This study focuses on the optimization of Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) seismic isolator parameters through a comparative analysis of two metaheuristic algorithms: the Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (BOA) and the Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA). The methodology section presents the mathematical formulations and operational steps of both algorithms. The case study evaluates their performance based on the obtained optimal parameters. The BOA achieved its best solution with a diameter of 0.0847 m, a height of 0.1497 m, and a shear modulus of 0.5678 MPa, resulting in a minimum objective value and an execution time of 0.0652 s. Conversely, the WCA produced a more compact configuration with D = 0.0618 m, H = 0.0861, and G = 0.2022 MPa, achieving a slightly lower objective value in only 0.0332 s. We add sensitivity analysis. The results indicate that while both algorithms deliver nearly identical optimization accuracy, WCA demonstrates superior computational efficiency and stability in parameter tuning. Finally, potential future research directions are proposed, including the exploration of additional parameters and comparisons with other artificial intelligence-based optimization techniques such as Particle Swarm Optimization.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Optimizing Lead Rubber Bearing Seismic Isolators: A Comparative Analysis of Butterfly and Water Cycle Optimization Algorithms

  • Mouna El Mkhalet,
  • Nouzha Lamdouar

摘要

This study focuses on the optimization of Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) seismic isolator parameters through a comparative analysis of two metaheuristic algorithms: the Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (BOA) and the Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA). The methodology section presents the mathematical formulations and operational steps of both algorithms. The case study evaluates their performance based on the obtained optimal parameters. The BOA achieved its best solution with a diameter of 0.0847 m, a height of 0.1497 m, and a shear modulus of 0.5678 MPa, resulting in a minimum objective value and an execution time of 0.0652 s. Conversely, the WCA produced a more compact configuration with D = 0.0618 m, H = 0.0861, and G = 0.2022 MPa, achieving a slightly lower objective value in only 0.0332 s. We add sensitivity analysis. The results indicate that while both algorithms deliver nearly identical optimization accuracy, WCA demonstrates superior computational efficiency and stability in parameter tuning. Finally, potential future research directions are proposed, including the exploration of additional parameters and comparisons with other artificial intelligence-based optimization techniques such as Particle Swarm Optimization.