Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Genetic algorithm optimization of composite and steel endplate semi-rigid joints

Fernando Busato Ramires a, Sebastião Arthur Lopes de Andrade a,
Pedro Colmar Gonçalves da Silva Vellasco b,⇑, Luciano Rodrigues Ornelas de Lima b
a
Civil Engineering Department, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio, Brazil
b
Structural Engineering Department, State University of Rio de Janeiro, UERJ, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main goal of this paper is to describe a process developed to reduce the cost of composite and steel
Received 6 November 2009 semi-rigid endplate joints. The developed process is based on an adequate selection of the most signifi-
Revised 25 May 2012 cant variables that controls the joints structural performance to obtain effective cost solutions. This pro-
Accepted 27 May 2012
cedure was based on the use of a genetic algorithms producing trustable results in terms of economy and
Available online 25 July 2012
efficiency, with a reduced computational effort. Four set of examples involving flush and extended end-
plate joints are presented to illustrate the developed optimization procedure. These joints were initially
Keywords:
considered to be made only with steel members. In a subsequent phase equivalent composite joints were
Steel structures
Composite and steel semi-rigid joints
also considered to enable a direct comparison of the these alternative typologies. The global costs asso-
Composite construction ciated to the adopted joints were evaluated taking into account parameters like: endplate dimensions,
Genetic algorithms number of adopted bolts, bolt diameter among others. The performed examples validated and proved
Structural optimization the viability of using GA to optimize composite and steel semi-rigid joints.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction strength bolts. Header plate joints were initially investigated by

One of the most desirable aims of the Engineering Science is the
development of cost effective structural elements usually achieved
with the implementation of new design philosophies and proce-
dures. A typical example of these new trends can be identified in
the composite and steel portal frame design that was traditionally
based on rigid or pinned beam to column joint assumptions. De-
spite this fact, it is largely recognized that the majority of the struc-
tural joints do not present this behaviour. Numerous investigations
were conducted over the last few years to assess the actual re-
sponse of semi-rigid joints and led to various formulations that en-
able the evaluation of the joint main characteristics in terms of
stiffness, strength and rotation capacity like the recommendations
present in the current Eurocodes 3 and 4 [1,2].
Since the first studies that evaluated the rotational stiffness of
riveted beam to column joints performed by Wilson and Moore
in 1917 [3], various tests have been conducted to determine the ac-
tual response of beam to column joints. Riveted and welded joints
using angles were tested by Young and Jackson [4], by Rathbun [5],
while Bell et al. [6], performed tests on similar joints using high
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Structural Engineering Department, State
University of Rio de Janeiro, UERJ, rua São Francisco Xavier 524, s.5018-b, Maracanã,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20550-900, Brazil. Tel./fax: +55 21 25877537.
E-mail addresses: ramires@aluno.puc-rio.br (F.B. Ramires), andrade@civ.puc-rio.br
(S.A.L.de Andrade), vellasco@eng.uerj.br (P.C.G. da Silva Vellasco), luciano@eng.uerj.br
(L.R.O. de Lima).
Sommer [7], that later performed four tests using bolted angle
joints. Extended and flush endplate joints tests are also easily
found in the literature like: Ostrander [8], Bailey [9] and Surtees
and Mann [10], Packer and Morris [11] and Johnson and Walpole
[12].
From the eighties, various semi-rigid tests were performed by
authors like: Jaspart [13], Cruz et al. [14] on extended endplate,
web cleats, and seat angle semi-rigid joints. Cruz et al. [15,16] re-
viewed several experimental investigations highlighting the stud-
ies of: Brozetti on flush and extended endplate joint tests;
Zoetemeijer on additional flush endplate joint tests; Klein, Braun
and Ellmerer on internal and external welded joints tests and final-
ly by Humer on internal endplate joint tests using stiffeners
welded to the column flange and web. Azizinamini and co-workers
[17,18] conducted an experimental investigation on beam to col-
umn joints using top, bottom and web angles subjected to static
loads.
From the nineties, tests performed on structural joints by Brazil-
ian authors are also reported. Queiroz [19] conducted, in Innsbruck,
a series of tests using welded joints. Carvalho et al. [20], reported an
experimental investigation on beam to column joints using top,
bottom and web angles on the column major axis while Lima et
al. [21,22] performed similar tests on the column minor axis. Ribe-
iro [23] performed a series of endplate joint tests in order to deter-
mine the influence of parameters like the endplate thickness and
the bolt diameter on the semi-rigid joint structural response.
Various other investigations, not only reporting on experiments

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.051
178 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191

Fig. 1. Beam to column joint mechanical model.

but also on numerical and analytical studies can be easily found in
the literature [13,15,16,24].
Despite the significant knowledge growth the composite semi-
rigid design is still facing some resistance from structural engineers.
This can be partly explained by the fact that few design standards
allow or even encourage the use of this design philosophy. On the
other hand, the semi-rigid design procedure involves repetitive
and exhaustive tasks due to the fact that numerous geometric
and mechanical properties have to be considered. All these aspects,
added to the various interconnected relations of the involved vari-
ables, inhibit the optimum joint configuration to be easily obtained.
When the search for optimal structural joints are considered
within this context the Genetic Algorithms (GAs) proves to be a
valuable tool for optimizing steel and composite semi-rigid joints.
The GA technique has been extensively used over the last few years
in optimization processes, not only in engineering related applica-
tions but also in cases where it is aimed to simplify, or even orga-
nize, complex work routines. Focusing on the objective of
minimizing the effort spent in the structural design, the present
paper presents an automatic optimization procedure implemented
to determine the optimum joint design. This optimum joint has the
required flexural strength and initial stiffness aiming at the mini-
mum joint fabrication cost. This procedure was implemented for
joints made with beams produced of rolled W and IPE profiles
and was focused on the transmission of a number of percentage
levels of the beam plastic moment capacity.
The optimization procedure that uses genetic algorithms is in-
spired in the Darwin principle of the species genetic evolution.
 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191 179

Δ Δ
Rd
K F ke kp ; F F

F F

ideal
behaviour
kp
FRd EC3

Δ ke Δ
Δf

Fig. 2. Typical load versus displacement (F  D curve for a generic component.

Fig. 3. Genetic algorithm structure.

Fig. 4. Genetic operator – crossover operation.

The process is based on probabilistic algorithms, considering
survival and reproduction principles of the best fit individuals.
The Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a search mechanism used in the
computer science to determine approximated solutions in optimi-
zation problems. The genetic algorithms are a particular class of
evolutionary algorithms that use techniques inspired on the evolu-
tionary biology like: inheritance, mutation and natural selection
[25].
The genetic programming is an automatic programming tech-
nique that enables the computer programming evolution to solve
(or approximately solve) problems. It manipulates correct and
incorrect solutions, encourage inconsistent and contradictory ap-
proaches, do not present a dynamic logic variability, it is mainly
probabilistic, produces non-conform solutions and do not present
a clearly defined termination criteria [26]. The Genetic Program-
ming (GP) [26,27] is a subarea of the evolutionary algorithms
[28,29] that follows the Darwin evolution theory. The GP can be
usually treated as a machine learning technique that searches a
program space instead of data space [27] and have been used with
success in the solution of Civil Engineering problems [25,30].
Folino et al. [31], combined GP and Simulated Annealing (SA) to
produce an efficient hybrid algorithm. They showed that introduc-
ing SA strategically in the GP process its productivity would be in-
creased. The hybrid Folino et al. algorithm [31], named GP/SA, was
used to determine the flexural capacity and rotation stiffness of
steel beam to column joints leading to interesting results.
Over the last few years a particular subarea of the GP, with a lin-
ear structure similar to a DNA molecule, named Linear Genetic Pro-
gramming (LGP) was developed [29]. The LGP is also a machine
learning method that involves programs through low level lan-
guages instead of the traditional Koza tree-based GP [26] that is
represented in the form of a functional in the programming lan-
guage. Despite of the significant advantages of the LGP over the
other approximation models [29,32], very few works have been
developed involving Civil Engineering applications.
The software developed in the present study starts the design
process executing an elastic analysis to determine the first estima-
tive of the structural response. This preliminary data is used in the
genetic algorithm system with its basic operations (crossover,
mutation, etc.) to obtain a new parameter value that is subse-
quently compared to the desired objectives. This iterative proce-
dure is repeated until the optimum values are reached, i.e.,
180 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191

Fig. 5. SRJ Tool – Semi-Rigid Joint Tool.

Fig. 6. SRJTool – Semi-Rigid Joint Tool graphic interfaces.

minimizing the joint cost for a required flexural capacity and/or rithm software, Evolver [33], producing trustable results in terms of
initial stiffness. This procedure is based on the use of a genetic algo- economy and efficiency, with a reduced computational effort.
 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191 181

Fig. 7. Joint geometrical properties manipulated by the genetic algorithms.

Fig. 8. Excel spreadsheet used to link the SRJTool to the Evolver software.
182 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191
Fig. 9. Interactive procedure using SRJTool and Evolver softwares.
2. The semi-rigid joint design procedure
This paper used the procedures for the endplate beam to col-
umn steel and composite joint design according to the component
method proposed in the Eurocodes 3 and 4, [1,2], as well as some
recommendations proposed by Ahmed and Nethercot [24] and Ra-
mires [34]. In this procedure the joint global response can be deter-
mined based on the mechanical properties of its parts
(components). The components are assembled in a mechanical
model as illustrated in Fig. 1. The adopted components are: column
web panel in shear (cws), column web panel in compression (cwc),
column web panel in tension (cwt), column flange in bending
(cfb), endplate in bending (epb), beam flange in compression (bfc),
beam web in tension (bwt), longitudinal reinforcing bars in tension
(rbt) and bolts in tension (bt).
In general, each component is characterized by a non-linear
force–displacement (F–D) curve, adequately represented by a bi-
linear approximation, depicted in Fig. 2, when only the initial stiff-
ness or joint bending capacity is required [35]. In this procedure,
the post-limit stiffness of the components is disregarded since a
perfect elastic–plastic behaviour is assumed. However, this meth-
od was shown to be unconservative, whenever ductility is a critical
issue.
The component method application to steel joints requires the
following steps:
 Selection of the relevant (active) components from a global
components list (20 different components are currently
codified in Eurocodes 3 and 4 [1,2]);
 Evaluation of each component force–deformation
response;
 Assembly of the active components for the evaluation of
the joint moment versus rotation curve using a representa-
tive mechanical model.
3. Genetic algorithms
During the last thirty years there has been a growing interest in
problem solving algorithms based on principles of evolution. They
have selection processes based on individual fitness, and some ‘‘ge-
netic’’ operators that are inspired on the Darwin’s principle of the
species evolution and genetics. In 1990, Koza [26] proposed an
evolution-based system, genetic programming, to search for the
most fit computer program to solve a particular problem. This
computational intelligence technique was used by the authors to
calibrate and forecast the post-limit stiffness of the column web
out of plane component of minor axis beam-to-column joints [22].
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) use a vocabulary borrowed from nat-
ural genetics. It is common to talk about individuals (or genotypes,
structures) in a population; quite often these individuals are called
also strings or chromosomes. Chromosomes are made of units,
genes (also features, characters, or decoders) arranged in linear
succession where every gene controls the inheritance of one or
several characters.
Fig. 3 presents the structure of a genetic algorithm where each
individual represents a potential solution to the problem in hand.
The first population is randomly generated. After creating it, each
member is evaluated by computing the representative objective
and constraint functions, and are later compared to other mem-
bers. Each of these solutions is evaluated to determine a measure
of its fitness. Subsequently, a new population (iteration t + 1) is
formed by selecting the most fit individuals. Some members of
the new population undergo transformations by means of genetic
operators like: crossover and mutation. Crossover is a genetic oper-
ator which forms a new chromosome by combining parts of each of
two parental chromosomes, Fig. 4. Mutation is a genetic operator
that forms a new chromosome by making (usually small) altera-
tions to the values of genes in a copy of a single parent chromo-
some. This process of going from the current population to the
next population constitutes one generation in the genetic algo-
rithm evolution process. After some generations the program con-
verges to a feasible solution where the best individual represents a
near-to-optimum solution.
4. SRJTool developed software and the proposed GA modules
The SRJTool (Semi-Rigid Joint Tool) software was conceived
using a Borland Delphi 7 Development Tool (Object Pascal) [32]
to facilitate the joint semi-rigid design and it is illustrated in
Fig. 5. It was developed to provide a computer user-friendly tool
 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10. Adopted optimization joint models: (a) Extended steel endplate, (b) flush steel endplate, (c) composite extended endplate (d) composite flush endplate.
that could help researchers and structural engineers to easily
implement the component method procedures (proposed in Euro-
code 3 [1]) without the need of using time-consuming finite
elements packages. Additionally, since the program was developed
for a specific use, it is possible to control every step of the design
procedure and add extra functions as the Genetic Modules.
Steel joints may present a wide range of geometries, with differ-
ent numbers of bolt rows and connecting parts. Due to this wide
range it was necessary to create a standard way of modelling the
joint so that SRJTool could evaluate the component method model.
For this reason, a user-friendly interface was used to input the joint
parameters. The first window is used to input the joint details fol-
lowed by the structure data like: bracing, analyses type, etc. The
next step consists in choosing the joint type, location, design codes
and the presence of stiffeners. Finally, the profile properties and
endplate characteristics are evaluated. Some of these procedures
may be observed in Fig. 6.
In order to evaluate the joint global response their full geomet-
rical and mechanical properties should be considered. With these
results in hand, the joint mechanical model can be characterized
according to the type of connection. Finally, the component resis-
tance is evaluated and the joint moment versus rotation curve
may be obtained. Fig. 7 presents the variables used in the optimi-
183
zation process that are manipulated by the genetic algorithms.
These variables are: number of bolt rows (nr), endplate thickness
(tp), bolt diameter (bd), vertical distance from the endplate top edge
to the top beam flange external face (dsb), horizontal distance from
the bolt first column to the endplate edge (e2), horizontal pitch be-
tween bolts (e3), vertical distance from the first bolt row to the
endplate top edge (e1), vertical distance between first and second
bolt rows (p1), vertical distance between second and third bolt
rows (p2), vertical distance between third and fourth bolt rows
(p3), vertical distance between forth and fifth bolt rows (p4), verti-
cal distance from the fifth bolt row to the endplate bottom edge
(en), reinforcing steel bar number (nb) and reinforcing steel bar
diameter (rbd), For cases where more than five bolt rows are used,
other vertical distances should also be considered.
As the Evolver software is a Microsoft Excel plug-in [33] aiming
to facilitate the work, a spreadsheet was used to make the data
transfer between the SRJTool data and the Evolver data. This
spreadsheet may be observed in Fig. 8 where the adopted chromo-
some is represented.
In the optimization process, the first step consists of using the
SRJTool software to obtain the first joint configuration just consid-
ering the beam and column parameters, [36]. Subsequently, using
the above mentioned spreadsheet, the optimization process begins
184 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191

(c)

(d)

Fig. 10 (continued)

with the genetic algorithm operating the changes in the chromo-
some (crossover and mutation) that it created after the first
iteration. A new geometric joint configuration is generated with a
different bending resistance, initial stiffness and rotation capacity.
While the target value is not reached, the optimization process con-
tinues. This interactive procedure can be observed in Fig. 9.
5. Composite and steel joint optimization examples
This paper uses four sets of examples to illustrate the developed
optimization procedure, Fig. 10. The first example considers com-
posite and steel flush endplate joints where the optimization aim
was the required joint flexural capacity Mj,Rd, The second example
 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191 185

Table 1 650
Summary of the performed optimization examples.
603,31
Stage I (steel and composite) ? bending capacity [Mj.Rd] 600
Flush end plate Mj.Rd = 120 kN m
Extended end plate Mj.Rd = 423 kN m

Mj,Rd [kNm]
550
Stage II (steel and composite) ? bending capacity [Mj.Rd] + cost minimization [$]
Flush end plate Mj.Rd = 120 kN m + reduce cost
500
Extended end plate Mj.Rd = 423 kN m + reduce cost
453,31
452,31
Stage III (steel and composite) ? beam plastic moment capacity [Mpl] 450
Flush end plate Mj.Rd = 200 kN m 436,57 427,29
(steel and composite) 40.39% of Mpl 416,48
Flush end plate Mj.Rd = 300 kN m 400
(composite) 60.58% of Mpl
first joint 1 2 3 4 5
Flush end plate Mj.Rd = 400 kN m Optimization number
(composite) 88.77% of Mpl
Extended end plate Mj.Rd = 700 kN m Fig. 11. Extended steel endplate model results – first example.
(steel and composite) 88.23% of Mpl
Extended end plate Mj.Rd = 800 kN m
(composite) 100.83% of Mpl
Extended end plate Mj.Rd = 900 kN m ity Mj,Rd. The third optimization example aimed to determine joints
(composite) 113.448% of Mpl able to transmit bending moments levels expressed in terms of a
percentage of the plastic bending moment capacity of the adopted
Stage IV (steel and composite) ? beam plastic moment capacity [Mpl] beam IPE steel profiles. The fourth example considers composite
Profile Mpl Joint configuration Parameter Results
flush endplate joints and steel extended endplate joints able to
Beam kN m Comparison transmit bending moment levels corresponding to 60%, 80% and
W 60% Flush composite Cost Mj,Rd
100% of the plastic bending moment capacity of the adopted beam
and 80%  &
IPE 100% Extended Steel Minimization Sj,ini
IPE and W steel profiles, aiming to minimize their global fabrica-
tion costs. At this point it is important to clarify the stop criteria
used in the optimization process: i.e. a 2% deviation from the
objective. Due to the large number of adopted restrictions they will
was performed considering the same joint typology to minimize not be listed in the present paper. The adopted constraints were all
the joint cost (€) while observing the required joint flexural capac- based on the Eurocode 3 [1] design and detailing limitations like:

Table 2
Extended endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 423 kN m).

Optimization Configuration Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First joint 603.31 105290.43 113.59
1 Final joint (first/final) 436.57 1.38 84675.45 1.24 79.34 1.43
2 453.31 1.33 91317.91 1.15 78.96 1.44
3 452.31 1.33 98108.85 1.07 108.09 1.05
4 416.48 1.45 88888.92 1.18 59.17 1.92
5 427.29 1.41 89901.43 1.17 68.74 1.65

Table 3
Flush endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 120 kN m).

Optimization Configuration Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First joint 199.07 26625.43 69.11
1 Final joint (first/final) 115.82 1.72 26013.58 1.02 43.11 1.60
2 120.37 1.65 39962.47 0.67 44.21 1.56
3 119.86 1.66 40582.04 0.66 51.70 1.34
4 119.13 1.67 41126.51 0.65 44.74 1.54
5 137.14 1.45 43073.46 0.62 44.00 1.57

Table 4
Composite extended endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 423 kN m).

Optimization Configuration Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First joint 603.31 105290.43 113.59
1 Final joint (first/final) 435.08 1.39 190889.86 0.55 60.79 1.87
2 431.13 1.40 189308.62 0.56 59.72 1.90
3 432.61 1.39 190879.71 0.55 60.27 1.88
4 433.31 1.39 185180.88 0.57 85.73 1.32
5 411.64 1.47 185682.97 0.57 78.62 1.44
186 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191

210 All the examples presented in this paper were limited to two
199,07 types of structural joints, i.e., flush and extended endplate joints.
These joints were initially considered to be made only with steel
180
members. In a subsequent phase equivalent composite joints were
Mj,Rd [kNm]

also considered to enable a direct comparison of the these alterna-

150 tive typologies. Table 1 summarizes the main objectives of the per-
137,14 formed optimizations. In first and second examples, five
independent optimizations were made to determine the best re-
120
115,82 120,37 119,86 119,13 sults. In the other examples a single optimization was performed
aiming to transmit the required bending moment level. All the
90 examples started from an initial basic joint configuration, as can
1 2 3 4 5
First Joint be observed in the tables presented in this paper. These tables also
Optimization number
depict the ratio between the initial/final parameters that were
Fig. 12. Flush steel endplate model results – first example. optimized to determine the best alternative for each of the inves-
tigated joints. Fig. 10 presents typical examples of the joint dimen-
sions and parameters obtained with the optimization processes
being in line with the current design practice.
650
5.1. First optimization example
603,31
600
The first example involved flush and extended steel endplate
Mj,Rd [kNm]

550 joints, Tables 2 and 3, aiming to transmit bending moment values

close to 120 kN m and 423 kN m. The bending moment optimiza-
500 tion results are illustrated in Figs. 11 and 12, showing, as expected,
a large dispersion of the initial stiffness, Sj,ini and the joint global
cost values since no restriction was applied to these variables dur-
450 435,08 431,13 432,61 433,31
ing the optimization process. A large reduction of the initial stiff-
411,64 ness, Sj,ini can be observed when the extended endplate model
400
final results are compared to the initial steel joint model. A differ-
first joint 1 2 3 4 5
ent trend can be observed with the flush endplate joint final results
Optimization number
that showed a significant stiffness increase when compared to the
Fig. 13. Composite extended endplate model results – first example. initial steel joint model.
Composite flush and extended endplate joints were also opti-
mized to transmit bending moment values close to 120 kN m and
423 kN m, Tables 4 and 5 where, in both cases, an abrupt increase
210
199,07
of the initial stiffness, Sj,ini can be observed when compared to their
190 equivalent steel joint models, demonstrating one of the advantages
of using composite joints. The bending moment results optimiza-
170 tion results can also be visualized in Figs. 13 and 14.
M j,Rd [kNm]

150
144,24 5.2. Second optimization example
131,37 133,45
130
120,01 The second example involves flush and extended steel and com-
110 116,36 posite endplate joints, Tables 6–9, aiming to minimize their global
cost and to transmit bending moment values close to 120 kN m
90 and 423 kN m. At this point, it is necessary to clarify that, in the
first joint 1 2 3 4 5 present example, the additional cost related to the adoption of lon-
Optimization number gitudinal reinforcing bars in the composite models was not in-
cluded in the joint global cost evaluation procedure. One more
Fig. 14. Composite extended flush model results – first example.
time, a large dispersion of the initial stiffness, Sj,ini can be observed
since no restriction was applied to this variable during the optimi-
minimum and maximum bolt to bolt distance among many others. zation process. The steel endplate joint results are also depicted in
Further details should be referenced in the Eurocode 3 [1]. Figs. 15 and 16 and the composite endplate joints results can be
visualized in Figs. 17 and 18. Once again an abrupt increase of

Table 5
Composite flush endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 120 kN m).

Optimization Configure Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First joint 199.07 26625.43 69.11
1 Final joint (first/final) 144.24 1.38 45696.35 0.58 46.64 1.48
2 120.01 1.66 43101.19 0.62 47.23 1.46
3 116.36 1.71 42273.29 0.63 45.28 1.53
4 131.37 1.52 46263.31 0.58 47.43 1.46
5 133.45 1.49 45256.15 0.59 50.82 1.36
 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191 187

Table 6
Extended endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 423 kN m + minimum cost).

Optimization Configuration Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First Joint 603.31 105290.43 113.59
1 Final joint (first/final) 428.55 1.41 93939.45 1.12 57.83 1.96
2 446.77 1.35 88288.55 1.19 73.23 1.55
3 442.66 1.36 102563.99 1.03 64.98 1.75
4 436.78 1.38 78304.26 1.34 75.49 1.50
5 440.91 1.37 82630.96 1.27 82.70 1.37

Table 7
Flush endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 120 kN m + minimum cost).

Optimization Configuration Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First Joint 199.07 26625.43 69.11
1 Final joint (first/final) 128.30 1.55 35112.41 0.76 26.17 2.64
2 131.26 1.52 37684.87 0.71 40.39 1.71
3 127.23 1.56 44418.01 0.60 48.52 1.42
4 177.74 1.12 42149.20 0.63 30.42 2.27
5 133.30 1.49 39389.86 0.68 47.39 1.46

Table 8
Composite extended endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 423 kN m + minimum cost).

Optimization Configuration Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First Joint 603.31 105290.43 113.59
1 Final joint (first/final) 430.76 1.40 189428.81 0.56 60.87 1.87
2 431.30 1.40 189186.76 0.56 60.96 1.86
3 433.59 1.39 189902.87 0.55 61.51 1.85
4 430.89 1.40 190646.30 0.55 60.54 1.88
5 431.47 1.40 190702.13 0.55 58.65 1.94

Table 9
Composite flush endplate steel joint model results (objective: Mj.Rd = 120 kN m + minimum cost).

Optimization Configuration Mj.Rd (kN m) Sj.ini (kN m/rad) Total cost ($)
First Joint 199.07 26625.43 69.11
1 Final joint (first/final) 115.28 1.73 42069.40 0.63 45.13 1.53
2 113.50 1.75 41898.21 0.64 44.97 1.54
3 116.36 1.71 42273.29 0.63 45.28 1.53
4 101.97 1.95 38538.18 0.69 45.13 1.53
5 128.05 1.55 47407.21 0.56 45.28 1.53

650 210
199,07

603,31 190
600
177,74
170
Mj,Rd [kNm]
Mj,Rd [kNm]

550
150
500 131,26 133,30
130 127,23
128,30
446,77
450 110
440,91
442,66 436,78
428,55
400 90
First Joint 1 2 3 4 5 First Joint 1 2 3 4 5
Optimization number Optimization number

Fig. 15. Extended steel endplate model results – second example. Fig. 16. Flush steel endplate model results – second example.

5.3. Third optimization example

the initial stiffness, Sj,ini can be one more time observed when com-
pared to their equivalent steel joint models, demonstrating again The third optimization example aimed minimize the joint costs
one advantage of the using composite joints. while the joints were still capable to transmit bending moments
188 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191

650 Table 13
Composite and steel models cost comparisons and structural performance.

600 603,31 $steel/$comp. Mm/Ma Sm/Sa

1.269 0.986 0.971
Mj,Rd [kNm]

550 1.260 1.200 1.056

1.126 1.312 1.057

500

levels expressed in terms of a percentage of the plastic bending

450 430,76 431,30 433,59 430,89
431,47
moment capacity of the adopted beam IPE steel profiles. In contrast
to the previous example, the performed optimization included the
400 additional cost of adopting longitudinal reinforcing bars in the
First Joint 1 2 3 4 5
composite joint global cost evaluation procedure.
Optimization number The flush steel and composite endplate joints were optimized to
Fig. 17. Composite extended endplate model results – second example.
minimize their final global cost while transmitting bending mo-
ment levels close to 40%, 50% and 60% of the plastic bending mo-
ment capacity of the adopted IPE500 steel profile, Tables 10 and
210 11. The composite joint advantages can be observed when the
199,07 models are compared. The results indicated that the composite
190 joints performed better when higher bending transmission levels
are required while their equivalent steel joints are restricted to a
170 limited bending moment transmission capacity. Table 11 also indi-
Mj,Rd [kNm]

cated that a higher initial stiffness, with a negligible cost increase,

150
was also obtained with the composite joints.
The extended steel and composite endplate joints were opti-
130
128,05 mized to minimize their final global costs and to transmit bending
115,28 113,50 116,36
110 moment levels around to 88%, 100% and 113% of the plastic bend-
101,97 ing moment capacity of the adopted IPE600 steel profile, Tables 12
90 and 13. Similar conclusions to the flush endplate joints can be
First Joint 1 2 3 4 5 made confirming the better performance of the composite joints
Optimization number without affecting the joint global cost. Table 13 indicated again
that a substantial increase of the joint initial stiffness and flexural
Fig. 18. Composite flush endplate model results – second example.
capacity, with an insignificant cost increase, was also obtained
with the composite joints.

Table 10
Flush endplate steel joint model results.
5.4. Fourth optimization example
First joint configuration Flush steel joint
Mpl % Mpl Mj.Sd $ Mj.Rd Mj.Sd/ $ $first/ Sj.ini The fourth example considers composite flush endplate joints
Mj.Rd $final and steel extended endplate joints able to transmit bending mo-
500 40.00 200 53.00 204.81 0.977 52.99 1.000 57915.86 ment levels corresponding to 60%, 80% and 100% of the plastic
Flush composite joint bending moment capacity of the adopted beam IPE and W steel
500 40.00 200 53.00 197.94 1.010 52.32 1.013 58639.62
profiles, aiming to minimize their global fabrication costs. Fig. 19
500 60.00 300 53.00 297.92 1.007 52.70 1.006 72201.19 present the optimization results of composite flush endplate joints
500 80.00 400 53.00 407.48 0.982 56.81 0.933 87735.74 and steel extended endplate joints using, for the beams, four rolled
W steel profiles: W610  101, W530  92, W460  74 and
W410  67. In this figure results and parameters obtained in all
the optimizations performed, i.e., the joint cost expressed in Euros,
Table 11 the joint initial stiffness divided by 1000 and the joint flexural
Composite and steel models cost comparisons and structural performance.
capacity Mj,Rd. Every graph depict the individual results for every
$steel/$comp. Mm/Ma Sm/Sa investigated steel profile comparing the two investigated joints,
1.013 0.966 1.012 i.e. the composite flush endplate joint and the steel extended end-
1.006 1.455 1.247 plate joint. It can be observed that the first two graph groups are
0.933 1.990 1.515 related to optimization procedures associated to a bending

Table 12
Extended endplate steel joint model results.

First joint configuration Extended steel joint

Mpl % Mpl Mj.Sd $ Mj.Rd Mj.Sd/Mj.Rd $ $first/$final Sj.ini
793 88.30 700 125.19 670.34 1.045 125.19 1.000 228007.50
Extended composite joint
793 88.30 700 125.19 661.25 1.059 98.62 1.269 221338.84
793 100.90 800 125.19 804.10 0.995 99.39 1.260 240790.06
793 113.50 900 125.19 883.36 1.019 88.06 1.422 243371.73
 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191 189

Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint moment level equal to 60% of the adopted beam profile plastic
W 610x101 moment resistance while the other graphs are related to bending
800 moment levels equal to 80% and 100% of the adopted beam profile
Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm] 676,00
700 plastic moment resistance.
Cost / sj ,ini/ mj,rd

(s) _ steel (c)

600 (c) - composite 537,57 541,55 It can also be noted that not all the graphs presented values ex-
500
413,31 (s) (c) actly at the target moments. A ±2% difference from the optimiza-
403,12
400 tion value was considered accurate enough due to the use of
(s) (c)
300 discrete variables, like the bolt number that has to be equal to an
200,22 222,35
(s)
200 133,02
even integer value. These results indicated that the extended steel
106,17 118,98
100 52,38 61,67 40,92 46,49
endplate joint could not produce results for bending moment lev-
36,53
0,00
0,00 0,00 els equal to 100% of the adopted beam profile plastic moment
0
58,85% 60,34% 78,48% 79,06% - 98,69% resistance. The flexural resistance of the composite flush endplate
joints is, in the majority of cases, higher than their extended steel
Target Mpl [kN.m]
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%) endplate joint counterparts for the heavier steel profiles, i.e. W610,
W530 and W460. This fact did not happen for the W410 lighter
Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint steel profile where this difference was reduced as the steel
W 530x92 endplate joint becomes more efficient.
600 558,81 The steel endplate joint initial stiffness was usually higher than
(s) _ steel
Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm] (c) - composite (c) the composite flush endplate joint counterparts due to the larger
500 444,62
441,07 stiffness associated to the extended endplate joint components.
Cost / sj,ini / mj,rd

(s) (c)
400 Alternatively the composite flush endplate joint costs were smaller
344,13
326,71
(c) than their extended steel endplate joint counterparts, and in this
300 (s)
case, a similar conclusion to the one associated to the flexural
200 182,18 166,87 capacity can be reached as the composite joints were cheaper for
153,83 147,00
131,73 (s) heavier steel profiles while the steel joints were more economical
100 43,64
36,36 52,92 38,84 43,54 for the lighter steel sections.
0,00 0,00
0,00 Fig. 20 depicts the optimization results of composite flush end-
0
plate joints and steel extended endplate joints using, for the beams,
58,97% 62,12% 79,62% 80,26% - 100,87%
four rolled IPE steel profiles: IPE600, IPE550, IPE450, and IPE400.
Target Mpl [kN.m]
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%)
The same parameters previously mentioned were used in Fig. 19.
One more time it could be noted that not all the graphs presented
Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint
values exactly at the target moments presenting a 2–3% difference.
W 460x74
450 A close inspection of the graphs present in Fig. 20 indicates that the
400 Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm] 385,90 IPE600 steel profile could not produce any composite or steel joint
(s) _ steel (c) solution for bending moment levels equal to 100% of the beam
Cost / sj,ini / mj,rd

350 328,43
(c) - composite 307,31
300 (s)
(c) plastic moment resistance. The conclusions associated to the com-
250 238,12 238,27 posite models are the opposite as it happened with the W steel
200
(s) (c) profiles, Fig. 16, i.e., in this case the steel joints prevail for heavier
130,33 sections while the lighter sections were better suited to the com-
150 118,73 121,96
105,58 (s) posite joints. This apparent contradiction can be explained by the
89,70
100
30,85 36,49 32,68 38,98 discrete nature in which the W and the IPE rolled steel section ser-
50 29,21
0,00
0,00
0,00 ies were conceived.
0
The steel endplate joint initial stiffness was higher than the
60,74% 60,78% 78,40% 83,78% - 98,44%
composite flush endplate joint counterparts due to the larger stiff-
Target Mpl [kN.m]
ness associated to the extended endplate joint components. The
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%)
difference between stiffness of the steel and composite joints in-
Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint
crease as lighter steel sections are considered. All the composite
W 410x67 flush endplate joint costs were smaller than their extended steel
350 320,17 endplate joint counterparts. It could also be observed that there
300 Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm] (c) is a proportionality between the required bending moment capac-
(s) _ steel
ity and the final joint costs.
Cost / sj,ini / mj,rd

(c) - composite 244,08 242,46

250
(s) (c) The results demonstrated that the IPE sections were associated
183,88
200 181,93 to a better performances in terms of flexural capacity and initial
(s) (c)
150 stiffness than the W profiles for the two heaviest sections. This
108,24 conclusion was achieved despite the fact that the W sections were
91,21 94,76
100 78,37 (s)
66,64 associated to larger geometrical properties (for example the beam
50 27,39 24,94 33,08 29,34 32,53 plastic module). Alternatively for the two lighter W sections the
0,00
0,00
0,00
0 performance in terms of flexural capacity, cost and initial stiffness
59,51% 58,88% 78,99% 78,47% - 103,61% was better than the IPE profile counterparts. It is important to ob-
Target Mpl [kN.m] serve that the W sections were associated to larger geometrical
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%) proper. The same conclusions drawn for the steel joints can be ap-
plied to the composite joints, i.e. heavier sections performed better
Fig. 19. Cost and structural performance of the composite and steel models with W with the W sections while lighter sections with the best perfor-
steel profiles. mance were associated to the IPE profiles.
190 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191

Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint

IPE 600
700 635,17 622,70
600 (s) (c)

Cost / sj,ini / mj,rd

499,67
500 471,93
Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm]
(s)
(c)
400
(s) _ steel
300 (c) - composite
197,14 216,81
173,49 192,93
200
83,50
100 56,07 46,07 54,36
0,00
0,00
0,00 0,00
0,00
0,00
0
63,01% 59,51% 80,10% 78,52% - -
Target Mpl [kN.m]
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%)

Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint

IPE 500
700
Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm] 613,75 616,04
600 (c)
(s)
Cost / sj,ini / mj,rd

(s) _ steel 498,08 491,74

500
(c) - composite
(s) (c)
400 368,55 379,32

(s) (c)
300
205,41
200 168,61 181,40 173,55
161,35
139,85
83,34
100 50,78 43,11 53,44 45,98 60,17

0
58,87% 60,59% 79,57% 78,55% 98,04% 98,41%
Target Mpl [kN.m]
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%)

Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint

IPE 450
400 376,20 378,29
Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm] (s) (c)
350
310,93
(s) _ steel 300,23
Cost / sj,ini / mj,rd

300 (c) - composite (c)

(s)
250 224,79 224,87

200 (s) (c)

148,42
150 125,97 119,52
106,15 98,70
100 83,49
60,56
36,93 35,27 45,06 36,42
50 31,22

0
60,74% 60,78% 78,40% 83,78% - 98,44%
Target Mpl [kN.m]
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%)

Extended Steel Joint X Flush Composite Joint

IPE 400
300 284,50 285,51
Cost $ sj,ini [kNm/rad.1000] mj,rd [kNm] (s) (c)
250 229,60
(s) _ steel 228,46
Cost / sj,ini / mj,rd

(c) - composite (s) (c)

200 173,29
170,87
(s) (c)
150
117,39
87,46 94,32
100 83,11
69,36
57,28
40,72 43,75
50 28,82 25,56
34,70 33,11

0
59,51% 58,88% 78,99% 78,47% - 103,61%
Target Mpl [kN.m]
Steel Profile Bending Plastic Capacity (%)

Fig. 20. Cost and structural performance of the composite and steel models with IPE steel profiles.
 F.B. Ramires et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 177–191
6. Conclusion
This paper main aim was to minimize the effort associated to
the composite and steel semi-rigid joint design describing an auto-
mated optimization process developed specifically for this pur-
pose. The main objective of the optimization was to reduce the
global joint cost ensuring that the associated joint flexural capacity
and initial stiffness were limited to their associated ultimate and
serviceability limit states. Combining all the involved adjustable
variables the process demonstrated its potentiality leading to more
efficient design solutions.
When the results of the flush endplate joints it WAs possible to
observe that the optimum joints presented a 10% cost reduction
while the initial stiffness was increased up to 61%. This stiffness gain
leads to smaller deflections optimizing one of the serviceability limit
states that usually controls the composite beam design process. The
fourth example results indicated that the composite flush endplate
joints performed better, in terms of flexural capacity confirming that
the incorporation of the longitudinal bars and the reinforced
concrete slab in the composite joint models led to a substantially
higher flexural capacity than the non-composite joint models.
In the developed optimization process various ideas for future
improvements are possible like: standardizing the structural ele-
ments, using readily available commercial products with lower
associated costs like some specific bolt diameters or inhibiting
the use of some unavailable plate thicknesses. A broader investiga-
tion could be performed envisaging a more comprehensive insight
of the computational intelligence techniques to improve the devel-
oped processes in particular the genetic algorithm method in order
to better control the variable constrains and maximum number of
performed optimizations enabling with these approaches, better
data comparisons and crosschecks.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by the Brazilian National and State Scientific and Technolog-
ical Agencies: CNPq, CAPES and FAPERJ.
References
[1] Eurocode 3, EN1993-1-1, previous term Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures,
general rules and rules for buildings, European Com. for Standardization, 2005.
[2] Eurocode 4, EN – 1994: design composite steel and concrete structures. Part
1.1 General rules and rules for buildings, European Comission for
Standardization, 2002.
[3] Wilson WM, Moore HF. Tests to determine the rigidity of riveted joints in steel
structures. Bulletin no. 104. Engineering Experiment Station, University of
Illinois, 1917.
[4] Young CR, Jackson KB. The relative rigidity of welded and riveted connections.
Can J Res 1934;11(1–2):62–134.
[5] Rathbun JC. Elastic properties of riveted connections. Trans ASCE 1936;101:
524–63.
[6] Bell WG, Chesson EJ, Munse WH. Static tests of standard riveted and bolted
beam-to-column connections. University Illinois Engineering Experiment
Station, 1959.
[7] Sommer WH. Behaviour of welded header plate connections. MSc dissertation,
University of Toronto, Canada, 1969.
191
[8] Ostrander JR. An experimental investigation of end-plate connections. MSc
dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, 1970.
[9] Bailey JR. Strength and rigidity of bolted beam-to-column connections.
Conference on joints structures, University of Sheffield, 1970.
[10] Surtees JO, Mann AP. End-plate connections in plastically designed structures.
Conference on joints in structures, University of Sheffield, 1970.
[11] Packer JA, Morris LJ. A limit state design method for the tension region of
bolted beam-to-column connections. Struct Eng 1977;55(1):446–58.
[12] Johnson ND, Walpole WR. Bolted end-plate beam-to-column connections
under earthquake type loading. Rep. 81–7, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 1981.
[13] Jaspart JP. Etude de la Semi-rigidité des Noeusds Poutre-colonne et Son
Influence Sur la Résistance et la Stabilité des Structures en Acier. Phd thesis,
Université de Liège, Belgium, 1991 [in French].
[14] Cruz PJS, da Silva LAPS, Rodrigues DS, Simões RAD. Database for the semi-rigid
behaviour of beam-to-column connections in seismic regions. J Construct Steel
Res 1998;46(120):1–3.
[15] Cruz PJS, Silva LAPS, Rodrigues DS. Sericon II: a global database for tests on
structural connections. In: Proceedings of cost C1 international conference on
the control of semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections,
Liege, Belgium, 1998.
[16] Cruz PJS, da Silva LAPS, Rodrigues DS, Simões RAD. Database for the semi-rigid
behaviour of beam-to-column connections in seismic regions. J Construct Steel
Res 1998;46(120):1–3.
[17] Azizinamini A, Bradburn JH, Radziminski LB. Initial stiffness of semi-rigid steel
beam-to-column connections. J Construct Steel Res 1987;8:71–90.
[18] Azizinamini A, Radziminski LB. Static and cyclic performance of semi-rigid
steel beam-to-column connections. J Struct Eng 1989;115(12):2979–99.
[19] Queiroz G. Análise Experimental e Análise Não-Linear de Nós Soldados Semi-
Rígidos. PhD thesis, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 1995 [in Portuguese].
[20] Carvalho LCV, Andrade SAL, Vellasco PCGS. Experimental analysis of bolted
semi-rigid connections. J Construct Steel Res 1998;46(1–3):1–20.
[21] Lima LRO, Vellasco PCGS, Andrade SAL. Bolted semi-rigid connections in the
column’s minor axis. In: 2nd European conf. steel structures – Eurosteel,
Prague, 1999. p. 1–14.
[22] Lima LRO, Vellasco PCGS, Andrade SAL, Silva LAPS. Experimental and
mechanical model for predicting the behaviour of minor axis beam-to-
column semi-rigid joints. Int J Mech Sci 2002;44(6):1047–65.
[23] Ribeiro LFL. Comportamento Estrutural de Ligações Viga-Coluna com Chapa de
Topo: Análise Teórico-Experimental. PhD thesis, USP, São Paulo, 1998 [in
Portuguese].
[24] Ahmed B, Nethercot DA. Prediction of initial stiffness and available rotation
capacity of major axis composite flush end plate connections. UK: University
of Nottingham; 1996.
[25] Javadi AA, Rezani M, Mousavi Nezhad M. Evaluation of liquefaction induced
lateral displacements using genetic programming. Comput Geotech
2006;33(4–5):222–33.
[26] Koza JR. Genetic programming on the programming of computers by means of
natural selection. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; 1992.
[27] Banzhaf W, Nordin P, Keller R, Francone F. Genetic programming – an
introduction. on the automatic evolution of computer programs and its
application. Heidelberg/San Francisco: Dpunkt/Morgan Kaufmann; 1998.
[28] Langdon W, Poli R. Foundations of genetic programming. Springer; 2002.
[29] Norvig P, Russel S. Artificial intelligence. a modern approach. Prentice Hall;
1995.
[30] Ashour AF, Alvarez LF, Toropov VV. Empirical modeling of shear strength of RC
deep beams by genetic programming. Comput Struct 2003;81(55):331–8.
[31] Folino G, Pizzuti G. Spezzano. Genetic programming and simulated annealing:
a hybrid method to evolve decision trees. Genetic programming, EuroGP’2000,
Springer-Verlag, 2000. p. 294–303.
[32] Borland. Borland Delphi 7 Development Tool (Object Pascal): reference library
guide. Scotts Valley (California): Borland International, Inc.; 1996.
[33] Evolver 4.0 – Genetic optimization add-in for Microsoft Excel, Palisade
Decision Tools, 1999.
[34] Ramires FB. Avaliação Estrutural de Ligações Semi-rígidas em Aço com Placa
de Extremidade, MSc dissertation, PUC-Rio, 2004 [in Portuguese].
[35] Faella C, Piluso C, Rizzano G. Structural steel semi-rigid connections – theory.
Design and software. CRC Press; 1999.
[36] Ramires SFB, de Andrade SAL, da Vellasco PCGS. Experimental analysis of
composite semi-rigid beam to colum joints. Eurosteel 2008 – fifth european
conference on steel and composite structures, Graz, v.A, 2008. p. 471–6.