Configuring and enhancing measurement systems for damage identification

Engineers often decide to measure structures upon signs of damage to determine its extent and its location. Measurement locations, sensor types and numbers of sensors are selected based on judgment and experience. Rational and systematic methods for evaluating structural performance can help make better decisions. This paper proposes strategies for supporting two measurement tasks related to structural health monitoring - (1) installing an initial measurement system and (2) enhancing measurement systems for subsequent measurements once data interpretation has occurred. The strategies are based on previous research into system identification using multiple models. A global optimization approach is used to design the initial measurement system. Then a greedy strategy is used to select measurement locations with maximum entropy among candidate model predictions. Two bridges are used to illustrate the proposed methodology. First, a railway truss bridge in Zangenberg, Germany, is examined. For illustration purposes, the model space is reduced by assuming only a few types of possible damage in the truss bridge. The approach is then applied to the Schwandbach bridge in Switzerland, where a broad set of damage scenarios is evaluated. For the truss bridge, the approach correctly identifies the damage that represents the behaviour of the structure. For the Schwandbach bridge, the approach is able to significantly reduce the number of candidate models. Values of candidate model parameters are also useful for planning inspection and eventual repair.

[1]  Michele Meo,et al.  On the optimal sensor placement techniques for a bridge structure , 2005 .

[2]  Burcu Akinci,et al.  Sensor Data Driven Proactive Management of Infrastructure Systems , 2006, EG-ICE.

[3]  Chan Ghee Koh,et al.  A hybrid computational strategy for identification of structural parameters , 2003 .

[4]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  A direct stochastic algorithm for global search , 2003, Appl. Math. Comput..

[5]  B. Domer,et al.  A study of two stochastic search methods for structural control , 2003 .

[6]  Lennart Ljung,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User , 1987 .

[7]  Yan Zhou,et al.  Investigation of the applicability of current bridge health monitoring technology , 2007 .

[8]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Data mining techniques for improving the reliability of system identification , 2005, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

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

[10]  James L. Beck,et al.  Structural Model Updating and Health Monitoring with Incomplete Modal Data Using Gibbs Sampler , 2006, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[11]  David P. Billington.  Robert Maillart's Bridges , 1979 .

[12]  Masoud Sanayei,et al.  STRUCTURAL MODEL UPDATING USING EXPERIMENTAL STATIC MEASUREMENTS , 1997 .

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

[14]  James M. W. Brownjohn,et al.  Bridge Structural Condition Assessment Using Systematically Validated Finite-Element Model , 2004 .

[15]  Masoud Sanayei,et al.  Damage Localization and Finite-Element Model Updating Using Multiresponse NDT Data , 2006 .

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

[17]  H. F. Zhou,et al.  Modal Flexibility Analysis of Cable‐Stayed Ting Kau Bridge for Damage Identification , 2008, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[18]  Harry W. Shenton,et al.  Damage Identification Based on Dead Load Redistribution: Effect of Measurement Error , 2006 .

[19]  Wei-Xin Ren,et al.  Damage detection by finite element model updating using modal flexibility residual , 2006 .

[20]  K. Hjelmstad,et al.  Parameter Estimation of Structures from Static Response. II: Numerical Simulation Studies , 1994 .

[21]  Wei Liu,et al.  Optimal sensor placement for spatial lattice structure based on genetic algorithms , 2008 .

[22]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Rational design of measurement systems using information science , 2006 .

[23]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Improving System Identification Using Clustering , 2008 .

[24]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Measurement system design using damage scenarios , 2007 .

[25]  Guido De Roeck,et al.  Damage identification on the Z24-bridge using vibration monitoring analysis , 2000 .

[26]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  The Mathematical Theory of Communication , 1950 .

[27]  Harry W. Shenton,et al.  Damage Identification Based on Dead Load Redistribution: Methodology , 2006 .

[28]  Charles R. Farrar,et al.  A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods , 1998 .

[29]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics , 1995 .

[30]  Keith D. Hjelmstad,et al.  Damage detection and assessment of structures from static response , 1997 .

[31]  Masoud Sanayei,et al.  Significance of Modeling Error in Structural Parameter Estimation , 2001 .

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

[33]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[34]  Junjie Li,et al.  Virus coevolution partheno-genetic algorithms for optimal sensor placement , 2008, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[35]  James J. Filliben,et al.  Uncertainty in Finite Element Modeling and Failure Analysis: A Metrology-Based Approach , 2006 .