Journal of http://jvc.sagepub.

com/
Vibration and Control

Active multimodal vibration suppression of a flexible structure with piezoceramic sensor and actuator
by using loop shaping
V Sethi, MA Franchek and G Song
Journal of Vibration and Control 2011 17: 1994 originally published online 17 January 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1077546310393440

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jvc.sagepub.com/content/17/13/1994

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Vibration and Control can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jvc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jvc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jvc.sagepub.com/content/17/13/1994.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 27, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 17, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

Article
Journal of Vibration and Control
17(13) 1994–2006

Active multimodal vibration suppression ! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of a flexible structure with piezoceramic DOI: 10.1177/1077546310393440
jvc.sagepub.com
sensor and actuator by using loop shaping

V Sethi, MA Franchek and G Song

Abstract
This paper represents active multimodal vibration control of a flexible beam structure with piezoceramic (PZT) actu-
ators and sensors using the loop shaping method. With surface-bonded PZT patch actuators and sensors, the flexible
beam has both sensing and actuating capacities. Due to its flat auto spectrum in the specified frequency range, the
Schroeder wave is used as an excitation signal for the non-parametric identification of the flexible beam structure.
The identified open loop model is then used for the closed loop design by using the loop shaping method based on the
extended sensitivity charts. A loop shaping compensator is designed to achieve multimodal vibration suppression.
Numerical results showed a reduction of 8 decibels for the first mode and 12–14 decibels for the second and third
modes. Experimental results closely match the simulation results. Furthermore, the results of loop shaping method are
compared with those of the methods of linear quadratic regulator and pole-placement control, which are designed based
on state space models via the parametric identification of the flexible beam. Comparisons show that the loop shaping
method is easier to design since a parametric identification is not required and requires less control effort while
maintaining the effectiveness in vibration suppression.

Keywords
Flexible structures, loop shaping control, multimodal control, piezoceramics, vibration suppression
Received: 21 January 2009; accepted: 16 November 2010

offer the advantage of being integrated with the struc-

1. Introduction
Structural vibration suppression of flexible systems is
an increasing engineering concern. Because these flexi-
ble structures are often lightweight, underdamped, and
increasingly being used in aerospace and other indus-
tries, the need for active vibration control of these
multimodal structures becomes imperative. Classical
feedback control of these structures is particularly
attractive because no adaptation time or reference
signal is needed, and the effects of variations in the
system parameters can be reduced through sensitivity
reduction (Bode, 1945). This is the so-called robust per-
formance problem. Amongst the feedback control
strategies in time domain are pole placement and opti-
mal control, and, in frequency domain, are various
compensation techniques.
Vibration control using smart materials is gaining
increasing attention, primarily because smart materials
tures. In this investigation, piezoceramic or lead zirco-
nate titanate (PZT) actuators and sensors are used for
active vibration suppression. Initial research of the
piezoelectric materials for use in intelligent structures
was done by Crawley and de Luis (1987). Bailey and
Hubbard (1985) investigated active vibration control of
a cantilever beam using piezoelectric polymer poly
vinylidene fluoride (PVDF). Hagood and Anderson
(1992) addressed the issue of simultaneously sensing
and actuating using piezoelectric materials.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston,
TX, USA
Corresponding author:
G Song, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston,
Houston, TX 77204–4006, USA
Email: gsong@uh.edu

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

Sethi et al.
Control design of flexible structures often relies on
accurate modeling of the system dynamics. Various
approaches have been proposed to establish the theo-
retical model of smart structures with embedded/sur-
face-bonded PZT actuators and sensors. A list of a
few, but not limited to, includes analytical modeling
(Hagood and Anderson, 1992), the analysis of the
modal response (Butler and Rao, 1996), and finite ele-
ment model (Chopra, 1996; Lazarus and Crawley,
1996). An alternative approach is to use the experimen-
tal data to capture the input-output dynamics. This
approach is simplistic and often less labor intensive
and time consuming than the analytical or finite ele-
ment model approach. Also, the experimental approach
takes care of the issue of the sensor and actuator
dynamics, driving amplifiers, signal conditioners, and
also some of the underlying assumptions in analyti-
cal study. In the experimental study, two kinds of
models, parametric and nonparametric, can be identi-
fied using the data. Parametric identification like ARX,
ARMAX, and Subspace method, requires good com-
puting sources and effort; whereas on the other hand,
the nonparametric identification can capture the system
dynamics with much less effort. However, with the non-
parametric identification, simulations and controller
designs, like linear quadratic regulator (LQR) control,
that directly require the system parameters, cannot be
carried out. In such situations, loop shaping becomes
an effective tool for the control designer without using a
parametric model of the system to be the controller
(Albert, 1999, Albert et al., 2000).
Loop shaping technique is getting very popular
among researchers in the past decade. Kaitwanidvilai
and Parnichkun (2004) used loop shaping technique to
control the position of pneumatic servo system. Hsien
et al. (1997) applied H1 loop shaping design procedure
in servo controller design for a high-performance track-
ing control system with two flexibly-linked masses.
The designed servo controller is implemented by a
digital signal processor (DSP) while the robustness of
the tracking performance subjective to internal uncer-
tainties and external disturbances is verified. Folcher
(2002) successfully implemented a underwater motion
controller using loop shaping technique which can deal
with the unknown disturbances, actuator saturation
and plant uncertainties. Hamer et al. (2005) controlled
the transient behavior of a mass-spring system using
both pole placement and loop shaping technique by
placing the poles of the system at a desired location
based on an open loop compensator. Later, Park
et al. (2008) built an active vibration isolation system
(AVIS) using voice coil actuator using loop shaping
control to improve the control action. Sethi et al.
(2008) implemented loop shaping control on a model-
frame structure using a piezo actuator and sensor as
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012
1995
smart materials. McFarlane and Glover (1992) devel-
oped a loop shaping design procedure using H1 syn-
thesis for attitude control of a flexible space platform.
Loop shaping is used to shape the nominal plant sin-
gular values to give desired open loop properties at
frequencies of high and low loop gain. Active vibration
suppression is a growing interest in the industrial appli-
cation due to the demand for higher accuracy and lower
acoustic noise levels.
Launch vehicles often experience severe vibration
problems during the ascent phase due to intense acous-
tic fields and mechanically transmitted disturbances. To
solve this vibration problem, Falangas et al. (1994)
designed control methods for achieving active damping
on plate structures by means of piezoelectric actuators.
In the proposed control methods, loop shaping is used
to specify closed-loop objectives in terms of require-
ments on the open-loop characteristics. Based on an
H1 loop shaping synthesis procedure, Gouatarbes
et al. (2007) designed a robust controller for a travelling
wave ultrasonic motor (TWUM) operated under
extreme environmental conditions such as strong vibra-
tions. To achieve the smooth landing and minimal
residual vibration as the recording head approaches
the target track, Ding et al. (2004)developed a settling
controller of a recording head for hard disk drives using
a PZT transducer. The fine actuator path is designed by
loop shaping for superior performance of the overall
system. Tuning approaches are less effective in vibra-
tion suppression when several dominant modes are
involved. Den Hamer et al. (2005) developed a com-
bined loop shaping and root-locus tuning approach to
reduce several dominant modes with low-order control-
lers. Ahuja et al. (2008) utilized loop shaping technique
along with a PZT actuator for active control of noise
across an aluminum panel. Experimental results dem-
onstrated the capability of PZT actuators along with
the loop shaping technique in increasing the noise
transmission loss across an aluminum panel corre-
sponding to the modal frequencies for broadband exci-
tations of the panel. Kim et al. (1999) studied active
structural acoustic control of a flexible plate using pie-
zoelectric actuators. In the proposed approach, an H1
controller is designed by using the loop shaping design
procedure to achieve robust acoustic control of the pro-
posed system subjected to parameter variations and
external disturbances.
Ample research is available for the implementa-
tion of first dominant mode vibration control of struc-
tures. These include works on pole placement control
(Manning et al., 2000), LQR control (Blanguernon
et al., 1999), robust control (Fujimoto, 1995), PPF con-
trol (Gu and Song, 2005), model reference control
(Gu and Song, 2007) and sliding mode control (Song
and Gu, 2007). As the aerospace and civil industries
1996
embrace lighter and more flexible structures, the need
of simultaneous multimodal control increases because
it is insufficient to just control the first dominant mode
of the structure. Some related multimodal control
research includes H1 control by Kar et al. (2000),
semi-active energy rate control by Corr and Clark
(2003), adaptive positive position feedback control by
Rew et al. (2002), and LQR control by Prakah-Asante
and Craig (1994) and Sethi and Song (2004).
Additional papers discussing multimodal control are
listed in references (Bayon de Noyer and Hanagud,
1998; Han et al., 1999; Kang et al., 1999; Li and
Ulsoy, 1999; Oueini and Nayfeh, 1997).
This paper presents the study on multimodal vibra-
tion control of a flexible beam using the frequency
domain based loop shaping method. The flexible
beam is equipped with piezoceramic patch sensors
and actuators. In this paper, the approach to controller
design using the sensitivity charts is first introduced.
Then, the multimodal vibration controller is designed
using sensitivity charts, which were obtained based on
the non-parametric system identification of the beam,
so as to reduce the sensitivity at the resonant frequen-
cies. The designed loop shaping controller is lastly
implemented on the flexible beam for active vibration
control. The experimental results are compared with
those using some time domain based approaches such
as the LQR control to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the proposed loop shaping controller.
2. Problem statement
The goal of this research is to reduce the vibration of
the first three bending modes of a flexible beam with
PZT sensors and actuators. Section 4.1 will provide
details about the flexible beam setup.
A general block diagram representing such an open
loop system is shown in Figure 1. The disturbance term
is represented by d(t), control input by u(t), the output,
d ðÞ
measured by a PZT sensor, by y(t,) and p ¼
dt
Disturbance (V) d (t )
H ( p, α )
Control Sensor
Input (V) Output (V)
G ( p,α )
u (t ) y (t , α )
Figure 1. Open loop block diagram of the system.
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012
Journal of Vibration and Control 17(13)
Here,  denotes both parametric and unstructured
uncertainty due to modeling errors. The control
input, u(t), is the voltage output from the PZT actua-
tors that are surface bonded to the flexible beam.
The system dynamics in transfer function form is writ-
ten as
yðt, Þ ¼ Gð p, ÞuðtÞ þ Hð p, Þd ðtÞ ð1Þ
where G(p,) represents the transfer function from u to
y, i.e., the dynamics between the control input and PZT
sensor output, and H(p,) represents the transfer func-
tion from d to y, i.e. the, dynamics between disturbance
and piezoceramic sensor output. Here all the measured
signals and input signals are in volts, therefore the
transfer functions given in Equation (1) include the
dynamics of the sensors, actuators, and the physical
elements of the system.
In order to achieve the objective of vibration suppres-
sion of the first three modes, the following tasks need to
be performed. First, a robust controller design process
will be created where the controller is realized using
common controller design tools. Second, a nonpara-
metric system identification that provides the beam
transfer function G(s,) needs to be performed. Third,
using the proposed control design strategy, implementa-
tion of the controller on the plant will be executed for
verification purposes.
3. Loop shaping feedback controller
design process
As we intend to perform loop shaping for control
design, it is desirable to use frequency domain repre-
sentation for the transfer function and controller.
The Laplace transformation of Equation (1) is as
follows,
Yðs, Þ ¼ Gðs, ÞUðsÞ þ Hðs, ÞDðsÞ ð2Þ
.
where a denotes the parametric and unstructured
uncertainty in the model. Model uncertainties may be
due to the modeling errors, aging of the physical sys-
tems, machining tolerances, and changes in operating
environments. A frequency domain based unity feed-
back controller can be designed such that UðsÞ ¼
Gc ðsÞ½Yðs, Þ  RðsÞ, where Gc ðsÞ is the controller in
the Laplace domain, and R(s) is the command reference
signal. Thus, with the control law, the block diagram is
represented by Figure 2 and the closed loop transfer
function is derived as
Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ Hðs, Þ
Yðs, Þ ¼ RðsÞ þ DðsÞ:
1 þ Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ 1 þ Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ
ð3Þ
Sethi et al. 1997

which is also equivalent to

Disturbance (V) D(s)
   
Sð j!, Þ  
ð!Þ8! 2
, 8: ð9Þ
G(s, a)

Control From Equation (9), it is inferred that only the

Input (V)
R(s) dynamics of the plant in terms of Gð j!, Þ needs to
Gc(s) G(s, a)
U(s, a) Y(s, a) be known, and the controller to be designed is Gc ð j!Þ.
Thus, from the above discussion, the control design
objective emerges as a sensitivity reduction problem.
These specifications are now given in terms of contin-
uous reduction at all frequencies or at desired discrete
Figure 2. Closed loop compensated system. frequencies.

The Equation (3) can be further simplified as

Yðs, Þ ¼ Tðs, ÞRðsÞ þ Sðs, ÞHðs, ÞDðsÞ
where Sðs, Þ and Tðs, Þ are the closed loop sensitiv-
ity and complementary sensitivity transfer functions
given by
3.2. Sensitivity
ð4Þ Bode first introduced sensitivity as it gives the relative
sensitivity of the closed loop transfer function
Tðs, Þ ¼ Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ=ð1 þ Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞÞ to the plant
model error. For a single input single output system,
at a given frequency !,

1 Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ
T=T

Sðs, Þ ¼ and Tðs, Þ ¼ : lim ¼S ð10Þ
1 þ Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ 1 þ Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ
G!0
G=G

In this research, due to the regulatory nature of the Sensitivity, also known as the closed loop sensitivity
control system, the reference input R(s) is assumed to transfer function, is denoted as Sðs, Þ ¼ 1=½1 þ Lðs, Þ,
be zero. Thus, the closed loop system is represented as where Lðs, Þ ¼ Gðs, ÞGc ðsÞ represents the open loop
Yðs, Þ ¼ Sðs, ÞHðs, ÞDðsÞ: ð5Þ transfer function.
It is well known that all electromechanical systems
are strictly proper (i.e. there are more poles than zeros)
3.1. Performance specifications because of the presence of inertial elements. Also, the
The performance specifications are typically given controllers designed should be strictly proper since rate
as the absolute upper bound on the allowable magni- saturation in actuators and sensor noise amplifications
fication of the disturbance D(s) or the attenuation are unavoidable issues when controlling physical sys-
that is relative to the open loop performance. The tems. Therefore, the open loop systems have at least
allowable magnification can be represented as ð!Þ. two more poles than zeros. Thus, the relative degree
Mathematically, this is stated as of all compensated open loop electromechanical sys-
  tems is lower bounded by 2.
Sð j!, ÞHð j!, Þ  ð!Þ8 2
, 8 ð6Þ
Bode quantified the impact and trade off of using
or equivalently, feedback control to reducing systems sensitivity. For
  a rational open loop transfer function, Lðs, Þ, with a
   
Sð j!, Þ   ð!Þ  8! 2
, 8 ð7Þ relative degree of two or more and n right half plane
Hð j!, Þ
poles at locations pi, then for closed loop stability the
where
denotes the frequency range of interest. sensitivity function must satisfy
Equation (7) leads us to determine and have a priori
Z X
n
knowledge of Gð j!, Þ and Hð j!, Þ. 1  
An alternative performance specification could lnSð j!, Þd! ¼  Reð pi Þ ð11Þ
 also 0 i¼1
be given as a desired reduction; say where 
ð!Þ is in
decibels, which is relative to open loop performance. where Re(pi) denotes the real part of pi.
This is written as The integral in Equation (11) is called the Bode sen-
sitivity integral and implies that sensitivity reduction
      through feedback control over one frequency range
Sð j!, ÞHð j!, Þ  Hð j!, Þ  
ð!Þ8! 2
, 8
leads to sensitivity amplification over another fre-
ð8Þ quency range.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

1998 Journal of Vibration and Control 17(13)

For stable plants with a relative degree of two, the
Bode sensitivity integral is
Z system in comparison with the open loop system. For
1   the open loop frequency response for the frequencies
lnSð j!, Þd! ¼ 0,
0 that lie outside the 0 dB contour, a disturbance signal
implying that the area of sensitivity reduction must be
equal to the area of sensitivity amplification.
Thus, a design trade off emerges for the sensitivity
reduction problem. This is also the precise reason why
designers should minimize the amount of feedback con-
trol specified. For unstable plants, the unstable poles
contribute to the increase
P in peak of sensitivity by an
amount equal to  ni¼1 Reð pi Þ. This is plausible as the
system needs some feedback control to stabilize the
unstable plant.
3.3. Sensitivity charts
The Nichols chart relates the open loop frequency
response functions to the closed loop complementary
sensitivity function. Similarly, the sensitivity chart
relates the open loop frequency response functions to
the closed loop sensitivity function. For a unity nega-
tive feedback, the sensitivity is given by
1 response is shaped and is in the proper regions so as to
Sð j!, Þ ¼ , Lð j!, Þ ¼ Gð j!, ÞGc ð j!Þ:
1 þ Lð j!, Þ
Figure 3 shows the constant radius sensitivity curves
on the open loop gain and phase of Lð j!Þ plane. The
0 dB sensitivity curve is shown as an inverted ‘‘U’’ con-
tour. As said earlier, there is a design trade off for the
sensitivity reduction problem. This is better explained
from Figure 4. For the open loop frequency response
for the frequencies that lie under the 0 dB contour, a
disturbance signal gets amplified for a closed loop
ð12Þ
gets attenuated for a closed loop system in comparison
with the open loop system. In the controller design pro-
cess, by displaying the open loop system on the sensi-
tivity charts, the designer can observe the effect of the
controller design on the closed loop sensitivity of the
system, and thus, can achieve the desired sensitivity
profile.
The Nyquist stability point is at 180 and at a 0 dB
location on the open loop phase-gain plot. Since the
phase angle is periodic, the extended sensitivity chart
can be drawn by repeating the constant sensitivity mag-
nitude curves every 360 . Using the extended sensitivity
chart, shown in Figure 4, a multimodal open loop
system can be analyzed. This is precisely what is
being used in this investigation for multimodal control
of the structure.
In this investigation, the open loop frequency
response of the flexible beam will be shaped on the
extended sensitivity chart using the classical frequency
domain based design tools. The controller zeros and
poles are identified to ensure that the desired frequency
achieve both performance and stability requirements.
ð13Þ
3.4. Frequency response function
model development
The sensitivity chart is used to relate the performance
specifications to the open loop transfer function. To
further the objective of this research, it is necessary to
find the transfer function of the system in the frequency

Figure 3. The sensitivity chart. Figure 4. The extended sensitivity chart.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

Sethi et al. 1999

domain. To accomplish this, one can use the analytical
modeling approach or the experimental approach.
However, to eliminate the effort associated in analytical
modeling, this research uses a measured frequency
response function (FRF) of the open loop system.
For the measurement of frequency response of the
open loop system, Gð j!Þ, Fourier transform is per-
formed on the input, u(t), and output signal, y(t).
From the block diagram of Figure 5,
Suy ðj!Þ
Gðj!Þ ¼
Suu ðj!Þ
where Suy ð j!Þ is the cross spectral density between the
frequency rich input, u(t), and the sensor signal, y(t),
and Suu ð j!Þ is the auto spectral density of the frequency
rich input, u(t). An average frequency response is
obtained by segmenting the time signals, calculating
Gð j!Þ for each segment, and averaging the Gð j!Þ for
the FRFs. The effects of truncating the time signal are
minimized by using a Hanning window on each seg-
ment. In the uncompensated system, i.e. Gc ð j!Þ ¼ 1,
the open loop system uncompensated frequency
response Lð j!Þ is the same as the plant frequency
response Gð j!Þ.
In Equation (14), the uncertainty parameter a is
dropped because the measured frequency response is
used for controller design. Since this is a measured fre-
quency response, the uncertainty related to modeling
error does not exist. However, uncertainty due to
aging, implementation issues such as A/D conversions,
sensor noise, etc., exist. Therefore, the measured FRF
will contain uncertainties that can be displayed on the
sensitivity chart, if known. In the present study the
robustness considerations are incorporated by enfor-
cing gain and phase margin constraints via an upper
bound on sensitivity.
4. Application to vibration control
of a flexible beam
4.1. Experimental setup
The proposed feedback control methodology was
implemented on a flexible beam structure with PZT
sensors and actuators. The flexible beam used in this
experiment is made of aluminum and its properties are
listed in Table 1. Figure 6 shows the experimental setup
of the beam in a cantilevered configuration. The beam
has very low damping characteristics and exhibits sig-
nificant vibrations when excited.
For the vibration suppression problem, it is neces-
sary to place the actuator and sensors at such a location
where the modes that are to be suppressed are both
observable and controllable. This study utilizes PZT
sensors, which measure the strain. Li and Ulsoy
(1999) have plotted strain vs. length of the beam and
ð14Þ showed that strain is maximum at the cantilever end of
the beam. Thus, the best position for the sensor and
actuator is at the cantilever end, where the modes can
be detected and controlled simultaneously. Hence, PZT
patches of lead zirconate titanate are surface bonded at
the cantilevered end of the beam. One PZT (model no.
QP 10S) as a sensor and two PZT actuators (model no.
QP 10 W) as actuators are surface bonded to the beam.
The PZT QP 10 W and QP 10 S are products from ACX
Incorporation. The properties of PZT are shown in
Table 2.
To actuate the PZT actuators, an amplifier, which
amplifies the input voltage to twenty times of the orig-
inal one, is used. An anti-aliasing filter is also used to
prevent aliasing. For implementing the controller in
real time, a dSPACE digital data acquisition and real-
time control system is used.
The dSPACETM uses a DS1103 digital signal process
board for real-time control implementations.
Table 1. Beam properties
Symbol Quantity Units Value
L Beam Length mm 736.5
wb Beam width mm 53.1
tb Beam thickness mm 1
b Beam density kg/m3 2690
E Modulus of elasticity N/m2 7.03  1010

Control Input Sensor Output

(V) (V)
G(s, a)
U(s) Y(s, a)

Figure 5. Open loop uncompensated system. Figure 6. Experimental setup.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

2000 Journal of Vibration and Control 17(13)

Table 2. PZT patch properties

Symbol Quantity Units PZT actuator PZT sensor

Lwt Dimensions mm 46  33.27  0.25 14  7  0.25

d33 Strain coefficient C/N 7.41  1010 7.41  1010
d31 Strain coefficient C/N 2.74  1010 2.74  1010
rp PZT density kg/m3 7500 7500
Ep Young’s modulus N/m2 6.3  1010 6.3  1010

Input sweep signal 50

0.4 Sweep Sine

Magnitude (dB)
Schroder wave
Input signal (Volts)

0.2 0

0
–50
–0.2
–100
–0.4 101 102
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Output sensor signal 0
1
Phase(degrees)
–500
Sensor (volts)

0.5

0
–1000
–0.5
–1500
–1 101 102
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Frequency (rad/sec)
Time (sec)

Figure 8. Identified open loop uncompensated transfer func-

Figure 7. Time response of the sweep sinusoidal input and
tion. (—)Sweep sine excitation, () Schroeder wave excitation.
measured output signal.

The dSPACETM system also has integrated analog- The time response for the second test is not shown
to-digital and digital-to-analog converters. here due to its similarity to that shown in Figure 7.
Transfer functions identified using the above fre-
quency rich signals are plotted in Figure 8.
The FRFs are calculated using a Hanning window
4.2. Nonparametric system identification
and a 75% overlap. As seen from this figure, both the
Experiments are conducted to identify the FRF of the transfer function estimates have similar magnitude
system. A frequency rich signal is applied as an input to characteristics and phase characteristics. The first
the plant to identify its FRF. Two tests with frequency three target modes of control viz. 1.64 Hz (10.30 rad/
rich inputs, i.e., the sweep sine excitation and the sec), 10 Hz (62.8 rad/sec) and 27.13 Hz (170.48 rad/sec)
Schroeder wave excitation, are conducted for evalua- are clearly seen from the FRF plot.
tion and validation. The Schroeder wave is used for The uncompensated open loop transfer function of
identification purposes because it has a flat auto spec- the beam identified using sweep sine excitation is plot-
trum in the specified frequency range, thereby a more ted on the sensitivity chart in Figure 9. The 0 dB
likely chance of excitation of modes. Sensitivity contour appears as the inverted U in the
The first evaluation test was to excite the beam with sensitivity chart. The three resonance frequencies are
a sweep sine signal with a frequency of 0–50 Hz in a indicated by the ‘«’ symbol on the open loop uncom-
time period of 100 seconds. The second validation test pensated frequency response. By using the sensitivity
was with a Schroeder wave excitation of 0.1–45 Hz for a chart, one can get an idea of how much sensitivity
period of 25 seconds, although data was collected for reduction can be achieved using feedback. Say for
30 seconds so as to measure the vibrations of the first instance, if Gc ðsÞ ¼ 1 in Figure 2, i.e., no controller
mode which remained during the last few seconds of the is employed and feedback is done, there will be
excitation period. The time response signals for sweep approximately 1 dB amplification in the first mode
sine wave excitation are plotted in Figure 7. of 1.64 Hz, 6 dB reduction in the second mode of

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

Sethi et al. 2001

40 –40 db Frequency response of controller

60
30
40 Gc(10j)

Magnitude (dB)
20 –20 db
20 Gc(62.8j)
L(170.48j)
10 L(62.8j) –12 db
0
Open–Loop Gain (dB)

0 –6 db Gc(170.5j)
6 db –20
–3 db
–10 3 db
L(10.3j) –40
–20 1 db –1 db 100 101 102
0.5 db
–30 0.25 db 0

–40 –200

Phase(degrees)
–50 –400

–60 –600

–70 –800
–1400 –1200 –1000 –800 –600 –400 –200 0
0 db –1000
Open–Loop Phase (deg) 100 101 102
Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 9. Open loop uncompensated frequency response on

extended sensitivity chart. Figure 10. Frequency response of the controller.

10 Hz, and 8 dB reduction in the third mode of attenuation region, a phase lag of about 800 degrees
27.13 Hz. is provided. This is accomplished by introducing a
second order pair of non-minimum zero and a stable
pole to control the third mode of 170 rad/sec. In par-
4.3. Design of controller Gc(s) ticular, the non-minimum complex zero is at a fre-
For robustness considerations in the control design, the quency of 120 rad/sec with the damping ratio of
interior of the þ6 dB contour is chosen as a forbidden z ¼ 0:5, and the stable complex poles are at a fre-
region, implying that the open loop frequency response quency of 155rad/sec with a damping ratio of
cannot be contained within this region. This choice pro- p ¼ 0:05. Finally, the controller DC gain is adjusted
vides a reasonable magnitude of 6 dB and a phase until the open loop frequency response of Lð j!Þ borders
margin of 30 for stability and a limit on sensitivity the 6 dB contour. The complex poles introduced at
amplification for performance. The control design 4.5 rad/sec also roll off the open loop gain at higher
objective is to place the three selected resonance fre- frequencies to attenuate sensor noise. The overall con-
quencies in the sensitivity attenuation region on the troller is given by Equation (15), and its frequency
extended sensitivity chart. This is achieved by giving a response is shown in Figure 10. The open loop fre-
proper phase at the designated frequencies. The DC quency response of the compensated system is shown
gain is adjusted until the magnitude borders the in Figure 11. From Figure 11, an approximate 8 dB
þ6 dB contour. attenuation in the first mode and a 12–14 dB attenua-
From Figure 9, the frequency at 10 rad/sec is in the tion in both the second and third resonant frequencies
sensitivity amplification zone. If 25 dB of amplification for the closed loop system are anticipated.
and a phase lag of about 170 degrees are provided at the  
frequency of 10 rad/sec, then this mode will be moved to 40
Gc ðsÞ ¼ 1:5
the sensitivity attenuation region. This is achieved by ðs=4:5Þ2 þ 2  0:25ðs=4:5Þ þ 1
introducing a second order pole at 4.5 rad/sec and with  
ðs=35Þ2  2  0:3ðs=35Þ þ 1
a damping ratio of 0.25. Adding 5 dB of gain and of 500 
phase lag at 62.8 rad/sec would also place the open loop ðs=55Þ2 þ 2  0:2ðs=55Þ þ 1
 
frequency response into a lower sensitivity region at that ðs=120Þ2  2  0:5ðs=120Þ þ 1
 ð15Þ
frequency. This is achieved by introducing a second ðs=155Þ2 þ 2  0:05ðs=155Þ þ 1
order pair of non-minimum zero and a stable pole.
Specifically, the non-minimum complex zero is at a fre-
quency of 35 rad/sec with a damping ratio of z ¼ 0:3,
and the stable complex poles are at a frequency of
4.4. Experimental performance validation
55 rad/sec with a damping ratio of p ¼ 0:2.
To control the third mode, amplitude modification The designed controller was implemented on the exper-
is not required because a simple feedback will provide imental setup, and its performance was evaluated. Two
9 dB attenuation. To move this mode in sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the controller’s

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

2002 Journal of Vibration and Control 17(13)

40 –40 db 0
With loop shaping
30 Without control
–10
20 –20 db
L(62.8j) –20
L(170.48j) L(10.3j)
10 –12 db
Open–Loop Gain (dB)

Energy level in Decibels

0 –6 db –30
6 db –3 db
–10 3 db –40
–20 1 db –1 db
0.5 db –50
–30 0.25 db
–60
–40

–50 –70

–60
–80
–70
–2000 –1500 –1000 –500 0
0 db –90
Open–Loop Phase (deg) 0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 11. Open loop compensated frequency response.

Figure 13. Power spectral density comparison plot
(6–15 seconds).

p
die are now suppressed within 3 seconds. The power
1
Without control
spectral density comparisons plots for 6–15 seconds of
With loop shaping the data are shown in Figure 13. The power spectral
0
density from 6–15 seconds is considered because the
–1
(a) sudden kicking of control action after the excitation
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
at 5 seconds might lead to excitation of higher modes,
Sensor output (Volts)

1
0 next second. Evidently, substantial drops are observed
(b)
–1
5 6 7 8 9 10
1 4.4.2. Schroeder wave excitation. In the second test,
0 the beam is under the persistent excitation of the
(c)
–1
5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)
Figure 12. Time response comparisons for initial condition
test (a) Loop shaped control (b) Pole placement control (c) LQR
control.
performance (Initial Condition tests and Schroeder
wave excitation tests).
4.4.1. Initial condition tests. In this test, the beam
structure is excited using three sinusoidal signals of
modal frequencies for the initial 5 seconds at 40 Volts
each, together with a noise input. The controller was
implemented in the real time data acquisition system
with a sampling frequency of 250 Hz. The open loop
test is conducted to view the results in absence of the
controller, and the free vibrations (open loop uncom-
pensated) results are shown in Figure 12(a). Next, the
controller was implemented. The time response of real
time loop shaped control is shown in Figure 12(a). The
uncontrolled vibrations that took about 15 seconds to
Without control which die down because of their own damping over the
With PP control
in the first three modes of the beam.
11 12 13 14 15
Without control
With LQR control
the performance of the controller was evaluated when
Schroeder wave. Since the beam has two actuators,
11 12 13 14 15 one actuator was used for excitation and the other
was used to control the vibrations. The Schroeder
wave, with a frequency range of 0.5–45 Hz and duration
of 25 seconds, was used for excitation of the beam. The
controller was implemented by the real time data acqui-
sition system with a sampling frequency of 250 Hz.
The open loop (uncompensated) and closed loop
(compensated) time responses are shown in Figure 14.
Also, shown in Figure 15 is the transfer function
magnitude plot for the uncompensated and compen-
sated open loop systems. The measured magnitude
drops at the three resonant frequencies and are, respec-
tively, 9 dB for the first mode, 15 dB for the second
mode, and 14 dB for the third mode. These values are
close to the predicted values. As mentioned earlier, sen-
sitivity attenuation in one region is followed by sensi-
tivity amplification in another. This is also visible from
the transfer function plot where at some frequencies
sensitivity amplification is observed.
4.4.3. Comparison with time domain based control-
ler results. The same experimental setup was studied

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

Sethi et al. 2003

Time response 20
Experimental data
Open loop uncompensated 10 Full 8th order model
0.5 Loop compensated Reduced 6th order model
0.4 0

0.3 –10
Sensor signal (volts)

0.2

Magnitude(dB)
–20
0.1
–30
0

–0.1 –40

–0.2 –50

–0.3
–60
–0.4
–70
–0.5
–80
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 101 102
Time (sec) Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 14. Time response sensor output comparison for Figure 16. Magnitude plot for parametric model identification
Schroeder wave test. (o) Experimental data, (—) 8th Order model, () 6th Order
model.

Transfer function
10
Open loop uncompensated 0
0 Loop compensated Experimental data
Full 8th order model
Reduced 6th order model
–10 –200

–20
–400
Magnitude (dB)

Angle (degrees)

–30

–40 –600

–50
–800
–60

–1000
–70

–80
100 101 102 –1200
101 102
Frequency (rad/sec)
Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 15. Magnitude plot for the Schroeder wave test. Figure 17. Phase plot for parametric model identification (o)
Experimental data, (—) 8th Order model, () 6th Order
for pole placement and LQR control designs. To pro- model.
ceed with this control design, a parametric model is
needed. In order to obtain the parametric model, an
8th order model that closely matches the transfer func- Figure 12(c), respectively. A comparison of the power
tion magnitude and the phase plot of the system, was spectral density plots for all the three controllers is plot-
identified. However this 8th order model is neither con- ted in Figure 18. All the three controllers achieve sim-
trollable nor observable; hence, it was necessary to con- ilar performance, as seen in Figure 18. The control
duct a model reduction. The reduced 6th order model, effort of the three controllers - LQR, pole placement,
that follows the magnitude and phase of the identified and loop shaped controller - are plotted in Figure 19.
model, was derived. The identification results are plot- Evidently, all the three controllers experienced satura-
ted in Figure 16 and 17. tion in the initial period and then finally decay. The
Two controllers viz. pole placement and LQR effort provided can be quantified in terms of energy
were investigated for multimodal control for the ini- or the 2 norm of the control signal. Table 3 compares
tial condition tests. The time response of pole place- the control energy input to the system for vibration
ment and LQR controller implementation for suppression. With the achievement of a similar control
initial conditions are shown in Figure 12(b) and performance for the flexible beam, Table 3 clearly

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

2004 Journal of Vibration and Control 17(13)

0
Table 3. Control effort comparison
Without control
–10 With loop shaping Controller Control Energy (V2) juj2 2–Norm
With PP control
With LQR control
–20 Loop shaping 44.30 6.65
Pole placement 48.40 6.95
Energy level in decibels

–30
LQR 65.05 8.06
–40

–50
controller can be designed by placing the three
–60
resonance frequencies in the sensitivity attenuation
–70 region on the extended sensitivity chart. The attenua-
tion in the resonant frequencies can be accurately pre-
–80
dicted from the open loop frequency response of the
–90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
plant and the controller from the extended sensitivity
Frequency (Hz) chart. Approximately, the same attenuation, as pre-
dicted, was achieved for closed loop controller
Figure 18. Power spectral density comparison plots for all the implementation.
three controllers (6–15 seconds). Finally, the results of the loop shaped controller are
compared with the pole placement and LQR control-
lers. With the achievement of a similar control perfor-
0.8
mance for the flexible beam, Table 3 shows that the
With LQR control control energy required in loop shaping control is
With PP control
0.6
With loop shaping
lower than that of the pole placement and LQR con-
trol. One may argue that the control effort of the pole
0.4
placement and LQR controller can be improved by
Control signal (volts)

0.2 trying (iteratively) various pole locations and weighting

0
–0.2
–0.4
–0.6
–0.8
5 10
Time (sec)
Figure 19. Control Signal comparison plots for three
controllers.
shows that the control energy required in loop shaping
control is lower than that of the pole placement and
LQR control.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the loop shaping method was discussed
and implemented on a flexible beam structure for vibra-
tion control. Sensitivity charts that relate the open loop
gain and phase of the plant to the closed loop sensitivity
were discussed. The design trade off is also shown
where sensitivity attenuation in one region is accompa-
nied by sensitivity amplification in another. To avoid
the effort and complexities of deriving an accurate ana-
lytical model, a model of the plant based on experimen-
tal system identification was used. It was shown that a
matrices.
However, in order to implement the pole placement
and LQR controller, an accurate analytical model is
required. To obtain the accurate analytical model is
often very time consuming.
There are always assumptions and complexities
involved in identifying the parametric model of the
15 system. For pole placement and LQR controller, one
also needs an estimator design which is obtained from
the analytical model and thus adding to the complexity
of design and implementation of the controller in real
time. For loop shaping control, the feedback is the
output from the sensor and is irrespective of the
states as required in the time domain based controller.
In this case, there exists limitations that both the pole
placement and LQR control have, in which it is impos-
sible to design since the system is neither controllable
nor observable at such a higher order model for the
flexible beam to include the suppression of the fourth
or higher resonant frequencies. Loop shaping control
clearly offers a winning alternative where the experi-
mental data is used for controller designs and can be
readily extended to other higher modes of the system.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the support provided by
NSF via two research grants (no. 0305027 and no. 0717860)
in conducting this research. This research is also partially
supported by an internal grant from the Institute of Space

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012

Sethi et al.
System Operations (ISSO) at University of Houston. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations, in this
material are expressed by the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the sponsor.
References
Ahuja MS, Li J-Z, Song G and Franchek MA (2008)
Increasing noise transmission loss across an aluminum
panel using PZT actuators. In: Earth and Space
Conference 2008: Proceedings of the 11th Aerospace
Division International Conference on Engineering, Science,
Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments,
Long Beach, 3 March 2008, Vol. 323.
Albert DS (1999) Active control of transmission loss in lightly
damped panels. MSME Thesis, Purdue University, IN.
Albert DS, Franchek MA and Bernhard RJ (2000) Active
control of transmission loss in lightly damped panels.
Journal of Noise Control Engineering 48(2): 48–59.
Bailey T and Hubbard Jr EJ (1985) Distributed piezoelectric
– polymer active vibration control of a cantilever beam.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 8(5): 605–611.
Bayon de Noyer MP and Hanagud S (1998) Single actuator
and multi-mode acceleration feedback control. Journal of
Intelligent Materials Systems and Structures 9(7): 522–533.
Blanguernon A, Lene F and Bernadou M (1999) Active con-
trol of a beam using a piezoceramics element. Smart
Materials and Structures 8: 116–124.
Bode HW (1945) Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier
Design. New York: Van Nostrand.
Butler R and Rao V (1996) A state space modeling and con-
trol method for multivariable smart structural systems.
Smart Materials and Structures 5: 386–399.
Chopra I (1996) Review of current status of smart struc-
tures and integrated systems. Proceedings of SPIE 2717:
20–62.
Corr LR and Clark WW (2003) A novel semi-active multi-
modal vibration control law for a piezoceramic actuator.
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 125(2): 214–222.
Crawley EF and de Luis J (1987) Use of piezoelectric actua-
tors as elements of intelligent structures. AIAA Journal
25(10): 1373–1385.
Den Hamer AJ, Angelis GZ and Roozen NB (2005) Broad-
band active vibration suppression using PPF focused on
industrial application. IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics 10(2): 146–153.
Ding J, Wu S-C and Tomizuka M (2004) Settling control with
reference redesign for dual actuator hard disk drive sys-
tems. Annual Reviews in Control 28(2): 219–227.
Falangas ET, Dworak JA and Koshigoe S (1994) Controlling
plate vibrations using piezoelectric actuators. IEEE
Control Systems Magazine 14(4): 34–41.
Folcher J-P (2002) Robust design framework for an
underwater vehicle motion controller. In: Oceans ’02
MTS/IEEE, Biloxi, Mississippi, 29–31 October 2002,
pp.173–179.
Fujimoto T (1995) Vibration control of a cantilever beam
using a H infinity controller for noncollocated systems.
In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012
2005
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
22–25 October 1995, Vol. 1, pp.557–562.
Gouatarbes J, Boukhnifer M, Ferreira A, Aubry D, and
Magnan P (2007) Robust control for ultrasonic motor
operating within harsh environments. In: Proceedings of
IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced
Intelligent Mechatronics, AIM, Zurich, Switzerland, 4–7
September 2007.
Gu H and Song G (2005) Active vibration suppression of a
composite I-beam using fuzzy positive position control.
Smart Materials and Structures 14(4): 540–547.
Gu H and Song G (2007) Active vibration suppression of a
flexible beam with piezoceramic patches using robust
model reference control. Smart Materials and Structures
16(4): 1453–1459.
Hagood NW and Anderson EH (1992) Simultaneous sensing
and actuation using piezoelectric materials. Proceedings of
SPIE 1543: 409–421.
Hamer AJD, Angelis GZ, Van de Molengraft MJG, and
Steinbuch M (2005) A practical loop-shaping approach
for pole placement in mechatronic systems. In:
Proceedings of Conference of Control Applications,
Toronto, Canada, 28–31 August, pp.394–399.
Han JH, Tani J and Lee I (1999) Multi-modal vibration con-
trol of smart composite plates. Materials Science Research
International 5(2): 122–127.
Hsien TL, Sun YY, Tsai MC and Huang SJ (1997) Robust
servo control system design for two flexibly linked masses.
Control Engineering Practice 5(7): 951–961.
Kaitwanidvilai S and Parnichkun M (2004) Position control
of a pneumatic servo system by genetic algorithm based
fixed-structure robust H infinity loop shaping control. In:
Proceedings of IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Busan,
Korea, 2–6 November 2004, pp.2246–2251.
Kang YK, Kim MK, Park HC and Agrawal B (1999) Multi-
modal vibration control of laminated composite plates
using piezoceramic sensors/actuators. Journal of
Intelligent Materials Systems and Structures 9(12):
988–990.
Kar IN, Seto K and Doi F (2000) Multimode vibration con-
trol of a flexible structure using H1 -based robust control.
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 5(1): 23–31.
Kim JH, Choi SB, Cheong CC, Han SS and Lee JK (1999)
H1 control of structure-borne noise of a plate featuring
piezoceramic actuators. Smart Materials and Structures
8(1): 1–12.
Lazarus KB and Crawley EF (1996) Multivariable high-
authority control of plate-like active structures. Journal
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 19(6): 1357–1363.
Li CJ and Ulsoy AG (1999) High precision measurement of
tool-tip displacement using strain gauges in precision flex-
ible line boring. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
13: 531–546.
Manning WJ, Plummer AR and Levesley MC (2000)
Vibration Control of a flexible beam with integrated actu-
ators and sensors. Smart Materials and Structures 9:
932–939.
McFarlane D and Glover K (1992) A loop-shaping design
procedure using H1 synthesis. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control 37(6): 759–769.
2006
Oueini SS and Nayfeh AH (1997) Multimode control of
flexible structures using saturation. Collection
of Technical Papers - AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference
1: 597–602.
Park K, Kim S, Choi D and Sohn B (2008) An active vibra-
tion isolation system using a loop shaping control tech-
nique. In: Mechatronics and Embedded Systems and
Applications, Beijing, China, 12–15 October 2008,
586–590.
Prakah-Asante KO and Craig KC (1994) The application of
multi-channel design methods for vibration control of an
active structure. Smart Materials and Structures 3:
329–343.
Rew KH, Han JH and Lee I (2002) Multi-modal vibra-
tion control using adaptive positive position feedback.
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2012
Journal of Vibration and Control 17(13)
Journal of Intelligent Materials Systems and Structures
13(1): 13–22.
Sethi V and Song G (2004) Multimode optimal vibration
control of flexible structure using piezoceramics. In:
Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Control Applications,
Taiwan, 2–4 September, pp.216–221.
Sethi V, Song G and Franchek MA (2008) Loop shaping
control of a model-story building using smart materials.
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 19:
765–777.
Song G and Gu H (2007) Active vibration suppression
of a smart flexible beam using a sliding mode based
controller. Journal of Vibration and Control 13(8):
1095–1107.