Structural Control: A Benchmark Comparison

ASCE Structures Congress
Portland, Oregon
April 13-16, 1997

Sponsored by the ASCE Committee on Structural Control

Session Co-Chairs: B.F. Spencer Jr. and N. Makris
Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences
University of Notre Dame

The ASCE Committee on Structural Control sponsored a session at the 1997 Structures Congress entitled "Structural Control: A Benchmark Comparison." The session brought together a group of highly qualified researchers to study a well defined benchmark problem. The purpose of this exercise was to have a basis for assessing the relative effectiveness and implementability of various structural control algorithms and to provide an analytical testbed for evaluation of control design issues such as model order reduction, spillover, control-structure interaction, limited control authority, sensor noise, available measurements, computational delay, etc. The session represented an initial step toward development of a standard by which to validate software and hardware for structural control systems.


Session Participants

The session consisted of five papers. The first paper provided an overview and definition of the benchmark problem. The remaining four papers applied various control strategies to this problem and discussed the ability of the respective approaches to meet performance specifications while not violating control constraints.

The papers were as follows (click on a paper title to go to the paper in format):

  1. B.F. Spencer Jr., S.J. Dyke and H. S. Deoskar
    Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
    "Benchmark Problems in Structural Control - Part I: Active Mass Driver System" (PDF, 52KB).

    Note that an extended version of the conference paper problem statement is here.

    Abstract: Tremendous progress has been made over the last two decades toward making active structural control a viable technology for enhancing structural functionality and safety against natural hazards such as strong earthquakes and high winds. Over the years, many control algorithms and devices have been investigated, each with its own merits, depending on the particular application and desired effect. Clearly, the ability to make direct comparisons between systems employing these algorithms and devices is necessary to focus future efforts in the most promising directions and to effectively set performance goals and specifications.

    This paper presents the overview and problem definition for a benchmark structural control problem that can be used to evaluate the relative effectiveness and implementability of structural control algorithms and to provide an analytical testbed for evaluation of various control design issues. The structure considered -- chosen because of the widespread interest in this class of systems (Soong 1990; Housner, et al. 1994; Fujino, et al. 1996) -- is a scale model of a three-story building employing an active mass driver. A model for this structural system, including the actuator and sensors, has been developed directly from experimentally obtained data and will form the basis for the benchmark study. Control constraints and evaluation criteria are presented for the design problem. A simulation program has been developed and made available to facilitate comparison of the efficiency and merit of various control strategies. This benchmark problem can be viewed as an initial step toward development of standardized performance evaluation procedures.

  2. J.C. Wu, A.K. Agrawal and J.N. Yang
    Department of Civil Engineering, University of California
    "Application of Sliding Mode Control to a Benchmark Problem" (PDF, 42KB).

    Abstract: In this paper, both the methods of continuous sliding mode control (CSMC) and continuous sliding mode control with a compensator (CSMC&C) are applied to a benchmark problem; namely, an active mass driver system. For these control strategies, salient features of the controller design and their merit are described. Simulation results based on CSMC and CSMC&C are presented and compared with that of the LQG method. It is demonstrated that the control performances of CSMC and CSMC&C are quite comparable to that of LQG.

  3. Jianbo Lu and Robert E. Skelton
    Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Purdue University
    "Covariance Control Using Closed Loop Modeling for Structures" (PDF, 126KB).

    Abstract: This paper presents a low order controller design method, using closed loop modeling plus covariance control, with application to the benchmark problem in structural control for the active mass driver system at the University of Notre Dame. This method finds a satisfactory controller by iterating between closed loop modeling and covariance control. The closed loop modeling implies that the model used for model-based control design is extracted from the feedback system of the last iteration.

  4. H. Allison Smith, Scott E. Breneman and Olivier Sureau
    Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University
    "H-infinity Static and Dynamic Output Feedback Control of the AMD Benchmark Problem" (PDF, 124KB).

    Abstract: This study develops an active control methodology for the AMD benchmark problem of Spencer et al. (1997) based on dynamic output feedback controllers designed using an H-infinity based approach. Kalman filter estimators of the states of a reduced order model of the benchmark structure are coupled to static state feedback controller gains to develop the dynamic feedback controllers. A method is outlined for designing H-infinity feedback controller gains, and a comparison is made between the effectiveness of H-infinity static output feedback and the dynamic acceleration feedback controllers. The results quantify the performance increase obtained with the additional complexity of the dynamic output feedback controllers compared to the static acceleration feedback controllers.

  5. Gary J. Balas
    Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechancis, University of Minnesota
    "Synthesis of Controllers for the Active Mass Driver System in the Presence of Uncertainty" (PDF, 86KB).

    Abstract: The structured singular value (µ) synthesis technique is used to design controllers for the Active Mass Damper (AMD) Benchmark problem. In addition to stated performance objectives, robustness of the controllers to high frequency unmodeled dynamics (the neglected high frequency modes of the evaluation model), modeling error in the actuator dynamics and variations in the first structural natural frequency and damping value are considered in the design. The resulting controller achieves similar performance levels on the nominal evaluation model and the evaluation model with significant changes in its first natural frequency and damping value.

(The papers appeared in the Proceedings of the ASCE 1997 Structures Congress.)

Page designed by Erik A. Johnson (