# Optimal Sensor Placement in Reduced-Order Models Using Modal Constraint Conditions

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Formulations

**M**and

**K**denote the $N\times N$ mass and stiffness matrices, respectively, and

**u**and $\ddot{u}$ denote the $N\times 1$ generalized displacement and acceleration vectors, respectively. The mathematical model is formulated using the modal characteristics of the natural frequency ${\omega}_{i}\left(i=1,2,\dots ,N\right),$ and the corresponding normalized mode shape vector ${\Phi}_{i}\left(i=1,2,\dots ,N\right)$. ${\Phi}_{i}$ denotes the i-th column of the mode shape matrix.

**u**in terms of $r\times 1$ modal coordinate vector $y$ and $N\times r$ mode shape matrix $\Phi $ is written as

**y**is the $r\times 1$ modal displacement vector and $r$ indicates the number of target modes. The subscripts s and m denote the slave and master modes, respectively. ${\Phi}_{s}$ and ${\Phi}_{m}$ denote the s $\times r$ slave mode shape matrix and $\left(N-s\right)\times r$ master mode shape matrix, respectively, and $\left(N-s\right)$ represents the number of candidate sensor locations. Here,$\left(N-s\right)\ge r$.

#### 2.1. Modal Reduction–Effective Independence (MR–EI) Approach

**R**, the displacements at the master DOFs can be determined, where

**R**denotes the Boolean matrix to define the master DOFs.

**u**, of Equation (4a)

**,**and $\widehat{u}$ of Equation (5), respectively, is expressed as

#### 2.2. CDE–EI Approach

**I**denotes the $\mathrm{s}\times \mathrm{s}$ identity matrix.

**=**$\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& -{\Phi}_{s}{\Phi}_{m}^{+}\end{array}\right]$, and $b$ is the right-hand-side term in Equation (9), $b=\mathbf{0}$.

**V**and

**U**are eigenvectors of ${Q}^{T}Q$ or $Q{Q}^{T}$. By inserting the eigenvectors $\chi $ of ${Q}^{T}Q$ or $Q{Q}^{T}$ and $\xi =Q=I-{M}^{-1/2}{\left(A{M}^{-1/2}\right)}^{+}A$ into Equation (7), the EI method based on the CDE approach can be iteratively applied, and the objective function of Equation (8) can be obtained. The DOF with low contribution to the EID is relocated to the slave DOFs. The final sensor locations are obtained by iterating the same process as the EI method until they match the initial number of sensors.

#### 2.3. Modified MKE Method

#### 2.4. Modified MSE Method

**P**is moved to the slave DOFs. The remainder of the procedure is similar to that of the MMKE method by iteration.

#### 2.5. Modified MAC Method

## 3. Numerical Example

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Chang, M.; Pakzad, S.N. Optimal sensor placement for modal identification of bridge systems considering number of sensing nodes. J. Bridge Eng.
**2014**, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kammer, D.C. Sensor Placement for On-Orbit Modal Identification and Correlation of Large Space Structures. In Proceedings of the 19th American Control Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 23–25 May 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Kammer, D.C.; Yao, L. Enhancement of on-orbit modal identification of large space structures through sensor placement. J. Sound Vib.
**1994**, 171, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiang, Y.; Li, D.; Song, G. On the physical significance of the effective independence method for sensor placement. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
**2017**, 842, 012030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Yang, C.; Lu, Z. An interval effective independence method for optimal sensor placement based on non-probabilistic approach. Sci. China Technol. Sci.
**2017**, 60, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhou, X.; Chu, M.; Liu, J.; Qu, S.; Fan, H. Optimal placement of triaxial accelerometer using modal kinetic energy method. Appl. Mech. Mater.
**2012**, 166–169, 1583–1586. [Google Scholar] - Heo, G.; Wang, M.L.; Satoathi, D. Optimal transducer placement for health monitoring of long span bridge. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
**1997**, 16, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, D.S.; Li, H.N.; Fritzen, C.-P. The connection between effective independence and modal kinetic energy methods for sensor placement. J. Sound Vib.
**2007**, 305, 945–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Papadopoulos, M.; Garcia, E. Sensor placement methodologies for dynamic testing. AIAA J.
**1998**, 36, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cruz, A.; Velez, W.; Thomson, P. Optimal sensor placement for modal identification of structures using genetic algorithms-a case study: The olympic stadium in Cali, Colombia. Ann. Oper. Res.
**2010**, 181, 769–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hemez, F.M.; Farhat, C. An energy based optimum sensor placement criterion and its application to structural damage detection. Proc. SPIE
**1994**, 2, 1568–1575. [Google Scholar] - He, C.; Xing, J.; Li, J.; Yang, Q.; Wang, R.; Zhang, X. A new optimal sensor placement strategy based on modified modal assurance criterion and improved genetic algorithm for structural health monitoring. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2015**, 2015, 626342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Fu, Y.M.; Yu, L. Optimal sensor placement based on MAC and SPGA algorithm. Adv. Mat. Res.
**2012**, 594–597, 1118–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brehm, M.; Zabel, V.; Bucher, C. An automatic mode pairing strategy using an enhanced modal assurance criterion based on modal strain energies. J. Sound Vib.
**2010**, 329, 5375–5392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Coote, J.; Lieven, N.; Skingle, G. Sensor Placement Optimization for Modal Testing of a Helicopter Fuselage. In Proceedings of the 24th International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC-XXIII), Orlando, FL, USA, 7–10 February 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Kammer, D.C. Optimal sensor placement for model identification using system realization methods. J. Guid. Control. Dyn.
**1996**, 19, 729–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cherng, A.-P. Optimal sensor placement for modal parameter identification using signal subspace correlation techniques. Mech. Syst. Signal. Process.
**2003**, 17, 361–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rao, A.R.M.; Lakshmi, K.; Krishnakumar, S. A generalized optimal sensor placement technique for structural health monitoring and system identification. Procedia Eng.
**2014**, 86, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Udwadia, F.E.; Kalaba, R.E. A new perspective on constrained motion. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A
**1992**, 439, 407–410. [Google Scholar] - Sun, H.; Buyukozturk, O. Optimal sensor placement in structural health monitoring using discrete optimization. Smart Mater. Struct.
**2015**, 24, 125034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**A plane truss. The number without parentheses indicates the node and the number with parentheses the element.

**Figure 2.**OSPs obtained from the proposed methods: (

**a**) MR–EI, (

**b**) CDE–EI, (

**c**) MMKE27, (

**d**) MMKE11, (

**e**) MMSE, (

**f**) MMAC, (

**g**) Hao. The number without parentheses indicates the node and the number with parentheses the element.

Horizontal Node | Vertical Node | OSP Criterion | Objective Function | |
---|---|---|---|---|

MR-EI | 2, 4 | 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13 | Difference between unbiased and biased displacement data | Equation (8) |

CDE-EI | 3, 5, 13, 14 | 10, 12, 13, 14 | ||

* MMKE 27 | 2, 6, 13, 14 | 4, 6, 9, 12 | Modal kinetic energy | Equation (14) |

* MMKE 11 | 2, 6, 14, 15 | 4, 6, 9, 12 | ||

MMSE | 2, 4, 13 | 3, 6, 7, 9, 13 | Modal strain energy | Equation (14) |

MMAC | 4, 5, 8, 14 | 2, 5, 6, 7 | Matching degree of mode shape vector | Equation (19) |

Sun and Buyukozturk | 2, 7, 12, 14 | 4, 7, 10, 13 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Lee, E.-T.; Eun, H.-C.
Optimal Sensor Placement in Reduced-Order Models Using Modal Constraint Conditions. *Sensors* **2022**, *22*, 589.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22020589

**AMA Style**

Lee E-T, Eun H-C.
Optimal Sensor Placement in Reduced-Order Models Using Modal Constraint Conditions. *Sensors*. 2022; 22(2):589.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22020589

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Lee, Eun-Taik, and Hee-Chang Eun.
2022. "Optimal Sensor Placement in Reduced-Order Models Using Modal Constraint Conditions" *Sensors* 22, no. 2: 589.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22020589