Simple Control Algorithms For MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System

MR
Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and

Smart Passive Control System

( Sang-Won Cho)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

2 0 0 4

Doctoral Thesis
MR


Advisor : Professor In-Won Lee
by
Sang-Won Cho
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.

Daejeon, Korea
2003. 11. 27
Approved by

Professor In-Won Lee
Major Advisor
MR

.

2003 11 27

()
()
()
()
()

i
DCE
995353
. Sang-Won Cho. Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers
and Smart Passive Control System. MR
. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. 2004. 101p. Advisor: Professor In-Won Lee.
Text in English.

ABSTRACT

This dissertation proposes simple and efficient control algorithms for seismically
excited structures using MR dampers and a smart passive system based on MR dampers.
Magnetorheological (MR) dampers are one of the most promising control devices for
civil engineering applications to earthquake hazard mitigation, because they have many
advantages such as small power requirement, reliability, and low price to manufacture.

A number of control algorithms have been adopted for semiactive systems
including the MR damper. In spite of good features of previous studies, some algorithms
have drawbacks such as poor performances or difficulties in designing the weighting
matrix of the controller. Thus, the control algorithm is required, which is simple to use
and efficient to give comparable or better performance over the previous algorithms.
As a simple and efficient control algorithm, a modal control scheme and a
maximum energy dissipation algorithm (MEDA) are implemented for the MR damper-
based control system.
Modal control reshapes the motion of a structure by merely controlling a few
selected vibration modes. Hence, a modal control scheme is more convenient to design
the controller than other control algorithms. Although modal control has been
investigated for the several decades, its potential for a semiactive control, especially for
the MR damper, has not been exploited. Thus, in order to study the effectiveness for the
MR damper system, a modal control scheme is implemented to seismically excited

ii
structures. A Kalman filter is included in a control scheme to estimate modal states from
physical measurements by sensors. Three cases of the structural measurement are
considered as a feedback to verify the effect of each measurement; displacement,
velocity, and acceleration, respectively. Moreover, a low-pass filter is applied to eliminate
the spillover problem. In a numerical example, a six-story building model with the MR
dampers on the bottom two floors is used to verify the proposed modal control scheme.
The El Centro earthquake is used to excite the system, and the reduction in the drifts,
accelerations, and relative displacements throughout the structure is examined. The
performance of the proposed modal control scheme is compared with that of other control
algorithms that were previously suggested.
The maximum energy dissipation algorithm represents one control class which
employs the Lyapunovs direct approach to stability analysis in the design of a feedback
controller. However, their potential for civil engineering applications using semiactive
control, especially with MR dampers, has not yet been fully exploited. This paper
investigates the performance and the robustness of the maximum energy dissipation
algorithm for civil engineering structures using MR dampers. The numerical examples
contain the cable-stayed bridge and the nonlinear building. Various earthquakes are used
to excite the systems. Through the series of numerical simulations, the performance is
compared with that of other control algorithms that are previously proposed: The
reduction in the drifts, accelerations, and relative displacements throughout the structure
are examined according to the evaluation criteria.

Meanwhile, to reduce the responses of the controlled structure by using MR
dampers, a control system including a power supply, controller, and sensors is needed.
However, it is not easy to apply the MR damper-based control system to large-scale civil
structures, such as cable-stayed bridges and high-rise buildings, because of the difficulties
of building up and maintaining the control system.

iii
Thus, this dissertation proposes a smart passive damper system. The smart
passive damper system is based on MR dampers. Of course, the MR damper is a
semiactive device that needs an external power source to change the damping
characteristics of the MR fluids. However, the smart passive damper system based on MR
dampers is not using an external power source, but self-powered by an electromagnetic
induction (EMI) system that is attached to the MR damper. The EMI system consists of a
permanent magnet and a coil. According to the Faradays law of induction, the EMI
system changes the kinetic energy of the MR damper to the electric energy and then the
electric energy is used to vary the damping characteristics of the MR damper. Therefore,
it is easy to build up and maintain the proposed smart damper system that consists of the
MR damper and the EMI system, because it does not require any control system such as a
power supply, controller, and sensors. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed EMI
system, the performances are compared with those of the semiactive MR damper.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Magnetorheological (MR) Dampers......................................................... 4
1.2.2 Control Algorithms for MR Dampers....................................................... 7
1.3 MR Fluids and Dampers ................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 MR Fluids............................................................................................... 10
1.3.2 MR Fluids Dampers................................................................................ 12
1.4 Objectives and Scopes ...................................................................................... 15
1.5 Organization ..................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 2 MODAL CONTROL SCHEME................................................................ 18
2.1 Modal Control Scheme for MR Dampers......................................................... 18
2.1.1 Modal Control......................................................................................... 18
2.1.2 Design of Optimal Controller ................................................................. 21
2.1.3 Modal State Estimation .......................................................................... 23
2.1.4 Elimination of Observable Spillover ...................................................... 27
2.2 Numerical Example .......................................................................................... 29
2.3 Summary of Results.......................................................................................... 43

v
CHAPTER 3 MAXIMUM ENERGY DISSIPATION ALGORITHM............................ 44
3.1 Control System................................................................................................. 44
3.1.1 Control Devices ...................................................................................... 45
3.1.2 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm for MR Damper.................... 47
3.2 Benchmark Problems........................................................................................ 49
3.2.1 Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge ........................................................... 49
3.2.2 Nonlinear Benchmark Building.............................................................. 55
3.3 Numerical Examples......................................................................................... 59
3.3.1 Control Performance............................................................................... 59
3.3.2 Controller Robustness............................................................................. 64

CHAPTER 4 SMART PASSIVE CONTROL SYSTEM................................................. 68
4.1 Electromagnetic Induction System for MR Damper ........................................ 68
4.2 Analytical Model and Design ........................................................................... 73
4.2.1 Analytical Model .................................................................................... 73
4.2.2 Design of the EMI System...................................................................... 76
4.3 Numerical Simulation Results .......................................................................... 80

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 88

SUMMARY (IN KOREAN) 90
REFERENCES 93
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CURRICULUM VITAE

vi
LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Properties of MR and ER fluids.............................................................................. 11
2.1 Normalized controlled maximum responses
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake................................................................... 34
2.2 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the acceleration feedback
2.3 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the displacement feedback
2.4 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the velocity feedback
3.1 Parameters for MR damper model.......................................................................... 46
3.2 Comparisons of the evaluation criteria for benchmark cable-stayed bridge........... 61
3.3 Comparisons of the evaluation criteria for the nonlinear benchmark building....... 62
3.4 Evaluation criteria of modified location and number of MR dampers ................... 63
3.5 Evaluation criteria for 7% stiffness perturbed system
under El Centro earthquake .................................................................................... 65
3.6 Evaluation criteria for 30% stiffness perturbed system........................................ 66
4.1 Normalized peak absolute accelerations and inter-story drifts ............................... 85
4.2 Percent increment compared to the better clipped-optimal controller case ............ 86

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Behavior of MR fluid in magnetic field.................................................................. 10
1.2 Schematic of the prototype 20-ton large-scale MR fluid damper ........................... 13
1.3 Small-scale SD-1000 MR fluid damper.................................................................. 14
1.4 Bypass type 20-ton MR fluid.................................................................................. 14
2.1 Schematic diagram of the MR damper implementation ......................................... 29
2.2 Frequency responses of the first floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake.................................................................... 32
2.3 Frequency responses of the sixth floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake.................................................................... 33
2.4 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the acceleration feedback .................................................................................. 36
for the displacement feedback ................................................................................ 37
for the velocity feedback......................................................................................... 38
3.1 Mechanical model of the MR damper .................................................................... 45
3.2 Drawing of the Cape Girardeau Bridge .................................................................. 51
3.3 Cross section of bridge deck................................................................................... 51
3.4 Finite element model ............................................................................................. 54
3.5 Finite element model of the towers......................................................................... 54
3.6 Schematic of the 20-story benchmark building ...................................................... 56
4.1 Schematic of a MR damper-based control system.................................................. 68
4.2 Schematic of a MR damper with the EMI system.................................................. 70
4.3 Schematic of a MR damper with the EMI system implementation ........................ 70
4.4 Schematic of a MR damper implementation .......................................................... 73
4.5 Simple mechanical model of the normal MR damper ............................................ 75

viii
4.6 Design of EMI system with S
a
under three earthquakes......................................... 77
4.7 Design of EMI system with S
i
under three earthquakes ......................................... 77
4.8 Design of the clipped-optimal controller with S
a
under three earthquakes............. 79
4.9 Design of the clipped-optimal controller with S
i
under three earthquakes ............. 79
4.10 Velocities and induced voltages under various earthquakes................................... 81
4.11 Normalized peak acceleration and inter-story drift ................................................ 83

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The tragic consequences of the recent earthquakes have underscored, in terms of
both human and economic factors, the tremendous importance of the way in which
buildings and bridges respond to earthquakes. In recent years, considerable attention has
been paid to research and development of structural control systems. Supplemental
passive, active, hybrid, and semiactive damping strategies offer attractive means to
protect structures against natural hazards. Passive supplemental damping strategies,
including base isolation systems, viscoelastic dampers, and tuned mass dampers, are
widely accepted by the engineering community as a means for mitigating the effects of
dynamic loading on structures. However, these passive-device methods are unable to
adapt to structural changes, varying usage patterns, and loading conditions.
For more than two decades, researchers have investigated the possibility of using
active, hybrid, and semiactive control methods to improve upon passive approaches to
reduce structural responses (Soong 1990; Soong and Reinhorn 1993; Spencer and Sain
1997; Housner et al. 1997; Kobori et al. 1998, 2003; Soong and Spencer 2002; Spencer
2002). The first full-scale application of active control to a building was accomplished by
the Kajima Corporation on 1989 (Kobori et al. 1991). The Kyobashi Center building is an
11-story (33.1m) building in Tokyo, having a total floor area of 423m
2
. A control system
was installed, consisting of two AMDs the primary AMD is used for transverse motion
and has a mass of 4 t, while the secondary AMD has a mass of 1 t and is employed to
reduce torsional motion. The role of the active system is to reduce building vibration
under strong winds and moderate earthquake excitations and consequently to increase
comfort of occupants of the building.

2

Hybrid-control strategies have been investigated by many researchers to exploit
their potential to increase the overall reliability and efficiency of the controlled structure
(Housner et al. 1994; Kareem et al. 1999; Nishitani and Inoue 2001; Yang and Dyke
2003; Faravelli and Spencer 2003). A hybrid control system is typically defined as one
that employs a combination of passive and active devices. Because multiple control
devices are operation, hybrid control systems can alleviate some of the restrictions and
limitations that exist when each system is acting alone, Thus, higher levels of
performance may be achievable. Additionally, the resulting hybrid control system can be
more reliable than a fully active system, although it is also often somewhat more
complicated. To date, there have been over 40 buildings and about 10 bridges (during
erection) that have employed feedback control strategies in full-scale implementations
(Spencer and Nagarajaiah 2003).
Although nearly a decade has passed since construction of the Kobashi Seiwa
building, a number of serious challenges remain to be resolved before feedback control
technology can gain general acceptance by the engineering and construction professions
at large. These challenges include: (i) reduction of capital cost and maintenance, (ii)
eliminating reliance on external power, (iii) increasing system reliability and robustness,
and (iv) gaining acceptance of nontraditional technology by the profession. Semiactive
control strategies appear to be particularly promising in addressing a number of these
challenges (Spencer 1996).
Control strategies based on semiactive control devices appear to combine the best
features of both passive and active control systems and to offer the greatest likelihood for
near term acceptance of control technology as a viable means of protecting civil
engineering structural systems against earthquake and wind loading. The attention
received in recent years can be attributed to the fact that semiactive control devices offer
the adaptability of active control devices without requiring the associated large power
sources. In fact, many can operate on battery power, which is critical during seismic
events when the main power source to the structure may fail. According to presently

3

accepted definitions, a semiactive control device is one that can not inject mechanical
energy into the controlled structural system (i.e., including the structure and the control
device), but has properties which can be controlled to optimally reduce the responses of
the system. Therefore, in contrast to active control devices, semiactive control devices do
not have the potential to destabilize (in the bounded input/bounded output sense) the
structural system. Previous studies indicate that appropriately implemented semiactive
systems perform significantly better than passive devices and have the potential to
achieve the majority of the performance of fully active systems, thus allowing for the
possibility of effective response reduction during a wide array of dynamic loading
conditions (Spencer and Sain 1997; Symans and Constantinou 1999; Spencer 2002).
Most of the semiactive control devices have employed some electrically controlled
valves or mechanisms. Such mechanical components can be problematic in terms of
reliability and maintenance. Another class of semiactive devices uses controllable fluids.
The advantage of controllable fluid devices is that they contain no moving parts other
than the piston, which makes them very reliable.
Two fluids that are viable contenders for development of controllable dampers are:
(1) electrorheological (ER) fluids; and (2) magnetorheological (MR) fluids. However,
recently developed MR fluids appear to be an attractive alternative to ER fluids for use in
controllable fluid dampers (Carlson 1994; Carlson and Weiss 1994; Carlson et al. 1995).
MR fluids are magnetic analogs of electrorheological fluids and typically consist of
micro-sized, magnetically polarizable particles dispersed in a carrier medium such as
mineral or silicone oil. When a magnetic field is applied to the fluid, particle chains form,
and the fluid becomes a semi-solid and exhibits viscoplastic behavior similar to that of an
ER fluid. Carlson and Weiss (1994) indicated that the achievable yield stress of an MR
fluid is an order of magnitude greater than its ER counterpart. Moreover, MR fluids are
not sensitive to impurities such as are commonly encountered during manufacturing and
usage. Therefore MR dampers have, over the last several years, been recognized having a
number of attractive characteristics for use in structural vibration control applications.

4

1.2 Literature Review

1.2.1 Magnetorheological (MR) Dampers

Controllable fluid dampers generally utilize either electrorheological (ER) fluids or
magnetorheological (MR) fluids. These fluids are unique in their ability to reversibly
change from free-flowing, linear viscous fluids to semi-solids with a controllable-yield
strength in only a few milliseconds when exposed to an electric (ER fluids) or magnetic
field (MR fluids). These fluids can be modeled as Newtonian fluids in the absence of a
magnetic field. When a field is applied, the visco-plasticity model (Phillips 1969) may be
used to describe the fluid behavior.
Although the discovery of ER and MR fluids dates back to the 1940s, only recently
have they been applied to civil engineering applications. To date, a number of ER fluid
dampers have been investigated (Burton et al. 1996; Gavin et al. 1996a, 1996b; Kamath
et al. 1996; Makris et al. 1996) for structural vibration control applications in civil
engineering. Gavin et al. (1996a, 1996b) designed and tested an ER damper that consisted
of a rectangular container and a moving plunger comprised of nine rigidly connected flat
plates. Makris et al. (1996) developed an ER damper consisting of an outer cylinder and a
double-20 ended piston rod that pushes the ER fluids through an annular duct.
Despite these advances in the development of ER fluid dampers, the development
of commercially feasible damping devices using these fluids is limited by several factors.
First, the fluids have a very limited yield stress; even the best ER fluids currently
available may only achieve stresses of 3.0 to 3.5 KPa. Also, common impurities that
might be introduced during manufacturing significantly reduce the capacity of the fluids.
Additionally, safety, availability and the cost of high-voltage (e.g. ~4000 volts) power
supplies required to control the ER fluids are further considerations. MR fluids, on the
other hand, have a 50 to 100 KPa maximum yield stress, are not affected by most
impurities, and are not sensitive to temperature. Moreover, MR fluids can be controlled

5

with a low-power (e.g., less than 50 watts), low-voltage (e.g., ~12-24 volts), current-
driven power supply with ~1-2 amps output. Therefore, MR fluids are particularly
promising for natural hazard mitigation and cost sensitive applications (Carlson and
Spencer 1996a, 1996b; Spencer and Sain 1997).
Different techniques have been developed to model the behavior of the controllable
fluid dampers. Basically, two types of models have been investigated: non-parametric and
parametric models. Ehrgott and Masri (1992) presented a nonparametric approach to
model a small ER damper that operates under shear mode by assuming that the damper
force could be written in terms of Chebychev polynomials. Gavin et al. (1996b) extended
this approach to model the ER damper. Chang and Roschke (1998) developed a neural
network model to emulate the dynamic behavior of MR dampers. However, the non-
parametric damper models are quite complicated. Stanway et al. (1987) proposed a
simple mechanical model, the Bingham model, in which a Coulomb friction element is
placed in parallel with a dashpot. Gamoto and Filisko (1991) extended the Bingham
model and developed a visoelastic-plastic model. The model consists of a Bingham
model in series with a standard model of a linear solid model. Kamath and Wereley
(1997), Makris et al. (1996), and Wereley et al. (1998) developed parametric models to
characterize ER and MR dampers. Dyke et al. (1996a,b), Spencer et al. (1997a) and Yang
et al. (2001a,b) presented the Bouc-Wen model whose versatility was utilized to describe
a wide variety of hysteretic behavior.
A number of experimental studies have been conducted to evaluate the usefulness
of MR dampers for vibration reduction under wind and earthquakes. Dyke et al. (1996a,b,
1998), Jansen and Dyke (2000), Spencer et al. (1996b), and Yi and Dyke (2000) used MR
dampers to reduce the seismic vibration of building structure model. Spencer et al.
(2000), Ramallo et al. (2001) and Yoshioka et al. (2001) incorporated an MR damper
with a base isolation system such that the isolation system would be effective under both
strong and moderate earthquakes. Johnson et al. (2001a,b) employed the MR damper to

6

reduce wind-induced stay cable vibration. The experimental results indicate that the MR
damper is quite effective for a wide class of applications.
Moreover, the technology has been demonstrated to be scalable to devices
sufficiently large for implementation in civil engineering structures. Carlson and Spencer
(1996b), Spencer et al. (1999), and Yang et al. (2002) have developed and tested a 20-t
MR damper. Recently, Sodeyama et al. (2003) have also presented impressive results
regarding design and construction of large-scale MR dampers. In 2001, the first full-scale
implementation of MR dampers for civil engineering application was achieved. The
Nihon-Kagaku-Miraikan, the Tokyo National Museum of Emerging Science and
Innovation has two 30-ton-MR fluid dampers installed between the third and fifth floors.
The dampers were built by Sanwa Tekki using the Lord Corporation MR fluid.
Retrofitted with stay-cable dampers, the Dongting Lake Bridge in Hunan, China
constitutes the first full-scale implementation of MR dampers for bridge structures. Long
steel cables, such as are used in cable-stayed bridges and other structures, are prone to
vibration induced by the structure to which they are connected and by weather conditions,
particularly wind combined with rain, that may cause cable galloping. The extremely low
damping inherent in such cables, typically on the order of a fraction of a percent, is
insufficient to eliminate this vibration, causing reduced cable and connection life due to
fatigue and/or breakdown of corrosion protection. Two Lord SD-1005 MR dampers are
mounted on each cable to mitigate cable vibration. A total of 312 MR dampers are
installed on 156 stayed cables. Recently, MR dampers have been chosen for
implementation on the Binzhou Yellow River Bridge in China to reduce cable vibration.
The installation is expected to be completed in October 2003 (Spencer and Nagarajaiah
2003).


7

1.2.2 Control Algorithms for MR Dampers

One challenge in the use of semiactive technology is in developing nonlinear
control algorithms that are appropriate for implementation in full-scale structures.
Numerous control algorithms have been adopted for semiactive systems. In one of the
first examinations of semiactive control, Karnopp et al. (1974) proposed a skyhook
damper control algorithm for a vehicle suspension system and demonstrated that this
system offers improved performance over a passive system when applied to a single-
degree-of-freedom system. Feng and Shinozukah (1990) developed a bang-bang
controller for a hybrid controller on a bridge. More recently, a control strategy based on
Lyapunov stability theory has been proposed for electrorheological dampers (Brogan
1991; Leitmann 1994). The goal of this algorithm is to reduce the responses by
minimizing the rate of change of a Lyapunov function. McClamroch and Gavin (1995)
used a similar approach to develop a decentralized bang-bang controller. This control
algorithm acts to minimize the total energy in the structure. A modulated homogeneous
friction algorithm (Inaudi 1997) was developed for a variable friction device. Clipped-
optimal controllers have also been proposed and implemented for semiactive systems
(Sack et al. 1994; Sack and Patten 1994; Dyke, 1996a,b,c). The effective utilization of
multiple control devices is an important step in the examination of semiactive control
algorithms. A typical control system for a full-scale structure is expected to have control
devices distributed throughout a number of floors. Because of the inherent nonlinear
nature of these devices, one of the challenging aspects of utilizing this technology to
achieve high levels of performance is in the development of appropriate control
algorithms.
As previously mentioned, a number of control algorithms have been adopted for
semiactive control systems using MR dampers (Jansen and Dyke 2000). Among many
control algorithms, modal control represents one control class, in which the motion of a
structure is reshaped by merely controlling some selected vibration modes. Modal control

8

is especially desirable for the vibration control of civil engineering structure, which is
usually a large structural system, may involve hundred or even thousand degrees of
freedom, its vibration is usually dominated by the first few modes. Therefore, the motion
of the structure can be effectively suppressed by merely controlling these few modes
(Yang 1982). To date, numerous procedures and algorithms concerning modal control or
pole assignment have been proposed in literature. A modal control method using full state
feedback may not be practical for a structural system involving a large number of DOFs,
since the control implementation may requires a large amount of sensors. Thus a modal
control scheme, which uses modal state estimation, is desirable. To estimate the modal
states from the sensor output, Luenberger observer (Meirovitch 1990; Luenberger 1971)
and a Kalman-Bucy filter (Meirovitch, 1967) can be used for the case of low noise-to-
signal ratios and for high noise-to-signal ratios, respectively. The troublesome of
estimating the modal states for feedback in modal control is the problem of spillover.
Note, however, that a small amount of damping inherent in the structure is often
sufficient to overcome the observation spillover effect (Meirovitch and Baruh 1983). At
any rate, observation spillover can be eliminated if the sensor signals are prefiltered so as
to screen out the contribution of the uncontrolled modes.
On the other side, the maximum energy dissipation algorithm (MEDA) represents
one control class which employs the Lyapunovs direct approach to stability analysis in
the design of a feedback controller (Brogan 1991). The approach requires the use of a
Lyapunov function that must be a positive definite function of the states of the system.
According to Lyapunov stability theory, if the rate of change of the Lyapunov function is
negative semi-definite, the origin is stable in the sense of Lyapunov. Thus, in developing
the control law based on Lyapunov stability theory, the goal is to choose control inputs
for each deice that will result in making the rate of change of the Lyapunov function as
negative as possible. Jansen and Dyke (2000) suggested MEDA as a variation of the
decentralized bang-bang approach proposed by McClamroch and Gavin (1995). It is

9

noticeable that this control law requires only local measurements, which means MEDA is
simply implemented without any design process.

10

1.3 MR Fluids and Dampers

1.3.1 MR Fluids

The initial discovery and development of MR fluids can be credited to Jacob
Rabinow (1948, 1951) at the US National Bureau of Standards in the late 1940s. These
fluids are suspensions of micron-sized, magnetizable particles in an appropriate carrier
liquid. Normally, MR fluids are free flowing liquids having a consistency similar to that
of motor oil. However, in the presence of an applied magnetic field, the iron particles
acquire a dipole moment aligned with the external field that causes particles to form
linear chains parallel to the field, as shown in Fig. 1.1. This phenomenon can solidify the
suspended iron particles and restrict the fluid movement. Consequently, yield strength is
developed within the fluid. The degree of change is related to the magnitude of the
applied magnetic field, and can occur only in a few milliseconds.

Figure 1.1 Behavior of MR fluid in magnetic field

There are basically two types of controllable fluids MR fluids and ER fluids. The
primary advantage of MR fluids stems from their high dynamic yield strength due to the
high magnetic energy density that can be established in the fluid. Energy density in MR
fluids is limited by the magnetic saturation of iron particles. From a practical
implementation perspective, although the total energy requirements for the ER and MR

11

devices are almost equal, only MR devices can be easily driven by common low-voltage
power sources (Carlson and Spencer 1996a). MR devices can be controlled with a low-
voltage, current-driven power supply outputting only ~1-2 amps. ER devices, on the other
hand, require a high-voltage power source (~2000-5000 volts) that may not be readily
available, especially during strong earthquake events. Moreover, such a high voltage may
pose a safety hazard. The properties of both MR and ER fluids are given in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Properties of MR and ER fluids (Spencer and Sain 1997)
Property MR Fluids ER Fluids
Max. yield Stress 50-100 kPa 2-5kPa
Maximum field ~250kA/m ~4kV/mm
Plastic viscosity,
p

0.1-1.0Pa-s 0.1-1.0Pa-s
Operable temp. range -40 to 150C +10 to 90C
Stability
unaffected by most
impurities
cannot tolerate
impurities
Response time milliseconds milliseconds
Density 3 to 4 g/cm3 1 to 2 g/cm3
2
) (
/
field y p

10-10-10-11 s/Pa 10-7-10-8 s/Pa
Maxi. energy density 0.1 Joules/cm3 0.001 Joules/cm3
Power supply (typical)
2-25V
1-2A
2000-5000V
1-10 mA

12

1.3.2 MR Fluid Dampers

The maximum force that an MR damper can deliver depends on the properties of
MR fluids, their flow pattern, and the size of the damper. Virtually all devices that use
MR fluids can be classified as operating in: (a) a valve mode, (b) a direct shear mode, (c)
a squeeze mode, or a combination of these modes (Carlson and Spencer 1996a). To date,
several MR fluid devices have been developed for commercial use by the LORD
Corporation (Carlson et al. 1996; Jolly et al. 1998). Linear MR fluid dampers have been
designed for use as secondary suspension elements in vehicles. MR fluid rotary brakes
are smooth-acting, proportional brakes which are more compact and require substantially
less power than competing systems. MR fluid vibration dampers for real-time, active
control of damping have been used in numerous industrial applications.
In civil engineering applications, the expected damping forces and displacements
are rather large in magnitude. Therefore, MR dampers primarily operating under direct
shear mode or squeeze mode might be impractical. Usually valve mode or its
combination with direct shear mode is employed. Some examples of recently developed
MR dampers are given below. These dampers are capable of meeting real-world
requirements and are presently either in commercial production or in production
prototype trials.
A 20-ton prototype large-scale seismic MR fluid damper was developed under
cooperation between the LORD Corporation and the Structural Dynamics and
Control/Earthquake Engineering Laboratory (SDC/EEL) at the University of Notre Dame
(Carlson and Spencer 1996a; Spencer et al. 1997b,1998; Yang et al. 2000a,b). The MR
fluid damper schematic is given in Fig. 1.2. For the nominal design, a maximum damping
force of 200,000 N (20 tons) were chosen. The damper has an inside diameter of 20.3 cm
and a stroke of 8 cm. The completed damper is approximately 1 m long, has a mass of
250 kg, and contains approximately 6 liters of MR fluid. However, the amount of fluid
energized by the magnetic field at any given instant is approximately 90 cm
3
.

13

Fig. 1.3 shows a small-scale SD-1000 MR fluid damper manufactured by the
LORD Corporation (Carlson and Spencer 1996a; Dyke 1996a,b; Jolly et al. 1998;
Spencer 1997a). In this damper, MR fluids flow from a high-pressure chamber to a low-
pressure chamber through an orifice in the piston head. The damper is 21.5 cm long in its
extended position, and the main cylinder is 3.8 cm in diameter. Forces of up to 3,000 N
can be generated with this device.
Fig. 1.4 shows a bypass-type 20-ton MR fluid damper designed by the Sanwa
Tekki Corporation (Fujitani et al. 2000; Sunakoda et al. 2000). Unlike dampers
mentioned previously, MR fluids in this damper flow from a high-pressure chamber to a
low-pressure chamber in valve mode through a bypass outside the main cylinder. The
bypass has an annular gap between the outside of the magnetic pole and the inside of the
bypass cylinder. The magnetic field is generated by a 10-stage electromagnet and is
perpendicular to the fluid flow.

Figure 1.2 Schematic of the prototype 20-ton large-scale MR fluid damper


14

Figure 1.3 Small-scale SD-1000 MR fluid damper

Figure 1.4 Bypass type 20-ton MR fluid
Bearing & Seal MR Fluid
Coil Diaphragm
Accumulator
Wires to
Electromagnet

15

1.4 Objectives and Scopes

The purpose of this study is to implement simple and efficient control algorithms
for seismically excited structures using MR dampers and to develop a smart passive
system based on the MR damper. The objectives and scopes of this study can be
summarized as follows.

First, the objectives and scopes of the study on implementations of simple and
efficient control algorithms can be summarized as follows:

(1) Implementation of modal control for seismically excited structures using MR
dampers:
In order to study the effectiveness for the MR damper-based semiactive, a modal
control scheme is implemented to seismically excited structures. A Kalman filter is
included in a control scheme to estimate modal states from measurements by
sensors. A low-pass filter is applied to eliminate the spillover problem. In a
numerical example, a six-story building model with the MR dampers on the bottom
two floors is used to verify the implemented modal control scheme. The
performance of the proposed modal control scheme is compared with that of other
control algorithms previously studied.

(2) Implementation of maximum energy dissipation algorithm for seismic response
reduction of large-scale structures using MR dampers:
The performance and the robustness of the maximum energy dissipation algorithm
for civil engineering structures using MR dampers are investigated. The numerical
examples contain the cable-stayed bridge and the nonlinear building. Various
earthquakes are used to excite the system. Through the series of numerical
simulation, the performance and the robustness are compared with that of other

16

control algorithms that are previously proposed: The reduction in the drifts,
accelerations, and relative displacements throughout the structure are examined
according to the evaluation criteria.

Next, the objectives and scopes of the study on development of a smart passive
system based on the MR damper can be summarized as follows:

(1) Development of a smart passive system based on the MR damper to reduce
structural responses:
The smart passive damper system is based on MR dampers. The MR damper is a
semiactive device that needs an external power source to change the damping
characteristics of MR fluids. However, the smart passive damper system based on
MR dampers is not using an external power source, but self-powered by an
electromagnetic induction system (EMI) that is attached to the MR damper. The
EMI system for MR dampers consists of a permanent magnet and a coil. According
to the Faradays law of induction, the EMI system changes the kinetic energy of
the MR damper to the electric energy and then the electric energy is used to vary
the damping characteristics of the MR damper. The theoretical backgrounds and
the designing process are presented. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed
smart passive control system, the performances are compared with those of the
semiactive MR damper using clipped-optimal controller.


17

1.5 Organization

This dissertation consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the background, the
literature review, the characteristics of MR fluids and dampers, and the objectives and
scopes of this study.
In Chapter 2, a modal control scheme is implemented for the MR damper-based
control system. A low-pass filter and the Kalman filter as a modal state estimator are
reviewed and included in the modal control scheme for the MR damper-based control
system in Section 2.1. Reduced design procedure is presented, also, in this section. To
evaluate the proposed modal control scheme for usage with the MR damper, a numerical
example is considered, in which a model of a six-story building is controlled with four
MR dampers in Section 2.2. The results are summarized in Section 2.3.
In Chapter 3, the maximum energy dissipation algorithm (MEDA) is implemented
for the MR damper-based control system. The control system including the MR device
and MEDA is reviewed in Section 3.1. In Section 3.2, the cable-stayed bridge and the 20-
story nonlinear building are shown as representative structures of civil engineering and
numerical examples. In Section 3.3, the applicability of the MEDA-based semiactive
control system is examined from the viewpoint of the performance and the robustness
through the numerical examples. The results are summarized in Section 3.4.
In Chapter 4, a smart passive control system is proposed. In Section 4.1, an
electromagnetic induction (EMI) system is proposed for the MR damper. An analytical
model and a design procedure of the proposed EMI system are described in Section 4.2.
To show the effectiveness of the proposed smart passive control system, a set of
numerical simulations are performed for the four historical earthquakes in Section 4.3.
Section 4.4 summarizes the results.
Finally, the conclusions of this dissertation are summarized in Chapter 5.

Chapter 2 Modal Control Scheme

18

CHAPTER 2
MODAL CONTROL SCHEME

2.1 Modal Control Scheme for MR Dampers

In this section, a modal control scheme with a Kalman filter and a low-pass filter is
implemented to a seismically excited structure. A Kalman filter is included in a control
scheme to estimate modal states from various measurements. Moreover, a low-pass filter
is applied to eliminate the spillover problem. After the implementation of the modal
control scheme, numerical simulations are presented in subsequent sections for
comparisons between control algorithms.

2.1.1 Modal Control

Consider a seismically excited structure controlled with m MR dampers. Assuming
that the forces provided by the control devices are adequate to keep the response of the
primary structure from exiting the linear region, the equations of motion can be written

g
M f Kx x C x M x t t t t & & & & & = + + ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.1)
where M, C and K are the nn mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respectively; x is
the n-dimensional vector of the relative displacements of the floors of the structure; f =
[ f
1
, f
2
,, f
m
]
T
is the vector of measured control forces generated by m MR dampers;
g
x& & is
ground acceleration; is the column vector of ones; and is the matrix determined by
the placement of MR dampers in the structure. This equation can be written in the state-
space form as

19

g
x& & & N Gf Fz z + + = (2.2a)
v Mf Hz y + + = (2.2b)
where z is a state vector; y is a vector of measured outputs; and v is a measurement noise
vector. The displacement can be expressed as the linear combination
x = =
=
n
r
r r
t t
1
) ( ) ( , r = 1, 2,, n (2.3)
where ) (t
r
is a r th modal displacement;
r
is a r th eigenvector; is a eigenvector set;
and is a modal displacement vector. The eigenvectors are orthogonal and can be
normalized so as to satisfy the orthonormality conditions

rs r
T
s
= M ,
rs r r
T
s

2
= K , r = 1, 2,, n (2.4)
where
rs
is the Kronecker delta and
r
is a natural frequency. Thus inserting (2.3) into
(2.1), multiplying by
T
r
and considering orthogonal condition between eigenvectors, we
obtain

g
T
r
T
r r
2
r r r r r
x 2 & & & & & M f = + + , r = 1, 2,, n (2.5)
where
r
are modal damping ratios. (2.5) can be written in the matrix form as

g
x t t t t & & & & & ' ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( E f B'
2
+ = + + (2.6)
where is the diagonal matrix listing 2
r
r
;
2
is the diagonal matrix listing
2
1
,,
2
n
; B=
T
; and E= M
T
. (2.6) can be written in the modal space-state form as

20

g
x t t t & & & E Bf Aw w + + = ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.7a)
) ( ) ( t Cw t y = (2.7b)
where w(t) = [
T
&
T
] is the modal state vector and

(

=

I 0
A
2
,
(
=
B'
0
B ,
(
=
E'
0
E (2.8)
In modal control, only a limited number of lower modes are controlled. Hence, l
controlled modes can be selected with l < n and the displacement may be partitioned into
controlled and uncontrolled parts as
) ( ) ( ) ( t t t
R C
x x x + = (2.9)
where x
C
and x
R
represent the controlled and uncontrolled displacement vector,
respectively. We refer to the uncontrolled modes as residual. Then, (2.7) can be rewritten

g C C C C C
x t t t & & & E f B w A w + + = ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.10a)
) ( ) ( t t
C C C
w C y = (2.10b)
where w
C
is a 2l-dimensional modal state vector by the controlled modes and

(

=
C
2
C
C
C

I 0
A ,
(
=
C
C
B'
0
B ,
(
=
C
C
E'
0
E (2.11)
are the 2l2l, 2lm matrixes and a 2l1 vector, respectively.


21

For a feedback control, the control vector is related to the modal state vector according to
f (t) = K
C
w
C
(t) (2.12)
where K
C
is an m2l control gain matrix. Note that, in using the control law given by
(2.12), the closed-loop modal equations are not independent.
Because the force generated in the i th MR damper depends on the responses of the
structural system, the MR damper cannot always produce the desired optimal control
force f
Ci
. Only the control voltage v
i
can be directly controlled. Thus, the strategy of the
clipped-optimal control (Dyke et al. 1996a) is used, in which a force feedback loop is
incorporated to induce the force in the MR damper f
i
to generate approximately the
desired optimal control force f
Ci
. To this end, the i th command signal v
i
is selected
according to the control law
] [(
max i i
H )f f f V v
i i C
= (2.13)
where V
max
is the voltage to the current driver associated with saturation of the MR effect
in the physical device, and H(w) is the Heaviside step function.

2.1.2 Design of Optimal Controller

Referring to the discussions in above section, control gain matrix K
C
should be
decided. Although a variety of approaches may be used to design the optimal controller,
H
2
/LQG (Linear Quadratic Gaussian) methods are advocated because of their successful
application in previous studies (Dyke et al. 1996a,b,c).
For the controller design,
g
x& & is taken to be a stationary white noise, and an infinite
horizon performance index is chosen that weights the modal states by controlled modes
such as

22

(
+ =

)dt ( E
1
lim J

0
T
C
T
C
Ru u w Q w (2.14)
where R is a 2 2 identity matrix because the numerical example has two MR dampers,
and Q is a 2l 2l diagonal matrix. It should be noted that the size of Q is reduced from 2n
2n to 2l 2l because the limited lower modes are controlled. Therefore, it can be said
that it is more convenient to design the smaller weighting matrix of modal control. For
example, when the lowest one mode is selected for calculating the modal control action,
Q is a 2 2 diagonal matrix such as

(
=
mv
md
q
q
0
0
Q (2.15)
where q
md
is a weighting element for a modal displacement and q
mv
is for a modal
velocity. When the lowest two modes are controlled, Q is the 4 4 diagonal matrix.

(
(
(
(
=
mv2
mv1
md2
md1
q 0
q
q
0 q
Q (2.16)
The measurement noise is assumed to be identically distributed, statistically independent
Gaussian white noise processes, and 100 / = =
i i g g
v v x x
S S
& & & &
. Then, the controller is

C C C C C
s s B LC A I K G
)] ( [ ) (
1
= (2.17)
where ] [
LD B L B = . Here, K
C
is the state feedback gain matrix for the deterministic
regulator problem given by

23

P B K
C C
' = (2.18)
where P is the solution of the algebraic Ricatti equation given by
0 ' ' ' = + +
C C C C C C
QC C P B PB P A PA (2.19)
and
)' ( S C L
C
= (2.20)
where S is the solution of the algebraic Ricatti equation given by
0 = + +
C C C C C C
E' E S C SC' S A SA' (2.21)

2.1.3 Modal State Estimation

An observer for modal state estimation should be provided, since real sensors may
not estimate the full modal states directly or the system may be expensive to prepare the
sensors for the full states. To estimate the modal state vector w
C
(t) from the measured
output y(t), we consider an observer. Luenberger observers are used for low noise-to-
signal ratios and Kalman-Bucy filters for high noise-to-signal ratios (Meirovitch, 1990).
A modal control method using the full state feedback may not be practical for a
structural system involving a large number of DOFs, since the control implementation
may requires a large amount of sensors. Thus a modal control scheme that uses a modal
state estimation, is desirable. Moreover, accurate measurements of displacements and
velocities are difficult to achieve directly in full-scale applications, particularly during
seismic activity, since the foundation of the structure is moving with the ground. Hence,
it is ideal to use the acceleration feedback because accelerometers can readily provide
reliable and inexpensive measurements of accelerations at arbitrary points on the structure

24

(Dyke et al. 1996a, b). Not only, the acceleration feedback is considered, but also the
state feedback including velocities and displacements, is implemented for the modal state
estimation using a Kalman-Bucy filter. In any case, we can write a modal observer in the
form
)] ( ) ( ) ( [ ) ( ) ( ) ( t t t x t t t
C C C g C C C C C
f D w C y L E f w A w + + + = & &
&
(2.22)
where ) ( t
C
w is the estimated controlled modal state and L is the optimally chosen
observer gain matrix by solving a matrix Riccati equation, which assumes that the noise
intensities associated with earthquake and sensors are known. C
C
is changeable according
to the signals that are used for the feedback and D
C
is generally zero except the
acceleration feedback. For modal state estimation from the displacements, C
C
in (2.22) is
as follows;
C
C
= ] 0 [
C
(2.23)
For control with the velocity feedback,
C
C
= ] 0 [
C
(2.24)
For control with the acceleration feedback,
C
C
=
(

C
C
C M K M
0
0
] [
1 1
and D
C
=
1
M (2.25)
Upon obtaining the estimated controlled modal state from (2.22), we compute the
feedback control forces
f (t) = K
C
) ( t
C
w (2.26)

25

Until now, the uncontrolled modes are ignored. In reality, however, the sensor signals
will include contributions from all the modes, so that the output vector is corrected to
) ( ) ( ) ( t t t
R R C C
w C w C w C y + = = (2.27)
To examine the effect of the control forces on the uncontrolled modes, residual modes
can be written

g R R R R R
x t t t & & & E f B w A w + + = ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.28)
where w
R
is a residual state vector by uncontrolled modes. Substituting (2.26) into (2.10a)
and considering (2.28), we obtain

g C C C C C C C
x t t t & & & E w K B w A w + = ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.29a)

g R C C R R R R
x t t t & & & E w K B w A w + = ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.29b)
Moreover, substituting (2.26) and (2.27) into (2.22), we can write the observer equation
in the form

g C R R C C C C C C C C
x t t t t t & &
&
E w LC w w LC w K B A w + + + = ) ( ] ) ( ) ( [ ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.30)
Then the error vector is defined
) ( ) ( ) ( t t t
C C C
w w e = (2.31)
so that (2.29) and (2.30) can be rearranged


26

g C C C C C C C C C
x t t t & & & E e K B w K B A w + = ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (

g R C C R R R C C R R
x t t t t & & & E e K B w A w K B w + + = ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( (2.32)
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t t t
R R C C C C
w LC e LC A e + = &
(2.32) can be written in the matrix form

g R
R
C
R
C
C C R
C R R C R
C C C C C
C
R
C
x
t
t
t
t
t
t
& &
&
&
&
(
(
(
+
(
(
(
(
(
(

=
(
(
(
0
E
E
e
w
w
LC A LC 0
K B A K B
K B 0 K B A
e
w
w
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
(2.33)
Note that the term
C R
K B in (2.33) is responsible for the excitation of the residual
modes by the control forces and is known as control spillover (Balas, 1978). If
R
C is
zeros, which means the sensor signal only include controlled modes, the term
C R
K B
has no effect on the eigenvalues of the closed-loop system. Hence, we conclude that
control spillover cannot destabilize the system, although it can cause some degradation in
the system performance. Normally, however, the above system cannot satisfy the separate
principle because the term LC
R
affects eigenvalues of the controlled system by the
observer. This effect is known as observation spillover and can produce instability in the
residual modes. However, a small amount of damping inherent in the structure is often
sufficient to overcome the observation spillover effect.(Meirovitch and Baruh, 1983). At
any rate, observation spillover can be eliminated if the sensor signals are prefiltered so as
to screen out the contribution of the uncontrolled modes (Meirovitch, 1990)


27

2.1.4 Elimination of Observable Spillover

(2.33) in above section should be further improved for eliminating the observable
spillover. A low-pass filter is introduced to measure the filtered response vector y
f
defined
as

) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
t t
t t t
y z f
y z
y M z H y
y G z F z
+ =
+ = &
(2.34)
or in the frequency domain
) ( ) ( ) ( j y j H j y
y f
= (2.35)
where ] ) ( [ ) (
1
y y z z y
j j M G F I H H + =

. Substituting (2.27) into (2.35), the new
sensor dynamics becomes
)] ( ) ( )[ ( ) ( j j j j
R R C C y f
w C w C H y + = (2.36)
If the low-pass filter dynamics H
y
(j) can be selected as a diagonal matrix, (2.36)
becomes
)] ( ) ( [ )] ( ) ( [ ) ( j j j j j
R y R C y C f
w H C w H C y + = (2.37)
The pole of the low-pass filter dynamics can be placed by proper selection of the
parameters, H
z
, F
z
, G
y
, M
y
, then the roll-off can be occurred forth the lowest modal
frequency of the residual dynamics. The second term of right-hand side of (2.37), which
represents the residual modal state, may have the following characteristics.
| ) ( | | ) ( ) ( |
1
j j j
R R y
w w H for < 0 (2.38)

28

where 0
1
. Otherwise, the first term of right-hand side of (2.37), which represents the
controlled modal state, may also have the following characteristics.
| ) ( | | ) ( ) ( | j j j
C C y
w w H for < 0 (2.39)
From (2.38) and (2.39), the new sensor dynamics y
f
can be rewritten as
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
1
O w C w C y + + j j j
R R C C f
(2.40)
or in time domain
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
1
O w C w C y + + t t t
R R C C f
(2.41)
Substituting (2.41) into (2.34), the controlled system matrix in (2.33) becomes

g R
C
C
R
C
C C
C R R C R
C C C C C
C
R
C
x
t
t
t
t
t
t
& &
&
&
&
(
(
(
+
(
(
(
(
(
(

=
(
(
(
0
E
E
e
w
w
LC A 0
K B A K B
K B 0 K B A
e
w
w
2
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
(2.42)
where 0
1 2
=
R
LC . Thus, the separate principle can be applied in the design of
observer gain since the term L in
2
no longer contributes to the characteristics of the
system. In other words, the observable spillover does not occur in this controlled system.
Hence, the controlled modal states in (2.22) may be suppressed by a well-designed
control input, and the residual modal states may be also attenuated by their natural
damping.


29

2.2 Numerical Example

To evaluate the proposed modal control scheme for use with the MR damper, a
numerical example is considered in which a model of a six-story building is controlled
with four MR dampers (Fig. 2.1). This numerical example is the same with that of Jansen
and Dyke (2000) and is adopted for direct comparisons between the proposed modal
control scheme and other control algorithms. Two MR dampers are rigidly connected
between the ground and the first floor, and two MR dampers are rigidly connected
between the first and second floors.

Figure 2.1 Schematic diagram of the MR damper implementation
(Jansen and Dyke 2000)

30

Each MR damper is capable of producing a force equal to 1.8% the weight of the
entire structure, and the maximum voltage input to MR devices is V
max
= 5V. The
governing equations can be written in the form of (2.7) by defining the mass of each
floor, m
i
, as 0.227 N/(cm/sec
2
), the stiffness of each floor, k
i
, as 297 N/cm, and a damping
ratio for each mode of 0.5%. MR damper parameters used in this study are c
0a
= 0.0064
Nsec/cm, c
0b
= 0.0052 Nsec/cmV,
a
= 8.66 N/cm,
b
= 8.86 N/cmV, g = 300 cm
-2
, b =
300 cm
-2
, A = 120, and n = 2. In simulation, the model of the structure is subjected to the
NS component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake. Because the building system considered
is a scaled model, the amplitude of the earthquake was scaled to ten percent of the full-
scale earthquake.
Figs. 2.2 and 2.3 show the uncontrolled responses of the first and sixth floors,
respectively, in frequency domain. From Fig. 2.2, it can be seen that the first mode is
dominant in relative displacement and velocity of the first floor, whereas the lowest three
modes are dominant in the absolute acceleration. In Fig. 2.3, however, we can find that
the first mode is dominant in all responses of the sixth floor. Thus, it will be possible to
reduce the responses through modal control that control using the lowest one or two
modes.
The various control algorithms were evaluated using a set of evaluation criteria
based on those used in the second generation linear control problem for buildings
(Spencer et al., 1997a). The first evaluation criterion is a measure of the normalized
maximum floor displacement relative to the ground, given as

|
.
|
\
|
=
max
i
i t,
1
x
| t |x
J
) (
max (2.43)
where x
i
(t) is the relative displacement of the i th floor over the entire response, and x
max

denotes the uncontrolled maximum displacement. The second evaluation criterion is a
measure of the reduction in the interstory drift. The maximum of the normalized
interstory drift is

31

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
max
n
i i
i t,
2
d
| /h t |d
J
) (
max (2.44)
where h
i
is the height of each floor (30cm), d
i
(t) is the interstory drift of the above ground
floors over the response history, and
max
n
d denotes the normalized peak interstory drift in
the uncontrolled response. The third evaluation criterion is a measure of the normalized
peak floor accelerations, given by

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
max
a
ai
i t,
3
x
| t x |
J
& &
& & ) (
max (2.45)
where the absolute accelerations of the ith floor, ) (t x
ai
& & , are normalized by the peak
uncontrolled floor acceleration, denoted ) (t x
max
a
& & . The final evaluation criteria considered
in this study is a measure of the maximum control force per device, normalized by the
weight of the structure, given by

|
.
|
\
|
=
W
(t)| |f
J
i
i t,
4
max (2.46)
where W is the total weight of the structure (1335 N). The corresponding uncontrolled
responses are as follows: x
max
= 1.313 cm,
max
a
d = 0.00981 cm,
max
a
x& & = 146.95 cm/sec
2
.
The resulting evaluation criteria are presented in Table 1 for the control algorithms
previously studied (Jansen and Dyke, 2000). The numbers in parentheses indicate the
percent reduction as compared to the best passive case. To compare the performance of
the semiactive system to that of comparable passive systems, two cases are considered in
which MR dampers are used in a passive mode by maintaining a constant voltage to the
devices. The results of passive-off (0V) and passive-on (5V) configurations are included.

32

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
P
S
D
frequency, Hz
10
4

P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

o
f

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
6
PS
D
frequency, Hz
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

o
f

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

Frequency, Hz
Figure 2.2 Frequency responses of the first floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
P
S
D
frequency, Hz
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

o
f

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

10
2

x 10
5


33

Figure 2.3 Frequency responses of the sixth floor for the uncontrolled structures
under the scaled El Centro earthquake
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
P
S
D
frequency, Hz
10
2

P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

o
f

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
5
P
S
D
frequency, Hz
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

o
f

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
x 10
6
P
S
D
frequency, Hz
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

o
f

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

Frequency, Hz

34

Table 2.1 Normalized controlled maximum responses
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake*
Control strategy J
1
J
2
J
3
J
4

Passive-off 0.862 0.801 0.904 0.00292
Passive-on 0.506 0.696 1.41 0.0178
Lyapunov controller A 0.686(+35) 0.788(+13) 0.756(16) 0.0178
Lyapunov controller A 0.326(35) 0.548(21) 1.39(+53) 0.0178
Decentralized bang-bang 0.449(11) 0.791(+13) 1.00(+11) 0.0178
Maximum energy dissipation 0.548(+8) 0.620(11) 1.06(+17) 0.0121
Clipped-optimal A 0.631(+24) 0.640(8) 0.636(29) 0.01095
Clipped-optimal B 0.405(20) 0.547(21) 1.25(+38) 0.0178
Modified homogeneous friction 0.421(17) 0.599(20) 1.06(+17) 0.0178
(* Jansen and Dyke 2000)

35

For modal control, three cases of the structural measurements are considered;
displacements, velocities and accelerations. Using each structural measurement, a
Kalman filter estimates the modal states. Fig. 2.4 represents the results of the stochastic
response analysis for the acceleration feedback case. The variations of each evaluation
criteria for increasing weighting parameters are shown in a 3-dimensional plot.
Previously mentioned, J
1
is evaluation criteria for the maximum displacement, J
2
is for
the maximum interstory drift and J
3
is for the maximum acceleration. In Fig. 4, J
T
is the
summation of evaluation criteria, J
1
, J
2
and J
3
. From the variations of J
T
, we can find the
weighting for reduction of overall structural responses whereas from J
1
, J
2
and J
3
, we can
find the weighting for reduction of related responses. In Fig. 2.4, it can be seen that J
1
is
minimum at q
md
= 400 and q
mv
= 1500, J
2
is at q
md
= 1 and q
mv
= 500, J
3
is at q
md
= 2200
and q
mv
= 100 and J
4
is at q
md
= 500 and q
mv
= 600. Designer can decide which to use
according to control objectives. By using the controller (H2/LQG) with designed
weighting matrices from Fig. 2.4, we can get the results in Table 2.2.
Figs. 2.5 and 2.6 represent the results for the displacement and velocity feedback
cases, respectively. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 summarize the results for each minimum
evaluation criteria of the designed weighting matrices from Figs. 2.5 and 2.6.
For each feedback case, in Tables 2.2 to 2.4, four modal control designs with
different capabilities are considered. In Table 2.2, the modal controller AJ
1
, AJ
2
, AJ
3
and
AJ
T
with acceleration feedback use a weighting that minimize the evaluation criteria J
1
,
J
2
, J
3
and J
T
, respectively. In Tables 2.3 to 2.4, the modal controller DJ
1
, DJ
2
, DJ
3
, and
DJ
T
with displacement feedback and VJ
1
, VJ
2
,VJ
3
, and VJ
T
with velocity feedback use a
weighting which minimize the evaluation criteria J
1
, J
2
, J
3
and J
T
, respectively. For each
weighting, the lowest one and two modes cases are given in Tables 2.2 to 2.4. In the
lowest two modes case, we place identical weighting on the each mode; q
md1
= q
md2
= q
md

and q
mv1
= q
mv2
= q
mv
.

36

Figure 2.4 Variations of evaluation criteria with weighting parameters
for the acceleration feedback
J
1

J
2
J
3
J
T
=J
1
+ J
2
+ J
3

q
md
q
mv
q
md
q
mv

q
md
q
mv
q
md
q
mv


37

for the displacement feedback
J
1
J
2
J
3

J
T
=J
1
+ J
2
+ J
3

q
md
q
mv
q
md
q
mv

q
md
q
mv
q
md
q
mv

38

for the velocity feedback

J
1
J
2
J
3
J
T
=J
1
+ J
2
+ J
3

q
md
q
mv
q
md
q
mv

q
md
q
mv
q
md
q
mv

39

The calculated evaluation criteria for various control strategies are compared in
Tables 2.1 to 2.4. The performance of the proposed modal control scheme is generally
better than that of other control strategies. The results show that the modal controller A
and V appear to be quite effective in achieving significant reductions in both the
maximum displacement and interstory drift over the passive case. In fact, the modal
controller AJ
1
achieves a 39% reduction in the relative displacement as compared to the
better passive case. If further reductions in interstory drift and acceleration are desired in
the controller, modal controller AJ
2
and AJ
3
can achieve the reductions in the interstory
drift and absolute acceleration of 30% and 23%, respectively, over the best passive cases,
although the maximum displacement increased. The reduction by modal controller AJ
2
is
resulting in the lowest interstory drift of all cases considered here. In Table 2.4, modal
controller VJ
1
using the lowest two modes and VJ
3
achieve reductions in relative
displacement and absolute acceleration of 41% and 30%, respectively, resulting in the
lowest values of all cases considered here. The modal controller AJ
T
and VJ
T
do not
achieve any lowest value of evaluation criteria, but have competitive performance in all
evaluation criteria. Notice that the designer has some versatility depending on the control
objectives for the particular structure under consideration.
The modal controller D compared with the modal controller A and V appears to be
worse in achieving reductions, which agrees with the fact that the variations of evaluation
criteria are more sensitive to weighting parameter q
mv
than q
md
from Figs. 2.4 to 2.6.
Comparing the lowest one mode case with two-mode case, every lowest value of
evaluation criteria occurs at the lowest one mode case, except the modal controller VJ
1

that achieves further reductions by 6% from one mode case (reductions of 41% over the
best passive case) in the relative displacement.


40

Table 2.2 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the acceleration feedback
due to the scaled El Centro earthquake
Control strategy J
1
J
2
J
3
J
4

1 mode 0.310(-39) 0.529(-24) 1.07(+18) 0.0178
Modal control A
J1

(q
md
=400, q
mv
=1500)
2 modes 0.392(-23) 0.543(-22) 1.05(+16) 0.0178
1 mode 0.398(-21) 0.485(-30) 0.870(-4) 0.0178
Modal control A
J2

(q
md
=1, q
mv
=500)
2 modes 0.413(-18) 0.510(-27) 0.781(-14) 0.0178
1 mode 0.549(+8) 0.618(-11) 0.697(-23) 0.0178
Modal control A
J3

(q
md
=2200, q
mv
=100)
2 modes 0.548(+8) 0.585(-16) 0.741(-18) 0.0178
1 mode 0.380(-25) 0.488(-30) 0.823(-9) 0.0178 Modal control A
JT

(q
md
=500, q
mv
=600)
2 modes 0.423(-16) 0.533(-23) 0.876(-3) 0.0178


41

Table 2.3 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the displacement feedback
Control strategy J
1
J
2
J
3
J
4

1 mode 0.403(-20) 0.560(-20) 0.765(-15) 0.0178
Modal control D
J1
(q
md
=100, q
mv
=4900)
2 modes 0.325(-36) 0.504(-28) 1.06(+17) 0.0178
1 mode 0.403(-20) 0.560(-20) 0.769(-15) 0.0178
Modal control D
J2
(q
md
=100, q
mv
=4900)
2 modes 0.325(-36) 0.504(-28) 1.06(+17) 0.0178
1 mode 0.702(+39) 0.728(+5) 0.671(-26) 0.0178
Modal control D
J3
(q
md
=200, q
mv
=4900)
2 modes 0.678(+34) 0.689(-1) 0.796(-12) 0.0178
1 mode 0.408(-19) 0.566(-19) 0.721(-20) 0.0178 Modal control D
JT
(q
md
=3300,q
mv
=4700)
2 modes 0.329(-35) 0.510(-27) 1.04(+15) 0.0178


42

Table 2.4 Normalized controlled maximum responses of the velocity feedback
Control strategy J
1
J
2
J
3
J
4

1 mode 0.327(-35) 0.554(-20) 1.06(+17) 0.0178
Modal control V
J1

(q
md
=700, q
mv
=800)
2 modes 0.301(-41) 0.530(-24) 1.07(+18) 0.0178
1 mode 0.383(-24) 0.487(-30) 0.874(-3) 0.0178
Modal control V
J2

(q
md
=1, q
mv
=400)
2 modes 0.351(-31) 0.510(-27) 0.941(+4) 0.0178
1 mode 0.541(+7) 0.611(-12) 0.632(-30) 0.0178
Modal control V
J3

(q
md
=1300, q
mv
=100)
2 modes 0.522(+3) 0.583(-16) 0.553(-39) 0.0178
1 mode 0.354(-30) 0.502(-28) 0.825(-9) 0.0178
Modal control V
JT

(q
md
=600,q
mv
=500)
2 modes 0.323(-36) 0.510(-27) 0.827(-9) 0.0178


43

2.3 Summary of Results

In this study, modal control was implemented to seismically excited structures
using MR dampers. To this end, a modal control scheme was applied together with a
Kalman filter and a low-pass filter. A Kalman filter considered three cases of the
structural measurement to estimate modal states: displacement, velocity, and acceleration,
respectively. Moreover, a low-pass filter was used to eliminate spillover problem. In a
numerical example, a six-story structure was controlled using MR dampers on the lower
two floors. The responses of the system to a scaled El Centro earthquake excitation were
found for each controller through a simulation of the system.
Modal control reshapes the motion of a structure by merely controlling a few
selected vibration modes. Hence, in designing phase of controller, the size of weighting
matrix Q was reduced because the lowest one or two modes were controlled. Therefore, it
is more convenient to design the smaller weighting matrix of modal control. This is one
of the important benefits of the proposed modal control scheme.
The numerical results show that the motion of the structure was effectively
suppressed by merely controlling a few lowest modes, although resulting responses
varied greatly depending on the choice of measurements available and weightings. The
modal controller A and V achieved significant reductions in the responses. The modal
controller AJ
2
, VJ
1
and VJ
3
achieve reductions (30%, 41%, 30%) in evaluation criteria J
1
,
J
2
and J
3
, respectively, resulting in the lowest values of all cases considered here. The
modal controller AJ
T
and VJ
T
fail to achieve any lowest value of evaluation criteria, but
have competitive performance in all evaluation criteria. Based on these results, the
proposed modal control scheme is found to be suited for use with MR dampers in a multi-
input control system. Further studies are underway to examine the influence of the
number of controlled modes on the control performance.

Chapter 3 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm

44

CHAPTER 3
MAXIMUM ENEGRY DISSIPATION ALGORITHM

3.1 Control System

Consider a seismically excited structure controlled with n MR dampers. The
equation of motion can be written.

g
x& & & & & M f Kx x C x M = + + (3.1)
where x is vector of the relative displacements of the floors of the structure;
g
x& & is one
dimensional ground acceleration; f = [ f
1
, f
2
,, f
n
]
T
is the vector of measured control
forces generated by n MR dampers; is the column vector of ones; and is the matrix
determined by the placement of MR dampers in the structure. This equation can be
written in state-space form as

g
x& & & E Bf Az z + + = (3.2)
v Df Cz y + + = (3.3)
where z is a state vector; y is the vector of measured outputs; and v is a measurement
noise vector. More details of system matrices can be found in Dyke et al (2003) and
Ohtori et al (2000, 2002).


45

3.1.1 Control Devices

The MR damper with capacity of 1000KN is considered as control devices. To
accurately predict the behavior of controlled structure, an appropriate modeling of MR
dampers is essential. Several types of control-oriented dynamic models have been
investigated for modeling MR dampers. Herein, the Bouc-Wen model is considered. The
Bouc-Wen model (Spencer et al, 1997a), which is numerically tractable and has been
used extensively for modeling hysteretic system, is considered for describing the behavior
of the MR damper (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Mechanical model of the MR damper

The force generated by the damper is given by
x c z f &
0
+ = (3.4)
where the evolutionary variable z is governed by
x A z x z z x z
n n
& & & + =

| | | | | |
1
(3.5)
By adjusting the parameters of the model , , n, and A, the degree of linearity in the
unloading and the smoothness of the transition from the pre-yield to the post-yield region

46

can be controlled. Some of the model parameters depend on the command voltage u to
the current driver as follows.
u
b a
+ = and u c c c
b a 0 0 0
+ = (3.6)
Parameters for both benchmark problems are listed in Table 3.1. Each parameter is
adopted from Yoshida and Dyke (2002) for the nonlinear benchmark building and from
Moon et al. (2003) for the cable-stayed bridge.

Table 3.1 Parameters for MR damper model
Value
Parameter
For non-linear building For cable-stayed bridge
a
1.087e5 N/cm 500 N/m
b
4.962e5 N/(cmV) 671.41 N/(mV)
c
0a
4.40 N s/cm 0.15 N s/m
c
0b
44.0 N s/(cmV) 1.43 N s/(cmV)
50 s
-1
300 s
-1

3 cm
-2
300 m
-2

3 cm
-2
300 m
-2

A 1.2 120
n 1 1


47

3.1.2 Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm for MR Damper

This control algorithm is presented as a variation of the decentralized bang-bang
approach proposed by McClamroch and Gavin (1995). Lyapunovs direct approach
requires the use of a Lyapunov function, denoted V(x), which must be a positive definite
function of the states of the system x. In the decentralized bang-bang approach, the
Lyapunov function was chosen to represent total vibratory energy in the system. Jansen
and Dyke (2000) instead consider a Lyapunov function that represents the relative
vibratory energy in the structure as in
Mx x Kx x V
T T
2
1
2
1
+ = (3.7)
According to Lyapunov stability theory, if the rate of change of the Lyapunov function
) ( x V
&
is negative semi-definite, the origin is stable in the sense of Lyapunov. Using
(3.7), the rate of change of the Lyapunov function is then
f) M Kx x C M( x x K x V
T T
+ + =
g
x& & & & &
&
(3.8)
In this expression, the only way to directly effect V
&
is through the last term containing
the force vector f. To control this term and make V
&
as large and negative as possible, the
following control law is obtained:
) (
max i i i
f x H V v & = (3.9)
where
i
is ith column of the matrix; f
i
is i th column of the f matrix.
Note that MEDA is very simple because only local measurements (i.e., the velocity
and control force) are required to implement this control law. In (3.9), there is no design
parameter to decide, which is essential part in other control laws. In other words, complex

48

design process can be skipped. This is the important benefit of using MEDA. Otherwise,
the more structures are complex, the more design parameters are considered. Therefore, it
can be said that it is more convenient to use MEDA for structural control, especially for
the large-size civil structures.

49

3.2 Benchmark Problems

In this study, we consider two kinds of benchmark problem: a cable-stayed bridge
and a 20-story nonlinear building. The cable-stayed bridge and the high-rise nonlinear
building model are representative structures of civil engineering. Using both benchmark
problems, we exploit MEDA for civil engineering applications. For the completeness, this
section briefly summarizes both benchmark problems, respectively. More details can be
found in Dyke et al (2003) and Ohtori et al (2000, 2002).

3.2.1 Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge

At the Second International Workshop on Structural Control (Dec. 18-20, 1996,
Hong Kong), the Working Group on Bridge Control developed plans for a "first
generation" benchmark study on bridges. The cable-stayed bridge used for this
benchmark study is the Missouri 74Illinois 146 bridge spanning the Mississippi River
near Cape Girardeau, Missouri, designed by the HNTB Corporation (Hague, 1997). The
bridge is currently under construction and is to be completed in 2003. Seismic
considerations were strongly considered in the design of this bridge due to the location of
the bridge (in the New Madrid seismic zone) and its critical role as a principal crossing of
the Mississippi River. In early stages of the design process, the loading case governing
the design was determined to be due to seismic effects. Earthquake load combinations in
accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) division I-A specifications were used in the design. Various designs were
considered, including full longitudinal restraint at the tower piers, no longitudinal
restraint, and passive isolation. When temperature effects were considered, it was found
that fully restraining the deck in the longitudinal direction would result in unacceptably
large stresses. Based on examination of the various designs, it was determined that
incorporating force transfer devices would provide the most efficient solution.

50

Sixteen 6.67 MN shock transmission devices are employed in the connection
between the tower and the deck. These devices are installed in the longitudinal direction
to allow for expansion of the deck due to temperature changes. Under dynamic loads
these devices are extremely stiff and are assumed to behave as rigid links. Additionally,
in the transverse direction earthquake restrainers are employed at the connection between
the tower and the deck and the deck is constrained in the vertical direction at the towers.
The bearings at bent 1 and pier 4 are designed to permit longitudinal displacement and
rotation about the transverse and vertical axis. Soil-structure interaction is not expected to
be an issue with this bridge as the foundations of the cable-stayed portion is attached to
bedrock.
As shown in Fig. 3.2, the bridge is composed of two towers, 128 cables, and 12
additional piers in the approach bridge from the Illinois side. It has a total length of
1205.8 m. The main span is 350.6 m in length, the side spans are 142.7 m in length, and
the approach on the Illinois side is 570 m. A cross section of the deck is shown in Fig.
3.3. The bridge has four lanes plus two narrower bicycle lanes, for a total width of 29.3
m. The deck is composed of steel beams and prestressed concrete slabs. Steel ASTM
A709 grade 50W is used, with an f
y
of 344 MPa. The concrete slabs are made of
prestressed concrete with a f
c
' of 41.36 MPa. Additionally, a concrete barrier is located in
the center of the bridge, and a railing is located along the edges of the deck.
The 128 cables are made of highstrength, lowrelaxation steel (ASTM A882
grade 270). The smallest cable area is 28.5 cm
2
and the largest cable area is 76.3 cm
2
. The
cables are covered with a polyethylene piping to resist corrosion. The H-shaped towers
have a height of 102.4 m at pier 2 and 108.5 m at pier 3. Each tower supports a total 64
cables. The towers are constructed of reinforced concrete with a resistance, f
c
', of 37.92
MPa. The approach bridge from the Illinois side is supported by 11 piers and bent 15
which are made of concrete. The deck consists of a rigid diaphragm made of steel with a
slab of concrete at the top.


51

Figure 3.2 Drawing of the Cape Girardeau Bridge

Figure 3.3 Cross section of bridge deck.

52

Based on the description of the Cape Girardeau bridge provided in the previous
section, a three-dimensional finite element model of the bridge was developed in
MATLAB
(1997). A linear evaluation model is used in this benchmark study. However,

the stiffness matrices used in this linear model are those of the structure determined
through a nonlinear static analysis corresponding to the deformed state of the bridge with
dead loads (Wilson and Gravelle, 1991). Additionally, the bridge is assumed to be
attached to bedrock, and the effects of soilstructure interaction are neglected. A one-
dimensional ground acceleration is applied in the longitudinal direction. This direction is
considered to be the most destructive in cable-stayed bridges.
The finite element model employs beam elements, cable elements and rigid links.
The nonlinear static analysis is performed in ABAQUS
(1998), and the element mass

and stiffness matrices are output to MATLAB for assembly. Subsequently, the
constraints are applied, and a reduction is performed to reduce the size of the model to
something more manageable. The first ten frequencies of the evaluation model are
0.2899, 0.3699, 0.4683, 0.5158, 0.5812, 0.6490, 0.6687, 0.6970, 0.7102, and 0.7203 Hz.
To make it possible for designers/researchers to place devices acting longitudinally
between the deck and the tower, a modified evaluation model is formed in which the
connections between the tower and the deck are disconnected. If a designers/researcher
specifies devices at these nodes, the second model will be formed as the evaluation
model, and the control devices should connect the deck to the tower. As one would
expect, the frequencies of this model are much lower than those of the nominal bridge
model. The first ten frequencies of this second model are 0.1618, 0.2666, 0.3723, 0.4545,
0.5015, 0.5650, 0.6187, 0.6486, 0.6965, and 0.7094 Hz. Note that the uncontrolled
structure used as a basis of comparison for the controlled system, corresponds to the
former model in which the deck-tower connections are fixed (the dynamically stiff shock
transmission devices are present).
The finite element model, shown in Fig. 3.4, has a total of 579 nodes, 420 rigid
links, 162 beam elements, 134 nodal masses and 128 cable elements. The towers are

53

modeled using 50 nodes, 43 beam elements and 74 rigid links. Constraints are applied to
restrict the deck from moving in the lateral direction at piers 2, 3 and 4. Boundary
conditions restrict the motion at pier 1 to allow only longitudinal displacement (X) and
rotations about the Y and Z axes. Because the attachment points of the cables to the deck
are above the neutral axis of the deck, and the attachment points of the cables to the tower
are outside the neutral axis of the tower, rigid links are used to connect the cables to the
tower and to the deck (see Fig. 3.5). The use of the rigid links ensures that the length and
inclination angle of the cables in the model agree with the drawings. Additionally, the
moment induced in the towers by the movement of the cables is taken into consideration
in this approach. In the case of variable sections, the average of the section is used for the
finite element. The cables are modeled with truss elements. In the finite element model
the nominal tension is assigned to each cable.
The FEM model described above is used directly in cases when the control devices
are employed in the longitudinal direction between the deck and tower. If the
designer/researcher employs no control device at these locations (in which case the shock
transmission devices are included), the model is modified by including four
longitudinally directed, axially stiff beam elements that force the deck to move with the
tower in the longitudinal direction. The uncontrolled structure used as a basis of
comparison corresponds to this second case. Note that the program included with the
benchmark files determines if the designer/researcher has placed devices in this location
and builds the appropriate FEM model.
Note that the Illinois approach is not included in this model (see Fig. 3.2). Because
the bearing at pier 4 does not restrict longitudinal motion and rotation about the X axis of
the bridge, the Illinois approach was found to have a negligible effect on the dynamics of
the cable-stayed portion of the bridge. The system matrices are provided at the
benchmark web site: http://wusceel.cive.wustl.edu/quake


54

Figure 3.4 Finite element model

Figure 3.5 Finite element model of the towers

55

3.2.2 Nonlinear Benchmark Building

During the 2nd World Conference on Structural Control (June 28 July 1, 1998,
Tokyo), as a result of the success of the linear benchmark's presented, it was decided to
pursue the nonlinear analysis for the seismically excited buildings. The nonlinear
benchmark building considered here is the 20-story benchmark building specified in the
benchmark problem statement (http://wusceel.cive.wustl.edu/ quake).
The 20-story benchmark structure is 30.48 m by 36.58 m in plan, and 80.77 m in
elevation. The bays are 6.10 m on center, in both directions, with five bays in the north-
south (N-S) direction and six bays in the east-west (E-W) direction. The buildings lateral
load-resisting system is comprised of steel perimeter moment-resisting frames (MRFs).
The interior bays of the structure contain simple framing with composite floors.
The columns are 345 MPa steel. The interior columns of the MRF are wide-flange.
The corner columns are box columns. The levels of the 20-story building are numbered
with respect to the ground level (see Fig. 3.6). The building has two basement levels. The
level directly below the ground level is the second basement (B-1). The level below B-1
is the second basement (B-2). Typical floor-to-floor heights (for analysis purposes
measured from center-of-beam to center-of-beam) are 3.96 m. The floor-to-floor heights
for the two basement levels are 3.65 m and for the ground level is 5.49 m.
The column lines employ three-tier construction, i.e. monolithic column pieces are
connected every three levels beginning with the first level. Column splices, which are
seismic (tension) splices to carry bending and uplift forces, are located on the first, fourth,
seventh, tenth, thirteenth, sixteenth and eighteenth levels at 1.83 m above the center-line
of the beam to column joint. The column bases are modeled as pinned and secured to the
ground (at the B-2 level). Concrete foundation walls and surrounding soil are assumed to
restrain the structure at the ground level from horizontal displacement. The floor system
is comprised of 248 MPa steel wide-flange beams acting compositely with the floor slab.
Each frame resists one half of the seismic mass associated with the entire structure.

56

Figure 3.6 Schematic of the 20-story benchmark building

57

The seismic mass of the structure is due to various components of the structure,
including the steel framing, floor slabs, ceiling/flooring, mechanical/electrical, partitions,
roofing and a penthouse located on the roof. The seismic mass, including both N-S
MRFs, of the ground level is 5.32105 kg, for the first level is 5.63105 kg, for the second
level to 19th level is 5.52105 kg, and for the 20th level is 5.84105 kg. The seismic mass
of the above ground levels of the entire structure is 1.11107 kg. The 20-story N-S MRF
is depicted in Fig. 3.6.
This benchmark study focuses on an in-plane (2-D) analysis of the benchmark
structures. The frames considered in the development of the evaluation models are the N-
S MRFs (the short, or weak, direction of the buildings) for the structures described in the
previous section. Passive, active and/or semi-active control devices can be implemented
throughout these N-S frames of the 20-story structure and their performance assessed
using the evaluation models in this section and the evaluation criteria identified in the
Control Design section.
Based on the physical description of the 20-story structures, in-plane finite element
models of the N-S MRFs have been developed. Structural member nonlinearities are
included to capture the inelastic behavior of buildings during strong earthquakes. The
beams and columns of the structures are modeled as plane-frame elements, and mass and
stiffness matrices for each of the structures are determined. A bilinear hysteresis model is
used to characterize the nonlinear bending stiffness of the structural members. The
damping matrix is determined based on an assumption of Rayleigh damping. This process
is described in further detail in the following paragraphs.
Nodes are located at beam-to-column joints. Elements are created between nodes to
represent the beams and columns in the structure. The beam members extend from the
centerline of column to centerline of column, thus ignoring the column panel zone.
Inertial loads, accounting for the seismic mass of the floor slabs, ceiling/flooring,
mechanical/electrical, partitions, roofing and penthouse are uniformly distributed at the
nodes of each respective level assuming a lumped mass formulation.

58

The 20-story building frames contain column splices. The column joint of the
splice story is located 1.83 m above the center-line of the beam. For simplicity the spliced
columns are modeled as having uniform properties over the story height equal to the
weighted average of the upper and lower column properties of that story. There is no
node modeled at the splice. Each node has three degrees-of-freedom (DOFs): horizontal,
vertical and rotational. The 20-story structures have 414 DOFs prior to application of
boundary conditions/constraints, respectively.
Each element, modeled as a plane frame element, contains two nodes and six
DOFs. The length, area, moment of inertia, modulus of elasticity and mass density are
pre-defined for each element. The elemental lumped mass and stiffness matrices are
determined as functions of these properties (Sack 1989; Cook, et al. 1989). Global mass
and stiffness matrices are assembled from the elemental mass and stiffness matrices by
summing the mass and stiffness associated with each DOF for each element of the entire
structure. Rotational inertia is ignored; thus, rotational mass is assigned a small value.
The DOFs corresponding to fixed boundary conditions are then constrained by
eliminating the rows and columns associated with these DOFs from the global mass and
stiffness matrices. The simulation of the benchmark buildings is developed to represent
control of the entire structure, including both N-S MRFs and the entire mass of each
structure. Researchers/designers should recognize that the control strategies applied
within this study represent the structural control of the entire benchmark building being
considered.
The first 10 natural frequencies of the 20-story benchmark evaluation model are:
0.261, 0.753, 1.30, 1.83, 2.40, 2.44, 2.92, 3.01, 3.63 and 3.68 Hz. These results are
consistent with those found by others who have modeled this structure (Barrosa 1999;
Spencer, et al. 1998a,b). Assuming the structures respond in the elastic range, transfer
functions for the displacement and absolute acceleration at the top of each building from
ground acceleration can be determined.


59

3.3 Numerical Examples

In the previous section, we found that MEDA is very simple to implement. In this
section, we will examine the applicability of the MEDA-based semiactive control system
from the viewpoint of the performance and the robustness. Through a series of numerical
simulations of benchmark problems, the results are compared with those of other control
algorithms: Clipped-optimal controller (CO; Yoshida and Dyke, 2002) and sliding mode
controller (SMC; Moon et. al, 2003). Clipped-optimal controller was suggested and
experimentally examined by Dyke et al. (1996a,b,c). The clipped-optimal control
approach is to design a linear optimal controller that calculates desired control forces
based on the measured structural responses and the measured control force applied to the
structure. A force feedback loop is incorporated to induce the MR damper to generate
approximately the desired optimal control force. Sliding mode controller was developed
specifically for robust control of uncertain nonlinear systems. The fundamental idea of
SMC is to design a controller to drive the state trajectory onto a sliding surface, where the
motion is stable. Thus, SMC is known as a robust controller.

3.3.1 Control Performance

Table 3.2 shows the values of the evaluation criteria for the benchmark cable-
stayed bridge under various earthquakes. The definition of each evaluation criteria can be
found in Dyke et al. (2003) and Ohtori et al. (2000, 2002). Each controller employs 24
MR dampers between the deck and abutment and the deck and tower of the bridge, all
oriented to apply forces longitudinally. Four devices are located between each of the
following pairs of nodes on bent 1 and pier 3; and, two devices are located between each
of the following pairs of nodes on piers 2 and 4.
Note that each controller is able to achieve a significant reduction in the base shear
force when compared with the uncontrolled system; the base shears in MEDA are

60

reduced to 33 ~ 59% levels in the peak value (J
1
) and to 23 ~ 46% levels in the normed
values (J
7
) for the three earthquake excitations. Overturning moments are reduced to 26 ~
56% levels in the peak values (J
3
) and to 23 ~ 45% levels in the normed value (J
9
). It is
clear that most of structural responses generated by three earthquakes are controlled well.
Further, the numerical results show that MEDA performs slightly better than two other
controllers.
Table 3.3 shows the evaluation criteria for the nonlinear benchmark building. Total
65 MR dampers are used. Four devices are located on the first eight stories, three devices
are located on the next nine stories, and two devices are located on the top three stories.
The building was subjected to the four earthquakes specified in the benchmark paper with
various intensities.
The interstory drifts in MEDA are reduced to 50 ~ 80% levels in the peak value
(J
1
) and to 27 ~ 99% levels in the normed values (J
4
), which are better performances than
those of clipped-optimal controller. MEDA, also, prevent the formation of plastic
connections (J
9
) for half-scale of Northridge and Kobe earthquakes. However, note that
MEDA fails to reduce the peak floor acceleration and the peak base shear, giving the
magnification of 241% and 144%, respectively, in maximum value over the uncontrolled
case, whereas clipped-optimal controller success. To improve the performance of MEDA
for the building structure, the location and the number of MR dampers can be changed.
An infinite number of configurations of MR dampers may be possible, which may result
in choosing an optimal one for purpose. In this study, we chose that one device is
installed on every second floor from the first floor, and then a total of 10 MR dampers are
used. The building was subjected to the four earthquakes specified in the benchmark
paper with various intensities. Table 3.4 shows the evaluation criteria for the nonlinear
benchmark building with the modified configuration of MR dampers. Note that the
magnifications of the peak floor acceleration and the peak base shear are reduced to
128% and 118% respectively in maximum value, but are still over the uncontrolled case.
Furthermore, the number and the location of MR dampers could not be chosen at one

61

time. Various numbers and locations are tried and then one case is selected, which is the
most suitable for the purpose. This process of MEDA for building structure corresponds
to designing phase of other controller, which means MEDA for the building structure lose
its advantage of simple method to use. However, MEDA for the cable-stayed bridge is
still simple and efficient controller as listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Comparisons of the evaluation criteria for benchmark cable-stayed bridge
J
1
, Peak base shear J
2
, Peak shear at deck level
Controller El Centro Mexico Gebze El Centro Mexico Gebze
CO 0.391 0.469 0.415 1.084 1.179 1.376
SMC 0.397 0.453 0.392 1.090 1.068 1.146
MEDA 0.331 0.593 0.453 1.108 1.315 1.447
J
3
, Peak overturning moment J
4
, Peak moment at deck level
CO 0.267 0.466 0.395 0.537 0.472 0.953
SMC 0.300 0.488 0.382 0.557 0.408 1.053
MEDA 0.255 0.558 0.355 0.464 0.381 0.779
J
5
, Peak deviation of cable tension J
6
, Peak deck displacement
CO 0.189 0.060 0.142 0.933 1.282 2.519
SMC 0.205 0.056 0.159 0.880 1.578 2.941
MEDA 0.185 0.079 0.143 0.709 0.694 1.266
J
7
, Normed base shear J
8
, Normed shear at deck level
CO 0.234 0.440 0.328 0.975 1.147 1.331
SMC 0.217 0.372 0.286 0.903 0.902 1.271
MEDA 0.234 0.464 0.318 0.883 1.064 1.128
J
9
, Normed overturning moment J
10
, Normed moment at deck level
CO 0.300 0.393 0.391 0.624 0.656 1.194
SMC 0.193 0.315 0.380 0.577 0.720 1.487
MEDA 0.233 0.453 0.348 0.552 0.552 1.123
J
11
, Normed deviation of cable tension
Controller El Centro Mexico Gebze
CO 0.020 0.007 0.012
SMC 0.018 0.006 0.012
MEDA 0.020 0.011 0.010

62

Table 3.3 Comparisons of the evaluation criteria for the nonlinear benchmark building

Clipped-optimal controller
(Yoshida and Dyke, 2002)
Maximum energy dissipation algorithm
Earthquake
Intensity
El Centro
0.5/1.0/1.5
Hach.
0.5/1.0/1.5
North.
0.5/1.0
Kobe
0.5/1.0
El Centro
0.5/1.0/1.5
Hach.
0.5/1.0/1.5
North.
0.5/1.0
Kobe
0.5/1.0
J
1
Interstory
drift ratio
0.747
0.748
0.748
0.883
0.887
0.907
0.859
0.942
0.816
0.728
0.639
0.642
0.658
0.713
0.683
0.745
0.666
0.796
0.497
0.636
J
2
Floor
acceleration
0.648
0.646
0.664
0.746
0.743
0.833
0.807
0.904
0.702
0.839
1.653
1.049
0.828
2.410
1.550
1.257
0.965
0.911
0.796
0.849
J
3
Base shear
0.780
0.782
0.909
0.977
0.982
1.010
0.885
0.969
0.925
1.070
1.267
0.996
1.025
1.440
1.223
1.172
0.988
1.122
0.789
1.258
J
4
Normed
interstory
drift ratio
0.662
0.663
0.670
0.885
0.884
0.903
0.724
0.929
0.648
0.230
0.455
0.468
0.486
0.724
0.735
0.768
0.442
0.986
0.273
0.271
J
5
Normed
floor
acceleration
0.563
0.560
0.578
0.658
0.652
0.661
0.592
0.637

0.579
0.713
1.328
0.961
0.812
2.081
1.370
1.091
0.712
0.761
0.624
0.691
J
6
Normed
base shear
0.724
0.723
0.729
0.849
0.848
0.858
0.776
0.841
0.689
0.840
0.710
0.622
0.600
0.933
0.818
0.797
0.474
0.724
0.401
0.638
J
7
Ductility
0.772
0.722
0.722
0.955
0.959
0.943
0.728
0.978
0.688
0.688
0.695
0.648
0.613
0.796
0.807
0.752
0.559
0.809
0.334
0.603
J
8
Dissipated
energy
-
-
0.078
-
-
0.714
0.220
0.548
0.144
0.323
-
-
0
-
-
0.008
0
0.328
-
0.058
J
9
Plastic
connections
-
-
0.372
-
-
0.791
0.542
0.906
0.308
0.810
-
-
0
-
-
0.233
0
0.760
-
0.595
J
10
Normed
ductility
0.733
0.733
0.656
0.847
0.847
0.890
0.632
0.944
0.777
0.227
0.480
0.492
0.449
0.700
0.711
0.730
0.325
0.984
0.248
0.309
J
11
Control
force
0.002
0.003
0.501
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009


63

Table 3.4 Evaluation criteria of modified location and number of MR dampers

Maximum energy dissipation algorithm
(modified location and number of MR dampers)
Earthquake
Intensity
El Centro
0.5/1.0/1.5
Hachinohe
0.5/1.0/1.5
Northridge
0.5/1.0
Kobe
0.5/1.0
J
1
Interstory drift
ratio
0.744
0.743
0.740
0.859
0.833
0.873
0.829
0.895
0.746
0.756
J
2
Floor
acceleration
0.960
0.794
0.755
1.281
0.977
0.972
0.865
0.960
0.732
0.867
J
3
Base shear
0.894
0.823
0.921
1.183
1.072
1.055
0.890
0.981
0.957
1.071
J
4
Normed
Interstory drift
ratio
0.540
0.549
0.576
0.823
0.818
0.839
0.571
1.050
0.487
0.221
J
5
Normed floor
acceleration
0.734
0.540
0.544
1.025
0.732
0.648
0.539
0.632
0.542
0.720
J
6
Normed base
shear
0.662
0.641
0.655
0.873
0.818
0.818
0.610
0.762
0.568
0.737
J
7
Ductility
0.764
0.740
0.686
0.977
0.967
0.961
0.660
0.929
0.663
0.757
J
8
Dissipated
energy
-
-
0.001
-
-
0.568
0.044
0.493
0.181
0.301
J
9
Plastic
connections
-
-
0.163
-
-
0.372
0.292
0.917
0.180
0.869
J
10
Normed
ductility
0.573
0.606
0.566
0.800
0.796
0.854
0.463
1.092
0.490
0.263
J
11
Control force
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009

64

3.3.2 Controller Robustness

The dynamic characteristics of the real structure may not be identical to those of
the evaluation model and can be changed after construction. Even if the designed
controller were confirmed to have good performance in the evaluation model, it dose not
necessarily guarantee good performance in the actual system. Therefore, the controller
robustness of the MEDA-based semiactive control system using MR dampers was
examined with respect to uncertainties in stiffness for the benchmark cable-stayed bridge.
Since the performance of MEDA is deteriorated for the building structures, the robustness
check of MEDA is carried out only for the cable-stayed bridge. The stiffness matrix is
perturbed by some factor , and the resulting bridge model was simulated using the
controller for the nominal system. The perturbed stiffness was calculated as
) 1 ( + = K K
pert
(3.10)
where K = nominal stiffness of the bridge, = perturbation parameter, and K
pert
=
perturbed stiffness. Perturbations of 7% and 30% were considered. The configuration of
MR dampers are followings; Four devices are located between each of the following pairs
of nodes on bent 1 and pier 4; and, two devices are located between each of the following
pairs of nodes on piers 2 and 3. Table 3.5 shows the evaluation criteria for 7% stiffness
perturbed system under El Centro earthquake. SMC is known as robust controller (Moon
et al, 2003). So, the robustness of MEDA is compared to that of SMC and the nominal
performance is listed with the perturbed performance. In Table 3.4, MEDA is stable and
performs well for 7% perturbed system. MEDA shows more robust performance than
SMC except the peak shear J
2
, the normed overturning moment J
9
, and the normed
deviation of cable tension J
11
. Table 3.6 shows the evaluation criteria for 30% stiffness
perturbed system under the three earthquakes. MEDA is stable and performs well for
30% perturbed system showing comparable performances with SMC.

65

Table 3.5 Evaluation criteria for 7% stiffness perturbed system
under El Centro earthquake
SMC(Moon et al. 2003) MEDA
Evaluation
Criteria*
= 0 = 7% = 0 = 7%
J
1
0.394 0.432 0.331 0.395
J
2
1.130 1.323 1.108 1.347
J
3
0.296 0.335 0.255 0.278
J
4
0.560 0.54 0.464 0.443
J
5
0.213 0.224 0.185 0.219
J
6
0.870 0.862 0.709 0.692
J
7
0.218 0.235 0.234 0.233
J
8
0.887 0.901 0.883 0.891
J
9
0.189 0.198 0.233 0.215
J
10
0.551 0.556 0.552 0.547
J
11
0.016 0.017 0.020 0.02
* Evaluation criteria is same with Table 2

66

Table 3.6 Evaluation criteria for 30% stiffness perturbed system
El Centro Earthquake Mexico City Earthquake Gebze Earthquake
Evaluation
Criteria*
SMC
**
MEDA SMC
**
MEDA SMC
**
MEDA
J
1
0.422 0.431 0.56 0.761 0.453 0.577
J
2
1.563 1.494 1.384 1.59 1.737 1.744
J
3
0.334 0.36 0.559 0.557 0.481 0.478
J
4
0.626 0.489 0.531 0.359 1.266 1.0967
J
5
0.227 0.232 0.056 0.0879 0.176 0.191
J
6
0.945 0.788 1.69 0.63 2.827 1.478
J
7
0.311 0.31 0.497 0.544 0.387 0.393
J
8
1.045 1.061 1.177 1.334 1.78 1.797
J
9
0.242 0.264 0.392 0.513 0.506 0.498
J
10
0.577 0.469 0.76 0.564 1.944 2.131
J
11
0.019 0.0238 0.007 0.0127 0.021 0.0169

*
Evaluation criteria is same with Table 2
**Data from Moon et al. 2003

67


The applicability of the MEDA-based semiactive control system using MR
dampers in reducing structural responses for seismic loading conditions has been
demonstrated through a series of numerical studies of the benchmark problems. MEDA is
adopted to improve the design efficiency of controller without the deterioration of the
performance and the robustness.
For the benchmark cable-stayed bridge, the numerical results show that MEDA can
reduce the vibration of the seismically excited cable-stayed bridge structures effectively.
A comparison of results with two other controllers indicates that MEDA performs slightly
better than other two controllers.
For the nonlinear benchmark building, MEDA fails to reduce the peak floor
acceleration and the peak base shear. If the number and the location of MR dampers are
changed, the performance may be improved at the cost of losing an advantage of simple
method to use.
The robustness of MEDA is investigated with respect to the uncertainties in
stiffness for the benchmark cable-stayed bridge. For the 7% perturbed system, MEDA
shows more robust performance than SMC in the most evaluation criteria. Even for the
30% stiffness perturbed, MEDA is stable and performs well showing comparable
performances with SMC.
Finally, we confirm that the MEDA-based semiactive control system using MR
dampers is efficient and robust for the benchmark cable-stayed bridge, but is not
appropriate for the nonlinear benchmark building structure.
Chapter 4 Electromagnetic Induction System

68

CHAPTER 4
SMART PASSIVE CONTROL SYSTEM

4.1 Electromagnetic Induction System for MR damper

A prototype MR damper has been considered to show the schematic of MR
dampers, which was obtained for evaluation from the Lord Corporation and was used by
Dyke et al.(1996a). The damper is 21.5 cm long in its extended position, and the main
cylinder is 3.8 cm diameter. The main cylinder houses the piston, the electromagnet, an
accumulator and 50 ml of the MR fluid, and the damper has a 2.5 cm stroke. As shown
in Fig. 1.3, the magnetic field produced in the device is generated by a small
electromagnet in the piston head. The current for the electromagnet is supplied by a
power supply such as a battery and regulated by a controller which determines control
commands, resulting in changes of damping characteristics of the MR fluid. Thus, to
reduce the structural responses, The MR damper needs a control system that consists of a
power supply, a controller, and sensors as shown in Fig. 4.1. Although the MR damper-
based control system in Fig. 4.1 is simple, many MR dampers are used for civil
engineering structures such as cable-stayed bridges and high-rise buildings. In that case,
the MR damper-based control system becomes more complicated to build up and
maintain.

Figure 4.1 Schematic of a MR damper-based control system

69

Thus, this dissertation proposes a smart passive control system. The smart passive
control system is based on MR dampers. Of course, the MR damper is a semiactive
device that needs an external power source to change the damping characteristics of MR
fluids. However, the smart passive control system based on MR dampers is not using
external power source, but self-powered by electromagnetic induction (EMI) system that
is attached to the MR damper. In this study, an EMI system is newly proposed for MR
dampers to replace a control system. Fig. 4.2 shows the MR damper with the EMI system
that consists of a permanent magnet and a coil. The EMI system changes kinetic energy
of reciprocation motion of the MR damper to the electric energy according to the
Faradays law of induction (Reitz et. al. 1993; Marshall and Skitek 1990; Miner 1996)
and then the electric energy is used to change the damping characteristics of the MR
damper. The characteristics of the MR fluid is affected by magnetic field. The magnetic
fields at coil 1 solidify the MR fluid resulting increase of damping capacity of the
damper. The magnetic field is arisen by induced current of the EMI system (consists of
permanent magnet and coil 2). Fast relative motions, between the permanent magnet and
coil 2, make high current at coil 1. Slow relative motions, between the permanent magnet
and coil 2, make low current at coil 1. Thus, the MR damper with the EMI system is able
to reduce the vibrations of structures by itself without any power supply and controller as
in Fig. 4.3. From the above explanation, we can call the MR damper with EMI system as
a smart passive control system although the MR damper is semiactive device.

70

Figure 4.2 Schematic of a MR damper with the EMI system

Figure 4.3 Schematic of a MR damper with the EMI system implementation
Bearing & Seal
MR Fluid
Coil 1 Diaphragm
Accumulator
Permanent
Magnet
Coil 2
EMI system

71

Faradays law of induction is

dt
d
N
B
= (4.1)
where is induced electromotive force (emf) that has unit of volt(V), N is number of
turns of coil, and
B
is magnetic flux. Negative sign in (4.1) is the direction of induced
current. In (4.1), magnet flux can be defined
cos = = BdA A d B d
B
r r
(4.2)
where B
r
is magnetic field, A
r
is area of cross section, and is the angle between B
r
and
A d
r
. Using (4.2), Faradays law can be rewritten

dt
dB
A N
dt
d
N
B
= =

(4.3)
Faradays law of induction states that the induced emf in a closed loop equals the
negative of the time rate of change of magnetic flux through the loop. External loads such
as earthquakes and winds cause the reciprocal motion of the MR damper. In consequence,
the coil in the EMI system at the end of the piston-axle moves back and forth inducing
the emf. Thus, the faster MR damper moves, the higher emf is induced and the more
slowly MR damper moves, the lower emf is induced. This induced emf is carried to an
electromagnet in the piston head and generates magnetic field around the electromagnet
that changes the damping characteristics of the MR fluid.
To verify the feasibility of the proposed EMI system, we estimates the maximum
induced emf using Faradays law for the prototype MR damper in Fig. 1.3. Provided that
the permanent magnet of 1.2 Tesla is used in the EMI system, the maximum velocity of
reciprocal motion of the MR damper is 9cm/sec (that is about the maximum velocity of
uncontrolled case of following numerical example), and the turns of coil are 900, then the

72

time rate of change of magnetic field during the full stroke of 5cm is 2.16 Tesla/sec. The
resulting emf induced in the coil is about 2.54V. Considering that saturation of the MR
effect begins in the prototype device when the applied voltage is 2.25V, the maximum
induced emf, 2,54V, is enough to change the damping characteristics of the MR fluid.
Besides, the amount of induced emf can be regulated by the turns of coil or the intensity
of permanent magnet.
The proposed smart passive control system does not need sensors that measure
structural responses for a controller, because the damping characteristics of the MR
damper is automatically regulated in proportion to the time rate of change of magnetic
flux. Also, the power for electromagnet in the piston head is supplied by induced emf of
the EMI system, which means there is no need of a power supply. Therefore, the
proposed smart passive control system has potential to replace the conventional MR
damper-based semiactive control system. This is the important benefit of using the smart
passive control system.


73

4.2 Analytical Model and Design

4.2.1. Analytical Model

The performances of the smart passive control system are now evaluated through
the simulations. A model of a three-story building configured with a single MR damper is
considered here for direct comparisons with the MR damper-based semiactive system
controlled by the clipped-optimal controller, which is the exact one used by Dyke et al.
(1996a). The MR damper is rigidly connected between the ground and the first floor of
the structure. A schematic of the MR damper implementation is shown in Fig. 4.4.

Figure 4.4 Schematic of a MR damper implementation (Dyke et al. 1996a)


74

The governing equations of the structure are given by

g
x& & & E f B Az z + + = (4.4)
where
g
x& & is a one-dimensional ground acceleration, f is the measured force generated
between the structure and the MR damper, z is the state vector, and

(

=

C M K M
I
A
1 1
0
,
(
=

M
B
1
0
,
(
E
0

,
3 . 98 0 0
0 3 . 98 0
0 0 3 . 98
kg
(
(
(
= M
m
N sec
50 50 0
50 100 50
0 50 175
(
(
(

= C (4.5)
,
84 . 6 84 . 6 0
84 . 6 7 . 13 84 . 6
0 84 . 6 0 . 12
10
5
m
N
(
(
(

= K ,
0
0
1
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
=
1
1
1

The simple mechanical model of the MR damper was shown in Fig. 4.5. The
equations governing the force f predicted by this model were given by Spencer et al.
(1997a) as follows:
) (
0 1 1
x x k y c f + = &
) ( ) ( y x A | z | y x | z | z | y x | z
n 1 n
& & & & & & & + =

(4.6)
)} ( {
) (
y x k x c z
c c
1
y
0 0
1 0
+ +
+
= & &


75

Figure 4.5 Simple mechanical model of the normal MR damper
(Spencer et al. 1997a)

To account for the dependence of the force on the voltage applied and the resulting
magnetic current, Spencer, et al.(1997a) have suggested
u u
b a
+ = ) (
u c c (u) c
1b 1a 1
+ = (4.7)
u c c (u) c
0b 0a 0
+ =
where u is given as the output of a first-order filter given by
v) (u u = & (4.8)
and v is the commanded voltage sent to the current driver, which is emf induced by the
EMI system. (4.8) is necessary to model the dynamics.

c
0

x
F
k
1
Bouc-Wen
c
0 k
0


76

4.2.2 Design of the EMI System

According to the Faradays law of induction, the induced emf is proportional to the
turns of the coil and the time rate of change of magnetic flux. Thus, the amount of emf
can be regulated by the turns of the coil with a fixed capacity of the permanent magnet.
Appropriate number of coil turns needs to be determined in the design for better
performance of the smart passive control system. In the design of the EMI system for this
study, the influence of two parameters is considered: S
a
, the summation of peak
accelerations and S
i
, the summation of peak inter-drift displacements at each floor, which
are normalized by uncontrolled responses, respectively. To determine the coil turns, the
maximum response approach (Park et al. 2003) is used for parameters S
a
and S
i
with three
earthquakes, El Centro, Hachinohe and Kobe.
Fig. 4.6(a) shows the variations of S
a
for each earthquake and Fig. 4.6(b) is the
envelope of the maximum responses of Fig. 4.6(a). From Fig. 4.6(b), we can determine
the optimal coil turns, which is the minimum point of the envelope denoted by the arrow.
Fig. 4.7 is similar to Fig. 4.7 except that it is for S
i
. Two appropriate coil turns, 2.1610
4

and 2.610
4
(turns/m), are determined from the Figs. 4.6 and 4.7. Finally, an EMI system,
designed for S
a
, is designated EMI
ac
and the other EMI system, designed for S
i
, is called
EMI
dr
.
For the comparison of the performance, a normal MR damper system using the
clipped-optimal controller (Dyke et al. 1996a,b) is considered. This strategy is as follows.
First, an ideal active control device is assumed, and an appropriate primary controller
for this active device is designed. Then a secondary bang-bang type controller causes the
MR fluid damper to generate the desired active control force, so long as this force is
dissipative.

77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2

(a) Variations of S
a
(b) Envelope of max. responses

Figure 4.6 Design of EMI system with S
a
under three earthquakes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2

(a) Variations of Si (b) Envelope of max. responses

Figure 4.7 Design of EMI system with S
i
Coil turns/m Coil turns/m
S
a

Hachinohe
Kobe
El Centro
Coil turns/m Coil turns/m
S
i

Hachinohe
Kobe
El Centro

78

In this study, an H
2
/LQG control design is adopted as the primary controller. The
ground excitation is taken to be a stationary white noise, and an infinite horizon
performance index is chosen that weights appropriate parameters of the structure, i.e.,

(
+ =

0
} {
1
lim dt E J Rf f Qz z
T T
(4.9)
where R is an identity matrix, and Q is the response weighting matrix. The weighting
parameters are as in (4.10).

(
3 3
3 3
0
0
I
I
Q
i
a
q
q
(4.10)
where q
a
and q
i
weight the accelerations and interstory drifts at each floor, respectively.
To determine the weighting parameters q
a
and q
i
, the maximum response approach is
used as in the EMI system for three earthquakes.
Fig. 4.8(a) shows the variations of S
a
for increasing weighting parameters in 3-
dimensional plot. Each surface corresponds to the variation of S
a
for each earthquake.
Fig. 4.8(b) is the envelope of the maximum response of Fig. 4.8(a). From Fig. 4.8(b), we
can determine the appropriate weighting parameters, which is the minimum point of the
envelope denoted by the arrow. Fig. 4.9 is similar to Fig. 4.9 except that it is for S
i
. Two
sets of the appropriate weighting parameter, q
a
= 5.010
-13
, q
i
= 1.010
-5
for S
a
and
q
a
=5.010
-15
, q
i
=5.010
-6
for S
i
, are determined from the Figs. 4.8 and 4.9. The clipped-
optimal controller, designed for S
a
, with weighting parameters q
a
and q
i
, is designated
CO
ac
and the other, designed for S
i
, is called CO
dr
.


79

(a) Variations of S
a
(b) Envelope of max. responses

Figure 4.8 Design of the clipped-optimal controller with S
a

(a) Variations of Si (b) Envelope of max. responses

Figure 4.9 Design of the clipped-optimal controller with S
i
q
a

S
a

q
i
q
a
q
i

q
a

S
i

q
i
q
a
q
i


80

4.3 Numerical Simulation Results

To verify the effectiveness of the proposed smart passive control system, a set of
simulations is performed for the four historical earthquakes: El Centro, Hachinohe, Kobe,
and Northridge earthquakes. The Northridge earthquake is not considered in the
designing phase, but is included here to check the validation of the design of the EMI
system and the clipped-optimal controller. Simulation results of the proposed smart
passive control system are compared to those of the MR damper-based semiactive control
system using the clipped-optimal controller by the evaluation criteria based on those used
in the second generation linear control problem for buildings (Spencer et al., 1997b). The
first evaluation criterion is a measure of the normalized peak floor accelerations, given by

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
max
,
1
| ) (
max
a
ai
i t
x
t x
J
& &
& & |
(4.11)
where the absolute accelerations of the i th floor, ) (t x
ai
& & , are normalized by the peak
uncontrolled floor acceleration, denoted ) (
max
t
a
x& & .
The second evaluation criterion is a measure of the reduction in the interstory drift.
The maximum of the normalized interstory drift is

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
max
n
i
| |
d
t d
J
i t
) (
max
,
2
(4.12)
where d
i
(t) is the interstory drift of the above ground floors over the response history, and
max
n
d denotes the normalized peak interstory drift in the uncontrolled response.

81

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3

(a) El Centro earthquake

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3

(b) Hachinohe earthquake

Figure 4.10 Velocities and induced voltages under various earthquakes
Time(sec)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)

Time(sec)
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)

Time(sec)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)

Time(sec)
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)


82

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3

(c) Kobe earthquake

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3

(d) Northridge earthquake

Figure 4.10 Velocities and induced voltages under various earthquakes (continued)
Time(sec)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)

Time(sec)
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)

Time(sec)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)

Time(sec)
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)


83

Representative responses of the EMI system to four earthquakes are shown in
graphs. Fig. 4.10 shows the velocities at the first floor where the MR damper is attached
and the induced voltages by the EMI system for each earthquake. For moderate
earthquakes (El Centro and Hachinohe), the velocity of the first floor is smaller than that
of severe earthquakes (Kobe and Northridge) with the consequence that the induced
voltage by the EMI system is lower according to the Faradays law of induction. Also, it
can be seen that the higher voltage is induced for severe earthquakes. The maximum
induced voltage is 1.6V, 0.9V, 2.25V, and 2.25V for El Centro, Hachinohe, Kobe, and
Northridge earthquakes, respectively, which is the voltage enough to operate the MR
damper. Besides, it should be noted that the induced voltage is restricted within 2.25V for
the capacity of the MR damper, which is identical condition with the clipped-optimal
controller. However, the induced voltage is continuously varying whereas the command
voltage of the clipped-optimal controller takes on values of either zero or the maximum
value.

0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1

Figure 4.11 Normalized peak acceleration and interstory drift
El Centro
Hachinohe
Kobe
Northridge
Peak acceleration Peak drift
CO
dr
CO
ac
EMI
dr
EMI
ac

84

Fig. 4.11 shows the values for the peak acceleration and peak interstory drift
normalized by uncontrolled responses, where it can be seen that the EMI system performs
well over the entire suite of earthquakes considered. The reductions in peak acceleration
and drift are comparable to those of the clipped-optimal controller both giving as much
as nearly 50% decreased compared to the uncontrolled responses, except the Northridge
earthquake. Although the EMI system and the clipped-optimal controller are designed
under the three earthquakes except the Northridge earthquake, both achieve reductions in
the peak acceleration and interstory drift for the Northridge earthquake.
Table 4.1 shows the accelerations and the interstory drifts at each floor for four
cases of two categories (i.e., EMI
ac
, EMI
dr
, CO
ac
, and CO
dr
) normalized by each
uncontrolled response, respectively. Table 4.2 reports the percent response reduction ()
or increase (+) compared to the better clipped-optimal controller. In Tables 4.1 and 4.2,
the colored cells are the minimum value among four cases at each floor. In the Table 4.2,
the clipped-optimal controllers achieve more reductions over the EMI systems for the
moderate earthquakes such as El Centro and Hachinohe, except that the EMI systems
give minimum value at the first floor. For the severe earthquakes such as Kobe and
Northridge, however, the performances of the EMI system are better than those of the
clipped-optimal controller giving up to 35.5% and 24.1% additional maximum decreases
in the peak acceleration and interstory drift, respectively, compared to the better clipped-
optimal controller. Though the EMI system fails to achieve more reductions over the
clipped-optimal controller for the moderate earthquakes, it has comparable performance
to the clipped-optimal controller without the power source, controller, and sensors. This
is the important benefit of using the smart passive control system.


85

Table 4.1 Normalized peak absolute accelerations and interstory drifts
Accelerations
El Centro (0.3495)* Hachinohe (0.2294) Story
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
0.499 0.551 0.355 0.340 0.492 0.515 0.372 0.377
2
nd
0.354 0.433 0.436 0.396 0.431 0.520 0.526 0.530
3
rd
0.441 0.473 0.512 0.492 0.384 0.465 0.404 0.423
Kobe (0.8337) Northridge (0.8428)
Story
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
0.370 0.429 0.367 0.345 0.897 0.881 0.568 0.568
2
nd
0.494 0.493 0.484 0.485 0.587 0.554 0.612 0.586
3
rd
0.410 0.384 0.387 0.393 0.815 0.800 0.725 0.738

Inter-story drifts
El Centro (0.3495) Hachinohe (0.2294) Story
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
0.228 0.212 0.168 0.180 0.295 0.243 0.178 0.194
2
nd
0.423 0.448 0.476 0.457 0.289 0.319 0.357 0.355
3
rd
0.441 0.473 0.512 0.492 0.384 0.465 0.404 0.423
Story
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
0.348 0.308 0.293 0.301 0.563 0.473 0.359 0.382
2
nd
0.456 0.442 0.428 0.435 0.859 0.846 0.827 0.835
3
rd
0.410 0.384 0.387 0.393 0.815 0.800 0.725 0.738
* ( ) is peak ground acceleration (g)


86

Table 4.2 Percent increment compared to the better clipped-optimal controller case
Accelerations
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
0 10.4
-28.8*
-31.9 0 4.7 -24.4 -23.4
2
nd
0 22.1 23.1 11.7 0 20.5 22.0 22.9
3
rd
0 7.3 16.0 11.5 0 21.4 5.4 10.4
Story
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
0 14.2 -0.7 -6.6 1.8 0 -35.5 -35.5
2
nd
0.16 0 -1.8 -1.5 6.0 0 10.5 5.8
3
rd
6.8 0 0.9 2.4 1.9 0 -9.4 -7.8

Inter-story drifts
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
7.2 0 -20.6 -15.3 21.5 0 -26.7 -20.4
2
nd
0 5.9 12.4 8.1 0 10.4 23.5 22.8
3
rd
0 7.3 16.0 11.5 0 21.4 5.4 10.4
Story
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr
CO
ac
CO
dr
EMI
ac
EMI
dr

1
st
12.8 0 -5.0 -2.5 19.0 0 -24.1 -19.2
2
nd
3.2 0 -3.2 -1.6 1.5 0 -2.2 -1.3
3
rd
6.8 0 0.9 2.4 1.9 0 -9.4 -7.8
* minus sign means reduction

87


This study has proposed a smart passive control system for a civil engineering
application. The smart passive control system is based on the MR damper with EMI
system. The EMI system consists of a permanent magnet and a coil. According to the
Faradays law of induction, the EMI system generates induced voltages that can supply
electricity and control commands to the MR damper, replacing a normal control system
such as a power supply, a controller, and sensors.
To investigate the achievable capabilities of the smart passive control system, two
EMI systems were designed. Then, the effectiveness of performances are evaluated, and
compared with those of the semiactive MR damper system using clipped-optimal
controller. In comparing both systems, it was observed that for the moderate earthquake
such as El Centro and Hachinohe, the smart passive control system showed the
comparable performance to the MR damper-based system controlled by the clipped-
optimal controller. For the severe earthquakes such as Kobe and Northridge, the smart
passive control system shows the better performance giving up to 35.5% and 24.1%
additional maximum decreases in the peak acceleration and interstory drift, respectively.
In addition to the comparable performance, the proposed smart passive control
system has the simple structure without any power supply, controller, and sensors.
Therefore, the proposed smart passive control system has potential to be implemented in
real civil structures.

Chapter 5 Conclusions

88

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

The study proposes the implementation of simple and efficient control algorithms
for seismically excited structures using MR dampers and a smart passive control system
based on MR dampers

First, the characteristics of the implemented simple and effective control
algorithms are summarized as follows by the analytical and numerical examples:

(1) Modal control scheme with a low-pass filter and modal estimator of Kalman filter,
was implemented to seismically excited structures using MR dampers, resulting in
reducing the size of weighting matrix Q.
The motion of the structure was effectively suppressed by merely controlling a few
lowest modes, although resulting responses varied greatly depending on the choice
of measurements available and weightings.

(2) Maximum energy dissipation algorithm (MEDA) was adopted to improve the
design efficiency of controller without the deterioration of the performance and
robustness.
For the benchmark cable-stayed bridge, MEDA can reduce the vibration of the
seismically excited cable-stayed bridge structures effectively. For the nonlinear
benchmark building, MEDA fails to reduce the peak floor acceleration and the peak
base shear.
The robustness of MEDA was investigated with respect to the uncertainties in
stiffness for the benchmark cable-stayed bridge. For the 7% and 30% perturbed
Chapter 5 Conclusions

89

system, MEDA shows comparable performances to SMC in the most evaluation
criteria.

And, the characteristics of the proposed smart passive control system are
summarized as follows by the analytical and numerical examples:

(1) The EMI system that consists of a permanent magnet and a coil, generates induced
voltages to supply electricity and control commands for MR dampers, replacing a
normal control system such as a power supply, a controller, and sensors.

(2) In comparing with MR damper-based semiactive control system using the clipped-
optimal controller, the smart passive control system shows comparable
performances for the moderate earthquake such as El Centro and Hachinohe. For
the severe earthquakes such as Kobe and Northridge, the smart passive control
system shows better performances giving 35.5% and 24.1% additional maximum
decreases in the peak acceleration and interstory drift, respectively.

90

MR

MR
. , MR
.

MR ,
, ,
. MR
, ,
. MR
, ,
, Maximum Energy Dissipation Algorithm (MEDA)
.
.
.
, MR .
MR ,
. , Kalman
, Low-pass Spillover
. Kalman , , ,
, .
6 , .

91

Lyapunov MEDA , MR
.
Lyapunov MEDA
, .
. MEDA
.
20 ,
.

, MR , MR
. MR
, MR , ,
MR . MR
,
.
MR
. MR EMI (Electromagnetic Induction)
. MR , MR
EMI . , MR
, EMI Faraday ,
MR . MR
, .
MR , ,
.

92

, Clipped-optimal
MR .
References

93

REFERENCES

1. ABAQUS (1998). Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc. Pawtucket, RI.
2. Balas, M.J. (1978). Feedback control of flexible system, IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 23(4), 674-679.
3. Barrosa, L. R., (1999). Performance evaluation of vibration controlled steel
structures under seismic loading, Ph.D. thesis of Stanford University.
4. Brogan, W.L. (1991). Modern Control Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
5. Burton, S.A., Makris, N., Konstantopoulos, I., and Antsaklis, P.J. (1996).
Modeling the response of ER damper: phenomenology and emulation. J. Engrg.
Mech., 122, 897906.
6. Carlson, J.D. (1994). The Promise of Controllable Fluids. Proc. of Actuator 94
(H. Borgmann and K. Lenz, Eds.), AXON Technologie Consult GmbH, 266270.
7. Carlson, J.D. and Weiss, K.D. (1994). A Growing Attraction to Magnetic Fluids.
Machine Design, August, 6164.
8. Carlson, J.D., Catanzarite, D.M. and St. Clair, K.A. (1995). Commercial
Magneto-RheologicalFluid Devices. Proc. of the 5th International Conference on
ER Fluids, MR Fluids and Associated Technology, U. Sheffield, UK.
9. Carlson, J.D., Catanzarite, D.N. and St Clair, K.A. (1996). Commercial Magneto-
Rheological Fluid Devices. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on ER Fluids, MR Suspensions
and Associated Tech., W. Bullough, Ed., World Scientific, Singapore, 2028.
10. Carlson, J.D., and Spencer Jr., B.F. (1996a). Magneto-rheological fluid dampers:
scalability and design issues for application to dynamic hazard mitigation. Proc.
2nd Workshop on Structural Control: Next Generation of Intelligent Structures,
Hong Kong, China, 99109.
References

94

11. Carlson, J.D., and Spencer Jr., B.F. (1996b). Magneto-rheological fluid dampers
for semi-active seismic control. Proc. 3rd International Conference on Motion
and Vibration Control, Chiba, Japan, 3, 3540.
12. Chang, C.C., and Roschke, P. (1998). Neural network modeling of a
magnetorheological damper. J. Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 9,
755764.
13. Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E. (1989). Concepts and Applications of
Finite Element Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
14. Dyke, S.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Jr.,Sain, M.K., and Carlson, J.D. (1996a). Modeling
and control of magnetorheological dampers for seismic response reduction. Smart
Mat. and Struct., 5, 565575.
15. Dyke, S.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Sain, M.K., and Carlson, J.D. (1996b). Seismic
response reduction using magnetorheological dampers. Proc. IFAC World Cong.,
Int. Fed. of Automatic Control, L. 145150.
16. Dyke, S.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Quast, P., Sain, M.K., Kaspari Jr., D.C. and Soong,
T.T. (1996c). Acceleration Feedback Control of MDOF Structures. J. of Engrg.
Mech., ASCE, 122(9), 907918.
17. Dyke, S.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Sain, M.K., and Carlson, J.D. (1998). An
experimental study of MR dampers for seismic protection. Smart. Mat. and
Struct., 5, 693703.
18. Dyke, S.J., Caicedo, J.M., Turan, G., Bergman, L.A., and Hague, S. (2003). Phase
1 Benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. J. of
Structural engineering, 129(7), 857872.
19. Ehrgott, R., and Masri, S.F. (1992). Modeling the oscillatory dynamic behavior of
electrorheological materials in shear. Smart Mat. and Struct., 1, 275285.
20. Faravelli, L., and Spencer, B. F., Jr., eds. (2003). Proc., Sensors and Smart
Structures Technology, Wiley, New York.
References

95

21. Feng, Q., and Shinozuka, M. (1990). Use of a variable Damper for Hybrid Control
of Bridge Respnse Under Earthquake. Proc. , U.S. Nat. Workshop on Struct.
Control Res., USC Publ. No. CE-9013.
22. Fujitani, H., Sodeyama, H., Hata, K., Iwata, N., Komatsu, Y., Sunakoda, K., and
Soda, S. (2000). Dynamic performance evaluation of magneto-rheological
damper. Proc. Int. Conf. on Adv. in Struc. Dyn., v1, Hong Kong, China, 319326.
23. Gamoto, D.R., and Filisko, F.E. (1991). Dynamic mechanical studies of
electrorheological materials: moderate frequencies. J. Rheology, 35(3), 399-425.
24. Gavin, H.P., Hanson, R.D., and Filisko, F.E. (1996a). Electrorheological dampers,
part 1: analysis and design. J. Applied Mech., ASME, 63, 669675.
25. Gavin, H.P., Hanson, R.D., and Filisko, F.E. (1996b). Electrorheological dampers,
part 2: testing and modeling. J. Applied Mech., ASME, 63, 676682.
26. Hague, S. (1997). Composite Design for Long Span Bridges. Proceedings of the
XV ASCE Structures Congress, Portland, Oregon.
27. Housner, G. W., Masri, S. F., and Chassiakos, A. G., eds. (1994). Proc., 1st World
Conf. On Structural Control.
28. Housner, G. W., et al. (1997). Structural control: Past, present and future. J. Eng.
Mech., 123(9), 897-971.
29. Inaudi, J.A. (1997). Modulated Homogeneous Friction: A Semi-active Damping
Strategy. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26(3), 361.
30. Jansen, L.M., and Dyke, S.J. (2000). Semiactive control strategies for MR
dampers: comparative study. J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 126(8), 795803.
31. Johnson, E.A., Baker, G.A., Spencer Jr., B.F., and Fujino, Y. (2001a). Semiactive
Damping of Stay Cables. J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, accepted.
32. Johnson, E.A., Christenson R.E., and Spencer Jr., B.F. (2001b). Semiactive
damping of cables with sag. Computer-Aided Civil Infrastructure Engineering,
accepted.
References

96

33. Jolly, M.R., Bender, J.W., and Carlson, J.D. (1998). Properties and Applications
of Commercial Magnetorheological Fluids. Proc. SPIE 5th Annual Int.
Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, San Diego, CA.
34. Kamath, G.M., Hurt, M.K., and Wereley, N.M. (1996). Analysis and testing of
Bingham plastic behavior in semi-active electrorheological fluid dampers. Smart
Mat. and Struct., 5, 576590.
35. Kamath, G.M., and Wereley, N.M. (1997). Nonlinear viscoelastic-plastic
mechanisms-based model of an electrorheological damper. J. Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics, 20(6), 11251132.
36. Kareem, A., Kijewski, T., and Tamura, Y. (1999). Mitigation of motions of tall
buildings with specific examples of recent application. Wind Struct., 2(3), 201-
251.
37. Karnopp, D.C., Crosby, M.J., and Harwood, R.A. (1974). Vibration Control Using
Semi-Active Force Generators. ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, 96(2),
May.
38. Kobori, T., Koshika, N., Yamada, N., and Ikeda, Y. (1991). Seismic response
controlled structure with active mass driver system. Part 1: Design. Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 20, 133-139.
39. Kobori, T., Inou, Y., Seto, K., Iemura, H., and Nishitani, A., eds. (1998). Proc.,
2nd World Conf. On Structural Control, Wiley, New York.
40. Kobori, T. (2003). Past, present and future in seismic response control in civil
engineering structures. Proc., 3rd World Conf. On Structural Control, Wiley,
New York, 9-14
41. Leitmann, G. (1994). Semi-active Control for Vibration Attenuation. J. of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, September, 5, 841846.
42. Luenberger, D.G. (1971). An Introduction to observers, IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, AC-16(6), 596-602.
References

97

43. Markis, N., Burton, S.A., Hill, D., and Jordan, M. (1996). Analysis and design of
ER damper for seismic protection of structures. J. Engrg. Mech., 122, 10031011.
44. Marshall, S.V. and Skitek, G. G. (1990). Electromagnetic concepts and
applications, Prentice-Hall.
45. MATLAB (1997). The Math Works, Inc. Natick, Massachusetts.
46. McClamroch, N.H. and Gavin, H.P. (1995). Closed Loop Structural Control
Using Electrorheological Dampers. Proc. of the Amer. Ctrl. Conf., Seattle,
Washington, 41734177.
47. Meirovitch, L. (1967). Analytical Methods in Vibrations. Macmillan Publishing.
48. Meirovitch, L. and Baruh, H. (1983) On the Problem of Observation Spillover in
Self-Adjoint Distributed-Parameter Systems. Journal of Optimization Theory and
applications, 39(2), 269-291.
49. Meirovitch, L. (1990). Dynamics and Control of Structures. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, N. Y.
50. Miner, G.F. (1996). Lines and electromagnetic fields for engineers, Oxford
University Press.
51. Moon, S. J., Bergman, L. A., and Voulgaris, P. G. (2003). Sliding Mode Control
of Cable-Stayed Bridge Subjected to Seismic Excitation. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, 129(1), 71-78.
52. Nishitani, A., and Inoue, Y. (2001). Overview of the application of active/
semiactive control to building structures in Japan. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
30, 1565-1574.
53. Ohtori, Y., Christenson, R.E., Spencer, Jr. B.F., and Dyke, S.J. (2000). Summary
of benchmark control problems for seismically excited nonlinear buildings. Proc.
Of the 2000 Engineering Mechanics Conf., ASCE, Austin, Texas, May 21-24.
54. Ohtori, Y., Christenson, R.E., Spencer, Jr. B.F., and Dyke, S.J. (2002).
Benchmark control problems for seismically excited nonlinear buildings. Journal
References

98

of Engineering Mechanics: Special Issue on Structural Control Benchmark
Problems, ASCE(submitted).
55. Park, K.S., Jung, H.J and Lee, I.W. (2003). "Hybrid Control Strategy for Seismic
Protection of a Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge." Engineering Structures, 25(4),
405-417.
56. Phillips, R.W. (1969). Engineering applications of fluids with a variable yield
stress. Ph.D thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California.
57. Rabinow, J. (1948). The magnetic fluid clutch. AIEE Transactions, 67, 1308
1315.
58. Rabinow, J. (1951). Magnetic fluid torque and force transmitting device. U.S.
Patent 2,575,360.
59. Ramallo, J.C., Johnson, E.A., and Spencer Jr., B.F. (2001). Smart base isolation
systems. J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, submitted.
60. Reitz, J.R. Milford, F.J., and Christy R.W. (1993). Foundations of electromagnetic
theory, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
61. Sack, R.L., (1989). Matrix Structural Analysis, PWS-Kent Pub. Co., Boston.
62. Sack, R.L., Kuo, C.C., Wu, H.C., Liu, L. and Patten, W.N. (1994). Seismic
Motion Control via Semiactive Hydraulic Actuators. Proc. of the U.S. Fifth
National Conf. on Earth. Eng., Chicago, Illinois, 2, 311320.
63. Sack, R.L. and Patten, W. (1994). Semi-active Hydraulic Structural Control.
Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Structural Control, USC Publication Number CE-
9311,. 417431.
64. Sodeyama, H., Sunakoda, K., Fujitani, H., Soda, S., Iwata, N., and Hata, H. (2003).
Dynamic tests and simulation of magneto-rheological dampers. Comput. Aided
Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 18, 45-57.
65. Soong, T. T. (1990). Active structural control: Theory and practice, Longman
Scientific, Essex, U.K.
References

99

66. Soong, T. T. and Reinhorn, A. M. (1993). An overview of active and hybrid
structural control research in the U.S. Struct. Des. Tall Build., 2, 192-209.
67. Soong, T. T. and Spencer, B. F., Jr.. (2002). Supplementary energy dissipation:
State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Eng. Struct., 24, 243-259.
68. Spencer Jr., B.F., Jr. (1996). Recent Trends in Vibration Control in the U.S.A.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. On Motion and Vibr. Control, Chiba, Japan.,Vol. II, K1-K6.
69. Spencer Jr., B.F., Timlin, T.L., Sain, M.K., and Dyke, S.J. (1996a). Series
solution of a class of nonlinear optimal regulators. J. Optimization Theory and
Applications, 91, 321345.
70. Spencer Jr., B.F., Dyke, S.J., and Sain, M.K. (1996b). Magnetorheological
dampers: a new approach to seismic protection of structures. Proc. Conf. on
Decision and Control, 676681.
71. Spencer, B. F., Jr., and Sain, M. K. (1997). Controlling buildings: A newfrontier
in feedback. IEEE Control Syst. Mag., 17(6), 19-35.
72. Spencer Jr., B.F., Dyke, S.J., Sain, M.K., and Carlson, J.D. (1997a).
Phenomenological model of a magnetorheological damper. J. Engrg. Mech.,
ASCE, 123, 230238.
73. Spencer Jr., B.F., Carlson, J.D., Sain, M.K., and Yang, G. (1997b). On the current
status of magnetorheological dampers: seismic protection of full-scale structures.
Proc. American Control Conf., 458462.
74. Spencer Jr., B.F., Yang, G., Carlson, J.D., and Sain, M.K. (1998). Smart
dampers for seismic protection of structures: a full-scale study. Proc. 2nd World
Conf. on Struct. Control, Kyoto, Japan, 417426.
75. Spencer, B.F., Jr., Dyke, S.J. and Deoskar, H.S. (1998a,b). Benchmark Problems
in Structural Control Part I: Active Mass Driver System; Part II: Active Tendon
System. Earthquake Engneering and Structural Dynamics, 27(11), 11272247
References

100

76. Spencer, B. F., Jr., Yang, G., Carlson, J. D., and Sain, M. K. (1999). Smart
dampers for seismic protection of structures: A full-scale study. Proc., 2
nd
World
Conf. Structural Control, Wiley, New York, 1, 417-426.
77. Spencer Jr., B.F., Johnson, E.A., and Ramallo, J.C. (2000). 'Smart' isolation for
seismic control. JSME International Journal: Special Issue on Frontiers of
Motion and Vibration Control, Series C, 43(3), 704711.
78. Spencer, B. F., Jr., (2002). Civil engineering applications of smart damping
technology. Proc., 5th Int. Conf. On Vibration Engineering, Nanjing, China, 771-
782.
79. Spencer, B. F., Jr., and Nagarajaiah, S. (2003). State of the art of structural
control. J. Struct. Eng., 129(7), 845-856.
80. Stanway, R., Sproston, J.L., and Stevens, N.G. (1987). Non-linear modeling of an
electrorheological vibration damper. J. Electrostatics, 20, 167184.
81. Sunakoda, K., Sodeyama, H., Iwata, N., Fujitani, H., and Soda, S. (2000).
Dynamic characteristics of magneto-rheological fluid damper. Proc. SPIE Smart
Struc. and Mat. Conf., Newport Beach, California, 3989, 194203.
82. Symans, M. D., and Constantinou, M. C. (1999). Semi-active control systems for
seismic protection of structures: A state-of-the-art review. Eng. Struct., 21(6),
469-487.
83. Wereley, N.M., Pang, L., and Kamath, G.M. (1998). Idealized hysteresis
modeling of electrorheological and magnetorheological dampers. J. Intelligent
Mat., Systems and Struct., 9, 642649.
84. Wilson, J., and Gravelle W. (1991). Modelling of a cable-Stayed bridge for
dynamic analysis, Earth. Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 20, 707-721.
85. Yang, J.N. (1982). Control of Tall Buildings Under Earthquake Excitations.
ASCE Journal of Enginering Mechanics Division, 108, No. EM5, 833-849.
References

101

86. Yang, G., Ramallo, J.C., Spencer Jr., B.F., Carlson, J.D., and Sain, M.K. (2000a).
Dynamic Performance of large-scale MR fluid dampers. Proc. 14th ASCE
Engineering Mechanics Conference, CD-ROM, Austin, Texas.
87. Yang, G., Ramallo J.C., Spencer Jr., B.F., Carlson, J.D., and Sain, M.K. (2000b).
Large-scale MR fluid dampers: dynamic performance considerations. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Advances in Struc. Dyn. Hong Kong, China, 1, 341348.
88. Yang, G., Spencer Jr., B.F., Carlson, J.D., and Sain, M.K. (2001a). Dynamic
modeling and performance considerations on full-scale MR fluid dampers. Proc.
8th Int. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability, Newport Beach, CA.
89. Yang, G., Jung, H.J., and Spencer Jr., B.F. (2001b). Dynamic model of full-scale
MR dampers for civil engineering applications. Proc. US-Japan Workshop on
Smart Structures for Improved Seismic Performance in Urban Region, Seattle,
WA.
90. Yang, J. N., and Agrawal, A. K. (2002). Semiactive hybrid control systems for
nonlinear buildings against near-field earthquakes. Eng. Struct., 24(3), 271-280.
91. Yang, J. N., and Dyke, S. J. (2003). Kobori Panel Discussion: Future perspectives
on structural control. Proc., 3rd World Conf. On Structural Control, Wiley, New
York, 279-286.
92. Yi, F., and Dyke, S.J. (2000). Structural control systems: performance
assessment. Proc. of American Control Conf., Chicago, IL.
93. Yoshida, O., and Dyke, S.J. (2002). Seismic control of a nonlinear benchmark
building using smart dampers. J. of Engineering Mechanics: Special Issue on
Structural Control Benchmark Problems, ASCE(submitted).
94. Yoshioka, H., Ramallo, J.C., and Spencer Jr., B.F. (2002). Smart base isolation
strategies employing magnetorheological dampers. J. Struct. Eng., 128(5), 540-
551.

.
,
. 7
. ,
, , .
.
, ,
, , ,
, .
Korea Composites .
, , , , , ,
, , , .
, , , , ,
. , ,
, , , , , , , .
.
IVFer, 93,

.

, , , . ,
,
.
, ,
.

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Sang-Won Cho
Date of Birth : August 15, 1974
Place of Birth : Seoul, Korea

EDUCATION

Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Korea
March 1999-Present

M.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering
March 1997-February 1999

B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering
March 1993-February 1997

EXPERIENCE

March 1999 Graduate Research Assistant,
to Present Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, Korea

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

Dissertations:

1. Efficient Mode Superposition Methods for Non-classically Damped Systems,
M.S. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea, February 1999.
2. Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea, February 2004.

Journal Papers:

1. Sang-Won Cho, Byoung-Wan Kim, Hyung-Jo Jung & In-Won Lee, "The
Implementation of Modal Control for Seismic Structures using MR Damper,"
ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, (Accepted for Publication)
2. Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung & In-Won Lee, "Design and Control of
Magnetorheological Dampers with the Electromagnetic Induction System for
Seismic Response Reduction," Smart Material and Structures, (Accepted for
Publication)
3. Kang-Min Choi, Sang-Won Cho, Man-Gi Ko & In-Won Lee, "Algebraic Method
for Sensitivity Analysis of Eigensystems with Repeated Eigenvalues," Computers
and Structures, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 63-69, Dec. 2003.
4. Kang-Min Choi, Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung & In-Won Lee, "Semiactive
Fuzzy Cotrol for Seismic Response Reduction Using MR Damper," Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, (Accepted for Publication)

5. Kang-Min Choi, Sang-Won Cho, Man-Gi Ko & In-Won Lee, "Algebraic Method
for Sensitivity Analysis of Eigensystems with Repeated Eigenvalues," KSCE
Journal of Civil Enginieering, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 2003. 1.
6. Sang-Won Cho, Ji-Seong Jo, In-Won Lee, "Efficient Mode Superposition Methods
for Non-Classically Damped Systems," Journal of the Earthquake Engineering
Society of Korea, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 89-98, 2000. 3. (in Korean)
7. Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung , Dong-Ok Kim, In-Won Lee, "Efficient Mode
Superposition Methods for Non-Classically Damped Systems," Journal of the
Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 19, No. 1-6, pp. 859-868, 1999. (in
Korean)

Conference Papers:

1. Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung, Chun-Ho Kim, In-Won Lee, "Simple and
Efficient Control Algorithm for Seismic Response Reduction of Large Scale
Structures using MR Dampers," The Sixteenth KKCNN Symposium on Civil
Engineering, Kyeongju, Korea, Dec. 8-10, 2003. pp. 243-248.
2. Sang-Won Cho, Kyu-Sik Park, Man-Gi Ko, In-Won Lee, "Modal Control for
Seismic Structures using MR Dampers," The Second International Conference on
Structural and Construction Engineering, Rome, Italy, Sep. 23-26, 2003. pp. 2063-
2066.
3. Kang-Min Choi, Sang-Won Cho, In-Won Lee, Jong-Heon Lee, "Algebraic Method
for Sensitivities Analysis of Eigensystem with Repeated Eigenvalues," The Second
International Conference on Structural and Construction Engineering, Rome,
Italy, Sep. 23-26, 2003. pp. 597-602.
4. Sang-Won Cho, Byoung-Wan Kim, Kyu-Sik Park, In-Won Lee, "Modal Control
using MR Damper," The Fifth KKCNN Symposium on Civil Engineering, Kent
Ridge, Singapore, Dec. 19-20, 2002. pp. 79-84.

5. Sang-Won Cho, Kyu-Sik Park, Woon-Hak Kim, In-Won Lee, "Modal Control for
Seismically Excited Structures using MR Damper," The Second China-Japan-
Korea Symposium on Optimization of Structural and Mechanical Systems (CJK-
OSM 2), Busan, Korea, Nov. 4-8, 2002.
6. Heon-Jae Lee, Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung, Ju-Won Oh, In-Won Lee, "Neuro-
Control for Seismic Response Reduction using a Semiactive MR Fluid Damper,"
The Second China-Japan-Korea Symposium on Optimization of Structural and
Mechanical Systems (CJK-OSM 2), Busan, Korea, Nov. 4-8, 2002.
7. Sang-Won Cho, Byoung-Wan Kim, Hyung-Jo Jung & In-Won Lee,
"Implementation of Modal Control for Seismically Excited Structures using MR
Damper," International Conference on Advances and New Challenges in
Earthquake Engineering Research, Hong Kong, Aug. 19-20, 2002.
8. Kyu-Sik Park, Sang-Won Cho, In-Won Lee, "A Comparative Study on Aseismic
Performances of Base Isolation Systems for Multi-Span Bridge," ASCE's First
Virtual World Congress for Civil Engineering (www.ceworld.org), On-line
Conference, July 1, 2002.
9. Sang-won Cho, Ji-Seong Jo & In-Won Lee, "Modified Bang-Bang Control of
Seismically Excited Structures Using MR Damper," KAIST-Kyoto Univ. Joint
Seminar on Earthquake Engineering, KAIST, Korea, February 25, 2002, pp. 125-
132
10. Ji-Seong Jo, Sang-Won Cho & In-Won Lee, "Modified Sturm Sequence Property
for Damped Systems," KAIST-Kyoto Univ. Joint Seminar on Earthquake
Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea, February 25, 2002, pp. 65-70
11. Dong-Hyawn Kim, Sang-Won Cho & In-Won Lee, "Intelligent Control of
Structural Vibration using CMAC," The Eighth East Asia-Pacific Conference on
Structural Engineering & Construction, Singapore, December 5-7, 2001, Paper No.
1401.

12. Sang-Won Cho, Dong-Hyawn Kim & In-Won Lee, "Neuro-Control of Structures
using CMAC," The First Asian-Pacific Congress on Computational Mechanics,
Sydney, Australia, November 20-23, 2001, pp. 1277-1282.
13. Kyu-Sik Park, Sang-Won Cho & In-Won Lee, "A Comparative Study on Aseismic
Performances of Base Isolation Systems for Multi-span Continuous Bridge," The
Fourteenth KKNN Symposium on Civil Engineering, Kyoto, Japan, November 5-7,
2001, pp. 35-40.
14. Sang-Won Cho, In-Won Lee & Ju-Won Oh, "Efficient Mode Superposition
Methods for Non-Classically Damped System," The 12th KKNN Seminar/
Workshop on Civil Engineering, Daejeon, Korea, August 20-22, 1999, pp. 81-86
15. Jong-Woo Jang, Sang-Won Cho, In-Won Lee, & Woo-Hyun Yoon, "Optimal
Placement of MR Dampers for 20-story Nonlinear Benchmark Building"
Conference on Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Daegu, Oct. 24-25, 2003. (In
Korean)
16. Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung, Sun-Kyu Park, In Won Lee, "Maximum Energy
Dissipation Algorithm for Seismic Response Reduction of Large-Scale Structures
using MR Dampers," Conference on Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Daegu,
Oct. 24-25, 2003. (In Korean)
17. Jong-Woo Jang, Sang-Won Cho, In-Won Lee, & Woo-Hyun Yoon, "Optimal
Placement of MR Dampers for 20-story Nonlinear Benchmark Building,"
Conference on Computational Structural Engineering Institute of Korea, Daejeon,
Oct. 11, 2003, pp.153-160. (In Korean)
18. Jong-Woo Jang, Sang-Won Cho, In-Won Lee, & Woo-Hyun Yoon "Optimal
Placement of MR Dampers for 20-story Nonlinear Benchmark Building,"
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Gunsan, Sep. 19, 2003,
pp. 467-472. (In Korean)
19. Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung, Jong-Heon Lee, & In-Won Lee, "Vibration
Control for a Benchmark Cable-Stayed Bridge using Maximum Energy Dissipation

Algorithm," Conference on Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Gunsan,
Sep. 19, 2003, pp. 435-441. (In Korean)
20. Kyu-Sik Park, Hyung-Jo Jung, Sang-Won Cho & In-Won Lee, "Hybrid Control
with a Bang-Bang Type Controller," Conference on Computational Structural
Engineering Institute of Korea, Ansan, Apr. 12, 2003, pp. 193-200. (In Korean)
21. Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung, Ju-Won Oh & In-Won Lee, "Implementation of
Method Control for Seismically Excited Structures Using MR Damper,"
Conference on Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Busan, Nov. 8-9, 2002. (In
Korean)
22. Sang-Won Cho, Ju-Won Oh & In-Won Lee, "Modal Control of Vibration using
MR Damper," Conference on Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Asan,
Sept. 28, 2002, pp. 357-363. (In Korean)
23. Kang-Min Choi, Sang-Won Cho, Woon-Hak Kim & In-Won Lee, "Algebraic
Method for Computation of Eigenpair Sensitivities of Damped Systems with
Repeated Eigenvalues," Conference on Korean Society of Steel Construction,
Seoul, June 8, 2002, pp. 141-147. (In Korean)
24. Sang-Won Cho, Byoung-Wan Kim, Woon-Hak Kim & In-Won Lee, "Modified
Decentralized Bang-Bang Control Seismically Excited Structures Using MR
Dampers," Conference on Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Seoul, Mar.
23, 2002. (In Korean)
25. Sang-won Cho, Ji-Seong Cho, Sun-Kyu Park & In-Won Lee, "Efficient Mode
Superposition Method for Non-Classically Damped Systems," Conference on
Korean Society of Noise and Vibration Engineering, Jeju, Jun. 23, 2000, pp. 549-
555. (In Korean)
26. Sang-Won Cho, Hyung-Jo Jung, Dong-Ok Kim & In-Won Lee, "Efficient Mode
superposition Method for Non-Classically Damped Systems, Conference on
Korean Society of Steel Construction, Seoul, Jun. 12, 1999, pp. 293-300. (In
Korean)

27. Sang-Won Cho, Man-Cheol Kim, Sun-Kyu Park & In-Won Lee, "Development of
an Efficient Mode Superposition Method for Non-classically Damped System,"
Conference on Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Seoul, Oct. 23-24, 1998, pp.
471-474. (In Korean)

Research Reports:

1. Development of Integrated Aseismic Control Systems for Structures by Advanced
Vibration Control Techniques, National Research Laboratory (NRL) Program,
(Principal Investigator: In-Won Lee), KAIST, Ministry of Science & Technology,
(in Korean), September 2002.
2. Research Report for Brain Korea 21 (BK21) Program, Advanced Structural
Engineering Technology Research Team, (Principal Investigator: Chung-Bang
Yun), KAIST, Ministry of Education, (in Korean), September 2002.
3. Technology for Improving Wind-Resistant Performance of Large-Scaled
Bridges, (Principal Investigator: In-Won Lee), KAIST, Korea Institute of
Construction Technology in Ministry of Construction & Transportation, (in
Korean), February 2000.
4. Development of Pre-Design Program for LRB, (Principal Investigator: In-Won
Lee), KAIST, Unison Industrial, (in Korean), March 2000.
5. Development of Efficient Dynamic Analysis Method for Non-Classically Damped
Systems, (Principal Investigator: In-Won Lee), Hyundai E&C Co. Ltd., December
1999.

Patent:

1. MR damper with electromagnetic induction system to replace power source and
sensor, Korean Patent, Application no: 2002-61823, October 2002.

Simple Control Algorithms For MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System

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

Simple Control Algorithms For MR Dampers and Smart Passive Control System

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MR

Simple Control Algorithms for MR Dampers and

(1997). A linear evaluation model is used in this benchmark study. However,

(1998), and the element mass

Вам также может понравиться