Anda di halaman 1dari 10

On simultaneous optimisation of smart structures Part I:

Theory
Xiaojian Liu
*
, David William Begg
Department of Civil Engineering, Burnaby Building, University of Portsmouth, Burnaby Road, Portsmouth PO1 3QL, England, UK
Received 23 April 1998; received in revised form 30 September 1998
Abstract
The emerging space missions not only support the idea of smart structures but also call for fast development and application of
advanced structures having highly distributed sensors (analogous to a nervous system) and actuators (muscle-like materials) to yield
structural functionality and distributed control function. A major concern of the development of the smart system is how to make the
multidisciplinary system work eciently and optimally. This problem is considered in the present paper. The optimal control, sen-
sitivity analysis and integrated optimisation of such a multidisciplinary system is presented. In particular the structural shape and
topology are used as design variables, as augmenting the traditional optimal design concept for smart structures and leading to a
relatively new eld with a high potential for innovation. Discussion of the major problem solving methodologies is also presented to
address the truly simultaneous optimisation of smart structures. 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Smart structure; Linear quadratic regulator; Simultaneous structural/control system optimisation; Shape/topology
optimisation; Optimal placement of actuators/sensors; Sensitivity analysis; Robustness; Controllability/observability
1. Introduction
There has been a strong continuing trend toward the concept of smart structures in aerospace engi-
neering and the literature related to the eld has increased greatly. The smart structures are sometimes
called ``intelligent'' or ``adaptive'' structures, being a class of advanced structures having highly distributed
actuators and sensors combined with structural functionality, distributed control functions and even
computing architectures [1]. The structures are able to vary their geometric congurations as well as their
physical characteristics subject to control laws. The very nature of the research is interdisciplinary, in-
volving material science, computer technology, information processing, articial intelligence, and control
disciplines. Over the last 10 years, basic investigations into smart structural systems have been carried out
all over the world. Balas [2] presented a mathematical framework for the control of space structures. The
areas emphasised in his survey have played an important role in understanding the structural optimal
control theory and in forming the concept of smart structures in the last decade. This concept was further
classied by Rao et al. [3]. Miura [4] reviewed the research and developments of intelligent structural
systems in the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) in Japan from 1984 to 1990. The subjects
covered vibration control for exible structures, shape control for precision antenna reectors and variable
geometry trusses (VGT) that became one of the rst real demonstrations of the ``smart'' structure
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524
www.elsevier.com/locate/cma
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1705-846-005; fax: +44-1705-842-521.
E-mail address: xiaojian.liu@port.ac.uk (X. Liu).
0045-7825/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 8 2 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - 9
worldwide. It is now realised that smart structures hold a promise of meeting the requirements of current
and future missions both in space and on the ground [57].
A major concern in the development of smart structures is the simultaneous optimal design of the
structure and its control system. The traditional design methodology treats the structure and the controller
design as two separate procedures. Because there is a very strong interaction between the structure and its
controller [8], though individually the design may be an optimum, the integration might not be optimum in
the global sense. Therefore a great deal of research is currently in progress on developing simultaneous
optimal design methods which hopefully can be used to accommodate the interaction between the structure
and the control system. The integrated design problem was rst reported by Hale et al. [9]. In formulating
the combined optimisation Onoda and Haftka [10] and Salama et al. [11] established a precedent followed
by many others. Lim and Junkins [12] presented a design algorithm with numerical application. Three
objective functions, i.e. the total mass, stability robustness, and the eigenvalue sensitivity, are optimised
with respect to a unied set of design parameters which include structural and control parameters. A
numerical approach to the design of the structure, its regulator and observer has been described by Onoda
and Watanabe [13]. Simultaneous minimum weight and robust active control was presented by Khot and
Heise [14] and Khot [15]. The robust control design is achieved by specifying appropriate constraints on the
singular values of a closed-loop transfer matrix. Dhingra and Lee [16] proposed a formulation laying
emphasis on the robustness considerations for controller design, as well as a simultaneous determination of
actuator locations. A mixed discretecontinuous optimisation was solved using a hybrid optimiser of ar-
ticial genetic search and gradient-based programming techniques.
In considering the complex structurecontrol interaction (SCI), the optimisation can be formulated as a
multi-objective programming problem where the structure and the controller design variables are equally
treated as independent design variables. Most of the previous work concerning structural design concerns
structural sizing rather than structural layout in terms of shape and topology. It has been recognised that the
structural topology is an important parameter and that optimal topology can greatly improve the design of
a static structure [17]. It is therefore foreseeable that layout optimisation could improve the performance of
a controlled structure far more than does structural sizing only, and therefore greatly impact on the
conceptual design of smart structures. In topology design, members are added or removed from the initial
structure and hence both the nite element model and the design space change from time to time. Fur-
thermore, the intermediate topologies could be mechanisms leading to termination of the optimisation
process due to unexpected singularities. There is no doubt that optimal design of layout of a smart structure
is far more complex than that of a static structure.
The present paper is concerned with an integrated approach to structure/controller design. This is a
typical multidisciplinary optimisation (MDO) problem. One of the major results is the novel way in which
the structural optimisation is extended from structural sizing to optimal layout. The design sensitivities
accordance with this augmentation are derived and they, apparently, facilitate the establishment of the
ecient algorithms for the problem solving. The use of these algorithms and their hybrid mixtures are
further shown to provide a unique way in which to address the truly simultaneous optimisation of smart
structures.
2. Review of structural control
The equations of motion of a adaptive structure can be written as
M

U C

U KU = B
0
u FY (1)
where M, C and K are mass, damping and stiness matrices, and F is the vector of external applied forces.
The structure is regulated by control input u R
m
a
via matrix B
0
, where m
a
is the number of actuators.
Making use of the transformation
U

U
_ _
=
U 0
0 U
_ _
xY (2)
16 X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524
where U = /
1
/
2
is a truncated eigenvector matrix normalised with respect to M, and x R
n
is
generalised co-ordinate vector, Eq. (1) can be arranged as
x = Ax Bu f Y (3)
where
A =
0 I
diag[x
2
i
[ diag[2n
i
x
i
[
_ _
Y B =
0
U
T
B
0
_ _
and f =
0
U
T
F
_ _
X
Let Bu
+
= Bu f and assume that the system is controllable, then
u = u
+
(B
T
B)
1
B
T
f X (4)
From linear quadratic regulator (LQR) theory, the observed x is fed back to generate the control forces as
necessary
u
+
= GSxY (5)
in which S R
m
s
n
is the observation matrix and G is a time-invariant gain matrix. The general solution of
the structure under this control logic is given by
x(t) = exp(A
+
t)x
0
X (6)
To determine G, the following quadratic function is employed as a criterion

J =
1
2
_

0
(x
T
Qx u
+T
Ru
+
) dtY (7)
where Q and R must be positive semi-denite and positive denite matrices, respectively. Substituting
Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (7) gives

J =
1
2
x
T
0
_

0
exp(A
+T
t)Q
+
exp(A
+
t) dt
_ _
x
0
Y (8)
where A
+
= A BGS and Q
+
= Q S
T
G
T
RGS. It is noted that the value of

J depends on specic initial
state x
0
. This dependence can be eliminated using an average performance function proposed by Levine and
Athans [20] such that the minimisation of

J is equivalent to that of
J =
1
2
tr
_

0
exp(A
+T
t)Q
+
exp(A
+
t) dtX (9)
The gradient oJaoG is given by
oJ
oG
= RGSLS
T
B
T
PLS
T
X (10)
Let oJaoG = 0 (note: it is not always correct to do so if G is constrained) then G can be expressed as
G = R
1
B
T
PLS
T
(SLS
T
)
1
Y (11)
in which P and L can be obtained from the following equations
PA
+
A
+T
P Q
+
= 0Y LA
+T
A
+
L I = 0X (12)
An iterative algorithm is needed to compute P, L and G from Eqs. (11) and (12). If S is a unity matrix,
further simplication can be made so that G = R
1
B
T
P with P satisfying the following well-known Riccati
equation
A
T
P PA PBR
1
B
T
P Q = 0X (13)
X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524 17
3. Optimal design of the smart structures
A general formulation for the multidisciplinary optimisation can be dened as
min f (b
s
Y b
c
)
sXtX g(b
s
Y b
c
) 6 or =0Y
(14)
where f is a weighted objective function, g the vector of constraints, b
s
R
n
s
the vector of structural design
variables and b
c
R
n
c
is the vector of controller parameters including locations of actuators/sensors. As the
locations of actuators/sensors are discrete in nature, Eq. (14) is therefore a mixed integer and continuous
programming problem.
3.1. Objectives
Multiple objectives have been widely explored in previous studies [16,21]. They are, but not limited to,
the following criteria in addition to the index dened in Eq. (9).
3.1.1. Robustness
Robustness improvement of the actively controlled system through structural/control modication was
considered by Rao et al. [22]. Let E(t) be the uncertainty of A* then the system is stable if
E(t) | |
2
61a maxk(2L)Y (15)
in which L is the solution of the Lyapunov equation, Eq. (12). Robust control is therefore to maximise
M
r
= 1a max k(L) so that the margin for the variation of E(t) can be maximised.
3.1.2. Controllability/observability
Controllability/observability could also be a criterion for the design of smart structural systems. From
the work by Liu et al. [23], controllability can be measured using the singular-value of B. Taking
decomposition of B gives
B = U
c
S
c
V
T
c
Y (16)
where U
T
c
U
c
= IY V
T
c
V
c
= I, and
S
c
=
R 0
0 0
_ _
=
diag[r
i
[ 0
0 0
_ _
X
The larger the value of the Euclidean norm M
c
= R | |
E
, the less energy is required to produce control forces.
Similarly, taking the singular value decomposition of S yields
S = U
0
S
0
V
T
0
Y (17)
where U
T
0
U
0
= IY V
T
0
V
0
= I and
S
0
=
K 0
0 0
_ _
=
diag[k
i
[ 0
0 0
_ _
X
The observability can then be measured using the Euclidean norm M
0
= K | |
E
. The larger the value of
K | |
E
, the greater the weighting of the observed output in the performance index equation (7).
3.2. Structural design variables
The structural design variables can be member sizes. Member size can be either continuous or discrete. If
the members are manufactured with standard sizes, which is the real practice for some circumstances, then
the selection of optimal member size is discrete. If zero lower bound on the member sizes is allowed, then
members with zero size can be deleted from the ground structure and the joint connection may therefore
change, this is often used for structural topology design purposes.
18 X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524
The co-ordinates of joints are usually used as design variables for shape optimisation. If however, a large
number of joints are involved in the design process, then shape optimisation could be an unbearable
computing burden. An alternative to this is to use parametric shape functions. In this way, the joints
concerned are regulated by only a few parameters and the number of shape design variables can be sig-
nicantly reduced.
The shape and topology determine the layout of a structure. Optimum structural layout/control design
has been of major concern in the previous studies [24]. It has been found that the potential benets from
layout optimisation are generally more signicant than those from xed-layout optimisation of adaptive
truss structures. However, the elimination of members may make both stiness and mass matrices positive
semi-denite and the optimal topology may be a mechanism, making this perhaps the most challenging of
this research area [25].
3.3. Controller design variables
Controller design variables can be the feedback gain matrix G and the locations of sensors/actuators.
The feedback gain matrix G can be obtained using LQR theory as described in the previous section if there
is no restriction on it, otherwise its entries must be treated as independent design variables and should be
managed using a general minimisation procedure.
The placement of actuators/sensors on a discrete host structure falls into the class of combinatorial
optimisation, for which the solution becomes exceedingly intractable as the problem size increases. Heu-
ristic-based methods have been developed for the selection of active member locations for the shape control
[26]. The risk of using heuristic-based algorithms is that the solution may not be globally optimal. To
reduce this risk, both SA and GA can be employed. Comparison of heuristic and guided random search-
based algorithms can be found in the papers by Onoda and Hanawa [27] and Anderson and Hagood [28].
3.4. Constraints
Structural weight is usually used as the objective function for static structural optimisation. For
structural control problems, especially for space structure control, the structural weight is still a critical fact
to be considered. It can be used as either an objective or a constraint for this purpose. The weight constraint
can be written as
g
1
= W (b
s
) W
0
60 or g
1
= W (b
s
) W
0
= 0Y (18)
where W
0
is a given structural weight.
Although members can be removed from the current structure, a mechanism is not expected for most
practical applications. This restriction is related to the fundamental eigenvalue of the structure, i.e. the
lowest eigenvalue of the structure cannot be zero. If for some reason, a prescribed eigenvalue k
0
is desired,
the requirement can be incorporated in an optimal design procedure with the constraint
g
2
= k
0
x
2
1
60X (19)
Other constraints that may be considered are displacement and control force as presented in Ref. [10].
4. Sensitivity analysis
As the behaviour of the control system relies strongly on the structural design variables as well as the
feedback control logic, a systematic sensitivity analysis is essential for the development of well-behaved
algorithms for the solution of a problem of this complexity. The rst-order sensitivity presented in [29] is
summarised and used for the second-order sensitivity derivation.
X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524 19
4.1. First-order sensitivity
4.1.1. Derivative oJaob
s
The rst-order derivatives of the performance functional J with respect to b
j
b
s
is given by
oJ
ob
j
=
oJ
oA

oA
ob
j

oJ
oB

oB
ob
j

oJ
oS

oS
ob
j
(j = 1Y 2Y F F F Y n
s
)Y (20)
where ``'' means summation of all the products of two corresponding entries of the matrices and
oJ
oA
= PLY (21)
oJ
oB
= PLS
T
G
T
Y (22)
oJ
oS
= G
T
B
T
PL G
T
RGSLX (23)
4.1.2. Sensitivity of control input
Making use of Eqs. (4) and (5) one has
ou
ob
j
=
oG
ob
j
Sx G
oS
ob
j
x GS
ox
ob
j
(B
T
B)
1
oB
T
ob
j
B
_ _
B
T
oB
ob
j
_
(u u
+
)
oB
T
ob
j
f B
T
of
ob
j
_
X (24)
The sensitivity of the state variable can readily be found by dierentiating Eq. (6)
ox
ob
j
=
oA
+
ob
j
xt e
A
+
t
ox
0
ob
j
Y (25)
in which ox
0
aob can be represented as a function of U(0) and

U(0), the initial conditions of original control
problem equation (1).
4.1.3. Sensitivity of measure of robustness
Because L dened in Eq. (12) is a symmetric positive denite matrix, the sensitivity of its eigenvalue is
ok
l max
ob
j
= u
T
l
oL
ob
j
u
l
Y (26)
where k
l max
is the largest eigenvalue of L, u
l
is the eigenvector and oLaob
j
can be found by dierentiating
Eq. (12). Then the sensitivity of the robustness measurement is
oM
r
ob
j
=
1
2k
2
l max
ok
l max
ob
j
X (27)
4.1.4. Sensitivity of measures of controllability/observability
If it is assumed that the closed-loop system described by Eq. (3) is controllable and observable, it can be
readily derived that
oM
c
ob
j
=
o|R|
E
ob
j
=
1
2

m
a
i=1
or
2
i
ob
j
_ _

m
a
i=1
r
2
i
_ _
1a2
_
Y (28)
where r
2
v
c
is an eigenpair of B
T
B and
or
2
ob
j
= v
T
c
o(B
T
B)
ob
j
v
c
X (29)
20 X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524
Similarly, the sensitivity of K | |
E
can be evaluated as
oM
0
ob
j
=
o|K|
E
ob
j
=
1
2

m
s
i=1
ok
2
i
ob
j
_ _

m
s
i=1
k
2
i
_ _
1a2
_
Y (30)
in which k
i
is the ith eigenvalue of SS
T
.
The present expressions for oJaob
s
is in a fairly general form and associated with P, L and G only,
making it suciently dierent from that of other researchers (see [3032]).
4.2. Second-order derivatives
Estimating nonlinear eects including interactions between variables motivates the second-order sensi-
tivity analysis. This second-order derivative information can also be used to develop more ecient opti-
misation algorithms, for instance the quadratic programming method. The second-order sensitivities may
be obtained directly from the previous results.
4.2.1. Second-order design sensitivity o
2
Jaob
2
s
Dierentiating Eq. (17) with respect to b
k
b
s
gives
o
2
J
ob
j
ob
k
=
o
ob
k
oJ
oA
_ _

oA
ob
j

oJ
oA

o
2
A
ob
j
ob
k

o
ob
k
oJ
oB
_ _

oB
ob
j

oJ
oB

o
2
B
ob
j
ob
k

o
ob
k
oJ
oS
_ _

oS
ob
j

oJ
oS

o
2
S
ob
j
ob
k
Y (31)
where
o
ob
k
oJ
oA
_ _
=
oP
ob
k
L P
oL
ob
k
Y (32)
o
ob
k
oJ
oB
_ _
=
oP
ob
k
LS
T
G
T
P
oL
ob
k
S
T
G
T
PL
oS
ob
k
T
G
T
PLS
T
oG
ob
k
T
Y (33)
o
ob
k
oJ
oS
_ _
=
oG
T
ob
k
B
T
PL G
T
oB
T
ob
k
PL G
T
B
T
oP
ob
k
L G
T
B
T
P
oL
ob
k

oG
T
ob
k
RGSL G
T
R
oG
ob
k
SL G
T
RG
oS
ob
k
L G
T
RGS
oL
ob
k
(34)
and oPaob
k
is the solution of the following Lyapunov equation
A
+T
oP
ob
k

oP
ob
k
A
+
=
oQ
+
ob
k
_

oA
+T
ob
k
P P
oA
+
ob
k
_
X (35)
The second-order sensitivities of the parametric matrices are as follows:
o
2
A
ob
j
ob
k
=
0 0
diag
o
2
x
2
i
ob
j
ob
k
_ _
2diag n
i
o
2
x
i
ob
j
ob
k
_ _
_

_
_

_
Y (36)
o
2
B
ob
j
ob
k
=
0
o
2
U
T
ob
j
b
k
B
0
_

_
_

_
Y (37)
X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524 21
o
2
S
ob
j
ob
k
= S
d
o
2
U
ob
j
b
k
S
v
o
2
U
ob
j
b
k
_ _
Y (38)
where the second-order sensitivity of structural eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be obtained using Nel-
son's formulas [33].
4.2.2. Sensitivity of measure of robustness o
2
M
r
aob
2
s
o
2
M
r
ob
j
ob
k
=
1
k
3
l max
ok
l max
ob
j
ok
l max
ob
k

1
2k
2
l max
o
2
k
l max
ob
j
ob
k
Y (39)
where
o
2
k
l max
ob
j
ob
k
= u
T
l
o
2
L
ob
j
ob
k
u
l
2u
T
l
oL
ob
j
ou
l
ob
k
(40)
and (o
2
Laob
j
ob
k
) can be obtained by dierentiating Eq. (12) twice.
4.2.3. Second-order sensitivity of measures of controllability and observability
From Eqs. (31) and (33) one has
o
2
M
c
ob
j
ob
k
=
1
2|R|
E
_
2
o|R|
E
ob
j
o|R|
E
ob
k

m
i=1
o
2
r
2
i
ob
j
ob
k
_
(41)
and
o
2
M
0
ob
j
ob
k
=
1
2|K|
E
_
2
o|K|
E
ob
j
o|K|
E
ob
k

m
i=1
o
2
k
2
i
ob
j
ob
k
_
X (42)
If G is independent variable then one has oGaob
j
= (o
2
Gaob
j
ob
k
) = 0 (j = 1Y 2Y F F F Y n
s
Y k = 1Y 2Y F F F Y n
s
)
in above expressions. In this case, it may be not correct to simply set oJaoG = 0. The gradient equation (10)
must be used instead.
5. Solution methodologies
A nested strategy taking advantage of optimal linear quadratic control theory can be used in the design
process because of its simplicity. The optimal gain matrix G can be found from LQR theory for the given b
s
.
In this case, G is a dependent variable varying with b
s
and the actuator/sensor locations. One of the layout
design techniques for static open-loop structures is the so-called ground structure approach, which has been
developed over the past decades for optimising large truss-type structure [25]. Algorithms frequently used
for this are based on gradient information. These algorithms are ecient in computation but may have the
risk of misleading to local optima. As an alternative, guided random search methods have been successfully
used for topological design of the discrete structures.
The above ideas form the framework for smart structure optimisation. Dierent algorithms are thus
developed. The key points of the algorithms are summarised below and the details will be given in [34].
The simulated annealing (SA) [18] had been used to simulate the thermal motion of atoms in thermal
contact with a heat bath at temperature T to nd an equilibrium state which minimises energy. By replacing
the energy with the objective f and the state of atoms with design variable vectors b
s
and b
c
, it is
straightforward to generate a number of designs using SA, one of which is the optimal design [24]. The GA
is a stochastic optimisation technique working with a design family represented as a population of chro-
mosome-like string [19]. There are three basic manipulations on these strings, i.e. reproduction, crossover
22 X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524
and mutation, used to ensure offspring inherit genetic information from their parents such that stronger
individuals are more likely to enter the reproduction process and so produce even stronger offspring.
As both the SA and the GA work with a coding string of the design variables rather than the design
variables directly, a procedure converting design variables to a string, or vice versa, is needed. Several
coding methods are available but herein binary code with 0s and 1s is used to represent member size.
Discretisation of the component b
si
(i = 1Y 2Y F F F Y n
s
) is made using linear mapping from a smallest possible
lower bound b
L
si
to the largest possible upper bound b
U
si
. This mapping uses an N
b
-bit binary unsigned
integer. In this coding a string code 00 00 maps to b
L
si
and 111 11 maps to b
U
si
. There are 2
N
b
alternative
N
b
-bit binary unsigned integers representing the intermediate values of b
si
which is given by
b
si
= b
L
si

b
U
si
b
L
si
2
N
b
1
sY (43)
where s is an intermediate decimal value of the binary number. If the strings of the n
s
structural design
variables are chained together, then an n
s
N
b
-bit binary string is created, representing one of the 2
n
s
N
b
alternative structures.
The locations of actuators/sensors on the discrete structure can be represented as an integer array of size
(m
a
m
s
). Entries of the array are numbers of structural members, representing an actuator/sensor con-
guration. For the integrated design purpose, a complete design string b, which is a computer representable
(n
c
N
b
m
a
m
s
) integer array, is formed by putting the structural design string and the actuator
placement array end-to-end.
The SA and GA dier from the normal design procedure of iterative improvement in that they allow
transition out of a local optimum to a possible global solution [18].
The SLP and SQP can also be used to nd b
s
from the following approximations of problem equation
(14), respectively
min f
(k)
\
T
f Db
s
sXtX g
(k)
\
T
g
(k)
Db
s
60Y
b
L
s
6b
s
6b
U
s
(44)
and
min f
(k)
\
T
f Db
s

1
2
Db
T
s
HDb
s
sXtX g
(k)
\
T
g
(k)
Db
s
60Y
b
L
s
6b
s
6b
U
s
Y
(45)
where H is a Hessian matrix. The rst- and second-order derivatives are needed to build the approxima-
tions.
It is not necessary to restrict a solution procedure to the use of the above individual algorithms. Some
hybrid methods can be constructed without diculty.
6. Conclusions
The integrated design of smart structures with the augmentation of shape and topology optimisation has
been discussed. The objectives considered are quadratic performance index (sum of the system energy and
control eort), robustness and controllability. Both the rst- and second-order design derivatives of these
measures have been presented, the formulations providing a systematic information to build well-behaved
algorithms for problem solving of such complexity.
The feedback gain matrix G can be found either using a nested method or from a general optimisation
procedure. The former strategy is commonly used and no doubt is an ecient approach. Algorithms
supporting this strategy are developed. These algorithms, featuring sensitivity orientation and guided
random search mechanism, are described in detail in the companion article [34].
X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524 23
References
[1] E.F. Crawley, Intelligent structures for aerospace: a technology overview and assessment, AIAA Journal 32 (1994) 16891699.
[2] M.J. Balas, Trends in large space structure control theory: fondest hopes, wildest dreams, IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control AC-27 (1982) 522535.
[3] S.S. Rao, T.S. Pan, V.B. Venkayya, Modelling, control, and design of exible structures: a survey, Applied Mechanics Reviews 43
(1990) 99117.
[4] K. Miura, Adaptive structures research at ISAS: 19841990. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 3 (1992) 5474.
[5] J.A. Garba, B.K. Wada, J.L. Fanson, Adaptive structures for precision controlled large space systems, Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures 3 (1992) 348366.
[6] M.C. Natori, K.C. Park, J.-C. Chiou, H. Namba, Application of adaptive structure concepts to construction of space systems in
orbit: Concepts and formulation, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 3 (1992) 719734.
[7] G.W. Housner, L.A. Bergman, T.K. Caughey, A.G. Chassiakos, R.O. Claus, S.F. Masri, R.E. Skelton, T.T. Soong, B.F. Spencer,
J.T.P. Yao, Structural control: past, present, and future, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics 123 (1997) 897971.
[8] R. Freymann, Interaction between an aircraft structure and active control system, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics
10 (1987) 447452.
[9] A.L. Hale, R.J. Lisowski, W.E. Dahl, Optimal simultaneous structural and control design of maneuvering exible spacecraft,
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 8 (1984) 8693.
[10] J. Onoda, R.T. Haftka, An approach to structure/control simultaneous optimization for large exible spacecraft, AIAA Journal
25 (1987) 11331138.
[11] M. Salama, J. Garba, L. Demsetz, F. Udwadia, Simultaneous optimization of controlled structures, Computational Mechanics 3
(1988) 275282.
[12] K.B. Lim, J.L. Junkins, Robustness optimization of structural and controller parameters, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics 12 (1989) 8996.
[13] J. Onoda, N. Watanabe, Integrated direct optimization of structure/regulator/observer for large exible spacecraft, AIAA Journal
28 (1990) 16771685.
[14] N.S. Khot, S.A. Heise, Consideration of plant uncertainties in the optimum structural-control design, AIAA Journal 32 (1994)
610615.
[15] N.S. Khot, Integrated structural design and active vibration control, in: Proceedings of AIAA Dynamic Specialists Conference,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1994, pp. 230240.
[16] A.K. Dhingra, B.H. Lee, Multiobjective design of actively controlled structures using a hybrid optimization method, Numerical
Methods in Engineering 38 (1995) 33833401.
[17] U. Kirsch, Optimal topologies of structures, Applied Mechanics Reviews 42 (1989) 223238.
[18] S. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gela Jr., M.P. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing, Science 220 (1983) 671680.
[19] J.H. Holland, Genetic algorithms, Scientic American (July issue) (1992) 4450.
[20] W.S. Levine, M. Athans, On the determination of the optimal constant output feedback gains for linear multivariable systems,
IEEE Transactions of Automatic Control AC-15 (1970) 4448.
[21] A. Chattopadhyay, E.C. Seeley, Multiobjective design optimization procedure for control of structures using piezoelectric
materials, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 5 (1994) 403411.
[22] S.S. Rao, T.S. Pan, V.B. Venkayya, Robustness improvement of actively controlled structures through structural modications,
AIAA Journal 28 (1990) 353360.
[23] Z. Liu, D. Wang, H. Hu, M. Yu, Measures of modal controllability and observability in vibration control of exible structures,
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 17 (1994) 13771380.
[24] X. Liu, D.W. Begg, D. Matravers, Optimal topology/actuator placement design of adaptive structures using SA, ASCE Journal of
Aerospace Engineering 10 (1997) 119125.
[25] G. Rozvany, M.P. Benson, U. Kirsch, Layout optimization of structures, Applied Mechanics Reviews 48 (1995) 41119.
[26] R.T. Haftka, H.M. Adelman, Selection of actuator locations for static shape control of large space structures by heuristic integer
programming, Computer and Structures 20 (1985) 575582.
[27] J. Onoda, Y. Hanawa, Actuator placement optimization by genetic and improved simulated annealing algorithms, AIAA Journal
31 (1993) 11671169.
[28] E.H. Anderson, N.W. Hagood, A comparison of algorithms for placement of passive and active dampers, in: Proceedings of 35th
Struct., Struct. Dyn. and Mat. Conf., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1994, pp. 27012714.
[29] X. Liu, D.W. Begg, First-order sensitivity of smart structures, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 163
(1998) 311322.
[30] S. Suzuki, S. Matsuda, Structure/Control design synthesis of active utter suppression system by goal programming, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 14 (1990) 12601266.
[31] M. Sunar, S.S. Rao, Optimal selection of weighting matrices in integrated design of structures/controls, AIAA Journal 31 (1993)
714720.
[32] C.E. Seeley, A. Chattopadhyay, Development of intelligent structures using multiobjective optimization and simulated annealing,
in: AIAA/ASMEAdaptive Structures Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1994, pp. 411421.
[33] R.B. Nelson, Simplied calculation of eigenvector derivatives, AIAA Journal 14 (1976) 12011205.
[34] D.W. Begg, X. Liu, On simultaneous optimisation of smart structures Part II: Algorithms and numerical examples. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 183 (2000) 2537.
24 X. Liu, D.W. Begg / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 184 (2000) 1524

Anda mungkin juga menyukai