Article

Journal of Vibration and Control

2015, Vol. 21(15) 2995–3006

Vibration control for structural ! The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
damage mitigation DOI: 10.1177/1077546313519283
jvc.sagepub.com

Chimpalthradi R Ashokkumar

Abstract
Substantial developments have taken place in the areas of structural health monitoring, wherein, the objective is not only
to detect damage but also to determine its size and location across the structure. Often, the damaged structures do not
become obsolete unless the damage is severe. Thus, it is important to mitigate the growth of damage and prevent the
possibilities of a structural failure. Vibration is an important source of damage growth. Therefore, it is important to
control vibrations such that the damage growth is mitigated. Supposing an effect of damage in the structure is said to be
mitigated when the vibration response of the damaged structure with control is the same as the vibration response of the
undamaged structure, then one of the requirements is that the closed loop eigenstructure of the damaged structure
needs to match with the open loop eigenstructure of the undamaged structure. In this framework, this paper uses
a linear algebraic technique to assign the undamaged eigenvalues and eigenvectors for the damaged structure with a
stiffness loss using a state feedback controller. Through this technique, it is shown that the vibration control using an
actuator load can help to mitigate damage growth by reducing the vibration response magnitudes at the damaged
structural degrees of freedom, while these magnitudes at other nodes are allowed to increase due to the actuator
loads. Vibration control in this sense for structural damage mitigation is illustrated using discrete and continuous
structures.

Keywords
Control, damage, eigenstructure, mitigation, uncertainty, vibration

following problem is posed. Is the operation of the

1. Introduction
Structural health monitoring (SHM) has been an active
research area for some time. One of the challenges in
SHM is to quantify the damage in terms of its size and
location across the structure. The structure that could
be considered may be a discrete spring-mass-damper
system or a continuous system such as beam, plate,
membrane, etc. In continuous systems, depending
upon the damage size, SHM is divided into high and
low frequency range problems. Stiffness and mode
shape parameter changes usually encapsulate the low-
frequency range (Ge and Lui, 2005; Tee et al., 2005;
Meng et al., 2006; Yan et al., 2006). A sensor such as
a piezoelectric transducer (Ghasemi-Nejhad, 2005) also
limits this frequency range as well as the size of the
finite element model (FEM) corresponding to the
damage size. Given the damaged structure and its
FEM with a stiffness parameter perturbation obtained
through a structural damage assessment technique, the
damaged structure safe in an unknown environment
with dynamic loads? Hence vibration control for struc-
tural damage mitigation becomes an important prob-
lem (Tian et al., 2009; Fu et al., 2010; Mohebbi et al.,
2013). If the vibration response of the damaged struc-
ture with control inputs mimics the vibration response
of the healthy structure, then the damaged structure in
that environment is said to be safe (Maryam et al.,
2010). This condition for structural damage mitigation
(SDM) means that the eigenstructure of the damaged
structure with control is the same as the eigenstructure
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Jain University, India
Received: 3 April 2013; accepted: 1 December 2013
Corresponding author:
Chimpalthradi R Ashokkumar, Jain University, Jakkasandra Post,
Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural 562112, India.
Email: chimpalthradi@gmail.com
2996
of the undamaged structure. Hence, in addition to the
structural loads inherently acting, actuator loads for
vibration suppression are intentionally introduced
through a set of multiple input point actuators. These
loads are synthesized by using an eigenstructure of the
undamaged structure which is considered to be safe for
SDM in an unknown environment. When loading con-
ditions are included, SDM using adaptive control is
also investigated (Ashokkumar et al., 2011).
Many of these developments assume that during
loading, changes in material properties are within the
linear elastic range. This assumption is important
because with the material and geometric nonlinearities,
damage with actuator loads can actually grow, leading
to a failure state. In this paper, for the material proper-
ties in a linear range during loading and unloading, a
linear algebraic property is used to propose a new
vibration control system design procedure that opti-
mally assigns the desired eigenstructure for the
damaged structure. Note that the damage is defined
with respect to a stiffness loss. That is, depending
upon the damage location, the parameters in the stiff-
ness matrix undergo a one-time change in their magni-
tudes. Presently, no variations, either linear or
nonlinear, are assumed in the stiffness parameters.
Within this framework, the novelty of the proposed
algorithm is explained as follows. When the effects of
damage are felt in the near and far fields of the damage,
some of the eigenvalues in the finite element model of
the damaged structure are modified while the remaining
eigenvalues may be unchanged. The proposed algo-
rithm considers such eigenvalue distributions in a typ-
ical damaged structure and retains the modified and
invariant eigenvalues of the damaged structure at the
desired locations of the healthy structure. In this pro-
cess, the eigenvectors are assigned to follow the eigen-
vectors of the healthy structure in the least square error
minimization sense. Through examples, it is shown that
the controllers by this technique can generate actuator
loads in such a way that the vibration response of some
of the damaged structural degrees of freedom is miti-
gated by reducing their magnitudes. However, other
structural degrees of freedom, desirably at the undam-
aged finite element nodes, may exhibit increased mag-
nitudes. Thus vibration control in damaged structures
is a challenging problem from a damage growth miti-
gation point of view.
Retaining the same eigenstructure for two or more
models through a state feedback controller is referred
to as the reconfigurable control (Jiang, 1994; Esna
Ashari et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2005). In SDM, the
number of state variables (the finite element nodal
degrees of freedom) is usually assumed to be the same
and it is also considered to be fixed. In continuous
structures, however, this requirement cannot be met.
Journal of Vibration and Control 21(15)
That is, the finite element nodes assumed in the
design model are to be increased to verify if the
design performs satisfactorily for the analysis model
with increased degrees of freedom. In this paper, the
controller for SDM is performed by ignoring these
dimensional uncertainties. In case the vibration control
for a finite element model with increased nodes is found
unstable, it is recommended to increase the finite elem-
ent nodes and redesign a controller with techniques
provided in the proposed algorithm using partial eigen-
value assignment (Ashokkumar and Iyengar, 2011).
Here, the stiffness loss is assumed to affect a few eigen-
values and the rest are considered to be unperturbed.
Because the effects of damage are local, partial eigen-
value assignment problems are expected to be useful in
large-scale structures, where only a substructure needs
to be controlled in design. These are some active con-
trol techniques which require large power to implement
the controller. Semi-active control systems using mag-
netorheological dampers for earthquake hazard mitiga-
tion have been promising to reduce the seismic
responses of the structures (Xu et al., 2003). Such tech-
niques are required when damages in the structure are
identified and quantified (Xu and Wu, 2007). In this
paper, a procedure has been presented to reduce the
vibration responses at the damaged locations, whereas
at other locations vibration responses are necessary to
be suppressed but may exhibit increased amplitudes
compared to the uncontrolled structure. In the formu-
lation, a one-time stiffness loss from healthy to
damaged state of the structure is assumed. That is, no
nonlinear variations in the stiffness parameters are con-
sidered. Such variations in the stiffness parameters
require an adaptive control technique for reduced
vibrations at the damage locations of the structure.
This paper is organized with the problem formula-
tion. Optimal eigenstructure assignment for SDM is
addressed. Various structural models with damage
are presented next. For these models, the design is
performed and then conclusions are presented.
2. Problem formulation
Consider a healthy model and a damaged model for a
discrete/continuous structure using the structural
degrees of freedom stacked in an n-component vector
{q(t)} as follows:
Healthy Model:
€
½MfqðtÞg _
þ ½CfqðtÞg þ ½KfqðtÞg ¼ fHgðtÞ: ð1Þ
Damaged Model:
€
½MfqðtÞg _
þ ð½C þ ½CÞfqðtÞg
ð2Þ
þ ð½K þ ½KÞfqðtÞg ¼ ½DfðtÞg þ fHgðtÞ:
Ashokkumar
[M], [C], and [K] are the mass, damping and stiffness
matrices of order n, respectively. [K] and [C] are the
one-time perturbations to the stiffness and damping
matrices introduced by the damage. Although the for-
mulation with these perturbations accommodates linear
or nonlinear variations, presently the damage is
assumed to introduce only a one-time stiffness and/or
damping loss. For nonlinear variations, adaptive con-
trol may be applied to reduce the vibration responses at
the damaged structural degrees of freedom. Here {x(t)}
is a m-component control vector. [D] is a n by m control
influence matrix. ðtÞis a scalar representing the struc-
tural load. {H} is a compatible n-component vector.
_
{qðtÞ} €
is the velocity and {qðtÞ} is the acceleration
vector, respectively. Damage type such as an impact
damage, a crack, etc., depicts the changes in [K] and
[C]. SHM techniques are assumed available to pro-
vide these matrices (Wu et al., 2006; Xu and Wu, 2007).
Defining the state vector fxðtÞg ¼ ffqT ðtÞg, fq_ T ðtÞggT ,
where the superscript T stands for the transpose, equa-
tion (1) and equation (2) are transformed as
_
fxðtÞg ¼ ½AfxðtÞg þ ðtÞ
_
fxðtÞg ¼ ½A1 f xðtÞg þ ½B1 f ðtÞg þ ðtÞ
where [A], [A1] and [B1] are defined as below.
" #
½0ðnÞ  ½IðnÞ 
½A ¼ , ðDamaged forced vibration response with one-
½M ½K ½M1 ½C
1
" #
½0ðnÞ  ½IðnÞ 
½A1  ¼
½M1 ð½K þ ½KÞ ½M1 ð½C þ ½CÞ
" # ( )
0ðnmÞ f0ðn1Þ g
½B1  ¼ and ðtÞ ¼ ðtÞ
½M1 ½D ½M1 fHg
Let the control law for SDM be
fðtÞg ¼ ½G fxðtÞg:
When the structural loads are not present, the
damaged model with control law becomes
_
fxðtÞg ¼ ½Ff xðtÞg:
where [F] ¼ ([A1]–[B1][G]). Consider a nonzero initial
condition fxð0Þg 6¼ f0g. The time responses of the
healthy structure in equation (3) and the damaged
structure with control in equation (6) will be the same
if the eigenstructure for the matrices A and F is the
same. For the deterministic dynamic loads ðtÞ, rewrit-
ing equation (3) and equation (4):
_
fxðtÞg ¼ ½AfxðtÞg þ ðtÞ
2997
_
fxðtÞg ¼ ð½A1   ½B1 ½GÞfxðtÞg þ ðtÞ ð6cÞ
The vibration responses of the structure due to ini-
tial condition {x(0)} are
 
fxðtÞg ¼ e½Aðtt0 Þ fxð0Þg Healthy free vibration response
ð6dÞ
fxðtÞg ¼ eð½A1 ½B1 ½GÞðtt0 Þ fxð0Þg
 
Damaged free vibration response ð6eÞ
with one-time stiffness=damping loss
If the eigenstructure of [A] and ð½A1   ½B1 ½GÞ are
the same, the vibration responses of the healthy and the
damaged structure will be the same. This can be
inferred through diagonalization of [A] and
ð½A1   ½B1 ½GÞ by their modal matrices.
In the presence of loading conditions ðtÞ and the
initial condition fxð0Þg 6¼ f0g, a similar principle
works. That is,
Z t
ð3Þ
fxðtÞg ¼ e½Aðtt0 Þ fxð0Þg þ e½AðtÞ ðÞ d
t0 ð6fÞ
ð4Þ
ðHealthy forced vibration responseÞ
Z t
ð½A1 ½B1 ½GÞðtt0 Þ
fxðtÞg ¼ e fxð0Þg þ eð½A1 ½B1 ½GÞðtÞ ðÞ d
t0
time stiffness=damping lossÞ
, ð6gÞ
Hence, the objective of the control law is stated as
follows. Let (si,{ui}) be the complex conjugate eigenpair
of the matrix [A] such that
½Af ui g ¼ si fui g, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , 2n
ð5Þ
Problem Statement: Given a controllable system in
equation (4) and a set of distinct self-conjugate complex
numbers si, i ¼ 1,2 , . . . , 2n, then design a state feedback
controller [G] of order m by n, such that
ð6aÞ
ð1Þ ½Ff vi g ¼ si fvi g, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , 2n and ð7aÞ
ð2Þ Ji ¼ kfvi g  fui g k2 , i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , 2n is minimum
ð7bÞ
where {vi} and {ui} are 2n-component complex vectors.
In case the effects of damage are not felt on all the finite
elements, note that si may also represent the eigenvalues
of the damaged matrix [A1]. Thus the problem is con-
ð6bÞ verted into partial eigenstructure assignment, where the
2998 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(15)

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
unaffected eigenvalues are retained at their original Eliminating j ¼ 1, the above equation can be
locations by the state feedback controller. rewritten as
  ! !
Remark 1: Let the real and imaginary parts of {vi} and ½B1  ½0 fwR
i g ð½A1   Ri ½Ið2nÞ Þ Ii ½Ið2nÞ 
{ui} respectively be fvR I R I ¼
i g, f vi g, f ui g and Tfui g. If we define ½0 ½B1  fwIi g Ii ½Ið2nÞ  ð½A1   R i ½Ið2nÞ Þ
RT IT T T
fpi g ¼ ffvi g, fvi gg and fqi g ¼ ffui g, f uIi ggT , then
R
R
!
Ji ¼ kfpi g  fqi g k2 . fvi g
 , i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , 2n
fvIi g
Remark 2: If fpi g ¼ 1 f1 g þ 2 f2 g þ    þ 1 f1 g ð9Þ
where {k} are the basis vectors spanning a
 
subspace of R4n in which {pi} resides and k are arbi- ½B1  ½0
 ¼
Define ½B and
trary constants, then Ji is minimum if there exists  ½0 ½B1 
such that !
i¼ ð½A1   Ri ½Ið2nÞ Þ Ii ½Ið2nÞ 
½F :
 T 1 T Ii ½Ið2nÞ  ð½A1   R i ½Ið2nÞ Þ
f g ¼ ðfg fgÞ fg fqi g ð8Þ
Then equation (9) turns out to be
where f g ¼ ½1 , 2 , . . . , 1 T , ½ ¼ ½f1 gf 2 g
   f1 g 2 R4n1 , and p1 is the dimension of the sub-  ti g ¼ ½Fi fpi g,
½Bf i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , 2n, ð10Þ
space. In the next section, the partial eigenvalue assign-
T T T T
I T I T
ment technique (Ashokkumar and Iyengar, 2011) is Here fti g ¼ fwR i , wi g and fpi g ¼ fvR
i , vi g .
modified to determine the gain matrix [G] using vectors Equation (10) is a linear system of equations with
f g and []. unknown vectors {ti } and {pi }, respectively. Within
this framework, the vector {pi } is considered to be
known if the vectors { } and {k} in equation (8) are
3. Optimal eigenstructure first determined. Then a solution for the vector {ti } is
provided. In order to determine {pi }, it is inferred that
assignment for SDM
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi R {ti} is solvable if there exists a f j g 2 R4n orthogonal to
Assume that si ¼ R I
1. i and Ii are the  such that f T g½B  ¼ f0g or
i þ ji , j ¼ the columns of ½B j
real and imaginary parts of the desired eigenvalue si to  T
½B f j g ¼ f0g(Gilbert, 1988). Further, let the number
be assigned to the damaged structural model. Denote of these vectors residing in the null space of [B T ] be
the unknown real and imaginary parts of its eigenvector 2. Then defining the matrix ½  ¼ ½f 1 gf 2 g    f 2 g,
by {vR I
i } and {vi }, respectively. Further using the gain Pre-multiplying equation (10) both sides with [ T ] and
matrix [G] of order m  n, define ½Gf vR R
noting that ½ T ½B  ¼ ½0, it can be inferred that k are
i g ¼ fwi g and
I I
½Gf vi g ¼ fwi g. Let, in the null space of ½ T ½Fi  with ½ T ½Fi fpi g ¼ f0g.
That is,½ T ½Fi fk g ¼ f0g, k ¼ 1    1 . Given{k}. thus
f g ¼ ½ðT Þ1 T fqi g in equation (8) is determined. As
2 3
g1,1 g1,2    g1,n a result, fpi g ¼ ½f  g for SDM are derived. However,
6g 7 {ti} and {} need to reside in the null space
6 2,1 g2,2    g2,n 7 
½G ¼ 6 7: 
4    5 of ½B ½Fi ½ . That is, substituting
gm,1 gm,2    gm,n fpi g ¼ ½f gin equation (10), we get
fgT g ¼ fg1,1 , g1,2 , . . . g1,n , g2,1 , g2,2 , . . . g2,n , . . . , gm,1 , gm,2 , . . . gm,n g

  fti g

½B ½Fi ½ : ð11aÞ
fg
The objective is to determine the elements of the  
gain vector {g} such that the eigenvalues and eigenvec- Since the rank of ½ B ½Fi ½  is 4 m, in
tors of the closed-loop system [F] ¼ ([A1] – [B1][G]) are reduced row echelon form, {ti} is written as
si and fvR I
i g þ jfvi g, respectively. In order to determine
{g}, first, the vectors {vR I R I
i },{vi }, {wi } and {wi } of fti g ¼ ½Ri f g ð11bÞ
order n, n, m, and m, respectively, are determined as
follows. Consider the eigenvalue-eigenvector where [Ri] is the matrix of order 4 m by p1. Substituting
constraint: the optimal values for {} from equation (8)

ð½A1   ½B1 ½GÞðfvR I R I R I

i g þ j fvi gÞ ¼ ði þ j i Þðfvi g þ j fvi gÞ fti g ¼ ½Ri ½ ðT Þ1 T fqi g, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n ð12Þ
Ashokkumar 2999

The steps from equation (9) through equation (12)

are repeated to compute the matrix [] for each desired
eigenvalue si. Thus {pi } in Remark 2 and {ti } in equa-
T
IT T
tion (12) are computed. Given fpi g ¼ fvR i , vi g and
T T T
fti g ¼ fwR I
i , wi g the controller gains {g} is computed
as below. Recall the relation:

½Gf vR R
i g ¼ fwi g ð13aÞ

½Gf vIi g ¼ fwIi g, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n ð13bÞ

Further, by pre-multiplying the left hand side of

equation (13) with ½IðmÞ , each of the above equations
resembles

½IðmÞ ½Gf vg ¼ fwg ð14Þ

Figure 1. Eigenvalues in a typical finite element model for a
where [I(m)] is the identity matrix of order m, [G] is an large scale structural system.
unknown matrix of order m by n, and {v} and {w} are
known non-zero vectors with components n and m,
respectively. Under this arrangement, applying the the matrix [] is guaranteed to be non-singular. The
Kronecker product rule, equation (14) can be written as controller design procedure presented in this section
applies to partial eigenvalue assignment in large-scale
½½IðmÞ   fvT g fgg ¼ fwg ð15Þ structural damage mitigation, where the damage effects
are local as shown in Figure 1. That is, the substructure
where  refers to the Kronecker product of the matrix closer to the damage (near field) is affected by the
[I(m)] and the row vector {vT}, applying the rule in equa- damage and the substructure farther from the damage
tion (15) to equation (13): (far field) is not affected by the damage. Accordingly,
the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are modified. In the
T present investigation, a spring-mass-damper system and
½½IðmÞ   fvR R
i gf gg ¼ fwi g ð16aÞ a simply supported beam with stiffness parametric
uncertainties are considered to illustrate the SDM pro-
T
½½IðmÞ   fvIi g fgg ¼ fwIi g, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n ð16bÞ cedure as shown in Figure 2. Note that in continuous
structures, stiffness loss distribution across the structure
These equations are rewritten in the matrix form as, is generally not known when damage at some finite
element is present. In this paper, stiffness loss at a
½f gg ¼ f’g ð17Þ nodal stiffness matrix is arbitrarily introduced.

where
2 T
3 2 3 4. Structural models with damage
½IðmÞ   fvR
1 g fwR
1g
6 7 6 I 7 Uncertainty (values of [K] and [C]) correlation with
6 T 7
6 fw1 g 7
6 ½IðmÞ   fvI1 g 7 6 7 damage size (small, large, etc.) and damage type (crack,
6 7 6 7
6 7 6  7 impact damage, etc.) has been attempted in civil engin-
6  7 6 7
½ ¼ 6
6
7 and f’g ¼ 6
7 7 eering structures (Wu et al., 2006; Xu and Wu, 2007) as
6 7 6 7
6

7 6  7 well as in continuous structures (Tipireddy et al., 2009).
6 T 7
6 7
6 ½IðmÞ   fvR g7 6 fwR g 7 Here, it is required to decrease or increase the finite
4 n 5 4 n 5
element nodes and capture a structural frequency band-
IT I
½IðmÞ   fvn g fwn g width influenced by a damage size. Accordingly,
damaged structural models are formulated. In this sec-
[] is a square matrix of order 2 mn by 2 mn. {’} is a tion, a controller for SDM using these design models is
2 mn-component vector. Thus the state feedback con- presented. To this end, a simply supported beam is con-
troller [G] is uniquely determined if [] is non-singular. sidered (Meirovitch, 1997). To study SDM in discrete
Generally, when the eigenvalues are distinct, the eigen- structures, a spring-mass-damper model is also con-
vectors are linearly independent. Thus, for these cases, sidered. For these structures, K is presented.
3000 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(15)

Figure 2. Structural damage mitigation using vibration control at damaged structural degrees of freedom (DOF).

4.1. Discrete structure

The model and its structural degrees of freedom
are shown in Figure 3. Defining fqT ðtÞg ¼
fq1 ðtÞ, q2 ðtÞ, q3 ðtÞg, the mass, stiffness and damping
matrices are given by,
2 3
m1 0 0
6 7 Figure 3. A discrete structure with damage.
½M ¼ 4 0 m2 0 5,
0 0 m3
2 3 Since the damage is known by a structural damage
e1 þ e2 e2 0 assessment technique, the perturbation matrix to the
6 7 stiffness matrix is assumed as.
½C ¼ 4 e2 e2 þ e3 e3 5 and
0 e3 e3 þ e4 2 3
2 3 1 1 0
k1 þ k2 k2 0 6 7
6
½K ¼ 4 k2 k2 þ k3 k3 5:
7 ½K ¼ k2 6
4 1 1 07
5 ¼ k2 ½E2  ð18Þ
0 k3 k3 þ k4 0 0 0

Without loss of generality, it is possible to assume

The control influence matrix [D] is given by damages in other springs. In such cases, the perturb-
ation matrix becomes
2 3
1 0
½D ¼ 4 0 0 5: X
3
½K ¼ ki ½Ei , ð19Þ
0 1 i¼1
Ashokkumar 3001

where x1 and x2 are the distance of point actuators

from the origin. x1 ¼ 15in and x2 ¼ 30in are assumed
along a beam length of L ¼ 36in. Thus for a four-
node (two nodes at ends and two nodes in the
middle), h ¼ 12in. The elemental mass and stiffness
matrices are given by
2 3
156 22 54 13
mL 66 22 4 13 3 77,
½Mj  ¼ j ¼ 1...n
Figure 4. Simply supported beam with a damaged finite elem- 420n 4 54 13 156 22 5
ent node. 13 3 22 4
ð24Þ
where [Ei] are constant structured matrices such as [E2]
in equation (18). Note that for the one-time stiffness 2 3
12 6 12 6
loss, ki ’s take a constant value. That is, no linear or EIn 63
6 4 6 2 7
nonlinear variations of these parameters are assumed in ½Kj  ¼ 3 6 7, j ¼ 1...n
L 4 12 6 12 6 5
this paper. In one-dimensional continuous structures, 6 2 6 4
the structure of the matrices [Ei] is tri-diagonal. For
ð25Þ
two-dimensional structures, the structures of the matri-
ces [Ei] may depend on the finite element node
numbering. Clearly, depending upon the damage size and type
that the damage assessment technique offers (Wu et al.,
2006; Xu and Wu, 2007; Tipireddy et al., 2009), various
4.2. Simply supported beam options exists to define ½Kj , j ¼ 1, 2 . . . n. In order to
In order to illustrate the typical uncertainty size due to demonstrate SDM using vibration control, EI is
a damage in the simply supported beam (Meirovitch, assumed to affect [K2 ] corresponding to the second
1997) shown in Figure 4, consider the interpolation node by a percentage depending upon the damage
functions zi ðrÞ, i ¼ 1, 2 . . . 4, where size. Thus
2 3
z1 ðrÞ ¼ 3r2  2r3 , z2 ðrÞ ¼ r2  r3 , z3 ðrÞ ¼ 1  3r2 þ 2r3 , 12 6 12 6
ðEIÞn3 6
6 6 4 6 2 7
z4 ðrÞ ¼ r þ 2r2  r3 : ½K2  ¼ 7: ð26Þ
L3 4 12 6 12 6 5
ð20Þ 6 2 6 4

The elemental mass matrix Mj is Similarly, if the damage is small, appropriate dimen-
sion of the matrix K is required to absorb stiffness
Z 1 loss in the global stiffness matrix where a large
½Mj  ¼ mh fgf T gdr, j ¼ 1, 2 . . . n ð21Þ number of nodes are used. In the next section, SDM
0
is illustrated with respect to the discrete and continuous
where m is the mass density of the beam, h is the dis- structures shown in Figures 3 and 4.
tance between the two finite element nodes, n is the
number of finite elements, and {} is
fg ¼ fz1 ðrÞ, z2 ðrÞ, z3 ðrÞ, z4 ðrÞgT . The elemental stiffness
5. Illustrations
matrix is
Z The model for discrete structure is assumed with m ¼ 1,
EI 1 00
½Kj  ¼ 3 f gf00 Tgdr, j ¼ 1, 2 . . . n ð22Þ k ¼ 10 and e ¼ 0:2 where m1 ¼ m,  m2 ¼ 2m and
h 0 m3 ¼ 3m.  k3 ¼ k4 ¼ 2k,
 k1 ¼ k2 ¼ k,  e1 ¼ k4 ¼ e and
where E is the Young’s modulus (in pounds per square  The uncertainty K is assumed with
e2 ¼ e3 ¼ 2e.
inch, psi). I is the area moment of inertia of the cross k2 ¼ 1. The controller design for SDM is performed
section of the beam, and {00 } is the two-time derivative as follows. From the flowchart given in Figure 2, the
of {} with respect to r. The elemental control influence eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix [A] repre-
matrices [Dj] due to two point actuators are senting the undamaged structure are required as the
desired eigenstructure. Then this eigenstructure is
h i
assigned to the damaged structure using the state feed-
½Dj  ¼ fðjhx
h
1
Þg fðjhx2
h Þg ð23Þ
back controller. To compute this controller, first
3002 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(15)

 are
the vectors orthogonal to the columns of ½B Hence vectors {ti} are known by
required as
2 3 ftTi g ¼ ½0:0342 0:01700 :3290 0:3082:
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 Following this procedure for each desired eigenvalue
6 7
60 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 07 and eigenvector, the system of linear equations using
6 7
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 07 controller parameters as unknowns (see equation (16))
½ T  ¼ 6
60
7:
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 077 is formulated. Hence the gain matrix is computed as
60 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07
6 7

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05 1:2433 1:2383 0:2924 0:0042 0:0020 0:0045

½G ¼ :
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:1432 0:9820 0:7796 0:0196 0:0160 0:0126

For each complex conjugate eigenvalue pair result- In Figure 5, eigenvalues of the undamaged, damaged
ing from matrix [A], the basis vectors spanning the and damaged structure with control are compared. In
achievable eigenvector {pi} is computed using the [] Figure 6, eigenvectors of the undamaged, damaged and
matrix such that {pi} ¼ [Z]{a}. Here {} are the free damaged structure with control are compared.
parameters. The [] matrix is given by Although the perturbations of the eigenvalues and
2 3 eigenvectors due to structural damage are not modified
0:5362 1:0354 1:7550 1:5286 significantly, the magnitudes of the controller gains
6 0:3228 0:4054 0:6513 0:7346 7 suggest a meaningful nonzero control effort for
6 7
6 0:0752 0 0 0:1931 7
6 7 damage growth mitigation. Figure 7 suggests this prop-
6 37:1339 58:4009 121:5330 105:8530 7
6 7 erty using displacement errors at various masses, which
6 22:3568 28:0720 58:4009 50:8726 7
6 7 are reduced substantially by the damage mitigating
6 5:2074 0 0 0:0752 7
½ ¼ 6
6 7:1310
7 control laws. These responses not only suggest a stand-
6 11:2005 23:3385 20:3274 77
6 4:2933 5:3908 11:2294 9:7693 7 ard vibration suppression problem but also enable the
6 7
6 1:0000 0 0 0 7 damaged spring activity to be minimized in tension and
6 7
6 0 1:0000 0 0 7 compression. The control inputs in equation (5) using
6 7
4 0 0 1:0000 0 5 the gains computed above are calculated and they are
0 0 0 1:0000 shown in Figure 8. This process is repeated for the
simply supported beam. The controller for SDM is
For a given desired eigenvector {qi}, the free param- 2 3
eters {} are computed in the least squared error mini- 13:5319 1:3949
mization sense, for which the expression is given in 6 43:6610 4:7822 7
6 7
equation (8). The optimal free parameters { } is 6 13:3061 0:9586 7
6 7
given by 6 45:5521 4:9608 7
6 7
2 3 6 10:0566 1:2267 7
0:0437 6 7
6 14:1747 1:4785 7
6 0:0030 7 ½GT  ¼ 6
6 0:0001
7
7
f g ¼ 6
4 0:0455 5:
7
6 0 7
6 0:0004 0 7
0:0458 6 7
6 0:0001 0 7
6 7
Thus the achievable eigenvector {pi} is given by 6 0:0005 0 7
6 7
4 0:0001 0 5
2 3
0:0105 0:0169 0:0121 0:7651 0:0001 0
fpTi g ¼ 4 0:5653 0:2312 0:1470 0:1079 5:
0:0437 0:0030 0:0455 0:0458
Figure 9 shows the eigenvalues of the undamaged,
In order to set up a system of linear equations using damaged and damaged simply supported beam with
unknown gains, vectors {ti} in equation (12) are com- control. In Figure 10, the eigenvectors of the undam-
puted using the [Ri] matrix in equation (11b). The [Ri] aged, damaged and damaged structure with control are
matrix is given by illustrated. Once again, consistent with the discrete
2 3 structure, the magnitudes of the controller gains sug-
0:8851 10:7890 32:6634 34:0473
6 0:7784 9:1667 28:1086 29:5078 7
gest a meaningful nonzero control effort for damage
6
½Ri  ¼ 4 7: mitigation. Here, damage with ðEIÞ ¼ 1 ¼ 3333:3
21:7402 401:3178 811:3705 728:0953 5
18:9686 354:1717 716:0616 642:5789 (10 percent variation to EI) is assumed. Note that this
damage is assumed at the elemental stiffness matrix
Ashokkumar
Figure 5. Eigenvalues of undamaged, damaged and damaged
discrete structure with control. Undamaged (cross), damaged
(circle) and damaged with control (diamond).
Figure 6. Eigenvector elements of undamaged, damaged, and
damaged discrete structure with control. Real part (1-6) and
complex part (7-12). Undamaged (cross), damaged (circle) and
damaged with control (diamond).
corresponding to node 2. This might refer to damage in
the first element or the second element or in both the
elements. Generally, determination of the changes in
elemental stiffness matrix distribution due to damages
present in the beam is difficult to conceive. Since the
objective of the paper is to make the damaged structure
mimic the undamaged structure and thereby repair the
response of the structural degrees of freedom at the
damaged nodes, the illustration is pursued assuming
that node 2 is damaged. In Figure 11, the error
responses of the structural degrees of freedom at vari-
ous finite element nodes are considered. Clearly, SDM
3003
Figure 7. Displacement errors at various masses. Error
between undamaged and damaged structure (solid lines) and
error between undamaged and damaged structure with control
(dotted lines).
Figure 8. Control inputs for damage mitigation in a discrete
structure.
with decreased vibration response magnitudes is active
for the rotational degrees of freedom at the damaged
nodes 2 as well as at its adjacent node 1. At other
nodes, the error responses with control suggest
increased variations in the vibration response magni-
tudes. Thus the actuator loads obtained through the
proposed technique mitigate the effects of damage by
using the rotational degrees of freedom at nodes 1
and 2. Although the vibrations at all nodes are sup-
pressed, it is observed that with control the magnitudes
of the displacements at most of the nodes are increased.
Generally, vibration control for damage growth
3004
Figure 9. Eigenvalues of undamaged, damaged and damaged
continuous structure with control. Undamaged (cross), damaged
(circle) and damaged with control (diamond).
Figure 10. Eigenvector elements of undamaged, damaged, and
damaged continuous structure with control. Real part (1-12) and
complex part (13-24). Undamaged (cross), damaged (circle) and
damaged with control (diamond).
mitigation is required in such a way that magnitudes of
the structural degrees of freedom at damaged nodes
depict decreased magnitudes. In Figure 12, the gains
presented above for the simply supported beam are
used and the actuator loads as given in equation (5)
are computed. The first actuator placed farther from
the support (15 inches from the left support) exhibits
larger magnitudes than the second actuator placed
closer to the support (6 inches from the right support).
Overall, SDM is active at nodes 1 and 2 in repairing the
rotational degrees of freedom. Such a repair with other
structural degrees of freedom at other nodes may not be
required, especially when damage is not present. Thus,
Journal of Vibration and Control 21(15)
Figure 11. Displacement (inches) and rotation (inch-deg)
errors at various finite element nodes. Error between undam-
aged and damaged structure (solid lines) and error between
undamaged and damaged structure with control (dotted lines).
Figure 12. Control inputs for damage mitigation in a continu-
ous structure (pounds-inch/sec2).
structural damage mitigation using vibration control at
selective nodes where damage is present is illustrated.
These observations may vary if the actuator loca-
tions are different. For instance, in the case of the dis-
crete structure in Figure 3, it is interesting to observe
the effect of vectors orthogonal to [B] when an actuator
is located at mass 2. Accordingly, the entire design pro-
cedure given in Figure 2 will be modified. The control-
ler in this case is also expected to repair the structural
degrees of freedom because the eigenstructure of the
matrices [A] and ([A1]–[B1][G]) will be the same in
the least squared error minimization sense. However,
this procedure may require an adaptive control if the
finite element structural model exhibits nonlinear vari-
ations in the stiffness and/or damping parameters.
Ashokkumar
Depending upon the variations, the eigenstructure of
the closed-loop system matrix F ¼ [A1]–[B1][G] in equa-
tion (6) will be instantaneously varying. Unless the gain
matrix G is tuned with respect to the stiffness and/or
damping parameter variations, the eigenstructure of the
damaged structure with control will not be the same as
the eigenstructure of the healthy structure. Hence the
time responses of the healthy and damaged structure
will be different. As a result, this paper is confined to
one-time stiffness/damping loss in the structure. That is,
structural damage mitigation using vibration suppres-
sion is performed with respect to two models (the
healthy model with A matrix and the damaged model
with A1 and B1 as a controllable pair).
6. Concluding remarks
In this paper, damage assessment from structural
health monitoring techniques is assumed and a proced-
ure to mitigate damage growth due to vibrations is pre-
sented. A novel technique for optimal eigenstructure
assignment using linear algebra is presented such that
the eigenstructure of the undamaged structure is the
same as that of the damaged structure with feedback
control. A one-time stiffness/damping loss is assumed
in the damaged model. The resulting control input sig-
nals (or the actuator loads) are shown to mitigate the
damage growth because the vibrational amplitudes of
the structural degrees of freedom at the damage loca-
tions are minimized compared to the vibrational amp-
litudes at other locations. Discrete and continuous
structures are illustrated. In discrete structures, the
amplitudes of all the structural degrees of freedom exhi-
bit lower magnitudes than the amplitudes of the uncon-
trolled structure. However, in a simply supported
beam, although vibration suppression at all the finite
element nodes is observed, at the damaged finite elem-
ent nodes, the rotational degrees of freedom exhibit
least rotational amplitudes compared to the other
nodes where displacement and rotational amplitudes
are increased due to actuator loads. Thus vibration
control for structural damage growth mitigation acts
like a vibration isolation problem at the finite element
nodes where the damage is present.
Acknowledgements
The author is thankful to the journal editor and the anon-
ymous reviewers who made several interesting remarks that
contributed to the quality of this paper.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
3005
References
Ashokkumar CR and Iyengar NGR (2011) Partial eigenvalue
assignment for structural damage mitigation. Journal of
Sound and Vibration 330: 9–16.
Ashokkumar CR, Dattaguru B and Iyengar NGR (2011)
Adaptive control for structural damage mitigation.
Global Journal of Researches in Engineering: D Aerospace
Engineering 11: 13–19.
Esna Ashari A, Khaki Sedigh A and Yazdanpanah MJ (2005)
Reconfigurable control system design using eigenstructure
assignment: static, dynamic and robust approaches.
International Journal of Control 78: 1005–1016.
Fu Y, Li S and Jiang Y (2010) Nonlinear active vibration
control of piezoelastic laminated plates considering inter-
facial damage effects. Journal of Vibration and Control 16:
1287–1320.
Ge M and Lui EM (2005) Structural damage identification
using system dynamic properties. Computers and
Structures 83: 2185–2196.
Ghasemi-Nejhad MN (2005) Manufacturing and testing of
active composite panels with embedded piezoelectric sen-
sors and actuators. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Actuators 16: 319–333.
Gilbert S (1988) Linear Algebra and Its Applications.
Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Jiang J (1994) Design of reconfigurable control systems using
eigenstructure assignment. International Journal of Control
59: 395–410.
Maryam B, Barroso LR and Stefan H (2010) Adaptive con-
trol to mitigate damage impact on structural response.
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 21:
607–619.
Meirovitch L (1997) Principles and Techniques of Vibrations.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Meng G, Lin Y, Dong XJ and Wei KX (2006) Closed loop
finite element modeling of piezoelectric smart structures.
Shock and Vibration 13: 1–12.
Mohebbi M, Shakeri K, Ghanbarpour Y and Majzoub H
(2013) Designing optimal multiple tuned mass dampers
using genetic algorithms (Gas) for mitigating the seismic
response of structures. Journal of Vibration and Control 19:
605–625.
Tee KF, Koh CG and Quek ST (2005) Substructural first-
and second-order model identification for structural
damage assessment. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 34: 1755–1775.
Tian Y, Fu Y and Wang Y (2009) Nonlinear dynamic
response and vibration active control of piezoelectric
elasto-plastic laminated plates with damage. Journal of
Vibration and Control 15: 1463–1492.
Tipireddy R, Nasrellah HA and Manohar CS (2009) A
Kalman filter based strategy for linear structural system
identification based on multiple static and dynamic data.
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 24: 60–79.
Wang GS, Lv Q, Liang B and Duan GR (2005) Design of
reconfiguring control system via state feedback eigenstruc-
ture assignment. International Journal of Information
Technology 11: 61–70.
3006 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(15)

Wu S, Zhou L and Yang JN (2006) Experimental study of an The structural degrees of freedom are
adaptive extended Kalman filter for structural damage
identification. In Fourth International Conference on fqðtÞg ¼ fh
0 ðtÞ w1 ðtÞ h
1 ðtÞ w2 ðtÞ h
2 ðtÞ h
3 ðtÞgT :
Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 12–13 October
2006: Paper161.
The control inputs are
Xu ZD and Wu Z (2007) Energy damage detection strategy
based on acceleration responses for long-span bridge
structures. Engineering Structures 29: 609–617. fðtÞg ¼ f1 ðtÞ 2 ðtÞgT :
Xu ZD, Shen Y-P and Guo YQ (2003) Semi-active control of
structures incorporated with magnetorheological dampers Here w(t) refers to lateral displacement and y(t)
using neural networks. Smart Materials and Structures 12: refers to rotation at the nodes. Uncertainty K with
80–87. h ¼ 12 in can be formulated as
Yan YJ, Yam LH, Cheng L and Yu L (2006) FEM modeling
2 3
method of damage structures for structural damage detec- 0 0 0 0 0 0
tion. Composite Structures 72: 193–199. 60 12 6 12 6 07
6 7
33 1 6 0 6 4 6 2 07
½K ¼ 3 6 7
36 6 60 12 6 12 6 077
40 6 2 6 4 05
Appendix A
0 0 0 0 0 0
The mass and stiffness (nominal and perturbed)
matrices are given as follows: For simulations, a proportional damping matrix is
assumed.
2 3
4 13 3 0 0 0
6 13 312 0 54 13 0 7
6 7
6 7
ð1Þð36Þ 6
6
3 0 8 13 3 0 7
7
½M ¼
ð420Þð3Þ 6
6 0 54 13 312 0 13 7
7
6 7
4 0 13 3 0 8 3 5
0 0 0 13 3 4
2 3
4 6 2 0 0 0
6 6 24 0 12 6 07
6 7
6 7
ð10  106 Þð2:5Þð0:2Þ3 ð33 Þ 6
6
2 0 8 6 2 07
7
½K ¼ 6
ð12Þð36 Þ3
6 0 12 6 24 0 67
7
6 7
4 0 6 2 0 8 25
0 0 0 6 2 4
2 3
0:0172 1:4261
6 1:9083 2:5692 7
6 7
6 7
6 0:2510 3:0744 7
½B ¼ 6
6 2:6085
7
6 1:9027 77
6 7
4 3:0991 0:2588 5
1:4412 0:0183