Shake tables are essential facilities in the laboratory for evaluating structural performance subject to vibration excitation. In this paper, to improve the time waveform replication accuracy of electro-hydraulic shake tables (EHSTs), an improved feedforward inverse control algorithm with adaptive refinement is proposed. The EHST system transfer function and stable inverse model is firstly estimated and designed by multi-step recursive extended least squares algorithm and zero magnitude error tracking controller technology, respectively. To reduce the side effect of model identification errors between the estimated and actual system, a system model corrector is further identified based on the previous estimated EHST model and an inverse corrector is obtained so as to constitute the improved feedforward inverse controller (iFIC) by cascading the inverse corrector to the previous designed inverse model. Then, an adaptive refinement controller using a least mean square algorithm is applied to the iFIC controlled system to cope with system uncertainties and nonlinear effects. Therefore, the proposed algorithm combines the merits of feedforward inverse control and adaptive control. Finally, with the help of xPC rapid prototyping technology, experiments are conducted on a real uniaxial EHST system and the experimental results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm exhibits a better tracking accuracy than the conventional controllers for shake tables.
AnthonisJVaesDEngelenK (2007) Feedback approach for reproduction of field measurements on a hydraulic four poster. Biosystems Engineering96(4): 435–20.
2.
Butterworth JA, Pao LY and Abramovitch DY (2008) The effect of nonminimum-phase zero locations on the performance of feedforward model-inverse control techniques in discrete-time systems. In Proceedings of American Control Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 11–13 June, pp. 2696–2702.
3.
ButterworthJAPaoLYAbramovitchDY (2012) Analysis and comparison of three discrete-time feedforward model-inverse control techniques for nonminimum-phase systems. Mechatronics22(5): 577–587.
4.
CherngJGGoktanAFrenchM (2001) Improving drive files for vehicle road simulations. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing15(5): 1007–1022.
De Cuyper J, Vaes D, Dehandschutter W, et al. (2002) Experimental H∞ control to improve an industrial off-line tracking control scheme on an automotive suspension test rig. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Computer Aided Control System Design, Glasgow, UK, 18–20 September, pp. 63–68.
7.
De CuyperJVerhaegenMSweversJ (2003) Off-line feed-forward and H∞ feedback control on a vibration rig. Control Engineering Practice11(2): 129–140.
8.
Gizatullin A and Edge K (2007) Adaptive control for a multi-axis hydraulic test rig. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, vol. 221(2), pp. 183–198.
9.
GrossETomizukaM (1994) Experimental flexible beam tip tracking control with a truncated series approximation to uncancelable inverse dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology2(4): 382–391.
10.
GuanG-FWangH-TXiongW (2014) Random vibration control of a hydraulic shaking table. Journal of Vibration and Control20(2): 204–217.
11.
GuoHLiuYLiuG (2008) Cascade control of a hydraulically driven 6-DOF parallel robot manipulator based on a sliding mode. Control Engineering Practice16(9): 1055–1068.
12.
JianjunYGuilinJDuotaoD (2011) Acceleration harmonic identification for an electro-hydraulic servo shaking table based on the normalized least-mean-square adaptive algorithm. Journal of Vibration and Control19(1): 47–55.
13.
JinkunLYuzhuH (2007) QFT control based on zero phase error compensation for flight simulator. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics18(1): 125–131.
14.
KuehnJEppDPattenW (1999) High-fidelity control of a seismic shake table. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics28(11): 1235–1254.
15.
NakataN (2010) Acceleration trajectory tracking control for earthquake simulators. Engineering Structures32(8): 2229–2236.
16.
Nowak RF, Kusner DA, Larson RL, et al. (2000) Utilizing modern digital signal processing for improvement of large scale shaking table performance. In Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 January–4 February.
17.
Pagano S, Russo M, Strano S, et al. (2013) A mixed approach for the control of a testing equipment employed for earthquake isolation systems. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, vol. 228(2), pp. 246–261.
18.
Plummer A (2007) Control techniques for structural testing: a review. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, vol. 221(2), pp. 139–169.
19.
RigneyBPPaoLYLawrenceDA (2009) Nonminimum phase dynamic inversion for settle time applications. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology17(5): 989–1005.
20.
RigneyBPPaoLYLawrenceDA (2010) Nonminimum phase adaptive inverse control for settle performance applications. Mechatronics20(1): 35–44.
21.
SekiKIwasakiMKawafukuM (2009) Adaptive compensation for reaction force with frequency variation in shaking table systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics56(10): 3864–3871.
22.
SevernR (2011) The development of shaking tables–a historical note. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics40(2): 195–213.
23.
ShenGLvGYeZ (2011) Feed-forward inverse control for transient waveform replication on electro-hydraulic shaking table. Journal of Vibration and Control18(10): 1474–1493.
24.
Shen G, Zhu Z, Tang Y, et al. (2012) Combined control strategy using internal model control and adaptive inverse control for electro-hydraulic shaking table. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, vol. 227(10), pp. 2348–2360.
25.
StehmanMNakataN (2013) Direct acceleration feedback control of shake tables with force stabilization. Journal of Earthquake Engineering17(5): 736–749.
26.
StotenDPGómezEG (2001) Adaptive control of shaking tables using the minimal control synthesis algorithm. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences359(1786): 1697–1723.
27.
Stoten DP and Shimizu N (2007) The feedforward minimal control synthesis algorithm and its application to the control of shaking-tables. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, vol. 221(3), pp. 423–444.
28.
TagawaYKajiwaraK (2007) Controller development for the E-Defense shaking table. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering221(2): 171–181.
29.
TwitchellBSSymansMD (2003) Analytical modeling, system identification, and tracking performance of uniaxial seismic simulators. Journal of Engineering Mechanics129(12): 1485–1488.
30.
VaesDSweversJSasP (2005) Experimental validation of different MIMO-feedback controller design methods. Control Engineering Practice13(11): 1439–1451.
31.
VogtM (2013) System identification techniques based on support vector machines without bias term. International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing27(9): 809–826.
32.
WidrowBStearnsSD (1985) Adaptive Signal Processing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33.
YaoJDiDJiangG (2012) Acceleration amplitude-phase regulation for electro-hydraulic servo shaking table based on LMS adaptive filtering algorithm. International Journal of Control85(10): 1581–1592.
34.
YaoJHuSFuW (2010) Harmonic cancellation for electro-hydraulic servo shaking table based on LMS adaptive algorithm. Journal of Vibration and Control17(12): 1862–1868.
35.
ZhouYHanAYanS (2005) A fast method for online closed-loop system identification. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology31(1–2): 78–84.
