Research Papers

Optimal Sensor Placement for Substructural Response Reconstruction

[+] Author and Article Information
Q. Ye

Research Assistant
Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering of Hong Kong,
Polytechnic University,
Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 0000, China
e-mail: troubleiloveyou@foxmail.com

S. S. Law

Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering of Hong Kong,
Polytechnic University,
Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 0000, China
e-mail: cesslaw@polyu.edu.hk

Manuscript received August 24, 2012; final manuscript received January 23, 2014; accepted manuscript posted January 27, 2014; published online February 20, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Alexander F. Vakakis.

J. Appl. Mech 81(6), 061007 (Feb 20, 2014) (9 pages) Paper No: JAM-12-1415; doi: 10.1115/1.4026574 History: Received August 24, 2012; Revised January 23, 2014; Accepted January 27, 2014

In an existing substructural dynamic response reconstruction method (Li, J., and Law, S.S., 2011. “Substructural Response Reconstruction in Wavelet Domain,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 78(4), p. 041010) developed by Law, two sets of sensors are needed for the reconstruction of dynamic responses at selected degrees-of-freedom. A method to find the optimal sensor placement is presented in this paper for the substructural response reconstruction. It is based on the effective independence method but in the time domain. Unlike previous methods on sensor placement, two sets of optimal sensor placement are needed with the first set for estimating the interface forces between substructures, and the second set for reconstructing the responses. Sensors that capture the most information of the interface forces will be selected into the first set, and the subsequently estimated interface forces are used to reconstruct the responses at the second set of selected degrees-of-freedom. The selection of the second set of sensors is based on the least measurement noise effect in the response reconstruction process. A box-section bridge deck is adopted in the simulation studies. Numerical simulations with the forward and backward sequential sensor placement methods show that the proposed method could give reasonable predictions with smaller error in the reconstructed responses, and sensor locations along the major directions of the interface forces should be selected into the first or the second set of sensor configuration.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Box-section structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

El-Centro seismic acceleration records acting along the x-axis and z-axis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Evolution of determinant of FIM with iteration for FSSP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of ranked error sequences (10% measurement noise)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Evolution of determinant of FIM with iteration for BSSP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Relative error of reconstructed responses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Initial fractional contribution of candidate sensors (before removal of any sensor)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Error of reconstructed interface force (31y, 10% noise), and (b) error of reconstructed interface force (32y, 10% noise)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In