Optimal sensor placement techniques for system identification and health monitoring of civil structures

Proper pretest planning is a vital component of any successful vibration test on engineering structures. The most important issue in dynamic testing of many engineering structures is arriving at the number and optimal placement of sensors. The sensors must be placed on the structure in such a way that all the important dynamic behaviour of a structural system is captured during the course of the test with sufficient accuracy so that the information can be effectively utilised for structural parameter identification or health monitoring. Several optimal sensor placement (OSP) techniques are proposed in the literature and each of these methods have been evaluated with respect to a specific problem encountered in various engineering disciplines like aerospace, civil, mechanical engineering, etc. In the present work, we propose to perform a detailed characteristic evaluation of some selective popular OSP techniques with respect to their application to practical civil engineering problems. Numerical experiments carried out in the paper on various practical civil engineering structures indicate that effective independence (EFI) method is more consistent when compared to all other sensor placement techniques.

[1]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Optimal Sensor Placement Methodology for Identification with Unmeasured Excitation , 2001 .

[2]  Richard G. Cobb,et al.  Sensor Placement and Structural Damage Identification from Minimal Sensor Information , 1997 .

[3]  Hisham Abou-Kandil,et al.  SENSORS LOCATION FOR UPDATING PROBLEMS , 1999 .

[4]  L. L. Zhang,et al.  Optimal placement of sensors for structural health monitoring using improved genetic algorithms , 2004 .

[5]  D. Satpathi,et al.  Optimal transducer placement for health monitoring of long span bridge , 1997 .

[6]  Michael L. Tinker,et al.  Optimal placement of triaxial accelerometers for modal vibration tests , 2002 .

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

[8]  Junjiro Onoda,et al.  Actuator Placement Optimization by Genetic and Improved Simulated Annealing Algorithms , 1993 .

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

[10]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Fault Detection and Optimal Sensor Location in Vehicle Suspensions , 2003 .

[11]  Daniel C. Kammer,et al.  Optimal sensor placement for modal identification using system-realization methods , 1996 .

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

[13]  R. Montes-Iturrizaga,et al.  Optimal instrumentation of structures on flexible base for system identification , 1999 .

[14]  P. H. Kirkegaard,et al.  On the optimal location of sensors for parametric identification of linear structural systems , 1994 .

[15]  Daniel C. Kammer Sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification and correlation of large space structures , 1991 .

[16]  S. S. Law,et al.  Optimum sensor placement for structural damage detection , 2000 .

[17]  Keith Worden,et al.  Optimal sensor placement for fault detection , 2001 .

[18]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Optimal sensor placement methodology for parametric identification of structural systems , 2004 .

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

[20]  Seamus D. Garvey,et al.  Automatic choice of measurement locations for dynamic testing , 1994 .

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