Elastic and Inelastic Drift Performance Optimization For Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Earthquake Loads

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:929–950 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.385)
Elastic and inelastic drift performance optimization for

reinforced concrete buildings under earthquake loads
Chun-Man Chan∗;† and Xiao-Kang Zou

Department of Civil Engineering; Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; Kowloon; Hong Kong
SUMMARY
This paper presents an eective optimization technique for the elastic and inelastic drift performance
design of reinforced concrete buildings under response spectrum loading and pushover loading. Attempts
have been made to develop an automatic optimal elastic and inelastic drift design of concrete frame-
work structures. The entire optimization procedure can be divided into elastic design optimization and
inelastic design optimization. Using the principle of virtual work, the elastic drift response generated
by the response spectrum loading and the inelastic drift response produced by the non-linear push-
over loading can be explicitly expressed in terms of element sizing design variables. The optimization
methodology for the solution of the explicit design problem of buildings is fundamentally based on the
Optimality Criteria approach. One ten-story, two-bay building frame example is presented to illustrate
the eectiveness and practicality of the proposed optimal design method. While rapid convergence in
a few design cycles is found in the elastic optimization process, relatively slow but steady and smooth
convergence of the optimal performance-based design is found in the inelastic optimization process.
Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: response spectrum; pushover analysis; performance-based design; structural optimization;
optimality criteria method; seismic drift
1. INTRODUCTION
Building structures have traditionally been designed for seismic resistance by providing ade-
quate element strength against a prescribed equivalent static load. One major drawback of this
force-based design approach is that it does not directly address the post-yielding deformabil-
ity of structures and thus does not eectively control damage during earthquakes. It has been
recognized that there is a pressing need for the development of a new performance-based
∗ Correspondence
to: Chun-Man Chan, Department of Civil Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
† E-mail:
cecmchan@ust.hk
Contract=grant sponsor: Research Grants Council of Hong Kong; contract grant number: HKUST6249=00E
Received 26 February 2003
Revised 19 August 2003
Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 9 December 2003
930 C.-M. CHAN AND X.-K. ZOU
methodology for seismic design of buildings [1–3]. Indeed, the concept of performance-based
design appears to be the future direction of seismic design codes.
According to the newly developed performance-based seismic design approach, an accept-
ability analysis needs to be conducted at various design load levels in order to ensure that the
corresponding performance objectives are satisfactory. The acceptability checking procedures
may employ various linear or non-linear analysis methods to assess the seismic responses of
structures in relation to the acceptable design criteria. Response spectrum analysis, which is
one of the most common linear elastic methods, provides designers with a simple but rational
basis for determining the responses of structures under minor or moderate earthquake loading.
In addition, non-linear analysis procedures become signicantly necessary to identify the pat-
tern and level of damage and to understand the modes of failure of structures during severe
seismic events.
In assessing the non-linear seismic behavior of framework structures, pushover analysis
has been increasingly necessary as part of the performance-based design method. Pushover
analysis is a simplied static non-linear procedure in which a predened pattern of earthquake
loads is applied incrementally on structures until a plastic collapse mechanism is reached.
Pushover analysis generally adopts a lumped-plasticity approach that tracks the formation of
plastic deformation in plastic hinges during the incremental loading process. Pushover analysis
provides an eective means for distinguishing between good and bad performance of structures
during severe earthquakes [4].
In modern seismic design codes (e.g., the Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings,
GBJ11-89 [5]), seismic design has been carried out based on the philosophy that buildings
should be able to resist minor but frequently occurring earthquakes without damage, should
continue to function with repairable damage when subject to moderate earthquakes, and should
not collapse when subject to rare but major earthquakes. It has been recognized that the
displacement or lateral drift performance of a multi-story building can be a good measure
of structural and non-structural damage of the building under various levels of earthquake
motions [6]. The performance-based seismic design provisions for multi-story buildings can
be based upon controlling story drifts to prescribed limit states under dierent design levels
of earthquakes.
Although lateral drift performance is a principal concern in the seismic design of struc-
tures, the economic design of elements of building structures for various levels of elastic
and inelastic lateral drift performance under multiple levels of earthquake loads is generally
a rather dicult and challenging task. Lateral drift design requires the consideration of a
proper distribution of the stiness of all structural elements and, in a severe seismic event,
also the occurrence and redistribution of plasticity in structural elements. Structural engineers
are faced with the problem of eciently distributing materials throughout the structure to
limit the elastic and inelastic drift responses of structures. Owing to the lack of an automated
optimization technique, member sizes and steel reinforcements are designed by trial-and-error
methods based on intuition and experience.
Structural optimization of dynamically excited structures has been an ongoing research topic
for the past few decades [7–11]. Currently, research eorts are focusing on the optimization
of the emerging performance-based design approach. Foley [12] presented an overall litera-
ture review on optimal performance-based design of buildings. Ganzerli et al. [13] addressed
the optimal performance-based design of seismic structures. In that study, performance-based
design concepts and pushover analysis were incorporated in the design of reinforced concrete
Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:929–950
ELASTIC AND INELASTIC DRIFT PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION 931
structures using structural optimization. The optimal structural design problem was formulated
in terms of the material cost of the structure and was constrained by limiting the plastic rota-
tions at the ends of the structural members. The DRAIN-2DX program was used to perform
the non-linear analysis and the D.O.T. program was used to carry out the structural opti-
mization. Among the research eorts, however, there is as yet no eective method for design
optimization of buildings subject to seismic elastic and inelastic seismic drift performance
criteria.
Chan [14, 15] developed an ecient computer-based optimization technique for lateral sti-
ness design of tall buildings. The optimization technique, based on a rigorously derived Opti-
mality Criteria (OC) approach, is capable of optimizing large-scale tall steel and=or reinforced
concrete buildings subject to multiple static wind drift and dynamic wind-induced vibration
design constraints. The eectiveness of the state-of-the-art optimization technique has been
demonstrated through its actual design application on a number of the tallest buildings in
Hong Kong [16]. Although these actual applications represent a major advance in the use of
structural optimization techniques for practical tall building designs, it should be noted that
the research has been primarily focused on the elastic wind drift performance of tall buildings.
Much eort is still needed to extend the current optimization technique to inelastic seismic
design of multi-story buildings.
This paper presents an eective optimization technique for the elastic and inelastic drift
performance design of reinforced concrete buildings under response spectrum loading and
pushover loading. Attempts have been made to automate the drift design of reinforced concrete
buildings using an optimization procedure. Using the principle of virtual work, the modal drift
response can be explicitly formulated in terms of element sizing variables and the peak drift
values can be estimated by modal combination methods. With careful tracking of the formation
of plastic hinges, the inelastic pushover drift can also be explicitly expressed in terms of the
sizing variables using the same principle of virtual work. The methodology for the solution of
the explicit seismic drift design of buildings is fundamentally based on a rigorously derived
OC approach, which has been found to be particularly useful for the design of large-scale
building structures [14–16]. In this OC approach, repeated applications of re-analysis and
a recursive resizing algorithm are applied until the convergence to the least expensive cost
design is achieved.
One ten-story, two-bay planar building frame example is used to illustrate the eectiveness
of the optimal elastic and inelastic drift design methods, where two levels of earthquake loads
corresponding to the minor and severe earthquake events are considered.
2. OPTIMAL DESIGN PROBLEM FORMULATION
In seismic design, it is commonly assumed that a building behaves linearly elastically under
minor earthquakes and works non-linearly inelastically when subjected to severe earthquakes.
Under such an assumption, the entire design optimization process can therefore be decomposed
into two phases [17, 18]. The rst phase is an elastic design optimization in which the structural
cost is minimized subject to elastic spectral displacement responses under minor earthquake
loading and concrete member sizes are taken as design variables. All concrete sections are
assumed to be uncracked and to behave linear-elastically in this design phase. Once the optimal
structural member sizes are determined at the end of the rst phase of the optimization, the
steel reinforcement quantities can then be considered as design variables in the second phase
of the optimization, or simply called as inelastic design optimization. In this second design
phase, the member sizes are kept unchanged and the cost of steel reinforcement is minimized
subject to inelastic pushover displacement performance constraints.
2.1. First phase – Elastic design optimization problem

Consider a multi-story concrete framework having i = 1; 2; : : : ; Ni members (or member fab-
rication groups). Assuming that the concrete elements are uncracked and have rectangular
cross-sections such that the width (Bi ) and depth (Di ) are taken as design variables, the de-
sign objective of the rst phase elastic optimization is to minimize the concrete construction
cost of the structure as expressed explicitly in terms of design variables as

Ni
Minimize: concrete cost = wci Bi Di (1)
i=1
where wci is the unit cost coecient of concrete for member i.

The intent of the elastic drift design is to ensure that a building remains operational or
serviceable under the action of minor earthquakes. In checking the seismic drift response of a
building, an elastic analysis procedure can be employed and the interstory drift should comply
with the following requirement:
uj = uj − uj−1 6 dj hj (j = 1; 2; : : : ; Nj ) (2)
where uj is the elastic interstory drift of the j-th story; uj and uj−1 are the respective
displacement of two adjacent j and j − 1 oor levels; hj is the j-th story height and dj is the
code-specied interstory drift ratio limit for the j-th story.
Modern building codes, such as the Uniform Building Code [19] and the Chinese Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings [5], present two methods for the dynamic analysis of structures,
namely the time history analysis and the response spectrum analysis. In this paper, the more
widely accepted response spectrum analysis method is adopted. This method eliminates the
time variable and provides a relatively simple method for determining the maximum structural
responses in which individual modal responses are rst calculated and the maximum responses
are then obtained by combination rules.
Based on the modal response of a building, which is computed by commonly available
engineering software, the n-th modal elastic displacement at the j-th oor level, uj(n) , can be
expressed explicitly by the principle of the virtual work [18] as
Li (n)
(n) Ni FX fXj FY(n) fYj FZ(n) fZj MX(n) mXj MY(n) mYj MZ(n) mZj
uj = + + + + + dx (3)
i=1 0 EAX GAY GAZ GIX EIY EIZ
i
where Li is the length of member i; E and G are the axial and shear elastic material moduli;
AX , AY , and AZ are the axial and shear areas for the cross-section; IX , IY , and IZ are the
torsional and exural moments of inertia for the cross-section; FX(n) , FY(n) , FZ(n) , MX(n) , MY(n) ,
and MZ(n) are the n-th modal element internal forces and moments; fXj , fYj , fZj , mXj , mYj , and
mZj are the virtual element forces and moments due to a unit of virtual load applied to the
building at the location corresponding to the story displacement, uj . Note that the coordinate
system and sign convention of member internal forces are depicted in Figure 1.
MY
Y
FY
FX MX
X
D MZ
FZ
Z
B L
Figure 1. Denition of a local coordinate system.
Considering rectangular concrete elements with the width (Bi ) and depth (Di ) design vari-
ables and expressing the cross-section properties in terms of Bi and Di , the modal displacement
Equation (3) can be simplied [15, 18] as
(n) (n) (n)

(n) Ni C0ij C1ij C2ij
uj (Bi ; Di ) = + + (4)
i=1 Bi Di Bi Di3 Bi3 Di
where

(n) FX(n) fXj FY(n) fYj + FZ(n) fZj
Li
C0ij = + dx (5)
0 E 5G=6
i
Li (n)
(n) Mz MZj
C1ij = dx (6)
0 E=12
i
Li (n)
(n) MX mXj MY(n) mYj
C2ij = + dx (7)
0 G E=12
i
denotes the torsional coecient that depends on the ratio value of depth to width (i.e.,
D=B) of the element i. For thin wall sections where D=B1, can be approximately equal
to 0.3. For other typical rectangular sections, it can be set to approximately 0.2.
Once the explicit modal story displacement is formulated, the maximum value of the in-
terstory drifts can be expressed using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) and
the more accurate complete quadratic combination (CQC) method. For structures with well-
separated modal frequencies, the maximum interstory drift constraints of Equation (2) can be
determined with the following SRSS rule as

Nn
[uj (Bi ; Di )]SRSS = uj(n) · uj(n)
n=1

2
Nn
Ni
(n)
C0ij (n)
C1ij (n)
C2ij
= + + 3 (8)
3
Bi Di
n=1 i=1 Bi Di Bi Di
where Nn denotes the total number of modes considered in the response spectrum analysis.
For structures where the values of any two natural frequencies of vibration are very close to
each other, the maximum story drift can then be determined by the CQC rule as
[uj (Bi ; Di )]CQC

Nn Nn
= nm · uj(n) · uj(m)
n=1 m=1

Nn
Nn
Ni C (n)
C (n)
C (n)

Ni C (m)
C (m)
C (m)
=
0ij 1ij 2ij 0ij 1ij 2ij
nm + 3
+ 3 + 3
+ 3 (9)
n=1 m=1 i=1 Bi Di Bi Di Bi Di i=1 Bi Di Bi Di Bi Di
In Equation (9), nm is a modal correlation coecient for the n-th and m-th modes, which
can be obtained from the following equation with the constant damping ratio, , as
3=2
82 (1 + nm )nm
nm = (10)
(1 − nm
2 )2 + 42 (1 + )2
nm nm
where
!n
nm = 61 (11)
!m
Equation (10) shows that nm = mn and, when n = m, nm = 1. For structures with well-
separated natural frequencies, the modal correlation coecient, nm , approaches zero and
Equation (9) can then be reduced to Equation (8).
2.2. Second phase – Inelastic design optimization problem

While the concrete member sizes have an important role in improving the elastic displace-
ment response of a building, steel reinforcement ratios can have a signicant eect on the
inelastic displacement and ductility of a exural concrete building beyond the occurrence of
rst yielding. Moreover, when a reinforced concrete structure works in the inelastic stage,
steel reinforcement is generally the more cost-eective element to be used to control the
inelastic performance of the structure. Based on these considerations, in the second phase,
the tension steel reinforcement ratio, i , and the compression steel reinforcement ratio, i ,
of rectangular cross-sections are taken as design variables, for a exural concrete building
having i = 1; 2; : : : ; Ni members and 2Ni plastic hinges (assuming one hinge at each end of a
member). The width Bi and depth Di of the cross-section are xed in this phase.
If the topology of a building structural system is predened, the design objective of the
reinforced concrete framework in the second inelastic design phase is to minimize the steel
reinforcement cost, which can be expressed in terms of steel reinforcement design variables:

Ni
Minimize: steel cost = wsi (Lsi i + Lsi i ) (12)
i=1
where wsi is the cost coecient for steel reinforcements; and Lsi and Lsi are the lengths of the
lower and upper steel reinforcements for member i. Herein, only the longitudinal reinforcement
of member sections is considered as a design variable and the transverse reinforcement is
Demand spectrum
Spectral acceleration
Performance point
Capacity spectrum
Spectral displacement
Figure 2. Capacity spectrum vs. demand spectrum.
assumed to be invariant in the optimization under the presupposition that adequate shear
strength is provided for all members.
The total construction cost, f, of a reinforced concrete framework, which consists of the cost
of concrete given in Equation (1) and the cost of steel reinforcement shown in Equation (12),
can be expressed as

Ni
Ni
f(Bi ; Di ; i ; i ) = wci Bi Di Li + wsi (Lsi i + Lsi i ) (13)
i=1 i=1
It has been previously shown that, in the elastic design optimization, the concrete cost of
the structure with respect to the width, Bi , and depth, Di , is minimized and is kept to this
minimum value in the inelastic design optimization. Under the condition of the xed concrete
element dimensions in the inelastic design optimization, the steel material cost is minimized.
In seismic performance-based design, it is necessary to check the ‘capacity’ of a structure
against the ‘demand’ of an earthquake. Based on the assumption that the fundamental mode of
vibration is the predominant response of the structure, the capacity curve can be characterized
by the non-linear static pushover method. The inelastic earthquake demand spectrum can
be estimated by a means of reduction from the 5% elastic design spectrum to account for
the hysteretic energy dissipation. The intersection of the two curves, where capacity equals
demand, denes the ‘performance point’ as shown in Figure 2. At the performance point, the
resulting responses of the building should then be checked using certain acceptability criteria.
In this paper, the inelastic drift responses at the performance point of a building, generated
by a severe earthquake demand, are to be checked against appropriate limits corresponding
to a given performance objective.
The inelastic interstory drift constraint at the performance point is dened as shown in
Equation (2). Note that dj in the inelastic design phase denes the inelastic interstory drift ratio
limit for the j-th story. In order to facilitate a numerical solution of the inelastic drift design
problem, it is necessary that the implicit inelastic drift constraints be expressed explicitly in
terms of the design variables, i and i .
2.3. Explicit inelastic drift formulation

2.3.1. Inelastic drift explicitly expressed in terms of design variables. Before inelastic drift
formulation can be discussed, three assumptions must be made. The rst is that all the plastic
deformation is assumed to occur at plastic hinges and members are fully elastic between
plastic hinges. Secondly, plastic hinges are assumed to be frictionless and have zero length.
M
Mu
C
M
My B
A θ y θp θ
θpu
Figure 3. Moment–rotation curve.
The third assumption is that beam–column joints are much stronger than adjacent framing
components so that the joint region may be modeled as a sti or rigid zone.
Based on the internal element forces and moments of the structure obtained from the
pushover analysis at the performance point, the principle of virtual work can be employed
to express the inelastic pushover displacement [17, 18]. The lateral displacement, uj , at the
performance point includes the virtual work, uj; memb , produced by the structural members and
the virtual work, uj; hinge , generated by the plastic hinges. That is,
uj = uj; memb + uj; hinge (14)
where

Ni Li
FX fXj FY fYj FZ fZj MX mXj MY mYj MZ mZj
uj; memb = + + + + + dx (15)
i=1 0 EAX GAY GAZ GIX EIY EIZ i
2
Ni 0
uj; hinge = mpjh ph (16)
i=1 h=1 i
In Equation (16), m0pjh is the virtual strong-axis moment at the location corresponding to the
h-th hinge; ph is the rotation at the h-th plastic hinge produced by the actual strong-axis
moment MZ ; and ph is equal to zero when the plastic hinge is missing. Correspondingly, the
interstory drift, uj , at the performance point is given by
uj = uj; memb + uj; hinge (17)
During the inelastic drift optimization process, the elastic displacement, uj; memb , is kept
unchanged since the width (Bi ) and depth (Di ) of each member section are xed in this phase
of the design. The emphasis herein is placed on the inelastic displacement, uj; hinge , caused by
the formation of the plastic hinges.
As shown in Figure 3, the behavior of a plastic hinge is modeled as a bilinear curve: elastic
segment AB and hardening segment BC. Based on this curve, the plastic rotation, p , can be
expressed as follows
M − My
p = pu (18)
Mu − My
where pu is the ultimate plastic rotation; M is the applied moment at the location of the
plastic hinge; My is the bending moment at rst yielding of tensile steel; and Mu is the
fc
d' fs ' Bd'
d' fs '
' kd 0.5 fc Bkd
D d d Neutral axis My

d' fy
B fy Bdρ
Section Stress Resultant force
Figure 4. Double reinforced member section at rst yield.
ultimate moment resistance. It should be noted that My for a beam–column is also a function
of the co-existent axial force on the member. According to ATC-40 [2], the value of My
can be replaced by a modied value, which is equal to the yield moment capacity plus or
minus the action induced by the axial force. Given the value of steel reinforcement used in
a concrete section, the values of p , My and Mu can then be determined. For simplicity, Mu
can be approximately related to My as Mu = 1:1My [2]; and pu is instantaneously assumed
to be constant and its value can be read directly from ATC-40 [2]. As a result, the plastic
rotation, p , given in Equation (18) can be rewritten as

pu M
p = −1 (19)
0:1 My
It is necessary that the formulation of the plastic rotation, p , be accurately expressed in
terms of the design variables (i.e., and ). Furthermore, a good formulation should reect
accurately the change in the plastic rotation, p , due to a change in the design variables during
the optimization resizing process. In other words, any change in the design variables, and
, during the inelastic optimization process requires a corresponding update on the value of
M and My .
By the equilibrium shown in Figure 4, where fc is the stress at the extreme compression
concrete ber; fs is the stress in the compression steel; fy is the yield strength of the tension
steel and d is the eective depth and is equal to the distance from extreme compression ber
to the centroid of tension steel, My can be expressed in terms of design variables, and , as

kd
My = 0:5fc Bkd − d + fy Bd(d − d ) (20)
3
where k is the neutral axis depth factor at rst yield and is given as

d
k = ( + )2 n2sc + 2 + nsc − ( + )nsc (21)
d
E
in which nsc = Esc where Ec and Es are the moduli of elasticity of the concrete and of the
steel, respectively.
To take into account the change in p due to a change in and while maintaining an
instantaneously xed value of M , a second-order Taylor series approximation for evaluating
the value of p is given as

@p 1 @2 p
p () = p |=0 + ( − ) +
0
( − 0 )2 (22)
@ =0 2 @2 =0
where the tension steel ratio, , is herein considered as the major design variable; for sim-
plicity, the compression steel ratio, , is assumed to be linearly related to for beams and is
@ @2
equal to for columns; the gradient, @p , and the second-order term, @p2 , can be analytically
calculated from Equation (19) as
@p pu M @My
=− · · (23)
@ 0:1 My2 @

@ 2 p pu M 2 @My 2 1 @2 My
=− · − 3· + 2· (24)
@2 0:1 My @ My @2
@M @2 M
in which the terms @y and @2y can be obtained directly from Equation (20).
By substituting Equations (22) and (19) into Equation (16), and based on the rst-order
and second-order derivatives of p (Equations (23) and (24)) about a given design point,
0i , the inelastic displacement uj given by Equation (14) can be instantaneously expressed in
terms of design variable i as

Ni @u

Ni @2 u
j 1 j
uj (i ) = uj |i = 0i + (i − i ) +
0
(i − 0i )2 (25)
i=1 @i i = 0 2 i=1 @2i i = 0
i i
Similarly, by substituting Equation (25) into Equation (17), the inelastic interstory drift,
uj , can also be explicitly expressed in terms of design variable i .
2.3.2. Lower and upper size bounds of design variables. In order to prevent drastic changes
in the internal element force and moment redistribution due to the changes in the design
variables resulting in uctuation of solution convergence during the pushover re-analysis and
design optimization processes, it is necessary that each plastic hinge should remain plastic
once it appears during the resizing iteration of design variables. Furthermore, it is also nec-
essary to maintain the accuracy of the Taylor approximation of the inelastic displacement in
Equation (25) by ensuring that the variation of i for the member with plastic hinges must be
restricted within a relatively small range. In other words, the rotation, p , of a plastic hinge
must remain greater than or at least equal to zero such that p ¿0. On the other hand, although
p is allowed to change to improve the inelastic deformation with an increase in the design
variable, i , its rotation must be limited within its ultimate plastic rotation, i.e., p 6pu . It
is found from Figure 3 that, in order to maintain the relationship of 06p 6pu , the internal
moment, M , leading to the occurrence of a plastic hinge, must satisfy the following condition:
My 6M 6Mu (26)
In order to maintain the plasticity of the plastic hinge, an increase of the value of i causing a
corresponding increase in My must be limited within the moment, M , acting at the location of
the plastic hinge. Therefore, by setting My = M where My can be found from Equation (20),
the corresponding value of i can be solved and this value can then be taken as the upper
bound value of i such that Ui = i .
On the other hand, a reduction in the value of i leads to a corresponding decrease in
the ultimate moment capacity, Mu , but this renewed Mu must be greater than the applied
moment, M , in order to ensure feasibility of the design (i.e., M 6Mu ). By setting Mu = M
and assuming Mu = 1:1My , the lower bound value of i can then be found such that iL = i .
As a result, based on Equation (26), the lower and upper bounds of i for each plastic hinge
can be instantaneously established during the OC iterative resizing process. It should be noted
that the proper establishment of the lower and upper bounds of i not only limits the changes
in the steel reinforcement design variables, but also it satises the local performance-based
constraints on the control of the local plastic rotation at the ends of members.
2.4. Explicit elastic and inelastic design problem formulation

Upon establishing the explicit formulation of the elastic interstory drift, Equation (9), based
on the response spectrum analysis method, the elastic optimization problem of minimizing the
concrete construction cost subject to elastic spectral interstory drift constraints using the CQC
method can be written in terms of the design variables, Bi and Di , as

Ni
Minimize: F(Bi ; Di ) = wi Bi Di (27)
i=1
subject to: gj (Bi ; Di )

1
(n) (n) (n) (m) (m) (m)

Nn Nn Ni C0ij C1ij C2ij
Ni C0ij C1ij C2ij
= e nm + + 3 + + 3 61
dj hj n=1 m=1 i=1 Bi Di Bi Di3 Bi Di i=1 Bi Di Bi Di3 Bi Di
(j = 1; 2; : : : ; Nj ) (28)
BiL 6Bi 6BiU ; DiL 6Di 6DiU (i = 1; 2; : : : ; Ni ) (29)
Equation (28) denes the set of elastic interstory drift constraints at the j = 1; 2; : : : ; Nj oor
levels, where dje is the allowable elastic interstory drift ratio. Equation (29) denes the member
sizing constraints, where BiL and BiU , DiL and DiU correspond to the lower and upper size
bounds specied for the section width, Bi , and depth, Di , respectively.
Also, upon establishing the explicit inelastic interstory drift formulation, Equation (25),
the inelastic optimization problem of minimizing the steel construction cost can be explicitly
written in terms of the design variable, i , as

Ni
Minimize: F(i ) = wsi i
i=1

1 Ni 1 Ni
subject to: gj (i ) = p uj |i = 0i + 1ij (i − i ) +
0
2ij (i − i ) 61 (30)
0 2
dj hj i=1 2 i=1
(j = 1; 2; : : : ; Nj ) (31)
iL 6i 6Ui (i = 1; 2; : : : ; Ni ) (32)
where

@uj 2
0 @ph
1ij = = mjh (33)
@i i =0 h=1 @ i =0
i i i

@uj2
2 @2 ph
2ij = = m0jh (34)
@2i h=1 @2 i =0
i = 0i i i
In Equation (30), wsi is the cost coecient for the tensile steel reinforcement, i . Equation
(31) denes the j = 1; 2; : : : ; Nj inelastic interstory drift constraints at the structural performance
point for a specied ground motion, where djp is the allowable inelastic interstory drift ratio.
Equation (32) denes the sizing constraint specied for the tensile steel reinforcement variable,
i . Note that the compressive steel reinforcement, i , has been assumed to be related to i
and therefore, it is not included in the explicit inelastic optimization problem of Equations
(30)–(34).
3. OPTIMALITY CRITERIA ALGORITHM AND DESIGN PROCEDURE
3.1. Optimality criterion algorithm

Upon formulating the explicit design optimization problems of Equations (27)–(29) and (30)
–(32), the next task is to develop a suitable method for solving the problem. A rigorously de-
rived Optimality Criterion (OC) technique previously developed for building structural design
optimization [14, 18] has been extended to the solution of the drift performance optimization
in this study. In this approach, a set of necessary optimality conditions for the optimal design
is rst derived and a recursive algorithm is then applied to achieve indirectly the optimum
by satisfying the optimality conditions.
For convenience of discussion, xi is dened as a design variable vector for member i in
each phase design optimization. From Equations (27)–(29) and (30)–(32), the optimal design
problem can be generally dened as
Minimize the objective function
F = F(x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xi ; : : : ; xNi ) (35)
subject to the interstory drift constraints
uj
gj (x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xi ; : : : ; xNi ) = 61 (j = 1; 2; : : : ; Nj ) (36)
dj hj
In addition, there are constraints on the variables themselves, and they are dened as
xiL 6xi 6xiU (i = 1; 2; : : : ; Ni ) (37)
Functions F (objective or merit function) and g (constraints) are functions of Ni design
variables (x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xi ; : : : ; xNi ) in the optimization.
In classical optimization theory, the necessary optimality criteria for the constrained opti-
mal design problem, Equations (35)–(37), can be obtained indirectly by rst converting the
constrained problem to an unconstrained Lagrangian function and then solving for the sta-
tionary condition of Lagrangian function L. By temporarily omitting the sizing constraints in
Equation (37), the unconstrained Lagrangian function, L, can be formulated as

Nj
L(xi ; j ) = F(xi ) + j gj (xi ) (38)
j=1
where a series of j are called the Lagrangian multipliers corresponding to the active con-
straints.
By dierentiating Equation (38), with respect to the design variables, and setting the deriva-
tives to zero, the stationary conditions of the Lagrangian function are shown as
@L @F Nj
@gj
=0 ⇒ + j =0 (i = 1; 2; : : : ; Ni ) (39)
@xi @xi j=1 @xi
Based on Equation (39), a linear recursive relation to resize design variable xi can be
given as
  

Nj
@gj
 j
 1 j=1 @xi


xi+1 = xi 1 +  − 1 for active xi (40)
  @F 
@xi
where denotes the current iteration number and is a relaxation parameter that can be
adaptively adjusted to control the rate of convergence. Before Equation (40) can be used to
nd the variable xi , the Lagrange multipliers, j , must rst be determined. By considering the
sensitivity of the k-th constraint due to the change in the design variable, xi , the following
simultaneous equation can then be established to solve for the set of Lagrangian multipliers:
 
@gk @gj
Ni  xi ·
Nj
 @xi @xi 
 Ni @gk
j   =− xi − (1 − gk ) (k = 1; 2; : : : ; Nj ) (41)
j=1 i=1 @F i=1 @xi
@xi
Equation (40) for the sizing variables and Equation (41) for Lagrange multipliers form the
basis of the iterative OC method for the solution of the optimal design problem, Equations
(35)–(37). By successively applying the recursive optimization iteration until the convergence
of xi as well as j occurs, then the continuous optimal solution for the design problem,
Equations (35)–(37), is found.
For the case of a statically indeterminate structure, the explicit design formulation, Equa-
tions (35)–(37), is only approximate because any changes in the member sizes will cause a
redistribution of the internal forces and a change in the natural frequencies of the building
structure. Consequently, it is necessary to re-analyse the structure for the updated sizes after
each OC optimization process and to reapply the iterative analysis and design optimization
processes until the solution convergence is achieved.
3.2. Overall design optimization procedure

The overall design optimization procedure for limiting lateral elastic and inelastic drifts of a
reinforced concrete building structure is listed as follows:
(1) Assume the initial member sizes and determine the design spectra corresponding to
minor and severe earthquakes.
(2) In the rst phase, i.e., the elastic design optimization, carry out the response spectrum
analysis of the structure subject to a minor earthquake and conduct a static virtual
load analysis using commercially available software such as SAP2000 [20].
(3) Read all the necessary input and output results of the analysis and establish the explicit
elastic design optimization formulation of Equations (27)–(29).
(4) Apply the recursive OC optimization algorithm using Equations (40) and (41) to resize
the concrete element sizes.
(5) Repeat Steps 2 and 4 for statically indeterminate structures until the concrete cost
of the structure between two successive design cycles converges to be within certain
acceptable criteria (say, 0.5%).
(6) After the elastic design optimization, x the optimal member sizes, Bi and Di , in the
inelastic design optimization. Based on the member size derived from the elastic opti-
mization, determine the minimum and maximum size bounds of the steel reinforcement
ratios, i and i , in accordance with the strength-based code requirements.
(7) Carry out the non-linear pushover analysis to determine the inelastic responses of the
structure at the performance point.
(8) Read all the necessary input and output results of the pushover analysis, establish the
lower and upper bounds of i for the members with plastic hinges using Equation (26)
and determine the values of the rst-order and second-order derivatives of inelastic drift
responses using Equations (33) and (34).
(9) Establish the explicit inelastic interstory drift constraints using a second-order Taylor
series approximation and formulate the explicit inelastic design problem, Equations
(30)–(32).
(10) Apply the recursive OC optimization algorithm using Equations (40) and (41) to resize
all steel reinforcement design variables.
(11) Repeat Steps 7 and 10 until the convergence of the values of the steel cost objective
function and the inelastic drift design constraints is achieved.
4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
4.1. Design problem

A ten-story, two-bay planar frame is used to illustrate the elastic and inelastic optimal design
methods. The structural geometry of the frame is given in Figure 5(a). Concrete with com-
pressive concrete strength, fc , of 20:0 MPa and steel reinforcement with the yield strength,
fy , of 335 MPa are used for all members. A uniformly distributed gravity load of 30 kN=m
is applied on the beams of each story.
Two levels of earthquake loads are considered in this example. One represents a minor
earthquake load with a peak acceleration of 0:32g according to the acceleration response
30kN/m
34.94kN
32.33
28.91
25.36
21.32
3.0*10=30m
17.46
1.5
Spectral acceleration S a (g)

Sa,max=1.40g
13.44 1.2
9.64 0.9 Severe earthquake
5.83 0.6
Minor earthquake
Sa,max=0.32g
0.3
2.17
B1 B2 0
C1 C2 C3 0.1 0.3
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a) 5m 5m (b) Period (s)
Figure 5. A ten-story, two-bay reinforced concrete frame subjected to spectrum

loading: (a) geometry; and (b) design response spectra.
spectrum of the Chinese seismic design code [5], as shown in Figure 5(b). Another load
level represents a severe earthquake with an initial peak acceleration of 1:4g. In the elastic
phase of the optimization, the concrete cost of the structure is to be minimized subject to the
elastic spectral drift constraints under the minor earthquake loading condition. The unit cost of
concrete is assumed to be US$90=m3 . Elastic interstory drift constraints are taken into account
with an allowable interstory drift ratio limit of 1=450. The initial sizes are arbitrarily chosen
to be 350 mm×350 mm for the columns and 200 mm×350 mm for the beams. Size bounds
are dened as 350–1000 mm for the depths and the widths of the columns, 200–350 mm for
the widths of the beams, and 350–450 mm for the depths of the beams.
In the inelastic phase of the optimization, the design objective is to minimize the steel
reinforcement cost subject to the performance-based inelastic drift constraints under the severe
earthquake loading condition. The unit construction cost of steel reinforcement is assumed to
be US$960=tonne including the costs of the steel material and labor. Inelastic interstory drift
constraints are considered with an allowable interstory drift ratio limit of 1=100 and the P–
Delta eect is not considered in the example. Initial reinforcement ratios are calculated based
on the strength requirements of members after the elastic phase design process. Such strength-
based reinforcement ratios are taken as the lower bounds for the inelastic design process.
Their upper bounds are assumed to be 6.0% for columns and 4.0% for beams. For simplicity,
symmetrical arrangement of steel reinforcement is assumed such that i = i . Flexural plastic
5000
4500
Total construction cost (US$) 4000 4358
3500 3898
3000 1693
(Initial steel cost)
2500
2205
2000
1500 1528
1000
Elastic phase Inelastic phase of optimization
500 of optimization
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Design cycle
Figure 6. Design history of structural cost.
hinges, if they happen to occur, are assigned to the end locations of the beams and columns
and the ultimate plastic rotation, pu , is assumed to be equal to 0:02 radian.
The pushover analysis of the structure is performed by the SAP2000 software [20] based
on the assumption that the fundamental mode of vibration is the predominant response of the
structure. Initial lateral loads applied in pushover analysis are shown in Figure 5(a), which is
proportional to the product of the story mass and the rst mode shape of the elastic model
of the structure. During the pushover analysis, the lateral loads are applied incrementally in
proportion to the initial loads but the gravity loads, shown in Figure 5(a), are assumed to be
xed. The design process is deemed to converge when the dierence in the structure costs
for two successive design cycles is within 0.5% and when the dierence between the active
interstory drift value and its allowable limit at the performance point is within 0.5%.
4.2. Numerical results and discussions

4.2.1. Design history. Figure 6 presents the optimal design history for both the elastic and
inelastic drift optimization processes. In the elastic optimal design, rapid and steady conver-
gence of the concrete cost from the initial US$1528 to the nal US$2205 after six design
cycles has been found. The rapid convergence can be explained by the fact that the mem-
ber force distribution for such structures is somewhat insensitive to changes in member size.
In contrast, the inelastic optimal design process converges quite slowly but steadily in 48
design cycles. The relatively slow convergence is inevitable due to the need to maintain a
small change in the steel reinforced ratios during the non-linear design optimization process.
However, the OC design method is able to achieve a smooth and steady convergence to the
optimal design as evidently shown in Figure 6.
In the elastic design optimization subject to elastic interstory drift constraints, the total
construction cost only includes the concrete cost, which is minimized from the arbitrary,
initial US$1528 to the nal US$2205. In the inelastic design optimization subject to inelastic
Drift ratio limit=1/450 Drift ratio

10 Initial ratio 10 limit=1/100
Initial ratio
Final ratio
Final ratio
8 8
Story level
Story level
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030
(a) Interstory drift ratio (b) Interstory drift ratio
Figure 7. Initial and nal structural responses: (a) elastic phase; and (b) inelastic phase.
interstory drift constraints, the initial total construction cost US$3898 consists of the steel
reinforcement cost of US$1693 calculated based on code-specied strength requirements and
the concrete cost of US$2205, which is to be xed in this inelastic phase of the optimization.
Since initial violations in inelastic interstory drift constraints are found in the strength-based
design, an increase in the steel reinforcement is necessary, resulting in a nal total construction
cost of US$4358.
4.2.2. Interstory drift. Figures 7(a) and (b) present the results of the initial and nal inter-
story drift ratios of the elastic design optimization and the inelastic design optimization. As
shown in Figure 7(a), in the elastic design optimization, all drift constraints are satised and
most of the elastic interstory drift constraints are found to be active, although they are sub-
stantially violated initially. As shown in Figure 7(b), in the inelastic design optimization, the
initial interstory drift constraints on the third to sixth oors are found to violate substantially
the allowable interstory drift ratio of 1=100. After the optimization, the steel ratios of the
structural members are resized and the lateral drifts from the second to ninth oors are very
close to the limiting values. Such a result indicates that, for the optimal design, the inelas-
tic drift responses can be improved by the OC procedure such as to redistribute and resize
the steel reinforcements of the members to satisfy the lateral drift constraints. Moreover, the
linear deformed shape of the optimized structure indicates that this optimized structure has
resulted in a design in which all drift constraints are almost fully constrained at optimum.
Such a result seems to exhibit the fact that the inelastic drift optimization methodology has
the capability of preventing the occurrence of soft story mechanisms.
4.2.3. Steel reinforcement ratio. Table I presents the member sizes and the steel reinforce-
ment ratios before and after the design optimization. In the elastic phase, the member sizes are
increased after the elastic design optimization since the initial design is found to be infeasible.
The starting strength-based design, in the second inelastic design phase, is also found to be
Table I. Initial and nal member sizes and reinforcement ratios.

Elastic optimization Inelastic optimization
Initial sizes Optimal sizes Steel ratios
Element Story Member width depth width depth initial optimal
type level group (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%)
Column 9th–10th C1,C3 350 350 350 350 0.990 0.990

C2 350 350 350 350 1.386 1.386
8th C1,C3 350 350 350 350 0.849 1.022
C2 350 350 350 475 0.958 1.206
7th C1,C3 350 350 350 350 1.163 1.454
C2 350 350 350 475 1.092 1.400
6th C1,C3 350 350 350 400 0.854 1.162
C2 350 350 350 575 0.831 1.180
5th C1,C3 350 350 350 400 0.969 1.418
C2 350 350 350 575 1.002 1.228
4th C1,C3 350 350 350 450 0.833 1.156
C2 350 350 350 600 0.739 1.038
3rd C1,C3 350 350 350 450 0.825 1.204
C2 350 350 350 600 0.857 1.132
2nd C1,C3 350 350 350 450 1.044 1.212
C2 350 350 350 650 1.225 1.588
1st C1,C3 350 350 350 450 1.514 1.514
C2 350 350 350 650 1.844 1.910
Beam 9th–10th B1,B2 200 350 200 400 0.800 0.800

8th B1,B2 200 350 200 450 0.838 0.897
7th B1,B2 200 350 200 450 0.915 1.283
6th B1,B2 200 350 250 450 0.897 1.234
5th B1,B2 200 350 250 450 0.958 1.395
4th B1,B2 200 350 300 450 0.915 1.317
3rd B1,B2 200 350 300 450 0.958 1.365
2nd B1,B2 200 350 300 450 0.982 1.464
1st B1,B2 200 350 300 450 0.843 1.258
infeasible in terms of the inelastic drift requirements. After the inelastic design optimization,
the steel reinforcement ratios of the members are increased, particularly in the lower levels
of the structure.
4.2.4. Performance point. Figure 8 presents the variation of the initial and nal performance
points. In Figure 8, the capacity spectrum dened by the curve A–B–C–D represents the
performance of the initial structure. It has a spectral acceleration capacity at rst yielding of
0:031g (at Point B), an ultimate spectral acceleration capacity of 0:068g (at Point D) and
an ultimate spectral displacement capacity of approximately 0:265 m. The performance point
‘D’ of the initial structure represents the initial performance of the structure where capacity
meets demand under severe earthquake loading. The curve A–F–G–H represents the capacity
curve of the optimized structure. It is found that the optimized structure results in an increase
in its spectral acceleration capacity at the rst yield of 0:056g (at Point F) and has a nal
0.15
Final demand curve
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) 0.12 Final performance point

Initial demand curve
(0.217, 0.085g)
Final capacity curve H
0.09
(0.049, 0.056g) G Path of D
performance points
F
0.06
C Initial capacity curve
Initial performance point
0.03 B (0.265, 0.068g)
(0.026, 0.031g)
0
A
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Spectral Displacement, Sd (m)
Figure 8. Initial and nal performance points.
performance point, ‘H’, with an ultimate spectral acceleration capacity of 0:085g and a spectral
displacement of 0:217 m.
Such a result of shifting the spectral displacement from 0:265 m to 0:217 m as shown in
Figure 8 indicates that, for the optimized inelastic frame, the inelastic lateral load resistance
has been enhanced through optimal resizing of the steel reinforcement by the OC procedure.
Also, shifting the ultimate spectral acceleration capacity from 0:068g to 0:085g indicates that
the optimized structure attracts an increase in the seismic loading action.
Moreover, the curve between the performance points ‘D’ and ‘H’ in Figure 8 shows the
path moving from the infeasible performance point to the nal performance point. It should
be noted that a performance point does not always exist for an initial structure, particularly
when the capacity of the structure does not meet the demand of an earthquake. When the
lateral frame of the initial structure is weak or the initial allocation of structural materials is
not appropriate, the capacity curve may not necessarily meet the demand curve. In a robust
optimization procedure, it is necessary that the procedure should be able to proceed from
any arbitrary starting design regardless of whether an initial performance point exists. As a
matter of fact, it has been found that the OC procedure is able to shift automatically and
gradually from any arbitrary initial performance point to the nal optimal performance point
with minimal cost.
4.2.5. Status of plastic hinges. Figure 9 shows the structural inelastic performance and plastic
hinge distribution under pushover loading. Figure 9(a) presents a table showing the number
of plastic hinges in three dierent states of plasticity; and Figure 9(b) shows graphically the
denition of the three states of plasticity of a plastic hinge, i.e., IO for Immediate Occupancy,
LS for Life Safety and CP for Collapse Prevention. Initially, in the second to sixth stories,
as shown in Figure 9(c), the rotations of 18 plastic hinges are found to be close to their
ultimate state of plastic collapse. Weaker stories at the lower levels are found to exceed their
Number of plastic hinges Total number

B-IO IO-LS LS-CP of plastic hinges
Initial design 34 7 18 59
Final design 50 21 2 73
(a)
M
C
B
CP
IO LS IO = Immediate Occupancy
B-IO: LS = Life Safety
IO-LS: CP = Collapse Prevention
LS-CP:
A
(b)
(c) (d)
Figure 9. Initial and nal plastic hinge distribution in the inelastic design optimization
phase: (c) initial design; and (d) nal design.
allowable interstory drift ratio of 1=100. As can be observed from the optimized framework
in Figure 9(d), the interstory drifts along the height of the building are found to be almost
all fully constrained resulting in a linear deected prole at the nal performance point of the
structure. Such a result indicates that the optimization method developed here can automati-
cally resize the steel reinforcements of all the members to attain the best inelastic lateral drift
performance while preventing the occurrence of soft stories. At optimum, although the number
of the plastic hinges is found to increase from 59 to 73, the distributions of the plastic hinges
have become more uniform. This result implies that an economical structure can be achieved
by using more members to dissipate energy through the development of plastic hinges in a
uniform manner.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Using the principle of virtual work, both the elastic spectral drift constraints and the non-
linear pushover inelastic drift constraints have been explicitly formulated in terms of the
design variables. Rapid and steady convergence for elastic drift optimization has been found.
The rapid convergence can be explained by the fact that the force and moment distribution of
building framework structures are somewhat insensitive to changes in member size. In contrast,
the inelastic optimal design process converges quite slowly but steadily. The restrictive move
limit imposed on the reinforced steel design variable is found to be necessary to ensure a
smooth and steady convergence of the inelastic drift design process.
The OC design method developed in this research is also able to shift automatically and
gradually any initial performance point to achieve the optimal performance point, regardless
of whether the initial performance point is feasible. Results indicate that the OC method can
eectively achieve the least expensive cost design of reinforced concrete building frameworks
subject to both elastic spectral drift and inelastic pushover drift constraints. Furthermore, the
method is capable of achieving a uniform ductility over all stories of a multi-story building,
thus preventing the occurrence of soft story mechanisms in such structures. It is believed that
the optimization methodology developed here provides a powerful computer-based technique
for performance-based design of multi-story building structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful for the nancial support provided by the Research Grants Council of Hong
Kong under Project No. HKUST6249=00E.
REFERENCES
1. SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee. Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings, Part 2: Conceptual
Framework. Structural Engineers Association of California: Sacremento, California, 1995.
2. ATC-40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings. Volume 1, ATC-40 Report, Applied
Technology Council: Redwood City, California, 1996.
3. FEMA. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Developed by the Building Seismic
Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Report No. FEMA 273): Washington, DC,
U.S.A., 1997.
4. Krawinker H. Static pushover analysis. Proceedings: SEAONC 1994 Fall Seminar on the Developing Art of
Seismic Engineering. San Francisco, CA, 1994.
5. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Code for Seismic Design Buildings (GBJ11-89).
New World Press: Beijing, China, 1994.
6. Moehle JP, Mahin SA. Observations on the behavior of reinforced concrete buildings during earthquakes.
American Concrete Institute SP-127, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures—Inelastic Response and
Design. Ghosh SK (ed.), 1991.
7. Cheng FY, Botkin ME. Nonlinear optimum design of dynamic damped frames. Journal of the Structural
Division (ASCE) 1976; 102(No.ST3):609– 628.
8. Bhatti MA, Pister KS. A dual criteria approach for optimal design of earthquake-resistant structural systems.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1981; 9:557–572.
9. Cheng FY, Truman KZ. Optimization algorithm of 3D building systems for static and seismic loading. Modeling
and Simulation in Engineering. Ames WF (ed.), North-Holland: New York, 1983; pp. 315 –326.
10. Truman KZ, Cheng FY. How to optimize for earthquake loads. Guide to Structural Optimization. ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No.90, 1997; 237–261.
11. Arora JS. Optimization of structures subjected to dynamic loads. Structural Dynamic Systems Computational
Techniques and Optimization. Leondes CT (ed.), Gordon and Breach: Amsterdam 1999; pp. 1–73.
12. Foley CM. Optimized performance-based design for buildings. Recent Advances in Optimal Structural Design.
Burns SA (ed.), American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, 2002; pp. 169–240.
13. Ganzerli S, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. Performance-based design using structural optimization. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2000; 29:1677–1690.
14. Chan CM. How to optimize tall steel building frameworks. Guide to Structural Optimization. ASCE Manuals
and Reports on Engineering Practice No.90, 1997; 165 –195.
15. Chan CM, Sun SL. Optimal drift design of tall reinforced concrete building frameworks. Advances in Structural
Optimization; Frangopol DM and Cheng FY (ed.), American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, 1997;
pp. 31– 42.
16. Chan CM. Optimal lateral stiness design of tall buildings of mixed steel and concrete construction. The
Structural Design of Tall Buildings 2001; 10:155–177.
17. Zou XK, Chan CM. Optimal drift performance design for nonlinear pushover response of concrete structures.
WCSMO-4: Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.
4 –8 June 2001, Dalian, China.
18. Zou XK. Optimal Seismic Performance-Based Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2002.
19. International Conference of Building Ocials. Uniform Building Code (UBC). Whittier, California, U.S.A.,
1997.
20. Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI). SAP2000=NL-PUSH Software, Version 7.40. Computer and Structures,
Inc.: Berkeley, California, U.S.A., 2000.

Elastic and Inelastic Drift Performance Optimization For Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Earthquake Loads

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elastic and Inelastic Drift Performance Optimization For Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Earthquake Loads

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:929–950 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.385)

Elastic and inelastic drift performance optimization for

Chun-Man Chan∗;† and Xiao-Kang Zou

2. OPTIMAL DESIGN PROBLEM FORMULATION

2.1. First phase – Elastic design optimization problem

where wci is the unit cost coecient of concrete for member i.

Figure 1. Denition of a local coordinate system.

[uj (Bi ; Di )]CQC

2.2. Second phase – Inelastic design optimization problem

Figure 2. Capacity spectrum vs. demand spectrum.

2.3. Explicit inelastic drift formulation

Figure 3. Moment–rotation curve.

Section Stress Resultant force

Figure 4. Double reinforced member section at rst yield.

the value of p is given as

2.4. Explicit elastic and inelastic design problem formulation

subject to: gj (Bi ; Di )

iL 6i 6Ui (i = 1; 2; : : : ; Ni ) (32)

3. OPTIMALITY CRITERIA ALGORITHM AND DESIGN PROCEDURE

3.1. Optimality criterion algorithm

3.2. Overall design optimization procedure

4.1. Design problem

Spectral acceleration S a (g)

9.64 0.9 Severe earthquake

Figure 5. A ten-story, two-bay reinforced concrete frame subjected to spectrum

Figure 6. Design history of structural cost.

4.2. Numerical results and discussions

Drift ratio limit=1/450 Drift ratio

Table I. Initial and nal member sizes and reinforcement ratios.

Column 9th–10th C1,C3 350 350 350 350 0.990 0.990

Beam 9th–10th B1,B2 200 350 200 400 0.800 0.800

Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) 0.12 Final performance point

Figure 8. Initial and nal performance points.

Number of plastic hinges Total number

You might also like