Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 1703–1722 | Cite as

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

  • S. Dehghani
  • A. R. VosoughiEmail author
  • Mo. R. Banan
Research Paper


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.


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



  1. AISC 360-16 (2016) Specification for structural steel buildings. American institute of steel constructionGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE 41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, VI, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. ATC A. 40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied technology council, report ATC-40. Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bhat R, Warad SA (2015) Seismic evaluation of RC building considering soil-structure interaction. Int J Sci Technol 3(11):87Google Scholar
  6. Chen SS, Shi JY (2013) Simple models of foundation-soil interactions. Int J Eng Technol 5(5):573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA A. 440 (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA-440, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  11. FEMA F. 273 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  12. FEMA F. 274 (1997) NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Ganzerli S, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD (2000) Performance-based design using structural optimization. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(11):1677–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1363–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Gholizadeh S, Kamyab R, Dadashi H (2013) Performance-based design optimization of steel moment frames. Int J Optim Civil Eng 3:327–343Google Scholar
  18. Gong Y (2003) Performance-based design of steel building frameworks under seismic loading. University of WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kaveh A, Nasrollahi A (2014) Performance-based seismic design of steel frames utilizing charged system search optimization. Appl Soft Comput 22:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Kaveh A, Laknejadi K, Alinejad B (2012) Performance-based multi-objective optimization of large steel structures. Acta Mech 223(2):355–369CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Kocak S, Mengi Y (2000) A simple soil–structure interaction model. Appl Math Model 24(8–9):607–635CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Li G, Zhou RG, Duan L, Chen WF (1999) Multiobjective and multilevel optimization for steel frames. Eng Struct 21(6):519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2004) OpenSees users manual. PEER, University of California, Berkeley, 18:56–57Google Scholar
  31. Salajegheh E, Mohammadi A, Sohi SG (2008) Optimum performance based design of concentric steel braced frames. In: Int 14th World Conference on Earthquake. Engineering. Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of EngineeringShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations