Advertisement

Real-Time Testing With Dynamic Substructuring

  • David Wagg
  • Simon Neild
  • Peter Gawthrop
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 502)

Abstract

In this chapter the real-time testing technique which has become known as real-time dynamic substructuring is discussed. A control systems approach is taken to develop stability and robustness criteria for real-time dynamic substructuring tests. In particular we discuss how delay and uncertainty effects in the experimental apparatus can lead to loss of accuracy, or worse, system instability. Models which take account of the delay effects are developed using both delay differential equations and transfer functions. From these models delay compensation schemes can be constructed either using inverse transfer functions or forward prediction methods. Three methods for improving robustness are described for use in combination with a delay compensator. Throughout the chapter experimental results are presented, and in the final part results from an industrial example of substructuring a helicopter lag damper are discussed in detail.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. A. K. Agrawal and J. N. Yang. Compensation of time-delay for control of civil engineering structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 29:37–62, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. W. Algaard, A. Agar, and N. Bicanic. Enhanced integral form of the newmark time stepping scheme for pseudodynamic testing. Engineering Computations, 18(3–4):676–689, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. M Bacic. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation: Taxonomic framework, survery and new research directions. University of Oxford Report No. 2290/06, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. V. Bayer, U. E. Dorka, U. Fullekrug, and J. Gschwilm. On real-time pseudo-dynamic sub-structure testing: algorithm, numerical and experimental results. Aerospace Science & Technology, 9(3):223–232, April 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Benzoni. Challenges of new generation seismic testing facilities. Experimental Techniques, 25(2):20–23, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Blakeborough, M. S. Williams, A. P. Darby, and D. M. Williams. The development of real-time substructure testing. Philosopical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 359:1869–1891, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Bonelli and O.S. Bursi. Generalized-a methods for seismic structural testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33(10):1067–1102, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. P. A. Bonnet, C. N. Lim, M. S. Williams, A. Blakeborough, S. A. Neild, D. P. Stoten, and C. A. Taylor. Real-time hybrid experiments with new-mark integration, mscmd outer-loop control and multi-tasking strategies. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(1):119–141, January 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. T. Brendecke and F. Kucukay. Virtual real-time environment for automatic-transmission control units in the form of hardware-in-the-loop. Internationa Journal of Vehicle Design, 28(1–3):84–102, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. O. S. Bursi, A. Gonzalez-Buelga, L. Vulcan, S. A. Neild, and D. J. Wagg. Novel coupling rosenbrock-based algorithms for real-time dynamic substructure testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics: In Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. O. S. Bursi and P. B. Shing. Evaluation of some implicit time-stepping algorithms for pseudodynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25(4):333–355, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D. M. Bushnell. Scaling: Wind tunnel to flight. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 38:111–128, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Y. Chang. Improved numerical dissipation for explicit methods in pseudodynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 26(9):917–929, September 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Y. Chang. The gamma-function pseudodynamic algorithm. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 4(3):303–320, July 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Y. Chang. Explicit pseudodynamic algorithm with unconditional stability. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 128(9):935–947, September 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Y. Chang. Error propagation in implicit pseudodynamic testing of nonlinear systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 131(12):1257–1269, December 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. S. Y. Chang, K. C. Tsai, and K. C. Chen. Improved time integration for pseudodynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 27(7):711–730, July 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. S. Y. Chu, T. T. Soong, and A. M. Reinhorn. Active, hybrid and semi-active structural control. John Wiley: Chichester, England., 2005.Google Scholar
  19. D. Combescure and P. Pegon. α-operator splitting time intergration technique for pseudodynamic testing error propergation analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 16:427–443, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. A. P. Darby, A. Blakeborough, and M. S. Williams. Real-time substructure tests using hydraulic actuator. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 125(10): 1133–1139, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. A. P. Darby, A. Blakeborough, and M. S. Williams. Improved control algorithm for real-time substructure testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30:431–448, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. A. P. Darby, M. S. Williams, and A. Blakeborough. Stability and delay compensation for real-time substructure testing. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(12):1276–1284, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. J. de Carufel, E. Martin, and J. C. Piedboeuf. Control strategies for hardware-in-the-loop simulation of flexible space robots. IEE Proceedings-Control Theory and Applications, 147(6):569–579, November 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O. Diekmann, S. van Gils, S. M. Verduyn Lunel, and H.O. Walther. Delay equations, volume 110. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. J. Donea, P. Magonette, P. Negro, P. Pegon, A. Pinto, and G. Verzeletti. Pseudodynamic capabilities of the elsa laboratory for earthquake testing of large structures. Earthquake Spectra, 12(1):163–180, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. S. Driscoll, J. D. Huggins, and W. J. Book. Electric motors coupled to hydraulic motors as actuators for hydraulic hardware-in-the-loop simulation. In Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, number IMECE2005-82124, Orlando, Florida USA, November 5–11 2005.Google Scholar
  27. K. Engelborghs, T. Luzyanina, and D. Roose. Numerical bifurication analysis of delay differential equations using dde-biftool. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 28(1): 1–21, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. P. T. Faithfull, R. J. Ball, and R. P. Jones. An investigation into the use of hardware-in-the-loop simulation with a scaled physical prototype as an aid to design. Journal of Engineering Design, 12(3):231–243, September 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. H. K. Fathy, R. Ahlawat, and J. L. Stein. Proper powertrain modeling for engine-in-the-loop simulation. In Proceedings of the ASME International Engineering Congress and Exposition, number IMECE2005-81592, 2006.Google Scholar
  30. J. A. Ferreira, F. G. Almeida, M. R. Quintas, and J. P. E. de Oliveira. Hybrid models for hardware-in-the-loop simulation of hydraulic systems part 1: theory. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part I-Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 218(I6):465–474, September 2004a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. J. A. Ferreira, F. G. Almeida, M. R. Quintas, and J. P. E. de Oliveira. Hybrid models for hardware-in-the-loop simulation of hydraulic systems part 2: experiments. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part I-Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 218(I6):475–486, September 2004b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. A. Ganguli, A. Deraemaeker, M. Horodinca, and A. Preumont. Active damping of chatter in machine toolsdemonstration with a ‘hardware-in-the-loop’ simulator. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part I-Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 219(I5):359–369, August 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. P. J. Gawthrop, Jones, R. W., and D. G. Sbarbaro. Emulator-based control and internal model control: complementary approaches to robust control design. Automatica, 32(8):1223–1227, August 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. P.J. Gawthrop, S.A. Neild, M.I. Wallace, and D.J. Wagg. Robust real-time substructuring techniques for lightly-damped systems. Journal of Structural Control & Health Monitoring, 14(4):591–608, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. P.J. Gawthrop, M.I. Wallace, and D.J. Wagg. Bond-graph based substructuring of dynamical systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structrural Dynamics., 34(6):687–703, 2005.Google Scholar
  36. A. Gonzalez-Buelga, D. J. Wagg, and S. A. Neild. Parametric variation of a coupled pendulum-oscillator system using real-time dynamic substructuring. Structural Control and Health Monitoring: In Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  37. G. C. Goodwin, S. F. Graebe, and M. E. Salgado. Control System Design. Pearson, 2000.Google Scholar
  38. K. S. Hong, H. C. Sohn, and J. K. Hedrick. Modified skyhook control of semi-active suspensions: A new model, gain scheduling, and hardware-in-the-loop tuning. Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control-Transactions of the ASME, 124(1):158–167, March 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. T. Horiuchi, M. Inoue, T. Konno, and Y. Namita. Real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28:1121–1141, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. W. Hu and N. M. Wereley. Magnetorheological fluid and elastomeric lag damper for helicopter stability augmentation. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 19(7–9):1471–1477, April 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. S. Jezernik. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation and analysis of magnetic recording of nerve activity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 142(2): 295–304, March 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R. Y. Jung and P. B. Shing. Performance evaluation of a real-time pseudodynamic test system. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(7):789–810, June 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. D. L. Kunz. Elastomer modelling for use in predicting helicopter lag damper behavior. Journal of Sound & Vibration, 226(3):585–594, September 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Y. N. Kyrychko, K. B. Blyuss, A. Gonzalez-Buelga, S. J. Hogan, and D.J. Wagg. Real-time dynamic substructuring in a coupled oscillatorpendulum system. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 426(2068):1271–1294, 2005.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. P. Lambrechts, M. Boerlage, and M. Steinbuch. Trajectory planning and feedforward design for electromechanical motion systems. Control Engineering Practice, 13(2):145–157, February 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. C.M. Lim, S.A. Neild, D.P. Stoten, C.A. Taylor, and D. Drury. Using adaptive control for dynamic substructuring tests. Proc. of the 3rd European Conf. on Structural Control, 2004.Google Scholar
  47. Yu-Yuan Lin, Kuo-Chun Chang, and Yuan-Li Wang. Comparison of displacement coefficient method and capacity spectrum method with experimental results of re columns. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 33(1):35–48, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. D. Maclay. Simulation gets into the loop. IEE Review, 43(3):109–112, May 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. S. P. Mansoor, D. I. Jones, D. A. Bradley, F. C. Aris, and G. R. Jones. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation of a pumped storage hydro station. International Jornal of Power and Energy Systems, 23(2):127–133, 2003.Google Scholar
  50. S. McGreevy, T. T. Soong, and A. M. Reinhorn. An experimental study of time delay compensation in active structural control. In Proceedings of the 6th International Modal Analysis Conference-IMAC, volume 1, pages 733–739, 1988.Google Scholar
  51. W. E. Misselhorn, N. J. Theron, and P. S. Els. Investigation of hardware-in-the-loop for use in suspension development. Vehicle System Dynamics, 44(1):65–81, anuary 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. M. Nakashima. Development, potential, and limitations of real-time online (pseudo dynamic) testing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 359(1786):1851–1867, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. M. Nakashima, H. Kato, and E. Takaoka. Development of real-time pseudo dynamic testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 21: 779–92, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. M. Nakashima and N. Masaoka. Real-time on-line test for mdof systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28:393–420, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. S. A. Neild, D. P. Stoten, D. Drury, and D. J. Wagg. Control issues relating to real-time substructuring experiments using a shaking table. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34:1171–1192, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. P. Pan, M. Nakashima, and H. Tomofuji. Online test using displacement-force mixed control. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(8): 869–888, July 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. B. Panda, E. Mychalowycz, and F. J. Tarzanin. Application of passive dampers to modern helicopters. Smart Materials & Structures, 5(5): 509–516, October 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. A.V. Pinto, P. Pegon, G. Magonette, and G. Tsionis. Pseudo-dynamic testing of bridges using non-linear substructuring. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33:1125–1146, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. A. R. Plummer. Model-in-the-loop testing. Proc IMechE Part I-Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 220(I3):183–199, May 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. A. Preumont. Vibration control of active structures. Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2002.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. J. S. Prezemieniecki. Theory of matrix structural analysis. McGraw-Hill, 1968.Google Scholar
  62. W. Rulka and E. Pankiewicz. Mbs approach to generate equations of motions for hil-simulations in vehicle dynamics. Multibody system dynamics, 14(3–4):367–386, November 2005.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. R. T. Severn. Ecoest—european consortium of earthquake shaking tables— overview. In 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pages 2987–2992. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1995.Google Scholar
  64. P-S. Shing and S. A. Mahin. Cumulative experimental errors in pseudodynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15: 409–424, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. P-S. Shing, M. T. Vannan, and E. Cater. Implicit time intergration for pseudodynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 20:551–576, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. M.V. Sivaselvan, A. Reinhorn, Z. Liang, and X. Shao. Real-time dynamic hybrid testing of structural systems. Proc. 13th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, 2004.Google Scholar
  67. E. C. Smith, K. Govindswamy, M. R. Beale, and G. A. Lesieutre. Formulation, validation, and application of a finite element model for elastomeric lag dampers. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 41(3):247–256, July 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. T. T. Soong. Active Structural Control: Theory and Practice. Longman, London and Wiley, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  69. G. Stépan. Retarded Dynamical Systems: Stability and Characteristic Functions. Longman Scientific & Technical, 1989.Google Scholar
  70. C. Thewalt and M. Roman. Performance parameters for pseudodynamic tests. Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(9):2768–2781, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. D. J. Wagg and D. P. Stoten. Substructuring of dynamical systems via the adaptive minimal control synthesis algorithm. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30:865–877, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. M. Wallace, D.J. Wagg, and S.A. Neild. A stability analysis of substructured systems for real-time dynamic substructuring. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, volume 1, pages 385–392, 2004a.Google Scholar
  73. M. I. Wallace. Real-time dynamic substructuring for mechanical and aerospace applications: control techniques and experimental methods. PhD thesis, University of Bristol, 2006.Google Scholar
  74. M. I. Wallace, D. J. Wagg, and S. A. Neild. Use of control techniques for error analysis of real time dynamic substructure testing. In Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Structural Control, volume 1, pages 59–62, 2004b.Google Scholar
  75. M. I. Wallace, D. J. Wagg, S. A. Neild, P. C. Bunnis, N. A. Lieven, and A. J. Crewe. Testing coupled rotor blade-lag damper vibration dynamics using real-time dynamic substructuring. Journal of Sound and Vibration: In Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  76. M.I. Wallace, J. Sieber, S. A. Neild, D.J. Wagg, and B. Krauskopf. Stability analysis of real-time dynamic substructuring using delay differential equation models. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(15):1817–1832, 2005a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. M.I. Wallace, D.J. Wagg, and S. A. Neild. An adaptive polynomial based forward prediction algorithm for multi-actuator real-time dynamic substructuring. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A., 461(2064): 3807–3826, 2005b.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. T. Wang, M. Nakashima, and P. Pan. On-line hybrid test combining with general-purpose finite element software. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(12):1471–1488, October 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. B. Wu, G. Xu, Q. Wang, and M. S. Williams. Operator-splitting method for real-time substructure testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35:293–314, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. R. Zhang and A. G. Alleyne. Dynamic emulation using an indirect control input. Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control — Transactions of the ASME, 127(1):114–124, March 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. W. D. Zhu, S. Pekarek, J. Jatskevich, O. Wasynczuk, and D. Delisle. A model-in-the-loop interface to emulate source dynamics in a zonal dc distribution system. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 20(2): 438–445, March 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Wagg
    • 1
  • Simon Neild
    • 1
  • Peter Gawthrop
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations