INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE

DEVELOPMENT OF FEEDBACK LOOP ALGORITHM

FOR PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTING

SHREYANSH AJMERA
M. Tech in Structural Dynamics
Enrolment No: 17526001
Department of Earthquake Engineering
Overview of Presentation

• Introduction

• Va r i o u s L a b o r a t o r y Te s t i n g M e t h o d s

• T h e P s e u d o d y n a m i c Te s t m e t h o d

• Numerical Integration Method

• E r r o r s i n P s e u d o d y n a m i c Te s t i n g

• PsD with Substructuring

• Limitations

• Future work

2
 Introduction :

• Experimental research to study the inelastic

behavior of the structure.

3
Various Laboratory Testing Methods

– Quasi-static test

– Shaking table test

– Pseudo-dynamic test method

– Real time test method

4
The Pseudo-dynamic test method
• Realism of shaking table test + economy and convenience
of quasi-static test.

• Displacement response calculated from numerical model

based on prescribed inertia, and damping characteristics,
the feedback of restoring force from the test and the
prescribed ground motion.

• equation of motion:

𝐦𝐮ሷ + 𝐜𝐮ሶ + 𝐫 = 𝐟 [1]

• Since restoring forces are feedback from the test, we do

not need a model for the stiffness matrix .

• Flexibility of detailed inspection of damages during the

test.

5
The Pseudo-dynamic test method

Figure 1 Schematic of the Pseudodynamic test method [3]

6
The Pseudo-dynamic test method

• Applicability to those structures where mass is

concentrated.

• Few degrees of freedom are considered and higher

modes are neglected.

7
 Numerical Integration Methods

• Convergence, Stability and accuracy

• Tw o t y p e s : i m p l i c i t a n d e x p l i c i t

• Implicit – unconditionally stable but iterations

• Explicit – conditionally stable, one step process

• E x p l i c i t N e w m a r k ’s a l g o r i t h m

8
Explicit Newmark’s algorithm
𝐦𝐮ሷ 𝐢+𝟏 + 𝐜𝐮ሶ 𝐢+𝟏 + 𝐤𝐮𝐢+𝟏 = 𝐟𝐢+𝟏 (2)

𝟏
𝐮𝐢+𝟏 = 𝐮𝐢 + ∆𝐭𝐮ሶ 𝐢 + ∆𝐭 𝟐 − 𝛃 𝐮ሷ 𝐢 + 𝛃𝐮ሷ 𝐢+𝟏 (3)
𝟐

𝒖ሶ 𝐢+𝟏 = 𝒖ሶ 𝐢 + ∆𝐭 𝟏 − 𝛄 𝐮ሷ 𝐢 + 𝛄𝐮ሷ 𝐢+𝟏 (4)

• When  = 0 and  = ½, we get Explicit

N e w m a r k ’s a l g o r i t h m .

• Putting the equation (3) and (4) with the

parameters  = 0 and  = ½, in equation (2) we
get
∆𝐭 −𝟏 ∆𝐭
𝐮ሷ 𝐢+𝟏 = 𝐦 + 𝐜 𝐟𝐢+𝟏 − 𝐫𝐢+𝟏 − 𝐜𝐮ሶ 𝐢 − 𝐜𝐮ሷ
𝟐 𝟐 𝐢

9
Explicit Newmark’s algorithm

Figure 2: Explicit Newmark Algorithm [2]

10
Errors in Pseudodynamic Testing

Errors in

• Structural idealisation

• Numerical integration

• Experimentation

11
Errors in Structural Idealisation

• Lumped mass model

• Higher modes are truncated

• Strain rate effects

12
Errors in Numerical Integration

• Frequency distortion

• Errors in floating point computations

• Stability and accuracy

A free vibration test of SDOF with T = 1 sec was tested

w i t h i n i t i a l d i s p l a c e m e n t o f 1 i n c h . ( S h i n g , P. B . , &
Mahin, S.A.) for different time steps.

13
Errors in Numerical Integration

• t = 0.01 sec, results

can be considered
exact.

• t = 0.02 sec,
shrinkage of period.

• t = 0.2 sec, period

shrinkage increased.

• t = 0.32 sec, the

solution became
unstable.

F i g u r e 3 : Free Vibration Response of Linearly Elastic SDOF

system calculated using different time steps. [2]

14
Errors in Experimentation

• Computed displacements cannot be exactly imposed on

the structure.

• Errors in measurement of restoring forces.

15
PsD with substructuring

• Localised non-linear behaviour

• Numerical and Physical substructure

F i g u r e 4 : S u b s t r u c t u r e Te s t L o o p [ 3 ]
16
 Limitations :

• Te s t i n g o f t h e s t r u c t u r e w h e r e m a s s i s d i s t r i b u t e d .

• Rate dependent effects are neglected.

17
 Future work

• The development of finite element model.

• Development of the feedback algorithm with reduced

error in this part.

18
Conclusion

• It combines well established analytical techniques

with quasi-static testing.

• Most reliable as we get the restoring forces directly

from the experiment hence no scope for error in
modelling of stiffness matrix.

19
References

1. Chopra, A.K., Dynamics of Structures, Pearson, 2007

2. Shing, P.B., and Mahin, S.A., “Pseudodynamic Test Method for

Seismic Performance Evaluation: Theory and Implementation,”
UCB/EERC-84/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre,
University of California, Berkeley, Calif., Jan., 1984.

3. Williams M.S., and Blakeborough, A., “Laboratory testingof

structures under dynamic loads: an introductory review”, 2001.

20
21