Event-Driven Control System for Geographically Distributed Hybrid Simulation
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 132, Issue 1
Abstract
An event-driven distributed control system for conducting continuous seismic response simulations using geographically distributed hybrid models is presented. Hybrid models, comprising appropriately scaled experimental and numerical substructures in networked geographically distributed laboratories or computers, can be used to realistically and cost-effectively evaluate the performance of complex structures at large scales. The principal advantage of the proposed event-driven control system is its ability to mitigate the adverse effects of random completion times of communication, computation, actuation and measurement tasks during a hybrid simulation on the stability, accuracy and reliability of the simulation results. The efficiency of the proposed continuous extrapolation/interpolation hybrid simulation method is demonstrated by examining the earthquake response of a two-story shear building model that comprises two experimental substructures and a numerical integrator connected through the internet. An evaluation of results from these hybrid simulations suggests that distributed hybrid simulation conducted using the proposed procedure provides accurate and reliable results.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
Support of this work through an NSF Grant No. NSFCMS-0086621 made within the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Program of the National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. The writers also acknowledge the assistance of University of California, Berkeley graduate student Mr. Andreas Schellenberg and EERC laboratory technicians Mr. Don Clyde and Mr. Wes Neighbor during experiment setup and hybrid testing. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
References
Andrade, L. (2001). “Parmatlab: Distributed process over MATLAB workers.” MATLAB Central File Exhange, ⟨http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/⟩.
Bouc, R. (1971). Modèl mathématique d’hysteresis. Acustica, 4(3), 16–25.
Campbell, S., and Stojadinovic, B. (1998). “A system for simultaneous pseudodynamic testing of multiple substructures.” Proc., 6th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Seattle.
Dermitzakis, S. N., and Mahin, S. A. (1985). “Development of substructuring techniques for on-line computer controlled seismic performance testing.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-85/04, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
dSPACE. (2003). Ace Kit 1104, dSPACE Gmbh, Novi, Mich.
Harel, D. (1987). “Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems.” Sci. Comput. Program., 8, 231–274.
Horiuchi, T., Inoue, M., Konno, T., and Namita, Y. (1999). “Real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28(10), 1121–1141.
Magonette, G. (2001). “Development and application of large-scale continuous pseudo-dynamic testing techniques.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 359, 1771–1799.
Magonette, G. E., and Negro, P. (1998). “Verification of the pseudodynamic test method.” Eur. Earthquake Eng., XII(1), 40–50.
Mahin, S. A., and Shing, P. B. (1985). “Pseudodynamic method for seismic testing.” J. Struct. Eng., 111(7), 1482–1503.
Mahin, S. A., Shing, P. B., Thewalt, C. R., and Hanson, R. D. (1989). “Pseudodynamic test method—Current status and future direction.”J. Struct. Eng., 115(8), 2113–2128.
Mathworks. (2003). MATLAB, The language of technical computing, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, Mass.
Mosqueda, G. (2003). “Continuous hybrid simulation with geographically distributed substructures.” PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
MOST. (2003). “Multi-site on-line simulation test.” NEESgrid, ⟨http://www.neesgrid.org/most/⟩ (Sept. 2003).
Nakashima, M. (2001). “Development, potential, and limitations of real-time online (pseudo-dynamic) testing.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 359, 1851–1867.
Nakashima, M., Kato, M., and Takaoka, E. (1992). “Development of real-time pseudo dynamic testing.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21(1), 79–92.
Nakashima, M., and Masaoka, N. (1999). “Real-time on-line test for MDOF systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28(4), 393–420.
Newmark, N. M. (1959). “A method of computation for structural dynamics.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 85(3), 67–94.
Rodgers, J., and Mahin, S. A. (2002). “Shaking table tests examining effects of connection behavior on a steel moment frame system with idealized connections.” Proc., 7th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Boston.
Royal Society. (2001). “Dynamic testing of structures: Papers of a theme.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 359.
Rydesater, P. (2001). “TCP/UDP/IP toolbox 2.0.4.” MATLAB Central File Exchange, ⟨http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/⟩ (Sept. 2003).
Shing, P. B., and Mahin, S. A. (1987). “Cumulative experimental errors in pseudodynamic tests.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15(4), 425–445.
Shing, P. B., Nakashima, M., and Bursi, O. S. (1996). “Application of pseudodynamic test method to structural research.” Earthquake Spectra, 12(1), 29–54.
Shing, P. B., Vannan, M. T., and Cater, E. (1991). “Implicit time integration for pseudo-dynamic tests.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 20(6), 551–576.
Systran. (2003). SCRAMNet+ Network, Systran Corporation, ⟨http://www.systran.com/scmain.html⟩ (Sept. 2003) (now Curtiss-Wright Controls, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.).
Takanashi, K., and Nakashima, M. (1987). “Japanese activities on on-line testing.” J. Eng. Mech., 113(7), 1014–1032.
Takanashi, K., Udagawa, K., Seki, M., Okada, T., and Tanaka, H. (1975). “Non-linear earthquake response analysis of structures by a computer-actuator on-line system (details of the system).” Trans. of the Architectural Institute of Japan, 229, 77–83.
Thewalt, C. R., and Mahin, S. A. (1987). “Hybrid solution techniques for generalized pseudodynamic testing.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-87/09, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Thewalt, C. R., and Roman, M. (1994). “Performance parameters for pseudodynamic tests.” J. Struct. Eng., 120(9), 2768–2781.
Tsai, K.-C., Yeh, C.-C., Yang, Y.-S., Wang, K.-J., Wang, S.-J., and Chen, P.-C. (2003). “Seismic hazard mitigation: Internet-based hybrid testing framework and examples.” Proc., Int. Colloquium on Natural Hazard Mitigation: Methods and Applications, Villefranche sur-Mer, France.
Uang, C.-H., and Bertero, V. V. (1990). “Evaluation of seismic energy in structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 19(1), 77–90.
Watanabe, E., Kitada, T., Kunitomo, S., and Nagata, K. (2001). “Parallel pseudo-dynamic seismic loading test on elevated bridge system through the Internet.” Proc., 8th East Asia-Pacific Conf. on Structural Engineering and Construction, Singapore.
Wen, Y.-K. (1976). “Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 102(2), 249–263.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 132 • Issue 1 • January 2006
Pages: 68 - 77
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: Sep 20, 2004
Accepted: Mar 28, 2005
Published online: Jan 1, 2006
Published in print: Jan 2006
Notes
Note. Associate Editor: Satish Nagarajaiah
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.