Received: 5 November 2016 Accepted: 18 November 2016

DOI: 10.1111/exsy.12205

INVITED REVIEW

Recent advances in control algorithms for smart structures and

machines
Mariantonieta Gutierrez Soto | Hojjat Adeli

Department of Civil, Environmental, and

Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
Correspondence
Hojjat Adeli, Department of Civil,
Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering, The
Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock Hall,
2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210,
USA.
Email: adeli.1@osu.edu
Abstract
This paper presents a state‐of‐the‐art review of recent control algorithms used primarily for
vibration control of smart structures and machines. Control algorithms can be divided into open
loop, feedback, feedforward, and combined feedback and feedforward control. Solutions pro-
posed can be subdivided into (a) classical control, (b) optimal control, (c) robust control, (d) intel-
ligent control, and (e) self‐sustaining solutions and energy harvesting used in centralized and
decentralized configurations. The most recent research on novel autonomous control systems
intersects distributed control theory, agent‐based modeling, bioinspired computational learning,
and optimization algorithms.

KEY W ORDS

Intelligent control, robust control, smart structures, vibration control

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N Feedback control systems are more widely used compared with

In general, control laws can be divided into open loop, feedback,
feedforward control, and combination of feedforward and feedback
control (Figure 1). An open loop system is very simple; an input signal
directs the control element to react, and then an output is produced.
An example of an open loop system is a washing machine. A person
selects an input time that sets the timer to get the washing process
started, and the output is the washed clothes.
Sometimes, the input signal has to be adjusted based on detect-
ing changes in the output using sensor measurements and compari-
son with a desired result. This dynamic is called feedback control,
also known as a closed loop system (Ogata, 2010). An example of
feedback control is an air conditioner system that adjusts the output
of air by comparing the outside temperature with the desired
temperature.
Feedforward control uses the external signal as input to emit an
action of the controller without considering the output of the system,
in other words, without the adjustment characteristic used by a
feedback control (Adeli & Kim, 2009). In feedforward control algo-
rithms, measurements of external disturbances are accounted for
before they have time to affect the system. A feedforward control
predicts the output signal. For example, feedforward control in a
house can allow the air conditioner to be turned on when a door
opens. In this case, the assumption is that all windows are closed so
that no air is getting out.
feedforward control (Vrabie, Vamvoudakis, & Lewis, 2013). A
feedforward control law is usually implemented when the output
feedback is difficult to obtain and feedback stability is difficult to
guarantee (Hassani, 2014). To improve the tracking error in control
problems related to modeling imperfection, dynamics, and uncer-
tainties, a combination of feedforward and feedback control structure
may be used (Figure 1d).
This paper presents a state‐of‐the‐art review of recent control
algorithms with a focus on vibration reduction subdivided into (a) clas-
sical control, (b) optimal control, (c) robust control, (d) intelligent con-
trol, and (e) self‐sustaining solutions and energy harvesting used in
centralized and decentralized configurations.
2 | CLASS I CAL CO N TROL
Proportional‐integral‐derivative (PID) control is a feedback control
mechanism that continuously calculates an error value between a
desired set point and the measured variable. P stands for the present
values of the error, I accounts for past values of the error, and D
accounts for possible future values of the error (Dorf & Bishop,
2008; Ogata, 2010). Even though the use of PID control does not
guarantee optimal control or stability, it is one of the most commonly
used control methods in industrial applications by adjusting the tuning
parameters (Dorf & Kusiak, 1994).

Expert Systems. 2017;34:e12205. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/exsy Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 14
https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12205
2 of 14
2.1 | Feedback control
Classical feedback control algorithms have been used to control both
small‐ and large‐scale systems. Moore and Moheimani (2015) use a
feedback proportional (P) controller for motion actuation and sensing
of a two‐dimensional (2‐D) microelectromechanical (MEM) model in a
nanometer scale. The controller is an electrostatic drive that uses volt-
age to actuate MEM vibrations at resonant frequencies. The drive has
a self‐sensing arrangement that uses the drive's current and charge
measurements as well as MEM's displacement and velocity as output
measurements in the feedback loop to compute the control gain. Sim-
ilarly, Sun, Hu, Moura, and Sun (2015) use a P‐controller to reduce
vibrations of a three degrees of freedom structure platform simulation
subjected to random and periodic external excitations using three‐
dimensional sensors for absolute motion measurement. On a larger
scale simulation, Nelson, Rajamani, Gastineau, Wojtkiewicz, and
Schultz (2015) use feedback P‐control in a decentralized configuration
for peak strain reduction of a dynamic model representation of the
Cedar Avenue‐tied arch steel bridge located between Bloomington
and Eagan, Minnesota. They use velocity feedback output measure-
ments and six semiactive control devices (Adeli & Kim, 2009; Gutierrez
Soto & Adeli, 2013b). They conclude that large structures require
INVITED REVIEW
FIGURE 1 (a) Open loop, (b) feedback, (c)
feedfoward, and (d) combination of feedback
and feedforward control algorithms
multiple control devices, and considerations should be given to the num-
ber and placement of controlling devices according to the natural fre-
quencies of the structure and also to reduce energy use, size, and cost.
Li, Li, Song, and Yu (2014) use positive position feedback control experi-
mentally for vibration reduction of a one‐dimensional beam with wireless
and wired sensors. They use time synchronization strategy to create
redundancy in wireless network so that when a sensor breaks down,
the controller switches to a simulator and predicts the sensor output.
2.2 | Combined feedback and feedforward control
Rodriguez Fortun, Orus, Alfonso, Gimeno, and Castellanos (2013) com-
bined velocity feedback control with flatness‐based feedforward control
for vibration control of a piezoelectric actuator installed on a single degree
of freedom (SDOF) system subjected to random excitations. Flatness‐
based control as defined in Rigatos (2015) uses the differential flatness
property of the system where all state variables can be written in terms
of a set of specific variables and their derivatives (so‐called flat outputs).
Li, Li, and Mo (2014) use a piezoelectric multimode control strat-
egy that combines extended state observer, proportional‐derivative
(PD) controller, and acceleration feedforward control for vibration
INVITED REVIEW
reduction of a stiff plate with all sides clamped in an experimental
setup. Avci et al. (2015) use Proportional‐Integral (PI) feedback control
and acceleration feedforward control to investigate pick‐and‐place of
microobjects using two fingers of a microhand experiment.
2.3 | Optimal control
Optimal control is based on a control law that minimizes or maximizes
an objective function subject to constraints. The goal is to obtain opti-
mal performance specifications for a given purpose (Ogata, 2010). This
is usually done off‐line (Vrabie et al., 2013).
2.4 | Classical optimal feedback control
The preferred control algorithm with wide feedback control
applications is concerned with operating a dynamic system at a mini-
mum cost (Adeli & Saleh, 1998). Quadratic optimal control approach
provides a systematic way to obtain a feedback gain using desired
closed‐loop poles such that there is an acceptable trade‐off between
acceptable response and the energy required (Ogata, 2010). These
approaches are the linear quadratic regulator (LQR; Adeli & Saleh,
1999) and a variation of the LQR with addition of a Kalman filter
observer (Simon, 2006) known as linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) con-
trol algorithm. These control algorithms optimize a cost function to
determine the feedback gain to the system. Lei, Wu, and Lin (2012)
use a decentralized LQG‐based algorithm for vibration control a 20‐
story steel building benchmark structure subjected to seismic loading.
They divided the structure into two and three substructures and used
recursive Kalman filter estimation to obtain interface measurements
between substructures.
Xiao and Jing (2015) use a frequency domain method based on
Volterra series for feedback control of a vehicle suspension model.
The Volterra series method is derived from series approximation the-
ory and relates the nonlinear output spectrum with characteristic
parameters.
2.5 | Stochastic control
Stochastic control deals with the existence of uncertainty either in
observations or in noise that drives the evolution of a system (Dai,
Wang, & Zhang, 2015). Nayyar, Mahajan, and Teneketzis (2013) pro-
pose a stochastic control using Markov decision theory (Castillo
et al., 2016; Wang, Yajima, Liang, & Castaneda‐Lopez, 2015) where
the subsystems share partial history (past observations and control)
with each other. They use two subsystems and controllers as an exam-
ple and reformulate a decentralized control strategy into a centralized
control by using a coordinator that makes a decision based on common
information shared by controllers.
Lin and Cassandras (2015) study stochastic decentralized control
of two cooperative autonomous agents (Lin, Descamps, Gaud, Hilaire
and Koukam, 2015; Pinto et al., 2014) in a 2‐D mission space with
the objective of tracking elliptical trajectories and minimizing uncer-
tainty. The stochastic control part is solved using an Infinitesimal Per-
turbation Analysis that obtains unbiased gradient estimates that can
be incorporated in standard gradient‐based optimization algorithms.
They conclude that because interconnected agents have local optimal
3 of 14
solutions, the addition of gradient optimization is able to obtain an
understanding of global elliptical trajectories of both agents.
2.6 | Model predictive control
Predictive control algorithms predict the change in the dependent
variables of the system caused by changes in the independent vari-
ables. Model predictive control (MPC) algorithms use a model to antic-
ipate future evolution of the dynamic process to optimize the control
signal. Most linear empirical models are obtained by system identifica-
tion. MPC has the advantages of the combined feedforward and feed-
back control. Qin and Badgwell (2003) present a brief history of the
evolution of MPC algorithm starting with LQG and compare industrial
applications of MPC algorithm in linear and nonlinear systems. Chu
et al. (2004) present a comparative study of feedback and feedforward
MPC of nonlinear systems whereas Negenborn and Maestre (2014)
provide an overview of MPC used for distributed control.
Koerber and King (2013) use MPC to control the torque and
collective pitch of a wind turbine. Chandan and Alleyne (2013) use
centralized and decentralized MPC to regulate the temperature of a
9‐zone 3‐story square building and an 11‐zone circular building. They
compare decentralized and centralized control strategies. Because
decentralized control results in a suboptimal performance, an
optimality loss parameter was determined. In order to compare the
robustness of the decentralized scheme with the centralized control,
a fault propagation matrix is derived for sensing and/or
communication faults.
Riverso, Farina, and Ferrari‐Trecate (2013) combine the MPC
strategy with plug‐and‐play capabilities to distribute power in a net-
work system composed of four power generation areas coupled
through tie lines. The plug‐and‐play part occurs when a controlled sub-
system alternates between on‐line (plug) and off‐line (unplugged) oper-
ation. When a controller goes off‐line or when another subsystem is
added, the neighboring subsystems can adapt to this change effectively.
Liu, Liu, Feng, and Rong (2014) compare centralized and
decentralized MPC and LQG control strategies for a chemical reactor
that controls the reactor–separator process of two continuously
stirred tank reactors using two cases of gain computation considering
(a) full state feedback and (b) only output feedback is available. For
the latter case, they report that using a Kalman filter as state observer
guides the tuning of the decentralized MPC.
Yao, Jiang, Wen, Wu, and Cheng (2015) modify MPC by using a
network delay compensator to solve power stability problems and
reduce oscillations of tie lines of a wide‐area power system network.
They compare the modified control method with the MPC without
delay compensator using a 10‐machine 39‐bus system in New England
under uncertainty and communication delays of signal transmissions
from remote areas.
Zeng and Wang (2015) study the combination of stochastic and
MPC control algorithms for energy consumption of vehicle battery
management of hybrid electric vehicles using road grade preview as
observer. The stochastic control part is done using Markov chains
and solved using dynamic programming (Adeli & Ge, 1989). They per-
form 24 different trip simulations using a mountainous road terrain in
Mariposa, California. They conclude that using the road grade preview
4 of 14
information as constraint input for the MPC controller improves the fuel
efficiency of the vehicle. MPC is also used for distribution of polymers in
batch processes (Corbett, Macdonald, & Mhaskar, 2015), estimation of
traffic states in large‐scale urban traffic networks (Hajiahmadi, Haddad,
De Schutter, & Geroliminis, 2015), energy efficiency of office buildings
(Sturzenegger, Gyalistras, Morari, & Smith, 2015), and dampening of
vibration and fatigue of wind turbines (Evans, Cannon, & Kouvaritakis,
2015; Lin, Kruger, Zhang, Wang, Lamont, & Chaar, 2015).
3 | R O B U S T C O N T RO L
Robust controllers have been developed in feedback control to deal
with bounded uncertainties. It is assumed that certain variables are
unknown but remain bounded. The H‐infinity (H∞) method is one such
robust control method that guarantees stability of the control in an
uncertain dynamical system (Levine, 1996).
3.1 | H2 and H∞ control
Looking at the feedback control block diagram in Figure 1(b) with some
disturbance, the goal of the controller is to keep the effect of distur-
bance on the output signal small. The disturbance rejection perfor-
mance will depend on the size of the transfer function (relationship
between the disturbance signal and the output signal in a close loop).
The size of the transfer function influences the impact of the distur-
bance signal on the performance variables contained in the output sig-
nal (Levine, 1996). In order to quantify the size of the transfer function,
mathematical norms such as H2 and H∞ are used. An early review and
historical perspective of H2 and H∞ and their performance measure-
ments in optimal control theory was presented by Doyle, Glover,
Khargonekar, and Francis (1989). Subsequently, a review of robust
optimal vibration control algorithms was presented by Zang et al.
(2005).
Wang (2011) presents a time‐delayed H∞ control algorithm that
uses homotopic transformation to obtain decentralized configuration
of a five‐story shear frame structure subjected to earthquake loading.
Homotopic transformation is performed using linear matrix inequalities
constraints to transform a centralized controller configuration into
multiple uncoupled decentralized controllers. They study two
decentralized feedback control patterns: (a) no information overlap
between subsystems and (b) with information overlap.
Fallah and Taghikhany (2013) use the time‐delay H2/LQG control
strategy to study decentralized control performance of a cable‐stayed
bridge subjected to seismic loading. They reduced the large‐scale
structure to a simpler model using information from the dominant fre-
quencies of the structure.
Based on the theories of the bounded real lemma and the linear
matrix inequalities, Li and Adeli (2016) present a novel discrete‐time
robust H2/H∞ algorithm for vibration control of smart structures that
not only reduces the structural peak response due to external dynamic
forces but is also robust and stable in the presence of parametric
uncertainties. The uncertainties of structural parameters are consid-
ered in the time domain as opposed to the frequency domain to facil-
itate practical implementations. The effectiveness of the new adaptive
INVITED REVIEW
control algorithm is verified using a 10‐story frame with an active
tuned mass damper.
3.2 | L2 control
In mathematics, Lp spaces are function spaces defined by the general-
ization of the p‐norm for finite dimensional vector spaces. In control,
the output signal can be defined in vector form to allow for the calcu-
lation of p‐norms to be used in the control algorithm. Cui and Jia
(2012) use L2 and L∞ for disturbance attenuation of four autonomous
agents following different directional protocols subjected to varying
time delays. Yan, Yan, Zhang, and Shi (2015) propose an event‐trig-
gered L2 control method for a linear‐inverted pendulum example con-
nected in a communication network considering communication
delays. Hanifzadegan and Nagamune (2015) use two controllers for a
ball screw drive: (a) H∞ to track position along a moving trajectory,
and (b) gain‐scheduled control to reduce vibration along with L2‐gain
bound to guarantee stability.
3.3 | Sliding mode control
Sliding mode control (SMC) is among the popular approaches for con-
trol of nonlinear systems. However, chattering in SMC causes prob-
lems. Wang and Adeli (2012) present algorithms for reducing
chattering. They propose a time‐varying method for determining the
sliding gain function in SMC.
Wang and Adeli (2015b) present a robust‐filtered SMC algorithm
for vibration control of high‐rise buildings subjected to wind loading.
They provide a method to find the control force based on the equiva-
lent control force principle and evaluate the performance of the algo-
rithm by application to a 76‐story building equipped with an active
tuned mass damper on the roof. They report that the new algorithm
is more robust to structural stiffness uncertainties compared with the
LQG algorithm and another implementation of SMC.
3.4 | Backstepping control
Backstepping is a stabilizing control technique developed by Kokotovic
(1990). It is an iterative procedure used in nonlinear systems, where
the existing states of a first‐order model are used recursively along
with a Lyapunov function to stabilize the steady motions of another
second‐order model (Sepulchre, Jankovic, & Kokotovic, 1997).
He, Ge, and Huang (2015) use backstepping control and boundary
constraints to control a moving string with varying length and speed
and compare it with a PD controller. Wang and Lin (2015) propose a
decentralized adaptive backstepping control to track the output of
two interconnected inverted pendulums subject to unknown time‐
varying parameters. Similarly, Bresch‐Pietri et al. (2014) derive a
backstepping control algorithm with delay compensation for transport
of fuel in a gasoline engine equipped with indirect injection subjected
to time‐delay and varying bounded input. Fan, Liu, Shen, and Wang
(2014) use backstepping control to compensate the stochastic failure
of two actuators.
Xu (2015) combines SMC with MPC to obtain specific positions in
a piezoelectric microposition and nanoposition experimental setup.
INVITED REVIEW
They use SMC to deal with model nonlinearities and disturbances and
MPC to attenuate the position error.
Su and Jia (2015) combine adaptive backstepping control with
input shaping to mitigate the elastic vibration and to track the trajec-
tory of hypersonic vehicles (Pu, Tan, Fan, & Yi, 2014, Sun, Jing, Cheng,
& Xu, 2015). Input shaping is a technique that identifies the modes of a
flexible structure a priori to modify the input signal and use it as
feedforward control to suppress residual vibrations. They evaluate
the control method by dividing the vehicle into subsystems under
the following constraints: parameter uncertainties, external loadings,
and input saturation.
4 | ADAPTIVE AND/OR INTELLIGENT
C O N TR O L
Modern control theory is employed increasingly in more complicated
and varying environments where there is a high degree of uncertainty
requiring a high level of adaptability. Intelligent control may be defined
as the emulation of biological control processes for solving automation
problems (Passino, 2004). The ultimate goal of control engineering is
to implement autonomous systems that will operate independent of
human actions in an unstructured and uncertain environment
(Poznyak, Sanchez, & Yu, 2001).
De Wolf and Holvoet (2003) propose merging three areas
of research: agent computations, dynamic system theory, and
decentralized control to achieve autonomous computing with the
ability to make decisions automatically, adjust to its environment
effectively, and use resources efficiently. Similarly, it has been
suggested that integration of areas of computational learning,
FIGURE 2 Integration of computational
learning, distributed control, and optimization
for development of adaptive control
algorithms
5 of 14
distributed control theory and optimization (Figure 2) can lead to
design of robust and secure multiagent‐networked systems that can
be applied for control of unmanned aerial vehicles, robotics, and so on.
In recent years, researchers have tried to use artificial and
computational intelligence concepts such as neural networks (Cabessa
& Siegelmann, 2014; Donnarumma, Prevete, Chersi, & Pezzulo, 2015),
fuzzy logic (Quirós Alonso, Díaz, & Montes, 2014), evolutionary com-
puting (Cheng, Zhang, Caraffini, & Neri, 2015; Martínez‐Ballesteros
Bacardit, & Riquelme, 2015), machine learning (Mesejo, Ibanez Enrique
Fernandez‐Blanco, Cedron, Pazos, & Porto‐Pazos, 2015; You, Benitez‐
Quiroz, & Martinez, 2014), and agent‐based modeling to develop adap-
tive or intelligent control algorithms.
4.1 | Adaptive filters and wavelet‐based control
For a dynamic system to adapt, an adaptive filter can be included in the
control algorithm, for example, for estimation (Vahabi, Amirfattahi,
Ghassemi, & Shayegh, 2015), error reduction, noise reduction (Katicha
et al., 2014), correction of a particular behavior, or system identifica-
tion (Adeli & Jiang, 2006). An adaptive filter can be defined as a filter
that updates a defined transfer function according to the error signal
in order to obtain a desired output. Adaptive filters are especially use-
ful to improve a system response when there are uncertainties in a sys-
tem that cannot be known in advance (Hsu, 2015).
Kim and Adeli (2004) combine adaptive filtered‐x least mean
square control algorithm with LQR and LQG for vibration control
of structures subjected to strong winds and earthquakes. Ferrer,
Gonzalez, de Diego, and Piñero (2013) use filtered‐x adaptive filter
to improve convergence speed and steady‐state error for active
noise control of single‐channel and multi‐channel sound systems.
6 of 14
Similarly, Caiyun (2012) presents an adaptive bilinear‐filtered least
square algorithm along with Lyapunov function to guarantee the
stability of the error convergence in an active noise control system.
Hua, Cordoba‐Arenas, Warner, and Rizzoni (2015) use a nonlinear
predictive filter to estimate states of health and charge measure-
ments of lithium‐ion battery packs in hybrid electric cars. The non-
linear‐predictive filter processes the noise, and the process noise is
also estimated as part of the solution.
A wavelet is a wave‐type oscillation that starts at zero, raises to a
certain amplitude, and ends back at zero. Wavelets are used to extract
information from an unknown signal, such as an earthquake signal
(Zhou & Adeli, 2003). Adeli and Samant (2000) introduced the
concept of wavelets for processing of traffic signals in intelligent
transportation systems. Adeli and Kim (2004) introduced the concept
of wavelets in structural control and presented a novel wavelet‐based
control algorithm for vibration control of irregular high‐rise building
structures (Kim & Adeli, 2005a–c) and bridges (Kim & Adeli, 2005d).
Amini and Zabihi‐Samani (2014) present a wavelet‐based adaptive
pole assignment method for vibration control of structures. Su, Liu, and
Huang (2014) present a wavelet‐based approach for identification of
the instantaneous modal parameters of time‐varying systems.
4.2 | Evolutionary computing
Evolutionary theory is inspired by biological evolution postulated on
Darwinian principles. Widely used evolutionary algorithms (EAs)
include genetic algorithms (GAs; Lee, Yi, Lee, & Arditi, 2015; Paris,
Pedrino, & Nicoletti, 2015), particle swarm optimization (Iacca,
Caraffini, & Neri, 2014; Shabbir & Omenzetter, 2015; Zeng, Xu, Wu,
& Shen, 2014), artificial bee colony, and ant colony optimization
(Forcael et al., 2014). Another EA is the firefly algorithm (FA) inspired
by the mating process of fireflies that uses varying brightness of each
firefly's flashing lights (Chou & Pham, 2015). A survey of multiobjective
evolutionary algorithms used in engineering including control was pre-
sented by Zhou et al. (2011). Gnana Sundari, Rajaram, and Balaraman
(2016) use the FA to obtain optimal switch angles of 11 switches in
an electrical inverter. They conclude that FA achieves the harmonic
distortion reduction goal in less computational time compared with
artificial bee colony and particle swarm optimization algorithms.
FIGURE 3 A multiagent system in canonical view with distributed hierarchical organization
INVITED REVIEW
Similarly, Chandra Sekhar, Kumar Sahu, Baliarsingh, and Panda (2016)
used GA and FA in combination with fuzzy PID control for a power dis-
tribution in four areas subject to load disturbances. Alfonso, Velazquez,
Passino, and Caicedo (2016) use honeybee social foraging for control
decision making in a feedback control of smart lights located in eight
zones considering interzone couplings.
Another EA variation is evolutionary game theory that uses the
notion of growing populations and strategies for survival in biology
or society. Game theory has gained special interests in distributed net-
work systems for control and/or prescribing behavior. For example,
the replicator dynamics equation was used by Obando, Pantoja, and
Quijano (2014) to solve the temperature control problem in a building
with four rooms at different temperatures. The replicator dynamics
strategy allows resource allocation of available power to improve
energy usage of the overall control system.
4.3 | Agent‐based modeling
Wooldridge (1997) define an agent as “an encapsulated computer sys-
tem that is situated in some environment and can act flexibly and auton-
omously in that environment to meet its design objectives.” Jennings and
Bussmann (2003) propose agent‐based modeling that is appropriate
for modeling complex systems. A complex system can take a hierarchi-
cal scheme and be organized as client/server, wolf/sheep, peer‐to‐
peer, and so on (Forero Mendoza, Vellasco, & Figueiredo, 2014).
These relationships can change over time (Akar, Kara, Latifoğlu, &
Bilgiç, 2016). The designer can establish the manner in which agent
interact with each other (Figure 3). The design decisions may form a
communication network where one individual agent interacts with its
surrounding and be able to make a decision based on specified rules
without having the information about the entire system. Kim and
Cho (2006) present a review of agent‐based modeling in control tasks
ranging from robotics to software to data mining. Leitão (2009) pre-
sents a survey of multiagent distributed control in manufacturing.
Kilkki, Kangasrääsiö, Nikkilä, Alahäivälä, and Seilonen (2014) use
agent‐based modeling for balance control in a smart grid considering
communication network between a power plant generator, energy
demand of consumers, and a virtual power plant.
INVITED REVIEW
Reppa, Polycarpou, and Panayiotou (2015) use agents for fault‐
tolerant decentralized control and detection of multiple sensor failures
in a sensor network topology consisting of two interconnected robot
manipulators. They dedicate a local sensor within each subsystem to
monitor failures exclusively and isolate faulty sensors. Blanchini,
Franco, and Giordano (2015) analyze stability of decoupled subsys-
tems using a network‐decentralized control approach where the sub-
systems share information only when they are connected by a node.
Their examples include a water distribution network with four reser-
voirs connected by pipes that exchange water based on relative levels.
Agent‐based modeling can be based on a leader–follower strategy.
Hu and Zheng (2014) use such a strategy for decentralized tracking
control of a multiagent system using five agents. Similarly, Zhu and
Jiang (2015) use a leader–follower topology of five interconnected fol-
lower agents based on independent agent events subjected to time
delays and using limited resources. Liu (2015) apply adaptive coopera-
tive and leader‐following control strategies to regulate output of four
subsystems using a specified communication topology and defining
each agent's control direction as unknown. Sakurama, Azuma, and
Sugie (2015) use gradient flow optimization using two distributed pat-
tern decisions to control robots as agents to achieve a cooperative
consensus goal. Omidi and Mahmoodi (2015) present a multiagent
decentralized consensus positive position feedback control for vibra-
tion control of a beam with fixed supports. They placed four agents
(actuator/sensor patches) on four nodes of the beam that collaborate
with each other to achieve the desired vibration reduction.
Winn and Julius (2015) propose a safety control method that uses
simulated human trajectories to establish safety boundaries. The
method is evaluated using three numerical examples: a 2‐D planar
vehicle, a 2‐D hybrid rotating vehicle, and a 2‐D quadrotor with two
propellers. They conclude that applying crowdsourcing of human tra-
jectories reduces the high dimensionality of the entire system and
computational time.
4.4 | Multiparadigm algorithms
Jiang and Adeli (2008a) present a neuro‐genetic algorithm for nonlin-
ear active control of irregular high‐rise buildings taking into account
both geometrical and material nonlinearities and coupling action
between lateral and torsional motions and actuator dynamics. They
present a dynamic fuzzy wavelet neuroemulator for predicting the
structural response in future time steps. The neuroemulator is vali-
dated using two irregular three‐dimensional steel building structures
(Adeli & Jiang, 2009). Jiang and Adeli (2008b) present a neurogenetic
algorithm for finding the optimal control forces.
FIGURE 4 Multiobjective control for energy harvesting from vehicles in motion for road handling and ride comfort
7 of 14
Tong, Li, and Zhang (2011) present two decentralized
backstepping control algorithms subjected to time delays to control
two inverted pendulums connected by a spring that have unmeasur-
able states. One approach uses a neural network (NN) as state
observer to estimate the unmeasurable states that results in a complex
network. The second approach overcomes the complexity problem by
using a dynamic surface control scheme that combines a multiple slid-
ing surface with a low‐pass filter.
Mannava, Balakrishnan, Tang, and Landers (2012) use optimal
tracking control with NN as an observer to estimate disturbances,
parameter variations, and unmodeled dynamics of a Computer
Numeric Control machine experiment that tracks 2‐D diamond con-
tours. Nekoukar and Erfanian (2012) use SMC and fuzzy logic to con-
trol the dynamics of two human joints independently for the purpose
of controlling a functional electrical stimulation that assists paraplegic
patients with walking. There are two objectives in this control problem:
(a) the activation of muscles to alleviate the effort of the upper body
and (b) the lower extremity to follow a specific trajectory. They used
two strategies for each joints, adaptive terminal SMC for one and fuzzy
logic for the other control. Weike, Bin, and Yong (2013) use a fuzzy
NN in combination with GA and MPC to solve a power supply prob-
lem. Tong, Sui, and Li (2014) used decentralized stochastic control with
a fuzzy filter as observer that estimates both unmeasured states and
unknown control directions of three nonlinear inverted pendulums.
Wang and Adeli (2015a) present an adaptive control algorithm for
nonlinear vibration control of large structures subjected to dynamic
loading based on the integration of a self‐constructing wavelet neural
network developed specifically for structural system identification
with an adaptive fuzzy SMC approach. They use a two‐part growing
and pruning criterion to construct the hidden layer in the neural net-
work automatically. Further, they develop a fuzzy compensation con-
troller to reduce the chattering phenomenon. They demonstrate the
effectiveness of the model by application to vibration control of a con-
tinuous cast‐in‐place prestressed concrete box‐girder bridge subjected
to earthquake loading. Ngo and Shin (2016) use a type 2 fuzzy basis
function and Takagi Sugeno fuzzy model to control an electrohydraulic
actuator under unstructured uncertainties. Takagi Sugeno fuzzy model
uses fuzzy logic for system identification of nonlinear systems.
Baghbani, Akbarzadeh‐T, M. Akbarzadeh, and Ghaemi, (2016) use
a type 2 fuzzy with mixed H2/H∞ bounded constraints to control the
consumption of energy of a three degrees of freedom prismatic‐spher-
ical‐prismatic robot experimental setup. The type 2 fuzzy strategy is
used to manage uncertainties, and the mixed H2/H∞ is used to mini-
mize the disturbance effect below a certain level and the control effort
energy.
TABLE 1 Summary of articles reviewed in this paper
8 of 14

Centralized/
Author Year Decentralized Control strategy Example Remarks
Alfonso et al. 2016 Decent Intelligent swarm optimization Light control of 8 zones Honeybee social foraging for control decision making;
interzone couplings
Baghbani et al. 2016 Cent H2, H∞, type 2 fuzzy 3DOF robot Fuzzy for uncertainty; mixed H2/H∞ for control
energy effort
Chandra Sekhar et al. 2016 Decent Firefly algorithm; fuzzy four power distribution areas Combined with fuzzy PID control; compare with GA
Gnana Sundari et al. 2016 Cent Firefly; particle swarm; artificial Pulse width modulator Optimum switch angles
bee colony (11 switches)
Takeya et al. 2016 Cent N/A Bridge structure Energy harvesting
Tang et al. 2016 Cent H2, H∞ SDOF tuned mass damper Energy harvesting
Khan and Ahmad 2016 Cent N/A Bridge oscillations Energy harvesting
Li and Adeli 2016 Cent H2 and H∞ 10‐story frame Active tuned mass damper; LMI; parameteric
uncertainties
Ngo and Shin 2016 Cent Type 2 Fuzzy; H∞ SMC Electrohydraulic actuator Unstructured uncertainties;
Anubi and Clemen 2015 Cent MPC and L2 gain no application Energy regenerative
Avci et al. 2015 Cent Feedforward and PI control Two‐finger microhand Medical robotics for cell‐assembly applications with
pick and place and vibration reduction objectives
Blanchini et al. 2015 Decent Network control, optimal LQR Water distribution, interconnected Comparison with centralized LQR or stability
control systems strategies
Corbett et al. 2015 Cent MPC Chemical production Compared with PI trajectory tracking; multiple local
model optimization
Evans et al. 2015 Cent MPC combined with robust Wind turbines Vibration reduction and fatigue analysis
control
Hajiahmadi et al. 2015 Decent MPC Urban traffic networks Hybrid perimeter and switching plans
Hanifzadegan and Nagamune 2015 Cent H∞ and L2 Ball screw driver H feedforward tracking control and L2 vibration
feedback control
He et al. 2015 Cent Backstepping control Moving string Varying lengths and speed; boundary constraints
Li, J. et al. 2015 Cent PD control Simple supported beam; Virtual electromagnetic energy harvester
maglev train
Lin and Cassandras 2015 Decent Optimal stochastic control 1‐D and 2‐D mission spaces Trajectory tracking
Lin et al. 2015 Cent MPC autoregressive exogenous (ARX) model structures Seasonal analysis and prediction; wind energy
Liu 2015 Decent Distributed adaptive control Four subsystems Nonlinear multiagent system using multiple
Nussbaum‐type functions; trajectory‐tracking
performance
Moore and Moheimani 2015 Cent P‐controller Nanoelectromechanical system Self‐sensing approach by modifying physical
components; experimental setup
Nelson et al. 2015 Decent P‐control Steel arch bridge model Modal analysis for actuator placement optimization;
velocity feedback; semiactive
Omidi and Mahmoodi 2015 Cent Positive feedback, H2, and H∞ Cantilever beam Vibration reduction and system identification;
simulated and experimental validation
INVITED REVIEW

(Continues)
TABLE 1 (Continued)

Centralized/
Author Year Decentralized Control strategy Example Remarks

Reppa et al. 2015 Decent Fault‐tolerant Two interconnected robots Methodology for detecting and isolating multiple
INVITED REVIEW

sensor faults
Sakurama et al. 2015 Decent Gradient flow approach Robots Multiagent system; objective to coordinate consensus,
formation and pattern decision
Sturzenegger et al. 2015 Cent MPC Office building Cost benefit analysis; energy consumption
Su and Jia 2015 Decent Adaptive backsteeping control; Flexible hypersonic vehicle Control objectives are adaptive flight trajectory
feedforward input shape tracking and elastic vibration mitigation
Sun C. et al. 2015 Decent MPC Hybrid electric vehicles Velocity predictors
Wang and Lin 2015 Decent Adaptive backstepping Two interconnected inverted Unknown time‐varying parameters; output tracking
pendulums
Winn and Julius 2015 Cent Safety control synthesis 2‐D planar vehicle, a 2‐D hybrid Human trajectories to reduce high dimensionality of a
rotating vehicle, and a 2‐D complex system
quadrotor with two propellers.
Xiao and Jing 2015 Cent Optimal nonconvex control Vehicle suspension Frequency domain analysis, nonlinear characteristic
output spectrum concept
Xu 2015 Cent MPC Piezoelectric nanopositioning Tracking error, hysteresis model
Yan et al. 2015 Decent L2 Inverted pendulum cart Event‐triggered
Yao et al. 2015 Decent MPC Network urban traffic Wide‐area damping for power systems
Zeng and Wang 2015 Decent MPC Hybrid electric vehicles Road grade preview
Zhou and Zuo 2015 Cent H2 Simple cantilever beam Integrates energy harvesting
Zhu and Jiang 2015 Decent Event‐based Multiagent system Limiting onboard resources; leader–follower
distributed topology
Wang and Adeli (a) 2015 Cent Fuzzy SMC wavelet NN Concrete bridge Fuzzy control compensation for chattering
Wang and Adeli (b) 2015 Cent SMC; LQG 76‐story structure Active tuned mass damper
Bresch‐Pietri et al. 2014 Cent Backstepping control Gasoline engine Transport phenomena in process industry; time‐delay
compensator
Fan et al. 2014 Cent Backstepping control Two‐order nonlinear system Stochastic actuator failure
Hu and Zheng 2014 Decent Multiagent system and/or Simulation: one leader and four Leader–follower distributed scheme
adaptive tracking followers network
Kilkki et al. 2014 Decent Frequency control Smart grid Agent‐based model using four cases
Li, P. et al. 2014 Cent Positive position feedback 1‐D beam Create redundancy by using time synchronization to
aid sensor failures
Li, S. et al. 2014 Cent Multimode control strategy 2‐D plate with clamped sides Feedback and feedforward control; acceleration
compensator using a chaotic sequence
Liu et al. 2014 Decent LQG/MPC Chemical reactor Full state feedback and only output feedback
available; Kalman filter observer
Negenborn and Maestre 2014 Decent MPC No application Categorized 35 distinct approaches

(Continues)
9 of 14
 10 of 14

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Centralized/
Author Year Decentralized Control strategy Example Remarks

Obando et al. 2014 Decent Population replicator dynamics four rooms Different temperature setpoints at each room,
comparison with LQR
Pu et al. 2014 Cent Robust trajectory linearization Hypersonic vehicles Uncertainty analysis and adaptive flight trajectory
control
Qu et al. 2014 Decent H∞ Six‐story numerical simulation, Double homotopy using bilinear matrix inequality
two‐story frame experiment
Tong et al. 2014 Decent Stochastic control with fuzzy Nonlinear inverted pendulum Division of subsystems: two subsystems
filter
Chandan and Alleyne 2013 Decent MPC 9‐zone 3‐story building, 11‐zone Temperature control
circular building
Fallah and Taghikhany 2013 Decent H2/LQG controller Cable‐stayed bridge Time‐delay
Ferrer et al. 2013 Cent Adaptive filter Acoustic signals Active noise control–convex combination filter
Lei et al. 2013 Decent LQR control 20‐story benchmark steel, Division of subsystems: two subsystems (Ex1), three
35‐story shear building subsystems (Ex2)
Nayyar et al. 2013 Decent Stochastic Static team of two controllers Observers and controllers share history with each
other
Riverso et al. 2013 Decent MPC, plug‐and‐play Power networks Adapt of neighboring subsystems to off‐line
controllers or addition of subsystems to an
exiting network
Rodriguez Fortun et al. 2013 Cent Integrates sky‐hook control with SDOF metrological devices Considers hysteresis and rate dependency of
flatness‐based feedforward piezoelectric actuator
control
Weike et al. 2013 Cent Fuzzy NN; GA; predictive control Power plant Compensate for process disturbances, measurement
noise and modeling errors
Cui and Jia 2012 Decent L2‐ L∞ control four+ agents multiagent system; time‐varying delays; switching
topologies; disturbance attenuation
Nekoukar and Erfanian 2012 Decent Sliding mode control, fuzzy logic Two cantilever beams resembling Trajectory tracking of upper and lower extremity joint
joint and two muscles dynamics
Mannava et al. 2012 Cent NN Computer machine control Tracking control; diamond contour, feedforward and
feedback control
Tong et al. 2011 Decent Adaptive NN and backstepping Two inverted pendulums Consider unmeasurable states and time delays
Wang 2011 Decent H∞ five‐story shear frame Homotopic transformation to obtain decentralized
configuration; time delayed

Note. 1‐D = one‐dimensional, 2‐D = two‐dimensional, DOF = degree of freedom, GA = genetic algorithms, LMI = linear matrix inequalities, LQG = linear quadratic Gaussian, LQR = linear quadratic regulator, MPC = model
predictive control, NN = neural network, SMC = sliding mode control, PD = proportional‐derivative, PID = proportional‐integral‐derivative.
INVITED REVIEW
INVITED REVIEW
5 | CONTROL AND ENERGY HARVESTING
Sustainability as defined by conserving energy or using alternative
energy sources has been an important research trend in recent
years. Some investigators have explored the idea of using the
mechanical vibrations of structures as input to harvest usable elec-
trical power. Research into simultaneous control and energy har-
vesting presents complexities that have motivated many
investigations. Wang and Inman (2012) present a survey of control
strategies for simultaneous vibration suppression and energy har-
vesting using piezoelectric materials. Peigney and Siegert (2013)
use a piezoelectric device to harvest energy in traffic‐induced vibra-
tions in a prestressed concrete highway bridge. Khan and Admad
(2016) present a review of various devices used for energy harvest-
ing of bridge structure vibrations.
Zhou and Zuo (2015) investigate a self‐powered H2‐controlled
actuator installed on a flexible cantilever beam for simultaneous vibra-
tion control and energy harvesting. Their results show that the accu-
mulated harvested energy is higher than the consumed energy used
by the controller. Anubi and Clemen (2015) study self‐powered MPC
of an SDOF simulation under stability constraints and use L2‐norm to
minimize the estimation error. Li et al. (2015) investigate the harvest
energy and PD vibration control using an electromagnetic device
installed on a platform whereas a full‐scale maglev train travels across.
Takeya, Sasaki, and Kobayashi (2016) replace the damper of a
dual‐mass tuned mass damper with an electromagnetic transducer to
harvest energy from low‐frequency mechanical vibrations of a bridge.
Tang, Liu, Cui, and Zuo (2016) use H2 and H∞ norms for optimal tuning
of an SDOF tuned mass damper (Gutierrez Soto, & Adeli, 2013a) con-
nected to an R‐L‐C (resistor‐inductor‐capacitor) circuit for simulta-
neous vibration control and energy harvesting under random
excitations (Cassidy, Scruggs, Behrens, & Gavin, 2011). Figure 4
depicts an example of sustainable control using energy harvesting
and vibration reduction from vehicles and civil infrastructure.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N
A summary of the articles reviewed in this paper is presented in
Table 1 in reverse chronological order. There has been an increasing
interest in the combination of feedforward and feedback control
strategies. Novel autonomous control systems intersect distributed
control theory, agent‐based modeling, bioinspired computational
learning, and optimization algorithms.
The authors are currently developing novel adaptive control algo-
rithms to simultaneously perform vibration suppression and energy
minimization through integration of the agent technology and
replicator dynamics from the evolutionary game theory. The use of
agents and a decentralized approach enhances the robustness of the
entire vibration control system. Another line of research would be
integration of two fields of vibration control and structural health
monitoring (Karami & Akbarabadi, 2016).
Vibration energy‐harvesting systems can be the source of energy
for active and semiactive control and health‐monitoring systems to
make them self‐powered and sustainable. Integration of a gent Materials Systems and Structures, 22(17), 2009–2024.
11 of 14
multiobjective control and energy‐harvesting systems is another
promising multidisciplinary research area in the years to come.
RE FE RE NC ES
Adeli, H., & Ge, Y. (1989). A dynamic programming method for analysis of
bridges under multiple moving loads. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 28, 1265–1282.
Adeli, H., & Jiang, X. (2006). Dynamic fuzzy wavelet neural network model
for structural system identification. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 132(1), 102–111.
Adeli, H., & Jiang, X. (2009). Intelligent infrastructure—Neural networks,
wavelets, and chaos theory for intelligent transportation systems and
smart structures. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Adeli, H., & Kim, H. (2004). Wavelet‐hybrid feedback least mean square
algorithm for robust control of structures. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, 130(1), 128–137.
Adeli, H., & Kim, H. (2009). Wavelet‐based vibration control of smart buildings
and bridges. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Adeli, H., & Saleh, A. (1998). Integrated structural/control optimization of
large adaptive/smart structures. International Journal of Solids and Struc-
tures, 35(28–29), 3815–3830.
Adeli, H., & Saleh, A. (1999). Control, optimization, and smart structures—
High‐performance bridges and buildings of the future. New York, USA:
John Wiley and Sons.
Adeli, H., & Samant, A. (2000). An adaptive conjugate gradient neural net-
work—Wavelet model for traffic incident detection. Computer‐Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 15(4), 251–260.
Akar, S. A., Kara, S., Latifoğlu, F., & Bilgiç, V. (2016). Analysis of the com-
plexity measures in the EEG of schizophrenia patients. International
Journal of Neural Systems, 26(2) 1650008 (13 pages).
Alfonso, W., Velazquez, J. J., Passino, K. M., & Caicedo, E. F. (2016). A
honeybee social foraging algorithm for feedback control of smart lights.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 48, 13–31.
Amini, F., & Zabihi‐Samani, M. (2014). A wavelet‐based adaptive pole
assignment method for structural control. Computer‐Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 29(6), 464–477.
Anubi, O. M., & Clemen, L. (2015). Energy‐regenerative model predictive
control. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 352(5), 2152–2170.
Avci, E., Ohara, K., Nguyen, C.‐N., Theeravithayangkura, C., Kojima, M.,
Tanikawa, T., & Arai, T. (2015). High‐speed automated manipulation
of microobjects using a two‐fingered microhand. Industrial Electronics,
IEEE Transactions on, 62(2), 1070–1079.
Baghbani, F., Akbarzadeh‐T, M. R., Akbarzadeh, A., & Ghaemi, M. (2016).
Robust adaptive mixed H2/H∞ interval type‐2 fuzzy control of
nonlinear uncertain systems with minimal control effort. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 46, 88–102.
Blanchini, F., Franco, E., & Giordano, G. (2015). Networked‐decentralized
control strategies for stabilization. Automatic Control, Transactions on,
60(2), 491–497.
Bresch‐Pietri, D., Chauvin, J., & Petit, N. (2014). Prediction‐based stabiliza-
tion of linear systems subject to input‐dependent input delay of
integral‐type. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 59(9), 2385–
2399.
Cabessa, J., & Siegelmann, H. T. (2014). The super‐turing computational
power of evolving recurrent neural networks. International Journal of
Neural Systems, 24(8), 1450029 (22 pages).
Caiyun, W. (2012). Active Noise Control Based On Adaptive Bilinear F‐L
Algorithm. In Computer distributed control and intelligent environmental
monitoring (CDCIEM), International Conference on, 5–6. (pp. 89–92).
Cassidy, I., Scruggs, J. T., Behrens, S., & Gavin, H. P. (2011). Design and
experimental characterization of an electromagnetic transducer for
large‐scale vibratory energy harvesting applications. Journal of Intelli-
12 of 14
Castillo, A., Calviño, A., Grande, Z., Sánchez‐Cambronero, S., Gallego, I.,
Rivas, A., & Menéndez, J. A. (2016). A Markovian‐Bayesian network
for risk analysis of high speed and conventional railway lines integrating
human errors. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 31(3),
193–218.
Chandan, V., & Alleyne, A. (2013). Optimal partitioning for decentralized
thermal control of buildings. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, 21(5), 1756–1770.
Chandra Sekhar, G. T., Kumar Sahu, R., Baliarsingh, A. K., & Panda, S. (2016).
Load frequency control of power system under deregulated environ-
ment using optimal firefly algorithm. International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, 74, 195–211.
Cheng, J., Zhang, G., Caraffini, F., & Neri, F. (2015). Multicriteria adaptive
differential evolution for global numerical optimization. Integrated
Computer‐Aided Engineering, 22(2), 103–117.
Chou, J. S., & Pham, A. D. (2015). Smart artificial firefly colony‐based sup-
port vector regression for enhanced forecasting in civil engineering.
Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(9), 715–732.
Chu, J.‐Z., Jang, S.‐S., & Chen, Y.‐N. (2004). A comparative study of com-
bined feedforwards/feedback model predictive control for nonlinear
systems. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 82(6), 1263–
1272. doi:10.1002/cjce.5450820613
Corbett, B., Macdonald, B., & Mhaskar, P. (2015). Model predictive quality
control of polymethyl methacrylate. Control Systems Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, 23(2), 687–692.
Cui, Y., & Jia, Y. (2012). L2‐L∞ consensus control for high‐order multi‐agent
systems with switching topologies and time‐varying delays. IET Control
Theory and Applications, 6(12), 1933–1940.
Dai, H., Wang, W., & Zhang, H. (2015). A multiwavelet neural network‐
based response surface method for structural reliability Analysis.
Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 3(2), 151–162.
De Wolf, T., Holvoet, T. (2003) “Towards autonomic computing: Agent‐based
modelling, dynamical systems analysis, and decentralised control”.
Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics.
Donnarumma, F., Prevete, R., Chersi, F., & Pezzulo, G. (2015). A program-
mer‐interpreter neural network architecture for prefrontal cognitive
control. International Journal of Neural Systems, 25(6) 1550017
(16pages).
Dorf, R. C., & Bishop, R. H. (2008). Modern control systems. Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Dorf, R. C., & Kusiak, A. (1994). Handbook of manufacturing and automation.
New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Doyle, J. C., Glover, K., Khargonekar, P. P., & Francis, B. A. (1989). State‐
space solutions to standard H2 and H∞ control problems. Automatic
Control, IEEE Transactions on, 34(8), 831–847.
Evans, M., Cannon, M., & Kouvaritakis, B. (2015). Robust MPC tower
damping for variable speed wind turbines. Control Systems Technology,
IEEE Transactions on, 23(1), 290–296.
Fallah, A. Y., & Taghikhany, T. (2013). Time‐delayed decentralized H2/LQG
controller for cable‐stayed bridge under seismic loading. Structural
Control and Health Monitoring, 20(3), 354–372.
Fan, H., Liu, B., Shen, Y., & Wang, W. (2014). Adaptive failure compensation
control for uncertain systems with stochastic actuator failures.
Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 59(3), 808–814.
Ferrer, M., Gonzalez, A., de Diego, M., & Piñero, G. (2013). Convex combi-
nation filtered‐x algorithms for active noise control systems. IEEE
Transactions on audio, speech, and language processing, 21(1), 156–167.
Forcael, E., González, V., Orozco, F., Vargas, S., Moscoso, P., & Pantoja, A.
(2014). Ant colony optimization model for tsunamis evacuation routes.
Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(10), 723–737.
Forero Mendoza, L., Vellasco, M., & Figueiredo, K. (2014). Intelligent
multiagent coordination based on reinforcement hierarchical neuro‐
fuzzy models. International Journal of Neural Systems., 24(8) 1450031
(20 pages).
INVITED REVIEW
Gnana Sundari, M., Rajaram, M., & Balaraman, S. (2016). Application of
improved firefly algorithm for programmed PWM in multilevel inverter
with adjustable DC sources. Applied Soft Computing, 41, 169–179.
Gutierrez Soto, M., & Adeli, H. (2013a). Tuned mass dampers. Archives of
Computational Methods in Engineering, 20(4), 419–431.
Gutierrez Soto, M., & Adeli, H. (2013b). Placement of control devices for
passive, semi‐active, and active, vibration control of structures. Scientia
Iranica ‐ Transaction A: Civil Engineering, 20(6), 1567–1578.
Hajiahmadi, M., Haddad, J., De Schutter, B., & Geroliminis, N. (2015). Opti-
mal hybrid perimeter and switching plans control for urban traffic
networks. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 23(2),
464–478.
Hanifzadegan, M., & Nagamune, R. (2015). Tracking and structural vibration
control of flexible ball‐screw drives with dynamic variations.
Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 20(1), 133–142.
Hassani, V., Tjahjowidodo, T., & Nho Do, T. (2014). A survey on hysteresis
modeling, identification and control. Mechanical Systems and Signal Pro-
cessing, 49(1–2), 209–233. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.04.012
He, W., Ge, S., & Huang, D. (2015). Modeling and vibration control for a
nonlinear moving string with output constraint. Mechatronics, IEEE/
ASME Transactions on, 20(4), 1886–1897.
Hsu, W. Y. (2015). Assembling a multi‐feature EEG classifier for left‐
right motor data using wavelet‐based fuzzy approximate entropy
for improved accuracy. International Journal of Neural Systems, 25(8)
(13 pages).
Hu, J., & Zheng, W. X. (2014). Adaptive tracking control of leader‐follower
systems with unknown dynamics and partial measurements.
Automatica, 50(5), 1416–1423.
Hua, Y., Cordoba‐Arenas, A., Warner, N., & Rizzoni, G. (2015). A multi‐scale
state‐of‐charge and state‐of‐health estimation framework using a non-
linear predictive filter for lithium‐ion battery pack with passive balance
control. Journal of Power Systems, 280, 293–312.
Iacca, G., Caraffini, F., & Neri, F. (2014). Multi‐strategy coevolving aging
particle optimization. International Journal of Neural Systems, 24(1)
1450008 (19 pages).
Jennings, N., & Bussmann, S. (2003). Agent‐based control systems: Why
are they suited to engineering complex systems? Control Systems. IEEE
Transactions on, 23(3), 61–73.
Jiang, X., & Adeli, H. (2008a). Dynamic fuzzy wavelet neuroemulator for
nonlinear control of irregular high rise building structures. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 74(7), 1045–1066.
Jiang, X., & Adeli, H. (2008b). Neuro‐genetic algorithm for nonlinear active
control of high rise buildings. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering, 75(8), 770–786.
Karami, K., Akbarabadi, S., 2016. Develop smart structure using damage
detection and vibration control, computer‐aided civil and infrastructure
engineering, to appear.
Katicha, S. W., Flintsch, G., & Bryce, J. (2014). Wavelet Denoising of TSD
Deflection Slope Measurements for Improved Pavement Structural
Evaluation. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(6),
399–415.
Khan, F. U., & Ahmad, I. (2016). Review of energy harvesters utilizing bridge
vibrations. Shock and Vibration, 2016, (21 pages).1340402
Kilkki, O., Kangasrääsiö, A., Nikkilä, A., Alahäivälä, A., & Seilonen, I. (2014).
Agent‐based modeling and simulation of a smart grid: A case study of
communication effects on frequency control. Engineering Applications
of Artificial Intelligence., 33, 91–98.
Kim, H., & Adeli, H. (2004). Hybrid feedback‐LMS algorithm for structural
control. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE., 130(1), 120–127.
Kim, H., & Adeli, H. (2005a). Hybrid control of smart structures using a
novel wavelet‐based algorithm. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 20(1), 7–22.
Kim, H., & Adeli, H. (2005b). Hybrid control of irregular steel highrise build-
ing structures under seismic excitations. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 63(12), 1757–1774.
INVITED REVIEW
Kim, H., & Adeli, H. (2005c). Wind‐induced motion control of 76‐story
benchmark building using the hybrid damper tuned liquid column
damper system. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(12),
1794–1802.
Kim, H., & Adeli, H. (2005d). Wavelet hybrid feedback‐LMS algorithm for
robust control of cable‐stayed bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE, 10(2), 116–123.
Kim, K.‐J., & Cho, S.‐B. (2006). A comprehensive overview of the applica-
tion of artificial life. MIT Press, Artificial Life, 12(1), 153–182.
Koerber, A., & King, R. (2013). Combined Feedback‐Feedforward Control
of Wind Turbines Using State‐Constrained Model Predictive Control.
Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 21(4), 1117–1128.
Kokotovic, P. V. (1990). The joy of feedback: Nonlinear and adaptive. Con-
trol Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 12(3), 7–17.
Lee, H. G., Yi, C. Y., Lee, D. E., & Arditi, D. (2015). An advanced stochastic
time‐cost tradeoff analysis based on a CPM‐guided multi‐objective
genetic algorithm. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.,
30(10), 824–842.
Lei, Y., Wu, D. T., & Lin, Y. (2012). A decentralized control algorithm for
large scale systems. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.,
27(1), 2–13.
Leitão, P. (2009). Agent‐based distributed manufacturing control: A state‐
of‐the‐art survey. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence., 22
(7), 979–991.
Levine, W. S. (1996). The control handbook. Boca Raton: Florida. CRC Press.
Li, Z., Adeli, H., 2016. New discrete‐time robust H2/H∞ algorithm for vibration
control of smart structures using linear matrix inequalities. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, in press.
Li, P., Li, L., Song, G., & Yu, Y. (2014). Wireless sensing and vibration control
with increased redundancy and robustness design cybernetics. IEEE
Transactions on, 44(11), 2076–2087.
Li, S., Li, J., & Mo, Y. (2014). Piezoelectric multimode vibration control for
stiffened plate using ADRC‐based acceleration compensation. Industrial
Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 61(12), 6892–6902.
Li, J., Li, J., Zhou, D., Cui, P., Wang, L., & Yu, P. (2015). The active control of
maglev stationary self‐excited vibration with a virtual energy harvester.
Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 62(5), 2942–2951.
Lin, X., & Cassandras, C. (2015). An optimal control approach to the multi‐
agent persistent monitoring problem in two‐dimensional spaces. Auto-
matic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 60(6), 1659–1664.
Lin, Y., Kruger, U., Zhang, J., Wang, Q., Lamont, L., & Chaar, L. (2015). Sea-
sonal analysis and prediction of wind energy using random forests and
ARX model structures. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions
on., 23(5), 1994–2002.
Lin, Y., Descamps, P., Gaud, N., Hilaire, V., & Koukam, A. (2015). Multi‐
agent system for intelligent scrum project management. Integrated
Computer‐Aided Engineering, 22(3), 281–296.
Liu, L. (2015). Adaptive cooperative output regulation for a class of nonlin-
ear multi‐agent systems. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 60(6),
1677–1682.
Liu, S., Liu, J., Feng, Y., & Rong, G. (2014). Performance assessment of
decentralized control systems: An iterative approach. Control Engineer-
ing Practice, 22, 252–263.
Mannava, A., Balakrishnan, S. N., Tang, L., & Landers, R. G. (2012). Optimal
tracking control of motion systems. Control Systems Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, 20(6), 1548–1558.
Martínez‐Ballesteros, M., Bacardit, J., & Riquelme, J. C. (2015). Enhancing
the scalability of evolutionary algorithms to discover quantitative asso-
ciation rules in large‐scale datasets. Integrated Computer‐Aided
Engineering., 22(1), 21–39.
Mesejo, P., Ibanez Enrique Fernandez‐Blanco, O., Cedron, F., Pazos, A., &
Porto‐Pazos, A. B. (2015). Artificial neuron‐glia networks learning para-
digm based on cooperative coevolution. International Journal of Neural
Systems., 25(4) 1550012 (19 pages).
13 of 14
Moore, S., & Moheimani, S. O. (2015). Vibration control with MEMS elec-
trostatic drives: A self‐sensing approach. Control Systems Technology,
IEEE Transactions on, 23(3), 1237–1244.
Nayyar, A., Mahajan, A., & Teneketzis, D. (2013). Decentralized stochastic
control with partial history sharing: A common information approach.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(7), 1644–1658.
Negenborn, R., & Maestre, J. (2014). Distributed model predictive control:
An overview and roadmap of future research opportunities. Control Sys-
tems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 34(4), 87–97.
Nekoukar, V., & Erfanian, A. (2012). A decentralized modular control frame-
work for robust control of FES‐activated walker‐assisted paraplegic
walking using terminal sliding mode and fuzzy logic control. Biomedical
Engineering, IEEE Transactions on., 59(10), 2818–2827.
Nelson, G., Rajamani, R., Gastineau, A., Wojtkiewicz, S., & Schultz, A.
(2015). Bridge life extension using semiactive vibration control.
Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 20(1), 207–216.
Ngo, P. D., & Shin, Y. C. (2016). Modeling of unstructured uncertainties and
robust controlling of nonlinear dynamic systems based on type‐2 fuzzy
basis function networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
53, 74–85.
Obando, G., Pantoja, A., & Quijano, N. (2014). Building temperature control
based on population dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, 22(1), 404–412.
Ogata, K. (2010). Modern Control Engineering (Fifth ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Omidi, E., & Mahmoodi, N. (2015). Hybrid positive feedback control for
active vibration attenuation of flexible structures. Mechatronics, IEEE/
ASME Transactions on, 20(4), 1790–1797.
Paris, P. C. D., Pedrino, E. C., & Nicoletti, M. C. (2015). Automatic learning
of image filters using cartesian genetic programming. Integrated Com-
puter‐Aided Engineering, 22(2), 135–151.
Passino, K. (2004). Biomimicry for optimization, control, and automation. UK:
Springer‐Verlag London.
Peigney, M., & Siegert, D. (2013). Piezoelectric energy harvesting from
traffic‐induced bridge vibrations. Smart Materials and Structures., 22
(9), 1–11.
Pinto, T., Vale, Z., Sousa, T. M., Praça, I., Santos, G., & Morais, H. (2014).
Adaptive learning in agents behaviour: A framework for electricity mar-
kets simulation. Integrated Computer‐Aided Engineering, 21(4), 399–415.
Poznyak, A. S., Sanchez, E. N., & Yu, W. (2001). Differential neural networks
for robust nonlinear control. Singapore: World Scientific.
Pu, Z., Tan, X., Fan, G., & Yi, J. (2014). Uncertainty analysis and robust tra-
jectory linearization control of a flexible air‐breathing hypersonic
vehicle. Acta Astronautica, 101, 16–32.
Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model predictive
control technology. Control Engineering Practice, 11, 733–764.
Quirós, P., Alonso, P., Díaz, I., & Montes, S. (2014). On the use of fuzzy par-
titions to protect data. Integrated Computer‐Aided Engineering, 21(4),
355–366.
Reppa, V., Polycarpou, M., & Panayiotou, C. (2015). Decentralized isolation
of multiple sensor faults in large‐scale interconnected nonlinear sys-
tems. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 60(6), 1582–1596.
Rigatos, G. G. (2015). Nonlinear control and filtering using differential flatness
approaches: Applications to electromechanical systems. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Riverso, S., Farina, M., & Ferrari‐Trecate, G. (2013). Plug‐and‐play
decentralized model predictive control for linear systems. IEEE Transac-
tions on Automatic Control, 58(10), 2608–2614.
Rodriguez Fortun, J. M., Orus, J., Alfonso, J., Gimeno, F. B., & Castellanos, J.
A. (2013). Flatness‐based active vibration control for piezoelectric actu-
ators. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 18(1), 221–229.
Sakurama, K., Azuma, S.‐I., & Sugie, T. (2015). Distributed controllers for
multi‐agent coordination via gradient‐flow approach. Automatic Control,
IEEE Transactions on, 60(6), 1471–1485.
14 of 14
Sepulchre, R., Jankovic, M., & Kokotovic, P. V. (1997). Constructive nonlinear
control. New York, USA: Springer.
Shabbir, F., & Omenzetter, P. (2015). Particle swarm optimization with
sequential niche technique for dynamic finite element model updating.
Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(5), 359–375.
Simon, D. (2006). Optimal state estimation: Kalman, H∞, and nonlinear
approaches. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sturzenegger, D., Gyalistras, D., Morari, M., & Smith, R. (2015). Model pre-
dictive climate control of a swiss office building: Implementation,
results, and cost–benefit analysis. Control Systems Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, 24(1), 1–12.
Su, W. S., Liu, C. Y., & Huang, C. S. (2014). Identification of Instantaneous
modal parameters of time varying systems via a wavelet‐based
approach and its applications. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 29(4), 279–298.
Su, X., & Jia, Y. (2015). Constrained adaptive tracking command shaped
vibration control of flexible hypersonic vehicles. IET Control Theory
and Applications, 9(12), 1857–1868. doi:10.1049/iet-cta.2014.0750
Sun, C., Hu, X., Moura, S., & Sun, F. (2015). Velocity predictors for predic-
tive energy management in hybrid electric vehicles. Control Systems
Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 23(3), 1197–1204.
Sun, X., Jing, X., Cheng, L., & Xu, J. (2015). A 3‐D quasi‐zero‐stiffness‐based
sensor system for absolute motion measurement and application in
active vibration control. Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 20
(1), 254–262.
Takeya, K., Sasaki, E., & Kobayashi, Y. (2016). Design and parametric study
on energy harvesting from bridge vibration using tuned dual‐mass
damper systems. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 361, 50–65.
Tang, X., Liu, Y., Cui, W., & Zuo, L. (2016). Analytical solutions to H2 and H∞
optimizations for resonant shunted electromagnetic tuned mass
damper and vibration energy harvesting. Journal of Vibration and Acous-
tics, 138(1), 011018.
Tong, S.‐C., Li, Y.‐M., & Zhang, H.‐G. (2011). Adaptive neural network
decentralized backstepping output‐feedback control of nonlinear
large‐scale systems with time delays. IEEE Transactions on Neural Net-
works, 22(7), 1073–1086.
Tong, S., Sui, S., & Li, Y. (2014). Adaptive fuzzy decentralized output stabi-
lization for stochastic nonlinear large‐scale systems with unknown
control directions. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(5),
1365–1372.
Vahabi, Z., Amirfattahi, R., Ghassemi, F., & Shayegh, F. (2015). Online epi-
leptic seizure prediction using wavelet‐based bi‐phase correlation of
electrical signal tomography. International Journal of Neural Systems,
25(6) 1550028 (22 pages).
Vrabie, D., Vamvoudakis, K. G., & Lewis, F. L. (2013). Optimal adaptive con-
trol and differential games by reinforcement learning principles, The
Institute of Engineering Technology. London: U.K.
Wang, Y. (2011). Time‐delayed dynamic output feedback H∞ controller
design for civil structures: A decentralized approach through homotopic
transformation. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 18(2), 121–139.
Wang, N., & Adeli, H. (2012). Algorithms for chattering reduction in system
control. The Journal of the Franklin Institute, 349(8), 2687–2703.
Wang, N., & Adeli, H. (2015a). Self‐constructing wavelet neural network
algorithm for nonlinear control of smart structures. Engineering Applica-
tions of Artificial Intelligence, 41, 249–258.
Wang, N., & Adeli, H. (2015b). Robust vibration control of wind‐excited
highrise building structures. Journal of Civil Engineering and Manage-
ment, 21(8), 967–976.
Wang, Y., & Inman, D. J. (2012). A survey of control strategies for simulta-
neous vibration suppression and energy harvesting via piezoceramics.
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 23(18), 2021–2037.
Wang, C., & Lin, Y. (2015). Decentralized adaptive tracking control for a
class of interconnected nonlinear time‐varying systems. Automatica,
54, 16–24.
INVITED REVIEW
Wang, H., Yajima, A., Liang, R. Y., & Castaneda‐Lopez, H. (2015). Bayesian
modeling of external corrosion in underground pipelines based on the
integration of Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques and clustered
inspection data. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30
(4), 300–316.
Weike, Y., Bin, L., Yong, X., 2013. Fuzzy neural networks and GA based pre-
dictive control for active power filter. Proceedings of the fifth
conference on measuring technology and mechatronics automation.
598–601
Winn, A., & Julius, A. (2015). Safety controller synthesis using human gen-
erated trajectories. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 60(6),
1597–1610.
Wooldridge, M., 1997. Agent‐based software engineering. Proceedings
Institute of Electrical Engineering, 144: 26–37
Xiao, Z., & Jing, X. (2015). Frequency‐domain analysis and design of linear
feedback of nonlinear systems and applications in vehicle suspensions.
Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 21(1), 506–517.
Xu, Q. (2015). Digital sliding mode prediction control of piezoelectric
micro/nanopositioning system. Control Systems Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, 23(1), 297–304.
Yan, H., Yan, S., Zhang, H., & Shi, H. (2015). L2 control design of event‐trig-
gered networked control systems with quantizations. Journal of the
Franklin Institute., 352(1), 332–345.
Yao, W., Jiang, L., Wen, J., Wu, Q., & Cheng, S. (2015). Wide‐area damping
controller for power system interarea oscillations: A networked predic-
tive control approach. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on,
23(1), 27–36.
You, D., Benitez‐Quiroz, C. F., & Martinez, A. M. (2014). Multiobjective
optimization for model selection in kernel methods in regression. Neural
Networks and Learning Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 25(10),
1879–1893.
Zang, C., Friswell, M. I., & Mottershead, J. E. (2005). A review of robust
optimal design and its application in dynamics. Computers and Struc-
tures, 83(4–5), 315–326. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.10.007
Zeng, X., & Wang, J. (2015). A parallel hybrid electric vehicle energy man-
agement strategy using stochastic model predictive control with road
grade preview. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 23(6),
2416–2423.
Zeng, Z., Xu, J., Wu, S., & Shen, M. (2014). Antithetic method‐based particle
swarm optimization for a queuing network problem with fuzzy data in
concrete transportation systems. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastruc-
ture Engineering., 29(10), 771–800.
Zhou, Z., & Adeli, H. (2003). Time‐frequency signal analysis of earthquake
records using Mexican hat wavelets. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infra-
structure Engineering., 18(5), 379–389.
Zhou, W., & Zuo, L. (2015). A self‐powered piezoelectric vibration control
system with switch precharged inductor (SPCI) method. Mechatronics,
IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 20(2), 773–781.
Zhou, A., Qu, B.‐Y., Li, H., Zhao, S.‐Z., Suganthan, P. N., & Zhang, Q. (2011).
Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A survey of the state of the art.
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 32–49.
Zhu, W., & Jiang, Z.‐P. (2015). Event‐based leader‐following consensus of
multi‐agent systems with input time delay. Automatic Control, IEEE
Transactions, 60(5), 1362–1367.
How to cite this article: Gutierrez Soto M, Adeli H. Recent
advances in control algorithms for smart structures and
machines. Expert Systems. 2017;34:e12205. https://doi.org/
10.1111/exsy.12205