Optimal Performance- Based Seismic Design - Structural Seismic Design Optimization and Earthquake Engineering - page 201

Figure 10. Structural plastification: A) At LS level, B) At CP level, (Xu et al. 2006)

performance levels _i.e., 2.5% and 5% roof drift
can be compared in Figure 10A and figure 10B,
respectively.

computer program utilizes the CONLIN optimi-
zation algorithm with some modifications made.
Habibi optimized the example 1, with
CONOPT software, for several design assump-
tions. In his design optimization formulation, the
dimensions of beams, columns as well as rein-
forcement ratios, were chosen as design variables;
i.e. he nearly doubled the design variables and
significantly increased the number of design
constraints because of considering almost all
groups of constraints in Eq.(41). He even entered
the voluntary constraints of damage index into
the design optimization problem. He used the
stiffness degradation index DI

Example 3

Habibi (2008) whose method of nonlinear analysis
and nonlinear sensitivity analysis were discussed
earlier, formulated the OPBSD of reinforced
concrete frame of example 1, a ten story two bay
RC frame, in the form of the standard design
optimization problem of Eq.(41). He wrote his
own optimization software named CONOPT. This

) = − ( ) (

k k 1 /

j OP