Advertisement

Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 77–90 | Cite as

Development of sensor placement optimization tool and application to large-span cable-stayed bridge

  • Zheng Yi WuEmail author
  • Kai Zhou
  • Harry W. ShentonIII
  • Michael J. Chajes
Original Paper
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Structural health monitoring (SHM) is essential for engineers to effectively evaluate structural performance. The accelerometers and strain gauges are commonly used for monitoring and testing structural performance. Placing both types of sensors is the key step for SHM and structural testing. This paper presents the development and application of the sensor placement optimization methods, which have been integrated and implemented in a versatile software tool for maximizing the sensor coverage capacity for structural performance assessment. The sensor placement solutions are optimized using a parallel optimization framework based on the competent genetic algorithm, leading to a number of features that enrich the application flexibility. The developed methods and software tool provide a generic approach for multi-type sensor placement. The integrated tool has been applied to the Indian River Inlet Bridge a large-span cable-stayed bridge to demonstrate and validate the effectiveness of the proposed solution methods for facilitating real world SHM practice.

Keywords

Strain gauge placement Accelerometer placement Structural health monitoring Genetic algorithm optimization 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Liu M, Frangopol DM, Kim S (2009) Bridge system performance assessment from structural health monitoring: a case study. J Struct Eng 135(6):733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katunin A, Dragan K, Dziendzikowski M (2015) Damage identification in aircraft composite structures: a case study using various non-destructive testing techniques. Compos Struct 127:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fan W, Qiao P (2011) Vibration-based damage identification methods: a review and comparative study. Struct Health Monit 10(1):83–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carden EP, Fanning P (2004) Vibration based condition monitoring: a review. Struct Health Monit 3(4):355–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaloop MR, Hu JW, Sayed MA, Seong J (2016) Structural performance assessment based on statistical and wavelet analysis of acceleration measurements of a building during an earthquake. Shock Vib 2016:8902727Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lynch JP, Wang Y, Loh KJ, Yi JH, Yun CB (2006) Performance monitoring of the Geumdang bridge using a dense network of high-resolution wireless sensors. Smart Mater Struct 15(6):1561–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernini R, Fraldi M, Minardo A, Minutolo V, Carannante F, Nunziante L, Zeni L (2005) Damage detection in bending beams through Brillouin distributed optic-fibre sensor. Bridge Struct 1(3):355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kesavan A, John S, Herszberg I (2008) Strain-based structural health monitoring of complex composite structures. Struct Health Monit 7(3):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu ZY, Xu GQ (2014) A novel formulation for finite element model-based damage detection. In: International conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang J, Guo SL, Wu ZS, Zhang QQ (2015) Structural identification and damage detection through long-gauge strain measurements. Eng Struct 99:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun H, Buyukozturk Oral (2015) Optimal sensor placement in structural health monitoring using discrete optimization. Smart Mater Struct 24(12):125034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yi TH, Li HN, Zhang XD (2012) A modified monkey algorithm for optimal sensor placement in structural health monitoring. Smart Mater Struct 21(10):105033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yi TH, Li HN, Gu M (2011) Optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring based on multiple optimization strategies. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 20(7):881–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pei XY, Yi TH, Li HN (2018) A multitype sensor placement method for the modal estimation of structure. Smart Struct Syst 21(4):407–420Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang Y, Simone AL, Fodan D (2016) Sensor optimization using a genetic algorithm for structural health monitoring in harsh environments. J Civil Struct Health Monit 6(3):509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li J, Xing J, Wang P, Yang Q, He C (2015) Optimal sensor placement for long-span cable-stayed bridge using a novel particle swarm optimization algorithm. J Civil Struct Health Monit 5(5):667–685Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu ZY, Simpson AR (2001) Competent genetic-evolutionary optimization of water distribution systems. J Comput Civil Eng 15(2):89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou K, Wu ZY (2017) Strain gauge placement optimization for structural performance assessment. Eng Struct 141(15):184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li DS, Li HN, Fritzen CP (2007) The connection between effective independence and modal kinetic energy methods for sensor placement. J Sound Vib 305(4–5):945–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirkegaard PH, Brincker R (1994) On the optimal location of sensors for parametric identification of linear structural systems. Mech Syst Signal Process 8(6):639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou K, Wu ZY, Yi XH, Zhu DP, Narayan R, Zhao J (2017) Generic framework of sensor placement optimization for structural health modeling. ASCE J Comput Civil Eng 31(4):04017018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu DP, Wu ZY (2015) Entropy and energy based optimal sensor placement through genetic algorithm. In: The 7th international conference on SHMII, Turin, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bentley Systems (2012) OpenSTAAD V8i(SELECTseries 4) users’ manual. Bentley Systems, Yorba LindaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu ZY, Wang Q, Butala S, Mi T, Song Y (2012) Darwin optimization framework user mannual. http://communities.bentley.com/communities/other_communities/bentley_applied_research/w/bentley_applied_research__wiki/software-prototypes. Accessed May 2016
  25. 25.
    Chajes MJ, Shenton HW, Al-Khateeb HT, Wenczel GR, Ramanna N (2015) Structural health monitoring of the Indian river inlet bridge: results from controlled load tests conducted over the first two years of service. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on structural health monitoring of intelligent infrastructure, Torino, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shenton III HW, Chajes MJ, Wenczel, Davidson K (2013) Lessons learned in the construction and early experiences with the indian river inlet bridge SHM system. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on structural health monitoring of intelligent infrastructure, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shenton HW III, Chajes MJ, Wenczel G, Ramanna N, Al-Khateeb H, Davidson K, Marquez P (2014) Structural health monitoring of Delaware’s Indian River Inlet Bridge: year one update. In: Proceedings of the 2014 structures congress, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marquez P, Chajes MJ, Shenton HW III, Al-Khateeb H, Wenczel, Cardinal J (2013) Structural health monitoring: establishing the baseline performance of Delaware’s Indian River Inlet Bridge. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on structural health monitoring of intelligent infrastructure, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shenton HW III, Carson PD, Chajes MJ, O’Shea D, Kursinsky C (2010) Delaware’s Indian River Inlet Bridge: a comprehensive plan for long-term structural monitoring. Transp Res Rec J Trans Res Board 2201:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shenton HW, Fernandez M, Ramanna N, Chajes MJ, Al-Khateeb HT (2015) Structural health monitoring of a cable-stayed bridge: using tiltmeter data to determine edge girder deflections. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on structural health monitoring of intelligent infrastructure, Torino, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zheng Yi Wu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kai Zhou
    • 1
  • Harry W. ShentonIII
    • 2
  • Michael J. Chajes
    • 2
  1. 1.Bentley Systems, IncorporatedWatertownUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations