Optimal sensor placement for timber architecture heritage poses a significant challenge due to the unique structural types and complex monitoring purposes. In this study, a three-stage method is proposed, taking a courtyard-style heritage, built 133 years ago, as an example. First, a finite element model that accounted for the parameter randomness and initial damage was constructed using a genetic algorithm (GA) and experimental results. Second, a new weighted fitness function of logarithmic type was developed for multi-type sensors and multi-objective monitoring. Third, a novel genetic algorithm, Meta-GA, was proposed, introducing competition group mechanisms and gene libraries to improve optimal capability while maintaining computational efficiency. The Meta-GA is then compared to the other two optimization modes using seven indexes. Finally, damage detection capability was tested for the proposed three schemes at noise levels of 0%, 5%, and 10%. The results reveal that the proposed three-stage method with Meta-GA can provide the best solution.
ZhangCChunQLinY, et al. Quantitative assessment method of structural safety for complex timber structures with decay diseases. J Build Eng2021; 44: 103355.
2.
FuTSGhoshAJohnsonEA, et al. Energy-efficient deployment strategies in structural health monitoring using wireless sensor networks. Struct Control Health Monit2013; 20: 971–986.
3.
FengSJiaJQZhangJC. Sensor configuration optimizing in modal identification by siege ant colony algorithm. J Mech2017; 33: 269–277.
4.
XiaoFHulseyJLChenGS, et al. Optimal static strain sensor placement for truss bridges. Int J Distrib Sens Netw2017; 13.
5.
LeeEEunH. Optimal sensor placements using modified Fisher information matrix and effective information algorithm. Int J Distrib Sens Netw2021; 17.
6.
CarneTGDohrmannCR. A modal test design strategy for model correlation. In: Conference: International modal analysis conference, Nashville, TN, USA, 13–16 Feb 1995; Other Information: PBD: [1994]. United States 1994, p. Medium: ED; Size: 7 p.
7.
KammerDC. Sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification and correlation of large space structures. J Guid Control Dyn1990; 14: 251–259.
8.
MeoMZumpanoG. On the optimal sensor placement techniques for a bridge structure. Eng Struct2005; 27: 1488–1497.
StephanC. Sensor placement for modal identification. Mech Syst Signal Process2012; 27: 461–470.
14.
YangCLiangKZhangX. Strategy for sensor number determination and placement optimization with incomplete information based on interval possibility model and clustering avoidance distribution index. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2020; 366: 113042.
15.
HeLLianJMaB, et al. Optimal multiaxial sensor placement for modal identification of large structures. Struct Control Health Monit2014; 21: 61–79.
16.
BłachowskiBŚwierczAOstrowskiM, et al. Convex relaxation for efficient sensor layout optimization in large-scale structures subjected to moving loads. Comp-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2020; 35: 1085–1100.
17.
HollandJ. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with application to biology control artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts1975.
18.
YiTLiHGuM. Sensor placement for structural health monitoring of Canton Tower. Smart Struct Syst2012; 10: 313–329.
19.
KangFLiJXuQ. Virus coevolution partheno-genetic algorithms for optimal sensor placement. Adv Eng Inf2008; 22: 362–370.
20.
GuoHYZhangLZhangLL, et al. Optimal placement of sensors for structural health monitoring using improved genetic algorithms. Smart Mater Struct2004; 13: 528–534.
21.
KimCOhHChang JungB, et al. Optimal sensor placement to detect ruptures in pipeline systems subject to uncertainty using an Adam-mutated genetic algorithm. Struct Health Monit2021; 21: 2354–2369.
22.
ZhaoRQTangWS. Monkey algorithm for global numerical optimization. J Uncertain Syst2007; 2: 165–176.
23.
YiTLiHZhangX. Health monitoring sensor placement optimization for Canton Tower using immune monkey algorithm. Struct Control Health Monit2015; 22: 123–138.
24.
YiTZhouGLiH, et al. Optimal sensor placement for health monitoring of high-rise structure based on collaborative-climb monkey algorithm. Struct Eng Mech2015; 54: 305–317.
25.
MahjoubiSBarhematRBaoY. Optimal placement of triaxial accelerometers using hypotrochoid spiral optimization algorithm for automated monitoring of high-rise buildings. Autom Constr2020; 118.
26.
SeyedpoorSM. A two stage method for structural damage detection using a modal strain energy based index and particle swarm optimization. Int J Non-Linear Mech2012; 47: 1–8.
27.
TongKHBakharyNKuehABH, et al. Optimal sensor placement for mode shapes using improved simulated annealing. Smart Struct Syst2014; 13: 389–406.
28.
SunHBüyüköztürkO. Optimal sensor placement in structural health monitoring using discrete optimization. Smart Mater Struct2015; 24; 125034.
29.
ScottMWordenK. A Bee Swarm algorithm for optimising sensor distributions for impact detection on a composite panel. Strain2015; 51: 147–155.
30.
ZhouGYiTZhangH, et al. Energy-aware wireless sensor placement in structural health monitoring using hybrid discrete firefly algorithm. Struct Control Health Monit2015; 22: 648–666.
31.
WuHZhangF. Wolf Pack Algorithm for unconstrained global optimization. Math Probl Eng2014; 2014: 1–17.
32.
YiTLiHWangC. Multiaxial sensor placement optimization in structural health monitoring using distributed wolf algorithm. Struct Control Health Monit2016; 23: 719–734.
33.
YiTZhouGLiH, et al. Optimal placement of triaxial sensors for modal identification using hierarchic wolf algorithm. Struct Control Health Monit2017; 24: e1958.
34.
KavehADadras EslamlouA. An efficient two-stage method for optimal sensor placement using graph-theoretical partitioning and evolutionary algorithms. Struct Control Health Monit2019; 26: e2325.
35.
LiTPanYTongK, et al. A multi-scale attention neural network for sensor location selection and nonlinear structural seismic response prediction. Comput Struct2021; 248: 106507.
36.
InvernizziSLacidognaGCarpinteriA. Numerical models for the assessment of historical masonry structures and materials, monitored by acoustic emission. Appl Sci2016; 6: 102.
37.
PachónPInfantesMCámaraM, et al. Evaluation of optimal sensor placement algorithms for the structural health monitoring of architectural heritage. Application to the Monastery of San Jerónimo de Buenavista (Seville, Spain). Eng Struct2020; 202: 109843.
38.
PachónPCastroRGarcía-MacíasE, et al. E. Torroja’s bridge: tailored experimental setup for SHM of a historical bridge with a reduced number of sensors. Eng Struct2018; 162: 11–21.
39.
LenticchiaECeravoloRAntonaciP. Sensor placement strategies for the seismic monitoring of complex vaulted structures of the modern architectural heritage. Shock Vibr2018; 2018: 1–14.
40.
LenticchiaECeravoloRChiorinoC. Damage scenario-driven strategies for the seismic monitoring of XX century spatial structures with application to Pier Luigi Nervi’s Turin Exhibition Centre. Eng Struct2017; 137: 256–267.
41.
ZiniGBettiMBartoliG. A pilot project for the long-term structural health monitoring of historic city gates. J Civ Struct Health Monit2022; 12: 537–556.
42.
OttosenNSPeterssonH. Introduction to the finite element method. New York: Prentice Hall, 1992.
43.
ChangJNagarajaiahS. Quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization-based structural modal parameter identification under ambient excitation. Int J Struct Stab Dyn2016; 16: 1550008.
44.
LiXYLawSS. Adaptive Tikhonov regularization for damage detection based on nonlinear model updating. Mech Syst Signal Process2010; 24: 1646–1664.
45.
YangCXiaYQ. Optimal sensor placement based on dynamic condensation using multi-objective optimization algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim2022; 65: 17.
46.
YangCOuyangHJ. A novel load-dependent sensor placement method for model updating based on time-dependent reliability optimization considering multi-source uncertainties. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 165: 21.
47.
YangCXiaYQ. A novel two-step strategy of non-probabilistic multi-objective optimization for load-dependent sensor placement with interval uncertainties. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 176: 15.
48.
AnHYounBDKimHS. Optimal sensor placement considering both sensor faults under uncertainty and sensor clustering for vibration-based damage detection. Struct Multidiscip Optim2022; 65: 32.
49.
KimTYounBDOhH. Development of a stochastic effective independence (SEFI) method for optimal sensor placement under uncertainty. Mech Syst Signal Process2018; 111: 615–627.
50.
ZhangCWChunQSunA, et al. Improved meta-learning neural network for the prediction of the historical reinforced concrete bond-slip model using few test specimens. Int J Concr Struct Mater2022; 16: 29.
51.
FinnCAbbeelPLevineS. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In: 34th International conference on machine learning, Sydney, Australia, 06–11 Aug 2017, vol 70. SAN DIEGO: Jmlr-Journal Machine Learning Research.
52.
ChangHCTsaiYTChinKT. A novel optimal working process in the design of parametric progressive dies. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2007; 33: 915–928.
53.
DowneyAHuCLaflammeS. Optimal sensor placement within a hybrid dense sensor network using an adaptive genetic algorithm with learning gene pool. Struct Health Monit2017; 17: 450–460.
54.
General requirements for physical and mechanical tests of wood. GB/T 1928–2009.
55.
Methods of testing in compressive strength parallel to grain of wood. GB/T 1935–2009.
56.
Method for determination of the modulus of elasticity in compression perpendicular to grain of wood. GB/T 1943–2009.
57.
Method for determination of the density of wood. GB/T 1933–2009.
58.
Method for determination of the moisture content of wood. GB/T 1931–2009.
59.
GünaydinMDemirkirCAltunişikAC, et al. Diagnosis and monitoring of historical timber Velipaşa Han building prior to restoration. Int J Archit Heritage2021: 1–25.
60.
LinYJChunQZhangCW, et al. Research on seismic performance of traditional Chinese hall-style timber buildings in the Song and Yuan dynasties (960–1368 AD): a case study of the main hall of Baoguo Temple. J Wood Sci2022; 68: 25.
61.
KarimpourARahmatallaS. Identification of structural parameters and boundary conditions using a minimum number of measurement points. Front Struct Civ Eng2021; 14: 1331–1348.
