Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ymssp

Broad learning robust semi-active structural control: A

nonparametric approach
Sin-Chi Kuok a, b, c, Ka-Veng Yuen a, b, *, Mark Girolami c, d, Stephen Roberts e
a
State Key Laboratory of Internet of Things for Smart City and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Macau, Macau
SAR, China
b
Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Joint Laboratory for Smart City, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China
c
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
d
The Alan Turing Institute, The British Library, London, United Kingdom
e
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We propose a novel algorithm for dynamic response suppression via semi-active control devices,
Broad learning robust controller which we refer to as broad learning, robust, semi-active control (BLRSAC). To configure the semi-
Reliability-based control active controller, a nonparametric reliability-based output feedback control strategy is intro­
Robust failure probability
duced. In particular, an adaptive broad learning network is developed to formulate the control
Semi-active control
Model uncertainty
strategy using the clipped-optimal control technique. The learning network is augmented incre­
mentally to adopt additional training data based on the inherited information of the trained
learning network. By utilizing a robust failure probability, the training dataset is obtained
adaptively to include the training input–output pairs with optimal structural control performance.
The robust failure probability we propose incorporates both predicted failure probability and the
uncertainty of the underlying structure. Therefore, the resultant control strategy can handle the
inevitable uncertainty of the actual control situation to achieve optimal structural control. To
examine the efficacy of the proposed BLRSAC algorithm, illustrative examples of a shear building
and a three-dimensional braced frame under various external excitation and structural damaging
conditions are presented.

1. Introduction

Structural control of civil engineering infrastructures has attracted increasing attention for more than three decades since the
accomplishment of the first full-scale feedback structural control of a ten-story building in 1989 [1–6]. The goal of structural control is
to suppress dynamical structural vibration based on supplemental control systems attached to the concerned structure. Supplemental
control systems can be categorized into passive, active, hybrid, and semi-active control systems [7–9]. A passive control system [2,9]
reduces structural vibration by improving the energy dissipation (such as, install passive damper) and/or reducing the energy
transmission (such as, construct base isolation). An active control system [9,10] makes use of the monitored structural response to
manipulate the actuators of the active control devices. It aims to use the active control actuators for generating countereffect to reduce
the structural vibration induced by the external excitation. However, malfunction of the active control design can enlarge the

* Corresponding author at: University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau SAR, China.
E-mail addresses: sckuok@um.edu.mo (S.-C. Kuok), kvyuen@um.edu.mo (K.-V. Yuen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108012
Received 22 January 2021; Received in revised form 8 April 2021; Accepted 29 April 2021
Available online 18 May 2021
0888-3270/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

structural vibration and may even lead to structural instability. A hybrid control system [7,11] employs a combination of passive and
active control devices for structural control. Although the instability problem can be prevented, the applicability of hybrid control on
civil engineering infrastructures is restricted by the high energy consumption and large space occupation to operate of active control
actuators. Lastly, a semi-active control system [8,12] attains structural vibration suppression via changing the hysteretic properties of
the semi-active control devices. The semi-active control devices are governed by a designed feedback control law based on the
feedback behavior of the structure. In contrast to active and hybrid control, semi-active control does not insert external mechanical
energy to the system and the controlled system are inherently stable. Magnetorheological (MR) dampers [13–15] are a widely used
semi-active control device because of their low operating energy consumption and flexibility of facility implantation in civil engi­
neering infrastructures. By adjusting the supplied electrical power, the MR fluid in a MR damper can change its viscosity rapidly from
liquid to semi-solid and hence generate a resistance control force to the dynamical system. The goal of this study is to develop a novel
data-driven semi-active control strategy for providing optimal and robust design of the feedback control law. Therefore, the installed
MR dampers can be operated with the optimal supplied power to effectively mitigate structural vibration.
According to the formulation type, the feedback control law can be classified into two major categories, namely parametric and
nonparametric. The parametric feedback control law is formulated with a prescribed mathematical model in which its coefficients are
tuned to optimize the control performance. Extensive research efforts have been devoted to the formulation of parametric feedback
control law. Comprehensive reviews on the development, algorithms, and applications can be found in [4,6,16,17]. On the other hand,
the nonparametric feedback control law (often referred to as an “intelligent” control law) is facilitated by the progress of machine
learning [18,19]. The controller is developed autonomously, in a data-driven manner, via machine learning techniques. Nonpara­
metric feedback control laws are mainly developed based on fuzzy logic, reinforcement learning, and neural networks [18,19]. By
implementing fuzzy logic, Aldawod, Samali, Naghdy and Kwok [20] proposed a fuzzy controller for active control of tall buildings
under along wind excitation. Askari, Li and Samali [21] proposed a Takagi-Sogeno fuzzy inverse model for semi-active linear quadratic
Gaussian control of seismically excited building equipped with MR dampers. Khalatbarisoltani, Soleymani and Khodadadi [22] pre­
sented a gain-scheduling fuzzy proportional derivative controller tuned via a reinforcement learning algorithm for active control.
Based on the architecture of hierarchical neural networks, Xu, Wu and Yokoyama [23] proposed a neuro-controller for decentralized
control of a cable-stayed bridge with active tendons. K-Karamodin and H-Kazemi [24] proposed a semi-active predictive neuro-
controller which linked a neural network predictive algorithm with linear quadratic Gaussian controller for semi-active control of a
seismically excited nonlinear building. Wang, Wang, Huang and Zhang [25] designed a deep learning semi-active non-smooth control
algorithm for reducing the structural response of buildings under seismic excitation. Bozorgvar and Zahrai [26] developed an adaptive
neural-fuzzy controller with a neuro-fuzzy inference system and genetic algorithm for semi-active seismic control of buildings. Without
requiring a prescribed mathematical model, nonparametric feedback control laws are more flexible in providing effective control
performance even when the optimal control strategy is complicated and intricate.
A challenging issue in structural control design is dealing with the inherent uncertainty of the actual control plant [27,28]. This
uncertainty can be induced by modeling discrepancy between the design and actual dynamical system, incomplete noise corrupted
measurement, incomplete and/or mismatching external excitation, etc. Such uncertainty is inevitable and can significantly deteriorate
the control performance in actual practice [2,29,30]. However, the majority of nonparametric feedback control laws for structural
control of civil engineering infrastructures are developed according to the nominal model under the designated control conditions.
Consequently, the control law obtained may not be capable of providing satisfactory control in actual applications.
In this study, a novel reliability-based nonparametric feedback control strategy, namely broad learning, robust, semi-active control
(BLRSAC), is proposed for effective and robust semi-active structural control. Herein, an adaptive broad learning network is developed
to configure the semi-active control devices. The broad neural network [31] is a recently developed alternative to the often-used deep
neural network. Conventional deep neural networks consume expensive computational resources to train a stack of hierarchical layers
in the network and any architectural modification requires re-training of the entire hierarchical network. Since additional training data
pairs are generated at every time step during the training process, direct implementation of conventional deep neural networks for
semi-active structural control can be computationally prohibitive. In contrast, the broad neural network can be reconfigured incre­
mentally and can adopt architectural modification without degrading its efficacy [31–38]. In this study, we propose an adaptive broad
learning network to develop the feedback control law of semi-active structural control. The scope of application of the proposed al­
gorithm is to achieve robust structural control based on the resultant feedback control law. The adaptive broad learning network is
augmented with the training data that achieves the optimal control performance of the semi-active controlled system. Moreover, a
robust failure probability is introduced to evaluate the control performance. By incorporating the predicted failure probability and the
inherent uncertainty of the controlled system, the robust failure probability serves as a rational probabilistic measure in reliability-
based structural control [39–42]. Consequently, the proposed BLRSAC algorithm provides an effective and robust design that ach­
ieves optimal structural control under the inherent uncertainty in practice. The two remarkable advantages of the proposed novel
algorithm are: (1) the proposed nonparametric feedback control law is developed adaptively to adopt additional optimal training data;
and (2) the resultant control strategy is robust to handle the inevitable uncertainty in general engineering practice of structural control.
To demonstrate the performance of the proposed BLRSAC algorithm, two illustrative examples are presented. In particular, semi-active
control of a shear building under wind loading and a three-dimensional braced frame subjected to ground excitation are considered.
The robustness of the proposed algorithm on handling various uncertainty, including the uncertainty of the dynamical model, mea­
surement, external excitation, as well as structural damage, is discussed. Moreover, comparisons on the control performance between
the semi-active and passive control are presented.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the formulation of semi-active structural control is briefly summarized. The
governing equations of dynamical systems and semi-active devices are presented. Section 3 presents the formulation of the proposed

2
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

BLRSAC algorithm. First, the establishment of a broad learning network for the design of the control law is introduced. Then, we
present the formulation to update the learning network for adopting new feedback measurements. Thereafter, we present the prin­
ciples to estimate the one-step ahead desired control force based on the robust failure probability. Furthermore, the implementation
procedure of the proposed algorithm is summarized. Finally, Section 4 presents two illustrative examples to demonstrate the per­
formance of the proposed algorithm on semi-active structural control. Comparisons on the control performance and robustness of
different control designs under versatile uncertain control conditions are discussed.

2. Semi-active structural control

Assume that Nc magnetorheological (MR) dampers are mounted on a linear dynamical system with Nd degrees of freedom (DOFs).
The MR dampers are installed to provide semi-active control to the system for mitigating its structural vibration. The equation of
motion of the system is given by:
M(θs )ẍ + C(θs )ẋ + K(θs )x = T e f e + T c f c (1)

where x is the generalized displacement vector of the system; M(θs ), L(θs ), and K(θs ) are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrix of the
system, respectively; θs is the structural parameter vector that parameterize the mass, damping and stiffness matrix; f e ∈ RNfe and f c ∈
RNc are the external excitation and control force vector, respectively; and T e ∈ RNd ×Nfe and T c ∈ RNd ×Nc are their corresponding dis­
tribution matrices. The characteristic properties of the external excitation are defined by the external excitation parameter vector θe .
[ ]T
The model parameter vector is denoted as θ = θTs , θTe ∈ RNθ , which is the combination of the structural parameter vector and the
external excitation parameter vector.
Assume that the excitation and control force is constant within any sampling time interval Δt, i.e., f e (kΔt +τ) = f e (kΔt) and
f c (kΔt +τ) = f c (kΔt), ∀τ ∈ [0, Δt), k = 0, 1, 2, ⋯ Then, the equation of motion shown in Eq. (1) can be transformed to the discretized
state-space form:
yk+1 = Ayk + Be f e,k + Bc f c,k (2)

[ ]T ( ) − 1 − 1
where yk+1 = xTk+1 , ẋTk+1 ; A = exp AΔt ; Be = A (A − I)Be ; Bc = A (A − I)Bc ; f e,k = f e (kΔt); f c,k = f c (kΔt); A =
[ ] [ ] [ ]
0 I 0 0
; Be = ; Bc = ; and I and 0 are the identity matrix and zero matrix, respectively. The noise
− M − 1 K − M− 1 C M− 1 T e M− 1 T c
corrupted measurement at the kth time-step is given by:
⎡ ⎤
yk
zk = Lo f e,k ⎦ + nk
⎣ (3)
f c,k

where Lo ∈ RNo ×(2Nd +Nfe +Nc ) is the observation matrix to indicate the measured quantities; and nk is the measurement noise.
According to the phenomenological model of MR dampers [13,14], the governing equation of the damper force of the cth MR
damper at the kth time-step fc,k is given by:
(c)

( )
(c) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c)
fc,k = ς1,k ẏ k + κ1 xR,k − d0 , c = 1, 2, ⋯, Nc

( )
α(c) (c) (c) (c) (c)
k z k + ς0,k ẋR,k + κ0
(c) (c)
xR,k − y k
ẏ (c)
k =
ς(c) (c)
0,k + ς1,k

⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ (c) ( )⃒ ⃒ (c) ( )
⃒ ⃒
(c) ⃒ (c) ⃒ (c) ⃒
n − 1
(c) ⃒ (c) ⃒
n
z˙(c) (c) ⃒ (c)
k = − γ ⃒ẋR,k − y˙k ⃒z k ⃒z k ⃒ − λ(c) ẋ(c)
R,k − ẏ k
(c) (c)
⃒z k ⃒ + A(c) ẋR,k − y˙k (4)

where xR,k is the relative displacement between the two attached points of the MR damper; κ1 is the accumulator stiffness; κ0 controls
(c) (c) (c)

the stiffness at large velocities; ς(c)

1,k is the damping of the dashpot in the MR damper; ς(c)
0,k is the viscous damping observed at large
velocities; α(c)
k is the evolutionary coefficient; and γ , λ , n , and A
(c) (c) (c) (c)
are shape parameters to describe the hysteresis behavior of the
MR damper. The MR damper model parameters αk , ς0,k , and ς1,k depend on the effective voltage uk :
(c) (c) (c) (c)

α(c) (c) (c) (c)

k = αa + αb u k

ς(c) (c) (c) (c)

0,k = ς0a + ς0b uk

ς(c) (c) (c) (c)

1,k = ς1a + ς1b uk (5)

3
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

A first-order filter of the effective voltage u(c)

k is used to model the dynamics involved the damper in reaching rheological
equilibrium:
( )
u̇(c) (6)
(c) (c) (c)
k = − η uk − vk

[ (c) ]
where η(c) is the rate parameter; vk ∈ 0, Vmax is the applied control voltage; and Vmax is the maximum design voltage of the MR
(c) (c)

damper.
By applying the modified clipped-optimal control design [42,43], the control voltage of the damper force of the cth MR damper at
the kth time-step fc,k can be expressed as:
(c)

[( ) ]
v(c) (c)
k = Vk H rk(c) − fc,k
(c) (c)
fc,k

⎧ (c)
⎪
⎪ rk
⎨ (c) (c)
Vmax , if rk(c) ≤ fc,max
(c)

Vk(c) = f c,max (7)

⎪
⎪
⎩ (c)
Vmax , otherwise

where H[∙] is the Heaviside unit step function; fc,max are the maximum design control force; and rk is the desired control force. The goal
(c) (c)

of this study is to design a robust feedback control strategy with an adaptively reconfigured broad learning network for estimating the
desired control force of the semi-active control devices so that the failure probability of the system can be minimized. The formulation
of the proposed broad learning robust semi-active control (BLRSAC) algorithm is presented in the following.

3. Broad learning robust semi-active control (BLRSAC)

3.1. Broad learning network for control law design

To design the feedback control law, the monitoring measurements (such as, acceleration measurements) and the desired control
force refer to the input and output of the learning network, respectively. Assume that the desired control force depends on the
measurements of the previous Np time-steps. The unknown relationship of the desired control force of the semi-active control devices
[ ]T
rk = rk , rk , ⋯, rk c is described by a general nonlinear input–output function:
(1) (2) (N )

( )
rk = f zk− Np :k− 1 (8)

[ ]T ( )
where zk− Np :k− 1 = zTk− 1 , zTk− 2 , ⋯, zTk− Np denotes the measurements from the k − Np th to the (k − 1)th time-step. To mimic the
nonlinear relationship, an adaptive feedforward broad learning network is constructed:
( )
rk = Gk zk− Np :k− 1 wk (9)
( )
where Gk zk− is the control gain matrix that represents the learning network configuration with the information extracted from
Np :k− 1
( )
the input zk− Np :k− 1 ; and wk is the learning weight vector to be determined. The control gain matrix Gk zk− Np :k− 1 consists of the feature
( ) ( )
basis matrix F(NF ) zk− Np :k− 1 and enhancement layer matrix E(NE ) zk− Np :k− 1 :
( ) [ () (NE ) ( )]
Gk zk− Np :k− 1 = F(NF ) zk−
,E zk− Np :k− 1
Np :k− 1 (10)
( ) [ ( ) ( ) ( ) ]
The feature basis matrix F(NF ) zk− Np :k− 1 = F1 zk− Np :k− 1 , F2 zk− Np :k− 1 , ⋯, FNF zk− Np :k− 1 is assembled with NF feature mapping
groups which extract the feature information from the input zk− Np :k− 1 . The fth feature mapping group Ff is defined as:
( ) ( )
Ff zk− Np :k− 1 =: F f zTk− Np :k− 1 W F f + βF f , f = 1, 2, ⋯, NF (11)

where F f (∙) is the fth feature of mapping; and W F f and βF f are the randomly generated weight and bias of the fth feature of mapping,
respectively. Herein, the sparse autoencoder [31,35,44] is implemented to enhance the quality of the extracted information. On the
( ) [ ( ) ( ) ( )]
other hand, the enhancement layer matrix E(NE ) zk− Np :k− 1 = E1 zk− Np :k− 1 , E2 zk− Np :k− 1 , ⋯, ENE zk− Np :k− 1 is a collection of NE
enhancement node groups which describe the nonlinear characteristic between the feature space basis and the output data. The eth
enhancement node group Ee is defined as:
( ) ( ( ) )
Ee zk− Np :k− 1 =: E e F(NF ) zk− Np :k− 1 W E e + βE e , e = 1, 2, ⋯, NE (12)

4
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

where E e (∙) is a nonlinear activation function; W E e and βE e are the randomly generated weight and bias of the eth enhancement node
group, respectively.
( ) {( ) }
To determine the control gain matrix Gk zk− Np :k− 1 , a training dataset Dk = zi− Np :i , ri , i = Np , Np +1, ⋯, k − 1 ≤ NT is utilized.
Herein, NT denotes the number of time-steps of the training period. The training dataset Dk consists of the training input–output pairs
from the Np time-steps till the current time-step. The assemblies of the inputs (i.e., the measurements) and the outputs (i.e., the desired
[ ]T [ ]T
control forces) are denoted as Z k− 1 = zT1:Np − 1 , zT2:Np , ⋯, zTk− Np :k− 1 and R k = rTNp , rTNp +1 , ⋯, rTk , respectively. Then, the input–output
relationship of the training data can be expressed as:
R k = Gk (Z k− 1 )wk (13)
Therefore, the learning weight wk can be obtained by:

wk = (Gk (Z +
k− 1 ) ) R k (14)

The pseudoinverse (Gk (Z k− 1 ) )

+
has the form:
[ ]−
(15)
+ T 1 T
(Gk (Z k− 1 ) ) = (Gk (Z k− 1 ) ) Gk (Z k− 1 ) + δI (Gk (Z k− 1 ) )

where δ is the trade-off regularization parameter for the ridge regression approximation of pseudoinverse. Herein, the trade-off
regularization parameter is assigned as δ = 2− 30 . To design the data-driven nonparametric control law, a challenging issue is to
establish the training dataset. For this purpose, we propose an adaptive feedback robust controller to generate the training data. When
a new measurement (i.e., training input) becomes available, a set of potential control forces is considered. The potential control forces
are randomly generated over the design range of the semi-active devices. Then, the robust failure probability of each of the generated
control force are computed. The one that achieves the lowest robust failure probability is utilized as the one-step ahead desired control
force (i.e., training output). The training dataset is augmented to include the new training input–output pair for the next training time-
step.

3.2. Control gain matrix

At the kth time-step, the new measurement zk becomes available and the augmented training input vector becomes Z k =
[ ]T
zT1:Np − 1 , zT2:Np , ⋯, zTk− Np :k− 1 , zTk− Np +1:k
. To adopt the additional training input, the learning network can be updated based on the
inherited information of the trained network. The updated control gain matrix consists of two submatrices:
[ ]
Gk((Z k− 1 ) )
Gk+1 (Z k ) = (16)
Gk+1 zk− Np +1:k

The submatrix Gk (Z k− 1 ) is the control gain matrix corresponds to the measurements up to the (k − 1)th time-step. The submatrix
( )
Gk+1 zk− Np +1:k shows the contribution of the additional training input to the updated control gain, which is given by:
( ) [ (NAF ) ( ) (NAE ) ( )]
Gk+1 zk− Np +1:k = F zk− Np +1:k , E zk− Np +1:k (17)

( ) ( )
where F = [ENE +1 , ENE +2 , ⋯, ENE +NAE ]; Ff , f = NF + 1, NF + 2, ⋯, NF +
(NAF ) (NAE )
zk− Np +1:k = [FNF +1 , FNF +2 , ⋯, FNF +NAF ]; E zk− Np +1:k

NAF , follows the expression in Eq. (11) by replacing the training input with zk− Np +1:k ; and Ee , e = NE +1, NE +2, ⋯, NE +NAE follows the
( )
same expression in Eq. (12) by replacing the feature space basis with F AF zk− Np +1:k . By applying matrix inversion lemma [45], the
(N )

pseudoinverse of the updated control gain matrix (Gk+1 (Z k ) )+ has the form:
[ ]
(Gk+1 (Z k ) )+ = (Gk (Z k− 1 ) )+ − UTk+1 V k+1 , UTk+1 (18)

The matrices V k+1 , Sk+1 and Uk+1 can be obtained by:

( )
V k+1 = Gk+1 zk− Np +1:k (Gk (Z k− 1 ) )+ (19)

( )T
( )
Sk+1 = Gk+1 zk− Np +1:k − (Gk (Z T T
k− 1 ) ) V k+1 (20)

{
S+
k+1 , if Sk+1 ∕
=0
Uk+1 = ( )− 1 + T
(21)
I + V k+1 V Tk+1 V k+1 ((Gk (Z k− 1 ) ) ) , otherwise

The formulation shown in Eqs. (17)–(21) bypasses direct computation of the pseudoinverse of the updated control gain matrix
(Gk+1 (Z k ) )+ . Instead, it can be calculated efficiently by utilizing the inherited information of the trained network. After the updated

5
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

control gain matrix is obtained, the next step is to formulate the one-step ahead desired control force.

3.3. One-step ahead desired control force

The one-step ahead desired control force rk+1 is the desired control force associated with the measurement newly monitored at the
{
kth time-step. To estimate the one-step desired control force, a potential control force set with Ng candidates Rk+1 = rk+1 , g = 1, 2, ⋯
[g]

}
, Ng is generated. The resultant desired control force rk+1 is the one that has the lowest robust failure probability among the can­
didates in the set Rk+1 . The potential control force candidates in Rk+1 are generated randomly from a uniform distribution within the
[ ]
design range of the MR dampers, i.e., rk+1 U 0, f c,max , g = 1, 2, ⋯, Ng .
[g]

For the gth candidates in the potential control force set rk+1 , an augmented training output that consists of the training outputs R k
[g] [g]

[ ( )T ]T
and rk+1 denoted as R k+1 = R Tk , rk+1 is formed. Based on the updated control gain matrix obtained in Section 3.2, the learning
[g] [g] [g]

weights associated with rk+1 can be determined:

[g]

w[g] + [g]
k+1 = (Gk+1 (Z k ) ) R k+1 , g = 1, 2, ⋯, Ng (22)

Based on the learning weights k+1 ,

the control design of each potential
w[g] r[g]
k+1can be obtained. Hence, the corresponding control
force and structural response can be determined.
To evaluate the control performance of different generated candidates, a robust failure probability, that incorporates both the
⋃Nq
predicted failure probability and the uncertainty of the underlying structure is introduced. A failure event Jk+1 = i=1 Jk+1,i is defined
as any of the concerned performance quantity qi (such as, structural response) exceeds the threshold level ψ i at any time instant during
{⃒ ⃒ }
the control period [46], i.e., Jk+1,i = : ⃒qk+1,i (t) ⃒ > ψ fort ∈ [0, (k + 1)Δt ] , i = 1, 2, ⋯, Nq . By employing Rice’s formula [47], the
i

conditional failure probability of the failure event Jk+1 based on the model specified with the model parameters θ can be approximated
by:
[ Nq
]
∑
P(Jk+1 |θ ) ≈ 1 − exp − ξk+1,i (θ)[(k + 1)Δt ] (23)
i=1

The above approximation is derived under the assumptions that the failure events are independent and the performance quantity of
the dynamical system is an ergodic stationary process [47,48]. The mean out-crossing rate ξk+1,i (θ) is given by:
( )
σq˙k+1,i ψ 2i
ξk+1,i (θ) = exp − (24)
πσ qk+1,i 2σ2qk+1,i

where σ qk+1,i and σq̇k+1,i are the standard deviation for the performance quantity qk+1,i and its derivative q̇k+1,i , respectively. By taking the
uncertainty of the model parameters into account, the robust failure probability can be obtained by the theorem of total probability
[40]:
∫
P(Jk+1 |Θ ) = P(Jk+1 |θ )p(θ|Θ )dθ (25)
Θ

where Θ is that parameter space of the model parameters θ. The integral can be solved numerically by the efficient transitional Markov
chain Monte Carlo (TMCMC) simulation algorithm [49,50]. It is assumed that the structural parameterization and sensory network are
designed such that the model parameters are globally identifiable [51,52]. Discussion about locally identifiable and nonidentifiable
situations is out of the scope of this study. For globally identifiable model parameters, the integral can be approximated by using
Laplace’s asymptotic expansion [53]:
Nq P(Jk+1 |θ* )p(θ* |Θ )
P(Jk+1 |Θ ) ≈ (2π) 2 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (26)
detH(θ* )

where det(∙) denotes the determinant a matrix. The design model parameter vector θ* can be obtained by maximizing the integrand in
Eq. (25):

θ* = argmax[P(Jk+1 |θ )p(θ|Θ ) ] (27)

θ

Moreover, H(θ* ) is the Hessian matrix of the negative logarithm of the integrand in Eq. (25) evaluated at θ* and (l, l’ ) entry is given
by:

6
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 1. Control diagram of the proposed BLRSAC algorithm for semi-active control.

( )⃒
∂2 ⃒
H(l,l ) (θ* ) = − (28)
’
ln[P(Jk+1 |θ )p(θ|Θ ) ] ⃒ , l, l’ = 1, 2, ⋯, Nθ
∂θl ∂θl’ ⃒
θ=θ*
( ⃒ )
[g] ⃒
Based on Eqs. (26) to (28), the robust failure probability of every candidate in the potential control force set P Jk+1 ⃒Θ ,g = 1,2,⋯,
Ng , can be computed. By comparing the robust failure probability of different candidates in Rk+1 , the one that achieves the lowest
values is selected as the one-step ahead desired control force rk+1 :
( ⃒ )
[g] ⃒
rk+1 = argminP Jk+1 ⃒Θ (29)
g

The estimation is conducted adaptively until the end of the training period. Thereafter, the resultant trained broad learning
network is employed as the feedback control law of the semi-active control devices for the implementation. The resultant control gain
matrix and the resultant learning weights of the trained broad learning network are denoted as Ĝ and w
̂ , respectively. Consequently,
the one-step ahead desired control force with a monitored measurement zk− Np +1:k can be determined by:
( )
̂ zk−
rk+1 = G Np +1:k w
̂ (30)

It is noted that Eqs. (29) and (30) are valid when k > Np . For the first Np time-steps, the one-step ahead desired control force rk+1 is
set as a zero vector for both the training and implementation stage. The proposed BLRSAC algorithm provides a data-driven tool to
develop the feedback control law of dynamical systems with semi-active control devices. The learning network is developed adaptively
based on the training data that achieves the lowest robust failure probability. The robust failure probability takes the model uncer­
tainty into account so that the proposed algorithm provides a robust control to handle the inevitable uncertainty in engineering
applications.

3.4. Summary of the proposed algorithm

The control diagram of the proposed BLRSAC algorithm is shown in Fig. 1. In this figure, the procedure of the (k − 1)th time-step is
indicated with solid line arrows while that of the current time-step is indicated with dashed line arrows. The procedure of the proposed
broad learning semi-active control algorithm is summarized as follows.

11> Training stage:

<1.1>
If k ≤ Np , set the training input data Z k− 1 = z1:Np − 1 and obtain the control gain matrix Gk using Eq. (10). Note that when Np =
1, G1 (Z 0 ) is an empty matrix.

<1.2>
Let rk+1 = 0. Compute the control force vector f c,k+1 based on Eqs. (4) - (7).

7
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

<1.3>
Obtain the updated state vector yk+1 using Eq. (2).

<1.4>
If k ≤ Np , repeat from Step < 1.1 > . Otherwise, go to Step < 1.5 > .

<1.5>
With the new measurement zk , form the augmented training input Z k .

<1.6>
Form the updated control gain matrix Gk+1 (Z k ) using Eq. (16).

<1.7>
Compute the pseudoinverse of the updated control gain matrix (Gk+1 (Z k ) )+ using Eq. (18).

<1.8>
Generate the potential control force set Rk+1 .

<1.9>
Compute the learning weights wk+1 , g = 1, 2, ⋯, Ng , associated with each candidate in Rk+1 using Eq. (22).
[g]

<1.10>
( ⃒ )
[g] ⃒
Compute the robust failure probability P Jk+1 ⃒Θ , g = 1, 2, ⋯, Ng , using Eq. (26).

<1.11>
Obtain the one-step ahead desired control force vector rk+1 using Eq. (29).

<1.12>
Compute the damper force vector f c,k+1 based on Eqs. (4) - (7).

<1.13>
Obtain the updated state vector yk+1 using Eq. (2).

<1.14>
If k < NT , repeat from Step < 1.5 > . Otherwise, terminate the training stage. The resultant control gain matrix G
̂ and the
associated learning weight vector w are used for the implementation.
̂
<2> Implementation stage:

<2.1>
If k ≤ Np , set rk+1 = 0.

<2.2>
Compute the control force vector f c,k+1 based on Eqs. (4) - (7).

<2.3>
Obtain the updated state vector yk+1 using Eq. (2).

<2.4>
If k ≤ Np , repeat from Step < 2.1 > . Otherwise, go to Step < 2.5 > .

<2.5>
When a new measurement becomes available, form zk− Np +1:k .

<2.6>
Obtain the one-step ahead desired control force vector rk+1 using Eq. (30).

<2.7>
Compute the damper force vector f c,k+1 using Eqs. (4) - (7).

8
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Table 1
Properties of the implemented MR dampers.
Parameter Value Parameter Value

ς0a 21.0Ns/cm γ 363cm− 2

ς0b 3.50Ns/cmV λ 363cm− 2

ς1a 283Ns/cm n 2
ς1b 2.95Ns/cmV η 190s− 1

κ0 46.9N/cm A 301
κ1 5.00N/cm d0 14.3cm
αa 140N/cm Vmax 2.25V
αb 695N/cmV

<2.8>
Obtain the updated state vector yk+1 using Eq. (2).

<2.9>
Repeat from Step < 2.5 > .

In the next section, the proposed BLRSAC algorithm is applied to develop the robust nonparametric control strategy for semi-active
structural control of various civil engineering infrastructures. In particular, a shear building under stationary or nonstationary wind
loading and a braced frame subjected to ground excitation will be considered. Moreover, comparisons on the control performance and
robustness of different control designs under versatile uncertain control conditions will be discussed.

4. Illustrative examples

4.1. Example 1: 20-story shear building under wind loading

In this example, we consider semi-active structural control to mitigate the structural response of a 20-story shear building under
wind excitation. External wind loading is one major factor that governs the structural lateral vibration during daily operation [54–58].
This building has uniformly distributed floor mass and inter-story stiffness over its height. The floor plan of the building is a square
shape with 20m width and the inter-story height of each story is identical with 2.5m. The mass per floor is taken to be 200kg and
Rayleigh damping model is adopted. To design the semi-active control strategy, the nominal structural model has the same stiffness-to-
mass ratio for all floors that is equal to 1600s− 2 . The first five modal frequencies of the nominal model are 0.4877Hz, 1.460Hz,
2.422Hz, 3.374Hz, and 4.304Hz. Moreover, the Rayleigh damping coefficients of the nominal structural model are αM = 0.0459s− 1 and
αK = 1.63 × 10− 3 s, and hence the damping ratios of the first two modes are 1%. Taking the uncertainty of the structural parameters
into account, the actual stiffness-to-mass ratios and the Rayleigh damping coefficients are obtained from a truncated Gaussian dis­
tribution with mean at their nominal values and truncated with plus and minus three standard deviations. The coefficients of variation
of the stiffness-to-mass ratios and Rayleigh damping coefficients are 5% and 20%, respectively. Consequently, the first five modal
frequencies of the actual structure are 0.4916Hz, 1.463Hz, 2.422Hz, 3.370Hz, and 4.273Hz. The actual Rayleigh damping coefficients
are αM = 0.0434s− 1 and αK = 1.83 × 10− 3 s with the damping ratios of the first two modes are 0.99% and 1.08%. Five accelerometers
were installed at the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th story. The sampling frequency was 100Hz and the measurement noise was modeled as
zero-mean Gaussian independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) process with 5% root-mean-square (RMS) of the corresponding
noise-free signal of the uncontrolled nominal structure.
The building was subjected to wind excitation f e (t, h) which was a superposition of the spatial dependent mean wind load f e (h) and
the time dependent zero-mean turbulent wind load f e (t), i.e., f e (t, h) = f e (h) +f e (t) [59–61]. The mean wind load was assumed as a step
[ ]
( ) T
function f e (h) = f e (h1 ), f e (h2 ), ⋯, f e hNd with the same value over each story. The component f e (hi ),i = 1,2,⋯,Nd , was given by:

( )2βe
1 hi
f e (hi ) = ρe U e ce Ae (31)
2 He

where the air density is ρe = 1.20kg/m3 ; the drag coefficient is ce = 2.03; the equivalent windward area of one story is Ae = 20 ×
2.5 = 50m2 ; the reference height is He = 10m; the power-law exponent is βe = 0.3; and the mean wind velocity at the reference height
Ue changes at different concerned cases. On the other hand, the turbulent wind load f e is modeled as a modulated zero-mean Gaussian
white noise:

f e (t) = S e (t)ge (t) (32)

9
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Table 2
Robust failure probability (Example 1).
PO SA-C1 SA-C2 SA-C3

P(JNTr |Θ ) 0.46 0.019 0.018 0.022

Table 3
Statistics of performance quantities (Example 1).
Scenario 1 2
Control UN PO SA-C1 SA-C2 SA-C3 UN PO SA-C1 SA-C2 SA-C3

max|di |(cm) 0.4783 0.2498 0.1824 0.1788 0.1907 1.117 0.5645 0.3322 0.3334 0.3339
[–48%] [–62%] [–63%] [–60%] [–50%] [–70%] [–70%] [–70%]
maxσdi (cm) 0.1856 0.06143 0.04535 0.04400 0.04499 0.4018 0.1665 0.06196 0.05756 0.05701
[–67%] [–76%] [–76%] [–76%] [–59%] [–85%] [–86%] [–86%]
max|x20 |(cm) 6.424 2.133 1.928 1.999 2.040 12.87 4.996 3.604 3.329 3.406
[–67%] [–70%] [–69%] [–68%] [–61%] [–72%] [–74%] [–74%]
σx20 (cm) 2.381 0.7331 0.6463 0.6705 0.6841 5.079 1.629 1.443 1.333 1.363
[–70%] [–73%] [–72%] [–71%] [–68%] [–72%] [–74%] [–73%]

where S e () is the modulating function; and ge is a zero-mean Gaussian process with covariance matrix Σf . Herein, the (i, i’ ) component
e

of the covariance matrix Σf is given by:

e

(33)
’ ’
Σ(i,i
f
)
= γ 2e re(i,i ) f e (hi )f e (hi’ )
e

where the intensity of the turbulence wind at the reference height is γe = 0.2; and the correlation coefficient between the height hi and
hi’ is given by re = exp( − |hi − hi’ |/He ). The distribution matrix of the wind excitation is an identity matrix (i.e., T e = I).
(i,i’ )

In this study, a typical type of MR damper [13,14] with the properties shown in Table 1 was employed. The performance of
structural control can be affected by the locations of the sensors and semi-active control devices. Placement strategies of the sensing
and control devices can be found in [62–66]. In this example, three identical MR dampers were installed every six stories from the 6th
story (i.e., the 6th, 12th, and 18th story of the building) for vibration suppression. A failure event is defined as any of the inter-story drift
exceeds the threshold level 0.25cm or the top story displacement exceeds 2.2cm.
To establish the structural control strategy, the broad learning network starts with two feature mapping groups and two
enhancement node groups. For each new measurement, the trained network is augmented with one additional feature mapping group
and one additional enhancement node group. The duration of the training stage is 30s. During the training stage, the structural pa­
rameters of the nominal model and stationary external wind excitation (i.e., S e (t) = 1, ∀t) with Ue = 20m/s were used and its co­
efficient of variation was 10%. Furthermore, three controllers with feedback inputs that involved different previous time-steps were
designed. In particular, Controller C1 utilized the measurements of one previous time-step only (i.e., Np = 1); Controller C2 utilized the
measurements of the previous three time-steps (i.e., Np = 3); and Controller C3 utilized the measurements of the current and previous
five time-steps (i.e., Np = 5). The training inputs included the measured acceleration and the control force of the previous Np time-
steps. Table 2 shows the robust failure probability of the passive-on control and the three resultant semi-active controllers. The
abbreviation PO refers to passive-on control while SA-C1, SA-C2, and SA-C3 refer to semi-active controllers C1, C2, and C3, respec­
tively. The passive-on control is the condition that the MR dampers are operated under the maximum manufactory operating voltage.
With the fixed maximum voltage, the robust failure probability of the passive-on control was 20 times higher than that of the semi-
active controllers with the optimal design. Regarding the three semi-active controllers, Controller C3 that only utilized the feed­
back measurement of five previous time-steps had a slightly higher robust failure probability while Controller C2 that utilized the
measurements of the previous three time-steps had the lowest robust failure probability among the three controllers. Nevertheless, the
robust failure probabilities of the three resultant semi-active controllers were very low where all of them were lower than 2.2%.
Thereafter, the resultant controllers were applied to mitigate the structural response of the actual structure under two different
wind excitation scenarios. For both scenarios, the duration of the implementation was 100s. In Scenario 1, the external wind excitation
had the same statistical properties as the wind excitation in the training process. In Scenario 2, nonstationary wind excitation with a
wind gust superimposed to the background wind was considered. The mean wind velocity at the reference height was Ue = 24.5m/s
which was obtained from a Gaussian distribution with mean equal to 30m/s and standard deviation equal to 3m/s. The wind gust was
the turbulent wind load f e with modulating function S e () given by:
⎧
⎪
⎨ 1, 0 ≤ t < TA
( )
S e (t) = 3(t − TA ) t − TA (34)
⎪
⎩1 + exp 1 −
TB TB

where the values of TA and TB were taken as 50s and 5s, respectively. Hence, the modulating function has its maximum maxS e (t) = 4
t

10
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 2. Peak inter-story drift of the uncontrolled structure and the controlled structure with the three semi-active controllers of (a) Scenario 1 and
(b) Scenario 2 (Example 1).

at t = TA + TB = 55s.
Table 3 shows a comparison of the statistics performance quantities of the uncontrolled (UN), the passive-on (PO) controlled, and
the semi-active (SA) controlled structure under the two excitation scenarios. The three semi-active controllers are indicated by SA-C1,
SA-C2, and SA-C3. Herein, max|di | and maxσ di are the maximum magnitude and the maximum standard deviation of the inter-story drift
di , i = 1, 2, ⋯, 20, respectively; max|x20 | and σx20 are the maximum magnitude and the maximum standard deviation of the top story
displacement x20 , respectively. The percentage of difference of each performance quantity between the uncontrolled and controlled
structure is shown in the bracket. The bolded result indicates the optimal one among the three semi-active controllers. As the external
excitation of Scenario 2 was larger, the corresponding performance quantities were larger than those in Scenario 1. The results show
that the resultant semi-active controllers are robust to the discrepancy between the nominal and actual model as well as the variation of
the external excitation. Although the structural parameters of the actual model are different from the nominal design model, the
resultant semi-active controllers are robust to provide significant reductions on the structural response in both excitation scenarios.
Moreover, the controllers successful handle the nonstationary external excitation in Scenario 2 which has different statistical prop­
erties and stationarity properties from the nominal design. The maximum magnitude of the inter-story drift had over 60% and 70%
reduction in Scenario 1 and 2, respectively. For the top story displacement, the reductions of the controlled structure of Scenario 1 and
2 were over 68% and 72%, respectively. By comparing the three semi-active controllers, the optimal performance quantities occurred
for either Controller C1 or C2. Moreover, the performance quantities in Scenario 2 had higher levels of reduction than those in Scenario
1.
On the other hand, by implementing the passive-on control, the structural response was reduced. However, since the control
devices were operated inefficiently, the structural response of the passive-on control is larger than that of the optimal designed semi-
active controllers. For example, the maximum magnitude of inter-story drift max|di | under the passive-on control was around half of the
uncontrolled situation while the reduction under the semi-active control was over 60%. Furthermore, the semi-active control also
achieved superior performance in reducing the top story displacement than the passive-on control. For Scenario 2, the maximum
magnitude max|x20 | of the semi-active control was at least 10% lower that of the passive-on control.
Fig. 2 shows the peak inter-story drift of the uncontrolled, the passive-on controlled, and the semi-active controlled structure with
the three proposed controllers. Based on the resultant control design, the peak inter-story drift of all stories were significantly reduced
in both scenarios. It is obvious that the peak inter-story drifts under the semi-active control were lower than those under the passive-on
control. In both scenarios, the peak inter-story drifts of the three semi-active controllers for all stories were similar. Fig. 3 shows the
inter-story drift of the 1st, 5th, 10th, and 20th story of Scenario 1. The dashed line and solid line represent the result of the uncontrolled

11
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 3. Inter-story drift of the 1st, 5th, 10th, and 20th story of Scenario 1 using the resultant controller C2 (Example 1).

structure and the controlled structure with Controller C2, respectively. In the same fashion as Fig. 3, Fig. 4 shows the results of Scenario
2. As expected, the structural response under severe external loading was larger. It turned out that the inter-story drifts shown in Fig. 4
are larger than the results shown in Fig. 3. Nevertheless, from these two figures, the inter-story drifts were reduced significantly
throughout the implementation duration in both external excitation scenarios. This example shows that the proposed algorithm
successfully designs the semi-active control system and provides satisfactory robust structural control. The resultant control design is
robust to handle the uncertainty of the structural parameters and excitation.

4.2. Example 2: Three-dimensional eight-story braced frame subjected to ground excitation

In this example, a three-dimensional eight-story braced frame is considered. The structure is shown in Fig. 5 where the long arrows
indicate the axes of the Cartesian coordinate system. The frame has a rectangular floor plan with length la = 6m and lb = 5m. The mass

12
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 4. Inter-story drift of the 1st, 5th, 10th, and 20th story of Scenario 2 using the resultant controller C2 (Example 1).

of each floor is taken to be 250kg. The slabs of two adjacent floors are connected with four columns placed at the four corners.
Regarding the nominal model, each column has inter-story stiffness 87.5kN/m and 62.5kN/m in the x- and y-direction, respectively.
Moreover, each face on each floor is stiffened by an inclined brace with stiffness 25.0kN/m. Therefore, the inter-story stiffnesses in the
x and y direction of each story are equal to 400kN/m and those of the + y, and − y direction are equal to 300kN/m. As a result, the first
five modal frequencies of the nominal model are 1.017Hz, 1.175Hz, 1.928Hz, 3.018Hz and 3.484Hz. Rayleigh damping model is
adopted and the Rayleigh damping coefficients are αM = 0.0685s− 1 and αK = 1.45 × 10− 3 s. Hence, the damping ratios of the first two
modes are 1%. By taking the uncertainty of the structural parameters into account, the actual stiffness parameters and the Rayleigh
damping coefficients are obtained from a truncated Gaussian distribution with mean at their nominal values and truncated with plus
and minus three standard deviations. The coefficients of variation of the stiffness parameters and Rayleigh damping coefficients are 5%
and 20%, respectively. It turns out that the first five modal frequencies of the actual structure are 1.022Hz, 1.177Hz, 1.933Hz, 3.033Hz,
and 3.522Hz. The actual Rayleigh damping coefficients are αM = 0.0799s− 1 and αK = 1.33 × 10− 3 s. with the damping ratios of the first
two modes are 1.05% and 1.03%.
Eight accelerometers were mounted on the frame. The locations and monitoring direction of the accelerometers are indicated with

13
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 5. Three-dimensional eight-story braced frame with four MR dampers installed at the lowest two stories (Example 2).

Table 4
Statistics of performance quantities (Example 2).
Case 1 2
Control UN PO SA UN PO SA

max|dxi |(cm) 2.434 1.853[–24%] 0.8537[–65%] 2.921 2.039[–30%] 1.023[–65%]

maxσdxi (cm) 0.6023 0.3283[–45%] 0.1963[–67%] 0.7510 0.3986[–47%] 0.2400[–68%]
⃒ ⃒
max⃒dyi ⃒(cm) 4.510 4.131[–8.4%] 1.560[–65%] 5.421 4.695[–13%] 1.872[–65%]
maxσdyi (cm) 1.163 0.6830[–41%] 0.3791[–67%] 1.519 0.8217[–46%] 0.4718[–69%]
(⃒ ⃒ ⃒⃒ ⃒⃒ ) 25.104 16.816[–33%] 8.624[–66%] 30.125 19.796[–34%] 10.348[–66%]
max ⃒xtop ⃒, ⃒ytop ⃒ (cm)
(⃒ ⃒ ⃒⃒ ⃒)
⃒ 6.290 3.689[–41%] 2.033[–68%] 8.175 4.441[–46%] 2.523[–69%]
max ⃒σxtop ⃒, ⃒σytop ⃒ (cm)

the short arrows in Fig. 5. In particular, four of them were placed on the +y face of the first, second, fourth, and top story, two of them
were placed on the +x face of the 1st and 4th story, and the rest were placed on the − x face of the 2nd and top story. The sampling
frequency was 200Hz and the measurement noise was modeled as zero-mean Gaussian i.i.d. process with 5% root-mean-square (RMS)
of the corresponding noise-free signal of the uncontrolled nominal structure. Furthermore, four identical MR dampers with the
properties shown in Table 1 were installed to the structure. They were mounted on +x and +y direction of the bottom two stories. The
locations of the installed MR dampers are shown in Fig. 5. A failure event is defined as any of the inter-story drift of the x-direction
exceeds 1.0cm or the inter-story drift of the y-direction exceeds 2.0cm or the top story displacement of the top story in either x- or
y-direction exceeds 10cm.
In this example, a semi-active controller was designed by utilizing the feedback measurements of the previous three time-steps
(Np = 3). In the training stage, the structure was subjected to stationary ground acceleration which was modeled as zero-mean
Gaussian white-noise process with spectral intensity 8 × 10− 5 m2 /s− 3 . Based on the nominal model, the robust failure probability of
the resultant control design was equal to 0.031%. To evaluate the performance of the resultant control strategy, the controlled
structure subjected to the EI Centro 1940 ground excitation is considered. The x- and y- direction of the structure is along the East-West

14
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 6. Peak inter-story drift of the uncontrolled structure and the controlled structure with the three semi-active controllers of (a) Case 1 of the +x
direction, (b) Case 1 of the +y direction, (c) Case 2 of the +x direction, and (d) Case 2 of the +y direction (Example 2).

and North-South direction of the recorded ground acceleration. Two cases with different magnitude of excitation and structural
damaging conditions are considered. In Case 1, the structure is subjected to the original scale of the excitation and no structural
damage occurred throughout the entire period. In Case 2, the ground acceleration was scaled with an increment of 20%. In addition,
structural damage occurred at t = 10s at which the stiffness of the +x face of the first story reduced by 12%, and the stiffness of the +y
face of the first and third story reduced by 8% and 6%, respectively.
Table 4 shows the statistics of the performance quantities of the two cases. The listed performance quantities include the maximum
magnitude and maximum standard deviation of the inter-story drift, and the maximum magnitude and standard deviation of the top
story displacement. In addition, the results of the passive-on control are shown for comparison. The abbreviation UN, PO, and SA refer
to the uncontrolled, passive-on controlled, and semi-active controlled system, respectively. As expected, the structure in Case 2 was
damaged during the earthquake, and hence the values of the performance quantities of Case 2 were larger than Case 1. By comparing
with the uncontrolled structure, the performance quantities of the semi-active controlled structure were reduced at least 65% in both
cases. However, the efficiency of the passive-on control was much lower than the semi-active control and the resultant performance
⃒ ⃒
quantities of the structural response are significant higher. For example, the reductions of the max⃒dyi ⃒ in Case 1 and Case 2 were only
8.4% and 13%, respectively,
Fig. 6 shows the peak inter-story drift of the uncontrolled, the passive-on controlled and the resultant semi-active controlled
structure. Although the passive-on control was capable to reduce the peak inter-story drift, the proposed semi-active controller ach­
ieved better control performance in all stories and directions of both cases. In the same fashion as Fig. 3, Figs. 7 and 8 show the inter-
story drift of Case 1 and 2, respectively. The subplots in these figures refer to the result of the +x and +y direction of the first, second,
fourth, and top story. The result shows that the resultant semi-active control design achieves satisfactory performance in both cases
under the entire period of the strong nonstationary ground excitation. This example demonstrated that the proposed BLRSAC algo­
rithm provided robust semi-active structural control regardless of the uncertainty of the structural parameters, external excitation, as
well as structural damage conditions.

15
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 7. Inter-story drift of selected stories of Case 1 using the resultant controller (Example 2).

16
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

Fig. 8. Inter-story drift of selected stories of Case 2 using the resultant controller (Example 2).

5. Conclusion

In this paper a broad learning, robust, semi-active control (BLRSAC) algorithm is proposed for semi-active structural control. The
proposed BLRSAC algorithm is a novel nonparametric output feedback control strategy that can handle the uncertainty of the
dynamical system, external excitation, incomplete noise-corrupted measurement, and structural deterioration to achieve robust semi-
active control. To establish the semi-active control strategy, an adaptive broad learning network has been developed. The learning
network is augmented incrementally to adopt additional training data efficiently based on the inherited information from the trained
learning network of the previous time-step. Moreover, the robust failure probability is implemented to determine the one-step ahead
desired control force. Therefore, the learning network is developed based on the training data that provides optimal structural control
performance. Since the robust failure probability takes the uncertainty into account, the resultant control strategy is robust to handle
the discrepancy between the design and actual control conditions. The efficacy of the proposed BLRSAC algorithm is demonstrated
using two illustrative examples. The results show that the proposed algorithm successfully mitigates the structural response of various
civil engineering structures under versatile uncertain control conditions. In future studies, extension on probabilistic model updating
of controlled systems will be considered to estimate the optimal model parameters and infer the associated uncertainty [67].

17
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Sin-Chi Kuok: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Ka-Veng Yuen: Methodology,
Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. Mark Girolami: Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Stephen Roberts:
Methodology, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the Science and Technology Development Fund of the Macau SAR under research grant SKL-
IOTSC-2018-2020, the Guangdong–Hong Kong-Macau Joint Laboratory Program 2020B1212030009, and the Research Committee of
University of Macau under research grant CPG2020-00001-FST. These generous supports are gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] T. Kobori, N. Koshika, K. Yamada, Y. Ikeda, Seismic-response-controlled structure with active mass driver system. Part 2: Verification, Earthq Eng Struct D 20 (2)
(1991) 151–166.
[2] G.W. Housner, L.A. Bergman, T.K. Caughey, A.G. Chassiakos, R.O. Claus, S.F. Masri, R.E. Skelton, T.T. Soong, B.F. Spencer, J.T.P. Yao, Structural control: Past,
present, and future, J Eng Mech 123 (9) (1997) 897–971.
[3] S. Saadat, M. Noori, H. Davoodi, Z. Hou, Y. Suzuki, A. Masuda, Using NiTi SMA tendons for vibration control of coastal structures, Smart Mater Struct 10 (4)
(2001) 695–704.
[4] T.E. Saaed, G. Nikolakopoulos, J.-E. Jonasson, H. Hedlund, A state-of-the-art review of structural control systems, J Vib Control 21 (5) (2015) 919–937.
[5] H.-N. Li, L. Ren, Z.-G. Jia, T.-H. Yi, D.-S. Li, State-of-the-art in structural health monitoring of large and complex civil infrastructures, J Civ Struct Health Monit 6
(1) (2016) 3–16.
[6] K. Ghaedi, Z. Ibrahim, H. Adeli, A. Javanmardi, Invited Review: Recent developments in vibration control of building and bridge structures, J Vibroeng 19
(2017) 3564–3580.
[7] S. Chu, T.T. Soong, A.M. Reinhorn, Active, hybrid, and semi-active structural control: A design and implementation handbook, Wiley, New York, 2005.
[8] F. Casciati, J. Rodellar, U. Yildirim, Active and semi-active control of structures–theory and applications: A review of recent advances, J Intell Mater Syst Struct
23 (2012) 1181–1195.
[9] T.T. Soong, M.C. Costantinou, Passive and active structural vibration control in civil engineering, Springer, 2014.
[10] S. Korkmaz, A review of active structural control: Challenges for engineering informatics, Comput Struct 89 (2011) 2113–2132.
[11] N. Fisco, H. Adeli, Smart structures: Part II—hybrid control systems and control strategies, Sci Iran 18 (2011) 285–295.
[12] N. Fisco, H. Adeli, Smart structures: part I—active and semi-active control, Sci Iran 18 (2011) 275–284.
[13] B. Spencer Jr, S. Dyke, M. Sain, J. Carlson, Phenomenological model for magnetorheological dampers, J Eng Mech 123 (1997) 230–238.
[14] L.M. Jansen, S.J. Dyke, Semiactive control strategies for MR dampers: comparative study, J Eng Mech 126 (2000) 795–803.
[15] F. Vestroni, M. Noori, Hysteresis in mechanical systems: Modelling and dynamic response, Int J Non Linear Mech 37 (2002).
[16] B. Spencer Jr, S. Nagarajaiah, State of the art of structural control, J Struct Eng 129 (2003) 845–856.
[17] O. El-Khoury, H. Adeli, Recent advances on vibration control of structures under dynamic loading, Arch Comput Methods Eng 20 (2013) 353–360.
[18] C.J. Harris, C.G. Moore, M. Brown, Intelligent control: Aspects of fuzzy logic and neural nets, World Scientific, 1993.
[19] J. Chen, B.M. Chen, J. Sun, Complex system and intelligent control: theories and applications, Springer, 2019.
[20] M. Aldawod, B. Samali, F. Naghdy, K.C. Kwok, Active control of along wind response of tall building using a fuzzy controller, Eng Struct 23 (2001) 1512–1522.
[21] M. Askari, J. Li, B. Samali, Semi-active LQG control of seismically excited nonlinear buildings using optimal Takagi-Sugeno inverse model of MR dampers,
Procedia Eng 14 (2011) 2765–2772.
[22] A. Khalatbarisoltani, M. Soleymani, M. Khodadadi, Online control of an active seismic system via reinforcement learning, Struct Control Health Monit 26 (3)
(2019) e2298, https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2298.
[23] B. Xu, Z.S. Wu, K. Yokoyama, Neural networks for decentralized control of cable-stayed bridge, J Bridge Eng 8 (4) (2003) 229–236.
[24] A.K. Karamodin, H.H. Kazemi, Semi-active control of structures using neuro-predictive algorithm for MR dampers, Struct Control Health Monit 17 (2010)
237–253.
[25] Qing Wang, Jianhui Wang, Xiaofang Huang, Li Zhang, Semiactive nonsmooth control for building structure with deep learning, Complexity 2017 (2017) 1–8.
[26] M. Bozorgvar, S.M. Zahrai, Semi-active seismic control of buildings using MR damper and adaptive neural-fuzzy intelligent controller optimized with genetic
algorithm, J Vib Control 25 (2019) 273–285.
[27] J.T.-P. Yao, T. Yao, Uncertainties in structural control, Uncertainty Modeling In Vibration, Control And Fuzzy Analysis Of Structural Systems, World Scientific,
1997, pp. 167–178.
[28] A. Zecevic, D.D. Siljak, Control of complex systems: Structural constraints and uncertainty, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
[29] S.-G. Wang, P.N. Roschke, H. Yeh, Robust control for structural systems with unstructured uncertainties, J Eng Mech 130 (2004) 337–346.
[30] M.S. Miah, E.N. Chatzi, F. Weber, Semi-active control for vibration mitigation of structural systems incorporating uncertainties, Smart Mater Struct 24 (2015),
055016.
[31] C. L. Philip Chen, Zhulin Liu, Broad learning system: An effective and efficient incremental learning system without the need for deep architecture, IEEE Trans
Neural Netw Learn Syst 29 (1) (2018) 10–24.
[32] C.P. Chen, Z. Liu, S. Feng, Universal approximation capability of broad learning system and its structural variations, IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst (2018)
1–14.
[33] X. Gong, T. Zhang, C.P. Chen, Z. Liu, Research review for broad learning system: Algorithms, theory, and applications, IEEE Trans Cybern (2021), https://doi.
org/10.1109/TCYB.2021.3061094.
[34] L. Zhang, J. Li, G. Lu, P. Shen, M. Bennamoun, S.A.A. Shah, Q. Miao, G. Zhu, P. Li, X. Lu, Analysis and variants of broad learning system, IEEE Trans Syst Man
Cybern Syst (2020).
[35] S.C. Kuok, K.V. Yuen, Broad learning for nonparametric spatial modeling with application to seismic attenuation, Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 35 (2020)
203–218.
[36] S.C. Kuok, K.V. Yuen, S. Roberts, M. Girolami, Propagative broad learning for nonparametric modeling of ambient effects on structural health indicators, Struct
Health Monit 1475921720916923 (2020).

18
S.-C. Kuok et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 162 (2022) 108012

[37] Sin-Chi Kuok, Ka-Veng Yuen, Multi-resolution broad learning for model updating using incomplete modal data, Struct Control Health Monit 27 (8) (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.v27.810.1002/stc.2571.
[38] S.C. Kuok, K.V. Yuen, Model-free data reconstruction of structural response and excitation via sequential broad learning, Mech Syst Sig Process 141 (2020),
106738.
[39] B.S. May, J.L. Beck, Probabilistic control for the active mass driver benchmark structural model, Earthq Eng Struct D 27 (1998) 1331–1346.
[40] K.V. Yuen, J.L. Beck, Reliability-based robust control for uncertain dynamical systems using feedback of incomplete noisy response measurements, Earthq Eng
Struct D 32 (2003) 751–770.
[41] J. Scruggs, A. Taflanidis, J. Beck, Reliability-based control optimization for active base isolation systems, Struct Control Health Monit Off J Int Assoc Struct
Control Monit Eur Assoc Control Struct 13 (2006) 705–723.
[42] K.V. Yuen, Y. Shi, J.L. Beck, H.F. Lam, Structural protection using MR dampers with clipped robust reliability-based control, Struct Multidiscip O 34 (2007)
431–443.
[43] O. Yoshida, S.J. Dyke, Seismic control of a nonlinear benchmark building using smart dampers, J Eng Mech 130 (2004) 386–392.
[44] Robert Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO, J Roy Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 58 (1) (1996) 267–288.
[45] C.D. Meyer, Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra, Siam, 2000.
[46] K.V.K. Yuen, S. Lambros, An efficient simulation method for reliability analysis of linear dynamical systems using simple additive rules of probability,
Probabilist Eng Mech 20 (2005) 109–114.
[47] Y. Lin, Probabilistic Theory of Structural Dynamics, Malabar, FL: RE Krieger, 1967.
[48] C. Papadimitriou, J.L. Beck, L.S. Katafygiotis, Updating robust reliability using structural test data, Probabilist Eng Mech 16 (2001) 103–113.
[49] J. Ching, Y.C. Chen, Transitional Markov chain Monte Carlo method for Bayesian model updating, model class selection, and model averaging, J Eng Mech 133
(2007) 816–832.
[50] J. Wang, L.S. Katafygiotis, M.N. Noori, Transitional Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation for reliability-based optimization, Safety, Reliability, Risk and Life-
Cycle Performance of Structures & Infrastructures–Deodatis, Ellingwood & Frangopol (Eds.), 2014, 1593–1599.
[51] K.V. Yuen, S.C. Kuok, L. Dong, Self-calibrating Bayesian real-time system identification, Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 34 (2019) 806–821.
[52] K.V. Yuen, S.C. Kuok, Bayesian methods for updating dynamic models, Appl Mech Rev 64 (2011), 010802.
[53] C. Papadimitriou, J.L. Beck, L.S. Katafygiotis, Asymptotic expansions for reliability and moments of uncertain systems, J Eng Mech 123 (1997) 1219–1229.
[54] X. Fu, H.-N. Li, T.-H. Yi, Research on motion of wind-driven rain and rain load acting on transmission tower, J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 139 (2015) 27–36.
[55] H.F. Lam, F.L. Zhang, Y.C. Ni, J. Hu, Operational modal identification of a boat-shaped building by a Bayesian approach, Eng Struct 138 (2017) 381–393.
[56] W.J. Yan, M.Y. Zhao, Q. Sun, W.X. Ren, Transmissibility-based system identification for structural health Monitoring: Fundamentals, approaches, and
applications, Mech Syst Sig Process 117 (2019) 453–482.
[57] K.V. Yuen, S.C. Kuok, Structural health monitoring of Canton Tower using Bayesian framework, Smart Struct Syst 10 (2012) 375–391.
[58] Feng-Liang Zhang, Yan-Chun Ni, Heung-Fai Lam, Bayesian structural model updating using ambient vibration data collected by multiple setups, Struct Control
Health Monit 24 (12) (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.v24.1210.1002/stc.2023.
[59] S.K. Au, F.L. Zhang, P. To, Field observations on modal properties of two tall buildings under strong wind, J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 101 (2012) 12–23.
[60] Ka-Veng Yuen, Peng-Fei Liang, Sin-Chi Kuok, Online estimation of noise parameters for Kalman filter, Struct Eng Mech 47 (3) (2013) 361–381.
[61] J.D. Holmes, Wind loading of structures, CRC Press, 2018.
[62] Costas Papadimitriou, James L. Beck, Siu-Kui Au, Entropy-based optimal sensor location for structural model updating, J Vib Control 6 (5) (2000) 781–800.
[63] Osamu Yoshida, Shirley J. Dyke, Response control of full-scale irregular buildings using magnetorheological dampers, J Struct Eng 131 (5) (2005) 734–742.
[64] Ting-Hua Yi, Hong-Nan Li, Ming Gu, Optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring based on multiple optimization strategies, Struct Des Tall
Special Build 20 (7) (2011) 881–900.
[65] K.V. Yuen, S.C. Kuok, Efficient Bayesian sensor placement algorithm for structural identification: A general approach for multi-type sensory systems, Earthq Eng
Struct D 44 (2015) 757–774.
[66] S. Cantero-Chinchilla, J.L. Beck, J. Chiachío, M. Chiachío, D. Chronopoulos, OptiSens—Convex optimization of sensor and actuator placement for ultrasonic
guided-wave based structural health monitoring, SoftwareX 13 (2021), 100643.
[67] S.C. Kuok, K.V. Yuen, Broad Bayesian learning for nonparametric probabilistic modeling with optimized architecture configuration, Comput Aided Civ
Infrastruct Eng (2021), https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12663.

19