Advertisement

Adaptive Approach for Sensor Placement Combining a Quantitative Strategy with Engineering Practice

  • Numa Joy BertolaEmail author
  • Ian F. C. Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10864)

Abstract

Infrastructure-capacity challenges due to growing populations, increasing urbanization and ageing existing assets are widespread. The assessment of remaining life of existing infrastructure has the potential to improve decision-making on asset management. However, this task is challenging due to the difficulties in modelling of infrastructure behavior. Error-domain model falsification (EDMF) is an easy-to-use model-based structural-identification methodology where field measurements are used to improve knowledge of the real behavior of structures. This methodology accommodates aleatory and systematic uncertainties induced by sources such as modelling assumptions, boundary conditions and numerical computation. Field-measurements, collected during load tests, lead to the identification of bridge characteristics such as geometric and material properties as well as support conditions. Benefits of structural-identification practice depend upon the methodology chosen but also upon the choice of sensor type and its location. In spite of such obvious importance, sensor types and positions are usually chosen using only qualitative rules of thumb coming from engineering experience. A more rational strategy to design optimal sensor configuration is justified and this is the aim of the study described in this paper. First, two quantitative methodologies for sensor-configuration optimization are compared with the solution designed by engineers using experience only on a full-scale case study in Singapore. The first quantitative sensor-placement methodology selects sensor locations with the largest signal-to-noise ratio in model prediction. The second strategy maximizes the joint entropy of the sensor configuration, using the hierarchical algorithm for sensor-placement. The joint entropy evaluates redundant information between possible sensor locations to select locations delivering the largest information gain when coupled. The performance of sensor configurations is evaluated using two information-gain metrics: information gain and the expected number of candidate models using simulated measurements. The hierarchical algorithm outperforms the strategy based on the maximal signal-to-noise ratio and the sensor configuration chosen empirically without calculation. However, the sensor configuration proposed by the hierarchical algorithm may be non-intuitive for practitioners. Eventually, an adaptive approach, involving engineering judgement and the hierarchical algorithm is proposed to outperform engineering judgement and to avoid non-intuitive sensor configurations proposed by the hierarchical algorithm. Results highlight that information gain metrics combined with quantitative and qualitative strategies for sensor selection and placement lead to a useful tool for asset managers.

Keywords

Sensor placement Structural identification Hierarchical algorithm Model falsification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted at the Future Cities Laboratory at the Singapore-ETH Centre (SEC). The SEC was established as a collaboration between ETH Zurich and National Research Foundation (NRF) Singapore (FI 370074011) under the auspices of the NRF’s Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (LTA) for the case study. Additionally, the authors are thankful to A. Costa, M. Papadopoulou, D. Vernay and M. Proverbio for their valuable input.

References

  1. Beck, J.L., Au, S.-K.: Bayesian updating of structural models and reliability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. J. Eng. Mech. 128, 380–391 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, J.L., Katafygiotis, L.S.: Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework. J. Eng. Mech. 124, 455–461 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertola, N.J., Papadopoulou, M., Vernay, D.G., Smith, I.F.C.: Optimal multi-type sensor placement for structural identification by static-load testing. Sensors 17, 2904 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Catbas, F., Kijewski-Correa, T., Lynn, T., Aktan, A.: Structural Identification of Constructed Systems. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goulet, J.-A., Smith, I.F.C.: Structural identification with systematic errors and unknown uncertainty dependencies. Comput. Struct. 128, 251–258 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goulet, J.-A., Smith, I.F.C.: Performance-driven measurement system design for structural identification. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 27, 427–436 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heredia-Zavoni, E., Esteva, L.: Optimal instrumentation of uncertain structural systems subject to earthquake ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 27, 343–362 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kammer, D.C.: Sensor set expansion for modal vibration testing. Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 19, 700–713 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Katafygiotis, L.S., Beck, J.L.: Updating models and their uncertainties. II: model identifiability. J. Eng. Mech. 124, 463–467 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kripakaran, P., Smith, I.F.C.: Configuring and enhancing measurement systems for damage identification. Adv. Eng. Inform. 23, 424–432 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moser, G., Paal, S.G., Smith, I.F.C.: Measurement system design for leak detection in hydraulic pressurized networks. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 13, 918–928 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moser, G., Paal, S.G., Smith, I.F.C.: Performance comparison of reduced models for leak detection in water distribution networks. Adv. Eng. Inform. 29, 714–726 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mottershead, J.E., Friswell, M.I.: Model updating in structural dynamics: a survey. J. Sound Vib. 167, 347–375 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mottershead, J.E., Link, M., Friswell, M.I.: The sensitivity method in finite element model updating: a tutorial. Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 25, 2275–2296 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Papadimitriou, C.: Pareto optimal sensor locations for structural identification. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 194, 1655–1673 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Papadimitriou, C., Beck, J.L., Au, S.-K.: Entropy-based optimal sensor location for structural model updating. J. Vib. Control 6, 781–800 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Papadimitriou, C., Lombaert, G.: The effect of prediction error correlation on optimal sensor placement in structural dynamics. Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 28, 105–127 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Papadopoulou, M., Raphael, B., Smith, I.F.C., Sekhar, C.: Evaluating predictive performance of sensor configurations in wind studies around buildings. Adv. Eng. Inform. 30, 127–142 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Papadopoulou, M., Raphael, B., Smith, I.F.C., Sekhar, C.: Optimal sensor placement for time-dependent systems: application to wind studies around buildings. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30, 4015024 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papadopoulou, M., Raphael, B., Smith, I.F.C., Sekhar, C.: Hierarchical sensor placement using joint entropy and the effect of modeling error. Entropy 16, 5078–5101 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pasquier, R., Goulet, J.-A., Smith, I.F.C.: Measurement system design for civil infrastructure using expected utility. Adv. Eng. Inform. 32, 40–51 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pasquier, R., Smith, I.F.C.: Iterative structural identification framework for evaluation of existing structures. Eng. Struct. 106, 179–194 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raphael, B., Smith, I.: Finding the right model for bridge diagnosis. In: Smith, I. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence in Structural Engineering. LNCS, vol. 1454, pp. 308–319. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0030459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reuland, Y., Lestuzzi, P., Smith, I.F.C.: Data-interpretation methodologies for non-linear earthquake response predictions of damaged structures. Front. Built Environ. 3, 43 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robert‐Nicoud, Y., Raphael, B., Burdet, O., Smith, I.F.C.: Model identification of bridges using measurement data. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 20, 118–131 (2005a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robert-Nicoud, Y., Raphael, B., Smith, I.: System identification through model composition and stochastic search. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 19, 239–247 (2005b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robert-Nicoud, Y., Raphael, B., Smith, I.F.C.: Configuration of measurement systems using Shannon’s entropy function. Comput. Struct. 83, 599–612 (2005c)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Šidák, Z.: Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 62, 626–633 (1967)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, I.F.C.: Studies of sensor data interpretation for asset management of the built environment. Front. Built Environ. 2, 2–8 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Udwadia, F.E.: Methodology for optimum sensor locations for parameter identification in dynamic systems. J. Eng. Mech. 120, 368–390 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vernay, D.G., Raphael, B., Smith, I.F.C.: Augmenting simulations of airflow around buildings using field measurements. Adv. Eng. Inform. 28, 412–424 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. World Economic Forum: Strategic infrastructure, steps to operate and maintain infrastructure efficiently and effectively (No. 180314). World Economic Forum, Davos (2014)Google Scholar
  33. Yuen, K., Kuok, S.: Efficient Bayesian sensor placement algorithm for structural identification: a general approach for multi-type sensory systems. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44, 757–774 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH CentreETH ZurichSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Applied Computing and Mechanics Laboratory (IMAC), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC)Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations