Design Optimization of Post-Tensioned SL
Design Optimization of Post-Tensioned SL
Problem Statement:
10.0m
10.0m
SDL = 3.0 kPa
LL = 3.0 kPa
2@ 3.0 m
10.0m
COL 0.50x0.50 m
1|Page
To simplify the formulation, the design variable shall be changed from Ws (strand
density) to F/A. The nonlinear cost function can be rewritten as:
Ws = 4 N/L = 2(F/A) x h/110x103
Cost/m2 = 2750 h + 150 (F/A) h/110x103
Where, N = Number of strand per design strip
L = panel span length (m)
Subjected to:
1. First mode eigen frequency f1 > 3.5 Hz
2. Tensile stress at bottom of slab is less than 0.5sqrt(fc’) at service load (ACI
318-11) with SDL = 3.0 kPa, LL = 3.0 kPa
3. Slab thickness shall be less than 350 mm
4. Average precompressive stress shall be in range of [1.2, 2.5] MPa
5. Percentage of balance load shall be between 75-125% of slab selfweight
Since the slab has the same dimension in both directions, we only perform
analysis in one direction.
1. Using finite element analysis, the 1st mode eigen frequency can be obtained
from the empirical expression:
2|Page
Figure 1. Modal test of slabs with various thickness using ETABS
ft = -F/A + Mnet/S
Mnet = (wtot-wbal) L2/8
Wbal = 8(F/A)x A a/L2
a = 0.5h – 0.05
A = 0.5Lh
3. h < 0.35 m
4. 1.1 MPa < F/A < 2.5 MPa
5. % balance load between 70% to 125% of slab self weight
Using MATLAB optimization toolbox, we can define the cost function and
nonlinear constraint functions as followings:
3|Page
function [c,ceq] = nlcon(x)
L = 10.0; % span length
A = 0.5*L*x(1);
S = 0.5*L*x(1)^2/6.;
w = (24*x(1)+6.0)*0.5*L; % SDL = 3.0, LL = 3.0
a = 0.5*x(1)-0.05;
wbal = 8*x(2)*1e3*a*A/L^2;
Mnet = (w-wbal)*L^2/8.;
c(1) = -x(2) + Mnet/S*1e-3-2.80; % ft < 0.5sqrt(fc')
c(2) = -17.8*x(1) + 0.25 - 3.5; % f1 >= 3.5 Hz
c(3) = wbal-1.25*24*x(1)*0.5*L;
c(4) = -wbal+0.75*24*x(1)*0.5*L;
ceq = []
end
4|Page
After 6th iteration, the optimal point is found to be [0.312, 2.5] (slab thickness =
0.312 m and F/A = 2.5 MPa).
The final design slab is verified by PTDATA (Seneca Structural Engineering Inc.) to
assure that stress, deflection and strength of slab are satisfactory.
5|Page
Conclusion
In this example it is noted that the optimal solution stops when F/A reaches to
upper limit. This might because the cost/efficiency of post-tensioning material is
quite low as compared with the unit price of concrete. It is possible to consider the
larger limit of F/A for the better solution. However, this might cause another
problem due to larger slab shortening and long term performance of slab.
6|Page