Advertisement

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 866–873 | Cite as

Crack Identification of Steel Bar Based on Sensor Optimal Placement

  • Lina WangEmail author
  • Ruyong Li
  • Li Liu
  • Junshe Zhang
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

The traditional modal test of steel bars has two chief disadvantages of being time-consuming and having a complex detection operation. This paper presents the effective independence driving-point residue (EI-DPR) method for sensor optimal placement, which identifies cracks of steel bars based on the modal assurance criterion (MAC) and minimum mean square error (MMSE) criterion. The steel bars with cracks are tested separately by the uniform measuring point method and the optimal sensor placement method according to the vibration modal test. By comparing the test results, the optimal sensor placement method can identify cracks rapidly and accurately, which is more efficient than the uniform measuring point method. The study provides a reference for the rapid non-destructive testing of large-aspect ratio steel bars.

Keywords

Crack identification Effective independence driving-point residue Optimal sensor placement Modal test Steel bar 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51335003).

References

  1. 1.
    S. Zhong, S.O. Oyadiji, Identification of cracks in beams with auxiliary mass spatial probing by stationary wavelet transform. J. Vib. Acoust. Trans. ASME 130(0410014), 041001-1–041001-14 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Li, D. Li, X. Zhao, J. Ou, Optimal sensor placement in health monitoring of suspension bridge. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 55(7), 2039–2047 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.R.M. Rao, G. Anandakumar, Optimal placement of sensors for structural system identification and health monitoring using a hybrid swarm intelligence technique. Smart Mater. Struct. 16(6), 2658–2672 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    T.-H. Yi, H.-N. Li, M. Gu, Optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring based on multiple optimization strategies. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 20(7), 881–900 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Li, X. Cheng, Y. Chen, H. Zhang, The optimal placement of sensors in square target regions with varying boundary length. Procedia Eng 62, 899–906 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.B. Larson, D.C. Zimmerman, E.L. Marek, A comparison of modal test planning techniques—excitation and sensor placement using the NASA 8-bay truss. Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. (SPIE) 2251, 205–211 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Ling, X. Xu, L. Shen, J. Liu, Multi sensor data fusion method based on fuzzy neural network, in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics INDIN (2008), pp. 153–158Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Kumar, M. Wolenetz, B. Agarwalla, J.S. Shin, P. Hutto, A. Paul, U. Ramachandran, DFuse: a framework for distributed data fusion, in International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (2003), pp 114–125Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z.N. Li, J. Tang, Q.S. Li, Optimal sensor locations for structural vibration measurements. Appl. Acoust. 65(8), 807–818 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.B. Kim, Y.S. Park, Sensor placement guide for structural joint stiffness model improvement. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 11(5), 651–672 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Q. Xie, S. Xue, A hybrid algorithm for optimal sensor placement of structural health monitoring. J. Tongji Univ. Nat. Sci. 34(6), 726–731 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.S. Li, H.N. Li, C.P. Fritzen, The connection between effective independence and modal kinetic energy methods for sensor placement. J. Sound Vib. 305(4–5), 945–955 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.C. Kammer, M.L. Tinker, Optimal placement of triaxial accelerometers for modal vibration tests. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 18(1), 29–41 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.C. Kammer, Optimal sensor placement for modal identification using system-realization methods. J. Guidance Control Dyn. 19(3), 729–731 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F.Z. Tajrishi, G. Roshan, A.R. Mirza, Optimal sensor placement for modal identification of a strap-braced cold formed steel frame based on improved genetic algorithm. Int. J. Optim. Civil Eng. 4(1), 93–119 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Pastor, M. Binda, T.H. Arik, Modal assurance criterion. Procedia Eng. 48(1), 543–548 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Guo, B. Li, J. Yang, S. Liang, Study of experimental modal analysis method of machine tool spindle system. J. Vibroeng. 17(6), 3173–3186 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Meo, G. Zumpano, On the optimal sensor placement techniques for a bridge structure. Eng. Struct. 27(10), 1488–1497 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Advanced Manufacturing and Transportation DepartmentHangzhou Wanxiang PolytechnicHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations