Original Article

Journal of Low Frequency Noise,

Vibration and Active Control
Research developments in adaptive 2022, Vol. 41(1) 292–329
© The Author(s) 2021
intelligent vibration control of smart civil Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14613484211032758
structures journals.sagepub.com/home/lfn

Muhammad Usman Saeed1, Zuoyu Sun1 and Said Elias2 

Abstract
Control algorithms are the most critical aspects in the successful control of civil structures subjected to earthquake and
wind forces. In recent years, adaptive intelligent control algorithms are emerging as an acceptable substitute method to
conventional model-based control algorithms. These algorithms mainly work on the principles of artificial intelligence (AI)
and soft computing (SC) methods that make them highly efficient in controlling highly nonlinear, time-varying, and time-
delayed complex civil structures. The current research probes to control algorithms, that this article set forth an inclusive
state-of-the-art review of adaptive intelligent control (AIC) algorithms for vibration control of smart civil structures. First, a
general introduction to adaptive intelligent control is presented along with its advantages over conventional control
algorithms. Second, their classification concerning artificial intelligence and soft computing methods is provided that mainly
consists of artificial neural network-based controller, brain emotional learning-based intelligent controller, replicator
dynamics-based controller, multi-agent system-based controller, support vector machine-based controller, fuzzy logic
control, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system-based controller, adaptive filters-base controller, and meta-heuristic
algorithms-based hybrid controllers. Third, a brief review of these algorithms with their developments on the theory and
applications is provided. Fourth, we demonstrate a summarized overview of the cited literature with a brief trend analysis is
presented. Finally, this study presents an overview of these innovative AIC methods that can demonstrate future directions.
The contribution of this article is the anticipation of detailed and in-depth discussion into the perspective of AI and SC-
based AIC method advances that enabled practical applications in attenuating vibration response of smart civil structures.
Moreover, the review demonstrates the computing advantages of AIC over conventional controllers that are important in
creating the next generation of smart civil structures.

Keywords
Smart civil structures, vibration control, adaptive intelligent control, control algorithms, active/semi-active control, artificial
intelligence, soft computing, buildings, bridges

Introduction
Previously civil structures were designed by conventional codes along with Passive Vibration Control (PVC) system, that is
unable to adjust structural characteristics (i.e., mass, stiffness, or damping) dynamically under the environmental loads (i.e.,
earthquakes and strong winds).1–7 However, with the developing trend of high-rise buildings and long-span bridges, the
need for smart structures ascends that can adapt towards their changing environment and keep up their serviceability
progressively. Through the escalation of Active Vibration Control (AVC) and Semi-active Vibration Control (SVC) systems
since 1980, 8,9 the concept of smart structures is acknowledged 10 as an intelligent machine that can change and adapt to its
environment dynamically working on a few components: sensors, actuators, signal processors, and power sources.11,12

1
School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China
2
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

Corresponding author:
Zuoyu Sun, School of Civil engineering, Guangzhou University, Higher Education Mega Center, Guangzhou Guangdong, China, 510006.
Email: [email protected]
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided
the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Saeed et al. 293

The Vibration Control Systems (VCS) are classified into passive, active, semi-active, and hybrid control systems. The
PVC system is activated by structural motion requiring no external force or energy to perform the control 12 although this
PVC system is not a smart control system but is incorporated with other smart AVC/SVC systems to formulate Hybrid
Vibration Control (HVC) systems. The AVC and SVC are smart controllable systems that work with actuators to alter the
stiffness and damping progressively and generate control forces based on pre-decided control algorithms, where the AVC
system mainly works on electro-hydraulic or electro-mechanical actuator systems self-possessed with servo-actuator
moving mass to generate control forces,13 which requires such tremendous external power.14 In comparison, the SVC
systems spend less power than the AVC. Also, fit for consolidating both reliability quality related with passive devices and
adaptability related with active devices,8,15 frequently viewed as controllable passive devices.14 Furthermore, HVC systems
imply the consolidated utilization of AVC/SVC with PVC systems.8,16 The summary of control devices utilized by these
control systems is presented in Table.1.
Prior academic research indicates that the VCS for smart structures has two main groups: First group deals with the
development of physical control devices actualizing existing control strategies. However, the second group deals with
developing new or improving existing control algorithms for existing control devices.20 This study addresses the second
part considering that effective use of these control systems requires an exact and suitable control algorithm for computing
actuators control forces.21,22 To the best of the author’s knowledge, the prime foundation of VCS is the control algorithm.23
Additionally, these control algorithms help in the advancement of control schemes that are cost-effective, predictable,
adaptive, and robust, prompting increasingly reliable, safer, lighter, and more vigorous structures.24–26 For the development
of control algorithms and simulating structural behavior, the numerical model of the system is developed.14,27 For their
work, some control algorithms utilize numerical models of the system referred to as Model-Based Control (MBC)/
parametric control schemes, and some do not name as non-model-based/non-parametric control schemes.21,28
Model-Based Control schemes should initially acquire a precise mathematical model for an existing system and design
the controller afterward. The performance of these schemes is strongly dependent on wellknown structural parameters,
which is also known as parametric control.14 These MBC schemes have established linear and nonlinear control algorithms.
The Linear MBC Algorithms includes Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID), optimal (i.e., LQR and LQG) and robust
(i.e., H2 and H∞) controllers.28,29These linear fixed controllers lack adaptivity towards parametric uncertainties, unmodeled
dynamics uncertainties and external disturbances make them completely ineffective in controlling nonlinear civil
structures.30,31 To overcome adaptivity issues, nonlinear adaptive control is recommended for controlling civil
structures.16,32-34 These controllers have shown high adaptivity under highly uncertain and unknown conditions by
automatically adjusting their parameters in real-time.14,35 These classic adaptive MBC algorithms incorporate Back-
stepping Control, Sliding Mode Control (SMC), LQR-based adaptive control, Model Reference Adaptive Control , model
predictive adaptive control, adaptive pole placement, time delay control, etc.21,28 Some of these controllers have dem-
onstrated the required performance in the control of nonlinear systems. Regardless, their effectiveness has decreased
significantly in the control of nonlinear systems with uncertainties, and, in most of the scenarios, they were the key root
cause for instability of the closed-loop system.36,37 Likewise, these controllers have fixed adjusting parameters, making

Table 1. Physical control devices.8,17,18,19

Passive

Energy dissipaters Isolators Active Semi-active Hybrid

Tuned Mass Damper Elastomeric bearing Active Tuned Mass Damper Magnetorheological (MR) damper Hybrid Mass Damper
(TMD) (ATMD) (HMD)
Tuned Liquid Damper Lead-plug bearing Active Tendon Control Magnetorheological Elastomer Hybrid Base Isolator
(TLD) System (ATCS) (MRE) (HBI)
Metallic damper High damping rubber Active support system Electrorheological (ER) damper
bearings
Friction damper Friction pendulum Multi Tuned Mass Damper Semi-active Tuned Mass Damper
bearing (MTMD) (SATMD)
Viscoelastic damper Electro-hydraulic Dampers Piezoelectric Friction Damper
(EHD) (PFD)
Viscous fluid
damper
294 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

them unalterable, innately less safe, and less robust controllers with uncertain stability and convergence brought about by
unmodeled dynamics.38,39 As civil structures are highly complicated multi-degree-of-freedom systems, it is dreadfully
challenging to find a precise numerical model representing their actual behavior.40,41 Additionally, these linear and
nonlinear MBC schemes often require high computational exertion toward identifying and modeling systems instead of
designing controllers.27,42 Accordingly, to mitigate the mentioned shortcomings and make control schemes less reliant on
the numerical system’s model, the researchers integrate adaptive control with intelligent systems (control).43
The above-discussed integration is performed in two ways. The first one by combining a model-based adaptive control
with intelligent (i.e., purely data-driven) systems is incorporated in direct or indirect learning schemes:44,45 directly by
learning the uncertain part by acting as controller block and indirectly by tuning the parameters of the MBC controller
referred as a dual or modular design for adaptive control.45,46 Second one by incorporating intelligent systems to obtain the
knowledge of the system dynamics using the input–output data set through direct interaction with the system without using
a parametric plant model during the controller design process,38,44,47 represented as non-model based/non-parametric
control.21,28,48 These intelligent systems generally belong to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Soft Computing (SC)
techniques, such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), Fuzzy Logic (FL), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Adaptive
Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) etc.38,44 This combination of adaptive with intelligent systems, one may view
“Adaptive Intelligent Control (AIC),”49-52 in some literatures also named as “intelligent adaptive control”49 or intelligent
and adaptive control.43 These control methods have been more considered in recent years because of their special ca-
pabilities like handling nonlinear complex systems, high adaptivity, and robustness to errors and uncertainties with extra
effectiveness in controlling civil structures than MBC control methods.21
Recently, several studies have been published in the perspective of structural vibration control, typically concentrating
on particular characteristics of the common topic. Soto and Adeli29 discussed the overall advancement in control algorithms
from classic towards adaptive/intelligent control for smart civil structures and machines with a brief overview on adaptive/
intelligent control strategy. Amezquita-Sanchez et al.12 focused on the common vibration control strategies applied to civil
structures. Venanzi28 offered a study on adaptive control of civil structures starting by classifying them into model-based
and non-model–based methods and constrained systems, with a brief introduction of non-model–based AIC strategy.
According to our best knowledge previously, several surveys are available on vibration control strategies utilized for civil
structures. However, unfortunately, they mainly focused on traditional (MBC) techniques, and none of them provided
comprehensive details on recent AIC methods, such as ANNs, ANFIS, and RD . So far, these intelligent methods have
undergone noteworthy advancements and escalated use in structural vibration control during the last few years.
Therefore, to fill this research gap, this study presents a state-of-the-art review paper on a broader prospect of research
efforts on the use of such emerging AIC methods in the vibration control of smart civil structures. The contributions of this
review paper are: (1) to study and summarize AIC methods concerning their applications in vibration control of smart civil
structures, mainly since 2017 and (2) to identify emerging trends and future directions for employing AIC in structural
vibration control. By doing so, this article will supplement recently published articles and achieve the objectives like, (1)
presenting the theoretical foundation or possibly will play a significant role in the advancement of AI and SC-based AIC
methods in civil structural vibration control; (2) would signify the levels and hotspots of recent research in AIC; and (3)
would assist continual research efforts. The structure of the study is organized as follows. The Adaptive Intelligent Control
section briefly introduces AIC methods with their possible advantages in vibration control, and the acronyms used in the
article are presented in Table 2. The Classification of AIC Methods section presents the classification of AIC methods
regarding AI and SC methods. The Methods of AIC for Smart Civil Structures section discusses the theoretical introduction
of each AIC method with its applications in smart civil structures. The Summary and Trend Analysis of Reviewed Articles
section presents the summary with trend analysis of the studies reviewed for AIC methods, and finally, the conclusions are
drawn, and future directions are presented.

Adaptive intelligent control

Adaptive Intelligent Control (AIC) can be characterized as a control strategy where the control parameters are attuned
automatically through the feedback in the direction of the measured response to accomplish close to ideal performance as
indicated by some specific criteria. This feedback guarantees that the system knows about the present situation and takes the
necessary precautions to eliminate any imbalances that may emerge.43 These control schemes are a true amalgamation of
adaptive and intelligent control systems, as depicted in Figure 1.
Adaptive Intelligent Control is recognized in the generic framework through two hierarchical steps.
Saeed et al. 295

Table 2. Acronyms.

Acronyms Expansion

AIC Adaptive Intelligent Control

AVC Active Vibration Control
ANNs Artificial Neural Network
ANFIS Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System
AFs Adaptive Filters
AS Agent System
ATCS Active Tendon Control System
ATMD Active Tuned Mass Damper
BELBIC Brain Emotional Learning Based Intelligent Controller
COC Clipped Optimal Control
CS Cuckoo Search
CI Computational Intelligence
EAs Evolutionary Algorithms
EGT Evolutionary Game Theory
ESS Evolutionary Stable State
EHD Electro-Hydraulic Dampers
FLC Fuzzy Logic Control
FIR Finite Impulse Response
FIS Fuzzy Inference System
FFNNs Feed Forward Neural Networks
FBNNs Feedback Neural Networks
GT Game Theory
GA Genetic Algorithm
HVC Hybrid Vibration Control
IIR Infinite Impulse Response
LQR Linear Quadratic Regulator
LQG Linear Quadratic Gaussian
MR Magnetorheological
MRE Magnetorheological elastomer
MBC Model-Based Control
ML Machine Learning
MAS Multi-agent System
MFs Membership Functions
MRE Magnetorheological Elastomer
MTMD Multi-tuned Mass Damper
MOO Multi-Objective Optimization
MOCS Multi-Objective Cuckoo search
NSGA Non-Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II
PVC Passive Vibration Control
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
PFD Piezoelectric Friction Damper
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
RD Replicator Dynamics
RL Reinforcement Learning
SC Soft Computing
SVC Semi-Active Vibration Control
SVM Support Vector Machine
SMC Sliding Mode Control
SAS Single Agent System
SI Swarm Intelligence
SL Supervised Learning

(continued)
296 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

Table 2. (continued)

Acronyms Expansion

SOO Single Objective Optimization

SAC Simple Adaptive Control
TMD Tuned Mass Damper
VCS Vibration Control System

Figure 1. Adaptive intelligent control.

Step 1. Selecting a hierarchically organized system (related to the system’s environment) and formulating the hierarchical
evaluation functions (identifying its control states) and

Step 2. Learning an arrangement of the utmost suitable hierarchical values of control parameters (evaluation function is
assigned with the minimum values).
In other words, step 1 sets up “intelligent self controllable (thinking) algorithms” mimicking human intelligence for
different actions (concepts) and step 2 considers these “intelligent self-controllable (thinking) algorithms” in learning the
utmost suitable state of the system.53 These “intelligently self-controllable (thinking) algorithms” are generally dependent
on specific principles from AI and other SC techniques, specifically ANNs, Fuzzy logic, GA, etc. The goal of AI is to
develop machines that can think and learn by mimicking human cognitive functions. The subsequent “intelligent con-
troller” is just a heuristically developed nonlinear, possibly adaptive system that is consequently manageable to control
complex dynamic systems.48,49,54 The notion of intelligent control was first anticipated by Fu (1971)55 followed by Gupta
and Saridis in 1977. An intelligent controller can be understood as an adaptive or self-organizing system that learns by
interacting with the environment using nominal prior information,14 and can accomplish control objectives and can
optimize the performance over complex, noisy, nonlinear situations on account of their inherent nonlinearity, adaptivity, and
robustness.21,50 The expression “adaptive” indicates those controllers having real-time adaptable/adjustable parameters of
plant model/controller. The sensors are employing to collect plant observations (i.e., changes among the system’s output y
and its reference output yr), from counteracting for parameter changes, other disturbances, and unknown factors of the
plant25,56 (see Figure 2).
Combination of adaptive and intelligent control schemes is accepted in the literature as AIC.50-52 These control strategies
have some significant advantages over other fixed linear or nonlinear MBC systems reported in the literature which are
presented below.
Saeed et al. 297

Figure 2. Typical feedback adaptive control System.

Advantages of AIC methods

1. Adaptive Intelligent Control methods can be trained to imitate a human psyche without thorough numerical
equations utilized in conventional controllers.2
2. These methods can adequately manage unmodeled dynamics and nonlinearities by including reasoning and in-
ference systems to learn from incomplete, ambiguous, and subjective data based on experience and knowledge.57
3. These methods sustain high capabilities of adaptability, robustness, modeling unmodeled dynamics, fault tolerance,
solving complex systems, generalized capability, automaticity, training capabilities, learning and prediction under
higher levels of system’s uncertainties, unpredicted or unaware conditions, and can effectively deal with large scale
data.21,43,50,58-60
4. These techniques can easily handle the non-linear, highly hysteretic behavior of control devices, where the MBC
algorithms fail.2
5. These methods adequately able to minimize high amplitudes and accelerations of structures cause by external
excitations that in the long run increase structure’s load-carrying capacity, decrease fatigue, and reduction in energy
consumption.12,50,61

Classification of AIC methods

The AIC methods can be classified into Machine Learning (ML), Evolutionary Game theory (EGT), Reasoning system, and
Adaptive Filters (AFs) based control, methods as displayed in Figure 3. The control algorithms of each classification are
briefly discussed below, and detailed explanations and applications for the vibration control of smart civil structures are
given in the next section. The ML is a sub-branch of AI that permits the computers to learn from the data itself to get trained
based on experience and make predictions.62,63 It can be classified into three types that are supervised, unsupervised, and
reinforced learning.

1. Supervised Learning (SL): The data is labeled with the right qualities/names (provided by the explicit teacher),
empowering the algorithm to learns by minimalizing the error between its required and actual output. Artificial
Neural Networks (ANNs) controllers and Support Vector Machines (SVMs) controllers utilize SL.64
2. Unsupervised Learning: Unlike SL, it does not contain any explicit teacher. The task of the algorithm is to look for
patterns or meanings in unlabeled data.63
3. Reinforcement Learning (RL): Learning is performed with a critic without providing any information about the data
(signal) class or explicit objectives. These RL algorithms are compelled to learn ideal objectives through trial and
error.63,65 Multi-Agent System (MAS) based controllers and Brain Emotional Learning-Based Intelligent Controller
(BELBIC) employ RL.

Furthermore, other AIC methods that incorporate Soft Computing (SC) or Computational Intelligence (CI) methods are,
in fact, a subset of AI.66 The SC/CI is described by the computer’s capacity to learn an explicit task from a provided sample
data or observations from the experiments.63 These methods include EGT which is an application of Game Theory (GT) in
biological evolution, and Replicator Dynamics (RD) controllers belong to EGT. Other reasoning methods are purely based
298 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

Figure 3. Classification of adaptive intelligent control methods.

on AI and SC methods that emulate human decision-making. These methods include Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) and
Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). The following AIC method is AFs which belong to a digital signal
processing system and majorly exploits AI and SC methods. Moreover, meta-heuristic algorithms belong to AI and are used
for optimizing the AIC parameters. These methods include; Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) (e.g., Genetic Algorithms (GA))
and Swarm Intelligence (SI) algorithms (e.g., Particle swarm optimization (PSO) and Cuckoo Search (CS) algorithms).

Methods of AIC for smart civil structures

ANN-based controller
An Artificial Neural Network is a computational data-driven methodology of ML that endeavors to simulate the learning
and memory abilities of the human central neurological system collectively with its neurons, axons, dendrites, and
synapses.62 The ANNs mimic the human brain in two distinctive ways: first, acquiring the information through the learning
procedure, and the second one by storing the information in the interneuron’s connection strengths (synaptic weights).67
The ANNs were first introduced by McCelloch68 in the mid-’40s of the last century.69 The initial research studies in utilizing
ANNs in control of structures were carried out simultaneously by Ghaboussi and Joghataie (1995)70 and Chen et al.
(1995).71 Since then, ANNs have been integrated with VCS for highly nonlinear modern structures.72 Thus, the ANNs have
been represented as a kind of dreamlike substitute to the conventional structural vibration control methods because of their
high parallel scattered computational features of training, learning, adaptability, flexibility, noise immunity, nonlinear
mapping capabilities, generalization ability, and robustness.1,21,25 Likewise, ANN has demonstrated extraordinary capacity
in capturing the unknown or complex nonlinear relationships between independent and dependent variables and has shown
higher adaptability towards the changes in the input to output data sets in solving nonlinear complex control problems.24,69
This paradigm of ANNs was begun with a model of perceptron, which is an algorithm of supervised learning in ML. The
perceptron is the simplest primary model of ANNs as presented in Figure 4, having several nodes denote input, which is
connected via synapses to various nodes. These synapses have weights accompanying them, and the summer function
generates the value of each output node derived by multiplying each input node by the weight of the relevant synapse and
Saeed et al. 299

Figure 4. Mathematical model of a single perceptron.

adding bias if present, then these values are plugged into a threshold unit (activation function; such as sigmoid or relu) to
generate inclusive output.68 It was perceived decades ago that this setup is unsuccessful in learning even simple functions.
So extra hidden layers were introduced. In this setup, the input layer feeds into one or more hidden layers before being fed to
the output layer, empowering more complex behavior substantially. In particular, ANNs with one or more hidden layers are
termed Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), as displayed in Figure 5. Multilayer Perceptron is the most popular ANNs method.
Generally, conventional ANNs consist of three layers: input layer, hidden layer, and output layer.20,73
The ANNs are additionally categorized regarding to their network topology, for example, Feed Forward Neural
Networks (FFNNs) and Feed-Back Neural Networks (FBNNs)/Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) or related to their
learning algorithms. For instance, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforced learning are displayed in
Figure 6, detail presented in the following sections with their utilization in ANNs (neuro) controller architectures.57

FFNNs and basic controller architectures. In FFNNs, Information flows forward that starts from the input node. All in-
formation flows to the output node through the hidden node, while the input layer does not participate in the processing of
information.69 Examples of FFNNs are MLP, radial basis function network, and Learning Vector Quantization Networks.43
These networks utilized supervised learning methods that incorporate gradient-based methods, such as back-propagation,
and are termed static networks because their mapping between the inputs and outputs is a static function. The three basic
FFNNs modeling architectures for controller include; forward modeling, inverse plant modeling and, operator modeling.
Their details can be found in the work of Housner et al.14 and Brown et al.74

FBNNs and basic controller architectures. The FBNN are dynamic mappings between inputs and outputs because the
network’s output is fed back to the input layer or the intermediate layer. In this way, inputs are transferred in both forward
and backward directions by forming a loop in the network architecture. The network’s output reflects the current and
previous entries69; these networks include the hope field network and Kohonen self-organizing maps.43 In FBNNs un-
supervised learning methods; include Hebbian learning and competitive learning. An example of the FBNN controller
architecture is a specialized inverse plant modeling in which ANN is integrated into a closed-loop; its details can be found in
the work of Housner et al.14 and Brown et al.74

ANNs based controllers. The ANNs based controllers can easily identify the structural system properties while avoiding the
instability for the structures having higher uncertainties. The ANNs based controller’s parameters are attuned online based
on certain error criteria. Most of these adaptive ANNs controllers are indirect adaptive schemes because, at first, it builds an
ANNs model of the unknown plant, which is then further utilized to predict the behavior and control the response. Some of
the famous ANNs based controllers included; Model reference neural controller, direct learning, and indirect learning
Controller.14,20

1. Model reference neuro-controller: In these controllers, the feedback is carried out by the conglomerate controller/
plant emulator ANNs through the back-propagation algorithm. Two errors (model and reference) are generated as
displayed in Figure 7 and described in equations (1) and (2)
Model error ¼ yplant  ymodel (1)

Reference Error ¼ yreference  yplant ¼ yreference  ymodel (2)

300 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

Figure 5. Multilayer perceptron.

57
Figure 6. Classification of ANNs .

Figure 7. Model reference neuro-controller.

Saeed et al. 301

1. As the convergence approaches, both errors converge to zero, and the approximation of reference error becomes
accurate. Thus, the extended ANN has two functions: adaptively estimate the next state of the plant in a given state,
and compute the control signal required by the plant to minimize the reference error64 (see Figure 7).
2. Direct learning neuro-controller: These controllers are generally based on a combination of an MBC with a data-
driven learning algorithm (neural networks). This scheme is commonly termed the modular design of adaptive
controllers.44 A fixed linear MBC is used to train the neural network, as shown in Figure 8 In essence, the neural
network is to learn the inverse model of the plant, using the plant output, the set point, and the linear controller signal
as the input and the control signal as the output. With the change of the system’s operating point, the nonlinear model
of the required control surface is established online by neural network. Finally, these control signals generated by the
neural network are added to the controller’s control signals that enhanced its performance.14
3. Model predictive neuro-controller: These controllers are also named indirect learning control schemes. In these
controllers, the neural network-based plant model is used to predict the future behavior of a given plant, and the error
is used to fine-tune the neural network controller’s parameters as presented in Figure 914,75

ANNs Applications. Blachowski and Pnevmatiko20 presented a study utilizing ANNs controller for attenuating the seismic
vibration, and their proposed controller was tested on two types of building structures: single storey and other is 12-storey
building structure. ANNs based controller effectively reduced the structure’s response as compared to the convention LQR
controller. Lara et al.27 presented FBNNs named Nonlinear Auto-Regressive models with eXogenous Inputs (NARX)-NNs
and FLC based control of 2-storey building structures equipped with MR damper; both of these controllers have produced
significant results in achieving the control objective. However, the NARX-NNs-based controller performed better than the
FLC controller. Rababah et al.24 proposed a back-propagating ANNs based AVC algorithm for a seismically excited
highway bridge structure equipped with hydraulic actuators. The controller performance is compared with the conventional
LQR and H2 MBC algorithms, but their proposed ANNs controller efficiently reduced the seismic responses with higher
robustness and adequate stability than these MBC controllers.

Figure 8. Direct learning neuro-controller.

Figure 9. Model predictive neuro-controller.

302 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

HE et al.76 proposed a back-propagating ANNs based controller for a seismically excited highway bridge structure
utilizing MR damper. Further, they utilized GA to optimize the proposed controller’s parameters and reduce the controller’s
energy consumption. They compared the performance of the proposed controller with the Lyapunov and unoptimized BP-
ANNs based controllers and concluded the higher performance of GA-back-propagating ANNs controller in terms of
reducing peak responses with higher stability and consuming minimum energy. Rathi et al.77 proposed an ANNs based
control Algorithm for the seismically excited 2-storey building structure equipped with Active Tendon Control Sys-
tem(ATCS). In their proposed scheme, the stability of the error dynamics model is assured by the Lyapunov stability
analysis. They concluded that the anticipated controller has more robust stability and performance characteristics. Chang
and Sung13 proposed an ANNs based controller for attenuating the seismic vibrations of a 3-storey building structure
provided with an Active tuned Mass damper(ATMD) system. Their Proposed ANNs controller exploited structural model
energy as an objective function for tuning the network and was named as modal-energy-based neuro-controller, the
proposed controller had shown higher efficiency in achieving the control objectives, especially in reducing the model
energy and structural responses compared to MLP-based controller.
Chen1 proposed an FFNNs based controller utilizing GA for optimizing its parameters (e.g., to search for initial weight
and bias) and modified the Newton method for enhancing its training performance. This controller was validated on single-
storey shear building structure equipped with ATMD for system identification and vibration suppression. The experimental
results had shown higher efficiency of the proposed controller in tracking control and vibration suppression. Next, Bigdeli
et al.72 presented ANNs based controllers utilizing Wavelets. Their proposed controller is applied to an ATMD equipped 3-
storey building subjected to earthquake loads. The proposed controller had shown high performance in reducing the
structural response and model energy due to higher and efficient ANNs training and calculation process. Finally, Gu et al.78
developed Radial Basis Function Neural Network-Based Fuzzy Logic Control (RBF-NFLC) for the model of seismically
excited 3-storey base-isolated shear frame building utilizing magnetorheological elastomer isolator. Furthermore, they
utilized GA for MOO named as Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA II) with dynamic crowding distance
(DCD) concept for finding the best parameters (e.g., Fuzzy rules and MFs) with higher fitness values. Their comparative
analysis showed the high performance of the proposed RBF-NFLC algorithm in reducing the overall structural response
compared to traditional Bang–Bang control algorithms and other passive and fixed structure scenarios from SMC
responses.

Brain emotional learning-based intelligent controller

Brain Emotional Learning Based Intelligent Controller (BELBIC) developed by Lucas et al.45 is a cognitively based variant
of reinforcement learning with a critic (evaluative control). The BELBIC implements the computational network model
developed in79 which mimics the parts of the mammalian brain and identifies to produce emotions, that is, the amygdala
orbitofrontal cortex, thalamus, and sensory input cortex, as presented in Figure 10. The BELBIC is divided into two parts:
the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex. The amygdala receives inputs from the thalamus and sensory cortex, while the

Figure 10. Schematic structure of brain emotional learning based intelligent controller.45
Saeed et al. 303

orbitofrontal cortex receives inputs from the cortex and amygdala. The BELBIC scheme also receives Emotional Signals
(ES) as inputs in its amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex regions and integrates the output from these two parts to express the
overall output of the scheme.80
Brain Emotional Learning Based Intelligent Controller model application within a distinctive feedback control block
diagram can be seen in Figure 11. The model implicitly uses critic, learning algorithms, and action selection mechanisms
used in the functional implementation of emotion-based or usually reinforce learning-based controllers all at once.45
These controllers use critic to continuously evaluate the outcomes of specified control actions based on overall ob-
jectives or performance indicators in any given state, and generate analog reinforcement ES (cues) to guide learning in the
controller block. This cognitive form of reinforcement signal has been expressed as an emotional cue/signal, for it is the
function of emotions like stress, concern, fear, satisfaction, and happinessto assess the environmental conditions for
objectives and utilities and to deliver cues regulating action selection mechanisms.45 This controller has two significant
inputs: Sensory Input (SI) and Emotional Signal (ES), and the flexibility in defining SI and ES makes BELBIC an effective
controller over other MBC schemes.81 Moreover, it is significantly an incredible scheme for the real-time control of civil
structures because of the low computational complexity, appropriate learning, abrupt training capabilities,80 robustness
towards parametric changes, and handling uncertainties.45

BELBIC Applications. Braz César et al.82 developed a BELBIC combined with PSO algorithms for the seismic vibration
control of single storey building subjected to seismic loading and the actuating mechanism is incorporated through MR
damper. Their proposed PSO optimized controller has shown higher performance in achieving control objectives. Braz
César et al.83 presented a BELBIC combined with PSO algorithms for the seismic vibration control of a 3-storey building
structure equipped with MR damper. The simulation results presented the high efficiency of proposed schemes in regards to
reducing the overall structural response.

SVM-based controller
The SVM is an ML frame that uses the linear function hypothesis space in the high-dimensional feature space and is trained
by the learning algorithm of optimization theory, which applies the learning bias obtained from the statistical learning
theory.84 single storey Machine was presented by Boser, Guyon, and Vapnik85 at the Computational Learning Theory
(COLT) conference in 1992. A few years later, Cortes and Vapnik86 introduced the soft margin classifier and further
extended it to the regression case.87
The SVM not only solves the classification and pattern recognition problems but can also solve the regression fit
problem88 by generating input–output mapping functions from a set of labeled training data. These functions can be
regression functions or classification functions. For example, the input data class can be mapping functions, linear
functions, and nonlinear kernel functions. For classification, usually, the input data is converted into high-dimensional
feature space. In this way, the input data become more divisible than the same input space. The maximum-margin hy-
perplane is then applied to find the separating hyperplane, and the given data is optimally classified into two categories (i.e.,
positive and negative) as presented in Figure 1289,90
The optimal separating hyperplane is determined through solving an optimization problem, defined as

Figure 11. Feedback control block diagram of brain emotional learning controller.
304 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

1
Minimize to ¼ kwk2
2

(3)
Subjected to ¼ yi wT  xi þ b ≥ 1, i ¼ 1, 2,…N,
yi 2 f1,  1g,xi 2 Rn

where w, yi, and xi are a m-dimensional vector, class label and given data, respectively. N is the number of samples, and b is
a scalar called bias.90,91
Support Vector Machine has the advantage of high precision because of its decent convergence and generalization
abilities, and it can generate precise predictions for various complex tasks.84 In addition, it has the excellent ability to be
used as a universal approximator of any multivariate function for achieving any ideal level of precision. Therefore, SVM is
of particular interest in modeling nonlinear systems, plants/processes that are unknown or partially known with highly
nonlinear behavior.92 All these advantages make SVM paramount for being applied for the vibration control of nonlinear
complex civil structures.

SVM applications. Li et al.93 proposed an SVM-based semi-active control of three-storey shear-type frame structure under
seismic waves. Their proposed SVM model is constructed and trained to mimic the functioning of the LQR controller and
mentioned as a structure SVM system model. Similarly, this SVM model includes both the observers (sensors) and
controllers of the control system. The comparative results validated the sound performance of the SVM-based controller in
reducing structural responses.

MAS-based controller
Holland94 was the first to present a concept about the agent as an artificial organism, evolving in the inhabitants of its breed,
tending to learn and adapt to its environment to survive in it, and defeat the competitors.95 Thus, the agent is considered as a
computer system (hardware/software). It is positioned within an environment that observes with the help of sensors and can
freely act upon any changes in the environment adaptively or intelligently to achieve its designed goals (see Figure 13).96-99
An agent observes state St of the environment at time t, chooses to take action At, after that, the environment changeover
to state St + 1 and the agent receives reward Rt + 1. Those actions that produce a positive effect will have a higher possibility
of being executed again. To this effect, the agent receives a reward signal that shows the quality of the actions taken. Multi-
Agent Systems chiefly learn through trial and error to find a strategy, characterized as a mapping from states to actions, that

Figure 12. Graphical illustration of support vector machine.

Saeed et al. 305

Figure 13. Architecture of an agent.99

maximizes its long-term expected reward.99 It means that, in the case of supervised learning, the environment or an agent
providing feedback acts as a “teacher or critic” and acts as a “passive or observer” in the case of unsupervised learning.98
Base on learning, the MAS is further distinguished into two primary classifications: centralized (isolated) and de-
centralized (interactive) learning. The centralized learning process is consolidated by a single-agent independent of other
agents to achieve the overall system’s objectives. Conversely, the decentralized learning process includes multiple in-
dependent agents in the same learning process to accomplish their local objectives.98 These decentralized MAS learning
systems approach work on dividing the problem into multiple sub-problems and then solving these problems by assigning
each sub-part to each agent; this idea is also known as divide-and-conquer.100 Multi-Agent Systems can be characterized as a
system in which self-sufficient interrelating artificial intelligent agents cohabiting in an environment, constantly cooperating
toward seeking specific independently held conceivably conflicting objectives. No agent has the surety to be fully informed
about the other agents’ objectives nor has it the surety to be fully informed about the overall state of the environment.99,101
While focusing on the agent’s collaboration, it perceives insight from other social structures in the animal kingdom that contain
an assortment of individuals with their characters. It additionally draws strongly on Game Theory (GT).99,102
The collaboration of multiple self-directed agents offers to ascend to extremely dynamic and non-deterministic
conditions, causing the complexity in applications; therefore, it is aptly necessary for the system’s success that the
agents can learn their optimal behavior to adapt to new situations or circumstances. Therefore, learning is essential, and it
turned into the most significant challenge to increase qualitative perceptions into the subsequent system dynamics. To
overcome this challenge and formally study the multi-agent learning dynamics in strategic interactions, Evolutionary Game
Theory (EGT) has been successfully employed.101 Borgers and Sarin103 were the first to mathematically associate agents
learning with EGT, portrayed by how agents lack complete information, and both these fields are involved with dynamic
environments with an extreme level of uncertainty.101 The concepts of evolution in EGT prove appropriate to define the
learning process in MAS instead of being realized in biological evolution meaning.104 This learning process of the agents is
controlled by RD that helps them perform dynamically in the face of competition or real-world conditions.105 These
potentials bring in the concept of an agent appropriate for developing a unique framework for control systems for solving
computationally complex structural vibration control problems under resource constraints. Some of these examples are
presented in the coming section.

MAS Applications. Multi-Agent Systems control systems have shown great success in recent years. Soto and Adeli 96
presented innovative Multiagent Replicator Controllers (MARC) for sustainable vibration control of smart structures
grounded on three ideas: Agent System (AS), RD, and energy minimization. They presented two techniques: Centralized
Single-Agent Replicator Controller, in which single-agent is interpreted as a centralized replicator controller(CRC) to make
the control decision in real-time for the entire structure, and the second one is the decentralized MARC, in which the whole
structure is divided into a set of substructures, and forces on the interfaces between the substructures are treated as external
disturbances on each substructure. That enabled every substructure with their controller modeled as an agent; thus,
complete structure control is governed by MARC. They applied these control schemes to 3-storey steel frame building, and
306 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

20-storey steel benchmark structure subjected to seismic excitations and produced efficient results compared to con-
ventional control algorithms. Subsequently, Soto and Adeli106 presented decentralized MARC optimized with a modified
neural dynamics optimization model to control 20-storey steel building. This optimization helped find the Pareto optimal
values for the MARC algorithm parameters, eventually helping achieve maximum structural performance with minimum
energy consumption. Also, their proposed hybrid scheme bested the traditional LQR control algorithm.

RD-based controller
John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern107 studied human behavior and strategic decisions using mathematical theory
and brought forth Game Theory,39 which was continued by Nash108 by presenting the concept of Nash Equilibrium (NE).
The NE is considered the focal idea of GT. The concept of the NE was further refined by Maynard Smith.109 He presented
the main idea of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS).110 By this introduction, the utilization of GT in biological evolution is
initiated and termed as EGT, which was achieved by reinterpreting the concept of payoff (utilities) in economics interpretation
into the expressions of fitness, that is, evolutionary terminologies of reproductive success of the engaged individuals.111 In
EGT environment, the essentials of conventional GT are valid; however, no individual expressly makes decisions. Since the
whole group of players is engaged in a game setting and properties that change their behaviors are examined. Each player in
EGT selects a strategy from a particular set of strategies to win the game. As a result of this analysis, the individual (player) that
has the highest capability of surviving is identified and named as ESS.112 To study ESS, the idea of “Replicator Dynamics
(RD)” was proposed by Taylor and Jonker. The RD depicts how the population shares associated with different strategies
evolves considering their collective influence on their fitness.113 This substantial attribute permits the RD to acquire the
principle of selection by providing a linkage between the biological concept of ESS109 with the economics concept of NE.108
The RD is a simple model of evolution and prestige-biased learning in EGT.114 This model presumes replicators (types)
in large numbers. Every replicator has a payoff (fitness) value allocated to its interaction with other replicators and its fitness
in that population. Then the comparison of the payoff of each replicator is performed for an expected payoff (fitness) value.
This comparison helps determine the better or worse performance of each replicator compared to the expected payoff value.
The fundamental concept in the RD model is that those replicators having higher performance value related to the
population’s average fitness value will receive a higher share in that population whereas, those replicators having lower
value (performance) related to the average fitness value will receive a lower share in that population.115 In simple words,
those individuals with high performance will have more offspring, and therefore their occurrence in that population
increases.
The following formula represents the Replicator Equation
 
z_i ¼ zi ðWzÞi  zT Wz (4)

where (Wz)i denotes the expected fitness for a replicator and zTWz denotes the average fitness in the population state z.
The applications of RD for the vibration control of smart civil structures have been recently increased; some of them are
presented in the following section.

RD Applications. Soto and Adeli96 presented a unique combination of the RD method with Agent System (AS) that created
two new control methods: A Single-Agent Centralized Replicator Controller and a decentralized Multi Agent Replicator
Controller (MARC) to control a 3-storey steel frame building and 20-storey steel buildings subjected to seismic excitations.
Their proposed controllers effectively minimized the energy consumption and provided decent robustness and adaptively,
which is confirmed by comparing with other conventional centralized and decentralized LQR control algorithms. Fur-
thermore, Soto and Adeli106 further investigated these control schemes in finding the Pareto optimal values of these RD-
based controller's parameters. This Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) was carried out by a modified neural dynamics
model of Adeli and Park.116 That is applied to a 20-storey building structure subjected to seismic excitations. Their results
have shown great performance in reducing responses compared with the conventional centralized and decentralized LQR
control algorithms.
Another study incorporating RD controller and modified neural dynamic model utilized as MOO to obtain pareto
optimal RD controller parameters were presented by Soto and Adeli117 and applied an 8-storey irregular steel frame
building. This hybrid control algorithm produced satisfactory results in reducing the structural response compared with
LQR and other traditional control methods. The application of RD controller is not limited to building structures but also
presented for the control of base-isolated highway bridge structure by Soto and Adeli15 in their recent study. The structure is
Saeed et al. 307

equipped with both a base isolation passive system and a semi-active MR Damping system. This developed scheme is
compared with LQG and Lyapunov controller and concluded the higher performance of RD controller.

Fuzzy logic control

Fuzzy Computing is a kind of SC technique grounded on the description of “degrees of truth” instead of the usual Boolean
logic of computers, in broader terms also acknowledged as “Fuzzy Logic” (FL).50 The fuzzy theory was introduced by
Zadeh118 in his seminal article and extended by presenting the concepts of fuzzy algorithms,119 fuzzy decision-making,120 and
fuzzy ordering,121 respectively. The analysis of complex systems and decision processes, which formulated the basis for fuzzy
control, was proposed by Zadeh122 by introducing the concept of linguistic variables to use fuzzy IFTHEN rules to detail
human knowledge and reasoning capabilities. Mamdani and Assilian123 established the essential system of FLC, and the
pioneer FLC for a full-scale industrial process was proposed by Holmblad and Stergaard.124 Brown et al.125 utilized right off
the FLC in structural engineering in 1983. Faravelli and Yao126 introduced the guiding principle for applying FLC for AVC in
civil structures. Further, Aldawod et al.127 developed an FLC for AVC systems in the wind-excited tall structure. Since then,
the FLC schemes are adapted for the VCS, and it is the most popular as compared to other traditional fixed model-based
techniques because of their robustness towards states of uncertainty, nonlinearity, and complexity because of its intrinsic
capabilities of treating linguistic variables (like low or high) and making uncertain reasoning to formulate the relationship
between system variables.21,28 Besides, it can also develop adaptability for control problems by adjusting its rules or
membership functions and extra ability to utilize learning techniques without a precise mathematical model. Decisively, all
these characteristics make FLC capable of coping with the structural nonlinearities, uncertainties caused by large dis-
placements, or material nonlinearity and damage. In short, it can easily handle the hysteresis behavior of the structure under
external loads.21,129–131 General presentation of feedback-FLC for nonlinear civil structures can be seen in Figure 14.
General architecture of an FLC as described in Figure 14 involves several steps as follows22,128,132

1. Fuzzifier (the controller input variables, measured from the structure, are fuzzified into linguistic terms); this is the
first step of this system in which the mathematical/crisp information is converted into fuzzy sets. The degree of
membership is allocated to each fuzzy input value between 0 and 1, and relationships are established, which are
utilized for fuzzy operators and or arguments aggregate rules. Each fuzzy set can utilize various Membership
Functions (MFs), for example, triangular, trapezoidal, and Gaussian.
2. Rule base (containing fuzzy); is the second part consisting of the fundamental parameters of the system, which are
related to the magnitude, and size of the fuzzy system. Fuzzy rules are made based on “if-then” paraphrases, and each
rule consists of antecedent and consequent propositions. The decision Matrix comprises these fuzzy rules.
3. Inference system or engine (generate fuzzy output for each rule); the third part defines the communication pa-
rameters related to the topology of the fuzzy system, which incorporate the introduction, result, and weight of the
fuzzy rules. After the values are fuzzified, the inference engine decides the output by applying fuzzy operations to
map fuzzy inputs to outputs. The inference engine can make decisions either utilizing Mamdani or Takagi-Sugeno-
Kang (TSK) engines.

Figure 14. Typical feedback-fuzzy logic control for civil structure.

308 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

4. Defuzzifier (providing the crisp control signal); finally, the fourth part transforms the output values generated in
fuzzy logic language into the crisp/mathematical value.

FLC applications. Zabihi-Samani et al.131 applied an FLC control algorithm combined with three other algorithms naming;
discrete wavelet transform, modified Bouc-Wen model, and geometrical nonlinearity algorithm. They named this hybrid
scheme a cuckoo-search wavelet-based fuzzy logic controller (AC-SWBFLC). Moreover, they incorporated CS to optimize
the placement and the number of MR dampers and sensors and find optimal control forces. Finally, they applied their
proposed controller on 3-storey, 4-storey, and 8-storey building numerical models incorporating MR damper under seismic
excitations and concluded their control strategy performed efficiently compared to the passive-off, passive-on, conventional
LQR, and FLC controllers. Zamani et al.133 proposed two control strategies named multi-objective modified clipped
optimal (MOMCO) which is a combination of COC with LQR and multi-objective CS algorithms, and adaptive fractional
order fuzzy PID (AFOFPID) controller, which is a combination of multi-objective CS and LQR algorithm. They tested their
efficiency on base-isolated building equipped with a magnetorheological damper, concluded that the AFOFID controller
performs better in reducing the deformation of isolation system and superstructure accelerations under seismic excitations.
Azizi et al.130 investigated the efficiency of FLC when combined with Multiverse optimization (MVO) for the control of 20-
storey building under seismic loadings, concluding its higher efficiency than the MBC LQG controller. Furthermore, they
compared this FLC-MVO controller with other optimization algorithms: dragonfly algorithm, imperialist competitive
algorithm, GA, grey wolf optimizer, and PSO. They have concluded that the MVO is more effective in reducing the
building responses than other Meta-heuristic Algorithms.
Mehrkian et al.2 proposed a conceptual Multi-Objective Fuzzy-Genetic Control for vibration control of base-isolated 8-
storey irregular building subjected to seismic excitations. This controller combines FLC optimized with Multiobjective GA
method of Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II). They compared the results with previously applied
controllers, including COC, FLC, and GA optimized FLC controllers. Their proposed controller surpassed the previously
proposed controller by effectively reducing base displacements and transmissions of vibration to the superstructure. Bathaei
et al.128 presented type-1 and type-2 FLC for vibration control of an 11-DOF building model semi-active TMD with MR
damper. Their results demonstrated the higher performance of these controllers where the FLC type-2 controller presented
better results than the type-1 controller. Faraji134 proposed an FLC for vibration mitigation of single-storey building
utilizing MR damper and concluded FLC performs better results. Djedoui et al.135 presented an FLC for the vibration
attenuation of 6-storey base-isolated building structure equipped with Semi-Active Tuned Mass Damper (SATM) and
concluded the reduction in structural response towards seismic excitations. Zhao et al.136 presented a self-tuning FLC for
seismic protection and control of a 5-storey base-isolated building equipped with piezo-electric friction damper. They
concluded that their proposed strategy improves the superstructure’s response and efficiently lessens the isolation system’s
deformations. Bathaei et al.137 presented type-1 and type-2 FLC for vibration control of steel bridge structure equipped with
MR damper and determined that type-2 FLC more proficiently reduced the maximum displacement, base shear, and
moment of the bridge comparison to the type-1 FLC. Zahrai et al.132 presented two control schemes, passive MTMD, and
active MTMD systems incorporated in cable-stayed bridge subjected to seismic excitations. In the AVC system, they
included FLC for generating the optimal control forces of ATMD. They also incorporated GA for optimizing the parameters
of ATMD. The results presented in their study significantly achieved control objectives by utilizing active MTMD systems
as compared to the passive MTMD system.
Baghaei et al.129 incorporated FLC for designing a chattering-free sliding mode controller, which was employed to lower
the seismic responses of an 8-storey building equipped with an ATCS. Their results validated the performance of the
FLC+SMC method compared to the conventional SMC to remove chattering with high accuracy, even as lessening the
dynamic responses. Kim and Kang138 utilized FLC capabilities to generate control forces of MR damper developed for
enriching the control performance of a semi-active outrigger damping system in building structures under seismic ex-
citations. Furthermore, they incorporated the multi-objective GA NSGA-II for optimization of the parameters of the FLC
controller. Their presented results of GA optimized FLC enhanced efficiency of outrigger damping Simple Adaptive
Controller(SAC) system in reducing displacement and acceleration responses of the tall buildings. Pham et al.139 presented
FLC in combination with the GA in reducing the response of ATMD equipped building subjected to earthquake excitation,
where GA is designed to optimize the parameters of ATMD. Their study concluded that the FLC-GA combined control
strategy outperformed the conventional control strategies and enhanced the structural response toward external loads.
Hosseini et al.39 incorporated FIS for online tuning the parameters of SAC implied for seismically excited 20-storey steel
building equipped with MR damper. Their study showed higher performance of the FIS-tuned SAC method with high
performance in achieving the control objective over the Simple SAC methods.
Saeed et al. 309

Ramezanila et al.140 presented a comparative study of type-1 and 2 FLC schemes for seismic vibration attenuation of 11-
storey building equipped with SATM system. They also incorporated GA to optimized fuzzy output MFs. For comparison,
they utilized two other velocity-based and displacement-based on-off ground-hook controllers. Their proposed FLC-GA
controllers outperformed these traditional controllers, where the FLC type-2 had shown excellent performance compared to
the type-1 controller. Xu et al.141 proposed an FLC optimized with NSGA-II, as a multi-objective genetic algorithm
(MOGA), exploited to perform the HVC on the wind and seismically excited 33-storey based isolated building equipped
with Triple Friction Pendulum Bearing (TFPB) and MR damper. For comparative analysis, they utilized the human-
designed FLC scheme proposed in the study of Ref. 142. According to their proposed conclusions, their proposed control
scheme can effectively attenuate both the seismic and wind-induced responses and achieve the optimal level of standards of
vibration comfort.

Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system-based controller

Fuzzy logic can simply transform the qualitative characteristics of human decision-making into a system of accurate
quantitative analysis. On the contrary, these systems lack a learning process that can behave as a guiding system during the
transformation of human decision-making into the rule-based Fuzzy Inference System (FIS). This deficiency causes high
computational time for adjusting its membership functions (MFs). Contrasting ANNs has a higher ability in the learning
process and can automatically adjust the MFs and reduce error rates in determining the fuzzy rules.143 This combination of
NNs learning and FIS adaption capabilities overcome their deficiencies with collective benefits.21
One of these hybrid frameworks, the most famous, is ANFIS which was proposed by Jang (1993).143 Adaptive Neuro-
Fuzzy Inference System implements TSK-FIS whose MFs parameters are automatically tuned by NNs.25,144 In the
ANFIS framework, the FFNNs utilizing back-propagation supervised learning is usually applied for generating FIS
parameters.145 Where FIS brings in logical reasoning through imprecise statements. These statements are formulated
based on expert’s knowledge interpreted as fuzzy rules sets. These rule sets are a collection of “if-then” statements and
MFs that relate the input and the output data.25,144 The network structure of ANFIS is composed of two parts, the premise
part and the consequence part.143 The steepest descent method is used to adjust the premise parameters, and the least
square estimation is used to adjust the consequent parameters.146 The basic structure of ANFIS consists of five layers, as
seen in Figure 15.
In this Figure 15, An ANFIS structure with two inputs and one output is given, consisting of four MFs and four rules. The
layer structure of ANFIS is described below.

1. Layer 1 (fuzzification layer): This layer utilizes MFs to find fuzzy clusters from input values. The parameters that
determine these MF forms are called premise parameters. The output of this layer is its membership value. In simple
words, this layer simply computes the accurate value for the parameter of the MFs.

Figure 15. Basic adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system structure.

310 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

2. Layer 2 (rule layer): This rule layer determines the values of firing strengths for the rules by utilizing the values of
membership calculated in the previous layer. The nodes in this layer execute fuzzy AND operations. The output of
every node is produced by multiplying all inbound signals with that node.
3. Layer 3 (normalization layer): This layer calculates the normalization values for the firing strength of each rule.
4. Layer 4 (defuzzification layer): This layer calculates the weighted values of rules inside each node. These are so-
called consequent parameters. The total numbers for each rule of consequent parameters are more than the total
number of inputs. In other words, this layer gives the result rules of the FIS.
5. Layer 5 (summation layer): This layer expresses that the actual output of ANFIS is obtained through the summation
of the overall output obtained for each rule from the previous layer.

ANFIS applications. Bozorgvar and Zahrai21 presented an ANFIS-GA controller in an SVC system equipped with MR
damper and applied it to the 3-storey building under seismic excitation. The GA is utilized to optimize both the premise and
consequent parameters of fuzzy functions in ANFIS. Their study concludes that the ANFIS-GA performed better than
neural network predictive control (NNPC), LQG, and COC controllers. Soares et al.25 developed two semi-active control
schemes: an ANFIS controller and SAC. They have tested these adaptive control schemes on a cable-stayed bridge
equipped with MR damper subjected to seismic excitations. Their study concluded with the satisfactory performance of the
proposed schemes in attenuating the seismic responses. Bozorgvar and Zahrai58,10 presented two controllers, where the first
controller is based on ANFIS optimized with GA and the second one is based on Fuzzy cooperative co-evolution (Fuzzy
CoCo) optimized with GA. These controllers were implemented on a 9-storey building equipped with MR damper under
earthquake loading. The effectiveness of these ANFIS-GA and CoCo-GA controllers were compared to other controllers
named wavelet NNs, FLC-GA, LQG, and COC algorithms. The proposed controllers performed better results in reducing
the overall structural response. Al-Fahdawi et al.147 presented a comparative study of two adaptive control methods for
mitigating the seismic responses of two coupled (3- and 5-storey shear-type) buildings with MR dampers. These two
adaptive controllers are ANFIS and the SAC, and they performed the numerical analysis considering two cases of damaged
(change in design parameters) and undamaged (no change in design parameters) structures. Their findings illustrated that
both these adaptive controllers efficiently reduced the seismic responses of coupled buildings. Al-Fahdawi and Barroso148
have recently presented a study for the seismic vibration attenuation of two three-dimensional coupled buildings (6-storey
and 8-storey) connected by the frame elements equipped with MR dampers. Their study has proposed two control al-
gorithms ANFIS and SAC for the generation of control forces for MR dampers. The behavior of structural control systems
is studied for both symmetrical and asymmetrical coupled buildings under 11 pairs of main earthquakes. A comparison is
made between ANFIS and SAC controllers, and the results show that both proposed controllers can effectively alleviate the
seismic response of the structure and enhanced their performance under seismic activities.

AFs based controller

Adaptive Filters (AFs) are digital signal processing systems characterized as a device that maps its input signal to another
output signal allowing the extraction of the required information included in the input signal.149 This extraction is
conceivable through learning from the sequence of signal samples using an online learning algorithm that updates a defined
transfer function corresponding to the error signal to get the desired output.29,150 AFs play a significant role in helping
dynamic systems adapt in the presence of system uncertainties and nonlinearities that cannot be known in advance.151 AFs
can be incorporated with the control algorithm for modeling, estimation, detection, error and noise reduction, and System
Identification (SI). Furthermore, AFs can assist in developing a numerical model of physical systems or help in dealing with
ill-defined numerical models by analyzing the actual data.29,149
The AFs operation majorly depends on the recursive (adaptive/learning) algorithm.152 AFs generally consists of two
different parts: a filter, which is designed for performing the desired processing function for estimating the uncertain
parameters and noise statistics during the filtering process, and an adaptive algorithm for tuning the filter gain based on
variations in parameters or noise statistics.153 That is presented in Figure 16.
The AFs have two inputs: one is the primary input, and the other one is the reference/desired signal. The filter analyzes
them for calculating error, and then this error is minimized iteratively based on some objective function.150 The algorithm
begins from initially prescribed conditions, representing absolute ignorance regarding the environment; then, it proceeds
with a step-by-step manner to adjust the filter’s free parameters. In this way, the filter becomes more familiar with its
environment after each step. The parameter adjustment process follows some error-correction learning and minimizes error
signals in statistical terminology.151,154 An adaptive filter is a nonlinear filter because its characteristics mainly depend on
the input signal and do not satisfy the homogeneity and additivity conditions. Alternatively, if we freeze the filter’s
Saeed et al. 311

Figure 16. Typical structure of adaptive filter.153

parameters at any given time instant, in this sense, most of AFs behave linearly.149,155 The reason for that, AFs can be
classified in terms of linear and nonlinear AFs. An AF is characterized as linear as long as parameters are held fixed, and the
input–output map follows the principle of superposition. Otherwise, it is characterized as nonlinear.156 Moreover, the
impulse response of AFs determines its memory. On these bases of filter’s memory, AFs can be further classified as linear or
nonlinear-Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters, or nonlinear-Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters as depicted in
Figure 17. A linear FIR-AFs or transversal-AFs have finite memory, including a tapped-delay-line filter (i.e,. a discrete-time
filter with finite-duration impulse response) operating as guided by the Least Mean Square (LMS) algorithm. The LMS
algorithm is “stochastic,” providing an approximation to wiener filtering formulated according to the steepest descent
method. Whereas the linear IIR-AFs have infinite memory that fades out with time, an example includes an adaptive scheme
utilizing the Recursive Least Squares (RLS) algorithm, a special case of Kalman filtering theory. RLS algorithm is “exact,”
affording a recursive solution to the linear filtering problem formulated according to the method of least squares.149,152,154
These filters utilization nonlinear computational elements, enabling them to utilize the complete information content of the
input data. Examples of nonlinear AFs include Volterra filters, kernel, and ANNs based AFs.151,154
Furthermore, AFs algorithms incorporates different learning methods as supervised and unsupervised learning algo-
rithms and others named online, block, and batch algorithms.152

1. Supervised learning AFs algorithms: In this type, the filter learns according to the external reference signal that
performs the task of an explicit supervisor or teacher, as shown in Figure 18. Moreover, computation of the
parametric variation is a function of the input and reference signals (or of the error).
2. Unsupervised learning AFs algorithms: In this learning type, no external reference is utilized, and learning is
organized as a kind of self-driven, generally termed as unsupervised or blind learning as presented in Figure 19.
Furthermore, in this type, the calculations of parametric variation are a function of input–output data without
depending on the reference signal.

AFs applications. Kim and Adeli157 combined adaptive Filtered-x Least Mean Square (FxLMS) control algorithm with LQR
and LQG for vibration control of building structures utilizing ATMDs. The result showed that their proposed hybrid control
algorithm outperformed the individually applied LQR/LQG and FxLMS algorithm because of its low vulnerability to
modeling errors, and higher stability, and higher effectiveness.

Meta-heuristic algorithms-based hybrid AIC controllers

The structural control problem comprises of various objectives that need to be optimized; thus, different optimization
methods from meta-heuristic algorithms are incorporated, helping with tuning controller parameters.139,158 The expression
“optimization” concerns examining the problems requiring minimization or maximization of a function resulting in finding
the best solution from all feasible solutions. Moreover, it is generally employed to those problems that need to attain a
certain level of optimality concerning single or multiple objectives. The reasonable solution for attaining the optimal value
of a single objective function that assembles all different objectives into one objective that why is named single objective
optimization (SO). The optimization applied for more than one objective is named the multi-objective optimization (MOO)
problem. These problems have a set of Pareto optimal solutions and include numerous conflicting objectives.159 In
structural control frameworks, these optimization problems are typically expressed in minimization.130,160 In general, meta-
312 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

Figure 17. Classification of adaptive filters.152

Figure 18. Supervised learning adaptive filter.

Figure 19. Unsupervised learning adaptive filter.

heuristics are generally easy to implement and successfully bypass areas of local minima. Specifically, they are intended to
handle complex and nonlinear problems wherein deterministic and heuristic optimization methods fail to produce the
required results.130
In the current study, the meta-heuristic optimization methods frequently opted by the adaptive intelligent control
methods are discussed and include Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) and Swarm Intelligence (SI) algorithms.

1. Evolutionary Algorithms: These algorithms are a family of non-gradient population-based, parallel search opti-
mization algorithms, established on the philosophies of natural selection and population genetics and generally
utilize four main steps, including reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection for their working. In a
broader perspective, any iterative, population-based method that applied selection and random variation to generate
new solutions can be considered EAs. Moreover, the utilization of a population-based structure permits EAs to solve
SOO problems and MOO problems by generating several elements of the Pareto optimal set in a single run.161,162
The most popular GA belongs to this category.
Saeed et al. 313

2. Swarm Intelligence Algorithms: These algorithms are a class of nature inspired population-based meta-heuristic
algorithms. The notion of SI perceives inspiration from the collaboration and synchronized behavior of participants
in a society (e.g., insects, such as ants, termites, bees, wasps, and other animals) that carry out several inherent social
activities to complete complex tasks.163,164 SI methods, including Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Cuckoo
Search (CS) algorithms, are discussed.

Genetic algorithms. Genetic Algorithms (GA) are a renowned metaheuristic population-based Evolutionary Algorithms
(EA) developed by John Holland94,165 that simulates Darwin’s theory of evolution166 based on the “survival of the fittest”
principle.167 Fundamentally, “the genetic algorithm is a highly parallel mathematical algorithm that transforms a solution
set, each with an associated fitness value, into a new population using operations patterned after the Darwinian principle of
reproduction and survival of the fittest and after naturally occurring genetic operations.”168
In GAs, the potential solution to a particular problem is encoded on a finite-length string of alphabets (genes) of specific
cardinality described as chromosomes. For the development of good solutions and carrying out natural selection, a clear
distinction between good and bad solutions is needed in the form of a measure. This measure/fitness can be an objective
function (a mathematical model) or a subjective function (based on human choice). This fitness measure also directs the
algorithm to determine the relative fitness of potential solutions that will eventually evolve to good (optimal) solutions.
After defining the measure (objective function), the standard GA optimization process begins by initializing an arbitrary
design population (encoded in a chromosomal manner) across the search space. Next, the basic GA operations of selection,
crossover, and mutation are performed on this population to produce a new population. The measure (objective function)
value of each string is a potential survival indicator, called fitness or the standard used to select individuals (chromosomes).
The higher the fitness value, the higher the chance of mating and reproduction of that string. After several generations, the
original parental population is replaced by the population of the offspring produced by selection, crossover, and mutation,
and the solution ultimately evolves to good (optimal) solutions.169 The pseudo-code best describing GA is presented in
Algorithm 1.

GA applications. Bozorgvar and Zahrai21 presented a study in which GA optimized both the premise and consequent
parameters of fuzzy functions (MFs and result functions) simultaneously in ANFIS controller. Their study concludes that
the ANFIS-GA performed better than other controllers, particularly individual ANFIS controllers. Bozorgvar and Zahrai58
utilized GA to optimize the parameters of ANFIS and Fuzzy cooperative co-evolution (Fuzzy CoCo) controller. These
controllers were implemented on a 9-storey building equipped with MR damper under earthquake loading. The effec-
tiveness of these GA optimized controllers was found better than other controllers. Mehrkian et al.2 utilized MOGA method
of NSGA-II for tuning the parameters of FLC, which was applied for vibration control of base-isolated 8-storey irregular
building subjected to seismic excitations. Their GA optimized controller surpassed the previously proposed controller by
effectively reducing base displacements and transmissions of vibration to the superstructure. Kim and Kang138 incorporated
the Multi-Objective GA (NSGA-II) to optimize the FLC controller’s parameters. This optimization enabled FLC to ef-
fectively generate optimal control forces of MR damper developed for enriching the control performance of a semi-active
outrigger damping system in building structures under seismic excitations. Chen1 utilized GA to optimize the parameters of
FFNNs based controller, such as searching for initial weight and bias. This controller was validated on single-storey shear
building structure equipped with AMD for system identification and vibration suppression. The experimental results had
shown higher efficiency of the proposed controller in tracking control and vibration suppression.
Gu et al.78 utilized NSGA-II with Dynamic Crowding Distance (DCD) concept for optimizing fuzzy control rules along
with most fitting parameters for the MFs, in RBF-NFLC for seismically excited 3-storey base-isolated shear frame building.
NSGA-II enhanced the performance of the proposed controller over other conventional control schemes. Ramezanila
et al.140 incorporated GA for optimizing the parameters of type-1 and 2 FLC schemes for seismic vibration attenuation of
11-storey building equipped with SATM system. Their GA optimized controller schemes have shown higher results than
other velocity-based and displacement-based on-off ground-hook controllers. Xu, Guo et al.141 utilized NSGA-II, as a
MOGA, for the purposed FLC scheme in finding the optimal fuzzy MFs for both wind and seismic response control. They
utilized this hybrid scheme to perform the HVC on the wind and seismically excited 33-storey based isolated building
equipped with Triple Friction Pendulum Bearing (TFPB) and MR damper. Resultantly, this optimization enhanced and
enabled the FLC to effectively reducing both the seismic and wind-induced responses of the structure.

Particle swarm optimization. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a SI-based algorithm developed by Kennedy and
Eberhart.170 The PSO mimic the swarming behavior of bird’s flock/school of fish.
314 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

The PSO theory is generally based on the movement of organisms, for example, in a bird flock or a school of fish. When
they travel to a specific destination, every individual (particle) delivers significant consideration to a specific direction to fly.
Afterward, the whole flock of individuals communicates with one another to find the individual with the best direction and
speed (velocity). Then, they begin to research all possible flying directions relating to their new location. This selection
process keeps going until the flock reaches its destination.159,171 Then, each particle recalls its previously bettervisited
solution and chooses the most suitable global solution in each generation.171 The pseudo-code best depicting the process of
PSO can be seen in Algorithm 2.

PSO applications. Braz César et al.83 incorporated PSO for tuning the parameters of a BELBIC utilized for the seismic
vibration control of 3-storey building structure equipped with MR damper. The simulation results present the high ef-
ficiency of proposed schemes in reducing the overall structural response. Notably, the PSO tuning enhanced the controller’s
efficiency by almost 20%, far better than the traditional empirically tune controller. Braz César et al.82 developed PSO
optimized BELBIC for the single-storey building structure subjected to seismic loading, and the actuating mechanism is
supported by MR damper. In addition, their proposed PSO optimized controller has shown higher performance in achieving
control objectives.

CS algorithm. Cuckoo search was introduced by Yang and Deb in 2009.172 It is another SI-based algorithm based on the
brood parasitism of some cuckoo species. Also, CS is enriched through engaging Lévy flights.173 The CS algorithm follows
three basic principles for its implementation as presented as follows:

1. Each cuckoo lays one egg at a time and leaves it in an arbitrarily selected nest of its host bird,
2. The eggs and nests are coded as solutions, and the best solution (best nests with high-quality eggs) will pass on to the
next generations,
Saeed et al. 315
316 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

Table 3. Summary of articles employing AIC for smart building and bridge structures.

Actuation
Year- Control Control Algorithm/ Controller Mechanism/
Reference System Controller combination Excitations Comparison Structure Devices

201820 AVC ANNs Seismic •LQR •Single-storey •Viscous

excitation building damper
•12-storey steel •EHD
building
201727 SVC •Controller 1 - Seismic
ANNs excitation
•Controller 2 - FLC
201924 AVC ANNs Seismic •H2 •Highway bridge EHD
excitation •LQR
201876 SVC ANNs •GA Seismic •Lyapunov •Highway bridge MR damper
excitation controller
•Non-optimized
ANNs
201877 AVC ANNs Seismic •2-storey building ATCS
excitation
201913 AVC ANNs Seismic •MLP-based •3-storey building AMD
excitation controller
20191 AVC ANNs •GA Seismic •Single-storey AMD
•Modified Newton excitation shear building
Method
201772 AVC ANNs •Wavelet function Seismic •3-storey building AMD
excitation
201978 SVC ANNs •FLC Seismic •Bang–Bang 3-storey shear MRE
•NSGA-II excitation control from building
SMC
201983 SVC BELBIC •PSO Seismic •3-storey building MR damper
excitation
201882 SVC BELBIC •PSO Seismic •Single-storey MR damper
excitation building
201193 SVC SVM •LQR Seismic •3-storey shear
excitation building
201796 AVC •Controller 1 - RD •Controller 1 - SAS Seismic •LQR •3-storey building Idealized
•Controller 2 •Controller 2 - excitation •20-storey steel
- RD MAS building
2017106 AVC •RD •SAS Seismic •20-storey steel Idealized
•Neuro dynamics excitation building
optimization
model
2018117 HVC •RD •Neuro dynamics Seismic •LQR •8-storey base- Idealized
optimization excitation isolated
model irregular steel
building
201815 HVC •RD Seismic •LQR •Base Isolated MR damper
excitation •Lyapunov highway bridge
controller
2019131 SVC •FLC •CS Seismic •Classical FLC •3-storey shear MR damper
•Discrete Wavelet excitation •LQR building
Transform •4-storey shear
(DWT) building
•8-storey shear
building

(continued)
Saeed et al. 317

Table 3. (continued)

Actuation
Year- Control Control Algorithm/ Controller Mechanism/
Reference System Controller combination Excitations Comparison Structure Devices

2018133 SVC •Controller 1 - FLC •Controller 1- Seismic Each other Base-isolated MR damper
•Controller 2 - MOCS- PID excitation building
Modified-COC •Controller 2-
MOCS- LQR
2019130 AVC •FLC •Multiverse Seismic •LQG •20-storey Idealized
optimizer excitation building
(MVO)
20192 HVC •FLC •NSGA-II Seismic •COC •8-storey base- MR dampers
excitation •FLC scheme isolated steel
developed by building
177
•FLC + GA
scheme by
178
2018128 SVC • Controller 1 Seismic each other • 11-storey SATMD
- FLC Type-1 excitation building
• Controller 2
- FLC Type-2
2018134 SVC •FLC Seismic •Single-storey MR damper
excitation building
2018135 HVC •FLC Harmonic •6-storey base- SATMD
excitation isolated
building
2017136 HVC • FLC Seismic • 5-storey base PFD
excitation isolated
building
2017137 HVC •Controller 1 Seismic •Each other •Steel bridge MR damper
-FLC Type-1 excitation
•Controller 2
-FLC Type-2
201839 SVC •FLC •SAC Seismic •SAC •20-storey steel MR damper
excitation building
2019132 AVC •FLC •GA Seismic •Cable-stayed MTMD
excitation bridge
2019129 AVC • FLC • SMC Seismic • SMC •8-storey ATCS
excitation shearbuilding
2017138 SVC •FLC •NSGA-II Seismic •SMC •High-rise MR damper
excitation building
2017139 AVC •FLC •GA Seismic •FLC •11-storey ATMD
excitation building
2019140 SVC •Controller 1 •Controller 1 - GA Seismic •Ground-hook •11-storey SATMD
FLC type-1 •Controller 2 - GA excitation controller building
•Controller 2
LC type-2
2020141 HVC •FLC •NSGA-II Wind and • FLC+GA • 33-storey base- MR damper
seismic isolated
excitation building
201921 SVC •ANFIS • GA Seismic • NNPC • 33-storey MR damper
excitation • LQG building
• COC

(continued)
318 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

Table 3. (continued)

Actuation
Year- Control Control Algorithm/ Controller Mechanism/
Reference System Controller combination Excitations Comparison Structure Devices

202025 SVC •Controller 1 • Controller 1 - GA Seismic •Cable-stay MR damper

- ANFIS •Controller 2 - GA excitation bridges
•Controller 2
- SAC
201958 SVC • Controller 1 •Controller 1 - GA Seismic •Each other •9-storey building MR damper
- ANFIS •Controller 2 - GA excitation •WNN •8-storey shear
•Controller 2 •FLC + GA building
- Fuzzy Cooperative •LQG
Coevolution •COC
(Fuzzy Coco)
2019147 SVC •Controller 1 Seismic •each other •5-storey building MR damper
- ANFIS excitation •3-storey building
•Controller 2
- SAC
2021148 SVC •Controller 1 - Seismic •each other •8-storey building MR damper
ANFIS excitation •6-storey building
•Controller 2 - SAC
2004157 AVC •AFs (Hybrid •LQR or LQG Seismic •LQG •Building ATMD
feedback-Filtered- excitation •Filtered-x LMS structure
x LMS)
AVC: active vibration control; ANN: artificial neural network; SVC: semi-active vibration control; LMS: least mean square; WNN: wavelet neural network;
FLC: fuzzy logic control; ANFIS: adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system; NNPC: neural network predictive control; NSGA: non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm-II; ATMD: active tuned mass damper; MR: magnetorheological; ATCS: active tendon control system; HVC: hybrid vibration control; SMC: sliding
mode control; RD: replicator dynamics; COC: clipped optimal control; MLP: multilayer perceptron; BELBIC: brain emotional learning based intelligent
controller; LMS: least mean square; EHD: electro-hydraulic dampers; SATMD: semi-active tuned mass damper; PFD: piezoelectric friction damper.

3. The number of available host nests is fixed, and when the cuckoo laid their eggs in those host nests, these eggs have a
probability of being discovered by the host bird. Therefore, each host bird can either eliminate that egg or abandon
his nest to build a new nest.

Furthermore, the Lévy flights help generate new solutions to explore the search space more efficiently than simple
random walks. The Lévy flight carries out infinite mean and variance. Hence, it can explore the search space more ef-
fectively than a standard Gaussian process. Likewise, CS offers widespread moves to a global search; in this manner, new
moves can cover progressively wide-ranging regions.174-176 The pseudo-code best exemplified CS algorithm is presented in
Algorithm 3.

CS applications. For FLC based controllers, Zabihi-Samani et al.131 introduced a cuckoo search wavelet-based fuzzy
logic controller (ACSWBFLC) in which CS is incorporated to optimize the placement and the number of MR dampers and
sensors and calculated the optimal control forces for each time interval. Also, a multiobjective CS algorithm was in-
corporated by Zamani et al.133 with their two proposed control strategies named multi-objective modified clipped optimal
(MOMCO) and AFOFPID controller. Their algorithm is mainly used for tuning the input–output MFs, inference rules,
scaling factors, the order of the integral and derivative operator in a FOFPID controller, and finding the optimal weighting
matrices of the MOMCO controller. In addition, they have concluded that the adaptive fractional order fuzzy PID controller
performs better in reducing the deformation of isolation system and superstructure accelerations under seismic excitations.

Summary and trend analysis of reviewed articles

Summary of cited literature
This section presents the summary table of cited literature categorized in 8 columns as presented in Table.3.
Saeed et al. 319

Trend analysis
Overall analysis. The graphical information of the complete works included in the current study is presented in Figure 20
where Figure 20(a) presents the overall application percentage of each AIC method incorporated. This study shows that
FLC and ANNs based AIC methods have quite a higher number of cited studies. On the other hand, the MR damper and
ATMD are the most preferred by the research community, as depicted in Figure 20(b) additionally, most of the studies
included in this study found to be applied on the smart building structures, and their applications on bridge structures are
comparatively less as presented in Figure 20(d), and most of these studies adopted SVC systems as compared to AVC and
HVC systems as depicted in Figure 20(e). For the comparison of these AIC methods, most of the included studies mainly
exploited MBC algorithms. Among these algorithms, the LQG, LQR, and COC methods are mainly utilized, as presented in

Figure 20. Trend analysis of entire compiled literature.

320 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

Figure 21. Trend analysis of individual adaptive intelligent control compiled literature.

Figure 20(c), and among those studies that incorporated meta-heuristic algorithms for optimizing the AIC parameters, GA is
mostly utilized algorithm.

Analysis of individual AIC algorithms. The individual analysis of cited AIC methods is presented in Figure 21. The individual
AIC methods incorporated in the different vibration control systems can be seen in Figure 21(a), in which the ANNs based
controllers are primarily utilized in AVC system, BELBIC in SVC, FLC in SVC, ANFIS in SVC, RD both in SVC and
HVC, MAS in AVC, AFs in AVC, and finally the SVM is incorporated in SVC control systems. Moreover, each AIC
methods cited in this study is also presented concerning their incorporated control devices in Figure 21(b), in which the
ANNs based controllers were largely utilized for calculating the control forces of hydraulic and ATMD control devices,
BELBIC and FLC for MR dampers, ANFIS both for MR and SATMDs, and finally, the RD and MAS controllers usually
calculated active control forces through the idealized control device. This term idealized represents unspecified or assumed
to be ideal (i.e., the dynamics of the actuators are neglected) control devices.179,180

Conclusion
The work presented in this article is the first of its kind that emphasized control algorithms than control devices. Fur-
thermore, an intense emphasis on the highlighted significance of AIC algorithms over conventional fixed linear or nonlinear
MBC algorithms is contributed. Also, a brief introduction to the AI and CI methods and their relation with these emerging
control algorithms is provided. The research in this field is still growing with emerging strategies applied on different old
and new control devices. The priority is given to the current developments in AIC Algorithms, which show its significant
improvements and increasing trend in the vibration control of smart civil structures under both the earthquake and wind
excitations. These developments mainly encompass ANNs, BELBIC, SVM, MAS, RD, Fuzzy Logic, ANFIS, AFs based
AIC control algorithms. Some of them were applied individually, and some were offered as hybrid control algorithms, with
other control algorithms or with meta-heuristic optimization algorithms. These hybrid meta-heuristic algorithms majorly
incorporated GA, PSO, and CS algorithms.
Saeed et al. 321

A appreciable number of studies have been found on AIC algorithms and cited with their basic theory and applications in
controlling smart civil structures. These AIC algorithms are an emerging alternative to the traditional MBC algorithms and
in this study justified through brief trend analysis of cited literature. That illustrates the effectiveness of AIC over the
frequently utilized LQG, LQR, and COC controllers. Among these AIC controllers, FLC and ANNs were the most
preferred among the research community, with quite a compelling number of applications on ANFIS and RD controllers
being found, whereas AFs and SVM had contributed the minimum knowledge. Furthermore, most of the studies developed
for AIC vibration control strategies were found on building structures, while the bridge structures have comparatively less.
Moreover, these studies showed an extraordinary application of these techniques for generating control forces of MR
damping devices, frequently included in semiactive vibration control systems. Likewise, most of the studies were es-
tablished for the seismic vibration attenuation of smart structures. Lastly, this article aimed to provide a remarkable
compilation of significant research in AIC algorithms designed for smart civil structures. Also, this article will impart
indepth knowledge among the researchers to initiating research in the area of AIC of smart civil structures.

Future directions
Despite the amount of work representing AIC, this field still requires a period to be fully mature in producing highly
intelligent, adaptive, and sustainable control systems for smart civil structures. Therefore, to assist in developing next-
generation smart civil structures, this study presents the following directions.

1. Artificial Neural Networks based controller can be updated utilizing different types of ANNs controller archi-
tectures181 or network topologies182,183,184 like Radial bases ANNs, Hope-field Network, Learning quantization
networks, and Kohonen self-organizing maps. Furthermore, the possibility of applying different deep learning
ANNs185,186 algorithms like Convolutional neural networks, long-short term memory networks, stacked au-
toencoders, deep Boltzmann machine, and deep belief networks may be included for enhancing AIC methods
performance.
2. The emerging intelligent techniques, like deep learning,187,188 deep reinforcement learning,189 along with data
mining techniques, may be incorporated into the control for complex structures. For example, deep neural net-
works186,190 can be applied to process massive amounts of unsupervised data in complex scenarios, neural
networks can help reduce the data dimensionality, and the optimization of ANNs training may be employed to
enhance the learning and adaptation performance of AIC controllers.
3. A large portion of the investigations was validated by simulations or for small-scale structural systems, and the
experimental examinations did to date have been seriously limited in size and scope. Further experimental
verification must be considered; more laboratory tests need to be performed utilizing larger multi-degree-of-
freedom structural models with several adaptive intelligent control algorithms. These tests should be trailed by full-
scale testing either in the lab or in the field.
4. The structural control is regularly acknowledged by a centralized control framework with a higher likelihood of
being malfunctioned during extreme events, eventually bringing the absolute collapse of the control system.
Although the decentralized framework is a decent answer for this issue, the applicability of adaptive intelligent
control must be investigated to develop smart decentralized, secure control frameworks.
5. The optimal placement of the control devices is not considered in most of the studies reviewed. Therefore, an
inclusive investigation of adaptive intelligent vibration control with optimized location of sensors and actuators
inside the structure might be incorporated for existing and new studies to ensure better energy dissipation with
highly adaptive and effective control.
6. The utilization of agents and a decentralized approach enhances the robustness of the entire VCS. So, the de-
velopment of different MAS based AIC191 essentially be included for the vibration control of civil structures. The
utilization of MAS is developing progressively, the present MAS techniques learn from operator interactions, and
efforts must be given towards diverse learning99,192,193 of MAS that do not require any interaction or feedback from
the user.
7. Time delay in the control schemes is not considered in a large portion of the cited studies, which is critical in the
stability of the closedloop system. Furthermore, actuator saturation has never been discussed, which is increasingly
significant during practical implementations. Therefore, these aspects must be considered in scheming AIC
methods.
8. From the literature review, it is clear that it is unquestionably required to combine different AIC techniques in
framing hybrid controllers to overcome their inherent inadequacies. Likewise, most of the individually utilized AIC
322 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

techniques cannot have all the necessary qualities for control and optimization. Therefore, these AIC methods can
be a counterpart of developing an improved, highly intelligent, and adaptive optimized control system. In most
cases, hybrid techniques, for example, ANNs-GA, FLC-GA, RD-MAS, or ANN-FLC, have provided better results.
So, for the sustainable AIC algorithms design having improved execution with minimized energy utilization that
can be acknowledged by other SOO and MOO algorithms like simulated annealing (SA),194 Differential Evo-
lution,195 tabu search,196 Ant Colony Optimization ,197 fire fly algorithm,198 Gravitational Search Algorithm199,
Gray Wolf Optimization,200 and other evolutionary algorithms.162,201
9. It is difficult to conclude which of these methods is appropriate for a specific problem. Still, requiring future studies
that may fill in as a manual for selection of AIC for various applications, for example, studies comparing AIC
algorithms for test problems and afterward suggesting a most appropriate method for that particular problem,
additionally to give test functions for the evaluation of the characteristics of different optimization algorithms.
10. The applications of nonlinear AFs202,203 mainly based on multilayer neural networks and recurrent neural
networks154,203 can be further studied for developing new AIC schemes for vibration control of smart structures.
11. The support vector machine application can be further studied, and their possible combinations can also be
formulated with other intelligent204-206 or with model-based linear and nonlinear controllers for vibration control of
civil structures.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This study
has been supported by the Guangzhou University.

ORCID iD
Said Elias  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8231-9765

References
1. Chen C-J. An integrating genetic algorithm and modified newton method for tracking control and vibration suppression. Artif Intell
Rev 2019; 53: 1–23.
2. Mehrkian B, Bahar A and Chaibakhsh A. Semiactive conceptual fuzzy control of magnetorheological dampers in an irregular base-
isolated benchmark building optimized by multi-objective genetic algorithm. Struct Control Health Monit 2019; 26(3): e2302.
3. Elias S, Rupakhety R and Olafsson S. Analysis of a benchmark building installed with tuned mass dampers under wind and
earthquake loads. Shock and Vibration 2019; 2019.
4. Love JS, Morava B and Smith AW. Monitoring of a tall building equipped with an efficient multiple-tuned sloshing damper system.
Pract Periodical Struct Des Construction 2020; 25(3): 05020003.
5. Taha AE. Vibration control of a tall benchmark building under wind and earthquake excitation. Pract Periodical Struct Des
Construction 2021; 26(2): 04021005.
6. Harris JL and Michel JL. Approximate fundamental period for seismic design of steel buildings assigned to high risk categories.
Pract Periodical Struct Des Construction 2019; 24(4): 04019023.
7. Ebadi Jamkhaneh M, Homaioon Ebrahimi A and Shokri Amiri M. Seismic performance of steel-braced frames with an all-steel
buckling restrained brace. Pract Periodical Struct Des Construction 2018; 23(3): 04018016.
8. Ghaedi K, Ibrahim Z, Adeli H, et al. Invited review: recent developments in vibration control of building and bridge structures.
J Vibroeng 2017; 19(5): 3564–3580.
9. Stanikzai M. H., Elias S., Matsagar VA, et al. Seismic response control of base-isolated buildings using tuned mass damper. Aust J
Struct Eng 2020; 21(1): 310–321.
10. Preumont A. Vibration control of active structures: an introduction. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, vol. 246.
11. Adeli H and Jiang X. Intelligent Infrastructure: Neural NetWorks, Wavelets, and Chaos Theory for Intelligent Transportation
Systems and Smart Structures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008.
12. Amezquita-Sanchez JP, Dominguez-Gonzalez A, Sedaghati R, et al. Vibration control on smart civil structures: a review. Mech Adv
Mater Structures 2014; 21(1): 23–38.
Saeed et al. 323

13. Chang S and Sung D. Modal-energy-based neuro-controller for seismic response reduction of a nonlinear building structure. Appl
Sci 2019; 9(20): 4443.
14. Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, et al. Structural control: past, present, and future. J Eng Mech 1997; 123(9): 897–971.
15. Gutierrez Soto M and Adeli H. Semi-active vibration control of smart isolated highway bridge structures using replicator dynamics.
Eng Structures 2019; 186: 536–552.
16. Al-Fahdawi OAS, Barroso LR and Soares RW. Semi-active adaptive control for enhancing the seismic performance of nonlinear
coupled buildings with smooth hysteretic behavior. Eng Structures 2019; 191: 536–548.
17. Xu Z-D, Guo Y-Q, Zhu J-T, et al. Intelligent Vibration Control in Civil Engineering Structures. UK: Academic Press, 2016.
18. Thenozhi S and Yu W. Advances in modeling and vibration control of building structures. Annu Rev Control 2013; 37(2): 346–364.
19. Elias S and Matsagar V. Research developments in vibration control of structures using passive tuned mass dampers. Annu Rev
Control 2017; 44: 129–156.
20. Blachowski B and Pnevmatikos N. Neural network based vibration control of seismically excited civil structures. Peri-odica
Polytechnica Civil Eng 2018; 62(3): 620–628.
21. Bozorgvar M and Zahrai SM. Semi-active seismic control of buildings using MR damper and adaptive neural-fuzzy intelligent
controller optimized with genetic algorithm. J Vibration Control 2019; 25(2): 273–285.
22. Kim H-S and Kang J-W. Semi-active fuzzy control of a wind-excited tall building using multi-objective genetic algorithm. Eng
Structures 2012; 41: 242–257.
23. Wang Q, Wang J, Huang X, et al. Semiactive nonsmooth control for building structure with deep learning. Complexity 2017;
2017(7): 1–8.
24. Rababah AY, Bani-Hani KA and Baraham WS. Adaptive neural network controller for nonlinear highway bridge benchmark.
Jordan J Civil Eng 2019; 13(2)308–324.
25. Soares RW, Barroso LR and Al-Fahdawi OAS. Response attenuation of cable-stayed bridge subjected to central us earthquakes
using neuro-fuzzy and simple adaptive control. Eng Structures 2020; 203: 109874.
26. Gaur S, Elias S, Höbbel T, et al. Tuned mass dampers in wind response control of wind turbine with soil-structure interaction. Soil
Dyn Earthquake Eng 2020; 132: 106071.
27. Lara L., Brito J, Brito J, et al. Structural control strategies based on magnetorheological dampers managed using artificial neural
networks and fuzzy logic. Revista UIS Ingenierı́as 2017; 16(2): 227–242.
28. Venanzi I. A review on adaptive methods for structural control. Open Civil Eng J 2016; 10(1)653–667.
29. Gutierrez Soto M and Adeli H. Recent advances in control algorithms for smart structures and machines. Expert Syst 2017; 34(2):
e12205.
30. Fallah AY and Taghikhany T. Robust semi-active control for uncertain structures and smart dampers. Smart Mater structures 2014;
23(9): 095040.
31. Soltanpour MR, Khooban MH and Khalghani MR. An optimal and intelligent control strategy for a class of nonlinear systems:
adaptive fuzzy sliding mode. J Vibration Control 2016; 22(1): 159–175.
32. Åström KJ and Wittenmark B. Adaptive Control. New York, Dover Publications, 2008.
33. Landau ID, Lozano R, M’Saad M, et al. “Introduction to adaptive control,”. in Adaptive Control. London: Springer, 2011, pp. 1–33.
34. Cruze D, Gladston H, Farsangi EN, et al. Seismic performance evaluation of a recently developed magnetorheological damper:
experimental investigation. Pract Periodical Struct Des Construction 2021; 26(1): 04020061.
35. Al-Fahdawi OAS, Barroso LR and Soares RW. Simple adaptive control method for mitigating the seismic responses of coupled
adjacent buildings considering parameter variations. Eng Structures 2019; 186: 369–381.
36. Slotine J-JE and Li W. Applied nonlinear control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991, pp. vol. 199, 1.
37. Khalil HK and Grizzle JW. Nonlinear Systems. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall Upper, 2002, vol. 3.
38. Hou Z-S and Wang Z. From model-based control to data-driven control: Survey, classification and perspective. Inf Sci 2013; 235:
3–35.
39. Hosseini A and Taghikhany T. Online self-tuning mechanism for direct adaptive control of tall building. Int J Adaptive Control
Signal Process 2018; 32(3): 424–446.
40. Rao ARM and Sivasubramanian K. Multi-objective optimal design of fuzzy logic controller using a self configurable swarm
intelligence algorithm. Comput structures 2008; 86(23–24): 2141–2154.
41. Sapiński B and Filuś J. Analysis of paramestric models of mr linear damper. J Theor Appl Mech 2003; 41(2): 215–240.
42. Boada MAJSL, Calvo JA, Boada BL, et al. A new non-parametric model based on neural network for a mr damper Eng Syst Des
Anal 2008; 48364: 597–602.
43. Zile M. Intelligent and adaptive control. In: Microgrid Architectures, Control and Protection Methods. Springer, 2020, pp. 423–446.
44. Benosman M. Model-based vs data-driven adaptive control: an overview. Int J Adaptive Control Signal Process 2018; 32(5):
753–776.
324 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

45. Lucas C, Shahmirzadi D and Sheikholeslami N. Introducing belbic: brain emotional learning based intelligent controller. Intell
Automation & Soft Comput 2004; 10(1): 11–21.
46. Benosman M. Learning-based Adaptive Control: An Extremum Seeking Approach–Theory and Applications. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016.
47. Spall JC and Cristion JA. Model-free control of nonlinear stochastic systems with discrete-time measurements. IEEE Trans
automatic Control 1998; 43(9): 1198–1210.
48. Morlacchi M, Resta F, Ripamonti F, et al. An adaptive non-model-based control strategy for smart structures vibration suppression.
In: Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated Systems. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2013, pp. 86882J.
49. Jain LC and De Silva CW. Intelligent Adaptive Control: Industrial Applications, vol. 6. CRC Press, 1998.
50. Mo H and Farid G. Nonlinear and adaptive intelligent control techniques for quadrotor uav - a survey. Asian J Control 2019; 21(2):
989–1008.
51. Mahmoud MS, Alyazidi NM and Abouheaf MI. Adaptive intelligent techniques for microgrid control systems: a survey. Int J Electr
Power Energ Syst 2017; 90: 292–305.
52. Wang H, Sun W and Liu PX. Adaptive intelligent control of nonaffine nonlinear time-delay systems with dynamic uncertainties.
IEEE Trans Syst Man, Cybernetics: Syst 2016; 47(7): 1474–1485.
53. Yamazaki Y, Kang G and Ochiai M. Adaptive-intelligent control by neural-net systems. Int J Intell Syst 1998; 13(6): 503–518.
54. Lake BM, Ullman TD, Tenenbaum JB, et al. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behav Brain Sci 2017; 40: e253.
55. Fu K. Learning control systems and intelligent control systems: An intersection of artifical intelligence and automatic control. IEEE
Trans Automatic Control 1971; 16(1): 70–72.
56. Astrom KJ and Wittenmark B. A survey of adaptive control applications. In: Proceedings of 1995 34th IEEE conference on decision
and control, New Orleans, LA, 1995, pp. 649–654. IEEE
57. de Silva CW. Intelligent Control: Fuzzy Logic Applications. CRC Press, 2018.
58. Bozorgvar M and Zahrai SM. Semi-active seismic control of a 9-storey benchmark building using adaptive neural-fuzzy inference
system and fuzzy cooperative coevolution. Smart Structures Syst 2019; 23(1): 1–14.
59. Zhang B-L, Han Q-L and Zhang X-M. Recent advances in vibration control of offshore platforms. Nonlinear Dyn 2017; 89(2):
755–771.
60. Antsaklis PJ. Intelligent Control. New York: Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 2001.
61. Khargonekar PP and Dahleh MA. Advancing systems and control research in the era of ml and ai. Annu Rev Control 2018; 45: 1–4.
62. Tairidis GK and Stavroulakis GE. Fuzzy and neuro-fuzzy control for smart structures In: Computational Intelligence and Opti-
mization Methods for Control Engineering. Springer, 2019, pp. 75–103.
63. Salehi H and Burgueño R. Emerging artificial intelligence methods in structural engineering. Eng structures 2018; 171: 170–189.
64. Bakshi NA. Model reference adaptive control of quadrotor uavs: A neural network perspective. In: Adaptive Robust Control
Systems. Intechopen, 2018, 135.
65. Sutton RS and Barto AG. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. CA, USA: MIT press, 2018.
66. Bezdek JC. (1994). What is computational intelligence? (No. CONF-9410335-) USDOE Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, PA
(United States); Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR (United States). Dept. of Computer Science; Naval Research Lab., Washington,
DC (United States); Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (United States); Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC (United
States).
67. Haykin S. Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall PTR, 1994.
68. McCulloch WS and Pitts W. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biophys 1943; 5(4): 115–133.
69. Falcone R, Lima C and Martinelli E. Soft computing techniques in structural and earthquake engineering: a literature review. Eng
Structures 2020; 207: 110269.
70. Ghaboussi J and Joghataie A. Active control of structures using neural networks. J Eng Mech 1995; 121(4): 555–567.
71. Chen HM, Tsai KH, Qi GZ, et al. Neural network for structure control. J Comput Civil Eng 1995; 9(2): 168–176.
72. Bigdeli Y and Kim D. Development of energy based Neuro-Wavelet algorithm to suppress structural vibration. Struct Eng Mech
2017; 62(2): 237–246.
73. Ahmed R, El Sayed M, Gadsden SA, et al. Artificial neural network training utilizing the smooth variable structure filter estimation
strategy. Neural Comput Appl 2016; 27(3): 537–548.
74. Brown M and Harris CJ. Neurofuzzy Adaptive Modelling and Control. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
75. K-Karamodin A and H-Kazemi H. Semi-active control of structures using neuro-predictive algorithm for mr dampers. Struct Control
Health Monit 2010; 17(3): 237–253.
76. He M, Zheng Z-P, He B, et al. Optimising intelligent control of a highway bridge with magnetorheological dampers. Proc Inst Civil
Eng - Structures Buildings 2020; 173(3): 210–216.
Saeed et al. 325

77. Rathi N, Singh HP and Kumar S. Modeling of a neural network based controller for vibration suppression of a building structure.
AIP Conference Proc 1975; 1975: 030018.
78. Gu X, Yu Y, Li Y, et al. Experimental study of semi-active magnetorheological elastomer base isolation system using optimal neuro
fuzzy logic control. Mech Syst Signal Process 2019; 119: 380–398.
79. Morén J and Balkenius C. A computational model of emotional learning in the amygdala. From Anim animats 2000; 6: 115–124.
80. Beheshti Z and Hashim SZM. A review of emotional learning and itŠs utilization in control engineering. Int J Adv Soft Comput Appl
2010; 2(2): 191–208.
81. Jafari M, Shahri AM and Elyas SH. Optimal tuning of brain emotional learning based intelligent controller using clonal selection
algorithm. In ICCKE 2013: 30–34.
82. Braz César M, Paulo Coelho J and Gonçalves J. Evolutionary-based bel controller applied to a magneto-rheological structural
system. In: Actuators. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2018, p. vol. 7, 29.
83. Braz César M, Coelho JP and Gonçalves J. Semi-active vibration control of a non-collocated civil structure using evolutionary-based
belbic. In Actuators. Multi-disciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2019, p. vol. 8, 43.
84. Cristianini N and Shawe-Taylor J. An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-Based Learning Methods.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
85. Boser B, Guyon I and Vapnik V. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In: Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on
computational learning theory, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992. PennsylvaniaAcm.
86. Cortes C and Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Machine Learning 1995; 20(3): 273–297.
87. Vapnik V. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag science & business media, 2013.
88. Zhou X, Zhang X and Wang B. “Online Support Vector Machine: A Survey”. In: Harmony Search Algorithm. Springer, 2016,
pp. 269–278.
89. Gordan M, Ismail Z, Ibrahim Z, et al. Data mining technology for structural control systems: concept, development, and comparison.
In: Damped Harmonic Oscillator. IntechOpen, 2019.
90. Wang L. Support vector machines: theory and applications, vol. 177. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.
91. Gordan M, Razak HA, Ismail Z, et al. Recent developments in damage identification of structures using data mining. Latin Am J Sol
Structures 2017; 14(13): 2373–2401.
92. Kecman V. Support vector machines - an introduction. In: Support Vector Machines: Theory and Applications. Springer, 2005,
pp. 1–47.
93. Li C and Liu Q. Support vector machine based semi-active control of structures: a new control strategy. The Struct Des Tall Spec
Buildings 2011; 20(6): 711–720.
94. Holland JH. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and
Artificial Intelligence. UK: MIT press, 1992.
95. Ponomarev S and Voronkov A. Multi-agent Systems and Decentralized Artificial Superintelligence, 2017.
96. Soto MG and Adeli H. Multi-agent replicator controller for sustainable vibration control of smart structures. J Vibro Eng 2017;
19(6): 4300–4322.
97. Franklin S and Graesser A. Is it an agent, or just a program?: a taxonomy for autonomous agents. In: International Workshop on
Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages. Springer, 1996, pp. 21–35.
98. Weiss G. Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA and London, England:
MIT press, 1999.
99. Bloembergen D, Tuyls K, Hennes D and Kaisers M. Evolutionary dynamics of multi-agent learning: a survey. J Artif Intelligence Res
2015; 53: 659–697.
100. Ferber J and Weiss G. Multi-agent systems: an introduction to distributed artificial intelligence. Reading, England: Addison-Wesley,
1999, vol. 1.
101. Tuyls K and Nowé A. Evolutionary game theory and multi-agent reinforcement learning. Knowledge Eng Rev 2005; 20(1): 63–90.
102. Hopgood AA. Intelligent Systems for Engineers and Scientists. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012.
103. Börgers T and Sarin R. Learning through reinforcement and replicator dynamics. J Econ Theor 1997; 77(1): 1–14.
104. Björnerstedt J and Weibull JW. “Nash equilibrium and evolution by imitation,”. IUI Working Paper Tech Rep 1994.
105. Tuyls K and Parsons S. What evolutionary game theory tells us about multiagent learning. Artif Intelligence 2007; 171(7): 406–416.
106. Gutierrez Soto M and Adeli H. Many-objective control optimization of high-rise building structures using replicator dynamics and
neural dynamics model. Struct Multidisciplinary Optimization 2017; 56(6): 1521–1537.
107. Von Neumann J and Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, 1947.
108. Nash JF. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1950; 36(1): 48–49.
109. Smith JM. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
326 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

110. Banasiak J and Miekisz J. Multiscale Problems in the Life Sciences: From Microscopic to Macroscopic. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer
Science & Business Media, 2008.
111. Roca CP, Cuesta JA and Sánchez A. Evolutionary game theory: Temporal and spatial effects beyond replicator dynamics. Phys Life
Rev 2009; 6(4): 208–249.
112. Khansari ME and Sharifian S. A modified water cycle evolutionary game theory algorithm to utilize qos for iot services in cloud-
assisted fog computing environments. The J Supercomputing 2020; 76(7): 5578–5608.
113. Taylor PD and Jonker LB. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Math Biosciences 1978; 40(1–2): 145–156.
114. Hofbauer J and Sigmund K. Evolutionary game dynamics. Bull Am Math Soc 2003; 40(4): 479–519.
115. Ghomeshi H, Gaber MM and Kovalchuk Y. Red-gene: An evolutionary game theoretic approach to adaptive data stream clas-
sification. IEEE Access 2019; 7: 173944–173954.
116. Adeli H and Park HS. Optimization of space structures by neural dynamics. Neural networks 1995; 8(5): 769–781.
117. Gutierrez Soto M and Adeli H. Vibration control of smart base-isolated irregular buildings using neural dynamic optimization model
and replicator dynamics. Eng Structures 2018; 156: 322–336.
118. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inform and control 1965; 8(3): 338–353.
119. Zadeh LA. Probability measures of fuzzy events. J Mathematical Anal Appl 1968; 23(2): 421–427.
120. Bellman RE and Zadeh LA. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management ScienceB 1970; 17(4): 141.
121. Zadeh LA. Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings. Inf Sci 1971; 3(2): 177–200.
122. Authors. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans Systems, Man,
Cybernetics 1973; 1: 28–44.
123. Assilian S and Mamdani EH. Learning control algorithms in real dynamic systems. In: M Mansour and W Schaufelberger. (eds) 4th
IFAC/IFIP International Conference on Digital Computer Applications to Process Control. Lecture Notes in Economics and
Mathematical Systems (Control Theory). Springer, 1974, pp. 13–24.
124. Holmblad LP and Østergaard J-J. Control of a cement kiln by fuzzy logic. In: Readings in Fuzzy Sets for Intelligent Systems.
Elsevier, 1993, pp. 337–347.
125. Brown CB and Yao JTP. Fuzzy sets and structural engineering. J Struct Eng 1983; 109(5): 1211–1225.
126. Faravelli L and Yao T. Use of adaptive networks in fuzzy control of civil structures. Computer-Aided Civil Infrastructure Eng 1996;
11(1): 67–76.
127. Aldawod M, Naghdy F, Samali B, et al. Active control of wind excited structures using fuzzy logic. FUZZ-IEEE’99 1999; 1: 72–77.
128. Bathaei A, Zahrai SM and Ramezani M. Semi-active seismic control of an 11-DOF building model with TMD + MR damper using
type-1 and -2 fuzzy algorithms. J Vibration Control 2018; 24(13): 2938–2953.
129. Baghaei K, Ghaffarzadeh H, Hadigheh A, et al. Chattering-free sliding mode control with a fuzzy model for structural applications.
Struct Eng 2019; 69: 307–315.
130. Azizi M, Ghasemi SAM, Ejlali RG, et al. Optimal tuning of fuzzy parameters for structural motion control using multiverse
optimizer. Struct Des Tall Spec Buildings 2019; 28(13): e1652.
131. Zabihi-Samani M and Ghanooni-Bagha M. Optimal semi-active structural control with a wavelet-based cuckoo-search fuzzy logic
controller. Iranian J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng 2019; 43(4): 619–634.
132. Zahrai SM and Froozanfar M. Performance of passive and active mtmds in seismic response of ahvaz cable-stayed bridge. Smart
Structures Syst 2019; 23(5): 449–466.
133. Zamani A-A, Tavakoli S, Etedali S, et al. Adaptive fractional order fuzzy proportional-integral-derivative control of smart base-
isolated structures equipped with magnetorheological dampers. J Intell Mater Syst Structures 2018; 29(5): 830–844.
134. Faraji K. Seismic Performance of a Semi-active Mr Damper Improved by Fuzzy Control System. PhD dissertation. Concordia
University, 2018.
135. Djedoui N, Ounis A, Mahdi A, et al. Semiactive fuzzy control of tuned mass damper to reduce base-isolated building response under
harmonic excitation. Jordan J Civil Eng 2018; 12(3)435–448.
136. Zhao D, Liu Y and Li H. Self-tuning fuzzy control for seismic protection of smart base-isolated buildings subjected to pulse-type
near-fault earthquakes. Appl Sci 2017; 7(2): 185.
137. Bathaei A, Ramezani M and Ghorbani-Tanha AK. Type-1 and type-2 fuzzy logic control algorithms for semi-active seismic
vibration control of the college urban bridge using mr dampers. Civil Eng Infrastructures J 2017; 50(2): 333–351.
138. Kim H-S and Kang J-W. Semi-active outrigger damping system for seismic protection of building structure. J Asian Architecture
Building Eng 2017; 16(1): 201–208.
139. Pham Huu T, Sone A and Miura N. Ga-optimized fuzzy state space model of multi degree freedom structure under seismic
excitation. In: ASME 2017 pressure vessels and piping conference, Waikoloa, HI, 16–20 July 2017. American Society of Me-
chanical Engineers Digital Collection.
Saeed et al. 327

140. Ramezani1a M, Bathaei A and Zahrai SM. Comparing fuzzy type-1 and-2 in semi-active control with TMD considering un-
certainties. Smart Struct Systems 2019; 23(2): 155–171.
141. Xu Y, Guo T, Yan P, et al. Effect of semiactive control on wind and seismic responses of high-rise building supported on triple
friction pendulums. J Perform Constructed Facil 2020; 34(3): 04020035.
142. Kim H-S and Roschke PN. Design of fuzzy logic controller for smart base isolation system using genetic algorithm. Eng Struct 2006;
28(1): 84–96.
143. Jang J-SR. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Transactions Systems, Man, andCybernetics 1993; 23(3):
665–685.
144. Sugeno M. Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Control. New York: Elsevier Science Inc., 1985.
145. Jang JSR, Sun CT and Mizutani E. Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing-a computational approach to learning and machine intelligence.
IEEE Trans Automatic Control 1997; 42(10): 1482–1484.
146. Senthil Kumar P, Sivakumar K, Kanagarajan R, et al. Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system control of active suspension system
with actuator dynamics. J Vibro Eng 2018; 20(1): 541–549.
147. Al-Fahdawi OA, Barroso LR and Soares RW. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy and simple adaptive control methods for alleviating the seismic
responses of coupled buildings with semiactive devices: comparative study. Soft Comput Civil Eng 2019; 3(3): 1–20.
148. Al-Fahdawi OAS and Barroso LR. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy and simple adaptive control methods for full three-dimensional coupled
buildings subjected to bi-directional seismic excitations. Eng Structures 2021; 232: 111798.
149. Diniz PS. Adaptive Filtering. USA: Springer, 1997.
150. Afshari HH, Gadsden SA and Habibi S. Gaussian filters for parameter and state estimation: a general review of theory and recent
trends. Signal Process 2017; 135: 218–238.
151. Tan L and Jiang J. Digital Signal Processing: Fundamentals and Applications. UK: Academic Press, 2018.
152. Uncini A. Fundamentals of Adaptive Signal Processing. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
153. Seng KP, Man Z and Wu HR. Lyapunov-theory-based radial basis function networks for adaptive filtering. IEEE Trans on Circuits
Syst Fundam Theor Appl 2002; 49(8): 1215–1220.
154. Haykin S. Recurrent neural networks for adaptive filtering. In: Control and Dynamic Systems, 68. Elsevier, 1995, pp. 89–119.
155. Anand V, Shah S and Kumar S. Intelligent adaptive filtering for noise cancellation. Int J Adv Res Electr Electronics Instrumentation
Eng 2013; 2(5): 2029–2039.
156. Haykin SS. Adaptive Filter Theory. India: Pearson Education India, 2005.
157. Kim H and Adeli H. Hybrid feedback-least mean square algorithm for structural control. J Struct Eng 2004; 130(1): 120–127.
158. Li C, Chang K, Cao L, et al. Performance of a nonlinear hybrid base isolation system under the ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 2021; 143: 106589.
159. Hemeida AM, Hassan SA, Mohamed A-AA, et al. Nature-inspired algorithms for feed-forward neural network classifiers: a survey
of one decade of research. Ain Shams Eng J 2020; 11(3): 659-675.
160. Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM, Kayabekir AE, et al. Optimization in civil engineering and metaheuristic algorithms: a review of state-of-the-
art developments. In: Computational Intelligence, Optimization and Inverse Problems with Applications in Engineering. Springer,
2019, pp. 111–137.
161. Fleming PJ and Purshouse RC. Evolutionary algorithms in control systems engineering: a survey. In: Evolutionary algorithms in
control systems engineering: a survey, 10, 2002, pp. 1223–1241.
162. Chiong R, Weise T and Michalewicz Z. Variants of evo-lutionary algorithms for real-world applications. Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag, 2012.
163. Blum C and Li X. “Swarm Intelligence in Optimization,” in Swarm Intelligence. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2008, pp. 43–85.
164. Vasant P. Handbook of Research on Modern Optimization Algorithms and Applications in Engineering And Economics. Hershey,
PA: IGI Global, 2016.
165. Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Annarbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975, vol. 1.
166. Darwin C. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London, UK: Murray, 1859.
167. Mendel G. “Versuche über plflanzenhybriden. verhandlungen des naturforschenden vereines in brünn, bd. iv für das jahr 1865,”
Abhandlungen, 1866, pp. 3–47.
168. Koza JR and Koza JR. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT press, 1992,
vol. 1.
169. Burke EK, Burke EK, Kendall G, et al. Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimization and Decision Support
Techniques. USA: Springer, 2014.
170. Kennedy J and Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of ICNN’95-International Conference on Neural Networks
1995; 4: 1942–1948.
328 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 41(1)

171. Aldwaik M and Adeli H. Advances in optimization of highrise building structures. Struct Multidisciplinary Optimization 2014; 50:
899–919.
172. Yang X-S and Deb S. “Cuckoo search via lévy flights,”. In: 2009 World congress on nature & biologically inspired computing
(NaBIC), Coimbatore, India, 9–11 December 2009, pp. 210–214. IEEE.
173. Pavlyukevich I. Lévy flights, non-local search and simulated annealing. J Comput Phys 2007; 226(2): 1830–1844.
174. Rajabioun R. Cuckoo optimization algorithm. Appl soft Comput 2011; 11(8): 5508–5518.
175. Yang X-S and Deb S. Cuckoo search: recent advances and applications. Neural Comput Appl 2014; 24(1): 169–174.
176. Authors. Multiobjective cuckoo search for design optimization. Comput Operations Res 2013; 40(6): 1616–1624.
177. Jung H-J, Choi K-M, Spencer BF Jr, et al. “Application of some semi-active control algorithms to a smart base-isolated building
employing mr dampers”. Struct Control Health Monit 2006; 13(2–3): 693–704.
178. Kim H-S and Roschke PN. Ga-fuzzy control of smart base isolated benchmark building using supervisory control technique. Adv
Eng Softw 2007; 38(7): 453–465.
179. Ohtori Y, Christenson RE, Spencer BF Jr, et al. Benchmark control problems for seismically excited nonlinear buildings. J Eng Mech
2004; 130(4): 366–385.
180. Narasimhan S, Nagarajaiah S, Johnson EA, et al. “Smart base-isolated benchmark building. Part I: problem definition”. Structural
Control and Health Monitoring. The Official Journal of the International Association for Structural Control and Monitoring and of
the European Association for the Control of Structures 2006; 13(2–3): 573–588.
181. Hunt KJ, Sbarbaro D, Żbikowski R, et al. Neural networks for control systems-A survey. Automatica 1992; 28(6): 1083–1112.
182. Wilamowski B. Neural network architectures and learning algorithms. IEEE Ind Electronics Mag 2009; 3(4): 56–63.
183. Nelson MM and Illingworth WT. A Practical Guide to Neural Nets, 1991.
184. Hunter D., Yu H., Pukish MS III, et al. Selection of Proper neural network sizes and architectures-a comparative study. IEEE Trans
Ind Inform 2012; 8(2): 228–240.
185. Schmidhuber J. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural networks 2015; 61: 85–117.
186. Nielsen MA. Neural Networks and Deep Learning. San Francisco, CA, USA: Determination press, 2015, vol. 2018.
187. LeCun Y, Bengio Y and Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature 2015; 521(7553): 436–444.
188. Minar MR and Naher J. Recent Advances in Deep Learning: An Overview, 2018.
189. Arulkumaran K, Deisenroth MP, Brundage M, et al. Deep reinforcement learning: a brief survey. IEEE Signal Process. Mag 2017;
34(6): 26–38.
190. Aggarwal CC. Neural Networks and Deep Learning, 10. Springer, 2018, pp. vol. 10, 978–973.
191. Zeng-Guang Hou Z-G, Long Cheng L and Min Tan M. Decentralized robust adaptive control for the multiagent system consensus
problem using neural networks. IEEE Trans Syst Man, Cybernetics, B 2009; 39(3): 636–647.
192. Busoniu L, Babuska R, De Schutter B, et al. A comprehensive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans Syst Man,
Cybernetics, C 2008; 38(2): 156–172.
193. Buşoniu L, Babuška R and De Schutter B. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: an overview. In Innovations in Multiagent Systems
and Applications-1. Springer, 2010, pp. 183–221.
194. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD and Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983; 220(4598): 671–680.
195. Price KV. Differential evolution. In Handbook of Optimization. Springer, 2013, pp. 187–214.
196. Glover F. and Laguna M. Tabu search. In Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization. Springer, 1998, pp. 2093–2229.
197. Dorigo M, Colorni A and Maniezzo V. Distributed Optimization by Ant Colonies. In: Proceedings of the European conference on
artificial life, ECAL’91, Paris, 1991, pp. 134–142.
198. Yang X-S. Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. In International Symposium on Stochastic Algorithms. Springer, 2009,
pp. 169–178.
199. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H and Saryazdi S. Gsa: a gravitational search algorithm. Information Sciences 2009; 179(13):
2232–2248.
200. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM and Lewis A. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 2014; 69: 46–61.
201. Dracopoulos DC. Evolutionary Learning Algorithms for Neural Adaptive Control. London: Springer, 2013.
202. Widrow B, Plett G, Ferreira E, et al. Adaptive inverse control based on nonlinear adaptive filtering. In: IFAC Proceedings Volumes
AARTC' 98, Cancun, Mexico, 1998, 31(4) pp. 211–216. Citeseer.
203. Nerrand O, Roussel-Ragot P, Personnaz L, et al. Neural networks and nonlinear adaptive filtering: unifying concepts and new
algorithms. Neural Comput 1993; 5(2): 165–199.
204. Deb AK, Jayadeva M and Chandra MS. SVM-based tree-type neural networks as a critic in adaptive critic designs for control. IEEE
Trans Neural Networks 2007; 18(4): 1016–1030.
Saeed et al. 329

205. Yuan X-F and Wang Y-N. On fuzzy support vector machine controller. Control Decis 2005; 20(5): 537.
206. Cheng Q-M and Wang Y-H. The fuzzy support vector network controller based on least square algorithms and its application.
Zhongguo Dianji Gongcheng Xuebao(Proceedings Chin Soc Electr Engineering) 2007; 27(8): 76–80.