Optimal sensor placement for spatial lattice structure based on genetic algorithms

Optimal sensor placement technique plays a key role in structural health monitoring of spatial lattice structures. This paper considers the problem of locating sensors on a spatial lattice structure with the aim of maximizing the data information so that structural dynamic behavior can be fully characterized. Based on the criterion of optimal sensor placement for modal test, an improved genetic algorithm is introduced to find the optimal placement of sensors. The modal strain energy (MSE) and the modal assurance criterion (MAC) have been taken as the fitness function, respectively, so that three placement designs were produced. The decimal two-dimension array coding method instead of binary coding method is proposed to code the solution. Forced mutation operator is introduced when the identical genes appear via the crossover procedure. A computational simulation of a 12-bay plain truss model has been implemented to demonstrate the feasibility of the three optimal algorithms above. The obtained optimal sensor placements using the improved genetic algorithm are compared with those gained by exiting genetic algorithm using the binary coding method. Further the comparison criterion based on the mean square error between the finite element method (FEM) mode shapes and the Guyan expansion mode shapes identified by data-driven stochastic subspace identification (SSI-DATA) method are employed to demonstrate the advantage of the different fitness function. The results showed that some innovations in genetic algorithm proposed in this paper can enlarge the genes storage and improve the convergence of the algorithm. More importantly, the three optimal sensor placement methods can all provide the reliable results and identify the vibration characteristics of the 12-bay plain truss model accurately.

[1]  K. Lim.  Method for Optimal Actuator and Sensor Placement for Large Flexible Structures , 1992 .

[2]  R. Guyan.  Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices , 1965 .

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

[4]  David Christopher Zimmerman,et al.  A Comparison of Modal Test Planning Techniques: Excitation and Sensor Placement Using the NASA 8-bay Truss , 1994 .

[5]  Cecilia Surace,et al.  An application of Genetic Algorithms to identify damage in elastic structures , 1996 .

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

[7]  William A. Sethares,et al.  Sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification via a genetic algorithm , 1993 .

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

[9]  Joseph L. Rose,et al.  Sensor placement optimization in structural health monitoring using genetic and evolutionary algorithms , 2006, SPIE Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring.

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

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

[12]  D. Kammer.  Sensor Placement for On-Orbit Modal Identification and Correlation of Large Space Structures , 1990, 1990 American Control Conference.

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

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