0 views

- CDDH Course Learning Plan BEB45104
- Computer Aided Development of Fuzzy Neural and Neuro Fuzzy Systems
- FLC Traffic
- Fuzzy Controllers
- User-Centric Optimization for Constraint Web Service Composition using a Fuzzyguided Genetic Algorithm System
- IJSCMC
- me352_lab3
- 제어이론04장
- Landing Controller_Project Report End-term Sem VII
- Tutorial Fuzzy Logic_2
- Intro
- Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and Science
- Multi Jerarquico
- Truck
- Control Systems1
- Introduction to control system
- Multiple attribute group decision making method based on neutrosophic number generalized hybrid weighted averaging operator
- The Efficiency of the Inference System Knowledge Strategy for the Position Control of a Robot Manipulator With Two Degree of Freedom
- 1-s2.0-S0898122199001728-main
- Midterm Control

You are on page 1of 14

using magnetorheological dampers

1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology;

373-1 Guseong-dong; Yuseong-gu; Daejeon 305-701; Korea

2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Sejong University; 98 Gunja-dong; Gwangjin-gu;

SUMMARY

A semi-active fuzzy control strategy for seismic response reduction using a magnetorheological (MR)

damper is presented. When a control method based on fuzzy set theory for a structure with a MR

damper is used for vibration reduction of a structure, it has an inherent robustness, and easiness to treat

the uncertainties of input data from the ground motion and structural vibration sensors, and the ability

to handle the non-linear behavior of the structure because there is no longer the need for an exact

mathematical model of the structure. For a clipped-optimal control algorithm, the command voltage of

a MR damper is set at either zero or the maximum level. However, a semi-active fuzzy control system

has benet to produce the required voltage to be input to the damper so that a desirable damper force

can be produced and thus decrease the control force to reduce the structural response. Moreover, the

proposed control strategy is fail-safe in that the bounded-input, bounded-output stability of the controlled

structure is guaranteed. The results of the numerical simulations show that the proposed semi-active

control system consisting of a fuzzy controller and a MR damper can be benecial in reducing seismic

responses of structures. Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: fuzzy control; semi-active control; MR damper; response reduction; vibration control

1. INTRODUCTION

In the eld of civil engineering, many control algorithms and devices have been proposed

over the last few decades for the purpose of protecting structures and their contents from the

damaging eects of environmental hazards such as earthquakes and wind loadings. Depending

on the control methods, vibration control in the structure can be divided into three categories;

∗ Correspondence to: Kang-Min Choi, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute

of Science and Technology, 373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Korea.

† E-mail:vision222@kaist.ac.kr

Contract=sponsor: National Research Laboratory (NRL) program, Ministry of Science and Technology, Korea;

contract=grant number: 2000-N-NL-01-C-251

Received 25 September 2002

Revised 29 August 2003

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 7 October 2003

724 K.-M. CHOI ET AL.

namely, passive control, active control and semi-active control or hybrid control (a combina-

tion of the previous types). The idea of passive control is to dissipate the vibratory energy in

the structural system. However, this kind of control system provides no extra assistance, so

it cannot adapt to varying loading conditions. Consequently its eect is limited. On the other

hand, the active control system reduces the structural response by using external energy sup-

plied by actuators to impart forces on the structures, generally depending on a sizeable power

supply. It is considerably more exible to reduce the structural responses for a wide variety

of loading conditions. However, there are some problems such as stability, cost eectiveness,

reliability, power requirements etc. Semi-active control has received a lot of attention recently

because it oers great adaptability without a large power requirement. Previous research has

demonstrated the eectiveness of semi-active systems in structural vibration control using vis-

cous uid dampers. The magnetorheological (MR) damper is one of the semi-active devices

that can provide reliable vibration control. Besides its minute power requirement, the MR

damper is reliable, fail safe, and is expected to be relatively inexpensive.

Classical control algorithms need an exact mathematical model for an actual structure and,

especially, an active control algorithm uses complicated mathematical equations to reduce

structure responses. Since buildings in civil engineering are getting much higher and bridges

are getting much longer than those structures are very complex multi-degree of freedom

systems, and it is very dicult to nd an exact mathematical model to describe the behavior

of the structures. Active vibration control of structural systems using fuzzy set theory has

been widely investigated in past years [1–7]. The fuzzy set theory was introduced by Zadeh

[1] in 1965. In 1974 Mamdani [2], by applying Zadeh’s theories of linguistic approach and

fuzzy inference, successfully used the ‘IF–THEN’ rule on the automatic operating control of

a steam generator. In civil engineering, the fuzzy set theory was applied by Brown and Yao

[3], Juang and Elton [4], Faravelli et al. [5], Teng et al. [6] and Wang and Lee [7]. The

most advantageous and controversial property is that the fuzzy controller does not rely on the

analysis and synthesis of the mathematical model of the process. Therefore, the uncertainties of

input data from the external loads and structural response sensors are treated in a much easier

way by the fuzzy controller than by classical control theory. Moreover, for a more realistic

implementation, non-linearities incorporated can be overcome easily, and by incorporating

human expertise into the fuzzy IF–THEN rules they can be constructed to control complex

structural systems.

Dyke et al. [8] proposed a semi-active clipped-optimal control algorithm to reduce the

structural response with a MR damper. In their approach, the command voltage of the MR

damper was adjusted by a linear optimal controller combined with a force feedback loop.

The command signal was set at either zero or the maximum level, depending on how the

damper’s force compared with the target optimal control force. However, it is important

that command signals are calculated based on the desirable control forces and input into an

actuator so that the actuator can produce forces as close as possible to the desired ones (i.e.

inverse dynamics). This means that, as time passes, the command signal is varied to reduce

eectively the structural response. To do so, owing to the damper’s non-linear characteristics,

it is dicult to obtain directly the command signal.

The objective of this paper is to propose a new semi-active control method for seismic

reduction of structures with a MR damper. To do this, a fuzzy set theory based structural

control algorithm is employed as a control algorithm and a MR damper is introduced as a

supplemental damping device. A fuzzy algorithm is used to calculate the command signal that

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

SEMI-ACTIVE FUZZY CONTROL 725

varied as time passed, into the MR damper based on structural responses. Since a MR damper

is an energy-dissipation device that cannot add mechanical energy to the structural system, the

proposed control strategy is fail-safe, in that it guarantees the bounded-input, bounded-output

stability of the controlled structure. To demonstrate the eectiveness of the proposed method,

a three-story building structure is presented.

Figure 1 shows an algorithm of fuzzy control inference. It consists of three basic parts; fuzzi-

cation where continuous input variables are transformed into linguistic variables, fuzzy rule

inference that handles rule inference consisting of fuzzy IF–THEN rules, and defuzzica-

tion that ensures exact and physically interpretable values for control variables. The design

of fuzzy control may include: the denition of input and output variables; the selection of

the data manipulation method; the membership function design; and the rule base design.

Using fuzzy rules and membership functions, fuzzy control converts linguistic variables into

numerical values required in most applications.

The design of the fuzzy controller selects the response quantities to be used as inputs to

the fuzzy controller and the distribution and type of membership functions to be used for the

selected input variables. Moreover, we must consider what control functions are needed, and

then dene them as output variables.

Then, the fuzzy inference rule is completely based on the selected input variables. Usually,

we use the form ‘If (a set of conditions to be satised) Then (a set of consequences to be

inferred)’ to describe the expert knowledge. For example, the multiple-input multiple-output

IF–THEN rules of the fuzzy control are shown in the form:

where Rj denotes the j-th rule of the fuzzy inference rule, j = 1; 2; : : : ; q, x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xp are the

inputs of the fuzzy controller, Aij is the linguistic value with respect to xi of rule j; y1 ; y2 ; : : : ; ym

are the outputs of the fuzzy controller and Bij is a fuzzy singleton function dened by experts.

Fuzzification

Defuzzification

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

726 K.-M. CHOI ET AL.

Then, the inference conclusion obtained via fuzzication is defuzzied into a crisp output.

This paper adopts the center-of-gravity (COG) method among the defuzzication methods.

The COG method is dened as follows:

N

j p

B

l=1 l

i=1 Ai j (xi )

yj = (2)

N p

l=1 i=1 Aj (xi )

i

Spencer et al. [9] proposed a phenomenological model to portray the behavior of a prototype

MR damper. The simple mechanical idealization of the MR damper depicted in Figure 2 is

based on a Bouc–Wen hysteresis model and is governed by the following seven simultaneous

equations:

f = c1 ẏ + k1 (x − x0 ) (3)

1

ẏ = {z + c0 ẋ + k0 (x − y)} (4)

(c0 + c1 )

ż = −|ẋ − ẏ|z |z |n−1 − (ẋ − ẏ)|z |n + A(ẋ − ẏ) (5)

= a + b u (6)

c1 = c1a + c1b u (7)

c0 = c0a + c0b u (8)

u̇ = −(u − v) (9)

Here, the accumulator stiness is represented by k1 , the viscous damping observed at large

and low velocities is represented by c0 and c1 , respectively; k0 is present to control the

stiness at large velocities; and x0 is the initial displacement of spring k1 associated with

the nominal damper force due to the accumulator; ; and A are hysteresis parameters for the

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

SEMI-ACTIVE FUZZY CONTROL 727

Parameter Value

c0b (Ns=cm) 3.50

k0 (Ns=cm) 46.9

c1a (Ns=cm) 283

c1b (Ns=cm V) 2.95

k1 (N=cm) 5.00

a (N=cm) 14.3

b (N=cm V) 140

(cm−2 ) 695

(cm−2 ) 363

A 363

n 2

(s−1 ) 190

..

xg

v fMR y

MR

Structure

Damper

.

x, x

fMR

Clipped Optimal

algorithm algorithm

fd

Control Law

Figure 3. Control diagram for the semi-active clipped-optimal control system (Dyke et al. [8]).

yield element; is the evolutionary coecient. A total of 14 model parameters are obtained

to characterize the prototype MR damper using experimental data and a constrained non-linear

optimization algorithm. The resulting parameters are given in Table I.

Dyke et al. [8] have proposed a semi-active clipped-optimal control strategy based on ac-

celeration feedback for the MR damper. In their approach, a linear optimal controller was

designed to adjust the command voltage of the MR damper. The command signal was set at

either zero or the maximum level, depending on how the damper’s force compared with the

desired optimal control force. The control diagram for the semi-active clipped-optimal control

system is shown in Figure 3.

The algorithm for selecting the command signal is graphically represented in Figure 4 and

can be concisely stated as

fd ; fd · ẋdev ¡0

fMR = (10)

0; otherwise

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

728 K.-M. CHOI ET AL.

fd

v = Vmax

v=0

v=0

f

v=0 v=0

v = Vmax

..

xg

v .

MR fMR x, x

Structure

Damper

.

x, x

Fuzzy Controller

Figure 5. Control diagram for the semi-active fuzzy control using a MR damper.

where fMR is the control force of the MR damper, and ẋdev is the velocity across the damper.

This equation means that the control forces that cannot be achieved by a MR damper are

clipped in the secondary bang–bang-type controller. Therefore, the command signal is set

at either zero or the maximum level, depending on how the damper’s force compared with

the target optimal control force. However, it is important that command signals are calcu-

lated based on the desired control forces and inputs put into an actuator so that the actuator

can produce forces as close as possible to the desired ones. This means that as time passes

the command signal is varied to eectively reduce the structural response. To do so, ow-

ing to the damper’s non-linear characteristics, it is dicult to obtain directly a command

signal.

The strategy of the semi-active fuzzy control algorithm for seismic protection using

a MR damper is comprised of only one controller compared to the semi-active clipped-

optimal controller which has two controllers. The one semi-active fuzzy controller produces

directly the desired command voltage using fuzzy rule inference as the desired force de-

manded is varied so that the actuator can produce forces as close as possible to the de-

sired forces. The control diagram for the semi-active fuzzy control system is shown in

Figure 5.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

SEMI-ACTIVE FUZZY CONTROL 729

MR damper

..

xg

This type of controller has two merits. One is to have all the advantages of the fuzzy

controller, and the other is to give directly the desired command voltage. This means that

it is possible to eectively control the dynamic responses of a real civil structure caused by

earthquakes and strong winds.

3. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

To evaluate the performance of the proposed semi-active fuzzy control system using a MR

damper, a three-story shear building structure is studied. Simulated results of the proposed

control system are compared to those of an uncontrolled system, two passive systems (i.e.

passive-o and passive-on; for passive-o, the command voltage to the MR damper is held

at 0 V and for passive-on, the command voltage to the MR damper is held at the maximum

voltage level (2:25 V)); a semi-active clipped-optimal control system; and a semi-active fuzzy

control system.

A model of a three-story building congured with a single MR damper is considered and

shown in Figure 6. The MR damper is rigidly connected between the ground and the rst

oor of the structure. The equations of motion of the structure are given by

M x + C ẋ + K x = f − M xg (11)

where f is the measured control force, and x = [x1 x2 x3 ]T is a vector of the displacements

of the three oors of the structure relative to the ground. The system matrices are listed in

Table II. This system is a simple model of the scaled, three-story, test structure, described

in Reference [8], which has been used in previous active control studies at the Structural

Dynamics and Control=Earthquake Engineering Laboratory (SDC=EEL) at the University of

Notre Dame. Because the MR damper is attached between the rst oor and the ground, its

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

730 K.-M. CHOI ET AL.

98:3 0 0

Mass matrix, M M= 0 98:3 0 kg

0 0 98:3

175 −50 0

N sec

Damping matrix, C C = −50 100 −50

m

0 −50 50

12:0 −6:84 0

N

Stiness matrix, K K = −6:84 13:7 −6:84 105

m

0 −6:84 6:84

displacement is equal to the displacement of the rst oor of the structure relative to the

ground.

The structural measurements used for calculating the desired control force include the ab-

solute accelerations of the three oors of the structures, and the displacement and the velocity

of the MR damper (i.e. y = [xa1 xa2 xa3 x1 ẋ1 ]T ). Thus, Equation (11) can be written as

ż = Az + Bf + E xg (12)

y = C z + Df + v (13)

where

0 I 0 0

A= ; B= ; E=

−M −1 K −M −1 C M −1

−M −1 K −M −1 C M −1

C = 1 0 0 0 0 0 ; D= 0

000 100 0

For a rst (primary) optimal control design, the absolute acceleration of the ground is taken

to be stationary white noise, and an innite horizon performance index is chosen

1

J = lim E {(C z) Q(CZ ) + rfc2 } dt (14)

→∞ 0

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

SEMI-ACTIVE FUZZY CONTROL 731

A wide variety of controllers were evaluated by Dyke et al. [8]. The best results were

obtained using r = 10−17 and choosing all of the elements of the weighting matrix Q to be

zero, except for Q33 = 1. Furthermore, the measurement noise is assumed to be identically

distributed, statistically independent Gaussian white noise processes, and Sxg xg =Svi vi = = 50.

The design of the semi-active fuzzy controller selects the response quantities to be used as

input to the fuzzy controller and the distribution and type of membership functions to be used

for the selected input variables.

In this example, the controller is designed using two input variables (i.e. one is the rst-

oor velocity and the other is the third-oor velocity), each one having ve membership

functions, and one output variable (i.e. command voltage) with three membership functions.

The membership functions chosen for the input and output variables are triangular shaped, as

illustrated in Figure 7. The denitions of the fuzzy variables of input membership function

are as follows: NL = Negative Large, NS = Negative Small, ZE = Zero, PS = Positive Small

and PL = Positive Large. A reasonable range of input values must be selected for the input

membership functions since, if the range is too large or too small, the outermost membership

functions will rarely or essentially be used, respectively, and thus limit the variability of the

control system. The denitions of the fuzzy variables of the output membership function are

as follows: ZE = Zero, M = Medium and L = Large. The voltage is the fuzzy control system

output for the structural control system.

The fuzzy inference rule is completely based on the structural rst-oor velocity and the

third-oor velocity. In this example, the basic concept of the inference rule is that, if the

NL NS ZE PS PL

-X 0 X

(a)

ZE M L

(b) 0 Y

function; and (b) output membership function.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

732 K.-M. CHOI ET AL.

NL NS ZE PS PL

NL L L M L M

NS L M ZE M ZE

ZE M ZE M ZE M

PS ZE M ZE M L

PL M L M L L

rst-oor velocity and the third-oor velocity are very large, then the output variable (voltage)

is large. The fuzzy inference rule and control surface are shown in Table III.

The test structure is controlled under normal (100%), high (150%) and low (50%) excitation

levels of the El Centro earthquake. Because the system under consideration is a scaled model,

the earthquake must be reproduced at ve times the recorded rate. The MR damper attached

three-story building is the prototype model that Dyke et al. [8] used. Figures 8–10 show the

structural responses of uncontrolled and semi-active fuzzy control systems such as the displace-

ment and the acceleration during the normal (100%), high (150%) and low (50%) El Centro

earthquakes. As seen from the gures, compared to the cases without a MR damper, the third-

oor displacement and the third-oor acceleration responses are reduced signicantly. Figure

11 shows the command voltage sent to the MR damper due to the normal El Centro earth-

quake. Therefore, it is veried that the proposed semi-active fuzzy controller could signicantly

reduce the building structural response due to the wide range of the El Centro earthquake.

The peak responses for the controlled structure are compared to those of an uncontrolled

system, two passive systems (i.e. passive-o and passive-on), a semi-active clipped-optimal

control system, and a semi-active fuzzy control system as shown in Tables IV to VI.

As seen from Table I, the maximum ratios of the peak responses in the passive-o system,

passive-on system, and semi-active fuzzy control system are 0.46, 0.32 and 0.29 for the

displacement, 0.51, 0.55 and 0.50 for the interstory displacement, and 0.51, 0.55 and 0.50 for

the acceleration, respectively. The performance of the system employing the semi-active fuzzy

control system surpasses those of both passive systems. Notice that these performance gains

are achieved by the semi-active fuzzy controller while requiring smaller control forces than

are required in the passive-on case. This means that the semi-active fuzzy control system uses

the forces more eciently to control structural vibration. The maximum ratios of the peak

responses in the semi-active clipped-optimal control system and semi-active fuzzy control

system are 0.23 and 0.29 for the displacement, 0.50 and 0.50 for the interstory displacement,

and 0.82 and 0.50 for the acceleration, respectively. The overall performance of the semi-

active fuzzy control system is much superior to that of the uncontrolled system although

the performance of the semi-active clipped-optimal control system is slightly better for the

maximum ratio of the peak displacement and signicantly worse for the peak acceleration

than that of the semi-active fuzzy controller, respectively. Notice that the peak control force

of the semi-active fuzzy control system is relatively small compared to that of the semi-active

clipped-optimal control system. It is demonstrated that the semi-active fuzzy control system

is very eective in reducing the structural responses due to the normal El Centro earthquake.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

SEMI-ACTIVE FUZZY CONTROL 733

1

Uncontrolled

Controlled

Displacement (cm)

0.5

-0.5

-1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

(a) Time (sec)

1500

Uncontrolled

Acceleration (cm/s2)

1000 Controlled

500

0

-500

-1000

-1500

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

(b) Time (sec)

Figure 8. Time histories of responses in the third oor under the normal (100%) El Centro

earthquake: (a) displacement; and (b) acceleration.

1.5

Uncontrolled

1 Controlled

Displacement (cm)

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

(a) Time (sec)

2000 Uncontrolled

Acceleration (cm/s2)

Controlled

1000

-1000

-2000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

(b) Time (sec)

Figure 9. Time histories of responses in the third oor under the high (150%) El Centro

earthquake: (a) displacement; and (b) acceleration.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

734 K.-M. CHOI ET AL.

0.5

Uncontrolled

Controlled

Displacement (cm)

0.25

-0.25

-0.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

(a) Time (sec)

750

Uncontrolled

Controlled

Acceleration (cm/s2)

500

250

0

-250

-500

-750

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

(b) Time (sec)

Figure 10. Time histories of responses in the third oor under the low (50%) El Centro

earthquake: (a) displacement; and (b) acceleration.

1.5

Voltage (V)

0.5

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time (sec)

Figure 11. Applied voltage in the semi-active fuzzy case due to the normal (100%) El Centro earthquake.

At high excitation, the performance results of the semi-active fuzzy controller are still

better than those of the passive controllers. The maximum ratios of the peak responses in

the passive-o system, the passive-on system, and the semi-active fuzzy control system are

0.51, 0.32 and 0.29 for the displacement, 0.54, 0.51 and 0.42 for the interstory displacement,

and 0.54, 0.51 and 0.42 for the acceleration, respectively. Also, notice that these performance

gains are achieved by the semi-active fuzzy controller while requiring smaller control forces

than are required in the passive-on case.

In the low excitation simulation, the ratios of the third-oor displacement of the passive-

o and passive-on system are 25.0% larger and 25.0% smaller than those of the semi-active

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

SEMI-ACTIVE FUZZY CONTROL 735

Table IV. Peak responses under the normal (100%) El Centro earthquake (ratio).

Control Semi-active Semi-active

strategy Uncontrolled Passive-o Passive-on clipped-optimal fuzzy

0:549 (1:00) 0:211 (0:33) 0:080 (0:15) 0:114 (0:21) 0:101 (0:18)

xi

0:836 (1:00) 0:357 (0:38) 0:197 (0:24) 0:185 (0:22) 0:184 (0:22)

(cm)

0:973 (1:00) 0:452 (0:46) 0:307 (0:32) 0:219 (0:23) 0:282 (0:29)

0:549 (1:00) 0:211 (0:38) 0:080 (0:15) 0:114 (0:21) 0:101 (0:18)

di

0:317 (1:00) 0:153 (0:48) 0:158 (0:50) 0:90 (0:28) 0:137 (0:43)

(cm)

0:202 (1:00) 0:104 (0:51) 0:111 (0:55) 0:101 (0:50) 0:101 (0:50)

xai 879 (1:00) 421 (0:48) 281 (0:32) 721 (0:82) 400 (0:46)

1071 (1:00) 488 (0:46) 499 (0:47) 746 (0:70) 438 (0:41)

(cm=s2 ) 1404 (1:00) 721 (0:51) 772 (0:55) 706 (0:50) 704 (0:50)

f(N) – 259 981 953 843

Table V. Peak responses under the high (150%) El Centro earthquake (ratio).

Control Semi-active Semi-active

strategy Uncontrolled Passive-o Passive-on clipped-optimal fuzzy

0:823 (1:00) 0:349 (0:42) 0:137 (0:17) 0:178 (0:22) 0:164 (0:20)

xi

1:255 (1:00) 0:587 (0:47) 0:313 (0:25) 0:294 (0:23) 0:300 (0:24)

(cm)

1:460 (1:00) 0:751 (0:51) 0:465 (0:32) 0:371 (0:25) 0:425 (0:29)

0:823 (1:00) 0:349 (0:42) 0:137 (0:17) 0:178 (0:22) 0:164 (0:20)

di

0:475 (1:00) 0:250 (0:53) 0:221 (0:47) 0:126 (0:27) 0:185 (0:39)

(cm)

0:303 (1:00) 0:165 (0:54) 0:156 (0:51) 0:142 (0:47) 0:127 (0:42)

xai 1318 (1:00) 615 (0:47) 509 (0:39) 959 (0:73) 547 (0:42)

1606 (1:00) 755 (0:47) 616 (0:38) 1054 (0:66) 552 (0:34)

(cm=s2 ) 2106 (1:00) 1146 (0:54) 1083 (0:51) 985 (0:48) 885 (0:42)

f(N) – 363 1180 1163 969

Table VI. Peak responses under the low (50%) El Centro earthquake (ratio).

Control Semi-active Semi-active

strategy Uncontrolled Passive-o Passive-on clipped-optimal fuzzy

0:274 (1:00) 0:091 (0:33) 0:040 (0:15) 0:053 (0:19) 0:051 (0:19)

xi

0:418 (1:00) 0:157 (0:38) 0:087 (0:21) 0:087 (0:21) 0:105 (0:25)

(cm)

0:487 (1:00) 0:194 (0:40) 0:119 (0:24) 0:119 (0:24) 0:155 (0:32)

0:274 (1:00) 0:091 (0:33) 0:040 (0:15) 0:053 (0:19) 0:051 (0:19)

di

0:157 (1:00) 0:066 (0:42) 0:079 (0:50) 0:053 (0:34) 0:072 (0:46)

(cm)

0:194 (1:00) 0:038 (0:20) 0:056 (0:29) 0:051 (0:26) 0:051 (0:26)

xai 439 (1:00) 195 (0:44) 141 (0:32) 447 (1:02) 188 (0:43)

535 (1:00) 220 (0:41) 251 (0:47) 354 (0:66) 192 (0:36)

(cm=s2 ) 702 (1:00) 264 (0:38) 387 (0:55) 356 (0:51) 355 (0:51)

f(N) – 159 492 421 393

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

736 K.-M. CHOI ET AL.

fuzzy control system, respectively. However, the ratios of the maximum oor acceleration of

the passive-o and passive-on system are 13.7% smaller and 7.8% larger than those of the

semi-active fuzzy control system, respectively; and the ratio of the third-oor displacement and

maximum interstory displacement of the semi-active clipped-optimal control system are 25.0%

and 26.1% smaller than those of the semi-active fuzzy control system, respectively. However,

the ratio of the maximum oor acceleration of the semi-active clipped-optimal control system

is larger than that of the uncontrolled system and 92.5% larger than that of the semi-active

fuzzy control system. At low excitation, it is needed to select the proper controller to suit the

designer’s purpose.

It is demonstrated that the semi-active fuzzy control system is very eective in reducing

the building structural responses due to the wide range of earthquake loading conditions.

4. CONCLUSIONS

A semi-active fuzzy control method using a MR damper is presented for seismic response

reduction. Only one presented controller produces directly the desired command voltage using

fuzzy rule inference as the desired force demanded is varied so that the actuator can produce

forces as close as possible to the desired forces. This type of controller has all the advantages

of the fuzzy control algorithm in previous studies. The eectiveness of the MR damper in

reducing the structural responses for a wide range of loading conditions has been demon-

strated via two types of numerical simulations. In addition, the semi-active control system

has many attractive features, such as the bounded-input, bounded-output stability and small

energy requirements. The results of this investigation, therefore, indicate that the semi-active

fuzzy control strategy using a MR damper could be used for control of seismically excited

structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the National Research Laboratory (NRL) program (Grant No. 2000-

N-NL-01-C-251) from the Ministry of Science and Technology in Korea. This nancial support is

gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy set. Information and Control 1965; 8:338–353.

2. Mamdani EH. Application of fuzzy algorithms for control of simple dynamic plants. Proceedings of the IEE

1974; 121:1585–1588.

3. Brown CB, Yao JTP. Fuzzy sets and structural engineering. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1983;

109:1211–1225.

4. Juang C, Elton DJ. Fuzzy logic for estimation of earthquake intensity based on building damage records. Civil

Engineering Systems 1986; 3:187–191.

5. Battaini M, Casciati F, Faravelli L. Fuzzy control of structural vibration. An active mass system driven by a

fuzzy controller. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998; 27:1267–1276.

6. Teng TL, Peng CP, Chuang C. A study on the application of fuzzy theory to structural active control. Computer

Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2000; 189:439– 448.

7. Wang AP, Lee CD. Fuzzy sliding mode control for a building structure based on genetic algorithms. Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31:881–895.

8. Dyke SJ, Spencer BF, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Modeling and control of magnetorheological dampers for seismic

response reduction. Smart Materials and Structures 1996; 5:565–575.

9. Spencer BF, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Phenomenological model for magnetoreological dampers. Journal

of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE) 1997; 123:230 –238.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:723–736

- Computer Aided Development of Fuzzy Neural and Neuro Fuzzy SystemsUploaded byIJEACS UK
- FLC TrafficUploaded bykuppuswamy
- Fuzzy ControllersUploaded byCGS Gunasekara
- me352_lab3Uploaded byGerardo Loreto Gomez
- CDDH Course Learning Plan BEB45104Uploaded byMuhd Ikram Shabry
- User-Centric Optimization for Constraint Web Service Composition using a Fuzzyguided Genetic Algorithm SystemUploaded byijwsc
- 제어이론04장Uploaded bythuongluu
- Landing Controller_Project Report End-term Sem VIIUploaded byDharma Teja Chowdary
- IJSCMCUploaded byijscmc
- Tutorial Fuzzy Logic_2Uploaded byVahid Sadeghi
- IntroUploaded byApurva Rajput
- Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and ScienceUploaded byinventy
- Multi JerarquicoUploaded byCesario Gillas
- TruckUploaded byGustavo Sánchez
- Control Systems1Uploaded byMohammad Gulam Ahamad
- Introduction to control systemUploaded byVimala Elumalai
- Multiple attribute group decision making method based on neutrosophic number generalized hybrid weighted averaging operatorUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- The Efficiency of the Inference System Knowledge Strategy for the Position Control of a Robot Manipulator With Two Degree of FreedomUploaded byesatjournals
- 1-s2.0-S0898122199001728-mainUploaded bynadimduet1
- Midterm ControlUploaded byJacky Wong
- APPLICATION OF FUZZY NEUTROSOPHIC RELATION IN DECISION MAKINGUploaded byMia Amalia
- F002Uploaded byLeo Van
- Lec1 IntroductionUploaded byMehroz Khan
- Neutrosophic vague soft expert set theoryUploaded byMia Amalia
- Soft system modeling in transportation planning Modeling trip flows based on the fuzzy inference system approach.pdfUploaded byzhrarma
- Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 16/2017. An International Journal in Information Science and EngineeringUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- 00481955Uploaded byRAJEEV RANJAN SILMANA
- Fuzzy Takagi IntelligencesEnvirommentsUploaded byPauly Ríos
- 9-2010-Application of Fuzzy and ABC Algorithm for DG Placement for Minimum Loss in Radial Distribution SystemUploaded byAbbas Divian
- Municipal solid waste landfill siting using intelligent system.docxUploaded byDania Alejandra- Poveda Murcia

- Cv InstructionsUploaded byTheng Ouch
- Lecture 1Uploaded byfradmard
- Lecture 1Uploaded byJimmy Dore
- 13-073Uploaded byfradmard
- PIP STC01018 (Blast Resistant Building Design Criteria)Uploaded byLiu Leo
- Steel CrownsUploaded byfradmard
- Temperature Effects in ACI 307, ACI 349, And ACI 359Uploaded bymrswcecivil
- 1810.00368Uploaded byfradmard
- PILE GROUP DESIGNUploaded byHenRy Ngu 旭
- aUploaded byMihai Cojocaru
- Dssi Asymmetrical Building Tc207 Workshop Paris 2013 FinalcopyUploaded byHectoreRodriguezl
- conference issueUploaded byfradmard
- W0709_PDFUploaded byfradmard
- 258_Ou_RTHSUploaded byfradmard
- isolatorUploaded byfradmard
- comparation on the concUploaded byfradmard
- Intro Gal ErkinUploaded byfradmard
- ccp.5281Uploaded byfradmard
- Newmark IntegrationUploaded byAhmed Buaishi
- MATLAB Array Manipulation Tips and TricksUploaded byeebeta
- 249_ftpUploaded byfradmard
- PIP STC01015 Structural Design CriteriaUploaded bycivilstructural
- SeismoUploaded byalijafarisamani
- Plate Load TestUploaded bygowtham87
- ReleasenotesUploaded byfradmard

- 01 measurmentUploaded byPramod Patil
- 25m Tower Light With 12pcs 400w Led Flood Lights--br SolarUploaded byNdubisi Agomo
- Brake Pedal Lower Links Stress Analysis ReportUploaded byquoteszone
- EIM CertificateUploaded byAko Lang Poh
- Programs of StudyUploaded byVictoria Carper
- Copy of HCB's Record of Serviçes Provided to EOH_ACF3_07062017Uploaded bygersonmorais
- TM 5-3800-205-23-3 MODEL 613CWDUploaded byAdvocate
- DNVGL-RU-NAVAL-Pt4Ch1.pdfUploaded bydietersima
- CHEMICAL CLEANING PROCEDURE.pptUploaded byMerifie Renegado
- 7. Well Control Equipment.pdfUploaded byHoan Hoan
- Umbugen EnUploaded byEdward Elric2
- eprostophplUploaded byBaugh Graphic Design
- Engineering BranchesUploaded byn9t8
- Paper 05Uploaded byYash Kuncolienker
- Mpmy-el-spc-1012_2.0-Specification for Electrical Installation, Testing and CommissioningUploaded byAnonymous 1ykzuaxWgY
- Pallet Truck Pth50 Brochure GBUploaded byGhufran Ahmed
- Characterisation_Interfacial_Cracking_in_Microelectronic_Packaging.pdfUploaded byJEANNINA BULEJE CASTILLO
- Pressure Vessel Plate InspectionUploaded bySadashiw Patil
- Motor Yamaha 90HP 2012Uploaded byEmanuelleSA
- 3-9780824726102 Handbook, John J. McKetta 1997, The Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design Volume 59- 9780824726102Uploaded byMoh Sen
- Foxboro - Cartão FBM214b_NEWUploaded byVitor Nunes Braga
- cable-docUploaded byS.L.jayaratne
- APU Low Oil LevelUploaded byashufriendlucky
- IMPCO Master Parts Catalog Dec 2013 LoresUploaded byMartín Barcenas
- WBSE3120B1WWUploaded bynelson
- Road Materials and Pavement Design: Contents of Volume 11 – Special Issue/2010Uploaded byEditions_Lavoisier
- Integrated Logistics Support Plan TemplateUploaded byAshwin Hemant Lawanghare
- zaha hadid-Rosenthal Center for Contemporary Art, CincinnatiUploaded bykienviet
- Final Welded CodeUploaded byNitin Yadav
- Hexa OSB Revised Copy 09-03-17with Coverpage (1)Uploaded byvenkat.epaper8543

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.