Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 20 (2005) 450460
Aggregate Blending Using Genetic Algorithms
Y. Cengiz Toklu
Civil Engineering Department, Cyprus International University, Lefkosa,
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Abstract: Aggregate blending consists of finding the
proportions of fractions to form a final blend satisfying
predefined specifications. It is a problem which is posed
in many ways, and solved by using different techniques.
These techniques range from simple graphical methods
to advanced computer methods such as nonlinear pro-
gramming or dynamic programming. In this article, an
aggregate-blending problem is formulated as a multiob-
jective optimization problem and solved by using genetic
algorithms (GAs). It is shown that in this way all existing
formulations of an aggregate-blending problem can be
covered and solved. The effectiveness of this new appli-
cation is demonstrated through numerical examples. The
technique is shown to be quite versatile in tackling multiple
objectives including cost minimization, and approaching
at best a given target curve. Linear and nonlinear cost
functions can be dealt with equal ease; additional objec-
tives may be inserted into the problem with no difficulty.
The user has the possibility of defining and finding the
best solutions with Pareto optimality considerations.
1 INTRODUCTION
Problems associated with aggregate blending are very
common in the construction industry. Mixing aggregate
fractions is necessary when making concrete, mortar, as-
phalt concrete, and any soil recomposition, and when
constructing granular bases and sub-bases. In fact, the
problem can easily be generalized to any blending prob-
lem that can be encountered in the food, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and petrochemical industries and the
like.
Before the common use of computers, trial-and-error
(TE) type and graphical methods were used extensively
Towhom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: yct001@
yahoo.com.

C 2005 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA,
and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.
for solving aggregate-blending problems. These methods
were all characterized by choosing a subset of sieve sizes
to make the calculations easier. In the TE type calcula-
tions, an iterative procedure was followed for obtaining
an acceptable solution. In the graphical methods, some
triangular and rectangular charts were designed where
each side corresponded to one sieve size. The solution
was highly dependent on the sizes chosen and also the
experience of the engineer. These methods were effec-
tive for at most three or four fractions and for the only
objective of finding a mix within the prescribed limits.
For a higher number of fractions, other graphical meth-
ods were proposed where straight lines approximated
the grading curves. Analytical methods, which consisted
of solving a system of equations of a number equal to
the number of fractions considered, were also being
used.
Then came more sophisticated methods, which were
adapted for computer applications. With the advances
in computer technologies and using the advantages
of these methods, more and more complex blending
problems have been solved, such as multiobjective or
chance-constrained problems or problems with nonlin-
ear constraints. A summary of these methods with a com-
prehensive literature analysis is given by Toklu (2002b).
The common disadvantage of these methods is that all
of them are especially designed for the formulation con-
sidered. If a problem has different properties, then the
method should be changed accordingly.
In the present study, the problem is formulated as a
multiobjective optimization problem. It has been shown
that this formulation is capable of covering all formula-
tions studied before and actually can be considered as
the most general approach. The problem is then solved
by using a metaheuristic method, namely, a genetic algo-
rithm (GA). Certain aspects are checked by applying a
combinatory approach, scanning the range of all feasible
solutions using a step size sufficiently small. Optimality
 Aggregate blending using genetic algorithms
of the solutions is discussed based on Pareto optimal-
ity. Special points arising from the application of a GA
are discussed. It has been concluded that the formula-
tion adopted is very convenient to solve the aggregate-
blending problem and it can further be generalized to
any problem that can arise in the field considered.
2 OVERVIEW OF THE AGGREGATE-BLENDING
PROBLEM
2.1 Existence conditions
Let n be the number of sieves in the sieve analysis.
Let m be the number of fractions that are used in
the grading, having gradation curves characterized by
G{Gij , i = 1, . . . , n, j = 1, . . . , m} expressed as passing
percentages by weight of fraction j at sieve i. If x =
[x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ]T is the vector representing the propor-
tion of the fractions to be used in a blend, the resulting
grading curve would be given by quantities:


m
pi = Gij x j , i = 1, 2, . . . , n or p = Gx
j=1
where
xi 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , m


m where cj is the cost of unit amount of fraction j.
xi = 1
i=1
In general, the required grading is given by two curves:
one specifying the upper limit and the other the lower
limit. The upper-limit sieve passing percentages are
characterized by r{ri , i = 1, 2, . . . , n}, and the lower-
limit sieve passing percentages are characterized by
s{si , i = 1, 2, . . . , n} along with the conditions ri si , i =
1, 2, . . . , n, so that the final gradation will remain within
these limits:
si pi ri , i = 1, 2, . . . , n
Thus, the problem can be stated as finding an m-
dimensional vector x such that m nonnegativity condi-
tions (Equation (2a)), 2n inequalities (Equation (3)),
and one equality constraint (Equation (2b)), (thus to-
taling m + 2n + 1 constraints) will be satisfied. In some
problems, more constraints are added to the ones cited
above, such as the conditions on fineness modulus or
plasticity index (Easa and Can, 1985). The additional
constraints coming from these constraints are also lin-
ear, thus they do not change the general character of the
problem. Their sole effect would be an increase in the
number of constraints.
451
2.2 Optimality conditions
In the formulations above, the problem is merely an exis-
tence problem, without having any optimization aspect.
In fact, the problem can be put into the form of an opti-
mization problem with the introduction of one or more
of the following objectives:
1. Cost optimization: The total cost of the blend can
be calculated as the sum of the costs of the fractions
as

m
C= C j (x j ) (4)
j=1
where C is the total cost of the blend, and Cj (xj )
is the cost of the jth fraction, which is of course a
function of the amount used of fraction j. Cj (xj ) can,
for example, be in the form:
 xj
Cj = c j j ( ) d (5)
0
where j is the unit cost function, cj is the initial
unit cost of fraction j, and is a dummy variable
(1)
changing between 0 and the current x. For the linear
cost function, j is equal to 1 so that the integral
term in Equation (5) becomes xj to make
(2a) Cj = c j xj (5a)
(2b) Then, an objective such as minimize C can be
inserted to the problem to make it an optimization
problem.
2. Closeness to a target curve: As stated above, the
usual grading constraints are given as an upper limit
and a lower limit, imposing the condition that the
final blend should be within the envelope defined
by the limits. Actually, any solution found near the
limits, though satisfying them, is liable to be violated
in the next sampling, due to the probabilistic nature
of the problem. Second, if an envelope is given, it is
(3) always better to be away from the limits to achieve a
qualitatively better result because these limits mark
the start of regions with unacceptable results. Thus,
one may impose an objective that the final blend will
be as far as possible from the limits, though within
the given envelope. This argumentation results in
defining a target gradation which is the median of
the envelope, with a vector q:
 
1
q qi = (ri + si ), i = 1, 2, . . . , n (6)
2
If the target is chosen as the median of the envelope,
it will be equidistant from the upper and lower bounds,
thus not favoring any of them.
452
In the literature, there are other curves that may be
chosen as the target, such as Fullers ideal grading
curve based upon considerations of obtaining a mix with
minimum voids (Neville, 2002). In these curves, the cu-
mulative passing percentage at a sieve is equal to the
normalized sieve size raised to the power of a number
in the order of 0.45 or 0.50. Here, the normalization is
obtained by dividing the sieve size to the largest sieve
size used for the aggregate at hand. If such a target curve
is used, attention should be paid to its concordance with
the other constraints of the grading.
In any case, the corresponding objective is to make p
as close as possible to q, the target, or, in other words,
to make the length of the vector p q as small as
possible. So, the objective becomes the minimization
of = p q, where is a measure of the distance
between the vectors p and q and may be calculated in a
variety of ways.
3 SOLUTION OF AGGREGATE-BLENDING
PROBLEM USING THE GENETIC ALGORITHMS
3.1 Overview of the genetic algorithms
GAs are optimization techniques based on natures prac-
tice of evolution and survival of the fittest and were de-
veloped by Holland (1975). They belong to the class of
stochastic search methods such as simulated annealing,
ant colony optimization, and tabu search. The main char-
acteristic of GAs is that a population of solutions to the
problem at hand is taken as an initial generation, and
an iterative process that involves operators of genetic
origin, such as reproduction, crossover, and mutation, is
applied with the aim of obtaining better generations un-
til sufficiency conditions are satisfied (Goldberg, 1989;
Haupt and Haupt, 1998).
The successive generations are formed by individuals,
and each individual is represented by a chromosome,
which is actually an object representing the characteris-
tics of a candidate solution to the problem at hand. At
early times, these chromosomes were formed by binary
numbers only, but later they are generalized so as to be
formed by any other entities such as arrays, lists, trees,
mathematical operators, or any kind of number depend-
ing on the type of problem. In a problem such as the
one considered in this article, where the task is to find a
set of numbers x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , it would be logical to de-
fine a chromosome as the set of these numbers such as
{x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }.
The individuals are rated by a fitness function de-
fined according to type of problem and the objective.
The selections then are performed linearly or nonlin-
early proportional to the fitness values assumed by these
Toklu
chromosomes (Toklu, 2002a). Although the main prin-
ciples are the same, the definitions of genetic operators
and their relative importance vary from application to
application (Haupt and Haupt, 1998).
A typical pseudocode of a simple application of GA
will look like the following:
Begin GA
generation counter := 0
Initialize Population P(generation counter)
Evaluate Population P(generation counter)
{compute fitness values by using objective function}
While Not Done Do
generation counter := generation counter + 1
Select P(generation counter) from
P(generation counter 1)
Crossover P(generation counter)
Reproduce P(generation counter)
Mutate P(generation counter)
Evaluate P(generation counter)
End While
End GA
In the present study, GAs are applied to the aggregate-
blending problem with appropriate definitions. The fol-
lowing remarks point out the important points or differ-
ences with classical applications.
3.2 Chromosome structure
In the present application, chromosomes are chosen to
represent the solution vector x. They are formed by
genes, and the ith gene in a chromosome representing
the proportion of fraction i in a blend. The first m 1
elements of vector x are generated randomly in the in-
terval of [0,1], the mth one being calculated using Equa-
tion (2b):
 


m1
x x1 , x2 , . . . , xm1 , 1 xi
i=1
In this representation, if the last gene xm is found to
be violating the nonnegativity condition, then the chro-
mosome is rejected and a new one is created until this
condition is satisfied.
3.3 Crossover operator
Because of the special conditions on the genes of the
chromosome defined for blending applications, that is,
the genes will be nonnegative and their sum will be equal
to unity, the crossover operator is applied in this appli-
cation in a modified form. Consider two chromosomes
{0.15 0.00 0.63 0.22} and {0.33 0.42 0.11 0.14}, which
are randomly chosen to mate, and it is randomly decided
 Aggregate blending using genetic algorithms
that the crossover operator will be applied by section be-
tween the first and second genes. The resulting offspring
will be {0.15 0.42 0.11 0.14} and {0.33 0.00 0.63 0.22}
with the summation of the elements as 0.82 and 1.18,
respectively. In the present application, a normaliza-
tion process is applied here to satisfy the unity condi-
tion. Hence, the elements of the offspring are multi-
plied by their respective normalization factors 1.00/0.82
and 1.00/1.18 to yield the normalized crossover offspring
as {0.183 0.512 0.134 0.171} and {0.280 0.000 0.534
0.186}.
3.4 Mutation operator
For mutations, a modified definition is also applied to
satisfy the conditions given in Equation (2). Consider
that the first chromosome above, namely {0.15 0.00 0.63
0.22}, is randomly chosen to be subject to mutation, and
that the fourth gene is randomly assigned to take the
randomly determined value 0.47. With these considera-
tions, the chromosome becomes {0.15 0.00 0.63 0.47}
with the summation of elements equal to 1.25 instead of
1.00. Applying the normalization procedure defined in
the paragraph above, the elements of the mutant will be
multiplied by 1.00/1.25 to yield the normalized mutant
as {0.120 0.000 0.504 0.376}.
3.5 Proportions of genetic operators
Three operators are used in the formulation: crossover,
mutation, and reproduction. The first two operators are
defined in a modified way as defined above. The repro-
duction is applied in such a way that a certain percent-
age of individuals are chosen to be passed to the next
generation without being subject to the applications of
the crossover operator. For example, for an application
where the number of individuals is 40 and the propor-
tions are given such that reproduction proportion is 0.30
and mutation probability is 0.01, the next generation will
be found as follows: 12 best individuals will be chosen
as they are, 28 individuals will be obtained through an
application of the crossover operator. Then, mutation
operator will be applied to all these offspring with 1/100
probability to form the next generation.
3.6 Feasible solutionssatisfaction of constraints
Dealing with constraints is one of the most critical points
in the process. In creating individuals for the initial gen-
eration or in producing new individuals for the next gen-
eration, one approach is to design a procedure such that
only feasible solutions, that is, individuals satisfying all
the constraints will enter the generation. This can be ob-
tained either by introducing a routine which solves the
453
set of equations and inequalities that define the con-
straints and inputting them to the GA system, or by
creating random individuals and rejecting the unfeasi-
ble ones. Both of these approaches may have very im-
portant disadvantages. For the first approach, it may be
difficult or even impossible to find the solution set for
the constraints, especially when dealing with nonlinear
equations and inequalities. For the second approach, it
is possible that the probability of randomly finding fea-
sible solutions may be very low, which makes this part
of the procedure highly time-consuming, or even never
ending.
Therefore, in this study, a more natural approach
is adopted (Toklu, 2002a). Individuals are accepted to
the initial or subsequent generations without checking
whether they satisfy all the constraints. The procedure is
designed in such a manner that, as it can be seen in the
above paragraphs, the individuals created from the start
or generated through crossover or mutation operators,
satisfy only Equation (2), but they do not necessarily
satisfy the constraints given in Equation (3). The elim-
ination of the infeasible individuals is then left to the
natural selection aspect of the GAs through assigning
penalties to the unfeasible ones evaluated in the objec-
tive function.
3.7 Objective function
To compare and evaluate the fitness values of chro-
mosomes, a proper objective function has to be de-
fined. For a multiobjective problem like this one, this
can be achieved in a number of ways (Ehrgott, 2000;
Triantaphyllou, 2000). In this application, an appropri-
ate choice would be to use the weighted sum model and
to combine the three objectives into one, as
(x) = (x) + C C(x) +  (x) (7)
where (x) is the objective function to be minimized.
In this equation, (x) is the distance of p(x) from the
target curve q; C(x) is the cost of the solution x; (x)
is the penalty function for unsatisfied constraints, and
, C , and  are nonnegative factors for arranging the
existence and relative importance of the terms in the
objective function.
The distance in Equation (7) between vectors p and q
can be calculated in one of the following ways


n
1 = p q1 = | pi qi |
i=1

 n

(8)
2 = p q2 = | pi qi |2
i=1
= p q = max[| pi qi |, i = 1, . . . , n].
i
454 Toklu

The penalty function is calculated from


n
 = j It is to be noted that in this formulation, the prob-
j=1
(9)
pj r j
if p j > r j
j = s j pj if p j < s j
0 if s j p j r j
so that  measures how much a pseudosolution x goes
outside the borders of feasible solutions.
With this choice, three objectives are combined into
one:
1. being as close as possible to the target curve
(minimize ),
2. obtaining a least cost solution (minimize C),
3. satisfying the constraints to remain in the prescribed
envelope (minimize  until it vanishes, if possible).
It is to be noted that among these objectives, the first
two are the only real external objectives. The third one is
actually part of the algorithm to find feasible solutions.
In fact, alternatively this same program could be for-
mulated without this third objective with the condition
that only chromosomes satisfying all feasibility condi-
tions would be considered in the populations, and any
chromosome which does not satisfy the conditions im-
posed by Equation (3) would be considered to be pre-
maturely dead. This means that according to the choice
made in this article, individuals in a population are pseu-
dosolutions to the problem, in the sense that they may
or may not satisfy the limiting conditions. The nature
of the procedure is that, in the succeeding generations,
the ones that satisfy these conditions are preferred, and
the feasible elements of the solution space are obtained
naturally.
lem is a multiobjective optimization problem. The third
objective is to guarantee the satisfaction of the feasi-
bility conditions. The other objectives may be elimi-
nated or augmented in number, for example, ignoring the
cost-minimization aspect, or including other objectives
such as obtaining a certain plasticity index or fineness
modulus.
At the end of the optimization, one may not hope that
and C would both vanish thus arriving at a solution with
zero cost and exactly equal to the target curve. This is not
the case for . To have a feasible solution, the latter has
to go down until it vanishes. At the end of the prescribed
number of generations, if  is still not equal to 0, then the
iterations may not be sufficient in quantity and quality,
or the problem may not have feasible solutions.
4 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
The algorithm is applied to the problem with the data
presented in Table 1. There are four fractions to be
blended; the analysis is carried out with 10 sieves.
Gradations for these four fractions, limiting gradations,
and the target gradation, which is the median of the up-
per and lower limits, are shown in Figure 1. Two types
of the cost function are considered: linear and nonlinear.
For the linear cost function, the unit price of each fraction
is independent of the quantity used, on the other hand,
for the nonlinear cost function, the unit prices are step-
wise functions of the quantity used. As shown in Figure 2,
the functions j , defined in Equation (5), are taken to be

Table 1
Input data: required gradation and gradations for fractions to be blended; the unit costs of fractions for the
linear cost function

Sieve Lower Upper Median Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction

Sieve opening limits limits Curve 1 2 3 4
no. (mm) s r q Gi1 Gi2 Gi3 Gi4

1 7.5 97 100 98.5 97.8 100 100 100

2 5 82 95 88.5 60 100 100 100
3 3.75 74 90 82 24.2 100 100 100
4 2.5 66 82 74 12.2 84 100 99.2
5 1.87 60 74 67 9 50 100 96
6 0.787 43 57 50 4 8.2 91 81.5
7 0.331 28 42 35 2 2.3 58 60
8 0.165 19 32 25.5 1.8 1.8 36 40
9 0.059 8 18 13 1.5 1.5 15.8 17.2
10 0.029 2 8 5 1 1 8 8
Unit cost: 10 15 5 20
 Aggregate blending using genetic algorithms 455

s Lower Limits
100
r Upper Limits
25
90
q Median
80 Gi1 Fraction 1
70 Gi2 Fraction 2
Passing %

60 Gi3 Fraction 3 20
50 Gi4 Fraction 4

40 Best
30
fitness 15
20
10 value
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
Sieve Number

Fig. 1. Required gradation (limiting curves and the median)

5
and gradations of the four fractions to be blended.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

1
Generations
Unit cost function Y()

0.75
Fig. 4. Typical GA application. Three independent runs
(islands).
0.5

0.25 The reproduction proportion is set to 0.25, with muta-

tion probability 0.01. For each and every data set, com-
0 putations are repeated three times independently, with
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
different random number sets, that is, on three isolated

islands, and the best result is assumed to be final out-
put. A typical run took about 1 minute. An exemplary
Fig. 2. Unit cost function.
graph visualizing the descent of best fitness values versus
ongoing generations is presented in Figure 4.
the same for all fractions just for the sake of simplicity. The runs are labeled D1, D2, D3 for analyzing the
The resulting linear and nonlinear cost functions for all three different norms; L1, L2, L3, L4 for obtaining so-
four fractions are visualized in Figure 3. lutions about tradeoff between approaching the target
The algorithm is applied through a computer program curve and minimizing costs calculated linearly; and N1,
prepared using the Visual Basic 6.0. The program is run N2, N3, and N4 for similar solutions with the nonlinear
on a computer with a Pentium III microprocessor that cost function. The properties of these runs are shown
has a clock speed of 750 MHz. Runs are performed with in Table 2. The results of these runs are compared with
5,000 generations and 40 individuals in each generation. each other and with the resulting TE solution, obtained
in the first trial taking all xi to be 14 . It is to be further
noted that solution D2 is identical to the one obtained
20 using the least-squares method (Neumann, 1964). The
18 Fr. 1 gradings obtained are visualized in Figures 59. In Fig-
16 Fr. 2 ures 69, a modified vertical scale is used to have a better
Cost of Fractions

14 Fr. 3 view of the curves obtained, seeing that the results are
12 Fr. 4 difficult to differentiate in Figure 5. The modification is
10 obtained by a normalization so that the upper and lower
8
gradation limits are mapped to +100% and 100%, re-
6
4
spectively, and the median is mapped to 0%.
2 In the runs D1, D2, D3, L4, and N4, the objective func-
0 tion is formulated with two terms; although in the runs
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 L1, L2, L3, N1, N2, and N3 this number is three. One
of the terms in the objective function is always related
to minimizing total penalties to ensure finding feasible
Fig. 3. Cost functions for the four fractions (dashed lines for solutions. In all cases this objective was satisfied, that is,
linear cost function, continuous lines for nonlinear feasible solutions are obtained such that at the end of it-
cost function). erations,  = 0. The coefficient  is taken to be 1,000 for
456 Toklu

Table 2
Data for all runs and corresponding outputs

Solution Deviation from target Cost

Code  x1 x2 x3 x4 1 2 C(Lin) C(Nonlin) 

TE 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 25.1500 9.8215 5.6000 12.5000 12.0000

D1 1 0.2406 0.1753 0.5840 9.4207 3.9113 2.3304 16.7170 14.5952 9.4207
D2 2 0.2539 0.1578 0.5883 9.6270 3.5983 2.2630 16.6723 14.4811 3.5983
D3 0.2496 0.1472 0.6032 11.4534 4.0567 2.0298 16.7680 14.4368 2.0298
L1 0.75 1 + 0.25C(L) 0.2615 0.1668 0.1044 0.4673 9.7405 4.3105 2.6704 14.9846 13.7926 11.0515
L2 0.5 1 + 0.5C(L) 0.2653 0.1558 0.3119 0.2670 12.1303 5.3276 2.8477 11.8899 11.3793 12.0101
L3 0.25 1 + 0.75C(L) 0.2704 0.1411 0.5885 17.9950 8.0723 5.7925 7.7629 7.1008 10.3209
L4 C(L) 0.3430 0.0502 0.6068 30.6231 12.6856 7.9999 7.2173 6.3643 7.2173
N1 0.75 1 + 0.25C(NL) 0.2631 0.1515 0.0000 0.5853 9.4511 3.8033 2.3102 16.6109 14.4313 10.6962
N2 0.5 1 + 0.5C(NL) 0.2653 0.1558 0.3110 0.2678 12.1206 5.3210 2.8470 11.9024 11.3894 11.7550
N3 0.25 1 + 0.75C(NL) 0.2704 0.1410 0.5885 17.9959 8.0736 5.7945 7.7626 7.1004 9.8243
N4 C(NL) 0.3430 0.0502 0.6068 30.6233 12.6857 8.0000 7.2173 6.3643 6.3643

100 100
s 80
90
Normalized Passing %

r 60 s
80
q 40 r
70
TE 20 q
Passing %

60 0 TE
D1
50 -20 D1
D2
40 -40 D2
D3
30 -60 D3
-80
20
-100
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
Sieve Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sieve Number
Fig. 6. Gradation curves obtained for three different norms
and for TE solution on normalized scale (upper limits are
Fig. 5. Gradation curves obtained for three different norms 100%, lower limits are 100%, median are 0%).
and for TE solution.
100
80
eliminating infeasible solutions with a reasonable speed.
Normalized Passing %

60 s
The sum + C of the other two coefficients is kept to 40 r
be equal to 1 to obtain a convex linear combination of 20 q

these objectives. 0 TE
-20 D1
-40 L4
-60
4.1 Effect of type of metric used N4
-80
Use of three different norms are compared in the runs -100
D1, D2, and D3 where the fitness value is calculated using 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 , 2 , and , respectively. The corresponding results, Sieve Number

tabulated in Table 2 with gradings presented in Figures 5

and 6 show, as expected, that the outputs may be quite
different according to the choice: x2 = 14.7% for D3 and
x2 = 17.5% for D1. In general, the decision maker is free
to choose any one of these norms and there is no phys-
ical evidence on preference of anyone of them. In fact,
Figure 10 shows that there is a good correlation between
these norms (2 = 0.4131 + 0.048 with correlation co-
Fig. 7. Gradation curves for extreme conditions
on normalized scale.
efficient R2 = 0.9842; and = 0.26851 0.1861 with
correlation coefficient R2 = 0.9219, as calculated using
all relevant points on Table 2). Based on these consider-
ations, 1 is chosen to be the basic norm in this analysis
 Aggregate blending using genetic algorithms 457

100 0.7
80 s 0.6

x 3 and x 4 in final Blend

Normalized Passing %

60
r
40 0.5
q x3 L
20
D1 0.4 x3 N
0
L1 0.3 x4 L
-20
L2 x4 N
-40 0.2
-60 L3
-80 L4 0.1
-100 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sieve Number Cost Ratio in Final Objective
(L for Linear, N for Nonlinear Cost Function)

Fig. 8. Gradation curves for solutions with different

importance levels of linear cost. Fig. 11. Change of x3 and x4 depending on the cost ratio
in the final objective.
100
80 18
D1 Linear Cost
60 16 Nonlinear Cost
s L1
Normalized Passing %

40 D1
r 14 N1
20 q

Cost
L2
D1 12
0
N1 N2
-20 10
N2
L3
-40 N3 8 L4
N4 N3
-60 N4
6
-80 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-100 Distance From Target Curve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sieve Number Fig. 12. Pareto optimal points for linear and nonlinear
cost functions.
Fig. 9. Gradation curves for solutions with different
importance levels of nonlinear cost.
as expected (see Figure 7). Effectively, the TE method
needs to be improved because it is simply a feasible
for further applications. solution without any optimization, and for L4 and N4
approaching the target curve was not an objective.
4.2 Minimization of the distance from the target curve The best solutions for each type of metric are under-
lined in Table 2 in columns 1 , 2 , and . If 2 is taken
It can be seen from the results that the worst solutions as to be the distance measure accepted, obviously the run
far as approaching the target curve is concerned are ob- D2 becomes the absolute best, as expected by definition.
tained from the TE method and the solutions L4 and N4 This solution gives 2 (D2) = 3.5983. It is to be noted that
the solutions obtained in the run D2 are not the best
when compared to other solutions as far as other metric
14
y = 0.413x + 0.048 definitions are concerned: 1 (D1) = 9.4207 < 1 (D2) =
12
R2 = 0.9842 9.627, (D3) = 2.0298 < (D2) = 2.2630.
10
2,

8 2
6 4.3 Minimization of cost
y = 0.2685x - 0.1861
4
R2 = 0.9219
2 Cost minimization is analyzed for two types of cost def-
0
inition: linear and nonlinear costs. In the first case the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 unit costs are constant, in the second case the unit costs
1 decrease nonlinearly as the amount used increases (see
Figure 3). Among the fractions the third one is the cheap-
Fig. 10. Correlation between norm types. est one and the fourth one is the most expensive one. The
458 Toklu

gradations of these two fractions, as it can be seen from

Figure 1, are such that one of them can be used to replace
the other one. This has actually been observed in such
a manner that as the importance of cost increases in the
final objective, more and more of fraction 4 is replaced
by fraction 3, as shown in Figure 11.
It is apparent from the results that the least cost solu-
tions are L4 and N4 where approaching the target curve
is not taken as one of the objectives. As the cost com-
ponent in the aggregate objective decreases, going from
L4 to D1 through L3, L2, and L1, the cost of the blend
increases while moving closer to the target curve. This
trend for the linear cost function can also be seen for
nonlinear cost definition (Figure 12).
In general, the least cost solutions may not be desirable
as far as the technical performance of the resulting mix is
concerned. From Table 2, one may observe that the least
cost solution is more than three times as far from the least
distance solution ( 1 (L4)/ 1 (D1) = 30.6231/9.4207 =
3.25), and this is well visualized in Figure 7, where the
solution L4 (and also N4) is seen to be on the borders
of the envelope of feasible solutions at two different
points.
4.4 Feasible and Pareto optimal solutions
and decision making
Because the problem is a multiobjective optimization
problem, the results may be interpreted accordingly. The
cases solved involve optimizations with three (C, , and
) or less objectives combined into one aggregate ob-
jective function. Among these, the penalty  is always
reduced to 0 to arrive at technically feasible solutions.
Therefore, the problem can in fact be considered as hav-
ing two or less functions to be minimized. On Figure 12,
the solutions are marked in C 1 space, with the linear
and nonlinear cost functions.
The points shown are Pareto optimal (Ehrgott, 2000),
or nondominated, to mean that none of them are better
(or worse) than any other point in the same set as far as
both objectives C and 1 are considered. If one moves
Fig. 13. Envelopes for feasible points.
are plotted in the C 1 space as shown in Figure 14. It
is obvious from this plot that the Pareto optimal points
form a front for the set of feasible points such that ev-
ery point not on this front is dominated by at least one
Pareto optimal point.
A further visualization can be obtained by plotting the
image of all feasible points obtained with 0.02 intervals
as mentioned above, together with the images of those
which satisfy Equation (2) without satisfying constraint
3. Actually this second set of points, which are out of
the envelope defined by Equation (3), satisfying only
the nonnegativity and unity conditions (Equations (2a)
and (2b)), correspond to pseudofeasible points which are
accepted in GA application and eliminated naturally
as explained above. In Figure 15, the images of all these
points are shown together with the Pareto optimal points
determined in this analysis.
It is obvious that the Pareto optimal set consisting of
the points D1, L1, . . . , L4 and the ones on the curve join-
ing them dominates infinitely many feasible points and
the decision maker is to choose one point in this set ac-
cording to the decision criteria to be used.
18
Feasible Points Pareto Optimal Points

from one point to another on the same curve, cost will D1

decrease but 1 will increase, or vice versa. 16

The relation between the feasible points and the L1

14
Cost, Linear

Pareto optimal set can further be visualized. Con-

sider all points x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ]T , where xi {0, 12
L2
0.02, 0.04, . . . , 1} satisfying Equations (2) and (3). These 10
points are all feasible because they satisfy all the con-
straints of the problem, and they will be in a convex poly- 8
L3 L4
hedron because the constraints of the problem (Equa- 6
tions (2) and (3)) are linear. With a special program, 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
all these points are determined and their envelopes are Distance From Target Curve
shown in Figure 13. Then objective values for these
points are calculated and the images of the feasible points Fig. 14. Feasible points and Pareto optimal points.

20
15
Cost (Linear)
10
5 target curve, or a combination of both. This argumenta-
0 50 100 150 200
Distance From the Target Curve
Out-of-envelope points Feasible points
Fig. 15. Pareto optimal points, feasible points,
and out-of-envelope points.
4.5 Accuracy
The accuracy of the results depends certainly on a
number of factors such as number of generations and
population size. Comparison of the closed-form solution
using the least-squares method and the corresponding
GM solution, D2, shows that sufficient accuracy could
be obtained with the current preferences on the param-
eters of the method.
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Aggregate blending is an old but usually underestimated
problem in civil engineering and it can be generalized to
any blending problem in other fields of science and en-
gineering. It can be formulated in a variety of ways from
simple to more complex approaches. In general, each for-
mulation necessitates a special technique, ranging from
graphical methods and the solution of a system of linear
equations; applications of the least-squares method; and
linear, nonlinear, and dynamic programming. In this ar-
ticle, a formulation is presented which exhibits the char-
acteristics of a multiobjective optimization problem with
the linear and nonlinear constraints.
Among the techniques that can be applied to this kind
of problem, a metaheuristic technique is chosen, namely,
a GA. It has been shown that this technique can be ap-
plied very successfully to the problem at hand and in
such a way that all the existing formulations can be tack-
led with no or minimal modifications. It has been shown
that once the problem is formulated as a multiobjective
problem, it is very easy to make alternative applications
and to play with the degree to which one desires to ob-
tain the target value. In the formulation programmed
Aggregate blending using genetic algorithms 459
here, three objectives are envisioned, an internal one for
obtaining feasible solutions, and two external ones, one
for approaching the target curve as much as possible and
another one for finding the least cost mix. The first one is
designed for eliminating unfeasible solutions. Therefore,
it is always taken into account and with a higher relative
importance. The other two can be applied with different
importance factors or may not be applied at all depend-
ing on the decision of the engineer. Thus, solutions will
be found with least cost, with a minimum distance to the
250 300 350 tion shows that the solution is not unique but depends
on the decision of the user. It is always possible to per-
form a tradeoff argumentation between the objectives.
Pareto Optimal Points
At this point the concept of Pareto optimality becomes
very useful in understanding the problem and in direct-
ing the decision maker to grasp the possibilities posed
by the solutions.
Another remark also would be to note the ease with
which other objectives could be added to the problem.
The tests conducted in the research show the power of
GAs. Two points are to be emphasized. First is the ease
with which GAs tackle constraints, the second one is the
ease and versatility with which GAs deal with multiple
objectives.
An important effort is spent in the analysis for de-
termining the effect of different measures of distance
between the gradation curve found and the target curve.
It has been seen that although there is a strong correla-
tion between these measures, the mix proportions may
vary considerably depending on the choice of the norm.
A blend which is the best for a given choice of metric
may not be the best for a different choice.
The application has shown that the aggregate-
blending problem which is formulated in very differ-
ent ways and solved by using different techniques can
now be solved by a single technique covering all types
of formulations. This new solution gives the user the
possibility of trading off among the objectives and thus
finding the most appropriate solution for their problem.
The accuracy of the method is checked via a comparison
with the closed-form solution obtained by the applica-
tion of the least-squares method and found to be quite
satisfactory.
The method can be generalized by introducing weigh-
ing parameters which depend on the importance of
the sieves and/or the interval between the upper and
limits at a given sieve. A practical computer program
based on the principles laid out in the article can be
quite useful in industrial applications and help the users
in making decisions with the best tradeoff between
lower cost and higher technical quality solutions. The
method can further be applied to pooling problems if it
is revised to tackle nonlinear constraints besides linear
460 Toklu

ones. Gij = The percentage of the elements pass-

Finally, it should be noted that once the problem is for- ing sieve i, for the fraction j
mulated as a multiobjective optimization problem, many G = The matrix with components Gij
other techniques different than GAs can be used to solve L1, L2, L3, L4 = Runs with different levels of linear
it, such as simulated annealing, ant colony optimization, cost and distance minimization
steepest descent method, random search method, etc. It m = The number of fractions that are used
is the belief of the author that the critical point here is in the grading
the formulation and not the technique chosen. N1, N2, N3, N4 = Runs with different levels of nonlin-
ear cost and distance minimization
n = The number of sieves in a sieve
REFERENCES analysis
pi = The percentage of the elements pass-
Easa, S. M. & Can, E. K. (1985), Optimization model for ag- ing sieve i, for the recomposed blend
gregate blending, Journal of Construction Engineering and p = The vector with components pi
Management, ASCE, 111, 21631. qi = The percentage of the elements pass-
Ehrgott, M. (2000), Multicriteria Optimization, Springer, New
York. ing sieve i, for the target gradation
Goldberg, D. E. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search, Op- q = The vector with components qi
timization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, New R = Correlation coefficient
York. ri = The percentage of the elements
Haupt, R. L. & Haupt, S. E. (1998), Practical Genetic Algo- passing sieve i, for the upper-limit
rithms, John Wiley, New York.
Holland, J. H. (1975), Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Sys- gradation
tems, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. r = The vector with components ri
Neumann, D. L. (1964), Mathematical method for blending si = The percentage of the elements
aggregates, Journal of Construction Division, ASCE, 90, 1 passing sieve i, for the lower-limit
13. gradation
Neville, A. M. (2002), Properties of Concrete, 4th edn., Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. s = The vector with components si
Toklu, Y. C. (2002a), Application of genetic algorithms to con- xj = The proportion of fraction j in a blend
struction scheduling with or without resource constraints, x = The vector with components xj
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 29(3), 4219.  = Function to be minimized
Toklu, Y. C. (2002b), Aggregate blending problemAn arena , , 1 , 2 = Norm (length) of a vector, distance
of applications of optimization methods, ICCCBE-IX The
Ninth International Conference on Computing in Civil and between two vectors; subscript indi-
Building Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, April, 35. cating the type of norm
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000), Multi-Criteria Decision Making j = Unit cost function for fraction j
Methods: A Comparative Study, Kluwer, Dordrecht. , C ,  = Relative importance factor for dis-
tance, cost, and penalty minimiza-
tions
APPENDIX = Dummy variable used in cost
integrals
Notation  = Total penalty for a chromosome
The following symbols are used in this article: j = Penalty function for fraction j due to
unsatisfied constraints.
C = Total cost of a blend
Cj = Cost of the jth fraction
Subscripts
cj = Initial cost of the jth fraction for non-
linear costs i, j = Positive integer indices.
D1, D2, D3 = Runs with the norms 1 , 2 , , re-
spectively, and with no cost mini-
mization