A new tracking error-based adaptive controller for servo-hydraulic actuator control

Abstract

Real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) is a testing method which combines the response from an experiment (i.e., experimental substructure) with that of a computer model (i.e., analytical substructure) in real-time. The accuracy and stability of the RTHS are prone to the propagation of error in the measured signals. Thus, critical developments in servo-hydraulic actuator control are needed to enable a wide application of this testing technique. In this study, a new tracking error compensation strategy for servo-hydraulic actuator control is developed, and numerically and experimentally evaluated. This compensation procedure is formulated based on a new set of tracking error indicators, namely, frequency domain-based (FDB) error indicators, which uncouple phase (lag and lead) and amplitude (overshoot and undershoot) errors and quantify them. These indicators are then incorporated into a two degree-of-freedom (d.f.) controller to develop closed-form equations to design an adaptive servo-hydraulic controller with improved tracking performance. The FDB indicators and the new adaptive controller are studied through numerical simulations in Simulink and LabVIEW and also verified experimentally. The proposed controller is computationally efficient, it can be implemented in real-time and it does not require any user-defined (i.e., predetermined) coefficients. As a result of its two d.f. formulation, this adaptive controller can be introduced to any closed-loop servo-controller through a digital or analog interface depending on the experimental setup properties. As such, it can be used to improve the tracking capability of any single hydraulic actuator system, which is essential in RTHS.

Keywords

Actuator tracking assessment error estimation real-time hybrid simulation servo-hydraulic actuator control two degree-of-freedom controller

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmadizadeh

Mosqueda

(2009) Online energy-based error indicator for the assessment of numerical and experimental errors in a hybrid simulation. Engineering Structures 31(9): 1987–1996.

Ashasi-Sorkhabi

Mercan

(2014) Development, implementation and verification of a user configurable platform for real-time hybrid simulation. Smart Structures and Systems. [in press].

Ashasi-Sorkhabi

Malekghasemi

Mercan

(2013) Implementation and verification of real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) using a shake table for research and education. Journal of Vibration and Control. DOI: 10.1177/1077546313498616.

Carrion

Spencer

Jr Phillips

(2009) Real-time hybrid simulation for structural control performance assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 8(4): 481–492.

Chae

Kazemibidokhti

Ricles

(2013) Adaptive time series compensator for delay compensation of servo-hydraulic actuator systems for real-time hybrid simulation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42(11): 1697–1715.

Chen

Ricles

(2010) Tracking error-based servohydraulic actuator adaptive compensation for real-time hybrid simulation. Journal of Structural Engineering 136(4): 432–440.

Chen

Ricles

Guo

(2012) Improved adaptive inverse compensation technique for real-time hybrid simulation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 138(12): 1432–1446.

Chen

P-C

Tsai

K-C

(2013) Dual compensation strategy for real-time hybrid testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42(1): 1–23.

Chen

P-C

Tsai

K-C

Lin

P-Y

(2013) Real-time hybrid testing of a smart base isolation system. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43(1): 139–158.

10.

Gao

Castaneda

Dyke

(2013) Real time hybrid simulation: from dynamic system, motion control to experimental error. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42(6): 815–832.

11.

Guo

Chen

Sanchez

(2014) A frequency response analysis approach for quantitative assessment of actuator tracking for real-time hybrid simulation. Smart Materials and Structures 23(4): 045042 (13pp).

12.

Horiuchi

Inoue

Konno

Namita

(1999) Real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28(10): 1121–1141.

13.

Horowitz

(1963) Synthesis of Feedback Systems, New York: Academic Press.

14.

Jung

Shing

Stauffer

Thoen

(2007) Performance of a real-time pseudodynamic test system considering nonlinear structural response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36(12): 1785–1809.

15.

Karavasilis

Ricles

Sause

Chen

(2011) Experimental evaluation of the seismic performance of steel MRFs with compressed elastomer dampers using large-scale real-time hybrid simulation. Engineering Structures 33(6): 1859–1869.

16.

LabVIEW (1996) LabVIEW Tutorial Manual, Austin, TX: National Instruments Corporation.

17.

Lamarche

C-P

Tremblay

Leger

Leclerc

Bursi

(2010) Comparison between real-time dynamic substructuring and shake table testing techniques for nonlinear seismic applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 39(12): 1299–1320.

18.

Liu

Dyke

Liu

H-J

Gao

X-Y

Phillips

(2013) A novel integrated compensation method for actuator dynamics in real-time hybrid structural testing. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 20: 1057–1080.

19.

Malekghasemi

Ashasi-Sorkhabi

Ghaemmaghami

Mercan

(2014) Experimental and numerical investigations of the dynamic interaction of tuned liquid damper–structure systems. Journal of Vibration and Control. DOI: 10.1177/1077546313514759.

20.

MATLAB (2007) MATLAB User’s Guide, Natick, MA: The MathWorks Inc.

21.

Mercan O (2007) Analytical and experimental studies on large scale, real-time pseudodynamic testing. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.

22.

Mercan

Ricles

(2007) Stability and accuracy analysis of outer loop dynamics in real-time pseudodynamic testing of SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36(11): 1523–1543.

23.

Mercan

Ricles

(2008) Stability analysis for real-time pseudodynamic and hybrid pseudodynamic testing with multiple sources of delay. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 37(10): 1269–1293.

24.

Mercan

Ricles

(2009) Experimental studies on real-time testing of structures with elastomeric dampers. Journal of Structural Engineering 135(9): 1124–1133.

25.

Mirza Hessabi

Mercan

(2012) Phase and amplitude error indices for error quantification in pseudodynamic testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41(10): 1347–1364.

26.

Mirza Hessabi R and Mercan O (2013) A practical approach to the phase and amplitude error estimation of pseudodynamic testing. In Proceedings of Structures Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Pittsburgh, PA, May 2–4.

27.

Mosqueda

Stojadinovic

Mahin

(2007a) Real-time error monitoring for hybrid simulation. part I: methodology and experimental verification. Journal of Structural Engineering 133(8): 1100–1108.

28.

Mosqueda

Stojadinovic

Mahin

(2007b) Real-time error monitoring for hybrid simulation. Part II: structural response modification due to errors. Journal of Structural Engineering 133(8): 1109–1117.

29.

Nakata

(2011a) Error analysis of digitally controlled servo hydraulic actuators for structural testing. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15(6): 901–923.

30.

Nakata

(2011b) A multi-purpose earthquake simulator and a flexible development platform for actuator controller design. Journal of Vibration and Control 18(10): 1552–1560.

31.

Ogata

(2001) Modern Control Engineering, 4th edn. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall Publication.

32.

Phillips

Spencer

(2012) Model-based multi-actuator control for real-time hybrid simulation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 139(2): 219–228.

33.

Rajasekaran

(2009) Structural Dynamics of Earthquake Engineering: Theory and Application Using Mathematica and Matlab, Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.

34.

Shen

Zheng

Huang

Cong

Han

(2010) Adaptive inverse control of time waveform replication for electrohydraulic shaking table. Journal of Vibration and Control. DOI: 10.1177/1077546310380431.

35.

Thewalt

Roman

(1994) Performance parameters for pseudodynamic tests. Journal of Structural Engineering 120(9): 2768–2781.