF, Brown B (2000) A systematic analysis and design approach for single-span FRP deck/stringer bridges. Compos Part B 31:593–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Qiao P, Fan W, Davalos JF, Zou G (2008) Homogenization and optimization of sinusoidal honeycomb cores for transverse shear stiffness. J Sandw Struct Mater 10:385–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rabitz H, Alıs OF (1999) General foundations of high-dimensional model representations. J Math Chem 25:197–233zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roy T, Chakraborty D (2009) Genetic algorithm based optimal design for vibration control of composite shell structures using piezoelectric sensors and actuators. Int J Mech Mater Des 5(1):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salem MA (2000) Optimum design of precast bridge systems prestressed with carbon fiber reinforcement polymers. MS thesis, Concordia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  63. Salim HA, Barker M, Davalos JF (2006) Approximate series solution for analysis of FRP composite highway bridges. J Compos Constr 10(4):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Santner TJ, Williams B, Notz W (2003) The design and analysis of computer experiments. Springer, HeidelbergzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sobol’ IM (1967) On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals. USSR Comput Math Math Phys 7:86–112MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tsai SW (1965) Strength characteristics of composite materials. NASA CR-224Google Scholar
  67. Tsai SW (1987) Composite design, 3rd ed, think composites, Dayton, OH, 23–124Google Scholar
  68. Tsai SW, Wu EM (1971) A general theory of strength for anisotropic materials. J Compos Math 5:58–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Uddin N, Abro AM (2008) Design and manufacturing of low cost thermoplastic composite bridge superstructures. Eng Struct 30:1386–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Woon SY, Querin OM, Steven GP (2001) Structural application of a shape optimization method based on a genetic algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim 22(1):57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu G, Qiu D, Yu Y, Pedrycz W, Ma M, Li H (2014) Superior solution guided particle swarm optimization combined with local search techniques. Expert Syst Appli 41:7536–7548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ziehn T, Tomlin AS (2008a) Global sensitivity analysis of a 3D street canyon model– part I: the development of high dimensional model representations. Atmos Environ 42:1857–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ziehn T, Tomlin AS (2008b) A global sensitivity study of sulphur chemistry in a premixed methane flame model using HDMR. Int J Chem Kinet 40:742–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ziehn T, Tomlin AS (2009) GUI-HDMR—a software tool for global sensitivity analysis of complex models. Environ Model Software 24(7):775–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zordan T, Briseghella B, Enrico M (2010) Bridge structural optimization through step-by-step evolutionary process. Struct Eng Int 20(1):72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Mukhopadhyay
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. K. Dey
    • 2
  • R. Chowdhury
    • 2
  • A. Chakrabarti
    • 2
  • S. Adhikari
    • 1
  1. 1.College of EngineeringSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations