Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
December, 2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11803-009-9126-0
Abstract: One of the founders of structural control theory and its application in civil engineering, Professor Emeritus Tsu
T. Soong, envisioned the development of the integral design of structures protected by active control devices. Most of his
disciples and colleagues continuously attempted to develop procedures to achieve such integral control. In his recent papers
published jointly with some of the authors of this paper, Professor Soong developed design procedures for the entire structure
using a design redesign procedure applied to elastic systems. Such a procedure was developed as an extension of other
work by his disciples. This paper summarizes some recent techniques that use traditional active control algorithms to derive
the most suitable (optimal, stable) control force, which could then be implemented with a combination of active, passive
and semi-active devices through a simple match or more sophisticated optimal procedures. Alternative design can address
the behavior of structures using Liapunov stability criteria. This paper shows a unified procedure which can be applied to
both elastic and inelastic structures. Although the implementation does not always preserve the optimal criteria, it is shown
that the solutions are effective and practical for design of supplemental damping, stiffness enhancement or softening, and
strengthening or weakening.
Keywords: active control; integral control; design redesign procedure; inelastic structures;
1 Introduction
In the last 30 years, the possibility of integrated
design of structural/control systems in which both the
structure and its vibration control system are optimized
simultaneously has been extensively researched.
Integrated design of optimal structural/control systems
has been acknowledged as an advanced methodology for
space structures, but not many applications can be found
in civil engineering. Numerous researchers addressed
the (i) topology; (ii) shape; and (iii) size optimization
of structures using some form of control devices (see
references provided by Cimellaro et al., 2009b which
are not repeated here).
The fundamental idea of redesign was proposed by
Smith et al. (1992) and more recently, by Gluck et al.
(1996) in a form close to the one presented in this paper.
The idea of redesign is incorporated into the integrated
design of structural/control systems as a second stage of
a two stage procedure.
(1) First stage: a desired structure is chosen based
Correspondence to: A. M. Reinhorn, Dept. of Civil, Structural &
Environmental Engineering, Univ. at Buffalo- The State Univ.
of New York, 135 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
Tel: 716-645-2839
E-mail: reinhorn@buffalo.edu
viscoelastic braces
470
Mx (t ) + Cx (t ) + Kx (t ) = Ef (t ) + Hu(t )
(1)
u1 g11, x g12, x
u
2
=
un g n1, x g n 2, x
g11, x g12, x
g n1, x g n 2, x ...
(2)
where z(t) = {x(t), x(t ) }T, and the parameter matrices for
the system, A, for the control location, B, and for force
operation, H, are:
0
A=
-1
M K
z (t ) = Ac z (t ) + Df (t )
with Ac = A + BG
(4)
(5)
tf
( z T (t ) Qz (t ) + uT (t ) Ru(t )) dt
J=
tf
or
(6)
G = 1 / 2 R 1 B T P
with P solved from
AT P + PA 1 / 2 PBR 1 B T P + 2Q = 0
(7)
(8)
(9)
g1n, x x1
x2
g nn, x xn
k2
u1* k1
x1
*
x
u2 k2 k1 + k2 k3
2 +
=
kn
un*
kn kn xn
c2
c1
x1
c c + c c
x
3
2 1 2
2
cn
cn cn xu
g1n, x x1
x2 +
g nn, x xn
1
0
0
; B = -1 ; D = -1
-1
M C
M H
M E
(3)
u(t ) = Gz (t ) = [Gx Gx ] z (t ) = Gx x (t ) + Gx x (t )
Vol.8
where
1 1 1
1 1
T =
1
1
1
1
(10)
No.4
with
T
K d = T T K xT = diag (ki ) ; C d = T C xT = diag (ci )
(12)
kk = g kj , d d j (t ) dt / d k (t ) dt
0
and
ck = g kj , d d j (t ) dt / d k (t ) dt
0
(13)
471
and its solution. For any other motion, this is suboptimal (Yang et al., 1990). However, the controllers
designed using LQR were proven efficient in practical
applications for seismic protection (Reinhorn et al.,
1993). Moreover, the active control forces obtained for
each DOF considered in the design procedure can be
easily converted to equivalent passive devices using a
method described in Lavan et al. (2008) and Cimellaro
et al. (2009a).
In the second stage, the structure is redesigned in
order to achieve the same performance, but the control
force is resolved into an active part and a passive part
depending on the constant coefficients which can be
used as structure modifiers. During the redesign process,
mass, stiffness and damping are therefore modified in
order to achieve this goal. At the end of this step, the
building will maintain the same performance, but with
less amount of active control forces. If the control
force is separated u(t)=ua(t)+up(t), where ua(t) is an
active part and up(t) is a passive part, the equation of
the redesigned structure including the change of weight
(mass), stiffness and damping matrices, respectively, by
M, K and C, becomes:
( M + M ) x ( t ) + ( C + C ) x ( t ) + ( K + K ) x ( t )
(14)
= Hua ( t ) + Ef (t )
where similarly to Eq. (4) the active component of the
control force u(t) is:
ua ( t ) = Ga z ( t )
(15)
x ( t )
x ( t )
x ( t )
= HGa
[ K ; C ]
Mx ( t ) (16)
x ( t )
x ( t )
and the closed-loop system after redesign is
( M + M ) x ( t ) + ( C + C ) x ( t ) + ( K + K ) x ( t )
= HGa z ( t ) + Ef (t )
(17)
where ua(t), which is given by the Eq. (14), is
the active part of the controller in Eq. (1) and
Mx ( t ) + Cx ( t ) + Kx ( t ) is the passive part, up(t).
The objective of the redesign is to find the passive
control modifiers (M, K, C) in order to minimize
the control power needed to satisfy Eq. (14) for any
given G. Note that the closed-loop system response
before and after redesign remains unchanged; therefore,
all the designed closed-loop system properties remain
unchanged. Let Bk, Bc and Bm be the stiffness, damping
472
(18)
(19)
Gactive = HGa
and
(20)
(21)
with
Bk
Bp = 0
0
0
Bc
0
I0 = [ I
and
Gk
Gp = 0
0
0
0 ,
Bm
I
I]
L = 1
M ( HG [ K
0
Gc
0
0
0 ,
Gm
(23)
(24)
(26)
(28)
( BB
(30)
Gp + S C
C ])
Gk = diag ( , ki ,)
Gc = diag ( , ci ,)
Gm = diag ( , mi ,)
where
Vol.8
(25)
T
rp trace Z ( GP + S - C )(GP + S - C ) +
( BB
(31)
(32)
No.4
(B
P1 =
T T
p 0
(B
T
p
LH + HLT Bp ) + Z
(33)
and
r1 = vec diag ( BpT I 0T B + T RGHRXX H + HLT Bp )
rp Zvec diag ( S - C )
(34)
Start
Given Gp0 rp,
Minimize (GP , rp ) as
unconstrained function Eq. (33)
Find Gp to min. (GP , rp )
| (G q ) (G q-1 ) |< (G 0 )
No
rp = rp
Yes
Exit
Fig. 1 Algorithm for the exterior penalty function method
473
474
Vol.8
Story
level
No.
M
kN.s2/m
C
kN.s/m
(1)
(2)
9
8
Redesign
K
10 kN/m
Mopt
kN.s2/m
Copt
kN.s/m
10 kN/m
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
534.1
411.4
100.02
350.3
1352.5
18.21
494.7
1152.8
291.12
342.2
5843.8
62.79
494.7
390.9
71.52
336.0
434.9
15.68
494.7
1077.4
247.63
348.3
2284.2
56.02
494.7
487.5
75.03
361.2
289.9
16.89
494.7
877.3
170.08
370.0
596.6
39.98
494.7
1119.4
224.76
423.7
984.1
54.02
494.7
1301.4
263.02
474.1
1841.0
65.92
503.5
906.5
143.48
441.3
723.7
36.21
Kopt
3
Umax
No.
(%)
(%)
(%)
(kN)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
-34.4
228.8
-81.8
134.97
-30.8
406.9
-78.4
107.11
-32.1
11.3
-78.1
110.81
-29.6
112.0
-77.4
114.80
-27.0
-40.5
-77.5
125.26
-25.2
-32.0
-76.5
113.00
-14.4
-12.1
-76.0
113.42
-4.2
41.5
-74.9
108.17
-12.3
-20.2
-74.8
57.02
Table 3 Drift and acceleration response for the two stages of the algorithm
Story
level
No.
Drift (%)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
0.31
3.61
0.80
3.09
0.31
2.03
173.39
0.18
2.97
0.47
2.64
0.15
1.85
159.72
0.94
2.71
2.55
2.46
0.77
1.77
0.27
2.71
0.76
2.86
0.22
0.90
2.64
2.74
2.99
0.86
0.42
3.74
1.39
2.64
0.38
3.50
1.04
0.38
2.95
0.79
2.79
Ideal response
xa (m/s2)
T*1/T1=1.83#
Drift (%)
Drift (%)
Redesigned structure
Umax (kN)
(9)
(10)
(11)
0.23
1.87
134.97
0.10
1.67
107.11
153.86
0.67
1.89
110.81
1.87
163.49
0.19
1.70
114.80
1.88
165.26
0.73
1.80
125.26
0.43
2.04
151.52
0.34
1.90
113.00
2.67
0.37
2.10
127.90
0.31
1.98
113.42
0.92
2.62
0.38
1.99
97.91
0.31
1.96
108.17
1.87
2.47
0.76
1.98
66.67
0.71
1.93
57.02
xa (m/s2)
Note: #The stiffness is reduced proportionally to 30% of the initial lateral stiffness
Umax(kN)
Drift (%)
xa (m/s2)
xa (m/s2)
No.4
Ideal response
Active redesign
Story level
Story level
475
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Drift (%)
(a)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Acceleration (m/s2)
(b)
(36)
i (t ) =
xi ( t )
ni
1 i ( t ) 1i + 2i sgn ( i ( t ) xi ( t ) )
xyi
i = 1, , n
(38)
476
ui ( t ) =
*
ui max sgn ( i Gi i )
i = 1, , n
if i*Gi i i ui max
otherwise
(39)
( )
F1 = u ( t ) Rua ( t ) dt
T
a
(40)
( )
(41)
ua ( t ) = H 1 Hu ( t ) + Mx ( t ) + Cx ( t ) + Ts f s [ x ( t )]
(43)
f si ( t ) = Bi ( t ) + Di ( t ) i
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
F2 F2 *
+ w
F2 F2 *
(44)
Bi ( t ) = i ki xi ( t + ) + (1 i ) ki xi ( t )
1 ( t ) ni + sgn ( ( t ) x ( t ) )
i
i
1i
2i
i
Di ( t ) = (1 i ) f yi i ( t )
i = 1,, n
(45)
ua ( t ) = H 1 Hu ( t ) + Mx ( t ) + Cx ( t ) + Ts (1 ) D ( t )
(46)
Finally, the optimization problem can be solved by
substituting Eq.(46) in Eqs.(40) and (41). Define:
M
= 0
0
(42)
i = 1,, n
Vol.8
0
C
0
0
0
B
(47)
where
M = diag ( , mi ,)
C = diag ( , ci ,)
B = diag ( , i ,)
i = 1, , n
(48)
No.4
T
( , ) = F ( ) + trace Z L ( + S - L )( + S - L ) +
T
+ trace Z U ( S + U ) ( S + U )
(53)
(50)
( , ) = F ( ) + P ( )
(51)
T
P ( ) = trace Z L ( + S - L )( + S - L ) +
T
trace Z U ( S + U ) ( S + U )
477
(52)
Original
Redesign
C
(kN.s/m)
Fy
Mopt
(kN.s2/m)
(103kN.m)
(kN)
(kN.s2/m)
(2)
345.6
(3)
196
(4)
301.4
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
4521
197.6
768.3
5091.7
123.5
345.6
243
371.8
6321
223.2
486.0
4400.9
207.3
345.6
298
455.4
8653
261.1
745.2
5035.3
223.9
345.6
349
534.6
10692
273.3
1078.3
5905.5
226.2
345.6
386
591.8
12428
289.6
471.2
6495.6
239.7
345.6
410
627.0
13794
308.5
1159.7
6986.7
227.9
345.6
467
704.0
16192
312.6
1950.8
7986.9
218.1
345.6
490
748.0
17952
319.8
2632.1
8806.3
215.2
(1)
Copt
(kN.s/m)
Fy,opt
Umax
(kN)
(kN)
478
Vol.8
Target response
T*1/T1=1.41#
Active response
Umax=250 kN
Redesign approach
No.
Drift (%)
xa (m/s2)
Drift (%)
xa (m/s2)
Drift (%)
xa (m/s2)
Drift (%)
xa (m/s2)
(1)
8
(2)
0.36
(3)
12.28
(4)
0.45
(5)
6.67
(6)
0.43
(7)
7.37
(8)
0.20
(9)
9.86
(10)
123.5
0.65
11.69
1.06
6.76
0.80
7.12
0.41
8.58
207.3
0.81
9.62
0.97
5.63
0.75
4.99
0.65
8.04
223.9
0.71
9.44
0.83
5.91
0.56
5.31
0.70
5.85
226.2
0.61
8.21
0.61
6.10
0.50
5.94
0.62
6.03
239.7
0.71
6.77
0.71
5.83
0.49
5.58
0.81
6.38
227.9
0.58
6.68
0.58
4.63
0.48
4.43
0.68
3.90
218.1
1
0.58
4.35
0.58
3.56
0.48
3.87
#
Note: The stiffness is reduced proportionally to 50% of the initial lateral stiffness
0.67
3.76
215.2
5 Concluding remarks
An integrated design procedure for the design of
elastic and inelastic structures equipped with control
systems, either active, or passive, or a combination, was
summarized in this paper. The method follows a two stage
approach. First, an initial structure is assumed including
its topology, stiffness and strength, and a control force is
determined using a rigorous active control algorithm to
ensure its controllability and stability. Then, the control
Umax(kN)
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the guidance and
direct contributions of Professor Soong to the integral
design approach and to the inspiration and vision he
always provided.
The authors also acknowledge
the financial support of the Multidisciplinary Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER)
headquartered at the University at Buffalo, State
University of New York, which excelled in the
development of seismic protective systems for structures
and equipment.
References
Cimellaro GP, Lavan O and Reinhorn AM (2009a),
No.4
479