Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Engineering
Volume 2013, Article ID 596078, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/596078

Research Article
Vibration Control of Buildings Using Magnetorheological
Damper: A New Control Algorithm

Aly Mousaad Aly

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University, Canada

Correspondence should be addressed to Aly Mousaad Aly; [email protected]

Received 31 December 2012; Revised 1 April 2013; Accepted 2 April 2013

Academic Editor: Lucian Dascalescu

Copyright © 2013 Aly Mousaad Aly. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This paper presents vibration control of a building model under earthquake loads. A magnetorheological (MR) damper is placed
in the building between the first floor and ground for seismic response reduction. A new control algorithm to command the MR
damper is proposed. The approach is inspired by a quasi-bang-bang controller; however, the proposed technique gives weights to
control commands in a fashion that is similar to a fuzzy logic controller. Several control algorithms including decentralized bang-
bang controller, Lyapunov controller, modulated homogeneous friction controller, maximum energy dissipation controller, and
clipped-optimal controller are used for comparison. The new controller achieved the best reduction in maximum interstory drifts
and maximum absolute accelerations over all the control algorithms presented. This reveals that the proposed controller with the
MR damper is promising and may provide the best protection to the building and its contents.

1. Introduction A passive control system does not require an external

power source. However, a passive control system has limited
In recent years, due to developments in design technology ability because it is not able to adapt to structural changes or
and material qualities in civil engineering, the structures varying usage patterns and loading conditions. To overcome
become more light and slender. This will cause the structures these shortcomings, active and semiactive control schemes
to be subjected to severe structural vibrations when they are can be used.
located in environments where earthquakes or high winds An active control scheme uses a power source to drive
occur. These vibrations may lead to serious structural damage actuator(s) that apply forces to a primary structure in a
and potential failure. Structural control is one area of cur- prescribed manner. These forces can be used to both add
rent research that looks promising to attain more resilient and dissipate energy in the structure. Active control strategies
designs under dynamic loads. Structural sustainability can for structural systems have been developed as one means
be achieved by adding a mechanical system that is installed by which to minimize the effects of environmental dynamic
in the structure to reduce vibrations. The vibrations can be loads [1–4]. A common example of an active control system
controlled by various means, such as modifying rigidities, is the active tuned mass damper (ATMD). Although ATMDs
masses, damping, or shape, and by providing passive or active are effective in reducing structural responses under dynamic
counterforces. loads, especially in tall buildings under winds [5–8], they are
Structural control methods that can be used include [1] large and heavy and take up valuable space. Moreover, they
passive control systems, active control systems, and semiac- present an additional cost to a constructional project. Active
tive control systems. The advantages and disadvantages of control systems require external power, routine maintenance,
each method have been well documented and the choice of high-performance digital signal processors, and bulky power
which approach to use has largely depended on engineering amplifiers to drive actuators; in addition, they may become
preference, type of structure, location, nature of the dynamic potentially unstable. To alleviate these problems, semiactive
load, and project commissioning. control systems can be used.
2 Journal of Engineering

interstory drifts, in addition to requiring a minimum control

Magnetic flux force.
Thermal expansion

Flow
accumulator
2. Dynamic Model
Three-stage piston
MR-fluid
Before a control scheme for a certain structure can be studied,
the governing equation of the dynamic system must be
LORD
Rheonetic TM seismic damper
obtained.
MRD-9000

2.1. Equation of Motion. The equation of motion of a con-

trolled multistory building can be obtained using Newton’s
second law of motion or by applying the influence coefficients
Figure 1: Schematic of a full-scale 20-ton MR fluid damper [9]. method. The following assumptions are considered for a shear
building model:
(i) the floors’ slaps are rigid and the total mass is lumped
Semiactive control strategies combine active and passive at floors’ levels;
control schemes and attempt to offer the advantages of both
(ii) there is no rotation of the horizontal section at slap’s
systems with better performance. Smart damping technology
level;
is a type of semi-active control that employs variable dampers,
for example, variable orifice dampers, magnetorheologi- (iii) the floors are subjected only to one-dimensional hor-
cal (MR) fluid dampers, and electrorheological (ER) fluid izontal ground acceleration.
dampers [10, 11]. Smart damping technology assumes the
positive aspects of both passive and active control devices; Consider an 𝑛 degree-of-freedom structure (multi-story
it can provide increased performance over passive control building), subjected to one-dimensional earthquake acceler-
without the concerns of energy and stability associated with ation, as shown in Figure 2. Using Newton’s second law of
active control. A promising semiactive control device is motion, the equation of motion may be written as follows:
an MR fluid damper, which is a type of viscous damper
𝑚1 𝑥1̈ + 𝑐1 𝑥1̇ + 𝑘1 𝑥1 − 𝑐2 (𝑥2̇ − 𝑥1̇ ) − 𝑘2 (𝑥2 − 𝑥1 )
with controllable damping force. Figure 1 shows a schematic
representation of a full-scale 20-ton MR fluid damper [9]. = −𝑚1 𝑥𝑔̈ − 𝑓2 + 𝑓1 ,
MR dampers exhibit variable damping coefficients depending
on the strength of the accompanying magnetic field. A high 𝑚2 𝑥2̈ + 𝑐2 (𝑥2̇ − 𝑥1̇ ) + 𝑘2 (𝑥2 − 𝑥1 ) − 𝑐3 (𝑥3̇ − 𝑥2̇ )
magnetic field creates a nearly unyielding damper filled with a
semisolid fluid while no magnetic field produces an ordinary − 𝑘3 (𝑥3 − 𝑥2 ) = −𝑚2 𝑥𝑔̈ − 𝑓3 + 𝑓2 ,
viscous damper. ..
In the past two decades, MR dampers have been enjoying .
renewed interest as an attractive means for protecting civil
infrastructure systems against severe earthquake and wind 𝑚𝑛−1 𝑥𝑛−1 ̇ − 𝑥𝑛−2
̈ + 𝑐𝑛−1 (𝑥𝑛−1 ̇ ) + 𝑘𝑛−1 (𝑥𝑛−1 − 𝑥𝑛−2 )
loading [12–20]. Due to their low-power requirements and
− 𝑐𝑛 (𝑥𝑛̇ − 𝑥𝑛−1
̇ )−𝑘𝑛 (𝑥𝑛 − 𝑥𝑛−1 ) = −𝑚𝑛−1 𝑥𝑔̈ −𝑓𝑛 + 𝑓𝑛−1 ,
fail safe property, MR dampers have been intensively studied
by many researchers as control devices for civil engineering 𝑚𝑛 𝑥𝑛̈ + 𝑐𝑛 (𝑥𝑛̇ − 𝑥𝑛−1
̇ ) + 𝑘𝑛 (𝑥𝑛 − 𝑥𝑛−1 ) = −𝑚𝑛 𝑥𝑔̈ + 𝑓𝑛 .
structures [9, 21–24]. Several approaches have been proposed
in the literature to control the MR dampers [25]. (1)
In this paper, a new control algorithm to command an
MR damper implemented in a three-story building model Or in a matrix form, the above equation can be expressed as
is proposed. The controller is inspired by a quasi-bang-bang follows:
controller; however, the proposed approach gives weights
M𝑠 ẍ + C𝑠 ẋ + K𝑠 x = −M𝑠 Λ𝑥𝑔̈ + Γf, (2)
to the output in a fashion that is similar to a fuzzy logic
controller (see [26]). In addition to changing the input voltage
where M𝑠 is a mass matrix, kg; x is a vector of floors’
of the MR damper to the values 𝑉0 (minimum voltage) and
displacements; C𝑠 is a damping matrix, N⋅s/m; K𝑠 is a stiffness
𝑉max (maximum voltage) over time, the proposed controller
matrix, N/m; 𝑥𝑔̈ is a one-dimensional horizontal ground
makes use of the values in between. The new controller
assigns time varying values to the input voltage. Sev- acceleration, m/s2 ; Γ is a matrix representing position of
eral control algorithms including decentralized bang-bang control forces; Λ is a vector of ones; and f is a vector of control
controller, Lyapunov controller, modulated homogeneous forces, N.
friction controller, maximum energy dissipation controller,
and clipped-optimal controller are used to command the 2.2. State-Space Representation. The dynamic system con-
MR damper. The proposed controller shows its capability sidered in this study is described by ordinary differential
in reducing all floors’ absolute accelerations as well as equations in which time is the independent variable. By use
Journal of Engineering 3

𝑥𝑛 where ‖z‖𝑃 is the 𝑃-norm of the states defined by

𝑚𝑛
0.5
𝑥𝑛−1
𝑘𝑛 𝑐𝑛 𝑓𝑛 ‖z‖𝑃 = [z𝑇 Pz] (7)
𝑚𝑛−1
𝑘𝑛−1 𝑐𝑛−1 𝑓𝑛−1 and P is a real, symmetric, and positive definite matrix. In the
̇
case of a linear system, to ensure U(𝑧) is negative definite, the
matrix P is found using the Lyapunov equation
𝑘3 𝑐3 𝑓3
𝑥2
𝑚2 A𝑇 P + PA = −Q𝑃 . (8)
𝑘2 𝑐2 𝑓2 For a positive definite matrix, Q𝑃 , the derivative of the
𝑥1 𝑚1 Lyapunov function for a solution of (3) is
𝑘1 𝑐1 𝑓1 1
U̇ = − z𝑇 Q𝑃 z + z𝑇 PBf + z𝑇 PE𝑥𝑔̈ . (9)
2
𝑥𝑔
Thus, the control law which will minimize U̇ is
Figure 2: Lumped mass model of a multistory building with 𝑛
𝑉𝑖 = 𝑉max 𝐻 ((−z𝑇 ) P𝐵𝑖 𝑓𝑖 ) , (10)
floors under acceleration ground input: 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , . . ., and 𝑥𝑛 indicate
floors’ displacements; 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , . . ., and 𝑘𝑛 indicate floors’ stiffness where 𝑉max is the maximum allowable input voltage to the
coefficients; 𝑐1 , 𝑐2 , . . ., and 𝑐𝑛 indicate floors’ damping coefficients;
current driver of the MR damper, 𝐻(⋅) is the Heaviside step
𝑓1 , 𝑓2 , . . ., and 𝑓𝑛 indicate distributed control forces; 𝑚1 , 𝑚2 , . . ., and
𝑚𝑛 indicate floors’ lumped masses; 𝑥𝑔̈ indicates one-dimensional
function, 𝑓𝑖 is the measured force produced by the 𝑖th MR
ground acceleration. damper, and 𝐵𝑖 is the 𝑖th column of the B matrix in (3). Note
that this algorithm is classified as a bang-bang controller and
is dependent on the sign of the measured control force and
the states of the system. However, one challenge in the use of
of vector-matrix notation, an 𝑛 order differential equation the Lyapunov algorithm is in the selection of an appropriate
may be expressed by a first-order vector-matrix differential Q𝑃 matrix.
equation as follows [27]:

ż = Az + Bf + Eẍ𝑔 , (3) 3.2. Decentralized Bang-Bang Controller. McClamroch and

Gavin [29] used an approach similar to Lyapunov control
yy = Cz + Df, (4) algorithm to develop a decentralized bang-bang control law.
In this approach, the Lyapunov function was chosen to
0 I𝑛×𝑛 01×𝑛 represent the total vibratory energy in the structure (kinetic
A = [ 𝑛×𝑛 −1 ] , B=[ ],
−M−1
𝑠 K𝑠 −M 𝑠 C𝑠 M−1
𝑠 Γ plus potential energy), as in

M−1 −1 1 1 𝑇
𝑠 𝐾𝑠 M𝑠 C𝑠 M−1 Γ U = x𝑇 K𝑠 x + (ẋ + Λ𝑥𝑔̇ ) M𝑠 (ẋ + Λ𝑥𝑔̇ ) . (11)
C = [ I𝑛×𝑛 0𝑛×𝑛 ] , D = [ 𝑠 ], (5) 2 2
02𝑛×𝑛
0
[ 𝑛×𝑛 I𝑛×𝑛 ] Using a similar approach to that in Lyapunov design, the
resulting control law that will minimize U is
0
E = − [ 1×𝑛 ] ,
Λ 𝑇
𝑉𝑖 = 𝑉max 𝐻 (−(ẋ + Λ𝑥𝑔̇ ) Γ𝑖 𝑓𝑖 ) . (12)
where z is the state vector; A, B, C, D, and E are state space
The pseudovelocity 𝑥𝑔̇ is obtained by integrating the abso-
matrices; f = [𝑓1 , 𝑓2 , 𝑓3 , . . . , 𝑓𝑛 ]𝑇 is a vector of measured lute acceleration [21] using the following transfer function:
control forces; yy is the measured output; and 𝑛 is the number
of degrees of freedom (number of stories). 39.5𝑠
𝐻 (𝑠) = . (13)
39.5𝑠2 + 8.89𝑠 + 1
3. Semiactive Control Algorithms
3.3. Clipped-Optimal Controller. One algorithm that has been
In the current study, the following controllers are used with shown to be effective with the MR damper is the clipped-
an application example. optimal control approach proposed by Dyke et al. [30, 31].
The clipped-optimal control approach requires the design of
3.1. Controller Based on Lyapunov Stability Theory. Leitmann a linear optimal controller K𝑐 (𝑠) that calculates a vector of
[28] applied Lyapunov’s direct approach for the design of a desired control forces, f𝑐 = [𝑓𝑐1 , 𝑓𝑐2 , . . . , 𝑓𝑐𝑛 ]𝑇 , based on the
semi-active controller. In this approach, a Lyapunov function measured structural responses yy and the measured control
is chosen of the form forces vector f applied to the structure:

1 yy
U (𝑧) = ‖z‖𝑃 P2 , (6) f𝑐 = 𝐿−1 {−K𝑐 (𝑠) 𝐿 {{ }}} , (14)
2 f
4 Journal of Engineering

where 𝐿{⋅} is the Laplace transform. The control law is 𝑥3

expressed as follows:
𝑥2
𝑉𝑖 = 𝑉max 𝐻 ((𝑓𝑐𝑖 − 𝑓𝑖 ) 𝑓𝑖 ) . (15)
𝑥1 , 𝑥1
3.4. Modulated Homogeneous Friction Controller. The modu- Current
lated homogenous friction control algorithm was originally driver 𝑓
developed for use with variable friction devices and was
𝑥𝑔
modified for MR dampers by Jansen and Dyke [25]. The
control law is presented as follows:
Computer
󵄨 󵄨
𝑉𝑖 = 𝑉max 𝐻 (𝑓𝑛𝑖 − 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑓𝑖 󵄨󵄨󵄨) , (16)
Figure 3: Schematic representation of an MR damper implemented
where 𝑓𝑛𝑖 = 𝑔𝑛𝑖 |Δ 𝑖 (𝑡 − 𝑠)|, 𝑠 = {min 𝑥 ≥ 0 : Δ 𝑖 (𝑡 − 𝑥) = 0} and in a three-story building.
Δ 𝑖 (𝑡 − 𝑠) is the most recent local extrema in the deformation
of the 𝑖th device. The proportionality constant 𝑔𝑛𝑖 has units Bouc-Wen
of stiffness (i.e., N/m), and its optimal value is dependent on
the amplitude of the ground excitation.

𝑐1 𝑘0
3.5. Maximum Energy Dissipation Controller. This algorithm
considers a Lyapunov function that represents the relative f f
𝑐0
vibratory energy in the structure (i.e., without including the
velocity of the ground in the kinetic energy term) [25]. The y
control law for this algorithm is as follows: 𝑘1
𝑇
𝑉𝑖 = 𝑉max 𝐻 (−𝑥̇ Λ 𝑖 𝑓𝑖 ) . (17)
x

3.6. Quasi-Bang-Bang Controller. The quasi-bang-bang con- Figure 4: Mechanical model of the MR damper.
trol algorithm for the application of the MR dampers uses two
distinct control laws depending on whether the building is
moving towards or away from its static equilibrium or rest The MR damper is rigidly connected between ground and
position [32]. The control algorithm is written as follows: first floor of the building model. Figure 3 shows a schematic
diagram of the building with the MR damper. The mechanical
𝑉 , (if moving away from center) , model of the MR damper presented in Dyke et al. [12] is used
𝑉𝑖 = { max (18)
0, (if moving towards center) . in the current study (see Figure 4). The force predicted by the
model is given by
3.7. Proposed Controller. This is a new control algorithm 𝑓 = 𝛼𝑧 + 𝑐0 (𝑥̇ − 𝑦)̇ + 𝑘0 (𝑥 − 𝑦) + 𝑘1 (𝑥 − 𝑥0 ) ,
proposed in the current study. The approach is inspired by the
󵄨 󵄨𝑛−1
quasi-bang-bang controller; however, the proposed method 𝑧̇ = −𝛾󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑥̇ − 𝑦̇ |𝑧| 𝑧󵄨󵄨󵄨 − 𝛽 (𝑥̇ − 𝑦)̇ |𝑧|𝑛 + 𝐴 (𝑥̇ − 𝑦)̇ ,
gives weights to the output in a way that is similar to a fuzzy (20)
logic controller (see [26]). In addition to commanding the 1
𝑦̇ = [𝛼𝑧 + 𝑐0 𝑥̇ + 𝑘0 (𝑥 − 𝑦)] .
current driver of the MR damper with the values 𝑉0 (min- (𝑐0 + 𝑐1 )
imum voltage) and 𝑉max (maximum voltage), the proposed
controller makes use of the values in between. The control The parameters, 𝑐0 , and 𝑐1 depend on the input control
algorithm is expressed as follows: voltage, 𝑉, to the current driver of the MR damper as follows:

𝛼𝑐 𝑉max , (If sign (𝑥) = 1, sign (𝑥)̇ = 1) , 𝛼 = 𝛼𝑎 + 𝛼𝑎 𝑢,

{
{
{
{𝛽𝑐 𝑉max , (If sign (𝑥) = −1, sign (𝑥)̇ = −1) ,
𝑉𝑖 = { (19) 𝑐1 = 𝑐1𝑎 + 𝑐1𝑏 𝑢,
{𝛾𝑐 𝑉max , (If sign (𝑥) = 1, sign (𝑥)̇ = −1) ,
{ (21)
{ 𝑐0 = 𝑐0𝑎 + 𝑐0𝑏 𝑢,
{𝑉max , (Otherwise) ,
𝑢̇ = −𝜂 (𝑢 − 𝑉) .
where the values of 𝛼𝑐 , 𝛽𝑐 , and 𝛾𝑐 are between 0 and 1.
The numeric values of the constants in (20) and (21) are
4. An Application Example given in Dyke et al.’s [12]. Figure 5 shows simulated damper’s
force under a harmonic displacement input (sine wave with
To show the applicability of the proposed controller, a three- an amplitude of 0.015 m and a frequency of 2.5 Hz). These
story building model with a single MR damper is considered. numerically simulated force versus displacement and force
Journal of Engineering 5

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500
Force (N)

Force (N)
0 0

−500 −500

−1000 −1000

−1500 −1500

−2000 −2000
−0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Displacement (m) Velocity (m/s)

Passive-on
Passive-off

(a) (b)

Figure 5: Simulated damper’s force for a harmonic displacement input (sine wave with an amplitude of 0.015 m and a frequency of 2.5 Hz):
(a) force versus displacement and (b) force versus velocity.

versus velocity characteristics are similar to those obtained Table 1 lists the peak responses of the building model,
experimentally in Dyke et al.’s [12]. when subjected to the north-south component of the 1940
The building model used in this example is a simple EL Centro earthquake signals. In the table, uncontrolled
model of the scaled three-story test structure, described case means that the MR damper was not implemented in
in Dyke et al.’s [3, 33], which has been used in previous the building model. Passive-off and passive-on mean that
studies at the Structural Dynamics and Control/Earthquake the input voltage to the current driver of the MR damper
Engineering Laboratory (SDC/EEL) at the University of is set to zero and to the maximum value (𝑉max = 2.25
Notre Dame. The parameters of the building model are given volt), respectively. It is shown that the MR damper with both
as follows: passive-off and passive-on control cases is capable of reducing
98.3 0 0 the structural responses over the uncontrolled case. The
M𝑠 = [ 0 98.3 0 ] , kg, passive-on case is better than the passive-off case in reducing
the maximum displacements. However, the passive-off case
[ 0 0 98.3]
is better than the passive-on case in reducing the maximum
175 −50 0 absolute accelerations. The results of the uncontrolled, the
C𝑠 = [−50 100 −50] , N ⋅ s/m, (22) passive-off, and the passive-on cases are similar to those
[ 0 −50 50 ]
presented in [12].
Two controllers (A and B) are designed based on Lya-
12.0 −6.84 0 punov stability method. For controller A, the matrix Q was
K𝑠 = 105 × [−6.84 13.7 −6.84] , N/m. selected as Q = [ones(1,6); zeros(5,6)] while for controller B,
[ 0 −6.84 6.84 ] Q = [zeros(3,6); eye(3) zeros(3,3)],
The input ground acceleration used in the current study is 1 0 0
the one-dimensional component of the 1940 El Centro earth- where eye (3) = [0 1 0] . (23)
quake [34]. Since the dynamic system under consideration is
[0 0 1 ]
a scaled model, the earthquake is produced at five times the
recorded rate. Time history and power spectrum of the input A time history of the input control voltage, 𝑉, to the
ground acceleration are shown in Figure 6. current driver for all the controllers is shown in Figure 7. The
Dyke et al.’s [12] obtained the responses of this model passive-on controller gives a constant control input of 2.25
for the uncontrolled, passive-off, passive-on, and clipped- volt (𝑉max ) to the current driver of the MR damper. Except for
optimal control cases. The purpose of this application exam- the proposed controller all the controllers provide an input
ple is to permit a comparison among the results of the to the MR damper with values varying from 0 volt to 2.25
methodology proposed in the current study and those pub- volt over the time. However, the proposed controller is giving
lished in the literature. input control voltage to the current driver of the MR damper
6 Journal of Engineering

4 0.04

3 0.035

Power spectrum [(m/s2 )2 /Hz]

2 0.03
Acceleration (m/s2 )

1 0.025

0 0.02

−1 0.015

−2 0.01

−3 0.005

−4 0
0 2 4 6 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (s) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)

Figure 6: Time history (a) and power spectrum (b) of the input ground acceleration.

3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
V (V)

V (V)
V (V)

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b) (c)
3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
V (V)

V (V)
V (V)

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
(d) (e) (f)
3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
V (V)

V (V)
V (V)

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
(g) (h) (i)

Figure 7: Input control voltage to the current driver of the MR damper: (a) passive on, (b) Lyapunov controller (A), (c) Lyapunov controller
(B), (d) quasi-bang-bang controller, (e) decentralized bang-bang controller, (f) modulated homogenous friction controller, (g) maximum
energy dissipation controller, (h) clipped-optimal controller, and (i) proposed controller.
Journal of Engineering 7

Table 1: Peak responses of the three-story building model under El Centro earthquake loads.

Control strategy 𝑋𝑛 (m) 𝐷𝑛 (m) 𝐴 𝑛 (m/s2 ) 𝑓 (N)

0.0055 0.0055 8.720
Uncontrolled 0.0083 0.0031 10.60 —
0.0097 0.0020 14.02
0.0021 0.0021 4.216
Passive-off 0.0036 0.0016 4.832 259.2
0.0045 0.0010 7.176
0.0008 0.0008 2.914
Passive-on 0.0020 0.0017 4.976 992.8
0.0031 0.0011 7.710
0.0009 0.0009 6.356
Lyapunov controller (A) 0.0021 0.0017 5.373 1023
0.0031 0.0010 7.183
0.0013 0.0013 5.613
Lyapunov controller (B) 0.0018 0.0012 7.326 993.3
0.0023 0.0011 7.709
0.0013 0.0013 5.015
Quasi-bang-bang controller 0.0016 0.0014 7.230 1002
0.0023 0.0010 7.010
0.0015 0.0015 3.776
Decentralized bang-bang controller 0.0025 0.0013 4.310 923
0.0032 0.0008 5.416
0.0019 0.0019 5.330
Modulated homogenous friction controller 0.0029 0.0013 5.916 503
0.0038 0.0010 6.790
0.0008 0.0008 3.150
Maximum energy dissipation controller 0.0020 0.0017 5.023 993
0.0031 0.0011 7.731
0.0014 0.0014 6.000
Clipped-optimal controller 0.0021 0.0014 4.551 918
0.0026 0.0008 5.553
0.0012 0.0012 5.008
Proposed controller 0.0019 0.0012 4.159 848.9
0.0027 0.0007 5.053

with values changing from 0 volt, 0.25 volt, and 0.9 volt to in Figure 8. The comparison shows the capability of the
2.25 volt over the time. proposed controller in reducing the absolute acceleration
The results listed in Table 1 show that, for all the con- response over all the controllers presented in the literature.
trollers presented, Lyapunov controller B and the quasi-bang- The proposed controller gives the best reduction in both the
bang controller provide the best reduction in the maxi- inter-story drift and the maximum absolute accelerations of
mum floor displacement (𝑋𝑛 ). Considering the maximum the floors. Also, there is a good reduction in the displacement
absolute acceleration of the passive-off case as a reference, of the top story. For the proposed controller, the numeric
the Lyapunov controller B increased the response by 7.4% values of its parameters are 𝛼𝑐 = 0, 𝛽𝑐 = 0.11, and 𝛾𝑐 = 0.4.
while the quasi-bang-bang controller did not show significant
reduction. The decentralized bang-bang controller provides 5. Discussion
an excellent reduction in the absolute floor accelerations;
however, it is not able to reduce the displacements over The inherently dissipative nature of the force produced by
the passive-on case. The clipped-optimal control algorithm the MR damper (e.g., [35]) permits a designer to choose
gives a high reduction in both the inter-story drifts and among several control methods without any concerns about
the maximum floor displacements; also, it gives a good the stability of the control system. This allows much freedom
reduction in the maximum absolute accelerations. A time in the selection of a control technique for MR dampers
domain comparison among all the controllers used is shown implemented in real structures. A new controller is inspired
8 Journal of Engineering

Acceleration (m/s2 )
15 15 15

Acceleration (m/s2 )
Acceleration (m/s2 )
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
−5 −5 −5
−10 −10 −10
−15 −15 −15
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b) (c)

Acceleration (m/s2 )

Acceleration (m/s2 )
Acceleration (m/s2 )

15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
−5 −5 −5
−10 −10 −10
−15 −15 −15
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

(d) (e) (f)

Acceleration (m/s2 )
Acceleration (m/s2 )

Acceleration (m/s2 )

15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
−5 −5 −5
−10 −10 −10
−15 −15 −15
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 8: Controlled and uncontrolled (red dashed line) acceleration response of the third floor: (a) passive on, (b) Lyapunov controller
(A), (c) Lyapunov controller (B), (d) quasi-bang-bang controller, (e) decentralized bang-bang controller, (f) modulated homogenous friction
controller, (g) maximum energy dissipation controller, (h) clipped-optimal controller, and (i) proposed controller.

by the quasi-bang-bang controller; however, the proposed reducing floor displacements, drifts, and absolute acceler-
approach gives weights to the output in a fashion similar to ations) by using various control algorithms. The message
a fuzzy logic controller. For the application example used in raised from the use of the proposed controller is that,
the current study, the proposed controller reduced the third even when many control algorithms exist in the literature,
floor absolute acceleration by 29.6% over the passive-off case research towards a better controller is still promising. The
(the passive-off case was better in reducing the accelerations door is open for interested researchers to come up with
than the passive-on case). The decentralized bang-bang con- new methodology. Further research on the applicability of
troller reduced the third floor absolute acceleration by 24.5% the proposed controller to cover several vibration control
over the passive-off case. However, the proposed controller cases under different excitation inputs (e.g., earthquake, wind
achieved better reduction in both floor displacements and and traffic loads) is recommended. Research addressing the
inter-story drifts over the decentralized bang-bang controller. dependence (if any) of the parameters 𝛼𝑐 , 𝛽𝑐 , and 𝛾𝑐 on
The Lyapunov controller and the quasi-bang-bang controller the physical properties of the primary structure, as well as
provided the best reduction in the floor displacements (25.8% the type of the excitation input (earthquake or wind), is
reduction in the top floor displacement over the passive-on recommended for future studies.
case). Both controllers did not show significant reduction in
the maximum absolute acceleration over the passive-off case. 6. Conclusions
Among all the controllers presented in the current study, the
results show that the new controller may provide the best The current study shows that the MR damper is highly
protection to the building and its contents under seismic controllable in a manner that permits a designer to achieve
loads by offering the best reduction in the inter-story drifts different control objectives. Among several controllers used
and absolute accelerations, respectively. with an MR damper implemented in a three-story building
The results presented in the current study show that the model, Lyapunov controller and quasi-bang-bang controller
MR damper is highly controllable and the application of its showed their capability in reducing displacement response
controllability is fruitful. The controllable nature of the MR (25.8% reduction in top floor displacement over the best
damper permits achieving different control objectives (e.g., passive case). At the same time, both controllers did not show
Journal of Engineering 9

significant reduction in the maximum absolute acceleration, [13] A. M. Aly, Vibration control in structures due to earthquake
over the best passive case. A new controller was inspired effects using MR damper [M.S. thesis], Department of Mechan-
by the quasi-bang-bang controller; however, the proposed ical Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt,
approach gives weights to the output in a fashion similar 2005.
to a fuzzy logic controller. The proposed controller reduced [14] H. J. Jung, K. M. Choi, B. F. Spencer Jr., and I. W. Lee, “Appli-
the third floor absolute acceleration by 29.6% over the best cation of some semi-active control algorithms to a smart base-
passive case. The decentralized bang-bang controller reduced isolated building employing MR dampers,” Structural Control
the third floor acceleration by 24.5% over the best passive and Health Monitoring, vol. 13, no. 2-3, pp. 693–704, 2006.
case. Nevertheless, the proposed controller achieved better [15] F. D. Goncalves, J. H. Koo, and M. Ahmadian, “A review of the
reduction in both floor displacements and inter-story drifts state of the art in magnetorheological fluid technologies—part
over the decentralized bang-bang controller. Among several I: MR fluid and MR fluid models,” Shock and Vibration Digest,
vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 203–219, 2006.
controllers presented in the current study, results show that
the new controller provided the highest reduction in both [16] H. Metwally, B. El-Souhily, and A. Aly, “Reducing vibration
the inter-story drifts and the absolute floor accelerations. effects on buildings due to earthquake using magneto-rheolog-
ical dampers,” Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, pp.
This reveals that the proposed controller is promising and
131–140, 2006.
may provide the best protection to the building and its
contents. Further research on the application of the proposed [17] Y. S. Cheng, F. T. K. Au, and J. P. Zhong, “Semi-active control
of ship mast vibrations using magneto-rheological dampers,”
controller to cover several vibration control cases under
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 679–
different excitation inputs is recommended. 698, 2008.
[18] A. M. Aly and R. E. Christenson, “On the evaluation of the
References efficacy of a smart damper: a new equivalent energy-based
probabilistic approach,” Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 17,
[1] G. W. Housner, L. A. Bergman, T. K. Caughey et al., “Struc- no. 4, Article ID 045008, 2008.
tural control: past, present, and future,” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, vol. 123, no. 9, pp. 897–971, 1997. [19] W. J. Wu and C. S. Cai, “Cable vibration control with a semi-
active MR damper-numerical simulation and experimental
[2] T. T. Soong, Active Structural Control: Theory and Practice, John
verification,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, vol. 34, no.
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1990.
5, pp. 611–623, 2010.
[3] S. J. Dyke, B. F. Spencer, P. Quast, D. C. Kaspari, and M. K. Sain,
“Implementation of an active mass driver using acceleration [20] A. M. Aly, A. Zasso, and F. Resta, “On the dynamics of a very
feedback control,” Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, vol. 11, slender building under winds: response reduction using MR
no. 5, pp. 305–323, 1996. dampers with lever mechanism,” Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 539–551, 2011.
[4] H. Nishimura and A. Kojima, “Active vibration isolation control
for a multi-degree-of-freedom structure with uncertain base [21] B. F. Spencer, J. D. Carlson, M. K. Sain, and G. Yang, “On the cur-
dynamics,” JSME International Journal C, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 37– rent status of magnetorheological dampers: seismic protection
45, 1998. of full-scale structures,” in Proceedings of the American Control
[5] J. C. Wu and B. C. Pan, “Wind tunnel verification of actively Conference, pp. 458–462, Albuquerque, NM, USA, June 1997.
controlled high-rise building in along-wind motion,” Journal of [22] A. Rodrı́guez, N. Iwata, F. Ikhouane, and J. Rodellar, “Model
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 90, no. 12– identification of a large-scale magnetorheological fluid damper,”
15, pp. 1933–1950, 2002. Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 18, no. 1, Article ID 015010,
[6] L. T. Lu, W. L. Chiang, J. P. Tang, M. Y. Liu, and C. W. Chen, 2009.
“Active control for a benchmark building under wind excita- [23] F. Weber, G. Feltrin, and H. Distl, “Detailed analysis and mod-
tions,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynam- elling of MR dampers at zero current,” Structural Engineering
ics, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 469–493, 2003. and Mechanics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 787–790, 2008.
[7] A. M. Aly, A. Zasso, and F. Resta, “Dynamics and control of [24] A. M. Aly and R. E. Christenson, “Fast hybrid testing of
high-rise buildings under multidirectional wind loads,” Smart controlled smart dampers for nonlinear structures under earth-
Materials Research, vol. 2011, Article ID 549621, 15 pages, 2011. quakes,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. In press.
[8] A. M. Aly, “Proposed robust tuned mass damper for response [25] L. M. Jansen and S. J. Dyke, “Semiactive control strategies
mitigation in buildings exposed to multidirectional wind,” for MR dampers: comparative study,” Journal of Engineering
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2013. Mechanics, vol. 126, no. 8, pp. 795–803, 2000.
[9] B. F. Spencer, G. Yang, J. D. Carlson, and M. K. Sain, “Large-
[26] L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility,”
scale MR fluid dampers: modeling and dynamic performance
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–28, 1978.
considerations,” Engineering Structures, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 309–
323, 2002. [27] K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper
[10] K. D. Weiss and J. D. Carlson, “A growing attraction to magnetic Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996.
fluids,” Machine Design, vol. 66, no. 15, pp. 61–64, 1994. [28] G. Leitmann, “Semiactive control for vibration attenuation,”
[11] T. C. Halsey, “Electrorheological fluids,” Science, vol. 258, no. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, vol. 5, no.
5083, pp. 761–766, 1992. 6, pp. 841–846, 1994.
[12] S. J. Dyke, B. F. Spencer, M. K. Sain, and J. D. Carlson, “Mod- [29] N. H. McClamroch and H. P. Gavin, “Closed loop structural
eling and control of magnetorheological dampers for seismic control using electroheological dampers,” in Proceedings of the
response reduction,” Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 5, no. American Control Conference, pp. 4173–4177, Seattle, Wash,
5, pp. 565–575, 1996. USA, June 1995.
10 Journal of Engineering

[30] S. J. Dyke, B. F. Spencer, M. K. Sain, and J. D. Carlson, “Exper-

imental verification of semiactive structural control strategies
using acceleration feedback,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Interna-
tional Conference on Motion and Vibration Control, vol. 3, pp.
291–296, Chiba, Japan, September 1996.
[31] S. J. Dyke, B. F. Spencer Jr., M. K. Sain, and J. D. Carlson, “Seis-
mic response reduction using magnetorheological dampers,” in
Proceedings of the IFAC World Congress, vol. 150, pp. 145–150,
San Francisco, Calif, USA, June 1996.
[32] L. R. Barroso, S. Hunt, and J. G. Chase, “Application of mag-
neto-rheological dampers for multi-level seismic hazard miti-
gation of hystretic structures,” in Proceedings of the 15th ASCE
Engineering Mechanics Conference, Columbia University, New
York, NY, USA, 2002.
[33] S. J. Dyke, B. F. Spencer, P. Quast, and M. K. Sain, “Role
of control-structure interaction in protective system design,”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 322–338,
1995.
[34] J. L. Coffman and C. A. von Hake, Earthquake History of the
United States, Publication 41-1, United States Department of
Commerce/United States Department of the Interior, 1970.
[35] B. Erkus and E. A. Johnson, “Dissipativity analysis of the base
isolated benchmark structure with magnetorheological fluid
dampers,” Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 20, no. 10, Article
ID 105001, 2011.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014