Optimization of hanger arrangement of network arch bridges

Transcription

1 IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-II, August 8-10, 2010, Dhaka, Bangladesh. ISBN: Amin, Okui, Bhuiyan (eds.) Optimization of hanger arrangement of network arch bridges N. Islam & R. Ahsan Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. ABSTRACT: The paper presents an approach for optimization of hanger arrangement of tied network arch bridges. Optimization has been performed through execution of a simulator, evaluation of the performance objective, and adjustment of the system parameters in an iterative and directed way. The structural analysis of the virtual prototype of the model is performed by finite element simulator, ANSYS. Evaluation of structural response of the bridge is performed through a global optimization algorithm, named EVOP. A program written in Visual C++ has been developed which works as a platform for data structure definition and to transfer the parameters from EVOP to the simulator ANSYS input file and to extract the response values of interest from the simulator s output file for return to EVOP. The problem is formulated as a mixed integer-discrete nonlinear programming problem. Material cost of superstructure of bridge is the optimum design criteria The design variables are rise of the arch, number of hangers, cross sectional area of cables of the hangers and hanger arrangement. Constraints derived from maximal hanger forces and stress ranges are considered in the optimization problem. Optimal hanger arrangement of network arch bridge using global optimization technique shows significant improvement over the bridges with vertical hangers. 1 INTRODUCTION Network arch bridges can be defined as the arch bridges with inclined hangers and multiple intersections. Beneficial structural behavior of this kind of bridge leads to economical bridge members mainly subjected to axial forces. Furthermore, the high stiffness and therefore small deflections favour the application of network arches for high speed railway as well as roadway transportations. Network arches seem to be very competitive for road bridges of spans of 135 to 160 m (Tveit, 2003). Construction of optimal network arches can bring economic advantages due to significant savings of steel compared to other arch bridges. Tveit, 2003 showed that a network arch could be seen as a simply supported beam. The arch is the compression zone, and the tie is the tension zone. The hangers are the web. Most of the shear force is taken by the vertical component of the compressive force in the arch. Some of the variation in the shear force is taken by the hangers. The arrangement of the hangers has considerable influence on the structural behavior. The arrangement governs on the forces and force variations within the network arch depending on many parameters, as for example span, rise, number of hangers, loading or arch curvature. Tveit, 2003 introduced an optimized hanger arrangement of the simplified network arch with regard to the mentioned parameters. This improved hanger arrangement provides a simple method of designing network arches with small hanger forces and small bending moments in the arch. The study to obtain optimal hanger arrangement by Tveit, 2008 followed classical optimization technique. In general, the classical optimization techniques have difficulties in dealing with global optimization problems. One of the main limitations of classical optimization techniques is that they can easily be entrapped in local minima. Moreover, these techniques cannot generate or even use the global information needed to find the global minimum for a function with multiple local minima. Structural behavior of this kind of bridge corresponds the existence of multiple local optima of the objective function and hence the problem belongs to global optimization problem. One class of global optimization technique is evolutionary operation developed by Ghani (1989). The advantage of EVOP compared to other optimization methods is its capability to locate the global minimum with high probability, its speed and it does not require any training. Therefore application of such an optimization algorithm in finite element simulation of network arch bridges is carried in the study to seek optimal hanger arrangement. 107

2 2 OPTIMAL DESIGN PROBLEM STATEMENT In this study, a simulator based optimization of a network arch bridge is presented by considering a single objective function as cost function. The problem has been formulated as a mixed integer-discrete nonlinear programming problem and solved using a global optimization algorithm. The problem formulation is as follows. find design variables x { x x, x... } k 1, 2 3 x NDIV = (1) to minimize objective function subjected to implicit constraints f(x) G ( x) G( x) G( x) (2) L i i U i with lower and upper bounds of design variables x L k x x (3) k U k where i= 1, 2 NDIV and k=1,2 NDIV, NDIV is number of design variable, G ( x) i and f(x) are response parameters and cost function correspondingly which will be fond from Finite Element Simulation. The optimization problem will use constraints derived from the AASHTO and AISC design equations. Implicit constraints will limit maximal hanger forces, maximal stresses and displacements in both arch and deck and explicit constraints will limit the design variables. 2.1 Objective function The objective of the model is cost minimization of superstructure of bridge by considering the total cost of hangers and arch including cost of materials, fabrication and installation. Unit costs used in this study are based on RHD (RHD, 2008) cost schedule data. The total cost function is defined according to the following relationship: C T = C HC + C AC + C AS (4) Where C HC, C AC and C AS are the costs of cable of hangers, concrete section of arch and amount of reinforcement required all over the arch respectively. Costs of individual components are calculated as: C HC = UP HC W HC N A (5) C AC = UP AC V AC N A (6) C AS = UP AS W AS N A (7) Where, UP HC, UP AC and UP AS are the unit prices of materials, fabrication and installation of hangers, concrete of arch and the reinforcement required in the arch respectively; W HC, V AC and W AS are the weight of the cables required in each arch, volume of the concrete required in each arch and weight of reinforcement required in each arch respectively; N A is the number of arch. 2.2 Design variables and explicit constraints For a particular span and width of arch bridge, a large number of parameters control the design such as location of hanger nodes along the arch, location of hanger nodes on the deck, number of hangers, cross sectional area of cable of hanger, cross sectional dimensions of arch and rise of the arch. These control parameters are explained as design variables in Table 1. Design constant parameters under consideration such as various material properties, superimposed dead loads, AASHTO live load, rectangular arch section, arch span and unit costs of materials including fabrication and installation etc. are listed in Table 2. Fig. 1 shows all the design variables and constant parameters considered in the study. This hanger arrangement is based on equidistant nodes along the arch from which the hangers slope down with a certain inclination until they reach the tie. The variables describing the arrangement are the start angle and the change of the inclination from one hanger to the next. Two set of start angle φ1 and φ2 and the corresponding angle change within the specified range in table 1 enables any type of hanger arrangement. Fig 1 shows equidistant hanger nodes along the arch from which any hanger node on arch projects hanger with alternate position depending upon inclination of that hanger, φ I = φ1+ φ1, where i is the hanger node number along the arch. 108

3 (b) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) WY WZ WX (h) (i) Figure 1: (a) 3D view of network arch bridge (b) Typical hanger arrangement showing numbering of hangers(c) Hanger set 1 and its vertical inclination (d) Hanger set 2 and its vertical inclination (e) Arch section (f) Hanger section (g) Deck section (h) Alternate hanger position from one of equidistant hanger nodes along the arch (i) Two sets of hanger 2.3 Implicit constraints These constraints limit response of the bridge. A total six implicit constraints are considered according to the AASHTO Standard Specifications (AASHTO 2002) and AISC design equations. These constraints are categorized into three groups: 1. Constraints regarding design of hangers 2. Constraints regarding design of arch 3. Constraints regarding hanger position 109

4 Table 1: Design variables Design Variables Variable Type Explicit Constraint Lower bound Upper Bound Number of Hangers, N h Integer 4 60 Start Angle for Hanger Inclination Set1, φ1 Continuous 0 89 Start Angle for Hanger Inclination Set2, φ2 Continuous 0 89 Angle Change for φ1, φ1 Continuous -2 2 Angle Change for φ2, φ1 Continuous -2 2 Cross Sectional Area of Cable of Hanger, A h Discrete 96.8 mm mm 2 Arch Width, B h Discrete 250 mm 3000 mm Arch Depth, H h Discrete 250 mm 4000 mm Rise to Span Ratio, R h Continuous Table 2: Constant parameters Design Constant Parameters Value Material Properties Modulus of Elasticity for Concrete, E 2.48 X Pa Poisson s Ratio, υ 0.2 Concrete Compressive Strength at 28 days 25 MPa Ultimate Strength of Cable of Hanger 1520 MPa Arch Reinforcement Yield Stress, f y 413 MPa Geometric Properties Span, l 100 m Width of Bridge,B w 10 m Deck Section Parameter A mm B 9000 mm C 8000 mm D 400 mm E 120 mm F 1000 mm Arch Section Rectangular Arch Shape Arc Loading AASHTO HS Single and Standard Vehicle Load Lane No of Lane Two Wearing Surface 30 psf Cost Parameters Unit Price for Cable of Hanger, UP HC 223 Tk/kg Unit Price for Concrete of Arch, UP AC Tk/m 3 Unit Price for Reinforcement of Arch, UP AS 80 Tk/kg General Reinforcement Cover for Arch section 40 mm 110

5 Table 3: Implicit constraints Response Implicit Constraint Lower bound Upper Bound Extreme Hanger Stress, σ max 0 psi 0.75*F u Strength Criteria of Arch, CRT 0 1 Maximum Design Reinforcement in Arch, RNR 1% 8% End Angle for Hanger Inclination Set1, φ End Angle for Hanger Inclination Set2, φ Slenderness Factor, KL u /r OPTIMIZATION METHOD A global optimization algorithm EVOP (Evolutionary Operation) is used for the optimization problem which is very good to search the global minima involving discontinuous objective and constraining functions where there is a combination of continuous, discrete and integer set of arguments. The optimization method, EVOP developed by Ghani (1989) is subdivided into six fundamental processes which is shown in the flow chart. An initial feasible vertex and EVOP control parameters Generation of a 'complex' Stop Optimum Solution Y Y Selection of a 'complex' vertex for penalization Penalized Vertex N Limit of function evaluations exceed? N Converged? Testing for collapse of a 'complex', and dealing with a collapsed 'complex' Movement of a 'complex' Convergence test Figure 2: General outline of EVOP algorithm 111

6 4 INTERFACING GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM, EVOP WITH FINITE ELEMENT SOFT- WARE, ANSYS 4.1 Interfacing ansys with evop in the optimization process To interface the simulation with evolutionary algorithm, EVOP, written in FORTRAN a platform is established by visual C++ in order to transfer the parameters from EVOP to the simulator input file and to extract the response values of interest from the simulator s output file for return to EVOP. The overall interfacing process is executed in the following architecture. 1. The user creates an input file for batch mode execution in ANSYS. The design variables, objective functions and constraints then can be linked with named parameters in ANSYS. 2. The optimization program written in FORTRAN reads in the input file through the platform written in visual C++ and detects the relationship between the design variables, objective function, constraint values and the named parameters inside ANSYS. The communication protocol is established in this way through the platform written in visual C++ which is linked with FORTRAN and as well as FE software ANSYS. 3. When the program proposed a new design, the value of the associated named parameters in the input was changed. 4. The optimizer then feeds the input file into ANSYS, and the desired response is saved in parameters and written to a file. The optimizer gets the response by reading in this file. 5. The optimizer calculates the new design, and repeats step 2 to 4, until a convergence is reached. In the whole optimization process platform in visual C++, EVOP in FORTRAN and ANSYS are interlinked in the following process. Design Variables EVOP Written in FORTRAN Optimization Engine Written in Visual C++ FE Simulator ANSYS Response Parameters Figure 3: Interfacing ANSYS with global optimization algorithm EVOP 4.2 Verification of interfacing A bracket as shown in Fig. 4 is made of 7075-T651 aluminum (E = MPa, _ = 0:33). An initial geometry of the bracket is given in the figure (dimensions in mm). The bracket is clamped at the left hub and carries a downward load at the right hub. The load is modeled as a uniform pressure p = 50 N/mm2 as shown. Perform the minimum weight design of the structure while the allowable stress is assumed to be Sy=1:5 where the yield strength of the material is assumed to be Fy = 524 MPa. Here, R1,R2,R3,R4 and W are used as the design variables. Based on some physical constraints, R1 is limited to be no greater than 45 mm. (a) (b) Figure 4: (a) Bracket problem sketch, (b) Solid model showing keypoints and design variable 112

7 4.2.1 Objective function The objective of the model is to minimize the volume of the bracket subject to a downward load at the right hub Design variables and constant parameters Design variables and constant parameters for the problem are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 4: Design constant parameters Table 5: Explicit constraints Table 6: Implicit constraints Design Constant Parameters Value Material Properties Modulus of Elasticity, E MPa Poisson s Ratio, υ 0.33 Geometric Properties 200 mm R 5 R 6 Loading P F.S mm 10 mm 50 MPa Design Variables Explicit Constraint Lower bound Upper Bound R 1 25 mm 45 mm R 2 15 mm 45 mm R 3 5 mm 45 mm R 4 5 mm 45 mm W 5 mm 70 mm Implicit Constraint Response Lower bound Upper Bound Von Misses MPa Stress, MPa S 1 5 mm 45 mm S 2 5 mm 45 mm S 3 5 mm 160 mm S 4 0 mm W 2 S S S 7 RR Implicit constraints Implicit constraints are listed in Table 6. According to the problem statement upper bound of the stress anywhere of the beam is taken as F y /F.S where F y is the yield strength of the material taken as 524 MPa and F. S is the factor of safety taken as 1.5. Again seven geometric state variables are defined based on physical constraint. State variables are: S 2 2 =, S 2 = R2 R3, S 3 = W + R3 + R4, S = W ( R R, 1 R1 R4 Lower bound S 7 is taken as RR where ) R 1 R =, S L 2 S 5 6 R 4 R 3 =, S 7 = W W =Larger of R 3 and R Finite element modeling and analysis Eight noded 2-D Structural Solid Plane82 with two degree of freedom at each node has been used in modeling the bracket. Two separate ANSYS APDL for implicit and objective function is created and linked with the optimization engine EVOP. Two dimensional complete finite element model, boundary condition and loading are shown in Fig 5. Figure 5: FE model showing mesh and boundary conditions 113

8 4.2.5 Optimization process Two separate ANSYS APDL for implicit and objective function is created and linked with the optimization engine EVOP. The problem is also solved independently using the traditional optimization method such as the first order method of ANSYS, both using the same starting design Result comparison The design optimization by EVOP shows 45.52% reduction of structure weight whereas first order method reduces 45.41%. The two results are quite similar. EVOP shows a little better result. The problem has one optima and the global optimization algorithm EVOP, applied to verify its interfacing is successful to obtain the minima. Before Optimization After Optimization by EVOP Y Z X Y Z X Y MX MN Z X Y MN Z X MX Figure 6: Shape optimization by EVOP (a) Model before optimization (b) Model after optimization (c) Von Misses stress before optimization (d) Von Misses stress after optimization Results from two optimization method are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. Table 7: Result comparison Parameter Before Optimization Optimization by EVOP Optimization by First Order Method Volume, mm Stress, σ max, MPa R1, mm R2, mm R3, mm R4, mm W, mm Table: 8 Result comparison of objective function Optimization Procedure Objective Function Initial Optimization by EVOP Volume, mm Optimization by First Order Method 9 Volume, mm Final % Reduction in Volume

9 5 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF NETWORK ARCH BRIDGE ANSYS is the finite element simulator to model virtual prototype of the network arch bridge. Beam, link and solid elements have been used for the simulation of arch, hanger and deck of the bridge respectively. Surface element is incorporated on deck nodes for 3D structural surface effect. A load family is assigned for the highway load by the vehicle type AASHTO standard HS truck and lane load. 5.1 Element types and boundary conditions Element types of ANSYS used for modeling the structural elements of the bridge are Link10 for modeling tension only cable, Beam4 for modeling arch and bracing, Solid45 for modeling deck and Surf154 for creating surface effect on deck. The 3D finite element model of the network arch bridge is shown in Fig 7. Deck of tied arch bridges is simply. Support in the deck is implied to control the degree of freedom on lower face end nodes of solid elements of concrete deck. Three rotational degrees of freedom are released in one lower face end nodes of solid elements and in another lower face end nodes of solid elements, three rotational and two horizontal degrees of freedom are released. Boundary conditions in the finite element model are shown in Fig 8. 16:21:22 1 ELEMENTS TYPE NUM U ANSYS JUN :07:55 Figure 7: 3D FE model of arch bridge Figure 8: Boundary conditions in the deck of arch bridge 5.2 Material properties Out of all structural elements of network arch bridge, arch and arch bracing are considered to be made of reinforced concrete, hanger is made of zinc coated steel wire and deck is of reinforced concrete. In the finite element modeling deck is introduced for vehicle movement and to transfer load to arch through hanger. Material properties of reinforced concrete and cable are shown in the following table. 5.3 Vehicle modeling The vehicle truck load is idealized as pairs of concentrated forces moving along the deck in two paths parallel to the centerline of the bridge lanes at different wheel positions. Design lane load is applied on deck as uniform pressure in each bridge lane in specific region. The vehicle is assumed to move with constant velocity. Finite element modeling of the bridge including vehicle truck and lane loads is shown in figure 9. Figure 9: Simplified truck loading configuration of AASHTO HS

10 Table 9: Material properties Parameters Material Properties of Concrete Value Modulus of Elasticity, E c 2.48 X Pa Poisson s Ratio, υ 0.2 Concrete Compressive Strength at 28 days 25 MPa Material Properties of Reinforcement Arch Reinforcement Yield Stress, f y 413 MPa Poisson s Ratio, υ 0.3 Modulus of Elasticity, E y 200 X 10 9 Pa Material Properties of Cable of Hanger (ASTM A 586) Ultimate Strength of Cable of Hanger Modulus of Elasticity, E h Multistep load generation 1520 MPa 195 X 10 9 Pa A single moving load is generated in two lanes of bridge to produce maximum stress in bridge elements. Therefore depending upon the load positions multistep load for single truck and lane load has been generated. In ten vehicle positions there are three possible permutations in two lanes. Those are defined in the following table 10 and 11. Table 10: Multistep Design Truck Load Generation Permutation Lane 1 Lane 2 Scale Factor for Multiple Presence No of Vehicle Position 1 HS HS HS HS Table 11: Multistep Design Lane Load Generation Permutation Lane 1 Lane 2 Scale Factor for Multiple Presence No of Vehicle Position 1 HL HL HL HL Figure 10: Typical diagram of multistep truck and lane load generation in the FE Model 116

11 5.4 Analysis and design The bridge is designed to carry the dead load which includes self weight of the structure and wearing course, live load or the weight of applied moving load of vehicles and impact or dynamic effect of the live load. The load combinations and post processing for design of arch and hanger is followed by AASHTO (2002) and AISC (2005) design equations. 6 OPTIMIZATION PROCESS Two separate ANSYS APDL for implicit and objective function is created and linked with the optimization engine EVOP. Implicit constraints and objective functions are evaluated after FE analysis and design. The optimization process is started with design variables of a feasible solution of the model and the process ends after finding the minimum cost criteria of concrete of arch, arch reinforcement and cost of hangers. 6.1 Result comparison Optimal hanger arrangement of network arch bridge using global optimization technique shows significant improvement over the bridges with vertical hangers. Cost data and corresponding design variables of arch with traditional design and optimal design is listed in table 12. Optimal design parameters of arch section but with vertical hanger are also shown in the table. Again bending moments of arch for dead load only with vertical hanger and optimal hanger arrangement are also shown in Fig 13. Fig 14 compares the reinforcement percentage for one load step only whereas Fig 15 shows required reinforcement percentage envelope for all the load steps for arch with vertical hanger and optimal hanger arrangement correspondingly. Figure 11: Arch with initial design variables Figure 12: Arch with final design variables of optimum hanger arrangement -.280E E E E (a) E E E Figure 13: Bending moment diagram for dead load only (a) Arch with Vertical Hanger (b) Arch with optimal hanger arrangement (b).191e (a) Figure 14: Reinforcement percentage along the arch for load step 42 (a) Arch with Vertical Hanger (b) Arch with optimal hanger arrangement (b) 117

12 Table 12: Result comparison Design Variables Implicit Constraints Parameter Before optimization After optimization Final design with vertical hangers Number of Hangers, Start Angle for Hanger Inclination Set1, φ Start Angle for Hanger Inclination Set2, φ Angle Change for φ1, φ Angle Change for φ2, φ Cross Sectional Area of Cable of Hanger Arch Width Arch Depth Rise to Span Ratio Extreme Hanger Stress 9.016E E E9 Strength Criteria of Arch Design Reinforcement Factor in Arch, RNR End Angle for Hanger Inclination Set End Angle for Hanger Inclination Set Slenderness Ratio Figure 15: Reinforcement Percentage along the arch Table 13: Result Comparison of Objective Function Cost of Cable (BDT) Cost of Concrete of Arch (BDT) Cost of Reinforcement (BDT) Total Cost (BDT) Initial E E E E+0 7 Final e e e e+007 Final design with vertical hangers E E E E

13 7 CONCLUSIONS Interfacing of engineering simulation code of ANSYS with global optimization algorithm EVOP is developed in the study. The interfacing is applied for structural optimization of hanger arrangement of network arch bridges. The optimization approach shows 37.78% cost saving with optimal hanger arrangement against initial design. The effect of vertical hanger on arch is compared with optimal hanger arrangement by using same arch section and all other parameters constant which shows that reinforcement required in arch with optimal hanger saves 79 % steel than that of vertical hanger. Again optimal hanger inclination with vertical varies from 32 to 40 degree and the result is restricted for design constant parameters and cost rate of RHD REFERENCES AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17 th edition, Washington, DC. AISC Design of Members for Tension, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,March 9, ASI/AISC ANSYS Inc. 2009, Ansys Basic Analysis Procedure Guide, Release 12.0, Canonsburg, PA, USA. Ghani, S. N A versatile algorithm for optimization of a nonlinear non-differentiable constrained objective function, UKAEA Harwell Report Number R-13714, ISBN \8, HMSO Publications Centre, PO Box 276, London, SW8 5DT. RHD Roads and Highway Department, Schedule of Rates, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Tveit, P Preliminary Design of Network Arch Road Bridges, Edition , Grimstad, Tveit, P The Network Arch, Bits of Manuscript in September 2008 after Lectures in 50 Countries, 119