You are on page 1of 39

# An Anti-Earthquake Building Suspension System

## Final Project of Control System Engineering

Members
Yonas Sage Siti Choirun Nisa Hulfi Mirza G Ferio Putra Suharno 2105100156 2109100014 2109100704 2109100126

## Content of Presentation Slide

Background Modelling Analyzing Simulating

BACKGROUND

MODELLING

Building Design

## Building Suspension System

Batasan Masalah
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sistem dianalisa dua dimensi yaitu terhadap sumbu vertikal dan horisontal. Sistem dianggap stabil apabila memenuhi syarat sebagai berikut : Constant of spring Friction damper Gedung 4 lantai Teta 45 derajad

## FREE BODY DIAGRAM

Anti- Earthquake House Suspension System

## Analisa Sumbu X k1 = k 2 = k 3 = k 4 = k x2 Building Mass k4 x1

b2 Suspension Mass

k3

W k2 b1

k1 Ground

Suspension Mass (M1) Building Mass (M2) Spring Constant of Suspension System (k) Friction Damping Constant of Suspension System (b1) Friction Damping Constant (b2) The ground disturbance on axis (W) The ground disturbance on ordinate (U)

= 0.01 ton = 10000 ton = 80000 N/m = 300 Ns/m = 15000 Ns/m

## Analisa Sumbu Y k1 = k 2 = k 3 = k 4 = k y2 Building Mass k4 y1

b2 Suspension Mass

k3

k2

b1

k1 Ground
= 0.01 ton = 10000 ton = 80000 N/m = 300 Ns/m = 15000 Ns/m

Suspension Mass (M1) Building Mass (M2) Spring Constant of Suspension System (k) Friction Damping Constant of Suspension System (b1) Friction Damping Constant (b2) The ground disturbance on axis (W) The ground disturbance on ordinate (U)

kX2(s) kX2(s)

M1s2X1(s)

1.(a)

1.(b)

kX1(s) kX1(s)

M2s2X2(s)

Building Mass

kX2(s)

b2sin sX2(s)

b2sin sX1(s)

2.(a)

2.(b)

## Transer Function Equation

From Picture 1(a) and 1(b)
1 2 + 1 sin + 2 1 2 sin 2 2 = 1 cos 1 + 2 cos 2 = () From Picture 2(a) and 2(b) 2 2 + 2 sin + 2 2 + 2 sin + 2 1 = 0 - 2 cos 2 2 cos 1 = 0 From Equation (3) and (4) [2 sin + 2]1 () 2 = [2 2 + 2 sin + 2] 2 cos 1 2 = = 1 () [2 cos ] Equation (5),(6),(1)and(2) 1 2 + 1 sin + 2 1 + 2 sin 2 1 cos 2 cos 1 = ()

## (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

[1 + 1 ]1 () = 2 2 + 2 sin + 2

(7)

(8)

1 [2 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 1] 1 = = () 1 2 + 1 + 1 [1 2 2 + 21 1 + 1 2 ] 1 () [1 2 3 + 1 2 + 1 2 2 + 1 2 + 2 1 + 1 2 ] 2 = = () 2 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 [1 2 2 + 21 1 + 1 2 ]

The Resutan Transfer Function 1 ()2 + 1 ()2 0.01 2 + 6.807 + 201 = = 4 3 2 ()2 + ()2 + 680.9 + 201410 + 3918 + 20001

Open-Loop System

Open-Loop System
Open-Loop System can be designed like the picture below :

## Step Response 0.018

0.016

System: G Peak amplitude: 0.0178 Overshoot (%): 77.5 At time (sec): 3.14

0.014

0.012
Amplitude

0.01

## System: G Final Value: 0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

10

20

30 Time (sec)

40

50

60

70

Open-Loop Response
From the simulation, open-loop system is stable, but still need much money.

Closed-Loop System

Closed-Loop System
Closed-Loop System can be designed like the picture below :

Step Response
St ep Response 0 .0 1 8 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 1 4 0 .0 1 2 Syst em: G Peak amplit ude: 0 .0 1 7 7 Overshoot (%): 7 7 .6 At t ime (sec): 3 .1 3

Amplitude

0 .0 1 0 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 2 0

## Syst em: G Final Value: 0 .0 0 9 9 5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (sec)

Closed-Loop Response
From the simulation using step response, the closed-loop response is stable but need too much time.

## So, What must we do??

ANALYZING

Closed-Loop Response
Closed-Loop response is stable but still need much time, so we must add controler to make the system. System can be determined that it is stable, if the specification system are : 1. Percent overshoot less than 10%. 2. Rising time less than 5 seconds. 3. Settling time system less than 20 seconds.

## Closed-Loop System with Controller

The closed-loop system can be designed like the picture below :

## Proportional Integral Derrivative Controller

The control engineers system task is to adjust the three gain factors to arrive at acceptable degree of error reduction. We knows the transfer function is : = + + 2

P-Contoller Design
Root Locus 200 150 System: sys Gain: Inf Pole: -681 Damping: 1 Overshoot (%): 0 Frequency (rad/sec): 681 System: sys Gain: 2.23e+004 Pole: -15.5 - 7.28e-007i Damping: 1 Overshoot (%): 0 Frequency (rad/sec): 15.5

100

Imaginary Axis

50

0 System: sys Gain: 3.85e+004 Pole: -15.5 - 13i Damping: 0.765 Overshoot (%): 2.41 Frequency (rad/sec): 20.2

-50

-100

-150

-200 -700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

Step Response
Step Response 1.8 1.6 System: T Peak amplitude: 1.79 Overshoot (%): 78.8 At time (sec): 2.98 1.4 1.2 System: T Rise Time (sec): 1.05

## System: T Settling Time (sec): 48.3 System: T Final Value: 1

Amplitude

0.8

0.6 0.4

0.2

10

20

30 Time (sec)

40

50

60

70

PD Compensator Design
1 0.8 0.6 0.4
Imaginary Axis

x 10

Root Locus

## 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1200 -1000

System: Gp Gain: 1.11e+006 Pole: -504 - 110i Damping: 0.977 Overshoot (%): 0.0001 Frequency (rad/sec): 516

-800

-600

-400

## -200 Real Axis

200

400

600

800

Step Response
St ep Response 1.8 1.6 Syst em: T Peak amplit ude: 1.79 Overshoot (%): 78.8 At t ime (sec): 2.98

## 1.4 1.2 Syst em: T Rise Time (sec): 1.05

Syst em: T Set t ling Time (sec): 48.3 Syst em: T Final Value: 1

Amplitude

0.8

0.6 0.4

0.2

10

20

30 Time (sec)

40

50

60

70

PI Compensator Design
Root Locus 2000 1500 Syst em: Gi Gain: 4 9 7 Pole: -6 .8 5 e+0 0 3 Damping: 1 Overshoot (%): 0 Frequency (rad/ sec): 6 .8 5 e+0 0 3

1000

Imaginary Axis

500

-5 0 0

-1 0 0 0

-1 5 0 0

-2 0 0 0 -1 4 0 0 0

-1 2 0 0 0

-1 0 0 0 0

-8 0 0 0

-6 0 0 0 Real Axis

-4 0 0 0

-2 0 0 0

2000

Step Response

CONCLUSION

Conclusion
Anti-Earthquake Building Suspension System can be stable although it is given controller system. So we have the specification about the suspension system. The specification are : 1. Percent overshoot 10% 2. Rising time less than 5 s 3. Steady state less than 20 s So, we can get the conclusion that the suspension has been enough stable. We need to make it more perfect.

THANK YOU
Any Questions??