Modified predictor–corrector numerical scheme for real‐time pseudo dynamic tests using state‐space formulation

This paper deals with an explicit numerical integration method for real-time pseudo dynamic tests. The proposed method, termed the MPC-SSP method, is suited to use in real-time pseudo dynamic tests as no iteration steps are involved in each step of computation. A procedure for implementing the proposed method in real-time pseudo dynamic tests is described in the paper. A state-space approach is employed in this study to formulate the equations of motion of the system, which is advantageous in real-time pseudo dynamic testing of structures with active control devices since most structural control problems are formulated in state space. A stability and accuracy analysis of the proposed method was performed based on linear elastic systems. Owing to an extrapolation scheme employed to predict the system's future response, the MPC-SSP method is conditionally stable. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MPC-SSP method, a series of numerical simulations were performed and the performance of the MPC-SSP method was compared with other pseudo dynamic testing methods including Explicit Newmark, Central Difference, Operator Splitting, and OS-SSP methods based on both linear and non-linear single-degree-of-freedom systems. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Pseudodynamic Method for Seismic Testing , 1985 .

[2]  Antony Darby,et al.  The development of real–time substructure testing , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[3]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Real-time on-line test for MDOF systems , 1999 .

[4]  Alex H. Barbat,et al.  SSP algorithm for linear and non‐linear dynamic response simulation , 1988 .

[5]  P. Benson Shing,et al.  Pseudodynamic tests of a concentrically braced frame using substructuring techniques , 1994 .

[6]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering , 1995 .

[7]  Pui-Shum B. Shing,et al.  Implicit time integration for pseudodynamic tests , 1991 .

[8]  Stephen G. Buonopane,et al.  Pseudodynamic Testing of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame , 1999 .

[9]  M. Nakashima,et al.  Japanese Activities on On‐Line Testing , 1987 .

[10]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  REAL-TIME SUBSTRUCTURE TESTS USING HYDRAULIC ACTUATOR , 1999 .

[11]  A. Blakeborough,et al.  Improved control algorithm for real‐time substructure testing , 2001 .

[12]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Development of real‐time pseudo dynamic testing , 1992 .

[13]  P. Benson Shing,et al.  Application of Pseudodynamic Test Method to Structural Research , 1996 .

[14]  Georges Magonette,et al.  Bi‐directional pseudodynamic test of a full‐size three‐storey building , 1999 .

[15]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Computational aspects of a seismic performance test method using on‐line computer control , 1985 .

[16]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Integration Techniques for Substructure Pseudo Dynamic Test , 1990 .

[17]  Y. Namita,et al.  Real‐time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber , 1999 .

[18]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Pseudodynamic Test Method—Current Status and Future Directions , 1989 .

[19]  Yen-Po Wang,et al.  Modified state-space procedures for pseudodynamic testing , 2001 .

[20]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Development, potential, and limitations of real–time online (pseudo–dynamic) testing , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.