Optimal vibration control of moving-mass beam systems with uncertainty:

Xiaoxiao Liu; YuanSheng Wang; XingMin Ren

doi:10.1177/1461348419844150

Optimal vibration control of moving-mass beam systems with uncertainty:

Liu, Xiaoxiao; Wang, YuanSheng; Ren, XingMin 2019-04-22 00:00:00 A linear optimal regulator for uncertain system is designed through the application of the probability density evolution method to linear quadratic regulator controller. One important background of this work is bridge-vehicle/gun-projectile system. This type of optimal problem is currently transformed into a moving load problem. The developed optimal regulator can provide the law of probability densities of outputs varying with time. In order to make the advocated method reach an optimal performance, the beneficial weighting matrix pair (Q, R) is selected using a trade-off sense. The designed regulator is then applied to a coupled simply supported beam-moving mass system, choosing the mid-span deflection as an output response and considering stochastic system parameters. The numerical example shows that the robustness of the proposed optimal regulator cannot be overestimated in comparison with a deterministic linear quadratic regulator controller. Further, the proposed method can produce an efficient solution channel for modern optimal control theory, especially, when compared with different uncertain optimal control techniques. Keywords Linear optimal regulator, PDEM, linear quadratic regulator controller, uncertain system, robustness Introduction Resisting the respective elastic vibration of bridges and barrels caused by high-speed motions of vehicles and projectiles is essential to the design of bridges and ﬁring accuracy of pills. Such bridge-vehicle system and gun- 1–4 projectile system are generally taken as beam-moving mass systems (BMSs). Recently, more and more attention has been attracted to optimal controller design of BMSs, such as time-varying optimal controller design in vehicle- 5 6 bridge interaction, constant gain feedback gain design in vehicle-railway system, the contribution of displacement-velocity feedback controller on the BMSs, the inﬂuence of Lyapunov-based boundary controller on statically indeterminate beam and the usage of a proportional-integral controller on the magnetic wheels- guide rail system. Due to the uncertainties of system parameters and/or input disturbances, an optimal controller should be designed as uncertain. Although the existing deterministic controller design methods, up to now, still play signiﬁcant roles, these methods cannot accurately reﬂect the robustness of uncertain systems. Consequently, a series of research topics about uncertain optimal controller design have arisen. For BMSs, to name but a few, 10 11 time-varying stochastic optimal problem and robust problem of a stream of random moving loads have been researched in recent years. For other uncertain system, in Zhu and Ying an optimal feedback control scheme for State Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, School of Aerospace, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China Department of Mechanical and Civil, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China Corresponding author: Xiaoxiao Liu, State Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, School of Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, People’s Republic of China. Email: xxliu1989@mail.xjtu.edu.cn Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 804 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) nonlinear structural system excited by a non-Gaussian process was proposed based on the stochastic averaging method for quasi-Hamiltonian system and the stochastic dynamic programming principle. In Monti et al., a new control approach for a power converter with parameter uncertainty was presented based on the Polynomial chaos Theory. In Fisher and Bhattacharya, different control methods related to problems of linear quadratic control (linear quadratic regulator (LQR)) for systems with uncertain parameters was put forward by using the gener- alized Polynomial Chaos Theory. In Gallagher, the ﬁnite-horizon optimal control as a method of robust control design for a stochastic system was developed through optimizing a polynomial chaos expansion (PCE). In Peng et al., an optimal control was implemented for a system with stochastic earthquake excitation described using PCE for a nonlinear oscillator. The Karhunen-Loeve (KL) decomposition was used to describe the excitation. In Zhu and Huo, a robust nonlinear control strategy was proposed for trajectory tracking of a model-scaled helicopter with parameter uncertainties, and this controller was based upon the back-stepping approach with nonlinear damping terms. In Song and Dyke, an optimal control strategy of nonlinear stochastic system was developed through the application of pseudo-spectral (PS) method. In Jameson, the sensitivities of robust optimal control was investigated by combing PCEs and adjoint theory. It should be noted that the aforementioned studies mainly focus on attaining the regular distribution types and second-order moments of the responses of stochastic controlled systems. Although a PCE can obtain high-order statistical moments, this method cannot acquire the rule of probability densities of system outputs varying with time. To get over this difﬁculty, a generalized probability density evolution theory was developed based on the 20,21 20 ideology of physical stochastic system. Meanwhile, Li and Chen also pointed out that traditional stochastic expansion method was found not capable of adequately reﬂect the probabilistic characteristics of stochastic dynamic systems, and the probability density evolution method (PDEM) is able to capture the rule of probability densities varying with time rather than just the second-order moment of uncertain responses. Moreover, the density evolution theory was also applied to the dynamic analysis and dynamic reliability of structures. Sequentially, the density evolution theory of importance measure was developed to discuss reliability sensitivity of truss structures. By using the method, the probability density function (PDF) is varying with time and the instantaneous PDF is sometimes quite irregular with multiple peaks, rather than regular distribution function 20,24–28 types. However, up to now, the vibration control problem of uncertain BMSs has been rarely researched, especially, the uncertain control strategy. To accurately reﬂect the law of probability densities of output responses of the controlled BMSs varying with time, an optimal regulator-based on density evolution theory is originally proposed to calculate the system’s outputs. This type of vibration control problems, which denotes the purport of the current research, is actually a procedure of uncertainty propagation. Therefore, a proposed linear optimal regulator-based density evolution theory is summarized as follows: (1) dynamic equation of controlled systems with uncertainties of inherent properties can be derived through designing a proposed linear optimal output regulator. For the sake of the optimal performance of the contrivable controller, the weighting matrices Q and 29,30 R are chosen in a trade-off sense ; (2) output responses of the controlled systems can be solved by using the probability density evolution, which can commendably reﬂect the probability densities evolution of the calculated responses rather than only the second-order statistics of response outputs. In this paper, it should be noted that the mid-span deﬂection is selected as output responses and the material parameters of the given BMSs are described as random variables. Sequentially, the robustness between the promoted regulator and the deterministic controller can be analyzed. Methods Probability density evolution equation of uncertain system Because of the uncertainties of inherent system properties, a variety of uncertain control synthesis strategies needs to rise gradually. Although deterministic linear and nonlinear control strategies still have taken up some space, these schemes could not reasonably reﬂect the impacts of control performance on uncertain systems. Some literatures related to active control of uncertain systems, especially BMS systems, have been reported. For exam- ple, stochastic linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) control and time-variant optimal polynomial chaos control were 10,11 deeply researched in Stancioiu and Ouyang. Meanwhile, there are also large amounts of stochastic control algorithms for other types of uncertain systems, such as PS control, optimal stochastic averaging feedback 12 13–16 control, and PCE control. The aforementioned investigations mainly focus on implementing the second- order statistics of response outputs. Although a PCE is able to obtain high-order statistical moments, this method Liu et al. 805 cannot exhibit the probability densities evolution of the calculated responses. To overcome the above problem, a 20,21 physical stochastic optimal control strategy is developed by using a generalized PDEM. This type of vibration control problems, which represents the purport of the current research, is actually a procedure of uncertainty propagation. Therefore, we originally concentrate on an optimal regulator-based on density evolution theory. First, the basic theory of the evolution was introduced as follows: Without loss of generality, the equation of motion of uncertain system can be uniformly written as € _ MðHÞXðtÞþ CðHÞXðtÞþ KðHÞXðtÞ¼ FðtÞ (1) where M, C, K are n n mass matrix, damping matrix and stiffness matrix, respectively; F is the deterministic or € _ random external force; H is c-dimensional random variable; X, X, X are n 1 acceleration, velocity and displace- ment vectors, respectively. According to the principle of preservation of probability, the conditional PDF of X excited by external forces 21,22 can be described as follows f ðx; h; tÞ¼ d x Hðh; tÞ (2) XjH where dðÞ is Dirac function; Hðh; tÞ is the physical solution of X. The generalized probability density evolution equation (PDEE) can be obtained by taking the derivative of equation (2) @f ðx; h; tÞ @f ðx; h; tÞ XjH XjH þ Xðh; tÞ ¼ 0 (3) @t @x The initial condition for equation (3) is @f ðx; h; tÞ ¼ dðx x Þf ðhÞ (4) XjH 0 H t¼0 where x ¼ Xðt Þ is the initial value for X. 0 0 The PDF of X, then, can be attained by taking integration with respect to equation (4) f ðx; tÞ¼ f ðx; h; tÞdh (5) X XjH Sequentially, the law of probability densities of output responses X varying with time can be acquired by using equation (5). Consequently, a proposed linear optimal regulator-based density evolution theory is summarized as follows: (1) the dynamic equation of controlled systems with uncertainties of inherent properties can be derived through designing a proposed linear optimal output regulator; (2) the output responses of the controlled systems can be solved by using the probability density evolution, which can commendably reﬂect the probability densities evolution of the calculated responses rather than only the second-order statistics of response outputs. Next, the presented optimal regulator-based density evolution theory for uncertain BMSs can be elaborated. Linear optimal regulator design-based on PDEM for uncertain BMSs An Euler–Bernoulli beam with multiple active tendon control systems under the moving mass and simply sup- ported boundary conditions is considered. The inclination angle of the ith tendon with respect to the support is denoted by a . Without regard to contact loss, the equation of the motion of the controlled BMS under parametric uncertainties is governed as 4 2 L @ wðy; tÞ @ wðy; tÞ :: EI þ qA ¼m wðt; vtÞ þ gÞÞdðy vtÞ 4k cosa u ðtÞdðy y Þ (6) c i i i 4 2 @y @t i¼1 where wðy; tÞ is the transverse deﬂection of beam; dðÞ is the Dirac delta function; g is acceleration of gravity; u ðtÞ is the control force of the ith actuator; y is the position of the ith actuator; n is the number of independent active i L 806 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) tendon control systems; v is the constant travelling speed at the beam of length L; k is the tendon stiffness; E, I, q, A are Yong’s modulus, second moment of area, density per unit length and the cross-sectional area, respectively. These properties are assumed as random variables. Let wðy; tÞ¼ u ðyÞq ðtÞ (7) k¼1 where u ðyÞ is the modal shape function; q ðtÞ is the modal coordinate. k k Applying modal superposition method to equation (6) by multiplying both sides of the equation by u ðyÞ and integrating from 0 to L, then equation (6) can be transformed into € _ MðH Þþ MðtÞ qðH; tÞþ CðtÞqðH; tÞþðKðH Þþ KðtÞÞqðH; tÞ t t M K f (8) ¼mgwðvtÞ 4k cosa wðy Þu ðH; tÞ c i i i i¼1 where wðvtÞ¼½u ðvtÞ; u ðvtÞ; u ðvtÞ; ... ; u ðvtÞ ; H , H are random parameters involved in matrices M and K; M K 1 2 3 N H ¼½H ; H ¼ ½H ;H ;H ; .. . ;H , where z is the number of random parameters; MðH Þ, KðH Þ are repre- M K 1 2 3 z M K sented by MðH Þ¼ qðH ÞAðH ÞdiagfM g; KðH Þ¼ EðH ÞIðH ÞdiagfK g (9) M 1 2 kj K 3 4 kj Z Z L L T 0000 where M = u ðyÞ u ðyÞdy; K ¼ u ðyÞ u ðyÞdy; DMðtÞ, DCðtÞ, DKðtÞ are expressed as follows kj kj k j k j 0 0 MðtÞ¼ mdiagfM g; CðtÞ¼ 2mvdiagfC g; KðtÞ¼ mv diagfK g kj kj kj 0 00 where M ¼ u ðvtÞu ðvtÞ; C ¼ u ðvtÞu ðvtÞ; K ¼ u ðvtÞu ðvtÞ kj k j kj j k kj j k After terminal time instant t , the beam vibrates freely and the stochastic controlled system is expressed as follows MðH Þq €ðH; tÞþ KðH ÞqðH; tÞ¼ 4k cosa wðy Þu t > t (10) M K c i i i f i¼1 T T T where ½qðt Þ q _ ðt Þ is used as initial conditions of system (11). f f The controlled system (8) can be written in state-space form ZðH; tÞ¼ AðH; tÞZðH; tÞþ BðH; tÞUðH; tÞþ FðtÞ (11) ZðH; t Þ¼ z 0 0 YðH; tÞ¼CðvtÞZðH; tÞ where ZðH; t Þ is the initial condition; AðH; tÞ is a 2n2n stochastic coefﬁcient matrix; BðH; tÞ is a 2nr controller location matrix and FðtÞ is a 2n-dimensional excitation force vector, respectively; YðH; tÞ is the output. ZðH; tÞ, AðH; tÞ, BðH; tÞ, UðH; tÞ and FðtÞ are expressed as "# qðH; tÞ ZðH; tÞ¼ ; qðH; tÞ 2 3 4 5 BðH; tÞ¼ MðH Þþ DMðtÞ ½wðy Þ4k cosa ... wðy Þ4k cosa (12) M 1 c 1 i c i "# 0 I AðH; tÞ¼ 1 1 ðMðH Þþ DMðtÞÞ ðKðH Þþ DKðtÞÞ ðMðH Þþ DMðtÞÞ DCðtÞ M K M 0 0 UðH; tÞ¼ ½u ðtÞ; u ðtÞ; ... ; u ðtÞ ; FðtÞ¼½0; mgwðvtÞ 1 2 r Liu et al. 807 When the control problem of the stochastic system (12) needs to be solved, the control objective can be deﬁned as the minimization of the mid-span deﬂection response of the beam. Then, the optimal problem is changed to a linear quadratic problem, which is obtained by a quadratic performance index 1 1 T T T JðZ; UÞ¼ Z ðH; t ÞSZðH; t Þþ ðZ ðH; tÞQZðH; tÞþ U ðH; tÞRUðH; tÞÞdt (13) f f 2 2 where ZðH; t Þ is the terminal state; S and QðtÞ are nonnegative deﬁnite matrices; R ðtÞ is a positive deﬁnite matrix. f i Therefore, the minimum of the standard quadratic performance index J gives rise to an issue of the conditional extreme value of cost function. For a closed-loop controlled system, the control force function of the optimal problem can be generated by the following expression 1 T UðH; tÞ¼R B ðH; tÞPðH; tÞZðH; tÞ¼G ðH; tÞZðH; tÞ (14) where matrix PðH; tÞ is calculated by solving backward the differential Riccati equation. T 1 T PðH; tÞþ AðH; tÞPðH; tÞþ A ðH; tÞPðH; tÞ PðH; tÞBðH; tÞR B ðH; tÞPðH; tÞþ Q ¼ 0 (15) PðH; t Þ¼ S where PðH; t Þ is ﬁnal condition and can be obtained using Lyapunov equation. The control effectiveness of the optimal control depends on the speciﬁed control strategy, which is related to the objective performance of systems. The most important advantage of the state-space control technique is that it can consider the control to be expressed as a state-feedback function (11) of the manuscript and can transform the system from an open-loop control system into a closed-loop control system. By employing this method, the control function can be synthesized based on dynamic equations of the system regardless of the effect of any force acting at the system input. Then, a simple change of variable can be introduced which can consider the forcing term F(t). Sequentially, the time-varying modal force mgwðvtÞ can be considered during the design process. Therefore, the modal force can be augmented to the matrix B, which can be termed as the augmented B. The state-space equation is transformed into the augmented system, whose advantage is that the required control action is able to directly consider the excitation force rather than only considering it as a disturbance. It should be stressed that the matrix B depends on the location of the actuators, and it not only affects the design process but also affects largely the controllability of the system. Moreover, the control problem of BMSs is that not only it is a time-varying process but also the control action requires time-varying weighting matrices. Therefore, to take better advantage of control effort, the weighting matri- ces originated from the state-space equation are allowed to change with the position of the mass on the beam. Figure 1 depicts the system construction drawing of uncertain optimal output regulator in a ﬁnite time. From this ﬁgure, it can be deduced that the propositional regulator gives a novel controller alternative to a deterministic controller. According to equations (13) and (14), one realizes that the critical procedure of LQR problem relies on the 29,30 selection of weight matrices Q and R. The beneﬁcial weighting matrices can be obtained in a trade-off sense. I 0 Q ¼ a ; R ¼ bI (16) 0 I Figure 1. System construction drawing of uncertain optimal output regulator in a finite time. PDEM: probability density evolution method; BMS: beam-moving mass system; LQR: linear quadratic regulator. 808 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) where a, b are coefﬁcients of state matrices and control force matrices, respectively, whose ratio indicates the effectiveness and economy of the optimal control. The optimal values a and b can be obtained using the system second-order statistics assessment. Likewise, equation (11) can be also written in state-space form ZðH; tÞ¼ AðHÞZðH; tÞþ BðHÞUðH; tÞ (17) ZðH; t Þ¼ z t > t f f f YðH; tÞ¼CðvtÞZðH; tÞ where ZðH; t Þ is the initial condition for system (11); AðHÞ is a 2n2n time-invariant system matrix and BðHÞ is a 2nr controller location matrix, respectively. AðHÞ and BðH Þ are 0 I AðHÞ¼ MðH Þ KðH Þ 0 M K (18) BðH Þ¼ M 1 MðH Þ½ wðy Þ4k cosa :::wðy Þ4k cosa M i c 1 i c i This optimal problem of system (11) is obtained by using the following quadratic performance index þ1 T T JðZ; UÞ¼ Z ðH; tÞQZðH; tÞþ U ðH; tÞRUðH; tÞ dt (19) and the matrix PðHÞ can be solved by the algebraic Riccati equation T 1 T PðHÞAðHÞ A ðHÞPðHÞþ PðHÞBðH ÞR B ðH ÞPðHÞ Q ¼ 0 (20) M M where the matrix PðHÞ is time-independent. Hence, the control force for system (11) can be given as follows 1 T UðH; tÞ¼R B ðH ÞPðHÞZðH; tÞ¼G ðH; tÞZðH; tÞ (21) M g Analogously, the system structure graphic of uncertain optimal output regulator for inﬁnite time is described in Figure 2. For this type of the regulator, terminal state must be equal to zero, namely, ZðH; 1Þ ¼ 0. Otherwise, performance index will be inﬁnity and then system (17) cannot be solved. Because ZðH; 1Þ ¼ 0, the terminal cost is not required in index (19). Based on the probability density evolution theory, the PDEE with respect to q is described as follows @f ðq; h; tÞ @f ðq; h; tÞ qjH qjH þ q _ ðh; tÞ ¼ 0 (22) @t @q Figure 2. System construction drawing of uncertain optimal output regulator for infinite time. PDEM: probability density evolution method; BMS: beam-moving mass system; LQR: linear quadratic regulator. Liu et al. 809 The initial condition for equation (22) is @f ðq; h; tÞ ¼ dðq q Þf ðhÞ (23) qjH 0 H t¼0 where q ¼ qðt Þ is the initial value for q. 0 0 The PDF of the mid-span deﬂection wðy; tÞ, then, can be attained as follows f ðw; tÞ¼ w ðyÞf ðq; h; tÞdh (24) w qjH where wðy; tÞ¼ w ðyÞqðtÞ Similarly, the PDEE with respect to U is expressed as follows @f ðq; h; tÞ @f ðq; h; tÞ UjH UjH þ Uðh; tÞ ¼ 0 (25) @t @U The initial condition for equation (25) is @f ðU; h; tÞ ¼ dðU U Þf ðhÞ (26) UjH 0 H t¼0 where U ¼ Uðt Þ is the initial value for U. 0 0 The PDF of the control force UðH; tÞ is f ðU; tÞ¼ f ðU; h; tÞdh (27) U UjH Procedures of designing and solving the optimal output regulator The speciﬁc procedures of designing and solving the optimal output regulator are depicted in Figure 3 and can be summarized as follows: a. Govern the equation of motion of the controlled BMSs; b. Determine the distribution types H of BMSs’ parameters; c. Discretize the representative points of BMSs’ parameters; d. Design the optimal output regulator-based on PDEM; e. Transform the solution of an optimal regulator problem into a problem of First-order partial differential equation sets; and f. Fit instantaneous PDFs of output responses and analyze the evolution process of PDFs. Simulation A simply supported Euler–Bernoulli beam is used to demonstrate the efﬁciency of the proposed design method, as shown in Figure 4. A moving mass with constant speed travels on the beam. In this example, the performance of the stochastic controlled system with multiple actuators is observed as a solution for suppressing the mid-span deﬂection response of the beam. All numerical parameters of the BMS are listed in Table 1. The constant speed of 2 m/s is selected in the BMSs. The control force of the ith actuator is denoted by u ðtÞ. The ith mode of the simply supported beam can be expressed as follows: u ¼ sinðipy=LÞ. The control effect of the beam response is selected at the position y ¼ L/2. Figure 5 shows the rationality of the selection of the ﬁrst two modes of the beam. From the ﬁgure, it can be seen that increasing the number of modes over two does not improve the accuracy of the mid- span deﬂection. The gain control matrix G ðH; tÞ involved in the promoted optimal regulator must be calculated and then used to suppress the beam response from t ¼ 0 until t ¼ 2L=v. Table 1 gives the position of two actuators. Next, by varying the coefﬁcient b in a trade-off sense, the beneﬁcial coefﬁcients a ¼ 1000 and b ¼ 0.1 can be obtained. 810 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) Figure 3. The flowchart of designing and solving the optimal output regulator. PDEM: probability density evolution method; BMS: beam-moving mass system; LQR: linear quadratic regulator; PDF: probability density function. Figure 4. BMSs with two active tendons. Table 1. Numerical parameters of the example system. System parameters Unit Distribution type Mean COV Yong’s modulus, E Nm Normal 2.1e8 0.1 Density per unit length, q kgm Normal 7800.00 0.08 Cross-section width, b m Normal 3.28e04 0.09 Cross-section height, h m Normal 0.0860 0.1 Mass of moving load kg 0.5 Length of beam m 1 Position of the first actuator m 0.10 Position of the second actuator m 0.60 COV: coefficient of variation. Liu et al. 811 Figure 5. Mid-span deflection of the beam at the uncontrolled condition. Figure 6. Time history of the mean of the mid-span deflection of BMSs with/without control. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. The use of the presented method with the beneﬁcial weight matrices Q = 1000diag([1 1 1 1]) and R ¼ 0.1 I 22 results in a time history of the mean of the mid-span deﬂection of the controlled system. It is clear from Figure 6 that the deﬂection response process of the controlled system is reduced signiﬁcantly compared with that of the uncontrolled system. In this ﬁgure, it should be ﬁgured out that the optimal design control-based density evolu- tion (ODEC) represents the proposed optimal controller scheme-based PDEM, which can accurately reﬂect the impacts of control actions on uncertain BMSs. Actually, the proposed ODEC is a non–deterministic controller scheme. Meanwhile, the deﬂection in the time with stronger variability, i.e. the time interval from 0.2 to 1 s, obviously reduces, which indicates the effectiveness of the novel design controller. It is noteworthy that the deﬂection response of free vibration system suppressed by the designed method has an amplitude fading. This is due to the fact that the optimal output regulator system for inﬁnite time depends on the term G q:ðtÞ but the g1 uncontrolled free vibration phase does not include the term. Meanwhile, the time history of the mean of the mid-span deﬂection of BMSs is compared with ODEC and Monte Carlo simulation, as shown in Figure 7. It can be derived that the response of uncertain BMSs with ODEC is close to that with Monte Carlo simulation. It should be noted that the ODEC strategy can be veriﬁed by using Monte Carlo simulation because the ODEC scheme involves the system’s uncertainty. These results indicate that the proposed ODEC scheme behaves well in precision. Here, the respective discrepancies of time histories of the mean of mid-span deﬂection and control forces between the coefﬁcient b ¼ 0.1and b ¼ 0.9 are presented in Figure 8, where a equals 1000. It is seen that: (1) as b ¼ 0.9, the control effect for the time history of the mean of mid-span deﬂection is underestimated; (2) however, the time history of the mean of control forces u ðtÞ and u ðtÞ 1 2 will be reduced as the coefﬁcient b increase. Moreover, the weight matrix R has a direct inﬂuence on the amplitude attenuation of the free vibration system. The results illustrate the inﬂuence of the choice of the weight matrix R on robust performance of the given optimal output regulator system. 812 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) Figure 7. Time history of the mean of the mid-span deflection of BMSs: comparison between ODEC and Monte Carlo. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. (a) (b) (c) Figure 8. Time histories of the mean of mid-span deflection and control forces between the coefficient b ¼ 0.1and b ¼ 0.9. (a) Mid- span deflection of BMSs, (b) u (t) and (c) u (t). ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. 1 2 Figure 9 shows probabilistic characteristics of the mid-span deﬂection with/without control, including typical PDFs at different instants of time. From this ﬁgure, it can be seen that the mid-span deﬂection is obviously reduced. These observations illustrate that the recommended controller is able to efﬁciently suppress the vibration of uncertain BMSs. Furthermore, the results show that PDF of the deﬂection is varying with time and quite different from the regular distribution. The probabilistic characteristics of the control inputs u ðtÞ and u ðtÞ are 1 2 shown in Figure 10. It can be observed that the shapes of typical PDFs of the control forces are different from those of the mid-span deﬂection. The cause is that the control forces lies on the modal displacement and modal velocity, while the mid-span deﬂection hinges on the modal shape vector wðyÞ. Liu et al. 813 (a) (b) (c) 90 -0.03 PDF at 0.2s with control -0.031 80 PDF at 0.3s with control PDF at 0.37s with control -0.032 -0.033 -0.034 -0.035 20 -0.036 -0.037 -0.038 0.35 -0.02 10 0.3 -0.025 -0.039 -0.03 0.25 0 -0.04 -0.035 -0.04 -0.038 -0.036 -0.034 -0.032 -0.03 -0.028 -0.026 -0.024 -0.022 -0.02 0.2 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 -0.04 Time(s) Deflection(cm) Deflection(cm) Time(s) (d) (e) (f) 25 -0.02 PDF at 0.2s without control PDF at 0.3s without control -0.03 PDF at 0.37s without control -0.04 -0.05 10 5 -0.06 -0.07 0.35 0.3 -0.02 -0.08 -0.04 0.25 -0.06 -0.08 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 -0.1 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.2 -0.1 Time(s) Deflection(cm) Deflection(cm) Time(s) Figure 9. Probabilistic characteristics of the mid-span deflection with/without control: (a)–(c) Typical PDFs of the mid-span deflection with control varying with time. (d)–(f) Typical PDFs of the mid-span deflection without control varying with time. PDF: probability density function. (a) (b) (c) 4 0.7 PDF at 0.1s with control PDF at 0.2s with control 0.6 3.5 PDF at 0.45s with control 4 0.5 0.4 2.5 3 0.3 0.2 1.5 1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0 0 -0.2 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.1 -0.2 Control Force(N) Control Force(N) Time(s) Time(s) (d) (e) (f) 0.7 PDF at 0.1s with control 0.6 PDF at 0.2s with control 2.5 PDF at 0.45s with control 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.2 1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0 -0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.1 -0.2 Control Force(N) Time(s) Time(s) Control Force(N) Figure 10. Probabilistic characteristics of the optimal control forces: (a)–(c) Typical PDFs of u (t) varying with time; (d)–(f) Typical PDFs of u (t) varying with time. PDF: probability density function. Although the deterministic control (e.g. deterministic LQR, deterministic LQG) might be applied to suppress the responses of stochastic systems, the control force only depends on the constant gain matrix, rather than the stochastic gain matrix. Figure 11 shows the discrepancy of time history of mid-span deﬂection between the deterministic LQR controller (DLC) and the optimal controller scheme-based on PDEM (ODEC). Actually, PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF Deflection(cm) Deflection(cm) Control Force(N) Control Force(N) 814 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) Figure 11. Time history of mid-span deflection between the ODEC method and DLC method. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution; DLC: deterministic LQR controller. (a) (b) Figure 12. Time history of the mean of the control forces between the ODEC method and DLC method: (a) u (t) and (b) u (t). 1 2 ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution; DLC: deterministic LQR controller. ODEC represents the nondeterministic controller and DLC denotes the deterministic controller. From the ﬁgure, it is concluded that as the beneﬁcial coefﬁcients a ¼ 1000 and b ¼ 0.1, the control effect of the output response and the robustness of the advocated controller are overvalued using the DLC. The discrepancy of the control forces between the two methods is seen by analyzing Figure 12 where the control action is plotted for the time history. It can be found that the absolute control input u ðtÞ produced by the DLC is obviously undervalued when the time interval is 0.48 s. Meanwhile, the control input u ðtÞ generated by the DLC is obviously underestimated in the time interval from 0.3 to 1 s. Results indicate that the second actuator plays more important role in the control process and the ODEC can let the robust performance of the designed regulator system more accurately. Moreover, combining Figures 9 and 11, it can be derived that although both the ODEC and the DLC methods can reduce the deﬂection of the beam, the ODEC strategy behaves a higher control effect. This indicates that the ODEC is more suitable for dealing with uncertain control problems. Meanwhile, the results of Figures 9 and 11 demonstrate that the instantaneous PDF and its evolution of system responses can be obtained by the ODEC method, while the DLC method cannot acquire the above phenomena and also is found not capable of dealing with uncertain controlled systems. Figure 13 shows the time history of mid-span deﬂection with various control strategies. It can be observed that although all the control schemes can be employed to suppress the vibration of the beams, both the ODEC method and the augmented time-varying method (Augmented matrix) exhibit a higher control performance. Time- invariant control method only depends on the time-invariant system matrix A and the controller location matrix B, expressed in equation (18). Time-invariant control method is employed to suppress the beam subjected to moving mass and is also applied to suppress the free vibration of the beam. However, it can be seen that the performance of the time-invariant control method is not signiﬁcant. Moreover, the advantage of the augmented time-variant control strategy is that the required control action is able to directly consider the excitation force rather than only considering it as a disturbance. It can be observed that the augmented time-variant strategy behaves a bit poor in control performance when the moving mass acts on the beam. However, the control effect of Liu et al. 815 Figure 13. Time history of mid-span deflection with various control Strategies: ODEC-proposed control method; Augmented matrix-the modal force is augmented to the matrix B, whose advantage is that the required control action can directly consider the excitation force rather than only considering it as a disturbance; Time-invariant control-the matrix A and B is time-invariant. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. the augmented time-variant scheme is better than that of the ODEC method when the mass leaves the beam. Therefore, both the ODEC and the augmented time-variant methods have a superior performance when the vibration of the beam should be suppressed. Conclusions This paper devises an optimal regulator-based on PDEM for an uncertain BMSs. In order to obtain the law of probability densities of control inputs and output responses, the designed controller is then applied to the BMSs. Meanwhile, a quadratic performance index related to the optimal problem is deﬁned. The beneﬁcial weighting matrices Q and R are selected in a trade-off sense. It is found through numerical example that the weight matrix R has a signiﬁcant impact on the robust performance of the optimal output regulator system. Further, the ODEC extends the deterministic control, such as the DLC, of which the control gain is treated as the deterministic quantity. The instantaneous PDFs of the deﬂection response and the control force can be obtained to characterize the controller’s transient performance. The comparative study between the ODEC and DLC schemes illustrates that the robustness of the developed optimal controller cannot be overestimated in comparison with a determin- istic LQR controller. Further, the instantaneous feature engendered by the proposed method can provide an efﬁcient solution channel for modern optimal control theory, especially, when compared with different uncertain optimal control techniques. Moreover, the advocated method provides a computationally efﬁcient while compar- ing with the Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, both the ODEC and the augmented time-variant methods behave a superior performance when the moving mass acts on the beam and the mass leaves the beam. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following ﬁnancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors acknowledge the support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 11802224), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Number 2018M633495), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (3102016ZY2016), China State Key Laboratory for Mechanical Structure Strength and Vibration Open-end Foundation (Grant number SV2019-KF-11) and Aerospace Science and Technology Innovation Fund (2016kc060013). ORCID iD Xiaoxiao Liu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1313-2761 816 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) References 1. Peng X, Liu ZJ and Hong JW. Vibration analysis of a simply supported beam under moving mass with uniformly variable speeds. Eng Mech 2006; 23: 25–29. 2. Wang YZ and Zhang XB. Vibration analysis of ﬂexible beam under the action of multi-moving masses with variable speed. J Vibrat Shock 2011; 30: 56–66. 3. Pi YJ and Ouyang H. Vibration control of beams subjected to a moving mass using a successively combined control method. Appl Math Modell 2016; 40: 4002–4015. 4. Ma ZS, Liu L and Zhou SD. Modeling and experimental design of the couple moving-mass and simply supported beam time-varying system. J Vibrat Measure Diagn 2015; 35: 913–920. 5. Stancioiu D and Ouyang H. Optimal vibration control of beams subjected to a mass moving at constant speed. J Vibrat Control 2016; 22: 3202–3217. 6. Zarfam R and Khaloo AR. Vibration control of beams on elastic foundation under a moving vehicle and random lateral excitations. J Sound Vibrat 2012; 331: 1217–1232. 7. Nikkhoo A, Rofooei FR and Shadnam MR. Dynamic behavior and modal control of beams under moving loads. J Sound Vibrat 2007; 306: 712–724. 8. Pi YJ and Ouyang H. Lyapunov-based boundary control of a multi-span beam subjected to moving masses. J Vibrat Control 2017; 23: 2221–2234. 9. Qian CZ and Tang JS. A time delay control for a nonlinear dynamic beam under moving load. J Sound Vibrat 2008; 309: 1–8. 10. Stancioiu D and Ouyang H. Optimal control of systems with probabilistic uncertainties. In: 19th international congress on sound and vibration, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2012, pp. 1–8. 11. Stancioiu D and Ouyang H. A probabilistic approach to robust control of beam structures subjected to a random stream th of moving masses. In: Proceedings of the 9 international conference on structural dynamics, Eurodyn, 2014, pp. 1595–1600. 12. Zhu WQ, Ying ZG and Soong TT. An optimal nonlinear feedback control strategy for randomly excited structural systems. Nonlinear Dynam 2001; 24: 31–51. 13. Monti A, Ponci F and Lovett T. A polynomial chaos theory approach to the control design of a power converter. In: A th Cunha, E Caetano, P Ribeiro, G Muller (eds) Proceedings of 359 annual IEEE power electronics specialists conference, Aachen, Germany, 2004, pp. 4809–4813. Portuga: EURODYN. 14. Fisher J and Bhattacharya R. Optimal trajectory generation with probabilistic uncertainty using polynomial chaos. J Dynam Syst Measure Control 2011; 133: 104501. 15. Gallagher DJ. Optimal control for stochastic systems with polynomial chaos. PhD Thesis, University of California, Irvine, 2013. 16. Peng YB, Ghanem R and Li J. Polynomial chaos expansions for optimal control of nonlinear random oscillators. J Sound Vibrat 2010; 329: 3660–3678. 17. Zhu B and Huo W. Robust nonlinear control for a model-scaled helicopter with parameter uncertainties. Nonlinear Dyn 2013; 73: 1139–1154. 18. Song W and Dyke SJ. Application of pseudospectral method in stochastic optimal control of nonlinear structural systems. In: IEEE American Control Conference, 2011, pp.2504–2509. San Francisco: IEEE. th 19. Jameson A. Robust optimal control using polynomial chaos and adjoints for systems with uncertain inputs. In: 20 AIAA computational ﬂuid dynamics conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011, pp. 1–23. AIAA. 20. Li J and Chen JB. Probability density evolution method for dynamic response analysis of structures with uncertain parameters. Comput Mech 2004; 34: 400–409. 21. Li J and Chen JB. The probability density evolution method for analysis of dynamic nonlinear response of stochastic structures. Acta Mech Sini Chin Ed 2003; 35: 722–728. 22. Li J and Fang WL. On system reliability analysis of reinforced concrete frames. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian-Paciﬁc symposium on structural reliability and its applications, Hong Kong, 2008, pp. 401–406. 23. Cui LJ, Lv ZZ and Zhao XP. Measure of importance for basic variable and the probability density evolution method of moment independent. Sci China Press 2010; 40: 557–564. 24. Fan W, Chen Z, Yu D, et al. Probabilistic analysis of rainfall in Chongqing based on probability density evolution theory. Eng Mech 2012; 7: 25. 25. Wang S, Shi K, Du D, et al. Stochastic seismic responses of isolated structure based on probability density evolution method. J Earthquake Eng Eng Vibrat 2013; 2: 22. 26. Li J, Peng YB and Chen JB. A physical approach to structural stochastic optimal controls. Prob Eng Mech 2010; 25: 127–141. 27. Kim SM, Wang S and Brennan MJ. Comparison of negative and positive position feedback control of a ﬂexible structure. Smart Mater Struct 2011; 20: 015011. 28. Yan-Ru H and Ng A. Active robust vibration control of ﬂexible structures. J Sound Vibrat 2005; 288: 43–56. Liu et al. 817 29. Zhang WS and Xu YL. Closed form solution for a long-wind response of actively controlled tall buildings with LQG controllers. J Wind Eng Industrial Aerodynam 2001; 89: 785–807. 30. Preumont A. Vibration control of active structures: an introduction. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 31. Xia H and Zhang N. Dynamic analysis of railway bridge under high-speed trains. Comput Struct 2005; 83: 1891–1901. 32. Liu XX, Ren XM, Chen H, et al. Optimal control of ﬂexible beams under the action of moving mass with constant speed. J Vibrat Measure Diagn 2017; 37: 127–204. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png "Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control" SAGE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/optimal-vibration-control-of-moving-mass-beam-systems-with-uncertainty-xgwRdN6HoS

Loading next page...

References (25)

The probability density evolution method for analysis of dynamic nonlinear response of stochastic structures
Vibration analysis of flexible beam under the action of multi-moving masses with variable speed
Application of pseudospectral method in stochastic optimal control of nonlinear structural systems
Sang-Myeong Kim, Semyun Wang, M. Brennan (2010)
Comparison of negative and positive position feedback control of a flexible structure
Smart Materials and Structures, 20
W. Zhu, Z. Ying, T. Soong (2001)
An Optimal Nonlinear Feedback Control Strategy for Randomly Excited Structural Systems
Nonlinear Dynamics, 24
D. Stancioiu, H. Ouyang (2016)
Optimal vibration control of beams subjected to a mass moving at constant speed
Journal of Vibration and Control, 22
H. Xia, N. Zhang (2005)
Dynamic analysis of railway bridge under high-speed trains
Computers & Structures, 83
Yan-Ru Hu, A. Ng (2005)
Active robust vibration control of flexible structures
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 288
R. Zarfam, A. Khaloo (2012)
Vibration control of beams on elastic foundation under a moving vehicle and random lateral excitations
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 331
Modeling and experimental design of the couple moving-mass and simply supported beam time-varying system
Optimal trajectory generation with probabilistic uncertainty using polynomial chaos
Probabilistic analysis of rainfall in Chongqing based on probability density evolution theory
Yang-jun Pi, H. Ouyang (2016)
Vibration control of beams subjected to a moving mass using a successively combined control method
Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40
Yongbo Peng, R. Ghanem, Jie Li (2010)
Polynomial chaos expansions for optimal control of nonlinear random oscillators
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 329
W. Zhang, You‐lin Xu (2001)
Closed form solution for alongwind response of actively controlled tall buildings with LQG controllers
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 89
A. Nikkhoo, F. Rofooei, M. Shadnam (2007)
Dynamic behavior and modal control of beams under moving mass
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 306
Optimal control of flexible beams under the action of moving mass with constant speed
Jie Li, Yongbo Peng, Jianbing Chen (2010)
A physical approach to structural stochastic optimal controls
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 25
Measure of importance for basic variable and the probability density evolution method of moment independent
Vibration analysis of a simply supported beam under moving mass with uniformly variable speeds
C. Qian, Jia-shi Tang (2008)
A time delay control for a nonlinear dynamic beam under moving load
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 309
Yang-jun Pi, H. Ouyang (2017)
Lyapunov-based boundary control of a multi-span beam subjected to moving masses
Journal of Vibration and Control, 23
Jie Li, Jianbing Chen (2004)
Probability density evolution method for dynamic response analysis of structures with uncertain parameters
Computational Mechanics, 34
Bing Zhu, W. Huo (2013)
Robust nonlinear control for a model-scaled helicopter with parameter uncertainties
Nonlinear Dynamics, 73
Stochastic seismic responses of isolated structure based on probability density evolution method

Publisher: SAGE
Copyright: Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Ltd unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses
ISSN: 0263-0923
eISSN: 2048-4046
DOI: 10.1177/1461348419844150
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A linear optimal regulator for uncertain system is designed through the application of the probability density evolution method to linear quadratic regulator controller. One important background of this work is bridge-vehicle/gun-projectile system. This type of optimal problem is currently transformed into a moving load problem. The developed optimal regulator can provide the law of probability densities of outputs varying with time. In order to make the advocated method reach an optimal performance, the beneficial weighting matrix pair (Q, R) is selected using a trade-off sense. The designed regulator is then applied to a coupled simply supported beam-moving mass system, choosing the mid-span deflection as an output response and considering stochastic system parameters. The numerical example shows that the robustness of the proposed optimal regulator cannot be overestimated in comparison with a deterministic linear quadratic regulator controller. Further, the proposed method can produce an efficient solution channel for modern optimal control theory, especially, when compared with different uncertain optimal control techniques. Keywords Linear optimal regulator, PDEM, linear quadratic regulator controller, uncertain system, robustness Introduction Resisting the respective elastic vibration of bridges and barrels caused by high-speed motions of vehicles and projectiles is essential to the design of bridges and ﬁring accuracy of pills. Such bridge-vehicle system and gun- 1–4 projectile system are generally taken as beam-moving mass systems (BMSs). Recently, more and more attention has been attracted to optimal controller design of BMSs, such as time-varying optimal controller design in vehicle- 5 6 bridge interaction, constant gain feedback gain design in vehicle-railway system, the contribution of displacement-velocity feedback controller on the BMSs, the inﬂuence of Lyapunov-based boundary controller on statically indeterminate beam and the usage of a proportional-integral controller on the magnetic wheels- guide rail system. Due to the uncertainties of system parameters and/or input disturbances, an optimal controller should be designed as uncertain. Although the existing deterministic controller design methods, up to now, still play signiﬁcant roles, these methods cannot accurately reﬂect the robustness of uncertain systems. Consequently, a series of research topics about uncertain optimal controller design have arisen. For BMSs, to name but a few, 10 11 time-varying stochastic optimal problem and robust problem of a stream of random moving loads have been researched in recent years. For other uncertain system, in Zhu and Ying an optimal feedback control scheme for State Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, School of Aerospace, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China Department of Mechanical and Civil, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China Corresponding author: Xiaoxiao Liu, State Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, School of Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, People’s Republic of China. Email: xxliu1989@mail.xjtu.edu.cn Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 804 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) nonlinear structural system excited by a non-Gaussian process was proposed based on the stochastic averaging method for quasi-Hamiltonian system and the stochastic dynamic programming principle. In Monti et al., a new control approach for a power converter with parameter uncertainty was presented based on the Polynomial chaos Theory. In Fisher and Bhattacharya, different control methods related to problems of linear quadratic control (linear quadratic regulator (LQR)) for systems with uncertain parameters was put forward by using the gener- alized Polynomial Chaos Theory. In Gallagher, the ﬁnite-horizon optimal control as a method of robust control design for a stochastic system was developed through optimizing a polynomial chaos expansion (PCE). In Peng et al., an optimal control was implemented for a system with stochastic earthquake excitation described using PCE for a nonlinear oscillator. The Karhunen-Loeve (KL) decomposition was used to describe the excitation. In Zhu and Huo, a robust nonlinear control strategy was proposed for trajectory tracking of a model-scaled helicopter with parameter uncertainties, and this controller was based upon the back-stepping approach with nonlinear damping terms. In Song and Dyke, an optimal control strategy of nonlinear stochastic system was developed through the application of pseudo-spectral (PS) method. In Jameson, the sensitivities of robust optimal control was investigated by combing PCEs and adjoint theory. It should be noted that the aforementioned studies mainly focus on attaining the regular distribution types and second-order moments of the responses of stochastic controlled systems. Although a PCE can obtain high-order statistical moments, this method cannot acquire the rule of probability densities of system outputs varying with time. To get over this difﬁculty, a generalized probability density evolution theory was developed based on the 20,21 20 ideology of physical stochastic system. Meanwhile, Li and Chen also pointed out that traditional stochastic expansion method was found not capable of adequately reﬂect the probabilistic characteristics of stochastic dynamic systems, and the probability density evolution method (PDEM) is able to capture the rule of probability densities varying with time rather than just the second-order moment of uncertain responses. Moreover, the density evolution theory was also applied to the dynamic analysis and dynamic reliability of structures. Sequentially, the density evolution theory of importance measure was developed to discuss reliability sensitivity of truss structures. By using the method, the probability density function (PDF) is varying with time and the instantaneous PDF is sometimes quite irregular with multiple peaks, rather than regular distribution function 20,24–28 types. However, up to now, the vibration control problem of uncertain BMSs has been rarely researched, especially, the uncertain control strategy. To accurately reﬂect the law of probability densities of output responses of the controlled BMSs varying with time, an optimal regulator-based on density evolution theory is originally proposed to calculate the system’s outputs. This type of vibration control problems, which denotes the purport of the current research, is actually a procedure of uncertainty propagation. Therefore, a proposed linear optimal regulator-based density evolution theory is summarized as follows: (1) dynamic equation of controlled systems with uncertainties of inherent properties can be derived through designing a proposed linear optimal output regulator. For the sake of the optimal performance of the contrivable controller, the weighting matrices Q and 29,30 R are chosen in a trade-off sense ; (2) output responses of the controlled systems can be solved by using the probability density evolution, which can commendably reﬂect the probability densities evolution of the calculated responses rather than only the second-order statistics of response outputs. In this paper, it should be noted that the mid-span deﬂection is selected as output responses and the material parameters of the given BMSs are described as random variables. Sequentially, the robustness between the promoted regulator and the deterministic controller can be analyzed. Methods Probability density evolution equation of uncertain system Because of the uncertainties of inherent system properties, a variety of uncertain control synthesis strategies needs to rise gradually. Although deterministic linear and nonlinear control strategies still have taken up some space, these schemes could not reasonably reﬂect the impacts of control performance on uncertain systems. Some literatures related to active control of uncertain systems, especially BMS systems, have been reported. For exam- ple, stochastic linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) control and time-variant optimal polynomial chaos control were 10,11 deeply researched in Stancioiu and Ouyang. Meanwhile, there are also large amounts of stochastic control algorithms for other types of uncertain systems, such as PS control, optimal stochastic averaging feedback 12 13–16 control, and PCE control. The aforementioned investigations mainly focus on implementing the second- order statistics of response outputs. Although a PCE is able to obtain high-order statistical moments, this method Liu et al. 805 cannot exhibit the probability densities evolution of the calculated responses. To overcome the above problem, a 20,21 physical stochastic optimal control strategy is developed by using a generalized PDEM. This type of vibration control problems, which represents the purport of the current research, is actually a procedure of uncertainty propagation. Therefore, we originally concentrate on an optimal regulator-based on density evolution theory. First, the basic theory of the evolution was introduced as follows: Without loss of generality, the equation of motion of uncertain system can be uniformly written as € _ MðHÞXðtÞþ CðHÞXðtÞþ KðHÞXðtÞ¼ FðtÞ (1) where M, C, K are n n mass matrix, damping matrix and stiffness matrix, respectively; F is the deterministic or € _ random external force; H is c-dimensional random variable; X, X, X are n 1 acceleration, velocity and displace- ment vectors, respectively. According to the principle of preservation of probability, the conditional PDF of X excited by external forces 21,22 can be described as follows f ðx; h; tÞ¼ d x Hðh; tÞ (2) XjH where dðÞ is Dirac function; Hðh; tÞ is the physical solution of X. The generalized probability density evolution equation (PDEE) can be obtained by taking the derivative of equation (2) @f ðx; h; tÞ @f ðx; h; tÞ XjH XjH þ Xðh; tÞ ¼ 0 (3) @t @x The initial condition for equation (3) is @f ðx; h; tÞ ¼ dðx x Þf ðhÞ (4) XjH 0 H t¼0 where x ¼ Xðt Þ is the initial value for X. 0 0 The PDF of X, then, can be attained by taking integration with respect to equation (4) f ðx; tÞ¼ f ðx; h; tÞdh (5) X XjH Sequentially, the law of probability densities of output responses X varying with time can be acquired by using equation (5). Consequently, a proposed linear optimal regulator-based density evolution theory is summarized as follows: (1) the dynamic equation of controlled systems with uncertainties of inherent properties can be derived through designing a proposed linear optimal output regulator; (2) the output responses of the controlled systems can be solved by using the probability density evolution, which can commendably reﬂect the probability densities evolution of the calculated responses rather than only the second-order statistics of response outputs. Next, the presented optimal regulator-based density evolution theory for uncertain BMSs can be elaborated. Linear optimal regulator design-based on PDEM for uncertain BMSs An Euler–Bernoulli beam with multiple active tendon control systems under the moving mass and simply sup- ported boundary conditions is considered. The inclination angle of the ith tendon with respect to the support is denoted by a . Without regard to contact loss, the equation of the motion of the controlled BMS under parametric uncertainties is governed as 4 2 L @ wðy; tÞ @ wðy; tÞ :: EI þ qA ¼m wðt; vtÞ þ gÞÞdðy vtÞ 4k cosa u ðtÞdðy y Þ (6) c i i i 4 2 @y @t i¼1 where wðy; tÞ is the transverse deﬂection of beam; dðÞ is the Dirac delta function; g is acceleration of gravity; u ðtÞ is the control force of the ith actuator; y is the position of the ith actuator; n is the number of independent active i L 806 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) tendon control systems; v is the constant travelling speed at the beam of length L; k is the tendon stiffness; E, I, q, A are Yong’s modulus, second moment of area, density per unit length and the cross-sectional area, respectively. These properties are assumed as random variables. Let wðy; tÞ¼ u ðyÞq ðtÞ (7) k¼1 where u ðyÞ is the modal shape function; q ðtÞ is the modal coordinate. k k Applying modal superposition method to equation (6) by multiplying both sides of the equation by u ðyÞ and integrating from 0 to L, then equation (6) can be transformed into € _ MðH Þþ MðtÞ qðH; tÞþ CðtÞqðH; tÞþðKðH Þþ KðtÞÞqðH; tÞ t t M K f (8) ¼mgwðvtÞ 4k cosa wðy Þu ðH; tÞ c i i i i¼1 where wðvtÞ¼½u ðvtÞ; u ðvtÞ; u ðvtÞ; ... ; u ðvtÞ ; H , H are random parameters involved in matrices M and K; M K 1 2 3 N H ¼½H ; H ¼ ½H ;H ;H ; .. . ;H , where z is the number of random parameters; MðH Þ, KðH Þ are repre- M K 1 2 3 z M K sented by MðH Þ¼ qðH ÞAðH ÞdiagfM g; KðH Þ¼ EðH ÞIðH ÞdiagfK g (9) M 1 2 kj K 3 4 kj Z Z L L T 0000 where M = u ðyÞ u ðyÞdy; K ¼ u ðyÞ u ðyÞdy; DMðtÞ, DCðtÞ, DKðtÞ are expressed as follows kj kj k j k j 0 0 MðtÞ¼ mdiagfM g; CðtÞ¼ 2mvdiagfC g; KðtÞ¼ mv diagfK g kj kj kj 0 00 where M ¼ u ðvtÞu ðvtÞ; C ¼ u ðvtÞu ðvtÞ; K ¼ u ðvtÞu ðvtÞ kj k j kj j k kj j k After terminal time instant t , the beam vibrates freely and the stochastic controlled system is expressed as follows MðH Þq €ðH; tÞþ KðH ÞqðH; tÞ¼ 4k cosa wðy Þu t > t (10) M K c i i i f i¼1 T T T where ½qðt Þ q _ ðt Þ is used as initial conditions of system (11). f f The controlled system (8) can be written in state-space form ZðH; tÞ¼ AðH; tÞZðH; tÞþ BðH; tÞUðH; tÞþ FðtÞ (11) ZðH; t Þ¼ z 0 0 YðH; tÞ¼CðvtÞZðH; tÞ where ZðH; t Þ is the initial condition; AðH; tÞ is a 2n2n stochastic coefﬁcient matrix; BðH; tÞ is a 2nr controller location matrix and FðtÞ is a 2n-dimensional excitation force vector, respectively; YðH; tÞ is the output. ZðH; tÞ, AðH; tÞ, BðH; tÞ, UðH; tÞ and FðtÞ are expressed as "# qðH; tÞ ZðH; tÞ¼ ; qðH; tÞ 2 3 4 5 BðH; tÞ¼ MðH Þþ DMðtÞ ½wðy Þ4k cosa ... wðy Þ4k cosa (12) M 1 c 1 i c i "# 0 I AðH; tÞ¼ 1 1 ðMðH Þþ DMðtÞÞ ðKðH Þþ DKðtÞÞ ðMðH Þþ DMðtÞÞ DCðtÞ M K M 0 0 UðH; tÞ¼ ½u ðtÞ; u ðtÞ; ... ; u ðtÞ ; FðtÞ¼½0; mgwðvtÞ 1 2 r Liu et al. 807 When the control problem of the stochastic system (12) needs to be solved, the control objective can be deﬁned as the minimization of the mid-span deﬂection response of the beam. Then, the optimal problem is changed to a linear quadratic problem, which is obtained by a quadratic performance index 1 1 T T T JðZ; UÞ¼ Z ðH; t ÞSZðH; t Þþ ðZ ðH; tÞQZðH; tÞþ U ðH; tÞRUðH; tÞÞdt (13) f f 2 2 where ZðH; t Þ is the terminal state; S and QðtÞ are nonnegative deﬁnite matrices; R ðtÞ is a positive deﬁnite matrix. f i Therefore, the minimum of the standard quadratic performance index J gives rise to an issue of the conditional extreme value of cost function. For a closed-loop controlled system, the control force function of the optimal problem can be generated by the following expression 1 T UðH; tÞ¼R B ðH; tÞPðH; tÞZðH; tÞ¼G ðH; tÞZðH; tÞ (14) where matrix PðH; tÞ is calculated by solving backward the differential Riccati equation. T 1 T PðH; tÞþ AðH; tÞPðH; tÞþ A ðH; tÞPðH; tÞ PðH; tÞBðH; tÞR B ðH; tÞPðH; tÞþ Q ¼ 0 (15) PðH; t Þ¼ S where PðH; t Þ is ﬁnal condition and can be obtained using Lyapunov equation. The control effectiveness of the optimal control depends on the speciﬁed control strategy, which is related to the objective performance of systems. The most important advantage of the state-space control technique is that it can consider the control to be expressed as a state-feedback function (11) of the manuscript and can transform the system from an open-loop control system into a closed-loop control system. By employing this method, the control function can be synthesized based on dynamic equations of the system regardless of the effect of any force acting at the system input. Then, a simple change of variable can be introduced which can consider the forcing term F(t). Sequentially, the time-varying modal force mgwðvtÞ can be considered during the design process. Therefore, the modal force can be augmented to the matrix B, which can be termed as the augmented B. The state-space equation is transformed into the augmented system, whose advantage is that the required control action is able to directly consider the excitation force rather than only considering it as a disturbance. It should be stressed that the matrix B depends on the location of the actuators, and it not only affects the design process but also affects largely the controllability of the system. Moreover, the control problem of BMSs is that not only it is a time-varying process but also the control action requires time-varying weighting matrices. Therefore, to take better advantage of control effort, the weighting matri- ces originated from the state-space equation are allowed to change with the position of the mass on the beam. Figure 1 depicts the system construction drawing of uncertain optimal output regulator in a ﬁnite time. From this ﬁgure, it can be deduced that the propositional regulator gives a novel controller alternative to a deterministic controller. According to equations (13) and (14), one realizes that the critical procedure of LQR problem relies on the 29,30 selection of weight matrices Q and R. The beneﬁcial weighting matrices can be obtained in a trade-off sense. I 0 Q ¼ a ; R ¼ bI (16) 0 I Figure 1. System construction drawing of uncertain optimal output regulator in a finite time. PDEM: probability density evolution method; BMS: beam-moving mass system; LQR: linear quadratic regulator. 808 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) where a, b are coefﬁcients of state matrices and control force matrices, respectively, whose ratio indicates the effectiveness and economy of the optimal control. The optimal values a and b can be obtained using the system second-order statistics assessment. Likewise, equation (11) can be also written in state-space form ZðH; tÞ¼ AðHÞZðH; tÞþ BðHÞUðH; tÞ (17) ZðH; t Þ¼ z t > t f f f YðH; tÞ¼CðvtÞZðH; tÞ where ZðH; t Þ is the initial condition for system (11); AðHÞ is a 2n2n time-invariant system matrix and BðHÞ is a 2nr controller location matrix, respectively. AðHÞ and BðH Þ are 0 I AðHÞ¼ MðH Þ KðH Þ 0 M K (18) BðH Þ¼ M 1 MðH Þ½ wðy Þ4k cosa :::wðy Þ4k cosa M i c 1 i c i This optimal problem of system (11) is obtained by using the following quadratic performance index þ1 T T JðZ; UÞ¼ Z ðH; tÞQZðH; tÞþ U ðH; tÞRUðH; tÞ dt (19) and the matrix PðHÞ can be solved by the algebraic Riccati equation T 1 T PðHÞAðHÞ A ðHÞPðHÞþ PðHÞBðH ÞR B ðH ÞPðHÞ Q ¼ 0 (20) M M where the matrix PðHÞ is time-independent. Hence, the control force for system (11) can be given as follows 1 T UðH; tÞ¼R B ðH ÞPðHÞZðH; tÞ¼G ðH; tÞZðH; tÞ (21) M g Analogously, the system structure graphic of uncertain optimal output regulator for inﬁnite time is described in Figure 2. For this type of the regulator, terminal state must be equal to zero, namely, ZðH; 1Þ ¼ 0. Otherwise, performance index will be inﬁnity and then system (17) cannot be solved. Because ZðH; 1Þ ¼ 0, the terminal cost is not required in index (19). Based on the probability density evolution theory, the PDEE with respect to q is described as follows @f ðq; h; tÞ @f ðq; h; tÞ qjH qjH þ q _ ðh; tÞ ¼ 0 (22) @t @q Figure 2. System construction drawing of uncertain optimal output regulator for infinite time. PDEM: probability density evolution method; BMS: beam-moving mass system; LQR: linear quadratic regulator. Liu et al. 809 The initial condition for equation (22) is @f ðq; h; tÞ ¼ dðq q Þf ðhÞ (23) qjH 0 H t¼0 where q ¼ qðt Þ is the initial value for q. 0 0 The PDF of the mid-span deﬂection wðy; tÞ, then, can be attained as follows f ðw; tÞ¼ w ðyÞf ðq; h; tÞdh (24) w qjH where wðy; tÞ¼ w ðyÞqðtÞ Similarly, the PDEE with respect to U is expressed as follows @f ðq; h; tÞ @f ðq; h; tÞ UjH UjH þ Uðh; tÞ ¼ 0 (25) @t @U The initial condition for equation (25) is @f ðU; h; tÞ ¼ dðU U Þf ðhÞ (26) UjH 0 H t¼0 where U ¼ Uðt Þ is the initial value for U. 0 0 The PDF of the control force UðH; tÞ is f ðU; tÞ¼ f ðU; h; tÞdh (27) U UjH Procedures of designing and solving the optimal output regulator The speciﬁc procedures of designing and solving the optimal output regulator are depicted in Figure 3 and can be summarized as follows: a. Govern the equation of motion of the controlled BMSs; b. Determine the distribution types H of BMSs’ parameters; c. Discretize the representative points of BMSs’ parameters; d. Design the optimal output regulator-based on PDEM; e. Transform the solution of an optimal regulator problem into a problem of First-order partial differential equation sets; and f. Fit instantaneous PDFs of output responses and analyze the evolution process of PDFs. Simulation A simply supported Euler–Bernoulli beam is used to demonstrate the efﬁciency of the proposed design method, as shown in Figure 4. A moving mass with constant speed travels on the beam. In this example, the performance of the stochastic controlled system with multiple actuators is observed as a solution for suppressing the mid-span deﬂection response of the beam. All numerical parameters of the BMS are listed in Table 1. The constant speed of 2 m/s is selected in the BMSs. The control force of the ith actuator is denoted by u ðtÞ. The ith mode of the simply supported beam can be expressed as follows: u ¼ sinðipy=LÞ. The control effect of the beam response is selected at the position y ¼ L/2. Figure 5 shows the rationality of the selection of the ﬁrst two modes of the beam. From the ﬁgure, it can be seen that increasing the number of modes over two does not improve the accuracy of the mid- span deﬂection. The gain control matrix G ðH; tÞ involved in the promoted optimal regulator must be calculated and then used to suppress the beam response from t ¼ 0 until t ¼ 2L=v. Table 1 gives the position of two actuators. Next, by varying the coefﬁcient b in a trade-off sense, the beneﬁcial coefﬁcients a ¼ 1000 and b ¼ 0.1 can be obtained. 810 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) Figure 3. The flowchart of designing and solving the optimal output regulator. PDEM: probability density evolution method; BMS: beam-moving mass system; LQR: linear quadratic regulator; PDF: probability density function. Figure 4. BMSs with two active tendons. Table 1. Numerical parameters of the example system. System parameters Unit Distribution type Mean COV Yong’s modulus, E Nm Normal 2.1e8 0.1 Density per unit length, q kgm Normal 7800.00 0.08 Cross-section width, b m Normal 3.28e04 0.09 Cross-section height, h m Normal 0.0860 0.1 Mass of moving load kg 0.5 Length of beam m 1 Position of the first actuator m 0.10 Position of the second actuator m 0.60 COV: coefficient of variation. Liu et al. 811 Figure 5. Mid-span deflection of the beam at the uncontrolled condition. Figure 6. Time history of the mean of the mid-span deflection of BMSs with/without control. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. The use of the presented method with the beneﬁcial weight matrices Q = 1000diag([1 1 1 1]) and R ¼ 0.1 I 22 results in a time history of the mean of the mid-span deﬂection of the controlled system. It is clear from Figure 6 that the deﬂection response process of the controlled system is reduced signiﬁcantly compared with that of the uncontrolled system. In this ﬁgure, it should be ﬁgured out that the optimal design control-based density evolu- tion (ODEC) represents the proposed optimal controller scheme-based PDEM, which can accurately reﬂect the impacts of control actions on uncertain BMSs. Actually, the proposed ODEC is a non–deterministic controller scheme. Meanwhile, the deﬂection in the time with stronger variability, i.e. the time interval from 0.2 to 1 s, obviously reduces, which indicates the effectiveness of the novel design controller. It is noteworthy that the deﬂection response of free vibration system suppressed by the designed method has an amplitude fading. This is due to the fact that the optimal output regulator system for inﬁnite time depends on the term G q:ðtÞ but the g1 uncontrolled free vibration phase does not include the term. Meanwhile, the time history of the mean of the mid-span deﬂection of BMSs is compared with ODEC and Monte Carlo simulation, as shown in Figure 7. It can be derived that the response of uncertain BMSs with ODEC is close to that with Monte Carlo simulation. It should be noted that the ODEC strategy can be veriﬁed by using Monte Carlo simulation because the ODEC scheme involves the system’s uncertainty. These results indicate that the proposed ODEC scheme behaves well in precision. Here, the respective discrepancies of time histories of the mean of mid-span deﬂection and control forces between the coefﬁcient b ¼ 0.1and b ¼ 0.9 are presented in Figure 8, where a equals 1000. It is seen that: (1) as b ¼ 0.9, the control effect for the time history of the mean of mid-span deﬂection is underestimated; (2) however, the time history of the mean of control forces u ðtÞ and u ðtÞ 1 2 will be reduced as the coefﬁcient b increase. Moreover, the weight matrix R has a direct inﬂuence on the amplitude attenuation of the free vibration system. The results illustrate the inﬂuence of the choice of the weight matrix R on robust performance of the given optimal output regulator system. 812 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) Figure 7. Time history of the mean of the mid-span deflection of BMSs: comparison between ODEC and Monte Carlo. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. (a) (b) (c) Figure 8. Time histories of the mean of mid-span deflection and control forces between the coefficient b ¼ 0.1and b ¼ 0.9. (a) Mid- span deflection of BMSs, (b) u (t) and (c) u (t). ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. 1 2 Figure 9 shows probabilistic characteristics of the mid-span deﬂection with/without control, including typical PDFs at different instants of time. From this ﬁgure, it can be seen that the mid-span deﬂection is obviously reduced. These observations illustrate that the recommended controller is able to efﬁciently suppress the vibration of uncertain BMSs. Furthermore, the results show that PDF of the deﬂection is varying with time and quite different from the regular distribution. The probabilistic characteristics of the control inputs u ðtÞ and u ðtÞ are 1 2 shown in Figure 10. It can be observed that the shapes of typical PDFs of the control forces are different from those of the mid-span deﬂection. The cause is that the control forces lies on the modal displacement and modal velocity, while the mid-span deﬂection hinges on the modal shape vector wðyÞ. Liu et al. 813 (a) (b) (c) 90 -0.03 PDF at 0.2s with control -0.031 80 PDF at 0.3s with control PDF at 0.37s with control -0.032 -0.033 -0.034 -0.035 20 -0.036 -0.037 -0.038 0.35 -0.02 10 0.3 -0.025 -0.039 -0.03 0.25 0 -0.04 -0.035 -0.04 -0.038 -0.036 -0.034 -0.032 -0.03 -0.028 -0.026 -0.024 -0.022 -0.02 0.2 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 -0.04 Time(s) Deflection(cm) Deflection(cm) Time(s) (d) (e) (f) 25 -0.02 PDF at 0.2s without control PDF at 0.3s without control -0.03 PDF at 0.37s without control -0.04 -0.05 10 5 -0.06 -0.07 0.35 0.3 -0.02 -0.08 -0.04 0.25 -0.06 -0.08 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 -0.1 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.2 -0.1 Time(s) Deflection(cm) Deflection(cm) Time(s) Figure 9. Probabilistic characteristics of the mid-span deflection with/without control: (a)–(c) Typical PDFs of the mid-span deflection with control varying with time. (d)–(f) Typical PDFs of the mid-span deflection without control varying with time. PDF: probability density function. (a) (b) (c) 4 0.7 PDF at 0.1s with control PDF at 0.2s with control 0.6 3.5 PDF at 0.45s with control 4 0.5 0.4 2.5 3 0.3 0.2 1.5 1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0 0 -0.2 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.1 -0.2 Control Force(N) Control Force(N) Time(s) Time(s) (d) (e) (f) 0.7 PDF at 0.1s with control 0.6 PDF at 0.2s with control 2.5 PDF at 0.45s with control 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.2 1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0 -0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.1 -0.2 Control Force(N) Time(s) Time(s) Control Force(N) Figure 10. Probabilistic characteristics of the optimal control forces: (a)–(c) Typical PDFs of u (t) varying with time; (d)–(f) Typical PDFs of u (t) varying with time. PDF: probability density function. Although the deterministic control (e.g. deterministic LQR, deterministic LQG) might be applied to suppress the responses of stochastic systems, the control force only depends on the constant gain matrix, rather than the stochastic gain matrix. Figure 11 shows the discrepancy of time history of mid-span deﬂection between the deterministic LQR controller (DLC) and the optimal controller scheme-based on PDEM (ODEC). Actually, PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF Deflection(cm) Deflection(cm) Control Force(N) Control Force(N) 814 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) Figure 11. Time history of mid-span deflection between the ODEC method and DLC method. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution; DLC: deterministic LQR controller. (a) (b) Figure 12. Time history of the mean of the control forces between the ODEC method and DLC method: (a) u (t) and (b) u (t). 1 2 ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution; DLC: deterministic LQR controller. ODEC represents the nondeterministic controller and DLC denotes the deterministic controller. From the ﬁgure, it is concluded that as the beneﬁcial coefﬁcients a ¼ 1000 and b ¼ 0.1, the control effect of the output response and the robustness of the advocated controller are overvalued using the DLC. The discrepancy of the control forces between the two methods is seen by analyzing Figure 12 where the control action is plotted for the time history. It can be found that the absolute control input u ðtÞ produced by the DLC is obviously undervalued when the time interval is 0.48 s. Meanwhile, the control input u ðtÞ generated by the DLC is obviously underestimated in the time interval from 0.3 to 1 s. Results indicate that the second actuator plays more important role in the control process and the ODEC can let the robust performance of the designed regulator system more accurately. Moreover, combining Figures 9 and 11, it can be derived that although both the ODEC and the DLC methods can reduce the deﬂection of the beam, the ODEC strategy behaves a higher control effect. This indicates that the ODEC is more suitable for dealing with uncertain control problems. Meanwhile, the results of Figures 9 and 11 demonstrate that the instantaneous PDF and its evolution of system responses can be obtained by the ODEC method, while the DLC method cannot acquire the above phenomena and also is found not capable of dealing with uncertain controlled systems. Figure 13 shows the time history of mid-span deﬂection with various control strategies. It can be observed that although all the control schemes can be employed to suppress the vibration of the beams, both the ODEC method and the augmented time-varying method (Augmented matrix) exhibit a higher control performance. Time- invariant control method only depends on the time-invariant system matrix A and the controller location matrix B, expressed in equation (18). Time-invariant control method is employed to suppress the beam subjected to moving mass and is also applied to suppress the free vibration of the beam. However, it can be seen that the performance of the time-invariant control method is not signiﬁcant. Moreover, the advantage of the augmented time-variant control strategy is that the required control action is able to directly consider the excitation force rather than only considering it as a disturbance. It can be observed that the augmented time-variant strategy behaves a bit poor in control performance when the moving mass acts on the beam. However, the control effect of Liu et al. 815 Figure 13. Time history of mid-span deflection with various control Strategies: ODEC-proposed control method; Augmented matrix-the modal force is augmented to the matrix B, whose advantage is that the required control action can directly consider the excitation force rather than only considering it as a disturbance; Time-invariant control-the matrix A and B is time-invariant. ODEC: optimal design control-based density evolution. the augmented time-variant scheme is better than that of the ODEC method when the mass leaves the beam. Therefore, both the ODEC and the augmented time-variant methods have a superior performance when the vibration of the beam should be suppressed. Conclusions This paper devises an optimal regulator-based on PDEM for an uncertain BMSs. In order to obtain the law of probability densities of control inputs and output responses, the designed controller is then applied to the BMSs. Meanwhile, a quadratic performance index related to the optimal problem is deﬁned. The beneﬁcial weighting matrices Q and R are selected in a trade-off sense. It is found through numerical example that the weight matrix R has a signiﬁcant impact on the robust performance of the optimal output regulator system. Further, the ODEC extends the deterministic control, such as the DLC, of which the control gain is treated as the deterministic quantity. The instantaneous PDFs of the deﬂection response and the control force can be obtained to characterize the controller’s transient performance. The comparative study between the ODEC and DLC schemes illustrates that the robustness of the developed optimal controller cannot be overestimated in comparison with a determin- istic LQR controller. Further, the instantaneous feature engendered by the proposed method can provide an efﬁcient solution channel for modern optimal control theory, especially, when compared with different uncertain optimal control techniques. Moreover, the advocated method provides a computationally efﬁcient while compar- ing with the Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, both the ODEC and the augmented time-variant methods behave a superior performance when the moving mass acts on the beam and the mass leaves the beam. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following ﬁnancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors acknowledge the support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 11802224), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Number 2018M633495), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (3102016ZY2016), China State Key Laboratory for Mechanical Structure Strength and Vibration Open-end Foundation (Grant number SV2019-KF-11) and Aerospace Science and Technology Innovation Fund (2016kc060013). ORCID iD Xiaoxiao Liu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1313-2761 816 Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 39(3) References 1. Peng X, Liu ZJ and Hong JW. Vibration analysis of a simply supported beam under moving mass with uniformly variable speeds. Eng Mech 2006; 23: 25–29. 2. Wang YZ and Zhang XB. Vibration analysis of ﬂexible beam under the action of multi-moving masses with variable speed. J Vibrat Shock 2011; 30: 56–66. 3. Pi YJ and Ouyang H. Vibration control of beams subjected to a moving mass using a successively combined control method. Appl Math Modell 2016; 40: 4002–4015. 4. Ma ZS, Liu L and Zhou SD. Modeling and experimental design of the couple moving-mass and simply supported beam time-varying system. J Vibrat Measure Diagn 2015; 35: 913–920. 5. Stancioiu D and Ouyang H. Optimal vibration control of beams subjected to a mass moving at constant speed. J Vibrat Control 2016; 22: 3202–3217. 6. Zarfam R and Khaloo AR. Vibration control of beams on elastic foundation under a moving vehicle and random lateral excitations. J Sound Vibrat 2012; 331: 1217–1232. 7. Nikkhoo A, Rofooei FR and Shadnam MR. Dynamic behavior and modal control of beams under moving loads. J Sound Vibrat 2007; 306: 712–724. 8. Pi YJ and Ouyang H. Lyapunov-based boundary control of a multi-span beam subjected to moving masses. J Vibrat Control 2017; 23: 2221–2234. 9. Qian CZ and Tang JS. A time delay control for a nonlinear dynamic beam under moving load. J Sound Vibrat 2008; 309: 1–8. 10. Stancioiu D and Ouyang H. Optimal control of systems with probabilistic uncertainties. In: 19th international congress on sound and vibration, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2012, pp. 1–8. 11. Stancioiu D and Ouyang H. A probabilistic approach to robust control of beam structures subjected to a random stream th of moving masses. In: Proceedings of the 9 international conference on structural dynamics, Eurodyn, 2014, pp. 1595–1600. 12. Zhu WQ, Ying ZG and Soong TT. An optimal nonlinear feedback control strategy for randomly excited structural systems. Nonlinear Dynam 2001; 24: 31–51. 13. Monti A, Ponci F and Lovett T. A polynomial chaos theory approach to the control design of a power converter. In: A th Cunha, E Caetano, P Ribeiro, G Muller (eds) Proceedings of 359 annual IEEE power electronics specialists conference, Aachen, Germany, 2004, pp. 4809–4813. Portuga: EURODYN. 14. Fisher J and Bhattacharya R. Optimal trajectory generation with probabilistic uncertainty using polynomial chaos. J Dynam Syst Measure Control 2011; 133: 104501. 15. Gallagher DJ. Optimal control for stochastic systems with polynomial chaos. PhD Thesis, University of California, Irvine, 2013. 16. Peng YB, Ghanem R and Li J. Polynomial chaos expansions for optimal control of nonlinear random oscillators. J Sound Vibrat 2010; 329: 3660–3678. 17. Zhu B and Huo W. Robust nonlinear control for a model-scaled helicopter with parameter uncertainties. Nonlinear Dyn 2013; 73: 1139–1154. 18. Song W and Dyke SJ. Application of pseudospectral method in stochastic optimal control of nonlinear structural systems. In: IEEE American Control Conference, 2011, pp.2504–2509. San Francisco: IEEE. th 19. Jameson A. Robust optimal control using polynomial chaos and adjoints for systems with uncertain inputs. In: 20 AIAA computational ﬂuid dynamics conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011, pp. 1–23. AIAA. 20. Li J and Chen JB. Probability density evolution method for dynamic response analysis of structures with uncertain parameters. Comput Mech 2004; 34: 400–409. 21. Li J and Chen JB. The probability density evolution method for analysis of dynamic nonlinear response of stochastic structures. Acta Mech Sini Chin Ed 2003; 35: 722–728. 22. Li J and Fang WL. On system reliability analysis of reinforced concrete frames. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian-Paciﬁc symposium on structural reliability and its applications, Hong Kong, 2008, pp. 401–406. 23. Cui LJ, Lv ZZ and Zhao XP. Measure of importance for basic variable and the probability density evolution method of moment independent. Sci China Press 2010; 40: 557–564. 24. Fan W, Chen Z, Yu D, et al. Probabilistic analysis of rainfall in Chongqing based on probability density evolution theory. Eng Mech 2012; 7: 25. 25. Wang S, Shi K, Du D, et al. Stochastic seismic responses of isolated structure based on probability density evolution method. J Earthquake Eng Eng Vibrat 2013; 2: 22. 26. Li J, Peng YB and Chen JB. A physical approach to structural stochastic optimal controls. Prob Eng Mech 2010; 25: 127–141. 27. Kim SM, Wang S and Brennan MJ. Comparison of negative and positive position feedback control of a ﬂexible structure. Smart Mater Struct 2011; 20: 015011. 28. Yan-Ru H and Ng A. Active robust vibration control of ﬂexible structures. J Sound Vibrat 2005; 288: 43–56. Liu et al. 817 29. Zhang WS and Xu YL. Closed form solution for a long-wind response of actively controlled tall buildings with LQG controllers. J Wind Eng Industrial Aerodynam 2001; 89: 785–807. 30. Preumont A. Vibration control of active structures: an introduction. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 31. Xia H and Zhang N. Dynamic analysis of railway bridge under high-speed trains. Comput Struct 2005; 83: 1891–1901. 32. Liu XX, Ren XM, Chen H, et al. Optimal control of ﬂexible beams under the action of moving mass with constant speed. J Vibrat Measure Diagn 2017; 37: 127–204.

Journal

"Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control" – SAGE

Published: Apr 22, 2019

Keywords: Linear optimal regulator; PDEM; linear quadratic regulator controller; uncertain system; robustness

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Optimal vibration control of moving-mass beam systems with uncertainty:

Optimal vibration control of moving-mass beam systems with uncertainty:

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Optimal vibration control of moving-mass beam systems with uncertainty:

Optimal vibration control of moving-mass beam systems with uncertainty:

References (25)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies