ACTIVE VIBRATION CONTROL OF A TWO-FLOORS BUILDING MODEL

BASED ON H2 AND H METHODOLOGIES USING LINEAR MATRIX

INEQUALITIES (LMIs).

Rodrigo Borges Santos, Douglas Domingues Bueno, Clayton Rodrigo Marqui

and Vicente Lopes Jr.

Mechanical Engineering Department – UNESP – Ilha Solteira

Av. Brasil Centro, 56, Ilha Solteira, São Paulo, 15385-000, Brazil
e-mail: rborges@dem.feis.unesp.br

ABSTRACT

Experimental verification of structural vibrations control strategies is essential for eventual full-scale
implementations. However, few researchers have facilities readily available to them that are capable of even
small-scale structural control experiments. Appropriately constructed bench-scale models can be used to study
important aspects of full-scale structural vibrations control implementations, including: control-structure
interaction, actuator and sensor dynamics, states feedback design, control spillover, etc. In this sense, the
purpose of this article is the project of controllers based on H2 and H methodologies using linear matrix
inequalities (LMIs) for vibration attenuation in a flexible structure. The considered structure is manufactured by
Quanser Consulting Inc., and represents a building controlled by an active mass driver (AMD). The structure
consists of a steel frame with a controllable mass located at the top, which can be configured to have either 1 or 2
floors. In this paper, a 2-floor configuration is employed. The actual experiment considered herein is an effective
way to deal with challenges associated with control design.

NOMENCLATURE

Mf1 First Floor Mass x& c (t) Cart Linear Velocity Relative to the Second Floor
Mf2 Second Floor Mass x& f1 (t) First Floor Linear Velocity Relative to the Ground
Mc Total Mass of the Cart System x& f2 (t) Second Floor Linear Velocity Relative to the First
Floor
Kf1 First Floor Linear Stiffness Constant &&
xf1 (t) First Floor Linear Acceleration Relative to the
Ground
Kf2 Second Floor Linear Stiffness Constant &&
xf2 (t) Second Floor Linear Acceleration Relative to the
First Floor
Rm Cart Motor Armature Resistance && (t)
X First Floor Absolute Acceleration
f1

Kt Cart Motor Torque Constant && (t)

X Second Floor Absolute Acceleration
f2

Km Cart Back ElectroMotive Force Constant && (t)

X Ground Absolute Acceleration
g

Kg Cart Planetary Gearbox Gear Ratio A Dynamic Matrix

 rmp Cart Motor Pinion Radius
Vm (t) Cart Motor Armature Voltage
Fc(t) Cart Driving Force Produced by the
Motor (i.e Control Force)
w(t) Vector of Disturbance Input
B1 Matrix of Disturbance Input
B2 Matrix of Control Input
C Output Matrix
D Feed-through Matrix

xc (t) Cart Linear Position Relative to the x(t) State Vector

Second Floor
xf1 (t) First Floor Linear Deflection Relative to y(t) Output Vector
the Ground
xf2 (t) Second Floor Linear Deflection Relative u(t) Vector of Control Input
to the First Floor

INTRODUCTION

Experimental investigations are essential to obtain a fundamental understanding of many phenomena.

However, when physical systems are scaled down to a size appropriate for laboratory study, salient features of
their behavior may be lost. This is particularly true for large civil engineering structures (Battaini, et al., 1998). In
the area of control of civil structures, it is well-recognized that experimental verification of control strategies is
necessary to focus research efforts in the most promising directions (Housner, et al. 1994a,b). However, few
researchers have experimental facilities readily available to them that are capable of even small-scale structural
control experiments. Consequently, the majority of control studies to date have been analytical in nature, a
substantial number may have employed models that lacked important features of the physical problem. One such
phenomena that has been neglected for many years is control-structure interaction (CSI). Through a series of
analytical and experimental studies, Dyke, et al. (1995) recognized that understanding CSI was key to developing
acceleration feedback control strategies and showed that accounting for CSI is fundamental to achieving high
performance controllers.
A variety of techniques have been intensively studied to reduce the structural vibration in order to achieve
high-speed and high-precision motions (Singer and Seering, 1989). Recent development in microelectronics and
smart structure techniques have provided new solutions for vibration control (Clark et al.,1998). “Smart structures”
adopt microprocessors and distributed transducers to dynamically modify structural dynamics to actively suppress
vibration in time-varying working environments. Use of smart structure techniques can lead to lightweight
structures, leading to higher performance.
There are many robust control techniques in literature that outline these problems. In this research work we
have chosen a recent technique involving linear matrix inequalities (LMI) due its advantages when compared to
conventional techniques (Grigoriadis and Skelton, 1996). LMI contributed to overcome many difficulties in control
design. In the last decade, LMI has been used to solve many problems that until then was unfeasible through
others methodologies, due mainly to the emerging of powerful algorithms to solve convex optimization problem,
as for instance, the interior point method (Boyd et al., 1994 and Gahinet et al., 1995).
The purpose of this paper is design and implement a control state feedback strategy based on H2 and H
controllers using LMI technique for control vibration in a bench-scale structure. Moreover, design full-order state
observer solved for LMI. The model structure employed in the experiment represents a building controlled by an
active mass driver (AMD) and consists of a steel frame with a controllable mass located at the top, as illustrated in
Figure 1.

EXPERIMENT SETUP

The equipment used for the active control experiment consisted of (see Figs.1 and 2):
Structure: The structural specimen, manufacutured by Quanser Consulting Inc., is a model of a flexible
building, which can be configured to have either 1 or 2 floors. Herein, a 2-floor configuration of the model is
employed. The interstorey height is 490 mm, with each column being steel with a section of 1.75 x 108 mm. The
total mass of the structure is 3.5 kg, where the first floor mass is 1.16 kg, the second floor mass is 1.38 kg, and
the mass of each column is 0.24 kg. The structure has the natural frequencies of 1.7 Hz and 5.1 Hz which have
corresponding damping ratios of 0.013 and 0.062 respectively.

Figure 1: Bench-scale building model Figure 2: Experimental set-up

Active Mass Driver (AMD): The AMD provides the control force to the structure. As shown in Fig. 3, it
consists of a moving cart with a DC motor that drives the cart along a geared rack. The maximum stroke is ± 95
mm and the total moving mass is 0.65 Kg.
 Figure 3: Active mass driver (AMD).

Sensors: Each floor of the building structure is equipped witch a capacitive DC accelerometer with full scale
range of ± 5 g and sensitivity of 9.81 m/s2/V (i.e. 1g/V). It consists of a single-chip accelerometer with signal
conditioning. The cart position is directly measured using an optical encoder whose shaft meshes with the track
via an additional pinion. It offers a high resolution of 4096 counts per revolution and sensibility of 2.275E-5
m/count.
Digital Controller: Digital control is achieved by use of the MultiQ - PCI board with the WinCon real time
controller. The controller is developed using SIMULINK (1997) and executed in real time using WinCon. This
board has a 14-bit analog/digital (A/D) and 13-bit digital/analog (D/A) converters with four and sixteen outputs and
inputs analog channels, respectively. The SIMULINK code is automatically converted to C code and interfaced
through the Wincon software to run the control algorithm on the CPU of the PC.
Computer: The computer used is a Pentium IV 2.8 GHz configured with 512 MB of RAM and 40 MB of Hard
Disc.

STATE-SPACE MODEL

For small floor deflection angles, both floors are modelled as standard linear spring-mass systems, as
represented in Figure 2. Both floors’ linear stiffness constants, Kf1 and Kf2, for small angular structure oscillations,
are of 500 N/m. In the presented modelling approach, the structure viscous damping coefficients, Bf1 and Bf2, are
neglected. The Lagrange's method is used to obtain the dynamic model of the system. In this approach, the
inputs to the system are considered to be the vector of disturbance, w(t), and the driving force of the linear
motorized cart ,Fc(t).
In order to design and implement a state-feedback controller for our system, a state-space representation of
that system needs to be derived. Moreover, it is reminded that state-space matrices, by definition, represent a set
of linear differential equations that describe the system's dynamics. The following relationships represent the state
space model:
 d
x(t) = Ax(t)+B1w(t)+B2 u(t) and y(t)=Cx(t)+Du(t) (1)
dt

where x(t) is the system's state vector. In practice, x(t) is often chosen to include the generalized coordinates as
well as their first-order time derivatives. In our case, x(t) is defined such that its transpose is as follows:

x T (t)= [ x c (t) x f1 (t) x f2 (t) x& c (t) x& f1 (t) x& f2 (t) ] (2)

Furthermore, it is reminded that the system's measured output vector is:

yT (t)= [ x c (t) &&

x f1 (t) &&
x f2 (t) ] (3)

Also in Equation (1), the input u(t) is set in a first time to be Fc(t). Thus, we have:

u(t)=Fc (t) (4)

where Fc(t) can be expressed by:

d 
K 2g K t K m  x c (t) 
Fc (t)=-  dt  + K g K t Vm (t) (5)
2
R m rmp R m rmp

According to the system’s state space representation defined by Equations (1), (2) and (3) and according to
the equation of motion expressed in Reference [2] and taking into account Equation (5) in order to convert force
(Fc(t)) to voltage input (Vm(t)) and using the model parameter values provided in Reference [1] the state space
matrices A, B1, B2, C and D result to be as follows:
 0 0 0 1 0 0 0   0 
0 0   0 
0 0 0 1 0    
 
0 0 0 0 0 1 0   0 
A=  B =  B =  (6)
 1 0 2
0 0 278.43 -18.69 0 0    3.00 
0 -431.03 431.03 0 0 0 1   0 
     
0 431.03 -766.49 5.98 0 0 0  -0.96

 0 
1 0 0 0 0 0  

C= 0 -431.03 431.03 0 0 0 D=  0 
 (7)
 
0 431.03 -766.49 5.98 0 0 -0.96

H∞ CONTROLLER BY LMI APPROACH

Considering the linear time-invariant system in state-space form the object of the regulator design is to find a
linear control law of the form

u(t) = -Gx(t) (8)

Objective of control design is to obtain G that minimizes the H norm between the input and output. The H∞
norm of a SISO system is the peak of the transfer function magnitude, in terms of its singular values. Controller
design only is possible if the pair (A, B2) will be controllable. The H∞ optimal control problem can be formulated
from a convex parameterization of Riccati’s equation or through the definition of a new parametric space (Silva et
al, 2006).
The H convex problem can be solved using the following formulation

min
,W,Z

>0
W>0 (9)

 -AW + WA T - B 2 Z - Z TB 2T B1 WC T + Z TD T 
 
 B1T I 0  0
 CW + DZ 0 I 

Solving Eq. (9), is possible to obtain δ = min H ∞ , so, H∞ optimal gain of feedback is given by
 G = ZW -1 (10)

where Z and W are solution of LMI. Using the Eq. (9) is possible to define the sub-optimal problem substituting the
LMI d>0 for d>d’ or d-d’>0.

H2 CONTROLLER BY LMI APPROACH

The optimization problem of the H2 norm can be formulated from the definition of a new parametric space,
that it supplies as solution the optimal H2 gain such that minimizes the H2 norm of the system.

minTr ( X )
X,Z,W

W>0
 W WC T + Z TD 
  0 (11)
CW + DZ X 
-AW - WA - B 2 Z - Z TB 2T B1 
  0
 B1T I 

The solution of the equation above supplies Tr (X ) = min H 2 . The optimal H2 gain of feedback is given by
2

Eq. (10).

EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION

Using LMI Toolbox of the Matlab 6.5, H∞ and H2 controllers gains were obtained solving LMIs (9) and (11),
respectively, and Eq. (10). Sub-optimal H∞ and H2 controllers have been solved using δ>δ’, with δ’=100.
Figures 4 and 5 show the displacements of first and second floors of the structure shown in figure 1,
respectively, for the case of H∞ control. The disturbance force was applied in the first floor with a sinusoidal signal
with amplitude of 0.3 V and frequency of 1.6 Hz (approximately the first natural frequency of vibration). Figure 6
shows the control force applied by the actuator.
 Figure 4: Displacement of first floor without and with H∞ control. Excitation in the first mode.

Figure 5: Displacement of second floor without and with H∞ control. Excitation in the first mode.
 Figure 6: Control force applied in the structure [V] (H∞ control).

Figures 7 and 8 show the displacements of first and second floors, respectively, due to a sinusoidal
disturbance applied in the first floor with amplitude of 1.2 V and frequency of 4.8 Hz (approximately the second
natural frequency of vibration). Figure 9 shows the control force applied by the actuator.

Figure 7: Displacement of first floor without and with H∞ control. Excitation in the second mode.
 Figure 8: Displacement of second floor without and with H∞ control. Excitation in the second mode.

Figure 9: Control force applied in the structure [V] (H∞ control).

The design of the H2 controller was not implemented experimentally because the displacement of the car
exceeded the limit of +/- 95 mm allowed, as it can be seen in figure 11. Besides, the force that is necessary by
actuator is greater than of the H∞ control, Fig. 10.
 Figure 10: Force of control - first mode (H∞ e H2 control)

Figure 11: Displacement of the active mass driver (cart) - first mode (H∞ e H2 control)

CONCLUSION

The study of algorithms for active vibrations control in flexible structures became an area of enormous
interest, mainly due to the countless demands of an optimal performance of mechanical systems as aircraft,
aerospace and automotive structures. Smart structures, formed by a structure base, coupled with actuators and
sensor are capable to guarantee the conditions demanded through the application of several types of controllers.
This paper is addressed to explore the abilities of LMI approach in the design of controllers. The major
advantage of LMI design is to enable specifications such as stability degree requirements, decay rate, input force
limitation in the actuators and output peak bounder. It is also possible to assume that the model parameters
involve uncertainties. The LMI is a very useful tool for problems with constraints, where the parameters vary in a
range of values. Once formulated in terms of LMI a problem can be solved efficiently by convex optimization
algorithms.
This paper showed that H controller, solved through LMI, can reduce structural vibration appropriately. In
this specific structure, it wasn’t possible to implement the H2 controller in real-time because the displacement of
the car (actuator) was bigger than the maximum stroke of the structure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the support of the Research Foundation of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP-Brazil).

REFERENCES

[1] Active Mass Damper - Two-Floor (AMD-2) User Manual

[2] Active Mass Damper - Two-Floor (AMD-2) Linear Experiment #10: Vibration Control - Student Holdout.

[3] Battaini, M., Yang, G., Spencer, B.F. Jr., “Bench-Scale Experiment for Structural Control” Department of
Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, I27100 Pavia - Italy, 1998.

[4] Boyd, S., Balakrishnan, V., Feron, E. and El Ghaoui, L., “Linear Matrix Inequalities in Systems and Control
Theory”, SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics, USA, 193p, 1994.

[5] Clark, R.L., Saunders, W.R., and Gibbs, G.P., “Adaptibe Structures: Dynamics and Control”, John Wiley &
Sons, 1998.

[6] Dyke, S.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Quast, P. ajjnd Sain, M.K. “The Role of Control-Structure Interaction in Protective
System Design,” J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 2, pp. 322–338, 1995 a.

[7] Dyke, S.J., Spencer Jr., B.F., Quast, P., Sain, M.K. Kaspari Jr., D.C. and Soong, T.T. “Acceleration Feedback
Control of MDOF Structures,” J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 9, pp. 897–971, 1995 b.

[8] Grigoriadis, K.M. and Skelton, R.E., “Low-Order Control design for LMI Problems using Alternating Projection
Methods” Automatica, Vol. 32, No 8, pp.1117-1125, 1996.

[9] Housner, G.W., Soong, T. T., Masri, S. F., “Second Generation of Active Structural Control in Civil
Engineering,” Proc., 1st World Conf. on Struct. Control, Pasadena, Panel:3–18, 1994 a.

[10] Housner, G.W., Soong, T. T., Masri, S. F. “Second Generation of Active Structural Control in Civil
Engineering,” Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 289–296, 1994 b.
[11] Silva, S., Lopes Jr, V. and Brennan M.J. Design of a Control System using Linear Matrix Inequalities for the
Active Vibration Control of a Plate, In Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, USA, Vol.17, No1 pp.
81-93 , 2006.

[12] Singer, N.C., Seering, W.P., “Design and Comparison of Command Shaping Methods for Controlling
Residual Vibration”, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, pp. 888-
893, 1989.