1 / 21

Hybrid Testing; Benchmarks and Validation

Gary Haussmann Eric Stauffer. Hybrid Testing; Benchmarks and Validation. Outline. Validation: Test vs. Analytical Models Sources of error Results and comparison Capabilities, from PSD to Real-time When do you need real-time? The same test at multiple speeds Limitations Model size

benedict-levine
Télécharger la présentation

Hybrid Testing; Benchmarks and Validation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gary Haussmann Eric Stauffer Hybrid Testing;Benchmarks and Validation CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  2. Outline • Validation: Test vs. Analytical Models • Sources of error • Results and comparison • Capabilities, from PSD to Real-time • When do you need real-time? • The same test at multiple speeds • Limitations • Model size • Velocity, displacement limits CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  3. Validation Process • Well Understood Model • Predict Analytical Response • Compare With FHT Test Results CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  4. Validation: Error Sources • Actuator Lag • For a stiff specimen, lag leads to negative “damping” • For a damping specimen, lag leads to negative “mass” • MR Damper Model • Nonlinear Response • Use a Linearized Model • Measurement Error • Instrument Noise CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  5. Validation: MR Damper • Perform Simple Tests to Characterize Damper • Variety of velocities and displacements • Generate a Damper Model for Analytical Solution CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  6. Validation: Results CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  7. Validation: Results • Large amplitude tests match analytical • As amplitude decreases, lag increases in the test results • Primary error source: MR Damper model • Linearized model doesn't match near-zero response of the actual damper • Not noticeable with large signals • Revise Damper Model CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  8. Capabilities: PSD • Pseudodynamic testing • Time is not a factor • Local or Distributed Testing • No Limits on Model Size • Three Independent or Coordinated Actuators • 12+ Measurement Channels CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  9. Capabilities: Real-Time • Soft or Hard Real-Time • Limitations: • Local only • Max Model Size • Actuator Velocity Limits • Data Channel Limit (~80) • Pausing “ill-advised” CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  10. Real-Time Testing? • You don't always need real-time • Stiffness primary phenomenon • Low-frequency excitation • Real-time Situations • Velocity-based components • Rate-dependent forces • Can we model it instead? CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  11. When Real-Time Matters • A Simple Hybrid Test With MR Damper • Try Various Real-Time Methods and Compare CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  12. Various Modeling Schemes • Hard Real-Time • Soft Real-Time • “Fake” Soft Real-Time • OpenFresco OS Soft Real-Time • Interpolate/Extrapolate • Ramp-and-Hold • Scaled time: *10, *100 CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  13. Real-Time vs. Stretched Time • Velocity-based components • Impact is reduced • Slower time leads to less response • Stiffness-based components still valid • Virtual forces can emulate a velocity-based response if no real-time available • Compute velocity-based response in slow test • Requires reasonable damping model CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  14. Real-Time Test Results • Slower Tests Reduce Damper Effect • Hard To See The Difference CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  15. Real-Time Test Results • Slower Tests Reduce Damper Effect • Hard To See The Difference CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  16. Real-Time Results • Exaggerate The Differences • Assign Hard Real-Time = 100% • Assign No Damper = 0% • Scale The Rest Appropriately CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  17. Real-Time Results CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  18. Real-Time TestingAnalysis Limitations • Standard update rate: 0.97mS period • 60Hz Monitor: 16mS • Model Size • Degrees-of-freedom: 130 • Ever-increasing • Material Modeling • Complex materials take more time • Elastic Linear easiest CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  19. Real-Time TestingSpecimen Limitations • Actuator Limitations • Displacement: +-6 inches • Velocity: 10/20 inches/sec • Force: 110 or 220 Kips • Use actuator model to predict these results • Coupled and Multi-DOF test Configuration • Crosstalk and parasitic coupling • Exacerbated in real-time CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  20. Real-Time TestingBonus Capabilities • MATLAB xPC/Real-time Workshop • Also hooked into SCRAMnet • Additional modeling/analysis during test • PXI Instrument/DAQ Chassis • Analog and Digital I/O • Acquire quantities in real-time over SCRAMnet • Streaming analysis data • Visualize OpenSEES model during test • Debugging, Entertainment CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

  21. Conclusion • Hybrid Test Validation • Compare test and analytical solution • Damper model main source of discrepancy • Real-time vs. slower time • Damping effects are reduced • Slower tests approach no-damping results • Hybrid testing limitations • Model size • Actuator limits CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop

More Related