Structures Congress 2018 222

Design Optimization of Shear Wall High-Rise Building Structures

Iman Behmanesh, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1
1
WSP-USA, Building Structures, New York, NY 10119. E-mail: Iman.Behmanesh@wsp.com

ABSTRACT
Design optimization of building structures are usually performed by minimizing an objective
function defined as total weight or cost of material. The building code strength requirements or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

drift limitations are defined as optimization constraints. The violated constraints will be added to
the main objective function after adjustment by a weight factor. This objective function is often
not differentiable since the violated constraints change at every iteration. Plus, the weight factor
that adjust the violated constraint with the main objective function can affect the optimization
results and its value may not be reasonably justified or substantiated. In this paper, a new
structural design optimization is proposed for shear wall building structures. The objective
function for this optimization process is defined based on the estimated demand to capacity ratios
of the shear walls. Other design criteria such as drift limits or link beam designs are also
considered, but are not directly included in the proposed objective function. By pushing the
demand to capacity ratios to the possible highest, the thicknesses of shear wall are reduced. The
proposed objective function is derived by assuming a beta distribution for the shear force
demand to capacity ratios of the shear walls. Monte Carlo samples are generated to find the
maximum of the objective function and for sensitivity analysis. The optimization framework is
applied on a 70 story building. The correlation between the proposed objective function and the
cost associated with the lateral system is presented. The generated Monte Carlo samples are also
used to design the shear wall thickness at different level of conservativeness.

1. INTRODUCTION
Structural design optimization can potentially reduce the amount of structural material and
reduce the cost of construction (Baker, Sinn, Novak and Viise (2000, Luebkeman and Shea
(2005, Stromberg, Beghini, Baker and Paulino (2011)). Aldwaik and Adeli (2014) reported 5 to
15% cost reduction after design optimization. A set of design parameters, usually structural
member sizes, are tuned in an iterative procedure to minimize an objective function. The
objective function is either defined as total weight of structural elements (Liu, Yi, Li and Shen
(2008, Hasançebi, Çarbaş and Saka (2010)), or the total cost of the material used (Chan, Huang
and Kwok (2010)). The former is usually applied when one type of material is used for
construction, the latter is more popular in the literature as it accounts for different unit costs of
different material. Structural optimization is characterized in three types: topology, shape, and
sizing. This paper does not address topology/shape optimization, it is focused on size
optimization of shear wall building structures. The presented optimization framework can be
extended to other structural types as well.
The objective of design optimization is to automate parts of the design process and to
minimize the material use while satisfying the safety requirements of the building design codes
and the serviceability criteria, e.g., inter-story drift criteria. The code requirements or drift
requirements are introduced as constrains to the optimization problem:

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 223

 N mat

θˆ  Arg min  L  θ    Cmat  Wmat 
θ
 mat 1 
Vn  θ   Vu  θ 
c c
c  1: N c
 M nc  θ   M uc  θ  (1)
 Pnc  θ   Puc  θ 
Max Drift  θ   Drift all
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where θ is the design parameters defined in finite element (FE) analysis software, e.g., shear wall
thicknesses, L(θ) is the objective function to be minimized, Cmat is the unit cost of material mat,
Wmat is the weight of material mat, Nmat is total number of different material type used, Vnc , M nc ,
and Pnc represent nominal shear, bending, and axial strength of structural component c with
force demands of Vuc , M uc , and Puc . Nc is the total number of structural components to be
checked in the optimization process. Finally, Driftall is the allowable inter-story drift ratio.
To handle the constraints of Eq.(1), a penalty function is added to the objective function, L.
The penalty function increases the objective function, L, if one or more than one of the
constraints are violated. For example, Atabay (2009) proposed the following objective function:
θˆ  Arg min  L  θ   1  kC  (2)
θ
where k is a coefficients to adjust the weight of the penalty functions to the original objective
function of Eq. (1) and C is the penalties defined by reformatting the constraints of Eq.(1), i.e.,
 Vnc  θ  
C  max  c ,1  1 for shear constraint. Note that estimation of the penalty coefficients, k,
 Vu  θ  
is not a straight-forward process and can affect the optimum parameter values. Some
commercially available software packages like OCP (2017) uses the same approach. The
objective function, L, is increased by the sum of violated constraints. In this approach, only the
violated constraints participate and no attention is given to those that satisfy the constraint.
In this paper, a different approach is taken for structural optimization. The proposed
objective function optimizes the demand to capacity ratios of structural members rather than
minimizing the overall weight. It is assumed that a design with demand to capacity ratios of all
structural members close to one is an optimized design, and the material weight associated with
this design is close to the possible minimum of the total structural material. In building structures
with shear walls as their lateral support system, material use can be minimized by reducing the
thickness of the walls throughout the building. The only drawback is the additional requirement
of steel reinforcements, which should not be the controlling factor comparing to both the
reduction of concrete material and providing more space for unit sales. In Section 2 and 3, the
methodology of the proposed optimization technique is discussed and in Section 4, the
framework is applied to a 70-story building.

2. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
Bayes rule is used to define the objective function for the optimization process. Most likely
values of structural member sizes (θ) given the strength demand to capacity ratios constraints
(DC) and inter-story drift constraints (ID) can be written as:

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 224

p  θ | DC, ID  p  DC, ID | θ  p  θ   p  DC | θ  p  ID | θ  p θ  (3)

where p  ID | θ  represents the relative acceptability of drift ID given a design parameter set θ.
Similarly, p  DC | θ  represents the relative acceptability of demand to capacity ratios, given the
design parameter set θ. The term p  θ  contains the boundary limits of design parameter θ. These
probability distributions are not probability of occurrence; they favor one set of design parameter
θ over the other.
Since the DC values must be within zero to one, Beta Probability Distribution with
parameters a and b can be used to define p  DC | θ  . The desired distribution of mth structural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

component can be written as:

p  DCm  θ  | θ   Beta  DCm  θ  | a, b    DCm  θ   1  DCm  θ  
1 a 1 b 1
(4)
B  a, b 
where B(a,b) is Beta function with parameters a and b. Note that, if the demand to capacity ratio
of a member is equal or greater than one, the right hand side of Eq.(4) will be zero. Zero demand
to capacity ratio makes this equation zero as well. For both a and b greater than one, the peak
(mode) of Eq.(4) is:
a 1

Mode p  DCm  θ  | a, b    ab2
if a, b  1 (5)
The values of parameters a and b define the desired variations of demand to capacity ratios,
and are set by the user. For example, by setting the parameters a and b to 15 and 7 respectively,
the analyst wants to push the demand to capacity to 0.7 and set the ratio of 0.7 as the desired
ratio. To justify modeling of the DC ratios with Beta distribution, the shear force DC ratios of
shear walls and link beams of two fully designed projects of WSP in New York City are shown
in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Figure 1 shows the normalized histograms of shear force demand to
capacity ratios of all the shear wall pier assignments of ETABS (CSI (2016)) for two completed
projects, a 70-story residential building and a 40-story residential building. The 70-story building
had 1025 piers and the 40 -story building had 545 piers assigned in ETABS. A Beta probability
distribution is fitted to both histograms that shows Beta distribution can well represent the
demand to capacity ratios. Beta distribution can also be used to represent the distribution of link
beam demand to capacity ratios as shown in Figure 2 for the 70-story building.

Figure 1. Histogram of demand to capacity ratios versus fitted Beta probability

distributions of two fully designed buildings, left: a 70-story residential building, right: a
40-story residential building

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 225
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Demand to capacity ratios of 350 link beams in a completed 70-story building
versus fitted beta distribution
For Nm total number of structural members to be checked, Eq.(4) can be extended as:
 DC  θ   1  DC  θ  
a 1 b 1
Nm Nm
p  DC | θ    p  DCm  θ  | θ   
m m

m 1 m 1 B  a, b 
(6)
N sw
   DCm  θ   1  DC  θ  
a 1 b 1
m
s 1

The term B(a,b) is a constant and can be removed from Eq.(6).

The term p  ID | θ  can be simplified to a zero and one value depending on whether the
maximum inter-story drift satisfies the allowable drift. Finally, the term p  θ  contains the
upper/lower limits on the structural parameters θ. Given that both p  ID | θ  and p  θ  are scaling
coefficients, the design parameter θ̂ that maximized Eq.(6) is the optimum solution and
potentially results in least material tonnage for design. It is numerically more convenient to use
natural log of Eq.(6) for optimization process. Therefore, the objective function can be stated as:
If ID  ID all OR Max  DC   1  J  θ    inf
(7)
 
Nm
Otherwise  J  θ   Ln  DC | θ     a  1  Ln  DCm  θ     b  1  Ln 1  DCm  θ  
m 1

Optimization can be done either by maximizing J(θ) or minimizing -J(θ) of Eq.(7).

3. OPTIMIZATION PROCESS FOR SHEAR WALL BUILDING STRUCTURES

In this paper, the thicknesses of shear walls, thickness of outrigger beams, and size of the
columns connected to the outriggers are considered as design parameters. To reduce the number
of design parameters, the link beam sizes are determined in every iteration given the size of the
shear walls and outrigger system. The criteria for accepting a link beam size, width of b and
depth of h, is to have a shear force demand less than or equal to the maximum shear capacity of
the beam  10  fc'  b  d . No composite link beam is considered. At each iteration and for a
given set of design parameter, the width, height, and stiffness modifiers of link beams are
modified iteratively so that the mentioned link beam design criteria is satisfied.
The optimization procedure is as the following:
A. The initial FE model with its initial design parameter, θ0 is selected. θ0 includes shear

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 226

wall, outrigger beam and outrigger column sizes.

B. At iteration k+1, design parameters θk+1 is simulated based on the design parameter θk
and the constraint function p(θ).
B. 1. The required flexural reinforcements of all the link beams are calculated based on
the bending moment demand of the link beams.
B. 2. The effective beam’s depth, d, is calculated based on the required flexural
reinforcement from step B.1. and width of the link beam.
B. 3. If the ultimate shear capacity of the link beam,  10  fc'  b  d , is less than the
shear demand, the link beam’s height, width, and cracking factors are modified.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B. 4. Steps B.1 to B.3 are repeated until the maximum shear capacity of all the link
beams are equal or less than their shear demands.
C. Calculate the objective function, J, of Eq. (7).
D. Record all the necessary information including the member sizes, modal parameters, and
inter-story drift ratios.
E. Accept design parameter θk+1 if J(θk+1) > J(θk) or reject it by the chance of γ% if J(θk+1) <
J(θk). (Metropolis, Rosenbluth, Rosenbluth, Teller and Teller (1953, Hastings (1970))

Figure 3. Shear wall and link beam labels at typical floors

4. APPLICATION TO A 70-STORY BUILDING
The proposed optimization process is applied to a 70-story residential building. The shear
wall layout on the floor plan 5 is shown in Figure 3. Building is modeled in CSI-ETABS CSI
(2016) and MATLAB (MathWorks (2017)) is used to build a connection between the ETABS
model and the optimization process. The ETABS model of this building is solely created to
examine the proposed optimization process and is not used to design a real building. The loading
assumptions or the properties of columns, slabs, or foundation do not represent a real case.
Overall 35 shear wall sections, 16 link beam sections, 3 outrigger beams and 9 column sections
connected to the outrigger beams are adjusted in the optimization process. Outrigger beams are
placed along W01 walls at 29th, 49th and 69th floors. The shear wall and link beam labels are
shown in Figure 3. Shear wall sections are defined every 10 floors; the name of the sections
begins with the labels shown in Figure 3 and ends with “A”, for walls from foundation level to
9th floor, “B” for walls from 10th to 19th floor, “C” for walls from 20th to 29th floor, “D” from 30th

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 227

to 39th floor, “E” from 40th to 49th floor, “F” from 50th to 59th floor, and finally “G” from 60th to
69th floor. Similarly, the name of link beam sections begins with the labels shown on Figure 3
and ends with “A” for beams from foundation to 10th floor, “B” from 11th to 30th floor, “C” for
31st to 50th floor, and “D” from 51st to 70th floor. For example, W02C is the wall section of the
blue walls in Figure 3 from 20th to 29th floors.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis.

4.1 Sensitivity Analysis
The Open Application Programming Interface (OAPI) of CSI-ETABS provides a great tool
to better understand the structural models and quantify the relative importance and contribution
of different structural members in the estimation of a specific quantity of interest. The
thicknesses of shear walls at the first 30 floors are increased once at a time in an increment of 7.6
cm (3”) while keeping the size of all other members fixed at their initial values. Figure 4 presents
the effects of increasing the thickness of each of these shear walls on the inverse maximum inter-
story drift (first row of Figure 4), first period of the building in Y direction (second row), first
torsional mode period (third row), and the shear force demand to capacity ratio of a link beam
(fourth row). In the first column of Figure 4, shear wall thicknesses of W01A to W05A are
increased gradually from 76.2 cm (2’-6”) to 106.7 cm (3’-6”). Different walls are shown with
different colors. The second column shows the gradual increase of W01B to W05B from 61 cm

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 228

(2’-0”) to 91.4 cm (3’-0”), and finally the third column shows the effects of W01C to W05C
thicknesses. The plot shows that maximum inter-story drift and the two building periods are
more sensitive to shear wall thicknesses at the first 20 floors than the walls at 20th to 29th. Higher
slope represents more sensitivity, e.g., the period of first torsional mode is more sensitive to the
variation of W05A and W05B, but the thickness of W01 has negligible effect on this period. The
effects of shear wall thickness on DC ratios of the link beam are more complicated. For example,
increase in the thickness of W05A can reduce the DC of LB01A from 1.08 to 1.02, however
same increase in the thickness of W02A increases the DC ratio from 1.03 to almost 1.07.
Increase in the thickness of W04A reduces the DC of LB01A, but increases LB01B. This
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

information can improve the efficiency of designs when a specific quantity needs to meet a
certain demand.

Figure 5. Relation between cost and the proposed objective function of Eq. (7)
The results of Figure 4 indicates the difficulty of design optimization. As an example, if one
wishes to set the maximum drift to a specific value, the first row of Figure 4 shows that there is
no significant difference in the sensitivities of W01 to W05. Increase in the thickness of any of
these walls can reduce the drift, although with slightly different rate. This effect causes the
optimization problem ill-conditioned, i.e., multiple solutions exist for the optimization problem.

4.2 Optimization
At each optimization iteration, a set of design parameters including shear wall thicknesses
and outrigger system sizes are generated. The maximum and minimum allowable shear wall
thicknesses are 121.9 cm (4’-0”) and 22.9 cm (9”) respectively. The shear walls along the height
cannot have more than 9” difference in their thickness and cannot have thickness greater than the
shear wall thicknesses at floors below. These constraints are defined as uniform distributions for
p(θ) in Eq. (3). For example, the p W 02 B | W 02 A   Uniform [max W 02 A  22.9 cm, 22.9 cm  ,
min W 02 A ,121.9 cm ] , therefore, W 02 B can be either of W 02 A , W 02 A  7.62 cm , W 02 A  15.2 cm , or
W 02 A  22.9 cm yet at least is 22.9 cm (9”) and is less than 121.9 cm (4’-0”). These sizes are
assigned to the corresponding members in ETABS, and then the finite element model is
analyzed. Next, the shear force demand of all the shear walls are extracted from the ETABS
using the piers assignments. If there is a shear wall, with thickness t and length L, that its shear

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 229

demand is greater than it maximum shear capacity,  10  fc'  t   0.8  L  , the design parameter
is rejected and another set is generated. If all the walls satisfy the shear capacity, the longitudinal
reinforcements of all the link beams are calculated using ETABS beam design feature. Based on
the longitudinal reinforcement, the effective link beam depths, d, are determined. The shear
demand to capacity ratios of all the link beams are calculated. If there is a link beam with
insufficient shear capacity, the size of the link beam and cracking factor of that link beam is
modified iteratively for maximum of 15 iterations, until all the link beams satisfy the shear
capacity constraint. The minimum height of the link beams is set as 45.7 cm (1’-6”), and their
maximum height is set as the height of the story minus 248.9 cm (8’-2”). The minimum width of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the link beams is set as the thickness of the shear wall attached to the link beam, and their
maximum width is set as 2.5 of the shear wall thickness connected by the link beam.

Figure 6. Program output shear wall thicknesses of the least expensive design
Out of 600 optimization iterations, 133 design parameters are accepted. For each iteration,
the cost of the design is also evaluated. The cost is defined as the total cost of shear wall concrete
material, shear reinforcement of the shear wall (excluding the minimum reinforcement), and the
half of the space loss by the shear wall sections. The dimension of the concrete shear walls can
be used to estimate the cost of concrete material, here assumed as $500 per yd3. The shear
reinforcement of the shear walls also calculated at each iteration, their cost is based on assuming
$4000 per ton. Since shear walls take spaces, the amount of space loss is also calculated, which
ends up being the dominant cost factor. Here, the sell price of a ft2 area is assumed $3000, but
only half of space loss is considered because some spaces will be lost due to partitioning. As
disused in Section 2, the objective function is not defined by the cost, instead based on demand
to capacity ratios of Eq. (7). The cost only calculated and recorded at each iteration. The relation
between cost and the proposed objective function is shown in Figure 5 for the 133 accepted
designs. The figure on the left shows that the cost decreases as the proposed objective function of

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 230

Eq. (7) increases, validating the point discussed in Section (2). Note that overall cost of the 133
accepted designs can vary from about 120 to 70 million dollars. The figure on the right shows the
variation of the proposed objective function to cost of concrete and steel material separately.
Increase in the objective function, which originates from reduction of shear wall thicknesses, is
associated with decrease in the amount of concrete material but increase of shear reinforcement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 7. Histograms of W02C thickness and LB02A depth

The final output can be presented in different ways. Figure 6 shows the program output of the
shear wall thicknesses of the least expensive design out of 133 accepted ones. However, one may
choose to consider more conservative sizes to improve the robustness of the design. The
histograms of the accepted designs can provide such information. Figure 7 shows the histograms
and the corresponding cumulative distribution of W02C thickness and LB02A depth in the 133
accepted design cases. The left figure on the top shows the number of accepted designs versus
the thickness of W02C. The acceptance rate is the highest (22 out of 133) when the thickness of
W02C is 91.4 cm (3’-0”). The cumulative distribution on the right side shows the design
acceptance percentage at different thicknesses of W02C, e.g., the chance of having an acceptable
design with W02C thickness equal or less than 68.6 cm (2’–3”) is 25%. The two plots on the
second row of Figure 7 shows the LB02A depths from the accepted 133 designs. The maximum
depth is set as 147.3 cm (4’–10”), however, most of accepted designs reduced the depth to make
the DC ratio of the link beam less than 1. The plot also shows that the depth of 76.2 cm (2’–6”)
to 83.8 cm (2’–9”) has the highest acceptance rate (27 out of 133). According to the cumulative
distribution, there is 43% chance that depth less than or equal to 83.9 cm (2’-9”) ends up as an
acceptable design.
It is important to point out that the results presented in this section, especially the shear wall

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 231

thicknesses of Figure 6 is not the minimum possible shear wall thicknesses that can be used for
this building. The proposed optimization process is still under development. Simply, more
iterations may find a better design, or giving the possibility of removing shear walls can further
reduce the costs. Some technical issues still exist as well. There is a considerable gap between
the least expensive (highest objective function value) and second least expensive (second highest
objective function value) in Figure 5, which means that the region of less expensive design
options is not sampled properly.

5. CONCLUSION
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A new design optimization process is proposed that does not uses total material weight or
material cost as the optimization objective function. The objective function is defined based on
demand to capacity ratios that are modeled with Beta probability distributions. It is shown that
the proposed objective function is highly correlated with the construction cost of building lateral
system. The optimization process is mainly developed for shear wall building structures, but can
be extended for other structural types. The process is applied to a 70-story building to evaluate
its performance. 35 shear wall sections, 3 outrigger beams and 9 column sizes connected to the
outriggers are selected as the design parameters. The sizes of the link beams are determined for
every generated design parameter set so that their shear force demand is less than ultimate shear
force capacity. The upper and lower bound of structural member sizes are set by using uniform
probability distributions that can consider the dependency of member sizes. 600 Monte Carlo
design parameter samples are generated and 133 of them could meet shear strength demands of
the building code and the considered allowable inter-story drift. The cost associated with these
133 cases vary from around 120 million to 70 million given the assumptions made for unit cost
of concrete/steel material and sale price of apartment units. The Monte Carlo samples also used
to design member sizes at different level of conservativeness when that option is preferable over
the least expensive design option.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge Mr. Gregory Benz, Chair of WSP-USA Research
Program, and Mr. Steve Borrows for awarding 2017 WSP-USA Research and Innovation
Fellowship for this research. The author also acknowledges Mr. Patrick Ragan from WSP
Chicago office, Dr. Ahmad Rahimian - Dr Saeed Towfighi - Mr. Fatih Yalniz, - Mr. Kenny Fang
from WSP New York City office, Ms. Lisa Talent from WSP Human Resources, and Mr. Yuan
Lu from CSI Technical Support for their support. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not represent the views of the sponsors or
WSP-USA.

REFERENCES
[1] Baker, W. F., Sinn, R. C., Novak, L. C., and Viise, J. R. (2000). "Structural Optimization of
2000-Foot Tall 7 South Dearborn Building." Advanced Technology in Structural
Engineering, 1–8.
[2] Luebkeman, C., and Shea, K. (2005). "Computational design + optimization in building
practice." The ARUP Journal.
[3] Stromberg, L. L., Beghini, A., Baker, W. F., and Paulino, G. H. (2011). "Application of
layout and topology optimization using pattern gradation for the conceptual design of

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 232

buildings." Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 43(2), 165–180.

[4] Aldwaik, M., and Adeli, H. (2014). "Advances in optimization of highrise building
structures." Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 50(6), 899–919.
[5] Liu, X., Yi, W.-J., Li, Q., and Shen, P.-S. (2008). "Genetic evolutionary structural
optimization." Journal of constructional steel research, 64(3), 305–311.
[6] Hasançebi, O., Çarbaş, S., and Saka, M. P. (2010). "Improving the performance of simulated
annealing in structural optimization." Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 41(2),
189–203.
[7] Chan, C. M., Huang, M. F., and Kwok, K. C. S. (2010). "Integrated wind load analysis and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stiffness optimization of tall buildings with 3D modes." Engineering Structures, 32(5), 1252–
1261.
[8] Atabay, Ş. (2009). "Cost optimization of three-dimensional beamless reinforced concrete
shear-wall systems via genetic algorithm." Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 3555–
3561.
[9] OCP, A. (2017). "Theoritical Background of ACE OCP." Optimization Computing Platform.
[10] CSI (2016). ETABS 2016, Integrated Building Design Software, Berkeley, CA, USA.
[11] Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., and Teller, E. (1953).
"Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines." The journal of Chemical
Physics, 21(6), 1087–1092.
[12] Hastings, W. K. (1970). "Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their
applications." Biometrika, 57(1), 97–109.
[13] MathWorks (2017). MATLAB User's Guide, MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018