Advertisement

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1051–1063 | Cite as

Robust design of seismic isolation system using constrained multi-objective optimization technique

  • Shinyoung Kwag
  • Seung-Yong Ok
Article

Abstract

This study proposes a robust optimal design approach of seismic isolation system for bridges against uncertainties in the system such as model parameters of bridge and isolation bearing, for which a constrained multi-objective optimization problem is formulated by using the bi-objective and constraint functions. The two objective functions are defined as the mutually-conflicting failure probabilities of the bridge pier and the seismic isolator, and the constraint function is constructed by using a robustness index which is defined as the average value of the perturbed amount of the failure probabilities of the bridge so that it can be interpreted as the quantitative measure of the seismic performance degradation of the bridge system caused by the uncertainties. The nonlinear random vibration analyses that estimate the stochastic responses of the seismic isolation bridge system used in the bi-objective and constraint functions are efficiently handled by the stochastic linearization method without performing numerous nonlinear time-history analyses. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, the constrained multi-objective optimization is performed on an example bridge. For comparison purposes, the unconstrained multi-objective optimization with no uncertainties in the system parameters is performed as well. The comparative results verify that the robust seismic isolation system obtained by the proposed design approach can balance the failure probabilities of both pier and isolator in a reasonable level while guaranteeing the bridge performance to remain insensitive to changes in the bridge parameters as well as the design variables of the isolator. The parametric investigation of the robust performance between two different systems also confirms guarantee of the robustness of the proposed method despite the uncertain characteristics of the stochastic ground motions.

Keywords

robust optimal design seismic isolation system constrained multi-objective optimization technique stochastic linearization method stochastic response uncertainty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adachi, Y., Unjoh, S., and Koshitoge, M. (1998). “Analytical study on non-linear seismic response behaviour of seismic isolator and bridge column system.” Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Structural Control, Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 2, pp. 903–911.Google Scholar
  2. Atalik, T. S. and Utku, S. (1976). “Stochastic linearization of multi-degreeof-freedom nonlinear systems.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ates, S., Dumanoglu, A. A., and Bayraktar, A. (2005). “Stochastic response of seismically isolated highway bridges with friction pendulum systems to spatially varying earthquake ground motions.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No.13, pp. 1843–1858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber, T. T. and Wen, Y. K. (1981). “Random vibration of hysteretic, degrading systems.” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. 6, pp. 1069–1087.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, R. H. and Stewart, G. W. (1972). “Solution of the matrix AX + X B = C.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 820–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckle, I. G. and Mayes, R. L. (1989). “The application of seismic isolation to bridges.” Structures Congress’ 89: Seismic Engineering: Research and Practice, ASCE, NY, USA, pp. 633–642.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, G. S. and Liu, W. D. (1997). “Design issues of seismic isolation of major bridges.” Proceeding of the National Seismic Conference on Bridge and Highways, pp. 745–756.Google Scholar
  8. Constantinou, M. C. and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. (1985). “Hysteretic dampers in base isolation: random approach.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 4, pp. 705–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deb, K. and Gupta, H. (2005). “Searching for robust pareto-optimal solutions in multi-objective optimization.” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO-05), pp. 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deb, K., Pratap, A., and Meyarivan, T. (2001). “Constrained test problems for multi-objective evolutionary optimization.” In Proceeding of the First International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization LNCS 1993, Berlin, Germany, pp. 284–298.Google Scholar
  11. Fonseca, C. M. and Fleming, P. J. (1993). “Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: formulation, discussion and generalization.” Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo, California, pp. 416–423.Google Scholar
  12. Ghobarah, A. (1988). “Seismic behaviour of highway bridges with base isolation.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghobarah, A. and Ali, H. M. (1988). “Seismic performance of highway bridges.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilani, A. S., Hahin, S. A., Fenves, G. L., Aiken, I. D., and Chavez, J. W. (1995). “Field testing of bridge design and retrofit concepts — Part 1 of 2: Field testing and dynamic analysis of a four-span seismically isolated viaduct in Walnut Creek.” UCB/EERC-95/14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  15. Horn, J., Nafploitis, N., and Goldberg, D. E. (1994). “A niched pareto genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization.” Proceedings of 1st IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp. 82–87.Google Scholar
  16. Jangid, R. S. (2008a). “Equivalent linear stochastic seismic response of isolated bridges.” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 309, Nos. 3–5, pp. 805–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jangid, R. S. (2008b). “Stochastic response of bridges seismically isolated by friction pendulum system.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kang, M. and Lee, M. (2002). A study on behavior of the lead rubber bearings, Expressway & Transportation Research Institute (EXTRI), Hwaseong, Gyeonggi.Google Scholar
  19. Kelly, J. M. (1986). “Aseismic base isolation: A review and bibliography.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koh, H. M., Ha, D. H., Ok, S.-Y., Lee, S.-Y., and Ryu, H.-S. (2005). “Field testing of full-scale seismically isolated bridge considering the characteristics of low-to-moderate seismicity.” Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 25, No. 6A, pp. 1043–1051.Google Scholar
  21. Koh, H. M., Song, J., and Ha, D. H. (2000). “Cost effectiveness of seismic isolation for bridges in low and moderate seismic region.” Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 1100.Google Scholar
  22. Kunde, M. C. and Jangid, R. S. (2003). “Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: A-state-of-the-art review.” Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 140–170.Google Scholar
  23. Kwag, S., Ok, S.-Y., and Koh, H. M. (2010). “Optimal design of nonlinear seismic isolation system by a multi-objective optimization technique integrated with a stochastic linearization method.” Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, Y. K. (1967). Probabilistic theory of structural dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Marano, G. C. and Sgobba, S. (2007). “Stochastic energy analysis of seismic isolated bridges.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 759–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ni, Y. Q., Ko, J. M., and Ying, Z. G. (2001). “Random seismic response analysis of adjacent buildings coupled with non-linear hysteretic dampers.” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 246, No. 3, pp. 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nigam, N. C. (1983). Introduction to random vibration, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Ok, S.-Y., Song, J., and Park, K.-S. (2008a). “Optimal design of hysteretic dampers connecting adjacent structures using multi-objective genetic algorithm and stochastic linearization method.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 1240–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ok, S.-Y., Song, J., and Park, K.-S. (2008b). “Optimal performance design of bi-tuned mass damper systems using multi-objective optimization.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pagnini, L. C. and Solari, G. (1999). “Stochastic analysis of the linear equivalent response of bridge piers with aseismic devices.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 543–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pebesma, E. J. and Heuvelink, G. B. M. (1999). “Latin hypercube sampling of Gaussian random fields.” Technometrics, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rice, S. O. (1945). “Mathematical analysis of random noise.” Bell System Technology Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 46–156.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, J. B. and Spanos, P. D. (1990). Random vibration and statistical linearization, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Skinner, R. I., Tyler, R. G., Heine, A. J., and Robinson, W. H. (1980). “Hysteretic dampers for the protection of structures from earthquakes.” Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 22–36.Google Scholar
  35. Song, J. (2004). Seismic response and reliability of electrical substation equipment and systems, PhD Thesis, University of California at Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Song, J. and Der Kiureghian, A. (2006). “Joint first-passage probability and reliability of systems under stochastic excitation.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 1, pp. 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Srinivas, N. and Deb, K. (1994). “Multi-objective function optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms.” Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stein, M. L. (1987). “Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hypercube sampling.” Technometrics, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 143–151.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tajimi, H. (1960). “A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake.” Proceeding of 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 781–897.Google Scholar
  40. Vanmarcke, E. H. (1975). “On the distribution of the first passage time for normal stationary random process.” Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wen, Y. K. (1976). “Method for random vibration of hysteretic system.” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp. 249–263.Google Scholar
  42. Wen, Y. K. (1980). “Equivalent linearization for hysteretic systems under random excitation.” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 150–154.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong, C. W., Ni, Q. Y., and Lau, S. L. (1994). “Steady-state oscillation of hysteretic differential model. I: Response analysis.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 11, pp. 2271–2298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Reactor Engineering DivisionKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteDaejeonKorea
  2. 2.Dept. of Safety EngineeringHankyong National UniversityAnseongKorea

Personalised recommendations