No Spillover Eigenvalues Assignment of Second-Order Systems With Dense Force Actuators Matrices Using Brauer's Theorem

International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics
(2019) 1950138 (20 pages)

#.c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0219455419501384
by INSTITUTO FEDERAL DA BAHIA on 08/28/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
No Spillover Eigenvalues Assignment of Second-Order

Systems with Dense Force Actuators Matrices
Using Brauer's Theorem
Jose Mário Araújo*

Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Grupo de Pesquisa em Sinais e Sistemas

Instituto Federal da Bahia
Rua Em{dios dos Santos, S/N, Barbalho
araujo@ieee.org
Tito Luís Maia Santos

~o
Departamento de Engenharia Eletrica e de Computaca
Universidade Federal da Bahia
~o, Salvador-BA
Rua Aristides Novis, 2, Federaca
tlsantos@ufba.br
Received 29 March 2019

Accepted 24 July 2019
Published 28 August 2019
This paper presents an approach for eigenvalue assignment in second-order linear systems with
no spillover property. Second-order di®erential equations arise from dynamical modeling of
vibrating structures by ¯nite element or lumped parameter ¯rst principles approach in several
practical problems. Certain structures can face practical issues when subjected to external
perturbation forces, as resonance or °utter type vibrations. The control of excessive vibrations
can be attempted by techniques of active vibration control using linear feedback. To change
only a few eigenvalues and eigenvectors that cause excessive vibrations, the requirement of no
spillover property is a somewhat attractive issue. Furthermore, only the part of the eigen-
structure whose eigenvalues must be reassigned is necessary to be known for an e±cient pa-
rametrization of the feedback matrices. Brauer's theorem, a milestone result of linear algebra, as
well as some recent related results, is applied here to achieve partial eigenvalue assignment using
dense force actuator (in°uence) matrices. The proposal can be applied to general systems with
no restriction on the mass, damping, and sti®ness with symmetry or de¯niteness. The proce-
dures to implement the proposal are synthesized in a step-by-step form, and some numerical
examples are given to illustrate its application.
Keywords: Eigenvalue assignment; Brauer's theorem; active vibration control; in°uence matrix.
* Corresponding author.
1950138-1
J. M. Ara
ujo & T. L. M. Santos
1. Introduction
Models with second-order di®erential equations are ubiquitous when modeling vi-
brating or oscillatory phenomena. Structures of buildings, highways, aircraft,
spacecraft, tool machines and rotors, among others,1–7 exhibit a rich description with
second-order models obtained by ¯nite element or lumped parameter analysis.
Hence, the vibration modes, resonance or °utter prediction, and prevention using
active control systems can be implemented easily. In particular, the partial eigen-
value assignment, i.e. the PEA approach, has gained signi¯cant attention for second-
order systems owing to its simplicity in solutions and parametrizations. In systems
with symmetry and de¯niteness in their matrices of mass, damping, and sti®ness,
several early and recent contributions have been observed.8–12 Nevertheless, for a
system with a general structure matrix, that is, not necessarily symmetric or de¯nite,
contributions to the PEA problem solution are seldom,13 and more recently with
the receptance approach for systems with asymmetries owing to non-conservative
force actions.14–17
Recently, the authors have investigated solutions for partial natural frequency
assignments in undamped systems,18 and the no spillover control of vibrating sys-
tems by PEA using state feedback with dense in°uence matrices and Brauer's the-
orem. Brauer's theorem for eigenvalue perturbation is a milestone in the ¯eld of
linear algebra, and the no-spillover property of the spectrum arises naturally from its
application.19,20 Moreover, its use in those works results in the computation of dense-
type in°uence matrices, in contrast with the majority of methods in which the
provided actuator matrix is sparse. A dense in°uence matrix has been explored in the
seminal paper of Datta et al.9 Currently, dense in°uence matrices are realizable
owing to smart material technology, e.g. piezoelectric and shape-memory alloy
(SMA) that has been developed in the last three decades.1,21 In this study, the PEA
problem is addressed using Brauer's theorem and related results. Linear feedback
laws are constructed for state and derivative feedback, with the in°uence matrix as
part of the design. The multivariable nature of the obtained solutions is subsequently
explored to improve the performance index based on the economic design of the
energy control e®ort by minimizing the Frobenius norm of the in°uence matrix.
Some numerical examples are provided to illustrate the virtues and drawbacks of
the method.
2. Preliminaries and Problem Statement

2.1. Second-order models and partial eigenvalue assignment
Consider a second-order di®erential equation of a vibrating system subject to an
external force as follows:
:: :
MzðtÞ þ CzðtÞ þ KzðtÞ ¼ f ðtÞ; ð2:1Þ
1950138-2
No Spillover Eigenvalues Assignment of Second-Order Systems
where z 2 R n is a generalized displacement vector; f 2 R n is a vector of external

forces that will be adopted as the control forces acting on the system; and M, C and
K are square real matrices of size n n of the mass, damping, and sti®ness matrices,
respectively. For general vibrating structures, such matrices exhibit symmetry and
positiveness, with M ¼ M T O, C ¼ C T and K ¼ K T O. In cases when some

non-conservative forces are present in the system, these properties do not necessarily
hold. In both cases, dangerous vibrations can occur when the system is excited with
an external perturbation. Resonance in symmetric cases and °utter in asymmetric
cases are examples of dangerous vibrations in second-order systems (2.1). Suppose
that the force vector can be arranged with an actuation strategy in the force dis-
tribution along the system to de¯ne f ðtÞ ¼ BuðtÞ, with u 2 R m a vector of primary
control actions and B 2 R nm an in°uence matrix that describes the control action
distribution. Returning to the system (2.1) with the new de¯nition of the force
vector, and using a ¯rst-order state-space representation by de¯ning the state vector
:
ðtÞ ¼ ½z T ðtÞ z T ðtÞ T , we obtain
:
~
ðtÞ ¼ AðtÞ þ BuðtÞ;
~ ð2:2Þ
in which

~ ¼ O I O
A ; B
~ ¼ :
M 1 K M 1 C M 1 B
An attractive approach to mitigate resonance or °utter is applying linear feedback
control laws of state or derivative vectors, respectively,
:
us ðtÞ ¼ Fs zðtÞ þ Gs zðtÞ ¼ ½Gs Fs ðtÞ; ð2:3Þ
: :: :
ud ðtÞ ¼ Fd zðtÞ þ Gd zðtÞ ¼ ½Fd Gd ðtÞ; ð2:4Þ
with Fs , Gs , Fd , Gd 2 R mn being the feedback matrices. Often, a designer wishes to
reassign a few eigenvalues of A ~ that are supposed to cause a dangerous vibration,
that is, from the spectrum ðAÞ ~ ¼ f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; 2n g, a subset of m, m n pairs of
complex eigenvalues that lies in the complex right half-plane or are excited by
frequency-matched external perturbations:
~ ¼ fk ;
m ðAÞ ~ k ; . . . ; kþm1 ;
~ kþm1 g;
with the remaining of the spectrum remaining unperturbed. This problem is known
as PEA. Such a property is fully adequate for application in structural health
monitoring and control, in which the models are of large dimensions and techniques
for a full eigenvalue assignment are cursed by the spillover phenomenon in the
presence of parameter perturbations.22 If the same property holds for the associated
eigenvectors, the problem is named the PEA. Any solution of the PEA problem, as
reported in Refs. 8–12 for systems in second-order form (2.1) is regarded as a no-
spillover solution. It will be shown in the next sections that regardless of the use of
the doubled dimension representation (2.2) to obtain the primary results, the
1950138-3
J. M. Ara
computational e®orts are fully similar to the results of studies addressing the system
in the form (2.1) instead.
2.2. Brauer's theorem and related results

Brauer's theorem19 related to a speci¯c singular perturbation that uses matrix
eigenvectors is a milestone result of linear algebra.
Theorem 2.1. Let A be an n n arbitrary matrix with eigenvalues given by
f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; n g. Let xk be an eigenvector of A associated with the eigenvalue k , and
let q 2 R 1n be an arbitrary row vector. Subsequently, the matrix A þ xk q comprises
eigenvalues f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; k þ qxk ; . . . ; n g.
Outstanding results have been recently delivered regarding feedback control and
de°ation techniques, among others.20,23 Extensions of Brauer's theorem of interest
herein are Rado's theorem20 and that proposed by Araújo and Santos.18 Next, these
theorems are described.
Theorem 2.2 (Ref. 18). Let A be an arbitrary n n matrix with spectrum
ðAÞ ¼ f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; k ; . . . ; n g, with x1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xk ; . . . ; xn being the respective
eigenvectors. For an arbitrary row vector q 2 R 1n such that 1 þ qxk 6¼ 0, the
s p e c t r u m o f ðIn þ xk qÞ 1 A i s e x a c t l y ½ðIn þ yk qÞ 1 A ¼ f1 ; 2 ; . . . ;
ð1 þ qxk Þ 1 k ; . . . ; n g.
Theorem 2.3. Let 1 2 R ll be the real block representation of the subspectrum of
fAg, where f1 g ¼ f1 ; . . . ; l g is closed under complex conjugation. It de¯nes the
remaining spectrum for the matrix 2 2 R ðnlÞðnlÞ , such that ð1 Þ [ ð2 Þ ¼
ðAÞ. Next, let X1 be the real representation of the eigenvectors associated with 1 ,
i.e. AX1 ¼ X1 1 . Subsequently, the spectrum of A þ X1 Q, with Q 2 R ln arbitrary,
is exactly ðA þ X1 QÞ ¼ ð1 þ QX1 Þ [ ð2 Þ.
Theorem 2.2 describes a multiplicative version of Brauer's theorem, and has been
successfully applied to solve problems such as model update and partial natural
frequency assignments.18 Theorem 2.3 is an extension of Brauer's theorem to the case
of simultaneous multiple eigenvalue perturbations. Additionally, it is known as
Rado's theorem. It is noteworthy that the result in Theorem 2.2 can be extended to
obtain a version of Rado's Theorem 2.3 with multiplicative perturbation.
ðAÞ. Next, let X1 be the real representation of the eigenvectors associated with 1 ,
i.e. AX1 ¼ X1 1 . Subsequently, the spectrum of ðI þ X1 QÞ 1 A, with Q 2 R ln
arbitrary and detðI þ X1 QÞ 6¼ 0, is exactly ½ðI þ X1 QÞ 1 A ¼ ½ðI þ QX1 Þ 1 1
[ ð2 Þ.
1950138-4
2.3. Problem statement

The primary contribution of this study is to provide a solution to the following
problem:
Problem 2.1. Given system (2.2) and a subset of the spectrum m ðAÞ ~ ¼
k ; . . . ; kþm1 ;
fk ; kþm1 g that is to be reassigned using the force distribution
f ðtÞ ¼ BuðtÞ, compute B 2 R nm , Fs ; Gs in (2.3) | or Fd ; Gd in (2.4) | such that
the referred eigenvalues are replaced with new desired ones, and the remaining
spectrum remains unperturbed.
This problem is named PEA. The solution requires a force to be applied by a
distributed actuator; this is feasible owing to smart material technology, such as
piezoelectric, electro and magnetorheological °uids and SMAs, among others. In the
next section, the solution of the PEA problem is parameterized using modi¯ed
versions of Brauer's theorem and related results, as was preliminarily explored
in Ref. 24.
3. Eigenvalue Assignment by Brauer's Theorem and Related Results

To derive the primary results, modi¯ed versions of Theorems 2.1 to 2.4 are pre-
sented. The proof for the ¯rst version is presented in Appendix A, while the steps for
the others are the same.
Theorem 3.1. Let A be an n n arbitrary matrix with eigenvalues given by
f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; n g. Let yk be a left eigenvector of A associated with the eigenvalue k ,
that is, yk A ¼ k yk , and let p 2 R n be an arbitrary column vector. Subsequently, the
matrix A þ pyk comprises eigenvalues f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; k þ yk p; . . . ; n g.
Proof. See Appendix A.
This result can be stated as a Brauer's theorem version for perturbation using left
eigenvectors. This structure ¯ts well to the feedback (2.3) applied on the system
(2.1). Additionally, the other results are stated as follows:
Theorem 3.2. Let A be an arbitrary n n matrix with spectrum ðAÞ ¼
f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; k ; . . . ; n g, with y1 ; y2 ; . . . ; yk ; . . . ; yn being the respective left eigenvec-
tors. For an arbitrary column vector p 2 R n such that 1 þ yk p 6¼ 0, the spectrum of
ðIn þ pyk Þ 1 A is exactly ½ðIn þ pyk Þ 1 A ¼ f1 ; 2 ; . . . ; ð1þ yk pÞ 1 k ; . . . ; n g.
fAg, where f1 g ¼ f1 ; . . . ; l g is closed under complex conjugation. It de¯nes
t h e r e m a i n i n g s p e c t r u m f o r t h e m a t r i x 2 2 R ðnlÞðnlÞ , s u c h th a t
ð1 Þ [ ð2 Þ ¼ ðAÞ. Next, let Y1 be the real representation of the left eigenvectors
associated with 1 , i.e. Y1 A ¼ 1 Y1 . Subsequently, the spectrum of A þ PY1 , with
P 2 R nl arbitrary, is exactly ðA þ PY1 Þ ¼ ð1 þ Y1 PÞ [ ð2 Þ.
1950138-5
J. M. Ara
ðAÞ. Next, let Y1 be the real representation of the left eigenvectors associated with
1 , i.e. Y1 A ¼ 1 Y1 . Subsequently, the spectrum of ðIn þ PY1 Þ 1 A, with P 2 R nl

arbitrary and detðIl þ Y1 PÞ 6¼ 0, is exactly ½ðIn þ PY1 Þ 1 A ¼ ½ðIl þ Y1 PÞ 1 1
[ ð2 Þ.
In addition to these results, the no-spillover property of the right eigenvectors can
be shown using the following fact:
Fact 3.5. Let X2 be the real representation of the right eigenvectors associated
with 2 , that is, the unperturbed spectrum of A þ PY1 | or of ðIn þ PY1 Þ 1 A.
Subsequently, ð2 ; X2 Þ belongs to the eigenstructure of A þ PY1 | or

ðIn þ PY1 Þ 1 A.
Proof. If one considers adequate scaling, it is well known that YX ¼ I, that is,
Yi Xj ¼ 0 if i ¼
6 j. Subsequently, the following can be veri¯ed:
Regarding the multiplicative form, one of Searle's indentities (ref) can be used to
develop the following:
thus proving the statement of Fact 3.5.

Additionally, the primary results can be stated based on Theorems 3.1 to 3.4.
3.1. State feedback

Suppose that the spectrum of 1 2 R ll that is part of the spectrum of A ~ of (2.2),
comprises resonant or unstable eigenvalues that must be reassigned to the new
spectrum ~ 1 , as de¯ned by the designer. First, let the partitioned matrix for the left
eigenvectors be associated with 1
Y1 ¼ ½Y11 Y12 ; Y1 2 R l2n ; Y11 ; Y12 2 R ln : ð3:1Þ
By applying the feedback control (2.3) in (2.2), the following closed-loop matrix is
obtained:
~c ¼A
A ~ þ B½G
~ s Fs : ð3:2Þ
1950138-6
By setting the following:

Gs Y11 ; ð3:3Þ
Fs Y12 ; ð3:4Þ
P B:
~ ð3:5Þ
Theorem 3.2 can be applied to the results as follows:
~ c Þ ¼ ð1 þ Y12 M 1 BÞ [ ð2 Þ:
ðA ð3:6Þ
~ 1 can be matched as
Using similarity transformation T 2 R ll , matrices 1 and
follows:
T 1 ð1 þ Y12 M 1 BÞT ¼
~ 1: ð3:7Þ
Subsequently, using ¼ M 1 BT, the following Lyapunov–Sylvester equation25,26

can be solved e±ciently to compute T as follows27:
~ 1 ¼ Y12 :
1 T T ð3:8Þ
Setting an arbitrary, full-rank value to 2 R nl , the in°uence matrix can be com-
puted as follows:
B ¼ MT 1 : ð3:9Þ
In summary, Eqs. (3.3), (3.4), (3.8), and (3.9) solve the PEA problem. Moreover, the
free parameter provides a designer with additional degrees of freedom, and addi-
tional performance criterion can be added to the PEA problem. The most evident
and easy to pursue criterion is the minimum norm for the in°uence matrix B. Be-
cause B and T are functions of , and considering the minimization over the Fro-
benius norm, the following nonlinear optimization problem can be solved to compute
the matrix in°uence:
1
¼ arg min jjMT 1 jj 2F : ð3:10Þ
2
Finally, the minimum norm in°uence matrix can be computed as follows:

B ¼ M T 1 ; ð3:11Þ
where T is the solution of LSE (3.8) by setting ¼ . It is interesting that re-
gardless of the use in formulating the inverse of the mass matrix, after computing the
critical eigenvalues and eigenvectors, the proposed methodology does not require this
matrix to solve (3.8) and (3.9); hence, this is considered a reasonable advantage from
the numerical perspective.
3.1.1. Derivation of gradient formula and complete algorithm

Although the solution of (3.10) can be conducted without using an explicit gradient
formula, it may be useful to accelerate the convergence for problems with high
1950138-7
J. M. Ara
dimensions, in contrast with the ¯nite di®erence method for computing the gradient
numerically.10,26,28 Herein, a gradient formula to the cost function (3.10) is proposed
and the proof is provided.
Theorem 3.6. Consider the following function:

1 1 T
fðÞ ¼ jjMT 1 jj 2F ¼ tr½MðT TÞ 1 T M T ; ð3:12Þ
2 2
where T is the solution of (12). Subsequently, the gradient for this function is given as
1 T T
r fðÞ ¼ ½ðT T TÞ M M UY12 T ; ð3:13Þ
where U is the solution of the LSE equation as follows:
~ 1 U U1 ¼ ðT T TÞ 1 T M T MT 1 : ð3:14Þ
Proof. See Appendix B.
3.2. Derivative feedback

Next, consider the derivative feedback law (2.4) applied in (2.2). The closed-loop
matrix is subsequently given as follows:
A ~ d Gd g 1 A:
~ c ¼ fI B½F ~ ð3:15Þ
Additionally,
Fd Y11 ; ð3:16Þ
Gd Y12 ; ð3:17Þ
P B:
~ ð3:18Þ
Therefore, Theorem 3.4 can be used to obtain
1
~ c Þ ¼ ½ðIl Y12 M
ðA BÞ 1 1 [ ð2 Þ: ð3:19Þ
Using a similar developing as in Sec. 3.1, suppose that the designer is interested
in changing the unwanted spectrum 1 to a new location ~ 1 . Subsequently, by
similarity
1
S 1 ðIl Y12 M BÞ 1 1 S ¼
~ 1: ð3:20Þ
After some steps similar to the state feedback case, the following equations can be
solved to compute the in°uence matrix:
~ 1 ¼ Y12
1 S S ~ 1; ð3:21Þ
B ¼ MS 1 ; ð3:22Þ
in which 2 R nl is an arbitrary full-rank matrix. In conclusion, the PEA problem
can be solved by derivative feedback using (3.17), (3.16), (3.21) and (3.22). To attain
1950138-8
the minimum norm in°uence matrix over , the following theorem yields a gradient
formula in the following case:
Theorem 3.7. Consider the following function:
1 1 T
fðÞ ¼ jjMS 1 jj 2F ¼ tr½MðS SÞ 1 T M T ; ð3:23Þ
2 2
where S is the solution of (3.21). Subsequently, the gradient for this function is
given as follows:
1 T T
r fðÞ ¼ ½ðS T SÞ M M VY12 T ; ð3:24Þ
where V is the solution of the LSE equation as follows:
~ 1 ðS T SÞ 1 T M T MS 1 :
~ 1 V V1 ¼ ð3:25Þ
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 3.5 and will be omitted herein.
3.3. Systematic procedure

To implement the proposed methods, a simple procedure is presented herein to
compute the solutions using e±cient steps.
~ 1 2 R pp ,
Procedure 3.1. Given the inputs: M 2 R nn ; 1 2 R pp ; Y1 2 R 2np ;
and 2 R ,
np
(1) Compute Fs and Gs using (3.3) and (3.4), respectively;

(2) Compute T by solving the LSE equation (3.8);
(3) Compute B using (3.9).
A similar procedure to the solution of the derivative feedback case exists. For both
cases, the optimization problems for the quad Frobenius norm over (3.9) or (3.22)
can be solved iteratively using this procedure at each step and computing the gra-
dient using (3.13) or (3.24) at each iteration to verify if a local minimum has been
reached by the ¯rst-order Karush–Khun–Tucker criterion.
4. Numerical Experiments
In this section, three numerical examples based on real-world cases are presented
to illustrate the use of the primary results. The computations were performed
using the software MATLAB° c , in a computer with Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4200
CPU @1.60 GHz 2.30 GHz. The goals of the experiments were to compute the
feedback matrices Fs and Gs , or Fd and Gd ; the in°uence matrix B for given ¯xed
; and for the minimum norm design; the no-spillover measures of Fact 3.5.
1950138-9
J. M. Ara
4.1. Experiment 1: Wing in an airstream model

This example is a benchmark that has been used in several studies.2,29–31 The system
matrices for the model for a wing in an airstream are as follows:
2 3 2 3
17:600 1:280 2:890 7:660 2:450 2:100

6 7 6 7
M ¼ 4 1:280 0:824 0:413 5; C ¼ 4 0:230 1:040 0:223 5;
2:890 0:413 0:725 0:600 0:756 0:658
2 3
121:000 18:900 15:900
K¼4 0 2:700 0:145 5:
11:900 3:640 15:500
The open-loop eigenpairs for this system are 1;2 ¼ 0:8848 j8:4415, 3;4 ¼
0:0947 j2:5229, and 5;6 ¼ 0:9180 j1:7606, and a critical eigenpair is found
in 3;4 . This eigenpair explains the occurrence of dangerous °utter oscillations in
the system, as shown in Fig. 1(a) with the simulation for initial condition
ð0Þ ¼ ½1 0 0 0 0 0 T . Choosing ~ 3;4 ¼ 0:2 j2:5229 as the new location, the
designs with state and derivative feedback were performed using the results of Sec. 3,
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. Initial value responses of the wing in airstream for the (a) open-loop system; (b) closed-loop system
with minimum norm design and (c) closed-loop system with ¯xed in°uence matrix.
1950138-10
(c)
Fig. 1. (Continued )
by setting
2 3
1 0
0:0947 2:5229 0:2 2:5229
¼ ¼ 4 0 1 5; 1 ¼ ~1
; ¼ ;
2:5229 0:0947 2:5229 0:2
0 0
0:0701 0:0517 0:0247
Fs ¼ Gd ¼ Y12 ¼ ;
0:3500 0:0327 0:0613

0:8986 0:1522 0:1701
Gs ¼ Fd ¼ Y11 ¼ :
0 0:0692 0:0112
After performing the optimization, the in°uence matrices for state feedback and
state derivative feedback were obtained as follows:
2 3 2 3
0:0150 2:3544 0:9222 0:0048
Bs ¼ 4 8:3597 0:6221 5; Bd ¼ 4 0:2443 3:3002 5:
0:1797 1:2379 0:4848 0:0715
In Table 1, the summary of the results is displayed for both feedbacks and
the e®ectiveness of the approach is con¯rmed. The notations used are as follows:
SF for state feedback design; DF for derivative feedback design. A time-domain
simulation for the closed loop with state or derivative feedback | both are
identical | is displayed in Fig. 1(b) for the given and , and in Fig. 1(c) for the
minimum norm approach initialized from and . The running integral in time
of the quad e®ort control presents the merit of the minimum norm approach
regarding energy spent.
4.2. Experiment 2: Control of cantilever beam

A cantilever beam ¯nite element model whose benchmark was presented in some
recent papers32,33 is considered in this numerical experiment. The system matrices
1950138-11
J. M. Ara
Table 1. Summary of the numerical experiment results.
Feedback type
Experiment Issue SF DF
Example 4.1 jjBjj - Fixed 33.8907 13.1842

jjBjj - Minimum 8.7965 3.4701
No spillover 8.7513e-15 1.2821e-14
No spillover 1.3626e-13 1.1582e-13
No spillover 5.5895e-12 5.5914e-12
are as follows:
2 3
1:56 0:66 0:54 0:39 0 0
6 0:66 0:39 0:27 7
6 0:36 0 7 0
6 7
6 0:54 0:39 3:12 0 0:54 0:39 7
6 7
M¼6 7;
6 0:39 0:27 0 0:72 0:39 0:27 7
6 7
6 7
4 0 0 0:54 0:39 3:12 0 5
0 0 0:39 0:27 0 0:72
2 3
12 18 12 18 0 0
6 18 36 18 0 07
6 18 7
6 7
6 12 18 24 0 12 18 7
6 7
K¼6 7:
6 18 18 0 72 18 18 7
6 7
6 7
4 0 0 12 18 24 0 5
0 0 18 18 0 72
A Rayleigh viscous damping C ¼ M þ K is included in the analysis, with ¼
0:01 and ¼ 0:001.
The open loops that must be reassigned are 1;2 ¼ 0:0057 j1:1985 and
3;4 ¼ 0:0050 j0:1906. The new positions are ~ 1;2 ¼ 0:2 j1:1985 and
~
3;4 ¼ 0:05 j0:1906. To apply the proposed approach, the following initialization
was used based on the results of Sec. 3:
2 3
0:0057 1:1985 0 0
6 7
I4 6 1:1985 0:0057 0 0 7
¼¼ ; ¼6 6
7;
024 4 0 0 0:0050 0:1906 75
0 0 0:1906 0:0050
1950138-12
2 3
0:2 1:1985 0 0
6 7
6 1:1985 0:2 0 0 7
¼6
~
6
7;
4 0 0 0:05 0:1906 7
5
0 0 0:1906 0:05
2 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 7
6 0:2385 0:0844 0:2976 0:1648 0:4727 0:0850 7
Fs ¼ Gd ¼ Y12 ¼ 6
6 0:5587
7;
4 0:2645 0:7143 0:1116 0:2330 0:0760 7
5
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 3
0:2859 0:1011 0:3567 0:1975 0:5666 0:1019

6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 7
Gs ¼ Fd ¼ Y11 ¼6
6
7:
7
4 0 0 0 0 0 5
0:1065 0:0504 0:1362 0:0213 0:0444 0:0145
The in°uence matrices computed for the state feedback and state derivative feedback
were subsequently obtained as follows:
2 0:1098 0:9189 0:2120 0:0331 3
6 0:0458 0:4900 0:0137 7
6 0:0314 7
6 7
6 0:0143 0:3928 0:1184 0:0040 7
6 7
Bs ¼ 6 7;
6 0:0300 0:3029 0:0304 0:0090 7
6 7
6 7
4 0:0397 0:5449 0:0370 0:0117 5
0:0117 0:1812 0:0221 0:0034
2 0:7490 0:0971 0:1884 1:0421 3
6 0:3743 0:0381 0:0761 0:1622 7
6 7
6 7
6 0:2559 0:0066 0:0180 0:5627 7
6 7
Bd ¼ 6 7:
6 0:2347 0:0254 0:0503 0:1529 7
6 7
6 7
4 0:3941 0:0304 0:0631 0:1669 5
0:1281 0:0085 0:0181 0:1025
The results are summarized in Table 1 for Experiment 2; as shown, the speci¯cations
were matched by the approach. The minimum norm approach reduces the norm of
the in°uence matrix signi¯cantly. In Fig. 2, no spillover is evident from the driving-
point receptance magnitude plot for node 1 in the model.
1950138-13
J. M. Ara
Bode Diagram
60
Open-loop driving-point receptance
Closed-loop driving-point receptance
40
20
0
Magnitude (dB)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3
Frequency
Fig. 2. Driving-point receptance for cantilever beam control: open-loop and closed-loop magnitudes.
4.3. Experiment 3: Control of ¯nite element model

for a structural system
This benchmark is borrowed from Ref. 34 with the system matrices given as follows:
2 3
200 100
6 100 200 100 7
6 7
6 100 200 100 7
6 7
M ¼ I211 ; K ¼ 66 .. .. .. 7
7 ;
6 . . . 7
6 7
4 100 200 100 5
100 200 211211
2 3
0:4 0:1
6 0:1 0:5 0:1 7
6 7
6 0:1 0:5 0:1 7
6 7
C¼6
6 .. .. .. 7
7 :
6 . . . 7
6 7
4 0:1 0:5 0:1 5
0:1 0:4 211211
Such models are adequate for structures such as wind turbine blades and cantilevers,
among others. For the given matrices, a small, strongly dominant eigenvalue 1 ¼
0:0197 enforces an extremely long transient time, as shown in Fig. 3(a) for initial
1950138-14
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3. Transient response of Example 4.3 for (a) open-loop system; (b) closed-loop system with no
minimum norm design and (c) closed-loop system with minimum norm criterion design.
1950138-15
J. M. Ara
20
0.5
15
0
10
-0.5
5 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1
Im
-5
-10
Open-loop eigenvalues
Closed-loop eigenvalues
-15
-20
-0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0
Re
Fig. 4. Open-loop and closed-loop eigenvalue distributions for the system of Experiment 3.
velocities of null and all initial displacements as the unit. The proposed approach was
subsequently applied to compute the feedback gains and the in°uence matrices, with
¯xed ¼ ¼ ½1 0 1210 T and minimum norms. The chosen closed-loop eigenvalue
to replace the dominant one is ~ 1 ¼ 0:15. The transient responses for the closed-
loop system with ¯xed and minimum norm gains are displayed in Figs. 3(b) and 3(c),
respectively. A faster transient is evident. Moreover, the running integral of the quad
control e®ort clari¯es that the minimum norm in°uence matrix, for both state and
derivative feedback, is signi¯cantly less expensive in terms of energy. As shown in
Fig. 4 and the results in Table 1, the eigenvalue distribution in the complex plane
con¯rms that a no-spillover design is achieved.
5. Concluding Remarks and Future Studies

Brauer's theorem and related results were used in this study to achieve the no-
spillover design for second-order systems. A general and systematic design pro-
cedure was proposed that could be applied to second-order systems without
speci¯c properties of the mass, damping, or sti®ness matrices. This framework
could be used to design the in°uence matrix to reduce control energy, i.e. the key
contribution of this study. Future studies will involve the transposition of the
method to use the versatile receptance method alone or in conjunction with the
system matrices.
1950138-16
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank their institutions. Also, the authors are grateful to
the anonymous referees and to the editor for the suggestions that helped to improve
this work.
T.L.M. Santos has support from CNPq, grants # 309675/2018-9
Appendix A. Proof of Theorem 3.1

Without loss of generality, we use k ¼ 1. Subsequently, the following similarity
matrix and its inverse are assembled:

y1
U¼ ; U 1 ¼ ½t1 Vnðn1Þ : ðA:1Þ
Wðn1Þn
It is noteworthy that this de¯nition assures

y1 t1 ¼ 1; y1 V ¼ 0; Wt1 ¼ 0; WV ¼ In1 :
Subsequently, applying this transformation over A þ py1 yields
UðA þ py1 ÞU 1 ¼ UAU 1 þ Upyk U 1 : ðA:2Þ
The ¯rst term of (A.2) is as follows:
The identity above reveals that ðAÞ ¼ f1 g [ ðWAVÞ, implying that
ðWAVÞ ¼ f2 ; . . . ; n g. For the second term
Finally,

1 þ y1 p 0
UðA þ py1 ÞU 1 ¼ ;
WðA þ py1 Þt1 WAV
implying that ½UðA þ py1 ÞU 1 ¼ f1 þ y1 pg [ ðWAVÞ ¼ f1 þ y1 p; 2 ;

. . . ; n g.
Appendix B. Proof of Theorem 3.5

It is well known that the di®erential of (3.12) with respect to can be written in the
following form:

@fðÞ ¼ tr r T fðÞ@ : ðB:1Þ
1950138-17
J. M. Ara
To compute the gradient in (3.13), one must compute the di®erential for the argu-
ment in the trace function (3.12) as follows:

1 T 1 T 1 1 1 T
@ MðT TÞ M ¼ @ MðT ÞðT Þ M :
T T
ðB:2Þ
2 2
Developing this di®erential of a matrix product yields

1 T 1 1 1
@ MðT TÞ M ¼ M@ðT 1 ÞT T T M T þ MT 1 @ðT Þ T M T :
1 T T
2 2 2
ðB:3Þ
Recalling that trðA þ A T Þ ¼ 2trðAÞ, we obtain

1 1
T 1 T 1 T T
tr @ MðT TÞ M T
¼ 2tr M@ðT ÞT M T
2 2
¼ tr½M@ðT 1 ÞT T T M T : ðB:4Þ
In terms of the di®erential in (B.4),
@ðT 1 Þ ¼ @T 1 T 1 @T T 1 : ðB:5Þ
Replacing (B.5) into (B.4) and applying cyclic permutation invariance and linearity
properties of traces yield

1 T 1 T
tr @ MðT TÞ M T
2
T T
¼ tr½ðT TÞ 1 T M T M@ ðT TÞ 1 T M T MT 1 @T: ðB:6Þ
Because T is a function of from (3.8), di®erentiating (3.8) yields

~ 1 ¼ Y12 @:
1 @T @T ðB:7Þ
Exploring the solution of this LSE equation as presented in Ref. 28:
X
p1 X
p1
@T ¼ ~ 1Þ k;
jk ð1 Þ j ðY12 @Þð ðB:8Þ
j¼0 k¼0
the replacement of (B.8) into (B.6), with posterior manipulation of trace function
using cyclic permutation property yields

1 T
tr @ MðT TÞ 1 T M T
2
Xp1 X
p1
T
¼ tr ðT TÞ 1 T M T M@ ~ 1Þ k
jk ð
j¼0 k¼0

T 1 1
½ðT TÞ M MT
T T
@Tð1 Þ Y12 @ :
j
ðB:9Þ
1950138-18
P P p1 ~ k T 1 T 1
Finally, because U ¼ p1 j¼0 k¼0 jk ð 1 Þ ½ðT TÞ M MT @Tð1 Þ
T j
is
the solution of (3.14), the following identity holds:
T
@fðÞ ¼ trf½ðT TÞ 1 T M T M UY12 @g: ðB:10Þ
Subsequently, by comparing (B.10) with (B.1), the gradient r fðÞ is given as (3.13).
References
1. D. J. Inman, Active modal control for smart structures, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A: Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci. 359 (2001) 205–219.
2. F. Tisseur and K. Meerbergen, The quadratic eigenvalue problem, SIAM Review 43(2)
(2001) 235–286.
3. T. Nakamura and Y. Nakamura, Sti®ness design of 3-d shear buildings for speci¯ed
seismic drifts, J. Struct. Eng. (United States) 119(1) (1993) 50–68.

4. M. S. Misrikhanov and V. N. Ryabchenko, The quadratic eigenvalue problem in electric
power systems, Autom. Remote Control 67(5) (2006) 698–720.
5. T. Betcke, N. J. Higham, V. Mehrmann, C. Schr€ oder and F. Tisseur, Nlevp: A collection
of nonlinear eigenvalue problems, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 39 (2013) 7:1–7:28.
6. M.-H. Lee, Inverse dnamic input estimation of a seismic soil structure interaction system,
Int. J. Appl. Mech. 6(4) (2014) 1–21.
7. S. Li and D. Yu, Simulation study of active control of vibro-acoustic response by sound
pressure feedback using modal pole assignment strategy, J. Low Frequency Noise, Vib.
Act. Control 35(3) (2016) 167–186.
8. B. N. Datta, S. Elhay and Y. M. Ram, Orthogonality and partial pole assignment for the
symmetric de¯nite quadratic pencil, Linear Algebr. Appl. 257 (1997) 29–48.
9. B. Datta, S. Elhay, Y. Ram and D. Sarkissian, Partial eigenstructure assignment for the
quadratic pencil, J. Sound Vibr. 230(1) (2000) 101–110.
10. Z. Bai, B. N. Datta and J. Wang, Robust and minimum norm partial quadratic eigen-
value assignment in vibrating systems: A new optimization approach, Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 24(3) (2010) 766–783.
11. Z. Bai, J. Yang and B. N. Datta, Robust partial quadratic eigenvalue assignment
with time delay using the receptance and the system matrices, J. Sound Vibr. 384 (2016)
1–14.
12. J. M. Araújo, C. E. Dorea, L. M. Goncalves, J. B. Carvalho and B. N. Datta, Robustness
of the quadratic partial eigenvalue assignment using spectrum sensitivities for state and
derivative feedback designs, J. Low Frequency Noise, Vibr. Act. Control 37(2) (2018)
253–268.
13. J. Zhang, Partial pole assignment for general vibration systems by multi-input
state feedback, J. Vibr. Shock 20(4) (2002) 45–46.
14. H. Ouyang, Pole assignment of friction-induced vibration for stabilisation through state-
feedback control, J. Sound Vibr. 329(11) (2010) 1985–1991.
15. Y. Liang, H. J. Ouyang and H. Yamaura, Active partial eigenvalue assignment for
friction-induced vibration using receptance method, J. Phys. Conf. Series 744(1) (2016)
012008.
16. Y. Liang, H. Yamaura and H. Ouyang, Active assignment of eigenvalues and eigen-
sensitivities for robust stabilization of friction-induced vibration, Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 90 (2017) 254–267.
17. P. de Aguiar Lima, E. T. F. Santos, J. B. da Paz Carvalho and J. M. Araújo, A simple
approach for stabilization of linear second-order asymmetric systems, in Proc. XXXVIII
1950138-19
J. M. Ara
Iberian Latin American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering (ABMEC

Brazilian Association of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2017), pp. 1–12.
18. J. M. Araújo and T. Santos, A multiplicative eigenvalues perturbation and its application
to natural frequency assignment in undamped second-order systems, Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part I: J. Syst. Control Eng. 232(8) (2018) 963–970.

19. A. Brauer, Limits for the characteristic roots of a matrix. iv: Applications to stochastic
matrices, Duke Math. J. 19(3) (1952) 75–91.
20. R. Bru, R. Canto, R. L. Soto and A. M. Urbano, A brauer's theorem and related results,
Cent. Eur. J. Math. 10 (2012) 312–321.
21. I. Giorgio, L. Galantucci, A. D. Corte and D. D. Vescovo, Piezo-electromechanical smart
materials with distributed arrays of piezoelectric transducers: Current and upcoming
applications, Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 47 (2015) 1051–1084.
22. B. Datta, Finite element model updating and partial eigenvalue assignment in structural
dynamics: Recent developments on computational methods, Math. Model. Anal. 1 (2005)
15–27.
23. R. L. Soto and O. Rojo, Applications of a brauer theorem in the nonnegative inverse
eigenvalue problem, Linear Algebr. Appl. 416(2) (2006) 844–856.
24. J. Mota, M. Oliveira, T. Santos and J. M. Araújo, No spillover partial eigenvalue
assignment in second-order linear systems using the brauer's theorem and dense in°uence
matrices, in Proc. XIV VETOMAC (Lisbon, Portugal, 2018), pp. 1–6.
25. S. Bhattacharyya and E. de Souza, Pole assignment via sylvester's equation, Syst. Control
Lett. 1(4) (1982) 261–263.
26. A. Varga, Robust pole assignment via sylvester equation based state feedback parame-
trization, in CACSD. Conf. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Computer-Aided Control System
Design (Cat. No. 00TH8537) (Anchorage, AK, USA, 2000), pp. 13–18.
27. V. Simoncini, Computational methods for linear matrix equations, SIAM Review 58(3)
(2016) 377–441.
28. S. Brahma and B. Datta, An optimization approach for minimum norm and robust
partial quadratic eigenvalue assignment problems for vibrating structures, J. Sound Vibr.
324(3–5) (2009) 471–489.
29. D. Henrion, M. Sebek and V. Kucera, Robust pole placement for second-order systems:
An lmi approach, Kybermetika 41(1) (2005) 1–14.
30. T. H. Abdelaziz, Robust pole assignment using velocity plus acceleration feedback for
second-order dynamical systems with singular mass matrix, fISAg Trans. 57 (2015) 71–
84.
31. J. M. Araújo, C. E. T. Dorea, L. M. G. Goncalves and B. N. Datta, State derivative
feedback in second-order linear systems: A comparative analysis of perturbed eigenvalues
under coe±cient variation, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 76–77 (2016) 33–46.
32. J. Zhang, H. Ouyang and J. Yang, Partial eigenstructure assignment for undamped
vibration systems using acceleration and displacement feedback, J. Sound Vibr. 333(1)
(2014) 1–12.
33. R. Belotti, H. Ouyang and D. Richiedei, A new method of passive modi¯cations for partial
frequency assignment of general structures, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 99 (2018) 586–
599.
34. P. Benner, A. J. Laub and V. Mehrmann, A collection of benchmark examples for
the numerical solution of algebraic riccati equations i: Continuous-time case, technical
report, Fak. f. Mathematik, TU Chemnitz (1995).
1950138-20

No Spillover Eigenvalues Assignment of Second-Order Systems With Dense Force Actuators Matrices Using Brauer's Theorem

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

No Spillover Eigenvalues Assignment of Second-Order Systems With Dense Force Actuators Matrices Using Brauer's Theorem

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics

(2019) 1950138 (20 pages)

No Spillover Eigenvalues Assignment of Second-Order

Jose Mário Araújo*

Grupo de Pesquisa em Sinais e Sistemas

Tito Luís Maia Santos

Received 29 March 2019

2. Preliminaries and Problem Statement

where z 2 R n is a generalized displacement vector; f 2 R n is a vector of external

positiveness, with M ¼ M T O, C ¼ C T and K ¼ K T O. In cases when some

2.2. Brauer's theorem and related results

2.3. Problem statement

3. Eigenvalue Assignment by Brauer's Theorem and Related Results

1 , i.e. Y1 A ¼ 1 Y1 . Subsequently, the spectrum of ðIn þ PY1 Þ 1 A, with P 2 R nl

Subsequently, ð2 ; X2 Þ belongs to the eigenstructure of A þ PY1 | or

thus proving the statement of Fact 3.5.

3.1. State feedback

Y1 ¼ ½Y11 Y12 ; Y1 2 R l2n ; Y11 ; Y12 2 R ln : ð3:1Þ

By setting the following:

Subsequently, using  ¼ M 1 BT, the following Lyapunov–Sylvester equation25,26

Finally, the minimum norm in°uence matrix can be computed as follows:

3.1.1. Derivation of gradient formula and complete algorithm

Theorem 3.6. Consider the following function:

Proof. See Appendix B.

3.2. Derivative feedback

3.3. Systematic procedure

(1) Compute Fs and Gs using (3.3) and (3.4), respectively;

4.1. Experiment 1: Wing in an airstream model

17:600 1:280 2:890 7:660 2:450 2:100

4.2. Experiment 2: Control of cantilever beam

Table 1. Summary of the numerical experiment results.

Example 4.1 jjBjj - Fixed 33.8907 13.1842

0:2859 0:1011 0:3567 0:1975 0:5666 0:1019

4.3. Experiment 3: Control of ¯nite element model

5. Concluding Remarks and Future Studies

Appendix A. Proof of Theorem 3.1

It is noteworthy that this de¯nition assures

implying that ½UðA þ py1 ÞU 1 ¼ f1 þ y1 pg [ ðWAVÞ ¼ f1 þ y1 p; 2 ;

Appendix B. Proof of Theorem 3.5

Because T is a function of  from (3.8), di®erentiating (3.8) yields

seismic drifts, J. Struct. Eng. (United States) 119(1) (1993) 50–68.

Iberian Latin American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering (ABMEC

Eng. Part I: J. Syst. Control Eng. 232(8) (2018) 963–970.

Вам также может понравиться

1 , i.e. Y1 A ¼ 1 Y1 . Subsequently, the spectrum of ðIn þ PY1 Þ 1 A, with P 2 R nl

Subsequently, using ¼ M 1 BT, the following Lyapunov–Sylvester equation25,26

0:2859 0:1011 0:3567 0:1975 0:5666 0:1019

implying that ½UðA þ py1 ÞU 1 ¼ f1 þ y1 pg [ ðWAVÞ ¼ f1 þ y1 p; 2 ;

Because T is a function of from (3.8), di®erentiating (3.8) yields