4.5 Article

Life-cycle cost-based optimization of MTMDs for tall buildings under multiple hazards

期刊

STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 921-940

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2020.1778741

关键词

Multi-objective optimization; life-cycle cost analysis; multi-hazard analysis; tuned mass dampers; tall buildings; performance-based design

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a methodology for the multi-objective optimization-based design of multiple TMDs attached to tall buildings exposed to wind and earthquake hazards. It highlights the need for considering multiple hazards in design to reduce damage and costs. A genetic algorithm is used as a solution strategy, presenting Pareto fronts of optimized solutions that may be of interest to stakeholders, including non-technical decision makers.
Tall buildings are especially prone to damage caused by winds and earthquakes. In practice, only a single hazard is assumed to dominate the design and is adopted for structural verifications. This is also the case when supplemental damping devices such as tuned mass dampers (TMDs) are adopted. Nevertheless, previous research has shown that from a life-cycle cost (LCC) perspective the dominant hazard concept is misleading, and a multi-hazard approach is necessary. This article proposes a methodology for multi-objective optimization-based design of multiple TMDs (MTMDs) attached to tall buildings subjected to both winds and earthquakes. The LCC related to damage on non-structural components is taken as one of the objective functions to join consistently these hazards. The MTMDs initial cost is selected as the second objective function. The results of these multi-objective optimization problems are Pareto fronts of optimized solutions that may be of interest to stakeholders, including non-technical decision makers. A genetic algorithm is adopted as solution strategy. A realistic case study is presented, and the optimization results are compared with classic literature solutions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据