91. SHM Presentación tokio.pdf

research bridges railways tunnelling monitoring technology management international
Vienna Consulting Engineers
Status and Outlook
Helmut Wenzel, Tokyo, 20. 10. 2008
SHM of Bridges 2008

University of Tokyo, 20. October 2008
SHM of Bridges
Page
2
Motivation for Health Monitoring

SHM of Bridges
Page
3
Typical Life Cycle of a Structure
BRIMOS
10.0
Global Level

SHM of Bridges
Page
4
Failure
[MPA Stuttgart]
time
modes
Warning
Structural Performance over Time

SHM of Bridges
Page
5
o
target
BRIDGE RELIABILITY PROFILE
TIME
PERFORMANCE
TR,1 TR,2
[Frangopol, 2008]

SHM of Bridges
Page
6
Prediction of Bridge Performance with and without
Monitoring
Time
Bridge
performance
With
monitoring
Without
monitoring
Performance threshold
Maintenance
(a)
t1 t0 Time
Bridge
performance
Performance threshold
With
monitoring
Without
monitoring
Maintenance
t1
t0
(b)
• Health monitoring can be continuous or discrete and with different
levels of accuracy;
• Performance prediction can be significantly improved through
integrated monitoring and simulation.
[Frangopol, 2008]

SHM of Bridges
Page
7
RELIABILITY INDEX PROFILE MODEL AND
ASSOCIATED RANDOM VARIABLES
o
PI
t P
t P
t P
t
PD
t
PD
t
PD
t
target

1

1

1

1

1
tR
R
)
(t
f
T
R
f
T
R
(t
tRP
R
P
)


f

o

o
f


(t
I
)
tI
f







f
f



f

P
D
)
P
D
(t
tPD
f

P
(t
P
)
tP
P
I
f

(t
P
I
)
tPI
REHABILITATION TIME, t
RP
REHABILITATION TIME, t
R
WITHOUT PREV. MAINT.

I
t
BRIDGE AGE, YEARS
WITH PREV. MAINT.



[Frangopol, 2008]

SHM of Bridges
Page
8
1. Concept (Clear Objectives) and Design
2. Optimisation and Cost-Benefit Analysis
3. Hardware
4. Software
5. Communication and Web Interface
6. Commissioning and Start Up
7. Reporting Structure
8. Periodic Reporting
9. Analysis and Expertise
10. Thresholds and Warning
11. Periodic Maintenance
12. System Upgrade
SHM in Practice

SHM of Bridges
Page
9
1. System Identification (SI)
2. Load Model Calibration
3. Identification of Load Pattern
4. Understanding of the cyclic Behavior
5. Find overloaded Vehicles
6. Assess extreme Events (EQ)
7. Define Condition (SHM)
8. Degradation Model
9. Find, Locate and Quantify Damage
10.Satisfy the Law and some more
Objectives in Practice

SHM of Bridges
Page
10
Complete Integrated Monitoring System
Automated
Data
Acquisition
Self Learning System
Monitoring Input
Sensor
Sensor/Actuator System
for Acoustic Monitoring
ACTUAL SENSOR
DATABASE
EXTERNAL
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
BASES
HISTORY
DATABASE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
GLOBAL DECISION SUPPORT
Internet
OPERATION
PROCESSING
PIPE DESIGN
SYSTEM
ENGINEERING
MATERIAL
TESTING
LIFE CYCLE
MANAGEMENT
IAEA
REGULATOR
Not accessible part
of the piping system
LOCAL DECISION SUPPORT
Sensor
Damage Identification and localisation
Cleaned Sensor Data
Operation
Modes
Low Margin
Other
Scientific
Use Warning
Emergency
Normal
Prognosis
Forensic
Analysis

SHM of Bridges
Page
11
Toxic Chemicals
Platform
19.5m
Chlorgas

SHM of Bridges
Page
12
Concept of SHM system
Decision
Support
System
(DSS)
1
2
4
Crucial error-prone
part of the pipe
Piezo arrays for guided wave monitoring (local information)
3
Low-frequency
node (passive)
High-frequency
nodes (active)
High-frequency
nodes (active)
Acceleration sensors 1-4
for vibration monitoring
(global information)

SHM of Bridges
Page
13
a. Unbeschädigte Glocke
Anregung Lineares Spektrum
Glocke schwingt in Resonanz
Sensor
Amplitude
Frequenz
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode
3
b. Schadhafte Glocke
Anregung
Nichtlineares Spektrum
Glocke ändert Frequenzen und
Amplituden
Sensor
Amplitude
Frequenz
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
BRIMOS Identification

SHM of Bridges
Page
14
Guided wave based SHM
Local excitation
Guided wave propagation
along the pipe wall
Guided wave propagation in pipes

SHM of Bridges
Page
15
Aug. 1st 2007
Avoidable by Monitoring ?
Aug.
1st
1976

SHM of Bridges
Page
16
I-35 Collapse (FHWA view Sept. 2008)
| A gusset plate has been wrongly
designed (1/2” instead of 1”)
| Dead Load has been increased by
20% over the 40 years of life
| During retrofit works a local pile of
gravel (190 tons) has triggered the
failure
| Could Monitoring have helped?

SHM of Bridges
Page
17
I-35 Bridge before collapse

SHM of Bridges
Page
18
Critical Joint, Gusset Plate

SHM of Bridges
Page
19
Retrofit work piling of gravel

SHM of Bridges
Page
20
Forensic Study

SHM of Bridges
Page
21
Joint Details

SHM of Bridges
Page
22
Failure Model

SHM of Bridges
Page
23
Monitoring retrofit works in Austria

SHM of Bridges
Page
24
RISK BASED MANAGEMENT
BRIMOS
VCDECIS

SHM of Bridges
Page
25
BRIMOS for Bridges

SHM of Bridges
Page
26
Hardware for Health Monitoring

SHM of Bridges
Page
27
Key Problem in Civil Engineering SHM
Discrepancy in life time expectation
Major Structures min. 100 years
Monitoring Systems min. 3 years
Wireless? An Illusion?

SHM of Bridges
Page
28
3. Hardware
4. Software
12. System Upgrade
SHM in Practice

SHM of Bridges
Page
29
ABA Permanent Monitoring since 1997
Sensor 1,
Kanal 1, 2, 3
Sensor 2,
Kanal 4, 5, 6
Sensor 3,
Kanal 7, 8, 9
Trigger:
Wind Speed  70 km/h

SHM of Bridges
Page
30
Tragwerk
Schornstein
Frequenz
Zeit
acc001
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
mg
12 13 16 17
Frequenz
Zeit
Identification
Wind triggered global modes
09.11.07
20.11.07
12-13 Hz 16-17 Hz
Kanal_10
10.11 11.11 12.11 13.11 14.11 15.11 16.11 17.11 18.11 19.11 20.11
2007
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
55.0
57.5
60.0
62.5
65.0
67.5
70.0
72.5
75.0
77.5
km/h
Measured Wind Speed
1 2 1 2

SHM of Bridges
Page
31
Trend over the past 7 years
1 2 1 2
12 13
In Detail:
12-13 Hz
1. Hanger Mode
Frequenz
Zeit
Frequenz
Zeit

SHM of Bridges
Page
32
Cracks from Fatigue and Overload

SHM of Bridges
Page
33
Monitoring Campaign

SHM of Bridges
Page
34
MONITORING CAMPAIGN
Sensor Placement

SHM of Bridges
Page
35
Steifigkeits-Verhältniswert
BERGAUF vs BERGAB
0,32
0,42
0,52
0,62
0,72
0,82
0,92
1,02
1,12
1,22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Laufindex Diagonal-Streben
BERGAUF_Lambda1^2/L^2....VollEingesp BERGAUF_Lambda2^2/L^2....EingespGelenk
BERGAUF_Lambda3^2/L^2....NachgEingesp BERGAB_Lambda1^2/L^2....VollEingesp
BERGAB_Lambda2^2/L^2....EingespGelenk BERGAB_Lambda3^2/L^2....NachgEingesp
P
atsch
S
chönberg
EXPECTED RESULTS FROM CALCULATION
Target Values

SHM of Bridges
Page
38
DMS_RFBB_o (...8)
DMS_RFBB_mo (...1)
DMS_RFBB_mu (...4)
DMS_RFBB_mu (...4)
DMS_RFBB_u (...6)
DMS_RFBI_u (...5)
DMS_RFBI_o (...7)
DMS_RFBI_mo (...2)
DMS_RFBI_mI (...9)
DMS_RFBI_mB (...10)
DMS_RFBI_mu (...3)
DMS - Profil
Sondermessung Mai 2007
(V30 QV-N und S)
Sensor: Spider 8_1 CH...
Nummerierung nach Reihenfolge der Montage
Richtung Innsbruck (S)
Richtung Brenner (N)
Lage der Dehnmessstreifen:
RFBB_o.... berer Anschluss
RFBB_mo... Strebenmitte, Oberseite
RFBB_mu... Strebenmitte, Unterseite
RFBB_u.... Unterer Anschluss
Richtungsfahrbahn Brenner, o
RFB Brenner,
RFB Brenner,
RFB Brenner,
RFBI_o... berer Anschluss
RFBI_mo... Strebenmitte, Oberseite
RFBI_mI... Strebenmitte, seitlich (Innsbruck)
RFBI_mB... Strebenmitte, seitlich (Brenner)
RFBI_mu... Strebenmitte Unterseite
RFBI_u...
Richtungsfahrbahn Innsbruck, o
RFB Innsbruck,
RFB Innsbruck,
RFB Innsbruck,
RFB Innsbruck,
RFB Innsbruck, unterer Anschluss
Stationierung des Profils: x = 621m (entspricht
36m von WL Schönberg)
VERIFICATION by STRAIN GAGES
Proof Test

SHM of Bridges
Page
39
Truck Passage (Stress)

SHM of Bridges
Page
40
Ende Feld V
ZWEI LKWs
Dyges-Zeit 09:40:25
Video-Zeit 09:47:11
v= 48,16 km/h; 44,93 km/h
Dyges = 5,9721 mm ; 4,0974 mm
=>
Scaling Factor = 0,749 ; 0,758
Dygeskal = 4,4731 mm ; 3,1058 mm
Entspr. 35 t
22 t
v-Klass 45-50 km/h; 40-45 km/h
Corresponding LOAD MODEL
Load Model Determination

SHM of Bridges
Page
41
Rainflow Matrix
Damage Matrix
Life Time Prediction

SHM of Bridges
Page
42
VERIFICATION of TEMPERATURE IMPACT
Temperature Influence

SHM of Bridges
Page
43
st_A_o_gesamt st_A_u_gesamt st_RFBB_a_gesamt st_RFBB_m_gesamt st_RFBB_o_gesamt
st_RFBB_u_gesamt st_RFBI_a_gesamt st_RFBI_m_gesamt st_RFBI_o_gesamt st_RFBI_u_gesamt
24.5, 0h 24.5, 12h 25.5, 0h 25.5, 12h 26.5, 0h 26.5, 12h 27.5, 0h 27.5, 12h
2007
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
°C
Daily TEMPERATURE Records
St_RFBB_o
St_RFBB_m
St_RFBB_a
St_RFBB_u
St_RFBI_u
St_RFBI_o
St_RFBI_m
St_RFBI_a
L_RFBI
L_RFBB
St_A_u
St_A_o
Temperatur - Profil (bei Stütze V)
Sondermessung Mai 2007
Richtung Innsbruck
Richtung Brenner
Stationierung des Profils: x = 576m (entspricht
81m von WL Schönberg)
Typical Temp. Profile

SHM of Bridges
Page
44
gesamt_durchbiegungen MQ2_InnenTemp_Pt100 Strahlungsleistung Luftfeuchte
23.5, 0h 23.5, 8h 23.5, 16h 24.5, 0h 24.5, 8h 24.5, 16h 25.5, 0h 25.5, 8h 25.5, 16h 26.5, 0h 26.5, 8h
2007
-10
0
10
mm
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
°C
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
kW/m^2
40
60
80
100
%rF
VERIFICATION of RADIATION IMPACT
Radiation Extreme

SHM of Bridges
Page
45
Early Damage Detection
| Damage Indicator by RDT
| Problem of Repetition
Hauptschnitt
3430
166
1
7 1 11
1
2 1
1 1 2
K1
K2
K3
2
K4
K5
5
3
1 7 2
5
VCDAMED
VCE Damage Indicator

SHM of Bridges
Page
46
Test Beam before testing

SHM of Bridges
Page
47
Excitation Device (KUL)

SHM of Bridges
Page
48
Cable Stressing

SHM of Bridges
Page
49 Impact test on post tensioned beam
120.00
G kg

 response trough frequency domain
Impact Load constant

SHM of Bridges
Page
50
Trend Development

SHM of Bridges
Page
51
Variation of Damping over Time

SHM of Bridges
Page
52 Damage Localization by Wavelet Analysis
Wavelet Results

SHM of Bridges
Page
53
Damage Indicator for Health Monitoring
Energy Transfer

SHM of Bridges
Page
54
Frequency Development
sp02_214 sp02_221 sp02_223 sp02_225 sp02_227 sp02_228
sp02_230
0.0000
0.0964
0.1929
0.2893
0.3857
0.4821
0.5786
0.6750
0.7714
0.8679
0.9643
1.0607
1.1571
1.2536
1.3500
mV
0.000 0.909 1.818 2.727 3.636 4.545 5.455 6.364 7.273 8.182 9.091 10.000
Hz
03.04.03 08:56:01
Cable II & IV released
Cable II, IV & III released
Cable II, IV, III & VI released
Cable II, IV, III, VI & V released
Cable II released
Full compression force
Reinforced Beam

SHM of Bridges
Page
55
Data Base driven Statistics

SHM of Bridges
Page
56
A1 - Überführung Regau
1
BRIMOS
10.0

SHM of Bridges
Page
57
Regau Cross Section
800
470
166
40
12
18

SHM of Bridges
Page
58
Sensor Layout

SHM of Bridges
Page
59
0.00 1.36 2.73 4.09 5.45 6.82 8.18 9.55 10.91 12.27 13.64 15.00
Hz
ohne Last
mit Last
unter
hoher Last
Changing Spectral Characteristics
green undamaged
blue 1. Damage
red strong Damage

SHM of Bridges
Page
60
Artificial Damage

SHM of Bridges
Page
61
Artificial Damage

SHM of Bridges
Page
62
Demolition of the Structure

SHM of Bridges
Page
63
Händischer Ausbau

SHM of Bridges
Page
64
5 wire breaks at Cl 0.1%

SHM of Bridges
Page
65
Corrosion of Wires

SHM of Bridges
Page
66
Trend bei intakter Brücke

SHM of Bridges
Page
67
Trend bei Schadensereignis

SHM of Bridges
Page
68
S101 Artificial Damage Test
9. – 12. December 2008

SHM of Bridges
Page
69
S101 Artificial Damage Test
9. – 12. December 2008

SHM of Bridges
Page
70
SAFEPIPES: Fatigue Test
VCE

SHM of Bridges
Page
71
Experimental Verification MPA

SHM of Bridges
Page
72
VCE Damage Detection
Undamaged Structure

SHM of Bridges
Page
73
Undamaged Structure
MIMOSA Project

SHM of Bridges
Page
74
Mode 19
Mode 5
Damaged Structure
MIMOSA Project

SHM of Bridges
Page
75
Cascade 5
Cascade 19
Damaged Structure
MIMOSA Project

SHM of Bridges
Page
76
Failure
[MPA Stuttgart]
time
modes
Warning
Structural Performance over Time
Damaged Structure
MIMOSA Project

SHM of Bridges
Page
77
3. Hardware
4. Software
12. System Upgrade
SHM in Practice

SHM of Bridges
Page
78
3. Hardware
4. Software
12. System Upgrade
SHM in Practice Important Issues

SHM of Bridges
Page
79
3. Hardware
4. Software
12. System Upgrade

SHM of Bridges
Page
80
3. Hardware
4. Software
12. System Upgrade

SHM of Bridges
Page
81
3. Hardware
4. Software
12. System Upgrade

research bridges railways tunnelling monitoring technology management international
Dynamic bridge behaviour based on periodic and
permanent monitoring with BRIMOS®
and Finite Element Analysis
Measurement, Analysis and
Interpretation of Results
SHM Example: Colle Isarco Viaduct

SHM of Bridges
Page
83
I ) SCOPE OF WORK
II ) DYNAMIC SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION – 2007
III ) PROGRESSION OF MAINTENANCE CONDITION 2007-2008
IV ) SUMMERY AND EXPERTISE

SHM of Bridges
Page
84
Scope of Work
CW North - North Main structure North
Main structure South
CW North - South
CW South - North CW South - South
Carriageway North
Carriageway South
The investigation at the Colle Isarco Viaduct included three essential
parts:
 A detailed initial measurement campaign with BRIMOS® in the
period of the 26th to the 30th of March in 2007.
 Two permanent monitoring systems – one for every carriageway,
2007-2008
 A second measurement campaign with BRIMOS® one year after
the initial one, which was performed from the 3rd to the 7th of
March in 2008.

SHM of Bridges
Page
85
Dynamic system identification – FE model
1st bending mode – 1BT main span 2nd bending mode – 1BT main cantilever
4th bending mode – 2BT main cantilever
3rd bending mode – 1BT main hinged girder

SHM of Bridges
Page
86
Sensor positions for the
main structures
Measurement based condition assessment 2007– main structures
carriagway North carriageway South
1st
bending mode 0.99 0.96 1BT main span
2nd
bending mode 1.10 1.10 1BT main cantilever
3rd
bending mode 3.83 3.89 1BT main hinged girder
4th
bending mode 6.11 6.10 2BT main cantilever
Eigenfrequency
[Hz]
Measurement campaign 2007
Eigenfrequencies of the main structures
ANPSD (vertical direction) for all measurement files, 0-15 Hz; Carriageway North (left)
and carriageway South (right)
Dynamic System Identification – 2007

SHM of Bridges
Page
87
time
frequency
time
frequency
NORD Station in m SUED
-2,00 -2,00
-1,50 -1,50
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
2,00 2,00
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
-2,00 -2,00
-1,50 -1,50
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
2,00 2,00
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
-2,00 -2,00
-1,50 -1,50
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
-2,00 -2,00
-1,50 -1,50
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
-2,00 -2,00
-1,50 -1,50
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
2,00 2,00
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
-2,00 -2,00
-1,50 -1,50
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
2,00 2,00
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
2,00 2,00
2,50 2,50
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
-1,00 -1,00
-0,50 -0,50
0,00 0,00
0,50 0,50
1,00 1,00
1,50 1,50
2,00 2,00
2,50 2,50
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 300,00 350,00 400,00 450,00 500,90
NORTH SOUTH
Mode shape 1 – 0.99 Hz 1BT main span Mode shape 2 – 1.10 Hz 1BT main cantilever
Mode shape 4 – 6.11 Hz 1BT main cantilever
Mode shape 3 – 3.83 Hz 1BT main hinged girder
Trend of stiffness in terms of time
Carriageway North Carriageway South

SHM of Bridges
Page
88
Amplitude
Frequenz
6.4 mm²/s²
64 mm²/s²
2000 mm²/s²
1.EF
2.EF
3.EF
4.EF
5.EF
6.EF
7.EF
8.EF
9.EF
10.EF
10000
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
I II
III IV
Amplitude
Frequenz
10000
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
I II
III IV
3.78
3.82
3.63
3.61
3.62
4.04
3.99
3.70
3.73
3.68
3.86
4.11
3.73
4.17
10.00
3.42
3.99
4.14
4.04
3.88
4.08
4.21
4.20
4.19
4.42
6.19
10.00
0.60
0.51
0.48
0.51
5.76
10.00
5.27
3.24
3.13
3.13
3.88
2.91
2.89
2.92
2.78
3.44
3.34
10.00
3.65
2.96
2.95
3.07
3.29
4.22
3.71
3.99
4.21
4.83
3.02
5.33
3.38
4.87
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
390 440 490 540 590 640 690 740 790
Station [m]
Damping
values
[%]
7.62
7.16
9.95
5.32
7.69
8.54
8.78
9.00
9.06
9.49
10.00
0.99
0.93
0.96
6.30
10.00
8.05
7.69
7.91
7.88
7.83
10.00
3.49
3.47
3.39
3.38
4.32
2.23
4.30
6.61
10.00
10.00
4.82
4.90
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
390 440 490 540 590 640 690 740 790
Station [m]
Damping
values
[%]
Vibration Intensity
Pattern of damping values

SHM of Bridges
Page
89
Sensor position northern part
Measurement based condition assessment 2007– Northern and Southern part of the bridge
Sensor position southern part
CW North
- North
CW North
- South
CW South
- North
CW South
- South
Trend of stiffness in vertical direction, 0.2 – 25 Hz

SHM of Bridges
Page
90
Progression of maintenance condition 2007 – 2008
Main structures
Structurs´relevant
stiffness-pattern in the
vertical dimension over
the measurements´entire
time period, represented
by the reference sensor
0.2 - 7 Hz
Carriageway North
Northern part
Carriageway South
Northern part
Carriageway North
Southern part
Carriageway South
Southern part

SHM of Bridges
Page
91
Amplitude
Frequenz
6.4 mm²/s²
64 mm²/s²
2000 mm²/s²
1.EF
2.EF
3.EF
4.EF
5.EF
6.EF
7.EF
8.EF
9.EF
10.EF
10000
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
I II
III IV
Amplitude
Frequenz
10000
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
I II
III IV
Amplitude
Frequenz
10000
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
I II
III IV
Amplitude Frequenz
6.4 mm²/s²
64 mm²/s²
2000 mm²/s²
1.EF
2.EF
3.EF
4.EF
5.EF
6.EF
7.EF
8.EF
9.EF
10.EF
10000
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
I II
III IV
1.94
2.82
6.85
4.49
10
4.17
4.13
4.38
4.3
4.35
4.48
4.46
4.49
4.55
10
2.25
5.82
0.99
4.09
3.22
6.13
6.17
4.83
4.95
5.15
3.75
3.79
3.66
3.47
3.40
3.45
3.34
3.37
3.34
8.84
4.15
3.50
3.32
3.36
3.19
3.21
3.17
3.06
3.18
7.77
3.21
3.13
2.91
2.82
3.45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
0.43
0.42
0.44
0.44
1.58
0.43
0.40
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.42
0.43
3.26
0.44
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.45
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.40
3.10
-0.47
-0.39
1.71
6.30
3.07
2.66
6.57
0.44
0.39
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.38
0.38
0.36
0.32
10.00
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
8.61
8.98
8.38
8.07
0.54
9.44
9.09
8.81
7.68
9.27
8.84
9.53
8.63
9.15
10.00
5.06
3.97
3.60
8.51
8.68
8.48
5.72
5.89
5.76
5.80
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
0.86
0.87
0.78
0.82
1.82
7.45
7.57
5.56
5.85
6.41
6.66
6.46
6.50
6.55
9.31
10.00
6.81
6.85
6.35
6.75
6.55
6.96
6.99
7.14
7.00
0.65
0.66
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.68
10.00
0.71
0.68
0.67
0.64
0.67
0.63
0.62
0.63
0.76
10.00
0.65
0.60
0.57
0.62
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Vibration Intensity and Damping Analysis - Main structures
Carriageway North
Northern part
Carriageway South
Northern part
Southern part
Southern part
1BT main span 1BT main
cantilever
1BT main span 1BT main
cantilever

SHM of Bridges
Page
92
Joint 1-2 1.1
Joint 2 - 2.2 0.6
Joint 2.2-3.1 1.0
Joint 3.1-3.2 1.6
Joint 3.2 - 4.1 1.3
Joint 4.1-4.2 1.0
Joint 4.2 - 5.1 1.5
Joint 5.1-5.2 0.8
Joint 5.2 - 6.1 1.2
Joint 6.1-6.2 0.7
on average 1.1
CW North -
North
Deviation of the
Eigenfrequencies
2007 vs. 2008
[%]
Joint 10.1 - 10.2 1.4
Joint 10.2 - 11.1 1.0
Joint 11.1 - 11.2 1.8
Joint 11.2 - 12.1 1.6
Joint 12.1 - 13 0.9
Joint 13 - 14 1.7
on average 1.4
CW North - South
Deviation of the
Eigenfrequencies
2007 vs. 2008
[%]
Joint 1-2 1.4
Joint 2 - 2.2 1.2
Joint 2.2-3.1 0.9
Joint 3.1-3.2 1.8
Joint 3.2 - 4.1 0.9
Joint 4.1-4.2 1.5
Joint 4.2 - 5.1 1.2
Joint 5.1-5.2 1.6
Joint 5.2 - 6.1 0.6
Joint 6.1-6.2 0.9
on average 1.2
Deviation of the
Eigenfrequencies
2007 vs. 2008
[%]
CW South - North
Joint 10.1 - 10.2 1.1
Joint 10.2 - 11.1 1.4
Joint 11.1 - 11.2 1.3
Joint 11.2 - 12.1 1.4
Joint 12.1 - 13 2.9
Joint 13 - 14 ---
on average 1.6
Deviation of the
Eigenfrequencies
2007 vs. 2008
[%]
CW South - South
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
N
O
R
T
H
E
R
N
P
A
R
T
J
O
I
N
T
1
-
2
J
O
I
N
T
2
-
2
.
2
J
O
I
N
T
2
.
2
-
3
.
1
J
O
I
N
T
3
.
1
-
3
.
2
J
O
I
N
T
3
.
2
-
4
.
1
J
O
I
N
T
4
.
1
-
4
.
2
J
O
I
N
T
4
.
2
-
5
.
1
J
O
I
N
T
5
.
1
-
5
.
2
J
O
I
N
T
5
.
2
-
6
.
1
J
O
I
N
T
6
.
1
-
6
.
2
S
O
U
T
H
E
R
N
P
A
R
T
J
O
I
N
T
1
0
.
1
-
1
0
.
2
J
O
I
N
T
1
0
.
2
-
1
1
.
1
J
O
I
N
T
1
1
.
1
-
1
1
.
2
J
O
I
N
T
1
1
.
2
-
1
2
.
1
J
O
I
N
T
1
2
.
1
-
1
3
J
O
I
N
T
1
3
-
1
4
Joints
Deviation
[%]
NORTHERN PART
SOUTHERN PART
Northern and Southern part of the bridge
Overwiew of the
measurement-
configuration in
2008 and 2007
Deviation of the eigenfrequencies

SHM of Bridges
Page
93
Permanent Monitoring
Ext. Epi-Sensor
BRIMOS Recorder
6.4
16.4
26.4
6.5
16.5
26.5
5.6
15.6
25.6
5.7
15.7
25.7
4.8
14.8
24.8
2007
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
Ext. Epi-Sensor
BRIMOS Recorder
Sensor layout
Trend of stiffness in
terms of time (0.2-50
Hz), spectrum and
temperature sequence
over the whole
measurement period in
vertical direction (CW
South)

SHM of Bridges
Page
94
Trend of stiffness in terms of time, spectra and temperature sequence over
the whole measurement period in vertical direction (CW South)
0.75 – 1.25 Hz
1BT main span
1BT main cantilever
3.5 – 4.25 Hz
1BT main hinged
girder
5.5 – 6.5 Hz
2BT main cantilever

SHM of Bridges
Page
95
Trend of stiffness in terms of time, spectra and temperature sequence over
one singel day in detail - in vertical direction (CW South)
0.75 – 1.25 Hz
1BT main span
1BT main cantilever
3.5 – 4.25 Hz
1BT main hinged girder
5.5 – 6.5 Hz
2BT main cantilever
0.2 -50 Hz

SHM of Bridges
Page
96
temperature temperature_smoothed_1 temperature_smoothed_2
torsion_rec_south torsion_rec_south_smoothed_1 torsion_rec_south_smoothed_2
torsion_epi_south torsion_epi_south_smoothed_1 torsion_epi_south_smoothed_2
27.3 16.4 6.5 26.5 15.6 5.7 25.7 14.8
2007
5
10
15
20
25
30
°C
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
mGrad
Analysis of long-term torsion (environmental condition)
Trend of torsion – recorder (blue) and epi-sensor (red)
– versus trend of temperature (carriageway South)

SHM of Bridges
Page
97
The structure’s dynamic response reveals the bridge to be in
good condition, but due to the design of the bridge a high
sensitivity for dynamic vibrations is clearly visible.
Prospectively the area of the main hinged girder will demand
special attention. This is indicated by the following facts:
In the trend cards of the carriageway South especially the
eigenfrequencies of the main hinged girder show a wide
variance.
In the damping analysis particularly in the transition between
the main cantilevers and the main hinged girders distinctly
increased damping values occur. Based on the measurement in
2007 this concerns especially the carriageway South, whereas
the results of the investigation in 2008 show increased values
at the carriageway North.
The analysis of vibration intensity reveals some values in the
range of II at the carriageway North and even values in the
range of III at the carriageway South. Because of the fact that
the traffic was restricted during the measurement this refers to
a high dynamic sensitivity of the structure.
Summary and Expertise

SHM of Bridges
Page
98
Those facts indicate a high energy dissipation in the area of the
main hinged girder on the one hand and in the area of the
junction between the hinged girder and the cantilever on the
other hand.
As a result this leads to an accelerated decrease of the viaduct’s
service life in the long term.
In respect of the static system this seems to be problematic
because the Viaduct’s design does not show any redundancy.
Therefore damages to load bearing parts can cause a sudden
collapse of the system.
Summary and Expertise

SHM of Bridges
Page
99
JUDGEMENT
According to BRIMOS classification the
structure is rated as category B. This category
represents „structures in good condition with
local damages“.

SHM of Bridges
Page
100
 Immediate actions: NONE
 Short-term actions: NONE
 Mid-term actions: NONE
 Long-term actions: Permanent monitoring with real-
time data analysis and automatic alarming in the case of
changes in the behaviour (existing system);
Monitoring of the overall structural condition by periodic
measurements with BRIMOS every six years
This approach assures the determination and observation of
slowly progressing processes in the structure, which lead
to damage or to deterioration of the structure’s operational
integrity.
In this context the increased values of vibration intensity, the
damping pattern as well as the broad distribution in the
range of the main hinged girder’s eigenfrequencies have to
be emphasised.
RECOMMENDATIONS

SHM of Bridges
Page
101
Standsicherheitsbeurteilungsblatt A PRODUCTOF VCE
R
Mastbezeichnung:
Bergstrasse Mast 1
Maststandort :
Stadt Bad Kreuznach
GPS-Koordinaten:
-/-
Masttyp / Mastmaterial / Aufstellungsjahr :
Lichtmast / Stahlbeton / -
Lageskizze: Foto:
Letzte Prüfung / Prüfer:
-/-
Aktuelle Prüfung / Prüfer:
19. 04. 2006/ DI Furtner
Anmerkungen:
Seitlich frei liegende Bewehrung
Frequenzspektrum:
Spektrum_Quer Spektrum_Längs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
µg
F1 Quer= 2.425 Hz
0
50
100
150
200
µg
F1 Längs = 2.491 Hz
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Hz
Klassifizierung:
Inspektion
BRIMOS
Nächste Prüfung:
April 2009
Strukturdynamische Prüfung mit BRIMOS 
Bretzenheimer Strasse
Bergstrasse
Mast 1
Mast 3
Mast 2
B
A
90000 Lighting Poles

SHM of Bridges
Page
102
1. Environmental Influences
2. Various Non Linearity
3. Cyclic Behavior
4. Elimination of Noise
5. Aleatory and epistemic Uncertainties
6. Data Management
7. Pattern Recognition
8. Cost – Benefit, LCC Aspects
9. Decision Support, Thresholds
10.Warning and Risk Management and, and
Research Demand

SHM of Bridges
Page
103
Conclusions
| SHM of Bridges has become mature, but
is still a challenge to Experts
| New promising methodologies are
emerging and should be used
| There is still a gap in knowledge requiring
further investigations and research
| The FP7 IRIS Project will bring progress
| The MIMOSA Project - Collaboration
| Summer Academy and Tutorial Sept. 09

SHM of Bridges
Page
104
IRIS Industrial Safety
VCE
Integrated European Industrial
Risk Reduction System
CP-IP 213968-2
Thank you for your attention

SHM of Bridges
Page
105
IRIS Results
| The project is led and driven by industry to consolidate and
generate knowledge and technologies
| Integration of new safety concepts related to technical,
human, organizational and cultural aspects.
| The partnership represents over 1 million workers.
| The project integrates all aspects of industrial safety with
some priority on saving human lives prior cost reductions
and is particular underpinning relevant EU policies.
| The project will have an eye on risks in the modern industrial
processes.
| It shall be embedded into the usual operational procedure in
order to benefit from already available information.

SHM of Bridges
Page
106
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2008 2009 2010 2011
Kick Off, Final
IRIS
GeneralAssembly
Executive Board
Scientific Board
Advisory Group
IRIS Conference
Current Practice WS
SP1 meeting
SP2 meeting
SP3 meeting
SP4 meeting
SP5 meeting
SP6 meeting
SP7 meeting
SP8 meeting
AnnualAssessment
Financial Report
Other
IRIS Project 2008 – 2012

SHM of Bridges
Page
107
Risk Management
Project Management
Natural Disasters
Mayor Accidents
Workers Safety
Environmental Disasters
Energy Production
Fertilization
Risk based Design and Operation
SP6
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
SP5
SP8
1 year 2 year
Project Schedule
Sub-Projects
3 year
Online Monitoring SP7
3,5 year
Cross
Coordination

SHM of Bridges
Page
108
Disaster
Impact
Risk Factors
Vulnerability
- Social
- Economic
- Physical
- Environmental
Hazards
- Geological
- Hydrometerological
- Biological
- Technological
- Environmental
- Man made
Knowledge Development
- Information
- Education & training
- Research
Political Commitment
- International, regional,
national, local levels
- Institutional framework
(governance)
- policy development
- legislation and codes
- organizational
development
- Community actions
Application of risk
Reduction measures
- Environmental management
- Social and economic
development practices
- Technological measures
- Physical and technical measures
- land-use/urban planning
- protection of critical facilities
- Networking and partnerships
Awareness Raising
for change in behavior
Recovery
Early Warning
On line Monitoring
Decision support system
IRIS Core
Preparedness
Emergency
Management
Risk identification &
impact assessment
Vulnerability/
capability analysis
Hazard analysis &
assessment
The focus of disaster risk reduction in IRIS
Socio-cultural
IRIS Sustainable development context
Political
Economic
Ecosystems
/
Environmental
SP2
SP1
SP6
SP7
SP3 SP4 SP5
SP8

SHM of Bridges
Page
109
Risk Management
Project Management
Natural Disasters
Mayor Accidents
W orkers Safety
Environmental Disasters
Energy Production
Cross
Coordination
Fertilization
Risk based Design and Operation
SP6
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
SP5
SP8
1 year 2 year
Project Schedule
Sub-Projects
3 year 4 year
Online Monitoring SP7
T8-9
T8-8
T8-7
T8-5
T8-4
T8-3
T8-2
T8-1
T7-12
T7- 11
T7-10 T7-9
T7-8
T7-7
T7-6
T7-5
T7-4
T7-2
T7-1
T6-6
T5-4
T5-3
T5-1
T5-2
T4-4
T4-3
T4-2
T4-1
T3-6
T3-5
T3-4
T3-3
T3-2
T2-4
T3-1
T2-3
T2-1
T1-4
T1-2
T1-3
T1-1
T6-5
T6-4
T6-3
T6-1
T6-2
T2-2
T7-3
T8-6

SHM of Bridges
Page
110
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Curvature in m-1
Moment
in
KN.m
Run-1 scaled, 0.03g
Run-1, 0.24g
Run-1 scaled, 0.28g, acceptable PGA
Run-1 scaled, 0.67g
acceptable PGA

SHM of Bridges
Page
111

SHM of Bridges
Page
112
PRE-CODE SEISMIC DESIGN LEVEL
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ag [g]
P(S)
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete

SHM of Bridges
Page
114
Thank you for your attention

91. SHM Presentación tokio.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 91. SHM Presentación tokio.pdf

Similar to 91. SHM Presentación tokio.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

91. SHM Presentación tokio.pdf