Configuring and enhancing measurement systems for damage identification

被引:32
作者
Kripakaran, Prakash [1 ]
Smith, Ian F. C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Ecole Polytech Fed Lausanne, IMAC, Appl Comp & Mech Lab, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
关键词
OPTIMAL SENSOR PLACEMENT; BRIDGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.aei.2009.06.002
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
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. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:424 / 432
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   PARAMETER-ESTIMATION OF STRUCTURES FROM STATIC RESPONSE .2. NUMERICAL-SIMULATION STUDIES [J].
BANAN, MR ;
BANAN, MR ;
HJELMSTAD, KD .
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE, 1994, 120 (11) :3259-3283
[2]  
Billington D. P., 1979, Robert Maillart's bridges: The art of engineering, VReprinted edition.
[3]   Structural model updating and health monitoring with incomplete modal data using Gibbs sampler [J].
Ching, JY ;
Muto, M ;
Beck, JL .
COMPUTER-AIDED CIVIL AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING, 2006, 21 (04) :242-257
[4]  
Doebling S.W., 1998, The shock and vibration digest, V30, P91, DOI DOI 10.1177/058310249803000201
[5]   A study of two stochastic search methods for structural control [J].
Domer, B ;
Raphael, B ;
Shea, K ;
Smith, IFC .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2003, 17 (03) :132-141
[6]   Uncertainty in finite element modeling and failure analysis: A metrology-based approach [J].
Fong, JT ;
Filliben, JJ ;
deWit, R ;
Fields, RJ ;
Bernstein, B ;
Marcal, PV .
JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 2006, 128 (01) :140-147
[7]  
Friswell MI, 1995, Finite element model updating in structural dynamics
[8]  
Garrett JH, 2006, LECT NOTES ARTIF INT, V4200, P262
[9]   Damage detection and assessment of structures from static response [J].
Hjelmstad, KD ;
Shin, S .
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE, 1997, 123 (06) :568-576
[10]   Damage identification based on dead load redistribution: Effect of measurement error [J].
Hu, Xiaofeng ;
Shenton, Harry W., III .
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE, 2006, 132 (08) :1264-1273