Advertisement

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 877–891 | Cite as

Optimal seismic design of steel moment frames by un-damped multi-objective vibrating particles system

  • Mohsen Shahrouzi
  • Hamed Farah-Abadi
Original Paper

Abstract

Structural design usually comes up with objectives that compete with each other. The present optimization problem is formulated by applying minimal weight and drift ratio in spectral analysis of steel frames. It is further solved introducing an undamped multi-objective vibrating particle search. It not only takes benefit of VPS walks but also utilizes special evolutionary and multi-objective operators such as mutation and non-dominated sorting to update an auxiliary memory of the best solutions. A variety of frame examples with 2–24 stories and 3–6 bays are treated to cover a practical range of aspect ratios. Performance of the proposed MOVPS is further evaluated in the treated examples via comparison with two popular multi-objective methods: NSGA-II and MOPSO. In this regard, some metrics are traced for multi-objective optimization in addition to generating boxplots of the C-function to compare relative dominance priority between each pair of methods. According to the present study, Pareto fronts are similar for low-rise frames as the latter two metrics converge with iterations; however, in taller frames, either Pareto front or performance metrics exhibit more difference. Consequently, the most extended, the utopia–closest and the fastest optimal results were obtained by MOVPS, NSGA-II and MOPSO, respectively.

Keywords

Multi-objective vibrating particles search Spectral design Steel buildings Moment frames Performance metrics Pareto optimization 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Babaei, M., & Mollayi, M. (2016). Multi-objective optimization of reinforced concrete frames using NSGA-II algorithm. Engineering Science and Technology, 8, 157–164.  https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882X.2016.1250230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barraza, M., Bojórquez, E., Fernández-González, E., & Reyes-Salazar, A. (2017). Multi-objective optimization of structural steel buildings under earthquake loads using NSGA-II and PSO. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 21, 488–500.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1488-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coello, C. A. C., Pulido, G. T., & Lechuga, M. S. (2004). Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation, 8, 256–279.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2004.826067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deb K., Agrawal S., Pratap A., & Meyarivan T. (2000). A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. In The international conference on parallel problem solving from nature, 1917 (pp. 849–858). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farah-Abadi, H. (2017). Multi-objective optimization of steel moment frames for seismic spectral drift response and structural weight. MSc. dissertation in Earthquake Engineering, Supervisor: Dr. M.Shahrouzi, Kharazmi University, Karaj.Google Scholar
  6. Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J. (1993) Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Formulation, discussion and generalization. In Genet. Algorithms Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. (pp. 416–423).Google Scholar
  7. Ghosh, A., & Dehuri, S. (2004). Evolutionary algorithms for multi-criterion optimization: A survey. International Journal of Computing and Information Sciences, 2, 38–57.Google Scholar
  8. ICSRDBS. (2014). Iranian code for seismic resistant design of buildings: standard-2800 (4th ed.). Tehran: Research Center for Roads, Housing and Urban Development of Iran.Google Scholar
  9. INBC:Part-10. (2013). Iranian national building code, part-10: design of steel structures (4th ed.). Tehran: Housing and Urban Development of Iran.Google Scholar
  10. Kaveh, A. (2017). Applications of Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms in Civil Engineering. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaveh, A., & Bakhshpoori, T. (2016a). An efficient multi-objective cuckoo search algorithm for design optimization. Advances in Computational Design, 1, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaveh, A., & Bakhshpoori, T. (2016b). A new metaheuristic for continuous structural optimization: Water evaporation optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 54, 23–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-015-1396-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaveh, A., & Ilchi-Ghazaan, M. (2017). A new meta-heuristic algorithm: Vibrating particles system. Sci Iran, 24, 1–32.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaveh, A., & Laknejadi, K. (2011). Expert Systems with Applications A novel hybrid charge system search and particle swarm optimization method for multi-objective optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 15475–15488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaveh, A., & Laknejadi, K. (2013a). A new multi-swarm multi-objective optimization method for structural design. Advances in Engineering Software, 58, 54–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.01.004.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaveh, A., & Laknejadi, K. (2013b). A hybrid evolutionary graph-based multi-objective algorithm for layout optimization of truss structures. Acta Mechanica, 224, 343–364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-012-0754-5.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaveh, A., Laknejadi, K., & Alinejad, B. (2012). Performance-based multi-objective optimization of large steel structures. Acta Mechanica, 223, 355–369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-011-0564-1.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaveh, A., & Mahdavi, V. R. (2014). Colliding bodies optimization: A novel meta-heuristic method. Computers & Structures, 139, 18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaveh, A., Shojaei, I., Gholipour, Y., & Rahami, H. (2013). Seismic design of steel frames using multi-objective optimization. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 45, 211–232.  https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.45.2.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Özkış, A., & Babalık, A. (2017). A novel metaheuristic for multi-objective optimization problems: The multi-objective vortex search algorithm. Information Sciences, 402, 124–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.03.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Panda, A., & Pani, S. (2016). Multi-objective colliding bodies optimization. In M. Pant, K. Deep, J. Bansal, A. Nagar, K. Das (Eds.) Proceedings of fifth international conference on soft computing for problem solving. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 436 (pp. 651–664). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Pareto, V. (1906) Manuale di Economia Politica. Piccola Biblioteca Scientifica, Milan. Translated to English by Schwier, A.S. (1971), Manual of political economy. London: McMillan.Google Scholar
  23. Parsopoulos, K. E., & Vrahatis, M. N. (2002). Particle swarm optimization method in multiobjective problems. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing, ACM, 3, 603–607.  https://doi.org/10.1145/508895.508907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rao, R. V., Savsani, V. J., & Vakharia, D. P. (2011). Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Computer-Aided Design, 43, 303–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schaffer, J.D. (1985) Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. In 1st Int Conf Genet Algorithms (pp. 93–100).Google Scholar
  26. Schott, J.R. (1995). Fault tolerant design using single and multicriteria genetic algorithm optimization. MSc. Dissertation, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institude of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  27. Shahrouzi, M., Aghabagloua, M., & Rafiee, F. (2017). Observer–teacher–learner-based optimization: An enhanced meta-heuristic for structural sizing design. Structural Engineering and Mechanics.  https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2017.62.5.537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shahrouzi, M., & Farahabadi, H. (2018). A fast fuzzy-tuned multi-objective optimization for sizing problems. International Journal of Optimization in Civil Engineering, 8, 53–75.Google Scholar
  29. Shahrouzi, M., & Pashaei, M. (2014). Stochastic directional search: An efficient heuristic for structural optimization of building frames. Scientia Iranica, 20, 1124–1132.Google Scholar
  30. Stahl (2012) Lieferprogramm (Stahl Profiles). GKS-CCNA: Gemeinschaft kooperierender Stahlhändler, St. Alban-Anlage 62, 4002 Basel.Google Scholar
  31. Zitzler, E., Deb, K., & Thiele, L. (2000). Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evolutionary Computation, 8, 173–195.  https://doi.org/10.1162/106365600568202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., & Thiele, L. (2001). SPEA2: improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. Evol Methods Des Optim Control with Appl to Ind Probl 95–100.  https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-004284029.
  33. Zitzler, E., & Thiele, L. (1999). Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3, 257–271.  https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.797969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zou, F., Wang, L., Hei, X., et al. (2013). Multi-objective optimization using teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26, 1291–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2012.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKharazmi UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations