Advertisement

Optimum design of steel braced frames considering dynamic soil-structure interaction

  • Milad Bybordiani
  • Saeid Kazemzadeh AzadEmail author
Research Paper
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Recent studies on design optimization of steel frames considering soil-structure interaction have focused on static loading scenarios, and limited work has been conducted to address the design optimization under dynamic soil-structure interaction. In the present work, first, a platform is developed to perform optimization of steel frames under seismic loading considering dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI) in order to quantify the effects of earthquake records on the optimum design. Next, verification of the adopted modeling technique is conducted using comparison of the results with the reference solution counterparts in frequency domain. For time history analyses, records from past events are selected and scaled to a target spectrum using simple scaling approach as well as spectrum matching technique. For sizing of the steel frames, a recently developed metaheuristic optimization algorithm, namely exponential big bang-big crunch optimization method, is employed. To alleviate the computational burden of the optimization process, the metaheuristic algorithm is integrated with the so-called upper bound strategy. Effects of factors such as the building height, presence of soil domain, and the utilized ground motion scaling technique are investigated and discussed. The numerical results obtained based on 5- and 10-story steel braced frame dual systems reveal that, although dynamic SSI reduced the seismic demands to some extent, given the final design pertains to different load combinations, the optimum weight difference is not considerable.

Keywords

Optimization Steel frames Soil-structure interaction Massless foundation Base shear Drift ratio 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Sina Kazemzadeh Azad for his helpful comments on this work.

References

  1. Al Atik L, Abrahamson N (2010) An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. Earthquake Spectra 26(3):601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (1994) Manual of steel construction, load & resistance factor design, 2nd edn. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI-7-10. Structural engineering institute of the American society of civil engineers, Reston, p 608Google Scholar
  4. Baker JW (2010) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielak J (1976) Modal analysis for building-soil interaction. J Eng Mech Div 102(5):771–786Google Scholar
  6. Bybordiani M, Arıcı Y (2017) The use of 3D modeling for the prediction of the seismic demands on the gravity dams. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(11):1769–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bybordiani M, Arıcı Y (2018) Effectiveness of motion scaling procedures for the seismic assessment of concrete gravity dams for near field motions. Struct Infrastruct Eng:1–16Google Scholar
  8. Bybordiani M, Arici Y (2019) Structure‐soil‐structure interaction of adjacent buildings subjected to seismic loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3162
  9. Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Erol OK, Eksin I (2006) A new optimization method: big bang–big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 37(2):106–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FEMA450-1 (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Part 1: Provisions. Washington, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  13. Gazetas GC, Roesset JM (1976) Forced vibrations of strip footings on layered soils. In methods of structural analysis. ASCEGoogle Scholar
  14. Gholizadeh S, Milani A (2016) Optimal performance-based design of steel frames using advanced metaheuristicsGoogle Scholar
  15. Gholizadeh S, Poorhoseini H (2016) Seismic layout optimization of steel braced frames by an improved dolphin echolocation algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(4):1011–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasançebi O, Kazemzadeh Azad S (2012) An exponential big bang-big crunch algorithm for discrete design optimization of steel frames. Comput Struct 110-111:167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasançebi O, Kazemzadeh Azad S (2014) Discrete size optimization of steel trusses using a refined big bang–big crunch algorithm. Eng Optim 46(1):61–83MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasançebi O, Çarbaş S, Doğan E, Erdal F, Saka MP (2010) Comparison of non-deterministic search techniques in the optimum design of real size steel frames. Comput Struct 88(17):1033–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kameshki ES, Saka MP (2001) Optimum design of nonlinear steel frames with semi-rigid connections using a genetic algorithm. Comput Struct 79(17):1593–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaveh A, Abbasgholiha H (2011) Optimum design of steel sway frames using big bang big crunch algorithm. Asian J Civil Eng 12(3):293–317Google Scholar
  21. Kazemzadeh Azad S, Hasançebi O, Kazemzadeh Azad S (2013) Upper bound strategy for metaheuristic based design optimization of steel frames. Adv Eng Softw 57:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kazemzadeh Azad S, Bybordiani M, Kazemzadeh Azad S, Jawad FKJ (2018) Simultaneous size and geometry optimization of steel trusses under dynamic excitations. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58(6):2545–2563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kripakaran P, Hall B, Gupta A (2011) A genetic algorithm for design of moment-resisting steel frames. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44(4):559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurama YC, Farrow KT (2003) Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(15):2425–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamberti L, Pappalettere C (2011) Metaheuristic design optimization of skeletal structures: a review. Comput Technol Rev 4(1):1–32Google Scholar
  26. NEHRP (2011) Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analysesGoogle Scholar
  27. Reyes JC, Riaño AC, Kalkan E, Quintero OA, Arango CM (2014) Assessment of spectrum matching procedure for nonlinear analysis of symmetric- and asymmetric-plan buildings. Eng Struct 72:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saka M (2007) Optimum design of steel frames using stochastic search techniques based on natural phenomena: a review. Civil Eng Comput: Tools Tech 6:105–147Google Scholar
  29. Saka MP, Hasançebi O, Geem ZW (2016) Metaheuristics in structural optimization and discussions on harmony search algorithm. Swarm Evol Comput 28:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1969) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  31. Takewaki I, Nakamura T, Hirayama K (1998) Seismic frame design via inverse mode design of frame-ground systems. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 17(3):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trifunac M (1972) Scattering of plane SH waves by a semi-cylindrical canyon. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1(3):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2003) Time-history dynamic analysis of hydraulic concrete structures. Department of the Army, Washington, DC, p 401Google Scholar
  34. Wang J, Lu D, Jin F, Zhang C (2013) Accuracy of the half-power bandwidth method with a third-order correction for estimating damping in multi-DOF systems. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 12(1):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson EL. (2002) Three-dimensional static and dynamic analysis of structures, 3rd edn. Computers and Structures, IncGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAtilim UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations