Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Active vibration control of smart piezoelectric beams:

Comparison of classical and optimal feedback control strategies
C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues *

Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica e Gestao Industrial,

Rua Dr. Roberto Frias s/n, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

Received 16 June 2005; accepted 14 January 2006

Available online 5 June 2006

Abstract

This paper presents a numerical study concerning the active vibration control of smart piezoelectric beams. A comparison between the
classical control strategies, constant gain and amplitude velocity feedback, and optimal control strategies, linear quadratic regulator
(LQR) and linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controller, is performed in order to investigate their eectiveness to suppress vibrations
in beams with piezoelectric patches acting as sensors or actuators. A one-dimensional nite element of a three-layered smart beam with
two piezoelectric surface layers and metallic core is utilized. A partial layerwise theory, with three discrete layers, and a fully coupled
electro-mechanical theory is considered. The nite element model equations of motion and electric charge equilibrium are presented
and recast into a state variable representation in terms of the physical modes of the beam. The analyzed case studies concern the vibra-
tion reduction of a cantilever aluminum beam with a collocated asymmetric piezoelectric sensor/actuator pair bonded on the surface. The
transverse displacement time history, for an initial displacement eld and white noise force disturbance, and point receptance at the free
end are evaluated with the open- and closed-loop classical and optimal control systems. The case studies allow the comparison of their
performances demonstrating some of their advantages and disadvantages.
 2006 Civil-Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Smart piezoelectric beam; Finite element; Active vibration control; Velocity feedback; LQR and LQG controller

1. Introduction smart structures. A review of the state of the art of smart

The aim of active vibration control is to reduce the
vibration of a mechanical system by the automatic modi-
cation of the systems structural response. An active struc-
ture consists of a structure provided with a set of sensors
(to detect the vibration) and actuators (which inuence
the structural response of the system) coupled by a control-
ler (to suitably manipulate the signal from the sensor and
change the systems response in the required manner).
Structures which have the distinctive feature of having sen-
sors and actuators that are often distributed and have a
high degree of integration inside the structure are called
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 22 508 1723; fax: +351 22 508 1584.
E-mail addresses: cvasques@fe.up.pt (C.M.A. Vasques), jdr@fe.up.pt
(J. Dias Rodrigues).
structures was performed by Chopra [1] and related books
can be found in Refs. [2,3].
Some of the most widely used distributed sensors and
actuators are made of piezoelectric materials. The piezo-
electric eect consists of the ability of certain crystalline
materials to generate an electrical charge in proportion of
an externally applied force (direct piezoelectric eect) and
to induce an expansion on the piezoelectric material in pro-
portion to an electric eld parallel to the direction of polar-
ization (inverse piezoelectric eect) [4]. There are two broad
classes of piezoelectric materials used in vibration control:
polymers and ceramics. The piezopolymers are used mostly
as sensors because they require extremely high actuating
voltages; the piezoceramics are extensively used both as
sensors and actuators, since they require lower actuating
voltages, and are used for a wide range of frequency.

0045-7949/$ - see front matter  2006 Civil-Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.01.026
 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414
Signicant advances in smart material actuators have taken
place in the past decade and the most current trends in
piezoelectric actuation architectures are presented in a
review paper by Niezrecki et al. [5].
Modeling smart structures often requires a coupled
modeling between the host structure and the piezoelectric
sensors and actuators. They can be modeled as either
lumped or distributed parameter systems, and usually these
systems have complicated shapes and structural patterns
that make the development and solution of descriptive par-
tial dierential equations burdensome, if not impossible.
Alternatively, various discretization techniques, such as
nite element (FE) modeling, modal analysis, and lumped
parameters, allow the approximation of the partial dier-
ential equations by a nite set of ordinary dierential
equations. Since the 1970s, many FE models have been
proposed for the analysis of smart piezoelectric structural
systems. A survey on the advances in piezoelectric FE
modeling of adaptive structural elements is presented by
Benjeddou [6]. On the development of FE models, dierent
assumptions can be taken into account in the theoretical
model when considering the electro-mechanical coupling.
These assumptions regard mainly the use (or not) of elec-
tric degrees of freedom (DoFs) and the approximations
of the through-the-thickness variation of the electric poten-
tial. Therefore, they lead to decoupled, partial and fully
coupled electro-mechanical theories, which in turn can lead
to dierent modications of the structures stiness and dif-
ferent approximations of the physics of the system. These
dierent electro-mechanical coupling theories might, how-
ever, be considered by the use of eective stiness para-
meters, dened according the electric boundary condition
considered, as shown by Vasques and Rodrigues [7] for a
smart beam.
The recent advances in digital signal processing and sen-
sors and actuators technology have prompted interest in
active vibration control (see related books [813]). In the
past two decades, various strategies to actively control
the vibrations of structures with piezoelectric layers acting
as sensors or actuators have been applied. Some examples
of analytical and experimental studies concerning the actu-
ation and vibration control of smart piezoelectric beams
can be found in Refs. [1417]. An analytical and experi-
mental study utilizing classic and optimal feedback control
techniques for the vibration control of beams and plates
was performed by Han et al. [18] and FE models for plates
and shells are presented in Refs. [19,20]. Studies about
modal sensors and actuators concerning independent
modal space control applied to beams are presented in
Refs. [2123].
The dierent algorithms utilized in active vibration
control can be classied under two general categories:
feedforward and feedback control. Variations of the two
general methods exist, each with advantages, disadvantages
and limitations. A review about the active structural
vibration control is presented by Alkhatib and Golnaraghi
[24].
1403
The present work is entirely devoted to feedback control
where one is particularly concerned with systems in which
the excitation of the structure cannot be directly observed
and thus cannot be used as a feedforward control signal.
Therefore, the control systems discussed here will be those
in which the control signal obtained from the piezoelectric
sensor, which is aected by both the excitation force (pri-
mary excitation) and the piezoelectric actuator voltage
(secondary excitation, over which we have control), is fed
back to the actuator. The design problem consists of nd-
ing the appropriate compensator such that the closed-loop
system is stable and behaves in an appropriate manner.
As noticed by Preumont [13], one of the objectives of
feedback control can be to reduce the resonant peaks of
the frequency response function, which is known as active
damping. It can be achieved without a model of the struc-
ture and with guaranteed stability, provided that the actu-
ator and sensor are collocated and have perfect dynamics.
Another objective of the control can be to reduce the eects
of external disturbances in order to keep a control variable
(e.g., position) to a desired value in some frequency range,
which is known as model based feedback. These model
based strategies are global methods which manage to atten-
uate all the disturbances in the frequency range of analysis.
In compensation they require a mathematical model of the
system (e.g., FE model), have a bandwidth limited by the
accuracy of the model and may amplify the disturbances
outside the bandwidth (spillover).
In the open literature similar studies concerning dierent
active control of vibration strategies (e.g., feedforward
wave suppression, proportional and velocity feedback,
optimal control) and with dierent types of actuation
(e.g., point forces, pair of moments, piezoelectric patch
actuation) in dierent structural systems (beams with pie-
zoelectric actuators or hybrid treatments also with passive
viscoelastic layers) can be found in Refs. [2527]. Trindade
et al. [26] present a study concerning a FE model of sand-
wich beams with piezoelectric laminated surface layers and
viscoelastic cores where the control design and perfor-
mance are evaluated for a cantilever sandwich beam model
using three control algorithms, namely, LQR, LQG and
derivative feedback. One of the well-known advantages
of having treatments with viscoelastic layers is that they
increase the passive damping and consequently the stability
margin of the control system; that makes it substantially
dierent from a pure active system with only piezoelectric
layers. However, in that work, time domain results for an
initial velocity eld, for the three algorithms, and frequency
response functions, determined by analytical denitions,
only for the LQR and derivative feedback algorithms, have
been reported and the eects of the statistical content of
noise have only been analyzed to assess the state estimator
convergence in the time domain.
The aims of this paper are the analysis and comparison
of the classical and optimal feedback control strategies on
the active control of vibrations of smart piezoelectric
beams. The mathematical model utilized by Vasques and
1404 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414
 
Rodrigues [7] in the development of a one-dimensional hc hb
ub x; zb ; t u0 x; t hc x; t zb hb x; t;
smart beam FE is succinctly described. The kinematic 2 2
and electric potential assumptions of the theoretical and uc x; zc ; t u0 x; t zc hc x; t;
FE spatial model are rst presented. Next, the resultant   1
FE equations of motion and electric charge equilibrium hc ha
ua x; za ; t u0 x; t  hc x; t za  ha x; t;
are presented and recast into a state variable representation 2 2
in terms of the physical modes of the beam. Moreover, wk x; t w0 x; t;
some theoretical considerations about the classical control
where the subscript k = a, b, c refers to the layer, hk is the
strategies, with two distinct velocity feedback control algo-
thickness of each layer, u0(x, t) and w0(x, t) are the axial
rithms being utilized, constant amplitude and constant gain
and transverse displacements of the beams mid-plane,
velocity feedback (CAVF and CGVF), and optimal control
and hk(x, t) is the rotation of each layer. Note that axial
strategies, linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and linear
displacement continuity at the interfaces of the layers is as-
quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controller, are presented. The
sured, leading to coupling terms in the axial displacement
control models assume that one of the piezoelectric layers
uk(x, zk, t) of the layers, and that a constant through-the-
acts as a distributed sensor and the other as a distributed
thickness transverse displacement w0(x, t) is considered.
actuator, and the sensor signal is used as a feedback refer-
According to the displacement denitions in Eq. (1), the
ence in the closed-loop control systems. Finally, a case
extensional and shear mechanical strains of the layers can
study concerning the active vibration control of a cantile-
be determined by the usual linear straindisplacement rela-
ver aluminum beam with an asymmetric piezoelectric
tions, where the kinematic assumptions lead to null trans-
sensor/actuator pair mounted closed to the clamped edge
verse strains and a rst-order shear deformation theory
is analyzed. The displacement time history, for an initial
(FSDT) for each layer (see [7] for further details).
displacement eld and white noise force disturbance, and
The piezoelectric material considered for the surface lay-
point receptance at the free end are evaluated with the
ers is orthotropic with the directions of orthotropy coinci-
open- and dierent closed-loop classical and optimal con-
dent with the axes of the beam, x, y, zk, and is polarized in
trol systems. Furthermore, a white noise force disturbance
the transverse direction zk. It has the behavior of standard
is considered to simulate a system subjected to a stochastic
piezoelectric materials with the symmetry properties of an
mechanical disturbance and the driving point frequency
orthorhombic crystal of the class mm2 [28,29]. Further-
response functions are obtained for all the control systems
more, the electrical model takes the direct piezoelectric
(including the CAVF and LQG) by a frequency response
eect into account by considering a quadratic through-
function estimation procedure, as usually done with real
the-thickness distribution of the electric potential and an
measurements in experimental analysis.
appropriate approximation of the x-component of the elec-
tric eld leading to a fully coupled electro-mechanical
2. Mathematical model
model (see [7,30] for further details).
2.1. Kinematic and electrical assumptions
2.2. Spatial model
Consider the three-layered beam illustrated in Fig. 1.
The axial and transverse displacements, uk(x, zk, t) and The FE spatial model is obtained from the weak form of
wk(x, t), of the metallic core (c) and two piezoelectric sur- the equations of motion and electric charge equilibrium
face layers (a, b) are dened as presented by Vasques and Rodrigues [7]. It is derived using

Fig. 1. Displacement eld of the three-layered smart piezoelectric beam.

 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414
Hamiltons principle where the Lagrangian and the applied
forces total work are conveniently adapted for the electrical
and mechanical contributions [31]. The one-dimensional
smart beam FE considers a fully coupled electro-mechani-
cal theory and has two nodes, with ve mechanical degrees
of freedom (DoFs) per node (the axial and transverse dis-
placements of the beams mid-plane and the rotation of
each layer), and two electric DoFs per element (the electric
potential dierence of each piezoelectric layer). The FE
assumes linear C0 shape functions for the mechanical DoFs
and the electrical DoFs are assumed constant and uniform
in the element. Therefore, the elemental mechanical and
electrical DoFs vectors,  ue t and /  e t, are dened as
 have an innite number of DoFs, and a feedback controller
ue t 
 u10 t; w 10 t; h1a t; h1c t; h1b t;
T
u20 t; w
  20 t; h2a t; h2c t; h2b t ;
  T
 e t /
/  a t; /  b t :
The resultant global FE spatial model, governing the mo-
tion and electric charge equilibrium, is given by
 Ft;
Muu ut KT/u /t
ut Kuu 

 Qt;
K/u ut K// /t
 are the global mechanical and electrical
where ut and /t
DoFs vectors, Muu and Kuu are the global mass and sti-
ness matrices, Ku/ KT/u is the global piezoelectric cou-
pling matrix, K// is the global capacitance matrix and
F(t) and Q(t) are the global mechanical force and electric
charge vectors.
The electrical DoFs vector in Eq. (3) can be divided into
the actuating and sensing DoFs, /t  col/  a t; /
 s t,
where the subscripts a and s denote the actuating and
sensing capabilities. Furthermore, the stiness matrix can
be written as the sum of the elastic and piezoelectric layers
stiness matrices KEuu and KPuu . Hence, considering open-cir-
cuit electrodes, and in that case Q(t) = 0, the non-specied
potential dierences in (3) can be statically condensed and
the equations of motion and charge equilibrium become
Muu ut KEuu KP  a t Ft;
ut KT/ua /
 uu 
 s t K1 K/us 
/ ut;
//s
where
KP P T 1
uu Kuu  K/us K//s K/us :
It is worthy to mention that a non-null parabolic through-
the-thickness distribution of the electric potential within
the piezoelectric layers was already considered in the vari-
ational formulation through the use of eective stiness
parameters and therefore the static condensation in Eq.
(5) only considers the linear counterpart of the electrical
potential distribution, which is the one that in fact contrib-
utes to the sensor voltage. Moreover, a second alternative
where the equipotential area condition is satised by means
of a modied static condensation of the non-specied
potentials might be utilized, which corresponds to a more
realistic approach, that becomes more signicant for bare
1405
piezoelectric beams or as the length of the piezoelectric lay-
ers approaches the length of the host beam (see [7,32] for
further details).
2.3. Modal model
In the process of designing an active control system one
can utilize a full model of the system and, consequently, a
higher computational eort is needed, or a reduced model
of the system, which requires a lower computational eort.
However, the structural mathematical model and control-
ler design are not independent aspects of vibration control.
Flexible structures are distributed parameter systems that
based on a nite reduced modal model can destabilize the
2 residual modes (unmodeled dynamics) leading to observa-
tion and control spillover problems. They both degrade
the systems performance, and the former can even cause
the system to become unstable. Methods to reduce the
eects of spillover are discussed by Balas [33] and Meirov-
itch [9].
3 When excited a structure presents preferable modes of
vibration which depend of the spectral content of the exci-
tation. Assuming that the lower order modes, which have
lower energy associated and consequently are the most eas-
ily excitable ones, are the most signicant to the global
response of the system, a truncated modal matrix W b can
be utilized as a transformation matrix between the general-
ized coordinates ut and the modal coordinates g(t). Thus,
the displacement vector ut can be approximated by the
modal superposition of the rst r modes,
X
r
ut b
Wi gi t Wgt; 6
i1
where W b W1 ; . . . ; Wr  is the truncated modal matrix and
g(t) = {g1(t), . . . , gr(t)}T the correspondent modal coordi-
nates vector. Hence, the systems size is not anymore the
total number of DoFs of the FE model but the number
of modes chosen to model it.
4
The spatial stiness and mass matrices obtained with the
FE method typically present a band structure, which repre-
sents the coupling between the several DoFs, and the spa-
5 tial damping matrix is usually dicult to be obtained. In
this study a proportional viscous damping model is utilized
and the spatial damping matrix Duu, according to the
orthogonality properties of the modal vectors with respect
to the mass and stiness matrices, is diagonalized by the
truncated modal matrix W, b
b T Duu W
W b K; 7
and a diagonal modal damping matrix K with the generic
term 2nixi, where ni is the modal damping ratio and xi
the undamped natural frequency of the ith mode, is
obtained. Therefore, the inclusion of the inherent damping
eects in the model is considerably simplied. Thus, con-
1406 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414

sidering (6) and a normalization scheme for unitary modal mary excitation) and a control voltage u/(t) (secondary
masses, Eq. (4) with the damping eects included become excitation), and one output vector y(t) (sensor voltage
b T KT / bT and its derivative). However, in general one can consider
gt Kgt
I _ Xgt  W /ua a t W Ft; that multiple inputs are applied to the smart beam (multi-
8
/ b
 s t K1 K/us Wgt; ple forces and piezoelectric actuators) and that multiple
//s
outputs are obtained from multiple piezoelectric sensors.
where I is an identity matrix and X is a diagonal matrix
with the generic term x2i . Eq. (8) represent the reduced 3.2. Classical control
(truncated) modal FE model of the smart piezoelectric
beam. With the purpose of reducing the vibrations of smart
beams one can establish a feedback control loop where
3. Active control of vibrations the signals produced by the piezoelectric sensors are ampli-
ed and fed back to the actuators in order to produce a
3.1. State space design secondary excitation that can cancel the primary one.
Therefore, the control voltage is given by
The state space approach is the basis of the modern con-
trol theories and is strongly recommended in the design u/ t Gyt; 12
and analysis of control systems with a great amount of where G is a feedback gain matrix dened according to the
inputs and outputs [34]. In this method, dynamic systems control law of interest. Substituting Eq. (12) into (10), the
are described by a set of rst-order dierential equations closed-loop system state equation is given by
in variables called the state.
According to Eq. (8) the state variables are chosen as _ A  B/ GCxt Bu uu t;
xt 13

xt colgt; gt;
_ 9 where the control vector u/(t) is condensed into the state
equations. From Eq. (13) one can see that the gain matrix
and the open-loop system is represented by two rst-order
G controls the system through the modication of the
matricial dierential equations expressed in terms of the
closed-loop system poles. Therefore, if an adequate gain
state variables vector x(t),
matrix and control law are established, the system vibra-
_ Axt B/ u/ t Bu uu t;
xt tion modes are attenuated through an increase in the modal
10 damping ratio (the initial open-loop poles of matrix A are
yt Cxt;
transformed into the highly damped ones of A  B/GC).
where A is the system matrix, Bu and B/ are the mechanical The gain selection and control system design of such
and electrical input matrices, C is the output matrix, uu(t) feedback controllers can be done using either a pole-zero
and u/(t) are the mechanical and electrical input vec- representation of the system (e.g., root-locus method, pole
tors and y(t) is the output vector, given by placement) or a frequency response representation (e.g.,
  Nyquist method). Control systems where indirect methods
0 I
A ; are used for the denition of the feedback gains are often
X K
  " # referred to as classical control systems [35]. The stability
0 0 is guaranteed provided the actuator and sensor are collo-
Bu ; B/ b T KT ;
bT
W W /ua
cated [13]. However, perfect collocation with an asymmet-
2 3 ric piezoelectric sensor/actuator pair is unfeasible due to
avgK1 K /us
b
W 0 the in-plane and out-of plane coupling and can lead to
//s
C4 5;
instabilities of the control system. Therefore, some care
avgK1 b
0 //s K/us W
must be taken in the design of the controller and, as
uu t Ft;  a t;
u/ t / _ s t:
 s t; /
yt col/ pointed out by Yang and Huang [36], in principle, a sym-
metric collocated sensor/actuator technique would make
11
the controller absolutely stable.
It is worthy to mention that in the output matrix C the Assuming that a velocity feedback scheme is utilized,
notation avg() is utilized to denote that the signal induced where the sensor output is dierentiated, amplied, and
by the piezoelectric sensors should be calculated from an then fed back into the actuator, the signal used in the veloc-
average of the electrical DoFs where an electrical FE sepa- ity feedback is representative of the strain rate of the beam.
ration of the electrodes was performed. That is an approx- Thus, a conventional term, velocity feedback, is used. In the
imation procedure utilized to estimate the induced voltage velocity feedback two control algorithms are considered
if an equipotential area condition had been considered [10]. In the rst one, which is termed constant amplitude
which corresponds to a more realistic case for electroded velocity feedback (CAVF), the individual gain of the ith
layers in open-circuit [7]. piezoelectric actuator is dened according to the polarity
The open-loop system in Eq. (10) considers two dierent of the ith sensor voltage and, to denote that, the function
input vectors, a mechanical disturbance force uu(t) (pri- sign() is utilized. Hence, the feedback control voltage
 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414
amplitude is constant, non-linear and discontinuous, and
the gain matrix is dened by
G 0 diagA1 ; . . . ; Ai ; . . . ; An ;
where diag() denotes a diagonal matrix with the individual
amplitudes Ai of the ith actuating control voltage, with i =
1, . . . , n, and the control voltage is given by u/(t) =
G sign(y(t)). Alternatively, a constant gain velocity feed-
back (CGVF) can be used, with the gain matrix dened by
G 0 diagG1 ; . . . ; Gi ; . . . ; Gn ;
where Gi is the individual gain of the ith actuator and the
control voltage is given by Eq. (12). In this case, the feed-
back control voltage is linear, continuous and decreases as
the vibration velocity decays. It is worthy to mention that
in Eq. (13) the output matrix C assumes that all the sensor
voltages and its derivatives are known for every sensor, but
the zero matrices in Eqs. (14) and (15) indicate that only
the voltage velocity is used in the feedback loop.
3.3. Optimal control
In the previous section the values of the feedback gains
were chosen to achieve some prescribed change in the
dynamic properties of the system. However, the ultimate
aim of the feedback control is often to reduce the motion
of the mechanical system to the greatest possible extent
and, in that case, the control system is said to act as a reg-
ulator. Systems where direct methods of designing feedback
control systems which achieve the greatest possible reduc-
tion in the dynamic response are used, are known as opti-
mal control systems [34,37].
In optimal control the feedback control system is
designed to minimize a cost function, or performance
index, which is proportional to the required measure of
the systems response and to the control inputs required
to attenuate the response. The cost function can be chosen
to be quadratically dependent on the output response and
control input,
Z tf h i optimal gain values Kg t in the time interval [0, tf]. How-
J yT tQy yt uT/ tRu/ t dt yT tf Sy ytf ;
0 steady-state values far from the nal time. The use of the
where Qy, R and Sy are the output, control input and
terminal output condition positive denite weighting matri-
ces, respectively. Alternatively, the cost function J can also
be written in another form,
Z tf h i 1
J xT tQx xt uT/ tRu/ t dt xT tf Sx xtf ;
0
where Qx and Sx are the state variable and terminal state
condition positive semi-denite weighting matrices. Eq.
(17) is the form of cost function generally considered in
optimal control. However, that all depends on the way
1407
the designer chooses to model the system, i.e., the way he
suitably chooses the state variables and the system outputs.
As noted by Inman [8], modal control can be examined
14 in either state space or physical space form in terms of the
physical modes of the mechanical system. The present
work considers an approach to control system design
where the dynamics of the mechanical system is considered
in terms of its modal response. Hence, one can choose as a
performance index the cost function minimizing the out-
puts of the system (sensor voltage and its derivative), Eq.
15 (16), or, alternatively, one can chose to minimize the state
variables (modal amplitudes), Eq. (17). By a convenient
denition of the state weighting matrix Qx, the modal gain
matrix can be tuned to give dierent design objectives.
Assuming that all the modes (state variables) are observa-
ble and controllable, the cost function in Eq. (17) provides
independent control over the natural frequencies and
damping ratios of each mode. That strategy is called inde-
pendent modal-space control, or IMSC [9]. Some convenient
choices for the denition of the weighting matrices can be,
for example,
R diagI; I; Qy diagI; I; Qx diagX; 0; 18
where an identity matrix I and diagonal matrix X with the
generic term x2i (squared natural frequency of the ith
mode) of size (r r) are utilized.
It can be seen in Refs. [34,37] that the feedback control
system which minimizes the cost function in Eq. (17) for
the linear time-invariant system dened in Eq. (10), uses
state feedback with a time-varying feedback gain matrix
Kg t, so that
u/ t Kg txt: 19
The optimal time-varying feedback gain is given by
Kg R1 BT/ Pt, where P(t) is the solution of the matrix
Riccati equation,
_
Pt PtA  AT Pt  Qx PtB/ R1 BT/ Pt: 20
This control philosophy is called linear quadratic regulator
(LQR). That regulator requires the knowledge of all the
ever, the feedback gains of the LQR usually approach
16 steady-state LQR controller considerably simplies the
controller design and the analog and digital implementa-
tion [34]. The steady-state feedback gain matrix is then
given by
Kg R1 BT/ P1 ; 21
where P is the steady-state solution, limt!1 P(t), of the
matrix Riccati equation. Therefore, considering a steady-
state feedback gain Kg in Eq. (19), the closed-loop state
17
equation is given by
_ A  B/ Kg xt Bu uu t:
xt 22
In the previous equation it was assumed that all the states
were completely observable and therefore could be directly
1408 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414
related to the outputs and used by the control system. How-
ever, that is not always the case and a more realistic
approach would consider that only the outputs y(t) can be
known and measured. In order to be able to use the states
information in the control system, it will be necessary to esti-
mate the states from a model of the system and a limited
number of observations of the outputs. That estimation is
made usually by a state estimator or observer. It is fed by
the same known input signals as the mechanical system,
yt constantly compared with the
u/(t), and has its output ^
output of the mechanical system, y(t). However, the state
variable estimates are very sensitive to any uncorrelated
noise in the system, particularly measurement noise from
the observed outputs of the mechanical system. Knowing
the statistical properties of the various sources of noise
in the mechanical system, and assuming white uncorrelated
noise uniformly distributed in the bandwidth, an optimal
state observer which minimizes the eects of plant and mea-
surement noise is known as KalmanBucy lter.
Considering the open-loop system in Eq. (10) adjoined
with plant and measurement noise, w(t) and v(t), yields
_ Axt B/ u/ t Bu uu t Bw wt;
xt
yt Cxt vt;
where Bw is a plant noise input matrix. The plant and mea-
surement noise are both assumed to be white, have a
Gaussian probability density function and are assumed
uncorrelated with the inputs. The correlation properties
of the plant and measurement noise vectors are given by
the correlation matrices
EBw wtwT tBTw  W;
EvtvT t V;
where E denotes the expectation operator. Considering a
state estimator with the same dynamics as the system under
control, which is assumed known, and the same known
inputs, the estimator states x
^ would thus be governed by
the equation
^_ t A^
x xt B/ u/ t Ke tCx vt  C^
xt;
where x^0 0 and Ke t is known as the KalmanBucy
gain matrix. Dening the error between the true and esti-
mated states as et xt  x^t, the dynamic behavior
of the KalmanBucy lter can now be expressed as a
coupled set of rst order dierential equations through
the dierence of Eqs. (23) and (25),
e_ t A  Ke tCet Bu uu t Bw wt  Ke tvt:
The KalmanBucy gain matrix which leads to the optimal
feedback controller is shown in Ref. [34] to be of the form
Ke t MtCT V1 , where M(t) is the correlation matrix of
the estimation error which is the solution of another Ricc-
ati equation,
_
Mt MtAT AMt W  MtCT V1 CMt; 27
which is usually solved with the initial condition M(0) =
E[x(0)xT(0)]. In a similar way to the steady-state LQR,
the optimal KalmanBucy gain matrix Ke t in Eq. (26)
typically experiences a transient and then approaches
steady-state as time increases from the initial time. In appli-
cations where the estimator is designed to operate for time
periods that are long compared to the transient times of the
KalmanBucy gains, it is reasonable to ignore the transient
and exclusively use the steady-state gains Ke [34].
The equations for computing the KalmanBucy gain
have a striking resemblance to the equations for computing
the LQR gain. As pointed out by Burl [34] the steady-state
KalmanBucy lter problem is shown to be mathematically
equivalent to the steady-state LQR problem when appro-
priate substitutions are made.
Combining the steady-state KalmanBucy lter with the
steady state LQR, the inter-related dynamic system will
take the form
  
_
xt A  B/ Kg B/ Kg xt
e_ t 0 A  Ke C et
   
Bu Bw 0 wt
uu t : 28
23 Bu Bw Ke vt
Since one we must assume that the random perturbations
(force disturbance or measurement noise) are Gaussian,
this control philosophy is called linear quadratic Gaussian
(LQG) control. The dynamics of the coupled controller
and observer system is determined by the eigenvalues of
the square system matrix in Eq. (28) and the closed-loop
coupled system stability depends of the two sub-systems.
The error will asymptotically be stable provided the obser-
24 ver poles have negative real components collocated, in the
complex plan, as far as possible from the system poles so
that the observer error reduces more rapidly than the
system response.
4. Case study
In this section the FE model is utilized in the evaluation
25 of the classical and optimal active vibration control of a
cantilever aluminum beam with an asymmetric collocated
piezoelectric sensor/actuator pair mounted on the surface
(Fig. 2). Furthermore, the displacement time history, for
an initial displacement eld and white noise force distur-
bance, and point receptance at the free end are evaluated
with the open- and closed-loop systems. In this case,
the sensing and actuation eects of a collocated sensor/
26
Fig. 2. Cantilever smart piezoelectric beam.
 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414 1409

Table 1 160 elements of equal length and a shear correction factor

Material properties of the aluminum and PXE-5
Aluminum PXE-5
E 9
70 10 Pa cE11 131.1 109 Pa
m 0.3 cE12 7.984 109 Pa
q 2710 kg m3 cE13 8.439 109 Pa
cE33 12.31 109 Pa
cE44 2.564 109 Pa
cE66 2.564 109 Pa
actuator pair are asymmetric with respect to the mid-plane
of the beam. Since they are not perfectly collocated due to
the in-plane and out-of-plane coupling of the piezoelectric
sensor [36], that might bring some instability problems if
the upper limit of the bandwidth of interest is not well
below the natural frequency of the rst extensional mode.
Moreover, for a non-collocated sensor and actuator pair
stability is not guaranteed and the control system might
even destabilize the whole system.
The cantilever beam is 400 mm long, 2 mm thick and
15 mm wide, and the two piezoelectric patches (Philips
Components PLT 30/15/1-PX5-N [38]) are 30 mm long,
1 mm thick and 15 mm wide, and were mounted at 5 mm
from the clamped edge. The mechanical and electrical
material properties of the aluminum beam and piezoelec-
tric patches, PXE-5, are presented in Table 1 (see the IEEE
standard [29] for details about notation). In the analysis, a
truncated modal model with the rst four exural modes
was considered. The correspondent modal damping ratios
were determined experimentally and their values are as
follows: 1.71%, 0.72%, 0.42% and 0.41%. Furthermore,
the beam with the sensor/actuator pair was discretized into
equal to 5/6 was utilized. All the numerical computing and
FE implementation were performed with MATLAB.
d31 215 1012 m V1
d33 500 1012 m V1 4.1. Initial displacement eld
d15 515 1012 m V1
eT11 =e0 1800 Consider an initial displacement eld applied to the
eT33 =e0 2100 beam which is obtained by a mechanical force applied at
q 7800 kg m3 the free tip that induces a tip displacement equal to
1.5 mm. The tip displacement time history and control
voltage for the CGVF and CAVF control systems are pre-
sented in Fig. 3. The control gain G = 0.4 for the CGVF
was chosen from a root locus analysis in order to increase
the damping of the rst mode as much as possible and,
simultaneously, by a trial-and-error method in order to
use control voltages within the desired range. According
to the limit electric eld strength of the piezoelectric
patches (300 V mm1), the control voltage should be lower
than 300 V. Exceeding that voltage may result in depolar-
ization of the material so that the piezoelectric properties
become less pronounced or disappear completely. For the
CAVF, a constant amplitude A = 250 V was chosen and
the control voltage was turned on at t = 0 s and turned
o a t = 0.2 s. Furthermore, in the CAVF only the velocity
polarity of the rst-mode was considered in the feedback
loop (perfect band-pass lter tuned to the rst mode).
As can be seen in Fig. 3, the CGVF control manages to
signicantly attenuate the free tip displacement with an
admissible control voltage. The closed-loop 5% settling
time is equal to 0.5 s, which reveals a great improvement on
the response attenuation when compared with the open-
loop one (2.3 s). Moreover, it presents a better performance

1.5 1.5
Tip displacement [mm]

1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0.5 0.5
1 1
1.5 (a) 1.5 (b)
3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
500 500
Control voltage [V]

250 250

0 0

250 250
(c) (d)
500 3 2 1 0
500 3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time (Log) [s] Time (Log) [s]
Fig. 3. Tip displacement and control voltage for an initial displacement eld with CGVF (a, c) and CAVF (b, d): , open-loop; , closed-loop.
1410 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414

1.5 1.5

Tip displacement [mm]

1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0.5 0.5
1 1
1.5 (a) 1.5 (b)
3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
500 500
Control voltage [V]

250 250

0 0

250 250
(c) (d)
500 3 2 1 0
500 3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time (Log) [s] Time (Log) [s]
Fig. 4. Tip displacement and control voltage for an initial displacement eld with output y (a, c) and state x (b, d) weighting: , open-loop; ,
closed-loop (LQR); , closed-loop (LQG).

than the CAVF (0.58 s). However, if we look at the 10%
settling time, the CAVF control shows a faster attenuation
capacity (0.24 s) than the CGVF (0.38 s).
In Fig. 4 the LQR and LQG controllers with output
weighting (sensor voltage and its derivative) and state
weighting (modal amplitudes and modal velocities) are
utilized. It is assumed in the state estimation that only
the sensor voltage, and not its derivative, is measured. That
assumption corresponds to a more realistic approach and
avoids the necessity of dierentiating the sensor signal.
For the output weighting case, the weighting matrices
Qy = diag(1, 1) and R = 15 were utilized, and for the state
weighting case, the matrix Qx 1  1010 diagx21 ; 0; . . . ; 0
was dened in order to mainly damp the rst mode, and
R = 30 was chosen. For the LQG controller design, a white
noise mechanical disturbance applied in the free end of the
beam is modeled as plant noise. Therefore, in order to
dene the correlation matrix in Eq. (24), the equality
Bw = Bu should be considered. A plant noise vector (force
disturbance) with E[w(t)wT(t)] = 4 104 N2 and a sensor
white noise disturbance with E[v(t)vT(t)] = 1 V2 are consid-
ered for the denition of the noise correlation matrices and
KalmanBucy gain design. However, the eects of the sto-
chastic mechanical disturbance in the displacement time
history will be considered only in the following sections.
The results in Fig. 4(a) and (b) show that the state estima-
tor of the LQG controller with state weighting (only the
rst mode) has a better performance than the one with out-
put weighting. Furthermore, in Fig. 4(a) the displacements
with the LQR and LQG have a signicative dierence in
attenuation, with 5% settling times equal to 0.49 s and
0.89 s, and the control voltage of the LQG is too high with
the risk of depolarizing the actuator. Moreover, the LQR
and LQG with state weighting in Fig. 4(b) have the same
5% settling time (0.34 s), with the LQG requiring a lower
control voltage and the LQR requiring an inadmissible
control voltage. The LQG with state weighting, which cor-
responds to the realistic approach, when compared with
the velocity feedback results presents a better performance.
4.2. White noise disturbance
As referred in the previous section, a white noise point
force disturbance with variance equal to 4 104 N2 is
applied in the free end of the beam. The gains, amplitude
and control parameters for all the control strategies are
the same that were utilized in the previous section and only
the output and state weighting matrices are changed to
R = 1 and Qx 1  1010 diagx21 ; x22 ; x23 ; x24 ; 0; . . . ; 0. This
choice for the state-weighting matrix is made in order to
distribute the vibration control eort in bandwidth. How-
ever, the analysis is limited to the modal model bandwidth
(only the rst four exural modes are considered).
The open- and closed-loop tip displacements and con-
trol voltages for the white noise force disturbance evalu-
ated with the CGVF and CAVF are presented in Fig. 5.
In Fig. 6 the displacement and control voltages are evalu-
ated with the LQR and LQG with output and state weight-
ing. It can be seen that all the control systems manage to
reduce the tip displacement signicantly. When compared
to the open-loop response standard deviation, which is
equal to 0.57 mm, the closed-loop response standard
 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414 1411

1.5 1.5

Tip displacement [mm]

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0

0.5 0.5

1 1

1.5 (a) 1.5 (b)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

500 500
Control voltage [V]

250 250

0 0

250 250
(c) (d)
500 500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
Fig. 5. Tip displacement and control voltage for white noise point force disturbance with CGVF (a, c) and CAVF (b, d): , open-loop; ,
closed-loop.

1.5 1.5
Tip displacement [mm]

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0

0.5 0.5
1 1
1.5 (a) 1.5 (b)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

500 500
Control voltage [V]

250 250

0 0

250 250
(c) (d)
500 500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
Fig. 6. Tip displacement and control voltage for white noise point force disturbance with output y (a, c) and state x (b, d) weighting: , open-loop;
, closed-loop (LQR); , closed-loop (LQG).

deviations (with the respective control voltage standard
deviations) for the CGVF and CAVF, 0.26 mm (79.6 V)
and 0.20 mm (250 V), demonstrate the vibration control
eciency. Moreover, the LQR and LQG with output
weighting present responses with standard deviations equal
to 0.26 mm (97.4 V) and 0.28 mm (118 V), and the LQR
and LQG with state weighting have their values equal to
0.16 mm (80 V) and 0.20 mm (72 V). The most eective
control system is the LQR with state weighting. However,
a state estimator is necessary, and the results achieved with
the LQG (0.20 mm) are the realistic ones. Furthermore,
they are equal to the ones obtained with the CAVF.
1412 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414

However, if we look at the control voltages utilized, the
most interesting one is the LQG with state weighting, with
only 72 V, and the most inecient, with the higher control
voltage (250 V), is the CAVF.
4.3. Frequency response function
In order to analyze the capacity of the various control
strategies in the frequency domain, the point receptances
at the free end of the beam evaluated with the open- and
closed-loop control systems are presented. With that pur-
pose, the displacement time histories and white noise
mechanical disturbance of the previous section are utilized
to estimate the frequency response functions by a signal
processing analysis procedure through a fast Fourier trans-
Receptance [dB] (ref. 1m/N)
form (FFT) algorithm. The open- and closed-loop point
receptances for the CGVF and CAVF control are pre-
sented in Fig. 7. The CAVF control signicantly reduces
the magnitude of the rst resonance in approximately
27 dB, and increases the magnitudes of the other modes.
In comparison, the CGVF does not manage to have such
a good performance in the attenuation of the rst mode,
with a 8.6 dB reduction, but in compensation attenuation
in all modes is achieved, the fourth mode is completely
eliminated and the natural frequencies are shifted. Further-
more, a severe spillover eect is visible in Fig. 7(b) above
the rst natural frequency. That is related with the fact that
for the CAVF algorithm a band pass lter was considered
and only the polarity of the sensing voltage related with the
rst mode contribution was used in the closed-loop

0 0
20 20
40 40
60 60
80 80
100 100
(a) (b)
120 120
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
Fig. 7. Point receptance with CGVF (a) and CAVF (b): , open-loop; , closed-loop.
Receptance [dB] (ref. 1m/N)

0 0
20 20
40 40
60 60
80 80
100 100
(a) (b)
120 120
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
Fig. 8. Point receptance with the LQR (a) and LQG (b) controller with output y weighting: , open-loop; , closed-loop.
Receptance [dB] (ref. 1m/N)

0 0
20 20
40 40
60 60
80 80
100 100
(a) (b)
120 120
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
Fig. 9. Point receptance with the LQR (a) and LQG (b) controller with state x weighting: , open-loop; , closed-loop.
 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414
response to the white noise force disturbance. Therefore,
since the control voltage is non-linear and discontinuous
and a lter is being used for the sensor signal (the controller
does not consider the dynamics of the higher modes), the
eects of the control voltage originate a control spillover
problem, which leads to instabilities outside the bandwidth
under control (rst mode). Since a truncated modal model
has been used, which can for instance be implemented by
an adequate lter design, the problem of observation spill-
over might be prevented and is not at issue here.
In Figs. 8 and 9 the point receptance for output y and
state x weighting with the LQR and LQG controller are
presented. The results show that the eects of the state esti-
mation do not compromise the stability of the system, and
that the output weighting LQG controller can have even a
better performance than the LQR. A 8.8 dB and 9.4 dB
attenuation of the rst mode is achieved with the LQR
and LQG controller with output weighting, respectively,
and the resonant frequencies are shifted. If one now looks
at the results with state weighting (Fig. 9), one can see that
only the peak amplitudes are aected by the state estima-
tor, and the natural frequencies remain the same. Further-
more, all the modes are damped, and a 12.2 dB and 10.7 dB
reductions of the rst mode are achieved with the LQR and
LQG controller with state weighting, respectively.
5. Conclusion
In this paper an analysis and comparison of the classical
control strategies, constant amplitude and constant gain
velocity feedback (CAVF and CGVF), and optimal control
strategies, linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and linear qua-
dratic Gaussian (LQG) controller, concerning the active
vibration control of smart piezoelectric beams, was pre-
sented. The control models assumed that one of the piezo-
electric layers acts as a distributed sensor and the other one
as a distributed actuator, and the sensor signal was used as
a feedback reference in the closed-loop control systems.
A case study concerning the active vibration control of a
cantilever aluminum beam with an asymmetric pair of col-
located piezoelectric patches mounted on the surface was
analyzed. The transverse displacement time history, for
an initial displacement eld and white noise force distur-
bance, and driving point receptance, both measured at
the free end of the beam, allowed to compare the perfor-
mances of the classical and optimal strategies in the time
and frequency domains. It was shown that for an initial
displacement eld the CAVF and LQG with the rst mode
weighted are the most interesting solutions. However, for a
white noise disturbance, the CAVF only manages to reduce
the mode under control and the others are destabilized.
Furthermore, the LQG with all the modes weighted pre-
sents a better control in bandwidth with a lower control
voltage. Moreover, the output weighting LQG can also
be an interesting strategy in situations where attenuation
of the outputs is of interest and a resemblance in
1413
performance with the CGVF was shown in the present
analysis.
One of the major advantages of the classical techniques is
that they can avoid the necessity of digital control, reducing
the time delays in the control system, and that stability is
guaranteed provided the actuator/sensor pair is perfectly
collocated. However, the CGVF and CAVF strategies
require the dierentiation of the sensor voltage, which for
noisy measurements can become troublesome. If one looks
for adaptability in design, the optimal techniques, with the
disadvantage of requiring a model of the system, can be
more interesting. The quantication of the control systems
performance by a quadratic cost function provides the
designer with lots of exibility to perform trade-os among
various performance criteria. The relationship between cost
function weights and performance criteria hold even for
high-order and multiple inputoutput systems, where classi-
cal control becomes cumbersome. A major limitation of the
LQR is that all the states must be measured when generat-
ing the control. The LQG controller overcomes that by esti-
mating the states using a KalmanBucy lter, which utilizes
noisy partial output information, and some modications in
the LQR performance, which sometimes can improve the
eciency, often occur. However, observation and control
spillover problems related with the reduced (truncated) or
unobserved model dynamics may compromise stability.
References
[1] Chopra I. Review of state of art of smart structures and integrated
systems. AIAA J 2002;40(11):214587.
[2] Tzou HS, Anderson GL, editorsIntelligent structural systems. Solid
mechanics and its applications, vol. 13. Dordrecht: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers; 1992.
[3] Srinivasan AV, McFarland DM. Smart structures: analysis and
design. Cambridge: University Press; 2001.
[4] Cady WG. Piezoelectricity: an introduction to the theory and
applications of electromechanical phenomena in crystals. New
York: Dover Publications; 1964.
[5] Niezrecki C, Brei D, Balakrishnan S, Moskalik A. Piezoelectric
actuation: state of the art. Shock Vib Dig 2001;33(4):26980.
[6] Benjeddou A. Advances in piezoelectric nite element modelling of
adaptive structural elements: a survey. Comput Struct 2000;76(13):
34763.
[7] Vasques CMA, Rodrigues JD. Coupled three-layered analysis of
smart piezoelectric beams with dierent electric boundary conditions.
Int J Numer Meth Eng 2005;62(11):1488518.
[8] Inman DJ. Vibration: with control, measurement and stability. Engle-
wood Clis, London: Prentice Hall; 1989.
[9] Meirovitch L. Dynamics and control of structures. New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 1990.
[10] Tzou HS. Piezoelectric shells: distributed sensing and control of
continua. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993.
[11] Fuller CR, Elliott SJ, Nelson PA. Active control of vibration. Lon-
don: Academic Press; 1996.
[12] Clark RL, Saunders WR, Gibbs GP. Adaptive structures: dynamics
and control. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
[13] Preumont A. Vibration control of active structures: an introduction.
2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
[14] Burke SE, Hubbard JE. Active vibration control of a simply-
supported beam using a spatially distributed actuator. IEEE Control
Syst Mag 1987;7(4):2530.
1414 C.M.A. Vasques, J. Dias Rodrigues / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 14021414
[15] Crawley EF, de Luis J. Use of piezoelectric actuators as elements of
intelligent structures. AIAA J 1987;25(10):137385.
[16] Baz A, Poh S. Performance of an active control system with
piezoelectric actuators. J Sound Vib 1988;126(2):32743.
[17] Lee Y-S, Elliott SJ. Active position control of a exible smart beam
using internal model control. J Sound Vib 2001;242(5):76791.
[18] Han J-H, Rew K-H, Lee I. An experimental study of active vibration
control of composite structures with a piezo-ceramic actuator and a
piezo-lm sensor. Smart Mater Struct 1997;6(5):54958.
[19] Balamurugan V, Narayanan S. Shell nite element for smart
piezoelectric composite plate/shell structures and its application to
the study of active vibration control. Finite Element Anal Des
2001;37(9):7138.
[20] Wang SY, Quek ST, Ang KK. Dynamic stability analysis of nite
element modeling of piezoelectric composite plates. Int J Solid Struct
2004;41(3-4):74564.
[21] Lee CK, Moon FC. Modal sensors actuators. J Appl Mech
1990;57(2):43441.
[22] Lee CK, Chiang WW, OSullivan TC. Piezoelectric modal sensor/
actuator pairs for critical active damping vibration control. J Acoust
Soc Amer 1991;90(1):37484.
[23] Chen C-Q, Shen Y-P. Optimal control of active structures with
piezoelectric modal sensors and actuators. Smart Mater Struct
1997;8(4):4039.
[24] Alkhatib R, Golnaraghi MF. Active structural vibration control: a
review. Shock Vib Dig 2003;35(5):36783.
[25] Brennan MJ, Elliott SJ, Pinnington RJ. Strategies for the active
control of exural vibration on a beam. J Sound Vib 1995;186(4):
65788.
[26] Trindade MA, Benjeddou A, Ohayon R. Piezoelectric active vibration
control of damped sandwich beams. J Sound Vib 2001;246(4):65377.
[27] Gandhi F, Munsky B. Comparison of damping augmentation
mechanisms with position and velocity feedback in active constrained
layer treatments. J Intel Mater Syst Struct 2002;13(5):31726.
[28] Nye JF. Physical properties of crystals: their representation by tensors
and matrices. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1957.
[29] The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. IEEE
standard on piezoelectricity. ANSI/IEEE Std 176-1987; 1988.
[30] Krommer M, Irschik H. On the inuence of the electric eld on free
transverse vibrations of smart beams. Smart Mater Struct 1999;
8(3):40110.
[31] Tiersten HF. Linear piezoelectric plate vibrations. New York:
Plenum Press; 1969.
[32] Vasques CMA. Modelizacao do controlo activo de vibracoes de vigas
com sensores e actuadores piezoelectricos. MSc Thesis, Faculdade de
Engenharia da, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal, 2003 [in
Portuguese].
[33] Balas MJ. Feedback control of exible systems. IEEE Trans Automat
Control 1978;AC-23(4):6739.
[34] Burl JB. Linear optimal control. California: Addison-Wesley; 1999.
[35] Franklin GF, Powell JD, Emami-Naeini A. Feedback control of
dynamic systems. 2nd ed. Massachussetts: Addison-Wesley; 1991.
[36] Yang SY, Huang WH. Is a collocated piezoelectric sensor/actuator
pair feasible for an intelligent beam? J Sound Vib 1998;216(3):52938.
[37] Kwakernaak H, Sivan R. Linear optimal control systems. New
York: John Wiley & Sons; 1972.
[38] Waanders JA. Piezoelectric ceramics: properties and applications.
Eindhoven: Philips Components; 1991.