Structural damage detection methods using vibration measurements have been developed for decades. Measurement selections may affect damage detection results, because inevitable uncertainties are involved in vibration testing. A new sensor placement index is defined as the ratio of two parameters, namely, the contribution of measurement points to a Fisher information matrix, and the damage sensitivity to the measurement noise. A large value of the contribution vector represents that the corresponding measurement points are sensitive to the damage and measurements at these points are more prominent for structural damage identification, whereas a small noise sensitivity value indicates measurement points that are less influenced by noises. Consequently, the points with large index values are chosen as the measurement subset. The effectiveness of the proposed technique is verified using a laboratory-tested steel frame. The damage detection using different measurement selection schemes shows that the present technique can identify multiple damages of the structure more accurately. The effect of the measurement number is also investigated.
BreitfeldT. (1996). “A method for identification of a set of optimal measurement points for experimental modal analysis”, Modal Analysis: The International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1–9.
2.
CobbR.G. and LiebstB.S. (1997). “Sensor placement and structural damage identification from minimal sensor information”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 369–374.
3.
DoeblingS.W.FarrarC.R.PrimeM.B. and ShevitzD.W. (1996). Damage Identification and Health Monitoring of Structural and Mechanical Systems From Changes in Their Vibration Characteristics: A Literature Review, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-13070-MS, Los Alamos, USA.
4.
DoeblingS.W.HemezF.M.PetersonL.D. and FarhatC. (1997). “Improved damage location accuracy using strain energy-based mode selection criteria”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 693–699.
5.
DoeblingS.W.FarrarC.R. and GoodmanR.S. (1997). “Effects of measurement statistics on the detection of damage in the Alamosa Canyon Bridge”, Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, February, pp. 919–929.
6.
FarrarC.R. and DoeblingS.W. (1998). “A comparison study of modal parameter confidence intervals computed using the monte carlo and bootstrap techniques”, Proceedings of 16th International Modal Analysis Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, February, pp. 936–944.
7.
GunesB.AryaB.Wadia-FascettiS. and SanayeiM. (1999). “Practical issues in the application of structural identification”, Computational Mechanics and Structural Engineering: Recent Developments, Elsevier Scientific Ltd., pp. 193–206.
8.
HaoH. and XiaY. (2002). “Vibration-based damage detection of structures by genetic algorithm”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 222–229.
9.
JiangS.F.ZhangC.M. and KohC.G. (2006). “Structural damage detection by integrating data fusion and probabilistic neural network”, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 445–458.
10.
KammerD.C. (1991). “Sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification and correlation of large space structures”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 251–259.
11.
KammerD.C. (2005). “Sensor set expansion for modal vibration testing”, Mechanical System and Signal Processing, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 700–713.
12.
KatafygiotisL.S. and YuenK.V. (2001). “Bayesian spectral density approach for modal updating using ambient data”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 1103–1123.
13.
LimK.B. (1992). “Method for optimal actuator and sensor placement for large flexible structures”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 49–57.
14.
MODENT (1998). User's Guide, ICATS, Imperial College Analysis, Testing and Software, London, UK.
15.
NelsonR.B. (1976). “Simplified calculation of eigenvector derivatives”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 1201–1205.
16.
SanayeiM. and SaletnikM.J. (1996). “Parameter estimation of structures from static strain measurements, Part II: Error sensitivity analysis”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 5, pp. 563–572.
17.
ShiZ.Y.LawS.S. and ZhangL.M. (2000). “Optimum sensor placement for structural damage detection”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 11, pp. 1173–1179.
18.
UdwadiaF.E. and GarbaJ.A. (1985). “Optimal sensor locations for structural identification”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Identification and Control of Flexible Space Structures, San Diego, California, USA, April, pp. 247–261.
19.
XiaY. and HaoH. (2000). “Measurement selection for vibration-based structural damage identification”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 236, No. 1, pp. 89–104.
20.
XiaY.HaoH.BrownjohnJ.M.W. and XiaP.Q. (2002). “Damage Identification of structures with uncertain frequency and mode shape data”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1053–1066.
21.
XuY.L. and XiaY. (2011). Structural Health Monitoring of Long-Span Suspension Bridges, Spon Press, London, UK.
22.
XuZ.D. and WuZ.S. (2007). “Energy damage detection strategy based on acceleration responses for long-span bridge structures”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 609–617.
23.
XuZ.D. and WuZ.S. (2009). “Sensitivity analysis of acceleration-based energy damage detection strategy to load excitations and sensor placement”, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 413–423.
24.
XuZ.D.LiuM.WuZ.S. and ZengX. (2011). “Energy damage detection strategy based on strain responses for long-span bridge structures.”Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 644–652.
25.
YanW.J.HuangT.L. and RenW.X. (2010). “Damage detection method based on element modal strain energy sensitivity”, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 1075–1088.
26.
YiT.H.LiH.N. and GuM. (2011). “A new method for optimal selection of sensor location on a high-rise building using simplified finite element model”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 671–684.
