Robust Control of Stochastic Structures Using Minimum Norm Quadratic Partial Eigenvalue Assignment Technique



The use of active vibration control technique, though typically more expensive and difficult to implement compared to the traditionally used passive control approaches, is an effective way to control or suppress dangerous vibrations in structures caused by resonance or flutter due to the external disturbances, such as winds, waves, moving weights of human bodies, and earthquakes. From control perspective, it is not only sufficient to suppress the resonant modes of vibration but also to guarantee the overall stability of the structural system. In addition, the no-spillover property of the remaining large number of frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes must be maintained. To this end, the state-space based linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and \(H_{\infty }\) control techniques and physical-space based robust and minimum norm quadratic partial eigenvalue assignment (RQPEVA and MNQPEVA) techniques have been developed in the recent years. In contrast with the LQR and \(H_{\infty }\) control techniques, the RQPEVA and MNQPEVA techniques work exclusively on the second-order model obtained by applying the finite element method on the vibrating structure, and therefore can computationally exploit the nice properties, such as symmetry, sparsity, bandness, positive definiteness, etc., inherited by the system matrices associated with the second-order model. Furthermore, the RQPEVA and MNQPEVA techniques guarantee the no-spillover property using a solid mathematical theory. The MNQPEVA technique was originally developed for the deterministic models only, but since then, further extension to this technique has been made to rigorously account for parametric uncertainty. The stochastic MNQPEVA technique is capable of efficiently estimating the probability of failure with high accuracy to ensure the desired resilience level of the designed system. In this work, first a brief review of the LQR, \(H_{\infty }\), and MNQPEVA techniques is presented emphasizing on their relative computational advantages and drawbacks, followed by a comparative study with respect to computational efficiency, effectiveness, and applicability of the three control techniques on practical structures. Finally, the methodology of the stochastic MNQPEVA technique is presented and illustrated in this work using a numerical example with a representative real-life structure and recorded data from a California earthquake.


  1. 1.
    Billah, K., and R. Scanlan. 1991. Resonance, Tacoma Narrows bridge failure, and undergraduate physics textbooks. American Journal of Physics 59 (2): 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dallard, P., A.J. Fitzpatrick, A. Flint, S. LeBourva, A. Low, R.M.R. Smith, and M. Willford. 2001. The London Millennium Footbridge. The Structural Engineer 79 (22): 17–33.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, B.D.O., and J.B. Moore. 1990. Optimal control: Linear quadratic methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorato, P., C. Abdallah, and V. Cerone. 1995. Linear quadratic control: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Datta, B.N. 2004. Numerical methods for linear control systems: Design and analysis. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francis, B.A., and J.C. Doyle. 1987. Linear control theory with an \(H_{\infty }\) optimality criterion. SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization 25: 815–844.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
     Doyle, J., K. Glover, P. Khargonekar, and B. Francis. 1989. State-space solutions to standard \(H_2\) and \(H_{\infty }\) control problems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control AC-34: 831–847.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kimura, H. 1996. Chain-Scattering to  \(H_{\infty }\) Control. Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou, K., J.C. Doyle, and K. Glover. 1996. Robust and Optimal Control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brahma, S., and B. Datta. 2009. An optimization approach for minimum norm and robust partial quadratic eigenvalue assignment problems for vibrating structures. Journal of Sound and Vibration 324 (3): 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bai, Z.-J., B.N. Datta, and J. Wang. 2010. Robust and minimum norm partial quadratic eigenvalue assignment in vibrating systems: A new optimization approach. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 24 (3): 766–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bai, Z.-J., M.-X. Chen, and B.N. Datta. 2013. Minimum norm partial quadratic eigenvalue assignment with time delay in vibrating structures using the receptance and the system matrices. Journal of Sound and Vibration 332 (4): 780–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Datta, B.N., and V. Sokolov. 2009. Quadratic inverse eigenvalue problems, active vibration control and model updating. Applied and Computational Mathematics 8 (2): 170–191.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghanem, R., and P.D. Spanos. 1991. Stochastic finite elements: A spectral approach. New York: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soize, C. 2000. A nonparametric model of random uncertainties for reduced matrix models in structural dynamics. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 15 (3): 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grandhi, R.V., I. Haq, and N.S. Khot. 1991. Enhanced robustness in integrated structural/control systems design. AIAA Journal 29 (7): 1168–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, S.-G., H.Y. Yeh, and P.N. Roschke. 2001. Robust control for structural systems with parametric and unstructured uncertainties. Journal of Vibration and Control 7 (5): 753–772.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, S.-G., H.Y. Yeh, and P.N. Roschke. 2004. Robust control for structural systems with structured uncertainties. Nonlinear Dynamics and Systems Theory 4 (2): 195–216.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu, J.-C., H.-H. Chih, and C.-H. Chen. 2006. A robust control method for seismic protection of civil frame building. Journal of Sound and Vibration 294 (1–2): 314–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dragan, V., T. Morozan, and A.-M. Stoica. 2006. Mathematical methods in robust control of linear stochastic systems. New York: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Du, H., N. Zhang, and F. Naghdy. 2011. Actuator saturation control of uncertain structures with input time delay. Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (18–19): 4399–4412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
     Yazici, H., R. Guclu, I.B. Kucukdemiral, and M.N. Alpaslan Parlakci. 2012. Robust delay-dependent \(H_{\infty }\) control for uncertain structural systems with actuator delay. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control 134 (3): 031013-1–031013-15.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Das, S., K. Goswami, and B.N. Datta. 2016. Quadratic partial eigenvalue assignment in large-scale stochastic dynamic systems for resilient and economic design. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 72–73: 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boyd, S., L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan. 1994. Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory. Philadelphia: SIAM.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ge, M., M.-S. Chiu, and Q.-G. Wang. 2002. Robust PID controller design via LMI approach. Journal of Process Control 12: 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Inman, D. 2006. Vibration with control. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Datta, B.N., S. Elhay, and Y. Ram. 1997. Orthogonality and partial pole assignment for the symmetric definite quadratic pencil. Linear Algebra and its Applications 257: 29–48.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sleijpen, G.L.G., and H.A.V.-D. Vorst. 2000. A Jacobi-Davidson iteration method for linear eigenvalue problems. SIAM Review 42 (2): 267–293.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Datta, B.N. 2010. Numerical linear algebra and applications, 387–483. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ewins, D.J. 2009. Modal testing: Theory practice and application. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maia, N.M.M., and J.M.M. Silva. 1997. Theoretical and experimental modal analysis. England: Research Studies Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McConnell, K.G., and P.S. Varoto. 2008. Vibration testing: Theeory and practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
     Kwon, D., A. Kareem. 2006. NatHaz on-line wind simulator (NOWS): Simulation of Gaussian multivariate wind fields. NatHaz Modelling Laboratory Report, University of Notre Dame.
  34. 34.
    Wittig, L.E., and A.K. Sinha. 1975. Simulation of multicorrelated random processes using the FFT algorithm. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 58 (3): 630–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    ASCE. 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    MATLAB, version (R2014a), The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, 2014.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Papoulis, A., and S.U. Pillai. 2002. Probability, random variables and stochastic processes. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jacod, J., and P. Protter. 2004. Probability essentials. New York: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Soize, C. 2001. Maximum entropy approach for modeling random uncertainties in transient elastodynamics. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 109 (5): 1979–1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Das, S., and R. Ghanem. 2009. A bounded random matrix approach for stochastic upscaling. SIAM Multiscale Modeling and Simulation 8 (1): 296–325.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
     Das, S. 2012. New positive-definite random matrix ensembles for stochastic dynamical system with high level of heterogeneous uncertainties. In Presented at SIAM conference on uncertainty quantification, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ghanem, R., and S. Das. 2009. Hybrid representations of coupled nonparametric and parametric models for dynamic systems. AIAA Journal 47 (4): 1035–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
     Padulo, M., and M.D. Guenov. 2011. Worst-case robust design optimization under distributional assumptions. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 88 (8): 797–816.
  44. 44.
    Taguchi, G. 1986. Introduction to quality engineering: Designing quality into products and processes. Technical report. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Phadke, M.S. 1989. Quality engineering using robust design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Box, G., and S. Jones. 1992. Designing products that are robust to the environment. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 3 (3): 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Su, J., and J.E. Renaud. 1997. Automatic differentiation in robust optimization. AIAA Journal 35 (6): 1072–1079.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Park, G.J., T.H. Lee, K.H. Lee, and K.H. Hwang. 2006. Robust design: An overview. AIAA Journal 44 (1): 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. New York: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
     Müllner, D. 2011. Modern hierarchical, agglomerative clustering algorithms. arXiv:1109.2378 [stat.ML].
  51. 51.
    Carlsson, G., and F. Mémoli. 2010. Characterization, stability and convergence of hierarchical clustering methods. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11: 1425–1470.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Melchers, R.E. 1999. Structural reliability analysis and prediction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fishman, G. 2003. Monte Carlo: Concepts, algorithms, and applications. New York: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Robert, C.P., and G. Casella. 2004. Monte Carlo statistical methods. New York: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesNorthern Illinois UniversityDe KalbUSA

Personalised recommendations