You are on page 1of 22

Fault Tolerant Structural Control Systems for Civil Engineering

Applications
M. Battaini
Department of Structural Mechanics
University of Pavia
I27100 Pavia - Italy
and
S.J. Dyke
Department of Civil Engineering
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130 - USA

Abstract. The objective of this work is to experimentally examine some practical issues relating
to the reliability and performance of active structural control systems. Using the newly constructed
shaking table in the Department of Structural Mechanics at the University of Pavia, experiments
were conducted employing an actively controlled, three story test structure. A DC-motor based
active mass driver system was used as the active control device. An H2 /LQG controller based on
acceleration feedback is applied to the system. The rst objective of this work to demonstrate the
ecacy of the acceleration feedback control strategy. Next, two experiments are conducted with
the goal of investigating fault tolerant control system design. In the rst case, the occurence of a
sensor failure is simulated experimentally, and the resulting controlled performance and robust-
ness characteristics are assessed. The second set of tests is to evaluate the ability of the controller
to reduce the structural responses when reduced information is available for control action deter-
mination. Both of these issues are important practical concerns in the design and implementation
of a structural control system.

Key words: Active Structural Control, Active Mass Driver, H2/LQG, Protective Systems,
Control-Structure Interaction, System Identi cation

1 Introduction
The application of vibration control systems to civil engineering structures has
been investigated in recent years to demonstrate the ecacy of these systems dur-
ing severe dynamic loadings such as earthquakes (for example, see Housner et al.,
1990, 1993, 1997). To date, much of the research in this eld has been directed
toward theoretical and experimental evaluations of various control mechanisms and
algorithms. Although a number of full-scale applications of active control are in
service in Japan, questions have been brought forth regarding the power require-
ments, reliability, capital and maintenance expenses, and stability of these systems
(Fujino et al., 1996). To move from laboratory tests to full scale implementation,
these issues must be addressed in a practical and systematic manner.
Before applying these systems to full-scale structures, one must anticipate di-
culties which may be encountered during implementation and determine the best
2 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
way to respond to these situations. One such diculty is the occurence of a compo-
nent failure. Because earthquakes are random events with potentially catastrophic
results, the solution to this question may be di erent for civil engineering appli-
cations than for various other applications. A system which remains e ective even
when subjected to partial failures is known as a fault tolerant system.
In this paper, the issue of sensor failure, one speci c type of component failure, is
addressed. The question of how to respond to a sensor failure must be considered
for the development of fault tolerant structural control systems. The solution to
this question e ects the need for sensor redundancy, as well as the complexity
and cost of the control system. To o set the chances of a sensor failure leading to
an ine ective or unstable controller, the system may include redundant sensors,
but the expense involved in duplicated sensors, and the associated algorithms and
equipment to switch between sensors, may be prohibitive. However, if the control
system is completely halted when a sensor failure occurs, no performance gains
can be achieved. Thus, it is desireable to continue operation of the control system
if an improvement in performance is expected.
For these investigations, it is assumed that there is a supervisory system to moni-
tor operation of the controller, and that this system has the ability to detect the
occurence of a sensor failure. However, once the failure is detected, how might the
supervisory control computer be programmed to respond. The possible alterna-
tives include 1) completely halting operation of the control system, 2) switching
to a duplicate sensor, 3) continuing normal operation (ignore the failure), and 4)
switching to an alternate control algorithm which does not require the measure-
ment corresponding to the failed sensor. The decision would likely be based on
the number and location of the sensor(s) that failed because this would determine
the stability characteristics and the performance of the resulting controlled system.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the performance and robustness of
structural control systems with sensor failures through a set of experiments. The
experiments are performed at the structural control laboratory in the Department
of Structural Mechanics at the University of Pavia. In the study, a three story test
structure, equipped with a DC-motor based active mass driver (AMD) is employed.
An AMD system is chosen here because a large number of the existing full-scale
structural control applications use AMD systems. These investigations are restrict-
ed to the case in which the sensor failure is detected before an earthquake begins.
Controller changes and sensor failures that occur during an earthquake are expect-
ed to have a di erent e ect on system performance, and require further analysis.
A nominal controller is designed and implemented on the experimental struc-
ture. An H2 /LQG optimal controller based on acceleration feedback is adopted
for these studies. This control algorithm is chosen based on previous success when

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 3
applied to this class of systems (Dyke et al., 1995a, 1996a; Dyke, 1996). Once the
control system ecacy is demonstrated, two experimental investigations are con-
ducted to examine the consequences of a sensor failure. In the rst study, sensor
failure is simulated by disconnecting one or more sensors from the control sys-
tem. These experiments serve as an evaluation of the robustness of the controller
against unforseen failures in the sensors. The second investigation examines the
capabilities of controllers which have been designed based on reduced feedback
information. This investigation is relevant because, in the event of a sensor fail-
ure, implementing a controller which does not require the missing sensor would be
an alternative to operating the control system with a failed sensor. Furthermore,
this study provides valuable information on the relative importance of the various
measurements for control performance and robustness.

2 Experimental Setup
The experiment was performed in the newly constructed structural control labo-
ratory in the Department of Structural Mechanics at the University of Pavia. A
uniaxial shaking table was used to impart base accelerations to a single bay, three-
story, scaled test structure equipped with a DC-motor based active mass driver
to supply the control forces. In addition, the laboratory has a data acquisition
system and a real-time control implementation system. A diagram of the experi-
mental setup is shown in gure 1 and the facilities are described in the following
paragraphs.

, Shaking table: A uniaxial shaking table, designed and constructed by MTS


Systems, was employed to generate the earthquake excitations. The earth-
quake simulator has a 92  92 cm aluminum plate, which slides on high pre-
cision linear bearings. A 10 KN hydraulic actuator is employed to drive this
plate. The system capabilities are: maximum displacement  7.5 cm, max-
imum acceleration 4 g, nominal operational frequency range of 0 { 25 Hz.
Control of the earthquake simulator is achieved using displacement feedback.
A software package, supplied by MTS, assists the operator in calculating the
appropriate drive signal to reproduce a speci ed acceleration.
, Test Structure: The experimental structure is a three story steel frame with
total mass of 130 Kg (see Figure 2). Each oor consists of a steel plate that is
60  30  3 cm and weighs 42 Kg. The distance between oors is 38 cm and the
total height of the structure is 120 cm. The structure was designed such that
each vertical member is bolted to the plate for ease of repair. Although in this
experiment the structure is used in a three degree-of-freedom con guration,

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


4 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke

xrA
6
u -
? xaA -
xa3 -
Multi-Q Board

xa2 - D/A
6
Digital Controller
xa1 -
6
? - A/D

xg
-
Shaking Table

Fig. 1. Active Control Experimental Setup.

it is designed to accommodate braces which will cause it to respond primarily


as a single degree-of-freedom structure.
, Active Mass Driver (AMD): The active mass driver employed in this experi-
ment consists of a moving mass with a single translational axis. The mass is
attached to a cart which is driven by a DC motor through a gear (see Figure
3). Control of the position of the moving mass is achieved by a proportion-
al derivative (PD) controller based on a displacement measurement, obtained
with a potentiometer attached to the moving cart. The device is shown in Fig.
3, and was designed and constructed by Quanser Consulting. The maximum
stroke is  15 cm with a nominal maximum acceleration of 5 g's. For this
experiment, the total moving mass was chosen to be 1.7 Kg, making the mov-
ing mass approximately 1.2 percent that of the total mass of the structure. To
allow a variety of control con gurations to be investigated, the moving mass
can be adjusted be adding or removing weights to the moving cart.
, Control Implementation Equipment: In this experiment control system is
implemented using the Multi-Q board developed by Quanser Consulting Inc.
The board has eight analog I/O channels, each with a 12 bit A/D and D/A

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 5
converter. The control algorithm is programmed in the SIMULINK environ-
ment, converted to C code using the Real-Time Workshop, and Wincon soft-
ware is used in conjunction with Watcom compiler to compile the C code and
download the control program to the CPU. Sampling rates of 1000 Hz are
achievable, which is more than sucient for these applications (Quast et al.,
1995).

Fig. 2. Photograph of Test Structure and Shaking Table (structure shown with braces).

, Sensors: Four Kinemetrics FBA-11 single axis accelerometers are employed


to acquire measurements of the absolute accelerations of the three oors and
the ground acceleration. This sensor is accurate from 0.5 to 50 Hz with a
signal noise less than 2 mV. In addition, a lightweight piezoelectric Sensotec
accelerometer is used to measure the AMD moving cart acceleration. In this
experiment, these ve acceleration measurements, in addition to the rela-
tive displacement of the cart provided by the potentiometer, are available for
determination of the control action.
, Data Acquisition System: To acquire data for system identi cation and control
strategy evaluation, a National Instruments AT-MIO-16DE board is employed.
This board has 16 analog input channels with 12 bit A/D converters, and is
readily driven by LabView. In addition, eight pole, elliptic anti-aliasing lters

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


6 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke

Fig. 3. Photograph of AMD Consisting of Moving Cart, Gear Truck, and Potentiometer to
Measure the Cart Motion (designed and manufactured by Quanser Consulting, Inc.).

with programmable gains and cuto frequencies (0 - 10000Hz) are used to


reduce the high frequency components of the signals. The lters are analog
and provide a sharp rollo of 135 dB/octave.

3 System Identi cation Procedure


Identifying a model of the system to be controlled is one of the most important
steps in the design of a control system. In this experiment the frequency domain
approach to system identi cation developed in (Dyke et al., 1995b, 1996; Dyke,
1996) is applied to obtain a mathematical model of the structural system. The
structural system to be identi ed consists of the test structure, actuator, and sen-
sors. This system is assumed to remain within the linear region throughout the
experiments.
Five measurements are available for feedback, including: absolute accelerations
of the three oors, xa1 ; xa2 ; xa3 , AMD displacement relative to the third oor,
xrA, and the absolute acceleration of the AMD, xaA. This two-input, ve-output
system can be represented by the block diagram shown in gure 4. The struc-
tural system can be described using a matrix of transfer functions, which has two
columns corresponding to the two inputs to the system, u and xg , and ve rows
corresponding to the number of measured outputs. The transfer function matrix
G (s) can be expressed as

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 7
xaA-
xg - xrA-
u Structural xa3-
- System xa2-
xa1-

Fig. 4. System Identi cation Block Diagram.

2
Gy1xg Gy1u 3
6 Gy2 xg Gy2 u 7
G (s) = 64 ...
6
..
.
7
7
5
(1)
Gy5xg Gy5u
where: xg is the base acceleration, u the command signal to the AMD and y =
[y1 ; y2 ; ::; y5 ] the output vector.
In the frequency domain approach employed herein, the rst step is to obtain
the experimental transfer functions of the system. The transfer functions corre-
sponding to the rst column of the transfer function matrix in (1) are obtained by
exciting the structure with the base, and setting the u command to zero. Here, a
band-limited white noise (0{12 Hz) signal was used to drive the shaking table. To
acquire the transfer functions in the second column, the same type of excitation
was used to drive the AMD, and the base was held xed. In this experiment, the
data were acquired with a sampling rate of 30 Hz, an anti-aliasing lter cut-o
frequency of 10 Hz, and suitable input gains.
Next, each of the transfer functions is modeled as a ratio of two polynomials
in the Laplace variable, s, and the poles and zeros of each transfer function are
obtained by performing a least-squares t of the model to the experimental trans-
fer functions. This procedure is implemented in a MATLAB code. In tting the
transfer functions, a common denominator should be assumed for each column of
the transfer function matrix.
Once each of the transfer functions have been modeled, each column of the transfer
function matrix is assembled into a state-space form, as
x_ 1 = A1x1 + B 1xg (2)
y = C 1 x1 + D1 xg

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


8 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
for the column of the transfer function matrix corresponding to the ground accel-
eration xg , and
x_ 2 = A2x2 + B 2u (3)
y = C 2 x2 + D2 u
for the transfer function set from the u command signal. In these equations, the
measurement vector is y = [xa1 ; xa2 ; xa3 ; xrA ; xaA ]. To develop an input-output
model for the entire structural system, the state vectors of these two systems can
be stacked, resulting in one system of the form
A

1 0  
0
x_ = 0 A2 x + B2 u + 0 xg
 
B 1


(4)
y = [C 1 C 2 ] x + D2 u + D1 xg
Equation 4 does not represent a minimal realization of the system because it has
repeated eigenvalues corresponding to the complex poles of the structure, and the
corresponding eigenvectors are not linearly independent. Thus, by condensing out
the redundant states, a model reduction is performed (Moore 1981), and a model
is found of the form
x_ r = Axr + Bu + E xg
y = C y xr + Dy u + F y xg +v (5)
z = C z xr + Dz u + F z xg
where the measured output vector is y = [xa1 ; xa2 ; xa3 ; xrA ; xaA ], and the regulated
output vector is z = [xa1 ; xa2 ; xa3 ; xrA ; xaA ; x1 ; x2 ; x3 ]. Notice that the equation for
the regulated output vector z may include any linear combination of the states of
the system. In this experiment, the regulated responses included the displacements
of the oors of the structure relative to the ground. Although these measurements
are not available for measurement, they were rebuilt based on the accelerations,
and included in the regulated output vector. This reduced model is used as a basis
for the control design. Figure 5 provides a representative comparison between the
resulting identi ed model and the experimentally measured transfer functions.
Here, the rst three natural frequencies of the structural system are 1.23 Hz, 3.61
Hz and 5.62 Hz.
Note that an important aspect of the identi cation procedure adopted here is
that it automatically incorporates the actuator dynamics and the e ects of control-
structure interaction. Neglecting these e ects would reduce the e ectiveness of the
control system, and could even result in instabilities in the controlled system. The
characteristic e ects of this interaction, described in Dyke et al. (1995a), is clearly
shown in the transfer function from the AMD command signal, u, to the absolute
acceleration of the AMD, xaA , in gure 6. The closely spaced pairs of poles and

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 9
20 200

150
0

100

−20
50
Magnitude (dB)

Phase
−40 0

−50
−60

−100

−80
−150

−100 −200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 5. Comparison between the Experimental (dotted) and Analytical (solid) Transfer Functions
from u to xa3 : Magnitude (left) and Phase (right).
40 200

30
150
20
100
10
Magnitude (dB)

50
0
Phase

−10 0

−20
−50
−30
−100
−40
−150
−50

−60 −200
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 6. Comparison Between the Experimental (dotted) and Analytical (solid) Transfer Functions
from u to xaA: Magnitude (left) and Phase (right).

zeros result from the coupling of the AMD device and the structure, as discussed
in (Dyke et al., 1995ab, 1996).

4 Control Design and Implementation


In this experiment, an H2 /LQG control algorithm based on acceleration feedback
is employed. This control algorithm was developed by Suhardjo et al. (1992) and

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


10 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
Spencer et al. (1994), and experimentally veri ed in (Dyke et al., 1995b, 1996;
Dyke, 1996), and is employed here because of its prior success in similar applica-
tions, and because it can readily be implemented on a full scale-structure subject-
ed to earthquake loading. Many control studies have been performed based on the
assumption that all states of the system can be measured. However, for the control
of full-scale civil engineering structures displacements and velocities are dicult,
if not impossible, to obtain because they are relative quantities and must be mea-
sured relative to a frame of reference. In addition, often the system identi cation
procedures employed produce system models in which the states are not physical
quantities. However, accurate and reliable absolute acceleration measurements can
be readily obtained for a full-scale structure, indicating that accelerations are an
ideal choice as a measurement of the structural responses.
A block diagram of a typical structural control system is shown in gure 7, where:
d the external disturbance, u is the control signal, y the vector of measured out-
puts, and z is the vector of regulated outputs. Here, the structural system block
P represents the structure, AMD, and sensors. The controller block K represents
the control algorithm running on the Multi-Q board, A/D converters, and D/A
converters. In the design of the H2 /LQG controller, the reduced system model in
Eq. (5 ) is used.
In the control design the ground acceleration xg is represented as a broadband
d - z-
Structural System (P )
- -
6u y

 Controller (K )  ?

Fig. 7. Structural Control Block Diagram.


noise and an in nite horizon performance index is chosen that weights the abso-
lute acceleration of the three oors and the relative displacement of the AMD,
expressed as:
Z  
J = lim 1 E f(C x + D u) Q(C x + D u) + ru gdt
T 2
 !1  z r z z r z (6)
0

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 11

d - z -
Structural System (P )
Input - -
u y
Output
u 6
 Controller (K )  ?

Fig. 8. Loop Gain Transfer Function.

where r and Q are weightings on the control action and regulated outputs, respec-
tively. The measurement noises are assumed to be identically distributed, statisti-
cally independent Gaussian white noise processes with the ratio SSxvgi xvig = 25. The
control signal u is calculated as:
u = kx^ (7)
where x^ is an estimate of the system state vector provided by a Kalman lter
(Spencer et al, 1997a,b), and k is the full state feedback gain vector.
Prior to implementation of the control designs, loop gain transfer function was
examined as an indication of the closed loop stability of the system (Dyke et
al., 1995b, 1996). A block diagram is shown in gure 8 which describes the loop
gain transfer function. Furthermore, comparing the experimental loop gain trans-
fer function to the theoretical transfer function also serves as a veri cation that
the controller, Multi-Q board, and control actuator are working properly.
Once the nal controller has been designed, it is implemented in a SIMULINK
code, converted to C code using the Real-Time Workshop, compiled, and down-
loaded to the Multi-Q board for control implementation.

5 Experimental Veri cation of Acceleration Feedback Controller


Using the procedure outlined in the previous section, a controller was designed
to demonstrate the performance of the H2 /LQG algorithm based on acceleration

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


12 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
feedback for this structural system. Using the reduced order model of the structural
control system, a variety of controllers were designed and tested on the experimen-
tal structure. All of these controllers were stable and had good performance. The
performance of the control system has been assessed using three recorded earth-
quakes signals which were scaled in magnitude to prevent any permanent damage
to the structure. In this study, the El Centro (El Centro, California, USA, 1940
NS), the Tolmezzo (Tolmezzo, Italy, 1976 NS) and the Bagnoli Irpino (Bagnoli
Irpino, Italy, 1980 NS) earthquakes were used to examine the ecacy of the con-
trol system for a variety of excitations. In addition, to investigate the ability of
the control system to control the rst response mode, a fourth input record (des-
ignated \Simulated Input" in the sequel) was generated by ltering a broadband
signal with a Kanai-Tajimi lter with parameters: frequency of 1.5 Hz, and damp-
ing ratio of 0.707 (Spencer et al., 1997a,b). The four excitations used in this study
are shown in gure 9.
The controller with the best performance used four measurements for feedback,
y = [xa1 ; xa2 ; xa3 ; xaA]. This controller was designed by placing a high weighting on
the second and third oor absolute accelerations, and placing a smaller weighting
on the third oor relative displacement. A comparison between the theoretical and
experimental loop gain transfer function corresponding to this nal control design
is shown in gure 10. Note that the di erence between the two transfer functions
is small in the frequency range of interest, indicating that the system is operating
as expected. The noise present in this transfer function at low frequencies is due
to nonlinearities caused by the friction present in the gears.
The controlled results for the various inputs are provided in Tables I and II. The
value of the peak acceleration in g's and the percent reduction over the uncontrolled
case and provided. The tabulated results include both peak absolute accelerations,
as well as the RMS value of the absolute accelerations over the entire earthquake.
The results of this experiment provide further evidence of the e ectiveness of
the H2 /LQG approach in the design of controllers for this class of systems. Here,
the controller is able to achieve good performance for a variety of ground excita-
tions. Both peak and rms responses are reduced signi cantly. A comparison of the
controlled and uncontrolled time response is provided for the Tolmezzo earthquake
in Figure 11. Additionally, a comparison of the uncontrolled and controlled trans-
fer functions from the ground acceleration to the third oor absolute acceleration
is provided in Figure 12. Notice that a signi cant reduction is achieved in all three
primary modes of the structural system.
Note that in most cases, a 40-60 % reduction in peak responses is achieved. One
exception is in the case of the Bagnoli Irpino earthquake. Because this earthquake
primarily has low frequency components which excite the fundamental mode of

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 13
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04

Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)

0.02
0.02
0
0

−0.02 −0.02

−0.04 −0.04

−0.06 −0.06

−0.08 −0.08

−0.1 −0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)
(a) (b)

0.1 0.1

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0.02 0.02

0 0

−0.02 −0.02

−0.04 −0.04

−0.06 −0.06

−0.08 −0.08

−0.1 −0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

. (c) (d)

Fig. 9. Ground Acceleration for (a) El Centro Earthquake, (b) Tolmezzo Earthquake, (c) Bagnoli
Irpino Earthquake (d) Simulated Input.

the structure, and this controller was designed to achieve a signi cant reduction
in all three structural modes, this controller does not reduce the peak responses
for this excitation as well as it does for the other inputs.
Although this controller has good performance, in this experiment the achievable
performance of this system appears to be limited by the stroke of the AMD rather
than any force capabilities of the control device. Based on observations during the
experiment, the authors believe that improved performance could be achieved with
a control device that has a larger stroke. Other authors have proposed the use of
nonlinear control algorithms which take into account the stroke limitations (see for

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


14 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke

60 experimental
theoretical

40

Magnitude (dB)
20

−20

−40

−60
0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 10. Comparison between Measured and Theoretical Loop Gain Transfer Functions.

Excitation xa1(g) xa2 (g) xa3 (g) xrA(cm) xaA (g)


El Centro (U) 0.089 0.109 0.102 { {
(C) 0.043 0.057 0.081 8.49 1.02
Tolmezzo (U) 0.104 0.074 0.137 { {
(C) 0.047 0.046 0.064 4.92 0.69
Bagnoli Irpino (U) 0.075 0.098 0.120 { {
(C) 0.070 0.075 0.090 13.1 1.38
Simulated (U) 0.128 0.089 0.120 { {
(C) 0.042 0.044 0.062 5.45 0.88

TABLE I
Uncontrolled (U) and Controlled (C) Peak Structural Accelerations.

example: Iemura and Igarashi, 1996; Nguyen et al., 1997; Agrawal and Yang, 1997).
The results provided for this controller are the basis for comparison for the studies
performed in the following sections. This controller is designated the \full con-
troller" in the sequel.

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 15

Excitation xa1 xa2 xa3 xrA xaA


El Centro (U) 0.0233 0.0281 0.0347 { {
(C) 0.0078 0.0111 0.0134 1.632 0.119
Tolmezzo (U) 0.0195 0.0171 0.0228 { {
(C) 0.0050 0.0056 0.0072 0.781 0.069
Bagnoli Irpino (U) 0.0143 0.0196 0.0235 { {
(C) 0.0062 0.0088 0.0103 1.491 0.091
Simulated Input (U) 0.0132 0.0371 0.0312 { {
(C) 0.0120 0.0129 0.0151 1.612 0.135

TABLE II
Uncontrolled (U) and Controlled (C) RMS Structural Accelerations.

0.08 0.15
uncontrolled uncontrolled
0.06 controlled controlled
0.1

0.04
0.05
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)

0.02

0 0

−0.02 −0.05

−0.04
−0.1
−0.06

−0.15
−0.08 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (sec)
Time (sec)
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Uncontrolled and Controlled (a) xa2 Responses Due to Tolmezzo Earthquake, (b) xa3
Responses Due to Tolmezzo Earthquake.

6 Experimental Study of Sensor Failure


The goal of this investigation is to evaluate the performance of this control system
in the event of a sensor failure. The full controller validated in the previous section
is used as a basis for comparison, and a series of experiments are conducted in
which one or more sensors is disconnected. Because the sensor is disconnected to
simulate a sensor failure, it is assumed here that a complete failure of the sensor

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


16 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
40
uncontrolled
30 controlled

20

Magnitude (dB)
10

−10

−20

−30

−40
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 12. Comparison between Uncontrolled and Controlled Transfer Function Magnitude from
the Ground Acceleration to the Third Floor Absolute Acceleration.

occurs, and there is no extraneous noise or erroneous signal from the failed sensor.
In designing this controller for this experiment, no special e orts were made to
develop a controller which could take advantage of a sensor failure. This study
serves as an evaluation of the robustness of the controller against unforseen fail-
ures in the sensors.
The sensors are numbered as follows: sensor 1 = xa1 , sensor 2 = xa2 , sensor 3
= xa3 and sensor 4 = xaA . All combinations of sensor failures were simulated
numerically, and a portion these were then tested experimentally. In simulation
only two cases were found to be unstable. The two unstable cases included the
case in which sensors 2 and 3 had failed, and the case in which sensors 2, 3, and 4
had failed. Thus, because sensors 2 and 3 had failed in both of these cases, these
measurements seemed to be most signi cant in the operation of this controller.
Based on the simulation results, only modest performance gains were achievable
when all but one sensor fails. Because these cases were not expected to provide
any new insights, they were not tested experimentally. The experimental results
for the tested cases have been designated Cases A{G, as de ned in Table III. In the
table, an \x" below a given measurement indicates that the corresponding sensor
is operating. In each case, the structure was subjected to an El Centro earthquake
excitation. The results of the study are given in Table III.
From the results in Table III, when only a single sensor fails (cases B{E) the
performance is minimally e ected. Also, note that the results of Case E are very
similar to those of Case A, indicating that the acceleration of the actuator (sensor
4) appears to be of little importance for the performance of the full controller
considered here. However, when the sensor that fails is the third oor acceleration

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 17

Sensors xa1 xa2 xa3 xrA xaA


Case 1 2 3 4 (g) (g) (g) (cm) (g)
Uncontrolled 0.089 0.109 0.102 { {
A x x x x 0.043 0.057 0.081 8.49 1.02
B x x x 0.042 0.053 0.075 6.10 0.61
C x x x 0.046 0.059 0.083 5.45 0.62
D x x x 0.048 0.063 0.097 7.81 0.62
E x x x 0.043 0.057 0.081 8.57 0.95
F x x 0.046 0.068 0.079 4.63 0.51
G x x 0.040 0.052 0.075 6.19 0.62

TABLE III
Results of Sensor Failure Tests (x indicates sensor is operating).

(Case D), the performance of the controller is greatly reduced.


Two experiments were conducted to investigate the performance when two sensors
are out of service (Cases F and G). Both of these cases are stable and achieve per-
formance levels comparable to that of the full controller (Case A). Interestingly,
they achieve signi cant reductions in the accelerations while requiring smaller actu-
ator strokes and displacements. These cases are believed to perform well because
the third oor acceleration is available for measurement.
Overall, based on the fact that two cases were unstable, and that the results of
Case D (without sensor 3) was only marginal, the second and third oor acceler-
ation are the most critical measurements for this control design. In practice, one
might include redundancy in both of these sensors to avoid instabilities which may
results from a failure of one of both of these sensors. Because the performance of
the controlled system in many other cases is not e ected signi cantly, these sensors
might not require redundancy.

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


18 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
7 Controlled Performance with Reduced Response Information
In the event of a sensor failure, implementing a controller which does not require
the missing sensor may be preferable in terms of both performance and robustness
than operating the full controller with a missing sensor. Thus, another option to
consider when a sensor failure has been detected is to switch to a controller which
has been designed to use fewer sensors. Only a minimal cost would be involved in
incorporating this switching option in the supervisory program, as opposed to the
larger cost and additional equipment associated with sensor redundancy. However,
a tradeo typically exists between the number of sensors used in the control design
and the performance and robustness of the resulting control system. Including more
sensors typically results in a more robust and ecient control strategy. Wu et al.
(1997) conducted some simulation studies which indicated that the achievable per-
formance of a controller which uses reduced response information is similar to that
of the full controller. Thus, this second experiment evaluates the ecacy of con-
trollers which have been designed based on reduced feedback information.
In addition, this study provides useful information on the relative importance of
each feedback measurement, and the sensitivity of the controller performance to
each measurement. In comparing the performance of the various cases, certain sen-
sors are found to be more signi cant than others for control e ectiveness. Thus, it
is important to understand how the performance of the controlled system changes
as the number and location of feedback measurements vary.
In designing the controllers based on reduced feedback information, each con-
troller was designed using the same control objectives (i.e., the relative weightings
were the same). However, the estimator was provided fewer measurements. Thus,
the controllers are comparable in terms of their control objectives, although the
actual control e ort is not necessarily equivalent. As indicated in Table III, the
following controllers have been designed: Call full controller (for comparison); C123
uses sensors 1,2 and 3; C23 uses sensors 2 and 3; C3 uses sensor 3.
In each case, the controlled structure was subjected to an El Centro earthquake
excitation. The performance of each of these controllers are provided in Table IV.
Almost all of the controllers produced similar results to that obtained with full
measurements. The one exception occured with C3 , where there was a noticeable
decrease in the controlled performance. However, the performance of C23 is approx-
imately equal to that of Call , indicating that these two measurements alone may
be sucient. Thus, the results in Table II provide further evidence that the sensors
2 and 3 are of particular importance for this control design.
In comparing the results of this study to those of the sensor failure analysis, the
evidence presented here indicates that a controller designed to use fewer measure-

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 19
ments performs better than the full controller with a failed sensor. The results
provided herein indicate that implementing a supervisory program which has the
ability to switch controllers when a sensor failure is detected would result in sig-
ni cantly improved performance in the controlled system. Further analysis of the
robust stability characteristics of these types of controllers is needed.

Sensors xa1 xa2 xa3 xrA xaA


Controller 1 2 3 4 (g) (g) (g) (cm) (g)
Uncontrolled 0.089 0.109 0.102 { {
Call x x x x 0.043 0.057 0.081 8.49 1.02
C123 x x x 0.044 0.057 0.084 8.87 1.15
C23 x x 0.054 0.061 0.086 9.49 1.05
C3 x 0.062 0.082 0.088 2.51 0.36

TABLE IV
Experimental Results for Reduced Response Information Control
Designs.

8 Conclusions
In this study a series of experiments were conducted to investigate sensor failures
in a structural control system. The goal is to investigate how sensor failures e ect
the performance of the system, and determine the best approach for responding to
the failure. These results are intended to provide information for the development
of fault tolerant structural control systems for civil engineering structures.
A three story test structure, controlled with a DC-motor based active mass driver,
was used in the experiments. The experiments were conducted in the Department
of Structural Mechanics at the University of Pavia. The ecacy of H2 /LQG con-
trol algorithms based on acceleration feedback was rst demonstrated on the test
structure, and the results of this successful control design were used as a basis for
comparison in the subsequent studies.
The rst study was conducted to investigate the performance and robustness of
the controlled system in the event of an unforseen failure in a sensor. This study

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


20 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
demonstrated that in many cases the system remains stable when a sensor fails,
although the achievable performance level is usually reduced. In addition, this
study showed that certain sensors are critical to the performance and stability of
the control system, while the failure of other sensors has a small impact on system
performance. Thus, in the event of a sensor failure, the decision to halt operation
of the control algorithm would depend on which sensor has failed. Additionally,
the relative importance of each sensor can be evaluated, and redundant devices
can be provided for only those sensors which are found to be most critical.
The second investigation was performed to assess the ecacy of controllers that are
designed to use reduced response information. A series of controllers were designed
which used a limited number of feedback measurements, and the ecacy of these
controllers was compared to that of the full controller. The results of this study
demonstrate that in many situations performance levels comparable to that of the
full control design are achievable. Again, these results are highly dependent on
which sensors are used in the control design. The results of this study indicate
that switching to a controller which uses fewer measurements is expected to yield
superior performance than continuing to operate a controller with a failed sensor.
The response of the supervisory system to a sensor failure should also take into
consideration when the failure occurs. All of the experiments discussed in this
paper assume that the sensor failure occurs between earthquakes. In this situa-
tion, this study indicates that the most appropriate strategy would be to switch to
an alternate controller which uses fewer feedback measurements until the sensor
can be repaired. However, switching controllers during the earthquake brings up a
number of additional questions which will be addressed in future studies.
Future investigations will also consider the design, implementation and veri cation
of other control algorithms including fuzzy control (Battaini et al., 1997b).

Acknowledgment
Establishment of the structural control laboratory in the Department of Structural
Mechanics of the University of Pavia has been made possible by the grant ASI -
ARS 96-189, coordinate by Professor Amalia Finzi of the Polytechnic of Milan.
Additionally, the authors would like to thank Professor F. Casciati of the University
of Pavia, for his support in completing this work, Professor B.F. Spencer, Jr. of
the University of Notre Dame for designing the test structure, Quanser Consulting,
Inc. of Ontario, Canada for designing and building the AMD, and the laboratory
technicians, F. Barzon, M. D' Adamo, and G. Sforzini, for constructing the test
structure.

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


FAULT TOLERANT STRUCTURAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ... 21
References

Agrawal, A.K., and Yang, J.N., 1997. "Stability of Actively Controlled Civil Engineering Struc-
tures with Actuator Saturation," J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 123, No. 4, pp.
505-512.
Battaini M., F. Casciati and L. Faravelli, 1997a. \System Reliability Approach to Safety Anal-
ysis of Controlled Structures," ,Proc. ESREL '97, International Conference on Safety and
Reliability, Lisbon, June 17{20.
Battaini M., Casciati F. and Faravelli L., 1997b. \Fuzzy Control of Structural Vibration. An
Active Mass System Driven by a Fuzzy Controller," Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Special Issue on the Benchmark Structural Control Comparison, (to appear).
Dyke S.J., Spencer Jr. B.F., Belknap A.E., Ferrel, K.J., Quast, P. and Sain, M.K, 1994. \Absolute
Acceleration Feedback Control Strategies for the Active Mass Driver," Proc. First World
Conference on Structural Control, Pasadena, California, August 3{5 1994, Vol.2, pp. TP1:51{
TP1:60.
Dyke S.J., Spencer Jr. B.F., Quast P. and Sain M.K, 1995a. \The Role of Control-Structure
Interaction in Protective System Design," J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 322{
338.
Dyke S.J., Spencer Jr. B.F., Quast P., Sain M.K. Kaspari Jr. D.C. and Soong, T.T., 1995b.
\Acceleration Feedback Control of MDOF Structures," J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 122, No.
9, pp. 907{918.
Dyke S.J., Spencer Jr. B.F., Quast, P., Kaspari Jr. D.C. and Sain, M.K., 1996. \Implementation
of an Active Mass Driver Using Acceleration Feedback Control," Microcomputers in Civil
Engrg.: Special Issue on Active and Hybrid Structural Control , Vol.11, pp. 305{323.
Dyke S.J., 1996. Acceleration Feedback Control Strategies for Active and Semi-Active Control
Systems: Modeling, Algorithm Development, and Experimental Veri cation, Ph.D. Disserta-
tion ,University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.
Fujino, Y., Soong, T.T., and Spencer Jr., B.F. \Structural Control: Basic Concepts and Appli-
cations," Proceedings of the ASCE Structures Congress, Chicago, IL. April 15{18, 1996, pp.
1277{1287.
Green M. and Limebeer D. J.N. 1995. Linear Robust Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cli s,
New Jersey.
Housner, G.W. & S.F. Masri, Eds. 1990. Proc. of the U.S. National Workshop on Structural
Control Research, USC Publications No. M9013, University of Southern California.
Housner, G.W. & S.F. Masri, Eds. 1993. Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Structural Control, Univ.
of Southern California.
Housner, G.W., Bergman, L.A., Caughey, T.K. Chassiakos, A.G., Claus, R.O., Masri, S.F., Skel-
ton, R.E., Soong, T.T., Spencer Jr., B.F. and Yao, J.T.P., 1997. \Structural Control: Past,
Present, and Future," J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, Special Issue, Vol. 123, No. 9, pp. 897{971.
Iemura, H. and Igarashi, 1996. \Nonlinear Active Control Experiment of a Real Size Frame
Structure," Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Structural Control, Hong
Kong, December, pp. 241{252.
MATLAB, 1994. The Math Works, Inc. Natick, Massachusetts.
Moore B.B., 1981. \Principal Component Analysis in Linear Systems: Controllability, Observ-
ability, and Model Reduction," IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, pp. 26{31.
nguy Nguyen, T., Jabbari, F. and de Miguel, D., 1997. "High Performance Control of Buildings
Under Seismic Excitation: Designs for Saturating Actuators," Proc. of the Eleventh VPI SU
Symposium on Structural Dynamics and Control, May.
Quast P., Sain M.K., Spencer Jr. B.F. and Dyke S.J., 1995. \Microcomputer Implementations
of Digital Control Strategies for Structural Response Reduction," Microcomputers in Civil
Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 13{25
SIMULINK,1994. The Math Works, Inc. Natick, Massachusetts.
Spencer Jr. B.F., Suhardjo J. and Sain M.K.,1994. \Frequency Domain Optimal Control for
Aseismic Protection," J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE,Vol. 120, No. 1, pp. 135{159.

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42


22 M. Battaini and S.J. Dyke
Spencer, B.F., Dyke, S.J. and Doeskar H.S., 1997a. \Benchmark Problems in Structural Control,
Part I: Active Mass Driver System," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Special
Issue on the Benchmark Structural Control Comparison, (to appear).
Spencer, B.F., Dyke, S.J. and Doeskar H.S., 1997b. \Benchmark Problems in Structural Control,
Part I: Active Mass Driver System," Proc. of the 12th Engineering Mechanics Conference,
April, Portland, Oregon, pp. 1265{69.
Suhardjo J., Spencer Jr. B.F., and Kareem A., 1992. \Frequency Domain Optimal Control of
Wind Excited Buildings," J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp. 2463{2481.
Wu, J.C., Agrawal, A.G., and Yang, J.N., 1997. \Application of Sliding Mode Control to a Bench-
mark Problem," Proc. of the 12th Engineering Mechanics Conference, April, Portland, Oregon,
pp. 1275{79.

jsc97_final_s.tex - Date: November 3, 1997 Time: 13:42