You are on page 1of 14

Article

Transactions of the Institute of


Measurement and Control
Discrete-time sliding mode for building 2019, Vol. 41(2) 433–446
Ó The Author(s) 2018

structure bidirectional active vibration Article reuse guidelines:


sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0142331218764581
control journals.sagepub.com/home/tim

Satyam Paul1, Wen Yu1 and Xiaoou Li2

Abstract
In terms of vibrations along bidirectional earthquake forces, several problems are faced when modelling and controlling the structure of a building, such
as lateral-torsional vibration, uncertainties surrounding the rigidity and the difficulty of estimating damping forces.
In this paper, we use a fuzzy logic model to identify and compensate the uncertainty which does not require an exact model of the building structure.
To attenuate bidirectional vibration, a novel discrete-time sliding mode control is proposed. This sliding mode control has time-varying gain and is com-
bined with fuzzy sliding mode control in order to reduce the chattering of the sliding mode control. We prove that the closed-loop system is uniformly
stable using Lyapunov stability analysis. We compare our fuzzy sliding mode control with the traditional controllers: proportional–integral–derivative
and sliding mode control. Experimental results show significant vibration attenuation with our fuzzy sliding mode control and horizontal-torsional
actuators. The proposed control system is the most efficient at mitigating bidirectional and torsional vibrations.

Keywords
Active vibration control, sliding mode control, discrete-time

Introduction backstepping control with an estimation of uncertainties is


presented by Hacioglu and Yagiz (2011). The problems with
Devastating earthquakes such as in Mexico City (1985), existing bidirectional control are: 1) they do not consider the
Northridge (1994), Kobe (1995), Kocaeli (1999), Bhuj (2001), lateral-torsional control mechanism. They use horizontal
Sichuan (2008), Chile (2008), and Emilia (2012) have caused actuator to mitigate the lateral-torsional vibration. The com-
severe damage to civil structures which are evident from bination of horizontal actuator and torsional actuator are not
exhaustive research. The control of building structures from considered; 2) they do not analyse the stability of a closed-
hazardous earthquake waves is an area of great interest to loop system.
researchers and is rapidly growing (Fisco and Adeli, 2011). If the model of the building structure is unknown, fuzzy
There are two approaches to structural vibration control: 1) logic can be used. The fuzzy logic method is very popular due
utilization of smart materials in buildings (Housner et al., to its nonlinear mapping capability and it is both simple and
1997; Sheehan, 1996; Song et al., 2006) and 2) the implemen- robust in nature and there are some applications to structural
tation of control devices such as actuators and dampers in control because of this (Choi et al., 2005; Reigles and Symans,
buildings (Thenozhi and Yu, 2013). 2006). The use of fuzzy logic to mitigate earthquake-induced
The seismic analysis should be considered bidirectionally vibrations on a structure has multiple degrees of freedom
in the horizontal (Lin and Tsai, 2008). Bidirectional move- when utilizing the active tuned mass damper (ATMD) (Guclu
ment also induces translation-torsion coupled vibrations in and Yazici, 2008). In Park et al. (2002), a fuzzy supervisory
building structures (Chang, 1999; Hochrainer et al., 2000). A technique is applied for the active control of earthquake-
magnetorheological (MR) damper is combined with the MR- induced building structures. In Das et al. (2012), the seismic
MD scheme from bidirectional seismic excitations in Yanik control of building frames affected by an earthquake is
et al. (2013). The controller uses the mechanism of PD con-
trol. The essential forces required for the control of structural
1
vibrations are derived. In Nigdeli and Boduroglu (2013), an Departamento de Control Automatico, CINVESTAV-IPN (National
active tendon is used to control torsionally irregular and Polytechnic Institute), Mexico City, Mexico
2
multi-storey structures under the grip of near fault ground Departamento de Computacion, CINVESTAV-IPN (National Polytechnic
Institute), Mexico City, Mexico
motion excitation. In their work, proportional–integral–deri-
vative (PID)-type controllers are used to generate control sig- Corresponding author:
nals. Robust vibration control with communication network Wen Yu, Departamento de Control Automatico, CINVESTAV-IPN,
delay and channel limitation was developed by Karimi et al. Av.IPN 2508, Mexico City 07360, Mexico.
(2011), where H‘ control theory was applied. Adaptive Email: yuw@ctrl.cinvestav.mx
434 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(2)

implemented by the concept of fuzzification related to MR discrete-time variable structure control incorporated with a
damper characteristics. The PI-type fuzzy logic control for discrete-time composite reaching law for vibration attenua-
vibration suppression in buildings has been proposed by Ozer tion. However, the stability of these discrete-time structure
et al. (2016). The numerical results have shown that by using controllers is not given. All these works do not consider the
the proposed controller, the designed active dynamic absorber bidirectional forces of an earthquake, which generate the tor-
reduced building vibrations effectively. In addition, neural sional effect on the building. In this paper, the discrete-time
network-based control does not require model information. sliding mode control is used to generate control forces for the
Madan (2005) proposed a feasible approach on the active con- attenuation of vibrations along the X -direction, Y -direction
trol of earthquake-induced vibrations without the aid of tar- and u-direction.
get control forces. An analysis of the theories in the above In this paper, we present a fuzzy-modelling-based discrete-
papers are not presented in this paper. time sliding mode control to minimize structural vibration
The nature of sliding mode movement is similar to that of caused by bidirectional earthquake forces. The active vibra-
the vibrations of a building structure, meaning the sliding tion control is based on the lateral-torsional vibration under
mode control (SMC) can be used effectively for the mitigation the bidirectional waves. By introducing time-varying gain to
of building vibration. The sliding mode control is designed the discrete-time sliding mode control, chattering is reduced.
for uncertain nonlinear systems (Utkin, 1992). It is highly The stability of the closed-loop system with sliding mode con-
effective in terms of robustness against changes in parameters trol and fuzzy modelling is given. The experimental results
and external disturbances. Sliding mode control has been suc- and comparisons with the other controllers validate the effec-
cessfully applied to structural control in Nguyen et al. (2006). tiveness of the proposed methods. The paper is organized as
In Iwamoto et al. (2002), it is used to control the bending and follows: after modelling the building structure with respect to
torsional vibration of a six-storey flexible structure. In the vibrations along bidirectional earthquake forces, we pro-
Soleymani et al. (2016), a robust control system for an pose a fuzzy modelling method for the uncertainties of the
ATMD is implemented in a high-rise building. The controller building. Then, the discrete-time sliding mode control is dis-
is a blended innovation of a two-loop sliding model controller cussed. Finally, the experimental results and an analysis are
with a dynamic state predictor. Maria et al. (2016) proposed shown.
an active vibration control for a two-storey flexible structure
where the sliding mode controller is designed utilizing the
linear–quadratic regulator (LQR) approach in order to vali-
Bidirectional active control of building
date stable motion during sliding. An approach related to
adaptive fuzzy sliding mode in order to eliminate the damage structures
of a nonlinear structure was suggested by Dai (2010). A slid- Generally, an earthquake exhibits arbitrary horizontal direc-
ing mode observer is applied to reconstruct the state and esti- tion which can be represented as two orthogonal movements
mate the faults of a sensor and an actuator (Yin et al., 2017a). (see Figure 1). The model of a one-storey building with one-
The stabilization problem linked to nonlinear Markovian direction external force is (Anderson and Naeim, 2012)
jump systems is investigated by Yin et al. (2017b). They elimi-
nate the effects from actuator and sensor faults.
m€x(t) + c_x(t) + kx =  fe ð1Þ
The implementation of computer-based control requires
the system and controller to be in the discrete-time form. The
where m is the mass, c is the damping coefficient, k is the stiff-
stability conditions for the sliding mode control are different
ness, fe is an external force applied to the structure, and x, x_ ,
from continuous time systems. One popular condition is
and €x are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration, respec-
(Sarpturk et al., 1987)
tively. For an n-floor building structure, the motion equation
with one-direction external force is (Chopra, 2011)
js(k + 1)j\js(k)j

where s(k) = 0 is the sliding surface, or (Bartoszewicz, 1998) _ + fs (x) =  fe


€(t) + C x(t)
Mx ð2Þ

js(k)j\c

where the parameter c is the quasi-sliding mode bandwidth.


Generally, discrete-time control or sampling control is suit-
able for structural control because the sampling period can be
regarded as the important feature in the performance of the
vibration control. Lu and Zhao (2001) suggested discrete-time
variable structure control strategies based on a discrete reach-
ing law method in order to minimize the dynamic responses of
seismically-excited structures. A time-delayed discrete-time
variable structure control was proposed by Cai and Huang
(2002). In Li et al. (2010), a discrete-time variable structure
control is combined with fuzzy adaptive regulation for seismic
excited linear structure. Li and Deng (2009) proposed a Figure 1. Building structures under bidirectional ground forces.
Satyam et al. 435

Figure 2. The torsional oscillation of a two-floor building.


Figure 3. Bidirectional active control of building structures.
 
where M = diag Mx , My , Jt 2 <ð3nÞ 3 ð3nÞ , diagðÞ is a diagonal
matrix, Mx = My = diagðm1    mn Þ, mi is the mass of the i-th vri = 1 + dri Eri controls strength degradation. Normalized
floor, Jt = diag m1 r12    mn rn2 is the polar moment of inertia, R t x_ ri ari
fs = ½ fs, 1    fs, n  is the structure stiffness force vector, and fe is dissipated hysteretic energy is Eri = (1  ari ) 0 dt,
Dri Dri
the external force vector applied to the structure. 1
Dri = (bri + gri )hri :
When the external force is in two directions as in Figure 1,
building structure not only vibrates on X and Y axes, but also In order to minimize the vibrations caused by the bidirec-
has torsional oscillation. Torsional force comes from the tional external forces ( fx and fy ), we have designed two actua-
asymmetric characteristic of the building; i.e. the physical cen- tors; an active mass damper (AMD) and a torsion actuator
tre (cf ) is different from the mass centre (cm ) (see Figure 2). (TA) (see Figure 3). The AMD is placed near the mass centre
The bidirectional external forces are expressed as of the building and the TA is placed in the physical centre of
the building. The torsional actuator is a rotating disc
2 3 equipped with a DC motor and is placed at the physical cen-
Mx 0  
 T a tre. The control objective of TA is to decrease the torsional
fe = f x , f y =4 0 My 5 x
ay response of the building structures due to the bidirectional
0 0
movements.
where ax and ay are the accelerations of the external force in X  The control
T
forces have three components: u =
and Y directions. The structure stiffness force fs can be mod- ux , uy , uu : The closed-loop system with the control u is
elled as a linear model fs = Kx, or a nonlinear model. The dis-
placements of the building structure have three components: _ + fs (x) + fe (t) = G½u(t)  du 
€(t) + C x(t)
Mx ð5Þ
x = ½x, y, uT , where u is the torsional angle. The damping
where u(t) 2 <3n , n is the level number of the building, du is
matrix C is proportional to the mass matrix M and stiffness
the damping and friction force vector of the dampers, and G
matrix K, C = aM + bK: Using the Rayleigh method, the
is the location matrix of the dampers which is defined as
damping matrix C has the same form as the stiffness matrix
2 3
Cx 0 Cxu 1 if i = j = s
C=4 0 Cy Cyu 5. Gi, j =
0 otherwise
ð6Þ
Cxu Cyu Cu
When the structure is under a strong force which deforms the where 8i, j 2 f1, . . . , ng, s  f1, . . . , ng, s are the floors on
structure, the structure stiffness force fs is not linear. The which the dampers are installed. For a two-floor building
behaviour of the structure can be modelled using the Bouc–  
G G1, 2
Wen method G = 1, 1 . If the damper is placed on the second
G2, 1 G2, 2
 
0 0
fr, i = ri kri xri + (1  ri )kri fri ð3Þ floor, s = f2g, G = : If the damper is placed on both
0 1
 
where r = ðx, yÞ, i = 1, . . . n, ri are positive numbers. The 1 0
the first and second floor, s = f1, 2g, G = .
first part of (3) is the elastic stiffness and the second part is 0 1
the inelastic stiffness. The nonlinear function fri is The damper force on the i th floor is defined as fi

1   h 1 fi = mdi (d€i + g
€i ) ð7Þ
fri = ½A_xri  bri x_ ri ari  li ari vri
hri ð4Þ
  h 1 where mdi is the mass of the damper, d€i is the acceleration of
+ g ri x_ ri ari  li vri ari sign(_xri ari ) the damper, and g € is the acceleration of the structure along
qi ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where A, bri , g ri , ari , n and h are positive numbers. the damper, g€i = a2i, x + a2i, y :
hri = 1 + dri Eri controls the stiffness degradation and fi should be separated into X and Y directions as
436 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(2)

     
ui, x = fi cos u = mdi (d€i cos u + ai, x ) where z(t) =
z1 (t)
, A=
0 0
, B =
0
,
z2 (t) 0 M 1 C M 1 G
ui, y = fi sin u = mdi (d€i sin u + ai, y )
ai, x ai, y Fs = M 1 fs , fe = M 1 fe :
€i =
g = ð8Þ Here, Fs and fe can be regarded as the uncertainty parts of
cos u sin u
the linear system z_ = Az + Bu. Without the external forces,
€xi, x = ai, x + d€i cos u the building structure is, obviously, stable. It is reasonable to
€xi, y = ai, y + d€i sin u assume that Fs and fe are bounded, and kFs k  ds , k fe k  de :
We assume that the control force and the external forces are
where u is the angle of the damper along the X -axis, and €xi, x constant during the sampling period T
and €xi, y are the relative accelerations of the damper along the
X and Y directions. So u(t) = u(kT), fe (t) = fe (kT), kT  t  (k + 1)T

The discrete-time model of (5) is (Lu and Zhao, 2001)


ai, x ai, y
fi = mdi d€i + = mdi d€i + ð9Þ
cos u sin u z(k + 1) = Ad z(k) + Bd u(k) + Fds ½z(k) + fde (k) ð15Þ

We define the control force of the damper along X and Y where z(k) is a state vector, Ad is a state matrix, Ad = eAT , Bd
 T T R 
directions as ud = ux , uy , udi = mdi €xi, x , €xi, y : Consider the is the input vector, Bd = eAt dt B, u(k) is a scalar input,
friction of the damper Fds (k) is the model uncertainty matrix, and fde (k) is the excita-
tion. Since Ad and Bd are unknown, (15) is written as the fol-
fri, x = c_xi, x + mdi g tanh½b_xi, x  lowing general nonlinear model
ð10Þ
fri, y = c_xi, y + mdi g tanh b_xi, y
z(k + 1) = f ½z(k) + g½z(k)u(k) + d ½z(k)
where c, b, and  are the damping coefficients of the f ½z(k) = Ad z(k), g½z(k) = Gi, j Bd , d ½z(k) = Fds ½z(k) + fde (k)
Coulomb friction (Roldan et al., 2014). The final control of ð16Þ
the damper is
From the point of view of sampling theory, the sampling
ux = mdi€xi, x  fri, x period T should be as small as possible, such that the discrete-
ð11Þ time model (16) is similar to the continuous time model (5).
uy = mdi€xi, y  fri, y
However, this paper will use model-free controllers: sliding
 T mode control and fuzzy control. The uncertainties caused
The third element of the control u = ux , uy , uu is the torsion
force uu . from the sampling will be cancelled by the sliding mode tech-
The inertia moment of TA is Jt = mt rt2 , mt is the mass of nique; the only problem is the chattering. We will show how
the disc, and rt is the radius of the disc. The torque t gener- to reduce the chattering with the discrete-time sliding mode.
ated by the disc is uu = Jt (€ut + €u), €u is the angular accelera-
tion of the building, and €ut is the angular acceleration of the Fuzzy modelling of building structure
torsional actuator. Consider the friction of the TA
f ½z(k) and g½z(k) in model (16) are unknown, and in order to
design a model-based control, we use following fuzzy system
frt = cu_ t + Fc tanh (bu_ t ) ð12Þ
to model them. The fuzzy rules have the following form
where c is the torsional viscous friction coefficient, Fc is the
Ri : IFðxi is A1i Þ and ðyi is A2i Þ and ðui is A3i Þ and ðx_ i is A4i Þ
coulomb friction torque, and tanh is the hyperbolic tangent  
depending on b and motor speed. The final torsion control is and ðy_ i is A5i Þ and u_ i is A6i THEN f ½z(k) is B1i
uu = Jt (€ut + €u)  frt . Ri : IFðxi is A1i Þ and ðyi is A2i Þ and ðui is A3i Þ and ðx_ i is A4i Þ
 
The main role of the AMD is to reduce the vibration of the and ðy_ i is A5i Þ and u_ i is A6i THEN g ½z(k) is B2i
building in X and Y directions, whereas the main role of the ð17Þ
TA is to minimize the torsional effect in the building. du in the
closed-loop system (5) is By product inference, centre-average defuzzification, and a
singleton fuzzifier, the output of the fuzzy system is (Wang,
2 3
c_xi, x + mdi g tanh½b_xi, x  1994)
du = 4 c_xi, y + mdi g tanh b_xi, y 5 ð13Þ Pl
cu_ t + Fc tanh (bu_ t ) ( i=1 wpi ½Pnj= 1 mAji ) X
l
^p =
F Pl = wpi si ð18Þ
n
( i = 1 ½Pj = 1 mAji ) i=1
In order to design a computer based controller, we use
discrete-time model for the building structure. We define where mAji are the membership functions of the fuzzy sets Aji ,
z1 ðtÞ = x and z2 ðtÞ = x_ , and the model (5) can be transformed wpi is the point at which mbji = 1, if we define
into the following state space model
Pnj= 1 mAji
si = Pl n
, the Gaussian functions are chosen as
z_ = Az + Bu + Fs + fe ð14Þ i = 1 Pj = 1 mAji
Satyam et al. 437

!
(xj  cji )2 Theorem 1. If we use the fuzzy model (25) to identify the non-
mAji = exp  , and cji and rji are the mean and linear system (16) with the updating law (21), the identifica-
r2ji
tion error ei (k) is bounded as
variance of the Gaussian function. The matrix form of (18) is
h
^p = w(k)sz(k) lim k ei (k)k2 = z ð28Þ
F ð19Þ k!‘ pðk Þ
2 3 provided that (22) and the dead zone b k ei (k + 1) k . k ei (k) k :
w11 (k) w1l (k)
6 .. 7
6 . 7 m3l Proof. We chose the following Lyapunov candidate function
where w(k) = 6 .. 7R , sz(k) =
4 . 5 V (k) as
wm1 (k) wml (k)
e f (k)k2 + k w
V (k) = k w e g (k)k2
½s1    sl Rl 3 1 : So f ½z(k) and g½z(k) are estimated as ð29Þ
e Tf (k) w
= tr½ w e Tg (k) w
e f (k) + tr½ w e g (k
^f = wf (k)sf ½z(k), g^ = wg (k)sg ½z(k) ð20Þ
We now calculate DV (k) = V (k + 1)  V (k)
We use the following learning law for the weights in (20)
e f (k + 1)k2  k w
DV (k) = ½k w e f (k)k2 
ð30Þ
wf (k + 1) = wf (k)  h(k)sf ½z(k)eTi (k) e g (k + 1)k2  k w
+ ½k w e g (k)k2 
ð21Þ
wg (k + 1) = wg (k)  h(k)u(k)sg ½z(k)eTi (k)
From the updating law (21)
where b is the dead-zone parameter, hðk Þ satisfies
( DV (k) = ½k w e f (k)  h(k)sf ½z(k)eTi (k)k2  k we f (k)k2 
h T 2
if b k ei (k + 1) k . k ei (k) k + ½k we g (k)  h(k)u(k)sg ½z(k)ei (k)k  k w e g (k)k2 
hðk Þ = 1 + p(k) ð22Þ
0 if b k ei (k + 1) k \k ei (k) k = h (k) k ei (k)k ½k sf ½z(k)k + k sg ½z(k)u(k)k2 
2 2 2

2h(k) k eTi (k) kk w e f (k)sf ½z(k) k + k we g (k)sg ½z(k)u(k) k


0\h  1 ð31Þ

p(k) = k sf k2 + k sg uk2 ð23Þ Using the error dynamics (27)

ei (k) is the modelling error, and DV (k) = h2 (k) k ei (k)k2 ½k sf ½z(k)k2 + k sg ½z(k)u(k)k2 
2h(k) k eTi (k) k bei (k + 1)  jf  jg u(k)
ei (k) = ^z(k)  z(k) ð24Þ = h2 (k) k ei (k)k2 ½k sf ½z(k)k2 + k sg ½z(k)u(k)k2 
2h(k) k eTi (k) k b k ei (k + 1) k + 2h(k) k eTi (k) k jf + jg u(k)
^z(k) is the state of the fuzzy model
ð32Þ

b^z(k + 1) = ^f ½z(k) + g^½z(k)u(k) ð25Þ Using the definition (22) and b k ei (k + 1) k . k ei (k) k

where b is a positive constant and b . 1, which is a design DV (k)   2h(k) k ei (k)k2 + h2 (k) k ei (k)k2 p(k)
parameter. + 2h(k) k eTi (k)j(k) k
In order to analyse the stability of the training algorithm
  2h(k) k ei (k)k2 + h2 (k) k ei (k)k2 p(k) + h(k) k eTi (k)k2
(21), we need the dynamics of the modelling error ei (k): (25)
can be expressed as + h(k) k j(k)k2
  h(k)f1  hp(k)g k ei (k)k2 + hj(k)2
bz(k + 1) = wf (k)sf ½z(k) + wg (k)sg ½z(k)u(k) + f + g u(k) ð33Þ
ð26Þ
Since the modelling error j(k) is bounded as
where wf and wg are unknown optimal weights, and f and g
k j(k)k2  k j ð34Þ
are approximation errors such as f = wf (k)sf ½z(k) + f ,
g = wg (k)sg ½z(k) + g : The error dynamics are from (25) and So
(26)
DV (k)   p(k)kei (k)k2 + hj ð35Þ
~ f (k)sf ½z(k) + w
bei (k + 1) = w ~ g (k)sg ½z(k)u(k) + jf + jg u(k)
h 
ð27Þ Now, if k ei (k)k2  j, then DV (k)  0. If b is selected to
pðk Þ
be too big, the dead zone becomes small. We can therefore
where ~ f (k) = wf (k)  wf (k), w
w ~ g (k) = wg (k)  wg (k), jf = conclude that V (k) is bounded. Also, if h(k) = 0, then from
Rf + f , jg = Rg + g and Rf and Rg are the remainders of the (21) it is evident that the weights have not changed and hence
Taylor formula for ^f and g^: The next theorem provides proof they are bounded. Therefore, V (k) is bounded.
of the stability of the fuzzy modelling. (35) can be rewritten as
438 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(2)

DV (k)   p(k)kei (k)k2 + hj(k)2   p(k)kei (k)k2 + hj g^  g~ ^


z(k + 1) = ^f  ~f + ½f + K T e(k) + ssign½s(k)
g^
ð36Þ
=  ~f + K T e(k) + ssign½s(k)  g~(k)u(k)
Summarizing (36) from 1 up to T and by using VT . 0, with
V1 being a constant we have Because s(k + 1) = e(k + 1) + K T e(k)=  z(k + 1) + K T e(k),
from (38)
P
VT  V1   p TK = 1 kei (k)k2 + T hj
PT e(k + 1) + K T e(k) =  ssign½s(k) + ~f + g~u(k)
p K = 1 kei (k)k2  V1  VT + T hj  L1 + T hj

(28) is established. j Use (42)

s(k + 1) =  ssign½s(k) + bei (k + 1) ð43Þ


Discrete-time sliding mode control for
building structure Since jsign½s(k)j  1 and jei (k + 1)j  H

For active vibration control, the desired reference should be js(k + 1)j  s + bH ð44Þ
zero (without vibration), zd (k) = 0: The control error is
defined as where H is the upper bound of the modelling error, and b is
the design parameter of the fuzzy model (25).
eðk Þ = zd (k)  z(k) =  z(k) ð37Þ The following theorem gives the stability of the discrete-
time sliding mode control for building structure.
We propose the following quasi-sliding mode control
Theorem 2. If the gain s of the discrete-time sliding mode con-
1 troller (38) satisfies
u(k) = f^f + K T e(k) + ssign½s(k)g ð38Þ
g^
bH
s ð45Þ
where e(k) = ½e(k + 1  n)    e(k)T , K = ½kn    k1 T 2 Rn the kK k
feedback gain vector, s is the sliding mode gain, and s(k) is a
switching function which is defined as where H is the upper bound of the modelling error, b is the
design parameter of the fuzzy model (25), then the closed-loop
s(k) = e(k) + K T e(k  1) ð39Þ system is uniformly stable and the upper bound of the tracking
error satisfies
Because e(k + 1) =  K T e(k) + s(k + 1)

1X T
k Pk bH
e(k + 1) = Ae(k) + Bs(k + 1) ð40Þ lim ke(k)k  1+ ð46Þ
k!‘ T
k=1
lmin ðQÞ s
2 3
0 1 0 0
6 0 0 1 0 7 where P and Q are given in (41).
6 . .. .. 7
where A=6 .
6 . . . 7
72R
n3n
, B=½0, . . . , Proof. Define the following Lyapunov function
4 0   0 1 5
kn          k1 1 T
0, 1T 2 Rnx1 . From the proof in Horn and Johnson (1985), V (k) = e (k)Pe(k) ð47Þ
s2
detðsI  aAÞ = an kn + an1 kn1 s +    + ak1 sn1 + sn . We
selected K = ½k1    kn T such that the polynomial where P is a solution of (41). Using (40)
pffiffiffi n
ln + 2k1 ln1 +    + 22 kn is stable; i.e. A is stable. A stable
A can assure the following Lyapunov equation has positive 1 T 1
DV (k) = e (k + 1)Pe(k + 1)  2 eT (k)Pe(k)
definite solutions for P s2 s
1   2
= 2 eT (k) AT PA  P e(k) + 2 eT (k)AT PBs(k + 1)
2AT PA  P =  Q ð41Þ s s
1
+ 2 BT PBs2 (k + 1)
where Q = QT . 0: s
We will now discuss the upper bound of the sliding surface
s(k). From (16), (25) and (26), the modelling error satisfies We define K1 = ½1, k1 , . . . , kn T , from (39)

bei (k + 1) = ~f + g~u(k) ð42Þ s(k + 1) = K1T e(k + 1)

where ~f = ^f  f , g~ = g^  g: Substituting the control (38) into Because s(k + 1) =  ssign½s(k) + bei (k + 1), k Ak = kBk
the plant (16), the closed-loop system is = 1, using (44)
Satyam et al. 439

1 2½skK1 k  bH  actuator is also placed on the second floor. It has a 12 V DC


DV (k)   ke(k)k2Q  kPkke(k)k
s2 s2 motor with an aluminium disc. Figure 5 represents the entire
experimental setup. The two-floor structure is on the left-
bH 2
+ kPk 1 + hand side of the Figure. The accelerometer sensors are placed
s
on the ground floor and the second floor. On the right-hand
From (45) side of the figure, the AMD is a linear actuator which is used
for linear vibration attenuation, and the TA is the device for
the torsional vibration attenuation. This actuator is placed in
1 2 bH 2
DV (k)   k e(k) kQ k k
+ P 1 + the centre of the second floor.
s2 s
The moving mass of the damper weights is 5% (0:45kg) of
From Ioannou and Sun (1996) we know that V (k) is bounded, the total mass of the building. The linear servo mechanism is dri-
and therefore e(k) is bounded. Summarizing from 1 to T and ven by a digital servo drive (Accelnet Micro Panel, Copley
assuming that V (T ) . 0 and that V (1) are constants Controls Corp). The length of the actuator is 34 cm. The dia-
meter of the disc is 30 cm. The physical centre is 16 cm from
X the X -direction and 27 cm from the Y -direction. The mass centre
T
bH 2
V (T )  V (1)  lmin ðQÞeT (k)e(k) + kPk 1 + is 15 cm from the X -direction and 11 cm from the Y -direction.
k=1
s
The control software uses Windows 7 with Matlab
R2011a/Simulink. The vibrations are measured by the two-
So
axis accelerometers (XL403A), which are mounted on each
floor. The relative acceleration on the second floor is sub-
1X T
lim lmin ðQÞeT (k)e(k) tracted from the ground floor acceleration. Numerical inte-
T !‘ T
k =1 grators are used to compute the velocity and position from
! the accelerometer signal (Thenozhi and Yu, 2013). The total
1 bH 2
 lim V (1) + kPk 1 + control scheme is shown in Figure 6.
T !‘ T s
Since there is no angular sensor, the angular accelerations
are calculated by (Thenozhi and Yu, 2014)
Thus (46) is satisfied. By the definition e(k) =
½e(k  n + 1)    e(k)T we know that the tracking error e(k) is
bounded. j €u1 =  Cu01 + Cu02 u_ 1 + Cu02 u_ 2  Ku01 + Ku02 u1
m1 r12 m1 r12 m1 r 2
1
Ku02 Cx1 ly1 + Cx2 ly2 Cx2 ly2
+ u2 + x_ 1  x_ 2
Experimental results and comparisons m1 r12 m1 r12 m1 r 2
1
To evaluate the results of the theoretical analysis, a two-storey Kx1 ly1 + Kx2 ly2 Kx2 ly2 Cy1 lx1 + Cy2 lx2
+ x 1  x 2  y_ 1
building prototype is constructed. The building structure is m1 r12 m1 r12 m1 r12

mounted on a shake table which can move in two directions Cy2 l x2 Ky1 lx1 + Ky2 lx2 Ky2 lx2
+ y_  y1 + y2
(see Figure 4). The length of the floors in the X and Y direc- m1 r12 2 m1 r12 m1 r 2
tions are 54 cm and 32 cm, respectively. The total height of 1
the structure from the shake table is 120 cm. The distance €u2 =  Cu02 u_ 1  Cu02 u_ 2 + Ku02 u1  Ku02 u2
m2 r22 m2 r22 m2 r22 m2 r22
between each floor is 60 cm.
The bidirectional shake table uses two Quanser one degree Cx2 ly2 Cx2 ly2 Kx2 ly2 Kx2 ly2
+ _
x 1 + x_ 2  x 1 + x2
of freedom actuators (I-40). The actuator is the hydraulic con- m2 r22 m2 r22 m2 r22 m2 r22

trol system (FEEDBACK EHS 160). The building structure Cy2 lx2 Cy2 lx2 Ky2 lx2 Ky2 lx2
+ y_  y_  y1  y2
is constructed using aluminium. The active vibration control- m2 r22 1 m2 r22 2 m2 r22 m2 r22
ler AMD is a linear servo motor (STB1108, Copley Controls
Corp.), which is mounted on the second floor. The TA

Figure 4. Bidirectional shake table. Figure 5. Actuators for the bidirectional active control.
440 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(2)

Figure 6. Control scheme.

Figure 7. Measured and estimated accelerations.


where €u1 and €u2 are the angular accelerations of the first and Gaussian functions m = exp  (xc)
2
. c and r are the mean
r 2
second floors, and Ci , li , mi , and ri are the structural para-
meters of the building. The measured and estimated accelera- and variance of the Gaussian function, which are selected ran-
tions are shown in Figure 7. domly in ½1, 1. The membership functions of the ‘‘THEN’’
We compare three controllers: classical PID control part are updated by (21); the learning rate h = 0:9: We carried
(PID); discrete-time sliding mode control (DSMC); and our out several experiments and found six fuzzy rules for ^f , four
fuzzy modelling based discrete-time sliding mode control rules for g^, three membership functions for the linguistic vari-
(FDSMC). The gains of the controllers are the same as ables, which are enough for the structure vibration control.
Kpx = 1800, Kpy = 2000, Kpu = 2200, Kdx = 160, Kdy = 220, We used the Northridge earthquake signal for the shake
Kdu = 300, Kix = 2000, Kiy = 2300, Kiu = 3500: From table. For this prototype, the displacement of the Northridge
Theorem 2, the gain of the SMC is: s = 3 for the AMD, and earthquake is scaled from 16:92 cm to 1:50 cm, and the time is
s = 0:17 for the TA. scaled from 39:98 s to 11:91 s. The control objective is to mini-
We use IF-THEN rules as in (17). The ‘‘IF’’ and ‘‘AND’’ mize the relative displacement of each floor in two directions.
conditions are applied between position errors and velocity The experiments are carried out in three cases: 1) without
errors, whereas the ‘‘THEN’’ conditions give the required con- any active control (No Control); 2) with only a torsion actua-
trol forces. The membership functions of the ‘‘IF’’ part are the tor (TA); 3) with both active a mass damper (AMD) and the
Satyam et al. 441

torsion actuator (TA). The dynamic behaviours of the X - when the error is large, thus the chattering is less than with
direction and the u-direction of three types of control are the SMC. Also, we can assure the stability of the closed-loop
shown in Figures 8 to 13. In order to keep the results clear, system. Figures 14 to 16 show the control actions of a normal
the vibration responses are displayed for the period between 4 PID control, DSMC, and FDSMC.
s and 10 s, whereas the control signals are scaled from the The average vibration displacement is calculated by the
time period of 4 s to 8 s. mean squared error (MSE)
It can be seen that the PID has a slower response time
compared to the DSMC and FDSMC. The control chattering 1 XN

caused by the discontinuity of the control action is undesir- MSE = xðk Þ2 ð48Þ
N k=1
able in most applications. In order to reduce chattering, we
use two techniques: 1) the quasi-sliding-mode (QSM) concept where xðk Þ is the displacement of the floor, and N is the total
for the discrete-time sliding mode, and 2) time-varying gain in data number. Table 1 shows the vibration control along the
the sliding mode control (SMC). In the QSM, the states are X -direction, Y -direction, and u-direction with different con-
not required to cross the sliding surface in each control step. trollers. Tables 2 to 4 show the quantitative analysis of the
The undesirable chattering and high-frequency switching vibration control for each controller.
between different values of the control signal are avoided. It can be seen that the PID has a slower response time
The undesirable chattering is avoided. The DSMC has a lesser compared to the DSMC and FDSMC. All controllers per-
chattering effect than the SMC. The gain of a normal SMC is form efficiently with the AMD and TA because both the hori-
a proportion of the function of the control error. A big error zontal actuator and torsional actuator act simultaneously.
increases the chattering. The time-varying gain decreases The vibration attenuations along the X -direction and Y -

Figure 8. PID control of the second floor in the X-direction.

Figure 9. PID control of the second floor in the u-direction.


442 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(2)

Figure 10. DSMC of the second floor in the X-direction.

Figure 11. DSMC of the second floor in the u-direction.

Figure 12. Fuzzy discrete sliding mode control of the second floor in the X-direction.
Satyam et al. 443

Figure 13. FDSMC of the second floor in the u-direction.

Figure 14. Control signal of PID.

Figure 15. Control signal of DSMC.


444 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(2)

Figure 16. Control signal of FDSMC.

Table 1. Average vibration displacement by AMD + TA. Table 4. Average vibration displacement with FDSMC.

PID control DSMC FDSMC No control With AMD With TA No control

X  direction 0.2216 0.1854 0.1545 0.7514 X  direction 0.1995 0.3847 0.7514


Y  direction 0.0648 0.0436 0.0388 0.1320 Y  direction 0.0511 0.0715 0.1320
u  direction 0.0588 0.0402 0.0312 0.1174 u  direction 0.0599 0.0399 0.1174

Table 2. Average vibration displacement with PID control. Table 5. Analysis of experimental results.

With AMD With TA No control PID control DSMC FDSMC

X  direction 0.2937 0.4501 0.7514 Response time Lowest Medium Highest


Y  direction 0.0760 0.0838 0.1320 Vibration attenuation Lowest Medium Highest
u  direction 0.0713 0.0593 0.1174 Chattering More Less

Table 3. Average vibration displacement with DSMC. torsional actuator for torsional control to reduce the vibra-
tion in buildings. The main limitation of this controller is that
With AMD With TA No control it needs an angle acceleration measurement, which has been
estimated in this paper. This will be a future research objec-
X  direction 0.2388 0.4118 0.7514 tive. The torsional actuator reduces the torsional vibration
Y  direction 0.0577 0.0779 0.1320 attenuation, but it fails to attenuate the vibrations along the
u  direction 0.0637 0.0429 0.1174 X direction and Y direction. We will study how to minimize
the vibrations in all three directions.

direction are much better than the u-direction because the


active vibration control is achieved by the position of the
Conclusion
actuator and the torque direction of the actuator. The In this paper, we first modelled the controlled building struc-
FDSMC is better than the PID and DSMC in terms of tures. The discrete-time sliding mode control, along with fuzzy
vibration attenuation in all three directions. The active con- modelling, achieves superior vibration control under bidirec-
trol of the structures is improved by adding the fuzzy com- tional seismic forces. The time-varying gain of the SMC helps
pensation. The performances of the three controllers are to reduce chattering. A two-floor structure associated with
shown in Table 5. two-direction horizontal actuators and one torsional actuator
The advantage of the FDSMC is that the stability of the is proposed for active vibration control. The stability of the
proposed controller can be verified with the Lyapunov proposed controller has been established using Lyapunov sta-
method, which is essential in structural control. We use the bility theory. The experimental results show that the PID,
Satyam et al. 445

SMC and fuzzy sliding mode control (FSMC) controllers Iwamoto K, Yuji K, Kenzo N, et al. (2002) Output feedback sliding
work well with a horizontal actuator and a torsional actuator. mode control for bending and torsional vibration control of
The FSMC controller, in combination with both horizontal 6-story flexible structure. JSME International Journal Series C
actuators and a torsional actuator, is considered to be the 45(1): 150–158.
Karimi HR, Luo N, Zapateiro M, et al. (2011) H‘ control design for
most efficient at mitigating vibration along the X -direction,
building structures under seismic motion with wireless communi-
Y -direction, and u-direction.
cation. International Journal of Innovative Computing Information
and Control 7(9): 5269–5284.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Li Z and Deng Z (2009) Improving existing ‘‘ reaching law’’ for better
discrete control of seismically-excited building structures. Frontiers
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with of Structural and Civil Engineering 3(2): 111–116.
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this Li Z, Gu Z and Deng Z (2010) Discrete-time fuzzy variable structure
article. control for buildings with delay time in control. In: 8th world con-
gress on intelligent control and automation (WCICA), Jinan,
China, 7–9 July 2010, pp. 4963–4967. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Funding Lin JL and Tsai KC (2008) Seismic analysis of two-way asymmetric
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, building systems under bi-directional seismic ground motions.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 37(2): 305–328.
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Lu X and Zhao B (2001) Discrete-time variable structure control of
seismically excited building structures. Earthquake Engineering &
References Structural Dynamics 30(6): 853–863.
Madan A (2005) Vibration control of building structures using self-
Anderson JC and Naeim F (2012) Basic Structural Dynamics. Los organizing and self-learning neural networks. Journal of Sound
Angeles: Wiley. and Vibration 287(4–5): 759–784.
Bartoszewicz A (1998) Discrete-time quasi-sliding mode control stra- Maria G, Selvaganesan N, Ajith Kumar B, et al. (2016) Dynamic
tegies. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 45(4): 633–637. analysis and sliding mode vibration control for a two storeyed
Cai G and Huang J (2002) Discrete-time variable structure control flexible building structure. In: International conference on control
method for seismic-excited building structures with time delay in communication & computing India (ICCC), Trivandrum, India, 4–
control. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 31(7): 7 July 2000, pp. 24–29. Auburn, AL: Institute of Acoustics and
1347–1359. Vibration.
Chang CC (1999) Mass dampers and their optimal designs for build- Nguyen TH, Kwok NM, Ha QP, et al. (2006) Adaptive sliding mode
ing vibration control. Engineering Structures 21(5): 454–463. control for civil structures using magnetorheological dampers. In:
Choi KM, Cho SW, Kim DO, et al. (2005) Active control for seismic International symposium on automation and robotics in construc-
response reduction using modal-fuzzy approach. International tion, Tokyo, Japan, 3–5 October 2006, pp. 24–29. Waterloo,
Journal of Solids and Structures 42(16–17): 4779–4794. Canada: IAARC.
Chopra AK (2011) Dynamics of Structures - Theory and Applications Nigdeli S and Boduroglu M (2013) Active tendon control of torsion-
to Earthquake Engineering. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pre- ally irregular structures under near-fault ground motion excita-
ntice–Hall. tion. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 28(9):
Dai J(2010) Fuzzy logic based control and simulation analysis for 718–736.
nonlinear structure. In: Second international conference on com- Ozer HO, Hacioglu Y and Yagiz N (2016) Suppression of structural
puter modeling and simulation, Sanya, China, 22–24 January 2010, vibrations using PDPI + PI type fuzzy logic controlled active
pp. 447–451. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. dynamic absorber. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical
Das D, Datta TK and Madan A (2012) Semiactive fuzzy control of Sciences and Engineering 38(7): 2105–2115.
the seismic response of building frames with MR dampers. Earth- Park KS, Koh HM and Ok SY (2002) Active control of earthquake
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41(1): 99–118. excited structures using fuzzy supervisory technique. Advances in
Fisco NR and Adeli H (2011) Smart structures: Part I – active and Engineering Software 33(11–12): 761–768.
semi-active control. Scientia Iranica 18(3): 275–284. Reigles DG and Symans MD (2006) Supervisory fuzzy control of a
Guclu R and Yazici H (2008) Vibration control of a structure with base-isolated benchmark building utilizing a neuro-fuzzy model of
ATMD against earthquake using fuzzy logic controllers. Journal controllable fluid viscous dampers. Structural Control and Health
of Sound and Vibration 318(1–2): 36–49. Monitoring 13(2–3): 724–747.
Hacioglu Y and Yagiz N (2011) Adaptive backstepping control with Roldan C, Campa FJ, Altuzarra O, et al. (2014) Automatic identifica-
estimation for the vibration isolation of buildings. Journal of tion of the inertia and friction of an electromechanical actuator.
Vibration and Control 18(3): 1996–2005. New Advances in Mechanisms, Transmissions and Applications 17:
Hochrainer MJ, Adam C and Ziegler F (2000) Application of tuned 409–416.
liquid column dampers for passive structural control. In: 7th inter- Sarpturk SZ, Istefanopolos Y and Kaynak O (1987) On the stability
national congress on sound and vibration (ICSV 7), Garmisch–Par- of discrete-time sliding mode control systems. IEEE Transactions
tenkirchen, Germany, 4–7 July 2000, pp. 3107–3114. Auburn, AL: on Automatic Control 32(10): 930–932.
Institute of Acoustics and Vibration. Sheehan A (1996) Smart materials in construction. In: 3rd interna-
Horn RA and Johnson CR (1985) Matrix Analysis. Melbourne: Cam- tional conference on intelligent materials and 3rd European confer-
bridge University Press. ence on smart structures and materials, Lyon, France, 3–5 June
Housner GW, Bergman LA, Caughey TK, et al. (1997) Structural 1996, pp. 1–10. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
control: Present and future. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Soleymani M, Abolmasoumi AH, Bahrami H, et al. (2018) Modified
123(9): 897–971. sliding mode control of a seismic active mass damper system con-
Ioannou IA and Sun J (1996) Robust Adaptive Control. Upper Saddle sidering model uncertainties and input time delay. Journal of
River: Prentice–Hall. Vibration and Control 24(6): 1051–1064.
446 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(2)

Song G, Sethi V and Li HN (2006) Vibration control of civil struc- Yanik A, Pinelli J and Gutierrez H (2013) Control of a three-
tures using piezoceramic smart materials: A review. Engineering dimensional structure with magneto-rheological dampers. In: 11th
Structures 28(11): 1513–1524. international conference on vibration problems, Lisbon, Portugal,
Thenozhi S and Yu W (2013) Advances in modeling and vibration con- 9–12 September 2013, pp. 1–9. London: Macmillan Publishers
trol of building structures. Annual Reviews in Control 37(2): 346–364. Limited.
Thenozhi S and Yu W (2014) Stability analysis of active vibration Yin S, Gao H, Qiu J, et al. (2017a) Descriptor reduced-order sliding
control of building structures using PD/PID control. Engineering mode observers design for switched systems with sensor and
Structures 81(7): 208–218. actuator faults. Automatica 76: 282–292.
Utkin VI (1992) Sliding Modes in Control and Optimization. Berlin: Yin S, Yang H and Kaynak O (2017b) Sliding mode observer-based
Springer–Verlag. FTC for Markovian jump systems with actuator and sensor
Wang LX (1994) Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control. Upper Saddle faults. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 62(7):
River: Prentice–Hall. 3551–3558.