Fig 1.
Specifications of the RFDs setup suggested by [34].
Fig 2.
The RFD’s behavior mechanism (2002).
Fig 3.
The effect of ha and r values on dissipated energy.
Fig 4.
The effect of ha and r values on maximum displacement of frame.
Fig 5.
The effect of ha and r values on the stiffness of the damper and brace system.
Fig 6.
The effect of Mf and Fp values on dissipated energy.
Fig 7.
The effect of Mf and Fp values on maximum displacement of frame.
Fig 8.
The effect of Mf and Fp values on the stiffness of the damper and brace system.
Fig 9.
Fig 10.
The SMRF characterized by lumped plasticity within the OpenSees.
Fig 11.
Fig 12.
Fithe fnite element modeling framework developed for the SSI system, implemented using the OpenSees simulation platform.
Fig 13.
Illustration of the multi-yield-surface formulation based on the J2 plasticity theory: (a) Octahedral representation of shear stress–strain response; (b) multi-surface Von Mises yield criteria [105].
Table 1.
Summary of the governing parameters and constitutive criteria adopted in the development of the pressure-insensitive multi-yield plasticity formulation.
Fig 14.
the functioning of BRPSO.
Table 2.
Defined Ranges for RFD Parameter Values in 6- and 10-Story SMRFs.
Fig 15.
Time history of artificial record with a PGA of (a) 0.7g and (b) 0.4g.
Table 3.
Optimal Damper Configurations and their Associated Objective Function Values.
Table 4.
Optimal RFD Parameter Values for Configuration in the 6-Story Frame.
Table 5.
The optimal RFD parameter values for the allocation of RFDs in a 10-story frame.
Table 6.
Comparative analysis of maximum input, hysteretic, and dissipated energy in a 6-Story SMRF with various optimal RFD configurations.
Fig 16.
Energy time histories for the 6-story frame subjected to synthetic ground motion: (a) SMRF without RFDs and (b) SMRF with optimally configured RFDs.
Fig 17.
Comparison of hysteretic energy dissipation at each plastic hinge of the 6-story frame (a) without RFD (b) with optimal RFDs (unit: Kips.in).
Fig 18.
Comparative assessment of maximum structural drift with and without optimally designed RFDs.
Table 7.
Comparative evaluation of maximum input, hysteretic, and dissipated energy values in a 10-story SMRF with various optimally configured RFDs.
Fig 19.
Time history of energy components in the 10-story frame subjected to the artificial record: (a) SMRF without RFD and (b) SMRF equipped with optimal RFDs.
Fig 20.
Comparison of hysteretic energy dissipation at each plastic hinge of the 10-story frame (a) without RFD (b) with optimal RFDs (unit: Kips.in).
Fig 21.
Comparative assessment of maximum structural drift with and without optimally designed RFDs.