Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recent Advances in Computational Methodologies for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation of Engineering Structures

  • Review article
  • Published:
Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Predicting complex structures’ dynamic behavior is challenging, especially since full-scale testing of structures subjected to natural hazards is not always possible. Testing individual systems is insufficient, and consequently, engineering experimentation requires refinement. Hybrid simulation (HS) is a cost-effective and efficient dynamic testing technique that evaluates a systems’ performance with rate-dependent behavior. HS is also known as cyber-physical testing, dynamic virtualization, pseudo-dynamic testing, dynamic sub-structuring, and hardware-in-the-loop. In structural engineering, it consists of combining experimental-analytic simulations of structures subjected to dynamic loading. It seeks to: (1) leverage established understandings about the physical world to gain insight into the behavior of physical systems that have limited prior knowledge, and (2) study the coupling of physical and computational models to realistically include their dynamic interactions. The cyber-physical setup consists of dividing a structure into numerical and physical substructures and using actuators to achieve the coupling. The actuator dynamics generate a time delay in the overall system that affects the simulation’s accuracy and stability. Hence, tracking control methodologies strive to mitigate these adverse effects. Cyber-physical testing with linear, pre-determined models has been studied and established. Thus, recent studies seek to enable the most realistic conditions for such engineering experimentation through robust, nonlinear and adaptive control methodologies to address challenging cases involving damage, failures, or sharply changing dynamics. This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of recent tracking control methodologies for real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS), including identifying the limitations and challenges of modern implementations. Furthermore, this paper presents a comparative study evaluating control methodologies using a benchmark problem.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data, models, and codes used during the study in this review paper are available in the DesignSafe-CI online repository located in [130]. The original benchmark problem data, models and codes are found at [128].

References

  1. 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 

  2. Bas E, Moustafa M (2020) Performance and limitations of real-time hybrid simulation with nonlinear computational substructures. Exp Tech 44(6):715–734

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hakuno M, Shidawara M, Hara T (1969) Dynamic destructive test of a cantilever beam, controlled by an analog-computer. Proc Jpn Soc Civ Eng 1969:1–9

  4. Andreev MV, Gusev AS, Ruban NY, Suvorov AA, Ufa RA, Askarov AB, Bemš J, Králík T (2019) Hybrid real-time simulator of large-scale power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 34(2):1404–1415

    Google Scholar 

  5. Joshi A (2019) A novel approach for validating adaptive cruise control (ACC) using two hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation benches. In: SAE Technical Paper. https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-1038

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

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Chen C, Ricles JM (2012) Large-scale real-time hybrid simulation involving multiple experimental substructures and adaptive actuator delay compensation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(3):549–569

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chae Y, Ricles JM, Sause R (2012) 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 

  10. Chae Y, Kazemibidokhti K, Ricles JM (2013) Adaptive time series compensator for delay compensation of servo-hydraulic actuator systems for real-time hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(11):1697–1715

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mercan O, Ricles JM (2009) Experimental studies on real-time testing of structures with elastomeric dampers. J Struct Eng 135(9):1124–1133

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wu T, Song W (2019) Real-time aerodynamics hybrid simulation: wind-induced effects on a reduced-scale building equipped with full-scale dampers. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 190:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang Z, Basu B, Nielsen SR (2019) Real-time hybrid aeroelastic simulation of wind turbines with various types of full-scale tuned liquid dampers. Wind Energy 22(2):239–256

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sauder T, Chabaud V, Thys M, Bachynski EE, Sæther LO (2016) Real-time hybrid model testing of a braceless semi-submersible wind turbine: Part i–the hybrid approach. In: ASME 2016 35th international conference on ocean, offshore and Arctic engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, p 006-0903900609039

  15. Vilsen SA, Sauder T, Sørensen AJ, Føre M (2019) Method for real-time hybrid model testing of ocean structures: case study on horizontal mooring systems. Ocean Eng 172:46–58

    Google Scholar 

  16. Isermann R, Schaffnit J, Sinsel S (1999) Hardware-in-the-loop simulation for the design and testing of engine-control systems. Control Eng Pract 7(5):643–653

    Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson O (1962) A design tool (research and development) simulator survey report. Technical Report. SAE Technical Paper

  18. Drosdol J, Panik F (1985) The Daimler–Benz driving simulator a tool for vehicle development. SAE Trans 94:981–997

  19. Kempf DJ, Bonderson LS, Slafer LI (1987) Real time simulation for application to ABS development. Technical report, SAE Technical Paper

  20. Bouscayrol A (2008) Different types of hardware-in-the-loop simulation for electric drives. In: IEEE international symposium on industrial electronics, 2008 (ISIE 2008). IEEE, Piscataway, pp 2146–2151

  21. Fathy HK, Filipi ZS, Hagena J, Stein JL (2006) Review of hardware-in-the-loop simulation and its prospects in the automotive area. In: Modeling and simulation for military applications, vol 6228. International Society for Optics and Photonics, Bellingham, p 62280

  22. Bacic M (2005) On hardware-in-the-loop simulation. In: 44th IEEE conference on decision and control and the European control conference (CDC-ECC'05). IEEE, Piscataway, pp 3194–3198

  23. Luo K, Shi W, Chi Y, Wu Q, Wang W (2017) Stability and accuracy considerations in the design and implementation of wind turbine power hardware in the loop platform. CSEE J Power Energy Syst 3(2):167–175

    Google Scholar 

  24. Aziz S, Wang H, Liu Y, Peng J, Jiang H (2019) Variable universe fuzzy logic-based hybrid LFC control with real-time implementation. IEEE Access 7:25535–25546

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cale J, Johnson B, Dall’Anese E, Young P, Duggan G, Bedge P, Zimmerle D, Holton L (2018) Mitigating communication delays in remotely connected hardware-in-the-loop experiments. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2018.2821618

  26. Yu S, Han J, Qu Z, Yang Y (2018) A force and displacement compensation method towards divergence and accuracy of hardware-in-the-loop simulation system for manipulator docking. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2842106

  27. Joshi A (2017) Hardware-in-the-loop (hil) implementation and validation of sae level 2 autonomous vehicle with subsystem fault tolerant fallback performance for takeover scenarios. Technical report, SAE Technical Paper

  28. Takanashi K, Udagawa K, Seki M, Okada T, Tanaka H (1975) Nonlinear earthquake response analysis of structures by a computer-actuator on-line system. Bull Earthq Resist Struct Res Center 8:1–17

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  30. Takanashi K, Ohi K (1983) Earthquake response analysis of steel structures by rapid computer-actuator on-line system, (1) a progress report, trial system and dynamic response of steel beams. Bull. Earthq Resist Struct Res Center (ERS) 16:103–109

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dermitzakis SN, Mahin SA (1985) Development of substructuring techniques for on-line computer controlled seismic performance testing. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley

  32. Dhakal R, Mander J, Mashiko N (2007) Bidirectional pseudodynamic tests of bridge piers designed to different standards. J Bridge Eng 12(3):284–295

    Google Scholar 

  33. Obata M, Goto Y (2007) Development of multidirectional structural testing system applicable to pseudodynamic test. J Struct Eng 133(5):638–645

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nakata N, Spencer BF Jr, Elnashai AS (2007) Multi-dimensional mixed-mode hybrid simulation control and applications. Technical report. Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaigne

  35. Mahmoud HN, Elnashai AS, Spencer BF Jr, Kwon O-S, Bennier DJ (2013) Hybrid simulation for earthquake response of semirigid partial-strength steel frames. J Struct Eng 139(7):1134–1148

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nakashima M, Masaoka N (1999) Real-time on-line test for mdof systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(4):393–420

    Google Scholar 

  37. Iemura H, Igarashi A, Takahashi Y (1999) Substructured hybrid techniques for actuator loading and shaking table tests. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on advances in structural engineering and mechanics, pp 821–826

  38. Igarashi A, Iemura H, Suwa T (2000) Development of substructured shaking table test method. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering

  39. Fermandois GA, Spencer BF (2017) Model-based framework for multi-axial real-time hybrid simulation testing. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16(4):671–691

    Google Scholar 

  40. Colletti J (2019) Enabling full-scale soil–structure interaction modeling through analysis of a geotechnical laminar box and real-time dynamic hybrid simulation. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo

  41. Sauder T (2018) Fidelity of cyber-physical empirical methods application to the active truncation of slender marine structures. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

  42. Ozdagli AI (2015) Distributed real-time hybrid simulation: modeling, development and experimental validation. PhD thesis, Purdue University

  43. Li X, Ozdagli AI, Dyke SJ, Lu X, Christenson R (2017) Development and verification of distributed real-time hybrid simulation methods. J Comput Civ Eng 31(4):04017014

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lu L-Q, Wang J-T, Zhu F (2018) Improvement of real-time hybrid simulation using parallel finite-element program. J Earthq Eng 24(10):1–19

  45. Shao X, Mueller A, Mohammed BA (2016) Real-time hybrid simulation with online model updating: methodology and implementation. J Eng Mech 142(2):04015074

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang R, Phillips BM, Fernández-Cabán PL, Masters FJ (2019) Cyber-physical structural optimization using real-time hybrid simulation. Eng Struct 195:113–124

    Google Scholar 

  47. Silva CE, Gomez D, Maghareh A, Dyke SJ, Spencer BF Jr (2020) Benchmark control problem for real-time hybrid simulation. Mech Syst Signal Process 135:106381

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gutierrez Soto M, Adeli H (2013) Tuned mass dampers. Arch Comput Methods Eng 20(4):419–431

    Google Scholar 

  49. Elias S, Matsagar V (2017) Research developments in vibration control of structures using passive tuned mass dampers. Annu Rev Control 44:129–156

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schellenberg AH, Becker TC, Mahin SA (2017) Hybrid shake table testing method: theory, implementation and application to midlevel isolation. Struct Control Health Monit 24(5):1915

    Google Scholar 

  51. Najafi A, Fermandois GA, Spencer BF Jr (2020) Decoupled model-based real-time hybrid simulation with multi-axial load and boundary condition boxes. Eng Struct 219:110868

    Google Scholar 

  52. Condori J, Maghareh A, Orr J, Li H-W, Montoya H, Dyke S, Gill C, Prakash A (2020) Exploiting parallel computing to control uncertain nonlinear systems in real-time. Exp Tech 44:735–749

  53. Dyke S, Spencer B Jr, Quast P, Sain M (1995) Role of control-structure interaction in protective system design. J Eng Mech 121(2):322–338

    Google Scholar 

  54. Maghareh A, Silva CE, Dyke SJ (2018) Servo-hydraulic actuator in controllable canonical form: identification and experimental validation. Mech Syst Signal Process 100:398–414

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kim SJ, Christenson RE, Wojtkiewicz SF, Johnson EA (2011) Real-time hybrid simulation using the convolution integral method. Smart Mater Struct 20(2):025024

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bonnet P, Williams M, Blakeborough A (2008) Evaluation of numerical time-integration schemes for real-time hybrid testing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(13):1467–1490

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wang J, Lu L, Zhu F (2018) Efficiency analysis of numerical integrations for finite element substructure in real-time hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 17(1):73–86

    Google Scholar 

  58. Horiuchi T, Konno T (2001) A new method for compensating actuator delay in real-time hybrid experiments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 359(1786):1893–1909

    Google Scholar 

  59. Chang S-Y (2002) Explicit pseudodynamic algorithm with unconditional stability. J Eng Mech 128(9):935–947

    Google Scholar 

  60. Chen C, Ricles JM (2008) Stability analysis of sdof real-time hybrid testing systems with explicit integration algorithms and actuator delay. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(4):597–613

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kolay C, Ricles JM (2014) Development of a family of unconditionally stable explicit direct integration algorithms with controllable numerical energy dissipation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(9):1361–1380

    Google Scholar 

  62. Tang Y, Lou M (2017) New unconditionally stable explicit integration algorithm for real-time hybrid testing. J Eng Mech 143(7):04017029

    Google Scholar 

  63. Palacio-Betancur A, Gutierrez Soto M (2019) Adaptive tracking control for real-time hybrid simulation of structures subjected to seismic loading. Mech Syst Signal Process 134:106345

    Google Scholar 

  64. Carrion JE, Spencer BF Jr (2007) Model-based strategies for real-time hybrid testing. Technical report, Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana

  65. Zhao J, French C, Shield C, Posbergh T (2003) Considerations for the development of real-time dynamic testing using servo-hydraulic actuation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(11):1773–1794

    Google Scholar 

  66. Horiuchi T, Nakagawa M, Sugano M, Konno T (1996) Development of a real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation. In: Proceedings of 11th world conference in earthquake engineering, No. 660, Acapulco, Mexico

  67. Maghareh A (2017) Nonlinear robust framework for real-time hybrid simulation of structural systems: design, implementation, and validation. PhD thesis, Purdue University

  68. Maghareh A, Dyke SJ, Prakash A, Rhoads JF (2014) Establishing a stability switch criterion for effective implementation of real-time hybrid simulation. Smart Struct Syst 14(6):1221–1245

    Google Scholar 

  69. Gao X, Castaneda N, Dyke SJ (2013) Real time hybrid simulation: from dynamic system, motion control to experimental error. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(6):815–832

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gao XS, You S (2019) Dynamical stability analysis of mdof real-time hybrid system. Mech Syst Signal Process 133:106261

    Google Scholar 

  71. Maghareh A, Dyke SJ, Prakash A, Rhoads JF (2013) Establishing predictive indicators for stability and performance of SDOF real-time hybrid simulations. Technical report

  72. Maghareh A, Dyke SJ, Prakash A, Bunting GB (2014) Establishing a predictive performance indicator for real-time hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(15):2299–2318

    Google Scholar 

  73. Maghareh A, Dyke S, Rabieniaharatbar S, Prakash A (2017) Predictive stability indicator: a novel approach to configuring a real-time hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(1):95–116

    Google Scholar 

  74. Christenson R, Dyke S, Zhang J, Mosqueda G, Chen C, Nakata N, Laplace P, Song W, Chae Y, Marshall G et al (2014) Hybrid simulation: a discussion of current assessment measures. Purdue University, West Lafayette

  75. Huang L, Chen C, Guo T, Chen M (2019) Stability analysis of real-time hybrid simulation for time-varying actuator delay using the Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional approach. J Eng Mech 145(1):04018124

    Google Scholar 

  76. Gálmez C, Fermandois G (2020) Online stability analysis for real-time hybrid simulation testing. Front Built Environ 6:134

    Google Scholar 

  77. Carrion JE, Spencer B (2006) Real-time hybrid testing using model-based delay compensation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on earthquake engineering, vol 299

  78. Chen C (2007) Development and numerical simulation of hybrid effective force testing method. PhD Dissertation, Lehigh University

  79. Chen C, Ricles JM, Marullo TM, Mercan O (2009) Real-time hybrid testing using the unconditionally stable explicit CR integration algorithm. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(1):23–44

    Google Scholar 

  80. Darby A, Blakeborough A, Williams M (1999) Real-time substructure tests using hydraulic actuator. J Eng Mech 125(10):1133–1139

    Google Scholar 

  81. 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 

  82. Darby A, Blakeborough A, Williams M (2001) Improved control algorithm for real-time substructure testing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30(3):431–448

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wu B, Wang Z, Bursi OS (2013) Actuator dynamics compensation based on upper bound delay for real-time hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(12):1749–1765

    Google Scholar 

  84. Zhu F, Wang J-T, Jin F, Gui Y, Zhou M-X (2014) Analysis of delay compensation in real-time dynamic hybrid testing with large integration time-step. Smart Struct Syst 14(6):1269–1289

    Google Scholar 

  85. Gui Y, Wang J-T, Jin F, Chen C, Zhou M-X (2014) Development of a family of explicit algorithms for structural dynamics with unconditional stability. Nonlinear Dyn 77(4):1157–1170

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  86. Ning X, Wang Z, Zhou H, Wu B, Ding Y, Xu B (2019) Robust actuator dynamics compensation method for real-time hybrid simulation. Mech Syst Signal Process 131:49–70

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zhou H, Xu D, Shao X, Ning X, Wang T (2019) A robust linear-quadratic-Gaussian controller for the real-time hybrid simulation on a benchmark problem. Mech Syst Signal Process 133:106260

    Google Scholar 

  88. Jung R-Y, Benson Shing P, Stauffer E, Thoen B (2007) Performance of a real-time pseudodynamic test system considering nonlinear structural response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(12):1785–1809

    Google Scholar 

  89. Phillips BM, Spencer BF Jr (2011) Model-based feedforward-feedback tracking control for real-time hybrid simulation. Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory. Technical report, University of Illinois at Urbana

  90. Phillips BM, Takada S, Spencer B Jr, Fujino Y (2014) Feedforward actuator controller development using the backward-difference method for real-time hybrid simulation. Smart Struct Syst 14(6):1081–1103

    Google Scholar 

  91. Nakata N, Stehman M (2014) Compensation techniques for experimental errors in real-time hybrid simulation using shake tables. Smart Struct Syst 14(6):1055–1079

    Google Scholar 

  92. Hayati S, Song W (2017) Design and performance evaluation of an optimal discrete-time feedforward controller for servo-hydraulic compensation. J Eng Mech 144(2):04017163

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ou G, Ozdagli AI, Dyke SJ, Wu B (2015) Robust integrated actuator control: experimental verification and real-time hybrid-simulation implementation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(3):441–460

    Google Scholar 

  94. Jung R-Y, Benson Shing P (2006) Performance evaluation of a real-time pseudodynamic test system. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(7):789–810

    Google Scholar 

  95. Bonnet P, Lim C, Williams M, Blakeborough A, Neild S, Stoten D, Taylor C (2007) Real-time hybrid experiments with newmark integration, mcsmd outer-loop control and multi-tasking strategies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(1):119–141

    Google Scholar 

  96. Chen C, Ricles JM (2009) Improving the inverse compensation method for real-time hybrid simulation through a dual compensation scheme. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(10):1237–1255

    Google Scholar 

  97. Shao X, Reinhorn A (2012) Development of a controller platform for force-based real-time hybrid simulation. J Earthq Eng 16(2):274–295

    Google Scholar 

  98. Verma M, Rajasankar J, Iyer NR (2014) Fuzzy logic controller for real-time substructuring applications. J Vib Control 20(8):1103–1118

    Google Scholar 

  99. Günay S, Mosalam KM (2015) Enhancement of real-time hybrid simulation on a shaking table configuration with implementation of an advanced control method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(5):657–675

    Google Scholar 

  100. Stehman M, Nakata N (2016) Iir compensation in real-time hybrid simulation using shake tables with complex control–structure–interaction. J Earthq Eng 20(4):633–653

    Google Scholar 

  101. Verma M, Sivaselvan M (2019) Impedance matching control design for the benchmark problem in real-time hybrid simulation. Mech Syst Signal Process 134:106343

    Google Scholar 

  102. Peiris LH, Plummer AR, du Bois JL (2021) Passivity control for nonlinear real-time hybrid tests. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part I J Syst Control Eng 235(6):914–928

    Google Scholar 

  103. Peiris LDH, Plummer AR, du Bois JL (2022) Normalized passivity control for robust tuning in real-time hybrid tests. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 32(7):4355–4375

    Google Scholar 

  104. Neild S, Drury D, Stoten D (2005) An improved substructuring control strategy based on the adaptive minimal control synthesis control algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part I J Syst Control Eng 219(5):305–317

    Google Scholar 

  105. Neild S, Stoten D, Drury D, Wagg D (2005) Control issues relating to real-time substructuring experiments using a shaking table. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(9):1171–1192

    Google Scholar 

  106. Lim C, Neild S, Stoten D, Taylor C, Drury D (2004) Using adaptive control for dynamic substructuring tests. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on structural control

  107. Lim C, Neild S, Stoten D, Drury D, Taylor C (2007) Adaptive control strategy for dynamic substructuring tests. J Eng Mech 133(8):864–873

    Google Scholar 

  108. Darby A, Williams M, Blakeborough A (2002) Stability and delay compensation for real-time substructure testing. J Eng Mech 128(12):1276–1284

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  110. Wallace M, Wagg D, Neild S (2005) An adaptive polynomial based forward prediction algorithm for multi-actuator real-time dynamic substructuring. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 461(2064):3807–3826

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  111. Tu J-Y, Hsiao W-D, Chen C-Y (2014) Modelling and control issues of dynamically substructured systems: adaptive forward prediction taken as an example. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 470(2168):20130773

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  112. Zhou H, Wagg DJ, Li M (2017) Equivalent force control combined with adaptive polynomial-based forward prediction for real-time hybrid simulation. Struct Control Health Monit 24(11):e2018

  113. Wu B, Wang Q, Benson Shing P, Ou J (2007) Equivalent force control method for generalized real-time substructure testing with implicit integration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(9):1127–1149

    Google Scholar 

  114. Xu D, Zhou H, Shao X, Wang T (2019) Performance study of sliding mode controller with improved adaptive polynomial-based forward prediction. Mech Syst Signal Process 133:106263

    Google Scholar 

  115. Wang Z, Ning X, Xu G, Zhou H, Wu B (2019) High performance compensation using an adaptive strategy for real-time hybrid simulation. Mech Syst Signal Process 133:106262

    Google Scholar 

  116. Chen P-C, Tsai K-C (2013) Dual compensation strategy for real-time hybrid testing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyna 42(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  117. Tao J, Mercan O (2019) A study on a benchmark control problem for real-time hybrid simulation with a tracking error-based adaptive compensator combined with a supplementary proportional-integral-derivative controller. Mech Syst Signal Process 134:106346

    Google Scholar 

  118. Chen C, Ricles JM (2010) Tracking error-based servohydraulic actuator adaptive compensation for real-time hybrid simulation. J Struct Eng 136(4):432–440

    Google Scholar 

  119. Mercan O (2007) Analytical and experimental studies on large scale, real-time pseudodynamic testing. Lehigh University, Lehigh

  120. Chen C, Ricles JM, Guo T (2012) Improved adaptive inverse compensation technique for real-time hybrid simulation. J Eng Mech 138(12):1432–1446

    Google Scholar 

  121. Xu W, Chen C, Guo T, Chen M (2019) Evaluation of frequency evaluation index based compensation for benchmark study in real-time hybrid simulation. Mech Syst Signal Process 130:649–663

    Google Scholar 

  122. Chae Y, Rabiee R, Dursun A, Kim C-Y (2018) Real-time force control for servo-hydraulic actuator systems using adaptive time series compensator and compliance springs. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(4):854–871

    Google Scholar 

  123. Chen P-C, Chang C-M, Spencer BF, Tsai K-C (2015) Adaptive model-based tracking control for real-time hybrid simulation. Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1633–1653

    Google Scholar 

  124. Gálmez C, Fermandois G (2022) Robust adaptive model-based compensator for the real-time hybrid simulation benchmark. Struct Control Health Monit 29(7):2962

  125. Najafi A, Spencer BF Jr (2019) Adaptive model reference control method for real-time hybrid simulation. Mech Syst Signal Process 132:183–193

    Google Scholar 

  126. Ouyang Y, Shi W, Shan J, Spencer BF (2019) Backstepping adaptive control for real-time hybrid simulation including servo-hydraulic dynamics. Mech Syst Signal Process 130:732–754

    Google Scholar 

  127. Maghareh A, Dyke SJ, Silva CE (2020) A self-tuning robust control system for nonlinear real-time hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 49(7):695–715

    Google Scholar 

  128. Silva CE, Gomez D, Maghareh A, Dyke SJ, Spencer Jr BF (2020) RTHS code RT V24. Benchmark control problem for real-time hybrid simulation. Mech Syst Signal Process 135:106381. https://doi.org/10.17632/j4mnhgncf7.2

  129. Fermandois GA (2019) Application of model-based compensation methods to real-time hybrid simulation benchmark. Mech Syst Signal Process 131:394–416

    Google Scholar 

  130. Palacio-Betancur A, Gutierrez Soto M (2022) Recent advances in computational methodologies for real-time hybrid simulation of engineering structures. Comparison of numerical integration methods using a vRTHS of a 3 story steel frame—DesignSafe-CI v1. https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-9nqb-b991

  131. MECHS (2019) MECHS research agenda. Technical report, Multi-hazard Engineering Collaboratory on Hybrid Simulation, June 2019

  132. Gutierrez Soto M, Adeli H (2017) Recent advances in control algorithms for smart structures and machines. Expert Syst 34(2):12205

    Google Scholar 

  133. Cao L, Laflamme S (2018) Real-time variable multidelay controller for multihazard mitigation. J Eng Mech 144(2):04017174

    Google Scholar 

  134. Micheli L, Hong J, Laflamme S, Alipour A (2020) Surrogate models for high performance control systems in wind-excited tall buildings. Appl Soft Comput 90:106133

    Google Scholar 

  135. Downey A, Hong J, Dodson J, Carroll M, Scheppegrell J (2020) Millisecond model updating for structures experiencing unmodeled high-rate dynamic events. Mech Syst Signal Process 138:106551

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 212 Sackett Building, University Park, USA

    Alejandro Palacio-Betancur

  2. School of Engineering Design and Innovation, College of Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 213 Hammond Building, University Park, PA, USA

    Mariantonieta Gutierrez Soto

Authors
  1. Alejandro Palacio-Betancur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mariantonieta Gutierrez Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AP-B: Conceptualization; methodology; formal analysis and investigation; writing—original draft preparation. MGS: Writing—review and editing; supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariantonieta Gutierrez Soto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Palacio-Betancur, A., Gutierrez Soto, M. Recent Advances in Computational Methodologies for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation of Engineering Structures. Arch Computat Methods Eng 30, 1637–1662 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09848-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09848-y

Search

Navigation