Evaluation of numerical time‐integration schemes for real‐time hybrid testing

We present a comparison of methods for the analysis of the numerical substructure in a real-time hybrid test. A multi-tasking strategy is described, which satisfies the various control and numerical requirements. Within this strategy a variety of explicit and implicit time-integration algorithms have been evaluated. Fully implicit schemes can be used in fast hybrid testing via a digital sub-step feedback technique, but it is shown that this approach requires a large amount of computation at each sub-step, making real-time execution difficult for all but the simplest models. In cases where the numerical substructure poses no harsh stability condition, it is shown that the Newmark explicit method offers advantages of speed and accuracy. Where the stability limit of an explicit method cannot be met, one of the several alternatives may be used, such as Chang's modified Newmark scheme or the α-operator splitting method. Appropriate methods of actuator delay compensation are also discussed.

[1]  Guoshan Xu,et al.  Operator‐splitting method for real‐time substructure testing , 2006 .

[2]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Elimination of spurious higher-mode response in pseudodynamic tests , 1987 .

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

[4]  Ulrich Füllekrug,et al.  A new algorithm for real-time sub-structure pseudo-dynamic tests , 2000 .

[5]  H. Bao,et al.  Analysis and Preliminary Experimental Study on Central Difference Method for Real-time Substructure Testing , 2004 .

[6]  Jinping Ou,et al.  Stability and accuracy analysis of the central difference method for real‐time substructure testing , 2005 .

[7]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  The development of multi-axis real-time substructure testing , 2006 .

[8]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  An unconditionally stable hybrid pseudodynamic algorithm , 1995 .

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

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

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

[12]  Nathan M. Newmark,et al.  A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics , 1959 .

[13]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Cumulative experimental errors in pseudodynamic tests , 1987 .

[14]  Pierre Pegon,et al.  α-Operator splitting time integration technique for pseudodynamic testing error propagation analysis , 1997 .

[15]  Thomas J. R. Hughes,et al.  Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics , 1977 .

[16]  Shuenn-Yih Chang,et al.  Explicit Pseudodynamic Algorithm with Unconditional Stability , 2002 .

[17]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  Compensation of actuator dynamics in real-time hybrid tests , 2007 .

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

[19]  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.