Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 4951–4970 | Cite as

Optimization of infill panel for seismic response of multi-story RC frame buildings utilizing multi criteria optimization technique

  • Mohamed A. El Zareef
  • Mohamed E. El Madawy
Original Research Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

For seismic excitations with different intensities, the performance-based seismic design concept is essential for designers to accurately control the level of damage and keep overall seismic response of buildings within acceptable limits. In order to investigate the feasible solution-set for many real large-scale buildings such as tall buildings and large-span bridges subjected to dynamic loads, an experimental test of such a large-scale physical model is necessary but it is too expensive to conduct such a test for only one prototype. Recently, optimization of the performance-based seismic design for the large-scale structures such as multi-story RC frames is considered by engineers to obtain the optimal and rapid solution. This paper presents a technique for multi criteria analysis, which involves an inelastic analysis and dynamic response of the infill RC frames in the optimization process. The optimal geometric and mechanical properties of infill panel were investigated to improve the seismic performance of a 12-story RC infill frame. As a typical construction process in Egypt, the 12-story RC frame is introduced as a real-life large-scale case study. The parameter space investigation method was adopted along with use of IDARC-2D software for inelastic damage analysis and the visual basic programing language to establish the feasible and Pareto solution-set for the studied frames. The successful integration of inelastic damage analysis and the parameter space investigation method shows great potential to utilize the multi-criteria optimization method for large-scale structures to obtain the Pareto optimal-set in the future. The study concludes that the optimization of geometric and mechanical properties of infill panel is essential and significantly improves the seismic response and damage index of the infill RC frames.

Keywords

Seismic performance Multi criteria optimization Pareto optimal-set Multi-story RC infill frames Parameter space investigation (PSI) 

Abbreviations

GFRP

Glass-fiber reinforced polymer

RC

Reinforced concrete

IDARC

Inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete

2D

Two dimension

PSI

Parameter space investigation method

VBA

Visual Basic for application

\(\alpha_{1} , \ldots ,\alpha_{n}\)

Design variables

n

Number of design variables

\(\alpha_{j}^{*}\) and \(\alpha_{j}^{**}\)

Constraints of design variables

\(\alpha_{1}\)

Wall maximum compressive strength (MPa)

\(\alpha_{2}\)

Wall strain at maximum compressive strength (m/mm)

\(\alpha_{3}\)

Wall maximum shear strength (MPa)

\(\alpha_{4}\)

Thickness of the wall (mm)

fl(A)

The functional dependence (relation)

\(c_{l}^{*}\) and \(c_{l}^{**}\)

Functional constants or standards

\(\Phi_{\upnu} (A)\)

Particular criteria

\(\Phi_{1}\)

Story displacement (mm)

\(\Phi_{2}\)

Story drift (mm)

\(\Phi_{3}\)

Story shear (KN)

\(\Phi_{4}\)

Maximum base shear (KN)

\(\Phi_{5}\)

Frame overall damage index

\(\Phi_{\upnu}^{**}\)

Worst value of criterion \(\Phi_{\upnu} (A)\) acceptable to performance-based design rules

P

Pareto optimal set

DPA

Damage index

δm

Maximum deformation

δu

Ultimate deformation under monotonic loading

δu,c

Ultimate deformation under cyclic loading

δc

Deformation at initial cracking of concrete

δy

Deformation at yielding

βPA

Non-negative combination coefficient

dE

Incremental absorbed plastic strain energy

fy

Yield strength

Ehm

Plastic strain energy dissipated by the structure under monotonic loading

β

Combination coefficient

μm

Ratio of maximum deformation to deformation at yielding

μu

Ratio of ultimate deformation to deformation at yielding

References

  1. American Concrete Institute (2014) Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318 M-14, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang AHS, De Leon D (1994) Reliability and response control of R/C buildings. In: ASCE Structures Congress XII, ASCE, Georgia, USA, pp 1593–1599Google Scholar
  3. Chai YH, Romstad KM, Bird SM (1995) Energy-based linear damage model for high-intensity seismic loading. J Struct Eng ASCE 121(5):857–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R (1993) The use of damage functional in earthquake-resistant design: a comparison among different procedures. Struct Dyn Earthq Eng 22:855–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Decanini L, Moliaioli F, Mura A, Saragoni R (2004) Seismic performance of masonry infilled R/C frames. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, BC, Canada, p 165Google Scholar
  6. Demyanushko IV, Elmadawy Mohamed E (2009a) Application of the parameter space investigation method for optimization of structures. Transp Constr 7:26–28Google Scholar
  7. Demyanushko IV, Elmadawy ME (2009b) Optimal design estimation of orthotropic bridges using multicriteria optimization. Transp Constr 11:23–26Google Scholar
  8. Hao H, Ma G-W, Lu J (2002) Damage assessment of masonry infilled RC frames subjected to blasting induced ground excitations. Eng Struct 24(6):671–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IDARC-2D V6.1 (2006) Inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete structures, version 6.1. State University of New York, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiang H, Fu B, Lu X, Chen L (2015) Seismic damage assessment of RC members by a modified Park–Ang Model. Adv Struct Eng 18(3):353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nollet MJ, Smith BS (1998) Stiffened story wall-frame tall building structure. Comput Struct 66(2–3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Park YJ, Ang AHS (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 111(4):722–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Paulay T, Carr AJ, Tompkins DN (1980) Response of ductile reinforced concrete frames located in zone C. Natl Soc Earthq Eng 13(3):209–225Google Scholar
  14. Reinhorn AM, Madan A, Valles RE, Reichman Y, Mander JB (1995) Modeling of masonry infill panels for analysis of frame structures, Report No. NCEER-95-0018, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, the State University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Reinhorn AM, Roh H, Sivaselvan M, Kunnath SK, Valles RE, Madan A, Li C, Lobo R, Park YJ (2009) Technical Report – IDARC-2D: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, MCEER-09-0006, the University at Buffalo, State University of New Structures YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Sahota MK, Riddington JR (2001) Experimental investigation into using lead to reduce vertical load transfer in infilled frames. Eng Struct 23:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saneinejad A, Hobbs B (1995) Inelastic design of infilled frames. J Struct Eng 121(4):634–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh H, Paul DK, Sastry VV (1998) Inelastic dynamic response of reinforced concrete infilled frames. Comput Struct 69:685–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sivaselvan M, Reinhorn AM (2000) Hysteretic models for deteriorating inelastic structures. ASCE J Eng Mech 126(6):633–640 (discussion by Wang and Foliente and closure in 127(11)) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sobol IM, Statnikov RB (2006) Selecting optimal parameters in multicriteria problems, 2nd edn. Drofa Editor, Moscow (in Russian) Google Scholar
  21. Statnikov RB (2013) Multicriteria design: optimization and identification. Springer, Berlin, p 206Google Scholar
  22. Steuer RE, Sun M (1995) The parameter space investigation method of multiple objective nonlinear programming: a computational investigation. Oper Res 43(4):641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringMansoura UniversityEl-MansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Islamic ArchitectureUmm Al-Qura UniversityMakkahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations