Optimal Multi-Type Sensor Placement for Structural Identification by Static-Load Testing

Assessing ageing infrastructure is a critical challenge for civil engineers due to the difficulty in the estimation and integration of uncertainties in structural models. Field measurements are increasingly used to improve knowledge of the real behavior of a structure; this activity is called structural identification. Error-domain model falsification (EDMF) is an easy-to-use model-based structural-identification methodology which robustly accommodates systematic uncertainties originating from sources such as boundary conditions, numerical modelling and model fidelity, as well as aleatory uncertainties from sources such as measurement error and material parameter-value estimations. In most practical applications of structural identification, sensors are placed using engineering judgment and experience. However, since sensor placement is fundamental to the success of structural identification, a more rational and systematic method is justified. This study presents a measurement system design methodology to identify the best sensor locations and sensor types using information from static-load tests. More specifically, three static-load tests were studied for the sensor system design using three types of sensors for a performance evaluation of a full-scale bridge in Singapore. Several sensor placement strategies are compared using joint entropy as an information-gain metric. A modified version of the hierarchical algorithm for sensor placement is proposed to take into account mutual information between load tests. It is shown that a carefully-configured measurement strategy that includes multiple sensor types and several load tests maximizes information gain.

[1]  J. Beck,et al.  Updating Models and Their Uncertainties. I: Bayesian Statistical Framework , 1998 .

[2]  Ernesto Heredia-Zavoni,et al.  Optimal instrumentation of uncertain structural systems subject to earthquake ground motions , 1998 .

[3]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Measurement system design for leak detection in hydraulic pressurized networks , 2017 .

[4]  J. Beck,et al.  Entropy-Based Optimal Sensor Location for Structural Model Updating , 2000 .

[5]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Model Identification of Bridges Using Measurement Data , 2005 .

[6]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Performance comparison of reduced models for leak detection in water distribution networks , 2015, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[7]  Romain Pasquier,et al.  Measurement system design for civil infrastructure using expected utility , 2017, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[8]  J. Beck,et al.  Bayesian Updating of Structural Models and Reliability using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation , 2002 .

[9]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Hierarchical Sensor Placement Using Joint Entropy and the Effect of Modeling Error , 2014, Entropy.

[10]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Studies of Sensor Data Interpretation for Asset Management of the Built Environment , 2016, Front. Built Environ..

[11]  Z. Šidák.  Rectangular Confidence Regions for the Means of Multivariate Normal Distributions , 1967 .

[12]  Daniel C. Kammer.  Sensor set expansion for modal vibration testing , 2005 .

[13]  J. Beck,et al.  UPDATING MODELS AND THEIR UNCERTAINTIES. II: MODEL IDENTIFIABILITY. TECHNICAL NOTE , 1998 .

[14]  I. Smith,et al.  Structural identification with systematic errors and unknown uncertainty dependencies , 2013 .

[15]  C. Papadimitriou,et al.  The effect of prediction error correlation on optimal sensor placement in structural dynamics , 2012 .

[16]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  The sensitivity method in finite element model updating: A tutorial (vol 25, pg 2275, 2010) , 2011 .

[17]  Ka-Veng Yuen,et al.  Efficient Bayesian sensor placement algorithm for structural identification: a general approach for multi‐type sensory systems , 2015 .

[18]  Ian E. Smith,et al.  Finding the right model for bridge diagnosis , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[19]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Optimal Sensor Placement for Time-Dependent Systems: Application to Wind Studies around Buildings , 2016, J. Comput. Civ. Eng..

[20]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Model Updating In Structural Dynamics: A Survey , 1993 .

[21]  Franklin Moon,et al.  Structural identification of constructed systems , 2013 .

[22]  C. Papadimitriou.  Pareto optimal sensor locations for structural identification , 2005 .

[23]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Iterative structural identification framework for evaluation of existing structures , 2016 .

[24]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Data-Interpretation Methodologies for Non-Linear Earthquake Response Predictions of Damaged Structures , 2017, Front. Built Environ..

[25]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  System Identification through Model Composition and Stochastic Search , 2005 .

[26]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Evaluating predictive performance of sensor configurations in wind studies around buildings , 2016, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[27]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Augmenting simulations of airflow around buildings using field measurements , 2014, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[28]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Configuration of measurement systems using Shannon's entropy function , 2005 .

[29]  F. Udwadia.  Methodology for Optimum Sensor Locations for Parameter Identification in Dynamic Systems , 1994 .

[30]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Configuring and enhancing measurement systems for damage identification , 2009, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[31]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Performance-Driven Measurement System Design for Structural Identification , 2013, J. Comput. Civ. Eng..