Technical Papers
Feb 11, 2012

Measurement System Configuration for Damage Identification of Continuously Monitored Structures

Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 17, Issue 6

Abstract

The measurement system configuration is an important task in structural health monitoring in that decisions influence the performance of monitoring systems. This task is generally performed using only engineering judgment and experience. Such an approach may result in either a large amount of redundant data and high data-interpretation costs, or insufficient data leading to ambiguous interpretations. This paper presents a systematic approach to configure measurement systems where static measurement data are interpreted for damage detection using model-free (non–physics-based) methods. The proposed approach provides decision support for the following two tasks: (1) determining the appropriate number of sensors to be employed and (2) placing the sensors at the most informative locations. The first task involves evaluating the performance of the measurement systems in terms of the number of sensors. Using a given number of sensors, the second task involves configuring a measurement system by identifying the most informative sensor locations. The locations are identified based on three criteria; i.e., the number of nondetectable damage scenarios, the average time to detection, and the damage detectability. A multiobjective optimization is thus carried out leading to a set of nondominated solutions. To select the best compromise solution in this set, two multicriteria decision-making methods, Pareto-Edgeworth-Grierson multicriteria decision making and the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation, are employed. A railway truss bridge in Zangenberg, Germany, is used as a case study to illustrate the applicability of the proposed approach. The measurement systems are configured for situations where measurement data are interpreted using two model-free methods; i.e., moving principal component analysis and robust regression analysis. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach is able to provide engineers with decision support for configuring measurement systems based on the data-interpretation methods used for damage detection. The approach is also able to accommodate the simultaneous use of several model-free data-interpretation methods. It is also concluded that the number of nondetectable scenarios, the average time to detection, and the damage detectability are useful metrics for evaluating the performance of measurement systems when data are interpreted using model-free methods.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under Contract No. 200020-126385. The writers would like to thank A. Nussbaumer for his contributions related to the study.

References

Andersen, R. (2008). Modern methods for robust regression, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Aref, A. J., Alampalli, S., and He, Y. (2005). “Performance of a fiber reinforced polymer web core skew bridge superstructure. Part I: Field testing and finite element simulations.” Compos. Struct., 69(4), 491–499.
ASCE. (2011). “Structural identification of constructed facilities.” State-of-the-Art Rep., ASCE Structural Engineering Institute Committee on Structural Identification of Constructed Systems, New York.
Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., and Aghdasi, M. (2010). “PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 200(1), 198–215.
Bel Hadj Ali, N., and Smith, I. F. C. (2010). “Dynamic behavior and vibration control of a tensegrity structure.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 47(9), 1285–1296.
Brans, J.-P. (1982). “L’ingénierie de la décision: Élaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. La méthode PROMETHEE.”Laide a la decision: Nature, instruments et perspectives davenir, R. Nadeauand M. Landry, eds., Univ. Laval, Québec, 183–214.
Brans, J.-P., and Mareschal, B. (2005). “PROMETHEE methods.” Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, J. Figuera, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, eds., Springer, Boston, 163–186.
Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., and Mareschal, B. (1986). “How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 24(2), 228–238.
Cha, Y.-J., Raich, A., Barroso, L., and Agrawal, A. (2011). “Optimal placement of active control devices and sensors in frame structures using multi-objective genetic algorithms.” Struct. Control Health Monit., 10.1002/stc.468 (Aug. 11, 2011).
Chen, S. R., and Wu, J. (2010). “Dynamic performance simulation of long-span bridge under combined loads of stochastic traffic and wind.” J. Bridge Eng., 15(3), 219–230.
Coello Coello, C. A., Lamont, G. B., and Van Veldhuizen, D. A. (2007). Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Springer, New York.
Fleming, P. J., Purshouse, R. C., and Lygoe, R. J. (2005). “Many-objective optimization: An engineering design perspective.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, C. Coello Coello, A. Hernández Aguirre, and E. Zitzler, eds., Springer, Berlin, 14–32.
Goulet, J.-A., Kripakaran, P., and Smith, I. F. C. (2010). “Multimodel structural performance monitoring.” J. Struct. Eng., 136(10), 1309–1318.
Grierson, D. E. (2008). “Pareto multi-criteria decision making.” Adv. Eng. Inform., 22(3), 371–384.
Hou, Z., Noori, M., and St. Amand, R. (2000). “Wavelet-based approach for structural damage detection.” J. Eng. Mech., 126(7), 677–683.
Hubert, M., Rousseeuw, P. J., and Branden, K. V. (2005). “ROBPCA: A new approach to robust principal component analysis.” Technometrics, 47(1), 64–79.
Jaishi, B., and Ren, W.-X. (2006). “Damage detection by finite element model updating using modal flexibility residual.” J. Sound Vib., 290(1-2), 369–387.
Jajo, N. (2005). “A review of robust regression and diagnostic procedures in linear regression.” Acta Math. Appl. Sin., 21(2), 209–224.
Kang, F., Li, J.-j., and Xu, Q. (2008). “Virus coevolution partheno-genetic algorithms for optimal sensor placement.” Adv. Eng. Inform., 22(3), 362–370.
Koh, C. G., and Thanh, T. N. (2009). “Challenges and strategies in using genetic algorithms for structural identification.” Soft computing in civil and structural engineering, B. H. V. Topping and Y. Tsompanakis, eds., Saxe-Coburg, Stirlingshire, U.K., 203–226.
Kripakaran, P., and Smith, I. F. C. (2009). “Configuring and enhancing measurement systems for damage identification.” Adv. Eng. Inform., 23(4), 424–432.
Lanata, F., and Grosso, A. D. (2006). “Damage detection and localization for continuous static monitoring of structures using a proper orthogonal decomposition of signals.” Smart Mater. Struct., 15(6), 1811–1829.
Li, D. S., Li, H. N., and Fritzen, C. P. (2007). “The connection between effective independence and modal kinetic energy methods for sensor placement.” J. Sound Vib., 305(4-5), 945–955.
Li, J., Kapania, R. K., and Spillman, W. B. (2008). “Placement optimization of distributed-sensing fiber-optic sensors using genetic algorithms.” AIAA J., 46(4), 824–836.
Li, Z. N., Tang, J., and Li, Q. S. (2004). “Optimal sensor locations for structural vibration measurements.” Appl. Acoust., 65(8), 807–818.
Liu, M., Frangopol, D. M., and Kim, S. (2009). “Bridge safety evaluation based on monitored live load effects.” J. Bridge Eng., 14(4), 257–269.
Liu, W., Gao, W.-C., Sun, Y., and Xu, M.-J. (2008). “Optimal sensor placement for spatial lattice structure based on genetic algorithms.” J. Sound Vib., 317(1-2), 175–189.
Meo, M., and Zumpano, G. (2005). “On the optimal sensor placement techniques for a bridge structure.” Eng. Struct., 27(10), 1488–1497.
Ni, Y. Q., Zhou, H. F., Chan, K. C., and Ko, J. M. (2008). “Modal flexibility analysis of cable-stayed Ting Kau Bridge for damage identification.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 23(3), 223–236.
Omenzetter, P., and Brownjohn, J. M. W. (2006). “Application of time series analysis for bridge monitoring.” Smart Mater. Struct., 15(1), 129–138.
Papadimitriou, C. (2004). “Optimal sensor placement methodology for parametric identification of structural systems.” J. Sound Vib., 278(4-5), 923–947.
Posenato, D., Kripakaran, P., Inaudi, D., and Smith, I. F. C. (2010). “Methodologies for model-free data interpretation of civil engineering structures.” Comput. Struct., 88(7-8), 467–482.
Posenato, D., Lanata, F., Inaudi, D., and Smith, I. F. C. (2008). “Model-free data interpretation for continuous monitoring of complex structures.” Adv. Eng. Inf., 22(1), 135–144.
Rao, A. R. M., and Anandakumar, G. (2007). “Optimal placement of sensors for structural system identification and health monitoring using a hybrid swarm intelligence technique.” Smart Mater. Struct., 16(6), 2658–2672.
Raphael, B., and Smith, I. F. C. (2003). “A direct stochastic algorithm for global search.” Appl. Math. Comput., 146(2-3), 729–758.
Robert-Nicoud, Y., Raphael, B., Burdet, O., and Smith, I. F. C. (2005a). “Model identification of bridges using measurement data.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 20(2), 118–131.
Robert-Nicoud, Y., Raphael, B., and Smith, I. F. C. (2005b). “Configuration of measurement systems using Shannon's entropy function.” Comput. Struct., 83(8-9), 599–612.
Saitta, S., Raphael, B., and Smith, I. F. C. (2005). “Data mining techniques for improving the reliability of system identification.” Adv. Eng. Inf., 19(4), 289–298.
Saitta, S., Raphael, B., and Smith, I. F. C. (2006). “Rational design of measurement systems using information science.” IABSE Symp. Rep., 92(25), 37–44.
Sastry, K. (2007). “Single and Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm Toolbox for Matlab in C++.” IlliGAL Rep. No. 2007017, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Tongpadungrod, P., Rhys, T. D. L., and Brett, P. N. (2003). “An approach to optimise the critical sensor locations in one-dimensional novel distributive tactile surface to maximise performance.” Sens. Actuators, A, 105(1), 47–54.
Wang, H., Song, Z., and Wang, H. (2002). “Statistical process monitoring using improved PCA with optimized sensor locations.” J. Process Control, 12(6), 735–744.
Xu, J., Johnson, M. P., Fischbeck, P. S., Small, M. J., and VanBriesen, J. M. (2010). “Robust placement of sensors in dynamic water distribution systems.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 202(3), 707–716.
Yan, A. M., Kerschen, G., De Boe, P., and Golinval, J. C. (2005). “Structural damage diagnosis under varying environmental conditions—Part II: Local PCA for non-linear cases.” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 19(4), 865–880.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Bridge Engineering
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 17Issue 6November 2012
Pages: 857 - 866

History

Received: Apr 29, 2011
Accepted: Feb 9, 2012
Published online: Feb 11, 2012
Published in print: Nov 1, 2012

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Irwanda Laory [email protected]
Graduate Student, Applied Computing and Mechanics Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
Nizar Bel Hadj Ali [email protected]
Professor, Applied Mechanics and Systems Research Laboratory, Tunisia Polytechnic School, Univ. of Carthage, B.P. 743, La Marsa 2078, Tunisia. E-mail: [email protected]
Thanh N. Trinh [email protected]
Postdoctoral Researcher, Applied Computing and Mechanics Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]
Ian F. C. Smith, F.ASCE [email protected]
Professor, Applied Computing and Mechanics Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share