Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

A new approach to the modeling of distributed structures for control$

L. Meirovitch*, T.J. Stemple1
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics (MC 0219), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

Abstract Building structures represent complex distributed-parameter systems. The motion of such systems is described by partial dierential equations complemented by suitable boundary conditions. For control design purposes, distributed-parameter systems must be discretized in the spatial variables. But, if the discrete model is not suciently accurate, controls designed on the basis of the discrete model can destabilize the actual distributed structure, in which case the controls are said to be sensitive to discretization errors. This paper presents a new approach to the discretization of distributed structures yielding accurate discrete models of relatively low order. A numerical example illustrates how controls can be designed for a complex structure subjected to earthquake excitations. # 2001 The Franklin Institute. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Structures are basically distributed-parameter systems with complex geometry. Assuming that base isolation is an indispensable part of seismic control design, a building structure can be modeled as an assemblage of elastic members, such as columns and beams, mounted on a rigid base, as shown in Fig. 1. Strictly speaking, the mathematical formulation for such a model consists of one ordinary dierential equation for the horizontal translation of the base and a certain number of partial dierential equations for each of the elastic members, where the latter are supplemented by a suitable number of boundary conditions to be satised at the
$

Supported by the NSF Research Grant CMS-9423575. *Corresponding author. Fax: +1-540-231-4574. E-mail address: lmeirovi@vt.edu (L. Meirovitch). 1 Now at Moxa Technologies Co. Shing Tien City, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

0016-0032/01/$20.00 # 2001 The Franklin Institute. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 0 0 3 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 8 2 - X

242

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

interface between any two adjacent elastic members, or between the bottom columns and the base. Clearly, such a mathematical formulation is not practical for control design, so that the distributed-parameter model must be approximated by a discrete model. Distributed-parameter structures can be discretized in two distinct ways, namely, through lumping of the distributed parameters, or through series discretization [1]. Lumped-parameter models tend to be very inaccurate, which can cause problems in control of structures. It is well known that active controls designed improperly are capable of destabilizing a system. A classical example is that in which the system parameters are not known very well. When incomplete knowledge of the parameters can lead to instability, the controls are said to be sensitive with respect to variations in the system parameters [2]. Controls that perform well in spite of variations in the system parameters are said to be robust. A somewhat dierent situation can arise when control design based on a discrete model can destabilize the actual distributed structure [3]. Whereas this type of control sensitivity can occur both in lumpedparameter models and in series-discretized models, the problem is much more critical in the rst than in the second. Hence, we rule out lumped-parameter models from further consideration. The classical series discretization procedure is the RayleighRitz method, whereby the elastic displacement is assumed to be a linear combination of known admissible functions multiplied by undetermined coecients. Then, the coecients are determined by rendering Rayleighs quotient stationary [1]. The nite element method, which is a variant of the RayleighRitz method, is by far the most popular series discretization procedure. The basic dierence between the two is that the classical RayleighRitz method uses global functions as admissible functions, dened over the entire elastic member; and the nite element method uses local functions, dened over a nite element and referred to as interpolation functions. The RayleighRitz method improves accuracy by increasing the number of admissible functions, whereas the nite element method enhances accuracy by increasing the number of nite elements. For single elastic members, the classical RayleighRitz method has the advantage that it can yield good accuracy with a relatively small number of degrees of freedom, but has the disadvantage that the admissible functions tend to be complicated. By contrast, the nite element method has the advantage that the admissible functions tend to be simple, generally lowdegree polynomials, but has the disadvantage that it requires a large number of degrees of freedom for good accuracy. Another discretization procedure is the hierarchical nite element method, which improves accuracy by keeping the number of nite elements constant and increasing the number of interpolation functions per element. The hierarchical nite element method combines many of the advantages of both the classical RayleighRitz method and the nite element method. In the case of structures as that shown in Fig. 1, the substructure synthesis method, which is basically an extension of the RayleighRitz method to exible multibody systems, has many advantages [1]. This paper develops a new approach to the modeling of frame structures of the type shown in Fig. 1. The approach represents a combination of substructure synthesis and the hierarchical nite element

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

243

Fig. 1. Model of a base-isolated structure.

method, and it exhibits superior accuracy, thus avoiding questions of control sensitivity. Then, the paper shows how controls can be designed on the basis of discrete models so derived.

2. Structural model The system shown in Fig. 1 represents a model of a base-isolated structure consisting of an N -story elastic frame clamped to a rigid slab. The base of the building is capable of moving horizontally relative to the ground, and is connected to the ground by an elastic spring and a viscous damper. In addition, horizontal control forces act on the base and throughout the structure. The structural members of the frame are distributed-parameter beams and columns, modeled as EulerBernoulli beams. Beams and columns connected at a given joint undergo the same displacement and rotation at that joint. The axial extension of both the beams and columns is neglected, and consequently the two ends of a beam undergo no transverse displacement, and the tips of columns corresponding to the same story undergo the same horizontal displacement. However, the eect of axial forces working throughout the shortening of the columns due to bending is included in the model.

3. Derivation of hybrid equations of motion In the rst place, it is assumed that the motion of the ground and the motion of the base are in the horizontal direction alone. Moreover, the motion of a typical point on

244

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

the structure shown in Fig. 1 can be regarded as a superposition of the motion of the base and the elastic displacement of the point relative to the base. In view of this, a distinction must be made between points on beams, which undergo only elastic displacements in the vertical direction, and points on the columns, which undergo both rigid-body and elastic displacements in the horizontal direction. Moreover, we assume that the elastic members do not deform axially. To describe the motion of the system, we denote the absolute displacement of the ground by ug t, the absolute displacement of the base by ub t and the rigid-body displacements of the oors relative to the base by ui t (i 1; 2; . . . ; N ), all three types of displacement taking place in the horizontal direction. Moreover, we denote the elastic displacement of a typical point on member j relative to the base by wj x; t, where j 1; 4; . . . ; 3N 2 for the left columns, j 2; 5; . . ., 3N 1 for the beams and j 3; 6; . . . ; 3N for the right columns. We propose to derive the equations of motion by means of the extended Hamiltons principle, which requires the kinetic energy T , potential energy V and virtual work dWnc of the nonconservative forces, such as the control forces. Damping forces can be generated by means of a Rayleighs dissipation function and can be included in the virtual work. The extended Hamiltons principle can be stated in the form [1] Z t2 dT dV dWnc dt 0; dub 0; du1 du2 duN 0;
t1

dw1 dw2 dw3N 0; t t1 ; t2 : For the structure of Fig. 1, the kinetic energy has the expression
N N 1 Z j 1 1X 1 3X 2 _ 2 dx _ _ _2 T mb u m u u rw i i b b 2 2 i 1 2 j 2;5;... 0 j j 3N 2;3N Z j 1 X _ j 2 dx; _b w r u 2 j 1;4;... 0 j 3;6;...

where mb is the mass of the base, mi the total mass of a oor, rj a mass density and j an elastic member length. The potential energy is assumed to have the form
N 1 Z j 1 1 3X 2 2 V k b ub ug EIj w00 j dx 2 2 j2;5 0 3N 2;3N Z j 1 X 2 0 2 EIj w00 j Pj wj dx 2 j1;4;... 0 3;6;...

in which kb is the spring constant of the isolation system, EIj is a bending stiness and Pj an axial force; as usual, primes denote dierentiations with respect to the

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

245

spatial variable x. The virtual work of the nonconservative forces can be written as N 3 N 1 Z j X X dWnc Fb dub Fi dub dui fj dwj dx
i 1 j 2;5;... j 0

3NX 2;3N j 1;4;... 3;6...

Z
0

fj dub dwj dx;

where Fb t is the horizontal force on the base, Fi t the horizontal force on oor i and fj x; t the force density on the elastic member j . As indicated earlier in this section, damping forces can be generated by means of a Rayleighs dissipation function and accounted for separately in the virtual work. To this end, we assume that the Rayleigh dissipation function has the form 3 N Z j 1 1X 2 _2 _b u _g F cb u cj w 5 j dx 2 2 j 1 0 in which cb is the coecient of viscous damping of the isolation system and cj are coecients of viscous damping per unit length of the elastic members j . Then, the damping forces can be generated from F by writing ^ @F @F Fb* ; fj * ; j 1; 2; . . . ; 3N ; 6 _j _b @u @w ^ is the integrand in Eq. (5). With the understanding that the forces in Eq. (4) where F are due to controls alone, we can rewrite the virtual work in the form   N 3N Z j X X ^ @F @F dWnc Fb dub Fi dub dui dwj dx _j _b @u 0 @w i 1 j 1 3NX 2;3N Z j 3 N 1 Z j X fj dwj dx fj dub dwj dx: 7
j 2;5;... 0 j 1;4;... 3;6;... 0

Inserting Eqs. (2)(4) and (7) into Eq. (1) and carrying out the usual steps, we can obtain a set of hybrid equations of motion, ordinary dierential equations for ub t; u1 t; u2 t; . . . ; uN t and boundary-value problems for w1 x; t; w2 x; t; . . . ; w3N x; t for the elastic displacements of the beams and columns, where the boundary-value problems consist of partial dierential equations and suitable boundary conditions. Because hybrid sets of equations cannot be used for control design, it is necessary to spatially discretize the boundary-value problems; this is done in the next section.

4. Discretization of the boundary-value problems Spatial discretization of the boundary-value problems can be carried out by means of the nite element method or by substructure synthesis [1]. The former tends to

246

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

yield discrete models with extremely large numbers of degrees of freedom and the latter has diculty in handling systems with closed structural loops, such as the frame structure of Fig. 1. A method combining the advantages of both the nite element method and substructure synthesis, but avoiding some of their disadvantages, is the hierarchical nite element method [1]. The hierarchical nite element method represents a special version of the nite element method in the sense that accuracy of the discrete model is improved by increasing the number of interpolation functions per element rather than increasing the number of elements, as in the ordinary nite element method. For this reason, the hierarchical is referred to as the p-version and the ordinary as the h-version of the nite element method [1]. It should be noted that hierarchical interpolation functions are such that the element mass and stiness matrices associated with adjacent elements are not aected. At this point, we abandon generalities to some extent and consider a four-story structure. In the context of the hierarchical nite element method, columns and beams are assumed to consist of one nite element each, and each element is assigned six hierarchical degrees of freedom. Because the beams and columns are inextensional, the nodal translational displacements coincide with the horizontal displacements u1 t; u2 t; u3 t and u4 t of the oors, and the nodal rotational displacements are y1 t; y2 t; . . . ; y8 t, as shown in Fig. 1. The displacement of a typical point on a beam or a column is obtained by means of Hermite cubics used as interpolation functions between nodal displacements, in addition to the contribution from the hierarchical functions. Hence, we express the displacement of a point on element j in the form wj x; t uT j xqe t; j 1; 2; . . . ; 12; 8

where the components of the vector uj are either zero or appropriately chosen shape functions and qe u1 u2 u3 u4 y1 y2 . . . y8 q1;1 q2;1 . . . q6;1 q1;2 q2;2 . . . q6;2 . . . q1;12 q2;12 . . . q6;12 T is an 84-dimensional elastic displacement vector for the whole structure, in which the subscript i in qi; j identies the hierarchical function and j the structural member. As indicated, the interpolation functions for the nodal displacements are Hermite cubics (Fig. 2). In terms of a nondimensional local coordinate x they are given by h1 x 1 3x2 2x3 ; h3 x 3x2 2x3 ; h2 x x 2x2 x3 ; h 4 x x2 x3 ; 04x41: 9

Moreover, as hierarchical functions, we use the eigenfunctions of a uniform xed xed EulerBernoulli beam (Fig. 3), which can be expressed in the computationally

Fig. 2. Hermite cubics.

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

247

Fig. 3. Fixedxed EulerBernoulli eigenfunctions.

useful form as cr x cos lr sin lr elr sin lr x cos lr sin lr elr cos lr x elr cos lr 1elr 1x sin lr elr x ; r 1; 2; . . . ; 04x41; 10 where lr satises the characteristic equation cos lr cosh lr 1. The six lowest characteristic values are given by l1 4:730041; l2 7:853205; l3 10:99561; l4 14:13717; l5 17:27876; l6 20:42035. Now we can be more specic about the nonzero components of uj x. In particular, for the lower left column, we have j1;1 x h1 x=1 ; r 1; 2; . . . ; 6 the rst-story beam is characterized by j5;2 x 2 h2 x=2 ; r 1; 2; . . . ; 6 and the lower right column by j1;3 x h1 x=1 ; r 1; 2; . . . ; 6: Moreover, for the second from bottom left column we write j1;4 x h3 x=1 ; j7;4 x 1 h2 x=1 ; j2;4 x h1 x=1 ; j5;4 x 1 h4 x=1 ; 11d j6;3 x 1 h2 x=1 ; j24r x cr x=1 ; 11c j6;2 x 2 h4 x=2 ; j18r x cr x=2 ; 11b j5;1 x 1 h2 x=1 ; j12r;1 x cr x=1 ; 11a

j30r x cr x=1 ; r 1; 2; . . . ; 6:

The vectors uj for the remaining elements can be determined by following the same pattern.

248

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

The xedxed shape functions given by Eq. (10) satisfy the orthogonality properties: Z 1 Z 1 00 cm xcn x dx 0; c00 m 6 n: 12a m xcn x dx 0;
0 0

Moreover, the second derivative of the xedxed shape functions are orthogonal to the second derivative of the Hermite cubics, or Z 1 00 h00 n 1; 2; . . . : 12b m xcn x dx 0; m 1; 2; 3; 4;
0

The hierarchical nite element method in conjunction with the interpolation functions given by Eqs. (9) and (10) permit accurate modeling of the structure with far fewer degrees of freedom than the h-version of the nite element method. In the case at hand, the structure is modeled by 84 degrees of freedom, for a total of 85 for the whole system, including the motion of the base.

5. Derivation of discrete equations of motion Inserting Eq. (8) into Eq. (2), the discretized kinetic energy takes the form Z j 4 11 1 1X 1 X 2 2 _ T u uT q _ dx _b u _i _b T mb u mi u rq 2 2 i 1 2 j 2;5;... 0 j e j j e 10;12 Z j 1 X 1 _ Mq _; _ e T u _ e dx q _ b uT _ b uT r u j q j q 2 j1;4;... 0 j 2
3;6;...

13

where
T qt ub t qT e t

14

is the 85-dimensional overall conguration vector, " # m aT M a Me is the system mass matrix, in which m is the total mass of the system, " # 10 ;12 Z j X m rj uj dx a 0 j 1;4;... 0
3;6;...

15

16

in which m m1 m2 m3 m4 T and Me diagm1 m2 m3 m4 0 0 ... 0

12 Z X j 1 0 j

rj uj uT j dx:

17

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

249

Similarly, using Eq. (3), the discretized potential energy is Z j 11 1 1 X 00T qT EIj u00 V k b ub ug 2 j uj qe dx 2 2 j2;5;... 0 e 10;12 Z j 1 X 1 T 1 00T 0 0T 2 qT EIj u00 j uj Pj uj uj dx q K q kb ug ub kb ug ; 2 j 1;4;... 0 e 2 2
3;6;...

18

where " K in which Ke Z 11 X

j 2;5;... 0 j 00T EIj u00 j uj dx 10 ;12 X j 1;4;... 3;6;...

kb 0

0T Ke

# 19

Z
0

00T 0 0T EIj u00 j uj Pj uj uj dx:

20

Finally, using Eq. (7) in conjunction with Eqs. (5) and (8), the discretized virtual work becomes 2 3 Z 10 ;12 4 j X X 6 7 _ _ dWnc 6 c u u F F fj dx7 b b g b i 4 5 dub
i 1 j 1;4;... 3;6;... 0 4 X j 1 12  X j 1

Fi dui

_T q e

Z
0

cj uj uT j dx

Z
0

 fj uT d x dqe Q T dq; j 21

where Q Qd Qc D in which " Qd P12

j 1

22 # 23

_b cb u R j T _ 0 cj uj uj dxqe

is a generalized damping force vector, 2 10 ;12 Z j 4 12 Z X X X 6 F F f d x F F F F Qc 6 i j 1 2 3 4 4 b

i 1 j 1;4;... 3;6;... 0 j 1

3T
j

7 7 fj uT j dx5

24

250

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

is a generalized control vector and _g D k b ug c b u 0 0 ... 0 T 25

is a disturbance vector due to the earthquake. Inserting Eqs. (13), (18), (21)(23) into Eq. (1) and carrying out the indicated operations, we obtain the discrete equations of motion _ K q Qc D; M q Cq where M is the mass matrix, Eq. (15), " # c b 0T C 0 Ce is a damping matrix in which 12 Z j X cj uj uT Ce j dx
j 1 0

26

27

28

and K is the stiness matrix, Eq. (19).

6. Model reduction The hierarchical nite element method yields a discrete model with far fewer degrees of freedom than the ordinary nite element method. Still, the number of degrees of freedom tends to be large in relation to the useful information contained in such a discrete model. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that higher modes are dicult to excite, as they require a great deal of energy. Moreover, higher modes tend to be inaccurate, which is a characteristic of discretized models [1]. Hence, a model reduction designed to eliminate the eect of higher modes seems in order. To this end, we consider the eigenvalue problem corresponding to the undamped structure alone, which can be obtained by assuming that the base is held xed and by ignoring damping. The eigenvalue problem has the form Ke U Me U L; 29

where U is the modal matrix and L the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues of the elastic structure clamped at the base. The modal matrix is orthonormal with respect to both the mass matrix and stiness matrix, or U T Me U I ; U T Ke U L 30

in which I is the identity matrix. We assume that the structure alone has n degrees of freedom, so that U and L are n n matrices. Consistent with the above discussion, we propose to retain only Nr modes, Nr 5n. To this end, we denote by Utr the submatrix of U containing the rst Nr columns alone and introduce the linear transformation qe t; qe t Utr ^ 31

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

251

where ^ qe is an Nr -dimensional vector of elastic modal coordinates. Introducing T Eq. (31) into Eq. (26) and premultiplying through by Ubr , we obtain the truncated equations of motion _ K ^c D ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ M qC q qQ in which ^ q " m ^ M T Utr a
T ub ^ qT e

32

is the displacement vector of the truncated system, " # " # # T c b 0T a Utr 0 k b ^ ^ ; K ; C ^e I 0 Ltr 0 C
T

33

^e are the truncated mass, damping and stiness matrices, respectively, where C T Utr Ce Utr ; Ltr is the truncated diagonal matrix of the lowest Nr eigenvalues and ^ c U T Qc ; Q tr ^ UTD D tr 34

are truncated control and disturbance vectors, respectively. We observe that the truncated discrete system, Eq. (32), has only Nr 1 degrees of freedom, as opposed to n 1 degrees of freedom of the original discrete system.

7. Control design It is clear from the nature of the structure that control must be carried out by more than one actuator. In view of the fact that the actuator forces are likely to be very large, physical considerations dictate that the actuators be located so that the structure suers no damage. Hence, we assume that there are N 1 actuators acting horizontally on the base and at each oor. The control implementation is by means of direct feedback controls, whereby the actuators and sensors are arranged in collocated sensor, actuator pairs, and the actuator at a given location responds to the signal from the sensor at the same location. The control law is ono with a twotiered dead zone, which is nonlinear. The control law for a typical actuator force is 8 F0 ; vt4 v2 ; > > > < 0; jvtj4v1 ; F t 35 > F0 ; v2 5v t ; > > : F t; v1 4jvtj4v2 and is depicted in Fig. 4, where vt is the inertial velocity as measured by the collocated sensor. Note that the notation F t F t means that the control at time t remains the same as at the time immediately preceding t. This control law by itself can cause the actuator to operate when the inertial acceleration a0 of the point coinciding with the sensor is relatively small. To prevent this, the actuator is activated only if the acceleration of the base exceeds some minimum value a0 . The control design amounts to selecting optimal values for the control parameters F0 ; v1 ; v2 and a0 . This new control law is more ecient than the ono control used in [4].

252

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

Fig. 4. Modied ono control law.

Table 1 Control parameters F0 kN Base Floor Floor Floor Floor 1 2 3 4 5.500 5.125 4.800 4.800 5.015 v1 cm=s 7 7 7 7 7 v2 cm=s 8 8 8 9 9

8. Numerical example We propose to control a four-story framed structure, so that we use ve sensor, actuator pairs, one on the base and one at each oor. All elastic members, whether a beam or a column, have the mass density 1160 kg/m and the exural stiness 2:6042 108 N=m2 . The length of the columns is 3.5 m and that of the beams is 7 m. The base parameters are: mb 8000 kg, cb 65:7 kN s=m and kb 2:63 MN=m. The properties of the isolation system (assuming the structure is rigid) are as follows: total mass 72960 kg, natural frequency 3:5 rad=s and damping ratio 0:1. The control parameters for the base and all four oors are as given in Table 1. In addition, the minimum base acceleration for control is a0 50 cm=s2 . As indicated earlier, the original discretized elastic model has n 84 degrees of freedom. The reduced elastic model involves only Nr 10 elastic modes. Hence, the number of degrees of freedom of the reduced system, including the base motion is Nr 1 11. The newly modied ono control scheme, Eq. (35), has been used to control the motion of the four-story building. As an input for the computer simulation, the displacement and velocity of the ground due to the El Centro 1940 earthquake have been used. Moreover, the acceleration of the ground has been used for comparison

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254 Table 2 Maximum acceleration magnitudes cm=s2 Fixed frame Base Floor Floor Floor Floor 1 2 3 4 341 622 987 1063 1597 Isolation alone 162 157 151 160 170 Isolation and control 121 133 124 124 123

253

Actuations number 18 18 19 16 17

Fig. 5. Acceleration time histories.

purposes. Indeed, in control of buildings in earthquakes, the acceleration plays the important role. Table 2 shows the maximum acceleration magnitudes for three dierent cases, as well as the number of control activations. Fig. 5 shows the acceleration time histories of the base and of the top oor, with the gray line representing the response without base isolation and without control, the dashed line the response with base isolation and without control and the black line the response with base isolation and control. Of course, there is no gray line for the base response, because in this case the base has the same motion as the ground. Furthermore, the gray line is not included in the plots for the top of the structure, because it would ll the plots completely. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the acceleration of the top oor is kept relatively low, so that the control design must be considered quite satisfactory. In this regard, it must be stressed that base isolation plays an indispensable part in mitigating earthquake eects. Fig. 6 shows time histories of the actuator forces on the base and all four oors. The conclusion is that these forces are also relatively low, making practical implementation feasible. Indeed, the ratio of all actuator forces combined to the dead weight of the structure is less than 3.5%.

254

L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple / Journal of the Franklin Institute 338 (2001) 241254

Fig. 6. Control force time histories.

9. Conclusions This paper uses a dierent type of base isolation (than the one in common use) in conjunction with multi-input direct feedback control to achieve both goals of structural control, namely, to prevent injury of the occupants and to prevent damage to the structure and its contents. These goals are achieved with low control forces relative to the weight of the structure, less than 3.5%.

References
[1] L. Meirovitch, Principles and Techniques of Vibrations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1997. [2] L. Meirovitch, Dynamics and Control of Structures, Wiley, New York, 1990. [3] L. Meirovitch, M.A. Norris, Sensitivity of distributed structures to model order in feedback control, J. Sound Vib. 144 (3) (1991) 365380. [4] L. Meirovitch, T.J. Stemple, Nonlinear control of structures in earthquakes, ASCE J. Engng. Mech. 123 (10) (1997) 10901095.