Analysis of implicit HHT‐α integration algorithm for real‐time hybrid simulation

SUMMARY Real-time hybrid simulation is a viable experiment technique to evaluate the performance of structures equipped with rate-dependent seismic devices when subject to dynamic loading. The integration algorithm used to solve the equations of motion has to be stable and accurate to achieve a successful real-time hybrid simulation. The implicit HHT α-algorithm is a popular integration algorithm for conducting structural dynamic time history analysis because of its desirable properties of unconditional stability for linear elastic structures and controllable numerical damping for high frequencies. The implicit form of the algorithm, however, requires iterations for nonlinear structures, which is undesirable for real-time hybrid simulation. Consequently, the HHT α-algorithm has been implemented for real-time hybrid simulation using a fixed number of substep iterations. The resulting HHT α-algorithm with a fixed number of substep iterations is believed to be unconditionally stable for linear elastic structures, but research on its stability and accuracy for nonlinear structures is quite limited. In this paper, a discrete transfer function approach is utilized to analyze the HHT α-algorithm with a fixed number of substep iterations. The algorithm is shown to be unconditionally stable for linear elastic structures, but only conditionally stable for nonlinear softening or hardening structures. The equivalent damping of the algorithm is shown to be almost the same as that of the original HHT α-algorithm, while the period elongation varies depending on the structural nonlinearity and the size of the integration time-step. A modified form of the algorithm is proposed to improve its stability for use in nonlinear structures. The stability of the modified algorithm is demonstrated to be enhanced and have an accuracy that is comparable to that of the existing HHT α-algorithm with a fixed number of substep iterations. Both numerical and real-time hybrid simulations are conducted to verify the modified algorithm. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the modified algorithm for real-time testing. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Y. Wen.  Equivalent Linearization for Hysteretic Systems Under Random Excitation , 1980 .

[2]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Stability analysis of SDOF real‐time hybrid testing systems with explicit integration algorithms and actuator delay , 2008 .

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

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

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

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

[7]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  Real‐time hybrid experiments with Newmark integration, MCSmd outer‐loop control and multi‐tasking strategies , 2007 .

[8]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

[14]  J. Ricles,et al.  Development of Direct Integration Algorithms for Structural Dynamics Using Discrete Control Theory , 2008 .

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

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

[17]  Bin Wu,et al.  Equivalent force control method for generalized real‐time substructure testing with implicit integration , 2007 .

[18]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Modified predictor–corrector numerical scheme for real‐time pseudo dynamic tests using state‐space formulation , 2005 .

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

[20]  D. Cordary,et al.  Study of the liquefaction resistance of a saturated sand reinforced with Geosynthetics , 1997 .

[21]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Stability Analysis of Direct Integration Algorithms Applied to MDOF Nonlinear Structural Dynamics , 2008 .

[22]  Oreste S. Bursi,et al.  Evaluation of some implicit time-stepping algorithms for pseudodynamic tests , 1996 .

[23]  Gregory M. Hulbert,et al.  Frequency‐domain analysis of time‐integration methods for semidiscrete finite element equations—part II: Hyperbolic and parabolic–hyperbolic problems , 2001 .