64 G. N. Absi and S. Mahadevan References 1. Shah, P.C., Udwadia, F.: Methodology for optimum sensor locations for parameter identification in dynamic systems. J. Eng. Mech. 120(2), 188–196 (1994) 2. Kammer, D.C.: Sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification and correlation of large space structures. J. Guid. Control. Dyn. 14, 251–259 (1991) 3. Kirkegaard, P.H., Brincker, R.: On the optimal location of sensors for parametric identification of linear structural systems. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 8, 639–647 (1994) 4. Heredia-Zavoni, E., Esteva, L.: Optimal instrumentation of uncertain structural systems subject to earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 27, 343–362 (1998) 5. Heredia-Zavoni, E., Montes-Iturrizaga, R., Esteva, L.: Optimal instrumentation of structures on flexible base for system identification. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28, 1471–1482 (1999) 6. Papadimitriou, C.: Pareto optimal sensor locations for structural identification. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 194, 1655–1673 (2005) 7. Papadimitriou, C., Beck, J.L., Au, S.-K.: Entropy-based optimal sensor location for structural model updating. J. Vib. Control. 6, 781–800 (2000) 8. Papadopoulou, M., Raphael, B., Smith, I., Sekhar, C.: Hierarchical sensor placement using joint entropy and the effect of modeling error. Entropy. 16, 5078 (2014) 9. Hu, Z., Ao, D., Mahadevan, S.: Calibration experimental design considering field response and model uncertainty. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 318, 92–119 (2017) 10. Abdullah, M.M., Richardson, A., Hanif, J.: Placement of sensors/actuators on civil structures using genetic algorithms. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30, 1167–1184 (2001) 11. Raich, A.M., Liszkai, T.R.: Multi-objective optimization of sensor and excitation layouts for frequency response function-based structural damage identification. Comput. Aided Civ. Inf. Eng. 27, 95–117 (2012) 12. Guratzsch, R.F., Mahadevan, S.: Structural health monitoring sensor placement optimization under uncertainty. AIAA J. 48, 1281–1289 (2010) 13. Huan, X., Marzouk, Y.: Gradient-based stochastic optimization methods in Bayesian experimental design. Int. J. Uncertainty Quantification. 4, 479–510 (2014) 14. Nath, P., Hu, Z., Mahadevan, S.: Sensor placement for calibration of spatially varying model parameters. J. Comput. Phys. 343, 150–169 (2017) 15. Adhikari, S.: Damping Models for Structural Vibration, Trinity College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England (2000) 16. Gordon, R.W., Hollkamp, J.J.: Reduced-order models for acoustic response prediction, DTIC Document (2011) 17. Hastings, W.K.: Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika. 57, 97–109 (1970) 18. Casella, G., George, E.I.: Explaining the Gibbs sampler. Am. Stat. 46, 167–174 (1992) 19. Neal, R.M.: Slice sampling. Ann. Statist. 31, 705–767 (2003) 20. Zhang, Z., Jiang, C., Han, X., Hu, D., Yu, S.: A response surface approach for structural reliability analysis using evidence theory. Adv. Eng. Softw. 69, 37–45 (2014) 21. Hurtado, J.E., Alvarez, D.A.: Neural-network-based reliability analysis: a comparative study. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 191, 113– 132 (2001) 22. Ghanem, R.G., Spanos, P.: Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach. Springer, Berlin (1991) 23. Romero, V.J., Swiler, L.P., Giunta, A.A.: Construction of response surfaces based on progressive-lattice-sampling experimental designs with application to uncertainty propagation. Struct. Saf. 26, 201–219 (2004) 24. Kullback, S., Leibler, R.A.: On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Statist. 22, 79–86 (1951) 25. Absi, G.N., Mahadevan, S.: Input-dependence effects in dynamics model calibration. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 109, 285–304 (2018)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMzNzEzMQ==