12 views

Uploaded by Bendine Kouider

- Analyzing the Impact of Genetic Parameters on Gene Grouping Genetic Algorithm and Clustering Genetic Algorithm
- Elitist-Non-Dominated-Sorting-GA-II-NSGA-II-As-A-Parameter-less-Multi-Objective-GA
- v6-1534-1537
- 1-s2.0-s014102961300607x-main
- Paper 2-Clustering Method Based on Messy Genetic Algorithm GA for Remote Sensing Satellite Image Classifications
- “TRAVELING SALESMEN PROBLEM”.
- reseasrch paper.docx
- Nsga-II 7th June
- Lecture 3 (Introduction of Operators of Genetic Algorithm)
- IRJET-ECONOMIC LOAD DISPATCH CONTAINING LOSS COEFFICIENT
- Tire 2
- shen li resume
- Final Thesis Pk12
- IJETTCS-2012-10-25-098
- Selective Mutation of Genetic Algorithms
- Main Arora
- Optimal capacitor placement for improving voltage profile and loss reduction of distribution systems by genetic algorithm
- Minor PPT
- NewmaRk In
- Synopsis suraj.docx

You are on page 1of 9

FUJUN PENG,* ALFRED NG AND YAN-RU HU

Directorate of Spacecraft Engineering, Canadian Space Agency, St.Hubert, QC, J3Y 8Y9, Canada

ABSTRACT: In this paper, a performance criterion is proposed for the optimization of

piezoelectric patch actuator locations on flexible plate structures based on maximizing

the controllability grammian. This is followed by the determination of parameters required

for actuator location optimization through Structuring Analysis in ANSYS Finite Element

Analysis Package. Genetic Algorithm is then used to implement the optimization. Finally,

with the actuators bonded on optimized locations, a filtered-x LMS-based multichannel

adaptive control is applied to suppress vibration response of the plate. Numerical simulations

are performed in suppressing tri-sinusoidal response at three points of the plates. The results

show that the developed actuator placement optimization methodology is very effective in

searching for the optimal actuator locations that minimize the energy requirement of vibration

control. The control algorithm is also demonstrated to be efficient and robust in the smart

structure vibration control.

Key Words: smart structures, piezoelectric, actuator placement optimization, adaptive

vibration control.

INTRODUCTION

S

MART materials and structures have attracted much

attention due to their potential advantages in a

wide range of applications, such as aeronautical and

aerospace engineering, civil engineering, automobile

engineering, precision instruments and machines, etc.

Different types of sensors and actuators have been

developed using piezoelectric ceramics, shape memory

alloys, electrorheological fluids, magnetostrictive mate-

rial, optical fibers, etc. In the field of structure shape

and vibration control, piezoelectric materials received

the most attention because of their features, such as

low mass, high bandwidth, low cost, ease of bonding

onto or embedding within flexible structures, etc.

(Banks et al., 1996). In most cases, multiple piezoelectric

material sensors and actuators are used and distributed

on some specifically designed locations of the controlled

structure. Combining with some types of control

methods, these actuators apply control forces to the

structure in a designed manner and thus the structure

can be deformed into a required shape or maintained in

a level of vibration.

For aerospace applications, the amount of energy

consumption is always a concern in the vibration

control of smart structures. It has been shown that the

control system performance can be improved signif-

icantly if actuators are placed at optimal locations, and

at the same time the energy consumption could be

minimized. On the contrary, placing an actuator near

a nodal point (or line) of a structure mode could result

in large force requirement, or even cause an inability to

control this mode. In this paper, we consider a thin

rectangular cantilever aluminum plate, on which four

piezoelectric patches are to be bonded to control its

vibration. This kind of problem has been investigated by

a number of authors (Han and Lee, 1999; Sadri et al.,

1999; Liu et al., 2002), but we derive a new performance

criterion starting from a general case of sensor and

actuator distributions (Hac and Liu, 1993). We extend

the controllability grammian in the work of Hac and Liu

(1993) from the point actuator case to the piezoelectric

patch actuator case, where an actuator applies forces on

a piece area instead of a point. The parameters in the

derived controllability grammian are clear in physical

meanings. By performing Structuring Analysis in

ANSYS, the order of the smart structure model is

reduced and the parameters for actuator location are

obtained easily. Genetic algorithm is then applied to

search for the optimal solutions. Next, the adaptive

feedforward control is introduced into smart structure

vibration control. It stemmed from the adaptive signal

processing theory, and has been previously applied to

the cancellation of signals, the active control of acous-

tics, as well as structural vibration control of civil

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. NSERC Research

Fellow.

E-mail: Fujun.Peng@space.gc.ca

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MATERIAL SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES, Vol. 16March 2005 263

1045-389X/05/03 02639 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/1045389X05050105

2005 Sage Publications

engineering structures, vehicles etc. (Peng et al., 2002).

Theoretically, zero error response can be achieved at

certain points using adaptive feedforward control if

certain conditions are satisfied (Smith, 1994). This is

quite attractive in smart structure vibration control.

Unlike most of the feedback control methods, the

adaptive feedforward control does not need the accurate

model of the controlled structure. This makes it very

robust to the modeling error of the dynamic properties

of flexible structures. Finally, numerical simulations are

conducted on reducing tri-sinusoidal response at three

points of the plate. The comparison of controlled and

uncontrolled responses shows that the control system

is efficient in minimizing the smart structure vibrations.

The controlled responses with and without actuator

location optimization are compared, and the result

indicates that the proposed actuator placement optimi-

zation method is effective in reducing power require-

ment and increasing control efficiency. In order to

evaluate control system robustness, stiffness uncertain-

ties are then intentionally added to the dynamic model

of the plate, while the control system parameters remain

unchanged. The simulation result shows that the control

system still works well with significant vibration

reduction, thus demonstrating the robustness of the

control system.

PERFORMANCE CRITERION DERIVATION

Location Optimization of Point Actuators

Consider a structure that is modeled using finite

element method as:

M

VV C

_

VV KV = F (1)

where, M, C, and K are mass matrix, damping matrix,

and stiffness matrix, respectively; F is a column vector

containing p point control forces acting at locations

P

j

( j =1, 2, . . . , p). This model can be written in modal

space as a set of ordinary differential equations:

i

2

i

!

i

_

i

!

2

i

i

=

X

p

j=1

U

i

(P

j

)f

j

, i = 1, 2, . . . , n, (2)

where, !

i

and

i

are the ith natural frequency and modal

damping ratio. U is mode shape matrix and U

i

is the ith

column of U. f

j

is the point force acting on point P

j

.

Defining the state (only first n modes are considered)

and input vectors as

X = [ _

1

, !

1

1

, . . . , _

n

, !

n

n

]

T

, U = [f

1

, . . . , f

p

]

T

, (3)

yields the state representation of the model,

_

XX = AX BU (4)

where,

A = diag(A

i

), A

i

=

2

i

!

i

!

i

!

i

0

" #

(5)

B =

U

1

(P

1

) U

1

(P

p

)

0 0

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U

n

(P

1

) U

n

(P

p

)

0 0

2

6

6

6

6

4

3

7

7

7

7

5

(6)

Note the dependence of matrix B on the location of

point force actuators P

j

, j =1, . . . , p. If an actuator is

located at the nodal point of a mode, this mode becomes

uncontrollable through that actuator. Actuator location

in the vicinity of the node would require a large effort to

control this mode.

For a structure described by Equations (4)(6), Hac

and Liu (1993) suggested the following performance

index based on the maximization of the controllability

grammian

J =

X

2n

j=1

j

!

Y

2n

j=1

(

j

)

2n

r

(7)

where

j

is the jth eigenvalue of controllability gram-

mian, which can be written as:

2i1

=

2i

=

P

p

q=1

U

2

i

(P

q

)

4

i

!

i

(8)

This criterion guarantees a minimum control force and

energy and is applicable to both cases of persistent

or transient disturbance when the structure is lightly

damped and the natural frequencies of the structure are

well spaced.

Location Optimization of Piezoelectric Patches

Using finite element method, a flexible structure with

p piezo-patch actuators bonded on its surface (perfect

bond assumed) can be modeled as (Piefort, 2001):

M

VV C

_

VV K

VV

V = K

Vu

(9)

K

uV

V K

uu

u = F

u

(10)

where, V and u denote the mechanical nodal displace-

ments and the nodal electrical potentials, respectively;

M, C, and K

VV

are mass matrix, damping matrix, and

stiffness matrix, respectively; K

uu

is the piezoelectric

capacitance matrix; K

V/

= K

T

/V

is the electromechanical

coupling matrix; F

The dynamic equation of the structure is only governed

by Equation (9), which can be written in modal space

similar to Equation (2)

i

2

i

!

i

_

i

!

2

i

= U

T

i

K

Vu

u, i = 1, 2, . . . , n (11)

264 F. PENG ET AL.

where, !

i

and

i

are the ith natural frequency and modal

damping ratio. U is the mode shape matrix.

In Equation (11), the nodal electrical potential u is a

vector of control variables. However, practically we

do not directly apply or control any nodal electrical

potential node by node. Instead, we exert voltages

to piezoelectric patches, each of which usually covers

multiple nodes. So we need express u using control

voltages.

Based on finite element model, the voltage applied to

a piezoelectric patch can be equivalently regarded as

electric potentials acting on every node. Thus, the nodal

electrical potential vector u and the applied voltage

vector w can be related by a matrix, written as K

uw

:

u - K

uw

w = K

uw

[w

1

, . . . , w

p

]

T

(12)

Denote

K

Vw

= K

Vu

K

uw

, Q

i

= U

T

i

K

Vw

(13)

Substitute Equations (12) and (13) into Equation (11),

we have

i

2

i

!

i

_

i

!

2

i

i

=

X

p

j=1

Q

i

( j)

j

, i = 1, 2, . . . , n (14)

Noting that Equation (14) has exactly the same form as

Equation (2), we can directly write the performance

index similar to Equations (7) and (8) as follows:

J =

X

2n

j=1

j

!

Y

2n

j=1

(

j

)

2n

r

(15)

2i1

=

2i

=

P

P

q=1

Q

2

i

(q)

4

i

!

i

(16)

where,

j

is the jth eigenvalue of controllability gram-

mian.

Determination of Parameters using ANSYS

In order to compute the performance index expressed

in Equations (15) and (16), we need to determine first

nth order modal parameters and variable Q

i

. Using

ANSYS, the modal parameters can be obtained directly.

Regarding the computation of Q

i

, it is obvious from

Equation (14) that Q

i

( j) has the similar physical meaning

to U

i

(P

j

) in Equation (2). The former corresponds to the

ith modal force generated by a unit voltage applied

at the piezoelectric patch put on the jth location, and

the latter is the ith modal force generated by a unit

point force applied at the jth location. Q

i

is determined

by Equation (13), in which, U

i

is the ith mode shape,

K

Vw

can be seen as a coupling matrix between the

applied voltage vector and equivalent nodal force

vector. U

i

is also available directly from ANSYS,

while K

Vw

can be obtained as follows: As an example,

let us consider a thin rectangular cantilever aluminum

plate (240 200 mm

2

), on which four piezoelectric

patches are to be bonded on 64 possible areas to control

its vibration. First, 64 pieces of piezoelectric patches

(29.5 24.5 mm

2

) are placed uniformly on one side of

the plate, and the smart structure is modeled using

ANSYS. The model is of FE form with very high order.

Next, Structuring Analysis is performed with 64 master

DOF, each corresponding to a central point on a

piezoelectric patch surface, (see Figure 1). Thus the

smart structure is treated as a superelement with 64

nodes and K

Vw

is a 64 64 matrix. The Structuring

Analysis process is repeated, each time with a unit

voltage applied on a single piezoelectric patch (the

voltage is applied only on one patch, others remain

free of voltage). In each Structuring Analysis, we get

an equivalent nodal force vector (64 1) S

1

, which

corresponds to the unit voltage applied. Finally, K

Vw

is

obtained as [S

1

S

2

S

r

S

64

]. This simple method

of determining K

Vw

is effective when the PZT patches

are very thin and light, and contribute only a little to

the structures mass and stiffness.

OPTIMIZATION IMPLEMENTATION USING

GENETIC ALGORITHM

Genetic Algorithm is a type of optimization searching

technique derived from the mechanics of natural selec-

tion and genetics. This mechanism has been mathe-

matically shown to eventually converge to the best

possible solution. Compared to the traditional search

and optimization procedures, Genetic Algorithm is

robust, and generally more straightforward to use. It is

stochastic in nature, thus is capable of searching the

entire solution space with more likelihood of finding the

global optimum. Genetic Algorithm is suitable to apply

in situations where only a little or no prior knowledge

Point 2

Point 1

Point 3

Figure 1. Actuator location arrangement and master DOF selection.

Optimization Vibration Control of Plate Smart Structures 265

is known, linear or nonlinear problems (Sadri et al.,

1999; Chambers, 2000).

To implement the actuator placement optimization,

all the parameters (location coordinates or location

number) to be optimized are first mapped (coded) into

a chromosome, each parameter corresponding to one

particular portion of the chromosome, and then the

following steps are performed to search for the best

solutions, see Figure 2:

1. [Initialization] Generate random population of n

individuals (suitable solutions for the problem)

2. [Fitness] Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the

population

3. [Criteria met?] Check if the end condition is satisfied,

if yes, stop and return the best solution, if not,

generate new population for a further run of

algorithm

4. [New population] Create a new population by repeat-

ing the following steps:

(1) [Selection] Select two parent individuals from a

population according to their fitness (the better

fitness, the bigger chance to be selected).

(2) [Crossover] With a crossover probability,

crossover the parents to form a new offspring. If no

crossover was performed, offspring is an exact copy of

parents.

(3) [Mutation] With a mutation probability, mutate

new offspring at each locus (position in individual).

(4) [Accepting] Place new offspring in a new

population.

5. [Loop] Go to step 2

After the best individuals are obtained, decode them

to the required parameters, and choose one as the

optimized solution.

ADAPTIVE FEEDFORWARD CONTROL

The basic idea of the adaptive feedforward control is

cancellation, i.e., the adaptive controller tries to adjust

its parameters in real time such that the vibration

response produced by the control forces tends to be the

same in magnitude as the original disturbance response

but with counter phase, and thus the disturbance

response is cancelled (Vipperman et al., 1993; Fuller

et al., 1997; Peng et al., 2002). The block diagram of

adaptive feedforward control is shown in Figure 3.

The filtered-x based algorithm can be expressed as

(Peng et al., 2002):

W(n 1) = W(n) 2R(n)e(n) (17)

where,

W(n) = w

1

(n)

T

w

2

(n)

T

w

M

(n)

T

T

(18)

w

m

(n) = [w

11

(n) w

12

(n) w

1I

(n)]

T

(19)

R(n) =

r

T

11

(n) r

T

21

(n) r

T

M1

(n)

r

T

12

(n) r

T

22

(n) r

T

M2

(n)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

r

T

1L

(n) r

T

2L

(n) . . . r

T

ML

(n)

2

6

6

6

6

6

4

3

7

7

7

7

7

5

T

(20)

r

ml

(n) = [r

ml

(n) r

ml

(n 1) r

ml

(n I 1)]

T

(21)

r

ml

(n) = H

T

ml

X

Jm

(n) (22)

H =

H

11

H

12

H

m1

H

m2

H

M1

H

M2

H

1l

H

ml

H

Ml

H

1L

H

mL

H

ML

2

6

4

3

7

5 (23)

H

ml

= h

ml1

h

ml2

h

mlJ

T

(24)

X

Jm

(n) = x

m

(n)x

m

(n 1) x

m

(n J 1) [ ]

T

(25)

Then the control signal given by the mth controller can

be written as:

y

m

(n) = w

T

m

(n)X

Im

(n) (26)

X

Im

(n) = [x

m

(n) x

m

(n 1) x

m

(n I 1)]

T

(27)

It can be proved that the algorithm described by the

above is stable when the value of the convergence factor

Initial Population

New Population Selection

Mutation Crossover

Best Individuals

Fitness Evaluation Criteria Met ?

No

Yes

Parameter Coding Parameter Decoding

Figure 2. Block diagram of genetic algorithm.

External

Disturbances

Reference

Signals

X(n)

Y(n) e(n)

H

R(n)

Structure Controller

LMS

Figure 3. Block diagram of multichannel filtered -x LMS algorithm.

266 F. PENG ET AL.

is in the range of 0<<

max

, where

max

is the

maximum eigenvalue of the filtered autocorrelation

matrix, given by E[R(n)R

T

(n)]. In practice, the eigen-

values of this matrix are rarely known. A more restricted

and practical convergence criterion based on the

average input power can be (Vipperman et al., 1993):

0 < <

1

h

2

max

L M I J

2

R

xx

(0)

(28)

where, R

xx

(0) represents the maximum average power of

the M reference signals (there is an average power for

each reference signal, and the R

xx

(0) is the largest one),

and h

max

represents the largest value of h

mlj

. It can be

seen that the denominator of the upper limit for the

convergence factor is proportional to both the number

of error sensors, L, and the number of control actuators,

M, which means that the control system converges

slower with the increase of the number of error sensors

and control actuators.

During the adaptive control process, the estimated

gradient vector given by R(n)e(n) may not always

coincide with the steepest gradient in which the cost

function is reduced with the fastest speed. But the

controller will still converge toward its optimal value as

long as the estimated gradient vector has a component

toward this direction. This implies that an accurate

estimate of the FIR models is not required. For a single

channel control with a two-coefficient controller, for

example, this means that the estimated gradient will

reduce the cost function effectively if it is within 90

control approach is tolerant of error in the FIR model

estimation.

Before starting the control process, the FIR models

H

ml

of the control channel transfer properties need to be

obtained. This can be obtained by sampling the impulse

response (apply one impulse force at the mth actuator

and get samples at the lth sensor). But in most cases, it is

estimated by the adaptive identification technique.

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

The purpose of the simulations is to verify the

effectiveness of the proposed actuator placement opti-

mization and adaptive feedforward control algorithm

in smart structure vibration control. The structure to be

controlled is a 240 200 mm

2

thin rectangular aluminum

plate with cantilever boundary condition. Four piezo-

electric patches are optimally bonded on the surface (one

side) of the plate, and then tri-sinusoidal vibration

response is controlled using adaptive feedforward con-

trol. Using ANSYS, the structure (without actuator

bonded) is modeled and the first five modes are shown in

Figure 4. The parameters, Q

i

in Equation (14) and J in

Equation (15), etc., are obtained using the method

illustrated in previous sections.

In order to implement the optimization process,

number the 64 candidate locations from 0 to 63. A

chromosome is coded with 24 binary number, with each

6 consecutive bits corresponding to an actuator location

number from the first bit. With every individual

generated by Genetic Algorithm, decode and calculate

the corresponding performance index expressed by

Equation (15) until best individuals are found. First 5

modes of the plate are considered. Genetic Algorithm

1

=11.73 Hz

2

= 32.66 Hz

3

= 72.45 Hz

5

= 123.53Hz

4

= 114.80 Hz

Figure 4. First five mode shapes of the plate.

Optimization Vibration Control of Plate Smart Structures 267

parameters are set as: The number of individuals in a

population is 10; Maximal number of generation is 350;

Generation gap is 0.8, which means 8 new individuals

are created in the new population; Selection function

is Stochastic Universal Sampling; Crossover function is

Single-point Crossover; Mutation function is Discrete

Mutation Operator. Normally, Genetic Algorithm

suggests some best solutions only, instead of giving the

final decision directly. The final decision is still the

designers work. Here, the Genetic Algorithm optimiza-

tion is performed 10 times and the best 12 individuals

are listed in Table 1. Figure 5 shows a convergence

process of Genetic Algorithm.

In order to make a good decision of choosing the best

solutions, we calculated the effect of the 9 locations

appeared in the best 12 individuals on the first 5 modes.

The results are listed in the format of scores, which are

calculated as follows: The modal forces are calculated

(for all the first 5 modes) when applying a unit voltage

on the PZT patch bonded on these 64 locations, respec-

tively. The best location to a specific mode, which

corresponds to the largest modal force, is assigned

the highest ranking, no. 1, while the worst the lowest

ranking, no. 64. The score of a location with respect to

a specific mode is (64 ranking)/63 100. Thus the

best location is scored 100 and the worst 0 (see Table 2).

The final decision is that four piezoelectric patches

are bonded on locations 4, 8, 33, and 37, respectively.

Figure 6 shows the final decision. Such a decision

assures that all of the first 5 modes can be controlled

efficiently. Of course, this is not the only best choice in

all the cases. For example, if the vibration response to be

controlled is dominated by modes 2 and 3, the best

choice may be locations 2, 3, 4, and 8.

Using the actuators bonded on the optimized loca-

tions above, the vibration response at three points (see

Figure 1) of the plate is controlled by the adaptive

feedforward controller. First 5 modes of the plate are

considered in the dynamic model. The external dis-

turbances, which are tri-sinusoidal signals consisting of

18, 45, and 85 Hz, are applied to the plate by patches 3

and 16. Control parameters are selected as follows:

the reference signal is a tri-sinusoidal signal with the

same frequency components as the external disturbance;

the controller order and FIR model order are 8;

the sampling rate is 350 Hz; the convergence factor =

0.00003. The time histories and frequency spectrum

of controlled and uncontrolled responses are shown in

Figures 7 and 8. Figure 9 shows the control voltages at

the 4 actuators. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of

the proposed actuator placement optimization method,

4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60

3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59

2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58

1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57

5 13 21 29 37 45 53 61

6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62

7 15 23 31 39 47 55 63

8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

Figure 6. The final optimized actuator locations.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

x10

11

Iterations

P

e

r

f

o

r

m

a

n

c

e

i

n

d

e

x

Figure 5. A convergence process of GA optimization.

Table 1. The best 12 individuals obtained from GA.

Actuator Locations Performance Index Values

[2, 4, 8, 53] 2.005 e-11

[3, 4, 7, 61] 2.006 e-11

[4, 8, 37, 53] 2.010 e-11

[3, 4, 8, 34] 2.038 e-11

[2, 4, 8, 33] 2.088 e-11

[2, 4, 8, 41] 2.074 e-11

[4, 8, 33, 41] 2.086 e-11

[4, 8, 33, 37] 2.192 e-11

[3, 4, 8, 61] 2.255 e-11

[3, 4, 8, 53] 2.271 e-11

[3, 4, 8, 41] 2.344 e-11

[3, 4, 8, 33] 2.355 e-11

Table 2. Location scores with respect to first 5 modes.

Location 2 3 4 8 33 37 41 53 61

Mode 1 96.9 93.7 87.3 87.3 49.2 49.2 27.0 8.0 20.7

Mode 2 93.7 96.8 100 100 11.1 11.1 20.7 27.0 17.5

Mode 3 93.7 96.8 100 100 77.8 77.8 52.4 14.3 11.1

Mode 4 71.4 93.7 100 100 36.5 36.5 20.6 14.3 30.2

Mode 5 46.0 4.8 36.5 36.5 90.5 90.5 93.7 100 96.8

268 F. PENG ET AL.

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

0 20 40 60 80 100

10

3

10

2

10

1

10

0

101

Without control

Control without optimization

Control with optimization

Frequency (Hz)

(a) Point 1

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

0 20 40 60 80 100

10

2

10

2

10

1

10

2

10

2

10

1

10

0

10

1

Without control

Control without optimization

Control with optimization

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

0 20 40 60 80 100

10

0

10

1

Without control

Control without optimization

Control with optimization

Frequency (Hz) requency (Hz)

(b) Point 2 (c) Point3 Figure 8. Frequency spectra of responses.

80 80.5 81

2

1

0

1

2

3

4

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

Without control

Control without optimization

Control with optimization

Time (s)

(a) Point 1

80 80.5 81

2

1

0

1

2

3

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

t

(

m

/

s

2

)

Without control

Control without optimization

Control with optimization

80 80.5 81

2

0

2

4

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

Without control

Control without optimization

Control with optimization

Time (s) Time (s)

(b) Point 2 (c) Point 3 Figure 7. Controlled and uncontrolled responses.

Optimization Vibration Control of Plate Smart Structures 269

a simulation is also performed using 4 actuators put on

the other 4 locations (18, 22, 41, and 45) instead of the

optimized locations. The results are also shown in

Figures 79.

In order to evaluate the robustness of the controller,

stiffness uncertainties are intentionally added to the

model of the plate, but the FIR model and all the

control parameters remain the same as no uncertainty

exists. With the stiffness uncertainties, the first five

modal frequencies are reduced to 90% of the original.

The corresponding controlled and uncontrolled

responses are shown in Figure 10.

One can find from Figure 7 that vibration amplitudes

are significantly reduced at all the three points and

control efficiency using location-optimized actuators is

much higher than those using actuators without location

optimization. Figure 8 shows that all three sinusoids are

suppressed remarkably, and again location-optimized

actuators produce better results. Figure 9 indicates that

using location-optimized actuators, much less energy is

required while better results are achieved. These results

show that the proposed actuator placement method

reduces the control energy effectively and the adaptive

feedforward control works very efficiently in suppres-

sing the smart structure vibration response. Figure 10

shows that vibration reduction is still significant

when structure stiffness is intentionally added, thus

demonstrates the good robustness of the adaptive

feedforward control.

CONCLUSIONS

Smart materials and structures have great potential

advantages in a wide range of applications, such as

aeronautical and aerospace engineering, etc. In the field

of structural shape and vibration control, piezoelectric

materials received the most attention because of their

low mass, high bandwidth, low cost, etc. This paper

develops a methodology for piezoelectric patches place-

ment optimization and introduces adaptive feedforward

control into smart structure vibration control. The

opitimization methodology is based on modeling using

ANSYS and Substructuring Analysis, controllability

grammian maximization, and genetic algorithm imple-

mentation. Computer simulations are performed on

optimizing four piezoelectric patches on a thin rectan-

gular plate and controlling the vibration response at

three points on it. Results show that the proposed

actuator placement optimization method is effective in

reducing power requirement and increasing control

efficiency. The results also demonstrate that the

adaptive feedforward control is efficient in suppressing

vibration responses of the plate with good robustness.

80 80.5 81

300

0

300

600

V

o

l

t

a

g

e

(

V

)

Control voltage without optimization

Control voltage with optimization

80 80.5 81

300

0

300

600

V

o

l

t

a

g

e

(

V

)

Control voltage without optimization

Control voltage with optimization

Time (s) Time (s)

(a) Actuators 4 and 18 (b) Actuators 8 and 22

80 80.5 81

300

0

300

600

V

o

l

t

a

g

e

(

V

)

Control voltage without optimization

Control voltage with optimization

80 80.5 81

300

0

300

600

V

o

l

t

a

g

e

(

V

)

Control voltage without optimization

Control voltage with optimization

Time (s) Time (s)

(c) Actuators 33 and 41 (d) Actuators 37 and 45

Figure 9. Control voltages at the four

actuators.

270 F. PENG ET AL.

NOMENCLATURE

C= damping matrix

F= force vector

H= FIR model of structure

K= stiffness matrix

M= mass matrix

V= nodal displacement vector

W= controller vector

e = error response vector

f

j

= force applied at location j

x

m

= mth reference signal

U= mode shape matrix

!

i

= ith natural frequency of structure

i

= ith modal damping ratio of structure

i

= general coordinate

j

= jth eigenvalue of controllability grammian

u= nodal electrical potentials vector

REFERENCES

Banks, H.T., Smith, R.C. and Wang, Y. 1996. Smart Material

Structures: Modeling, Estimation and Control, Masson, Paris.

Chambers, L. (ed.) 2000. The Practical Handbook of Genetic

Algorithms: Applications, 2nd edn, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press,

Boca Raton, Florida.

Fuller, C.R., Elliott, S.J. and Nelson, P.A. 1997. Active Control of

Vibration, Academic Press, London.

Hac, A. and Liu, L. 1993. Sensor and Actuator Location in Motion

Control of Flexible Structures, Journal of Sound and Vibration,

167(2):239261.

Han, J.-H. and Lee, I. 1999. Optimal Placement of Piezoelectric

Sensors and Actuators for Vibration Control of a Composite Plate

Using Genetic Algorithm, Smart Materials and Structures,

8(2):257267.

Liu, P.X., Rao, V.S., and Derriso, M. 2002. Active Control of Smart

Structures with Optimal Actuator and Sensor Locations,

In: Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Smart Structures and

Materials 2002: Modeling, Signal Processing, and Control,

Vol. 4693, Paper No. 1.

Peng, F.J., Hu, Y.R. and Ng, A. 2002. Adaptive Feedforward

Vibration Control of Flexible Plate Structures Using Piezoelectric

Actuators, In: Proceedings of 2nd Canada-US CanSmart

Workshop Smart Materials & Strutures, Montreal, Canada.

pp. 151160.

Piefort, V. 2001. Finite Element Modelling of Piezoelectric Active

Structures, PhD Thesis, Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

Sadri, A.M., Wright, J.R. and Wynne, R.J. 1999. Modeling and

Optimal Placement of Piezoelectric Actuators in Isotropic Plates

Using Genetic Algorithms, Smart Materials and Structures,

8(4):490498.

Smith, G.C. 1994, Optimum Actuator Grouping in Feedforwad

Active Control Applications, Master Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

Vipperman, J.S., Burdisso, R.A. and Fuller, C.R. 1993. Active

Control of Broadband Structural Vibration Using The

Adaptive LMS Algorithm, Journal of Sound and Vibration,

166(2):283299.

80 80.5 81

2

1

0

1

2

3

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

Without control

With control

Time (s)

(a) Point 1

80 80.5 81

2

1

0

1

2

3

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

Without control

With control

80 80.5 81

2

0

2

4

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

m

/

s

2

)

Without control

With control

Time (s) Time (s)

(b) Point 2 (c) Point 3

Figure 10. Responses with stiffness

uncertainties considered.

Optimization Vibration Control of Plate Smart Structures 271

- Analyzing the Impact of Genetic Parameters on Gene Grouping Genetic Algorithm and Clustering Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byAlexander Decker
- Elitist-Non-Dominated-Sorting-GA-II-NSGA-II-As-A-Parameter-less-Multi-Objective-GAUploaded byPraveen Vundrajavarapu
- v6-1534-1537Uploaded bySudharsanViki
- 1-s2.0-s014102961300607x-mainUploaded byjhffgghgfbitvbuigg
- Paper 2-Clustering Method Based on Messy Genetic Algorithm GA for Remote Sensing Satellite Image ClassificationsUploaded byIjarai ManagingEditor
- “TRAVELING SALESMEN PROBLEM”.Uploaded bysuryakantshrotriya
- reseasrch paper.docxUploaded bymanav gupta
- Nsga-II 7th JuneUploaded byuma_bubu
- Lecture 3 (Introduction of Operators of Genetic Algorithm)Uploaded byManish Gupta
- IRJET-ECONOMIC LOAD DISPATCH CONTAINING LOSS COEFFICIENTUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Tire 2Uploaded byAhsan Gul
- shen li resumeUploaded byapi-253544569
- Final Thesis Pk12Uploaded bySuman Pradhan
- IJETTCS-2012-10-25-098Uploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Selective Mutation of Genetic AlgorithmsUploaded byataziz
- Main AroraUploaded byGarima Singh
- Optimal capacitor placement for improving voltage profile and loss reduction of distribution systems by genetic algorithmUploaded byIASC
- Minor PPTUploaded bySpandan Dash
- NewmaRk InUploaded byShashi Prakash
- Synopsis suraj.docxUploaded byAKHILESH KUMAR
- Vibration Controller | Electrodynamic Vibration SystemUploaded bysdynIndia
- 5936Uploaded byswonera
- heuristicUploaded byYe Yuan
- XX Vibrations Report AHUploaded bySyed Abdul Haseeb Ahmed
- ahmad2008.pdfUploaded byselvam
- ieeetgrs2003Uploaded byJJ EB
- Piezoelectric SensorsUploaded byvigneshwarimahamuni
- piezoelectricityUploaded bySushant Chopra
- Co-evolution as a Computational and Cognitive Model of DesignUploaded byrpm_8204
- CEC2005-185Uploaded byPraveen Kumar Arjala

- Flexural%20vibrations%20of%20rectangular%20plates.pdfUploaded byAveen
- Free Vibration of FGM Plates With in-plane Material InhomogeneityUploaded byBendine Kouider
- Act Sinus ForceUploaded byBendine Kouider
- Ch7.pdfUploaded byBendine Kouider
- Bridge Moving LoadUploaded byBendine Kouider
- 2.H.djojodihardjo RARMUploaded byBendine Kouider
- ASEN5022.Lecture.18.pdfUploaded byBendine Kouider
- ASEN5022.Lecture.18.pdfUploaded byBendine Kouider
- f Gm ValidationUploaded byBendine Kouider
- AMJ001247Uploaded byGillich Gilbert-Rainer
- AMJ001247Uploaded byGillich Gilbert-Rainer
- 021-Feasibility Analysis of Using Piezoceramic Transducers for Cantilever Beam Modal TestingUploaded byBendine Kouider
- Static ResponseUploaded byBendine Kouider
- PDF AccuseUploaded byBendine Kouider
- 1-s2.0-S0022460X11008820-mainUploaded byBendine Kouider
- modelling Material plasticity in ansysUploaded byPhilip Ianna
- Ass Decl Creat ArUploaded byBendine Kouider
- (Qu YG)a Variational Formulation for Dynamic Analysis of Composite Laminated Beams Based on a General Higher-Order Shear Deformation TheoryUploaded byBendine Kouider
- 10.1.1.91Uploaded byBendine Kouider
- active controlUploaded byBendine Kouider
- 90634709-mimoUploaded byBendine Kouider

- Solvent PropertiesUploaded byKobena Dadzie
- Mohamad Khairull Izzuan b Mohd IdrisUploaded byAla'a Hussein
- Assignment MasonryUploaded byMuhammed Suhaib
- Rr220402 Electrical TechnologyUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- "Tesla Coil Research", by J.F. Corum and J.F.X. Daum, U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering CenterUploaded byTHE NIKOLA TESLA INSTITUTE
- Chapter 13 – Heat Treatment of SteelsUploaded byMahmoud Asfour
- Structural Break Detection in Time SeriesUploaded byrunawayyy
- Etching of PES Fabric by O2-CF4 PlasmaUploaded byRanjith CL
- is.4890.1968Uploaded byHabib Ur Rahman
- IntroductionUploaded byJoanne Sone
- Repeat Paper 02 Edexcel PhysicsUploaded byWajira Sanjaya Perera
- Assignment 1Uploaded bypranavirunway
- Fault Detection in MotorsUploaded by13thsparton
- Design of a Heat Exchanger Using HTRI _ World Wide SimulationUploaded bywisnu_2202
- Geometrical Optics ProblemsUploaded byBHAAJI0001
- Lecture 1428911481Uploaded byILAYAPERUMAL K
- MIT16_07F09_Lec01Uploaded bysoulsell
- Circuits i Lab 1 Post ReportUploaded byGreg Keener
- 12. TrigonometryUploaded bythinkiit
- Eurocode for Structural Loading PDFUploaded byRobert
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentUploaded byrefei
- ad7607Uploaded byMohanrajan Rajendran
- art3Uploaded bydamaya1701
- Buffer CapacityUploaded byharshalgarse
- Chemistry Notes MolesUploaded byZeenat Afroze
- Fuzzy Self-adapting PID Control of PMSM Servo SystemUploaded bypacobarter
- Once Again About the System of Free Gas MovementUploaded byClinica de Termopane
- WillisUploaded byAbhiyan Paudel
- Journal of Hydraulic Engineering Volume 139 issue 11 2013 [doi 10.1061_(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000782] Chang, Tsang-Jung; Chang, Kao-Hua -- SPH Modeling of One-Dimensional Nonrectangular and Nonprismatic Channe.pdfUploaded byAlirezakh
- Drilling Calculations.xlsUploaded byBrahim Letaief