Robust-to-Uncertainties Optimal Design of

Seismic Metamaterials
Paul-Remo Wagner 1; Vasilis K. Dertimanis, Ph.D. 2;
Eleni N. Chatzi, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 3; and James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Metamaterials, which draw their origin from a special class of structured (periodic) materials characterized by a dynamic filtering
effect, have recently emerged as a prospective means for structural seismic protection. This paper explores such a periodic arrangement in the
form of local adaptive resonators buried in the soil, serving as a seismic protection barrier. As a starting point, a simplistic representation is
chosen herein that comprises chains of mass-in-mass unit cells. A robust-to-uncertainties optimization of such a chain, addressing uncer-
tainties at the level of the excitation, the system properties and the model structure itself, is conducted. The optimization problem is for-
mulated within the context of reliability assessment, where the objective function is the failure probability of the structure to be protected
against seismic input. The problem is solved through adoption of the subset optimization algorithm enhanced through the simultaneous
implementation of a stochastic approximation algorithm. It is demonstrated that not all parameters of the chain model require optimization,
because the failure probability proves to be a monotonic function of a subset of the parameters. A primary objective herein lies in optimizing
the internal unit-cell stiffness properties. It is further demonstrated that the effectiveness of the protection offered by the metamaterial is
improved for spatially varying unit-cell properties. The optimization procedure is carried out in the frequency domain, with an example
application confirming that a time domain optimization is expected to yield similar optimal configurations. A parametric study using a
nonlinear model is also presented, offering a starting point for more refined future investigations. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-
7889.0001404. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Seismic isolation; Periodic lattice; Metamaterials; Optimal design; Reliability.

Introduction frequencies of the building. This decrease in overall horizontal

Seismic events, while relatively rare, may bear devastating conse-
quences on a human, fiscal, and societal level. From a civil engineer-
ing standpoint, seismic hazard mitigation poses a great challenge,
as traditional deterministic design methods may not adequately
anticipate or account for such extreme events. In ensuring seismic
resilience, i.e., the ability to recover against earthquakes, different
approaches have been conceived to reduce the impact of seismic
events on structures, such as base isolation (BI) (Skinner et al. 1975;
Harvey and Kelly 2016) and tuned mass damping (TMD) (Kaynia
et al. 1981; Chey et al. 2010).
The basic idea behind BI is the horizontal decoupling of the
ground from a protected structure. These BI systems are typically
implemented by introducing low horizontal stiffness bearings be-
tween the ground and the structure, thereby modifying the natural
1
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineer-
ing, Institution of Structural Engineering, ETH Zürich, Stefano-Franscini-
Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail: wagner@ibk.baug.ethz.ch
2
Researcher, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering,
Institution of Structural Engineering, ETH Zürich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz
5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail: v.derti@ibk.baug.ethz.ch
3 ral frequencies. This can lead to the so-called mistuning effect,
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic
Engineering, Institution of Structural Engineering, ETH Zürich, Stefano-
Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland (corresponding author).
E-mail: chatzi@ibk.baug.ethz.ch
4
Professor, Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California In-
stitute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125. E-mail: jimbeck@caltech.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 4, 2017; approved on
August 2, 2017; published online on December 20, 2017. Discussion
period open until May 20, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399.
stiffness results in an increase of the fundamental period and,
when designed properly, places the building in a more favorable
position with respect to the predominant ground motion frequen-
cies (Harvey and Kelly 2016). The effectiveness of the isolation
depends on numerous factors, but is especially difficult with light-
weight structures, soft soil sites, and with respect to near fault
effects.
For TMD, a mass is attached to the primary structure through a
spring. By properly tuning this attached oscillator, kinetic energy of
the main structure can be partially transferred to the TMD. This
reduces the movement in the primary structure, albeit only over
a relatively narrow frequency range, typically near the fundamental
frequency of the structure. Therefore TMD is most effective, if the
excitation characteristics lie within a certain frequency range. If this
is not guaranteed, the TMD may in fact result in an increase of the
primary structural response. In structural engineering applications,
this leads to a major concern because the dynamic excitation (seis-
mic or wind) is highly arbitrary and may not be guaranteed, with
sufficient certainty, to lie in a prescribed range (Kaynia et al. 1981).
Another concern is related to the choice of the target frequency of
the TMD because of the uncertainty in the primary structure’s natu-
which ultimately might render a TMD ineffective (Chey et al. 2010).
A novel approach to address shortcomings of existing protection
systems seeks to mitigate seismic vibrations through the use of
metamaterials (Finocchio et al. 2014). These were originally de-
rived from research on phononic crystals—physical particles rep-
resenting mechanical vibrations responsible for the transmission of
everyday sound and heat (Maldovan 2013). It has been found that
when arranged in a periodic configuration as in crystals, waves of
certain frequencies cannot propagate through the crystal medium.

© ASCE 04017181-1 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 This frequency range has been called a phononic band gap, or stop
band, in the literature.
Researchers have proposed different types of seismic metama-
terials (SMs) to produce band gaps in the low frequency regions
that are relevant to earthquake protection schemes. For a compre-
hensive literature review, the reader is referred to Dertimanis et al.
(2016). Among others, Cheng et al. (2013) propose mass-in-mass
concrete unit cells interconnected through silicon rubber. This ap-
proach produced band gaps in the range between 15 and 49 Hz. By
placing pillars in the soil around a structure, Huang and Shi (2013)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
achieved a gap between 32 and 47 Hz. In Achaoui et al. (2016),
band gaps from 8–49 Hz are achieved by placing large spheres in
the soil around and under a structure.
Focusing on the attenuation of surface waves, Palermo et al.
(2016) propose a seismic metabarrier, consisting of subwavelength
resonant structures that are buried under the soil surface, for con-
verting Rayleigh waves into shear bulk waves that propagate away
from the soil surface. Using a similar principle, Colombi et al.
(2016a) describe a resonant metawedge for effective wave mode
conversion, providing both analytical and numerical models.
Miniaci et al. (2016) proceed one step further and develop optimal
design criteria, by investigating a number of SM configurations. At
this point, it is worth noting that Colombi et al. (2016b) have also
investigated the behavior of natural periodic structures, such as for-
ests, in terms of surface Rayleigh wave attenuation.
Recently, Dertimanis et al. (2016) demonstrated that lower fre-
quency bands, within the active range of earthquake motions and
the fundamental period of structural systems, are indeed feasible.
Using one-dimensional SMs with a small number of unit cells, they
proposed a technologically realizable unit-cell design prototype,
capable of achieving attenuation already from as low as 0.5 Hz.
An extension of this concept to two-dimensional (e.g., plane) SMs
is presented in Wagner et al. (2016a, b).
In view of the ongoing research on SMs, one aspect that has
received considerable less attention thus far pertains to the system-
atic exploration of the induced design uncertainties. Indeed, SMs
are hard to design through conventional methods, primarily be-
cause seismic events are inherently uncertain and are thus hard to
quantify deterministically. Additionally, the uncertainties related to
SMs themselves are large, because little experimental data or ex-
perience are available. As some sort of model of a physical system
is adopted, it is also necessary to take into account modeling errors
that are associated with any model (Beck and Katafygiotis 1998).
Building on some earlier work (Au and Beck 2003; Taflanidis and
Beck 2008b), this paper attempts to address underlying uncertain-
ties through a comprehensive robust-to-uncertainties reliability ap-
proach. To do this, the authors resort to a two-stage optimization
framework that was originally conceived in Taflanidis and Beck
(2008a). The authors further define a SM model that consists of
a chain of mass-in-mass unit cells. To model a protected structure,
a linear oscillator is attached to this chain. It is then attempted to
optimize the internal unit-cell properties (i.e., internal stiffness), to
obtain a minimum failure probability with respect to engineering
quantities like relative displacement and absolute acceleration of
the oscillator, whose response is to be mitigated.
In this paper, SMs that are composed of a series of soil em-
bedded resonators are studied. These resonator chains result in re-
duction of the vibrational response amplitude in certain frequency
ranges (Dertimanis et al. 2016), referred to as response reduction
ranges (RRR) in this paper. These SMs can be understood as a com-
bination of BI and TMD, while additionally exploiting structural
periodicity. The external stiffness, kext , to some degree, decouples
the structure from the ground, and thereby bears a similar effect
to BI systems. The internal resonators, on the other hand, work
© ASCE 04017181-2
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181
similarly to TMD by reducing the structural response in certain
narrow frequency ranges. Contrary to TMD, in SMs the seismic
energy is hindered from reaching the protected structure and so
does not have to be initially transferred through the structure to
the energy dissipating TMD.
This exploratory study contributes to ongoing SM research
through establishing a needed uncertainty management approach,
which is illustrated by deriving the optimal configuration of a
six-unit-cell chain employed for protection of a single degree of
freedom oscillator. Frequency domain reliability optimization is
adopted, with remarks regarding the time domain behavior. It is
also shown that a choice of spatially varying unit-cell properties,
under certain conditions, achieves more efficient protection than
using identical unit-cell chains. A parametric study is also carried
out using the optimized structure with nonlinear springs.
The paper begins with a comprehensive design problem formu-
lation, introducing the mass-in-mass SM model with available
analysis methods and a seismic excitation model. Subsequently,
the optimal stochastic design approach for reliability is introduced
using these models. In the next section, the models are investigated
specifically for the case of SM optimization, including an initial
sensitivity analysis for the most important parameters. The authors
then continue to present an efficient two-stage optimization algo-
rithm for solving the posed design optimization problem. Finally, a
parametric study is presented, illustrating the results obtained by
the described robust-to-uncertainties reliability design framework.
Problem Formulation
Physical Layout
Consider the structure of Fig. 1(a), which is excited by a horizontal
ground acceleration component [ẍg ðtÞ] attributable to a near-fault
seismic event. The induced near-fault kinematic effect [e.g., the
ground motion xg ðtÞ] may be considered as the combined result
of the propagation of vertical S waves and surface waves (Love
and/or Rayleigh).
To attenuate the ground acceleration, a number of, not neces-
sarily identical, resonators are embedded in the soil, as shown
in Fig. 1(b). Each cell comprises an external (mext ) and an internal
mass (mint ), which are interconnected by a linear spring of stiffness,
kint . A discussion on the design of such resonators falls outside the
scope of this work, and the reader is referred to Dertimanis et al.
(2016), to Palermo et al. (2016), and to Miniaci et al. (2016), for a
thorough treatment of the engineering aspects of this approach.
Herein it is just emphasized that these studies have already con-
firmed the design feasibility, in terms of geometrical, dimensional,
and engineering constraints.
The unit cells are embedded into a soil of specific shear modulus
and of purely elastic behavior, which comprises an integral part of
the SM through the resonator–soil–resonator interaction mecha-
nism. The soil is herein modeled by means of a linear spring of
stiffness, kext (Makris and Gazetas 1992). For the purposes of this
study, and for ensuring a proper behavior of the SM, the following
assumptions are adopted:
1. The soil maintains its contact (and thus the same elastic prop-
erties) along the height of the resonator.
2. The resonator floats only along the horizontal direction, im-
plying specific boundary conditions on the top and the bottom of
the internal and the external masses.
3. The SM forms a box–type structure that is excited on
its far left side by the ground acceleration and causes a vibration
J. Eng. Mech.
 x g (t )
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
x g (t )
L
(b)
Fig. 1. Graphical interpretation of the physical problem: (a) unpro-
tected structure under near fault ground excitation; (b) SM-based
protected structure
acceleration response on the external mass of the far right resonator,
on which the structure to be protected is adjusted.
4. The SM is amenable to uncertainties, both in terms of
excitation and its structural parameters.
On the basis of these assumptions, the purpose herein is to prob-
abilistically design SMs that perform optimally with respect to
some reliability objective. As it will be later shown, the design
parameter is the internal stiffness, kint , which may be different in
a subset of the SM’s unit cells. To do so, the adopted modeling
approach consists of three interrelated models, the SM model, the
excitation model, and the performance evaluation model, which are
described in the following.
Seismic Metamaterial Model
To obtain a mathematical description of the physical layout, the SM-
protected structure (e.g., a multistory building), is modeled as a lin-
ear oscillator corresponding to the fundamental structural vibration
mode, and is attached to the unit cell furthest away from the exci-
tation source, as displayed in Fig. 2(b). The protected structure is
assumed to have a frequency of 1 Hz, as this is near the fundamental
frequency of typical civil engineering structures (Hatzigeorgiou and
KanapitsasP 2013). The oscillator mass is chosen equal to the total
SM mass ( mint;i þ mext;i ¼ mSDOF ), whereas its stiffness kSDOF
is determined so that the resulting frequency f SDOF coincides with
the protected structure’s fundamental one. It is emphasized that SMs
are not restricted to this one-dimensional setup, but this simple
© ASCE 04017181-3
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. SM models for soil embedded resonators: (a) system model G1 :
seismic metamaterial; (b) system model G2 : seismic metamaterial with
attached oscillator
model already offers valuable insight into the metadamping phe-
nomenon, and it is computationally cheaper to evaluate, whereas it
can be quite easily extended to circular or dome-like barriers in two
or three dimensions (Wagner et al. 2016a).
The vibration attenuation properties of the SM have been ex-
plored using Bloch’s theory, under the assumption of an infinite
number of unit cells (Dertimanis et al. 2016). In the case of SM
composed of identical units, it can be shown that the frequency
band gap is determined by Finocchio et al. (2014)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m 1 kint
f0;int ≤ f ≤ f0;int 1 þ int ; f 0;int ¼ ð1Þ
mext 2π mint
and is independent of the external stiffness, kext . In a finite SM,
however, Bloch’s theory is not applicable, and quantities from con-
ventional vibration analysis, such as the frequency response func-
tion (FRF), are utilized instead. Fig. 3 illustrates the difference
between the dispersion relation of a SM with an infinite number
of unit cells and the FRF amplitude of a SM with a finite number
of unit cells. Note that the response in the frequency domain band
gap is not eliminated, but significantly reduced. The response out-
side the gap is however increased; this is discussed in Dertimanis
et al. (2016). The frequency range for which the amplitudes are
reduced (e.g., it retains a value <0 dB) will be henceforth referred
to as the response reduction range (RRR).
Focusing further on the finite SM, the number of unit cells, N,
the external stiffness, kext , and the mass ratio between the external
and the internal mass, r ¼ mext =mint , play an important role for the
performance of the induced RRR. It must be emphasized that re-
sponse reduction occurs only because kext ≠ ∞ (i.e., the soil is not
J. Eng. Mech.
 sffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 k̂ kext X kext
f̂ ¼ ¼ ; where m̂ ¼ ðmint;i þ mext;i Þ k̂ ¼
2π m̂ N2 N
ð2Þ

where k̂ = equivalent chain stiffness for N identical springs con-

nected in series, and m̂ = total mass of the chain. This reveals that
the number of unit cells and the external stiffness are interrelated
parameters. The effects of the mass ratio are illustrated in Fig. 5 for
fixed N. It is shown that the ratio, r, primarily affects the upper limit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Comparison of the band gaps in the infinite chain (dispersion
relation) and the RRR in the finite chain [FRF HðfÞ] of model G1 :
(a) dispersion relation; (b) complex FRF HðfÞ
rigid which is always true in practice), if this were the case the
excitation movement would simply bypass the local resonators
and transfer the motion directly from the first element of the chain
to the last. Similarly, the external stiffness has to be non-null,
kext ≠ 0, because null external stiffness would hinder any energy
transport along the SM and again render the latter ineffective.
The effect of N and kext on the FRF amplitude inside the RRR
is depicted in Fig. 4.
Define now an equivalent natural frequency, ω̂, for a lattice of
mass-in-mass unit cells as
of the associated frequency band gap. For lower mass ratios, the
band gaps extend into higher frequencies and are wider overall.
Implementing low mass ratios forms a major engineering chal-
lenge, as the large internal mass ought to be supported by a much
smaller external one.
In addition to the aforementioned parameters and in an effort to
produce wider band gaps in lower frequency ranges, which is criti-
cal for earthquake engineering applications, the use of the so called
rainbow-traps is proposed (Zhu et al. 2013; Krödel et al. 2015),
according to which nonidentical mass-in-mass unit cells with dis-
tributed natural frequencies are utilized. In this setting, the aim is
to create a chain of unit cells with individually overlapping band
gaps and to thereby increase the overall RRR. Using this approach,
a response reduction in a range from 4–7 Hz has been reported
(Krödel et al. 2015), which is close (but not sufficient) to the target
frequency ranges for civil engineering structures. The use of rain-
bow traps is also followed in the current study, however, instead of

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

(e)

Fig. 4. FRF of the absolute acceleration amplitudes ẍ in dB for different external stiffness kext and unit cell numbers N with identical unit cells in
model G1 ; the excitation frequency is given by f ex and the internal frequency by f int ; the output is truncated from (−100 to 0) dB to emphasize the
locations of the band gaps: (a) kext ¼ 10 s−2 , N ¼ 1, ω̂ ¼ 3.16 rad s−1 ; (b) kext ¼ 1,000 s−2 , N ¼ 10, ω̂ ¼ 3.16 rad s−1 ; (c) kext ¼ 100 s−2 , N ¼ 10,
ω̂ ¼ 1 rad s−1 ; (d) kext ¼ 10,000 s−2 , N ¼ 100, ω̂ ¼ 1 rad s−1 ; (e) grayscale for the FRF

(a) (b) (c)

(d)

Fig. 5. FRF of the absolute acceleration amplitudes ẍ in dB for different mass ratios r ¼ m mint and unit cell numbers N with identical unit cells in model
ext

G1 ; the excitation frequency is given by f ex and the internal frequency by f int ; the output is truncated from (−100 to 0) dB to emphasize the locations
of the band gaps; mint ¼ 0.15, mext ¼ 0.015: (a) r ¼ 0.01, N ¼ 10; (b) r ¼ 0.1, N ¼ 10; (c) r ¼ 1, N ¼ 10; (d) grayscale for the FRF

© ASCE 04017181-4 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 the logarithmic spacing of the internal frequencies (Krödel et al.
2015), the authors herein optimize the internal oscillator natural
frequency properties to achieve optimal SM protection perfor-
mance. It must be noted that, whereas the focus lies on seismic
excitation, the underlying methodology can be easily extended
to other engineering vibration attenuation problems as well.
The adopted SM model incorporates parametric and excitation
uncertainties, and design variables. The former are arranged in the
parameter vector, θs , defined as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
θs ¼ ½kext ; mint ; mext ; f SDOF ; ζ
for which a probability density function (PDF) pðθs Þ is assigned.
In Eq. (3), f SDOF refers to the natural frequency of the attached
oscillator, whereas ζ corresponds to a damping ratio, herein intro-
duced in the form of viscous Rayleigh damping through a Caughey
matrix (Chopra 2007), where applicable. The uncertain excitation ϵ
is further elaborated on in the next subsection. The design variables,
φi , correspond to the model parameters that optimization is in-
tended for. Following Eq. (1), the internal-cell properties are the
defining parameters for the location of the band gaps, and are there-
fore chosen as design variables. Equivalent to the parameter vector,
the authors define a design vector, φ, containing all φi . The result-
ing stochastic system model has the form
ξ ¼ Gðϵ; θs ; φÞ
where the uncertain output ξ may be any response quantity of the
SM model, either in its infinite (Bloch theory), or in its finite
(classical vibration theory) format.
Earthquake Excitation Model
To establish a robust-to-uncertainties system design procedure for
SMs, the probabilistic seismic ground motion model of Taflanidis
(2007) is implemented. The method extends the models initially
developed by Boore (2003) and Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou
(2003) for synthetic ground motion generation, and provides a
stochastic model for near-fault seismic excitations. It is well suited
for stochastic system design, because of the well-defined physical
meaning of its parameters and its relatively low computational cost
(a) (b)
(d) (e)
Fig. 6. Near fault ground motion model used to create acceleration time histories; the shown plots are from a simulation with seismic magnitude
M w ¼ 7 and a fault distance R ¼ 10 km; the sampling rate is Δt ¼ 0.01 s: (a) high frequency component ðM w ; R; Zw Þ; (b) low frequency component
ðγ p ; ν p ; εf ; εv Þ; (c) DFT of time histories; (d) subtraction of spectra; (e) synthetic time history; (f) superposition of Figs. 6(b and e) [ϵðtÞ]
© ASCE
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181
(Taflanidis and Beck 2008a; Taflanidis et al. 2008). The consider-
ation of low frequency near fault ground motions is of particular
interest regarding the seismic hazard for civil engineering struc-
tures, as the predominant frequency of these ground motions typ-
ically coincides with the fundamental frequency of the exposed
structure.
As illustrated in Fig. 6, the adopted stochastic ground motion
model E combines high and low frequency counterparts. After cre-
ating individual time histories for these two components [Figs. 6(a
and b)], the combined acceleration time history is calculated. To
ð3Þ this end, the amplitudes of the discrete Fourier spectra of the simu-
lated time histories are subtracted [Figs. 6(c and d)]. A synthetic
time history is then constructed, with its Fourier amplitude spec-
trum derived from the previous step and its phase determined as
the phase of the high frequency component’s discrete Fourier trans-
form (DFT) [Fig. 6(e)]. Finally, the near fault ground motion time
history is obtained as the superposition of this time history with the
time history of the low frequency component [Fig. 6(f)].
It has to be noted that the subtraction in the above procedure
[Fig. 6(d)] cannot be guaranteed to generally yield positive values.
This fact is well known by the authors of the original paper
(Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou 2003) but was observed to not have
a significant impact on the resulting time histories.
The stochastic excitation model is parameterized by the uncer-
ð4Þ tain vector, θϵ , defined as
θϵ ¼ ½Mw ; R; Zw ; γ p ; ν p ; εf ; εv  ð5Þ
in which the seismic magnitude M w , the epicentral distance R and
the white noise sequence Zw correspond to the high frequency com-
ponent [details in Boore (2003)], whereas the remaining parameters
γ p , ν p , εf , and εv correspond to the low frequency component
[details in Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou (2003)]. The assigned
PDF pðθϵ Þ of θϵ is discussed in the following section. The uncertain
excitation, ϵ, to be used in the SM is thus the output of the stochas-
tic excitation model, that is
ϵ ¼ Eðθϵ Þ ð6Þ
It is noted that the source spectra currently used for the sto-
chastic ground motion model is developed for earthquakes in
(c)
(f)
04017181-5 J. Eng. Mech.
 California, but can in general be replaced by any applicable source
spectrum model (Taflanidis 2007; Boore 2003).
Optimal Stochastic Design
The problem treated in this study pertains to the optimal design
of the SM under the presence of uncertainties. In this setting, a
stochastic model class M is defined, which combines the stochastic
system model, Gðϵ; θs ; φÞ, the stochastic excitation model, Eðθϵ Þ,
and a performance evaluation model, jðξ; θw Þ. The class M incor-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
porates all the individual model parameterizations into the compact
parameter vector, θ
θ ¼ ½θs ; θϵ ; θw  ð7Þ
with corresponding PDF, pðθjφÞ. Both the uncertain parameter vec-
tor, θ, and the design vector, φ, are bounded by admissible spaces,
Θ and Φ, respectively, so that θ ∈ Θ ⊂ Rnθ and φ ∈ Φ ⊂ Rnφ .
In defining the objective function for the SM design problem
considered herein, attention is focused on the class of reliability
objective problems (ROPs) where a failure probability PðFjφÞ is
used as the objective function [e.g., Eq. (9)]. The goal is to find a
design vector, φ, that results in the lowest failure probability while
being bounded by the admissible design space, Φ. The induced
optimization problem is thus defined as
φ ¼ arg minPðFjφÞ ð8Þ
φ∈Φ
Robust-to-Uncertainties Design of Seismic
Metamaterials
Failure Probability
The failure probability, i.e., the probability that the SM performs in
an unacceptable way, is expressed as a weighted integral of the
form
Z
PðFjφÞ ¼ I F ðφ; θÞpðθjφÞdθ ð9Þ
Θ
where I F ðφ; θÞ = failure indicator function with Boolean range,
depending on whether the system performs below accepted levels
(value 1), or if all performance objectives are met (value 0).
In view of Eq. (8), it follows that the solution of the asso-
ciated optimization problem requires the evaluation of the integral
in Eq. (9). This is generally not possible analytically, except for
special cases (Papadimitriou et al. 1997), whereas numerical evalu-
ation also becomes infeasible for high dimensional parameter
spaces (Taflanidis 2007). A way to solve the integral in a reasonable
computational time is through stochastic simulation techniques.
Another approach is to use stochastic subset optimization to find
a subset of the design variable space that has a high plausibility
for containing the optimal design point, φ (Taflanidis and Beck
Fig. 7. Key steps for structural analysis performed in the frequency domain using a system model
© ASCE 04017181-6
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181
2008a). Both techniques require the repeated evaluation of the
model class M.
Model Evaluation
Given a certain design choice, φ, and a single realization of the
uncertain parameter vector, θ, the evaluation of the model class
M pertains to the determination of the value of the failure indicator
function, I F . The underlying process is illustrated for one design
choice, φ, and one realization of θ ∼ pðθjφÞ in Fig. 7 for a fre-
quency domain evaluation. The stochastic excitation model produ-
ces a time–series ϵðtÞ ¼ Eðθϵ Þ, which is then transformed to the
frequency domain, ϵðfÞ. The stochastic system model is accord-
ingly evaluated to produce a FRF as ξðfÞ ¼ G½ϵðfÞ; θs ; φ that
is driven to the performance evaluation model j½ξðfÞ; θw  where
θw ¼ η ð10Þ
with η introduced below.
The evaluation model consists of an augmented limit state func-
~
tion gðφ; θÞ, which checks the system model output, ξðfÞ, to evalu-
ate whether the performance is acceptable or not (Taflanidis and
Beck 2008a)

~
0 gðφ; θÞ ≤ 0
I F ðφ; θÞ ¼ ð11Þ
~
1 gðφ; θÞ > 0
The augmented limit state function g~ is obtained by superimpos-
ing a modeling error, η, to a noise–free limit state function, g, as
~
gðφ; θÞ ¼ gðφ; θÞ þ ηðφ; θÞ ð12Þ
where η = zero mean Gaussian distribution with standard deviation,
ση , that retains a certain influence on the outcome of the optimi-
zation process (Taflanidis 2007; Beck and Katafygiotis 1998).
It must be noted that such a modeling error can be alternatively
assigned at any level of the model class, M, as, for example, di-
rectly at the model response (Papadimitriou et al. 2001).
Whereas other choices for gðφ; θÞ are applicable, for the pur-
poses of this study the limit state function is defined either as the
exceedance of a threshold value (frequency domain analysis), or as
the peak response threshold (time domain analysis)
   
ξ ðφ; θÞ maxjξðφ; θÞj
gðφ; θÞ ¼ log RMS gðφ; θÞ ¼ log
ϑRMS ϑ
ð13Þ
In the case of a frequency domain analysis, the failure proba-
bility, PðFjφÞ, implies the probability that the root–mean-square
(RMS) of the system response exceeds the set threshold value
ϑRMS . It is noted that the RMS value is directly related to the energy
content of the earthquake excitation, which is propagated through
the SM. As such, the left counterpart of Eq. (13) essentially refers to
the overall value of a seismic event, rather than on a specific time-
frequency interval of the typically nonstationary excitation, aiming
J. Eng. Mech.
 at minimizing the total energy that reaches the protected structure. ~ ext
m
In a time domain setting, PðFjφÞ, represents the probability that the mSDOF ¼ 1 ~ int þ m
Nðm ~ ext Þ ¼ mSDOF m
~ int ¼ ð18Þ
r
maximum system response exceeds a set threshold, ϑ. Defining the
limit state function in the time domain comes with the added ad- whereas the adopted numerical values correspond to the means of
vantage of using a threshold, ϑ, that directly corresponds to typical the relative distributions. The sensitivity analysis is performed in
engineering quantities (e.g., absolute acceleration, relative dis- the frequency domain for a SM model with identical unit-cell setup
placement, spectral displacement/velocity/acceleration) as opposed and the results are displayed in Fig. 8.
to their RMS value.
Mass Ratio
Fig. 8 indicates that lower ratios, i.e., higher internal masses, yield a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Design Variables more favorable system response. Most importantly, however, it is

From Eq. (1) it follows that the natural frequency of the internal
resonator of the SM, f0;int , plays the most important role in the
determination of the frequency band gap. Each element of the de-
sign vector, φ ∈ Φ
φ ¼ ½φ1 ; φ2 ; : : : ; φnφ T
is thus defined as the common logarithm of some internal
frequency
φj ¼ log10 ð2πf0;int;j Þ
where the conversion is carried out to extend the design space into
higher internal frequencies, while maintaining a higher resolution
around the expected optimal frequencies.
For a given internal mass, mint;i , stored in the uncertain param-
eter vector, θ, the natural frequency, f 0;int;j , of the ith internal res-
onator is directly related to its internal stiffness, kint;j , by
kint;j ¼ ð2πf 0;int;j Þ2 mint;i
where j ¼ ½ði − 1Þmodnφ  þ 1 = design vector index, and i ¼
1; : : : ; N = unit-cell index. One further prescribes that
Nmodnφ ¼ 0, i.e., the number of design variables, nφ , has to be
a divisor of the number of cells, N, and that nφ ≤ N. This indexing
ensures that the assignment of the internal resonator’s properties is
taking place in alternating order. For example, a SM with N ¼ 6
unit cells and nφ ¼ 2 design parameters has φ ¼ ½kint;1 ; kint;2  as
the design vector and
kint ¼ ½kint;1 ; kint;2 ; kint;1 ; kint;2 ; kint;1 ; kint;2 
shown that the failure probability seems to be a monotonic function
of the ratio. It is therefore not necessary to optimize with respect
to the unit-cell mass ratio, because lower ratio values will always
yield a better protection. There is, however, a plateau below
r ≈ 0.1, under which the mass ratio does not yield a significantly
ð14Þ lower failure probability. Based on this observation and the results
presented in Dertimanis et al. (2016), a mass ratio of
~ ext
m
r~ ¼ ¼ 0.1 ð19Þ
~ int
m
ð15Þ
is henceforth selected.
External Stiffness
The external stiffness, kext , essentially represents the soil stiffness
and its accurate and systematic treatment is outside the scope of
the current study. However, very high external stiffness values es-
sentially render the whole SM ineffective, as the excitation bypasses
the unit-cell resonators that are supposed to dissipate the seismic
ð16Þ energy. Low external stiffness values are generally desirable because
they decouple the system from the excitation. From our parametric
ð17Þ

as the internal stiffness vector. The condition that Nmodnφ ¼ 0 can

generally be relaxed, but this will produce chains of unit cells with
some design variables being assigned more often than others. This
will presumably reduce the symmetry in the objective function,
which is not desirable in our case.

Sensitivity Analysis of Failure Probability

To assess the influence of the uncertain parameter vector, θ, on
the failure probability (the objective function), a sensitivity analysis
is performed for some of its key elements. To this end, the SM is
assumed to have a total mass of 1 (no unit), so that the stiffness
and the damping are expressed in units of 1=s2 and 1=s, respec-
tively. To distribute the total structural mass to the unit cells, the
following assumptions are made, loosely based on the work done
by Dertimanis et al. (2016):
1. The mass mSDOF of the protected oscillator equals unity.
2. The total SM mass is equal to the protected oscillator mass
Fig. 8. Failure probability estimator sensitivity to model parameters r,
and is distributed uniformly onto the unit cells.
kext , and ζ for an identical unit-cell chain with φ ¼ 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75
3. The external mass in each unit cell is equal to r times the mass
and an attached oscillator (G2 ); the failure probabilities were estimated
of the internal mass.
using standard Monte Carlo simulation with N ¼ 3,000 samples and
These assumptions can be translated into the following expres-
CRN
sions for the nominal parameters

© ASCE 04017181-7 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 study (Fig. 8), it follows that the stiffness has to be below ≈300 s−2 Table 1. Summary of the Univariate PDFs That Were Assigned to the
to ensure that the SM is effective by reaching failure probabilities Parameter Vector θ Assuming Independence
below ≈80% of the unprotected oscillator failure probability. This Vector Parameter PDF PDF parameters
can, however, always be achieved by increasing the number of
θs kext Lognormal μ ¼ logðk~ ext Þ, σ ¼ 0.01
unit cells. mint Lognormal μ ¼ logðm~ int Þ, σ ¼ 0.01
Fig. 8 shows that the failure probability estimator, P̂ðFjφÞ, is mext Lognormal μ ¼ logðm~ ext Þ, σ ¼ 0.01
also a monotonic function of the external stiffness. It is therefore f SDOF Lognormal μ ¼ logðf~ SDOF Þ, σ ¼ 0.2
not necessary to optimize this model parameter because the lowest ~ σ ¼ 0.01
ζ Lognormal μ ¼ logðζÞ,
stiffness will yield the lowest failure probability. The optimal de-
sign vector, φ , is also a function of the external stiffness, and this θϵ Mw Truncated exponential Mw;min ¼ 6, M w;max ¼ 8,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

can be justified by considering that increasing the external stiffness μ¼1

causes an overall system stiffness increase, which corresponds to
higher natural frequencies. Because the optimal unit-cell parame-
ters are usually clustered around these resonant frequencies, it is
thus not surprising that stiffer systems (i.e., high kext ) have a lower
failure probability if their unit-cell resonant frequencies are high as
well. The same can be said about soft systems (i.e., lower kext ) and
lower internal unit-cell resonant frequencies.
These insights lead to the following adoption of the external
stiffness expected value:
1
k~ ext ¼ 100 2 ð20Þ
s
Damping Ratio
Expectedly, higher damping ratios bear a positive influence on all
response quantities and reduce the failure probability. In the fre-
quency domain, this is evident by the smoothing of the response in
the areas of resonant peaks, whereas in the time domain damping
directly influences the response settling times (Dertimanis et al.
2016). Based on reported typical ranges [e.g., 2–8% (Chopra
2007)], and adopted values in similar structures (Finocchio et al.
2014), a mean value of
ζ~ ¼ 5% ð21Þ
is chosen. Following this sensitivity analysis, the presented values
as random variables are chosen in what follows.
Model Parameter Probability Density Functions
A probability density function (PDF), pðθjMÞ, conditional on the
selected model class M is assigned to the uncertain parameter vec-
tor, θ. All PDFs are assumed conditional on the chosen model class,
but for brevity, the explicit expression of M is omitted. In conform-
ity with the Bayesian interpretation of probability, the PDFs reflect
the uncertainty in our knowledge of these parameters, and are there-
fore explicitly designated as carriers of information (Jaynes 2003),
instead of being considered as some form of randomness.
Attributable to the lack of representative experimental data, the
PDFs of the SM model parameters, pðθs Þ, are assigned according
to engineering judgment, supported by the results of the parametric
sensitivity analysis previously presented. These values are used as
the mean values, θ~ i , and are assigned a COV of 1% to partially ac-
count for the uncertainty in these parameters. The PDFs for the
excitation model parameters, pðθϵ Þ, are taken directly from
Taflanidis (2007), whereas for the modeling error, a zero mean
normal PDF is chosen. A summary of the PDFs assigned to the
parameter vector, θ, is given in Table 1.
Optimization
The optimization problem defined in Eq. (8) can be treated in
many ways, including gradient-based and gradient-free methods
(Ruszczyński and Shapiro 2003; Spall 2003). The approach
R Lognormal μ ¼ logð20Þ, σ ¼ 0.5
Zw Gaussian white noise μ ¼ 0, σ ¼ 1
γp Normal μ ¼ 1.8, σ ¼ 0.3
π π
νp Uniform ν p;min ¼ − , ν p;max ¼
2 2
εf Normal μ ¼ 0, σ ¼ 0.57
εv Normal μ ¼ 0, σ ¼ 0.49
θw η Normal μ ¼ 0, ση ¼ 0.01
Note: The individual parameters are explained in the section “Problem
Formulation.”
adopted here is the two-stage approach originally presented in
Taflanidis and Beck (2008a) that is based on the gradient-free sto-
chastic subset optimization algorithm (SSO). SSO identifies a rel-
atively small region in the design space, Φ, that is likely to contain
the optimal value, φ . Yet, whereas the SSO algorithm converges
quickly to a relatively small subset, I  , with a high likelihood of
containing φ , it generally requires a high number of function eval-
uations to converge to the actual optimum. This is especially true if
the objective function is relatively flat in the last identified subset.
This is equivalent to a low sensitivity of the objective function and
decreases the plausibility of the subsets containing the optimal
design variables.
It is therefore beneficial to switch to a different optimization al-
gorithm when a sufficiently small region in the initial design space,
Φ, has been identified. This is accomplished through the implemen-
tation of the simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation
(SPSA) algorithm (Kleinman et al. 1999; Spall 2003). The SPSA
is based on the observation that during an optimization process,
the same level of accuracy can be achieved when the gradient vector
is the result of a random direction perturbation, as opposed to a per-
turbation in each dimension of the design space (Spall 2003).
In what follows, a brief outline of the two-stage SM optimiza-
tion process is described.
Shape of Initial Design Space
To solve the posed optimal design problem for the SM chain, the
chosen design variables have to be limited initially. This is done
through the introduction of an initial admissible design space, Φ,
which typically corresponds to some geometrical shape with the
dimension of the design problem (e.g., nφ , see Appendix). The sim-
plest such shape is the nφ -dimensional hypercube, where for each
design variable, φi , an upper and lower border has to be defined.
Fig. 9 displays a sample estimate of the failure probability ob-
jective function in a two-dimensional design problem for a six-unit-
cell SM, where Φ pertains to a two-dimensional hypercube with
lower and upper borders φi ¼ ½0.3; 0.6. Apparently, the objective
function exhibits some symmetry characteristics. Assuming that
this attribute is also valid for an arbitrary number of unit cells,
N, the initial design space is selected to be an nφ -simplex, where
for each design variable the following is true:
φi < φiþ1 ; ∀ i ∈ ½1; nφ  ð22Þ

© ASCE 04017181-8 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. Surface and contour plots of the failure probabilities in a six-unit-cell chain with nonidentical unit cells with RMS threshold ϑRMS ¼ 0.4 in the
limit state function, where φ ≈ ð0.44; 0.54Þ; the dotted line represents the identical unit-cell case; the failure probabilities were estimated using
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Monte Carlo simulations with N ¼ 1,000 independent samples; at the far right the FRFs for both systems in the optimal 1D and 2D design cases are
presented

This places all admissible design variable vectors, φ, in a space
where the individual design variables, φi , are arranged in ascend-
ing order.
SSO
The SSO algorithm (Taflanidis and Beck 2008a), with an initial
design space, Φ, in the shape of an nφ -dimensional simplex, iter-
atively identifies subsets I i in the shape of hyperelliptical segments,
D, (see Appendix 7), which are likely to contain the optimal design
variable, φ . With respect to Fig. 10, the SSO consists of the fol-
lowing steps:
1. Initialize the SSO by selecting a desired number of samples,
N SSO , and a constraint value, ρ. Specify a threshold value for the
average relative sensitivity of pðφjFÞ to φ: Ĥ and COV Ĥ as stop-
ping criteria. The sensitivity at each step is estimated as
N Ii =V Ii
HðIÞ ≈ ĤðIÞ ¼
N Ii−1 =V Ii−1
where N I designates the number of samples in the subset and, V I ,
the subset volume.
2. Use a sampling procedure to simulate N SSO samples from
pðφjFÞ (e.g., MCS, or MCMC). This corresponds to simulating
failed samples in the design variable space.
3. Find optimal subset, I  . This is the subset, I, with the mini-
mum sensitivity that contains a maximum of ρN samples:
NI
I  ¼ arg minHðIÞ ≈ arg min ĤðIÞ ¼ arg min ð24Þ
I∈Φ I∈Φ I∈Φ VI
4. Delete all samples that lie outside this identified subset, I.
Compute Ĥ and COV Ĥ [Eq. (23)].
5. If Ĥ and COV Ĥ do not exceed the set threshold values, re-
start at Step 1, otherwise stop the algorithm.
The SSO identifies ever smaller subsets in the initial design
space, Φ. As stated in Taflanidis and Beck (2008a), it is desirable
to switch to a different algorithm to pinpoint the exact optimal sol-
ution, φ . The efficiency of the SSO algorithm depends strongly on
the chosen subset shape and sample ratio, ρ. In accordance with the
guidelines presented in Taflanidis (2007), the sample ratio is chosen
to ρ ¼ 0.15.
ð23Þ
SPSA with CRN
The SPSA optimization, as introduced in Spall (2003) and extended
by Kleinman et al. (1999) to include a variance reduction technique
known as common random numbers (CRN), takes the typical re-
cursive form
φkþ1 ¼ φk þ ak ĝk ðφk Þ ð25Þ

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 10. SSO algorithm for a reliability objective problem of a SM consisting of six unit cells with two independent properties [φ ¼ ðφ1 ; φ2 Þ]; the last
step shown is just before the stopping criteria were fulfilled; the optimal solution is marked with a cross and was pinpointed using the SPSA algorithm:
(a) algorithm Step 1; (b) algorithm Step 2; (c) algorithm Step 3; (d) algorithm Step 3—magnification; (e) algorithm Step 1; (f) algorithm Step 2

© ASCE 04017181-9 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 where the gradient is estimated as
P̂ðFjφk þ ck Δk;nφ ; Ωk;N Þ − P̂ðFjφk − ck Δk;nφ ; Ωk;N Þ
ĝk ðφk Þ ¼
2ck Δk;nφ
ð26Þ
with the same set of random numbers for the positive and neg-
ative perturbation. In Spall (2003), numerous admissible proba-
bility distributions for the perturbation direction are presented
(e.g., segmented uniform, u-shaped and symmetric Bernoulli 1).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Herein, the symmetric Bernoulli 1 distribution is adopted, result-
ing in possible values for the perturbation vector Δnφ
Δnφ ¼ ½δ 1 ; : : : ; δ nφ ; with δ i ¼ f−1; 1g ∀ i ð27Þ
The algorithm is initialized at the center of the last identified
subset and normalizes the search space to be a unit radius nφ ball.
This is beneficial if the subsets extend differently in the various
dimensions.
Four illustrative runs of the algorithm starting at the center of the
last identified subset φ ¼ ½0.4; 0.6 are shown in Fig. 11. It is a
direct continuation of the last identified subset in the preceding
paragraph’s SSO example. The algorithm takes different paths
but converges to similar optima, φ . It is further not forced to re-
main within the last identified subset. A boundary condition is en-
forced only if the initial design space, Φ, is left.
Parametric Study
Frequency Domain Analysis
The SM chain with an attached oscillator (G2 ) is now investigated
in the frequency domain, where the attached oscillator serves as
a simplified model for a protected structure. The optimization is
carried out by the two-stage optimization framework previously
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 11. Four runs of the SPSA algorithm starting at the center of the last identified subset φ ¼ ½0.4; 0.6 to pinpoint the optimal solution φ :
(a) P̂ðFjφ̂ Þ ¼ 3.42%; (b) P̂ðFjφ̂ Þ ¼ 3.46%; (c) P̂ðFjφ̂ Þ ¼ 3.52%; (d) P̂ðFjφ̂ Þ ¼ 3.49%
© ASCE 04017181-10
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181
described. Different facets of the optimization outcome are consid-
ered in the following, including the influence of an increasing num-
ber of different unit cells on the optimal solution, the claimed
symmetry of the objective function, and the influence of the exter-
nal stiffness.
Number of Independent Unit Cells nφ
The aim herein is to investigate whether the failure probability can
be reduced if an increasing number of differing unit cells is used.
The actual number of unit cells, N, is kept fixed, whereas the num-
ber of design variables is increased. The unit-cell properties are then
merely deduced from the design variables as already discussed.
The results are visualized in Table 2 and Figs. 12 and 13. The
highest failure probability is observed in the unprotected case
(kext ¼ ∞ s−2 ), followed by the disconnected case (kint ¼ 0 s−2 ),
whereas the lowest failure probability, and therefore optimal de-
sign, is achieved when all unit-cell properties are chosen independ-
ently. Fig. 12 reveals why a higher number of different cells does
not necessarily imply a positive influence on the overall response.
Each resonator effectively reduces one peak response value. In this
context, the SM does not create effective band gaps, i.e., locations
in the system’s FRF that are smaller than 0 dB, but acts more like a
form of damping.
The limit state function in this case considers only the absolute
acceleration as a design criterion. Whereas the estimated optimum
design variables, φ , are not guaranteed to be the optimal design
choice if relative displacement were a design criterion, it is worth
noting that the relative displacements are also reduced by the present
variable choice. That is, the displacement response is reduced with
respect to the initial unprotected system rather than amplified for the
optimal acceleration design variables, φ , as seen in Fig. 13.
Symmetry of the Optimal Design Variables φ

It was already observed that the optimal design variables lie at
points that lead to the flattest FRF. A pattern that emerges in higher
design dimensions is how these points are sequentially located at
(d)
J. Eng. Mech.
 Table 2. Optimal Parameters, φ , Using Model G2 with kext ¼ 100 s−2 Determined through the Two-Stage Optimization Framework, for Different Numbers
of Independent Unit Cells nφ ¼ 1, 2, 3, and 6 and the Disconnected Case (kint ¼ 0 s−2 ) and the Unprotected Case (kext ¼ ∞ s−2 )
k~ ext ¼ 100 s−2
φ and P̂ðFjφÞ kext ¼ ∞ s−2 kint ¼ 0 s−2 nφ ¼ 1 nφ ¼ 2 nφ ¼ 3 nφ ¼ 6
φ1 jf 1 Hz — — 0.4794j0.48 0.4175j0.42 0.3485j0.36 0.2147j0.26
φ2 jf 2 Hz — — — 0.5494j0.56 0.4481j0.45 0.4022j0.40
φ3 jf 3 Hz — — — — 0.5722j0.59 0.4121j0.41
φ4 jf 4 Hz — — — — — 0.4142j0.41
φ5 jf 5 Hz — — — — — 0.5025j0.51
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

φ6 jf 6 Hz — — — — — 0.6081j0.65
P̂ðFjφÞ 59.2% 37.8% 24.8% 20.23% 18.03% 17.13%
Note: The failure probabilities, P̂ðFjφÞ, were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations with N ¼ 3,000 samples and a limit state function with a threshold of
ϑ ¼ 0.4 m s−1 as defined in Eq. (13).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 12. Magnitude of the absolute acceleration FRF jHẍ ðfÞj for the optimal variables for the acceleration design criterion, found through the two-
stage optimization framework; the internal frequencies, f i , from the design variables are shown as black lines; the parameters, θ, stem from a sample
realization in the parameter space, Θ: (a) unprotected oscillator; (b) kint ¼ 0 s−2 ; (c) nφ ¼ 1; (d) nφ ¼ 2; (e) nφ ¼ 3; (f) nφ ¼ 6

peaks of the FRF obtained by the optimal design in nφ − 1 dimen-
sions (Fig. 12). Assuming that the order in which the unit-cell prop-
erties are assigned is of secondary importance to the failure
probability, one can deduce that there are totally nφ local optima
in nφ simplices that are symmetrical to our initial design space, Φ.
The optimal solutions for this initial design space for an increasing
number of independent unit cells are presented in Table 2. To fur-
ther explore the above assumption about the secondary importance
of the property assignment order, a sensitivity analysis is performed
by changing the order of the design variables and observing the
failure probabilities, as shown in Table 3. This effectively places
~ The analysis is con-
the solution in mirrored design spaces, Φ.
ducted for the nφ ¼ 2 and three-dimensional design spaces only,
because the nφ ¼ 6 dimensional design space already has 6! − 1 ¼
~ i . The results show that the failure
719 mirrored design spaces, Φ
probability is in fact not the same if the results lie in the alternate
design spaces, Φ ~ i , (even when considering the COV of 1%). Two
possible explanations for this are
1. The optimum in one design space, φ ∈ Φ, is not at the same
location in the mirrored design space, Φ ~ i.
2. The optimum is at the same location, but some variable ar-
rangements are more favorable [with respect to the failure proba-
bility, PðFjφÞ] than others.
Although this is no proof, the observations made in Fig. 9
indicate that variables in the design space, Φ, do generally yield
slightly different failure probabilities from their mirrored counter-
parts. This would point to the adoption of the second explanation.
So, to identify the global optimum, it would be necessary to inves-
tigate the failure probability in the mirrored design spaces as well.
This would mean expanding the initial design space from a simplex
to a hypercube. The high number of local optima, in high dimen-
sions, would, however, require the use of different types of optimi-
zation algorithms.
External Stiffness kext Influence on φ

The optimization of the previous section is repeated for different
external stiffness values (k~ ext ¼ 100 , 500, and 1,000 s−2 ), and

© ASCE 04017181-11 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 13. Magnitude of the relative displacement FRF jHu ðfÞj for the optimal variables for the acceleration design criterion, found through the two-
stage optimization framework; the internal frequencies, f i , from the design variables are shown as black lines; the parameters, θ, stem from a sample
realization in the parameter space, Θ: (a) unprotected oscillator; (b) kint ¼ 0 s−2 ; (c) nφ ¼ 1; (d) nφ ¼ 2; (e) nφ ¼ 3; (f) nφ ¼ 6

Table 3. Symmetry of the Optimal Solution, φ , by Calculating the Failure Whereas, for example, P̂ðFjφÞ reduces by 4.57% between nφ ¼ 1
Probabilities for the Optimal Design Variables from Table 2 in Different and nφ ¼ 2, the reduction between nφ ¼ 3 and nφ ¼ 6 is only
Mirrored Design Spaces, Φ or Φ ~i
0.9%. This could be explained by looking again at the FRF in
Design space nφ ¼ 2 nφ ¼ 3 Fig. 12. The SM structure only has one predominant natural fre-
φ
∈Φ P̂½Fjðφ1 ; φ2 Þ ¼ 20.23% P̂½Fjðφ1 ; φ2 ; φ3 Þ ¼ 18.03%
quency, f0 , in the seismically active range, therefore the response
φ ~1
∈Φ P̂½Fjðφ2 ; φ1 Þ ¼ 19.90% P̂½Fjðφ3 ; φ2 ; φ1 Þ ¼ 20.77% reduction occurs mostly around this frequency. After nφ ¼ 3, the
φ ~2
∈Φ — P̂½Fjðφ3 ; φ1 ; φ2 Þ ¼ 19.97% FRF is already flattened out considerably, with no major peaks re-
φ ~3
∈Φ — P̂½Fjðφ2 ; φ3 ; φ1 Þ ¼ 19.77% maining. Allowing additional independent unit cells does not help
φ ~4
∈Φ — P̂½Fjðφ2 ; φ1 ; φ3 Þ ¼ 18.53% with increasing the protection because there are no more predomi-
φ ~5
∈Φ — P̂½Fjðφ1 ; φ3 ; φ2 Þ ¼ 18.50% nant peaks to smooth out. In the case of multiple response peaks
Note: The failure probabilities P̂ðFjφÞ were estimated using Monte Carlo [e.g., multidegree-of-freedom (MDOF) protected oscillator system],
simulations with N ¼ 3,000 samples. The COV therefore is ≈1%. further failure probability reduction can be expected.
Another observation is the behavior of the optimal variable
P
mean, f̄  ¼ n1φ f i . As seen in Fig. 15, the mean tends to follow
the resulting optimal design variables, φ , are summarized in the fundamental frequency of the disconnected case, f 0 . This is not
Tables 2–5. It is observed that the failure probability decreases with surprising because the fundamental frequency is where the pre-
a higher number of independent unit cells (i.e., nφ ). Fig. 14 gives a dominant response is expected, and the response reduction is there-
visual representation of this performance. fore most effective in its proximity. The optimal frequencies tend to
A first observation is that the protection gets worse for higher lie below f0 as Fig. 4 indicates, where the band gap locations are
external stiffness, kext . More interesting, however, is the fact that shown. The band gaps, or in the finite case effective reduction
with a higher external stiffness, increasing the number of indepen- zones, start at the natural frequency of the unit cells f 0;int , but
dent unit cells does not significantly decrease the failure probability. extend to higher frequencies depending on the band gap width.

Table 4. Optimal Parameters, φ , Using Model G2 with kext ¼ 500 s−2 Determined through the Two-Stage Optimization Framework, for Different Number
of Independent Unit Cells nφ ¼ 1, 2, 3, and 6 and the Disconnected Case (kint ¼ 0 s−2 ) and the Unprotected Case (kext ¼ ∞ s−2 )
k~ ext ¼ 500 s−2
φ and P̂ðFjφÞ kext ¼ ∞ s−2 kint ¼ 0 s−2 nφ ¼ 1 nφ ¼ 2 nφ ¼ 3 nφ ¼ 6
φ1 jf 1 Hz — — 0.6614j0.73 0.6148j0.66 0.6018j0.64 0.2029j0.25
φ2 jf 2 Hz — — — 0.6883j0.78 0.6329j0.68 0.4976j0.50
φ3 jf 3 Hz — — — — 0.7113j0.82 0.4981j0.50
φ4 jf 4 Hz — — — — — 0.5153j0.52
φ5 jf 5 Hz — — — — — 0.6022j0.64
φ6 jf 6 Hz — — — — — 0.6948j0.79
P̂ðFjφÞ 59.2% 54.77% 45.63% 43.10% 42.80% 43.12%
Note: The failure probabilities P̂ðFjφÞ were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations with N ¼ 3,000 samples and a limit state function with a threshold of
ϑ ¼ 0.4 m s−1 as defined in Eq. (13).

© ASCE 04017181-12 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 Table 5. Optimal Parameters φ Using Model G2 with kext ¼ 1,000 s−2 Determined through the Two-Stage Optimization Framework, for Different Number
of Independent Unit Cells nφ ¼ 1, 2, 3, and 6 and the Disconnected Case (kint ¼ 0 s−2 ) and the Unprotected Case (kext ¼ ∞ s−2 )
k~ ext ¼ 1,000 s−2
φ and P̂ðFjφÞ kext ¼ ∞ s−2 kint ¼ 0 s−2 nφ ¼ 1 nφ ¼ 2 nφ ¼ 3 nφ ¼ 6
φ1 jf 1 Hz — — 0.6952j0.79 0.6253j0.67 0.6356j0.69 0.1451j0.22
φ2 jf 2 Hz — — — 0.7198j0.83 0.7073j0.81 0.4847j0.49
φ3 jf 3 Hz — — — 0.7077j0.82 0.5068j0.51
φ4 jf 4 Hz — — — — — 0.6440j0.70
φ5 jf 5 Hz — — — — — 0.6505j0.71
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

φ6 jf 6 Hz — — — — — 0.7289j0.85
P̂ðFjφÞ 59.2% 55.63% 50.27% 49.97% 49.93% 50.33%
Note: The failure probabilities, P̂ðFjφÞ, were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations with N ¼ 3,000 samples and a limit state function with a threshold of
ϑ ¼ 0.4 m s−1 as defined in Eq. (13).

Fig. 14. Failure probability estimators for the optimal design variables,
φ , for different numbers of independent unit cells, nφ ; the case of
nφ ¼ 0 corresponds to the nonconnection case (kint ¼ 0 s−2 ); the fail-
ure probabilities were estimated using standard MCS with N ¼ 3,000
samples and a limit state function with a threshold of ϑ ¼ 0.4 m s−1 as
defined in Eq. (13)
Fig. 16. Results from an optimization run using a time domain analysis
up until the last converged solution; the optimal solution estimator, φ̂ ,
displayed is the one obtained from a frequency domain optimization;
the number of SSO samples used were N ¼ 1,000 with a sample ratio
of ρ ¼ 0.15

To effectively reduce a peak response, it is therefore necessary to

ensure the band gap covers this peak response value. Therefore,
unit cells with internal frequencies, f i , that are lower than f0 are
required.

Time Domain Analysis

Time domain optimization under uncertainty is by default computa-
Fig. 17. Comparison of the attached oscillator absolute accelera-
tionally expensive, attributable to the relatively long time it takes to
tion using model G2 with linear and nonlinear internal springs; the
evaluate the objective function. The presented SSO algorithm is
effectivity of the SM is slightly reduced, if the internal springs deform
very efficient in that case and allows a region to be identified that
nonlinearly
is likely to contain the optimal solution. Owing to computational

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

Fig. 15. Location of the optimal frequencies, f , depending on the external stiffness, kext , for different number of design variables, nφ ; the plots also
include the fundamental frequency for the disconnected case (kint ¼ 0 s−2 ) as a function of the external stiffness; additionally, the mean of the optimal
frequencies, f̄ , is shown: (a) nφ ¼ 1; (b) nφ ¼ 2; (c) nφ ¼ 3; (d) nφ ¼ 6

© ASCE 04017181-13 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 limitations, the second step of the two-stage framework is not ac-
tivated herein.
To investigate whether the time domain optimization converges
to a similar optimum as the frequency domain optimization in
the previous section, the optimization is repeated for the case of
nφ ¼ 2. The chosen setup is again the sixth unit-cell chain with
an attached linear oscillator. The limit state function is the maxi-
mum response threshold of the absolute acceleration response with
ϑ ¼ 2.5 m s−2 , as defined in Eq. (13). This is well suited for time
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
domain responses and corresponds to a design quantity of great
interest for engineering purposes.
The results of a sample SSO process are displayed in Fig. 16
together with the optimal solution from the frequency domain op-
timization. The last identified subset does, in fact, contain the op-
timal solution from the frequency domain. This does not imply that
the optimal solutions for both analysis are located at the same point,
they are however likely to be in close proximity. This indicates that
a frequency domain optimization could be used to obtain a low

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i) (j)

(k) (l)

Fig. 18. Comparison of the relative displacements between the internal and external mass of each unit cell in the six cell SM using model G2 and
linear and nonlinear internal springs; for brevity, the relative displacements are numbered as follows: ui ¼ ui;2 − ui;1 ; the design variables for the unit
cells were chosen according to φ from M2 for the case of nφ ¼ 6: (a) uðtÞ ¼ u1;2 − u1;1 ; (b) R1 ; (c) uðtÞ ¼ u2;2 − u2;1 ; (d) R2 ; (e) uðtÞ ¼ u3;2 − u3;1 ;
(f) R3 ; (g) uðtÞ ¼ u4;2 − u4;1 ; (h) R4 ; (i) uðtÞ ¼ u5;2 − u5;1 ; (j) R5 ; (k) uðtÞ ¼ u6;2 − u6;1 ; (l) R6

© ASCE 04017181-14 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 failure probability subset that is likely to contain the optimal sol-
ution of the time domain analysis. From a computational perspec-
tive, this is very helpful because the time required to obtain the
presented time domain results was approximately 50 times higher
(≈2 h for the frequency and ≈100 h for the time domain optimi-
zation). This discrepancy in computational time is expected to in-
crease further if SPSA were to be employed as well, because of the
higher number of required objective-function evaluations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Nonlinear Internal Springs
As a final investigation, the introduction of nonlinear springs that
can potentially be used to obtain a more realistic system response is
examined. It must be noted that performing optimization for non-
linear SM structures would imply the inclusion of the nonlinear
parameters in the uncertain parameter vector, θ, but at a prohibitive
computational cost for the time domain analysis. To this end,
the system model, G2 , with the optimized model parameters, φ ,
for the nφ ¼ 6 independent unit-cell case with k~ ext ¼ 100 s−2 is
reexamined with the integration of nonlinear internal springs. A
hysteretic Bouc-Wen model (Charalampakis and Koumousis 2008)
is utilized, with post yield stiffness kpost ¼ 10%kint , β ¼ 1,
γ ¼ 0.5, n ¼ 3, and fy ¼ 0.01 m s−2 .
Fig. 17 indicates how the absolute acceleration of the protected
linear oscillator changes depending on whether linear or nonlinear
internal oscillator springs are used. A slight reduction in the effec-
tiveness of the SM in protecting the linear oscillator is detected.
When the oscillator reaches its yield deformation, dy , its effective
stiffness is greatly reduced to 10% of its original value. This re-
duces the oscillator’s natural frequency and moves it away from
the optimized frequencies. If the frequencies had been tuned to
higher frequencies, this might have a positive effect on the SM ef-
fectiveness. The internal springs are ordered with an ascending
internal stiffness (Fig. 18), which is seen in the hysteretic curves.
As expected, the stiffer oscillators attract more force, and therefore
deform more than the soft oscillators. This becomes especially ap-
parent in the relative displacement, u6 , where the peak deformation
is approximately twice the deformation in the linear case.
Conclusion
In this paper, the tools of robust-to-uncertainties optimal reliability
design were applied on the relatively new concept of metadamping.
This was achieved by modeling a seismic metamaterial as a one-
dimensional unit-cell chain incorporating internal resonators that
show metadamping characteristics. Previous work demonstrated
the effectivity of such metamaterials in reducing applied excitations
in certain frequency ranges, but showed also excessive responses
outside of these reduction zones. Expanding on these reports, the
authors used the tools of robust to uncertainties optimization to
optimize the SM model properties to produce the best possible re-
sponse reduction when excited by uncertain seismic events.
It was found that monotonic relationships may be inferred be-
tween certain model parameters and the failure probability that was
optimized. Higher external stiffness values will always lead to an
inferior vibration behavior. Higher ratios between the external and
internal mass will have the same effect, and naturally so will lower
damping ratios. A higher number of unit cells, as previously re-
ported (Wagner et al. 2016b), will result in a better vibration mit-
igation inside the target frequency range. To this end, it was decided
that optimization is focused on exclusively varying the internal
stiffness properties (i.e., internal natural frequency) of the unit-cell
resonators with a fixed number of six unit cells.
© ASCE 04017181-15
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181
The authors found that a higher number of independently chosen
internal stiffnesses will generally increase the efficiency of the SM
in mitigating the vibration response when compared with identically
chosen unit-cell properties. This study thereby confirmed the find-
ings of Krödel et al. (2015) and were able to generalize them to
uncertain seismic excitations. The findings also showed the mechan-
ics the SM approach has in common with well-established protec-
tion methods (BI and TMD).
It was further shown that the external stiffness is a key factor in
the SM design process. It not only directly influences the failure
probability, but also indirectly determines the location of the optimal
resonator frequencies. When considering soil as the medium be-
tween the individual unit cells, additionally the linearity assumption
of the external springs is not justified, and their nonlinearity has to
be taken into account.
Initially, the goal was to carry out the optimization in the time
domain, owing to computational limitations, however, the fre-
quency domain was chosen as a viable alternative. This is not nec-
essarily a bad choice, because the frequency reduction zones are
only visible in the frequency domain, it does however prohibit the
use of nonlinear models and does not take into account the transient
response of the structure. For linear systems, the frequency domain
approach delivers satisfying results.
From an algorithmic standpoint, the optimization becomes more
challenging with an increase in dimensionality, as for every added
independent resonator property one expects a factorial increase in
local optimal solutions. To circumvent this problem, the authors
chose to optimize only for resonators that have an increasing inter-
nal stiffness. This places the design space in a simplex with only
one expected optimum. This is a limitation that should be addressed
in future works.
On a similar note, the arrangement of the resonators has to be
considered in greater detail. In this paper, these were arranged as
homogeneously as possible, to obtain a more symmetric objective
function and thus justify the reduction of the design space to the
mentioned simplex. This assumption will be relaxed and form a
further design parameter in future work.
Appendix. Geometric Shapes
The geometric shapes used throughout this paper are introduced
here. They are used for the initial design space, Φ, and the subsets,
I i . The shape of I i should be chosen so that the challenging opti-
mization [Eq. (24)] can be solved efficiently. It is also beneficial,
especially in the final iterations of the SSO algorithm, if the subset
shape is similar to the objective function (Taflanidis 2007). Shapes
that have been proposed in the past are the hyper-rectangle
(Taflanidis and Beck 2008b) and the hyperellipse (Taflanidis and
Beck 2009). The shape chosen in this work is a hyperellipse seg-
ment that moves towards a full hyperellipse in the course of the
algorithm. This adaptive shape of the subset was found to satisfy the
problems posed by the problem formulation. Namely, to lie inside
the initial design space, Φ, that has the form of an (nφ − 1)-simplex
and adaption to the shape of the objective function in later algorithm
stages.
Simplex
As described previously, the initial design variable space, Φ, has
the form of an (nφ − 1)-simplex. Formally this simplex is a subset
of the nφ hypercube given by
S ¼ fφ ¼ ðφ1 ; : : : ; φnφ Þ ∈ Rnφ jφi < φiþ1 ∀ ig ð28Þ
J. Eng. Mech.
 This simplex contains all design points with monotonically in- kext = unit cell external mass;
creasing coordinates. In two dimensions, this simplex is given by a M= stochastic system model class;
triangle, in three dimensions by a tetrahedron. m̂ = equivalent chain mass;
mext = unit cell external mass;
Hyperellipse mint = unit cell internal mass;
A generalization of the ellipse to higher dimensions is the so called N= number of unit cells;
hyperellipse. It is defined in the design space, Φ, as nθ = dimensions parameter space;
nφ = dimensions design space;
E ¼ fφ ¼ ðφ1 ; : : : ; φnφ Þ ∈ Rnφ jðφ − cÞ⊺ Mðφ − cÞ ≤ 1g ð29Þ Δnφ = perturbation vector;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ϵ= seismic excitation;
where M ∈ Rnφ ×nφ is positive-definite symmetric matrix defining
η= model prediction error;
the size and orientation of the hyperellipse and c ∈ Rnφ is its center.
Note that the above can be equivalently expressed as ζ= damping ratio;
Θ= parameter space;
E‘ ¼ fφ ¼ ðφ1 ; : : : ; φnφ Þ ∈ Rnφ jjjL⊺ ðφ − cÞjj ≤ 1g ð30Þ θ= parameter vector;
ξ= system response;
where L = Cholesky decomposition of the matrix, M. ση = standard deviation modeling error;
Φ= design variable space;
Hyperellipse Segment Φ ~ = mirrored design space;
In the first step of the SSO algorithm, a subset inside the simplex is φ= design variable vector;
identified by performing the optimization in Eq. (24). This corre- φ = optimal design variable vector;
sponds to finding the subset with the largest volume, that contains a ω̂ = equivalent natural frequency;
high enough samples ratio, ρ. This challenging optimization gets ω0;int = internal fundamental frequency; and
increasingly harder in high dimensions. Already in low dimensions, ωint = internal natural frequency.
it is difficult for ellipse shapes to cover the whole simplex.
Problems arise especially in the corners, which cannot be reached
without reducing the samples ratio, ρ. For this reason, the chosen References
subset shape is a hyperellipse segment.
This segment is defined by Achaoui, Y., Ungureanu, B., Enoch, S., Brûlé, S., and Guenneau, S. (2016).
“Seismic waves damping with arrays of inertial resonators.” Extreme
D ¼ S ∩ E ≔ fφ ¼ ðφ1 ; : : : ; φnφ Þ Mech. Lett., 8, 30–37.
Au, S.-K., and Beck, J. L. (2003). “Subset simulation and its application
∈ Rnφ j½φi < φiþ1 ∀ i ∧ ½ðφ − cÞ⊺ Mðφ − cÞ ≤ 1g ð31Þ
to seismic risk based on dynamic analysis.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(2003)129:8(901), 901–917.
that is, it is defined by the intersection of points that lie within the
Beck, J. L., and Katafygiotis, L. S. (1998). “Updating models and
simplex, S, and the ellipse, E.
their uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework.” J. Eng. Mech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:4(455), 455–461.
Boore, D. M. (2003). “Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic
Acknowledgments method.” Pure Appl. Geophys., 160(3), 635–676.
Charalampakis, A., and Koumousis, V. (2008). “Identification of Bouc–
This paper is based on a master’s thesis carried out during a stay
Wen hysteretic systems by a hybrid evolutionary algorithm.” J. Sound
of one of the authors as a visiting student researcher at Caltech. Vibr., 314(35), 571–585.
The authors thank Prof. Dr. Alexandros Taflanidis for his support Cheng, Z., Shi, Z., Mo, Y. L., and Xiang, H. (2013). “Locally resonant
during the implementation of the subset optimization algorithm. periodic structures with low-frequency band gaps.” J. Appl. Phys.,
Additional thanks also to Prof. Dr. Apostolos Papageorgiou for 114(3), 033532.
his clarifying remarks on the authors’ questions about the synthetic Chey, M. H., Chase, J. G., Mander, J. B., and Carr, A. J. (2010). “Semi-
time histories algorithm. active tuned mass damper building systems: Application.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 39(1), 69–89.
Chopra, A. K. (2007). Dynamics of structures: Theory and appli-
Notation cations to earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
The following symbols are used in this paper: Colombi, A., Colquitt, D., Roux, P., Guenneau, S., and Craster, R. (2016a).
BI = base isolation; “A seismic metamaterial: The resonant metawedge.” Sci. Rep., 6,
CRN = common random numbers; 27717.
Colombi, A., Roux, P., Guenneau, S., Gueguen, P., and Craster, R. (2016b).
E = stochastic excitation model;
“Forests as a natural seismic metamaterial: Rayleigh wave bandgaps
fex = excitation frequency; induced by local resonances.” Sci. Rep., 6, 19238.
G = stochastic system model; Dertimanis, V. K., Antoniadis, I. A., and Chatzi, E. N. (2016). “Feasibility
g = limit state function; analysis on the attenuation of strong ground motions using finite peri-
g~ = augmented limit state function; odic lattices of mass-in-mass barriers.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
ĝk = gradient estimator; EM.1943-7889.0001120, 1–10.
Finocchio, G., et al. (2014). “Seismic metamaterials based on isochronous
I F = failure indicator function;
mechanical oscillators.” Appl. Phys. Lett., 104(19), 191903.
j = stochastic performance evaluation model; Harvey, P. S., Jr., and Kelly, K. C. (2016). “A review of rolling-type seismic
k̂ = equivalent chain stiffness; isolation: Historical development and future directions.” Eng. Struct.,
kint = unit cell internal mass; 125, 521–531.

© ASCE 04017181-16 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181

 Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., and Kanapitsas, G. (2013). “Evaluation of fundamen-
tal period of low-rise and mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(11), 1599–1616.
Huang, J., and Shi, Z. (2013). “Application of periodic theory to rows of
piles for horizontal vibration attenuation.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000193, 132–142.
Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: The logic of science, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Kaynia, A. M., Biggs, J. M., and Veneziano, D. (1981). “Seismic effective-
ness of tuned mass dampers.” J. Struct. Eng., 107(8), 1465–1484.
Kleinman, N. L., Spall, J. C., and Naiman, D. Q. (1999). “Simulation-based
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
optimization with stochastic approximation using common.” Manage.
Sci., 45(11), 1570–1578.
Krödel, S., Thomé, N., and Daraio, C. (2015). “Wide band-gap seismic
metastructures.” Extreme Mech. Lett., 4, 111–117.
Makris, N., and Gazetas, G. (1992). “Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction. II:
Lateral and seismic response.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21(2),
145–162.
Maldovan, M. (2013). “Sound and heat revolutions in phononics.” Nature,
503(7475), 209–217.
Mavroeidis, G. P., and Papageorgiou, A. S. (2003). “A mathematical
representation of near-fault ground motions.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.,
93(3), 1099–1131.
Miniaci, M., Krushynska, A., Bosia, F., and Pugno, N. (2016). “Large scale
mechanical metamaterials as seismic shields.” New J. Phys., 18(8),
083041.
Palermo, A., Krödel, S., Marzani, A., and Daraio, C. (2016). “Engineered
metabarrier as shield from seismic surface waves.” Sci. Rep., 6, 39356.
Papadimitriou, C., Beck, J. L., and Katafygiotis, L. S. (1997). “Asymp-
totic expansions for reliabilities and moments of uncertain dynamic sys-
tems.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1997)123:12(1219),
1219–1229.
© ASCE 04017181-17
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(3): 04017181
Papadimitriou, C., Beck, J. L., and Katafygiotis, L. S. (2001). “Updating
robust reliability using structural test data.” Probab. Eng. Mech., 16(2),
103–113.
Ruszczyński, A., and Shapiro, A. (2003). “Optimality and duality in sto-
chastic programming.” Handb. Oper. Res. Manage. Sci., 10, 65–139.
Skinner, R. I., Beck, J. L., and Bycroft, G. N. (1975). “A practical system
for isolating structures from earthquake attack.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn., 3(3), 297–309.
Spall, J. C. (2003). Introduction to stochastic search and optimization,
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Taflanidis, A. (2007). “Stochastic system design and applications to sto-
chastically robust structural control.” Ph.D. thesis, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Taflanidis, A., and Beck, J. L. (2008a). “An efficient framework for optimal
robust stochastic system design using stochastic simulation.” Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 198(1), 88–101.
Taflanidis, A., and Beck, J. L. (2008b). “Stochastic subset optimization for
optimal reliability problems.” Probab. Eng. Mech., 23(2–3), 324–338.
Taflanidis, A., and Beck, J. L. (2009). “Stochastic subset optimization
for reliability optimization and sensitivity analysis in system design.”
Comput. Struct., 87(5–6), 318–331.
Taflanidis, A., Scruggs, J. T., and Beck, J. L. (2008). “Probabilistically
robust nonlinear design of control systems for base-isolated structures.”
Struct. Control Health Monit., 15(5), 697–719.
Wagner, P.-R., Dertimanis, V. K., Chatzi, E. N., and Antoniadis, I. A.
(2016a). “Design of metamaterials for seismic isolation.” Conf. Proc.
Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, Vol. 2, Orlando, FL,
Springer, New York, 275–287.
Wagner, P.-R., Dertimanis, V. K., Chatzi, E. N., and Antoniadis, I. A.
(2016b). “On the feasibility of structural metamaterials for seismic-
induced vibration mitigation.” Int. J. Earthquake Impact Eng., 1(1–2),
20–56.
Zhu, J., et al. (2013). “Acoustic rainbow trapping.” Sci. Rep., 3(1728), 1–6.
J. Eng. Mech.