Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Robust broadband vibration control of a flexible structure using an electrical dynamic absorber

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2011 Smart Mater. Struct. 20 075002

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/20/7/075002)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 203.237.44.229
The article was downloaded on 01/06/2011 at 07:50

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002 (9pp) doi:10.1088/0964-1726/20/7/075002

Robust broadband vibration control of a

flexible structure using an electrical
dynamic absorber
Sang-Myeong Kim1 , Semyung Wang1,3 and Michael J Brennan2
1
Mechatronics, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, 261 Cheomdan-gwagiro,
Buk-gu, Gwangju, 500-712, Korea
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, UNESP, Ilha Solteira, 15385-000, SP, Brazil

E-mail: smkim123@hanmail.net, smwang@gist.ac.kr and mjbrennan0@btinternet.com

Received 21 December 2010, in final form 23 March 2011

Published 31 May 2011
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/20/075002

Abstract
This paper presents a simple but practical feedback control method to suppress the vibration of
a flexible structure in the frequency range between 10 Hz and 1 kHz. A dynamic vibration
absorber is designed for this, which has a natural frequency of 100 Hz and a normalized
bandwidth (twice the damping ratio) of 9.9. The absorber is realized electrically by feeding
back the structural acceleration at one position on the host structure to a collocated
piezoceramic patch actuator via an analog controller consisting of a second-order lowpass filter.
This absorber is equivalent to a single degree-of-freedom mechanical oscillator consisting of a
serially connected mass–spring–damper system. A first-order lowpass filter is additionally used
to improve stability at very high frequencies. Experiments were conducted on a free–free beam
embedded with a piezoceramic patch actuator and an accelerometer at its center. It is
demonstrated that the single absorber can simultaneously suppress multiple vibration modes
within the control bandwidth. It is further shown that the control system is robust to slight
changes in the plant. The method described can be applied to many other practical structures,
after retuning the absorber parameters for the structure under control.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction absolutely stable in theory. By increasing the feedback gain,

Broadband vibration control is very attractive if it can
suppress all the vibration modes within the control bandwidth,
regardless of any changes of the flexible structure under
control. If this is possible, the same controller can be
applied to any flexible structure, such as beams, plates,
and complex structures of many practical machines and
vehicles: for example, flexible robot manipulators [1] and
smart panels [2, 3]. Such a universal controller was proposed
by Karnopp [4] and Balas [5], whose idea was an electrical
realization of a skyhook damper by feeding a point velocity
response back to the collocated point force actuator through a
gain, i.e., collocated velocity feedback (CVF). When multiple
pairs of collocated sensors and actuators are used, each pair is
equivalent to a skyhook damper and thus the control system is
3 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
which corresponds to the skyhook damping coefficient, perfect
control may even be plausible. This, however, is unrealistic
with a flexible structure because no transducer or electrical
device has an infinite bandwidth that can deal with an infinite
number of modes of the flexible structure. Another problem
in relation to the force actuator is that it generally requires
a fixed ground to react against. Such an installation is not
feasible for land, sea, air or space vehicles. Thus alternative
piezoelectric patch actuators have emerged as practical means
of actuation. Researchers have subsequently investigated
the applicability of CVF using piezoelectric transducers,
for example, with beams [6] and plates [7]. However, a
problem with these distributed transducers is that, although,
for example, a piezoelectric actuator and an accelerometer
may appear collocated in a geometrical sense, they are not
collocated in a system analysis sense [8, 9], i.e., they are
not dual. Nevertheless, the idea of using simple proportional

0964-1726/11/075002+09$33.00 1 © 2011 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002 S-M Kim et al

control is still attractive even if the allowable controller gain

is limited and has to be retuned for every plant (i.e., it is no
longer a universal controller). Efforts have thus been made to
maximize both the gain and the control bandwidth of a CVF
controller for a given plant, by ingenious mechanical designs
of the structure and the transducers [6–9]. An alternative
approach is taken in this paper, focusing on the control method.
The aim of this paper is to present a simple, practical
method to control the vibration of a flexible structure over a
broad frequency range. An electrical dynamic absorber (EDA)
is used for this purpose, which is realized by feeding back
the structural acceleration at one position on the host structure
to a collocated piezoelectric patch actuator via a second-order
Figure 1. The experimental control setup. The plant was a free–free
lowpass filter. This absorber is equivalent to a single degree-of- aluminum beam (600 mm × 25 mm × 3 mm) fitted with a PZT
freedom (SDOF) mechanical oscillator consisting of a serially ceramic patch actuator (50 mm × 25 mm × 3 mm) and an
connected mass–spring–damper system. Conventionally, accelerometer at its center. The lumped masses at both ends were not
mechanical dynamic absorbers (MDAs) are known to be part of the original plant, but were added later when testing the
narrow-band damping devices. EDAs have also been robustness of the controller.
successful for this purpose, such as for the vibration isolation
of an item of sensitive equipment [10], for the active damping
of a piezoelectric proof mass actuator [11], and for the 2. Theory
multimodal vibration control of flexible structures [12, 13].
It is demonstrated in this paper that the EDA can also be 2.1. Plant and experimental setup
conveniently used as a broadband damping device. This is The plant under control in the experimental work discussed
feasible because, when realized electrically, the effective mass in this paper was a free–free aluminum beam (600 mm ×
of the absorber can be made very large without increasing
25 mm × 3 mm) fitted with an accelerometer (B&K 4393) and
the actual total weight of the structure. High damping can
a PZT ceramic patch actuator (Fuji Ceramics, C-9, 50 mm ×
also be achieved simply by changing a parameter of the
25 mm × 3 mm) at its center, as shown in figure 1. A
control filter. The EDA is constructed using analog circuits,
signal conditioning amplifier with gain K s (NEXUS, pass
and an analog loop shaping filter is additionally used to
bandwidth: 0.1 Hz–100 kHz) and a voltage amplifier with
improve stability at very high frequencies. Feedback control
gain K a = 30 (PCB 790A01) were used in the feedback loop
experiments were conducted using a free–free beam as the
together with an analog controller that was manufactured in-
host structure, and an accelerometer and a PZT (lead zirconate
house. Constrained layer passive damping treatment was first
titanate) ceramic patch actuator were located at the center of
applied to the aluminum beam to obtain a passive damping
the beam for control purposes. It is demonstrated that the EDA
ratio of about 1% at low frequencies [13]. Double-sided sticky
can simultaneously suppress multiple vibration modes within
tape and copper tape were used for this purpose. The beam
the control bandwidth. The control system is also robust to
was suspended using a thin cord and impacts were applied
slight changes in the plant.
using an instrumented hammer (Endevco 2302-10) on top of
It should be noted that the papers cited in this section
the accelerometer, as shown in figure 1. The responses were
are those which are closely related to the work presented here
measured both when the controller was off and on in order to
and involve the vibration control of flexible structures using
collocated sensors and actuators. A general review on practical assess the control performance. The impact position at the
applications of active vibration control is given in [14], center of the beam was chosen merely for convenience and
particularly for civil structures. For potential applications to does not affect the performance and robustness of the feedback
automobiles and airplanes, one may refer to [15], as most control system. The lumped masses at both ends of the beam
passive treatments can, in theory, be replaced by active means. shown in figure 1 (photo) were not part of the original plant, but
Apart from CVF and the EDA presented here, there are also were added later when testing the robustness of the controller
different feedback control methods for broadband vibration to changes in the plant.
suppression. For example, H∞ control may alternatively The plant can be characterized by (Va /Vf ), where Va is the
be employed for flexible structures with the assumptions of voltage due to the measured acceleration of the beam, and Vf
structured and unstructured uncertainty in collocated [16] is the voltage supplied to the piezoelectric patch actuator. It
and non-collocated configurations [17]. A modified form of is more convenient here to analyze the generalized mobility
integral control was employed as an attempt to reduce low (i.e., velocity response) instead of accelerance, and this is
frequency vibrations of a cantilever beam using a strain-type obtained simply √by dividing the original plant response by
sensor [18]. The major advantages of the EDA presented in jω, where j = −1 and ω is the angular frequency. This
this paper are that it is easy to design, is effective, and is is shown in figures 2(a) and (b) in terms of the frequency
very stable [10–13]. This is because the EDA is, in principle, response amplitude and a Nyquist plot, respectively. Three
an electrical realization of a mechanical dynamic vibration different line types are used to display the responses in different
absorber. frequency bandwidths, as detailed in the caption of the figure.

2
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002
Figure 2. Measured generalized mobility [V /V ] of the plant in
figure 1: the time integral of Va to an excitation voltage Vf . Three
line types display the response: below 4 kHz (solid line); between 4
and 12 kHz (dashed); and above 12 kHz (dash–dot). The target
bandwidth is between 10 Hz and 1 kHz (shown by dotted vertical
lines). (a) Amplitude, (b) Nyquist plot.
Because the plant was symmetric, only symmetric modes were
excited and sensed. The frequency range from 10 Hz to
1 kHz (within the vertical dotted lines in figure 2(a)) was
targeted for control, and this is discussed in the following
sections. It is clear from figure 2(b) that the plant behaves
as a minimum phase system below 4 kHz and then loses
this characteristic above this frequency. Thus, the plant is
not strictly positive real (non-SPR). Here, the term ‘minimum
phase’ refers to a particular bandwidth while SPR is defined
for all frequencies. Furthermore, because of the characteristics
of the piezoelectric patch actuator, the high frequency non-
minimum phase response does not roll off naturally, but is
very large, as can be seen in figure 2(a). In addition, the
response below 10 Hz is not reliable, having poor coherence.
These are typical characteristics of the plants encountered in
the active control of flexible structures. Control of such plants
is nontrivial and a classical control approach is presented in
this paper, using analog compensators.
3
S-M Kim et al
Figure 3. Single-input–single-output disturbance rejection control of
the plant P(jω) by a controller C(jω).
2.2. Controller design
In this section the design of the controller is described. The
system is shown as a block diagram in figure 3, where d is
the response (displacement, velocity, or acceleration) before
control, e is the response after control, P(jω) is the plant
[V /V ], and C(jω) is the controller [V /V ]. The plant response
after control is given by
e = d[1 + L(jω)]−1 , (1)
where L(jω) = P(jω)C(jω) is the open-loop frequency
response function (FRF) of the control system. The control
performance can be described in terms of the vibration
reduction ratio S(jω) = e/d , which is written in decibels as
RR (dB) = 20 log10 |S(jω)|, (2)
where S(jω) = [1 + L(jω)]−1 is also called the sensitivity
function. In this paper, a control system is defined to be stable
and robust with a degree of r if and only if its open-loop FRF
locus does not enclose or cross the circle of radius r centered at
the instability point (−1, 0). This Nyquist robustness criterion
can be transcribed as [10]
RR (dB)  (−20 log10 r ) (at all frequencies), (3)
where the limiting value on the right is the allowable
maximum control spillover. The robustness degree r can
also be interpreted as the generalized gain margin: GM =
−20 log10 (1 − r ). The control spillover is particularly
important when it occurs in the non-minimum phase frequency
bandwidth. The task here is to achieve the best performance
given by equation (2) within the control bandwidth of interest
without violating the robustness constraint in equation (3) at all
frequencies. The control bandwidth for the system in figure 1
was set as broad as two decades, from 10 Hz to 1 kHz. The
degree of robustness chosen was 0.5, corresponding to the
generalized gain margin of 6 dB.
From figure 2, it can be assumed that the generalized plant
mobility is minimum phase (i.e. −90◦   [(jω)−1 P(jω)] 
90◦ in which  denotes the phase angle) within the frequency
range of interest (i.e. in the low frequency region) such that

M
(jω)−1 P(jω) = cs−,m1 (jam ωs,m ω)s−,m1 , (4)
m=1
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002
Figure 4. Mechanically analogous models: (a) the proportional gain filter, (b) the first-order lowpass filter, (c) the second-order bandpass
filter, and (d) the coupling between a structural mode and the second-order bandpass filter.
where s,m = [ωs2,m − ω2 + jam ωs,m ω]. The subscript m
denotes the structural mode number from 1 to M in which M is
the total number of modeled modes, ω s,m is the m th structural
natural frequency in which ωs,m = ks,m /m s,m , the lumped
parameters m s,m, cs,m, and ks,m are respectively the m th modal
mass, damper, and spring, and am = 2ζs,m is the half-power
bandwidth of the m th mode normalized by ωs,m with ζs,m
being the modal damping ratio. The relationships between the
parameters are given by 1/m s,m = ωs2,m /ks,m = am ωs,m /cs,m .
To be compatible with the expression for the plant
mobility in equation (4), the generalized impedance form of
the controller jωC(jω) is analyzed instead, which means that
there is a controller voltage output Vf in response to a velocity-
compatible voltage input Va /jω. Thus, the product of the plant
mobility and the controller impedance yields the same open-
loop FRF: L(jω) = P(jω)C(jω). Three simple compensators
could be considered for the broadband vibration control of
the flexible structure: a proportional gain [4, 5]; a first-order
lowpass filter; and a second-order bandpass filter. These are
respectively written as
jωC(jω) = ca , (5)
ωo
jωC(jω) = ca , (6)
ωo + jω
jbωa ω
jωC(jω) = ca , (7)
ωa2 − ω2 + jbωa ω
where ca is the common gain of the three filters, ωo is the
cutoff frequency of the first-order lowpass filter, and ωa and b
are the center frequency and normalized half-power bandwidth
(or the inverse of quality factor) of the second-order bandpass
filter, respectively. In the case when the plant is minimum
phase for all frequencies (i.e. SPR), the control systems with
filters described by equations (5)–(7) are unconditionally stable
and are passive. The mechanically analogous models for the
controllers are shown in figure 4 [11]. Figure 4(a) depicts a
skyhook damper in which equation (5) gives the proportional
4
S-M Kim et al
gain, figure 4(b) shows a serially connected skyhook spring–
damper which is described by equation (6), and figure 4(c)
shows an SDOF dynamic absorber (i.e. EDA) consisting of
a serially connected mass–damper–spring system which is
described by equation (7). Note that − denotes a serial
connection. The lumped parameters of the EDA can be
obtained from the relationships: ka = m a ωa2 = bωa ca ,
where m a , ca, and ka are respectively the mass, damper,
and spring of the absorber, ωa is the natural frequency,
and b = 2ζa with ζa being the absorber damping ratio.
Figure 4(d) represents the coupling between a single structural
mode given in equation (4) and the dynamic absorber in
equation (7) [11]. The coupling with the other analogous
elements can be similarly represented. The structural and
absorber modal damping ratios are more specifically
√ defined
as ζs,m = cs,m /(2 m s,m ks,m ) and ζa = m a ka /(2ca ),
respectively. The cutoff frequency in equation (6) can also be
described in terms of the mechanical parameters as ωo = ka /ca .
It should be noted that the analogous models in figure 4 are
exact provided the plant is SPR. If the plant is minimum phase
only in a limited bandwidth, as in figure 2, the complete system
is no longer guaranteed to be perfectly passive or absolutely
stable. If the system is conditionally stable with the filters in
equations (5)–(7), however, these analogous models are still
useful and can represent the control mechanism within the
control bandwidth.
The pass bandwidths of the filters in equations (5)–(7)
are related to the control performance given in equation (2),
while the stop bandwidths of the filters are related to the
control robustness given in equation (3). It is interesting to
note that all three filters in equations (5)–(7) roughly have
ca in their pass bandwidths, revealing the control mechanism
that they all behave like a skyhook damper in the bandwidth
of control. This indicates that the EDA in figure 4(c),
as well as the skyhook spring–damper in figure 4(b), acts
simply as a band-limited skyhook damper. The band-stop
characteristics become particularly important when feedback
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002
Figure 5. Active control filter consisting of a second-order lowpass filter realized in biquad circuit form and a first-order lowpass filter (inside
the dashed box).
control is implemented on a plant having uncertain and non-
minimum phase characteristics such as that shown in figure 2.
Comparing the three filters in equations (5)–(7), it is found
that the bandpass filter in equation (7) has the advantage of
robustness as it suppresses the unreliable plant response at very
low frequencies as well as the non-minimum phase response at
very high frequencies.
If the roll-off rate of the filter (−20 dB/decade) in
equation (7) is insufficient and the control system is bound
to instability at very high frequencies, there are two simple
options to choose from. One can either lower the upper cutoff
frequency of the bandpass filter in equation (7) or introduce an
additional lowpass filter to shape the high frequency loop gain
as given by
ωc
F(jω) = , (8)
ωc + jω
where ωc is the cutoff frequency of the first-order lowpass
filter. Care should be taken as the additional loop shaping
filter can also destabilize the system due to the additional
phase delay in the transition region of this filter. Combining
equations (7) and (8), the complete control filter used is a serial
combination of the second-order and the first-order low pass
filters as given by
 
ωa2 ωc
C(jω) = m a 2 , (9)
ωa − ω2 + jbωa ω ωc + jω
where the absorber mass m a is the filter gain. Note that, rather
than the impedance form in equation (7), the controller C(jω)
itself has been presented in equation (9) for the experimental
implementation that is described in section 3. The bandpass
filter in equation (7) is used only for analysis purposes.
3. Experimental work
3.1. Control filter construction and loop gain measurements
From the control bandwidth of interest between 10 Hz and
1 kHz prescribed in section 2.2, it is straightforward to
determine ωa and b of the absorber from b = (ω2 − ω1 )/ωa ,
5
S-M Kim et al
where ω2 and ω1 are the upper and lower frequency of interest,
respectively. The gain m a of the controller and the cutoff
frequency ωc of the shaping filter can be determined from the
Nyquist robustness criterion with the generalized gain margin
of 6 dB. The final control filter parameters determined are
given by
m a = 204, b = 9. 9, ωa = 2π × 100 Hz,
(10)
ωc = 2π × 4 kHz.
The control filter in equation (9) with parameters given
in equations (10) was manufactured using four operational
amplifiers (National Semiconductor LF412CN, supply voltage
of ±16 V) as shown in figure 5, where the values of the
electrical elements used are also tabulated. The circuit
consisting of the first three operational amplifiers (from the
left) is the second-order lowpass filter realized in biquad
circuit form for ease of tuning [19]. Simpler forms such as
the Sallen–Key and multiple-feedback architectures are also
available [20]. The circuit inside the dashed box in figure 5
is the first-order shaping lowpass filter. The shaping filter can
be included (excluded) by adding (removing) capacitor Cb .
The relationships between the filter and circuit parameters are
given by
ωa2 = (R2 R4 C1 C2 )−1 , b = (R1 C1 ωa )−1 ,
(11)
ma = K1 K2, ωc = (Rb Cb )−1 ,
where K 1 = −R2 /R3 and K 2 = −Rb /Ra are the gains of
the biquad and shaping filters, respectively. From the values
given in figure 5, it is seen that K 1 = −10 and K 2 =
−20.4, and the large gain of m a = 204 [V /V ] was achieved
by the two-stage amplification. The reason for this was to
avoid using resistors that were either too small or too large.
The resistor R3 is particularly important as it determines the
electrical input impedance of the control filter. To avoid the
mutual loading with the neighboring conditioning amplifier
and voltage amplifier shown in figure 1, the input impedance of
the control filter must be large and its output impedance must
be small.
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002 S-M Kim et al

Figure 6. Measured controller impedance [V /V ] without (dashed)

and with (solid) the shaping filter: the response Vf to the time integral
of Va in figure 1. Predicted responses (dotted) are overlaid.
(a) Amplitude, (b) phase.

Figure 6 compares the amplitudes (a) and phases (b) of

the measured (dashed and solid lines) and predicted (dotted)
controller impedances jωC(jω) [V /V ] without (dashed) and
with (solid) the shaping filter. The measured and predicted
responses are nearly identical. The open-loop FRF was then
measured by disconnecting the Va point in figure 1, and the
results are shown in figure 7: (a) amplitudes of the measured
(dashed and solid lines) and simulated (dotted) open-loop
FRFs without (dashed) and with (solid) the shaping filter; ((b),
(c)) Nyquist plots of the measured and simulated (dotted) open-
loop FRFs without (b) and with (c) the shaping filter. Three
Figure 7. (a) Amplitudes of the measured (dashed and solid lines)
line types in (b) and (c) display the responses in different
and simulated (dotted) open-loop FRFs without (dashed) and with
frequency bandwidths, as detailed in the caption of the figure. (solid) the shaping filter. ((b), (c)) Nyquist plots of the measured and
The measured (solid and dashed) and simulated (dotted) results simulated (dotted) open-loop FRFs without (b) and with (c) the
in figure 7(a) again agree very well. This confirms that shaping filter. Three line types display the measured response: below
the mutual coupling between the controller and the voltage 4 kHz (solid line); between 4 and 12 kHz (dashed); and above
12 kHz (dash–dot).
amplifier was negligible. The robustness boundary circle of the
6 dB generalized gain margin is also overlaid in figures 7(b)
and (c). It is seen in figure 7(c) that the shaping filter has 3.2. Control experiments
improved stability at very high frequencies so as to satisfy the Impacts were applied as indicated in figure 1 with the feedback
generalized gain margin of at least 6 dB at all frequencies. loop first disconnected and then connected. The responses

6
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002
Figure 8. Measured acceleration responses of the controlled and
uncontrolled plants. (a) Original plant, before control (dash–dot) and
after control (solid) in comparison with the simulated controlled
performance (dotted). (b) Both the original (solid) and mass-added
(thick dashed) plants after control and before control (dash–dot).
were measured with the loop shaping filter in place. Figure 8(a)
shows the measured acceleration responses of the plant before
(dash–dot) and after (solid) control, with the dB reference of
1 m s−2 . The simulation result (dotted) is also overlaid for
comparison, which was obtained from equation (1) using the
uncontrolled plant response d and the open-loop FRF L(jω).
Both measured and simulated results agree extremely well,
which also confirms that the mutual coupling between the
control filter and the signal conditioner was negligible. Thus,
the manufactured control filter using the electrical elements
listed in figure 5 was a functional design that was free from
any mutual loading problems when connected to the particular
electrical devices K s and K a in figure 1. In figure 8(a), it
can be seen that the vibrations within the bandwidth between
10 Hz and 1 kHz are greatly suppressed. It is interesting that
reductions occur not only at the peaks but also at the troughs.
In fact, they can occur wherever the open-loop FRF locus is on
the right half of the Nyquist plot.
7
S-M Kim et al
Figure 9. Nyquist plots of the measured open-loop FRFs for the
mass-added plant shown in figure 8(b) without (a) and with (b) the
shaping filter.
To test the robustness of the controller, two lumped masses
(in total, 16.5 g) were attached symmetrically, one at each end
of the beam (originally, 166 g) as shown in figure 1 (photo).
The same impact tests were also conducted. The results before
and after control are shown in figure 8(b), where the original
plant responses (solid and dash–dot) in figure 8(a) are also
overlaid for comparison. As expected, robust performance
was achieved as long as the modes were located within the
control bandwidth. To examine the robust stability, the open-
loop FRFs of this mass-added plant were measured without
and with the additional shaping filter and the results are
shown in figures 9(a) and (b), respectively. Regardless of the
shaping filter, both systems are quite robust but figure 9(a)
is slightly more robust. Figure 9(b) is the case where the
additionally introduced shaping filter acts adversely due to the
additional phase delay in the transition region of the filter. Both
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002 S-M Kim et al

figures 9(a) and (b) suggest that the performance of this mass-
added plant can be further improved.
If the EDA method is applied to a general structure,
the control gain and bandwidth should be optimally retuned
depending on the structure under control. There are some
general guidelines as regards preparing the plant for the
EDA. First, it is important to maximize the minimum phase
bandwidth of the plant. The larger this bandwidth is, the
broader the control bandwidth is and the more robust the
control system is to changes of the plant. Positioning of
the sensor and the actuator is critical and a rule of thumb is
collocation. Second, it is important to maximize the plant
sensitivity (excluding the electrical devices used) within the
control bandwidth. This can relax the requirement for a high-
gain voltage amplifier for actuation. The piezoelectric actuator
should be made suitable for excitation by careful choices of
the material, dimensions, and installation location. The type
of sensor (e.g. strain gauge, PVDF, accelerometer) must also
be appropriately chosen. Third, it is important to minimize
the plant sensitivity outside the control bandwidth, particularly
the non-minimum phase and uncertain characteristics at very
high frequencies. To achieve this, passive constrained layer
damping treatment and other passive means such as adding
lumped masses as in this paper and in [9] could be used;
stiffeners could also be appropriately applied.

3.3. Comparison with other methods

Two interesting comparisons are made in this section using

simulations only. The EDA is compared first with an electrical
damper (ED), which corresponds to CVF, and then with
a mechanical dynamic absorber (MDA). When the EDA is
used with m a = 204 as given by equations (10), the
corresponding electrical damping coefficient in equation (7) is
1.3 × 104 , because ca = m a ωa /b . For an ED, the maximum
allowable gain determined from the Nyquist robustness
criterion described in section 2.2 with the generalized gain
margin of 6 dB is only about 17% of that of the EDA. Thus,
the EDA can outperform the ED by a factor of about 5.8
within the control bandwidth for the plant considered. This
is precisely shown in figure 10(a) by comparing the simulated
performances of the EDA (solid line) previously shown in
figure 8(a) and the ED (dashed) for the original plant (dash–
dot).
Now suppose that the MDA in figure 4(c), which is
assumed to have the same natural frequency of 100 Hz and the
same normalized bandwidth of 9.9, is connected to the center
of the beam. The plant velocity responses v before and after
attachment of the MDA are respectively given by [11]
v = YS f, v = YS (1 + YS Z A )−1 f,
where f is the impact force applied to the center of the
beam. The input mobility of the beam YS can be obtained
by dividing the uncontrolled plant response d (dash–dot line
in figure 10(a)) by jω, and the absorber impedance Z A is
given by equation (7). Figure 10(b) compares the simulated
performances of the EDA and several MDAs (dashed lines)
Figure 10. (a) Simulated performances of the EDA (solid line)
shown in figure 8(a) and a comparable ED (thick dashed) for the
original plant (dash–dot), (b) simulated performances of the same
EDA in (a) and several MDAs (five dashed lines) with different
absorber masses of 0.3 × m s , 0.6 × m s , 0.9 × m s , or 1.2 × m s , where
the total mass of the original plant m s = 166 g.
having different absorber masses of 0.3×m s , 0.6×m s , 0.9×m s ,
or 1.2 × m s , where the total mass of the original plant m s =
166 g. Due to the high damping used for the MDA, no new
dominant peak is observable. Due to the MDA mass, there
are reductions in the low frequency responses (consequently
in the rigid body modal responses of the beam). The high
frequency responses are little reduced as the mobility YS is
small in the region. The behavior with the MDA considered is
very different from that with the EDA used. Note, in particular,
that the low frequency response for the EDA (solid line) is
nearly unchanged, which suggests that the EDA used reduces
flexible modes without mass-loading the beam (i.e., without
increasing the total weight of the system). It is thus clear that
the MDA, which is directly connected to the beam, does not
represent the mechanism of the EDA used. This is because the
force-excited input mobility YS of the beam is very different
from the piezo-excited input mobility (jω)−1 P(jω) of the beam
shown in figure 2. The mechanism of the EDA used can rather
be explained in the modal domain by using a number of such
analogous two-DOF coupled models, as shown in figure 4(d).

8
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 075002
4. Conclusions
In this paper, broadband control of a free–free beam has been
considered by using an EDA. The transducers used in the
control system were an accelerometer and a PZT ceramic
patch actuator. A single EDA was employed to simultaneously
reduce the vibration of multiple vibration modes in a frequency
bandwidth between 10 Hz and 1 kHz. The EDA had the
natural frequency of 100 Hz and the normalized bandwidth
of 9.9. The EDA was realized by feeding back the structural
acceleration at one position to a collocated piezoceramic patch
actuator via an analog controller consisting of a second-order
lowpass filter. This EDA is equivalent to an SDOF mechanical
oscillator consisting of a serially connected mass–spring–
damper system. A first-order lowpass filter was additionally
used to improve the stability at high frequencies. The
experiments conducted showed that the single EDA could
simultaneously suppress multiple vibration modes within the
control bandwidth. Moreover, the control system was robust to
slight changes in the plant, such as natural frequencies. The
use of the single dynamic absorber for multiple modes was
feasible because the design parameters are easily controllable
and a heavy absorber mass can be imposed without increasing
the total weight of the system.
The major advantages of the EDA presented in this paper
are that it is easy to design, is effective, and is very stable. This
is because the EDA is, in principle, an electrical realization
of a mechanical dynamic vibration absorber. It should be
emphasized that the method can also be applied to other
one-dimensional structures embedded with different types of
sensors (strain, velocity, or acceleration). A low pass filter can
be employed when an accelerometer (acceleration–position
feedback: APF) is available as in this paper, a band pass filter
is used with a velocity sensor (velocity–velocity feedback:
VVF), and finally a high pass filter is used with a strain sensor
(position–acceleration feedback: PAF). These are the three
different ways to realize an EDA [12]. If a cantilever beam
is fitted with a pair of collocated piezoelectric sensor and
actuator at its root [12], for example, a high pass filter can
thus be employed. The method can also be applied to other
structures such as plates and three-dimensional structures. As
the EDA is a broadband control device, the method is suitable
for complex structures which have a high modal density at low
frequencies. It is also possible to extend the approach to a
decentralized multiple-input–multiple-output (MIMO) control
system [16, 21].
References
[1] Luo Z H 1993 Direct strain feedback control of flexible robot
arms: new theoretical and experimental results IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control 38 1610–22
S-M Kim et al
[2] Park C H and Baz A 1999 Vibration control of bending modes
of plates using active constrained layer damping J. Sound
Vib. 227 711–34
[3] Pietrzko S J and Mao Q 2008 New results in active and passive
control of sound transmission through double wall structures
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 12 42–53
[4] Karnopp D, Crosby M J and Harwood R A 1974 Vibration
control using semi-active force generators ASME Trans. J.
Eng. Ind. 96 619–26
[5] Balas M J 1979 Direct velocity feedback control of large space
structures J. Guid. Control 2 252–3
[6] Lee Y S, Elliott S J and Gardonio P 2003 Matched piezoelectric
double sensor/actuator pairs for beam motion control Smart
Mater. Struct. 12 541–8
[7] Gardonio P, Lee Y S, Elliott S J and Debost S 2001 Analysis
and measurement of a matched volume velocity sensor and
uniform force actuator for active structural acoustic control
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110 3025–31
[8] Yang S Y and Huang W H 1998 Is collocated piezoelectric
sensor/actuator pair feasible for an intelligent beam?
J. Sound Vib. 216 529–39
[9] Gatti G, Brennan M J and Gardonio P 2007 Active damping of
a beam using a physically collocated accelerometer and
piezoelectric patch sensor J. Sound Vib. 303 798–813
[10] Kim S M, Pietrzko S and Brennan M J 2008 Active vibration
isolation using an electrical damper or an electrical dynamic
absorber IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 16 245–54
[11] Kim S M, Wang S and Brennan M J 2011 Dynamic analysis
and optimal design of a passive and an active piezo-electrical
dynamic vibration absorber J. Sound Vib. 330 603–14
[12] Kim S M, Wang S and Brennan M J 2011 Comparison of
negative and positive position feedback control of a flexible
structure Smart Mater. Struct. 20 015011
[13] Kim S M, Wang S and Brennan M J 2011 Optimal and robust
modal control of a flexible structure using an active dynamic
vibration absorber Smart Mater. Struct. 20 045003
[14] Song G, Sethi V and Li H N 2006 Vibration control of civil
structures using piezoceramic smart materials: a review Eng.
Struct. 28 1513–24
[15] Rao M D 2003 Recent applications of viscoelastic damping for
noise control in automobiles and commercial airplanes
J. Sound Vib. 262 457–74
[16] Jiang J P and Li D X 2010 Optimal placement and
decentralized robust vibration control for spacecraft smart
solar panel structures Smart Mater. Struct. 19 085020
[17] Kar I N, Miyakura T and Seto K 2000 Bending and torsional
vibration control of a flexible plate structure using H∞ -based
robust control law IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
8 545–53
[18] Aphale S S, Fleming A J and Moheimani S O R 2007 Integral
resonance control of collocated smart structures Smart
Mater. Struct. 16 439–46
[19] van Valkenburg M E 1982 Analog Filter Design (Oxford:
Oxford University Press)
[20] Karki J 2000 Active low-pass filter design Application Report
SLOA049A, Texas Instruments
[21] Bianchi E, Gardonio P and Elliott S J 2004 Smart panel with
multiple decentralized units for the control of sound
transmission. Part III: control system implementation
J. Sound Vib. 274 215–32