Probabilistic robust control : theory and applications

In this work, the development of a probabilistic approach to robust control is motivated by structural control applications in civil engineering. Often in civil structural applications, a system's performance is specified in terms of its reliability. In addition, the model and input uncertainty for the system may be described most appropriately using probabilistic or "soft" bounds on the model and input sets. The probabilistic robust control methodology contrasts with existing H∞/μ robust control methodologies that do not use probability information for the model and input uncertainty sets, yielding only the guaranteed (i.e., "worst-case") system performance, and no information about the system's probable performance which would be of interest to civil engineers.

The design objective for the probabilistic robust controller is to maximize the reliability of the uncertain structure/controller system for a probabilistically-described uncertain excitation. The robust performance is computed for a set of possible models by weighting the conditional performance probability for a particular model by the probability of that model, then integrating over the set of possible models. This integration is accomplished efficiently using an asymptotic approximation. The probable performance can be optimized numerically over the class of allowable controllers to find the optimal controller. Also, if structural response data becomes available from a controlled structure, its probable performance can easily be updated using Bayes's Theorem to update the probability distribution over the set of possible models. An updated optimal controller can then be produced, if desired, by following the original procedure. Thus, the probabilistic framework integrates system identification and robust control in a natural manner.

The probabilistic robust control methodology is applied to two systems in this thesis. The first is a high-fidelity computer model of a benchmark structural control laboratory experiment. For this application, uncertainty in the input model only is considered. The probabilistic control design minimizes the failure probability of the benchmark system while remaining robust with respect to the input model uncertainty. The performance of an optimal low-order controller compares favorably with higher-order controllers for the same benchmark system which are based on other approaches. The second application is to the Caltech Flexible Structure, which is a light-weight aluminum truss structure actuated by three voice coil actuators. A controller is designed to minimize the failure probability for a nominal model of this system. Furthermore, the method for updating the model-based performance calculation given new response data from the system is illustrated.

Asymptotic scaling in the two-dimensional O(3) Nonlinear sigma model: a Monte Carlo study on parallel computers

We investigate the 2d O(3) model with the standard action by Monte Carlo simulation at couplings β up to 2.05. We measure the energy density, mass gap and susceptibility of the model, and gather high statistics on lattices of size L ≤ 1024 using the Floating Point Systems T-series vector hypercube and the Thinking Machines Corp.'s Connection Machine 2. Asymptotic scaling does not appear to set in for this action, even at β = 2.10, where the correlation length is 420. We observe a 20% difference between our estimate m/Λ^─_(Ms) = 3.52(6) at this β and the recent exact analytical result . We use the overrelaxation algorithm interleaved with Metropolis updates and show that decorrelation time scales with the correlation length and the number of overrelaxation steps per sweep. We determine its effective dynamical critical exponent to be z' = 1.079(10); thus critical slowing down is reduced significantly for this local algorithm that is vectorizable and parallelizable.

We also use the cluster Monte Carlo algorithms, which are non-local Monte Carlo update schemes which can greatly increase the efficiency of computer simulations of spin models. The major computational task in these algorithms is connected component labeling, to identify clusters of connected sites on a lattice. We have devised some new SIMD component labeling algorithms, and implemented them on the Connection Machine. We investigate their performance when applied to the cluster update of the two dimensional Ising spin model.

Finally we use a Monte Carlo Renormalization Group method to directly measure the couplings of block Hamiltonians at different blocking levels. For the usual averaging block transformation we confirm the renormalized trajectory (RT) observed by Okawa. For another improved probabilistic block transformation we find the RT, showing that it is much closer to the Standard Action. We then use this block transformation to obtain the discrete β-function of the model which we compare to the perturbative result. We do not see convergence, except when using a rescaled coupling β_E to effectively resum the series. For the latter case we see agreement for m/ Λ^─_(Ms) at , β = 2.14, 2.26, 2.38 and 2.50. To three loops m/Λ^─_(Ms) = 3.047(35) at β = 2.50, which is very close to the exact value m/ Λ^─_(Ms) = 2.943. Our last point at β = 2.62 disagrees with this estimate however.

SteelConverter and Caltech VirtualShaker: Rapid Nonlinear Cloud-Based Structural Model Conversion and Analysis

STEEL, the Caltech created nonlinear large displacement analysis software, is currently used by a large number of researchers at Caltech. However, due to its complexity, lack of visualization tools (such as pre- and post-processing capabilities) rapid creation and analysis of models using this software was difficult. SteelConverter was created as a means to facilitate model creation through the use of the industry standard finite element solver ETABS. This software allows users to create models in ETABS and intelligently convert model information such as geometry, loading, releases, fixity, etc., into a format that STEEL understands. Models that would take several days to create and verify now take several hours or less. The productivity of the researcher as well as the level of confidence in the model being analyzed is greatly increased.

It has always been a major goal of Caltech to spread the knowledge created here to other universities. However, due to the complexity of STEEL it was difficult for researchers or engineers from other universities to conduct analyses. While SteelConverter did help researchers at Caltech improve their research, sending SteelConverter and its documentation to other universities was less than ideal. Issues of version control, individual computer requirements, and the difficulty of releasing updates made a more centralized solution preferred. This is where the idea for Caltech VirtualShaker was born. Through the creation of a centralized website where users could log in, submit, analyze, and process models in the cloud, all of the major concerns associated with the utilization of SteelConverter were eliminated. Caltech VirtualShaker allows users to create profiles where defaults associated with their most commonly run models are saved, and allows them to submit multiple jobs to an online virtual server to be analyzed and post-processed. The creation of this website not only allowed for more rapid distribution of this tool, but also created a means for engineers and researchers with no access to powerful computer clusters to run computationally intensive analyses without the excessive cost of building and maintaining a computer cluster.

In order to increase confidence in the use of STEEL as an analysis system, as well as verify the conversion tools, a series of comparisons were done between STEEL and ETABS. Six models of increasing complexity, ranging from a cantilever column to a twenty-story moment frame, were analyzed to determine the ability of STEEL to accurately calculate basic model properties such as elastic stiffness and damping through a free vibration analysis as well as more complex structural properties such as overall structural capacity through a pushover analysis. These analyses showed a very strong agreement between the two softwares on every aspect of each analysis. However, these analyses also showed the ability of the STEEL analysis algorithm to converge at significantly larger drifts than ETABS when using the more computationally expensive and structurally realistic fiber hinges. Following the ETABS analysis, it was decided to repeat the comparisons in a software more capable of conducting highly nonlinear analysis, called Perform. These analyses again showed a very strong agreement between the two softwares in every aspect of each analysis through instability. However, due to some limitations in Perform, free vibration analyses for the three story one bay chevron brace frame, two bay chevron brace frame, and twenty story moment frame could not be conducted. With the current trend towards ultimate capacity analysis, the ability to use fiber based models allows engineers to gain a better understanding of a building’s behavior under these extreme load scenarios.

Following this, a final study was done on Hall’s U20 structure [1] where the structure was analyzed in all three softwares and their results compared. The pushover curves from each software were compared and the differences caused by variations in software implementation explained. From this, conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of each analysis tool when attempting to analyze structures through the point of geometric instability. The analyses show that while ETABS was capable of accurately determining the elastic stiffness of the model, following the onset of inelastic behavior the analysis tool failed to converge. However, for the small number of time steps the ETABS analysis was converging, its results exactly matched those of STEEL, leading to the conclusion that ETABS is not an appropriate analysis package for analyzing a structure through the point of collapse when using fiber elements throughout the model. The analyses also showed that while Perform was capable of calculating the response of the structure accurately, restrictions in the material model resulted in a pushover curve that did not match that of STEEL exactly, particularly post collapse. However, such problems could be alleviated by choosing a more simplistic material model.