Phase and amplitude error indices for error quantification in pseudodynamic testing

SUMMARY Real-time pseudodynamic (PSD) and hybrid PSD testing methods are displacement controlled experimental techniques that are used to investigate the dynamic behaviour of complex and load rate-dependent structures. Because the imposed command displacements are not predefined but generated during the test based on measured feedback, these methods are inherently prone to error propagation, which can affect the accuracy and even the stability of the entire experiment. As a result, to have these experimental methods as reliable tools, the accuracy of the test results needs to be assessed by carefully monitoring, and if possible, quantifying the errors involved. In this paper, phase and amplitude error indices (PAEI) are introduced to identify the experimental errors through uncoupled closed-form equations. Unlike the indicators that have been previously introduced in the literature for error identification purposes, PAEI do not use test setup specific parameters in their formulation, and can quantify the errors independent of the amplitude of the command displacements. As such, PAEI can be used as standard tools for assessing the quality of the experiments performed in different laboratories or under different conditions. Additionally, because they can quantify the error, when implemented online, PAEI have the potential to be incorporated in the control law and thereby improve the actuator control during the tests. The formulation and implementation of PAEI are provided in this paper. The enhanced performance of the proposed indices is demonstrated by processing several different measured and command signals using PAEI and comparing the results with those revealed by the previous indicators. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Gilberto Mosqueda,et al.  Online energy-based error indicator for the assessment of numerical and experimental errors in a hybrid simulation , 2009 .

[2]  Oya Mercan,et al.  Phase and Amplitude Error Indices (PAEI) to Assess the Success of Displacement Based Real-Time Testing , 2010 .

[3]  O. Mercan,et al.  Real‐time hybrid testing using the unconditionally stable explicit CR integration algorithm , 2009 .

[4]  P. Benson Shing,et al.  Performance of a real‐time pseudodynamic test system considering nonlinear structural response , 2007 .

[5]  Pierre Léger,et al.  Comparison between real-time dynamic substructuring and shake table testing techniques for nonlinear seismic applications , 2010 .

[6]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Experimental Studies on Real-Time Testing of Structures with Elastomeric Dampers , 2009 .

[7]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  Stability and Delay Compensation for Real-Time Substructure Testing , 2002 .

[8]  Oya Mercan Analytical and experimental studies on large scale, real-time pseudodynamic testing , 2007 .

[9]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Real-Time Error Monitoring for Hybrid Simulation. Part II: Structural Response Modification due to Errors , 2007 .

[10]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Stability and accuracy analysis of outer loop dynamics in real‐time pseudodynamic testing of SDOF systems , 2007 .

[11]  Khalid M. Mosalam,et al.  Towards error‐free hybrid simulation using mixed variables , 2007 .

[12]  Zhi-Qiang Liu,et al.  A robust, real-time ellipse detector , 2005, Pattern Recognit..

[13]  Ulrich Füllekrug,et al.  On real-time pseudo-dynamic sub-structure testing: algorithm, numerical and experimental results , 2005 .

[14]  David J. Wagg,et al.  Stability analysis of real‐time dynamic substructuring using delay differential equation models , 2005 .

[15]  Andrew W. Fitzgibbon,et al.  Direct Least Square Fitting of Ellipses , 1999, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[16]  F. Bookstein Fitting conic sections to scattered data , 1979 .

[17]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Stability analysis for real‐time pseudodynamic and hybrid pseudodynamic testing with multiple sources of delay , 2008 .

[18]  Chris Thewalt,et al.  Performance Parameters for Pseudodynamic Tests , 1994 .

[19]  Keh-Chyuan Tsai,et al.  Pseudo‐dynamic tests of a full‐scale CFT/BRB frame—Part I: Specimen design, experiment and analysis , 2008 .

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

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

[22]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Real-Time Error Monitoring for Hybrid Simulation. Part I: Methodology and Experimental Verification , 2007 .

[23]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Tracking Error-Based Servohydraulic Actuator Adaptive Compensation for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation , 2010 .