simple control algorithms for mr dampers and smart passive control system
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
1/121
MR
Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and
Smart Passive Control System
( Sang-Won Cho)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
2 0 0 4
Doctoral Thesis
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
2/121
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
3/121
SimpleControlAlgorithmsforMRDampersandSmartPassiveControlSystem
Advisor : ProfessorIn-Won Lee
by
Sang-Won Cho
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.
Daejeon, Korea
2003. 11. 27
Approved by
ProfessorIn-Won Lee
Major Advisor
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
4/121
MR
.
2003 11 27
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
5/121
i
DCE
995353
. Sang-Won Cho. Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers
and Smart Passive Control System. MR
. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. 2004. 101p. Advisor: Professor In-Won Lee.
Text in English.
ABSTRACT
This dissertation proposes simple and efficient control algorithms for seismically
excited structures using MR dampers and a smart passive system based on MR dampers.
Magnetorheological (MR) dampers are one of the most promising control devices for
civil engineering applications to earthquake hazard mitigation, because they have many
advantages such as small power requirement, reliability, and low price to manufacture.
A number of control algorithms have been adopted for semiactive systems
including the MR damper. In spite of good features of previous studies, some algorithms
have drawbacks such as poor performances or difficulties in designing the weighting
matrix of the controller. Thus, the control algorithm is required, which is simple to use
and efficient to give comparable or better performance over the previous algorithms.
As a simple and efficient control algorithm, a modal control scheme and a
maximum energy dissipation algorithm (MEDA) are implemented for the MR damper-
based control system.
Modal control reshapes the motion of a structure by merely controlling a few
selected vibration modes. Hence, a modal control scheme is more convenient to design
the controller than other control algorithms. Although modal control has been
investigated for the several decades, its potential for a semiactive control, especially for
the MR damper, has not been exploited. Thus, in order to study the effectiveness for the
MR damper system, a modal control scheme is implemented to seismically excited
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
6/121
ii
structures. A Kalman filter is included in a control scheme to estimate modal states from
physical measurements by sensors. Three cases of the structural measurement are
considered as a feedback to verify the effect of each measurement; displacement,
velocity, and acceleration, respectively. Moreover, a low-pass filter is applied to eliminate
the spillover problem. In a numerical example, a six-story building model with the MR
dampers on the bottom two floors is used to verify the proposed modal control scheme.The El Centro earthquake is used to excite the system, and the reduction in the drifts,
accelerations, and relative displacements throughout the structure is examined. The
performance of the proposed modal control scheme is compared with that of other control
algorithms that were previously suggested.
The maximum energy dissipation algorithm represents one control class which
employs the Lyapunovs direct approach to stability analysis in the design of a feedback
controller. However, their potential for civil engineering applications using semiactive
control, especially with MR dampers, has not yet been fully exploited. This paperinvestigates the performance and the robustness of the maximum energy dissipation
algorithm for civil engineering structures using MR dampers. The numerical examples
contain the cable-stayed bridge and the nonlinear building. Various earthquakes are used
to excite the systems. Through the series of numerical simulations, the performance is
compared with that of other control algorithms that are previously proposed: The
reduction in the drifts, accelerations, and relative displacements throughout the structure
are examined according to the evaluation criteria.
Meanwhile, to reduce the responses of the controlled structure by using MR
dampers, a control system including a power supply, controller, and sensors is needed.
However, it is not easy to apply the MR damper-based control system to large-scale civil
structures, such as cable-stayed bridges and high-rise buildings, because of the difficulties
of building up and maintaining the control system.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
7/121
iii
Thus, this dissertation proposes a smart passive damper system. The smart
passive damper system is based on MR dampers. Of course, the MR damper is a
semiactive device that needs an external power source to change the damping
characteristics of the MR fluids. However, the smart passive damper system based on MR
dampers is not using an external power source, but self-powered by an electromagnetic
induction (EMI) system that is attached to the MR damper. The EMI system consists of apermanent magnet and a coil. According to the Faradays law of induction, the EMI
system changes the kinetic energy of the MR damper to the electric energy and then the
electric energy is used to vary the damping characteristics of the MR damper. Therefore,
it is easy to build up and maintain the proposed smart damper system that consists of the
MR damper and the EMI system, because it does not require any control system such as a
power supply, controller, and sensors. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed EMI
system, the performances are compared with those of the semiactive MR damper.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
8/121
iv
TABLEOF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... i
TABLEOF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... iv
LISTOF TABLES ............................................................................................................... vi
LISTOF FIGURES.............................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1
1.1 Background......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Magnetorheological (MR) Dampers......................................................... 4
1.2.2 Control Algorithms for MR Dampers....................................................... 7
1.3 MR Fluids and Dampers ................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 MR Fluids ............................................................................................... 10
1.3.2 MR Fluids Dampers................................................................................ 12
1.4 Objectives and Scopes ...................................................................................... 15
1.5 Organization ..................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER2 MODAL CONTROL SCHEME................................................................18
2.1 Modal Control Scheme for MR Dampers......................................................... 18
2.1.1 Modal Control......................................................................................... 18
2.1.2 Design of Optimal Controller ................................................................. 21
2.1.3 Modal State Estimation .......................................................................... 23
2.1.4 Elimination of Observable Spillover ...................................................... 27
2.2 Numerical Example .......................................................................................... 29
2.3 Summary of Results.......................................................................................... 43
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
9/121
v
CHAPTER3 MAXIMUM ENERGY DISSIPATION ALGORITHM ............................44
3.1 Control System ................................................................................................. 44
3.1.1 Control Devices ...................................................................................... 45
3.1.2 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm for MR Damper.................... 47
3.2 Benchmark Problems........................................................................................ 49
3.2.1 Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge ........................................................... 493.2.2 Nonlinear Benchmark Building.............................................................. 55
3.3 Numerical Examples......................................................................................... 59
3.3.1 Control Performance............................................................................... 59
3.3.2 Controller Robustness............................................................................. 64
3.4 Summary of Results.......................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER4 SMART PASSIVE CONTROL SYSTEM.................................................68
4.1 Electromagnetic Induction System for MR Damper ........................................ 68
4.2 Analytical Model and Design ........................................................................... 73
4.2.1 Analytical Model .................................................................................... 73
4.2.2 Design of the EMI System...................................................................... 76
4.3 Numerical Simulation Results .......................................................................... 80
4.4 Summary of Results.......................................................................................... 87
CHAPTER5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................88
SUMMARY (IN KOREAN) 90
REFERENCES 93
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CURRICULUM VITAE
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
10/121
vi
LISTOF TABLES
1.1 Properties of MR and ER fluids.............................................................................. 11
2.1 Normalized controlled maximum responses
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake................................................................... 34
2.2 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the acceleration feedback
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake................................................................... 40
2.3 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the displacement feedback
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake................................................................... 41
2.4 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the velocity feedback
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake................................................................... 42
3.1 Parameters for MR damper model.......................................................................... 46
3.2 Comparisons of the evaluation criteria for benchmark cable-stayed bridge........... 61
3.3 Comparisons of the evaluation criteria for the nonlinear benchmark building....... 62
3.4 Evaluation criteria of modified location and number of MR dampers ................... 63
3.5 Evaluation criteria for7% stiffness perturbed system
under El Centro earthquake .................................................................................... 65
3.6 Evaluation criteria for30% stiffness perturbed system ........................................ 66
4.1 Normalized peak absolute accelerations and inter-story drifts ............................... 85
4.2 Percent increment compared to the better clipped-optimal controller case ............ 86
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
11/121
vii
LISTOF FIGURES
1.1 Behavior of MR fluid in magnetic field.................................................................. 10
1.2 Schematic of the prototype 20-ton large-scale MR fluid damper........................... 13
1.3 Small-scale SD-1000 MR fluid damper.................................................................. 14
1.4 Bypass type 20-ton MR fluid.................................................................................. 14
2.1 Schematic diagram of the MR damper implementation ......................................... 29
2.2 Frequency responses of the first floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake.................................................................... 32
2.3 Frequency responses of the sixth floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake.................................................................... 33
2.4 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the acceleration feedback .................................................................................. 36
2.5 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the displacement feedback ................................................................................ 37
2.6 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the velocity feedback......................................................................................... 38
3.1 Mechanical model of the MR damper .................................................................... 45
3.2 Drawing of the Cape Girardeau Bridge .................................................................. 51
3.3 Cross section of bridge deck................................................................................... 51
3.4 Finite element model ............................................................................................. 54
3.5 Finite element model of the towers......................................................................... 54
3.6 Schematic of the 20-story benchmark building ...................................................... 56
4.1 Schematic of a MR damper-based control system.................................................. 68
4.2 Schematic of a MR damper with the EMI system .................................................. 70
4.3 Schematic of a MR damper with the EMI system implementation ........................ 70
4.4 Schematic of a MR damper implementation .......................................................... 73
4.5 Simple mechanical model of the normal MR damper ............................................ 75
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
12/121
viii
4.6 Design of EMI system with Sa under three earthquakes......................................... 77
4.7 Design of EMI system with Si under three earthquakes ......................................... 77
4.8 Design of theclipped-optimal controller with Sa under three earthquakes............. 794.9 Design of the clipped-optimal controller with Si under three earthquakes............. 79
4.10 Velocities and induced voltages under various earthquakes................................... 81
4.11 Normalized peak acceleration and inter-story drift ................................................ 83
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
13/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
CHAPTER1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The tragic consequences of the recent earthquakes have underscored, in terms of
both human and economic factors, the tremendous importance of the way in which
buildings and bridges respond to earthquakes. In recent years, considerable attention has
been paid to research and development of structural control systems. Supplemental
passive, active, hybrid, and semiactive damping strategies offer attractive means to
protect structures against natural hazards. Passive supplemental damping strategies,
including base isolation systems, viscoelastic dampers, and tuned mass dampers, are
widely accepted by the engineering community as a means for mitigating the effects of
dynamic loading on structures. However, these passive-device methods are unable to
adapt to structural changes, varying usage patterns, and loading conditions.
For more than two decades, researchers have investigated the possibility of using
active, hybrid, and semiactive control methods to improve upon passive approaches to
reduce structural responses (Soong 1990; Soong and Reinhorn 1993; Spencer and Sain
1997; Housner et al. 1997; Kobori et al. 1998, 2003; Soong and Spencer 2002; Spencer
2002). The first full-scale application of active control to a building was accomplished by
the Kajima Corporation on 1989 (Kobori et al. 1991). The Kyobashi Center building is an
11-story (33.1m) building in Tokyo, having a total floor area of 423m2. A control system
was installed, consisting of two AMDs the primary AMD is used for transverse motion
and has a mass of 4 t, while the secondary AMD has a mass of 1 t and is employed to
reduce torsional motion. The role of the active system is to reduce building vibration
under strong winds and moderate earthquake excitations and consequently to increase
comfort of occupants of the building.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
14/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 2
Hybrid-control strategies have been investigated by many researchers to exploit
their potential to increase the overall reliability and efficiency of the controlled structure
(Housner et al. 1994; Kareem et al. 1999; Nishitani and Inoue 2001; Yang and Dyke
2003; Faravelli and Spencer 2003). A hybrid control system is typically defined as one
that employs a combination of passive and active devices. Because multiple control
devices are operation, hybrid control systems can alleviate some of the restrictions andlimitations that exist when each system is acting alone, Thus, higher levels of
performance may be achievable. Additionally, the resulting hybrid control system can be
more reliable than a fully active system, although it is also often somewhat more
complicated. To date, there have been over 40 buildings and about 10 bridges (during
erection) that have employed feedback control strategies in full-scale implementations
(Spencer and Nagarajaiah 2003).
Although nearly a decade has passed since construction of the Kobashi Seiwa
building, a number of serious challenges remain to be resolved before feedback controltechnology can gain general acceptance by the engineering and construction professions
at large. These challenges include: (i) reduction of capital cost and maintenance, (ii)
eliminating reliance on external power, (iii) increasing system reliability and robustness,
and (iv) gaining acceptance of nontraditional technology by the profession. Semiactive
control strategies appear to be particularly promising in addressing a number of these
challenges (Spencer 1996).
Control strategies based on semiactive control devices appear to combine the best
features of both passive and active control systems and to offer the greatest likelihood for
near term acceptance of control technology as a viable means of protecting civil
engineering structural systems against earthquake and wind loading. The attention
received in recent years can be attributed to the fact that semiactive control devices offer
the adaptability of active control devices without requiring the associated large power
sources. In fact, many can operate on battery power, which is critical during seismic
events when the main power source to the structure may fail. According to presently
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
15/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
accepted definitions, a semiactive control device is one that can not inject mechanical
energy into the controlled structural system (i.e., including the structure and the control
device), but has properties which can be controlled to optimally reduce the responses of
the system. Therefore, in contrast to active control devices, semiactive control devices do
not have the potential to destabilize (in the bounded input/bounded output sense) the
structural system. Previous studies indicate that appropriately implemented semiactivesystems perform significantly better than passive devices and have the potential to
achieve the majority of the performance of fully active systems, thus allowing for the
possibility of effective response reduction during a wide array of dynamic loading
conditions (Spencer and Sain 1997; Symans and Constantinou 1999; Spencer 2002).
Most of the semiactive control devices have employed some electrically controlled
valves or mechanisms. Such mechanical components can be problematic in terms of
reliability and maintenance. Another class of semiactive devices uses controllable fluids.
The advantage of controllable fluid devices is that they contain no moving parts otherthan the piston, which makes them very reliable.
Two fluids that are viable contenders for development of controllable dampers are:
(1) electrorheological (ER) fluids; and (2) magnetorheological (MR) fluids. However,
recently developed MR fluids appear to be an attractive alternative to ER fluids for use in
controllable fluid dampers (Carlson 1994; Carlson and Weiss 1994; Carlson et al. 1995).
MR fluids are magnetic analogs of electrorheological fluids and typically consist of
micro-sized, magnetically polarizable particles dispersed in a carrier medium such as
mineral or silicone oil. When a magnetic field is applied to the fluid, particle chains form,
and the fluid becomes a semi-solid and exhibits viscoplastic behavior similar to that of an
ER fluid. Carlson and Weiss (1994) indicated that the achievable yield stress of an MR
fluid is an order of magnitude greater than its ER counterpart. Moreover, MR fluids are
not sensitive to impurities such as are commonly encountered during manufacturing and
usage. Therefore MR dampers have, over the last several years, been recognized having a
number of attractive characteristics for use in structural vibration control applications.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
16/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 4
1.2 Literature Review
1.2.1 Magnetorheological (MR) Dampers
Controllable fluid dampers generally utilize either electrorheological (ER) fluids or
magnetorheological (MR) fluids. These fluids are unique in their ability to reversibly
change from free-flowing, linear viscous fluids to semi-solids with a controllable-yield
strength in only a few milliseconds when exposed to an electric (ER fluids) or magnetic
field (MR fluids). These fluids can be modeled as Newtonian fluids in the absence of a
magnetic field. When a field is applied, the visco-plasticity model (Phillips 1969) may be
used to describe the fluid behavior.
Although the discovery of ER and MR fluids dates back to the 1940s, only recently
have they been applied to civil engineering applications. To date, a number of ER fluid
dampers have been investigated (Burton et al. 1996; Gavin et al. 1996a, 1996b; Kamath
et al. 1996; Makris et al. 1996) for structural vibration control applications in civil
engineering. Gavin et al. (1996a, 1996b) designed and tested an ER damper that consisted
of a rectangular container and a moving plunger comprised of nine rigidly connected flat
plates. Makris et al. (1996) developed an ER damper consisting of an outer cylinder and a
double-20 ended piston rod that pushes the ER fluids through an annular duct.
Despite these advances in the development of ER fluid dampers, the development
of commercially feasible damping devices using these fluids is limited by several factors.
First, the fluids have a very limited yield stress; even the best ER fluids currently
available may only achieve stresses of 3.0 to 3.5 KPa. Also, common impurities that
might be introduced during manufacturing significantly reduce the capacity of the fluids.
Additionally, safety, availability and the cost of high-voltage (e.g. ~4000 volts) power
supplies required to control the ER fluids are further considerations. MR fluids, on the
other hand, have a 50 to 100 KPa maximum yield stress, are not affected by most
impurities, and are not sensitive to temperature. Moreover, MR fluids can be controlled
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
17/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 5
with a low-power (e.g., less than 50 watts), low-voltage (e.g., ~12-24 volts), current-
driven power supply with ~1-2 amps output. Therefore, MR fluids are particularly
promising for natural hazard mitigation and cost sensitive applications (Carlson and
Spencer 1996a, 1996b; Spencer and Sain 1997).
Different techniques have been developed to model the behavior of the controllable
fluid dampers. Basically, two types of models have been investigated: non-parametric andparametric models. Ehrgott and Masri (1992) presented a nonparametric approach to
model a small ER damper that operates under shear mode by assuming that the damper
force could be written in terms of Chebychev polynomials. Gavin et al. (1996b) extended
this approach to model the ER damper. Chang and Roschke (1998) developed a neural
network model to emulate the dynamic behavior of MR dampers. However, the non-
parametric damper models are quite complicated. Stanway et al. (1987) proposed a
simple mechanical model, the Bingham model, in which a Coulomb friction element is
placed in parallel with a dashpot. Gamoto and Filisko (1991) extended the Binghammodel and developed a visoelastic-plastic model. The model consists of a Bingham
model in series with a standard model of a linear solid model. Kamath and Wereley
(1997), Makris et al. (1996), and Wereley et al. (1998) developed parametric models to
characterize ER and MR dampers. Dyke et al. (1996a,b), Spencer et al. (1997a) and Yang
et al. (2001a,b) presented the Bouc-Wen model whose versatility was utilized to describe
a wide variety of hysteretic behavior.
A number of experimental studies have been conducted to evaluate the usefulness
of MR dampers for vibration reduction under wind and earthquakes. Dyke et al. (1996a,b,
1998), Jansen and Dyke (2000), Spencer et al. (1996b), and Yi and Dyke (2000) used MR
dampers to reduce the seismic vibration of building structure model. Spencer et al.
(2000), Ramallo et al. (2001) and Yoshioka et al. (2001) incorporated an MR damper
with a base isolation system such that the isolation system would be effective under both
strong and moderate earthquakes. Johnson et al. (2001a,b) employed the MR damper to
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
18/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 6
reduce wind-induced stay cable vibration. The experimental results indicate that the MR
damper is quite effective for a wide class of applications.
Moreover, the technology has been demonstrated to be scalable to devices
sufficiently large for implementation in civil engineering structures. Carlson and Spencer
(1996b), Spencer et al. (1999), and Yang et al. (2002) have developed and tested a 20-t
MR damper. Recently, Sodeyama et al. (2003) have also presented impressive resultsregarding design and construction of large-scale MR dampers. In 2001, the first full-scale
implementation of MR dampers for civil engineering application was achieved. The
Nihon-Kagaku-Miraikan, the Tokyo National Museum of Emerging Science and
Innovation has two 30-ton-MR fluid dampers installed between the third and fifth floors.
The dampers were built by Sanwa Tekki using the Lord Corporation MR fluid.
Retrofitted with stay-cable dampers, the Dongting Lake Bridge in Hunan, China
constitutes the first full-scale implementation of MR dampers for bridge structures. Long
steel cables, such as are used in cable-stayed bridges and other structures, are prone tovibration induced by the structure to which they are connected and by weather conditions,
particularly wind combined with rain, that may cause cable galloping. The extremely low
damping inherent in such cables, typically on the order of a fraction of a percent, is
insufficient to eliminate this vibration, causing reduced cable and connection life due to
fatigue and/or breakdown of corrosion protection. Two Lord SD-1005 MR dampers are
mounted on each cable to mitigate cable vibration. A total of 312 MR dampers are
installed on 156 stayed cables. Recently, MR dampers have been chosen for
implementation on the Binzhou Yellow River Bridge in China to reduce cable vibration.
The installation is expected to be completed in October 2003 (Spencer and Nagarajaiah
2003).
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
19/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 7
1.2.2 Control Algorithms for MR Dampers
One challenge in the use of semiactive technology is in developing nonlinear
control algorithms that are appropriate for implementation in full-scale structures.
Numerous control algorithms have been adopted for semiactive systems. In one of the
first examinations of semiactive control, Karnopp et al. (1974) proposed a skyhookdamper control algorithm for a vehicle suspension system and demonstrated that this
system offers improved performance over a passive system when applied to a single-
degree-of-freedom system. Feng and Shinozukah (1990) developed a bang-bang
controller for a hybrid controller on a bridge. More recently, a control strategy based on
Lyapunov stability theory has been proposed for electrorheological dampers (Brogan
1991; Leitmann 1994). The goal of this algorithm is to reduce the responses by
minimizing the rate of change of a Lyapunov function. McClamroch and Gavin (1995)
used a similar approach to develop a decentralized bang-bang controller. This control
algorithm acts to minimize the total energy in the structure. A modulated homogeneous
friction algorithm (Inaudi 1997) was developed for a variable friction device. Clipped-
optimal controllers have also been proposed and implemented for semiactive systems
(Sack et al. 1994; Sack and Patten 1994; Dyke, 1996a,b,c). The effective utilization of
multiple control devices is an important step in the examination of semiactive control
algorithms. A typical control system for a full-scale structure is expected to have control
devices distributed throughout a number of floors. Because of the inherent nonlinear
nature of these devices, one of the challenging aspects of utilizing this technology to
achieve high levels of performance is in the development of appropriate control
algorithms.
As previously mentioned, a number of control algorithms have been adopted for
semiactive control systems using MR dampers (Jansen and Dyke 2000). Among many
control algorithms, modal control represents one control class, in which the motion of a
structure is reshaped by merely controlling some selected vibration modes. Modal control
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
20/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 8
is especially desirable for the vibration control of civil engineering structure, which is
usually a large structural system, may involve hundred or even thousand degrees of
freedom, its vibration is usually dominated by the first few modes. Therefore, the motion
of the structure can be effectively suppressed by merely controlling these few modes
(Yang 1982). To date, numerous procedures and algorithms concerning modal control or
pole assignment have been proposed in literature. A modal control method using full statefeedback may not be practical for a structural system involving a large number of DOFs,
since the control implementation may requires a large amount of sensors. Thus a modal
control scheme, which uses modal state estimation, is desirable. To estimate the modal
states from the sensor output, Luenberger observer (Meirovitch 1990; Luenberger 1971)
and a Kalman-Bucy filter (Meirovitch, 1967) can be used for the case of low noise-to-
signal ratios and for high noise-to-signal ratios, respectively. The troublesome of
estimating the modal states for feedback in modal control is the problem of spillover.
Note, however, that a small amount of damping inherent in the structure is oftensufficient to overcome the observation spillover effect (Meirovitch and Baruh 1983). At
any rate, observation spillover can be eliminated if the sensor signals are prefiltered so as
to screen out the contribution of the uncontrolled modes.
On the other side, the maximum energy dissipation algorithm (MEDA) represents
one control class which employs the Lyapunovs direct approach to stability analysis in
the design of a feedback controller (Brogan 1991). The approach requires the use of a
Lyapunov function that must be a positive definite function of the states of the system.
According to Lyapunov stability theory, if the rate of change of the Lyapunov function is
negative semi-definite, the origin is stable in the sense of Lyapunov. Thus, in developing
the control law based on Lyapunov stability theory, the goal is to choose control inputs
for each deice that will result in making the rate of change of the Lyapunov function as
negative as possible. Jansen and Dyke (2000) suggested MEDA as a variation of the
decentralized bang-bang approach proposed by McClamroch and Gavin (1995). It is
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
21/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 9
noticeable that this control law requires only local measurements, which means MEDA is
simply implemented without any design process.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
22/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 10
1.3 MR Fluids and Dampers
1.3.1 MR Fluids
The initial discovery and development of MR fluids can be credited to Jacob
Rabinow (1948, 1951) at the US National Bureau of Standards in the late 1940s. These
fluids are suspensions of micron-sized, magnetizable particles in an appropriate carrier
liquid. Normally, MR fluids are free flowing liquids having a consistency similar to that
of motor oil. However, in the presence of an applied magnetic field, the iron particles
acquire a dipole moment aligned with the external field that causes particles to form
linear chains parallel to the field, as shown in Fig. 1.1. This phenomenon can solidify the
suspended iron particles and restrict the fluid movement. Consequently, yield strength is
developed within the fluid. The degree of change is related to the magnitude of the
applied magnetic field, and can occur only in a few milliseconds.
Figure 1.1 Behavior of MR fluid in magnetic field
There are basically two types of controllable fluids MR fluids and ER fluids. The
primary advantage of MR fluids stems from their high dynamic yield strength due to the
high magnetic energy density that can be established in the fluid. Energy density in MR
fluids is limited by the magnetic saturation of iron particles. From a practical
implementation perspective, although the total energy requirements for the ER and MR
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
23/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 11
devices are almost equal, only MR devices can be easily driven by common low-voltage
power sources (Carlson and Spencer 1996a). MR devices can be controlled with a low-
voltage, current-driven power supply outputting only ~1-2 amps. ER devices, on the other
hand, require a high-voltage power source (~2000-5000 volts) that may not be readily
available, especially during strong earthquake events. Moreover, such a high voltage may
pose a safety hazard. The properties of both MR and ER fluids are given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Properties of MR and ER fluids (Spencer and Sain 1997)
Property MR Fluids ER Fluids
Max. yield Stress 50-100 kPa 2-5kPa
Maximum field ~250kA/m ~4kV/mm
Plastic viscosity, p 0.1-1.0Pa-s 0.1-1.0Pa-s
Operable temp. range -40 to 150C +10 to 90C
Stabilityunaffected by most
impurities
cannot tolerate
impurities
Response time milliseconds milliseconds
Density 3 to 4 g/cm3 1 to 2 g/cm3
2
)(/ fieldyp 10-10-10-11 s/Pa 10-7-10-8 s/Pa
Maxi. energy density 0.1 Joules/cm3 0.001 Joules/cm3
Power supply (typical)2-25V
1-2A
2000-5000V
1-10 mA
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
24/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 12
1.3.2 MR Fluid Dampers
The maximum force that an MR damper can deliver depends on the properties of
MR fluids, their flow pattern, and the size of the damper. Virtually all devices that use
MR fluids can be classified as operating in: (a) a valve mode, (b) a direct shear mode, (c)
a squeeze mode, or a combination of these modes (Carlson and Spencer 1996a). To date,several MR fluid devices have been developed for commercial use by the LORD
Corporation (Carlson et al. 1996; Jolly et al. 1998). Linear MR fluid dampers have been
designed for use as secondary suspension elements in vehicles. MR fluid rotary brakes
are smooth-acting, proportional brakes which are more compact and require substantially
less power than competing systems. MR fluid vibration dampers for real-time, active
control of damping have been used in numerous industrial applications.
In civil engineering applications, the expected damping forces and displacements
are rather large in magnitude. Therefore, MR dampers primarily operating under direct
shear mode or squeeze mode might be impractical. Usually valve mode or its
combination with direct shear mode is employed. Some examples of recently developed
MR dampers are given below. These dampers are capable of meeting real-world
requirements and are presently either in commercial production or in production
prototype trials.
A 20-ton prototype large-scale seismic MR fluid damper was developed under
cooperation between the LORD Corporation and the Structural Dynamics and
Control/Earthquake Engineering Laboratory (SDC/EEL) at the University of Notre Dame
(Carlson and Spencer 1996a; Spencer et al. 1997b,1998; Yang et al. 2000a,b). The MR
fluid damper schematic is given in Fig. 1.2. For the nominal design, a maximum damping
force of 200,000 N (20 tons) were chosen. The damper has an inside diameter of 20.3 cm
and a stroke of 8 cm. The completed damper is approximately 1 m long, has a mass of
250 kg, and contains approximately 6 liters of MR fluid. However, the amount of fluid
energized by the magnetic field at any given instant is approximately 90 cm3.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
25/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 13
Fig. 1.3 shows a small-scale SD-1000 MR fluid damper manufactured by the
LORD Corporation (Carlson and Spencer 1996a; Dyke 1996a,b; Jolly et al. 1998;
Spencer 1997a). In this damper, MR fluids flow from a high-pressure chamber to a low-
pressure chamber through an orifice in the piston head. The damper is 21.5 cm long in its
extended position, and the main cylinder is 3.8 cm in diameter. Forces of up to 3,000 N
can be generated with this device.Fig. 1.4 shows a bypass-type 20-ton MR fluid damper designed by the Sanwa
Tekki Corporation (Fujitani et al. 2000; Sunakoda et al. 2000). Unlike dampers
mentioned previously, MR fluids in this damper flow from a high-pressure chamber to a
low-pressure chamber in valve mode through a bypass outside the main cylinder. The
bypass has an annular gap between the outside of the magnetic pole and the inside of the
bypass cylinder. The magnetic field is generated by a 10-stage electromagnet and is
perpendicular to the fluid flow.
Figure 1.2 Schematic of the prototype 20-ton large-scale MR fluid damper
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
26/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 14
Figure 1.3 Small-scale SD-1000 MR fluid damper
Figure 1.4 Bypass type 20-ton MR fluid
Bearing & SealMR Fluid
CoilDiaphragm
Accumulator
Wires to
Electromagnet
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
27/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 15
1.4 Objectives and Scopes
The purpose of this study is to implement simple and efficient control algorithms
for seismically excited structures using MR dampers and to develop a smart passive
system based on the MR damper. The objectives and scopes of this study can be
summarized as follows.
First, the objectives and scopes of the study on implementations of simple and
efficient control algorithms can be summarized as follows:
(1) Implementation of modal control for seismically excited structures using MR
dampers:
In order to study the effectiveness for the MR damper-based semiactive, a modal
control scheme is implemented to seismically excited structures. A Kalman filter is
included in a control scheme to estimate modal states from measurements by
sensors. A low-pass filter is applied to eliminate the spillover problem. In a
numerical example, a six-story building model with the MR dampers on the bottom
two floors is used to verify the implemented modal control scheme. The
performance of the proposed modal control scheme is compared with that of other
control algorithms previously studied.
(2) Implementation of maximum energy dissipation algorithm for seismic response
reduction of large-scale structures using MR dampers:
The performance and the robustness of the maximum energy dissipation algorithm
for civil engineering structures using MR dampers are investigated. The numerical
examples contain the cable-stayed bridge and the nonlinear building. Various
earthquakes are used to excite the system. Through the series of numerical
simulation, the performance and the robustness are compared with that of other
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
28/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 16
control algorithms that are previously proposed: The reduction in the drifts,
accelerations, and relative displacements throughout the structure are examined
according to the evaluation criteria.
Next, the objectives and scopes of the study on development of a smart passive
system based on the MR damper can be summarized as follows:
(1) Development of a smart passive system based on the MR damper to reduce
structural responses:
The smart passive damper system is based on MR dampers. The MR damper is a
semiactive device that needs an external power source to change the damping
characteristics of MR fluids. However, the smart passive damper system based on
MR dampers is not using an external power source, but self-powered by an
electromagnetic induction system (EMI) that is attached to the MR damper. TheEMI system for MR dampers consists of a permanent magnet and a coil. According
to the Faradays law of induction, the EMI system changes the kinetic energy of
the MR damper to the electric energy and then the electric energy is used to vary
the damping characteristics of the MR damper. The theoretical backgrounds and
the designing process are presented. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed
smart passive control system, the performances are compared with those of the
semiactive MR damper using clipped-optimal controller.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
29/121
Chapter 1 Introduction 17
1.5 Organization
This dissertation consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the background, the
literature review, the characteristics of MR fluids and dampers, and the objectives and
scopes of this study.
In Chapter 2, a modal control scheme is implemented for the MR damper-based
control system. A low-pass filter and the Kalman filter as a modal state estimator are
reviewed and included in the modal control scheme for the MR damper-based control
system in Section 2.1. Reduced design procedure is presented, also, in this section. To
evaluate the proposed modal control scheme for usage with the MR damper, a numerical
example is considered, in which a model of a six-story building is controlled with four
MR dampers in Section 2.2. The results are summarized in Section 2.3.
In Chapter 3, the maximum energy dissipation algorithm (MEDA) is implemented
for the MR damper-based control system. The control system including the MR device
and MEDA is reviewed in Section 3.1. In Section 3.2, the cable-stayed bridge and the 20-
story nonlinear building are shown as representative structures of civil engineering and
numerical examples. In Section 3.3, the applicability of the MEDA-based semiactive
control system is examined from the viewpoint of the performance and the robustness
through the numerical examples. The results are summarized in Section 3.4.
In Chapter 4, a smart passive control system is proposed. In Section 4.1, an
electromagnetic induction (EMI) system is proposed for the MR damper. An analytical
model and a design procedure of the proposed EMI system are described in Section 4.2.
To show the effectiveness of the proposed smart passive control system, a set of
numerical simulations are performed for the four historical earthquakes in Section 4.3.
Section 4.4 summarizes the results.
Finally, the conclusions of this dissertation are summarized in Chapter 5.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
30/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 18
CHAPTER2
MODAL CONTROL SCHEME
2.1 Modal Control Scheme for MR Dampers
In this section, a modal control scheme with a Kalman filter and a low-pass filter is
implemented to a seismically excited structure. A Kalman filter is included in a control
scheme to estimate modal states from various measurements. Moreover, a low-pass filter
is applied to eliminate the spillover problem. After the implementation of the modal
control scheme, numerical simulations are presented in subsequent sections for
comparisons between control algorithms.
2.1.1 Modal Control
Consider a seismically excited structure controlled with m MR dampers. Assuming
that the forces provided by the control devices are adequate to keep the response of the
primary structure from exiting the linear region, the equations of motion can be written
gMfKxxCxM xtttt &&&&& =++ )()()()( (2.1)
whereM, Cand Kare the nn mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respectively; x is
the n-dimensional vector of the relative displacements of the floors of the structure; f=
[f1,f2,,fm ]T
is the vector of measured control forces generated by m MR dampers; gx&& is
ground acceleration; is the column vector of ones; and is the matrix determined by
the placement of MR dampers in the structure. This equation can be written in the state-
space form as
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
31/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 19
gx&&& NGfFzz ++= (2.2a)
vMfHzy ++= (2.2b)
wherezis a state vector;y is a vector of measured outputs; and v is a measurement noise
vector. The displacement can be expressed as the linear combination
x ===
n
r
rr tt1
)()( , r= 1, 2,, n (2.3)
where )(tr is a rth modal displacement; r is a rth eigenvector; is a eigenvector set;
and is a modal displacement vector. The eigenvectors are orthogonal and can be
normalized so as to satisfy the orthonormality conditions
rsr
T
s = M , rsrrT
s 2
=K , r= 1, 2,, n (2.4)
where rs is the Kronecker delta and r is a natural frequency. Thus inserting (2.3) into
(2.1), multiplying byT
r and considering orthogonal condition between eigenvectors, we
obtain
g
T
r
T
rr
2
rrrrr x2 &&&&& Mf=++ , r= 1, 2,, n (2.5)
where r are modal damping ratios. (2.5) can be written in the matrix form as
gxtttt &&&&& ')()()()( EfB'2 +=++ (2.6)
where is the diagonal matrix listing 2rr ; 2
is the diagonal matrix listing2
1 ,,
2
n ;B= T
; andE= MT . (2.6) can be written in the modal space-state form as
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
32/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 20
gxttt &&& EBfAww ++= )()()( (2.7a)
)()( tCwty = (2.7b)
where w(t) = [ T& T ] is the modal state vector and
=
I0A
2,
=
B'
0B ,
=
E'
0E (2.8)
In modal control, only a limited number of lower modes are controlled. Hence, l
controlled modes can be selected with l< n and the displacement may be partitioned into
controlled and uncontrolled parts as
)()()( tttRC
xxx += (2.9)
where xC and xR represent the controlled and uncontrolled displacement vector,
respectively. We refer to the uncontrolled modes as residual. Then, (2.7) can be rewritten
gCCCCC xttt &&& EfBwAw ++= )()()( (2.10a)
)()( tt CCC wCy = (2.10b)
where wC is a 2l-dimensional modal state vector by the controlled modes and
=
C
2
C
C
C
I0A ,
=
C
CB'
0B ,
=
C
CE'
0E (2.11)
are the 2l2l, 2lm matrixes and a 2l1 vector, respectively.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
33/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 21
For a feedback control, the control vector is related to the modal state vector according to
f(t) = KCwC(t) (2.12)
where KC is an m2l control gain matrix. Note that, in using the control law given by
(2.12), the closed-loop modal equations are not independent.
Because the force generated in the i th MR damper depends on the responses of the
structural system, the MR damper cannot always produce the desired optimal control
forcefCi. Only the control voltage vi can be directly controlled. Thus, the strategy of the
clipped-optimal control (Dyke et al. 1996a) is used, in which a force feedback loop is
incorporated to induce the force in the MR damperfi to generate approximately the
desired optimal control force fCi. To this end, the i th command signal vi is selected
according to the control law
][(max ii H )fffVv iiC = (2.13)
where Vmax is the voltage to the current driver associated with saturation of the MR effect
in the physical device, andH(w) is the Heaviside step function.
2.1.2 Design of Optimal Controller
Referring to the discussions in above section, control gain matrix KC should be
decided. Although a variety of approaches may be used to design the optimal controller,
H2/LQG (Linear Quadratic Gaussian) methods are advocated because of their successful
application in previous studies (Dyke et al. 1996a,b,c).
For the controller design, gx&& is taken to be a stationary white noise, and an infinite
horizon performance index is chosen that weights the modal states by controlled modes
such as
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
34/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 22
+= )dt(E
1limJ
0
T
C
T
C
RuuwQw (2.14)
whereR is a 2 2 identity matrix because the numerical example has two MR dampers,
and Q is a 2l 2ldiagonal matrix. It should be noted that the size ofQ is reduced from 2n
2n to 2l 2lbecause the limited lower modes are controlled. Therefore, it can be said
that it is more convenient to design the smaller weighting matrix of modal control. For
example, when the lowest one mode is selected for calculating the modal control action,
Q is a 2 2 diagonal matrix such as
=
mv
md
q
q
0
0Q (2.15)
where qmd is a weighting element for a modal displacement and qmv is for a modal
velocity. When the lowest two modes are controlled, Q is the 4 4 diagonal matrix.
=
mv2
mv1
md2
md1
q0
q
q
0q
Q (2.16)
The measurement noise is assumed to be identically distributed, statistically independent
Gaussian white noise processes, and 100/ == iigg vvxx SS &&&& . Then, the controller is
CCCCC ss BLCAIKG)]([)( 1= (2.17)
where ][ LDBLB = . Here,KC is the state feedback gain matrix for the deterministic
regulator problem given by
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
35/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 23
PBK CC '= (2.18)
wherePis the solution of the algebraic Ricatti equation given by
0''' =++ CCCCCC QCCPBPBPAPA (2.19)
and
)'( SCL C= (2.20)
whereSis the solution of the algebraic Ricatti equation given by
0=++ CCCCCC E'ESCSC'SASA' (2.21)
2.1.3 Modal State Estimation
An observer for modal state estimation should be provided, since real sensors may
not estimate the full modal states directly or the system may be expensive to prepare the
sensors for the full states. To estimate the modal state vector wC (t) from the measured
output y(t), we consider an observer. Luenberger observers are used for low noise-to-
signal ratios and Kalman-Bucy filters for high noise-to-signal ratios (Meirovitch, 1990).
A modal control method using the full state feedback may not be practical for a
structural system involving a large number of DOFs, since the control implementation
may requires a large amount of sensors. Thus a modal control scheme that uses a modal
state estimation, is desirable. Moreover, accurate measurements of displacements and
velocities are difficult to achieve directly in full-scale applications, particularly during
seismic activity, since the foundation of the structure is moving with the ground. Hence,
it is ideal to use the acceleration feedback because accelerometers can readily provide
reliable and inexpensive measurements of accelerations at arbitrary points on the structure
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
36/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 24
(Dyke et al. 1996a, b). Not only, the acceleration feedback is considered, but also the
state feedback including velocities and displacements, is implemented for the modal state
estimation using a Kalman-Bucy filter. In any case, we can write a modal observer in the
form
)]()()([)()()( tttxttt CCCgCCCCC fDwCyLEfwAw +++= &&& (2.22)
where )( tCw is the estimated controlled modal state and L is the optimally chosen
observer gain matrix by solving a matrix Riccati equation, which assumes that the noise
intensities associated with earthquake and sensors are known. CC is changeable according
to the signals that are used for the feedback and DC is generally zero except the
acceleration feedback. For modal state estimation from the displacements, CC in (2.22) is
as follows;
CC= ]0[ C (2.23)
For control with the velocity feedback,
CC= ]0[ C (2.24)
For control with the acceleration feedback,
CC=
C
CCMKM
00][ 11 andDC=
1M (2.25)
Upon obtaining the estimated controlled modal state from (2.22), we compute the
feedback control forces
f(t) = KC )( tCw (2.26)
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
37/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 25
Until now, the uncontrolled modes are ignored. In reality, however, the sensor signals
will include contributions from all the modes, so that the output vector is corrected to
)()()( ttt RRCC wCwCwCy +== (2.27)
To examine the effect of the control forces on the uncontrolled modes, residual modes
can be written
gRRRRR xttt &&& EfBwAw ++= )()()( (2.28)
where wR is a residual state vector by uncontrolled modes. Substituting (2.26) into (2.10a)
and considering (2.28), we obtain
gCCCCCCC xttt &&& EwKBwAw += )()()( (2.29a)
gRCCRRRR xttt &&& EwKBwAw += )()()( (2.29b)
Moreover, substituting (2.26) and (2.27) into (2.22), we can write the observer equation
in the form
gCRRCCCCCCCC xttttt &&& EwLCwwLCwKBAw +++= )(])()([)()()( (2.30)
Then the error vector is defined
)()()( ttt CCC wwe = (2.31)
so that (2.29) and (2.30) can be rearranged
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
38/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 26
gCCCCCCCCC xttt &&& EeKBwKBAw += )()()()(
gRCCRRRCCRR xtttt &&& EeKBwAwKBw ++= )()()()( (2.32)
)()()()( ttt RRCCCC wLCeLCAe +=&
(2.32) can be written in the matrix form
gR
R
C
R
C
CCR
CRRCR
CCCCC
C
R
C
x
t
t
t
t
t
t
&&
&
&
&
+
=
0
E
E
e
w
w
LCALC0
KBAKB
KB0KBA
e
w
w
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
(2.33)
Note that the term CRKB in (2.33) is responsible for the excitation of the residual
modes by the control forces and is known as control spillover (Balas, 1978). If RC is
zeros, which means the sensor signal only include controlled modes, the term CRKB
has no effect on the eigenvalues of the closed-loop system. Hence, we conclude that
control spillover cannot destabilize the system, although it can cause some degradation in
the system performance. Normally, however, the above system cannot satisfy the separate
principle because the term LCR affects eigenvalues of the controlled system by the
observer. This effect is known as observation spillover and can produce instability in the
residual modes. However, a small amount of damping inherent in the structure is often
sufficient to overcome the observation spillover effect.(Meirovitch and Baruh, 1983). At
any rate, observation spillover can be eliminated if the sensor signals are prefiltered so as
to screen out the contribution of the uncontrolled modes (Meirovitch, 1990)
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
39/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 27
2.1.4 Elimination of Observable Spillover
(2.33) in above section should be further improved for eliminating the observable
spillover. A low-pass filter is introduced to measure the filtered response vectoryfdefined
as
)()(
)()()(
tt
ttt
yzf
yz
yMzHy
yGzFz
+=
+=&(2.34)
or in the frequency domain
)()()( jyjHjy yf = (2.35)
where ])([)( 1 yyzzy jj MGFIHH +=
. Substituting (2.27) into (2.35), the new
sensor dynamics becomes
)]()()[()( jjjj RRCCyf wCwCHy += (2.36)
If the low-pass filter dynamics Hy(j) can be selected as a diagonal matrix, (2.36)
becomes
)]()([)]()([)( jjjjj RyRCyCf wHCwHCy += (2.37)
The pole of the low-pass filter dynamics can be placed by proper selection of the
parameters, Hz, Fz, Gy, My, then the roll-off can be occurred forth the lowest modal
frequency of the residual dynamics. The second term of right-hand side of (2.37), which
represents the residual modal state, may have the following characteristics.
|)(||)()(| 1 jjj RRy wwH for
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
40/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 28
where 01 . Otherwise, the first term of right-hand side of (2.37), which represents the
controlled modal state, may also have the following characteristics.
|)(||)()(| jjj CCy wwH for
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
41/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 29
2.2 Numerical Example
To evaluate the proposed modal control scheme for use with the MR damper, a
numerical example is considered in which a model of a six-story building is controlled
with four MR dampers (Fig. 2.1). This numerical example is the same with that of Jansen
and Dyke (2000) and is adopted for direct comparisons between the proposed modal
control scheme and other control algorithms. Two MR dampers are rigidly connected
between the ground and the first floor, and two MR dampers are rigidly connected
between the first and second floors.
Figure 2.1 Schematic diagram of the MR damper implementation
(Jansen and Dyke 2000)
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
42/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 30
Each MR damper is capable of producing a force equal to 1.8% the weight of the
entire structure, and the maximum voltage input to MR devices is Vmax = 5V. The
governing equations can be written in the form of (2.7) by defining the mass of each
floor, mi, as 0.227 N/(cm/sec2), the stiffness of each floor, ki, as 297 N/cm, and a damping
ratio for each mode of 0.5%. MR damper parameters used in this study are c0a = 0.0064
Nsec/cm, c0b = 0.0052 Nsec/cmV, a = 8.66 N/cm, b = 8.86 N/cmV, g = 300 cm
-2
, b =300 cm
-2, A = 120, and n = 2. In simulation, the model of the structure is subjected to the
NS component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake. Because the building system considered
is a scaled model, the amplitude of the earthquake was scaled to ten percent of the full-
scale earthquake.
Figs. 2.2 and 2.3 show the uncontrolled responses of the first and sixth floors,
respectively, in frequency domain. From Fig. 2.2, it can be seen that the first mode is
dominant in relative displacement and velocity of the first floor, whereas the lowest three
modes are dominant in the absolute acceleration. In Fig. 2.3, however, we can find that
the first mode is dominant in all responses of the sixth floor. Thus, it will be possible to
reduce the responses through modal control that control using the lowest one or two
modes.
The various control algorithms were evaluated using a set of evaluation criteria
based on those used in the second generation linear control problem for buildings
(Spencer et al., 1997a). The first evaluation criterion is a measure of the normalized
maximum floor displacement relative to the ground, given as
=
max
i
it,1
x
|t|xJ
)(max (2.43)
wherexi(t) is the relative displacement of the i th floor over the entire response, and xmax
denotes the uncontrolled maximum displacement. The second evaluation criterion is a
measure of the reduction in the interstory drift. The maximum of the normalized
interstory drift is
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
43/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 31
=
max
n
ii
it,2
d
|/ht|dJ
)(max (2.44)
where hi is the height of each floor (30cm), di(t) is the interstory drift of the above ground
floors over the response history, andmax
nd denotes the normalized peak interstory drift in
the uncontrolled response. The third evaluation criterion is a measure of the normalized
peak floor accelerations, given by
=
max
a
ai
it,3
x
|tx|J
&&
&& )(max (2.45)
where the absolute accelerations of the ith floor, )(txai&& , are normalized by the peak
uncontrolled floor acceleration, denoted )(txmaxa&& . The final evaluation criteria considered
in this study is a measure of the maximum control force per device, normalized by the
weight of the structure, given by
=
W
(t)||fJ i
it,4 max (2.46)
where W is the total weight of the structure (1335 N). The corresponding uncontrolled
responses are as follows:xmax = 1.313 cm,max
ad = 0.00981 cm,max
ax&& = 146.95 cm/sec2.
The resulting evaluation criteria are presented in Table 1 for the control algorithms
previously studied (Jansen and Dyke, 2000). The numbers in parentheses indicate the
percent reduction as compared to the best passive case. To compare the performance of
the semiactive system to that of comparable passive systems, two cases are considered in
which MR dampers are used in a passive mode by maintaining a constant voltage to the
devices. The results of passive-off (0V) and passive-on (5V) configurations are included.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
44/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 32
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
PSD
frequency, Hz
104
PowerSpectrumo
f
Velocity
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 106
PS
D
frequency, Hz
PowerSpectrumo
f
Acceleration
Frequency, Hz
Figure 2.2 Frequency responses of the first floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
PSD
frequency, Hz
PowerSpectrumo
f
RelativeDisplacement
102
x 105
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
45/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 33
Figure 2.3 Frequency responses of the sixth floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.5
1
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
PSD
frequency, Hz
102
Pow
erSpectrumo
f
RelativeDisplacement
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 105
PSD
frequency, Hz
PowerSpectrumo
f
Velocity
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
x 106
PSD
frequency, Hz
PowerSpectrumo
f
Acceleration
Frequency, Hz
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
46/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 34
Table 2.1 Normalized controlled maximum responses
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake*
Control strategy J1 J2 J3 J4
Passive-off 0.862 0.801 0.904 0.00292
Passive-on 0.506 0.696 1.41 0.0178
Lyapunov controller A 0.686(+35) 0.788(+13) 0.756(16) 0.0178
Lyapunov controller A 0.326(35) 0.548(21) 1.39(+53) 0.0178
Decentralized bang-bang 0.449(11) 0.791(+13) 1.00(+11) 0.0178
Maximum energy dissipation 0.548(+8) 0.620(11) 1.06(+17) 0.0121
Clipped-optimal A 0.631(+24) 0.640(8) 0.636(29) 0.01095
Clipped-optimal B 0.405(20) 0.547(21) 1.25(+38) 0.0178
Modified homogeneous friction 0.421(17) 0.599(20) 1.06(+17) 0.0178
(* Jansen and Dyke 2000)
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
47/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 35
For modal control, three cases of the structural measurements are considered;
displacements, velocities and accelerations. Using each structural measurement, a
Kalman filter estimates the modal states. Fig. 2.4 represents the results of the stochastic
response analysis for the acceleration feedback case. The variations of each evaluation
criteria for increasing weighting parameters are shown in a 3-dimensional plot.
Previously mentioned, J1 is evaluation criteria for the maximum displacement, J2 is forthe maximum interstory drift and J3 is for the maximum acceleration. In Fig. 4, JT is the
summation of evaluation criteria,J1,J2 andJ3. From the variations ofJT, we can find the
weighting for reduction of overall structural responses whereas fromJ1,J2 andJ3, we can
find the weighting for reduction of related responses. In Fig. 2.4, it can be seen that J1 is
minimum at qmd = 400 and qmv = 1500,J2 is at qmd = 1 and qmv = 500,J3 is at qmd = 2200
and qmv = 100 and J4 is at qmd = 500 and qmv = 600. Designer can decide which to use
according to control objectives. By using the controller (H2/LQG) with designed
weighting matrices from Fig. 2.4, we can get the results in Table 2.2.Figs. 2.5 and 2.6 represent the results for the displacement and velocity feedback
cases, respectively. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 summarize the results for each minimum
evaluation criteria of the designed weighting matrices from Figs. 2.5 and 2.6.
For each feedback case, in Tables 2.2 to 2.4, four modal control designs with
different capabilities are considered. In Table 2.2, the modal controllerAJ1,AJ2,AJ3 and
AJT with acceleration feedback use a weighting that minimize the evaluation criteria J1,
J2, J3 and JT, respectively. In Tables 2.3 to 2.4, the modal controllerDJ1, DJ2, DJ3, and
DJT with displacement feedback and VJ1, VJ2,VJ3, and VJT with velocity feedback use a
weighting which minimize the evaluation criteria J1,J2,J3 andJT, respectively. For each
weighting, the lowest one and two modes cases are given in Tables 2.2 to 2.4. In the
lowest two modes case, we place identical weighting on the each mode; qmd1 = qmd2 = qmd
and qmv1 = qmv2 = qmv.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
48/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 36
Figure 2.4 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the acceleration feedback
J1 J2
J3 JT=J1+ J2 + J3
qmd qmv qmd qmv
qmd qmvqmdqmv
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
49/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 37
Figure 2.5 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the displacement feedback
J1 J2
J3 JT=J1+ J2 + J3
qmd qmv qmd qmv
qmd qmvqmd qmv
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
50/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 38
Figure 2.6 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the velocity feedback
J1 J2
J3 JT=J1+ J2 + J3
qmd qmv qmd qmv
qmdqmv qmdqmv
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
51/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 39
The calculated evaluation criteria for various control strategies are compared in
Tables 2.1 to 2.4. The performance of the proposed modal control scheme is generally
better than that of other control strategies. The results show that the modal controllerA
and V appear to be quite effective in achieving significant reductions in both the
maximum displacement and interstory drift over the passive case. In fact, the modal
controllerAJ1 achieves a 39% reduction in the relative displacement as compared to thebetter passive case. If further reductions in interstory drift and acceleration are desired in
the controller, modal controllerAJ2 and AJ3 can achieve the reductions in the interstory
drift and absolute acceleration of 30% and 23%, respectively, over the best passive cases,
although the maximum displacement increased. The reduction by modal controllerAJ2 is
resulting in the lowest interstory drift of all cases considered here. In Table 2.4, modal
controller VJ1 using the lowest two modes and VJ3 achieve reductions in relative
displacement and absolute acceleration of 41% and 30%, respectively, resulting in the
lowest values of all cases considered here. The modal controllerAJT and VJT do notachieve any lowest value of evaluation criteria, but have competitive performance in all
evaluation criteria. Notice that the designer has some versatility depending on the control
objectives for the particular structure under consideration.
The modal controllerD compared with the modal controllerA and Vappears to be
worse in achieving reductions, which agrees with the fact that the variations of evaluation
criteria are more sensitive to weighting parameterqmv than qmdfrom Figs. 2.4 to 2.6.
Comparing the lowest one mode case with two-mode case, every lowest value of
evaluation criteria occurs at the lowest one mode case, except the modal controller VJ1
that achieves further reductions by 6% from one mode case (reductions of 41% over the
best passive case) in the relative displacement.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
52/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 40
Table 2.2 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the acceleration feedback
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake
Control strategy J1 J2 J3 J4
1 mode 0.310(-39) 0.529(-24) 1.07(+18) 0.0178
Modal control AJ1(qmd=400, qmv=1500) 2 modes 0.392(-23) 0.543(-22) 1.05(+16) 0.0178
1 mode 0.398(-21) 0.485(-30) 0.870(-4) 0.0178Modal control AJ2
(qmd=1, qmv=500) 2 modes 0.413(-18) 0.510(-27) 0.781(-14) 0.0178
1 mode 0.549(+8) 0.618(-11) 0.697(-23) 0.0178Modal control AJ3(qmd=2200, qmv=100) 2 modes 0.548(+8) 0.585(-16) 0.741(-18) 0.0178
1 mode 0.380(-25) 0.488(-30) 0.823(-9) 0.0178Modal control AJT(qmd=500, qmv=600)
2 modes 0.423(-16) 0.533(-23) 0.876(-3) 0.0178
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
53/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 41
Table 2.3 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the displacement feedback
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake
Control strategy J1 J2 J3 J4
1 mode 0.403(-20) 0.560(-20) 0.765(-15) 0.0178Modal control DJ1(qmd=100, qmv=4900) 2 modes 0.325(-36) 0.504(-28) 1.06(+17) 0.0178
1 mode 0.403(-20) 0.560(-20) 0.769(-15) 0.0178Modal control DJ2(qmd=100, qmv=4900) 2 modes 0.325(-36) 0.504(-28) 1.06(+17) 0.0178
1 mode 0.702(+39) 0.728(+5) 0.671(-26) 0.0178Modal control DJ3(qmd=200, qmv=4900) 2 modes 0.678(+34) 0.689(-1) 0.796(-12) 0.0178
1 mode 0.408(-19) 0.566(-19) 0.721(-20) 0.0178Modal control DJT(qmd=3300,qmv=4700)2 modes 0.329(-35) 0.510(-27) 1.04(+15) 0.0178
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
54/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 42
Table 2.4 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the velocity feedback
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake
Control strategy J1 J2 J3 J4
1 mode 0.327(-35) 0.554(-20) 1.06(+17) 0.0178Modal control VJ1(qmd=700, qmv=800)
2 modes 0.301(-41) 0.530(-24) 1.07(+18) 0.0178
1 mode 0.383(-24) 0.487(-30) 0.874(-3) 0.0178Modal control VJ2
(qmd=1, qmv=400)2 modes 0.351(-31) 0.510(-27) 0.941(+4) 0.0178
1 mode 0.541(+7) 0.611(-12) 0.632(-30) 0.0178Modal control VJ3(qmd=1300, qmv=100)
2 modes 0.522(+3) 0.583(-16) 0.553(-39) 0.0178
1 mode 0.354(-30) 0.502(-28) 0.825(-9) 0.0178Modal control VJT(qmd=600,qmv=500)
2 modes 0.323(-36) 0.510(-27) 0.827(-9) 0.0178
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
55/121
Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme 43
2.3 Summary of Results
In this study, modal control was implemented to seismically excited structures
using MR dampers. To this end, a modal control scheme was applied together with a
Kalman filter and a low-pass filter. A Kalman filter considered three cases of the
structural measurement to estimate modal states: displacement, velocity, and acceleration,
respectively. Moreover, a low-pass filter was used to eliminate spillover problem. In a
numerical example, a six-story structure was controlled using MR dampers on the lower
two floors. The responses of the system to a scaled El Centro earthquake excitation were
found for each controller through a simulation of the system.
Modal control reshapes the motion of a structure by merely controlling a few
selected vibration modes. Hence, in designing phase of controller, the size of weighting
matrix Q was reduced because the lowest one or two modes were controlled. Therefore, it
is more convenient to design the smaller weighting matrix of modal control. This is one
of the important benefits of the proposed modal control scheme.
The numerical results show that the motion of the structure was effectively
suppressed by merely controlling a few lowest modes, although resulting responses
varied greatly depending on the choice of measurements available and weightings. The
modal controllerA and V achieved significant reductions in the responses. The modal
controllerAJ2, VJ1 and VJ3 achieve reductions (30%, 41%, 30%) in evaluation criteriaJ1,
J2 and J3, respectively, resulting in the lowest values of all cases considered here. The
modal controllerAJT and VJT fail to achieve any lowest value of evaluation criteria, but
have competitive performance in all evaluation criteria. Based on these results, the
proposed modal control scheme is found to be suited for use with MR dampers in a multi-
input control system. Further studies are underway to examine the influence of the
number of controlled modes on the control performance.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
56/121
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
57/121
Chapter 3 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm 45
3.1.1 Control Devices
The MR damper with capacity of 1000KN is considered as control devices. To
accurately predict the behavior of controlled structure, an appropriate modeling of MR
dampers is essential. Several types of control-oriented dynamic models have been
investigated for modeling MR dampers. Herein, the Bouc-Wen model is considered. TheBouc-Wen model (Spencer et al, 1997a), which is numerically tractable and has been
used extensively for modeling hysteretic system, is considered for describing the behavior
of the MR damper (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 Mechanical model of the MR damper
The force generated by the damper is given by
xczf &0+= (3.4)
where the evolutionary variablezis governed by
xAzxzzxz nn &&& += |||||| 1 (3.5)
By adjusting the parameters of the model , , n, and A, the degree of linearity in the
unloading and the smoothness of the transition from the pre-yield to the post-yield region
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
58/121
Chapter 3 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm 46
can be controlled. Some of the model parameters depend on the command voltage u to
the current driver as follows.
uba += and uccc ba 000 += (3.6)
Parameters for both benchmark problems are listed in Table 3.1. Each parameter is
adopted from Yoshida and Dyke (2002) for the nonlinear benchmark building and from
Moon et al. (2003) for the cable-stayed bridge.
Table 3.1 Parameters for MR damper model
Value
ParameterFor non-linear building For cable-stayed bridge
a 1.087e5 N/cm 500 N/m
b 4.962e5 N/(cmV) 671.41 N/(mV)
c0a 4.40 N s/cm 0.15 N s/m
c0b 44.0 N s/(cmV) 1.43 N s/(cmV)
50 s-1
300 s-1
3 cm-2 300 m-2
3 cm-2 300 m-2
A 1.2 120
n 1 1
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
59/121
Chapter 3 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm 47
3.1.2 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm for MR Damper
This control algorithm is presented as a variation of the decentralized bang-bang
approach proposed by McClamroch and Gavin (1995). Lyapunovs direct approach
requires the use of a Lyapunov function, denoted V(x), which must be a positive definite
function of the states of the system x. In the decentralized bang-bang approach, theLyapunov function was chosen to represent total vibratory energy in the system. Jansen
and Dyke (2000) instead consider a Lyapunov function that represents the relative
vibratory energy in the structure as in
MxxKxxVTT
2
1
2
1+= (3.7)
According to Lyapunov stability theory, if the rate of change of the Lyapunov function
)(xV& is negative semi-definite, the origin is stable in the sense of Lyapunov. Using
(3.7), the rate of change of the Lyapunov function is then
f)MKxxCM(xxKxVTT
++= gx&&&&&& (3.8)
In this expression, the only way to directly effect V& is through the last term containing
the force vectorf. To control this term and make V& as large and negative as possible, the
following control law is obtained:
)(max iii fxHVv &= (3.9)
where i is ith column of the matrix; fi is i th column of the fmatrix.
Note that MEDA is very simple because only local measurements (i.e., the velocity
and control force) are required to implement this control law. In (3.9), there is no design
parameter to decide, which is essential part in other control laws. In other words, complex
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
60/121
Chapter 3 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm 48
design process can be skipped. This is the important benefit of using MEDA. Otherwise,
the more structures are complex, the more design parameters are considered. Therefore, it
can be said that it is more convenient to use MEDA for structural control, especially for
the large-size civil structures.
-
8/3/2019 Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System
61/121
Chapter 3 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm 49
3.2 Benchmark Problems
In this study, we consider two kinds of benchmark problem: a cable-stayed bridge
and a 20-story nonlinear building. The cable-stayed bridge and the high-rise nonlinear
building model are representative structures of civil engineering. Using both benchmark
problems, we exploit MEDA for civil engineering applications. For the completeness, this
section briefly summarizes both benchmark problems, respectively. More details can be
found in Dyke et al (2003) and Ohtori et al (2000, 2002).
3.2.1 Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge
At the Second International Workshop on Structural Control (Dec. 18-20, 1996,
Hong Kong), the Working Group on Bridge Control developed plans for a "first
generation" benchmark study on bridges. The cable-stayed bridge used for this
benchmark study is the Missouri 74Illinois 146 bridge spanning the Mississippi River
near Cape Girardeau, Missouri, designed by the HNTB Corporation (Hague, 1997). The
bridge is currently under construction and is to be completed in 2003. Seismic
considerations were strongly considered in the design of this bridge due to the location of
the bridge (in the New Madrid seismic zone) and its critical role as a principal crossing of
the Mississippi River. In early stages of the design process, the loading case governing
the design was deter