Struct Multidisc Optim
DOI 10.1007/s00158-014-1148-1
REVIEW ARTICLE
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
Mais Aldwaik & Hojjat Adeli
Received: 15 December 2013 / Revised: 18 May 2014 / Accepted: 17 July 2014
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract This paper presents a review of interesting work on
optimization of highrise building structures with a focus on
large-scale and real-life structures. A number of interesting
projects with an eye on practicality are reviewed, a few
involving practicing designers of highrise building structures.
A review of literature indicates that performing a formal
optimization can result in cost savings in the range of 5 to
15 % which can be especially significant in design of highrise
and superhighhrise building structures. Since optimization of
highrise building structures is a large-scale optimization prob-
lem the choice of the optimization approach is an important
one. It should be one that is not entrapped in a local optimum
solution and is stable for large-scale optimization subjected to
discontinuous constraints of commonly-used design codes.
The nature-based optimization approaches such as the neural
dynamics model of Adeli and Park and genetic algorithms
appear to be the preferred choice.
Keywords Structural optimization . Tall buildings .
Cost optimization . Highrise structures . Neural dynamics
model of Adeli and Park
1 Introduction
A significant amount of research has been performed in the
area of structural optimization. The great majority deal with
academic or small problems. For decades this technology was
shunned by practicing structural engineers as esoteric with
little practical value. In the past decade or so, however, there
M. Aldwaik : H. Adeli (*)
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering, The
Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
e-mail: adeli.1@osu.edu
have been notable efforts to bring the structural optimization
technology to the structural engineering practice. This tech-
nology can be of great value especially for design of large and
complex structures such as highrise and super-highhrise build-
ing structures. Recently, structural optimization has attracted
the attention of designers and practitioners of highrise and
super-highrise buildings. High-profile companies specializing
in design of highrise and super-highhrise buildings such as
Arup and SOM have gotten into the act. Arup, for example,
has created a focus group on what they call CDO for
Computational Design + Optimization.
The goal of structural optimization may be three-fold a)
automating the complex process of design, b) optimizing the
performance of the structure, and c) minimizing the total cost of
the structure. Earlier work focused on minimum weight design
of mostly steel structures and was often criticized by structural
designers because a minimum weight structure was not neces-
sarily a minimum cost solution. Reinforced concrete (RC)
structures consist of two different types of materials and have
to be formulated as a cost optimization problem. Structural
optimization shall aim to find the best design that minimizes
the weight, cost, and/or other selected criteria for a structure
subjected to given loading, while satisfying the requirements of
strength, stiffness, stability, functionality, and even aesthetics,
an increasingly important considerations as many clients
throughout the world, be it in Dubai, Kuwait, China, or the
U.K. demand design of one-of-a-kind or signature structures.
A typical structure usually consists of slabs, beams, col-
umns and shear walls. The sizes and locations of these ele-
ments need to be determined during the design process. The
task of integrating structural optimization into building design
is an issue of significant concern. Structural optimization can
be divided into three classes: sizing, topology, and shape
optimization. Most published papers deal with sizing optimi-
zation where the form and geometry of the structure and
locations of the members are fixed; the optimization goal is

to find the lightest individual elements satisfying prescribed
criteria such as minimum total cost. In layout optimization the
general geometry of the structure is fixed and locations of the
members are changed (members can be added or removed) to
achieve the best selected criteria. In shape optimization the
geometry of the structure can also be changed.
Sarma and Adeli (1998) presented a review of papers on
cost optimization of concrete structures published in archival
journals including beams, slabs, columns, frame structures,
bridges, water tanks, folded plates, shear walls, pipes, and
tensile members. Sarma and Adeli (2000a) presented a review
of the journal articles on deterministic, reliability-based, and
fuzzy logic-based cost optimization of steel structures. This
paper presents a review of recent advances in structural opti-
mization with a focus on large-scale and real-life highrise
building structures.
Published research on large-scale structural optimization
can be divided into two classes: A) academic or non-code
based design optimization where constraints are often explicit
stress and displacement constraints and B) practical code-
based structural optimization where constraints are those of
an actual design code such as the AISC LRFD code (AISC
2011) that are often implicit and discontinuous functions of
design variables. The great, great majority of structural opti-
mization papers published belongs to the first class. The latter
problem is much more challenging especially as the size of the
problem becomes large such as for highrise building structures
where instability of the optimization algorithm comes into
play, an issue to be discussed later. The focus of this review
is on the latter class of problems.
In the next section first a classification of the optimization
algorithms is outlined followed by a brief review of heuristic
and nature-inspired optimization techniques used for large
structures. The focus of this review is highrise buildings which
are large three-dimensional (3D) structures. Recent papers on
optimization of floor and roof structures, and two-dimensional
(2D) highrise frame structures with relevance to optimization
of highrise building structures using nature-inspired heuristic
algorithms are also reviewed.
2 Classification of optimization algorithms
General optimization techniques based on mathematical pro-
gramming employ numerical search techniques, which in-
volve a point-to-point search for the optimum solution in an
n-dimensional design variable space. Methods of optimization
may be divided into two categories: gradient-based and heu-
ristic approaches. Gradient-based approaches are convention-
al algorithms that require computation of gradients to find the
optimal solutions and were used in the earlier studies of
structural optimization. Limitations of the gradient-based
methods are:
M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli
& They do not usually produce a global optimum; the solu-
tions are often trapped in a local optimum whose value
depends on the starting point.
& Their fitness function and constraints in general should be
expressed in terms of the design variables.
& They require gradient information which may be difficult
to calculate and result in instability in the case of highly
nonlinear, implicit, and discontinuous constraints, for ex-
ample, the beam-column interaction equations in building
codes such as the American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISCE) Load and Resistance Factor (LRFD) code
(AISC, 2011) that have a kink.
Gradient based methods include linear and non-linear pro-
gramming, optimality criteria methods and feasible direction
methods. When the objective function and the constraints
involving the design variables are linear then the optimization
is termed as linear optimization. If one or more of these
functions is non-linear, the optimization is classified as non-
linear optimization. Optimization of structures subjected to the
constraints of commonly-used design codes such as the AISC
LRFD (AISC, 2011) is always a nonlinear optimization prob-
lem. Developed in the 1960’s and 1970’s optimality criteria
methods in structural optimization mirror the manual design
process but in an automated manner. A target response value is
set, then the structural member properties (usually stiffnesses)
are modified in an iterative manner to reach that target. The
objective function is monitored to guarantee that it is iterating
in a desirable manner (Spillers and MacBain, 2009).
In the methods of feasible direction, a starting point satis-
fying all the constraints is chosen, then by moving according
to the iterative scheme Xi+1 = Xi + λSi an improved point is
reached, where λ is the distance of movement (the prescribed
scalar step length) and Si represents the gradient direction
vector of movement in the ith iteration (Rao, 2009).
Heuristic optimization methods are often based on con-
cepts found in nature and are characterized by the search
technique for a solution in the design space. They have be-
come increasingly popular in recent years partly as a conse-
quence of growing computational power.
3 A brief review of heuristic and nature-inspired
optimization techniques
3.1 Neural dynamics model of Adeli and park
Adeli and Park invented the neural dynamic model for opti-
mization of large structural systems (Under Method and
Apparatus for Efficient Design Automation and
Optimization, and Structures Produced Thereby; U.S. Patent
Number: 5,815,394) (Adeli and Park, 1995a, b; Park and
Adeli, 1995). The model is based on ingenious integration of
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
a penalty function method, Lyapunov stability theorem,
Kuhn-Tucker conditions, and neural dynamic concepts. In this
model the structural optimization problem is modeled as a
dynamic system with an equilibrium function where the opti-
mum solution is the equilibrium point. The Lyapunov stability
theorem guarantees that for any starting point, the solution for
the dynamic system will always approach the equilibrium
point without increasing the objective function value. Khun-
Tucker conditions, first order equality and inequality condi-
tions, ensure that the solution is approaching a local/global
optimum solution. In order to optimize the dynamic system
using the neural dynamics concept, the optimization problem
needs to be transferred from constrained to unconstrained
problem. This is done by adding a penalty term to the objec-
tive function to limit the constraints violation.
Inspired by central nervous system in biology, an artificial
neural network (ANN) consists of interconnected layers of
nodes resembling biological neurons. It can be used either to
learn the relationship between certain input and behavior, or to
find a node configuration which minimizes an objective func-
tion. Figure 1 shows the topology of the neural dynamic
model, where X ni represents the value of the ith design
variable in the nth iteration. The model has a variable layer
and a constraint layer and two flow types: forward and back-
ward flow. In the forward flow, the input for each node in the
variable layer (ith node) is the current design value. The node
sends this value to every node in the constraints layer (jth
node) to check if it violates any equality or inequality con-
straints. In the backward flow, the constraint node checks the
current design value, if it satisfies the constraint, then the node
will not be activated and the solution value will not change. If
the constraint is violated, the design value is updated by a
penalty parameter whose value depends on the iteration
Fig. 1 Topology of the patented
neural dynamics model of Adeli
and Park
n-1
X 1
1
n M : number of iequality constraints
X 1
n-1
X 2
n ith coefficient of the jth
X 2
n-1
XN-1
n constraint funcon
XN-1
n-1
X N
n
X N
Variable Layer
number. The outputs are fed back to the nodes in the variable
layer until all the outputs are within a specified tolerance. The
neural network system evolves dynamically with continuous-
ly improved design solutions until the Lyapunov function
approaches an equilibrium point (or a minimum solution).
The authors demonstrate the algorithm is highly stable for
large-scale structural optimization problems with hundreds of
design variables and thousands of structural members subject-
ed to actual constraints of commonly-used design codes by
applying it to large structures of various configurations in-
cluding a 36-story steel building structures with setbacks and
external bracings, a highly irregular 5-story moment-resisting
frame, and two 144-story tall structures to be described in the
next section.
Neural networks may be considered a type of surrogate.
What is remarkable about the neural dynamic model of Adeli
and Park is that the sampling for surrogate construction is
directed by the optimization. As such that algorithm may be
considered a class of adaptive sampling algorithm within the
realm of the so-called Efficient Global Optimization (EGO)
(Viana et al., 2012). It should be noted, however, that the
neural dynamic model of Adeli and Park was invented years
before the term EGO came into vogue.
3.2 Simulated annealing (SA)
In mechanics of materials, the physical annealing process is
heating of the material until it turns into liquid, and all of the
material particles are arranged randomly. Then, the tempera-
ture is lowered slowly and the material gains back its solid
state with the particles arranged in a highly structured pattern.
This will fix any defects with the original particles pattern,
hence will leave the system with minimum free energy. The
n : number of iteraons from 1 to n
1 i : number of nodes from 1 to N
j : number of constraints from 1 to M+L
N : number of design variables
2 L : number of equality constraints
M+L : number of nodes in the
constraints layer
2 L-1
constraint funcon
L
N-1 ith component of the
gradient vector of the
L+1
The input value to the
N ith node
The output value from
the ith node
M+L ith component of the
gradient vector of the
Constraint Layer objecve funcon
 M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli

objective function in the SA optimization process corresponds
to the energy function in the physical annealing process, in
both cases the goal is to search for the minimum (Lee and El-
Sharkawi 2007). A temperature parameter (T) is incorporated
in the optimization process, which is initially set to be high
and allowed to cool as the algorithm runs. At high T values,
the design space is explored with no restriction so the next
solution can have more or less energy than the previous one
(better or worse solution). This prevents the algorithm from
being trapped in a local optimum at early stages. At lower T
values, the chance to move to higher energy solutions is
reduced, so the algorithm gradually focuses on a certain area
in the solution space where an optimum is anticipated to be.
SA can escape local minima/maxima with chaotic jumps at
predefined locations in the search process.
3.3 Genetic algorithms (GA)
This will help reduce the possibility of entrapment in a local
minimum. GAs have been used extensively for a variety of
optimization problems such as design of long span suspension
bridges (Sgambi et al., 2012), system identification (Fuggini
et al., 2013), antenna design (Chabuk, et al., 2012), and three-
dimensional visualization and image analysis (Campomanes-
Álvareza et al., 2013; Pedrino et al., 2013). There is also the
floating point GA (Kim and Adeli 2001).
The main disadvantage of GA is its lengthy computation
time for large-scale optimization problems with hundreds of
variable. Researchers have overcome this limitation by devel-
oping distributed GAs on a cluster of workstations (Adeli and
Kumar 1995, 1999; Kumar and Adeli 1995) and concurrent/
parallel GA (Adeli and Cheng 1994b; Adeli and Kumar
1995b) on high-performance computers (Adeli and
Soegiarso, 1999) and parallel machines (Adeli and Kamal
1993).

GA is based on the principle of genetics and natural law of
survival of the fittest. After defining the objective function, the
standard GA optimization process starts by creating a design
population by converting the real design parameters into
binary strings using binary coding. Next, the basic GA oper-
ations of crossover, reproduction and mutation are performed
on this population. The objective function value for each
string is a survival potential indicator named fitness, a higher
fitness value increases the chance for the string to be selected
for mating and reproduction (Adeli and Cheng, 1993, 1994a)
(Fig. 2). Each chromosome or string in the GA solution space
is independent of the others, hence, the search method in GA
is a multi-path search, which searches many peaks in parallel.
3.4 Ant colony optimization (ACO)
ACO It is inspired by ants’ behavior when seeking for food. It
is an iterative process where initially multiple solution paths
are incrementally created by a population of agents (ants)
moving in the design space. Ants have a dynamic memory
to store information on the quality of previously visited paths.
Ants will leave a chemical trail behind them (pheromone) on
their journey in each path. Ants can smell the pheromones,
and will choose the path with the strongest pheromone con-
centration. Shorter paths get marched over more frequently,
hence, the pheromone trail will be stronger on such paths and
more ants will be attracted to this path. The pheromone trail

Fig. 2 Basic GA operations to Low Fitness High Fitness Crossover Reproducon

find the fittest individual Chromosomes Chromosomes
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 1 two points 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disregard

0 1 1 one point 1 0 1 1 1 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fiest
Chromosome Crossover Mutaon

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 1 0

1 1 0 0 1
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
value for the paths is updated after each ant’s journey, so the
more desired paths will accumulate more pheromones, and
less desired paths’ pheromones will evaporate simultaneously
(Putha et al., 2012). For example, in Fig. 3 ants’ objective is to
take the food represented by F to the nest represented by N. At
first the three routes denoted by 1 to 3 are tried randomly, and
each ant will lay a trail of pheromones on its way back to the
nest (Fig. 3a). Pheromones on routes 1 and 3 will evaporate
faster than the ones on the shortest route 2, and more ants will
choose this route on their way back to the nest.
3.5 Firefly algorithm (FA)
FA design space has a population of solutions (fireflies). Every
firefly (FF) flashes a light, the brightness of the light (fitness
function in GA) is proportional to the solution quality. In
nature, FFs are unisex, so any FF can be attracted to any another
FF. In the algorithm, FFs will move toward the brighter ones for
the purpose of mating by flying from one solution (firefly) to
another to be closer to the optimum solution (the brightest/most
attractive firefly). This is repeated until all the fireflies are
attracted to the optimum solution (Fig. 4) (Yang, 2010).
3.6 Particle swarm optimization (PSO)
PSO principle is based on the movement of organisms such as
in a bird flock or a school of fish when they travel to a certain
destination. Each bird considers a certain direction to fly into.
Then, all the birds communicate together to locate the bird
with the best direction and speed toward that bird. Next, they
start to investigate all possible flying directions from their new
location. The process continues until the flock reaches its
destination. PSO is initialized by creating a population
(swarm) of candidate solutions (particles). The fitness value
is evaluated for each solution i, and the best global solution in
the current jth iteration/generation is considered (Xjg). For the
next generation, a new value for candidate solution xij is
computed based on xi,j+1 = xij + vi,j+1, where vi,j+1 is called
the velocity which is updated for each solution in each gener-
ation using vi,j+1 = ωvij + α1(Xil- xi) + α2 (Xjg- xi) in which Xil
is the most successful value in the iteration history of the
particle xi (Lee and El-Sharkawi 2007). The term ω is an
Fig. 3 Ants finding the shortest Route 1
path from the food (F) to the nest
(N) by following pheromones (a)
Ants randomly choosing paths (b) N Route 2
Ants choose shortest path 2
Route 3
(a)
inertia parameter which depends on the iteration number.
Parameters α1 and α2 chosen within the interval (0,1) control
the attraction of the current solution towards the best local and
global solutions, respectively. PSO searches for the global
optimum by using personal (local) experience and flock
(global) experience of the particles, where each particle re-
members its previously better visited solution, and considers
the global best solution in each generation (Tao et al., 2012;
Shafahi and Bagherian, 2013).
FA and PSO are similar in the way each individual location
is updated through the attraction to a more fit individual in
each iteration. While this scheme results in fast convergence,
it also has a higher probability of being trapped in a local
minimum compared with ACO which is a more complicated
and time consuming technique. ACO avoids being trapped in
a local optimum through the pheromone evaporation practice,
which makes unwanted solutions less desirable in each
iteration.
Traditional approaches can be combined with heuristic
techniques such as evolutionary algorithms to create more
complex algorithms. Such combined algorithms are called
memetic algorithms (Neri et al., 2012).
4 Floor and roof structures
The focus of this review is highrise buildings which are large
three-dimensional (3D) structures. We are, however, includ-
ing, recent papers on optimization of floor and roof structures,
and two-dimensional (2D) highrise frame structures with rel-
evance to optimization of highrise building structures.
4.1 RC floors
Nimtawat and Nanakorn (2010) present layout optimization
of a horizontal beam-slab floor plan for a given column and
wall arrangement using a GA with an adaptive penalty func-
tion. The floor has a rectilinear layout, which can be any grid
of beams and/or walls meeting at right angles. The layout is
divided by fine grid lines, and every grid line segment shown
by a dashed line in Fig. 5 represents a possible location of a
beam segment. Thus, the design space is discrete. Each beam
Route 1
N Route 2
F F
Route 3
(b)

Fig. 4 The initial and final (a) Inial fireflies
locations for population of
fireflies after N iterations in FA
Design variable 2
Fireflies
Firefly
segment existence/nonexistence is presented as 1/0 in the
chromosome string in the GA. Slabs adjacent to a column(s)
are given a higher fitness value, hence they have a higher
probability to be selected for mating. This study is interesting
but limited; it minimizes the material cost without considering
the constructability of the optimum beam-slab layout. In the
examples the study presents, there are too many beams in the
optimum layout with no clustering commonly used in actual
designs.
Sharafi et al. (2012a) present column layout cost optimiza-
tion of 3-story and 4-story reinforced concrete (RC) buildings
for a given rectangular plan and story height using ACO
algorithm. The design is based on the Australian reinforced
concrete standard considering both strength and serviceability
requirements. The cost function is the sum of the all the cost
functions for beams and columns. Ants move along the X and
Y edges of the structure to construct their solution (span
lengths), and leave pheromone trails on the edges associated
with the best-so-far iteration. Pheromone trails are defined as a
function of the number of the ants moving along a certain
path, and a so-called evaporating coefficient which is propor-
tional to the length of the path. The pheromone values on the
edges associated with the best iteration increase until a termi-
nation criterion is satisfied. Figure 6 shows the rectangular
Fig. 5 a General architectural
floor plan (b) Plan is divided by
fine grid lines
(a)
M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli
(b) Final fireflies locaons
locaons aer N iteraons
Design variable 2
Local Opma
Global Opma
Design variable 1 Design variable 1
Contour lines (Peaks)
floor plan of the structure, where the numbers of spans (nodes)
in x and y directions are N (N+1) and M (M+1), respectively
(a node is a possible column location identified by solid circles
in the figure). For the 4-story example the study reports a cost
saving of 4.8 % over a previous solution by Sahab et al. (2005)
using genetic algorithm. This study has several limitations: the
horizontal plan of the structure is restricted to be rectangular,
the columns are allowed only to be in a grid layout, and no
irregular distribution of columns is considered. Sharafi et al.
(2012b) use this concept to cost optimize the number of
columns and their locations in a multi-story 2D RC moment-
resisting frame using the ACO. They present an 8-story, 5-
span frame example.
Kociecki and Adeli (2013) present a two-phase GA for
minimum weight design of free-form steel space-frame roof
structures with a diamond grid pattern consisting of discrete
commercially available rectangular hollow structural sections
according to the AISC LRFD code and ASCE-10 snow, wind,
and seismic loading. The members are subjected to torsion in
additional to bending and axial forces. The methodology is
applied to two train station roof structures of the Ottawa Light
Rail Transit (OLRT) system to be completed in Ottawa,
Canada, in 2018. The initial design in both cases is an actual
design performed in a design office by one of the authors
Slab
Beam
segment
(b)
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
Fig. 6 Nodes and Spans
construction graph
iteratively using a general-purpose structural analysis software
over a period of many days. The optimum solutions obtained
using the new methodology resulted in savings of 7–12 %.
5 2D highrise structures
Kim et al. (1998) apply an iterative method similar to OC to
optimize 12 and 45-story steel frames. The frames are initially
designed to satisfy strength requirements, and an initial value
for stiffness is set. The objective of the design is to minimize
the lateral stiffness required to satisfy the drift constraint for
each story of the frames. The design variable is the stiffness
increment factor that corresponds to each story. The
disadvantage of this optimization process is the same as the
OC algorithm; it can be trapped in a local optimum.
Park and Kwon (2003) combine exterior penalty function
method with the gradient projection method for the optimiza-
tion of 4 to 40-story steel frames under earthquake loading.
The objective function minimizes the structure weight, and the
design variable is the moment of inertia for the members’
cross sections. The design constraints are lateral displace-
ments at the top of a structure, inter-story drift ratios, and
stress ratios in members. It is noted that the drift
convergence curve becomes more jagged for taller frames.
Liu et al. (2004) perform a multi-objective seismic design
optimization of a 5-bay, 5-story steel special moment-resisting
frame (SMRF) using GA. The objective function optimizes
the Initial material/construction cost and life time seismic
damage cost, while subjected to inter-story drift constraints.
Chan and Zou (2004) apply OC to performance-based
seismic design of a 10-story, 2-bay 2D concrete frame
considering the elastic drift obtained from response
spectrum and inelastic drift obtained from a pushover
analysis. In the elastic phase, design variables are the
concrete cross sectional dimensions and the cost of
concrete is minimized while the structure is subjected to
drift constraints. In the inelastic phase, design variables
are tension and compression steel reinforcement ratios and
the cost of reinforcement in the cross sections is
minimized while the structure is subjected to inelastic
pushover displacement performance constraints.
Employing a generalized optimality criteria approach Xu
et al. (2006) describe performance-based optimization of 4-
bay, 3-story and 9-story steel frames subjected to equivalent
static seismic loading using the following criteria a) minimum
weight ad b) uniform interstory drift distribution over the
height of the structure intended to represent uniform plastic
ductility demand. The design constraints are top displacement
and National Building Code of Canada (NRC 1995) strength
requirements.
Kicinger et al. (2007) present multi-objective optimization
of 2D multi-story frames in two steps: Topology optimization
for beams, columns and bracing bars using a Pareto GA and
sizing optimization employing a mathematical programming
method. The optimization objectives are material cost present-
ed by weight of the structure and lateral displacement. In
topology optimization different bracing types are considered
(K, V, and X bracing), where each type is assigned a specific
code in chromosome coding process. Within the optimum
solution combinations, bracing types K and V resulted in
minimum structure weight with maximum lateral displace-
ment, while bracing type X resulted in minimum lateral dis-
placement with maximum weight. It should be mentioned that
P-Δ effect were not considered in this work which can affect
the results considerably.

GAs’ computational requirements increase significantly
with the size of the problem as mentioned earlier. Chan and
Wong (2008) combine OC and GA algorithm for topology
and sizing optimization of a braced 3-bay, 40-story steel frame
subjected to wind loads according to the Hong Kong building
code. GA is used for global exploration of optimum topolo-
gies followed by OC as a local search operator for sizing
optimization. Frame behavior is assumed to be linearly-
elastic and P-Δ effect is neglected. The objective function is
the total weight of beams and columns, and the design vari-
ables are the cross sectional areas of beams and columns
grouped in a 2-story interval. The authors report a weight
reduction of 35 % for the combined topology and sizing
optimization compared with the sizing optimization only.
Moeller et al. (2009) use neural networks for performance-
based optimization of 2D frame subjected to earthquake load-
ing. Hasançebi et al. (2010) use a SA algorithm to minimize
the weight of a 304-member 2D steel braced frame, and a 132-
member unbraced space steel frame subjected to vertical dead
and live loads and equivalent lateral earthquake loads and
report a weight reduction of 3 % compared to the harmony
search algorithm.
Winslow et al. (2010) use a Multi-Objective Genetic
Algorithm (MOGA) as a design tool for grid structures
consisting of a repeating unit cell under different loading cases
including seismic and wind loading and report that it is
possible to create a number of realistically shaped,
constructible solutions, after a reasonable number of
generations.
Oskouei et al. (2012) use GA for non-linear analysis
and design of steel frames (3–9 story with 1–3 bay com-
binations) to minimize the weight of the frame while
satisfying seismic criteria imposed as a target displace-
ment. Li et al. (2012) employ a modified modal pushover
analysis (MMPA) procedure to optimize life cycle cost of
a 9- story 2D steel moment resisting frame subjected to
earthquake loading using the SA algorithm. Kaveh et al.
(2012) use a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for
performance-based life cycle multi-objective cost optimi-
zation of a 5-bay, 10-story frame, and a 1040-member
space structure.
Gholizadeh and Fattahi (2014) used a modified PSO algo-
rithm to optimize 24-story, 2D frame and 20-story, 3D frame
structures. In the iterations that move towards a better solu-
tion, the authors add a normal distribution function to the
optimization process intended to bring the swarm particles
closer within a standard deviation distance to the best solution
up to that iteration. Murren and Khandelwal (2014) implement
a Design Driven Harmony search (DDHS) algorithm for
optimization of a 2-bay, 3-story and 3-bay, 24-story steel
moment frames under vertical and lateral loading, and sub-
jected to drift constraints. The authors report 4.4–8 % weight
savings compared to GA and ACO.
M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli
6 3D High-rise building structures and space trusses
Application of optimization to highrise and super-highrise
building structures was advanced more than 16 years ago
when Adeli and Park (Park and Adeli, 1997) used the patented
neural dynamic model described earlier to fully automate the
minimum weight design of two 144-story superhighhrise
building structures, one similar in form to Willis (formerly
Sears) tower, and the other a circular structure shown in
Fig. 7a, b with setbacks on different levels and more than
20,000 structural members over 600 design variables subject-
ed to wind loading and all the requirements of the AISC ASD
and LRFD codes (Adeli and Park, 1998). At the time these
were the tallest building structures ever optimized subjected to
all the code requirements. The optimization was done on a
supercomputer, the Connection Machine, with 512 processors
within about 1 h. For such an irregular and large structure the
model provided a smooth and very stable convergence curve
using both AISC ASD and LRFD codes, as shown in Fig. 7c,
indicating the power of the algorithm. This and similar re-
search lead the way for optimization of superhighhrise build-
ing structures in the subsequent years.
Subsequently, Sarma and Adeli (2000b) presented a fuzzy
GA for optimization of large steel structures employing two
different computational intelligence techniques of GA and
fuzzy logic (Adeli and Hung, 1995; Siddique and Adeli,
2013). Fuzzy logic is used to model the imprecision in the
formulation of the objective function and the constraints (Liu
and Er, 2012; Theodoridis et al., 2012; Boutalis et al., 2013).
Sarma and Adeli (2001) present a bi-level parallel fuzzy GA
for cost optimization of very large steel structures through
judicious combination of shared memory data parallel pro-
cessing using OpenMP Application Programming Interface
(API) and distributed memory message passing parallel pro-
cessing using MPI. They apply the model to the 144-story
superhighhrise steel building structure presented in Adeli and
Park (1998).
Sarma and Adeli (2000c) present a fuzzy discrete multi-
criteria cost optimization model for design of highrise steel
building structures subjected to the actual constraints of
commonly-used design codes such as the AISC LRFD code
by considering three design criteria: a) minimum material
cost, b) minimum weight, and c) minimum number of
different section types. The computational model starts with
a continuous-variable minimum weight solution with a pre-
emptive constraint violation strategy as lower bound follow-
ed by a fuzzy discrete multi-criteria optimization. It is con-
cluded that solving the structural design problem as a cost
optimization problem can result in substantial cost savings
compared with the traditional minimum weight solution
especially for large moment-resisting structures. In a 36-
story moment-resisting space frame with bracings, the cost
savings is in the range of 15.6 to 28.8 %. Subsequently,
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures

Fig. 7 Circular superhigh-rise

structure (a) 3D view (b) Plans at
different heights (c) Convergence
history (Adapted from Park and
Adeli, 1997)
30X3.66 m
Sec C
=109.8 m

54X3.66 m
=197.64 m

Sec B

(b)

60X3.66 m
=219.6 m

Sec A

(a) (c)

Sarma and Adeli (2002) presented a four-criteria optimiza-
tion model for life-cycle cost optimization of steel structures.
These criteria are a) select discrete commercially available
sections with the lowest cost, b) select commercially avail-
able sections with the lightest weight, c) select minimum
number of different types of commercially available sec-
tions, and d) select commercially available sections with
minimum total perimeter length. The last criterion models
a representative type of cost incurred over the life of the
structure, that is, preventive maintenance in the form of
periodic painting of an exposed steel structure to avoid
corrosion (Adeli and Sarma, 2006).
Baker et al. (2000) presented a simple optimization tech-
nique for “7 South Dearborn” tower designed for Chicago,
Illinois. The 100-story tower was meant to be the tallest in the
world by its time of completion with a height of 609 m but was
never built because of financial issues (Fig. 8a). The lateral
load resisting system is a stayed-mast system, where a primary
RC core wall extends vertically through the whole tower
(mast). The lowest 11 floors are surrounded by RC walls at
the perimeter, 12th-46th floors are surrounded by steel column
bundles (stays) with outrigger steel trusses at 46th floor.
Floors 47th-Roof depends on the RC mast alone to resist
vertical and lateral loads. The slabs are cantilevered in those
 M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli

limitations. Optimality Criteria (OC) method is used

Antennae
for optimization with the following objective function:

X X

Telecommunicaon
Ns N
Concrete W ¼ ðwsi  Ai Þ þ ðwci  Bi Di Þ ð1Þ
core "Mast" i¼1 i¼N s þ1
Cladding
Canlever where N is the total number of structural members, Ns is the
slabs number of steel members in the structure, wsi and Ai are the
cost coefficient and the cross sectional area of steel member i,
Notched
reveals
respectively. Number of concrete members is N - Ns. Terms

Residenal
wci, Bi and Di are the cost coefficient, and the cross sectional
width and depth of the concrete member i, respectively. wsi
and wci include the costs of floor area associated with the
column (tributary area). The optimization method resulted in
an increase in the size of the steel sections in the outrigger
Outrigger trusses and perimeter composite columns (mostly in the upper
trusses floors), and in a reduction in the sizes of core walls and
composite columns. While enlarging the steel sections in-
Offices

creased the material cost by 8.1 % compared to non-

Ext. Col. optimized solution, the reduction in concrete section for core
Bundles walls and mega columns increased the usable floor areas,
"Stays"
especially on the more valuable upper levels, which led to a
Perimeter
total cost savings of 9.1 % compared to non-optimized solution.
Parking

wall
(a) (b)
Fig. 8 7 South Dearborn tower a) Front view b) Structural section
(Source: SOM.com, printed with permissions of Skidmore, Owings &
Merrill LLP)
floors (Fig. 8b). Slab systems vary along the tower between
flat slab system, composite floor system and post tensioned
slabs. The designers performed optimization on a very sim-
plified model of the structure to minimize the cost of structural
member materials. The wind load is the critical lateral load
included in the optimization process.
Chan et al. (2000) present the minimum cost optimi-
zation of the northeast tower at Hong Kong station, a
88-story and 420 m-high commercial building complet-
ed in 2003 (Fig. 9a). The tower’s lateral support system
consists of RC core and eight perimeter composite mega
columns. The core and the columns are connected at
three levels by steel outrigger trusses (Fig. 9b & c). The
critical lateral loading cases were found to be related to
wind load, which was computed using wind tunnel test
results in compliance with the building code in Hong
Kong. The optimization goal is to minimize the material
cost based on lateral drift and practical member size
Chan and Liu (2000) combine OC with GA for cost opti-
mization of a typical residential 42-story asymmetrical RC
structure in Hong Kong (Fig. 10). The structure is column-
free, and the vertical and horizontal load-carrying systems are
beam-connected shear walls. Wall sizes are grouped in ten-
story intervals. All beams have a rectangular cross-section
with a constant beam depth of 1 m for exterior beams and
0.8 m for interior beams which is not really cost-effective in
practice. Design variables are beam widths and shear wall
thickness (shear wall widths are pre-selected in the design
layout). The design constraints are based on the building code
in Hong Kong and includes wind load and limits on drifts.
Points 1 and 2 shown in Fig. 10b are drift control points.
Authors report OC has a fast convergence rate but shows
oscillations with poor initial starting point and/or unreason-
able member grouping. GA on the other hand requires a large
number of iterations to yield the optimum solution for large-
scale structures. The authors assert the hybrid OC-GA over-
comes the starting-point dependency and oscillation problem
of the OC method but their results indicate OC-GA algorithm
takes more time and yields a slightly more expensive design.
Luebkeman and Shea (2005) and Baldock et al.
(2005) consider optimization of the 307-m tall
Pinnacle (formerly known as Bishopsgate) tower in
London whose construction began in 2008 and is cur-
rently on hold. The tower has an irregular curved shape
with spiral curvilinear bracing made of steel tubes
(Fig. 11a). The tubes start at ground floor column bases
and terminate at different heights (Fig. 11b). The
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures

Fig. 9 NE Tower, Hong Kong

station (a) Exterior view
[Source:http://www.
fashionisjustperverse.com/2010_ Steel
06_01_archive.html] (b)Typical Perimeter
outrigger truss
plan (c)3D model (Adapted from composite column
Chan et al. 2000)

RC core

(a) (b) (c)

optimization is performed using a direct search method, explored for the optimum design. Stochastic search is
where possible designs are generated using deterministic intended to provide diversity in the shape of the spirals.
and stochastic pattern searches, then the design space is A variable density bracing pattern is desired with more

Fig. 10 42-Story Structure (a)

3D view (b) Plan view, points 1,2
are drift control points (adapted
from Chan and Liu, 2000)

Point 2

Point 1

(a) (b)

Fig. 11 The Pinnacle Tower (a)
General view (courtesy of
CityScape visual solutions) (b)
Three possible profiles for the
framing spirals of steel tubes
(with permission of The Arup
Journal 3/2005)
(a)
bracing density at the base of the structure transitioning grad-
ually to less density at the top. Hence, the tubes’ layout and
ending heights are considered variables in the solution gener-
ation process. The optimization objective is to minimize the
number of bracing members while satisfying the constraints of
predefined maximum axial loads and moments in the mem-
bers. The optimization started with a 718-member, fully
braced framing system, and ended with a 319-member bracing
system.
Ng and Lam (2005) present minimum weight design of a 24-
story, 86 m precast concrete frame structure (20 floors of office
space and 4 garage floors) based on the British Standards (BS)
and Hong Kong code of practice subjected to strength, drift,
frequency and stability constraints. Design variables are the
cross section dimensions of the frame members. The optimiza-
tion tool used is the sequential quadratic programming (SQP)
provided by Matlab. Lagaros and Papadrakakis (2007) use a
non dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) for optimi-
zation of a 6-story space truss subjected to seismic loading.
Cross et al. (2007) present optimization of a residential 69-
story and 240 m high RC building known as The Harbourside
Development constructed in Hong Kong in 2003 (Fig. 12a).
The structure consists of three connected towers with lateral
support provided by a RC coupled shear wall system. The
shear walls are distributed in the three towers linked by
coupling beams. Figure 12b shows the typical podium, lower
floors and upper floors plan. There are exterior columns at the
podium level only. Loads in the upper levels are carried
entirely by shear walls. The critical lateral load on the structure
is found to be one of the 24 wind load combinations obtained
from wind tunnel testing. The purpose of the optimization is to
reduce the structural cost by resizing the elements such that
the sizes of the more efficient elements in resisting loads are
M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli
(b)
increased, and the sizes of the less efficient elements are
reduced. The design constraints are allowable total drift and
allowable inter-story drift. The authors use the OC as the
optimization technique without providing details. As a result
of optimization, the structural resistance to overturning at base
was found to be more influenced by column size than shear
walls sizes. Consequently, the columns were strengthened by
increasing the cross sectional size and the shear wall sections
were reduced. Figure 12c displays the more efficient columns
in the podium area as lightly shaded. The effects of the wind
load was maximum at lower levels mainly resisted by the
outermost shear walls, hence their thicknesses were increased,
while the internal and upper wall sizes were reduced. Wind
induced torsion affecting the upper levels was found to be
resisted mainly by coupling beams and walls connecting the
towers that were stiffened to form a more rigid structure.
While this may increase the moments and shears resisted by
shear wall cross sections, the optimization proved that im-
proving the torsional rigidity will result in a more efficient
structure. Optimization resulted in 11 % saving in the material
cost and 2.2 % savings in floor space.
Another interesting application of highrise structures cost
optimization is the design of the 102-storey 365-m Al Sharq
Tower designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) to be
built in Dubai, UAE (Sarkisian et al. 2009) inspired by nature,
namely by Redwood Sequoia Trees of northern California
(Fig. 13b). The proposed structural system consists of core
reinforced concrete shear walls with post-tensioned flat slabs.
At the perimeter the structure is supported by spiraling cables
placed in nine-adjoining cylinders with a diameter of 13.4
meter resulting in a column-free perimeter. The perimeter
cable system consists of approximately 44 miles of high-
strength galvanized steel cables varying in diameter from 5/8
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
Fig. 12 Harbourside (a) General
view (courtesy of P&T Group)
(b) Typical floor plans (c) Podium
efficient structural elements
(lighter shades represents
elements of higher efficiency)
(adapted from Cross et al., 2007)]
(a)
to 2 in. They typically originate and terminate at shear wall
end zones. Initial architectural concept suggested a helical
cable profile that surrounds each cylinder with a 5-ft spacing.
GA is used to develop an efficient cable profile for vertical and
lateral load resistance. Optimization is performed in two
stages. In stage I, GA is used to identify the optimal combi-
nation of cable diameter, spacing, and pitch with the objective
of minimizing the cable weight and roof drift simultaneously.
In this stage, the pitch is assumed to be uniform over the
height of the tower. The optimum cable profile has a diameter
5/8 in. and a spacing of 12.7 ft which corresponds to a 35°
pitch. In stage II, to seek further refinement the pitch is
considered to vary over the height of the tower using the roof
drift as the minimization function. Phase II optimization de-
termined that the optimal cable profile for drift limitation is
vertical (90°) at the base and transitioning to (45)0 at the top,
and these results match the direction of the wind stress profile.
The transition is determined to be parabolic, so the full cable is
a parabolic-tapered helix profile (Fig. 13a).
Atabay (2009) describes cost optimization of shear wall
dimensions of a 13-story beamless reinforced concrete
bearing-wall system with a given layout assuming constant
shear wall dimensions throughout the height using a GA. Li
et al. (2010) use a combination of OC and GA for minimum
cost design of a 33-story frame-shear wall structure for mixed
office and residential use. The loads and limit states are based
on Chinese building codes. The objective function is the sum
of the material, fabrication and labor costs for beams and
columns. Shear wall width is assumed to be 200 mm in all
levels, columns are square in shape, and all beams have a
constant width of 250 mm. Design is constrained by strength,
serviceability, drift and practical sizing requirements. They
Upper levels
Lower levels
(b)
Podium levels
(c)
report a steady optimization convergence for the hybrid algo-
rithm and a 15 % cost savings compared with the original
design.
Chan et al. (2010) present optimization of a simplified
model of an irregular 40-story, 122 m-tall structure located
in Hong Kong shown in Fig. 14a using the OC approach. The
structural system consists of RC frames with shear walls
connected by coupling beams to carry wind loads determined
by wind tunnel tests. Shear walls are clustered into six groups
numbered 1 through 6 in Fig. 14b. Optimization was used to
determine shear wall thicknesses and the cross section dimen-
sions of the coupling beams. Figure 14c shows an example of
the optimization convergence history where oscillations de-
crease towards the end (compare this figure with the continu-
ously decreasing convergence curve obtained using the neural
dynamics model of Adeli and Park shown in Fig. 7b). This
figure also shows cost savings of 10 % compared with a non-
optimized design.
Stromberg et al. (2011) employ pattern gradation and rep-
etition for topology optimization of vertical cantilever struc-
tures with application to the conceptual design of high-rise
building structures subjected to sizing/manufacturing con-
straints. Pattern gradation refers to gradual changes in the size
and shape of geometric patterns. The structural behavior is
assumed to be linear. The optimization objective is to maxi-
mize the lateral stiffness (or minimize the lateral displace-
ments) through optimization of the lateral bracing systems
and/or angles for the diagonal bracings. They present an
example based on the Lotte Tower, a case study diagrid
structure designed by SOM for Seoul, Korea, shown in
Fig. 15a, b. The tower cross section starts as a square at the
bottom and gradually transforms into a circle at the top.

Fig. 13 Al Sharq Tower. (a)
Parabolic-tapered cable profile,
a b
(b) Redwood sequoia tree (from
Sarkisian et al., 2009, with
permission of Skidmore, Owings
& Merrill LLP, © 2013. All rights
reserved))
Figure 15c shows a design after subjecting the structure to
wind loads in one direction without symmetry constraints. In
Fig. 15d the structure is subjected to wind loads in two
directions with symmetry constraints. Figure 15e shows the
optimum topology with the pattern gradation constraints. The
resulting shape is reported to resemble the principal stress
trajectories on the outer faces of the structure due to wind
loads with a smaller diagonal inclination angle at the bottom
and a larger inclination angle at the top of the structure.
Sarkisian (2011) presents free-form topology optimization
of a 71-story, 350 m-tall structure to be built in China, known
as Gemdale Tower. The floor structural system is metal deck
slab, and the lateral support system is a central shear RC core
and a perimeter filigree (ornamental pattern) frame consisting
of concrete filled steel tubes (Fig. 16a) with no vertical col-
umns. Optimization is used to determine the best profile for
the outer skin of the structure by starting with a uniform, solid
perimeter shell with constant material thickness and density
throughout the height (Fig. 16b). Then, material densities are
redistributed based on minimization of strain energy of the
structure. During design cycles, surface material is removed
from low stress areas and added to high stress areas. Fig. 16c
to d show the evolution of the topology of the outer skin where
the dark areas and lines represent high stress regions, and the
light-colored areas represent low stress regions. Figure 16d
shows the end results of the topology optimization. Engineers
took this solution to come up with a unique but practical 3D
frame shape shown in Fig. 16e. The optimization objective is
M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli
to maximize the global stiffness of the outer skin. The study
reports the optimized structure reduced the overall drift by
25 % compared with a conventional structure constructed with
the same amount of materials. Li et al. (2011) used GA for
minimum weight design of a rectangular 30-story, 2-bay by 2-
bay steel frame structure subjected to wind loading according
to the Chinese code. Beams and columns sections are grouped
together to have the same sizes every 6 stories.
A recent application of optimization technology is “1
Dubai” tower, a mega structure consisting of three linked
super-highrise RC core and tapered mega-column systems
(to reduce wind effects) with 222, 190, and 147 floors (with
the tallest being 1008 meters) interconnected with a number of
sky-bridges (Fig. 17). The innovative project is designed by
Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill for Dubai, UAE (the project is
currently on hold because of the economic downturn), and the
optimization study is reported by Viise et al. (2012). The sky-
bridges are slim cable-stayed bridges at four different levels.
The main function for the bridges is to provide lateral support
to prevent towers’ overturning in addition to providing trans-
portation among buildings and redundancy in mechanical and
electrical systems and fire escape routes. The towers have
triangular plan projection, with a RC core and mega-
columns at the corners (Fig. 18). Floors are flat slabs in the
residential and hotel areas, and composite slabs in the lower
offices areas. Multiple schemes were proposed as a solution
for the tower, the schemes included both RC and structural
steel as options for the towers vertical system, and for the
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
(c)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 14 Residential 40-story building (a) 3D view (b) Shear wall layout plan (c) Design history (From Chan et al. 2010 with permission of Elsevier)
linking bridges. Structural optimization was performed to
refine the elements sizes, in order to determine the least cost
scheme. The cost functions include the cost of material quan-
tities. The constraints include geometrical constraints, code
constraints and constructability constraints. The optimization
results limited the structural steel usage to the linking bridges
because of high cost of steel in UAE.
Jensen et al. (2012) use a sequential approximate optimi-
zation strategy for reliability based design optimization of a
3D 4-story structure subjected to earthquake loading.
Gholizadeh (2012) use a combination of neural networks
and Modified Cellular Genetic Algorithm (MCGA) to opti-
mize a 72-bar space truss subjected to earthquake time history
loading with inelastic behavior.
Kareem et al. (2013) present a framework for
Performance Based Topology Optimization (PBTO) and
application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for
conceptual shape optimization of tall building under wind
loading. They note integration of shape optimization and
detailed design optimization as extremely demanding and a
challenge to be addressed by researchers. The goal of topol-
ogy optimization is to achieve an external structural
geometry with the best aerodynamic performance by mini-
mizing lateral forces acting on the structure represented by
drag coefficient while satisfying displacement constraints.
The topological design variables are the coordinates of outer
control points located at the edges of the structure connected
using spline-based interpolation to form the external geom-
etry of the structure. The next step is to perform PBTO with
the goal of minimizing the structural material volume of the
lateral support system including the outer frame, internal
shear walls and outriggers while satisfying performance
constraints. The topological design variables can take 1 or
0 values representing a solid/void status for each possible
coordinate in the lateral support system. The methodology is
applied to a planar frame envisaged as part of a 3-D building
using an evolutionary algorithm.
Talatahari et al. (2013) apply FA for minimum weight
design of 26-story 942-member space truss structure created
by Adeli and Cheng (1994b) and report results similar to those
obtained using a GA. Lagaros and Magoula (2013) present
optimum cost performance- based seismic design of 8-story
steel and composite steel–RC structures subject to seismic
loading and interstorey drift constraints.

Fig. 15 (a) The Lotte Tower (b)
Finite element mesh of the
conceptual design (c) one-
direction wind loading (d) two-
direction wind loading with
symmetry (e) optimal topology
with gradation constraints (From
Stromberg et al. 2011 with
permission of Springer)
(a)
7 Solution stability in large-scale optimization
A hardly-discussed problem of great practical significance in
large-scale nonlinear optimization when the constraints are
discontinuous is the stability of the solution. An example of
such a discontinuous constraint with a kink is the beam-
column interaction curve based on equations (H1-1a) and
(H1-1b) of the AISC LRFD specifications (AISC, 2011)
depicted in Fig. 19. An algorithm which is stable for a small
or medium-size optimization problem may not be stable for
very large problems with hundreds of variables. In other
words, many optimization algorithms can work for a) small
optimization problems with a few number of variables and
discontinuous constraints or b) large optimization problems
with many variables with continuous constraints. The optimi-
zation algorithm can run into stability and convergence prob-
lems in large-scale optimization problems such as highrise and
superhighhrise building structures with hundreds of variables
and discontinuous constraints of the codes such as AISC ASD
and LRFDS.
To demonstrate the concept of stability of the solution two
examples are presented in Fig. 20. Figure 20a shows the
convergence curve for a 35-story, 1262-member space truss
M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli
(b) (c) (d) (e)
tower from Adeli and Cheng (1994b) using GA, where the
convergence curve is quite jagged and keeps oscillating. In
contrast the convergence curve shown in Fig. 7 is quite
smooth and continuously decreasing. A comparison of
Figs. 7 and 20a demonstrates the high stability of the neural
dynamics model of Adeli and Park for large-scale and com-
plicated optimization problems under discontinuous con-
straints especially considering the very large size of the 144-
story structure with more than 20,000 members.
A more striking example is presented in Fig. 20b. It shows
the convergence curves for minimum-weight design of a 10-
bar cantilever truss using two different methods: the OC
(Gellatly et al., 1971) and General Geometric Programming
(GGP) (Adeli and Kamal, 1991). The OC curve shows a
sudden instability of the solution at the 19th iteration. Such
curves are rarely reported in the literature as authors tend to
report their good results only.
8 Conclusions
This paper presented a review of interesting work on optimi-
zation of highrise building structures with the goal of bringing
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures

Fig. 16 Gemdale Tower

(a)General view (b) Initial outer
frame material distribution
(c)Optimization process, darker/
red lines represents high material
density (d)Optimization process
output (e)Final perimeter frame
shape (With permission of
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
LLP, © 2013. All rights reserved)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

this technology to the attention of practicing engineers as well reviewed in this article, a few involving practicing designers
as encouraging researchers to pursue this line of research. A of highrise building structures. A review of literature indicates
number of interesting projects with an eye on practicality were that performing a formal optimization can result in cost

Fig. 17 1 Dubai Tower

(Courtesy of Adrian Smith +
Gordon Gill Architecture)
 M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli

Fig. 18 Typical floor plan in 1 Dubai Tower (Courtesy of Adrian Smith +

Gordon Gill Architecture

savings in the range of 5 to 15 % which can be especially

significant in design of highrise and superhighhrise building
structures.
Wind and earthquake loads are the major lateral loads
acting on highrise building structures. Most of the reviewed
papers use the wind load as the critical lateral load such as
Chan and Wong (2008), Park and Adeli (1997), Baker et al.
(2000), Chan et al. (2000), Chan and Liu (2000), Cross et al.
(2007), Chan et al. (2010), Stromberg et al. (2011), and Li
et al. (2011). Some of the papers also performed wind tunnel
testing to determine the exact wind loading on the structure.
So far the focus has been on maximizing performance and
minimizing the material cost. Construction cost is not usually
considered in the optimization formulation of such large struc-
tures. It is, however, considered indirectly via topology opti-
mization. For example, an optimum topology for carrying the
lateral load due to winds and earthquakes, which are the main
Fig. 19 Beam-column interaction curve based on equations (H1-1a) and
(H1-1b) of the AISC LRFD specifications (AISC, 2011)
Fig. 20 a Convergence curve for a 35-story, 1262-member space truss
tower from Adeli and Cheng (1994b) using genetic algorithm. b Conver-
gence curves for minimum-weight design of a 10-bar cantilever truss
using two different methods, the OC (Gellatly et al., 1971) and General
Geometric Programming (GGP) (Adeli and Kamal, 1991)
critical loads in the optimization process, can improve ease of
construction and consequently reduce the construction cost.
Since optimization of highrise building structures is a
large-scale optimization problem the choice of the optimiza-
tion approach is an important one. Highrise building structures
such as steel structures are made of mostly discrete commer-
cially available shapes. Heuristic nature-based optimization
approaches such as the neural dynamics model of Adeli and
Park and GA appear to be superior to tackle such optimization
problems. Further, gradient-based algorithms have two other
disadvantages. First, they require computation of gradients
that can baffle large-scale optimization problems when con-
straints are discontinuous and have a kink which is the case
when commonly-used design codes are used such as the AISC
LRFD code as explained earlier. Second, gradient-based algo-
rithms can be entrapped in a local optimum. On the other
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
hand, heurist methods often are more computationally inten-
sive. The neural dynamics model of Adeli and Park appears to
provide the best of both worlds.
The total structural material cost of a highrise building
includes many components: foundation, slabs, beams, col-
umns, bracings, belt or outrigger trusses, and shear walls.
Slabs in highrise structures cover large areas (for example,
Willis Tower in Chicago, IL, has a total floor space of 423,658
square meters), and usually consume more structural materials
than other elements. None of the highrise optimization articles
reviewed in this paper consider floor slabs in their formula-
tion. A few papers on slab optimization alone have been
written and reviewed in this article. The integration of the
vertical and horizontal loading carrying system in the optimi-
zation formulation should be considered in future studies.
Such an integration will increase the size of the highrise
building optimization problem substantially requiring signifi-
cant computing resources. Such problems can be solved on a
parallel multiprocessor/supercomputer (Adeli and Kamal,
1993; Adeli and Soegiarso, 1999) or a network of distributed
workstations (Adeli and Kumar, 1999).
Another emerging area of research is optimization of
passive and active vibration control systems in tall buildings
equipped with such systems. As an example, Hejazi et al.
(2013) present optimization of earthquake energy dissipation
systems with application to a 5-story 3D RC frame structure
subjected to seismic loading. As another example, Amini et al.
(2013) integrate discrete wavelet transform (DWT), PSO, and
linear quadratic regulator (LQR) to find optimal control forces
in a 10-story 2D frame equipped with an active tuned mass
damper (ATMD) on the top subjected to several historical
pulse-like near-fault ground motions.
References
Adeli H, Cheng N-T (1993) Integrated Genetic Algorithm for
Optimization of Space Structures. J Aerosp Eng ASCE 6(4):315–
328
Adeli H, Cheng N-T (1994a) Augmented Lagrangian genetic algorithm
for structural optimization. J Aerosp Eng ASCE 7(1):104–118
Adeli H, Cheng N-T (1994b) Concurrent genetic algorithms for optimi-
zation of large structures. J Aerosp Eng ASCE 7(3):276–296
Adeli H, Hung SL (1995) Machine learning - neural networks, genetic
algorithms, and fuzzy systems. Wiley, New York
Adeli H, Kamal O (1991) Efficient optimization of plane trusses. Adv
Eng Softw 13(3):116–122
Adeli H, Kamal O (1993) Parallel processing in structural engineering.
Elsevier Applied Science, London
Adeli H, Kumar S (1995a) Distributed genetic algorithms for structural
optimization. J Aerosp Eng 8(3):156–163
Adeli H, Kumar S (1995b) Concurrent structural optimization on a
massively parallel supercomputer. J Struct Eng ASCE 121(11):
1588–1597
Adeli H, Kumar S (1999) Distributed computer-aided engineering for
analysis, design, and visualization. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Adeli H, Park HS (1995a) A neural dynamics model for structural
optimization - theory. Comput Struct 57(3):383–390
Adeli H, Park HS (1995b) Optimization of space structures by neural
dynamics. Neural Netw 8(5):769–781
Adeli H, Park HS (1998) Neurocomputing for design automation. CRC
Press, Boca Raton
Adeli H, Sarma K (2006) Cost optimization of structures—fuzzy logic,
genetic algorithms, and parallel computing. Wiley, West Sussex
Adeli H, Soegiarso R (1999) High-performance computing in structural
engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton
AISC (2011) Manual of steel construction, 14th edn. American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago
Amini F, Khanmohamadi Hazaveh N, Abdolahi Rad A (2013) Wavelet
PSO-based LQR algorithm for optimal structural control using
active tuned mass dampers. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
28(7):542–557
Atabay Ş (2009) Cost optimization of three-dimensional beamless rein-
forced concrete shear-wall systems via genetic algorithm. Exp Syst
Appl 36(2):3555–3561
Baker, W., Sinn, R., Novak, L., and Viise, J. (2000). Structural
Optimization of 2000-Foot Tall 7 South Dearborn Building.
Proceedings of Structural Congress 2000. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, US. May 8–10, 2000
Baldock, R., Shea, K., Eley D. (2005). Evolving Optimized Braced Steel
Frameworks for Tall Buildings using Modified Pattern Search.
Proceedings of Computing in Civil Engineering. Cancun, Mexico
July 12–15
Boutalis Y, Christodoulou M, Theodoridis D (2013) Indirect adaptive
control of nonlinear systems based on bilinear neuro-fuzzy approx-
imation. Int J Neural Syst 23(5):1350022
Campomanes-Álvareza BR, Cordón O, Damasa S (2013) Evolutionary
multi-objective optimization for mesh simplification of 3D open
models. Integr Comput Aided Eng 20(4):375–390
Chabuk T, Reggia JA, Lohn J, Linden D (2012) Causally-guided evolu-
tionary optimization and its application to antenna array design.
Integ Comput Aided Eng 19(2):111–124
Chan, C., Gibbons, C., and MacArthur, J (2000) Optimal Stiffness
Performance design of the North East Tower, Hong Kong Station.
Proceedings of Structural Congress 2000. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, US. May 8–10, 2000
Chan CM, Zou XK (2004) Elastic and inelastic drift performance opti-
mization for reinforced concrete buildings under earthquake loads.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 33(8):929–950
Chan C, Wong K (2008) Structural topology and element sizing design
optimisation of tall steel frameworks using a hybrid OC– GA
method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 35:473–488
Chan C, Huang M, Kwok K (2010) Integrated wind load analysis and
stiffness optimization of tall buildings with 3D modes. Eng Struct
32(5):1252–1261
Cross P, Vesey D, Chan CM (2007) High-Rise Buildings. In: Melchers,
Hough (eds) Modeling complex engineering structures. Society of
Civil Engineers, Virginia, pp 1–52
Fuggini C, Chatzi E, Zangani D, Messervey TB (2013) Combining
genetic algorithm with a meso-scale approach for system identifica-
tion of a smart polymeric textile. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
28(3):227–245
Gellatly, R.A., Berke, L., and Gibson, W (1971) The use of optimality
criteria in automated structural design, AFFDL, Proceedings of the
3rd conference on matrix methods in structural analysis, October
1971
Gholizadeh, S (2012) Optimum Design of structures for earthquake
loading by a cellular evolutionary algorithm and neural networks.
Chapter 12 in Plevris, V., Mitropoulou, C., Lagaros, N. (2012)
Structural seismic design optimization and earthquake engineering
- formulations and applications. Engineering science reference (an
imprint of IGI Global), Hershey, PA

Gholizadeh S, Fattahi F (2014) Design optimization of tall steel buildings
by a modified particle swarm algorithm. Struct Des Tall Build 23(4):
285–301
Hasançebi O, Çarbaş S, Saka M (2010) Improving the performance of
simulated annealing in structural optimization. Struct Multidiscip
Optim 41(2):189–203
Hejazi F, Toloue I, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS (2013) Optimization of earth-
quake energy dissipation system by genetic algorithm. Comput
Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 28(10):796–810
Jensen, H., Valdebenito, M., Sepúlveda, J., Becerra, L (2012) Discrete
variable structural optimization of systems under stochastic
earthquake excitation. Chapter 3 in Plevris, V., Mitropoulou,
C., Lagaros, N. (2012) Structural seismic design optimization
and earthquake engineering - formulations and applications.
Engineering science reference (an imprint of IGI Global),
Hershey, PA
Kareem, A., Spence, S., Bernardini, E., Bobby, S., Wei, D (2013) Using
computational fluid dynamics to optimize tall building design.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Journal. 3, 38–43
Kaveh A, Laknejadi K, Alinejad B (2012) Performance-based multi-
objective optimization of large steel structures. Acta Mech 223(2):
355–369
Kicinger, R., Obayashi, S., Arciszewski, T (2007) Evolutionary
multiobjective optimization of steel structural systems in tall build-
ings. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference. Matsushima,
Japan. March 5–8, 2007
Kim H, Adeli H (2001) Discrete cost optimization of composite floors
using a floating point genetic algorithm. Eng Optim 33(4):485–501
Kim CK, Kim HS, Hwang S, Hong SM (1998) Stiffness- based optimal
design of tall steel frameworks subject to lateral loading. J Struct
Multidiscip Optim 15(3–4):180–186
Kociecki M, Adeli H (2013) Two-phase genetic algorithm for size opti-
mization of free-form steel space-frame roof structures. J Constr
Steel Res 90:283–296
Lagaros N, Magoula E (2013) Life-cycle cost assessment of mid-rise and
high-rise steel and steel–reinforced concrete composite minimum
cost building designs. Struct Des Tall Build 22(12):954–974
Lagaros N, Papadrakakis M (2007) Robust seismic design optimization
of steel structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33(6):457–469
Lee K. Y. and El-Sharkawi M. A (2007) Modern heuristic optimization
techniques with applications to power systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Li, G., Lu, H., and Liu, X (2010) A hybrid genetic algorithm and
optimality criteria method for optimum design of RC tall buildings
under multi-load cases. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Building. (19): 656– 678
Li Q, Zou X, Wu J, Wang Q (2011) Integrated wind- induced response
analysis and design optimization of tall steel buildings using Micro-
GA. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 20(8):951–971
Li G, Jiang Y, Yang D (2012) Modified-modal-pushover-based seismic
optimum design for steel structures considering life-cycle cost.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 45(6):861–874
Liu F, Er MJ (2012) A novel efficient learning algorithm for self-
generating fuzzy neural network with applications. Int J Neural
Syst 22(1):21–35
Liu M, Wen Y, Burns S (2004) Life cycle cost oriented seismic design
optimization of steel moment frame structures with risk-taking
preference. Eng Struct 26(10):1407–1421
Luebkeman C, Shea K (2005) CDO: computational design + optimiza-
tion in building practice. Arup J 2005(3):17–21
Moeller O, Foschi R, Quiroz L, Rubinstein M (2009) Structural optimi-
zation for performance-based design in earthquake engineering:
applications of neural networks. Struct Saf 31(6):490–499
Murren P, Khandelwal K (2014) Design-driven harmony search (DDHS)
in steel frame optimization. Eng Struct 59:798–808
Neri F, Cotta C, Moscato P (2012) Handbook of Memetic algorithms, 379th
edn, Studies in computational intelligence. Springer Verlag, Berlin
M. Aldwaik, H. Adeli
Ng CT, Lam HF (2005) Optimization design of tall buildings under
multiple design criteria. Int J Appl Math Mech 4:35–48
Nimtawat A, Nanakorn P (2010) A genetic algorithm for beam–slab
layout design of rectilinear floors. Eng Struct 32(11):3488–3500
Oskouei A, Fard S, Aksogan O (2012) Using genetic algorithm for the
optimization of seismic behavior of steel planar frames with semi-
rigid connections. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45(2):287–302
Park HS, Adeli H (1995) A neural dynamics model for structural optimi-
zation - application to plastic design of structures. Comput Struct
57(3):391–399
Park HS, Adeli H (1997) Distributed neural dynamics algorithms for
optimization of large steel structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(7):
880–888
Park HS, Kwon JH (2003) Optimal drift design model for multi-story
building subjected to dynamic lateral forces. Struct Des Tall Spec
Build 12:317–333
Pedrino EC, Roda VO, Kato ERR, Saito JH, Tronco ML, Tsunaki RH,
Morandin O, Nicoletti MC (2013) A genetic programming based
system for the automatic construction of image filters. Int Comput
Aided Eng 20(3):275–287
Putha R, Quadrifoglio L, Zechman E (2012) Comparing ant colony
optimization and genetic algorithm approaches for solving traffic
signal coordination under oversaturation conditions. Comput Aided
Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(1):14–28
Rao SS (2009) Engineering optimization: theory and practice, 4th edn.
Wiley, Hoboken
Sahab MG, Ashour AF, Toropov VV (2005) Cost optimisation of rein-
forced concrete flat slab buildings. Eng Struct 27(3):313–322
Sarkisian, M (2011) Tall building design inspired by nature. Proceedings
of 36th conference on our world in concrete & structures. Singapore,
August 14–16, 2011, CI-Premier PTE LTD
Sarkisian, M., Long, E., Shook, D., and Doo, C (2009) Optimization tools
for the design of structures. Proceedings of 78th convention for
structural engineers association of California (SEAOC). San
Diego, CA. September 23–26, 2009
Sarma K, Adeli H (1998) Cost optimization of concrete structures. J
Struct Eng ASCE 124(5):570–578
Sarma K, Adeli H (2000a) Cost optimization of steel structures. Eng
Optim 32(6):777–802
Sarma K, Adeli H (2000b) Fuzzy genetic algorithm for optimization of
steel structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 126(5):596–604
Sarma K, Adeli H (2000c) Fuzzy discrete multicriteria cost optimization
of steel structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 126(11):1339–1347
Sarma KC, Adeli H (2001) Bi-level parallel genetic algorithms for
optimization of large steel structures. Comput Aided Civ
Infrastruct Eng 16(5):295–304
Sarma KC, Adeli H (2002) Life-cycle cost optimization of steel struc-
tures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 55(12):1451–1462
Sgambi L, Gkoumas K, Bontempi F (2012) Genetic algorithms for the
dependability assurance in the design of a long span suspension
bridge. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(9):655–675
Shafahi Y, Bagherian M (2013) A customized particle swarm method to
solve highway alignment optimization problem. Comput Aided Civ
Infrastruct Eng 28(1):52–67
Sharafi P, Hadi M, Teh L (2012a) Heuristic approach for optimum cost
and layout design of 3D reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng
138(7):853–863
Sharafi, P., Hadi, M.N.S., Teh, L.H (2012b) Optimum column layout
design of reinforced concrete frames under wind loading.
Proceedings of 30th IMAC conference on structural dynamics.
Jacksonville, FL. January 30th – February 2nd 2012
Siddique N, Adeli H (2013) Computational intelligence - synergies of
fuzzy logic, neural networks and evolutionary computing. Wiley,
West Sussex
Spillers WR, MacBain KM (2009) Structural optimization. Springer,
NewYork
Advances in optimization of highrise building structures
Stromberg L, Beghini A, Baker W, Paulino G (2011) Application of
layout and topology optimization using pattern gradation for the
conceptual design of buildings. J Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(2):
165–180
Talatahari S, Gandomi AH, Yun GJ (2013) Optimum design of tower
structures using firefly algorithm. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. doi:
10.1002/tal.1043
Tao H, Zain JM, Ahmed MM, Abdalla AN, Jing W (2012) A wavelet-
based particle swarm optimization algorithm for digital image
watermarking. Integr Comput Aided Eng 19(1):81–91
Theodoridis D, Boutalis Y, Christodoulou M (2012) Dynamical recurrent
neuro-fuzzy identification schemes employing switching parameter
hopping. Int J Neural Syst 22(2):1250004–16
Viana FAC, Haftka RT, Watsom LT (2012) Efficient global optimization
algorithm assisted by multiple surrogate techniques. J Glob Optim
56(2):669–689
Viise, J., Halvorson, R., Morava, B., Weismantle, P., and Stafford, J
(2012) 1 Dubai—engineering and optimizing a mega-structure.
Proceedings of Structures Congress. Chicago, IL. March 29–31,
2012
Winslow P, Pellegrino S, Sharma S (2010) Multi-objective optimization of
free-form grid structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 40(1–6):257–269
Xu L, Gong Y, Grierson D (2006) Seismic design optimization of steel
building frameworks. J Struct Eng 132(2):277–286
Yang X (2010) nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms, 2nd edn.
Luniver Press Frome, United Kingdom