15

CHAPTER 2

MODELING OF STRUCTURES WITH INTERVAL

PARAMETER

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Smart structures- structures with smart materials-have found their

applications in many areas, especially in controlling motion that is related to
structural deformation. In those smart structures, the control is delivered by
the actuation strain produced by smart materials such as piezoelectric
materials, shape memory metal alloys, electrostrictive materials, and
magnetostrive materials. Design strategies such as which smart material to
use and how to distribute the actuators rely on how much actuation strain is
needed. Hence it is important to accurately model the interaction between the
actuation strain and the substructures to which the smart material is attached.
There are several approaches to model smart structures. The finite element
method has become a powerful and versatile approach since the coupled
electromechanical problem can be analyzed without any simplifying
assumptions about piezoelectric devices. System identification is an
established modeling tool in engineering and numerous successful
applications have been reported. The theory is well developed Ljung (1999)
or Soderstrom and Stoica (1989) and there are powerful software tool
available. The model obtained through identification is using the experimental
data acquired. The uncertainties arise from various components in a system
may vary from time to time between certain limits. These uncertainties in the
system can be addressed by representing the identified system model in
 16

interval form. In this chapter, the identified model of piezoelectric actuated

cantilever beam is represented in interval form by assuming uncertainties in
the system parameters.

The chapter is organized as follows: The basic of an interval

arithmetic approach is presented in Section 2.2. In Section 2.3 the
experimental setup used for identification and control is discussed. The
system model and its interval form is given in Section 2.4. Conclusions are
drawn in Section 2.5.

2.2 BASICS OF INTERVAL ARITHMETIC

Interval arithmetic is an arithmetic defined on sets of intervals,

rather than sets of real numbers. A form of interval arithmetic perhaps first
appeared in J.C.Burkill( 1924) and R.C. Young(1931), then later in
T.Sunaga(1958). Modern development of interval arithmetic began with R.E .
Moore’s dissertation (1962). Intervals are central to interval arithmetic, a
general numerical computing technique that automatically provides
guaranteed enclosures for arbitrary formulas, even in the presence of
uncertainties, mathematical approximations, and arithmetic round off.

Interval arithmetic involves expressing a real as a pair of numbers

which represent an interval containing the number Moore R.E. (1966). A
representation such as floating point arithmetic may be used to express the
lower and upper bounds. Interval arithmetic operations compute new upper
and lower bounds on the result after the operation has been performed. This
may be performed using floating point arithmetic, but rounding strictly
upwards for the upper bounds and strictly downwards for the lower bounds.
 17

Interval arithmetic is extremely useful. Once a suitable interval

arithmetic package is available, no further analysis need be performed on
specific computations themselves. Combining the results of the upper and
lower bounds allows the result to be expressed to an appropriate number of
correct significant digits. In addition, when an input is not known exactly but
only to some small number of digits (eg. a physical measurement of some
kind), this fact can represented in Moore R.E. (1979) and is reflected in the
tightness of the bound on the output result.

The basic operations of interval arithmetic are, for two intervals [a,
b] and [c, d] that are subsets of the real line (-∞, ∞),
[a,b] + [c,d] = [a + c, b + d]
[a,b] − [c, d] = [a − d, b −c]
[a,b] × [c,d] = [min (ac, ad, bc, bd), max (ac, ad, bc, bd)]
[a,b] / [c,d] = [min (a/c, a/d, b/c, b/d), max (a/c, a/d, b/c, b/d)]

Using the above representation, interval arithmetic comes with

error free estimation. The width of the interval can be interpreted as the
possible deviation of the numerical representation from a real number. This
inclusion of the real or mathematical results is even inherited in proper
arithmetic operations or functions i.e. as long as one applies well-defined,
interval – specific operations, the computational results is guaranteed to
enclosed the correct mathematical result. Due to this characteristic, interval
arithmetic is tailor-made for applications where results are mission-critical.
Further more, recent advances prove that interval techniques are more
appropriate in specific applications like solving non-linear problems
previously thought to be impossible to solve with floating-points techniques.
Other fields where intervals proved that it’s superiorly are global optimization
and solving ordinary differential equation.
 18

Overestimation is a major drawback in interval computation. One

reason is that only some of the algebraic laws, valid for real numbers. Remain
valid for intervals. Other laws hold only in a weaker form. The main
limitation of interval arithmetic is that it does not possess some of the
properties of real number arithmetic. This means that the exact range of a
function is not always computable.

2.2.1 Terminology

A degenerate interval is any set consisting of a single real number.

Some authors Luc Jaulin, Michel Kieffer, Olivier Didrit and ´Eric Walter
(2001) include the empty set in this definition. An interval that is neither
empty nor degenerate is said to be proper, and has infinitely many elements.
An interval is said to be left-bounded or right-bounded if there is some real
number that is, respectively, smaller than or larger than all its elements. An
interval is said to be bounded if it is both left- and right-bounded; and is said
to be unbounded otherwise. Intervals that are bounded at only one end are
said to be half-bounded. The empty set is bounded, and the set of all reals is
the only interval that is unbounded at both ends.

Bounded intervals are bounded sets, in the sense that their diameter
(which is equal to the absolute difference between the endpoints) is finite. The
diameter may be called the length, width, measure, or size of the interval.
The size of unboundded intervals is usually defined as  , and the size of the
empty interval may be defined as 0 or left undefined. The center of bounded
interval with endpoints a and b is (a + b) / 2, and its radius is the half-
length | a  b | / 2 . These concepts are undefined for empty or unbounded
intervals.
 19

An interval is said to be left-open if and only if it has no minimum

(an element that is smaller than all other elements); right-open if it has no
maximum; and open if it has both properties. The interval [0,1)  {x | 0  x  1} ,
for example, is left-closed and right-open. The empty set and the set of all
reals are open intervals, while the set of non-negative reals, for example, is a
right-open but not left-open interval. The open intervals coincide with the
open sets of the real line in its standard topology. An interval is said to be
left-closed if it has a minimum element, right-closed if it has a maximum,
and simply closed if it has both. These definitions are usually extended to
include the empty set and to the (left- or right-) unbounded intervals, so that
the closed intervals coincide with closed sets in that topology.

The interior of an interval I is the the largest open interval that is

contained in I; it is also the set of points in I which are not endpoints of I. The
closure of I is the smallest closed interval that contains I; which is also the set
I augmented with its finite endpoints. For any set X of real numbers, the
interval enclosure or interval span of X is the unique interval that contains X
and is not properly contained in any other interval.

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL SET UP

A flexible aluminum beam with clamped end as shown in

Figure 2.1 is considered in this work. Two piezo ceramic patches are surface
bonded at a distance of 10mm from the fixed end of the beam. The patch
bonded on the bottom surface acts as a sensor and the one on the top surface
acts as an actuator. To apply an excitation input to the structure another piezo
ceramic patch is bonded on the top surface at a distance of 387.8mm from the
fixed end. The dimensions and properties of the beam and piezo ceramic
patches are given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. The sensor output is given to the
piezo sensing system which consists of charge to voltage converting
 20

amplifier. The conditioned piezo sensor signal is given as analog input to

dSPACE1104 controller board. The control algorithm is developed using
simulink software and implemented in real time on dSPACE 1104 using
RTW(Real Time Workshop) and dSPACE real time interface tools. The
simulink software is used to build control block diagrams and real time
workshop is used to generate C code from the simulink model. The C code is
then converted to target specific code by real time interface and target
language compiler supported by dSPACE1104. This code is then deployed on
to the rapid prototype hardware system to run hardware in-the-loop
simulation. The control signal generated from simulink is interfaced to piezo
actuation system through configurable analog input/output unit of dSPACE
1104. The piezo actuation system drives the actuator and the excitation signal
is applied from simulink environment through a DAC port of dSPACE
system.

Figure 2.1 Schematic Diagram of the Experimental Set Up

 21

Table 2.1 Properties and Dimensions of the Aluminium Beam (for

Second Order System)

Length (m) lb 0.5205

Width (m) bb 0.013

Thickness (m) tb 0.002

Young’s modulus (GPa) Eb 71

Density (kg/m 3) b 2700

First natural frequency (Hz) f1 7.18

Table 2.2 Properties and Dimensions of Piezoceramic Sensor/Actuator

(for Second Order System)

Length (m) lp 0.0762

Width (m) bp 0.0127

Thickness (m) ta 0.0005

Young’s modulus (GPa) Ep 4762x10 9

Density (kg/m3) p 7500

Piezoelectric strain constant (m V-1) d 31 -247x10-12

Piezoelectric stress constant (V m N-1) g31 -9x10 -3
 22

2.4 MODEL IDENTIFICATION

The unknown parameters of the smart structure dynamics are

estimated using online identification method, which is proven to be more
universal and feasible than analytical and numerical models for the present
system. The Recursive Least Square (RLS) method based on ARX model is
used for linear system identification, which is easy to implement and has fast
parameter convergence. The ARX model for the system shown in figure 2.1 is
given as,

ŷ(k) + a y(k -1) + …+ a n y(k - n a ) = b u(k -1) + …+ b n u(k - n ) + c r(k -1) + …

1 a 1 b b 1
+ c n r(k - n c ) + e(k).
c
(2.1)
where u(k) is the input signal, r(k) is the excitation signal, y(k) the piezo
sensor output, e(k) is white noise and na, n b and n c determine the model order.

The unknown parameter and data vector is thus

θ = (a , a ,…, a n , b , b ,…, b n , c , c ,…, c n )T (2.2)
1 2 a 1 2 b 1 2 c

φ(k) =(-y(k-1),-y(k-2),…,-y(k-na ), u(k-1),u(k-2),…,u(k-n ),

b
r(k-1),r(k-2),…,r(k-nc ))T.

(2.3)
The estimated model output is
T ˆ - 1)
ŷ(k) = φ (k)θ(k (2.4)

For the RLS algorithm to update the parameters at each sample

time, it is necessary to define an error. The model prediction error, (k) is the
key variable in the RLS algorithm and is defined as
ˆ .
ε(k) = y(k) - y(k) (2.5)
 23

The (k) is used to update the parameter estimate as

ˆ = θ(k
θ(k) ˆ -1) + P(k)φ(k)ε(k) (2.6)

where the covariance matrix P(k) is updated using

 φ(k)φT (k)P(k -1) 
P(k) = P(k -1) 1- . (2.7)
 1+ φT (k)P(k -1)φ(k) 
 

The initial values of θ̂(k) and P(k) are chosen to be θ̂(0) = 0

and P(0) = αIz where =105. The first natural frequency of the structure is
measured experimentally as 7.18 Hz. To identify the parameters in online, the
structure is excited by a sinusoidal signal with varying frequency and a square
wave signal as an input to the control actuator. The excitation signal, input
signal and sensor output are given to MATLAB/simulink through ADC port
of dSPACE 1104 system. The RLS algorithm is implemented by writing a C-
file S-function used in MATLAB/simulink.

The model of a cantilever beam having the dimensions and

properties given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 is obtained using Recursive Least
Square (RLS) method based on ARX model. The state space model derived
from the identified second order ARX model parameters is
.
x = A x + B u + E r ; y = CT x (2.8)

where
 92.8161 103.7910  0.2758 0.0057 T
A
103.1593 93.4267  ; B 
0.2548  ;E  
0.0053  ; C  1 0
     
 24

The parameters in nominal model in equation (2.8) are determined

by the material properties, geometry configuration, and boundary conditions
using displacement-based finite element procedures. Since the physical
parameters of the real structural systems are not known exactly, we take a
mean value for the determination of the nominal values and all other
deviations are included in the uncertainty of the model. The exogenous
influences acting on the system lead to errors in tracking capabilities of the
controller. Parameter perturbations in the system can amplify significantly the
effect of disturbances. Thus, the appearance of the model parameter
uncertainties is a common task in shaping structural control system. For
several reason’s, it is highly desirable to introduce structural uncertainties in
the physical parameters of the system. To obtain the best possible
performance in the face of the uncertainties, interval arithmetic is used in this
research work to include the uncertainties. Even though the model in
equation (2.8) is arrived through on line identification, the uncertainties can
arise due to many inaccuracies in experimental practices like measurement
methods, cables used, fixing conditions, environmental conditions, limited
data collection for modeling and measurement, etc. Hence, the uncertainty,
which results from both the measurement and modeling process, should be
taken into account when modeling the system and in designing a controller. In
this work, uncertainty in the system parameters is introduced which in turn
introduces uncertainty in natural frequency of the identified model( A matrix
in equation (2.1)). The state space model in equation (2.8) with  10%
uncertainty is represented in interval state space form using interval arithmetic
as
.
I I I T I
x =A x+B u+E r ; y = (C ) x (2.9)
 25

where
 [83.5277, 103.1423]  93.4384, 115.2912  
AI =  ;
  -92.8697, -114.5931  -84.1383, -103.7501 

  -0.2758, - 0.2758  
BI =   ;
  0.2548, 0.2548  

  -0.0057, - 0.0057  
EI =   ; (C T ) I = [1, 0]
  0.0053, 0.0053  

A matrix whose elements are in interval is called an interval matrix

and denoted by A I = [A, A], where A is a matrix composed of the lower

bounds of intervals and A is a matrix composed of the upper bounds of the

intervals. The set of all real interval matrices is denoted by I(R mn ).

T
x = A x+ B u + E r ; y = (C ) x (2.10)

where
 83.5277 93.4384  -0.2758  -0.0057 
A=  ; B=  ;E =   ; C T = 1 0 
 -92.8697 -84.1383   0.2548   0.0053 
. T
x = A x + Bu + Er; y= (C )x (2.11)

where
 103.1423 115.2912   -0.2758  -0.0057  T
A  ; B  ;E    ; C  1 0 
 -114.5931 -103.7501  0.2548   0.0053 

A fourth order model is also identified to address the control

problem for two- time scale system using interval arithmetic. In this model,
 26

two piezoceramic patches are surface bonded at a distance of 5mm from the
fixed end of the beam. To apply an excitation input to the structure another
piezoceramic patch is bonded on the top surface at a distance of 370mm from
the fixed end. The dimensions and properties of the beam and piezoceramic
patches are given in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The first and second natural frequency
of the structure is measured experimentally as 5.04Hz and 32.84Hz.

Table 2.3 Properties and Dimensions of the Aluminium Beam (for

Fourth Order System)

Length (m) lb 0.40

Width (m) bb 0.0135
Thickness (m) tb 0.001
Young’s modulus (GPa) Eb 71
Density (kg/m 3) b 2700
First natural frequency (Hz) f1 5.04
Second natural Frequency(Hz) f2 32.84

Table 2.4 Properties and Dimensions of Piezoceramic Sensor/Actuator

(for Fourth Order System)

Length (m) lp 0.0765

Width (m) bp 0.0135
Thickness (m) ta 0.0005
Young’s modulus (GPa) Ep 47.62
Density (kg/m3) p 7500
Piezoelectric strain constant (m V-1) d31 -247x10-12
Piezoelectric stress constant (V m N-1) g31 -9x10 -3
 27

The state space model derived from the identified fourth order
ARX model parameters is

 76.9893 71.5731 -45.5632 71.9048   0.2046   0.0029 

-136.1042 6.1271 116.6837 -116.7537  0.1955   0.0265 
A=  ; B=  ; E =  ;
 115.7932 -116.2021 -6.5425 136.6781  -0.4427 -0.0664
 -70.8876 45.1268 -71.2161 -77.5364   -0.0299  0.0588 

C  1 0 0 0 ; , D   0

The model in interval form and its lower and upper bound models are

 [69.3500, 84.6300] [64.5100, 78.6400] [-50.2200, -40.9100] [64.8200, 79.0000] 

 
 
I [-149.6900, -122.5300] [5.4800, 6.7800] [105.0100, 128.3500] [-128.4300, -105.0900]
A =  ;
 [104.2100, 127.3800] [-127.8200, -104.5900] [-7.1900, -5.9000] [123.0400, 150.3200] 
 
 [-77.8800, -63.8900] [40.5200, 49.7300] [-78.2400, -64.2000] [-85.1900, -69.8900] 


 [0.2046, 0.2046] 
 
 
[0.1955, 0.1955] 
BI =  ;
[-0.4427, -0.4427]

 
[0.0299, 0.0299] 

 [0.0445, 0.0445] 

 
I [-0.0366, -0.0366]
E =  ; (CT)I = 1 0 0 0
[0.0076, 0.0076] 
 
 
[-0.0472, -0.0472]
 28

 69.3500 64.5100 -40.9100 64.8200   0.2046 

 -122.5300 5.4800 105.0100 -105.0900 0.1955 
A ; B   ;
 104.2100 -104.5900 -5.9000 123.0400   -0.4427 
 -63.8900 40.5200 -64.2000 -69.8900  0.0299 
 

 0.0445 
 -0.0366 
E ; CT  1 0 0 0
 0.0076 
 -0.0472 
 

 84.6300 78.6400 -50.2200 79.0000   0.2046 

-149.6900 6.7800 128.3500 -128.4300 0.1955 
A , B ,
 127.3800 -127.8200 -7.1900 150.3200  -0.4427
 -77.8800 49.7300 -78.2400 -85.1900  0.0299 
 

 0.0445 
0.0366 
E  , CT  1 0 0 0
0.007 6 
-0.0472
 

2.5 CONCLUSION

The second and fourth order model of a cantilever beam

incorporated with piezoceramic actuators and sensors is experimentally
established using ARX system identification approach. The uncertainties in
system parameters are represented in interval state space form using interval
arithmetic.