Article Article
Optimal Sensor Placement for Condition Assessment of a Cantilever Truss Bridge

Structural Health Monitoring and Structural Identification (St-Id) applications are often criticized for deploying too many sensors without regard for their benefit. This paper discusses a project where St-Id was used to provide a sensor-light, yet informative field testing application. An initial numerical assessment of a long-span cantilever truss bridge indicated unsatisfactory load ratings and an unfavorable estimate of fatigue life. As a result, the overarching project objectives were to identify the (1) live load distribution throughout the primary and secondary load carrying systems and (2) nominal stress levels at fatigue-prone details. Given the nature of the issues, and the potential benefit of field testing, the St-Id framework was applied to the bridge. Financial resources for the project were limited, constraining the type and number of sensors. Therefore, a comprehensive sensor placement study was conducted to optimize information learned from the testing. An automated sensitivity study was conducted utilizing an FE model. Several load positions were simulated and the corresponding results were extracted for different structure section cuts. Those sections with the greatest sensitivity (not the largest response levels) to the parameters with the most uncertainty (e.g. boundary stiffness, pin stiffness) were selected for field instrumentation. The testing results were then used to calibrate the model, which showed the presence of multiple load paths depending on load position and levels of participation of “dummy” members. The calibrated model was then used to update the load ratings for all members of interest.

Aktan, A., Farhey, D., Helmicki, A., Brown, D., Hunt, V., Lee, K., and Levi, A. (1997). “Structural Identification for Condition Assessment: Experimental Arts.” J. Struct. Eng., 123(12), 1674–1684. Aktan, A. and Brownjohn, J. (2013). “Structural Identification: Opportunities and Challenges.” J. Struct. Eng. 139, SPECIAL ISSUE: Real-World Applications for Structural Identification and Health Monitoring Methodologies, 1639–1647. ASCE SEI Committee on Structural Identification of Constructed Systems. (2011). Structural dentification (St-Id) of constructed facilities. Approaches, methods and technologies for effective practice of St-Id, F. Catbas, T. Kijewski- Correa, and A. Aktan, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA. Gokce, H., Catbas, F., Gul, M., and Frangopol, D. (2013). “Structural Identification for Performance Prediction Considering Uncertainties: Case Study of a Movable Bridge.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(10), 1703- 1715. Liu, S. C. and J. T. P. Yao (1978). “Structural Identification Concept.” J. Struct. Div. 104(12): 1845-1858. Mathworks (2008). Matlab. Natick, MA. Moon, F., and Aktan, A. E. (2006). “Impacts of epistemic uncertainty on structural identification of constructed systems.” Shock Vib. Digest, 38(5), 399–420. Pan, Q., K. Grimmelsman, et al. (2011). “Mitigating Epistemic Uncertainty in Structural Identification: Case Study for a Long-Span Steel Arch Bridge.” Journal of Structural Engineering 137(1): 1-13. Strand7 Pty Ltd (2010). Strand7. Sydney, Australia.
Usage Shares
Total Views
42 Page Views
Total Shares
0 Tweets
0 PDF Downloads
0 Facebook Shares
Total Usage