PREM 2109

Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362

A real-time structural parameter modification (RSPM) approach for

random vibration reduction: Part I. Principle
Z. Liang a,*, M. Tong b, G.C. Lee b,c
a
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, SUNY at Buffalo, 109 Red Jacket Quad., Buffalo, NY 14261, USA
b
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY at Buffalo, 109 Red Jacket Quad., Buffalo, NY 14261, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, SUNY at Buffalo, 109 Red Jacket Quad., Buffalo, NY 14261, USA

Abstract
Earthquake-induced structural vibrations are stochastic in nature. Part I of this study presents a novel structural control methodology for
earthquake vibration reductions. It summarizes the efforts of the authors toward the development of RSPM control between 1993 and 1996.
The operating control principle is minimization of conservative energy. The control hierarchy is realized by low-power-consuming devices
(functional switches) with multiple ranked loops. The control method is to adjust optimally the physical parameters (mass, damping and
stiffness) of the structure in real time. This method is therefore described as real-time structural parameter modification (RSPM). It may be
called variable passive control or parametric control. The basic thesis of RSPM is presented, together with a discussion of the minimal
principle of conservative energy of a vibrating system and the RSPM control hierarchy which contains four ranked loops. Variable passive
control is capable of handling the stochastic nature of earthquake ground motion and it does not have certain major drawbacks of conven-
tional active control methods. Part II of this study will describe the experimental verifications of RSPM. It will be shown that RSPM can
dissipate considerably more energy than existing passive energy dissipation devices. In addition, RSPM can reduce vibrations resulting from
multi-directional excitations. 䉷 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Passive control, based on passive energy dissipation or

In recent years, the use of seismic protective systems is
shaping up as an increasingly important option in earth-
quake engineering design [8,12,14,16,17,21,22]. The state-
of-the-practice of seismic protective systems can be classi-
fied as passive, active (including hybrid) and parametric
controls. This last one is also called the semi-active control.
Although significant progress has been made in the devel-
opment of protective systems [9,10,13,15,23–26], some
fundamental challenges remain [11,20].
First of all, earthquake ground motions are random in nature
with a comparatively wide range of frequency components.
Further, seismic excitations to structures are multi-directional.
These features bring difficulties or challenges in the design of
seismic protective systems. Passive systems may not cover
such a wide frequency range effectively. Whereas linear active
controls (often based on Pontryagin’s theory which is not
formulated with the term of external forces) have difficulty
in achieving their upper limit in response reduction and base
shear (which is defined by passive control), conventional
control law requires that the input force be null. In reality,
however, the earthquake input is too large a force to be ignored.
input force reduction, works in many cases for aseismic
design. However, its working range is comparatively
narrow, which limits its effectiveness and efficiency.
The ‘‘parametric’’ control method utilizes passive force
to offset external forces [18,19]. The mechanical and math-
ematical bases for many of the parametric control methods
have yet to be established. This approach is most promising
because of its expected high ‘‘performance to cost ratio’’.
In this paper, we present the approach of real-time struc-
tural parameter modification (RSPM), which may be classi-
fied as a special parametric or variable passive control. The
basic action of RSPM is to select a proper set of mass,
damping and stiffness of a structure in real time. This is
done by using mechanical switches to connect/disconnect
certain elements and/or substructures of the structure in
question. The control strategy is initially conceived from
the actions (tension–relaxation) of human muscle systems
in body motion control, or in maintaining body balance due
to random external force applications.
2. The tension and relaxation actions of human muscle

* Corresponding author. One of the intriguing mechanisms of the human body is

0266-8920/99/$ - see front matter 䉷 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0266-892 0(98)00039-3
350 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Fig. 1. The push–pull mechanism.
the tension–relaxation action of its muscles. This tension–
relaxation mechanism can be observed when a person is
running. In one cycle (two steps), leg ‘a’ is pushing against
the ground to provide a thrust while leg ‘b’ is in a pulled up
position, preparing to push. During one cycle, legs ‘a’ and
‘b’ perform each push and pull just once through proper
tension and relaxation of the muscles. This phenomenon is
depicted in Fig. 1(a). It is referred to as the ‘‘push–pull’’
function.
In Fig. 1(b), another ‘‘push–pull’’-type of action may be
observed. Suppose a person is standing on a boat sailing on
wavy water. That person receives a left-and-right inertial
force Fa and Fb, either sinusoidally or stochastically. In
this dynamic environment, legs ‘a’ and ‘b’ do not apply
the same force simultaneously. Rather, in order to keep
balance the push–pull method is used through appropriate
tension–relaxation actions of the muscles.
Suppose the legs, ‘a’ and ‘b’, have identical stiffness,
sufficient to resist the gravitational force. In the lateral direc-
tion, this stiffness is equal to k. On the boat, however, to
maintain equilibrium, one needs to overcome the lateral
force Fa and Fb. Thus, one alternatively adds stiffness ka to
resist force Fa and kb to resist force Fb. Here, ka and kb are
also measured laterally. During period a, the additional stiff-
ness ka is used to resist Fa. Denoting the lateral displacement
by xa, then, the energy Ea restored by stiffness ka is
Ea ˆ …ka x2a †=2 …1†
Fig. 2. Half energy dissipation by the push–pull action.
Suppose during the second half of the cycle, energy Eb, is
similarly restored by kb through a displacement xb
Eb ˆ …kb x2b †=2 …2†
The important characteristics of human body motion control
are explained in the following. If this person can simply
drop or release ka at the end of the first half cycle, energy
Ea is dissipated. Similarly, energy Eb is dropped at the end of
the entire cycle. The total amount of energy released with-
out any reaction or consequences can be quite significant.
To simplify this problem and to compare this push–pull
action to the scheme of variable stiffness control [1], let
the lateral force be sinusoidal and let ka ˆ kb ˆ kp , and
xa ˆ xb ˆ x. Suppose also that in the variable stiffness
scheme the changeable stiffness is kp. We can see that the
energy dissipation of the push–pull method is four times
that of the variable stiffness method, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
The above description briefly showed the efficiency (i.e.
minimization of energy consumption) of motion control of
the human body. In fact, a push–pull mechanism used by a
human body can dissipate the maximum amount of energy,
given the peak values of forces and displacement.
Human control of muscles has several levels of mechan-
isms. In many cases of simple responses the body motion is
not necessarily controlled by a decision-making process of
the brain, but is rather governed by a subconscious instinct.
However, for a complicated exercise, of the type required in
 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
a gymnastic game, a hierarchical sequence of movements is
needed, which brings into play not only instinct, but also a
control continuously executed and commanded by the brain.
3. Important principles and elements of RSPM
Based on observations of body motion control, several
important elements are deduced and implemented in the
proposed control scheme. In the following, only the deduced
control principles and basic control elements shall be
discussed. The bio-mechanical principles describing body
motion controls are subjects to be described in a separate
paper.
3.1. Basic description of rspm control
(1) In body motion control, the muscle may not generate a
large amount of force. Instead, it provides only a small push/
pull to re-configure the body structure. A proper change of
the structural configuration can increase the ability of the
body to withstand a large amount of force. In RSPM we
developed a switching-member system, similar to the
push–pull muscle actions in a human body, with the help
of functional switches to choose these members/substruc-
tures to achieve greater resistance through small actions,
with minimal energy expenditure.
(2) The push–pull action can absorb the maximum
amount of input energy in a single cycle. We then arranged
the switching-member system in push–pull pairs. That is,
when the structure moves towards one direction, say direc-
tion ‘a’, we engage member ‘a’ with stiffness kp (also mass
mp, damping cp) and disconnecting member ‘b’. When the
structure moves to the opposite direction ‘b’, we drop
member ‘a’ but engage member ‘b’ by means of certain
functional switches. Note that, at any time, the correspond-
ing stiffness is the sum of the original stiffness plus kp.
(3) The human body balance control is hierarchical with
multiple sensors, such as eyes, skin, etc. and multiple deci-
sion-making loops, provided by the central nervous system.
Thus, responses to different stimuli can be quick and effi-
cient. The basic element of such a human body control
consists of a sensory system (the nerves), a decision-making
system (the brain), and the action system (the muscles).
We have established a multi-loop hierarchy to accelerate
the reaction speed with accurate controls by using sensors, a
controller and functional switches.
(4) Successful control of balance should keep the body
structure at a low conservative energy level. The amount of
energy may not necessarily be minimum, but the body must
keep it as low as possible. In other words, the lower this
amount of energy the more successful balance will be
achieved.
We have advanced a control principle, the principle of
minimum conservative energy. Using this principle, we may
evaluate various possible algorithms and choose the one that
always minimizes the conservative energy.
351
Having established the control hierarchy, we proceed to
observe the performance of a structure implemented with
the RSPM system in the laboratory. This is reported in part
II of this paper.
In the following, the energy considerations of the control
principle are presented. First, we note that energy is both
dissipated and transferred during vibrations of a multiple
degree of freedom system [2]. The conservative portion of
the energy in a vibrating system, which contains the energy
transferred among vibrating modes, provides the basis of the
control principle of the RSPM technology. How to quantify
the energy transfer is briefly explained below.
3.2. The theory of complex energy
In order to impose the control law of minimization of
conservative energy, we must work with modal energy
equations. In most cases, the structure to be controlled is
non-proportionally damped. Therefore, we need to utilize
the theory of complex energy (see Ref. [2]).
The motion equation of a dynamic system can be written
as
00
MZ 00 ⫹ CZ 0 ⫹ KZ ˆ ⫺Mxg …3†
where M, C and K are mass, damping and stiffness matrices
respectively, Z 00 , Z 0 and Z are respectively the acceleration,
00
velocity and displacement relative to the ground. xg is the
ground accelerations.
Without loss of generality, let us consider a homogenous
equation of a dynamic system with identity mass, i.e.
IX 00 ⫹ CX 0 ⫹ KX ˆ 0 …4†
where C and K are symmetric damping and stiffness
matrices and X 00 , X 0 and X are acceleration, velocity and
displacement.
Assuming that the damping force of CPi, C times the ith
modal displacement (mode shape) Pi, can make a virtual
displacement Qi , the ith eigenvector of matrix K, we have
the following generalized Rayleigh quotient, a normalized
term of virtual energy
QTi CPi
ˆ 2vi …ji ⫹ jzi † …5†
QTi Pi
where vi and ji are the ith natural frequency and damping
ratio respectively; j ˆ …⫺1†1=2 . Since the quantities Qi and C
are real valued and Pi can be complex valued, both sides in
Eq. (5) can be complex valued also. The virtual energy is
complex valued. Its real part stands for the energy dissipa-
tion, whereas its imaginary part is the conservative portion
of the total energy.
In the particular case described by Eq. (4), the case of free
decay vibration, it can be shown that zi is the ratio of energy
transferred during one cycle to 4p times that of the energy
of the mode before the cycle. At the same time, ji is the ratio
of energy dissipated during one cycle to 4p times that of the
352 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362

energy of the mode before the cycle. The latter is well i

parts: a conservative part Emc …t† and a variable part Emr
i
…t†.
known. Thus the modal mass m …t† can be represented by a perma-
i

Suppose there exists a generally damped structure. We nent part mip and a variable part mir …t†, i.e.
always can find a corresponding proportionally damped
mi …t† ˆ mip ⫹ mir …t† …7†
system with the same mass, stiffness matrices and all the
same damping ratios. Denoting the ith natural frequency of and
such system by vpi , we have the relationship
i
Em …t† ˆ Emc
i
…t† ⫹ Emr
i
…t† …8†
vi ˆ vpi exp…zi † …6†
Similarly, the modal damping coefficient ci …t† can be written
Since the term v2i is actually a normalized modal energy,
as the sum of a permanent part cip and a variable part cir …t†:
from Eq. (6), it can be seen that, because of the existence of
non-zero zi , the modal energy will be changed from the ci …t† ˆ cip ⫹ cir …t† …9†
corresponding proportionally damped system. When
zi ⬎ 0, it indicates that the energy will be transferred into and the dissipative energy can be expressed by
the ith mode from other modes. The larger the value of the Edi …t† ˆ Edp
i
…t† ⫹ Edr
i
…t† …10†
term zi , the more energy will be added to this mode. On the
other hand, if zi ⬍ 0 the energy will be transferred out of the where the subscript p for the term Edp i
…t† represents the
ith mode into other modes. In this way, the amount of energy dissipated by permanent loss of energy due to damp-
energy transfer can be determined. It is worth mentioning ing.
that, when RSPM is used, the equivalent damping ratio can Following the same process, the modal stiffness coeffi-
be easily higher than 50%; in this case, the value of zi can be cient ki …t† can be represented by a permanent part kpi and a
quite significant. If the amount of energy is neglected by variable part kri …t†:
assuming proportion damping, severe errors can be intro-
ki …t† ˆ kpi ⫹ kri …t†
duced. Even with energy absorbing methods, if the damping
ratio is more than 10%, the amount of energy transferred and likewise the potential energy can be expressed by
should not be neglected.
Eki …t† ˆ Ekc
i
…t† ⫹ Ekr
i
…t† …11†
3.3. Minimization of conservative energy Thus we may write the energy equation for the RSPM as
follows:
Consider the modal energy status of a structure. First,
there is the energy input from the ground motion. The i
Emc …t† ⫹ Emr
i
…t† ⫹ Edp
i
…t† ⫹ Ekc
i
…t† ⫹ Ekr
i
…t† ˆ We …t†i ⫹ Wmi …t†
work done by the external force is denoted by Wei …t†, …12†
where the superscript stands for the ith mode because we
consider the vibration from the viewpoint of modal energy. What remains to be done is to minimize the conservative
Using the method of modal analysis is beneficial in struc- portion of the energy stored in the structure, as expressed in
tural parameter modification, because the first few vibration Eq. (12), namely
modes often contain the major portion of the energy. By i
min‰Emc …t† ⫹ Ekc
i
…t†Š ˆ min‰Econservative …t†Š …13†
proper modal truncation, the dynamic response of structures
can be obtained in a relatively simple fashion with sufficient Eq. (13) is referred to as the principle of minimum conser-
accuracy. vative energy.
Traditionally, Wei …t† is considered by earthquake engi- From Eqs. (12) and (13) we have
neers to be the entire input energy to the ith mode of the
min‰Econservative …t†Š ˆ min{‰Wei …t† ⫹ Wmi …t†Š ⫺ ‰Edp
i
…t†Š
structure. According to the above-mentioned complex
energy theory, the energy transfer among vibrating modes, ⫺ ‰Emr
i
…t† ⫹ Edr
i
…t† ⫹ Dikr …t†Š} …14†
denoted by Wmi …t†, is the work done by other vibrating
modes of the structure. By ignoring this term, significant In Eq. (14), the two terms in the first bracket on the right-
error may be introduced in dynamic analysis of MDOF hand side are energy input. The third term represents the
systems. energy dissipated by the damping force. The remaining
Second, within the structure, there exists the kinetic three terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (14) are the energy
energy Em i
…t†, represented by the inertial force, the dissi- quantities which can be removed by adjusting the mass,
pated energy Eei …t†, contributed by the damping force, and damping and stiffness.
the potential energy Eki …t†, generated by the spring force. From Eq. (14), it is clear that we want to maximize the
The kinetic and potential energies are usually conservative. energy dissipated by damping force Edp i
…t†. That is, we want
When the energy terms become time-varying quantities, the to increase the damping effect as much as possible.
equations of motion of the structure can become nonlinear Now, we examine all the other energy terms. The work
as well. In this case, we can separate the term Em i
into two done by the external force, Wei …t† may be affected by two
 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Fig. 3. Energy removal mechanism.
factors. First, the work done by the external force is a func-
tion of the static force and the corresponding static displace-
ment. Most structures are proportioned based on static loads
and the static stiffness will not be affected by the RSPM
action or by any other energy absorbing methods for
earthquake protective systems. In other words, these
methods will not change the static force and displacement.
This amount of energy and the corresponding displacement
is the lower limit. To evaluate such a protective system, one
may compare the deformation under dynamic loading
against the static deformation.
The second factor affecting the term Wei …t† is the dynamic
magnification or, its reciprocal, the dynamic impedance.
Any energy absorbing method will somewhat influence
the dynamic impedance. Structural parameter modification
will also influence this factor. Therefore, to minimize the
conservative energy is to maximize the dynamic impedance
in real time. For example, the mass and stiffness control
schemes of Kobori and coworkers [1,3] are measures of
increasing the dynamic impedance. In a later section, we
will show that there are more issues to be dealt with in
order to increase the dynamic impedance.
Compared with the work done by the external force, the
term Wmi …t† in Eq. (14) is a more complicated quantity,
because the energy transfer ratio zi can be either positive
or negative. In a real control process, a higher-level
command for choosing the globally optimal zi (i ˆ 1, or
i ˆ 1,2,…) must be issued in order to guarantee that the
lowest amount of Wmi …t† is realized.
The energy quantities (Emr i
…t† ⫹ Edr
i
…t† ⫹ Ekr
i
…t†) in Eq.
Fig. 4. Energy status of a vibrating structure.
353
(14) can be removed from the structure by varying the
mass, damping and stiffness. For example, assume there is
a separate structure with certain amount of mass m available
next to the main structure shown in Fig. 3. When this mass is
connected by the functional switch FS1 to the main struc-
ture, the latter gains a certain amount of kinetic energy,
because now the two structures vibrate together. When the
substructure is disconnected from the main structure, by the
switch FS1, the added mass is dropped, and the correspond-
ing kinetic energy is removed from the main structure. Simi-
larly, when the switch FS3 is ‘‘on’’ the stiffness k is
connected to the main structure. The change in stiffness k
means that certain potential energy is stored. If FS3 is
disconnected later, this amount of energy is removed from
the main structure.
Changing the status of the switch FS2 cannot perform the
energy-storage-discharge functions. However, it changes
the capability of energy dissipation for the main structure.
Intuitively, we can see that the terms Emr i
…t†, Edr
i
…t† and
Ekr …t† may also affect the term Wm …t†. Therefore, a hierarch-
i i
ical check in the RSPM operating loop must be carried out.
The commands for maximizing the terms
(Emri
…t† ⫹ Edr
i
…t† ⫹ Ekr
i
…t†) are in the lower rank.
To remove this amount of energy from the main structure,
we can simply use certain damping mechanisms. Or we may
use a portion of this amount of energy to do certain work
against the external force; the result of this action is to
increase the dynamic impedance.
In Fig. 4, we conceptually show the energy status of a
structure installed with the RSPM devices. First of all, we
try to increase the dynamic impedance to minimize the
energy input by the external force; then we try to dissipate
the energy already imported as much as we can. We also try
to remove a portion of the imported energy, through dissi-
pation by using certain damping mechanism. At the same
time a certain amount of energy removed is used to offset
the work done by the external force. Meanwhile, we control
the amount of energy transfer through nonproportional
damping effect; see Ref. [4].
The above says that the RSPM requires the minimization
of the algebraic sum of all energy terms:
‰Wei …t† ⫹ Wmi …t†Š ⫺ ‰Edp
i
…t†Š ⫺ ‰Emr
i
…t† ⫹ Edr
i
…t† ⫹ Ekr
i
…t†Š
Such a global consideration assures us a reduction of the
energy in a vibrating system.
3.4. RSPM algorithms
To realize the RSPM process described in Fig. 4, the
functional switches must perform according to certain hier-
archical commands. The lowest level of the command is
issued for specific purposes at the local level. For example,
when a switch is dedicated primarily to change the stiffness
of a structural member, it will receive the command from a
special local unit. This unit consists of sensors that detect
certain given quantities to be locally controlled. It also
354 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Fig. 5. Overdraft resulting from improper control at level one.
contains a decision-making module that can be a dedicated
computer or a simple logic circuit. This local unit also has
its own amplifier to issue the command with low electrical
impedance. Another example of this lowest level command
unit is a switch to change the mass of the structure by
connecting the structure to a given mass.
The above loop of sensor–decision making–voltage
amplifier–power amplifier–valve of the switch is the lowest
hierarchical loop, called the L1 loop. This loop acts all the
time, except when it is overridden by loops of higher rank.
Since the feedback quantity for this loop is the velocity, we
may also call this loop the velocity loop.
In actual practice, when we change the stiffness of a
structure, we often also want to change the mass and/or
damping. Therefore, it is reasonable to see many L1 loops
in action simultaneously.
A second loop of command is introduced to prevent or
limit the development of certain unbalanced forces. A good
example on the influence of the unbalanced force is to
examine the method of variable stiffness [3]. If the input
is sinusoidal, the velocity and the force are equal to zero
when the displacement is at its peak value. Under this ideal
condition, Kobori’s variable stiffness method works,
because virtually no overdraft can occur. However, at
such a position of zero velocity, just after the stiffness is
reduced, a force acting in the direction of greater displace-
ment (or reduced stiffness) can suddenly develop (see Fig.
5). This unbalanced force cannot be predetermined in the
control algorithm, because earthquake ground motions are
random in nature. What we can do is to prevent the increase
of displacement by not letting the stiffness decrease. To
carry out this function, we establish a separate loop, the
L2 loop, to provide the feedback of the information of
the force. This loop is called the force loop. After sensing
the undesired force, a command will be issued to the control
valve of the functional switch (such as the one shown in
Fig. 12) to delay the opening time of the valve. This
command can override the L1 loop, although the L2 loop
is also a local loop.
The next higher level of command is issued by a control
module which calculates the amount of necessary changes
in mass, damping and stiffness simultaneously. The princi-
ple of minimal conservative energy is used as a criterion to
deduct proper operation commands. This is the third loop,
referred to as the L3 loop. The basic function of L3 loop is to
check the efficiency of the performance of the L1 and L2
loops by calculating the energy status of the system. In
general, it does not issue commands very often, unless
certain highly ineffective actions (from the structural
system’s viewpoint) are initiated by the L1 loops. Theoreti-
cally speaking, the L3 loop should be the main control loop.
However, the current state-of-the-art of determining the
energy status of a system is based on the signals of the
displacement and/or acceleration, which have 180⬚ phase
difference. These signals are either measured and/or calcu-
lated. To date, we still have difficulties considering them
globally in real time for system optimization. This ‘‘displa-
cement’’ loop may be improved when the fundamental
knowledge base in structural dynamics is expanded.
The highest level of command of RSPM is a safety-check
loop, the L4 loop. This loop works under criteria totally
different from those of the other three loops. The criteria
are established by various safety concerns that are not
directly related to the improvement of structural perfor-
mance. They may be internal stress, absolute acceleration,
energy accumulation, etc. When the structure is in its linear
region, these quantities may be a linear transformation for
the structural deformation. However, since a structure is
often designed to deliver ductility (inelastic deformation),
which is more difficult to describe analytically, we may
need to introduce an alternative measurement/calculation
system to monitor these quantities. Whenever any critical
quantity is reached, commands are issued by the monitoring
module to override the lower level commands, in order to
ensure stability and safety of the modification process.
The hierarchy mentioned above can be described by Fig.
6. To realize the hierarchical actions, consider first one of
the basic schemes of seismic vibration reduction for an
MDOF system, shown in Fig. 7. Initially, all the switches
are set at ‘‘On’’. The structure is then subjected to a multi-
dimensional ground motion input. The dynamic responses,
the internal and external forces, the modal energy status
and/or ground motions are subsequently measured and/or
calculated. A system identification unit may be used to
obtain certain modal parameters. All measured/calculated
information is also kept in the storage unit. When a response
level exceeds the preset value, the central decision unit will
trigger the action of local decision units. Another important
function of the central decision unit is to identify the optimal
set of specific functional switches and their on–off status
with respect to global demands. For example, a local region
in a structure may achieve a minimal response but this mini-
mal response may lead to undesirable deformation at a
different location/region of the structure. On the other
hand, a local region may develop a large deformation and
absorb a significant amount of energy so that the level of
global vibration may be reduced. Thus it is important to
consider the optimal performance of a structure at the global
level.
Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362 355

Fig. 6. Hierarchical action.

Fig. 7. Vibration reduction scheme for an MDOF system.

356 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362

Upon receiving the orders from the central unit, the local the same in general. This is easily seen from the dynamic
decision units then calculate the optimal results and give the stiffness and the impedance of the device, as shown.
on–off orders to the function switches individually. This
Fspringside kd md v2 ⫺ jkd cd v
process will be repeated at every subsequent time interval DSspring ˆ ˆ ;
until the external excitation and the structural vibration Xspringside ⫺ md v2 ⫹ jcd v ⫹ kd
levels are reduced to values within the bounds. Again, a
safety unit is provided to safeguard possible malfunctions Fdamperside kd cd v
DSdamper ˆ ˆ …19†
of the RSPM system. Xspringside ⫺ md v2 ⫹ jcd v ⫹ kd
Some details of the different levels of the hierarchical
action are given below. Fspringside kd cd
IMspring ˆ ˆ ;
Xdamperside ⫺ md v ⫹ jcd v ⫹ kd
2

3.4.1. Modeling of physical parameters

Now consider an SDOF dynamic system described by Eq.
(3), as well as certain effects contributed by RSPM; we have
(see Ref. [5])
MZ 00 ⫹ C…Z 0 ⫺ x 0 † ⫹ K…Z ⫺ x† ⫹ kd …Z ⫺ yd † ˆ 0 …
and
00 0 and R2 will be largely different. For low driving frequency
md yd ⫹ kd …yd ⫺ Z† ⫹ cd …yd ⫺ x 0 † ˆ 0
where md, cd and kd are the mass, damping and stiffness of a
serial spring–damper assembly connected to the system. yd
is the corresponding device displacement. x and x 0 are the
external motion inputs.
For this SDOF system, we may denote the control unit as
a scalar function R…Z; Z 0 ; Z 00 ; f †. Thus, the dynamic equation
can be expressed as
MZ 00 ⫹ CZ 00 ⫹ KZ ⫹ R…Z; Z 0 ; Z 00 ; f † ˆ f …t† …
0 00
If R…Z; Z ; Z ; f † represents a switching type of control, and
there is no excessive internal power supply for the control
device, R can only provide limited control capabilities. The
prominent characteristic of such control is adaptive modifi-
cation of the physical parameters of the spring–damper
assembly.
To analyze the effect of R we may separate Eq. (17) for
the serially connected viscous damper and linear spring
assembly from the above system of Eq. (15):
00 0 0
md yd ⫹ cd yd ⫹ kd yd ˆ kx1 ⫹ cx2 …
0 …21†
where x1 and x2 are the displacement of the end of spring
side and velocity of the end of the damper side respectively.
Depending upon which side of the device is connected to the
main system mass, the force acting to the control object is
expressed by
R1 ˆ kd …yd ⫺ x1 † …
or
0 0
R2 ˆ cd …yd ⫺ x2 †
the md, cd and kd parameters should be chosen carefully,
otherwise the interaction of these parameters may influence
the effectiveness of the control algorithm. Some of the
issues in this regard may be important to the control device
design; for instance, the device forces at the two ends are not
Fdamperside md c d v 2 ⫺ k d c d
IMdamper ˆ ˆ …20†
Xdamperside ⫺ md v2 ⫹ jcd v ⫹ kd
Consider the dynamic stiffness and impedance of the
15†
spring–damper unit. If driving frequency v is close or
above the natural frequency of the device assembly, R1
v , the mass versus damping and stiffness ratio becomes
influential.
3.4.2. Optimization of energy dissipation and basic RSPM
algorithm
In the following, we assume a simple case such that the
moving mass in the device is negligible. This assumption
helps to simplify the derivation of the basic control algo-
rithm. It is easy to see that the device will behave as a spring
16† element when damping is very large, and that it will behave
as a damping element when the spring is very stiff. Thus, the
device can accommodate both variable damping and vari-
able stiffness control algorithms. Also, the device is
virtually disconnected when either one of these parameters
is very weak. Therefore, it can be used to realize the switch-
ing type of control algorithm.
The basic RSPM algorithm is stiffness-dominated switch-
ing type. The realization of the algorithm is via control of
the damping parameter in the spring–damper device. In a
simplified formulation, the control force can be expressed as
17† R ˆ kd ‰Pd …t† ⫺ Pd …ti †Š ti ⬍ t ⬍ ti⫹1
R ˆ undetermined t ˆ ti⫹1
where Pd ˆ …yd ⫺ x†; ti is the ith control point at which a
switching command is executed and the device force is
released. The control point is determined by a feedback signal.
To derive the optimal algorithm, we consider the total
18† energy dissipation over the complete course of motion, namely
X
Eˆ dE…Ii †
Ii 僆 I …22†
where I ˆ {Ii 兩Ii ˆ …ti ; ti⫹1 †} is a finite partition of the inter-
ested time segment; dE…Ii ) is the energy dissipation on Ii . The
end points of the intervals in the partition correspond to the
control points. Thus, each I corresponds to a control algorithm.
 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Substituting Eq. (21) into Eq. (22), we take the maximum
of E as
n X o ing the next control point.
E ˆ max 12 kd DP2i …23†
I
where DPi ˆ P…ti † ⫺ P…ti⫹1 †. The maximum is taken with
respect to all finite partitions I of the interested time period
of control. It can be shown that the general result will
depend on the undergoing motion characteristics such as
frequencies and their corresponding amplitudes involved
in P. To overcome this difficulty, we need a priori knowl-
edge about the undergoing motion. Although, such informa-
tion is not always available, in most practical applications,
some general characteristics may be assumed. For instance,
a narrow band system under broad band random excitation
will typically display a response dominated by the first
mode natural frequency. We may characterize such a
response by a single dominant frequency and the varying
amplitudes associated with each cycle.
Let T be a time segment in the domain of a continuous
function P. Assume P has a finite number of peak values on
T. Also, assume I is any finite partition of T such that P…Ii † is
defined as DPi ˆ P…ti † ⫺ P…ti⫹1 † for each interval Ii in I. We
can prove the following results.
(1) If there are two consecutive Ii and Ii⫹1 in I such that
P…Ii † and P…Ii⫹1 † carry the same positive or negative sign,
then I is not an optimal control algorithm.
(2) For any Ii in I, if P…ti † is not a peak value of P, then I is
not an optimal control algorithm. The above two results give
a necessary condition for the optimal control algorithm: if I
is optimal, then each control point ti of Ii corresponds to a
peak value of P. We may therefore conclude that frequent
switching beyond the occurrence of P peak values is not
necessary.
Since the peak values of displacement always occur at
zero velocity, according to the second result, the optimal
control algorithm may be implemented with a feedback
velocity signal if additional information is not required.
Unfortunately, the above two results are not sufficient to
guarantee an optimal energy dissipation control. In fact, the
control algorithm cannot rely on any information of later
events; therefore, even if we have posterior knowledge of
such an optimal control algorithm, it may be difficult to
implement. In this regard, a result of practical meaning is
given in the following for the optimization.
(3) Assume that I is the partition of T such that the
partition points are one-to-one corresponding to the
peak values of P. If the positive and negative peak
values of P are alternated, and for any Ii in I,
min…P…ti †; P…Ii⫹1 †† ⬎ 13 max…P…ti †; P…Ii⫹1 ††, then I is an
optimal algorithm. In the following we refer to this control
algorithm I as the basic RSPM control algorithm. Note that
if the condition stated here is not satisfied, the basic RSPM
algorithm may not be the optimal algorithm.
(4) If I is the optimal control algorithm, there are only
even numbers of P peak values within any Ii of I.
357
This last result implies that any uncontrolled P peak will
be succeeded by another uncontrolled P peak before reach-
The above results have summarized the basic conditions
for memoryless RSPM control algorithms. These conditions
do not directly involve the interactive influence of the
control device and controlled response P. Since the response
function P is only available up to the current moment, with-
out loss of generality, we may consider that the realizable
optimal control algorithm is constructed only on the grounds
of information available to the current control command.
While this approach suffices to provide dynamically invar-
iant control algorithms, it may have problems in low
frequency overshoot and high frequency chattering. Usually
the control algorithms can be further improved by incorpor-
ating structural dynamic parameters and input excitation
information into the control algorithm. However, such algo-
rithms become dynamically variant (meaning they will
depend on structural modal parameters).
In simple terms, the RSPM system will take maximal
relative displacement as the control points for loading and
unloading the control device. The device is locked in high
stiffness mode between the loading and unloading points,
and unlocked in low stiffness mode between the unloading
point and the next loading point. Thus, in each cycle of
motion, the control system will only execute one pair of
on/off commands. The control command is derived from
the maximal displacement signal, which is independent of
the zero-displacement reference. Also, the displacement
peak information can be obtained from the relative velocity
signal, which, in many cases, is more convenient to handle
than the displacement information itself.
RSPM control, in general, is most effective for control of
displacement-related vibration problems. It is equivalent to
an adaptive friction damper, which automatically adjusts the
‘‘friction force’’ in proportion to the maximal displacement
at each cycle of motion. Such a feature is directly beneficial
to seismic applications since most structural damages are
due to large deformation in major weight-carrying
members. Thus, reducing the deformation in these members
will largely protect structures from earthquake damages. In
base isolation applications, the situation is not as straight-
forward as the seismic ones. It is known that increasing
stiffness does not help in reducing the acceleration transmis-
sion; however, by maximizing the energy dissipation from
the control object, the overall energy transmission will be
decreased. In particular, if the control object has strong low
frequency vibration in addition to the problem of high
frequency motion being not effectively isolated, the solution
may be found from using RSPM control along with softer
isolator mounts.
4. Comparison with fluid dampers
To demonstrate the advantage of RSPM over other
358 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Table 1
Modal parameters of a 3-DOF numerical model
1st mode 2nd mode 3rd mode
Natural frequency (Hz) 1.89 4.94 7.11
Damping ratio (%) 2.73 6.95 6.76
vibration control technologies, the RSPM technology has
been compared with other energy absorbing systems (e.g.
tuned mass damper, conventional active control, and the
base-isolation technologies). They will be discussed sepa-
rately. Because the functional switches of the RSPM system
are similar to a fluid damper, we only show a comparison
between RSPM and the fluid dampers.
Generally speaking, wherever fluid dampers are needed,
the functional switches can also be used. The manners of
installation of both fluid dampers and the functional
switches are virtually the same, except that the functional
switches need considerably less stiffness of supporting.
And, if the push–pull-type of RSPM is used, the supporting
stiffness is only of one direction. In other words, a cable can
be used to connect a functional switch to the structure.
In the following, a typical fluid damper is examined theo-
retically to compare it with the functional switch of the
RSPM. The latter, in terms of manufacturing, has the
same concept as that of a typical fluid damper. The only
Fig. 8. Numerical simulation of the El Centro excitation.
difference is that the functional switch of the RSPM system
has added controllers.
For all passive energy absorbing systems, as well as for
the RSPM system, the dampers or the functional switches
must be mounted on certain supporting members which
themselves have certain stiffness. Assuming that the lateral
stiffness of a structure is K, and that the added lateral stiff-
ness of the supporting members is S, then, under normal
conditions, S should not be too much greater than K. For a
simple SDOF structure with fluid damper, roughly a 10%
damping increase requires that S ⬎ 0.5K. A 20% damping
requires that S ⬎ 1.5K. A 30% damping requires that S ⬎
2K. When S ˆ 2K, the structure with added dampers can
have three times the lateral stiffness of the original structure.
Tripling the lateral stiffness of a structure without adding
dampers should already substantially reduce the vibration.
As a comparison, the structure with 30% damping ratio may
not have such a large response reduction in general. There-
fore, a 30% damping provided by fluid dampers is probably
a practical cap.
Denote the possible peak response of a structure by Xm.
Xm ˆ 1=…2jeq Keq † …24†
Here jeq is the equivalent damping ratio and Keq is the
equivalent stiffness. For the case of fluid dampers, the maxi-
mum value of jeq , as mentioned above, is 30% and Keq ˆ K.
 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Fig. 9. Simulation of the Northridge excitation.
Therefore
Xm; fluid damper ⬎ 1:5=K …
For typical VE dampers, in a comparatively narrower
frequency band
Xm; VE damper ⬎ 1:7=K …
For RSPM, jeq can be shown to increase the damping ratio
to 60% or more. When choosing S ˆ K, and for this compar-
ison Keq ˆ 2K, jeq ˆ 50%, we have
Xm; RSPM ˆ 1=…2 × 0:5 × 2K† ˆ 0:5=K …
Therefore, the peak response obtained by using RSPM can
be approximately three times smaller than that of the fluid
damper, if the same stiffness K is used.
It is noted that, under random excitations, such as
earthquake ground motions and wind gusts, the peak
response of a structure is less than 1=…2jeq Keq † and, in
terms of equivalent damping and stiffness, the RSPM
will only have half the peak response of that with a
fluid damper. In any case, the real advantage of RSPM
is its ability to select optimal combinations of mass,
damping and stiffness to avoid ‘‘narrow-band
resonance’’.
5. Numerical simulations
In part II of this paper, experimental studies in
which RSPM is used to reduce seismic vibrations and
structural base shears will be discussed. In this section,
we first present certain computer simulations of a
359
three-degree-of-freedom system under several earthquake
ground motion records.
25†
The mass, damping and stiffness matrices of this system
are listed as follows. The corresponding modal parameters
of this system are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 8 shows the comparison between uncontrolled and
26† controlled RSPM responses of the base shear (d), the drifts
of the first (a), second (b) and third (c) stores, under the 1940
El Centro earthquakes. Fig. 8(a) shows the drifts of the first
floor: the maximum response of the uncontrolled case is
2.98 cm and that of the controlled case is 0.64 cm. Fig.
27† 8(b) shows the drifts between the first and the second floors:
the maximum response of the uncontrolled case is 6.98 cm
and that of the controlled case is 1.20 cm. Fig. 8(c) shows
the drifts between the second and the third floors: the maxi-
mum response of the uncontrolled case is 8.82 cm and that
of the controlled case is 1.65 cm. Fig. 8(d) shows the base
shears: the maximum value of the uncontrolled case is
54.53 T and that of the controlled case is 37.80 T. From
Fig. 8 it is seen there are significant reductions in both the
floor drifts and the base shears.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison between uncontrolled and
controlled RSPM responses of the base shear (d), the drifts
of the first (a), second (b) and third (c) floors, under the 1994
Northridge earthquakes. Fig. 9(a) shows the drifts of the first
floor: the maximum response of the uncontrolled case is
2.49 cm and that of the controlled case is 1.10 cm. Fig.
9(b) shows the drifts between the first and the second floors:
the maximum response of the uncontrolled case is 5.51 cm
and that of the controlled case is 2.06 cm. Fig. 9(c) shows
the drifts between the second and the third floors: the maxi-
mum response of the uncontrolled case is 7.72 cm and that
360 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Fig. 10. Single direction functional switch.
of the controlled case is 2.85 cm. Fig. 9(d) shows the base
shears: the maximum value of the uncontrolled case is
50.60 T and that of the controlled case is 40.00 T. It is
seen that, although the reduction rates in each of the floors
as well as those in base shears are different from the cases
shown in Fig. 9, significant reductions in both the floor drifts
and the base shears can be observed clearly, too.
5.1. Design of functional switches
The RSPM action is realized by certain special devices.
They are referred to as functional switches. The functional
switches work as structural/mechanical connectors, which
can be bi-directional or uni-directional. Their functions are:
1. completely stiff
2. completely damped
3. with adjustable damping
For convenience, we refer to status (1) as ‘‘on’’, (2) as
‘‘off’’ and (3) as ‘‘damp’’.
One potentially useful type of functional switch is a
completely stiff connector in one direction and a damper
in another direction. The direction and the status can also
be controlled. One such example is shown in Fig. 10.
Different types of connector be can subjected to: (1)
tension–compression; (2) torsion; (3) bending; (4) shear
(see Fig. 11).
The operational status can be (1) repeated control or (2)
monogenetic control. The deformation of the connector can
be (1) more than 1 cm up to several decimeters, which is
considered to be a long stroke functional switch, or (2) less
Fig. 11. Different types of functional switch.
than 1 cm, which is considered to be a short stroke func-
tional switch.
5.2. Single direction and repeated type functional switches
We have fabricated and examined the single direction
functional switch (shown in Fig. 10) in a pilot experimental
program to be described later; one reason for using the
single direction switch is its simplicity of design and instal-
lation. We have also used two single direction switches to
form a bi-directional switch, which will be discussed in part
II of this paper.
As shown in Fig. 12, this single direction switch is
assembled by a plunger fitted into an oil chamber. At the
end of the chamber, there is a short path to a single direction
control valve, which is connected to an oil reservoir. The
prototype single direction control valve is assembled by a
regular single valve and a regular electric magnetic control
valve (see Ref. [6]).
5.3. Repeated and bi-directional type
Recently, Kobori et al. [7] have suggested repeated bi-
directional functional switches; this design has been used in
‘‘semi-active control’’ for truck vibration absorbers. One of
the major disadvantages of the ‘‘cylinder lock’’ is that the
oil path is too long for fast and accurate temporal and posi-
tion responses. In earthquake vibration reduction, we need
at least a several hertz frequency response and several milli-
meters spatial reaction.
To avoid the above-mentioned shortcoming of the
‘‘cylinder lock’’, an alternative design is suggested
 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362
Fig. 12. An alternative design of bi-direction long stroke switch.
by assembling two single direction switches together.
As shown in Fig. 12, the oil path becomes much
shorter. In the pilot experimental program, such a
device showed that it can achieve more than 30 Hz
frequency response.
6. Summary
Part I of this paper describes a new concept and approach
in structural vibration reduction, called RSPM. The control
principle is developed from the observation made about the
tension/relaxation muscle action in human body motion
control.
In part I of this paper, the basic concept of the RSPM
system is presented and the control hierarchy is described.
The latter is based on the principle of minimum conserva-
tive energy which is also discussed. Laboratory observa-
tions of the vibration-reduction performance of a small-
scale structure implemented with the RSPM system are
presented in part II of this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study is jointly supported by the National Science
Foundation (MSS 9202327) and the State University of
New York at Buffalo. The authors would like to express
their appreciation to the following individuals for their
contribution and assistance in carrying out the pilot
experimental program. Professor TC Niu helped to
check the design of the functional switches and made
important suggestions to improve the device. He also
assisted us in fabricating the devices and the two-direc-
tional shaking tables. Professor XH Yan helped in the
design of the shaking table system and the test structure.
He also made valuable suggestions to improve the RSPM
algorithms. Professor HL Li helped to design the elec-
trical and electronic circuits of the L1 and L2 loops for
the tests. He and Professor Niu also helped to calibrate
the entire sensory systems. The authors also wish to
express their appreciation to Dan Walsh, Dick Cizdziel
and Mark Pitman for their assistance in the construction
of the shaking table and the preparation of the test
structure.
361
References
[1] Kobori T, et al. Combined variable stiffness and variable damping
systems. US patent 5 036 633, August, 1991.
[2] Liang Z, Lee GC. Damping of structures: part 1—theory of complex
damping. Technical report NCEER-91-0004. NCEER, State Univer-
sity of New York at Buffalo, 1991.
[3] Kobori T, 1992.
[4] Liang Z, Tong M, Lee GC. Complex modes in damped linear dynamic
systems. International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal
Analysis 1992;7(1):1–10.
[5] Tong et al., 1997.
[6] Liang et al., 1995.
[7] Kobori T, et al. Rigidity control system for variable rigidity structure.
US patent 4 964 246, October, 1990.
[8] Constantinou MC, Symans MD. Experimental study of seismic
response of buildings with supplemental fluid dampers. The Structural
Design of Tall Buildings, 2:93–132.
[9] Feng MQ, Shinozuka M, Fujii S. Experimental and analytical study of
a hybrid isolation system using friction controllable sliding bearings.
Tech. report NCEER-92-0009, NCEER, State University of New
York at Buffalo, 1992.
[10] Filiatrault A, Cherry S. Performance evaluation of friction damped
braced steel frames under simulated earthquake loads. Report of
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1985.
[11] Goltz JD, editor. The Northridge, California earthquake of January
17, 1994: general reconnaissance report. Tech. report NCEER-94-
005, NCEER, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1994.
[12] Inaudi J, Kelly J. Variable-structure homogenous control systems. In:
Housner GW, Masri SF, editors. Proc. of International Workshop on
Structural Control, 1993.
[13] Inaudi J, Leitmann G, Kelly JM. Nonlinear homogeneous single-
degree-of-freedom systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
1994;120(7):1543–1562.
[14] Kawashima K, Unjoh S. Variable dampers and variable stiffness for
seismic control of bridges. In: Housner GW, Masri SF, editors. Proc.
of International Workshop on Structural Control, 1993.
[15] Kelly JM. Current development on isolation of civil buildings in the
United States. In: Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Control of Vibra-
tions of Structures, Proc. of the International post-SMiRt Conference
Seminar, Capri, Italy, August, 1993.
[16] Akiyama H. State-of-the-art in the world on seismic isolation of
buildings based on results of the international workshop held in
Tokyo in April 1992—most recent developments for buildings and
bridges in Japan. In: Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Control of
Vibrations of Structures, Proc. of the International post-SMiRt
Conference Seminar, Capri, Italy, August, 1993.
[17] Aiken ID, Kelly JM, Mohmoodi P. The application of visoelastic
dampers to seismically resistant structures. Proc. 4th U.S. Nat.
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, CA, vol. III,
1990:459–68.
[18] Kobori T, et al. Variable damping device for seismic response
controlled structure. US patent 5 311 709, May, 1994.
[19] Lee GC, Liang Z, Tong M. Innervated structures. Proc. of 1st World
Structural Control Conference, Pasadena, CA, 1994.
[20] Liang Z, Tong M, Lee GC. On a theory of complex damping. Proc. of
Damping ’91, JCA, 1991.
[21] Aiken ID, Whittaker AS. Development and application of passive
energy dissipation techniques in the U.S.A. In: Isolation, Energy
Dissipation and Control of Vibrations of Structures, Proc. of the
International post-SMiRt Conference Seminar, Capri, Italy, August,
1993.
[22] Buckle IG, Mayes RL. Seismic isolation: history, application, and
performance—a world view. Earthquake Spectra 1990;6(2):161–
201.
362 Z. Liang et al. / Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 14 (1999) 349–362

[23] Sack R, Pattern, Ebrahimpour A. Structural control for phase-related
inputs. Report to 2nd annual NSF control research coordination meet-
ing, Pasadena, CA, August 6–7, 1994.
[24] Tong M, Liang Z, Lee GC. Techniques of design and using VE
dampers. Proc. of Damping ’91, EDB, 1991.
[25] Tsai CS, Hong CP. Steel triangular plate energy absorbers for
earthquake buildings. First World Conference on Construction Steel
Design, Mexico, 1992.
[26] Tasi CS. Innovative design of viscoelastic dampers for seismic miti-
gation. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1993;139:83–106.