Smart Structures and Systems

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Establishing a stability switch criterion for effective implementation of real-time hybrid simulation

  • Maghareh, Amin (School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University) ;
  • Dyke, Shirley J. (School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University) ;
  • Prakash, Arun (School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University) ;
  • Rhoads, Jeffrey F. (School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University)
  • Received : 2014.03.09
  • Accepted : 2014.08.30
  • Published : 2014.12.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) is a promising cyber-physical technique used in the experimental evaluation of civil infrastructure systems subject to dynamic loading. In RTHS, the response of a structural system is simulated by partitioning it into physical and numerical substructures, and coupling at the interface is achieved by enforcing equilibrium and compatibility in real-time. The choice of partitioning parameters will influence the overall success of the experiment. In addition, due to the dynamics of the transfer system, communication and computation delays, the feedback force signals are dependent on the system state subject to delay. Thus, the transfer system dynamics must be accommodated by appropriate actuator controllers. In light of this, guidelines should be established to facilitate successful RTHS and clearly specify: (i) the minimum requirements of the transfer system control, (ii) the minimum required sampling frequency, and (iii) the most effective ways to stabilize an unstable simulation due to the limitations of the available transfer system. The objective of this paper is to establish a stability switch criterion due to systematic experimental errors. The RTHS stability switch criterion will provide a basis for the partitioning and design of successful RTHS.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : NSF

References

  1. Ahmadizadeh, M. (2007), Real-time seismic hybrid simulation procedures for reliable structural performance testing, University of New York at Buffalo.
  2. Beretta, E. and Kuang, Y. (2002), "Geometric stability switch criteria in delay differential systems with delay dependent parameters", SIAM J. Math. Anal. 33(5), 1144-1165. doi:10.1137/S0036141000376086.
  3. Carrion, J.E. and Spencer Jr., B.F. (2007), Model-based strategies for real-time hybrid testing, Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
  4. Castaneda, N., Gao, X. and Dyke, S.J. (2012), "A real-time hybrid testing platform for the evaluation of seismic mitigation in building structures", Proceedings of the 2012 Structures Congress Conference.
  5. Chen, C., Ricles, J.M., Karavasilis, T.L., Chae, Y. and Sause, R. (2012), "Evaluation of a real-time hybrid simulation system for performance evaluation of structures with rate dependent devices subjected to seismic loading", Eng. Struct., 35, 71-82. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.10.006.
  6. Chen, C. and Ricles, J.M. (2009), "Analysis of actuator delay compensation methods for real-time testing", Eng. Struct., 31(11), 2643-2655. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.06.012.
  7. Chen, C., Valdovinos, J. and Santiallno, H. (2013), "Reliability assessment of real-time hybrid simulation results for seismic hazard mitigation", Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2013, 2346-2357. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. doi:10.1061/9780784412848.205.
  8. Christenson, R., Lin, Y.Z., Emmons, A. and Bass, B. (2008). "Large-scale experimental verification of semiactive control through real-time hybrid simulation1", J. Struct. Eng.- ASCE 134(4), 522-534. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(522).
  9. Darby, A.P., Williams, M.S. and Blakeborough, A. (2002), "Stability and delay compensation for real-time substructure testing", J. Eng. Mech. - ASCE 128(12), 1276-1284. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:12(1276).
  10. Dihoru, L, and Bonzi, A. (2010), Performance requirements of actuation systems for shaking table and pseudo-dynamic testing, Deliverable D12.1, SERIES: Seismic Engineering Research Infrastructures for European Synergies.
  11. Dyke, S.J., Stojadinovic, B., Arduino, P., Garlock, M., Luco, N., Ramirez, J.A. and Yim, S. (2010), "2020 vision for earthquake engineering research: report on an open space technology workshop on the future of earthquake engineering", Vol. 20. http://nees.org/resources/1636.
  12. Dyke, S.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Quast, P. and Sain, M.K. (1995), "Role of control-structure interaction in protective system design", J. Eng. Mech.- ASCE, 121(2), 322-338. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121:2(322).
  13. Friedman, A.J., Zhang, J., Phillips, B., Jiang, Z., Agrawal, A., Dyke, S.J., Ricles, J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Sause, R. and Christenson, R. (2010), "Accommodating MR damper dynamics for control of large scale structural systems", Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring, Tokyo, Japan. https://nees.org/resources/674.
  14. Gao, X. (2012), "Development of a robust framework for real-time hybrid simulation: from dynamical system, motion control to experimental error verification", NEES. http://nees.org/resources/5065.
  15. Horiuchi, T., Inoue, M., Konno, T. and Yamagishi, W. (1999), "Development of a real-time hybrid experimental system using a shaking table (Proposal of Experimental Concept and Feasibility Study with Rigid Secondary System)", JSME Int., 42(2), 255-264.
  16. Horiuchi, T., Nakagawa, M. Sugano, M. and Konno, T. (1996), "Development of a real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation", Proceedings of the 11th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering.
  17. Jiang, Z. and Christenson, R. (2011), "A comparison of 200 kN magneto-rheological damper models for use in real-time hybrid simulation pre-testing", Smart Mater. Struct., 20(6), 065011. doi:10.1088/0964-1726/20/6/065011.
  18. MacDonald, N. (1989), Biological Delay Systems: Linear Stability Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Maghareh, A. and Dyke, S.J. (2013), "Stability and performance analysis of SDOF real-time hybrid simulation", https://engineering.purdue.edu/IISL/publicationtr.html.
  20. Maghareh, A., Dyke, S.J., Ou, G. and Qian, Y. (2013), "Investigation of uncertainties associated with actuation modeling error and sensor noise on real-time hybrid simulation performance", Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), 210-214. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICCNC.2013.6504082. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6504082.
  21. Maghareh, A., Dyke, S.J., Prakash, A. and Bunting. G.B. (2013), "Establishing a predictive performance indicator for real-time hybrid simulation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., (in press).
  22. Maghareh, A., Dyke, S.J., Prakash, A., Bunting, G. and Lindsay, P. (2012), "Evaluating modeling choices in the implementation of real-time hybrid simulation", Proceedings of the EMI/PMC 2012 Joint Conference of the Engineering Mechanics Institute and the 11th ASCE Joint Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability. Notre Dame, IN. https://nees.org/resources/4699.
  23. Maghareh, A., Lin, F., Dyke, S.J. and Prakash, A. (2014), "Development of new predictive stability and performance metrics for real-time hybrid simulation", NEES, doi:TBD. https://nees.org/warehouse/project/1205/.
  24. Maghareh, A., Dyke, S.J., Prakash, A., Bunting, G. and Lindsay, P. (2012), "Evaluating modeling choices in the implementation of real-time hybrid simulation", Proceedings of the 11th ASCE Joint Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability.
  25. Mosqueda, G., Stojadinovic, B. and Mahin, S. (2005), "Implementation and accuracy of continuous hybrid simulation with geographically distributed substructures", http://research.eerc.berkeley.edu/nees/Events/200604a--workshop-hybridsim/ ERCreport-Hybrid02.pdf.
  26. Mosqueda, G., Stojadinovic, B. and Mahin, S. (2007), "Real-time error monitoring for hybrid simulation. part II: structural response modification due to errors", J. Struct. Eng. - ASCE, 133(8), 1109-1117. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1109).
  27. Mosqueda, G., Stojadinovic, B. and Mahin, S.A. (2007a), "Real-time error monitoring for hybrid simulation. part I: methodology and experimental verification", J. Struct. Eng. - ASCE, 133(8), 1100-1108. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1100). http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1100).
  28. Mosqueda, G., Stojadinovic, B. and Mahin, S.A. (2007b), "Real-time error monitoring for hybrid simulation. part II: structural response modification due to errors", J. Struct. Eng.- ASCE, 133(8) 1109-1117. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1109). http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1109).
  29. Ou, G., Dyke, S.J., Wu, B., Ozdagli, A.I. and Li, B. (2013), "Robusted integrated actuator control strategy for real time hybrid simulation", Proceedings of the SERIES Concluding Workshop - Joint with US-NEES "Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructures", Ispra.
  30. Phillips, B.M. and Spencer Jr., B.F. (2013), "Model-based multiactuator control for real-time hybrid simulation", J. Eng. Mech.- ASCE, 139(2), 219-228. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000493.
  31. Schellenberg, A. and Mahin, S. (2006), "Integration of hybrid simulation within the general-purpose computational framework opensees", Proceedings of the 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference.
  32. Shao, X., Reinhorn, A.M. and Sivaselvan, M.V. (2011), "Real-time hybrid simulation using shake tables and dynamic actuators", J. Struct. Eng. - ASCE, 137(7), 748-760. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000314.
  33. Shing, P.B., Wei, Z., Jung, R.Y. and Stauffer, E. (2004), "NEES fast hybrid test system at the university of Colorado", Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (3497).
  34. Shing, P.B. and Mahin, S.A. (1984), "Pseudodynamic test method for seismic performance evaluation: theory and implementation".
  35. Shing, P.B., Nakashima, M. and Bursi, O.S. (1996), "Application of psuedodynamic test method to structural research", Earthq. Spectra, 12(1), 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585867
  36. Wagg, D.J. and Stoten, D.P. (2001), "Substructuring of dynamical systems via the adaptive minimal control synthesis algorithm", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 30(6), 865-877. doi:10.1002/eqe.44.
  37. Wallace, M.I., Sieber, J., Neild, S.A., Wagg, D. J. and Krauskopf, B. (2005), "Stability analysis of real-time dynamic substructuring using delay differential equation models", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 34(15) 1817-1832. doi:10.1002/eqe.513.
  38. Zhao, J., French, C., Shield, C. and Posbergh, T. (2003), "Considerations for the development of real-time dynamic testing using servo-hydraulic actuation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 32(11), 1773-1794. doi:10.1002/eqe.301.

Cited by

  1. Nonlinear signal-based control with an error feedback action for nonlinear substructuring control vol.386, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2016.09.023
  2. Reliability Assessment of Real-time Hybrid Simulation Under Worst-Case Scenarios Using Frequency-Domain Evaluation Indices vol.41, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-017-0172-7
  3. Hybrid test on building structures using electrodynamic fatigue test machine vol.32, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/10589759.2016.1149581
  4. Predictive stability indicator: a novel approach to configuring a real-time hybrid simulation vol.46, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2775
  5. Modified Runge-Kutta Integration Algorithm for Improved Stability and Accuracy in Real Time Hybrid Simulation vol.19, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1027018
  6. Development and Verification of Distributed Real-Time Hybrid Simulation Methods vol.31, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000654
  7. Adaptive multi-rate interface: development and experimental verification for real-time hybrid simulation vol.45, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2713
  8. Experimental implementation of predictive indicators for configuring a real-time hybrid simulation vol.101, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.07.040
  9. Stability Analysis of Real-Time Hybrid Simulation for Time-Varying Actuator Delay Using the Lyapunov-Krasovskii Functional Approach vol.145, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001550
  10. Stability Analysis of Real-Time Hybrid Simulation with Time-Varying Delay through a Delay Decomposition Approach vol.146, pp.10, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0001835
  11. Kalman Filter-Based Adaptive Delay Compensation for Benchmark Problem in Real-Time Hybrid Simulation vol.10, pp.20, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207101
  12. Approximate and exact stability analysis of 1-DOF and 2-DOF single-actuator real-time hybrid substructuring vol.147, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107115
  13. A first swing stability improvement approach in microgrids with synchronous distributed generators vol.31, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.12816
  14. Advancing real-time hybrid simulation for coupled nonlinear soil-isolator-structure system vol.28, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2021.28.1.105
  15. Interpretation of Real-Time Hybrid Simulation as Neutral and Retarded Delay Systems for Its Stability Analysis vol.147, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0001982
  16. Stability Prediction for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation with Different Physical and Numerical Substructure Discretization Using Asynchronous Multirate Simulation vol.147, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0001992
  17. Improving model-based compensation method for real-time hybrid simulation considering error of identified model vol.27, pp.21, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546320961622