Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Optimal shape design of a frame structure for minimization of maximum
bending moment
D. Wang

Department of Aeronautical Structural Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, PO Box 118, Shaanxi 710072, PR China
Received 16 June 2006; received in revised form 26 August 2006; accepted 7 October 2006
Available online 22 November 2006
Abstract
In practical designs, the maximum bending moment in a given exural structure always has an importance in estimating both the structural
displacement (stiffness) and stress (strength) performance. It is of particular interest to designers to develop an appropriate procedure to minimize
the maximum moment through an optimal design of the structure. For this purpose, this paper presents a heuristic optimization algorithm, called
the evolutionary shift method, for minimization of the maximum bending moment by virtue of the structural shape or geometry optimization.
First, the sensitivity analysis of the bending moment in a exural member is investigated with respect to a general nodal coordinate by using the
heuristic adjoint method. An explicit formulation of the moment derivative is derived in detail. Then, on the basis of the design sensitivity, the
nodal positions are shifted in the steepest descent direction (the negative of the gradient) to reduce the maximum moment most effectively.
Consequently, the optimal solution is achieved gradually. Finally, three classical examples are presented to demonstrate the validity of the
sensitivity establishment and the capability of the proposed optimization algorithm for solving the maximum-moment minimization problem.
Results show that the structural shape optimization can reduce the maximum moment enormously, and deserves more attention in engineering
applications.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shape optimization; Heuristic adjoint method; Bending moment sensitivity analysis; Maximum-moment minimization
1. Introduction
Frame or beam-like structures are widely used in practical
engineering, especially in building construction, bridges, space
stations, antenna systems, etc. In most of the practical designs,
the structural behaviours are substantially inuenced by the
bending moment involved in the exural members. Because
it makes a main contribution to the proper design of a
structure on the responses of the displacement (stiffness)
and/or stress (strength) criteria, the bending moment has
always been one of the major concerns to a designer. In
civil engineering, for example, the designs of the sectional
dimension and reinforcement ratio of a concrete girder
are primarily dominated by the maximum bending moment
involved. Therefore, reducing or minimizing the maximum
(absolute) moment, or moment peak, is of paramount interest

Tel.: +86 029 8493386.

E-mail address: wangdng66@yahoo.com.cn.
in a true structural design. In the past decades, the majority
of the related optimization work has been conducted for the
structural weight (or volume) minimization [15]. Usually, the
sectional properties, such as the areas or moments of inertia,
of the members are chosen as the design variables, and the
displacement and/or stress limitations are referred to as design
constraints. During the solution process, the bending moments
in members are not under control. Sometimes, an increase of the
moment peak in the structure may occur after an optimization
process. In view of this, it is therefore desirable to nd an
appropriate procedure of design optimization on the criterion of
minimizing the maximum bending moment in a given structure
to benet a practical design.
Thus far, a survey of the existing literature reveals that
the optimal design of the bending moment has not been
explored extensively, and relatively few publications are
available. Imam and Al-Shihri [6] studied layout optimization
of the structural supports with the objective of minimizing
the maximum bending moment in a frame structure. Steven
et al. [7] illustrated that an optimal structural design can
0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.10.004
D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832 1825
dramatically eliminate the bending moment in a member
by virtue of transmitting the imposed loads with tensile or
compressive action rather than with bending action, and leads
to a rigid-jointed structure closest to the pin-jointed one.
Xu [8] researched the connection stiffness of frame members
on the criterion of the minimummaximum bending moment.
Perezzan and Hernandez [9] carried out the design sensitivity
analysis of the normal stress in a exural system. Nevertheless,
more efforts are still required, in both analytical and application
aspects, toward the design optimization of a structure for
minimization of the maximum bending moment.
In fact, engineering experience and numerous experiments
have plentifully demonstrated that the structural responses
are much more sensitive to its shape or conguration
variation. Compared with the size adjustment, structural
shape modication, in spite of its complexity, can provide a
substantial redistribution of the internal forces in the structure,
change the pattern of the force mainly transmitted in each
member [7], and consequently, reduce the bending moment
peak considerably. Thus, this is a challenging category of the
structural optimization problems encountered in the eld. For
this reason, this research presents a study to minimize the
maximum moment in a planar frame by means of its shape (or
geometrical, or congurational) optimization. Herein, multiple
load cases are taken into account.
In the present optimization problem, nodal or joint
coordinates are referred to as design variables. To implement
the solution process, it is essentially necessary to formulate
a simple and effective computation of the bending moment
sensitivity with respect to a general nodal position because
the sensitivity information itself can be expected to explicitly
evaluate the quantitative effect of a design variation on
the structural response. Moreover, it is most crucial to
the iterative scheme of a gradient-based algorithm for
determining the search directions toward the optimum. To
the authors knowledge, however, no work on the bending
moment sensitivity analysis with respect to nodal positions is
available yet in the earlier structural optimization literature.
Although the nite difference technique can be used to
approximate the design sensitivity derivative [6], the resulting
accuracy and correctness cannot be guaranteed along with
highly computational efforts for repeatedly solving the state
equation [10,11]. Commonly, the methods of the design
sensitivity analysis are divided into two distinct types: direct
and adjoint variable methods. In this study, a closed-form
sensitivity formulation of the bending moment is rst provided
by using the heuristic adjoint method. More recently, Li
et al. [12] described this technique to establish the analytical
expression of the stress sensitivity such that an optimal design
of the material allocation is obtained on the maximum-stress
minimization criterion. By introducing an integrated virtual
load system, the efciency for the stress sensitivity calculation
has been improved benecially.
It is worth pointing out that since the bending moment, in
essence, represents a local measure of structural performance at
the members level, its maximum or peak value, as the objective
function of the problem in this paper, cannot be located a
priori. That is, the moment peak may very often alter its locus
from one point to another during the optimization process.
Therefore, the objective function may change its value abruptly
with the design progression. Sometimes, its sign may change
from positive to negative or vice versa as the design proceeds.
Besides, it is not yet possible to obtain an explicit functional
form of the bending moment in terms of the nodal positions.
Thus, the objective itself is non-smooth and implicit with regard
to the design variables. These difculties or complexities have,
to a certain extent, seriously hindered the wide research for
the optimal design of the bending moment. For this reason, the
heuristic optimization algorithm is adopted in this study, and a
new development of the evolutionary shift method [13] will be
presented for shape optimization of a planar frame on the basis
of the design sensitivity analysis so that the maximum moment
in the structure is progressively reduced to the minimum.
At last, three numerical examples will be given to illustrate
both the validity of the design sensitivity analysis and the
capability of the proposed optimization procedure. It will be
seen that the sensitivity formulation derived works excellently.
Resulting solutions also show that shape optimization can
make a signicant reduction of the bending moment in a
given structure, and deserves more consideration in engineering
applications.
2. Sensitivity analysis of bending moment
For a general framework consisting of exural beam
members, the node or joint positions, which dominate the shape
or geometry of the structure, can be relocated to improve the
structural performance. Accordingly, the nodal coordinates are
treated as design variables in the shape optimization process. In
this work it is aimed to minimize the moment peak involved in
a frame structure under all the applied loads. Since the bending
moment is a local measure of the response at the member
level, its value, even at a certain joint of several elements,
may be very different in each of the members. Contrarily, the
nodal deection of a structure is usually a global indicator
at a joint owing to the deformation compatibility. Thus, it is
rstly essential to develop an appropriate process to evaluate
the effect of a node position variation on the nodal displacement
components, prior to the bending moment in a particular
member under a given load.
2.1. Effect of a node shift on nodal displacements
First of all, the rst-order derivative of a displacement
component (translation or rotation) of a specied node is briey
derived with regard to the j th node shift (movement). For
simplicity of presentation, assume that a node shifts along
the x-axis. The governing equilibrium equation for a discrete
structural system is
[K]{u} = {P} (1)
where [K] is the system stiffness matrix, which is obtained by
assembling each of the element stiffness matrices. {P} is the
applied load vector and {u} the unknown nodal displacement
1826 D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832
vector. The force vector {P} is usually supposed unchangeable
during the design process, namely, it is independent of the
design variables. Hence, differentiating both sides of Eq. (1)
with respect to the nodal coordinate x
j
yields,
[K]
x
j
{u} + [K]
{u}
x
j
= 0. (2)
By simple manipulations, the derivative of the nodal
displacement vector
{u}
x
j
can be established as
{u}
x
j
= [K]
1
[K]
x
j
{u}. (3)
Pre-multiply both sides of Eq. (3) by a virtual unit load
{ f
i
}
T
, in which only the entry corresponding to the i th
component is equal to a unit and all the others are zeroes.
The derivative of the i th nodal displacement component is then
achieved [13],
u
i
x
j
= {u
i
}
T
[K]
x
j
{u} =
n
j

e=1
{u
i
e
}
T
[k
e
]
x
j
{u
e
} (4)
where {u
i
} is the virtual displacement vector caused by { f
i
},
and the superscript T denotes transpose of a matrix. n
j
is the
number of the members connected to the j th node. {u
i
e
} and
{u
e
} are the nodal displacement vectors of the eth member
caused, respectively, by the virtual and real loads. Explicitly,
Eq. (4) indicates that the derivative of a nodal displacement can
be computed simply at the element level around the j th node,
and only required is the rst-order derivative of the related
element stiffness matrix [k
e
]. With the essential concepts of
the nite element analysis (FEA), the stiffness matrix [

k
e
] of
a planar beam element on the EulerBernoulli model is given
as
[

k
e
] = E

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
A
e
L
e
0 0
A
e
L
e
0 0
0
12I
e
L
3
e
6I
e
L
2
e
0
12I
e
L
3
e
6I
e
L
2
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
4I
e
L
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
2I
e
L
e

A
e
L
e
0 0
A
e
L
e
0 0
0
12I
e
L
3
e

6I
e
L
2
e
0
12I
e
L
3
e
6I
e
L
2
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
2I
e
L
e
0
6I
e
L
2
e
4I
e
L
e
_

_
(5)
where E is Youngs modulus of the material, A
e
the cross-
sectional area and I
e
the area moment of inertia of the cross-
section of the eth element. The superimposed bar denotes
an item in the element local coordinate system, see Fig. 1.
Obviously, both axial and transverse deformations of the
element are under consideration, and the properties of the
beam do not vary along its length. By taking advantage of
Fig. 1. Beam element with its nodal displacements and rotations.
the displacement transformation matrix, one can easily get
the element stiffness matrix in the global Cartesian coordinate
system,
[k
e
] = [T]
T
[

k
e
][T] (6)
where [T] is the usual transformation matrix of size 6 6 for
a planar beam element [14]. Therefore, the derivative of the
element stiffness matrix can be calculated by the chain rule of
differentiation
[k
e
]
x
j
=
[T]
T
x
j
[

k
e
][T] + [T]
T
[

k
e
]
x
j
[T] + [T]
T
[

k
e
]
[T]
x
j
. (7)
Under most circumstances, this is an implicit expression for the
derivative of an element stiffness matrix, but can be readily
available. Thus, the expression is not written herein due to
its excessive lengthiness. Substitution of Eq. (7) into Eq. (4)
will lead to the expression of the displacement sensitivity with
respect to the j th node position. For developing the bending
moment sensitivity ahead, the derivatives of all degrees of
freedom of the eth element are formulated as follows
{u
e
}
x
j
= [ {u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i

1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i

2
} ]
T
e

[K]
x
j
{u} (8)
where {u
i
u
1
} is the virtual displacement vector caused
by the virtual unit force { f
i
u
1
}, which corresponds to
the nodal degree of freedom u
1
of the eth element,
and so is each of the other columns in the matrix
[ {u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i

1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i

2
} ]
e
.
2.2. Bending moment sensitivity analysis
Consider now a uniform beam of length L
e
as shown
in Fig. 1. Based on the FEA method, which is the
most commonly employed computational tool for evaluating
structural performances, the transverse displacement at a point
a within the element span can be represented with the nodal
transverse displacements and rotations at the element ends,
v(a) = [N] { u
e
} =
_
N
1
N
2
N
3
N
4
_
(a)

_

_
v
1

1
v
2

2
_

_
(9)
in which,
{ u
e
} = [T
c
] {u
e
} (10a)
D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832 1827
[T
c
] =
_
_
_
_
sin cos 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 sin cos 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
_

_
(10b)
where N
14
are the shape functions of a beam element, which
are utilized for interpolation of the transverse displacement in
terms of the nodal degrees of freedom. is the orientation
of the member with respect to the global x-axis. Note that
the bending moment in an element does not change in both
reference coordinate systems. For small deformations, the
momentdeection relation in the eth element can be evaluated
as [15]
M
e
(a) = EI
e
d
2
v
da
2
= EI
e
[B] { u
e
} (11)
where,
[B] =
d
2
[N]
da
2
=
_
d
2
N
1
da
2
d
2
N
2
da
2
d
2
N
3
da
2
d
2
N
4
da
2
_
(12)
is a row vector. Since the movement of a node may change
both the length and orientation of each related member, the
derivative of the moment to the j th node position can be
calculated according to Eqs. (10a) and (11)
M
e
x
j
= EI
e
_
[B]
x
j
[T
c
] {u
e
}
+ [B]
[T
c
]
x
j
{u
e
} + [B] [T
c
]
{u
e
}
x
j
_
. (13)
The derivative of [T
c
] in the second term of the preceding
formula is derived from Eq. (10b)
[T
c
]
x
j
=

ej
L
e
_
_
_
_
sin cos sin
2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 sin cos sin
2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
_

_
(14)
where the coefcient
ej
is employed for the eth element [9]

ej
=
_
_
_
0, if x
j
is not a coordinate of the element,
1, if x
j
is an initial nodal coordinate x
1
,
1, if x
j
is a nal nodal coordinate x
2
.
(15)
Commonly, the Hermite functions are adopted in a classical
EulerBernoulli beam model [14]
_

_
N
1
= 1 3
_
a
L
e
_
2
+ 2
_
a
L
e
_
3
,
N
2
= a 2L
e
_
a
L
e
_
2
+ L
e
_
a
L
e
_
3
N
3
= 3
_
a
L
e
_
2
2
_
a
L
e
_
3
,
N
4
= L
e
_
a
L
e
_
2
+ L
e
_
a
L
e
_
3
.
(16)
Hence, one can obtain
[B] =
d
2
[N]
da
2
=
_
12a
L
3
e

6
L
2
e
6a
L
2
e

4
L
e

12a
L
3
e
+
6
L
2
e
6a
L
2
e

2
L
e
_
. (17)
At rst sight of Eq. (17), it is immediately understood
that the bending moment indicated in Eq. (11) varies linearly
within an element span. In other words, using the cubic shape
functions implies that there is no distributed transverse load,
e.g. the self-weight load, acting on a member, and all of the
applied loads are restricted at the joints. In this special case,
the maximum moment can only appear at one of the beams
ends. Otherwise, it may also occur at the position where the
shear force is equal to zero if a distributed load is imposed
on a member, which is, in fact, design-dependent. In this
context, we focus our study on the former case with only
concentrated forces acting on the structure. For the bending
moment appearing at End 1 with a = 0, then
[B]
1
=
1
L
2
e
_
6 4L
e
6 2L
e
_
. (18)
Therefore, the rst-order derivative of [B]
1
with respect to the
nodal coordinate x
j
is,
[B]
1
x
j
=
ej
cos
_
12
L
3
e
4
L
2
e

12
L
3
e
2
L
2
e
_
. (19)
Note that the sign of [B]
1
derived from Eq. (18) (and also M
1
in
Eq. (11)), which is usually in relation to the beams deection in
Mechanics of Materials [15], is opposite to the sign convention
in accordance with the present coordinate system, see Fig. 1.
Additionally, this inconsistency can also be veried simply by
comparing entries in [B]
1
with those in the third row in the
element stiffness matrix in Eq. (5). For the moment appearing
at End 2 of the beam with a = L, one thus gets
[B]
2
=
1
L
2
e
[ 6 2L
e
6 4L
e
]. (20)
Thus, the derivative of [B]
2
is given as,
[B]
2
x
j
=
ej
cos
_

12
L
3
e

2
L
2
e
12
L
3
e

4
L
2
e
_
. (21)
Previously derived in Eq. (8) is the derivative vector of
all the nodal deformations of the eth element to the j th
node shift by means of the virtual unit forces. With the
formulations achieved so far, the sensitivity of a bending
moment can be easily calculated according to Eq. (13). In
accomplishing the calculation, however, there needs to be at
least 6 virtual unit forces imposed to the structure, respectively,
to treat each of the related nodal deformations as indicated
in Eq. (8). That is, the number of virtual loads depends
heavily upon the number of degrees of freedom per element.
Thus, the sensitivity calculation becomes very complicated and
inefcient even though the FEA method can solve all the virtual
1828 D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832
load cases simultaneously. It would be greatly benecial to
reduce the number of the virtual loads and then to improve the
computational efciency by incorporating all the virtual unit
forces [12]. According to the computation of the displacement
sensitivities in Eq. (8), the moment sensitivity in Eq. (13) can
be simplied as
M
e
x
j
= EI
e
_
[B]
x
j
[T
c
]{u
e
} + [B]
[T
c
]
x
j
{u
e
}
{U
i
}
T
[K]
x
j
{u}
_
(22)
where {U
i
}, in the third term on the right-hand side, represents
a comprehensive virtual displacement vector, which is the
solution of the following state equation for one virtual load
system {F
i
}
e
(see Appendix A):
[K] {U
i
} = {F
i
}
e
(23a)
{F
i
}
e
= [ f
i
]
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
(23b)
where,
[ f
i
]
e
= [ { f
i
u
1
} { f
i
v
1
} { f
i

1
} { f
i
u
2
} { f
i
v
2
} { f
i

2
} ]
e
(23c)
is the matrix of the virtual unit forces corresponding to
all degrees of freedom of the eth element. In Eq. (23a),
{F
i
}
e
represents a new virtual load, in which the component
corresponding to each degree of freedom of the eth element
may be neither zero nor a unit, opposite to that used in the
previous calculation for a displacement derivative in Eq. (4).
By introducing the integrated virtual load system {F
i
}
e
,
the efciency for calculating the moment sensitivity can be
signicantly improved. As a result, Eq. (22) enable us to
evaluate the change of the bending moment caused by the
variation of a node position and then facilitate the structural
shape modication for reducing the moment peak in a specic
element.
Apparently, in estimating the moment derivative, this
approach requires at least two runs of FEA for solving
the state equation to obtain nodal displacement vectors for
real and integrated virtual loads, respectively. In view of
this, the present approach of the sensitivity analysis can be
attributed to the adjoint variable method. In fact, solving the
comprehensive virtual displacement vector {U
i
} in Eq. (23a)
is in agreement with solving the adjoint variable vector
in the adjoint method [16]. Appendix B will demonstrate
the consistency of the two approaches. Though solving the
equations of equilibrium is the major computational effort in
the optimization process, we should note, however, that if a
Cholesky decomposition technique is used for solving Eq. (1),
the solution to {U
i
} is obtained quickly only by forward and
backward substitutions. Thus, the efciency for calculating the
bending moment sensitivity can be considerably raised, and
then the optimization process can be benecially improved in
the procedure.
3. Problem formulation of multiple load cases
In real design analyses, structural performances with
several load cases have to be considered, and the maximum
bending moment for all load cases is taken into account for
minimization. Thus, the objective of the optimization problem
is to minimize the maximum moment in all the members under
multiple load cases, i.e.,
Minimize
LCN
max
l=1
{|M
l
e
|, e = 1, . . . , n} (24)
where |M
l
e
| is the absolute value of the bending moment in
the eth member under the lth load condition. n is the number
of members in the frame structure, and LCN the total number
of load cases under consideration. In such a case, a node
shift scheme may sometimes lead to distinct impacts on the
moment peaks in different load cases. That is, it may reduce the
maximummoment substantially in a certain load case, but at the
same time, increase the moment peak in another load case. In
each design cycle, the present procedure will reduce the highest
bending moment in all load cases.
In many cases, constraints on design variables, which
directly specify the bounds of the nodal positions, are often
encountered in a shape optimization process,
x
j
x
j
x
j
, j = 1, . . . , k (25)
where x
j
and x
j
are the lower and upper bounds on x
j
,
respectively. k is the number of independent nodal coordinates.
Besides, some nodal coordinates are linked so as to retain the
structural symmetry, i.e.,
x
d
= f (x
j
) (26)
where x
d
is a dependent coordinate, and x
j
an independent
one. In general, design linkages make a shape optimization
algorithm much more complicated.
Because the maximum and absolute value presented in
Eq. (24) does not refer to the response measured at a single
point, the maximum moment may frequently migrate from one
point to another in the solution process. Consequently, abrupt
changes may often occur in the objective function as well as
in its derivative with the design progression, which then brings
a practical obstacle into a reliable optimization algorithm and
deteriorates the solution convergence.
4. Optimization procedure
With the acquisition of the bending moment sensitivity, it
follows to apply the results to the optimal shape design of a
frame for minimization of the maximum bending moment in
the structure. In this paper, a heuristic iterative algorithm based
on the design sensitivity is employed to reduce the moment
peak asymptotically just because of the characteristics of the
bending moment mentioned previously. At a given design stage,
the nodal coordinates are updated iteratively as
X
(n+1)
= X
(n)
+
(n)
S
(n)
(27)
D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832 1829
where X denotes the vector of the independent variables,
S the search direction in the design space and the scale
moving step along that direction. The superscript n indicates the
optimization cycle number. In most cases, the search direction
S is chosen along the negative of the gradient of the objective
function to reduce the moment peak most effectively,
S
(n)
= M
(n)
max
. (28)
In order to determine the moving step of the node positions,
at least, another FEA run is required in each iteration to
reduce the objective to a minimum along the search direction.
However, it is rather disadvantageous to mostly reduce the
current moment peak in one design cycle due to the regular
migration of the moment peak. Thus, the traditional steepest
descent method is not suitable for the problem. For efciency
and effectiveness of the algorithm, the moving step is now
determined from
M
(n+1)
max
M
(n)
max
+ (M
(n)
max
)
T
X
(n)
= M
(n)
max

M
(n)
max

2
. (29)
Then, it is suggested
=
M
(n)
max

M
(n)
max

2
(30)
where

M
(n)
max

indicates the Euclidean norm of the gradient

of the current moment peak. is the reduction of the moment
to be attained in the present design cycle. A reasonable value
of is in the order of 5%10%. Therefore, the outline of the
heuristic iterative procedure is summarized as follows:
Step 1: Discretize the structure using EulerBernoulli beam
models;
Step 2: Perform an FEA run for the real load systems to get
the nodal displacements and bending moments in each element;
Step 3: Identify both the element and its end with the
maximum bending moment and then formulate the integrated
virtual load system for applying onto the nodes of the related
element as given in Eq. (23b);
Step 4: Perform another FEA run for the virtual load system
as dened in Eq. (23a);
Step 5: Evaluate the moment sensitivity for each design
variable with Eq. (22), and formulate the search direction in
Eq. (28);
Step 6: Calculate the scale moving step with Eq. (30);
Step 7: Update the nodal coordinates to reduce the moment
peak with Eq. (27);
Step 8: Repeat Steps 27 successively until the moment
peak cannot be reduced further. Then, the optimum design is
obtained.
5. Numerical examples
Three typical structures are presented here, respectively, to
show the properties of the optimization algorithm as well as the
effect of shape optimization for minimization of the moment
Fig. 2. Initial conguration of a two-beam frame with two load cases.
Fig. 3. Optimal shape design of the two-beam frame with minimization of the
maximum bending moment.
peak. Meanwhile, the moment sensitivity analysis is validated
in brief. In the design process, the layout of the structure is
initially determined and remains invariable.
5.1. Two-beam frame
A two-beam frame, initially designed as shown in Fig. 2,
is loaded at Node 2 with two load cases of 20 kN downwards
and horizontally, respectively. Assume the material is steel
with Youngs modulus E = 210 GPa. The two beams are
of the same tubular cross-section with outer diameter D
o
=
8 cm and inner diameter D
i
= 7.4 cm. Nodes 1 and 3
can be independently relocated in vertical support to minimize
the maximum bending moment in the structure. Imagine the
individual optimum congurations for each load case are
the extremely vertical and horizontal arrangements of bars,
respectively.
As for both load cases together, the optimum conguration
seems not so evident. The design process rst starts from Y
1
=
Y
3
= 0.5 m with the moment peak 88.44 N m occurring at the
support ends of the members in the rst load case. Fig. 3 shows
the optimal shape of the structure. Fig. 4 illustrates the variation
of the moment peak in the design process, which decreases by
60.2%, from 88.44 N m to 35.24 N m. Obviously, a substantial
reduction of the moment peak has been achieved by means of
the optimal design of the structural shape.
Next, the process starts again from Y
1
= Y
3
= 1.0 m
with the maximum bending moment of 44.34 N m occurring
1830 D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832
Fig. 4. Variations of the moment peak in the design process.
Fig. 5. Initial conguration of the Michell type structure.
at the joint ends of the members in the second load case. We
nally reach the same optimal solution as in the previous case,
and the variation of the moment peak is also plotted in Fig. 4.
In this case, the maximum moment decreases by 20.5%, from
44.34 N m to 35.24 N m.
5.2. Michell type structure
The classical Michell type structure was often attained by
topology optimization. Recently, it was investigated in shape
optimization with a truss model on the weight minimization
criterion [5,13]. Now, we carry out the shape optimization on
the criterion of the minimummaximum bending moment. The
initial conguration of the structure with the external load P =
200 kN is shown in Fig. 5. All the members are of the same
tubular cross-section with outer diameter D
o
= 8 cm and inner
diameter D
i
= 7.6 cm. Youngs modulus is E = 210 GPa.
Suppose nodes 1, 2 and 8 remain xed while nodes 3, 4, 5,
6 and 7 can shift in both horizontal and vertical directions,
respectively. During the design process, the symmetry of the
structure is maintained. Therefore, only ve nodal coordinates
need to be redesigned independently.
Due to the design linkages of the node shifts on either
the same or opposite directions, rst of all, let us testify
to the correctness of the design sensitivity calculation of
the bending moment. At the initial conguration design, the
moment peak appears at Node 4 of Element 34 (also at
Fig. 6. Optimal shape design of the Michell type structure.
Fig. 7. Evolutionary history of the moment peak in the design process.
Node 6 of Element 67 due to the symmetry). Then, the
integrated virtual load system {F
i
}
e
applied on Nodes 3 and 4
is [0, 24, 4, 0, 24, 8]
T
. Table 1 compares the analytical results
of the design sensitivities with those by the nite difference
approximation with 1% and 1 forward perturbations,
respectively. As is seen, the proposed formulation for the design
sensitivity of the moment is indeed reliable. Besides, it is known
that the vertical movement of both Nodes 4 and 6 has the
highest effect for reducing the current moment peak.
Fig. 6 shows the optimal design of the Michell type structure,
which is apparently different from those on the weight
minimization criterion [5,13]. Fig. 7 exhibits the evolutionary
history of the moment peak, which decreases from 4299.7 N m
to 807.0 N m, i.e. by about 81.2%. At the rst ten design
cycles, the moment peak decreases monotonically by a large
amount. Afterwards, it reaches the minimum asymptotically
in an oscillatory way due to frequent migrations of its
locus. Similarly, shape optimization has drastically reduced the
maximum bending moment in a given structure. Table 2 lists
the optimal solution of the nodal coordinates.
5.3. Simply supported bridge
A simply supported frame bridge, as shown in Fig. 8 in its
initial conguration design, is optimized for minimizing the
maximum moment in the structure. The members are classied
into three groups. The section on the upper chord is tubular
with outer diameter D
o
= 18 cm and interior diameter D
i
=
D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832 1831
Table 1
Comparison of the design sensitivities with different approaches for the maximum moment at the initial conguration design
Nodes Analytical calculation Finite difference approximation
With 1% perturbations With 1perturbations
x-axis y-axis x-axis y-axis x-axis y-axis
5 10 608.1 10 491.2 10 592.0
6 and 4 3846.6 44 871.0 3819.2 44 114.8 3852.0 44 788.0
7 and 3 603.8 23 986.5 591.6 24 275.2 606.0 24 012.0
Table 2
Optimal design of the nodal coordinates (m) for the Michell type structure
Node 3 4 5 6 7
x-coordinates 0.7925 0.5314 0.0 0.5314 0.7925
y-coordinates 0.3703 0.6071 0.6959 0.6071 0.3703
Fig. 8. Initial design of a simply supported bridge.
Fig. 9. Optimal design of the simply supported bridge.
17 cm, while the section on the lower chord is rectangular with
width 10 cm and height 15 cm. All ve columns are of solid
circular sections with diameter D = 5 cm. Assume Youngs
modulus is E = 210 GPa. An external force p = 100 kN is
applied downwards at each node on the lower chord. During
the optimization process, nodes on the lower chord remain
xed while nodes on the upper chord will be shifted vertically.
To maintain the structural symmetry, only three independent
coordinate variables need to be redesigned.
Fig. 9 shows the optimal shape design of the bridge. The
y-coordinates of the nodes on the upper chord are listed in
Table 3 for comparison. Fig. 10 plots the evolutionary history
of the moment peak. Likewise, the moment peak sharply
declines by a remarkable amount at the beginning of the
optimization process. Afterwards, the moment peak decreases
slowly in an oscillatory way. In this numerical example, the
maximum bending moment decreases by 97.1%, from 147.64
to 4.35 kN m. Obviously, the nal shape design makes more
sense.
6. Conclusions
In practical engineering designs, the bending moment is
always an important factor in the proper design of a frame
Table 3
Designs of y-coordinates (m) for the bridges upper chord nodes
Node 3 5 7 9 11
Initial design 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Optimal design 1.3272 2.1252 2.3934 2.1252 1.3272
Fig. 10. Evolutionary history of the moment peak in the process.
structure on the strength and/or stiffness limitations. Thus,
reducing the moment level in the structure can signicantly
improve its behavior, and usually decrease the normal stress in
each of the members. For this purpose, shape optimization of a
structure is a very effective approach to reduce the maximum
moment by means of changing the members transmitting
pattern of the applied forces.
In this study, the design sensitivity analysis of the bending
moment in a exural member is successfully accomplished by
using the heuristic adjoint method along with the fundamental
concepts of the FEA. The calculation of the moment sensitivity
can be simply implemented after introducing an integrated
virtual load system. Furthermore, based on the design
sensitivity analysis, a new development of the evolutionary
shift method is presented for structural shape optimization
on the criterion of minimization of the maximum bending
moment. Three numerical examples are utilized to demonstrate
the validity of the sensitivity formulation and the effectiveness
of the proposed optimization algorithm. Results of the examples
strongly suggest that the optimal shape design of a structure can
make a substantial reduction of the maximum bending moment,
and deserves more consideration in practical applications.
1832 D. Wang / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 18241832
Besides, with the resulting derivative of the bending moment
it is simple to obtain the design sensitivity of the corresponding
normal stress in a exural member.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (50575181) and the Aeronautical
Foundation, PR China (03B53006).
Also, the author wishes to express his sincere thanks to
the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions.
Appendix A. Incorporating the virtual forces of an element
From Eq. (1), we know that the equilibrium equation with a
virtual unit force is
[K]{u
i
} = { f
i
}. (A.1)
Considering simultaneously all the nodal degrees of freedom of
the eth element, one gets immediately
[K][ {u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i

1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i

2
} ]
e
= [ f
i
]
e
(A.2)
where [ f
i
]
e
is dened in Eq. (23c). Post-multiplying both sides
of the above equation by a vector ([B] [T
c
])
T
yields
[K]
_
[{u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i

1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i

2
}]
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
_
= [ f
i
]
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
(A.3)
which can be rewritten in a simpler form
[K]{U
i
} = {F
i
}
e
(A.4)
where {F
i
}
e
is described in Eq. (23b), and
{U
i
}
T
= [B] [T
c
]
[ {u
i
u
1
} {u
i
v
1
} {u
i

1
} {u
i
u
2
} {u
i
v
2
} {u
i

2
} ]
T
e
(A.5)
is just the item in Eq. (22).
Appendix B. Consistency of the comprehensive virtual
displacement with the adjoint variable
In the adjoint variable method, it is necessary, rst of all,
to estimate the dummy (or virtual) load vector {Z} [16]. From
Eqs. (10a) and (11) we achieve
{Z} =
M
e
{u
e
}
= EI
e
[T
c
]
T
[B]
T
. (B.1)
Applying {Z} to the frame structure yields the adjoint variable
vector {}
[K]{} = {Z}. (B.2)
In Eq. (23c), [ f
i
]
e
represents a set of virtual unit forces
corresponding to all degrees of freedom of the eth element,
i.e., [ f
i
]
e
is an extended identity matrix so that the order of
the virtual nodal forces of the eth element can be rearranged.
Therefore, Eq. (B.1) is equivalent to Eq. (23b). Furthermore,
the adjoint variable vector {} in Eq. (B.2) is equivalent to
the comprehensive virtual displacement {U
i
} in Eq. (23a). The
factor EI
e
in Eq. (B.1) is also applied in Eq. (22) since the
structure is assumed to be a linear system.
References
[1] Erbatur F, Al-Hussainy MM. Optimum design of frames. Comput
Structures 1992;45:88791.
[2] Missoum S, Gurdal Z, Watson LT. A displacement based optimization
method for geometrically nonlinear frame structures. Struct Multidiscip
Optim 2002;24:195204.
[3] Pezeshk S. Design of framed structures: An integrated non-linear analysis
and optimal minimum weight design. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg
1998;41:45971.
[4] Sui YK, Wang XC. Second-order method of generalized geometric
programming for spatial frame optimization. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 1997;141:11723.
[5] Lamberti L, Pappalettere C. Improved sequential linear programming
formulation for structural weight minimization. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 2004;193:3493521.
[6] Imam MH, Al-Shihri M. Optimum topology of structural supports.
Comput Structures 1996;61:14754.
[7] Steven G, Querin O, Xie YM. Evolutionary structural optimisation (ESO)
for combined topology and size optimisation of discrete structures.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;188:74354.
[8] Xu L. On the minimummaximum bending moment and the least-weight
design of semi-rigid beams. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2001;21:31621.
[9] Perezzan JC, Hernandez S. Analytical expressions of sensitivities for
shape variables in linear bending systems. Adv Eng Softw2003;34:2718.
[10] Adelman HM, Haftka RT. Sensitivity analysis of discrete systems.
In: Kamat MP, editor. Structural optimization: Status and promise.
Progress in astronautics and aeronautics, vol. 150. Washington (DC):
AIAA; 1993. p. 291316.
[11] Arora JS, Wang Q. Review of formulations for structural and mechanical
system optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2005;30:25172.
[12] Li Q, Steven GP, Xie YM. Evolutionary structural optimization for stress
minimization problems by discrete thickness design. Comput Structures
2000;78:76980.
[13] Wang D, Zhang WH, Jiang JS. Truss shape optimization with multiple
displacement constraints. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2002;191:
3597612.
[14] Zhu BF. Principle and applications of nite element method. 2nd ed.
Beijing: Waterpower Publisher; 1998 [in Chinese].
[15] Gere JM. Mechanics of Materials. 5th ed. China Machine Press; 2004.
[16] Haftka RT, Kamat MP. Elements of structural optimization. 1st ed.
Martinus: Nijhoff Publishers; 1985.