Skip to main content
Log in

Optimal sensor placement in health monitoring of suspension bridge

  • Published:
Science China Technological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Structural health monitoring (SHM) provides an effective approach to ensure the safety of structures. However, with the restriction of the cost of sensor system and data processing, only a small number of sensors could be available in the health monitoring system (HMS). In order to obtain the best identification of structural characteristics, optimal sensor placement (OSP) becomes an inevitable task in the design of HMS. This paper introduces the process for determining the OSP in HMS of a suspension bridge, in which four different OSP methods have been investigated, including the effective independence (EI) method, the effective independence driving-point residue (EFI-DPR) method, the minimized modal assurance criterion (minMAC) method and the principal subset selection-based extended EI (PSS-EI) method. Then, three criteria, which are modal assurance matrix (MAC), condition number (CN) of mode shape matrix and determinant of Fisher information matrix (FIM), were employed to evaluate the effect of the OSP methods respectively. The result showed that the PSS-EI method developed has the ability to guarantee the highest determinant of FIM, a relatively small off-diagonal term of MAC and agreeable CN, as well as the deployment of sensors in a uniform and symmetric fashion for the studied bridge. Finally, the scheme obtained by PSS-EI was adopted in the HMS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Feng M R. Bridges for the Benefit of the People-development of Bridges in China (in Chinese). Technical Report, 2009

  2. Ou J P, Li H. Structural health monitoring in mainland China: Review and future trends. Struct Health Moint, 2010, 9(3): 219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Li D S, Hu Q, Ou J P, et al. Fatigue damage characterization of carbon fiber reinforced polymer bridge cables: Wavelet transform analysis for clustering acoustic emission data. Sci China Tech Sci, 2011, 54: 379–387

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Deng Y, Ding Y L, Li A Q, et al. Fatigue reliability assessment for bridge welded details using long-term monitoring data. Sci China Tech Sci, 2011, 54: 3371–3381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Meo M, Zumpano G. On the optimal sensor placement techniques for a bridge structure. Eng Struct, 2005, 27(10): 1488–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Heo G, Wang M L, Satpathi D. Optimal transducer placement for health monitoring of long span bridge. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 1997, 16(7–8): 495–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Guo H Y, Zhang L, Zhang L, et al. Optimal placement of sensors for structural health monitoring using improved genetic algorithms. Smart Mater Struct, 2004, 13(3): 528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Flynn E B, Todd M D. A Bayesian approach to optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring with application to active sensing. Mech Syst Signal Pr, 2010, 24(4): 891–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Worden K, Burrows A P. Optimal sensor placement for fault detection. Eng Struct, 2001, 23(8): 885–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li D S, Zhang Y, Ren L, et al. Sensor deployment for structural health monitoring and their evaluation (in Chinese). Adv Mech, 2011, 41(1): 39–50

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chopra A K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc, 1993. 422–426

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kammer D C. Sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification and correlation of large space structures. J Guid Control Dynam, 1991, 14(2): 251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kammer D C. Effects of model error on sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification of large space structures. J Guid Control Dynam, 1992, 15(2): 334–341

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Kammer D C. Effects of noise on sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification of large space structures. J Dyn Syst-T ASME, 1992, 114(3): 436–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li D S, Li H N, Fritzen C P. A note on fast computation of effective independence through QR downdating for sensor placement. Mech Syst Signal Pr, 2009, 23(4): 1160–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Papoulis A. Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Process. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1991. 263–265

    Google Scholar 

  17. Papadopoulos M, Garcia E. Sensor placement methodologies for dynamic testing. AIAA J, 1998, 36(2): 256–263

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Carne T G, Dohrmann C R. A modal test design strategy for model correlation. SAND-94-2702C, 1995

  19. Golub G H, Van Loan C F. Matrix Computation. 3rd ed. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins, 1996. 590–595

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fei Q, Li A, Miao C, et al. Vibration sensor placement method based on principal subset selection (in Chinese). Chinese J Theoretical Appl Mech, 2008, 40(4): 543–549

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JinPing Ou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, B., Li, D., Zhao, X. et al. Optimal sensor placement in health monitoring of suspension bridge. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 55, 2039–2047 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-012-4815-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-012-4815-8

Keywords

Navigation