Handling Uncertainties in Optimal Design of Suspension Bridges with Special Emphasis on Loads

Luca Sgambi and Franco Bontempi University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy Fabio Biondini Technical University of Milan, Milan, Italy Dan M. Frangopol University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

Abstract The robust evaluation of the bridge deformability parameters is important in an optimization procedure, in order to reach an adequate customer comfort and, from a general point of view, an adequate serviceability. A genetic algorithm based approach is presented and developed for a long suspension bridge.

1 Introduction
The proper design of long suspension bridges is today one of the greatest challenges for structural engineers. The need to find a balance between economic aspects and safety and functional levels in the design of complex structural systems is of paramount importance. In order to reach this optimal design target, is important to consider every aspect associated with the Performance Based Design theory [5]. Clearly, human life safety is one of the most important aspects but also the aesthetic and the customer comfort are not negligible from the design point of view. Most of the variables associated with these aspects are uncertain and the associated uncertainties must be considered into the optimization process: therefore, to reach the optimum design is a very complex problem [4]. In this paper, the definition of the load combinations in the reliability-based optimization procedure of long suspension bridges is considered when the structural analysis must display a specific structural behaviour aspect.

2 Load decomposition
In complex structures, such as long suspension bridges, the number of possible load combinations is very high. The modern design approach suggests some procedures in order to handle the problem complexity. A synthetic load decomposition, as shown in Figure 1, is a method to get a complete picture of the load combinations.
Line Load 1 Line Load 2 Line Load 3 Line Load 4 Line Loads Line Load 5 Line Load 6 Line Load 7 Carriage-way Line Load 8 Line Load 9 *** Local Loads Traffic Traffic Loads Area loads Dynamic Line Load 1 Line Load 2 Line Load 3 Line Load 4 Line Loads Line Load 5 Line Load 6 Line Load 7 Rail-way Line Load 8 Line Load 9 ***

Figure 1: Loads decomposition for a long suspension bridge. Generally speaking in the modern design approach, the decomposition process plays an important role and it is also applicable to the structural systems (structural decomposition) and to the structural performances (performances decomposition).

3 Load definition
The bridge deck of the suspension bridge considered herein and shown in Figure 2 by its numerical model is composed of three thin-walled box beams jointed each 30 meters by transverse components [3]. The bridge deck supports a dual carriage-way route and two rail-ways. One can define the position of the wind and traffic loads using a variable collection: The position of the train loads is completely defined using only one variable, since the length of the train, 600 meters, is known.

The positions of the other loads must be defined using two variables (i.e., the beginning and the end of the load position). Using these assumptions the loads considered are completely defined using twelve variables.

Figure 2: Numerical model of the suspension bridge considered. In order to assess the bridge deformability one must firstly investigate the vertical displacement, the longitudinal slope and the transversal slope. The load combinations that maximize the deformability parameters are not simply defined in the load variables space and the relative search will be performed by the optimization process, based on genetic algorithm. In fact, due to the large dimension of the load variables space and due to the presence of numerous local maximum points the traditional optimization techniques are not reliable.

4 Implementation of Genetic Algorithm

Robust deformability indicators should have a statistical significance and should consider the deformability of the whole bridge. In order to provide a statistical significance to deformability parameters, many analyses must be executed. The genetic algorithm is a stochastic evolutionary procedure where an initial random population evolves in order to maximize a fitness function [1]. If one builds a fitness function based on the maximum vertical displacement, during the evolution of the process the genetic algorithm will explore the load combinations that maximize this specific displacement parameter. During this process the genetic algorithm explores many load combinations near the local and global maximum points. In this way it is possible to obtain reliable envelope diagrams for the deformability parameters considered. The mean of the envelope diagrams can be considered as a global deformability parameter. For the structural calculations one has to use commercial codes in batch mode driven by a computer program to govern the genetic algorithm (Figure 3).

5 Applications
Using the proposed method, one can make a comparison between two bridge configurations. The bridge [3] considered herein is a long suspension bridge with central span of 3300 meters: it is not symmetric because the heights of the two towers are different. Two alternative configurations are considered in order to meet different specific design requirements: 1. Configuration 1, the tower height is 376 meters and the longitudinal initial sag is 10 meters. 2. Configuration 2, the tower height is 382 meters and the longitudinal initial sag is 20 meters. For each configuration (i.e., 1 and 2) three separated genetic analyses have been developed to compute the mean of the maximum displacement (MMD) of the longitudinal slope (MML) and of the transversal slope (MMT), for a total of 36000 structural analyses.
Start Initial Population Make the Input File Structural Code Computation of the Deformability Parameters Evaluation of the Fitness Function

Population Cycles

Generation Cycles

N Cycles

Genetic Operators

Selection Reproduction Crossover Mutation

M Cycles

End

Figure 3: Flow-chart of the program implemented. Naturally, the presence of geometric nonlinearity increases the problem complexity. The Figure 4 summarizes the load variables for the three analyses developed on each configuration.

Carriage load = 20 kN/m Train load = 100 kN/m Wind load = 10 kN/m
X5 X1 X9 X6 X2 X10 X7 X8 X3

Tower
X4

X11 0 0.05

X12

Rail-way

Second carriage-way
0.95 1

First carriage-way

Nondimensional variables

Figure 4: Load variables considered in the analyses and loads values. In Figure 5 an example of convergence of variables is presented. The position of the two trains on the bridge is plotted for every individual load during the first and the last generation in the maximum vertical displacement analysis. From this figure, the convergence of the asymmetric position of the train to maximize the vertical displacements is clearly demonstrated.
First Generation

Last Generation

300

300

Individual

Individual

1 1 0 Nondimensional Position

1 0

1 Nondimensional Position

Figure 5: Distribution of the location of the train loads for the first and the last generation (bridge configuration 2).
MMD (m) 12.1 11.9 MML (%) 1.58 2.49 MMT (%) 8.28 8.36

Configuration 1 Configuration 2

Table 1: Results of the analyses developed. Table 1 summarizes the deformability parameters while Table 2 summarizes the results in terms of load position obtained during the three analyses on the configuration 2.

Variable X1 (Train 1 begin) X2 (Train 2 begin) X3 X4 (Carriage load 1 begin) X5 X6 (Carriage load 2 begin) X7 X8 (Carriage load 3 begin) X9 X10 (Carriage load 4 begin) X11 X12 (Wind load)

Max Displ. 0.64 0.64 0.60 0.95 0.60 0.95 0.60 0.95 0.60 0.95 01

Max Long. Slope From 0 to 0.07 0.60 0.58 0.87 0.58 0.87 0.58 0.87 0.58 0.87 0.50 0.95

Max Trans. Slope 0.64 0.18 0.44 0.90 0.44 0.90 0.07 0.47 0.07 0.47 0.50 0.95

Table 2: Nondimensional load position for the configuration 2. There are not considerable changes in the bridge deformability. The difference in the MML parameter is due to the different initial slopes. The configuration 2 increases the minimal clearance on the water below but also the longitudinal slope (the initial slope in the configuration 2 is greater). The bridge stiffness is almost unchanged.

6 Conclusions
For complex structures the definition of load combinations is a difficult process. The great dimension of the load combination space and the presence of nonlinearity increase the problem complexity. The genetic approach presented appears efficient in searching the loads configurations which have more effect on structural reliability. The robustness of the results is increased by using the genetic algorithm approach. Aknowledgements The financial support of Stretto di Messina S.p.A. and of COFIN2002 is acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the writers. References 1. Biondini F., Bontempi F. and Malerba P.G. Fuzzy Theory and GeneticallyDriven Simulation in the Reliability Assessment of Concrete Structures. Proceedings of the 8-th Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability. July 24-26, Notre Dame, USA 2000. 2. Catallo L. Reliability structural assessment of concrete structures using genetic algorithms and nonlinear analysis. Proceedings of the Second MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics, June 17-20, 2003, Boston, USA. 3. Catallo L., Sgambi L. and Silvestri M. General aspects of the structural behavior in the Messina Strait Bridge design, Proceedings of the ISEC02 Conference, September 23-26, 2003, Rome, Italy. 4. Frangopol D.M., Corotis R.B., and Rackwitz R. Reliability and Optimization of Structural Systems, Pergamon, Elsevier,1997. 5. Silvestri M., Bontempi F. Strategy and formulation levels of the structural performance analysis of advanced system. Proceedings of the ISEC02 Conference, September 23-26, 2003, Rome, Italy.