Metaheuristics for Structural Design and Analysis. Yusuf Cengiz Toklu
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Metaheuristics for Structural Design and Analysis - Yusuf Cengiz Toklu страница 8
Название: Metaheuristics for Structural Design and Analysis
Автор: Yusuf Cengiz Toklu
Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited
Жанр: Техническая литература
isbn: 9781119849070
isbn:
In the early ages, there was of course no knowledge about concepts such as stress, strain, force, deformations, stability, buckling, bending and torsion. Formulating a mathematical model of the structure was unthinkable, and there was no knowledge of calculus to do any kind of computation. Despite all of this, there was the intuition, experience, intelligence and observation power of some extraordinary people.
Figure 1.1. General flowchart for structural design
In the beginning, the above algorithm comprised only the first step shown; the engineers/architects started building structures based only on conceptual design: a temple, a ziggurat, a pyramid, an obelisk, etc. and made improvements to their designs, according to their feelings, as construction went on. The most important characteristic of the flowchart shown above is the existence of iterations at various steps. It is easy to assume that iterations during these early times were being performed in the field, i.e. during the construction process. Perhaps tens of years or more were necessary for field iterations for the cutting of stones; carrying them to their places, carving figures wherever necessary, placing small stones and erecting T-shaped columns at Göbeklitepe – the first known edifices of humankind, recently uncovered at Urfa, Turkey – built some 12,000 years ago (see Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2. Representative drawing showing construction operations at Göbeklitepe, Urfa, Turkey (https://www.cnnturk.com/kultur-sanat/dunyanin-en-eski-tapinagi-gobekli-tepe?page=1). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/toklu/metaheuristics.zip
We also see field iterations in structures that have collapsed and been rebuilt. The best example that can be given from those years is the Hagia Sophia (see Figure 1.3) in Istanbul, Turkey, which was constructed between February 532 and December 537, following the design created by Anthemius of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus (Mainstone 1988; Ozkul and Kuribayashi 2007; Çakmak et al. 2009). This design was carried out using the experience and intuition of the two architects, perhaps with some computations with respect to the sizes of the columns. It was not possible to perform the computational iterations depicted in Figure 1.1, but they forcedly took place to end up with a safe structure. In May 558, i.e. almost 20 years after construction had finished, “parts of the central dome and its supporting structural system collapsed” (Çakmak et al. 2009). Those failures were probably due to earthquakes that took place in August 553 and December 557. Subsequently, a new dome – approximately 6.24 m higher than the original – was designed by Isidorus the Younger, nephew and successor to Isidorus of Miletus. This can be considered as an iterational process on the conceptual design of the structure, performed in the field as a real construction.
Figure 1.3. Current photo of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/toklu/metaheuristics.zip
The real iterations started with advances in structural analysis; its history written by Timoshenko (1983), Benvenuto (1990), Mainstone (1997), Felippa (2001), Addis (2003), Kurrer (2018) and many others.
Strength of materials is a primordial field in structural analysis. Following an introduction that charts its early beginnings, Timoshenko (1983) – in his book originally published in 1953 – explores the history of this subject across 14 chapters, beginning with the 17th century and ending with the period 1900–1950.
Mainstone (1997) states that structural analysis, as we now know it, began in the 18th century to assess the safety of buildings to be constructed. By the mid-19th century, this area is extended for analyzing earlier structures like Gothic cathedrals. The first idealization was Hooke’s law of direct proportionality; this idealization went together with increasing knowledge about statically determinate structures, ignoring those that were statically indeterminate or hyperstatic. The second half of the 19th century was marked by graphical methods.
Matrices hold a particularly important place in the history of analyses of structures. Felippa (2001) addresses this aspect under three titles: creation, unification and FEMinization, the last term meaning the launching of “[...] the direct stiffness method [...] as an efficient and general computer implementation, as yet unnamed, finite element method (FEM)”. Addis (2003) states that the main causes of failure in historical structures were wind loads, foundation problems and fires. We must add earthquakes to these effects for some parts of the world. Addis mentions the importance of full-scale tests on small physical models in historical times.
Two books, authored by Benvetuno (1990) and Kurrer (2008), are especially remarkable in following the history of structures. In both, the subject is traced from the very first works up until the time each book was written, dividing the advances into eras with historical drawings and anecdotes. Benvetuno’s book is in two parts: “Statics and resistance of solids” and “Vaulted structures and elastic systems”. Kurres’s book, titled The History of the Theory of Structures – From Arch Analysis to Computational Mechanics was published originally in German, in 2002.
Although the design, analysis, and construction of structures have always shown continuous advances in history, there was a period when this was the opposite. Indeed, between the time of the Romans and the Renaissance, let aside making of constructions more important than in previous times, the knowledge accumulated until then was lost (Timoshenko 1983).
1.2. From empirical rules and intuition to FEM
In the beginning, the design of all types of edifices was being carried out without any form of analysis since structural calculations were not available by any means. Due to the field iterations mentioned in the above sections, some empirical rules were being brought forward, which were, mostly geometric (Cowan 1977). An example of these rules is the one about vaults (see Figure 1.4) noted by Leonardo de Vinci (1452–1519). This stated that the chords connecting the top of the structure to the extreme points at the bottom should not cross the inner arch, in order to prevent failure (Benvenuto 1990, p. 9).
Figure 1.4. Empirical rule on vaults: lines ab and bc will remain within the wall
Empirical rules were in use until the 18th century. As time went on, structural computations began to come onto the scene. One of СКАЧАТЬ