THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.343

EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION UTILIZING

COUPLED SHEARFLEXURAL RESPONSEIMPLICATION FOR
MULTISTORY BUILDINGS
PART I: THEORY

ARZHANG ALIMORADI1*, EDUARDO MIRANDA2, SHAHRAM TAGHAVI2 AND FARZAD NAEIM1

1
John A. Martin & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
2
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

SUMMARY
A novel solution of dynamic response of multistory buildings is utilized in an evolutionary system identification
algorithm for rapid and robust estimation of dynamic characteristics of instrumented building structures. The
empirical characteristics obtained can be used for detection of possible seismic damage and for validating design
assumptions with actual recorded structural response. Most structural identification procedures proposed to date
only provide some estimates of the modal quantities from which inference to commencement of damage may not
be trivial. In this proposed method, besides modal properties such as mode shapes and periods, an overall esti-
mate of the participation of shear to flexural deformations in the lateral response of a building structure is exam-
ined. Therefore, any alteration in the mode of response between flexural and shear dominated can be monitored
in a time-varying fashion. The method is fully automated such that it can be used virtually without any delay in
the aftermath of an urban earthquake. In a companion paper (Alimoradi and Naeim, 2006), the application of the
proposed methodology and its capabilities are exhibited through numerous examples on building structures shaken
by multiple earthquakes in their lives; many of them are amongst the most intensively studied instrumented build-
ing worldwide. The structural identification work presented here is a component of a comprehensive structural
health-monitoring system for instrumented building structures. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
The number of aging infrastructures in modern urban areas of the world is growing fast. In 1999, a
survey published by the United States Department of Energy reported that 36% of the commercial
buildings in America are 40 years of age or older (Energy Information Administration, 1999). The
2005 American Society of Civil Engineers report card reads: as of 2003, 271% of the nations bridges
(160 570) were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete (ASCE, 2005). In metropolitan areas, a
large stock of modern structures facilitates critical functionalities and host important businesses and
content that are vital to the economy of our societies. Naturally, the following issues justify employ-
ment of a rapid, accurate, and reliable structural health assessment and monitoring:
(1) repair, downtime, and occupancy issues after a major earthquake;
(2) proper estimation of buildings effective life cycle for demolition and rehabilitation;
(3) safety assessment after an unexpected extreme loading scenario such as blast; and

* Correspondence to: Arzhang Alimoradi, John A. Martin & Associates, Inc., 1212 S. Flower Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90015, USA. E-mail: arzhang@johnmartin.com

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

52 A. ALIMORADI ET AL.

(4) effective deployment of resources for search, rescue, and disaster reconnaissance and
management.
System identification can be used to track the changes of structural properties in response to dynamic
loading scenarios in structural condition assessment. System identification is also often used in struc-
tural and earthquake engineering application such as inverse engineering problems of finite element
model updating, identification of local site effects and dynamic soil properties, and more importantly
in validating structural design assumptions with actual recorded structural response.
System identification of a nonlinear dynamic system is computationally involved and unyielding to
automation. Numerical procedures often employ an optimization scheme to minimize the deviation of
estimated response from the actual sensor measurements. This involves solving for a large number of
optimization variables that are required for accurate dynamic response calculations. The number and
type of these optimization variables depend on the mathematical model chosen to represent the struc-
ture in the analytical formulation and its complexity. The optimization variables are usually quan-
tities such as the natural frequencies of vibration of the structure, the mode shapes and damping ratios
in a modal system; the structural stiffness, damping, and mass matrices in a finite element model; or
the hysteresis loops in general. Consequently, the identification process becomes a search problem that
involves many system variables. For example, a discretized framing system with three degrees of
freedom requires estimation of six real scalars (the frequencies and damping ratios at each mode) as
well as the arrays of their mode shapes at the instrumented levels. Obviously, with increased number
of variables, the odds of the optimization algorithm to converge to local optima also increase. The
problem may appear to have multiple solutions, out of which only a few may be physically mean-
ingful. Furthermore, the mapping between input and output may not be unique (as in singular prob-
lems). To overcome these complications, we use a simplified method of dynamic response evaluation
developed by Miranda and Taghavi (2005; Taghavi and Miranda, 2005) based on the solution of a
continuum system of coupled flexural and shear beams in an evolutionary optimization scheme imple-
mented by a genetic algorithm (GA) (Carroll, 2004). GAs are proven as robust global search and opti-
mization methods and have been extensively used in recent years in structural and earthquake
engineering applications (Ghaboussi and Chou, 2001; Adeli and Cheng, 1994; Pezeshk et al., 2000;
Naeim et al., 2004; Foley and Schinler, 2003; Liu et al., 2005). GAs power in finding a solution is
inherent in their parallel evaluation of data, adaptation characteristics, and in stochastic search that
enhances the likelihood of finding mathematically true global optima.
Our approach to identification of dynamic modal properties of building structures is different from
most such applications in three distinguished ways:
(1) It is rapid. In just a few minutes in the aftermath of a seismic event data can be streamlined to the
system through an Internet connection for comprehensive analysis.
(2) It is robust. Convergence to a solution is almost always guaranteed. No constraints or penalty
function are required to guide the algorithm.
(3) It is reliable. Simplified dynamic solution of a coupled flexuralshear behavior results in modal
properties that are always physically meaningful.

1.1 Background
The theory of system identification and its application to structural and earthquake engineering have
received considerable attention in the past thirty years. This is evident from the wealth of published
work in this period (Udwadia and Marmarelis, 1976; Marmarelis and Udwadia, 1976; Beck and
Jennings, 1980; S,afak, 1989a, 1989b; Aghbabian et al., 1991; Li and Mau, 1991; Ghanem and
Shinozuka, 1995; Shinozuka and Ghanem, 1995; Hjelmstad et al., 2000; Pothisiri and Hjelmstad,

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION: PART I 53

2000a, 2000b). Despite theoretical developments, application of automated system identification to

instrumented structures is lagging the theoretical advancements due to practical issues, many of them
addressed in this article.
One of the major problems in automating the process of system identification on a central server
for structural behavior monitoring is perhaps the computational cost and the poor performance of tra-
ditional gradient-based solution methods in finding physically meaningful yet mathematically optimal
models of the structures under investigation. In recent years however, with the advent of naturally
inspired computational agents such as GAs, artificial neural networks, and fuzzy logic, many engi-
neering applications that were deemed too complex and expensive to tackle a decade ago are now
being conveniently investigated. A noteworthy example is the application of GAs in structural iden-
tification and monitoring. A number of significant developments are made on this front (Bernstein and
Richter, 2003; Wang et al., 2004; Franco et al., 2004); however, most of the previous work in using
GAs in structural identification and damage detection is limited to one specific building and often sim-
plified by the assumption of rigid floors (shear-building models) or are using data under controlled
conditions in a lab. Our approach enjoys the advantages of using an effective GA combined with a
reduced-order dynamic response evaluation in fully automating the processes and is applicable to real
building structures after an earthquake.

2. THEORY
2.1 System modeling and transient dynamic response evaluation of a coupled systems
The theory of a reduced-order earthquake demand assessment is presented in detail by Miranda and
Taghavi (2005a, 2005b) and is adopted in this study for the solution of dynamic response of building
structures. This approximate solution offers a relatively accurate estimate of response with a very small
number of structural and modal variables. A brief description of the method pertinent to our imple-
mentation follows.
It is assumed that the elastic dynamic behavior of a multistory building could be reasonably esti-
mated, for most common types of building structures, through analyzing the response of a continuous
system as shown in Figure 1. Assuming that total response could be represented by participation of a

Shear Beam, Flexural Beam,

GA(x) EI(x)

Axially Rigid
Links

Figure 1. Simplified continuous model representing a multistory building structure (after Miranda and Taghavi,
2005; Taghavi and Miranda, 2005)

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
54 A. ALIMORADI ET AL.

finite number of modes and assuming that stiffness is uniformly and evenly distributed over the height
of building, approximate shapes of vibration from the simplified continuum model can be used to
compute the response. As will be demonstrated, these approximate mode shapes are a function of a
single variable, making it possible to reduce the number of optimization variables in the search space
significantly.
The governing partial differential equation of the motion of the coupled system shown in Figure 1
can be expressed as follows (Miranda and Taghavi 2005a):

2 u( x , t ) u( x, t ) 1 2 2
( ) u( x , t ) 1 ( ) u ( x , t ) 2 ug (t )
r( x) + c ( x ) + 4 2 EI x - GA x = - r ( x ) (1)
(t 2 ) (t ) H x x 2 H 2 x x t 2

in which r(x) is the mass per unit length of the model, c(x) is the damping coefficient per unit length,
EI(x) is the flexural rigidity of the flexural beam along the height, GA(x) is the shear rigidity of the
shear beam, u(x,t) is the lateral displacement at non-dimensional height (varying between zero at base
to one at roof), and ug(t) is the ground displacement at the base of the structure.
The solution of the partial differential Equation (1) can be obtained by the method of separation of
variables and by using modal superposition technique:

m
i (t )
uiT ( x, t ) @ ug (t ) + Gif i ( x )discrete D (2)
i =1

where Di(t) is the acceleration response of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDF) system, Gi is the modal
participation factor of mode i, and the mode shapes of the system can be represented by

k (f i )continuum
(f i )discrete = (f i )continuum = 20 20
i = 1, . . . , m (3)
t 1 1 - v + v 1 - x + x

k 2 2 H H

- a o2
v = 1 - e 100 (4)

1
k= (5)
07 (
1 - 1 - e i- N )
i
12
GAo
a o = H (6)
EIo

where k/t is the correction applied for transforming the continuum systems ordinates to the one in
the discrete model. The dimensionless parameter ao essentially controls the behavior of the system by
presenting the ratio of shear rigidity (GAo) to flexural rigidity (EIo) and the participation of the overall
shear and flexural deformations in a coupled beam model, as shown in Figure 2. In Equation (3), i
represent the mode number, N is the total number of stories in a multistory building, and H is the total
building height.
The mode shapes of a continuum system can be represented by a linear combination of hyperbolic
sine and hyperbolic cosine functions:

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION: PART I 55

o is small o is large o is intermediate

Figure 2. Various modes of deformation of the continuous beam model (after Miranda and Taghavi 2005; Taghavi
and Miranda, 2005)

-1 2
sin(g i x ) - g i (g i2 + a o2 )
f i ( x )continuum =
2 -1 2
sin(g i ) - g i (g i2 + a ) o
sinh( x g i2 + a o2 ) + hi [cosh( x g i2 + a o2 ) - cos(g i x )]
(7)
sinh( g i2 + a o2 ) + hi [cosh( g i2 + a o2 ) - cos(g i )]

In Equation (7), g i is obtained from the solution of the characteristic equation in (8), for i = 1, . . . ,
NM:

a o4 ( ) a o2
2 + 2 + 2 2 cos g cosh ( a 2
+ g 2
) + sin(g i ) sinh( a o + g i ) = 00
2 2
(8)
g i (g i + a o2 )
i o i
g i a o2 + g i2

and

g i2 sin(g i ) + g i a o2 + g i2 sinh( a o2 + g i2 )
hi = (9)
g i2 cos(g i ) + (a o2 + g i2 ) sinh( a o2 + g i2 )

The values of g i do not appear to change significantly with ao, from the solution of the characteristic
equation for various values of ao. This is shown in Figure 3. A linear regression, hence, could serve
as solution of Equation (8) for all values of ao:

g i = 3104
i - 1369 (10)

In our implementation, however, we use the exact solution of Equation (8) for response computations.
It follows the derivation that the natural periods and modal participation factors of the structure also
depend on the stiffness ratio (Miranda and Taghavi, 2005a):

Ti g 1 a o2 + g 12
= (11)
T1 g i a o2 + g i2
1
( )
(G )
(Gi )discrete = i continuum = 1 - 1 -
07 ( i- N ) 0 f i x continuum dx
e 1 2 (12)
k i
0 f i ( x )continuum dx
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
56 A. ALIMORADI ET AL.

15

12.5

10

7.5

2.5

0
1
2
3
4
5

Figure 3. Variation of the eigenvalue of Equation (8) with ao, the stiffness ratio

The analytical derivation of the methodology should not distract the reader from the fact that this
method can easily and reliably provide estimates of seismic deformation and acceleration demands in
a building structure by only having a handful of parameters. To put this in perspective, for a common
mid-rise structure three variables may be used to compute response histories under an input ground
motion: stiffness ratio (ao), the first mode natural period, and a damping ratio for the top few modes
of vibration. This is only one variable in addition to what is required to compute the response of an
SDF system, period and damping. Next, the application of a stochastic search algorithm in finding the
best set of system variables is described. When a search algorithm is employed, it is no longer nec-
essary to represent the equivalent modal damping ratios of top modes of vibration by a single scalar,
because the algorithm can be formulated to take different modal damping ratios in the computation
of response.

2.2 Output error estimation scheme

As in most common structural identification procedures, an output error estimation scheme is used in
our method. The best set of system variables is to be obtained through the minimization of mismatch
between predicted response and those recorded by the actual building sensors in response to an input
ground motion. The basics of output error estimation method are described thoroughly in the litera-
ture (e.g., see Beck and Jennings, 1980). Parsevals identity implies that the solution of output error
estimation from time domain and frequency domain has to be identical when the full history of

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION: PART I 57

response is used in the identification (Beck and Jennings, 1980). In our implementation, we use a time
domain error minimization scheme, as will be described in the next section, with added utilities in the
automated software platform.

2.3 Optimization statement

Error minimization in response prediction can be expressed by the following objective function (for
acceleration demand):

1 NS 2
Z = min J NS (q ) =
NS i =1
[ui (t ) - ui (t q )] (13)

where ui(t) is the recorded acceleration response of sensor i at time t, and i(t|q) is the predicted accel-
eration response from Equation (2) at the level of sensor i for the vector of system variables (or q, the
optimization variables). NS is the number of output sensors in the error minimization.
The optimization variables (vector of unknowns) are:
(1) T1: the first mode natural period;
(2) ao: the dimensionless stiffness ratio of Equation (6); and
(3) xi, i = 1, . . . , NM: equivalent modal damping ratios at NM number of modes;
and the optimization parameters (vector of known values) are:
(1) known structural system parameters (number of stories; the number, location, and orientation of
the sensors, etc.);
(2) NM: number of modes to be detected.
Calculation of the response through Equations (2)(12) eliminates the need for any constraints on opti-
mization variables. This is because the natural periods, mode shapes, and equivalent modal damping
ratios obtained from the simplified response calculation are always physically meaningful.
The optimization scheme implemented in our work also has the following features:
(1) weighting of sensor error in the objective function (and the capability of performing system iden-
tification for any number and combination of output sensors with desired weights);
(2) minimization of various response mismatch histories (the capability of performing system identi-
fication using acceleration histories, velocity histories, displacement histories, or any combination
of them); and
(3) fitness scaling (balancing the mismatch error to the mean square of output sensor responses or
simply minimizing the total mismatch).
An expanded error function is used that, in general, minimizes the error of acceleration histories and
their associated velocities and displacements of all sensors over the height of building through the
objective function of Equation (14):
2 2
2
ci c [ui (t ) - ui (t q )] + c [u i (t ) - u i (t q )] + c [u i (t ) - ui (t q )] dt
NS
Z = min C a S u2 (t) v
S u i2 (t )
d
S u i2 (t )
(14)
i =1 t i

where ci are the weights of sensors:

(ci 0) R, i = 1, . . . , NS (15)

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
58 A. ALIMORADI ET AL.

such that

NS
C = (ca + cv + cd ) ci (16)
i =1

The relative merit in the quality of match amongst displacement response and its derivatives is pre-
served by

ca , cv , cd R and ca 0, cv 0, cd 0 (17)

and the option of scaled or non-scaled error objective function through S:

10
or 10 if ca 0
NS
2
ui (t )
i =1 t

10
S NS or 10 if cv 0 (18)
u i2 (t )

i =1 t



10
NS or 10 if cd 0

u i2 (t )
i =1 t

Therefore, the model of the decoupled set of modal equations (predicted system: Equation (19)) can
be identified (using the principle of modal superposition assuming linear structural behavior in sta-
tionary segments of response for piecewise system identification):
Ninp
i (t ) + 2xiw i D i (t ) + w i2 Di (t ) = f i Gik ugk (t )
D (19)
k =1

subject to initial conditions:

ur (0) = Gif i dr , u r (0) = Gif i vr (20)

i i

for sensor r.
For systems in which dynamic modal properties change significantly during the course of response,
a segmentation scheme is provided. Depending on the quality of match over the output sensors
(an error diagram is available from the software system that demonstrates the history of mismatch),
a number of stationary segments may be allocated for sequential modal identification. The initial
conditions of each segment will be taken automatically from the end conditions of previous
segments. The of effect correction on the quality of match is apparent for various initial conditions in
Figure 4.

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION: PART I 59

300.0

200.0
Acceleration, Cm/Sec/Sec

100.0

0.0

-100.0

-200.0

-300.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Time, Sec.

Actual Time-Variant Acceleration Correction Only Time-Variant Full Model Correction

Figure 4. Various initial condition correction schemes for Burbank six-story building under the NS component
of Northridge 1994 earthquake at roof level

2.4 Genetic algorithm design

Minimization of Equation (14) by using classical gradient-based methods is very difficult, if not impos-
sible. Additionally, traditional optimization methods such as KaruchKuhnTucker or modal sweep-
ing method (Papalambros and Douglass, 2000; Beck and Jennings, 1980) have two drawbacks:
(1) They often need the gradient of the objective function. When the number of optimization vari-
ables is large and the objective function is mathematically complicated, traditional methods
become impractical.
(2) They require an initial point in the optimization space for the iterative solution process to start.
As a result, the final solution could very much depend on the choice of initial point and its
proximity to global optima.
On the other hand, GAs developed by the pioneering work of Holland (1975) and Goldberg (1989)
based on the theory of natural evolution perform optimization using stochastic search. Adaptation,
natural parent selection, and survival of the fittest in the nature, when simulated on a computer, become
a very powerful optimization method. GAs work with sets of assumed solution variables (so-called
population of chromosomes in GA jargon) rather than a single starting point for iterations. GAs also
have stochastic mechanisms such as mutation that prevent the algorithm from focusing the search
around local optima in the objective space. Besides, there is usually no need to define an objective
function and its gradient explicitly as the measure of convergence can be simply defined by a fitness
function. Fitness function and the other GA components and processes for this application are as
follows:
(1) Population of chromosomes: An assumed set of optimization variables is used in the iterative
processes of GAs. This set is commonly called a population of chromosomes, whereas each

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
60 A. ALIMORADI ET AL.

iteration is called a generation, stemming from the processes of natural evolution in nature. A
chromosome consists of a string of decimal or binary values (genes) that represent the variables
of the system. Naturally, the best genes in a chromosome represent the fittest individual in a com-
petitive environment, and are what an evolutionary algorithm might be looking for. Natures solu-
tion to enhancement of species is through the process of natural parent selection and recombination
in a genetic pool. In our application for a three-mode detection problem, a chromosome consists
of five genes, namely the stiffness ratio, the first mode natural period, and three modal damping
ratios in binary strings.
(2) Fitness function, natural parent selection, and fitness penalties: Fitness function is a mathemati-
cal expression that defines how fit an individual chromosome is within the environment. In our
problem, the survival of the fittest is envisioned as the minimal distance in the genetic space from
a chromosome that represents a structural system with minimal analytical response mismatch from
recorded sensor data caused by an earthquake ground motion shaking. Fitness function should
yield higher absolute values for individuals that are fitter. Consequently, it is taken as the inverse
of Equation (14). Evaluation of Equation (14) is easy once the system of modal equations is solved
for the assumed set of optimization variables. Once the fitness of individual chromosomes is
evaluated in a generation, pairs of parents are selected based on the value of their fitness. The
fitter the individual is, the higher its chances are for being selected as a parent of the next gener-
ation. Therefore, fitter parents would be able to pass on their good genetic characteristics to the
forthcoming offspring generations.
(3) GA operators: These are mechanisms such as crossover and mutation. Although different schemes
are proposed and applied (such as single-point and multiple-point mutation and crossover), they
all ensure diversity in the populations by introducing random variations in the solution set.
Crossover is the reproduction of two mating chromosomes in order to create offspring chromo-
somes by sharing pieces of genetic information and is done by switching parts of the chromo-
somes. The location along the length of chromosome strings where switching of the pieces and
genes would take place is determined randomly. The chances of two chromosomes mating are
controlled by the probability of crossover. Mutation (which usually has a low probability) changes
the value of a gene by flipping a randomly selected bit of information along its length and hence
creating a form of information block (commonly referred to schema) that may be located in an
area of the search space not looked before.
GA implementation of the proposed system identification scheme is illustrated in Figure 5.

2.5 Convergence issues

In general, factors affecting the computer run-time and convergence of a search and optimization
problem are:
(1) number of variables; and
(2) nonlinear relationship between optimization variables (geometrical complexity of the objective
space).
In our application creating a good response match requires:
(1) understanding of basic dynamics of the system (possible ranges of variation of modal properties
for example); and
(2) the stochastic search and optimization characteristics of GAs.
Generally speaking, convergence to global or near-global optima in a GA is almost always guaran-
teed, provided that the search is performed in a space that contains the solution and sufficient number

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION: PART I 61

Start

Import
Sensor Data

Set GA
Parameters

Identification
Parameters

Genetic Algorithm
Driver
Solution of
Seismic
Response

Response No
Identified
Converged?
Modal Properties Match

End

Figure 5. Flowchart of the program

of generations of chromosomes is reproduced. Assuming a typical three-mode structural identification

problem of a regular ten-story building, one needs to set up a five-variable optimization scheme. These
variables are the dimensionless parameter ao of Equation (6), fundamental period of vibration, and
three equivalent modal damping ratios. Now assume that the search for the best first mode period is
performed in the range of 0520 s with increments of 001 s; and for the modal damping ratios in the
range of 05150% in increments of 05%. If the stiffness ratio, ao, has a range of variation of 01 to
25 with increments of 01, the combination of these variables constitutes an optimization search space
that has about 1 109 members. An exhaustive search in such a large space even with todays com-
putational power is very expensive. Consequently, it is important to define the ranges of variation of
variables and the search space for the optimization problem wide enough to ensure that it includes the
solution, yet not so big that it could adversely affect the convergence.
It is also important to notice that the objective function of Equation (14) is highly nonlinear with
respect to the optimization variables, T1, xi(i = 1,2,3), and ao. This implies a five-dimensional search
space that could be very jagged with respect to individual variables and challenging to iterative
numerical algorithm. Such algorithms can be simply trapped in local valleys oscillating around a set

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
62 A. ALIMORADI ET AL.

of variables that only minimize the objective function locally. Parallel stochastic mechanisms of GA
constantly change the forms of solution patterns in an effort to make sure a larger area within the
search space is searched at the same time.
Typical GA operators in our problems are:
(3) Population size: in the range of five to ten chromosomes, each representing five genes (for stiff-
ness ratio, fundamental period of vibration, and equivalent modal damping ratios, respectively).
Setting up a larger number of genes for the identification of higher number of modes is possible
and easy to do.
(4) Number of generations: in the range 100200. Computer run-time for this number of generations
of the population on a typical personal computer with a Pentium 4 processor is about 1 min of
wall time.
(5) Probability of cross-over: in the range 5575%, in general.
(6) Probability of mutation: up to 5%.
(7) Natural parent selection: through roulette wheel selection reproducing two offspring chromosomes.
One should be aware of the inherent assumptions made in the current formulation. The unfavorable
effects of these assumptions on the quality of match, physical significance of the solution, and the
convergence and numerical stability are not explicitly studied. However, within the ranges of common
engineering precision these effects do not appear to be significant for most typical structures:
(1) assumption of uniform mass distribution over height;
(2) transverse and 3D effects of seismic excitation that are ignored as well as torsion;
(3) major assumptions in the modal combination method such as linear response within each indi-
vidual segment, and representing a continuous dynamic system with infinite number of degrees
of freedom by only a finite number of modes;
(4) existence of noise, sensors dynamics and resolution, location of sensors and their distribution in
the building;
(5) limited number of measurements and identifiability issues; and
(6) assumption of time-invariant modal properties.
Figure 6 shows a sample of typical convergence trajectories in our typical problems. The stochastic
behavior of the GA in locating a global or near-global solution is evident from this figure through
multiple phases of parallel error reduction. As was mentioned before, convergence is almost always
guaranteed.

3. CONCLUSION
A new method of reduced-order dynamic response calculation is efficiently implemented in an evo-
lutionary optimization algorithm for identification of structural and modal properties of instrumented
buildings. Such implementation alleviates many of the problems that are often encountered in the
modal identification of large structural systems. In a companion paper (Alimoradi and Naeim, 2006),
the application of such methodology is showcased on a large number of different building structures.
The incorporation of a new system response variable that controls the overall contribution of flexural
and shear deformations in a continuous beam model makes it possible for the identification process
to monitor any loss of stiffness in the building structure in response to an earthquake ground shaking.
The optimization characteristics of the fitness evolution in terms of terminating fitness and its
gradient appear to be satisfactory for such application.

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION: PART I 63

Figure 6. A sample of error minimization trajectories

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
64 A. ALIMORADI ET AL.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Partial funding for this project was provided by the State of California, California Geologic Survey,
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) under Contract Number 1003-781. Additional fund-
ing was provided by John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. The continuous advice received from our
consultants, Professor Wilfred Iwan of California Institute of Technology, Professor S. T. Mau of
California State UniversityNorthridge, Dr Tony Shakkal and Dr Mo Huang of California Geology
Survey is acknowledged. Professor David Carrolls genetic algorithm driver was used in this study.
The opinions expressed in this paper are solely the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the California Geological Survey, its Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, or John A. Martin
& Associates, Inc.

REFERENCES

Adeli H, Cheng N-T. 1994. Concurrent genetic algorithms for optimization of large structures. Journal of Aero-
space Engineering 7(3): 276296.
Aghbabian MS, Masri SF, Miller RK, Caughey TK. 1991. System identification approach to detection of struc-
tural changes. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 117(2): 370390.
Alimoradi A, Naeim F. 2006. Evolutionary modal identification utilizing coupled shearflexural response:
implication for multistory buildings. Part II: Application. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
15: 67103.
ASCE. 2005. Infrastructures Report Card, American Society of Civil Engineers, http://www.asce.org/reportcard
[June 2005].
Beck JL, Jennings PC. 1980. Structural identification using linear models and earthquake records. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 8: 145160.
Bernstein S, Richter M. 2003. The use of genetic algorithms in finite element model identification. In Interna-
tionales Kolloquium ber Anwendungen der Informatik und Mathematik in Architektur und Bauwesen, Weimar,
Bauhaus-Universitt.
Carroll DL. 2004. FORTRAN Genetic Algorithm (GA) Driver, http://cuaerospace.com/carroll/ga.html [Decem-
ber 2004].
Energy Information Administration. 1999. Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-871A of the 1999
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey.
Foley CM, Schinler D. 2003. Automated design of steel frames using advanced analysis and object-oriented evo-
lutionary computation. Journal of Structural Engineering 129(5): 648660.
Franco G, Betti R, Lu s, H. 2004. Identification of structural systems using an evolutionary strategy. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 130(10): 11251139.
Ghaboussi J, Chou J-H. 2001. Genetic algorithm in structural damage detection. Computers and Structures,
79(14): 13351353.
Ghanem R, Shinozuka M. 1995. Structural-system identification. I: Theory. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
121(2): 255264.
Goldberg DE. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley:
Reading, MA.
Hjelmstad KD, Pothisiri T, Shin S. 2000. System identification methods for damage detection and assessment. In
Proceedings of the 14th Engineering Mechanics Conference, 2124 May, University of Texas at Austin,
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Holland JH. 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to
Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI.
Li Y, Mau ST. 1991. A case study of MIMO system identification applied to building seismic records. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 20: 10451064.
Liu M, Burns SA, Wen YK. 2005. Multiobjective optimization for performance-based seismic design of steel
moment frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(3): 289306.
Marmarelis PZ, Udwadia FE. 1976. The identification of building structural systems. II: The nonlinear case. Bul-
letin of the Seismological Society of America 66(1): 153171.
Miranda E, Taghavi S. 2005a. Approximate floor acceleration demands in multistory buildings. I: Formulation.
Journal of Structural Engineering 131(2): 203211.

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 EVOLUTIONARY MODAL IDENTIFICATION: PART I 65

Naeim F, Alimoradi A, Pezeshk S. 2004. Selection and scaling of ground motion time histories for structural
design using genetic algorithms. Earthquake Spectra 20(2): 413426.
Papalambros PY, Douglass JW. 2000. Principles of Optimal Design, Modeling and Computation (2nd edn). Cam-
bridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Pezeshk S, Camp CV, Chen D. 2000. Design of nonlinear framed structures using genetic optimization. Journal
of Structural Engineering 126(3): 382388.
Pothisiri T, Hjelmstad KD. 2000a. The effect of nonuniqueness of parameter estimation schemes on damage detec-
tion. In Proceedings of the 14th Engineering Mechanics Conference, 2124 May, University of Texas at Austin,
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Pothisiri T, Hjelmstad KD. 2000b. Damage detection for spatially sparse and noise-polluted modal response.
In Proceedings of the 14th Engineering Mechanics Conference, 2124 May, University of Texas at Austin,
American Society of Civil Engineers.
S,afak E. 1989a. Adaptive modeling, identification, and control of dynamic structural systems. I: Theory. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics 115(11): 23862405.
S,afak E. 1989b. Adaptive modeling, identification, and control of dynamic structural systems. II: Applications.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 115(11): 24062427.
Shinozuka M, Ghanem R. 1995b. Structural-system identification. II: Experimental verification. Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics 121(2): 265273.
Taghavi S, Miranda E. 2005b. Approximate floor acceleration demands in multistory buildings. II: Applications.
Journal of Structural Engineering 131(2): 212220.
Udwadia FE, Marmarelis PZ. 1976. The identification of building structural systems. I: The linear case. Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America 66(1): 125151.
Wang GS, Huang FK, Lin HH. 2004. Application of genetic algorithm to structural dynamic parameter identifi-
cation. In 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16 August, Vancouver, BC.

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 5165 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal