Establishing a predictive performance indicator for real‐time hybrid simulation

SUMMARY Real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) is increasingly being recognized as a powerful cyber-physical technique that offers the opportunity for system evaluation of civil structures subject to extreme dynamic loading. Advances in this field are enabling researchers to evaluate new structural components/systems in cost-effective and efficient ways, under more realistic conditions. For RTHS, performance metric clearly needs to be developed to predict and evaluate the accuracy of various partitioning choices while incorporating the dynamics of the transfer system, and computational/communication delays. In addition, because of the dynamics of the transfer system, communication delays, and computation delays, the RTHS equilibrium force at the interface between numerical and physical substructures is subject to phase discrepancy. Thus, the transfer system dynamics must be accommodated by appropriate actuator controllers. In this paper, a new performance indicator, predictive performance indicator (PPI), is proposed to assess the sensitivity of an RTHS configuration to any phase discrepancy resulting from transfer system dynamics and computational/communication delays. The predictive performance indicator provides a structural engineer with two sets of information as follows: (i) in the absence of a reference response, what is the level of fidelity of the RTHS response? and (ii) if needed, what partitioning adjustments can be made to effectively enhance the fidelity of the response? Moreover, along with the RTHS stability switch criterion, this performance metric may be used as an acceptance criteria for conducting single-degree-of-freedom RTHS. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Cheng Chen,et al.  Reliability Assessment of Real-Time Hybrid Simulation Results for Seismic Hazard Mitigation , 2013 .

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

[3]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Evaluation of a real-time hybrid simulation system for performance evaluation of structures with rate dependent devices subjected to seismic loading , 2012 .

[4]  Bozidar Stojadinovic,et al.  Fast Hybrid Simulation with Geographically Distributed Substructures , 2006 .

[5]  Xiuyu Gao,et al.  Real time hybrid simulation: from dynamic system, motion control to experimental error , 2013 .

[6]  David J. Wagg,et al.  Substructuring of dynamical systems via the adaptive minimal control synthesis algorithm , 2001 .

[7]  M. Ahmadizadeh,et al.  Real-time seismic hybrid simulation procedures for reliable structural performance testing , 2007 .

[8]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Analysis of actuator delay compensation methods for real-time testing , 2009 .

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

[10]  Bozidar Stojadinovic,et al.  Implementation and Accuracy of Continuous Hybrid Simulation with Geographically Distributed Substructures , 2005 .

[11]  Toshihiko Horiuchi,et al.  Development of a Real-Time Hybrid Experimental System Using a Shaking Table : (Proposal of Experiment Concept and Feasibility Study with Rigid Secondary System) , 1999 .

[12]  Juan Carrion,et al.  Model-Based Strategies for Real-Time Hybrid Testing , 2007 .

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

[14]  Andrei M. Reinhorn,et al.  Real-Time Hybrid Simulation Using Shake Tables and Dynamic Actuators , 2011 .

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

[16]  J. Tu,et al.  Substructurability and exact synchronisation analysis , 2013 .

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

[18]  Xiuyu Gao,et al.  A Real-Time Hybrid Testing Platform for the Evaluation of Seismic Mitigation in Building Structures , 2012 .

[19]  Chenyang Lu,et al.  A real-time scheduling service for parallel tasks , 2013, 2013 IEEE 19th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS).

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

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

[22]  Shirley J. Dyke,et al.  Role of Control-Structure Interaction in Protective System Design , 1995 .

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

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

[25]  Brian M. Phillips Model-based feedforward-feedback control for real-time hybrid simulation of large-scale structures , 2012 .

[26]  Billie F. Spencer,et al.  Model-Based Multiactuator Control for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation , 2013 .

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

[28]  Zhaoshuo Jiang,et al.  A comparison of 200 kN magneto-rheological damper models for use in real-time hybrid simulation pretesting , 2011 .

[29]  Xiuyu Gao,et al.  Development of a robust framework for real-time hybrid simulation: From dynamical system, motion control to experimental error verification , 2012 .