A state space‐based explicit integration method for real‐time hybrid simulation

Real‐time hybrid simulation (RTHS) combines experimental testing with numerical simulation. It provides an alternative method to evaluate the performance of structures subjected to dynamic loading such as earthquake or wind. During RTHS, a numerical integration algorithm is employed to directly solve the equation of motion and generate command displacements for the experimental test structure online. This paper presents an improved explicit numerical integration method for RTHS based on discrete state space formulation. The improved integration method utilizes an extrapolation‐based prediction procedure for command displacement by applying a zero‐order hold. The predicted command displacement is then used to compute the final command displacement by applying a first‐order hold. Both the stability and the accuracy of the proposed integration method are investigated using control theory and numerical and experimental simulations. The proposed method demonstrates improved performance compared with other integration methods. The robustness and feasibility of the proposed method were verified through experimental RTHS on two different computational platforms including a National Instruments system and a dSPACE embedded controller. The proposed method may also be implemented on other platforms containing an xPC target and MATLAB environment. By placing the algorithm on the dSPACE system, any dynamically rated actuator with a controller that can receive analog signal may be used for RTHS. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

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

[3]  B. Anderson,et al.  Digital control of dynamic systems , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

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

[5]  Σταυροσ Δερμιτζακησ,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTRUCTURING TECHNIQUES FOR ON-LINE COMPUTER CONTROLLED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE TESTING , 1985 .

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

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

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

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

[10]  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.

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

[12]  Georges Magonette.  Development and application of large–scale continuous pseudo–dynamic testing techniques , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[19]  Richard Christenson,et al.  Large-Scale Experimental Verification of Semiactive Control through Real-Time Hybrid Simulation , 2008 .

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

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

[22]  Bin Wu,et al.  Stability of central difference method for dynamic real‐time substructure testing , 2009 .

[23]  David J. Wagg,et al.  Rosenbrock‐based algorithms and subcycling strategies for real‐time nonlinear substructure testing , 2011 .

[24]  Oya Mercan,et al.  Phase and amplitude error indices for error quantification in pseudodynamic testing , 2012 .

[25]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Large‐scale real‐time hybrid simulation involving multiple experimental substructures and adaptive actuator delay compensation , 2012 .

[26]  Ali Ashasi-Sorkhabi,et al.  Development, implementation and verification of a user configurable platform for real-time hybrid simulation , 2014 .

[27]  Pei-Yang Lin,et al.  Real‐time hybrid testing of a smart base isolation system , 2014 .

[28]  J. Ricles,et al.  Development of a family of unconditionally stable explicit direct integration algorithms with controllable numerical energy dissipation , 2014 .

[29]  Hadi Malekghasemi,et al.  Implementation and verification of real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) using a shake table for research and education , 2015 .

[30]  Yanhui Liu,et al.  COMPARISON OF INTEGRATION ALGORITHMS FOR REAL-TIME HYBRID SIMULATION USING FREQUENCY DOMAIN-BASED ERROR INDICATORS , 2015 .