Optimal Sensor Placement for Damage Detection: Role of Global Search

Optimal sensor placement is one that maximizes the likelihood of identifying future damage models. Based on assumptions from engineers, damage models of a structure are simulated and their predictions are computed. Computational approaches are used to place sensors at locations that maximize the chances of identifying damage. This paper studies the application of global search for optimal sensor placement. The global search methodology uses stochastic sampling to find optimal locations for sensors. In a previous study, Robert-Nicoud et al. proposed a greedy strategy that places sensors sequentially at locations where model predictions have maximum entropy. Performance of the two strategies are compared for the Schwandbach bridge in Switzerland. The results show that global search is better for designing measurement systems on a previously unmonitored structure while the greedy algorithm is better for incremental measurement- interpretation strategies.

[1]  Wynne Hsu,et al.  Mining association rules with multiple minimum supports , 1999, KDD '99.

[2]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Engineering Applications of a Direct Search Algorithm, PGSL , 2005 .

[3]  Sunita Sarawagi,et al.  Integrating association rule mining with relational database systems: alternatives and implications , 1998, SIGMOD '98.

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

[5]  Goldberg,et al.  Genetic algorithms , 1993, Robust Control Systems with Genetic Algorithms.

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

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

[8]  Laks V. S. Lakshmanan,et al.  Efficient mining of constrained correlated sets , 2000, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Data Engineering (Cat. No.00CB37073).

[9]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  Clustering association rules , 1997, Proceedings 13th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[10]  Andrew E. Johnson,et al.  Designing cranial implants in a haptic augmented reality environment , 2004, CACM.

[11]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[12]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  SENSORS, MODELS AND VIDEOTAPE , 2005 .

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

[14]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

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

[16]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[17]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[18]  Jaime A. Camelio,et al.  Sensor Placement for Effective Diagnosis of Multiple Faults in Fixturing of Compliant Parts , 2005 .

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

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

[21]  Burcu Akinci,et al.  A formalism for utilization of sensor systems and integrated project models for active construction quality control , 2006 .

[22]  Heikki Mannila,et al.  Finding interesting rules from large sets of discovered association rules , 1994, CIKM '94.

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

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

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