# The effects of rehabilitation objectives on near optimal trade-off relation between minimum weight and maximum drift of 2D steel X-braced frames considering soil-structure interaction using a cluster-based NSGA II

- 69 Downloads

## Abstract

A cluster-based non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) II has been considered to investigate the effects of rehabilitation objectives on multi-objective design optimization of two-dimensional (2D) steel X-braced frames in the presence of soil-structure interaction. The substructure elasto-perfect plastic model has been adopted for modeling of the soil-structure interaction and the nonlinear pushover analysis is used to evaluate the performance level of the frames for a specified hazard level. Cross-sections of grouped elements of the frames are considered to be discontinuous design variables of the problem. Via implementing some of the constraints, which are independent of doing the time-consuming nonlinear analysis, input population of the optimization technique has been clustered. By using the nonlinear analysis technique in conjunction with the cluster-based NSGA II, near optimal trade-off relation between minimum weight and maximum story drifts of the frames are obtained. The allowable rotations, geometry, and resistance constraints of the structural elements are considered in the optimization design of the frames. The effects of the enhanced basic safety and limited selective rehabilitation objectives on optimum design of the frame are studied. The results show differences between the optimum results of the three mentioned rehabilitation objectives and effects of soil types.

## Keywords

Performance-based optimum design X-braced steel frames Soil-structure interaction Effects of the rehabilitation objectives on optimum design Cluster-based NSGA-II## Notes

## References

- AISC 360-16 (2016) Specification for structural steel buildings. American institute of steel constructionGoogle Scholar
- ASCE 41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, VI, USAGoogle Scholar
- ATC A. 40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied technology council, report ATC-40
*.*Redwood CityGoogle Scholar - Bai J, Li Y, Zuo W (2017) Cross-sectional shape optimisation for thin-walled beam crashworthiness with stamping constraints using genetic algorithm. Int J Veh Des 73(1–3):76–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bhat R, Warad SA (2015) Seismic evaluation of RC building considering soil-structure interaction. Int J Sci Technol 3(11):87Google Scholar
- Chen SS, Shi JY (2013) Simple models of foundation-soil interactions. Int J Eng Technol 5(5):573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Daloglu AT, Artar M, Özgan K, Karakas Aİ (2016) Optimum design of steel space frames including soil-structure interaction. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(1):117–131MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan TA (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- FEMA A. 440 (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA-440, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
- FEMA F. 273 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
- FEMA F. 274 (1997) NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
- FEMA P-750 (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structure building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
- Ganzerli S, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD (2000) Performance-based design using structural optimization. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(11):1677–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1363–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gholizadeh S, Poorhoseini H (2016) Performance-based optimum seismic design of steel dual braced frames by bat algorithm. Metaheuristics and Optimization in Civil Engineering, pp 95–114Google Scholar
- Gholizadeh S, Kamyab R, Dadashi H (2013) Performance-based design optimization of steel moment frames. Int J Optim Civil Eng 3:327–343Google Scholar
- Gong Y (2003) Performance-based design of steel building frameworks under seismic loading. University of WaterlooGoogle Scholar
- Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G (2004) Performance-based seismic design of 3D R/C buildings using inelastic static and dynamic analysis procedures. ISET J Earthq Technol 41(1):141–158Google Scholar
- Kaveh A, Nasrollahi A (2014) Performance-based seismic design of steel frames utilizing charged system search optimization. Appl Soft Comput 22:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kaveh A, Azar BF, Hadidi A, Sorochi FR, Talatahari S (2010) Performance-based seismic design of steel frames using ant colony optimization. J Constr Steel Res 66(4):566–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kaveh A, Laknejadi K, Alinejad B (2012) Performance-based multi-objective optimization of large steel structures. Acta Mech 223(2):355–369CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Khatibinia M, Gharehbaghi S, Moustafa A (2015) Seismic reliability-based design optimization of reinforced concrete structures including soil-structure interaction effects. In: Earthquake engineering-from engineering seismology to optimal seismic design of engineering structures. InTechGoogle Scholar
- Kocak S, Mengi Y (2000) A simple soil–structure interaction model. Appl Math Model 24(8–9):607–635CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Krawinkler H, Zareian F, Medina RA, Ibarra LF (2006) Decision support for conceptual performance-based design. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(1):115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Li G, Zhou RG, Duan L, Chen WF (1999) Multiobjective and multilevel optimization for steel frames. Eng Struct 21(6):519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liang JC, Li LJ, He JN (2015) Performance-based multi-objective optimum design for steel structures with intelligence algorithms. Int J Optim Civil Eng 5(1):79–101Google Scholar
- Liu M, Burns SA, Wen YK (2005) Multiobjective optimization for performance-based seismic design of steel moment frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(3):289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lu Y, Hajirasouliha I, Marshall AM (2016) Performance-based seismic design of flexible-base multi-storey buildings considering soil–structure interaction. Eng Struct 108:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2004) OpenSees users manual. PEER, University of California, Berkeley, 18:56–57Google Scholar
- Salajegheh E, Mohammadi A, Sohi SG (2008) Optimum performance based design of concentric steel braced frames. In: Int 14
^{th}World Conference on Earthquake. Engineering*.*Google Scholar - Vosoughi AR, Darabi A (2017) A new hybrid CG-GAs approach for high sensitive optimization problems: with application for parameters estimation of FG nanobeams. Appl Soft Comput 52:220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vosoughi AR, Gerist S (2014) New hybrid FE-PSO-CGAs sensitivity base technique for damage detection of laminated composite beams. Compos Struct 118:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vosoughi AR, Nikoo M (2015) Maximum fundamental frequency and thermal buckling temperature of laminated composite plates by a new hybrid multi-objective optimization technique. Thin-Walled Struct 95:408–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vosoughi AR, Forkhorji HD, Roohbakhsh H (2016) Maximum fundamental frequency of thick laminated composite plates by a hybrid optimization method. Compos Part B 86:254–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zuo W, Bai J, Li B (2014) A hybrid OC–GA approach for fast and global truss optimization with frequency constraints. Appl Soft Comput 14:528–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zuo W, Bai J (2016) Cross-sectional shape design and optimization of automotive body with stamping constraints. Int J Automot Technol 17(6):1003–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zuo W, Xu T, Zhang H, Xu T (2011) Fast structural optimization with frequency constraints by genetic algorithm using adaptive eigenvalue reanalysis methods. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(6):799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zuo W, Lu Y, Zhao X, Bai J (2018) Cross-sectional shape design of automobile structure considering rigidity and driver's field of view. Adv Eng Softw 115:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar