Optimization of Active Control of Structures by Pole

Assignment Method Using Genetic Algorithm


F. Aminia and A. Maleki b and F. Danesh c


Abstract

The optimization of the number and locations of the controllers is one of the most important

problems in the control of structures. The controllers cannot be placed in arbitrary locations

based on the type of the structure, and due to the high costs of the controllers and the fact that

they occupy a large space; the number of the controllers must be minimized. In this paper, a

robust algorithm, namely, genetic algorithm is used to optimize the number and locations of the

controllers. Several numerical examples demonstrate the application of this algorithm to the

optimization problem, and provide comparison with other optimization methods. The results

indicate that the genetic algorithm is highly effective in optimizing the number and locations of

the controllers, and that the optimization is performed at higher speeds and shorter times.

Keywords: genetic algorithm, pole assignment, optimization, active control

1. Introduction

Considering the high costs of the controllers, and the fact that they occupy a large space, the

optimization of the number and locations of the controllers is an important subject. Compared

with non-optimization techniques, an optimization method can control the structure with less

number of the controllers and smaller controller force.

a
- Associate professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran 16844Iran. Fax No.: +9821 7454053 Email address: famine@iust.ac.ir
b
- Research assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran 16844Iran. Fax No.: +9821 7454053 Email address: alimaleky@yahoo.com
c
- Research assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran 16844Iran. Fax No.: +9821 7454053 Email address: f_danesh@yahoo.com

1
With the progress in the genetic algorithm, Prebys applied this method in computer science

using new software to obtain a useful algorithm for optimization [Prebys, 1999]. Based on the

analysis of active control of structures including a feedback named HI/LQG Sedarat and Kosut

at Stanford university developed an effective procedure for control of structure based on several

inputs [Kosut, Stanford, 2000]. Shook et al. numerically analyzed a five degree of freedom

structure for both near and far fault earthquake. The control system in this structure was of a dual

type. The two controllers in this structure behaved based on the fuzzy logic law, with one of the

controllers performing based on the near fault and the other based on the far fault. In addition, a

switching system for this structure has been optimized using the genetic algorithm. The

numerical simulation has also been done based on the fuzzy limitation and using genetic

algorithm. The results of their study have indicated that the recent progress in new computer

software has provided the ability to analyze structures with controllers, and also optimize them

using various techniques [Shook, Tani, 2002].

Abdullah et al. studied the optimization of the location of the location of the controllers using the

genetic algorithm. Based on this relatively thorough investigation, various parameters such as

the amount of energy and the costs of the controllers were considered. The locations of the

controllers, in discrete situations, allow them to use the genetic algorithm to optimize the

locations of the controllers. Their technique was based on the idea of the accidental genetic

algorithm. The locations of the controllers were determined considering and minimizing a vector

function. The structure, used in their investigation, consisted of a forty-story building with ten

controllers [Abdullah, Richardson, 2001].

In this paper, the genetic algorithm, as a robust algorithm, has been used to optimize the number

and locations of the controllers. The structural control analysis has been performed using the

pole assignment method. Finally, several numerical examples demonstrate the applicability of

this method for the purpose of optimization, as well as comparison with other optimization

techniques. The results have indicated that the genetic algorithm is highly effective in optimizing

2
the number and locations of the controllers, and that the optimization is performed at higher

speeds and shorter times.

2- Pole Assignment Method

The differential equations of motion for n degree of freedom systems take the from

MX  CX  KX  Pt   u t  (1)

Where M, C and K are respectively, the n  n mass, damping and stiffness matrices, X is

dimensional displacement vector, P (t) is external excitation vector and u (t) is control force

vector.

Eq.1 can be written in the state space from

q (t )  Aq (t )  Bu (t )  BP (t ) (2)

  

Where

0 
 B   1  , A  0 I  , q   x(t )
M   1   x (t )
 M K  M C 
1

Control force maybe defined as

u t   F .q (3)

Where F is constant gain matrix

By substituting Eq.3 into Eq.1, the closed – loop system take the from

q t    A  BF q (t )  BP(t ) (4)

Since the eigenvalues of     F Matrix defined the controlled system behavior, a feasible

control strategy is to choose the control gain matrix F in such a way that displacements of

3
structure do not exceed permissible limitation. For structural systems, these eigenvalues are

related to the modal frequencies i and damping ratio  i in conjugate pairs by

 2i 1 ,  2i   i  i  i i 1   i2 (5)

The eigenvalues are the solution of determinant equation:

 2 n   A  BF   0 (6)

That can be written as

    n  F   0 (7)

Where

    2n   
1 (8)

For the i th eigenvalue i  , Eq.7 is satisfied if a column or a row of  i  consists entirely of

zeros. Thus assigning 2n eigenvalues into Eq.7 and solve these equations, one can find gain

matrix and control forces.

3. GENETIC ALGORITHM

In this optimization method, information about the problem such as variable parameters, is

coded into a genetic string known as a chromosome. Each of these chromosomes has an

associated fitness value, which is usually determined by the performance index (PI) to be

minimized. Each chromosome contains sub-strings known as genes, which contribute in

different ways to the fitness of the chromosome. The genetic algorithm proceeds by taking a

population, which is comprised of different chromosomes and generating a new population or

generation by combining features of chromosomes with the highest fitness values. The aim of

4
the algorithm is to produce chromosomes with increasing fitness, and to increase the average

fitness of each successive generation. Only the fittest chromosomes pass to successive

generations [Abdullah, Richardson, 2001].

The genetic algorithm uses three basic operations: selection, cross-over and mutation. Selection

is the process of choosing the fittest string from the current population for use in further

reproductive operations to yield fitter generations. Cross-over is the process whereby new

chromosomes are generated from existing individuals by cutting each old string (chromosome)

at a random location (cross-over point) and replace the tail of one string with that of the other.

Figure 1 shows the cross-over operation. Mutation is a random process where by values of

element(s) with in a genetic string is changed. In a binary string, mutation is the random

changing of 1's to 0's and vice versa. Mutation ensures genetic diversity within the population by

producing strings that contain new material and are therefore helps to prevent the Genetic

Algorithm from being trapped in a local minimum. Figure 2 shows the mutation operation.

4. OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQE

A genetic algorithm is used in conjunction with a pole assignment method to optimize the

placement of actuators as well as the respective controller gains.

Genetic algorithm, due to optimization, uses performance index and some evaluation criteria.

This algorithm associated with performance index method indicates the optimized case. Pole

assignment method is used to calculate response analysis and performance index values.

Performance index values are the fitness that genetic algorithm considers for each string.

In analysis, given time interval divide to subinterval and in every interval, it is determined

structural response with given external force and if necessary it is calculated the control force.

4.1. Performance Indexes

5
 To investigate the performance of each case, a set of evaluation criteria is used. The criteria are

related to peak value of response, RMS of response and maximum of control force. The criteria

related to peak value of response is represented by the following four relations:

EC1 
max ycon (t )
(9)
max yunc (t )

EC 2 
max xcon (t )
(10)
max xunc (t )

max ÿ con (t )
EC 3 
max ÿ unc (t )
(11)

EC 4 
max V0 con (t )
(12)
max V0unc (t )


In the above relations, indices 'con' and 'unc' are related to controlled and uncontrolled cases,

respectively. y is storey displacement; x is storey relative displacement, ÿ storey acceleration;

and V0 is the force of base shear. The second criteria are defined in a similar manner. Instead of

peak values, the RMS of response is used.

z  T / t

  ()
n z
2 (13)
RMS () 
ij
i 1 J 1
(n.z )

In the above relation, n is the number of system degree of freedom; z is the number of time

interval, T is the total time; t is the time interval used in calculations. Thus, EC5 is the ratio of

RMS of storey displacement, EC6 is the ratio of RMS of storey relative displacement, EC7 is the

ratio of RMS of storey acceleration and EC8 is the ratio of RMS of storey shear force:

EC 5 
RMS ycon (t )
(14)
RMS yunc (t )

6
EC 6 
RMS xcon (t )
(15)
RMS xunc (t )

RMS ÿ con (t )
EC 7 
RMS ÿ unc (t )
(16)

RMS V0 con (t )
EC 8  (17)
RMS V0 unc (t )

The last criterion is EC9, and is related to the necessary control force for each case:

EC 9 
max V (t )
(18)
W

W is the seismic weight building model and is obtained from the following relations:

M i   i .m 
.  i
T
(19)

1 
1 
L i   i i .m .  
T
(20)
 
 
1  i

2
Wi  g
Li
Mi
(21),(22)
W W
n
2
i
i 1

Where Mi, Li and Wi are modal mass, partnering coefficient and modal weight, respectively. [m]

is matrix of structural mass and g is the coefficient of ground gravitational.

It is used from parameter of performance index for paired comparison of necessary control force

and displacement of controlled structure. The performance index, Q and R matrices are shown in

eq. 23.

  
J   y con ( t ) T .Q.y con ( t )   U ( t ) .R.U ( t ) dt
tf

to
T

7
 1 1 1
 1 1 1

1 1  1 1 1  1
R Q  1010.
1  1 1  1
(23)
   
1 1  1 1 1  1

Lower values of above indices imply that the control system is more efficient.

In genetic algorithm method, these performance indexes are the fitness values and the results

depends on the performance index selective.

5. GENETIC ALGORITHM OPTIMAL ACTUATOR PLACEMENT

In this process, population of chromosomes indicates the actuators placement.

min J ( x aj )  x *aj (24)

Where x *aj  is the location of the controllers, which minimize j function in eq.23.


In this algorithm, k active tendon controllers are to be placed on a n-storey structure. The first

step in this algorithm is coding the related information into a genetic string (chromosome). Each

genetic string is chosen to be comprised of n elements, where each element in the string

represents possible controller placement between the nth and (n-1)th floor. Each element in the

genetic string could be either 1 or 0. If a controller is being placed between two floors, a '1' is

placed in the respective position else it is '0'. For example if four controllers are to be placed on a

ten-storey structure as shown in figure 3, with the controllers being placed directly below the

third, fifth, eighth and tenth floor, the corresponding string will be

0010100101

Once the information successfully encoded, the algorithm proceeds as shown in figure 4.

Initial population is selected in random, and then each string will be analyzed by pole

assignment method and response and performance index values will be calculated. According to

8
performance index, fitness values would be considered to each string. With respect to the fitness

value of each string, initial generation parents would be selected by selection operator. Strings

with more fitness values have more chance to remain in the system.

An initial population is generated (Old-Gen) which represents different possible controller

placements. This initial population is then bred, using both cross-over and mutation operations.

The emerging generation is then put through a filtering criterion. The first stage of the filtering

process is to ensure that each string depicts the placement of exactly k controllers. That is

 S  k

Where S is the genetic string in question. Additionally, the filter also ensures that there are no

repeated strings; repeated strings are 'Thrown Out', and thus not included in the next stage of the

algorithm.

The unique strings that pass through the filter are considered to be the new generation (New-

Gen). Then performance index values are calculated by pole assignment method and each new

string takes fitness value.

The strings, which yield the smallest objective function values, are selected as being the best

strings for the generation and thus became the 'Best-Gen'. These strings are then sent back

through the algorithm as the 'Old-Gen' to be bred. With each successive generation, the 'Best-

Gen' population is selectively updated and again sent back through the algorithm to be bred.

During the selective updating process, the previous 'Best-Gen' is compared to the present 'Best-

Gen', and the fittest unique strings (i.e. no repeated strings) of both generations become the new

'Best-Gen'. They are then passed on to be bred for the next generation. This selection, breeding

and updating process continues until the performance function value for j successive generations

are the same, or until the number of iterations i specified by the user is exceeded[Abdullah,

Richardson, 2001].

9
 6. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

The used models in the article are four structures with below characteristics.

 Structure type A: five-story frame which is shown in table 1

 Structure type B: eight-story frame which is shown in table 2

 Structure type C: ten-story frame which is shown in table 3

 Structure type D: ten-story frame which is shown in table 4

Studied examples are summarized in table 5.

In this study, El-Centro NS 1940 earthquake is used.

6.1. Example E-5-2:

 Parameters of this example are shown in table 6

Results are shown in table 7 and figure 5

No. of Step=4

By comparing the above results, the optimize case is (2, 4). Time history diagrams and peak

value of response are shown in figures (6-9)

6.2. Example E-8-3:

Parameters of this example are shown in table 8


Results are shown in table 9 and figure 10

No. of Step=6

By comparing the above results, the optimize case is (5, 6, 7). Time history diagrams and peak

value of response are shown in figures (11-14)

6.3. Example E-10-3:

Parameters of this example are in table 10

Results are shown in table ææ and figure 15

No. of Step=6

10
By comparing the above results, the optimize case is (7, 9, 10). Time history diagrams and peak

value of response are shown in figures (16-19)

6.4. Example E-10-4:

Parameters of this example are shown in table 12

Results are shown in table 13 and figure 20

No. of Step=9

By comparing the above results, the optimize case is (2, 5, 6, 8). Time history diagrams and peak

value of response are shown in figures (21-24)

7. Comparing the results

Optimized pole assignment method (OPAM) is used by Amini and Karagah [Amini, Karagah,

2002] to optimize location of actuators. In that study optimized performance index is achieved by

assigning proper poles by try and error method. In the following, two methods (GA and OPAM)

are compared for different examples.

7.1. Example E-5-2:

The results are shown in table 14

7.2. Example E-8-3:

The results are shown in table 15

7.3. Example E-10-3:

The results are shown in table 16

7.4. Example E-10-4:

The results are shown in table 17

11
Comparison results

The results of two methods have a lot of similarities which has two main reasons:

1. Used pole assignment method in both optimization methods are the same.

2. Discussed structures are short, which causes the number of possible cases to be fewer. In

larger structures (with more possible locations for controllers), the various techniques

yielded in more different results.

8. Conclusions

Based on the above discussion, the following may be concluded.

1. The optimization of the number and locations of the controllers can provide more

effective control with less control force than the non-optimization techniques.

2. The genetic algorithm, as a robust algorithm, has the high capability in locating the

controllers. This is primary due to the nature of the optimization procedure for the

controller. Using genetic algorithm, it is possible to obtain useful results in a shorter

time.

3. Based on the examples and the comparison of the various methods, the different

optimization and analytical methods provided more similar results in smaller structures

(with fewer possible locations for controllers). In larger structures (with more possible

locations for controllers), the various techniques yielded in more different results.

4. In usual structures with moderate number of stories, the optimization of the locations of

the controllers tends to result in controllers in upper levels.

5. One of the most important factors influencing the results of optimization is the method

of analysis of structural control. In this research, the pole assignment method has been

used. The pole assignment method is a simple, fast method in determining the behavior

of structure during control. Other methods such as the direct solution of the equation of

motion or the application of the artificial neural networks may change the results of the

optimization.

12
 6. One of the most significant problems in optimization is the selection of the performance

criterion. A different performance criterion changes the results of the optimization. The

use of a vector function with different criterion and appropriate weights can provide an

appropriate optimization.

7. Due to the discrete nature of the optimization of controllers, the genetic algorithm has

many applications. The use of the various methods of structural analysis and

optimization as well as the combination of them can provide useful results. Based on

numerical analysis using the genetic algorithm with a high speed, it is possible to use

these results for initial inputs to the artificial neural network scheme. Thus, the

optimization of the controllers can be done in a more precise manner. In addition, the

fuzzy logic and other algorithm in combination with the genetic algorithm can be used.

Reference:

[1] Coelho LD, Jamshidi Mo, 2003. Robust Control Systems with Genetic Algorithms. CRC Press,

BocaRaton,.

[2] Abdullah M, Richardson A. 2001. Placement of sensor/actuators on civil structures using genetic

algorithms. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics ; 30:1167-1184.

[3] Amini F. 1982. Active Control of Multistorey Structures by Pole Assignment Method. Ph.D.

Dessertation, Polytechnic Institute of New York..

[4] Akinori Tani, David Shook, 2002 . Hybrid Control of Structures Utilizing Fuzzy Logic and Genetic

Algorithms. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.

[5] Symans MD, Wongprasert N. April 2004. Application of a Genetic Algorithm for Optimal

DamperDistribution within the Nonlinear Seismic Benchmark Building. Journal of Engineering

Mechanics © ASCE /.

[6] Ghabussi Jamshid, Khaldoon BH. 2003. Neural Networks For Structural Control of A Benchmark

Problem, Active Tendon System. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.

[7] Kosut R, Sedarat H. 2000. Active Control of Structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics.

13
[8] Prebys EK. 1999. The Genetic Algorithm in Computer Science. MIT Undergraduate Journal of

Mathematics.

[9] Inoue Y, Nishitani A. 2001. Overview of the application of active/semi-active control to building

structures in Japan. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 30:1565-1574.

[10] Soong TT. 2000. Basic Concepts and Applications of Active Structural Vibration Control. Proceeding

of International Conference on Advance Problems in Vibration Theory, China, June 19-22.

[11] Matheu EE, Singh MP. 2002. Active and semi-active control of structures under seismic excitation.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 31:445-458.

[12] Amini F, Karagah H. 2006. Optimal placement of semi-active dampers by pole assignment method.

Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transaction B, Engineering Vol. C; No. B1:31-41.































14
 

Figures

1110011010 1110010100

0111010100 0111011010

Point of crossover

Figure 1: Cross-over operation.

1110011010 1010010011

Figure 2: Mutation operation

Figure 3: a ten-story structure with four controllers

15


Figure 4: Flow chart of genetic algorithm




16
 


0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0


EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8 EC9

Figure 5: Comparison of various P.I.

Max. Displacement
5

4
Story No.

1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Max. Displ. (m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 6: maximum displacement in optimized case

17
 Max. Drift
5

4
Story No.

1
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Max. Drift (m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 7: maximum drift in optimized case





Max. Acceleration
5

4
Story No.

1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Max. Acc. (*g)


uncontrolled controlled

Figure 8: maximum acceleration in optimized case

18
 Time History of 4th Floor Displacement

0.06

0.04

0.02
Story No.

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.02

-0.04

-0.06
Max. Displ.(m)


uncontrolled controlled

Figure 9: time history of 4th floor displacement in optimized case






0.8
0.7

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.2
0.1


EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8 EC9

Figure 10: Comparison of various P.I.

19
 Max. Displacement
8
7
6
Story No. 5
4
3
2
1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Max. Displ.(m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 11: maximum displacement in optimized case



Max. Drift
8
7
6
Story No.

5
4
3
2
1
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Max. Drift (m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 12: maximum drift in optimized case



20
 Max. Acceleration
8
7
6
Story No.

5
4
3
2
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Max. Acc. (*g)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 13: maximum acceleration in optimized case





Figure 14: time history of 7th floor displacement in optimized case

21
 1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2


EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8 EC9


Figure 15: Comparison of various P.I.

Max. Displacement
10
9
8
7
Story No.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Max. Displ.(m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 16: maximum displacement in optimized case

22
 Max. Drift
10
9
8
7
Story No.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Max. Drift (m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 17: maximum drift in optimized case




Max. Acceleration
10
9
8
7
Story No.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Max. Acc. (*g)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 18: maximum acceleration in optimized case




23



Figure 19: time history of 10th floor displacement in optimized case




0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0


EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8 EC9


Figure 20: Comparison of various P.I.

24
 Max. Displacement
10
9
8
7
Story No.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

Max. Displ.(m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 21: maximum displacement in optimized case





Max. Drift
10
9
8
7
Story No.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
Max. Drift (m)


uncontrolled controlled


Figure 22: maximum drift in optimized case

25
 Max. Acceleration
10
9
8
7
Story No.

6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Max. Acc. (*g)


uncontrolled controlled

Figure 23: maximum acceleration in optimized case





Figure 24: time history of 8th floor displacement in optimized case








26
Tables


Story 1 2 3 4 5
Story's
(tonf) 593.5 593.5 593.5 593.5 593.5
mass
Elastic 102 5641 1988 1991 1912 2245
stiffness (kN/m)
Damping ratio Damping ratio for all modes is considered as 2%

Table 1: characteristics of structure type A

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Story's
(tonf) 345.6 345.6 345.6 345.6 345.6 345.6 345.6 345.6
mass

Elastic 102
3404 3404 3404 3404 3404 3404 3404 3404
stiffness (kN/m)

Damping ratio Damping ratio for all modes is considered as 2%


Table 2: characteristics of structure type B

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Story's
(tonf) 1010 810 810 610 610 610 600 600 600 600
mass

Elastic 102
1070 870 870 760 700 680 640 630 615 590
stiffness (kN/m)

Damping ratio Damping ratio for all modes is considered as 2%


Table 3: characteristics of structure type C

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Story's
(tonf) 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207
mass

Elastic 102
1645 1645 2866 2866 4217 4217 5401 5401 6871 6871
stiffness (kN/m)

Damping ratio Damping ratio for all modes is considered as 2%


Table 4: characteristics of structure type D

27
Example Structural Type Number of controller Sign
1st A 2 E-5-2
2nd B 3 E-8-3
3rd C 3 E-10-3
4th D 4 E-10-4

Table 5: name of studied cases



Type of structure A Dim
Maximum uncontrolled
0.045 m
displacement
T 0.2 sec

Maximum control force 3000 kN


Table 6: parameters of example E-5-2

Value of
P.I. Story
P.I
EC1 2,4 0.609
EC2 2.4 0.6
EC3 ------ -------
EC4 ------ -------
EC5 1,4 0.726
EC6 2,4 0.74
EC7 2,4 0.834
EC8 2,4 0.83
EC9 3,4 0.025

Table 7: optimized cases in various P.I.


Type of structure B Dim
Maximum uncontrolled
0.074 m
displacement
T 0.2 sec

Maximum control force 3000 kN


Table 8: parameters of example E-8-3

28
 Value of
P.I. Story
P.I
EC1 5,7,8 0.390
EC2 5,7,8 0.383
EC3 5,6,7 0.625
EC4 5,6,7 0.482
EC5 5,6,7 0.466
EC6 5,6,7 0.502
EC7 5,6,7 0.698
EC8 5,6,7 0.636
EC9 6,7,8 0.089

Table 9: optimized cases in various P.I.

Type of structure C Dim

Maximum uncontrolled
0.088 m
displacement
T 0.2 sec

Maximum control force 7000 kN


Table 10: parameters of example E-10-3



value
P.I. Story
of P.I
EC1 7,9,10 0.441
EC2 7,9,10 0.433
EC3 7,9,10 0.956
EC4 7,9,10 0.897
EC5 5,9,10 0.612
EC6 5,9,10 0.689
EC7 5,9,10 0.817
EC8 6,9,10 0.807
EC9 3,7,8 0.047


Table 11: optimized cases in various P.I.




29
 Type of structure D Dim
Maximum uncontrolled
0.087 m
displacement
T 0.2 sec

Maximum control force 2000 kN



Table 12: parameters of example E-10-4


value of
P.I. Story
P.I
EC1 4,6,8,9 0.385
EC2 2,4,6,9 0.382
EC3 2,5,6,8 0.315
EC4 2,5,6,8 0.31
EC5 3,5,8,9 0.39
EC6 3,5,8,9 0.39
EC7 2,5,6,8 0.42
EC8 2,5,6,8 0.415


EC9 1,3,6,9 0.045


Table 13: optimized cases in various P.I.

Value of Value of
Story
P.I. P.I P.I
GA OPAM GA OPAM
EC1 2,4 2,4 0.609 0.612
EC2 2,4 2,4 0.6 0.600
EC3 ------ ------ ------- -------
EC4 ------ ------ ------- -------
EC5 1,4 1,4 0.726 0.729
EC6 2,4 2,4 0.74 0.745
EC7 2,4 2,4 0.834 0.832
EC8 2,4 2,4 0.83 0.831
EC9 3,4 3,4 0.025 0.026


Table 14: optimization results by GA method and OPAM method




30
 Value of Value of
Story
P.I. P.I P.I
GA OPAM GA OPAM
EC1 5,7,8 5,6,7 0.390 0.385
EC2 5,7,8 5,7,8 0.383 0.384
EC3 5,6,7 5,6,7 0.625 0.624
EC4 5,6,7 5,6,7 0.482 0.482
EC5 5,6,7 5,6,7 0.466 0.467
EC6 5,6,7 5,6,7 0.502 0.501
EC7 5,6,7 5,6,7 0.698 0.696
EC8 5,6,7 5,6,7 0.636 0.637
EC9 6,7,8 5,6,7 0.089 0.086

Table 15: optimization results by GA method and OPAM method







Value of Value of
Story
P.I. P.I P.I
GA OPAM GA OPAM
EC1 7,9,10 5,9,10 0.441 0.43
EC2 7,9,10 7,9,10 0.433 0.43
EC3 7,9,10 5,9,10 0.956 0.955
EC4 7,9,10 5,9,10 0.897 0.896
EC5 5,9,10 1,2,9 0.612 0.61
EC6 5,9,10 5,9,10 0.689 0.685
EC7 5,9,10 5,9,10 0.817 0.81
EC8 6,9,10 5,9,10 0.807 0.805
EC9 3,7,8 3,7,8 0.047 0.046

Table 16: optimization results by GA method and OPAM method












31
 Value of Value of
Story
P.I. P.I P.I
GA OPAM GA OPAM
EC1 4,6,8,9 3,6,8,9 0.385 0.384
EC2 2,4,6,9 3,5,8,9 0.382 0.380
EC3 2,5,6,8 2,5,6,8 0.315 0.315
EC4 2,5,6,8 2,5,6,8 0.31 0.31
EC5 3,5,8,9 3,5,8,9 0.39 0.39
EC6 3,5,8,9 3,5,8,9 0.39 0.39
EC7 2,5,6,8 2,5,6,8 0.42 0.42
EC8 2,5,6,8 2,5,6,8 0.415 0.415
EC9 1,3,6,9 2,4,6,9 0.045 0.044

Table 17: optimization results by GA method and OPAM method































32