Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Vol.8, No.4

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

December, 2009

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2009) 8: 469-479

DOI: 10.1007/s11803-009-9126-0

Design of controlled elastic and inelastic structures

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 semi-active 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 unied 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: 716-645-2839 E-mail: 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 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 dened 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 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 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

  • x n

1

  • 2 ⎬ ⎪ ⎪

+

(1) In the 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

  • 2

⎦ ⎩

  • x n

⎪⎪

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 coefcients, 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

coefcients) is obtained by minimizing a performance

index:

J =

t f

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, uid, or hysteretic braces. These

forces are dependent on their constant stiffness and

damping coefcient 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 coefcients 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 coefcients

g ij,x ,

g ij , x

.

(2) In the second stage, using several approximations,

the stiffness coefcients k i and the damping coefcients c i

are determined here using a least square approximation.

For simplicity of further derivations, Eqs. (8) and (9) can

be transformed using story-drift 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

re-designed 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 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 efcient 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 coefcients which can be

used as structure modiers. During the redesign process,

mass, stiffness and damping are therefore modied 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 closed-loop 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 nd the passive

control modiers (ΔM, ΔK, ΔC) in order to minimize

the control power needed to satisfy Eq. (14) for any

given G. Note that the closed-loop system response

before and after redesign remains unchanged; therefore,

all the designed closed-loop 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 0i ,

..c

0i ,…m 0i ,…] 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 XX 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

and

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 sufcient 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 Moore-Penrose 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

specied bound, therefore imposing specic constraints.

Therefore, if C = diag[k i ,

..c

i ,…m i ,…] is a matrix with

diagonal elements containing the specied 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

S-C

)(

T

a

R

G

P

) +

+

S-C

)

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

rst-order necessary condition is satised.

P 1
P
1

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

(

S-C

)

(34)

Therefore, the following algorithm can be used to

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 9-story shear-type

building

A nine-story structure considered in this example

is 45.73 m (150 ft) by 45.73 m (150 ft) in plan, and Start Given G
is 45.73 m (150 ft) by 45.73 m (150 ft) in plan, and
Start
Given G p0 r p , γ
Minimize
Φ
(
, r
)
as
G P
p
unconstrained function Eq. (33)
Find G
to min. Φ
(
, r
)
G P
p
p
No
q
q-1
0
r p = γ r
| ΦΦ
(GG
)
(
)|
< ε
Φ (G
)
p
Yes
Exit

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 ve bays each in

the North-South (N-S) and East-West (E-W) directions.

The building’s lateral load-resisting system is comprised

of steel perimeter moment-resisting frames (MRFs) with

simple framing on the furthest south E-W frame. The

interior bays of the structure contain simple framing

with composite oors. Typical oor-to-oor heights

(measured from center-of-beam to center-of-beam for

analysis purposes) are 3.96 m (13 ft). The oor-to-

oor height of the basement level is 3.65 m (12 ft) and

for the rst oor is 5.49 m (18 ft). The oor system is

comprised of 248 MPa (36 ksi) steel wide-ange beams

acting compositely with the oor slab, each frame

resisting one-half of the seismic mass associated with

the entire structure.

The seismic mass at the ground level is 965 t (66.0

kip-sec 2 /ft), 1010 t (69.0 kips-sec 2 /ft) for the rst level,

989 t (67.7 kip-sec 2 /ft) for the second through eighth

levels and 1070 t (73.2 kip-sec 2 /ft) for the ninth level.

The seismic mass of the above ground levels of the entire

structure is 9000 t (616 kip-sec 2 /ft). More details about

the model can be found in Cimellaro et al. (2009b). The

lateral stiffness of the shear-type model are reported in

column 4 of Table 1, and the rst three frequencies of the

shear-type model are 0.45, 1.28 and 1.99 Hz. Rayleigh

proportional damping is considered, including 2% of

damping ratio for the rst two modes.

The structure was subjected to the 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 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 dened 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 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 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

KM 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

  • 4.1 Basic equations and expressions

 

Consider a multi-degree-of-freedom inelastic

 

No.

(%)

(%)

(%)

(kN)

building structure subjected to a one-dimensional

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

external excitation. The general equation of motion of

the inelastic system with active control forces is given by

 
  • 9 -81.8

-34.4

228.8

  • 8 -78.4

-30.8

406.9

134.97

107.11

Mx

(t ) + Cx (t ) + Kx (t )+T f

s

s

x ( )

t

=

Hu(tt

)+Ef ( )

(35)

  • 7 -78.1

-32.1

11.3

  • 6 -77.4

-29.6

112.0

110.81

114.80

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

  • 5 -77.5

-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 inuence matrix; T

s

is

the location matrix of the restoring forces and f s [x(t)] is

  • 4 -76.5

-25.2

-32.0

  • 3 -76.0

-14.4

-12.1

  • 2 -74.9

-4.2

41.5

  • 1 -74.8

-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 max (kN)

Drift (%)

x a (m/s 2 )

U max (kN)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

  • 9 0.31

3.61

0.80

3.09

0.31

2.03

173.39

0.23

1.87

134.97

  • 8 0.18

2.97

0.47

2.64

0.15

1.85

159.72

0.10

1.67

107.11

  • 7 0.94

2.71

2.55

2.46

0.77

1.77

153.86

0.67

1.89

110.81

  • 6 0.27

2.71

0.76

2.86

0.22

1.87

163.49

0.19

1.70

114.80

  • 5 0.90

2.64

2.74

2.99

0.86

1.88

165.26

0.73

1.80

125.26

  • 4 0.42

3.74

1.39

2.64

0.43

2.04

151.52

0.34

1.90

113.00

  • 3 0.38

3.50

1.04

2.67

0.37

2.10

127.90

0.31

1.98

113.42

  • 2 0.38

2.95

0.92

2.62

0.38

1.99

97.91

0.31

1.96

108.17

  • 1 0.79

2.79

1.87

2.47

0.76

1.98

66.67

0.71

1.93

57.02

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

Ideal response 9 Active redesign 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.1 0.2
Ideal response
9
Active redesign
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7 0.8
0.9
1.0
Story level

Drift (%)

(a)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7 0.8
0.9
1.0
Story level

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 Sivaselvan-Reinhorn 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

)

(37)

where the normalized nonlinear force, ν i =(f si - α i k i x i ) /

(1-α i )f yi , is expressed by x ( t ) n i ⎡ ν
(1-α i )f yi , is expressed by
x
(
t
)
n
i
ν
( ) =
t
1 −
ν
(
t
)
i
i
x
y i
i
= 1,… , n

i

(

ηη

1