0 views

Uploaded by Rodrigo Lezameta

- Converting external load to mass
- Dampers in Bridges 2010
- SEMIACTIVE CONTROL OF SEISMICALLY ISOLATED BRIDGES
- Bmcm3743021415 Getaran Mekanikal Mechanical Vibration
- Study on self‐adjustable tuned mass damper with variable mass
- Shaking Table Graphs
- Conference, Applications, Industries - 2010 - Compit’10
- Survey Paper on Study the Performance of High Rise Structure with Dampers at different Location
- Benefits and Potential Drawbacks of VSDs
- WIND FLOW INDUCED VIBRATIONS
- The Vibroacoustic Analysis of The Hydrocarbon Processing Plant Piping System Operating at Elevated Temperature.pdf
- WWTP OPERATOR PRESENTATION.pdf
- What is Vibration1
- Motor Status 6
- 6. IJCE - Seismic Response of Tall Building With Underground Storey Using Dampers
- IBP1332_12
- Resume Updated
- How to Do Research
- Matlab Sheet 2
- Shaker - Folleto

You are on page 1of 23

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered

office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Engineering Optimization

Publication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geno20

placement of friction dampers under

seismic loading

a b

Letícia Fleck Fadel Miguel , Leandro Fleck Fadel Miguel & Rafael

b

Holdorf Lopez

a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Rio

Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

b

Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa

Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Published online: 30 Mar 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Letícia Fleck Fadel Miguel, Leandro Fleck Fadel Miguel & Rafael Holdorf Lopez

(2015): Simultaneous optimization of force and placement of friction dampers under seismic

loading, Engineering Optimization, DOI: 10.1080/0305215X.2015.1025774

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the

“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,

our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to

the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions

and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,

and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources

of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,

proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising

out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any

substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

Engineering Optimization, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2015.1025774

dampers under seismic loading

Letícia Fleck Fadel Miguela∗ , Leandro Fleck Fadel Miguelb and Rafael Holdorf Lopezb

a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil;

b Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

It is known that the use of passive energy-dissipation devices, such as friction dampers, reduces consid-

erably the dynamic response of a structure subjected to earthquake ground motions. Nevertheless, the

parameters of each damper and the best placement of these devices remain difficult to determine. Some

articles on optimum design of tuned mass dampers and viscous dampers have been published; however,

there is a lack of studies on optimization of friction dampers. The main contribution of this article is

to propose a methodology to simultaneously optimize the location of friction dampers and their friction

forces in structures subjected to seismic loading, to achieve a desired level of reduction in the response.

For this purpose, the recently developed backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSA) is employed,

which can deal with optimization problems involving mixed discrete and continuous variables. For illus-

tration purposes, two different structures are presented. The first is a six-storey shear building and the

second is a transmission line tower. In both cases, the forces and positions of friction dampers are the

design variables, while the objective functions are to minimize the interstorey drift for the first case and

to minimize the maximum displacement at the top of the tower for the second example. The results show

that the proposed method was able to reduce the interstorey drift of the shear building by more than 65%

and the maximum displacement at the top of the tower by approximately 55%, with only three friction

dampers. The proposed methodology is quite general and it could be recommended as an effective tool for

optimum design of friction dampers for structural response control. Thus, this article shows that friction

dampers can be designed in a safe and economic way.

Keywords: friction dampers optimization; dynamic problem optimization; mixed discrete and contin-

uous variables; backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSA); passive vibration control; seismic

load

1. Introduction

For a long time, reduction of vibration amplitudes has been the subject of study by many

researchers. For example, the use of vibration absorbers dates back to the 1900s when Frahm,

in 1909, proposed a kind of tuned mass damper (TMD). The Frahm model was applied to a

main spring-mass without damping that was attached to a small spring-mass without damping to

reduce the displacement of the main mass subjected to harmonic load. More recently, there has

been a rapid increase in the development and application of passive energy-dissipation devices,

such as viscoelastic dampers, viscous fluid dampers, metallic yield dampers and friction dampers

(Soong and Dargush 1997). A growing number of these dampers has been installed in structures

2 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

around the world. For example, in the McConnell Library of Concordia University in Montreal,

Canada, 143 friction dampers were employed; in the Funade Pedestrian Bridge tower in Osaka,

Japan, an air damper type TMD was developed for the structure; and 260 viscoelastic dampers

were incorporated into the Columbia SeaFirst Building in Seattle, USA (Soong and Dargush

1997). The objective of these devices is to absorb a portion of the input energy, due to earthquake

or wind, for instance, reducing the dynamic response of the structure. Despite the known effec-

tiveness of these dampers in reducing the dynamic response, as been shown in many works (e.g.

Filiatrault 1985; Qu, Chen, and Xu 2001; Rocha, Riera, and Miguel 2004; Miguel, Curadelli,

and Riera 2004; Curadelli, Riera, and Miguel 2006; Miguel, Riera, and Curadelli 2006; Min,

Seong, and Kim 2010), the development of methods for optimum use of these devices is still an

important research issue.

To enable utilization of these dampers in an economic way, several researchers, especially in

the past decade, have started to study the optimization of their parameters and their best posi-

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

tions in a structure. Although a great number of articles on optimization of TMD exists (e.g.

Chen and Wu 2001; Li and Qu 2006; Lee et al. 2006; Desu, Deb, and Dutta 2006; Warnitchai

and Hoang 2006; Ghosh and Basu 2007; Hoang, Fujino, and Warnitchai 2008; Wang, Lin, and

Lian 2009; Marano, Greco, and Chiaia 2010; Dehghan-Niri, Zahrai, and Mohtat 2010; Arfiadi

and Hadi 2011; Farshi and Assadi 2011; Mohebbi et al. 2013; Fadel Miguel, Lopez, and Miguel

2013a; Lavan and Daniel 2013; Brzeski, Perlikowski, and Kapitaniak 2014), along with some

works on the optimum design of viscous and viscoelastic dampers (e.g. Singh and Moreschi

2002; Movaffaghi and Friberg 2006; Aydin, Boduroglu, and Guney 2007; Marano, Trentadue,

and Greco 2007; Aydin 2012; Sonmez, Aydin, and Karabork 2013), the authors have not found

any article dealing with the problem of optimization of friction dampers in structures subjected

to seismic action, in which both parameters, friction forces and placement (best location), are

optimized simultaneously. However, some important investigations on the optimization of fric-

tion or hysteretic dampers, which deal with the optimization problem from different perspectives,

contribute to the knowledge on the issue (e.g. Moreschi 2000; Jangid 2000; Uetani, Tsuji, and

Takewaki 2003; Moreschi and Singh 2003; Basili and De Angelis 2007).

Within this context, this article studies the optimization of a different type of passive control:

friction dampers, for which there is a lack of studies in the literature. The main contribution of the

present article is to propose a methodology to optimize at the same time the location of friction

dampers and their friction forces in structures subjected to seismic loading, to achieve a desired

level of reduction in the dynamic response. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first

work to deal with this simultaneous optimization of friction dampers for passive control.

Because the location of a friction damper at a particular position in a structure is a discrete

number, it is a discrete design variable, whereas the friction forces of each damper are best rep-

resented by continuous numbers, i.e. they are continuous design variables. So, the optimization

algorithm must assess a mixed-variable optimization problem that includes both discrete and

continuous variables at the same time. Such problems are usually non-convex, and therefore

must be solved by optimization methods capable of handling this type of problem. Heuristic

algorithms are well suited to solving such optimization problems. The advantages of these algo-

rithms include the following: (1) they do not require gradient information and can be applied

to problems in which the gradient is difficult to obtain or simply does not exist; (2) they do

not become stuck in local minima if correctly tuned; (3) they can be applied to non-smooth or

discontinuous functions; (4) they furnish a set of optimal solutions instead of a single solution,

giving the designer a set of options from which to choose; and (5) they can be easily employed

to solve mixed-variable optimization problems (Miguel and Fadel Miguel 2012; Fadel Miguel,

Lopez, and Miguel 2013b).

Many heuristic algorithms have been presented in the recent literature, such as the bat

algorithm (Yang and Gandomi 2012), cuckoo search (Gandomi, Yang, and Alavi 2013b) and

Engineering Optimization 3

krill herd (Gandomi, Alavi, and Talatahari 2013a; Gandomi et al. 2013), to name just a few.

A review of nature-inspired algorithms can be found in Yang (2008, 2010). Among the heuris-

tic algorithms, the backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSA), developed by Civicioglu

(2013), has been shown to be very accurate and efficient (Civicioglu 2013); therefore, the BSA

is selected for solving the optimization problem proposed in this article.

Finally, it is important to note that uncertainties in the structural properties and/or in the

seismic excitation can influence the optimum solution. Therefore, it would be ideal if these

uncertainties were taken into account in the optimization procedure, leading to a problem of

optimization under uncertainty, e.g. robust optimization (Greco, Lucchini, and Marano 2014;

Lucchini et al. 2014) or reliability-based design (Taflanidis, Beck, and Angelides 2007). How-

ever, in this article a simplified model is adopted, which considers the problem to be deterministic

in order to focus the attention on the proposed design methodology. From the practical point of

view, the proposed approach may be extended to more complex models, e.g. robust optimization

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

or reliability-based design of passive control devices. The main issue with this extension is the

huge computational cost, which is already high for the deterministic problem.

The proposed optimization procedure is followed by verification through numerical exam-

ples. This article is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the problem formulation, Section 3

describes the BSA, Section 4 presents the two illustrative examples, and Section 5 presents some

conclusions.

2. Problem formulation

This section presents the equation of motion, the simulation procedure of seismic loading and

the proposed optimization problem.

The differential equation that governs the motion of a multi-degree-of-freedom system with

added friction dampers and subjected to earthquake ground motions may be written as:

Mz̈(t) + Cż(t) + F (1)

in which M, C and K represent the n × n structural mass, inherent damping and stiffness matri-

ces, respectively, and n is the number of degrees of freedom. The damping matrix C is considered

to be proportional to the M and K matrices, as: C = aM + bK. z(t) is the n-dimensional rela-

tive displacement vector with respect to the base and a dot over a symbol indicates differentiation

with respect to time. B is an n × d matrix of ground motion influence coefficients, i.e. this matrix

contains the cosine directors of the angles formed between the base motion and the direction of

the associated displacement with the considered degree of freedom. d is the number of considered

ground motions (directions). ÿ(t) is a d-dimensional vector representing the seismic excitation,

i.e. the base acceleration. F f (t) is the n-dimensional Coulomb friction force vector, which is

defined by:

F fn sgn(v̇(t))

f (t) = F (2)

fn = μN, is the

vector of normal force; v̇(t) is the vector of relative velocity between the two ends of the friction

4 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

⎧

⎨+1 for v̇(t) > 0

⎪

sgn(v̇(t)) = 0 for v̇(t) = 0 (3)

⎪

⎩

−1 for v̇(t) < 0

As may be seen in Equations (2) and (3), the magnitude of the friction force is constant, but

its direction is always opposite to that of the sliding velocity. In the problem under consider-

ation in this article, i.e. determining and minimizing the dynamic response of structures with

friction dampers, the direction of the sliding velocity changes often. These frequent changes in

the velocity direction cause many discontinuities in the friction force, complicating the process

of evaluating the response of systems with friction dampers.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

In this context, many authors have proposed alternative methods to represent the friction force.

Tan and Rogers (1995) present an analysis of the friction energy dissipated by each mode to

derive several models of equivalent friction modal damping. These friction damping factors can

be subtracted from the overall modal damping factors when carrying out computer simulations

where the dynamic friction forces are calculated directly. To verify whether the equivalent fric-

tion damping models are reasonable, Tan and Rogers (1995) simulated a two-degree-of-freedom

system using three approaches: a piecewise continuous analytical method, numerical integration

with a spring-damper friction model, and numerical integration with equivalent friction damping.

Five cases with periodic and non-periodic excitation were considered. These authors concluded

that the equivalent friction damping works very well for cases where sliding motions predom-

inate, and for long periods of sticking, the overall motions are predicted well but the detailed

motions are approximated.

Mostaghel and Davis (1997) showed that the discontinuous Coulomb friction force can be

represented by at least four different continuous functions. Each of these functions involves one

constant (α i ) that controls the level of accuracy of that function’s representation of the friction

force. The accuracy of the various representations was verified by these authors, comparing the

response of a single-degree-of-freedom system, obtained through numerical solutions utilizing

these representations, with an exact analytical solution. The four continuous functions analysed

by Mostaghel and Davis (1997) are given in Equation (4) and represented in Figure 1.

f1 (α1 , v̇) = Erf(α1 v̇)

f3 (α3 , v̇) = (2/π )ArcTan(α3 v̇) (4)

f4 (α4 , v̇) = α4 v̇/1 + α4 |v̇|

In this article, as well as in previous works (Miguel 2002; Miguel and Riera 2002; Curadelli,

Miguel, and Riera 2003; Miguel and Riera 2008), the authors chose to use the nonlinear function

f2 (α2 , v̇) = Tanh(α2 v̇), suggested by Mostaghel and Davis (1997). In this article it is assumed

that α 2 = 1e10 for both examples.

A computational routine was developed by the authors in MATLAB language for determining

the dynamic response of structures with added friction dampers, i.e. for solving Equation (1).

This developed program uses the finite difference explicit method, which is a direct method of

integration of the motion equations in the time domain. In addition, as previously explained,

the discontinuous signal function was replaced by the continuous hyperbolic tangent function,

according to function f 2 of Equation (4).

Engineering Optimization 5

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

Figure 1. Comparisons of the four representations of the signal function (α i = 10) proposed by Mostaghel and Davis

(1997).

To solve Equation (1), it is necessary to define the seismic loading. In the present article, as well

as in many studies found in the literature (e.g. Singh and Moreschi 2001; Singh and Moreschi

2002; Mohebbi et al. 2013), the seismic load is defined as a one-dimensional earthquake loading

that is simulated by passing a Gaussian white noise process through a Kanai–Tajimi filter (Kanai

1961; Tajimi 1960) with the power spectral density (PSD) function given by:

ωg4 + 4ωg2 ξg2 ω2 0.03ξg

S(ω) = S0 , S0 = (5)

(ω2 − ωg2 )2 + 4ωg2 ξg2 ω2 π ωg (4ξg2 + 1)

in which S 0 is constant spectral density and ξ g and ωg are the ground damping and frequency,

respectively. That is, this procedure enables the designer to construct the seismic records taking

into account characteristics of the soil where the structure will be built.

However, it is important to note that the optimal solution may vary if the spectral characteris-

tics (ξ g and ωg ) of the Kanai–Tajimi spectrum are changed. The ground damping and frequency

will depend on the characteristics of the region where the building is being or will be built, and

should be carefully chosen by the designer.

For illustrative purposes, it is considered that the building code of the region where the

structures are to be built requires a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.20 g. For the ground

parameters, values of ξ g = 0.5 and ωg = 20 rad/s are adopted.

The simulated time history of the Kanai–Tajimi excitation used for designing optimal friction

dampers is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the PSD of this generated acceleration record.

Based primarily on an analogy to the automotive brake, Pall, Marsh, and Fazio (1980) began the

development of passive frictional dampers to improve the seismic response of structures. The

objective is to slow down the motion of buildings ‘by braking rather than breaking’ (Pall and

Marsh 1982). Despite friction dampers having been used for around 30 years, a mathematical

optimization procedure for their use, based on optimization algorithms, either does not exist or is

6 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

Figure 2. Kanai–Tajimi excitation with peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g (1.96 m/s2 ).

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

not widely known. Thus, in this section, the proposed method for the optimum design of friction

dampers will be described.

Common criteria used to assess the effectiveness of passive energy-dissipation devices, such

as friction dampers, installed in structures are their ability to reduce the maximum displacement

(zmax ) of the structure and to reduce the maximum interstorey drift (d max ) in the case of build-

ings. In this article, the optimization problem has as objective function to minimize the maximum

interstorey drift for the case of the shear building (first example) and to minimize the maximum

displacement for the transmission line tower (second example), determined through the calcula-

tion of the vector z(t), which is obtained solving Equation (1) in the time domain. The proposed

method is flexible and the objective function can be changed easily, as long as it can be calculated

numerically.

The design variables are the friction forces of each friction damper (F fn ), considered as con-

tinuous variables, and the positions of each passive energy-dissipation device in the structure

(vector P ), considered as discrete variables. The corresponding constraints are the allowed limits

for the friction forces (lower bound ≤ F fn ≤ upper bound), the maximum number of dampers to

be installed (nd ) in the structure, and the number and position of predefined possible locations

for the dampers (np ).

Consequently, P is expressed as an np -dimensional vector of position consisting of 0 and 1,

which indicates that there is a damper in that position if the number is 1. Therefore, the maximum

number of ones in the vector P is nd . That is, presuming a maximum number of dampers, the

optimal variable shows different positions of number 0 and 1.

Engineering Optimization 7

Therefore, given all predetermined possible positions for the friction dampers in the structure

and the desired maximum number of devices to be placed in the structure, it is of interest to

determine the optimal location of each friction damper and the optimal friction forces of such

devices to achieve a maximum reduction in the structural response, when the structure is excited

by earthquake ground motions, using the BSA. For each optimization run, the program gives

the optimal placement of the friction dampers and the optimal friction force of each damper,

while constraining the maximum number of available dampers and predefined positions. For

]. Thus, the

fn , P

convenience of notation, the design variables are grouped into the vector x = [F

optimization problem can be posed as:

Find x

Minimizes J(x) = dmax (x) ou J(x) = zmax (x) (6)

⎧ j

⎪

⎨Ffn ≤ Ffn ≤ Ffn , j = 1, . . . , nd

min max

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

⎪

⎩

maximum number of dampers = nd

The optimization problem stated above can be solved using the BSA described in the next

section.

As explained previously, the optimization problem under consideration in the present article is a

mixed-variable optimization problem. Thus, the optimization algorithm must be able to deal with

a problem that includes both discrete and continuous variables at the same time. Such problems

are usually non-convex, and therefore must be solved by optimization methods capable of han-

dling this type of problem. Evolutionary algorithms are well suited to solve such optimization

problems.

Within this context, among the evolutionary algorithms, the BSA, developed recently by Civi-

cioglu (2013), has been shown to be very accurate and efficient (Civicioglu 2013); therefore, the

BSA is successfully used for solving the optimization problem proposed in this article.

The bio-inspired philosophy of the BSA is analogous to the return of a social group of liv-

ing creatures at random intervals to hunting areas that were previously found to be fruitful for

obtaining nourishment. According to Civicioglu (2013), the development of the BSA was moti-

vated by studies that attempt to develop simpler and more effective search algorithms. The BSA

has many advantages over other search algorithms, such as: it has a single control parameter,

namely mixrate; its performance in solving a problem is not oversensitive to the initial value

of this control parameter; it has a simple structure that is effective, fast and capable of solv-

ing multimodal problems and that enables it to easily adapt to different numerical optimization

problems; its strategy for generating a trial population includes two new crossover and muta-

tion operators; its strategies for generating trial populations and controlling the amplitude of

the search-direction matrix and search-space boundaries give it very powerful exploration and

exploitation capabilities; it possesses a memory in which it stores a population from a randomly

chosen previous generation for use in generating the search-direction matrix, and consequently,

its memory allows it to take advantage of experiences gained from previous generations when

it generates a trial preparation (Civicioglu 2013). In addition, Civicioglu (2013) compared 75

boundary-constrained benchmark problems and three constrained real-world benchmark prob-

lems, and showed that the BSA could solve the 78 benchmark problems more successfully than

the comparison algorithms (six widely used evolutionary algorithms).

8 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

The BSA is explained in detail in Civicioglu (2013), where in addition to a detailed description

of the algorithm, the author presents the pseudo-codes and provides the path to download the

algorithm for implementation (the software codes in MATLAB). Thus, in the present article only

a brief description of the BSA is presented. For a comprehensive review of the algorithm the

reader is referred to Civicioglu (2013).

According to Civicioglu (2013), the BSA can be divided into five processes or steps: Initial-

ization, Selection-I, Mutation, Crossover and Selection-II, which are described in the following

subsections.

3.1. Initialization

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

problem dimension, i.e. the length of the variable vector x. U is the uniform distribution and each

PPi is an individual in the population PP.

3.2. Selection-I

determined in this step. The initial oldPP is obtained by:

The BSA has the option of redefining the oldPP at the beginning of each iteration through the

following ‘if–then’ command:

in which : = is the update operation. Equation (9) ensures that the algorithm designates a pop-

ulation belonging to a randomly selected previous generation as the historical population and

remembers this historical population until it is changed. Therefore, BSA has a memory.

After the determination of oldPP, Equation (10) is used to randomly alter the order of the

individuals in oldPP.

oldPP := permuting(oldPP) (10)

The permuting function used in Equation (10) is a random shuffling function.

3.3. Mutation

The mutation process of the BSA generates the initial form of the trial population, called Mutant,

through:

Mutant = PP + FF · (oldPP − PP) (11)

in which FF is a parameter that controls the amplitude of the search-direction matrix (oldPP −

PP). Since the historical population is involved in this calculation, a trial population is gener-

ated, using the experience from previous generations. Civicioglu (2013) suggests using the value

FF = 3·rndn, in which rndn ∼ N(0,1), N being the standard normal distribution.

Engineering Optimization 9

3.4. Crossover

The crossover step of the BSA generates the final form of the trial population, called T. The

initial value of the trial population, called Mutant, is set in the Mutation stage, as explained

before. Trial individuals with better fitness values for the optimization problem are used to evolve

the target population individuals. The crossover stage of the BSA has two steps. The first step

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

Figure 4. Pseudo-code of the backtracking search optimization algorithm (adapted from Civicioglu 2013).

10 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

calculates a binary integer-valued matrix (map) of size N·D that indicates the individuals of T

to be manipulated by using the relevant individuals of PP. If mapn,m = 1, in which n ∈ {1, 2,

3, . . . , N} and m ∈ {1, 2, 3, . . . , D}, T is updated with T n,m : = PPn,m .

The crossover stage of the BSA is quite different from the crossover strategies used in the dif-

ferential evolution algorithm and its variants. The mix-rate parameter (mixrate) in the crossover

process of the BSA controls the number of elements of individuals that will mutate in a trial by

using [mixrate·rnd·D], rnd ∼ U(0,1). According to Civicioglu (2013), the function of the mix

rate is quite different from the crossover rate used in the differential evolution algorithm.

Two predefined strategies are randomly used to define the map. The first uses mixrate and the

second allows only one randomly chosen individual to mutate in each trial. The crossover step of

the BSA is more complex than the processes used in the differential evolution algorithm. Some

individuals of the trial population obtained at the end of the crossover stage can overflow the

allowed search-space limits as a result of the mutation strategy.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

3.5. Selection-II

In this step, the T i s that have better fitness values than the corresponding PPi s are used to update

the PPi s based on a greedy selection. If the best individual of PP (PPbest ) has a better fitness

value than the global minimum value obtained so far by BSA, the global minimizer is updated

to be PPbest and the global minimum value is updated to be the fitness value of PPbest .

Thus, the general steps of the BSA can be summarized as the pseudo-code shown in Figure 4,

adapted from Civicioglu (2013).

4. Simulated structures

In this section, two common structures will be studied to assess the capacity of the proposed

method to optimize simultaneously forces and positions of friction dampers, in order to reduce

the dynamic response of the structures.

The BSA parameter, namely mixrate, is 1.0 for both examples. This value was chosen based

on tests performed by the authors and also because it had been suggested by Civicioglu (2013).

As explained before, two objective functions are used to illustrate the proposed method for

the optimum design of friction dampers. Both objective functions involve the determination of

vector z(t), which is obtained by solving Equation (1). An in-house program developed by the

authors that uses the finite difference explicit method, which is a direct method of integration of

the motion equations in the time domain, is used to solve Equation (1).

The first example analysed is the steel six-storey shear building, 18 m high and 12 m wide, shown

in Figure 5. The concentrated masses of each one of the six storeys are equal to 82.0 × 103 kg,

while the equivalent stiffness of each storey is 290.0 × 106 N/m. Damping ratios for the first

and second modes are equal to 0.5% (a = 1.0699 × 10−1 and b = 1.7695 × 10−4 ). The natural

frequencies are 2.28, 6.71, 10.75, 14.17, 16.76 and 18.38 Hz.

As may be seen in Figure 5, there are six predefined possible locations (i.e. np = 6) for the

friction dampers, represented by P1, P2, . . . , P6. These devices are assumed to be installed

between neighbouring storeys by braces with sufficient stiffness.

Note that the angle φ (Figure 5), which represents the inclination of the dampers with the

direction of motion (horizontal), should be considered when calculating the friction forces of

Engineering Optimization 11

Friction damper

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

each damper. The difference between the friction forces of neighbouring storeys should also be

considered in this calculation.

To carry out the simultaneous optimization of friction forces and positions of the friction

dampers, this shear building is subjected to the generated Kanai–Tajimi excitation shown in

Figure 2.

The objective function for this illustrative example is the minimization of the maximum inter-

storey drift (d max ) of the shear building, while the forces and positions of the friction dampers

are the continuous and discrete design variables, respectively. The constraints are the number

of predefined possible locations for the dampers (np ), equal to 6 (see Figure 5); the maximum

number of dampers to be installed (nd ) in the structure, equal to 3; and the allowable limit for

the friction forces of each damper, 50 kN ≤ F fn ≤ 500 kN. The positions of these predefined

possible locations for the dampers are assumed to be between all neighbouring storeys, as shown

in Figure 5. The integration step t to solve Equation (1) was chosen to be equal to 0.01 s. The

number of generations and the population size of the BSA are set to 20 and 5000, respectively. In

order to set these parameters, several combinations of them were tested, and the ones presented

above were those that provided the best results. Ten independent runs were carried out, and the

results are presented in Table 1.

As may be seen in Table 1, the results of the 10 independent runs are very similar. The mean

maximum interstorey drift is 0.004409 m, the standard deviation is 4.02 × 10−5 m and, conse-

quently, the coefficient of variation is 0.91%. This very low standard deviation from the mean

Table 1. Optimal force and placement of friction dampers for the six-storey shear building.

Run )

Best position (vector P Best friction forces (F fn ) (kN) Maximum interstory drift (d max ) (m)

1 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 415.630; 316.772; 203.044 0.004313

2 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 420.153; 310.706; 190.363 0.004386

3 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 458.858; 308.605; 162.886 0.004396

4 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 427.612; 302.330; 177.479 0.004397

5 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 446.354; 306.035; 189.995 0.004411

6 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 433.362; 304.880; 207.079 0.004423

7 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 442.108; 295.725; 203.976 0.004436

8 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 424.632; 292.024; 161.777 0.004440

9 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 415.644; 289.772; 163.821 0.004443

10 [1 1 1 0 0 0] 453.941; 290.161; 153.644 0.004447

12 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

Storey Without dampers With three friction dampers Reduction (%)

2 0.012138 0.004313 64.47

3 0.010913 0.004228 61.26

4 0.009060 0.003270 63.91

5 0.006579 0.002729 58.52

6 0.003510 0.002001 43.00

value shows that the proposed method is robust in finding the optimal force and placement of

friction dampers for vibration control. Any one of the 10 solutions presented in Table 1 can be

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

used, resulting in a reduction of more than 65% in the maximum interstorey drift. As indicated

by vector P , the best position for the friction dampers is in the first three storeys (P1, P2 and P3).

Table 2 presents the maximum interstorey drift for each storey, for the uncontrolled struc-

ture and for the structure with the optimal solution obtained in run 1 presented in Table 1. The

maximum interstorey drift reduction in each storey obtained after the installation of the three

optimized friction dampers is also presented in Table 2, resulting in values between 43% and

67%. Figure 6 illustrates these maximum interstorey drifts, without friction dampers and for the

optimum design. Figure 7 shows the response in terms of the interstorey drift at the first storey

of the structure, again without friction dampers and for the optimum design.

A comparison of the proposed method using the BSA with a standard genetic algorithm (GA)

is shown in Table 3, confirming again the effectiveness of the method. The GA parameters used

in this study, namely generation and population, are equal to 20 and 5000, respectively.

Besides the above simulation, nine independent runs were carried out with GA, making a

total of 10 simulations. The results showed that the best positions (vector P ) are the same in

all runs and the best total friction forces are also very similar. The mean maximum interstorey

drift is 0.004539 m, the standard deviation is 7.72 × 10−5 m and, consequently, the coefficient

Figure 6. Envelope diagrams of maximum interstorey drift for the six-storey shear building, without friction dampers

(red curve) and optimum design, with three dampers (blue curve).

Engineering Optimization 13

0.014

0.012 0 Dampers: dmax = 0.0128m

0.01 3 Dampers: dmax = 0.0043m

0.008

Interstorey Drift (m)

0.006

0.004

0.002

0

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.01

-0.012

-0.014

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Figure 7. Interstorey drift at the first storey of the structure for the six-storey shear building, without friction dampers

(red curve) and optimum design, with three dampers (blue curve).

Table 3. Comparison of the performance of the proposed backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSA)

with a standard genetic algorithm (GA) for the six-storey shear building.

Method )

Best position (vector P Best friction forces (F fn ) (kN) Maximum interstorey drift (d max ) (m)

GA [1 1 1 0 0 0] 439.552; 296.240; 171.231 0.004462

of variation is 1.70%. As can be observed, these results obtained with the GA are slightly higher

than the results obtained with the BSA.

In addition, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in another way, the opti-

mal solution is compared with a solution obtained by positioning the dampers (with the same

total friction force) in a different position from the optimized one, which, for instance, distributes

the dampers throughout the structure. In this context, Figure 8 shows a comparison of the opti-

mal solution obtained with the proposed method (run 1 in Table 1: friction forces = 415.630;

0.01

Distributed Positions: dmax = 0.00815m

0.008 Optimized Positions: dmax = 0.00431m

0.006

Interstorey Drift (m)

0.004

0.002

0

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.01

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Figure 8. Comparison of the proposed method with another way of positioning the dampers, for the case of the shear

building.

14 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

316.772; 203.044; 0; 0; 0 kN; and maximum interstorey drift = 0.004313 m) with the solution

obtained having installed dampers with the same friction forces, but placed in different positions

from the optimal ones (friction forces = 0; 415.630; 0; 316.772; 0; 203.044 kN; and maximum

interstorey drift = 0.008150 m).

As can be seen in Figure 8, the maximum interstorey drift obtained with dampers of the same

friction forces installed in different positions is 89% greater than the maximum interstorey drift

obtained with the dampers in the optimum positions.

Finally, to show the advantages of optimizing the location of friction dampers and their fric-

tion forces simultaneously, a comparative study was carried out, as explained in the following.

Initially, the optimization of the location and forces was carried out separately, to compare the

results with those obtained in the simultaneous optimization. For this comparison, first, the fric-

tion forces of the three dampers were set to 200 kN, and then the placement of these three

dampers was optimized, resulting in the positions P1, P2 and P3 (200; 200; 200; 0; 0; 0) kN. After

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

that, in a second stage, these three positions were set and then the friction forces of these three

dampers were optimized, resulting in 432.331, 292.226 and 209.829 kN, respectively (432.331;

292.226; 209.829; 0; 0; 0) kN. These friction forces and placements resulted in a maximum

interstorey drift of 0.004475 m.

From analysis of the results of this optimization of the friction forces and placement separately,

it may be concluded that the results of the positions of dampers are exactly the same as obtained

in the simultaneous optimization, and the friction forces are very similar to those obtained in

the simultaneous optimization. The maximum interstorey drift was slightly higher than in the

simultaneous optimization.

It is important to point out that despite the results of the separate and simultaneous optimiza-

tion being very similar, the great advantage of the simultaneous optimization is the computational

cost, which is almost half the time of the separate optimization. This fact is very important since

the computational time in a dynamic problem is high.

The second example analyses the transmission line tower, 52 m high, 10 m at the base and 24

m at the top, shown in Figure 9. It is a steel tower, with Young’s modulus equal to 205 GPa

and specific mass of 7850 kg/m3 . The cross-sectional areas of the bars are given in Table 4. The

tower is modelled as a finite element two-dimensional truss structure consisting of 70 elements

and 35 nodes, as shown in Figure 9. Damping ratios for the first and second modes are equal to

0.4% (a = 8.2036 × 10−2 and b = 1.5957 × 10−4 ). The first six natural frequencies are 2.29,

5.69, 10.38, 14.16, 14.21 and 20.22 Hz.

As may be seen in Figure 9, there are seven predefined possible locations (np = 7) for the

friction dampers, represented by P1, P2, . . . , P7. These devices are assumed to be installed in

diagonal members of the tower, by braces with sufficient stiffness. An advantage of the proposed

method is that it is flexible and it allows the user to select the maximum number of dampers to

be installed, and also whether or not predefined possible positions for the friction dampers will

be adopted (i.e. the user can test all positions). This flexibility of the proposed method is espe-

cially useful in case of large structures. For large structures, in which there are a many possible

locations for the friction dampers (i.e. a lot of design variables—positions and friction forces),

testing all positions will require a high computational time. Thus, the proposed method allows

the designer, based on his or her experience, to predefine some possible locations and check

whether the desired level of reduction was achieved, reducing the number of design variables.

For small structures (with a small number of design variables—a few positions and friction

forces) or for those in which the designer prefers not to predefine some positions, it is possible

Engineering Optimization 15

32 33 34 35

31

29 30

P1

28

26

P2 27

25

23 24

22

18 19 20 21

P3

17

15 16

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

P4

14

P5

11

9 10

P6

8

6 7

P7

3 4 5

1 2

Inferior and intermediate diagonals 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 0.0010

21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33,

34

Intermediate main members 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32 0.0050

Secondary members (arms) 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 46, 59, 60, 65, 68, 0.0040

69, 70

Superior main members 39, 42, 47, 50, 53, 56, 61, 64 0.0015

Superior diagonals 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 0.0008

57, 58, 62, 63, 66, 67

to use the proposed method without preselecting possible locations for friction dampers, i.e. to

test all positions. The designer must be aware that the higher the number of design variables, the

more computationally demanding the solution of the problem. For example, in the problem pre-

sented in this section, the designer could propose installing twice as many dampers in different

16 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

Table 5. Optimal force and placement of friction dampers for the transmission line tower.

Run )

Best position (vector P Best friction forces (F fn ) (N) Maximum displacement (zmax ) (m)

1 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6548; 1296; 3353 0.02711

2 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6708; 1201; 3408 0.02722

3 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6828; 1130; 3262 0.02723

4 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6948; 1269; 3458 0.02725

5 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6590; 1224; 3356 0.02726

6 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6868; 1203; 3464 0.02736

7 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6675; 1309; 3293 0.02741

8 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6512; 1123; 3394 0.02744

9 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6740; 1174; 3366 0.02746

10 [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6978; 1285; 3337 0.02752

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

locations. From the point of view of the proposed methodology, the result would be only a larger

optimization problem to solve, i.e. it would not be limited to the choice of the designer.

To carry out the simultaneous optimization of friction forces and positions of the friction

dampers, this transmission line tower is subjected to the generated Kanai–Tajimi excitation

shown in Figure 2.

The objective function for this illustrative example is the minimization of the maximum dis-

placement (zmax ) of the tower, while the forces and positions of the friction dampers are the

continuous and discrete design variables, respectively. The constraints are the number of prede-

fined possible locations for the dampers (np ), equal to 7 (see Figure 9); the maximum number of

dampers to be installed (nd ) in the structure, equal to 3; and the allowable limit for the friction

forces of each damper, 700 N ≤ F fn ≤ 7000 N. The positions of these predefined possible loca-

tions for the dampers are assumed to be in diagonal members of the tower, as shown in Figure

9. The integration step t to solve Equation (1) was chosen to be equal to 5.4 × 10−4 s. The

number of generations and the population size of the BSA are set to 20 and 1000, respectively.

Ten independent runs were carried out, and the results are presented in Table 5.

As may be seen in Table 5, the results of the 10 independent runs are very similar. The

mean maximum displacement is 0.02733 m, the standard deviation is 1.31 × 10−4 m and, conse-

quently, the coefficient of variation is 0.48%. This small standard deviation from the mean value

shows that the proposed method is robust in finding the optimal force and placement of friction

dampers for vibration control. Any one of the 10 solutions presented in Table 5 can be used,

resulting in a reduction of around 54% in the maximum displacement at the top of the structure

(node 35). As indicated by vector P , the best location for the friction dampers is in the position

of bars 58, 52 and 34 (P1, P2 and P3).

Table 6 presents the maximum displacements of the nodes on the right side of the tower, for the

uncontrolled structure and for the structure with the optimal solution obtained in run 1 presented

in Table 5. The maximum displacement reduction in each node obtained after the installation

of the three optimized friction dampers is also presented in Table 6, resulting in values between

52% and 61%. Figure 10 illustrates these maximum displacements, without friction dampers and

for the optimum design. Figure 11 shows the response at the top of the structure (node 35), again

without friction dampers and for the optimum design.

A comparison of the proposed method using the BSA with a standard GA is shown in Table 7,

confirming the effectiveness of the proposed method. The GA parameters used for this study,

namely generation and population, are equal to 20 and 1000, respectively.

Besides the above simulation, nine independent runs were carried out with GA, making a total

of 10 simulations. The results showed that the best positions (vector P ) are the same in all runs

and the best total friction forces are also very similar. The mean maximum displacement at the

Engineering Optimization 17

Node Without dampers With three friction dampers Reduction (%)

7 0.00441 0.00182 58.82

10 0.00782 0.00306 60.86

13 0.01235 0.00507 58.97

16 0.01809 0.00790 56.32

21 0.02522 0.01144 54.64

24 0.03165 0.01478 53.30

27 0.03919 0.01854 52.70

30 0.04872 0.02252 53.78

35 0.05962 0.02711 54.52

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

Figure 10. Envelope diagrams of maximum displacement for the transmission line tower, without friction dampers

(red curve) and optimum design, with three dampers (blue curve).

top of the tower is 0.02769 m, the standard deviation is 2.72 × 10−4 m and, consequently, the

coefficient of variation is 0.98%. Again, as can be observed, the results obtained with the GA are

slightly higher than those with the BSA.

In addition, as in the first example, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method

in another way, the optimal solution is compared with a solution obtained by positioning the

dampers (with the same total friction force) in a different position from the optimized one, which,

for instance, distributes the dampers throughout the structure. In this context, Figure 12 shows a

comparison of the optimal solution obtained with the proposed method (run 1 of Table 5: friction

forces = 6548; 1296; 3353; 0; 0; 0; 0 N; and maximum displacement = 0.02711 m) with the

solution obtained having installed dampers with the same friction forces, but placed in different

positions from the optimal ones (friction forces = 0; 6548; 0; 1296; 0; 3353; 0 N; and maximum

displacement = 0.04612 m).

As can be seen in Figure 12, the maximum displacement obtained with dampers of the same

friction forces installed in random positions is 70.1% greater than the maximum displacement

obtained with the dampers in the optimum positions.

18 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

0.06

0 Dampers: zmax = 0.0596m

0.05 3 Dampers: zmax = 0.0271m

0.04

0.03

Displacement (m)

0.02

0.01

0

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

-0.06

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Figure 11. Displacement at the top of the structure (node 35) for the transmission line tower, without friction dampers

(red curve) and optimum design, with three dampers (blue curve).

Table 7. Comparison of the performance of the proposed backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSA)

witha standard genetic algorithm (GA) for the transmission line tower.

Method )

Best position (vector P Best friction forces (F fn ) (N) Maximum displacement (zmax ) (m)

GA [1 1 1 0 0 0 0] 6699; 1183; 3343 0.02741

0.05

Distributed Positions: zmax = 0.0461m

0.04 Optimized Positions: zmax = 0.0271m

0.03

0.02

Displacement (m)

0.01

0

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Figure 12. Comparison of the proposed method with another way of positioning the dampers, for the case of the

transmission line tower.

5. Conclusions

It is known that the use of passive energy-dissipation devices in reducing vibrations caused by

earthquakes is effective. However, the optimal use of these devices is an area that needs further

study. Some research has been carried out on the optimization of TMD and viscous and viscoelas-

tic dampers in building structures; however, studies on the optimization of friction dampers are

Engineering Optimization 19

scarce and limited, mainly owing to the additional difficulties that systems with friction present.

Thus, optimal placement and force of friction dampers is of practical interest. The main con-

tribution presented here was the development of a methodology to simultaneously optimize the

location of friction dampers and their friction forces in structures subjected to seismic load-

ing. The resulting optimization problem is very complex, in that the objective function is not

convex and it includes both discrete and continuous variables, and therefore must be solved by

optimization methods capable of handling this type of problem.

Thus, a structural optimization design tool, based on the BSA, was proposed to determine the

optimal force and placement of friction dampers in structures under earthquake ground motions.

The proposed approach was used to calculate the optimal friction forces of a given maximum

number of friction dampers and their optimal locations in two different structures in order to

achieve a desired reduction level in the dynamic response. The response reduction performance

was expressed in terms of reduction of the maximum interstorey drift and of the maximum dis-

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

placement of the structures; however, the proposed tool is flexible, allowing the user to change

the performance function.

To assess the effectiveness of the proposed method, numerical results were presented for a

six-storey shear building model and a transmission line tower. The results of both application

examples showed the capability of the proposed approach in solving the optimization problem,

reducing the maximum interstorey drift by more than 65% for the shear building and the max-

imum displacement by approximately 55% for the transmission tower, with only three friction

dampers. Furthermore, the results of 10 independent runs were very similar, i.e. the standard

deviation from the mean value was small, which shows that the proposed method is robust in

finding the optimal force and placement of friction dampers for vibration control. The compu-

tational cost is satisfactory for a dynamic problem. Therefore, the proposed methodology can

be recommended as an effective tool for the optimum design of friction dampers. This article

showed that the design of friction dampers can be achieved in a safe and economic way.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support of CNPq and CAPES.

References

Arfiadi, Y., and M. N. S. Hadi. 2011. “Optimum Placement and Properties of Tuned Mass Dampers Using Hybrid Genetic

Algorithms.” International Journal of Optimization in Civil Engineering 1: 167–187.

Aydin, E. 2012. “Optimal Damper Placement Based on Base Moment in Steel Building Frames.” Journal of

Constructional Steel Research 79: 216–225. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.07.011.

Aydin, E., M. H. Boduroglu, and D. Guney. 2007. “Optimal Damper Distribution for Seismic Rehabilitation of Planar

Building Structures.” Engineering Structures 29: 176–185.

Basili, M., and M. De Angelis. 2007. “Optimal Passive Control of Adjacent Structures Interconnected with Nonlinear

Hysteretic Devices.” Journal of Sound and Vibration 301: 106–125.

Brzeski, P., P. Perlikowski, and T. Kapitaniak. 2014. “Numerical Optimization of Tuned Mass Absorbers Attached to

Strongly Nonlinear Duffing Oscillator.” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 19 (1):

298–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2013.06.001.

Chen, G., and J. Wu. 2001. “Optimal Placement of Multiple Tune Mass Dampers for Seismic Structures.” Journal of

Structural Engineering 127: 1054–1062.

Civicioglu, P. 2013. “Backtracking Search Optimization Algorithm for Numerical Optimization Problems.” Applied

Mathematics and Computation 219: 8121–8144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2013.02.017.

Curadelli, R. O., L. F. F. Miguel, and J. D. Riera. 2003. “Consideraciones sobre el uso de amortiguadores en el proyeto

de estructuras sismorresistentes.” XI SIBIS e 6° EIPAC—Décimo Primer Seminario Iberoamericano de Ingeniería

Sísmica y Sexto Encuentro de Investigadores y Profesionales Argentinos de la Construcción, Mendoza, Argentina.

Curadelli, R. O., J. D. Riera, and L. F. F. Miguel. 2006. “Seismic up-grading of existing structures through the intro-

duction of external dampers.” ECEES–—First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,

Genebra.

20 L.F.F. Miguel et al.

Dehghan-Niri, E., S. M. Zahrai, and A. Mohtat. 2010. “Effectiveness-Robustness Objectives in MTMD System

Design: An Evolutionary Optimal Design Methodology.” Structural Control and Health Monitoring 17: 218–236.

doi:10.1002/stc.297.

Desu, N. B., S. K. Deb, and A. Dutta. 2006. “Coupled Tuned Mass Dampers for Control of Coupled Vibrations in

Asymmetric Buildings.” Structural Control and Health Monitoring 13: 897–916. doi:10.1002/stc.64.

Fadel Miguel, L. F., R. H. Lopez, and L. F. F. Miguel. 2013a. “Discussion of article: Estimating optimum parameters

of tuned mass dampers using harmony search.” [Eng. Struct. 33 (9) (2011) 2716–2723]. Engineering Structures.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.042

Fadel Miguel, L. F., R. H. Lopez, and L. F. F. Miguel. 2013b. “Multimodal Size, Shape, and Topology Optimi-

sation of Truss Structures Using the Firefly Algorithm.” Advances in Engineering Software (1992) 56: 23–37.

doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.11.006.

Farshi, B., and A. Assadi. 2011. “Development of a Chaotic Nonlinear Tuned Mass Damper for Optimal

Vibration Response.” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 16 (11): 4514–4523.

doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2011.02.011.

Filiatrault, A. 1985. “Performance evaluation of friction damped braced steel frames under simulated earthquake loads.”

Master Thesis, University of British Columbia, 221p.

Gandomi, A. H., A. H. Alavi, and S. Talatahari. 2013a. “Structural Optimization Using Krill Herd Algorithm”. In Swarm

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

Intelligence and Bio-Inspired Computation: Theory and Applications, Chapter 15. Elsevier. X.S. Yang et al. (Eds.),

pp. 335–349.

Gandomi, A. H., S. Talatahari, F. Tadbiri, and A. H. Alavi. 2013. “Krill Herd Algorithm for Optimum Design of Truss

Structures.” International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation 5 (5): 281–288. doi:10.1504/IJBIC.2013.057191.

Gandomi, A. H., X. S. Yang, and A. H. Alavi. 2013b. “Cuckoo Search Algorithm: AMetaheuristic Approach to Solve

Structural Optimization Problems.” Engineering with Computers 29: 17–35. doi:10.1007/s00366-011-0241-y.

Ghosh, A., and B. Basu. 2007. “A Closed-Form Optimal Tuning Criterion for TMD in Damped Structures.” Structural

Control and Health Monitoring 14: 681–692. doi:10.1002/stc.176.

Greco, R., A. Lucchini, and G. C. Marano. 2014. “Robust Design of Tuned Mass Dampers Installed on Multi-Degree-

of-Freedom Structures Subjected to Seismic Action.” Engineering Optimization, published online: 07 Aug 2014.

doi:10.1080/0305215X.2014.941288

Hoang, N., Y. Fujino, and P. Warnitchai. 2008. “Optimal Tuned Mass Damper for Seismic Applications and Practical

Design Formulas.” Engineering Structures 30: 707–715.

Jangid, R. S. 2000. “Optimum Frictional Elements in Sliding Isolation Systems.” Computers and Structures 76: 651–661.

Kanai, K. 1961. “An Empirical Formula for the Spectrum of Strong Earthquake Motions.” Bulletin Earthquake Research

Institute, University of Tokyo 39: 85–95.

Lavan, O., and Y. Daniel. 2013. “Full Resources Utilization Seismic Design of Irregular Structures Using Multiple Tuned

Mass Dampers.” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 48: 517–532. doi:10.1007/s00158-013-0913-x.

Lee, C. L., Y. T. Chen, L. L. Chung, and Y. P. Wang. 2006. “Optimal Design Theories and Applications of Tuned Mass

Dampers.” Engineering Structures 28: 43–53.

Li, C., and W. Qu. 2006. “Optimum Properties of Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers for Reduction of Translational and

Torsional Response of Structures Subject to Ground Acceleration.” Engineering Structures 28: 472–494.

Lucchini, A., R. Greco, G. C. Marano, and G. Monti. 2014. “Robust Design of Tuned Mass Damper Sys-

tems for Seismic Protection of Multistory Buildings.” Journal of Structural Engineering 140 (8): A4014009.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000918.

Marano, G. C., R. Greco, and B. Chiaia. 2010. “A Comparison Between Different Optimization Criteria for Tuned Mass

Dampers Design.” Journal of Sound and Vibration 329: 4880–4890.

Marano, G. C., F. Trentadue, and R. Greco. 2007. “Stochastic Optimum Design Criterion for Linear Damper

Devices for Seismic Protection of Buildings.” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 33: 441–455.

doi:10.1007/s00158-006-0023-0.

Miguel, L. F. F. 2002. Estudo Teórico e Experimental de Amortecedores de Vibração por Atrito. Master Dissertation,

PPGEC/UFRGS, Brazil.

Miguel, L. F. F., R. O. Curadelli, and J. D. Riera. 2004. “Uso de amortecedores por atrito e metálicos no controle

de vibrações induzidas pelo vento em torre metálica.” XXXI Jornadas Sul-Americanas de Engenharia Estrutural,

Mendoza, Argentina.

Miguel, L. F. F., and L. F. Fadel Miguel. 2012. “Shape and Size Optimization of Truss Structures Considering Dynamic

Constraints Through Modern Metaheuristic Algorithms.” Expert Systems with Applications 39: 9458–9467.

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.113.

Miguel, L. F. F., and J. D. Riera. 2002. Sobre o uso de amortecedores por atrito. XXX Jornadas Sul-Americanas de

Engenharia Estrutural, Brasília, Brazil.

Miguel, L. F. F., and J. D. Riera. 2008. “Controle de Vibrações de Estruturas Utilizando Amortecedores por Atrito.”

Revista Internacional de Desastres Naturales, Accidentes e Infraestructura Civil 8: 57–69.

Miguel, L. F. F., J. D. Riera, and R. O. Curadelli. 2006. Structural vibration control by means of lead or friction external

dampers. 4WCSCM—4th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring, San Diego, USA.

Min, K. W., J. Y. Seong, and J. Kim. 2010. “Simple Design Procedure of a Friction Damper for Reducing Seismic

Responses of A Single-Story Structure.” Engineering Structures 32: 3539–3547.

Mohebbi, M., K. Shakeri, Y. Ghanbarpour, and H. Majzoub. 2013. “Designing Optimal Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers

Using Genetic Algorithms (GAs) for Mitigating the Seismic Response of Structures.” Journal of Vibration and

Control 19 (4): 605–625. doi:10.1177/1077546311434520.

Engineering Optimization 21

Moreschi, L. M. 2000. Seismic Design of Energy Dissipation Systems for Optimal Structural Performance. PhD disser-

tation in Engineering Mechanics at Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg,

Virginia.

Moreschi, L. M., and M. P. Singh. 2003. “Design of Yielding Metallic and Friction Dampers for Optimal Seismic

Performance.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 32: 1291–1311. doi:10.1002/eqe.275.

Mostaghel, N., and T. Davis. 1997. “Representations of Coulomb Friction for Dynamic Analysis.” Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26: 541–548.

Movaffaghi, H., and O. Friberg. 2006. “Optimal Placement of Dampers in Structures Using Genetic Algorithm.”

Engineering Computations 23 (6): 597–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02644400610680324.

Pall, A. S., and C. Marsh. 1982. “Response of Friction Damped Braced Frames.” Journal of the Structural Division,

Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE 108 (ST6): 1313–1323.

Pall, A. S., C. Marsh, and P. Fazio. 1980. “Friction Joints for Seismic Control of Large Panel Structures.” Journal of

Prestressed Concrete Institute 25 (6): 38–61.

Qu, W. L., Z. H. Chen, and Y. L. Xu. 2001. “Dynamic Analysis of Wind-Excited Truss Tower with Friction Dampers.”

Computers and Structures 79: 2817–2831.

Rocha, M. M., J. D. Riera, and L. F. F. Miguel. 2004. “O uso de amortecedores por atrito para a atenuação de vibrações

em uma passarela metálica.” XXXI Jornadas Sul-Americanas de Engenharia Estrutural, Mendoza, Argentina.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:14 11 May 2015

Singh, M. P., and L. M. Moreschi. 2001. “Optimal Seismic Response Control with Dampers.” Earthquake Engineering

and Structural Dynamics 30: 553–572. doi:10.1002/eqe.23.

Singh, M. P., and L. M. Moreschi. 2002. “Optimal Placement of Dampers for Passive Response Control.” Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31: 955–976. doi:10.1002/eqe.132.

Sonmez, M., E. Aydin, and T. Karabork. 2013. “Using an Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm for the Optimal Place-

ment of Viscous Dampers in Planar Building Frames.” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 48: 395–409.

doi:10.1007/s00158-013-0892-y.

Soong, T. T., and G. F. Dargush. 1997. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering. Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons.

Taflanidis, A., J. L. Beck, and D. C. Angelides. 2007. “Robust Reliability-Based Design of Liquid Column Mass Dampers

Under Earthquake Excitation Using an Analytical Reliability Approximation.” Engineering Structures 29: 3525–

3537.

Tajimi, H. 1960. “A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an

earthquake.” In Proceedings of 2nd World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 781–797.

Tan, X., and R. J. Rogers. 1995. “Equivalent Viscous Damping Models of Coulomb Friction in Multi-Degree-of-Freedom

Vibration Systems.” Journal of Sound and Vibration 185: 33–50.

Uetani, K., M. Tsuji, and I. Takewaki. 2003. “Application of an Optimum Design Method to Practical Building Frames

with Viscous Dampers and Hysteretic Dampers.” Engineering Structures 25: 579–592.

Wang, J. F., C. C. Lin, and C. H. Lian. 2009. “Two-Stage Optimum Design of Tuned Mass Dampers with Consideration

of Stroke.” Structural Control and Health Monitoring 16: 55–72. doi:10.1002/stc.312.

Warnitchai, P., and N. Hoang. 2006. “Optimal Placement and Tuning of Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers for Suppressing

Multi-Mode Structural Response.” Smart Structures and Systems 2: 1–24.

Yang, X. S. 2008. Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. 1st ed. Frome: Luniver Press. 116p.

Yang, X. S. 2010. Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. 2nd ed. Frome: Luniver Press. 148p.

Yang, X. S., and A. H. Gandomi. 2012. “Bat Algorithm: ANovel Approach for Global Engineering Optimization.”

Engineering Computations 29 (5): 464–483. doi:10.1108/02644401211235834.

- Converting external load to massUploaded by970186cs
- Dampers in Bridges 2010Uploaded byTran Hoai Nam
- SEMIACTIVE CONTROL OF SEISMICALLY ISOLATED BRIDGESUploaded byNiloofar Sufie
- Bmcm3743021415 Getaran Mekanikal Mechanical VibrationUploaded bysakinah azizan
- Study on self‐adjustable tuned mass damper with variable massUploaded bytoilfulboy
- Shaking Table GraphsUploaded byMzimasi Mjanyelwa
- Conference, Applications, Industries - 2010 - Compit’10Uploaded byFredrik Ahlgren
- Survey Paper on Study the Performance of High Rise Structure with Dampers at different LocationUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Benefits and Potential Drawbacks of VSDsUploaded bysulphurdioxide
- WIND FLOW INDUCED VIBRATIONSUploaded byakadiso
- The Vibroacoustic Analysis of The Hydrocarbon Processing Plant Piping System Operating at Elevated Temperature.pdfUploaded byMaciej Rydlewicz
- WWTP OPERATOR PRESENTATION.pdfUploaded byMostafaKato
- What is Vibration1Uploaded byAnthony Acosta
- Motor Status 6Uploaded byTheerayoot
- 6. IJCE - Seismic Response of Tall Building With Underground Storey Using DampersUploaded byiaset123
- IBP1332_12Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Resume UpdatedUploaded byKhanzada Azam
- How to Do ResearchUploaded byTurhan Pathan
- Matlab Sheet 2Uploaded bymaboouf
- Shaker - FolletoUploaded byubacyt
- nekaj.pdfUploaded byFilip
- Co Po MappingUploaded byVikram Anand
- V6-no4-264-273.pdfUploaded byJojok Widodo
- pdlUploaded byPriya Kulkarni
- Simple DispatchUploaded byTobalyntilang
- UntitledUploaded byapi-256504985
- Application of Fuzzy and ABC Algorithm for DG Placement for Minimum Loss in Radial Distribution SystemUploaded byAbbas Divian
- Korous J et alUploaded bykhers_zal
- Water Resources Systems_vedula.pdfUploaded byRidwan Ahmed
- Fujino 1993Uploaded byThe Duong

- Paper7Uploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- Paper5 - Investigations of the Application of Gyro-mass Dampers With Various Types of Supplemental Dampers for Vibration Control of Building StructuresUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- 5.0 Ejemplos de Descripción de SuelosUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- Resumen FinalUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta
- 12660004 Compdyn FinalUploaded byRodrigo Lezameta

- ARTC-1305-5260Uploaded byJanet Palmer Ward Φθκ
- GBSS Reconfiguration Guide V900R012C01 05Uploaded byjacobcoetzee
- Brochure-Signa-HDxt-3.0TUploaded byAlejandra Cork
- QuizUploaded bySebastián Rivas
- 31160978-BSC Traffic Statistic ManualUploaded byZiya-2009
- resume zachamasonUploaded byapi-315322098
- QB64 v0.954 ReadmeUploaded byyogo3912
- Tale of Tulsi PlantUploaded bythesrajesh7120
- 9-2_Solving the Multi-Resource Constrained Project Scheduling Problem Using Ant Colony OptimizationUploaded byMohamed Mansour
- 9780134049946.pdfUploaded byAnkith G
- daj-userUploaded byvisakoushik
- Attribs of Output PrimitivesUploaded byVenkatakrishnan Subramaniyan
- Building Management SystemsUploaded byArman Ul Nasar
- NetBackup773 RefGd CommandsUploaded byChris Smith
- MM Overview of IDOCs in MM-IMUploaded bySilva Silva
- e24713Uploaded byJai Kanth
- Display OrderUploaded bybharath_sajja
- Chrysler GAGE StandardUploaded byAli Hernandez
- CodeUploaded byMouhcineFD
- 2_MEMUploaded bydocrafi
- Mr. Honey's Beginner's DictionaryGerman-English by Honig, WinfriedUploaded byGutenberg.org
- Bombas Quizix q6000 CatalogoUploaded bycristobal_tl2277
- Implementation of Wireless Patient Body Monitoring System Using RTOSUploaded byBambang Herlambang
- PLANNING, SCHEDULING AND RESOURCE OPTIMISATION OF MULTIPLE PROJECTS USING ORACLE PRIMAVERA P6.pdfUploaded byesatjournals
- slvua83.pdfUploaded bynego20
- b737mrg_snowtamUploaded byPero Peric
- Understanding the UserUploaded byKaheem Koolkidz Whittingham
- Richard PJ Devinney TM Modular StrategiesUploaded byolgazero
- SGQ_ATS_V2.2_enUploaded bySURJIT SINGH
- 2g Flexi Abis Over Ip Ethernet 2g Flexi AdditionalUploaded byMehran