1 s2.0 S0141029618332140 Main
1 s2.0 S0141029618332140 Main
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This paper presents a simplified performance-based optimal seismic design approach for multi-story reinforced
Optimal design concrete moment frames. The proposed approach minimizes construction cost and takes member plastic rotation
Cost and optionally inter-story drift as optimization constraints. Other seismic design requirements reflecting suc-
Performance-based design cessful design practice are also incorporated. Simplification is made by reducing design variables into two, one
Reinforced concrete
for overall system stiffness and the other for overall system strength. The optimization contains two stages, the
Frame
Inelastic spectrum
determination of feasible region boundary in strength and stiffness domain and optimization in material con-
Nonlinear static analysis sumption domain. Capacity spectrum method, which jointly considers nonlinear static analysis and inelastic
design spectrum, is used to estimate the global and local deformation demands at peak dynamic response. The
proposed optimization approach is applied to the design of a six-story reinforced concrete frame. The design
results indicate that 30% of needed flexural strength and 26% of cross-sectional area can be reduced from the
initial strength-based design. Nonlinear time-history analyses are conducted on the optimized structure using ten
historical ground motions scaled to represent three levels of seismic hazard.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ying.tian@unlv.edu (Y. Tian).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.108
Received 3 October 2018; Received in revised form 21 January 2019; Accepted 23 January 2019
Available online 01 February 2019
0141-0296/ Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
analyses or nonlinear static analyses are needed during optimization to measurement and used to define optimization constraints. However, a
identify the seismic responses of a structure with different values of user can optionally choose inter-story drift ratio as a supplemental
design variables. Time-history analysis better identifies seismic re- performance index to restrain damage to nonstructural components.
sponse if the hysteretic behavior of structural components is properly The overall optimal PBSD problem can then be stated as
defined. However, the structural response predicted by time-history
Minimize CT = cc Ωc + cs Ws
analysis cannot be mathematically formulated as a function of system
Subject to ∀ θ ≤ [θ]
stiffness and strength, especially when material nonlinearity and geo-
∀ γ ≤ [γ ](optional) (1)
metric nonlinearity present. It is thus difficult to explicitly correlate the
decision variables in the objective function of an optimization problem where CT is total cost; Ωc is the total volume of concrete; Ws is the total
with the optimization constraints defined by structural performance weight of flexural reinforcement; cc and cs are the unit costs for concrete
such as inter-story drift and plastic hinge rotation. As a result, various and steel reinforcement, taking into account not only material but also
metaheuristic algorithms, including genetic [12,13], neural network other parameters such as labor and transportation; θ is plastic hinge
[14,19], discrete gravitational search [20], and generalized pattern rotation angle; γ is inter-story drift ratio; and [θ] and [γ] are allowable
search [24] algorithms, were used to perform optimizations. This ca- values for θ and γ.
tegory of algorithm, such as genetic [9], ant colony [16], and particle The [θ] and [γ] in Eq. (1) are defined based on the target perfor-
swarm [17] algorithms, was also used together with nonlinear static mance of the RC moment frame of concern. ASCE 41-13 [1] measures
analysis to create an optimization procedure. On the other hand, non- structural performance only using plastic hinge rotation. However, if
linear static analysis is better suited for mathematically formulating a inter-story drift is also employed as a performance index, the drift ratio
performance-based optimal design. The joint use of optimality criteria limit can be defined according to ASCE 41-06 [29] as [γ] = 1%, 2% and
method and nonlinear static analyses enabled explicitly formulating an 4% for target performance levels of Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life
optimization algorithm in some studies [7,8,10,11,15,18] after a series Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP), respectively. The plastic
of idealization of structural behaviors. The methods suggested in these hinge rotation capacity [θ] for beams and columns controlled by flexure
studies optimize section size first based on inter-story drift limit under is given in Tables 1 and 2 [1], where ρ is tensile reinforcement ratio, ρ'
minor earthquakes and then optimize the flexural design of components is compressive reinforcement ratio, ρbal is tensile reinforcement ratio
based on the target structural performance under major earthquakes. producing a balanced strain condition, b is beam width, d is effective
Most existing optimal PBSDs involve complex algorithms requiring depth, f c' is concrete compressive strength, Vb is beam shear force, P is
a fully automated design process. However, the needed computer pro- column axial force, and Ag is column gross sectional area. The plastic
grams are often not accessible for practicing engineers. Moreover, the rotation capacity [θ] of flexure-dominated columns increases with de-
optimization methods developed specifically for steel structures are not creased axial load P or increased transverse reinforcement ratio ρv.
necessarily applicable to RC structures. This paper presents a simplified However, if ρv ≥ 0.006, generally the case for a column designed fol-
version of optimal PBSD for multistory RC frame buildings using a new lowing the modern seismic design codes, [θ] becomes independent to
optimization algorithm. The proposed method reduces the design ρv. Thus, [θ] for the columns is considered only as a function of axial
variables into only two, one for overall stiffness and the other for force level, as shown in Table 2.
overall strength, so that the optimization process can be implemented
without the aid of special optimization software. Moreover, this study 3. Optimization strategy
considers not only inter-story drift but also plastic hinge rotation, which
better describes the local behavior of a RC frame, to define target Fig. 1 outlines the optimization procedure developed in this study.
structural performance. The study also incorporates the latest for- The objective function in Eq. (1) incorporates the three major char-
mulations of plastic deformation capacity of RC beams and columns acteristics (i.e., strength, stiffness and ductility) of an inelastic system
recommended in ASCE 41-13 [1] based on extensive experimental data. resisting seismic loads because Ωc affects elastic stiffness, Ws is asso-
The proposed approach is applied to the design of a six-story RC frame ciated with member flexural strength, and γ and θ are related to duc-
building to illustrate the optimization procedure and explore the degree tility. The constraints related to acceptable structural performance
of construction cost saving. Finally, because the optimization method normally define a convex feasible region for the two decision variables
uses nonlinear static analyses to estimate peak dynamic deformation Ωc and Ws. Eq. (1) is a nonlinear programming problem. The objective
demand, the performance of the optimized structure is examined by a function represents a group of lines with a slop of –cc/cs, one of which is
suite of nonlinear dynamic analyses. tangent to the feasible region boundary. The Ωc and Ws at the tangent
point (Point A in Fig. 1(a)) leads to the minimum total cost CT.
2. Statement of optimal PBSD Despite the simple format of the objective function, there are several
challenges in obtaining the optimal solution. The first challenge is the
According to the capacity design philosophy for ductile RC frame determination of peak deformation demand caused by the different
structures [26], the behavior of beams and columns shall be governed levels of seismic hazard. This study intends to formulate the peak de-
by flexure with sufficient inelastic deformation capacity. The flexural formation demand of a nonlinear RC frame system as a function of its
strength of a RC frame element is the design basis for force-controlled lateral stiffness and strength. This, however, cannot be achieved by
actions such as shear. For instance, the shear demand of a beam needs nonlinear time-history analyses. Accordingly, capacity spectrum
to be determined using the probable moments evaluated based on the method [30,31], which employs nonlinear static analysis, is adopted to
actual flexural design results [27]. Accordingly, this study focuses on
the optimal flexural design of RC frames with an aim to minimize the Table 1
overall cost associated with concrete and flexural reinforcement con- Beam plastic hinge rotation capacity [θ] (unit: rad.).
sumed by the beams and columns. Moreover, the proposed optimal
ρ − ρ' Vb Performance Level
design considers multiple levels of seismic hazard, including occasional, ρbal
bd f c'
rare, and very rare earthquakes defined as the events with an ex- IO LS CP
ceedance rate of 50%, 10%, and 2% in 50 years, respectively [28]. Note
that, as the basic requirements, ASCE 41-13 [1] requires a structure to ≤0.0 ≤3 0.010 0.025 0.05
≥6 0.005 0.020 0.04
meet the performance objectives under both rare and very rare earth-
≥0.5 ≤3 0.005 0.020 0.03
quakes. Following this PBSD standard, the plastic hinge rotation of the ≥6 0.005 0.015 0.02
beams and the columns is employed as the major performance
16
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
17
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
The needed column flexural strength at the support, Mnc,2, can then simplification purpose, the optimal design result would be close to the
be derived as 1.5ΣMnb. optimal solution that can reflect design practice.
(3) The code-specified maximum reinforcement ratio of a member
section needs to be satisfied. Moreover, based on ACI 318-14 [27], 6. Determination of feasible region boundary
the positive moment strength of a beam section in the plastic hinge
regions shall be at least 50% of the negative moment resistance. 6.1. Overview
5. Simplifications The key to solving Eq. (1) is the determination of feasible region
boundary, which is obtained first in the λ–α domain. A point situated
The optimal design of a structural system is ultimately represented on the feasible region boundary shown in Fig. 1(b) can be interpreted as
by the stiffness and strength properties of each component. For con- either the minimal λ satisfying performance criteria at a given lateral
venience of formulation, two dimensionless design variables, a relative strength of the system or the minimal α at a given stiffness. The former
flexural stiffness factor denoted as λ and a relative flexural strength definition is considered to formulate an iterative procedure used to
factor denoted as α, are defined for each member. The relative stiffness determine the feasible region boundary. A set of discrete α values
factor λ is defined as the ratio of section moment of inertia varying ranging from αG to 1 are selected. For each α, the flexural strength of a
during optimization to that determined from the initial design. The member, Mn, is modified from the initial design based on Eq. (2). Note
relative strength factor α is defined as that because optimizing λ reduces section size and thus tends to in-
Mn − MG crease flexural reinforcement ratio, the code-specified minimum re-
α=
Mn,0 − MG (2) inforcement requirement is not implemented when evaluating Mn,0 in
Eq. (2) for the initial design. For the RC frame with a specific value of α,
where Mn is member flexural strength varying during optimization, Mn,0 λ is minimized for each level of earthquake hazard using a procedure
is the flexural strength determined from the initial design without described in Section 6.4; the controlling value of λ gives the optimal λ
considering minimum reinforcement ratio requirement, and MG is the for this α. This procedure is repeated for all selected α values so that a
bending moment caused only by the gravity loads considered in the piecewise linear feasible region boundary is defined in the λ–α domain.
seismic design. If ASCE 7-10 [35] is followed, MG is determined based The height and effective depth of a beam are denoted in the fol-
on a gravity load combination of 1.2D + L (or 0.5L), where D = dead lowing discussions as h and d, respectively. Their values from the initial
load and L = live load. design are designated as h0 and d0. When minimizing λ at a given value
Because many beams and columns exist in a RC frame, the total of the relative strength factor α, the cross-sectional area of frame
number of design variables in terms of λ and α for the entire system far members is reduced. Accordingly, in addition to limiting plastic hinge
exceeds the two decision variables Ωc and Ws in Eq. (1). To limit the rotation and inter-story drift ratio, the maximum reinforcement ratio
computational cost associated with optimization and enable expressing permitted by design codes, ρmax, needs to be considered as a constraint.
the feasible region eventually using the two decision variables, this The flexural capacity of a beam can be expressed as
study intends to reduce the number of design variables to two as well.
For this purpose, it is required that both the ratio of cross-sectional Mn = ωbd 2f c' (1 − 0.59ω) (3)
dimension and the ratio of flexural strength among different members
determined from the initial design be maintained during optimization. where is concrete compressive strength; b is beam width; and ω is a
f c'
In other words, the relative stiffness factor λ and the relative strength tensile reinforcement index calculated as ω = ρf y / f c' with fy being the
factor α are uniformly applied to all the RC frame members at any step yield strength of reinforcement. Approximating d/d0 as h/h0, the
of optimization and function as the overall indices measuring stiffness minimum λ corresponding to ρmax can be derived as
and strength of the entire system. With such a simplification, the ad- 4
3
ditional design requirements described previously, regarding strong- ⎧ ⎛ MG ⎞ MG ⎤ ⎛ ω0 ⎞ ⎛ 1 − 0.59ω0 ⎞ ⎫
λmin,1 = ⎡α ⎜1 − ⎟ +
column/weak-beam and positive flexural strength of a beam section,
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎨⎢ ⎝ Mn,0 ⎠ M ⎥
n,0 ⎦ ⎝ ωmax ⎠ ⎝ 1 − 0.59ωmax ⎠ ⎬ (4)
⎩⎣ ⎭
are not necessary to be considered as optimization constraints, because
they are automatically satisfied once they have been enforced in the where ω0 and ωmax are beam tensile reinforcement index according the
initial design. initial design and ρmax, respectively. The flexural stiffness of a beam also
A series of values for α are selected and λ is then optimized for each needs to satisfy the deflection serviceability requirement under gravity
α using the algorithm described in Section 6.4 to determine the feasible loading. Denoting the minimum relative stiffness needed for this pur-
region boundary in the λ–α domain shown in Fig. 1(b). λ = 1 and pose as λmin,2, the lower bound of λ is then defined as [λ] = max
α = 1 correspond to the sectional stiffness and strength from the initial {λmin,1, λmin,2}.
design, respectively. The parameter λ correlates concrete volume Ωc; The first-stage optimization problem that minimizes the relative
the parameter α can be translated into the consumption of flexural stiffness factor λ at a given relative strength factor α can then be stated
reinforcement Ws and indicates the degree of reducing needed member as Eq. (5). Section 6.4 presents the detailed algorithm for solving this
flexural strength from that determined from the initial design. A RC optimization problem. Because the flexural strength of a column in-
frame shall be designed also based on the load combinations purely for teracts with its axial force, which varies during lateral loading, [λ]
gravity loading. A relative strength factor αG corresponding to gravity corresponding to ρmax for columns cannot be predefined and needs to be
design is defined accordingly and taken as the lower bound of α. αG is checked during optimization. However, the optimal design for λ may
evaluated using Eq. (2) by replacing Mn with MG,0 (MG,0 > MG), the not be affected by ρmax for the columns due to its high permitted value;
bending moment demand due to the load combinations for gravity according to ACI 318-14 [27], the maximum column reinforcement
design (i.e., 1.2D + 1.6L per ASCE 7-10 [35]). ratio evaluated using all longitudinal bars and the entire cross section
Due to the above simplifications, the design result based on the area is 4% and 8% in the regions with and without splicing, respec-
proposed approach would not be a global optimal solution. However, in tively. Once the optimal result of λ becomes available, the section size
a seismic design of RC frame, the member sizes are typically the same in of each frame member and thus the total volume of concrete Ωc can be
every two to three stories. Moreover, the beam flexural reinforcement is determined based on the definition of λ. The optimization problem Eq.
normally identical on each side of a beam-column joint. All these fea- (5) is implemented to all selected values of α (αG ≤ α ≤ 1) for each
tures can be incorporated in the initial design. Thus, even if the factors level of seismic hazard. The data sets of α and optimized λ constitute
α and λ are used to uniformly modify the initial design for the feasible region boundary in the λ–α domain.
18
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
Minimize λ
Subjectto ∀ θ ≤ [θ]
∀ γ ≤ [γ ](optional)
λ ≥ [λ] (5)
To solve Eq. (5) at each selected α (αG ≤ α ≤ 1), the peak seismic δ γ θ 1
= = =
response of RC frame in terms of plastic hinge rotation θ and inter-story δ0 γ0 θ0 λ (8)
drift γ need to be determined for each level of seismic hazard. This is
achieved using capacity spectrum method [30,31]. For the RC frame where δ0, γ0, and θ0 are the roof displacement, the inter-story drift
with a specific value of α but without stiffness modification from the ratio, and the plastic rotation angle of the structure without stiffness
initial design (i.e., λ = 1), nonlinear static analysis is conducted. The modification (i.e., λ = 1).
analysis provides information regarding base shear, roof displacement, Eq. (8) is of significant convenience for solving the first-stage op-
inter-story drift ratio, and plastic hinge rotation. The beams and col- timization problem defined in Eq. (5). As shown in Fig. 3, once the base
umns are modeled by line elements having concentrated plasticity at shear vs. roof displacement (V-δ) response of a frame system at a given
ends (plastic hinges). The sections outside the plastic hinge regions are value of α but without stiffness reduction (λ = 1) becomes available, it
linear elastic with a flexural stiffness taking into account the effects of can be used to directly construct a nonlinear V-δ response for the system
concrete cracking. Following gravity loading, lateral loads corre- with modified flexural stiffness. Accordingly, there is no need to per-
sponding to the first vibration mode are applied. However, if the var- form extra structural analyses during the process of searching for op-
iation of inertia force distribution due to inelastic response is con- timal λ for the structure at the selected α. Thus, the total number of
sidered, an adaptive lateral load pattern [32,36] accounting for the pushover analyses needed to complete the proposed optimal seismic
effects of higher modes and member yielding can be used to more ac- design is identical to the number of discretized α values (αG ≤ α ≤ 1)
curately capture the structural response by means of nonlinear static chosen to define a feasible region boundary.
analyses.
The lateral loading response of the structure with λ = 1 evaluated 6.3. Estimation of peak dynamic response at different seismic hazards
by a nonlinear static analysis consists of the generation of a series of
plastic hinges. Even if the occurrence of each plastic hinging modifies For each selected relative strength factor α, the peak lateral de-
the system stiffness matrix, it remains identical between two sub- formation response of the structure without stiffness optimization
sequent hinging. Lateral loading causing the jth plastic hinge is taken as (λ = 1) due to each level of seismic hazard is determined using capacity
loading step j and designated by a subscript within parenthesis in the spectrum method [30,31]. In this method, as shown in Fig. 4(a), the
following discussions. Denoting the system stiffness matrix during lumped masses at different stories, roof displacement δ and base shear V
loading step j as K(j), the increase in horizontal displacement of the in the MDOF system are transformed into mass M, displacement D and
system Δu(j) and the increase in lateral load ΔF(j) satisfies lateral force F in an equivalent inelastic SDOF system where spectral
ΔF(j) = K(j)Δu(j). Thus, the total displacement u(j) at the completion of concept applies. The ratio of F to M defines a pseudo-acceleration A.
the jth loading step under load F(j) is The V–δ curve obtained from the nonlinear static analysis for the MDOF
j system (Fig. 4(b)) is converted into an acceleration-displacement (A–D)
{u}(j) = ∑ K (−k1) ΔF(k) curve in the equivalent SDOF system (Fig. 4(c)) and then idealized into
k=1 (6) an elastic-perfectly plastic response based on energy absorption
equivalence. The idealized bilinear response is taken as a capacity curve
When the relative stiffness factor λ is applied uniformly to all frame
with a yield acceleration of Ay at a yield displacement of Dy, as shown
members to reduce their flexural stiffness, the stiffness matrix of the
by the dashed lines in Fig. 4(c). According to the slop of elastic branch
new system during the jth loading step can be expressed as K (λj) = λK (j) .
of the capacity curve and the equivalent mass M, an effective period T
Additionally, at a fixed value of α, modifying λ has no impact on load
for the equivalent SDOF system can be determined.
increase ΔF(λj) needed to generate a new plastic hinge, that is,
Each level of seismic hazard is represented by the elastic spectral
ΔF(λj) = ΔF(j) . Thus, the lateral displacement of the system with modified
acceleration Sae at 5% critical damping ratio evaluated using the ef-
stiffness can be derived as
fective period T. The seismic demand for an inelastic SDOF system
j
1 under a specific level of seismic hazard is represented by an inelastic
u (λj) = ∑ [K (λk) ]−1ΔF(λk) = u (j) spectrum, also termed as demand curve. This curve, expressed by Eq.
k=1
λ (7)
(9), formulates the spectral displacement Sd as a function of Ay = Sae/R,
Accordingly, under the same lateral load F(j) before causing a col- ductility ratio μ, and the effective period T. Among the three entities of
lapse mechanism, the roof displacement δ, inter-story drift ratio γ, and R, μ, and T, two are independent and various formulations for the
plastic hinge rotation angle θ of the system modified by λ must satisfy R–μ–T relationship [33,34] are available. The intersecting point of the
19
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
20
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
21
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
Table 3
Flexural capacity and flexural reinforcement ratio of members in initial design (unit: kN-m for moment).
Floor Beam Column
M− ρ− M+ ρ+ M− ρ− M+ ρ+ M ρ M ρ
Roof 416 0.49% 336 0.39% 509 0.61% 336 0.39% 475 1.0% 565 1.0%
5 592 0.72% 336 0.39% 625 0.75% 336 0.39% 565 1.0% 723 1.0%
4 638 0.77% 336 0.39% 684 0.83% 342 0.40% 622 1.0% 881 1.0%
3 764 0.62% 487 0.35% 803 0.66% 487 0.35% 1085 1.0% 1514 1.0%
2 790 0.64% 487 0.35% 816 0.66% 487 0.35% 1175 1.0% 1695 1.0%
1 736 0.59% 487 0.35% 776 0.62% 487 0.35% 1254 1.0% 1921 1.0%
period (Ss) and 1-sec periods (S1) as well as the site condition. Ss and S1 evaluated based on the individual types of constraint (i.e., plastic hinge
are 1.50 g and 0.60 g for very rare earthquakes (2%/50-yrs events) and ration limit, drift limit, and minimum relative stiffness factor) for each
1.00 g and 0.377 g for rare earthquakes (10%/50-yrs events), respec- seismic hazard level. It is seen that the optimized λ is approximately
tively. Ss and S1 for occasional earthquakes (50%/50-yrs events) are not linear with respect to α except for inter-story drift due to occasional
available from the seismic maps. Based on ASCE 41–06 [29] and a mean earthquakes. In general, the optimized λ decreases with increased α for
return period of 72 years, Ss and S1 are evaluated as 0.436 g and 0.164 g each individual type of constraint. In other words, the flexural strength
for occasional earthquakes. The R-μ-T relationship suggested by Vidic and stiffness of the structural members are not independent to each
et al. [34], which considers the effects of hysteretic behavior, is em- other in terms of the optimization results. As seen in Fig. 8, if no
ployed for Eq. (9). The peak ground motion acceleration and velocity at strength reduction is considered (i.e., α = 1), inter-story drift limit for
a specified seismic hazard, needed for applying the R-μ-T relationship, LS under rare earthquakes governs the optimal relative stiffness factor
are determined based on the mapped data provided by U.S. Geological λ. In this case, λ is determined as 0.51, leading to a 29% reduction in
Survey. cross-sectional area. If inter-story drift is not taken as a constraint, the
The optimization procedure described previously is followed. Eight optimal relative stiffness factor becomes λ = 0.40, controlled almost
values for the relative strength factor, including α = αG = 0.28 and identically by plastic hinge rotation limit for LS under rare earthquakes
α = 0.4–1 at an interval of 0.1, are selected to determine the feasible or inter-story drift limit for IO under occasional earthquakes.
region boundary in the λ–α domain. For each α, the optimal relative The pairs of selected α and the governing optimal λ based on all
stiffness factor λ is evaluated for the three considered levels of seismic constraints constitute the feasible region boundary in the λ–α domain
hazard and shown in Fig. 8. Because eight α values are preselected, shown in Fig. 8. The optimal λ is controlled by either inter-story drift
totally eight nonlinear static analyses are conducted. Moreover, for ratio limit for Life Safety (LS) under rare earthquakes if 0.5 ≤ α ≤ 1 or
each α, no more than seven iteration steps are used to obtain a con- plastic-hinge rotation limit for Immediate Occupancy (IO) under occa-
verged result of the optimal λ. For each selected α value, the numerical sional earthquakes if 0.28 ≤ α < 0.5. Note that the inter-story drift
procedures involved in performing a nonlinear pushover analysis, limit under occasional earthquake is far from controlling the feasible
constructing an idealized bilinear capacity (A-D) curve, and searching region boundary. This result is remarkably different from some existing
the optimal stiffness parameter λ take 30–50 min for a personal com- optimal PBSD approaches for RC frames [7,8,15,18], which optimized
puter with a 16 GB RAM and a dual core 2.6 GHz CPU. The total section size based only on the inter-story drift limit under minor
computer time used to complete the optimal PBSD design of the pro- earthquakes. Moreover, deformation limits defined for CP under very
totype building is about 5 h. Note that this amount of time does not rare earthquakes also have no impact on the feasible region boundary.
include the time required to perform flexural designs of the critical For each pair of α and λ on the feasible region boundary shown in
sections and evaluate material consumptions Ωc and Ws for each pair of Fig. 8, the needed section size is determined, and the flexural designs of
α and the corresponding optimal λ. These procedures can be compu- beams and columns are conducted. Then, the total weight of steel re-
terized but not coded into a computer program in this study. inforcement Ws and total concrete volume Ωc for all the beams (in-
For comparison purpose, Fig. 8 shows the optimized λ values cluding those in the transverse direction) and the columns located be-
tween the slab center lines enclosing an interior frame are evaluated.
Fig. 8. Determination of feasible region boundary in the λ–α domain. Fig. 9. Feasible region boundary and optimal solution.
22
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
Design Spectrum
2.5
Individual Response Spectrum
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (sec)
Fig. 10. Application of capacity spectrum method to the optimized structure. Fig. 11. Acceleration response spectra for scaled ground motions for very rare
earthquakes.
Table 4
Comparison of cost for the initial and optimal designs. based on the optimal design are evaluated and compared in Table 4.
The optimal design cuts 18.9%, 22.4%, and 21.1% of material cost,
Initial design Optimal design Cost reduction
($) ($) (%) labor cost, and total cost, respectively. The optimal design reduces the
needed flexural strengths of the beams and columns by 30%. However,
Concrete 37,497 27,977 25.4 because of the 26% decrease in cross sectional area, the cost of flexural
Flexural reinforcement 17,305 16,441 4.99
reinforcement in the optimal design is reduced by only 5%. Major cost
Labor 86,098 66,805 22.4
Total cost 140,900 111,223 21.1 saving is contributed by the significantly decreased concrete con-
sumption. The transverse reinforcement needed for shear and confine-
ment in the beams and columns are designed based on ACI 318–14
Fig. 9 shows the converted feasible region boundary defined in the [27]. If taking into account the costs associated with transverse re-
Ωc–Ws domain. To define the objective function expressed in Eq. (1), inforcement, the overall cost of the interior frame is reduced by 18%
the unit cost of concrete and steel reinforcement, cc and cs, are calcu- from $171,760 for the initial design to $140,394 for the optimal design.
lated based on the construction cost data published by the BNi Building
News [40] and RS Means [41]. cc and cs consider both material and 8.3. Dynamic response of optimized RC frame building
labor cost; cc also includes formwork cost defined based on four uses.
The dashed line in Fig. 9 shows the object function. The tangent point Compared with the initial strength-based design, the optimal PBSD
between the objective function and feasible region gives the optimal considerably reduces needed flexural stiffness and strength of the
solution in terms of Ws and Ωc, which correspond to α = 0.70 and beams and columns. Moreover, the proposed optimization approach
λ = 0.55. The optimal design leads to a 30% reduction in needed estimates the peak dynamic response of a nonlinear system using ca-
flexural strength and a 26% reduction in cross-sectional area from the pacity spectrum method. Nonlinear time-history analyses are conducted
initial strength-based design. to examine the dynamic response of the optimized structure. Ten
Fig. 10 shows the capacity curve for the optimized structure ground motions recorded during M6.2 to M7.3 earthquakes at soft rock
(λ = 0.55, α = 0.70) in the equivalent SDOF system and the demand sites, are selected from the database provided by the Pacific Earthquake
curves (inelastic displacement–acceleration spectra) for the three levels Engineering Research Center. Table 5 shows the record number, mag-
of considered earthquake hazard. As shown by the capacity curve de- nitude (Mw), fault type, closest distance to the surface projection of
rived from nonlinear static analysis, the structure experiences little rupture surface (Rjb), and closest distance to the rupture surface (Rrup)
strength degradation after reaching the peak load. Moreover, the de- of the chosen ground motions. To represent the three levels of earth-
mand curve for occasional earthquakes intersects the first branch of the quake hazard, the peak ground accelerations (PGAs) of the chosen re-
idealized bilinear capacity curve, indicating an overall elastic behavior cords are scaled so that the response spectrum for each seismic hazard
of the optimized structure under occasional earthquakes. matches the design spectrum. During the scaling, the mean squared
The costs of the interior frame based on the initial design and that error within 0.2 T and 1.5 T (T = fundamental period of the structure
Table 5
Ground motion details.
No. Year Earthquake Record No. in database Mw Rjb (km) Rrup (km) Fault Type Scaled PGA (g)
1 1983 Coalinga 357 6.36 32.8 34.0 Reverse 0.301 0.692 1.086
2 1984 Morgan Hill 472 6.19 31.9 31.9 Strike-slip 0.199 0.458 0.718
3 1989 Loma Prieta 748 6.93 43.9 44.1 Reverse/Oblique 0.153 0.351 0.551
4 1994 Northridge 948 6.69 41.1 41.4 Reverse 0.242 0.557 0.874
5 1999 Chi-Chi 1259 7.62 43.5 47.9 Reverse/Oblique 0.194 0.446 0.700
6 1999 Hector Mine 1762 7.13 41.8 43.1 Strike-slip 0.157 0.361 0.566
7 1992 Landers 3752 7.28 45.3 45.3 Strike-slip 0.200 0.461 0.723
8 2004 Niigata 4230 6.63 36.8 39.4 Reverse 0.273 0.627 0.984
9 2007 Chuetsu-oki 5261 6.80 42.0 45.4 Reverse 0.144 0.331 0.519
10 2008 Iwate 5779 6.90 36.3 36.3 Reverse 0.139 0.319 0.501
23
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
7 7 7
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
(a) Limit = 1% (b) Limit = 2% (c) Limit = 4%
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5
Inter-story Drift Ratio (%) Inter-story Drift Ratio (%) Inter-story Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 12. Peak inter-story drift for optimized building subjected to ground motions scaled for (a) occasional earthquakes, (b) rare earthquakes, and (c) very rare
earthquakes.
Fig. 13. Ratio of average peak plastic hinge rotation demand to capacity (θmax/[θ]) for optimized building (α = 0.70 and λ = 0.55) subjected to ground motions
scaled for (a) occasional earthquakes, (b) rare earthquakes, and (c) very rare earthquakes.
with the initial design) is minimized. Table 5 lists the scaled PGAs of the earthquakes, only one ground excitation causes yielding and, as shown
ten ground motions. Fig. 11 shows the response spectra of each ground in Fig. 13(a), the yielding occurs only in a few beams. Under rare
motion, the average response spectrum, and the design spectrum for earthquakes, all the beams experience yielding in terms of the average
very rare earthquakes. response (Fig. 13(b)). The average θmax/[θ] ranges from 0.011 to 0.518
Dynamic analyses are conducted on the optimized building using and is much lower in the columns than in most of the beams. Under
the scaled ground motions. In general, the average peak dynamic re- very rare earthquakes, the average θmax is less than 67% of capacity in
sponses meet the target performance requirements under the three le- any member (Fig. 13(c)). As shown in Fig. 13(b) and (c), column
vels of seismic hazard. Fig. 12 shows the profiles of peak inter-story yielding occurs at the upper stories, which is not predicted by the
drift γmax caused by individual ground motions and the average γmax. nonlinear static analyses, indicating the effects of higher vibration
The maximum average γmax, occurring in either the 4th or the 5th floor, modes.
is 1.02% for occasional earthquake, 2.09% for rare earthquake, 3.13% Note that Fig. 13 is used to demonstrate the magnitude of θmax/[θ]
for very rare earthquake. Thus, the maximum average γmax only slightly evaluated in an average sense. However, for an individual ground
exceeds the drift limit of 1% for the occasional earthquakes and 2% for motion, the actual plastic hinge distribution pattern at the time of
the rare earthquakes, which are shown by the vertical dashed lines. reaching peak response is not identical to that shown in Fig. 13. Even if
The rotation capacity of a plastic hinge varies during dynamic all the columns in the 5th story are labeled with plastic hinges at both
loading due to the change in beam shear or column axial force. Thus, a the top and bottom ends in Fig. 13(c), those plastic hinges do not ap-
normalized plastic hinge rotation, defined as the ratio of plastic hinge pear at the same time under a specific ground motion; thus, no soft-
rotation demand to capacity (θ/[θ]), is considered. The peak θ/[θ] story mechanism is formed by any ground motion. As examples,
experienced over entire loading history, denoted as θmax/[θ], is iden- Fig. 14(a) and (b) show the normalized plastic hinge rotation dis-
tified for each ground motion. Fig. 13 shows the distribution of average tribution at the peak response during (1) the 2004 Niigata earthquake
θmax/[θ] for the three levels of seismic hazard. Under occasional scaled for very rare earthquakes, which leads to the highest inter-story
24
C. Zhang, Y. Tian Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 15–25
25