Delay Sensitivity of Smith Predictor for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Mechanical Engineering Group, Golpayegan College of Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

In a real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS), a multi-story structure is partitioned into numerical and physical substructures, and the vibration behavior of the physical substructure is tested within the real-time simulation. An actuator is employed to apply static and inertial forces to the physical substructure due to forces calculated by the numerical substructure. The actuator dynamic is approximated by a pure time delay, and the time delay in the closed-loop system causes inaccuracy results or even instability. The Smith predictor is adopted to minimize the adverse effect of time delay from the RTHS test results. The delay differential equation (DDE) modeling and Hopf analysis are used to determine the dependence of critical time-delay on mass ratios of the system. The method drives the stability crossing curves in the space of parameters defined by nominal delay, and delay uncertainty. The Smith predictor is a model-based approach for the compensation of time delay in delayed control systems. The Smith delay compensator is sensitive to model uncertainty, particularly for time delay mismatch. The effects of delay-induced uncertainty on the stability of the Smith Predictor control scheme are also analyzed. Sensitivity analysis of Smith predictor to delay mismatch shows a more stable margin for overestimation of delay regarded to underestimation, and the stable region becomes smaller in the area as time-delay increases.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahmadizadeh, G. Mosqueda, A. Reinhorn, Compensation of actuator delay and dynamics for real‐time hybrid structural simulation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(1) (2008) 21-42.
  2. Bagheri, A. Chahkandi, H. Jahangir, Seismic reliability analysis of RC frames rehabilitated by glass fiber-reinforced polymers, International Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(11) (2019) 1785-1797.
  3. Beheshti-Aval, M. Lezgy-Nazargah, Assessment of velocity-acceleration feedback in optimal control of smart piezoelectric beams, Smart structures and systems, 6(8) (2010) 921-938.
  4. M. Botelho, R.E. Christenson, Robust stability and performance analysis for multi-actuator real-time hybrid substructuring, in: Dynamics of Coupled Structures, Volume 4, Springer, 2015, pp. 1-7.
  5. S. Bursi, D. Wagg, Modern testing techniques for structural systems: dynamics and control, Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.
  6. Chen, J.M. Ricles, Stability analysis of SDOF real‐time hybrid testing systems with explicit integration algorithms and actuator delay, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(4) (2008) 597-613.
  7. Chen, J.M. Ricles, Tracking error-based servohydraulic actuator adaptive compensation for real-time hybrid simulation, Journal of structural engineering, 136(4) (2010) 432-440.
  8. Darby, M. Williams, A. Blakeborough, Stability and delay compensation for real-time substructure testing, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(12) (2002) 1276-1284.
  9. Gawthrop, D. Virden, S. Neild, D. Wagg, Emulator-based control for actuator-based hardware-in-the-loop testing, Control Engineering Practice, 16(8) (2008) 897-908.
  10. Guoping, H. Jinzhi, Optimal control method for seismically excited building structures with time-delay in control, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(6) (2002) 602-612.
  11. Horiuchi, T. Konno, A new method for compensating actuator delay in real-time hybrid experiments, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 359(1786) (2001) 1893-1909.
  12. Igarashi, F. Sanchez-Flores, H. Iemura, K. Fujii, A. Toyooka, Real-time hybrid testing of laminated rubber dampers for seismic retrofit of bridges, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, San Francisco, USA, 2009.
  13. Jahangir, M. Bagheri, Evaluation of seismic response of concrete structures reinforced by shape memory alloys, International Journal of Engineering, 33(3) (2020) 410-418.
  14. Jahangir, M. Bagheri, Evaluation of seismic response of concrete structures reinforced by shape memory alloys, International Journal of Engineering, 33(3) (2020) 410-418.
  15. Jahangir, A. Karamodin, Structural behavior investigation based on adaptive pushover procedure, in: 10th International Congress on Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz. Iran, 2015.
  16. Javanmardi, K. Ghaedi, F. Huang, M.U. Hanif, A. Tabrizikahou, Application of Structural Control Systems for the Cables of Cable-Stayed Bridges: State-of-the-Art and State-of-the-Practice, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, (2021) 1-31.
  17. Javanmardi, K. Ghaedi, F. Huang, M.U. Hanif, A. Tabrizikahou, Application of Structural Control Systems for the Cables of Cable-Stayed Bridges: State-of-the-Art and State-of-the-Practice, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, (2021) 1-31.
  18. Maghareh, S.J. Dyke, A. Prakash, G.B. Bunting, Establishing a predictive performance indicator for real‐time hybrid simulation, Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 43(15) (2014) 2299-2318.
  19. Mercan, J.M. Ricles, Stability analysis for real‐time pseudodynamic and hybrid pseudodynamic testing with multiple sources of delay, Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 37(10) (2008) 1269-1293.
  20. Pedersen, M.D. Ulriksen, Closed‐loop experimental testing framework for structural control applications, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 28(8) (2021) e2765.
  21. Shao, A.M. Reinhorn, M.V. Sivaselvan, Real-time hybrid simulation using shake tables and dynamic actuators, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(7) (2011) 748-760.
  22. -Y. Tu, W.-D. Hsiao, C.-Y. Chen, Modelling and control issues of dynamically substructured systems: adaptive forward prediction taken as an example, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 470(2168) (2014) 20130773.
  23. Wallace, J. Sieber, S.A. Neild, D.J. Wagg, B. Krauskopf, Stability analysis of real‐time dynamic substructuring using delay differential equation models, Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 34(15) (2005) 1817-1832.
  24. Wallace, D. Wagg, S. Neild, An adaptive polynomial based forward prediction algorithm for multi-actuator real-time dynamic substructuring, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 461(2064) (2005) 3807-3826.
  25. Wu, R. Zhang, B.M. Phillips, Structural seismic resilience evaluation through real-time hybrid simulation with online learning neural networks, International Journal of Lifecycle Performance Engineering, 4(1-3) (2020) 184-214.
AUT Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 4
December 2021
Pages 597-612

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics