Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Stochastic Frequency Response Functions Using Real-Time Hybrid Substructuring, Principal Component Analysis, and Kriging Metamodeling

  • S.I. : New Frontiers & Innovative Methods for Hybrid Sim
  • Published:
Experimental Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Real-time hybrid substructuring (RTHS) has previously been shown to be an effective tool to quantify the effect of parametric uncertainties on the response of a structural system. Proposed and implemented in this paper is a method that combines RTHS, Principal Component Analysis, and Kriging to metamodel the frequency response functions of a structure. The proposed method can be used to account for parametric variation in both the numerical and physical substructures. This approach is demonstrated using a series of bench-scale RTHS tests of a magnetorheological (MR) fluid damper used to control a 2 degree-of-freedom mass-spring system. The numerical system spring stiffnesses and the physical current supplied to the MR damper are each treated as uniformly distributed random variables. The RTHS test data is used to train computationally fast metamodels, which can then be used to conduct Monte Carlo simulations to determine distributions of the system response. The proposed methodology is shown to be both efficient and accurate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blakeborough A, Williams MS, Darby AP, Williams DM (2001) The development of real–time substructure testing. Philos Trans Royal Soc A 359(1786):1869–1891

  2. Mahin SA, Shing PSB (1985) Pseudodynamic method for seismic testing. J Struct Eng 111(7):1482–1503

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mahin SA, Shing PSB, Thewalt CR, Hanson RD (1989) Pseudodynamic test method - current status and future directions. J Struct Eng 115(8):2113–2128

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nakashima M, Kato H, Takaoka E (1992) Development of real-time pseudo dynamic testing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21(1):79–92

    Google Scholar 

  5. Christenson R, Lin YZ, Emmons A, Bass B (2008) Large-scale experimental verification of semiactive control through real-time hybrid simulation. J Struct Eng 134(4):522–534

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shao X, Reinhorn AM, Sivaselvan MV (2010) Real-time hybrid simulation using shake tables and dynamic actuators. J Struct Eng 137(7):748–760

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jiang Z, Kim SJ, Plude S, Christenson R (2013) Real-time hybrid simulation of a complex bridge model with MR dampers using the convolution integral method. Smart Mater Struct 22(10):105008

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chae Y, Ricles JM, Sause R (2013) Large-scale experimental studies of structural control algorithms for structures with magnetorheological dampers using real-time hybrid simulation. J Struct Eng 139(7):1215–1226

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chae Y, Ricles JM, Sause R (2014) Large-scale real-time hybrid simulation of a three-story steel frame building with magneto-rheological dampers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(13):1915–1933

    Google Scholar 

  10. Friedman A, Dyke SJ, Phillips B, Ahn R, Dong B, Chae Y et al (2014) Large-scale real-time hybrid simulation for evaluation of advanced damping system performance. J Struct Eng 141(6):04014150

    Google Scholar 

  11. Botelho RM, Christenson RE (2014) Mathematical framework for real-time hybrid substructuring of marine structural systems. In: Dynamics of Civil Structures, Volume 4: Proceedings of the 32nd IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, Florida, USA. Springer, pp 175-185

  12. Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The Monte Carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44(247):335–341

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Abbiati G, Marelli S, Bursi OS, Sudret B, Stojadinovic B (2015) Uncertainty propagation and global sensitivity analysis in hybrid simulation using polynomial chaos expansion. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soft Comput. Tech. Civil, Struct. Environ. Eng. Prag (Czech Republic)

  14. Abbiati G, Schöbi R, Sudret B, Stojadinovic B (2017) Structural reliability analysis using deterministic hybrid simulations and adaptive kriging metamodeling. In: Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake (16WCEE), Santiago, Chile, (paper no. 595)

  15. Chen C, Xu W, Guo T, Chen K (2017) Analysis of actuator delay and its effect on uncertainty quantification for real-time hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16(4):713–725

    Google Scholar 

  16. Xiu D, Karniadakis GE (2002) The wiener--Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM J Sci Comput 24(2):619–644

    Google Scholar 

  17. Santner TJ, Williams BJ, Notz WI (2003) The design and analysis of Computer experiments. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faravelli L (1989) Response-surface approach for reliability analysis. J Eng Mech 115(12):2763–2781

    Google Scholar 

  19. Echard B, Gayton N, Lemaire M (2011) AK-MCS: an active learning reliability method combining Kriging and Monte Carlo simulation. Struct Saf 33(2):145–154

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ligeikis C, Christenson R (2020) Assessing structural reliability using real-time hybrid substructuring. Int J Lifecycle Performance 4(1-3):158–183Engineering

  21. Chatterjee T, Chakraborty S, Chowdhury R (2016) A bi-level approximation tool for the computation of FRFs in stochastic dynamic systems. Mech Syst Signal Process 70:484–505

    Google Scholar 

  22. DiazDelaO FA, Adhikari S, Flores ES, Friswell MI (2013) Stochastic structural dynamic analysis using Bayesian emulators. Comput Struct 120:24–32

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fricker TE, Oakley JE, Sims ND, Worden K (2011) Probabilistic uncertainty analysis of an FRF of a structure using a Gaussian process emulator. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(8):2962–2975

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jacquelin E, Adhikari S, Sinou JJ, Friswell MI (2014) Polynomial chaos expansion and steady-state response of a class of random dynamical systems. J Eng Mech 141(4):04014145

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jacquelin E, Adhikari S, Sinou JJ, Friswell MI (2015) Polynomial chaos expansion in structural dynamics: accelerating the convergence of the first two statistical moment sequences. J Sound Vib 356:144–154

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lu J, Zhan Z, Apley DW, Chen W (2019) Uncertainty propagation of frequency response functions using a multi-output Gaussian process model. Comput Struct 217:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  27. Manan A, Cooper JE (2010) Prediction of uncertain frequency response function bounds using polynomial chaos expansion. J Sound Vib 329(16):3348–3358

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pichler L, Pradlwarter HJ, Schuëller GI (2009) A mode-based meta-model for the frequency response functions of uncertain structural systems. Comput Struct 87(5–6):332–341

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jolliffe I (1986) Principal component analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yaghoubi V, Marelli S, Sudret B, Abrahamsson T (2017) Sparse polynomial chaos expansions of frequency response functions using stochastic frequency transformation. Probabilistic Eng Mech 48:39–58

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jia G, Taflanidis AA (2013) Kriging metamodeling for approximation of high-dimensional wave and surge responses in real-time storm/hurricane risk assessment. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 261:24–38

    Google Scholar 

  32. Spencer BF Jr, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson J (1997) Phenomenological model for magnetorheological dampers. J Eng Mech 123(3):230–238

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sobol IYM (1967) On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals. Zhurnal Vychislitel'noi Matematiki i Matematicheskoi Fiziki, 7(4), 784-802; U.S.S.R. Comput. Math. Math. Phys., 7(4), 86–112

  34. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245

    Google Scholar 

  35. MATLAB Release 2017a [Computer software]. (2017). Natick: The Mathworks, Inc.

  36. Welch P (1967) The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 15(2):70–73

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bendat JS, Piersol AG (2010) Random data: analysis and measurement procedures. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  38. Krige DG (1951) A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the Witwatersrand. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 52(6):119–139

    Google Scholar 

  39. Matheron G (1963) Principles of geostatistics. Econ Geol 58(8):1246–1266

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci:409–423

  41. Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2001) The elements of statistical learning. Springer Series in Statistics, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bachoc F (2013) Cross validation and maximum likelihood estimations of hyper-parameters of Gaussian processes with model misspecification. Comput Stat Data Anal 66:55–69

    Google Scholar 

  43. Blatman G, Sudret B (2013) Sparse polynomial chaos expansions of vector-valued response quantities. In: Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Struct. Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR’2013)

  44. Tipping ME, Bishop CM (1999) Probabilistic principal component analysis. J R Stat Soc Series B (Stat Methodol) 61(3):611–622

    Google Scholar 

  45. Marelli S, Sudret B (2014) UQLab: a framework for uncertainty quantification in Matlab. In: Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management, pp 2554-2563

  46. Lataniotis C, Wicaksono D, Marelli S, Sudret B (2019) UQLab user manual – Kriging (Gaussian process modeling), report #UQLab-V1.3-105, chair of risk, safety and uncertainty quantification, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

  47. Lord Corporation (2009) Lord technical data RD-8040-1 and RD-8041-1 dampers. [data sheet] Retrieved from http://www.lordmrstore.com/lord-mr-products/rd-8041-1-mr-damper-long-stroke

  48. Simulink Release 2017a [Computer software]. (2017). Natick: The Mathworks, Inc.

  49. Horiuchi T, Nakagawa M, Sugano M, Konno T (1996) Development of a real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, (paper no. 660)

  50. Ahmadizadeh M, Mosqueda G, Reinhorn AM (2008) Compensation of actuator delay and dynamics for real-time hybrid structural simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(1):21–42

    Google Scholar 

  51. Carrion JE, Spencer Jr BF (2007) Model-based strategies for real-time hybrid testing. NSEL report series, report no. NSEL-006, Newmark structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  52. Chen C, Ricles JM (2009) Analysis of actuator delay compensation methods for real-time testing. Eng Struct 31(11):2643–2655

    Google Scholar 

  53. Horiuchi T, Inoue M, Konno T, Namita Y (1999) Real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(10):1121–1141

    Google Scholar 

  54. Phillips BM, Spencer BF Jr (2012) Model-based feedforward-feedback actuator control for real-time hybrid simulation. J Struct Eng 139(7):1205–1214

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kwok NM, Ha QP, Nguyen TH, Li J, Samali B (2006) A novel hysteretic model for magnetorheological fluid dampers and parameter identification using particle swarm optimization. Sensors Actuators A Phys 132(2):441–451

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jiang Z, Christenson RE (2012) A fully dynamic magneto-rheological fluid damper model. Smart Mater Struct 21(6):065002

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ligeikis C (2019) Exploring uncertainty in real-time hybrid substructuring. (Master’s Thesis, University of Connecticut)

  58. Adhikari S, Pascual B (2016) The ‘damping effect’ in the dynamic response of stochastic oscillators. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 44:2–17

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research under project DOD/NAVY/ONR, Award No. N00014-11-1-0260, Program Directors Deborah Nalchajian and Gregory Orris.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    C. Ligeikis

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    R. Christenson

Authors
  1. C. Ligeikis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Christenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Christenson.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ligeikis, C., Christenson, R. Identifying Stochastic Frequency Response Functions Using Real-Time Hybrid Substructuring, Principal Component Analysis, and Kriging Metamodeling. Exp Tech 44, 763–786 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-020-00389-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-020-00389-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation