Modeling Human-Structure Interaction Using Control Models: External Excitation

  • Ahmed T. Alzubaidi
  • Juan M. Caicedo
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Modeling the human-structure interaction (HSI) phenomenon on flexible structure when a person is performing an activity such as dancing remains a challenge. Human activity on a flexible structure can generate excessive vibrations that can cause serviceability problems. Traditional models for human-structure interaction considered the human as a mass-spring-damper system that do not allow the use of external excitation to the human (e.g. music). Recently, researchers have proposed the use of control systems to model the human that will allow the use of external excitation. However, the use of control laws for modeling human-structure interaction has only been performed when the human is standing. This paper focuses on expanding these models to model people in motion. The paper presents an experimental study describing testing on a cantilever structure. The uncertainty of the models is estimated using Bayesian inference.


Human-structure interaction Control theory Human activity Structural dynamics Bayes inference 


  1. 1.
    Ortiz-Lasprilla, A.R., Caicedo, J.M.: Comparing closed loop control models and mass-spring-damper models for human structure interaction problems. In: Dynamics of Civil Structures, vol. 2, pp. 67–74. Springer Cham Heibelderg New York Dordrecht London (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dallard, P., Fitzpatrick, T., Flint, A., Low, A., Smith, R.R., Willford, M., Roche, M.: London millennium bridge: pedestrian-induced lateral vibration. J. Bridg. Eng. 6(6), 412–417 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taylor, D.P.: Damper retrofit of the London millennium footbridge–a case study in biodynamic design. In: Proceedings of the 73D Shock and Vibration Symposium (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tilly, G., Cullington, D., Eyre, R.: Dynamic behaviour of footbridges. In: IABSE Surveys S-26/84, pp. 13–24 (1984)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lasprilla, A.R.O., Caicedo, J.M., Ospina, G.A.: Modeling human–structure interaction using a close loop control system. In: Dynamics of Civil Structures, vol. 4, pp. 101–108. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sachse, R., Pavic, A., Reynolds, P.: Human-structure dynamic interaction in civil engineering dynamics: a literature review. Shock Vib. Dig. 35(1), 3–18 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wei, L., Griffin, M.: Mathematical models for the apparent mass of the seated human body exposed to vertical vibration. J. Sound Vib. 212(5), 855–874 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brownjohn, J.M.: Energy dissipation in one-way slabs with human participation. In: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Vibration Conference, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pp. 13–15 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hidenori, K., Jiang, Y.: A PID model of human balance keeping. IEEE Control Syst. 26(6), 18–23 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones, C., Reynolds, P., Pavic, A.: Vibration serviceability of stadia structures subjected to dynamic crowd loads: a literature review. J. Sound Vib. 330(8), 1531–1566 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madarshahian, R., Caicedo, J.M., Zambrana, D.A.: Benchmark problem for human activity identification using floor vibrations. Expert Syst. Appl. 62, 263–272 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Živanović, S., Pavic, A., Reynolds, P.: Vibration serviceability of footbridges under human-induced excitation: a literature review. J. Sound Vib. 279(1), 1–74 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dorf, R.C., Bishop, R.H., Modern Control Systems. Pearson, Boston (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sim, J., Blakeborough, A., Williams, M.: Modelling of joint crowd-structure system using equivalent reduced-dof system. Shock Vib. 14(4), 261–270 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogata, K.: Modern control engineering. Book Rev. 35(1181), 1184 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ewins, D.: Modal Testing: Theory, Practice and Application. Mechanical Engineering Research Studies: Engineering Dynamics Series, John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York Brisbane Chichester Toronto Singapore (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hastings, W.K.: Monte carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57(1), 97–109 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beck, J.L., Katafygiotis, L.S.: Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework. J. Eng. Mech. 124(4), 455–461 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Madarshahian, R., Caicedo, J.M.: Reducing MCMC computational cost with a two layered Bayesian approach. In: H. Sezer Atamturktur, Babak Moaveni, (eds.) Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, vol. 3, pp. 291–297. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ji, T.: Floor vibration. Struct. Eng. 72(3/1), 37 (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ellis, B., Ji, T.: Floor vibration induced by dance-type loads: verification. Struct. Eng. 72, 37–37 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations