Optimum design of steel frames against progressive collapse by guided simulated annealing algorithm

Creative Commons License

Tayfur B., Daloğlu A.

STEEL AND COMPOSITE STRUCTURES, vol.50, no.5, pp.583-594, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 50 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2024
  • Doi Number: 10.12989/scs.2024.50.5.583
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Aerospace Database, Communication Abstracts, Compendex, Metadex, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Page Numbers: pp.583-594
  • Keywords: optimization, progressive collapse, simulated annealing, steel structures
  • Karadeniz Technical University Affiliated: Yes


In this paper, a Guided Simulated Annealing (GSA) algorithm is presented to optimize 2D and 3D steel frames against Progressive Collapse. Considering the nature of structural optimization problems, a number of restrictions and improvements have been applied to the decision mechanisms of the algorithm without harming the randomness. With these improvements, the algorithm aims to focus relatively on the flawed variables of the analyzed frame. Besides that, it is intended to be more rational by instituting structural constraints on the sections to be selected as variables. In addition to the LRFD restrictions, the alternate path method with nonlinear dynamic procedure is used to assess the risk of progressive collapse, as specified in the US Department of Defense United Facilities Criteria (UFC) Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. The entire optimization procedure was carried out on a C# software that supports parallel processing developed by the authors, and the frames were analyzed in SAP2000 using OAPI. Time history analyses of the removal scenarios are distributed to the processor cores in order to reduce computational time. The GSA produced 3% lighter structure weights than the SA (Simulated Annealing) and 4% lighter structure weights than the GA (Genetic Algorithm) for the 2D steel frame. For the 3D model, the GSA obtained 3% lighter results than the SA. Furthermore, it is clear that the UFC and LRFD requirements differ when the acceptance criteria are examined. It has been observed that the moment capacity of the entire frame is critical when designing according to UFC.