Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative approach to multiobjective optimization of AISC thin-walled members

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Optimization of structural members such as beams and columns has received increasing interest with advances in computing, manufacturing, and artificial intelligence. Designers pursuing multiobjective optimization are typically interested in minimizing the cost of the member while maximizing some performance metric related to load bearing capability or stress. In this study, thin-walled members listed in AISC tables were optimized in a similar manner using genetic algorithms. The influence of several objectives was considered, and emphasis was placed on providing the customer with a diverse choice of solutions. To demonstrate the approach, wide-flange I-beams and circular pipe cross-sections were examined. Multi-dimensional Pareto-fronts were obtained. Optimized cross-sections were compared to AISC beam tables. Multi-criteria decision-making techniques were used to select a preferred solution from a Pareto-front. For I-beams, improvements of 3–7% over tables were obtained and for pipes, it was 47–76%. Finally, the performance of two commonly used genetic algorithms, NSGA-II and SPEA-II, was compared using Pareto-front metrics. While SPEA-II produced several nondominated solutions, NSGA-II was shown to produce the overall superior front considering metrics presented from the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Audet C, Bigeon J, Cartier D, Le Digabel S, Salomon L (2018) Performance indicators in multiobjective optimization. Eur J Oper Res (preprint submitted)

  2. Branke J, Deb K, Dierolf H, Osswald M (2004) Finding knees in multi-objective optimization. In: Yao X et al (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature, PPSN, LNCS 3242. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 722–731

  3. Chakraborty D, Vaz W, Nandi AK (2015) Optimal driving during electric vehicle acceleration using evolutionary algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 34:217–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. De Munck M, De Sutter S, Verbruggen S, Tysmans T, Coelho RJ (2015) Multi-objective weight and cost optimization of hybrid composite-concrete beams. Compos Struct 134:369–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast elitist non-dominated sortinggenetic algorithm for multi-objective optimisation: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. El-Rayes K, Hyari K (2005) Optimal lighting arrangements for nighttime highway construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 131(12):1292–1300. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:12(1292)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency, United Nations Environment Programme (2019) 2019 Global status report for buildings and construction: towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. UNEP, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  8. He M-X, Sun J-Q (2018) Multi-objective structural-acoustic optimization of beams made of functionally graded materials. Compos Struct 185:221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Loorits K (1995) Classification of cross section for steel beams in different design codes. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka 28(1):19–33

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mayencourt P, Mueller C (2020) Hybrid analytical and computational optimization methodology for structural shaping: material-efficient mass timber beams. Eng Struct 215:110532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Miettinen K (1998) Interactive methods. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Springer, Boston, pp 131–213

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Nguyen XH, Bui LT, Tran CT (2019) Improving many objective optimisation algorithms using objective dimensionality reduction. Intel, Evol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-019-00297-4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Ostwald M, Rodak M (2013) Multicriteria optimization of cold-formed thin-walled beams with generalized open shape under different loads. Thin-Walled Struct 65:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ozbasaran H, Yilmaz T (2018) Shape optimization of tapered I-beams with lateral-torsional buckling, deflection and stress constraints. J Constr Steel Res 143:119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Parastesh H, Hajirasouliha I, Taji H, Sabbagh AB (2019) Shape optimization of cold-formed steel beam-columns with practical and manufacturing constraints. J Constr Steel Res 155:249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Tignor M, Poloczanska E, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Nicolai M, Okem A, Petzold J, Rama B, Weyer NM (2019) IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. IPCC, Geneva (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stadler W (1986) Multicriteria optimization in mechanics—a survey. Appl Mech Rev 37(2):277–286

    Google Scholar 

  18. Suresh S, Sujit PB, Rao AK (2007) Particle swarm optimization approach for multi-objective composite box-beam design. Compos Struct 81:598–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Swain FG et al (1923) American institute of steel construction for the design, fabrication, and erection of structural steel for buildings. AISC, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  20. United Nations (2019) Growing at a slower pace, world population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html. Accessed 18 May 2020

  21. Vo-Duy T et al (2017) Multi-objective optimization of laminated composite beam structures using NSGA-II algorithm. Compos Struct 168:498–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zadeh L (1963) Optimality and non-scalar-valued performance criteria. IEEE Trans Autom Control 8(1):59–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2001) SPEA 2: improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm. Technical Report 103, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh for supporting this research. The author declares no conflict of interest. W.S.V. performed all the work presented in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering Technology, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Fox Cities Campus, Menasha, WI, USA

    Warren S. Vaz

Authors
  1. Warren S. Vaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Warren S. Vaz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaz, W.S. A comparative approach to multiobjective optimization of AISC thin-walled members. Evol. Intel. 15, 655–668 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-020-00541-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-020-00541-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation