shaking table – specimen interface design in substructure testing
TRANSCRIPT
Shaking Table – Specimen Interface Design in Substructure Testing
*Trung Vien Phan1)
, Van Thuan Nguyen2)
, Nasser Mohammad Khanlou3)
and Uwe E. Dorka4)
1), 2), 3), 4)
Steel and Composite Section, University of Kassel, Germany 1)
ABSTRACT
Substructure testing using shaking tables requires careful considerations regarding the
interaction between the substructure specimen and the table. The design of the interface between
them is of particular importance since it has to recreate accurately the interface between the
numerical structure and the specimen, and also allow high-resolution measurements of the
emerging coupling forces. These play a major role in the substructure algorithm, which needs
them as a feed-back to calculate the motion of the table using a step-wise time integration
scheme.
This paper summarizes the experience gained in designing such tests for three projects,
namely: CEA-UNIKA5)
, SUBSHAKE6)
and E-FAST7)
project. Various arrangements of the
interface between the specimen and the table were made, especially with respect to the
measurements of the coupling forces between specimen and numerical model. The experience
gained with these arrangements is reported. Conclusions are drawn regarding the requirement
for stiffness and the measurements of forces in such interfaces.
1), 3) Doctoral student 2) Dr. -Ing. 4) Prof. Dr. -Ing. 5) CEA-UNIKA Project: “Common action between University of Kassel and the Commissariat à lÈnergie Atomique”, agreement No. SAV 33 156, 2006-2009. 6) SUBSHAKE Project: “Development of substructure test in real time for hydraulic shaking tables”, under contract
Do 360/22-1,2, German Research Foundation (DFG), 2006 – 2010. 7) E-FAST Project: “Design study of a European Facility for Advanced Seismic Testing”, EC Grant number. 212109, 2008 – 2011.
The 2011 World Congress on
Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM'11+)
Seoul, Korea, 18-22 September, 2011
1. INTRODUCTION
Substructure testing is an advanced testing method in which most structures can be tested in a
dynamic manner without testing the entire structural system. To achieve this, the system is
divided into a numerical part, the one that can be modeled correctly on a computer, and an
experimental part, where the dynamic properties are unknown or are difficult to model. Thus it
needs to be tested as a real physical model. The substructure algorithm is based on a time
integration scheme. A number of such schemes have been developed (Thewalt 1987, Nakashima
1990, Shing 1991, Combescure 1997, Pegon 2000), but in the studies reported here, the
algorithm developed by Dorka (Dorka 1990) is used because of its superior performance and
versatility in Real Time Substructure Tests (RTST), even for aerospace applications (Bayer
2005).
Based on the general time discrete integration (Zienkiewicz 1977), Dorka developed a
substructure algorithm using implicit integration with digital feedback (Dorka 1990). The digital
feedback mechanism is described in Fig. 1a while the flow chart of the algorithm is shown in
Fig. 1b (Dorka 1990, 1998, 2002, 2011). The displacement vector, 1+iu , of the numerical model
at the next step is described as a linear control equation Eq. (1).
( )111
0
1 ++++
++=i
c
i
r
ii ffGuu (1)
where: 1+i
ou is a vector of explicit displacements that are known at the beginning each step, G is
the gain matrix, 1+i
rf is the vector of nonlinear numerical forces and,
1+i
cf is the vector of
coupling forces that are measured on the specimen.
In this digital feed back algorithm (see Fig. 1), the non-linear numerical forces,rf , and the
currently measured coupling forces, cf , are fed back at the sub steps, which are equally
distributed over the time step (Fig. 1a). At the end of each step, the equilibrium error is
calculated and the error force is identified. The error force is compensated at the beginning of
the next time step (Fig. 1b). Dorka proposed the PID error force compensation (Dorka 1990,
1991, 1998) and it was successfully applied in many substructure tests (Dorka 1991, 1998, 2002,
2006, 2007, Bayer 2005, Nguyen 2011). To allow the compensation adapting automatically to
changing testing environments, Nguyen and Dorka (Nguyen 2007, 2009) introduced an adaptive
force compensation based on data model and online system identification. The adaptive force
compensation is currently tested using a non-linear Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) with the
friction device UHYDE-fbr (Dorka 1995, US Patent number 5456047) and the hydraulic
shaking table at University of Kassel (UNIKA).
(b) Flow chart of substructure algorithm (a) Linear control mechanism
Fig. 1. Substructure algorithm with digital feedback and error force compensation
(Dorka 2002, 2011)
In order to perform RTST, actuators are used to impose the computed movement on the
experimental substructure and load cells are used to measure the coupling forces. Therefore, an
important issue in substructure testing is to design a proper interface between the two
substructures. It requires not only reliable measurements of the coupling forces but also a
faithful representation of the actual interface between substructure (specimen) and numerical
structure.
In the flow chart (Fig. 1), it can be seen that the role of the interface between table and
specimen is to transmit the calculated displacement and to measure the coupling forces as
exactly as possible. To transmit the calculated displacement exactly, the displacement control
system should be able to provide accurate response. The stiffness and damping properties of the
coupling should be well represented between specimen and table. In order to measure correctly
the coupling force, load cells with high resolution and low noise are required.
Due to inaccuracies in the transformations, the controllers and mechanical limitations of the
actuators, positioning errors will occur especially in continuous RTSTs. Although they can be
minimized by adaptive controllers (Stoten 2001, Wallace 2005, Nguyen 2008), but they cannot
be completely avoided. They appear as an overshoot or undershoot with a certain noise level
that depends on the quality of the testing equipment. In addition, measurement errors in the
coupling force and also regular errors (incorrect amplification or insufficient resolution) may
enter the algorithm. Except for the positioning errors of the actuators, they can be avoided
completely by a proper test setup.
In real applications, TMDs are mounted directly on the structure (Fig. 2). In a substructure
test, the structure is modeled numerically and the TMD is placed on a shaking table. Load cells
G(fr + fc)
u0
i-1
u0
i
u0
i+1
i-1 i i+1 step
Dis
pla
cem
ent
j=1 k-1 k 2
ui-1
ui
ui+1
j =
Calculate explicit displacement 1i
ou
+
at beginning of step j = 0
- Calculate velocity and acceleration at the end of step
- Calculate error force of the equilibrium equation
Apply displacement at each substep
( )cr
ii
ffGk
ju
k
juu +++−=
+
)()1(1
00
Calculate restoring force on nonlinear numerical
substructure fr
j = j+1Error force
compensation
Measure coupling force on experimental
substructure fc
No
Yes
Time integration algorithm:
( )111
0
1 ++++
++=i
c
i
r
ii ffGuu
is a linear control equation with constant gain G
must be installed between the shaking table and the specimen to measure the coupling forces
and this will introduce some inaccuracies into the interface. In order to minimize this
interference and make the behavior as close to the real structure as possible, the stiffness of the
connection should be high in this case and the measurement of the coupling forces must have
high accuracy.
(a) Bridge Britzer Damm, Berlin
(b) TMD fixed below the bridge
Fig. 2. A typical TMD application for a bridge (GERB Engineering GmbH)
2. INTERFACE DESIGNS
2.1. Interface design in the test setup of the CEA-UNIKA project
CEA-UNIKA was a project supported by UNIKA and CEA. The complete structure consists
of a two-storey steel frame and two TMDs located at the second floor (Fig. 3). Each TMD can
vibrate only in one direction. The steel frame was designed for tests with excitations in the two
horizontal directions (Dorka 2006).
Eigen-
frequencies
Hz
1st 3.75
2nd
4.5
3rd
12
1: AZALEE shaking table; 2: Frame of two stories; 3: Added mass at first floor; 4: Rigid columns;
5: TMD 2; 6: TMD 1
Fig. 3. Reference tests of the full structure including the steel frame and the TMDs using the
AZALEE shaking table in CEA (Dorka 2006)
Fig. 4 shows the interface in the reference tests, in which the TMDs are placed on the steel
frame. Fig. 5 shows instead the interface in the substructure test, in which the TMDs are placed
on two distributed shaking tables. Each interface includes seven single load cells. They are
installed in order to connect the steel frame and the TMD so that they can measure the coupling
forces. Three load cells are installed in the horizontal directions X and Y to transmit the
horizontal movement and to measure the horizontal coupling forces (labels 2 and 5 in Fig. 4),
and four are installed in the vertical direction (label 4 in Fig. 4).
The substructure tests were performed with a series of changing parameters such as time step,
∆t, in 10 ms or 20 ms, number of sub-steps, k, from 2 to 5 and with or without PID error force
compensation, P ranges from 0.85 to 1.0.
1: Second floor of the frame; 2: Load cell for measuring coupling force of TMD 1; 3: TMD 1; 4: Load
cell for checking other coupling forces; 5: Load cell for measuring coupling force of TMD 2; 6: TMD 2
Fig. 4. Interface between the steel frame and the two TMDs in the test setup in CEA
(Dorka 2006)
Fig. 5. Interface between the shaking table and the TMDs in the test setup in CEA
(Dorka 2006)
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the substructure test and the reference test under an
earthquake load. In Fig. 6a, it can be seen that there are large pulses in the coupling force during
the substructure test. These are also present in the reference test, but they are smaller. The pulses
were generated by play in the ball bearings that connect that load cells to the table and specimen.
The ball bearings are needed to avoid forces perpendicular to the load cells. The reason behind
the smaller pulses in the reference test is a smaller stiffness of the interface there due to the
elasticity of the frame. Since these are high-frequency pulses, they hardly excite the structural
modes and thus have a negligible influence on the structural response. Also, they do not de-
stabilize
may als
Fig
be
2.2. Int
In th
done in
Republi
frame a
German
directio
steel fra
will allo
The
interfac
in Fig.
support
shaking
support
distance
e this RTST
o arise in sh
. 6. Compar
etween a sub
erface desi
his project, t
n IZIIS (Ins
ic of Maced
s numerical
n Research
nal friction
ame was ac
ow investiga
interfaces
e includes t
10) in ord
s to create
g table in U
s. The des
e between th
T algorithm
haking table
rison of the
bstructure te
earthq
ign in the te
the referenc
stitute of E
donia) while
l model (Fig
Foundation
device UH
chieved. The
ating the eff
in both ca
three single
der to meas
the same c
UNIKA (Fig
ign of the
he base fram
m, which de
es due to oth
coupling fo
est of the TM
quake, time s
est setup of
ce tests usin
Earthquake
e the substru
g. 8) were p
n (DFG) un
HYDE-fbr, d
e frame, sy
ffect of torsi
ases, the re
load cells (
sure the ho
onnection o
g. 8) and av
swivel sup
me and the s
emonstrates
her reasons
orces (a) an
MD 2 and
step: 10ms,
f the SUBS
ng a 3-storey
Engineerin
ucture tests
performed a
der contrac
different non
ymmetric in
ion in the st
eference and
(labeled as
orizontal co
of the TMD
void horizo
pports with
shaking tab
s its robustn
.
d the displa
those of the
k = 2 (Dork
HAKE pro
y steel fram
ng and Eng
s with the T
at UNIKA. T
ct Do 360/2
n-linear cou
n one directi
teel frame o
d the subst
“3” in Fig.
oupling forc
D to the ste
ontal forces
h spherical
le or the ste
ness agains
acements on
e reference t
ka 2007).
oject.
me and a TM
gineering Se
MD as subs
The project
22-1,2. Usin
upling betw
ion and asy
n substructu
tructure tes
9 and as FT
ces. Also, t
el frame in
being pick
bearings a
eel frame, re
t such vibr
n the 2nd-flo
test, under K
MD (Fig. 7)
eismology
structure an
t was suppo
ng the contr
ween the TM
ymmetric in
ure testing.
sts, are sim
TX1, FTY2
there are fo
n IZIIS (Fig
ked up by th
allowed adj
espectively.
rations that
oor (b)
Kobe
have been
in Skopje,
nd the steel
rted by the
rollable bi-
MD and the
n the other,
milar. Each
and FTY3
four swivel
g. 7) or the
he vertical
justing the
1: Doubl
1: Hyd
5: Fr
Fig.
The
device U
frame. T
springs
this con
Fig.
le beam as m
Shaking ta
Fig. 7. T
draulic cylind
riction devic
cylin
. 8. The TMD
TMD (Fig
UHYDE-fb
The mass m
and the fric
nfiguration,
9a shows a
mass; 2: Load
able; 7: Strain
The 3-story
der (X-direct
e UHYDE-fb
nder (Y-dire
D with base f
g. 9a) consi
r, which all
moves on top
ction device
the TMD h
view of the
d cells; 3: Co
n gages; 8: M
9:
steel frame
tion); 2: Shak
fbr; 6: Displa
ection); 10: S
frame on its s
ists of a m
lows contro
p of perpend
e UHYDE-f
as two horiz
e TMD whil
onnection pla
Mass 400kg a
Air pressure
e with the T
king table (1
acement trans
Swivel suppo
supports as a
mass, four d
olling the fr
dicular rails
fbr are plac
zontal DOF
le Fig. 9b sh
E
fre
ates; 4: 3-sto
as live load (
e valve
MD on the
.8m x 1.8m)
sducers; 7: L
orts; 11: Base
substructure
diagonal spr
riction force
s, which are
ced between
Fs with diffe
hows the de
Eigen-
quencies
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
orey steel fram
(in first and s
shaking tab
; 3: Air press
Load cells; 8:
e frame of th
e on the shaki
rings in tan
e between t
e installed o
n the mass a
erent freque
etail of the s
H
1.
2.1
2.6
3,6
5.1
6.
7.6
me; 5: Accel
second storie
ble at IZIIS
sure valve; 4
: Rails; 9: Hy
e TMD
ing table at U
ndem and t
the mass an
on the base f
and the base
encies.
swivel supp
Hz
5
15
65
68
15
1
61
lerometers; 6
es);
4: Springs;
ydraulic
UNIKA
the friction
nd the base
frame. The
e frame. In
ports.
6:
1: The b
Fig. 9.
A
In th
pressure
In the su
varied b
paramet
nu rangi
Fig. 1
and the
(a) D
base frame of
. Details of
ATX, ATY:
his project,
e in the frict
ubstructure
between 2
ter ranging
ing from 3 t
11 shows a
reference te
Detail of the
f TMD; 2: T
between f
the TMD (l
Acceleromet
tests were
tion device
tests, the n
and 6. The
from 0.8 to
to 10 and th
comparison
est in the SU
TMD
he swivel su
frame and TM
left) and con
swiv
ters; DTX, D
Fig. 10. Ins
performed
was either
number of su
e PID error
o 1.0 while
he forgetting
n of the cou
UBSHAKE
(b)
upports with t
MD; 4: Diag
nnection be
vel supports
DTY: Displac
strumentatio
under sine
zero (linear
ub-steps, th
r compensa
the adaptiv
g factor λ in
upling force
E project.
) Swivel supp
two spherica
gonal springs
etween the T
s (right)
cement transd
on on the TM
e sweep and
r TMD) or c
e most imp
ation was t
ve force com
n the range b
e and displa
ports with tw
both en
al bearings at
; 5: Bearings
TMD and th
ducers; FTX,
MD
d earthquak
constant (ela
ortant param
tested with
mpensation
between 0.9
acements b
wo spherical b
nds
t the ends; 3:
s
he shaking t
FTY: Load
ke excitation
astic-plastic
meter in the
a variation
was tested
90 to 0.99.
etween a su
bearings on
: Load cells
table with
cells
ns and the
c coupling).
e algorithm,
n of the P
with order
ubstructure
.
,
Fig. 11. A comparison of the coupling forces (a, b, c) and the displacements (d, e, g) between
substructure test Sub02 (time step ∆t = 10ms, number of sub steps k = 3, PID compensation with P
= 0.9) and reference test No7 under earthquake Petrovec 1979 excitation, with air pressure p = 0.
In the SUBSHAKE project, the pulses due to play in the bearings was reduced (compare Fig.
11a and Fig.6) but not entirely avoided although the swivel supports were pre-stressed. The
coupling force shows a better match than in the CEA-UNIKA tests (Fig.6), but the accuracy is
still not satisfactory. The displacement response (Fig. 11d) does not match so well, which in this
case is due to the higher complexity of the steel frame: The numerical model used in these
RTSTs did not match as well as the model in the CEA-UNIKA tests.
2.3. Interface design in the test setup of the E-FAST project
The E-FAST project is a design study for a new European testing facility, and is performed in
collaboration between five leading European institutions in the field of earthquake engineering.
Some major goals of the new European facility include high performance, large capacity, great
flexibility, strong integration with other facilities and advanced networking capabilities not only
in Europe but also worldwide. In this context, the test setup at UNIKA has been used to study
real time substructure testing with shaking tables, to combine shaking tables with other on-site
facilities and to perform distributed testing.
The concept of the test setup for reference and substructure tests is given in Fig. 12. In the
reference tests, the leaf spring between actuator and table (Fig. 12a) is unlocked. Table and leaf
spring serve as the first DOF and the TMD on top of the table is the second DOF. The 2nd
DOF
system has two eigenfrequencies 1.875 Hz and 3.025 Hz. When the leaf spring is locked (Fig.
12b) a substructure test can be performed with just TMD modeling numerically the table and the
leaf spring.
Eigen-
frequencies
Hz
1st 1.875
2nd
3.025
(a) Test setup for reference test
(b) Test setup for substructure test (locking device at leaf spring)
Fig. 12. The test setups for reference test (a) in which the leaf spring is unlocked and for
substructure test (b) in which the leaf spring is locked by a locking device.
In using this concept, there is no difference in the structure of substructure tests and reference
tests. This allows focusing mainly on the accuracy of the substructure algorithm and on the
control of the hydraulic shaking table.
An advanced force measurement concept using multi-directional load cells was developed
and applied. Four multi-directional load cells are placed between the TMD and the shaking table
(Fig. 13). Each load cell measures two horizontal forces and a vertical load. The two horizontal
forces can be used as coupling forces in substructure tests while the vertical force is mainly used
for adjusting the distribution of static vertical loads when placing the TMD on the table. The
coupling force Fc in substructure test is the sum of the measured forces by the four load cells in
the horizontal y-direction.
The measurement of the coupling forces using multi-directional load cells avoids the pulses
in the coupling forces observed in the previous tests. It provides high stiffness within compact
dimensions.
Fig. 13. Multi-directional load cells for substructure tests with non-linear TMD on the shaking
table at UNIKA
The load cells have been calibrated using a dynamic testing machine with a calibration load
cell (Fig. 14).
(a) Test setup for calibration
(b) Comparison between new and calibration load cell
Fig. 14. Calibration of the multi-directional load cells
Calibration of multi-load cells
-12
0
12
-12 0 12
Reference Force (kN)
Multi-lo
ad c
ell forc
e (kN)
More than twenty reference tests with different types of excitation (sine, sine sweep and
earthquake) and air pressure in the UHYDE-fbr as well as several substructure tests with and
without compensation (PID, phase lag or adaptive force compensation) have been performed
(Nguyen 2011).
In Fig. 15, the comparison between the results of the tests Ref016 and Sub066 under
earthquake excitation is shown.
Fig.15. Comparison between reference test Ref016 (Kobe earthquake 1995 excitation, amplitude
is 10% of the real record TAZ090; air control pressure p = 0) and substructure test Sub066 (time
step ∆t = 10ms, number of sub step k= 4, adaptive force compensation with nu = 7, λ = 0.99;
phase lag compensation with nu = 5, λ = 0.99)
3.025 Hz1.875 Hz
3.025 Hz, 2nd
eigenfrequency
1.875 Hz, 1st
eigenfrequency
Because of the solid connection of the load cells in this interface, no pulses are observed and
an acceptable match is reached for the coupling force of the RTST in comparison to its reference
test (Fig. 15a). Since the interface in the RTST and reference test are exactly the same the small
deviations in the response around the first eigenfrequency are related to other sources. These can
now be studied in detail without serious inference by the interface.
3. CONCLUSIONS
Besides using an advanced substructure algorithm, the design of a good interface between
specimen and shaking table has proven to be very important in order to achieve meaningful and
accurate results in substructure testing.
The tests where spherical bearings have been used between specimen and shaking table exhibit
large pulses in the coupling force due to play in the bearings. However, these pulses have
negligible influence on the substructure test when the substructure algorithm developed by Dorka
is used. It remains stable and overall results, like displacements may be reproduced with good
accuracy. The design of adjustable swivel supports with spherical bearings allows adjusting the
gap of the bearings but it is not a solution to reduce large pulses in the coupling forces. Therefore,
any interface solution based on ball bearings is not recommended, since an acceptable accuracy
cannot be achieved for the coupling force, which reduces the confidence in the test results.
Within the E-FAST project, a new interface using multi-directional load cells between the
specimen and the shaking table at UNIKA has been developed. This new kind of interface can
provide up to six force components with high accuracy, has compact size and high stiffness in the
couplers. No pulses were observed and the accuracy of the coupling force was greatly enhanced.
REFERENCES
Bayer, V., Dorka, U.E., Füllekrug, U. and Gschwilm J. (2005), “On real-time pseudo-dynamic
substructure testing: algorithm, numerical and experimental results”. Aero. Sc. and Tech., Vol. 9,
223-232.
Combescure, D. and Pegon, P. (1997), “Alpha-operator splitting time integration technique for
pseudodynamic testing error propagation analysis”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Elsvier, Vol. 16(7-8), 427-443.
Dorka, U.E. (1990) “Fast online earthquake simulation of friction damped systems”. SFB151
Report No. 10, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany.
Dorka, U.E. and Heiland, D. (1991), “Fast online earthquake simulation using a novel pc
supported measurement and control concept”, Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference
on Structural Dynamics, pages 636-645, Southampton.
Dorka, U.E (1995), “Friction device for protection of structural systems against dynamic actions”,
Patent number 5456047, United States Patent.
Dorka, U. E., Füllekrug, U. (1998), “Algorithmen für real-time pseudo-dynamische
Substrukturtests”, Report of the DFG project “SubPSD-Algorithmen”, project number Do
360/7”, University of Kaiserlautern, Germany.
Dorka, U.E. (2002), “Hybrid experimental - numerical simulation of vibrating structures”,
Proceedings of the International Workshop WAVE 2002, pages 183 – 191, Okayama, Japan.
Dorka U.E., Quéval, J.C., Nguyen, V. T. and Maoult, A. L. (2006), “Real-time sub-structure
testing on distributed shaking tables in CEA Saclay”, 4th World Conference on Structural
Control and Monitoring, San Diego, USA.
Dorka U.E., Quéval, J.C., Nguyen, V. T. and Maoult, A. L. (2007), “ Substructure testing on
distributed shaking tables”, 2nd
International Conference on Advances in Experimental
Structural Engineering, December 4-6, 2007, Shanghai, China.
Dorka U.E. and Nguyen, V. T. (2011), “Advanced Substructure Algorithm With Digital Feedback
And Its Applications”, The 2011 International Conference on Earthquakes and Structures
(ICEAS’11), Seoul, Korea, September 18-23.
Nakashima, M., Ishii, K. and Ando, K. (1990), “Integration techniques for substructure
pseudodynamic test”, Proc. 4th
National Conf. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 2, 515-524.
Nguyen, V.T. and Dorka, U.E. (2007), “Unbalanced force compensation in substructure testing
based on online system identification”, Proceedings of the second International Conference on
Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, Shanghai, China.
Nguyen, V.T. and Dorka, U.E. (2008), “Phase lag compensation in substructure testing based on
online system identification”, Proceedings of the 14th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
Nguyen, V.T. and Dorka, U.E. (2009), “Adaptive compensations based on online system
identification for real-time substructure testing”, Proceedings of the 3AESE conference, San
Francisco, USA.
Nguyen, V.T. Dorka, U.E. Khanlou, N. M. and Phan T. V. (2011), “Real-time substructure tests
of non-linear tuned mass damper using shaking table”, presented in the 2nd
EFAST Workshop
and 4th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
(4AESE), Ispra 29-30 June, 2011, Italy.
Pegon, P. and Pinto, A.V. (2000), “Pseudo-dynamic testing with substructuring applications at the
ELSA Laboratory”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Wiley, Vol. 29(7), 905-
925.
Roik, K. and Dorka, U. E. (1989), “Fast online earthquake simulation of friction damped
systems”, SFB151 Report No. 15, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany.
Shing P.B. Vannan, M.T. and Cater, E. (1991), “Implicit time integration for pseudodynamic
tests”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Wiley, Vol. 20(6), 551-576.
Stoten, D. P. and Gomez, E.G. (2001), “Adaptive control of shaking tables using the minimal
control synthesis algorithm”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. , A 359, 1697-1723.
Thewalt, C.R. and Mahin, S.A. (1987), “Hybrid solution techniques for generalized pseudo-
dynamic testing”, Report No. UCB/EERC-87/09, University of California Berkeley.
Wallace, M. I., Wagg, D. J. and Neild, S. A. (2005), “An adaptive polynomial based forward
prediction algorithm for multi-actuator real-time dynamic substructuring”, Proc. R. Soc. A.,
461, 3807–3826.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1977), The Finite Element Method, McGraw-Hill, Book Company.