minimum weight design of sinusoidal corrugated web beam
TRANSCRIPT
Research ArticleMinimumWeight Design of Sinusoidal CorrugatedWeb Beam Using Real-Coded Genetic Algorithms
Sudeok Shon,1 Sangwook Jin,1 and Seungjae Lee2
1Department of Architectural Engineering, Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan 31253, Republic of Korea2Interdisciplinary Program in Creative Engineering, Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan 31253, Republic of Korea
Correspondence should be addressed to Seungjae Lee; [email protected]
Received 16 November 2016; Accepted 26 December 2016; Published 6 March 2017
Academic Editor: Roman Lewandowski
Copyright Β© 2017 Sudeok Shon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Fundamental advantage of using corrugated web girder rather than plate girder reinforced with stiffeners is securing stabilityagainst shear buckling of web and unnecessary stiffeners despite the thinner web. Nonetheless, because shear buckling behaviorof corrugated web is very complex, the design mechanism for beams and local, global, and interactive buckling problems shouldbe considered in designing of its structural optimization for better economics and reasonableness. Therefore, this paper proposesa mathematical model for minimum weight design of sinusoidal web girder for securing better stability with smooth corrugationand aims at developing its optimum design program. The constraints for the optimum design were composed on the basis of thestandards of EN 1993-1-5, DASt-R015, andDIN 18800, and the optimumprogramwas coded in accordance with the standards basedon Real-Coded Genetic Algorithms. The genetic operators for the developed program resulted in a stable solution with crossoverprobability between 12.5 and 50%, and the perturbation vector for outbreeding could obtain the best result with the model beingapplied of feasible design variable space of 20β30%. Additionally, the increase of yield strength resulted in decreased value of theobjective function, and it was found through the change of the value of the constraint function that the thickness of web was animportant factor in the optimum structural design.
1. Introduction
Plate girders reinforced with stiffeners are widely used forlong-span steel structures and under condition of heavy load.Nonetheless, the thin and long webs are fundamentally sub-jected to buckling and corrugated webs surfaced as a solutionto this problem. Corrugated plates were actively applied invarious fields starting with the patent granting to Palmer Ltd.of Great Britain in 1829, and the application of corrugatedplates is easily seen even now in such structures as container,train, and hangar gate.The application of corrugation to ordi-nary structures started with webs on the basis of aeronauticfindings in 1924, and it has been used in ordinary steelstructures since early 1960s [1].
Technological achievements of corrugation in Europe arewell explained in the standards of EN 1993-1-5 [2], DIN 18800T1-3 [3], and DASt-R015 [4] more fundamentally than thoseof the USA or Japan because of its earlier commercialization
in Europe. The structural design mechanism is such that thecorrugated web is designed to withstand shear force onlybecause the bending moment is not transferred on the webowing to the accordion effect of the corrugated web, and thedesign scheme for plate girder is also similar [5]. Corrugationhas been mainly designed for trapezoidal or sinusoidal shape[6]. The stability of shear buckling due to thinness is affectedby the height and wave form of the web, and local buckling,global buckling, and their coupling take place. Investigationsof corrugatedwebmainly focused on shear buckling behaviorand safety, elastic transverse buckling due to bending of cor-rugatedweb girder, behavior of fatigue load and improvementof the fatigue life, and so on [7β12]. Particularly, the initialimperfection is adequately sensitive to bring about shearbuckling, and verification of the buckling performance for thesafety becomes a very important factor.
Easley and McFarland [13] proposed an appropriatesolution to explain the overall buckling with orthotropic
HindawiMathematical Problems in EngineeringVolume 2017, Article ID 9184292, 13 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9184292
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
theory in their investigation of shear buckling and verifiedit through an experiment, and later Elgaaly and Dagher [14]published their research findings on the history and develop-ment of corrugated web research. Additionally, Abbas et al.[15] analytically investigated the characteristics of interactivebuckling and constraint and dealt with the influence of initialimperfection. Driver et al. [16] proposed a design range ofshear buckling of corrugated web bridge, andMoon et al. [17]presented shear strength that could provide better evaluation.Circular corrugation was investigated by Chan et al. [18] foraccurate analysis and the improvement of stiffness owing tothe corrugation in comparison to smooth web was comparedin terms of analytical and experimental results. Vertical andhorizontal circular corrugation shape were also investigatedto the elastic-plastic zone.
Zhang et al. [19] started a research to define the optimumsection for hot-rolled wholly corrugated web (WCW) beam.Particularly, they developed an optimum parameter set forWCW H-shaped beam based on the optimization of plateweb beam and investigated the influence of corrugationparameters. They cited research findings of Li et al. [20] toexplain that the buckling resistance capacity of the corrugatedweb beam against axial force was 1.5 to 2 times greaterthan plate web beam. The equation for equivalent bucklingstrength was used as dimensionless objective function withcross-sectional area and section height. However, the depthof corrugation wave was restricted to between 2 and 4.6 timesthe thickness of corrugation web as a boundary condition,and this restriction considered general conditions for theproduction of hot-rolled WCW H-shaped web. When cor-rugation web strip is fabricated by welding onto flange, therange of the restriction on the cross section is different inreality [21]. Additionally, the resistance capacity of thin cor-rugated web against shear buckling becomes the design mainfactor, and the research on the optimum structural design inconsideration of this factor and the search techniques is stillinsufficient.
This study proposes a method for an optimum structuraldesign of sinusoidal corrugated web (SCW) beam and aimsat developing its global optimization program. The objectivefunction is theminimumweight, and the constraint functionsare applied pursuant to standards of EN 1993-1-5 [2], DIN18800 T1-3 [3], and DASt-R015 [4]. The design programis developed by applying a Real-Coded Genetic Algorithm(RCGA), which does not require decoding, and is appliedto an exemplar case of simple supported beam to investigatethe variation of solutions with respect to the parameters ofthe genetic operator and the application characteristics. Thispaper is organized as follows. First section introduces thedirection and purpose of this study, and the second sectiondescribes the design method for the SCW beam to be appliedin this study. Section 3 describes the mathematical modelfor minimum weight design and explains the developedprogram. Finally, Section 4 carries out the analysis of theresults of example, and the conclusion of the optimum designis discussed in Section 5.
y
x
s
w
a3
tw
y =a32sin (
wx)
Figure 1: Shape of sinusoidal corrugation with the shape parame-ters.
2. Design Standards of SCW(Sinusoidal Corrugated Web) Beam
In the design of SCW beam, there are two importantcharacteristics of structural design mechanism. One is thatthe functions of web and flange are separately applied, and theother is the resistance against shear buckling is very complexfor the analysis. Particularly, the number of design variablesof web to determine the shear performance is very large,and the height of the web still affects the resistance of flangeagainst the bending moment even if the roles of flange andweb are separated.
2.1. Shape and Shear Buckling Stress of SCW. The shapeparameters for the design of sinusoidal corrugated web canbe defined by the depth of corrugation wave (π3/2), weighlength (π€), and web thickness (π‘π€) as shown in Figure 1.The corrugation function of sinusoidal shape (π¦), half-wavelength (π ), and inertia moment of corrugated web (πΌπ₯) can bedefined as shown in (1)βΌ(3), respectively.
π¦ = π32 sin( ππ€π₯) , (1)
π = β«π€0
β1 + {π3π2π€ cos( ππ€π₯)}2ππ₯, (2)
πΌπ₯ = β«π€0[ π‘3π€12 + π‘π€ {π32 sin( ππ€π₯)}2]ππ₯. (3)
Shear buckling of a web is different from a plate girderin that a web does not need stiffeners due to its resistanceto corrugation, and a thin corrugated web can perform asgood as a thick flat web. However, corrugation webs have tosecure stability against local buckling occurring in one cor-rugation, global buckling occurring in several corrugations,or interactive buckling, and EN 1993-1-5 Annex D specifiesthe idealized critical shear stress as shown in (4a) and (4b).Pasternak and Hannebauer [1] claimed that sinusoidal corru-gation resulted in better than trapezoidal corrugation owingto its smoother shape and introduced theoretical equationsbased on global buckling experiments as shown in (5) [21].
πcr,π = (5.34 + π3π βπ€π‘π€) π2πΈ12 (1 β ]2) (π‘π€π )2 , (4a)
πcr,π = 32.4π‘π€β2π€ 4βπ·π₯π·3π¦, (4b)
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3
πcr,π= {15.065 + ( π€π3βπ€π‘π€)
2}{π‘π€ (βπ€2 )2}β1 4βπ·π₯π·3π¦. (5)
2.2. Shear Resistance Capacity of SCW. Theweb against shearforce should be designed by (6a) and (6b), and the factors πΆand π have different specified values depending on EN 1993-1-5 [2] or DASt-R015 [4]. Nonetheless, the basic design conceptis the same, and the reduction factor of π is determinedby limit slenderness ratio with respect to local and globalbuckling.
πππ β€ ππ π (= ππ ππΎπ ) , (6a)
ππ π = πΆ β π β ππ¦,π€ β βπ€ β π‘π€. (6b)
EN 1993-1-5 [2] and Pasternak and Hannebauer [1]defined the value of πΆ as 1/β3, and DASt-R015 [4] defined itas 0.35. Additionally, reduction factors of DASt-R015 [4] arepresented differently depending on the buckling type as (7),and the design realm for the resistance to the shear force alsodiffers a little. DASt-R.015 [4] standard sets the lower slender-ness ratio (ππ) for local or global buckling as the reductionfactor. Particularly, global buckling stress is specified in therange between 0.5 and 2 times local buckling stress.
π = 0.84ππ β€ 1.0, (7)
where ππ = max (ππ,π : ππ,π) ,ππ,π = β ππ¦,π€β3πcr,π ,
ππ,π ={{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
β 2ππ¦,π€β3πcr,π 0.5 β€ πcr,ππcr,π β€ 2.0β ππ¦,π€β3πcr,π other.
(8)
Although EN 1993-1-5 [1] standard is also similar toother standards, the equation for reduction factor is proposeddifferently for local buckling and global buckling as shown in(9a) and (9b). However, the same equation for slendernessratio is used for local buckling and global buckling.
π π = 1.150.9 + ππ,π β€ 1.0, (9a)
π π = 1.50.5 + π2π,π β€ 1.0, (9b)
where
ππ,π(π) = β ππ¦,π€β3πcr,π(π) . (10)
2.3. Resistance Capacity of Flange. When moment and shearforce are designed to resist flange and web, respectively,according to the designmethods of Siokola [5] and Pasternakand Hannebauer [1], the flange should be designed by (11a)and (11b), whereπππ is the axial force of the flange member,ππ π is the design stress, and πΎπ is the partial safety factor.
πππ β€ ππ π (= ππ ππΎπ ) , (11a)
ππ π = min (ππ,π π : ππ·,π π,π : ππ·,π π,π) . (11b)
The computation of axial force of flange depends onwhether it is tensile force or compressive force, and the designresistance capacity of flange against tensile force is given bythe following equation:
ππ,π π = ππ¦ β ππ β π‘π. (12)
Safety against buckling should be considered in case ofcompression, and both local and global buckling should beexamined. First of all, local buckling should be examinedfor the limit width-thickness ratio, and the reduced stress offlange by applying the effective width of flange reduced bycorrugation is computed by (13), where π1 is the largest valueof compressive stress [3].
ππ·,π π,π = π1 β ππ β π‘π. (13)
Global buckling of flange is affected by the spacing of thelateral support and is defined by (14) [1], where ππ is specifiedin DIN 18800 T.1 Tab.8 [3] and π is the lateral support lengthof flange. However, if the load exerted on the flange does notsurpass the maximum load, the safety examination can beomitted.
ππ·,π π,π = 0.5πβ12βπΈππ¦ π2ππ‘ππππ . (14)
Additionally, design issues of various combination stressand concentrated load need to be considered. Moreover,constraint on the shear force andmoment combination stresscan result in reduction of the load capacitymainlywhen shearforce and flexural moment take place simultaneously at theend of a continuous beam [1].
3. Optimum Structural Design byRCGA (Real-Coded Genetic Algorithms)
The difficulty of optimization problems has been addressedwith numerical analytic methods and development of com-puter to make the optimization problem easier. Among thesedevelopments, GA is easy to explain and simple to program.Although it has been applied to many problems, the behaviorcan be very complex and it is not easy to predict how itoperates and what kind of operators are most appropriate.Nevertheless, it is a very useful technique to be applied toglobal optimization problems or problems which are difficultto be dealt with by conventional methods.
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
3.1. Formulation of an Optimization Problem. The optimumstructural design refers to the method to simultaneouslysatisfy the constraints imposed on the design variables and tocompute the design variables, which minimizes the objectivefunction. The economic design problem usually entails theweight of the member as the objective function. Thus, theminimum weight design problems with objective functionπΉ(x) can be defined as (15a) and (15b), and it is the goal tosearch for the design variable of minimum weight, whichsatisfies the constraints. Since the unit weight shown in theobjective function is a constant in case of all members havingthe samematerials, it follows that minimum volume or cross-sectional area means also minimum weight.
mininize πΉ (x) = ππβπ=1
πππ΄ (x)ππΏ π (15a)
subject to π (x)π β€ 0 (π = 1, . . . , π)xπ β€ x β€ xπ’, (15b)
where
π΄ (x)π = {2πππ‘π + βπ€π‘π€ π π€}π. (16)
The constraint functions are composed of constraints ofslenderness ratio (π(x)1, π(x)2), internal forces (π(x)3, π(x)4),and deflection (π(x)5) as shown in (17a), (17b), (17c), (17d),and (17e). The constraints on slenderness ratio are specifiedin El.120 of DASt R015, K115, and El.409 [1, 5].
π (x)1 = ππ,π€ππ,π€,maxβ 1.0 β€ 0.0, (17a)
π (x)2 = ππ,πππ,π,maxβ 1.0 β€ 0.0, (17b)
π (x)3 = πππππ π β 1.0 β€ 0.0, (17c)
π (x)4 = πππππ π β 1.0 β€ 0.0, (17d)
π (x)5 = πΏmaxπΏlimitβ 1.0 β€ 0.0, (17e)
where
ππ,π€ = 0.8 (βπ€π‘π€ )β ππ¦,π€π cr,ππΈ,ππ,π€,max = 0.316β πΈππ¦,π€ ,
ππ,π = ππ + π3π‘π ,ππ,π,max = 1.03β πΈππ¦,π .
(18)
3.2. Real-Coded Genetic Algorithm (RCGA). This studyselected RCGA to obtain the solution for an optimization,and this algorithm uses not a binary number but a realnumber to represent the genetic information. In designingthe minimumweight for steel structures, the design variablesgenerally indicate the cross-sectional area of the structuralmembers. Even with the objective function in (15a) and (15b),the parameters of the cross-sectional shape of a single mem-ber with constant weight are assigned to the design variables.The structural members mainly use H-shape section steel,channels (C-shape section), and square-shape steel pipes, andthe design variables increase as the shape of these membersbecomes complex, and the number of members increases.Therefore, it is difficult and inefficient to express the increas-ing design variables in genetic information in a usual binary-coded GA (BCGA). In case of SCW beams, which havecomplex shapes, it is more practical and reasonable to useRCGS that use an actually used variable as the design variablerather than the complicated BCGA to solve the weight opti-mization problem.TheGA like simulated annealing (SA) canbe applied to various types of problems, and this is a globaloptimization method widely used. This method emulates thegenetics of nature to search for an appropriate solution by theprocess of artificially creating new operators for next genera-tion through the operations of selection, crossover, andmuta-tion of a design variable set, which possess similar structureas the biological genetic factor, that is, chromosomes [22].Thus, unlike existing optimizationmethods, which search forlocal solution and then repeat the computation with severalinitial points to search for the global optimum, GA carriesout a probabilistic search with not a design point but a designgroup. Thus, it is evaluated to have higher reliability to reachthe global optimum. RCGA has the same algorithm as GAwith binary numbers. However, it is composed of real num-bers not binary numbers so that decoding is not required, andit differs a little from GA in operation, type, and method.
Genetic operation between parent generation and off-spring generation inherits the trait by using fitness in theprocess of searching for the solution. Fitness in the contextof GA means the scale of capacity to survive in ecologicalsystem, and it determines whether copying of the geneticinformation of each individual in the mating pool is allowedor not. Therefore, the individual with high fitness meanshigher probability of being selected as the parent of nextgeneration. The constrained optimization problem of thispaper consisted of an objective function and the unequal con-straints. As shown in (15a) and (15b), the objective function isthe weight of a structure, and constraints are design codes forSCWbeams.Thisminimization problem can be converted bya series of unconstrained minimization problems as
min ππ (x) = πΉ (x) + πππ (x) (19a)
π (x) = πβπ=1
min {0, π (x)π}π , (19b)
where ππ(x) is fitness function, π(x) is a penalty function,π(x)π is πth constraint function, and ππ, π (=2) are the penaltycoefficients and the multiplier for the penalty function,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5
respectively. To intuitively express the fitness values, theminimization problem of (19a) can be expressed as a maxi-mization problem of the fitness function π(x), as shown in
max π (x) = π2π1 + ππ (x) , (20)
where π1 and π2 are the constants.The offspring generation xoffspring is formed from par-
ent generation xparent through such operations as selection,crossover, mutation, and so forth, and each operation is car-ried out with the purpose of increasing fitness or maintainingsuperior traits. Particularly, since the probabilistic variables ofgenetic operation have different effective values depending onmathematicalmodels, it is important to select the appropriatevariable. The genetic operations selected for this study arecrossover, mutation, elitist strategy, and outbreeding whichare explained as follows.
Crossover of binary variables refers to mixing of geneticinformation from the chromosomes of parent generation andinvolves one point, several points, homogeneous crossover,and so forth. However, RCGA does not convert the geneticinformation into chromosomal form with genetic trait, andits crossovermethods (interpolation, extrapolation, heuristic,hybrid heuristic with crossover, and so forth) are different.Interpolation/extrapolation and heuristic methods follow theprocess expressed in (21a) and (21b) to mix and inherit thegenetic information, where π is a random number.
xoffspring = Β±πxparentπ + (1 β π) xparentπ , (21a)
xoffspring = xparentπ + π (xparentπ β xparentπ ) . (21b)
Mutation like crossover means the genetic informationof offspring is defined by a probability different from parent.Since binary variable has the values of 0 and 1 only, itsmutation is easily carried out by changing 0 to 1 and viceversa. However, real number variable makes the movementto new search space of more wide design range to escapefrom local minimum. It results in a mutation probabilityrelatively higher than binary variable to be applied differentlydepending on the problems and is defined as shown in
π₯newπ = {{{π₯lowπ + π (π₯highπ β π₯lowπ ) , if π β€ πππ₯currentπ , if π > ππ. (22)
Elitist strategy keeps the best population forcefully in orderto prevent it from being excluded or changed by crossover ormutation in the process of selecting each next generation. Itcanmaintain the best fitness by preserving the best individualwith the overall increase in the fitness during the process ofchanging the generation [23].
Lastly, outbreeding replaces some part of a populationwith new population at each generation in order to preventthe lowering of search efficiency in the design space due tosimilar genetic information or occurrence of homogeneousindividual with each new generation. This method applies
Data in;Parameters
FEA
CrossoverOutbreedingMutationElitist strategy
Parameter of GAOption of operator
Initial design variable
Stop
Nextgeneration
GenerateThe initial design population
EvaluateThe fitness
GA operation
Penalty functionFitness function
Evaluate individual
RedefineThe current population
Stopping criterion
Main loop
YesNo
Figure 2: Flowchart for the optimum design programing withRCGA.
preset perturbation vector πx and random number vector rto existing population and is defined as shown in [24]
xnew = xcurrent Β± r β diag (πx) . (23)
Since perturbation vector is generally determined at theearly stage of the genetic operation, it can be defined by thesize of the design variable space, and it affects convergence ofthe solution and its accuracy.
3.3. Flowchart of the Developed Optimum Design Program.This study used RCGA for the optimum structural design ofSCW beam, and this program searches the global minimumby implementing the aforementioned genetic operation. Theflowchart for the developed program is shown in Figure 2.
In calculating the fitness of the flowchart in Figure 2,πππ, πππ, and πΏ in (17a), (17b), (17c), (17d), and (17e) weremember stresses and deflection and can be obtained by astructural analysis. While it is easy to obtain the solution fora simple beam, it is difficult to find those for a complex one.Particularly, for tapered beams under various external forceor steel structures with many members, it is more practicaland useful to obtain an approximate solution using a finiteelement analysis (FEA). The stopping rule in metaheuristicmethods like SA, GA, or RCGA is generally determined byeither the mean fitness convergence of the population, thebest fitness convergence, or maximum generation number.This paper compared the convergence process of the fitnessby setting maximum generation number to a specified valuein order to determine the probabilistic parameter of RCGA
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
L/2L/2
wu
Figure 3: Shape and external load condition of the simple beammodel.
and the number of individuals that are suitable for the optimaldesign of SCW beam.
4. Optimum Structural Design of SimpleSupported SCW Beam
RCGA is applied to compute the global minimum for aproblem consisting of constraints as well as the objectivefunction to minimize the cross-sectional area of SCW beam.The efficiency of the probabilistic parameters is examinedthrough the analysis applied to the simple supported beamas shown in Figure 3.
RCGA generates the offspring from the parent throughvarious genetic operations and can obtain the generationwith better fitness as the number of generations increases.Many parts of the operations in this process are to generatea random number and to determine the genetic operator.The genetic operators are carried out by the random numberthrough the probability of the operators. The probabilisticparameters of the operators are crossover probability ππΆ andmutation probability ππ. Mutation is to escape from localminimum to search for the global minimum. Outbreedinggenerates another parent through the imposition of pertur-bation vector and increases the search efficiency, which waslowered due to the selection of similar traits of the parent,in the design space. In other words, the size of perturbationvector space for enlarging the design space affects the searchefficiency. Thus, this section discusses the convergence andefficiency of the solution of the program in response to thechange of probabilistic variables and perturbation vector,when they were applied to the SCW beam for its optimumdesign.
The adoptedmodel has a span πΏ of 10m and uniform loadof π€π’ = 100N/m is applied. The elastic modulus πΈ, Poissonratio ], and yield stresses ππ¦ are 210GPa, 0.3, and 240MPa,respectively. The shape of the corrugation is set to be π3 =4.0 cm andπ€ = 7.75 cm.The sinusoidal wave selected for thisstudy was generated by an automatic machine developed byZeman & CO of Vienna, Austria [5, 25]. The deflection limitwas set to be πΏlimit = πΏ/300, and the design force used themaximum bending moment and maximum shear force andDASt-R015 was applied to the design.
4.1. Convergence in Response to the Increase in the Numbersof Generations and Populations. GA generally improves thefitness with the increase in the numbers of populationsand generations. Although good solutions can be obtainedeven with some changes of the parameters due to the fact
Table 1: Result of optimum structural design by RCGA (ππΆ = 0.875;ππ = 0.3; πx = 0.001xπ).Number ofpopulations
πΉ(x)(cm2) ππ (cm) π‘π
(mm) βπ€ (cm) π‘π€(mm) π (x)
10 157.896 21.77 15.0 173.70 4.6 0.020 159.803 24.05 17.4 135.95 4.9 0.030 160.560 32.41 13.2 141.76 4.6 0.040 157.858 31.32 12.7 151.64 4.5 0.050 154.459 18.57 20.4 150.51 4.6 0.060 156.806 24.93 14.8 157.99 4.6 0.070 158.920 20.76 17.4 157.39 4.8 0.080 157.674 21.24 18.2 151.43 4.6 0.090 157.429 29.29 13.2 153.16 4.5 0.0100 153.837 25.83 14.1 157.73 4.5 0.0
Table 2: Result of optimum structural design by RCGA (ππΆ = 0.25;ππ = 0.0; πx = 0.3xπ).Number ofpopulations
πΉ(x)(cm2) ππ (cm) π‘π
(mm) βπ€ (cm) π‘π€(mm) π (x)
10 164.581 18.47 18.7 167.67 5.0 0.020 153.870 24.07 16.3 143.82 4.6 0.030 154.036 20.05 19.0 149.97 4.5 0.040 153.161 23.73 14.9 160.15 4.5 0.050 152.794 29.02 13.1 149.03 4.5 0.060 154.124 22.97 16.2 153.78 4.5 0.070 154.037 25.49 13.4 166.65 4.5 0.080 152.831 20.36 18.1 153.92 4.5 0.090 152.959 26.14 14.3 151.65 4.5 0.0100 153.139 24.60 15.3 150.77 4.5 0.0
that they are based on probabilistic operation, satisfactoryresults in proportion to the quantity of computation are notguaranteed.Thus, in this section, we investigate the optimumresults and fitness for the model in response to the increasein the numbers of generations and populations. This studyincreased the number of populations from 10 to 100 inincrements of 10 and the number of generation up to 1000.
Figures 4 and 5 show the change of objective functionand fitness based on the analysis result for the model bythe elite individual with crossover probability ππΆ, mutationprobability ππ, and perturbation vector πx for outbreeding(% of the total design space) of 87.5%, 30%, and 0.1% and 25%,0% (no mutation), and 30%, respectively.
Tables 1 and 2 show the values of design variables andpenalty function for each number of converged elite based onFigures 4 and 5. The value of penalty function not exceedingzero means that the objective functions with the designvariables are within the effective range not violating the con-straints.These two results intuitively indicate that the increasein the number of generations results in convergence but thatthe convergence speed is slowed down with the decrease inthe number of populations. Additionally, the final conver-gence value with the simple increase in the population does
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7
Generation
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
26000
28000
30000
32000
34000
36000
10009008007006005004003002001000
Simple beam population
10 populations20 populations30 populations40 populations50 populations
60 populations70 populations80 populations90 populations100 populations
Cos
tF(
) (οΌ§οΌ§
2)
(a)
Generation10009008007006005004003002001000
Simple beam population
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.0020
0.0022
0.0024
0.0026
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0034
Fitn
ess
()
10 populations20 populations30 populations40 populations50 populations
60 populations70 populations80 populations90 populations100 populations
(b)
Figure 4: Results and convergence of optimum design analysis (ππΆ = 0.875; ππ = 0.3; πx = 0.001xπ). (a) Objective function. (b) Fitness.
Generation10009008007006005004003002001000
Simple beam population
0.0
5.0e + 4
1.0e + 5
1.5e + 5
2.0e + 5
2.5e + 5
3.0e + 5
Cos
tF(
) (οΌ§οΌ§
2)
10 populations20 populations30 populations40 populations50 populations
60 populations70 populations80 populations90 populations100 populations
(a)
Generation10009008007006005004003002001000
Simple beam population
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
Fitn
ess
()
10 populations20 populations30 populations40 populations50 populations
60 populations70 populations80 populations90 populations100 populations
(b)
Figure 5: Results and convergence of optimum design analysis (ππΆ = 0.25; ππ = 0.0; πx = 0.3xπ). (a) Objective function. (b) Fitness.
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
g1 g2 g3 g4 g5
Simple beam-constraintβ0.8
β0.6
β0.4
β0.2
0.0
0.2
gi
10 populations20 populations30 populations40 populations50 populations
60 populations70 populations80 populations90 populations100 populations
Figure 6: Constraint function of converged population (ππΆ = 0.25;ππ = 0.0; πx = 0.3xπ).not result in increased fitness. Examining Tables 1 and 2, π‘π€converged to 4.5mm, and the other design variables had alittle difference in the final converged value.
The values of π(x) shown in Tables 1 and 2 indicate thatthe elite converged with the increase in the number of gen-erations are within the feasible design region. However, thevalues of constraint functions are not all within the allowedrange at the best. Figure 6 depicts the values of constraintfunction of the finally converged elite based on the resultof Figure 5. The values shown in Figure 6 indicate that theconstraints on stress of web π(x)3 and stress of flange π(x)4all reached the boundary limit. Although there was no signif-icant change of the pattern with the increase in the number ofpopulations, the analysis of the lowest number of elite showedthat it did not reach the boundary of π(x)3 and that the resultof objective function was the highest.
4.2. Convergence of Probability Parameters and PerturbationVector. ππΆ, ππ, and πx affect the convergence of solutionand global search. Each parameter carries out crossover andmutation depending on the random number, and mutationand outbreeding are performed with a purpose of enhancingglobal search and improving the search inefficiency due to thesimilarity of the traits of parents. Nonetheless, the optimumparameter varies by the formulated problem, and simpleincrease or decrease of the variables results in efficient oreffective search result.Thus, this section compares the resultsby the operators and searches for the operator and parameterappropriate for the SCWbeam, which was formulated in Sec-tion 3. Accordingly, RCGA are carried out on 100 populationsfor 1000 generations with only two operators at a time toexamine the efficiency of the three operators.
Figure 7 shows the result without mutation, and Fig-ures 8(a) and 8(b) are the results without outbreeding andcrossover, respectively. The vertical axis of Figure 7 is dimen-sionless with πΉ0 = 15260.7, and it is the value of the objectivefunction for the best elite individual among the analysisresults of themodel.Thefigure indicates that an improvement
on the convergence cannot be expected with simple increaseor decrease of the parameters. The figure depicting the resultof analysis without mutation operation also shows the stablezone of the optimum solution converged according to ππΆ. Inother words, ππΆ between 12.5% and 50% resulted in a rela-tively stable analysis result and was relatively less influencedby πx. Figure 8(a) shows the result of analysis without out-breeding operation. Although it does not exhibit a relativelyconstant pattern, the least deviation is observed with ππ =20%. Additionally, the analysis without crossover as depictedin Figure 8(b) shows the least deviation and convergence tothe highest fitness at ππ = 10%.This is definitely higher thanππ of 0.1βΌ1%, which is typically used in binary-coded GA.
Figure 9 shows the optimization solutions based on theanalysis result shown in Figure 7 when πx has the values of20% and 30%.The figure shows that the RCGA converged thefastest with ππΆ of 25% and 37.5%.
4.3. Minimum Weight Design of SCW Beam. This sectionexamines how the design characteristics optimally result inthe increase of the load and the yield strength. The yieldstresses ππ¦ being applied for the analyses were 240, 270, and330MPa. Above all, as shown in Figure 10, the increases ofthe load and the yield stress resulted in the increase of theoptimum weight and the decrease of the optimum weight,respectively.
Figure 11 shows the changes of the design variable andconstraint function with respect to the analysis results shownin Figure 10. The result showing the polygons represents thevalue of the change of design variable with respect to theoptimum design result by the increase of the load, and thebar graph shows the change of the constraint function. Sincethe constraint functions π(x)1 and π(x)3 are the constraint onthe slenderness ratio and shear stress for the web and the con-straint functions π(x)2 and π(x)4 indicate the constraint onthe slenderness ratio and shear stress for the flange, the designvariables of relatively high relationship with each constraintand the graph were overlapped for the illustration.This figureshows that the design variable increasing with the increase ofthe load is π‘π€, and the constraint function π(x)1 continuedto decrease in response to the change of the design variable.Although the change of the constraint function π(x)3 inresponse to the increase or decrease of βπ€ showed similarresponses, it shows the result of reaching the boundary ofactual design feasibility and the reason for it is that the valueof constraint function is almost near 0. On the other hand,the thickness of the flange π‘π does not keep increasing withthe change of π‘π€. Nonetheless, the change of ππ and π(x)4 ismaintained at the boundary of design feasibility similar to theweb case. This change signifies that although there is somedifference in all cases of ππ¦, the pattern is relatively the same.This also means the change of π‘π€ among the design variablesactively influences the optimum design and its influence onthe objective function is significant. Additionally, the point ofcrossing of the increase and decrease of the flange thicknessπ‘π is manifested at the same location as the point of crossingof the increase and decrease of βπ€ curve.This variation startsto be manifested from the values of 240MPa and 60N/mmfor ππ¦ and π€π’, respectively, and it is the most evident also
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9
Simple beam, CO versus OB
Probability of crossover (%)
{d} 0%{d} 10%{d} 20%
{d} 30%{d} 40%{d} 50%
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.25
1.20
1.30
1.35
1.40
Cos
tF(
)/F0
87.575.062.550.037.525.012.50.0
(a)
Simple beam, CO versus OB
d (%) for outbreeding
p_Cross 0.0%p_Cross 12.5%p_Cross 25.0%p_Cross 37.5%
p_Cross 50.0%p_Cross 62.5%p_Cross 75.0%p_Cross 87.5%
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.25
1.20
1.30
1.35
1.40
Cos
tF(
)/F0
50403020100
(b)
Figure 7: Analysis result by crossover and outbreeding operations. (a) Crossover. (b) Outbreeding.
Simple beam, CO versus MU
Probability of mutation (%)
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
Cos
tF(x
)/F0
706050403020100
p_Cross 0%p_Cross 25%
p_Cross 50%p_Cross 75%
(a)
Simple beam, OB versus MU
Probability of mutation (%)
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
Cos
tF(x
)/F0
706050403020100
{d} 0%{d} 10%{d} 20%
{d} 30%{d} 40%{d} 50%
(b)
Figure 8: Analysis result by mutation probability. (a) Mutation and crossover. (b) Mutation and outbreeding.
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Generation10009008007006005004003002001000
Simple beam CO versus OB 20%
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.0020
0.0022
0.0024
0.0026
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0034
Fitn
ess
()
p_Cross 0.0%p_Cross 12.5%p_Cross 25.0%p_Cross 37.5%
p_Cross 50.0%p_Cross 62.5%p_Cross 75.0%p_Cross 87.5%
(a)
Generation10009008007006005004003002001000
Simple beam CO versus OB 30%
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.0020
0.0022
0.0024
0.0026
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0034
Fitn
ess
()
p_Cross 0.0%p_Cross 12.5%p_Cross 25.0%p_Cross 37.5%
p_Cross 50.0%p_Cross 62.5%p_Cross 75.0%p_Cross 87.5%
(b)
Figure 9: Result of optimum design analysis by crossover operation. (a) ππ = 0.0 and πx = 0.2xπ. (b) ππ = 0.0 and πx = 0.3xπ.
fy = 240 MPafy = 270 MPa
fy = 330 MPa
wu (N/mm)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Cos
tF(
) (οΌ§οΌ§
2)
200180160140120100806040200
Simple beam, w
Figure 10: Variations of objective function by the yield strength.
for values of ππ¦ of 270MPa and 330MPa at the values ofπ€π’ of 100N/mm and 130N/mm, respectively. These resultsindicate that the design variables on the thickness are definedby slenderness ratio at each design boundary for the web andflange in response to the stress constraint.This is the result ofthe method of designing flange and web to resist the momentand shear force, respectively.
Finally, the case of fixed end of SCW beam is adoptedand has a concentrated load and uniform load. The yieldstresses ππ¦ being applied for the analyses were 240, 270,300, and 330MPa. Similar to the previous results of simplesupported SCW beam, the increases of the load and the yieldstress resulted in the increase of the optimum weight and thedecrease of the optimum weight, as shown in Figure 12.
5. Concluding Remarks
This study formulated an optimization problem with mini-mum weight as the objective function in order to proposean optimum structural design method for SCW beam, andconstraint functions were composed from reviewing andcomparing the design codes for shear buckling stress andthe design methods proposed by the literatures of EN 1993-1-5 [2], DASt-R015 [4], and Pasternak and Hannebauer [1].Global solution search method was applied to the optimumdesign program, and it was applied to a simple SCW modelsubjected to uniform load in order to investigate the conver-gence and efficiency of the solution by varying probabilisticparameters and genetic operators. Additionally, the effects ofchanging constraint function and design variable were alsoinvestigated, and the conclusions are summarized as follows.
First, an optimum structural design program of SCWbeam was developed by using RCGA. The operators wereselection, crossover, mutation, outbreeding, and elitist strat-egy, and the optimum solution based on the result of theanalysis of the beam converged relatively early with greater
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
tf
bf
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
0.0
β1.0e β 1
β2.0e β 1
β3.0e β 1
0.0
β5.0e β 3
β1.0e β 2
β1.0e β 2
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
200180160140120100806040200
Simple beam fy = 240 N/οΌ§οΌ§2
t f(m
m)
b f(m
m)
8.0e + 0
6.0e + 0
4.0e + 0
2.0e + 0
4.0e + 13.0e + 12.0e + 11.0e + 1
3.0e + 2
2.5e + 2
2.0e + 2
1.5e + 2
2.5e + 3
2.0e + 3
1.5e + 3
1.0e + 3
tw
βw
t w
(mm
)βw
(mm
)
wu (N/mm)
(a)
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
tf
bfg1
g2
g3
g4
g5
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
0.0
β1.0e β 1
β2.0e β 1
β3.0e β 1
0.0
β5.0e β 3
β1.0e β 2
β1.5e β 2
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
200180160140120100806040200
fy = 270 N/οΌ§οΌ§2
t f(m
m)
b f(m
m)
8.0e + 0
6.0e + 0
4.0e + 0
2.0e + 0
4.0e + 13.0e + 12.0e + 11.0e + 1
3.0e + 2
2.5e + 2
2.0e + 2
1.5e + 2
2.5e + 3
2.0e + 3
1.5e + 3
1.0e + 3
Simple beam
tw
βw
t w
(mm
)βw
(mm
)
wu (N/mm)
(b)
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
tf
bf
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
0.0
β1.0e β 1
β2.0e β 1
β3.0e β 1
0.0
β5.0e β 3
β1.0e β 2
β1.5e β 2
0.0
β2.0e β 1
β4.0e β 1
β6.0e β 1
200180160140120100806040200
fy = 330 N/οΌ§οΌ§2
t f(m
m)
b f(m
m)
8.0e + 0
6.0e + 0
4.0e + 0
2.0e + 0
4.0e + 13.0e + 12.0e + 11.0e + 1
3.0e + 2
2.5e + 2
2.0e + 2
1.5e + 2
2.5e + 3
2.0e + 3
1.5e + 3
1.0e + 3
Simple beam
wu (N/mm)
tw
βw
t w
(mm
)βw
(mm
)
(c)
Figure 11: Variations of design variable and constraint function by external load condition. (a) ππ¦ = 240MPa. (b) ππ¦ = 270MPa. (c) ππ¦ =330MPa.
number of populations and generations. Next, the optimiza-tion method using RCGA could improve the convergencewith crossover probability, mutation probability, and pertur-bation vectors and elite of superior trait could be attained. Astable solution could be obtained for the optimum design ofthe SCW beam for the crossover probability between 12.5%and 50%. The best elite individual could be obtained with
crossover probabilities of 25% and 37.5% when the pertur-bation vectors were 20% and 30%, respectively. Finally, Theanalysis result of the optimumdesign program for SCWbeamwas deemed to reflect the proposed design method very wellbased on the result of varying constraint function and designvariable. The increase of yield strength resulted in the reduc-tion of optimum cross section subjected to uniform load.
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
SBeam DA St-R015 AA
Load (kN)
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
Cos
tF(
) (οΌ§οΌ§
2)
750700650600550500450400350300250
fy = 240 MPafy = 270 MPa
fy = 300 MPafy = 330 MPa
(a)
SBeam DA St-R015 AA
fy = 240 MPafy = 270 MPa
fy = 300 MPafy = 330 MPa
Load (N/mm)
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
Cos
tF(
) (οΌ§οΌ§
2)
1601501401301201101009080706050
(b)
Figure 12: Variations of objective function by the external load type (SCW beam with fixed end). (a) Concentrated load. (b) Uniform load.
Notations
ππ: Flange plate widthπ‘π: Flange plate thicknessβπ€: Clear web height between both flangesπ‘π€: The corrugated web plate thicknessπ3: Depth of a corrugation waveπ€: Projected length of half corrugation waveπ¦: Sinusoidal shape function of corrugationabout the horizontal axisπ : Unfolded length of corrugation for halfperiodπΌπ₯: Moment of inertia of a half wave about thehorizontal axis of symmetryπ : Reduction factorπ π(or π): Reduction factor for a global (or local)web bucklingπcr,π(or π): Critical shear stress for a global (or local)web bucklingππ,π(or π): Reference slenderness for a global (orlocal) web bucklingπ·π₯: Flexural stiffness of a corrugated web perunit corrugation about strong axisπ·π¦: Flexural stiffness of a corrugated web perunit corrugation about weak axisπππ: Design value of a tensile or compressiveforceππ π: Resistance capacity of a shear force(=ππ π/πΎπ)
πππ: Design value of a tensile orcompressive forceππ π: Resistance capacity of a tensile orcompressive force (=ππ π/πΎπ)πΎπ: Partial safety factorπΈ: Youngβs modulus of elasticity
]: Poissonβs ratioππ¦,π€(orπ): Yield strength of a corrugated web(or a flat flange)π΄eff ,π: Effective area of the compressionflange (=πππ β π‘π)πΉ(x): Objective function of a sinusoidalcorrugated web girderπ(x)π: Constraint function of a sinusoidalcorrugated web girder
x: Design variable vector(={ππ, π‘π, βπ€, π‘π€}π)π΄(x): Transverse cross section area ofsinusoidal corrugated web beam
xπ’(or π): Upper (or lower) boundary of adesign variable vector
xπ: Range of design variable (=xπ’ β xπ)xπ(or π): New (or current) variable vectorxof(or pa): Offspring (or parent) variable vectorπx: Perturbation vectorπ(x): Fitness functionπ(x): Penalty functionπ, r: Random variable and random vector
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13
ππ: Probability of a mutationππΆ: Probability of a crossoverπΏ: Length of a simple beamπΏ: Deflection of a simple beamπΏlim: Vertical deflection limit of a simple beamπ€π’: Distributed loadπmax: Bending moment of the distributed loadedsimple beamπmax: Shear force of the distributed loadedsimple beam.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Basic Science ResearchProgram through theNational Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & FuturePlanning (NRF-2014R1A2A1A01004473).
References
[1] H. Pasternak and D. Hannebauer, βTrager mit profiliertenStegen,β in Stahlbau Kalender, Ernst & Shon, 2004.
[2] D. Annex, βPart 1β5 plated structural elements,β in EUROCODE3βDesign of Steel Structures -, European Committee for Stan-dardization (CEN), 2006.
[3] DIN 18800 Steel structures Part 1-3, German institute forstandardization, Berlin, 1990.
[4] βDASt-richtlinie 015,β in Trager Mit Schlanken Stegen, Stahlbau-Verlag, Koln, Germany, 1990.
[5] W. Siokola, Corrugated Web Beams: Technical Documentation,Zeman & Co Gesellschaft mbH, Vienna, Austria, 1999.
[6] H. H. Abbas, Analysis and design of corrugated web i-girders forbridges using high performance steel [Ph.D. dissertation], LehighUniversity, Bethlehem, Pa, USA, 2003.
[7] M. Elgaaly, A. Seshadri, and R.W. Hamilton, βBending strengthof steel beams with corrugated webs,β Journal of StructuralEngineering, vol. 123, no. 6, pp. 783β791, 1997.
[8] K. Anami, R. Sause, and H. H. Abbas, βFatigue of web-flangeweld of corrugated web girders: 1. Influence of web corrugationgeometry and flange geometry on web-flange weld toe stresses,βInternational Journal of Fatigue, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 373β381, 2005.
[9] H. H. Abbas, R. Sause, and R. G. Driver, βSimplified analysis offlange transverse bending of corrugated web I-girders under in-plane moment and shear,β Engineering Structures, vol. 29, no. 11,pp. 2816β2824, 2007.
[10] A. Romeijn, R. Sarkhosh, and H. de Hoop, βBasic parametricstudy on corrugated web girders with cut outs,β Journal ofConstructional Steel Research, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 395β407, 2009.
[11] J. Moon, J.-W. Yi, B. H. Choi, and H.-E. Lee, βLateral-torsionalbuckling of I-girder with corrugated webs under uniformbending,βThin-Walled Structures, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 21β30, 2009.
[12] B. Kovesdi, B. Jager, and L. Dunai, βStress distribution in theflanges of girders with corrugated webs,β Journal of Construc-tional Steel Research, vol. 79, pp. 204β215, 2012.
[13] J. T. Easley and D. E. McFarland, βBuckling of light-gagecorrugated metal shear diaphragms,β Journal of the StructuralDivision, vol. 95, no. 7, pp. 1497β1516, 1969.
[14] M. Elgaaly and H. Dagher, βBeams and girders with corrugatedwebs,β in Proceedings of the SSRC Annual Technical Session, pp.37β53, St. Louis, Mo, USA, April 1990.
[15] H. H. Abbas, R. Sause, and R. G. Driver, βShear strength andstability of high performance steel corrugated web girders,βin Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, StructuralStability Research Council, pp. 361β387, April 2002.
[16] R. G. Driver, H. H. Abbas, and R. Sause, βShear behavior of cor-rugated web bridge girders,β Journal of Structural Engineering,vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 195β203, 2006.
[17] J. Moon, J. Yi, B. H. Choi, and H.-E. Lee, βShear strengthand design of trapezoidally corrugated steel webs,β Journal ofConstructional Steel Research, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1198β1205, 2009.
[18] C. L. Chan, Y. A. Khalid, B. B. Sahari, and A. M. S. Hamouda,βFinite element analysis of corrugated web beams under bend-ing,β Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 58, no. 11, pp.1391β1406, 2002.
[19] W. Zhang, Y. Li, Q. Zhou, X. Qi, and G. E. O. Widera,βOptimization of the structure of an H-beam with either aflat or a corrugated web. Part 3. Development and research onH-beams with wholly corrugated webs,β Journal of MaterialsProcessing Technology, vol. 101, no. 1β3, pp. 119β123, 2000.
[20] Y. Li, W. Zhang, Q. Zhou, X. Qi, and G. E. O.Widera, βBucklingstrength analysis of the web of a WCW H-beam: part 2.Development and research onH-beamswith wholly corrugatedwebs (WCW),β Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol.101, no. 1, pp. 115β118, 2000.
[21] S. Shon, M. Yoo, J. Kang, and S. Lee, βMinimum weight designof sinusoidal corrugated web beam using differential evolutionalgorithm,β International Journal of Steel Structures, vol. 15, no.1, pp. 213β225, 2015.
[22] D. E. Goldberg,Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization andMachine Learning, Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[23] M. Mitchel, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press,1999.
[24] C. Fernandes, R. Tavares, and A. C. Rosa, βniGAVaPSβoutbreeding in genetic algorithms,β in Proceedings of the ACMSymposium on Applied Computing (SAC β00), pp. 477β482,Como, Italy, March 2000.
[25] W. Siokola and H. Poster, βFabrication tools for corrugated webI-beams,β inModern Steel Construction, pp. 42β45, 1999.
Submit your manuscripts athttps://www.hindawi.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of