# Study on the Stabilities of RTH Tests Using the CDM Method considering Two Kinds of Systematic Errors

Authors: Tianbo Peng; Jianyu Guan; Li Liang
Journal: Security and Communication Networks
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Real-time hybrid (RTH) test is a promising test method to investigate seismic responses of structures and is essentially a time history analysis. Therefore, an in-depth understanding of the control algorithm, such as a central difference method (CDM), is important for this method. In this paper, stabilities of the CDM considering two kinds of errors are investigated theoretically and experimentally. It turns out that the convergence criterion of the CDM cannot be changed by constant errors but can be changed by proportional errors. The lowest structural natural period to keep the results stable increases with the increase of the ratio of the displacement error to the interface displacement and the integration time step. At last, the theoretical result of the stability of the CDM considering two kinds of systematic errors are confirmed by the proposed test system with a natural rubber bearing.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Pseudodynamic testing, also called hybrid testing, is considered as an effective research technique to study the structural performance under seismic loading [1–8]. The procedure of a pseudodynamic test contains numerical calculation, loading control and response measurement. Usually, a pseudodynamic test will take a much longer time than a real earthquake. However, if the hybrid testing can be finished within almost the same time duration as a real earthquake, it can be adopted to study structural performance of a structure with rate-dependent elements. This kind of hybrid testing is named as real-time hybrid (RTH) test [9–12].In an RTH test, the researched structure would be divided into an experimental substructure and a numerical substructure using the substructure technique. Usually, the part supposed to have significant nonlinear responses under seismic loading is chosen as an experimental substructure. And the other part of the structure is chosen as a numerical substructure. The interface actions between the two substructures are applied by one or more actuators.A simply supported bridge shown in Figure1(a) is taken as an example to introduce the RTH test method. The bridge is composed of a girder, four natural rubber (NR) bearings and two abutments. NR bearings are selected as the experimental substructure and two of them are tested in parallel as shown in Figure 1(b). The girder is selected as the numerical substructure and simulated in a computer. The abutments are supposed to be rigid bodies and fixed on the ground. Therefore, the flexibility is provided by the bearings only.Figure 1
Diagrammatic illustration of the RTH test method. (a) A simply supported bridge. (b) Experimental and numerical substructures.During an RTH test, responses of the whole structure at the first step are calculated firstly and the interface displacement of the experimental substructure is applied by the actuator. Then the interface force at this step is obtained and transmitted to the computer to calculate responses of the whole structure at the next step. The interface displacement is then applied by the actuator. Then repeat these steps until the end of the test.Since an RTH test is essentially a structural time history analysis, the numerical integration algorithm is very important for the method. In this paper, stabilities of a numerical integration algorithm considering two kinds of errors are investigated.Central Difference Method (CDM) is commonly used in RTH tests, and its basic assumption is described in equation (1). Then acceleration and velocity terms can be substituted by displacement terms.(1)vi=di+1−di−12Δt,ai=di+1−2di+di−1Δt2,where Δt is the integration time step, a is the relative acceleration, v is the relative velocity, and d is the relative displacement.Stability of a numerical integration algorithm could be described as the capability to retain the error accumulated in the integration process in a certain range at subsequent time steps.An MDOF structure can be separated into a series of SDOF structures, and responses of the MDOF structure can be acquired by assembling responses of SDOF structures with the mode superposition method [13]. Therefore, the stability of the MDOF structure can be described by the stabilities of a series of SDOF structures, especially the one with the shortest natural period. If all the SDOF structures are stable, the MDOF structure is stable.The stability of the CDM considering errors in seismic tests had not been studied experimentally. However, errors may be found in the force or displacement applied by an actuator at the interface and in structural responses [14]. These errors will influence the stability of RTH tests, so it is significant to study the stability of RTH tests considering errors. Errors can be classified into random errors and systematic errors. Random errors are caused by unknown and unpredictable factors in experiments. Moreover, small random errors did not influence the structural responses effectively [15].Systematic error is a kind of nonrandom error, which may stem from inaccurate survey instruments, incorrect methods, or disturbance of the environment. They can be classified into two types: constant errors and proportional errors. The constant error is assumed to be a constant and the proportional error is assumed to be proportional to the actual value in the paper.


## 2. Theoretical Analysis

An SDOF system shown in Figure2 is taken as an example to study the effect of errors on the stability. The equation of motion for the elastic and undamped SDOF system at time step i is as follows:(2)mai+kdi=−mag,i,where ag is the acceleration time history of the earthquake ground motion. The subscript i refers to the item at time step i, and i is larger than 1.Figure 2
Simple SDOF system.Introduce equations (1) into (2), we have the following:(3)di+1=2di−di−1−Δt2kidim+ag,i.For a linear elastic SDOF system, the CDM can be expressed in a recursive matrix form as follows [13]:(4)xi+1=Axi+Lfi+ν,where xi is a solution vector, A is the amplification matrix, L is the load vector, and fi+v is the external force excitation applied.If the modules of eigenvalues ofA is less than 1, a stable solution can be achieved. Stabilities of numerical algorithms are usually studied using the amplification matrix and its eigenvalues [16, 17]. The amplification matrix of the CDM is as follows:(5)A=2−Ω2−110,As a result, the convergence criteria of the CDM isTn>πΔt.When studying the stability of the CDM considering errors, the displacement control mode is selected to operate a hybrid test, so displacement is imposed and the force is obtained as shown in Figure1. Since the constant error is assumed to be a constant, the measured force feedback includes an error ΔFi=e1×F0. Where, F0 is the maximum force capacity of the actuator; e1 is the ratio of the force error to F0. Then equation (2) is modified as(6)mai+kdi=−mag,i+e1F0,Equation (3) is modified as follows:(7)di+1=2di−di−1−Δt2kidim+ag,i−e1F0m,It can be easily proved that the amplification matrix of equation (6) is the same as that of equation (2). Therefore, the convergence criterion of the CDM is not changed by constant errors. The CDM considering constant errors is stable when Tn>πΔt. Where, Tn is the lowest natural period of the structure to keep the results stable.The proportional error studied in this paper is presumed to be proportional to the interface forceF and can be described as a fraction of F.(8)ΔFi=e2×Fi,where e2 is the ratio of the force error to the interface force.Since the force error is mainly caused by displacement error, it is assumed that the ratio of the displacement error to the interface displacement ise2 too. Then, equation (2) is modified as follows:(9)mai+kdi1+e2=−mag,i.Equation (3) is modified as follows:(10)di+1=2di−di−1−Δt2kidim+ag,i+e2kidim,The amplification matrixA2 of an RTH test with the CDM considering proportional errors can be obtained.(11)A2=2−Ω21+e2−110.The eigenvalues are the roots of equation (12):(12)λ2−2−Ω21+e2λ+1=0,IfΩ21+e2<4, equation (11) has two imaginary roots and the inequality λ1,2≤1 is always satisfied. Therefore, the convergence criterion of the CDM considering proportional errors is Tn>πΔt1+e2.Relationships betweenTn and proportional errors for different integration time steps are shown in Figure 3. The convergence criterion is easier to be satisfied for a lower Tn. As shown, Tn increases gradually with the increase of e2. Therefore, a minor e2 is beneficial if the stability is concerned. Moreover, Tn is proportional to Δt, so Tn increases with the increase of Δt. Therefore, a shorter Δt is beneficial if the stability is concerned.Figure 3
Relationships betweenTn and proportional errors.


## 3. Experimental Study

A series of RTH tests have been conducted in the State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, to study the stability of the CDM considering errors. The RTH test is conducted with the MTS FlexTest GT controller.The simply supported bridge shown in Figure1 is taken as an example. The girder is selected as the numerical substructure and Natural Rubber (NR) bearings are selected as the experimental substructure. The test setup includes a steel frame, a vertical actuator and a horizontal actuator, as shown in Figure 4. The frame is composed of two columns and a beam and fixed on the ground. The load capacity of the vertical actuator is 3000 kN. The frame and vertical actuator are used to apply the vertical pressure on bearings. The load capacity of the horizontal actuator is 1000 kN. One end of the horizontal actuator is fixed on the reaction wall and the other end is connected to a loading plate inserted between the two bearings. The horizontal actuator is used to apply the horizontal displacement of bearings.Figure 4
RTH test apparatus.Each rubber layer of the NR bearing is a square with side length 400 mm. The thickness of each rubber layer is 10 mm and that of each steel plate is 3 mm. The total thickness of rubber layers is 80 mm and that of the bearing is 181 mm. The configuration of an NR bearing used in tests is shown in Figure5.Figure 5
Configuration of an NR bearing (unit: mm).The relation between force and displacement of an NR bearing is almost linear, as shown in Figure6. Therefore the stiffness in the equation of motion is approximately a constant in tests, and the girder mass is changed to obtain different structural natural periods.Figure 6
Hysteresis loop of an NR bearing.Since the displacement control mode is selected to operate a hybrid test, the displacement is imposed and the force is measured. In RTH tests, El-Centro ground motion shown in Figure7 is input as the seismic acceleration time history. Time step is set to be 0.2 s in tests to make the calculation divergence easier to take place. In order to protect the bearings, the peak acceleration is scaled to 0.02 g.Figure 7
El-Centro ground motion.


### 3.1. Stability of the CDM Not considering Errors

Test procedure of the RTH test to study the stability of the CDM not considering errors is as follows:(1)
Att = 0, set the value of d to be zero.(2)
According to equation (3), d1 is zero too.(3)At the first time step, namelyt = Δt, the seismic acceleration ag,1 is input into the numerical substructure. d2 can be calculated using equation (3).(4)
d2 is applied by the hydraulic servo actuator in a time step and the corresponding bearing force R2 is measured and fed back to the numerical substructure.(5)
k2 is calculated according to R2 and d2.(6)
d3 can be calculated using equation (3) according to the current seismic acceleration ag,2.(7)
Repeat step (4) to (6) until the end of the test.Test results are listed in Table1 and shown in Figure 8. Where m is the girder mass; dmax and dmin are maximum and minimum bearing displacements; k is the structural stiffness; Tn is the structural natural period. The structural stiffness is calculated according to the relation between force and displacement of the test NR bearing. The structural natural period is calculated according to the girder mass and structural stiffness.Table 1
Test results using the CDM not considering errors.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence1–11002.8−4.183400.688Convergence1–2804.8−5.278000.636Convergence1–36016.5−17.259300.634Convergence1–45536.2−15.556400.621DivergenceFigure 8
Time histories of bearing displacements not considering errors. (a) Case 1–1 (b) Case 1–2 (c) Case 1–3 (d) Case 1–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)According to the theoretical result, the convergence criterion of the CDM not considering errors isTn>πΔt=0.628s. As shown, along with the decrease of the girder mass, the maximum bearing displacement increases, and the structural stiffness and natural period decrease. It should be noted that in the divergent case, the maximum or minimum bearing displacement should be unlimited. For the safety of the test, the maximum or minimum bearing displacement is restricted in the test. Therefore, the data in Table 1 is those recorded before the restriction.For all the cases meeting the convergence criterion of the CDM not considering errors, test results are convergent. For the case not meeting the convergence criterion, test results are divergent. The validity of the method to study the stability of the CDM is confirmed.


### 3.2. Stability of the CDM considering Constant Errors

Test procedure of the RTH test to study the stability of the CDM considering constant errors is the same as that in Section3.1 except that di is calculated with equation (7). In the tests, F0 = 500 kN and e1 = ±0.01.Test results are listed in Tables2 and 3 and shown in Figures 9 and 10. The structural stiffness and structural natural period are calculated using the same methods as those in Section 3.1.Table 2
Test results using the CDM withe1 = 0.01.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence2–1807.1−5.073170.657Convergence2–2708.5−5.767490.640Convergence2–36015.1−13.757870.640Convergence2–45533.2−9.056600.619DivergenceTable 3
Test results using the CDM withe1 = −0.01.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence3–1805.6−9.068890.677Convergence3–2708.1−8.265680.649Convergence3–36014.0−15.356690.646Convergence3–45530.3−19.755000.628DivergenceFigure 9
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe1 = 0.01. (a) Case 2–1 (b) Case 2–2 (c) Case 2–3 (d) Case 2–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 10
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe1 = −0.01. (a) Case 3–1 (b) Case 3–2 (c) Case 3–3 (d) Case 3–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)According to the theoretical result, the convergence criterion of the CDM considering constant errors isTn>πΔt=0.628s. As shown, along with the decrease of the girder mass, the maximum bearing displacement increases, and the structural stiffness and natural period decrease. For all the cases meeting the convergence criterion of the CDM considering constant errors, test results are convergent. For the case not meeting the convergence criterion, test results are divergent. The validity of the theoretical result of the stability of the CDM considering constant errors is confirmed.


### 3.3. Stability of the CDM considering Proportional Errors

Test procedure of the RTH test to study the stability of the CDM considering proportional errors is the same as that in Section3.1 except that di is calculated with Eq. [10]. e2 = ±0.1, ±0.2 and ± 0.3 are considered in the tests.Test results are listed in Tables4 to 9 and shown in Figures 11 to 16. The structural stiffness and structural natural period are calculated using the same methods as those in Section 3.1.Table 4
Test results using the CDM withe2 = −0.3.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence4–1506.0−5.670600.529Convergence4–2458.2−9.463400.529Convergence4–34014.7−17.656700.528Convergence4–43540.3−15.155000.501DivergenceTable 5
Test results using the CDM withe2 = −0.2.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence5–1556.8−7.666800.570Convergence5–2509.3−11.660900.569Convergence5–34516.5−19.555700.565Convergence5–44016.8−22.453600.543DivergenceTable 6
Test results using the CDM withe2 = −0.1.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence6–1658.3−7.270500.603Convergence6–26010.5−10.865700.601Convergence6–35513.1−13.260400.600Convergence6–45018.1−21.956000.593DivergenceTable 7
Test results using the CDM withe2 = 0.1.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence7–1759.5−11.067100.664Convergence7–27012.0−12.462800.663Convergence7–36517.9−17.558600.661Convergence7–46035.5−19.256500.647DivergenceTable 8
Test results using the CDM withe2 = 0.2.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence8–1809.2−10.561700.715Convergence8–27513.6−13.058900.709Convergence8–37017.6−19.055000.708Convergence8–46510.9−35.961500.646DivergenceTable 9
Test results using the CDM withe2 = 0.3.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence9–11005.0−5.572700.737Convergence9–2906.6−6.768200.722Convergence9–38011.0−12.460900.720Convergence9–47055.3−10.662100.667DivergenceFigure 11
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = −0.3. (a) Case 4–1 (b) Case 4–2 (c) Case 4–3 (d) Case 4–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 12
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = −0.2. (a) Case 5–1 (b) Case 5–2 (c) Case 5–3 (d) Case 5–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 13
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = −0.1. (a) Case 6–1 (b) Case 6–2 (c) Case 6–3 (d) Case 6–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 14
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = 0.1. (a) Case 7–1 (b) Case 7–2 (c) Case 7–3 (d) Case 7–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 15
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = 0.2. (a) Case 8–1 (b) Case 8–2 (c) Case 8–3 (d) Case 8–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 16
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = 0.3. (a) Case 9–1 (b) Case 9–2 (c) Case 9–3 (d) Case 9–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)According to theoretical results, the convergence criterion of the CDM considering proportional errors isTn>πΔt1+e2. For e2 = −0.3, −0.2, −0.1, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, convergence criteria are Tn > 0.526 s, 0.562 s, 0.596 s, 0.659 s, 0.688 s, and 0.716 s.As shown, along with the decrease of the girder mass, the maximum bearing displacement increases, and the structural stiffness and natural period decrease generally. For all the cases meeting the convergence criterion of the CDM considering proportional errors, test results are convergent. For the case not meeting the convergence criterion, test results are divergent. The validity of the theoretical result of the stability of the CDM with proportional errors is confirmed.


## 3.1. Stability of the CDM Not considering Errors

Test procedure of the RTH test to study the stability of the CDM not considering errors is as follows:(1)
Att = 0, set the value of d to be zero.(2)
According to equation (3), d1 is zero too.(3)At the first time step, namelyt = Δt, the seismic acceleration ag,1 is input into the numerical substructure. d2 can be calculated using equation (3).(4)
d2 is applied by the hydraulic servo actuator in a time step and the corresponding bearing force R2 is measured and fed back to the numerical substructure.(5)
k2 is calculated according to R2 and d2.(6)
d3 can be calculated using equation (3) according to the current seismic acceleration ag,2.(7)
Repeat step (4) to (6) until the end of the test.Test results are listed in Table1 and shown in Figure 8. Where m is the girder mass; dmax and dmin are maximum and minimum bearing displacements; k is the structural stiffness; Tn is the structural natural period. The structural stiffness is calculated according to the relation between force and displacement of the test NR bearing. The structural natural period is calculated according to the girder mass and structural stiffness.Table 1
Test results using the CDM not considering errors.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence1–11002.8−4.183400.688Convergence1–2804.8−5.278000.636Convergence1–36016.5−17.259300.634Convergence1–45536.2−15.556400.621DivergenceFigure 8
Time histories of bearing displacements not considering errors. (a) Case 1–1 (b) Case 1–2 (c) Case 1–3 (d) Case 1–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)According to the theoretical result, the convergence criterion of the CDM not considering errors isTn>πΔt=0.628s. As shown, along with the decrease of the girder mass, the maximum bearing displacement increases, and the structural stiffness and natural period decrease. It should be noted that in the divergent case, the maximum or minimum bearing displacement should be unlimited. For the safety of the test, the maximum or minimum bearing displacement is restricted in the test. Therefore, the data in Table 1 is those recorded before the restriction.For all the cases meeting the convergence criterion of the CDM not considering errors, test results are convergent. For the case not meeting the convergence criterion, test results are divergent. The validity of the method to study the stability of the CDM is confirmed.


## 3.2. Stability of the CDM considering Constant Errors

Test procedure of the RTH test to study the stability of the CDM considering constant errors is the same as that in Section3.1 except that di is calculated with equation (7). In the tests, F0 = 500 kN and e1 = ±0.01.Test results are listed in Tables2 and 3 and shown in Figures 9 and 10. The structural stiffness and structural natural period are calculated using the same methods as those in Section 3.1.Table 2
Test results using the CDM withe1 = 0.01.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence2–1807.1−5.073170.657Convergence2–2708.5−5.767490.640Convergence2–36015.1−13.757870.640Convergence2–45533.2−9.056600.619DivergenceTable 3
Test results using the CDM withe1 = −0.01.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence3–1805.6−9.068890.677Convergence3–2708.1−8.265680.649Convergence3–36014.0−15.356690.646Convergence3–45530.3−19.755000.628DivergenceFigure 9
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe1 = 0.01. (a) Case 2–1 (b) Case 2–2 (c) Case 2–3 (d) Case 2–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 10
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe1 = −0.01. (a) Case 3–1 (b) Case 3–2 (c) Case 3–3 (d) Case 3–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)According to the theoretical result, the convergence criterion of the CDM considering constant errors isTn>πΔt=0.628s. As shown, along with the decrease of the girder mass, the maximum bearing displacement increases, and the structural stiffness and natural period decrease. For all the cases meeting the convergence criterion of the CDM considering constant errors, test results are convergent. For the case not meeting the convergence criterion, test results are divergent. The validity of the theoretical result of the stability of the CDM considering constant errors is confirmed.


## 3.3. Stability of the CDM considering Proportional Errors

Test procedure of the RTH test to study the stability of the CDM considering proportional errors is the same as that in Section3.1 except that di is calculated with Eq. [10]. e2 = ±0.1, ±0.2 and ± 0.3 are considered in the tests.Test results are listed in Tables4 to 9 and shown in Figures 11 to 16. The structural stiffness and structural natural period are calculated using the same methods as those in Section 3.1.Table 4
Test results using the CDM withe2 = −0.3.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence4–1506.0−5.670600.529Convergence4–2458.2−9.463400.529Convergence4–34014.7−17.656700.528Convergence4–43540.3−15.155000.501DivergenceTable 5
Test results using the CDM withe2 = −0.2.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence5–1556.8−7.666800.570Convergence5–2509.3−11.660900.569Convergence5–34516.5−19.555700.565Convergence5–44016.8−22.453600.543DivergenceTable 6
Test results using the CDM withe2 = −0.1.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence6–1658.3−7.270500.603Convergence6–26010.5−10.865700.601Convergence6–35513.1−13.260400.600Convergence6–45018.1−21.956000.593DivergenceTable 7
Test results using the CDM withe2 = 0.1.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence7–1759.5−11.067100.664Convergence7–27012.0−12.462800.663Convergence7–36517.9−17.558600.661Convergence7–46035.5−19.256500.647DivergenceTable 8
Test results using the CDM withe2 = 0.2.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence8–1809.2−10.561700.715Convergence8–27513.6−13.058900.709Convergence8–37017.6−19.055000.708Convergence8–46510.9−35.961500.646DivergenceTable 9
Test results using the CDM withe2 = 0.3.
Casesm (ton)dmax (mm)dmin (mm)k (kN/m)Tn (s)Convergence/Divergence9–11005.0−5.572700.737Convergence9–2906.6−6.768200.722Convergence9–38011.0−12.460900.720Convergence9–47055.3−10.662100.667DivergenceFigure 11
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = −0.3. (a) Case 4–1 (b) Case 4–2 (c) Case 4–3 (d) Case 4–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 12
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = −0.2. (a) Case 5–1 (b) Case 5–2 (c) Case 5–3 (d) Case 5–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 13
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = −0.1. (a) Case 6–1 (b) Case 6–2 (c) Case 6–3 (d) Case 6–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 14
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = 0.1. (a) Case 7–1 (b) Case 7–2 (c) Case 7–3 (d) Case 7–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 15
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = 0.2. (a) Case 8–1 (b) Case 8–2 (c) Case 8–3 (d) Case 8–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 16
Time histories of bearing displacements using the CDM withe2 = 0.3. (a) Case 9–1 (b) Case 9–2 (c) Case 9–3 (d) Case 9–4.
(a)(b)(c)(d)According to theoretical results, the convergence criterion of the CDM considering proportional errors isTn>πΔt1+e2. For e2 = −0.3, −0.2, −0.1, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, convergence criteria are Tn > 0.526 s, 0.562 s, 0.596 s, 0.659 s, 0.688 s, and 0.716 s.As shown, along with the decrease of the girder mass, the maximum bearing displacement increases, and the structural stiffness and natural period decrease generally. For all the cases meeting the convergence criterion of the CDM considering proportional errors, test results are convergent. For the case not meeting the convergence criterion, test results are divergent. The validity of the theoretical result of the stability of the CDM with proportional errors is confirmed.


## 4. Conclusion

Stabilities of real-time hybrid tests using the CDM method considering two kinds of systematic errors are studied theoretically and experimentally in this paper. The following conclusions can be drawn:(1)
The convergence criterion of the CDM is not changed by constant errors.(2)
The convergence criterion of the CDM is changed by proportional errors, and the lowest natural period of the structure to keep the results stable increases steadily with the increase ofe2.(3)
The lowest natural period of the structure to keep the results stable is proportional to Δt.(4)
The NR bearing is almost a linear spring and algorithm properties can be studied by the proposed test system.



---

*Source: 6500081-2022-05-24.xml*