Optimal Sensor Placement to Identify the Mode Shapes of Reduced Order Structures

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
M. Khajavi 1
A. Gholizad 2
M. Shoaei-parchin 3
1 M.Sc. Student of Structural Engineering, Civil Eng. Dept., Faculty of Eng., University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
2 Professor of Structural Engineering, Civil Eng. Dept., Faculty of Eng., University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
3 Phd student of Structural Engineering, Civil Eng. Dept., Faculty of Eng., University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
10.22034/23.1.5
Abstract
Non-destructive damage detection methods analyze the output data collected from sensors to track the changes in the dynamic characteristics of the structure and detect the occurrence of damages. continuous recording and analysis of data to be aware of its safety and serviceability requires a network of sensors that are selected optimally and intelligently. Saving the cost of equipping the structure with this optimal sensor network, along with reducing damage detection error, has turned the issue of selecting the number and location of sensors into an optimization problem from an economic and functional point of view. Model order reduction methods along with optimization tools can play an effective role in selecting the master degrees of freedom. These methods divide the degrees of freedom of the structure into two groups of master and slave degrees of freedom. The master degrees of freedom appear in the process of calculating the mode shapes and natural frequencies, and the slave degrees of freedom are excluded from the equations. Finally, using the transfer matrix, the complete mode shapes are calculated using the mode shapes of the master degrees of freedom. In this paper, considering the key role of modal parameter recognition in structural damage detection, the performance and accuracy of different methods of dynamical model order reduction in the optimal sensor placement problem was studied. The 2d truss stucture and two-dimensional shear frame are modeled and analyzed. The sensor placement should be considered in such a way that the mode shape identification is done with sufficient accuracy and proper recognition. One of the effective tools in order to achieve this goal is to use the capabilities of metaheuristic optimization algorithms along with the capability of dynamic model reduction methods in the stage of identifying the mode shapes and before identifying the damages of structure. Combining model order reduction methods with metaheuristic optimization algorithms so that the selection of appropriate degrees of freedom for sensor installation (master degrees of freedom) leads to the most accurate identification of structural modes shapes is one of the main objectives of this study. The objective functions selected based on modal assurance criteria (MAC) and Fisher information matrix (FIM) and the capabilities of multi objective particle swarm optimization algorithm (MOPSO) to achieve the optimal number and proper arrangement of sensors are used to better identify the structural mode shapes and proper arrangement of sensors and obtained for system identification purposes. The results report better performance of SEREP and IDC methods in selection of master degrees of freedom and identifying the mode shapes of 2d truss and shear frame structures. According to the modeling and analysis performed for optimal placement of sensors using different model reduction methods, it can be concluded that the improved dynamic condensation (IDC) method is more accurate than other methods in identifying shear frame mode shapes and gives a smaller maximum non-diagonal MAC matrix element. Also, as the number of sensors increases due to the addition of information to the Fisher matrix, the Fisher matrix determinant increases and second objective function decreases. On the other hand, by reducing the number of available sensors, a limited number of modes can be detected. In this case, the best way to receive the structural modal information would be to place more available sensors on the lower and upper floors of the shear frame. Eventually, it can be concluded that the use of IDC and SEREP methods to select master degrees of freedom for sensor installation leads to better identification of modal parameters of the structure. Therefore, the capabilities of these methods can be used to identify damage in structures with a limited number of sensors.

Keywords

Subjects

1- Alkayem N.F., Cao M., Zhang Y., Bayat M., & Su Z. 2018 Structural damage detection using finite element model updating with evolutionary algorithms: a survey. Neural Computing and Applications, 30(2), 389-411.
2- Arefi S.L. & Gholizad A. 2020 Damage detection of truss structures by reduction of degrees of freedom using the SEREP method. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 15(1), 1-25.
3- Arefi S.L., Gholizad A., & Seyedpoor, S.M. 2020 A modified index for damage detection of structures using improved reduction system method. Smart Structures and Systems, 25(1), 1-25.
4- Dinh-Cong D., Dang-Trung H., and Nguyen-Thoi T. 2018 An efficient approach for optimal sensor placement and damage identification in laminated composite structures. Advances in Engineering Software, 119, 48-59.
5- Papadimitriou C. 2004 Optimal sensor placement methodology for parametric identification of structural systems. Journal of sound and vibration, 278(4-5), 923-947.
6- Papadimitriou C. & Lombaert G. 2012 The effect of prediction error correlation on optimal sensor placement in structural dynamics. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 28, 105-127.
7- Liu W., Gao W.c., Sun Y., & Xu M.j. 2008 Optimal sensor placement for spatial lattice structure based on genetic algorithms. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 317(1-2), 175-189.
8- Guo H., Zhang L., Zhang L. & Zhou J. 2004 Optimal placement of sensors for structural health monitoring using improved genetic algorithms. Smart materials and structures, 13(3), 528.
9- He C., Xing J., Li J., Yang Q., Wang R., & Zhang X. 2015 A new optimal sensor placement strategy based on modified modal assurance criterion and improved adaptive genetic algorithm for structural health monitoring. Mathematical Problems in Engineering.
10- Hosseinzadeh A.Z., Amiri G.G., Razzaghi S.S., Koo K., & Sung S.H. 2016 Structural damage detection using sparse sensors installation by optimization procedure based on the modal flexibility matrix. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 381, 65-82.
11- Kaveh A., Javadi S., & Maniat M. 2014 Damage assessment via modal data with a mixed particle swarm strategy, ray optimizer, and harmony search.
12- Lin J., Xu Y., & Zhan S. 2018 Structural Damage Detection-Oriented Multi-Type Sensor Placement with Multi-Objective Optimization: Experimental Investigation. in 7th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, APWSHM 2018.
13- Lin J.F., Xu Y.L., & Law S.S. 2018 Structural damage detection-oriented multi-type sensor placement with multi-objective optimization. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 422, 568-589.
14- Sun H. & Büyüköztürk O. 2015 Optimal sensor placement in structural health monitoring using discrete optimization. Smart Materials and Structures, 24(12), 125034.
15- Yang J. & Peng Z. 2019 Beetle-swarm evolution competitive algorithm for bridge sensor optimal placement in SHM. IEEE Sensors Journal, 20(15), 8244-8255.
16- Yi T.H., Li H.N. & Gu M. 2011 Optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring based on multiple optimization strategies. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 20(7), 881-900.
17- Yi T.H., Li H.N. & Wang C.W. 2016 Multiaxial sensor placement optimization in structural health monitoring using distributed wolf algorithm. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 23(4), 719-734.
18- Yi T.H., Li H.N., Gu M. & Zhang X.-D. 2014 Sensor placement optimization in structural health monitoring using niching monkey algorithm. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 14(05), 1440012.
19- Zhan J.Z. & Yu L. 2014 Optimal Sensor Placement Based on Tabu Search Algorithms. in Applied Mechanics and Materials. Trans Tech Publ.
20- Zhao J., Wu X., Sun Q. & Zhang L. 2017 Optimal sensor placement for a truss structure using particle swarm optimisation algorithm. International Journal of Acoustics and Vibrations, 22(4), 439-447.
21- Zhu K., Gu C., Qiu J., Liu W., Fang C., & Li B. 2016 Determining the optimal placement of sensors on a concrete arch dam using a quantum genetic algorithm. Journal of Sensors.
22- Avci O., Abdeljaber O., Kiranyaz S., Hussein M., Gabbouj M. & Inman D.J. 2021 A review of vibration-based damage detection in civil structures: From traditional methods to Machine Learning and Deep Learning applications. Mechanical systems and signal processing, 147, 107077.
23- Adams R., Cawley P., Pye C., Stone B. & Davies W. 1979 A vibration technique for nondestructively assessing the integrity of structures. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 21(1), 57.
24- Cawley P. & Adams R.D. 1979 The location of defects in structures from measurements of natural frequencies. The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, 14(2), 49-57.
25- West W.M. 1986 Illustration of the use of modal assurance criterion to detect structural changes in an orbiter test specimen.
26- Lieven N. & Ewins D. 1988 Spatial Correlation of Mode Shapes, The Coordinate Modal Error Function (COMAC). in Proceedings of the International Modal Analysis Conference.
27- Perera R., Marin R., & Ruiz A. 2013 Static–dynamic multi-scale structural damage identification in a multi-objective framework. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 332(6), 1484-1500.
28- Pandey A., Biswas M. & Samman, M. 1991 Damage detection from changes in curvature mode shapes. Journal of sound and vibration, 145(2), 321-332.
29- Wijker J.J. 2008 Spacecraft structures, Springer Science & Business Media.
30- O'CALLAHAN J. 1989 A procedure for an improved reduced system (IRS) model. in Proceedings of 7th IMAC, Las Vegas, NV., 1989.
31- Friswell M., Garvey S. & Penny J. 1995 Model reduction using dynamic and iterated IRS techniques. Journal of sound and vibration, 186(2), 311-323.
32- Kammer D.C. 1987 Test-analysis model development using an exact modal reduction. International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, 2(4), 174-179.
33- Yang, Q. 2009 Model reduction by Neumann series expansion. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(12), 4431-4434.
34- Weng S., Tian W., Zhu H., Xia Y., Gao F., Zhang Y., & Li J. 2017 Dynamic condensation approach to calculation of structural responses and response sensitivities. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 88, 302-317.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 23, Issue 1
March and April 2023
Pages 75-89