Vol.8, No.4
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
December, 2009
Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2009) 8: 469479
DOI: 10.1007/s1180300991260
A. M. Reinhorn ^{1}^{†} , O. Lavan ^{2}^{‡} and G.P. Cimellaro ^{3}^{§}
1. Dept. of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Univ. at Buffalo The State University of NewYork, USA
2. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
3. Dept. of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering DISTR, Politecnico di Torino, Turin 10129, Italy
Abstract: One of the founders of structural control theory and its application in civil engineering, Professor Emeritus Tsu T. Soong, envisioned the development of the integral design of structures protected by active control devices. Most of his disciples and colleagues continuously attempted to develop procedures to achieve such integral control. In his recent papers published jointly with some of the authors of this paper, Professor Soong developed design procedures for the entire structure using a design – redesign procedure applied to elastic systems. Such a procedure was developed as an extension of other work by his disciples. This paper summarizes some recent techniques that use traditional active control algorithms to derive the most suitable (optimal, stable) control force, which could then be implemented with a combination of active, passive and semiactive devices through a simple match or more sophisticated optimal procedures. Alternative design can address the behavior of structures using Liapunov stability criteria. This paper shows a uniﬁ ed procedure which can be applied to both elastic and inelastic structures. Although the implementation does not always preserve the optimal criteria, it is shown that the solutions are effective and practical for design of supplemental damping, stiffness enhancement or softening, and strengthening or weakening.
Keywords: active control; integral control; design – redesign procedure; inelastic structures; viscoelastic braces
1
Introduction
In the last 30 years, the possibility of integrated design of structural/control systems in which both the structure and its vibration control system are optimized simultaneously has been extensively researched. Integrated design of optimal structural/control systems has been acknowledged as an advanced methodology for space structures, but not many applications can be found in civil engineering. Numerous researchers addressed the (i) topology; (ii) shape; and (iii) size optimization of structures using some form of control devices (see references provided by Cimellaro et al., 2009b which are not repeated here). The fundamental idea of redesign was proposed by Smith et al. (1992) and more recently, by Gluck et al. (1996) in a form close to the one presented in this paper. The idea of redesign is incorporated into the integrated design of structural/control systems as a second stage of a two stage procedure. (1) First stage: a desired structure is chosen based
Correspondence to: A. M. Reinhorn, Dept. of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Univ. at Buffalo The State Univ. of New York, 135 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA Tel: 7166452839 Email: reinhorn@buffalo.edu ^{†} Clifford C Furnas Eminent Professor; ^{‡} Senior Lecturer; ^{§} Assistant Professor Received October 11, 2009; Accepted October 31, 2009
on best practice using engineering experience and is assumed to be ﬁ xed. An “active” often “adaptable” controller is designed to obtain a desired performance requirement, e.g., drift, absolute acceleration, base shear, etc. of the initial structure. The dynamic response of the initial structure in this stage is deﬁ ned as the “ideal response.” (2) Second stage: the structure and the controller are redesigned by modifying the structural system to deliver part of the controller actions, and part is preserved to be delivered by active components to achieve a common goal prescribed by the performance obtained in the ﬁ rst step. The structure is therefore redesigned for better economy and controllability by modifying the structural system itself, i.e., changing stiffness, damping, and weights, and by reducing the amount of active control power needed to achieve the “ideal response.” In the following sections, this idea is developed progressively from simple elastic structures to inelastic structures.
2 Design of simple elastic structure with supplemental viscoelastic braces
The ﬁ rst development of this idea for simple frame structures and structural systems was suggested by Gluck et al. (1996), for a frame structure braced by control devices (active or passive) that control its vibration, for which the equation of motion may be written as:
470
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Vol.8
Mx ()ttt Cx () Kx () ++=+ Ef ()t Hu()t where matrices M, C, K characterize mass, structural damping and stiffness related to the deformation x(t) at various degrees of freedom. 
(1) ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ 
⎧ u u
u 
1 2 n ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ = ⎡ gg ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣⎣ 11 ,, x 12
gg n 1 ,, x n 2 x x 

g 1 nx ,
g nn x ,

⎤ ⎧ x ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎨ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎦ ⎩ x

⎫ 1 ⎪ ⎪
⎭ 
+ 

(1) In the ﬁ rst stage, the brace forces are included in the system as a set of control forces u(t), at locations indicated by matrix D, designed to reduce the response due to excitation forces f(t) at locations indicated by E. The equation of motion can be easily compacted to a 
⎡ gg ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ 11 ,,
x x 12
ggg n1 x
,, n 2 x
... 
g g 
1 nx ,
nn x , 
⎤ ⎧ x ⎫ 1 ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ ⎥
⎥ ⎪ ⎦ ⎩
⎭ ⎥
⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎥ x 
(8) 
state space formulation (Soong, 1990):
()tttt
z
=++
Az ()
Bu()
Df
()
(2)
where z(t) = {x(t), _{x} _{(}_{t} _{)} } ^{T} , and the parameter matrices for
the system, A, for the control location, B, and for force
operation, H, are:
A =
⎡
⎢
⎣
0
1
−
MK
11

−
MC
⎤
⎥
⎦
;
B =
⎡
⎢
⎣
0
M

1
H
⎤
⎥
⎦
;
D =
⎡
⎢
⎣
0
M

1
E
⎤
⎥
⎦
(3)
Assume for simplicity that the control forces are of
linear form:
u()tt
=
Gz ()
G
G
xx
z ()t
=
G x ()t
x
+
G
x
x (t )
(4)
in which the gain matrix, G includes the coefﬁ cients, G _{x} ,
^{G} x
, for the structural control devices.
The equation of motion reduces to:
()t
z
= A z ()tt
c
+ Df ()
with
A
_{c} =
A
+
BG
(5)
The
gain
matrix
G,
(the
matrix
of
controlled
coefﬁ cients) is obtained by minimizing a performance
index:
J =
0
(
z
T
( )
t
Qz
( )
t
+ u
T
( )
t
Ru
( ))
d
tt
J = _{∫} _{0}
^{t} ^{f} {z ^{T} (t) [Q + G ^{T} R G ] z(t)} dt,
or
(6)
which is constrained by the equilibrium equation,
Eq. (5). The matrices Q and R are weighting matrices of
factors for the optimization. The selection of matrices Q
and R enable solutions within the structural or resource
limitations as illustrated further in the numerical
example.
The gain matrix G is obtained from the minimization
of the performance index J:
G = −
1
/
2
R
− 1
T
BP
with P solved from
A
T
P
PA
+−
/
12
PBR
− 1
B
T
P
Q
2
+=
0
(7)
The control
explicitly:
forces are obtained from Eq. (4) or
The control forces can be supplied by passive
diagonal braces with stiffness and damping properties
such as viscoelastic, ﬂ uid, or hysteretic braces. These
forces are dependent on their constant stiffness and
damping coefﬁ cient as follows:
⎧ u
*
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎩
1
*
u
2
*
u
n
⎫
⎪
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎪
⎭
=
⎢
k
1
⎡
−
k
2
⎢
−
kkk
212
+−
3
k
⎢
⎢
⎣
− k
n
− k
n
k
n
⎤⎤ ⎧ x
⎪
⎥
⎪
⎥
⎨
⎥
⎪
⎥
⎪
⎦ ⎩
1
x
2
x
n
⎫
⎪
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎪
⎭
+
⎡
⎢⎢
⎢
c
1
−
c
2
−
ccc
212
+−
c
3
⎢
⎢
⎣
− c
n
− c
n
c
n
⎤ ⎧ x
⎫
1
⎪
⎥
⎪
⎪
⎪
x
⎨
⎬
⎥
⎪
⎪
⎥
⎪
⎪
⎦ ⎩ ^{x} u ⎭
⎥
2
(9)
The coefﬁ cients of the passive formulations,
^{k} ij
,
c ,
ij
as shown, do not correspond exactly to the gain factors
in Eq. (8) which were derived from the gain coefﬁ cients
^{g} ij,x ^{,}
^{g} ij , x
.
(2) In the second stage, using several approximations,
the stiffness coefﬁ cients k _{i} and the damping coefﬁ cients c _{i}
are determined here using a least square approximation.
For simplicity of further derivations, Eqs. (8) and (9) can
be transformed using storydrift formulation obtained
from the linear transformation:
where
x (t) = T d (t)
⎡ 111
⎢
⎢
11
1
0
T = ⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
1 ⎤
1
1
1
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
(10)
Simultaneously, the control forces in the diagonal
braces u(t) in terms of story drifts and drift velocities
are obtained from Eq. (8) with the transformation from
Eq. (10):
u()tt
=
Gd ()
d
+
Gd ()t
d
in which G
d
=
T
T GT
x
;
and
G
d
=
T
T GT
x
(11)
No.4
A. M. Reinhorn et al.: Design of controlled elastic and inelastic structures
471
Using the same transformation, the brace forces of
Eq. (9) can be written as:
u
^{*} ()ttt
=
Kd
d
()
+
Cd
d
()
with
K
=
T
T
KT
dx
=
diag (
k _{)} ;
i
C
=
T
T
CT
dx
=
diag (
c
i
)
(12)
where, k _{i} , c _{i} are the supplemental stiffness and damping
properties from each brace at level i.
To determine the individual components of matrices
K _{d} and C _{d} in Eq. (12), a least squares approach is
considered. Since the stiffness K _{d} and damping C _{d} can
be assumed to be independent, the least squares will be
applied independently for K _{d} and C _{d} :
and
k
k
T
0
j
g
kj d
,
() d
dt
j
t
/
T
dt
k
() d
t
o
c
k
T
0
j
g
kj d
,
dt
j
()
d
t
/
T
dt
k
()
d
t
o
(13)
Other techniques can be used for this redesign
procedure in the second stage as shown by Gluck et
al. (1996). Numerical examples were presented in the
reference mentioned above. The performance of such a
redesigned structure with the additional braces subjected
to several earthquakes was shown to be almost the same
(within 2%) of the actively controlled solution.
3
Redesign of elastic structures using the optimal approach
Although alternative methods can be used for
optimal design of structures with passive components
considering Lyapunov stability criteria (Lavan and Levy,
2009), the method below allows design of both active
and passive components.
3.1 Methodology, basic equations and expressions
Cimellaro et al. (2009b) recently expanded the
procedure to allow for adjustment of the initial basic
structure in the second design stage, i.e., the redesign
stage, altering the stiffness K, damping C and weight Mg
matrices by subtraction, not only by additions, producing
weakened and lighter structures which perform better
than the original.
In the ﬁ rst stage, the design follows the same
procedure using the Linear Quadratic Regulator
(LQR) as presented above, although more advanced
control algorithms, such as poles assignments, H _{2}
and H _{∞} , Soong and Manolis (1987) that can be used
to determine the control forces, u(t). It is important
to note that LQR implies optimality for a white noise
excitation, an assumption that leads to a Ricatti equation
and its solution. For any other motion, this is sub
optimal (Yang et al., 1990). However, the controllers
designed using LQR were proven efﬁ cient in practical
applications for seismic protection (Reinhorn et al.,
1993). Moreover, the active control forces obtained for
each DOF considered in the design procedure can be
easily converted to equivalent passive devices using a
method described in Lavan et al. (2008) and Cimellaro
et al. (2009a).
In the second stage, the structure is redesigned in
order to achieve the same performance, but the control
force is resolved into an active part and a passive part
depending on the constant coefﬁ cients which can be
used as structure modiﬁ ers. During the redesign process,
mass, stiffness and damping are therefore modiﬁ ed in
order to achieve this goal. At the end of this step, the
building will maintain the same performance, but with
less amount of “active control forces.” If the control
force is separated u(t)=u _{a} (t)+u (t), where u _{a} (t) is an
active part and u (t) is a passive part, the equation of
p
the redesigned structure including the change of weight
p
(mass), stiffness and damping matrices, respectively, by
ΔM, ΔK and ΔC, becomes:
(
M
+ ΔΔ Mx
)
tt
+
C
+
ΔΔ
Cx
()
(
)
() + (
K
)
+ ΔΔ Kx
()
t
= Hu
a
(
t
)
+
Ef ( t _{)}
(14)
where similarly to Eq. (4) the active component of the
control force u(t) is:
u
a
(t ) =
Gz _{(}_{t} _{)}
a
(15)
where G _{a}
is
the
active part of the controller after
redesign. Therefore, the control law can be written in the
following form:
Hu
( ) =
t
HG
⎡ x
⎢
⎣
x
(
t
(
t
)
)
⎤
⎥
⎦
= HG
a
⎡ x
⎢
⎣
x
(
t
(
t
)
)
⎤
⎥
⎦
−
ΔΔ K ; ΔΔ
C
⎡ x
⎢
⎣
x
(
t
(
t
)
))
⎤
_{⎥} − ΔΔMx _{(} _{)} (16)
⎦
t
and the closedloop system after redesign is
(
M
+ ΔΔ Mx
)
tt
+
C
+
ΔΔ
Cx
()
(
)
() + (
K
+ ΔΔ
)( )
Kx
t
= HG z
a
(
t
)
+
Ef (
t )
(17)
where u _{a} (t), which is given by the Eq. (14), is
the active part of the controller in Eq. (1) and
ΔΔMx + ΔΔCx + ΔΔKx
(ttt
)
(
)
(
_{)} is the passive part, u (t).
p
The objective of the redesign is to ﬁ nd the passive
control modiﬁ ers (ΔM, ΔK, ΔC) in order to minimize
the control power needed to satisfy Eq. (14) for any
given G. Note that the closedloop system response
before and after redesign remains unchanged; therefore,
all the designed closedloop system properties remain
unchanged. Let B _{k} , B _{c} and B _{m} be the stiffness, damping
472
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Vol.8
and mass connectivity matrices of the structural
system. The changes in the structural parameters can be
expressed in the form:
S = diag[k _{0}_{i} ,
..c
_{0}_{i} ,…m _{0}_{i} ,…] is the
matrix of the initial
parameters, then these constraints can be presented as:
T 
G _{p} + SC ≥ (26) 

ΔΔ K = BGB kkk 

ΔΔ C = BGB T 
(18) An objective function representing the power of the active part of the control law is given by: 

ccc 

ΔΔ M = BGB 
T 

mmm 

where 
G G 
k c = diag ( … , Δ = diag ( … , Δ 
k i c i 
, , 
… … 
) ) 
(19) F (G p ) =∫u T a () t Ru a () d tt = trace (T G R XX G aa R )(27) where R _{X}_{X} is the covariance matrix of the response. A 

G 
m = diag ( … , Δ m 
i 
, 
… ) 
constraint optimization is formulated 

Substituting 
the 
solution of 
from 
Eq. (1), 
into minimize F (G p )= trace (T GR XX G aa R )(28) where G _{a} is given by Eq. (25), subjected to the equality 

Eq. (16) yields: 

where 
HGz _{(}_{t} _{)} = (G active + G 
passive ) 
z 
( 
t 
) 
(20) constraints of Eq. (24) and inequality constraint in Eq. (26). An approach to numerically solve the constrained 

T 
optimization problem is to use the “Exterior penalty 

G 
active 
= 
HG 
a 
_{a}_{n}_{d} G passive 
=  
I BGB L 0 p p p 
(21) function method” that is part of the Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques (SUMT) 

with 
(Vanderplaats, 2005). The approach consists of creating 

B 
= 
⎡ B ⎢ k 0 
0 B 
0 0 ⎤ ⎥ G 
= ⎡ G ⎢ 0 
k 
0 G 
0 0 
⎤ ⎥ 
an unconstrained objective function of the form: 

p 
⎢ ⎢ ⎣ 0 
c 0 
B m ⎥ , ⎥ ⎦ p 
⎢ ⎢ ⎣ 
0 
0 
c 
G m 
⎥ ⎥ ⎦ , 
Φ G (, r pp ) =F (GG p + rP p p )(_{)}(29) where F(G _{p} ) is the original objective function, P(G _{p} ) 

0 = [I III _{]} 
(22) is the penalty function and r p is a multiplier which determines the magnitude of the penalty and is held 

and 
constant during a complete unconstraint minimization. 

L = 
⎡ ⎢ ⎣ 
M 
I −1 (HG − [K 
C 
]) 
⎤ _{⎥} ⎦ 
(23) The penalty function P(G _{p} ) is given by the following expression in this case: 
The necessary and sufﬁ cient condition to resolve the
control law into active and passive parts as in Eq. (20),
it is given as follows: According to Smith et al. (1992)
there exists an active controller G :
a
HG
a
=
HG
+
I
0
T
B G B
ppp
L
if and only if
HH
+
I
0
T
B G B
ppp
L
=
I
0
T
B G B
ppp
L
Such that G _{a} is given by:
G
a
=
G
+
T
I BGB L
0
ppp
(24)
(25)
where ( ) ^{+} denotes the MoorePenrose inverse of a
matrix. The stiffness and the damping of any element
of the system after redesign cannot be negative while
the weight of any element cannot decrease lower than a
speciﬁ ed bound, therefore imposing speciﬁ c constraints.
Therefore, if C = diag[k _{i} ,
..c
_{i} ,…m _{i} ,…] is a matrix with
diagonal elements containing the speciﬁ ed lower bound
values of the structural elements after redesign and
P 
(G p 
) =trace ⎡ ⎣ ( ZG S + C )( G PP S + C ) T ⎤ ⎦ ^{+} + T + T 

trace 
{(BB I 0 B G B ppp LHH − I _{0} BBGB L ppp 
) × 

( 
BB 
+ I 0 T B G B ppp LHH ++ − I 0 T B G B ppp L )T } 

(30)
where Z = diag(…z _{i} …) is a diagonal matrix where the
scalars z _{i} are chosen such that z _{i} = 1 if the corresponding
inequality constraint
^{G} pi
+s _{i} –c _{i} ≥0 is active, and z _{i} = 0 if the
constraint is not active. So the new objective function is
given by the following expression:
Φ G
(, r Pp ) =trace ⎡ pP ( r trace ⎣ Z G 
(+ 
GR a XX G SC )( 
T a R G P 
) ++ SC ) 
T ⎤ ⎦ ^{+} 

r ttrace p {(BB + I 
T B G B ppp 
LHH + 
− I 
T 

0 
0 B G B ppp 

+ 
T 
LHH + 
− I B GGB 0 p p 
T p 
L )T _{}} 

(BB I 0 B G B ppp 
L
i
(31)
Minimization of Eq. (31) requires that the following
ﬁ rstorder necessary condition is satisﬁ ed.
vec diag
Gr
p
=
1
(32)
No.4
A. M. Reinhorn et al.: Design of controlled elastic and inelastic structures
473
where vec diag(G _{p} ) denotes a vector with diagonal
elements of G _{p} as its components. We have
P
1
=
TT
B
p
I
0
B
+
T
R
B
+
I B
0
p
i
T
B LH
p
+
HR
XX
H
+
T
HL B
p
r
p
BI IB
p
0
0
p
T
T
i BB
p
T
LH
+
T
HL B
p
B
r
pp
T
T
I
0
B
+
I B
0
p
i
T
B LH
p
+
T
HL B
p
Z
(33)
and
r
1
=
vec diag
TT
B
p
I
0
B
+
T
RGHR
XX
H
+
T
HL B
p
r Z vec diag
p
(
SC
)
(34)
Therefore, the following algorithm can be used to
ﬁ nd the optimal solution, where it is assumed that the
matrix P _{1} is invertible. The general algorithm for the
exterior penalty function approach is shown in Fig. 1.
If a small value of r
Φ
^{G} P
p
is chosen, the resulting function
, r _{)} is easily minimized, but may yield large
p
constraints violations. On the other hand, a large value
of r
will ensure near satisfaction of all constraints but
p
will create a very poorly conditioned optimization
problem from a numerical standpoint. Therefore, the
algorithm starts with a small value of r
Φ
^{G} P
and _{Φ}
, r
p
^{G} P
.
Then r
, r
p
p
p
and minimize
is increased by a factor γ, say γ = 3,
is minimized again, each time beginning
the optimization from the previous solution, until a
satisfactory result is obtained.
3.2 Numerical example  MDOF 9story sheartype
building
A ninestory structure considered in this example
Fig. 1
Algorithm for the exterior penalty function method
37.19 m (122 ft) in elevation. The bays are 9.15 m (30
ft) on center, in both directions, with ﬁ ve bays each in
the NorthSouth (NS) and EastWest (EW) directions.
The building’s lateral loadresisting system is comprised
of steel perimeter momentresisting frames (MRFs) with
simple framing on the furthest south EW frame. The
interior bays of the structure contain simple framing
with composite ﬂ oors. Typical ﬂ oortoﬂ oor heights
(measured from centerofbeam to centerofbeam for
analysis purposes) are 3.96 m (13 ft). The ﬂ oorto
ﬂ oor height of the basement level is 3.65 m (12 ft) and
for the ﬁ rst ﬂ oor is 5.49 m (18 ft). The ﬂ oor system is
comprised of 248 MPa (36 ksi) steel wideﬂ ange beams
acting compositely with the ﬂ oor slab, each frame
resisting onehalf of the seismic mass associated with
the entire structure.
The seismic mass at the ground level is 965 t (66.0
kipsec ^{2} /ft), 1010 t (69.0 kipssec ^{2} /ft) for the ﬁ rst level,
989 t (67.7 kipsec ^{2} /ft) for the second through eighth
levels and 1070 t (73.2 kipsec ^{2} /ft) for the ninth level.
The seismic mass of the above ground levels of the entire
structure is 9000 t (616 kipsec ^{2} /ft). More details about
the model can be found in Cimellaro et al. (2009b). The
lateral stiffness of the sheartype model are reported in
column 4 of Table 1, and the ﬁ rst three frequencies of the
sheartype model are 0.45, 1.28 and 1.99 Hz. Rayleigh
proportional damping is considered, including 2% of
damping ratio for the ﬁ rst two modes.
The structure was subjected to the ﬁ rst 30 s of white
noise with amplitude of 0.15 g and with a sampling
frequency of 0.02 s. The drift and acceleration response
during the ﬁ rst stage of the algorithm are shown in Table
3. Columns 2 and 3 show the drift and acceleration
response of the structure with a hypothetical active
control force which is deﬁ ned here as the “Ideal
Response.” Initially, the story lateral stiffness is
reduced proportionally to 30% of the initial stiffness
value in order to obtain a ﬁ rst natural period increment
of 83%. Response of the lighter structure is shown in
columns 4 and 5 of Table 3 . Then, a fully active brace
is placed at each story level in order to achieve the same
performance in terms of drift of the uncontrolled initial
structure. Values of the maximum active control force
at each story level are shown in column 8 of Table 3 .
After the structure and controller were designed
independently in ﬁ rst stage, the controller and the
building are redesigned together in the second stage
to achieve the same performance (Ideal Response) by
reducing the amount of active control and changing the
passive components as shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
The initial total energy transferred to the structure from
the controller is equal to 2623.0 N·m· and, after redesign,
is equal to 1972.1 N·m, so the percentage of reduction
of the total energy transferred is 24.81%. Results of
the redesign procedure are shown in columns 4, 5 and
6 of Table 3. Comparisons between the fully controlled
structure and the redesigned structure response are
shown in Fig. 2.
474
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Vol.8
Table 1
Structural parameters after redesign
Story
level
No.
(1)
Original
Redesign
^{M} kN . s ^{2} /m
^{C}
^{K}^{M} opt
^{C} opt
^{K} opt
kN . s/m
10 ^{3} kN/m
kN . s ^{2} /m
kN . s/m
10 ^{3} kN/m
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
9 411.4
534.1
8 1152.8
494.7
7 390.9
494.7
6 1077.4
494.7
5 487.5
494.7
4 877.3
494.7
3 1119.4
494.7
2 1301.4
494.7
1 906.5
503.5
100.02
291.12
71.52
247.63
75.03
170.08
224.76
263.02
143.48
350.3
342.2
336.0
348.3
361.2
370.0
423.7
474.1
441.3
1352.5
5843.8
434.9
2284.2
289.9
596.6
984.1
1841.0
723.7
18.21
62.79
15.68
56.02
16.89
39.98
54.02
65.92
36.21
4
Redesign
of
inelastic
optimal approach
structures
using
Table 2 Percentage change in structural parameters (negative indicates removing)
Story level ΔM 
ΔC ΔK 
U max 



Consider a multidegreeoffreedom inelastic 
No. (%) 
(%) (%) 
(kN) 

building structure subjected to a onedimensional 
(1) (2) 
(3) (4) 
(5) 

external excitation. The general equation of motion of the inelastic system with active control forces is given by 
34.4 228.8
30.8 406.9 
134.97 107.11 

Mx (t ) + Cx (t ) + Kx (t )+T f s s 
⎡ x ( ) ⎣ t 
⎤ ⎦ ^{=} Hu(tt )+Ef ( ) 
(35) 
32.1 11.3
29.6 112.0 
110.81 114.80 

where x(t) is the displacement vector, M and C are the 
27.0 40.5 
125.26 

mass and inherent damping matrices, respectively, K is the stiffness matrix of all linear elements, u(t) is the active control force vector; H is the location matrix for the active control forces; E is the excitation inﬂ uence matrix; T s is the location matrix of the restoring forces and f _{s} [x(t)] is 
25.2 32.0
14.4 12.1
4.2 41.5
12.3 20.2 
113.00 113.42 108.17 57.02 

a vector of nonlinear restoring forces in the structural Table 3 Drift and acceleration response for the two stages of the algorithm 

Story 
Ideal response 
T* _{1} /T _{1} =1.83 ^{#} 
Totally active [LQR] 
Redesigned structure 

level 

No. 
Drift (%) 
x _{a} (m/s ^{2} ) 
Drift (%) x _{a} _{(}_{m}_{/}_{s} 2 _{)} 
Drift (%) 
x 
_{a} _{(}_{m}_{/}_{s} 2 _{)} U _{m}_{a}_{x} (kN) 
Drift (%) x _{a} (m/s ^{2} ) 
U _{m}_{a}_{x} (kN) 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) (5) 
(6) 
(7) (8) 
(9) (10) 
(11) 


3.61 
0.80 3.09 
0.31 
2.03 173.39 
_{0}_{.}_{2}_{3} _{1}_{.}_{8}_{7} 
_{1}_{3}_{4}_{.}_{9}_{7} 


2.97 
0.47 2.64 
0.15 
1.85 159.72 
_{0}_{.}_{1}_{0} _{1}_{.}_{6}_{7} 
_{1}_{0}_{7}_{.}_{1}_{1} 


2.71 
2.55 2.46 
0.77 
1.77 153.86 
_{0}_{.}_{6}_{7} _{1}_{.}_{8}_{9} 
_{1}_{1}_{0}_{.}_{8}_{1} 


2.71 
0.76 2.86 
0.22 
1.87 163.49 
_{0}_{.}_{1}_{9} _{1}_{.}_{7}_{0} 
_{1}_{1}_{4}_{.}_{8}_{0} 


2.64 
2.74 2.99 
0.86 
1.88 165.26 
_{0}_{.}_{7}_{3} _{1}_{.}_{8}_{0} 
_{1}_{2}_{5}_{.}_{2}_{6} 


3.74 
1.39 2.64 
0.43 
2.04 151.52 
_{0}_{.}_{3}_{4} _{1}_{.}_{9}_{0} 
_{1}_{1}_{3}_{.}_{0}_{0} 


3.50 
1.04 2.67 
0.37 
2.10 127.90 
_{0}_{.}_{3}_{1} _{1}_{.}_{9}_{8} 
_{1}_{1}_{3}_{.}_{4}_{2} 


2.95 
0.92 2.62 
0.38 
1.99 97.91 
_{0}_{.}_{3}_{1} _{1}_{.}_{9}_{6} 
_{1}_{0}_{8}_{.}_{1}_{7} 


2.79 
1.87 2.47 
0.76 
1.98 66.67 
_{0}_{.}_{7}_{1} _{1}_{.}_{9}_{3} 
_{5}_{7}_{.}_{0}_{2} 
Note: ^{#} The stiffness is reduced proportionally to 30% of the initial lateral stiffness
No.4
A. M. Reinhorn et al.: Design of controlled elastic and inelastic structures
475
Drift (%)
(a)
Acceleration (m/s ^{2} )
(b)
Fig. 2
Response comparison of “actively controlled” and “redesigned” system
elements. f _{s} [x(t)] in Eq. (35) can be separated into
two parts, one representing the elastic behavior and the
other representing the nonlinear hysteretic behavior, i.e.,
f
s
⎡
⎣
x
(tt
)
⎦
Kx
(
⎤ =
)
+
Hf
s
⎡
⎣
x
(
t
)
⎤
⎦
(36)
in which
K is a linear elastic stiffness matrix for the
linear elastic parts of the nonlinear or hysteretic structural
components;
_{f} _{s} =[f _{1}
f _{2} … f _{l} ] ^{T} is a vector representing the
nonlinear or hysteretic parts of the restoring forces for
nonlinear structural components; and
_{H} is a location
matrix for the nonlinear elements. The component i of
the vector of nonlinear forces, which is the nonlinear
force in element i, is modeled using the continuous
evolutionary SivaselvanReinhorn model (Sivaselvan
and Reinhorn, 2000) discretized as follows:
f
si
⎡
⎣
x
i
(
t
+
τ
)
,
x
i
i = 1,…, n
(
t
+
τ
)
⎤ =
⎦
ak x
iii
(
t
_{(}_{ν}
+ τ _{)} + α ) ⋅⋅+
(
1
i
f
yi
i
τν
i
)
^{(}^{3}^{7}^{)}
where the normalized nonlinear force, ν _{i} =(f _{s}_{i}  α _{i} k _{i} x _{i} ) /
i
ηη
1
Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.
Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbitpenerbit terkemuka.
Batalkan kapan saja.