Design and Optimization of Metal Structures

DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION
OF METAL STRUCTURES
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
D r J o z s e f F a r k a s is P r o f e s s o r E m e r i t u s o f m e t a l structures at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f
M i s k o l c , H u n g a r y . H e g r a d u a t e d from the F a c u l t y o f Civil E n g i n e e r i n g at the
T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y o f B u d a p e s t a n d m o v e d to t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c w h e r e
he b e c a m e an assistant professor in 1950, an associate professor in 1 9 6 6 and a
u n i v e r s i t y professor in 1 9 7 5 . H e o b t a i n e d d e g r e e s as a C a n d i d a t e o f T e c h n i c a l
Science in 1966 a n d D o c t o r o f T e c h n i c a l Science in 1 9 7 8 . Dr. F a r k a s ' s r e s e a r c h
field is t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n o f metal structures, residual w e l d i n g stresses and
distortions, tubular structures, stiffened plates, vibration d a m p i n g o f s a n d w i c h
structures. H e has w r i t t e n expert o p i n i o n s for m a n y industrial p r o b l e m s ,
especially on storage tanks, cranes, w e l d e d press frames and o t h e r metal
structures. H e is t h e a u t h o r o f a H u n g a r i a n u n i v e r s i t y t e x t b o o k o n metal
structures, a b o o k in E n g l i s h Optimum Design of Metal Structures (Ellis
H o r w o o d Ltd, C h i c h e s t e r 1984), t h e first a u t h o r o f t w o b o o k s in English
Analysis and Optimum Design of Metal Structures (Balkema, Rotterdam-
Brookfield 1997), Economic Design of Metal Structures (Millpress, R o t t e r d a m
2 0 0 3 ) and about 2 6 0 scientific articles in j o u r n a l s a n d conference p r o c e e d i n g s .
H e is a H u n g a r i a n delegate o f the International Institute o f W e l d i n g ( I I W ) ,
m e m b e r o f t h e International Society for Structural a n d Multidisciplinary
O p t i m i z a t i o n ( I S S M O ) and h o n o r a r y m e m b e r o f the H u n g a r i a n Scientific
S o c i e t y o f M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r s ( G T E ) . T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c has also
h o n o u r e d h i m as d o c t o r h o n o r i s causa.
D r K a r o l y J a r m a i is a p r o f e s s o r at the F a c u l t y o f M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g at the
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c , w h e r e h e g r a d u a t e d as a m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r and
r e c e i v e d his doctorate (dr.univ.) in 1979. H e t e a c h e s d e s i g n of steel structures,
w e l d e d structures, c o m p o s i t e structures a n d o p t i m i z a t i o n in H u n g a r i a n and in t h e
E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e for foreign students. His r e s e a r c h interests i n c l u d e structural
optimization, m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o g r a m m i n g t e c h n i q u e s a n d e x p e r t s y s t e m s . Dr.
J a r m a i w r o t e his C.Sc. ( P h . D . ) dissertation at t h e H u n g a r i a n A c a d e m y o f Science
in 1988, b e c a m e a E u r o p e a n E n g i n e e r (Eur. Ing. F E A N I , Paris) in 1990 and did
his habilitation (dr.habil.) at M i s k o l c in 1 9 9 5 . H a v i n g successfully d e f e n d e d his
d o c t o r o f technical science t h e s i s ( D . S c . ) in 1 9 9 5 , he s u b s e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d
a w a r d s from t h e E n g i n e e r i n g for P e a c e F o u n d a t i o n in 1997 and a scholarship as
S z e c h e n y i professor b e t w e e n the years 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 0 H e is t h e c o - a u t h o r (with
Farkas) o f t w o b o o k s in E n g l i s h Analysis and Optimum Design of Metal
Structures, Economic Design of Metal Structures and one in H u n g a r i a n , a n d has
p u b l i s h e d o v e r 3 0 0 professional p a p e r s , lecture notes, t e x t b o o k chapters and
conference p a p e r s . H e is a f o u n d i n g m e m b e r o f I S S M O , a H u n g a r i a n delegate,
vice c h a i r m a n o f c o m m i s s i o n X V and a s u b - c o m m i s s i o n c h a i r m a n X V - F o f I I W .
H e h a s held several leading positions in G T E and has b e e n the p r e s i d e n t o f this
society at the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c since 1 9 9 1 . H e w a s a visiting r e s e a r c h e r at
C h a l m e r s U n i v e r s i t y o f T e c h n o l o g y in S w e d e n in 1 9 9 1 , visiting professor at
O s a k a U n i v e r s i t y in 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 , at the N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y o f S i n g a p o r e in 1998
a n d at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Pretoria several t i m e s b e t w e e n 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 5 .
DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION
OF METAL STRUCTURES
Dr. Jozsef Farkas

Professor Emeritus of Metal Structures
University of Miskolc, Hungary
Dr. Karoly Jarmai

Professor of Mechanical Engineering
University of Miskolc, Hungary
Horwood Publishing
Chichester, UK
HORWOOD PUBLISHING LIMITED
International Publishers in Science and Technology
Coll House, Westergate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 3QL, England
First published in 2008.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
All R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o part o f this p u b l i c a t i o n m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , stored in a
retrieval system, or t r a n s m i t t e d in a n y form or b y a n y m e a n s , electronic,
m e c h a n i c a l , p h o t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g , or o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t the p e r m i s s i o n o f
H o r w o o d P u b l i s h i n g Limited, Coll H o u s e , W e s t e r g a t e , Chichester, W e s t Sussex,
P O 2 0 3QL, England.
© Horwood Publishing Limited, 2008.
B r i t i s h L i b r a r y C a t a l o g u i n g in P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a
A catalogue r e c o r d o f this b o o k is available from the British L i b r a r y
ISBN: 978-1-904275-29-9
Cover design by Jim Wilkie.

Printed and b o u n d in the U K b y A n t o n y R o w e Limited.
Table of Contents
ABOUT THE AUTHORS xv
LIST OF SYMBOLS xvii
PREFACE 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
1 NEWER MATHEMATICAL OPTIMIZATION METHODS 7
1.1 INTRODUCTION 7
1.2 T H E S N Y M A N - F A T T I M E T H O D 8
1.3 T H E P A R T I C L E S W A R M O P T I M I Z A T I O N A L G O R I T H M 11
1.4 M U L T I O B J E C T I V E O P T I M I Z A T I O N 14
1.4.1 W e i g h t i n g objectives m e t h o d 15
1.4.2 N o r m a l i z e d objectives m e t h o d 16
1.4.3 G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d t y p e I 16
1.4.4 G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d t y p e II 16
1.4.5 G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d t y p e III 17
1.4.6 W e i g h t i n g global criterion m e t h o d 17
1.4.7 Min-max method 17
1.4.8 Weighting min-max method 18
1.4.9 P r o g r a m s y s t e m for single- a n d m u l t i o b j e c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n 18
2 COST CALCULATIONS 21
2.1 INTRODUCTION 21
2.2 T H E C O S T F U N C T I O N 21
2.2.1 T h e cost o f material 22
vi Design and optimization of steel structures
2.2.2 T h e fabrication cost in g e n e r a l 22

25
2.2.3 Total cost function
27
3 SEISMIC RESISTANT DESIGN
27
3.1 INTRODUCTION
27
3.2 G R O U N D C O N D I T I O N S A N D S E I S M I C A C T I O N
27
3.2.1 G r o u n d t y p e s
28
3.2.2 C a s e s o f v e r y l o w seismicity
28
3.2.3 P a r a m e t e r s o f elastic r e s p o n s e spectra
28
3.2.4 D e s i g n s p e c t r u m for elastic analysis
3.3 D E S I G N O F B U I L D I N G S 29
3.3.1 C o m b i n a t i o n coefficients for variable actions 29
3.3.2 I m p o r t a n c e c l a s s e s a n d i m p o r t a n c e factors 29
3.3.3 B a s e shear force 30
3.3.4 Distribution o f t h e horizontal seismic forces 30
3.3.5 D i s p l a c e m e n t calculation 31
3.3.6 L i m i t a t i o n o f interstorey drift 31
3.4 S P E C I F I C R U L E S F O R S T E E L B U I L D I N G S 32
3.4.1 B e h a v i o u r factors for m o m e n t resisting frames 32
4 FIRE RESISTANT DESIGN 33
4.1 INTRODUCTION 33
4.2 C A L C U L A T I O N O F T H E S T E E L M E C H A N I C A L P R O P E R T I E S 34
AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES
4.2.1 C a l c u l a t i o n o f yield strength 34
4.2.2 Calculation o f Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s 34
4.2.3 T h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y 35
4.2.4 T h e specific heat 35
4.3 C A L C U L A T I O N O F T H E A C T I O N S F O R T H E F I R E S I T U A T I ONN 36
4.3.1 S i m p l e calculation m o d e l s 37
4.3.2 M e m b e r analysis 37
4.3.3 R e s i s t a n c e o f tension m e m b e r s 38
4.3.4 C o m p r e s s i o n m e m b e r s w i t h C l a s s 3 cross-sections 39
4.3.5 B e a m s w i t h C l a s s 3 cross-sections 39
4.3.6 M e m b e r s w i t h C l a s s 3 cross-sections, subject to c o m b i n e d 40
b e n d i n g a n d axial c o m p r e s s i o n
4.4 S T E E L T E M P E R A T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T 41
4.4.1 U n p r o t e c t e d internal s t e e l w o r k 41
4.4.2 Internal s t e e l w o r k insulated b y fire p r o t e c t i o n material 42
4.4.3 T h e calculation o f t h e evolution o f steel t e m p e r a t u r e 44
4.4.4 A d v a n c e d calculation m o d e l s 46
Table of contents vii
5 LARGE-SPAN SUSPENDED ROOF MEMBERS 47
5.1 INTRODUCTION 47
5.2 T H E S U S P E N D E D R O O F M E M B E R S 49
5.3 D E S C R I P T I O N O F A N A L Y T I C A L M O D E L 49
5.3.1 S y m m e t r i c l o a d i n g 50
51
5.3.2 A s y m m e t r i c l o a d i n g
53
5.4 OPTIMIZATION
54
5.5 N U M E R I C A L D A T A
54
5.6 P A R A M E T R I C E V A L U A T I O N
56
5.7 CONCLUSIONS
57
6 FRAMES
57
6.1 INTRODUCTION
58
6.2 S I M P L E F R A M E W I T H W E L D E D O R B O L T E D C O R N E R J O I N T S
58
6.2.1 F o r c e s a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t s in t h e frame
62
6.2.2 D e s i g n constraints
D 62
6.2.2.1 B e n d i n g a n d axial c o m p r e s s i o n constraint o f the c o l u m n C E
64
6.2.2.2 B e n d i n g a n d axial c o m p r e s s i o n constraint o f the b e a m B C
66
6.2.3 O p t i m i z a t i o n characteristics a n d results
66
6.2.4 C o s t calculation for frames w i t h w e l d e d a n d b o l t e d j o i n t s
6.3 O P T I M U M S E I S M I C D E S I G N O F A M U L T I - S T O R E Y F R A M E 67
6.3.1 P r o b l e m formulation 68
6.3.2 C a l c u l a t i o n o f vertical loads 69
6.3.3 C a l c u l a t i o n o f horizontal s e i s m i c forces 70
6.3.4 B e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d axial forces 72
6.3.5 C a l c u l a t i o n a n d constraints o n interstorey drifts 74
6.3.6 Stress constraints for b e a m s and c o l u m n parts 76
6.3.6.1 Stress constraints for w e l d e d b o x c o l u m n parts 77
6.3.6.2 Stress constraints for b e a m s o f U B profile ( I - b e a m ) 78
6.3.6.3 S h e a r c h e c k of cross sections at b e a m e n d s 79
6.3.6.4 L o c a l b u c k l i n g constraint for w e l d e d b o x c o l u m n profiles 80
6.3.7 B e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s 80
6.3.8 T h e c o n n e c t i o n strength 82
6.3.9 T h e objective function o f t h e frame w i t h the cost o f c o n n e c t i o n s 83
6.3.9.1 M a t e r i a l cost 83
6.3.9.2 C o s t o f design, a s s e m b l y a n d inspection 83
6.3.9.3 C o s t o f cutting 84
6.3.9.4 C o s t o f w e l d i n g a c c o r d i n g to the J a p a n e s e calculation 84
6.3.10 O p t i m i z a t i o n a n d results 85
6.3.11 C h e c k t h e c o n n e c t i o n strength 86
6.3.12 C o n c l u s i o n s 86
viii Design and optimization of steel structures
6.4 F I R E - R E S I S T A N T O P T I M U M D E S I G N O F A M U L T I - S T O R E Y 87
FRAME
6.4.2 Stress constraints for b e a m s a n d c o l u m n p a r t s 87
6.4.2.1 Stress constraints for b e a m s o f U B profile ( I - b e a m w i t h o i 88
fire resistance)
6.4.2.2 T h e stress constraint for t h e b e a m (with fire resistance) 89
a c c o r d i n g to E C 3 ( 2 0 0 3 b )
6.4.2.3 Stress constraints for w e l d e d b o x c o l u m n parts 90
( w i t h o u t fire resistance)
6.4.2.4 Stress constraint for c o l u m n s (with fire resistance) 90
a c c o r d i n g to E C 3 ( 2 0 0 3 b )
6.4.2.5 L o c a l b u c k l i n g constraint for w e l d e d b o x c o l u m n profiles 91
6.4.3 T h e objective function 91
6.4.5 C o n c l u s i o n s 93
6.5 E A R T H Q U A K E - R E S I S T A N T O P T I M U M D E S I G N O F A 94
TUBULAR FRAME
6.5.1 Introduction 94
6.5.2 C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e seismic force 94
6.5.3 N o r m a l forces a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t s in vertical frames 95
6.5.4 G e o m e t r i c characteristics o f t h e square h o l l o w section 97
6.5.5 C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e elastic s w a y 99
6.5.6 C o n s t r a i n t o n s w a y limitation 100
6.5.7 L o c a l b u c k l i n g constraints 100
6.5.8 Stress constraint for t h e c o l u m n s 101
6.5.9 Stress constraint for the b e a m s 101
6.5.11 C o s t calculation 103
6.5.12 C o n c l u s i o n s 104
6.6 F I R E - R E S I S T A N T O P T I M U M D E S I G N O F A T U B U L A R F R A M E 105
6.6.2 Calculation o f t h e frame m e m b e r s 105
6.6.2.1 B e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d forces from the vertical loads 106
6.6.2.2 B e n d i n g m o m e n t in t h e horizontal frame d u e to h o r i z o n t a 106
force F b
6.6.2.3 T h e stress constraint for t h e b e a m (point E, n o fire 107

resistance) a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 5 )
6.6.2.4 T h e stress constraint for t h e b e a m (point E, w i t h fire 107
resistance) a c c o r d i n g t o E u r o c o d e 1 ( 2 0 0 2 )
6.6.2.5 Stress constraint for c o l u m n s (point C, w i t h fire 107
resistance) a c c o r d i n g t o E u r o c o d e 1 ( 2 0 0 2 )
6.6.3 L o c a l b u c k l i n g o f p l a t e s 108
6.6.4 N u m e r i c a l d a t a 108
6.6.5 O p t i m i z a t i o n results 109
6.6.6 C o n c l u s i o n 110
Table of contentsS ix
7 STIFFENED PLATES 111
7.1 M I N I M U M C O S T D E S I G N O F A W E L D E D S T I F F E N E D S Q U A R E 112
PLATE LOADED BY BIAXIAL COMPRESSION
7.1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 112
7.1.3 C o s t function 113
7.1.4 D e s i g n constraints 114
7.1.4.1 C o n s t r a i n t o n global b u c k l i n g 114
7.1.4.2 C o n s t r a i n t o n local b u c k l i n g o f flat stiffeners 116
7.1.4.3 D i s t o r t i o n constraint 116
7.1.4.4 L i m i t a t i o n o f the n u m b e r o f s p a c i n g s b e t w e e n the stiffeners 117
7.1.5 R e s u l t s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s 117
7.2 O P T I M U M D E S I G N A N D C O S T C O M P A R I S O N O F A W E L D E D 118
PLATE STIFFENED O N O N E SIDE A N D A C E L L U L A R PLATE
BOTH LOADED BY UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION
7.2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 118
7.2.2 O v e r a l l b u c k l i n g strength o f o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened 119
u n i a x i a l l y c o m p r e s s e d plates
7.2.3 Verification o f t h e torsional stiffness o f cellular plates 120
7.2.3.1 D e r i v a t i o n o f t h e fundamental differential e q u a t i o n o f a n 120
orthotropic p l a t e in the case o f a u n i f o r m t r a n s v e r s e l o a d
7.2.3.2 Verification o f t h e torsional stiffness b y a torsional test 121
o n a w e l d e d steel cellular p l a t e m o d e l
7.2.4 T h e plate stiffened o n o n e side b y longitudinal stiffeners 124
7.2.5 T h e longitudinally stiffened cellular plate 127
7.2.6 N u m e r i c a l d a t a 129
7.2.7 M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f t h e stiffened plate 130
7.2.8 M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f t h e cellular plate 131
7.2.9 C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e stiffened and the cellular p l a t e 131
7.3 E C O N O M I C O R T H O G O N A L L Y W E L D E D S T I F F E N I N G 131
OF A UNIAXIALLY COMPRESSED STEEL PLATE
7.3.3 G e o m e t r i c characteristics o f stiffeners 133
7.3.7 C o n c l u s i o n s 138
7.4 E C O N O M I C W E L D E D S T I F F E N I N G O F A S T E E L P L A T E L O A D E D 138
BY BENDING
7.4.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 138
7.4.3 G e o m e t r i c characteristics o f stiffeners 139
x Design and optimization of steel structures

7.4.4.1 L i m i t a t i o n o f stresses in t h e b a s e plate 140
7.4.4.2 L i m i t a t i o n o f stress in stiffeners 141
7.4.4.3 L i m i t a t i o n o f m a x i m u m deflection 141
7.4.7 C o n c l u s i o n s 143
7.5 M I N I M U M C O S T D E S I G N O F A W E L D E D S Q U A R E S T I F F E N E D 144
PLATE SUPPORTED AT FOUR CORNERS
7.5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 144
7.5.2 G e o m e t r i c a l characteristics o f stiffeners 144
7.5.3 C o s t s as a function o f n u m b e r o f internal stiffeners in o n e directio l 145
7.5.4 C o n s t r a i n t s 146
7.5.5 N u m e r i c a l d a t a 147
7.5.6 Special c a s e o f three internal stiffeners 148
7.5.7 Special case o f four internal stiffeners 150
7.5.8 Special case o f five internal stiffeners 152
7.5.9 O p t i m i z a t i o n results 155
7.5.10 C o n c l u s i o n s 156
7.6 M I N I M U M C O S T D E S I G N O F A W E L D E D S T E E L S Q U A R E 157
CELLULAR PLATE SUPPORTED AT FOUR CORNERS
7.6.2 D e r i v a t i o n o f t h e fundamental differential e q u a t i o n o f an 158
orthotropic plate in the c a s e o f a u n i f o r m t r a n s v e r s e load
7.6.3 B e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d deflections 160
7.6.4 G e o m e t r i c characteristics 160
7.6.6 F a b r i c a t i o n constraints 162
7.6.7 Structural characteristics to b e c h a n g e d (variables) 162
7.6.8 N u m e r i c a l d a t a 163
7.6.11 C o n c l u s i o n s 165
8 WELDED STIFFENED CYLINDRICAL AND CONICAL SHELLS 167
8.1 R I N G - S T I F F E N E D C Y L I N D R I C A L S H E L L S S U B J E C T T O 168
AXIAL COMPRESSION AND EXTERNAL PRESSURE
8.1.2.1 A x i a l c o m p r e s s i o n 168
8.1.2.2 External p r e s s u r e a n d interaction 168
8.1.2.3 L o c a l b u c k l i n g constraint 172
8.1.3 T h e cost function 172
8.1.4 O p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s a n d results 174
8.2 A R I N G - S T I F F E N E D S H E L L S U B J E C T T O B E N D I N G 175
Table of contents xi
8.2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 175
8.2.2 T h e d e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s 176
8.2.2.1 L o c a l b u c k l i n g o f t h e flat ring-stiffeners 176
8.2.2.2 C o n s t r a i n t o n local shell b u c k l i n g (as unstiffened) 176
8.2.2.3 C o n s t r a i n t o n p a n e l ring b u c k l i n g 179
8.2.2.4 Deflection constraint 179
8.2.4 R e s u l t s o f t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n 181
8.2.5 C o n c l u s i o n s 182
8.3 A S T R I N G E R - S T I F F E N E D S H E L L S U B J E C T T O B E N D I N G 182
8.3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 182
8.3.3 T h e stringer-stiffened shell 184
8.3.3.1 D e s i g n constraints 184
8.3.3.2 T h e cost function 186
8.3.4 T h e unstiffened shell 187
8.3.5 O p t i m i z a t i o n a n d c o m p a r i s o n o f results 188
8.3.6 C o n c l u s i o n s 189
8.4 A S T R I N G E R - S T I F F E N E D S H E L L S U B J E C T T O A X I A L 189
COMPRESSION AND BENDING
8.4.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 189
8.4.3 T h e stiffened shell 191
8.4.3.1 C o n s t r a i n t s 191
8.4.4.1 C o n s t r a i n t s 195
8.4.6 M u l t i o b j e c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n 197
8.4.7 C o n c l u s i o n s 199
8.5 A W E L D E D O R T H O G O N A L L Y S T I F F E N E D C Y L I N D R I C A L 200
SHELL SUBJECT TO AXIAL COMPRESSION A N D
EXTERNAL PRESSURE
8.5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 200
8.5.2 C o n s t r a i n t s for t h e o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened cylindrical shell 200
8.5.2.1 Shell ( c u r v e d p a n e l ) b u c k l i n g 201
8.5.2.2 P a n e l stiffener (stringer) b u c k l i n g 203
8.5.2.3 P a n e l ring b u c k l i n g 203
8.5.2.4 M a n u f a c t u r i n g limitations 204
8.5.3 C o s t function for t h e o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened cylindrical shell 205
8.5.4 C o n s t r a i n t a n d cost function for t h e unstiffened shell 205
8.5.4.1 C o n s t r a i n t o n shell b u c k l i n g 207
xii Design and optimization of steel structures
8.5.4.2 C o s t function for t h e unstiffened shell 207

8.5.5 N u m e r i c a l o p t i m i z a t i o n results 208
8.5.5.1 N u m e r i c a l d a t a 208
8.5.5.2 R e s u l t s for t h e o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened cylindrical shell 208
8.5.5.3 R e s u l t s for the unstiffened shell 209
8.5.6 C o n c l u s i o n s 209
8.6 A S T R I N G E R - S T I F F E N E D S T E E L C Y L I N D R I C A L S H E L L 209
OF VARIABLE DIAMETER SUBJECT TO AXIAL COMPRESSION
AND BENDING
8.6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 209
8.6.3 T h e stiffened shell 210
8.6.3.1 C o n s t r a i n t s 210
8.6.4.1 C o n s t r a i n t s 214
8.6.6 C o n c l u s i o n s 216
8.7 A R I N G - S T I F F E N E D C O N I C A L S H E L L L O A D E D B Y E X T E R N A L 217
PRESSURE
8.7.2 D e s i g n o f shell t h i c k n e s s e s 218
8.7.3 D e s i g n o f a ring-stiffener for each shell s e g m e n t 219
8.7.5 N u m e r i c a l d a t a 221
8.7.6 R e s u l t s o f the o p t i m i z a t i o n 222
8.7.7 C o n c l u s i o n s 222
9 TUBULAR STRUCTURES 225
9.1 C O S T C O M P A R I S O N O F A R I N G - S T I F F E N E D S H E L L 225
AND A TUBULAR TRUSS STRUCTURE FOR A WIND
TURBINE TOWER
9.1.2 Ring-stiffened shell structure 226
9.1.2.2 C o s t function 229
9.1.2.3 O p t i m i z a t i o n a n d results 231
9.1.2.4 C h e c k for e i g e n f r e q u e n c y 231
9.1.2.5 C h e c k for fatigue 231
9.1.3 T u b u l a r truss structure 232
9.1.3.1 S u b o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m for t h e b u c k l i n g d e s i g n o f a C H S 232
c o m p r e s s e d strut
9.1.3.2 D e s i g n o f t h e u p p e r and m i d d l e t o w e r part 234
9.1.3.3 O p t i m u m a n g l e o f the l o w e r part 234
Table of contents xiii
9.1.3.4 D e s i g n o f circular h o l l o w sections ( C H S ) for t h e t h r e e 236

t o w e r parts
9.1.3.5 C h e c k o f c h o r d plastification in t u b u l a r j o i n t s 238
9.1.3.6 C h e c k o f j o i n t eccentricity 240
9.1.3.7 C h e c k of e i g e n f r e q u e n c y 240
9.1.3.8 C h e c k o f fatigue 241
9.1.3.9 C o s t calculation 241
9.1.4 C o n c l u s i o n s 242
9.2 M I N I M U M C O S T D E S I G N O F A C O L U M N - S U P P O R T E D O I L 243
PIPELINE STRENGTHENED BY A TUBULAR TRUSS
9.2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 243
9.2.2 D e r i v a t i o n o f the c o l u m n force 243
9.2.3 D e s i g n o f t h e original p i p e 245
9.2.4 O p t i m i z a t i o n o f t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g tubular truss 246
9.2.4.3 T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e a n d results 250
9.2.5 C o n c l u s i o n s 251
10 S Q U A R E B O X C O L U M N C O M P O S E D F R O M W E L D E D 253
CELLULAR PLATES
10.1 INTRODUCTION 253
10.2 C O N S T R A I N T S 256
10.2.1 C o n s t r a i n t o n overall b u c k l i n g o f a cellular p l a t e 256
10.2.2 Constraint o n horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c o l u m n t o p 258
10.2.3 C o n s t r a i n t o n local b u c k l i n g o f face plates c o n n e c t i n g t h e 258
t r a n s v e r s e stiffeners
10.3 N U M E R I C A L D A T A 258
10.4 C O S T F U N C T I O N 259
10.5 O P T I M I Z A T I O N A N D R E S U L T S 260
10.6 CONCLUSIONS 261
APPENDIXES A-D 263
REFERENCES 273
NAME INDEX 293
SUBJECT INDEX 295

About the authors
D r J o z s e f F a r k a s is a professor e m e r i t u s o f metal structures at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f

M i s k o l c , H u n g a r y . H e g r a d u a t e d in 1950 at t h e F a c u l t y o f Civil E n g i n e e r i n g o f t h e
T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y o f B u d a p e s t . H e h a s b e e n an assistant professor o f t h e
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c since 1950, an associate professor since 1966, a university
professor since 1975. H i s scientific d e g r e e s are c a n d i d a t e o f t e c h n i c a l s c i e n c e 1966,
d o c t o r of technical s c i e n c e 1 9 7 8 . H i s r e s e a r c h field is t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n o f metal
structures, residual w e l d i n g stresses a n d distortions, tubular structures, stiffened
plates, v i b r a t i o n d a m p i n g o f s a n d w i c h structures. H e h a s w r i t t e n e x p e r t o p i n i o n s for
m a n y industrial p r o b l e m s , e s p e c i a l l y o n s t o r a g e t a n k s , c r a n e s , w e l d e d p r e s s frames
a n d other m e t a l structures. H e is the a u t h o r o f a u n i v e r s i t y t e x t b o o k a b o u t m e t a l
structures, a b o o k in E n g l i s h " O p t i m u m D e s i g n o f M e t a l S t r u c t u r e s " (Ellis
H o r w o o d , C h i c h e s t e r 1984), t h e first a u t h o r o f t w o b o o k s in E n g l i s h " A n a l y s i s a n d
O p t i m u m D e s i g n o f M e t a l S t r u c t u r e s " ( B a l k e m a , R o t t e r d a m - B r o o k f i e l d 1997),
"Economic Design of Metal Structures" (Millpress, Rotterdam 2003) and about 260
scientific articles in j o u r n a l s a n d conference p r o c e e d i n g s . H e is a H u n g a r i a n
delegate o f t h e International Institute o f W e l d i n g ( I I W ) , m e m b e r o f t h e International
Society for Structural a n d M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y O p t i m i z a t i o n ( I S S M O ) a n d h o n o r a r y
m e m b e r o f t h e H u n g a r i a n Scientific Society o f M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r s ( G T E ) . H e is
d o c t o r h o n o r i s c a u s a o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c .
D r K a r o l y J a r m a i is a p r o f e s s o r at t h e F a c u l t y o f M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g at t h e
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c . H e g r a d u a t e d as a m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r a n d r e c e i v e d his
doctorate (dr.univ.) in 1979 at the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c . H e t e a c h e s d e s i g n o f steel
structures, w e l d e d structures, c o m p o s i t e structures a n d o p t i m i z a t i o n in H u n g a r i a n
a n d in t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e for foreign students. H i s r e s e a r c h interests include
structural o p t i m i z a t i o n , m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o g r a m m i n g t e c h n i q u e s a n d e x p e r t s y s t e m s .
H e w r o t e his C . S c . ( P h . D . ) dissertation at t h e H u n g a r i a n A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e in
1988. H e b e c a m e a E u r o p e a n E n g i n e e r (Eur.Ing. F E A N I , Paris) in 1990. H e did his
habilitation (dr.habil.) at the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c in 1995. H e d e f e n d e d his d o c t o r
o f t e c h n i c a l s c i e n c e t h e s i s (D.Sc.) in 1 9 9 5 . H e w a s a w a r d e d a S z e c h e n y i p r o f e s s o r
s c h o l a r s h i p in t h e y e a r s 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 0 a n d an a w a r d o f the E n g i n e e r i n g for P e a c e
F o u n d a t i o n in 1997. H e is t h e c o - a u t h o r o f t w o b o o k s in E n g l i s h " A n a l y s i s a n d
O p t i m u m D e s i g n o f M e t a l S t r u c t u r e s " ( B a l k e m a , R o t t e r d a m - B r o o k f i e l d 1997),
" E c o n o m i c D e s i g n o f M e t a l S t r u c t u r e s " (Millpress, R o t t e r d a m 2 0 0 3 ) a n d o n e in
H u n g a r i a n ( M i i e g y e t e m i K i a d o 2 0 0 1 ) . H e h a s p u b l i s h e d o v e r 3 0 0 professional
p a p e r s , lecture n o t e s , t e x t b o o k c h a p t e r s and c o n f e r e n c e p a p e r s . H e is a founding
m e m b e r of I S S M O , a Hungarian delegate, vice chairman of commission X V and a
s u b c o m m i s s i o n c h a i r m a n X V - F o f I I W . H e h a s h e l d several leading p o s i t i o n s in
G T E a n d h a s b e e n t h e p r e s i d e n t o f this society at the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c since
1 9 9 1 . H e w a s a visiting r e s e a r c h e r at C h a l m e r s U n i v e r s i t y o f T e c h n o l o g y in S w e d e n
in 1 9 9 1 , visiting p r o f e s s o r at O s a k a U n i v e r s i t y in 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 , at t h e N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y o f S i n g a p o r e in 1998 a n d at U n i v e r s i t y o f Pretoria in several times
between 2000-2005.
List of Symbols
a S p a c i n g of ribs [ m m ]
a g G r o u n d acceleration
a w Weld dimension [mm]
2
A C r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area [ m m ]
2
Am
Surface area o f a m e m b e r p e r unit length [ m m ]
Ap A r e a o f the inner surface o f the fire p r o t e c t i o n material
2
p e r unit length o f t h e m e m b e r [ m m ]
A^V S e c t i o n factor for steel m e m b e r s insulated b y fire
p r o t e c t i o n material [ 1 / m m ]
2
A r
C r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a o f a ring-stiffener [ m m ]
AT
T h e r m a l i m p u l s e d u e to w e l d i n g [ m m ]
b Side length, plate w i d t h , b e a m s s p a c i n g [ m m ]
B B e n d i n g stiffness
2
B , By
X B e n d i n g stiffnesses [ N m m ]
c Specific heat
c Coefficient ( E q . 5 . 5 )
Ca T e m p e r a t u r e d e p e n d a n t specific heat o f steel [ J / k g K ]
c P
T e m p e r a t u r e i n d e p e n d e n t specific heat o f the fire
p r o t e c t i o n material [ J / k g K ]
factors for b e n t stiffened plates
c Curvature [1/mm]
c Factor (Eq.8.101)
c P a r a m e t e r (Eq. 10.8)
Cw Welding time parameter
d Diameter [mm]
d r
Interstorey drift
D Diameter [mm]
D Plate b e n d i n g stiffness (Eq. 7.15)
xviii Design and optimization of steel structures
d p
T h i c k n e s s o f fire p r o t e c t i o n material
e T r u s s j o i n t eccentricity [ m m ]
E M o d u l u s of elasticity [ G P a ]
E a
M o d u l u s o f elasticity o f steel o n n o r m a l t e m p e r a t u r e [GPa]
E ,e M o d u l u s o f elasticity o f steel o n elevated t e m p e r a t u r e G [ G P a ]
a
a
E
d,fl D e s i g n effect o f actions in t h e fire situation;
f E i g e n f r e q u e n c y [Hz]
M a x i m u m deflection [ m m ]
fmax
P r o p o r t i o n a l limit for steel at elevated t e m p e r a t u r e 9a
fp.0
Effective yield strength of steel at elevated t e m p e r a t u r e 9a
ff.0
fy Yield stress [ M P a ]
F F o r c e [N]
g Truss joint gap [mm]
G Shear modulus [GPa]
h Truss height [mm]
h N e t heat flux p e r unit area [ ]
"net.d
2
H Plate torsional stiffness [ N m m ]

H H o r i z o n t a l c o m p o n e n t force ( E q . 5 . 7 )
H H o r i z o n t a l force
F
4
M o m e n t s o f inertia [ m m ]
I W
A r c current [A]
4
I, T o r s i o n a l constant [ m m ]
K W a r p i n g constant [mm6]
k C o s t factor
kg Relative v a l u e o f a strength or deformation p r o p e r t y o f
steel at e l e v a t e d t e m p e r a t u r e 0a
K Effective length factor

K C o s t [$]
I L e n g t h at 2 0 ° C [ m m ]
L L e n g t h , span length [ m m ]
m M a s s [kg]
M Bending moment [Nmm]
n N u m b e r o f ribs
n Parameter (Eq.8.28)
N N o r m a l force [N]
p> q Distributed load intensity [ N / m m ]
i S e i s m i c b e h a v i o u r factor
Specific shear forces
Q S h e a r force [N]
QT H e a t input o f w e l d i n g [ J / m m ]
r R a d i u s o f gyration [ m m ]
R Shell radius [ m m ]
s N o r m a l force d u e t o X = l ( E q . 9 . 5 6 )
Se Effective p l a t e w i d t h
List of symbols xix
s Surface [ m m ] 2
s T u b u l a r m e m b e r force
3
Static m o m e n t s [ m m ]
Sj R o t a t i o n a l stiffness o f a b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n
s d
S e i s m i c design s p e c t r u m
t Thickness [mm]
t T i m e in fire e x p o s u r e [sec]
T T i m e [s]
T A x i a l force (Eq.5.10)
U A r c v o l t a g e [V]
v w W e l d i n g speed o f travel [ m m / s ]
3
V Volume [mm ]
w Deflection [ m m ]
W e i g h t i n g coefficients
3
W„ Wy Section m o d u l i [ m m ]
X U n k n o w n force
z Factor (Eq.8.102)
a A n g l e o f inclination
a F a c t o r for b u c k l i n g strength
a P a r a m e t e r (Eq. 5.12)
a E i g e n f r e q u e n c y (Eq.9.29)
a o T h e r m a l e x p a n s i o n coefficient
P W e b s l e n d e r n e s s ratio
fi S e i s m i c l o w b o u n d factor
P P a r a m e t e r (Eq.7.62)
y=d/2t T u b u l a r truss p a r a m e t e r
YM\ Partial safety factor
Yw F a t i g u e safety factor
S L o c a l b u c k l i n g factor
At T h e t i m e interval at fire calculation [sec]
£ = p35/fy M o d i f y i n g factors for steels
Specific strains
1 L o s s factor
n H e a t efficiency o f a w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y
n C o l u m n imperfection factor
n Parameter (Eq.7.206)
R e d u c t i o n factor for d e s i g n load level in t h e fire situation;
VG D i s t a n c e o f gravity center [ m m ]
K N u m b e r o f a s s e m b l e d structural e l e m e n t s
K A d a p t a t i o n factor at fire resistance
@J F a b r i c a t i o n difficulty factor
X S e i s m i c correction factor
X Slenderness
xx Design and optimization of steel structures
k Thermal conductivity
T h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y o f t h e fire protection s y s t e m [ W / m K ]
I R e d u c e d slenderness
P Penalty parameter
Po D e g r e e o f utilisation at t i m e t = 0
V P o i s s o n ratio
3
P Material density [kg/m ]
3
Pa U n i t m a s s o f steel [ k g / m ]
3
Pp U n i t m a s s o f t h e fire p r o t e c t i o n material [ k g / m ]
9 A n g l e o f inclination
0 T e m p e r a t u r e [°C]
Q ,ta
Steel t e m p e r a t u r e at t i m e / [°C]
0g.l A m b i e n t g a s t e m p e r a t u r e at t i m e / [°C]
P a r a m e t e r (Eq. 7.162)
a N o r m a l stress [ M P a ]
Critical b u c k l i n g stress
"adm A d m i s s i b l e stress [ M P a ]
r S h e a r stress [ M P a ]
âdm A d m i s s i b l e shear stress [ M P a ]
9 N u m b e r o f rib s p a c i n g s
<P A n g l e o f inclination
0 Buckling parameter
X Flexural b u c k l i n g factor
¥ Stress ratio (Eq.3.1)
co=H/a G e o m e t r i c characteristic o f a parallel-chord truss
AF P u l s a t i n g force r a n g e [N]
A9 , g t I n c r e a s e o f t h e a m b i e n t g a s t e m p e r a t u r e d u r i n g the t i m e
interval At [K]
ACT,AT Stress r a n g e [ M P a ]
Abbreviations
CHS C i r c u l a r h o l l o w section
DE Differential evolution
EC3 Eurocode 3
EC8 Eurocode 8
ECCS E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n for C o n s t r u c t i o n a l S t e e l w o r k
FCAW Flux Cored Arc Welding
FCAW-MC Metal Cored Arc Welding
FRP F i b e r reinforced plastic
GA Genetic algorithm
GMAW-C Gas Metal Arc Welding with C 0 2
GMAW-M Gas Metal Arc Welding with Mixed Gas

GTAW Gas Tungsten Arc Welding
IIW International Institute o f W e l d i n g
List of symbols xxi
PSO Particle s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n
RHS R e c t a n g u l a r h o l l o w section
SHS S q u a r e h o l l o w section
SAW Submerged Arc Welding
SMAW Shielded Metal Arc Welding
SMAW HR Shielded Metal Arc Welding High Recovery
S S F C A W (ISW) Self Shielded F l u x C o r e d A r c W e l d i n g
Preface
Structural o p t i m i z a t i o n is a d e s i g n s y s t e m for s e a r c h i n g better solutions, w h i c h

better fulfil e n g i n e e r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . T h e m a i n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a m o d e r n load-
c a r r y i n g structure are t h e safety, fitness for p r o d u c t i o n and e c o n o m y . T h e safety a n d
p r o d u c i b i l i t y are g u a r a n t e e d b y d e s i g n a n d fabrication constraints, a n d e c o n o m y can
b e a c h i e v e d b y m i n i m i z a t i o n o f a cost function.
T h e m a i n a i m o f this b o o k is to g i v e designers a n d fabricators aspects for selection

o f t h e best structural solution. A lot o f structural v e r s i o n s fulfil t h e d e s i g n a n d
fabrication constraints a n d d e s i g n e r s s h o u l d select from these possibilities t h e best
o n e s . A suitable cost function h e l p s this selection, since a m o d e r n structure should
b e n o t o n l y safe and fit for p r o d u c t i o n b u t also e c o n o m i c .
A s i m p l e n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e illustrates this aspect. In T a b l e 1 three c r o s s - s e c t i o n s

o f a b e n t b o x b e a m are s h o w n . T h e i r b e n d i n g m o m e n t c a p a c i t y (or section m o d u l u s )
is n e a r l y equal, b u t their cross-sectional areas (or m a s s ) a n d costs (for a b e a m length
o f 2 0 m ) are different.
F u r t h e r m o r e , their safeties against p l a t e b u c k l i n g (or plate s l e n d e r n e s s e s ) are also

n e a r equal. T h e limiting p l a t e s l e n d e r n e s s in t h e case o f a steel o f yield stress 2 3 5
M P a for w e b s is 6 9 a n d for c o m p r e s s i o n flange is 4 2 . T h e cost i n c l u d e s m a t e r i a l cost
a n d w e l d i n g cost o f four longitudinal fillet w e l d s . It c a n b e s e e n that, t o select t h e
m o s t suitable version, t h e b e a m o f the m i n i m u m m a s s or cost s h o u l d be selected,
since this structural v e r s i o n is safe a n d e c o n o m i c .
T h i s s i m p l e calculation is m a d e b y v a r y i n g o n l y few p a r a m e t e r s . In m o s t cases,

treated in this b o o k , m u c h m o r e u n k n o w n s s h o u l d be v a r i e d to find t h e best solution.
In these cases o n e n e e d s special m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d s , s o m e of t h e m a r e treated in
this b o o k as well.
2 Design and optimization of steel structures
T a b l e 1 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h r e e different b e n t b o x b e a m c r o s s - s e c t i o n s
1000x24 810x20 660x16
£ £
820x12
1035x15
1240x18
cross- 67680 63450 65760

sectional
2
area m m
section 22.3696xl0 6
22.1231xl0 6
22.3200x10"
modulus
3
mm
web 820/12 = 68.3 1035/15 = 69 1240/18 = 68.9
slenderness
flange 1000/24 = 41.7 810/20 = 40.5 660/16 = 41.2
slenderness
cost $ 11916 11734 12709
T h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e c a n b e formulated m a t h e m a t i c a l l y as follows:
t h e objective function should b e m i n i m i z e d
f(x)^>min, x = (x ,...,x )
l n
subject to constraints
g/x)<0, j = l...p
w h e r e n is the n u m b e r o f u n k n o w n s a n d p is t h e n u m b e r o f constraints.
T h e solution o f this c o n s t r a i n e d function m i n i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m n e e d s effective

mathematical methods.
T h e a b o v e description s h o w s that the structural o p t i m i z a t i o n h a s four m a i n
components:
(1) design constraints relate to stress, stability, deformation, eigenfrequency,

damping,
(2) fabrication constraints formulate t h e limitation o f residual w e l d i n g distortions,

r e q u i r e m e n t s for w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y , limitations o f plate t h i c k n e s s e s a n d m a i n
structural d i m e n s i o n s , definition o f available profile series,
Preface 3
(3) a cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e and contains

the cost o f materials, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g , cutting a n d p a i n t i n g ,
(4) mathematical methods.
In o u r s y s t e m a t i c r e s e a r c h w e h a v e d e v e l o p e d suitable m e a n s for t h e s e m a i n
c o m p o n e n t s . D e s i g n constraints are formulated a c c o r d i n g to relevant E u r o c o d e s or
d e s i g n rules o f A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m Institute ( A P I ) , D e t N o r s k e Veritas ( D N V ) a n d
E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n for C o n s t r u c t i o n a l S t e e l w o r k ( E C C S ) .
W e h a v e w o r k e d out a calculation m e t h o d for residual w e l d i n g stresses a n d

distortions, for t h e cost function w e h a v e created a calculation m e t h o d m a i n l y for
w e l d e d structures and w e u s e several effective m a t h e m a t i c a l a l g o r i t h m s .
W e h a v e s o l v e d a lot o f structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m s for v a r i o u s structural

m o d e l s . S i n c e t h e s e m o d e l s are t h e m a i n c o m p o n e n t s o f industrial structures,
d e s i g n e r s can u s e t h e m in their w o r k . T h e cost estimation in d e s i g n stage is a g o o d
basis for t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f c a n d i d a t e structural v e r s i o n s .
O u r structural m o d e l s o f w e l d e d I- a n d b o x - b e a m s , tubular trusses, steel frames,

stiffened p l a t e s a n d shells c a n b e u s e d in all industrial applications i.e. in b r i d g e s ,
b u i l d i n g s , roofs, c o l u m n s , t o w e r s , ships, c r a n e s , offshore structures, b e l t - c o n v e y o r
b r i d g e s , m a c h i n e structures, v e h i c l e s , etc.
S o m e special structural m o d e l s are i n v o l v e d as follows: cellular plates, s u s p e n d e d

b e a m s for roofs, w i n d t u r b i n e t o w e r s , a t u b u l a r m e m b e r o f a truss t o w e r o f a fixed
offshore platform.
S i n c e the functions are h i g h l y n o n l i n e a r o n l y n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m s c a n b e treated.

T h e r e f o r e , the c o n c l u s i o n s are n o t c o m p l e t e l y general. In spite o f this t h e solutions
g i v e v a l u a b l e a s p e c t s for o p t i m u m design, b e c a u s e t h e n u m e r i c a l d a t a are selected
realistically.
T h e first step o f t h e optimization p r o c e d u r e is t h e selection o f variables. F o r this

selection w e n e e d to k n o w t h e m a i n characteristics o f a typical structure as follows:
m a t e r i a l s , l o a d s , g e o m e t r y , t o p o l o g y , profiles, fabrication t e c h n o l o g y , j o i n t s , costs.
T h e better solutions can be o b t a i n e d b y c h a n g i n g these characteristics.
T h e n e w d e s i g n aspects o f o u r b o o k to b e e m p h a s i z e d are as follows. S e i s m i c - a n d

fire-resistant design m e t h o d s are treated in special c h a p t e r s a n d their applications are
w o r k e d out in the c h a p t e r for frames. In the case o f w e l d e d stiffened p l a t e s a n d
cylindrical shells the p r o b l e m o f e c o n o m y o f stiffening is systematically
investigated.
A q u e s t i o n arises w h e t h e r a thicker unstiffened or a thinner stiffened plate or shell is

c h e a p e r . T h e studies in the relevant c h a p t e r s s h o w that the e c o n o m y o f stiffening
d e p e n d s o n loads (axial c o m p r e s s i o n , b e n d i n g , external p r e s s u r e or c o m b i n e d ) and
o n stiffening t y p e (ring-, longitudinal- or o r t h o g o n a l ) .
S u m m a r i z i n g : t h e general aspect o f o u r b o o k is the cost c o m p a r i s o n , w h i c h is an

effective m e a n s to select t h e m o s t suitable structural v e r s i o n s .
W e participate c o n t i n u o u s l y in t h e following conference series: A n n u a l A s s e m b l i e s

International Institute o f W e l d i n g ( I I W ) , W o r l d C o n g r e s s e s o f I S S M O (International
Society o f Structural a n d M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y O p t i m i z a t i o n ) , E u r o s t e e l E u r o p e a n
C o n f e r e n c e s o f Steel Structures, T u b u l a r Structures S y m p o s i a ( o r g a n i z e d b y the I I W
subcommission XV-E).
B e s i d e t h e C o n f e r e n c e P r o c e e d i n g s , w e p u b l i s h o u r studies also in w e l l - k n o w n
international e n g i n e e r i n g j o u r n a l s i.e. Structural a n d M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y O p t i m i z a t i o n ,
W e l d i n g in t h e W o r l d , C o m p u t e r s and Structures, E n g i n e e r i n g O p t i m i z a t i o n ,
E n g i n e e r i n g Structures, T h i n - w a l l e d Structures, Journal o f C o n s t r u c t i o n a l Steel
R e s e a r c h etc.
S o m e o f o u r studies h a v e b e e n w o r k e d out w i t h a v e r y v a l u a b l e c o o p e r a t i o n o f o u r
scientific partner professors from J a p a n , South-Africa, P o r t u g a l , S l o v a k i a a n d
Poland.
This b o o k is a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f our p r e v i o u s b o o k " E c o n o m i c design o f m e t a l

structures". T h i s n e w b o o k c o n t a i n s o u r studies w o r k e d out in t h e last 5 years a n d
p u b l i s h e d in the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d j o u r n a l s and conference p r o c e e d i n g s .
W e h o p e that this b o o k c a n h e l p d e s i g n e r s , students, r e s e a r c h e r s , m a n u f a c t u r e r s w i t h

the aspects s h o w n in realistic m o d e l s to find better, o p t i m a l , c o m p e t i t i v e structural
solutions.
Acknowledgements
T h e r e s e a r c h w o r k w a s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e Jozsef Oveges scholarship OMFB

0 1 3 8 5 / 2 0 0 6 , g i v e n b y the N a t i o n a l Office o f R e s e a r c h a n d T e c h n o l o g y ( N K T H ) a n d
t h e A g e n c y for R e s e a r c h F u n d M a n a g e m e n t a n d R e s e a r c h Exploitation (KP1).
T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y the Hungarian-South African Intergovernmental

S & T C o - o p e r a t i o n p r o g r a m D A K 2/99 a n d 7 / 0 2 . T h e H u n g a r i a n partner w a s t h e
M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , R & D D e p u t y U n d e r s e c r e t a r y o f State, the S o u t h African
p a r t n e r w a s the F o u n d a t i o n for R e s e a r c h D e v e l o p m e n t . M a n y t h a n k s to Prof. J a n
S n y m a n from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Pretoria for the S n y m a n - F a t t i a l g o r i t h m , Prof. Albert
G r o e n w o l d for t h e Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m a n d D r . P e t r o n e l l a
V i s s e r - U y s for s o m e cost calculations.
T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y t h e Hungarian-Japanese Intergovernmental S & T

c o - o p e r a t i o n p r o g r a m J A P 2 3 / 0 0 . T h e H u n g a r i a n p a r t n e r is t h e M i n i s t r y o f
E d u c a t i o n , R & D D e p u t y U n d e r s e c r e t a r y o f State, the J a p a n e s e p a r t n e r is t h e S c i e n c e
a n d T e c h n o l o g y A g e n c y . Special t h a n k s for Prof. Y o s h i a k i K u r o b a n e a n d Yuji
M a k i n o from t h e K u m a m o t o U n i v e r s i t y , Dr. Koji A z u m a a n d M r . H i d e a k i S h i n d e
from t h e Sojo U n i v e r s i t y for their c o n t r i b u t i o n s a n d s u g g e s t i o n s in t h e r e s e a r c h .
T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y the Hungarian-Portuguese Intergovernmental

S & T C o - o p e r a t i o n p r o g r a m P 6/99. T h e H u n g a r i a n partner w a s t h e M i n i s t r y o f
E d u c a t i o n , R & D D e p u t y U n d e r s e c r e t a r y o f State, the P o r t u g u e s e p a r t n e r w a s the
P o r t u g u e s e Institute for Scientific a n d T e c h n o l o g i c a l C o o p e r a t i o n I C C T I a n d
O r i e n t e F o u n d a t i o n . T h a n k s to Prof. L u i s C. S i m o e s , D r . J o a o N e g r a o a n d Dr. P a u l o
R o d r i g u e s for their c o n t r i b u t i o n .
T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y t h e Hungarian-Slovakian Intergovernmental S&T

c o - o p e r a t i o n p r o g r a m S K 9/2004. T h e H u n g a r i a n partner is t h e R e s e a r c h a n d
T e c h n o l o g i c a l I n n o v a t i o n F u n d . T h i s w o r k is a part o f the r e s e a r c h project N o . 13
M R , partially founded b y the D e p a r t m e n t o f International Scientific-technical C o

operation of t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n o f Slovak. M a n y t h a n k s for Prof. Stanislav
K m e t ' a n d Dr. Jan K a n o c z from the T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y o f K o s i c e for the
s u s p e n d e d b e a m calculations.
T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y the Hungarian-Polish Intergovernmental S & T

c o - o p e r a t i o n p r o g r a m P L 4 / 2 0 0 5 . T h e H u n g a r i a n partner is t h e R e s e a r c h and
T e c h n o l o g i c a l I n n o v a t i o n F u n d , t h e P o l i s h p a r t n e r is the P o l i s h M i n i s t r y o f S c i e n c e
a n d Informatics. T h e r e s e a r c h w o r k w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y the P o z n a n U n i v e r s i t y o f
T e c h n o l o g y G r a n d D S 1 1 - 9 5 7 / 2 0 0 7 . M a n y t h a n k s to Dr. K a t a r z y n a R z e s z u t for t h e
finite e l e m e n t calculations.
T h a n k s for t h e calculation w o r k a n d h e l p o f Dr. G y o r g y K o v a c s , M r . Z o l t a n V i r a g

a n d Mr. L a s z l o K o t a , former P h D . students a n d Dr. F e r e n c O r b a n professor for the
finite e l e m e n t calculations from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f P e c s .
L a s t b u t n o t least m a n y - m a n y t h a n k s for our family m e m b e r s , w h o h e l p e d a lot

everyday.
1
Newer Mathematical Optimization Methods
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In t h e structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s for an e n g i n e e r it is i m p o r t a n t to k n o w t h e
b e h a v i o u r o f t h e structure w e l l , t h e stresses, d e f o r m a t i o n s , stability, e i g e n f r e q u e n c y ,
d a m p i n g , etc. It is as i m p o r t a n t t o h a v e a reliable o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e to find t h e
o p t i m u m . T h e q u e s t i o n is a l w a y s t h e s a m e : w h i c h is t h e best, w h i c h is t h e m o s t
reliable t e c h n i q u e ? T h e a n s w e r is that for the u s e r a l w a y s that k i n d o f m e t h o d is t h e
best, w h i c h h e k n o w s t h e best. N o n o f the a l g o r i t h m is superior. All o f t h e m c a n
h a v e benefits a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e s .
In o u r p r a c t i c e o n structural o p t i m i z a t i o n w e h a v e u s e d several t e c h n i q u e s in t h e last

d e c a d e s . W e h a v e p u b l i s h e d t h e m in o u r b o o k s a n d g a v e several e x a m p l e s as
e n g i n e e r i n g applications ( F a r k a s 1984, F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1997, 2 0 0 3 ) . M o s t o f t h e
t e c h n i q u e s w e r e m o d i f i e d to b e a g o o d e n g i n e e r i n g tool in this w o r k .
Xftws (units)
T h e r e are a great n u m b e r o f m e t h o d s available for single objective o p t i m i z a t i o n as it

w a s d e s c r i b e d in F a r k a s & J a r m a i ( 1 9 9 7 ) . M e t h o d s w i t h o u t derivatives like:
C o m p l e x ( B o x 1965), Flexible T o l e r a n c e ( H i m m e l b l a u 1971) a n d H i l l c l i m b
(Rosenbrock 1960). M e t h o d s w i t h first derivatives such as: Sequential
U n c o n s t r a i n e d M i n i m i z a t i o n T e c h n i q u e (SUMT) ( F i a c c o & M c C o r m i c k 1968),
D a v i d o n - F l e t c h e r - P o w e l l ( R a o 1984), etc. M e t h o d s w i t h s e c o n d derivatives such as:
N e w t o n ( M o r d e c a i 2 0 0 3 ) , Sequential Q u a d r a t i c P r o g r a m m i n g , SQP ( F a n et al.

1988), the Feasible SQP ( Z h o u & Tits 1996). T h e r e are also other classes o f
t e c h n i q u e s like O p t i m a l i t y Criteria m e t h o d s (OC) ( R o z v a n y 1997), or the discrete
m e t h o d s like B a c k t r a c k ( G o l o m b & B a u m e r t ( 1 9 6 5 ) , A n n a m a l a i 1970), the entropy-
b a s e d m e t h o d ( S i m 5 e s & N e g r a o 2 0 0 0 ) (Farkas et al. 2 0 0 5 ) .
Multicriteria o p t i m i z a t i o n is u s e d w h e n m o r e objectives are i m p o r t a n t to find the

c o m p r o m i s e solution ( O s y c z k a 1984, 1992, K o s k i 1994).
T h e general formulation o f a single-criterion n o n - l i n e a r p r o g r a m m i n g p r o b l e m is the

following:
minimize f(x) x ,x ,—,x ,

x 2 N (1.1)
subjectto gj(x)<0, ) = \,2,...,P, (1.2)
hj(x) =0 i = P+\,...,P+M, (1.3)
f(x) is a multivariable n o n - l i n e a r function, gj(x) a n d hj(x) are n o n - l i n e a r inequality

a n d equality constraints, respectively.
In the last t w o d e c a d e s s o m e n e w t e c h n i q u e s a p p e a r e d e.g. t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y

t e c h n i q u e s , like G e n e t i c A l g o r i t h m , GA b y G o l d b e r g ( 1 9 8 9 ) , the Differential
E v o l u t i o n , DE m e t h o d o f Storn & P r i c e ( 1 9 9 5 ) , the A n t C o l o n y T e c h n i q u e ( D o r i g o
et al. 1999), the Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z a t i o n , PSO b y K e n n e d y & E b e r h a r t ( 1 9 9 5 ) ,
M i l l o n a s ( 1 9 9 4 ) a n d t h e Artificial I m m u n e S y s t e m , AIS ( F a r m e r et al. ( 1 9 8 6 ) , de
C a s t r o & T i m m i s ( 2 0 0 1 ) , D a s g u p t a ( 1 9 9 9 ) . S o m e other h i g h p e r f o r m a n c e
t e c h n i q u e s such as leap-frog w i t h the a n a l o g u e o f potential e n e r g y m i n i m u m
( S n y m a n 1 9 8 3 , 2 0 0 5 ) , similar to the F E M t e c h n i q u e , h a v e also b e e n d e v e l o p e d .
1.2 T H E S N Y M A N - F A T T I M E T H O D
T h e global m e t h o d d e s c r i b e d h e r e , n a m e l y t h e S n y m a n - F a t t i (SF) multi-start global

m i n i m i z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m w i t h d y n a m i c search trajectories for g l o b a l c o n t i n u o u s
u n c o n s t r a i n e d o p t i m i z a t i o n ( S n y m a n & Fatti 1987, G r o e n w o l d & S n y m a n 2 0 0 2 ) ,
w a s recently r e a s s e s s e d a n d refined ( S n y m a n & K o k 2 0 0 7 ) to i m p r o v e its efficiency
a n d t o b e applicable t o c o n s t r a i n e d p r o b l e m s . T h e resultant i m p r o v e d c o m p u t e r c o d e
h a s b e e n s h o w n to b e c o m p e t i t i v e w i t h o f the best e v o l u t i o n a r y global optimization
a l g o r i t h m s currently available w h e n tested o n s t a n d a r d test p r o b l e m s . H e r e w e w i s h
t o a p p l y it to t h e practical stiffened plate p r o b l e m . F o r a detailed presentation and
d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e m o t i v a t i o n a n d t h e o r e m s o n w h i c h t h e SF algorithm is b a s e d , the
r e a d e r is referred to the original p a p e r o f S n y m a n a n d Fatti ( 1 9 8 7 ) . H e r e w e restrict
ourselves to a s u m m a r y g i v i n g the essentials o f the multi-start g l o b a l optimization
m e t h o d o l o g y u s i n g d y n a m i c search trajectories.
C o n s i d e r the general inequality c o n s t r a i n e d p r o b l e m :
minimize f(x), x = [x ,x ,...x f

l 2 n & R", (1.4)
w.r.t. x
subject to inequality constraints:

Newer mathematical optimization methods 9
gj (x)<0, j = \,2,...,m.
T h e o p t i m u m solution to this p r o b l e m is d e n o t e d b y x* w i t h associate o p t i m u m

function v a l u e fix*).
W e a d d r e s s t h e c o n s t r a i n e d p r o b l e m ( 1 . 4 ) b y t r a n s f o r m i n g it t o a n u n c o n s t r a i n e d
p r o b l e m v i a t h e formulation o f t h e p e n a l t y function F(x), t o w h i c h t h e u n c o n s t r a i n e d
global SF optimization algorithm is applied. T h e p e n a l t y function F(x) is defined as
1
F(x) = f(x) + Y {g(x)} ,
jPj (1.5)
w h e r e p = 0 if g/x)
} < 0 , else pj = p ( a large n u m b e r ) .
T h u s w e c o n s i d e r t h e u n c o n s t r a i n e d global o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m that c a n b e stated:
for a c o n t i n u o u s l y differentiable objective function F(x): find a p o i n t x*(p) in t h e set
XczR" such that
F* = F(x*(p) = m i n i m u m o f F(x) o v e r x eX. (1.6)
T h e SF a l g o r i t h m applied t o this p r o b l e m , is basically a multi-start t e c h n i q u e in
w h i c h several starting p o i n t s are s a m p l e d in t h e d o m a i n o f interest X (usually
defined b y a b o x in R"), a n d a local s e a r c h p r o c e d u r e is applied t o e a c h s a m p l e point.
T h e m e t h o d is heuristic in e s s e n c e w i t h t h e l o w e s t m i n i m u m found after a finite
n u m b e r o f s e a r c h e s b e i n g taken a s a n e s t i m a t e o f F*.
In t h e local search t h e SF a l g o r i t h m e x p l o r e s t h e variable space X u s i n g search
trajectories d e r i v e d from t h e differential equation:
i = -VF(*(t)), (1.7)
w h e r e V F is t h e gradient v e c t o r o f F(x).
E q u a t i o n ( 1 . 4 ) d e s c r i b e s t h e m o t i o n o f a particle o f unit m a s s in an n - d i m e n s i o n a l
c o n s e r v a t i v e force field, w h e r e F(x(t)) r e p r e s e n t s t h e potential e n e r g y o f t h e particle
at p o s i t i o n x(t). T h e search trajectories g e n e r a t e d h e r e a r e similar t o t h o s e u s e d in
S n y m a n ' s d y n a m i c m e t h o d for local m i n i m i z a t i o n ( S n y m a n 1 9 8 2 , 1983). In t h e SF
global m e t h o d , h o w e v e r , t h e trajectories a r e modified in a m a n n e r that e n s u r e s , in
the case o f m u l t i p l e local m i n i m a , a h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n v e r g e n c e t o a l o w e r
local m i n i m u m t h a n w o u l d h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d h a d c o n v e n t i o n a l gradient local
search m e t h o d s b e e n used.
T h e specific m o d i f i c a t i o n s e m p l o y e d result in an increase in t h e regions of

convergence o f t h e lower m i n i m a i n c l u d i n g , in particular, that o f t h e global
m i n i m u m . A s t o p p i n g rule, d e r i v e d from a B a y e s i a n p r o b a b i l i t y a r g u m e n t , is u s e d t o
d e c i d e w h e n t o e n d t h e global s a m p l i n g a n d a c c e p t t h e current overall m i n i m u m
v a l u e o f F, taken over all s a m p l i n g points to d a t e , a s t h e global m i n i m u m F*.
F o r initial c o n d i t i o n s , p o s i t i o n x(0) = x° a n d velocity x(0) = v(0) = v° = 0,

integrating (1,7) from t i m e 0 t o /, implies t h e e n e r g y c o n s e r v a t i o n relationship:
\v(tf + F(x(t)) = j\\v(0)\\2

+ F(x(0)) = F(x(0)). (1.8)
T h e first t e r m on the left-hand side of (1.8) represents the kinetic energy, w h e r e a s

the second t e r m represents the potential energy of the particle of unit m a s s , at a n y
instant /. O b v i o u s l y t h e particle will start m o v i n g in t h e direction o f steepest d e s c e n t
a n d its kinetic e n e r g y will increase a n d thus F will d e c r e a s e , as l o n g as it m o v e s
d o w n h i l l , i.e. as long as - V Fv>0, w h e r e d e n o t e s the scalar product.
If descent is not m e t a l o n g the g e n e r a t e d path t h e n the m a g n i t u d e of the velocity v

d e c r e a s e s as it m o v e s uphill a n d its direction c h a n g e s t o w a r d s a local m i n i m i z e r . I f
the possibility of m o r e than o n e local m i n i m i z e r exists a n d w e are interested in
finding the global m i n i m u m , a realistic global strategy is to m o n i t o r the trajectory
m m m
and r e c o r d the point x a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g velocity v = x a n d function v a l u e F" at
w h i c h the m i n i m u m a l o n g the p a t h o c c u r s , letting the particle continue uninterrupted
a l o n g its path with c o n s e r v e d energy. T h i s is d o n e in t h e h o p e that it m a y s u r m o u n t
1
a ridge of height F, F" < F < F(x(0), continuing further along a p a t h that m a y lead
to an e v e n lower v a l u e o f F b e y o n d the ridge.
O n the other h a n d it is n e c e s s a r y t o t e r m i n a t e the trajectory before it retraces itself or

a p p r o x i m a t e l y retraces itself in indefinite p e r i o d i c o r e r g o d i c (space-filling) motion.
A p r o p e r termination condition, a n d that e m p l o y e d in the SF algorithm, is to stop the
first trajectory o n c e it r e a c h e s a point w i t h a function v a l u e close to its starting v a l u e
F = F(x(0)) w h i l e still m o v i n g uphill, i.e. w h i l e V F-v > 0. A t this point, o n c e
h
termination h a s occurred a n d after setting the best p o i n t x := with corresponding
function value i**: = F™, it is p r o p o s e d that a further auxiliary or inner trajectory b e
s b m
started from a n e w inner starting p o i n t x : = V2(x°+x ) w i t h initial velocity V v a n d 2
s
associated starting function v a l u e F = F(JC ). A g a i n for this n e w auxiliary or inner
trajectory the function value is m o n i t o r e d and for this n e w trajectory x™ a n d
m
associated v are r e c o r d e d a n e w .
O n its termination, again o n c e the function v a l u e a p p r o a c h e s F sufficiently closely

s
w h i l e m o v i n g uphill, the starting p o i n t for the n e x t inner trajectory is t a k e n as X =
l s b m h
/2(x +x ) w i t h initial velocity Viv , w h e r e x again c o r r e s p o n d s t o the overall best
p o i n t for t h e current s a m p l i n g point. T h i s g e n e r a t i o n o f successive inner trajectories
h h
is c o n t i n u e d until x c o n v e r g e s or VF(x ) is effectively zero.
O f course, the a b o v e strategy a s s u m e s that the trajectory obtained from the solution
of differential equation (1.4) is exactly k n o w n at all t i m e instances. In practice this is
n o t p o s s i b l e , a n d the g e n e r a t i o n o f the trajectories is d o n e n u m e r i c a l l y b y m e a n s o f
the leap-frog s c h e m e ( S n y m a n 1982): G i v e n initial position x° = x(0) a n d initial
velocity v° = v(0) = x (0) and a time step At, c o m p u t e for k = 0 , 1 , 2 , . . .
k+1
x =Jc +v A?, k k
(1.9)
k+l
v =S-VF(x )At. k+l
(1.10)
F o r the first step v°:=ViVF(x ) At. A heuristic p r o c e d u r e is u s e d to select an

a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e step At ( S n y m a n , K o k 2 0 0 7 ) . O n c e the s e q u e n c e of inner
(auxiliary) trajectories for t h e current iteration (i.e. current r a n d o m starting p o i n t ) is

k+[
t e r m i n a t e d t h e local m i n i m u m x w i t h function v a l u e o b t a i n e d at that iteration,
is e v a l u a t e d for its probability o f b e i n g t h e g l o b a l m i n i m u m . T h i s g l o b a l c o m p o n e n t
o f t h e a l g o r i t h m i n v o l v e s a stochastic criterion that reports t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e
l o w e s t o b t a i n e d m i n i m u m t o b e t h e global o n e ( S n y m a n , Fatti 1987).
T o this e n d , let i?j d e n o t e t h e r e g i o n o f c o n v e r g e n c e o f a local m i n i m u m F- in t h e
search space, a n d a • d e n o t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y that a r a n d o m l y selected p o i n t falls
w i t h i n Rj. L e t R* a n d a d e n o t e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g quantities for t h e g l o b a l m i n i m u m

F*. S n y m a n & Fatti ( 1 9 8 7 ) t h e n a r g u e that, b e c a u s e o f its special characteristic o f
s e e k i n g a l o w local m i n i m u m that for t h e local search m e t h o d o l o g y d e s c r i b e d a b o v e
o n e m a y , for a large class o f p r o b l e m s o f practical a n d scientific i m p o r t a n c e , m a k e
t h e a s s u m p t i o n that
a*=maximumj { a • } . j (Ill)
A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e y m a d e u s e o f t h e following t h e o r e m t o t e r m i n a t e t h e multi-start
algorithm.
Theorem: L e t ir b e t h e n u m b e r o f s a m p l e (starting) p o i n t s falling w i t h i n t h e r e g i o n

o f c o n v e r g e n c e o f t h e current overall m i n i m u m F"^ after it p o i n t s h a v e b e e n
s a m p l e d . T h e n , u n d e r t h e a s s u m p t i o n g i v e n in ( 1 . 6 ) a n d a n o n - i n f o r m a t i v e p r i o r
p t pl
distribution, t h e probability that F ° b e e q u a l t o F* , Pr[F° = F*], satisfies t h e
following relationship:
Pr > q(it,ir)=l-(it+l)$2x z'/-/r)!/[(2x it+$\(it-ir)\}. (1.12)
In p r a c t i c e a t o l e r a n c e e is p r e s c r i b e d in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n e w l y
F
p t
o b t a i n e d local m i n i m u m also c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e current overall m i n i m u m F ° . T h u s ,
k+l p t
if at t h e e n d o f t h e final inner trajectory, \F - F ° |< s , t h e n t h e n u m b e r o f
F
s u c c e s s e s ir is s t e p p e d u p b y o n e . A l s o a p r e s c r i b e d target v a l u e q* is set for q(it,ir)

pt
so that o n c e q(it,ir)>q* t h e global p r o c e d u r e t e r m i n a t e s w i t h F* :=F° .
O n c e x*(ju), t h e g l o b a l m i n i m i z e r o f t h e p e n a l t y function defined in e q u a t i o n ( 1 . 5 ) is

found, it is a straightforward m a t t e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e active constraints o f t h e
original c o n s t r a i n e d p r o b l e m (1.4). T h e exact s o l u t i o n * * t o t h e c o n s t r a i n e d p r o b l e m
is t h e n found b y t h e o n e - t i m e application o f t h e trajectory m e t h o d t o t h e
m i n i m i z a t i o n o f t h e s u m o f t h e s q u a r e s o f t h e residues o f t h e active constraints,
u s i n g x*(ju) a s starting point.
T h e SF a l g o r i t h m w a s successfully a p p l i e d at several structural o p t i m i z a t i o n , s u c h as

at stiffened p l a t e s F a r k a s et al. ( 2 0 0 7 a ) , S n y m a n , K o k ( 2 0 0 7 ) .
1.3 T H E P A R T I C L E S W A R M O P T I M I Z A T I O N A L G O R I T H M
P r o g r a m s that w o r k v e r y well in o p t i m i z i n g c o n v e x functions v e r y often p e r f o r m

p o o r l y w h e n t h e p r o b l e m h a s m u l t i p l e local m i n i m a or m a x i m a . T h e y a r e often
c a u g h t or t r a p p e d in t h e local m i n i m a / m a x i m a . S e v e r a l m e t h o d s h a v e b e e n
d e v e l o p e d t o e s c a p e from b e i n g c a u g h t in such local o p t i m a . T h e Particle S w a r m
M e t h o d o f global o p t i m i z a t i o n is o n e o f such m e t h o d s . A s w a r m o f birds o r insects

or a school o f fish s e a r c h e s for food, p r o t e c t i o n , etc. in a v e r y typical m a n n e r . If o n e
o f t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e s w a r m sees a desirable p a t h to g o , t h e rest o f the s w a r m will
follow quickly. E v e r y m e m b e r o f t h e s w a r m s e a r c h e s for t h e best in its locality -
learns from its o w n e x p e r i e n c e .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , e a c h m e m b e r learns from t h e others, typically from t h e b e s t p e r f o r m e r

a m o n g t h e m . E v e n h u m a n b e i n g s s h o w a t e n d e n c y to learn from their o w n
e x p e r i e n c e , their i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o u r s a n d t h e ideal p e r f o r m e r s . T h e Particle
S w a r m m e t h o d o f o p t i m i z a t i o n m i m i c s this b e h a v i o u r . E v e r y individual o f t h e
s w a r m is c o n s i d e r e d as a particle in a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e that h a s a position a n d
a velocity. T h e s e particles fly t h r o u g h h y p e r s p a c e and r e m e m b e r the best position
that t h e y h a v e seen. M e m b e r s o f a s w a r m c o m m u n i c a t e g o o d positions to e a c h other
a n d adjust their o w n p o s i t i o n a n d velocity b a s e d o n these g o o d positions. T h e
Particle S w a r m m e t h o d o f o p t i m i z a t i o n testifies t h e s u c c e s s o f b o u n d e d rationality
a n d decentralized d e c i s i o n m a k i n g in r e a c h i n g at the global optima. It h a s b e e n u s e d
successfully to o p t i m i z e e x t r e m e l y difficult m u l t i m o d a l functions.
Particle s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n (PSO) is a p o p u l a t i o n b a s e d stochastic o p t i m i z a t i o n

t e c h n i q u e d e v e l o p e d b y E b e r h a r t a n d K e n n e d y ( 1 9 9 5 ) , inspired b y social b e h a v i o u r
o f bird flocking o r fish s c h o o l i n g .
PSO shares m a n y similarities w i t h e v o l u t i o n a r y c o m p u t a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s such as

G e n e t i c A l g o r i t h m s (GA). T h e s y s t e m is initialized w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f r a n d o m
solutions and s e a r c h e s for o p t i m a b y u p d a t i n g g e n e r a t i o n s . H o w e v e r , u n l i k e GA,
P S O h a s n o e v o l u t i o n operators s u c h as c r o s s o v e r a n d m u t a t i o n . In PSO, t h e
potential solutions, called particles, fly t h r o u g h t h e p r o b l e m s p a c e b y following the
current o p t i m u m particles.
E a c h particle k e e p s track o f its c o o r d i n a t e s in t h e p r o b l e m s p a c e w h i c h are

associated w i t h the best solution (fitness) it h a s a c h i e v e d so far. ( T h e fitness v a l u e is
also stored.) T h i s v a l u e is called pbest. A n o t h e r "best" v a l u e that is t r a c k e d b y t h e
particle s w a r m o p t i m i z e r is t h e best v a l u e , o b t a i n e d so far b y any particle in t h e
n e i g h b o u r s o f t h e particle. T h i s location is called West, w h e n a particle takes all the
p o p u l a t i o n as its t o p o l o g i c a l n e i g h b o u r s , t h e best v a l u e is a global best a n d is called
gbest.
T h e particle s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n c o n c e p t consists of, at e a c h t i m e step, c h a n g i n g the

velocity o f (accelerating) e a c h particle t o w a r d its pbest a n d Ibest locations (local
version o f PSO). A c c e l e r a t i o n is w e i g h t e d b y a r a n d o m t e r m , w i t h separate r a n d o m
n u m b e r s b e i n g g e n e r a t e d for acceleration t o w a r d pbest a n d West locations.
In past several y e a r s , PSO h a s b e e n successfully a p p l i e d in m a n y r e s e a r c h a n d

application areas. It is d e m o n s t r a t e d that PSO gets better results in a faster, c h e a p e r
w a y c o m p a r e d w i t h other m e t h o d s .
A n o t h e r r e a s o n that PSO is attractive is that there are few p a r a m e t e r s to adjust. O n e

version, w i t h slight variations, w o r k s well in a w i d e variety o f applications. Particle
s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n h a s b e e n u s e d for a p p r o a c h e s that can b e u s e d across a w i d e
r a n g e o f applications, a s well a s for specific a p p l i c a t i o n s focused o n a specific

requirement.
T h e m e t h o d is derivative free, a n d b y its v e r y nature the m e t h o d is able to locate t h e

g l o b a l o p t i m u m o f an objective function. C o n s t r a i n e d p r o b l e m s can s i m p l y b e
a c c o m m o d a t e d u s i n g penalty m e t h o d s .
Lately, the PSO w a s successfully a p p l i e d t o t h e o p t i m u m s h a p e a n d size d e s i g n o f

structures b y F o u r i e a n d G r o e n w o l d ( 2 0 0 0 ) . A n operator, n a m e l y c r a z i n e s s , w a s r e
introduced, t o g e t h e r w i t h the u s e o f d y n a m i c v a r y i n g m a x i m u m velocities a n d
inertia.
The pseudo code of the procedure can be written as follows:
I) For each particle:

Initialize particle
II) Do:
a) For e a c h particle:
1) C a l c u l a t e fitness value
2) If the fitness v a l u e is better t h a n t h e best fitness value (pbest) in history
3) Set current v a l u e as the n e w pbest
End
b) For e a c h particle:
1) Find in the particle n e i g h b o u r h o o d , t h e particle w i t h t h e best fitness
2) C a l c u l a t e particle velocity a c c o r d i n g to t h e velocity e q u a t i o n (1.13)
3) A p p l y t h e velocity constriction
4) U p d a t e particle position a c c o r d i n g to t h e position e q u a t i o n (1.14)
5) A p p l y t h e position constriction
End
While m a x i m u m iterations or m i n i m u m error criteria is n o t attained.
A m o r e precise a n d detailed description o f the particular PSO a l g o r i t h m , as applied

t o p e n a l t y function formulation a n d u s e d in this s t u d y n o w follows.
B a s i c PSO A l g o r i t h m
s
G i v e n M, k , max N ,max Set (time) instant k=0, F-* = F =F^ o r e = oo. Initialise a
r a n d o m p o p u l a t i o n ( s w a r m ) o f M particles ( s w a r m m e m b e r s ) , b y a s s i g n i n g a n initial
r a n d o m position x ° ( c a n d i d a t e solution), a s well a s a r a n d o m initial v e l o c i t y vf, to
{
e a c h particle i, i=l,2,...,M. T h e n c o m p u t e s i m u l t a n e o u s trajectories, o n e for each

particle, b y p e r f o r m i n g t h e following steps.
1) A t instant k, c o m p u t e t h e fitness o f each individual particle / at discrete p o i n t

xf, b y e v a l u a t i n g F(xf). W i t h reference t o t h e m i n i m i z a t i o n o f (1.4), t h e
l o w e r the value o f F(xf ) , the greater t h e p a r t i c l e ' s fitness.
2) For/=l,2,...,M:
if F(x*) < F* t h e n set = F(xf ) and pf = x- {best p o i n t on trajectory i}
g g b
if F(xf )<F t h e n set F = F(xf ) and g = xf {best global p o i n t }
g g
3) If F < F b efore t h e n set N=l, else set N = N +1.
4) If 7V> 7V mai: or k> / c max t h e n S T O P a n d set x * = g*; else c o n t i n u e .
5) C o m p u t e n e w velocities and positions for instant k+\, u s i n g t h e rule:
fori=l,2,...,M:
+ i b
v* :=v* + cMP--x-) + c r (g -x*),
2 2 (1.13)
+ +
jc* '.^**+v* ', (1.14)
w h e r e r, and r, are i n d e p e n d e n t l y g e n e r a t e d r a n d o m n u m b e r s in t h e interval [0,1],

a n d c,, c2 are p a r a m e t e r s with appropriately c h o s e n v a l u e s .
g
6) Set k = k + l and F^ efore =F ; go t o step 2.
T h e t e c h n i q u e is modified in o r d e r to b e efficient in technical applications. It uses

d y n a m i c inertia r e d u c t i o n a n d c r a z i n e s s for s o m e particles ( F o u r i e & G r o e n w o l d
2000).
PSO w a s applied at several structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m s cost m i n i m i z a t i o n o f an

o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened w e l d e d steel p l a t e ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 7 a ) , ring-stiffened conical
shell ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 7 b ) , optimization of a w i n d turbine t o w e r structure ( U y s et al.
2 0 0 7 ) , optimization o f a stiffened shell ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 7 c ) .
O n e can find m u c h information from the internet.
http://www.swarmintelligence.org
http://www.particleswarm.info/
L o t o f information about Particle S w a r m s a n d particularly o n Particle Swarm

O p t i m i z a t i o n is available. M a n y Particle S w a r m L i n k s are also available.
1.4 M U L T I O B J E C T I V E O P T I M I Z A T I O N
M u l t i o b j e c t i v e O p t i m i z a t i o n (MO) p r o b l e m s a r e defined as t h o s e p r o b l e m s w h e r e
t w o or m o r e , s o m e t i m e s c o m p e t i n g a n d / o r i n c o m m e n s u r a b l e , objective functions
h a v e to be m i n i m i z e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ( P a r e t o 1875).
In a general c a s e , t h e solution to t h e MO p r o b l e m is a set o f p o i n t s that represent t h e

best trade-offs b e t w e e n t h e objective functions. T h e s e p o i n t s are called Pareto
Optimal points. T h e set o f all t h e P a r e t o O p t i m a l p o i n t s is called t h e Pareto Optimal

Set. A point in t h e search s p a c e is P a r e t o O p t i m a l if it is n o t p a r e t o - d o m i n a t e d b y
a n y o t h e r point.
T o d e t e r m i n e if a p o i n t in t h e search is d o m i n a t e s another, a v e c t o r w h o s e
c o m p o n e n t s are t h e v a l u e s o f t h e objective functions in the p o i n t is defined. A v e c t o r
A d o m i n a t e s a n o t h e r v e c t o r B if t h e v a l u e s for e a c h o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f A are at
least e q u a l t o t h e v a l u e s o f B, a n d at least a v a l u e from A is strictly greater t h a n t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g v a l u e from B.
A multicriteria o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m c a n b e formulated as follows:
F i n d x s u c h that
f(x*)=optf(x), (1.15)
s u c h that
g/x)>0 j=\,....,P, (1.16)
h (x)
i =Q i= P,....,P+Q,
w h e r e x is t h e v e c t o r o f d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s defined in n - d i m e n s i o n a l E u c l i d e a n s p a c e
anAfj^x) is a v e c t o r function defined in r - d i m e n s i o n a l E u c l i d e a n s p a c e . gj(x) a n d
hj(x) are inequality a n d equality constraints.
T h e solutions o f this p r o b l e m are t h e P a r e t o O p t i m a l Set (or part o f it). T h e

definition o f t h e s e o p t i m a is b a s e d u p o n t h e intuitive c o n v i c t i o n that t h e p o i n t x* is
c h o s e n as t h e o p t i m a l , if n o objective c a n b e i m p r o v e d w i t h o u t w o r s e n i n g at least
o n e other objective. A s a result, t h e a l g o r i t h m s u s e d to r e s o l v e t h e s e p r o b l e m s h a v e
t o b e able to p r o v i d e m o r e t h a n o n e solution.
O n e w a y is to u s e a W e i g h t s a p p r o a c h t e c h n i q u e ; a g l o b a l objective function is
defined as a w e i g h t e d s u m o f t h e v a l u e s o f t h e c o m p e t i n g objective functions in the
p r o b l e m s . W e i g h t s can either b e fixed or not. Alternatively, p o p u l a t i o n - b a s e d
a l g o r i t h m s , s u c h as E v o l u t i o n a r y A l g o r i t h m s (EA) or t h e PSO can b e u s e d w i t h o u t
defining a c o m b i n e d function.
F i n d i n g t h e P a r e t o O p t i m a l set c a n b e p e r f o r m e d b y several r u n s o f t h e a l g o r i t h m
p r o v i d i n g a single P a r e t o O p t i m a l p o i n t e a c h t i m e . A s an alternative, in several
a l g o r i t h m s , i n c l u d i n g t h e PSO variations, a r e p o s i t o r y stores t h e p o i n t s that are
potentially part o f the P a r e t o O p t i m a l Set ( K o s k i 1994). T h i s r e p o s i t o r y is u p d a t e d
whenever a non dominated point while the execution of the algorithm continues.
1.4.1 W e i g h t i n g o b j e c t i v e s m e t h o d
T h e p u r e w e i g h t i n g m e t h o d m e a n s t o a d d all t h e objective functions t o g e t h e r u s i n g

different w e i g h t i n g coefficients for each. It m e a n s that w e t r a n s f o r m o u r
multicriteria o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m to a scalar o n e b y c r e a t i n g o n e function o f the
form:
L 1 7
f(x) = I w, f (x)
t where w > 0 and
t = 1. ( )
i=i i=i
If w e c h a n g e t h e w e i g h t i n g coefficients, results o f this m o d e l c a n v a r y significantly,

a n d d e p e n d greatly from t h e n o m i n a l v a l u e s o f t h e different objective functions.
1.4.2 N o r m a l i z e d o b j e c t i v e s m e t h o d
T h e n o r m a l i z e d objectives m e t h o d solves t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e p u r e w e i g h t i n g m e t h o d
e.g. at t h e p u r e w e i g h t i n g m e t h o d , t h e w e i g h t i n g coefficients d o n o t reflect
p r o p o r t i o n a l l y t h e relative i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e objective, b e c a u s e o f t h e great
difference on t h e n o m i n a l v a l u e o f t h e objective functions. A t t h e n o r m a l i z e d
w e i g h t i n g m e t h o d Wj reflect closely t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f objectives.
f ( * ) = i ^ j ^ - , where W / > 0 and £w,=l. (1.18)

i=l /; 1=1
0
T h e condition f t ^ 0 is a s s u m e d .
1.4.3 G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d t y p e I
L e t / ° b e t h e ideal solution that s i m u l t a n e o u s l y yields m i n i m u m v a l u e s for all

criteria. S u c h a solution d o e s n o t exist b u t is i n t r o d u c e d in c o m p r o m i s e
p r o g r a m m i n g as a target o r a goal t o a p p r o a c h , a l t h o u g h i m p o s s i b l e t o reach
(perfection is i m p o s s i b l e ) .
G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d m e a n s that a function w h i c h describes a g l o b a l criterion is a

m e a s u r e o f c l o s e n e s s t h e solution t o t h e ideal v e c t o r o f f°. T h e c o m m o n form o f
this function is:
f?-m} P= 1,2,3,.. (1.19)

i=i
It is s u g g e s t e d t o u s e P=2, b u t other v a l u e s o f P such as 1,3,4, etc. c a n b e used.

N a t u r a l l y , t h e solution o b t a i n e d will differ greatly a c c o r d i n g t o t h e v a l u e o f P
c h o s e n , P=l m e a n s a linear correlation, P = 2 a q u a d r a t i c o n e , etc.
1.4.4 G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d t y p e II
T h i s family o f L m e t r i c s indicates h o w close t h e satisfying solution is t o t h e ideal

p
solution, a n d r e p r e s e n t s t h e feasible set. In this p a p e r , t h e satisfying solutions are

d e t e r m i n e d for t w o particular v a l u e s o f P, n a m e l y , P = 2 a n d P = oo ( w h i c h
c o r r e s p o n d to t h e m i n i m i z a t i o n o f t h e E u c l i d e a n a n d m a x i m u m distances,
r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , a n d a r e g i v e n b e l o w . F o r t h e c a s e P = <x , t h e largest deviation is t h e
criterion o f c o m p a r i s o n a n d is referred t o as m i n - m a x criterion.
T h e d e v i a t i o n s in t h e absolute sense are as follows:

L (f) = Ilf°>-f,(x) l<P<oo, (1.20)

P
'J '
if P=l L (f)
P = £\f°-f,(x^ (1.21)
-11/2
2
.1 ,1
if P=2 L P f / > Euclidean metric. (1.22)
'j
1.4.5 G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d t y p e III
Instead deviations in the absolute sense it is r e c o m m e n d e d to u s e relative deviations

such as
r
-1 _J 1 < P <oo . (1.23)
L (f)
P = I .j"
;=i\ ft 'j
In this case the P h a s a larger set.
1.4.6 W e i g h t i n g g l o b a l criterion m e t h o d
T h e w e i g h t i n g global criterion m e t h o d is m a d e , b y i n t r o d u c i n g w e i g h t i n g
p a r a m e t e r s , o n e could get a great n u m b e r o f P a r e t o o p t i m a w i t h (1.24) (Jarmai
1989). If w e c h o o s e P = 2 , w h i c h m e a n s the E u c l i d e a n distance b e t w e e n P a r e t o
o p t i m u m a n d ideal solution J a r m a i ( 1 9 8 9 a ) . T h e c o o r d i n a t e s of this d i s t a n c e are
w e i g h t e d b y the p a r a m e t e r s as follows:
2 -|l/2
L (f)P = I 3 (1.24)
w h e r e P is the d i m e n s i o n of the function s p a c e , x indicates the design variables and

X t h e constraint set, r is the n u m b e r of objective functions, f" is the o p t i m u m of the
h
i' objective function, a n d w, are the w e i g h t i n g factors.
T h e solution o b t a i n e d b y m i n i m i z i n g Eq. (1.24) differs greatly d e p e n d i n g on the

v a l u e of P c h o s e n .
1.4.7 M i n - m a x m e t h o d
A t the m i n - m a x m e t h o d the m a x i m u m loss of t h e collective objective will b e

m i n i m i z e d . T h e m i n - m a x o p t i m u m c o m p a r e s relative deviations from the separately
r e a c h e d m i n i m a . T h e relative d e v i a t i o n can b e calculated from
1 L i 1
Z / J C ^ , ,— or z (x)
i = -- i r- . (1.25)
|/,°|
If w e k n o w t h e e x t r e m e s o f t h e o b j e c t i v e functions w h i c h c a n b e o b t a i n e d b y solving
t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m s for e a c h criterion separately, the d e s i r a b l e solution is t h e
o n e w h i c h g i v e s t h e smallest v a l u e s o f the i n c r e m e n t s o f all the objective functions.
T h e p o i n t x* m a y b e called t h e b e s t c o m p r o m i s e solution c o n s i d e r i n g all t h e

o b j e c t i v e functions s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a n d o n equal t e r m s o f i m p o r t a n c e .
ZJ(X) = m a x {Zj'(x), z "(x) t }, i e I, (1.26)
ju(x*) = m i n m a x {ztfx) } , x e X i G /, (1-27)
w h e r e X is t h e feasible r e g i o n .
1.4.8 W e i g h t i n g m i n - m a x m e t h o d
T h e w e i g h t i n g m i n - m a x m e t h o d is t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e m i n - m a x a p p r o a c h w i t h
t h e w e i g h t i n g m e t h o d , a desired r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f P a r e t o o p t i m a l solutions c a n b e
obtained
ZJ(X) = m a x { WjZj'(x), WjZj"(x) } i s I. (1-28)
T h e w e i g h t i n g coefficients Wj reflect e x a c t l y t h e priority o f the criteria, t h e relative

i m p o r t a n c e o f it. W e c a n get a distributed s u b s e t o f P a r e t o o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n s .
1.4.9 P r o g r a m s y s t e m for s i n g l e - a n d m u l t i o b j e c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n
T h e Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z e r h a s b e e n built into this interactive d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t

p r o g r a m s y s t e m ( J a r m a i 1989a), w h i c h c o n t a i n s the following single objective
optimization methods
Complex method of Box (1965)
F l e x i b l e T o l e r a n c e (FT) m e t h o d o f H i m m e l b l a u ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,
D i r e c t R a n d o m S e a r c h (DRS) m e t h o d ( S i d d a l 1982),
H i l l c l i m b m e t h o d (HILL) of Rosenbrock (1960),
D a v i d o n - F l e c h e r - P o w e l l (DFP) method of Rao (1984),
Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z a t i o n (PSO), (Jarmai 2005).
T h e efficiencies o f t h e s e m e t h o d s are different. A l l o f t h e m u s e t h e s a m e objective,

c o n s t r a i n t s s u b r o u t i n e s . F o r a p r o b l e m , w h i c h is h i g h l y n o n - l i n e a r , several local
m i n i m a exist. T h e y find different o n e s . T h e a d v a n t a g e o f Particle S w a r m
O p t i m i z a t i o n is that it c a n find o p t i m u m for a n o n c o n v e x p r o b l e m .
T h e interactive d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t p r o g r a m s y s t e m c o n t a i n s several multiobjective

o p t i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d s . T h e y are t h e following:
Min-max method,
G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d : t y p e - 1 ,
G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d : t y p e - II,
Weighted min-max method,
W e i g h t e d g l o b a l criterion m e t h o d ,
Pure weighting method,
Normalized weighting method.
O n c e a subset o f P a r e t o o p t i m a h a s b e e n g e n e r a t e d , t h e d e s i g n e r h a s t o m a k e an
i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e selection o f t h e b e s t solution from this subset.
T h e selection is n o t o b v i o u s w h e n several conflicting criteria are c o n s i d e r e d b u t m a y
b e m a d e subjectively b y g i v i n g p r e f e r e n c e to o n e criterion o v e r t h e others.
T h e p r o g r a m s y s t e m w a s u s e d to o p t i m i z e s a n d w i c h b e a m s ( J a r m a i 1989b) a n d
stiffened shells w i t h stringer stiffeners ( J a r m a i 2 0 0 5 ) a n d w a s found to b e v e r y
efficient finding the P a r e t o optima.
2
Cost Calculations
2.1 INTRODUCTION
W h e n w e c o n s i d e r the interaction o f design a n d t e c h n o l o g y , w e should n o t forget the

cost o f the structure as t h e third leg o f t h e s y s t e m . T h e s e t h r e e t o g e t h e r h e l p u s t o
find t h e best solution. T h e s e cost calculations are f o u n d e d o n m a t e r i a l costs a n d
t h o s e fabrication c o s t s , w h i c h h a v e direct effect o n t h e sizes, d i m e n s i o n s o r s h a p e o f
t h e structure. O t h e r costs, like a m o r t i z a t i o n , i n v e s t m e n t , transportation, m a i n t e n a n c e
are n o t c o n s i d e r e d h e r e . S o m e t i m e s w e c a n p r e d i c t t h e cost o f d e s i g n a n d inspection,
b u t u s u a l l y t h e y a r e p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e w e i g h t o f t h e structure. C o s t a n d p r o d u c t i o n
t i m e data c o m e form different c o m p a n i e s from all o v e r t h e world. W h e n w e
c o m p a r e t h e s a m e d e s i g n at different c o u n t r i e s , w e s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e differences
b e t w e e n l a b o u r costs. It h a s t h e m o s t i m p a c t o n t h e structure, if t h e t e c h n o l o g y is t h e
same.
2.2 T H E C O S T F U N C T I O N
T h e cost function i n c l u d e s t h e cost o f material, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g as w e l l as surface

p r e p a r a t i o n , p a i n t i n g a n d cutting, e d g e g r i n d i n g , f o r m i n g t h e shell a n d is formulated
a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e . N o t too m u c h r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n d o n e in this
field, b u t w e h a v e t o refer t o t h e w o r k o f K l a n s e k & K r a v a n j a ( 2 0 0 6 a b ) , J a l k a n e n
( 2 0 0 7 ) , T i m a r et al. ( 2 0 0 3 ) .
2.2.1 T h e cost o f m a t e r i a l
K =k pV;k =\.0
M M M $/kg. (2.1)
w h e r e K [kg] is t h e fabrication cost, k [S/kg] is t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g material cost

M M
3
factor, V [ m m ] is the v o l u m e o f t h e structure, p is the density o f the material. F o r
6 3
steel it is 7 . 8 5 x l 0 " k g / m m . If several different materials are used, t h e n it is p o s s i b l e
to u s e different material cost factors s i m u l t a n e o u s l y in E q u a t i o n (2.1).
2.2.2 T h e f a b r i c a t i o n c o s t in g e n e r a l
Kf=k J T ,f j i (2.2)
w h e r e Kf [$] is the fabrication cost, kf [$/min] is t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g fabrication cost

factor, Tj [min] are p r o d u c t i o n t i m e s . It is a s s u m e d that t h e v a l u e o f kf is constant for
a g i v e n m a n u f a c t u r e r . If not, it is p o s s i b l e to a p p l y different fabrication cost factors
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y in E q u a t i o n (2.2).
a.) Fabrication times for welding
T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t i m e s related to w e l d i n g are as follows: p r e p a r a t i o n , a s s e m b l y ,

t a c k i n g , t i m e o f w e l d i n g , c h a n g i n g t h e electrode, d e s l a g g i n g a n d chipping.
b.) Calculation of the times of preparation, assembly and tacking
The times of preparation, assembly and t a c k i n g can b e calculated with an

a p p r o x i m a t i o n formula as follows
(2.3)
w h e r e C\ is a p a r a m e t e r d e p e n d i n g o n t h e w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y (usually equal to 1),

0 fa is a difficulty factor, K is t h e n u m b e r o f structural e l e m e n t s t o b e a s s e m b l e d .
T h e difficulty factor e x p r e s s e s t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e structure. Difficulty factor
v a l u e s d e p e n d o n the k i n d o f structure (planar, spatial), t h e k i n d o f m e m b e r s (flat,
tubular). T h e r a n g e o f v a l u e s p r o p o s e d is b e t w e e n 1-4 (Farkas & J a r m a i 1997).
c.) Calculation of real welding time
R e a l w e l d i n g t i m e can b e calculated o n t h e following w a y
T2w —^ a
^2i wi^wi , (2.4)
i
where a j w is w e l d size, L j w is w e l d length, C 2i is constant for different w e l d i n g

t e c h n o l o g i e s . C2 c o n t a i n s not o n l y t h e differences b e t w e e n w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s b u t
t h e time differences b e t w e e n positional (vertical, o v e r h e a d ) a n d n o r m a l w e l d i n g in
d o w n h a n d position as well. T h e w h o l e e q u a t i o n list a n d tables c a n b e found in t h e
Appendix D l - 8 .
Cost calculations 23
d.) Calculation of additional fabrication actions time
T h e r e are s o m e additional fabrication a c t i o n s to b e c o n s i d e r e d such as c h a n g i n g t h e

electrode, d e s l a g g i n g a n d chipping. T h e t i m e o f t h e s e is as follows
C a L
T 3=J®j ~Y ii li i-
W w W (2-5)
F o r m u l a e ( 2 . 3 , 2 . 4 , 2.5) w e r e p r o p o s e d b y P a h l & B e e l i c h ( 1 9 8 2 ) a n d u s e d in
( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1999, J a r m a i & F a r k a s 2 0 0 3 ) .
Ott & H u b k a ( 1 9 8 5 ) p r o p o s e d that C = (0.2-0.4) C o n a v e r a g e C = 0 . 3 C . T h u s ,
3 2 3 2
t h e m o d i f i e d formula for neglecting , is
T C a L 2 6
w3=°^Jl 2i li wi • (-)
In the n e g l i g e n c e o f it is a s s u m e d that t h e difficulty factor s h o u l d b e

c o n s i d e r e d o n l y for T \.w
T h e N e t h e r l a n d s Institute o f W e l d i n g h a s d e v e l o p e d t h e software C O S T C O M P
( 2 0 0 2 ) . It gives w e l d i n g t i m e s a n d costs for different w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s ( B o d t
1990) o n t h e basis o f theoretical a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l investigations. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e
t i m e s g i v e n b y c o m p a n i e s all o v e r t h e w o r l d and the t i m e s c a l c u l a t e d b y
C O S T C O M P h e r e E q u a t i o n (2.3) is u s e d for T \ a n d t h e other t i m e s are c a l c u l a t e d
w
w i t h a g e n e r a l i z e d formula, w h e r e t h e p o w e r o f a is n, w h i c h is s o m e c a s e s e q u a l to
w
2 , or c l o s e to it.
T w2 + T =\3^C a" L .
wi 2i wi wi (2.7)
e.) Calculation of the times of arc-spot welding
T w4 = nT s s , (2.8)
w h e r e n is t h e n u m b e r o f spots, 7s is t h e t i m e o f w e l d i n g o n e spot w e l d a n d o f
s
transferring t h e electrode to the n e x t spot. T d e p e n d s o n the w e l d i n g e q u i p m e n t a n d

s
t h e d e g r e e o f a u t o m a t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e t i m e o f arc-spot w e l d i n g o f a cellular
p l a t e for ship d e c k p a n e l is T = 0.3 m i n . s
/; Fabrication times of post-welding treatments
Tpwr~ T L,,0 (2.9)
w h e r e T is t h e specific t i m e ( m i n / m m ) , L, is t h e treated w e l d length ( m m ) . T a b l e D 9

0
s h o w s t h e specific t i m e s for t h e g i v e n PWT in t h e A p p e n d i x D .
g.) Time for flattening plates
f
1 ^
T FP - 0 f a„ + bj
d + K. (2-10)
4 2 7 5
where o =9.2xl0"
e min/mm , b= e 4.15xl0" min/mm , 0 d f is t h e difficulty
=
p a r a m e t e r (&df 1>2 or 3). T h e difficulty p a r a m e t e r d e p e n d s o n t h e form o f the
plate.
h.) Surface preparation time
T h e surface p r e p a r a t i o n m e a n s the surface cleaning, sand s p r a y i n g , etc. T h e surface

2
c l e a n i n g t i m e can b e defined in the function o f the surface a r e a (A [ m m ] ) as s
follows:
T a A
SP=®ds sp s, (2-11)
6 2
where a sp = 3x10" m i n / m m , 0 d s is a difficulty p a r a m e t e r .
i.) Painting time
T h e p a i n t i n g m e a n s m a k i n g t h e g r o u n d - a n d t h e topcoat. T h e p a i n t i n g t i m e can b e
2
g i v e n in t h e function o f t h e surface a r e a (A [ m m ] ) as follows: s
T =0 (a a )A ,
P dp gc+ tc s (2.12)
6 2 6 2
where a = 3xl0" min/mm , a = 4.15xl0" min/mm , 0
gc tc is a difficulty factor, d p
0 =\,2
dp or 3 for horizontal, vertical or o v e r h e a d p a i n t i n g . Tizani et al. ( 1 9 9 6 )
6 2
p r o p o s e d a v a l u e for p a i n t i n g 14.4 x l O " $ / m m . F o r m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d structures w e
6 2
use k = 2xl4.4xl0" $/mm .
P
/; Plate cutting and edge grinding times
T h e cutting a n d e d g e g r i n d i n g can b e m a d e b y different t e c h n o l o g i e s , like

A c e t y l e n e , Stabilized g a s m i x a n d P r o p a n e w i t h n o r m a l and h i g h speed.
T h e cutting cost function can b e formulated u s i n g T a b l e s D 1 0 a n d D l l in t h e
function o f the t h i c k n e s s (t [ m m ] ) a n d cutting length (L [ m m ] ) : c
r CT =lQ^%/> (2.13)
i
where t h e thickness in [ m m ] , L is t h e cutting length in [ m m ] . T h e v a l u e o f n

ci
c o m e s from c u r v e fitting calculations.
k.) Times of hand cutting and machine grinding of strut ends
A t tubular structures a m a i n part o f t h e total cost is t h e cost o f h a n d cutting a n d

m a c h i n e grinding o f strut e n d s . W e u s e the following formula (Farkas & J a r m a i
1997)
Tea = 6 ^ X ^ ( 4 . 5 4 + 0 . 4 2 2 9 ^ ) , (2.14)
, sinq>
Cost calculations 25
w h e r e t h e fabrication cost factor is t a k e n o n t h e basis o f T i z a n i et al. ( 1 9 9 6 ) as

4 0 $/h = 0.6667 $/min, a n d t h e difficulty factor is c o n s i d e r e d as 0 d c = 3. T h e
d i a m e t e r o f the b r a c e is d, in m , t h i c k n e s s is t\ in m m . <p is t h e a n g l e b e t w e e n t h e t w o
m e m b e r s ( c h o r d a n d b r a c e ) c o n n e c t e d . N o t e that Glijnis ( 1 9 9 9 ) p r o p o s e d a formula

for o n e strut e n d in t h e c a s e o f oxyfuel cutting o n C N C m a c h i n e a s follows:
(350— 2/,)Q.3sin<Pj
w h e r e 3 5 0 m m / m i n is t h e cutting s p e e d , 0.3 is t h e efficiency factor, d\ a n d t\ are in

mm.
I.) Forming of plate elements into shell segments
F o r m i n g o f plate e l e m e n t s into shell s e g m e n t s d e p e n d s o n t h e s h a p e o f shell. I f it is

a cylindrical o n e , t h a n t h e f o r m i n g t i m e is m o r e s i m p l e , as it is w r i t t e n in ( 2 . 1 6 ) .
T =@e»,
FQi (2.16)
5 5
ju = 6.85 8 2 5 1 3 - 4 . 5 2 7 2 1 Itf + 0.009541996(2tf,.)° . (2.17)
w h e r e (, is t h e shell s e g m e n t t h i c k n e s s , R is t h e r a d i u s , t h e factor o f fabrication

t
difficulty is t a k e n as 0 = 3. T h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n is valid till R = 1500 a n d / = 3 0

m!LX
mm.
If the shell is a slightly conical o n e , t h a n e a c h s e g m e n t h a s different c u r v a t u r e , s o

t h e final t i m e is a s u m o f t h e single s e g m e n t p r o d u c t i o n t i m e
*™=2>/W (2-18)
i=i
m.) Material cost of bolts
T h e cost o f bolts d e p e n d s o n several p a r a m e t e r s , like t h e m a t e r i a l , t h e steel g r a d e ,

t h e d i a m e t e r , t h e length o f the bolt a n d t h e length o f t h e screw-cut. In o u r e x a m p l e in
Section 6.2 ( J a r m a i et al. 2 0 0 4 ) it is
K =Q.5A
b $ , 8.8 g r a d e M 2 0 bolts.
n.) Drilling cost of bolts
Drilling o f bolts d e p e n d o n t h e d i a m e t e r o f t h e bolt, t h e steel g r a d e o f t h e plate a n d

its t h i c k n e s s . In o u r e x a m p l e in Section 6.2, drilling o f M 2 0 h o l e s it is
K=d 0.38$.
2.2.3 T o t a l c o s t f u n c t i o n
T h e total cost function c a n b e formulated b y a d d i n g t h e p r e v i o u s cost functions

t o g e t h e r ( d e p e n d i n g o n t h e structure s o m e can b e z e r o ) .
-^ = pV + y~{TwX +T w2 +Tw3 +T w4 +T PWT +T FP +TSP + 7> + TCP +TCG +TF0 +...)
(2.19)
T a k i n g k = 0.5-1.5 $/kg, kf=0 -1 $/min. T h e k/k

m m ratio varies b e t w e e n 0 - 2 k g / m i n .
If k/k = 0, t h e n w e get the m a s s m i n i m u m . I f k/k = 2.0 it m e a n s a v e r y h i g h labour
m m
cost (Japan, U S A ) , k/k = 1.5 a n d 1.0 m e a n s a W e s t E u r o p e a n labour cost, k/k

m m =
0.5 m e a n s t h e labour cost o f d e v e l o p i n g countries. E v e n if t h e p r o d u c t i o n rate is
similar for t h e s e c a s e s , t h e difference b e t w e e n costs d u e to t h e different l a b o u r costs
is significant.
3
Seismic Resistant Design
3.1 INTRODUCTION
E a r t h q u a k e s , c a n c a u s e catastrophic d a m a g e , t h u s , steel structures s h o u l d b e

d e s i g n e d to be seismic resistant. In C h a p t e r 6 p r o b l e m s o f s e i s m i c resistant d e s i g n o f
steel frames are w o r k e d out ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 6 , J a r m a i et al. 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e a i m o f
t h e p r e s e n t c h a p t e r is to g i v e s o m e d e s i g n rules from E u r o c o d e 8 ( E C 8 ) ( 1 9 9 8 ,
2 0 0 4 ) , w h i c h h a v e b e e n u s e d in t h e s e p r o b l e m s . O n l y b u i l d i n g s of steel u n b r a c e d
frames are treated here. O n t h e theoretical b a s i s , rules for b a s e isolation a n d
N a t i o n a l A n n e x e s are n o t introduced. It s h o u l d b e m e n t i o n e d that in D e s i g n ( 1 9 9 5 )
o n e c a n find w o r k e d e x a m p l e s for seismic d e s i g n o f b u i l d i n g frames.
3.2 G R O U N D C O N D I T I O N S A N D S E I S M I C A C T I O N
3.2.1 G r o u n d t y p e s
T h e following g r o u n d categories are u s e d :

A - r o c k s , i n c l u d i n g at m o s t 5 m o f w e a k e r material at t h e surface
B - v e r y d e n s e sand, g r a v e l or v e r y stiff clay, at least several tens o f m e t r e s in

thickness
C - d e e p deposits o f d e n s e or m e d i u m d e n s e sand, gravel or stiff c l a y
D - deposits o f l o o s e - t o - m e d i u m c o h e s i o n l e s s soil or o f p r e d o m i n a n t l y soft-to-firm

c o h e s i v e soil
E - a soil profile consisting o f a surface a l l u v i u m layer
3.2.2 C a s e s o f v e r y l o w seismicity
C a s e s o f v e r y l o w seismicity, for w h i c h t h e E C 8 p r o v i s i o n s n e e d n o t b e o b s e r v e d are

2
as follows: the d e s i g n g r o u n d acceleration a is n o t greater t h a n 0.04 g (0.39 m / s ) ,
g
2
or the p r o d u c t a S is not greater t h a n 0.05 g (0.49 m / s ) ^ is the soil factor g i v e n in
g
Table 3.1.
3.2.3 P a r a m e t e r s o f elastic r e s p o n s e s p e c t r a
T a b l e 3.1 V a l u e s o f p a r a m e t e r s o f elastic r e s p o n s e s p e c t r a
Ground type S T [*1

B
Tcls] T [s]
D
A 1.0 0.15 0.4 2.0

B 1.2 0.15 0.5 2.0
C 1.15 0.20 0.6 2.0
D 1.35 0.20 0.8 2.0
E 1.4 0.15 0.5 2.0
3.2.4 D e s i g n s p e c t r u m for elastic a n a l y s i s
T h e design s p e c t r u m Sj(T) for the horizontal c o m p o n e n t s o f the s e i s m i c action is

defined b y t h e following e x p r e s s i o n s :
T 'Z5_ 2
0<T<T :S (T)
B d = a S\
g
2
—+ T
3
(3.1)
3 v 1 Jj
2.5
T <T<T
B C :S (.
d a S (3.2)
g
q
,2.5
T <T<T :S (T)
c D d = af;S and S„(T)>Ba g (3.3)
g q
\
2.5 (T T C
D
T <T:S {T)
D d = aS
g and S (T)>/3a
d g (3.4)
1 { T* J
where
a is the g r o u n d acceleration g i v e n b y t h e N a t i o n a l A n n e x , e.g. t h e larger v a l u e o f

g
0.40 is p r e s c r i b e d in J a p a n ,
Seismic resistant design 29
q is t h e b e h a v i o u r factor,
P is t h e l o w e r b o u n d factor for t h e h o r i z o n t a l d e s i g n s p e c t r u m , g i v e n b y t h e N a t i o n a l
A n n e x , the r e c o m m e n d e d v a l u e is 0.2.
3.3 D E S I G N O F B U I L D I N G S
3.3.1 C o m b i n a t i o n coefficients for v a r i a b l e a c t i o n s
C o m b i n a t i o n o f actions for s e i s m i c d e s i g n situations
G + +
X u M* £^..-Ou' (3-5)
where
G is the characteristic v a l u e o f a p e r m a n e n t action

K
A is t h e characteristic v a l u e o f seismic action

E
Q is t h e characteristic v a l u e o f variable action

K
Ve=<PV2> (3-6)
is t h e factor o f p e r m a n e n t action.
F o r r o o f <p= 1, for o t h e r storeys <p = 0.5 .
V a l u e s o f t h e factor i// are g i v e n in T a b l e 3.2.

2
T a b l e 3.2 R e c o m m e n d e d v a l u e s o f t// factors for b u i l d i n g s

2
Building
domestic, residential 0.3
office 0.3
congregation 0.6
shopping 0.6
storage 0.8
traffic, vehicle weight <30 kN 0.6
traffic, 30 kN < vehicle weight < 160 kN (X3_
3.3.2 I m p o r t a n c e classes a n d i m p o r t a n c e factors
I m p o r t a n t c l a s s e s for b u i l d i n g s a n d i m p o r t a n c e factors a r e a s f o l l o w s :
I - B u i l d i n g s o f m i n o r i m p o r t a n c e , e.g. agricultural b u i l d i n g s , etc., y\ = 0 . 8 ,
II - O r d i n a r y b u i l d i n g s , y\ = 1.0,
III - B u i l d i n g s w h o s e s e i s m i c r e s i s t a n c e is o f i m p o r t a n c e , e.g. s c h o o l s , a s s e m b l y
halls, cultural institutions, etc., y = 1.2, x
I V - B u i l d i n g s w h o s e integrity d u r i n g e a r t h q u a k e s is o f vital i m p o r t a n c e , e.g.

hospitals, fire stations, p o w e r p l a n t s , etc., y\ = 1.4 .
3.3.3 B a s e s h e a r force
F =S (T,)mX,
b d (3.7)
where
Ti is the f u n d a m e n t a l p e r i o d o f vibration o f the b u i l d i n g for lateral m o t i o n ,

SJ{TI) is the ordinate o f t h e design s p e c t r u m at p e r i o d T !t
m is the total m a s s o f t h e b u i l d i n g ,
A. is t h e c o r r e c t i o n factor, X = 0.85 if T < 2T
x C a n d t h e b u i l d i n g h a s m o r e than t w o
storeys, or X = 1.0 o t h e r w i s e .
F o r b u i l d i n g s with h e i g h t s o f u p to 4 0 m Ti (in s) m a y b e a p p r o x i m a t e d b y
V
T,=C H \ X (3.8)
where
Cj = 0.085 for m o m e n t resistant steel frames,

C] = 0.075 for eccentrically b r a c e d steel frames,
Cj = 0.050 for other structures,
H is the h e i g h t o f t h e b u i l d i n g in m.
3.3.4 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e h o r i z o n t a l s e i s m i c f o r c e s
T h e seismic action shall b e d e t e r m i n e d b y h o r i z o n t a l forces F to all storeys:

(
m i
F , = F * ' , (3.9)
s m
L, J J
where
Fj is the horizontal force acting o n s t o r e y I,

s Sj are the d i s p l a c e m e n t s o f m a s s e s w „ ntj,
h
m ntj are t h e storey m a s s e s .

h
W h e n the f u n d a m e n t a l m o d e s h a p e is a p p r o x i m a t e d b y h o r i z o n t a l d i s p l a c e m e n t s
i n c r e a s i n g linearly a l o n g t h e h e i g h t
/•>-/•;"''"' , (3.io)
where
z„ zj are t h e h e i g h t s o f t h e m a s s e s m h ntj a b o v e t h e level o f a p p l i c a t i o n of the s e i s m i c

action.
Seismic resistant design 31
3.3.5 D i s p l a c e m e n t c a l c u l a t i o n
If linear analysis is p e r f o r m e d t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t s i n d u c e d b y t h e d e s i g n s e i s m i c
a c t i o n c a n b e c a l c u l a t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f the elastic d e f o r m a t i o n s o f t h e structural
system
d, = qd , e (3.11)
where d e is t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t d e t e r m i n e d b y a linear a n a l y s i s , q is t h e b e h a v i o u r
factor.
3.3.6 L i m i t a t i o n o f i n t e r s t o r e y drift
F o r b u i l d i n g s h a v i n g non-structural e l e m e n t s o f brittle materials attached to t h e

structure
d v<r 0.005/z, (3.12)
w h e r e d is t h e interstorey drift c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to Sec. 3 . 3 . 5 , v is a r e d u c t i o n

r
factor, for i m p o r t a n c e c l a s s e s I a n d II v = 0 . 5 , for i m p o r t a n c e classes III a n d I V v =

0.4, h is t h e storey height,
for b u i l d i n g s h a v i n g ductile non-structural e l e m e n t s
dv r < 0.0075/z, (3.13)
for b u i l d i n g s h a v i n g n o n - s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t s fixed in a w a y so as n o t t o interfere

w i t h structural d e f o r m a t i o n s or w i t h non-structural e l e m e n t s
dv<0M0h. (3.14)
3.3.6 S e c o n d - o r d e r effects
S e c o n d - o r d e r effects (P - A effects) n e e d not b e t a k e n into a c c o u n t if t h e following

c o n d i t i o n is fulfilled in all storeys:
P dr
9= "" <0.10, (3.15)
V h
'tot"
where
P , is t h e total g r a v i t y load at a n d a b o v e t h e storey c o n s i d e r e d in the s e i s m i c d e s i g n

to
situation,
d is t h e interstorey drift,
r
V , is the total seismic storey shear,

t0
h is t h e interstorey height.
If 0.1 < 6 < 0.2, t h e s e c o n d - o r d e r effects m a y a p p r o x i m a t e l y b e t a k e n into a c c o u n t

b y m u l t i p l y i n g t h e relevant seismic action effects b y a factor o f 1/(1-0). The value
o f 6 shall n o t e x c e e d 0 . 3 .
3.4 S P E C I F I C R U L E S F O R S T E E L B U I L D I N G S
3.4.1 B e h a v i o u r factors for m o m e n t resisting f r a m e s
F o r u n b r a c e d frames, w h e r e t h e dissipative z o n e s are in b e a m s a n d at b o t t o m o f

columns:
O n e storey o n e b a y frames q = 5.5,

m u l t i - s t o r e y o n e b a y frames q = 6.0,
m u l t i - s t o r e y m u l t i - b a y frames q = 6.5.
Figure 3.1 Horizontal seismic forces. The frame is divided to 4 parts by considering inflection points on
the column parts
F o r q > 4 the required cross-sectional class is 1 (plastic).
S i n c e t h e frames are statically i n d e t e r m i n a t e , in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e t h e inner forces

d u e to t h e s e horizontal forces, an a p p r o x i m a t e m e t h o d o f Ifrim ( 1 9 8 4 ) c a n b e u s e d
b a s e d on the localization o f inflection p o i n t s . F o r t h e t o p floor a = 0 . 6 5 , for the
x
m i d d l e floors a 2 = 0.5 a n d for b o t t o m part o f the c o l u m n a3 = 0.4 (Figure 3.1).

4
Fire Resistant Design
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Fire p r o t e c t i o n is the p r e v e n t i o n a n d r e d u c t i o n o f t h e h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h fires.

A fire-resistance rating typically m e a n s t h e d u r a t i o n for w h i c h a p a s s i v e fire
p r o t e c t i o n s y s t e m can w i t h s t a n d a s t a n d a r d fire resistance test. T h e a i m for p a s s i v e
fire p r o t e c t i o n s y s t e m s is typically to d e m o n s t r a t e in fire testing t h e ability to
m a i n t a i n t h e i t e m or t h e side t o b e p r o t e c t e d at or b e l o w either 1 4 0 ° C (for w a l l s ,
floors a n d electrical circuits required to h a v e a fire-resistance rating) or ca. 5 4 0 ° C ,
w h i c h is c o n s i d e r e d the critical t e m p e r a t u r e for structural steel, a b o v e w h i c h , there is
a risk o f losing its strength, leading to collapse. Fire testing i n v o l v e s live fire
e x p o s u r e s u p w a r d s o f 1 1 0 0 ° C , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e fire-resistance rating a n d d u r a t i o n
o n e is after. M o r e items t h a n j u s t fire e x p o s u r e s are typically r e q u i r e d t o b e tested to
e n s u r e the survivability o f the s y s t e m u n d e r realistic c o n d i t i o n s .
0
* at,'''
Fire design of steel structures is u s u a l l y b a s e d o n t h e t h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y o f t h e

p r o t e c t i v e material. D e s i g n v a l u e s o f t h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d b y
full-scale fire tests. T h e s e tests also s h o w w h e t h e r t h e protective material stays
a t t a c h e d to t h e steel structure a n d protects it against fire as l o n g as required.
T h e steel can b e p r o t e c t e d b y materials such as m i n e r a l fibres, g y p s u m b o a r d s ,

c o n c r e t e , i n t u m e s c e n t p a i n t s and water-filled structures.
Fire resistance o f l o a d - b e a r i n g structures c a n b e evaluated b y b o t h full-scale fire

tests a n d calculations. C o m p u t a t i o n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f fire resistance requires that
cross-sectional t e m p e r a t u r e distribution is k n o w n .
Fire r e s e a r c h h a s t e n d e d t o lag b e h i n d other fields o f scientific a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l

e n d e a v o u r . This is d u e , n o d o u b t , partly t o its e x t r e m e c o m p l e x i t y b u t also d u e to the
relatively l o w p e r c e i v e d i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e topic in m a n ' s p r o g r e s s t o w a r d s
industrial d e v e l o p m e n t . Safety in general a n d fire safety in particular, after several
major disasters, h a s b e c o m e a subject o f increasing i m p o r t a n c e in recent y e a r s . A
general definition for t h e fire resistance o f construction e l e m e n t s can b e t h e
following: t h e t i m e after w h i c h an e l e m e n t , w h e n s u b m i t t e d to t h e action o f a fire,
ceases to fulfil t h e functions for w h i c h it h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d ( K a y et al. 1996, C o x
1999, R o d r i g u e s et al. 2 0 0 0 ) .
T h e b e a m s and c o l u m n parts are subject to b e n d i n g a n d c o m p r e s s i o n , t h u s , stress

constraints should b e formulated for b e a m a n d c o l u m n profiles a c c o r d i n g to
Eurocode 3 (2005) (EC3,)
4.2 C A L C U L A T I O N O F T H E S T E E L M E C H A N I C A L P R O P E R T I E S AT
ELEVATED TEMPERATURES
T h e calculation o f the yield stress a n d Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s o n elevated t e m p e r a t u r e s is

a c c o r d i n g to E C 3 . F i g u r e 4.1 a n d T a b l e 4.1 s h o w t h e r e d u c t i o n factors in the
2
function o f t e m p e r a t u r e b e t w e e n 2 0 and 1200 C°.
2
S I '1 • Yield stress
1 Young modulus
.2 0,6
1 0,4
"2 0,2
PA 0
V -v# ^ <^ x # <f

Temperature (C)
Figure 4.1 The yield stress and the Young's modulus reduction factors in the function of temperature
4.2.1 C a l c u l a t i o n o f yield s t r e n g t h
T h e yield strength at a g i v e n t e m p e r a t u r e c a n b e calculated b y k y9 r e d u c t i o n factor
f ,e=k J .
y y y (4.1)
4.2.2 C a l c u l a t i o n o f Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s
T h e y i e l d strength at a given t e m p e r a t u r e can b e calculated b y k Et) r e d u c t i o n factor

Fire resistant design 35
E =k E .
afi Efi a (4.2)
V a l u e s of k 0 and k E0 c a n b e calculated a c c o r d i n g to T a b l e 4.1 a n d F i g u r e 4 . 1 .
T a b l e 4.1 T h e y i e l d stress a n d t h e Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s r e d u c t i o n factors in t h e

function of t e m p e r a t u r e
Temperature k g reduction factor kE g reduction factor

(relative to f ) y (relative to E )a
20 1,000 1,000
100 1,000 1,000
200 1,000 0,900
300 1,000 0,800
400 1,000 0,700
500 0,780 0,600
600 0,470 0,310
700 0,230 0,130
800 0,110 0,090
900 0,060 0,0675
1000 0,040 0,0450
1100 0,020 0,0225
1200 0,000 0,0000
4.2.3 T h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y
T h e t h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y of steel A s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d from the following:

a
If 20 [ ° C ] < 0 a < 8 0 0 [°C]then
2
/l = 54 - 3,33 x 10" G [ W / m K ] .
a a (4.3)
If 8 0 0 [°C] < 6 a < 1200 [°C] t h e n
K = 27.3 [ W / m K ] , (4.4)
where: 6 a is the steel t e m p e r a t u r e .
4.2.4 T h e specific h e a t
T h e specific heat of steel can be calculated as a function of t e m p e r a t u r e as follows:
I f O <0 <a 600 [°C]then
l 3 2
c = 4 2 5 + 7.73x10~ 0 -1.69x10" (9
a a a + 2.22x10""^ [J/kgK]. (4.5)
I f 6 0 0 <6 a < 735 [ ° C ] t h e n
c = 6 6 6 + 1 3 O O 2 / ( 7 3 8 - 0 J [J/kgK].
a (4.6)
If 735 <6 < a 900 [°C]then
ca = 545 + 1 7 8 2 0 - 7 3 1 ; [J/kgK]. (4.7)
If 9 0 0 < 6 a < 1200 [°C] t h e n c a = 6 5 0 [J/kgK]. (4.8)
T h e v a l u e of specific heat in the function of t e m p e r a t u r e can b e seen on F i g u r e 4 . 2 .
5000
Specific heat 4500 I
[J/kgK] 4 0 0 0
3500
3000
2500
2000 i
1500 I
1000
——-
500
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature [°C]
Figure 4.2 The value of specific heat in the function of temperature
4.3 C A L C U L A T I O N O F T H E A C T I O N S F O R T H E F I R E S I T U A T I O N
A general definition for the fire resistance of construction e l e m e n t s can b e as

follows: the time after which an element, when submitted to the action of a fire,
ceases to fulfil the functions for which it has been designed. F o r the t i m e b e i n g , the
fire resistance required in m o s t national fire safety regulations for the construction
e l e m e n t s , d o e s n o t refer to the fire that could h a p p e n w i t h a g i v e n probability u n d e r
the real conditions in a building. It is referred to the standard fire ( I S O 834).
Therefore, since structural e l e m e n t s h a v e a load c a r r y i n g function, their standard fire
resistance represents the t i m e after w h i c h , w h e n subjected to the standard fire, they
can n o longer resist the effects of the accidental load c o m b i n a t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to
EC1 .2
ZYGA • G + k • Qu + 2 ¥ i , t • +T.A (t),

d (4.9)
where:
G k Characteristic v a l u e s of p e r m a n e n t actions,
Q kl Characteristic v a l u e of the m a i n variable action,
Q j k Characteristic value of the other variable actions,
A (t)d D e s i g n v a l u e s of actions from fire e x p o s u r e , or indirect fire actions,
y GA Partial safety factor for p e r m a n e n t actions in the accidental situation,

¥\,\>¥i.i C o m b i n a t i o n coefficients for b u i l d i n g s a c c o r d i n g t o E C 1 .

2
T h e last t e r m o f this l o a d c o m b i n a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s t h e interaction b e t w e e n t h e h e a t e d

e l e m e n t a n d t h e c o l d structure from w h i c h it is a part. T h e first t e r m s r e p r e s e n t t h e
m e c h a n i c a l action o n t h e h e a t e d e l e m e n t at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e fire, that is, t h e
d e s i g n effect o f actions in fire situation at t i m e t = 0, .EVi.dô- F o r t h e analysis o f t h e
fire resistance o f a single m e m b e r , t h e E u r o c o d e s state that " t h e internal forces a n d
m o m e n t s at s u p p o r t s a n d e n d s o f m e m b e r s a p p l i c a b l e at t i m e t = 0, m a y b e a s s u m e d
t o r e m a i n u n c h a n g e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e fire e x p o s u r e " , that is, Ef = Ef
lidt . For
ldt=0
m e m b e r analysis a r e d u c t i o n factor for load c o m b i n a t i o n s h o u l d b e t a k e n a c c o r d i n g

to R o d r i g u e s ( 2 0 0 0 ) . I n our case, w h e n w e h a v e a p p l i e d t h e calculation o f t h e frame,
w h i c h is for s u p p o r t i n g p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s , n o v a r i a b l e l o a d i n g c a n b e considered, so
Q^\IGy a c c o r d i n g t o F i g u r e 4.1 o f E C 3 is n = 0.74, t h e m a x i m u m .
2 fi
E , =r] E .
fi d fl d (4.10)
4.3.1 S i m p l e c a l c u l a t i o n m o d e l s
T h e l o a d - b e a r i n g function o f a steel m e m b e r shall b e a s s u m e d t o b e m a i n t a i n e d after

a t i m e t in a g i v e n fire if:
E <R ,
Atl Mt (4.11)
where
Ef lid is t h e design effect o f actions for t h e fire design situation, a c c o r d i n g t o E N

1991-1-2;
Rjid, is t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g design resistance o f t h e steel m e m b e r , for t h e fire design

situation, at t i m e t.
T h e d e s i g n resistance Rf ,at t i m e t shall b e d e t e r m i n e d , u s u a l l y in t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f

ldi
a uniform t e m p e r a t u r e in t h e cross-section, b y m o d i f y i n g t h e d e s i g n resistance for

normal temperature design to E N 1993-1-1, to take account of the mechanical
p r o p e r t i e s o f steel at elevated t e m p e r a t u r e s .
4.3.2 M e m b e r a n a l y s i s
T h e effect o f a c t i o n s should b e d e t e r m i n e d for t i m e / = 0 u s i n g c o m b i n a t i o n factors

¥\,\ o r y/ \ • X
A s a simplification t o this, t h e effect o f actions Ef lid m a y b e o b t a i n e d from a

structural analysis for n o r m a l t e m p e r a t u r e design a s :
E =Tj E ,
fid fl d (4.12)
where:
E is t h e d e s i g n v a l u e o f the c o r r e s p o n d i n g force o r m o m e n t for n o r m a l t e m p e r a t u r e

d
design, for a f u n d a m e n t a l c o m b i n a t i o n o f actions,

Tjfj is t h e r e d u c t i o n factor for t h e d e s i g n load level for t h e fire situation.
T h e r e d u c t i o n factor ^ for load c o m b i n a t i o n (6.10) in E N 1990 s h o u l d b e t a k e n as:
Gk+VfiQk,\
(4.13)
Tlft
rG
G k + r ,iQk,i
Q
T h e v a l u e o f y/ fll is a c c o r d i n g to F i g u r e 4 . 3 .
T h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n s m a y b e classified as for n o r m a l t e m p e r a t u r e d e s i g n w i t h a
r e d u c e d v a l u e for £ as g i v e n in (4.14).
e = 0.85 (4.14)
i f
JV
where: f y is t h e yield strength at 2 0 ° C .
T h e r e d u c t i o n factor 0.85 c o n s i d e r s influences d u e to i n c r e a s i n g t e m p e r a t u r e .
4.3.3 R e s i s t a n c e o f t e n s i o n m e m b e r s
T h e d e s i g n resistance Nf,^ Rd of a tension m e m b e r with a uniform temperature 6 a
s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d from:
Nf,,e,Rd ~ ky.e N Rd [yM1 / y f,

M ], (4.15)
where:
kyfi is t h e r e d u c t i o n factor for t h e yield strength o f steel at t e m p e r a t u r e 6 , r e a c h e d at a
time
0,8
...... ......
0,7 —- - j — ! • -
= 0.9
0,6 -
= 0.7
0,5 • !
0,4 ^ = 0.5
0.3
0,2
0,0 0,5 1.0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
QJG k
Figure 4.3 The value of the combination factor
NRd is t h e d e s i g n resistance o f t h e cross-section N ptM for n o r m a l t e m p e r a t u r e d e s i g n ,

a c c o r d i n g to E N 1 9 9 3 - 1 - 1 .
4.3.4 C o m p r e s s i o n m e m b e r s w i t h C l a s s 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s
T h e design b u c k l i n g resistance N f at t i m e t o f a c o m p r e s s i o n m e m b e r w i t h a
b lxRd
C l a s s 3 cross-section w i t h a u n i f o r m t e m p e r a t u r e 9 s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d from:
a
4 16
N ,f,,,,Rd=
b XfiAk f /y6 y Yu.fi > (- )
w h e r e : Xfi is t h e r e d u c t i o n factor for flexural b u c k l i n g in t h e fire d e s i g n situation;
kyfi is t h e r e d u c t i o n factor from Section 4 . 2 for t h e yield strength o f steel at t h e steel

t e m p e r a t u r e 9 r e a c h e d at t i m e t.
a
a n a
T h e v a l u e o f Xfi s h o u l d b e t a k e n as t h e lesser o f t h e v a l u e s o f x .fi
y Zx.fi
determined according to:
(4 17)
z =—rr^>
fi -
<Pe+^<Pe ~ h
with <p = l ( l + al
0 e +1/ ) . (4.18)
T h e n o n - d i m e n s i o n a l slenderness for t h e t e m p e r a t u r e 9 , is g i v e n b y :
a
(4.19)
w h e r e KL is t h e b u c k l i n g length, r radius o f g y r a t i o n , / t h e section m o m e n t o f

inertia, A is t h e cross-section area.
235
a =0.65j—. (4.20)
fy
4.3.5 B e a m s w i t h C l a s s 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s
T h e d e s i g n m o m e n t resistance Mf at t i m e t o f a C l a s s 3 cross-section w i t h a
URd
uniform t e m p e r a t u r e s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d from:
Mfi,, M =k yfi M Rd [y ,/y ]

H Hfi (4.21)
where: M is t h e elastic m o m e n t resistance o f t h e gross cross-section M

Rd for e/Rd
n o r m a l t e m p e r a t u r e design, o r t h e r e d u c e d m o m e n t resistance a l l o w i n g for t h e

effects o f shear if n e c e s s a r y ;
kyj) is t h e r e d u c t i o n factor for t h e yield strength o f steel at t h e steel t e m p e r a t u r e 6 . a
T h e d e s i g n m o m e n t resistance M/, at t i m e / o f a C l a s s 3 cross-section with a n o n

xRd
uniform t e m p e r a t u r e distribution m a y b e d e t e r m i n e d from:
M Rd [y ,ilyM,fi\lKiK ,
M 2 (4.22)
where:
M Rd is t h e elastic m o m e n t r e s i s t a n c e o f t h e g r o s s c r o s s - s e c t i o n M for n o r m a l elRd
t e m p e r a t u r e d e s i g n o r t h e r e d u c e d m o m e n t r e s i s t a n c e a l l o w i n g for t h e effects o f
s h e a r if n e c e s s a r y a c c o r d i n g t o E N 1 9 9 3 - 1 - 1 ;
ky.e.max is t h e r e d u c t i o n factor for t h e y i e l d strength o f steel at t h e m a x i m u m steel

t e m p e r a t u r e 9 ,max r e a c h e d at t i m e / ;
a
K\ is a n a d a p t a t i o n factor for n o n - u n i f o r m t e m p e r a t u r e in a cross-section;
k is a n a d a p t a t i o n factor for n o n - u n i f o r m t e m p e r a t u r e a l o n g t h e b e a m
2
T h e d e s i g n lateral torsional b u c k l i n g r e s i s t a n c e m o m e n t M f at t i m e t o f a b lxRd
laterally u n r e s t r a i n e d b e a m w i t h a C l a s s 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d from:
4 23
M Rd=
bfa
k
XLT,fiW I,y y,e,comfy/7M.fi
e • (- )
Conservatively 8 AXOM can be assumed to be equal to the m a x i m u m temperature
9a.max'
T h e d e s i g n shear r e s i s t a n c e Vf URd at t i m e t o f a C l a s s 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s h o u l d b e
d e t e r m i n e d from:
Vfl.i.Rd = k y A w e b V Rd [y .i/yM,fi]
M , (4.24)
where: V Rd is t h e shear r e s i s t a n c e o f t h e g r o s s c r o s s - s e c t i o n for n o r m a l t e m p e r a t u r e

design, a c c o r d i n g t o E N 1 9 9 3 - 1 - 1 .
4.3.6 M e m b e r s with Class 3 cross-sections, subject to combined bending and

axial c o m p r e s s i o n
T h e d e s i g n b u c k l i n g r e s i s t a n c e Rf litd at t i m e t o f a m e m b e r subject t o c o m b i n e d
b e n d i n g a n d axial c o m p r e s s i o n s h o u l d b e verified b y satisfying e x p r e s s i o n s for a
m e m b e r w i t h a C l a s s 3 cross-section.
k M k M
"ft" + > >J>* + * >**> <,, ( 4.25a)
Y y
Zmin.fiAkyff W k ely yd W Ji ei yd
Yu.fi YM.JI YM.fi

N
fi,EJ ^ k L T M y f h E d k M
z z f i E d ^
fy „ , w i fy w 7 fy
Xz,fiAk 0 y Xu.fiêl.ykyfi '
YM.fi YM.fi YM.fi
where:
ZLT.fi = , • (4-26)
+
^LT,0,com *LT,8 .corn) ~\^LT,0,com[
® LT ,9 ,com 2 \ + a^LT,9,com+{A-LT,e,co f m \ > 4 2

( - ^)
a = 0.65^235/ f y , (4.28)
=
^•LT,6,com ^LT-^kyft.com ^ E g c o m , (4.29)
where:
k E 0 c o m is t h e r e d u c t i o n factor from S e c t i o n 4 . 2 for t h e s l o p e o f t h e linear elastic

r a n g e at t h e m a x i m u m steel t e m p e r a t u r e in t h e c o m p r e s s i o n flange 8 , a com r e a c h e d at
time t.
^LT^fi.Ed
k L T = l ^ " <l, (4.30)
YM.fi
w h e r e ju LT = O.\5A p -0.15 z0 MLT < 0.9, (4.31)
k =l y <3, (4.32)
Xy,fiAk yd
YM.fi
w h e r e <u = (l.2j3 y My -iyl y 0 + 0.44/3 M y - 0 . 2 9 < 0.8, (4.33)
N
k g = l "' fi* < 3 > ( 4 . 3 4 )
YM.fi
where M z ={lB MiZ -S% 0 + 0.44y3 w>2 - 0 . 2 9 < 0.8 . (4.35)
4.4 S T E E L T E M P E R A T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T
4.4.1 U n p r o t e c t e d i n t e r n a l s t e e l w o r k
F o r a n e q u i v a l e n t u n i f o r m t e m p e r a t u r e distribution in the cross-section, the increase

o f t e m p e r a t u r e Ad _, in an u n p r o t e c t e d steel m e m b e r d u r i n g a t i m e interval At s h o u l d
a
b e d e t e r m i n e d from:
^ a , t = k s h ^ ^ h n e t d A t , (4.36)
C
aPa
where: k sh is c o r r e c t i o n factor for t h e s h a d o w effect, from 5.2.5.1(2) in E C 3 ;
AJV is the section factor for u n p r o t e c t e d steel m e m b e r s ;

2
A m is the surface area o f t h e m e m b e r p e r unit l e n g t h [ m ] ;
3
F i s t h e v o l u m e o f the m e m b e r p e r unit length [ m ] ;
c is t h e specific h e a t o f steel, from s e c t i o n 4.2.4 [ J / k g K ] ;

a
s t n e 2
h t,d ne ' d e s i g n v a l u e o f the n e t heat flux p e r u n i t area [ W / m ] ;
At is the t i m e interval [ s e c o n d s ] ;
3
p a is t h e u n i t m a s s o f steel [ k g / m ] .
F o r I-sections u n d e r n o m i n a l fire a c t i o n s , t h e c o r r e c t i o n factor for t h e s h a d o w effect

m a y b e d e t e r m i n e d from:
[A /V] M
w h e r e : \AJV\h is b o x v a l u e o f the section factor. In all o t h e r c a s e s , the v a l u e o f k /j s
shall b e t a k e n as:
v
k h = ~ \ . (4.38)
F o r cross sections w i t h a c o n v e x s h a p e (e.g. r e c t a n g u l a r or circular h o l l o w sections)

fully e m b e d d e d in fire, t h e s h a d o w effect d o e s n o t p l a y a r o l e a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e
c o r r e c t i o n factor k e q u a l s unity. I g n o r i n g the s h a d o w effect (i.e. k = 1), leads to
sh sh
c o n s e r v a t i v e solutions.
T h e v a l u e o f At s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n as m o r e t h a n 5 s e c o n d s . T h e v a l u e o f the section
1
factor AJV s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n a s less t h a n 10 m" . T h e calculation t h e d e s i g n
v a l u e s o f the section factor A„/V for u n p r o t e c t e d steel m e m b e r s are as in T a b l e 4 . 2 .
T a b l e 4.2 V a l u e o f t h e section f a c t o r AJV for different c r o s s s e c t i o n s a n d fire

effects.
Description AJV
Open section exposed to fire on all sides perimeter/cross-section area
Tube exposed to fire on all sides \Jt_
Open section exposed to fire on three sides surface exposed to fire/cross-section
area
Hollow section (or welded box section of \lt if tub
uniform thickness) on all sides
I-section flange exposed to fire on three (b + 2tf)/(bt )f if / « b
sides
Welded box section exposed to fire on all 2(b+ h)lcross-section,
sides if tab t h a n A J V = XIt
4.4.2 I n t e r n a l s t e e l w o r k i n s u l a t e d b y fire p r o t e c t i o n m a t e r i a l
Traditional fireproofing materials i n c l u d e c o n c r e t e e n c a s e m e n t , g y p s u m w a l l b o a r d ,

a n d c o a t i n g s c a t e g o r i z e d as S p r a y - A p p l i e d F i r e - R e s i s t i v e M a t e r i a l s ( S F R M s ) that
a r e t y p i c a l l y c o m p o s e d o f i n g r e d i e n t s s u c h as m i n e r a l w o o l , c e m e n t , a n d g y p s u m ,
a n d c a n v a r y in density. I n t u m e s c e n t fire-resistive c o a t i n g s are n e w e r fireproofing
materials. T h e y are paint-like c o a t i n g s that are a p p l i e d t o structural steel m e m b e r s at

a final t h i c k n e s s u p to 15 m m .
A l l o f t h e s e fireproofing m a t e r i a l s are d e s i g n e d to p r o v i d e an insulating barrier

b e t w e e n t h e heat from a fire a n d t h e structural steel. T h e barrier p r e v e n t s the high
t e m p e r a t u r e s within a fire from affecting t h e structural p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e steel
m e m b e r s . B e c a u s e the i n t u m e s c e n t c o a t i n g s h a v e paint-like p r o p e r t i e s , t h e y are
r e c e i v i n g increasing attention from architects a n d d e s i g n e r s .
T h e r e are actually t w o t y p e s o f "fire" c o a t i n g s o n t h e m a r k e t . T h e y are d e s i g n e d for

u s e o n different substrates and r e s p o n d v e r y differently w h e n e x p o s e d to fire.
Fire-retardant p a i n t s a r e applied to c o m b u s t i b l e m a t e r i a l s ( w o o d , plastic, foam) a n d
a r e d e s i g n e d to r e d u c e t h e rate o f flame spread. T y p i c a l l y , t h e y are b a s e d o n v i n y l or
v i n y l acrylic resins. T h e y l o o k like paints a n d are formulated to b e a p p l i e d like
p a i n t s (brush, roller, or s p r a y ) . T h e y d o b u r n , can g e n e r a t e s m o k e , a n d d o n o t h a v e
h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e resistance.
M a n y fire-retardant c o a t i n g s are o n l y rated for t h e ability t o "not c o n t r i b u t e " to a

fire, i.e. t h e y will n o t b e c o m e a fuel source. S o m e d o p r o v i d e resistance in k e e p i n g
t h e fire from getting to the substrate.
Fire-resistant c o a t i n g s p r o v i d e insulation to t h e substrate. I n t u m e s c e n t fire-resistant

c o a t i n g s w o r k b y e x p a n d i n g their v o l u m e from 10 to 75 t i m e s a n d g e n e r a t i n g an
ash-like char. T h e e x t e n t o f char will b e d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e material c o n t a i n e d in
t h e coating. T h e s h a p e o f the structural steel will affect e x p a n s i o n a n d char
formation. T h e s e c o a t i n g s p r o v i d e fire ratings ( 1 , 2 , 3 , a n d 4 h o u r s ) d e p e n d i n g o n
t h e c o a t i n g t h i c k n e s s , steel s h a p e , and steel m a s s .
F o r a u n i f o r m t e m p e r a t u r e distribution in a cross-section, t h e t e m p e r a t u r e increase

A9 j o f an insulated steel m e m b e r d u r i n g a t i m e interval At should b e o b t a i n e d from:
a
(4.39)
b u t A9 at > 0 if A9 gt > 0 ,
0=Wl- d A / V , (4.40)
CaPa
where:
A/Vis the section factor for steel m e m b e r s insulated b y fire p r o t e c t i o n m a t e r i a l ;
Ap is the a p p r o p r i a t e a r e a o f fire p r o t e c t i o n material p e r unit length o f t h e m e m b e r
3
Vis the v o l u m e o f t h e m e m b e r p e r unit length [ m ] ;
c is the t e m p e r a t u r e d e p e n d a n t specific heat o f steel, from section 4.2.4 [ J / k g K ] ;

a
c p is t h e t e m p e r a t u r e i n d e p e n d e n t specific h e a t o f t h e fire p r o t e c t i o n material

[J/kgK];
d is t h e t h i c k n e s s o f the fire p r o t e c t i o n material [ m ] ;

p
At is the t i m e interval [ s e c o n d s ] ;
9 aJ is t h e steel t e m p e r a t u r e at t i m e t [ ° C ] ;
9 gJ is t h e a m b i e n t g a s t e m p e r a t u r e at t i m e t [ ° C ] ;
A8 , g is t h e increase o f the a m b i e n t gas t e m p e r a t u r e d u r i n g t h e t i m e interval At [ K ] ;
Xp is the t h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y o f t h e fire p r o t e c t i o n s y s t e m [ W / m K ] ;
3
p is t h e unit m a s s o f steel [ k g / m ] ;
a
3
p is the unit m a s s o f the fire p r o t e c t i o n material [ k g / m ] .
p
T h e value o f At s h o u l d not b e t a k e n a s m o r e t h a n 3 0 s e c o n d s .
Section factor A/V for steel m e m b e r s insulated b y fire p r o t e c t i o n material for in

Table 4.3.
T a b l e 4.3 S e c t i o n factor A,/V f o r steel m e m b e r s i n s u l a t e d b y fire p r o t e c t i o n

material
Description AJV
I-beam with contour encasement of steel perimeter/steel cross-section area
uniform thickness on all surfaces
I-beam with hollow encasement of uniform 2(Z)+/!)/steel cross-section area
thickness on all surfaces
I-beam exposed to fire on three sides with steel perimeter-/} /steel cross-section
contour encasement of uniform thickness area
I-beam exposed to fire (2/!+6)/steel cross-section area
on three sides with hollow encasement of
uniform thickness on all surfaces
4.4.3 T h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e e v o l u t i o n o f steel t e m p e r a t u r e
F o r u n p r o t e c t e d steel structure t h e calculation o f t h e evolution o f t h e steel

t e m p e r a t u r e is a s follows with a n iteration p r o c e s s ( E C 3 , I S O 1975): 2
T h e time at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the fire is
t = 0 and e v e r y t i m e period: At = 5 w e calculate it t

j t M = t + At [sec].
i t (4.41)
C h a n g i n g the t i m e from 0 < t < t l m a x [sec], (4.42)
where t max c a n b e Vi, 1, 1 Yi, 2 , 4 h o u r s , m e a n s 1800, 3 6 0 0 , 5 4 0 0 , 7 2 0 0 , 1 4 4 0 0 [sec].
T h e t e m p e r a t u r e o f the steel can b e b e t w e e n
2 0 [°C] <9 < a 1200 [°C]. (4.43)

T h e starting v a l u e s are as follows:

3
6 = 2 0 *C, A6
a a [°C], p a = 7850 kg/m . (4.44)
T h e g a s t e m p e r a t u r e in the vicinity o f t h e fire exposed member (standard

temperature-time curve):
^ = 20 + 3 4 5 1 o g ^ 8 - ^ + l j [°C]. (4.45)
T h e net c o n v e c t i o n h e a t flux:
K =cc {0 -e ),
eK c g a (4.46)
2
w h e r e the coefficient o f h e a t transfer b y c o n v e c t i o n a = 25 W / m K . c (4.47)
T h e net radiative heat flux
27 4
L, r = *£ eA( m
0
g
+ 273
f- {°a + 3) J [ W / m ] , 2
(4.48)
where:
the configuration factor 0 = 1 ,
the surface emissivity o f the m e m b e r £ m = 0.8,
the emissivity o f the fire s f = 1.0,
8 2 4
the S t e p h a n B o l t z m a n n c o n s t a n t a = 5.67JCIO" W / m K . (4.49)
T h e total net h e a t flux c a n b e calculated as t h e s u m o f c o n v e c t i o n and radiative h e a t

fluxes:
Ketd = Ketc + Ketr • (4.50)
F o r a tube e x p o s e d to fire o n all sides:
A m 1
3 — , w h e r e t is t h e cross section t h i c k n e s s .
0 (4.51)
V 10~\
The temperature changing:
M =Kk— a , (4.52)
C
APA
where k = sh 1. (4.53)
T h e surface t e m p e r a t u r e o f t h e steel m e m b e r in every iteration step is t h e following:

n n x n x
G =9 -
a a + AG -
a (4.54)
T h e iteration is stopped, w h e n either t h e t i m e , or the t e m p e r a t u r e limit is r e a c h e d .
4.4.4 A d v a n c e d c a l c u l a t i o n m o d e l s
A d v a n c e d calculation m e t h o d s are b a s e d o n fundamental p h y s i c a l b e h a v i o u r in such

a w a y as to lead to a reliable a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f t h e e x p e c t e d b e h a v i o u r o f t h e
relevant structural c o m p o n e n t u n d e r fire conditions. A d v a n c e d calculation m e t h o d s
should include separate calculation m o d e l s for t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of: t h e
d e v e l o p m e n t and distribution o f t h e t e m p e r a t u r e w i t h i n structural m e m b e r s (thermal
r e s p o n s e m o d e l ) a n d t h e m e c h a n i c a l b e h a v i o u r o f t h e structure or o f any part o f it
(mechanical response model).
A d v a n c e d calculation m e t h o d s for t h e r m a l r e s p o n s e b a s e d o n the a c k n o w l e d g e d

principles and a s s u m p t i o n s o f t h e t h e o r y o f heat transfer, t h e relevant t h e r m a l
actions, t h e variation o f t h e t h e r m a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e material w i t h t h e t e m p e r a t u r e ,
t h e effects o f n o n - u n i f o r m t h e r m a l e x p o s u r e a n d o f heat transfer to adjacent b u i l d i n g
c o m p o n e n t s , the influence o f a n y m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t a n d o f a n y m i g r a t i o n o f the
m o i s t u r e w i t h i n t h e fire p r o t e c t i o n material m a y c o n s e r v a t i v e l y b e neglected.
A d v a n c e d calculation m e t h o d s for m e c h a n i c a l r e s p o n s e shall b e b a s e d o n t h e

a c k n o w l e d g e d p r i n c i p l e s a n d a s s u m p t i o n s o f t h e t h e o r y o f structural m e c h a n i c s ,
t a k i n g into a c c o u n t t h e c h a n g e s o f m e c h a n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s w i t h t e m p e r a t u r e . T h e
effects o f t h e r m a l l y i n d u c e d strains and stresses b o t h d u e to t e m p e r a t u r e rise a n d d u e
to t e m p e r a t u r e differentials, shall b e considered. T h e m o d e l for m e c h a n i c a l r e s p o n s e
shall also take into a c c o u n t o f t h e c o m b i n e d effects o f m e c h a n i c a l actions,
g e o m e t r i c a l imperfections a n d t h e r m a l actions a n d t h e t e m p e r a t u r e d e p e n d e n t
m e c h a n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e material, t h e g e o m e t r i c a l n o n - l i n e a r effects, t h e effects
o f n o n - l i n e a r material p r o p e r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e u n f a v o u r a b l e effects o f l o a d i n g and
u n l o a d i n g o n the structural stiffness.
5
Large-span Suspended Roof Members
5.1 INTRODUCTION
S u s p e n d e d steel a n d / o r t i m b e r m e m b e r s subjected t o t e n s i o n and b e n d i n g offer an

e c o n o m i c a l a n d efficient alternative for m a n y structural p r o b l e m s ( F i g u r e 5.1). T h e y
can b e w i d e l y u s e d in b r i d g e a n d structural e n g i n e e r i n g a n d b u i l d i n g p r a c t i c e as
b e a r i n g s u s p e n d e d s y s t e m s o f p e d e s t r i a n a n d pipeline b r i d g e s as w e l l as o f large-
s p a n roofs a n d floors in b u i l d i n g s .
S o m e r e s e a r c h results a n d analytical studies o n n o n - l i n e a r solutions o f s u s p e n s i o n

m e m b e r s o f finite flexible stiffness w i t h p a r a b o l i c o r similar s h a p e h a v e b e e n
p u b l i s h e d ( K a c h u r i n 1962, T e l o j a n & V e d e n i k o v 1977, M o s k a l e v 1980). T h e s e
theories p r o v i d e s i m p l e m e t h o d s for finding t h e static r e s p o n s e o f a h i n g e - s u s p e n d e d
m e m b e r to a p p l i e d vertical loads in t h e elastic r a n g e .
T h e g r o w t h o f the plastic d e f o r m a t i o n s p r o v o k e s t h e redistribution o f t h e forces, i.e.

the axial t e n s i o n s a n d the b e n d i n g m o m e n t s in t h e s u s p e n d e d structures, that often
leads to increasing o f their b e a r i n g capacity a n d m o r e effective b e h a v i o u r u n d e r t h e
load. C o m p r e h e n s i v e analytical t r e a t m e n t s o n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f s u s p e n s i o n m e m b e r s
o f finite b e n d i n g stiffness in elastic-plastic r a n g e h a v e b e e n g i v e n b y S k l a d n e v &
S h i m a n o v s k y ( 1 9 9 2 ) . B e c a u s e o f t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l derivation difficulties that c a n
arise in a g e o m e t r i c a l l y a n d p a r a m e t r i c a l l y n o n - l i n e a r analytical solution, n u m e r i c a l
m e t h o d s are b y far t h e m o s t p o p u l a r . M o s t o f the r e c e n t m e t h o d s o f n o n - l i n e a r
analysis o f s u s p e n s i o n structures are b a s e d o n the discretization o f t h e e q u i l i b r i u m
e q u a t i o n s u s i n g F E M a n d solving the resulting n o n - l i n e a r algebraic e q u a t i o n s b y
numerical methods (Kmef and Bin 2002).
S o m e results o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d theoretical b e h a v i o u r investigation o f t h e

g e o m e t r i c a l l y a n d p h y s i c a l l y n o n - l i n e a r s u s p e n s i o n steel m e m b e r s o f b e n d i n g
stiffness w o r k i n g in t h e field o f elastic a n d plastic d e f o r m a t i o n s o f material are in
( B i n 2 0 0 3 ) ( F i g u r e 5.1a). R e s u l t s c o n f i r m e d the sensitivity o f s u c h structures to local
a n d a s y m m e t r i c a l actions. T h e b e h a v i o u r o f structure and resulting stresses (tension
or c o m p r e s s i o n at cross-section) in t h e elastic r a n g e d e p e n d s o n t h e interaction o f
axial t e n s i o n forces a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t s . After, the structural m e m b e r r e a c h e s t h e
p h a s e o f full plasticity o f material (formation a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f plastic z o n e s ) its
b e h a v i o u r b e c o m e s similar to t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a s u s p e n s i o n cable with the d o m i n a n t
tension stiffness.
Figure 5.1(a) (b) Test of the suspended member of bending stiffness (a) and suspended structure (b)
S u s p e n s i o n m e m b e r s o f finite flexible stiffness u s u a l l y h a v e a p a r a b o l i c s h a p e , but

n e w information a b o u t b e h a v i o u r o f m e m b e r s o f rectilinear s h a p e w a s p u b l i s h e d
r e c e n t l y b y K v e d a r a s & S h a r a s h k i n a s ( 2 0 0 3 ) . H o w e v e r , a little attention is p a i d to
Large-span suspended roof members 49
t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n a n d probabilistic reliability analysis o f s u s p e n s i o n p a r a b o l i c

m e m b e r s o f finite flexible stiffness w i t h r a n d o m p r o p e r t i e s . T h a t is w h y t h e a u t h o r s
focus o n these p r o b l e m s , a n d e l a b o r a t i n g t h e m t h e y start w i t h t h e w o r k o f T e l o j a n &
V e d e n i k o v ( 1 9 7 7 ) , w h i c h is further c o m p l e m e n t e d .
5.2 T H E S U S P E N D E D R O O F M E M B E R S
In this c h a p t e r a n o n - l i n e a r closed-form static solution a n d elastic-plastic d e s i g n

m e t h o d o f a large-span s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r o f b e n d i n g stiffness subjected to a
u n i f o r m l y distributed s y m m e t r i c a n d a s y m m e t r i c l o a d are p r e s e n t e d a n d u s e d for its
o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e as well as for its s i m u l a t i o n - b a s e d reliability a s s e s s m e n t .
T r a n s f o r m a t i o n analytical m o d e l serves for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e s p o n s e , i.e. horizontal
c o m p o n e n t o f m e m b e r axial t e n s i o n force, b e n d i n g m o m e n t a n d deflection o f the
g e o m e t r i c a l l y n o n - l i n e a r s u s p e n s i o n m e m b e r d u e to the a p p l i e d p e r m a n e n t and
variable action, c o n s i d e r i n g effects o f elastic d e f o r m a t i o n s , t e m p e r a t u r e c h a n g e s a n d
elastic s u p p o r t s . T h e results o f t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n a n d reliability a n a l y s e s o f a large-
span s u s p e n s i o n m e m b e r u n d e r s y m m e t r i c a n d a s y m m e t r i c l o a d (as t h e b e a r i n g
m e m b e r o f a s u s p e n s i o n r o o f structure) in t h e form o f steel rolled I-section as an
e x a m p l e are briefly p r e s e n t e d . Its g e o m e t r y a n d loads are s h o w n in F i g u r e 5.2.
5.3 D E S C R I P T I O N O F A N A L Y T I C A L M O D E L
B a s i c s c h e m e for t h e static solution o f s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r s o f b e n d i n g stiffness w i t h

2
p a r a b o l i c s a g profile defined as z (x)=
0 4d x/l
Q (l-x) is s h o w n in F i g u r e 5.3.
| ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '"ji""^ >
i| "ij^'"^f "^""^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^
/ 30000 > 30000 /

4
Figure 5.2 Geometry and loading of the investigated suspended member
q{x) = g(x)+ p(x)
H a
Figure 5.3 Basic scheme, geometry and loading of suspended member of bending stiffness
5.3.1 S y m m e t r i c l o a d i n g
T h e following c u b i c e q u a t i o n for vertical deflection w at the m i d d l e o f t h e s p a n /

o f s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r u n d e r a u n i f o r m l y distributed load q = g + p a p p l i e d o v e r t h e
entire s p a n o f m e m b e r ( s y m m e t r i c l o a d i n g ) c a n b e u s e d
3 2
C w + C w + C w-C
1 2 3 4 = 0, (5.1)
where
Ci=T~*F, C,=~4>' (5-2)

15 c l L 5 cl L
2 J
C 3 = - ^ 0 + - ^ - + l , (5-3)
\5c I L 80EId 0
C 4 = ^ . (5.4)
4
8 0 EI
Coefficient o f s u p p o r t s flexibilities a n d t e m p e r a t u r e c h a n g e is g i v e n as
2
cos f3
c = (5.5)
ATL
F + F + _^_
+ +
Jax Jbx
ml H-H T T
0 j
w h e r e A is t h e cross-sectional area o f the s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r , f5 is t h e inclination o f

t h e c o n n e c t i n g line o f s u s p e n s i o n p o i n t s o f the m e m b e r w i t h the axis x , f m and
fbx are elastic y i e l d i n g s o f the s u p p o r t a and b in horizontal direction x,
respectively. a ATl 0 = a (T-T )l
0 Q is length c h a n g e d u e to t e m p e r a t u r e difference
AT = T - T , w h e r e a 0 0 is t h e coefficient o f e x p a n s i o n . F o r B = f = ax f=
bx AT = 0
coefficient c = l. Sign p l u s c o r r e s p o n d s t o the s u p p o r t s d i s p l a c e m e n t s in the
direction inside of the m e m b e r span a n d to a u n i f o r m temperature rise of
AT = T-T . 0 d0 is t h e initial m i d span sag o f the s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r at t h e cross
section x = 1/2 u n d e r self w e i g h t g . It is n e c e s s a r y to n o t e that u n d e r this loading
o n l y v e r y small b e n d i n g m o m e n t s o c c u r a n d the m e m b e r b e h a v i o u r is similar to
flexible s u s p e n d e d cable, g = g roof + Ap and p are t h e initial p e r m a n e n t (g r o o f
r e p r e s e n t s w e i g h t o f c o v e r i n g t r a p e z o i d a l or m e m b r a n e sheet, p u r l i n s and stiffening

e l e m e n t s and Ap is self w e i g h t o f s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r p e r unit length, p is material
d e n s i t y ) and additional d e s i g n v a l u e s o f v a r i a b l e action (as s n o w and w i n d ) ,
respectively.
Coefficient c o f the m e m b e r l e n g t h is
L
2
c =\ + ^ - + tan B. (5.6)
3/
T h e h o r i z o n t a l c o m p o n e n t o f m e m b e r force H is e x p r e s s e d a s
H =\ ^ { 2 d 0 + w)w+H , 0 (5.7)
3 c / L
w h e r e t h e initial horizontal c o m p o n e n t H 0 of t h e m e m b e r axial force u n d e r the

load g is for B = 0 , g i v e n as
B e n d i n g m o m e n t M in t h e m i d d l e o f the s p a n o f t h e s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r is
2
M = M -H{d 0 0 + w)=^ql -H{d 0 + w). (5.9)
O
T h e axial force T(x) in an arbitrary cross section x is g i v e n as
T{x)=HA\ + \ ^ - + tanp^ , (5.10)
w h e r e V(x) is t h e s h e a r force in cross section X o f h o r i z o n t a l s i m p l e b e a m o f t h e

s a m e span a n d load as t h e s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r .
5.3.2 A s y m m e t r i c l o a d i n g
T h e following t w o e q u a t i o n s c a n be used for the horizontal c o m p o n e n t o f m e m b e r

force H for s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r u n d e r a u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d v a r i a b l e l o a d p
a p p l i e d o v e r t h e left h a l f o f its s p a n ( a s y m m e t r i c l o a d i n g ) a n d u n d e r a u n i f o r m l y
distributed p e r m a n e n t l o a d g a p p l i e d o v e r t h e entire s p a n / o f t h e m e m b e r .
H = ^-a(aR R,)+H , l+ 0 (5.11)

2c J
a <5J2)
-^WK-
H R,
w h e r e the individual t e r m s are
2 1
(5.13)
H H
(5-14)
"
HT2 H
(5.15)
\6dl
(5.16)
31
<t>2 = Z x
i L( ) =^r .dx l (5.17)
o 15
5 = j^(x)z (x>fe=-^(2g + p),

1 0 j (5.18)
o 3
S = )M{x)z {x)dx=^(2g
2 0 + p), (5.19)
2A
g / 2 3
5
1 + g^ + (5.20)
12
I 16
/
1 7
g = jM (x>&=f^ 2 i P
2
(5.21)
120 g 64
E q s . ( 5 . 1 1 , 5.12) for H and a should b e solved s i m u l t a n e o u s l y b y an iterative

m e t h o d . If the horizontal c o m p o n e n t o f m e m b e r force H is k n o w n , deflection w\x)
o f s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r is calculated from
Ax)=a[MM. \ 2o{x) (5.22)

u v
{ H ')'
a n d resultant b e n d i n g m o m e n t is
M(x)=M (x)-H(z (x)+w(x)),
b 0 (5.23)
w h e r e M (x)b is a n a l o g o u s to the b e n d i n g m o m e n t at cross section x of a s i m p l e

s u p p o r t e d b e a m u n d e r the action of a uniformly distributed load q = g + p.
M a x i m u m v a l u e s of the deflection w\x) a n d of the b e n d i n g m o m e n t M(x) are
r e a c h e d in the quarter of the span, c o n s e q u e n t l y at the cross section x = l/4 along
the s p a n / . F o r this p o i n t the following expressions hold true
2
( I 3
w(x = l/4) = a —-{3.g + 2.p)--d 0
(5.24)
32.H
;2 ( ( ,2 T Y\
M ( x = / / 4 ) = — (3g + 2p)-H -d 0 + a - — (3.g + Zp)--d
y 0 0 . (5.25)
\ i > \ s f/3 2 4 o \ Jf 32 ' 4
V v j j
5.4 O P T I M I Z A T I O N
In t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e a structural v e r s i o n is sought, w h i c h fulfils t h e

d e s i g n constraints a n d m i n i m i z e s t h e objective function o f F a r k a s a n d J a r m a i
(2003). I n t h e p r e s e n t case a rolled I-section b e a m is u s e d w i t h constant cross-
section, t h u s , t h e objective function is t h e cross-sectional area. T h e o p t i m u m rolled
I-section is selected from a series o f available British U n i v e r s a l B e a m ( U B ) profiles.
T h e section characteristics a r e g i v e n in tables b y Sales p r o g r a m ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e d e s i g n
constraints a r e formulated a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . C a l c u l a t i o n s s h o w that
the g o v e r n i n g load is t h e a s y m m e t r i c o n e , thus t h e design constraints relate to this
load case ( K m e f et al. 2 0 0 6 ) .
T h e plastic stress constraint for t h e b e a m l o a d e d b y tension a n d b e n d i n g is given b y
•if, WJ
pl yX 1.1
w h e r e a t e n s i o n force H is g i v e n b y E q s (5.11-5.21 and 5.8), A - cross-sectional

area, W i - plastic section m o d u l u s , f - t h e yield stress, t h e m a x i m u m b e n d i n g
p y y
moment M c a n b e calculated u s i n g E q (5.25).

max
T h e elastic lateral torsional b u c k l i n g constraint is formulated as
- 4 * XU-FYI • Zlt = , \ , , (5-27)
0 LT =0.5[l + 0 . 4 9 ( ^ - 0 . 2 ) + ^ ] A =^52^,
LT (5.28)
tfff = ^ & a l , (5 . )
29
w h e r e W is t h e elastic section m o d u l u s , E - elastic m o d u l u s , G - shear m o d u l u s , I

y y
a n d I - m o m e n t s o f inertia, I
z m - w a r p i n g constant, / , - torsional constant, L z -
d i s t a n c e o f lateral b r a c e s for the u p p e r flange o f t h e b e a m .
T h e deflection constraint is g i v e n b y
w
« r ^ — .
m a x (5-30)
250
where w max is calculated u s i n g E q (5.24).

5.5 N U M E R I C A L D A T A ( F i g u r e 5.2)
5 5
P = 0, / = 6 0 m , L = 3 m , d = 5 m,f
z 0 = 235 MPa, E = 2 . 1 x l 0 MPa, G = 0 . 8 1 x l 0
y
+
M P a , intensity o f v a r i a b l e load p = 8.0 N / m m , intensity o f p e r m a n e n t l o a d g = g froo
5 3
pA, p = 7.85x10" N / m m , g f= 0.25x6.0 = 1.50 N / m m including c o v e r i n g sheet,
roo
purlins a n d stiffening e l e m e n t s w i t h 6 m l o a d i n g w i d t h . T h e a l l o w a b l e deflection is

g i v e n as w aUow= 6 0 0 0 0 / 2 5 0 = 2 4 0 m m . T a b l e 5.1 gives results for three rolled I-
section b e a m s .
T a b l e 5.1 R e s u l t s for U B 4 5 7 x l 5 2 x 6 0 , 5 3 3 x 2 1 0 x 9 2 a n d 6 1 0 x 2 2 9 x 1 1 3
UB457 UB533 UB610

A [mm ] 2
7623 11740 14390
a 0.2183 0.2270 0.2331
1(T7/[N] 5.3286 5.7070 5.9264
Eq.(5.26) 1.77>1 0959<1 0.702<1
Eq.(5.27) [MPa] 288>107 129<172 82.9<177
Eq.(5.30) [mm] 209<240 190<240 183<240
It can b e seen that the profile U B 5 3 3 x 2 1 0 x 9 2 gives the o p t i m u m , since t h e smaller

4 5 7 x 1 5 2 x 6 0 d o e s n o t fulfil t h e constraints o n plastic stress and lateral torsional
b u c k l i n g . T h e profile o f 6 1 0 x 2 2 9 x 1 1 3 fulfils all the constraints, but its c r o s s -
sectional area is larger.
5.6 P A R A M E T R I C E V A L U A T I O N
W e h a v e m a d e several p a r a m e t r i c e v a l u a t i o n s . First, w e c h a n g e d t h e length o f t h e

s u s p e n s i o n m e m b e r /, u p t o 120 m ( K m e t ' et al. 2 0 0 7 ) .
T a b l e 5.2 R e s u l t s for U B 6 1 0 x 2 2 9 x l l 3 , 6 8 6 x 2 5 4 x 1 4 0 , 7 6 2 x 2 6 7 x 1 7 3
/=80m UB610 UB686 UB762

A [mm ] 2
14390 17840 22040
a 0.38824 0.29325 0.22229
5
10" //[N] 7.19757 7.41061 7.70123
Eq.(5.26) 0.870<1 0.755<1 0.606<1
Eq.(5.27) [MPa] 105.18<166.7 95.27<173.49 59.72<176.23
Eq.(5.30) [mm] 393.30>320 305.42<320 232.69<320
T a b l e 5.3 R e s u l t s for U B 7 6 2 x 2 6 7 x l 7 3 , 8 3 8 x 2 9 2 x 1 9 4
/=100m UB762 UB838

A [mm ] 2
22040 24680
a 0.41351 0.34567
5
W H[N] 12.1351 12.3894
Eq.(5.26) 0.790<1 0.738<1
Eq.(5.27) [MPa] 75.83<176.27 73.3K183.24
Eq.(5.30) [mm] 409.67>400 349.74<400
T a b l e 5.2, 5.3 a n d 5.4 s h o w t h e results for different cross sections. N u m e r i c a l data

a r e similar to t h e p r e v i o u s o n e , o n l y the v a l u e o f / is c h a n g i n g from 6 0 to 80, 100
a n d 120 m a n d initial m i d span sag d = 7.5 m . 0
T a b l e 5.2, 5.3 a n d 5.4 s h o w s t h e o p t i m a for different s p a n length, w h e r e in m o s t

cases t h e deflection constraint is active. T h e o p t i m u m cross section is signed bold.
W e h a v e found, that increasing t h e s p a n length u p to 120 m , i.e. 100 % from 6 0 m ,
t h e c r o s s section a r e a h a s a 2 4 3 % i n c r e m e n t , h a v i n g t h e s a m e initial m i d s p a n s a g
o f the s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r d = 7.5 m . F i g u r e 5.4 s h o w s t h e effect o f t h e s p a n - l e n g t h
0
o n the b e a m cross section.
T a b l e 5.4 R e s u l t s for U B 8 3 8 x 2 9 2 x l 9 4 , 9 1 4 x 3 0 5 x 2 2 4
/=120m UB838 UB914

A [mm ] 2
24680 28S60
a 0.52368 0.45752
5
10" //[N] 17.9001 18.5085
Eq.(5.26) 0.857<1 0.793<1
Eq.(5.27) [MPa] 54.55<180.99 55.45<180.05
Eq.(5.30) [mm] 518.31>480 453.57<480
2
Figure 5.4 The cross section area of the beam (A in mm ) in the function of span-length (/ in m)
Secondly, w e changed the value of d . 0 d 0 is t h e initial m i d s p a n sag o f t h e

s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r at t h e cross section x = l/2 u n d e r self w e i g h t g . T h e interval for
t h e variable sag is as follows:
(5-3D
C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e following quantities for d 0 could be considered
. / 120
d =- =
n = 15,0 m
0
8 8
^ = ± = 1^
0
= 12,0 m
10 10
12 12
T a b l e 5.5 s h o w s t h e results for t h r e e different d , at / = 120 m .

0
T a b l e 5.5 s h o w s , that a larger initial m i d span sag causes larger deflection a n d

stresses. F o r the cross section U B 9 1 4 x 3 0 5 x 2 2 4 t h e m i d s p a n sag c a n n o t b e larger
t h a n / / 1 2 for / = 120. F i g u r e 5.5 s h o w s t h e effect o f t h e m i d s p a n s a g o n the b e a m
deflection.
T a b l e 5.5 R e s u l t s for U B 9 1 4 x 3 0 5 x 2 2 4
/=120m </ = 10 m
0
</ = 12 m
0 d = 15 m
0
2
A mm 28560 28560 28560
a 0.39082 0.34972 0.30138
lOltffN) 14.0431 11.7394 9.40067
Eq.(5.26) 0.743<1 0.729<1 0.726<1
Eq.(5.27) MPa 76.98<183.05 90.97<183.05 107.83<183.05
Eq.(5.30) mm 476.90<480 500.62<480 534.20>480
534,2
10 15 20
Figure 5.5 The midspan deflection of the beam (w in mm) in the function of mid span sag (do in m)
F u r t h e r investigations are n e e d e d to d e t e r m i n e t h e effect o f t h e B a n g l e , i.e. t h e

difference o f t h e height at t h e t w o s u p p o r t s (see F i g u r e 5.3) and to c o n s i d e r t h e cost
o f supports o n t h e o p t i m u m structure.
5.7 CONCLUSIONS
S u s p e n s i o n m e m b e r s o f b e n d i n g stiffness offer an e c o n o m i c a l a n d efficient

alternative for m a n y structural p r o b l e m s . In this c h a p t e r a n o n - l i n e a r closed-form
static solution a n d elastic-plastic d e s i g n m e t h o d ( d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f internal forces in
t h e elastic r e g i o n a n d utilization o f critical section in t h e plastic r a n g e ) o f a large-
s p a n s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r o f b e n d i n g stiffness subjected to a uniformly distributed
s y m m e t r i c and a s y m m e t r i c load are p r e s e n t e d a n d u s e d for its o p t i m i z a t i o n
procedure.
T h e transformation o f t h e analytical m o d e l serves for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e s p o n s e , i.e.

horizontal c o m p o n e n t o f m e m b e r axial t e n s i o n force, b e n d i n g m o m e n t a n d
deflection o f t h e g e o m e t r i c a l l y n o n - l i n e a r s u s p e n s i o n m e m b e r d u e to t h e applied
p e r m a n e n t and variable action, c o n s i d e r i n g effects o f elastic d e f o r m a t i o n s ,
t e m p e r a t u r e c h a n g e s a n d elastic supports.
In the o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s the s y s t e m a t i c search d e t e r m i n e s t h e o p t i m a l rolled I-

section b e a m for a n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m , w h i c h fulfils the constraints o n plastic stress,
lateral torsional b u c k l i n g a n d deflection for a s y m m e t r i c load a n d its cross-sectional
a r e a is m i n i m a l . P a r a m e t r i c investigations s h o w t h e effect o f s p a n length a n d t h e
initial m i d span s a g o n the o p t i m u m cross section v a l u e s .
6
Frames
6.1 INTRODUCTION
F r a m i n g is m a i n l y u s e d at b u i l d i n g industry as a t e c h n i q u e b a s e d a r o u n d structural
m e m b e r s , w h i c h p r o v i d e a stable frame to w h i c h interior a n d exterior w a l l c o v e r i n g s
are attached, a n d c o v e r e d b y a roof. F r a m e s are u s e d also at vehicles a n d m a c h i n e s
like p u n c h p r e s s e s , etc.
A s p a c e frame is a truss-like, l i g h t w e i g h t rigid structure c o n s t r u c t e d from

interlocking struts in a g e o m e t r i c pattern. S p a c e frames u s u a l l y utilize a
multidirectional span, a n d are often u s e d to a c c o m p l i s h long s p a n s w i t h few
s u p p o r t s . T h e y d e r i v e their strength from t h e inherent rigidity o f t h e triangular
frame; flexing loads ( b e n d i n g m o m e n t s ) are t r a n s m i t t e d as t e n s i o n a n d c o m p r e s s i o n
loads a l o n g t h e length o f e a c h strut.
F r a m e s are u s e d in a u t o m o b i l e construction t e c h n o l o g y also. M o u n t i n g a separate

b o d y to a rigid frame w h i c h s u p p o r t s t h e drivetrain w a s the original m e t h o d o f
b u i l d i n g a u t o m o b i l e s , a n d its u s e c o n t i n u e s t o this day. In t h e case o f v e h i c l e s , t h e
t e r m chassis m e a n s t h e frame p l u s t h e " r u n n i n g g e a r " like e n g i n e , t r a n s m i s s i o n , etc.
A b o d y , w h i c h is u s u a l l y n o t n e c e s s a r y for integrity o f t h e structure, is built o n t h e
chassis to c o m p l e t e t h e v e h i c l e .
A t frame design t h e calculations o f t h e internal b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d forces are

m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d , d u e to t h e fact, that t h e frame is statically u n d e t e r m i n e d . T h a t is
w h y s o m e finite e l e m e n t calculations are useful ( R o s s 1998). In o u r frame e x a m p l e s
w e s h o w a b u i l d i n g frame a n d a h i g h p r e s s u r e vessel s u p p o r t i n g frame a n d c o n s i d e r
their e a r t h q u a k e a n d fire resistant d e s i g n a n d optimization.
6.2 S I M P L E F R A M E W I T H W E L D E D O R B O L T E D C O R N E R J O I N T S
Steel frames c a n b e c o n s t r u c t e d u s i n g either w e l d e d or b o l t e d c o n n e c t i o n s . W e l d e d

j o i n t s are rigid, w h i l e t h e b e h a v i o u r o f bolted j o i n t s is semi-rigid, since t h e local
d i s p l a c e m e n t s o f j o i n t c o m p o n e n t s c a u s e an additional angle d e f o r m a t i o n o f c o r n e r
c o n n e c t i o n s . T h e s e angle d e f o r m a t i o n s affect t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t s , n o r m a l a n d
shear forces in frame m e m b e r s a n d t h e frame stability. T h u s , this effect should b e
t a k e n into a c c o u n t in t h e frame o p t i m i z a t i o n as w e l l .
In a p r e v i o u s study ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 2 ) w e h a v e s h o w n h o w t h e e c o n o m i c s o f
structures are influenced b y the differences in b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d shear forces.
T h e a i m o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y is to investigate these differences in t h e c a s e o f a
s i m p l e p l a n a r s w a y frame a n d also to d e t e r m i n e t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n of t h e frame in
t h e case o f w e l d e d as w e l l as b o l t e d c o n n e c t i o n s . T h i s is a relevant issue since single
story s w a y frames constitute t h e b a s i c b u i l d i n g s units o f structures s u c h as
w a r e h o u s e s o v e r h e a d c r a n e s , car p o r t s c a n o p y structures a n d rollbars for vehicles
T h e o p t i m u m design o f frames w i t h semi-rigid j o i n t s h a s b e e n dealt w i t h b y several

a u t h o r s e.g. A l - S a l l o u m & A l m u s a l l a m ( 1 9 9 5 ) , S i m o e s ( 1 9 9 6 ) , K a m e s h k i & S a k a
( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e difficulty o f t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n is that t h e additional a n g l e deformation
d e p e n d s o n m a n y p a r a m e t e r s ( s u c h as t h e t y p e o f b o l t e d c o n n e c t i o n , e l o n g a t i o n o f
bolts a n d local d i s p l a c e m e n t s o f p l a t e e l e m e n t s o f c o n n e c t e d profiles). T h u s , the
b e n d i n g m o m e n t s d e p e n d on u n k n o w n profile d i m e n s i o n s . T o ease t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n
p r o c e d u r e t h e g u e s s formula for t h e j o i n t stiffness p r o p o s e d b y S t e e n h u i s et al.
( 1 9 9 8 ) is u s e d h e r e .
A n o t h e r p r o b l e m is that available rolled I-section r o d s h a v e to b e used. T h e s e

p r e s e n t a discrete r a n g e o f profiles w h i c h are listed b y m a n u f a c t u r e r s in tabulated
form, e.g. u n i v e r s a l b e a m s ( U B ) and c o l u m n s ( U C ) (as g i v e n b y Sales p r o g r a m
2 0 0 7 ) . T h e characteristics o f t h e s e profiles (cross-sectional area, m o m e n t s o f inertia
etc.) d e p e n d o n m a i n section d i m e n s i o n s a n d it is difficult to calculate t h e m as
s i m p l e functions w h i c h is w h a t is r e q u i r e d for o p t i m i s a t i o n p u r p o s e s . F o r this r e a s o n
a p p r o x i m a t e functions d e t e r m i n e d b y curve-fitting selection u s i n g o n l y o n e variable
(profile height).
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n o f a w e l d e d as well as a b o l t e d frame is p e r f o r m e d u s i n g the

structural v o l u m e as objective function to be m i n i m i z e d , a n d the costs are calculated
a n d c o m p a r e d to e a c h other. British a n d S o u t h African cost data are used.
6.2.1 F o r c e s a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t s in t h e f r a m e
W e investigate a o n e - s t o r e y o n e - b a y s w a y ( u n b r a c e d ) frame s h o w n in F i g u r e 6.1

l o a d e d b y a u n i f o r m l y distributed vertical load o f intensity p a n d a c o n c e n t r a t e d
Frames 59
h o r i z o n t a l force F. T h e c o r n e r b e n d i n g m o m e n t Mp (Fig. 6.2) is d e r i v e d from an

angle d e f o r m a t i o n e q u a t i o n as follows.
Figure 6.1 Unbraced planar frame
T h e angle deformation o f t h e b e a m d u e to load p (Fig. 6.3) is
_plJ_
<Po = (6.1)
24Eh
a n d d u e to t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t s
MLP
(6.2)
2EI 2 '
w h e r e E is t h e elastic m o d u l u s a n d I 2 is the m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e b e a m section.
M„
M /2p M p / 2 /
- N
P2
Np
N„
'pi pi
Figure 6.2 Diagrams of bending moments and axial forces

T h e angle deformation o f t h e c o l u m n e n d d u e to t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t M p and

reactive force N = 3Mp/(2H) is
p2
MH
P
<p 2
(6.3)
4EL
w h e r e / / is the m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e c o l u m n section. T h e angle deformation

e q u a t i o n , c o n s i d e r i n g the angle difference c a u s e d b y the semi-rigid c o n n e c t i o n of
stiffness Sj, is
(6.4)
p
/i 1
A— Îr:. J h
±=i J
I
M„
(a) (b)
>2
(C)
Figure 6.3 (a) Angle deformations of the beam due to uniform normal load, (b) The main dimensions of a
rolled I-beam, (c) Bending moment and horizontal force acting on a column
F r o m Eq.(6.4) o n e obtains
M - (6.5)
p
24 1 , HI 2
Eh
2 4LI
X LSj
N o t e that for w e l d e d (rigid) j o i n t s Sj —><x> a n d the third m e m b e r in t h e d e n o m i n a t o r

becomes zero.
Frames 61
Similarly, t h e c o r n e r b e n d i n g m o m e n t s d u e to t h e h o r i z o n t a l force F (Fig. 6.4) c a n

b e c a l c u l a t e d c o n s i d e r i n g t h e following a n g l e d e f o r m a t i o n in the b e a m d u e to M F
(Fig. 6.5):
ML F
<PMF = (6.6)
6EI-,
a n d the a n g l e d e f o r m a t i o n s o f the c o l u m n t o p d u e t o F/2 a n d M F are
FH MH
F
(6.7)
4EI, EL
M F
M /2 F M /2
F
'F2
'F1 "F1
Figure 6.4 Bending moments and axial forces due to the horizontal force F
C o n s i d e r i n g also t h e a n g l e difference c a u s e d b y semi-rigid j o i n t s , t h e a n g l e e q u a t i o n

c a n b e e x p r e s s e d as
FH MH F _ MLF
(6.8)
4EI, Eh 6EI,
F r o m E q . (6.8) it follows that
Mp = —— (6.9)
LI, EI,
1+
6HI-, HS,
Figure 6.5 Angle deformations of the beam due to horizontal force F. Bending moment and horizontal
forces acting on the columns in the case of the horizontal load F
6.2.2 D e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s
T h e c o l u m n s a n d t h e b e a m are l o a d e d b y b e n d i n g a n d an axial force. Since rolled I-

section r o d s are u s e d , t h e s e s h o u l d fulfil the c o n s t r a i n t s on c o m b i n e d b e n d i n g a n d
c o m p r e s s i o n to a v o i d overall flexural a n d torsional b u c k l i n g as w e l l as lateral-
torsional b u c k l i n g . T h e s e stress c o n s t r a i n t s are f o r m u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3
(2005) (EC3), Ivanyi(1999).
6.2.2.1 Bending and axial compression constraint of the column CD
T h e b u c k l i n g constraint a b o u t t h e j - a x i s (Fig. 6.3) r e q u i r e s that:
- A - , ^ ^ , , , ( 6 ,0)
a n d for b u c k l i n g a b o u t z - a x i s
N l
<1, (6.11)
ZzlfylA
1 S m e
where / , = f y / YM\>7M\-^-^ ^ fy yield stress, y m is t h e partial safety
factor.
T h e c o m p r e s s i o n force is
pL + 2M^
1
2 L
Frames 63
a n d t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t is c a l c u l a t e d a s
M c = M + M,
p F (6.13)
T h e overall b u c k l i n g factor for t h e >>-axis is
1
Xy\ • (6.14)
^y\+^y\-^y\
where
+ =0.5[l
yi + a (X -0.2)+X$ ],
yl yl l (6.15)
0^=0.21 if h,lbi>\.2,
a y i =0.34 if \/b <\.2

x , (6.16)
and A j= :K,=2;r El (6.17)

r
r
y\*E
y\*E A
\ I\ \Jy
H
A c c o r d i n g t o S t e e n h u i s et al. ( 1 9 9 8 ) t h e j o i n t stiffness for a b o l t e d j o i n t w i t h a flush
end plate a n d c o v e r plate (Fig.6.6) c a n b e a p p r o x i m a t e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a
2
Ez t fc
(6.18)
11.5
w h e r e t is t h e c o l u m n flange t h i c k n e s s a n d z is t h e a r m o f t h e b e n d i n g forces in t h e
fc
j o i n t , w h i c h is a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l to t h e w e b h e i g h t , z = hj.
J f c
Figure 6.6 Bolted connection with flush-end plate
Furthermore
1 +0.6/1 (6.19)
v Xy\fy\A j
T h e lateral-torsional b u c k l i n g factor is
1
Zir\ (6.20)
with
(/> Ln = 0.5/T +A LN(A LTX - 0.2)+ ZL J , TI (6.21)
I w
y J
y
(6.22)
V M crX
2 I I H l G I t X
M ^ = U . n 2 x E - ^ \ - ^ + (6.23)
rX
" ~ H p zX ' n*EI A
a i n =0.34 if h /b <2,
x x
and a =0A9
LTi if h /b >2.
x x
(6.24)
T h e overall b u c k l i n g factor for t h e z-axis is
1 (6.25)
Zzl
with
tl> =Q.5[\zX + A (x - zX zX 0.2)+ J? ], zX (6.26)
zl
J - ^K H
• k - IR - r (6.27)
A
z\ - — r ~ . \ - 2, r z l -
K
— ,
r
z\Ê V A
a z l = 0.34 if / j ; / ^ >1.2 ,
and A ZX =0.49 if A , / ^ <1.2 . (6.28)
T h e calculations h a v e s h o w n that t h e torsional b u c k l i n g constraint is issive.
6.2.2.2 Bending and axial compression constraint of the beam BC
Similar t o E q s (6.10) a n d (6.11) t h e stress constraints a r e as follows
M
- ^ - + ^ 2 < si, (6.29)
XylfyxAl ZhTlfy^Vyl
and
^ . 1 . (6.30)
Zzlfy\^2
Frames 65
T h e other formulae are similar t o t h o s e g i v e n in Section 6 . 2 . 2 . 1 , b u t w i t h subscript 2

e x c e p t the following:
K =\.l,
2 (6.31)
and
F 3M_
p
N= 2 — + -. (6.32)
2
2 2H
In t h e a b o v e f o r m u l a e t h e following g e o m e t r i c section characteristics h a v e to b e

calculated:
A - cross-sectional area
I , I - m o m e n t s o f inertia a b o u t t h e y and z axis, r e s p e c t i v e l y

y z
W y - section m o d u l u s a b o u t the y axis
ry and r - radii o f gyration a b o u t t h e y and z axis, respectively

z
/ , - torsional constant
I m - warping constant
A l s o t h e v a l u e s o f t/ a n d z should b e g i v e n (Eq. 6.18).

s
T a b l e 6.1 H e i g h t s a n d c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a s o f s e l e c t e d U B profiles a c c o r d i n g to
Sales p r o g r a m (2007)
UB profile h [mm] A [mm ]

2
152x89x16 152.4 2032

178x102x19 177.8 2426
203zl33x25 203.2 3197
254x146x31 251.4 3968
254x146x37 256.0 4717
305x165x46.1 306.6 5875
356x171x57 358.0 7256
406x178x74 409.4 8554
457x191x74 457.0 9463
457x191x82 460.0 10450
610x229x113 607.6 14390
686x254x140 683.5 17840
838x292x194 840.7 24680
T h e s e v a l u e s are g i v e n in t a b u l a t e d form for available U B a n d U C sections o f a

c o m p a n y (Sales p r o g r a m 2 0 0 7 ) . T o e a s e t h e calculations, a p p r o x i m a t e functions
e x p r e s s i n g t h e a b o v e characteristics as a function o f section h e i g h t h h a v e b e e n used.
T o illustrate these a p p r o x i m a t e functions, t h e selected U B profiles are given in

T a b l e 6.1 w i t h their h e i g h t s a n d cross-sectional areas. T h e s e cross-sectional areas
can b e a p p r o x i m a t e d b y t h e following curve-fitting function
2 2
A = - 4 8 9 . 5 8 4 8 6 +14.366815/*+ 0.01824055/z (A in m m , h in m m ) (6.33)
F o r instance, for U B 3 0 5 x 1 6 5 x 4 6 . 1 w i t h h = 3 0 6 . 6 m m E q . ( 6 . 3 3 ) gives A = 5 6 2 9 . 9 6

2 2
mm instead of t h e actual v a l u e of 5 8 7 5 m m .
6.2.3 O p t i m i z a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d r e s u l t s
T h e objective function to b e m i n i m i z e d is t h e structural v o l u m e
V = 2A H l + A L,
2 (6.34)
T h e u n k n o w n v a r i a b l e s are the h e i g h t s o f c o l u m n a n d b e a m rolled I-sections hj a n d

h.
2
R o s e n b r o c k ' s H i l l c l i m b a l g o r i t h m h a s b e e n a p p l i e d t o find t h e o p t i m u m c o l u m n a n d
b e a m profiles, w h i c h m i n i m i z e t h e v o l u m e ( w e i g h t ) a n d fulfil t h e d e s i g n constraints.
6.2.4 C o s t c a l c u l a t i o n for f r a m e s w i t h w e l d e d a n d b o l t e d j o i n t s
T h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n results in t h e f o l l o w i n g o p t i m a l British profiles:
Bolted version: columns UC203x203x71
beam UB356xl71x51
Welded version: columns UC203x203x86
beam UB356xl71x67
Costs of the frame with bolted connections:
M a t e r i a l cost: U B 3 5 6 x 1 7 1 x 5 1 2 0 L / m = 2 8 . 6 $/m, length L = 7.62 m , 217.9$
U C 2 0 3 x 2 0 3 x 7 1 2 7 L / m = 3 8 . 6 $/m, l e n g t h 2 H = 7.32 m ....282.6$
m a t e r i a l c o s t o f b o l t s ( 1 0 0 b o l t s cost is 3 2 . - L ) 16 b o l t s 0 . 3 2 x 1 6 = 5 L = 7.3 $
total material cost 507.8 $
M a n u f a c t u r i n g costs: cutting o f t h e b e a m e n d s ( m a i n ) 24 L = 34.3 $
P r e p a r a t i o n ( a s s e m b l y ) cost is c a l c u l a t e d similarly t h a n in t h e case o f w e l d e d j o i n t ,

w i t h t h e s a m e formula as follows
K Fl = k GjxpV
F = 0.6X2A/3X908.34 = 62.6$,
s i n c e the total m a s s is 5 1 x 7 . 6 2 + 7 1 x 7 . 3 2 = 9 0 8 . 3 4 k g .
T h e cost o f the b o l t e d c o n n e c t i o n o f m e d i u m type ( e n d p l a t e 2 5 m m thick, 2 0 0 m m

w i d e , 4 1 0 m m d e e p , h o l i n g , w e l d i n g t o t h e e n d p l a t e w i t h fillet w e l d s o f leg size m i n
6 m a x 12 m m a r o u n d t h e profile) is 81 L = 1 1 5 . 8 $
T o t a l m a n u f a c t u r i n g costs 212.7 $
Material and manufacturing together 720.5 $

Frames 67
Costs of the frame with welded connections:
M a t e r i a l cost: U B 3 5 6 x 1 7 1 x 6 7 2 6 L / m = 37.2 $/m, L = 7.62 m , 283.3 $
UC 203x203x86 32 L / m = 4 5 . 8 $/m. 2 H = 7.32 m 335.0$
M a n u f a c t u r i n g costs: cutting of the b e a m e n d s ( m a i n ) 2 6 L = 37.2 $
w e l d i n g K =kJ@ J^V
w d + l.3Y,a C a" L Pi m Wi m
pV = 7 . 6 2 x 6 7 . 1 + 2 x 3 . 6 6 x 8 6 . 1 = 1 1 4 1 . 6 k g / m
parts o f the s e c o n d m e m b e r :
3 2
flanges 1 . 3 x 0 . 5 2 1 4 x l 0 " x l 5 . 7 x 2 x l 7 3 . 2 = 57.9 m i n
3 2
web 1.3x2x0.5214xl0" x9.1 x311.6= 35.0 m i n
3 2
flange b a c k i n g 1 . 3 x 3 x 0 . 7 8 8 9 x l 0 " x 4 x 2 x l 7 3 . 2 = 17.0 m i n
3 2
w e b backing 1.3x2x0.7889xl0" x4 x311.6 = 10.2 m i n
total 120.1 m i n
K w = 0 . 6 ( 2 ^ 3 x 1 1 4 1 . 6 + 120.l) = 142.3$ ,
total m a n u f a c t u r i n g cost 179.5 $
Material and manufacturing together 797.8 $
T h e calculations s h o w that the b o l t e d u n b r a c e d s i m p l e p l a n a r frame is 1 0 . 7 %

c h e a p e r t h a n the w e l d e d o n e in the case of British cost data.
6.3 O P T I M U M S E I S M I C D E S I G N O F A M U L T I - S T O R E Y F R A M E
A n interior t h r e e storey frame structure w i t h a c o l u m n a n d 4 b e a m s in e a c h floor is

investigated. T h e vertical a n d horizontal (seismic) forces, n o r m a l forces a n d b e n d i n g
m o m e n t s as w e l l as elastic interstorey drifts are calculated. C h a p t e r 3 deals w i t h the
s e i s m i c d e s i g n rules a c c o r d i n g to E C 8 . T h e w e l d e d b o x c o l u m n s a n d rolled I-section
b e a m s are d e s i g n e d for m i n i m u m w e i g h t a n d cost. T h e b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s
are selected from a n u m b e r of structural v e r s i o n s i m p r o v e d for seismic resistance.
T h e fabrication costs are calculated in details. D e s i g n constraints relate to interstorey
drifts a n d to stability of c o l u m n parts a n d b e a m s l o a d e d b y c o m p r e s s i o n a n d
b e n d i n g . C a l c u l a t i o n s s h o w that, after a c o n n e c t i o n t y p e is selected, the fabrication
cost h a s little effect o n the o p t i m u m design, since it varies p r o p o r t i o n a l l y w i t h the
m a s s a c c o r d i n g to the present calculating m e t h o d . T h u s , the m i n i m u m w e i g h t d e s i g n
g i v e s suitable results.
6.3.1 P r o b l e m f o r m u l a t i o n
In order to study t h e effect o f seismic loads, a relatively simple frame is selected as

s h o w n in F i g u r e 6.7. T h i s is a simplified m o d e l o f a central part o f a three-storey
b u i l d i n g frame structure. T h e frame is u n b r a c e d a n d horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t s can
o c c u r d u e to h o r i z o n t a l s e i s m i c forces. T h e c o l u m n p a r t s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d from
w e l d e d square b o x section a n d t h e b e a m s h a v e a rolled u n i v e r s a l b e a m ( U B ) profile.
T h e frame is subject t o vertical p e r m a n e n t a n d live loads as well as to h o r i z o n t a l
s e i s m i c forces ( F i g u r e s 6.7, 6.8 and 6.11). In t h e fishbone m o d e l t h e b e a m e n d s are
c o n s i d e r e d to b e built u p for vertical loads a n d p i n n e d for horizontal o n e s . T h e
p r o b l e m is t o find suitable c o l u m n a n d b e a m profiles, w h i c h fulfil the design
constraints and m i n i m i z e t h e objective function. T h e b e a m s a n d c o l u m n parts are
subject to b e n d i n g a n d c o m p r e s s i o n , t h u s , stress constraints s h o u l d b e formulated for
3 b e a m and 3 c o l u m n profiles a c c o r d i n g t o E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( E C 3 ) . T h e e c o n o m y
o f frames w i t h semi-rigid c o n n e c t i o n s w a s studied b y W e y n a n d et al ( 1 9 9 8 ) .
Figure 6.7 The investigated frame under horizontal loads consisting of a column and 4 beams in each
storey. The frame is a central part of a building as it is seen in the top view
T h e seismic forces and interstorey drifts are calculated a c c o r d i n g t o E u r o c o d e 8

( 1 9 9 8 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( E C 8 ) . Constraints o n interstorey drifts are also formulated. T h e
calculation o f drifts and stability are b a s e d o n t h e linear elastic b e h a v i o u r o f the
structure. T h i s is t h e m o s t p o p u l a r m e t h o d of analysis r e c o m m e n d e d in E u r o c o d e 8.
H o w e v e r , t h e structure and the parts o f it h a v e to m e e t t h e ductility r e q u i r e m e n t s
inherent to the b e h a v i o u r factor adopted. O n e o f t h e i m p o r t a n t r e q u i r e m e n t s is t h e
Frames 69
o v e r s t r e n g t h r e q u i r e m e n t s for b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s : t h e plastic strength o f

t h e c o n n e c t i o n s s h o u l d b e large e n o u g h to a l l o w f o r m a t i o n o f plastic h i n g e s at t h e
b e a m e n d s . T h e c o n n e c t i o n d e s i g n w a s d e t e r m i n e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e plastic
analysis and experimental evidences.
6.3.2 C a l c u l a t i o n o f vertical l o a d s
W e u s e a slightly modified d a t a o f D e s i g n ( 1 9 9 5 ) in w h i c h t h e seismic-resistant

d e s i g n of a 5-storey residential b u i l d i n g frame is detailed.
2
P e r m a n e n t load for r o o f i n c l u d i n g t h e structure self w e i g h t is q; = 5.5 k N / m .
2
P e r m a n e n t l o a d for floors is q =qs
2 = 5.0 k N / m .
2
L i v e load for r o o f and floors is 2.0 k N / m .
Figure 6.8 Vertical loads acting on the frame and the diagrams of bending moments (M) and axial forces
(N)
A c c o r d i n g to E C 8 the c o m b i n a t i o n o f seismic action w i t h other actions s h o u l d b e

p e r f o r m e d in the following w a y :
(6.35)
w h e r e G are t h e p e r m a n e n t actions, A is the e a r t h q u a k e action, Q are t h e variable

k E k
(live) actions a n d y/ = (py/ is the c o m b i n a t i o n coefficient, w h e r e for e a c h storey

2l
y/n = 0 . 3 , for t o p storey (roof) cp = 1 a n d for o t h e r storeys (p = 0.5 . F o r t h e

c o m b i n a t i o n o f vertical a n d s e i s m i c load a c t i o n s t h e E C 8 rule is u s e d , in w h i c h t h e
i m p o r t a n c e factor for o r d i n a r y b u i l d i n g s n o t b e l o n g i n g to t h e other categories ( E C 8
T a b l e 4.3) is y, = 1 (Class II) (see also Session 3.3.2 in this b o o k ) .
C o m b i n e d vertical loads for b e a m s ( w e consider, that b e a m s a r e in t w o directions)
Roof: p, = (q, + 0.3x2.0)1/2, (6.36)
O t h e r storeys p =p 2 3 = (q + 0 . 1 5 x 2 . 0 ) 1 / 2 .
2 (6.37)
C o m b i n e d vertical l o a d s for c o l u m n p a r t s :
2
Top: G, = (q, + 0.3x2.0)xZ, . (6.38)
2
O t h e r storeys G = G = (q + 0 . 3 x 2 . 0 ) x Z .
2 3 2 (6.39)
T h e s e vertical loads a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g M (bending moment) and N

( c o m p r e s s i o n force) d i a g r a m s a r e g i v e n a s follows:
N, = G,, N = G, + G ,N 2 2 3 = G, + G + G ,
2 3 (6.40)
2 2
M =p L l\2,M
1 1 2 = M =p L l\2.
l 2 (6.41)
6.3.3 C a l c u l a t i o n o f h o r i z o n t a l s e i s m i c forces
A c c o r d i n g t o E C 8 t h e seismic b a s e shear force is
F =S {T,)mX,
b d (6.42)
w h e r e m is t h e total m a s s o f t h e b u i l d i n g ,
X is t h e correction factor, w h i c h is equal t o 0.85 since T\ < 2T ( s e e b e l o w ) C
75
T = C H° ,
{ t (6.43)
t h e h e i g h t o f t h e b u i l d i n g is H = 3H. I f # = 3 . 6 m t h e n H = 10.8 m . F o r m o m e n t
0 0
7 5
resistant s p a c e steel frame C, = 0 . 0 8 5 , t h u s T = 0 . 0 8 5 x / / ° If # = 1 0 . 8 thenx 0 0
ri=0.5064 s. for this t i m e t h e following formula is valid
S =aSBJq
d (6.44)
F o r subsoil class C ( T a b l e 3.1 o f E C 8 ) ( s e e also T a b l e 3.1 in this b o o k ) S = 1.15,

/ ? = 2 . 5 , T = 0 . 2 , T = 0.60, T = 2.0. F o r t h e m o s t d a n g e r o u s J a p a n e s e z o n e s a =
0 B c D
0.4.
T h e b e h a v i o u r factor q ( E C 8 T a b l e 6.2, F i g u r e 6.7) ( s e e also Session 3.4.1 in this

b o o k ) for m o m e n t resistant, u n b r a c e d m u l t i s t o r e y b u i l d i n g s is q = 1.3x5 = 6 . 5 , t h u s ,
S = 1.15x0.4x2.5/6.5 = 0 . 1 7 6 9 .
d
Z-tfl-
H o r i z o n t a l shear forces for t h e floors a r e as follows F = F ( b ' ' (i = 1,2,3), since
i
t h e f u nda m e nta l m o d e s h a p e is a p p r o x i m a t e d b y h o r i z o n t a l d i s p l a c e m e n t s increasing
linearly a l o n g t h e height.
Frames 71
moment under seismic load
m o m e n t under gravity load
fish b o n e model
i / ! /
Figure 6.9 Vertical and seismic loads acting on the frame and the diagrams of bending moments
W/2
-n n n n i
W/4
0—d—d 2
Figure 6.10 Plan view of a building with m by n columns
F o r t h e t o p floor it is / = \,z\ = 3 x 3 . 5 , m\ = G\,

n d
For the 2 floor it is / = 2 , z = 2 x 3 . 5 , m = G ,
2 2 2
a n d for first floor it is / = 3 , z = 1x3.5, w = G .

3 3 3
It should b e noted that t h e c o l u m n s in a b u i l d i n g a r e interior o r exterior o n e s . A

s i m p l e calculation s h o w s h o w m u c h h o r i z o n t a l load a c o l u m n h a s to support. E v e n
in a b i g b u i l d i n g o f m b a y s b y n b a y s , e a c h c o l u m n h a s t o s u p p o r t t h e load o f about
2 5 - 1 0 0 p e r c e n t o f that o f total c o l u m n force ( F i g u r e 6.10, T a b l e 6.2).
A p l a n v i e w o f a b u i l d i n g with m b y n c o l u m n s . A l l t h e s p a n s h a v e equal length.

The number of columns:
Fully loaded columns = (m-2)(n-2),
1/2 l o a d e d c o l u m n s = 2 ( m - 2 ) + 2 ( « - 2 ) ,
1/4 l o a d e d c o l u m n s = 4 .
T h e total w e i g h t t h e c o l u m n s a r e c a r r y i n g , £ W: T.W= W(m-2)(n-2) + W(m-2) + W(n-

2)+W
T h e a v e r a g e w e i g h t , e a c h c o l u m n c a r r y i n g is W (in c a s e that interior a n d exterior

c o l u m n s h a v e t h e s a m e stiffness):
T a b l e 6.2 A v e r a g e w e i g h t e a c h c o l u m n is c a r r y i n g for h o r i z o n t a l s h e a r force

calculation
m n W m « FF m «
2 2 0.25 3 4 0.50 4 7 0.64
2 3 0.33 3 5 0.53 5 5 0.64
2 4 0.38 3 6 0.56 5 6 0.67
2 5 0.40 3 7 0.57 5 7 0.69
2 6 0.42 4 4 0.56 6 6 0.69
2 7 0.43 4 5 0.60 6 7 0.71
3 3 0.44 4 6 0.63 7 7 0.73
mn — m — n + l
(6.45)
mn
H o r i z o n t a l s h e a r forces F s h o u l d b e m u l t i p l i e d b y w. S o F,=wFi
t (i = 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
T h e h o r i z o n t a l s e i s m i c shear forces a r e acting o n t h e floors as it is s h o w n in F i g u r e
6.10. S i n c e t h e structure is statically i n d e t e r m i n a t e , in o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e inner
forces d u e t o t h e s e h o r i z o n t a l forces, an a p p r o x i m a t e m e t h o d c a n b e used. In D e s i g n
( 1 9 9 5 ) t h e m e t h o d o f Ifrim ( 1 9 8 4 ) is u s e d b a s e d o n t h e localization o f inflection
p o i n t s (Figure 6.11). F o r t h e t o p floor a, = 0 . 6 5 , for t h e m i d d l e floors a 2 = 0.5 a n d
for b o t t o m p a r t o f t h e c o l u m n a = 0.4.
3
U s i n g this m e t h o d , t h e frame c a n b e d i v i d e d into 4 p a r t s as s h o w n in F i g u r e 6 . 1 1 .

T h e vertical r e a c t i v e forces d u e t o t h e h o r i z o n t a l s e i s m i c forces a r e as follows:
V, = 0.65HF,/L, V = H(0.85F,
2 + 0.5F )/L
2 , (6.46)
V = H[0.9{F,+F )
} 2 + 0AF ]/L. 3 (6.47)
6.3.4 B e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d axial f o r c e s
T h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t a n d axial forces a c t i n g o n b e a m s a n d c o l u m n parts, t o g e t h e r

w i t h t h e inner forces d u e t o vertical loads a r e a s follows:
Beams:
2 2 2
M , = V,L/2 + p,L l\2
B ,M B2 = V L/2 + p L l\2,
2 2 MB3 = V L/2 + p L /l2,
3 3 (6.48)
Frames 73
N =F ,N
BI 1 B2 = F ,N
2 B3 = F, 3
F,
/////////////
v,
, F ,
B
./ >
c 2 "
- F 1 + F ,
F , + F ,
v 3
- F t + F 2 + F ,
F
i + F , + F .
C 3
mrftm
Figure 6.11 Horizontal seismic forces. The frame is divided to 4 parts by considering inflection points on
the column parts
Column parts:
M C1 = 0.65HF,, M C2 = 0.5H{F, + F ), 2 MC3 = 0.6H(F,+F +F ), 2 3 (6.49)
N i=Ni,N
C C2 = N ,Nc3
2 = N. 3
6.3.5 C a l c u l a t i o n a n d c o n s t r a i n t s o n i n t e r s t o r e y drifts
F i g u r e 6.12 s h o w s the structural part B 2 . T h e horizontal forces acting o n c o l u m n

parts c a u s e a b e n d i n g m o m e n t M. T h e angle cp d u e to t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t can b e
calculated u s i n g t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t d i a g r a m M.
ML ML ML
EI a> =
KO h = , (6.50)
8 2
24 8 12
a n d t h e horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t from this angle is

D = FJ H<p = FS H
X X (6.51)
ML
\2EI B2
a n d from t h e force F t
3
»1
X T
v 2
C " 2
F,+F ;
Figure 6.12 Elastic deformations of the second frame part due to bending moments. The beam
deformation causes a horizontal displacement d' and the deformation of a column part causes a
displacement d"
,r 5LML.
= (6.52,
F i g u r e 6.13 illustrates t h e elastic deformations of the structural parts. The

d i s p l a c e m e n t s are as follows:
(Fl + F2 + F ){fi Hy
3 3 f
3EI Ci
Frames 75
d = a HM L
3 3
2
, M =a HF +(a +p )H{F +F ),
3 3 3 3 2 x 2
(6.54)
\2EI n
{F F l+ 2+ F )(a Hf
3 3
(6.55)
d 3 =
1EIR
P HM L
2 3
d A = (6.56)
\2EI„
T
Af I
3
Figure 6.13 Horizontal displacements of the frame parts for the calculation of interstorey drifts
\3
(6.57)
3£/C2
=
^ ^lr^' M ={a /3 )HF a HF ,
2 2+ x x+ 2 2
(6.58)
/3 HM L
X 2
4i \2EI„
(6.59)
d fMMl, (6.60)
3EI cl
\2EI m
F^Hl ( 6 6 2 )
3EI a
F o r t h e interstorey drift constraint t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n o f E C 8 is u s e d . T h e limiting drift

is g i v e n a s
dv r < 0.01//, (6.63)
D d
R = <!Yl e • (6-64)
T h e r e d u c t i o n factor for t h e i m p o r t a n c e c a t e g o r y o f III ( E C 8 2 0 0 3 ) is v = 0.4,

f u r t h e r m o r e q = 6 . 5 , y, = 1.0. T h e constraint o n interstorey drift c a l c u l a t e d a b o v e
d e < = 13.846 m m . (6.65)

qv
It should b e n o t e d , that E u r o c o d e 8 ( 1 9 9 8 ) w a s unrealistically stringent o n t h e storey

drift limitation, J a p a n e s e rules are n o t so strict, b u t t h e n e w Final Draft o f the E C 8
( 2 0 0 4 ) h a s similar limit t o the J a p a n e s e rule.
U s i n g the a b o v e d e r i v e d d i s p l a c e m e n t s t h e interstorey drift constraints c a n b e

formulated as follows:
d ei = {d + d
x 2 + d )<
3 13.846 m m , (6.66)
d =(d +d +d +d )<\3.846
e2 4 5 6 1 mm, (6.67)
d e} = {d + d + d
% 9 w + rf,,) < 13.846 m m . (6.68)
6.3.6 S t r e s s c o n s t r a i n t s for b e a m s a n d c o l u m n p a r t s
A c c o r d i n g to E C 3 , for simplicity, verifications m a y b e p e r f o r m e d in t h e elastic

r a n g e o n l y . T h e b u c k l i n g f o r m u l a e u s e a n u m b e r o f factors, e.g. for t h e b u c k l i n g
length, the u n i f o r m m o m e n t factor, t h e critical b u c k l i n g m o m e n t etc., w h i c h m a y
v a r y w i t h t h e stiffness c o n d i t i o n s a n d m o m e n t d i a g r a m s . In t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n fixed
factors are u s e d , w h i c h c a n o n l y b e a p p r o x i m a t i o n s in general c a s e s .
Frames 11
6.3.6.1 Stress constraints for welded box column parts
(6.69)
ZyC^cfyl W f yC yl
T h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t is d o u b l e d d u e to t h e biaxial b e n d i n g .
FYL=FYLYM=FYLU>
1 (6.70)
XyC '
fiyC+^yC-tfc
^ =0.5[l +a (/l
c c v C -0.2) + l J
(6.71)
a c = 0.34 for a w e l d e d b o x section.
2K H vC , IE y£_
(6.72)
"ye r
ycK fy ' ^ Al A,c
The values of K H yC if # = 3 6 0 0 m m are 2 1 6 0 , 1800 a n d 2 3 4 0 m m for b o t t o m , m i d d l e
a n d t o p c o l u m n part, r e s p e c t i v e l y . In E q . ( 6 . 7 2 ) t h e factor 2 e x p r e s s e s that frame is a
sway system.
For the calculation of k w t h e M e t h o d 2 is u s e d :
f
N N (6.73)
kyy ~ C myC
1 + 0.6A.
yc <c, myC
1 + 0.6-
XyC^cfyy' J XycA:f y
C c —0.9.
my
W e l d e d b o x c o l u m n p a r t s s h o u l d b e u s e d . F o r this profile the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a e are

valid:
A = 4(b-t)t;I = I =L(b-tft; (6.74)

Y 2
r.. =r.=K^;W = W= -{b-tf t• (6.75)

y z
In t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n p r o c e s s t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l areas of c o l u m n p a r t s A ci are
selected as u n k n o w n s a n d t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l characteristics are e x p r e s s e d b y A ci as
follows
(6.76)
yd 2 4 S > yd
w h e r e S is t h e limit s l e n d e r n e s s for the flange.

Knowing A ci t h e d i m e n s i o n s are t h e following:
(6 77)
*-'=^=*(M- -
6.3.6.2 Stress constraints for beams ofUB profile (I beam)
F o r U n i v e r s a l B e a m ( U B ) I profiles a p p r o x i m a t e formulae are d e t e r m i n e d on t h e

basis o f t a b u l a t e d v a l u e s o f a v a i l a b l e sections ( S a l e s p r o g r a m 2 0 0 5 ) . In o r d e r to
calculate w i t h c o n t i n u o u s v a l u e s t h e g e o m e t r i c characteristics o f an U B section (I , y
b , tf) are a p p r o x i m a t e d b y curve-fitting functions as follows: h a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l s

b
to t h e first n u m b e r o f t h e profile n a m e ( T a b l e C u r v e 2 D 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e h i g h n u m b e r o f
d e c i m a l s h a s b e e n c o n s i d e r e d d u e t o t h e n e c e s s a r y precision. D u r i n g t h e
o p t i m i z a t i o n these functions are called m a n y t i m e s a n d t h e errors c a n a c c u m u l a t e .
A = 1155.684135 + 0.034090823
s
2
h, (6.78)
t = ^ 3 3 . 2 0 5 3 3 8 0 8 + 0 . 0 0 0 6 7 0 1 2 88 h
f
2
, (6.79)
1 5 6 . 0 7 3 5 1 6 89
h = exp 35.73636182 (6.80)
\n(h) J
b = ^5851.784768098 + 0.01671843845ft ln(/z),

h
2
(6.81)
t w = ^15.62577015376 + 4.358946969x10' h \n(h), 5 2

(6.82)
153.67541403
I 2b = expl 1 4 . 4 1 3 3 3 6 4 3 0 5 - 0\ (6.83)
168.5142170407
0 4
(6.84)
hb = ex
P\ 11.623190979-
'cob
= (-11.8600732979+ 2.8355685391x10" /z 5
6
2 9
ln{h )Jl0 ,
b
(6.85)
111.32333718
W =exp b 25.3497083394- 3
0 , (6.86)
^ ln(K)
W 2b = (- 2.7526203118234+h„ 0.0329915015) 10 , 2 3
(6.87)
-+k yyB •<1, (6.88)

XyB^-Bfy yi XLT^\bJyl
Frames 79
N R
<1, (6.89)
ZzB-^Bfyl XtfW sfyl y
1 (6.90)
ZyB
fiyB + ^yB - ^ B
<l> = 0 . 5 [ l + a
yB y B (X yB - 0.2) + A 2
B ] ; = 0.21, (6.91)
(6.92)
V - . - - 'yB •
V A
yB E
NK
kyyB ~ CmyB 1 + 0.6/1yB <c, myB 1 + 0.6- (6.93)

XyB^sfyX XyB^Bfyl
(6.94)
ZzB
Ab+^ZB-^B
K, L B
''zB ~ « • -"-zB
(6.95)
r A
zB E
0.05/1 0.05
(6.96)
C B — C ir
my m —0.5.
(6.97)
Xlt '
y +\J0 LT LT h LT
4> LT = 0 . 5 ^ 1 + a . ( A . - 0 . 2 ) + /l .
i 7 t 7
2
i 7 ;a LT = 0.49> (6.98)
W fy\yB
(6.99)
M„
2 2
rc EI B /.,„ L GI,
- ^ - + - — - S - . - Q =4.0, (6.100)
J E I
zB * z B
5 5
£ = 2 . 1 x l 0 ; G = 0.81jri0 MPa.
6.3.6.3 Shear check of cross sections at beam ends
A d d i t i o n a l c h e c k i n g for s h e a r c a n b e m a d e u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a e a c c o r d i n g
to E u r o c o d e 3 C h a p t e r 6.2.6.
Vj fy .
*2» =
c
0 = 1,2,3), (6.101)
where
V,= V +V ;
pi hi (6.102)
r r p,L 0.65HF,
(6.103)
2 L
y _P L 2 { H(0.S5F 0.5F )
l+ 2 .
(6.104)
2
2 L
y _P,L | H[0.9(F F ) 1+ 2 + 0AF ] 3

(6.105)
6.3.6.4 Local buckling constraint for welded box column profiles
According to E C 3 (2002):
b /t <33e;£
i i = p35/f y ,S= 1/33. (6.106)
6.3.7 B e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s
A lot o f c o n n e c t i o n s h a v e b e e n investigated, tested a n d e v a l u a t e d b y t h e r e s e a r c h

t e a m o f K u r o b a n e ( K u r o b a n e et al. 1 9 9 7 , K u r o b a n e 1 9 9 8 , K u r o b a n e et al. 2 0 0 1 ,
K u r o b a n e et al. 2 0 0 4 , A z u m a et al. 2 0 0 0 , M i u r a et al. 2 0 0 2 , O b u k u r o et al. 2 0 0 2 ) .
Figure 6.14 A beam-to-column connection improved for seismic resistance

Frames 81
F r o m t h e i m p r o v e d c o n n e c t i o n s four t y p e s h a v e b e e n selected a n d their cost has

b e e n a n a l y z e d b y S h i n d e ( 2 0 0 4 ) , S h i n d e et al. ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e c h e a p e s t o n e is s h o w n in
F i g u r e 6.14.
D e t a i l s o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n s in F i g u r e s 6.14, 6.15 and 6.16 a s s u m e square h o l l o w

section c o l u m n s . T h e i m p r o v e d field-welded c o n n e c t i o n in F i g u r e 6.14 is
c o n s t r u c t e d from t w o t h r o u g h d i a p h r a g m s a n d a s h e a r t a b w e l d e d t o t h e c o l u m n
flange b y fillet w e l d s a n d to t h e d i a p h r a g m s b y fillet w e l d s o f length L . T h e b e a m
e
flanges are field w e l d e d to the d i a p h r a g m s b y butt w e l d s w i t h b a c k i n g b a r s . O n e r o w

o f bolts c o n n e c t s t h e shear t a b to t h e b e a m w e b .
F i g u r e s 6.14, 6.15 a n d 6.16 s h o w t h r e e different c o n n e c t i o n v e r s i o n s e a c h i m p r o v e d

for seismic resistance. T h e v e r s i o n s o f F i g u r e s 6.15 a n d 6.16 u s e a field-bolted b e a m
splice a n d a short stub b e a m instead of a shear tab in t h e v e r s i o n o f F i g u r e 6.14. T h e
v e r s i o n o f F i g u r e 6.15 d o e s n o t u s e t h r o u g h d i a p h r a g m s b e t w e e n t h e c o l u m n parts
b u t u s e s t w o internal d i a p h r a g m s , so the cutting p l a n e s o f a c o l u m n a r e r e d u c e d
from t w o t o o n e . In this c a s e t h e c o l u m n w i d t h s o f t h e t w o c o l u m n p a r t s h a d better
b e equal. W e l d i n g o f t h r o u g h - d i a p h r a g m s is m a d e in s h o p u s i n g single-bevel P J P
(partially j o i n t p e n e t r a t i o n ) w e l d s .
It is clear w i t h o u t a n y detailed cost calculations that t h e v e r s i o n in F i g u r e 6.14 is t h e

c h e a p e s t . T h e v e r s i o n s h o w n in F i g u r e 6.15 u s e s m a n y bolt h o l e s , t h u s , its cost is
h i g h e r b e c a u s e o f the h i g h e r cost o f drilling bolt h o l e s . T h e w e l d i n g costs o f all the
t h r e e v e r s i o n s are a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e s a m e . T h e v e r s i o n o f F i g u r e 6.16 n e e d s the
s a m e b o l t h o l e s drilling cost as that for t h e v e r s i o n o f F i g u r e 6 . 1 5 . T h u s , a c c o r d i n g
Figure 6.15 Another beam-to-column connection improved for seismic resistance
t o this a p p r o x i m a t e cost c o m p a r i s o n , the c h e a p e s t v e r s i o n o f F i g u r e 6.14 is selected

in t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y for detailed cost calculations.
6.3.8 T h e c o n n e c t i o n s t r e n g t h
T h e strength o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n is calculated b y t h e following formulae ( K u r o b a n e et

al. 2 0 0 4 ) .
T h e u l t i m a t e flexural strength at t h e c o l u m n face is
M =Mf /u + M , wu (6.107)
w h e r e M^, is the ultimate m o m e n t carried b y t h e w e l d e d j o i n t s b e t w e e n t h e b e a m

flange a n d t h e d i a p h r a g m s
M fu = b t£h -t])f ,
b b u (6.108)
a n d My^ is t h e ultimate m o m e n t carried b y t h e fillet w e l d s b e t w e e n the shear plate

a n d c o l u m n flange a s w e l l a s t h e d i a p h r a g m s
h 2t 2
m = MT, -( »- f) (6.109)
2
M,.„, -!— fF +L
T M ^ " * / )
—-—=—— ,F '
K
4 " E
V3
w h e r e m is t h e d i m e n s i o n l e s s m o m e n t c a p a c i t y o f the w e l d e d w e b j o i n t e x p r e s s e d as
b
K_ \ j f y c .
m =4 ;m<l.0< (6.110)
dj \ hwfyb
fyb andf ycare t h e yield stresses o f b e a m a n d c o l u m n steel m a t e r i a l , r e s p e c t i v e l y . ^ =

fyc = 2 3 5 MPa.f is t h e u l t i m a t e limit stress o f t h e steel.
u
T h e overstrength criterion for t h e c o n n e c t i o n is formulated b y
M >aM ,
f pb (6.111)
©©Q ©0©
T
©©©1©©©
-
Figure 6.16 Another beam-to-column connection improved for seismic resistance
Frames 83
where M pb is t h e plastic m o m e n t o f t h e b e a m a n d t h e v a l u e o f a > 1.25 is

recommended.
6.3.9 T h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n o f t h e f r a m e w i t h t h e c o s t o f c o n n e c t i o n s
F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f o p t i m i z a t i o n w e n e e d t h e cost as a function o f v a r i a b l e s , i.e.

d i m e n s i o n s o f c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s (b , t , h , b , tf„ /= 1,2,3). ci ci bi bi
T h e structural v o l u m e is as follows:
V = H(A cl + A C2 +AC3 ) + 2L(A m +A B2 + A ). Bi (6.112)
T h e final objective function is t h e total cost i n c l u d i n g m a t e r i a l a n d fabrication costs

also for b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s .
6.3.9.1 Material cost
K-M =
KMCOLUMN + -Âfteam » (6.113)
K MCOIUM „ = \.Q5x\Mxl.^xWHJÂt {b -t ), ci ci ci (6.114)
3
6
K s Mbeam = 1 - 0 5 x 0 . 6 7 x 7 . 8 5 x 1 ( T X 2 l £ At, (6-H5)
l
w h e r e t h e factor o f 1.05 e x p r e s s e s t h e 5 % material loss, t h e material cost factors for
c o l u m n s o f s q u a r e b o x section ( 1 0 8 ¥ / k g = 1.08 $/kg) a n d for b e a m s o f rolled I-
section ( 6 7 ¥ / k g = 0 . 6 7 $ / k g ) a r e u s e d in Japan. M a t e r i a l cost data w e r e valid in 2 0 0 4 .
T h e s e p r i c e s a r e floating, s o t h e y s h o u l d b e u p d a t e d . F u r t h e r m o r e t h e steel d e n s i t y is
3 6 3
7 8 5 0 k g / m = 7 . 8 5 x l 0 " k g / m m . T h e material costs for plates ( d i a p h r a g m s a n d
s h e a r plates) a r e n e g l e c t e d .
6.3.9.2 Cost of design, assembly and inspection
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e J a p a n e s e calculation m e t h o d , t h e cost o f design, a s s e m b l y a n d

i n s p e c t i o n is related t o t h e structural m a s s a s follows:
KDRAWMG = 1-55 h o u r / t o n n e , K ASSEMUY = 5.91 h/t, K IMPECTIO„ = 1.80 h/t, t o g e t h e r 9 . 2 6 h/t.
T h e fabrication cost factor is K = 3 1 2 5 ¥ / h = 3 1 . 2 5 S/h. F
A Afc
K D . , = 31.25x7.7 lxl 0 '
3
f ~ °'""'" + KLM
«™ \ (6.116)
^ 1.08 0.67 J
6 117
K D M =2.8600xl0- t^(^-^) 5
+ 4.7648xl0-
5
XA, • (- )
i i
6.3.9.3 Cost of cutting
T h e J a p a n e s e calculation u s e s t i m e s for the p r o g r a m m i n g o f n u m e r i c a l control

m a c h i n e . Therefore, this calculation results in v e r y h i g h v a l u e s . Instead o f these
t i m e s w e u s e t i m e s for m a n u a l cutting w i t h a c e t y l e n gas a c c o r d i n g to s p e e d data o f
E S A B (2003).
Cutting of column parts
F o r cutting w i t h a c e t y l e n g a s , a c c o r d i n g to E S A B ( 2 0 0 3 ) , quality I, for an a v e r a g e

t h i c k n e s s o f t = 25 m m , t h e cutting s p e e d is 4 5 0 m m / m i n = 2 7 0 0 0 m m / h . W e u s e a
c
b e v e l i n g factor o f 1.1, t h e n t h e cost o f cutting o f c o l u m n parts is
= 1.1x31.25 j , = 2 0 m x l Q -2f b . (6.118)

C 1 4
2.7xl0 V i
Cutting of beams
1 1 "31 T c
r 3 3
6 1 1 9
* C 2 = - ^ ^ 2 * 4 £ ( 2 ^ + ^ - ^ < - )
Cutting of diaphragms
l
K Ci = -j^Spb l60)
cl+ = l.0l85xl0-±(b 160).
ci+ (6.120)
Cutting of shear plates
C u t t i n g s p e e d for t h i c k n e s s o f 2 0 m m is 4 8 0 m m / m i n = 2 8 8 0 0 m m / h .
K c 4 =
2^xlV ?^ ~ 4x2 W
2 t f i
+ 20 = 0
°) - 8680xl0 2
" Z ( ^ " fl 2t + 2 0 0
) • ( 6 J 2 1 )
N u m e r i c a l l y controlled drilling o f bolt holes a c c o r d i n g to J a p a n e s e calculation:
Quantity: 7 2 holes in shear plates and 72 h o l e s in b e a m s
KC5 = 3 1 . 2 5 x 7 2 ( 0 . 0 2 2 5 + 0 . 0 3 8 ) = 136.1$.
6.3.9.4 Cost of welding according to the Japanese calculation
T h e J a p a n e s e calculation u s e s w e l d i n g t i m e s in function o f e q u i v a l e n t ratios. T h e s e

ratios are g i v e n in function o f w e l d size in t a b u l a t e d form. F o r o p t i m i z a t i o n it is
better to u s e these ratios as direct function o f w e l d size. U s i n g a c u r v e fitting
t e c h n i q u e o n e can obtain a p p r o x i m a t e e x p r e s s i o n s o f e q u i v a l e n t ratios for different
weld types.
W e l d i n g o f t h r o u g h - d i a p h r a g m s in s h o p w i t h a r o b o t u s i n g single-bevel C J P
( c o m p l e t e j o i n t p e n e t r a t i o n ) w e l d s w i t h angle o f 35°, a root g a p o f 7 m m a n d
b a c k i n g strips. T h e equivalent ratio for this w e l d t y p e is
2
q, = (a, + b,tj) , a, = 0 . 4 3 7 5 4 1 , b = 0 . 1 4 7 7 1 8 ,
t
Frames 85
6
t h e required specific t i m e is 0 . 0 0 2 6 h / m = 2 . 6 x l 0 ~ h / m m ,
6 2 2
K m =3\25x2.6xW x\6Y b {a +b t ) j ci l x f = 1.300x10 ^ b c i (a f + bt) x fi • (6-122)
i i
M a n u a l field w e l d i n g o f s i n g l e - b e v e l w e l d s w i t h b a c k i n g b a r s for b e a m flanges to

d i a p h r a g m s . R o o t g a p o f 7 m m a n d w e l d angle o f 35° is used. T h e r e q u i r e d specific
5
t i m e is 0.074 h / m = 7 . 4 x l 0 " h / m m , field factor is 1.5, t h e e q u i v a l e n t ratio c a n b e
a p p r o x i m a t e d as
2
q =(a
2 2 + bt 2 f ) ;a 2 = 1.107405,b 2 = 0 . 1 3 2 6 9 8 , t in m m . f
3 ,
5
K W2 =1.5x31.25x7.4x10" x4x2£Z> (a w 2 + bt) 2 fl , (6-123)
i
K W1 = 0.02775][X(« 2 + bt)- 2 fl
2
(6-124)
i
M a n u a l s h o p w e l d i n g o f s h e a r tabs w i t h d o u b l e fillet w e l d s . T h e e q u i v a l e n t ratio is

approximated by
2
q = a + b s ;a
3 3 3 3 = 0.0041975,6 = 0.027771, 3
s is t h e p e r p e n d i c u l a r side size o f t h e fillet w e l d in m m , s = \.22t .

bw
5
K =3l.25x7.4x\0- Y,(a +b sf)[s(h -2t )
tV3 3 3 bi fl + 2x2x60x4x3], (6-125)
2 8 8 0 ( 6 1 2 6 )
K W3 =2.312xl0- ^(a +V, )[ (^- ^) 3
3
2 8 2
+ ]- "
6.3.10 O p t i m i z a t i o n a n d results
D a t a o f t h e calculated frame are as follows:
T o s h o w t h e effect o f t h e b e a m length, t h r e e v a l u e s o f L are u s e d : L = 4 , 5, 6 m .

//=3.6m
T h e interstorey drift limit is as follows (see Eq. 6.31)
, ^ 0.017/ 0.01x3600 „ a A r
d ei < = = 1 3 . 8 4 6 m m , i = 1,2,3.
qv 6.5x2
T h e a v e r a g e w e i g h t e a c h c o l u m n is c a r r y i n g , w:
„. mn -m-n +l
Jr = .
mn
In o u r e x a m p l e w e c h o s e m = 4 a n d n = 6. In this c a s e W= 0.63 .
T a b l e 6.3 s h o w s t h e results for H = 3.6 m at different span length L.
6.3.11 C h e c k t h e c o n n e c t i o n s t r e n g t h ( L = 6 m )
Mf is the ultimate m o m e n t carried b y the w e l d e d j o i n t s b e t w e e n the b e a m flange
u2
a n d t h e d i a p h r a g m o n floor 2 a c c o r d i n g to Eq. (6.74).
T h e o p t i m u m sizes o f t h e b e a m are as follows:
bb2 = 152.9 , t = 13.3, / fl c 2 = 10 m m ,
at t h e c o n n e c t i o n t b w 2 = 8.1, L = 60 m m , / = 360 MPa.

e u
8
Mjui = b t (h b2 fi b2 - t0 = u 3.2482x10 Nmm.
d =h
} b2 - 2t p = 430.4
7 7 7
Eq. (6.75) M wu2 = 4.39677xl0 + 5.52305xl0 = 9.91982xl0 Nmm
Eq.(6.76) m = 0.404 2
8
Eq. (6.77) a M p2 = 3.77175xl0 Nmm,
8
a M p2 < Mfu + M 2 wu2 = 4.24018xl0 OK.
W e h a v e c h e c k e d t h e plastic h i n g e s . In the m o d e l o f E C 8 ( F i g u r e 6.7) it w a s

a s s u m e d that plastic h i n g e s are created at t h e b e a m e n d s , i.e. the plastic static
m o m e n t o f the b e a m s s h o u l d b e smaller t h a n that o f c o l u m n s .
W i plco umn = l.Sbft, >W p l y b e a m (6.127)
T a b l e 6.3 O p t i m u m v a l u e s o f t h e t h r e e w e l d e d b o x c o l u m n s a n d t h e t h r e e U B
type beams
L/2 bJt \c baft a b lt ci c3 hi hi h3 Cost

[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
2000 180/6 200/6.3 300/10 356 305 356
m
2228.1
2500 200/8 250/8 350/12 406 356 406 3256.6
3000 250/8 260/10 350/12 457 406 457 4282.6
6 6 3
O n all levels Eq. (6.127) is fulfilled ( 6 . 2 4 2 x l 0 > 4 . 5 5 8 x 1 0 m m ) , the plastic h i n g e s
w e r e created at b e a m e n d s .
6.3.12 Conclusions
U s i n g a relatively s i m p l e frame m o d e l it is s h o w n h o w to a p p l y t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n
s y s t e m for t h e case o f seismic loads. T h e cost function to b e m i n i m i z e d is
formulated o n t h e basis o f detailed cost calculations, i n c l u d i n g t h e fabrication cost
o f b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s . T h e c o n n e c t i o n t y p e is selected from t h r e e s e i s m i c
resistant t y p e s b y cost c o m p a r i s o n . F o r t h e c o n s t r a i n e d cost function m i n i m i z a t i o n
t h e Particle S w a r m a l g o r i t h m is used. T h e o p t i m u m b e a m a n d c o l u m n d i m e n s i o n s
a r e d e t e r m i n e d for three values o f b e a m length.
Frames 87
In m o s t cases t h e interstorey drift constraint is a c t i v e . In s o m e cases t h e stability is

also active. D u e to t h e high m a t e r i a l cost a n d t h e cost calculation m e t h o d that the
d e s i g n , inspection and erection costs are p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e w e i g h t , t h e m a s s
m i n i m a d o n o t differ from t h e cost m i n i m a .
C o l u m n s o n t h e s e c o n d level a r e a little bit larger t h a t o f t h e g r o u n d floor d u e to t h e

interstorey drift limits. It is p o s s i b l e to u s e similar c o l u m n s o n t h e t w o floors, b u t it
will increase t h e total cost. A r c e l o r M i t t a l U B p r o f d e h e i g h t is limited to 1016 m m .
F o r larger s p a n s other profiles are m o r e suitable.
It is p o s s i b l e t o u s e t h e s a m e c o l u m n s for all t h e floors. In this c a s e t h e c o n n e c t i o n

s h o w n in F i g . 6.15 c a n b e a n o t h e r e c o n o m i c a l option b e c a u s e t h e quality control o f
s h o p - w e l d e d j o i n t s is easier t h a n field w e l d e d j o i n t s . H o w e v e r , this will increase the
total cost a c c o r d i n g to t h e p r e s e n t cost estimation m e t h o d . It is still difficult t o
e s t i m a t e p r o p e r l y the cost r e q u i r e d for the quality control. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a
m o r e a d v a n c e d cost e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d is a task for the future.
6.4 F I R E - R E S I S T A N T O P T I M U M D E S I G N O F A M U L T I - S T O R E Y F R A M E
In o r d e r to s t u d y the effect o f fire, a relatively s i m p l e frame, w h i c h w a s c o n s i d e r e d

at t h e p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e , is selected as s h o w n in F i g u r e 6.7. T h i s is simplified m o d e l
o f a central part o f a three-storey b u i l d i n g f r a m e structure. T h e f r a m e is u n b r a c e d .
T h e c o l u m n p a r t s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d from w e l d e d square b o x section a n d t h e b e a m s
h a v e a rolled u n i v e r s a l b e a m ( U B ) profile. T h e frame is subject to vertical
p e r m a n e n t a n d live loads forces ( F i g u r e s 6.7, 6.8). In t h e fishbone m o d e l t h e b e a m
e n d s are c o n s i d e r e d to b e built u p for vertical loads a n d p i n n e d for h o r i z o n t a l o n e s .
T h e p r o b l e m is to find suitable c o l u m n a n d b e a m profiles, w h i c h fulfil t h e d e s i g n

c o n s t r a i n t s , i n c l u d e fire safety o n e s a n d m i n i m i z e t h e o b j e c t i v e function. T h e b e a m s
and c o l u m n p a r t s are subject to b e n d i n g a n d c o m p r e s s i o n , thus, stress constraints
s h o u l d b e formulated for 3 b e a m a n d 3 c o l u m n profiles a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3
( 2 0 0 5 ) ( E C 3 ) . O n e o f the i m p o r t a n t r e q u i r e m e n t s is t h e o v e r s t r e n g t h r e q u i r e m e n t s
for b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s : t h e plastic strength o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n s should b e
large e n o u g h to a l l o w formation o f plastic h i n g e s at t h e b e a m e n d s . T h e c o n n e c t i o n
d e s i g n w a s d e t e r m i n e d o n t h e basis o f t h e plastic analysis a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l
evidences.
C a l c u l a t i o n o f vertical loads is a c c o r d i n g to C h a p t e r 6.3.2.
C a l c u l a t i o n o f b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d axial forces is a c c o r d i n g t o C h a p t e r 6.3.4 in

this b o o k .
In C h a p t e r 4 t h e b a s i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f fire resistant design is s h o w n a n d t h e w a y of

calculation w i t h u n p r o t e c t e d and p r o t e c t e d c a s e s .
6.4.2 Stress c o n s t r a i n t s for b e a m s a n d c o l u m n p a r t s
A c c o r d i n g to E C 3 ( 2 0 0 3 a ) , for simplicity, verifications m a y b e p e r f o r m e d in the

elastic r a n g e only.
6.4.2.1 Stress constraints for beams ofUB profile (I-beam without fire resistance)
T h e e q u a t i o n s a r e t h e s a m e a s in ( 6 . 3 . 6 . 2 ) , b u t t h e n o r m a l forces a r e n e g l e c t e d . T h e
b e a m s a r e c o n s i d e r e d n o t t o b e r e s t r a i n e d b y t h e floors:
M Bi
^yyB < 1 ( / = 1,2,3), (6.128)
M'Bi
<1 ( / = 1,2,3), (6.129)
XhT^yBfy
(6.130)
y B
r~2—~2
(f> = 0.5 [ l + a
yB yB (I yB - 0.2) + A 2
yB ~\;a = yB 0.21, (6.131)
K L
j _ yB .r - \ - - r ry* (6.132)
K l r
AyB - —J~> yB - > yB ~ J — >
r A
yB E V B
N N
kyy B =C myB 1 + 0.6X yB f <C myB 1 + 0.6 f (6.133)
A
K XyB BJy\ ) \ XyB^BJyl j
1 (6.134)
XzB ~ '
A =^k;K =0.8;r =J^L;

2B zB zB (6.135)
r
zBÊ *B
\ f
0.05 A.zB 0.05
kzB - (6.136)
CmLT 0.25 XZB^b/) C LT
m 0.25 XzB^Bfyl
C B —
my C if—0.5,
m
(6.137)
X L
0LT + \ r L T ~~"-LT
2
<t> = 0 . 5 [ l + a
LT LT (I LT - 0.2) + I LT ];a LT = 0.49 , (6.138)
X, — (6.139)
T
Frames 89
M cr =Q (6.140)
I V ^ EI zB
i s
£ = 2.WO ;G = O.8W0 MPa.
6.4.2.2 The stress constraint for the beam (with fire resistance) according to
EC3(2003b)
M e m b e r w i t h C l a s s 3 cross-sections, subject to b e n d i n g :
k M
y y B B i
<1, 0=1,2,3). (6.141)
W k
y B y f i f y \
T h e v a l u e o f XI,MIN fi (i = 1,2) s h o u l d b e t a k e n as t h e lesser o f t h e v a l u e s o f X ,F, Y
a n d X ,fi
z determined according to:
1
XFI (6.142)
2 72 '
with ^=|-(l + a^+V)» (6.143)
235
and a = 0.65 (6.144)
f y
T h e n o n - d i m e n s i o n a l s l e n d e r n e s s for t h e t e m p e r a t u r e 6 , is g i v e n b y :
f
K
y,6
X =Xa
(6.145)
k
\ E . e j
ky=\- <3, (6.146)

f y
Xy,flAk 0 y
with M y = (l.2/? M y - 3 > , + 0.44/?

v M j - 0 . 2 9 < 0.8 , (6.147)
for b e a m f5 My =1.4, (6.148)
^ = 1 - - <3. (6.149)
XZ,F,Ak y0
YM.fi
with M z = (l.2fi M z - 5iJ ze + 0.44/? M z -0.29 < 0.8, I , <U,

Z @ (6.150)
fc=l-4. (6.151)
6.4.2.3 Stress constraints for welded box column parts (without fire resistance)
N, A MA
-+2k '^1, 0 = 1,2,3). (6.152)
A
XyC cfy\ ^ W f yC yX
T h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t is d o u b l e d d u e t o the b i a x i a l b e n d i n g .
1
(6.153)
2
<t>yC + yj<t>yC-K
</> = 0.5 [ l + « ( 1 ^ - 0 . 2 ) + ! ^ ] ,
yC c
(6.154)
a c = 0.34 for a w e l d e d b o x section.
- EI (6.155)
T h e v a l u e s ofK H if # = 3 6 0 0 m m are 2 1 6 0 , 1800 and 2 3 4 0 m m for b o t t o m , m i d d l e

yC
a n d top c o l u m n part, respectively. In E q . ( 6 . 1 5 5 ) t h e factor 2 e x p r e s s e s that frame is

a s w a y system.
F o r t h e calculation o f & the M e t h o d 2 is used:

w
Ir — c 1 + 0.6Ayc myC 1 + 0.6 N c

(6.156)
*yy ~ ^myC XyC^cfy XyC^cf)
C c —0.9.
my
6.4.2.4 Stress constraint for columns (with fire resistance) according to EC3(2003b)
M e m b e r w i t h C l a s s 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s , subject to c o m b i n e d b e n d i n g a n d axial
compression:
N, A 2k M m a
•+ 0=1,2,3). (6.157)
X\.min.fiAcky,@fy\ W k fyC y0 yl
C a l c u l a t i o n o f the p a r a m e t e r s is a c c o r d i n g t o E q s . ( 6 . 1 4 2 - 6.151).
For column:
Frames 91
B =\.i-Q.ly,,
U¥ yf = - \ . (6.158)
D u e t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f h o l l o w section w e n e e d n o t t o c o n s i d e r t h e lateral torsional

b u c k l i n g . W e l d e d b o x c o l u m n parts s h o u l d b e u s e d . F o r this profile t h e following
f o r m u l a e a r e valid:
A = 4{b-t)t;I =I ^(b-tff„ y z (6.159)
2
R =R,=^J.;W
Y Y = W,^(B-T) f (6-160)
I n t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n p r o c e s s t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a s o f c o l u m n parts A a are
selected a s u n k n o w n s a n d t h e cross-sectional characteristics a r e e x p r e s s e d b y AQ\ as
follows
2
/ = A- W i^f ioT,
= (6.161)
Knowing A a t h e d i m e n s i o n s a r e t h e following:
A-< = ^^-:t =
= S(h-tV
'(*-') (6-162)
6.4.2.5 Local buckling constraint for welded box column profiles
According to E C 3 (2003a):
b //. < 33s; e = ^ 2 3 5 / f . (6.163)
w h e r e for fire r e s i s t a n c e design:
e = 0.85p^. (6.164)
fy
A p p r o x i m a t e f o r m u l a e for t h e U B profile a r e a c c o r d i n g t o C h a p t e r 6.3.6.2, E q s .

( 6 . 7 8 - 6 . 8 7 ) , e q u a t i o n s a r e also in A p p e n d i x C .
6.4.3 T h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n
In t h e first d e s i g n p h a s e w e u s e t h e structural v o l u m e a s a n objective function:
V = H(A cl + AC2 +A) Ci + 2L(A B! +AB2 + A ).

B3 (6.165)
A refined objective function c a n b e t h e m a t e r i a l cost. A final objective function will

b e t h e total cost i n c l u d i n g m a t e r i a l a n d fabrication costs a l s o for b e a m - t o - c o l u m n
connections.
T h e b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n is c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o C h a p t e r 6.3.7.
T h e cost function o f t h e frame i n c l u d i n g t h e cost o f c o n n e c t i o n s is calculated

a c c o r d i n g t o C h a p t e r 6.3.9.
D i m e n s i o n s o f t h e calculated frame a r e as follows: t h e b e a m length L = 6 m , floor

h e i g h t / / = 3 . 6 m.
T a b l e 6.4 s h o w s t h e result for t h e frame w i t h o u t fire resistance c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . It

c o n t a i n s u n r o u n d e d ( n o n discrete) v a l u e s t o b e able t o c o m p a r e it w i t h t h e results
w i t h fire resistance c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . D i s c r e t e v a l u e s a r e also given.
Check of the connection strength
M is t h e ultimate m o m e n t carried b y t h e w e l d e d j o i n t s b e t w e e n t h e b e a m flange

fu2
a n d t h e d i a p h r a g m o n floor 2 a c c o r d i n g t o Eq. (6.108).
T h e o p t i m u m sizes o f t h e b e a m a r e as follows
b = 142.2, tp, = 11.2, t

b2 c2 = 10 m m , at t h e c o n n e c t i o n t b w 2 - 6.8, L = 6 0 m m , / , = 3 6 0
e
MPa.
8
M fu2 = b t (h b2 p b2 - tp)f = u 2.2636xl0 Nmm.
d, = h b2 - 2tj2 = 383.6
7 7 7
Eq. (6.109) = 2.8028xl0 + 3.4378xl0 = 6.2406xl0 Nmm
Eq.(6.110) m = 0.4768 2
8
Eq. (6.111) a = 2.6073xl0 Nmm,
8
a M< p2 M fu2 +M wu2 = 2 . 8 8 7 7 x l 0 is satisfied.
T a b l e 6.4 O p t i m u m v a l u e s o f t h e t h r e e w e l d e d b o x c o l u m n s a n d t h e t h r e e U B
t y p e b e a m s w i t h o u t fire r e s i s t a n c e
b \lt \
Q c b /tc2 c2 hi^ci hi hi hi Cost
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) ($)
241.9/7.3 266.4/8.1 378.2/11.5 419.0 393.9 418.8 3884.3
250/8 260/10 350/12 457 406 457 4180
T a b l e 6.5 s h o w s t h e result for t h e frame w i t h fire resistance c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h e

calculation is theoretical, so w e g e t t h i c k e r h o l l o w sections t h a n advisable. B S - E N
10210-2 ( 1 9 9 7 ) a n d B S - E N 10219-2 ( 1 9 9 7 ) gives t h e t o l e r a n c e s , d i m e n s i o n s a n d
sectional p r o p e r t i e s for hot-finished structural h o l l o w sections a n d c o l d f o r m e d
w e l d e d structural sections. T h e m a x i m u m sizes for S H S a r e 4 0 0 m m h e i g h t a n d 2 0
m m t h i c k n e s s for hot-finished a n d 16 m m t h i c k n e s s for c o l d - f o r m e d sections. If o n e
n e e d s a thicker section h e c a n u s e w e l d e d b o x sections w i t h larger t h i c k n e s s . In this
c a s e t h e cost s h o u l d i n c l u d e t h e w e l d i n g cost o f t h e b o x section. C a l c u l a t i o n s s h o w
that t h e cost o f t h e structure is p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e v a l u e o f fire resistance t i m e
Frames 93
( F i g u r e 6.17). O n e h o u r fire resistance c a u s e s 4 2 % increase o f cost, t w o h o u r s

resistance c a u s e s 7 9 % increase o f cost.
— 3UUU-
0
I 4000-
• 3000-
£ 2000-
I 1000-
o
0-
0 1800 4500 6300
Fire resistance time (sec)
Figure 6.17. The cost of the frame in the function of the fire resistance
6.4.5 Conclusions
O p t i m i z a t i o n o f steel frames for fire safety is a relatively n e w area. U s i n g a rather

s i m p l e frame m o d e l it is s h o w n h o w to a p p l y t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n s y s t e m for the
case o f fire. T h e cost function t o be m i n i m i z e d is formulated o n t h e b a s i s o f detailed
cost calculations, i n c l u d i n g t h e fabrication cost o f b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s . T h e
c o n n e c t i o n t y p e is selected from several seismic resistant t y p e s b y cost c o m p a r i s o n .
A v e r y r o b u s t o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e w a s applied, n a m e l y t h e m o d i f i e d Particle
S w a r m algorithm.
T a b l e 6.5 O p t i m i z a t i o n results for t h e f r a m e w i t h fire r e s i s t a n c e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
Fire B \LTC\
C
B /T 2
C2 C
B /TC3 CI H\ HI HI Cost
resistance (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) ($)
time (sec)
0 283.0/10.9 331.1/10.3 363.4/12.4 419.3 394.9 419.3 4335.3
900 240.3/16.0 334.5/10.1 371.5/11.9 425.6 403.9 420.4 4460.4
1800 237.6/16.6 209.7/31.5 317.6/16.8 436.2 394.3 422.4 4928.0
2700 279.8/15.3 281.4/17.5 304.2/20.2 466.1 411.0 428.4 5135.6
3600 193.1/31.8 258.7/23.4 258.7/30.4 443.6 416.6 425.4 5528.6
4500 215.8/29.9 214.5/35.7 232.4/41.6 464.1 405.9 421.9 5908.9
5400 184.4/47.5 217.8/39.2 223.6/51.3 448.1 417.1 422.9 6274.1
6300 180.2/59.6 196.1/56.7 215.7/65.5 445.6 402.9 419.7 6611.1
7200 182.8/66.3 193.8/69.9 227.2/61.7 450.3 401.0 434.9 6940.0
It calculated b o t h t h e c o n t i n u o u s a n d discrete o p t i m a . T h e calculation s h o w s that

o p t i m i z a t i o n h a s a large effect. D u e to t h e h i g h material cost a n d t h e cost calculation
m e t h o d that t h e design, i n s p e c t i o n a n d erection costs are p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e w e i g h t ,
the m a s s m i n i m a d o not differ from t h e cost m i n i m a .
W h e n w e c o n s i d e r fire r e s i s t a n c e , t h e t i m e after w h i c h its e l e m e n t s still w o r k , n e e d s

m o r e material (steel) to b e built into t h e structure. T h e p r e s e n t e x a m p l e s h o w s , that
a b o u t o n e h o u r i n c r e m e n t in fire safety n e e d s 4 2 % m o r e cost at t h e structure. F o r a
d e s i g n e r it is i m p o r t a n t t o k n o w t h e relation b e t w e e n m a s s a n d fire safety. F u r t h e r
investigation will b e t h e application o f fire resistant p a i n t i n g s or other materials a n d
t o o p t i m i z e for t h e cost o f t h e structure.
6.5 E A R T H Q U A K E - R E S I S T A N T OPTIMUM DESIGN OF A TUBULAR

FRAME
6.5.1 Introduction
P r e s s u r e vessels are e x p e n s i v e a n d d a n g e r o u s d e v i c e s , w h i c h n e e d safe s u p p o r t s .

T h e i r fracture c a u s e d b y e a r t h q u a k e can b e v e r y d a n g e r o u s . T h u s , t h e design
constraints should b e v e r y strict.
A simple s u p p o r t i n g frame consists o f 4 c o l u m n s a n d 4 b e a m s (Fig. 6.18). T h e

p r e s s u r e vessel is fixed at t h e m i d d l e o f t h e b e a m s . T h e horizontal s e i s m i c load is
calculated a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) (see C h a p t e r 3 ) . S i n c e the horizontal
forces c a u s e large b e n d i n g m o m e n t s in t h e horizontal p l a n e a n d t h e b e a m s should
transfer at t h e frame c o r n e r s large b e n d i n g m o m e n t s , their suitable profile is a
w e l d e d b o x section or t u b u l a r h o l l o w section. Therefore, t h e c o l u m n s are
c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h b o x section as well. T h e w e l d e d c o r n e r s are a s s u m e d to b e rigid.
E u r o c o d e 8 p r e s c r i b e s a strict limitation o f t h e horizontal s w a y at the m i d d l e o f t h e

b e a m s . T h i s s w a y h a s four c o m p o n e n t s as follows: t h e s w a y o f t h e vertical frames,
deformation o f t h e b e a m d u e to b e n d i n g in horizontal p l a n e , d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e
b e a m d u e to a n g u l a r d e f o r m a t i o n o f the frame c o r n e r a n d a n o t h e r d i s p l a c e m e n t
c a u s e d b y torsion.
O p t i m i z a t i o n m e a n s a search for better solutions, w h i c h better fulfil t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t s . R e q u i r e m e n t s for a m o d e r n l o a d - c a r r y i n g structure are t h e safety,
fitness for p r o d u c t i o n and e c o n o m y . In an o p t i m u m design p r o c e d u r e the safety a n d
fitness for p r o d u c t i o n are g u a r a n t e e d b y design and fabrication constraints, the
e c o n o m y is a c h i e v e d b y m i n i m i z a t i o n o f a cost function ( F a r k a s & Jarmai 1997,
Farkas & Jarmai 2003).
T h e fabrication ( a s s e m b l y a n d w e l d i n g ) cost o f frame c o r n e r j o i n t s is p r o p o r t i o n a l to

t h e size o f c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s , t h u s t h e m i n i m u m cost d e s i g n is identical to t h e
m i n i m u m m a s s design. S i n c e t h e investigated frame is s y m m e t r i c , the u n k n o w n s to
b e o p t i m i z e d are t h e t h i c k n e s s e s t, a n d t for c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s , r e s p e c t i v e l y as
2
w e l l as a c o m m o n w i d t h h, = h o f t h e square h o l l o w section ( S H S ) o f the c o l u m n s

2
and beams.
T h e constraints relate to t h e s w a y limitation and to t h e stability o f frame m e m b e r s

against c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g a c c o r d i n g t o E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) .
6.5.2 C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e s e i s m i c force
A c c o r d i n g to C h a p t e r 3
F =S (T )mX,
b d x (6.166)
w h e r e SJJi) = t h e ordinate o f t h e d e s i g n s p e c t r u m at p e r i o d T m = the p r e s s u r e

h
vessel m a s s , X = correction factor. V a l u e s o f t h e p a r a m e t e r s d e s c r i b i n g the

r e c o m m e n d e d T y p e 1 elastic r e s p o n s e spectra ( T a b l e 3.1) are as follows: g r o u n d
t y p e C is selected, S=\.\5,T B = 0.20, T = 0.60, T = 2.0.
c D
T, (s) is a p p r o x i m a t e d b y t h e e x p r e s s i o n :
Frames 95
0 7 5
7] = C , / / ' , C , = 0 . 0 8 5 , / / = 4,7; = 0.24 s, (6.167)
forr <r <7c,

s 7 5^=a5—. (6.168)
W e u s e t h e h i g h e s t value applied for J a p a n a = 0.40 , t h e b e h a v i o u r factor a c c o r d i n g

to Section 3.4.1 q = 5.5. T h u s £"</= 0 . 4 x 1 . 1 5 x 2 . 5 / 5 . 5 = 0 . 2 0 9 1 , r e q u i r e d c r o s s - s e c t i o n
C l a s s 1 (plastic).
Forr <27'
/ c X = 0.85.
T h u s , t h e p r e s s u r e vessel m a s s m s h o u l d b e m u l t i p l i e d b y 0 . 8 5 x 0 . 2 0 9 1 = 0 . 1 7 7 7 .
T h e p r e s s u r e vessel m a s s is 3 0 0 k N , t h e s e i s m i c horizontal force acting o n a b e a m is
F = 0 . 1 7 7 7 x 7 5 = 13.3 k N .
b
Load combination: ^ G +y/ Q ;y/ =<p\i/ =\,

j k E k E 2i since, for storage structures,
ZD 7
S±7
Z 7 Z 7
Figure 6.18 Supporting frame structure with vertical and horizontal forces
6.5.3 N o r m a l forces a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t s in vertical f r a m e s ( F i g . 6 . 1 8 )
A c c o r d i n g to G l u s h k o v et al. ( 1 9 7 5 )
3M
H . = A
(6.169)
A H '
M.
M = B
A
A 2 ' (6.170)
FL
M (6.171)
B~ 4(* + 2 ) '
I 7H
k = -2=—, (6.172)
I L
FL
<<U74)
"''Htjj-
2
V DL = -^, (6.175)
N =FX +V M , (6.176)
F
* + l h
L
H m = , (6.177)
m
k +2 2
Figure 6.19 Diagrams for the bending moments and normal forces of a frame
Frames 97
(6.178)
6k + \ 2
H (6.179)
6k + \ 2
3k H
H, (6.180)
6k + \
M
B< = M B + M, m (6.181)
M At = M A + M.
M (6.182)
6.5.4 G e o m e t r i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s q u a r e h o l l o w s e c t i o n ( F i g . 6 . 2 0 )
Figure 6.20 Dimensions of a square hollow section (SHS)
A r e a s a n d m o m e n t s o f inertia a r e c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to D A S t Richtlinie 0 1 6
(1986).
A r e a o f t h e cross-section for c o l u m n s
2t
1-0.43 !— (6.183)
*T'l
a n d for b e a m s
2U
4 1-0.43- (6.184)
V ' l*r'2 2
*T' 2
m o m e n t o f inertia for c o l u m n s
2L
1-0.86- (6.185)
xl yl 3
\-\)
a n d for b e a m s
Frames 99
section m o d u l u s for c o l u m n s
a n d for b e a m s
2 6 1 8 8
^ x2= ^ , oy2= ^ - . ( >
6.5.5 C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e elastic s w a y
u = Uf+ u + u, + u,i,
e b (6.189)
w h e r e u/ = t h e s w a y o f t h e frame, u = d i s p l a c e m e n t d u e to b e n d i n g o f a b e a m in
b
horizontal p l a n e , u, = b e a m d i s p l a c e m e n t d u e t o frame c o r n e r angle d e f o r m a t i o n , u tl
= b e a m d i s p l a c e m e n t d u e to torsion.
2 O T 2 M m H M m L
„ _ ^ 1 ^ 1 , B\ B\ 2 , B \ B \ ( 6 m )
f 3EI , 3EI , 3EI _ '

xl xl x2
3k + \ „ TT 3/V + l H TT 3k + \ r r
whereM „ = F,H;m M = ;H, = H , (6.191)

A l b A l 1
6k + \ 6k + l 2 6k + l
3k 3k H 3k I2
M m = ^ - F H ; m h m = ^ ^ i L ; H 0 = ^ ^ H ; k =J^ —, (6.192)
m b m 2
6k + l 6/t + l 2 6k + \ I ,L
xl
T h e d i s p l a c e m e n t u d u e to t w o horizontal forces F in t h e horizontal p l a n e o f t h e
b b
frame w i t h rigid c o r n e r s is calculated as follows. T h e c o r n e r b e n d i n g m o m e n t M e a n

b e o b t a i n e d from t h e e q u a t i o n o f a n g u l a r d e f o r m a t i o n s (Fig. 6.21)
<Px=92, (6.193)
where
E I y 2 < P ^ - ^ , (6.194)
16 2
and
ML
EI <Pi= y2 — - (6.195)
o
C o n s i d e r i n g E q s ( 6 . 1 9 3 , 6.194 a n d 6.195) o n e o b t a i n s
M
= - ^ > (6-196)
a n d the d i s p l a c e m e n t from F a n d M b
3 2
FL b ML 7F L? b
u =—2
hb = o (6.197)
4SEI » SEI ~ 768£7 ~
>>2 >;2 >>2
T h e d i s p l a c e m e n t d u e to angle d e f o r m a t i o n o f the b e a m c a u s e d b y the frame c o r n e r

a n g l e d e f o r m a t i o n can b e o b t a i n e d from
H
U
T = ^ ( M
A i r M
M H
2 r j - 6
(- ) 198
Finally, the b e a m deformation d u e to torsion is
h, F,h,L o F,L
u
t\ =<P,—;<P, = >In =hft ;u.,
0 = = . (6.199)
{ 1 f Y t 2
2 * 8GI (2 1 2 / 1 i6GAj/ 2
6.5.6 C o n s t r a i n t o n s w a y limitation
T h e a l l o w a b l e s w a y a c c o r d i n g to C h a p t e r 3 is calculated as follows. T h e elastic

d i s p l a c e m e n t for ductile non-structural e l e m e n t s s h o u l d fulfil the following
limitation
0.0075// 0.0075x4000 n n A
u < = = 9.74 m m . (6.200)

e
y^qv 1.4x5.5x0.4
I m p o r t a n c e class for p o w e r plants is I V ( C h a p t e r 3). Structural height H = 4 0 0 0 m m .
T h e r e c o m m e n d e d safety factor for i m p o r t a n c e class I V (Section 3.3.2) is y = 1.4 . x
T h e reduction factor v = 0 . 4 . B e h a v i o u r factor q = 5.5 .
6.5.7 L o c a l b u c k l i n g c o n s t r a i n t s
F o r S H S c o l u m n s and b e a m s of section class 1 (plastic) the constraint is given by:
1
-= -= J--3<33f,^= | i £ i i = 1,2 . (6.201)
h h
6.5.8 Stress c o n s t r a i n t for t h e c o l u m n s
A c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) the S H S section is n o t susceptible to torsional

d e f o r m a t i o n s , thus XLT =
1 > K* =
0 a n
d the second constraint in E C 3 should not be
considered.
X\,min^\fy\ y\fy\ ^^z\-f>

Frames 101
0.6A (H H ) yl A+ m o 4 h a + h d i )
C,my I
kyy X = min\ 1+- XylAfyl
1+ XylAfyl
, (6.203)
V V JJ
C =0A,
myi
( f
6 H + H
« - \ \ A D V , (6.204)
, = min\
k
xyl ^myl 1+- myl
V V J)
C m z l =0.4,
- K ,H
(6.205)
v A j \ A j '•A
T h e value o f K \ a n d K \ are t a k e n a c c o r d i n g to E C 3 ( 2 0 0 5 )
y z
K =2A9;I =^-;K
yX A ll =0.5, (6.206)
\max= ax(l" ,X,)> m

y l
(6.207)
1
X • (6.208)
i. min .0.5
2 2
..+\<p -A. )
i V * i. max J
^ = 0 . 5 1 + 0.34U. -0.21+ A ]. 2
(6.209)
i.max I i.maxij
6.5.9 S t r e s s c o n s t r a i n t for t h e b e a m s
H
n +
+n H k 0 M rr k ~M f
A D \ ] yy2 E ^ yz2 ^ Jy
(6.210)
% A W W r
2.min lfy\ y2^y\ z2^y\ ^ M\
T h e flexural b u c k l i n g factor is
1
x =- (6.211)
t
.0.5 '
2 2
*> + \(j> -A
i \ i i
^•=0.51 1 + 0 . 3 4 ( 2 . - 0.2)+ 2 , " j ,

2
(6.212)
K L
X = Y Z
• t h e effective length factor is K y2 = 0.5, (6.213)
yl E
0 5 5
(I \ - f \°-
y2 . E
(6.214)
y2 A E f
V 2 J { y J
E is t h e elastic m o d u l u s .
K.,L
t h e effective length factor is (6.215)
z2 E
Kz2 = 0.5, (6.216)
f >0.5
z2 (6.217)
z2
'2;
i s
Xi. m i n c a l c u l a t e d from A 2max = max{l y2 ,A ).
2
r y2\ o.6z
A (h"DV
h .) v2 a+ d A ' Dl/
k _ = mtn\ 1+- C 1+ (6.218)
yyl myl
X A f
V V y2 2 y\ x A
y2 2^y\
J)
0 9
% 2 = - '
( ( ( \\ ( I \W
k =minC . 1+ ^LJ filZ C , 1 + —i-^ 21i , (6.219)
zzz mzz y 4 f mz2 v A f
Z A A J
{ { z2 lJy\ ) \ Xz2 2 y\ ))
kyz2 ~ 0- 8
^ 2 • (6.220)
Numerical data
s 5
E = 2 . 1 x 1 0 M P a , G = 0 . 8 x l 0 M P a , H= 4 0 0 0 , L = 4 0 0 0 m m , F= 75 k N , F = 13.3 f t
kN.
T h e objective function is the structural volume
V=4A,H+4A L 2 . (6.221)
o r t h e structural m a s s
6 3
m= pV.p = 7.85*10" kg/mm .
T h e suitable S H S for c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s are selected u s i n g a c o l d - f o r m e d S H S

c a t a l o g u e B S E N 10219 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . Since t h e m i n i m u m t h i c k n e s s is limited b y t h e local
Frames 103
b u c k l i n g constraint ( E q . 2 8 ) , only that t h i c k n e s s e s can b e u s e d , w h i c h are larger t h a n

this limit, e.g. for h, = 2 2 0 t = 6 . 3 , for h, = 2 5 0 t = 8, for h, = 2 6 0 t = 8 and for h,
= 3 0 0 t = 10 m m . T h e r e f o r e , the n u m b e r o f S H S to be investigated is limited.
T a b l e 6.6 s h o w s t h e results o f the calculations t o find t h e o p t i m u m S H S sizes. T h e

g o v e r n i n g constraint is that o n s w a y limitation ( E q . 6 . 2 0 0 ) , t h e stress constraints a r e
a l w a y s fulfilled. T h e c o m m o n w i d t h is h, a n d t h e t h i c k n e s s e s are t, for c o l u m n s a n d
t for b e a m s .
2
T a b l e 6.6 R e s u l t s o f t h e s y s t e m a t i c s e a r c h to find t h e o p t i m u m S H S sizes (in

mm)
hi ti t2
sway constraint m (kg)
220 6.3 6.3 13.6>9.74
220 8 8 11.1>9.74
220 10 8 9.9>9.74
220 8 10 10.6>9.74
220 10 10 9.3<9.74 2024
250 8 8 7.434<9.74 1890
260 8 8 6.6<9.74 1970
300 10 10 3.5<9.74 2828
It can be seen that t h e o p t i m u m sizes are as follows: h, = 2 5 0 , t = t = t = 2> m m , t h e 1 2
m i n i m u m m a s s is m = 1890 k g .
In t h e c a s e o f the o p t i m u m solution, the stress constraints are fulfilled as follows:

E q . ( 6 . 2 0 2 ) : 0 3 5 3 < 1 and E q . ( 6 . 2 1 0 ) : 0 . 6 0 K 1 .
T h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e s w a y are t h e following: E q . ( 6 . 1 9 0 ) u = 6 . 7 6 9 , E q . ( 6 . 1 9 7 ) u
f b
= 0 . 5 1 8 , E q . ( 6 . 1 9 8 ) : u, = 0.127 a n d E q . ( 6 . 1 9 9 ) : u„ = 0.021 m m , t h u s , u, a n d u„ can

be neglected.
F i g u r e 6.22 s h o w s t h e w e l d e d frame corner.
6.5.11 C o s t c a l c u l a t i o n
T h e cost function i n c l u d e s t h e m a t e r i a l a n d fabrication costs as follows:
K =K M + K, F KM =k pV
M vP
6
= 7.85x10" kg/mm , 3
(6.222)
2
Vj = V+ V , v o l u m e o f h e a d plates
h V = Ax3.Sh t ,t
h Y h h = 8 mm,
r \
K =k
F F
(6.223)
N u m b e r o f a s s e m b l e d e l e m e n t s K = Y1, difficulty factor for a spatial structure

0 = 3, w e l d i n g t i m e for t h e c o n n e c t i o n o f a S H S b e a m t o a S H S c o l u m n w i t h 2
vertical, o n e o v e r h e a d a n d o n e d o w n h a n d single b e v e l ( 1 / 2 V ) butt w e l d o f size t 2
a n d length h.
_ 3 2 2
0 . 9 5 1 8 x l 0 x 3 r A , + 0.5214x1 O ^ r ^ , (6.224)
w e l d i n g t i m e for t h e c o n n e c t i o n o f a h e a d plate to t h e frame c o r n e r w i t h o v e r h e a d

fdlet w e l d s o f size 5 m m a n d length 6h a n d w i t h d o w n h a n d fdlet w e l d s o f length
s
2h,
_ 3 2 - 3 2
1.667xl0 x5 x6/? 1 + 0.7889x10 x 5 xlh^. (6.225)
F o r the o p t i m u m v a l u e s o f hi = 2 5 0 , t = 8 m m a n d for cost factors o f

2 = 1 $/kg
a n d k = 1 $/min
F
Figure 6.22 The welded frame corner.
K=
M 1944 $ a n d K = F 1395 $.
It can be seen that t h e fabrication cost gives a significant part o f t h e total cost.
6.5.12 Conclusions
T h e horizontal seismic forces a n d t h e a l l o w a b l e horizontal s w a y o f a s i m p l e frame is

c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e E u r o c o d e 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( C h a p t e r 3). T h e frame w i t h rigid
j o i n t s supports a p r e s s u r e vessel, t h e failure o f w h i c h c a u s e d b y e a r t h q u a k e can b e
d a n g e r o u s . T h e stress constraints for c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s are formulated a c c o r d i n g
to E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e frame is w e l d e d from S H S profiles.
F o r fabrication r e a s o n s , t h e section w i d t h o f c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s should be equal.

T h u s , the u n k n o w n s are the c o m m o n w i d t h a n d t h e different t w o thicknesses. T h e
Frames 105
m i n i m u m t h i c k n e s s e s are limited b y t h e local b u c k l i n g constraint for section o f class

1 (plastic).
T h e detailed calculation o f s w a y d u e to b e n d i n g d e f o r m a t i o n s o f the frame in

vertical a n d h o r i z o n t a l p l a n e and d u e to the torsion o f t h e b e a m s is p r e s e n t e d . T h e
objective function is t h e structural v o l u m e o r m a s s , since t h e m i n i m u m cost design
c o i n c i d e s w i t h m i n i m u m m a s s design.
T h e o p t i m u m cross-sections are selected from a discrete series for S H S u s i n g a

s y s t e m a t i c search. T h e s w a y limitation is t h e g o v e r n i n g constraint. C a l c u l a t i n g t h e
s w a y c o m p o n e n t s , it is found that t h e d e f o r m a t i o n d u e to torsion o f b e a m s a n d t h e
s w a y from t h e a n g u l a r deformation o f frame c o r n e r s can b e neglected.
6.6 F I R E - R E S I S T A N T O P T I M U M D E S I G N O F A T U B U L A R F R A M E
6.6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n
Steel structures h a v e b e e n u s e d in industrial a n d residential b u i l d i n g s , b e c a u s e t h e y

offer a w i d e r a n g e o f a d v a n t a g e s . H o w e v e r , t h e s e structures, w h e n u n p r o t e c t e d ,
b e h a v e p o o r l y in fire situation. T h e h i g h t h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y o f steel, t o g e t h e r w i t h
t h e deterioration o f its m e c h a n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s as a function o f t e m p e r a t u r e , can lead
t o large d e f o r m a t i o n s o f structural e l e m e n t s a n d t h e p r e m a t u r e failure o f t h e
b u i l d i n g s . T h e calculation o f t h e s e steel frames can b e a c c o r d i n g t o E u r o c o d e 1
(2002) and Eurocode 3 (2005).
T h e steel can b e p r o t e c t e d b y materials s u c h as m i n e r a l fibres, g y p s u m b o a r d s ,

c o n c r e t e , i n t u m e s c e n t p a i n t s and water-filled structures. In this s t u d y t h e o p t i m a l fire
design o f a steel frame structure is investigated. U s i n g a relatively simple frame
m o d e l it is s h o w n h o w to a p p l y t h e o p t i m u m design s y s t e m for t h e c a s e o f fire
r e s i s t a n c e o f a w e l d e d steel structure. H o l l o w sectional c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s a r e
d e s i g n e d for m i n i m u m v o l u m e a n d weight. O v e r a l l a n d local b u c k l i n g constraints
are c o n s i d e r e d .
In this part w e c o n t i n u e t h e calculation o f t h e steel frame d e s c r i b e d in C h a p t e r 6.5,

b u t this c a s e w e c o n c e n t r a t e n o t t h e e a r t h q u a k e b e h a v i o u r , b u t t h e fire resistance
(Fig. 6.18). In t h e first d e s i g n p h a s e t h e structural m a s s is u s e d as an objective
function. A refined objective function can b e t h e material cost.
6.6.2 C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e f r a m e m e m b e r s
B e a m s are m a d e o f R H S or S H S , u n k n o w n s are h , b , tp, c o l u m n s are m a d e o f

2 2
S H S , u n k n o w n s are h,, tp.
T h e cross-section a r e a o f a R H S b e a m profile w i t h a h e i g h t h, w i d t h b a n d t h i c k n e s s
t, c o n s i d e r i n g r o u n d e d c o r n e r s o f c o r n e r radius o f R = It a n d s u p p o s i n g that b = 2
h /2, u s i n g t h e f o r m u l a e g i v e n b y E u r o c o d e 3 P a r t 1.3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , can b e calculated as

2
(6.226)
F o r S H S c o l u m n it is
2t
A =4/,(/* -/ l 1-0.43-
x 1 1 (6.227)
F o r R H S b e a m s t h e s e c o n d m o m e n t s o f area are as follows (Figure 6.23).
(h -t }t 4/„
2
"2 2
'H h , h (6.228)
',2 = 1-0.86-
1.5*2-2/2
4/,
'H h , '
>y2 =
2
6
2
2 2 '2 (v ) 2
1-0.86-
1.5* -2r
2 2
(6.229)
For SHS columns
2u
7 1-0.86 L (6.230)
*1=V
*r'l,
6.6.2.1 Bending moments andforces from the vertical loads
B e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d forces from t h e vertical loads F can b e s e e n o n Figure 6.19

a n d their calculations a c c o r d i n g to G l u s h k o v et al. ( 1 9 7 5 ) a r e as follows ( F a r k a s &
Jarmai (1997, 2003) Eqs. (169-181).
6.6.2.2 Bending moment in the horizontal frame due to horizontal force Ft
T h e horizontal force is the tenth o f t h e vertical o n e .
F =0AF,
b (6.231)
Figure 6.23. Dimensions of RHS and SHS profiles

Frames 107
M m = ^ , (6.232)
5F.L
M & 3 = ^ , (6.234)
6 235
M M
BZ- BZI-K 2 Z
+ M
bJ- (- )
6.6.2.3 The stress constraint for the beam (point E, no fire resistance) according to
Eurocode 3 (2005)
Hj+Hn, k m l M E k v z l M B z f
A Dl_ + yj2 t + yz2 Bz ^ ^ = _ ( g ^
Zlmin^fyl Wf yl yX W fx z2 y
The parameters are according to Eqs. (6.211-6.220).
6.6.2.4 77ze stress constraint for the beam (point E, with fire resistance) according
to E u r o c o d e 1 ( 2 0 0 2 )
M e m b e r w i t h C l a s s 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s , subject t o c o m b i n e d b e n d i n g a n d axial
compression
H + H k M k M
A D \ yy2 E yz2 Bz
+ " + <1, (6.237)
x k A W k W k T
2.min y,6 2fy\ y2 y,6^y\ z2 y,0- ~y\
a n a
T h e v a l u e o f %,_„,„ (i = 1,2) s h o u l d b e t a k e n as t h e lesser o f t h e v a l u e s o f x ,f,
fi y
X zfl d e t e r m i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o E q s . ( 6 . 2 3 7 , 6.144). k y 6 is r e d u c t i o n factor a c c o r d i n g
to C h a p t e r 4 , E q . (4.1).
T h e n o n - d i m e n s i o n a l s l e n d e r n e s s for t h e t e m p e r a t u r e 6 , is g i v e n b y E q . ( 6 . 1 4 5 ) . a
D u e t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f h o l l o w section w e n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e lateral torsional

buckling according to Eqs. (6.146-6.151).
6.6.2.5 Stress constraint for columns (point C, with fire resistance) according to
Eurocode 1 (2002)
M e m b e r w i t h C l a s s 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s , subject t o c o m b i n e d b e n d i n g a n d axial
compression
/V k ( M c +M m ) kM z c ^
+ 1 6 2 3 8
7 1 — T + ~ ! F ~ i — 7 u7i t ~ • ( - )
A K W K W K
X\.mm.fi \ y,eJy\ y\ y,8Jy\ z\ yffJy\
C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e p a r a m e t e r s is a c c o r d i n g to E q s . ( 6 . 1 4 2 - 6 . 1 5 1 ) .
For column
^ = 1 . 8 - 0 . 7 ^ , <r = - l , (6.239)
D u e t o t h e application o f h o l l o w section w e n e e d not to c o n s i d e r t h e lateral torsional

buckling.
6.6.3 L o c a l b u c k l i n g of p l a t e s
F o r t h e local b u c k l i n g calculation w e u s e limit s l e n d e r n e s s e s , g i v e n b y E u r o c o d e 3

(2005).
For the beam flange
h—3< £ 42 . (6.240)
72
For the beam web
-^-3<69e. (6.241)
For the column flange
— <A2s. (6.242)
f
f\
For the column web

\
-3<42f. (6.243)
l
wl
w h e r e for fire resistance d e s i g n
1235
e = 0.85 I — . (6.244)
C a l c u l a t i o n o f loading is a c c o r d i n g t o C h a p t e r 6.5.3.
6.6.4 N u m e r i c a l data
T h e sizes o f the frame are H = 4 0 0 0 , L = 4 0 0 0 m m . T h e vertical a n d horizontal loads

a r e F = 75 k N , F = OAF for t h e n o r m a l d e s i g n and F = 0 . 7 4 x 7 5 k N , F = 0 . 1 F for
b b
t h e fire resistant design. T h e Y o u n g m o d u l u s a n d t h e shear m o d u l u s and t h e yield

s 5
stress E = 2 . 1 x 1 0 M P a , G = 0 . 8 x l 0 M P a , ^ , = 355 M P a respectively. T h e frame is a
s w a y o n e w i t h class 3 section.
Frames 109
T h e objective function is t h e structural m a s s M a c c o r d i n g t o E q . ( 6 . 2 2 1 ) . T h e

u n k n o w n s are t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f S H S c o l u m n s (b\, t{) a n d t h o s e o f R H S b e a m s (h , 2
t ). If S H S b e a m s are t a k e n into a c c o u n t , t h e f o r m u l a e for S H S c o l u m n s s h o u l d b e

2
u s e d w i t h subscript 2 a n d their u n k n o w n s are b a n d t .

2 2
Fabrication limitation
b =^-<b .
2 ] (6.245)
T o e a s e t h e fabrication, the solution o f b 2 = b\ is r e c o m m e n d e d . In this c a s e t h e

n u m b e r o f u n k n o w n s is 3 .
6.6.5 O p t i m i z a t i o n results
T a b l e 6.7 s h o w s t h e o p t i m u m sizes o f t h e frame, w h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e s a m e S H S

section for t h e c o l u m n a n d b e a m m e m b e r s , m e a n s 3 v a r i a b l e s ( S H S 3 v ) , or different
S H S sections for c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s , w i t h 4 variables ( S H S 4 v ) , o r different S H S
a n d R H S sections for c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s , w i t h 4 v a r i a b l e s , a s s u m i n g that t h e w i d t h
o f R H S section is t h e h a l f o f its height. W e h a v e u s e d t h e t a b l e s o f D u t t a ( 1 9 9 9 ) to
get t h e available S H S a n d R H S sections. B o t h c o n t i n u o u s ( u n r o u n d e d ) a n d discrete
o p t i m a h a v e b e e n calculated. T h e t w o different S H S sections v e r s i o n gives t h e b e s t
solution.
F o r the frame w i t h t h e s a m e S H S section at c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s w e h a v e c a l c u l a t e d

t h e o p t i m a c o n s i d e r i n g fire resistance. T h e fire resistance t i m e v a r y from 2 2 5 sec u p
to 4 5 0 0 sec. A t e a c h t i m e s t e p w e calculate the t e m p e r a t u r e o f t h e steel w i t h an inner
iteration a n d w e can calculate t h e correction factors for yield stress a n d Y o u n g
m o d u l u s . T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m c h e c k s t h e constraints at e a c h outer iterations.
T a b l e 6.7 O p t i m i z a t i o n results for t h e f r a m e (no fire r e s i s t a n c e h a s b e e n t a k e n

into account)
Section hi h hi h '(kg)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
SHS 3v continuous 187.78 4.17 - 4.17 754.87
SHS 3v discrete 180 5 - 4 775.57
SHS4v continuous 195.37 4.34 154.70 3,44 664.69
SHS4v discrete 200 5 150 4 765.53
SHS-RHS 4v continuous 193.35 4.29 187.84 4.17 679.30
SHS-RHS 4v discrete 180 5 200 5 782.24
B o t h c o n t i n u o u s a n d discrete o p t i m a h a v e b e e n calculated. O p t i m a s h o w that

increasing t h e t i m e o f fire r e s i s t a n c e , c o n s i d e r a b l e i n c r e m e n t o f m a s s can b e
d e t e c t e d ( T a b l e 6.8). If increase t h e t i m e from 4 5 0 sec to 4 5 0 0 sec (10 t i m e s m o r e )
w e get an i n c r e m e n t o f m a s s from 1561 u p t o 4 7 0 3 k g (3 t i m e s m o r e ) . O n e m o r e
h o u r safety m e a n s three t i m e s m o r e steel in t h e structure ( F i g u r e 5.24).
T a b l e 6.8 O p t i m i z a t i o n results for the frame (with fire resistance

considerations)
Fire resistance hi [mm] t\ [mm] t [mm]

2 K[kg]
time [sec]
225 continuous 256.34 6.33 6.33 1557.57
225 discrete 250 8 6.3 1699.19
450 continuous 256.63 6.34 6.34 1561.07
450 discrete 250 8 6.3 1699.19
900 continuous 257.31 6.36 6.36 1569.39
900 discrete 250 8 6.3 1699.19
1800 continuous 226.47 12.18 7.60 2058.94
1800 discrete 250 12 8 2317.63
2700 continuous 209.16 20.22 12.46 2907.60
2700 discrete 220 20 12 3028.55
3600 continuous 207.12 28.44 17.46 3736.45
3600 discrete 220 25 18 3865.90
4500 continuous 214.83 35.15 22.21 4575.00
4500 discrete 220 35 22 4703.10
S IOOO
s
0
0 900 1800 2700 3600 4500
Fire resistance time (sec)
Figure 6.24 Mass of the frame in the function of fire resistance time
6.6.6 Conclusion
O p t i m i z a t i o n o f steel frames for fire safety is a relatively n e w area. W e h a v e

calculated the m e m b e r s o f a h i g h p r e s s u r e vessel s u p p o r t i n g frame w i t h o u t fire
resistance. U s i n g different cross sections ( S H S , R H S ) the m a s s o f t h e frame is also
different. T h e best solution o c c u r r e d , w h e n b o t h c o l u m n s a n d b e a m s w e r e m a d e o f
S H S sections, w i t h four variable sizes. W h e n w e consider fire r e s i s t a n c e , the t i m e
after w h i c h its e l e m e n t s still w o r k , n e e d s m o r e material (steel) to b e built into t h e
structure. T h e p r e s e n t e x a m p l e s h o w s , that a b o u t 1 h o u r i n c r e m e n t in fire safety
n e e d s 3 t i m e m o r e material in t h e structure. F o r a d e s i g n e r it is important to k n o w
t h e relation b e t w e e n m a s s a n d fire safety. T h e a p p l i e d o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e w a s
v e r y robust, the m o d i f i e d particle s w a r m optimization. It c a l c u l a t e d b o t h the
c o n t i n u o u s a n d discrete optima. T h e calculation s h o w s that o p t i m i z a t i o n h a s a large
effect. F u r t h e r investigation will b e t h e application o f fire resistant p a i n t i n g s or o t h e r
m a t e r i a l s a n d to o p t i m i z e for t h e cost o f t h e structure.
7
Stiffened Plates
7.1 M I N I M U M C O S T D E S I G N O F A W E L D E D S T I F F E N E D SQUARE
PLATE LOADED BY BIAXIAL COMPRESSION
7.1.1 Introduction
O u r a i m is to s h o w the application o f efficient m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d s to an

i m p o r t a n t o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m . Stiffened plates are u s e d as l o a d - c a r r y i n g e l e m e n t s
o f s h i p s , b r i d g e s , offshore p l a t f o r m s , roofs, etc. In stability p r o b l e m s o f w e l d e d
structures t h e effect o f initial imperfections a n d residual w e l d i n g stresses s h o u l d b e
t a k e n into account.
B a s e d o n their o w n e x p e r i m e n t a l results M i k a m i a n d N i w a ( 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 ) h a v e p r o p o s e d
formulae for t h e calculation o f ultimate b u c k l i n g strength o f o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened
p l a t e s loaded b y u n i a x i a l c o m p r e s s i o n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d effects.
T h e i r m e t h o d is u s e d in an article o f F a r k a s a n d J a r m a i ( 2 0 0 0 ) a n d e x t e n d e d h e r e for
plates c o m p r e s s e d biaxially.
F o r t h e objective function an a d v a n c e d cost function is u s e d i n c l u d i n g material,

w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g costs. F a b r i c a t i o n cost p l a y s an i m p o r t a n t role in t h e w h o l e
cost a n d t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e m i n i m u m costs o f different structural v e r s i o n s
e n a b l e s d e s i g n e r s to a c h i e v e significant cost s a v i n g s in the design stage.
T o illustrate the effectiveness o f the m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d s , t h e p r o b l e m is solved b y

u s i n g the R o s e n b r o c k ' s H i l l c l i m b m e t h o d ( F a r k a s and J a r m a i 1997), a n d b y an
e n t r o p y - b a s e d u n c o n s t r a i n e d m i n i m i z a t i o n for t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n o f c o n t i n u o u s d e s i g n
variables associated w i t h a b r a n c h a n d b o u n d strategy ( S i m o e s and N e g r a o 1999).
In an effective structural o p t i m i z a t i o n t h e variables are selected on t h e basis o f

analysis o f structural characteristics. In t h e case o f stiffened p l a t e s t h e structural
characteristics are as follows:
L o a d s : u n i a x i a l or biaxial c o m p r e s s i o n , in-plane b e n d i n g a n d shear (plate girder

w e b s ) , lateral p r e s s u r e , hydrostatic p r e s s u r e , c o n c e n t r a t e d , distributed o n a line,
u n i f o r m l y distributed, static, d y n a m i c , variable, h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e .
M a t e r i a l : n o r m a l or h i g h - s t r e n g t h steels, a l u m i n i u m - a l l o y s .
Plate g e o m e t r y : s q u a r e , rectangular, triangular, trapezoidal, circular.
B o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n s : s i m p l y supported, c l a m p e d , free, elastic support.
Stiffening g e o m e t r y : edge-parallel, diagonal-parallel, unidirectional, o r t h o g o n a l ,

tridirectional, circular.
T o p o l o g y : n u m b e r o f stiffeners (variable).
Stiffener s h a p e : flat, rolled T- a n d L-profile, w e l d e d T-profile, cold-formed L -

profile, trapezoidal, r e c t a n g u l a r h o l l o w section. Possible v a r i a b l e s : d i m e n s i o n s o f
stiffeners.
C o n n e c t i o n s o f stiffeners to b a s e plate: w e l d e d , riveted, b o l t e d or b o n d e d .

Stiffened plates 113
F a b r i c a t i o n o f n o d e s : w e l d e d , riveted, b o l t e d or b o n d e d w i t h L - e l e m e n t s .
F r o m t h e s e characteristics w e h a v e selected for this s t u d y the f o l l o w i n g :

T h e investigated plate structure ( F i g u r e 7.1) c o n s i s t s o f a s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d s q u a r e
b a s e plate stiffened w i t h an o r t h o g o n a l grid o f flat stiffeners w e l d e d to t h e b a s e plate
b y fillet w e l d s . It is a s s u m e d that t h e stiffeners in o n e d i r e c t i o n a r e c o n t i n u o u s a n d in
t h e o t h e r direction t h e y are intermittent. T h e c o n n e c t i o n s o f stiffeners are w e l d e d b y
t r a n s v e r s e fillet w e l d s .
The uniformly distributed compressive load is a c t i n g biaxially in t h e plane

d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e g r a v i t y c e n t e r s o f T - s e c t i o n s , w h i c h consist o f a p a r t o f t h e b a s e
plate a n d o f a stiffener.
T h e u n k n o w n v a r i a b l e s are as follows. <p - bla\t ;h ;t . F s s b is the w h o l e side
l e n g t h o f the b a s e p l a t e , t is the t h i c k n e s s o f the b a s e p l a t e , h a n d t are the h e i g h t
F s s
a n d the t h i c k n e s s o f a flat stiffener. T h u s , the n u m b e r o f stiffeners in o n e d i r e c t i o n is

cp -1. T h e o p t i m a o f t h e v a r i a b l e s are s o u g h t , w h i c h m i n i m i z e t h e cost function a n d
fulfil t h e d e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s .
Numerical data: b = 8m;N= 9 8 0 0 k N ; the y i e l d stress is f y = 235 MPa.
7.1.3 C o s t f u n c t i o n
A c c o r d i n g to F a r k a s a n d J a r m a i ( 1 9 9 7 , 2 0 0 0 ) t h e c o s t function i n c l u d e s m a t e r i a l ,
fabrication ( w e l d i n g ) a n d p a i n t i n g c o s t s
2
K = k pV M o + k [0{K vf
F Po +1.3(7*2 + T " + Ttl+k S
2 P , (7.1)
T h e cost factors a r e a s f o l l o w s :
M a t e r i a l cost factor is k = M 0.5 - 1.0 $/kg, fabrication cost factor is k = F 12 - 4 8 $/h

2
= 0.2 - 0.8 $/min, p a i n t i n g cost factor is k P = 15 $ / m . W e calculate with k M = 0.5
$/kg a n d k = 0.6 $/min.
F
6 3
T h e d e n s i t y o f t h e steel is p 0 = 7.85xl0~ kg/mm
T h e v o l u m e o f the structure is
2
V = bt F + 2b[tf> - \)h t s s , (7.2)
t h e difficulty factor e x p r e s s i n g the c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e structure is 0 = 3

t h e n u m b e r o f structural p a r t s to b e a s s e m b l e d is
2
tc = ]6 + (p-l + <p(<p-\)=\7 + tp . (7.3)
W e l d i n g t i m e s a r e as f o l l o w s :
(a) butt w e l d s o f t h e b a s e p l a t e , in the n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e t h e b a s e p l a t e side length

is 6 = 8 m, a n d it is a s s u m e d that this b a s e plate is w e l d e d from plate e l e m e n t s o f
d i m e n s i o n s 6 m x l . 5 m , so t h e w e l d length is L = 8b = 6 4 m , w e l d size is t ,
w F
w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y is G M A W - M ( G a s m e t a l arc w e l d i n g w i t h m i x e d gas)
for t < F 15 m m T = 0.1861^x64,

2 (7.4)
9035
for t > 15 m m
F T' = 0.1433^
2 x64, (7.5)
(b) longitudinal fillet w e l d s c o n n e c t i n g t h e flat stiffeners to t h e b a s e plate, w e l d i n g

t e c h n o l o g y is G M A W - M ,
3
f = 0.3258x10" <4x4Z>(#>-l)
2 (7.6)
a w = 0At , s but a „ Wmi = 4 mm
(c) transversal fillet w e l d s c o n n e c t i n g t h e intermittent flat stiffeners to the

continuous ones.
2
N u m b e r o f n o d e s is (<p -1) , w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y is S M A W (Shielded m e t a l arc
welding)
2 2
T 2 =0.7889x10- alxAh {(p-\) s (7.7)
T h e superficies to b e p a i n t e d is
2
S = 2b +4b((p-l)h s (7.8)
7.1.4.1 Constraint on global buckling
y p s
— < a u = a u , (7.9)
A l + As
w h e r e N is the c o m p r e s s i o n force,
A = bt +(<p-\)A , F s (7.10)
b = (pa is t h e side length o f the w h o l e plate, a is t h e distance b e t w e e n stiffeners, t is F
t h e t h i c k n e s s o f t h e b a s e plate,
A,
S s = - 7 - , (7-11)
at F
a u is the ultimate g l o b a l b u c k l i n g strength o f the w h o l e , s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d plate. It

is calculated o n t h e basis o f t h e classic formula ( A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m Institute 1987)
a (7-12)
2 J
" hb '
h = t + A /a, F s (7.13)
D =D
1 + EI /a, x (7.14)
Figure 7.1 Welded square plate with flat stiffeners
E t F
D= ' . =-^L , (7.15)
2
12/l-v ) 10.92
I is t h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f a c r o s s - s e c t i o n c o n t a i n i n g t h e flat stiffener a n d a strip

x
o f t h e b a s e plate o f t h e w i d t h o f a. T h e d i s t a n c e o f t h e g r a v i t y c e n t e r o f this T -
section is
y = ( 7 1 6 )
° ^ r - u % >
_ hit, 4 + S
! - ' ^ Z Z ^ , (7.17)
L x
~ 12 \ + 5 s
A = ht
s s s is t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area o f a flat stiffener, h s is t h e h e i g h t a n d t is t h e
s
t h i c k n e s s o f a flat stiffener.
Since the classic b u c k l i n g strength f o r m u l a d o e s n o t t a k e into a c c o u n t the effect o f

the initial imperfection and residual w e l d i n g stresses, w e u s e a r e d u c e d b u c k l i n g
strength a c c o r d i n g to M i k a m i a n d N i w a m e t h o d b a s e d o n a r e d u c e d s l e n d e r n e s s
w h e r e f is t h e yield stress. N o t e that t h e m e t h o d o f this r e d u c e d s l e n d e r n e s s is u s e d

y
also in E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 5 )
for A R <0.3, (7.19)
a lf v y =1-0.63(^-0.3), for 0.3 < A < 1,

R
(7.20)
o lf = \{0.% + X\)> for (7.21)

u y
T h e factor o f p P is i n t r o d u c e d in o r d e r t o t a k e into c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e local b u c k l i n g

o f the b a s e plate
PP = 1
if a„ >a„,
D (7-22)
(7.23)
a UP <<r ,
u
a UP is t h e ultimate local b u c k l i n g strength o f a b a s e plate square field, w h i c h is

a s s u m e d t o b e s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d a n d l o a d e d b y biaxial c o m p r e s s i o n . T h e ultimate
strength is calculated also b y u s i n g a r e d u c e d s l e n d e r n e s s d e r i v e d from t h e classic
b u c k l i n g strength
2
2n E (u ^
(7-24)
f 10.92/; V a
fy al t
h p —
F
* = (235//,)>' (7-25)
\ ° ' P e r J
40.19*
f is t h e actual y i e l d stress in M P a .
y
for A < 0.526, (7.26)

= 1 P
fy
'UP _
0.526^ for A > 0.526- (7.27)
P
fy
7.1.4.2 Constraint on local buckling of flat stiffeners

According to Eurocode 3 (2005)
h l t < 14*.
s s
(7.28)
7.1.4.3 Distortion constraint
In o r d e r t o a s s u r e t h e quality o f this t y p e o f w e l d e d structures large deflections d u e

t o w e l d s h r i n k a g e s h o u l d b e a v o i d e d . It has b e e n s h o w n that the c u r v a t u r e o f a b e a m
like structure d u e t o s h r i n k a g e o f longitudinal a n d t r a n s v e r s e w e l d s can b e c a l c u l a t e d
b y relatively s i m p l e formulae ( F a r k a s and J a r m a i 1997). T h e a l l o w a b l e m a x i m a l
residual d e f o r m a t i o n f is p r e s c r i b e d b y d e s i g n rules. F o r c o m p r e s s i o n E u r o c o d e 3
0
( 1 9 9 2 ) p r e s c r i b e s f = M 0 0 0 , t h u s t h e distortion constraint is defined a s

0
2
fmax = 1.5 C b /% < f 0 = b/l000. (7.29)
C o n s i d e r i n g fillet w e l d s in t w o d i r e c t i o n s w e m u l t i p l y w i t h 1.5 instead o f 2 , since

t h e interruption o f ribs a n d t h e residual plastic z o n e s d e c r e a s e t h e deflection.
T h e c u r v a t u r e for steel is
3
C = 0 . 8 4 4 x l 0 " Q y /I , T r x (7.30)
Q T is t h e heat input for d o u b l e fillet w e l d
Q =1.3x59.5<4 .
T (7.31)
In t h e c a s e o f a d o u b l e fillet w e l d , w e m u l t i p l y w i t h 1.3 instead o f 2 , a s s u m i n g that

t h e s e c o n d w e l d is p e r f o r m e d after c o o l i n g o f t h e first o n e a n d its plastic z o n e
o v e r l a p s t h e first o n e . y is t h e w e l d eccentricity
T
y =y ~t /l,
T G F (7.32)
yG and I x a r e g i v e n b y E q s (7.16) a n d (7.17).
7.1.4.4 Limitation of the number of spacings between the stiffeners
S i n c e t h e classic overall b u c k l i n g strength is calculated o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e t h e o r y o f

orthotropic p l a t e s , a limitation o f t h e n u m b e r o f s p a c i n g s
(p > 3 (7.33)
should be introduced.
7.1.5 R e s u l t s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s
T h e results are g i v e n in T a b l e s 7.1-7.2. M i n i m u m m a t e r i a l cost a n d m i n i m u m total

cost results for c o n t i n u o u s d e s i g n v a r i a b l e s c a n b e found in T a b l e 7.1 O p t i m u m
discrete d e s i g n v a r i a b l e s a r e g i v e n in T a b l e 7.2. T h e o p t i m a a r e m a r k e d b y b o l d
letters.
T a b l e 7.1 M i n i m u m m a t e r i a l a n d total c o s t for c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s
9 tf h K [%\
M *[$]
3 18.7 19.8 5362 11603
4 16.1 18.7 5000 11423
5 14.5 18.0 4774 12714
6 14.6 17.1 4951 13847
7 15.5 16.4 5310 13695
It c a n b e seen that t h e o p t i m u m n u m b e r o f s p a c i n g s for m i n i m u m material cost

differs from that for m i n i m u m w h o l e cost. T h e o p t i m a l n u m b e r o f s p a c i n g s
(stiffeners) is smaller for m i n i m u m w h o l e cost. T h i s d e c r e a s e is c a u s e d b y h i g h

fabrication costs. T h e cost differences b e t w e e n the best a n d w o r s t structural
solutions indicated in tables are 1 8 - 2 2 % , t h u s , it is w o r t h u s i n g t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n
p r o c e d u r e . B o t h m a t h e m a t i c a l o p t i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d s h a v e b e e n efficient for this
problem.
T a b l e 7.2 M i n i m u m m a t e r i a l a n d total c o s t for d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s
<p tf K [$]
M *m
3 19 20 5476 11787
4 17 19 5222 11905
5 15 18 4907 12349
6 16 17 5289 13087
7 17 17 5795 14779
W h e n <p is increases t b e c o m e s smaller to r e d u c e distortion, tf is r e d u c e d w i t h <p ,

s
b u t for larger <p it m u s t c o m p e n s a t e t h e d i m i n i s h i n g t . s
7.2 OPTIMUM DESIGN AND COST COMPARISON OF A WELDED

PLATE STIFFENED ON ONE SIDE AND A CELLULAR PLATE BOTH
LOADED BY UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION
7.2.1 Introduction
Stiffened plate is o n e o f t h e m o s t frequently u s e d structural c o m p o n e n t in w e l d e d

structures. T w o types o f stiffened p l a t e s can b e constructed: p l a t e stiffened o n o n e
side (in the following briefly stiffened plate) a n d cellular plate (Figs 1 and 2).
Cellular p l a t e s h a v e s o m e a d v a n t a g e s o v e r stiffened o n e s as follows, (a) their
torsional stiffness contributes t o the overall b u c k l i n g strength significantly,
therefore, their d i m e n s i o n s (height a n d t h i c k n e s s ) can b e smaller, (b) their s y m m e t r y
e l i m i n a t e s the large residual w e l d i n g distortions, w h i c h can o c c u r in stiffened plates
d u e to s h r i n k a g e o f eccentric w e l d s .
In the p r e s e n t s t u d y it is s h o w n that the cellular plates c a n b e c h e a p e r t h a n the

stiffened o n e s . T h i s e c o n o m y is c a u s e d b y the a d v a n t a g e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e in (a).
T h e stiffened a n d cellular p l a t e s h a v e t h e following structural characteristics:
—loads: uniaxial a n d biaxial c o m p r e s s i o n , lateral l o a d s , hydrostatic load, static and

d y n a m i c (variable) forces;
--material: n o r m a l or h i g h - s t r e n g t h steel, a l u m i n i u m alloys, fiber-reinforced plastics

(FRP);
—stiffening t o p o l o g y : stiffening o n o n e , t w o or m o r e directions;
—stiffener t y p e : flat plate, h a l v e d rolled I-section, cold-formed L - s h a p e , trapezoidal;
- f a b r i c a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y : w e l d i n g , b o l t i n g , riveting, b o n d i n g ( F R P ) .
In the p r e s e n t s t u d y the load is uniaxial c o m p r e s s i o n , the stiffening is c o n s t r u c t e d

w i t h l o n g i t u d i n a l h a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners, t h e material is a h i g h e r - s t r e n g t h
steel with yield stress o f 3 5 5 M P a , t h e fabrication t e c h n o l o g y is w e l d i n g ( c o n t i n u o u s

l o n g i t u d i n a l fillet s u b m e r g e d a r c - S A W - w e l d s ) .
W e h a v e d e v e l o p e d a cost calculation m e t h o d m a i n l y for w e l d e d structures ( F a r k a s

& J a r m a i 1997, J a r m a i & F a r k a s 1 9 9 9 , F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) , b y w h i c h it is
p o s s i b l e t o g i v e a realistic cost c o m p a r i s o n o f o p t i m i z e d structural v e r s i o n s . T h e
c o s t function i n c l u d e s the c o s t s o f m a t e r i a l , a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g , p o s t - w e l d i n g w o r k s
and painting.
T h e analysis a n d o p t i m i z a t i o n o f cellular p l a t e s h a v e b e e n first t r e a t e d in the

d o c t o r a l dissertation o f F a r k a s ( 1 9 8 4 , 1977). T h e large t o r s i o n a l stiffness o f cellular
p l a t e s is d e m o n s t r a t e d b y deflection m e a s u r e m e n t s in a w e l d e d steel cellular plate
m o d e l and in a g l u e d p l e x i g l a s m o d e l . A detailed literature s u r v e y is w o r k e d out for
cellular plates in t h e b o o k ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1997). T h e b o o k ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i
2 0 0 3 ) c o n t a i n s studies o n stiffened a n d cellular p l a t e s relating to h y d r o s t a t i c l o a d s ,
s h i p d e c k p a n e l s , different k i n d s o f stiffeners, c o m b i n a t i o n o f axial c o m p r e s s i o n
a n d lateral load.
T h i s study is a p a r t o f o u r s y s t e m a t i c r e s e a r c h o n e c o n o m y o f w e l d e d structures. T h e
e c o n o m y o f s o m e structural t y p e s is d e m o n s t r a t e d b y the c o m p a r i s o n o f m i n i m u m
c o s t s o f different structural v e r s i o n s . S u c h a c o m p a r i s o n has b e e n p e r f o r m e d for
v a r i o u s k i n d s o f stiffened cylindrical shells as w e l l (see C h a p t e r 8).
7.2.2 O v e r a l l b u c k l i n g s t r e n g t h o f o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened u n i a x i a l l y c o m p r e s s e d
plates
T h e H u b e r ' s differential e q u a t i o n o f u n i a x i a l l y c o m p r e s s e d o r t h o t r o p i c plates is

given by
B w"
x + 2Hw" + Bw y + Nw x = 0, (7.34)
w h e r e the p r i m e (') a n d dot ( ) s u p e r s c r i p t s d e n o t e partial d e r i v a t i v e s w i t h respect to

x and>> r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g b e n d i n g a n d torsional stiffnesses are defined
as
B x = ^ , B v = ^ ; E l = - ^ , (7.35)
a y a x \-v~
for cellular p l a t e s in t h e calculation o f B a n d B t h e m o m e n t s o f inertia I a n d I xy yx y x
c a n be u s e d , s i n c e t h e s h e a r stresses act s i m i l a r l y t h a n t h e n o r m a l stresses d u e to

b e n d i n g as it is s h o w n in F i g u r e 7.2.
B I V = ^ ; B v x = ^ , G =- ^ - , r (7.36)
Xy y x
a - y a - 2(\ v)
x +
H =B XY +B YX + ^(B X + B )=-j
y
(7.37)
for plates o f quadratic s y m m e t r y H = B =B x y , (7.37a)
i.e. this calculation o f t h e torsional stiffness s h o w s that it e q u a l s to t h e m e a n v a l u e o f

b e n d i n g stiffnesses. T h i s fact is verified b y a torsional test o f a w e l d e d steel cellular
plate.
F o r stiffened plates w i t h o p e n - s e c t i o n stiffeners =B yx - H » 0•
T h e solution o f E q (7.34) y i e l d s t h e classic b u c k l i n g formula for critical force o f a

simply supported rectangular plate
f 2 2
b a^
N = «- B x \ + 2H + B y ^ 2
(7.38)
a D
E V o o J
K
F o r a cellular p l a t e w i t h longitudinal stiffeners o n l y
xy g xy 2 y 2 X
F o r stiffened plates w i t h longitudinal ribs o n l y
B y = 0 - N E = ^ . (7-40)
7.2.3 Verification o f t h e t o r s i o n a l stiffness o f cellular p l a t e s
7.2.3.1 Derivation of the fundamental differential equation of an orthotropic plate

in the case of a uniform transverse load
O n t h e basis o f t h e t h e o r y o f p l a t e s ( T i m o s h e n k o 1959), t h e relationships b e t w e e n

t h e in-plane strains a n d t h e derivatives o f t h e t r a n s v e r s e deflection w are as follows:
s x = -zw", s y = -zw~, = -2zw-. (7.41)
T h e formulae for stress c o m p o n e n t s are
a x = E (s l x + ve )=
y -E z{w
x + vw ) , (7.42)
a y = -E z(w x +w ) r v = -2Gw . (7.43)
T h e formulae for t h e b e n d i n g a n d t w i s t i n g m o m e n t s p e r unit length are as follows:
m x = \o zdA x = -B {w"x + vw), (7.44)
m =-B (MT+VW), (7.45)

m, r
xy = \x zdA
xy = 2B w xy ,myx = -2B w yx . (7.46)
F r o m t h e e q u i l i b r i u m e q u a t i o n s o f a plate e l e m e n t ( F i g . A l ) o n e o b t a i n s
qx = «; + = " + (2B yx + vB, ) w ], (7.47)
qx+qxdx
rrk+mdix
rryi+my'dy
q+qd
-y
y y
Figure 7.2 Equilibrium of an orthotropic plate element
q =m -m \B w y +{2B +vB )w"],

xy y
(7.48)
x
and q +q +P
x y = 0. (7.49)
Inserting E q . ( 7 . 4 7 ) a n d E q . ( 7 . 4 8 ) into E q . ( 7 . 4 9 ) yields the H u b e r ' s e q u a t i o n for

orthotropic plates in t h e c a s e o f a u n i f o r m t r a n s v e r s e load
B w" x + 2Hw + Bw y = p, (7.50)
w h e r e H = B^ + B yx + -(bV
x + B ),
y
(7.51)
is t h e torsional stiffness o f an orthotropic plate ( F a r k a s 1976).
7.2.3.2 Verification of the torsional stiffness by a torsional test on a welded steel

cellular plate model
T h e torsional stiffness o f a n a n i s o t r o p i c p l a t e c a n b e e x p e r i m e n t a l l y d e t e r m i n e d b y
m e a s u r i n g the deflection o f t h e free c o r n e r o f a quadratic plate s u p p o r t e d at four
c o r n e r s (Fig. 7.3). For this p u r p o s e a w e l d e d steel cellular plate m o d e l h a s b e e n u s e d
(Fig. 7.4) ( F a r k a s 1974).
T h e c o m e r deflection c a n b e d e r i v e d as follows. U s i n g a force F acting o n t h e free

corner, the specific torsional m o m e n t in o n e direction is = -FI2. In the c a s e o f
quadratic s y m m e t r y the torsional stiffness Eq. (7.50) is
H = 2B +vB ,
xy x (7.51)
a n d from Eq. (7.51) o n e obtains
Figure 7.3. (a) A quadratic plate supported at four corners, (b) torsional moments acting on a side, (c)
shear stresses in a cellular plate due to torsion
2B =H-vB .
xy x (7.52)
O u r a i m is to verify that the torsional stiffness o f a cellular plate e q u a l s to its

b e n d i n g stiffness i.e. H = B as it is calculated u s i n g formulae o f E q . ( 7 . 3 7 ) a n d
x
(7.37a). In this c a s e Eq. (7.46) c a n b e written as
= H(\-v)w =-FI2, (7.53)
F
or w" = 2H(\-v)'
- (7.54)
I n t e g r a t i n g Eq. (7.54) t w o t i m e s a n d u s i n g t h e b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n s
M(x = y = b/2)=0,w{x = y = -b/2)=0,w[x = -y = b/2)=0, (7.55)
o n e obtains
2 \
F b b b
w =— XV H X V- (7.56)
2/7(1 - v) 2 2 4
Figure 7.4 Dimensions of the welded steel cellular plate model
T h e deflection d u e to b e n d i n g o f t h e point x = y = -b/2 is
2
Fb
(7.57)
m a x
* 2H(l-v)'
and t h e w h o l e deflection c o n s i d e r i n g also t h e shear deflection is
2
Fb Fb
w (7.58)
max 2H(\-v) 2A G W
w h e r e A is the cross-sectional a r e a o f a stiffener w e b . If

w wm is m e a s u r e d , t h e
torsional stiffness can b e calculated from Eq. ( 7 . 5 8 ) as
2
Fb
// = (7.59)
T h e deflection d u e to a force F = 4 0 k N w a s w = 12.94 m m , b = 1400 m m , w = max q
9
1.17 m m , from Eq. (7.59) o n e o b t a i n s H= 4 . 7 6 x l 0 N m m . Since the stresses in the
plate d u e to F = 4 0 k N are small, it is n o t n e c e s s a r y t o consider an effective plate
w i d t h for the d e c k plates.
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f a stiffener is
J
3x100 2 6 4
+ 2xl50x51.5 = 1.0457xl0 mm .
12
T h e v a l u e o f H o b t a i n e d from m e a s u r e m e n t can b e c o m p a r e d to t h e following

b e n d i n g stiffness
1.0457x10" 3x109 2 A
B„ =E\ = 2.1x10- 4.74x10" N m m .
a 2(l - v ) 2
350 + 0.91x2
It c a n b e seen that t h e m e a s u r e d torsional stiffness e q u a l s t o t h e c a l c u l a t e d b e n d i n g

stiffness, t h u s , it is verified that t h e torsional stiffness o f a cellular plate equals to its
b e n d i n g stiffness. T h e r e f o r e , a cellular p l a t e can b e calculated as an isotropic o n e .
7.2.4 T h e plate stiffened o n o n e side b y l o n g i t u d i n a l stiffeners (Fig.7.5)
Overall buckling constraint a c c o r d i n g to D N V ( 1 9 9 5 )
Effective cross-sectional a r e a
A G = ^ L + b t f + s e t , S =A. (7.60)
2 1
n
Effective plate w i d t h for global p l a t e b u c k l i n g a c c o r d i n g to D N V ( 1 9 9 5 )
^ 0 08^ (7.61)
P P 2
p = 1 . LL if p >l , (7.62)
/ V E
0 =1 if P <1,
N _ fyl
-<a. f =12-, (7.63)
n A e
y l
i-i
fy\ Ns E
(7.64)
4
s
T h e distance o f t h e gravity c e n t r e G
h,t.. h,+t-t,
— + - + bt, (7.65)
A. v 4 2 y
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia
h +t-t,
I =s tz +^- 2
y e G
,V*+
.MJ*L ' + + b -z G • (7.66)
96 2 1,4 2 J
Constraint on stiffener inducedfailure a c c o r d i n g t o D N V ( 1 9 9 5)
5)
* , =(1.1-0.1/7 >
e y , (7.67)
but 5 E U M A X = 1
(7.68)
(7.69)
— + z (7.70)
y\ e\ Gl 2
c
r
4 2
2
\
h+ t-t,
I n=bt
y f
2
K E I
(7.71)
A a
ei 0
A
» + A
f — / \2 ,
2 2
(7.72)
UJ ^( 0 3x2.6n EI z
=
°ET " 2 '
where
3
h,t bt f
A w = - ^ , A = b t , A f f v , = A w + 3 A f , I , = - ^ (7.73)
fy (7.74)
Xj —
i °'ET
fy\ (7.75)
,<j)T = 0.5(l + jUT +
(j>T
H T =0.007(^-0.6), (7.76)
A? — (7.77)
where
(7.78)
<J - <J
k T if X > 0.6 .
T
T h e constraint is formulated as
N G k
——<a (7.79)
acr
nA ~ A t + Jf-A] '
Figure 7.5 A plate longitudinally stiffened on one side

where
0= 0.5(1 + ^ + 4) (7.80)
8z,A. L if A < 0.6, (7.81)

T
238z A t el
if A > 0.6,
T
8 = 0.00155, , (7.82)
f (7.83)
Z Z
, = Gyl + •
The fabrication constraint is e x p r e s s e d as
s-6>300mm. (7.84)
The cost function i n c l u d e s the cost o f material a n d w e l d i n g
K = KM +K W , (7.85)
6
KM = k pV,k u M = \%lkg,p = 7.85xl0" kg I mm' (7.86)
hj..
V = abt 0 0 + (n - l)a 0
+ bt t (7.87)
2
K W = k [0^npT
w + 1.3Ca*(» - l ) 2 a ] , 0 (7.88)
where
3 3
0 = 2,k w = \M/min,a w = 0 . 4 / , C = 0.3394x10
w min/mm .
T h e u n k n o w n s are as follows: h, n a n d
T h e o t h e r d i m e n s i o n s o f a h a l v e d rolled I-section are e x p r e s s e d b y t h e m a i n h e i g h t h

a c c o r d i n g to ( T a b l e C u r v e 2 0 0 3 ) (see A p p e n d i x C , E q s C 1 - C 3 ) .
T h e discrete v a l u e s o f h are a c c o r d i n g to (Profil A r b e d 2 0 0 1 ) as follows: 152.4,

177.8, 2 0 3 . 2 , 2 5 7 . 2 , 3 0 8 . 7 , 3 5 3 . 4 , 4 0 3 . 2 , 4 5 4 . 6 , 5 3 3 . 1 , 6 0 7 . 6 , 6 8 3 . 5 , 7 6 2 . 2 , 8 4 0 . 7 ,
910.4 m m .
7.2.5 T h e l o n g i t u d i n a l l y stiffened c e l l u l a r p l a t e (Fig.7.6)
T h e b u c k l i n g constraint is g i v e n b y
N
-<* = ^ (7.89)
n A
— rrr
c e c
where
Figure 7.6 A cellular plate with longitudinal stiffeners

where
K J ^ E Z , (7.94)
•sic i-v
u s i n g E q s (7.35) a n d (7.39)
_E t (h 2tJ l c e+ _ ^ + ^ , (7.95)
c
8 ' 2 2
T h e distance o f the gravity centre is
1 T (h \ h,t (h, t \ (K+tc-tfc^ f

„ „ n
zGc = — -^ + r c _ = - + - - + Z> cf - - - , (7-96)
a n d t h e m o m e n t o f inertia is e x p r e s s e d as
(h Y h]t
he = ejAc S
+ SeJc ~ +K ~ ^ Gc + +
V2 J 96
+ V-(X i ._ L+ £ z [ K ^ - t j , Y (797)
1
2 ^ 4 2 ; K J
The fabrication constraint is g i v e n b y
s -6 >300mm.
c c (7.98)
The cost function includes t h e material a n d fabrication costs a s follows:

K —K c Mc + Kw , c (7.99)
where
K Mc = k pV ,V M c c = 2a b t 0 0 c + a {n 0 c - 1 ^ - ^ + bt c fc J, (7.100)
2
K Wc = k j ^ j n ^ +\.3Cal 2(n -\)a \+kJ\pJ\n pV x c c c c + l.3Ca 2n a },
wc c 0 (7.101)
a 0A a 5t a 3 m m
wl = 'wc wc = °- c> w\mm = •
T h e u n k n o w n s are a s follows: n , h , t . c c c
7.2.6 N u m e r i c a l d a t a
7 5
b = 8 0 0 0 , a = 2 4 0 0 0 m m , N = 3 x l 0 [N],f
0 0 = 355 MPa, E = 2 . 1 x l 0 MPa. y
R a n g e s o f variables are a s follows: t = 4 - 4 0 m m , h = 152.4 - 9 1 0 . 4 m m , t h e

m a x i m u m v a l u e o f n is g i v e n b y t h e fabrication constraint (Eq.7.84 o r 7.98 )
b n
(7.102)
b + 300
The n max values are g i v e n in t h e T a b l e 7.3.
T a b l e 7.3 n - max v a l u e s for rolled I-sections - d i m e n s i o n s in m m
h 353.4 403.2 454.6 533.1 607.6 683.5 762.2 840.7 910.4 1008.1
b 126.0 142.2 152.9 209.3 228.2 253.7 266.7 292.4 304.1 302.1
n 18 18 17 15 15 14 14 13 13 13
7.2.7 M i n i m u m c o s t d e s i g n o f t h e stiffened p l a t e
T h e o p t i m a l values o f u n k n o w n s are sought, w h i c h m i n i m i z e t h e cost K a n d fulfil

t h e design a n d fabrication constraints. In t h e r a n g e s defined a b o v e it is easy to find
these values b y a systematic search. T h e following tables s h o w t h e details o f this
search.
T a b l e 7.4 C o s t for h = 1 0 0 8 . 1 , c o n s t r a i n t o n stiffener failure
n t mm constraint MPa K $
13 9 87.4<87.8 82930
12 10 9K92 78700
11 11 96<96.6 70470
10 12 100.6<100.8 70230
9 14 103<106 67530
8 15 109<110 63300
7 17 113<113.9 60580
6 20 114<116 59390
5 23 115.8<115.9 58190
4 29 108.3<108.8 61540
3 43 84.K84.6 77000
T a b l e 7.5 C o s t Kiorh = 910.4 m m
n t [mm] constraint [MPa]

13 26 76<78 83330
12 27 78<79 81220
11 29 77<78 80650
10 31 77<78 80070
9 34 76<77 81000
8 37 73.9<74.1 81930
T a b l e 7.6 C o s t K for h = 8 4 0 . 7 m m
n t [mm] constraint [MPa] K[$]

13 34 69<70 89650
12 36 69.0<69.4 89560
11 39 67.2<67.9 90990
10 42 65.5<65.7 92420
F r o m these T a b l e s it is clear that t h e o p t i m u m is h = 1008.1 m m , n = 5 a n d K =

5 8 1 9 0 $.
7.2.8 M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f t h e c e l l u l a r p l a t e
Similar s y s t e m a t i c search c a n be p e r f o r m e d for t h e cellular p l a t e . T h e results are

s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 7.7. It s h o u l d b e m e n t i o n e d that, for h< 4 0 3 . 2 m m the
fabrication constraint o f a > 3mm is g o v e r n i n g instead o f a = 0 . 4 / .
wl wl w C
T a b l e 7.7 O p t i m u m v a l u e s o f n a n d t ( m m ) a s w e l l as t h e m i n i m u m c o s t for
c c
different v a l u e s o f h ( m m ) . T h e o p t i m u m is m a r k e d b y b o l d letters
c
h c
nc tc constraint [MPa] K C r$i
152.4 19 7 286<292 32360
177.8 18 7 29K304 32580
203.2 16 7 307<312 32740
257.2 16 7 307<318 32750
308.7 19 6 310<319 31460
353.4 17 6 305<320 32400
403.2 18 5 320.6<321.2 31040
454.6 16 5 308<321 32470
533.1 13 4 317<321 32140
607.6 11 4 317<322 32320
683.5 10 4 29K322 34340
7.2.9 C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e stiffened a n d the c e l l u l a r plate
It can b e seen from T a b l e s 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 a n d 7.7 that t h e m i n i m u m cost for t h e
stiffened plate is K min= 5 8 1 9 0 $ a n d for t h e cellular plate is K „ = 3 1 0 4 0 $, i.e. t h e
Cmi
cellular v e r s i o n is 4 6 % c h e a p e r t h a n t h e stiffened o n e . T h i s g r e a t difference is

c a u s e d b y t h e different torsional stiffnesses o f t h e t w o structural t y p e s , w h i c h allows
for t h e cellular plate to u s e m u c h m o r e s m a l l e r plate t h i c k n e s s a n d s m a l l e r stiffeners
t h a n for the plate stiffened on o n e side.
7.3 ECONOMIC ORTHOGONALLY WELDED STIFFENING OF A

UNIAXIALLY COMPRESSED STEEL PLATE
7.3.1 Introduction
T h e m a i n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a m o d e r n e n g i n e e r i n g structure are t h e safety, fitness for

p r o d u c t i o n and e c o n o m y . In the o p t i m u m design p r o c e s s t h e safety a n d p r o d u c i b i l i t y
are fulfilled b y d e s i g n a n d fabrication c o n s t r a i n t s as well as t h e e c o n o m y is a c h i e v e d
b y t h e m i n i m i z a t i o n o f a cost function.
W e h a v e d e v e l o p e d a cost calculation m e t h o d m a i n l y for w e l d e d structures, t h u s , w e

are able to d e t e r m i n e t h e e c o n o m y o f a structural v e r s i o n and to c o m p a r e t h e costs
o f t h e s e v e r s i o n s to e a c h other ( F a r k a s & Jarmai 2 0 0 3 ) . W e l d e d stiffened plates are
a p p l i e d in m a n y steel structures. O u r a i m is t o d e t e r m i n e the m o s t e c o n o m i c
stiffening of a u n i a x i a l l y c o m p r e s s e d plate. O u r structural m o d e l is a r e c t a n g u l a r
steel p l a t e w i t h s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d e d g e s , stiffened o r t h o g o n a l l y b y h a l v e d rolled I-

section stiffeners w e l d e d t o t h e b a s e plate b y d o u b l e fillet w e l d s .
In o u r other s t u d y w e h a v e c o m p a r e d t h e costs o f a plate stiffened o n o n e side a n d a

cellular p l a t e b o t h stiffened longitudinally a n d l o a d e d b y uniaxial c o m p r e s s i o n
( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 6 ) . E c o n o m i c stiffening h a s b e e n d e t e r m i n e d for an
o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened p l a t e l o a d e d b y b e n d i n g (Jarmai et al. 2 0 0 6 ) .
In t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s t h e b a s e plate t h i c k n e s s , as well as t h e n u m b e r a n d
h e i g h t o f stiffeners in b o t h directions are sought, w h i c h fulfil t h e b u c k l i n g
constraints and m i n i m i z e t h e cost function.
T h e a p p l i e d m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d is t h e particle s w a r m algorithm. T h e classic

b u c k l i n g stress is derived from the H u b e r ' s differential e q u a t i o n ( T i m o s h e n k o &
G e r e 1961). T h i s stress is m o d i f i e d t a k i n g into a c c o u n t t h e effect o f residual w e l d i n g
stresses a n d initial imperfections.
T h e cost function includes t h e material a n d fabrication ( w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g ) costs

a n d is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e . A series o f rolled I-section
stiffeners is selected a c c o r d i n g to t h e A R C E L O R c a t a l o g u e (Sales P r o g r a m 2 0 0 7 ) .
T h e flange w i d t h and t h i c k n e s s , as w e l l as t h e w e b t h i c k n e s s are e x p r e s s e d b y the
section h e i g h t u s i n g a p p r o x i m a t e formulae (see A p p e n d i x ) , t h u s , in t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n
o n l y five u n k n o w n s s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d .
D e t e r m i n e the e c o n o m i c o r t h o g o n a l stiffening o f a r e c t a n g u l a r plate w i t h given m a i n

d i m e n s i o n s ao and bo, subject to a u n i f o r m l y distributed uniaxial c o m p r e s s i o n o f
intensity N ( F i g u r e 7.7), w h i c h fulfils t h e design a n d fabrication constraints a n d
x
m i n i m i z e s the cost function. H a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners are w e l d e d t o the base

plate b y d o u b l e fillet w e l d s .
7
N u m e r i c a l d a t a ( F i g u r e 7.7): a = 2 4 0 0 0 , b = 8 0 0 0 m m , N = 3 x l 0 [ N ] , steel yield
0 0 x
5 s
stress f = 3 5 5 M P a , elastic m o d u l u s E = 2 . 1 x l 0 M P a , shear m o d u l u s G = 0 . 8 x 1 0 ,
y
6 3
density p = 7 . 8 5 x l 0 " k g / m m , selected rolled I-sections U B profiles.
U n k n o w n s t o b e o p t i m i z e d : b a s e plate t h i c k n e s s t, sizes a n d n u m b e r o f stiffeners in

b o t h directions: h , h , n , n . R a n g e s o f u n k n o w n s : 4 < t < 2 0 m m , 152 < h < 1016
y x y x
m m , 4<n<n , n
max are d e t e r m i n e d b y the following fabrication constraints:
max
— -b >300mm, — -b x > 300 mm. (7.103)

n
y
T h e other d i m e n s i o n s o f a h a l v e d rolled I-section are g i v e n b y approximate

functions o f h in A p p e n d i x C , E q s C 1 - C 3 .
k = h - 2 t
f •
T h e discrete v a l u e s o f h are as follows: 152.4, 177.8, 2 0 3 . 2 , 2 5 7 . 2 , 3 0 8 . 7 , 3 5 3 . 4 ,

4 0 3 . 2 , 4 5 4 . 6 , 5 3 3 . 1 , 6 0 7 . 6 , 6 8 3 . 5 , 7 6 2 . 2 , 8 4 0 . 7 , 9 1 0 . 4 , 1016 m m .
T h e m a x i m u m v a l u e s o f n, is g i v e n b y t h e fabrication constraints E q . (7.103).

The n max v a l u e s are g i v e n in t h e T a b l e 7.3.
7.3.3 G e o m e t r i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f stiffeners
Effective cross-sectional areas (i = x,y)
KK (7.104)
Effective p l a t e w i d t h s in t w o directions for g l o b a l p l a t e b u c k l i n g a c c o r d i n g to D N V

( D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s 1995)
A
'l.8 0.8^ R
LS _ 08
S
ey = (7.105)
yPy ~ Pi j A ~ Pi j
(7.106a)
i f
P <U
y
B =^L.^L if P >\,x
(7.106b)
" t VE
0 =lx if ft <\. x
T h e distances o f t h e gravity centres G ;
(7.107)
T h e m o m e n t s o f inertia
/,.=SJZI +
96
h
^ M ^ L- J
+
h
2
h
14
+ z
2
+BITFI
G
{ H
> + T
- {
F _ T.
Z A (7.108)
' 96 2 ^ 4 2 ' J ' '{ f

2 G
' y
T h e b e n d i n g stiffnesses
x > ^ y
(7.109)
S S
y *
Overall buckling constraint a c c o r d i n g to D N V ( D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s 1995)
N x fy\ ^ _ fy
a = <o f - zJL (7.110)
c
A
"y ey
Vl + A 4
2 2 ,2 \
( b
1 _ rr - N
* S
y N - K
(7.111)
V A K V A
O B
O J
It can be seen from t h e l o a d - c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y formula N E that, w h e n ao>b , to h a v e

0
a larger N , B (h ) should b e larger t h a n B (h ).

E x x y y
Constraint on stiffener inducedfailure a c c o r d i n g to D N V ( 1 9 9 5 )
^,=(1.1-0. (7.112)
b u t S y\
e m a x 1
A ey\ + bt f
+ S
eyl f
, (7.113)
2
Z
G}<1
2A
r* +
2,
1
bt f
-(A. +t-t ) f
(7.114)
vl
2 ^ ,
Stiffened plates 13 5
Iy\ S
~ EY\^ GYL Z 2 AkmJ +
+
\ +^—t
— z,G y l Y\\ ' (7.115)
96 " 2 4 2
h + t-t, \
'GYL
2
1
K E1
E x 2
(7.116)
A ?
FT \
r
2t, * 3x2.67i 1
EI z
(7 CT " (7.117)
A„f$l
where
3
h,t bt f
A =-^,A =bt,,A^=A +3A,,I,=-^-

w f w (7.118)
(7.119)
fyl (7.120)
= 0.5(l + ju T + 2
X ),
T
4>t + V^r
^ r = 0.007(/t - 0.6), r (7.121)
(7.122)
where
a =fk y if 2^0.6, (7.123)
o- =a k T if A >0.6.
r
T h e constraint is f o r m u l a t e d as
cr, = — <cr =
or.
(7.124)
A 2
"y eyl ^ (f> + ^ -4 '
where
2
^ = 0.5(l + / / + A ; ) , (7.125)
Sz
Ayl
(7.126)
M = ~ if A T < 0.6,
'y\
ju = — if A T > 0.6,
7
vl
S = 0.00l5s , x (7.127)
Z
, = Gyl Z
+y • (7.128)
7.3.5 C o s t function
T h e cost function i n c l u d e s t h e cost o f material, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g as well as

p a i n t i n g and is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
T h e cost o f material
K =k pV ;k =\.Q
M M 2 M $/kg. (7.129)
W e l d i n g o f t h e b a s e plate from butt w e l d s (3 in direction o f a a n d 3 in direction o f 0
b ) ( S A W - s u b m e r g e d arc w e l d i n g ) ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 )
0
T h e fabrication cost factor is taken as k = 1.0 $/min, the factor of c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e F
assembly 0 W =2:
n
K =k [@ J\6pV +l3C t (3a +3b )],
0 F w 0 w 0 0 (7.130)
V = aobot,
0 (7.131)
3
forr<ll C w =0.1346xl0" ;« = 2, (7.132a)
3
for r > l l C w = 0 . 1 0 3 3 x 1 0 " ; » = 1.904. (7.132b)
W e l d i n g («. -l) stiffeners t o t h e b a s e plate in y direction w i t h d o u b l e fillet w e l d s

r
( G M A W - C - gas metal arc w e l d i n g w i t h C 0 ) : 2
5
K =k [®„Jn V,
wl F xP + 1.3x0.3394xl0" al,2b {n -1% 0 x (7.133)
aWx = 0.4 t wx but a w x m i n = 3 mm,
7 1 3 4
K,= f l 0 V +( ^ + V A }.(»,-!) ( - )
W e l d i n g o f (n - 1) stiffeners to t h e b a s e plate in x direction w i t h d o u b l e fillet w e l d s .

y
T h e s e stiffeners s h o u l d b e interrupted a n d w e l d e d with fillet w e l d s to the stiffeners

in t h e y direction.
3
K =k [& j{n n -n +l)pV
lr2 F fyy y x x 2 + 1.3x0.3394x1 ( T al 2a (n -\)+T \ y 0 y x (7.135)
3
T =1.3x0.3394xl0" <4(« -\\n
x y x - l f ^ + b y (7.136)
cr ^ = 0.4 twy but a ^ r t = 3 m m ,
V =V 2 1 +
+ V* *«(«,-0- 7
( - 1 3 7
)
V
Painting
6 2
K P = kp0 S , P P k = 14.4xl0" $ / m m , 0
P P = 2. (7.138)
Surface to b e p a i n t e d
S = 2a b
P 0 0 + a (n - 0 y \){h ly + 2b ) + b„ {n -
y x \){h lx + 2b ). x (7.139)
T h e total cost
K =K M + K + K +K +K , 0 W1 W2 P (7.140)
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d b y u s i n g t h e Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m
(Kennedy & Eberhardt 1995, Jarmai 2005).
T h e o p t i m a o f u n k n o w n s are as follows.
h = 3 5 3 . 4 , h = 5 3 3 . 1 , t = 12 m m , n = 14, n = 5. T h e constraints are fulfilled, since

y x y x
rj = 2 9 2 < rj = 2 9 9 M P a a n d <r = 2 3 0 < r j = 2 4 3 M P a . T h e m i n i m u m cost is K =

cr s acr
5 1 0 8 7 $.
It s h o u l d b e m e n t i o n e d that the calculation o f t h e critical b u c k l i n g stress ( E q s 7.110,

7.111) a c c o r d i n g t o D N V ( 1 9 9 5 ) t a k e s into a c c o u n t t h e effect o f residual w e l d i n g
stresses a n d distortions. T h e c o n s i d e r e d m e a s u r e o f w e l d i n g distortion is a b o u t
L / 1 0 0 0 w h e r e L is t h e s p a n length. T h i s distortion c a n b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y calculated
u s i n g o u r formulae p u b l i s h e d earlier ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1998).
F o r the o p t i m u m solution w i t h fillet w e l d size a w = 4 m m , for d o u b l e fillet w e l d s

t a k i n g a factor o f 1.5: Q = 1.5x59.5^, = 1428 J / m m , z- T Gx = 1 0 0 . 3 6 - 6 = 94.36 m m ,
8 4
I = 1.658x10 m m , Z> = 8 0 0 0 m m ,
x 0
C = °- 8 4 4
* 1 ( r 3 g
^ = 0 . 6 8 5 9 x 1 0 - 1/mm, / = «L = 5.5<8 = A_.
/ 8 1000
T h u s , t h e calculation o f t h e critical b u c k l i n g stress gives safe v a l u e s .
7.3.1 Conclusions
O r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened p l a t e s are i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t s o f w e l d e d structures, t h u s their

m i n i m u m cost design influences the e c o n o m y o f t h e s e structures significantly. T h e
basic formula for overall b u c k l i n g strength s h o w s that the t r a n s v e r s e stiffening
increases t h e p l a t e strength in a greater m e a s u r e .
In t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s t h e h e i g h t a n d n u m b e r o f h a l v e d rolled I-section
stiffeners as well as the b a s e plate t h i c k n e s s is sought, w h i c h fulfil t h e d e s i g n
constraints and m i n i m i z e t h e cost function. B o t h t h e global b u c k l i n g a n d t h e
stiffener i n d u c e d failure constraints are active.
T h e particle s w a r m a l g o r i t h m h a s b e e n p r o v e d to be efficient in finding the optima.
A n a p p r o x i m a t e calculation s h o w s that t h e deflections c a u s e d b y t h e s h r i n k a g e o f

longitudinal w e l d s are s m a l l e r t h a n t h e deflection t a k i n g into a c c o u n t as initial
imperfections in the b u c k l i n g strength formulae.
7.4 ECONOMIC WELDED STIFFENING OF A STEEL PLATE LOADED

BY BENDING
7.4.1 Introduction
In t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y a s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d rectangular plate is c h o s e n w i t h o r t h o g o n a l
stiffening, subject to a u n i f o r m l y distributed n o r m a l load, stiffeners o f h a l v e s rolled
I-section are w e l d e d to t h e b a s e plate o n o n e side w i t h d o u b l e fillet w e l d s .
T h e m a i n p o i n t o f a structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e is t h e selection o f variables

from t h e structural characteristics, w i t h the c h a n g e o f w h i c h t h e m o s t suitable
structural v e r s i o n can b e found. D e s i g n constraints relate to t h e m a x i m u m deflection
a n d stresses in the b a s e p l a t e as w e l l as in stiffeners. F a b r i c a t i o n constraints e x p r e s s
t h e n e e d for the free s p a c e b e t w e e n stiffener flanges to g u a r a n t e e suitable p l a c e for
w e l d i n g o f stiffeners to t h e b a s e plate.
F r o m t h e large a m o u n t o f p u b l i c a t i o n s relating t o the strength a n d design o f

stiffened plates w e m e n t i o n o n l y the following: M i k a m i a n d N i w a ( 1 9 9 6 - 1 9 9 7 ) h a v e
g i v e n a design m e t h o d for o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened u n i a x i a l l y c o m p r e s s e d plates
c o n s i d e r i n g the effect o f residual w e l d i n g stresses a n d initial imperfections. Stability
p r o b l e m s h a v e b e e n investigated b y G r o n d i n ( 1 9 9 9 ) a n d Fujikubo ( 1 9 9 9 ) . D e s i g n o f
s h i p p a n e l s has b e e n dealt w i t h b y P a i k ( 2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 3 ) . S o m e o p t i m u m design
p r o b l e m s are w o r k e d out b y a u t h o r s in t h e b o o k ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) .
O u r specialty is t h e u s e o f a cost function, for w h i c h t h e realistic d a t a are collected

from literature and industry. O u r b o o k (Farkas & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) c o n t a i n s p r o b l e m s of
finding e c o n o m i c structural v e r s i o n s b y m i n i m i z a t i o n o f a cost function. T h e cost
function c o n t a i n s t h e cost o f material, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g . S i n c e t h e
functions are h i g h l y nonlinear, special effective m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d s should be
u s e d to p e r f o r m t h e c o n s t r a i n e d function m i n i m i z a t i o n . B e c a u s e o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y
o f p r o b l e m s o n l y n u m e r i c a l t r e a t m e n t s is p o s s i b l e to w o r k out. Therefore, t h e
c o n c l u s i o n s c a n n o t b e general. In spite o f this t h e c o n c l u s i o n s can h e l p designers to
find suitable structural v e r s i o n s .
Figure 7.8 Orthogonally stiffened plate subject to a uniformly distributed normal load. Halved rolled I-
section stiffeners are used in both directions
D e t e r m i n e t h e e c o n o m i c o r t h o g o n a l stiffening o f a r e c t a n g u l a r plate w i t h g i v e n m a i n
d i m e n s i o n s a a n d b , subject to a u n i f o r m l y distributed n o r m a l load o f intensity p
0 0 0
( F i g u r e 7.8), w h i c h fulfils t h e d e s i g n a n d fabrication constraints a n d m i n i m i z e s t h e

cost function. H a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners are w e l d e d to t h e b a s e p l a t e b y
d o u b l e fillet w e l d s .
N u m e r i c a l d a t a ( F i g u r e \): a = 9 0 0 0 , b = 9 0 0 0 - 1 8 0 0 0 mm,p
0 0 = 0.01 M P a , steel
0
5 6
y i e l d stress f = 3 5 5 M P a , elastic m o d u l u s E = 2 . 1 x l 0 M P a , density p = 7 . 8 5 x l 0 "
y
3
k g / m m , selected rolled I-sections U B profiles (see A p p e n d i x ).
U n k n o w n s to be o p t i m i z e d : b a s e plate t h i c k n e s s t, sizes a n d n u m b e r o f stiffeners in

b o t h directions: h , h , n , n . R a n g e s o f u n k n o w n s : 4 < t < 2 0 m m , 152 < h < 1016
y x y x
m m , 4<n<n , n
max are d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e following fabrication constraints:
max
^ - - b > 300 mm, - > 300 mm. (7.141)
T h e sizes o f t h e h a l v e d rolled I-sections U B profiles are calculated a c c o r d i n g t o t h e

size o f h in A p p e n d i x C , E q s C 1 - C 3 .
Effective cross-sectional areas (i = x, y)
A e i = ^ + b, t j l + sJ,s y =^ , s x =^ ; s E = 1.9/ [f (7.142)

2
n y n x \f
y
when s E < S i s e i = s E ,
when s >Sj
E s e i = Sj.
N o t e that t h e formula o f s is g i v e n b y E C C S rules ( 1 9 8 8 ) E
T h e d i s t a n c e s o f t h e gravity centre G
(7.143)
_K+t+t fl
z
g i \ - z
<
(7.144)
T h e m o m e n t s o f inertia
-, hit • ht (h- t
G
Y (hi + t-t* \2
. (7.145)
• e
' G
' 96 2 ^ 4 2 ' J ' '{ 2 J G
' y
T h e b e n d i n g stiffnesses
B = ^ ; B = ^ (7.146)
x ' v
s s
y *
It should b e n o t e d that t h e torsional stiffnesses for o p e n section ribs a rree v e r y small

a n d c a n b e n e g l e c t e d w h e n t h e orthotropic plate t h e o r y is used.
7.4.4 Design constraints
7.4.4.1 Limitation of stresses in the base plate
stresses from t h e b e n d i n g o f t h e w h o l e stiffened p l a t e
°"*max = C
x P a
0 Z
G y
(7.147)
B,
E
C
y P a
0 Z
G x
(7.148)
y max y BB
X Y
stresses from t h e local b e n d i n g o f a b a s e plate field w i t h c l a m p e d e d g e s
o> = 6c^ 5 0
2
L I N // , 2
(7.149)
(7.150)
is ,s ). x y (7.151)
T h e factors o f and c fy are g i v e n in function o f i m a x / ^ m i n hi t h e A p p e n d i x B
where
• W = m a x (s , s ). x y (7.152)
T h e stress constraint is defined b y
a r = \o\+cr\-op <f^f ^f l\A, 2 y y (7.153)
where
^ i ^ ^ + ff/,. (7-154)
(J +
°2= ymax °fy- (1A55)
7.4.4.2 Limitation of stress in stiffeners
2 E
a Z
max = C
x S P 0 Gyl D ^ fy\ , (7-1 56)
E
< T y , m = C y , P a
O Z
G x l
B B
^ fyl • (7-157)
* y
N o t e that t h e local b u c k l i n g o f b a s e plate fields is limited b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e

effective w i d t h s . E
1.4 A3 Limitation of maximum deflection
In the intensity o f load t h e effect o f self m a s s is c o n s i d e r e d :
P V 2 5 3
P = Po + ° , ;p 0 = 7.85x1 ( T N/mm , (7.159)
b
°o o
K = v + -.k-i(*" "+V*)
1 flD
/
2
(7
- >160
V =V 2 x + b {n -^ '- 0 x
K
+ by xtjx (7.161)
T h e factors o f c , c „ c , c x xs vs and c w can b e c a l c u l a t e d in function o f

(7.162)
a c c o r d i n g to S c h a d e ( 1 9 4 1 ) w h o h a s g i v e n d i a g r a m s as a result o f the solution o f t h e

differential e q u a t i o n for orthotropic plates ( F a r k a s 1983). T h e s e d i a g r a m s c a n b e
a p p r o x i m a t e d b y formulae g i v e n in A p p e n d i x A .
T h e cost function includes t h e cost o f m a t e r i a l , a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g and

is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
K =k V ;k =\Xi$l)sg.
u uP 2 u (7.163)
W e l d i n g o f the b a s e plate from butt w e l d s ( o n e in direction o f a a n d 5 in direction 0
o f b ) ( S A W - s u b m e r g e d arc w e l d i n g ) ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) :
0
T h e fabrication cost factor is t a k e n as k - 1.0 $/min, the factor o f c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e F
assembly & = 2 : w
K =k0 F 0 j!\2pV
w o +l.3C t"{a +5b )],
w 0 0 (7.164)
Vo = aobot, (7.165)
3
for/<ll C w = 0.1346xl0~ ;« = 2 , (7.166a)
3
for C w = 0.1033x10~ ; n = 1.904. (7.166b)
W e l d i n g (n -l) stiffeners to the b a s e plate in x direction w i t h d o u b l e fillet w e l d s

v
( G M A W - C - gas m e t a l arc w e l d i n g w i t h C 0 ) : 2
3
K =k [® ^n pV
wl F w y l + 1.3x0.3394xl0~ <2a (n 0 y -l)], (7.167)
aw y = 0.4 tyy b u t a^ymi,, = 3 mm.
W e l d i n g o f (n - 1) stiffeners t o t h e b a s e plate in v direction w i t h d o u b l e fillet w e l d s .

x
T h e s e stiffeners should be interrupted and w e l d e d with fillet w e l d s to t h e stiffeners

in t h e x direction.
3
K W2 =k [@ j{n n -n +\)pV
F wy y x v 2 + 1.3x0.3394x10 al 2b {n0 x - l)+ T ],
x (7.168)
3
f, = 1 . 3 x 0 . 3 3 9 4 x l 0 - a l 4 ( n , - \ \ n + b > x x j, (7.169)
aWx = 0.4 t wx but a wxmin = 3 mm.

Painting
Kp=kp0 Sp, P (7.170)
- 6 2
k = 14.4xl0
P $/mm , 0 P = 2.
Surface to b e p a i n t e d
S = 2a A
P + a (n - 1
0 y + 2b ) + b (n - 1 )(h
y 0 x lx + 2b ).
x (7.171)
T h e total cost
K =K M +K +K
0 wl +K w2 + Kp. (7.172)
In t h e n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e w e h a v e k e p t a c o n s t a n t a n d c h a n g e t h e v a l u e o f b
0 0 to
d e t e r m i n e t h e o p t i m u m sizes a n d n u m b e r stiffeners for t h e stiffened plate.
2
b = 9 0 0 0 - 1 8 0 0 0 m m , a = 9 0 0 0 mm,p
0 0 0 = 0.01 N / m m , y i e l d stress f y = 355 M P a ,
Young modulus E = 210000 MPa.
Size limitations
152 < x x < 1016 m m ,
152 < x < 2 1016 m m ,
4 < x = r < 20 m m ,
3
4<x 4 = « < s e e Eq.(7.141),

y
4< x 5 = nx <seeEq.(7.141).
R e s u l t s are s h o w n in T a b l e 7.8.
T a b l e 7.8 T h e o p t i m u m sizes in m m o f t h e stiffened plate in t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e

length of the plate b 0
bo a0 K K t n v n
x *[$]
9000 9000 610 610 10 4 4 18037.5
12000 9000 914 152 7 4 8 21529.4
15000 9000 914 152 8 4 7 25969.3
18000 9000 914 152 9 4 7 31217.3
7.4.7 Conclusions
T h e a n a l y s i s a n d o p t i m i z a t i o n o f a n o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened p l a t e is s h o w n subject t o
u n i f o r m l y distributed n o r m a l load. T h e stiffeners are h a l v e d rolled I-sections in b o t h
directions. T h e design constraints relate to t h e limitation o f deflection a n d stresses in
t h e b a s e plate a n d in t h e stiffeners. F a b r i c a t i o n constraints e x p r e s s t h e limitation o f
n u m b e r s o f stiffeners to m a k e it p o s s i b l e to w e l d t h e stiffeners to the b a s e p l a t e b y
d o u b l e fdlet w e l d s . F o r the calculation o f stresses t h e S c h a d e d i a g r a m s are u s e d
b a s e d o n t h e orthotropic p l a t e t h e o r y .
T h e cost function includes t h e material, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g costs. In the

structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s t h e variables are t h e b a s e plate t h i c k n e s s , the
n u m b e r s a n d d i m e n s i o n s o f stiffeners in b o t h directions. T h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n w a s
m a d e u s i n g a n e v o l u t i o n a r y t e c h n i q u e , t h e particle s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n , w h i c h is
v e r y r o b u s t finding t h e g l o b a l optima.
R e s u l t s s h o w that t h e deflection constraint is active w h i l e t h e o t h e r stress a n d

fabrication constraints are p a s s i v e . In a r e c t a n g u l a r plate t h e stiffeners in the
direction o f t h e l o n g e r plate side should be smaller. W h e n b a p p r o a c h e s to infinite,
0
t h e stiffeners in x-direction are o n l y w o r k i n g w i t h o u t any stiffeners in y-direction.
7.5 M I N I M U M C O S T D E S I G N O F A W E L D E D SQUARE STIFFENED

PLATE SUPPORTED AT FOUR CORNERS
7.5.1 Introduction
A s q u a r e plate is investigated subject t o u n i f o r m l y distributed n o r m a l static load,

s u p p o r t e d at four corners, stiffened b y a square s y m m e t r i c a l o r t h o g o n a l grid o f ribs.
H a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners are u s e d w e l d e d to t h e b a s e plate b y d o u b l e fdlet
w e l d s (Fig.7.9).
T h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a r e c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e force m e t h o d for torsionless

g r i d w o r k s w i t h different n u m b e r s o f stiffeners. Constraints o n stress in the b a s e
plate a n d in stiffeners as well as o n deflection o f e d g e b e a m s a n d o f internal
stiffeners are formulated. T h e cost function includes material, w e l d i n g as well as
p a i n t i n g costs a n d is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
T h e u n k n o w n s are t h e b a s e p l a t e t h i c k n e s s , t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f e d g e a n d internal
stiffeners and t h e n u m b e r o f internal stiffeners.
Fig.7.9 s h o w s a s c h e m a t i c d r a w i n g o f a square stiffened plate s u p p o r t e d at four
corners.
E d g e stiffeners (Fig.7.9)
Effective cross-sectional area
(7.173)
T h e effective plate w i d t h s is c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to design rules o f E C C S ( 1 9 8 8 ) .

E
hie - h e - 2tf .
e
(7.174)
T h e distances o f t h e gravity centre G e
(7.175)
hle + t + t.
Z
Gel ~ Z
G e (7.176)
2
2
\
h + t - t ,
1
ye A
E Ge ^ ^ G
•~Z ,
R
(7.177)
96 4 2
F o r internal stiffeners t h e s a m e f o r m u l a e h o l d b u t w i t h o u t i n d e x e (Fig. 7.9).
Figure 7.9 A schematic illustration of a stiffened square plate supported at four corners as well as the
cross-sections of the edge and the internal stiffeners
7.5.3 C o s t s as a f u n c t i o n o f n u m b e r o f i n t e r n a l stiffeners in o n e d i r e c t i o n ( « )
T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g structural v o l u m e s are as follows.

2
V = L t; 0 V, = V + 4A L- 0 eS V =V,+nLA ;
2 s (7.178)
V = V + nLA ;
3 2 s AeS = bt e fi + h tJ2 le ; (7.179)
A =bt +h,tJ2.
s f (7.180)
W e l d i n g o f t h e b a s e plate with 3 6 plate parts o f d i m e n s i o n 6 x 1 . 5 m u s i n g G M A W - C

single-bevel w e l d s w i t h c o m p l e t e j o i n t p e n e t r a t i o n
_ 1
K =k (0p6pV
F{ F o +1.3Q xl0 V' l3l).
F (7.181)
W e l d i n g o f four e d g e b e a m s to the b a s e plate b y d o u b l e fillet w e l d s u s i n g G M A W - C

3
K =k (&^J5pVF2 F l +1.3x0.3394xlO" a^ 8l), e (7.182)
a we = 0 . 4 C , but a , „ we mi = 3 mm. (7.183)
W e l d i n g o f n c o n t i n u o u s internal stiffeners to t h e b a s e plate a n d t o t h e e d g e b e a m s

b y d o u b l e fillet w e l d s u s i n g G M A W - C
3 2
K =k [&^j{n F3 F + l)pV 2 + 1.3x0.3394xl0~ a 2n(L w + h, + 2 / 3 ) ] , (7.1 84)
a w = 0At , w but a , „ w mi = 3 mm. (7.185)
W e l d i n g o f n intermittent internal stiffeners t o t h e b a s e plate, to the e d g e b e a m s a n d

to t h e c o n t i n u o u s internal stiffeners (at t h e internal n o d e s butt w e l d s are u s e d for
c o n n e c t i o n o f b o t t o m flanges)
3 2
K F4 =k (@J\(n
F + l)n+\yOV 3 + 1 . 3 x 0 . 3 3 9 4 x l 0 ~ a { 2 « Z + 2(« + l)n/! +2n(n 1 +4)b)+T x
2
T =l.3Cjf2n b.
l (7.186)
for butt w e l d s u s i n g G M A W - C
3
for ( / < 1 5 m m C = 0 . 1 9 3 9 x 1 0 " , n, = 2, w (7.187a)
3
for t >l5
f m m C = 0 . 1 4 9 6 x l 0 " , n, = 1.9029.
w (7.187b)
C o s t o f material
K =k pV . M M 3 (7.188)
Cost of painting
K =& k S , P P P P (7.189)
2
S P = 2L + AL{h u +2b )+ e 2nl\hx + 2b). (7.190)
T o t a l cost
K =K M + Kfl + Kp + Kf3 + Kf + K _ 4 P (7.191)
7.5.4 C o n s t r a i n t s
Stresses in e d g e b e a m s from b e n d i n g m o m e n t M e in the t o p fiber a n d from local
b e n d i n g of t h e b a s e plate
a e = ^ z G e + c p 0 ^ < f y { , (7.192)
1
ye
c = 0.3078,
t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e internal stiffeners a = ^
«+l
Stress in e d g e b e a m b o t t o m fiber from t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t
a el ~ j '•Gel — J y\ •
y<?
Stresses in t h e internal stiffeners from b e n d i n g m o m e n t M in t h e t o p fiber a n d from

local b e n d i n g o f t h e b a s e plate
2
M a
a =^ z a + c p 0 ^ T < f y l . (7.194)
Stress in t h e internal stiffener b o t t o m fiber from b e n d i n g m o m e n t
<r,=^z G 1 <;/,,. (7.195)

y
Deflection o f t h e e d g e b e a m s
7 ] 9 6
w <»U,. e ( - )
Deflection o f t h e internal stiffener
>v<HW (7.197)
B e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d deflections s h o u l d b e derived for e a c h n u m b e r o f internal

stiffeners n.
5
Y i e l d stress o f steel f = 3 5 5 M P a , f =fj\.\, y elastic m o d u l u s E = 2 . 1 x l 0 M P a ,
yl
e d g e length o f t h e b a s e plate L = 18.0 m , factored load intensity p = 0 . 0 0 1 5 0
2
N / m m , load intensity c o n s i d e r i n g t h e self m a s s
p =p + p ^ , 0 0 r (7.198)
-6 3 5 3
density o f steel p = 7.85x10 kg/mm , p0 = 7.85xl0~ N/mm ,
a d m i s s i b l e deflection w adm =/V300, factor for t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f a s s e m b l y 0 = 3,
factor for the c o m p l e x i t y o f p a i n t i n g 0 P = 3, cost factors: k = M 1.0 $/kg, k=
F 1.0
6 2
$/min, k = P 14.4x10" $ / m m .
T h e r a n g e s o f u n k n o w n s : t = 4 - 4 0 m m , h a n d h =\S2- 1008.1 m m . e
T h e discrete v a l u e s o f h a n d t h e n o m i n a l size o f I - b e a m ( U B ) ( i n the p a r e n t h e s i s ) are

a s follows a c c o r d i n g to A R C E L O R c a t a l o g u e
A p p r o x i m a t e e x p r e s s i o n s for other d i m e n s i o n s o f rolled I-profiles as a function of h

or h a c c o r d i n g t o the A R C E L O R c a t a l o g u e are detailed in A p p e n d i x C, E q s C 1 0 -
e
C12.
7.5.6 S p e c i a l c a s e o f t h r e e i n t e r n a l stiffeners ( « = 3) (Fig.7.10)
T h e internal forces in t h e n o d e s o f t h e g r i d w o r k are F,, F a n d F ( F i g . 7 . 1 0 ) , since

2 3
in the n o d e s locating in t h e d i a g o n a l s internal forces d o n o t o c c u r b e c a u s e o f square

s y m m e t r y . T h e u n k n o w n forces c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d solving t w o e q u i l i b r i u m a n d o n e
deflection equation.
L=4a
1 i
3 2 i
o : f—I
1
1 1
o •5 ;z :\ *
F 3
F2 F 3
pa
r v ~4
W0
3
w20
Fi
pa
2
\ .. — ' ~ ~ T
F 3
\F 2
W12-W20
Figure 7.10 A square plate with three internal stiffeners in one direction. Internal forces and deflections
T h e e q u i l i b r i u m e q u a t i o n s are as follows ( F i g . 7 . 1 0 ) :
2
2pa + F, = 2F , 3 (7.199)
2
2pa -2F, = 2F . 2 (7.200)
T h e deflection e q u a t i o n e x p r e s s e s the fact that t h e t w o internal stiffeners in t h e

n o d e s N o . l h a v e t h e s a m e deflection
w - w =w - w, (7.201)
13 30 12 20
where w 30 and w 20 are t h e deflections o f the e d g e b e a m s .

3
F L?2 11F L 3
(7.202)
48x8x16 48 6x64
5 3
57 pL UF L' FU 2 3
EIye^= ~ + — +" (7.203)

48x32x64 12x64 48
s 3
5pL +FL ]
E I
y W
U
(7.204)
48x64 48
5 3
57 pL FL X
EI
y™n (7.205)
48x64x16 48
Introducing the notation ij = I /1 one obtains the equation
2 2
UpL 51.5 pL rj
+ 32F Tf + 5F +6F ] 2 3 =0. (7.206)
64 64
T o g e t h e r w i t h t h e e q u i l i b r i u m e q u a t i o n s t h e solution o f t h e t h r e e e q u a t i o n s is
(7.207)
(7.208)
2 1
16
(7.209)
3
16 2
T h e m a x i m u m b e n d i n g m o m e n t in the e d g e b e a m s
(7.210)
16x8 2 4 16 2
a n d in t h e internal stiffener
M = —— + —— (7.211)
16x4 4
T h e constraint on m a x i m u m deflection for an e d g e b e a m is e x p r e s s e d as
w 20 0 < 1/300, (7.212)
a n d for an internal stiffener
w 1 3 0 <L/300, (7.213)
w o.o
2 and W o o s h o u l d b e calculated w i t h p instead o f p : 0
1
E I y e
y e
2 0
W 2 0 = - ^ + ^ + - ^ , (7.202)
48x8x16 48 6x64
(7.214)
E
F*= 4—F , W (7-215)
lo
lo 1
W 2 0 0 = + ^ - + , (7.2,7)
2 0 0
4 8 x 88xx1166E£I7 ^ 4SEI
48EI ye ' 6x64EI
"™ ye
5 3
w 5p L 0 | FL
I0
(7.218)
1 3 0
48x64£7 y 4SEI y '
7.5.7 S p e c i a l case o f four internal stiffeners (n = 4) (Fig.7.11)
Similar t h a n in the case of n = 3 , t h e r e are also three u n k n o w n forces F , F a n d F , 2 3 s
since in the n o d e s N o . 1 a n d N o . 4 internal forces d o n o t o c c u r b e c a u s e of s y m m e t r y .

T h e t w o equilibrium e q u a t i o n s are as follows:
5 pa 2 +2F =2F ,
2
(7.219)
2 5
pa ,2 - 2F2
2 = 2F . 3 (7.220)
2'
T h e deflection equation is e x p r e s s e d as
w„ - w 3 0 = w 2 5 - w , 5 0 (7.221)
where
5 3
„, 29pa UF a 2
y W l 3 =
~~Y2 6~~ '
5 3
m 31pa , 14/>
(7.223)
EI w , = —-— +
2 — ,
y 2 5
8 3
5 3 3
3\pa | 14F a 3 | 17F a
5
(7.224)
29/ra 5
| 17F a 3
3
| \\F a .3
5
(7.225)
E I
^ ~ A ' 6 6
L=5a
^ •? <> R
) 1 | «
4 2 2 4
2 f 1 2
2 1 1 2
4 2 2 4
5 3 3
a i <
W23-W30
Figure 7.11 A square plate with four internal stiffeners in one direction. Internal forces and deflections
S o l v i n g t h e t w o e q u i l i b r i u m a n d o n e deflection e q u a t i o n o n e o b t a i n s
_ 460?7 + 155
pa , (7.226)
3
~ 312?7-40
F = ^ - ^ (7.227)
2
2 2
,2
Spa'
(7.228)
T h e m a x i m u m b e n d i n g m o m e n t in t h e e d g e b e a m is g i v e n b y
3
_, L 2F L P 3 FL 5
M, = —— + —— + —— . (7.229)
e
160 5 5
T h e m a x i m u m b e n d i n g m o m e n t in t h e internal stiffeners is t h e larger o f t h e

following t w o v a l u e s
3
pL FL 2
M 3 = (7.230)
80 5 '
M =^l + ^
5
5 (7.231)
80 5
M = max(M , M ) . 3 5 (7.232)
Deflection constraints s h o u l d b e calculated w i t h forces u s i n g p 0 instead o f p:
_ 4 6 0 7 + 155 = 5 p y
F (7.233)
3 0 5 0 1
" 31277-40^° ' 2 30 •
Deflection constraint for e d g e b e a m s
5 3 3
1 (3l25p a 0 59F a M 7lF a }
50 L
w = ^ — + ^— + ^— < , (7.234)
e
EI { 384JC4 ye 12 24 J 300
a n d for internal stiffener
5 3
1 (3l25p a 59F a }
a 2
1
L
w = —— + — < . (7.235)
EI I 384x2 12 I 300
7.5.8 S p e c i a l c a s e o f five i n t e r n a l stiffeners (n = 5) (Fig.7.12)
Unknowns: F , F , F , F , F , 2 4 5 6 8 F 9
Equilibrium equations:
3pa 2
+ 2F 5 +F = 4 2F , 9
(7.236)
3pa 2
-2F 5 +F = 2 2F , 8
(7.237)
Figure 7.12 A square plate with five internal stiffeners in one direction. Internal forces and deflections
3pa -2F -2F 2

4 2 = 2F . 6
(7.238)
Deflection e q u a t i o n s :
For the node 5
W;c> - Wgo = W g - WgO • s

(7.239)
For the node 4
w9
4 -W90 =w 46 - w . 60
(7.240)
For the node 2
W 2 8 -W 8 0 = W 2 6 - W 6 0 • (7.241)
T h e deflections a r e as follows
for e d g e b e a m
3 3
\35pa 5
9F a 23F a 6
3
i \3F a 9
+ — — + 5
(7.242)
2 3 ' 3 '
3 3
Upa 5
23F a 6
3
20F a 8 23F a 9
(7.243)
EIy,W - 3 +
g +
K
3 6
3 3
205pa s
13F a 6
3
23F a 8 7F a 9
•H (7.244)
6 6 3
for t h e stiffener 9-9
3
22pa 5
23F a 4
3
20F a 5
EI w - 3 + + (7.245)
y 59 6
3 '
3
\35pa 5
9F a 23F a 4
3
5
+ —-— + (7.246)
2 3 '
for the stiffener 8-8
3
205pa s
13F,a 3
7F a 5
•+ (7.247)
£7 w, v R =
y 5 8
4 8
6 3 '
3
135p« 5
9F,a 3
\3F a
5
(7.248)
y 28 ^ + —
2 3 '
for the stiffener 6-6

3
205pa 5
23F a 3
7F a A
2
(7.249)
E I
^ =
48 6 3 '
3
20F a 3
23F a 4
2
(7.250)
3 6 '
After t h e substitution o f E q s ( 7 . 2 4 2 - 7 . 2 5 0 ) into E q s ( 7 . 2 3 9 , 7 . 2 4 0 a n d 7.241) o n e

obtains
2
- 2 0 8 F / 7 + 368F 77 + 864F 77 + 1 6 0 F + 2 7 2 F + 1 4 4 F
2 4 5 6 8 9 = -\47 pa {\ + 2rj) (7.251)
2
3 6 8 F / 7 + 656F rj
2 4 + 736F n 5 + 2 2 4 F + 3 6 8 F + 1 9 2 F = -2QQpa (\
6 8 9 + 2rj) (7.252)
2
l072F Tj2 + 36SF ij-4l6F T} 4 s + 64F +96F +ASF
s i 9 =-53 pa (l + 2rj) (7.253)
After t h e solution o f six e q u a t i o n s ( 7 . 2 3 6 , 7 . 2 3 7 , 7 . 2 3 8 , 7 . 2 5 1 , 7.252, 7.253) w e

c a l c u l a t e t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d deflections to c h e c k t h e constraints. T h e
m a x i m u m b e n d i n g m o m e n t in the e d g e b e a m c a n b e e x p r e s s e d as
Me = ^P^— + 3F a A - 2F a -F a
9 % . (7.254)
8
T h e g o v e r n i n g b e n d i n g m o m e n t in t h e internal stiffeners M is the m a x i m u m from

the f o l l o w i n g three b e n d i n g m o m e n t s
Ml =-^j-+3F a-F a, 9 5 (7.255)
M 2 = + 3F a + 2F a, fi 5 (7.256)
M 3 = + 3F a + 2F a b 4 + F a, 2 (7.257)
4~
M = max(M ,M ,M ). l 2 3 (7.258)
D e f l e c t i o n constraints s h o u l d b e c a l c u l a t e d w i t h forces u s i n g p 0 instead o f p

(F20, F40, F , F , F ,
50 60 so F ):90
EI { ye 32 2 3 3 J 300
3 3
= J _ f 1 3 5 ^ _ 2 3 F 2 0 . _ 1 3 ^ > _ ^ < _L_
EI \ y \6 3 3 ) 300 '
7.5.9 O p t i m i z a t i o n results
R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d for c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s b y t h e S n y m a n - F a t t i global m i n i m i z a t i o n
a l g o r i t h m are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 7.9.
T a b l e 7.9 R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d b y t h e g l o b a l m i n i m i z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m . D i m e n s i o n s
a n d deflections in m m , stresses in M P a , costs in $
3
n K
941.40
h
557.27
t
14.50
rji
224e
rj
316e 110
a
104 38
w
47
K
108423
4 1005.13 590.02 8.34 87 190 272 150 58.7 50.9 98253
5 961.47 778.45 11.98 148 243 259 314 50.8 42.7 122502
R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d for c o n t i n u o u s a n d discrete variables b y P S O are s u m m a r i z e d in

T a b l e 7.10.
T a b l e 7.10 R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d b y P S O for c o n t i n u o u s (cont) a n d discrete (disc)

v a r i a b l e s . D i m e n s i o n s a n d deflections in m m , stresses in M P a , costs in $
N he h t °~1 a w K
3 cont 945.14 560.44 14.08 112025
3 disc 1016 607.6 14 208 310 112 106 36.1 47.6 118500
4 cont 1004.38 589.97 8.35 97993
4 disc 1016 607.6 9 109 286 205 285 51.6 51.7 106800
5 cont 953.43 818.95 12.78 127210
5 disc 1008.1 762.2 12 142 233 301 299 45.9 42.7 134200
It can b e seen that « = 4 . T h e stress constraints are active for n = 3 a n d n = 5, t h e

o p t
deflection constraint is active for n = 4.
7.5.10 Conclusions
A plate s u p p o r t e d at four c o r n e r s a n d stiffened b y o p e n section ribs can b e

calculated as a torsionless g r i d w o r k . In t h e c a s e o f square s y m m e t r y the e q u a t i o n s o f
t h e force m e t h o d c a n b e significantly simplified. H a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners
c a n b e u s e d w i t h different d i m e n s i o n s for e d g e a n d internal ribs.
T h e u n i f o r m l y distributed n o r m a l l o a d causes also local b e n d i n g stresses in t h e b a s e

p l a t e fields. D e s i g n constraints relate to t h e stresses in t h e b a s e plate a n d in
stiffeners as well as to deflections o f stiffeners. Fabrications constraints g u a r a n t e e
t h e suitable w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y .
T h e cost function i n c l u d e s t h e material, w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g costs a n d is

formulated in function o f t h e n u m b e r o f stiffeners in o n e direction («). T h e costs are
a n a l y z e d c o n s i d e r i n g the fabrication s e q u e n c e .
S i n c e t h e formulae o f constraints are different for different n u m b e r o f stiffeners, the

o p t i m i z a t i o n s h o u l d be carried out separately for e a c h stiffener n u m b e r . In o u r
n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m the o p t i m i z a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d for n = 3 , 4 a n d 5 a n d it is found
that t h e m i n i m u m cost d e s i g n c a n b e realized t a k i n g n = 4.
T h e u s e d t w o different m a t h e m a t i c a l function m i n i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d s , n a m e l y t h e
S n y m a n - F a t t i g l o b a l o p t i m i z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m and t h e particle s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n
( P S O ) h a v e p r o v e d to b e suitable for s u c h o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m s a n d h a v e g i v e n
n e a r l y t h e s a m e results.
7.6 MINIMUM COST DESIGN OF A WELDED STEEL SQUARE

CELLULAR PLATE SUPPORTED AT FOUR CORNERS
7.6.1 Introduction
Cellular plates can b e applied in v a r i o u s structures e.g. in floors a n d roofs o f

b u i l d i n g s , in b r i d g e s , ships, m a c h i n e structures etc. Cellular p l a t e s h a v e t h e
following a d v a n t a g e s o v e r the plates stiffened o n o n e side: (a) b e c a u s e o f their large
torsional stiffness t h e plate t h i c k n e s s can b e d e c r e a s e d , w h i c h results in d e c r e a s e o f
w e l d i n g cost, (b) their p l a n a r surface is m o r e suitable t o c o r r o s i o n protection, (c)
their s y m m e t r i c w e l d s d o n o t c a u s e residual distortion.
In p r e v i o u s studies ( F a r k a s 1985, F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 6 ) it h a s b e e n s h o w n that

cellular p l a t e s c a n b e calculated as isotropic o n e s , b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d deflections
c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d b y u s i n g classic results o f isotropic p l a t e s for v a r i o u s l o a d a n d
support types.
A large r e s e a r c h project w a s p e r f o r m e d b y W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 6 9 ) w h o u s e d a w e l d e d
cellular plate m o d e l for d o u b l e b o t t o m o f ships. Pettersen ( 1 9 7 9 ) h a s w o r k e d out a
detailed analysis o f d o u b l e - b o t t o m p l a t e s o f ships. E v a n s a n d S h a n m u g a m ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,
S h a n m u g a m a n d E v a n s ( 1 9 8 4 ) a n d S h a n m u g a m a n d B a l e n d r a ( 1 9 8 6 ) h a v e treated
t h e analytical p r o b l e m s o f cellular plates relating to t h e ship construction.
A b a s e p l a t e for transportation o f h e a v y structures m a y b e built b y u s i n g an

o r t h o g o n a l grid w e l d e d from rolled I - b e a m s . T h e l o w e r face plate h a s b e e n j o i n e d to
t h e grid b y p l u g w e l d s ( S a h m e l 1978). In t h e r e v o l v i n g frame o f surface m i n i n g
e q u i p m e n t (dragline) a p l a t f o r m for b o o m , c a b , p o w e r unit a n d o t h e r structural parts
forms an a l l - w e l d e d multi-cell structure (Birchfield 1981). L a s e r w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y
h a s b e e n u s e d for w e l d i n g o f " N o r s i a l " metallic s a n d w i c h plates a n d a c o r r u g a t e d
sheet s a n d w i c h e d b e t w e e n t h e m ( H a r o u t e l 1982).
In the b o o k ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1997) s o m e p r o b l e m s can b e found a b o u t cellular

plates. W e l d e d cellular plates for ships investigated in ( J a r m a i et al. 1999, F a r k a s &
J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) consist o f t w o face sheets a n d s o m e longitudinal ribs o f s q u a r e h o l l o w
section w e l d e d b e t w e e n t h e m u s i n g arc-spot w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g y .
In t h e p r e s e n t c h a p t e r a cellular plate is d e s i g n e d , w h i c h is s u p p o r t e d at four c o r n e r s

a n d subject to a u n i f o r m l y distributed n o r m a l load.
In order to g u a r a n t e e a suitable fabrication p r o c e d u r e h a l v e d rolled I-section

stiffeners are u s e d , their w e b is w e l d e d to t h e u p p e r b a s e p l a t e b y d o u b l e fillet w e l d s
a n d t h e b o t t o m b a s e p l a t e parts are w e l d e d to t h e stiffener flanges also b y fdlet
w e l d s (Fig. 7.13).
7.6.2 D e r i v a t i o n o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l differential e q u a t i o n o f a n o r t h o t r o p i c
p l a t e in t h e c a s e o f a u n i f o r m t r a n s v e r s e l o a d
q<+qi dx
rri +rr\,' dx
nv+m
m,+my' dy mxv+md,ix
qy+qv
Fig. 7.13 Equilibrium of an orthotropic plate element
O n the b a s i s o f the t h e o r y o f plates the relationships b e t w e e n t h e i n - p l a n e strains a n d
t h e derivatives o f the t r a n s v e r s e deflection w are as follows:
-zw",e =-zw~,y =-2zw" (7.261)
T h e p r i m e (') a n d d o t ( ) s u p e r s c r i p t s d e n o t e partial d e r i v a t i v e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o x a n d
y respectively.
T h e formulae for stress c o m p o n e n t s are
a x = E (el x + ve )=-E z(w"

y ] + vw), (7.262)
a y = -E z[w i + vw"\r = xy -2Gw . (7.263)
T h e formulae for the b e n d i n g a n d t w i s t i n g m o m e n t s p e r u n i t length are as follows:
m x = \(J zdA x = -B (w"

x + vw'), (7.264)
m y = -B (w y +vw"), (7.265)
m xy = jr^zdA = 2B w xy ,m yx = -2B Wyx . (7.266)
F r o m the e q u i l i b r i u m e q u a t i o n s o f a plate e l e m e n t (Fig.7.13) o n e o b t a i n s
? x = 'r+ m
« x , = \B W"
X + {2B yx + vB \ w \
x (7.267)
9 =m -m- =
y y xy A[B w y + {iB^ + vB )w" ] ,
y (7.268)
and q' +q
x v + P = 0- (7.269)
Inserting E q . ( 7 . 2 6 7 ) a n d E q . ( 7 . 2 6 8 ) into E q . ( 7 . 2 6 9 ) y i e l d s t h e H u b e r ' s e q u a t i o n for

orthotropic plates in t h e c a s e of a u n i f o r m t r a n s v e r s e l o a d
B w"
x + 2Hw +B w = p, (7.270)
where
(7.271)
H = B +B +^(B +B ),
XY YT X Y
is t h e torsional stiffness of an orthotropic plate.
Fig. 7.14 Cellular plate and dimensions of halved rolled I-section stiffeners
T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g b e n d i n g a n d torsional stiffnesses are defined as
5 (7.272)
a„ a v 1—v
for cellular plates
GI GI E
B X Y = ^ ; B v c = ^ ; G =— -, (7.273)
ax 2(1 + v)
H = B x y + B y x + ^ ( B x + B ) = ^ -
y (7.214)
for p l a t e s o f quadratic s y m m e t r y
H = B= x B y . (7.275)
T h u s , t h e torsional stiffness o f a cellular plate o f quadratic s y m m e t r y e q u a l s t o its

b e n d i n g stiffness.
7.6.3 B e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d deflections
L e e et al. ( 1 9 7 1 ) h a v e solved t h e differential e q u a t i o n for r e c t a n g u l a r orthotropic

plates ( E q . 7 . 2 7 0 ) s u p p o r t e d at four c o r n e r s b y u s i n g a p o l y n o m i a l function.
F o r m u l a e h a v e g i v e n for b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d deflections a s a function o f b e n d i n g

a n d torsional stiffnesses. In t h e c a s e o f a s q u a r e cellular plate t h e b e n d i n g stiffnesses
are equal t o t h e torsional stiffness (B = B = H) a n d t h e m a x i m u m b e n d i n g m o m e n t
x y
is
2
M max = 0.15pL , (7.276)
a n d t h e m a x i m u m deflection is e x p r e s s e d b y
4
w max = 0.025 L /B , Po x (7.277)
w h e r e L is t h e p l a t e e d g e length, p is t h e factored intensity o f t h e u n i f o r m l y

0
distributed n o r m a l load a n d p is t h e l o a d intensity i n c l u d i n g t h e self m a s s o f t h e

plate.
R e s u l t s for square isotropic p l a t e s a c c o r d i n g t o T i m o s h e n k o & W o i n o w s k y - K r i e g e r

(1959)
for v = 0 . 3 ,
2
M max = 0.\404pL , (7.278)
and
*W = 0 . 0 2 4 9 ^ / 5 , . (7.279)
It c a n b e seen that t h e constants a r e n e a r l y t h e s a m e .
7.6.4 G e o m e t r i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Fig. 7.14)
Effective w i d t h o f the c o m p r e s s e d u p p e r b a s e plate a c c o r d i n g t o E C C S ( 1 9 8 8 )

s E =1.97 (7.280)
Cross-sectional area o f a h a l v e d rolled I-section stiffener
A s =^ + b t f , h, = h-2t . f (7.281)
C r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area o f a stiffener w i t h u p p e r a n d b o t t o m b a s e plate parts
L
A = s t, E + at 2 + A, s a = (7.282)
n+\
D i s t a n c e s o f t h e gravity center
1 A, + r, + fy
of, I ^ + ^ - + % 1 + 6 / , (7.283)
2 2 2 4 2
_ A + f, + r 2
Z - Z (7.284)
G1 ^ G
M o m e n t o f inertia
h\+t + l tf
^ = E x
2
s t z +at z +bt
a 2
2
Gl f Z
G
(7.285)
h h
i^^ M
96
^-zA,
y l
+ (7.286)
y l
96 2 U 2 G
J
B e n d i n g stiffness
EJ
B r (7.287)
x 2
' \ - v
Structural v o l u m e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to e a c h fabrication p h a s e are as follows:
2
V =L t ,V =V +{n
l x 2 2 + 2)A ,V =V +(n
S i 2 + l)As , (7.288)
V,=V +L%. 3
(7.289)
L o a d intensity i n c l u d i n g t h e self m a s s
V
Po 4 (7.290)
p=p>+-e-
Stress constraint including n o r m a l stress d u e to local b e n d i n g o f an u p p e r b a s e plate

part with built-in e d g e s a c c o r d i n g t o T i m o s h e n k o & W o i n o w s k y - K r i e g e r ( 1 9 5 9 )
2 2
a P = 0 . 0 5 1 3 ^ - = 0.3078^L, (7.291)
2
t /6 t\
2
0A5 L
P ZG J%
Iy LI
0AS l}z
P G J%
Iy LI
Deflection constraint
H' max * w allow =^ . (7.294)
S h e a r stress constraint at t h e c o r n e r s
r 7 2 9 5
= 7 ? - ^ 7 ^ 7 r - ( - )
7.6.6 F a b r i c a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s
T h i c k n e s s limitation: tmin = 4 mm.
L i m i t a t i o n o f t h e distance b e t w e e n stiffener flanges to a l l o w t h e w e l d i n g o f t h e

stiffener w e b to t h e u p p e r b a s e plate:
a-b>300 mm. (7.296)
7.6.7 S t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to b e c h a n g e d (variables)
N u m b e r o f stiffeners in o n e direction ( s q u a r e s y m m e t r y ) n,
—thicknesses o f the u p p e r a n d b o t t o m b a s e plates / a n d t , 7 2
—height o f the rolled I-section stiffener h.
A n o t h e r d i m e n s i o n s o f U B p r o f d e s are g i v e n in T a b l e 7 . 1 1 . N o t e that for these

d i m e n s i o n s a p p r o x i m a t e formulae can b e applied as well.
A v a i l a b l e series o f rolled I-sections: U B profiles selected a c c o r d i n g to the

A R C E L O R c a t a l o g u e (Sales P r o g r a m 2 0 0 7 ) (necessary for t h e optimization)
T a b l e 7.11 S e l e c t e d U B profiles a c c o r d i n g to t h e A R C E L O R c a t a l o g u e
U B profile h B tf
610x229x113 607.6 228.2 11.1 17.3
686x254x140 683.5 253.7 12.4 19.0
762x267x173 762.2 266.7 14.3 21.6
838x292x194 840.7 292.4 14.7 21.7
914x305x224 910.4 304.1 15.9 23.9
1016x305x349 1008.1 302.0 21.1 40.0
2
P l a t e e d g e length: L = 18 m , factored load intensity p = 150 k g / m = 0 . 0 0 1 5 0
2 5
N / m m , y i e l d stress o f steel f = 3 5 5 M P a , elastic m o d u l u s E = 2 . 1 x l 0 M P a ,
y
6 3 5 3
P o i s s o n ratio v = 0 . 3 , steel d e n s i t y p = 7 . 8 5 x l 0 " k g / m m , p = 7 . 8 5 x l 0 " N / m m . 0
T h e cost function is f o r m u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .

W e l d i n g o f t h e u p p e r b a s e plate ( 1 8 x 1 8 m ) from 3 6 p i e c e s o f size 6 m x 1.5 m u s i n g
single or d o u b l e b e v e l w e l d s w i t h c o m p l e t e j o i n t p e n e t r a t i o n ( G M A W - C g a s m e t a l
arc w e l d i n g w i t h C 0 ) : 2
*„i = *J V 0 36
/> i F
+l-3C,/r 13l], ,
(7.297)
w e l d i n g cost factor k w = 1 $/kg, factor for t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f a s s e m b l y 0 = 3 ,
for < 15 m m C, = 0 . 1 9 3 9 a n d nl = 2 , (7.298a)
for h > 15 m m C = 0 . 1 4 9 6 a n d nl = 1.9029.

y (7.298b)
W e l d i n g o f n+2 c o n t i n u o u s stiffeners to the u p p e r b a s e plate b y d o u b l e fillet w e l d s

(GMAW-C)
K 3 2
„i = k [®-yl(n + 3)pV
w 2 + 1.3x0.3394x10 a 2 ( n + 2)L\,
w (7.299)
a w = 0.44,, b u t a „ wmi = 4 mm.
W e l d i n g o f n+2 intermittent stiffeners to the u p p e r b a s e plate a n d to t h e c o n t i n u o u s

stiffeners ( w e b s with fillet w e l d s , flanges w i t h b u t t w e l d s G M A W - C )
2
K w3 = k &^j(n +3n + 3)pV 3 +T +T \
X 2 (7.300)
3 2
7, = 1 . 3 x 0 . 3 3 9 4 x l 0 " a , ( / ? , +b)l{n + \\n + 2), (7.301)
T =l.3C t"/2D(n
2 1 + ]\n + 2 ) . (7.302)
W e l d i n g of t h e b o t t o m plate p a r t s to t h e flanges o f stiffeners b y fillet welds

(GMAW-C)
2 3 2
0y](n +2n + l)pV A +1.3x0.3394x1 (T a w[ 4L(n +1)| (7.303)
a wl = 0At , 2 but a w l m i n = 3 mm.
C o s t o f material
K
M k
= MP 4> V K
M= 1 $/kg, (7.304)
Cost of painting
K p = ^0^,5/,,©^ = 3, Jt = 1 4 . 4 x l 0 "
P
6 2
$/mm , (7.305)
surface to b e p a i n t e d
S =3L +2L(h
p
2
1 +b\n + 2). (7.306)
Total cost
K = K +K M wX+ K w2 +K wi +K w4 + K. P (7.307)
In the o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s t h e o p t i m u m v a l u e s o f variables are sought, w h i c h fulfil

the design a n d fabrication constraints a n d m i n i m i z e t h e cost function. C a l c u l a t i o n
s h o w s that the deflection constraint is a l w a y s active, a n d the m i n i m u m cost
c o r r e s p o n d s to the m i n i m u m v a l u e o f plate t h i c k n e s s t = 4 m m . T h e results are 2
s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 7.12.
It can b e seen that t h e cost increases w h e n h d e c r e a s e s , t h u s it is n o t n e c e s s a r y to

c o n t i n u e w i t h the search. T h e o p t i m u m is m a r k e d b y bolt letters. E a c h result g i v e n
in T a b l e 7.12 satisfies all the constraints.
T a b l e 7.12 O p t i m i z a t i o n results. A l l o w a b l e deflection is 6 0 m m . D i m e n s i o n s

a n d deflections in m m , stresses in M P a
_5
h n U h o 2 Wmax io a:[$]
1008.1 3 8 1 191 57.2 1.125
4 7 4 122 57.2 1.071
5 5 4 166 59.6 1.061
6 4 4 191 56.8 1.094
910.4 3 12 4 65 57.6 1.158
4 10 4 60 59.1 1.121
5 9 4 51 56.9 1.129
840.7 3 14 4 47 57.7 1.232
4 12 4 41 58.4 1.188
5 11 4 34 56.0 1.191
6 10 4 30 55.0 1.195
7 9 4 29 55.2 1.200
7.6.11 Conclusions
It has b e e n s h o w n in p r e v i o u s studies that, in the c a s e o f square s y m m e t r y , t h e

torsional stiffness o f cellular plates e q u a l s to their b e n d i n g stiffness. T h u s , t h e y can
b e calculated as isotropic o n e s a n d t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a n d deflection for a s q u a r e
plate s u p p o r t e d at four corners can be o b t a i n e d b y u s i n g the formulae for isotropic
plates.
In t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s t h e four variables are as follows: h e i g h t a n d n u m b e r o f

h a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners as w e l l as the t h i c k n e s s e s of u p p e r a n d b o t t o m face
plates. A s y s t e m a t i c search considers t h e constraints o n stresses a n d deflection as
well as t h e cost function to b e m i n i m i z e d . It is found that t h e deflection constraint
a n d t h e limitation o f the b o t t o m face plate t h i c k n e s s are a l w a y s active.
8
Welded Stiffened Cylindrical and Conical
Shells
Overview of sections in Chapter 8

T h e e c o n o m y o f s o m e structural t y p e s is d e m o n s t r a t e d b y the c o m p a r i s o n o f
m i n i m u m costs o f different structural versions. S u c h a c o m p a r i s o n h a s b e e n
p e r f o r m e d for v a r i o u s k i n d s o f stiffened cylindrical shells as follows: ring stiffeners,
external p r e s s u r e ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 2 ) , ring stiffeners, b e n d i n g ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 4 ) ,
stringer stiffeners, axial c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 5 a ) , stringer
stiffeners, b e n d i n g ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 5 b ) , ring a n d stringer stiffeners, axial
c o m p r e s s i o n a n d external p r e s s u r e ( J a r m a i et al. 2 0 0 6 ) . Finite e l e m e n t calculations
o f circular and conical shells are treated b y R o s s ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
8.1 RING-STIFFENED CYLINDRICAL SHELLS SUBJECT TO AXIAL

COMPRESSION AND EXTERNAL PRESSURE
8.1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n
T h e b u c k l i n g strength for b o t h load cases is calculated a c c o r d i n g t o t h e A m e r i c a n

P e t r o l e u m Institute design rules ( A P I 1987) Since the A P I interaction c u r v e s are t o o
c o m p l i c a t e d , i.e. n e e d an iteration p r o c e s s , w e u s e here the simpler linear interaction
relation a c c o r d i n g to E C C S R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ( E C C S 1988).
T h e design constraints relate to t h e general a n d local shell b u c k l i n g as well as to the

limitation o f imperfections. R i n g stiffeners o f w e l d e d b o x section are u s e d to a v o i d
tilting o f flat stiffeners. T h e effect o f imperfections c a u s e d b y shrinkage o f
circumferential w e l d s is c o n s i d e r e d b y an imperfection factor p r o p o s e d b y F a r k a s
(2002).
T h e cost function includes t h e material a n d fabrication costs. F o r t h e calculation of

w e l d i n g costs w e u s e o u r recently d e v e l o p e d formulae (Jarmai & F a r k a s 1999). F o r
t h e constrained function m i n i m i z a t i o n t w o effective o p t i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d s are used:
t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o g r a m m i n g H i l l c l i m b a n d the e v o l u t i o n a r y Particle S w a r m
O p t i m i z a t i o n ( P S O ) t e c h n i q u e s . T h e P S O algorithm w a s modified to find discrete
optima. R e c e n t l y , w e h a v e w o r k e d out the case of external p r e s s u r e (Farkas et al.
2002).
In an illustrative n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m t h e total shell length a n d t h e shell radius is

g i v e n , the u n k n o w n s are the shell t h i c k n e s s , t h e d i m e n s i o n s and n u m b e r o f ring
stiffeners. T h e cost c o m p a r i s o n s h o w s that, u s i n g t h e o p t i m u m n u m b e r o f stiffeners
significant cost s a v i n g s can be a c h i e v e d in t h e design stage b y optimization.
8.1.2.1 Axial compression ( d i m e n s i o n s a c c o r d i n g to Fig. 8.1)
F
<Y r
D=^-T ^ l°u,
t (8-1)
8.1.2.2 External pressure and interaction
R
^ Rpu
8 2
PD = YbP-< Pu if ^D — ' (-)
Stiffened shells 169
RPu
PD It RPu
<1 if (8.3)
Pu Pu R
it
W v — ^
Pu = ^MULÛL^GÛG) , (8.4)
Kt f= —
^ =7«, ri-5-50^;0.605—V^+l,
f / g A r , (8.5)
K L> t
r
w h e r e A is t h e cross-sectional area o f a ring-stiffener, L is t h e distance b e t w e e n

r r
ring-stiffeners, y = 1.5 is t h e safety factor a n d t h e plasticity r e d u c t i o n factor.

b
For A >0.2 ,
r a x g =0.72 (8.6)
Figure 8.1 The ring-stiffened shell and the cross-section of a ring-stiffener.
T h e r e d u c t i o n factors a r e a s follows:
n is t h e plastic r e d u c t i o n factor, fj is t h e imperfection factor.
For A= -^-<0.55, 7 = 1, (8.7a)

fy
for 0.55 <A< 1.6, , = ^ + 0 . 1 8 (8.7b)

A
1.31
for 1.6<A<6.25 (8.7c)
n=
1 + 1.15A '
for A > 6.25 , (8.7d)

0.01</S = ^ ^ < 0 . 0 2 when /3<0.01, £ = 0.01, (8.8)

4y/Rt
3
"max = 0 . 6 4 x 0 . 8 4 4 x 1 0 ~ . (8.9)
2
F o r butt w e l d s Q =60.7A (A mmm ),
T w w (8.10)
when / < 10 m m , Ay/ —

1 4 5
when t > 10 m m , Aw = 3.05?
T h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area o f a stiffener is A r = 3A f = 3 5 A
r r r r (8.11)
T h e u l t i m a t e local a n d global b u c k l i n g strengths are
R „
a K
°~UL= LPeLJ L, a L = 0.8 , (8.12)
is t h e imperfection factor, a n d for o u r n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e K L = 1,

a =
UG ~~PeG~K<3 , (8.13)
a G = 0.8 is the imperfection factor, t h e factor o f 1.2 is r e c o m m e n d e d t o a v o i d t h e

m o d e interaction ( c o u p l e d instability).
T h e distances o f c e n t r o i d G are as follows (Fig. 8.1)
hr 2h r t
y G = — \ y r = — + - , (8.14)
L t(h +^
e r
(8 15)
y E =
3S#Lj ' '
L =\A e 2Rt if M x =-j==>1.56, (8.16)
L =L e r if M <1.56.
x (8.17)
T h e d i s t a n c e o f t h e centroid E o f the c r o s s - s e c t i o n c o n s i s t i n g o f the stiffener a n d the

effective p a r t o f shell is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y
R =R-{h -y +tll).
c r E (8.18)
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e stiffener a n d t h e effective part o f shell is

- + A
r y R
K
G +—TZ-> G K
- (8.19)
6 "' " 12 A + Lt
r e
nL is calculated in function of 8 L = o~ UL If y as follows
n =\
L if S< L 0.55, (8.20)
0.45
*1L - + 0.18 if 0.55<^ z < 1.6 , (8.21)
1.31
1L = if 1.6 <S < L 6.25, (8.22)
l + 1.15c? £
1
if ^ > 6 . 2 5 , (8.23)
1.27£
Pel - ~TTx if A£>1.5 a n d A=M - X 1.17 < 2.5 , (8.24)
1 1 8
^ + 0.5
\2
0.92/1 ( t
PeL=- if 2.5 < A< 0.208/?//, (8.25)
A [R
P e L = 0.836Cp 1 0 6 1
£[ ± if 0.208 < C P = — < 2.85 , (8.26)
Rlt
peL = 0.275£ if C > 2.85F (8.27)
a n d E is the elastic m o d u l u s of steel.
T h e plasticity r e d u c t i o n factor n G is calculated in function of S G =aUG Ify w i t h the

s a m e formulae as in the case of n . L
E-*-Ai 2
, EI (n -\)
er
PeG = 2
(8.28)
LR R
r c '
where
KR 1850;r
A G = 0.3875 (8.29)
Lh 15000
n is that v a l u e , w h i c h g i v e s the m i n i m u m v a l u e o f p , eG n „ = 2, n
mi max = 10. F o r o u r
c a s e n = 2 is used.
Figure 8.2. Shell segments of the cylindrical shell.
8.1.2.3 Local buckling constraint
(8.30)
C o n s i d e r i n g the local b u c k l i n g constraint o f t h e stiffener flange as active, w e u s e the

following correlation b e t w e e n t h e h e i g h t and t h i c k n e s s t =S h . r r r
Data: length o f shell L = 15 m , w e l d e d from 5 m long s e g m e n t s , radius o f shell R —

b
1850 m m , intensity o f t h e external p r e s s u r e p = 0.5 M P a , t h e c o m p r e s s i o n force is

8
v a r i e d u p to F = 1 0 N , yield stress o f steel f = 3 5 5 M P a . T o avoid tilting o f ring-
y
stiffeners, w e l d e d square b o x section is u s e d , w h i c h is characterized b y t h e h e i g h t h r
a n d thickness t . r
8.1.3 T h e cost f u n c t i o n
T h e cost function includes t h e material, fabrication a n d p a i n t i n g costs:
K — KM + Kf + Kp . (8.31)
T h e material cost is
K
M = k
u P v
, (8.32)
kM [$/kg] is t h e material cost factor, t h e v o l u m e o f t h e structure is

V = 2nRtL + n \n8 h} R- 2
h r r
V 2 + 2n8 h {R-h X^
r r r (8.33)
w h e r e n is the n u m b e r o f ring-stiffeners.
r
T h e fabrication cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .

F o r a fabrication p h a s e it is
K F = k (® J^p~V+13C a%rL ),
F dw w w (8.34)
where k F ( $ / m i n ) is t h e fabrication cost factor, ® =3dw is t h e difficulty factor

e x p r e s s i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f a structure r e g a r d i n g t h e a s s e m b l y , t h e first m e m b e r
calculates t h e t i m e for a s s e m b l y a n d t a c k i n g , K is t h e n u m b e r o f structural parts to
b e a s s e m b l e d , t h e s e c o n d m e m b e r calculates t h e t i m e o f w e l d i n g a n d additional
w o r k s ( c h a n g i n g t h e electrode, d e s l a g g i n g , c h i p p i n g ) . T h e additional w o r k s are
c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e factor o f 1.3. L is t h e w e l d length, a is t h e w e l d size, C a n d n
w w w
a r e g i v e n for different w e l d i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s and w e l d t y p e (butt or fillet).
T h e fabrication cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e as

follows.
(1) Welding of a shell segment from 3 parts without stiffeners w i t h G M A W - C ( G a s

M e t a A r c W e l d i n g w i t h C 0 ) butt w e l d s , n u m b e r o f structural parts to b e a s s e m b l e d
2
is 3
3 2
K m = 3ppV s +1.3x0.2245x10" t x3L s , (8.35)
where L = 3000 mm, V

s s = 2RrtL s .
(2) Welding of a ringstiffener from 3 plate parts w i t h 2 fillet w e l d s o f G M A W - C ,

w e l d size a w = 0.7t r
K F2 = 3^3pV r + 1.3x0.3394x10~ 3
a^xAniR -h ), r (8.36)
2
where V R = AtcSÎr-^V2n8 h {R-h ). r r r
V 2 J
(3) Welding of n/5 stiffeners to a shell segment w i t h 2 fillet w e l d s o f size a w =

0.7t „ G M A W - C
r
Kp3=3
j Is^ }^ 1 3
+ l 3 x 0 3 3 9 4 x l 0
~ 3 a
l x 4
^ R n
r / 5
, (8.37)
w h e r e V =V + 3 S V nJ5 .
r
(4) Welding of 5 stiffened shell segments together w i t h butt w e l d s G M A W - C

3 2
K =3^5p5V
F4 3 + 1.3x0.2245x10~ t xSRrr . (8.38)
T o t a l material cost is
K =k pSV .
M M 3 (8.39)
Total fabrication cost is
KF = k {5K
F F1 + nK r F2 + 5K Fi +K ).
F4 (8.40)
T h e p a i n t i n g cost is
K p — kp 2RnL h + 2Rn{h b - n h )+
r r 2K{R - h )h r r + An (8.41)
2 j
In the n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e t h e following cost factors are u s e d : ^ = 1 . 0 $/kg, k = 1.0 F
6 2
$/min a n d k = 2 8 . 8 x 1 0 " $ / m m .
P
8.1.4 O p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s a n d results
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m c a n be defined as follows:
x
Minimize the objective function f( i)—> rmn.
Design constraints are: explicit x f ^ x ^ x f (/ = 1,2,...,N),
implicit g (x,)>0
7 (j = \;2,..,M). (8.42)
T a b l e 8.1 D i s c r e t e o p t i m a in t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o m p r e s s i o n force
[10 N1 7
/ [mm] t [rami
r
n r
0 9 5 19 38857
1 9 5 19 38857
2 9 5 19 38857
3 10 5 16 39242
4 13 5 8 40867
5 16 5 5 45157
6 18 5 5 50259
7 21 4 5 54255
8 23 4 5 58252
9 25 4 5 62559
10 27 4 5 66277
W e h a v e u s e d t w o c o n c e p t u a l l y different o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s . O n e o f t h e m is
t h e R o s e n b r o c k ' s H i l l c l i m b t e c h n i q u e ( R o s e n b r o c k 1960, F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1997),
w h i c h is v e r y quick, b u t reliable results n e e d m o r e starting p o i n t s . T h e other o n e is
an e v o l u t i o n a r y t e c h n i q u e , t h e Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z a t i o n ( P S O ) ( K e n n e d y 1977,
W i l k e et al. 2 0 0 3 ) , w h i c h u s e s t h e s w a r m intelligence.
C h a n g i n g t h e c o m p r e s s i o n force the n u m b e r o f stiffeners a n d t h e objective function

are also c h a n g i n g . L o w n u m b e r o f stiffeners is ineffective for b u c k l i n g , h i g h shell
t h i c k n e s s is n e e d e d for t h e stress constraint, h i g h n u m b e r o f stiffeners increases t h e
objective function. T h e t w o o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s g a v e n e a r l y t h e s a m e solutions.
H i g h e r c o m p r e s s i o n forces increase t h e shell t h i c k n e s s a n d d e c r e a s e t h e n u m b e r o f

7 7
stiffeners. If F< 3 x l 0 t h e n t h e b u c k l i n g constraint is active, if F> 3 x l 0 t h e stress
constraint is m o r e important.
8.2 A R I N G - S T I F F E N E D S H E L L S U B J E C T T O B E N D I N G
8.2.1 Introduction
D e s i g n rules for t h e shell b u c k l i n g strength h a v e b e e n w o r k e d out b y E C C S ( 1 9 8 8 ) ,

A P I ( 2 0 0 0 ) a n d D N V ( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n o f stiffened shells h a s b e e n
treated in s o m e o f o u r articles ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 2 , F a r k a s 2 0 0 2 a , J a r m a i et al. 2 0 0 3 ) .
T h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n o f a stiffened shell b e l t - c o n v e y o r b r i d g e h a s b e e n treated in
(Liszkai & F a r k a s 1989). T h e b u c k l i n g b e h a v i o u r o f stiffened cylindrical shells h a s
b e e n investigated b y several a u t h o r s , e.g. H a r d i n g ( 1 9 8 1 ) , D o w l i n g & H a r d i n g
( 1 9 8 2 ) , Ellinas et al. ( 1 9 8 4 ) , Frieze et al. ( 1 9 8 4 ) , S h e n et al ( 1 9 9 3 ) , T i a n et al.
(1999).
In the calculation o f shell b u c k l i n g strength the initial imperfections s h o u l d b e t a k e n

into a c c o u n t . T h e s e imperfections are c a u s e d b y fabrication a n d b y s h r i n k a g e o f
circumferential w e l d s . A calculation m e t h o d for t h e effect o f w e l d i n g h a s b e e n
w o r k e d o u t b y t h e first a u t h o r ( F a r k a s 2 0 0 2 b ) a n d it is u s e d in t h e calculation o f t h e
local shell b u c k l i n g strength.
In this s t u d y t h e d e s i g n rules o f D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s ( D N V ) are u s e d for r i n g -

stiffened cylindrical shells. T h e s h a p e o f rings is a s i m p l e flat p l a t e , w h i c h is w e l d e d
to the shell b y d o u b l e fillet w e l d s . In t h e calculation o f t h e fabrication cost t h e cost
o f f o r m i n g the shell e l e m e n t s into t h e cylindrical s h a p e a n d t h e cutting o f t h e flat
ring-stiffeners is also t a k e n into a c c o u n t .
T h e shell is a s u p p o r t i n g b r i d g e for a b e l t - c o n v e y o r , s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d w i t h a g i v e n
s p a n length o f L = 6 0 m a n d r a d i u s o f R = 1800 m m ( F i g u r e s 1,2). T h e intensity o f
the factored u n i f o r m l y distributed vertical l o a d is p = 16.5 N / m m + self m a s s .
F a c t o r e d live load is 12 N / m m , d e a d load (belts, rollers, s e r v i c e - w a l k w a y ) is 4.5
N / m m . F o r self m a s s a safety factor o f 1.35 is u s e d , w h i c h is p r e s c r i b e d b y E u r o c o d e
3 (note that E C C S gives 1.3). T h e safety factor for v a r i a b l e l o a d is 1.5.
T h e flat plate rings are u n i f o r m l y distributed a l o n g the shell. N o t e that t h e belt-

c o n v e y o r s u p p o r t s are i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e ring stiffeners, t h e y can b e realized b y
u s i n g local plate e l e m e n t s .
T h e u n k n o w n v a r i a b l e s are as follows: shell t h i c k n e s s t, stiffener t h i c k n e s s t r and

n u m b e r o f stiffeners n.
W e d o n o t c o n s i d e r t h e c a s e o f an unstiffened shell, since to assure a stable

cylindrical s h a p e , a certain n u m b e r o f ring-stiffeners should b e used. In t h e p r e s e n t
s t u d y w e c o n s i d e r a r a n g e o f ring n u m b e r s n = 6 - 3 0 . T h e r a n g e o f t h i c k n e s s e s t a n d
t is t a k e n as 4 - 2 0 m m , r o u n d e d t o 1 m m .
r
8.2.2 T h e d e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s
8.2.2.1 Local buckling of the flat ring-stiffeners (Fig. 8.3)

A c c o r d i n g to D N V
(8.43)
K V/v
z
C o n s i d e r i n g this constraint as active o n e , for E = 2 . 1 x 1 0 M P a a n d yield stress fy
3 5 5 M P a o n e obtains
h =
r 9t .
r (8.44)
8.2.2.2 Constraint on local shell buckling (as unstiffened) (Fig. 8.5)
p = 16.5 + 1 3 5 p ( 2 R n t + nA );
r
p = 7.85x10" 6
kg/mm ; 3
A =
r ht,
r r (8.45)
^max ;
(8.46)
8
PI
n 1 1 r
i j i J.
R
i i i
A it
(b)
Figure 8.3 (a) A simply supported belt conveyor bridge constructed as a ring stiffened cylindrical shell,
(b) the cross-section of a ring stiffener including the effective width of the shell
Figure 8.4 Cross-section of a belt conveyor bridge with two belt conveyors and a service walkway in the
middle
(8.47)
2
7TR t
f . V
2
X =^,a =(\.5-50p)C^- (8.48)
E
v4y
V
o vE ' 10.92
L
L = (8.49)
n+ \
T h e factor o f ( 1 . 5 - 5 0 / J ) in Eq. (8.48) e x p r e s s e s t h e effect o f initial radial shell

d e f o r m a t i o n c a u s e d b y the s h r i n k a g e o f circumferential w e l d s a n d c a n b e c a l c u l a t e d
as follows ( F a r k a s 2 0 0 2 b ) .
Figure 8.5. Top-view of the shell with local buckling
T h e m a x i m u m radial d e f o r m a t i o n o f the shell c a u s e d b y t h e s h r i n k a g e o f a

circumferential w e l d is
w m a x = 0.64^7/777, (8.50)
w h e r e A t is t h e a r e a o f specific strains n e a r t h e w e l d . A c c o r d i n g t o o u r results

T
( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1998)
3 3 5 5
AtT = ° - ^ o , ( 8 5 1 )
F o r steels it is
3 2
At T = 0.844x10~ Q T (înmm , 0 inJ/mm),
r (8.52)
Q =TJ
T 0 — = C A A W . (8.53)
v
w
F o r m a n u a l l y arc w e l d e d b u t t w e l d s it is
2
Q T = 60.7A W (A W in m m ) (8.54)
When t< 10 m m , A =\0t,

w (8.55)
1 4 5
W h e n O 10 m m , A W 3.05? , (8.56)
I n t r o d u c i n g a r e d u c t i o n factor o f B for w h i c h
0 . 0 1 <B = - ^ £ = < 0 . 0 2 , (8.57)
a n d t h e imperfection factor for shell b u c k l i n g strength s h o u l d b e m u l t i p l i e d b y

(1.5-50/3).
For £ < 0 . 0 1 £ = 0.01, for £>0.02 £ = 0.02. (8.58)

Furthermore
C = y/. 1 + ,Z = 0.9539-^-, (8-59)

Rt
^ = l ^ = 0 . 7 0 2 Z , p = 0 . 5 f l + -^-l 0 • (8-60)
I, 300?)
2
It c a n b e seen that <J E does not depend on L r , since in E q . (8.48) Lr is in
n o m i n a t o r a n d i n C ( E q . 8 . 5 9 ) it is i n d e n o m i n a t o r . T h e fact that t h e b u c k l i n g
s t r e n g t h d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n t h e shell l e n g t h is first d e r i v e d b y T i m o s h e n k o & G e r e
(1961).
N o t e that A P I d e s i g n rules ( 2 0 0 0 ) g i v e a n o t h e r formulae. O n t h e contrary, in t h e

c a s e o f external p r e s s u r e the distance b e t w e e n ring-stiffeners p l a y s an i m p o r t a n t role
( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 2 , J a r m a i et al. 2 0 0 3 ) .
8.2.2.3 Constraint on panel ring buckling (Fig. 8.6)
R e q u i r e m e n t s for a r i n g stiffener are as follows:
hX>\ — + 0 . 0 6 Lt , (8.61)
2
Z
(8.62)
' 12 ' l + o) 500EL
K Lt
£
e
(8.63)
—-,— —-;a) = ——
2(1+®)' ht r r
L = rokL^L ,L
e r e0 = \.54Rt) (8.64)
8.2.2.4 Deflection constraint
4
5p L 0 ^ L
(8.65)
384£7, 500
3
I =7tR t
x • (8.66)
T h e unfactored l o a d is
p=
0 12/1.5 + 4 . 5 / 1 . 3 5 + p(2R7rt + nA )=
r 1 1 . 3 3 + p(2Rnt + nA ).
r (8.67)
Figure 8.6 Top-view of panel ring buckling

8.2.3 T h e cost function
T h e cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e . A p o s s i b l e

fabrication s e q u e n c e is as follows:
(1) F a b r i c a t e 2 0 shell e l e m e n t s o f length 3 [m] w i t h o u t r i n g s (using 2 e n d ring

stiffeners t o assure t h e cylindrical shape). F o r o n e shell e l e m e n t 2 axial butt
w e l d s are n e e d e d ( G M A W - C ) . T h e w e l d i n g o f e n d r i n g stiffeners is n o t
calculated, since it d o e s n o t influence t h e v a r i a b l e s . T h e cost o f t h e f o r m i n g o f
the shell e l e m e n t to a cylindrical shape is also i n c l u d e d (K ). A c c o r d i n g to t h e
F0
t i m e data o b t a i n e d from a H u n g a r i a n p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n y ( J a s z b e r e n y i
A p r i t o g e p g y a r , C r u s h i n g M a c h i n e F a c t o r y , J a s z b e r e n y ) for plate e l e m e n t s o f 3
m w i d t h ( T a b l e 8.2), t h e t i m e s (T + T ) c a n b e a p p r o x i m a t e d b y t h e following
a b
function o f the p l a t e t h i c k n e s s (Eq. 8.68).
T a b l e 8.2 T i m e for f o r m i n g t h e shell e l e m e n t s of 3 m w i d t h i n t o circular s h a p e

(r„),as w e l l as for r e d u c i n g t h e initial i m p e r f e c t i o n s d u e to f o r m i n g (T ) b
t [mm] T [min]
a
T [min]
b T + 7i[min]
a
6 270 184 454

8 336 204 540
10 395 228 623
15 495 304 799
20 588 374 962
25 680 442 1122
30 744 538 1282
40 834 692 1526
2
/C F 0 = A: ®(212.18 + 4 2 . 8 2 4 f - 0 . 2 4 8 3 / ) .
F (8.68)
T h e cost o f w e l d i n g o f a shell e l e m e n t is
K Fl =/t [©V^ + 1 . 3 x 0 . 2 2 4 5 x l 0 - Y ( 2 x 3 0 0 0 ) ] ,
F (8.69)
w h e r e 0 is a difficulty factor e x p r e s s i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e a s s e m b l y a n d K is
t h e n u m b e r o f e l e m e n t s to b e a s s e m b l e d
K = 2;V l =2/ta-r*3000;© = 2 . (8.70)
T h e first t e r m o f E q u a t i o n (8.69) expresses t h e t i m e o f a s s e m b l y a n d t h e s e c o n d

calculates t h e t i m e o f w e l d i n g a n d additional w o r k s ( F a r k a s & Jarmai 1997).
(2) W e l d i n g t h e w h o l e unstiffened shell from 2 0 e l e m e n t s w i t h 19 circumferential

butt w e l d s
K F2 = k (®^2QpV,
F +1.3x0.2245x10~Yxl9x2/?/r), (8.71)
(3) C u t t i n g o f n flat plate rings w i t h acetylene gas ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 )

025
K =k & C t L
F2 F c c r c (8.72)
w h e r e 0 , C a n d L are t h e difficulty factor for cutting, cutting p a r a m e t e r a n d length

C c c
respectively, ® c = 3 , C = 1.1388, L « 2Rxn

c c + 2(R-h )xn
r .
(4) W e l d i n g n rings into t h e shell w i t h d o u b l e - s i d e d G M A W - C fillet w e l d s . N u m b e r

o f fillet w e l d s is 2n
K F4 = k i@^(n
F + l)pV2 +1.3x0.3394xl0" 4x4^«), 3
(8.73)
= =
aw 0.5?„ b u t awmin 3 mm,
V = 20V + 2 ^ R - ^ x h t n ,
2 l r r (8.74)
is t a k e n so that t h e d o u b l e fillet w e l d j o i n t b e equivalent to t h e stiffener

thickness.
T h e total m a t e r i a l cost is
K =k pV ,
M M 2 (8.75)
T h e total cost is
K = K+ M 20(K F0 +K) Fl +K F2 +K F3 + K.
F4 (8.76)
k=
M I $/kg; k = 1 $/min.
F
8.2.4 R e s u l t s o f t h e o p t i m u m d e s i g n
T a b l e 8.3 C o m p u t a t i o n a l results: t h e n u m b e r o f stiffeners, t h i c k n e s s o f t h e

stiffeners, m a t e r i a l a n d total costs in t h e c a s e o f o p t i m u m shell t h i c k n e s s t = 7
m m . T h e o p t i m u m s o l u t i o n is m a r k e d b y b o l d letters
n tr KM K
6 21 39291 76041
7 19 39211 75870
8 18 39266 76296
9 17 39278 76531
10 16 39252 76595
11 16 39448 77640
12 15 39365 77446
13 15 39538 78384
14 14 39404 77965
15 14 39555 78803
16 13 39379 78191
17 13 39509 78935
18 13 39640 79679
19 12 39409 78819
The optimization has been worked out using the Hillclimb technique (Farkas &
J a r m a i 1997). R e s u l t s can b e f o u n d in T a b l e 8.3. T h o s e results for w h i c h t h e p l a c e o f
stiffeners c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e circumferential w e l d s o f t h e shell s e g m e n t s are not
a p p l i c a b l e for fabrication r e a s o n s ( n = 3 , 4 , 9, 19).
T a b l e 8.4 C o s t d i s t r i b u t i o n for t h e o p t i m u m s o l u t i o n
n tr 20^ 0 2QK F1 KF2 Kfs KF4 KM K

1 19 19991 4707 3459 1076 7425 39211 75870
26% 6% 5% 2% 10% 51% 100%
T a b l e 8.4 s h o w s t h e v a l u e o f t h e different cost e l e m e n t s .
8.2.5 C o n c l u s i o n s
T h e shell t h i c k n e s s is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e constraints o n local shell b u c k l i n g as well

as o n deflection. Since t h e n u m b e r o f ring-stiffeners d o e s n o t influence these
constraints, in o r d e r to assure a stable circular shell s h a p e , a certain n u m b e r o f rings
should b e used.
S i n c e t h e design r u l e s d o n o t g i v e a n y p r e s c r i p t i o n s for t h e m i n i m u m n u m b e r o f
ring-stiffeners, for t h e investigated case w e h a v e selected a ring n u m b e r d o m a i n o f
n = 6 - 3 0 a n d h a v e p e r f o r m e d t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n in this d o m a i n .
T h e D e t N o r s k e Veritas d e s i g n rules g i v e suitable f o r m u l a e for t h e design o f rings,

t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f w h i c h d e c r e a s e w i t h t h e increase o f t h e n u m b e r o f rings.
T h e initial radial d e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e shell caused b y t h e s h r i n k a g e o f circumferential

w e l d s affects t h e local shell b u c k l i n g strength significantly. C o s t calculation
m e t h o d s are p r o p o s e d for t h e f o r m i n g o f shell e l e m e n t s into circular s h a p e and for
t h e cutting o f flat plate ring-stiffeners. T h e cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to
t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n results ( T a b l e 2) s h o w that, d u e to t h e cutting a n d w e l d i n g costs o f

stiffeners, the s m a l l e r n u m b e r o f stiffeners is m o r e e c o n o m i c . T h e o p t i m u m ring
n u m b e r is 7, w h i c h m i n i m i z e s t h e total m a s s (material cost) a n d t h e total cost.
Material cost is a b o u t h a l f o f t h e total o n e a n d is insensitive to t h e variation o f ring

n u m b e r s . T h e f o r m i n g cost o f t h e shell e l e m e n t s (K ) is significant. T h e difference
F0
b e t w e e n the best and w o r s t o p t i m a indicated in T a b l e 2 is 7 % , t h u s it is w o r t h u s i n g

an o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s in t h e design stage.
8.3 A S T R I N G E R - S T I F F E N E D S H E L L S U B J E C T T O B E N D I N G
8.3.1 Introduction
A n interesting p r o b l e m relating to t h e e c o n o m y o f structures is h o w to a c h i e v e cost

s a v i n g s b y u s i n g t h i n n e r stiffened p l a t e s or shells instead o f t h i c k unstiffened o n e s .
T h e stiffened structure is e c o n o m i c , if t h e t h i c k n e s s e s c a n b e d e c r e a s e d in s u c h a
m a n n e r that t h e cost s a v i n g s c a u s e d b y this d e c r e a s i n g is h i g h e r t h a n t h e additional
cost o f stiffening material a n d w e l d i n g . T h e cost o f forming t h e plate e l e m e n t s into
cylindrical s h a p e s a n d that o f w e l d i n g can significantly b e d e c r e a s e d b y the

r e d u c t i o n o f plate t h i c k n e s s .
O u r p r e v i o u s studies relating t o t h e e c o n o m y o f stiffened shells h a v e s h o w n that t h e

cost effectiveness o f stiffening d e p e n d s o n t h e l o a d (axial c o m p r e s s i o n , b e n d i n g o r
external p r e s s u r e ) , stiffening g e o m e t r y (ring-, stringer-stiffeners o r b o t h ) a n d the
cross-sectional s h a p e o f stiffeners (flat, rolled I, w e l d e d b o x , c o l d - f o r m e d L,
trapezoidal etc.). W e h a v e found that t h e ring-stiffening is e c o n o m i c for external
p r e s s u r e ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 4 ) , b u t it is u n e c o n o m i c for axial c o m p r e s s i o n or b e n d i n g ,
since t h e shell t h i c k n e s s c a n n o t b e d e c r e a s e d b y rings w i t h realistic distances
b e t w e e n t h e m ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 4 ) .
O u r a n o t h e r result is that t h e stringer-stiffening c a n b e e c o n o m i c for b e n d i n g in t h e

c a s e w h e n an a l l o w a b l e lateral d i s p l a c e m e n t (e.g. horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t of a
c o l u m n t o p ) is p r e s c r i b e d ( F a r k a s & Jarmai 2 0 0 5 ) . In this c a s e it is a d v a n t a g e o u s to
u s e stringers o f h a l v e d rolled I-section w e l d e d o u t s i d e to t h e shell.
C i r c u l a r cylindrical shells are often u s e d for b e l t - c o n v e y o r b r i d g e s , since t h e closed

s h a p e is a d v a n t a g e o u s for such p u r p o s e s (Fig.8.7). W e h a v e w o r k e d out t h e
m i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f a b e l t - c o n v e y o r b r i d g e u s i n g ring-stiffened shell ( F a r k a s &
J a r m a i 2 0 0 4 ) . In the p r e s e n t s t u d y it is s h o w n that t h e stringer-stiffened shell w i t h
stiffeners o f h a l v e d rolled I-section w e l d e d o u t s i d e o f t h e shell (Fig.8.8) c a n b e
e c o n o m i c , w h e n t h e deflection constraint is active.
4r
Figure 8.7 A simply supported belt-conveyor bridge with two belts, side view and cross-section
In o r d e r t o s h o w the e c o n o m y o f stringer-stiffening, a stiffened a n d an unstiffened

v e r s i o n is o p t i m i z e d for m i n i m u m cost a n d their costs are c o m p a r e d to e a c h other.
D e s i g n constraints are formulated a c c o r d i n g t o t h e rules o f D e t N o r s k e Veritas

( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e . In t h e
case o f t h e stiffened version, t h e u n k n o w n s are t h e shell t h i c k n e s s as w e l l as the
d i m e n s i o n a n d n u m b e r o f stiffeners. T h e constraints relate to t h e shell b u c k l i n g ,
p a n e l stiffener b u c k l i n g a n d fabrication limitations.
Structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s h a v e to b e carried o u t for a stringer-stiffened a n d

an unstiffened circular cylindrical shell a n d t h e cost effectiveness o f stiffening
s h o u l d b e e v a l u a t e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f their m i n i m a l cost.
F o r b o t h v e r s i o n s t h e g i v e n d a t a are as follows: L = 6 0 m span length o f t h e s i m p l y

s u p p o r t e d b r i d g e , R = 1850 m m shell r a d i u s , <p - a l l o w a b l e deflection f a c t o r , ^ = 3 5 5
5
M P a yield stress o f steel, E = 2 . 1 x l 0 M P a elastic m o d u l u s , v = 0.3 P o i s s o n ratio,
k , k , k -cost factors for material, fabrication and p a i n t i n g .
M F P
T h e intensity o f t h e factored u n i f o r m l y distributed vertical l o a d is p = 2 6 N / m m +

self m a s s . F a c t o r e d live load is 2 0 N / m m , d e a d l o a d (belts, rollers, s e r v i c e - w a l k w a y )
is 6 N / m m . F o r self m a s s a safety factor o f 1.35 is used. T h e safety factor for
variable load is 1.5.
T h e u n k n o w n s are as follows: t h e shell t h i c k n e s s (t), the d i m e n s i o n (h ) a n d n u m b e r

s
o f stringers (n ). T h e d i m e n s i o n s o f a h a l v e d rolled I-section ( U n i v e r s a l B e a m - U B

s
a c c o r d i n g t o A R B E D 2 0 0 1 ) c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d b y their h e i g h t h , since w e u s e
s
a p p r o x i m a t e e x p r e s s i o n s for a n o t h e r d i m e n s i o n s a n d g e o m e t r i c characteristics {hh
t , b, tf, A, I ) (Fig. 8.8) u s i n g a special software ( T a b l e C u r v e 2 0 0 3 ) ( A p p e n d i x C ,

w y
Eqs C4-C9).
N o t e that t h e u s e o f h a l v e d rolled I-section stringers is a d v a n t a g e o u s b e c a u s e o f their

large m o m e n t o f inertia a n d small w e b t h i c k n e s s , w h i c h e n a b l e s t h e u s e o f small
fillet w e l d s to c o n n e c t t h e stringers to t h e shell.
In t h e o p t i m u m design, t h e o p t i m u m v a l u e s o f u n k n o w n s are sought, w h i c h

m i n i m i z e t h e cost function a n d fulfil t h e d e s i g n constraints. W e u s e for c o n s t r a i n e d
function m i n i m i z a t i o n an effective m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d .
8.3.3 T h e stringer-stiffened shell
8.3.3.1 Design constraints
Shell (curvedpanel) buckling
" * ; A-A ; C = , A
+ ; 5= ^L, (8.77)
4 2 s n
&nt t Vl + A °E s
6
M = -Z=-;p = 26.0 + l.35p(2Rjrt ), e p = 9.81x7.85x10 , (8.78)
a E = C(\.5-50/3) (8.79)
1 2 ( l - v ' ) ^5 ,
C = 4Jl + 'MV 2 = ^Vi^;p = e o.5fi -A^ + = 0.702Z, (8.80)

4 Rt { 150/
Figure 8.8 Halved rolled I-section stringers welded outside to the shell
T h e calculation o f t h e factor 1.5 - 5 0 / ? is detailed in Sec. 8.2.2.2 ( E q s 8.50 - 8.57).

N o t e that t h e residual w e l d i n g distortion factor 1.5 - 50/7 = 1 w h e n f>9 m m .
Stringer panel buckling
2 2
M . A • 2
2 A . r rc E ft) (8.81)
;Z =0.9539—J = 0.702Z„; = 10.92^

C
p
=w
™p
1
1+
v YP j
p
Rt
r s
st
\ +y s (8.82)
p
A '
sj
a c c o r d i n g to E C C S ( 1 9 8 8 )
S e = i 9 ? IL
jJL ; if s <s E s = s if
e E; s >s
E s = s,
e (8.83)
IA
I f is the m o m e n t o f inertia o f a cross section c o n t a i n i n g t h e stiffener a n d a shell
se
part of width s . e
2
h t /8
i w + hbt /2 f
(8.84)
j_ — L •
° ^ l l + btj+sj
Deflection limitation
(8.85)
3 8 4 £ 7 yO <t>
p0 is t h e load intensity w i t h o u t safety factors:
p =20/\.5
0 + 6.0/1.35 + p2Rxt e = ll.78 + p2Rxt ,
e
(8.86)
t h e deflection limitation factor (j) is v a r i e d b e t w e e n 4 0 0 - 1000.

T h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e stiffened shell is
Y h, + t f
}
f
2m^ (8.87)
Iy =XRt + -t.+bt R +- —z
sin
0 f l
A
h tJ2{h IA
x x + t l2)
f
2 :
(8.88)
A
h tJ2
x + bt f
T h e characteristic d a t a o f the U B rolled I-sections are e x p r e s s e d b y t h e m a i n

p a r a m e t e r o f the section height h (see A p p e n d i x C, E q s C 4 - C 9 ) . s
8.3.3.2 TTie cost function
T h e fabrication s e q u e n c e can b e as follows:
(1) F a b r i c a t i o n o f 2 0 shell e l e m e n t s o f length 3 m w i t h o u t stiffeners. F o r one shell

e l e m e n t 2 axial butt w e l d s are n e e d e d ( G M A W - C - G a s M e t a l A r c W e l d i n g w i t h
C 0 ) (K i) ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e cost o f f o r m i n g a shell e l e m e n t into the
2 F
cylindrical s h a p e is also i n c l u d e d (K ). F0
(2) W e l d i n g o f an unstiffened shell unit from 4 shell s e g m e n t s o f 3 m length w i t h 3

butt w e l d s w i t h 4 circumferential butt w e l d s (K ). F2
(3) W e l d i n g the n stiffeners into t h e unit w i t h 2n fillet w e l d s o f size a

s s w and length
12 m (K ), a = 0.3t , a „ = 3 m m . .
FS w w wmi
(4) W e l d i n g t h e 5 units t o g e t h e r w i t h 4 butt w e l d s and butt w e l d s c o n n e c t i n g the

h a l v e d U B stiffeners.
K =k 5 V ,
M m Pl 2 (8.89)
V = 4V + n
2 t s ;V = x 3000x2Rxt, (8.90)
2x5
0 5 5
K F0 = k ®^;p
F = 6.8582513-4.527217r + 0 . 0 0 9 5 4 1 9 9 6 ( 2 / ? ) ° , (8.91)
9358
Kp^kp^QyJKp^ + 1.3x0.152x10~Y x6000), (8.92)
6 3
® = 2\K = 2;p = l 7.85x10~ k g / m m , (8.93)
9 3 5 8
&Fi =k {® l*x4p V
F y l l +1.3X0.152X10-Y 6/?TT), (8.94)
=
kp l .0 $/min, k M1 = 1.0 $/kg.
w h e r e 0 is a difficulty factor e x p r e s s i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e a s s e m b l y and K is t h e

n u m b e r o f e l e m e n t s to b e a s s e m b l e d . F u r t h e r m o r e
K =k (® j(n,
P3 p y + l)p V1 2 +1.3x0.3394xl0" 42I« /5), 3
s (8.95)
K F4 = k [® l5x5p V )
F y l 2 +
9358
+k F 1.3x0.152x10" 3
j^W +n s ^t f *l 5
+n s bt f
n x
j. (8.96)
T h e cost o f p a i n t i n g is
6
K P = k iÂRnL + n ~ ~ ^ k = 1 4 . 4 x 1 0 ' W
P s p . (8.97)
T h e total cost is
K =K M +20K F I +20K F 0 + 5 K „ + 5K Fi +K F 4 +^ . (8.98)
8.3.4 T h e u n s t i f f e n e d shell
Shell buckling
l
°a = -^T~ ~ cr = ~ T = 7 ' a
A =A; / r = M s = 0 , (8-99)
L 6 3
M = ^ -;p = 20 + 6+1.35p(2Rxt), p = 9.81x7.85x10' N/mm , (8.100)
8
8 101
° E = C fJV E L
(- )
2
12(l-v )UJ
N o t e that t h e residual w e l d i n g distortion factor l .5 - 50/? = 1 w h e n f>9 m m .
a 5 1 + 7 0 2 Z ( 8 1 0 2 )
C = J\ + (pjf;Z =j - t ^ ' > Pe = ( ^ ) " ^ =°- • -
Deflection limitation
5 p L
w = ° \ < - ; P o = 20/1.5 + 6.0/135 +plRxt = 17.78 +p2Rxt. (8.103)
m a x
3&4EaR t <f>
8.3.4.2 The cost function
Fabrication sequence:
(1) F a b r i c a t i o n o f 2 0 shell e l e m e n t s o f length 3 m w i t h o u t stiffeners. F o r o n e shell

e l e m e n t 2 axial b u t t w e l d s are n e e d e d ( G M A W - C ) (K ). T h e c o s t o f f o r m i n g o f F1
a shell e l e m e n t into t h e c y l i n d r i c a l s h a p e is a l s o i n c l u d e d (K ). F0
(2) W e l d i n g t h e 2 0 u n i t s t o g e t h e r w i t h 19 butt w e l d s (K ).
P2
T h e m a t e r i a l cost is
K M = k 20p V ;
m x y V = 3000x2Rnt,
x (8.104)
0 5
K F0 = k ®e";ju F = 6.8582513-4.527217r + 0.009541996(2i?)° , 5
(8.105)
K
FI = £ f ( v V , F 1 +1.3x0.152xl0-Y
0 9 3 5 8
x6000), (8.106)
3 1 9 3 5 8
K =k F2 F i&^lOxlOpy, +1.3x0.152x10" r 3SRir);
k =l.O
F $/min, k M1 = 1.0 $/kg. (8.107)
6 2
K p = k (4RnL);k
P p = 14.4x10~ $ / m m . (8.108)
T h e total cost is
K = K +20K M Fl +20K F0 + K +K -F1 P (8.109)
8.3.5 O p t i m i z a t i o n a n d c o m p a r i s o n o f r e s u l t s
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d b y u s i n g the Particle S w a r m a l g o r i t h m , w h i c h is a n
effective m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n results are
s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 1. It c a n b e seen that significant cost s a v i n g s c a n b e a c h i e v e d
b y stringer stiffening w h e n t h e deflection constraint is a c t i v e . In o u r c a s e t h e cost
difference is 1 1 - 3 4 % w h e n the deflection factor is 7 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 . F o r the factor o f 4 0 0 -
5 0 0 the stiffening is u n e c o n o m i c , since the cost o f the unstiffened v e r s i o n is 9 %
s m a l l e r t h a n that o f the stiffened o n e .
T a b l e 8.5 R e s u l t s o f t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n . N e g a t i v e cost difference m e a n s s a v i n g s

b y stiffening
Stiffened shell Unstiffened shell

t hs «s w < LIS K% t w < Lld> K$ Cost
max — r max T
mm mm mm differ
mm mm
ence
400 9 152 5 95.7<150 102030 9 116<150 93930 +9
500 9 152 5 95.7<120 102030 9 116<120 93930 +9
600 8 533 6 78.5<100 112433 12 96<100 118000 -5
700 8 762 5 73.6<85.7 126398 15 84<85.7 142300 -11
800 8 914 5 68.3<75 137336 19 74<75 175300 -22
900 7 838 9 58.4<66.6 158800 24 66<66.6 217900 -27
1000 7 838 12 52.5<60 185086 31 59<60 280800 -34
8.3.6 Conclusions
E c o n o m y o f stiffened steel shells is investigated in t h e c a s e o f a w e l d e d stringer-

stiffened cylindrical shell c o n s t r u c t e d for a b e l t - c o n v e y o r b r i d g e . B o t h t h e stiffened
a n d unstiffened structural version is o p t i m i z e d for m i n i m u m cost.
H a l v e d rolled I-section stringers are w e l d e d o u t s i d e t h e shell. In this c a s e t h e

stiffened shell h a s m u c h larger m o m e n t o f inertia (stiffness against deflection) t h a n
that o f stringers w e l d e d inside t h e shell. In t h e c a s e o f h a l v e d I-section their w e b can
b e w e l d e d to t h e shell b y small fdlet w e l d s . It is a d v a n t a g e o u s , since t h e w e l d i n g
cost is p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e s q u a r e o f w e l d size.
T h e shell t h i c k n e s s p l a y s an i m p o r t a n t role in d e c r e a s i n g t h e structural cost. It can

b e seen that, in t h e c a s e o f an active deflection constraint t h e t h i c k n e s s o f t h e
unstiffened shell c a n b e d e c r e a s e d b y stiffening in s u c h a m e a s u r e that t h e stiffening
c a n significantly b e e c o n o m i c .
In o u r n u m e r i c a l m o d e l t h e deflection limitation is active for w <Z,/700, t h u s , for

max
t h e s e cases significant cost savings can b e a c h i e v e d b y stringer-stiffeners.
8.4 A STRINGER-STIFFENED SHELL SUBJECT TO AXIAL

COMPRESSION AND BENDING
8.4.1 Introduction
A n i m p o r t a n t r e q u i r e m e n t from m o d e r n w e l d e d structures is t h e e c o n o m y , since t h e

cost o f w e l d i n g is h i g h . T h e r e f o r e , t h e b a s i s of c o m p a r i s o n o f different structural
v e r s i o n s is t h e cost. S i n c e o n l y t h e o p t i m u m v e r s i o n s can b e realistically c o m p a r e d
t o e a c h other, t h e m i n i m u m cost d e s i g n s h o u l d b e p e r f o r m e d for e a c h structural
version.
T h e e c o n o m y o f stiffened cylindrical shells d e p e n d s o n several p a r a m e t e r s as

follows: load (axial c o m p r e s s i o n , b e n d i n g , external p r e s s u r e or c o m b i n e d load), t y p e
o f stiffening (ring-, stringer-stiffeners or o r t h o g o n a l stiffening), stiffener p r o f d e
(flat, rolled I, h a l v e d rolled I, L-, h o l l o w section or t r a p e z o i d a l ) .
It h a s b e e n s h o w n that ring-stiffening is e c o n o m i c in t h e case o f external p r e s s u r e

( F a r k a s & Jarmai 2 0 0 3 , F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 2 ) . In t h e case o f b e n d i n g t h e ring-stiffening
should b e u s e d to assure the sufficient cylindrical s h a p e . In this c a s e t h e cost o f
stiffened shell is h i g h e r than that o f unstiffened o n e , since t h e shell t h i c k n e s s cannot
b e d e c r e a s e d b y ring-stiffeners ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 4 ) .
Stiffening is e c o n o m i c o n l y in t h o s e c a s e s , w h e n t h e t h i c k n e s s can b e d e c r e a s e d in
such a m e a s u r e that the cost s a v i n g s c a u s e d b y this d e c r e a s i n g is h i g h e r that the
additional cost o f stiffening m a t e r i a l a n d w e l d i n g .
A s a part o f o u r systematic r e s e a r c h relating t o stiffened cylindrical shells, in t h e

p r e s e n t s t u d y a c o l u m n is i n v e s t i g a t e d subject to an axial c o m p r e s s i o n and a
h o r i z o n t a l force acting o n the t o p o f t h e c o l u m n (Fig. 8.9).
T h e c o l u m n is fixed at t h e b o t t o m a n d free o n the t o p . It is s h o w n that a shell

stiffened o u t s i d e w i t h stringers c a n b e e c o n o m i c , w h e n a constraint o n horizontal
d i s p l a c e m e n t of t h e c o l u m n t o p is active.
In o r d e r to d e c r e a s e t h e w e l d i n g cost o f stiffeners, their cross-sectional area is

increased, i.e. h a l v e d rolled I-section ( U B ) stiffeners are u s e d instead o f flat o n e s .
T h e h a l v e d I-sections are a d v a n t a g e o u s , since t h e w e b c a n b e easier w e l d e d to the
shell than the flange.
Figure 8.9 A column constructed as a stiffened cylindrical shell loaded by a compression force N and a F
horizontal force Hp. Cross-section and a detail of the cross-section with outside stiffeners of halved rolled
I-section. The horizontal displacement of the top (w) is limited
It s h o u l d b e m e n t i o n e d that stringer-stiffening can also b e e c o n o m i c in t h o s e c a s e s ,

w h e n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g unstiffened v e r s i o n n e e d s a v e r y t h i c k shell ( m o r e t h a n 4 0
mm).
T h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f t h e stiffened shell is c o n s t a n t a l o n g t h e w h o l e height.

C o n s t r a i n t s o n local shell b u c k l i n g , on stringer p a n e l b u c k l i n g a n d o n h o r i z o n t a l
d i s p l a c e m e n t are t a k e n into account.
T h e b u c k l i n g constraints are formulated a c c o r d i n g t o t h e D N V d e s i g n rules ( 1 9 9 5 ) .

T h e cost function to b e m i n i m i z e d i n c l u d e s t h e cost o f m a t e r i a l , f o r m i n g o f shell
e l e m e n t s into cylindrical s h a p e , a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d painting.
In order to d e m o n s t r a t e t h e e c o n o m y o f t h e stiffened shell, t h e unstiffened version is

also o p t i m i z e d . T h e results s h o w that t h e cost s a v i n g s d e p e n d s o n t h e active
d i s p l a c e m e n t constraint.
T h e investigated structure is a s u p p o r t i n g c o l u m n loaded b y an axial a n d h o r i z o n t a l

force (Fig. 8.9). T h e horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t o f the t o p is limited b y t h e r e a s o n s o f
serviceability o f the s u p p o r t e d structure. B o t h t h e stiffened a n d unstiffened shell
v e r s i o n is o p t i m i z e d and their cost is c o m p a r e d to e a c h other. In t h e stiffened shell
outside longitudinal stiffeners o f h a l v e d rolled I-section ( U B ) are u s e d . T h e cost
function is formulated a c c o r d i n g t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
G i v e n d a t a are as follows: c o l u m n h e i g h t L, shell r a d i u s R, factored axial

c o m p r e s s i o n force Nf, factored horizontal force H , yield stress o f steel f , cost
F y
factors for material, fabrication a n d p a i n t i n g k„, kf, k . T h e u n k n o w n s are t h e shell

p
t h i c k n e s s t as w e l l as t h e height h and n u m b e r n o f h a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners.

s
T h e characteristics o f the selected U B profiles are g i v e n in A p p e n d i x C.
In o r d e r t o c a l c u l a t e w i t h c o n t i n u o u s v a l u e s t h e g e o m e t r i c characteristics o f a n U B
section (I , b, tf) are a p p r o x i m a t e d b y curve-fitting functions (see A p p e n d i x C, E q s
y
C1-C3, Table Curve 2D 2003).
8.4.3 T h e stiffened shell
8.4.3.1 Constraints
Shell buckling (unstiffened curved panel buckling)
T h e s u m o f t h e axial a n d b e n d i n g stresses s h o u l d b e s m a l l e r t h a n t h e critical

b u c k l i n g stress
N , HL fy
F F
<a = (8.110)
2
2Rnt e R nt e
cr
where the reduced slenderness

fy A, 2Rn
2
A =- ; t e = t + ^-;s = : (8.111)
a
\ Ea a
Eb J 2s n.
t is the e q u i v a l e n t t h i c k n e s s . T h e elastic b u c k l i n g stress for t h e axial c o m p r e s s i o n is

e
2
7T E (t*
<7 & = C (1.5-50/?)
f l
(8.112)
10.92 U
C^ = a}\ + \BA J z = —0.9539,

;
(8.113)
4 ) Rt
R
A, = 0 . 5 1+ = 0.702Z • (8.114)
150/
T h e elastic b u c k l i n g stress for b e n d i n g is
(8.115)
(8.116)
A =0.5 1+ (8.117)
300/
N o t e that t h e r e s i d u a l w e l d i n g d i s t o r t i o n factor 1.5-50,0 = 1 w h e n t>9 m m . T h e

detailed d e r i v a t i o n o f it is treated in Sec.8.2.2.2 ( E q s 8.50 - 8.57).
fy (8.118)
a b crp
l
] 2 fy „ n E[t (8.119)
~\(7e — C
" a E ;' Ep
ED
p
D 10.92 U
;Z =0.9539—> (8.120)
£,=0.702Z,;y, =10.92-^.. (8.121)

1 + 7, (8.122)
1st
S i n c e t h e effective shell part s (Fig.8.9) is g i v e n b y D N V w i t h a c o m p l i c a t e e
iteration p r o c e d u r e , w e u s e h e r e t h e s i m p l e r m e t h o d o f E C C S ( 1 9 8 8 )
s =l.9t (8.123)
E
if s <s E s =
e s,
E
if s >s E s =s .
e
I ef is t h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f a cross section c o n t a i n i n g t h e stiffener a n d a shell

S
part o f w i d t h s (Fig. 8.9). F o r a stiffener o f h a l v e d rolled I-section it is

e
(8.124)
sef e
° \2\2 ) 2 U J f
\ l )
h\t l%+h bt l2
w x f
(8.125)
h,t /2w + bt f + st e
Horizontal displacement
1
ML L
w =—— h <w allow = -, (8.126)
3EI x0 <p
<p is t h e v a r i e d b e t w e e n 4 0 0 a n d 1000 ( T a b l e 8.6).

T h e exact calculation o f t h e m o m e n t o f inertia for t h e horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t u s e s
t h e following f o r m u l a e (Fig.8.9):
T h e distance o f t h e c e n t e r o f gravity for t h e h a l v e d U B section is
_ h t l2{h IA
x w x + t l2)
f
(8.127)
\ t J 2 + bt f
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e h a l v e d U B section is e x p r e s s e d b y
(8.128)
f z
1 2
J) 2 I7~ \
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e w h o l e stiffened shell cross-section is
3 2
2ni^
/ J t 0 = ^ / + / |;sin X
2
2ni^ (8.129)
+ \ ^ + bt
f
R + ±-J—z A £sin
f
2
M = H Lly ;y =\.5;H =Q>.

F M M F \N .F (8.130)
Numerical data: N F = 3 4 0 0 0 k N , j£ = 3 5 5 M P a , £ = 1850 m m , X = 15 m .
( 1 ) Fabrication of 5 shell e l e m e n t s of length 3 m w i t h o u t stiffeners. F o r o n e shell

e l e m e n t 2 axial butt w e l d s are n e e d e d ( G M A W - C ) (K ). T h e cost of forming of F1
a shell e l e m e n t into the cylindrical s h a p e is also included (K ). F0
( 2 ) W e l d i n g of the w h o l e unstiffened shell from 5 e l e m e n t s w i t h 4 circumferential

butt w e l d s (K ). F2
( 3 ) W e l d i n g of n stiffeners to the shell w i t h d o u b l e - s i d e d G M A W - C fdlet w e l d s .

s
N u m b e r of fdlet w e l d s is 2n . (K )- s FS
K M = k 5pV, m + k pn A LI2,
U2 s s (8.131)
6
V = 3000x2R7rt;p
x = 7.85x10" kgrnm" . k =l.O 3
F $/min, k M1 = 1.0 $/kg. (8.132)
T h e cost of forming of a shell e l e m e n t into the cylindrical s h a p e a c c o r d i n g to

(Farkas et al. 2 0 0 4 ) is
0 5 5
K F0 = k ®e";p
F = 6.8582513-4.527217r + 0.009541996(2J?)° , (8.133)
9358
K =k F1 F ®^JKpV { +1.3x0.1520x10"Y (2x3000) (8.134)
w h e r e 0 is a difficulty factor e x p r e s s i n g the c o m p l e x i t y of the a s s e m b l y a n d K is the

n u m b e r of e l e m e n t s to b e a s s e m b l e d
K = 2;K = 2/&rtt3OOO;0 = 2,
1 (8.135)
9 3 5 8
K F2 = k (& J25pV F y l + 1.3x0.1520x10~Y x4x2/te), (8.136)
K F3 =k (®J(n,+l)pV
p 2 +1.3x0.3394x10" a 3 2
w 2L«,). (8.137)
T h e fdlet w e l d size a = 0.3t , a w w wmin = 3 mm.
V =5V2 l + n A L/2 s s (8.138)
T h e cost of p a i n t i n g is
K P = k ( ARKL
P + n A L/2);k
s L P = \ 4.4x10 - 6
$/mm 2
(8.139)
T h e total cost is
K —K M + 5K Fl + 5K FQ +K F2 +K F1 +K • p
(8.140)
8.4.4 T h e u n s t i f f e n e d shell
8.4.4.1 Constraints
Shell buckling
N F HL F ^ fy (8.141)
l
2Rnt R nt
A 2 _Jy_
= (8.142)
2
nE ( t
cr Ea = C (l.5-50/3)
a
(8.143)
10.92 U
C a = ^l + {pj) ;Z 2
= ^0.9539, (8.144)
p =0.5 ;£ = 0 . 7 0 2 Z , (8.145)
P a
y 150?, 2 x 2
nE (t
(8.146)
10.92 U
cr Eh = C (\.5-50B)
b
l+ 2
=V (^) . (8.147)
R
A =0.5 1+ (8.148)
300/
2
ML L
(8.149)
w, m , o w
3EnRh <f>
M = H L/y ;y F lf il = \.5;H F = 0.\N .F

(8.150)
(1) Fabrication of 5 shell e l e m e n t s of length 3 m w i t h o u t stiffeners. F o r o n e shell

e l e m e n t 2 axial butt w e l d s are n e e d e d ( G M A W - C ) (K ). T h e cost of forming of Fl
a shell e l e m e n t into the cylindrical shape is also included (K ). F0
(2) W e l d i n g the 5 units t o g e t h e r w i t h 4 circumferential butt w e l d s (K ).

F2
K
M= Ul Pl l> k 5 V (8.151)
V, = 3 0 0 0 x 2 ^ , (8.152)
0.5
K F0 = k ®ef F \n = 6 . 8 5 8 2 5 1 3 - 4 . 5 2 7 2 1 7 r ° + 0 . 0 0 9 5 4 1 9 9 6 ( 2 / ? ) 5
(8.153)
K Fl = k F +1.3x0.152x10 t 3 x 9 3 5 8
x6000), (8.154)
6 3
& = 2;K = 2; = Pi 7.85X1 0 " k g / m m ,
K F2 =k F [&^5x5 V, P] +1.3x0.152x1O'Y 9 3 5 8
8/frr), (8.155)
k =\.Q
F $/min, £ , = 1.0 $/kg.
A/
T h e cost of painting is
K P = k (ARjrL);k
P P = 14.4x10" $/mm . 6 2 (8.156)
T h e total cost is
K =K M + 5K Fl + 5K F0 +K F2 +K • p
(8.157)
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d u s i n g the Particle S w a r m m a t h e m a t i c a l a l g o r i t h m
( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e results are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 8.6.
T a b l e 8.6 R e s u l t s of t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n for stiffened a n d unstiffened shell. T h e

positive cost difference m e a n s s a v i n g s d u e to stiffening
Stiff Un cost

ened stiffened dif
h mm n t w <w „ , o <a K / wi,<w i „ cr<cr K fer
* s h
mm
a ot cr
$ mm
a h cr
$ ence
M P a M P a
%
400 203 5 24 25<37.5 314<317 56310 22 27.7<37.5 349<351 49480 -14
500 610 5 22 24<30 307<311 56082 22 27.7<30 349<351 49480 -13
600 406 5 23 24.8<25 313<314 55760 25 24.4<25 307<352 55800 0
700 686 14 16 2K21.4 293<294 57751 29 2K21.4 264<353 64440 12
800 914 10 16 18.2<18.7 268<282 62294 33 18.5<18.7 232<354 73370 18
900 914 15 12 16<16.7 248<254 66545 37 16.5<16.7 207<354 82580 24
100 914 18 11 14.4<15 227<253 70571 41 14.9<15 187<354 92100 30
It can b e seen that t h e b u c k l i n g (stress) constraint is active w h e n t h e a l l o w a b l e

h o r i z o n t a l d i s p l a c e m e n t is L/400 - Z / 5 0 0 a n d for t h e s e cases t h e unstiffened shell is
c h e a p e r t h a n t h e stiffened o n e .
O n t h e other h a n d , for Z / 7 0 0 - L / 1 0 0 0 t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t constraint is active and t h e
stringer-stiffened shell is c h e a p e r than t h e unstiffened o n e . T h e cost savings
a c h i e v e d b y stiffening is 1 2 - 3 0 % .
Comparison of the costs for unstiffened and stiffened shells
T h i s c o m p a r i s o n is s h o w n in T a b l e 8.7.
T a b l e 8.7 S u m m a r y o f costs (positive difference m e a n s c o s t s a v i n g s ) ( C o s t s in $)
Cost Unstiffened Stiffened Difference

shell shell %
Material K u
56117 45321 24
Forming 5K F0
8385 4342 93
Welding 5K +K F1 F2
22577
Welding 5K ,+K +K F F2 F3
10169 122
Painting K P
5021 10739 -114
Total 92100 70571 30
It can b e seen that t h e cost s a v i n g s c a u s e d b y stringer stiffening are significant in

forming a n d w e l d i n g costs, b u t t h e p a i n t i n g for unstiffened shell is 1 1 4 % c h e a p e r
t h a n that for stiffened one.
It can b e c o n c l u d e d that the cost factors o f fabrication and p a i n t i n g play an

i m p o r t a n t role in the a c h i e v a b l e cost savings.
8.4.6 M u l t i o b j e c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n
T h e Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z e r h a s b e e n built into this interactive decision s u p p o r t

p r o g r a m s y s t e m ( J a r m a i 1989a) a s it w a s w r i t t e n in C h a p t e r 1, w h i c h c o n t a i n s t h e
following single objective o p t i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d s
Complex method of Box (1965)
F l e x i b l e T o l e r a n c e (FT) m e t h o d of H i m m e l b l a u ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,
D i r e c t R a n d o m Search (DRS) m e t h o d (Siddal 1982),
H i l l c l i m b m e t h o d (HILL) of Rosenbrock (1960),
D a v i d o n - F l e c h e r - P o w e l l (DFP) m e t h o d o f R a o ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,
Particle S w a r m O p t i m i z a t i o n (PSO), (Jarmai 2005).
T h e efficiencies o f these m e t h o d s are different. All o f t h e m u s e t h e s a m e objective,

constraints s u b r o u t i n e s . F o r a p r o b l e m like t h i s , w h i c h is h i g h l y non-linear, several
local m i n i m a exist. T h e y find different o n e s . T h e a d v a n t a g e o f Particle s w a r m
o p t i m i z a t i o n is that it can find o p t i m u m for a n o n c o n v e x p r o b l e m . It h a s found the
m i n i m u m cost structure. T a b l e 8.8 s h o w s t h e single objective optima.
T h e interactive d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t p r o g r a m s y s t e m c o n t a i n s several m u l t i o b j e c t i v e
o p t i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d s . T h e y are t h e following:
Min-max method,
G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d : t y p e - 1 ,
G l o b a l criterion m e t h o d : t y p e - II,
Weighted min-max method,
W e i g h t e d global criterion m e t h o d ,
Pure weighting method,
Normalized weighting method.
W e i g h t i n g coefficients are similar to all four objectives 0.25 each.
T a b l e 8.8 Different o p t i m a for t h e total cost, u s i n g different single o b j e c t i v e

optimization techniques
n d
Method h s
n s
t (mm) Total 2 3 r d
4 th
Painting
(mm) cost ($) Material Fabrication cost
cost cost
Flexible 257.2 25 21 79081.4 46463.6 22912.1 9705.6
tolerance
Hillclimb 257.2 15 24 82361.4 49678.7 24632.6 8050.1
Davidon 257.2 17 23 81593.5 49014.2 23634.2 8945.0
Fletcher
Powell
Particle 257.2 24 21 78639.7 46283.1 22746.1 9610.6
swarm
optimization
T h e objective functions are as follows:

st
T o t a l cost o f t h e structure in $, K ( 1 ) ,
nd
M a t e r i a l cost o f t h e structure in $, K M (2 ),
rd
F a b r i c a t i o n cost of t h e structure in $, = 5K +5K o+Kf
n V 2 (3 ),
th
Painting cost in $, K P (4 ).
T a b l e 8.9 s h o w s t h e different multiobjective optima. T h e material cost is

d o m i n a t i n g , 55-65 % o f t h e total cost. T h e other t w o objectives are a r o u n d 3 5 - 4 5 % .
T h e height o f stiffener is nearly t h e s a m e at all o p t i m a ; t h e n u m b e r o f stiffeners a n d
t h e shell t h i c k n e s s is c h a n g i n g o n an o p p o s i t e w a y d u e to the n e c e s s a r y stiffness.
T h e greatest conflict is b e t w e e n the total a n d t h e p a i n t i n g costs. T h e p a i n t i n g cost
m i n i m u m gives t h e greatest shell t h i c k n e s s t.
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d u s i n g the Particle S w a r m m a t h e m a t i c a l algorithm.

T h e results are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 8.9.
T a b l e 8.9 M u l t i o b j e c t i v e o p t i m a for t h e s t r i n g e r stiffened shell

st
1 Total 3 r d
th
Method K t 4
(mm) (mm) cost ($) Material Fabrication Painting

cost ($) cost ($) cost ($)
st
1 objective 257.2 24 21 78639.7 46283.1 22746.1 9610.6
n d
2 objective 257.2 24 21 78639.7 46283.1 22746.1 9610.6
r d
3 objective 683.5 25 15 87516.6 56295.1 17691.4 13530.0
th
4 objective 257.2 5 26 85276.8 52840.0 24632.6 7804.1
Min-max 257.2 24 21 78629.7 46283.1 22746.1 9610.6
Weighted min-max 257.2 24 21 78629.7 46283.1 22746.1 9610.6
Global criterion 1 308.7 23 21 79432.3 46994.2 22599.6 9838.6
exp. 3
Global criterion 2 257.2 21 22 80336.5 47738.9 23272.2 9325.4
exp. 2
Weighted global 257.2 21 22 80336.5 47738.9 23272.2 9325.4
Pure weighting 257.2 25 21 79081.4 46463.6 22912.1 9705.7
Normalized 257.2 24 21 78629.7 46283.1 22746.1 9610.6
weighting
8.4.7 Conclusions
Cylindrical shells stiffened o u t s i d e b y stringers are e c o n o m i c for axial c o m p r e s s i o n

a n d b e n d i n g w i t h an active deflection constraint, b u t w i t h o u t a deflection constraint
t h e y are u n e c o n o m i c .
In order to d e c r e a s e t h e w e l d i n g cost, t h e stiffeners s h o u l d h a v e cross-sectional area

as large as p o s s i b l e a n d s h o u l d w e l d e d t o shell w i t h w e l d s as small as p o s s i b l e , t h u s
the o u t s i d e h a l v e d rolled I-section stringers are a d v a n t a g e o u s for this p u r p o s e .
In the investigated n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m 12-30 % cost s a v i n g s can b e a c h i e v e d u s i n g

this stiffening in t h e c a s e o f d i s p l a c e m e n t limit o f I / 7 0 0 - L / 1 0 0 0 . It s h o u l d b e n o t e d
that cost s a v i n g s c a n n o t b e a c h i e v e d b y stringers w e l d e d inside o f t h e shell.
T h e d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t s y s t e m , w h i c h c o n t a i n s several single a n d multiobjective

o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s , is an efficient tool for structural optimization. U s i n g t h e
s a m e c o n s t r a i n t s , t h e o p t i m i z e r s c a n find t h e optima. If t h e s e o p t i m a are similar, or
close to each other, t h e d e s i g n e r c a n b e sure, that h e h a s found, or close to t h e global
o p t i m u m . Discrete solutions are useful for t h e application o f t h e results. T h e
r o b u s t n e s s o f P S O is visible, w h e n t h e p r o b l e m is n o n - c o n v e x . In this c a s e t h e
material cost is d o m i n a n t ; t h e o p t i m a for t h e total a n d for t h e material cost m i n i m u m
are identical. U s i n g different multiobjective o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s , different
w e i g h t i n g coefficients, w e can get a great n u m b e r o f o p t i m a to get m o r e information
a b o u t the b e h a v i o u r o f t h e structure.
T h e P S O t e c h n i q u e w a s found to be a r o b u s t m e t h o d for m u l t i o b j e c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n
as well. S o m e o f t h e objectives are in conflict. T h e m a t e r i a l cost r e p r e s e n t s m o r e
t h a n 6 0 % o f t h e total cost. O p t i m i z a t i o n for the cost o f f o r m i n g t h e shell e l e m e n t s
into the cylindrical s h a p e , a s s e m b l y a n d w e l d i n g m e a n s a s m a l l e r shell t h i c k n e s s a n d
m o r e a n d larger stiffeners. O p t i m i z a t i o n for t h e p a i n t i n g cost m e a n s a thicker shell
w i t h fewer a n d s m a l l e r stiffeners.
8.5 A WELDED ORTHOGONALLY STIFFENED CYLINDRICAL SHELL

SUBJECT TO AXIAL COMPRESSION AND EXTERNAL PRESSURE
8.5.1 Introduction
In the p r e s e n t s t u d y the c o m b i n e d load o f axial c o m p r e s s i o n a n d external p r e s s u r e is

c o n s i d e r e d , as it acts o n p a r t s o f t h e c o l u m n s o f a truss t o w e r o f a fixed offshore
p l a t f o r m (see F i g u r e s 8.10 a n d 8.11). T h e cylindrical-shell m e m b e r that is
o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened b y u s i n g ring stiffeners o f b o x cross-section a n d stringers o f
h a l v e d rolled I-section (see F i g u r e s 8.12 a n d 8.13), is to b e o p t i m i z e d w i t h respect to
a cost function, w h i c h i n c l u d e s material, m a n u f a c t u r i n g and p a i n t i n g costs.
In order to d e m o n s t r a t e t h e e c o n o m y o f t h e stiffening, b o t h stiffened and u n

stiffened a s s e m b l i e s are o p t i m i z e d a n d their costs a r e c o m p a r e d t o e a c h other . T h e
d e s i g n rules u s e d h e r e are formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e d e s i g n rules o f D e t N o r s k e
V e r i t a s ( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e cost function is formulated in c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to t h e
m a n u f a c t u r i n g s e q u e n c e . T h e specified constraints relate to shell b u c k l i n g , p a n e l
stringer a n d p a n e l ring b u c k l i n g , as w e l l as to m a n u f a c t u r i n g limitations.
In t h e case o f the o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened a s s e m b l i e s , t h e particular design variable to

b e c o n s i d e r e d are t h e shell t h i c k n e s s (/), t h e n u m b e r o f longitudinal stiffeners
(stringers) (n ), t h e n u m b e r o f ring-stiffeners ( « ) , t h e b o x h e i g h t (h ) a n d the stringer
s r r
stiffener h e i g h t (h=h\+2tf), (see F i g u r e s 8.12 a n d 8.13).
8.5.2 C o n s t r a i n t s for t h e o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened c y l i n d r i c a l shell
S o m e o f t h e quantities that a p p e a r in t h e definitions o f t h e constraints are g i v e n

b e l o w , are also indicated in F i g u r e 8.12.
Figure 8.10 A part of a fixed offshore structure, the main columns are stiffened cylindrical shells
8.5.2.1 Shell (curvedpanel) buckling
T h e e q u i v a l e n t stress a m u s t satisfy t h e c o n s t r a i n t :
e
Figure 8.11 An illustrative sketch of a part of an orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shell
fy\ (8.158)
'i t i i i m
N N
F
L. F
1/////
1
L,
j
p
' t t •
Figure 8.12 Stringer and ring stiffened cylindrical shell with compression and external pressure
f
a n
where / " , = — , d t h e s t r e s s d u e t o axial c o m p r e s s i o n is g i v e n b y
N A, 2Rn
F
(8.159)
a a = — — , where t = t + — e and s =
2Rat„ S n.
Figure 8.13 Cross-section of the stiffened shell
H e r e f is t h e yield stress, N is t h e factored c o m p r e s s i o n force, R is t h e shell r a d i u s ,

y F
t is t h e shell t h i c k n e s s , A is the c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a o f a stringer, n is t h e n u m b e r o f

s s
longitudinal stiffeners (stringers). A l s o a p p e a r i n g in t h e a b o v e constraint definition

is the stress d u e to e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e
CT
„ = T ^ 7 > « = -TT' 4o = min(4,4 = 1.56>/*7) a n d L = (8.160)
t(l + a)
r R
nr -1
H e r e p is the factored e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e intensity, A is t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area o f a
F r
ring-stiffener, L is t h e shell l e n g t h , n is t h e n u m b e r of ring-stiffeners, L is t h e

r r
2
d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n r i n g s . A l s o u s e d in t h e definition a b o v e is A defined b y
2
X 2 L± , where a = r ^ E
, t (8.161)
E a s 2
CT, Eps J ^ ( l - v ) s
E a n d v are t h e Y o u n g m o d u l u s a n d the P o i s s o n ratio, r e s p e c t i v e l y
r as^ as
C =w , 1+ v ,=4>z .=
a a Tt^ ^^ 1 = 0702Z
-' (8 162)
'
as as 1 1
T
\ Was J
-05 2
R 7t E (t_
(8.163)
Pas = ••03 1 + °Er. C
PS 1 ( ) 9 2
150? s
r ps~ ps
1 + (8.164)
Vt > PPS = 0-6,
and
1+
r (8.165)
i
8.5.2.2 Panel stiffener (stringer) buckling
In this c a s e t h e e q u i v a l e n t stress a m u s t satisfy t h e constraint:

e
f y l
(8.166)
where
,2 _ fy\ r ap^ a/ ,(8.167)

AN — ' Gr - C > C
a =¥ap-
P
1+
cap ap 10.92 v4y
/ % =0-5, ^ =0.702Z , Z =^0.9539, (8.168)

V ap
1+ (8.169)
, y s = 1 0 . 9 2 - ^ f , and s £ =1.9/
J
5/
1+
W i t h respect t o further quantities to b e c o m p u t e d b e l o w , t h e following rule is

applied:
if s E < s, s = s
e E , a n d if s >s,
E s =s-
e (8.170)
I f is t h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f a stiffener i n c l u d i n g effective shell p l a t i n g s . In t h e

Se e
c a s e o f a stiffener o f h a l v e d U B section (flange w i d t h b, flange t h i c k n e s s //, w e b

h e i g h t hi/2, and w e b t h i c k n e s s /„,as s h o w n in F i g u r e 8.13), t h e d i s t a n c e o f t h e centre
o f gravity is
h, (h, t hj + t + t.
+ - \+bt,
2 4 2
(8.171)
st +e bt +h t /2
f l w
a n d 7^, is g i v e n b y
h, t hj+t + t.
+ 6/, , (8.172)
S
hef= e G tZ
+
I J 2 12 2
-!- + - - z
4 2 c
c •-z .
r
and
As = bt +\t l2-
f yi
(8.173)
Furthermore
f . V
CTEVP=C 1+
r pp^pi (8.174)
PP jQ —
Q 2
, C =w
Y
' pp pp
<5 = 1.04 /Z~~, Z A =Z , p = 0 . 6 , and w = 2 ( 1 + , / l + y ). (8.175)

' PP \ pp > pp '-'api y pp Y pp M
8.5.2.3 Panel ring buckling
T h e ring-stiffeners are w e l d e d s q u a r e b o x s e c t i o n s , (see F i g u r e 8 . 1 2 ) , c o n s t r u c t e d

from three plate e l e m e n t s o f w i d t h b a n d t h i c k n e s s t . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p that m u s t b e
r r
satisfied b e t w e e n the w i d t h a n d t h i c k n e s s , is p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 2 )
r u l e for c o m p r e s s i o n p l a t e s against b u c k l i n g , a n d is g i v e n b y
tr > d \ , M8 r =42e, s = A / 2 3 5 7 7 ^ , fy = 3 5 5 , Sr = 1 / 3 4 . (8.176)
A s s u m i n g t h e b u c k l i n g constraint, g i v e n b y (Eq. 8 . 1 7 6 ) , to b e a c t i v e , t h e n t h e c r o s s -
sectional area o f a ring-stiffener is
A =3h t =3S h
R r r r
2
(8.177)
T h e r e q u i r e d cross-sectional a r e a o f ring-stiffener, e x c l u d i n g t h e effective shell

w i d t h , is
2
2 \ L
*Rreq + 0.06 \L t, w h e r e Z = - ^ 0 . 9 5 3 9 . (8.178)
r
Rt
T h u s t h e constraint is:
(8.179)
T h e effective flange w i d t h is g i v e n b y
L = min(z,,,2x 1.56v0?7).
e
T h e d i s t a n c e o f t h e centroid o f r i n g (point E in F i g u r e 8.12), i n c l u d i n g t h e effective

shell flange w i d t h is g i v e n b y
3
Lj(h +t/2)+S h
r r r
(8.180)
2
3Sh +Lj
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia of t h e r i n g a b o u t x-axis is
t
yE + s h yl 2
+ Lj h + •yE . (8.181)
2 r r
1
T h e r e q u i r e d m o m e n t o f inertia o f a ring is g i v e n b y
I 1 1
(8.182)
Rreq ~ 'a + p '
where I A is t h e r e q u i r e d m o m e n t o f inertia for axial c o m p r e s s i o n , a n d I P that for

external p r e s s u r e , r e s p e c t i v e l y g i v e n b y
cx/l+^V
(8.183)
j _ ± EJ_, Ro=R -(„ -y ),
r E
500EL R
and
p RR L
F Q r 3Ey SE 0
2+- with 5n = 0.005.R. (8.184)
3E fy
R* Gp
~2~
T h e constraint is:
(8.185)
I Rreq — Ir '
8.5.2.4 Manufacturing limitations
In o r d e r to e n s u r e that the w e l d i n g o f t h e w e b s o f the h a l v e d rolled I-section

stringers into t h e shell is p o s s i b l e , t h e m i n i m u m distance b e t w e e n t h e stringer
flanges should satisfy t h e following c o n d i t i o n :
2(R-h /2}r
r
- 6 > 3 0 0 mm. (8.186)
or:
n ^2{R-h /2}r r
(8.187)
6 + 300
A n o t h e r limitation is related to t h e m i n i m u m v a l u e o f fillet w e l d s c o n n e c t i n g t h e

stringer w e b s to t h e shell, a n d that for c o n n e c t i n g the plate e l e m e n t s o f ring-
stiffeners. T h e y are r e s p e c t i v e l y g i v e n b y a = 0At , a = 3 m m , a n d a = 0At ,
ws w w s m i n wr r
a „
mmi = 3 mm.
8.5.3 C o s t f u n c t i o n for t h e o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened c y l i n d r i c a l shell
T h e cost function (K) i n c l u d e s material (K ) a n d m a n u f a c t u r i n g costs (K ), as well

M Fl
as t h e cost o f p a i n t i n g (K ) the final a s s e m b l y , i.e. t h e total cost is g i v e n b y

P
K = K M + ^ K F i + K p
(8.188)
T h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g s e q u e n c e , d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a s s o c i a t e d total m a n u f a c t u r i n g cost, is
as follows:
(1) F o r m plate e l e m e n t s o f L ~ 3 m length, into cylindrical s h a p e s , s (K ).

F0
(2) W e l d shell s e g m e n t s o f L = 3 m length, from 2 c u r v e d plate e l e m e n t s , with 2

s
butt w e l d s u s i n g G M A W - C ( G a s M e t a l A r c W e l d i n g w i t h C 0 ) , (K ). 2 F1
( 3 ) W e l d w h o l e un-stiffened shell o f L = 1 5 m length, from 5 shell s e g m e n t s w i t h 4

circumferential butt w e l d s , u s i n g G M A W - C , (K ). F2
(4) W e l d n ring-stiffeners from 3 plate e l e m e n t s w i t h 2 fillet w e l d s , e a c h u s i n g

r
S M A W (Shielded M e t a l A r c W e l d i n g ) , (K ). F3
(5) W e l d n ring-stiffeners into the w h o l e shell w i t h 2 n circumferential fillet w e l d s ,

r r
using S M A W , (K ). F4
(6) W e l d n stringers into t h e shell with 2 n fillet w e l d s , u s i n g S M A W ,

s s (K ).
F5
T h e v o l u m e o f a shell s e g m e n t is
V =2RML ,
X S (8.189)
and t h e v o l u m e of a ring-stiffener is g i v e n b y
2 2
V R = 27tS h {R-h )+4nS h {R-h
r r r r r 12). (8.190)
T h e material cost is e x p r e s s e d a s
K =k 5pV
M m l + k pn V +k pn A L,
M] r R M2 s s (8.191)
where k M1 and k U2 are t h e respective cost factors for plates a n d rolled I-sections.
T h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g cost c o m p o n e n t s a r e as follows:
5 5
K F0 = Sk ®e" F ,p = 6 . 8 5 8 2 5 1 3 - 4 . 5 2 7 2 1 7 r ° + 0 . 0 0 9 5 4 1 9 9 6 ( 2 / ? ) ° , (8.192)
K Fl =5k (®J^ F + \3x0.l520xl0~ t 3 l 935S

><2L ), s & = 2,K = 2, (8.193)
3 , 9 3 5 8
K =k (@p5pV,
F2 F +1.3x0.1520xl0- r x 4x 2 ^ ) , (8.194)
3 2
K =n k [3ppV
F3 r F R +1.3x0.3394xl0- a , 47r(i?-/? )j, r r (8.195)
3 2
K F4 = k [3^(nF r + l)/?(5F, + nV ) r R +1.3x 0.3394x 1 (T a w r n ARrr\,
r (8.196)
and
3 2
K F5 = k [3^{nF r + n+s \)p\5V x + nV r R + n A L)s s + 1.3x 0 . 3 3 9 4 x IQ' a n 2l\. ws s
(8.197)
Finally, t h e cost o f p a i n t i n g is g i v e n b y
R—-2
K =k
p P
L
2R?rL + 2R7r(L-n h )+2n xh (R-h )+4mi h r r r r r r r
v y + n L(h +2b)
s 1
J •
(8.198)
8.5.4 C o n s t r a i n t a n d cost function f o r t h e unstiffened shell
8.5.4.1 Constraint on shell buckling
T h e equivalent stress a m u s t satisfy t h e constraint: e
a e = y a a ~ a a a p + a l < - ^ = , (8.199)
V I + A,
f
w h e r e f, = — >
A 2 ^ f^ _ O
= L 2 + > 0 . = JV£_ ; (j = M, (8.200)
°z a = C a
I2[l-v )yL)
jl >C = L[Â, =l, a ¥
\ \Va
¥a
)
(8-201)
T 2
i ( R V ' 0 5
Z =~Vl-v ,^=0702Z , 7 =0.5

a
2
a / a 1+ — , (8.202)
Rt v 150/)
„K2
( i\ 2
Y f o E
<r* = C — - >C = j * . 1+, p = 0.6, (8.203)
" 10.92 U J V ^^ J
p p
Lp
P
and£ =1.04Z ,
p p Z p = Z , ^ a = 4. (8.204)
8.5.4.2 Cost function for the unstiffened shell
T h e cost function includes cost o f material, m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d p a i n t i n g :
K = K +Y K +K . u t Pi p (8.205)
T h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g s e q u e n c e in this case is as follows:
(1) F o r m plate e l e m e n t s of L = 3 m length, into cylindrical s h a p e s , s (K ).F0
(2) W e l d shell s e g m e n t s o f L = 3 m length from 2 c u r v e d plate e l e m e n t s , w i t h 2 butt

s
w e l d s , using G M A W - C ( G a s M e t a l A r c W e l d i n g w i t h C Q ) , (K ). 2 F]
(3) W e l d w h o l e un-stiffened shell o f L = 15 m length, from 5 shell s e g m e n t s w i t h 4

circumferential butt w e l d s , u s i n g G M A W - C (K ). F2
T h e v o l u m e of a shell s e g m e n t is
V = 2R70L,.
x (8.206)
T h e material cost is e x p r e s s e d as
K =k 5pV .
M m l (8.207)
w h e r e k i is t h e cost factor for plates.

M
T h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g cost c o m p o n e n t s are as follows:
0 5
Kpg = 5 ^ e e " , w = 6 . 8 5 8 2 5 1 3 - 4 . 5 2 7 2 1 7 r - + 0 . 0 0 9 5 4 1 9 9 6 ( 2 f l f ,
1
5
(8.208)
9 3 5 8
K Fl =5^(0^0^+1.3x0.1520x10'V x 2 Z ) , ® = 2,/r = 2 ,
S (8.209)
9358
K F2 = k [@^25pV
F x + 1.3x 0.1520x lO^Y' x 4 x 2Rx), (8.210)
k = 1.0 $/min, £
F M / = 1.0 $/kg.
6 2
The cost of painting is given by ^ = 4RnLk ,k p P =14.4xl0" $/mm .
8.5.5 N u m e r i c a l o p t i m i z a t i o n results
8.5.5.1 Numerical data

7
T h e loading is specified b y N F = 5 . 4 x 1 0 N and p F = 1.5 M P a . T h e v a l u e s of the
5
r e m a i n i n g data u s e d are: L = 15 m , R = 1850 m m , / , = 3 5 5 M P a , E = 2 . 1 x l 0 MPa,
V = 0.3. T h e cost factor v a l u e s are k , M =k M2 = 1.0 $/kg, kF = 1.0 $/min a n d k P =
6 2
14.4xl0" $/mm .
T h e g e o m e t r i c characteristics o f a n U B section, n a m e l y (/„,, b, tf, h) are

a p p r o x i m a t e d b y curve-fitting functions ( T a b l e C u r v e 2 D 2 0 0 3 ) ( s e e in A p p e n d i x C ,
EqsCl-C3).
Practical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s restrict t h e final v a l u e s o f the d e s i g n variables. T h e

t h i c k n e s s e s t m a y a s s u m e a n y integer m m v a l u e . T h e height o f t h e ring stiffeners h r
is restricted to steps o f 10 m m . F o r t h e U B sections, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e A R B E D

c a t a l o g u e , t h e o n l y acceptable v a l u e s for h are 152, 2 0 3 , 2 5 4 , 3 0 5 , 3 5 6 , 4 0 6 , 4 5 7 ,
5 3 3 , 6 1 0 , 6 8 6 , 7 6 2 , 8 3 8 , 9 1 4 m m (Profil A r b e d 2 0 0 1 ) .
F o r the o p t i m i z a t i o n the leap-frog, t h e d y n a m i c - Q a n d the particle s w a r m a l g o r i t h m s

are used. T h e s e m e t h o d s are d e s c r i b e d in C h a p t e r 1.
8.5.5.2 Results for the orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shell
T h e best c o n t i n u o u s solution o b t a i n e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h the discrete solution are listed

in T a b l e 8.10.
T a b l e 8.10 R e s u l t s for t h e 5 v a r i a b l e s : c o n t i n u o u s a n d d i s c r e t e solutions

(M=500).
t [mm] n s
n r h [mm]
r h [mm] K[%]
13.82 26.85 8.31 260.96 225.79 54444.62 (cont.)
14 27 9 270 203 55342.9 (disc.)
8.5.5.3 Results for the unstiffened shell
T h e shell b u c k l i n g constraint is satisfied if t h e shell t h i c k n e s s is t = 50 m m . In this

c a s e t h e o b j e c t i v e function is K = 1 1 2 1 3 1 . 3 $. T h u s , a c o s t s a v i n g o f 51 % c a n b e
a c h i e v e d b y t h e o r t h o g o n a l stiffening o f the shell m e m b e r .
8.5.6 Conclusions
T h e results s h o w that if t h e m e m b e r is stiffened, a cost s a v i n g o f m o r e t h a n 5 0

p e r c e n t , c o m p a r e d to that o f the unstiffened shell, m a y b e obtained. T h i s is d u e to
t h e fact t h a t stiffening a l l o w s t h e t h i c k n e s s o f t h e shell to b e r e d u c e d t o 14 m m ,
w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s a significant material s a v i n g , c o m p a r e d to the unstiffened shell that
r e q u i r e s a m i n i m u m t h i c k n e s s o f 5 0 m m . T h i s material s a v i n g o v e r s h a d o w s the
increase in labour a n d w e l d i n g costs a s s o c i a t e d with t h e stiffening.
8.6 A STRINGER-STIFFENED STEEL CYLINDRICAL SHELL OF

VARIABLE DIAMETER SUBJECT TO AXIAL COMPRESSION AND
BENDING
8.6.1 Introduction
A c o l u m n is investigated subject to an axial c o m p r e s s i o n a n d a horizontal force

acting o n t h e top o f t h e c o l u m n ( F i g . 8 . 1 4 ) . T h e c o l u m n is fixed at t h e b o t t o m a n d
free o n t h e t o p . It is s h o w n that a shell stiffened o u t s i d e w i t h stringers can b e
e c o n o m i c , w h e n a constraint o n horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c o l u m n t o p is active.
In o r d e r t o d e c r e a s e t h e w e l d i n g cost o f stiffeners, their cross-sectional a r e a is
increased, i.e. h a l v e d rolled I-section ( U B ) stiffeners are u s e d instead o f flat o n e s .
T h e h a l v e d I-sections are a d v a n t a g e o u s , since t h e w e b can b e easier w e l d e d to the

shell t h a n the flange. It should b e m e n t i o n e d that stringer-stiffening c a n also be
e c o n o m i c in t h o s e c a s e s , w h e n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g unstiffened v e r s i o n n e e d s a v e r y
t h i c k shell ( m o r e t h a n 4 0 m m ) .
T h e cross-section o f t h e stiffened shell is c o n s t a n t a l o n g the w h o l e height.

C o n s t r a i n t s o n local shell b u c k l i n g , o n stringer p a n e l b u c k l i n g and o n horizontal
d i s p l a c e m e n t are t a k e n into a c c o u n t . T h e b u c k l i n g constraints are formulated
a c c o r d i n g to t h e D N V d e s i g n rules ( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e cost function to b e m i n i m i z e d
includes t h e cost o f m a t e r i a l , forming o f shell e l e m e n t s into cylindrical s h a p e ,
assembly, welding and painting.
In order to d e m o n s t r a t e t h e e c o n o m y o f t h e stiffened shell, t h e unstiffened version is

also o p t i m i z e d . T h e results s h o w that t h e cost s a v i n g s d e p e n d s o n the active
d i s p l a c e m e n t constraint.
T h e investigated structure is a s u p p o r t i n g c o l u m n loaded b y an axial a n d horizontal

force (Fig.8.14). T h e horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e t o p is limited b y t h e r e a s o n s o f
serviceability o f t h e s u p p o r t e d structure. B o t h t h e stiffened a n d unstiffened shell
v e r s i o n is o p t i m i z e d a n d their cost is c o m p a r e d t o e a c h other. In t h e stiffened shell
o u t s i d e longitudinal stiffeners o f h a l v e d rolled I-section ( U B ) are used. T h e cost
function is formulated a c c o r d i n g the fabrication s e q u e n c e .
G i v e n d a t a are as follows: c o l u m n h e i g h t L, factored axial c o m p r e s s i o n force N , F
factored horizontal force H , yield stress o f steel f , cost factors for material,
F y
fabrication a n d p a i n t i n g k , k k . T h e u n k n o w n s a r e t h e shell t h i c k n e s s / a n d r a d i u s
m fi p
R as well as t h e h e i g h t h a n d n u m b e r n o f h a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners.

s
T h e characteristics o f t h e selected U B profiles are g i v e n in A p p e n d i x C.
In order to calculate w i t h c o n t i n u o u s v a l u e s t h e g e o m e t r i c characteristics o f an U B

section (I , b, tf) are a p p r o x i m a t e d b y curve-fitting functions as follows: h
y
a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l s t o t h e first n u m b e r o f t h e profile n a m e ( T a b l e C u r v e 2 D , 2 0 0 3 )
( A p p e n d i x C, E q s C I 1-C13).
8.6.3 T h e stiffened shell
8.6.3.1 Constraints
Shell buckling (unstiffened curved panel buckling)

(8.211)
w h e r e the r e d u c e d slenderness
2Rx
(8.212)
4 is the equivalent t h i c k n e s s . T h e elastic b u c k l i n g stress for t h e axial c o m p r e s s i o n is
(8.213)
(8.214)
R
0.5 1+ = 0.702Z • (8.215)
Pa 150/
V
Figure 8.14 A column constructed as a stiffened cylindrical shell loaded by a compression force NF and a
horizontal force H . Cross-section and a detail of the cross-section with outside stiffeners of halved rolled
F
I-section. The horizontal displacement of the top (w) is limited
T h e elastic b u c k l i n g stress for b e n d i n g is
C,=4.ll + |£fi.| . (8-217)
A = 0 . 5 1 + 3—]
H b
. (8.218)
\ 300?
N o t e that t h e residual w e l d i n g distortion factor 1 . 5 - 5 0 / ? = 1 w h e n t>9 m m . T h e

detailed d e r i v a t i o n o f it is treated in ( F a r k a s 2 0 0 2 ) .
a +<T, < a - fy
(8.219)
a b — crp
K =
UJ . (8.220)
C
— \ ° B O = o
Ep
' a ; E ' 10.92
C 1+
To 5(5 Y Z
T2
P=VPX >P =0.9539^-, (8.221)
$ p = 0.702Z ;y p s = 10.92^, (8.222)
y p = ^ f - ; (8-223)
2* f e
S i n c e t h e effective shell p a r t s (Fig.8.14) is g i v e n b y D N V w i t h a c o m p l i c a t e d

e
iteration p r o c e d u r e , w e u s e h e r e t h e s i m p l e r m e t h o d o f E C C S ( 1 9 8 8 ) .
J f i =1.9ff^> (8-224)
V fy
if s <s E s = s,
e E
if s >s E s =s .
e
If
se is t h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f a cross section c o n t a i n i n g t h e stiffener a n d a shell
part o f w i d t h s (Fig. 8.14). F o r a stiffener o f h a l v e d rolled I-section it is
e
Lr = s tz 2
+ ^ { ^ 1 + ^4^ - z t + to, f _ t (8.225)
s c /
t
e
G
0
1212 2 J U G
J { 2f
z
° )
2
h t/8 + hbtJ2
z = JLJ! 1_L (8.226)
w = = ( 8 , 2 2 7 )
" - T'
T h e exact calculation o f t h e m o m e n t o f inertia for t h e horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t u s e s
t h e following formulae (Fig.8.14):
T h e distance o f the centre o f g r a v i t y for t h e h a l v e d U B section is
z _ y / 2 ( 4 / 2 ) w V + f / - ( 8 2 2 8 )
\tJ2 + bt f
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e h a l v e d U B section is e x p r e s s e d b y
2
A
F
(8.229)
12U 2 {.4 J
T h e m o m e n t o f inertia o f t h e w h o l e stiffened shell cross-section is
3
2ni^
/ T 0 =,T/? / + / , £ sin
(
2ni^
+1 - -+bt LJi
f
R + - — f
— z sin (8.230)
2 ' 2
M = H L/y ;y =1.5;H =0.\N

F M M F F (8.231)
7
Numerical data: N = 6xl0 F kN, f y = 3 5 5 M P a , L = 15 m , t h e r a d i u s is v a r i e d
b e t w e e n R = 1900-3 5 0 0 m m .
(1) F a b r i c a t i o n o f 5 shell e l e m e n t s o f length 3 m w i t h o u t stiffeners. F o r o n e shell

e l e m e n t 2 axial butt w e l d s are n e e d e d ( G M A W - C ) (K ). T h e cost o f f o r m i n g o f F1
a shell e l e m e n t i n t o t h e cylindrical s h a p e is also i n c l u d e d (K ). F0
(2) W e l d i n g o f t h e w h o l e unstiffened shell from 5 e l e m e n t s w i t h 4 circumferential

butt w e l d s (K ). F2
(3) W e l d i n g o f n stiffeners to the shell w i t h d o u b l e - s i d e d G M A W - C fillet w e l d s .

s
N u m b e r o f fillet w e l d s is 2n . (K ). s F3
K =k 5pV k pn A LI2,
M m x+ M2 s s (8.232)
6 3
V = 3000x2R7rt;p
x = 7.85x10" kgmm' .
k =l.O
F $/min, k =\.0 M1 $/kg. (8.233)
T h e cost o f f o r m i n g o f a shell e l e m e n t into t h e cylindrical s h a p e a c c o r d i n g to

( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 4 ) is
0 5 5
K F0 = k ®e";p
F = 6.8582513-4.527217/" + 0.009541996(2/?)° , (8.234)
/ 3 1 9 3 5 8
K Fl =k F [ © v ^ + 1.3x0.1520xl0" / (2x3000)], (8.235)
w h e r e 0 is a difficulty factor e x p r e s s i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e a s s e m b l y a n d K is t h e
n u m b e r of e l e m e n t s to b e a s s e m b l e d
K = 2\V.- 2/te/x3OOO;0 = 2, (8.236)

9 3 5 8
K F2 = k (@y]25pV, + 1 . 3 x 0 . 1 5 2 0 x 1 0 - V
F x4x2/?^) (8.237)
K, F = k (®A*{n +\)pV
F s 2 +1.3x0.3394xl0- 42L«^ 3
(8.238)
T h e fillet w e l d size a = 0 . 3 c a w wmin = 3 mm.
V =5V 2 i + n A LI2.s s (8.239)
K p = k{p ARTZL + n A LI2);k

s L P = \AAx\Q' 6
$/mm . 2
(8.240)
T h e total cost is
K - K M + 5K F1 + 5K F0 +K F2 +K F3 + K.
P
(8.241)
8.6.4 T h e unstiffened sheU
8.6.4.1 Constraints
Shell buckling
NF HL F ^ fy (8.242)
" 2Rnt ' R nt 2
VL + /L 4
r
2
A =—^ a _j o_ (8.243)
KÊa a
Eb J
2
7T E ( t (8.244)
<r & = C (1.5-50/0
f l
10.92 \L
2
C =J\ a + {pJ) ;Z 2
= ^-0.9539, (8.245)
Rt
-0.5
R ^
p =0.5
a 1+ = 0.702Z, (8.246)
150/
2
7T E ( t
<r Eb = C (l.5-50fi)
t
(8.247)
10.92 U
(8.248)
A =0.5' 1 R X (8.249)
300/ J
3 a ow
" 3EnR t " </>
M = H L/y ;y F M M = l.5;H =0.

F \N .F (8.251)
(1) F a b r i c a t i o n o f five shell e l e m e n t s o f length 3 m w i t h o u t stiffeners. F o r o n e shell

e l e m e n t t w o axial butt w e l d s are n e e d e d ( G M A W - C ) (K ). T h e cost o f forming FI
of a shell e l e m e n t into t h e cylindrical s h a p e is also i n c l u d e d (K ). F0
(2) W e l d i n g t h e five u n i t s t o g e t h e r w i t h 4 circumferential butt w e l d s (K ).

F2
K =k 5p,V ,
M m x (8.252)
V = 3000x2Rxt,
x (8.253)
0 5 5
K F0 = k Ge"
F ;n = 6 . 8 5 8 2 5 1 3 - 4 . 5 2 7 2 1 7 r + 0 . 0 0 9 5 4 1 9 9 6 ( 2R)° , (8.254)
K Fl =/c (©7^" + 1 . 3 x 0 . 1 5 2 x 1 0
F ^ 1 9 3 5 8
x6000), (8.255)
6 3
® = 2;K = 2;p l = 7.85xl0" k g / m m ,
3 1 9 3 5 8
K F2 = k (QJ'5x5p V
F l l + 1.3x0.152x10- / 8^z-), (8.256)
k = 1.0 $/min, k , = 1.0 $/kg.

F M
T h e cost o f painting is
6
K p = k (AR7TL);k
P P = 14.4x10" W . (8.257)
T h e total cost is
K = K +5K +5K M Fl F0 +K F2 + K. p (8.258)
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d u s i n g t h e Particle S w a r m m a t h e m a t i c a l algorithm
( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e results are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 8.11 for deflection
limit factor o f tp = 1 0 0 0 only.
T a b l e 8.11 R e s u l t s o f t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n for stiffened a n d unstiffened shell. T h e

p o s i t i v e c o s t d i f f e r e n c e m e a n s s a v i n g s d u e t o stiffening. D i m e n s i o n s i n m m
Stiffened Unstiffened
R h ns
t A:$ / a<rj MPa
cr wmm K$ cost
diff.%
1900 1016 24 9 124600 67 193<350 14.80 165162 24
2100 50 220<343 14.73 133675
2300 910.4 18 17 94560 38 25K331 14.75 105959 29
2500 607.6 16 21 84980 30 280<311 14.55 88744 4
2700 257.2 14 24 83309 26 287<289 13.33 82177 -1
2900 203.2 17 22 84650 25 268<275 11.19 85924 1
3100 257.2 18 21 86110 24 252<260 9.54 87413 1
3300 257.2 14 20 87240 23 240<245 8.25 88546 1
3500 203.2 21 19 88510 23 220<235 6.92 93206 5
Comparison of the costs for unstiffened and stiffened shells
T h i s c o m p a r i s o n is s h o w n in T a b l e 8.12.
T a b l e 8.12 S u m m a r y o f costs ( p o s i t i v e difference m e a n s cost s a v i n g s )
Cost [$] Unstiffened shell Stiffened shell Difference %

Material K M 56117 45321 24
Forming 5K F0 8385 4342 93
Welding 5K ,+K F F2 22577
Welding 5K ,+K +K F F2 F3 10169 122
Painting K P 5021 10739 -114
Total 92100 70571 30
It c a n b e seen that t h e cost s a v i n g s c a u s e d b y stringer stiffening a r e significant in

f o r m i n g a n d w e l d i n g costs, b u t t h e p a i n t i n g for unstiffened shell is 1 1 4 % c h e a p e r
t h a n that, for stiffened o n e . It c a n b e c o n c l u d e d that t h e cost factors o f fabrication
a n d p a i n t i n g p l a y a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e in t h e a c h i e v a b l e cost s a v i n g s .
8.6.6 Conclusions
T a b l e 8.12 s h o w s that b o t h stiffened a n d unstiffened v e r s i o n s h a v e a n o p t i m u m

r a d i u s , in o u r n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m R , = 2 7 0 0 m m .
op
It c a n b e seen that, for s m a l l e r radii (R<2\QQ m m ) t h e r e q u i r e d t h i c k n e s s is

unrealistically large (f>50 m m ) , t h u s , stiffening is n e e d e d t o d e c r e a s e this t h i c k n e s s
a n d t h e t h i c k n e s s r e d u c t i o n b y stiffening results in c o n s i d e r a b l e c o s t s a v i n g s .
C o s t difference is c o n s i d e r a b l e o n l y for radii s m a l l e r t h a n t h e o p t i m u m , t h u s , t h e

stiffening is e c o n o m i c o n l y for t h e s e radii. F o r radii larger t h a n t h e o p t i m u m , t h e
difference b e t w e e n t h e t h i c k n e s s e s a n d b e t w e e n t h e c o s t s is s m a l l , s i n c e t h e
unstiffened shell c a n b e r e a l i z e d w i t h larger r a d i u s a n d n o t t o o l a r g e t h i c k n e s s .
It c a n also b e seen that, for b o t h structural v e r s i o n s t h e stress c o n s t r a i n t is active for

radii s m a l l e r t h a n R , a n d t h e deflection constraint g o v e r n s for radii larger t h a n R .
op opt
8.7 A R I N G - S T I F F E N E D CONICAL SHELL LOADED BY EXTERNAL

PRESSURE
8.7.1 Introduction
C o n i c a l shells are a p p l i e d in n u m e r o u s structures e.g. in s u b m a r i n e a n d offshore

structures, aircraft, t u b u l a r structures, t o w e r s , t a n k s , etc. T h e i r structural
characteristics are as follows.
- M a t e r i a l : steels, A l - a l l o y s , fibre-reinforced plastics,
- G e o m e t r y : slightly conical (transition parts b e t w e e n t w o circular shells), strongly

c o n i c a l (storage t a n k roofs), t r u n c a t e d ,
- Stiffening: ring-stiffeners, stringers, c o m b i n e d , equidistant, n o n - e q u i d i s t a n t ,
- Stiffener profile: flat, b o x , T-, L-, Z - s h a p e ,
- L o a d s : external p r e s s u r e , axial c o m p r e s s i o n , torsion, c o m b i n e d ,
- F a b r i c a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y : w e l d i n g , riveting, bolting, g l u i n g .
K l o p p e l a n d M o t z e l ( 1 9 7 6 ) h a v e carried out b u c k l i n g e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h t r u n c a t e d
unstiffened and ring-stiffened steel conical shell s p e c i m e n s a n d p r o p o s e d s i m p l e
f o r m u l a e for critical b u c k l i n g stress.
R a o a n d R e d d y ( 1 9 8 1 ) h a v e w o r k e d o u t an o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e for m i n i m u m
w e i g h t o f t r u n c a t e d conical shells. R e c t a n g u l a r ring-stiffeners a n d stringers a r e u s e d
a n d constraints o n shell b u c k l i n g as w e l l as o n natural frequency are c o n s i d e r e d . In
t h e b o o k , written b y Ellinas et al. ( 1 9 8 4 ) , e x p e r i m e n t a l results a n d d e s i g n o f
stiffened conical shells are treated.
S p a g n o l i h a s w r i t t e n a P h D thesis o n b u c k l i n g b e h a v i o u r a n d design o f stiffened

c o n i c a l shells u n d e r axial c o m p r e s s i o n ( S p a g n o l i 1997). R e c t a n g u l a r stringers are
c o n s i d e r e d . L a t e r S p a g n o l i also w i t h c o - a u t h o r s ( S p a g n o l i & C h r y s s a n t h o p o u l o s
1999a, 1 9 9 9 b , S p a g n o l i 2 0 0 1 ) h a s p u b l i s h e d o t h e r articles in this field.
C h r y s s a n t h o p o u l o s et al. ( 1 9 9 8 ) h a v e u s e d finite e l e m e n t m e t h o d for b u c k l i n g

analysis o f stringer-stiffened conical shells in c o m p r e s s i o n .
S i n g e r et al. ( 2 0 0 2 ) h a v e g i v e n a detailed description o f e x p e r i m e n t s carried o u t w i t h

stiffened conical shell m o d e l s .
M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n h a s b e e n w o r k e d out for ring-stiffened circular cylindrical

shell in o u r s t u d y F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 2 , F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) .
In the p r e s e n t s t u d y w e select t h e following structural characteristics: steel, slightly

c o n i c a l shell, ring-stiffeners o f w e l d e d s q u a r e b o x section t o a v o i d tripping,
equidistant stiffening, external p r e s s u r e , w e l d i n g . D e s i g n rules o f D e t N o r s k e
V e r i t a s ( 1 9 9 5 , 2 0 0 2 ) are a p p l i e d for shell a n d stiffener b u c k l i n g constraints.
T h e variables to b e o p t i m i z e d are as follows: n u m b e r o f shell s e g m e n t s («) (Fig.

8.15), shell t h i c k n e s s e s (/,), d i m e n s i o n s o f ring-stiffeners (h t ^). T h e n u m b e r o f
h r
stiffeners is n+\, since stiffeners s h o u l d b e u s e d at t h e e n d s o f t h e shell, t h u s , t w o

stiffeners are u s e d in t h e first shell s e g m e n t .
T h e ring stiffeners are p l a c e d in a s m a l l d i s t a n c e from t h e circumferential w e l d s

c o n n e c t i n g t w o s e g m e n t s t o a l l o w t h e i n s p e c t i o n o f w e l d s , this is m a r k e d in F i g u r e
8.15 b y d o t t e d lines. T h e cost function i n c l u d e s t h e cost o f m a t e r i a l , a s s e m b l y ,
w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g a n d is f o r m u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s h a s t h e following parts:
(a) d e s i g n o f t h i c k n e s s e s for e a c h shell s e g m e n t g i v e n b y t w o radii (R t and R i)

i+
u s i n g t h e shell b u c k l i n g constraint,
(b) d e s i g n o f ring-stiffeners for e a c h shell s e g m e n t u s i n g t h e stiffener buckling

constraint,
(c) cost c a l c u l a t i o n for e a c h shell s e g m e n t a n d for t h e w h o l e shell structure.
T h e s e d e s i g n steps s h o u l d b e carried o u t for a series of s e g m e n t - n u m b e r s . O n the

b a s i s o f c a l c u l a t e d costs t h e o p t i m u m solution c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e m i n i m u m cost
can be determined.
8.7.2 D e s i g n o f shell t h i c k n e s s e s
A c c o r d i n g to D N V rules ( 2 0 0 2 ) , for shell s e g m e n t s b e t w e e n t w o ring-stiffeners o f

radii i?, a n d R i+It h e b u c k l i n g c o n s t r a i n t v a l i d for circular cylindrical shells w i t h
equivalent radius
Figure 8.15. The main dimensions of the conical shell - a shell segment with the ring-stiffener of welded
square box section
R
M + R, l
e, = — , cos cc = , (8.259)
2cos 2
« Vtana + 1
X
tana = -,R M = L, t a n a + = -2-, (8.260)
L0 n
and equivalent thickness
t ei = cosa . (8.261)
T h e n o r m a l stress d u e to external p r e s s u r e in a shell s e g m e n t s h o u l d b e s m a l l e r t h a n

the critical b u c k l i n g stress
x. = \Ll t ( 8 . 2 6 2 )
2
Cn E t
"f- , ^ = — — , (8.263)
K L
ei j cosa
where
C =4 1+
' J f^r-] >&= - &> l M
Z,. =-^71^. (8.264)
U s i n g E q s ( 8 . 2 6 3 ) , E q (8.264) c a n be written in t h e form o f
C, = 4 , | l + 0 . 0 2 3 2 1 4 - ^ - . (8.265)
V Je, R
F r o m t h e shell b u c k l i n g constraint E q (8.262) t h e u n k n o w n /, can be calculated u s i n g

a M a t h c a d algorithm.
8.7.3 D e s i g n o f a ring-stiffener for e a c h shell s e g m e n t
F o r ring-stiffeners a s q u a r e b o x section w e l d e d from 3 parts is selected to a v o i d

tripping, w h i c h is d a n g e r o u s failure m o d e for o p e n - s e c t i o n stiffeners ( F i g . 8 . 1 5 ) .
T h e constraint o n local b u c k l i n g o f t h e c o m p r e s s e d stiffener flange a c c o r d i n g to
E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 2 ) is e x p r e s s e d b y
tri > Sh^llS = 42s,e = ^235/ f y (8.266)
for f y = 3 5 5 M P a \I8 = 34.
C a l c u l a t i n g w i t h E q ( 8 . 2 6 6 ) as equality, the o n l y u n k n o w n for a s q u a r e ring-stiffener

is t h e h e i g h t h T h i s d i m e n s i o n can b e d e t e r m i n e d from t h e stiffener b u c k l i n g
h
constraint relating to t h e r e q u i r e d m o m e n t o f inertia o f a stiffener section a b o u t the

axis x o f the p o i n t E, w h i c h is t h e gravity center o f t h e cross-section including the 3

stiffener p a r t s a n d t h e effective part o f t h e shell (Fig.8.15)
2 + 3^,0.005^. 1
^xi ~ ^reqi
(8.267)
3E
where
Y i ? 3
2
6 ->>H +Sh?{h -y f i Ei + f +L y
eflti B (8.268)
25h]
(8.269)
3Shf +L ti efl
Lefl = min(l,,4 ),4 ,. /0; /0 = 1 -56^R~ti, (8.270)
(8.271)
T h e required A, c a n b e calculated from E q ( 8 . 2 6 7 ) .
8.7.4 T h e c o s t f u n c t i o n
T h e cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e as follows

(Farkas & Jarmai 2003).
(1) F o r m i n g o f 3 plate e l e m e n t s for shell s e g m e n t s into slightly conical s h a p e (K ).

F0
(2) W e l d i n g 3 c u r v e d shell e l e m e n t s into a shell s e g m e n t w i t h G M A W - C (gas metal

arc w e l d i n g w i t h C 0 ) butt w e l d s
2 (K ). FI
(3) W e l d i n g o f n+l ring-stiffeners e a c h from 3 e l e m e n t s w i t h 2 G M A W - C fdlet

w e l d s (K ). F2
(4) W e l d i n g o f a ring-stiffener into e a c h shell s e g m e n t w i t h 2 G M A W - C fdlet w e l d s

(K ).
F3
(5) A s s e m b l y of the w h o l e stiffened shell structure from n shell s e g m e n t s (K ).

F4A
(6) W e l d i n g o f n shell s e g m e n t s to form t h e w h o l e shell structure w i t h n-\

circumferential G M A W - C butt w e l d s (K ). F4W
(7) Painting o f t h e w h o l e shell structure from inside a n d outside (K ). P
T h e total cost includes the cost o f material, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g
K - K+ M KF0 +K Fl +K F2 +K Fi +K F4 +Kp , (8.272)
K =k pV,k =\Mlkg
M M M (8.273)
T h e v o l u m e o f t h e w h o l e structure i n c l u d e s t h e v o l u m e o f shell s e g m e n t s (VH) a n d

ring-stiffeners (V ) ri
1=1 1=1
5 5
K FOi = k &e",p. F = 6.8582513-4.527217?:° +0.009541996(2^,)° ,
* ™ = 5 X o , » (8-275)
1=1
w h e r e t h e factor o f fabrication difficulty is t a k e n as © = 3 a n d the steel d e n s i t y is

- 6 3
/3 = 7 . 8 5 x l 0 kg/mm .
]9
K Fli = k [@J3p~V ~
F l + \3x0A52xl0-'t ^x3L ], i ei KFX = ^ K F X i , (8.276)
i=i
V =2xR L ,
u et eiti (8.277)
3
K F2i = k [@yJ3pV F ri +1.3x0.3394x10" a^xAn^R, - h )], i (8.278)
where
Vri = Am h,(R, rt - k 12)+ 27a h,(R, - \ ) , rl
a n d t h e fillet w e l d size a wi = 0.75A,-.
3 2
K F3t = k [&ppV
F 3i + 1.3x0.3394xl0- a ,,x4^,], V 3I = V, + V , x ri (8.279)
K F4 = K F4A + K ,K F4W F4A = k @Jnp~V

F , K F4W =J^K F4Wi , (8.280)
1=2
K F 4 m = 1.3/c xO. 1 5 2 x 1 0 ^ ? ; *™x2nR ,

F i (8.281)
R x + R {
= Kpi +J^K ,K Pi PI =k 4x ™ P L,
0 (8.282)
i=l 2
AT = kpATdt^Ri
W -^12), (8.283)
6 2
/c = 2 x l 4 . 4 x l 0 -
P $/mm .
8.7.5 N u m e r i c a l d a t a ( F i g u r e 8.15)
Total shell l e n g t h L = 15000, side radii R „ = R, = 1850 a n d R = R„+i = 2 8 5 0 m m , mi max
yield stress o f steel f = 355 M P a , w i t h a safety factor for y i e l d stress f

y = fylXA, yl
external p r e s s u r e intensity p = 0.5 M P a , safety factor for l o a d i n g y = 1.5, P o i s s o n h
5
ratio v = 0 . 3 , elastic m o d u l u s E = 2 . 1 x l 0 M P a .
8.7.6 R e s u l t s o f t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n
T h e detailed calculations are carried out for n u m b e r s o f shell s e g m e n t s n = 3 - 1 5 .

T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g material a n d total costs are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 8 . 1 1 .
T a b l e 8.11 T h e m a t e r i a l a n d total costs in $ for i n v e s t i g a t e d n u m b e r s o f shell

s e g m e n t s . T h e o p t i m a are m a r k e d b y b o l d letters
N 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15
KM 48540 43540 40350 36830 33390 31390 29840 31192
K 85390 82360 81430 79210 80260 82120 84811 95818
It c a n b e seen that t h e o p t i m u m n u m b e r o f shell s e g m e n t s for material cost is n = Mop!
12 a n d for total cost n , = 6. T h i s difference is c a u s e d b y t h e fact that t h e fabrication

op
( a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d painting) cost represents a large a m o u n t o f total cost. T h e

cost d a t a s h o w that, in t h e fabrication cost a significant part h a v e t h e forming of
plate e l e m e n t s into shell s h a p e , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g .
T a b l e 8.12 M a i n d i m e n s i o n s (in m m ) o f t h e o p t i m u m shell s t r u c t u r e (n = 6)
i R, t, hi
1 1850 18 121 4
2 2017 19 132 4
3 2184 20 143 5
4 2351 20 156 5
5 2518 21 155 5
6 2685 22 153 5
7 2852 23 152 6
I n order to characterize t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f the o p t i m u m structure, the m a i n data are

g i v e n in T a b l e 8.12.
T h e fabrication a n d p a i n t i n g cost c o m p o n e n t s for the o p t i m u m structure are given in

T a b l e 8.13.
T a b l e 8.13 F a b r i c a t i o n a n d p a i n t i n g cost c o m p o n e n t s in $ for t h e o p t i m u m

structure of n = 6
KFO K F1 KF2 K3
P K 4A
P KF4W K PT JX„
1 5330 1329 3202 1410 5681 12760 689
8.7.7 Conclusions
T h e o p t i m u m design p r o b l e m is solved for a slightly conical shell l o a d e d in external

p r e s s u r e w i t h equidistant ring-stiffeners o f a w e l d e d s q u a r e b o x section. T h e
o p t i m u m n u m b e r o f shell s e g m e n t s is found, w h i c h m i n i m i z e s t h e cost function and
fulfils the design constraints.
T h e t h i c k n e s s o f e a c h shell s e g m e n t is c a l c u l a t e d from t h e shell b u c k l i n g constraint.

T h i s constraint is similar to that for circular cylindrical shells, b u t an e q u i v a l e n t
t h i c k n e s s and s e g m e n t length is u s e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e D N V d e s i g n rules ( 2 0 0 2 ) .
T h e d i m e n s i o n s o f ring-stiffeners for e a c h shell s e g m e n t a r e d e t e r m i n e d o n the basis

o f t h e r i n g b u c k l i n g constraint. T h i s constraint is e x p r e s s e d b y t h e r e q u i r e d m o m e n t
o f inertia o f t h e ring-stiffener cross-section.
T h e cost function i n c l u d e s t h e cost o f material, f o r m i n g o f plate e l e m e n t s into shell

s h a p e , a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g . T h e fabrication cost function is formulated
a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e . T h e f o r m i n g , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g costs p l a y
an i m p o r t a n t role in the total cost.
T h e cost difference b e t w e e n t h e m a x i m u m a n d m i n i m u m cost in the investigated

r a n g e o f shell s e g m e n t n u m b e r (n = 3 - 15) is ( 9 5 8 1 8 - 7 9 2 1 0 ) / 9 5 8 1 8 x l 0 0 = 1 7 % ,
t h u s , a significant cost s a v i n g s can b e a c h i e v e d b y o p t i m i z a t i o n .
T h e ring-stiffening is v e r y effective, since the unstiffened shell n e e d s a t h i c k n e s s o f

4 2 m m , w h i c h is unrealistic for fabrication.
9
Tubular Structures
9.1 COST COMPARISON OF A RING-STIFFENED SHELL A N D A

TUBULAR TRUSS STRUCTURE FOR A WIND TURBINE TOWER
9.1.1 Introduction
Steel t o w e r s for w i n d turbines c a n b e c o n s t r u c t e d in v a r i o u s structural v e r s i o n s .

Ring-stiffened cylindrical shells o r tubular trusses are u s u a l l y applied. S i n c e t h e
m a i n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f e n g i n e e r i n g structures are t h e safety, fitness for p r o d u c t i o n
a n d e c o n o m y , an i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m for d e s i g n e r s is t h e cost c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e s e
structural v e r s i o n s .
A cost calculation m e t h o d has b e e n d e v e l o p e d a n d applied for v a r i o u s w e l d e d

structures ( F a r k a s a n d J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 , J a r m a i a n d F a r k a s 1999). T h e cost function
includes t h e cost o f material, cutting a n d g r i n d i n g o f t u b u l a r m e m b e r e n d s , a s s e m b l y
and w e l d i n g . T h i s cost function h a s b e e n applied in v a r i o u s p r o b l e m s o f m i n i m u m
cost design, e.g. for a triangular truss ( F a r k a s 2 0 0 1 ) , for a ring-stiffened cylindrical

shell loaded b y external p r e s s u r e ( F a r k a s a n d J a r m a i 2 0 0 2 ) . S o m e other p r o b l e m s o f
e c o n o m i c design are treated in t h e b o o k o f F a r k a s a n d J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) .
T h i s cost calculation m e t h o d is a p p l i e d n o w to t w o structural v e r s i o n s o f a w i n d

turbine tower. T h e t o w e r is 4 5 m h i g h , l o a d e d o n t h e t o p b y a factored vertical force
o f 9 5 0 k N (self w e i g h t o f t h e nacelle), a b e n d i n g m o m e n t o f 9 9 7 k N m a n d a
horizontal force o f 2 8 2 k N from the turbine operation. T h e t o w e r w i d t h is limited t o
2.5 m d u e to the rotating turbine b l a d e s o f length 2 7 m .
B o t h the shell a n d the truss structure are c o n s t r u c t e d from 3 parts e a c h o f 15 length

w i t h s t e p w i s e i n c r e a s i n g w i d t h s . T h e shell p a r t s a r e d e s i g n e d a g a i n s t shell b u c k l i n g
a n d p a n e l ring b u c k l i n g a c c o r d i n g to t h e d e s i g n rules o f t h e D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s
( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e n u m b e r o f flat ring-stiffeners is d e t e r m i n e d b y the d e s i g n e r to avoid
larger ovalization o f t h e cylindrical shell. T h e 3 shell p a r t s are j o i n e d b y bolted
connections.
W i n d turbines are u s e d w o r l d w i d e w i t h v a r i o u s capacities a n d t o w e r height. In t h e

b o o k ( S p e r a 1994) a detailed description is g i v e n o f v a r i o u s w i n d turbine t o w e r s .
K o u m o u s i s a n d D i m o u ( 1 9 9 5 ) h a v e treated t h e m i n i m u m v o l u m e d e s i g n o f a
cylindrical shell t o w e r w i t h v a r y i n g d i a m e t e r a n d t h i c k n e s s c o n s i d e r i n g stress a n d
d i s p l a c e m e n t constraints. H o r v a t h a n d T o t h ( 2 0 0 1 ) h a v e investigated t h e m o s t
suitable s h a p e o f a cylindrical shell t o w e r w i t h variable d i a m e t e r r e g a r d i n g t h e
natural frequency u s i n g t h e finite e l e m e n t m e t h o d .
B a z e o s et al. ( 2 0 0 2 ) h a v e studied t h e stability a n d seismic b e h a v i o u r o f a 38 m h i g h

shell t o w e r structure for a 4 5 0 k W w i n d t u r b i n e w i t h cylindrical a n d conical parts o f
v a r y i n g d i a m e t e r s a n d t h i c k n e s s e s . L a v a s s a s et al. ( 2 0 0 3 ) h a v e investigated for
gravity, s e i s m i c a n d w i n d loadings a 1 M W c a p a c i t y a n d 4 4 m h i g h t o w e r o f tubular
s h a p e w i t h variable d i a m e t e r and t h i c k n e s s u s i n g t w o different finite e l e m e n t
models.
9.1.2 Ring-stiffened shell s t r u c t u r e
F o r the cost m i n i m i z a t i o n , the p r o c e d u r e already d e v e l o p e d b y F a r k a s et al. ( 2 0 0 4 )

to o p t i m i z e t h e design o f a ring-stiffened cylindrical shell loaded in b e n d i n g , is used.
D e s i g n constraints o n shell b u c k l i n g and o n local b u c k l i n g o f flat ring-stiffeners are
formulated a c c o r d i n g to D N V ( 1 9 9 5 ) and A P I ( 2 0 0 0 ) design rules. T h e w i n d load
acting o n t h e shell t o w e r is c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 1 Part 2-4 ( E C 1 )
( 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e w i n d force a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t acting o n the t o p o f the 4 5 m h i g h
t o w e r for a 1 M W w i n d t u r b i n e in G r e e c e , is g i v e n b y L a v a s s a s et al. ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e
load d u e to t h e self-weight o f t h e nacelle is furthermore considered.
T o a v o i d shell ovalization, a m i n i m u m n u m b e r o f 5 a n d a m a x i m u m n u m b e r o f 15
stiffeners is p r e s c r i b e d . In t h e shell b u c k l i n g constraint, an imperfection factor as
p r o p o s e d b y F a r k a s ( 2 0 0 2 ) , is u s e d w h i c h e x p r e s s e s t h e effect o f radial shell
d e f o r m a t i o n d u e to s h r i n k a g e o f circumferential w e l d s .
F i g u r e 9.1 s h o w s the d i a m e t e r s , loads, b e n d i n g m o m e n t diagram and the optimum
shell t h i c k n e s s e s .
Tubular structures 227
F o r the t h r e e shell s e g m e n t s , t h e w i n d loads are as follows: p = 6.334, p wl w2 = 6.883

a n d p = 6.864 k N / m . F = 9 5 . 0 1 , F = 103.25, F = 102.95 k N .
w 3 wl w2 w3
T h e factored b e n d i n g m o m e n t s d u e t o w i n d load F , are g i v e n in F i g u r e 9.1 (c), w i t h

w
M w 0 = 9 9 7 k N m , t h e safety factor b e i n g 1.5. T h e factored load F = 2 8 2 k N and

w0
nacelle (rotor) selfweight G = 9 5 0 k N . w
Local buckling of the flat ring-stiffeners
T h e limitation o n t h e h e i g h t to t h i c k n e s s ratio o f a flat ring-stiffener is ( A P I 2 0 0 0 )
(9.1)
^ < 0.375 A
t, V f.
w h e r e t is the r i n g stiffener t h i c k n e s s to b e d e t e r m i n e d . U s i n g t h e u p p e r limit to
r
obtain a larger m o m e n t o f inertia, o n e obtains
K= 9t ,
r (9-2)
s
for E = 2 . 1 x 1 0 M P a a n d yield stress f = y 355 MPa.
Constraint on local shell buckling (unstiffened)
G,
Fwo 1496
_1
yM w [kNm]
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 9.1 Loads, bending moments and optimal shell thicknesses in three tower parts of length 15 m
A c c o r d i n g t o D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s ( 1 9 9 5 ) , for t h e length o f o n e shell p a r t L = 15 m,

t h e n u m b e r o f ring stiffeners in o n e shell p a r t n, R the r a d i u s a n d / t h e t h i c k n e s s o f
t h e shell, Appertaining to the m o m e n t o n t h e shell p a r t ( s e e F i g u r e 9 . 1 ( b ) ) :

M ^
-+ — - < e r „ =
fy (9.3)
4
IRjlt T[R t
vT+I"
where
X 1
fy b_
(9.4)
Eb J
2
nE
fffi,=(l.5-50/?)C a
(9.5)
v4y
2
7t E
<r a = ( 1 . 5 - 5 0 ^ (9.6)
v4y
(9.7)
2
c,=Vi + (M) (9.8)
-0.5
R
A, =0.5, 1 + (9.9)
150/
-0.5
R
Pb 0.5 1 + (9.10)
300/
2
£ = 0.702Z,Z = - ^ V l - v (9.11)
Rt
L
and L = (9.12)
n + \
T h e factor o f ( 1 . 5 - 5 0 ft ) in E q s (9.5,9.6) e x p r e s s e s t h e effect o f initial radial shell

d e f o r m a t i o n c a u s e d b y t h e s h r i n k a g e o f circumferential w e l d s (Farkas 2002). For
t h e detailed c a l c u l a t i o n see E q s ( 8 . 5 0 - 8 . 5 8 ) .
Furthermore
2
L
Z= 0.9539-^-, £ = 0.702Z, (9.13)
Rt
2
F r o m E q (9.5) it can b e d e d u c e d that <J E d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n L , since L
r is in the
2
d e n o m i n a t o r a n d from ( E q 9.7), C h a s L in t h e n u m e r a t o r . T h e fact that the
b u c k l i n g strength d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n t h e shell length, w a s first d e r i v e d by
T i m o s h e n k o & G e r e ( 1 9 6 1 ) . N o t e that this d e p e n d e n c e o f O E o n L is v e r y small
r
a c c o r d i n g to t h e A P I design rules ( 2 0 0 0 ) . It h a s , h o w e v e r , b e e n d e t e r m i n e d that in

t h e c a s e o f external p r e s s u r e , t h e distance b e t w e e n ring-stiffeners d o e s p l a y an
i m p o r t a n t role ( F a r k a s et al. 2 0 0 2 , F a r k a s a n d J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) .
Constraint on panel ring buckling
R e q u i r e m e n t s for a ring stiffener are as follows ( D N V 1995):
A„ = hj >\ r - ^ + 0.06 U (9.14)

2
Z J
j = KK I + ^^maX ( 9 1 5 )
r
12 ' \ + a 500EL r
( 9 1 6 )
*o = R - Y O Y A = ^ R - , • -
2(1 + a>)
0 ) = -^- (9-17)
]
and L = m i n ( 4 , 4 = 1.5>/^7).
e 0 (9 8)
9.1.2.2 Cost function
A p o s s i b l e m a n u f a c t u r i n g s e q u e n c e is as follows:
(1) M a n u f a c t u r e five shell e l e m e n t s w i t h a length o f 3 m w i t h o u t rings. T w o axial

butt w e l d s ( G M A W - C ) are n e e d e d for e v e r y shell e l e m e n t . T h e cost t o form a shell
e l e m e n t into a slightly c o n i c a l , n e a r cylindrical s h a p e , is included in t h e factor K F0
d e s c r i b e d b e l o w . F r o m data o b t a i n e d from the H u n g a r i a n p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n y

J a s z b e r e n y i A p r i t o g e p g y a r , C r u s h i n g M a c h i n e F a c t o r y , J a s z b e r e n y , t h e t i m e T for
b e n d i n g a plate e l e m e n t o f 3 m w i d t h can b e a p p r o x i m a t e d by the following function:
5 0 5
l n J = 6.85825 - 4 . 5 2 7 2 / " ° + 0 . 0 0 9 5 4 1 9 D . (9.19)
(4 m m < r < 4 0 m m a n d 1750 m m < D < 3 5 0 0 m m ) . In this e q u a t i o n , w h i c h also

includes the t i m e t o form the p l a t e a n d r e d u c e t h e initial imperfections d u e to
forming, / is the plate t h i c k n e s s a n d D is t h e diameter. T h e cost for shell formation is
thus given by
K=F0 k0T F F (9.20)
w h e r e 0 = 3 is t h e difficulty factor indicative o f the c o m p l e x i t y o f fabrication and

F
k is the specific m a n u f a c t u r i n g cost p e r unit t i m e .

F
T h e w e l d i n g cost o f a shell e l e m e n t is ( F a r k a s and J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 )
1 3x0 224xl0 3?2 2x3000 9 21

K = A: (®^7^) + ^[ - -
Fl F " ( )]' (- )
where Q W is a difficulty factor e x p r e s s i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e a s s e m b l y a n d K is
t h e n u m b e r o f e l e m e n t s to b e a s s e m b l e d . F o r t h e e l e m e n t s o f r a d i u s R a n d density p
to b e w e l d e d
K = 2,VI = 2Rnt x 3 0 0 0 a n d & w =2, w h e r e V\ is t h e v o l u m e o f an e l e m e n t .
(2) W e l d a c o m p l e t e unstiffened shell part, c o m b i n i n g t h e five e l e m e n t s b y u s i n g

four circumferential butt w e l d s . T h i s implies w e l d i n g costs o f
K =k (@ J'5x5pV
F2 F w l +1.3x0.2245x10^fxAxlRn) (9.22)
for a shell part.
(3) C u t n flat plate rings u s i n g a c e t y l e n e gas. T h e cutting cost a m o u n t s to
025
K =k @ C t L ,
F2 F c c r c (9.23)
w h e r e 0 , C a n d L are respectively t h e difficulty factor for cutting, the cutting

c c c
3
p a r a m e t e r a n d the cutting length w i t h v a l u e s © = 3 , C = c 1.1388xl0" and
L *2R7tn
c + 2(R-h )mi
r
for a ring radius R a n d ring h e i g h t h . r
(4) W e l d n rings into the shell s e g m e n t w i t h d o u b l e - s i d e d G M A W - C fillet w e l d s .

(2n fillet w e l d s ) :
J
K F4 =k (e J (n F w + l)pV 2 +1.3x0.3394x10" a 3 2
w 4Rm) (9.24)
T h e size o f t h e w e l d for a ring o f t h i c k n e s s t is a r w = 0.5t , b u t

r aWm
T h e v o l u m e o f a shell p a r t V is g i v e n b y 2
V = 5V
2 t +2
f
R - ^ - WhXn (9.25)
2
T h e total material cost for a shell part
K =k V
u uP 2 (9.26)
T h e cost o f p a i n t i n g
K 4RTT\500 +5x2x2 R — R
- (9.27)
T h e total cost for a shell part t h u s is
K = K M + 5(KF0 +K) Fl +KF2 +KF3 +KF4 +K .P

(9.28)
T h e material cost factor is k = M 1 $/kg a n d t h e l a b o u r cost factor is k = 1 $/min.

F
9.1.2.3 Optimization and results
T h e optimization can b e carried out u s i n g any a p p r o p r i a t e constrained o p t i m i z a t i o n

algorithm. H e r e it w a s p e r f o r m e d u s i n g R o s e n b r o c k ' s search a l g o r i t h m ( F a r k a s a n d
J a r m a i 1997). T h e o p t i m a l v a l u e s o f t h e shell t h i c k n e s s (r) for n = 5, w h i c h c o m p l y
w i t h t h e d e s i g n constraints a n d m i n i m i z e t h e cost function, are g i v e n in F i g u r e 9 . 1 .
T h e m i n i m a l m a s s e s a n d costs are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 9 . 1 .
T a b l e 9 . 1 . S u m m a r y of m a s s e s a n d costs
Shell part mass [kg] Cost without K [$] p K„[%] Total [$]
top 5398 12096 6440 18536
middle 9472 19772 7603 27373
bottom 15648 30941 8778 39719
total 30518 62809 22821 85628
9.1.2.4 Check for eigenfrequency
F o r t h e a p p r o x i m a t e calculation o f e i g e n f r e q u e n c y a s i m p l e m o d e l is used: a b e a m
o f length L built in at e n d a free at other to w h i c h a c o n c e n t r a t e d m a s s m is ;
c o n n e c t e d . T h e circular eigenfrequency for a b e a m w i t h o u t a n y c o n c e n t r a t e d m a s s at

t h e e n d can be calculated as
(9.29)
F o r the a v e r a g e shell r a d i u s o f R = 1350 m m , t h i c k n e s s t = 9 m m , cross-sectional

4 2 1 0 4
area A = 2Rnt = 7 . 6 3 4 x l 0 " m m , m o m e n t o f inertia I = nF?t = 6 . 9 5 6 x l 0 x mm ,
3 2
specific m a s s m = pA/g , g = 9 . 8 1 x l 0 m m / s o n e o b t a i n s a = 8.45/s or 1.34 H z .
0
T h i s v a l u e should b e modified c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a t t a c h e d m a s s a c c o r d i n g to t h e v a l u e
o f mj/imoL) = 9 5 0 / 3 0 5 = 3.1 u s i n g t h e d i a g r a m in P r o c h n o s t ' ( 1 9 6 8 ) m u l t i p l y i n g b y
2
( 1 . 2 / 1 . 8 7 ) = 0 . 4 1 , i.e. a = 0 5 5 H z , w h i c h is larger t h a n t h e rotor frequency 0.37 H z ,
thus the t o w e r satisfies the e i g e n f r e q u e n c y r e q u i r e m e n t .
9.1.2.5 Check for fatigue
A c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3 Part 1-9 ( 2 0 0 2 ) t h e fatigue stress r a n g e for t o e failure for

6
2 x l 0 cycles in t h e case o f T-joints is 6 3 - 7 1 M P a d e p e n d i n g o n the d i a p h r a g m
t h i c k n e s s . D i v i d i n g b y a safety factor o f 1.35 o n e o b t a i n s 4 7 M P a . L a v a s s a s et al.
h a v e g i v e n a load spectrum, w h i c h gives t h e reliable w i n d load for s o m e n u m b e r s of

5
cycles. E.g. for an a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f cycles N= 1 0 for a w i n d s p e e d o f 14 m / s M w
= 1280 k N m a n d F = 80 k N . F o r the g i v e n n u m b e r o f c y c l e s t h e stress r a n g e is

w
171 M P a , t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t is 1280 + 4 5 x 8 0 = 4 8 8 0 k N m a n d t h e stress

2
4 8 8 0 x 1 (fl(nR t) = 38 M P a < 171 M P a , t h e fatigue constraint is fulfilled.
9.1.3 Tubular truss structure
In the p r e s e n t s t u d y a 4 5 m h i g h w e l d e d steel tubular truss t o w e r is d e s i g n e d for a 1

M W turbine. T h e truss is statically d e t e r m i n a t e . T h e distance b e t w e e n parallel
c h o r d s in the u p p e r part o f t h e t o w e r is limited b e c a u s e o f t h e rotating b l a d e s . In t h e
l o w e r part the c h o r d distance c a n b e linearly v a r i e d a n d t h e inclination angle can b e
o p t i m i z e d or a larger constant c h o r d distance c a n b e u s e d (Fig.9.2).
T h u s , in t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e t h e inclination angle or t h e larger constant c h o r d

distance a n d t h e m e m b e r d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e l o w e r t o w e r p a r t are sought, w h i c h
m i n i m i z e t h e structural v o l u m e a n d fulfil t h e d e s i g n constraints.
T h e constraints relate to t h e b u c k l i n g strength of circular h o l l o w section ( C H S )

m e m b e r s and to t h e local strength o f w e l d e d t u b u l a r j o i n t s . Seismic b e h a v i o u r is n o t
treated. In the n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m t h e loads from w i n d acting o n t h e turbine and
from the nacelle m a s s are selected from t h e literature. K n o w i n g t h e m e m b e r forces
an iterative s u b o p t i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d is u s e d for t h e calculation o f c o m p r e s s i o n
member dimensions.
T h e cross-section o f t h e truss c a n b e quadratic or triangular. In t h e c a s e of a

triangular cross-section the w h o l e h o r i z o n t a l l o a d s h o u l d b e carried b y a truss p l a n e ,
since the horizontal load direction is variable. Therefore t h e quadratic cross-section
is used. In this case o n l y the h a l f v a l u e of the h o r i z o n t a l load is acting o n a truss
plane.
9.1.3.1 Suboptimization problem for the buckling design of a CHS compressed strut
T h e overall b u c k l i n g constraint for a strut o f length L a n d l o a d e d b y a c o m p r e s s i v e

force 5 a c c o r d i n g t o E u r o c o d e 3 is defined b y
S < Xf y
(9.30)
= 1.1
A yx
w h e r e A = nDt 1
= nD 18,5 = Dlt, (9.31)
f = 3 5 5 M P a is the yield stress, D is t h e m e a n diameter,

y
x = ===,</> = 0.5[\ + a(A-0.2)+X \ 2 (9.32)
4 + 4<fr ~*
X =XIX ,A E = KXIr,r = JlTA = Dl4i, (9.33)
X E = JIJ'EI f ,a
y = 0 . 3 4 for c o l d f o r m e d C H S ,
K is t h e e n d restraint factor, for c h o r d s K = 0.9, for b r a c e s K = 0.75 ( R o n d a l et al.

5
1992), E = 2 . 1 x l 0 M P a is the elastic m o d u l u s .
F o r g i v e n N, L,f , E a n d K the u n k n o w n s D a n d t s h o u l d b e d e t e r m i n e d , w h i c h fulfil

y
the b u c k l i n g constraint. I n t r o d u c i n g s y m b o l s o f
4 2 4 2
c 0 = \00K/A ,xE = l0 N/L ,y = \0 A/L , (9.34)
E q . (30) can be w r i t t e n as
a e
Figure 9.2 Truss structure of the tower with diaphragms

(9.35)
2 1
C
0 Co , (9.36)
<p = 0.5\ + a •0.2 +
2
ay
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , it is i m p o s s i b l e to solve E q (9.35) for y in closed form. T h e r e f o r e a

c o m p u t e r M a t h C a d a l g o r i t h m is u s e d t o calculate y for a g i v e n x, t h e n
(9.37)
100 V n S
In the design w e should u s e t h e m a x i m u m v a l u e o f 8, but it is limited t o 5 0

( W a r d e n i e r et al. 1991). In t h e c a s e o f available C H S profiles a c c o r d i n g to p r E N
10210-2 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 8 is v a r i e d b e t w e e n 10-50. T o obtain a realistic available profile, an
iteration p r o c e s s s h o u l d b e u s e d : 8 is varied until D a n d t are in a c c o r d a n c e o f the
available section.
In the c a s e o f v e r y long struts w i t h small c o m p r e s s i v e force, t h e limitation o f the

strut s l e n d e r n e s s can b e g o v e r n i n g . F r o m t h e limitation o f
X= KLIr<A , max
(9.38)
t h e required radius o f gyration is
r>KLIl. (9.39)
A c c o r d i n g to B S 5 4 0 0 ( 1 9 8 2 ) X = 180.
9.1.3.2 Design of the upper and middle tower part
T h e factored loads acting o n the t o w e r top a c c o r d i n g to L a v a s s a s et al. ( 2 0 0 3 ) are as

follows: horizontal w i n d force F = 2 8 2 k N , b e n d i n g m o m e n t M = 9 9 7 k N m , the
w0
nacelle m a s s a c c o r d i n g to S p e r a ( 1 9 9 5 ) G = 9 5 0 k N . It is sufficient to d e s i g n o n e
truss p l a n only, t h u s , t h e loads c a n be h a l v e d for it, F = F J2 = 1 4 1 k N , Mil =
0 w(
4 9 8 . 5 k N m a n d t h e t w o forces acting on e a c h c h o r d G/4 = 2 3 7 . 5 k N .
W i n d forces acting on the m i d d l e o f t h e t o w e r parts (Figs 9 . 5 , 9.6, 9.7): F wl — 13.9,

FW2 = 2 3 . 9 and F = 19.25 k N .
Wi
9.1.3.3 Optimum angle of the lower part
T h e following analysis can h e l p to u n d e r s t a n d the existence o f an o p t i m a l angle in

the c a s e of such a c o m b i n e d loading. T h r e e types o f loads are acting on t h e t o w e r as
follows: horizontal force a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t from w i n d as well as vertical force
from the nacelle m a s s . T h e effect o f these loads should b e a n a l y z e d separately.
In the structural v o l u m e t h e m o s t significant p a r t p l a y t h e c h o r d s d e s i g n e d against

b u c k l i n g . T h e i r d i m e n s i o n s a r e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o m p r e s s i o n force a n d the r o d
length. It is sufficient to a n a l y z e the c h a n g i n g of t h e v o l u m e o f c h o r d s in the
function o f t h e inclination angle. It h a s b e e n s h o w n that, in t h e case o f a truss w i t h
parallel c h o r d s , a n o p t i m u m h e i g h t ( d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n the c h o r d s ) exists, w h i c h g i v e s
t h e m i n i m u m truss m a s s ( F a r k a s and J a r m a i 1997).
N e g l e c t i n g t h e b r a n c h , a s i m p l e n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e s h o w s that this s t a t e m e n t is
v a l i d a l s o for a cantilever truss w i t h linearly v a r i e d height, l o a d e d b y a t r a n s v e r s e
force a c t i n g at the truss end. T h e c a s e o f a t w o - b a r truss l o a d e d b y a h o r i z o n t a l force
is s h o w n in F i g . 9 . 3 . T h e m e m b e r force a n d length is
S = —^—,L = -^— (9.40)

2 sin a cos a
When a i n c r e a s e s , t h e m e m b e r force S d e c r e a s e s a n d its length L i n c r e a s e s , t h u s , a n

o p t i m u m inclination a n g l e exists for t h e m i n i m u m structural v o l u m e .
Figure 9.3 The member force and the bar length when the inclination angle changes in the case of a
horizontal force
T h i s fact can b e verified b y a n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e for a truss w i t h t w o b a r s o f circular

6
h o l l o w section ( C H S ) . D a t a are F = 2 x l 0 [ N ] , H = 5 m . T h e results o f t h e
c a l c u l a t i o n are g i v e n in T a b l e 9.2.
T a b l e 9.2. T h e v o l u m e of t h e t r u s s s h o w n in Fig. 9.3 as a f u n c t i o n o f the

inclination angle
a L [mm] SxlO 3
[N] D [mm] t [mm] A [mm ]
2
V=ALxl0 ' J
[mm ] 3
10 5077 5759 475.3 11.7 17050 8.66

20 5320 2924 333.0 9.4 9513 5.06
30 5773 2000 303.1 7.6 7034 4.06
40 6527 1556 283.9 7.1 6172 4.03
45 7071 1414 281.2 7.0 6055 4.28
50 7779 1305 282.8 7.1 6125 4.76
60 10000 1155 300.0 7.5 6893 6.89
It can b e seen that t h e o p t i m u m a n g l e is 40°.

A n o t h e r c a s e is a simple 3-bar t r u s s l o a d e d b y a p a i r o f vertical forces (Fig.9.4). In

this case
S = - £ - , L = - 2 - (9.41)
cosa cosa
W h e n t h e angle increases, b o t h the m e m b e r force S a n d the length L increases. T h u s ,

t h e o p t i m u m angle for t h e m i n i m u m structural v o l u m e is 0°.
Figure 9.4. The member force and the bar length when the inclination angle changes in the case of a pair
of vertical forces
F r o m t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d facts it c a n b e c o n c l u d e d that, in t h e c a s e o f horizontal

a n d vertical loads an o p t i m a l a n g l e exists and it d e p e n d s o n t h e ratio o f t h e
m a g n i t u d e s o f t h e t w o load t y p e s . In t h e case o f a h i g h t o w e r w i t h a horizontal force
o n t h e t o p the b e n d i n g m o m e n t is so large that t h e o p t i m u m inclination angle
c o n v e r g e s to z e r o . D e t a i l e d calculations s h o w that this o p t i m u m a n g l e is a b o u t 3°,
t h u s , it is m o r e c o n v e n i e n t for fabrication to u s e parallel c h o r d s . W e u s e a b o t t o m
part with parallel c h o r d s w i t h a distance o f 2.9 m (Fig. 9.7).
9.1.3.4 Design of circular hollow sections (CHS) for the three tower parts
T h e suitable sections are o b t a i n e d u s i n g the a b o v e d e s c r i b e d iterative m e t h o d . T h e

c h e c k of the sections is s u m m a r i z e d in t h e following tables.
T a b l e 9.3. C h e c k o f s e c t i o n s for t h e u p p e r t o w e r p a r t (stresses in M P a )
Member CHS A [mm ] 2

5[kN] K L [mm] r [mm] yfAA a=S/A
chords 244.5x8 5940 1320 0.9 3000 83.7 296 222
braces 114.3x5 1720 315 0.75 3662 38.7 207 180
columns 76.1x4 906 181 0.75 2100 25.5 232 200
T a b l e 9.4. C h e c k o f s e c t i o n s for t h e m i d d l e t o w e r p a r t

5[kN] K L [mm] r [mm] If A A o=S/A
chords 323.9x10 9860 2348 0.9 3000 111 309 238
braces 114.3x5 1720 279 0.75 3905 38.7 191 162
columns 88.9x3.2 862 179 0.75 2500 30.3 232 207
T a b l e 9.5. C h e c k o f s e c t i o n s for t h e b o t t o m t o w e r p a r t

S[kN] K L [mm] r [mm] tfv/l.l a=S/A
chords 355.6x10 10900 3052 0.9 3000 122 312 280
braces 114.3x5 1720 285 0.75 4170 38.7 181 166
columns 88.9x4 1070 198 0.75 2900 30.0 203 185
2100
048.3x3.2
Figure 9.5. Truss of the top tower part
T h e struts o f horizontal d i a p h r a g m s are selected o n t h e basis o f t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n o f

m i n i m u m rod slenderness
. KL ^ KL
(9.42)
r /U
A c c o r d i n g to B S 5 4 0 0 = 180. T h e selected C H S are s h o w n in T a b l e 9.6.
0323.9x10
/ ^—
/
/ Of 14.3x5
088.9x3.2
/ o
o
to
/
/ 2500
048.3x3.2
Figure 9.6. Truss of the middle tower part
T a b l e 9.6. C H S for d i a p h r a g m s
Part L [mm] r min [mm] CHS r [mm]

Top 2970 12.4 48.3x3.2 16.0
Middle 3540 14.8 48.3x3.2 16.0
Bottom 4101 17.1 60.3x3.2 20.2
9.1.3.5 Check of chord plastification in tubular joints
A c c o r d i n g to W a r d e n i e r et al.(1991) the criterion for c h o r d plastification is
2 r (9.43)
S<N =
sin#
1.8 + 1 0 . 2 ^ f(r,g'W)>
i J
x
w h e r e w i t h a> = a, 13000
Figure 9.7. Truss of the bottom tower part
CO
sinO = -
Ar.g')=r° 1+ e a p ( 00.02V ,1,

.5g'-1.33)+l j l
4 .
2t
(9.44)
x
/ ( « ' ) = 1 + 0.3m'(1-w'); «' = — — , ( m i n u s sign m e a n s c o m p r e s s i o n ) ;

J y
a = S/A.
F o r m u l t i p l a n a r structures N* s h o u l d b e m u l t i p l i e d b y 0.9.
T h e c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e s 9.7, 9 . 8 , 9.9.
T a b l e 9.7 C h e c k o f c h o r d plastification in t o p t o w e r p a r t
Member force S CHS A a f(«') %,£') 0.97V

[kN] [mm ] 2
[MPa] [kN]
chord 1320 244.5x8 5940 222 0.6947 2.4528
brace 315 114.3x5 399
column 181 76.4x4 229
T a b l e 9.8 C h e c k o f c h o r d plastification in m i d d l e t o w e r p a r t
Member force S CHS A a f(«') %,£') 0.9JV

2
[kN] [mm ] [MPa] [kN]
Chord 2348 323.9x10 9860 238 0.6638 2.57
brace 315 114.3x5 460
column 179 88.9x3.2 294
T a b l e 9.9 C h e c k o f c h o r d plastification in b o t t o m t o w e r p a r t
Member force S CHS A a fi>') 0.9JV

[kN] [mm ] 2
[MPa] [kN]
chord 3052 355.6x10 10900 280 0.5768 2.7175
brace 285 114.3x5 365
column 198 88.9x4 254
9.1.3.6 Check ofjoint eccentricity
T h e eccentricity is defined b y
d, ) . d 2 d.
e = — +g tan9 + 1
- (9.45)
2 J 2cos0 2
w h e r e g = t\ is t h e g a p a n d the r e q u i r e m e n t is
- 0 . 5 5 d , < e < 0.25d, • (9.46)
T h e c h e c k s are s h o w n in T a b l e 9.10.
T a b l e 9.10. C h e c k o f j o i n t e c c e n t r i c i t y , sizes in m m
Part d, d2
d 3
g tan# cosf? e
Top 244.5 114.3 76.1 8 0.700 0.819 -20 134
Middle 323.9 114.3 88.9 10 0.768 0.768 -42 178
Bottom 355.6 114.3 88.9 10 0.967 0.719 -46 195
It c a n b e seen that t h e r e q u i r e m e n t is in all c a s e s fulfilled.
9.1.3.7 Check of eigenfrequency
T h e t o w e r is c a l c u l a t e d as a b e n t b e a m w i t h a c o n s t a n t a v e r a g e m o m e n t o f inertia o f
the m i d d l e p a r t
4 2 1 0 4
I x =4(9910xl0 +9860xl250 )=6.20xl0 mm .
T h e e i g e n f r e q u e n c y c a l c u l a t e d with E q (9.38) is
2
a . = l-87 (K= H . 2 (1.78 Hz).
2
L '
T h i s v a l u e s h o u l d b e modified c o n s i d e r i n g the m a s s at the b e a m e n d ni\ = 9 5 0 k N .

T h e t o w e r m a s s is m^L = 175 k N , thus the m o d i f y i n g coefficient for mil(moL) = 5.4
2
is ( 0 . 9 / 1 . 8 7 ) = 0 . 2 3 , i.e. a = 0.41 H z , w h i c h is larger t h a n the rotor frequency 0.37
H z , the t o w e r fulfils the e i g e n f r e q u e n c y r e q u i r e m e n t .
9.1.3.8 Check of fatigue
T h e c h o r d m e m b e r s are c o n n e c t e d to the b a s e plate b y fillet w e l d s a n d these

c o n n e c t i o n s are reinforced b y longitudinal a t t a c h m e n t s for t h e e n d of w h i c h the
6
fatigue stress r a n g e a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3 Part 1-9 ( 2 0 0 2 ) is for 2 x l 0 cycles 71
M P a . U s i n g the w i n d load s p e c t r u m g i v e n b y L a v a s s a s et al. ( 2 0 0 3 ) for an a v e r a g e
6
n u m b e r o f cycles 1 0 the loads are F = 65 k N and M = 9 6 0 k N m , i.e. the b e n d i n g
w w
moment 45x65 + 960 = 3885 kNm.
C o m p r e s s i o n force in a c h o r d S = 3 8 8 5 / ( 2 x 2 . 9 ) = 6 7 0 k N a n d the stress

6
6 7 0 x 1 0 3 / 1 0 . 9 0 0 = 61 M P a . Fatigue stress r a n g e for 1 0 c y c l e s is 89 M P a , the
a l l o w a b l e stress r a n g e w i t h a safety factor o f 1.35 is 89/1.35 = 6 6 M P a , this is larger
t h a n 61 M P a , t h u s , the t u b u l a r t o w e r is safe against fatigue. N o t e , that the h o t spot
stress m e t h o d c a n n o t b e u s e d a c c o r d i n g t o Z h a o et al. ( 2 0 0 1 ) , since t h e N - t y p e C H S
truss is n o t treated in it. F o r this j o i n t also the stress r a n g e of 71 M P a is given.
9.1.3.9 Cost calculation
A c c o r d i n g to Price List ( 1 9 9 5 ) the following profile prices are c o n s i d e r e d :
T h e structural m a s s is
y
G = p £ A,L,. t (9-47)
T a b l e 9 . 1 1 . M a t e r i a l c o s t f a c t o r s for a v a i l a b l e C H S d i a m e t e r s
d [mm] k u [$/kg]
48.3, 60.3, 76.4 1.0059
88.9, 101.6, 114.3 1.0553
139.7, 168.3, 177.8, 193.7 1.1294
219.1,244.5,273.0, 323.9 1.2922
355.6, 406.4 1.3642
a n d the material cost is calculated as
K*=P%*»4Lf (9-48)
C o s t of cutting a n d g r i n d i n g of the tubular m e m b e r e n d s c a n b e o b t a i n e d b y
2
K CG = M ^ £ ^ - ( 4 . 5 4 + 0.4229>, ), (9.49)
i sin 8
the difficulty ( c o m p l e x i t y ) factor is 0 DC = 3; d in m , r, in m m .

t
C o s t of a s s e m b l y
n
K =k 0 {KpV) ;
A F M 0 =3,
dA (9.50)
Cost of welding
K =\M 0 Y C a L ;
w F dw J m
n
m m 0 =3.5,
dW (9.51)
i"
3
for shielded m e t a l arc w e l d i n g ( S M A W ) Cw = 0.7889x10 ; a Wi = U ( m m ) is t h e
w e l d size, w=2; i . = L is t h e w e l d length in m m .

sinf?,
Cost of painting
K =k ® A ,®
P p p P P = 2, (9.52)
6 2
k=
P 14.4xl0" $/mm .
t h e surface t o b e p a i n t e d is
A =Xd^L.
p (9.53)
T h e details o f the cost calculation a r e s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 9 . 1 2 .
9.1.4 C o n c l u s i o n s
T w o structural v e r s i o n s o f a 4 5 m h i g h 1 M W w i n d turbine t o w e r a r e d e s i g n e d a n d
c o m p a r e d t o e a c h other r e g a r d i n g t h e m a s s a n d cost. T h e stiffened shell structure
should b e d e s i g n e d with constraints o n shell a n d stiffener b u c k l i n g , e i g e n f r e q u e n c y
a n d fatigue. T h e shell consists o f three slightly conical p a r t s w i t h variable d i a m e t e r s
a n d t h i c k n e s s e s . T h e three parts a r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h b o l t e d j o i n t s t h e cost o f w h i c h is
neglected. T h e cost is c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e , i n c l u d i n g t h e
material, cutting o f flat stiffeners from plates, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g costs.
T h e tubular truss structure consists also from t h r e e parts w i t h different b u t constant
w i d t h . T h e four truss p l a n e s a r e stiffened b y h o r i z o n t a l d i a p h r a g m s c o n s t r u c t e d from
t w o struts. A suitable s u b o p t i m i z a t i o n m e t h o d is u s e d for t h e e c o n o m i c design o f
c o m p r e s s e d C H S struts.
2
T a b l e 9.12 C o s t s i n $ o f t h e t u b u l a r t o w e r , t h e s u r f a c e .4/-to b e p a i n t e d i n m m
b
Part G [kg] Km Kcg K A
K W
A xW
P KP K
top 3437 4139 1936 1180 2514 72.46 2087 11856

middle 7395 9096 2867 1965 3108 130.11 3747 20783
bottom 6701 8643 2551 1629 2353 116.17 3346 18522
total 17533 21878 7354 4774 7975 318.74 9180 51161
It is s h o w n that, in t h e case o f large b e n d i n g m o m e n t from w i n d l o a d s , t h e o p t i m u m

inclination angle o f t h e b o t t o m truss part c o n v e r g e s to zero. T h e r e f o r e , t h e b o t t o m
p a r t is also c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h parallel c h o r d s . T h e t u b u l a r j o i n t s are c h e c k e d for c h o r d
plastification a n d eccentricity. T h e truss is c h e c k e d for e i g e n f r e q u e n c y a n d fatigue.
T h e following costs are calculated: material, cutting a n d g r i n d i n g o f strut e n d s ,

assembly, welding and painting.
T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f the t w o structural v e r s i o n s s h o w s that the t u b u l a r truss h a s

s m a l l e r m a s s ( 1 7 5 3 3 c o m p a r e d t o 3 0 5 1 8 k g ) , s m a l l e r surface to b e p a i n t e d a n d is
m u c h c h e a p e r t h a n t h e shell structure ( 5 1 1 6 1 c o m p a r e d t o 8 5 6 2 8 $).
9.2 MINIMUM COST DESIGN OF A COLUMN-SUPPORTED OIL

PIPELINE STRENGTHENED BY A TUBULAR TRUSS
9.2.1 Introduction
In t h e case, w h e r e t h e d i s t a n c e o f s u p p o r t i n g c o l u m n s is in a special p l a c e larger

t h a n the other d i s t a n c e s , is n e c e s s a r y to strengthen t h e p i p e . T h i s s t r e n g t h e n i n g can
b e realized b y p r e s t r e s s e d cables or b y an u p p e r or l o w e r truss w e l d e d to t h e m a i n
t r a n s p o r t i n g p i p e . It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t it is a s s u m e d t h a t t h e larger distance is n o t
t o o large a n d a special s u p p o r t i n g b r i d g e is not n e e d e d .
T h e a i m o f o u r s t u d y is to d e s i g n a l o w e r s t r e n g t h e n e d tubular truss (Fig.9.8). T h i s

s i m p l e t r u s s consists o f t w o d i a g o n a l s a n d a vertical c o l u m n . T h e d i a g o n a l s are
l o a d e d b y t e n s i o n and h a v e t h e s a m e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area. T h e vertical c o l u m n is
l o a d e d b y c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g a n d is d e s i g n e d against overall b u c k l i n g .
T h i s c o m p l e x structural s y s t e m is statically i n d e t e r m i n a t e a n d t h e u n k n o w n force in

t h e c o l u m n is calculated b y force m e t h o d u s i n g a deflection e q u a t i o n . T h e
s y m m e t r i c truss g e o m e t r y h a s an u n k n o w n , the h e i g h t H. T h i s u n k n o w n , as w e l l as
t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f t r u s s m e m b e r s , are c a l c u l a t e d from t h e c o n d i t i o n that t h e m a t e r i a l
a n d fabrication costs o f t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g tubular truss should b e m i n i m u m .
C o n s t r a i n t o n local b u c k l i n g o f circular h o l l o w section truss m e m b e r s , as w e l l as t h e

constraint on strength a n d g e o m e t r y o f t h e n o d e , are also c o n s i d e r e d . T h e a d v a n c e d
cost function, u s e d in o u r p r e v i o u s s t u d y ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 3 ) , i n c l u d e s t h e
m a t e r i a l a n d fabrication costs. T h e fabrication costs relate to t h e cutting o f strut
e n d s , a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d p a i n t i n g . F o r the c o n s t r a i n e d function m i n i m i z a t i o n t h e
efficient m a t h e m a t i c a l c o m p u t e r m e t h o d is u s e d b a s e d o n t h e R o s e n b r o c k ' s
H i l l c l i m b a l g o r i t h m c o m p l e m e n t e d b y a discretization p r o c e d u r e to o b t a i n available
c i r c u l a r h o l l o w sections. It c a n b e m e n t i o n e d , t h a t t h e m i n i m u m v o l u m e d e s i g n o f
p i p e l i n e b r i d g e s is treated b y O r b a n ( 1 9 9 7 ) .
9.2.2 D e r i v a t i o n o f t h e c o l u m n force
T h e structure o f the s t r e n g t h e n e d p i p e is statically i n d e t e r m i n e d . T h e u n k n o w n

c o l u m n force X can be d e r i v e d from a deflection e q u a t i o n . T h e deflection at
1
m i d s p a n o f s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d p i p e w i t h o u t s t r e n g t h e n i n g from t h e distributed load p

is (Fig.9.8)
5pU
w =—^ , (9.54)
384£7
w h e r e L is t h e larger s u p p o r t d i s t a n c e , E is t h e elastic m o d u l u s , I is t h e m o m e n t o f
x
inertia o f t h e original p i p e . T h e deflection o f t h e p i p e w i t h o u t s t r e n g t h e n i n g at the

m i d s p a n from t h e c o l u m n force X is t
Xfi (9.55)
48EL
T h e deflection c a u s e d b y t h e axial d e f o r m a t i o n o f the t u b u l a r truss is
S,s,L
(9.56)
EA,
w h e r e 5, is t h e n o r m a l force in t h e i-th strut c a u s e d b y X s is t h e n o r m a l force d u e

h t
t o Xi = 1, Li is t h e strut l e n g t h a n d A is t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a r e a o f t h e strut.
t
4h
I m
Figure 9.8. The simply supported pipe strengthened by a tubular truss. The deflections w , w, and w are
p 2
used to derive the unknown internal force Xj.
I n t r o d u c i n g t h e length o f d i a g o n a l s as
2
— +H , (9.57)
? = \,
4
t h e n o r m a l force in the d i a g o n a l s is
= (9.58)
2H
and
3
XH Xq
w =
X
_ . +
x
(9-59)
2
Z
EA\ 2EA H 2
F r o m t h e deflection e q u a t i o n o f
w - wj = w ,
p 2 (9.60)
one obtains
5 L
P* (9.61)
X\ =
384/^
q = JL + H + -JL^. (9.62)
2
48/, A\ 2A H 2
9.2.3 D e s i g n o f t h e o r i g i n a l p i p e
T a k e t h e original p i p e span length as L = 12 m . C o n s i d e r a s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d p i p e .

0
L o a d s : self m a s s , oil in t h e p i p e a n d internal p r e s s u r e . W e select for t h e original p i p e

a c c o r d i n g to D I N 2 4 5 8 ( 1 9 8 1 ) a p r o f d e o f 2 1 9 . 1 x 6 . 3 , self m a s s 3 3 . 0 6 k g / m . T h e
2 2
cross-sectional area for t h e oil fdling is A F = ^ 2 0 6 . 5 1A = 3 3 4 9 1 m m . Oil density
6 3
is 0 . 8 x l 0 " k g / m m . A c c o r d i n g to t h e s t a n d a r d E N 1594 ( 2 0 0 1 ) t h e partial safety
factor for self m a s s is 1.5, for oil 1.39 a n d t h e yield strength should b e m u l t i p l i e d b y
0.72. T h e intensity o f the factored u n i f o r m l y distributed n o r m a l load is p =
1.5x33.06 + 1.39x0.8x33.491 = 86.83 k g / m = 0 . 8 6 8 3 N / m m .
T h e m a x i m u m b e n d i n g m o m e n t is:
6
M m a x = pL\lc\ = 15.63x10 Nmm.
T h e section m o d u l u s is
2 3
W x = 7z-212.8 x6.3/4 = 224065 mm .
a n d t h e m a x i m u m n o r m a l stress d u e to b e n d i n g is
° ^ = M m m I W x = 69.c\ MPa.
Stress d u e to an internal p r e s s u r e o f 6 4 b a r = 6.4 M P a is

u P = PpD/(2t) = 6 . 4 x 2 1 2 . 8 / ( 2 x 6 . 3 ) = = 108.1 M P a ,
t h e factored stress is 1.39x108.1 = 150.2 M P a , t h e r e d u c e d stress is
°red = 4*1*+°P = 2 2
V69.8 + 1 5 0 . 2 = = 165.6 < 0 . 7 2 x 2 3 5 = 169.2 M P a , O K .
T a k e t h e larger s p a n length o f L = 17 m . F o r this s p a n length a larger p i p e is n e e d e d ,

w e select t h e profile o f 3 5 5 . 6 x 1 2 . 5 w i t h a self m a s s o f 106 k g / m . T h e section
6 3
m o d u l u s is W = 1 . 1 1 7 x l 0 m m .The cross-sectional area for oil filling is A =
x F
2
8 5 8 4 1 m m . T h e load intensity is p = 1.5x106 + 1.39x0.8x85.841 = 2 . 5 4 4 5 N / m m .
6
T h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t is M = 9 1 . 9 2 x l 0 N m m . T h e b e n d i n g stress is a = 8 2 . 2 9 b
M P a . T h e factored stress from internal p r e s s u r e is 1.39er = 1 2 2 . 1 M P a and t h e
r e d u c e d stress is 147.2 < 169.2 M P a , O K . F o r t h e s a k e o f c o m p a r i s o n , w e calculate

t h e cost o f this larger p i p e a c c o r d i n g to T a b l e 9 . 1 3 : 1.3642x106x17 = 2 4 5 8 $.
T h e cost o f the original p i p e for a larger span length is ( T a b l e 9.13) K 0 =

1.2922x17x33.06 = 7 2 6 $.
N o w w e calculate a s t r e n g t h e n i n g for the original p i p e in the c a s e o f s p a n length L =

17 m . In the design o f the s t r e n g t h e n i n g w e p e r f o r m a m i n i m u m cost design
p r o c e d u r e to a c h i e v e a m a x i m u m cost s a v i n g s against t h e larger p i p e w i t h o u t
strengthening.
T h e u n k n o w n variables are as follows: outer d i a m e t e r s dj, d , 2 t h i c k n e s s e s //, t,

2
geometric dimension / / ( F i g . 9 . 8 ) .
9.2.4 O p t i m i z a t i o n o f t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g t u b u l a r t r u s s
9.2 A A Design constraints
Stress constraint for the original pipe
1
pL ^ XL X
8 4 2
+ 1 5 0 . 2 < 169.2 MPa; (9.63)
W x
6
= 3 1 . 3 7 x 1 0i' Nmm
5 3
^ = 2.2406xl0 mm ;
8
Size limitation for tension members for fabrication reasons
d 2 >1.08rf,. (9.64)
Stress constraint for tension member

X x q l H
< 213 MPa; A2 = 7t(d 2 - t )t ;
2 2 (9.65)
A 2
Stress constraint for the column subject to compression and bending (cross section
of class 3 according to EC3)
In o r d e r t o avoid t h e c o l u m n b u c k l i n g in lateral direction, a lateral force F acting o n u
t h e truss n o d e s h o u l d b e considered. T h i s force c a n b e calculated u s i n g t h e formulae

of t h e B S 5 4 0 0 Part 3 : 1 9 8 2 : for d e s i g n o f U - f r a m e s o f b r i d g e s w i t h u n b r a c e d
compression chords.
P I
F = 12 (9.66)
" P ~PE C 667S'
- * , P E = ^ ; (9.67)
x(d -tjt 2 2 p-x.q/H; (9.68)

.v2 g
25
l E = 2.5(EI SL/2)° . x2 (9.69)
T h i s force causes b e n d i n g o f the c o l u m n , thus it should b e c h e c k e d for c o m p r e s s i o n

and bending according to Eurocode 3 (2002).
X k F H
i -+ » <1; (9.70)
XAfy'Ym W.xfylYMX
2
4 -/,)*,; ^ = î-0 ^ • (9.71)
n{d -t ft x x x ^ (9.72)
8
_ • (9-73)
X
2
<j> = 0.5[l + 0.34(1 - 0 . 2 ) + 1 J (9.74)
I = — ; r = [Sl;
x (9.75)
A =nl— = 93.91; (9.76)

If/,
X,
0.79-0.115
AX fy I7 Ml
(9.77)
k =-
X,
1—
Constraint on local buckling of tubular members
d t -1,
•< 50;/ = 1,2. (9.78)
Constraint on chord plastification at the joint (Fig.9.9)
A c c o r d i n g to W a r d e n i e r et al. ( 1 9 9 1 )
y2
l
sin#,
2.8 + 14.2 f 4
yd
j \f\V,/
j 2t
V
j
> X R
2 K 2
L (9.79)
s i n 9, =
2q
Geometric constraint (range of validity) (Fig.9.8)
A c c o r d i n g to W a r d e n i e r et al. ( 1 9 9 1 )
(p > 3 0 ° i.e. H > 4 9 0 0 m m (9.80)
Figure 9.9. Details of the truss node A in Figure

M a t e r i a l cost is c a l c u l a t e d as
K
M k
= MlPA H + 2k A
M2 lP<l> (9.81)
3
p = 7850 k g / m
T h e material cost factors a r e g i v e n in T a b l e 9.13 in function o f t h e outer d i a m e t e r

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e P r i c e list o f the British Steel ( 1 9 9 5 ) .
T h e cost o f cutting a n d grinding o f strut e n d s ( J a r m a i & F a r k a s 1 9 9 9 , F a r k a s &

J a r m a i 2 0 0 3 ) (Fig.9.9)
2
K c = k %KF c
d +- x |4.54 + 0.4229?! )j +
cos cp J
( 2d, 2d, 2
1
+k & 7t F c
-+- (4.54+0.4229? )|
smtp costp J
H L
s m ^ = —;cos#> = — - (9.82)
q 2q
fabrication cost factor k = 0.667 $/min, @ = 3 .

F c
C o s t o f a s s e m b l y o f t h e original p i p e w i t h t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g :
T a b l e 9 . 1 3 . M a t e r i a l c o s t factors for c i r c u l a r h o l l o w s e c t i o n s ( C H S )
d[mm] ku r$/kgi
88.9, 101.6, 114.3 1.0553
139.7, 168.3, 177.8, 193.7 1.1294
219.1,244.5, 273.0, 323.9 1.2922
355.6, 406.4 1.3642
457.0, 508.0 1.4081
K =k ® fip~V;K
A F Ay = 4;@ =3,
A
(9.83)
V = nDtL + Hn:{d -t )t x x x +
+2qn{ d y 1 ~t )t , 2 2 (9.84)
6 3
7tDtL = 6 0 . 6 7 6 7 x 1 0 mm
C o s t o f w e l d i n g a n d additional w o r k s : S M A W butt a n d fillet w e l d s
, - 3 , x{d -t )l
2 2 |
K =\3k
w F 3.13x10
cos 9 J
3 2
+l.3k F 2x0.7889x10' /^^ ^+
[_ smtp J
3
+ l.3k [4x0.18&9xlO- t?K(d -t )].
p l l
(9.85)
T h e cost o f p a i n t i n g is g i v e n b y
K p = k [Hnd
p x + 2qnd ]2 . (9.86)
6 2
k=
P 14.4xl0- $/mm .
T h e objective function to b e m i n i m i z e d is
K - K U + K C + K +K +K .
A W P (9.87)
9.2.4.3 The optimization procedure and results
In the o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e t h e o p t i m u m v a l u e s o f H, dj, tj, d a n d t are sought, 2 2
w h i c h fulfil t h e d e s i g n constraints ( E q s 9.72, 9 . 7 3 , 9.74, 9.79, 9.87 a n d 9.89) a n d

m i n i m i z e the cost function ( E q . 9 . 9 6 ) . F o r this p u r p o s e t h e R o s e n b r o c k hillclimb
a l g o r i t h m is used. T h i s is a direct search m e t h o d ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 1997) w h i c h d o e s
n o t u s e derivatives and results in c o n t i n u o u s o p t i m u m v a l u e s . It is c o m p l e m e n t e d b y
a discretization p r o c e s s to find t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g available C H S profiles.
T h e available C H S d i m e n s i o n s in m m a c c o r d i n g to D I N 2 4 5 8 ( 1 9 8 1 ) are as follows:

d: 8 8 . 9 ; 101.6; 1 1 4 . 3 ; 139.7; 168.3; 177.8; 193,7 (outer d i a m e t e r )
/; 1.8; 2.0; 2 . 3 ; 2.6; 2 . 9 ; 3.2; 3.6; 4.0; 4 . 5 ; 5.0; 5.6; 6.3 (thickness).
T h e results a r e g i v e n in T a b l e 9.14.
T a b l e 9.14. D i s c r e t i z e d o p t i m i z a t i o n results for different v a l u e s o f / /
//[mm] d t, [mm]
h d , t [mm]
2 2 K [$]
4900 101.6x3.2 114.3x2.0 458
5000 108.0x2.0 127.0x2.6 505
5500 108.0x2.0 127.0x2.6 517
6000 114.3x2.6 127.0x2.6 542
It can b e seen that t h e v a l u e o f H = 4 9 0 0 m m gives t h e m i n i m u m cost, t h u s the

o p t i m u m solution is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e g e o m e t r i c constraint p r e s c r i b i n g the
m i n i m u m inclination a n g l e o f d i a g o n a l s (Eq. 9.89).
C o m p a r i n g the m i n i m u m cost of t h e original p i p e and the s t r e n g t h e n i n g tubular truss

Kmin = 7 2 6 + 4 5 8 = 1184 $ w i t h t h e cost o f t h e larger p i p e K = 2 4 5 8 $, it c a n b e
c o n c l u d e d that the s t r e n g t h e n e d p i p e is m u c h c h e a p e r t h a n the larger o n e .
9.2.5 Conclusions
T h e o p t i m u m d i m e n s i o n s o f a w e l d e d tubular truss are d e t e r m i n e d , w h i c h strengthen

a c o l u m n - s u p p o r t e d oil' p i p e l i n e for a larger (17 m ) s p a n length. T h e p i p e is
d e s i g n e d for an original s p a n length (12 m ) . T h e truss c o l u m n is d e s i g n e d for
c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g . B e n d i n g is c a u s e d b y a t r a n s v e r s e force c o n s i d e r e d to
avoid t h e lateral b u c k l i n g . Since the s t r e n g t h e n e d structure is statically
i n d e t e r m i n e d , t h e u n k n o w n force in t h e truss c o l u m n is calculated from a deflection
equation.
D e s i g n constraints relate to t h e m e m b e r stresses as well as t o strength a n d g e o m e t r y

o f truss n o d e s . T h e cost function i n c l u d e s the costs o f material, cutting and g r i n d i n g
o f strut e n d s , a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g a n d painting.
In t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e s s t h e u n k n o w n s are t h e truss h e i g h t H a n d the d i a m e t e r
a n d t h i c k n e s s o f truss m e m b e r s . T h e o p t i m i z a t i o n s h o w s that t h e optimal H is
d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e g e o m e t r i c constraint p r e s c r i b i n g t h e m i n i m u m inclination angle
o f diagonals.
T h e cost c o m p a r i s o n s h o w s that t h e cost of the s t r e n g t h e n e d p i p e is m u c h l o w e r t h a n

that o f the larger p i p e w i t h o u t s t r e n g t h e n i n g .
10
Square Box Column Composed from
Welded Cellular Plates
10.1 INTRODUCTION
B o x b e a m s a n d c o l u m n s o f large l o a d - c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y are w i d e l y a p p l i e d in
b r i d g e s , b u i l d i n g s , h i g h w a y p i e r s , p i l o n s etc. S i n c e t h e t h i c k n e s s r e q u i r e d for an
unstiffened b o x c o l u m n can b e t o o large, stiffened plate e l e m e n t s or cellular plates
s h o u l d b e used.
Steinhardt ( 1 9 7 5 ) h a s p r o p o s e d a design m e t h o d for b o x b e a m s w i t h stiffened flange

p l a t e s u s i n g formulae for effective plate w i d t h . N a k a i et al. ( 1 9 8 5 ) h a v e w o r k e d out
empirical f o r m u l a e for stiffened b o x s t u b - c o l u m n s subject t o c o m b i n e d a c t i o n s o f
compression and bending.
G e et al. ( 2 0 0 0 ) a n d U s a m i et al. ( 2 0 0 0 ) h a v e studied t h e cyclic b e h a v i o u r a n d

ductility o f stiffened steel b o x c o l u m n s u s e d as b r i d g e piers. L o n g i t u d i n a l flat p l a t e
stiffeners and d i a p h r a g m s as well as constant c o m p r e s s i v e axial force a n d cyclic
lateral l o a d i n g h a v e b e e n considered. E m p i r i c a l formulae h a v e b e e n p r o p o s e d for

ultimate strength a n d ductility capacity.
A n o t h e r p a p e r s a b o u t b r i d g e p i e r s can b e found in conference p r o c e e d i n g s as

follows: Y a m a o , T . et al. ( 2 0 0 4 ) , O h g a , M . et al.(2004) a n d H i r o t a , T . et al. ( 2 0 0 4 ) .
f 1 s
Figure 10.1. A cantilever stub-column of square box section with cellular side plates and the welded
corner
Square box column 255
In o u r p r e v i o u s studies it h a s b e e n s h o w n that, in the case o f uniaxial c o m p r e s s i o n ,

cellular plates is m o r e e c o n o m i c than a longitudinally stiffened o n e ( F a r k a s &
J a r m a i 2 0 0 6 a ) . In a study w e h a v e elaborated a m i n i m u m cost d e s i g n of a cellular
plate subject t o uniaxial c o m p r e s s i o n ( F a r k a s & J a r m a i 2 0 0 6 b ) . T h i s m e t h o d is u s e d
in p r e s e n t p a p e r for a square b o x c o l u m n constructed from four e q u a l cellular plates.
A cantilever c o l u m n is l o a d e d b y a c o m p r e s s i o n force a n d a horizontal load, t h u s , it

is subject to c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g . F r o m this l o a d i n g a c o m p r e s s i o n force is
calculated for t w o opposite plate e l e m e n t s , w h i l e the r e m a i n i n g plate e l e m e n t s are
subject to c o m p r e s s i o n and b e n d i n g . Since this loading is n o t as d a n g e r o u s for the
b u c k l i n g of the r e m a i n i n g side plate e l e m e n t s , it is sufficient to d e s i g n o n l y the t w o
m a i n plate e l e m e n t s . H a l v e d rolled I-section stiffeners are used.
T o s h o w the n e c e s s i t y of stiffening, let u s d e s i g n an unstiffened s q u a r e b o x c o l u m n

u s i n g the following data (Fig. 10.1): L = a = 15 m , N = 3 4 0 0 0 k N , H = O.IA^, the
0 F F
limit of the horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t on the c o l u m n top w = Z-/1000 = 15 m m , the 0
5
steel yield stress f = 355 M P a , elastic m o d u l u s E = 2 . l x l O M P a .
y
T h e limiting plate s l e n d e r n e s s is e x p r e s s e d a c c o r d i n g to E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 2 )
bit <\I5 = 42e,s = p3S/f ,l/S y = 3 4 , / > 5b . (10.1)
T a k i n g the last inequality as equality, the cross section area, m o m e n t o f inertia a n d

section m o d u l u s are defined as
2 4 3
A = 4bt = 4Sb ,I x = 25b /3,W x = 45b 13. (10.2)
T h e stress and d i s p l a c e m e n t constraints are written as
3
N F HLF f y HL
F
<w . 0 (10.3)
W r 1.1 3EI
Since the d i s p l a c e m e n t constraint is g o v e r n i n g , the required b o x section w i d t h can

b e calculated as
3
IH L
J
b> —£— = 2 8 0 5 , / = 2 8 0 5 / 3 4 = 82.5 m m . (10.4)
y 25Ew g
T h i s t h i c k n e s s is unrealistically large, t h u s , stiffening is n e e d e d .
In the o p t i m u m design the following variables s h o u l d b e o p t i m i z e d : the c o l u m n

w i d t h bo, the outer a n d inner plate t h i c k n e s s /, d i m e n s i o n s a n d n u m b e r of stiffeners
h, n. It is sufficient to d e t e r m i n e the height h, since the o t h e r profile d i m e n s i o n s (b,
t a n d tj) can b e calculated u s i n g a p p r o x i m a t e functions d e t e r m i n e d for a selected
w
series o f U B sections a c c o r d i n g to the A r c e l o r c a t a l o g u e (Profil A r b e d 2 0 0 1 ) .
T h e b u c k l i n g constraints are formulated a c c o r d i n g to the D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s rules

(1995).
10.2 CONSTRAINTS
10.2.1 C o n s t r a i n t o n o v e r a l l b u c k l i n g o f a cellular p l a t e (Fig. 10.2)
fv\
a = T fH < 0\ (10.5)
4A {ne -l) W f
Effective cross-sectional a r e a
(10.6)
2
Effective plate w i d t h
s
» = s
> c
> (10.7)
1.8 0.8
C = (10.8)
Figure 10.2. Cellular plate with longitudinal stiffeners

(10.9)
B =1 if B <1.
T h e distance o f t h e g r a v i t y centre G
h +t-t f ^
ZR = - +6 t + (10.10)
2 14 2 V| 2 + t
, (h Y hh h.t — + z r +b tf
+ t-t 4
— z.
r
I =s
y e y tzl s + e y t\- + t-z a \ +~ + ^ 4 2 G
) \
(10.11)
T h e classic b u c k l i n g force is d e r i v e d from t h e H u b e r ' s differential e q u a t i o n for

orthotropic plates
.2 \
B. -Ar + 2H + B.. U 2
Y
(10.12)
T h e b e n d i n g a n d torsional stiffnesses
V, . „ _ V, _E {h
lt + 2tf E
5, (10.13)
2
' 1-v
(10.14)
(10.15)
*' ' " s, ' 2(1 + v ) '
U s i n g E q s ( 1 0 . 1 5 ) , E q (10.14) can be written in t h e form
5 +B
H =— (10.16)
° E (10.17)
X =
1/7 (10.18)
W^—*—, (10.19)
—-*c
2
/, = 2 | / , + ^ - z 0 Jjj(» -l) /, f f + + + ^, (10.20)
If n is even
2
^ =^(»-l)+2^r ^jX(^/ ), / + (10.21a)
if n is o d d
>_2
( ht v 17Y "i
2
/« =—f(«-l)+2
s 6 / / + - ^ £ -f i . (10.21b)
1 Z 2 2
v y/=i,3,5^ J J
10.2.2 C o n s t r a i n t o n h o r i z o n t a l d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c o l u m n t o p
= — - ^ T ^ Y M = 1-M = 300-1000 . (10.22)

10.2.3 C o n s t r a i n t o n local b u c k l i n g o f face p l a t e s c o n n e c t i n g t h e t r a n s v e r s e
stiffeners
4lh [235"
10.3 N U M E R I C A L D A T A (Fig. 1)
7
a = 15000, N = 3 x l 0 [ N ] , steel yield stress f = 3 5 5 M P a , elastic m o d u l u s E =
0 x y
5 5 6 3
2 . 1 x l 0 M P a , shear m o d u l u s G = 0 . 8 1 x l 0 , d e n s i t y p = 7 . 8 5 x l 0 " k g / m m , P o i s s o n
ratio v = 0 . 3 , selected rolled I-sections U B profiles.
R a n g e s o f u n k n o w n s : 4 < t < 2 0 m m , 152 < h < 1016 m m , 4<n<n , n are max max
d e t e r m i n e d b y the following fabrication constraints:

K
— -6 >300mm. v (10.24)
n
T h e other d i m e n s i o n s o f a h a l v e d rolled I-section are g i v e n b y approximate
functions o f h in A p p e n d i x .
h =h~2t .
{ f (10.25)
T h e discrete v a l u e s o f h are as follows: 152.4, 177.8, 2 0 3 . 2 , 2 5 7 . 2 , 3 0 8 . 7 , 3 5 3 . 4 ,

4 0 3 . 2 , 4 5 4 . 6 , 5 3 3 . 1 , 6 0 7 . 6 , 6 8 3 . 5 , 7 6 2 . 2 , 8 4 0 . 7 , 9 1 0 . 4 , 1016 m m .
10.4 C O S T F U N C T I O N
T h e cost function i n c l u d e s t h e cost o f material, a s s e m b l y , w e l d i n g as w e l l as

p a i n t i n g a n d is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
K M =k pV ;k M 6 u =1.0 $/kg. (10.26)
W e l d i n g o f t h e b a s e p l a t e w i t h butt w e l d s ( S A W - s u b m e r g e d arc w e l d i n g ) ( F a r k a s
& Jarmai 2 0 0 3 ) . A fabricated p l a t e e l e m e n t h a s sizes o f 6 0 0 0 x 1 5 0 0 m m or less.
T h e fabrication cost factor is t a k e n as k = 1.0 $/min, t h e factor o f c o m p l e x i t y o f the F
a s s e m b l y ® = 2: w
K F0 =k\® w 3npV 0 + l.3C t"'L \,

w m (10.27)
Vo = a b t, 0 0 L =2b +a (n-l),
m d 0 (10.28)
3
for?<ll C w = 0.1346x10 ;n, = 2 , (10.29a)
3
for />11 C w =0.1033xl0" ;rc, =1.904. (10.29b)
W e l d i n g ( « - l ) stiffener w e b s to the b a s e p l a t e w i t h d o u b l e fillet w e l d s ( G M A W - C -

gas m e t a l arc w e l d i n g w i t h C 0 ) : 2
3 2
K Fl = k [@ F J'n pV x +1.3x0.3394x10" a 2a (n M 0 -l)], (10.30)
aWx = 0.4 t wx but a „ wxmi = 3 mm,
V =a b t
x 0 0 +
2 +bt yX» f (10.31)
W e l d i n g o f n-2 inner p l a t e strips from 3 parts w i t h butt w e l d s
r
K F1 =k [®J 3pV ~+\.3C t"'x2s\n-2),
F 2 w (10.32)
V 2 = ast 0 y
W e l d i n g o f inner p l a t e strips to the stiffener flanges with 2 fillet w e l d s ( e x c l u d i n g 2

side strips)
K =k [@
F3 F V(«-l)pV 2 +1.3x0.3394x10" a 2a [n3 2
w2 0 -2% (10.33)
=
a W 2 = 0.7 t b u t a 2.min
W 3 mm,
V =V V (n-2).
3 l+ 2
W e l d i n g of 4 outer plates of cellular plates to the c o r n e r plates w i t h 4 fdlet w e l d s
3
K =k [®^SpV
F4 F 4 +1.3x0.3394xl0" 4 16<3 ], 2 0 (10.34)
h4l
V =V +4t a
4 3 c 0 + 3t r
W e l d i n g of 8 inner side plate strips w i t h 3 butt w e l d s
h)~\
^F5 ~ kp ®J3p~V~ \3C t 2\ i+ w
M
s,--j*8. (10.35)
W e l d i n g of 8 inner side plate strips to the c o r n e r plates a n d side stiffener flanges

w i t h fillet w e l d s
3 2
K Fb = k [®^J9pV F 6 +1.3x0.3394xl0" a \6awl a J, (10.36)
V =V +SV .
6 4 5
P a i n t i n g cost is calculated as
K =k Q S , p p p P (10.37)
6 2
k = 1 4 . 4 x l 0 " $ / m m , ® = 2.
P P
Surface to b e painted
S =4a (b +b ).
p 0 0 l (10.38)
T h e total cost
K =K+ M 4{K F0 +K FI +K F2 +K F3 +K )+ F4 K F5 +KF6 +KP . (10.39)
10.5 O P T I M I Z A T I O N A N D R E S U L T S
T a b l e 10.1 s h o w s optimal solutions for different h-values obtained b y a systematic

search u s i n g a M a t h c a d calculation.
T a b l e 10.1 O p t i m a l s o l u t i o n s for different h - v a l u e s . T h e result is m a r k e d b y

b o l d letters. T h e a l l o w a b l e d i s p l a c e m e n t is 15 m m
h [mm] / [mm] n b„ [mm] a <a [MPa] w [mm] K[$]

cr
152.4 6 13 5060 303<318 12.3 71060

257.2 5 13 5230 296<321 11.0 64130
353.4 5 10 5520 32K322 12.0 62610
454.6 5 8 5350 322<323 13.0 61400
533.1 5 7 4700 294<323 15.0 60430
607.6 5 7 4480 26K322 14.9 62730
It c a n b e s e e n that t h e solution o f h = 533.1 m m gives t h e m i n i m u m cost. F o r

s m a l l e r h-s t h e stress constraint, for larger h-s t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t constraint is active.
10.6 CONCLUSIONS
A cantilever stub c o l u m n o f a s q u a r e b o x section is o p t i m i z e d . T h e c o l u m n is

subject to c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g a n d is c o n s t r u c t e d from four equal cellular side
p l a t e s . T h e t h i c k n e s s a n d w i d t h o f side plates as w e l l as the d i m e n s i o n s a n d n u m b e r s
o f longitudinal stiffeners a r e calculated to fulfil t h e constraints a n d m i n i m i z e t h e
cost function.
T h e constraints o n overall b u c k l i n g are formulated a c c o r d i n g t o t h e D e t N o r s k e

V e r i t a s d e s i g n rules. T h e horizontal d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c o l u m n t o p is limited. T h e
m i n i m u m distance b e t w e e n stiffeners is p r e s c r i b e d t o e a s e t h e w e l d i n g o f stiffeners
t o t h e b a s e plates.
H a l v e d rolled I-profde stiffeners are used. T h e i r h e i g h t c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e w h o l e

p r o f d e , since t h e other d i m e n s i o n s can b e e x p r e s s e d b y h e i g h t u s i n g a p p r o x i m a t e
functions d e r i v e d from t h e data o f a profile series selected from a v a i l a b l e sections.
T h e cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e .
It is p o s s i b l e to c o m p a r e the costs o f three structural v e r s i o n s o f t h e c o l u m n w i t h t h e

s a m e height, loads a n d constraints o n stress a n d d i s p l a c e m e n t as follows.
(1) T h e stringer-stiffened circular shell w i t h an o p t i m i z e d radius o f 2 7 0 0 m m (see

C h a p t e r 8.6) h a s t h e m i n i m u m cost o f K= 8 3 3 0 9 ( u n s t i f f e n e d K = 8 2 1 7 7 $),
(2) the s q u a r e b o x structure c o m p o s e d from o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened p l a t e s w i t h an

o p t i m i z e d w i d t h o f b = 4 5 0 0 m m h a s t h e m i n i m u m cost o f K = 7 6 9 9 0 $ (see
0
Farkas & Jarmai 2008),
(3) t h e p r e s e n t cellular b o x structure w i t h an o p t i m i z e d w i d t h o f b = 4 7 0 0 m m has

0
t h e m i n i m u m cost ofK= 6 0 4 3 0 $.
It can b e c o n c l u d e d that t h e cellular b o x c o l u m n is t h e m o s t e c o n o m i c structural

version.
Appendixes
Appendix A
A p p r o x i m a t i o n o f stresses in c o v e r plate a n d stiffeners a c c o r d i n g to S c h a d e ( 1 9 4 1 ) .

T h e T a b l e C u r v e 2 D ( 2 0 0 3 ) is u s e d finding the b e s t curve-fitting function. (Sec.7.4)
(Al)
Stress in t h e stiffener in x direction
c , =a +
r (A2)
X X X X X X
a = 0.4664267441239763
b = -4.624587383840012
c = 24.24565720683284
d= - 6 3 . 8 1 6 8 0 6 3 6 5 0 6 6 8 2
e = 93.39987358860954
/ = -76.71346352316542
g = 32.32002703712877
h = -5.198127750547869
Stress in the c o v e r plate in x direction
b c d e f e h
(A3)
_l_ _L _!_ _1 I I
a= 0 . 1 9 5 5 9 8 4 6 9 3 1 3 0 0 9 8
b= - 0 . 2 8 9 7 4 6 3 2 4 1 1 7 8 8 5 6
c= - 2 . 5 9 1 4 6 4 2 1 9 1 6 5 0 6 6
d= 22.85411176451855
e=-64.64101649616373
f= 8 7 . 6 6 6 3 5 2 0 6 4 2 4 6 6 9
g= - 5 8 . 6 8 7 6 3 1 3 3 1 5 8 5 3 9
h= 1 5 . 6 0 5 7 9 5 7 5 4 4 1 6 8 1
Stress in the stiffener in v direction
2 3 4 5
_ a + cx + ex + gx + ix + kx
1 + bx + dx + fx +hx + jx
a= 0 . 0 9 3 3 5 7 3 9 2 9 2 7 4 8 1 0 8
b= - 2 . 0 7 5 1 8 8 3 9 5 0 0 8 3 2 2
c=-0.1893111520991659
d= 1 . 7 9 3 3 7 6 8 6 2 9 9 0 9 0 8
e=0.1463476326966368
f= - 0 . 8 3 7 8 5 2 6 8 7 7 1 1 9 9 4 5
g= -0.05338805456508658
h= 0 . 2 1 2 9 0 9 2 1 3 8 5 8 2 1 1
i= 0 . 0 0 9 1 7 6 9 0 3 3 4 5 3 2 5 9 8 6
j= - 0 . 0 2 1 6 2 2 9 7 1 2 9 3 0 4 0 4 5
k= - 0 . 0 0 0 5 9 6 2 1 8 2 0 6 3 7 2 5 3 4 2
Stress in the c o v e r plate in y direction
2 3 4
_ a + cx + ex + gx + ix
C
y ~ 1 7 1 2 z-3 ,4 - 5 ' (AJ)
l + bx + dx +fx +hx +jx

a= 0 . 0 3 0 0 3 7 8 1 8 1 9 5 0 2 9 2 1 D 0
b= - 2 . 0 4 2 2 6 5 0 9 7 9 2 5 9 1 4 D 0
c=-0.01097958991738318D0
d= 1 . 8 8 4 6 2 8 0 5 3 7 5 9 4 6 2 D 0
e= - 0 . 0 0 1 8 1 9 2 7 5 8 5 0 7 0 3 1 4 9 D 0
f= - 0 . 8 4 1 8 9 8 1 2 0 0 6 8 1 4 2 2 D 0
g= 0 . 0 0 0 2 3 5 5 9 1 8 8 6 5 4 6 2 3 6 2 D 0
h= 0 . 1 7 2 5 0 4 9 2 0 5 5 7 3 9 1 2 D 0
/= 0 . 0 0 0 1 7 6 7 9 4 2 3 1 4 1 4 0 5 2 7 D 0
j= - 0 . 0 1 2 5 2 2 3 8 1 8 7 2 4 6 6 0 5 D 0
Deflection o f the plate in the m i d d l e
2 6 3 4 5
c w = a + bx+ ° + dx + 2 + fx + ^ + hx + \ + jx + ^ 5 , (A6)
JC X X X X
0 = 19.3849502389358D0
b= - 8 . 5 9 2 5 2 0 4 2 4 6 4 3 7 8 5 D 0
c=-28.03014210194325D0
d= 2 . 4 5 5 0 8 8 3 5 3 7 3 8 0 0 2 D 0
e=25.02816526698025D0
Appendixes 265
f= - 0 . 4 3 7 3 2 2 9 8 2 0 1 6 8 7 3 6 D 0
g=-12.41706988320835D0
h= 0 . 0 4 4 1 9 7 3 7 7 6 0 6 8 7 7 1 4 D 0
/= 2 . 4 8 2 1 4 7 5 4 6 6 1 7 2 0 2 D 0
j= - 0 . 0 0 1 9 3 4 9 9 4 4 3 8 3 9 7 0 4 D 0
*=0.092741603399005D0
Appendix B
A p p r o x i m a t e f o r m u l a e for c# a n d Cjy for t h e local b e n d i n g stresses o f t h e b a s e plate

a c c o r d i n g to ( T a b l e C u r v e 2 0 0 3 ) (Sec.7.4).
2 3 4 5
c fi = a + bx + cx + dx + ex + fx , (Bl)
S m a x
x= , (see E q s . 7.149, 7.150) (B2)
a= -0.01714825171119342
b= -0.04225084511898836
c= 0.2808835957524557
d= -0.2454326924316682
e= 0.0864656177573734
f= -0.01121794872349564
x= — , (B3)
b c d e f
c a + + + + + 2
Jy= - — — -7 T . (B4)
JC JC yc JC JC
0=0.06984365541723147
b= - 0 . 0 5 1 0 1 5 3 1 2 1 2 6 3 2 4 1 6
c= 0 . 0 0 7 4 3 8 3 9 5 2 3 2 9 8 3 6 6 6
0.2053042707173005
e= - 0 . 2 9 1 9 3 1 9 9 2 7 6 3 5 1 9
7^0.1116609274910173
Appendix C
Characteristics of rolled U B profiles
T a b l e C I . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e selected rolled U B profiles (Sales p r o g r a m

2 0 0 7 C o m m e r c i a l sections)
UB Profile h b t w As
2 4
[mm] [Mm] [mm] [mm] [mm ] [mm ]
152x89x16 152.4 88.7 4.5 7.7 2032 834
178x102x19 177.8 101.2 4.8 7.9 2426 1356
203x133x25 203.2 133.2 5.7 7.8 3187 2340
254x102x25 257.2 101.9 6.0 8.4 3204 3415
305x102x28 308.7 101.8 6.0 8.8 3588 5366
356x127x39 353.4 126.0 6.6 10.7 4977 10172
406x140x46 403.2 142.2 6.8 11.2 5864 15685
457x152x60 454.6 152.9 8.1 13.3 7623 25500
533x210x92 533.1 209.3 10.1 15.6 11740 55230
610x229x113 607.6 228.2 11.1 17.3 14390 87320
686x254x140 683.5 253.7 12.4 19.0 17840 136300
762x267x173 762.2 266.7 14.3 21.6 22040 205300
838x292x194 840.7 292.4 14.7 21.7 24680 279200
914x305x224 910.4 304.1 15.9 23.9 28560 376400
1016x305x349 1008.1 302 21.1 40.0 44420 722300
1016x305x393 1016.0 303 24.4 43.9 50020 807700
A p p r o x i m a t e formulae for the sizes o f the universal b e a m U B a c c o r d i n g to the

A r c e l o r c a t a l o g u e (Sales program 2 0 0 7 Commercial sections).
T h e other d i m e n s i o n s of a h a l v e d rolled I-section are e x p r e s s e d b y the m a i n height h

a c c o r d i n g (Sales program 2 0 0 7 Commercial sections) u s i n g curve-fitting
calculations ( T a b l e C u r v e 2 0 0 3 ) are as follows:
2
A = 1093.243940 + 0.033683995 h
s (CI)
2
//= / 3 4 . 5 5 2 5 6 5 8 + 0 . 0 0 0 6 5 1 8 7 5 7 9 A, (C2)
/ =
r,.™.,™
exp 4 5 . 0 0 6 1 7 8 -
156.52880258,1
xlO
.
4
(C3)
L ln
(h ) s J
b= /4676.099669 + 0 . 0 1 1 1 5 9 2 7 / ; / (C4)
t v = ;i6.154183 + 4.228419xl0~ /z ln(/! ) 5
J
2
J (C5)
h,=h -2t s f (C6)
A p p r o x i m a t e formulae for U B profile d i m e n s i o n s
C a l c u l a t i o n o f b (y = b; x = h)
2 2
y = a+b\m+cl\x\x+d(lnx) +el(\rvc) +f(^ (CI)
Appendixes 267
a = 4071797665.515043
b = -377581103.813262
c =-25351511152.9463
d= 1 7 4 4 2 6 6 6 . 4 1 9 8 8 0 0 2
e = 92925416774.55347
/=-155449.0539314809
g = -187087676930.7058
h = -10894.44641480538
/ = 160167765716.8299
C a l c u l a t i o n o f tf(y = t/;x = h)
2 3 4 5 6 1 i
y = a+bx+cx +dx +ex +fx +gx +hx +ix (C8)
a = -26.93815960004096
6 = 0.7030053163805572
c = -0.00569333794408951
05
d= 2 . 3 8 3 1 0 6 2 5 0 4 0 0 3 2 9 x 1 0 "
08
e = -5.605511588090933xl0"
/ = 7.662794270183799x10""
14
g = -5.902409057606285xl0"
17
h = 2.267417890058806xl0"
21
i = -2.99937127358141 lxlO"
C a l c u l a t i o n o f t (y = t ; x = h)
w w
2 3 4 5 6 7 s
y= a+ bx+ cx + dx + ex +fx +gx + hx + ix (C9)
a = 4.598131596507252
b = -0.1667245080692302
c = 0.002662252638593643
05
d= -1.662919423768273xl0"
08
e = 5.42570607199179xl0"
1 0
/= -1.003562930723944xl0
13
g= 1.063362616433473xl0"
17
h = -6.028516559742138xl0"
20
i = 1.419727612597333xl0"
A n o t h e r calculation o f b
2 2 3 3 4 4 5 s
y= a+ bx+ c/x+ dx + e/x +fx +g/x + hx + i/x +jx + k/x (C10)
a = -1108926.658794802
b = 2054.96457373585
c = 394347552.4221416
d= - 2 . 4 7 5 9 2 0 4 9 4 5 6 8 9 9 4
e = -91315532919.66857
/ = 0.001858445891156483
g= 1 3 1 8 9 0 5 3 8 8 8 7 6 2 . 8 5
0 7
h = -7.856977790442618xl0
i= - 1 0 7 3 6 7 0 3 6 2 5 0 7 4 9 2
j= 1.422535840934241x10"'°
1 6
£=3.744384150518803xl0
Appendixes 269
Appendix D
Table D l Applied welding technologies
SMAW Shielded Metal Arc Welding

SMAW HR Shielded Metal Arc Welding High Recovery
GMAW-C Gas Metal Arc Welding with C 0 2
GMAW-M Gas Metal Arc Welding with Mixed Gas

FCAW Flux Cored Arc Welding
FCAW-MC Metal Cored Arc Welding
SSFCAW (ISW) Self Shielded Flux Cored Arc Welding
SAW Submerged Arc Welding
GTAW Gas Tungsten Arc Welding
Table D2 Welding times T ( m i n / m m ) in t h e f u n c t i o n o f w e l d size a w ( m m ) for

l o n g i t u d i n a l fillet w e l d s , d o w n h a n d p o s i t i o n
Welding technology a [mm] 3 3

w
io 7; = i o c x
2
SMAW 0-15 0.7889a;;

SMAW HR 0-15 0.5390<
GMAW-C 0-15 0.3394a;;
GMAW-M 0-15 0.3258a;;
FCAW 0-15 0.2302a*
FCAW-MC 0-15 0.4520a;;
SSFCAW ( I S W ) 0-15 0.2090a;;
SAW 0-15 0.2349a*
T a b l e D 3 W e l d i n g t i m e s T„ ( m i n / m m ) in t h e f u n c t i o n of w e l d size a
2 w ( m m ) for
l o n g i t u d i n a l 1/2 V a n d V b u t t w e l d s d o w n h a n d p o s i t i o n
1/2 V butt welds V butt welds

Welding a„ [mm] io r = 10 CX
3 3
WT =WC al
wl 2
2
technology
SMAW 4-6 6-15 3.13a. 0.5214^ 2.7a„ 0.45a;;
SMAW HR 4-6 6-15 2.14a w 0.3567a;; 1.8462a, 0.3077a'
GMAW-C 4-15 0.2245a;; 0.1939a*
GMAW-M 4-15 0.2157a;; 0.1861a*
FCAW 4-15 2
0.1520a; , 0.1311a;;
FCAW-MC 4-15 0.2993a;; 0.2582a*
SSFCAW ( I S W ) 4-15 2
0.1384a; , 0.1194a*
SAW 4-15 0.1559a* 0.1346a*
T a b l e D 4 W e l d i n g t i m e s T ( m i n / m m ) in t h e function of w e l d size a ( m m ) for

w2 w
l o n g i t u d i n a l K a n d X b u t t w e l d s d o w n h a n d p o s i t i o n in t h e f o r m
K butt welds X butt welds

Welding a„ [mm] WT3 3
= 1 0 C >•; 3 3
w2 io 7; =io 2 c x
technology
SMAW 10-40 0.3539</ 93 9
0.345 l a ^
SMAW HR 10-40 0.2419a 193 9
0.2363a^
w
GMAW-C 10-40 0.1520^ 9 4 9
0.1496a^
GMAW-M 10-40 0.1462a^ 94 9
0.1433a^
FCAW 10-40
0.1032a!, 94
O.lOBaJf
FCAW-MC 10-40 0.2030a^ 94
0.1987^'
SSFCAW 10-40 0.0937a;, 94 9
0.0924a^
(ISW)
SAW 10-40 0.1053a^ 94 9
0.1033a^
Table D 5 Welding times T ( m i n / m m ) in t h e function of w e l d size a

w2 w ( m m ) for
l o n g i t u d i n a l T b u t t w e l d s d o w n h a n d position in t h e f o r m T w2 =^ C a\L
2j wi
Welding technology a [mm]

w 3
1 0 7 ; = 10 C a 3 n
2 2 n
SMAW 2-8 ( 6 - 1
0.1211-0.00473a^ )
SMAW HR 2-8 0.2155a;;+ 2.1485
GMAW-C 2-8 0.2189a^ 84
GMAW-M 2-8 0.2221a^ 82
FCAW 2-8 0.1006a 2

+0.4247
FCAW-MC 2-8 0.2065a +0.44052
SSFCAW ( I S W ) 2-8 0.0918a 2

+0.3791
SAW 2-8 0.01066a +1.698 3
Appendixes 271
T a b l e D 6 W e l d i n g t i m e s T ( m i n / m m ) in t h e function of w e l d size a ( m m ) for

w 2 w
l o n g i t u d i n a l U a n d d o u b l e U b u t t w e l d s d o w n h a n d p o s i t i o n in t h e f o r m
T=Ya.a"L .
w2 / ' 2i m wi
U butt welds double U butt welds
Welding technology a w [mm] ioX = i o c x 3 3
io 7; = i o c x 3
2 2
SMAW 20-40 2.2326a^ 46

1.8195a^ 37
SMAW HR 20-40 1.528(V 46

1.2461^ 3 7
GMAW-C 20-40 0.9642^ 4 6

0.7865a^ 37
GMAW-M 20-40 1.6489^ 4 6

0.7526a^ 37
FCAW 20-40 0.6514^ 4 6

0.5334a^ 37
FCAW-MC 20-40 1.2833a^ 46

1.0462a;, 37
SSFCAW ( I S W ) 20-40 0.5962a^ 46

0.4824a;, 37
SAW 20-40 0.6702< 4 6

0.5461a^ 37
T a b l e D 7 W e l d i n g t i m e s T ( m i n / m m ) in t h e function of w e l d size a
w 2 w ( m m ) for
l o n g i t u d i n a l fillet w e l d s in positional w e l d i n g
Welding technology a w [mm] 3

I O T ; = 10 C a *
2
3
2
SMAW 0-15 1.6670a*

GMAW-C 0-15 0 4 9 3 0 a 2
T a b l e D 8 W e l d i n g t i m e s T ( m i n / m m ) in the function of w e l d size a

wZ K ( m m ) for
l o n g i t u d i n a l V b u t t w e l d s in positional w e l d i n g
Welding technology a„ [mm] 3

io r = io c a:2
3
2
SMAW 4-15 0.9518a*

GMAW-C 4-15 0.2814a*
T a b l e D 9 T i m e n e e d e d for different PWT t e c h n i q u e s
Method T (min/m)
0
Grinding 60
TIG dressing 18
Hammer peening 4
UIT 15
T a b l e D 1 0 C u t t i n g t i m e o f p l a t e s , T p ( m i n / m m ) in t h e f u n c t i o n o f w e l d size a,
C
( m m ) for fillet for l o n g i t u d i n a l fillet w e l d s a n d T-, V - , 1/2 V b u t t w e l d s
Cutting technology Thickness io r 3 3

= io c r
c/J C P
/ [mm]
Acetylene ( normal speed) 2-15 1.1388/ 025
Acetylene ( high speed ) 2-15 0.9561/ 025
Stabilized gasmix ( normal speed ) 2-15 1.1906/° 25
Stabilized gasmix (high s p e e d ) 2-15 1.0858/ 023
Propane (normal speed) 2-15 0

1.294 b - - 24
2 5
Propane (high speed) 2-15 1 105 lr°
Table D l l C u t t i n g t i m e o f plates for 1 m m l e n g t h , T Cf ( m i n / m m ) in t h e

f u n c t i o n o f w e l d size a ( m m ) for fillet for l o n g i t u d i n a l X - a n d K b u t t w e l d s
w
Cutting technology Thickness 3 3

io r C P = io c /" C P
t [mm]
Acetylene (normal speed) 10-40 0.8529/ 036
Acetylene ( high speed ) 10-40 0.6911?° 38
Stabilized gasmix ( normal speed ) 10-40 0.8991/° 36
Stabilized gasmix ( high speed ) 10-40 0.6415/ a44
Propane ( normal speed ) 10-40 0.9565/ 036
Propane ( high speed ) 10-40 0.7870/ 038

References
C H A P T E R 1 Newer Mathematical Optimization Methods
A n n a m a l a i , N . ( 1 9 7 0 ) Cost optimization of welded plate girders. Dissertation, P u r d u e

U n i v . I n d i a n a p o l i s , Ind.
Box,M.J. (1965) A new method of constrained optimization and a comparison with

other m e t h o d s . Computer Journal, 8 4 2 - 5 2 .
D a s g u p t a , D . (Editor), Artificial Immune Systems and Their Applications, Springer-

V e r l a g , I n c . Berlin, J a n u a r y 1999, I S B N 3 - 5 4 0 - 6 4 3 9 0 - 7
D e C a s t r o , L . & T i m m i s J . ( 2 0 0 1 ) Artificial Immune Systems: A New Computational

Intelligence Approach, I S B N 1-85233-594-7
D o r i g o , M . , Di C a r o , G . & G a m b a r d e l l a , L . M . ( 1 9 9 9 ) A n t a l g o r i t h m s for discrete

o p t i m i z a t i o n , Artificial Life, 5 N o . 3, 137-172.
Fan,Y., Sarkar,S. & Lasdon,L. (1988) Experiments with successive quadratic

p r o g r a m m i n g a l g o r i t h m s , J. Optim. Theory Appl. 5 6 p p . 359—383.
Farkas,J. & J a r m a i , K . ( 1 9 9 7 ) Analysis and optimum design of metal structures,

B a l k e m a P u b l i s h e r s , R o t t e r d a m , Brookfield, 3 4 7 p . I S B N 9 0 5 4 1 0 6 6 9 7.
Farkas,J. & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Economic design of metal structures, Millpress

Science Publisher, R o t t e r d a m , 3 4 0 p . I S B N 9 0 7 7 0 1 7 9 9 2
Farkas,J., S i m 6 e s , M . C . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 5 ) M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f a w e l d e d

stiffened square plate l o a d e d b y biaxial c o m p r e s s i o n , Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, Springer Verlag, W i e n - N e w York, 29 No. 4,
298-303.
F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . & S n y m a n J . A . ( 2 0 0 7 a ) G l o b a l m i n i m u m cost d e s i g n of a
th
w e l d e d square stiffened plate s u p p o r t e d at four c o r n e r s . 7 World Congress on
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, WCSM07, May 21-May.25,
2007, C O E X , Seoul, Korea, Proceedings on C D , A 0 3 8 1 , pp. 1057-1066.
Farkas,J., J a r m a i , K . & K o z u h , Z . ( 2 0 0 7 b ) C o s t m i n i m i z a t i o n o f an o r t h o g o n a l l y
stiffened w e l d e d steel plate subject to static and fatigue load. Welding in the
World, 51 2 0 0 7 , Special issue, p p . 3 5 7 - 3 6 6 .
Farkas,J., J a r m a i , K . & O r b a n . F . ( 2 0 0 7 c ) C o s t m i n i m i z a t i o n o f a ring-stiffened

h
conical shell loaded b y external pressure. 6Cf Annual Assembly of International
Institute of Welding, July 1 - July 8, 2 0 0 7 , D u b r o v n i k , Croatia, I I W - D o c . X V -
1248-07, XV-F-80-07, 9 p.
F a r m e r , J . D . , P a c k a r d N . & P e r e l s o n A . , ( 1 9 8 6 ) T h e i m m u n e system, adaptation and

m a c h i n e learning, Physica D, 2 187-204.
F i a c c o , A . V . & M c C o r m i c k , G , P . ( 1 9 6 8 ) Nonlinear sequential unconstrained

minimization technique. J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , Inc. N e w Y o r k .
F o u r i e , P . C . & G r o e n w o l d , A . A . ( 2 0 0 0 ) Particle s w a r m in size and shape

optimisation, International Workshop on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,
7-10, A u g . 2 0 0 0 , Pretoria, S o u t h Africa, P r o c e e d i n g s 9 7 - 1 0 6 .
G o l d b e r g , D . E . ( 1 9 8 9 ) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization & machine

learning, A d d i s o n - W e s l e y P u b l . C o m p a n y , Inc.
G o l o m b , S . W . & B a u m e r t , L . D . ( 1 9 6 5 ) B a c k t r a c k p r o g r a m m i n g , J. Assoc. Computing

Machinery, 12 5 1 6 - 5 2 4 .
G r o e n w o l d , A . A . & S n y m a n , J . A . ( 2 0 0 2 ) Global o p t i m i z a t i o n u s i n g d y n a m i c search

trajectories. J Global Optimiz; 2 4 51 -60.
H i m m e l b l a u , D . M . ( 1 9 7 1 ) Applied nonlinear programming. M c Graw-Hill Book Co.

N e w York.
Jarmai,K. ( 1 9 8 9 a ) Single- a n d multicriteria o p t i m i z a t i o n as a tool o f d e c i s i o n

s u p p o r t s y s t e m , Computers in Industry, Elsevier A p p l i e d Science Publishers, 11
No. 3. 249-266.
Jarmai,K. (1989b) Application of decision support system on sandwich beams,

verified b y e x p e r i m e n t s , Computers in Industry, Elsevier A p p l i e d S c i e n c e
Publishers, 11 N o . 3 . 261-21 A.
J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 5 ) Particle s w a r m m e t h o d as a n e w tool for structural optimization,

Journal of Computational and Applied Mechanics, 6 N o . 2. 2 0 7 - 2 2 6 , M i s k o l c
U n i v e r s i t y Press
K e n n e d y , J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) T h e particle s w a r m : social adaptation o f k n o w l e d g e , Proceedings

of the International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE, Piscataway
NJ, 303-308.
References 275
K e n n e d y , ! & E b e r h a r t , R . C . ( 1 9 9 5 ) Particle s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n . P r o c . IEEE Int'l

Conf. on Neural Networks, I V , 1 9 4 2 - 1 9 4 8 . I E E E service center, P i s c a t a w a y , N J ,
1995. 1 9 4 2 - 1 9 4 8
K o s k i J . ( 1 9 9 4 ) Multicriteria structural optimization, C h a p t e r 6 in A d v a n c e s in

design o p t i m i z a t i o n , Ed. Adeli,FL, C h a p m a n a n d H a l l , L o n d o n ,
M i l l o n a s , M . M . ( 1 9 9 4 ) Swarms, phase transitions, and collective intelligence. In

L a n g t o n , C . G . Ed., Artificial Life III. A d d i s o n W e s l e y , R e a d i n g , M A .
M o r d e c a i , A . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Nonlinear Programming: Analysis and Methods. Dover

Publishing. ISBN 0-486-43227-0.
O s y c z k a , A . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Multicriterion Optimization in Engineering. Ellis Horwood,

Chichester.
O s y c z k a , A . ( 1 9 9 2 ) Computer aided multicriterion optimization system. International

Software P u b l i s h e r s . K r a k o w .
P a r e t o , V . ( 1 8 9 6 ) Cours d'economiepolitique. V o l s . I and II. L a u s a n n e : F . R o u g e
R a o , S . S . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Optimisation theory and applications. Wiley Eastern Limited. N e w

Delhi.
R o s e n b r o c k , H . H . ( 1 9 6 0 ) A n a u t o m a t i c m e t h o d for finding t h e greatest or least v a l u e

o f a function. Computer Journal, 3 , 1 7 5 - 1 8 4 .
R o z v a n y , G . I . N ( 1 9 9 7 ) T o p o l o g y O p t i m i z a t i o n in Structural M e c h a n i c s , S p r i n g e r
Verlag, ISBN 3211829075
S i d d a l l J . N . ( 1 9 8 2 ) Optimal engineering design (Mechanical engineering), Marcell

Dekker, 536 p. ISBN-13: 978-0824716332
Simoes,L.M.C. & Negrao,J.H.J.O. (2000) Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with

b o x - g i r d e r d e c k s , A d v a n c e s in E n g i n e e r i n g Software, 3 1 N o . 6 , 4 1 7 - 4 2 3 .
S n y m a n , J . A . ( 1 9 8 2 ) A n e w a n d d y n a m i c m e t h o d for u n c o n s t r a i n e d m i n i m i z a t i o n .
Applied Mathematical Modelling; 6 4 4 9 - 4 6 2 .
S n y m a n , J . A . ( 1 9 8 3 ) A n i m p r o v e d version o f t h e original leap-frog d y n a m i c m e t h o d

for u n c o n s t r a i n e d m i n i m i z a t i o n L F O P l ( b ) . Applied Mathematical Modelling; 7
216-218.
S n y m a n , J . A . & Fatti,L.P. ( 1 9 8 7 ) A multi-start global m i n i m i z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m w i t h

d y n a m i c search trajectories. J Optimiz Theory Appl; 5 4 1 2 1 - 1 4 1 .
S n y m a n J . A . ( 2 0 0 0 ) T h e L F O P C leap-frog m e t h o d for c o n s t r a i n e d optimization.

Comp. Math. Applic, 4 0 1 0 8 5 - 1 0 9 6 .
S n y m a n , J . A . ( 2 0 0 5 ) Practical mathematical optimization, An introduction to basic

optimization theory and classical and new gradient based algorithms, Springer
Verlag, Heidelberg, 257 p. ISBN-10: 0-387-29824-X
S n y m a n , J . A . & K o k , S . ( 2 0 0 7 ) A strongly interacting d y n a m i c particle s w a r m

optimizational m e t h o d . Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference,
GECCO 2007, P r o c e e d i n g s , L o n d o n , E n g l a n d , U K , J u l y 7 - 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 . A C M 2 0 0 7 ,
I S B N 9 7 8 - 1 - 5 9 5 9 3 - 6 9 7 - 4 : 183
Storn,R. ( 1 9 9 5 ) C o n t r a i n e d o p t i m i z a t i o n , Dr. Dobb's Journal, M a y , ( 1 9 9 5 ) , 119-

123.
Storn,R. & Price,K. ( 1 9 9 5 ) Differential e v o l u t i o n - s i m p l e a n d efficient a d a p t i v e

s c h e m e for global o p t i m i z a t i o n o v e r c o n t i n u o u s spaces. Technical Report T R -
95-012, ICSI.
Timar,I., Horvath,P. & Borbely,T. (2003) Optimierung von profdierten

S a n d w i c h b a l k e n , Stahlbau, 11 N o . 2. 1 0 9 - 1 1 3 .
Uys,P.E., F a r k a s J . , Jarmai,K. & van Tonder,F.(2007) Optimisation of a wind

t u r b i n e t o w e r structure, Journal of Engineering Structures, 2 9 N o . 7, July 2 0 0 7 ,
1337-1342.
Z h o u J . L . & Tits,A.L. ( 1 9 9 6 ) A n S Q P A l g o r i t h m for F i n e l y D i s c r e t i z e d C o n t i n u o u s

M i n i m a x P r o b l e m s a n d O t h e r M i n i m a x P r o b l e m s w i t h M a n y Objective
F u n c t i o n s , SIAMJ. on Optimization, 6 No. 2,461-487.
C H A P T E R 2 Cost Calculations
B o d t , H . J . M . ( 1 9 9 0 ) The Global Approach to Welding Costs. The Netherlands

Institute o f W e l d i n g , T h e H a g u e .
C O S T C O M P ( 2 0 0 2 ) Programm zur Berechnung der Schweisskosten. Deutscher

V e r l a g fur S c h w e i s s t e c h n i k , Diisseldorf.
Farkas,J. & J a r m a i , K . ( 1 9 9 7 ) Analysis and Optimum Design of Metal Structures.

B a l k e m a P u b l i s h e r s , R o t t e r d a m , Brookfield,
F a r k a s J. & J a r m a i K. ( 2 0 0 3 ) Economic design of metal structures, Millpress

S c i e n c e Publisher, R o t t e r d a m , 3 4 0 p . I S B N 9 0 7 7 0 1 7 9 9 2
Glijnis,P.C. ( 1 9 9 9 ) Private c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
Klansek,U. & Kravanja,S. (2006a) Cost estimation, optimization and

c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s o f different c o m p o s i t e floor s y s t e m s - Part 1. Self
m a n u f a c t u r i n g cost estimation o f c o m p o s i t e and steel structures, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 62 N o . 5, p p . 4 3 4 - 4 4 8 .
Klansek,U. & Kravanja,S. (2006b) Cost estimation, optimization and

c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s o f different c o m p o s i t e floor s y s t e m s - Part 2. O p t i m i z a t i o n
b a s e d c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s b e t w e e n t h e c o m p o s i t e I b e a m s , c h a n n e l - s e c t i o n and
h o l l o w - s e c s i o n , Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62 N o . 5, p p . 4 4 9 -
462.
J a l k a n e n J . ( 2 0 0 7 ) Tubular truss optimization using heuristic algorithms, PhD.

T h e s i s , T a m p e r e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e c h n o l o g y , Finland. 104 p .
References 277
J a r m a i , K . & Farkas,J. ( 1 9 9 9 ) C o s t calculation a n d o p t i m i z a t i o n o f w e l d e d steel

structures, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, 5 0 N o . 2. 115-
135.
J a r m a i , K . , Farkas,J. & U y s , P . ( 2 0 0 4 ) O p t i m u m d e s i g n a n d cost calculation o f a

simple frame w i t h w e l d e d or bolted c o r n e r j o i n t s , Welding in the World, 4 8 N o .
1-2. 4 2 - 4 9 .
Ott,H.H. & Hubka,V. (1985) Vorausberechnung der Herstellkosten von Schweiss-

k o n s t r u k t i o n e n ( F a b r i c a t i o n cost calculation o f w e l d e d structures). Proc. Int.
Conference on Engineering Design ICED, 1 9 8 5 , H a m b u r g , 4 7 8 - 4 8 7 . Heurista,
Zurich.
Pahl,G. & Beelich,K.H. (1992) Kostenwachstumsgesetze nach Ahnlichkeits-

b e z i e h u n g e n fur S c h w e i s s - v e r b i n d u n g e n . VDI-Bericht, Nr. 457, 129-141,
Diisseldorf.
Tizani,W.M.K., Yusuf,K.O., Davies,G. & Smith.N.J. (1996) A knowledge based

s y s t e m to s u p p o r t j o i n t fabrication d e c i s i o n m a k i n g at t h e d e s i g n stage - C a s e
studies for C H S trusses. Tubular Structures VII. Eds F a r k a s J . & Jarmai,K.
Rotterdam-Brookfield, Balkema, 483-489.
C H A P T E R 3 Seismic Resistant Design
Design of structures in seismic zones. ( 1 9 9 5 ) E u r o c o d e 8. W o r k e d e x a m p l e s . E d s

L u n g u , D . , M a z z o l a n i , F . & S a v i d i s , S . T e m p u s C M E 0 0 1 1 9 8 / 9 5 Project:
I m p l e m e n t i n g o f Structural E u r o c o d e s in R o m a n i a n Civil E n g i n e e r i n g S t a n d a r d s .
B r i d g e m a n Ltd, T i m i s o a r a , R o m a n i a .
E u r o c o d e E N 1990 ( 2 0 0 2 ) Basis of structural design, E u r o p e a n Standard, B r u s s e l s ,

E u r o p e a n C o m m i t t e e for Standardisation, C E N .
E u r o c o d e 3 E N 1993-1-1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General

structural rules. E u r o p e a n Standard, B r u s s e l s , E u r o p e a n C o m m i t t e e for
Standardisation, C E N .
E u r o c o d e 8 Draft P r E N 1998-1-1 ( 1 9 9 8 ) Design provisions for earthquake

resistance of structures. Part 1 - 1 : G e n e r a l rules - Seismic a c t i o n s a n d g e n e r a l
r e q u i r e m e n t s for structures. Part 1-2: G e n e r a l rules - G e n e r a l rules for b u i l d i n g s .
Part 1-3: G e n e r a l rules - Specific rules for v a r i o u s materials a n d e l e m e n t s .
Section 3: Specific rules for steel b u i l d i n g s . B r u s s e l s , C E N .
E u r o c o d e 8 E N 1998-1-1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) Design of structures for earthquake resistance -

Part 1: G e n e r a l rules, seismic a c t i o n s and rules for b u i l d i n g s , Final Draft,
December, 215 p. Brussels, C E N .
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 6 ) S e i s m i c resistant o p t i m u m design o f a w e l d e d steel

s
frame s u p p o r t i n g a p r e s s u r e vessel. In ICMS 2006. 11 ' Internal. Conf. Metal
Structures R z e s z o w Progress in Steel, Composite and Aluminium Structures.
G i z e j o w s k i , M . A . et al. eds. P r o c e e d i n g s . T a y l o r & F r a n c i s , L o n d o n , etc. 2 0 0 6 .
328-329. CD-Rom. HW-doc. XV-1226-06
Ifrim,M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) Dinamica structurilor si ingineria seismica. E d . 2. E d i t u r a didactica

si p e d a g o g i c a , B u c u r e s t i
Jarmai,K., Farkas,J. & K u r o b a n e , Y . ( 2 0 0 6 ) O p t i m u m s e i s m i c design o f a multi

storey steel frame. Engineering Structures 2 8 N o . 7. 1 0 3 8 - 1 0 4 8 .
C H A P T E R 4 Fire Resistant Design
British Steel ( 1 9 9 9 ) The behaviour of multi-storey steel framed buildings in fire,

Swinden Technology Centre, Rotherham, U.K.
C o x G. ( 1 9 9 9 ) Fire research in t h e 21st century, Fire Safety Journal, 32 203-219.
D u t t a , D . ( 1 9 9 9 ) Hohlprofil-Konstruktionen. Ernst & S o h n , 5 3 2 p . I S B N 3 - 4 3 3 -

01310-1
B S E N 10210-2 ( 1 9 9 7 ) Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine

grain structural steels. Tolerances, dimensions and sectional properties. British
Standard/European Standard 15-Dec-1997. I S B N 0 580 28914 1
B S E N 10219-2 ( 1 9 9 7 ) Coldformed welded structural sections of non-alloy andfine

grain steels. Tolerances, dimensions and sectional properties. British
B u c h a n a n , A . H . ( 2 0 0 1 ) Structural Design for Fire Safety, W i l e y a n d Sons.
E u r o c o d e 1] ( E N V 1991-1) ( 2 0 0 2 ) Basis of design and actions on structures - Part

1: Basis of design, E u r o p e a n C o m m i t t e e for Standardization ( C E N ) , B r u s s e l s ,
Belgium.
E u r o c o d e 1 ( E N V 1991-1-2) ( 2 0 0 2 ) Basis of design and actions on structures

2 -
Part 2-2: Actions on structures - Actions on structures exposed to fire, C E N ,
Brussels, Belgium.
E u r o c o d e 3 ( E N V 1993-1-1) ( 2 0 0 5 ) Design of Steel Structures,

t Part 1 - General
Rules and Rules for Buildings, C E N , B r u s s e l s , B e l g i u m .
E u r o c o d e 3 ( E N V 1993-1-2) ( 2 0 0 5 ) Design of steel structures,

2 Part 1.2: General
rules - structural fire design, ( C E N ) , B r u s s e l s , B e l g i u m .
E S A B ( 2 0 0 3 ) Cutting and consumption table. C u t t i n g s p e e d a c c o r d i n g to D I N 2 3 1 0 .
I S O 8 3 4 ( 1 9 7 5 ) Fire resistance test - Elements of building construction,

International S t a n d a r d s O r g a n i s a t i o n , G e n e v e , Switzerland.
K a y , T . R . , K i r b y , B . R . & P r e s t o n , R . R . ( 1 9 9 6 ) C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e heating rate o f an

u n p r o t e c t e d steel m e m b e r in a s t a n d a r d fire resistance test, Fire Safety Journal,
26, 3 2 7 - 3 5 0 .
Rodrigues,C.J.P., Neves,C.I., Valente,J.C. (2000) Experimental research on the

critical t e m p e r a t u r e o f c o m p r e s s e d steel e l e m e n t s w i t h restrained t h e r m a l
elongation, Fire Safety Journal, 3 5 7 7 - 9 8 .
References 279
Sales program ( 2 0 0 7 ) Commercial sections. A r c e l o r Mittal. L o n g C a r b o n E u r o p e ,

http://www.arcelor.com/sections/upload/diglib/PDFs/190_en.pdf
C H A P T E R 5 Large-span suspended roof m e m b e r s
B i n , M . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Analysis of suspension members of bending stiffness. PhD. Thesis,

T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y o f K o s i c e , (in S l o v a k )
E u r o c o d e 3 E N 1993-1-1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: G e n e r a l

structural rules. E u r o p e a n S t a n d a r d , B r u s s e l s , E u r o p e a n C o m m i t t e e for
F a r k a s J. & J a r m a i K. ( 2 0 0 3 ) Economic design of metal structures. Rotterdam,

Millpress,
K a c h u r i n , V . K . ( 1 9 6 2 ) Theory of suspension structures. Gosstroyizdat, M o s c o w , 222

p . (in R u s s i a n ) .
K m e f S., & B i n M . ( 2 0 0 2 ) E x p e r i m e n t a l a n d theoretical b e h a v i o u r analysis o f n o n

linear s u s p e n d e d m e m b e r s o f b e n d i n g stiffness. Inzinierske stavby, 5 0 N o . 2 , 1 1 -
17. (in S l o v a k ) .
K m e t ' . S . , F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . & K a n o c z J . ( 2 0 0 6 ) Optimization and reliability of

large-span suspended members, I A B S E Symposium Budapest, September 13-
15, R e p o r t p p . 9 2 - 9 3 . P r o c e e d i n g s o n C D A - 0 0 5 0 . p d f 8 p .
K m e t ' , S . , F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . & K a n o c z J . ( 2 0 0 7 ) Parametric evaluation of large-

span suspended members, 17th International C o n f e r e n c e o n C o m p u t e r M e t h o d s
in M e c h a n i c s C M M - 2 0 0 7 konferenciara, J u n e 19-22, 2 0 0 7 , L o d z - S p a l a , P o l a n d ,
P r o c e e d i n g s o f abstract p p . 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 , Full p a p e r P r o c e e d i n g s o n C D ,
papers/073071.pdf,4p.
K v e d a r a s , A . K . & S h a r a s h k i n a s , V . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Behaviour of hollow concrete-filled steel

members subjected to tension and bending. In: P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e International
C o n f e r e n c e o n M e t a l Structures, I C M S - 0 3 , M i s k o l c , p p . 105-110.
M o s k a l e v , N . S . ( 1 9 8 0 ) Structures of suspension roofs. Stroyizdat, M o s c o w , 2 6 4 p .

(in R u s s i a n ) .
Sales p r o g r a m ( 2 0 0 7 ) Commercial sections. A r c e l o r Mittal. L o n g C a r b o n E u r o p e ,

S k l a d n e v , N . N . & S h i m a n o v s k y , A . V . ( 1 9 9 2 ) G e n e r a l calculation m e t h o d for

s u s p e n d e d structures o f large-span b u i l d i n g s and c o n s t r u c t i o n s c o n s i d e r i n g
plastic p r o p e r t i e s o f materials. In: P r o c e e d i n g s o f I A S S - C S C E International
C o n g r e s s " I n n o v a t i v e L a r g e S p a n Structures", V o l . 2 , T o r o n t o , p p . 3 7 5 - 3 8 7 .
T e l o j a n , A . L . & V e d e n i k o v , G . S . ( 1 9 7 7 ) N o n - l i n e a r c o m p u t a t i o n a l m e t h o d o f cables
w i t h b e n d i n g stiffness. Strojiteinaja mechanika i rascet sooruzenij. Moscow, No.
6, 2 6 - 3 0 . (in R u s s i a n ) .
C H A P T E R 6 Frames
A l - S a l l o u m , Y . A . & A l m u s a l l a m , T . H . ( 1 9 9 5 ) O p t i m a l i t y a n d safety o f rigidly a n d

flexibly j o i n t e d steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 3 5 N o .
2, 189-215.
A z u m a , K., K u r o b a n e , Y . & M a k i n o , Y . ( 2 0 0 0 ) Cyclic testing o f b e a m - t o - c o l u m n

c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h w e l d defects a n d a s s e s s m e n t o f safety o f n u m e r i c a l m o d e l l e d
c o n n e c t i o n s from brittle fracture, Engineering Structures, 22 N o . 1 2 , 1 5 9 6 - 1 6 0 8 .
British Steel ( 1 9 9 9 ) The Behaviour of Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings in Fire,

Swinden Technology Centre, Rotherham, U.K.
B S E N 10219 ( 1 9 9 7 ) Cold formed square hollow sections of non-alloy and fine

S t a n d a r d / E u r o p e a n Standard. 1 5 - D e c - 1 9 9 7 . I S B N 0 5 8 0 2 8 9 1 7 6
B S E N 10210-2 ( 1 9 9 7 ) Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine

grain structural steels. Tolerances, dimensions and sectional properties. British
B S E N 10219-2 ( 1 9 9 7 ) Coldformed welded structural sections of non-alloy andfine

Standard/European Standard 15-Dec-1997. ISBN 0 580 28917 6
B u c h a n a n , A . H . ( 2 0 0 1 ) Structural Design for Fire Safety, W i l e y a n d Sons.
C o x G. ( 1 9 9 9 ) Fire r e s e a r c h in t h e 21st century, Fire Safety Journal, 32 203-219.
D A S t Richtlinie 0 1 6 ( 1 9 8 6 ) Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbau. Bemessung und

k o n s t r u k t i v e G e s t a l t u n g v o n T r a g w e r k e n aus d i i n n w a n d i g e n kaltgeformten
Bauteilen.
D u t t a , D . ( 1 9 9 9 ) Hohlprofil-Konstruktionen. Ernst & S o h n , 5 3 2 p . I S B N 3 - 4 3 3 -

01310-1
Design of structures in seismic zones ( 1 9 9 5 ) . E u r o c o d e 8. W o r k e d e x a m p l e s . E d s

L u n g u , D . , M a z z o l a n i , F . & Savidis,S. T e m p u s C M E 0 0 1 1 9 8 / 9 5 Project:
I m p l e m e n t i n g o f Structural E u r o c o d e s in R o m a n i a n Civil E n g i n e e r i n g S t a n d a r d s .
B r i d g e m a n Ltd, T i m i s o a r a , R o m a n i a .
E u r o c o d e 1 ( E N V 1991-1) ( 2 0 0 2 ) Basis of Design and Actions on Structures -Part

1: Basis of Design, E u r o p e a n C o m m i t t e e for S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n ( C E N ) , B r u s s e l s ,
Belgium.
E u r o c o d e 1 ( E N V 1991-1-2) ( 2 0 0 2 ) Basis of Design and Actions on Structures -

Part 2-2: Actions on Structures - Actions on Structures Exposed to Fire, C E N ,
Brussels, Belgium. 60 p.
E u r o c o d e 3 E N 1993-1-1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General

structural rules. E u r o p e a n Standard, B r u s s e l s , E u r o p e a n C o m m i t t e e for
References 281
E u r o c o d e 3 E N 1993-1-2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.2: General Rules

- Structural Fire Design, (CEN), Brussels, European Committee for
S t a n d a r d i s a t i o n , C E N . 7 4 p.
E u r o c o d e 4 Draft p r E N 1994-1-2 ( 2 0 0 3 ) Design of composite steel and concrete

structures. Part 1-2: General rules - Structural fire design, F i n a l Draft (stage
34), 7 M a y 2003, C E N , Brussels.
E u r o c o d e 8 Draft P r E N 1998-1-1 ( 1 9 9 8 ) Design provisions for earthquake

resistance of structures. Part 1 - 1 : G e n e r a l rules - S e i s m i c a c t i o n s a n d general
r e q u i r e m e n t s for structures. Part 1-2: G e n e r a l rules - G e n e r a l rules for b u i l d i n g s .
Part 1-3: G e n e r a l rules - Specific rules for v a r i o u s materials a n d e l e m e n t s .
Section 3 : Specific rules for steel b u i l d i n g s . B r u s s e l s , C E N .
E u r o c o d e 8 p r E N 1998-1-1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) Design of structures for earthquake resistance -

Part 1: G e n e r a l rules, s e i s m i c actions a n d rules for b u i l d i n g s , Final Draft,
December, 215 p. Brussels, C E N .
E S A B ( 2 0 0 3 ) Cutting and consumption table. C u t t i n g s p e e d a c c o r d i n g to D I N 2 3 1 0 .
Farkas,J. & J a r m a i , K . ( 1 9 9 7 ) Analysis and optimum design of metal structures,

B a l k e m a P u b l i s h e r s , R o t t e r d a m , Brookfield, 3 4 7 p . I S B N 9 0 5 4 1 0 6 6 9 7.
F a r k a s , J . , J a r m a i , K . , V i s s e r - U y s , P . ( 2 0 0 2 ) C o s t c o m p a r i s o n o f b o l t e d and w e l d e d
lh
frame j o i n t s , 55 Annual Assembly of International Institute of Welding, J u n e 2 3 -
2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , C o p e n h a g e n , X V - 1 1 0 1 - 0 2 , X V - W G 9 - 1 7 - 0 2 , 13 p.
Farkas,J. & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Economic design of metal structures. Rotterdam,

Millpress, 340 p . ISBN 90 77017 99 2
F o u r i e , P . C . & G r o e n w o l d , A . A . ( 2 0 0 0 ) Particle s w a r m in size and shape

o p t i m i s a t i o n , International Workshop on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,
7-10, Aug. 2000, Pretoria, South Africa, P r o c e e d i n g s : 9 7 - 1 0 6 .
G l u s h k o v , G . , Y e g o r o v , I . & Y e r m o l o v , V . ( 1 9 7 5 ) Formulas for designing frames,

M I R Publishers, M o s c o w .
Ifrim,M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) Dinamica structurilor si ingineria seismica. Ed. 2. E d i t u r a didactica

si p e d a g o g i c a , B u c u r e s t i .
I S O 8 3 4 ( 1 9 7 5 ) Fire Resistance Test - Elements of Building Construction,

International S t a n d a r d s O r g a n i s a t i o n , G e n e v e , S w i t z e r l a n d .
I v a n y i , M . ( 1 9 9 9 ) Structural steelwork, Eurocodes-Development of a Trans-National

Approach, M u e g y e t e m i K i a d o , B u d a p e s t .
K a m e s h k i , E . S . & S a k a , M . P . ( 2 0 0 3 ) G e n e t i c a l g o r i t h m b a s e d o p t i m u m design o f
n o n l i n e a r p l a n a r steel frames w i t h v a r i o u s semi-rigid c o n n e c t i o n s . J.
Constructional Steel Research 5 9 : 109-134.
K a y , T . R . , K i r b y , B . R . & P r e s t o n , R . R . ( 1 9 9 6 ) C a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e h e a t i n g rate o f an
u n p r o t e c t e d steel m e m b e r in a s t a n d a r d fire resistance test, Fire Safety Journal,
26 327-350.
K u r o b a n e , Y., A z u m a , K . & O g a w a , K . ( 1 9 9 7 ) Brittle fracture in steel building frames

- Comparative study on Northridge and K o b e earthquake damage. IIW Doc.
XV-946-97.
K u r o b a n e , Y . ( 1 9 9 8 ) Improvement of I beam-to-RHS column moment connections for

t h
avoidance of brittle fracture. T u b u l a r Structures VIII. P r o c . 8 International
S y m p o s i u m o n T u b u l a r Structures, S i n g a p o r e . E d s C h o o , Y . S & V a n der V e g t e ,
G.J., B a l k e m a , R o t t e r d a m - B r o o k f i e l d . 3-17.
K u r o b a n e , Y., M a k i n o , Y., M i u r a , K., T o k u t o m e , Y . a n d T a n a k a , M . ( 2 0 0 1 ) Testing

of new RHS column-to-beam connections with U-shaped welded joints, T u b u l a r
Structures I X , R. Puthli a n d S. H e r i o n e d s , B a l k e m a , R o t t e r d a m , the
Netherlands, pp. 493-502.
K u r o b a n e , Y., A z u m a , K. a n d M a k i n o , Y . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Fully restrained beam-to-RHS

th
column connections with improved details, Proceedings, 10 International
S y m p o s i u m o n T u b u l a r Structures, M a d r i d , Spain, p p . 4 3 9 - 4 4 6 .
K u r o b a n e , Y . , P a c k e r J . A . , W a r d e n i e r J . a n d Y e o m a n s , N . F . ( 2 0 0 4 ) Design guide for

structural hollow section column connections. C I D E C T D e s i g n G u i d e N o . 9.
Verlag T U V Rheinland Koln, Germany, 211 p.
M i u r a , K., M a k i n o , Y . K u r o b a n e , Y., T a n a k a , M . , T o k u t o m e , Y., and V e g t e , v a n

der, G.J. ( 2 0 0 2 ) Testing of beam-to-column connections without weld access
holes. Int. Journal o f Offshore a n d P o l a r E n g i n e e r i n g , 12 N o . 3 , p p . 2 2 9 - 2 3 5 .
O b u k u r o , Y . , M a k i n o , Y . , V e g t e , v a n der,G.J., K u r o b a n e , Y . , A z u m a , K . , & S h i n d e , H .
( 2 0 0 2 ) Testing of beam-to-RHS column field connections using F14T high
strength bolts, 7th Int. Conf. o n Steel & S p a c e Structures, S i n g a p o r e , p p . 3 5 1 -
358.
R o s s , C . T . F . ( 1 9 9 8 ) Advanced applied finite element methods, H o r w o o d Publishers,

Chichester, 470 p.
R o d r i g u e s J . P . C ; N e v e s , I . C . & V a l e n t e , J . C . ( 2 0 0 0 ) E x p e r i m e n t a l r e s e a r c h on the
critical t e m p e r a t u r e o f c o m p r e s s e d steel e l e m e n t s w i t h restrained t h e r m a l
elongation, Fire Safety Journal, 3 5 7 7 - 9 8 .

http://www.arcelor.com/sections/upload7diglib/PDFs/190_en.pdf
Shinde,H., Kurobane,Y, Azuma,K., Makino,Y. & Obukuro,Y. (2003) Additional

full-scale testing o f b e a m - t o - c o l u m n c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h i m p r o v e m e n t s in w e l d e d
j o i n t s , Proceedings, 13th International Offshore and Polar Polar Engineering
Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: 2 4 3 - 2 4 9 .
S h i n d e , H . ( 2 0 0 4 ) Experimental study into steel beam-to-column connections with

improved details at beam ends, M . S . T h e s i s , Sojo University, K u m a m o t o , J a p a n ,
F e b . (in J a p a n e s e ) .
S i m 6 e s , L . M . C . ( 1 9 9 6 ) O p t i m i z a t i o n o f frames with semi-rigid connections.

Computers and Structures, 6 0 N o . 4. 5 3 1 - 5 3 9 .
References 283
S t e e n h u i s , M . , W e y n a n d , K . & G r e s n i g t , A . M . ( 1 9 9 8 ) Strategies for e c o n o m i c design

o f u n b r a c e d steel frames. J. Constructional Steel Research 4 6 : (1-3). P a p e r
No.60. CD-ROM.
T a b l e C u r v e 2 D ( 2 0 0 3 ) U s e r s ' m a n u a l , Systat Software Inc.
W e y n a n d K., Jaspart J.-P. & S t e e n h u i s M . ( 1 9 9 8 ) Economy Studies of Steel Building

n d
Frames with Semi-Rigid Joints, P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 2 W o r l d C o n f e r e n c e o n
C o n s t r u c t i o n a l steel D e s i g n , S a n Sebastian, Spain.
C H A P T E R 7 Stiffened Plates
A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m Institute ( 1 9 8 7 ) API Bulletin on design offlat plate structures,

Bul.2V.
Birchfield JR. ( 1 9 8 1 ) W e l d e d m a c h i n e s thrive o n t o u g h m i n i n g . Welding Design

and Fabrication 54 N o . 4 , 4 7 - 5 4 .
D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s ( D N V ) ( 1 9 8 5 ) B u c k l i n g strength analysis. Classification N o t e s

No.30.1. Hovik, Norway
European Convention of Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) (1988)

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for Steel C o n s t r u c t i o n . B u c k l i n g o f steel shells. N o . 5 6 .
Brussels
E u r o c o d e 3 . ( 1 9 9 2 ) D e s i g n o f steel structures. Part 1.1. G e n e r a l rules and rules for

buildings. Brussels
E v a n s H R , S h a n m u g a m N E . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Simplified analysis for cellular structures. J.

Struct. Eng ASCE 110 5 3 1 - 5 4 3 .
F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 7 4 ) Static investigations a n d o p t i m u m design o f w e l d e d cell-type

plates. (In H u n g a r i a n ) . Gep 26 2 3 3 - 2 3 8
F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) Structural synthesis o f w e l d e d cell-type plates. Acta Techn. Acad.

Sci. Hungaricae 83 No.1-2, 117-131
F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) Optimum design of metal structures. Dissertation for a c a d e m i c

d e g r e e o f d o c t o r o f technical science (In H u n g a r i a n ) . B u d a p e s t
n d
F a r k a s J.(1983) M e t a l structures. U n i v e r s i t y textbook in H u n g a r i a n . 2 ed.
Budapest, Tankonyvkiado
F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Optimum design of metal structures. Budapest, Akademiai Kiado,

Chichester, Ellis H o r w o o d
F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 8 5 ) D i s c u s s i o n to the p a p e r o f E v a n s , R . & S h a n m u g a m , N . E . :
Simplified analysis for cellular structures. J. Struct. Eng ASCE 11 N o . 10, 2 2 6 9 -
2271
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . 1997: Analysis and optimum design of metal structures.

Rotterdam-Brookfield: Balkema
F a r k a s J., J a r m a i K.: A n a l y s i s o f s o m e m e t h o d s for r e d u c i n g residual b e a m

c u r v a t u r e s d u e t o w e l d s h r i n k a g e , W e l d i n g in t h e W o r l d , 1998, V o l . 4 1 , N o . 4 ,
pp.385-398.
Farkas,J. & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 0 ) M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n a n d c o m p a r i s o n o f u n i a x i a l l y

c o m p r e s s e d plates w i t h w e l d e d flat, L - and t r a p e z o i d a l stiffeners. Welding in the
World, 4 4 N o . 3 , 4 7 - 5 1
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i . K . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Economic design of metal structures. Millpress,

Rotterdam
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 5 a ) O p t i m u m d e s i g n o f a w e l d e d stringer-stiffened steel

cylindrical shell subject to axial c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g . Welding in the World
49 No.5-6, 85-89
F a r k a s , J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 5 b ) O p t i m u m d e s i g n o f a w e l d e d stringer-stiffened
cylindrical steel shell l o a d e d b y b e n d i n g . In: Hoffmeister,B. & F t e c h l e r , 0 . ( E d s )
Proc. Eurosteel 2005. 4th Eurospean Conference on Steel and Composite
Structures. Maastricht, The Netherlands Aachen, Druck und Verlagshaus Mainz
G m b H . V o l . A , p p . 1.3-15 - 1.3-22.
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 6 ) O p t i m u m design a n d cost c o m p a r i s o n o f a w e l d e d

plate stiffened o n o n e side a n d a cellular plate b o t h l o a d e d b y uniaxial
c o m p r e s s i o n . Welding in the World 5 0 N o . 3 - 4 , 4 5 - 5 1
F a r k a s J . , Jarmai,K., S n y m a n J . A . & G o n d o s , G y . ( 2 0 0 2 ) M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f

ring-stiffened w e l d e d steel cylindrical shells subject t o external p r e s s u r e . In:
Lamas,A. & S i m o e s d a Silva, L. ( E d s ) Proc. 3rd European Conf. Steel
Structures, Coimbra, U n i v e r s i d a d e de C o i m b r a p p . 5 1 3 - 5 2 2
F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . & V i r a g , Z . ( 2 0 0 4 ) O p t i m u m d e s i g n of a b e l t - c o n v e y o r bridge
c o n s t r u c t e d as a w e l d e d ring-stiffened cylindrical shell. Welding in the World 4 8
N o . 1 - 2 , 37-41
Fujikubo M . & Y a o T . ( 1 9 9 9 ) Elastic local b u c k l i n g strength o f stiffened plate

c o n s i d e r i n g plate/stiffener interaction a n d w e l d i n g residual stress, Marine
Structures 12 5 4 3 - 5 6 4
G r o n d i n G.Y., E l w i A . E . & C h e n g J.J.R. ( 1 9 9 9 ) B u c k l i n g o f stiffened steel plates -

a p a r a m e t r i c study, J. Construct.Steel Research 5$ 151-175
H a r o u t e l J. ( 1 9 8 2 ) S o u d a g e laser de structures s a n d w i c h m e t a l l i q u e s du type

N o r s i a l . Soudage et Techniques Connexes Jan-Fevr., 2 5 - 3 1 .
J a r m a i , K . & F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 9 9 ) C o s t calculation and o p t i m i z a t i o n o f w e l d e d steel

structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 5 0 115-135
Jarmai K. ( 2 0 0 5 ) Particle s w a r m m e t h o d as a n e w tool for structural optimization,

Journal o f C o m p u t a t i o n a l a n d A p p l i e d M e c h a n i c s , 2 0 0 5 , V o l . 6, N o . 2. p p . 2 0 7 -
226, Miskolc University Press.
J a r m a i , K . , F a r k a s J . & G r o e n w o l d , A . ( 2 0 0 6 ) E c o n o m i c w e l d e d stiffening o f a steel

p l a t e l o a d e d b y b e n d i n g . I I W R e g i o n a l W e l d i n g C o n g r e s s , Stellenbosch, South
Africa, C D - R o m .
References 285
Jarmai,K., S n y m a n J . A . & F a r k a s , J . ( 2 0 0 6 ) M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f a w e l d e d

o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened cylindrical shell. Computers and Structures 8 4 N o . 12,
787-797
K e n n e d y J. & E b e r h a r d t R. ( 1 9 9 5 ) Particle s w a r m optimization. P r o c . 1995 I C E C ,

Perth, Australia
Lee,S.L., Karashudi,P.,Zakeria,M. & Chan,K.S. (1971) Uniformly loaded

orthotropic r e c t a n g u l a r plate s u p p o r t e d at the corners. Civil Engineering
Transactions Institution of Engineering Australia 13 N o . 2 , 101-106
M i k a m i , I & N i w a , K . ( 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 ) : U l t i m a t e c o m p r e s s i v e strength o f o r t h o g o n a l l y
stiffened steel p l a t e s . J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 111 N o . 6 , 6 7 4 - 6 8 2 . D i s c u s s i o n a n d
c l o s u r e J.Struct.Eng. ASCE, 123 N o . 8 , 1 1 1 6 - 1 1 1 9
P a i k J.K., T h a y a m b a l l i A . K . & K i m B.J. ( 2 0 0 1 ) L a r g e deflection orthotropic plate

a p p r o a c h to d e v e l o p ultimate strength formulations for stiffened p a n e l s u n d e r
c o m b i n e d biaxial c o m p r e s s i o n / t e n s i o n a n d lateral p r e s s u r e , Thin-Walled
Structures 3 9 2 1 5 - 2 4
P a i k ,J.K. & T h a y a m b a l l i , A . K . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Ultimate limit state design of steel-plated

structures. W i l e y & S o n s , C h i c h e s t e r , E n g l a n d
P e t t e r s e n E . ( 1 9 7 9 ) Analysis and design of cellular structures. University of

T r o n d h e i m , N o r w e g i a n Institute o f T e c h n o l o g y

S a h m e l P . ( 1 9 7 8 ) Statische u n d k o n s t r u k t i v e P r o b l e m e bei H i l f s v o r r i c h t u n g e n z u m
T r a n s p o r t s c h w e r e r Behalter. Fordern und Heben 2 8 8 4 4 - 8 4 7
S c h a d e H . A . ( 1 9 4 1 ) D e s i g n c u r v e s for cross-stiffened plating u n d e r uniform b e n d i n g

load, Trans.Soc.Nav.Arch. and Marine Engrs, 4 9 154-182
S h a n m u g a m N E , E v a n s H R . ( 1 9 8 4 ) A grillage analysis o f t h e n o n l i n e a r a n d u l t i m a t e
l o a d b e h a v i o r o f cellular structures u n d e r b e n d i n g loads. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Part 2 . 7 1 7 0 5 - 7 1 9
S h a n m u g a m N E , B a l e n d r a T. ( 1 9 8 6 ) F r e e vibration o f t h i n - w a l l e d multi-cell
structures. Thin-walled Struct. 4, 4 6 7 - 4 8 3
Simoes, L.M.C. & Negrao, J.H.J.O. (1999) Optimization of cable-stayed bridges

subjected t o e a r t h q u a k e s w i t h n o n l i n e a r b e h a v i o u r . Eng. Opt. 3 1 4 5 7 - 4 7 8
T a b l e C u r v e 2 D ( 2 0 0 3 ) Users' manual, S y s t a t S o f t w a r e Inc.
T i m o s h e n k o , S . P . & W o i n o w s k y - K r i e g e r , S . ( 1 9 5 9 ) Theory of plates and shells. 2nd

ed. M c G r a w Hill, N e w Y o r k
n d
T i m o s h e n k o . S . P . & G e r e J . M . ( 1 9 6 1 ) Theory of elastic stability. 2 ed. N e w Y o r k -
T o r o n t o - L o n d o n , M c G r a w Hill
W i l l i a m s D G . ( 1 9 6 9 ) Analysis of doubly plated grillage under inplane and normal

loading. P h D T h e s i s . Imperial C o l l e g e , L o n d o n , 1969.
C H A P T E R 8 W e l d e d Stiffened C y l i n d r i c a l a n d C o n i c a l Shells
A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m Institute ( A P I ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) Bulletin 2 U . Bulletin on stability design

n d
of cylindrical shells. 2 ed. W a s h i n g t o n
B o x , M . J . ( 1 9 6 5 ) A n e w m e t h o d o f c o n s t r a i n e d o p t i m i z a t i o n and a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h
other m e t h o d s . Computer Journal, 8 4 2 - 5 2 .
C h r y s s a n t h o p o u l o s , M . K . , P o g g i , C . & S p a g n o l i , A . ( 1 9 9 8 ) B u c k l i n g d e s i g n o f conical
shells b a s e d o n v a l i d a t e d n u m e r i c a l m o d e l s . T h i n - w a l l e d Struct. 3 1 , N o . 1 - 3 , 2 5 7 -
270.
D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s ( D N V ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) Buckling strength analysis. Classification N o t e s

N o . 3 0 . 1 . ffevik, N o r w a y
D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s ( 2 0 0 2 ) B u c k l i n g strength o f shells. R e c o m m e n d e d Practice

DNV-RP-C202. Hovik, Norway.
D o w l i n g , P . J . & H a r d i n g , J . E . ( 1 9 8 2 ) R e s e a r c h in G r e a t Britain on t h e stability o f

rd
circular tubes. In: Behaviour of Offshore Structures. Proc. 3 Int. Conference,
V o l . 2 . 1982. H e m i s p h e r e Publ. C o r p . M c G r a w Hill, N e w Y o r k , p p . 5 9 - 7 3
E l l i n a s „ C . P . , S u p p l e , W . J . & W a l k e r , A . C . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Buckling of Offshore Structures.

G r a n a d a , L o n d o n etc.
E u r o c o d e 3 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . p r E N 1993-1-1 Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: G e n e r a l

structural rules. B r u s s e l s , C E N .
European Convention of Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) (1988)

Recommendations for Steel Construction. Buckling of steel shells. No.56.
Brussels
F a r k a s J . ( 2 0 0 2 ) T h i c k n e s s design o f axially c o m p r e s s e d unstiffened cylindrical

shells with circumferential w e l d s . Welding in the World46 N o . l 1/12. 2 6 - 2 9
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . Analysis and optimum design of metal structures,

R o t t e r d a m , Brookfield, B a l k e m a
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 1 9 9 8 ) A n a l y s i s o f s o m e m e t h o d s for r e d u c i n g residual b e a m

curvatures d u e to w e l d s h r i n k a g e . Welding in the World 4 1 N o . 4 . 3 8 5 - 3 9 8
F a r k a s J.& J a r m a i K. ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Economic Design of Metal Structures, Rotterdam:

Millpress.
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 5 ) O p t i m u m design o f a w e l d e d stringer-stiffened steel

cylindrical shell subject to axial c o m p r e s s i o n a n d b e n d i n g . Welding in the World
49 No.5-6, 85-89
F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . , S n y m a n J . A . & G o n d o s , G y . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f
ring-stiffened w e l d e d steel cylindrical shells subject to external pressure. In:
Proc. 3rd
European Conf. Steel Structures, Coimbra, 2 0 0 2 , . L a m a s , A . & S i m o e s da Silva, L.

( E d s ) U n i v e r s i d a d e de C o i m b r a , p p . 5 1 3 - 5 2 2
References 287
F a r k a s J . , Jarmai,K. & Virag,Z. (2004) O p t i m u m design of a belt-conveyor bridge

c o n s t r u c t e d as a w e l d e d ring-stiffened cylindrical shell. Welding in the World 4 8
N o . 1-2, 3 7 - 4 1
F r i e z e , P . A . , C h o , S . & F a u l k n e r , D . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Strength o f ring-stiffened cylinders u n d e r

th
c o m b i n e d l o a d s . In: Proc. 16 Annual Offshore Technology Conference, 1984.
Vol. 2." Paper O T C 4714. pp.39-48
H a r d i n g J . E . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Ring-stiffened cylinders u n d e r axial a n d external pressure

loading. In: Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs, Part 2 , 7 1 , 1 9 8 1 , Sept. p p . 8 6 3 - 8 7 8
H i m m e l b l a u , D . M . ( 1 9 7 1 ) Applied nonlinear programming. M c Graw-Hill Book Co.

N e w York.
J a r m a i , K. ( 1 9 9 8 ) Topology optimization of tubular structures. In: Mechanics and

Design of Tubular Structures, Springer V e r l a g , J a r m a i . K . & F a r k a s , J. (Eds)
1998.pp.225-284
J a r m a i . K . & F a r k a s , J . ( 1 9 9 9 ) C o s t calculation a n d o p t i m i z a t i o n o f w e l d e d steel

structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 50. 115-135
Jarmai,K., F a r k a s , J . & V i r a g , Z . ( 2 0 0 3 ) M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f ring-stiffened

cylindrical shells subject to axial c o m p r e s s i o n a n d external p r e s s u r e . In: 5th
World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Short p a p e r s .
Italian P o l y t e c h n i c P r e s s , M i l a n o , 2 0 0 3 . p p . 6 3 - 6 4
K e n n e d y , J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) T h e particle s w a r m : social a d a p t a t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e . In:

Proceedings of the International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
IEEE, Piscataway NJ, p p . 3 0 3 - 3 0 8
K e n n e d y J & E b e r h a r d t R. ( 1 9 9 5 ) Particle s w a r m o p t i m i z a t i o n . In: Proc. Int. Conf.

on Neural Networks, Piscataway, NJ, USA, p p . 1 9 4 2 - 1 9 4 8
K l 6 p p e l , K . & M o t z e l , E . ( 1 9 7 6 ) T r a g l a s t v e r s u c h e an stahlernen, unversteiften u n d

ringversteiften K e g e l s t u m p f s c h a l e n . Teil 1. V e r s u c h s b e r i c h t . Stahlbau 4 5 , N o . 10.
289-301.
L i s z k a i , T . & F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 9 9 ) M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f r i n g a n d stringer stiffened

cylindrical shells. Computer Assisted Mechanics and Engineering Sciences 6
425-437
Profil A r b e d ( 2 0 0 1 ) Structural s h a p e s .
R a o , S . S . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Optimisation theory and applications. Wiley Eastern Limited. N e w

Delhi.
R a o . S . S . & R e d d y , E . S . ( 1 9 8 1 ) O p t i m u m d e s i g n o f stiffened conical shells with

natural frequency constraints. C o m p u t e r s & Structures 14, N o . 1 - 2 , 1 0 3 - 1 1 0 .
R o s e n b r o c k , H . H . ( 1 9 6 0 ) A n a u t o m a t i c m e t h o d for finding the greatest or least

v a l u e o f a function. Computer Journal 3 N o . 3 , 175-184
R o s s , C . T . F . ( 1 9 8 4 ) Finite e l e m e n t p r o g r a m s for axisymmetric problems in

e n g i n e e r i n g , Ellis H o r w o o d , C h i c h e s t e r .
S h e n H u i - s h e n , Z h o u Pin & C h e n T i e n - y u n ( 1 9 9 3 ) P o s t b u c k l i n g analysis o f

stiffened cylindrical shells u n d e r c o m b i n e d external p r e s s u r e and axial
c o m p r e s s i o n . Thin-Walled Struct. 15 4 3 - 6 3
S i d d a l l J . N . ( 1 9 8 2 ) Optimal engineering design (Mechanical engineering), Marcell

Dekker, 536 p. I S B N - 1 3 : 978-0824716332
Singer,!, A r b o c z J . & Weller,T. (2002) Buckling experiments: experimental

m e t h o d s in b u c k l i n g o f t h i n - w a l l e d structures. V o l . 2 . Shells, built-up structures,
c o m p o s i t e s a n d additional topics. N e w Y o r k , W i l e y & S o n s .
S n y m a n J A . ( 1 9 8 2 ) A n e w a n d d y n a m i c m e t h o d for u n c o n s t r a i n e d m i n i m i z a t i o n .
Applied Mathematical Modelling 6 449-462
S n y m a n J A . ( 1 9 8 3 ) A n i m p r o v e d v e r s i o n o f t h e original leap-frog d y n a m i c m e t h o d
for u n c o n s t r a i n e d m i n i m i z a t i o n L F O P l ( b ) . Applied Mathematical Modelling 1
216-218
S n y m a n J A . ( 2 0 0 0 ) T h e L F O P C leap-frog m e t h o d for c o n s t r a i n e d optimization.

Computers Math. Applic. 4 0 1 0 8 5 - 1 0 9 6
S n y m a n J A , Stander N & R o u x W J. ( 1 9 9 4 ) A d y n a m i c p e n a l t y function m e t h o d for

the solution o f structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m s . Applied Mathematical
Modelling!* 453-460
S n y m a n J A : A gradient-only line search m e t h o d for t h e conjugate gradient m e t h o d

applied to c o n s t r a i n e d o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m s w i t h severe n o i s e in t h e objective
function. T o a p p e a r in t h e International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 2004.
S n y m a n J A , H e y n s P S & V e r m e u l e n P J. ( 1 9 9 5 ) V i b r a t i o n isolation o f a m o u n t e d
e n g i n e t h r o u g h optimization. Mechanism and Machine Theory 3 0 109-118
S n y m a n J A & B e r n e r D F . ( 1 9 9 9 ) T h e d e s i g n o f a p l a n a r r o b o t i c m a n i p u l a t o r for
o p t i m u m p e r f o r m a n c e o f p r e s c r i b e d tasks. Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization 18 9 5 - 1 0 6
Snyman J A. (1985) Unconstrained minimization by combining the dynamic and

conjugate gradient m e t h o d s . Quaestiones Mathematicae 8 33-42
S p a g n o l i , A . ( 1 9 9 7 ) B u c k l i n g b e h a v i o u r a n d d e s i g n o f stiffened conical shells u n d e r

axial c o m p r e s s i o n . P h D thesis, U n i v e r s i t y o f L o n d o n , L o n d o n .
S p a g n o l i , A . & C h r y s s a n t h o p o u l o s , M . K . ( 1 9 9 9 a ) B u c k l i n g design o f stringer-

stiffened conical shells in c o m p r e s s i o n . J. Struct. E n g . A S C E 125, N o . l . 4 0 - 4 8 .
S p a g n o l i , A . & C h r y s s a n t h o p o u l o s , M . K . ( 1 9 9 9 b ) Elastic b u c k l i n g a n d p o s t b u c k l i n g
b e h a v i o u r o f widely-stiffened conical shells u n d e r axial c o m p r e s s i o n . E n g .
Struct. 2 1 , N o . 9 . 8 4 5 - 8 5 5 .
S p a g n o l i , A . ( 2 0 0 1 ) Different b u c k l i n g m o d e s in axially stiffened conical shells. E n g .

Struct. 2 3 , N o . 8 . 9 5 7 - 9 6 5 .
T a b l e C u r v e 2 D . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Users' manual, Systat Software Inc.

References 289
T i a n J . , W a n g , C . M . & S w a d d i w u d h i p o n g . S . ( 1 9 9 9 ) Elastic b u c k l i n g analysis o f

ring-stiffened cylindrical shells u n d e r g e n e r a l p r e s s u r e l o a d i n g v i a t h e Ritz
m e t h o d . Thin-Walled Struct. 3 5 1-24
T i m o s h e n k o , S . P . & G e r e , J . M . ( 1 9 6 1 ) Theory of elastic stability. 2 n d ed. N e w Y o r k ,

T o r o n t o , L o n d o n , M c G r a w Hill
W i l k e , D . N . , S c h u t t e J . F . & G r o e n w o l d , A . A . ( 2 0 0 3 ) C o n s t r a i n e d particle s w a r m
s e a r c h e s in t h e o p t i m a l sizing d e s i g n o f truss structures. In: International
Conference on Metal Structures, Miskolc, 2 0 0 3 . J a r m a i K. & F a r k a s J.(Eds),
Rotterdam, Millpress, pp. 301-308
C H A P T E R 9. T u b u l a r S t r u c t u r e s
A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m Institute ( A P I ) . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . Bulletin 2 U . Bulletin on stability design

n d
of cylindrical shells. 2 ed. W a s h i n g t o n .
Bazeos,N.,Hatzigeorgiou,G.D.,Hondros,I.D.,Karamaneas,H.,Karabalis,D.L.&Besko
s,D.E. ( 2 0 0 2 ) . Static, s e i s m i c a n d stability a n a l y s e s o f a p r o t o t y p e w i n d turbine
steel t o w e r . Eng. Struct. 2 4 1 0 1 5 - 1 0 2 5 .
British Steel ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Price list 20. Steel tubes, pipes and hollow sections. Part lb.
Structural hollow sections. British Steel, C o r b y , U K .
B S 5 4 0 0 : P a r t 3 : ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Steel, c o n c r e t e a n d c o m p o s i t e b r i d g e s . C o d e o f p r a c t i c e for
design o f steel b r i d g e s . B S I , L o n d o n .
D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s (DNV).(\995).Buckling strength analysis. Classification N o t e s

No.30.1. Hovik, Norway.
D I N 2 4 5 8 : ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Geschweisste Stahlrohre. Masse. Berlin, D e u t s c h e s Institut fur

Normung.
E N 1594: ( 2 0 0 1 ) . Gas supply systems. Pipelines for maximum operating pressure

over 16 bar. Functional requirements. C E N Brussels.
E u r o c o d e 1:1999a. ( 1 9 9 5 ) B a s i s o f design a n d actions on structures. Part 2 - 1 .

A c t i o n s o n structures. D e n s i t i e s , self-weight a n d i m p o s e d loads. E N V 1991-2-1
E u r o c o d e 1. 1999b. Part 2 - 4 . ( 1 9 9 9 ) W i n d loads. E N V 1991-2-4
E u r o c o d e 3. ( 2 0 0 2 ) . D e s i g n o f steel structures. Part 1-1. G e n e r a l structural rules.

P r E N 1993-1-1
E u r o c o d e 3 . Part 1-9. ( 2 0 0 2 ) . D e s i g n o f steel structures. F a t i g u e strength o f steel

structures. C E N , B r u s s e l s .
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . Analysis and design of metal structures. Rotterdam,

Balkema.
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . A n a l y s i s o f s o m e m e t h o d s for r e d u c i n g residual b e a m

curvatures d u e to w e k d s h r i n k a g e . Welding in the World 41 N o . 4 , 3 8 5 - 3 9 8
F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 1 ) . H e i g h t o p t i m i z a t i o n o f a triangular C H S truss u s i n g an
t h
i m p r o v e d cost function. In: Tubular Structures IX. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 9
International S y m p o s i u m o n T u b u l a r Structures, Dusseldorf, 2 0 0 1 . B a l k e m a ,
Lisse etc. 2 0 0 1 . 4 2 9 - 4 3 5 .
F a r k a s J . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . T h i c k n e s s design o f axially c o m p r e s s e d unstiffened cylindrical

shells w i t h circumferential w e l d s . Welding in the World 4 6 N o . 11/12, 2 6 - 2 9
F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . , S n y m a n J . A . . & G o n d o s , G y . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f
ring-stiffened w e l d e d steel cylindrical shells subject to external p r e s s u r e . Proc.
3rd European Conf. Steel Structures, C o i m b r a , 2 0 0 2 , eds. L a m a s , A . & S i m o e s
da Silva, L. U n i v e r s i d a d e d e C o i m b r a , 5 1 3 - 5 2 2
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Economic design of metal structures. Rotterdam,

Millpress.
F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . & V i r a g , Z . ( 2 0 0 4 ) . O p t i m u m design o f a b e l t - c o n v e y o r b r i d g e
c o n s t r u c t e d as a w e l d e d ring-stiffened cylindrical shell.. Welding in the World 4 8
N o . 1-2. 3 7 - 4 1
F a r k a s J . , J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 6 ) C o s t c o m p a r i s o n o f a tubular truss a n d a ring-stiffened

shell structure for a w i n d turbine t o w e r . In: Tubular Structures XI. P r o c . 11th Int.
S y m p o s i u m a n d I I W Int. Conf. o n T u b u l a r Structures, Q u e b e c City, C a n a d a ,
2 0 0 6 . E d s P a c k e r J . A . & W i l l i b a l d , S . T a y l o r & F r a n c i s , L o n d o n etc. p p . 3 4 1 -
349.
Jarmai,K., F a r k a s J . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . C o s t calculation a n d o p t i m i z a t i o n o f w e l d e d steel

structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 5 0 115-135
Jarmai,K., F a r k a s J . & V i r a g , Z . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n o f ring-stiffened

cylindrical shells subject to axial c o m p r e s s i o n and external p r e s s u r e . In: 5th
World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Short p a p e r s .
Italian P o l y t e c h n i c P r e s s , M i l a n o , 6 3 - 6 4 .
H o r v a t h , G . , T 6 t h , L . ( 2 0 0 1 ) . N e w m e t h o d s in w i n d turbine t o w e r design. Wind

Engineering 25 No.3.171 -178
K o u m o u s i s , V . K . , D i m o u , C . K . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . O p t i m a l d e s i g n o f w i n d mill t o w e r s . In: Steel

Structures - Eurosteel '95. Ed. K o u n a d i s . R o t t e r d a m , B a l k e m a . 4 4 3 - 4 5 0 .
Lavassas,I., Nikolaidis,G., Zervas,P., Efthimiou,E., DoudoumisJ.N. &

B a n i o t o p o u l o s , C . C . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . A n a l y s i s a n d design o f t h e p r o t o t y p e o f a steel 1-
M W w i n d turbine t o w e r . Eng. Struct. 2 5 1 0 9 7 - 1 1 0 6 .
O r b a n , F . ( 1 9 9 7 ) M i n i m u m v o l u m e d e s i g n o f pipeline b r i d g e s , In International
Symposium on Design of Metal Structures, University of Miskolc, Hungary.
Publications o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s k o l c , Series C, M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g ,
Edited b y K. J a r m a i , 4 7 111 - 1 2 2 .
Price List 2 0 . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Steel t u b e s , p i p e s and h o l l o w sections. Part l b . Structural

hollow sections. British Steel T u b e s a n d P i p e s .
P r o c h n o s t ' , u s t o i c h i v o s t ' , k o l e b a n i y a . ( 1 9 6 8 ) . M o s k v a , M a s h i n o s t r o e n i e . (Strength,

stability, vibration. In Russian.)
References 291
R o n d a l J . , Wiirker,K.-G., Dutta,D., Wardenier,J. & Yeomans,N. (1992). Structural

stability of hollows sections. K o l n , V e r l a g T U V R h e i n l a n d .
S p e r a , D . A . ed. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Wind turbine technology. N e w York, A S M E Press.
T i m o s h e n k o , S . P . & G e r e J . M . ( 1 9 6 1 ) . Theory of elastic stability. 2 n d ed. N e w Y o r k ,

T o r o n t o , L o n d o n , M c G r a w Hill.
Wardenier,J., Kurobane,Y., PackerJ.A., Dutta,D. & Yeomans,N. (1991). Design

guide for circular hollow section (CHS) joints under predominantly static
loading. K o l n : V e r l a g T U V R h e i n l a n d .
Z h a o , X . L . et al. ( 2 0 0 1 ) . Design Guide for Circular and Rectangular Hollow Section

Welded Joints under Fatigue Loading. T U V - V e r l a g , K o l n .
C H A P T E R 10 B o x c o l u m n c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m cellular p l a t e s
D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s ( D N V ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) : Buckling strength analysis. Classification N o t e s

No.30.1. Hovik, Norway.
E u r o c o d e 3. Steel structures. Part 1-1. ( 2 0 0 2 ) .
F a r k a s J. & J a r m a i K . ( 2 0 0 3 ) Economic design of metal structures, Rotterdam,

Millpress.
F a r k a s J. & J a r m a i K. ( 2 0 0 6 a ) O p t i m u m d e s i g n and cost c o m p a r i s o n o f a w e l d e d

plate stiffened o n o n e side a n d a cellular plate b o t h l o a d e d b y uniaxial
c o m p r e s s i o n , Welding in the World 5 0 N o . 3 - 4 . 4 5 - 5 1 .
Farkas,J. & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 7 ) E c o n o m i c o r t h o g o n a l l y w e l d e d stiffening o f a

uniaxially c o m p r e s s e d steel plate. Welding in the World 5 1 N o . 7 - 8 . 7 4 - 7 8 .
F a r k a s J . & J a r m a i , K . ( 2 0 0 8 ) M i n i m u m cost d e s i g n of a s q u a r e b o x c o l u m n
c o m p o s e d from o r t h o g o n a l l y stiffened w e l d e d steel plates. P r o c . D F E 2 0 0 8
Miskolc.
G e , H . , G a o , S h . & U s a m i , T s . ( 2 0 0 0 ) Stiffened steel b o x c o l u m n s . Part 1. C y c l i c

b e h a v i o u r . Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2 9 1 6 9 1 - 1 7 0 6 .
Hirota,T., Sakimoto,T.,Yamao,T., Watanabe,H. (2004): Experimental study on

hysteretic b e h a v i o u r o f inverted L - s h a p e d steel b r i d g e piers filled w i t h c o n c r e t e .
t h
In Thin-walled Structures. Proc. 4 Int. Conf. o n T h i n - w a l l e d Structures,
L o u g h b o r o u g h , U K . 2 0 0 4 . Ed. J. L o u g h l a n . Institute o f P h y s i c s Publ., Bristol &
Philadelphia, p p . 3 7 3 - 3 8 0 .
N a k a i , H . , K i t a d a , T . & M i k i , T . ( 1 9 8 5 ) A n e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o n u l t i m a t e strength o f
t h i n - w a l l e d b o x s t u b - c o l u m n s with stiffeners subjected to c o m p r e s s i o n a n d
b e n d i n g . Proc. JSCE Structural Eng./Earthquake Eng. 2 N o . 2 . 8 7 - 9 7 .
O h g a , M . , T a k e m u r a , S h . , I m a m u r a , S . ( 2 0 0 4 ) : N o n l i n e a r b e h a v i o u r s o f r o u n d corner
t h
steel b o x - s e c t i o n piers. In Thin-walled Structures. P r o c . 4 Int. Conf. o n T h i n -
w a l l e d Structures, L o u g h b o r o u g h , U K . 2 0 0 4 . Ed. J. L o u g h l a n . Institute of
P h y s i c s Publ., Bristol & Philadelphia, p p . 3 6 5 - 3 7 2 .

S t e i n h a r d t , 0 . ( 1 9 7 5 ) Berechnungsmodelle fur ausgesteifte Kastentrdger. In Beitrage

zum Beulproblem bei Kastentrdgerbrucken. D e u t s c h e r A u s s c h u s s fur Stahlbau.
Berichtsheft3.27-35.
U s a m i , T s . , G a o , S h . & G e , H . ( 2 0 0 0 ) Stiffened steel b o x c o l u m n s . Part 2. Ductility

evaluation. Earthquake Eng. and Structural Dynamics 2 9 11'07-1722.
Y a m a o , T . , M a t s u m a r a , S . , H i r a y a e , M . , I w a t s u b o , K . ( 2 0 0 4 ) : Steel t u b u l a r b r i d g e piers
stiffened w i t h inner cruciform plates u n d e r cyclic loading. In Thin-walled
t h
Structures. P r o c . 4 Int. Conf. o n T h i n - w a l l e d Structures, L o u g h b o r o u g h , U K .
2 0 0 4 . Ed. J. L o u g h l a n . Institute o f P h y s i c s Publ., Bristol & Philadelphia, p p .
357-364.
Subject index
box column constructed from cellular plates 253

buckling constraint 256
cost comparison of different columns 261
cost function 259
optimization results 260
top displacement constraint 258
branch and bound strategy 112
cellular plates
torsional stiffness 120
welded steel model 123
cellular plate with longitudinal stiffeners 118

uniaxial compression 118
cost function 129
minimum cost design 130
cost comparison of
shell and truss towers 143
stiffened and cellular plates 131
stiffened and unstiffened shells 197, 209
drilling cost of bolts 25
eigenfrequency check of
tower shell structure 231
tower truss structure 240
entropy-based function minimization 112

fabrication cost 22
fabrication time 22
additional 23
arc-spot welding 23
forming of plate elements into shell segments 25
hand cutting and machine grinding of tubular strut ends 24
painting 24
plate cutting and edge grinding 24
post-welding treatments 23
preparation, assembly, tacking 22
surface preparation 24
welding 22
fatigue check of
tower shell structure 231
tower truss structure 241
fire-resistance design 33
actions in fire situation 36
evolution of steel temperature 44
gas temperature in the vicinity of a member 45
net convection heat flux 45
net radiative heat flux 45
specific heat of steel 35
steel mechanical properties at elevated temperature 34
total net heat flux 45
yield stress in function of temperature 34
Young modulus in function of temperature 34
large-span suspended roof members 47

analytical model for suspended members 49
asymmetric loading 51
symmetric loading 50
bending moments in members of bending stiffness 51
cross-sectional area of beam in function of span length 55
deflection of suspended member 52
optimum design of suspended members of rolled I-section 53
parametric evaluation of suspended members 54
material cost of bolts 25
multiobjective optimization 14
global criterion method 16
min-max method 17
normalized objectives method 16
Pareto-optima 15
weighting min-max method 14
weighting objectives method 16
multi-storey sway frame 67

seismic-resistant design 67
beam-to-column connections 80
Subject index 297
bending moments and axial forces 72

cost of cutting 84
cost of design, assembly and inspection 83
cost of welding 84
horizontal seismic forces 70
inflexion points in the frame 73
material cost 83
strength of connections 82
stress constraints 76
vertical loads 69
fire-resistant design 87
bending moments and normal forces 87
frame mass in function of fire resistance time 93
oil pipeline strengthening 243
one-storey one-bay sway tubular frame 58

static loading 58
design constraints 62
cost with bolted connections 66
cost with welded connections 67
earthquake loading 94
bending moments and axial forces 95
constraint on sway limitation 100
cost calculation 103
elastic sway 99
geometric characteristics of square hollow sections 97
seismic forces 94
fire resistant design 105
bending moments and normal forces 106
frame mass in function of fire resistance time 110
optimization mathematical methods 7

discrete 8
entropy-based 8
evolutionary techniques 8
ant colony 8
artificial immune system 8
differential evolution 8
genetic algorithm 8
feasible SQP 8
leap-frog 8
multicriteria 8
optimality criteria 8
with first derivatives 7
with second derivatives 7

without derivatives 7
orthogonally stiffened circular cylindrical shell 200

axial compression and external pressure 200
buckling constraints 200
cost comparison 209
cost function 205
manufacturing limitations 205
orthogonally stiffened rectangular plate 131

cost function 136
bending 138
cost function 142
Schade diagrams 142
orthogonally stiffened square plate 112

biaxial compression 112
cost function 113
deflection due to weld shrinkage 116
particle swarm optimization algorithm 11
plate longitudinally stiffened on one side 118

cost function 127
minimum cost design 130
program system for single- and multi-objective optimization 18
ring-stiffened circular cylindrical shells 168

axial compression and external pressure 168
cost function 172
bending 175
cost function 180
ring-stiffened conical shell 217

external pressure 217
cost function 220
design of shell thickness 218
Subject index 299
design of stiffeners 219

structural characteristics 217
Rosenbrock's hillclimb method 112
seismic-resistant design 27
base seismic shear force 30
behaviour factors 32
design spectrum 28
distribution of horizontal seismic forces 30
elastic response spectra 28
fundamental period of vibration 30
ground acceleration 28
ground types 28
importance classes and factors 29
inflexion points in frames 32
limitation of interstorey drift 31
second order effect 31
seismic design of buildings 29
very low seismicity 28
Snyman-Fatti optimization method 8
square plates supported at four corners 144

orthogonal stiffening on one side 144
constraints 146
costs 145
3 internal stiffeners 148
cellular plate 157
bending moments 160
deflection 160
cost function 163
strengthening of a column-supported oil pipeline 243

design of the original pipe 245
optimization of the strengthening tubular truss 246
cost function 249
stringer-stiffened circular cylindrical shell 182

axial compression and bending 189
constraints 191
cost comparison 197
cost function 194
multiobjective optimization 197
variable diameter 209

bending 182
cost comparison 188
cost function 186
tubular frame 58
tubular truss for

pipeline strengthening 243
wind turbine tower 232
wind turbine tower 225

cost comparison of two structural types 243
ring-stiffened shell structure 226
check for eigenfrequency 231
check for fatigue 231
cost function 229
local buckling of flat stiffeners 227
panel ring buckling 229
tubular truss structure 232
buckling design of CHS struts 236
check of eigenfrequency 240
check of fatigue 241
checks of tubular joints 238
cost calculation 241
design of CHS struts for column parts 232
optimum angle of the lower column part 234

Design and Optimization of Metal Structures

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Design and Optimization of Metal Structures

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION

Dr. Jozsef Farkas

Dr. Karoly Jarmai

First published in 2008.

© Horwood Publishing Limited, 2008.

Cover design by Jim Wilkie.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS xv

LIST OF SYMBOLS xvii

1 NEWER MATHEMATICAL OPTIMIZATION METHODS 7

2.2.2 T h e fabrication cost in g e n e r a l 22

4 FIRE RESISTANT DESIGN 33

5 LARGE-SPAN SUSPENDED ROOF MEMBERS 47

6.6.2.3 T h e stress constraint for t h e b e a m (point E, n o fire 107

7 STIFFENED PLATES 111

7.4.4 D e s i g n constraints 140

8 WELDED STIFFENED CYLINDRICAL AND CONICAL SHELLS 167

8.5.4.2 C o s t function for t h e unstiffened shell 207

9 TUBULAR STRUCTURES 225

9.1.3.4 D e s i g n o f circular h o l l o w sections ( C H S ) for t h e t h r e e 236

10.1 INTRODUCTION 253

10.6 CONCLUSIONS 261

APPENDIXES A-D 263

NAME INDEX 293

SUBJECT INDEX 295

D r J o z s e f F a r k a s is a professor e m e r i t u s o f metal structures at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f

H Plate torsional stiffness [ N m m ]

K Effective length factor

YM\ Partial safety factor

£ = p35/fy M o d i f y i n g factors for steels

GMAW-M Gas Metal Arc Welding with Mixed Gas

Structural o p t i m i z a t i o n is a d e s i g n s y s t e m for s e a r c h i n g better solutions, w h i c h

T h e m a i n a i m o f this b o o k is to g i v e designers a n d fabricators aspects for selection

A s i m p l e n u m e r i c a l e x a m p l e illustrates this aspect. In T a b l e 1 three c r o s s - s e c t i o n s

F u r t h e r m o r e , their safeties against p l a t e b u c k l i n g (or plate s l e n d e r n e s s e s ) are also

T h i s s i m p l e calculation is m a d e b y v a r y i n g o n l y few p a r a m e t e r s . In m o s t cases,

1000x24 810x20 660x16

cross- 67680 63450 65760

T h e solution o f this c o n s t r a i n e d function m i n i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m n e e d s effective

(1) design constraints relate to stress, stability, deformation, eigenfrequency,

(2) fabrication constraints formulate t h e limitation o f residual w e l d i n g distortions,

(3) a cost function is formulated a c c o r d i n g to t h e fabrication s e q u e n c e and contains

(4) mathematical methods.

W e h a v e w o r k e d out a calculation m e t h o d for residual w e l d i n g stresses a n d

W e h a v e s o l v e d a lot o f structural o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b l e m s for v a r i o u s structural

O u r structural m o d e l s o f w e l d e d I- a n d b o x - b e a m s , tubular trusses, steel frames,

S o m e special structural m o d e l s are i n v o l v e d as follows: cellular plates, s u s p e n d e d

S i n c e the functions are h i g h l y n o n l i n e a r o n l y n u m e r i c a l p r o b l e m s c a n b e treated.

T h e first step o f t h e optimization p r o c e d u r e is t h e selection o f variables. F o r this

T h e n e w d e s i g n aspects o f o u r b o o k to b e e m p h a s i z e d are as follows. S e i s m i c - a n d

A q u e s t i o n arises w h e t h e r a thicker unstiffened or a thinner stiffened plate or shell is

S u m m a r i z i n g : t h e general aspect o f o u r b o o k is the cost c o m p a r i s o n , w h i c h is an

W e participate c o n t i n u o u s l y in t h e following conference series: A n n u a l A s s e m b l i e s

This b o o k is a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f our p r e v i o u s b o o k " E c o n o m i c design o f m e t a l

W e h o p e that this b o o k c a n h e l p d e s i g n e r s , students, r e s e a r c h e r s , m a n u f a c t u r e r s w i t h

T h e r e s e a r c h w o r k w a s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e Jozsef Oveges scholarship OMFB

T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y the Hungarian-South African Intergovernmental

T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y t h e Hungarian-Japanese Intergovernmental S & T

T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y the Hungarian-Portuguese Intergovernmental

T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y t h e Hungarian-Slovakian Intergovernmental S&T

M R , partially founded b y the D e p a r t m e n t o f International Scientific-technical C o ­

T h e project w a s also s u p p o r t e d b y the Hungarian-Polish Intergovernmental S & T

T h a n k s for t h e calculation w o r k a n d h e l p o f Dr. G y o r g y K o v a c s , M r . Z o l t a n V i r a g

L a s t b u t n o t least m a n y - m a n y t h a n k s for our family m e m b e r s , w h o h e l p e d a lot

In o u r p r a c t i c e o n structural o p t i m i z a t i o n w e h a v e u s e d several t e c h n i q u e s in t h e last

M R , partially founded b y the D e p a r t m e n t o f International Scientific-technical C o

if F(x) < F t h e n set = F(xf ) and pf = x- {best p o i n t on trajectory i}