Advertisement

Optimal Variation of Bridge Column Cross Section of Muscat Expressway, Oman

  • Himanshu GaurEmail author
  • Ram Kishore Manchiryal
  • Biswajit Acharya
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1045)

Abstract

In this chapter, an attempt is made to find optimal variation of cross sections of structures when subjected to different loading conditions such as axial, bending and torsion or coupled loading such as axial with bending or axial with torsional loading, etc. Variation of important structures such as variation of a bridge column section along the length, horizontal variation of bridge deck and variation of a chimney subjected to horizontal loading, etc. can be optimized with this methodology. In this chapter, we focus on optimal variation of bridge piers of Muscat Expressway by considering axial loading only. Variation of column section is first of all expressed/assumed mathematically which represents different possible variation pattern of section along the length such as linear, quadratic and cubic variation and so on. This assumed mathematical expression of sectional area is then plugged into the differential equation of equilibrium of the column which is derived by variational principle. Based on the solution found such as deformation of the column, optimal variation of the column section can be concluded. It is found that linear variation is the best variation when only axial load is considered. Square variation is the second best shape to be adopted for design of the columns when only axial loading is acting. The study also laid guidelines to the architectural community to choose the best possible variation of a structural element when aesthetics is a concern.

Keywords

Optimization Bridge piers Optimum variation of cross section 

References

  1. 1.
    Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P.: A simple evolutionary procedure for structural optimization. Comput. Struct. 49(5), 885–896 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P.: Evolutionary Structural Optimization. Springer, London (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang, X., Xie, Y.M.: Evolutionary Topology Optimization of Continuum Structures. Wiley, Chichester (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Querin, O.M., Steven, G.P., Xie, Y.M.: Evolutionary structural optimisation (ESO) using a bidirectional algorithm. Eng. Comput. 15(8), 1031–1048 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, X.Y., Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P., Querin, O.M.: Bidirectional evolutionary method for stiffness optimization. Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut. J. 37(11), 1483–1488 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holmberg, E., Torstenfelt, B., Klarbring, A.: Fatigue constrained topology optimization. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeong, S.H., Choi, D.-H., Yoon, G.H.: Topology optimization method for dynamic fatigue constrained problem. In: 10th World Congress on Structural and Multidiscipline Optimization, Orlando, Florida, USA, 19–24 May 2013Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belyaev, A., Maag, V., Speckert, M., Obermayr, M., Küfer, K.-H.: Multi-criteria optimization of test rig loading programs in fatigue life determination. Eng. Struct. 101, 16–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaur, H., Murari, K., Acharya, B.: Optimization of sectional dimensions of I-section flange beams and recommendations for IS 808: 1989. Open J. Civ. Eng. 6, 295–313 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ritter, W.: The Hennebique construction and methods. Schweizerische Bauzeitung 33/34 (1899)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schlaich, J., Schafer, K.: Design and detailing of structural concrete using strut-and-tie models. Struct. Eng. 69, 113–125 (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leu, L.-J., Huang, C.-W., Chen, C.-S., Liao, Y.-P.: Strut-and-tie design methodology for three-dimensional reinforced concrete structures. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 132, 929–938 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luo, Yangjun, Kang, Zhan: Layout design of reinforced concrete structures using two-material topology optimization with Drucker-Prager yield constraints. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 47, 49–110 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amir, O., Bogomolny, M.: Topology optimization for conceptual design of reinforced concrete structures. In: 9th World Congress on Structural and Multidiscipline Optimization, Shizuoka, Japan, 13–17 June 2010Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liang, Q.Q., Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P.: Topology optimization of strut-and-tie models in reinforced concrete structures using an evolutionary procedure. ACI Struct. J. (2000) (March–April)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Amir, Oded: A topology optimization procedure for reinforced concrete structures. Comput. Struct. 114–115, 46–58 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bogomolny, M., Amir, O.: Conceptual design of reinforced concrete structures using topology optimization with elastoplastic material modeling. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruggi, M.: Finite element analysis of no–tension structures as a topology optimization problem. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 50, 957–973 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, S., Qiao, H.: Topology optimization of continuum structures with different tensile and compressive properties in bridge layout design. Struct. Multidisc Optim 43, 369–380 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kingman, J.J., Tsavdaridis, K.D., Toropov, V.V.: Applications of topology optimization in structural engineering: high- rise buildings and steel components. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 9(3) (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Warshawsky, B.L.: Practical Application of Topology Optimization to the Design of Large Wind Turbine Towers. University of Iowa (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mullins, M., Kirkegaard, P.H., Jessen, R.Z., Klitgaard, J.: A topology optimization approach to learning in architectural design. In: eCAADe, vol. 23, session 3, Digital Design EducationGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosko, P.: Design optimization in statics of structures and aesthetics of structures. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Architectural, Structural and Civil Engineering, Antalya, Turkey, pp. 1–4, 7–8 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Picellia, R, Townsenda, S., Bramptonb, C., Noratoc, J., Kimad, H.A.: Stress-based shape and topology optimization with the level set method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 329, 1–23Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Himanshu Gaur
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ram Kishore Manchiryal
    • 2
  • Biswajit Acharya
    • 3
  1. 1.Bauhaus–Universitat WeimarWeimarGermany
  2. 2.Middle East CollegeMuscatOman
  3. 3.University College of Engineering, Rajasthan Technical UniversityKotaIndia

Personalised recommendations